VFR minimums when flying the pattern

PaulS said:
The airport is LCI, check me on the airspace, I think I have it right, generally I don't concern myself as to whether it's G or E as I try not to fly VFR in crappy weather.

It was funny on that day, I was a little miffed he was flying patterns, there was a plane ahead of me, I don't know how they managed it. But I didn't want him to fly out over the lake for me. I think ideally were I in his shoes in those conditions, I would have done a full stop taxi back to let the approach aircraft land. Anyway, it worked out as it usually does if you are talking on the radio.
Click to expand...
LCI is in Class G. Two of the three Approaches have DA’s less than 700 AGL. I’ve seen more than just a few like this. VFR aircraft can be flying around down there legally just Clear of Cloud. If you don’t want to take your chances you may think of setting a personal DA/MDA altitude above 700 AGL.
 
RussR said:
Two points.

1. Pattern work at 1000 when the ceiling is 1200 is a violation. There is no exception for pattern work.

2. ATC is not the pattern or cloud police.
Click to expand...
1. The rule is 500 feet below clouds. Not 500 feet beneath the Ceiling. There could breaks in the Cloud cover that allow it.
 
mondtster said:
Controlled airspace at that airport starts at 700’. Depending on the altitude that they were flying circuits at they could have been totally legal.

Many of the airplanes and helicopters I fly are VFR only. Depending on the circumstances I have no problem flying close to VFR minimums. That will certainly make some people uncomfortable but some of us don’t have the option to just file and fly.
Click to expand...

This. I fly to the minimums. Minimums are there for a reason. There are few reasons to break them, but flying to them shouldn't surprise anyone.
 
farmrjohn said:
If an airport has a published traffic pattern altitude can you make continued patterns at a lower altitude?
Click to expand...
What regulation requires a specific traffic pattern altitude? (The regs addressing operating in the vicinity of an airport are 14 CFR 91.126 - 91.131) Notice what it says regarding turbine airplane TPA height and cloud clearance.

When I started flying in 1981, the recommended TPA height for piston airplanes was 800' AFL.

Someone else pointed out that the cloud clearance requirement is to maintain 500' below the clouds, not 500' below the reported ceiling from the last METAR. Anyone attempting to fly close to that limit will be estimating the altitude of the clouds. It is not an exact science.

Whether or not such an operation is safe will depend on the situation. Is the ceiling consistent or ragged? Is the visibility below unlimited or marginal? Are their obstacles or terrain in the vicinity that may become obscured? The type of cloud cover they typically get in Southern California is quite different from an overcast winter day in North Texas.
 
Last edited:
mondtster said:
Many of the airplanes and helicopters I fly are VFR only. Depending on the circumstances I have no problem flying close to VFR minimums. That will certainly make some people uncomfortable but some of us don’t have the option to just file and fly.
Click to expand...
SHUSH! If you let everybody know it’s legal, everybody will want to do it, and Class G airspace will become overcrowded!
 
Legal versus smart guys, the guy in my case definitely was not legal, not even close. Not too bright being out there practicing patterns in crappy weather IMO. I love to fly too, but why do stuff like that even if you can stay legal?
 
PaulS said:
Legal versus smart guys, the guy in my case definitely was not legal, not even close. Not too bright being out there practicing patterns in crappy weather IMO. I love to fly too, but why do stuff like that even if you can stay legal?
Click to expand...
So you can land at the end of a cross-country flight. If ya don’t practice landing in those conditions, ya might get stuck up there.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you can land at the end of a cross-country flight. If ya don’t practice landing in those conditions, ya might get stuck up there.
Click to expand...

Hood time is down to mins, simulator down to mins. If I need to I can, but the idea is to not need to.
 
PaulS said:
Hmmm, doubt that could happen for me.
Click to expand...
Could easily happen for a lot of pilots. That’s even without discussing airplanes or pilots that aren’t legal for IFR.

some of us prefer not to artificially limit our flying.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
Hmmm, doubt that could happen for me.
Click to expand...

Maybe or maybe not for you, but it’s pretty easy to come up with scenarios where VFR is perfectly safe and legal, whereas IFR is not safe or just not a good idea.

- You’re in a typical single engine piston airplane. There are scattered thunderstorms in the area with bases at 4000 AGL. You don’t have weather radar. Minimum IFR altitudes in your area are at the base of the clouds. Going IFR you’ll be in and out of clouds hoping to get vectored around the thunderstorms. Going VFR you can easily see the thunderstorms and rain shafts from many miles away and can visually avoid them.

