Special VFR Clearance

[ClearedToThe]

To the OP... Take the extra time and file IFR. If you can't get into the airport operating under IFR using the available approaches, why on earth would you want to try to do it under VFR/SVFR?? That should be a pretty big hint that it isn't a safe or smart thing to do... And if you really feel like scud running you can always ask for a contact approach...may not be smart but at least your legal if u go back into IMC

People please be smart out there.

 

[Ian_J]

If you have 1000 & 3 you can do T&G's VFR. No SVFR clearance required.

But can you maintain cloud clearance requirements?

 

[BajtheJino]

Has no one ever flown under a marine layer or a warm front in the south during the winter? The ceilings are sometimes flat as a board. I used to regularly have to shoot an approach into a C airport about 12 miles from my destination which had an unmonitored ILS and at my ETA the tower was closed. My Op Specs did not allow for the approach so I'd shoot the ILS at the other field cancel IFR, ask for a SVFR and depart the airspace.
There was nothing unsafe or dangerous about this. Vis was 10+ usually under the OVC layer at 500.
Or think about this. I used to fly out of PAJN. The OVC was 200-400 ft with a vis of 2-3 at the field that would open up to 5-10 once you got out of the immediate vicinity of the airfield. Should we tell people that they and their freight can't go because something thats perfectly legal and safe is kinda silly? NO! You get the job done! SVFR has its purpose and is a valuable tool.

 

[Ian_J]

I agree Baj, but you'll probably agree doing things like that require training and experience. I think the OP here (as well as others), are relatively inexperienced pilots. They'd be well served getting SVFR experience under the watchful eye of an instructor or at a 135 company before trying things like that on their own.

 

[jrh]

To the OP... Take the extra time and file IFR. If you can't get into the airport operating under IFR using the available approaches, why on earth would you want to try to do it under VFR/SVFR?? That should be a pretty big hint that it isn't a safe or smart thing to do...

:banghead: This is exactly the attitude I referenced in one of my previous posts. It seems as though you're arbitrarily judging SVFR operations to always be unsafe without supporting the claim with evidence.

The OP already addressed why he can't do it IFR--his aircraft isn't equipped for it. He does not have an IFR certified GPS receiver and the only approaches available in to the destination airport are RNAV approaches.

Using your line of logic, saying if you can't make the flight under IFR, you shouldn't fly at all, doesn't make sense to me. Why then, does the FAA allow SVFR clearances? In your judgement, when *would* it be safe to get an SVFR clearance? Or is it never safe? And if so, why does the FAA allow a pilot to get a clearance for a flight that is definitely unsafe (by nature of the fact it is an SVFR flight)? Do you see where I'm getting with this?

SVFR, under appropriate circumstances, is definitely safe, and I would argue it to be smarter than sitting on the ground, wishing you weren't stuck.

 

[BajtheJino]

I agree Baj, but you'll probably agree doing things like that require training and experience. I think the OP here (as well as others), are relatively inexperienced pilots. They'd be well served getting SVFR experience under the watchful eye of an instructor or at a 135 company before trying things like that on their own.

Perhaps, perhaps. I'd recommend people go grab a plane one fine day and fly around at 500 ft to familiarize themselves with Mother Earth and find the high towers on their sectionals around their home fields. Learn the local highways and remember-SVFR is wunderbar!

 

[Ian_J]

Absolutely - you and JRH make great points and give good advice, but more experienced people sometimes tend to forget how inexperienced the inexperienced actually are.

 

[jrh]

Absolutely - you and JRH make great points and give good advice, but more experienced people sometimes tend to forget how inexperienced the inexperienced actually are.

Ahh, but doesn't this beg the question, "How do the inexperienced become experienced?"

Gotta go out and do something new, sometime, sooner or later.

 

[jrh]

Perhaps, perhaps. I'd recommend people go grab a plane one fine day and fly around at 500 ft to familiarize themselves with Mother Earth and find the high towers on their sectionals around their home fields. Learn the local highways and remember-SVFR is wunderbar!

No doubt. Not only is flying low useful, but also a ton of fun.

A standard part of the XC training I give people is to drop down to 800-1000 AGL and fly an entire cross country at this altitude. I have them navigate by staying directly over highways/rivers/railroad lines so that they never get lost and can pinpoint within a mile or so of their current position where they are.

At the end, everybody has always said they had a good time and see the sectional in a whole new light.

 

[Ian_J]

Ahh, but doesn't this beg the question, "How do the inexperienced become experienced?"

Gotta go out and do something new, sometime, sooner or later.

By passing it down, like I'm sure you do!

 

[ClearedToThe]

:banghead: This is exactly the attitude I referenced in one of my previous posts. It seems as though you're arbitrarily judging SVFR operations to always be unsafe without supporting the claim with evidence.

