 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Small aircraft pilot questions rationale regarding allowing VFR into uncontrolled airspace with no clearance when marginal to less than VFR minimums exist. Federal aviation regulation 91 (105-107).
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 139906 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199003 |
| Day | Wed |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : blm |
| State Reference | NJ |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 1000 msl bound upper : 1000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Mixed |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : wri |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear |
| Flight Phase | cruise other descent : approach |
| Route In Use | arrival other enroute other |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | Small Aircraft |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach landing other |
| Route In Use | approach : visual arrival other |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : private |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 10 flight time total : 450 flight time type : 50 |
| ASRS Report | 139906 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | inflight encounter : vfr in imc other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Ambiguous |
| Air Traffic Incident | other other |
Narrative:
Conditions: fog with tops approximately 1200' MSL. Ceiling was approximately 620' MSL. Other aircraft: business jet. I was on the VOR-a approach into blm (uncontrolled field). While descending to MDA, mcguire approach gave me a traffic call, but I was in IMC and the traffic (also inbound for landing at blm) was in IMC west/O a clearance. My believe was that the other aircraft was illegally in controled airspace west/O a clearance. I talked to the pilot of the other aircraft. He indicated he could 'see the ground at all times' and approach never told him we were on an INS approach. He was clearly illegal if he was higher than 750' AGL (910' MSL). But, if he was below that in uncontrolled airspace, he was legal, but dumb!! I ask myself if the loophole in the far's that allows aircraft to land in IMC conditions, at uncontrolled airports west/O a clearance (no control zone) should be closed?
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SMA PLT QUESTIONS RATIONALE REGARDING ALLOWING VFR INTO UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE WITH NO CLRNC WHEN MARGINAL TO LESS THAN VFR MINIMUMS EXIST. FEDERAL AVIATION REG 91 (105-107).
Narrative: CONDITIONS: FOG WITH TOPS APPROX 1200' MSL. CEILING WAS APPROX 620' MSL. OTHER ACFT: BUSINESS JET. I WAS ON THE VOR-A APCH INTO BLM (UNCTLED FIELD). WHILE DSNDING TO MDA, MCGUIRE APCH GAVE ME A TFC CALL, BUT I WAS IN IMC AND THE TFC (ALSO INBND FOR LNDG AT BLM) WAS IN IMC W/O A CLRNC. MY BELIEVE WAS THAT THE OTHER ACFT WAS ILLEGALLY IN CTLED AIRSPACE W/O A CLRNC. I TALKED TO THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT. HE INDICATED HE COULD 'SEE THE GND AT ALL TIMES' AND APCH NEVER TOLD HIM WE WERE ON AN INS APCH. HE WAS CLEARLY ILLEGAL IF HE WAS HIGHER THAN 750' AGL (910' MSL). BUT, IF HE WAS BELOW THAT IN UNCTLED AIRSPACE, HE WAS LEGAL, BUT DUMB!! I ASK MYSELF IF THE LOOPHOLE IN THE FAR'S THAT ALLOWS ACFT TO LAND IN IMC CONDITIONS, AT UNCTLED ARPTS W/O A CLRNC (NO CTL ZONE) SHOULD BE CLOSED?
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.