4 questions I am stumped on.

[Skip Miller]

On the SVFR question, one point of having SVFR available is for when a VFR option is either not available or beyond fuel range; and that can happen to a student pilot perhaps more easily than a non-student.

Dwight, I appreciate your point but I don't think it is more likely for a student than a certificated pilot. Hell, maybe I was just different - some say I still am! but my student go-no go decisions related to weather were far more conservative than was necessary. I can see that, now that I have more experience.

Solo takeoff and the weather changes before you get back. My Flight Examiner for Private Pilot asked that specific question. You are up over Lake Washington (Seattle area) with weather closing in, cieling under 1000, vis under 3 miles, and everywhere you look it seems worse. What do you do?

My instructor gave me this one: We were aloft, returning to the airport as a line of snow squalls came through the area. CFI was flipping the dials on the radio and we heard one airport after another go IFR as the squalls came through. He said: "OK, I just had a fatal heart attack. What are you going to do?" I wanted to divert to KISP, a class C still in the clear and well downwind of the squalls. He kept probing for the SVFR option. D'oh! So we requested and were cleared SVFR back at the home drome. One mile vis on final? NFW! CFI admitted that ISP would have been a better option as the vis really imploded.

The only difference is a student pilot may need to declare an emergency in this situation.

A good option for anyone over their head. By the way, I was surprised to hear the various towers virtually begging the pilots to request SVFR but most were as clueless as this student pilot was. I don't think SVFR is well understood. Prolly 'cause it is not used that often.

-Skip

 

[etsisk]

Ron,
If it says "placards, markings and manuals" are you saying that means that the information must be present in ALL three media? If so, that would mean that it should be there three times: posted in placards, marked and printed in manuals. That just doesn't really scan for me (which hardly means anything - don't understand half of what the hell those people are doing with their regulations). I guess I would have read that to mean it must be present in one of those forms.

 

[Skip Miller]

Ron,
If it says "placards, markings and manuals" are you saying that means that the information must be present in ALL three media?

I think you are on to something. In the PA-28 AFM it is listed under required placards, so it needs to be there twice: AFM and placard. If it is not listed as a required placard I think having the book along would do.

But... I am not a FAR guru

-Skip

 

[poadeleted20]

For JD - sorry, pal, them's the rules. Probably your buddy in the placard-making business is behind it -- hired a lobbyist and made his business regulatorily required.

On the upholstery issue, read Greg Amy's article posted over on the interior replacement thread -- you'll find it's easier than it might first appear.

As for Ed's question, whatever's required by the TCDS and the AFM is what's required. That means having the AFM in the plane for any plane with an AFM, and having whatever placards or markings are required by either the TCDS and/or AFM. Usually it's one or the other -- markings on instruments like the airspeed indicator or oil pressure gauge, but placards for stuff like g-limits and permitted maneuvers. In some cases, information in the AFM is also placarded/marked, (e.g., Vne listed in the AFM and marked as the red line on the airspeed indicator), but not not everything in the AFM has to be placarded/marked. See the "Limitations" section of a standardized AFM for what placards/markings must be there, but it may be anywhere in a pre-1979 nonstandardized AFM.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

I'd probably want to beat hell out of the instructor for taking such chances with iffy weather for a student XC solo.

Yep, in the real world you have to deal with those things. But in the student world, you should crawl, walk, run, sprint, marathon in a somewhat linear order. Sending a student out on the long solo XC with questionable weather able to close in that quickly is crap. Unfortunately, I know outhouse-quality instructors who've done it and more than once. I'm sure most of us do.

I'd much rather have a student learning the essentials of pilotage and airmanship in order to build confidence by getting from point A to point B to point C and then back to point A than worrying about the possibility of them having to declare an emergency because of weather. They already have enough going on during that first long solo.

Regards.

-JD

I may have had an unusual situation for student solo flying. The plane was not at the flight school airport, and was available to me anytime once I was signed off for solo within 50 NM. I reported the Hobbs hours by phone after the flight to the flight school, for billing. I am in the Pacific Northwest, where the winter weather is a problem for VFR flying a lot of the time, and I was a student in the winter. We spent a lot of time on weather in the ground school, and went though emergency procedures as required. I had CSC DUATS, and the Weather Brief: but bottom line I flew when I felt I could stay VFR. So, if I went up and the weather went bad on me, it was not my instructor who screwed up. It was me.

