SVFR

[RussT]

Hey,

Would appreciate those who are are FAR experts giving a yes or no answer to the below:

1st Question:
Does "clear of clouds" in SVFR mean there is no horizontal or vertical minimums away from a cloud? For example, as long as I have visibility of 1SM and an SVFR clearance I could fly 2ft away from a cloud and be legal?

2nd Question: (anyone who flies in Santa Monica will know what I mean)
If one end of the runway is fogged in and there is no way to do a go-around without entering IMC, is landing VFR / SVFR legal? (regardless if it's wise or not to do so)

 

[EdFred]

Hey,

Would appreciate those who are are FAR experts giving a yes or no answer to the below:

1st Question:
Does "clear of clouds" in SVFR mean there is no horizontal or vertical minimums away from a cloud? For example, as long as I have visibility of 1SM and an SVFR clearance I could fly 2ft away from a cloud and be legal?

2nd Question: (anyone who flies in Santa Monica will know what I mean)
If one end of the runway is fogged in and there is no way to do a go-around without entering IMC, is landing VFR / SVFR legal? (regardless if it's wise or not to do so)

Yes.

Yes, though some people will argue that if the airport is reporting less than VFR you're illegal to land.

 

[poadeleted20]

If one end of the runway is fogged in and there is no way to do a go-around without entering IMC, is landing VFR / SVFR legal?

Yes, though some people will argue that if the airport is reporting less than VFR you're illegal to land.

I'm not sure why anyone would argue that if you have a SVFR clearance. However, with half the airport fogged in, they might be reporting ground vis less than 1 mile vis, and then SVFR would not be legal.

(c) No person may take off or land an aircraft (other than a helicopter) under special VFR--
(1) Unless ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile; or
(2) If ground visibility is not reported,...

As for landing regular VFR, if the airport does not have controlled airspace to the surface, you can land there as long as you do not violate the 91.155 minimums, i.e., stay clear of the clouds. That said, if something happens which forces you to go into that cloud bank, say, an unplanned missed approach, the FAA is likely to hit you with violations of both 91.155 for being in that cloud bank VFR and also 91.13 (careless/reckless) for putting yourself in a corner with no way out.

 

[kkoran]

I'm not sure why anyone would argue that if you have a SVFR clearance. However, with half the airport fogged in, they might be reporting ground vis less than 1 mile vis, and then SVFR would be legal.

Did you mean to say they might be reporting ground vis less than 1 mile vis, and then SVFR would not be legal?

 

[Garthur]

Yes.

Yes, though some people will argue that if the airport is reporting less than VFR you're illegal to land.

If I have the runway environment in sight and I can complete my flight in a safe manner then the any other FAA regulations don't mean anything.

 

[poadeleted20]

Did you mean to say they might be reporting ground vis less than 1 mile vis, and then SVFR would not be legal?

Yes, I did. Thanks -- fixed.

 

[airguy]

If I have the runway environment in sight and I can complete my flight in a safe manner then the any other FAA regulations don't mean anything.

Right up until the moment when that deer steps out onto the runway in front of you, yes you can. At that point, all of a sudden Plan B becomes a very real discussion point and 91.13 is a very real possibility.

Yup, I've had it happen to me. (The deer, not the violation - I kept a valid Plan B).

 

[poadeleted20]

If I have the runway environment in sight and I can complete my flight in a safe manner then the any other FAA regulations don't mean anything.

Unfortunately, the FAA disagrees, and has burned people for that before. In fact, there's a good example of that in the Legally Speaking column of AOPA Pilot a few years ago in which a pilot cancelled IFR when he broke out at a nontowered airport with E-to-the-surface which was reporting less than 1000-3 (see 91.155(c)/(d)). An FAA Inspector who happened to be at the airport heard it, met him at the ramp, and wrote him up.

 

[EdFred]

Unfortunately, the FAA disagrees, and has burned people for that before. In fact, there's a good example of that in the Legally Speaking column of AOPA Pilot a few years ago in which a pilot cancelled IFR when he broke out at a nontowered airport with E-to-the-surface which was reporting less than 1000-3 (see 91.155(c)/(d)). An FAA Inspector who happened to be at the airport heard it, met him at the ramp, and wrote him up.

If you had a video of the flight and landing showing that the AWOS/ASOS was not congruent with actual conditions would the FAA still say "too bad" ?

