Diminishing takeoff conditions

F

Foggy

Guest
So I took my friend down to WVI near Santa Cruz. We came out at around 11:30am and ate some food and I preflighted the plane. Well, we were totally strapped in, iPad mounted, GPS ready, kneepad open, and I turn the mags on, turn the starter, and nothing. Apparently the started was borked.

So we switched planes and by the time we were taxing onto the runway it was already 1:15pm. It was an hour long flight with a nice 10kt headwind the whole way south. I had planned to get picked up by some friends who were planning on surfing, and then probably getting a cab back between 6-7pm so I could be back before nightfall, although I am night current and wasn't too worried about the possibility of flying at night if we had to. I had been checking the status of the coastal fog, which I knew would overtake the airport at night and would burn off by noon each day. Well it was totally clear since around 11am that morning, and I could see the solid fog bank back off the coast on our approach to Watsonville. I asked in the airport office about what time the fog normally comes back in, and they said probably around 8. I confirmed that with the TAF sites in the area that forecasted clear skies at 8pm, but a 500 overcast by 9pm. We couldn't get picked up by our friends so we took a cab and walked to the destination. We watched some surfers for an hour or so and ate food while we waited for out friends to arrive. By then I realized that we would have to leave right when our friends got here, using their car most likely, as I could see down the coast towards the region where the airport was and I saw the fog start to move in off the shore and push up onto the land.

I periodically called the AWOS at the field, and it was consistently 10sm vis and sky clear. But I did notice that around 6pm the temp started dropping, from the high of around 22C it was down to 18C, dew point 12C. I called the AWOS again a bit later and the only change was the temp to 17C/12C. This made me a bit nervous, as I have read that with a dew point spread of less than 5 degrees you can start having visible moisture. I could tell that the fog was getting much thicker along the shoreline and up into the hills.

Our friends arrived and I basically carjacked them to get to the airport. On the way I called the AWOS again and it was reporting 10 miles vis, but a 15C/12C spread with 700 broken. This was not what I wanted to hear, but I imagined that with two intersecting runways, that I could always take off away from the fog and towards the clear sky inland. I hoped that maybe the fog was just directly over the reporting station and the whole field wasn't covered. We were driving through thick fog on the way, but about 10 minutes out we started to see patchy blue sky. This was promising, but as we got even closer the sky got dark again.

We jumped out and ran to the plane, I could see some sky off the end of runway 02, and if we departed to the north, and I thought that if we moved quickly, we could just stay clear of clouds until we were out from under them, then climb. I did a fast preflight, and had to keep reminding myself that not conducting a good preflight could be worse than taking off into potential IMC, and that we could always just walk down the road and get a hotel for the night. I convinced myself to just "get it up" and onto the runway to see how it looked from there. I also found the landing light to be inoperative during the preflight. I quickly taxied up the runway 2, listening to the AWOS. It was reporting from the south at 7knots and 400 overcast. So I was taking off with a tailwind, but I could see that straight out there was a patch of clear sky, and I knew that the fog was thin, and did not go any farther than that clear spot, as it was pushing inland from only one direction. There were some hills to the north, but I was sure I could stay below the fog, then climb and be well clear of the hills. Even though my brain was telling me the logic of the situation, I couldn't stop imagining NTSB reports with my name on them.

I did a quick runup, not skipping anything, but quick. Then taxied out and pushed full power, I climbed for a few seconds, and then leveled off, I could now see the fog layer very clearly, I stayed at 300 feet, then climbed through what I thought was the clear spot. It was actually just less dense fog, and while I was still climbing through clear air, there was fog on both sides of me. I never lost sight of the horizon or had any trouble seeing the ground, it was just nerve-wracking. I knew that if there was IFR traffic it would probably be landing right at me, but I checked and I don't think there is an instrument approach for that runway, although I am not instrument rated so I can't be sure. Overall it was completely fine, and the flight home was uneventful (besides the large amount of firefighting planes going past me). But I think what I did was probably stupid, I never thought I would find myself taking off with a tailwind with a 400ft overcast and 6 mile vis reported with one end of the runway almost swirling with ground fog.

