Surface class E ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pegasus

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
65
Location
Waunakee, WI
Display Name

Display name:
Pegasus
LNR airport has class E airspace from the surface. The ASOS is not correct on the visibility most of the time. Today it was reporting 2 miles and clear. I saw the airport from 8 miles out, runway clearly in sight. Who has precedence the ASOS or the pilots visibility?
 
Last edited:
The ASOS. The ASOS was installed at a nearby airport, GBG after a commuter emerged on the ILS and nearly broadsided a PA18 who was flying around in 1000 foot ceilings, just barely below the clouds.

The airline howled. The PA18 guy stated he had 500 below and 4 miles vis. No enforcement was possible.

Same guy two years later, same situation. The ASOS nailed him.
 
LNR airport has class E airspace from the surface. The ASOS is not correct on the visibility most of the time. Today it was reporting 2 miles and I saw the airport from 8 miles out, runway clearly in sight. Who has precedence the ASOS or the pilots visibility?
It's pilot's judgment but make use of available information and balance them. If the temperature/dew point spread is narrow, that can be an indicator of possible ground visibility issues. This can vary widely from what you see from aloft looking out and/or looking down through that restriction to the ground. The picture may change as you come up on final or within that last few hundred feet above ground.

Tis better to err on the side of caution.
 
The ASOS. The ASOS was installed at a nearby airport, GBG after a commuter emerged on the ILS and nearly broadsided a PA18 who was flying around in 1000 foot ceilings, just barely below the clouds.

The airline howled. The PA18 guy stated he had 500 below and 4 miles vis. No enforcement was possible.

Same guy two years later, same situation. The ASOS nailed him.

Who was nailed by the ASOS? PA18 guy or the commuter?
 
Huh? I've always been taught it's the pilot. As in *flight* visibility (ASOS is ground vis).

Anyone have an actual reference, either way?

Try this section for the flight visibility.

Section 91.155: Basic VFR weather minimums.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table:

Airspace Flight visibility Distance from clouds
Class A Not Applicable Not Applicable.

Class B 3 statute miles Clear of Clouds.

Class C 3 statute miles 500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.

Class D 3 statute miles 500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.

Class E:
Less than 10,000 feet MSL 3 statute miles 500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal
At or above 10,000 feet MSL 5 statute miles 1,000 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
1 statute mile horizontal.

Class G:
1,200 feet or less above the surface (regardless of MSL altitude)
Day, except as provided in §91.155(b) 1 statute mile Clear of clouds.
Night, except as provided in §91.155(b) 3 statute miles 500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.
More than 1,200 feet above the surface but less than 10,000 feet MSL
Day 1 statute mile 500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.
Night 3 statute miles 500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.
More than 1,200 feet above the surface and at or above 10,000 feet MSL 5 statute miles 1,000 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
1 statute mile horizontal.

Section 91.175: Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
(b) Authorized DA/DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when the approach procedure being used provides for and requires the use of a DA/DH or MDA, the authorized DA/DH or MDA is the highest of the following:
(1) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure.
(2) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command.
(3) The DA/DH or MDA appropriate for the aircraft equipment available and used during the approach.
(c) Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless—
(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;
(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and
(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
(ii) The threshold.
(iii) The threshold markings.
(iv) The threshold lights.
(v) The runway end identifier lights.
(vi) The visual approach slope indicator.
(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.
(viii) The touchdown zone lights.
(ix) The runway or runway markings.
(x) The runway lights.
(d) Landing. No pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, may land that aircraft when—
(1) For operations conducted under paragraph (l) of this section, the requirements of (l)(4) of this section are not met; or
(2) For all other part 91 operations and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135 operations, the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used.
(e) Missed approach procedures. Each pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall immediately execute an appropriate missed approach procedure when either of the following conditions exist:
(1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) or (l) of this section and the requirements of that paragraph are not met at either of the following times:
(i) When the aircraft is being operated below MDA; or
(ii) Upon arrival at the missed approach point, including a DA/DH where a DA/DH is specified and its use is required, and at any time after that until touchdown.
(2) Whenever an identifiable part of the airport is not distinctly visible to the pilot during a circling maneuver at or above MDA, unless the inability to see an identifiable part of the airport results only from a normal bank of the aircraft during the circling approach.
 
VFR weather minimums are based on flight visibility. You determine flight visibility, not the ASOS.