 

[roncachamp]

1st Question:
Does "clear of clouds" in SVFR mean there is no horizontal or vertical minimums away from a cloud? For example, as long as I have visibility of 1SM and an SVFR clearance I could fly 2ft away from a cloud and be legal?

Yes.

2nd Question: (anyone who flies in Santa Monica will know what I mean)
If one end of the runway is fogged in and there is no way to do a go-around without entering IMC, is landing VFR / SVFR legal? (regardless if it's wise or not to do so)

Legal as long as you meet the minimum VFR/SVFR weather requirements.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you had a video of the flight and landing showing that the AWOS/ASOS was not congruent with actual conditions would the FAA still say "too bad" ?

I think that's going to be a case-by-case situation, and will depend on whether you're arguing you really had 1.0 miles vis when the ASOS was calling 3/4, or if the sky was clear blue when the ASOS was calling zero-zero.

 

[flyingron]

There was also the insertion of the term "beneath the ceiling" which I refer to as the Mike Busch clause. He was circling in otherwise VFR conditions above a broken layer but within the (then) control zone trying to identify if the reported weather at the field had gone VFR or not. They busted him for the control zone minimums as they ad not yet inserted that phrase.

 

[Geico266]

I've been asked a few times if I wanted "Special VFR". I took it, followed the runway extension and picked up the runway visually about 1.5 miles out. Controller was even calling out vectors for me. Weird weather day going into KRFD. No issues with the FAA.

 

[Inverted]

I think that's going to be a case-by-case situation, and will depend on whether you're arguing you really had 1.0 miles vis when the ASOS was calling 3/4, or if the sky was clear blue when the ASOS was calling zero-zero.

Flight visibility is determined by the pilot correct? How can an FAA inspector tell you what the flight visibility was from the ground?

 

[kkoran]

Flight visibility is determined by the pilot correct? How can an FAA inspector tell you what the flight visibility was from the ground?

For takeoff and landing, flight visibility applies only if ground visibility isn't reported.

(c) No person may take off or land an aircraft (other than a helicopter) under special VFR—
(1) Unless ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile; or
(2) If ground visibility is not reported, unless flight visibility is at least 1 statute mile. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term flight visibility includes the visibility from the cockpit of an aircraft in takeoff position if:

 

[Inverted]

Gotcha, it's been a long time since I have done SVFR.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

I've been asked a few times if I wanted "Special VFR". I took it, followed the runway extension and picked up the runway visually about 1.5 miles out. Controller was even calling out vectors for me. Weird weather day going into KRFD. No issues with the FAA.

You were asked by ATC? I was under the impression that controllers were not allowed to offer a special VFR clearance - the pilot has to ask for it?

Edit: Apparently i was misinformed. I can't find any prohibition to offering SVFR clearance to a pilot. The pilot has to request it, but unlike a contact approach, there doesn't appear to be anything telling controllers they can't suggest it.

 

[RussT]

You are correct FAA FSS ORDER JO 7110.10V 4-5-1. AUTHORIZATION 3 "Only when requested by the pilot."

I think their way of "offering" it to you is to say "Field is below VFR. An ATC clearance is required. State your intentions"

You were asked by ATC? I was under the impression that controllers were not allowed to offer a special VFR clearance - the pilot has to ask for it?

Edit: Apparently i was misinformed. I can't find any prohibition to offering SVFR clearance to a pilot. The pilot has to request it, but unlike a contact approach, there doesn't appear to be anything telling controllers they can't suggest it.

 

[roncachamp]

You were asked by ATC? I was under the impression that controllers were not allowed to offer a special VFR clearance - the pilot has to ask for it?

Edit: Apparently i was misinformed. I can't find any prohibition to offering SVFR clearance to a pilot. The pilot has to request it, but unlike a contact approach, there doesn't appear to be anything telling controllers they can't suggest it.

It's explicitly stated in Order JO7110.65 that SVFR and a contact approach must be requested by the pilot. A note following that requirement for a contact approach includes this statement; "It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot." The absence of a similar note for SVFR doesn't mean it's kosher for controllers to initiate or suggest SVFR clearances.

 

[flyingron]

I have heard Potomac approach offering SVFR clearances.

 

[spinfire]

I have heard Boston approach hint, but not explicitly suggest Special VFR. The controllers have said something along the lines of "let me know if you need anything special".

