Is Broken at 1300 considered VFR?

Will Kumley

Will Kumley

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
739
Location
Pacific Southwest
Display Name
Display name:
Will
Had an interesting flight home today. I knew my home airport had the potential to have a marine layer coming in well after my planned arrival. Turns out it came in earlier and when I was 25 miles out it was broken at 1500, 10 miles out I call the tower and ask if the clouds are holding at broken at 1500 but am told they are dropping and its now overcast at 1000. I ask if special VFR is even an option and he clears me for it almost immediately saying it shouldn't be a problem for me to get in. I descend to 1000 feet 6 miles out and its obvious the cloud bases are well below 1000 feet so I divert to another field that is reporting few clouds at 1300. As I approach from the non cloudy side I can see that it is also worse than being advertised on ATIS but it appears good for a special VFR entry as I can see the airport. I ask for special VFR and get a response of "no special VFR required as we are VFR with broken clouds at 1300. Am I overthinking that broken at 1300 is really an IFR situation in a populated area? Traffic pattern altitude is 1000 AGL. I did make it in but I'd wager it was more of a special VFR situation.

On a separate note, I'm about 3/4 complete with my IFR training but am not IFR rated yet and although I feel comfortable that I could have shot the RNAV approach I wanted to be legal. On the VFR approach I flew, I was able to see the runway for the entire base and final legs and I had already worked a plan if a go around was needed on how I would exit the area and fly back to clear skies to another airport further away that was clear.
 
I flew a straight in from 1000 ft AGL, but as I got closer to the airport it was obvious that if I flew a normal pattern 1000 ft AGL I'd have less than 500 ft of clearance from the clouds. This is a Class D airport.
 
Will Kumley said:
Had an interesting flight home today. I knew my home airport had the potential to have a marine layer coming in well after my planned arrival. Turns out it came in earlier and when I was 25 miles out it was broken at 1500, 10 miles out I call the tower and ask if the clouds are holding at broken at 1500 but am told they are dropping and its now overcast at 1000. I ask if special VFR is even an option and he clears me for it almost immediately saying it shouldn't be a problem for me to get in. I descend to 1000 feet 6 miles out and its obvious the cloud bases are well below 1000 feet so I divert to another field that is reporting few clouds at 1300. As I approach from the non cloudy side I can see that it is also worse than being advertised on ATIS but it appears good for a special VFR entry as I can see the airport. I ask for special VFR and get a response of "no special VFR required as we are VFR with broken clouds at 1300. Am I overthinking that broken at 1300 is really an IFR situation in a populated area? Traffic pattern altitude is 1000 AGL. I did make it in but I'd wager it was more of a special VFR situation.

On a separate note, I'm about 3/4 complete with my IFR training but am not IFR rated yet and although I feel comfortable that I could have shot the RNAV approach I wanted to be legal. On the VFR approach I flew, I was able to see the runway for the entire base and final legs and I had already worked a plan if a go around was needed on how I would exit the area and fly back to clear skies to another airport further away that was clear.
Click to expand...
You need to be able to stay 500 under the clouds, plus 1000 over any congested area, as you correctly stated, except for takeoff and landing. Given how the FAA has enforced those particular rules, two people and a cow is "congested" and not adhering to the published TPA is not "necessary for takeoff or landing", so IMO 1500 AGL clouds is the minimum realistic VFR scenario.

I think the controller at the 2nd field was out of line for suggesting that you didn't need Special VFR. That's up to you, not him. Whether he can grant it is up to him.
 
It’s VFR but definitely an appropriate use of SVFR to fly a normal pattern. Is the TPA of 1,000 charted or could you have flown the pattern at 800 AGL?

For me, the bigger concern is getting to the field. I cruise at 8,000+ so the ceiling you were working with would have been underneath me. That’s the scenario that really drove me to get my instrument rating.
 
iamtheari said:
It’s VFR but definitely an appropriate use of SVFR to fly a normal pattern. Is the TPA of 1,000 charted or could you have flown the pattern at 800 AGL?

For me, the bigger concern is getting to the field. I cruise at 8,000+ so the ceiling you were working with would have been underneath me. That’s the scenario that really drove me to get my instrument rating.
Click to expand...
Charted TPA is 1000 AGL for GA singles and 1500 for anything bigger. This scenario is actually part of the reason I am working towards my IFR rating. In theory, I could have asked for a pop up IFR clearance to my home field and I'm sure it would have ended well. But as I'm not certified yet, I didn't want to do that.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
...the FAA has enforced those particular rules... not adhering to the published TPA is not "necessary for takeoff or landing"
Click to expand...
I don't understand that... flying at the published TPA isn't mandatory, and how can maneuvering in the vicinity of an airport to line up with the runway not be "necessary for landing"?
 
