VFR minimums in the pattern

G

Gary F

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
8,692
Location
Da U.P.
Display Name
Display name:
Gary F
What are the minimum VFR requirements while in the pattern? I assume that they would be the same for towered and non-towered airports. I found this reference in 91.155 but it is confusing since it refers to night hours. What about day?

2) Airplane, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft. If the visibility is less than 3 statute miles but not less than 1 statute mile during night hours and you are operating in an airport traffic pattern within 1/2mile of the runway, you may operate an airplane, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft clear of clouds.
 
When the 91.155(b) class G exception you quoted doesn't apply, then you must follow whichever 91.155(a) requirements apply to the type of airpace you are in per the table, unless you have obtained a special VFR clearance under 91.157. (I don't know whether they ever issue that type of clearance for aircraft that are staying in the pattern.)

For example, if you were in class G airpace during the daytime, then you would follow the sections of the table that apply to class G in the daytime.
 
Last edited:
Now I understand. I think it would be unwise to do pattern work at night under those conditions. I guess that they want to make it legal to land if you have been flying around at night in Class G with 3 mile visibility and the conditions are worse at the destination airport.
So in class C,D or E you really need 1,500 foot ceiling to fly in the pattern at the typical legal pattern altitude. The regs list a minimum 1,000 foot ceiling for VFR but that would require flying the pattern at 500 feet which does not make sense.
 
Gary F said:
So in class C,D or E you really need 1,500 foot ceiling to fly in the pattern at the typical legal pattern altitude. The regs list a minimum 1,000 foot ceiling for VFR but that would require flying the pattern at 500 feet which does not make sense.
Click to expand...

Sure it does -- airports without published TPA, perhaps?
 
dmccormack said:
Sure it does -- airports without published TPA, perhaps?
Click to expand...

I dunno - there are enough houses around a lot of airports these days that you get into the whole "congested" vs "populated" discussion. I think FAA has left that gray enough so they can bust you if they ever get too many noise complaints.
 
Also remember that where the "500-below" rule applies, one has to stay 500 below every cloud, even if it's part of a scattered or few layer, not just 500 below the ceiling.

As to whether what's below you constitutes a "congested area" or not, the FAA has never specifically defined that term, but it has been established in a number of cases. From some NTSB Orders on the subject:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3646.PDF
Respondents claim, to the contrary, that Shepard Mesa is not such an area. Although the Administrator's reply inexplicably fails to address this claim, it is without foundation in case law. See, e.g., Administrator v. Harkcom, 35 C.A.B. 934, 937 (1962), and cases cited there. Thus, the Shepard Mesa subdivision -- comprised of a minimum of 20 houses,6 in an area approximately .5 mi. x .66 mi. -- would qualify as a congested area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3693.PDF
...you operated or caused to be operated N4709P, over a congested area of Malibu, namely Civic Center Way, at an altitude of 250 feet AGL [above ground level], descending over a Hughes Market and the Malibu Country Market, flaps down and slow speed, until it reached an altitude of about 100 feet AGL, headed toward a field just south of the Court House at 23525 Civic Center Way. When at an altitude of about 100 feet AGL over the Malibu Country Market, you began a climb out. There were many shoppers in the markets and adjacent parking lots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4080.PDF
During the course of the above flight you made several low passes over a congested area, specifically the Pearce Ford Tower at Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky,...

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4188.PDF
In the Board's view, even if Interstate 5, a major California freeway, is not "bumper to bumper" on a late Saturday afternoon, moderate traffic in every lane still renders it "congested," for purposes of the regulation. See also Administrator v. Dutton, NTSB Order No. EA-3204 (1990) (Moderate traffic on a highway at 12:55 p.m. is a congested area for purposes of the minimum safe altitude regulation).

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4210.PDF
...respondent operated his Cessna 172 aircraft within 100-200 feet of the ground in the Revere-Saugus, MA area on July 11, 1992, in the vicinity of a large regatta (including "Tall Ships") commemorating the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage. The nearby ground and water areas were congested, and respondent would not have been able to make a safe emergency landing.

