Flying VFR in Haze - remaining legal.
 

I am still broadening my flying horizon/experience so some of this may be second nature to some experienced VFR pilots.. but I have questions that pop into my head which I wanted to get a bit of clarity on.

I flew yesterday and it was:

1) Hot and Sun in front.
2) Hazy

..and according to my assessment with my 'eyes' I thought the viz was around 5k.

Pre-flight planing for a flight in the South East to route via Brighton Marina, Solent and IOW.... All the METARS/TAFS didn't report Haze - which I know according to the definition to be 'dust particules trapped in the air' and smog also trapped below the cloud base which was reported as few at 4,500 feet.

Little or no Wind to disperse said Haze or SMOG.

Assessing horizontal viz with your 'eyes' (in my book) may not be easy to a new-ish pilot? so what I think could be 5000 meters - may be 3000 meters to other pilots - which puts a VFR flight out of minima and potentially 'illegal' according to the rules of the air - depending on airspeed, level etc?

Taking off I noticed it was quite 'hazy' and the sun in my eyes - ground still visible on the surface and London TMA above - so <2,500ft is the only option until near the coast when you can climb to above.

What options do you have when it is really hazy, sunny without the fear of getting trapped in IMC? Do you climb above without really know how far the haze layer is (typical book figures give 100-200ft)?

If you land somewhere in the 'haze' and you are asked for a license do you lose it for flying in said Haze??

(Didn't happen - but I am trying to establish boundaries or 'go or no-go' decision points on the ground from paperwork and flight planning instead of 'going up' etc)

I have attached some pictures taken around the S.E by a PAX - different stages of flight.

Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4
Picture 5
Picture 6
Picture 7
Picture 8


It was busy yesterday and other aircraft were also flying which leads me to believe the viz was okay.

I don't want to 'lose' my license for flying below minima but unless I experience it the first time - I won't know what the second time weather phenomena will look like.. or have any sort of plan to deal with it?

Curious.

Scoobster

One trick that was taught in the mil on occasions was to use timing...5000 metres is roughly 3 miles...which at (say, for example) 90 knots ground speed is 2 minutes flying time. So if a ground feature on track pops into view and you overfly it in less than 2 min the vis is less than 5 km.

Adjust figures above as appropriate for your type and speeds, and yes, it is only a rough and ready method.

VFR means just that and if your visibility is reduced to less than the minimum at any time for any reason e.g. flying into the sun or haze, then you are not in VFR conditions.

I know what it means.. The thread title could have been better worded agreed but the content is what Im trying to get answers on.

Scoobster

Flying into sun on a hazy day vis not good and not vfr, then IMC, flying downsun in haze vis more than OK, VFR.

This is a black/white question. You are either VFR or not. Is it still not the visibility ahead from the "flight deck" that will determine your conditions?

The pictures don't look out of the ordinary. I prefer to fly above the haze layer, which round my way is often around 4,000'.

You can be what as far as I can tell is legal VFR with what nonetheless feels like zero visibility into the sun. Which makes navigation just using map and compass "interesting", as you can see where you are, and you can see where you've been, but you can't see where you're going.

If TAFs > limits go, if not don't.

If vis deteriorates when up there and METARS in vicinity say vis = legal, land if you are not happy, continue if you are. If vis on arrival at destination is below limits divert to somewhere else, getting help on Metars from ATC if necessary.

None of those photos look like anything approaching minimum vis to me.

I think I should provide some more input..

If you are on the ground (pre-flight planning) and the sky looks blue and clear, high cloud and sun shining. You check the METARS and TAFS..

The reports come back as 'XXxx 281000Z 24006KT CAVOK 27/15 Q1011'

TAF comes in at something like ' XXXX ... 26007KT 9999 FEW 045 BECMG 2817/28/20 01010KT

Haze doesn't get reported in a METAR (I believe).. Mist ('BR') does hence in this case it is clear cut you wouldn't go up because it is not legal.

On the ground, you only have these METAR/TAF reports and a few other sources like Rain Radar, Weather Online, XC Weather etc.. to go by to make a 'go or no go decision' - until you get into the SKY... and then it turns out to be Hazy - as was the case on my Skills Test under the Examiners License! Going back a a short while ago!

What do you do - if you are below minimums I agree it is illegal. Once should in theory turn back and land.. I don't know if PPL without IMC rating or CPL without IR actually turn back or not?

But if you believe according to your 'eyes' that the vis is 5km and you are legal and it is just 'hazy' - what actions are helpful to conduct to make it a safer flight? Climb, Descend etc

Scoobster

I agree with the above -I haven't been in the sky when it has been 'minimum viz' so I guess I don't have anything else to compare against.

Does it look hazy at all in the pics?

I was just concerned that I might not have been legal that's all.

Scoobster

Are you travelling in the daytime at less than 140kt in class G and in sight of the surface?

