Personal visibility minimums?

[jspilot]

The other day I was scheduled to go on a XC up here in the northeast but I cancelled because many airports were reporting visibilites around the 6 mile range. It was one of those hazy hot and humid days in which the clouds were a non issue but the sky was like soup. Being a relatively low time, non instrumant rated private pilot, with just under 90 hours I decided I would take a local flight to the practice area to get a sense of what it is like to fly on days like this. This way I'd still have some familiar landmarks to help me get back to the airport. The local flight was a great learning experience because the visibility, while still being VFR was poor( guessing around 4-5 miles). I learned a great lesson about not attempting a XC in these kind of conditions given my experience level. While I know marginal VFR is still VFR I don't really imagine myself attempting a flight in these conditions anytime soon. Just was not much fun not being able to see much ahead or around the plane.

I definitely established my own personal visibility limitations on this flight and was wondering if anyone out there has there own limitations on how far the visibility must be before straying beyond the local area.

 

[bobmrg]

Kinda scary when you realize that basic VFR requires three miles, right? Or that Class G requires only one? When you are tootling along at a mile and a half per minute or faster that visibility goes away fast....and it's even worse when flying toward the sun.

You learned a valuable lesson. Keep learning.

Bob Gardner

 

[Sac Arrow]

Six miles is great. I do have the option of going IFR, but at least in my area it's rare to see visibility below 3 in the absence of fog so I don't sweat it personally. And practically it's not a big deal. So what you can't see the field 20 miles out. You use your nav aids and acquiring the field and landing is no big deal.

 

[Captain]

The other day I was scheduled to go on a XC up here in the northeast but I cancelled because many airports were reporting visibilites around the 6 mile range. It was one of those hazy hot and humid days in which the clouds were a non issue but the sky was like soup. Being a relatively low time, non instrumant rated private pilot, with just under 90 hours I decided I would take a local flight to the practice area to get a sense of what it is like to fly on days like this. This way I'd still have some familiar landmarks to help me get back to the airport. The local flight was a great learning experience because the visibility, while still being VFR was poor( guessing around 4-5 miles). I learned a great lesson about not attempting a XC in these kind of conditions given my experience level. While I know marginal VFR is still VFR I don't really imagine myself attempting a flight in these conditions anytime soon. Just was not much fun not being able to see much ahead or around the plane.

I definitely established my own personal visibility limitations on this flight and was wondering if anyone out there has there own limitations on how far the visibility must be before straying beyond the local area.

How did you determine the other area airports were reporting 6SM? The only reason I ask is when visibility is CAVU the Metars report 10SM and the TAFs report P6SM.

I could see a pilot seeing P6SM in a TAF and thinking their at 6sm vis. Not saying that's what happened here and you did say the actual flight vis was poor. Just wondering if that might have happened.

 

[jspilot]

How did you determine the other area airports were reporting 6SM? The only reason I ask is when visibility is CAVU the Metars report 10SM and the TAFs report P6SM.

I could see a pilot seeing P6SM in a TAF and thinking their at 6sm vis. Not saying that's what happened here and you did say the actual flight vis was poor. Just wondering if that might have happened.

I was using the metars for visibility reports. For example KBDR ( Bridgeport) was reporting 6 miles visibility with Haze. Points West like KEWR and KTEB were reporting 5 miles because of the haze.

Here's the METAR from KBDR

KBDR 031452Z 22008KT 6SM HZ CLR 27/23 A3001 RMK AO2 SLP161 T02670228 52009

Bob you are so right, a very valuable lesson for sure. Until I get some instrument training I'll keep it local on days like this.

 

[somorris]

I flew a +/- 200 nm each way cross country VFR in haze like that, and I can tell you it is no fun. My eyes were really tired then I got back, and it was difficult to scan for other aircraft. I could have gone IFR, but didn't. No problems with navigation, but flying into the sun in that stuff was the pits!

 

[Ddayle]

so much depends on where you are. Our weather patterns are such that six is my minimum, however some areas that may be closer to the norm and more acceptable.

 

[Henning]

The other day I was scheduled to go on a XC up here in the northeast but I cancelled because many airports were reporting visibilites around the 6 mile range. It was one of those hazy hot and humid days in which the clouds were a non issue but the sky was like soup. Being a relatively low time, non instrumant rated private pilot, with just under 90 hours I decided I would take a local flight to the practice area to get a sense of what it is like to fly on days like this. This way I'd still have some familiar landmarks to help me get back to the airport. The local flight was a great learning experience because the visibility, while still being VFR was poor( guessing around 4-5 miles). I learned a great lesson about not attempting a XC in these kind of conditions given my experience level. While I know marginal VFR is still VFR I don't really imagine myself attempting a flight in these conditions anytime soon. Just was not much fun not being able to see much ahead or around the plane.

