VFR Minimum Flowchart?

[OkieAviator]

On my nightly internet scouring for knowledge I came across this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5ZZlgLeWoc

I've memorized the Weather Minimums by now with the usual 3, 152 and 5,111 bit. This however is an interesting look at it for those that are more process oriented. Is it missing anything?

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I think the people that make these airspace rules are the same people that make liquor laws in the midwest. It's nuts.

It looks good to me though.

Airspace stuff is unnecessarily complicated.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I came up w/ my own memory tool. Digging for it now.

 

[OkieAviator]

I drew it out and put it in a PDF. Would email it to the guy who came up with it but I don't talk to strangers on the internets.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

A, B, C, D are simple

The only difficult ones are E and G

I just memorized this and before my written, I drew it on a piece of paper.
I memorized it before the oral again.

 

[Brad Z]

If you learn the standard VFR minimums (500 below, 1000 feet above, 2,000 lateral, and 3 miles viz), all you need to do is learn the logical exceptions (such as clear of clounds in class B because you're under positive seperation in class B, higher cloud clearances above 10k due to no speed restrictions, and so on). Once you understand the logic, it's not so hard.

 

[vkhosid]

I drew it out and put it in a PDF. Would email it to the guy who came up with it but I don't talk to strangers on the internets.

Awesome PDF, but your QC needs some work...The very first options (Above 10,000?) is followed by two green arrows....methinks one should be red, no?

 

[OkieAviator]

Awesome PDF, but your QC needs some work...The very first options (Above 10,000?) is followed by two green arrows....methinks one should be red, no?

Fixed!

 

[mkosmo]

Before I saw that somebody else had already drawn it, I did the same... here's mine.

 

[eetrojan]

If you learn the standard VFR minimums (500 below, 1000 feet above, 2,000 lateral, and 3 miles viz), all you need to do is learn the logical exceptions (such as clear of clounds in class B because you're under positive seperation in class B, higher cloud clearances above 10k due to no speed restrictions, and so on). Once you understand the logic, it's not so hard.

I also think this approach is much easier and more intuitive because you can understand WHY the minimums change. For you flow chart fans, here's a quick hack at putting the "3-152 with exceptions" approach in flow chart form:

Let me know if you see any errors.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I also think this approach is much easier and more intuitive because you can understand WHY the minimums change. For you flow chart fans, here's a quick hack at putting the "3-152 with exceptions" approach in flow chart form:

Let me know if you see any errors.

Damn! This is the most succinct way I have seen this.
Printing.

 

[OkieAviator]

I also think this approach is much easier and more intuitive because you can understand WHY the minimums change. For you flow chart fans, here's a quick hack at putting the "3-152 with exceptions" approach in flow chart form:

Let me know if you see any errors.

I concur I like this one best. I am deleting my file and burning my hard drive now.

 

[davef22]

I use this... https://www.scribd.com/doc/5704995/Airspace-Handout
it is very easy to remember.

 

[dtuuri]

Ok, now test yourselves with this fun little slideshow : http://www.avclicks.com/Flash2/Controlled_Airspace/index.html

dtuuri

 

[coma24]

Love the simplified drawing, nicely done.

That said, I just use 3-152 and 5-111 and the 3-CoC (Bravo).

I've elected to forget that I can do 1-152 or 1-COC because if I actually NEED minimums that low, I should probably be IFR.

 

[cirrusmx]

the class g airspace is the biggest culprit in making the minima unnecessarily hard to recall. but then again those kneepads that have the vfr cheat sheet are really handy.

 

[flyingron]

That flow chart is exactly the way I remember it. Just remember the few exceptions to 3-1-5-2.

 

[eetrojan]

Love the simplified drawing, nicely done.

That said, I just use 3-152 and 5-111 and the 3-CoC (Bravo).

I've elected to forget that I can do 1-152 or 1-COC because if I actually NEED minimums that low, I should probably be IFR.