However, per 91.155(d), for surface area E, you need ground visibility of at least 3SM, if ground visibility is reported. So if you takeoff, land, or enter the traffic pattern while VFR, the ASOS should be reporting at least 3SM.
-harry
 
The ASOS. The ASOS was installed at a nearby airport, GBG after a commuter emerged on the ILS and nearly broadsided a PA18 who was flying around in 1000 foot ceilings, just barely below the clouds.

The airline howled. The PA18 guy stated he had 500 below and 4 miles vis. No enforcement was possible.

Same guy two years later, same situation. The ASOS nailed him.

The ASOS nailed him for flying around 500' below a 1000 foot ceiling and 4 miles viz?
 
LNR airport has class E airspace from the surface. The ASOS is not correct on the visibility most of the time. Today it was reporting 2 miles and clear. I saw the airport from 8 miles out, runway clearly in sight. Who has precedence the ASOS or the pilots visibility?

The ASOS, ground visibility is controlling in a surface area. Why the emphasis on clear?


§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.

(d) Except as provided in §91.157 of this part, no person may take off or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR, within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport—

(1) Unless ground visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or


(2) If ground visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles.
 
Last edited:
Huh? I've always been taught it's the pilot. As in *flight* visibility (ASOS is ground vis).

Anyone have an actual reference, either way?

§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.


(d) Except as provided in §91.157 of this part, no person may take off or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR, within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport—


(1) Unless ground visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or


(2) If ground visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles.
 
It's pilot's judgment but make use of available information and balance them.

It's not pilot's judgment. If the ASOS is reporting visibility less than 3 miles VFR operation is not an option.
 
There's a couple airports I used to fly to where the ASOS was ALWAYS wrong. It would report IFR conditions during clear skies and outstanding visability.

Everyone in the area knew it was a problem and the basic "rule of thumb" was to check the reports of the airports around it. If they all reported good conditions, and the bad ASOS did not, the good ones were relied on for flight planning purposes.

This may not be technically regualtion accurate, but the local pilots understood the situation and compensated for the bad ASOS accordingly.
 
There's a couple airports I used to fly to where the ASOS was ALWAYS wrong. It would report IFR conditions during clear skies and outstanding visability.

Everyone in the area knew it was a problem and the basic "rule of thumb" was to check the reports of the airports around it. If they all reported good conditions, and the bad ASOS did not, the good ones were relied on for flight planning purposes.

This may not be technically regualtion accurate, but the local pilots understood the situation and compensated for the bad ASOS accordingly.

Did anyone try to report the ASOS?
 
Simple solution, keep calling the controlling agency give them a Pirep and request special VFR operations. If they get it enough they may send someone to fix the ASOS
 
The ASOS nailed him for flying around 500' below a 1000 foot ceiling and 4 miles viz?

No, he was actually flying around just under a 1000' ceiling, as Bruce said "just barely below the clouds", and "claiming" that he had 4 miles visibility and was 500' under.

The ASOS trumped his "claim" when he tried that same stunt again.
 
Simple solution, keep calling the controlling agency give them a Pirep and request special VFR operations. If they get it enough they may send someone to fix the ASOS

It's a simple enough matter for the airport manager to just NOTAM the ASOS as inaccurate/inop. That would seem to solve the problem of "I say/it said."
 
To be clear, the ground visibility controls your ability to land, takeoff, and enter the traffic pattern at a Class E with surface area. The flight visibility controls your ability to fly through the airspace.

So to takeoff or land, you need to meet both conditions.
-harry
 
No, he was actually flying around just under a 1000' ceiling, as Bruce said "just barely below the clouds", and "claiming" that he had 4 miles visibility and was 500' under.

The ASOS trumped his "claim" when he tried that same stunt again.

How does the ASOS trump his "claim"? The ASOS reports weather conditions, not the position of aircraft. The ASOS doesn't know if he's 500' below the 1000' ceiling or just under it.
 
How does the ASOS trump his "claim"? The ASOS reports weather conditions, not the position of aircraft. The ASOS doesn't know if he's 500' below the 1000' ceiling or just under it.

Just guessing but I'll bet the pilot claimed he was 1000 AGL and 500 ft below the clouds. If the ASOS (correctly) indicated the ceiling was 1000 AGL the pilot's story would be hard to believe. And FWIW, the FAA has gone on record that flying 500 AGL under a 1000 AGL ceiling isn't an acceptable interpretation of the regs if the airport is located in a "congested area".
 
It's a simple enough matter for the airport manager to just NOTAM the ASOS as inaccurate/inop. That would seem to solve the problem of "I say/it said."

I don't know about that. The airport manager can certainly NOTAM airport conditions, I don't think ASOS output qualifies.
 
