Controllers of the magenta line...

timwinters

timwinters

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
13,733
Location
Conway, MO
Display Name
Display name:
LTD
So, yesterday, I wanted to fly to Gaston's or Tan-Tar-A for Sunday brunch. There were low clouds, fog and mist in our area early in the morning left over from the previous evening's rain but it was clearing off nicely at the farm as I left for the airport at 0800 and it was clearing at the airport (KCGI) as I rolled in.

I had preflighted the night before so I pulled the plane out, fired it up and taxied away.

ASOS was reporting 600 broken (even though it wasn't).

I called ground, tell them I'm VFR to the west. I'm cleared to taxi to runway 20 but then...

ground (who's the same controller that mans tower): "57D, I can't release you to depart VFR when we're reporting IFR conditions."

me: "Really? What about that hole the size of Rhode Island that's sitting right over the airport?"

ground: "Sorry, can't do it."

I let my instrument currency lapse so I couldn't ask for a local IFR just to get above the clouds...clouds that stopped within 30 miles on a westerly heading. Besides, quite literally, the hole was about 2 miles in diameter (and the clouds 500' thick at the most...lifting fog basically). I would have made a perfectly legal departure relative to cloud clearance.

So, I hung out for about 30 minutes, conditions didn't change much, so I put the plane away and went home. At any time during that 30 minutes I could've made a legal departure, big holes were scattered about, but ASOS kept reporting "broken" though it was gradually raising...900' when I left.

I'm sure this is in the regs and he literally couldn't let me take off, but...really? No common sense is allowed I guess.

Just one more time when I miss being at an uncontrolled field so I can do stoopid chit when I want to! ;)
 
timwinters said:
I'm sure this is in the regs and he literally couldn't let me take off, but...really? No common sense is allowed I guess.

Just one more time when I miss being at an uncontrolled field so I can do stoopid chit when I want to! ;)
Click to expand...

If you had asked for a "special VFR" departure he could have done it, but rules prevent him from offering it*. That's exactly what "special VFR" is for, but since you didn't know about it, you're stuck on the ground. Bummer.

*sometimes you'll hear of a controller hinting at it, asking you if there's anything "special" you'd like to request, but presumably liability keeps them from offering it.
 
Shouldn't this thread be titled: "Pilots who haven't read section 4 of the AIM"?
 
Brad Z said:
If you had asked for a "special VFR" departure he could have done it, but rules prevent him from offering it*. That's exactly what "special VFR" is for, but since you didn't know about it, you're stuck on the ground. Bummer.

*sometimes you'll hear of a controller hinting at it, asking you if there's anything "special" you'd like to request, but presumably liability keeps them from offering it.
Click to expand...

^^^ This! Although I have heard of pilots insisting on taking off at their own risk and a controller allowing that, at the pilot's own risk. Never had anything like that when I was a controller though.
 
You can get special VFR in controlled airspaces E to the surface, D, C but usually not B. Allows "clear of the clouds" and one measily statute mile of visibility (which is NOT MUCH). Daytime only for VFR pilots. The clear of the clouds is not too bad, but man, the 1 mile vis, thats MARGINAL. Its not enough for me unless Im sure it gets better real soon. I do not want to go on a cross country cruising at 1 mile vis, no way. Climb above it or have weather reporting that it gets better, maybe.
 
coloradobluesky said:
You can get special VFR in controlled airspaces E to the surface, D, C but usually not B. Allows "clear of the clouds" and one measily statute mile of visibility (which is NOT MUCH). Daytime only for VFR pilots. The clear of the clouds is not too bad, but man, the 1 mile vis, thats MARGINAL. Its not enough for me unless Im sure it gets better real soon. I do not want to go on a cross country cruising at 1 mile vis, no way. Climb above it or have weather reporting that it gets better, maybe.
Click to expand...

Doesn't SVFR only apply within the control zone? Once outside the control zone I understood the weather had to be VFR or you will not get SVFR permission for departure. Perhaps that may be the issue in the situation the OP described.
 
