Special VFR Clearance

M

mcmanigle

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
521
Display Name
Display name:
John McManigle
Hi all, just wanted to relate a quick story and try to learn a bit more about "the system" in the process.

Was flying on Saturday from College Park CGS to Eagle's Nest W13 outside Charlottesville. The first part of the trip was fantastic (got the Dulles East transition for the first time), but as we got down past Culpeper things got a little grey -- ceilings in the 3500' range with some scattered layers below. Still comfortable VFR, given the number of alternates along the route. We were cruising at 2500'.

Approaching Charlottesville, the ceiling was slowly getting a bit lower, and the intermediate layers were slowly going from "few" to "scattered". Still nothing particularly scary, but the hills to the east (between Charlottesville and W13) were looking questionable, so I decided to divert to CHO and make my friend drive a bit further to pick me up.

CHO was reporting (as I recall) scattered 1000', broken 1900', and that looked about right from 10 miles out (we were flying at about 1200' AGL at this point). I thought to myself "how great would it be to not have to worry about staying 500' below and 2000' horizontal from the scattered layer on the approach" and called up requesting SVFR clearance and straight-in for runway 21.

The tower controller came back with "Charlottesville is actually still VFR, cleared to land 21." So, I went ahead and gave the clouds a wider-than-strictly-necessary berth on the approach. (Turns out none were overly problematic.)

My questions are the obvious ones: Is there anything preventing a controller from granting an SVFR clearance if the current field observation is compatible with VFR? Is this a situation where the tower would have had to coordinate with approach (Potomac) to arrange it, and this was his gentle hint that life would be easier for all involved if I just went ahead and landed without bothering everyone in the ATC world? (The field was very quiet.) In the future, is this an "appropriate" time to ask for SVFR, or am I better off just doing my best with the fiction that VFR is VFR unless you "need" something "special"?

Or just any general comments. I'm sure we'll go off on a tangent after a reply or two anyway. :yes:
 
mcmanigle said:
Hi all, just wanted to relate a quick story and try to learn a bit more about "the system" in the process.

Was flying on Saturday from College Park CGS to Eagle's Nest W13 outside Charlottesville. The first part of the trip was fantastic (got the Dulles East transition for the first time), but as we got down past Culpeper things got a little grey -- ceilings in the 3500' range with some scattered layers below. Still comfortable VFR, given the number of alternates along the route. We were cruising at 2500'.

Approaching Charlottesville, the ceiling was slowly getting a bit lower, and the intermediate layers were slowly going from "few" to "scattered". Still nothing particularly scary, but the hills to the east (between Charlottesville and W13) were looking questionable, so I decided to divert to CHO and make my friend drive a bit further to pick me up.

CHO was reporting (as I recall) scattered 1000', broken 1900', and that looked about right from 10 miles out (we were flying at about 1200' AGL at this point). I thought to myself "how great would it be to not have to worry about staying 500' below and 2000' horizontal from the scattered layer on the approach" and called up requesting SVFR clearance and straight-in for runway 21.

The tower controller came back with "Charlottesville is actually still VFR, cleared to land 21." So, I went ahead and gave the clouds a wider-than-strictly-necessary berth on the approach. (Turns out none were overly problematic.)

My questions are the obvious ones: Is there anything preventing a controller from granting an SVFR clearance if the current field observation is compatible with VFR? Is this a situation where the tower would have had to coordinate with approach (Potomac) to arrange it, and this was his gentle hint that life would be easier for all involved if I just went ahead and landed without bothering everyone in the ATC world? (The field was very quiet.) In the future, is this an "appropriate" time to ask for SVFR, or am I better off just doing my best with the fiction that VFR is VFR unless you "need" something "special"?

Or just any general comments. I'm sure we'll go off on a tangent after a reply or two anyway. :yes:
Click to expand...