 

[roncachamp]

I have heard Boston approach hint, but not explicitly suggest Special VFR. The controllers have said something along the lines of "let me know if you need anything special".

I see nothing wrong with a subtle hint that would likely be meaningless to someone unfamiliar with SVFR.

 

[spinfire]

Yeah, I thought that was a good way to give the subtle hint. I've heard similar phraseology used by different A90 TRACON controllers so I suspect it is local policy or at least something they've picked up from each other and started using.

 

[Doggtyred]

Hey,

Would appreciate those who are are FAR experts giving a yes or no answer to the below:

1st Question:
Does "clear of clouds" in SVFR mean there is no horizontal or vertical minimums away from a cloud? For example, as long as I have visibility of 1SM and an SVFR clearance I could fly 2ft away from a cloud and be legal?

2nd Question: (anyone who flies in Santa Monica will know what I mean)
If one end of the runway is fogged in and there is no way to do a go-around without entering IMC, is landing VFR / SVFR legal? (regardless if it's wise or not to do so)

1) yes.
2) yes, until the moment you go around or encounter <1 mile vis

And thats about whats legal.. not whats safe.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

It's explicitly stated in Order JO7110.65 that SVFR and a contact approach must be requested by the pilot. A note following that requirement for a contact approach includes this statement; "It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot." The absence of a similar note for SVFR doesn't mean it's kosher for controllers to initiate or suggest SVFR clearances.

Yep, this is what i found when researching it. What are you basing your last statement on? Based on the rules, I'm not sure how you concluded it isn't ok to suggest. Based on other posts in this thread, some controllers don't see a problem with suggesting it either.

They both need to be requested by pilots, but isn't that to preclude a controller from assigning SVFR to an unwilling pilot? Is there anything related to SVFR that prevents the following type of conversation?:
atc: Field is below VFR minimums. SVFR is available, if you'd like.
pilot: requesting SVFR clearance.

The pilot requested it, so it meets the rules. I think everyone agrees that scenario isn't ok for a contact approach, but what prevents that from happening for SVFR?

 

[roncachamp]

Yep, this is what i found when researching it. What are you basing your last statement on? Based on the rules, I'm not sure how you concluded it isn't ok to suggest. Based on other posts in this thread, some controllers don't see a problem with suggesting it either.

They both need to be requested by pilots, but isn't that to preclude a controller from assigning SVFR to an unwilling pilot? Is there anything related to SVFR that prevents the following type of conversation?:
atc: Field is below VFR minimums. SVFR is available, if you'd like.
pilot: requesting SVFR clearance.

The pilot requested it, so it meets the rules. I think everyone agrees that scenario isn't ok for a contact approach, but what prevents that from happening for SVFR?

Well, why isn't scenario ok for a contact approach?

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

Well, why isn't scenario ok for a contact approach?

Because the rules state: "It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot."

There is not a similar statement regarding SFVR. If the intent is that SVFR not be suggested, that should be made more clear, as apparently a number of controllers are offering it. I have not heard any claims of controllers offering contact approaches.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Yes, I did. Thanks -- fixed.

I flew to Catalina Island for a end of season BBQ party with another aviator in his 235.

As we were leaving some marine layer ground puffs were coming up and you can see that within 1/2 hr it was going to be solid but it was partly cloudy/ clear to the East to land 30 miles away...we did our ground roll and just at the last 100 ft as we were taking off there was a 300' puff of ground cloud/fog or what have you. Think of a scattered almost broken clouds on the ground.

We popped through it.... There were 11 planes behind us and I am unsure if they were all able to take off VFR. It seemed to be a common experience to local pilots.

I remember that day as it was the same day that 3 very young pilots were doing spin training on the way back and were never heard from a gain.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Right up until the moment when that deer steps out onto the runway in front of you, yes you can. At that point, all of a sudden Plan B becomes a very real discussion point and 91.13 is a very real possibility.

Yup, I've had it happen to me. (The deer, not the violation - I kept a valid Plan B).

If your deer are like our deer here in Kansas there is every probability that even an a full clear day the deer is going to run right into your path.

We lost 4 high school kids to deer/truck accidents last year.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Flight visibility is determined by the pilot correct? How can an FAA inspector tell you what the flight visibility was from the ground?

I was flying into Tulsa riverside and atc reported it below minimums and I told him I would like to fly over it and determine if I could land there or change to SVFR or alternate....I got about 3 miles out and could see both sides of the runway and called atc and told them I had 100% view of the runway and he called bake and said it was VFR due to pireps (mine presumably).

