VFR minimums when flying the pattern

Bonchie said:
During the winter especially, you’ve got to do your best to keep students flying. That doesn’t always mean flying the pattern at 1000agl.
Click to expand...
Good oppertunity to work on identifying threats and developing mitigation strategies.

MauleSkinner said:
Maybe the instructor wasn’t comfortable in the right seat to those minimums, so they landed and swapped seats.
Click to expand...
Ha! When I was teaching, I wasn't comfortable in the left seat!
 
John Collins said:
Pattern altitude is a recommendation and not a regulation and the FAA General Counsel has determined that flying in the pattern is considered to meet the requirement in 91.119 that "except when necessary for takeoff and landing". This applies for touch and goes as well.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying one of my question areas. Do you have a source document for the General Counsel's determination?
 
I'd definitely like to be able to get a copy of the interpretation letter!
 
PaulS said:
It's getting a little muddled as to what I'm concerned about, POA style, so let's restate it.

What started this little tangent was my story about a pilot, either a newly minted one or a student, flying patterns literally within less than 100 feet of a solid ceiling in E airspace. Illegal stuff. I was on the ILS, and talked to this guy, he asked me if I wanted him to go out over the lake while I landed, I told him no, we'll work it out, and we did. But who was the ignorant pilot in that scenario? The guy following the rules on an approach on what was an obvious IMC day for the majority of the area, or the guy obviously busting regs because he couldn't wait until the next day, which was severe clear, to practice circuits in the pattern? You seem to be advocating for the guy busting the regs, causing other people to work around him.

Scud running, you are fine 50 feet below a 700 foot ceiling with rising terrain, towers, airspace all further limiting already limited options and let's face it, as EdFred has pointed out elsewhere, no guaranty that the 700 foot ceiling won't fall to 100 feet in 20 minutes. I'm not fine with that, yet you seem to infer I'm the ignorant one. It's pretty easy for me to deal with a day like that, I just file and obtain an IFR clearance.


Personal minimums, something Cirrus pushes and the FAA suggests that pilot think about and implement. Is that ignorant? You are trying to make the association that people who use personal mins, do it because they are afraid or incapable of flying to regulatory minimums. Nope, I practice to mins all the time. I've flown quite few approaches with my instructor to mins plus real missed approaches in conditions that were below mins. Not a big deal. There are scores and scores of fatal accidents where pilots thought they were fine to fly to mins and weren't. Nothing ignorant or lacking in a pilot who uses personal mins.

If refusing to scud run under a 700 foot or lower ceiling makes me less of a pilot, I'm ok with that.
Click to expand...
Sorry…I didn’t realize we weren’t allowed to directly respond to any posts subsequent to the OP.

And since that’s what I’m doing now, I’ll stop so that hopefully when you get your panties in a twist again you don’t accidentally inhale them.
 
And here I was naively thinking that my question had a simple yay/nay answer! :D

Sounds like from a practical POV this question becomes as much about risk tolerance as the regs!
 
MauleSkinner said:
Sorry…I didn’t realize we weren’t allowed to directly respond to any posts subsequent to the OP.

And since that’s what I’m doing now, I’ll stop so that hopefully when you get your panties in a twist again you don’t accidentally inhale them.
Click to expand...

I don't wear panties, but if I did they wouldn't be twisted. This post sounds a little angry, sorry I worked you up, it wasn't my intention. Just trying to figure out what you are talking about hence my post. I think I got it right, but if I've misinterpreted your posts, let me know.
 
iamtheari said:
North Dakota. It's a sample size of not-that-many. :)
Click to expand...

You are right. There are 4 E surface areas in ND and no G surface areas with ILS. The other 6 airports are D to the surface. Must have good representation in Congress! I wish that all non towered airports with any approach procedure had E to the surface, as it would provide some level of separation between IFR and VFR operations when the visibility is less than 3 SM, but that is not the case for most of the country.
 
farmrjohn said:
Thanks for clarifying one of my question areas. Do you have a source document for the General Counsel's determination?
Click to expand...

There are several, but this one has a fair amount of discussion on the topic.
 

Attachments

  • Legal opinion 2009-07-02 Is pattern flight in violation of 91.119 flight over congested areas.pdf
    44.3 KB · Views: 16
John Collins said:
You are right. There are 4 E surface areas in ND and no G surface areas with ILS. The other 6 airports are D to the surface. Must have good representation in Congress! I wish that all non towered airports with any approach procedure had E to the surface, as it would provide some level of separation between IFR and VFR operations when the visibility is less than 3 SM, but that is not the case for most of the country.
Click to expand...
There may be no G surface areas with ILS, but there are many with Approaches with DA/MDA lower than 700 AGL. ILS is really not pertinent to the point here.
 
luvflyin said:
There may be no G surface areas with ILS, but there are many with Approaches with DA/MDA lower than 700 AGL. ILS is really not pertinent to the point here.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the discussion initiated by iamtheari that stated "As I mentioned, I had laid odds that it was Class E to the surface because of the ILS and I'm curious where I can find an ILS into a Class G airport. It could come in handy on Jeopardy someday." I had challenged the assumption, but it was pointed out that in ND the assumption was correct.

My subsequent comment "I wish that all non towered airports with any approach procedure had E to the surface" was a general desire and did not refer to ILS specifically. My comment would apply to any approach, and not just limited to those with an MDA/DA lower than 700 AGL.

So ILS was pertinent to the point I was responding to and I would agree with your observation and expand on it.
 
luvflyin said:
There may be no G surface areas with ILS, but there are many with Approaches with DA/MDA lower than 700 AGL. ILS is really not pertinent to the point here.
Click to expand...
The post you responded to was part of a side discussion, to which ILS was pertinent. @PaulS had reported an anecdote in which he was on an ILS and someone was flying in the pattern under a 1,000-foot ceiling, which he said was illegal. That final bit depended on the airspace designation. Based on my experience here in the upper Midwest, I said that the ILS implied Class E to the surface, which set off a side discussion about whether the ILS is an accurate indicator of airspace.

As far as the main point of the thread, though, I agree. Airspace at airports without an operating control tower is supposed to keep IFR traffic from running into VFR traffic, but instrument approaches seem to have rapidly outpaced airspace and it seems to be the rule, not the exception, that instrument approach minimums to airports without operating control towers are well into Class G airspace.
 
iamtheari said:
The post you responded to was part of a side discussion, to which ILS was pertinent. @PaulS had reported an anecdote in which he was on an ILS and someone was flying in the pattern under a 1,000-foot ceiling, which he said was illegal. That final bit depended on the airspace designation. Based on my experience here in the upper Midwest, I said that the ILS implied Class E to the surface, which set off a side discussion about whether the ILS is an accurate indicator of airspace.

As far as the main point of the thread, though, I agree. Airspace at airports without an operating control tower is supposed to keep IFR traffic from running into VFR traffic, but instrument approaches seem to have rapidly outpaced airspace and it seems to be the rule, not the exception, that instrument approach minimums to airports without operating control towers are well into Class G airspace.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Thanks for the perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top