SVFR Class C

[Timbeck2]

An LOA doesn't allow you to to ignore 91.155 and 91.157. It can obviate the need for the two-way communication requirement.

flying a helicopter allows one to "ignore" a lot of 91.155 and 91.157 which is why I asked if he was flying one.

 

[roncachamp]

Without knowing a lot more, I don't really have a problem with that one. It may be about traffic control rather than regulation misunderstanding.

They have IFR aircraft taking off and landing at a field that is IFR. They may just be trying to keep arrival and departure routes clear so, for example, an airplane taking off doesn't pop though the clouds to find a 152 tooling around less than a minute in front of them.

A situation that can happen at a field in Class E airspace without ATC knowledge and in full compliance with FARs.

You can see that being done every day when a Class C TRACON instructs airplanes to "remain clear of the Class C" when severe clear VFR.

Different situation, ATC must separate VFR traffic from IFR traffic in Class C airspace.

 

[luvflyin]

Hmm. Helicopters. Now I am wondering. It was a company test. There are some reduced separation minima and exemptions from FAR 91 authorized for helicopters operating in accordance with a Letter of Agreement. Maybe there is something in an LOA where where compliance with routes and altitudes provide "built in" separation from any traffic departing or arriving the primary airport. If that was the case, it's possible that an exemption from the "beneath the ceiling" rule is built in and they may use the hospital regardless of the primary's weather report provided they remain VFR. Maybe.

Velocity? Did that test reference a particular hospital in a particular E Surface Area?

 

[Velocity173]

Hmm. Helicopters. Now I am wondering. It was a company test. There are some reduced separation minima and exemptions from FAR 91 authorized for helicopters operating in accordance with a Letter of Agreement. Maybe there is something in an LOA where where compliance with routes and altitudes provide "built in" separation from any traffic departing or arriving the primary airport. If that was the case, it's possible that an exemption from the "beneath the ceiling" rule is built in and they may use the hospital regardless of the primary's weather report provided they remain VFR. Maybe.

Velocity? Did that test reference a particular hospital in a particular E Surface Area?

We actually do have the verbiage of using the weather observed at the hospital in determining min weather for departure in our LOA. If we determine its less than 1,000 & 3, we can request a SVFR from the tower. No reduced separation mins in it though. Talked to the tower about it once and they said they'd have to pretty much shutdown the surface area while SVFR until we clear.

As far as the test. I don't believe it used a particular airport in the example. I tried to get back into it but since I already passed the test, it won't let me. It's all copyrighted stuff as well so I wouldn't be able to attach the exact diagrams anyway.

Basically, from my understanding, you can transition a surface area that's reporting IFR without a SVFR clearance as long as you're not below a ceiling less than 1,000 ft and can maintain VMC. You can land / depart from a satellite field (hospital) with no weather reporting as long as you have 3 miles flight vis and not below a 1,000 ft ceiling.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Basically, from my understanding, you can transition a surface area that's reporting IFR without a SVFR clearance as long as you're not below a ceiling less than 1,000 ft and can maintain VMC. You can land / depart from a satellite field (hospital) with no weather reporting as long as you have 3 miles flight vis and not below a 1,000 ft ceiling.

I used the term "reported ceiling" without really thinking about it ceiling before. But the reg doesn't say that. 91.155, when talking about operating below the ceiling, does not use the word "reported." Just like it does with cloud clearances in general. And in contrast to visibility where the regs use the words "flight" and "ground" and some Part 135 and 121 approach rules, which use the phrase "reported ceiling."

OTOH, way back in 1975 1979 and 1980, the Chief Counsel's office very clearly said, "The established and continuing legal opinion at this office is that the reported ceiling at the primary airport in a control zone governs as to whether VFR operations may be conducted within that particular control zone." Whether it is still valid, I don't know, but since it is not in the public online collection:

MAY 21, 1979

AGC-23
Control Zone Weather
Chief, Airspace, Air Traffic and Environmental Quality Branch, AGC-23
AAT-300

This is in response to your memo of March 23, 1979, in which you ask for guidance on the question of what weather applies when more than one station is reporting the weather within a given control zone.

