Is Broken at 1300 considered VFR?

Excessive attention to regs sometimes runs counter to safe decision making.

He is a VFR pilot in marginal weather. The ceiling is getting worse. He already diverted once. He has a clear visual on his alternate.

The safe decision is get on the ground.

The unsafe decision would be to divert again and risk getting caught in IFR.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Excessive attention to regs sometimes runs counter to safe decision making.

He is a VFR pilot in marginal weather. The ceiling is getting worse. He already diverted once. He has a clear visual on his alternate.

The safe decision is get on the ground.

The unsafe decision would be to divert again and risk getting caught in IFR.
Click to expand...
I think OP isn't violating any regs, but even if he were, your comment is right on the money. Fly safely first. Legally second. Fortunately, the VAST majority of the time those two things are well aligned. But if you find yourself in a position of having to choose safe/illegal versus unsafe/legal, it's pretty easy. As recently as this summer I know someone that landed somewhere without a clearance that was definitely IMC. Options were to land at the uncontrolled airport that they were three miles away from and had in sight, or turn 180, backtrack and hope the deck behind them was still VMC.
 
But if we're talking about safely landing in class D, I'm not seeing much risk.

But someone brought up class E which is a different story. Some nordo guy skimming the bases at 1000 AGL is a worst case scenario for IFR traffic.
 
Thanks everyone, lots of great feedback but it sounds like everyone is in agreement, IFR was not an option for me and if I felt SVFR was needed the controller should have responded differently. The complete disregard from the controller to even acknowledge that I thought a SVFR was needed was irritating. I had the landing traffic in sight and he even told me to follow them inbound. From my vantage on an extended base it appeared they dropped into the clouds but it could have also been that there were clouds between me and him but not between him and the airport. A plane landing behind me even commented that he was unable to see anything while on final and he opted to turn around and try again. In the end we safely landed at the airport and I had visual of it the entire time. Less than 30 minutes after landing the airport was overcast at 800 ft. We returned today to higher ceilings and moved the plane back to our home airport safely. My wife now wants to start learning how to do some stuff in the plane so I'm not doing everything if we ever get into a similar situation again so I think I'll start her off simple with changing frequencies in the radio, after that maybe I'll show her how to pull up weather and other info on the ipad or garmin navigator that we have installed.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
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.

That's... Not what I 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...
If the Ceiling and the bases of the clouds are the same, then yes, you will be be 500’ below the Ceiling when you are 500’ below the cloud. But it doesn’t always happen that way. The weather observer may have made a bad guess when he called the Ceiling 1500. Or maybe the base of the clouds have changed since the observation was made. Say the ‘Ceiling’ is 1500. That’s what it says on the METAR. That’s the Ceiling. But the base of the cloud you are under is 1300. You gotsta be 500’ under that cloud to be legal. That’s 800. You can’t say I was at 1000, 500’ under the ‘Ceiling’ so I’m legal even though I was just 300 under the cloud.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Excessive attention to regs sometimes runs counter to safe decision making.

He is a VFR pilot in marginal weather. The ceiling is getting worse. He already diverted once. He has a clear visual on his alternate.

The safe decision is get on the ground.

The unsafe decision would be to divert again and risk getting caught in IFR.
Click to expand...

When you find yourself in marginal VFR and deteriorating Wx, the safe decision is no longer an option. You just a decision(s) to make in a dangerous situation.
 
luvflyin said:
But the base of the cloud you are under is 1300.
Click to expand...

How you are going to determine the base of the cloud?

luvflyin said:
You gotsta be 500’ under that cloud to be legal. That’s 800. You can’t say I was at 1000, 500’ under the ‘Ceiling’ so I’m legal even though I was just 300 under the cloud.
Click to expand...

How is the FAA going to determine the base of the cloud?
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
How is the FAA going to determine that?
Click to expand...
Why does the FAA have to determine it? As pilots aren't we supposed to make that determination? If a pilot sees that bases are 1300 ft and they want to be within regs, they fly 800 ft, but depending on the area and airspace that too may be against the regs. If the pilot chooses to ignore the reg it's on them and if they get busted for it, they have nobody but themselves to blame for it. If they don't get busted and it becomes a habit then in my opinion that's just bad airmanship. The FAA likely wouldn't call me if I asked for a pop up IFR clearance and flew the approach, but it still would have been against the regs and if they heard I did do that it would be on me to accept whatever consequences there were. My point is, just because the FAA won't likely call you doesn't make it okay to do.
 
Ed Haywood said:
How you are going to determine the base of the cloud?



How is the FAA going to determine the base of the cloud?
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, I get your point.
Ed Haywood said:
How you are going to determine the base of the cloud?



How is the FAA going to determine the base of the cloud?
Click to expand...
Pilot confesses??
 
