special vfr

[patmike]

i have been through all of the books sub paragraphs and one reg referring to another and i can't find a definitive answer to the question, can a student pilot request a special vfr clearance in class d airspace.
being the student pilot if i couldn't see the blue sky above and the horizon i'm staying home. but i'm studying for my pre solo test and can't find anything the says yes or no
thanks
Pat

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Effectively, no. See 61.89(a)(6).

(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
...
(6) With a flight or surface visibility of less than 3 statute miles during daylight hours or 5 statute miles at night;

 

[roncachamp]

i have been through all of the books sub paragraphs and one reg referring to another and i can't find a definitive answer to the question, can a student pilot request a special vfr clearance in class d airspace.
being the student pilot if i couldn't see the blue sky above and the horizon i'm staying home. but i'm studying for my pre solo test and can't find anything the says yes or no

Yes. As has already been pointed out a student pilot cannot act as PIC when the visibility is less than three miles, but you could use SVFR when low ceilings preclude maintaining minimum cloud clearance.

 

[jesse]

Effectively, no. See 61.89(a)(6).

They can if the ceilings are low and the visibility is high.

 

[patmike]

Effectively, no. See 61.89(a)(6).

ok then what does a student pilot become when he solo's
is he not pic

 

[jesse]

ok then what does a student pilot become when he solo's
is he not pic

You misread it. A student pilot cannot be pilot in command *WHEN* those conditions exist.

 

[TMetzinger]

You misread it. A student pilot cannot be pilot in command *WHEN* those conditions exist.

Which, in case it wasn't clear, means the student cannot solo in those conditions.

If visibility is great but ceilings are low, then a student could act as PIC and solo and request special VFR.

But pretty much any CFI is going to put restrictions on a student's solo privileges with ceiling limitations higher than basic VFR.

So, technically yes, a student pilot could operate under special VFR. Practically, it's extremely unlikely.

 

[patmike]

You misread it. A student pilot cannot be pilot in command *WHEN* those conditions exist.

thank you, i stand corrected. that makes more sense. if i couldn't have gotten the right answer i was going to put. " why would i want to"

thanks again guys

 

[roncachamp]

Which, in case it wasn't clear, means the student cannot solo in those conditions.

If visibility is great but ceilings are low, then a student could act as PIC and solo and request special VFR.

But pretty much any CFI is going to put restrictions on a student's solo privileges with ceiling limitations higher than basic VFR.

So, technically yes, a student pilot could operate under special VFR. Practically, it's extremely unlikely.

Yes, but weather conditions less than basic VFR are not required to receive a SVFR clearance or to make one advantageous. Basic VFR cloud clearance requirements may not leave enough room to comply with minimum altitude rules, SVFR permits operations just clear of clouds.

 

[Jaybird180]

thank you, i stand corrected. that makes more sense. if i couldn't have gotten the right answer i was going to put. " why would i want to"

thanks again guys

...and for the oral exam, that would be the right answer.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yes, but weather conditions less than basic VFR are not required to receive a SVFR clearance or to make one advantageous. Basic VFR cloud clearance requirements may not leave enough room to comply with minimum altitude rules, SVFR permits operations just clear of clouds.

If I restrict my student to 5 miles visibility and 3000' ceilings (a typical post-solo restriction here in the mid-atlantic), or even basic VFR (1000' ceilings, 3 miles visibility), where is he going to use a special VFR clearance and not bust my miminums?

Oh, wait, you're saying that with special VFR he can now legally fly at 990' where he might not have before?

Hmm. Good point


Just looked up our standard endorsements for the school I used to teach at. They include the words "NO SVFR" for solo limitations, as well as "no flight above clouds".

 

[azure]

Just looked up our standard endorsements for the school I used to teach at. They include the words "NO SVFR" for solo limitations, as well as "no flight above clouds".

