Stupid Question Monday..

Doomer

Doomer

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 4, 2021
Messages
17
Display Name
Display name:
Doomer
If basic VFR minimums for airports in controlled airspace require a ceiling of at least 1,000 ft AGL per 91.157, how can a pilot safely fly at TPA if he also is required to stay 500 ft below any clouds in controlled airspace? It doesn't make sense that the airspace is considered VFR with a 1,000ft ceiling but essentially grounds VFR aircraft from landing/taking off.

I am curious as to why the FAA didn't set VFR minimums as 1,500 feet ceilings.

What am I missing here?
 
taking a shot at this one. 91-155 VFR min for class B (which I believe TPA is) is 3mi viz and Clear of Clouds. In practice it would probably not be the best decision to fly VFR if the ceilings were that low. Because to remain in the Class B around TPA you cannot make it to any other local airport without going above 1000ft and or being in another airspace which requires 500ft below clouds.

This knowledge would be useful if this was one of those days where a bank of clouds was hanging over the airport at 1000ft but you could see that just a few mi one way or the other was much better VFR weather. You could legally get airborne and make your way over to higher ceilings.
 
Any number of reasons apply…

VFR operations don’t necessarily require a full traffic pattern.

1500 feet wouldn’t necessarily provide obstruction clearance on the way to/from the airport.

not all regulations were enacted simultaneously…the Class B “clear of clouds” that @1SGBrokePilot mentioned are relatively recent.

it’s simply the pilot’s responsibility to comply with whatever conglomeration of regulations that may apply.
 
From the AIM, section 4-3-3:

Traffic Patterns
  1. It is recommended that aircraft enter the airport traffic pattern at one of the following altitudes listed below. These altitudes should be maintained unless another traffic pattern altitude is published in the Chart Supplement U.S. or unless otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria (14 CFR Section 91.155). (See FIG 4-3-2 and FIG 4-3-3):
So, you fly a lower pattern or get a special VFR clearance. At an uncontrolled airport, drop down below the floor of class E airspace, usually 700' AGL, then (like special VFR) you only need 1 mile and clear of clouds.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Any number of reasons apply…

VFR operations don’t necessarily require a full traffic pattern.

1500 feet wouldn’t necessarily provide obstruction clearance on the way to/from the airport.

not all regulations were enacted simultaneously…the Class B “clear of clouds” that @1SGBrokePilot mentioned are relatively recent.

it’s simply the pilot’s responsibility to comply with whatever conglomeration of regulations that may apply.
Click to expand...
Also, not all airports are in controlled airspace.
And taking off and landing are not the only operations . . . .
 
MauleSkinner said:
True but the OP’s question was specifically about a reg defining VFR operations at airports in controlled airspace.
Click to expand...

Correct, I was referring to airports specifically in controlled airspace. Dana's and 1SGBrokePilot's posts cleared it up from me with the AIM 4-3-3 and 91.155 references. Can't believe I missed that last sentence regarding the exception for cloud criteria.

Thinking on it now in case I ever get in a situation where ATIS/ASOS/METARs are reporting 1,000ft ceiling and I have to get in, I'd probably just request SVFR to be on the safe side.

Thanks all!
Doomer
 
Doomer said:
a ceiling of at least 1,000 ft AGL per 91.157, how can a pilot safely fly at TPA if he also is required to stay 500 ft below any clouds in controlled airspace?
Click to expand...

Potentially, the word "safely" too. Not sure I'd want to be flying with a 1000' ft ceiling. Coming back Sat, I had to fly the last 15 miles vfr under a 2500' ceiling (and falling) and did not like it.

But, also class G near the ground, either 700' or 1200'.
 
bflynn said:
Potentially, the word "safely" too. Not sure I'd want to be flying with a 1000' ft ceiling. Coming back Sat, I had to fly the last 15 miles vfr under a 2500' ceiling (and falling) and did not like it.

But, also class G near the ground, either 700' or 1200'.
Click to expand...
“Did not like it” may or may not directly relate to “safely”. ;)
 
Doomer said:
Correct, I was referring to airports specifically in controlled airspace. Dana's and 1SGBrokePilot's posts cleared it up from me with the AIM 4-3-3 and 91.155 references. Can't believe I missed that last sentence regarding the exception for cloud criteria.