BTW, I think the first one cited (in which a clump of six houses is consdered a "congested area") is the strictest interpretation of the term "congested area," and one which should be weighed carefully by any pilot considering flight below 1000 AGL.
 
Matthew said:
I dunno - there are enough houses around a lot of airports these days that you get into the whole "congested" vs "populated" discussion. I think FAA has left that gray enough so they can bust you if they ever get too many noise complaints.
Click to expand...

True, but many airports have TPA below 1000'

And a "strict interpretation" would mean a required climb rate of 3000 FPM off many runways.
 
Are there airports in C, D, or E space without published TPA? I don't know of any locally. I do know that on my PPL checkride, the DPE asked me this very question and my answer was the same as Gary's: 1500 ft minimum ceiling to fly the pattern legally in controlled airspace (non-B). She seemed satisfied. (Of course, DPEs are hardly an authoritative source, I'll admit.)

The one I don't get is uncontrolled fields in areas where it's Class E above 700 AGL that reduce their published TPA from 1000 to 800 and claim it's to allow pilots to fly in the pattern with Class G VFR minimums. :confused:
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
True, but many airports have TPA below 1000'
Click to expand...
If the published TPA is below 1000 AGL, then you have the FAA's authorization to fly it at that lower TPA.

And a "strict interpretation" would mean a required climb rate of 3000 FPM off many runways.
Click to expand...
Only if you ignore the part of 91.119 which says "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing..." The FAA's position is that part means you're authorized to operate below the otherwise-applicable 91.119 minimum altitudes on takeoff while climbing to TPA, and on landing when necessary to get down to land using normal procedures. What it does not authorize is leveling off and flying the pattern at an altitude lower than both the published/recommended TPA and the applicable 91.119 minimum.
 
azure said:
Are there airports in C, D, or E space without published TPA?
Click to expand...
Plenty. There, the FAA recommends 1000 AGL for light planes, although if conditions require it, you may fly lower than 1000 AGL so long as you don't violate 91.119.

The one I don't get is uncontrolled fields in areas where it's Class E above 700 AGL that reduce their published TPA from 1000 to 800 and claim it's to allow pilots to fly in the pattern with Class G VFR minimums. :confused:
Click to expand...
Even if they publish an 800-foot TPA, you legally can't go low enough to get out of the E-space that goes down to 700 AGL unless there are no "congested areas" under the pattern. They'd have to publish a TPA below 700 AGL to allow the pattern to be flown in G-space over a congested area, and that's usually going to create major community relations problems.
 
Ron Levy said:
If the published TPA is below 1000 AGL, then you have the FAA's authorization to fly it at that lower TPA.

Only if you ignore the part of 91.119 which says "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing..." The FAA's position is that part means you're authorized to operate below the otherwise-applicable 91.119 minimum altitudes on takeoff while climbing to TPA, and on landing when necessary to get down to land using normal procedures. What it does not authorize is leveling off and flying the pattern at an altitude lower than both the published/recommended TPA and the applicable 91.119 minimum.
Click to expand...

And what about practice approaches where there is no intent to land?
 
EdFred said:
And what about practice approaches where there is no intent to land?
Click to expand...
Not specifically addressed in the reg, but the FAA and NTSB have taken a position in case law, which is "We have long held, however, that the exception is inapplicable in cases where an unsuitable landing site is used." So, if you wouldn't intentionally land there normally (even if it actually is an airport, just one too small or otherwise "unsuitable" for what you're flying), the takeoff/landing exception does not apply, and all the applicable restrictions in 91.119 apply even for simulated engine-out training or practice approaches. See Administrator v. McCullough for details and additional case citations.
 
Ron Levy said:
Plenty. There, the FAA recommends 1000 AGL for light planes, although if conditions require it, you may fly lower than 1000 AGL so long as you don't violate 91.119.
Click to expand...
Okay, I just wasn't sure if there were any. In that case, 91.119 is the likely gotcha.