Interesting, I don't think the school I finished my PPL at had any such limitations. In particular, my CFI there encouraged me to pop up above scattered layers to get a better view of how the clouds were developing, and I remember cruising over a broken layer to get to my checkride. (it was very localized though, so I could always maintain ground reference)

 

[TMetzinger]

Interesting, I don't think the school I finished my PPL at had any such limitations. In particular, my CFI there encouraged me to pop up above scattered layers to get a better view of how the clouds were developing, and I remember cruising over a broken layer to get to my checkride. (it was very localized though, so I could always maintain ground reference)

The initial endorsement is "no flight above clouds". As a student progresses the rules get looser, by the time he's taking his long solo X/C it says something like "no flight above broken layers", but anything less than 4/8 was ok.

 

[p1l0t]

You didn't tell the examiner you were over a layer did you? Even it was just a few spots..

<---<^>--->

 

[JeffDG]

You didn't tell the examiner you were over a layer did you? Even it was just a few spots..

<---<^>--->

Why not?

As long as you had continual visual contact with the surface, you're legal as a student pilot.

And as student, I did some pattern work SVFR...1,100' ceilings and 10SM vis, got a SVFR and flew clear-of-clouds.

 

[p1l0t]

Why not?

As long as you had continual visual contact with the surface, you're legal as a student pilot.

And as student, I did some pattern work SVFR...1,100' ceilings and 10SM vis, got a SVFR and flew clear-of-clouds.

I thought there was some reg about student pilots not flying over a layer.. I don't have my Kindle with me to cite it..

<---<^>--->

 

[matthammer]

I thought there was some reg about student pilots not flying over a layer.. I don't have my Kindle with me to cite it..

<---<^>--->

61.89(a)(7) requires students to always have visual contact with the surface. That doesn't mean a student can't fly above clouds, though. Just that they can't fly over a cloud layer which obscures visual contact with the surface.

 

[poadeleted20]

61.89(a)(7) requires students to always have visual contact with the surface. That doesn't mean a student can't fly above clouds, though. Just that they can't fly over a cloud layer which obscures visual contact with the surface.

There's no precedent in NTSB case law on this, so you're out in legal no-man's land as to what the standard is.

 

[matthammer]

There's no precedent in NTSB case law on this, so you're out in legal no-man's land as to what the standard is.

No, however there is an LOI which states that student solo flight above a scattered or broken layer would be in violation of 61.89(a)(7) (Murphy, 2008). Barring a more recent interpretation, I think it is safe to say that student flight above a layer of few clouds (if you can call that a "layer") would be legal.

 

[azure]

Why not?

As long as you had continual visual contact with the surface, you're legal as a student pilot.

That was my reading of the reg too. In my case, I was at 6500 feet, the clouds were about a 5-6 mile wide strip of stratus down around 3000 feet but were being reported as BKN by an airport under them. However I could see the ground behind, beyond, and between the clouds so as far as I was concerned, I had good visual ground reference and had no trouble navigating by pilotage/dead reckoning.

And no, I didn't mention it to the examiner either. Why would I? It was not a big deal and frankly I didn't think anything of it. This was 10 years ago though. The LOI posted above does seem to change things.

 

[zaitcev]

My primary CFI was not big on progressive endorsements, so the only ones I had were for new airfields. I was supposed to understand regulations and use my common sense. When I went on my big XC for the first time, the weather was changeable and I had to divert in part thanks to the requirement not to go VFR on top. Thinking about it now, with what I know about the local weather today, I would not attempt it. Back then I only had the printed word for guidance, and a good thing too.

 

[weilke]

No, however there is an LOI which states that student solo flight above a scattered or broken layer would be in violation of 61.89(a)(7) (Murphy, 2008). Barring a more recent interpretation, I think it is safe to say that student flight above a layer of few clouds (if you can call that a "layer") would be legal.

That reply is a good illustration of what NOT to ask in a letter to the chief counsel.

 

[bobmrg]

I thought there was some reg about student pilots not flying over a layer.. I don't have my Kindle with me to cite it..

<---<^>--->

But you do have access to a computer, right? www.faa.gov and click on regulations.