I can't speak for the controllers or equipment at your field but at ours...the cloud base measuring equipment consists of a laser that shoots straight up at the end of the selected runway. The sky could be clear and one cloud over the runway when the measurement is taken. The "observation" is based on that. They changed the procedure years ago that when that happened we would ask for a manual observation where the weather dude would go stand on the yellow footprints outside and look up at the sky and then record what he saw on an observation. Times have changed, you get what you get and there isn't a thing we can do about it but complain. It doesn't make any sense and controllers get as frustrated with it as pilots do.
 
Ive done it and they didnt care that it was below mins outside Terre Haute class D. It was 300 ceiling and 3 miles vis and that continued to the west where I was headed. I canceled the flight and just flew the pattern at 250' and landed and waited for clear weather. But the guy gave it to me. For legal VFR outside of D I needed 500' ceilings at least and really 1000' to be sure. I was hoping their ceiling report was wrong or I could see the weather getting better ahead of me, neither of which happened so it was wise to return and land.

OTOH, I took off in low visibility with special VFR from Fresno and climbed to above the fog (which was lifting), then flew west to the coast. That one worked. It was just a 500' climb to better visibility above a breaking up fog. I could have come back in on the ILS if I had to. Not sure what it was reporting but it was low vis. Earlier in the morning I watched the Fresno runway as a morning United flight came in and landed in dense fog into zero 600. THAT was impressive! Couldnt even see the runway and heard a whoosh and saw just a brief airplane as he landed right in front of us as we looked on in amazement!

Keep in mind there are airports without towers that have radio comm on the field talking to FSS and are Class E to the surface where special VFR can be obtained from FSS when VFR without it would be breaking minimums. Look for the magenta dashed line around the airport's Class E surface area. Find the RCO frequency in the AFD or GPS info page.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I didn't think to try SVFR. Mostly because KCGI doesn't have radar in the cab and I thought radar coverage was a requirement.

And looking it up...4-4-6 (f) states:

"ATC provides separation between Special VFR flights and between these flights and other IFR flights."

Don't know how that would work unless they gave me a code and transferred me to ZME immediately upon take-off but I don't think ZME has radar coverage that low in our area.

I certainly could have asked though...and will the next time I see a controller. I know all our local controllers (there are only three) and frequently see them at the airport restaurant.
 
I used to instruct at an uncontrolled airport that had a control zone (old rules). Requested a SVFR w/ Memphis Center and I stayed in the pattern w/ a student doing T&Gs. Memphis asked to let 'em know how may we did for their traffic count. Think it was like 900 overcast.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, I didn't think to try SVFR. Mostly because KCGI doesn't have radar in the cab and I thought radar coverage was a requirement.

And looking it up...4-4-6 (f) states:

"ATC provides separation between Special VFR flights and between these flights and other IFR flights."

Don't know how that would work unless they gave me a code and transferred me to ZME immediately upon take-off but I don't think ZME has radar coverage that low in our area.

I certainly could have asked though...and will the next time I see a controller. I know all our local controllers (there are only three) and frequently see them at the airport restaurant.
Click to expand...

They would do it the same way the separate IFR traffic in the airspace without radar. One airplane at a time. So if it wasn't busy, you take off SVFR, have the class D to yourself until you cancel the SVFR clearance.

I did it a couple times to get into Flagstaff AZ when I was flying a PA31. They have no radar at the airport.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, I didn't think to try SVFR. Mostly because KCGI doesn't have radar in the cab and I thought radar coverage was a requirement.

And looking it up...4-4-6 (f) states:

"ATC provides separation between Special VFR flights and between these flights and other IFR flights."

Don't know how that would work unless they gave me a code and transferred me to ZME immediately upon take-off but I don't think ZME has radar coverage that low in our area.

I certainly could have asked though...and will the next time I see a controller. I know all our local controllers (there are only three) and frequently see them at the airport restaurant.
Click to expand...

Actually they use non-radar or visual sep for your situation anyway, so lack of radar wouldn't be a problem. They'll either do a one in and one out or they'll clear you 500 ft below any conflicting IFRs.

SVFR isn't automatically granted because the pilot requests. ATC clears you on an "at or below" altitude. If the ceiling doesn't allow for an altitude that meets the MSA in the surrounding areas, you won't get a clearance.
 