Thinking on it now in case I ever get in a situation where ATIS/ASOS/METARs are reporting 1,000ft ceiling and I have to get in, I'd probably just request SVFR to be on the safe side.

Thanks all!
Doomer
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind Class E at the surface is an airport in controlled airspace and 91.119 applies except when required for takeoff and landing.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
Not sure I'd want to be flying with a 1000' ft ceiling.
Click to expand...
I went flying the other day when the AWOS was calling 1000' broken, viz was 10+ underneath . Just stayed in the pattern for a few landings, I kept it under 700' so was in G airspace all the time (uncontrolled field), felt perfectly comfortable, though I wouldn't have set off cross country in those conditions.
 
1SGBrokePilot said:
taking a shot at this one. 91-155 VFR min for class B (which I believe TPA is) is 3mi viz and Clear of Clouds. In practice it would probably not be the best decision to fly VFR if the ceilings were that low. Because to remain in the Class B around TPA you cannot make it to any other local airport without going above 1000ft and or being in another airspace which requires 500ft below clouds.

This knowledge would be useful if this was one of those days where a bank of clouds was hanging over the airport at 1000ft but you could see that just a few mi one way or the other was much better VFR weather. You could legally get airborne and make your way over to higher ceilings.
Click to expand...
@Doomer meant Traffic Pattern Altitude, not Tampa, KTPA. The reason the ‘distance from clouds’ requirement in Class B Airspace is clear of them, instead of 1000/500/2000, is about separation from IFR Traffic. In Class B, ATC separates VFR Traffic from IFR Traffic. Therefore, enough distance for a VFR aircraft to see an aircraft pop out of a cloud, and then enough time to avoid it isn’t needed. And for the IFR aircraft to see and avoid a VFR aircraft that fills it’s windshield just as it pops out of the cloud.
 
Dana said:
I went flying the other day when the AWOS was calling 1000' broken, viz was 10+ underneath . Just stayed in the pattern for a few landings, I kept it under 700' so was in G airspace all the time (uncontrolled field), felt perfectly comfortable, though I wouldn't have set off cross country in those conditions.
Click to expand...

You felt perfectly comfortable, but your being there makes it uncomfortable for inbound IFR traffic, especially if they are landing opposite direction to you. Be careful out there.

I landed a couple months ago, doing an instrument approach in IMC, there was a guy doing patterns at the airport, skimming below the clouds in E airspace, doing touch and goes. Multiple inbound IFR traffic to the opposite runway. The wind was about 5 knots, 6,000 foot runway. He called me while I was on the final in clouds and asked me if I was going to land on the opposite runway. I told him I wasn't planning on it, I was still in the clouds. He offered to go over the lake out of my way, but I really didn't know the conditions nearby and over the lake is generally lower, I also suspected he was a student, so I told him no, to continue, we'll work it out. I wanted to tell him he shouldn't have been flying, but I figured that wouldn't have helped since he should have known he shouldn't have been flying vfr. Anyway, I popped out at circling mins, told him I'd land on the opposite runway, skimmed the clouds and landed. Right after I popped out, someone called him on unicom and told him it was time to call it a day.
 
PaulS said:
I wanted to tell him he shouldn't have been flying, but I figured that wouldn't have helped since he should have known he shouldn't have been flying vfr.
Click to expand...
Maybe you shouldn’t have been flying IFR that day.
 
PaulS said:
You mean spend the 20 more or minutes until I broke out flying bandit in the clouds? That's great advice. :confused:
Click to expand...
Such clear-cut double standards must be a wonderful thing for you.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
I have no idea what you are talking about, but good talk.
Click to expand...
He should have known he shouldn’t be flying when it’s legal for him to do so, but clearly you flying when it’s legal for you to do so isn’t a problem.
 
MauleSkinner said:
He should have known he shouldn’t be flying when it’s legal for him to do so, but clearly you flying when it’s legal for you to do so isn’t a problem.
Click to expand...

He was flying normal patterns in Class E airspace with 1050 agl ceilings. He was not maintaining 500 foot clearance from the clouds, he was probably 50 feet from the clouds. He was not legal. I was flying on an instrument flight plan, cleared for an approach to the airport. I was legal.
 
PaulS said:
He was flying normal patterns in Class E airspace with 1050 agl ceilings. He was not maintaining 500 foot clearance from the clouds, he was probably 50 feet from the clouds. He was not legal. I was flying on an instrument flight plan, cleared for an approach to the airport. I was legal.
Click to expand...
So it wasn’t that he shouldn’t be flying, he just should have been doing it legally.
 