Bob Gardner

 

[roncachamp]

If I restrict my student to 5 miles visibility and 3000' ceilings (a typical post-solo restriction here in the mid-atlantic), or even basic VFR (1000' ceilings, 3 miles visibility), where is he going to use a special VFR clearance and not bust my miminums?

Within a surface area between 2500 and 3000 AGL where a ceiling of 3000' exists.

Oh, wait, you're saying that with special VFR he can now legally fly at 990' where he might not have before?

Hmm. Good point

I'm saying he no longer has to comply with the cloud clearance requirements of basic VFR.

I think the OP was interested only in the FARs with regard to SVFR for students, it goes without saying that restrictions imposed by the instructor apply.

 

[poadeleted20]

No, however there is an LOI which states that student solo flight above a scattered or broken layer would be in violation of 61.89(a)(7) (Murphy, 2008). Barring a more recent interpretation, I think it is safe to say that student flight above a layer of few clouds (if you can call that a "layer") would be legal.

Well, there you have it -- someone had to ask, and the Chief Counsel had to answer:

Operating above a scattered or broken cloud layer could be the sort of marginal conditions that could cause a student pilot to become lost or disoriented. For this reason, section 61.89(a)(7) prohibits a student pilot from acting as PIC above a scattered or broken cloud layer.

Can't say I think this interpretation was necessarily the intent of the folks who wrote the rule, nor necessary for safety, but now we know the FAA's official legal position on the matter.

BTW, good research!

 

[weilke]

Well, there you have it -- someone had to ask, and the Chief Counsel had to answer:

Luckily, I got my license prior to the issuance of that letter. I flew most of my long cross-country above the clouds at 10,500. But no, someone had to ask.

 

[JeffDG]

Well, there you have it -- someone had to ask, and the Chief Counsel had to answer:
Can't say I think this interpretation was necessarily the intent of the folks who wrote the rule, nor necessary for safety, but now we know the FAA's official legal position on the matter.

BTW, good research!

This type of interpretation drives me insane. The regulation is clear. Student pilots need to have visual reference to the surface. If they had wanted to prohibit flight above clouds, they could have done so quite easily.

So now, the Chief Counsel effectively bypasses notice-and-comment rule-making process in the APA to (effectively) change the regulations, yet for those who don't follow the day-to-day releases of the pronouncements from His Excellency, the Chief Counsel, they look at 14CFR and see a rather clearly worded regulation and operate under the terms of that regulation, and get busted for it.

 

[Jim Logajan]

This type of interpretation drives me insane. The regulation is clear. Student pilots need to have visual reference to the surface. If they had wanted to prohibit flight above clouds, they could have done so quite easily.

So now, the Chief Counsel effectively bypasses notice-and-comment rule-making process in the APA to (effectively) change the regulations, yet for those who don't follow the day-to-day releases of the pronouncements from His Excellency, the Chief Counsel, they look at 14CFR and see a rather clearly worded regulation and operate under the terms of that regulation, and get busted for it.

Fortunately the Chief Counsel isn't the final judge. They can publish their interpretations to their heart's content - that doesn't make those interpretations regulations or the law.

 

[weilke]

Fortunately the Chief Counsel isn't the final judge. They can publish their interpretations to their heart's content - that doesn't make those interpretations regulations or the law.

When it comes to the application of this law by the relevant federal agency, it pretty much IS the governing interpretation.

The way to overturn something like this is to either:
- get violated and fight it all the way through to a NTSB hearing or an appeal to the federal courts
- get support from all the alphabet soup organizations and pressure the chief poobah to rescind her interpretation (as it happened in the 'known icing conditions' case).

The best way not to end up with a cluster-f like this is NOT to ask them something that is already spelled out in the law. Whoever wrote that letter asking for various interpretations is an idiot of a whole different dimension, one of the other questions was: 'well, I am running this 134.5 operation, do you think it's legal ?' (glad we didn't end up with an interpretation that 'during an instructional flight you cannot land at an airport different from the one you took off from').

