Helicopter Question

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:15:30 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::


Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty much anywhere that
there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface (generally below 700 or 1200
feet, depending), this means that as long as the helicopter pilot can see
well enough to avoid obstacles, the visibility is defined as being
sufficient, no matter how low it actually is.

It was my understanding, that a Special VFR clearance was only issued
within the controlled airspace of the surface area of an airport:


§ 91.157 Special VFR weather minimums.

(a) Except as provided in appendix D, section 3, of this part,
special VFR operations may be conducted under the weather minimums
and requirements of this section, instead of those contained in
§91.155, below 10,000 feet MSL within the airspace contained by
the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled
airspace designated to the surface for an airport.

That doesn't seem to be what you are saying above. Did I miss
something?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...]
That doesn't seem to be what you are saying above. Did I miss
something?

I don't know what you missed. But the text you quoted doesn't contradict
anything I wrote.

If you are near the surface (less than 700', for example) and you are not in
Class G, it is practically certain that you are "within the airspace
contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the
controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport".

If you were not in such protected airspace, you'd be in the Class G
underlying the Class E (assuming there's any Class E in the neighborhood at
all). In Class G airpace, the Special VFR clearance isn't required; the
helicopter enjoys the lack of a minimum visibility requirement without one
there.

Pete

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 22:02:36 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
That doesn't seem to be what you are saying above. Did I miss
something?

I don't know what you missed. But the text you quoted doesn't contradict
anything I wrote.

I'm having difficulty with this particular clause of what you wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:15:30 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

Since a pilot can get a Special VFR clearance pretty much anywhere that
there *isn't* Class G airspace near the surface (generally below 700 or
1200 feet, depending), ...

It seems to contradict:

§ 91.157 Special VFR weather minimums.

(a) ... , special VFR operations may be conducted under the
weather minimums and requirements of this section [Special VFR],
instead of those contained in §91.155 [VFR], below 10,000 feet MSL
WITHIN THE AIRSPACE CONTAINED BY THE UPWARD EXTENSION OF THE
LATERAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE DESIGNATED TO THE
SURFACE OF AN AIRPORT.

I find your qualification of "pretty much anywhere that there *isn't*
Class G airspace" to lack any mention of the necessity for the Special
VFR clearance to be flown within the CONTROLLED AIRSPACE SURFACE AREA
OF AN AIRPORT. So I must be misinterpreting what you wrote, or FAR
§91.157.

If you are near the surface (less than 700', for example) and you are not in
Class G, it is practically certain that you are "within the airspace
contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the
controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport".

Ah. So implicit in being less than 700' AGL while being in Class B,
C, D or E controlled airspace, is the notion that you are within an
airport's surface area of controlled airspace, for it is the only
controlled airspace charted to the surface.

If you were not in such protected airspace, you'd be in the Class G
underlying the Class E (assuming there's any Class E in the neighborhood at
all). In Class G airpace, the Special VFR clearance isn't required [nor
available]; the helicopter enjoys the lack of a minimum visibility
requirement without one [a clearance] there.

In decades of flying, I had never considered the fact that controlled
airspace ONLY reaches the surface at airport surface areas be they
controlled airports or not.

For all practical purposes, helicopters can fly in arbitrarily low visibility.
91.155 grants them this right in Class G airspace [without benefit of a
clearance], and 91.157 grants them this right elsewhere [within controlled
airspace, BECAUSE it extends to the surface ONLY over airports] (with a Special
VFR clearance).

If "91.157 grants them this right elsewhere (with a Special VFR
clearance)," it must be possible to obtain Special VFR clearance at
(for example in southern California):

Paso Robles (PRB) an uncontrolled airport
Blythe (BLH) an uncontrolled airport
Needles (EED) an uncontrolled airport
Desert Resorts Regional (TRM) an uncontrolled airport
Imperial Co (IPL) an uncontrolled airport
Within the Class E surface extensions of many controlled airports

Is that actually the case?

I'm not an EMS pilot, but crew with the UW MedFlight program in
Madison, WI. We are actually one of the few programs that is certified
to fly IFR with patients. We have Augusta 109 Powers with dual Garmin
430's and FADEC, auto-pilots etc, etc.
All very nice.
But we will NOT fly in ANY weather.
Being a pilot myself, I was curious when I first started doing this
what the pilots attitude about weather decisions would be, especially
since the first program I flew with (LIFELINE in Indianapolis) was VFR
only.
I have found that our pilot are very professional, and VERY
conservative about the weather despite our capabilities. With the
recent spotlight on EMS operations (including the several front page
articles on "USA Today" and national news reports), the recent spate of
accidents, including a program losing two 109's recently, and the fact
that something like 10% of the EMS fleet has been lost/involved in
accidents in the last 5 years; this is appropriate.
With our daily crew briefings, the pilots try to stress the safety
aspect. I think we are all too aware that one bad decision or problem
seperates us from a smoking hole in the ground. What has surprised me
is that it is not an attitude of "that won't happen to us" that seems
to permeate much of aviation (and sometimes medicine) but an attitude
of "if it can happen to them, it can happen to us, so pay attention!
(and unofficially: keep your head out of your rectum!).
I enjoy the EMS flying immensely, it can be quite challenging at times
just from a medical perspective, let alone adding in the challenges of
flight.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm not an EMS pilot, but crew with the UW MedFlight program in
Madison, WI. We are actually one of the few programs that is certified
to fly IFR with patients. We have Augusta 109 Powers with dual Garmin
430's and FADEC, auto-pilots etc, etc.
All very nice.
But we will NOT fly in ANY weather.

Nor should you. The point here is simply that helicopters are governed by
less-restrictive visibility requirements than are fixed-wing aircraft.

My point is that alot of this is a very academic discussion. From a
practical standpoint, if we are getting into splitting hairs on the
visability requirements, we should probably be having a serious
discussion of if we should be going by ground! If we are looking out
onto the city of Madison and I can't see across to the capitol, one of
us is probably going to say NO even if it is legal to fly SVFR. If one
crew says no, that's it. No go. No arguing.
It works well.

wrote in message
oups.com...
My point is that alot of this is a very academic discussion. From a
practical standpoint, if we are getting into splitting hairs on the
visability requirements, we should probably be having a serious
discussion of if we should be going by ground!

And *my* point is that, no matter where one sets the visibility limit, it is
plainly obvious that helicopters have more flexibility than airplanes. If
you need at least 1 mile to be safe in a helicopter, you need 2 or more
miles visibility to be safe in an airplane.

I enjoy the EMS flying immensely, it can be quite challenging at times
just from a medical perspective, let alone adding in the challenges of
flight.

Thanks for chiming in, Ryan -- I hadn't heard from you since OSH. Glad to
see you're keeping busy! :-)

10% of the EMS fleet has been involved in an accident in the last 5 years?
That's incredible! You have to wonder at what point the public will start
doing a cost/benefit analysis of helicopter rescue ops.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

10% of the EMS fleet has been involved in an accident in the last 5 years?
That's incredible! You have to wonder at what point the public will start
doing a cost/benefit analysis of helicopter rescue ops.

Let's hope they don't. The public is scared enough of general aviation
as it is.

In all seriousness though, ground ambulances don't have that great of a
safety record, either, and they're SLOW. When it comes right down to
it, air evacuation is still the way go to in some places - for the speed
factor alone.

And even if the public hasn't noticed the accident rate, someone else
has. :-) I can't tell you how much scrutiny we were under this year -
way too many visits from FSDO.

:
But we will NOT fly in ANY weather.

Then why/how do you stay in business? Hehehe...