As for approval of the XC plan, he reviewed my navigation log and weather brief before I went very far. That was a little unusual too. My first leg was to the flight school airport (within 50 NM) where he reviewed and signed off. Then I went off to the more distant airports, and called in to report I was ok on the ground at each stop and when I got back to my airport.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

A good option for anyone over their head. By the way, I was surprised to hear the various towers virtually begging the pilots to request SVFR but most were as clueless as this student pilot was. I don't think SVFR is well understood. Prolly 'cause it is not used that often. -Skip

I don't think they are supposed to offer SVFR as an option. You are supposed to ask for it, which indicates you are accepting some responsibility for the decision and are indicating you believe you are able to get to the runway clear of clouds. As for not being used often, I guess that is a good thing. Nice to have the option though.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's not always true --

Sure it's true.

Like many other "acting as PIC" rules, the one for student pilots is also covered in 61.31, in this case 61.31(d)(3),

I don't think that suggested that the 61.31(d)(3) endorsement was =only= for student pilots.

==============================
received training required by this part that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received the required endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft.
==============================

covers a bunch of situations in which a person is given solo privileges in an aircraft he or she is not rated for. Student solo is just one of them.

 

[cwyckham]

... but bottom line I flew when I felt I could stay VFR. So, if I went up and the weather went bad on me, it was not my instructor who screwed up. It was me.

Your instructor gave a student the abillity to make go / no go decisions independently in a difficult climate without his or her input. If that meant that you got in trouble, it is absolutely your instructor that screwed up.

Chris

 

[Skip Miller]

I don't think they are supposed to offer SVFR as an option.

You are correct, the pilot must ask for it. But when you hear this:

[twr] All traffic, be advised Kxxx is now IMC. Cherokee xxxx, state your intentions.

[Nxxxx] Um... er... can I get in for landing VFR?

[twr] Negative, Kxxx is now IMC.

[Nxxxx] Umm, I guess we need to divert somewhere (fumbles for sectional)

[twr] Is there something special you would like to request?

[Nxxxx] Umm err no, we'll head for VMC.

They are doing their best to jog the pilot's memory. But the pilot I heard that day was pretty clueless.

Nice to have the option though.

Amen!

-Skip

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Your instructor gave a student the abillity to make go / no go decisions independently in a difficult climate without his or her input. If that meant that you got in trouble, it is absolutely your instructor that screwed up.Chris

Well, ok. He screwed up if he gave me that authority without sufficient training to be sure I would not abuse it. That is not what happened. I guess I am saying that from student to licensed is one flight with a Flight Examiner. And after that flight no one checks anything. A student needs to progress to the point that he is making these decisions, and the instructor is the judge of when the student is capable of independant decison making. He adjusts the solo endorsement limitations as the capability and experience of the student progresses. Late in training, the student ought to get close to the authority he will have after the flight review with the examiner. The alternative is a pilot with a license who has not shown he can think for himself.

 

[CowboyPilot]

So, if I went up and the weather went bad on me, it was not my instructor who screwed up. It was me.

With all due respect, if you went up within your 50nm radius and got caught in weather bad enough to force you into a SVFR situation, BOTH you AND your instructor have issues.

There is zero excuse for being that close to home base doing practice maneuvers and getting caught in weather bad enough to genuinely need a SVFR to land. None.

If it's that iffy, then the "go/no-go" decision should be for any student, "no-go." And I'm not sure what order a traditional syllabus follows for a basic PPL these days, but if you're allowed to solo without first logging hood time, then the decision of an instructor to allow a student to do unsupervised solos with the possibility of iffy weather or weather that might require a SVFR is just flat out insane.

-JD

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not sure what order a traditional syllabus follows for a basic PPL these days, but if you're allowed to solo without first logging hood time, then the decision of an instructor to allow a student to do unsupervised solos with the possibility of iffy weather or weather that might require a SVFR is just flat out insane.

I tend to think that the average syllabus these days has the hood time "anywhere before the checkride."

Personally, by the time I soloed, I'd flown my first ILS in actual IMC. Not all the way to mins, but down to about 700 AGL.

 

[gismo]

With all due respect, if you went up within your 50nm radius and got caught in weather bad enough to force you into a SVFR situation, BOTH you AND your instructor have issues.

There is zero excuse for being that close to home base doing practice maneuvers and getting caught in weather bad enough to genuinely need a SVFR to land. None.

If it's that iffy, then the "go/no-go" decision should be for any student, "no-go." And I'm not sure what order a traditional syllabus follows for a basic PPL these days, but if you're allowed to solo without first logging hood time, then the decision of an instructor to allow a student to do unsupervised solos with the possibility of iffy weather or weather that might require a SVFR is just flat out insane.

