VFR not recomended

[3958v]

Today Our EAA chapter had a fly-out to York PA aboout 50 NM away from our home airport. Since I was the flight leader I thought it best to get a briefing basicly to check notams and TFRs. as it was severe clear at our airport. I was warned "VFR not recomended" due to occasional IFR conditions. Being the wreckless pilot that I am I decided to go for a look see myself. I was able to see the bulding of New York City 125 miles to the northeast!!!! It seems to me that if we are telling people VFR not recomended in 100+ visability we need a reality check!! Bill K

[jrenwick]

I believe the briefers are required to say "VFR not recommended" any time there's a forecast of ceilings less than 3000 feet and/or visibility less than 5 miles for the intended route or airports. Forecasts don't always prove out, but they have to go with the forecast. I usually take "VFR not recommended" as a suggestion to ask more questions, find the forecast that's driving it (they'll usually tell you now, when they say that), consider the area forecasts and synopses and current observations, and make up my own mind on how likely the weather is to be bad. And if the bad weather doesn't look all that probable, work out a serious Plan B before taking off.

[voorheesh]

AIM 7-1-4, Para B. Standard Briefing, Sub Para b 2. "VFR Flight Not Recommended". "When VFR flight is proposed and sky conditions or visibilities are present or forecast, surface or aloft, that in the briefer' judgement would make flight under visual flight rules doubtful, the briefer will describe the conditions, affected locations, and use the phrase VFR flight not recommended. This recommendation is advisory in nature. The final decision as to whether the flight can be conducted safely rests soley with the pilot." This is related to a "Standard Briefing". If you request an "Abreviated Briefing" (see Sub Para c), the briefer will assume you have either had a previous standard briefing or have information from another source such as DUATs. You will be advised of adverse conditions that exist or are forecast but details of those conditions will be provided "at your request".
I investigated an accident a few years back where the pilot of a Cessna 210 requested an "update" to an "Outlook Briefing" (see Sub Para d.) he had received the previous evening for a proposed VFR flight from Santa Rosa CA to Scottsdale, AZ. The weather along that route was completely VFR except for a less than 10 mile band of clouds and precipitation that stretched roughly between Merced and Salinas. This report was mentioned by the briefer to the pilot including the existence of Airmets Z and S. The pilot did not request any further information and made a statement (as heard on the tape) to the effect that the report did not sound so "drastic". The controller indicated agreement with this and did not make the "VFR not recommended" remark. For reasons unknown to this day, the 210 suffered an inflight break up in the middle of this weather area. The only witnesses were field workers near Tranquility, CA who reported hearing a huge bang during an intense rain shower followed by the airplane crash in their field. The pilot did not get ATC advisories during his flight nor did he request an "Inflight Briefing" (see Sub Para f.) By all accounts he was a responsible pilot who even had a back up plan- airline tickets for he and his passengers were found in the wreckage.
In follow up to a tragedy like this, the words and actions of pilots, air traffic controllers, and flight service station briefers are subject to scrutiny and are compared to written policy or guidance. Not surprisingly, pilots are least acountable for their errors or omisions other than becoming victims. Pilots are not required to get a briefing, but briefers must strictly follow the structure and format of a preflight briefing. I bring this up to you guys only in the spirit of getting correct information out and to promote safety.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Years ago before widespread computerization and the proliferation of weather services, I actually called the weather briefer. This was in the day before all the individual weather stations were closed and the briefer actually new something of the local weather patterns.

Well if we called the 1800WXBRIEF number we would get Williamsport FSS. The briefer not being familiar with weather in NYC and the Hampton's or helicopters would advise us from the start that VFR was not recommended and ask if we still wanted the brief. I would say, yes I'm flying a helicopter in NYC and need just 300 ft and 1/2 mile visibility. Give me the weather and no I don't need winds at altitude.

We then learned that if we called the direct line to Millville FSS the briefer would say VFR is not recommended and before we could say anything he would say but your a helicopter and your going to fly anyway so let me tell you what you really need to know. And it didn't include winds at altitude.

Now those where the days.

[jrenwick]

Thanks, Harlow. I didn't know this was the briefer's judgement call. I get my briefings from the Princeton (MN) FSS usually, and I've heard them say, more than once, that such-and-such forecast is for periods of so-and-so visibility or ceilings, "and for that reason, VFR is not recommended." The conditions they're talking about always seem to be marginal VFR or worse, so I guess I assumed they were required to say that under those conditions.

I wish it were as I mistakenly thought. To me, it gives even more reason to try to understand, if they don't offer it, why they made the call, and whether the conditions they're seeing are actually below my personal minimums for VFR. (My own minimums vary according to what airplane I'm flying, and how familiar I am with the area I'm flying over. They're lowest for the J3, and highest for the Swift.)

[voorheesh]

