Re: SVFR Yes or No

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> Any clue about why those airports would have the restriction, when the
> vast majority have none? Cargo hubs, maybe?
>

I think that unlikely. Cargo hubs get most of their traffic at night when
SVFR requires the capability to go IFR.

[Newps]

Judah wrote:

> VFR is about seeing and avoiding other planes, not seeing and avoiding the
> ground.

What a stupid comment. It's about both.



> I believe SVFR is more designed to be able to take off (or land) in weather
> that is below minimums, when you know that the weather up there is clear.
> For example, if the visibility on the ground is only two miles because of
> some light early morning ground fog that once you get off the ground is
> cleared up...

And if the field is VFR but you would like to operate near clouds for a
specific reason like taking pictures, aerial surveillance, etc, I can
issue a SVFR so you don't have to worry about cloud clearance requirements.

[Ron Natalie]

"Newps" > wrote in message news:pTdkb.170738$%h1.162287@sccrnsc02...

> > VFR is about seeing and avoiding other planes, not seeing and avoiding the
> > ground.
>
> What a stupid comment. It's about both.

More precisely, the VFR minimums are about seeing and avoiding other aircraft.
They do nothing about keeping you off the ground or otherwise maintaining
control of the aircraft.

[Judah]

Thank you. Exactly.


"Ron Natalie" > wrote in
:

>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:pTdkb.170738$%h1.162287@sccrnsc02...
>
>> > VFR is about seeing and avoiding other planes, not seeing and
>> > avoiding the ground.
>>
>> What a stupid comment. It's about both.
>
> More precisely, the VFR minimums are about seeing and avoiding other
> aircraft. They do nothing about keeping you off the ground or otherwise
> maintaining control of the aircraft.
>
>
>