-JD

As a student I was flying "circuts and bumps" in a 152 at my towered home base and was on downwind when the field went IFR. The tower made that announcement and then asked me what my "intentions" were. For a moment I was afraid that meant I would have to fly to some other (hopefully VMC) airport in order to land, but the controller must have figured out my inexperience from the long pause (plus he'd probably already figured that out from the quality of my landings) and he resolved my dillema by clearing me to "land on any runway". I don't remember if I had the foresight to remain close because of the weather, or if it was just dumb luck. I do remember being surprised that the field could go IFR without me expecting it.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

With all due respect, if you went up within your 50nm radius and got caught in weather bad enough to force you into a SVFR situation, BOTH you AND your instructor have issues.

There is zero excuse for being that close to home base doing practice maneuvers and getting caught in weather bad enough to genuinely need a SVFR to land. None.

If it's that iffy, then the "go/no-go" decision should be for any student, "no-go." And I'm not sure what order a traditional syllabus follows for a basic PPL these days, but if you're allowed to solo without first logging hood time, then the decision of an instructor to allow a student to do unsupervised solos with the possibility of iffy weather or weather that might require a SVFR is just flat out insane. -JD

I hate posts that begin, "with all due respect". I think you need to go back to the original post. IT NEVER HAPPENED. This all came up in discussion of SVFR and why it is available. I reported that my Flight Examiner proposed a hypothetical situation in my private pilot oral that ought to result in an SVFR solution. And we were talking about more hypothetical situations where a student pilot could get caught on a solo with a weather change. It didn't happen to me because I was careful and because my instuctor DID give me adequate training before I was given limited go/no go authority for my solo flights. How hood time got into the discussion is a mystery to me.

If it makes you calm down a little I will agree with you that, as a student, if it HAD been necessary for me to declare an emergency and request an SVFR approach to get out of a weather situation, I would expect that both my instuctor and I would probably be answering some questions about my training, weather briefing, and solo endorsement limitations. If not a required report, then to the flight school to explain why their plane ended up at the wrong airport. I would even agree with you that getting into IMC while staying within 50 NM if your home airport would take some serious inattention to the weather to not see a change from VMC to IMC happening practically under your nose (sorry Lance), but we are talking about a student pilot here, so without a lot of experience to draw on. Although, occasionally experienced pilots get caught in awkward situations. I know someone with well over 20 years flying who had to land on a highway when it happened to him. My whole point was that if (hypothetically again) a student pilot had gone up without an adequate weather brief, or if the weather change was not anticipated in the weather brief, and if the student pilot got caught in this hypothetical weather change, then an SVFR solution - even for a student pilot - ought to be considered one more instance of using all available resources in an emergency. Not saying some questions should not be asked about how the student got up in the situation, just that SVFR is better than circling until you run out of fuel. And in that case it would not be, "just flat out insane." I would not agree that just the fact that a student pilot needed SVFR to get down is, by itself, evidence the instructor screwed up. Lance again.

If your point is no student should be given authority for a go/no go decision under any circumstances, I guess you are welcome to that opinion. If you grant that at some point a student may be given some freedom to make his own decisons within his solo endorsement limitations, then you also have to grant that sometimes they may get into trouble and need to use some of that emergency situation training we all go through. On any solo a student could have a mechanical failure (or perhaps forget to switch tanks?) and have to land it in a field. The instructor is responsible to teach what to do when bad things happen. SVFR is just one more tool. Not that the instructor wants the student up in IMC, any more than he wants the engine to quit. Lighten up. It was all hypothetical.

 

[Henning]

3. "The Maximum crosswinds component specified by your instructor for solo takeoffs and landings?"

Well my instructor (neither one of them) gave me a maximum crosswinds component, so am I susspose to go with the factory recommendation? I know it's in the POH.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Depends on the plane, and no, it isn't in the POH. That's a certification number which isn't a max, but a reasonably safe number to go by if you have no prior experience in that type. I use it as a heads up to expect things to get interesting. When you can't hold the plane aligned with the runway and the rudder is on the floor, it's more than a student should deal with. If you fly a PA-28 series, that's about 25 kts. True max really goes beyond that in both directions depending on pilot skill and runway bwidth as well as gust factor and gear strength.

 

[Skip Miller]

Depends on the plane, and no, it isn't in the POH

Well, the maximum demonstrated crosswind component is in the POH for the PA-28-181 Archer II. That means that the factory test pilots have landed with that much crosswind safely, and that is all the manufacturer (and/or their attorneys) will admit to. If you meant that they don't publish the true maximum, you are right

If you fly a PA-28 series, that's about 25 kts. True max really goes beyond that in both directions depending on pilot skill and runway bwidth as well as gust factor and gear strength.

All true except the number in the POH is 17 knots x-wind component.

-Skip

 

[Henning]

If you ARE somehow caught in rapidly deteriorating conditions as a student, first thing you should do if you've already impregnated the pooch is declare an emergency and begin exercising your emergency authority to land at the safest, suitable airport you can. Never, ever let your ego convince you that you can do something your training and abilities have not proved you can do. Call up whatever freq you're on and square up with them--they'll damned sure help you out.