I thought the lower limit under these circumstances is 1.5km in the UK.

(Though personally I'd be looking for somewhere to land pdq)

Looking at your pictures, I would not think you have anything to worry about re. VFR conditions but if you feel out of your comfort zone then better to be on the ground wishing you were up there than.............etc.
Good luck by the way with your flying, if you have your PPL then getting instrument trained is your next step. I suggest that you will find this the most interesting flight training you can get.
FF

The pictures show pretty good viz - you even had a distinct horizon. Seriously hazy is when you can only see straight down.

Looking at the pictures you can see the horizon which is considerably more than 5km away.
5km is in reality pretty poor vis and unless you really needed to go somewhere I suspect you would,not even walk out to the aeroplane.
Imagine a typical large airport runway of 8000ft, picture yourself on a visual base leg, the far end of the runway is about 5km away. Would you fly in that visibility?

Thank You..

Not out of my comfort zone and it was a good, safe flight, and interesting - I was just trying to get a mental picture of what minimum visibility would look like compared to the visibility in the pictures.

My eyes 'felt like it was >5km' and perfectly legal but I wonder what <5km feels like. When you don't know something.. you always can't help but wonder!

Thanks!

Scoobster

As for legality, there is no one up there measuring in-flight vis in the open FIR so worry not.

Getting clearance into/from an aerodrome within class D is another matter though.

Ah that's what I was looking for.. some kind of 'mental model' as to what 5km of visibility would actually look like for my brain to process.

If that's only how far I could see I would definitely not fly.. My home base is only 3500ft runway and if I couldn't make the far end of that out then I would be concerned.

I hear a lot of stories about licenses being revoked etc for pilot stupidity and what could have been avoided.. though I don't know how true!

Thanks!
Scoobster

The visibility in the photos seems OK to me.

Gosh! Heaps in a PA28! That's around 1,000 metres in real terms. I don't know where you're based but I seriously suggest that you go with an instructor to a more limiting aerodrome, perhaps with about 600 metres and get proficient there.

Also, as others have said, that's a pretty decent horizon in many of those pictures. Unfortunately, a beautiful blue sky when viewed from the ground when there's high pressure usually means a less than gin-clear view aloft, but it looks like you had very good conditions for your flight.

TOO.

It can be difficult to decide the level of visibility if you are in a flat area, there are no hills to act as markers, in your photos the viz is fine. As you gain experience you will take off in poor visibility, sometimes so bad that at 2000 ft you can only see straight down, it is easy to get disorientated and lost so do a circuit and land back. You do need to learn how to handle unexpected conditions during a flight, wether to turn back, detour or land away
Landing into a low sun even in quite good conditions can be tricky, again with practice you will become confident, if you are having routine check flights take a good instructor with you in marginal conditions you will pick up a lot of tips

Being told to orbit on the downwind leg and then needing to use instruments to find the airfield again ... :}:D:=

Scoobster - I think that you are asking the wrong question of us, and of yourself.

Being legal does not make you safe. It is incredibly unlikely that anybody will ever make an issue of whether you were in legal VMC or not.

What is safe for you, in your aeroplane, at your experience levels, on the route you're flying? Most cases, most of the time, that will be above legal VMC minima for as long as you remain a VFR pilot.

People will criticise you for going below safe limits for the circumstances. In the highly unlikely event you hit conditions that are safe, but technically illegal - odds are nobody will criticise you for that.

Think safety, not legality. Safety is defined by:-

- Flying time en-route that you can see ahead of you
- Time you have to identify potential threats from other directions.
- Ability to navigate competently.

Not the crude, albeit necessary, legal minima for VFR.

G

To paraphrase the old cricket joke

You can see the sun. How far do you want to see.

Visibility - time of day and time of year can make a big difference to how well you can see. In the winter, flying into a low sun, near the surface, you may not be able to see other aircraft AT ALL!

If you intend to carry on flying power, it is a very good idea to carry on for the instrument rating. Good to know in crap viz that just possibly a controller may keep an eye out on your behalf.

From my experience it has been very worthwhile flying with someone who regularly flies IMC. It has given me more confidence with my own minima.

Nicely put.

Nobody will ever care about whether you were flying legal VMC or not (unless maybe you have an accident, but then this will be the least of your concerns).

And talking about a situation in which one is safe but illegal, descending through a thin overcast. One could argue it's a bad planning issue, but if TAF and forecasts say that clouds should be no more than SCT by the time you reach destination, and in reality they are OVC, with nowhere to go that's not 1 hour away because it's an "isolated" aerodrome (say, an island), I can't blame it on the pilot. Legally he should divert, but if the pilot feels safe and competent enough to descend through the deck without crashing the plane, then why not? Some might not agree on this being "safe" and will instantly say "instrument rated = safe" and "non-instrument rated = unsafe". I don't think that's so easy to say, given the fact that many instrument rated pilots have never dealt with real IMC other than the simulator and that many VFR pilots have dozens of hours flying at night, legally, in legal VMC but practically relying solely on instruments.

