mtv wrote:I fully agree that things are often DONE a bit differently, and controllers are generally a lot more willing to work traffic more in Alaska, but that doesn't mean the rules are different, folks, simply the application of them.

I agree in that the FAR's are very black and white, and in a perfect world should be interpreted and enforced uniformly regardless of geographic area... But.

Alaska, because of it's sheer size, isolation, and unique utilization of aircraft is a whole different critter than Lower 48. Hell, even in Alaska itself it's night and day dealing with FSS, ATC, and Feds in general depending on where in the state you happen to be. In Kotzebue be it IFR or VFR we had "local" rules and shortcuts with FSS and Anchorage Center, and lots of us, me included, had a hard time going out into the real world, especially IFR. I flew 1,400 hard hours a year, but if I had to fly into Anchorage for something I felt like a fish out of water, and dumber than a box of rocks.

Even though the rules might be the same, if they aren't used the same way place to place, what you have for all practical purposes is "different" rules. Like was posted earlier, Alaska, especially bush Alaska, is like stepping back into a time machine and can be a lot more laid back than the rest of the United States.

Not to say that's always good. I got up there at the tail end of the Wild West days, and a whole bunch of Part 135 operators should be in jail for the stuff that was going on then. Lot of guys got hurt and killed for really stupid reasons, and the law needed to step in and change a lot of attitudes. But on a positive note, the years that followed with just the right amount of FAA intervention were the most fun, and the most wonderful times a guy could have up there. It was amazing, and I really hated to see it end.

Gump

Kirk,

The FAA MAKES the rules. It doesn't have to be fair, or comply with any of your or my notions of what SHOULD be.

That reg is BS, and has been for MANY years. I used to operate without an A/W certificate, cause we could (govt.), and we operated in excess of legal GW on certain aircraft, with specific operating limitations, Op Specs, etc. Even that has now gone away.

You find a 135 operator trying to use that reg, call the FAA, and he'll be grounded in a heartbeat. Even the feds don't use that one any more.

MTV

Gump,

The rules ARE the same all over and so is the interpretation of them. The difference is in how far out the controller is willing to stick his or her neck. I've seen controllers who were just plain shit hot controllers go waaaayyyyy out there to work traffic, both in the Lower 48 and in AK. On the other hand, I've seen controllers in AK who would'nt let two airplanes in the same surface area at the same time, even though they were both departing and going different directions. They could if they wanted to.......

But, the RULES are the same. Interpretation is the same. It's just how far a controller is willing to stick their neck out.

I came into Kodiak one fine day. Weather was given as 2 miles vis and 700 VV. As I came around the NE end of the island, I considered landing at the municipal airport right there, but I called the tower, and the tower controller gave me a special, and verified the weather.

About that time, another pilot called taxiing for takeoff. The controller cleared him for taxi, but seemed hesitant.

As I got closer to the airport, the weather got worse, much worse. I didn't see the Sealand crane till I was abeam it, maybe a quarter mile off shore. I'm thinking "Oh, shit, where do I go if I can't find the runway?".

I follow the shoreline around, which the end of a runway crosses, at the mouth of the Buskin River. My plan is cross the Buskin and land, regardless, cause I cannot see anything now but the shoreline, and I'm getting REALLY close to it.

As I cross the Buskin River, I see the REILs, pull the power and land, and right beside me is a yellow Widgeon.

The Widgeon pilot calls for takeoff clearance, and Tower responds "Unable VFR departure, visibility is now reported as 1/8 mile in fog and rain".

I had a little chat with that tower controller that evening, letting her know that I didn't NEED "help" like that. It was obvious that she was letting me into the zone before she closed it down. The departing airplane caught her off guard.

I'd MUCH rather have landed at Municipal in 2 miles vis, my own self.

Sometimes, those "favors" really aren't.....

MTV

mtv wrote:I had a little chat with that tower controller that evening, letting her know that I didn't NEED "help" like that. It was obvious that she was letting me into the zone before she closed it down. The departing airplane caught her off guard.

I'd MUCH rather have landed at Municipal in 2 miles vis, my own self.