- Same kind of scenario, but this time the ceiling is 4000 overcast with forecast moderate icing from 4000 on up. You can easily stay VFR below the clouds, but IFR would put you in them.
 
RussR said:
Maybe or maybe not for you, but it’s pretty easy to come up with scenarios where VFR is perfectly safe and legal, whereas IFR is not safe or just not a good idea.

- You’re in a typical single engine piston airplane. There are scattered thunderstorms in the area with bases at 4000 AGL. You don’t have weather radar. Minimum IFR altitudes in your area are at the base of the clouds. Going IFR you’ll be in and out of clouds hoping to get vectored around the thunderstorms. Going VFR you can easily see the thunderstorms and rain shafts from many miles away and can visually avoid them.

- Same kind of scenario, but this time the ceiling is 4000 overcast with forecast moderate icing from 4000 on up. You can easily stay VFR below the clouds, but IFR would put you in them.
Click to expand...


That's vfr weather, not a 700 foot ceiling.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Could easily happen for a lot of pilots. That’s even without discussing airplanes or pilots that aren’t legal for IFR.

some of us prefer not to artificially limit our flying.
Click to expand...

You've lost me, are you still talking about scud running under 700 foot ceilings in g airspace? You have at it, I'll pass.
 
Crap. As an old instructor I often did 800’ patters on weather days. That said, it was uncontrolled airspace (now class G), so I’m guessing I was okay.
 
PaulS said:
You've lost me, are you still talking about scud running under 700 foot ceilings in g airspace? You have at it, I'll pass.
Click to expand...
I’d pass on that to. But there are others who may do it. Something to keep in mind before descending down into G airspace while in the goo even though an Approaches Minimums may allow it.
 
PaulS said:
That's vfr weather, not a 700 foot ceiling.
Click to expand...

Until that 4000 drops to 700. Happened to me more than once. Lake Michigan effs with the weather forecasts.
 
PaulS said:
You've lost me, are you still talking about scud running under 700 foot ceilings in g airspace? You have at it, I'll pass.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about anything less than your 3000-ft minimum. But yes, 700 ft is cross country weather in a lot of places.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m talking about anything less than your 3000-ft minimum. But yes, 700 ft is cross country weather in a lot of places.
Click to expand...
Depends on the situation and the airplane's speed. VFR under a 700' ceiling for 200 miles in a Bonanza, probably a bad idea. 20 miles in a Cub or ultralight over familiar territory, might not be a big deal.
 
Dana said:
Depends on the situation and the airplane's speed. VFR under a 700' ceiling for 200 miles in a Bonanza, probably a bad idea. 20 miles in a Cub or ultralight over familiar territory, might not be a big deal.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of new inventions that they’ve added to Bonanzas recently…throttle and flaps. Allows for reasonable speeds. ;)

plus, the windows in a Bonanza are great.
 
Dana said:
Depends on the situation and the airplane's speed. VFR under a 700' ceiling for 200 miles in a Bonanza, probably a bad idea. 20 miles in a Cub or ultralight over familiar territory, might not be a big deal.
Click to expand...

Both sound like a great way to die VFR. Especially in a cub without gyros. <1000 is IFR. If the ceiling lowers to 499 feet you are flying in low IFR conditions. Flying below a 700 ceiling is damn stupid.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Until that 4000 drops to 700. Happened to me more than once. Lake Michigan effs with the weather forecasts.
Click to expand...

There are usually clues as to whether that might happen. I've had ceilings lower before, especially on long cross countries, a few surprises, that's why I got my instrument ticket. For the surprises I just got a pop up. Part of flying, but below 3,000? I'm filing.


Kritchlow said:
Crap. As an old instructor I often did 800’ patters on weather days. That said, it was uncontrolled airspace (now class G), so I’m guessing I was okay.
Click to expand...


MauleSkinner said:
I’m talking about anything less than your 3000-ft minimum. But yes, 700 ft is cross country weather in a lot of places.
Click to expand...

MauleSkinner said:
Keeps the riff raff away.

(except in Wisconsin around Airventure time.)
Click to expand...


You two are much better pilots than I ..... or maybe not. Hope you are not teaching new pilots these pearls of wisdom.

Too much to hit around here, too many airspaces to steer around, not worth the aggravation or danger to me. Maybe it is to you? But if you are in an approach path scud running like this, please move aside if you hear someone descending to land through the clouds.
 
PaulS said:
You two are much better pilots than I ..... or maybe not. Hope you are not teaching new pilots these pearls of wisdom.

