Getting a private pilots license after 60

I was with my instructor at the time. As a 330 hour pilot wannabe, to me it was scud running. It was not MVFR, we had plenty of forward visibility. The airspace we were in had a Bravo floor of 1,800'. To remain clear of clouds at 500' below and 500' above property, we had to maintain between 500' and 1,000'. Not a big deal. I am sure we might have fudged on the 500' below thing a few times, but I didn't have my measuring tape with me , so I couldn't prove it. I probably should not have said scud running. We were below the clouds, howz that?

John
 
John Baker said:
I was with my instructor at the time. As a 330 hour pilot wannabe, to me it was scud running. It was not MVFR, we had plenty of forward visibility. The airspace we were in had a Bravo floor of 1,800'. To remain clear of clouds at 500' below and 500' above property, we had to maintain between 500' and 1,000'. Not a big deal. I am sure we might have fudged on the 500' below thing a few times, but I didn't have my measuring tape with me , so I couldn't prove it. I probably should not have said scud running. We were below the clouds, howz that?

John
Click to expand...

That's fine, and I think it's an excellent experience every student pilot should have before being let loose.

:yesnod:
 
jesse said:
You can slow up, sure, but that 800 feet ceiling and fall on you FAST. I sure wouldn't try to fly anywhere VFR with a 1000 ft ceiling. All it takes is a bit of change in weather and it'll force you into the ground.
Click to expand...

Who said 800' ceiling?

I've flown plenty of runs moving airplanes for various reasons with bases 1000' and vis 10 miles beneath.

No Big deal.
 
dmccormack said:
Who said 800' ceiling?

I've flown plenty of runs moving airplanes for various reasons with bases 1000' and vis 10 miles beneath.

No Big deal.
Click to expand...
Would I jump around the pattern with low clouds? Sure. Am I going to blast off on a cross country with a thousand foot ceiling? No thanks. I'd much rather just file IFR and not have to worry about the clouds pushing me into the ground (which happens).
 
Ron Levy said:
Make sure you are in G-space and there are no "congested areas" below you if you do that below an 800-foot deck.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about a 800' deck. I really have no reason to be playing around with 800 foot ceilings vfr. Nor do I really have any interest in doing it with 1000 ft ceilings when filing IFR is an option.
 
jesse said:
I wasn't talking about a 800' deck.
Click to expand...
Even with a 1000-foot deck, you can be busting the rules trying to stay in the VFR traffic pattern at many airports. Unless the bases are at least 500 above TPA, you may be unable to do that legally.

I really have no reason to be playing around with 800 foot ceilings vfr. Nor do I really have any interest in doing it with 1000 ft ceilings when filing IFR is an option.
Click to expand...
Good thinking.
 
Ron Levy said:
Even with a 1000-foot deck, you can be busting the rules trying to stay in the VFR traffic pattern at many airports. Unless the bases are at least 500 above TPA, you may be unable to do that legally
Click to expand...

What "rules" might you bust at an uncontrolled field flying a pattern with ceiling 1000' AGL and reported ground visibility 3 miles?

Answer: NONE (see CFR 91.155)

In fact, "If the visibility is less than 3 statute miles but not less than 1 statute mile during night hours and you are operating in an airport traffic pattern within1/2mile of the runway, you may operate an airplane, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft clear of clouds." in class G airspace -- which covers ALOT of airports. (

If you read my post, you'll see I was commending John's CFI for showing him what it's like to fly when the weather is still legal VFR, but not necessarily CAVU.

MORE CFIs should do this with new pilots, so they can see how low VFR can be, and how useful an IR capability would be in those instances.

Quite frankly I won't sign off someone for a PPL Practical until I've taken them into low VFR (which happens frequently in the beautiful Pittsburgh region). I think it's critical that new pilots know that just because it's reported "VFR" doesn't mean it's necessarily flyable for me in my airplane at my skill level.