Regards.

-JD

To add to that, since you'de declared, you might as well ask for a PAR approach as well. It's nice to have someone tell you when tou are starting to lose it and give you a correction.

 

[Chache]

Yea, but how soon? I'm on a second instructor, I left the first one for various of reasons, one of them being I didn't feel like he was going to solo me.

Bigger questions are "Why did you feel he wasn't going to solo you?" ...
and what were the other "various" reasons?

(Rhetorical Question) Did you do anything to give him the impression you weren't ready?
This is difficult, if not impossible, for a student to answer, simply because the student, has no frame of reference, as to what (in particular) the Instructor is looking for.

Further, the "SOLO" is currently viewed by some, as some badge of honor.
When you do it, you'll probably look at it as ....
{ OK I solo'd... Big deal. What's next?}
When you move on, you'll see that it is just another step in your training, just like doing stalls.
But you never hear anyone saying "When will the Instr let me do stalls?", or "climbing turns", or "turns around a point", or recovery from "unusual attitudes"...

My solo, happened after having 5 previous Instr's., [They were instructing to build time, and went on to regional jet jockey jobs.] and it took 10 months to accomplish, at one hour/week, weather/wind permitting.
When I did it.... it was very anticlimactic. I had been doing the same exact thing for months, except there was always someone else aboard.

Doing it alone was not really any different, except that the plane lifted off a little sooner...etcetera.

My advice to you, is try not to fixate on when you solo, rather, think about how well you are doing.
By that, I mean, downwind position, descending turns at slow speed, a stabilized approach, glide angle, airspeed, centerline tracking, being consistant with every approach.

When you can do these things consistantly, you won't even be thinking of soloing... You'll have already done it, because you, were ready...

Good luck flying!

 

[midlifeflyer]

And I'm not sure what order a traditional syllabus follows for a basic PPL these days, but if you're allowed to solo without first logging hood time,

The FAA puts it in the pre-cross country solo requirements, but most "traditional" syllabi have it before solo. I've heard both the potential for getting caught on even a local solo flight and the "integrated teaching" model cited as reasons.

BTW, on the "due respect" front, something like "getting caught" did happen a few years ago in the Denver area, the land of 50 mile visibilities on a bad day and where 10 mile visibility is reason for filing IFR by the locals . The Hayman forest fire started and the combination of high wind and high smoke brought rapidly brought visibilities the the area of KAPA into the 3-4 NM range (perhaps a liberal interpretation). Perhaps a highly unusual situation, and perhaps not quite low enough to require SVFR (although I heard that some folks asked for it) but it does fit into the "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" category.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

As a student I was flying "circuts and bumps" in a 152 at my towered home base and was on downwind when the field went IFR. The tower made that announcement and then asked me what my "intentions" were. For a moment I was afraid that meant I would have to fly to some other (hopefully VMC) airport in order to land, but the controller must have figured out my inexperience from the long pause (plus he'd probably already figured that out from the quality of my landings) and he resolved my dillema by clearing me to "land on any runway". I don't remember if I had the foresight to remain close because of the weather, or if it was just dumb luck. I do remember being surprised that the field could go IFR without me expecting it.

As a student working the pattern, this is not so hard to understand. I remember the first several flights after the solo endorsement, and flying a lot of pattern work. A few days I did nothing but T&G's and stop and go's for about 2+ hours and 20+ curcuits. I was concentrating on RPM, speed, climb/descent rate, other traffic, radio procedure, before landing checklist, before takeoff abreviated checklist, altitude, runway heading, crosswind, flap position, centerline, etc. etc. If the airport pattern altitude was 800 AGL as some still are, I could see how a student could start out with a cieling of 3000+ and over 2 hours not notice the cieling drop to 1000 because they would never get into the clouds and their attention is from the pattern to the ground. Overhead could be overcast the whole time. Still qualifies as inattention to the weather, but then I understand the most common cause of aircraft accidents is continued VFR flight into IMC, so it is not like this is just a student pilot issue.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

To add to that, since you'de declared, you might as well ask for a PAR approach as well. It's nice to have someone tell you when tou are starting to lose it and give you a correction.

You can also get vectors from a nearby approach controller to some other distination that is reported in the clear, without getting into their airspace or using their published PAR. In that situation you are essentially flying on instuments without an instrument rating, so some hood time as a student would certainly help, and getting out of the soup ASAP would be a priority. Again, some questions are likely to be asked, but that comes later when you are safe on the ground.

