FAR Question
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: usa
FAR Question
Hi,
I'm looking for the rule regarding climbing at 500-1500fpm in the FAR's.
Is it for IFR/VFR or both?
Is it a mandatory or reccomended rule and where can I find this info?
Thanks a lot!!
I'm looking for the rule regarding climbing at 500-1500fpm in the FAR's.
Is it for IFR/VFR or both?
Is it a mandatory or reccomended rule and where can I find this info?
Thanks a lot!!
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Check the AIM.
I'd look in the AIM.
There are a couple issues here.
First, all airplanes are expected to climb and descend at their optimal rate. If they can't climb or descend at least 500 fpm the PIC is required to inform ATC.
Second, you're only required to climb and descend at your optimal rate until within 1000 feet of your assigned altitude. Then you're expected to do so at 1000 fpm. This is to prevent nuisance TCAS warnings. As you may already know the TCAS computer looks at rates of closure. If there's an airplane in cruise at FL250 and you're assigned to climb and maintain FL240 but are zooming up there at 4000 fpm obviously both aircraft are going to get a TCAS warning.
Hope that helps. Sorry I don't have the pertinent paragraph.
There are a couple issues here.
First, all airplanes are expected to climb and descend at their optimal rate. If they can't climb or descend at least 500 fpm the PIC is required to inform ATC.
Second, you're only required to climb and descend at your optimal rate until within 1000 feet of your assigned altitude. Then you're expected to do so at 1000 fpm. This is to prevent nuisance TCAS warnings. As you may already know the TCAS computer looks at rates of closure. If there's an airplane in cruise at FL250 and you're assigned to climb and maintain FL240 but are zooming up there at 4000 fpm obviously both aircraft are going to get a TCAS warning.
Hope that helps. Sorry I don't have the pertinent paragraph.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Likes: 2
From: USA
My Opinion
I'm not a lawyer...but, it's been my experience that what's in the A.I.M. is pretty much considered by the FAA Administrative Law Judges as regulatory. If by no other way...it's the 'reckless and dangerous operation' doctrine.
For what it's worth....
PantLoad
Correction: "Careless and Reckless" I meant to say...
For what it's worth....
PantLoad
Correction: "Careless and Reckless" I meant to say...
Last edited by PantLoad; 6th November 2007 at 03:58.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 8
From: The No Transgression Zone
They can always crucify you with 91.13 "reckless and careless operation of an aircraft" hence follow the aim:
if not para c. of 91.3 "responsibility and authority of the PIC"
91.103 "preflight action"---the one about obtaining ALL available info concerning your flight...especially in combination with one of the above
And examiners can [ and probably will] fail you for using non-standard holding pattern entries and made up course reversals---- not the law either but you must do it, basically.
However, the Aim is good advice anyway so whats the big deal, why not follow the recomendations therein---
Sorry for the thread creep
There is always a way for governments to destroy aviators.
if not para c. of 91.3 "responsibility and authority of the PIC"
91.103 "preflight action"---the one about obtaining ALL available info concerning your flight...especially in combination with one of the above
And examiners can [ and probably will] fail you for using non-standard holding pattern entries and made up course reversals---- not the law either but you must do it, basically.
However, the Aim is good advice anyway so whats the big deal, why not follow the recomendations therein---
Sorry for the thread creep
There is always a way for governments to destroy aviators.