Ed Haywood said:
Excessive attention to regs sometimes runs counter to safe decision making.

He is a VFR pilot in marginal weather. The ceiling is getting worse. He already diverted once. He has a clear visual on his alternate.

The safe decision is get on the ground.

The unsafe decision would be to divert again and risk getting caught in IFR.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I say make the decision based on knowledge of the regs, not ignorance of them.
 
Will Kumley said:
Why does the FAA have to determine it? As pilots aren't we supposed to make that determination? If a pilot sees that bases are 1300 ft and they want to be within regs, they fly 800 ft, but depending on the area and airspace that too may be against the regs. If the pilot chooses to ignore the reg it's on them and if they get busted for it, they have nobody but themselves to blame for it. If they don't get busted and it becomes a habit then in my opinion that's just bad airmanship. The FAA likely wouldn't call me if I asked for a pop up IFR clearance and flew the approach, but it still would have been against the regs and if they heard I did do that it would be on me to accept whatever consequences there were. My point is, just because the FAA won't likely call you doesn't make it okay to do.
Click to expand...
Without question, you're less likely to have an issue with the FAA over getting within 300' of a cloud in Class D airspace while talking to Tower than you would be for accepting an IFR clearance as a non instrument rated pilot.

And I still don't understand why flying at 800' would be against the regs.
 
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.



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.
Click to expand...


1) Sunce you want to change MVFR from a weather condition to a flight rule and prohibit some legal operations, guess it’s a good thing you don’t make the rules :D

2) In Class G to 1200 AGL, you can fly the pattern at normal pattern altitude. In Class G to 700 you can fly the pattern at 699. I’ve encountered nontowered VFR traffic with 1000’ ceilings.

And so what if you fly the pattern at the equivalent of circling minimums? I do that with instrument training even in VFR conditions so long as traffic conditions permit.
 
Last edited:
trenton said:
But if we're talking about safely landing in class D, I'm not seeing much risk.

But someone brought up class E which is a different story. Some nordo guy skimming the bases at 1000 AGL is a worst case scenario for IFR traffic.
Click to expand...
If we’re talking a Class E surface area airport, VFR minimums are at least a 1000’ ceiling and remaining 500’ below the clouds.
 
luvflyin said:
I agree. But I say make the decision based on knowledge of the regs, not ignorance of them.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Since ignorance is not a defense anyway, might as well understand the rules before deciding it’s ok to violate them.

You might even find you are not violating anything.
 
midlifeflyer said:
1) Sunce you want to change MVFR from a weather condition to a flight rule and prohibit some legal operations, guess it’s a good thing you don’t make the rules :D

2) In Class G to 1200 AGL, you can fly the pattern at normal pattern altitude. In Class G to 700 you can fly the pattern at 699. I’ve encountered nontowered VFR traffic with 1000’ ceilings.

And so what if you fly the pattern at the equivalent of circling minimums? I do that with instrument training even in VFR conditions so long as traffic conditions permit.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can fly at 700. See 91.155 (e)
(e) For the purpose of this section, an aircraft operating at the base altitude of a Class E airspace area is considered to be within the airspace directly below that area.​
​
Nit-picky, I know, but it's POA.
 
pburger said:
Actually, you can fly at 700. See 91.155 (e)
(e) For the purpose of this section, an aircraft operating at the base altitude of a Class E airspace area is considered to be within the airspace directly below that area.​
​
Nit-picky, I know, but it's POA.
Click to expand...
But if you’re at 700 feet, you’re in the clouds. ;)
 
Controllers are typically not well versed in VFR cloud clearance requirements or what SVFR means for a pilot. Remember we use our own rule book separate from the FAR’s. Most controllers are gonna dumb it down to SVFR is for when it’s IFR otherwise just request VFR. The truth is SVFR should be used when landing or departing and VFR cloud clearance cannot be maintained even if the field is VFR.

Another example that trips up controllers:
Request a VFR transition through Class D or C airspace that is currently low IFR while you are above the tops.
 
A not so weird situation - you're legal at 1100 agl when you're in class G outside the Echo/Delta. Then you fly into the Echo/Delta area and suddenly you're violating VFR cloud clearance. As pointed out above, you are allowed to as required for landing.

You should be significantly lower as you descend toward the airport.
 
luvflyin said:
I agree. But I say make the decision based on knowledge of the regs, not ignorance of them.
Click to expand...
My medcrew are always telling me how I’m such a rule follower. I tell them no, I just know the rules I’m breaking. Can’t stand people who don’t know their jobs.
 
JAX said:
Controllers are typically not well versed in VFR cloud clearance requirements or what SVFR means for a pilot. Remember we use our own rule book separate from the FAR’s. Most controllers are gonna dumb it down to SVFR is for when it’s IFR otherwise just request VFR. The truth is SVFR should be used when landing or departing and VFR cloud clearance cannot be maintained even if the field is VFR.