Just guessing but I'll bet the pilot claimed he was 1000 AGL and 500 ft below the clouds.

That's what I understood "The PA18 guy stated he had 500 below and 4 miles vis." to mean.

If the ASOS (correctly) indicated the ceiling was 1000 AGL the pilot's story would be hard to believe. And FWIW, the FAA has gone on record that flying 500 AGL under a 1000 AGL ceiling isn't an acceptable interpretation of the regs if the airport is located in a "congested area".

What about "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing..."?
 
First, the airport manager can NOTAM the ASOS as being "unreliable" in any or all of its sensory categories. Until then, it is controlling as far as ground vis and ceiling for 91.155(c)/(d) purposes, and no PIREP can get around it. The only way a pilot observation can trump the reported ground vis is for flight vis when dealing with a 91.175(c)(2) issue. See Administrator v. Pisarek on that one, in which the 91.175 charge was dismissed, although you should note that they still got Pisarek on a 91.13 careless/reckless charge for reasons which should be obvious if you read the whole story.

Second, that business about "except when necessary for takeoff or landing" applies only when a normal descent profile will take you below the otherwise-mandated minimum altitude. IOW, it allows you to leave TPA when you have to (i.e., about the time you turn base) without violating 91.119. It does not allow you to fly the full pattern at an altitude which violates 91.119.

Thus, if the ceiling is 1100 feet, and it's a congested area around the airport, you cannot legally fly VFR in/out/around that airport without violating either 91.119 by being too low, or 91.155 by being too close to the clouds. And yes, this one was flight-tested by a couple of CFI's out of Republic in NY -- busted! Note that this does not stop you from getting a SVFR clearance and operating in the pattern just below the cloud bases but above 91.119 mins (SVFR doesn't waive the minimum altitude rules, just cloud clearance and visibility), but you'll have to work that out with the ATC facility which owns the surface-based controlled airspace.
 
Last edited:
That's what I understood "The PA18 guy stated he had 500 below and 4 miles vis." to mean.



What about "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing..."?

They have specifically said that having a 1000 AGL ceiling in class E does not by itself make it "necessary" for takeoff or landing."
 
First, the airport manager can NOTAM the ASOS as being "unreliable" in any or all of its sensory categories. Until then, it is controlling as far as ground vis and ceiling for 91.155(c)/(d) purposes, and no PIREP can get around it.

Can you offer any verifiable documentation to support that assertion?
 
It's not pilot's judgment. If the ASOS is reporting visibility less than 3 miles VFR operation is not an option.
Remember that little thing about how a station in one corner of the airport won't necessarily accurately report what's happening in the other corner?

Now, if you would read the OP's original premise, pilot judgment would not be an issue. He's not arriving in hard IMC. If it's a non-towered airport, fly over and look. If the situation looks better than reported, continue an approach to the point it's deemed visibility requirements are no longer there.
 
Remember that little thing about how a station in one corner of the airport won't necessarily accurately report what's happening in the other corner?

Yes. What's your point?

Now, if you would read the OP's original premise, pilot judgment would not be an issue. He's not arriving in hard IMC. If it's a non-towered airport, fly over and look. If the situation looks better than reported, continue an approach to the point it's deemed visibility requirements are no longer there.
Wrong. IMC means meteorological conditions less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions. Visual meteorological conditions in a surface area include a ground visibility of three miles or more, so he is arriving in hard IMC.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by that, can you rephrase it?

I'll try but now we're talking about my interpretation of something that was already not quite a quote.

What I recall is a case where a pilot admitted to flying circuits at an airport with his altitude limited to approximately 500 agl in the pattern. It was also stated that the reason for the unusually low pattern altitude was the avoidance of a low ceiling by the required 500 ft in class E airspace. The pilot believed that he was in compliance with the FARs even though he was flying below 1000 AGL in a congested area because the low ceiling made it "necessary" for takeoff and landing. I'm pretty certain that his argument failed. I don't remember whether or not it was also claimed that the airport was a "congested area" even if it was far removed from any "congestion" besides the airport environment itself but I think that may also have been the case.

Bottom line (if my memory is correct) is that you cannot use a low ceiling as an excuse to fly a low pattern.

Clear enough?
 
Simple solution, keep calling the controlling agency give them a Pirep and request special VFR operations. If they get it enough they may send someone to fix the ASOS

First, the airport manager can NOTAM the ASOS as being "unreliable" in any or all of its sensory categories. Until then, it is controlling as far as ground vis and ceiling for 91.155(c)/(d) purposes, and no PIREP can get around it. The only way a pilot observation can trump the reported ground vis is for flight vis when dealing with a 91.175(c)(2) issue. See Administrator v. Pisarek on that one, in which the 91.175 charge was dismissed, although you should note that they still got Pisarek on a 91.13 careless/reckless charge for reasons which should be obvious if you read the whole story.