Will Kumley said:
Had an interesting flight home today. I knew my home airport had the potential to have a marine layer coming in well after my planned arrival. Turns out it came in earlier and when I was 25 miles out it was broken at 1500, 10 miles out I call the tower and ask if the clouds are holding at broken at 1500 but am told they are dropping and its now overcast at 1000. I ask if special VFR is even an option and he clears me for it almost immediately saying it shouldn't be a problem for me to get in. I descend to 1000 feet 6 miles out and its obvious the cloud bases are well below 1000 feet so I divert to another field that is reporting few clouds at 1300. As I approach from the non cloudy side I can see that it is also worse than being advertised on ATIS but it appears good for a special VFR entry as I can see the airport. I ask for special VFR and get a response of "no special VFR required as we are VFR with broken clouds at 1300. Am I overthinking that broken at 1300 is really an IFR situation in a populated area? Traffic pattern altitude is 1000 AGL. I did make it in but I'd wager it was more of a special VFR situation.

On a separate note, I'm about 3/4 complete with my IFR training but am not IFR rated yet and although I feel comfortable that I could have shot the RNAV approach I wanted to be legal. On the VFR approach I flew, I was able to see the runway for the entire base and final legs and I had already worked a plan if a go around was needed on how I would exit the area and fly back to clear skies to another airport further away that was clear.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Controller doesn’t understand he can authorize SVFR when the airport is reporting VFR. Where was this?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Given how the FAA has enforced those particular rules, two people and a cow is "congested" and not adhering to the published TPA is not "necessary for takeoff or landing", so IMO 1500 AGL clouds is the minimum realistic VFR scenario.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example of the FAA saying that flying a pattern is not necessary for takeoff and landing?
 
Ed Haywood said:
In deteriorating weather conditions, do what you gotta do to get on the ground safely. If ATC tells you the field is VFR and clears you to land, nobody from the FAA is going to second guess you later.
Click to expand...
If there’s a close one because you were merely remaining clear of cloud and just enough flight visibility to see where you are going instead of maintaining VFR you may be answering some questions.
 
flyingron said:
There is no such thing has MVFR as flight rules. MVFR is purely a weather classification.
Click to expand...
Odd that MVFR can encompass both the ability to land VFR (if ceiling at 2900’) and not land VFR (if ceiling is at 1100’).

The lowest ceiling you can have in a piston and land VFR is 1500’; 1000’ for pattern altitude and 500’ above you clear of clouds.

Maybe the 3000’ lower limit for an airport reporting VFR is to allow for the highest pattern altitudes needed for VFR landing (turbines maybe).
 
Here's what the AIM says:

4-3-3. Traffic Patterns
  1. It is recommended that aircraft enter the airport traffic pattern at one of the following altitudes listed below. These altitudes should be maintained unless another traffic pattern altitude is published in the Chart Supplement or unless otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria (14 CFR Section 91.155).
Click to expand...
 
WDD said:
Odd that MVFR can encompass both the ability to land VFR (if ceiling at 2900’) and not land VFR (if ceiling is at 1100’).

The lowest ceiling you can have in a piston and land VFR is 1500’; 1000’ for pattern altitude and 500’ above you clear of clouds.

Maybe the 3000’ lower limit for an airport reporting VFR is to allow for the highest pattern altitudes needed for VFR landing (turbines maybe).
Click to expand...
You don’t have to be 500’ below the Ceiling, just 500’ below cloud. The only absolute restriction to not operate beneath the Ceiling is if it is less than 1000. 91.155 (c)
 
WDD said:
Odd that MVFR can encompass both the ability to land VFR (if ceiling at 2900’) and not land VFR (if ceiling is at 1100’).
Click to expand...
Two "why" questions.

1. Why is it odd that a description of weather is not tied directly to the VFR rules applicable to different airspaces. Do we need BMVFR, C&DMVFR, EMVFR, and GMVFR?

2. Why can't we land VFR if the ceiling is at 1100? If the airport is where Class E starts at 1200 for example, you are just fine at 1100. If it starts at 700, fly the pattern at 699.
 
