Hindsight is 20/20....or maybe 1SM and clear of clouds

falconkidding said:
I'd still be fine with going, my anti authority attitude and all that :D . But could you not make the case your preflight duties were completed under 91.103. After all under that you technically don't have to get weather and if you cant listen to awos/atis/asos... lol
Click to expand...
Your certificate, you do what you want. 91.103 doesn't give you any excuses to violate 91.155.
 
So we've established that there are apparently 2 options (short of getting IR):

Option #1: call up clearance delivery for SVFR

Option #2: depart against regs with xpndr off and head to another uncontrolled VFR airport, touch and go turn on xpndr, then fly back to controlled airspace and act like nothing happened, lol.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So we've established that there are apparently 2 options (short of getting IR):

Option #1: call up clearance delivery for SVFR

Option #2: depart against regs with xpndr off and head to another uncontrolled VFR airport, touch and go turn on xpndr, then fly back to controlled airspace and act like nothing happened, lol.
Click to expand...
Option #3: depart and unless you kill someone on departure, nobody will ever know the difference.
 
MauleSkinner said:
91.157(c) for starters...and (d) specifically states that a pilot’s eye view doesn’t work for ground visibility.
Click to expand...
Actually, because of that 'or' after item number 1 (yeah, this thing is poorly written) once I determine that there is a mile of viz, I can fly.
Seriously, if the ASOS says 1/4 mile in mist, but you can see the end of a six thousand foot runway, you think I'm bound to sit on the ground if flying VFR?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Actually, because of that 'or' after item number 1 (yeah, this thing is poorly written) once I determine that there is a mile of viz, I can fly.
Seriously, if the ASOS says 1/4 mile in mist, but you can see the end of a six thousand foot runway, you think I'm bound to sit on the ground if flying VFR?
Click to expand...
You might actually read the reg...(c)(2) only applies if ground visibility is not reported. See the phrase immediately following the “or” you quoted.

what you do is up to you...what’s legal or not is clearly indicated in the reg.
 
Last edited:
This one seems fun. Going to resurrect the argument rather than hijack the hijack of the hijack of the Isabel Goyer thread.

The FAA actually wrote a legal opinion in 2012 on this exact scenario. TLDR: the FAA says pilot observations do not supersede official weather reports and thus FAR 91.155 is violated.

That would seem to close the case for takeoffs, since you are required to obtain all relevant information about a flight before departing. It also closes the case for IFR, since you are required to obtain a weather report prior to beginning an instrument approach.

But for VFR landings, there is an inherent discrepancy in the FAR. NORDO is legal in Class E airspace. Further, I am not aware of any FAR requiring a VFR pilot to obtain AWOS prior to landing. AFAIK, in the eyes of the FAA it is perfectly legal to overfly an uncontrolled airfield, look at the windsock, and land.

So, while clearly you would violate 91.155 by landing when reported conditions are below minimums, I do not see how it would be enforceable, given that you are under no obligation to obtain that report, and there is no way to prove you had it.
 
I think a lot of times people overlook the whole surfaced based airspace requirement of 91.155. Just the other day at work I was heading to a hospital (Cartersville) and while enroute, I get a call that my operations control specialist says KVPC just went to 500/1. Ok, whatever. I’m 20 miles out and can see Cartersville. The next call came 5 minutes later stating that they’re reporting now 9,500 ft and 10 miles vis and I was “allowed to continue.” I laughed to my med crew, I was continuing anyway. The hospital isn’t in surfaced based airspace. While I would use it for planning prior to flight, once I’m airborne it’s what I’m seeing. In this case, there was obviously something wrong with the sensor.
 
Ed Haywood said:
So, while clearly you would violate 91.155 by landing when reported conditions are below minimums, I do not see how it would be enforceable, given that you are under no obligation to obtain that report, and there is no way to prove you had it.
Click to expand...
The reg does not state that the reg is invalid if you don’t (or can’t) get the report. It simply says the report is controlling, and if you land when the weather is reported below minimums, you are in violation.

Extenuating circumstances may come up in the investigation that invalidate and/or reverse the violation, but the fact that the landing was in violation of the regulation would not change.
 
Jim K said:
Does the AWOS carry the same weight as a METAR
Click to expand...

Jim K said:
When listening to the AWOS, how do I know what the offical METAR is without checking the internet?
Click to expand...

AWOS is giving you the METAR. And that is the official METAR and will be exactly the same if you go to the internet. And it will be the same if you get a briefing by phone. The source of METARs is ASOS, AWOS, or ATIS.
 
Maybe now I'm glad my airport doesn't have a reporting station. Sheesh.
 