Even if they publish an 800-foot TPA, you legally can't go low enough to get out of the E-space that goes down to 700 AGL unless there are no "congested areas" under the pattern. They'd have to publish a TPA below 700 AGL to allow the pattern to be flown in G-space over a congested area, and that's usually going to create major community relations problems.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. :)
 
Bobanna said:
Don't know how this would work in all situations, but as an instrument student I filed an IFR flightplan calling for "multiple contact approaches" at the departure airport. Once the controller figured-out that this meant a lot of low vis pattern work on a murky day, it went smoothly with a check-in on departure frequency after liftoff and Tell me when you want to cancel" instruction.
Click to expand...
I must say that's the first time I've heard of a contact approach clearance being used in that manner, and probably the most imaginative use. However, I really doubt it would give you any exemption from 91.119 if there was a low-flying complaint.
 
Bobanna said:
Don't know how this would work in all situations, but as an instrument student I filed an IFR flightplan calling for "multiple contact approaches" at the departure airport. Once the controller figured-out that this meant a lot of low vis pattern work on a murky day, it went smoothly with a check-in on departure frequency after liftoff and Tell me when you want to cancel" instruction.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you request a special VFR clearance and save the cost of the instructor?
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps the controlled airspace didn't go all the way to the surface at his airport?
Click to expand...

Perhaps not. But if it didn't the minimum visibility for VFR operations is the same as what is required for a contact approach and for SVFR, one mile.

I still think it odd that he'd hire an instructor on a low vis murky day to do pattern work. He's an instrument student, if he's going to pay an instructor anyway he might as well spend his money on instrument work.
 
Bobanna said:
Yes, a creaive use of (multiple) contact approaches, I suppose: The point was being able to fly around in sub-VFR conditions, maintain radar separation from traffic, and not having to fly too low (ie: as long as I kept the rudder out of the overcast, we could still amneuver "clear of clouds") while in the pattern or doing circle-to-land maneuvers. A special VFR clearance would have produced an equivalent result, save that radar services would have been advisory only in that case.
Click to expand...

Au contraire. ATC must provide separation between SVFR and IFR traffic.
 
Bobanna said:
maintain radar separation from traffic
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that you're only getting separation from other IFR traffic or SVFR but not from VFR traffic. Which is something a lot of instrument pilots seem to not realize.
 
Also keep in mind that radar coverage isn't required for either SVFR or a contact approach. You may be below that coverage and so may VFR aircraft foolishly and illegally entering the area unseen by ATC (assuming there are sub-VMC conditions which required you to do this to do pattern work where there's controlled airspace to the surface). All you're really assured of is separation from IFR traffic -- you may have no warning at all if some idiot does something stupid.
 
What options do we have for these kinds of conflicts, aside from 'big-sky-theory'?
 
Ron Levy said:
What it does not authorize is leveling off and flying the pattern at an altitude lower than both the published/recommended TPA and the applicable 91.119 minimum.
Click to expand...
Ron, is there a legal opinion or case precedent on this?
 
Ron Levy said:
Only if you ignore the part of 91.119 which says "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing..." The FAA's position is that part means you're authorized to operate below the otherwise-applicable 91.119 minimum altitudes on takeoff while climbing to TPA, and on landing when necessary to get down to land using normal procedures. What it does not authorize is leveling off and flying the pattern at an altitude lower than both the published/recommended TPA and the applicable 91.119 minimum.
Click to expand...

Exactly -- which means on warm day in a small trainer 91.119 minimums are routinely violated, but covered under the exception.
 
nosehair said:
Ron, is there a legal opinion or case precedent on this?
Click to expand...
Case precedent, although it was not appealed to the NTSB so it's not on the internet unless you have Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis access (and I don't anymore). The case involved two CFI's who were doing multiple trips around the pattern for landing practice with students at KFRG (D-space). TPA was (and is) 1080 MSL, weather was 1300 OVC, and there are really congested areas north, west, and south of the airport (cemeteries on the east side -- dead people don't count for this). They were flying the pattern under VFR at 800 MSL in order to stay 500 below the clouds. FAA busted both for violating 91.119 by being less than 1000 AGL over a congested area when not necessary for takeoff and landing, and the bust stuck.