Doesn’t matter if it’s VFR or MVFR for reporting conditions at the airfield. It’s about maintaining a flight condition and only you know what that is because it’s in your immediate area. If you couldn't maintain VMC entering the D then you request a SVFR. The controller can deny it (traffic sep) but to tell you he’s not issuing based on his reporting weather, is simply wrong.

IMG_9478.jpeg
 
WDD said:
Odd that MVFR can encompass both the ability to land VFR (if ceiling at 2900’) and not land VFR (if ceiling is at 1100’).

The lowest ceiling you can have in a piston and land VFR is 1500’; 1000’ for pattern altitude and 500’ above you clear of clouds.

Maybe the 3000’ lower limit for an airport reporting VFR is to allow for the highest pattern altitudes needed for VFR landing (turbines maybe).
Click to expand...
You're describing weather conditions, not flight rules.
First off, unless you're in the surface area of controlled airspace, ceiling is largely irrelevant.
For class D, the only constraint is that large/turbine aircraft maintain 1500 UNLESS required by the distances from clouds.
Light guys can operate wherever they want (subject to tower instructions).

In uncontrolled airspace, you just need a mile and clear of clouds.
 
Velocity173 said:
Doesn’t matter if it’s VFR or MVFR for reporting conditions at the airfield. It’s about maintaining a flight condition and only you know what that is because it’s in your immediate area. If you couldn't maintain VMC entering the D then you request a SVFR. The controller can deny it (traffic sep) but to tell you he’s not issuing based on his reporting weather, is simply wrong.

View attachment 134270
Click to expand...
But the OP could and did maintain VFR. 1300' Broken is not IFR.
 
Lindberg said:
But the OP could and did maintain VFR. 1300' Broken is not IFR.
Click to expand...
I know and ultimately that worked out but the request needs to be made prior to entering. If the OP didn’t believe he could maintain VMC all the way to the airport, then request SVFR.
 
Dana said:
I don't understand that... flying at the published TPA isn't mandatory, and how can maneuvering in the vicinity of an airport to line up with the runway not be "necessary for landing"?
Click to expand...
I'll have to see if I can find the enforcement case. It wasn't lining up with the runway that they took issue with, it was flying the pattern below TPA. Unfortunately, the NTSB appeal query engine is down right now.
Lindberg said:
Do you have an example of the FAA saying that flying a pattern is not necessary for takeoff and landing?
Click to expand...
That's... Not what I said.
luvflyin said:
You don’t have to be 500’ below the Ceiling, just 500’ below cloud. The only absolute restriction to not operate beneath the Ceiling is if it is less than 1000. 91.155 (c)
Click to expand...
Um... Given that a "ceiling" is either broken or overcast, unless you find a break in the clouds that follows your path exactly and is at least 4,000 feet wide, you do need to be 500' below the ceiling.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Um... Given that a "ceiling" is either broken or overcast, unless you find a break in the clouds that follows your path exactly and is at least 4,000 feet wide, you do need to be 500' below the ceiling.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’m thinking. You can’t get to the airport VFR and land VFR unless your broken or overcast is at least 1500’ AGL.

Otherwise you’re not in VMC enough for VFR.
midlifeflyer said:
Two "why" questions.
Click to expand...
midlifeflyer said:
2. Why can't we land VFR if the ceiling is at 1100?
Click to expand...

1) I would have put the lower limit of MVFR at 1500 AGL. The reasoning is that is the lowest you can land VFR. But they didn’t ask me.

2). That would put your pattern entry at 600 AGL.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
That's... Not what I said.
Click to expand...
So if flying the pattern is necessary for landing, TPA isn't regulatory, and the AIM says I should fly at the published altitude unless I need to go lower for clouds, what's the issue with flying the pattern at 800 AGL with a 1300 AGL ceiling?
 
WDD said:
That’s what I’m thinking. You can’t get to the airport VFR and land VFR unless your broken or overcast is at least 1500’ AGL.

Otherwise you’re not in VMC enough for VFR.
Click to expand...
Why not? If you're in G outside the D, you just need to remain clear of clouds. A ceiling that's lower than OVC 1500 can be enough for that as long as you avoid any really tall structures. Sure, not everyone is comfortable with that, but it's legal and doable.
WDD said:
1) I would have put the lower limit of MVFR at 1500 AGL. The reasoning is that is the lowest you can land VFR. But they didn’t ask me.
Click to expand...
Why is that the lowest you can land?
WDD said:
2). That would put your pattern entry at 600 AGL.
Click to expand...
To maintain VFR in D, sure, but that's ok if you can do it without running into anything. And in G, you could fly your pattern at 1000 AGL if you want.
 