GaryV said:
The time my wife and I sat at a ‘beautiful’ FBO for 3 hours under an 800’ ceiling, but looking at sunshine less than 10 miles away, is what led to my wife deciding I needed to get my IFR. I got it the next year and it’s made long cross country trips much easier to take since then.

I also didn’t think about asking for an SVFR departure at the time but now I don’t have to worry about it.

I took the one-week course from Gatts, considered that week one of the best vacations I’ve ever had, and have been confidently flying IMC when needed ever since. Consider getting your IFR.

Gary
Click to expand...

That is what tell my instrument students at least in Idaho in most single engine aircraft…, we practice flying for 40+ hours under the hood so we have the ability to fly in IMC for about 2 minutes to get in and out of airport. In Idaho most of the time if it is IMC it is also Icing conditions.

But like the OP, that 2 minutes can save hours of waiting.

Brian
 
brcase said:
That is what tell my instrument students at least in Idaho in most single engine aircraft…, we practice flying for 40+ hours under the hood so we have the ability to fly in IMC for about 2 minutes to get in and out of airport. In Idaho most of the time if it is IMC it is also Icing conditions.

But like the OP, that 2 minutes can save hours of waiting.

Brian
Click to expand...
FWIW since this thread got dredged up, I'll note that I did in fact get my IR that summer, and have flown a bit over 50 hours of actual since then. If I'm flying more than 30 minutes from home, I file IFR unless the forecast is severe clear. Haven't been stuck by weather since :thumbsup:
 
Arnold said:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...s/2012/Baginski_2012_Legal_Interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...

One subtle aspect of their interpretation that I did not catch the first time I read it:

The statement "pilot's report of flight conditions does not supercede AWOS" applies to CFR 91.157. That paragraph basically says no, ATC cannot give you an SVFR clearance based on you saying that the AWOS is wrong. Interestingly, it looks like they have since amended 91.157 to make this explicit:

(d) The determination of visibility by a pilot in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section is not an official weather report or an official ground visibility report.​

That is not the same as saying the pilot's observation does not supercede AWOS for CFR 91.155, and leaves that possibility open.
 
Ed Haywood said:
One subtle aspect of their interpretation that I did not catch the first time I read it:

The statement "pilot's report of flight conditions does not supercede AWOS" applies to CFR 91.157. That paragraph basically says no, ATC cannot give you an SVFR clearance based on you saying that the AWOS is wrong. Interestingly, it looks like they have since amended 91.157 to make this explicit:

(d) The determination of visibility by a pilot in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section is not an official weather report or an official ground visibility report.​

That is not the same as saying the pilot's observation does not supercede AWOS for CFR 91.155, and leaves that possibility open.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t leave that possibility open:
(1)Unless ground visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or

(2) If ground visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles.
Click to expand...
Ground visibility is controlling. The only time flight visibility can be controlling is if ground visibility isn’t reported.
 
So we have a broken AWOS reporting 0 VIS and OVC001, and it's SKC at every other airport in the surrounding 400,000 square miles, and we're busting regs for leaving? ****. That. ****. I'm taking a picture before takeoff showing blue skies and vis well over 10SM and telling the FAA to go **** themselves.

I'm not superseding the report or determining visibility. Samsung is.
 
EdFred said:
So we have a broken AWOS reporting 0 VIS and OVC001, and it's SKC at every other airport in the surrounding 400,000 square miles, and we're busting regs for leaving? ****. That. ****. I'm taking a picture before takeoff showing blue skies and vis well over 10SM and telling the FAA to go **** themselves.

I'm not superseding the report or determining visibility. Samsung is.
Click to expand...
That’s not superseding, that’s obtaining proof that the report was incorrect.

providing the FAA with that proof during an investigation would probably get you off the hook. Telling the FAA to go **** themselves would probably make the proof worthless.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That’s not superseding, that’s obtaining proof that the report was incorrect.

providing the FAA with that proof during an investigation would probably get you off the hook. Telling the FAA to go **** themselves would probably make the proof worthless.
Click to expand...

Then we have a 1A case where I get to retire. ;)
 
Wow, this thread is so old that Gary V posted on it. Caught me off guard for a minute.

I flew into Llano, TX one day and I asked the airport manager, Llano Larry, why the AWOS always said it was IFR. He said it was covered in spiders and I could go clean it off if I wanted. Needless to say, it was still saying IFR when I left!

I also remember a time when the runway at Rockport was completely clear, the skies were blue, but there was a patch of fog over the AWOS. The locals laughed and said if they waited for that AWOS to say VFR, they would never get to fly in the mornings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top