MauleSkinner said:
He should have known he shouldn’t be flying when it’s legal for him to do so, but clearly you flying when it’s legal for you to do so isn’t a problem.
Click to expand...

Even if it were legal doesn't make it smart. Multiple IFR's inbound and he's out in the pattern below basic VFR? Grampaw Pettibone says WTF.
 
Pugs said:
Even if it were legal doesn't make it smart. Multiple IFR's inbound and he's out in the pattern below basic VFR? Grampaw Pettibone says WTF.
Click to expand...
If flying IFR near legal VFR aircraft is dangerous, don’t do it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So it wasn’t that he shouldn’t be flying, he just should have been doing it legally.
Click to expand...

Lol. He shouldn't have been flying, vfr, at that airport, that day, he was not flying legally. I work very hard to be legal when I fly, and I would hope everyone else up there flying near me is flying legally too. Unfortunately that's not always the case.
 
PaulS said:
So advocate breaking the rules, and flying because you can do it.
Click to expand...
I’m not advocating breaking the rules. I’m also not advocating telling someone they shouldn’t be flying when they could do it legally.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m not advocating breaking the rules. I’m also not advocating telling someone they shouldn’t be flying when they could do it legally.
Click to expand...

The really great think about aviation regulations is they do not cover every conceivable situation and allow flexibility. The sad thing is when someone doesn't have the experience or SA to understand that even being legal that they have just ramped the risk up a lot and those risks may not be just to yourself.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m not advocating breaking the rules. I’m also not advocating telling someone they shouldn’t be flying when they could do it legally.
Click to expand...

So the context of your reply is my original post. Please tell me where in my post you think it was legal for that guy to fly? I'm missing it.
 
Pugs said:
The really great think about aviation regulations is they do not cover every conceivable situation and allow flexibility. The sad thing is when someone doesn't have the experience or SA to understand that even being legal that they have just ramped the risk up a lot and those risks may not be just to yourself.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but maybe it could be done without ramping up the risk. A change of technique might be a batter attitude than “he shouldn’t have been in my airspace”.
 
PaulS said:
So the context of your reply is my original post. Please tell me where in my post you think it was legal for that guy to fly? I'm missing it.
Click to expand...
The only thing you indicated was that he didn’t have legal cloud clearance.
 
PaulS said:
Sooo, that makes it illegal, he shouldn't have been flying. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
The 500 feet lower that he could have flown legally.

if you clear everybody out of the sky that’s doing something illegally, intentional or not, you’d have empty skies.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The 500 feet lower that he could have flown legally.
Click to expand...

But he wasn't, so he was illegal. Plus it's an airport with terrain around it, he may have been able to do it legally flying at 700 agl but it would have been less bright.

Honestly when he asked me if I wanted him to leave the pattern while I came in, I was worried about him, that he would fly VFR into IMC, I didn't want that on my conscience. If it had been below mins for circling I would have gone missed and asked him if he could land until I was in. Hopefully he would have said ok.

luvflyin said:
I think Paul and Maule are married to each other. Only a couple can argue like that:goofy::rofl:
Click to expand...

One wife is enough for me, we don't argue either. But I don't look at this as arguing, I'm just trying to figure out where Maule is coming from and if I'm thinking about that event incorrectly.
 
PaulS said:
But he wasn't, so he was illegal.
Click to expand...
By that logic, if a light bulb is burned out and not properly deferred, and you still fly, you are illegal and should be grounded instead of either fixing it or deferring it properly.
Plus it's an airport with terrain around it, he may have been able to do it legally flying at 700 agl but it would have been less bright.
Click to expand...
I know pilots who think flying published instrument procedures is “less bright”. That doesn’t make the operation unsafe, nor does it mean pilots who fly them should be grounded.
 
MauleSkinner said:
By that logic, if a light bulb is burned out and not properly deferred, and you still fly, you are illegal and should be grounded instead of either fixing it or deferring it properly.

I know pilots who think flying published instrument procedures is “less bright”. That doesn’t make the operation unsafe, nor does it mean pilots who fly them should be grounded.
Click to expand...

Like I said, good talk. If you want to fly in or near the clouds, get an instrument rating. It's very satisfying and lots of fun! Otherwise, stay off my lawn!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top