Too much to hit around here, too many airspaces to steer around, not worth the aggravation or danger to me. Maybe it is to you? But if you are in an approach path scud running like this, please move aside if you hear someone descending to land through the clouds.
Click to expand...
I figure an ignorant pilot is more dangerous than an educated one. The things you indicated concern about are a very small portion of that education.
 
PaulS said:
You two are much better pilots than I ..... or maybe not. Hope you are not teaching new pilots these pearls of wisdom.

Too much to hit around here, too many airspaces to steer around, not worth the aggravation or danger to me. Maybe it is to you? But if you are in an approach path scud running like this, please move aside if you hear someone descending to land through the clouds.
Click to expand...
Honestly, it was never a big deal. It was a small, VFR only airport. Nobody coming through any clouds to land.
 
PaulS said:
You've lost me, are you still talking about scud running under 700 foot ceilings in g airspace? You have at it, I'll pass.
Click to expand...
I've done it just offshore along the Oregon coast (although the ceilings only got that low occasionally). Lots of airports along the way, and as a last resort, an obstacle-free climb to the west was available in an emergency.
 
Flying lower patterns to stay on in Class G or to keep cloud clearances in Class E is not particularly dangerous. I think that notion is silly. The runway is literally right there, and if it’s a docile layer or it’s morning and obviously lifting, what exactly is the grave risk some are indicating? IFR traffic will be making calls because they couldn’t have been IFR without a radio.

During the winter especially, you’ve got to do your best to keep students flying. That doesn’t always mean flying the pattern at 1000agl.
 
iamtheari said:
Thanks for explaining the airspace. Which airport was this? As I mentioned, I had laid odds that it was Class E to the surface because of the ILS and I'm curious where I can find an ILS into a Class G airport. It could come in handy on Jeopardy someday.

Yes, the guy was in violation at his pattern altitude. And the airspace was there to protect your instrument approach. I think it's a point in favor of ADS-B and CTAF as a backup to see and avoid.
Click to expand...

You have it completely backwards. Almost all ILS at a non towered airport are class G to the surface from 700 AGL. Class E to the surface at a non towered airport is the exception. In my neck of the woods, KUZA, KEQY, KRUQ, KSVH are all ILS with class G to the surface.
 
John Collins said:
You have it completely backwards. Almost all ILS at a non towered airport are class G to the surface from 700 AGL. Class E to the surface at a non towered airport is the exception. In my neck of the woods, KUZA, KEQY, KRUQ, KSVH are all ILS with class G to the surface.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. In my entire state, every ILS I can think of terminates in Class D or Class E surface airspace, and every Class E surface area is served by an ILS. Of course, the total numbers of each are not high enough to draw any broad conclusions about the world. :)
 
PaulS said:
There are usually clues as to whether that might happen.
Click to expand...

Not in these cases. Nothing in any forecast/taf/etc, said it was going to be less than 4k OVC. It went from near unlimited visibility underneath to being closed in in less than 20 minutes.
 
At a class G to the surface airport, the conditions for VFR are 1 SM and clear of clouds, which makes 500-1 a beautiful VFR day in the pattern. Pattern altitude is a recommendation and not a regulation and the FAA General Counsel has determined that flying in the pattern is considered to meet the requirement in 91.119 that "except when necessary for takeoff and landing". This applies for touch and goes as well.
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
Click to expand...

The AIM states the following:
4−3−3. Traffic Patterns
a. It is recommended that aircraft enter the airport traffic pattern at one of the following altitudes listed below. These altitudes should be maintained unless another traffic pattern altitude is published in the Chart Supplement U.S. or unless otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria (14 CFR Section 91.155).
Click to expand...

So as long as the pilot remains in the pattern, remains clear of clouds, and has at least 1 SM visibility, they may fly the pattern at a lower altitude than the recommended pattern altitude.

A VFR aircraft operating just under a 1000 foot ceiling while in class E (class G to the surface) is in violation of 91.155, but operating at 700 AGL or lower, is completely legal. If you are observing that the ceiling is 1000 AGL and the VFR aircraft is just below the clouds, then the VFR aircraft is most likely in violation, but if you are using the ADS-B altitude readout, it does not indicate MSL altitude, but rather a pressure altitude and can't directly be used to make the altitude determination.
Click to expand...
 
This morning I heard one of the local university flight school airplanes ask for a diversion due to weather. These guys were on an IFR clearance already, so it’s not like they couldn’t fly through a cloud or fly an approach into their destination airport. At that time, I was out flying in my VFR only Cub so the weather was obviously not that bad.

I’m not going to second guess someone else’s decisions, especially when they were being conservative. But it leaves me wondering if flight school or flight instructor weather minimums are indirectly teaching the next generation of pilots to be scared of weather that is really quite benign.