Many times when I hear accident CVRs in a VFR-into-IMC type accident, the controller asks the question "Are you capable of instrument flight", he doesn't ask whether the pilot is "instrument rated", he asks if he is "capable" because it's different things.

This sort of reply is not in the least helpful, did not address the question, nor is it correct. In perfect 9999 visibility, you are implying that pilots restricted to VFR only are only allowed to fly down sun.
It seems many of my landings into low sun have been deliberate blatant illegal acts of flying outside the previleges of my licence.
Incidentally the photographs appear pretty legal to me. Pictures always look worse than the eyeball view out the front.

Doing a bit of rough trigonometry. At 4000 ft in a low wing aircraft of 30 ft span, if you can see the surface in line with the wing tip it is approx 4.7nm.
A line from your eye down to the wingtip and to the ground.
I estimated 8 deg.
Picture 8 shows the horizon a lot further than that.

G,

I agree 100% with the above and appreciate all the responses. As my flying experience is growing - I am finding that I am going further and further out distance wise to new locations and I love flying there - albeit even if it is expensive!

Touch wood, I haven't so far had any sort of near miss or accident and I always want to exercise the privileges of the license safely and legally. I would be distraught if my license gets taken away for being unsafe - not that I have any intentions to be reckless.

I have been into Elstree which is roughly 650m - so will try and go into more shorter strips to perfect the Short Field Take Off and Performance Landings.

Thanks all - I have found all the responses informative and useful.

Stay safe :ok:

Scoobster

I did not suggest acts "deliberate blatant illegal acts of flying" as we have all done this, however the situation where you cannot see the minimum, be it because of sun ahead or cloud, remains outside of VFR conditions.

VFR (Visual Flight Rules) have nothing to do with VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions).
With an Instrument Rating you may be required to fly by INSTRUMENT Flight RULES in perfect Visual Met CONDITIONS, perhaps in controlled airspace. Or you may fly by Visual Flight RULES above cloud in darkness, even though you are navigating by instruments in uncontrolled airspace.
Check the difference between VFR, VMC, IFR, IMC.

Scoobster, you've got the right attitude, fly safe.

Scoobster, before your next flight, I recommend that you update yourself on:

• VFR minima in Class G airspace
• VFR minima in Class D airspace
• Special VFR minima in Class D CTRs and how to obtain an SVFR clearance

The regulations have changed under SERA and it's a fair bet that very few instructors have kept up with the changes!

Nothing to add to the wise words regarding visibility, but nice to see HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH alongside in Pompey in Photo #6.

Jack

Probably worth adding one: the ability to control the aircraft with reference to an external visual horizon, unless you are trained in instrument flying.

Cant disagree with you there Bookworm, a very good point.

G

Hi Scoobster - as others have mentioned vis in your pictures looks more than 5k to me so I would say yes you were legal. I flew a fair bit over the past few days and the vis was variable (>5k) but generally poor into sun. I will usually upgrade to a traffic service if heading into sun in busy airspace (e.g. NE London class G corridor). You could also slow down to give you more time to look ahead. Happy landings!

You mentioned sun in your eyes.

What can be scary for a newish pilot (certainly was for me) is to be flying in good vis late in the afternoon, then turn towards the sun and find you can't see a thing. In the UK, prevailing winds and runway directions often mean landing towards a low sun in autumn and winter.

If the wind is light (which it may be on a hazy day) then perhaps ask for a downwind landing - provided the tailwind is light and the runway long. Even a 5kt tailwind can increase landing distance by 20%.

Or wait until just after sunset: still legal and possibly better vis. But remember that after sunset, the ground quickly gets dark compared to the light aloft.

Adding to FREDA's point - also that quite often the local bird population decide to hang out around the nearest runway around sunset - which can add another factor of entertainment.

G

Only 1½km vis required (in the UK) in class G at less than 140kt.

And at 139 kts, that's 21 seconds flying time.

Nobody but a halfwit would fly in those conditions in a fast aeroplane and genuinely treat it as a visual conditions flight.

1.5km visibility is for instrument pilots in suitably equipped aeroplanes, or pilots of very slow aeroplanes who probably also know the area around them extremely well. The legality might mean that the instrument pilot is logging VFR, but that is not necessarily the practical reality. I'd do it from my microlight club at 50 knots around known terrain, or from work - which has instrument approaches, in my 100kt tourer - and treat it as instrument flight.

I'm working on being shot in bed at the age of 105 by a jealous husband. I really don't want a funeral at well under half that where people say "well he was legal, but stupid".

G

I agree completely. But we were talking about the legalities as much as the practicalities. Like it or not, the legal visibility limit in the UK is under a mile.

Personally I'd hope to be safely on the ground in my day/VFR aeroplane a long time before visibility dropped to that level.