 

[CowboyPilot]

I hate posts that begin, "with all due respect". I think you need to go back to the original post. IT NEVER HAPPENED. This all came up in discussion of SVFR and why it is available. I reported that my Flight Examiner proposed a hypothetical situation in my private pilot oral that ought to result in an SVFR solution. And we were talking about more hypothetical situations where a student pilot could get caught on a solo with a weather change. It didn't happen to me because I was careful and because my instuctor DID give me adequate training before I was given limited go/no go authority for my solo flights. How hood time got into the discussion is a mystery to me.

'Bout like I hate hypothetical student scenarios that poke and prod for loopholes in the rules that are designed for safety--such as not flying into weather and needing a SVFR when you are doing pattern work.

Hood time came into the discussion because I'm a firm believer that no student should be allowed away from the runway solo without several hours of hood time. That's just me and probably only me and a small handful of others.

If conditions change as rapidly as some have indicated, then that few hours of hood time is/can be critical.

Forest fires and brush fires. . . we had 'em bad down here this past spring and summer. In my log book for '06, I have notations where I called FSS Flight Watch over 20 times to report ground fires while flying XC to the west/northwest of the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

But, the fires were also part of the briefing I got from FSS and advised that smoke could/would/might cause decreased visibility. Calling in for PIREPS confirmed that. Far too few of today's pilots utilize FSS briefings or Flight Watch PIREPs. In over 30 years of flying, I utilize them every chance I can--they're free, they're quick and they're often useful for confirming conditions along your route in order to avoid turbulence or icing or smoke, etc.

The concept of SVFR worries the hell out of me. For student pilots or extreme lowtime pilots, it SCARES the hell out of me. It exists for the direst of circumstances and most controllers I know consider SVFR as a device a pilot can use to "exercise their emergency authority."

Probably making too much out of it, but it's too easy for young pilots to log onto the internet and read that such things "aren't any big deal" when the reality is otherwise.

SVFR is definitely a tool that a pilot needs to have, know how to use, and then do everything possible in their power to avoid having to use.

On that, I bet we agre.

Regards.

-JD

 

[Henning]

The concept of SVFR worries the hell out of me. For student pilots or extreme lowtime pilots, it SCARES the hell out of me. It exists for the direst of circumstances and most controllers I know consider SVFR as a device a pilot can use to "exercise their emergency authority."

Probably making too much out of it, but it's too easy for young pilots to log onto the internet and read that such things "aren't any big deal" when the reality is otherwise.

SVFR is definitely a tool that a pilot needs to have, know how to use, and then do everything possible in their power to avoid having to use.

On that, I bet we agre.

Regards.

-JD

Out in Long Beach, I'd use SVFR reasonably frequently prior to my IR. There would be a 50-100' layer of ground fog that would have less than three miles vis, but plenty to completely safely allow for T/Os and landings. As the name says, it's "special".

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Out in Long Beach, I'd use SVFR reasonably frequently prior to my IR. There would be a 50-100' layer of ground fog that would have less than three miles vis, but plenty to completely safely allow for T/Os and landings. As the name says, it's "special".

I agree. I am also aware of the LA area weather conditions that would severely and unreasonably limit VFR flying if SVFR were not available to get in and out of airports with a low haze in otherwise fine flying weather. I am not sure what the Cowboy is so worried about with SVFR. The SVFR visability requirements are the same as for flight in and out of airports in Class G airspace in daylight, and they are going to be uncontrolled by definition. One mile, Clear of Clouds. At least with SVFR you are going into a controlled environment with someone helping you (meaning the pilot is still primary) maintain separation. It is not like you are making a blind IFR approach without training. You can see the runway environment since pattern altitude is way less than a mile. The hazard, if you want to look for one, is aircraft separation in a more crowded pattern environment, but that is what an approach controller does for a living. Pay attention, be alert to what the other traffic is doing, and follow instructions. How many SVFR incidents or accidents are reported? More than either VFR or IFR? I doubt it.

The comfort with using it may have something to do with where you are and what weather is common. Pilots and controllers that do not deal with it much are likely to be less happy about having to do it. Where it happens a lot, controllers approve SVFR as part of the normal routine. It is part of the approved flight rules for both takeoff and landing. Not just for use under the PIC "emergency authority".

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

'Bout like I hate hypothetical student scenarios that poke and prod for loopholes in the rules that are designed for safety--such as not flying into weather and needing a SVFR when you are doing pattern work.

Well, that was not what I was doing. The Flight Examiner wanted me to respond with an SVFR solution. Not a loophole in the rules. It is the rule.

Hood time came into the discussion because I'm a firm believer that no student should be allowed away from the runway solo without several hours of hood time. That's just me and probably only me and a small handful of others.

The FAA requires a total of 3 hours sim instrument flying for Private Pilot. Must be less for Sport or Recreational.

