VFR weather minimums and patterns

[MauleSkinner]

OK, but why would the pilot request it if he didn't need it?

Same reason some pilots won’t accept SVFR in the daytime without being instrument rated/equipped…belt and suspenders/security blanket.

So the difference seems to be the regulation you cite provides this exception for aircraft that are taking off or landing. This implies that VFR aircraft transiting the class D airspace without taking off or landing would need the standard VFR cloud clearances, or an SVFR clearance.

agreed. But personally, if I was transiting, I’d just go around the surface area rather than go through the hassle of dealing with ATC. So I’d ask the same question…why would someone transit controlled airspace when SVFR would be required?

 

[Clip4]

Actually, no.

91.155 says if visibility is reported at the airport, that visibility is what determines whether or not the airspace requires a SVFR clearance.

Except the question was about a transition and ground visibility does not determine whether or not an SVFR is required in this situation.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and § 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table:

The requirement is generally 3-152s or 3- clear clouds for a transition.

d) Except as provided in § 91.157 of this part, no person may take off or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR, within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport—

(1) Unless ground visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or

(2) If ground visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibilityduring landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles.

 

[Pinecone]

No, I understood the possibility. I've seen 230 ground speed with 175 indicated.

I have seen 229 GS with an IAS of about 135 knots.

 

[Pinecone]

Two different things. One is to operate you need X cloud clearance. Unless you request and receive SVFR clearance.

IN ADDITION, you need 3 mile GROUND visibility (operating VFR or SVFR is based on FLIGHT visibility) to take off or land.

 

[MRC01]

Two different things. One is to operate you need X cloud clearance. Unless you request and receive SVFR clearance.

As I read the regs, you need standard VFR minimums to fly in the airspace - that means cloud clearance and at least 3 miles of visibility. Otherwise you need an SVFR clearance.

However, if you are taking off or landing an exception applies eliminating the standard VFR cloud clearance distances stating that you need only remain clear of clouds for VFR - the visibility limits still apply. In short, same as flying VFR in class B airspace.

 

[Walboy]

In Arizona of all places. This airport didn't require SVFR but AWOS was reporting low visibility (I don't remember exactly what). A go around may have been iffy.

 

[MRC01]

Anyone who has been flying long enough has seen something like that when on final. In a case like this my primary concern would not be cloud clearance or visibility for my own landing, but something else: the landing rollout may take you into the fog, which prevents you from seeing if there are obstructions, like cars, airplanes or animals, etc. on the runway. Or, if winds are calm, another pilot at the opposite end who is already on the takeoff roll heading directly toward you, but you can't see him in the fog.

 

[Larry in TN]

14 CFR 91.126 thought 91.131 are the regulations that apply to operating in the vicinity of an airport. See what those regs say about pattern altitudes.

As has already been pointed out, 91.119 is the regulation about minimum safe altitudes and it begins with "except when necessary for takeoff and landing".

Don't accept what people tell you. Read the FAA source material yourself.

 

[PiperPilot1]

Interesting discussion thats for sure.... Thank you all for the great replies!! I guess the main takeaway is to use common sense and just dont fly that close to the edge. Its interesting though, reading the regs that they actually allow for a lot of leeway when you might need it. However, just because you can dosen't mean that you should. I guess there are a lot of FARS in aviation that can be read in different ways, but the smart thing is to follow the most conservative interpretation of the reg. Thanks again!

 

[dbahn]

14 CFR 91.126 thought 91.131 are the regulations that apply to operating in the vicinity of an airport. See what those regs say about pattern altitudes.

As has already been pointed out, 91.119 is the regulation about minimum safe altitudes and it begins with "except when necessary for takeoff and landing".

Don't accept what people tell you. Read the FAA source material yourself.

. . . and a key word in that regulation is "necessary". You can't drop down to fly at any lower altitude just because you are taking off or landing - nor can you fly under a bridge to land a float plane when there is plenty of water in front of or beyond the bridge.