SVFR at Night

[Len Lanetti]

What say you?

Len

 

[sere]

I never request a SVFR. Either it is VFR or IFR for me.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

What say you?

Len

Where you political pollster in your previous life?

IOW, somewhat inflammatory poll in that it highlights one very small (negative) aspect of SVFR yet the poll title implies the complete SVFR entity.

 

[Richard]

Your poll is biased. There are two options; "staying alive" and, by implication, not staying alive. While the risk does increase I believe the two are not mutually exclusive. Factor in a pilot who loses SA or operates carelessly--otherwise known as getting over one's head--then you may have the result you suspect. Night SVFR doesn't automatically lead to fatality.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Where you political pollster in your previous life?

Ed,

No.

Len

P.S. I had to add the "unfamiliar area" portion to the question.

P.P.S. Note that POA offers the polling option and as far as I can tell the AOPA board does not.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Len (and others who claim total abstinence regarding SVFR), regarding SVFR as an option, consider the following examples.

1. Small diameter puff cloud parked at 500' AGL, dead-center over the towered airport (Class D airspace), with no apparent movement or change in density/shape/form. Other than that one cloud, conditions are CAVU to the ends of the earth. All runways <4000' length. Would you: a. depart VFR (illegally, I might add), b. wait for the cloud to move, or c. depart SVFR?

2. Same as above, but cloud bank (not single cloud) covering approach end and 1/2 of the departure runway. You want to depart and travel away from the cloud bank; again, CAVU to the edge of the earth in that direction. Would you: a. depart VFR (illegally, I might add), b. wait for the cloud to move, or c. depart SVFR?

3. Same as #1, but landing; next airport is 50 nm away. Would you: a. land VFR (illegally, I might add), b. wait for the cloud to move, or c. land SVFR?

4. Same as #2, but landing; next airport is 50 nm away. Would you: a. land VFR (illegally, I might add), b. wait for the cloud to move, or c. land SVFR?

5. Arriving home IFR to Smalltown Muni (no IAPs) you find the reported weather at Big City Int'l, 6 miles away to be 900' overcast, 5 miles visibility. Smalltown lies within Class E to the ground for an approach at Big City. The the course alignment and MDA step down fix for the approach to Int'l are such that you can execute the approach, step down and be level flight at MDA, look off your left wing, and be on perfect left base position and speed for Smalltown Muni. ATC has radio & radar coverage at the MDA. Furthermore, ATC can hold and protect an IFR clearance for you should you "pop-up" on a "miss" from Smalltown Muni. Would you: a. land at Int'l and take a $30 cab to Smalltown, coming back later to reverse the process (additional $30 cab) to retrieve the aircraft when the weather improves, b. ask for SVFR in the Class E airspace and land at Smalltown?


I can keep reducing the visibility, clouds, etc. Sooner or later, sure, we would all say, "Uncle". The point being that all SVFR is not what Len has portrayed it to be, despite the title of this poll.

 

[Richard]

Two times that I can remember offhand of night SVFR:

Departure through HZ to on top at 4,000 in Class C.

Arrival in isolated showers in vicinity of aprt. I wasn't sure if I could maintain VFR--if I hit a shwr I would not. In the interest of safe and legal I requested SVFR. I used LOC BC on long final. Couldn't see PAPI well enough to be sure the indications so I stayed at TPA until positively in sight. I knew aprt elev and descended to 200 above that (self-defined HAT?) and once threshold was positively identified began my descent. Uneventful landing but I was primed for the go around if I wasn't on or near the centerline.

The beauty of "all available information" is it provides a means for the unfamiliar to become familiar. I'm not going to say if a pilot can't do this successfully they should not be flying. But I will say one does need to know their limitations and how far they can safely go. What this is all about is knowing when to say go and when to say no and what factors to consider in making that decision.

 

[wsuffa]

I'm with Ed on this. And I have used SVFR at my local airport one time to get in before the ground fog built up too much.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I only had to do it once and it was daytime. It wasn't enough fun to repeat it again.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Len (and others who claim total abstinence regarding SVFR), regarding SVFR as an option, consider the following examples.