Last edited:
KSCessnaDriver said:
They would do it the same way the separate IFR traffic in the airspace without radar. One airplane at a time. So if it wasn't busy, you take off SVFR, have the class D to yourself until you cancel the SVFR clearance.

I did it a couple times to get into Flagstaff AZ when I was flying a PA31. They have no radar at the airport.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just called the tower and that's exactly what he told me. ZME can't see that low so they would "sanitize" the class D airspace, allow me to depart, and then allow IFR traffic back in after I announce that I'm clear.

It's still dumb that SVFR is required and no common sense can be applied if/with a legal VFR departure can be made since broken is anything over 50%. And that's my point.

It's a good thing I left after 30 minutes (since I assumed no radar = no SVFR), Larry said it stayed "broken" for another two hours.
 
timwinters said:
It's still dumb that SVFR is required and no common sense can be applied if/with a legal VFR departure can be made QUOTE]

It's done for IFR traffic. If an IFR was on approach you probably wouldn't get a SVFR.
Click to expand...
 
Velocity173 said:
ATC clears you on an "at or below" altitude. If the ceiling doesn't allow for an altitude that meets the MSA in the surrounding areas, you won't get a clearance.
Click to expand...

Are you positive? My example above we stayed in the pattern w/ a SVFR clearance and the ceiling was 8-900' overcast if I recall. This was in a CZ so awhile back. Maybe different now?
 
mscard88 said:
Are you positive? My example above we stayed in the pattern w/ a SVFR clearance and the ceiling was 8-900' overcast if I recall. This was in a CZ so awhile back. Maybe different now?
Click to expand...

I've never once been given an altitude on a SVFR departure or arrival.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I've never once been given an altitude on a SVFR departure or arrival.
Click to expand...

Actually, Larry just told me that he typically limits SVFR departures to 2500' until the horizontal limits of the class D are cleared because ZME keeps IFR traffic at a 3000' minimum in our area.

I assume this wouldn't apply if you got above the clouds before reaching 2500'. Assume...
 
Special VFR separation without radar is done the same way IFR is done. One IFR/SVFR person in the zone until he lands or clears the area.
 
mscard88 said:
Are you positive? My example above we stayed in the pattern w/ a SVFR clearance and the ceiling was 8-900' overcast if I recall. This was in a CZ so awhile back. Maybe different now?
Click to expand...

Only if traffic is an issue. If there's traffic then it's assigned IAW 7-5-4 Altitude Assignment. If there's traffic, the OP will get one in and one out or an "at or below." No traffic, no need for an altitude assignment.

Your situation is different because they're giving you the entire surface until they need it back. We did it a lot with F-18s when they needed to do FCLPs for carrier practice. "Local SVFR operations in the immediate vicinity of XYX airport are authorized until (time), maintain SVFR conditions."
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
It's still dumb that SVFR is required and no common sense can be applied if/with a legal VFR departure can be made since broken is anything over 50%. And that's my point.
Click to expand...
Common sense never applies with the FAA. ;)

In order for a controller to call it VFR, he'd have to do an official observation. With the advent of AWOS/ASOS, I'd guess the number of controllers trained in weather obs has decreased dramatically.

They also probably have a very limited set of circumstances in which they can override an AWOS/ASOS report, and a single VFR guy who won't ask for a Special probably isn't on the list.
 
timwinters said:
It's still dumb that SVFR is required and no common sense can be applied if/with a legal VFR departure can be made since broken is anything over 50%. And that's my point.
Click to expand...

But that's part of the reason why commercial operators (and their insurers) insist on operating out of towered fields: they don't have to worry that there will be VFRs operating in low viz/ceiling conditions that could pose a hazard to the faster IFR traffic. SVFR requires a clearance, so there's an effort to separate them from IFR traffic. Without SVFR, there is no positive separation between you and any VFR traffic.

It sounds like your real issue is with how they do weather reporting.


EDIT: ...part of the reason why many commercial operators (and their insurers) insist...
 