There has been considerable interest over the past few years within the FAA regarding control zone VFR requirements and the extent to which reported weather should be used to determine whether VFR operation within an entire control zone should or should not be conducted. At one point, a change was even proposed to Sec. 91.105(c) which would take into consideration the possibility of varying weather in a control zone. This proposal was eventually dropped, however, because of the safety implications and the enforceability problems which it raised.

The continuing legal opinion of this office is that the reported ceiling at the primary airport in a control zone (i.e. the airport upon which the designation of the control zone is based) governs as to whether VFR operations can be conducted within that particular control zone.

Even though there may be more than one weather station within a control zone, there will not be more than one at a given airport. If one of the stations is located at the primary airport, which will generally be the case, the report of that station governs. If neither of the stations is located at the primary airport (an unlikely possibility), the station used by the primary airport to determine its weather governs. This provides an enforceable precise basis for determining whether Sec. 91.105(c) has been violated.

This opinion linking "reported" ceiling to the "primary airport" in Sec. 91.105(c) has been the position of the office of the Chief Counsel for over 28 years.

No replacement concept has been proposed which has been shown to provide the same degree of safety and enforceability.

If there are airports or control zones which present special problems that are not fairly treated by this longstanding interpretation, these might be addressed on an individual basis in Part 93.

Let us know if we can provide further assistance in this matter.​

There are also a few NTSB cases that take this view, but they are also pretty old. Whether or not things have changed, I don't know.

It would be very interesting to see what that LOA says.

 

[luvflyin]

We actually do have the verbiage of using the weather observed at the hospital in determining min weather for departure in our LOA. If we determine its less than 1,000 & 3, we can request a SVFR from the tower. No reduced separation mins in it though. Talked to the tower about it once and they said they'd have to pretty much shutdown the surface area while SVFR until we clear.

As far as the test. I don't believe it used a particular airport in the example. I tried to get back into it but since I already passed the test, it won't let me. It's all copyrighted stuff as well so I wouldn't be able to attach the exact diagrams anyway.

Basically, from my understanding, you can transition a surface area that's reporting IFR without a SVFR clearance as long as you're not below a ceiling less than 1,000 ft and can maintain VMC. You can land / depart from a satellite field (hospital) with no weather reporting as long as you have 3 miles flight vis and not below a 1,000 ft ceiling.

What I was thinking might be going on is not it then. I really think the guy writing the test just wasn't aware that "being in VMC and maintaing VFR" does not trump the "beneath the ceiling rule"

 

[luvflyin]

I used the term "reported ceiling" without really thinking about it ceiling before. But the reg doesn't say that. 91.155, when talking about operating below the ceiling, does not use the word "reported." Just like it does with cloud clearances in general. And in contrast to visibility where the regs use the words "flight" and "ground" and some Part 135 and 121 approach rules, which use the phrase "reported ceiling."

OTOH, way back in 1975 and 1980, the Chief Counsel's office very clearly said, "The established and continuing legal opinion at this office is that the reported ceiling at the primary airport in a control zone governs as to whether VFR operations may be conducted within that particular control zone." Whether it is still valid, I don't know, but since it is not in the public online collection:

MAY 21, 1979

AGC-23
Control Zone Weather
Chief, Airspace, Air Traffic and Environmental Quality Branch, AGC-23
AAT-300

This is in response to your memo of March 23, 1979, in which you ask for guidance on the question of what weather applies when more than one station is reporting the weather within a given control zone.

There has been considerable interest over the past few years within the FAA regarding control zone VFR requirements and the extent to which reported weather should be used to determine whether VFR operation within an entire control zone should or should not be conducted. At one point, a change was even proposed to Sec. 91.105(c) which would take into consideration the possibility of varying weather in a control zone. This proposal was eventually dropped, however, because of the safety implications and the enforceability problems which it raised.

The continuing legal opinion of this office is that the reported ceiling at the primary airport in a control zone (i.e. the airport upon which the designation of the control zone is based) governs as to whether VFR operations can be conducted within that particular control zone.

Even though there may be more than one weather station within a control zone, there will not be more than one at a given airport. If one of the stations is located at the primary airport, which will generally be the case, the report of that station governs. If neither of the stations is located at the primary airport (an unlikely possibility), the station used by the primary airport to determine its weather governs. This provides an enforceable precise basis for determining whether Sec. 91.105(c) has been violated.