I definitely established my own personal visibility limitations on this flight and was wondering if anyone out there has there own limitations on how far the visibility must be before straying beyond the local area.

It's not a lot of fun to fly around in low vis is it? Even IFR I don't enjoy it, I just do it because I need to go somewhere, not because I want to go flying. If it wasn't for the view, I wouldn't fly, just too expensive.

I have no personal limits really and have flown VFR in 1/4-1/2 mile vis and ice fog right on the deck following a pipeline route, sucks balls but I knew I had sunshine in under 50 miles. I also had a 1000 hrs of Ag time and another 1000 of general and low level mountain flying at the time so yeah, experience makes a hell of a difference in what we're comfortable with. Good on you for giving it a go and finding out.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I've done the Class G, mile visibility and clear of clouds deal. When your top speed is 30 knots, it isn't so bad. The thought of doing it in an airplane at 100+ knots, there is no way I'd attempt it. In an airplane, I'd want at least to be able to see about 2 minutes out in front of me, or roughly 3 miles visibility.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

There are many variables that come into play. Terrain is number one. Followed by my familiarity with the area. But really, in most cases for me, the VFR minimums are fine as long as you're not bashing along at high speed.

 

[gismo]

The other day I was scheduled to go on a XC up here in the northeast but I cancelled because many airports were reporting visibilites around the 6 mile range. It was one of those hazy hot and humid days in which the clouds were a non issue but the sky was like soup. Being a relatively low time, non instrumant rated private pilot, with just under 90 hours I decided I would take a local flight to the practice area to get a sense of what it is like to fly on days like this. This way I'd still have some familiar landmarks to help me get back to the airport. The local flight was a great learning experience because the visibility, while still being VFR was poor( guessing around 4-5 miles). I learned a great lesson about not attempting a XC in these kind of conditions given my experience level. While I know marginal VFR is still VFR I don't really imagine myself attempting a flight in these conditions anytime soon. Just was not much fun not being able to see much ahead or around the plane.

I definitely established my own personal visibility limitations on this flight and was wondering if anyone out there has there own limitations on how far the visibility must be before straying beyond the local area.

There are several relevant factors. Flying into the sun in a 6 mile vis haze is darn near IMC except that you can still see pretty well straight down. Flying at night over sparsely populated areas and/or overwater (day or night although night is even worse) and 6 miles of visibility can seem like the inside of a dark cloud. There's also a huge difference between flying at 70 Kt GS and 1000 AGL vs 170 Kt and 4000+ AGL. Up high you aren't likely to hit anything attached to the ground but navigational checkpoints are much more difficult to find and it can be tough to convince your eyes to focus at max distance. Down low you can see surface details pretty well but the horizon is fairly close and you'd better know where all the tall towers are located.

 

[denverpilot]

The real question to do the math on is:

Two aircraft converging at 120 knots each. How long do you have in 3 miles of visibility to see and avoid?

45 seconds.

Now ask yourself: Are you personally okay with those minimums?

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Depends on the reasons for the flight and the aircraft I would be flying.

 

[Henning]

The real question to do the math on is:

Two aircraft converging at 120 knots each. How long do you have in 3 miles of visibility to see and avoid?

45 seconds.

Now ask yourself: Are you personally okay with those minimums?

Yes, the 45 second see and avoid is probably the least likely part of the operation to kill me.

 

[jspilot]

Thanks for all the replies- keep them comming!

I agree with what everyone has said so far about flying in conditions like this, it's just not fun. Someone mentioned about flying over water in conditins like this and i can share firsthand that this was the most challeging part of my flight. It was just so hard to establish a horizon and everything looked one color.

I definitely call into question the basic VFR visibility requirements. Based on what I experienced on this flight, spotting another aircraft would have been darn near impossible, establishing a horizon while flying over the water was impossible and I definitely had to rely on some of my "foggle" experience to maintain coordinated flight. While I never felt the situation was unsafe or I was in danger, I certainly have a hard time understanding why the governing bodies believe 3 miles visibility is enough for your average VFR private pilot to safely fly.

 

[Henning]

Thanks for all the replies- keep them comming!

I agree with what everyone has said so far about flying in conditions like this, it's just not fun. Someone mentioned about flying over water in conditins like this and i can share firsthand that this was the most challeging part of my flight. It was just so hard to establish a horizon and everything looked one color.