 

[JeffDG]

Fortunately the Chief Counsel isn't the final judge. They can publish their interpretations to their heart's content - that doesn't make those interpretations regulations or the law.

It's actually very close to the final word. The NTSB has ruled consistently, and when they strayed, the DC Circuit reminded them, that an agency's interpretations of their own regulations are to be considered controlling, unless they are "arbitrary or capricious".

This includes retroactive interpretations. So if you something, and it goes to a hearing, the Chief Counsel can issue an interpretation the day before the hearing on the subject matter, and the Administrative Law Judge must take that interpretation as binding absent a really nutball interpretation.

 

[JeffDG]

When it comes to the application of this law by the relevant federal agency, it pretty much IS the governing interpretation.

The way to overturn something like this is to either:
- get violated and fight it all the way through to a NTSB hearing or an appeal to the federal courts
- get support from all the alphabet soup organizations and pressure the chief poobah to rescind her interpretation (as it happened in the 'known icing conditions' case).

The best way not to end up with a cluster-f like this is NOT to ask them something that is already spelled out in the law. Whoever wrote that letter asking for various interpretations is an idiot of a whole different dimension, one of the other questions was: 'well, I am running this 134.5 operation, do you think it's legal ?' (glad we didn't end up with an interpretation that 'during an instructional flight you cannot land at an airport different from the one you took off from').

In order to have any federal court, up to the DC Circuit, overturn a Chief Counsel interpretation, you need to prove that it is arbitrary or capricious, a damned high bar to get over.

 

[azure]

Luckily, I got my license prior to the issuance of that letter. I flew most of my long cross-country above the clouds at 10,500. But no, someone had to ask.

It was CAVU the day of my long XC, but I remember doing falling leaf stalls and other stuff in the practice area above FEW/SCT clouds, anywhere from 4000 to 8500. I was never in danger of losing visual reference to the surface and never in danger of getting disoriented. I wonder if the CC is a pilot herself?

If it ain't broke, don't take it apart. Now it IS broke.

 

[p1l0t]

But you do have access to a computer, right? www.faa.gov and click on regulations.

Bob Gardner

I am surprised you couldn't infer from my post that I wasn't near a computer. I have been to faa.gov before, lol. Thanks for the advice smart guy. The browser on my phone is time consuming, although I do have a wonderful app called tapatalk that allows me to post to the forum from my phone. And I will be 30 next year so you won't have the 'well ask a guy under 30 excuse either..' for long.

<---<^>--->

 

[gtmule]

Another question: y'all are all acting like SVFR is some magic bullet. I operate out of a class-D, but assuming I want to do something other than fly around the pattern at 100'AGL under 1101' ceilings, what good does it do me? I guess In theory it can allow me to get to 1000 AGL where, upon exiting the D I'll be in G, and thus OK for flying cross country at 1000AGL, as long as I avoid flying too close to airports (where the E drops to 700 AGL)?

 

[Palmpilot]

One possible use for SVFR is when the weather at the airport is below VFR minimums, but VFR conditions exist nearby.

 

[weilke]

Another question: y'all are all acting like SVFR is some magic bullet. I operate out of a class-D, but assuming I want to do something other than fly around the pattern at 100'AGL under 1101' ceilings, what good does it do me? I guess In theory it can allow me to get to 1000 AGL where, upon exiting the D I'll be in G, and thus OK for flying cross country at 1000AGL, as long as I avoid flying too close to airports (where the E drops to 700 AGL)?

I fly out of a class D airport. The maintenance shop is on a small rural strip 20 miles up the road along an interstate in entirely flat terrain. There are times the airport will be below VFR but you can safely fly a plane to the shop for its annual. A 'special' allows one to do that kind of thing.

Also, the airport is next to the river which creates some sort of fog magnet on fall mornings. Ground visibility can be poor but weather 5 miles into the flat lands on the other side is already clear. Again, the 'special' allows for a safe operation when the basic VFR would not.

It allows you to do the same things you could do if you were at an airport in class G. That's really all it does.