§91.144

[slick1537]

I was wondering if anyone could explain 91.144 about unusually high barometric pressures. Also, 91.155 (bravo)(1), allows you to operate clear of clouds in class G below 1200 AGL, but do the visibility requirements still apply or is it see and avoid?

Edited December 22, 2008 by slick1537

[helonorth]

Can't help you with the first one, but the second was one are DPE hit on on most checkrides.

Clear of clouds and operating at a "speed that allowed you to avoid obstacles". Kind of vague

and open to interpretation, but that is the FARs.

[slick1537]

I was instructed that it was See and avoid, and clear of clouds, however after re-reading that far tonight I am not so sure.

[1HeliCFI]

91.144 Because a Barometric pressure of 31" or above is quite rare (32.01" highest ever recorded, in USSR in 1968; Chicago actually hit 30.98 in 1989) goodold Mr. Kollsman set the top of the scale at 31". Thus any pressure over 31" could not be set in the altimeter. Essentially 91.144 states you can not fly if pressure exceeds 31" and suggests that a NOTAM would be put out if the pressure was at or near 31"

 

91.155((1) Clear of Clouds allows to "see and avoid" clouds. So you could takeoff with 1/4 vis and 100" ceiling if you are really wanted to. Remember, just because the regs say you can takeoff with low vis and/or ceiling does not mean you should. I saw an acronym on this forum, WWNTSBS (What Would National Transportation Safety Board Say) when they are investigating and accident or incident.

[1HeliCFI]

I have no idea where the smiley came from in previous post

[Gomer Pylot]

"are DPE"? What does that mean?

[heli.pilot]

I'm assuming he meant "our DPE"...

[rotormandan]

I saw an acronym on this forum, WWNTSBS (What Would National Transportation Safety Board Say) when they are investigating and accident or incident.

 

Remember, just because it's leagal, it doesn't mean it's safe and if it's not safe the FAA has their good ol' get-all-rule. 91.13 Reckless Flying.

[rick1128]

Remember, just because it's leagal, it doesn't mean it's safe and if it's not safe the FAA has their good ol' get-all-rule. 91.13 Reckless Flying.

 

Take that one step further, Just because it is safe doesn't mean it is legal.

 

You really have to answer the question is it reasonable and prudent? Is it my first time in this area or do I fly it daily? What is the terrain? What are the lighting conditions? What is my condition? How comfortable am I with doing this?

 

I have flown with forestry pilots in conditions I would be concerned about driving in, let alone flying in. But these are people who have flown in these areas for 10 years plus and know each tree by their first names. And was quite comfortable with them. On the other hand I have flown with 'bush pilots' who just got their seaplane rating in good VFR conditions, that I wanted to get out and walk. A lot comes down to professionalism and local knowledge.

[Darren Hughes]

Take that one step further, Just because it is safe doesn't mean it is legal.

 

That is more true for Europe, where the JAA just love to over-regulate everything. I wouldn't be surprised if someday I see a rule in the JARs, telling pilots how to get out of bed in the morning!!

 

The FAA aren't the worst group to deal with. If you look at most of the instances where they go after a pilot, most of us on here would agree that what he was doing was unnecessary or unsafe anyway.

 

Long story short, If you're flying in crappy conditions and you hit something, you were going too fast for that level of visibility to start with.

 

If we use common sense, we won't have to worry about a visit from the FAAirys!!!

 

Now where did I leave mine, I know I put it down somewhere around here!!