Sport Pilot VFR Minimums

[VictorValencia]

Hi All,

I am a student working on Sport Pilot and came across a question
that I "think" I know the answer to but I'm not 100% sure.

FAR 61.315 C.12 states "C) You may not act as pilot in command of a light
sport aircraft:....12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3
statute miles."

My question is does this imply that a Sport Pilot may not fly in
"marginal vfr" (MVFR) conditions (1-3 sm visibility) ?

I think the answer is "yes, a sport pilot is not allowed to fly in
MVFR conditions". I want to see if anyone has a different opinion.

Victor

 

[warthog1984]

H
My question is does this imply that a Sport Pilot may not fly in
"marginal vfr" (MVFR) conditions (1-3 sm visibility) ?

I think the answer is "yes, a sport pilot is not allowed to fly in
MVFR conditions". I want to see if anyone has a different opinion.

Victor

MVFR is 3-5SM visibility. 1-3SM visibility is special cases only: Class B (needs endorsement for SP), Class G, or SVFR (which I don't believe SP is allowed to do). SP can do down to 3SM with visual contact with the ground.

 

[poadeleted20]

MVFR is 3-5SM visibility.

Correct, in terms of categorical outlook in forecasts. There is no "MVFR" in the flight rules -- it's either VMC or IMC.

1-3SM visibility is special cases only: Class B (needs endorsement for SP)

Class B VMC requires 3 miles flight vis. It's the cloud clearances which are reduced down to just "clear of clouds". But either way, yes, Sport Pilots need a Class B endorsement.

, Class G,

1 mile in G-space is day only -- it's 3 miles at night.

or SVFR (which I don't believe SP is allowed to do).

AFAIK, that's not a specific prohibition. Sport Pilots must have 3 miles flight visibility, but there's nothing I know prohibiting them from doing SVFR when the vis is >3 but standard VFR cloud clearance cannot be maintained.

SP can do down to 3SM with visual contact with the ground.

Correct, and I think that would include operating 100 feet below a 900-foot ceiling in D/E-space with SVFR clearance.

 

[VictorValencia]

MVFR is 3-5SM visibility. 1-3SM visibility is special cases only: Class B (needs endorsement for SP), Class G, or SVFR (which I don't believe SP is allowed to do). SP can do down to 3SM with visual contact with the ground.

OK. That makes sense.

Thanks!

 

[poadeleted20]

My question is does this imply that a Sport Pilot may not fly in "marginal vfr" (MVFR) conditions (1-3 sm visibility) ?

As noted above, a Sport Pilot may not fly when the visibility 1-3 miles, but that is IFR, not MVFR, in categorical outlook forecasts. MVFR vis is 3-5 miles, and that is legal for a Sport Pilot.

 

[warthog1984]

AFAIK, that's not a specific prohibition. Sport Pilots must have 3 miles flight visibility, but there's nothing I know prohibiting them from doing SVFR when the vis is >3 but standard VFR cloud clearance cannot be maintained.

You're right. For some reasons I was thinking day VFR is restricted to Private and above, but I can't find it.

Additional note for the OP: 3SM vis may sound like a lot, but it really isn't. Have your CFI take you up on a hazy day & you'll see why it's called "marginal" VFR.

 

[tinerj]

I've read through this a couple of times, and I'm not certain I yet understand when it becomes a problem. Let me try a specific example.

I've gotten airborne in definite VFR conditions. I intend to land at an uncontrolled airport that is in G space (no E to the ground, no tower, etc.) When I listen to the weather, I find the visibility is reported as 3 miles. All right. Am I legal as a SP to land at that airport?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Yes..

 

[N801BH]

Yes..

Agreed....

 

[poadeleted20]

I've gotten airborne in definite VFR conditions. I intend to land at an uncontrolled airport that is in G space (no E to the ground, no tower, etc.) When I listen to the weather, I find the visibility is reported as 3 miles. All right. Am I legal as a SP to land at that airport?

As far as visibility is concerned, yes. Of course, there may be other issues if the clouds are too low to stay above the minimum altitude per 91.119, so one cannot be certain you're legal from all aspects, but you are as far as 91.155 is concerned regarding visibility.

 

[bullwinkle]

Sport Pilots are not allowed to request a Special VFR clearance...we have to have three miles visibility.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sport Pilots are not allowed to request a Special VFR clearance...we have to have three miles visibility.