Another critical lesson is that VFR/MVFR/ and IMC signs don't pop up over the runway. The line that seems so logical and clear in the textbook fades into hazy gray which requires research and judgment to determine.

Even we IFR pilots must execute judgment -- just because the AWOS says ceiling 100' doesn't mean it is.

I doubt very much that my commendation will encourange John to run out and fly XC in VFR mins. If you check the accident record, it's not many students or newly minted PPLs who die scud running. It's more experienced pilots that think they know better or don't file for some reason or another.

There's a HUGE difference between flying in less than perfect, yet legal and safe weather and launching into obvious IMC.

Once again -- I'm glad your instructor took you "scud running" John, so you can see what that weather looks like from the air.
 
dmccormack said:
What "rules" might you bust at an uncontrolled field flying a pattern with ceiling 1000' AGL and reported ground visibility 3 miles?
Click to expand...
Unless the base of the overlying conrolled airspace is above 1200 AGL, either 91.119 or 91.155 depending on whether you flew the pattern just below the clounds or over 500 feet below them. Been tried and failed -- by a couple of CFI's, no less.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unless the base of the overlying conrolled airspace is above 1200 AGL, either 91.119 or 91.155 depending on whether you flew the pattern just below the clounds or over 500 feet below them. Been tried and failed -- by a couple of CFI's, no less.
Click to expand...

What regulation states you cannot fly a pattern at 500' AGL?
 
dmccormack said:
Not applicable -- you're in the pattern -- within reach of a runway.
Click to expand...
No such exception in the rule. The "except when necessary for takeoff or landing" exemption applies only while climbing to a 91.119-legal altitude after takeoff, or when it becomes necessary to leave a 91.119-legal altitude in order to get down to the runway. It does not authorize you to remain below a 91.119-legal altitude between the two (i.e., in the pattern).
The altitude regulation exempts from its several minimum altitude restrictions only those operations that are "necessary" for takeoff or landing.
Click to expand...
Administrator v. Kline, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4409.PDF
The application of the language in section 91.119 (formerly 91.79) regarding low altitude flight that is "necessary for takeoff and landing" is well-established. For example, in the case of Administrator v. Cobb and O'Connor, 3 NTSB 98, 100, aff'd, 572 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1977), which was cited by the Administrator during closing argument, two pilots were found to have operated two fixed-wing aircraft within 500 feet of obstacles on the ground over a sparsely populated area and then landed on a taxiway. The Board, after concluding that the respondents exercised poor judgment in choosing a landing site that necessitated low flight over buildings, power lines, cars, and people, stated:

We cannot accept respondents' proposition that the low altitudes at which their aircraft were operated were excused by the prefatory clause of section 91.79. As the law judge stated, respondents' interpretation of the above regulation would in effect excuse low flight where necessary for 'any takeoff or any landing from any area anywhere at any time.' Such an interpretation is patently fallacious in that it would excuse low flight regardless of the appropriateness of the landing site. Id. at 100 (citation omitted).
​
Similarly, in Administrator v. Kittleson, NTSB Order No. EA-4068 (1994), the Board discussed when low flight was "necessary for takeoff and landing" under section 91.119(c):
[R]espondent could not simply choose any takeoff route or time and call it necessary. He must make a reasonable, appropriate choice, or the regulation has no meaning. Administrator v. Lewis & Lewis, 3 NTSB 878 (1978). We, thus, reject respondent's contention that the rule does not apply simply because he was conducting a takeoff.
​

Id. at 4.
Click to expand...
Administrator v. Prior, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4416.PDF

The doctrines above were applied in the cases of a couple of CFI's flying out of Republic Airport (KFRG) one day when the weather was 1300 OVC. The airport is surrounded by congested areas, and the traffic pattern is set at 1020 AGL. The CFI's were doing T&G's in the pattern with their trainees, and were flying the normal TPA in this Class D airspace. They were charged with violating 91.155 for flying less than 500 below the clouds in D-space, and the violation was enforced. When they asked if they could have done this legally at 800 AGL using the "takeoff or landing" exception to avoid remaining above 1000 AGL in the pattern, they were told "no" because the flight in the pattern wasn't "necessary" to depart or arrive at the airport. The only way for them to have legally conducted this flight would have been on a SVFR clearance from tower, giving them relief from the "500 below" rule while allowing them to maintain 1000 AGL in the pattern above the congested area below. You won't find this case in the NTSB database because it was not appealed that far, and so it is not available on line.
 