I have some photos that better show the situation:

http://imgur.com/a/epvV4
 
You got lucky. People have been killed at that airport trying to dodge marine layer like that, in nicer conditions.

One made a nice burning hole in the hospital a few years ago.

Next time, fly to Salinas. Marine layer is substantially later there. And if conditions don't allow a safe takeoff, don't take off.

I presume you know that you were illegal above 700 feet or in the clouds, or within 500 feet of any structure, person or vehicle (arguably, that's a city and it's congested, so it's illegal below 1000 feet).

While there is no instrument approach on that end, there is definitely a missed approach that goes through there. The GPS approach turns toward Santa Cruz, and the localizer approach turns toward Salinas.
 
Last edited:
Yup it was dumb, but I don't believe illegal. I was able to start climbing immediately after the departure end of the runway so I don't think I was below 500ft after I got off the airport property. Also the 500ft requirement does apply "except when necessary for takeoffs and landings."
 
Get your instrument ticket. This kind of thing becomes easy to deal with.
 
Yup it was dumb, but I don't believe illegal. I was able to start climbing immediately after the departure end of the runway so I don't think I was below 500ft after I got off the airport property. Also the 500ft requirement does apply "except when necessary for takeoffs and landings."
It was most certainly illegal. The conditions at the airport were IMC and you didn't have an instrument ticket
 
That's why you don't post stories about your marginal decisions online.

1. People like to form their own opinion and judge you to no end.
2. It's online forever.

If the field reports IFR with one cloud over the AWOS system, the field is IFR. You even included pictures.. lol.
 
Last edited:
Next time, put the flaps down so you can do a through preflight. You will then know earlier if you have a dead battery.

We must not rush into aviating. Start earlier or stay with those good friends. They should have been very understanding. Now, wonder what they are thinking about your decision making? Do you think they would go flying with you?

Thanks for posting. Glad you made it and not into the 10 o'clock news.
 
Thanks for the comments, but it was not illegal, you guys are mistaken about it being IFR flight. The airport is in Golf airspace to 700 feet. You can fly VFR as long as you maintain 1sm vis and clear of clouds. It doesn't matter what the AWOS is reporting, as long as you can dodge around the clouds you are still legal. Also I am currently working on my instrument, looking forward to this being a non-issue!
 
Next time, put the flaps down so you can do a through preflight. You will then know earlier if you have a dead battery.

We must not rush into aviating. Start earlier or stay with those good friends. They should have been very understanding. Now, wonder what they are thinking about your decision making? Do you think they would go flying with you?

Thanks for posting. Glad you made it and not into the 10 o'clock news.

Yah next time I'll just walk down the road to the motel and try again in the morning!
 
Rushing will get you or someone you care for, hurt. Don't rush.
This situation is one example of a subtle trap that doesn't usually get much attention during PPL training. The common part of the thread goes like this:

If I rush/hurry the flight will be safer than it would be if I take my time because... (I'll beat the sunfall, I'll stay ahead of the bad weather coming this way, etc) but rushing itself compromises safety. In the heat of the moment it feels like a dilemma with no correct answer. Of course there is an answer that's safest: delay the flight until it can be done safely without rushing but that comes with the downside of not getting somewhere when you wanted to and might precipitate some internal feelings of failure and inadequacy.

I experienced something along those lines early in my flying career when fuel started looking tight partway into the return leg on a cross country flight with some friends aboard. It was late enough in the day that stopping for fuel might mean the last landing would be after dark and I wasn't night current. My subconscious reaction was to flog the engine harder to minimize the time duration of the stress. Fortunately I made it home without running out of gas but I clearly remember feeling stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place.

I suspect this kind of scenario often plays a part in accidents involving poor ADM that seem inconsistent with a pilot's reputation for conservative behavior.
 