Can you show me the regulation which would prevent a Sport Pilot from requesting a SVFR clearance into D/E space to the surface of an airport when the reported weather is 900-4? I can certainly show you the regulation prohibiting regular VFR into that airspace in that reported weather (91.155), and if either ceiling or visibility is below VMC, SVFR may be authorized down to 1 mile regardless of ceiling as long as the pilot can maintain clear of clouds (91.157).

 

[RJM62]

Can you show me the regulation which would prevent a Sport Pilot from requesting a SVFR clearance into D/E space to the surface of an airport when the reported weather is 900-4? I can certainly show you the regulation prohibiting regular VFR into that airspace in that reported weather (91.155), and if either ceiling or visibility is below VMC, SVFR may be authorized down to 1 mile regardless of ceiling as long as the pilot can maintain clear of clouds (91.157).

So you're saying yes, if the SVFR is requested due to ceiling rather than visibility?

-Rich

 

[poadeleted20]

So you're saying yes, if the SVFR is requested due to ceiling rather than visibility?

I'm saying I can't find anything which says "no" in that case, but so many folks seem to think otherwise, maybe I missed something that one of them will point out to me. Obviously, if it involves B/C/D airspace, or E-surface with a tower, the Sport Pilot will need a 61.325 endorsement, but that would be required even for regular VFR.

 

[RJM62]

I'm saying I can't find anything which says "no" in that case, but so many folks seem to think otherwise, maybe I missed something that one of them will point out to me. Obviously, if it involves B/C/D airspace, or E-surface with a tower, the Sport Pilot will need a 61.325 endorsement, but that would be required even for regular VFR.

Well, Ron, if you can't find it, then I'm inclined to believe that it doesn't exist.

Thanks.

-Rich.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm saying I can't find anything which says "no" in that case, but so many folks seem to think otherwise, maybe I missed something that one of them will point out to me.

It's similar to the special VFR for student pilots question. I see nothing in the Special VFR rule to prohibit it either but know that there are some, including folks at the FAA, who feel otherwise.

I first came across the "otherwise" in a Gleim FIRC. The "correct" answer to "May a student pilot obtain a special VFR clearance" was "No." I went back and forth with Gleim on that one with the bottom lime being, "Our courses need to be approved and that hey answer they wanted."

Best I can figure to support it is this: as a quasi-IFR clearance, you can't have a pilot (1) accept the clearance and (2) be unable to comply with parts of it. I don't agree but no one has ever asked for my agreement on a rule.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's similar to the special VFR for student pilots question. I see nothing in the Special VFR rule to prohibit it either but know that there are some, including folks at the FAA, who feel otherwise.

I first came across the "otherwise" in a Gleim FIRC. The "correct" answer to "May a student pilot obtain a special VFR clearance" was "No." I went back and forth with Gleim on that one with the bottom lime being, "Our courses need to be approved and that hey answer they wanted."

Best I can figure to support it is this: as a quasi-IFR clearance, you can't have a pilot (1) accept the clearance and (2) be unable to comply with parts of it. I don't agree but no one has ever asked for my agreement on a rule.

AFS-600 can say they want that answer on a written test, and make that stick when grading the test, but I think it would be very difficult for the Chief Counsel to make an enforcement action stick based solely on "that's the answer we wanted". I just don't see any way to interpret 61.315(c)(12) (or for a Student Pilot, 61.89(a)(6)) as prohibiting SVFR by a Sport or Student Pilot when the weather is 900-4 and the ground is in sight that wouldn't be laughed out of court as "arbitrary, capricious, and not according to law". Even the much-hated Mangiamele decision has a certain logic based on the actual wording of the regulations; this would not.

 

[jnmeade]

as a quasi-IFR clearance,

Hmmm, I'm not comfortable with categorizing SVFR as "quasi-IFR". My understanding was the clearance assumed you would not have to be IFR even though in less than meterological VFR conditions. I see it somewhat like a contact approach for VFR pilots. Thoughts?

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmmm, I'm not comfortable with categorizing SVFR as "quasi-IFR". My understanding was the clearance assumed you would not have to be IFR even though in less than meterological VFR conditions. I see it somewhat like a contact approach for VFR pilots. Thoughts?

I think you see it correctly according to the printed regulations. It's no different in that regard than a Class B VFR clearance, although unlike SVFR, the regulations specifically require for that either a Private certificate or an specific endorsement for Sport or Student Pilots. My view is that if they wanted to prohibit SVFR for Student or Sport Pilots, they would have done so clearly in the regulations as they did for Class B operations without a specific endorsement -- and they didn't.