KFRG is in a very congested area. The vast majority of US GA airports are not -- including those I use frequently.

Pattern altitudes are advisory, not compulsory. This is as it should be, as some aircraft in certain conditions cannot reach 1000' AGL by abeam the numbers on downwind.



Aside: I never argued for flying VFR with 800' clg and am not sure why this number keeps being applied to this discussion.
 
dmccormack said:
KFRG is in a very congested area. The vast majority of US GA airports are not -- including those I use frequently.
Click to expand...
You might be amazed at how little it takes for something to be defined as a "congested area" by the FAA.
Pattern altitudes are advisory, not compulsory.
Click to expand...
That's correct. However, adherence to 91.155 and 91.119 is.
Aside: I never argued for flying VFR with 800' clg and am not sure why this number keeps being applied to this discussion.
Click to expand...
No you didn't -- the number you mentioned six posts up was 500 AGL, not 800 AGL.
 
Ron Levy said:
You might be amazed at how little it takes for something to be defined as a "congested area" by the FAA.
That's correct. However, adherence to 91.155 and 91.119 is.
No you didn't -- the number you mentioned six posts up was 500 AGL, not 800 AGL.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of the dubiousness of the FAA"s "congested area" definition.

I never mentioned a 800 Ceiling, only that flying 500' AGL is perfectly legal, especially in the traffic pattern, as long as you are avoiding "open air assemblies " and the rest.

As far as, "(a) An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." if you can't do that from 500' AGL in the pattern, you're either flying a brick or need some practice.

If you're flying closed traffic, you are either taking off or landing, and if there is an engine failure on downwind (when you reach your max of 500' AGL, you have a nice long runway with reach --or should.

The case you mentioned has exceptional circumstances not found at most GA airports.
 
dmccormack said:
I never mentioned a 800 Ceiling, only that flying 500' AGL is perfectly legal, especially in the traffic pattern, as long as you are avoiding "open air assemblies " and the rest.
Click to expand...
And I continue to point out that such a low pattern (unless specifically approved) would be not legal unless there are no "congested areas" around the airport, and I suspect that the vast majority of flying occurs at airports no completely surrounded by noncongested areas. Thus, such a low pattern is not "perfectly legal" except in certain circumstances.

BTW, I don't think the term "dubious" is apropos to the FAA's definition of a "congested area." It is what it is, and the FAA takes legal action on that basis. You may not like it, or you may find it less specific than you would like, but we have little choice but to operate accordingly if we want to operate legally. I suggest operating on the assumption that just about any collection of buildings or people is a "congested area," but that's a choice for each of us to make on our own.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
And I continue to point out that such a low pattern (unless specifically approved) would be not legal unless there are no "congested areas" around the airport, and I suspect that the vast majority of flying occurs at airports no completely surrounded by noncongested areas. Thus, such a low pattern is not "perfectly legal" except in certain circumstances.

BTW, I don't think the term "dubious" is apropos to the FAA's definition of a "congested area." It is what it is, and the FAA takes legal action on that basis. You may not like it, or you may find it less specific than you would like, but we have little choice but to operate accordingly if we want to operate legally. I suggest operating on the assumption that just about any collection of buildings or people is a "congested area," but that's a choice for each of us to make on our own.
Click to expand...

You know as well as I do that the FAA has never defined "congested area" -- all we have are cases, which run the gamut.