Sometimes, those "favors" really aren't.....MTV

I agree...

But on the other hand, there were days in Barrow or Kotz when it all turned to shit with freezing rain/fog/snow, and there'd be 20 scared to death pilots in iced up airplanes trying to get home all at once, with absolutely nowhere else to go. All of us past the point of no return due to distances to alternates and even worse weather everywhere else.

Those FSS guys literally saved our lives by working us home and keeping us "VFR" with 1/8th mile and 100. One mention of IFR would have guaranteed chaos and a shitload of guys declaring emergencies. And ANC center played well too, keeping the IFR traffic out of the way until we did what we needed to do.

But those days are changing. More turbine equipment means more pure IFR operators, and the guys like you and me, scuttling around on the deck in the fog like little bugs are soon to be long gone.

Gump

Norm - Great pictures! Thanks!

Here's the reply I got from my 135 friend

Kirk – the increased gross weight is 15% and is only allowable for aircraft certificated under the old civil aeronautics act dated 1931. New category aircraft are not eligible. I think that old act was superseded sometime in the 40’s. I know it applies to a PA-12 but not a PA-18. Also some old Stinson’s and such, but nothing we have. See FAR part 91.323.

So, is he saying that if I own, say, a Stinson certified under the old civil aeronautics act and meet all the other requirements that I could STILL use this increase?

I also just found out about a special "don't ask-don't tell" clause for alaska pilots that I'm going to have to look into further

I think Norm has the right idea. The attitude is different. There are at least a few more people per capita that enjoy the sound of airplane noise, and though they are not FAA regs, local laws can be much more forgiving. State law allows aircraft to land on roads and highways as long as no traffic is obstructed. State law also defines airports quite broadly --allowing you to land a lot of places without becoming an outlaw.

More to the point, it is not that certain regs do not apply in Alaska, but that there are specific federal regulations that allow broader freedoms to aviotors flying in Alaska. For example, airplanes used for recreation in the Wrangell St. Elias National Park, "may land anywhere in the park and preserve regardless of wilderness designation; No permit required." The code of federal regulation allows aircraft landings on any federal lands that are a part of a Conservation System Unit (CSU) in the state of Alaska. If they are going to impose any prohibition or restrictions on fixed wing aircraft, they must publish notice --temporary restrictions must be published in the NOTAMS and permanent restrictions in the Alaskan Supplement. Please see: 43 CFR 36.11(f) for more exciting reading.

Basically a pilot flying in Alaska can land in the parks, in the refuges, in the preserves, in the scenic river corridors, and on other lands administered by the NPS, FWS, or BLM. These regs apply only in Alaska. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I believe landing in National parks in other parts of the U.S. is discouraged. Where it is allowed, it is only allowed at designated landing strips. If I remember correctly, there was even some brouha about restricting flights over parks in the rest of the United States. The attitude is different. Some people do not know what beauty airplane noise represents.

Myth, legend, what have you, it is a damn good bit of fun flying around Alaska and landing --just because you can. The tower just seems friendlier up north. Like,"How's the fishin?" even when quite busy. Hell, I think there might even be something differnt in the air.

Chet,

Your point regards National Conservation Areas is correct, and is in fact, an exception, albeit I was thinking purely in terms of the FAR's.

Be a LITTLE careful with that one, though, cause there are a FEW places that are off limits to landings of aircraft in conservation areas.

That provision came about as part of the enabling legislation of the conservation areas, in which even established conservation areas were "re-established" to ensure they fell into the same set of rules.

Ya got me on that one, in any case .

MTV

My Alaska flying experience is limited to being a passenger, but what struck me as the biggest difference about flying in Alaska verses the lower 48 is that in Alaska the airplane is a NEEDED form of transportation, while in the lower 48 an airplane is really just a toy.

For about a tenth the cost I can drive anywhere I can fly down here, and do so in any weather while carrying twenty times what my plane will carry. Driving isn't as fast, but on more than one occasion my wife took a rental car and beat me home by a good 48 hours...

There are a handful of exceptions, but by in large an airplane seems like the least efficient form of transportation for someone living down here. About the only thing you can point to as an advantage is the speed, and a couple days of bad weather quickly puts an end to that argument.

