My first (and hopefully last) "possible pilot deviation"

[GeeBee]

4 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Just to be clear, I ask for clearance in 15 min, void by 20 min (so 5 minutes of airspace)

Got it! Sorry if I misunderstood. 

 

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

I've yet to.be based at a field with "airspace." But the formerly-nearby Delta didn't have a problem when I called on ugly days to ask for departure clearance, only giving me delays when IFR traffic was inbound to them and my initial course would / could conflict; in those cases, I was happy to wait. 

No need for Bluetooth unless you have in-ear headsets, the only downside to QT Halos--just dial the number and shove the phone up under the cup on one ear, you can both hear well and talk. I prefer the side without the radio mic.

A clearance from  an uncontrolled airport has a cleared to altitude which places the aircraft in controlled airspace. A controller will not issue such a clearance if he has another aircraft inbound that would result in loss of separation. Remember that when you on approach, and cleared to CTAF, radar service is terminated. So the controller is basically running a non-radar separation regime at an uncontrolled airport. The controller always has to assume the aircraft inbound will go missed and has to protect that airspace whenever he issues an approach clearance. It is the case most times that the departing aircraft will intrude into that airspace again, in non radar conditions. Thus with an inbound aircraft you will not receive a release for IFR departure until the inbound has either landed and canceled IFR or is declared radar identified on the miss and clear of the airspace the departing aircraft will occupy. This often comes up when a landing aircraft fails to call and cancel IFR in which case no aircraft can depart IFR and no other aircraft inbound can begin the approach under IFR

[jaylw314]

54 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Got it! Sorry if I misunderstood. 

Nah, I wasn't terribly clear myself

[WilliamR]

19 hours ago, GeeBee said:

he departed after the "advise intentions time" and that is a 91.123(a) problem,

 

That makes sense, thanks. I missed the advise intentions time...clearance void at 18:30z advise by 18:35z. That's clearly a 91.123(a) violation; "When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained...".

I assumed no one would take off squawking a void code. 

W

[EricJ]

21 hours ago, DXB said:

It seems most likely to lead to nothing, but the FAA and other bureaucracies do inexplicably capricious things at times - for instance look up the ongoing Trent Palmer saga.  The NASA (ASRS) Report does provide a nice get out of jail free card for one unintentional, non-criminal screw up every five years.  Filing is super easy, can be done within 10 days of the incident, and has no downside at all in your situation:   https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/caveat.html?formType=general   I've probably filed around 3-4 times over the years for my more significant screw ups that ATC brought to my attention, even though I've never been given a number to call.

 

The NTSB didn't think that was capricious and on appeal reinstated the full sanction, citing, among other things, prior warnings from the FAA to the pilot.   I think maybe those didn't make it into the YT channel. 

I do agree that sometimes FAA outcomes seem a bit harsh, though.

[Pinecone]

18 hours ago, Hank said:

No need for Bluetooth unless you have in-ear headsets, the only downside to QT Halos--just dial the number and shove the phone up under the cup on one ear, you can both hear well and talk. I prefer the side without the radio mic.

This is what I do.

I had one recently where I called for my clearance then told them I would call back for release.

Did the phone under the cup thing, was told to call back in 5 minutes.  So I did.  Controller said he had released me.  But I had not acknowledged, so he just released me again.

[DXB]

52 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The NTSB didn't think that was capricious and on appeal reinstated the full sanction, citing, among other things, prior warnings from the FAA to the pilot.   I think maybe those didn't make it into the YT channel. 

I do agree that sometimes FAA outcomes seem a bit harsh, though.

Trent continues to fight it further in federal court - the pending case puts the suspension on continued hold and further enhances Trent's profile - and whether he ultimately wins or loses, his skill in monetizing his aviation folk hero status on social media will likely more than offset the expense of protracted litigation. I bet his end game is a US Supreme Court case, not a victory in the next round, which would make us forget him far faster 

And right or wrong, anyone fighting to emasculate federal bureaucrats through legal channels is a bit of a hero in my book 

[McMooney]

just read an article about the FAA being sued for the spacex explosion,  man damned if you do, damned if you don't

[mike_elliott]

On 5/1/2023 at 12:10 PM, GeeBee said:

Do not call for clearance until you are at the end of the runway fully ready, run up completed etc.

Careful with this one so one doest foul plugs waiting to get a clearance and then a release, which sometimes takes a good 5-10 min. Do a quick runup right before entering the the runway to make sure all cyl.s are still firing. I have had that bite me hard once.

[carusoam]

One thing that is hard to control… until you get some experience…

All the small timing steps….

1) Making phone calls

2) starting the engine 

3) taxi to run-up

4) run-up

5) Taxi to the runway

6) be ready to depart 

 

You don’t want to rush the process to depart into IMC…

You don’t want to be sitting on the ground fouling a plug either…

Memories of a flip phone tucked under a David Clark headset at an uncontrolled field…

Best regards,

-a-

[midlifeflyer]

On 5/1/2023 at 10:15 AM, Marc_B said:

Bose Bluetooth headsets for the win!  I've used my Bluetooth connection for things like this several times.  I also routinely get my clearance through my headset from uncontrolled fields.  Way easier to be accurate in departure time when you're calling from the runup area.

