Rogue IFR

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...

That's what I had understood as the original question -- what would
happen when the rouge IFR tried to land at a towered airport in IMC.


The controller would likely just inform the pilot the field was below VFR
minimums.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:z5Emb.21607$mZ5.80956@attbi_s54...

No. There are no SVFR conditions as far as the controller is concerned.
It is either VFR or IFR. The pilot has to ask for a SVFR clearance,
and one may be issued if traffic allows and the viz is a mile. Less viz
is required for a helicopter.


Small point, the surface visibility must be at least one mile for fixed-wing
SVFR, not "a mile".

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
. ..

Yes, but conditions can vary wildly in a control zone area. Particularly
around bodies of water.


It doesn't matter. A SVFR clearance is issued on the basis of weather
conditions reported at the airport. 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.



So a controller would issue an SVFR clearance even if the field is below
IFR
minimums?


Possibly. If the available SIAPs all have minimums greater than one mile
visibility. There is no direct connection between SVFR and IFR minimums.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

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).


A SVFR clearance requires surface visibility of at least one mile for
fixed-wing aircraft.

"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.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an
instrument rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.


That restriction applies only between sunset and sunrise.

"Kobra" wrote in message
...

Why would a "meat bomb" flight be announcing on an Approach frequency?
That's usually done on CTAF isn't it?


Not "announcing, "reporting". Part 105 requires a radio for jump operations
in controlled airspace, one of the required reports to ATC is notice of
jumpers away.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...

I agree. Could the flight be cleared into the CZ but not cleared to land
due to visibility?


Not if he's operating VFR. There are no clearances for entry of Class D
airspace by VFR aircraft in the US.

OT, I know...I wasn't contesting Dan's story, I was very confused though
reading the comment because in my short flying experience I have never heard
a skydiving call on approach, center or in a radar terminal area (which
comprises about 80% of my radio listening time). I do hear them *very*
regularly on CTAF. I humbly stand corrected.

Kobra





"Ditch" wrote in message
...
Why would a "meat bomb" flight be announcing on an Approach frequency?

When you let loose meat bombs, you have to notify the controlling agency
of the
airspace you are in, usually approach or Center. They usually like to hear
a a
one minute call and also a jumpers away call.

-John
Former Skydiver Driver or Elevator.

No, but being able to just follow the little airplane symbol on the GPS to
your destination reduces the work load significantly. This lets you
concentrate more on the gauges and minimizes the head movement and
distraction that lead to spatial disorientation.

Think of flying rogue and NORDO before GPS (or Loran), even with the VOR's
you'd be juggling charts, plotters, looking up new frequencies, retuning the
VOR. One dropped pencil and you'd be dead.

I'm not saying it's safe, just that technology has made it significantly
easier and therefore enough safer to be more tempting.

--
Roger Long

I'm not so sure that the biggest problem is one's location. Take a look at
the numbers of accidents which involve pilots losing their orientation
references. GPS isn't fast enough to be a good substitute for the gauges.