Thanks for the comments, but it was not illegal, you guys are mistaken about it being IFR flight. The airport is in Golf airspace to 700 feet. You can fly VFR as long as you maintain 1sm vis and clear of clouds. It doesn't matter what the AWOS is reporting, as long as you can dodge around the clouds you are still legal. Also I am currently working on my instrument, looking forward to this being a non-issue!

"Can do it" and "should do it" are two different things.

I can pat a growling pit bull, foaming at the mouth, that I find walking unleashed at the city park.

Should
I ?

Good Luck
 
I suspect this kind of scenario often plays a part in accidents involving poor ADM that seem inconsistent with a pilot's reputation for conservative behavior.

That's a really interesting thought. Yah I realized that rushing would be the worst thing I could do, so I had to force myself to slow it down even though I felt hard pressed for time.
 
"Can do it" and "should do it" are two different things.

I can pat a growling pit bull, foaming at the mouth, that I find walking unleashed at the city park.

Should
I ?

Good Luck

I totally agree with you, I was just countering the comments saying that it was illegal.
 
Of course there is an answer that's safest: delay the flight until it can be done safely without rushing but that comes with the downside of not getting somewhere when you wanted to and might precipitate some internal feelings of failure and inadequacy.

A pilot who dies flying VFR into IMC is certainly less adequate than one who chose to stay back :) :)!

OP, I'm glad you made it out alive. Don't ever try to pull off this stupid crap again..but you're already a step ahead by recognizing that what you did was unsafe :)!
 
I couldn't stop imagining NTSB reports with my name on them.

You need not have worried - your name would not have appeared (unless you are really famous.) Just the registration number of your aircraft would appear.

I have some photos that better show the situation:

http://imgur.com/a/epvV4

Hmmm. Based on the description in your text I was expecting to see something much worse than what your photos show.
 
Yeah, you figured out it wasn't too bright of a thing to do, the main thing when you paint yourself in a corner is don't freak out. Keep flying the airplane, keep looking for your best options, and learn. You did ok, just don't keep doing it.

BTW, IMO wasting time on a more than 'kick the tires and light the fires' preflight was a mistake. Weather moves fast, if you flew it a few hours earlier, the dynamic weather situation was the much greater risk. No liquids under the plane? Tires not flat? No obvious defects? Lets get gone.
 
Last edited:
BTW, IMO wasting time on a more than 'kick the tires and light the fires' preflight was a mistake. Weather moves fast, if you flew it a few hours earlier, the dynamic weather situation was the much greater risk. No liquids under the plane? Tires not flat? No obvious defects? Lets get gone.

My preflight was pretty quick, relatively, although I was almost stumped by the failed landing light, I couldn't believe that on top of everything else I had a failure of some sort.

You need not have worried - your name would not have appeared (unless you are really famous.) Just the registration number of your aircraft would appear.

Hmmm. Based on the description in your text I was expecting to see something much worse than what your photos show.

Haha yes I realize that too. Also yah I posted this in a different forum and got a lot of angry responses, but I feel like maybe it sounds worse than it really was, there was a coastal fog layer that had just moved in over the field, I KNEW it was clear after the end of the layer, but it was hard to see the clear sky from the airport because of the lowered vis/mist, but you could certainly see blue sky. I also have a video that I took, and I used it and google maps to chart out the actual edge of the layer, it was just about a half mile past the runway edge, and I climbed out before that (when the layer was breaking up).
 
My preflight was pretty quick, relatively, although I was almost stumped by the failed landing light, I couldn't believe that on top of everything else I had a failure of some sort.



Haha yes I realize that too. Also yah I posted this in a different forum and got a lot of angry responses, but I feel like maybe it sounds worse than it really was, there was a coastal fog layer that had just moved in over the field, I KNEW it was clear after the end of the layer, but it was hard to see the clear sky from the airport because of the lowered vis/mist, but you could certainly see blue sky. I also have a video that I took, and I used it and google maps to chart out the actual edge of the layer, it was just about a half mile past the runway edge, and I climbed out before that (when the layer was breaking up).

Landing lights fail all the time. If you own the plane I might consider carrying one with you. Also, this is why I rarely use the light unless I'm landing at an uncontrolled field with traffic holding short or landing at night, of course.
 