What is amusing is that the collegiate pilot(s) retained their IFR clearance and departed the airport that they diverted to so they could return home. The controller’s departure instructions took the pilot right into the weather they were trying to avoid, and there seemed to be no concern over that.
 
mondtster said:
This morning I heard one of the local university flight school airplanes ask for a diversion due to weather. These guys were on an IFR clearance already, so it’s not like they couldn’t fly through a cloud or fly an approach into their destination airport. At that time, I was out flying in my VFR only Cub so the weather was obviously not that bad.

I’m not going to second guess someone else’s decisions, especially when they were being conservative. But it leaves me wondering if flight school or flight instructor weather minimums are indirectly teaching the next generation of pilots to be scared of weather that is really quite benign.

What is amusing is that the collegiate pilot(s) retained their IFR clearance and departed the airport that they diverted to so they could return home. The controller’s departure instructions took the pilot right into the weather they were trying to avoid, and there seemed to be no concern over that.
Click to expand...
Maybe the instructor wasn’t comfortable in the right seat to those minimums, so they landed and swapped seats.

Stranger things have happened.:dunno:
 
John Collins said:
You have it completely backwards. Almost all ILS at a non towered airport are class G to the surface from 700 AGL. Class E to the surface at a non towered airport is the exception. In my neck of the woods, KUZA, KEQY, KRUQ, KSVH are all ILS with class G to the surface.
Click to expand...

iamtheari said:
That’s interesting. In my entire state, every ILS I can think of terminates in Class D or Class E surface airspace, and every Class E surface area is served by an ILS. Of course, the total numbers of each are not high enough to draw any broad conclusions about the world. :)
Click to expand...
If you go back in time, you’ll find that most of the airports that are currently Class E to the surface had Control Zones, which were based on official weather reporting.

Which, of course, is also why some of them have really weird intermittent times for the Class E surface area…regional airlines, etc, only reported weather when they needed it for an arrival or departure.
 
iamtheari said:
That’s interesting. In my entire state, every ILS I can think of terminates in Class D or Class E surface airspace, and every Class E surface area is served by an ILS. Of course, the total numbers of each are not high enough to draw any broad conclusions about the world. :)
Click to expand...

What is your state?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Maybe the instructor wasn’t comfortable in the right seat to those minimums, so they landed and swapped seats.

Stranger things have happened.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Perhaps, I think they just did a touch and go. Seems like they were trying to build cross country time.
 
I checked MN, it is unusual in that it has more E surface airports than normal. I found 10 E surface and 10 G airports with an ILS, so 50-50. For my state and what I am accustomed to in most of the country, 2 were non towered with E to the surface and 17 were G to the surface.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I figure an ignorant pilot is more dangerous than an educated one. The things you indicated concern about are a very small portion of that education.
Click to expand...

It's getting a little muddled as to what I'm concerned about, POA style, so let's restate it.

What started this little tangent was my story about a pilot, either a newly minted one or a student, flying patterns literally within less than 100 feet of a solid ceiling in E airspace. Illegal stuff. I was on the ILS, and talked to this guy, he asked me if I wanted him to go out over the lake while I landed, I told him no, we'll work it out, and we did. But who was the ignorant pilot in that scenario? The guy following the rules on an approach on what was an obvious IMC day for the majority of the area, or the guy obviously busting regs because he couldn't wait until the next day, which was severe clear, to practice circuits in the pattern? You seem to be advocating for the guy busting the regs, causing other people to work around him.

Scud running, you are fine 50 feet below a 700 foot ceiling with rising terrain, towers, airspace all further limiting already limited options and let's face it, as EdFred has pointed out elsewhere, no guaranty that the 700 foot ceiling won't fall to 100 feet in 20 minutes. I'm not fine with that, yet you seem to infer I'm the ignorant one. It's pretty easy for me to deal with a day like that, I just file and obtain an IFR clearance.


Personal minimums, something Cirrus pushes and the FAA suggests that pilot think about and implement. Is that ignorant? You are trying to make the association that people who use personal mins, do it because they are afraid or incapable of flying to regulatory minimums. Nope, I practice to mins all the time. I've flown quite few approaches with my instructor to mins plus real missed approaches in conditions that were below mins. Not a big deal. There are scores and scores of fatal accidents where pilots thought they were fine to fly to mins and weren't. Nothing ignorant or lacking in a pilot who uses personal mins.

If refusing to scud run under a 700 foot or lower ceiling makes me less of a pilot, I'm ok with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top