Have you written up an ASRS report on this? It sounds like a safety related gray area between your interpretation and the tower ATC. Just a thought.
Is Broken at 1300 considered VFR?
- Thread starter Will Kumley
- Start date
I tend to agree about lack of familiarity with special VFR, but I guess one could also interpret “not required” as “unnecessary.” Since the pilot can fly the pattern at 800 AGL.
Is a tower controller ever required to issue special VFR clearances? If the operation can be accomplished VFR?
flyingpreacher
Pre-takeoff checklist
So let’s say you’re a VFR private pilot and you come in to this airport. You are 100% good to make that approach. But my question is, what happens if you have to do a go around?
I would make a 180 and fly back out from under that cloud deck.
Pinecone
En-Route
No, worst case is some moron in the clouds while "flying VFR."
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I’ve never heard of that
Agreed.
Class D doesn't require a clearance, but only establishing 2-way radio contact, which happens when the controller states the aircraft's tail number. For example, I was once approaching a class D while VFR and called them up. They were busy and the controller said, "Barnburner 1234A, stand by." Since he said my tail number, I continued to enter their airspace and start the published VFR approach that was most natural for my position. His "stand by" meant to stand by for further instructions, not to remain clear of the class D.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,543
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I’m referring to his SVFR clearance. “N1234, cleared to enter the Podunk Class D surface area from the south, maintain SVFR at or below 1,500 (500 ft below IFR traffic).”
Lindberg
Final Approach
What's the propery phraseology for, "Conditions are VFR, so I'm not going to increase my workload and decrease safety by unnecessarily clearing you for SVFR, so if you're still coming, maintain VFR and your own nav and notify when midfield downwind"?
"Aircraft calling Podunk tower, the field is VFR. State intentions."
(I don't know whether this is the proper phraseology, but it is the commonly used phraseology).
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,543
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Doesn’t exist. Also doesn’t mean he’s increasing his workload. If there’s no IFRs that are a factor, then it’s a simple clearance. Most likely has to coordinate with approach but that takes all of 5 secs. And as I stated, I would assume the OP would know this COULD be very inconvenient for all those involved. As far as safety, I take it the OP is requesting the clearance because he believes it’s not just the legal course of action but the safest. I’ll leave it to him to decide on what’s safe.
All I’m providing here is what’s in the book. The rules as far as SVFR clearance for a controller and MSAs are quite clear in this situation. But, don’t mistake my posts as to what I would do if in the OP’s situation. Just giving facts.
trenton
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- May 13, 2017
- Messages
- 127
- Display Name
Display name:
Trenton
Unable SVFR.
Indeed
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Good point. If an ASRS is submitted to NASA, then maybe the issue will trickle down to the DOT, the FAA in particular. And maybe more Controllers will become edumicated and fewer pilots will have to deal with Controller ignorance
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
How does the tower controller know that aircraft's *flight* conditions?
IMO, the pilot requested special VFR because in their judgement, they needed it. The controller's job is to either issue the clearance if able, or if there is conflicting IFR traffic, advise the aircraft if/when they anticipate being able to issue the clearance. Then, it's up to the pilot as to how to proceed. The controller shouldn't just be denying services of any kind if they can be accomplished under the 7110.65 and the workload.
From how low??
And this happens far, far too often. I've had THREE encounters with VFR aircraft conflicting with me in IMC, and I'm not even up to 3,000 hours yet...
It's only going to decrease safety if the controller is already workload saturated, so it would be "Unable Special VFR at this time, clearance may be available in 20 minutes, say intentions" or something to that effect. The controller does not know what the pilot's situation is, so stating it's VFR is out of line.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
This! ASRS (or ASAP if you're at a commercial operator who has it) is the best mechanism we have as pilots to alert the FAA that there's an issue. It's not just a "get out of jail free" card.
As far as I know, there's no minimum altitude for go-arounds. If you're asking what happens if the ceiling is too low for the maneuver I suggested to be safe, that doesn't appear to be the case in the scenario that prompted flyingpreacher's question:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...en-at-1300-considered-vfr.149018/post-3565336
Looking out the window? Obviously it depends on what the conditions are, but all the OP mentioned was a ceiling. I actually have a picture of my mind of my years in Denver.
Disagree. The controller should not be altering the flight rules for other aircraft (as you note, svfr clearance does affect other IFR arrivals) when the request is meritless. If conditions are VMC the controllers job is to run the airport in accordance with those conditions. Not issue a SVFR clearance when one isn't needed.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
In the case of the airport reporting VFR, it is the pilots decision whether he needs SVFR or not. He may not get it right away because SVFR flights may be approved only if arriving and departing IFR aircraft are not delayed. I don’t think @Will Kumley ’s request was meritless. He had a legitimate concern about being able to maintain VFR conditions at altitudes he considered safe.
Given the fact that you’re not instrument-rated, I would question that theory.
Lindberg
Final Approach
A reasonable interpretation of the regs is that you must maintain VFR cloud clearance requirements unless you can't, in which case you can request, and might be granted, an SVFR clearance. SVFR is not intended to be a loophole that lets you get closer to the clouds because you want to.
The OP was able to maintain VFR cloud clearance, as proved by the fact that he did. QED.
trenton
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- May 13, 2017
- Messages
- 127
- Display Name
Display name:
Trenton
It's there for safety. If you think an arrival and approach would be safer under SVFR, you should request it.
