VFR Cloud Clearance's
08-22-2010, 02:42 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: 737
Posts: 165
VFR Cloud Clearance's
I know we teach students about VFR Cloud Clearances and what not, but ever since I can remember, in my flight training, the instructor would always let us do pattern work if the ceiling was above 1,000ft AGL ex. 1,200 (in Class D and C).
My question is, we teach or students that cloud clearances in Class D and C are 500ft below the clouds, is it technically illegal to do pattern work at a Class D when the ceiling is 1200? To stay 500 below shouldn't we be at 1500? Should be technically be getting SVFR? I asked another instructor and his answer was "I don't know". And before I get any wise ass answers yes, I'm talking about a TPA of 1000AGL.
My question is, we teach or students that cloud clearances in Class D and C are 500ft below the clouds, is it technically illegal to do pattern work at a Class D when the ceiling is 1200? To stay 500 below shouldn't we be at 1500? Should be technically be getting SVFR? I asked another instructor and his answer was "I don't know". And before I get any wise ass answers yes, I'm talking about a TPA of 1000AGL.
08-22-2010, 03:13 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Trying not to crash
Posts: 1,260
In an other than congested area, you can be as low as 500 over the surface. Therefore, you could reduce the traffic pattern altitude as low as 500'AGL for the clouds, without being too low over the ground. That's where the 1000' limit comes from- 500 AGL and 500 below the clouds.
08-22-2010, 03:26 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 343
Here's the wise-ass answer you were hoping against: it depends. And I'm going to assume we're only talking about bug smashers.
In Class D airspace, you can go VFR as long as the weather is 1000' and 3 miles. The TPA is not mandatory, so you can be below it anytime you need to be to maintain the 500' cloud clearance.
I believe the real limit here comes from 91.119 (minimum altitudes). What's underneath your traffic pattern? If it's a cow pasture, have at it under a 1000' ceiling. If it's a subdivision, better not fly.
In Class D airspace, you can go VFR as long as the weather is 1000' and 3 miles. The TPA is not mandatory, so you can be below it anytime you need to be to maintain the 500' cloud clearance.
I believe the real limit here comes from 91.119 (minimum altitudes). What's underneath your traffic pattern? If it's a cow pasture, have at it under a 1000' ceiling. If it's a subdivision, better not fly.
08-22-2010, 03:41 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Trying not to crash
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by EasternATC
Here's the wise-ass answer you were hoping against: it depends. And I'm going to assume we're only talking about bug smashers.
In Class D airspace, you can go VFR as long as the weather is 1000' and 3 miles. The TPA is not mandatory, so you can be below it anytime you need to be to maintain the 500' cloud clearance.
I believe the real limit here comes from 91.119 (minimum altitudes). What's underneath your traffic pattern? If it's a cow pasture, have at it under a 1000' ceiling. If it's a subdivision, better not fly.
In Class D airspace, you can go VFR as long as the weather is 1000' and 3 miles. The TPA is not mandatory, so you can be below it anytime you need to be to maintain the 500' cloud clearance.
I believe the real limit here comes from 91.119 (minimum altitudes). What's underneath your traffic pattern? If it's a cow pasture, have at it under a 1000' ceiling. If it's a subdivision, better not fly.
08-22-2010, 03:56 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 343
Originally Posted by detpilot
You know, I have always wondered about this- The minimum altitudes are waived if taking off or landing. If you can be lower than 1000' AGL over a major city while on an instrument approach 4 miles from the airport, why does being on downwind 1 mile away not count as "Taking off or landing?" That is never well defined (surprise surprise, thanks FAA!)
Last edited by EasternATC; 08-22-2010 at 03:59 PM. Reason: added info
08-23-2010, 11:32 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Trying not to crash
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by EasternATC
If you took off to do touch and goes knowing you could only climb to 400' AGL, is that necessary or prudent? I'm guessing the ALJ would say, "No."
08-23-2010, 03:35 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: BE50C (A), BE95 (A), C172S (B)
Posts: 349
Note also, the meaning of "congested area" is very, very flexible. This helps. (kind of...)
Even if the buzzing of Smalltown Elementary School (or even a group of picnicers on the beach) is necessary for takeoff or landing under the 1000' overcast, it could still be considered operating an aircraft in a manner careless or reckless so as to endanger the life or property of another (91.13, the catchall).
The real message is "Don't be stupid" I guess. The linked letter above continues to say you can ask your local FSDO, and that the burden of minimum safe altitude determination rests with the pilot.
Originally Posted by Linked Letter of Interpretation
The FAA has not defined the term "congested area" by regulation and does not use a mathematical formula to determine the boundaries of a congested area. Instead, the FAA applies a case-by-case analysis to determine compliance with § 91.1191 to balance the interests of the pilot's operation and the need to protect persons and property on the ground, which has been the purpose of the minimum safe altitudes rule in §91.119 since its inception.
The real message is "Don't be stupid" I guess. The linked letter above continues to say you can ask your local FSDO, and that the burden of minimum safe altitude determination rests with the pilot.
08-25-2010, 08:47 AM
#10
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Another thing with Min Safe Alt, is the note about "except when necessary for takeoff or landing."
So if you are remaining in the pattern, you could apply this technicality because that is all you are accomplishing. One could argue there is no "cruise" leg, and you are within the confines of the airport so you qualify the "anywhere" rule of landing without any undue hazard to persons/property in the event of an powerplant failure.
But I'm not a fed, nor will I ever be, so this can always be interpreted differently.
So if you are remaining in the pattern, you could apply this technicality because that is all you are accomplishing. One could argue there is no "cruise" leg, and you are within the confines of the airport so you qualify the "anywhere" rule of landing without any undue hazard to persons/property in the event of an powerplant failure.
But I'm not a fed, nor will I ever be, so this can always be interpreted differently.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