Ed, note that I'm not saying total abstinence of SVFR and I might even grant that for some folks and/or for a specific location or reason, SVFR at night is viable. My point is that SVFR at night posses higher risks, I mean they don't call it special for nothing, right. I was reading on a public board all about SVFR at night without anyone saying "Hey, take a moment to think about this stuff. Yea, this is the technical aspects of what you need to do it but should you and if you say OK to this what are your new limits".

My thought process started with the example where someone is on a night, IMC flight and shoots an approach to get under the clouds. The intent is to get to VFR to continue the flight to another airport not serviced by instrument approaches. Or, the approaches at that nearby airport don't get you low enough to get in to the nearby airport.

With that said, I'll take your quiz with just one caviat I'm not current for night flight with passengers at the moment but I'm responding as if I was current, proficient and comfortable for night flight with passengers. :<)

1. Small diameter puff cloud parked at 500' AGL, dead-center over the towered airport (Class D airspace), with no apparent movement or change in density/shape/form. Other than that one cloud, conditions are CAVU to the ends of the earth. All runways <4000' length. Would you: a. depart VFR (illegally, I might add), b. wait for the cloud to move, or c. depart SVFR?

Day or night I would request SVFR and, if granted, depart.

If the cloud is as you describe why wouldn't it be VFR?

2. Same as above, but cloud bank (not single cloud) covering approach end and 1/2 of the departure runway. You want to depart and travel away from the cloud bank; again, CAVU to the edge of the earth in that direction. Would you: a. depart VFR (illegally, I might add), b. wait for the cloud to move, or c. depart SVFR?

Just noting that it is CAVU in the direction I want to go...day or night I would request a clearance for SVFR with a further request for an immediate turn to my departure heading, if both are granted, depart.

3. Same as #1, but landing; next airport is 50 nm away. Would you: a. land VFR (illegally, I might add), b. wait for the cloud to move, or c. land SVFR?

Request SVFR (again with the question why isn't it VFR) and if granted land.

4. Same as #2, but landing; next airport is 50 nm away. Would you: a. land VFR (illegally, I might add), b. wait for the cloud to move, or c. land SVFR?

Hmmmm...it is very possible that I would have landed at my enroute alternate airport based on the METAR or ATIS/AWOS.

5. Arriving home IFR to Smalltown Muni (no IAPs) you find the reported weather at Big City Int'l, 6 miles away to be 900' overcast, 5 miles visibility. Smalltown lies within Class E to the ground for an approach at Big City. The the course alignment and MDA step down fix for the approach to Int'l are such that you can execute the approach, step down and be level flight at MDA, look off your left wing, and be on perfect left base position and speed for Smalltown Muni. ATC has radio & radar coverage at the MDA. Furthermore, ATC can hold and protect an IFR clearance for you should you "pop-up" on a "miss" from Smalltown Muni. Would you: a. land at Int'l and take a $30 cab to Smalltown, coming back later to reverse the process (additional $30 cab) to retrieve the aircraft when the weather improves, b. ask for SVFR in the Class E airspace and land at Smalltown?

900 foot that close to my destination, I'd probably call Uncle, landing short at an enroute alternate or not make the flight. Hey, I'm a weather wimp what can I say - - I don't fly that much relatively speaking, I've got two kids and a mortgage.

Len

 

[grattonja]

I've used SVFR to get from LNS to S37, as has Ed (I read the posts at AOPA first). One of the reasons, I suspect, why Ed favors it. And I don't blame him, to get to LNS from S37 it is a useful tool.

However, I am not overwhelmingly experienced at night operations. Current yes. But I would want to get more experience at night IFR before I requested a night SVFR. That is a set of conditions that is probably above my personal minimums.

Jim G

 

[Len Lanetti]

Your poll is biased.

Richard,

I know.

Len

 

[azure]

"If the cloud is as you describe why wouldn't it be VFR?"

Can I try? With the cloud 500 feet up above the middle of a < 4000 ft runway, as soon as you are wheels-up you've busted the Class D VFR cloud clearance minimums (500 below, 2000 horizontally).

edited to add: personally, day or night with scenarios 1 and 3, I would request the SVFR. But, I would not intentionally go out flying at night knowing there were clouds around that low.