The OP already addressed why he can't do it IFR--his aircraft isn't equipped for it. He does not have an IFR certified GPS receiver and the only approaches available in to the destination airport are RNAV approaches.

Using your line of logic, saying if you can't make the flight under IFR, you shouldn't fly at all, doesn't make sense to me. Why then, does the FAA allow SVFR clearances? In your judgement, when *would* it be safe to get an SVFR clearance? Or is it never safe? And if so, why does the FAA allow a pilot to get a clearance for a flight that is definitely unsafe (by nature of the fact it is an SVFR flight)? Do you see where I'm getting with this?

SVFR, under appropriate circumstances, is definitely safe, and I would argue it to be smarter than sitting on the ground, wishing you weren't stuck.

Take a step back and look at the big picture...

(1) The OP wants to operate the plane at a very low altitude in foggy conditions. I bet if anything were to happen the FAA wouldn't hesitate to reference 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation). Nor would they hesitate to reference 91.119 (Minimum safe altitudes anywhere - an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface).

(2) What if the OP enters IMC during his scud run or the visibility suddenly drops below 1 mile as can happen very quickly with fog? Just turn over the bay and climb? I'm sure the pilots of that 747 on the ILS to SFO will love that when they get a TCAS RA (as will the controllers).

(3) So we have a non-gps equipped airplane essentially performing pilotage from PAO to SQL at a very low altitude in fog and very low vis conditions. I don't care how familiar you are with the area, those kinds of conditions can cause you to lose situation awareness with where you are very quickly.

(4) The airport is SEVEN miles away from his destination airport. Why not just shoot the VOR/DME approach into PAO and DRIVE the whole 7 miles rather than risk flying into a 747 on final into SFO.

When do I think SVFR would be a good idea you ask. Let me start by responding that I don't think its a good idea in one of the busiest terminal areas in the country... I would agree it would be acceptable to depart SVFR from say podunk regional if there were a low lying fog layer over the airport that hadn't burned off yet, for example. (you know the type I am referring to).

"Why does the FAA allow a pilot to get a clearance for a flight that is definitely unsafe (by nature of the fact it is an SVFR flight)? "
I think we can both agree that there are several aspects of the regs that can be described as "just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe". How bout a circling approach at night to a mountainous airport you have never been to? Legal?...yes. Safe?...you make the call.

Use common sense...if you plan on using a SVFR to get back into your airport, then you probably shouldn't be out flying that day. There is always tommorow.

 

[jrh]

Take a step back and look at the big picture...

(1) The OP wants to operate the plane at a very low altitude in foggy conditions. I bet if anything were to happen the FAA wouldn't hesitate to reference 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation). Nor would they hesitate to reference 91.119 (Minimum safe altitudes anywhere - an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface).

The FAA always invokes 91.13 after an incident, and 91.119 wouldn't apply if the pilot were following the shoreline.

(2) What if the OP enters IMC during his scud run or the visibility suddenly drops below 1 mile as can happen very quickly with fog? Just turn over the bay and climb? I'm sure the pilots of that 747 on the ILS to SFO will love that when they get a TCAS RA (as will the controllers).

I've already addressed (twice, actually) how bad of an idea it is to fly SVFR if going IMC is a possibility.

(3) So we have a non-gps equipped airplane essentially performing pilotage from PAO to SQL at a very low altitude in fog and very low vis conditions. I don't care how familiar you are with the area, those kinds of conditions can cause you to lose situation awareness with where you are very quickly.

These two airports are where the OP flies in and out of every day. At my home airport, I pretty much have the landscape memorized within 10 miles of the field. If you aren't familiar enough with your local area to navigate in low visibility, that's ok, but I don't consider this to be a significant risk. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

(4) The airport is SEVEN miles away from his destination airport. Why not just shoot the VOR/DME approach into PAO and DRIVE the whole 7 miles rather than risk flying into a 747 on final into SFO.

Why drive when you can safely fly?

When do I think SVFR would be a good idea you ask. Let me start by responding that I don't think its a good idea in one of the busiest terminal areas in the country... I would agree it would be acceptable to depart SVFR from say podunk regional if there were a low lying fog layer over the airport that hadn't burned off yet, for example. (you know the type I am referring to).

Fair enough.

I think we can both agree that there are several aspects of the regs that can be described as "just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe". How bout a circling approach at night to a mountainous airport you have never been to? Legal?...yes. Safe?...you make the call.

Use common sense...if you plan on using a SVFR to get back into your airport, then you probably shouldn't be out flying that day. There is always tommorow.

Ok, point taken. We all have different perspectives and are willing to assume varying levels of risk. I consider this situation an acceptable risk. Obviously you don't. We'll have to agree to disagree.