VFR vs IFR Supercubs

cubdriver2 said:

What ever R works, more then 2

Glenn

Click to expand...

I recall an incident while following a RR across the Canadian bush with a friend's 185 counting the rivets on my tail, when the engineer waved as we went by.

md11freighter said:

My 53A model manual from Piper specifically states day/night vfr for approved ops. No mention of IFR anywhere in the manual. That’s just fine by me.
Jack Wilson in Galkona used to have a no kidding IFR cub he bought from the factory to use on his 135 certificate. He said he’d use to drop off customers on St Elias.

Click to expand...

My Dad flew with Jack Wilson(Wilson Air Service) in the early 70's out of GKN. He did somewhere around 69 landings on Mt. Wrangell(14,200') with that "IFR" Cub.
It did enable him to work marginal weather days, clear up high with lower layers in the basin.

Anybody else have an Aspen E5 installed?

Didn't we do this in some other thread a decade ago or so?
The J3 is a CAR 4a airplane, and needs only the specified equipment to go IFR. Likewise old Stinsons, Stearmans, etc.

The PA 18 is a CAR3 airplane. I forget what we decided.

My Decathlon is a Part 23 airplane, and is restricted to day/night VFR. Almost impossible to change that.

Also, somewhere I heard that one can file IFR in an airplane like the Decathlon, and remain legal so long as VFR minimums exist at all times during the flight. I do not know where I heard it, or whether it is correct or not.

bob turner said:

Didn't we do this in some other thread a decade ago or so?
The J3 is a CAR 4a airplane, and needs only the specified equipment to go IFR. Likewise old Stinsons, Stearmans, etc.

The PA 18 is a CAR3 airplane. I forget what we decided.

My Decathlon is a Part 23 airplane, and is restricted to day/night VFR. Almost impossible to change that.

Also, somewhere I heard that one can file IFR in an airplane like the Decathlon, and remain legal so long as VFR minimums exist at all times during the flight. I do not know where I heard it, or whether it is correct or not.

Click to expand...

Well, you can do that, but not legally. A fairly recent Chief Counsel opinion said if you file, everything has to be IFR certified.

MTV

bob turner said:

Didn't we do this in some other thread a decade ago or so?

Click to expand...

Bob, this IS that 12 year old thread!

Sent from my Pixel using SuperCub.Org mobile app

mvivion said:

Well, you can do that, but not legally. A fairly recent Chief Counsel opinion said if you file, everything has to be IFR certified.

MTV

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the decision was, but I assume it referred to the instruments that are required, not the plane itself. That decision would actually makes a lot of sense, because the controllers need to know that you have an adjustible altimeter, etc.

Tennessee said:

... because the controllers need to know that you have an adjustible altimeter, etc.

Click to expand...

The sensitive altimeter is to ensure you remain within your piece of airspace. A non sensitive altimeter is 10,000 feet per revolution of the needle instead of the 1,000 which you are used to.

Tennessee said:

I'm not sure what the decision was, but I assume it referred to the instruments that are required, not the plane itself. That decision would actually makes a lot of sense, because the controllers need to know that you have an adjustible altimeter, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes it was an equipment “thing”. Remember there’s a reason for the criteria for IFR certification periodically of pitot static system and transponders, etc.

MTV

my original cub (1952) and cc-180 are both IFR. My work north of the brooks range is no place for any airplane not to be IFR but pilots (in my company) take a IFR ride with the feds every year.

sandy

Not this thread, Steve.

From admittedly fuzzy memory, I believe I asserted (a decade ago?) that the certification basis for the Super Cub allowed it to be flown IFR if suitably equipped. I think I was shot down rather quickly - another poster said it was certified under the new regs that required specification. Again, not sure, and often wrong when I am not looking at the actual text.

I am positive that part 23 airplanes must be initially certified IFR, or receive either a field approval or STC for legal IFR flight. That would include the 180 CC.

I am also positive that CAR 4a aircraft can simply be properly equipped and legally flown IFR.

The Super Cub is CAR 3.

I cannot find a single post in this thread from 2008 addressing that dichotomy.

I said, to heck with it, I'll ask for a legal interpretation from the FAA. Here's what I found when I tried to look up how to start the process. Of course, no mention of how to do it, just a statement that says that they will issue one only if they feel like it. The bolding on the sentences is mine. This is the webpage for legal interpretations. If anyone knows how to get an interpretation, please chime in.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/

Regulations Division

Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions

• The Office of the Chief Counsel has reviewed its policy for responding to requests for interpretation submitted to the agency from members of the public. Effective immediately, only those requests that present a novel or legally significant issue, as determined by the Chief Counsel, will be considered as potentially warranting a legal interpretation. Each person submitting a request will be notified whether the FAA accepts the request for an interpretation.

Legal Interpretations and the Chief Counsel's opinions are now available at this site. Please note that not all interpretations or Chief Counsel's opinions are available at this time. This database consists of legal interpretations issued from 1990 to the present and will be updated on a regular basis.

I will take an IFR check in May which will include a PAR to 50'[no gyros] an ASR to second airport which will end with a engine out to landing. This i in my cc-180. My operations guy loves it as I could have done it in the 206 which is so stable that it makes it easy. I don't want it easy as when **** hits the fan , I want to be able to get the cub on the ground safely.]
QUOTE=Tennessee;790487]I said, to heck with it, I'll ask for a legal interpretation from the FAA. Hereely.
's what I found when I tried to look up how to start the process. Of course, no mention of how to do it, just a statement that says that they will issue one only if they feel like it. The bolding on the sentences is mine. This is the webpage for legal interpretations. If anyone knows how to get an interpretation, please chime in.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/

Regulations Division

Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions

• The Office of the Chief Counsel has reviewed its policy for responding to requests for interpretation submitted to the agency from members of the public. Effective immediately, only those requests that present a novel or legally significant issue, as determined by the Chief Counsel, will be considered as potentially warranting a legal interpretation. Each person submitting a request will be notified whether the FAA accepts the request for an interpretation.

Legal Interpretations and the Chief Counsel's opinions are now available at this site. Please note that not all interpretations or Chief Counsel's opinions are available at this time. This database consists of legal interpretations issued from 1990 to the present and will be updated on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]

Ran into this Pelican's Perch item today. It's old (1998 ) but contains info and ideas that I think are pertinent to this thread.
https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-11using-a-handheld-gps-ifr/