 

[Brian Austin]

P.P.S. Note that POA offers the polling option and as far as I can tell the AOPA board does not.

Actually, it does offer polling but it's red...really, really red.

And we're more attractive here. Just ask me.

 

[Len Lanetti]

"If the cloud is as you describe why wouldn't it be VFR?"

Can I try? With the cloud 500 feet up above the middle of a < 4000 ft runway, as soon as you are wheels-up you've busted the Class D VFR cloud clearance minimums (500 below, 2000 horizontally).

That Ed is a sneaky guy....he picked that runway length on porpose.

Len

 

[poadeleted20]

As I said elsewhere, I don't much care for SVFR, especially at night. I'd have to have very good assurance that there was good VMC waiting for me out there, and it would have to be in circumstances that I had means of visually avoiding any obstructions, which is hard at night. I won't say absolutely "no," but I can't imagine why I'd want to do that if I could launch IFR. Maybe that's why the FAA requires the instrument rating for the pilot and IFR equipment for the airplane (the question of whether you need a current static system check notwithstanding) -- so the pilot has the option to go IFR rather than SVFR, and doesn't have the pressure of having to choose between SVFR and not going at all.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Maybe that's why the FAA requires the instrument rating for the pilot and IFR equipment for the airplane ... -- so the pilot has the option to go IFR rather than SVFR, and doesn't have the pressure of having to choose between SVFR and not going at all.

There are places and situations, as noted in the examples I cited, where SVFR is the only option beyond sitting on the ground or going elsewhere--IFR is not an option in those cases. Given those examples exist I don't believe the "IFR equipment & pilot qualified" rule was implemented solely to dissuade SVFR in favor of IFR.

 

[Richard]

There are two thoughts evolving here. One, to summarize, I'm not going VFR in what may be MVFR or IMC-light. Two, SVFR is a tool to be used in special circumstances during an approach to a landing or a take off. The former is general use, the latter is more specific.

I have always felt SVFR is as I described in the latter. It's like a secret handshake that lets the doorman know you know. It lets you in the backdoor.

I would not use SVFR to go tooling around on a VFR night flight. Besides, SVFR is only good for the sfc area and once outside of that you have probably busted VFR mins. I have used SVFR to get from South Podunk through Class E and into Class C but that was during the day and I knew the terrain very well.

 

[gismo]

I don't think I've ever been tempted to fly SVFR at night. Coming in, I think a contact approach (the IFR equivalent of SVFR for arriving) would be a better choice assuming you were IFR in the first place. And as to departing, I'd pick an IFR departure every time. I think I'd rather bust the takeoff mins (assuming I knew the area well) on an IFR departure than attempt to head out SVFR unless it was a hop so short I could see the destination beacon.

I'm sure there are exceptions I could tolerate, but IMO the biggest problem with an SVFR departure at night is that in most cases it's really hard (if not downright impossible) to tell what you'd be getting into. That mile and a quarter ground visibility could be a lot worse in the air and/or a few miles away and then you are truly hosed.

Ariving at night with CAVU everywhere else and a cloud parked over part of the airport seems a rather contrived unlikely situation, but if that were truly the case and I was VFR (pretty darn rare for me at night), I might consider it if I was well acquainted with the area, otherwise I'd rather be on an approach into somewhere.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Coming in, I think a contact approach (the IFR equivalent of SVFR for arriving) would be a better choice assuming you were IFR in the first place.

No can do if there is no weather reporting at the destination airport. My homedrome has none. In fact, I've never been based at an airport that had weather reporting.

Ariving at night with CAVU everywhere else and a cloud parked over part of the airport seems a rather contrived unlikely situation

Welcome to coastal airports and fog bank behavior. Same happens with valley fog such as that found in the Sacramento valley and airports located up on the surrounding hillsides. Folks at Cameron Park (my old home) can tell you stories of arriving/departing to find fog banks splitting the runway in half lengthwise.