Yup. I agree. I've always thought that the G-space exceptions are just there to complicate things and aggravate us while we're student pilots.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

whats the logic for the more relaxed minimums in class G below 1200'?

 

[eetrojan]

whats the logic for the more relaxed minimums in class G below 1200'?

I've always assumed it is relaxed from 152 to COC because there's little risk of IFR traffic in uncontrolled airspace in the first place, and there's virtually no risk at such low levels AGL.

Can anybody with actual IFR knowledge confirm or correct?

 

[jesse]

FWIW, I've never seen an examiner fail a student that knew the basic 3 5-1-2 provided they could immediately reference the FAR if the examiner asked a more complicated question.

 

[LDJones]

I also think this approach is much easier and more intuitive because you can understand WHY the minimums change. For you flow chart fans, here's a quick hack at putting the "3-152 with exceptions" approach in flow chart form:

Let me know if you see any errors.

I like this one a lot.

 

[John Collins]

I've always assumed it is relaxed from 152 to COC because there's little risk of IFR traffic in uncontrolled airspace in the first place, and there's virtually no risk at such low levels AGL.

Can anybody with actual IFR knowledge confirm or correct?

Most non towered airports that have approaches have a potential mix of IFR and VFR traffic anytime the visibility is 1 SM. The ceiling doesn't matter. A few weeks ago, on an approach to an airport with a tower which was closed, us in the clouds 1800 MSL, bases at 1100 MSL (1000 AGL) encountered traffic two miles ahead and 700 feet below us. He would have been legal at 700 AGL, but not at 1000 AGL, as the airspace in question reverts to class G when the tower is closed.

There are no accidents that I am aware of because of the potential mix, but I always feel uncomfortable when making an approach to such an airport, knowing it is legal for there to be a VFR aircraft 1 foot below the cloud base and directly in my potential path to the runway as I break out. I think this is only due to the fact that not many pilots are willing to fly VFR in these conditions.

 

[Brad Z]

I also think this approach is much easier and more intuitive because you can understand WHY the minimums change. For you flow chart fans, here's a quick hack at putting the "3-152 with exceptions" approach in flow chart form:

>>removed<<

Let me know if you see any errors.

Yep, thats how I typically whiteboard it out when introducing VFR minimums. It's a lot easier than rote memorization.

whats the logic for the more relaxed minimums in class G below 1200'?

The aircraft down there are generally slower and doing stuff intentially close to the ground. Think piper Cub, ag sprayers, pipeline patrol. I suspect the minimums were reduced to allow the ag guys to get from field to field.


Of course, if VFR minimums were written today, with all of the towers windfarms, etc. that have popped up in the last 30 years, I doubt you'd see those low minimums.

 

[Brad Z]

Most non towered airports that have approaches have a potential mix of IFR and VFR traffic anytime the visibility is 1 SM. The ceiling doesn't matter. A few weeks ago, on an approach to an airport with a tower which was closed, us in the clouds 1800 MSL, bases at 1100 MSL (1000 AGL) encountered traffic two miles ahead and 700 feet below us. He would have been legal at 700 AGL, but not at 1000 AGL, as the airspace in question reverts to class G when the tower is closed.

There are no accidents that I am aware of because of the potential mix, but I always feel uncomfortable when making an approach to such an airport, knowing it is legal for there to be a VFR aircraft 1 foot below the cloud base and directly in my potential path to the runway as I break out. I think this is only due to the fact that not many pilots are willing to fly VFR in these conditions.

In my experience, the most common VFR flyers in those conditions are IFR guys who shot the approach and canceled as soon as they were visible and legal VFR.

As an instrument instructor, one of the things I've had to catch IFR pilots from doing when they fly with me is canceling too early. Once they break out, they want to immediately cancel IFR with ATC while they still have radio coverage. Sometimes they'll try to do this while above 700' AGL, yet not 500' below the cloud deck. That generally leads to a review of VFR minimums.