 

[N801BH]

I think you see it correctly according to the printed regulations. It's no different in that regard than a Class B VFR clearance, although unlike SVFR, the regulations specifically require for that either a Private certificate or an specific endorsement for Sport or Student Pilots. My view is that if they wanted to prohibit SVFR for Student or Sport Pilots, they would have done so clearly in the regulations as they did for Class B operations without a specific endorsement -- and they didn't.

Agreed......

I predict a new law on the books real soon to address this issue..

 

[tinerj]

There are really only two categories: VFR and IFR. All others are subsets of one or the other.

MVFR is a subset of VFR; and according to the start of this thread, anyone can fly MVFR -- PP, SP, or Student Pilot.

The question comes down to where does SVFR belong? On the face of it, it looks like SVFR is a subset of VFR. So it, too, should be available to PP, SP and endorsed Student Pilot.

You understand, I'm using logic, a term seldom employed by the FAA.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hmmm, I'm not comfortable with categorizing SVFR as "quasi-IFR". My understanding was the clearance assumed you would not have to be IFR even though in less than meterological VFR conditions. I see it somewhat like a contact approach for VFR pilots. Thoughts?

The only reason I refer to it that way is in issuing a Special VFR clearance, ATC uses IFR separation standards. It's not intended as a regulatory description.

 

[warthog1984]

but I think it would be very difficult for the Chief Counsel to make an enforcement action stick

 

[poadeleted20]

There are really only two categories: VFR and IFR. All others are subsets of one or the other.

MVFR is a subset of VFR; and according to the start of this thread, anyone can fly MVFR -- PP, SP, or Student Pilot.

Not true. VFR, SVFR, and IFR are, in this context, sets of flight rules. "MVFR" is a categorization of weather in a forecast denoting ceiling of 1000-3000 AGL and/or visibility of 3-5 miles. The question of whether one can legally fly VFR or not is determined only by whether the actual current weather constituted "VMC" as specified in 91.155 for the type of airspace in which you are operating. In fact, most pilots can legally fly VFR in Class G airspace below 1200AGL/10,000MSL with only 1 mile visibility, even though that would be categorized as "IFR" in an Area Forecast or on a Significant Weather Forecast chart. OTOH, nobody can legally fly VFR in most airspace above 10,000 MSL with 4 miles visibility even though that would be categorized as "MVFR" in those forecasts, since the minimum visibility for VMC there is 5 miles.

The question comes down to where does SVFR belong?

No, the question comes down to "What do the regulations say?", and I cannot find any regulatory prohibition of SVFR operations by Student or Sport Pilots.

You understand, I'm using logic, a term seldom employed by the FAA.

You would do better to use the regulations.

 

[poadeleted20]

I predict a new law on the books real soon to address this issue..

Only if someone raises the issue with the FAA, and that person won't be me.

 

[poadeleted20]

I understand your point, but pulling that small segment of my post out of context renders it open to misinterpretation, and I would not appreciate that even if that's the sort of thing movie publicists do with reviews.

 

[eetrojan]

Consistent with this thread (I think), the folks at a sport pilot board also concluded, after confirmation from some unspecified FAA representative, that:

there is no regulation prohibiting sport pilots with an airspace endorsement and 3 miles visibility from requesting SVFR per 91.157 to get around the 1000/500/2000 cloud clearances per 91.155 to fly right next to the clouds and be clear of clouds per SVFR 91.157


http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=10817&sid=4d50796a123f87b74f0c594c611f088a#p10817

 

[MAKG1]

As a student pilot, I had to struggle to understand the point of SVFR.

Basically, it gives you a separation service in the surface area of Class C, D, or E that you wouldn't otherwise have as a VFR pilot. This is a radar service, not an IFR service.

I've not yet had a need to use it, but I've seen some conditions that might have made it close. Like a big cloud hanging over the departure end of the runway at 1000 AGL.

There is no SVFR outside the surface areas (excepting directly above them to 10,000 MSL). Fortunately, my home airport is part of a string of abutting surface areas for Class C and D, and the 10,000 is more than enough to get into Class B. I can get some distance with the "clear of clouds" restriction. Not that it's anywhere near a sure thing that San Jose International will be comfy with an SVFR clearance for a transiting spam can.