I have a lot of daydreams about actually flying somewhere I couldn't drive to, and I spend a lot of my flying time thinking that I'm just practicing for the day when flying will be a necessity, not just a luxury.

Hammer,
I bought our Skylane up in Grass Valley 2 years ago. That's a nice area (just so darned many people.)

Anyway, you're right about flying in Alaska being more of a necessity than a fun "thing to do" . However, many of the places you might fly to that are also road accessible are only accessible over a lane-and-a-half gravel road that needs work and is nowhere near "the straightest line between two points". That being said, our flying to those places is generally more recreational than of necessity. Fairbanks to Manley, fly-45 min, drive-3.5 hrs of bone rattling gravel (but great burgers when you get there).

Fairbanks to Ft. Yukon, fly-1.5 hr, drive-no road! There are very few places in Alaska that are on the road system. That makes the airplane a necessity if you need to go there. I work in Medevac and we go to many remote places in the middle of the night at -40 and by our Ops-Specs we can land at about 65 different airports in the dark if the runway lights are out of service (it happens with some degree of regularity.) The King Air 200 is the champion of this kind of flying and our flying is by necessity. However, I use our Skylane for work purposes sometimes and the company also has a Cherokee 6 that we use for utility flying. Flying the piston singles has a lot more to consider.

Flying IS different here. Same regs, same aerodynamics, but the flying really is different once you're in Alaska.

Hammer wrote:I have a lot of daydreams about actually flying somewhere I couldn't drive to, and I spend a lot of my flying time thinking that I'm just practicing for the day when flying will be a necessity, not just a luxury.

I had a little C120 with an O-200 in it for a couple years, and my girlfriend at the time and I traveled all over Idaho, eastern Washington, and most of coastal British Columbia in the thing. A bit cramped, but with the 8.50's on it, it was a trooper airplane and took us anywhere we wanted to go. Cheap transportation, and covered a lot of wild country with with no roads. Even in your 140, you're only a day's flight from the border.

Gump

We've often thought that a taildragger would be just the ticket for flying here but our primary purpose is trips outside in the summer. Small machines (cub types, Aeroncas and Maules aren't up to the size/speed and C180s and 185s are higher than a cats back. But I often envy the guys coming and going in the smaller airframes.

Two questions,
1. Ever heard of VFR on top? How does it differ from VFR over the top?
2. Who can operate at 31% over gross legally in all 50 states?

a64,


1) one is an IFR clearance, wherein the pilot must abide by BOTH IFR and VFR regs, the other is a VFR only deal.

2) Ferry permit or ag. operating in Restricted category.

MTV

MTV, You got them both. Usually the on / over the top get's people. although #2 get's complicated, but this isn't an Ag forum, so there is no need to go there.

chetharris wrote:

More to the point, it is not that certain regs do not apply in Alaska, but that there are specific federal regulations that allow broader freedoms to aviotors flying in Alaska. For example, airplanes used for recreation in the Wrangell St. Elias National Park, "may land anywhere in the park and preserve regardless of wilderness designation; No permit required." The code of federal regulation allows aircraft landings on any federal lands that are a part of a Conservation System Unit (CSU) in the state of Alaska. If they are going to impose any prohibition or restrictions on fixed wing aircraft, they must publish notice --temporary restrictions must be published in the NOTAMS and permanent restrictions in the Alaskan Supplement. Please see: 43 CFR 36.11(f) for more exciting reading.

Basically a pilot flying in Alaska can land in the parks, in the refuges, in the preserves, in the scenic river corridors, and on other lands administered by the NPS, FWS, or BLM. These regs apply only in Alaska. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I believe landing in National parks in other parts of the U.S. is discouraged. Where it is allowed, it is only allowed at designated landing strips.

More than discouraged, it is flat out prohibited. In short, in national park service units in the lower 48 it is closed unless opened. And in your first paragraph, replace "aircraft" with "fixed-wing airplane" to be more accurate - helicopters are prohibited in many CSU's, including most park service units up here except for administrative use.