I definitely call into question the basic VFR visibility requirements. Based on what I experienced on this flight, spotting another aircraft would have been darn near impossible, establishing a horizon while flying over the water was impossible and I definitely had to rely on some of my "foggle" experience to maintain coordinated flight. While I never felt the situation was unsafe or I was in danger, I certainly have a hard time understanding why the governing bodies believe 3 miles visibility is enough for your average VFR private pilot to safely fly.

This is where I like having a twin, 25' over the water and you have no horizon issues and hitting a boat is pretty unlikely unles you're napping. I've got enough years at sea that I don't do that SE, I have no illusions about water survival and like at least two extra factors besides luck the ameliorate risk like that, a spare engine and a PFD do it for me, a life raft or flying in a Gumby suit would make a second in a SE plane.

 

[tinerj]

It really does depend on where you are and how familiar you are with the area, and what you are following. If flat countryside at 2500 agl and following an interstate, no problem. In rougher territory over continuous dark forest (no visible features), much more difficult.

 

[azure]

I definitely call into question the basic VFR visibility requirements. Based on what I experienced on this flight, spotting another aircraft would have been darn near impossible, establishing a horizon while flying over the water was impossible and I definitely had to rely on some of my "foggle" experience to maintain coordinated flight. While I never felt the situation was unsafe or I was in danger, I certainly have a hard time understanding why the governing bodies believe 3 miles visibility is enough for your average VFR private pilot to safely fly.

Spotting another aircraft in time to avert collision is the most likely reason for VFR visibility minimums. Being able to establish a horizon isn't necessary to be in VMC and it's quite possible to be in instrument conditions with much better visibility than basic VFR's 3 miles. Try flying over Lake Michigan at 8500 feet on a summer day with 7SM flight visibility. As you found, it's all one color and you really need to be flying by instruments.

My own personal minimums for VFR flight depend somewhat on how busy the airspace is. If the vis is less than 6SM and I'm over 4000 AGL or so, I will be on the gauges most of the time. The question then is how comfortable I am just including the view out the window in my scan to keep an eye out for traffic, since that's not a good recipe for see and avoid. Way out in the boonies there isn't much chance of hitting the rare traffic I might miss seeing. Close to the city, it's a different story altogether. In either situation, it's safest is to have another pilot aboard to look out for traffic.

 

[numl0ck]

I too was supposed to go on a cross country with my instructor this past Friday. WST was reporting 8sm (40 minutes prior it was 4sm), GON was reporting 4sm and where we were headed PYM was reporting 3sm. We cancelled the trip, however we went up briefly because he wanted to show me just how bad it was only having 5-10sm vis or less, and it was short trip well worth taking. No distinct horizon, and the ability to not see planes until they are 30 seconds from you (head on) really helped drive the point home. Although it's enough time to see and avoid, it wasn't a comfortable position.

For now, and when I get my license, I wouldn't fly on days like that, especially flying into the sun. That really reduces just how far you can see.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Six miles is great.

6 miles is great....when you have some experience under your belt and are familiar with the area.

I can remember my early days below 100 hrs flying in New England in the summertime. Even 6 miles of vis could be a challenge at times if you weren't super familiar with the area.

 

[BurtM]

The real question to do the math on is:

Two aircraft converging at 120 knots each. How long do you have in 3 miles of visibility to see and avoid?

45 seconds.

Now ask yourself: Are you personally okay with those minimums?

Yes, because the odds of seeing a truly converging (assuming you mean head-on) target, sensing any kind of closure rate and being to figure out how to avoid are slim even in unlimited visibility.

 

[BurtM]

Depends on the reasons for the flight and the aircraft I would be flying.

Either you can see well enough or you can't, right? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. If the reason for the flight is, I need to get home so I can be at work tomorrow, versus I'm just going to tool around the local area, than I'd disagree.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Either you can see well enough or you can't, right? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. If the reason for the flight is, I need to get home so I can be at work tomorrow, versus I'm just going to tool around the local area, than I'd disagree.

Let me answer this in two parts.

The aircraft part:

The weather isnt a locked-in thing, if the vis is 4sm and you go for it the weather gods didn't promise it would stay at 4sm and that forecast, well it ain't guaranteed! So if the vis is low I'm more likely to go flying if I am in something I can tackle IFR in, vs say a no gyro, no electric 7AC.

The reason for going up part:
Personal, if it's a x/c I wont push VFR as far as I would if I just wanted to do a few hops in the circuit.

Work, if I am going to pick up Billy Joe and fly him to some fishing hole, I'm not going to push the weather very hard, now if someone is sick at a camp and needs to get to a ER, I'll go a little further.

 

[BurtM]

Let me answer this in two parts.