There are many airplanes -- mine included -- which cannot reach 1000' AGL during a normal pattern.
 
dmccormack said:
There are many airplanes -- mine included -- which cannot reach 1000' AGL during a normal pattern.
Click to expand...

I find that unbeivable.

Lets take a generic airstrip with a length of 3,000 ft or 1/2 nautical mile.

Tight pattern so add 750 feet as max distance from either end of the runway and 1500 feet laterally on downwind.

Vx of 60 knots, i.e 6000 feet per minute. Take off roll 2000 feet

Take off to crosswind 1750 ft on 18 seconds then to midfield on downwind is another 3250 feet for a total of ~50 seconds

So to climb a 1000 in 50 seconds required climb speed is 1200 FPM.

OK so not so unbeleivable :eek:
 
RMCN172RG said:
I find that unbeivable.

Lets take a generic airstrip with a length of 3,000 ft or 1/2 nautical mile.

Tight pattern so add 750 feet as max distance from either end of the runway and 1500 feet laterally on downwind.

Vx of 60 knots, i.e 6000 feet per minute. Take off roll 2000 feet

Take off to crosswind 1750 ft on 18 seconds then to midfield on downwind is another 3250 feet for a total of ~50 seconds

So to climb a 1000 in 50 seconds required climb speed is 1200 FPM.

OK so not so unbeleivable :eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah -- and when it's 75 F out, the climb rate is more like 250 FPM.

Though my t/o roll is more like 800'

If I wait to the AIM recommended within 300' of pattern altitude to turn crosswind, I'll be miles away from the airport.
 
Last edited:
RMCN172RG said:
So add in another 15 seconds of climb or 75 to 150 feet in altitude depending on DA:yesnod:
Click to expand...

Keep in mind the variables that come into play.

Takeoff starts from end of 3000' runway. Airborne and 50' off the ground by 1200' mark.

Climbing at 250 FPM, in two minutes I'm @ 500', now 2 miles from takeoff point.

If I climb to 800, I'll be 3 miles from t/o point.

That's way outside the pattern, and not safe operating procedure. In the event of engine failure, I want to be near the airport. So I usually start the turn to crosswind within 1 mile of the takeoff point.

Advisory Circular 90-66 states that "A pilot may vary the size of the traffic pattern depending on the aircraft's performance characteristics."

And so I do. :yesnod:
 
dmccormack said:
It really depends on the airplane. In a Warrior it's easy to slow up to 80 knots or even 70. Plenty of time to see any really tall obstructions.

Have you flown at VFR minimums? It's still VFR, even though it feels awfully tight.
Click to expand...
I haven't flown quite at minimums, as PIC. I've tooled around at night over the city with well-underlit clouds at about 1500 AGL in some areas (always staying clear horizontally, of course), and I've done pattern work with a 1500 foot ceiling. Vis wise, I've flown in haze where the reported ground vis was 7 miles that I considered pretty close to IMC at 2500 AGL.

But VFR minimums can drop below really fast, and then what do you do? Once last winter I was flying approaches with my CFII at KYIP in 3 mile visibility when they suddenly told us the field was now IFR, say intentions. We asked for a pop-up, finished up, and headed home. Not a biggie, but if I had been by myself, it would have been a bust. So no, for now I treat marginal VFR as, well, marginal, and stay close to home base, or on the ground.
 
azure said:
But VFR minimums can drop below really fast, and then what do you do? Once last winter I was flying approaches with my CFII at KYIP in 3 mile visibility when they suddenly told us the field was now IFR, say intentions. We asked for a pop-up, finished up, and headed home. Not a biggie, but if I had been by myself, it would have been a bust. So no, for now I treat marginal VFR as, well, marginal, and stay close to home base, or on the ground.
Click to expand...

I'm not recommending that non-rated/non-current pilots fly MVFR.