Any headset with the ability to use your cell phone, Bluetooth or plug-in for the win. Bose is definitely not the only game in town.

I bought my Lightspeed about 10 years ago when I moved from a towered to non-towered home base for this exact reason. It has worked flawlessly.

I still remember when I had to do a preflight, run back to the FBO, call Flight Service in a pay  phone, negotiate for a 15-30 minute void time, run back to the airplane to start up, run up... All while it was raining! Never again.

 

[midlifeflyer]

On 5/1/2023 at 11:46 AM, WilliamR said:

Did the OP actually break any CFRs? Assuming it was VMC and the OP departed maintaining VFR cloud clearance while staying out of controlled airspace, departing and checking in after the clearance void time just means you are flying under VFR, correct? Couldn't approach just say once radar contact is established, "you are cleared as previously cleared"?

How would that be different than just departing VFR and picking up the clearance in the air other than contacting Clearance/Approach twice? If one called at or after the void time from the ground to re-protect the airspace, the "sin" of unnecessarily protecting the airspace from 1830Z to 1835Z had already been committed.

It's different because you were given an IFR clearance and release, two things you don't have when departing VFR and picking up in the air. You are in the system where your actions have an immediate impact on others.

The regs are 91.123(a) (violating the limits of the clearance) and (b) (operation contrary to instructions). Also 91.173 which requires a clearance to operate under IFR in controlled airspace - you no longer have one after the void time. 

There's an old enforcement action I talk a little about it in my The AIM is Not Regulatory article.  Basically, the pilot was given an IFR clearance from a non‑towered airport and instructed to “hold for release.” The pilot didn’t wait and departed VFR, but did not cancel his IFR flight plan. Charged with violating the predecessor to §91.123, the pilot argued that “hold for release” meant he did not have a clearance at all; therefore, he did not violate the regulation. The NTSB disagreed based on the language in AIM 5‑2‑7 at the time. "[A] pilot who is given an IFR clearance and is told to “hold for release” [is not] free to take off VFR from an airport not having a control tower without first canceling that clearance."

The AIM on this point has changed 3 or 4 times. (some here might recall me asking for old AIM copies a few years ago. I was thinking of tracking all the changes for an article. ) But the current AIM 5-2-7 talks pretty specifically about @redbaron1982's scenario. Basically, your release/void times are a window in which ATC has fit you into the system based on traffic. "Pilots who depart at or after their clearance void time are not afforded IFR separation and may be in violation of 14 CFR Section 91.173 which requires that pilots receive an appropriate ATC clearance before operating IFR in controlled airspace."

[midlifeflyer]

17 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Careful with this one so one doest foul plugs waiting to get a clearance and then a release, which sometimes takes a good 5-10 min. Do a quick runup right before entering the the runway to make sure all cyl.s are still firing. I have had that bite me hard once.

Wondering: Did you lean the mixture while waiting? 

[midlifeflyer]

On 5/1/2023 at 10:00 AM, redbaron1982 said:

I contacted departure at 1841Z, and I got a phone number to copy. When I got back to KSGR I called them and they were super nice, but anyway, I'm not sure how I should have proceeded. If I had a clearance frequency it would be easy just to call them on the radio and let them know. But it doesn't seem to be so easy with a cell phone.

At this point, I think my main take away is not to do IFR from a non-towered airport if not in an actual IMC. Actual IMC would make the airport less busy, and whatever traffic coming in and out would be already under IFR.

Suggestion:

At this point you do not know a lot. Did ATC report this to a FSDO? Was there a loss of separation? Will an ASI contact you with a follow-up?

Chances are very good that this would be handled by the FAA under the Compliance Program, but I would take two steps to put yourself in the best "compliant" posture. 

(1) NASA report. Although it might not make a big difference for you, its' exactly the kind of thing which should be reported.

(2) Do and log a ground session with a CFI to review these procedures and its potential consequences to the system. The proactive response on your part shows you care, which can only help. Depending on the FSDO, the assigned ASI, and other factors, some FSDOs may even close the file with no action at all.

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

I still remember when I had to do a preflight, run back to the FBO, call Flight Service in a pay  phone, negotiate for a 15-30 minute void time, run back to the airplane to start up, run up... All while it was raining! Never again.

 

We grew up in a different time, Mark.

[midlifeflyer]

3 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

We grew up in a different time, Mark.

Yes, the bad old days  

[WilliamR]

I remember that run to the plane after getting the clearance by pay phone; passengers already loaded.

Thanks for the ground lesson. I will look for the bill in the mail.

I've never been a big fan of picking up an IFR clearance on departure, especially single pilot. Copying a full route clearance is a lot of heads down time in a VFR environ. Throw in some turbulence and hands are full, but that's me.