As a side note, they could have done this legally with SVFR clearances at published TPA, because the tower is authorized to use visual separation between two SVFR aircraft at the same time if they can keep both in sight, but the instructors didn't realize that and the tower didn't suggest it.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Exactly -- which means on warm day in a small trainer 91.119 minimums are routinely violated, but covered under the exception.
Click to expand...
Right. As long as you climb as best you can and then pitch over and start down when necessary to make the runway, you're OK. But if you level off below the applicable 91.119 minimum altitude, you're violating that rule.
 
Ron Levy said:
...

As a side note, they could have done this legally with SVFR clearances at published TPA, because the tower is authorized to use visual separation between two SVFR aircraft at the same time if they can keep both in sight, but the instructors didn't realize that and the tower didn't suggest it.
Click to expand...

I always understood that the tower can't initiate an SVFR. That the best the controller could do is give a hint like, "Ceilings are 1,400 - say intentions." Is that right?
 
Matthew said:
I always understood that the tower can't initiate an SVFR. That the best the controller could do is give a hint like, "Ceilings are 1,400 - say intentions." Is that right?
Click to expand...

They're not allowed to initiate or request you go SVFR. I have heard a controller give a pretty obviously worded hint though. "Just let me know if there is anything *special* you'd like".
 
Ron Levy said:
Right. As long as you climb as best you can and then pitch over and start down when necessary to make the runway, you're OK. But if you level off below the applicable 91.119 minimum altitude, you're violating that rule.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the person on the ground who can make that determination -- please raise your hand.

Anyone? Anyone?
 
dmccormack said:
Yeah, and the person on the ground who can make that determination -- please raise your hand.

Anyone? Anyone?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I thought you were asking what the reg requires, not whether it was likely that you'd get busted for violating it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Right. As long as you climb as best you can and then pitch over and start down when necessary to make the runway, you're OK. But if you level off below the applicable 91.119 minimum altitude, you're violating that rule.
Click to expand...
LOL! That's what I face in the Cub. I can usually level off by downwind midfield, but without a slip skid indicator, it's rare the student that flies coordinated enough to climb better. Usually we hit pattern altitude right as it's time to descend.

Ryan
 
RyanShort1 said:
LOL! That's what I face in the Cub. I can usually level off by downwind midfield, but without a slip skid indicator, it's rare the student that flies coordinated enough to climb better. Usually we hit pattern altitude right as it's time to descend.

Ryan
Click to expand...


Same for me, especially as the air warms.

:ihih:
 
RyanShort1 said:
LOL! That's what I face in the Cub. I can usually level off by downwind midfield, but without a slip skid indicator, it's rare the student that flies coordinated enough to climb better. Usually we hit pattern altitude right as it's time to descend.

Ryan
Click to expand...

A piece of string and some duct tape right at the base of the windshield is a good way to cheat. :)
 
bigred177 said:
A piece of string and some duct tape right at the base of the windshield is a good way to cheat. :)
Click to expand...

Maybe if you're flying a P-38 but in a Cub you'd have to stop the prop.
 
Is it OK to ask for SVFR to do practice instrument approaches at a class D airport? We often have an overcast in the winter months that is not high enough for the 500 foot cloud clearance.
 
Gary F said:
Is it OK to ask for SVFR to do practice instrument approaches at a class D airport? We often have an overcast in the winter months that is not high enough for the 500 foot cloud clearance.
Click to expand...

What are you going to for the portion of the approach that is outside of the Class D surface area?
 
roncachamp said:
What are you going to for the portion of the approach that is outside of the Class D surface area?
Click to expand...
Not to mention, how are you going to stay clear of clouds while climbing to the published altitudes for the initial and intermediate segments of the approach if you have a 500 foot overcast?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top