He could have issued the SVFR clearance. From 7110.65U:

7−5−1. AUTHORIZATION
b.​
​
​
​
​
SVFR operations may be authorized for aircraft operating in or transiting a Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E surface area when the primary airport is reporting VFR but the pilot advises that basic VFR cannot be maintained.​

 
When a special VFR is approved, the controller can allow only that one airplane within his/her airspace.

If your request was granted, anybody else in the area would have to remain clear. By remaining VFR, the airspace is open to everybody.
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
When a special VFR is approved, the controller can allow only that one airplane within his/her airspace.

If your request was granted, anybody else in the area would have to remain clear. By remaining VFR, the airspace is open to everybody.
Click to expand...

?? Really, even at a towered airport? I've done pattern work at a towered airport using SVFR (OVC 1100, no wind) and it didn't seem to be a big inconvenience to anyone. We called them on the phone first to check, just to be sure before starting up. Can't remember if there was any other traffic, though.
 
Last edited:
SVFR operations may be authorized for aircraft operating in or transiting a Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E surface area when the primary airport is reporting VFR but the pilot advises that basic VFR cannot be maintained.
Click to expand...

Good to know! In my situation, it definitely wasn't a matter of "basic VFR cannot be maintained," but rather "it might be slightly more convenient not to have to."

If your request was granted, anybody else in the area would have to remain clear. By remaining VFR, the airspace is open to everybody.
Click to expand...

Yeah; I thought that might be a possibility. I know in retrospect that nobody was using the airspace (at least from my initial callup until I parked at the FBO), so wonder -- if this was the motivation -- whether it was "just in case somebody else was coming" or because they would have to coordinate with Potomac to keep the airspace off limits.

Anyway, not a huge deal; just trying to learn how the world works :)
 
mcmanigle said:
Good to know! In my situation, it definitely wasn't a matter of "basic VFR cannot be maintained," but rather "it might be slightly more convenient not to have to."



Yeah; I thought that might be a possibility. I know in retrospect that nobody was using the airspace (at least from my initial callup until I parked at the FBO), so wonder -- if this was the motivation -- whether it was "just in case somebody else was coming" or because they would have to coordinate with Potomac to keep the airspace off limits.

Anyway, not a huge deal; just trying to learn how the world works :)
Click to expand...

My guess is the controller was trying to keep things simple. Next time just tell him you might have trouble maintaining VFR, and that should be good enough for everyone. Just expect that you might have to wait for arriving or departing IFR traffic, as they have priority over SVFR. Not so for VFR.
 
dukeblue219 said:
?? Really, even at a towered airport? I've done pattern work at a towered airport using SVFR (OVC 1100, no wind) and it didn't seem to be a big inconvenience to anyone. We called them on the phone first to check, just to be sure before starting up. Can't remember if there was any other traffic, though.
Click to expand...

Generally he is correct. However some facilities have LOAs allowing extended SVFR operations with multiple traffic. We used this with F-18s before when they conduct Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLPs). Pilots are required to maintain visual from one another. Also LOAs covering helicopters with other IFR arriving aircraft. I've been cleared into a Class D with an IFR C-130 on final. So you have exceptions but generally one in and one out. Oh yeah, the "airspace" isn't shutdown just the area at or below the altitude assigned to the SVFR aircraft.

To the OP. No, don't have to have less than VFR to get issued the clearance. If you tell them you can't maintain VFR they have to issue the clearance. Unless of course they have arriving IFR traffic. In which case be prepared to wait.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Generally he is correct. However some facilities have LOAs allowing extended SVFR operations with multiple traffic. We used this with F-18s before when they conduct Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLPs). Also LOAs covering helicopters with other IFR arriving aircraft. I've been cleared into a Class D with an IFR C-130 on final. So you have exceptions but generally one in and one out. Oh yeah, the "airspace" isn't shutdown just the area at or below the altitude assigned to the SVFR aircraft.
Click to expand...

Got it... thanks.
 