One flying situation I hate is when I'm so concerned about the conditions for the upcoming flight that I have a hard time enjoying the place I'm at beforehand.

That's what your pictures of the coast made me think of. Beautiful! But probably hard for you to fully enjoy at the time.
 
One flying situation I hate is when I'm so concerned about the conditions for the upcoming flight that I have a hard time enjoying the place I'm at beforehand.

That's what your pictures of the coast made me think of. Beautiful! But probably hard for you to fully enjoy at the time.

That's why you leave an out.

Much of flying is making contingency plans. If the weather is inadequate, plan the trip so that RON is an option. "Hey, bud, the weather looks iffy. Can I crash on your sofa?"

As for identifying holes, if you can't see BLUE SKY through the marine layer, it's not a hole. Second layers are exceedingly rare. And it takes a pretty big hole to fly through safely.

As for legality, taking off on rwy 2 and turning right, the OP overflew the city. That's 1000 feet minimum. At at 1000 feet, that's in Class E, so the cloud clearance was 500/1000/2000. So, he either busted 14 CFR 91.119 or 14 CFR 91.155, and certainly 14 CFR 91.13.

Even in Class G, the FLIGHT VISIBILITY must be 1 mile, which is unlikely in the light fog described.

In summer, you PLAN to stay overnight, and the marine layer becomes far, far less of an issue. Or you get an instrument rating.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments, but it was not illegal, you guys are mistaken about it being IFR flight. The airport is in Golf airspace to 700 feet. You can fly VFR as long as you maintain 1sm vis and clear of clouds. It doesn't matter what the AWOS is reporting, as long as you can dodge around the clouds you are still legal. Also I am currently working on my instrument, looking forward to this being a non-issue!

You said it yourself, Golf to 700 feet. NO HIGHER. Did he go higher?
 
Landing lights fail all the time. If you own the plane I might consider carrying one with you. Also, this is why I rarely use the light unless I'm landing at an uncontrolled field with traffic holding short or landing at night, of course.


Get an LED one. Costs a bit more, but you'll (pretty much) never have to worry about it again.
 
As for legality, taking off on rwy 2 and turning right, the OP overflew the city. That's 1000 feet minimum. At at 1000 feet, that's in Class E, so the cloud clearance was 500/1000/2000. So, he either busted 14 CFR 91.119 or 14 CFR 91.155, and certainly 14 CFR 91.13.

91.119 starts with "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," so no violation could have happened with regard to that regulation. Besides, lots of airports would be impossible to use without that qualifier to 91.119.

Claims of violations to 91.13 shouldn't be allowed on Internet aviation forums. :D

Even in Class G, the FLIGHT VISIBILITY must be 1 mile, which is unlikely in the light fog described.

In summer, you PLAN to stay overnight, and the marine layer becomes far, far less of an issue. Or you get an instrument rating.

His photos seem to show visibility beyond a mile.
 
Since there are no weather observers in class G airspace, who decides what the visibility is? Or ceiling?
 
Since there are no weather observers in class G airspace, who decides what the visibility is? Or ceiling?

Pilot. But the pilot's visibility determination overrides reported conditions anyway.
 
Yup it was dumb, but I don't believe illegal. I was able to start climbing immediately after the departure end of the runway so I don't think I was below 500ft after I got off the airport property. Also the 500ft requirement does apply "except when necessary for takeoffs and landings."
It was most definitely illegal. See Administrator v. Murphy for someone who got caught doing just what you did, and got 90 days on the ground to consider the error of his ways.

Also, your understanding of the "necessary for takeoffs and landings" exception is flawed. It only applies during the climb to and descent from pattern altitude or other legal 91.119 altitude -- it does not authorize you to level off below 500 feet after takeoff in order to stay under the weather.

All things considered, you were very lucky. What you did was very risky, and regardless of legality, short of a life-or-death emergency situation, I can't see it being worth doing. Don't push that luck by doing this again.
 