 

[eetrojan]

In my experience, the most common VFR flyers in those conditions are IFR guys who shot the approach and canceled as soon as they were visible and legal VFR.

As an instrument instructor, one of the things I've had to catch IFR pilots from doing when they fly with me is canceling too early. Once they break out, they want to immediately cancel IFR with ATC while they still have radio coverage. Sometimes they'll try to do this while above 700' AGL, yet not 500' below the cloud deck. That generally leads to a review of VFR minimums.

Noted for my future instrument training! Thanks.

 

[LDJones]

Of course, if VFR minimums were written today, with all of the towers windfarms, etc. that have popped up in the last 30 years, I doubt you'd see those low minimums.

You mean, 1-COW? (1 mile, Clear of Windmills)

 

[eetrojan]

...

There are no accidents that I am aware of because of the potential mix, but I always feel uncomfortable when making an approach to such an airport, knowing it is legal for there to be a VFR aircraft 1 foot below the cloud base and directly in my potential path to the runway as I break out. I think this is only due to the fact that not many pilots are willing to fly VFR in these conditions.

Thanks for the description. That would make me uncomfortable too. However, consistent with your belief, you certainly won't ever find this VFR pilot zipping around at just below 1200 AGL with the ceiling at 1200 AGL.

 

[Brad Z]

You mean, 1-COW? (1 mile, Clear of Windmills)

I thought it was only 500' from cows.

 

[John Collins]

Thanks for the description. That would make me uncomfortable too. However, consistent with your belief, you certainly won't ever find this VFR pilot zipping around at just below 1200 AGL with the ceiling at 1200 AGL.

Makes sense. If the airport has approaches and class G, the ceiling for the clear of clouds stops at 700 AGL and the class E begins above it. This requires one to be at least 500 feet below the ceiling or 1200-500 = 700 AGL, so flight at 800 AGL is illegal for VFR under the circumstances. The pilot in question was violating 91.155.

He did announce his altitude and that he was on final on the CTAF, which put him right at the base of the clouds. We noted we were IMC and on the final approach. He then said he was slowing from 100 Kts. We were at 120 Kts and I asked him not to slow because we were closing on him and still IMC. He decided to exit the straight in and fall in behind us, which was appreciated. He was definitely VFR and not a previous IFR aircraft in front of us or we would not have been cleared for the approach without notification of traffic from approach control.

 

[eetrojan]

If the airport has approaches and class G, the ceiling for the clear of clouds stops at 700 AGL and the class E begins above it. This requires one to be at least 500 feet below the ceiling or 1200-500 = 700 AGL, so flight at 800 AGL is illegal for VFR under the circumstances. The pilot in question was violating 91.155.

Thanks. For a Class G airport that has IFR approaches, does the VFR ceiling for clear of clouds stop at 700 AGL only because that's how the Class E airspace for such an airport would be charted (the faded magenta border and all that), or because of something in 91.155?

 

[John Collins]

Thanks. For a Class G airport that has IFR approaches, does the VFR ceiling for clear of clouds stop at 700 AGL only because that's how the Class E airspace for such an airport would be charted (the faded magenta border and all that), or because of something in 91.155?

The former, anytime an airport has charted instrument approach procedures, the E airspace is supposed to be charted to commence above 700 AGL.

 

[eetrojan]

The former, anytime an airport has charted instrument approach procedures, the E airspace is supposed to be charted to commence above 700 AGL.

Which means that the COC altitudes when flying in Daytime-G at <1200 AGL only commence at 700 AGL or below because, otherwise, you'd be in the E-space where 152 applies. Got it! Thanks.

 

[Captain]

whats the logic for the more relaxed minimums in class G below 1200'?

How else ha gonna scud run?

True too. I'm local bob trying to get home. I see the ground and my strip on the horizon. I know there aren't any towers near by and the IFR traffic is above me in E. Without the relaxed vis requirements I couldn't fly in under the layer which is perfectly safe otherwise.