Is Broken at 1300 considered VFR?

Even though the .65 talks of an IFR delay and the old saying of “one in and one out” that’s not necessarily the case. If ATC can provide the required sep (IFR v SVFR), then there might not be a delay.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about the jet low pass case? That was because there was no attempt to land.
 
Velocity173 said:
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).”
Click to expand...
This is pretty accurate for the SVFR clearance I received at my home airport. They asked I approach from the North and I set up for exactly that. But when I descended to 900 ft AGL and still had no real sight beyond the cloud layer and could see I would have to fly much lower, possibly close to 500 ft I wasn't comfortable doing that so I opted to divert to another field not too far away but with better weather according to the ATIS. There were still other options for me that were farther away, but I had plenty of fuel to attempt the approach if I could see the airport, go around (low crosswind and downwind departure if needed as the airport has farm fields to the south so no obstacles to speak of) and fly to another airport further away. Luckily the airport was visible enough that I felt like I could make a safe attempt at the landing on a 6,000 ft runway so there was plenty of room to get the plane safely on the ground as I fly a PA22 and can get on deck and stopped within 1,000 ft of touchdown easily. I can do shorter if needed.
 
Last edited:
mryan75 said:
Given the fact that you’re not instrument-rated, I would question that theory.
Click to expand...
A better way for me to say that was - in an emergency I could have considered this an option as I am comfortable flying RNAV approaches and have done many to this airport, but you are correct, I am not IFR rated, therefore cannot ask for a pop up IFR clearance.
 
172andyou said:
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.
Click to expand...
The only time they won't already know about IFR traffic is if there's a popup. And in either case, that isn't "altering the flight rules".
flyingron said:
Are we talking about the jet low pass case? That was because there was no attempt to land.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, because I'm not sure I'm familiar with that one?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The only time they won't already know about IFR traffic is if there's a popup. And in either case, that isn't "altering the flight rules".

I don't think so, because I'm not sure I'm familiar with that one?
Click to expand...
Some guy in a jet made a low pass over an airstrip. (This was before the Trevor Jacob nonsense). The claim was he had no intent to land and came within 500 feet of the people on the strip. I think the one I'm remembering was this one: https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5353.pdf
 
flyingron said:
Some guy in a jet made a low pass over an airstrip. (This was before the Trevor Jacob nonsense). The claim was he had no intent to land and came within 500 feet of the people on the strip. I think the one I'm remembering was this one: https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5353.pdf
Click to expand...

Dana said:
There was another one a few years ago involving, IIRC, a Beech 18.
Click to expand...
I think this is something where one could find any number of violations.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think this is something where one could find any number of violations.
Click to expand...
Oh, sure. Good thing the feds don't tend to hang around smaller fly-ins. But the Beech 18 on I remember was notable in that the pilot fought it instead of groveling and accepting his pennance.
Plano Pilot said:
They shouldn’t have made more than one pass.
Click to expand...
Buzzing or strafing, make one pass and get out.
 
Dana said:
Oh, sure. Good thing the feds don't tend to hang around smaller fly-ins. But the Beech 18 on I remember was notable in that the pilot fought it instead of groveling and accepting his pennance.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking most of the violations would be similar.
 
flyingron said:
Some guy in a jet made a low pass over an airstrip. (This was before the Trevor Jacob nonsense). The claim was he had no intent to land and came within 500 feet of the people on the strip. I think the one I'm remembering was this one: https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5353.pdf
Click to expand...
Ah, OK. Didn't know about that one.

There's a gray area with some of that stuff. I know that quite a few people have been violated for low passes, but I also know that when I learned to fly, some of the FAA materials suggested that when approaching an unfamiliar uncontrolled airport, that a low approach to check on runway conditions, scare away wildlife, etc. was appropriate.

I've done the "recon" approach, but I also do the "scare" approach more than rarely. Sometimes it's for critters I've seen, sometimes it's for critters the tower has told me about, sometimes it's because I'm approaching a runway that has no fence around it and there's no other traffic preceding me that would have scared anything away.

And I'm gonna continue to do the "scare" approach when warranted, because in doing so I have chased many forms of fauna off of the runway, including human children that I had not seen and would likely have killed had I not done the low approach first. (That was at Gaston's, FWIW.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top