Rogue IFR

Peter Duniho wrote:


It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the FARs.
If the pilot claims that flight visibility is 1 mile, the controller should
approve SVFR (assuming the necessary traffic separation conditions are met).

That would only apply if there were no weather reporting at the field.
If the field has an ASOS, for example, then it would have to report at
least a mile, no matter what you say.

That's a contentious point that I don't know has been settled yet, though I think
the rulings so far are leaning the way you describe.

Since the ASOS/AWOS is usually not located at the end of a runway (I think they
try for a spot close to airport center) and airports are pretty large pieces of
real estate, it's entirely possible for the system to be reporting visibility
different from what the pilot is seeing from the air on approach. I think what
will certainly cause the FAA to jump on you is if an RVR is installed for the
runway you used and it was reporting visibility less than minimums.

Dave Reinhart


Newps wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:

It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the FARs.
If the pilot claims that flight visibility is 1 mile, the controller should
approve SVFR (assuming the necessary traffic separation conditions are met).

That would only apply if there were no weather reporting at the field.
If the field has an ASOS, for example, then it would have to report at
least a mile, no matter what you say.

David Reinhart wrote:

That's a contentious point that I don't know has been settled yet, though I think
the rulings so far are leaning the way you describe.

Since the ASOS/AWOS is usually not located at the end of a runway (I think they
try for a spot close to airport center) and airports are pretty large pieces of
real estate, it's entirely possible for the system to be reporting visibility
different from what the pilot is seeing from the air on approach. I think what
will certainly cause the FAA to jump on you is if an RVR is installed for the
runway you used and it was reporting visibility less than minimums.


At my airport it is common to get a fog bank over the eastern half of
the airport, the half that includes the ASOS. The western half will be
CAVU, which includes the full length of the small runway I normally use.
There I sit in the full sun unable to get a clearance for takeoff.

"David Reinhart" wrote in message
...
That's a contentious point that I don't know has been settled yet, though
I think
the rulings so far are leaning the way you describe.

Since the ASOS/AWOS is usually not located at the end of a runway (I think
they
try for a spot close to airport center) and airports are pretty large
pieces of
real estate, it's entirely possible for the system to be reporting
visibility
different from what the pilot is seeing from the air on approach. I think
what
will certainly cause the FAA to jump on you is if an RVR is installed for
the
runway you used and it was reporting visibility less than minimums.

I've seen fog obscure one otherwise usable runway but not another.

le moo


Dave Reinhart


Newps wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:

It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the
FARs.
If the pilot claims that flight visibility is 1 mile, the controller
should
approve SVFR (assuming the necessary traffic separation conditions are
met).

That would only apply if there were no weather reporting at the field.
If the field has an ASOS, for example, then it would have to report at
least a mile, no matter what you say.

"David Reinhart" wrote in message
...

That's a contentious point that I don't know has been settled yet, though
I think the rulings so far are leaning the way you describe.

Since the ASOS/AWOS is usually not located at the end of a runway (I think
they try for a spot close to airport center) and airports are pretty large
pieces
of real estate, it's entirely possible for the system to be reporting
visibility
different from what the pilot is seeing from the air on approach. I think
what will certainly cause the FAA to jump on you is if an RVR is installed
for
the runway you used and it was reporting visibility less than minimums.


What's the point of contention? A SVFR clearance is issued on the basis of
weather conditions reported at the airport of intended landing/departure.
If the weather observation site is enveloped in fog while the rest of the
surface area is CAVU, then fixed-wing SVFR is not available. Flight
visibility doesn't come into play at all.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:R9Smb.34321$Fm2.13493@attbi_s04...
If the field has an ASOS, for example, then it would have to report at
least a mile, no matter what you say.

That's true. I still don't see where "IFR minimums" comes into it.