If conditions change as rapidly as some have indicated, then that few hours of hood time is/can be critical.

Forest fires and brush fires. . . we had 'em bad down here this past spring and summer. In my log book for '06, I have notations where I called FSS Flight Watch over 20 times to report ground fires while flying XC to the west/northwest of the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

But, the fires were also part of the briefing I got from FSS and advised that smoke could/would/might cause decreased visibility. Calling in for PIREPS confirmed that. Far too few of today's pilots utilize FSS briefings or Flight Watch PIREPs. In over 30 years of flying, I utilize them every chance I can--they're free, they're quick and they're often useful for confirming conditions along your route in order to avoid turbulence or icing or smoke, etc.

The concept of SVFR worries the hell out of me. For student pilots or extreme lowtime pilots, it SCARES the hell out of me. It exists for the direst of circumstances and most controllers I know consider SVFR as a device a pilot can use to "exercise their emergency authority."

On this we just don't agree at all. It is safe enough to be routinely used for both solving an unexpected problem in the air, as well as an expected haze problem for both landing and takeoff. If you can takeoff under SVFR, how is that, "for the direst of circumstances?"

Probably making too much out of it, but it's too easy for young pilots to log onto the internet and read that such things "aren't any big deal" when the reality is otherwise.

SVFR is definitely a tool that a pilot needs to have, know how to use, and then do everything possible in their power to avoid having to use.

On that, I bet we agre.

For the student pilot, yes. For a Private Pilot or above, I guess not.

Regards.

-JD

Not sure if the system will allow what I just did. We will see.

 

[CowboyPilot]

The concept of SVFR worries the hell out of me. For student pilots or extreme lowtime pilots, it SCARES the hell out of me. It exists for the direst of circumstances and most controllers I know consider SVFR as a device a pilot can use to "exercise their emergency authority."

On this we just don't agree at all. It is safe enough to be routinely used for both solving an unexpected problem in the air, as well as an expected haze problem for both landing and takeoff. If you can takeoff under SVFR, how is that, "for the direst of circumstances?"

Probably making too much out of it, but it's too easy for young pilots to log onto the internet and read that such things "aren't any big deal" when the reality is otherwise.

SVFR is definitely a tool that a pilot needs to have, know how to use, and then do everything possible in their power to avoid having to use.

On that, I bet we agree.

For the student pilot, yes. For a Private Pilot or above, I guess not.

*Sigh*

-JD

 

[cherokeeflyboy]

*Sigh*

-JD

You can lead a horse to water.................

 

[poadeleted20]

In almost 40 years of flying, I've used SVFR on about two (maybe three) occasions. I suspect it's because I haven't found more than that many situations in which I thought it was a good idea, and I can't remember ever using it to to get in somewhere when the weather was crappy and I was "caught out." The one particular instance I remember was a day with a 900-foot overcast that extended to about five miles from the airport in the direction I was going, with 10+ vis below and CAVU weather beyond that point. I used an SVFR clearance to get out of the pattern and into the good VMC weather. That's my idea of the utility of SVFR.

 

[cherokeeflyboy]

I have come into this a little late, so I might have missed something.
In regards to Student pilots requesting SVFR..I dont think is it
legal.
Here is what I base that on:

§ 61.89 General limitations.
top

(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:

(1) That is carrying a passenger;

(2) That is carrying property for compensation or hire;

(3) For compensation or hire;

(4) In furtherance of a business;

(5) On an international flight, except that a student pilot may make solo training flights from Haines, Gustavus, or Juneau, Alaska, to White Horse, Yukon, Canada, and return over the province of British Columbia;

(6) With a flight or surface visibility of less than 3 statute miles during daylight hours or 5 statute miles at night;

(7) When the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the surface; or

(8) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook by an authorized instructor.

(b) A student pilot may not act as a required pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or regulations under which the flight is conducted, except when receiving flight training from an authorized instructor on board an airship, and no person other than a required flight crewmember is carried on the aircraft.

(c) A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate must comply with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and may not act as pilot in command—

(1) Of an aircraft other than a light-sport aircraft;

(2) At night;

(3) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL; and

(4) In Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower without having received the ground and flight training specified in §61.94 and an endorsement from an authorized instructor.

[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61–110, 69 FR 44867, July 2

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have come into this a little late, so I might have missed something.
In regards to Student pilots requesting SVFR..I dont think is it
legal.
Here is what I base that on:

§ 61.89 General limitations.
top

(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:

(6) With a flight or surface visibility of less than 3 statute miles during daylight hours or 5 statute miles at night;

You're right about the reg. But it still doesn't make SVFR for a student pilot illegal.