I am *strongly* recommending that all pilots experience MVFR during primary training accompanied by a CFI who can file, but who doesn't file so soon that you don't get to see how marginal VFR can be.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Special VFR.
Click to expand...
Only an option "within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport." Doesn't help much if you're trapped below the clouds where nobody can hear you call on the radio, or where there's no SVFR airport nearby.

Or, find an uncontrolled airport.
Click to expand...
The fact that an airport doesn't have a tower doesn't make it legal to land there when the weather is less than legal VFR for that sort of airspace, and that doesn't even begin to address the safety aspects.

All in all, while I have no problem giving Student Pilots training in operating in MVFR (as defined by the FAA, when either the ceiling is below 3000 or the vis is below 5 miles), I won't put us in a situation where any drop in ceiling or vis will force us to chose which of two rules (91.155 or 91.119) to violate. That's just bad judgment in my mind, and I'm trying to teach them to their heads to make good decisions, not how to get into situations requiring them to use special skill to recover.
 
Ron Levy said:
All in all, while I have no problem giving Student Pilots training in operating in MVFR (as defined by the FAA, when either the ceiling is below 3000 or the vis is below 5 miles), I won't put us in a situation where any drop in ceiling or vis will force us to chose which of two rules (91.155 or 91.119) to violate. That's just bad judgment in my mind, and I'm trying to teach them to their heads to make good decisions, not how to get into situations requiring them to use special skill to recover.
Click to expand...

If you fly in an area more than 6 months, any CFI worth his/her wings will know what sort of weather leads to variable vis and what will remain clear beneath a low overcast.

Also, I'm not advocating a long XC in MVFR -- it doesn't take a long trip to get the student to understand, "This isn't good" and to conclude:
  • I won't do this on my own
  • I really need an instrument rating
 
dmccormack said:
If you fly in an area more than 6 months, any CFI worth his/her wings will know what sort of weather leads to variable vis and what will remain clear beneath a low overcast.

Also, I'm not advocating a long XC in MVFR -- it doesn't take a long trip to get the student to understand, "This isn't good" and to conclude:
  • I won't do this on my own
  • I really need an instrument rating
Click to expand...
I believe, if a primary student is to be taken into MVFR it should be on an IFR flight plan. It demonstrates that the weather is worse then they can handle and if they want to they need to be IFR.

Otherwise just taking them VFR shows that it can be done VFR.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean it's right :)
 
jesse said:
I believe, if a primary student is to be taken into MVFR it should be on an IFR flight plan. It demonstrates that the weather is worse then they can handle and if they want to they need to be IFR.

Otherwise just taking them VFR shows that it can be done VFR.

Just my opinion, doesn't mean it's right :)
Click to expand...


Well, it's really, really hard to find a perfect MVFR day that extends more than a few miles (since around here MVFR is typically fog over a valley, low clouds over foothills, and the like).

So my objective is the take the student up on a day that is still VFR legal -- just not necessarily clear and a million.

May or may not be MVFR, but close enough to get the point across. It's plenty easy to file online and have it available as needed. But depending on the student, I may not want them to know there is an easy out.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Special VFR.
Click to expand...
True, we considered that, and that's probably what I would have done if (I had been stupid enough to get myself into that situation) solo. So you're right, it wouldn't have been an automatic bust. But, I would have been stranded at KYIP, couldn't use the special to get home, and would have had to wait for a ride and get the plane some other time.

And if it had been an uncontrolled field with Class E starting from 700 (basically the whole area, except for those areas where controlled airspace extends to the ground), the SVFR clearance wouldn't have been available, and I would still be illegal at pattern altitude.