 

[bullwinkle]

Consistent with this thread (I think), the folks at a sport pilot board also concluded, after confirmation from some unspecified FAA representative, that:

there is no regulation prohibiting sport pilots with an airspace endorsement and 3 miles visibility from requesting SVFR per 91.157 to get around the 1000/500/2000 cloud clearances per 91.155 to fly right next to the clouds and be clear of clouds per SVFR 91.157


http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=10817&sid=4d50796a123f87b74f0c594c611f088a#p10817

Then I stand corrected. Apologies for the confusion. I was misinformed in training.

 

[tinerj]

Not true. VFR, SVFR, and IFR are, in this context, sets of flight rules.

You would do better to use the regulations.

Yes, true. A pilot cannot get a SVFR rating. In the context of what I was talking about -- whether a pilot can fly SVFR -- then he must do so as a VFR pilot or a IFR pilot. He cannot go and get a SVFR rating.

"A pilot would do better to use the regulations."

 

[RJM62]

Then I stand corrected. Apologies for the confusion. I was misinformed in training.

You and a bunch of others... myself included.

-Rich

 

[poadeleted20]

As a student pilot, I had to struggle to understand the point of SVFR.

Basically, it gives you a separation service in the surface area of Class C, D, or E that you wouldn't otherwise have as a VFR pilot. This is a radar service, not an IFR service.

SVFR separation is done procedurally, not by radar. Essentially, it allows an aircraft operating by visual references to operate where there is insufficient cloud clearance or visibility for "see and be seen" visual separation by two aircraft in the same airspace. Typically, only one aircraft (IFR or SVFR) is allowed in that airspace at a time under those conditions unless Tower can see both to provide visual separation. Radar is normally not involved at all.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, true. A pilot cannot get a SVFR rating. In the context of what I was talking about -- whether a pilot can fly SVFR -- then he must do so as a VFR pilot or a IFR pilot. He cannot go and get a SVFR rating.

Other than at night, an instrument rating is not required for SVFR. In any event, all pilots are either VFR or IFR, depending on whether or not they have instrument privileges per 14 CFR 61.3, so saying one must do SVFR as a VFR pilot or an IFR pilot is the same as saying one must be a pilot to do SVFR, and that isn't particularly significant.

 

[tinerj]

When the regs are silent it makes for interesting discussion. For instance, the regs require that a certificated aircraft have certain instruments -- airspeed, altimeter, compass, etc., and certain engine instruments, oil temp, oil pressure, etc.

But experimental Home Built aircraft are not certificated aircraft. Look elsewhere for what is required for instruments. No where are the instruments for experimental Home Built aircraft stated in the regs.

Conclusion: An experimental Home Built aircraft does not require instruments. One could be registered, given an airworthiness certificate, and flown with a perfectly blank instrument panel.

And that conclusion is true.

(All right, there is some question about the fuel gauge and with two seats or more the HB would need a ELT.)

I think it would be wise for pilots to not go looking for regs were none exist. Or, as the Hellstorm Chronicles say, "The insects have the answer because they don't ask the question."

 

[poadeleted20]

When the regs are silent it makes for interesting discussion. For instance, the regs require that a certificated aircraft have certain instruments -- airspeed, altimeter, compass, etc., and certain engine instruments, oil temp, oil pressure, etc.

But experimental Home Built aircraft are not certificated aircraft. Look elsewhere for what is required for instruments. No where are the instruments for experimental Home Built aircraft stated in the regs.

Conclusion: An experimental Home Built aircraft does not require instruments. One could be registered, given an airworthiness certificate, and flown with a perfectly blank instrument panel.

And that conclusion is true.

Perhaps in theory, but not in reality. The FAA has published instructions to its Inspectors on issuance of an E-AB Airworthiness Certificate in FAA Order 8130.2G. That Order says

c. Aircraft Inspection.​

The FAA will perform an inspection to the extent necessary to ensure that a prior inspection of the aircraft and aircraft systems has been accomplished in accordance with the inspection requirements as identified in paragraph 4002b of this order. The FAA will verify that instruments, instrument markings, and placards are as required by the CFR and are identified in the English language. In addition, the FAA will verify that all measurements are converted to standard U.S. units of measure for those instruments necessary for operation in the U.S. air traffic system.​

Note:​

Depending on the intended operation, the applicable reference would be 14 CFR § 91.205(b), VFR (day); 14 CFR § 91.205(c), VFR (night); or 14 CFR § 91.205(d), IFR.​

So, even though the regulation itself explicitly applies only to Standard Airworthiness aircraft, the Order requires Inspectors to use it as the standard when issuing an E-AB Airworthiness Certificate.