The aircraft part:

The weather isnt a locked-in thing, if the vis is 4sm and you go for it the weather gods didn't promise it would stay at 4sm and that forecast, well it ain't guaranteed! So if the vis is low I'm more likely to go flying if I am in something I can tackle IFR in, vs say a no gyro, no electric 7AC.

The reason for going up part:
Personal, if it's a x/c I wont push VFR as far as I would if I just wanted to do a few hops in the circuit.

Work, if I am going to pick up Billy Joe and fly him to some fishing hole, I'm not going to push the weather very hard, now if someone is sick at a camp and needs to get to a ER, I'll go a little further.

OK, I see what you're saying, and I agree for the most part. But the NTSB files are full of medevac helo crashes where the PIC either never made it to the pick-up site or crashed on the way back. I'm not trying to be critical, but get-there-itis and get-home-itis has claimed a bunch of pilots better than me. And when I say better than me, that would be at least 50% of pilots, maybe more.

 

[Geico266]

Kinda scary when you realize that basic VFR requires three miles, right? Or that Class G requires only one? When you are tootling along at a mile and a half per minute or faster that visibility goes away fast....and it's even worse when flying toward the sun.

You learned a valuable lesson. Keep learning.

Bob Gardner

Good advice.

 

[denverpilot]

I really dislike heavy haze directly into the sun.

I also remember Los Angeles smog in the early 1990s and some days here when temperature inversions trap smog and particulates over the bowl of the Denver valley.

Neither was very "VFR". Legal, but probably not smart. Especially skirting around underneath Class Bravos. (Ok, LA was still a "TCA" back then...)

 

[Henning]

I really dislike heavy haze directly into the sun.

I also remember Los Angeles smog in the early 1990s and some days here when temperature inversions trap smog and particulates over the bowl of the Denver valley.

Neither was very "VFR". Legal, but probably not smart. Especially skirting around underneath Class Bravos. (Ok, LA was still a "TCA" back then...)

I learned in SoCal as well which I guess created a tolerance of low vis in haze.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

OK, I see what you're saying, and I agree for the most part. But the NTSB files are full of medevac helo crashes where the PIC either never made it to the pick-up site or crashed on the way back. I'm not trying to be critical, but get-there-itis and get-home-itis has claimed a bunch of pilots better than me. And when I say better than me, that would be at least 50% of pilots, maybe more.

I think your bottom line on weather comes from pushing your limits (not ideal but true), from flying enough ones learns when to push it a little further and when to call it, the main thing after building some experience is being smart/firm enough to listen to your gut, the nanosecond you get that "hmmm this might not be a good idea" call it a day!

 

[BurtM]

I think your bottom line on weather comes from pushing your limits (not ideal but true), from flying enough ones learns when to push it a little further and when to call it, the main thing after building some experience is being smart/firm enough to listen to your gut, the nanosecond you get that "hmmm this might not be a good idea" call it a day!

I may be willing to launch into worse weather than you. But I can always return to where I launched from, too. I don't put a whole lot of faith into METARs, TAFs, ASOS and or AWOS, or any of that computer generated stuff. I believe in what I can see. Which is fine for me, since I always fly VFR - it's up to me to stay out of the bad stuff. But I kind of hate to see people give up an opportunity to fly when the computer box says 6 sm vis. Back in the old days, we'd go up based on our own ground observations and if we thought we could head toward where we'd want to go, we'd go on to the next FSS. They had live people and Teletype machines that printed out weather observations on skinny paper tape and they would put Prog charts together out of what came out of the teletype, what they got from weather balloons, surface observations, PIREPS and what they knew from working the weather in the same place for years. I doubt anyone that started pilot training in the last 30 years knows what WOXOF means. How much we have progressed since then, with DUATs and XM NEXRAD weather is questionable, IMO.

 

[Henning]

Medevac flights are like Coast Guard, "You gotta go out, you don't gotta come back." It's the job you signed up for, if you ain't got the skills, don't apply.

 

[Jaybird180]

My Primary CFI took me up in 5mi. It was during the early days of primary airwork, stalls, etc. It wasn't too bad until the clouds started closing in around us and we had to bug out.

Before this thread, I hadn't really thought much about 5sm viz but I'm comfortable with 7sm, but like when I see 10+ reported. Below 7, I'm watching trends rather than a fixed number to make a go/no-go decision.

 

[jspilot]

Before this thread, I hadn't really thought much about 5sm viz but I'm comfortable with 7sm, but like when I see 10+ reported. Below 7, I'm watching trends rather than a fixed number to make a go/no-go decision.

This is pretty much why I started this thread. I always check clouds and wind before I take off but visibility was never a real worry. However, after my experience with low visibility, even if it's clear below 12,000 feet and calm winds but 5 miles vis haze, I now know that means a no go for me.