It was most definitely illegal. See Administrator v. Murphy for someone who got caught doing just what you did, and got 90 days on the ground to consider the error of his ways.

Murphy entered clouds. The OP did not. The pivotal facts of Murphy do not match the flight the OP describes or his photos show.

Also, your understanding of the "necessary for takeoffs and landings" exception is flawed. It only applies during the climb to and descent from pattern altitude or other legal 91.119 altitude -- it does not authorize you to level off below 500 feet after takeoff in order to stay under the weather.
Why does temporarily leveling off to avoid some clouds during ascent suddenly turn a takeoff into a non-takeoff? Does leveling off 500 ft over a populated area during landing to get back on a glide slope (because you descended too quickly) also turn that landing into a violation of the regulations?
 
I did a quick runup, not skipping anything, but quick. Then taxied out and pushed full power, I climbed for a few seconds, and then leveled off, I could now see the fog layer very clearly, I stayed at 300 feet, then climbed through what I thought was the clear spot. It was actually just less dense fog, and while I was still climbing through clear air, there was fog on both sides of me.

Murphy entered clouds. The OP did not. The pivotal facts of Murphy do not match the flight the OP describes or his photos show.

Why does temporarily leveling off to avoid some clouds during ascent suddenly turn a takeoff into a non-takeoff? Does leveling off 500 ft over a populated area during landing to get back on a glide slope (because you descended too quickly) also turn that landing into a violation of the regulations?

The FAA defines fog as a cloud that begins within 50 feet of the surface (page 11-15 of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge). He stated that the "clear spot" that he flew through was actually fog so how does that equal not entering clouds?
 
Last edited:
Murphy entered clouds. The OP did not. The pivotal facts of Murphy do not match the flight the OP describes or his photos show.
Thank you -- I misread the original post. But since the OP "then climbed through what I thought was the clear spot. It was actually just less dense fog", I still think this would be considered a violation of 91.13 and 91.119 as well as 91.155. Note that by definition, fog means a visibility of less than 5/8 mile, and you need 1 mile and clear of clouds to be legal VFR in Class G airspace.
Why does temporarily leveling off to avoid some clouds during ascent suddenly turn a takeoff into a non-takeoff? Does leveling off 500 ft over a populated area during landing to get back on a glide slope (because you descended too quickly) also turn that landing into a violation of the regulations?
You want to custom-tailor situations to try to poke holes in the FAA's position, go right ahead, but taking off VFR under a cloud deck of less than 500 feet is going to be considered a violation of that rule.

BTW, regarding your glide-slope question, the issue is when you left the 91.119 minimum altitude as required to land, not where you stopped on the approach in order to recapture the glide path after commencing that descent from a legal altitude. But if after takeoff you have to level off in order to stay below the clouds at an altitude below the 91.119 minimum for that area, you have violated 91.119.
 
Last edited:
Thank you -- I misread the original post. But since the OP "then climbed through what I thought was the clear spot. It was actually just less dense fog", I still think this would be considered a violation of 91.13 and 91.119 as well as 91.155. Note that by definition, fog means a visibility of less than 5/8 mile, and you need 1 mile and clear of clouds to be legal VFR in Class G airspace.
You want to custom-tailor situations to try to poke holes in the FAA's position, go right ahead, but taking off VFR under a cloud deck of less than 500 feet is going to be considered a violation of that rule.

BTW, regarding your glide-slope question, the issue is when you left the 91.119 minimum altitude as required to land, not where you stopped on the approach in order to recapture the glide path after commencing that descent from a legal altitude. But if after takeoff you have to level off in order to stay below the clouds at an altitude below the 91.119 minimum for that area, you have violated 91.119.


Yes I climbed through a small area of reduced visibility, but certainly not 5/8th of a mile, if that is the definition of fog then this was not fog. I didn't know that "less dense fog" had an actual legal definition, but I do know that areas of reduced vis, such as those misty areas you can see in the photos, are not considered clouds. I just want you to know I am not defending the intelligence of my actions, just the legality.
 