Last edited:
SVFR doesn't require a tower, just the airspace formerly known as a control zone.
 
coloradobluesky said:
You can get special VFR in controlled airspaces E to the surface, D, C but usually not B.
Click to expand...

Actually most B airports allow it. Only the ones marked "No SVFR" on the charts do not. Pretty much the only ones I've seen are the really big ones like LAX, SFO, JFK, and ORD where you're not likely to be departing (or arriving) vfr anyways. SAN, LAS, and PHX for example have no SVFR prohibition.
 
When reading the thread title, I thought this was going to be a thread about controllers issuing "direct to BFE" without noticing the aircraft is /A and not /G. ;)
 
The south end of our runway is next to the river. There is lots of fog at that end when the sky is clear everywhere else. A Special VFR request to the north gets us out all the time. If there were winds there would be no fog so even tough we are usually 18L and 18R when the weather is calm they'll let us use 36.
 
timwinters said:
OWT
Click to expand...
Yup, there are plenty of non-towered airport with commercial operations meaning airlines, not just 135. Some even have larger airline airplanes, Hayden, CO (KHDN), for example.
 
When I was a primary student pilot, Ocala (KOCF) had scheduled Piedmont flights (1 or 2 a day max) and no tower. Now it has no scheduled commercial flights and does have a tower. Oh the irony...
 
Shouldn't we change the title to "Pilots who don't understand the regulations"? The FAA often shows a lack of common sense, and I've experienced it firsthand, but this doesn't fall under that category. SVFR exists exactly for this reason.
 
GRG55 said:
Doesn't SVFR only apply within the control zone? Once outside the control zone I understood the weather had to be VFR or you will not get SVFR permission for departure. Perhaps that may be the issue in the situation the OP described.
Click to expand...
Control Zone? You need to update to this century.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Common sense never applies with the FAA. ;)

In order for a controller to call it VFR, he'd have to do an official observation. With the advent of AWOS/ASOS, I'd guess the number of controllers trained in weather obs has decreased dramatically.

They also probably have a very limited set of circumstances in which they can override an AWOS/ASOS report, and a single VFR guy who won't ask for a Special probably isn't on the list.
Click to expand...
A big hole in the clouds does't necessarily make it VFR. Ceiling is based on the height at which 50% of the sky is covered (to the horizon, not just over the airport).

Unless there is a dedicated observer, tower controllers are normally certified as Limited Aviation Weather Observers. A change from BKB to SCT would be grounds for issuing a SPECI.
 
SVFR all day long :) But get your currency back :)
 
timwinters said:
OWT
Click to expand...
Nope.
Everskyward said:
Yup, there are plenty of non-towered airport with commercial operations meaning airlines, not just 135. Some even have larger airline airplanes, Hayden, CO (KHDN), for example.
Click to expand...
Sure, there are plenty of 135 and 121 operators who fly into non-towered fields. Doesn't mean they don't prefer them. I've talked with many corporate folks who's internal policy is not to use a non-towered airport if a towered alternative is available.
 
Brad Z said:
Sure, there are plenty of 135 and 121 operators who fly into non-towered fields. Doesn't mean they don't prefer them. I've talked with many corporate folks who's internal policy is not to use a non-towered airport if a towered alternative is available.
Click to expand...
Prefer it, maybe, but you said, "insist on". I've never heard anyone say to choose the towered airport. Mostly they want to use the one that's more convenient (for the passengers). I do corporate and 135.
 
Brad Z said:
Nope.

Sure, there are plenty of 135 and 121 operators who fly into non-towered fields. Doesn't mean they don't prefer them. I've talked with many corporate folks who's internal policy is not to use a non-towered airport if a towered alternative is available.
Click to expand...

You originally said that commercial operators 'insist' on using towered fields. I think that's what generated the OWT comment.

Edit: everskyward is faster than I am!
 
Everskyward said:
Prefer it, maybe, but you said, "insist on". I've never heard anyone say to choose the towered airport, mostly they want to use the one that's more convenient. I do corporate and 135.
Click to expand...

I gleaned these preferences working in the airport management industry. Aircraft operator preferences were generally framed to airport authorities as "must haves", even if they weren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top