If it's safer to maneuver and approach from the area of VFR conditions, you should do that instead.
If it's safer to divert, divert.
The controller doesn't know which is better. Nor is the controller even responsible for the determination of which is better. That's 100% on the PIC.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,838
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
It’s not exactly a loophole. It’s a regulation. I can’t find any rules about when it can and cannot be used in 91.157. What it says is “Except as provided in Appendix D, section 3, of this part, special VFR operations may be conducted under the weather minimums and requirements of this section, instead of those contained in §91.155…” It does read to me as if it is perfectly acceptable to use SVFR to fly with lower visibility and cloud separation requirements than VFR even if it would be possible to fly with VFR minimums.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the controller has to give you a clearance. But I don’t see how the OP was off base to ask for one.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I was more interested in the picture that was posted with that option. Looked like it was maybe VFR at the threshold, but that a go-around 180 could easily put you underneath a 50-foot ceiling, which doesn't sound like a good idea.
The controller isn't "altering flight rules." They're giving a clearance. I believe IFR arrivals get higher priority than SVFR, so it's not going to affect any other aircraft, the SVFR requestor is going to have to wait for a time period when there isn't any IFR traffic. BTDT.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ok. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I still maintain that Will was not looking for ‘loopholes’ but wanted to comply with the published TPA, be it regulatory or not.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Just curious if you all arguing about being 500 feet below the clouds maintain the 2000 feet horizontal at all times without asking for SVFR? That’s pretty significant distance to be always from the clouds.
So, I was wrong about the controller being the decision point. Someone posted a reference making it clear that it's 100% on the pilot.
That said, the controller is altering the flight rules. They are to give IFR priority, but it seems like it's also true that once they've given the SVFR to the first pilot, they will have to delay the IFR traffic. So, if the controller knows about both, the IFR gets priority. But if the SVFR is already in effect, they are going to have no choice but to deconflict the IFR traffic with a delay.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
7−5−2. PRIORITY
a. SVFR flights may be approved only if arriving and departing IFR aircraft are not delayed.
EXAMPLE−
1. A SVFR aircraft has been cleared to enter a Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E surface area and subsequently an IFR
aircraft is ready to depart or is in position to begin an approach. Less overall delay might accrue to the IFR aircraft if the
SVFR aircraft is allowed to proceed to the airport and land, rather than leave, a Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E
surface area or be repositioned to provide IFR priority.
2. A SVFR aircraft is number one for takeoff and located in such a position that the number two aircraft, an IFR flight, cannot
taxi past to gain access to the runway. Less overall delay might accrue to the IFR aircraft by releasing the SVFR departure
rather than by having the aircraft taxi down the runway to a turnoff point so the IFR aircraft could be released first.
NOTE−
The priority afforded IFR aircraft over SVFR aircraft is not intended to be so rigidly applied that inefficient use of airspace
results. The controller has the prerogative of permitting completion of a SVFR operation already in progress when an IFR
aircraft becomes a factor if better overall efficiency will result.
b. Inform an aircraft of the anticipated delay when a SVFR clearance cannot be granted because of IFR traffic.
Do not issue an EFC or expected departure time.
PHRASEOLOGY−
EXPECT (number) MINUTES DELAY, (additional instructions as necessary).
Thanks. Yes, exactly this.
That picture is what I'm talking about as well. I agree that 50 feet would be too low for safe maneuvering, but the ceiling in the photo doesn't look that low to me. It's hard to judge without actually being there, but at some point before reaching the edge of the cloud deck, if it looks like it will be too low, then the pilot can abort the approach.
I've long given up expecting people using "loophole" to mean an ambiguity which allows a rule to be evaded (it's definition) instead of something a rule intends but they disagree with.
Maybe. SVFR time is pretty short. Some Class E surface areas have longer extensions but we're typically talking about at most a 5 NM radius around the center of the runways. What, about 8 minutes max including flying a circling pattern to a runway opposite their entry point? ATC tends to be pretty good at that kind of sequencing - it’s their main job - so I'm not horribly worried about the few times a SVFR might get themself into enough trouble to delay an IFR arrival or departure.
Last edited:
Lindberg
Final Approach
So which do you think it is when a pilot requests SVFR clearance if he can safely maintain VFR cloud clearances but doesn't want to? Is that what the rule intends, or is it an ambiguity that allows 91.155 to be evaded?
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,838
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
What part of the language in 91.157 do you think is either ambiguous or clearly against what the OP sought to do? From what I quoted above, I think it unambiguously allows the OP’s scenario. But I’m just one guy reading part of the rule and I’m here to learn, so I’m hoping to hear more about your point of view on what the regulation means.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
What difference does it make?
It’s intended to avoid the cloud clearance and visibility restrictions of VFR. I may or may not agree on whether it is necessary in a particular case, but that’s irrelevant to the pilot’s decision to use it because they feel they need it.
I’ve seen those kinds of days when the temperature/dewpoint spread results in clouds forming/unforming/forming again within seconds. I’m not going to second-guess the pilot’s decision to ask for it.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Very intuitive on your part without having already seen ‘the rule.’ You nailed it.
John Collins
En-Route
This is from 7110.65: