Special VFR Query

[VH-XXX]

Have done this before, but didn't get a final resolution...

I cruise into GAAP today. ATIS says Special VFR, all aircraft require start clearance. Visibility 4k in showers, cloud broken at 600ft(agl). 5 knots.

Get in ok, hang around for half an hour and do my stuff.

Request start clearance, only to be informed that conditions are now perhaps 3k vis in showers.

Not sure what the regs are, so quick call to instructor who suggested that there are no published minimums for Special VFR, however if I push the limits I could be reported by tower to CASA.

Meanwhile some IFR jockey comes in and says that conditions are not suitable for VFR, so the tower relays that on as a warning, even though it's not VFR per-se.

Question - is there a legal minimum and what would YOU have done.

I understand that waiting might be the safest option and I realise that, however wondering on the legalities of it all.

In the end, a happy ending after waiting 10 mins for showers to clear.

[Capt Wally]

..'XXX"(reads like a porn site mate!:))

No doubt you will get lots of suggestions but 'special' VFR is just that, special. Clear of cloud at the cleared ALT. For Eg. En twr would typically say ......enter ctrl zone via freeway over pass EN not above 1500ft 'special VFR"............Obviously there is often cloud lower than the usual cleared ALT so they (ATC) assume you will either remain clear via lateral deviation (which would req advising the twr if significant) & decending as req to stay VFR, obviosuly there are vertical limits also. No going "under" the over pass for Eg:).

Anyway the safest option is what you ended up doing, waiting. The beauty about private flying is you never 'have' to go flying' if teh wx is foul therefore it's even safer than commercial where in most cases you gotta go !:-)
Even if there is an exact reg. that doesn't mean it's safe completely, we aviators need to use judgement. Most aviation rules are are just that, rules, but obviously need to be applied as necessary.

Capt Wally :-)

[Howard Hughes]

In the end, a happy ending after waiting 10 mins for showers to clear.
Sounds like the right decision to me.

As to the minimums, The minimum Visibility is 3km (for fixed wing, others are lower), that ain't much! Most non precision approaches have a visibilty requirement of around 2-3 klm. I wouldn't recommend special VFR at the minimum unless you are very current!

Like I said earlier, it sounds like you did the right thing, keep up the good work!:ok:

[AlJassmi]

Don't forget the key words "at pilot request". ATC can't initiate an offer of special vfr. An SVFR clearance can't unduly delay IFR traffic, so that's something to keep in mind. SVFR have to be separated from IFR and other SVFR, so generally somewhere with a small zone like MB it's one in one out.
As for your instructor's comments, you could show them AIP ENR 1.2
It's the pilot's assessment that there's 3000m vis and that they're clear of cloud. ATC can't (shouldn't) refuse a clearance based on their interpretation of conditions. Though if you were at MB and ATC had a particularly different view of the weather they would probably be obliged to place a report which may mean justifying your actions later to ATSB/CASA eg if the ATIS is reporting or ATC tell you there is 1500m vis you may be in a spot of bother if you choose to go anyway.

[werbil]

even safer than commercial where in most cases you gotta go


:eek: I never "gotta go" - I value my life more than my job. Fortunately the company I work for fully supports and never questions decisions not to go.

An old saying which is still very appropriate in aviation - "a superior pilot is a person who uses his/her superior judgment to avoid having to use his/her superior skills".

Whilst in commercial aviation we may have commercial pressures to keep flying, as professional pilots it is our job to make the right call. We may lose face and be ridiculed by valuable clients both as a pilot and as a company, but I find it easier to think of them as ignorant f:mad:wits and know in myself that I made the right decision than it is when family or friends who question my judgment.

The pilots who I have utmost respect for with weather decisions are those involved in emergency aviation - their decisions can result in life or death for the patients irrespective of the outcome of the flight. Fortunately in the rest of aviation the only life or death result depends on the outcome of the flight.:ok:

W

[Pera]

I'm not sure what you could be reported to CASA for if you depart SVFR when VMC doesn't exist. That's what it's for.

If the tower is 'suggesting' that you wait, it's probably a good idea to do just that.

[Capt Wally]

........Wooo up there "webil":)........I did say "in most cases" you gotta go, but obviously if all the conditions are acceptable legal wise & yr qualified to do so "most" have to fly.
If your concerned when it's possible to fly then there's no place for you in aviation:-), & I don't mean that personally either:)......lucky for you I accept yr 'utmost respect' for us emergency sevrices 'drivers':)
But even we won't go when there's either one of two things that are present at the flight planning stage. One is when there's a strong likely hood of not getting back to a major airport for patient assistance due WX(fog for Eg.) & the second is when the WX is simply not conducive to IFR to even takeoff & be left with no out !:)
Like I said, in private VFR flying esspecially for fun you don't 'have' to go flying regardless of the WX.

Capt Wally :-):)

[werbil]

Capt Wally,

Add "safe" to "legal wise" and then I will agree with your first statement of the last post. On floats especially it is quite legal to operate in conditions that will result in a major damage to the aircraft and/or a capsized seaplane, with the subsequent risks to crew and passengers - I don't think either of those outcomes would help further my career. Another example of legal vs safe is the GA icing fatalities in aircraft approved for flight into known icing conditions .

IMHO there is no place in any part of aviation for reckless pilots - even in commercial aviation conservative pilots are a much better option.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

XXX - the shakey ground you're on with repsect to 3km vis and 600' ceilings is not so much about the CTR itself - SVFR is legal then (PS I suggest you ring your instructor back and let them know that there ARE SVFR minimums and they should read the AIP before potentially dropping you in the sh*t). It's more about what happens when you get outside the zone - from MB with 600' ceilings you can't transit into another CTR directly therefore you must be going into Class G. Class G requires 5km vis within 1000' AGL and SVFR as a concept does not exist as there is no-one to provide you with separation.

So, by the time you're airborne and into G it might have improved but it might not have. Then you'd possibly have some explaining to CASA to do should anyone have noticed you dagging around Melbourne at 600' in limited vis.

As a training airport/tower you'll find the MB TWR guys a little more 'protective' than other places and while they can't stop you operating SVFR (except for traffic - they do operate 1 in the zone only during non-VMC) they will strongly suggest that you reconsider your decision to go flying. I doubt they'd report you for it though.

All in all not a nice day to fly yesterday - I drove back through the Kilmore gap mid-afternoon and it wasn't too bad by then (but still no good for lawndarts) but passing Wallan, the cloud was no more that 200-400' all the way to Broadmeadows.

UTR

[Capt Wally]

...............excellent post 'UTR"........very valid points. As we know SVFR is purely to get out of or into a control zone in marginal VFR WX, after that (if exiting) then the situation can be further troublesome with varying wx conditions unbeknown to the hapless aviator.


Capt WallyY:-)

[Brian Abraham]

[QUOTE][SVFR is purely to get out of or into a control zone in marginal VFR WX, after that (if exiting) then the situation can be further troublesome with varying wx conditions unbeknown to the hapless aviator/QUOTE]

Only ever happened once. Primary airport, SVFR clearance from tower, got in the air only to say (to self of course) "holy cow" - prompt low, low level circuit and land.

[XRNZAF]

"(PS I suggest you ring your instructor back and let them know that there ARE SVFR minimums and they should read the AIP before potentially dropping you in the sh*t)."

Ah, I was wondering if someone was gonna tidy that up. I thought it would be strange to have no SVFR minima in oz, when we most certainly do have 'em over here in inzid!

A pretty big gap in your instructors law knowledge it would seem! :ooh:

[ravan]

-XXX, after reading your post, I was wondering if the ATIS at the GAAP actually said "Restricted VFR" instead of "Special VFR".

If it did, then it is referring to the fact that ATC can restrict VFR movements inside the GAAP zone if IFR aircraft will be making an instrument approach or departure.

If this is the case ATC must apply Class C separation standards and they are limited to vertical separation as they do not have access to radar to provide horizontal separation (even though they have a "feed" from approach radar for situational awareness purposes).

This means that they will usually impose a start clearance requirement on VFR aircraft wanting to depart, require circuit aircraft to land and wait, and deny entry to the zone for inbound VFR aircraft until the IFR aircraft has completed the instrument approach and become visual.

[2b2]

that's what I thought too, ravan

a common misconception is that "Restricted VFR" has anything to do with VMC.
It's possible to have an overcast cloud base of 1200' and be required to have "Restricted VFR" to enable instrument approaches to become visual (in which case VFR aircraft (e.g. circuits) will be put on the ground). Nothing stopping circuits or departures and arrivals when there's no instrument approaches.

[Mere Mortal]

Ravan and 2b2, good comments

I have never heard "SPECIAL VFR" on the ATIS at MB, JT or any other GAAP.
AIP ENR 1.1-48 section 24 PROVISION OF SEPARATION has the meaning of RESTRICTED VFR as a status of operation. AIP ENR 1.1-50 para 27.2.3 and ENR 1.2 talks about SPECIAL VFR (VMC does not exist, at pilot request etc etc).

SVFR in the GAAP - but what happens after? Spot on UTR
The only time I have ever really used SPECIAL VFR clearance was to arrive and depart EN CTR or transit ML CTR at 1500’ with 10km vis, but only 500’ separation from cloud above us instead of the required VMC of 1000’ vertical for Class C. Once back in Class G (and below 3000’ or 1000’ agl), VMC for Class G now exists. No probs.

600’ ceiling and 3 km vis. Just because it says you can, doesn’t always mean you should. I think someone has already mentioned, 3km vis is now starting to get into the IFR circling approach world.

Other misconception, “EXPECT INSTRUMENT APPROACH”. This one does not restrict VFR pilots either. It is just letting the inbound IFR jockeys know that they wont be visual before LSALT or MSA, so they will have to fly part of or all of an approach depending on the cloud ceiling.

This is a good topic of discussion for Instructors conducting AFRs.

Merry Christmas everybody,
MM

[VH-XXX]

Mr. Ravan you are indeed correct! Without me realising, it was indeed Restricted VFR, not Special VFR and a start clearance was required. Good spot on your behalf :D

Thanks for the constructive comments everyone. I am now more informed than I was. (Sorry for the late reply, have been on holidays)

[Jabawocky]

No Connectivity on holidays hey.....the Mrs keep you busy;)?