Wow sounds like i made the considerate choice the other day:

I was arriving at KASH and about 8 to the west at 3500 clouds were broken at 2200. The terrain quickly picks up to 1000 - 1500 or so to the west and I was a bit far to want to be at 1700 to maintain VFR, 2200 would have been doable. I pondered SVFR or IFR and opted for IFR with vectors to final on the ILS14 and ended up with the Visual 14 once under the clouds. Good thing since there were a couple of other aircraft in the pattern.
 
dukeblue219 said:
?? Really, even at a towered airport? I've done pattern work at a towered airport using SVFR (OVC 1100, no wind) and it didn't seem to be a big inconvenience to anyone. We called them on the phone first to check, just to be sure before starting up. Can't remember if there was any other traffic, though.
Click to expand...

That's not correct. Aircraft operating under SVFR must be separated from IFR and other SVFR aircraft, and IFR aircraft are not to be delayed by SVFR operations. Within those constraints there is no fixed limit on numbers of aircraft.
 
mcmanigle said:
Hi all, just wanted to relate a quick story and try to learn a bit more about "the system" in the process.

Was flying on Saturday from College Park CGS to Eagle's Nest W13 outside Charlottesville. The first part of the trip was fantastic (got the Dulles East transition for the first time), but as we got down past Culpeper things got a little grey -- ceilings in the 3500' range with some scattered layers below. Still comfortable VFR, given the number of alternates along the route. We were cruising at 2500'.

Approaching Charlottesville, the ceiling was slowly getting a bit lower, and the intermediate layers were slowly going from "few" to "scattered". Still nothing particularly scary, but the hills to the east (between Charlottesville and W13) were looking questionable, so I decided to divert to CHO and make my friend drive a bit further to pick me up.

CHO was reporting (as I recall) scattered 1000', broken 1900', and that looked about right from 10 miles out (we were flying at about 1200' AGL at this point). I thought to myself "how great would it be to not have to worry about staying 500' below and 2000' horizontal from the scattered layer on the approach" and called up requesting SVFR clearance and straight-in for runway 21.

The tower controller came back with "Charlottesville is actually still VFR, cleared to land 21." So, I went ahead and gave the clouds a wider-than-strictly-necessary berth on the approach. (Turns out none were overly problematic.)

My questions are the obvious ones: Is there anything preventing a controller from granting an SVFR clearance if the current field observation is compatible with VFR? Is this a situation where the tower would have had to coordinate with approach (Potomac) to arrange it, and this was his gentle hint that life would be easier for all involved if I just went ahead and landed without bothering everyone in the ATC world? (The field was very quiet.) In the future, is this an "appropriate" time to ask for SVFR, or am I better off just doing my best with the fiction that VFR is VFR unless you "need" something "special"?

Or just any general comments. I'm sure we'll go off on a tangent after a reply or two anyway. :yes:
Click to expand...

To re-phrase your question, If the Class D airport is VFR with some scattered clouds, can I get a SVFR clearance (91.157) so I don't have to comply with 91.155?

Part of a tower controllers job is to be a weather observer. If the airport is VFR, the controller will not be issuing specials.
 
Clip4 said:
To re-phrase your question, If the Class D airport is VFR with some scattered clouds, can I get a SVFR clearance (91.157) so I don't have to comply with 91.155?
Click to expand...

Affirmative.

Part of a tower controllers job is to be a weather observer. If the airport is VFR, the controller will not be issuing specials.
Click to expand...

Why not?
 
Clip4 said:
Ok, since you worked in that world, why would you?
Click to expand...

Because a pilot has told me he cannot maintain basic VFR, has requested a SVFR clearance, and issuing that clearance will not delay any IFR operations.

Now that I've answered your question will you answer mine?
 
roncachamp said:
Because a pilot has told me he cannot maintain basic VFR, has requested a SVFR clearance, and issuing that clearance will not delay any IFR operations.

Now that I've answered your question will you answer mine?
Click to expand...

Because JO 7110.10W says that SVFR operations are authorized when the weather is below basic VFR minimums.
 