Another example that trips up controllers:
Request a VFR transition through Class D or C airspace that is currently low IFR while you are above the tops.
Click to expand...
Saw a thread on Stuckmic on that topic. Transitioning the class D VFR when the field is reporting IFR. It was probably split 50 / 50 with half saying it’s legal and the other half saying it’s not unless SVFR is given.
 
Velocity173 said:
Saw a thread on Stuckmic on that topic. Transitioning the class D VFR when the field is reporting IFR. It was probably split 50 / 50 with half saying it’s legal and the other half saying it’s not unless SVFR is given.
Click to expand...
Amazing how simply reading the reg would resolve that.
 
Here’s another way to look at this.

Most accidents occur at takeoff and landing. Slow and low. And airports are where other slow and low airplanes that you could run into congregate.

Landing in a predictable pattern at predictable altitudes where you have good visibility to see others seems to be a great idea. Entering the pattern with enough altitude to recover is also a good idea.

Which is why I’m always going to enter at 1000 AGL, and have enough visibility to see others.

If others want to enter down wind at 600 AGL in MVFR, that’s your choice.
 
JAX said:
Controllers are typically not well versed in VFR cloud clearance requirements or what SVFR means for a pilot. Remember we use our own rule book separate from the FAR’s. Most controllers are gonna dumb it down to SVFR is for when it’s IFR otherwise just request VFR. The truth is SVFR should be used when landing or departing and VFR cloud clearance cannot be maintained even if the field is VFR.

Another example that trips up controllers:
Request a VFR transition through Class D or C airspace that is currently low IFR while you are above the tops.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was a problem many years ago when it was Control Zones and Airport Traffic areas. Sounds like it’s no better now than it was then.
 
Velocity173 said:
Saw a thread on Stuckmic on that topic. Transitioning the class D VFR when the field is reporting IFR. It was probably split 50 / 50 with half saying it’s legal and the other half saying it’s not unless SVFR is given.
Click to expand...
50/50. There’s a leadership problem way up the food chain. There is no excuse for that many Controllers not knowing what is correct.
 
JAX said:
The truth is SVFR should be used when landing or departing and VFR cloud clearance cannot be maintained even if the field is VFR.
Click to expand...
But in the OP's case, he could maintain VFR cloud clearance requirements.
 
Lindberg said:
But in the OP's case, he could maintain VFR cloud clearance requirements.
Click to expand...
ATC can’t force you to stay 500 under the clouds. If as PIC you determine for whatever reason you’d rather be a little higher over the ground but less than 500 below the clouds you could request SVFR to enter and land. ATC should grant SVFR as long as it doesn’t disrupt IFR ops.

In the real world I can’t imagine any controller challenging a pilot that they are less than 500 feet under clouds much less even knowing what that specific reg says about it. ATC’s job is not to know the FAR’s and that’s probably why it’s been simplified to SVFR is for IFR conditions otherwise it’s just VFR. Just my experience with controllers in the southeast.
 
luvflyin said:
50/50. There’s a leadership problem way up the food chain. There is no excuse for that many Controllers not knowing what is correct.
Click to expand...
Well it’s like the comment you made about the controller in question. Obviously they didn’t know they could issue the SVFR based on what the pilot is reporting. You can bet there are more are out there.

It’s like one time going into Bagram we received a SVFR clearance with 1.5 miles vis reported. Just before we got to the extended centerline for rwy 3, a USMC C-130 pops out on final right in front of us. No visual sep, radar sep or non radar sep was used. Don’t even recall a traffic call. If the controller did have the 1/2 mile radar sep required, it was only because we turned to go behind the C-130. Just a lack of knowledge on how to apply a SVFR arrival clearance vs IFR arrival. Don’t even get me started on MARSA. :(
 
Velocity173 said:
Well it’s like the comment you made about the controller in question. Obviously they didn’t know they could issue the SVFR based on what the pilot is reporting.
Click to expand...
Did the controller tell the OP he couldn't issue SVFR, or did he tell the OP that SVFR was unnecessary because the OP could comply with 91.155?
 
Lindberg said:
Did the controller tell the OP he couldn't issue SVFR, or did he tell the OP that SVFR was unnecessary because the OP could comply with 91.155?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. Either way he shouldn't have told him that. A pilot is making a request for SVFR who already knows the weather at the destination. Either tell him “I have your request” or “cleared to enter the class D…”
 
Lindberg said:
Did the controller tell the OP he couldn't issue SVFR, or did he tell the OP that SVFR was unnecessary because the OP could comply with 91.155?
Click to expand...
He told the OP that “…no special VFR required as we are VFR with broken clouds at 1300…” I cannot interpret that anyway other than the Controller was ignorant of the fact that SVFR can be authorized even though the airport is reporting VFR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top