 

[Richard]

Welcome to coastal airports and fog bank behavior. Same happens with valley fog such as that found in the Sacramento valley and airports located up on the surrounding hillsides. Folks at Cameron Park (my old home) can tell you stories of arriving/departing to find fog banks splitting the runway in half lengthwise.

Aint it the truth. Light, patchy fog can form very quickly. Hah, I was in the patt doing a couple T&Gs at STS just for grins before I continued en route to home. Turning downwind for the next lap I was astonished that the approach end was nowhere to be seen whereas only a couple minutes before there had been not even a hint of fg.

At SBP fg obscured 11 but 29 was as clear as a bell. I left the patt to decide my options--other VFR traffic and a couple regional arrivals did not allow me the option of reversing the patt right away although that is what was agreed upon. This 1/2 rwy obscuration remained unchanged for another :30 minutes.

MCE, same thing. Short fld ldg, no T&Gs if you wanted to remain in play.

OK, those were fg.

I've noticed at some aprts wind speed and direction can set up a 'cloud bank' at one end or over the middle of the rwy as the wind comes up against the adjacent hills. Doesn't have to be strong wind, just the right direction, temp and Rh.

 

[poadeleted20]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lancefisher
Coming in, I think a contact approach (the IFR equivalent of SVFR for arriving) would be a better choice assuming you were IFR in the first place.

No can do if there is no weather reporting at the destination airport.

The other requirement is an approved instrument approach procedure -- can't shoot a contact where there is no IAP. For details, see AIM 5-4-23.

 

[wsuffa]

The time I used it at night I was coming back on final under VFR, ground fog was starting to form across the field. Tower told me to go back to approach and request IFR. I told 'em I had the entire runway in sight, and requested SVFR... because I knew if I spent the 10-12 mintues of going back to the VOR and shooting the approach it would be below mins.

I was right... by the time I got the plane to the hangar, I couldn't see the tower. Maybe 5 minutes.

Everything else in the area went down the tubes within 20 minutes.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Tower told me to go back to approach and request IFR.

yep, you have to ask for it, expect no forthcoming offers. Crazy how sometimes the system is set up to sometimes encourage a problem.

 

[Richard]

yep, you have to ask for it, expect no forthcoming offers. Crazy how sometimes the system is set up to sometimes encourage a problem.

Yabut, Dave. Even though SVFR is one handy tool and it has resulted in increased safety several times I have made the request, can you imagine ATC offering it to a pilot who, not knowing any better, accepts it thinking it's like a non-negotiable clearance or something and quickly gets in over his head.

I can easily imagine such a scenario. Kind of like why an ATC-issued contact approach is a bad idea. I just thought I should provide this counterpoint to your comment.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The FARs concerning weather minimums are all acceptable when the PICs are competent.

 

[Len Lanetti]

The FARs concerning weather minimums are all acceptable when the PICs are competent.

Dave,

I tend to agree with what I think is the intent of your statement. I would possibly suggest the word proficient as opposed to competent. I feel I'm a competent pilot even though I'm not proficient enough to shoot an approach to 200 & 1/2. Part of what makes me competent is the fact that I won't put myself in a position to have to shoot an approach to 200 & 1/2.

Len

 

[AirBaker]

I guess I've never seen a real opportunity to do SVFR at night. All my airports have instrument approaches in. The others have too many hills to make me feel comfortable enough to pull it off.

I think I would feel more comfortable doing this in a Cub or a Champ instead of the Bonanza. The speed difference would allow for a little more reaction time.

 

[Maverick]

The only time I've seen an instance for SVFR at night that made sense had to do with Police Helicopters. A close friend of mine was a Police Helicopter pilot in the City or Detroit for many years and they would frequently do SVFR under a special letter of understanding with the FAA.

But since I'm not a Police Helicopter pilot I'll either be VFR or IFR thank you very much.

Jeannie

 

[Richard]

Blast you, Lenny. See what you've done? Now half the pilots think the other half are careless and reckless. Can we all agree that night SVFR requests should be limited in scope and circumstance but it is a valuable tool for those special circumstances? How to define those circumstance are still open to discussion...