Things have changed in the last 30 years. When I started flying there were FSSs at many airports and the "specialists" had local knowledge that really helped. I remember Arcata CA which sits on the northern coast and is subject to frequent fog and storms had a FSS run by a gal named Martha. She could give you immediate information based on personal knowledge and experience and if she was mistaken, she would come on the frequency later as you were flying up victor 107 and say "better hurry up boys!" That tranlsated into a wall of fog was rolling up the runway which was useful info to Hughes AirWest and Gibbs flights who were inbound. There was no radar and limited ground facilities. The locals had their own makeshift approaches that included 4X8 plywood sheets layed into the sloughs with arrows pointing towards the runway at Eureka murray. There is no doubt in my mind that Martha knew about these practices and helped give crucial weather info even though the pilots were breaking the rules.
But those days are gone here in the lower 48. The new FSS system employs briefers who are trained to provide and interpret weather information in a format that does not always appeal to pilots and is not always consistent with their needs. They do not always have first hand knowledge of local conditions. In central CA, I usually speak to briefers in Seattle and Prescott. I brought up the info from the AIM because I think it is helpful for pilots to know how these briefers operate. They can answer brief individual questions but if a "briefing" is involved, they are required to follow the format. They can get in trouble if they deviate too far from this and many pilots do not realize this and get frustrated with what they consider to be extraneous info or advice. I brought up the accident because, in my belief, that pilot did not get critical preflight weather information partly because he did not understand the ground rules for obtaining a briefing and partly because the briefer followed his guidelines by the book. Result: mis communication/missunderstanding. As a CFI, I believe this should be stressed to general aviation pilots in primary flight training and BFRs. We had weather related accidents in the old days and continue to see them in our new "computer age". Education and knowledge are the best defenses to getting in over your head in weather. With these tools you can develop the personal minimums John refers to and really achieve safety goals while still making good use of your equipment.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Voorheesh you are right on with your message. You must know how the briefers are required to operate and not read anything into it. I feel into this trap early one in the flying days.

Briefers (and controllers) are not pilots (though many are) and are not required to know pilot rules.

[GAHorn]

The rules are meant to ensure that pilots get a standardized level of performance from a "briefer" ...but pilots can inadvertently (in an effort to avoid the extraneous information unrelated or unimportant to their flight) defeat the intent of the rules.

"Privatization"...the view that government should not be performing services which business can perform... is a disservice in some areas....and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars in this one, in my opinion. I no longer contact the FSS (Faux Service Station) known as Lockheed-Martin. I'm tired of "briefers" who don't know the local area and who cannot pronounce names of navigational aids/reporting-stations or advise where those aids are in relation to my intended route. I get my weather briefing elsewhere for that reason, and I do not think either of them superior to the good-ol'-days and a FSS (Flight Service Specialist.)

[170C]

When Lockheed-Martin took over the briefing duties, I too encounterd some problems with a briefer being in some other part of the country and having no idea where I was actually going. The worse example I had was a briefer in Washington DC giving me a data about a short trip from GPM (Grand Prairie, TX) to Reklaw. Of course his not being familiar with that part of east TX wasn't surprising as I wouldn't have a clue if I were giving data up where Bruce lives. However, I have to compliment them on the improvements they have made since then. The last several times I have asked for a briefing I was completely satisfied with the briefer and the data given. George, what other source are you using for your data if not flight service?

[voorheesh]

I am not trying to answer for George but there are a variety of on line sources for weather, notam, and other aviation information available. DUATs is good and has coded and plain language available. DUATs records your visit and is proof that a pilot checked for relevant information. DUATs has kind of a neat flight planning module that you can enter your airplane's info in and come up with a flight plan which by the way you can also file on DUATs if you want to. There are other sources such as WSI which has cool WX graphics. NOAA has a good website that is in plain language and has aviation info. AOPA and faa.gov have (reportedly) current TFR info. IMPORTANT: If dealing with a presidential TFR, call FSS and get the latest info because those TFRs frequently get extended. For VFR flights, not in the vicinity of an airport, 91.103 requires you to get weather reports and forecasts but does not specify the source. In my opinion, non aviation sources such as weather channel, local news, NOAA, etc are perfectly acceptable for most VFR flights where the weather is perfect and no other issues are present (this will probably bring incoming). The important thing is for you the pilot to get the information necessary for your needs to conduct a safe flight from a reliable source that you are comfortable with and then use it.
For telephone weather briefings, check AIM 7-1-4 and you will get a concise description of what will be included in your session including the sequence it will be given. A typical briefing can take up to 5 minutes of listening and it is recommended that we just shut up and listen. The briefer does not know local conditions and may or may not be a pilot. But they are trained professionals who can read and interpret aviation weather and they are giving you the exact information you will get from an online source. If we use the briefings, we should follow the guidelines and not try and short circuit the process, EXCEPT: It is acceptable to tell them from the outset that you do not want a briefing and then give them your list of specific requests such as metars, TFRs, etc. It is when a pilot is vague or unsure of the service requested that confusion and mis information happens.
Many members of this site go to locations that are not covered in the aviation weather system and an excellent source of weather and other conditions can be obtained by calling someone at the destination who is familiar and willing to provide info and advice. AIRNAV is an excellent source for contact info and AIRNAV also lists nearby METARs and TAFs.
This whole discussion reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a young friend who is in his second year at the Air Force Academy. His aviation career got started at our local glider club where he soloed at 14 and was liscenced at 16. Our club is a wonderful laid back operation with years of experience among members and a good safety record. My young friend compared this with the academy where he was recently appointed as an air force glider instructor-difference: night and day. The military is not at all laid back. Everything is regimented and you do not deviate from procedures except with good cause. Weather briefings are standardized and complete. A complete preflight is conducted before each mission and each operation is planned and executed as opposed to "lets go out and find some thermals!" Without trying to talk up Lockheed Martin or ATC, this is the world they live in and it is part of the reason GA gets frustrated and occasionaly clashes with their employees. If an experienced civilian glider instructor watched a military counterpart going through the procedures described by my friend, he would be tempted to ask, "what the H are you doing all that for? Lets go fly!"
My advice, for whatever it is worth, is for us older guys to be aware of changes that happen including cultural issues and be sure to take them into account in your SOPs. Experience is great but we should not become dinasoars too soon. It is amazing what we can learn from the young who have made their changes partly in response to our experiences and what we have taught them.
Harlow

[W.J.Langholz]

AOPA is having a "Webinar" tomorrow for their AIFP
EDT 1 and 7
CDT 12 and 6
PDT 10 and 4



W.