Second, that business about "except when necessary for takeoff or landing" applies only when a normal descent profile will take you below the otherwise-mandated minimum altitude. IOW, it allows you to leave TPA when you have to (i.e., about the time you turn base) without violating 91.119. It does not allow you to fly the full pattern at an altitude which violates 91.119.

Thus, if the ceiling is 1100 feet, and it's a congested area around the airport, you cannot legally fly VFR in/out/around that airport without violating either 91.119 by being too low, or 91.155 by being too close to the clouds. And yes, this one was flight-tested by a couple of CFI's out of Republic in NY -- busted! Note that this does not stop you from getting a SVFR clearance and operating in the pattern just below the cloud bases but above 91.119 mins (SVFR doesn't waive the minimum altitude rules, just cloud clearance and visibility), but you'll have to work that out with the ATC facility which owns the surface-based controlled airspace.

I didn't think the Pirep would get around it, but I figured if the controlling agency would get sick of dealing with pilots giving Pireps of better then ASOA reported conditions and dealing with the requested specials that they may just get someone out to fix it.
 
I don't know about that. The airport manager can certainly NOTAM airport conditions, I don't think ASOS output qualifies.

Sure it does. Haven't you ever gotten a pilot briefing in which the briefer mentioned that an ASOS was out of service?
 
Yes. What's your point?

Wrong. IMC means meteorological conditions less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions. Visual meteorological conditions in a surface area include a ground visibility of three miles or more, so he is arriving in hard IMC.

LNR airport has class E airspace from the surface. The ASOS is not correct on the visibility most of the time. Today it was reporting 2 miles and clear. I saw the airport from 8 miles out, runway clearly in sight. Who has precedence the ASOS or the pilots visibility?
Where do you get hard IMC out of "I saw the airport from 8 miles out..."
 
Sure it does. Haven't you ever gotten a pilot briefing in which the briefer mentioned that an ASOS was out of service?

I've received NOTAMs indicating ASOS/AWOS out of service, but I never assumed the airport manager was the source of the NOTAM.
 
Affirmative.

Tis goot den. I see you are near GRB, do you work in that tower? Ever work the TRACON? I pass through there on my way to/from the TVC Michigan several times a year.
 
Where do you get hard IMC out of "I saw the airport from 8 miles out..."

I don't, I get it from, "LNR airport has class E airspace from the surface. The ASOS is not correct on the visibility most of the time. Today it was reporting 2 miles and clear." If you understood FAR 91.155(d) you would have also gotten it from that.
 
I don't, I get it from, "LNR airport has class E airspace from the surface. The ASOS is not correct on the visibility most of the time. Today it was reporting 2 miles and clear." If you understood FAR 91.155(d) you would have also gotten it from that.
Yes, and you're reading more into the original premise than was there. He was speaking to strictly visibility. Period!

Look at the second part in 91.155(d)(2):
"...or, while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles."

Continue and observe. If it's the least bit questionable, continue to the alternate. By your interpretation, the tower's reporting of "tower visibility" in remarks would be irrelevant. More than a few times ASOS would report 2-2.5 miles while tower would add remarks for much more by comparison. What makes that tower controller's ATIS remarks more credible than my observation?

In Pegasus' original question there was no comment on clouds or otherwise. I responded to the question as presented. After I answer such a question with my own student, then I bring up other possible scenarios to have them think about it further. But, I don't complicate the original question by answering something that wasn't asked.
 
I know well that the ASOS varies from actual around the airport and any distance away from the airport.

At PHN we are Class E to the surface. IF the ASOS turns the Beacon on were IMC. Even when it's clear as far as you can see. The ASOS on the far side of the field in the little depression is fogged in against the trees.

Today we had the opposite ASOS reporting 7-10 miles clear below 12,000. From 1650 TPA to 2000 visibility was definitely around five to the ground.
 
Can you offer any verifiable documentation to support that assertion?
For the first, I can only offer experiential data -- the NOTAMs showing ASOS's are unreliable in one area or another. Look around the NOTAM file, and you'll find them. For some time last year, the KGED ASOS was NOTAM'd unreliable for wind direction.

In the second case, you're asking me to prove a negative -- no can do. But if you can find a waiver or other exception to 91.155(c)/(d) based on pilot observation, I'd like to see it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top