 

[wsuffa]

Blast you, Lenny. See what you've done? Now half the pilots think the other half are careless and reckless. Can we all agree that night SVFR requests should be limited in scope and circumstance but it is a valuable tool for those special circumstances? How to define those circumstance are still open to discussion...

I'd suggest that we agree that SVFR does have a useful place in a pilot's quiver. And it's up to the pilot to exercise proper judgement when using SVFR as a tool.

We shouldn't be defining the circumstances here on this board.

Or are you suggesting that pilots are not smart enough to figure it out?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'd suggest that we agree that SVFR does have a useful place in a pilot's quiver. And it's up to the pilot to exercise proper judgement when using SVFR as a tool.

We shouldn't be defining the circumstances here on this board.

Or are you suggesting that pilots are not smart enough to figure it out?

Long ago, panels of pilots with the FAA defined the reasonable SVFR minimums for Wx and ship and it has continued on quite well that the proficient, competent pilots can define the circumstances suitable for their flight in SVFR be they for training, fun, profit, emergency or others.

 

[Richard]

I'd suggest that we agree that SVFR does have a useful place in a pilot's quiver. And it's up to the pilot to exercise proper judgement when using SVFR as a tool.

I agree.

We shouldn't be defining the circumstances here on this board.

In the manner of 2nd guessing another pilot, I agree. In the manner of using one's personal experiences to provide further definition of the decision making process and then sharing that knowledge, why not?

Or are you suggesting that pilots are not smart enough to figure it out?

That did not occur to me. Please elaborate because other than by means of increased regulation to be used as oversight of pilots--something I am against--I do not follow you.

 

[wsuffa]

I agree.


In the manner of 2nd guessing another pilot, I agree. In the manner of using one's personal experiences to provide further definition of the decision making process and then sharing that knowledge, why not?


That did not occur to me. Please elaborate because other than by means of increased regulation to be used as oversight of pilots--something I am against--I do not follow you.

Well, the tone of your post suggested that we sit here and develop rules for pilots to follow. If that you did not intend it that way, then I must have misunderstood.

Sharing one's experiences are OK. I think a pilot develops judgement based on his/her experiences and training. To the extent that this represents a training exercise, I agree with you.

 

[Richard]

Well, the tone of your post suggested that we sit here and develop rules for pilots to follow. If that you did not intend it that way, then I must have misunderstood.

Sharing one's experiences are OK. I think a pilot develops judgement based on his/her experiences and training. To the extent that this represents a training exercise, I agree with you.

My tone! What do you know about my tone? I know that tone, and you sir are not that tone. You must have me confused with Joe.

You called me a tone, you certainly did. Why, I oughta, you oughta what? I oughta be more careful. I guess I'm gonna' have to start using emoticons. There should be one for the funny bone

Top o the day to ya', Bill.

 

[gismo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lancefisher
Coming in, I think a contact approach (the IFR equivalent of SVFR for arriving) would be a better choice assuming you were IFR in the first place.


The other requirement is an approved instrument approach procedure -- can't shoot a contact where there is no IAP. For details, see AIM 5-4-23.

'Tis true, but chance are if there's no IAP the airspace is probably Class G anyway for what that's worth.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

We used special VFR a lot in rotary wing. Don't recall if at night.

I don't ever recall using SVFR in a fixed wing. Since I've always been IFR rated, I just filed. I can see where I would though; some good examples given. In San Diego where they have the marine layer. If vis was decent and you could just climb above, SVFR could be useful if you were sure it was clear above.



Dave

 

[Ed Guthrie]

'Tis true, but chance are if there's no IAP the airspace is probably Class G anyway for what that's worth.

Not where I live.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Or are you suggesting that pilots are not smart enough to figure it out?

From observation, some are, some are lucky and some not.

Len

 

[Len Lanetti]

Blast you, Lenny. See what you've done? Now half the pilots think the other half are careless and reckless.

Careless, reckless, stupid and unlearned, hmm, I wouldn't say half but I've meet a number of pilots that fall into one (or more) of those catagories, myself included.

Len