William

[mike_elliott]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Wondering: Did you lean the mixture while waiting? 

Honestly I dont recall if Bill did, I dont remember anything until the time someone said "do you know what happened to you?" "no" " you were in an airplane accident" "oh, hows Bill?" "He didnt make it"

 

[N201MKTurbo]

23 minutes ago, WilliamR said:

I remember that run to the plane after getting the clearance by pay phone; passengers already loaded.

Thanks for the ground lesson. I will look for the bill in the mail.

I've never been a big fan of picking up an IFR clearance on departure, especially single pilot. Copying a full route clearance is a lot of heads down time in a VFR environ. Throw in some turbulence and hands are full, but that's me.

William

That's wishful thinking. I don't know where you fly, but getting a full route amendment right after departure isn't unheard of.

[midlifeflyer]

19 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Honestly I dont recall if Bill did, I dont remember anything until the time someone said "do you know what happened to you?" "no" " you were in an airplane accident" "oh, hows Bill?" "He didnt make it"

 

Sorry. That's horrible. 

Fortunately, the only one like that I've seen, the airplane engine quit before the airplane even crossed the hold sort line when the Tower said, "cleared for takeoff." It wasn't a long delay but the pilot hadn't leaned at all. I don't know if it was fouled plugs or just the normal reaction to about 8,000' D-Alt.

[midlifeflyer]

48 minutes ago, WilliamR said:

I remember that run to the plane after getting the clearance by pay phone; passengers already loaded.

Thanks for the ground lesson. I will look for the bill in the mail.

I've never been a big fan of picking up an IFR clearance on departure, especially single pilot. Copying a full route clearance is a lot of heads down time in a VFR environ. Throw in some turbulence and hands are full, but that's me.

William

A lot of that depends on where you are, where you are going, and what you have.

We have a lot of tools to choose a clearance that will work and even tell us at least our "expected" clearance. In many parts of the country, that's what you are going to get. 

So, for me, it's kind of how I feel that day. My two  "always on the ground" from a nontowered airport are when conditions a re IFR (duh) and when the are VFR but marginal. The clearance when it came was "as filed" but I've had the "fun" experience of making multiple circuits in the traffic pattern staying 500' below the clouds while ATC tried to fit me in.  Take-away - when conditions above are marginal, your airport may not be busy, but there are more people than usual under IFR above.

[tgardnerh]

On 5/2/2023 at 9:34 AM, EricJ said:

The NTSB didn't think that was capricious and on appeal reinstated the full sanction, citing, among other things, prior warnings from the FAA to the pilot.   I think maybe those didn't make it into the YT channel. 

I do agree that sometimes FAA outcomes seem a bit harsh, though.

If the FAA wanted to say they didn't believe he had a good faith intention of landing, so it was a low pass and not an inspection pass, whatever, that's their choice, but as far as I can tell they're just claiming an inspection pass that does not end in a landing is not "for the purposes of landing." 

Which basically bans all inspection passes anywhere that has a structure within 500 feet (like airports!).

 

[midlifeflyer]

On 5/2/2023 at 12:26 PM, DXB said:

Trent continues to fight it further in federal court - the pending case puts the suspension on continued hold and further enhances Trent's profile - and whether he ultimately wins or loses, his skill in monetizing his aviation folk hero status on social media will likely more than offset the expense of protracted litigation. I bet his end game is a US Supreme Court case, not a victory in the next round, which would make us forget him far faster 

And right or wrong, anyone fighting to emasculate federal bureaucrats through legal channels is a bit of a hero in my book 

Trent is pretty off-topic but FWIW, I think the likelihood of SCOTUS even accepting an appeal about whether the FAR allows the FAA to consider passing within 500' of a neighbor's house to land in someone's backyard in a (non-airpark) residential subdivision a violation is pretty small. He has a better chance with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

[midlifeflyer]

12 minutes ago, tgardnerh said:

If the FAA wanted to say they didn't believe he had a good faith intention of landing, so it was a low pass and not an inspection pass, whatever, that's their choice, but as far as I can tell they're just claiming an inspection pass that does not end in a landing is not "for the purposes of landing." 

Which basically bans all inspection passes anywhere that has a structure within 500 feet (like airports!).

That's the mantra, that's not what I see when I read the full decision.  It's not about inspection passes. It's about choosing potential optional landing sites in an inappropriate place (here, a backyard in a residential neighborhood).  Although, as is sadly typical, the NTSB goes all over the place to justify a result which could have been reached so much more simply based on 40+ year old precedent , thereby creating an opportunity for a mess.  

 

[WilliamR]

50 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

That's wishful thinking. I don't know where you fly, but getting a full route amendment right after departure isn't unheard of.

Correct, getting a full route amendment right after departure can happen, but why not stack the odds in your favor? I mainly fly up and down the east coast of the US and northern Caribbean and instrument rated since 1991. I fully admit I have not seen it all.

Picking up a clearance in the air (assuming VFR/VMC) is fine if that's what one wants to do. It's just not my preference.

William