Ed Haywood said:
500 below clouds is a visual estimate and mostly unenforceable
Click to expand...

It’s no different than cruising along in E and having less than BCC. No one is going to enforce that. But, I’d never tell the OP to bust a reg out of convenience either. It’s up to him if he wants to adhere to rules that stringently.

He should know though, that if indeed he did require a SVFR based on his conditions, it could be very inconvenient on everyone involved. That is unless this is a sleepy little D with little IFR activity.
 
Last edited:
Will Kumley said:
... I ask if special VFR is even an option and he clears me for it almost immediately saying it shouldn't be a problem for me to get in. I descend to 1000 feet 6 miles out and its obvious the cloud bases are well below 1000 feet so I divert to another field that is reporting few clouds at 1300.
Click to expand...
There would be no legal reason to divert. You were cleared SVFR, so you could legally land there so long as you could maintain 1 mile of vis and clear of clouds. Yet as PIC you might choose to divert anyway for safety reasons - your choice.

Will Kumley said:
... As I approach from the non cloudy side I can see that it is also worse than being advertised on ATIS but it appears good for a special VFR entry as I can see the airport. I ask for special VFR and get a response of "no special VFR required as we are VFR with broken clouds at 1300. Am I overthinking that broken at 1300 is really an IFR situation in a populated area? Traffic pattern altitude is 1000 AGL. I did make it in but I'd wager it was more of a special VFR situation.
Click to expand...
First, broken at 1300 is legal VFR, plain & simple. Regarding SVFR, this question pops up from time to time. It generally splits people into 2 camps:

Camp 1: The controller response is incorrect. Just because it's VFR at the field doesn't mean it's VFR throughout the class D airspace. So you may need an SVFR clearance before entering the class D airspace, and the tower may grant it even if conditions at the tower are VFR.

Camp 2: The regulations carve out an exception for VFR rules, for aircraft that are taking off or landing in controlled airspace. You are entering the class D airspace with intent to land, so if the field is reporting VFR you don't need the SVFR clearance even if conditions elsewhere in the class D are below VFR minimums.

More on this discussion: https://pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/vfr-weather-minimums-and-patterns.146143/post-3487809
 
midlifeflyer said:
Two "why" questions.
Click to expand...

Lindberg said:
Why not? If you're in G outside the D, you just need to remain clear of clouds. A ceiling that's lower than OVC 1500 can be enough for that as long as you avoid any really tall structures. Sure, not everyone is comfortable with that, but it's legal and doable.

Why is that the lowest you can land?

To maintain VFR in D, sure, but that's ok if you can do it without running into anything. And in G, you could fly your pattern at 1000 AGL if you want.
Click to expand...
Entering a pattern under 1000’ AGL is something I’m never going to do, although I guess is could be legal in G.

As well, I don’t have any G airports to land at. It’s all E, D, or C.
 
Velocity173 said:
It’s no different than cruising along in E and having less than BCC. No one is going to enforce that.
Click to expand...

Isn't the point of E cloud clearances to give time to pilots to see and react to IFR traffic emerging from IMC?
 
Yes, that is one reason for the minimums, which is why they can be reduced even when VFR when all aircraft are under ATC control, such as class B and SVFR.
 
WDD said:
Entering a pattern under 1000’ AGL is something I’m never going to do, although I guess is could be legal in G.

As well, I don’t have any G airports to land at. It’s all E, D, or C.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't entering a pattern below 1,000' be legal in E, D, and C? And why won't you ever do it?

At most uncontrolled airports, E doesn't begin until 700 or 1200 AGL anyway.
 
ok, here is a good example. The WX is 1100 ovc with a flight visibility and ground visibility > 3 sm. You don’t need a SVFR.

You may notice the 700 ft AGL Class E transition. So to get to the D, you have to fly lower than 700 AGL and the minimum altitudes all apply.

1728936341508.jpeg
 
Last edited:
trenton said:
Isn't the point of E cloud clearances to give time to pilots to see and react to IFR traffic emerging from IMC?
Click to expand...
I’d say that’s a primary reason. I suppose it’s easier to inadvertently punch into the clouds as well if you’re skimming the tops / bottoms. Point being, no one is going to enforce that if you’re breaking BCC.
 
The transition to / from pattern altitude is only waived from 91.119.

IMG_9479.jpeg

IMG_9480.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top