Yes I climbed through a small area of reduced visibility, but certainly not 5/8th of a mile, if that is the definition of fog then this was not fog. I didn't know that "less dense fog" had an actual legal definition, but I do know that areas of reduced vis, such as those misty areas you can see in the photos, are not considered clouds. I just want you to know I am not defending the intelligence of my actions, just the legality.
It wasn't legal. There is no doubt in my mind the FAA would, if they heard about this, consider you in violation of 91.119 and 91.13, and probably 91.155, too. But as long as you realize this was a very poor decision, and you won't do it again, the important issue is resolved. Now go, and sin no more.
 
Thank you -- I misread the original post. But since the OP "then climbed through what I thought was the clear spot. It was actually just less dense fog", I still think this would be considered a violation of 91.13 and 91.119 as well as 91.155. Note that by definition, fog means a visibility of less than 5/8 mile, and you need 1 mile and clear of clouds to be legal VFR in Class G airspace.

The OP posted a link to photos showing the clouds, fog, and haze that prevailed in the area. Since neither you nor I can say with any confidence what the visibility was of the "less dense fog" and which of the conditions he photographed match what he flew through, it would seem premature to claim any absolutes in regards to regulation violations. Keep in mind that if the OP saw blue sky from the ground, though, that very fact would indicate visibility was indeed much greater than 1 mile since it takes many miles of atmosphere to turn light into a "blue sky". I believe if you have to fly right into a cloud to discern it, then it isn't per se limiting visibility.

You want to custom-tailor situations to try to poke holes in the FAA's position, go right ahead, but taking off VFR under a cloud deck of less than 500 feet is going to be considered a violation of that rule.
You made an important claim regarding the interaction of two regulations that I have never seen claimed before. In order to fly within regulations I think it fair to determine the origin, logic, and extent of that regulatory interaction. So I am forced to ask questions about hypothetical situations to determine the extent of your claims.

Also, you may say that you are stating the FAA's position, but right now all I know for certain is that it is your position. The only position that may have "holes" is yours; you need to provide something more substantial to prove the position belongs to anyone but you.
 
Yes I climbed through a small area of reduced visibility, but certainly not 5/8th of a mile, if that is the definition of fog then this was not fog. I didn't know that "less dense fog" had an actual legal definition, but I do know that areas of reduced vis, such as those misty areas you can see in the photos, are not considered clouds. I just want you to know I am not defending the intelligence of my actions, just the legality.

Your text description looks worse than your photos. That said, you need to practice better decision making ... you questioned whether there might be an IFR inbound ... am pretty sure he wouldn't appreciate seeing you in a head on situation with your in-op landing light.
 
OP, your description reminds me of a day on the Oregon coast. Nehalem Bay (3S7) is right on the coast and suffers from bad fog too. On a weekend that was supposed to be clear, my wife and I got stuck Sunday with a fog layer that would not clear up. Suddenly, around 7 pm and starting to get dark, some breaks opened up in the fog. The conditions looked worse than your pictures, but a similar idea--thin fog layer near 500 ft, hills inland, blue sky above and time pressure (evening on a Sunday). I admit I started preflighting, but I chickened out and started apologizing to my wife for not going for it. When conditions did not continue to improve and started worsening, at least felt somewhat better, but no less guilty.

At that point, someone started their motor. I watched stunned as no less than 5 planes took off with a tailwind (although only 4-5 kts) towards the small hole in the fog. Like I said, conditions were significantly worse than in your situation, but they went anyway. After they were gone, I turned to apologize again to my wife, but her face was ashen with shock--she's not a flyer, but I think even she realized that was not right.

My point in telling this story is that the OP got sucked into making a bad decision by time pressure and borderline conditions, but I watched multiple people get sucked into a worse decision by time pressure alone, myself almost included. If he learned from that decision and has been willing to cop up to it, I'm inclined to believe he's not the type of person who is likely to make that mistake again.

As a postscript, the next day was foggy too, so we abandoned the plane and took buses home (a long day). A flight club member gave me a lift back the next week and all was well.
 
Last edited:
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top