Better not to tempt fate with MVFR.
 
jesse said:
I believe, if a primary student is to be taken into MVFR it should be on an IFR flight plan.
Click to expand...
I don't see the need for an IFR flight plan to do a XC trip with a Student Pilot with the weather 2500-4. I'm pretty much OK with dual XC's down to 2000-foot ceilings. But if it gets signficantly worse (especially the vis -- low vis scares me more than low ceilings), we're turning back or diverting. The only place I'm likely to take a Student Pilot in, say, 1500-3, is up in the pattern so s/he can look around and see how bad an idea it would be to get out of sight of an airport under VFR in such conditions. Other than that, I don't want one of my students getting the wrong idea about scud-running because we did something I wouldn't recommend doing and got away with it.
 
azure said:
True, we considered that, and that's probably what I would have done if (I had been stupid enough to get myself into that situation) solo. So you're right, it wouldn't have been an automatic bust. But, I would have been stranded at KYIP, couldn't use the special to get home, and would have had to wait for a ride and get the plane some other time.

And if it had been an uncontrolled field with Class E starting from 700 (basically the whole area, except for those areas where controlled airspace extends to the ground), the SVFR clearance wouldn't have been available, and I would still be illegal at pattern altitude.

Better not to tempt fate with MVFR.
Click to expand...

Unrated and/or not current -- absolutely.

That said, the CFII aboard could file (assuming the a/c was IFR capable).

Official "MVFR" is pretty low. But some pilots think if there's an overcast layer at 2200' and 10 mile vis below it's "MVFR."

It's not.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't see the need for an IFR flight plan to do a XC trip with a Student Pilot with the weather 2500-4. I'm pretty much OK with dual XC's down to 2000-foot ceilings. But if it gets signficantly worse (especially the vis -- low vis scares me more than low ceilings), we're turning back or diverting. The only place I'm likely to take a Student Pilot in, say, 1500-3, is up in the pattern so s/he can look around and see how bad an idea it would be to get out of sight of an airport under VFR in such conditions. Other than that, I don't want one of my students getting the wrong idea about scud-running because we did something I wouldn't recommend doing and got away with it.
Click to expand...


I agree completely with this, and don't think I've recommended anything contrary.
 
dmccormack said:
Official "MVFR" is pretty low. But some pilots think if there's an overcast layer at 2200' and 10 mile vis below it's "MVFR."

It's not.
Click to expand...
Officially, it is MVFR. Per the FAA definitions, MVFR means either the ceiling is below 3000 (but still above 1000) or the vis is below 5 miles (but still above 3), so 2200-10 is MVFR for FAA purposes. So is 5000-4. 900-10 is, categorically, "IFR," as are 5000-2 and, of course, 900-2.
 
dmccormack said:
That said, the CFII aboard could file (assuming the a/c was IFR capable).
Click to expand...
Which is how we got home that time. It turned into my longest single flight in actual to date, and totally unplanned. (And it really was actual, the vis dropped to practically zero for most of that flight until we were near the FAF into KVLL.)

Official "MVFR" is pretty low. But some pilots think if there's an overcast layer at 2200' and 10 mile vis below it's "MVFR."

It's not.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, but meteorologically, it is. Officially, anything between 1000 and 3000 AGL is a MVFR ceiling.

And if an automated station around here reports OVC022, most of the time the actual cloud bases are about 1500 AGL. Just barely legal to do pattern work in. So I'd treat it as MVFR unless I had reliable pireps saying it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
And if an automated station around here reports OVC022, most of the time the actual cloud bases are about 1500 AGL. Just barely legal to do pattern work in. So I'd treat it as MVFR unless I had reliable pireps saying it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Really? I've found most AWOS/ATIS to be pretty on target with bases.

:dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
Officially, it is MVFR. Per the FAA definitions, MVFR means either the ceiling is below 3000 (but still above 1000) or the vis is below 5 miles (but still above 3), so 2200-10 is MVFR for FAA purposes. So is 5000-4. 900-10 is, categorically, "IFR," as are 5000-2 and, of course, 900-2.
Click to expand...


True... I was recalling (badly, obviously) clg 1-3k and 3-5 mile vis, but it's or.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top