This opinion linking "reported" ceiling to the "primary airport" in Sec. 91.105(c) has been the position of the office of the Chief Counsel for over 28 years.

No replacement concept has been proposed which has been shown to provide the same degree of safety and enforceability.

If there are airports or control zones which present special problems that are not fairly treated by this longstanding interpretation, these might be addressed on an individual basis in Part 93.

Let us know if we can provide further assistance in this matter.​

There are also a few NTSB cases that take this view, but they are also pretty old. Whether or not things have changed, I don't know.

It would be very interesting to see what that LOA says.

That opinion makes it clear that when more than one station is reporting weather, that the primary airports weather shall be used. That makes sense because it is the primary airports traffic that is being protected. The Control Zone, now Surface Area, is established to take controlled airspace to the surface. This is to protect approaches from breaking out to a windshield full of an airplane legally flying VFR clear of clouds with one mile visibility and instead require that other traffic in the area is 500 below the clouds and in 3 miles of visibility. If 91.155(c) wasn't implemented at the same time Control Zones were invented then it might have been written in blood later, or hopefully just enough close ones. The 1000/500/3 miles thing is an airborne pilots estimate of those distances.

 

[luvflyin]

A ceiling is by definition "reported". There is no such thing as a unreported ceiling. Pilots, while having to estimate distances to comply with 1000/500/3, may not estimate and determine ceilings.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A ceiling is by definition "reported". There is no such thing as a unreported ceiling. Pilots, while having to estimate distances to comply with 1000/500/3, may not estimate and determine ceilings.

I took a look (did you peek too?). You are absolutely correct! Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[flyingron]

The regs were changed. Originally, it said you could operate in the control zone when the ceiling wasn't 1000 feet. This precluded people transitioning over in VFR over the deck. The regs were changed to insert the words "beneath the ceiling." Mike Busch (who sometimes passes through here) was bitten by the old version of the regs and claims ownership on the changed (perhaps not entirely seriously).

There is NO reason why a class D airport should deny VFR transitions because the primary field is IFR. Sure you can't go VFR under the ceiling to land there, but if you're not under the ceiling, transitions should be fine.

 

[luvflyin]

I took a look (did you peek too?). You are absolutely correct! Makes sense, doesn't it?

Not really a peek. I was on rant on this subject a few months ago that started out with what is the ceiling and if you are between the breaks and not actually under the clouds that define it, are really under the ceiling. About 6 pages later some one said, in so many words, look it up in FAR 1 one dummy, lol. I thought he was kidding, but there really is a FAR 1. It's pretty clear in the Pilot/Controller glossary which he pointed me to also. There were also Chief Counsel interpretations and case histories of violations that confirm it.

 

[luvflyin]

The regs were changed. Originally, it said you could operate in the control zone when the ceiling wasn't 1000 feet. This precluded people transitioning over in VFR over the deck. The regs were changed to insert the words "beneath the ceiling." Mike Busch (who sometimes passes through here) was bitten by the old version of the regs and claims ownership on the changed (perhaps not entirely seriously).

There is NO reason why a class D airport should deny VFR transitions because the primary field is IFR. Sure you can't go VFR under the ceiling to land there, but if you're not under the ceiling, transitions should be fine.

Glad he just got bit and not something worse.

 

[roncachamp]

The regs were changed. Originally, it said you could operate in the control zone when the ceiling wasn't 1000 feet. This precluded people transitioning over in VFR over the deck. The regs were changed to insert the words "beneath the ceiling." Mike Busch (who sometimes passes through here) was bitten by the old version of the regs and claims ownership on the changed (perhaps not entirely seriously).

When was that change made?

 

[flyingron]

My guess is that it was around 1980.

 

[roncachamp]

My guess is that it was around 1980.

I don't think so. I started flying in 1973, here are the applicable regulations as they were written at that time.

1.1 General definitions.​

Ceiling means the height above the earth's surface of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena that is reported as “broken”, “overcast”, or “obscuration”, and not classified as “thin” or “partial”.

91.105 Basic VFR weather minimums.​

(c) Except as provided in 91.107, no person may operate an aircraft, under VFR, within a control zone beneath the ceiling when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet.