Strange happening at "The Dalles" KDLS

[kgruber]

I flew in there VFR, but when I got the weather from ASOS was reporting IFR, due to visibility. I was still north and couldn't see the field due to the ridge line.

I picked up an IFR and was proceeding to the IAP, which was way out of the way. As I got further south I finally saw the airport, down in the river canyon. It was severe clear and unlimited ceilings. No haze, no slight low level fog, just unrestricted 100 mile visibility. (Don't you miss those human FSS VIS reports!)

Anyway, I cancelled IFR and landed. Later I talked with the airport manager, who said the ASOS had been acting up.

Do I need a "Get out of jail" card?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Do I need a "Get out of jail" card?

Why would you need it?

Unless I misread/misunderstood, you were IFR and cancelled when you had sight of the field and were able to proceed visually. Sounds totally legit.

 

[kgruber]

I shouldn't have cancelled IFR, and taken a visual approach. "I think!"

 

[Everskyward]

Similar thing happened to me. Saw the runway from a long ways away (maybe 30 miles) but the automated weather was reporting 1/4 mile. Did the visual anyway. Technically we couldn't even have started any approach with 1/4 mile. Guessed that the reason they were reporting 1/4 mile was because they were plowing and the fine, powdery snow got on the sensor.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I shouldn't have cancelled IFR, and taken a visual approach. "I think!"

You reported the field in sight and were able to proceed visually, correct? I don't see any reason to submit a NASA form just because an automated station was reporting something different from actual conditions.

If you did fill one out, what would you say?

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I'm reminded of a time a few years ago, weather was severe clear....overheard on the Center frequency the local regional airline was in a holding pattern over Glasgow, MT waiting for somebody to fix the inop' ASOS so they could land. Seems it was an "op-specs" thing (company policy, not allowed to land without a current ASOS? Even Center thought it sounded a little silly, I could only imagine what the passengers thought

 

[Clip4]

Class G airport, no problem.

 

[Brad Z]

I shouldn't have cancelled IFR, and taken a visual approach. "I think!"

Was it legal VFR when you cancelled? If so, no problem.

 

[weilke]

Bird poop on the cloud sensor.

If your remained VFR from the time you cancelled to landing, you were legal.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Pilot observed visibility takes precedence over reported.

 

[John Collins]

Pilot observed visibility takes precedence over reported.

Except if the airport is in surface E, D, C, B airspace, ground visibility overrides flight visibility. At KDLS, I agree with your statement, but at KBLF, if the ASOS was reporting IFR visibility, even if you could see the airport from a 100 miles out, it would not be legal to land.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Not true. Believe it or not, there is common sense (sometimes common LAW) in the law. No judge or reasonable person is going to maintain that a pilot violated a FAR by landing in VFR when the ASOS was malfunctioning and reporting IMC. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

It's similar to a red light signal malfunctioning and drivers "running" it. The police are aware that things malfunction occasionally. And that drivers have to do what they have to do to work around it.

 

[John Collins]

Not true. Believe it or not, there is common sense (sometimes common LAW) in the law. No judge or reasonable person is going to maintain that a pilot violated a FAR by landing in VFR when the ASOS was malfunctioning and reporting IMC. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

It's similar to a red light signal malfunctioning and drivers "running" it. The police are aware that things malfunction occasionally. And that drivers have to do what they have to do to work around it.

Thanks for your opinion, I will let the FAA Chief Counsel know.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...12/baginski - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf

 

[Everskyward]

Thanks for your opinion, I will let the FAA Chief Counsel know.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...12/baginski - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf

That case has nothing to do with the sensor malfunctioning or giving a false reading for some other reason. As the poster above you states, there is still common sense.

 

[coloradobluesky]

He already knows. He knows that if the ASOS malfs and it's VFR, you're good to go. He wouldn't be where he is if he didn't know basic stuff like that, if he didn't have common sense.

With all those letters after your name, I'd think you would too.....

 

[LifeInverted]

Except if the airport is in surface E, D, C, B airspace, ground visibility overrides flight visibility. At KDLS, I agree with your statement, but at KBLF, if the ASOS was reporting IFR visibility, even if you could see the airport from a 100 miles out, it would not be legal to land.

With my experience, those airports operating under those airspace classes wouldn't even let you continue if they were operating IFR

 

[Datadriver]

next time ask for a contact approach

 

[greghughes]

It's The Dalles. That thing malfunctions sometimes. If you can see the runway clearly with zero restriction on viz, well... you can see it. At The Dalles, as long as the winds aren't whipping too much around that corner in the gorge and the turbulence allows you to get down in there far enough to land it, your eyes are often more reliable than the ASOS there.

Electronic observation systems can't take into account bird crap, grass that grows up in front of the horiz viz distance sensors, sensors locked up or gone wild, etc. Common sense and safety first.

 

[flyingron]

Except if the airport is in surface E, D, C, B airspace, ground visibility overrides flight visibility. At KDLS, I agree with your statement, but at KBLF, if the ASOS was reporting IFR visibility, even if you could see the airport from a 100 miles out, it would not be legal to land.

Say What? That is certainly NOT true (at least for part 91 operations). While you might get some grief if the reported CEILING is below 1000' and you attempt to operate VFR within the surface area, it is always the flight visibility that applies. Frankly, 91.155 don't say "reported" with respect to the ceiling either, so I believe it's stilt he pilot's estimation of what the actual conditions that applies.

 

[John Collins]

Say What? That is certainly NOT true (at least for part 91 operations). While you might get some grief if the reported CEILING is below 1000' and you attempt to operate VFR within the surface area, it is always the flight visibility that applies. Frankly, 91.155 don't say "reported" with respect to the ceiling either, so I believe it's stilt he pilot's estimation of what the actual conditions that applies.

While the portion of my comment is disputed regarding it resulting in a pilot deviation, the regulation 91.155 does apply to part 91 operators. Flight visibility is only permitted when ground visibility is not reported.

(d) Except as provided in § 91.157 of this part, no person may take off or
land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR, within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or
Class E airspace designated for an airport—
(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.

Read this FAA Chief Counsel Interpretation http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...12/baginski - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf

 

[weilke]

Read this FAA Chief Counsel Interpretation http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...12/baginski - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf

One of those unneccesary interpretations for a question that should have never been asked. He asked 'can I sneak in if the weather is crummy but I think I can make it'. Of course the answer is no.

If I hear an AWOS giving me a ceiling indef but I can see the airport 10 miles out on a sunny day without any fog, I will assume that the system malfunctioned and land. Who knows, if I sent an inane hypothetical question to the chief counsel pertaining to a obviously malfunctioning AWOS/ASOS I could get a different answer.

 

[John Collins]

One of those unneccesary interpretations for a question that should have never been asked. He asked 'can I sneak in if the weather is crummy but I think I can make it'. Of course the answer is no.

If I hear an AWOS giving me a ceiling indef but I can see the airport 10 miles out on a sunny day without any fog, I will assume that the system malfunctioned and land. Who knows, if I sent an inane hypothetical question to the chief counsel pertaining to a obviously malfunctioning AWOS/ASOS I could get a different answer.

The question was probably asked because the pilot was refused a special VFR clearance.

 

[weilke]

The question was probably asked because the pilot was refused a special VFR clearance.

Got upset and asked a dumb question.

 

[John Collins]

Got upset and asked a dumb question.

IMHO it is not a dumb question.

 

[weilke]

IMHO it is not a dumb question.

It was a dumb question because the correct answer given by the staff attorney was 'read the law, its right in there'.

Last year some rocket scientist in a Mooney tried to take off from an airport in CA that was 1/2 covered by a fog bank. His plan was to take off towards the fog bank and to climb over it. It didn't work.

 

[John Collins]

It was a dumb question because the correct answer given by the staff attorney was 'read the law, its right in there'.

Last year some rocket scientist in a Mooney tried to take off from an airport in CA that was 1/2 covered by a fog bank. His plan was to take off towards the fog bank and to climb over it. It didn't work.

By that standard, most questions are dumb.

 

[Pilawt]

CAV&U at KDLS ...

It is a municipal airport owned by the City of The Dalles, Oregon ...

... and the airport is located in the State of Washington. Weird.

 

[kgruber]

CAV&U at KDLS ...



It is a municipal airport owned by the City of The Dalles, Oregon ...

... and the airport is located in the State of Washington. Weird.

I wonder if Oregon paid for the new paving?

 

[weilke]

It is a municipal airport owned by the City of The Dalles, Oregon ...

... and the airport is located in the State of Washington. Weird.

Cheaper land.

Manassas Regional airport is owned by the city of Manassas,VA and is located in annexed land near that city but shows up under 'Washington, DC' in the AFD and FAA database

 

[Pilawt]

Cheaper land.

Actually there's no room for an airport on the south (Oregon) side of the river. The town is long and narrow, sandwiched between the river and high escarpments just to the south. There's lots of relatively flat land in the ox-bow on the north (Washington) side, and that's where the airport is.