Cancel speed restrictions below 10K?

[josephfeatherweight]

Hello, I'm trying to find a regulatory reference that enables ATC to cancel the limit of 250 KIAS below 10,000'.

Thus far, I've found:
Manual of Standards Part 172—Air Traffic Services
10.1.4 Relaxation of Speed Restrictions
10.1.4.1 Subject to subsection 10.1.4.2, in providing an air traffic service in Class D airspace, including a Class D CTR, ATC may permit an aircraft to exceed the 200 KT Class D airspace speed limit.
Note The 200 KT speed limit for Class D airspace is a CASA direction to pilots under subregulation 99AA (5) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
10.1.4.2 After taking account of air traffic conditions, ATC may permit:
(a) a maximum speed limit of 250 KT; or
(b) if the pilot in command of an aircraft informs ATC that a speed greater than 250 KT is an operational requirement — a maximum speed limit of greater than 250 KT.

But this seems to indicate that it is the PIC that must request it as an operational requirement - not that ATC can request/provide it.

Don't get me wrong - I want to be able to keep doing this! :ok:

[compressor stall]

What’s the speed limit IFR in class C?

AIP refers

[43Inches]

That's always been the case, that class D (also Class E and G) had the 250kias limitation below 10k feet, where class C and A were unlimited for IFR aircraft. I hope all the jet operators into CTAFs are aware of that limitation.

[Rabbit 1]

Bird strike windshield strength? Exceed 250 below 10 at your own peril if this is the case.

[43Inches]

Bird strike windshield strength? Exceed 250 below 10 at your own peril if this is the case.

That's entirely up to the design of your aircraft. The 250kias limit is for see and avoid. A bird will go through most light aircraft windscreen at 100kts. In class C jets are regularly above 250kias below 10k feet.

PS it's not usually the windscreen that's the problem on larger faster aircraft, it's if it hits the surrounding metal structure.

[josephfeatherweight]

Thanks - I had looked at the table but I was overcomplicating it and looking for more than "N/A" - so I'd missed it.
Much appreciated.

[Lookleft]

I hope all the jet operators into CTAFs are aware of that limitation.

Anyone operating a jet into a CTAF going flat out is more than just unaware of the limitation, they are a fool with an even bigger fool sitting next to them allowing it to happen!

[43Inches]

Anyone operating a jet into a CTAF going flat out is more than just unaware of the limitation, they are a fool with an even bigger fool sitting next to them allowing it to happen!

I won't mention operators, but it's quite scary to see/hear the quite obvious lack of situational awareness shown by some large jet operators OCTA at present.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

I’m guessing it’s your company ….

[ShyTorque]

ATC cannot authorise it in Class G, though. As already mentioned, it's for "See and Avoid" reasons.

Some years ago I endured a "discussion" on here with a certain pilot member of the forum (from USA, I believe) who obviously didn't agree and was trying to castigate pilots flying quite legally in Class G just below the base of Class D controlled airspace around London "in case he decided to come barrelling out" (iirc, his choice of words) of said airspace in his heavily laden 747 at high speed.

I asked him if his operator had written dispensation from the CAA to exceed 250 kts in UK Class G airspace and he went potty - he obviously hadn't.

[By George]

If safety really was "our highest priority at all times" no jet would be operated outside controlled airspace. Waddling along at min clean with the nose up at 6 degrees you can't see anything out the front which makes the ''See and Avoid'' difficult. Somebody on the wrong frequency or a missed call is all it takes for a metallic bang in the night.

[Lead Balloon]

SFIS will fix that! (When it’s not NOTAM’d unavailable…)

[Ixixly]

Having never flown heavy metal before I'm uncertain why you wouldn't dirty up the configuration a bit then to maintain better visibility? Also, unless you're flying something really heavy I thought Min Clean for most Jets that would be operating in Class G would be around 200-220 so maintaining 250 or below shouldn't require such an exceptionally high nose attitude?

[havick]

Having never flown heavy metal before I'm uncertain why you wouldn't dirty up the configuration a bit then to maintain better visibility? Also, unless you're flying something really heavy I thought Min Clean for most Jets that would be operating in Class G would be around 200-220 so maintaining 250 or below shouldn't require such an exceptionally high nose attitude?

Company might have a problem with your fuel burn if you’re the only one burning significantly more gas on the regular.

generally speaking flying the standard profiles and speeds won’t have you in any nose attitude that you can’t see and avoid.

[43Inches]

There is also a dispensation that allows aircraft to fly faster than 250 kias if that is considered too slow for safe flight. I don't think any conventional airliner would qualify for that, so I doubt there is any issue of visibility or controllability for any civilian jet other than Concorde.

From what Ive seen of the data if you are afraid of the off chance of a collision then don't fly at all. You are more likely to collide with something in controlled airspace in an airliner than ouside, mostly because they spend 90% of their time in CTA. However the collision rate is a lot higher than it should be, as recently as the one in Japan.

[Ixixly]

Company might have a problem with your fuel burn if you’re the only one burning significantly more gas on the regular.

generally speaking flying the standard profiles and speeds won’t have you in any nose attitude that you can’t see and avoid.

So not a concern for Jets operating in that sort of environment at normal operations and the fuel burn wouldn't be too significant considering it'd only be for a very small segment?