It seems to me if the controller is accepting other traffic VFR, the airport is not below minimums.
 
roncachamp said:
That's not correct. Aircraft operating under SVFR must be separated from IFR and other SVFR aircraft, and IFR aircraft are not to be delayed by SVFR operations. Within those constraints there is no fixed limit on numbers of aircraft.
Click to expand...
Steven, recently I have been doing some training at DXR when the clouds were moving up and down over the bowl. We requested SVFR so that we could take the responsibility of keeping ourselves safe.

On one occasion, the tower controller did not grant the request because he had VFR traffic in the pattern. He said that the rules prevented him from mixing VFR and SVFR. He also stated that when handling SVFR, it had to be one aircraft at a time and he could not handle 2 SVFR aircraft simultaneously.

Is that correct?
 
Clip4 said:
Because JO 7110.10W says that SVFR operations are authorized when the weather is below basic VFR minimums.
Click to expand...

Order JO 7110.10W Flight Services is for FSS, ATC is covered in Order JO 7110.65U Air Traffic Control, which states:


Section 5. Special VFR (SVFR)

7−5−1. AUTHORIZATION

b. SVFR operations may be authorized for aircraft
operating in or transiting a Class B, Class C, Class D,
or Class E surface area when the primary airport is
reporting VFR but the pilot advises that basic VFR
cannot be maintained.

NOTE−
The basic requirements for issuance of a SVFR clearance
in subpara a apply with the obvious exception that weather
conditions at the controlling airport are not required to be
less than basic VFR minima.
 
Clip4 said:
It seems to me if the controller is accepting other traffic VFR, the airport is not below minimums.
Click to expand...

The issuance of a Special VFR clearance does not require the airport to be below minimums.
 
Clip4 said:
It seems to me if the controller is accepting other traffic VFR, the airport is not below minimums.
Click to expand...

Because the entire surface area always has the same cloud cover and heights? Man I wish I could find these surface areas that spontaneously develop and dissipate the exact same cloud cover and heights, rather than have variance. That would be amazing.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Steven, recently I have been doing some training at DXR when the clouds were moving up and down over the bowl. We requested SVFR so that we could take the responsibility of keeping ourselves safe.

On one occasion, the tower controller did not grant the request because he had VFR traffic in the pattern. He said that the rules prevented him from mixing VFR and SVFR. He also stated that when handling SVFR, it had to be one aircraft at a time and he could not handle 2 SVFR aircraft simultaneously.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...

There is no rule that prevents the mixing of VFR and SVFR traffic. There is no rule that prevents the issuance of a SVFR clearance because there is already an aircraft operating on a SVFR clearance. The rules require only that the required separation be provided. There can certainly be conditions that would permit only one aircraft at a time, but there is no fixed limit.
 
roncachamp said:
There is no rule that prevents the mixing of VFR and SVFR traffic. There is no rule that prevents the issuance of a SVFR clearance because there is already an aircraft operating on a SVFR clearance. The rules require only that the required separation be provided. There can certainly be conditions that would permit only one aircraft at a time, but there is no fixed limit.
Click to expand...
Along the same lines, could a local tower have such rules? How about a tower controller? Could he just feel uncomfortable with 2 SVFR or 1 VFR plus 1 SVFR and make a personal rule of one-at-a-time?
 
AuntPeggy said:
Along the same lines, could a local tower have such rules?
Click to expand...

Yes, a tower could have Standard Operating Procedures that preclude the issuance of a SVFR clearance when the field has basic VFR conditions or when there is already an aircraft operating under SVFR.

How about a tower controller? Could he just feel uncomfortable with 2 SVFR or 1 VFR plus 1 SVFR and make a personal rule of one-at-a-time?
Click to expand...

Yes. It could also be he's under the impression that SVFR cannot be issued when the field has basic VFR. I've worked with controllers that insisted that was the case, then I opened the book and showed them.
 
This is PoA, a thread can never be done after only 2 posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top