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

You were asked by ATC? I was under the impression that controllers were not allowed to offer a special VFR clearance - the pilot has to ask for it?

Edit: Apparently i was misinformed. I can't find any prohibition to offering SVFR clearance to a pilot. The pilot has to request it, but unlike a contact approach, there doesn't appear to be anything telling controllers they can't suggest it.

I was told the same thing, the pilot must ask for it otherwise it is not offered.

 

[poadeleted20]

I flew to Catalina Island for a end of season BBQ party with another aviator in his 235.

As we were leaving some marine layer ground puffs were coming up and you can see that within 1/2 hr it was going to be solid but it was partly cloudy/ clear to the East to land 30 miles away...we did our ground roll and just at the last 100 ft as we were taking off there was a 300' puff of ground cloud/fog or what have you. Think of a scattered almost broken clouds on the ground.

We popped through it....

I don't think I would be talking about that violation in public.

 

[MAKG1]

I've never completely understood the definition of a cloud.

Is it a cloud if I can see through it?

How about if I can't, but there is no way an aircraft can hide in it? Such a situation is not at all uncommon in forming marine layer. Having IFR aircraft pop out of a cloud is the nominal justification for cloud clearance.

KAVX is Class G below 700 AGL, so whether there was a violation or not depends only upon if it was a "cloud."

 

[poadeleted20]

I've never completely understood the definition of a cloud. Is it a cloud if I can see through it?

You won't find this in any FAA publication, but basically, if you can see through it, i.e., if you can see a plane in or on the other side of it, it's not a cloud. Think "separation" and it makes sense.

 

[roncachamp]

Because the rules state: "It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot."

There is not a similar statement regarding SFVR. If the intent is that SVFR not be suggested, that should be made more clear, as apparently a number of controllers are offering it. I have not heard any claims of controllers offering contact approaches.

The rules state:

"Clear an aircraft for a contact approach only if the following conditions are met:

a. The pilot has requested it."

Implicit in that is controllers cannot initiate the procedure, opinions vary on what constitutes a suggestion. The last sentence in the note is superfluous, it is not binding in any way.

 

[Dave Theisen]

If you had a video of the flight and landing showing that the AWOS/ASOS was not congruent with actual conditions would the FAA still say "too bad" ?

A video that gets you OUT of a violation? That won't get you many comments on YouTube.

 

[RussT]

Definition of a cloud

If there is an absence of a definition, I'd look at it this way - We avoid clouds for three reasons as VFR:

1) Maintaining required visibility for separation from other traffic
2) Maintaining adequate visual references to a horizon
3) Icing and other weather hazards

I'd argue you're in a cloud when you are in IMC (no horizon) and/or have less than the required horizontal and vertical visibility as the equivalent required horizontal visibility and vertical separation distance from actual clouds in the class of airspace you are flying in, and in temperatures where icing could form.

Example: You are flying through a tiny puff in Class C airspace... You can see the horizon, and you can see 3 miles away from you and you can see 1000ft below and 500ft above; you can not call that a cloud. Flying though these would surely be safer than maneuvering around them, especially since you are probably at low speeds in a climb after takeoff and pulling G's isn't a good idea....

What y'all think?

I've never completely understood the definition of a cloud.

Is it a cloud if I can see through it?

How about if I can't, but there is no way an aircraft can hide in it? Such a situation is not at all uncommon in forming marine layer. Having IFR aircraft pop out of a cloud is the nominal justification for cloud clearance.

KAVX is Class G below 700 AGL, so whether there was a violation or not depends only upon if it was a "cloud."

 

[onwards]

Definition of a cloud

If there is an absence of a definition, I'd look at it this way - We avoid clouds for three reasons as VFR:

1) Maintaining required visibility for separation from other traffic
2) Maintaining adequate visual references to a horizon
3) Icing and other weather hazards

[...]

(3) is for IFR flyers too

 

[EdFred]

My first private CFI referred to some of them as "mist at altitude"

 

[onwards]

My first private CFI referred to some of them as "mist at altitude"

So did both of mine.

In fact, one of them fairly insisted I fly through a few of those during primary training - as long as I could see something on the other side, he was adamant that they were not a cloud.

In retrospect and with a couple hundred hours under my belt since then, I think he may have been a little out there, but he was a great instructor.