Below weather minimums for VFR has two components, visibility and cloud clearance. So, for example, an airport within the "lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport" (other than for Class B requires 3 miles visibility and a 1000' ceiling. A 900' ceiling and 100 miles visibility is below VFR minimums (that would require SVFR for entry or exit) but not a violation of 61.89.

(Note that this is on the "legal technicality" side, not the "what is safe or smart" side of the discussion. So long as they are never confused, there is a place for both.)

 

[midlifeflyer]

For the student pilot, yes. For a Private Pilot or above, I guess not.

Hmm, given the number of VFR flight into IMC accidents by "experienced" pilots, perhaps you want to reconsider that?.

I'm not sure that the 1000 hour private pilot who hasn't done substantial hood work since his checkride is in beter shape than the 55 hour student pilot doing sessions with his CFI to fine tune those minimal instrument skills for the checkride.

 

[nosehair]

There is zero excuse for being that close to home base doing practice maneuvers and getting caught in weather bad enough to genuinely need a SVFR to land. None.

I think that one the the reasons why students - and new private pilots - don't immediately go for SVFR in worsening wx conditions is because of statements like the above quote.

"Man, if I call for SVFR, I've alredy done somthing WRONG!"...what should I do??

What there is zero excuse for is to NOT train every student for the inevitable day when weather does something totally unexpected, unforcast, and by all meteorlogical science, practically impossible.

It's weather, Man, it changes. If you think you can always predict what it will do...you havn't been flying long enough...yet.

 

[CowboyPilot]

I think that one the the reasons why students - and new private pilots - don't immediately go for SVFR in worsening wx conditions is because of statements like the above quote.

"Man, if I call for SVFR, I've alredy done somthing WRONG!"...what should I do??

What there is zero excuse for is to NOT train every student for the inevitable day when weather does something totally unexpected, unforcast, and by all meteorlogical science, practically impossible.

It's weather, Man, it changes. If you think you can always predict what it will do...you havn't been flying long enough...yet.

Sounds like you think that learning ends after the checkride. . .

A student goes up in to the practice area to learn basic maneuver--flight into IMC not being one of them.

A HUGE part of being a student pilot is habit-patterning, and the number one habit a student needs to learn is the "go/no-go" decision. Weather is a significant factor in that decision. If the weather is that close or that threatening that SVFR becomes a possibility simply to get your training aircraft back home with it and you in one piece, then the decision should be "no-go." Period.

If someone wants to intentionally push their limits beyond a reasonable safety margin, let them do it on THEIR ticket and in THEIR airplane while solo.

Plenty of time after the checkride to get a safety pilot and do a lot more hood work and weather study.

And if you do get caught in worsening weather, then chances are good that you did do something wrong. Especially in the practice area or near your homefield. You pushed on when you shouldn't have. The NTSB reports are full of such incicdents. Most ended tragically. Helluva price to pay.

Regards.

-JD

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

A student goes up in to the practice area to learn basic maneuver--flight into IMC not being one of them.


-JD

With all due respect, I think that the routine pre-PPL hood work required by the FAA is for exactly that, among other things such as flight in SVFR, which is often only a hair's width away from full IMC.

I never thought much of letting pilots solo at all until virtually all airwork type requirements including hood and night flight had been well experienced, if not fully fulfilled, which is even better.

Once they have the minimum practical flight and environmental experience and exhibit educated judgement in all categories of flight decision-making and have soloed, they are the pilot and PIC, no matter what regulatory name is applied to them. Things may happen and some pilots that don't want to end up flying in IMC.

Although I would not pre-approve such a student IMC flight, I want all flight students to have at least the minimum skills to be able to survive that surprise IMC flight long enough to get bitched out when they get on the ground for what at that point, will be an unfavorable historical go/no go decision on their part in 99.9% of the times.

That is why they get hood time early, and in small, unexpected doses throughout their entire flight training from me.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

That's a well stated summary on the soloing issue.

Bigger questions are "Why did you feel he wasn't going to solo you?" ...
and what were the other "various" reasons?

(Rhetorical Question) Did you do anything to give him the impression you weren't ready?
This is difficult, if not impossible, for a student to answer, simply because the student, has no frame of reference, as to what (in particular) the Instructor is looking for.

Further, the "SOLO" is currently viewed by some, as some badge of honor.
When you do it, you'll probably look at it as ....
{ OK I solo'd... Big deal. What's next?}
When you move on, you'll see that it is just another step in your training, just like doing stalls.
But you never hear anyone saying "When will the Instr let me do stalls?", or "climbing turns", or "turns around a point", or recovery from "unusual attitudes"...

My solo, happened after having 5 previous Instr's., [They were instructing to build time, and went on to regional jet jockey jobs.] and it took 10 months to accomplish, at one hour/week, weather/wind permitting.
When I did it.... it was very anticlimactic. I had been doing the same exact thing for months, except there was always someone else aboard.

Doing it alone was not really any different, except that the plane lifted off a little sooner...etcetera.

My advice to you, is try not to fixate on when you solo, rather, think about how well you are doing.
By that, I mean, downwind position, descending turns at slow speed, a stabilized approach, glide angle, airspeed, centerline tracking, being consistant with every approach.

When you can do these things consistantly, you won't even be thinking of soloing... You'll have already done it, because you, were ready...

Good luck flying!

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

I have come into this a little late, so I might have missed something.
In regards to Student pilots requesting SVFR..I dont think is it
legal.

Right. You missed something. This started when we were talking about a Flight Examiner question for Private Pilot, and the correct response was to ask for SVFR. I commented that if the same thing happened as a student I would do the same thing (rather than fly around until I ran out of fuel) but as a student would need to declare an Emergency and do it under the PIC emergency authority. Just for clarity, if the student had to declare an emergency it would probably not be considered SVFR at all, even if SVFR minimums were met, since SVFR does not usually apply to a student as you indicated. As a solution to a declared emergency it would be legal for a student to land using SVFR minimums, and some questions would be asked. Even flying a IFR approach as a student could be the safest (and legal) solution to a weather emergency, if the situation really deteriorated fast. In a declared emergency, getting down safe is the priority; and explaining yourself comes later, and could result in consequences like a license suspension or worse in some situations. A guy I know told me he had his license suspended for a year after running his plane out of fuel, even though he got back to the airport and landed safely. It would NOT be legal for a student to intentionally take off expecting to get back using SVFR, or to takeoff using SVFR. Both the TO and Landing under SVFR would be legal for a licensed pilot as an intentional part of a planned flight in some marginal situations. The low LA haze is a good example of where it is done routinely. Not that it is optimum, it is Special after all, but it is part of the approved flight rules for a licensed pilot.

Again, the visability minimums for SVFR are the same as the day limits for G airspace, which is the airspace immediately over uncontrolled airports almost everywhere. Some of the comments here seem to consider SVFR equivalent to an IFR approach. It isn't. It is still a landing using visual references rather than instruments. Student pilots have more restrictions on what they can do than licensed pilots, and licensed pilots OUGHT TO HAVE their own personal flight limits based on their skill and experience that may not include a planned SVFR takeoff or landing. Minimums are not for everyone with a license.

The real dispute here seems to be some feeling that somehow a student should not be allowed to have a weather emergency. I agree with Cowboy, that a student needs to be cautious and should not be flying when the weather is iffy. But I am not willing to say a weather emergency should be impossible; because everyone makes mistakes (even weather forecasters) , and sometimes the weather changes unexpectedly, and students do not have a lot of experience. And I certainly do not agree that if a solo student had to declare an emergency and land using SVFR minimums to get down safe, that the instructor necessarilly screwed up. He may have, but you don't know until you investigate. Being worried that asking for help is already making you wrong, can keep a pilot (student or not) from the "confess" part of finding a good solution.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Hmm, given the number of VFR flight into IMC accidents by "experienced" pilots, perhaps you want to reconsider that?.

I'm not sure that the 1000 hour private pilot who hasn't done substantial hood work since his checkride is in beter shape than the 55 hour student pilot doing sessions with his CFI to fine tune those minimal instrument skills for the checkride.

SVFR is available, like any other approved flight minimum. Each pilot needs to establish their personal minimums based on experience and skill. Cowboy wants to make it for dire circumstances only. That is not the only use for SVFR, for a licensed pilot. And again, hood work is not the central issue. SVFR is still a visual approach and landing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That is not the only use for SVFR, for a licensed pilot. And again, hood work is not the central issue. SVFR is still a visual approach and landing.

...in weather conditions that are marginal at best, may have been unpredicted (not generally a good sign), and, even if they were known in advance, like a 1.2 NM marine haze, have a excellent chance of degrading into IFR very quickly (do they really go up to 3 SM at the edge of the segmented circle?).

If cowboy is being a little too conservative in his approach, yours sounds a bit too cavalier, perhaps unintentionally.

"It's no big deal; it's still visual" Sounds like a classic VFR into IMC scenario to me.

 

[poadeleted20]

Having sat in on a few PPL practical test orals, in every case when I've heard the SVFR question asked, the examiner wants to hear the applicant recite the rules and limitations on SVFR, and then say something to the effect that it's a very high risk operation and there aren't many situations in which the applicant can imagine using it. That satisfies both of the examiner's concerns -- whether the applicant knows the rules and whether the applicant has good judgement.

 

[bbchien]

*Sigh*

-JD

HEy. HEY! That's MY line (even though I agree 1000% with how it was used...)