Airborne_Again wrote:
In the LA area, you don’t have much choice as there are control zones (“surface areas”) all over the place.
Yes there are many zones there and VFR does get crunched down, which is fine for Hollywood/Mailbu sightseeing on sunny days
johnh wrote:
That’s in the US. In the UK there’s this bizarre thing of getting SVFR clearance to fly anywhere near Heathrow. They even have a dedicated frequency for it, “Heathrow Special”. But then Heathrow is weird anyway. It used to be Class A, it obviously OUGHT to be Class B, but now it’s Class D, just like Palo Alto!
The requirement for SVFR in the London CTR went out with the Class A. The station is officially “Heathrow Radar”, but it’s not unusual for pilots and controllers to refer to it as “Special” even today. IMO they deserve it — it’s a high quality service.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Is there really any other reason than SAR or similar one should fly in such conditions? I can’t really see any, it is mostly unsafe, scud running is dangerous at the best of times and fatal in many. The normal VFR limits of 5 km / 1500 ft are quite enough for most operations.
I don’t agree. VFR flight in visibilities below 5 km below cloud is reasonable in many circumstances. In the flatlands of Eastern England, for example, there’s not much to be concerned about. It’s when you start to mix scud running with terrain that the problems start, which is presumably why you have a different perspective.
@Mooney_Driver
Your conclusion is similar to mine, in that the 2000fpm descent makes no sense.
That is such a rapid rate of descent, the helicopter had to have been settling with power (no?).
This is exactly the metric that made me wonder enough to ask helo pilots… because I didn’t think even a commercial helo of the Sikorsky’s capabilities could to 2000fpm descents without inducing the vortex ring state.
Not sure if that 2000fpm metric is accurate either…
johnh wrote:
My interpretation is that SVFR is really IFR in all but name, just like VFR in Class B (which has the same visibility requirements). You’re under positive ATC control and collision avoidance is up to them, not you (which isn’t to say you shouldn’t keep a good eye out for it). Incidentally it is not ONLY available from a tower – you can also get it from approach control (and maybe from center too though I’ve never tried). In fact it’s a delicate question how to do the handover form one facility to another.The big advantage of SVFR compared to IFR is that you can fly wherever you want, subject to ATC, rather than having to be vectored for miles to fly an approach, or fly at IFR en route altitudes.
There is a major difference between SVFR and IFR, SVFR requires visual conditions and the ability of the pilot to control via visual means. They must remain clear of clouds. Like IFR, it does require a clearance and is limited to operations within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport. Once outside of the surface boundaries, it no longer applies.
I used to use SVFR as a non instrument rated pilot to depart from KRHV on those smoggy days and would depart the pattern to the base of the nearby hills and climb with them in sight until I topped the smog, which was usually only up to 1500 MSL. On top of the smog it was often visibility unlimited.
There seems to be some confusion here about what SVFR in the US actually is – and what it is not.
It is a means to enter/exit/transit airspace that is controlled by a control tower, so either B, C or D and applies only within the lateral boundaries of said airspace.It has to be requested either on the ground or in the air while outside the limits of the airspace you’d like to get into. It has to be requested by the pilot, controllers are not allowed to suggest it. This, by the way, sometimes leads to rather comical exchanges on the KSMO TWR frequency between the controller and a pilot who isn’t aware of that rule.
It is also extremely helpful to land if the visibility drops below IFR approach minima, think VOR or other non-precision approaches. Because of the marine layer and haze at KSMO, we use it quite often around here.
What SVFR is NOT is a blanket clearance to fly in marginal wx. The moment you leave the surface area of an airport that gave you the SVFR clearance, standard minima apply. In the US these are 1SM and clear of cloud in Class G below 1200ft of the surface (and below 10.000 ft MSL, to be precise). In the LA area, Class E starts at 700ft AGL and the requirements there are 3 SM, 1000ft above, 500ft below and 2000ft lateral from cloud (below 10.000ft MSL).
What that means for the accident flight we are discussing here is that the pilot was out of SVFR the moment he left the KVNY Class D area (for info, the KBUR Class C and the KVNY Class D abut each other).
A bit off topic, but interesting. 91.157 is a bit self-contradictory (now THAT has never happened in the FARs before). In the first paragraphs it says “lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport” but then it says “may only be conducted with an ATC clearance” – not specifically a tower. I’ve certainly been given SVFR by Norcal Approach, and although I was on my way into Livermore (KLVK) I’m pretty sure I wasn’t in their airspace when I asked and got the clearance.
johnh wrote:
I’ve certainly been given SVFR by Norcal Approach, and although I was on my way into Livermore (KLVK) I’m pretty sure I wasn’t in their airspace when I asked and got the clearance.
Interesting. Here I’ve always gotten the SVFR clearance from the tower and IIRC SoCal App also tells you to call the tower for it. Maybe a local arrangement with NorCal?
As for the airspace – the tower can NOT give you a SVFR clearance once you are inside their airspace. I’ve seen situations where people did a go-around, repositioned and requested it from outside the Delta at KSMO.
I don’t know. Maybe Socal is stricter than Norcal. I’ve also certainly had a SVFR clearance from KLVK while I was in their airspace.
