IFR conditions? You judge...

[FridayChild]

I took of in real world weather for a VFR short flight, and when nearing the destination airport the weather worsened just a bit, with a light rain and some wind.
Surprisingly, the destination airport denied my request to land because it was "currently IFR".
You judge (I'm less than 6 nm away from the strip in this shot):

Do you think the tower was correct in this case?
And what are the minimum conditions at which in FS and, respectively, in real life, the airports are closed to VFR?

[ashaman]

Sadly enough, you're trying to reason with unreasonable simulated people. When this happens, simply file a IFR flight plan. Magically, they'll let you land everywhere you want.

[Zaphod]

Strangely enough this happened to me just today but I ignored them and landed anyway.
Show them whose boss.

Zaphod.

[ashaman]

Yeah, all considered is a minor problem. Nothing like mine. I've even opened a topic about it (shameless plug).

[matt2190]

I never have a problem with this. I always fly IFR.

[FridayChild]

Oo yeh, but the real question is: when do IFR conditions come into place? Minimum visibility, wind strength...

[beaky]

Were there any clouds at all over the airport? What was the altitude of the cloud bases in feet above the airport elevation (AGL)?

Generally speaking, VFR (Visual Flight Rules) departures and arrivals are not allowed- or very smart-  if visibility on the ground at the airport is less than 3 miles and/or  there are clouds at less than 1000 feet AGL (Above Ground Level- not to be confused with MSL or Mean Sea Level).


I believe the rule extends to 1/2 mile from the airport boundary or something like that. So a towered field will not let a VFR flight in under low clouds even if a mile away it is perfect VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions). This is usually not a big deal  unless its a solid overcast (clouds tend to drift with the wind, which might eventually create an opening to allow arrival)... in which case you shouldn't be up flying under VFR anyway.

At a nontowered field you can probably get away with taking off or landing  under illegal wx conditions, but if you crash people will laugh at you at fly-ins.

It's a good rule: I've flown in RL at FAA minimums for VFR (in the pattern), and it's pretty scary. Not so much the clouds as the visibility: if I'm forced down to 1000 AGL by clouds, I want to be able to see more than 3 miles ahead.

It's odd that FS9 is strict about this rule, but doesn't mind if you shoot an instrument approach way below minimums...



The complete rules regarding VFR limits, at airports and enroute, in all airpaces, etc, etc, is too long to get into here: google around for  online excerpts of the FAA regs if you want more info.

But generally speaking, as far as airports go, the rule is 1000 feet AGL and 3 miles visibility. Rain, snow, wind, frogs... none of that matters, as long as you can see more than 3 miles and climb to 1000 feet off the runway before you enter clouds.


I will tell you one thing: it's got nothing to do with wind. The "I" in "IFR" stands for "instrument"; the "V" in "VFR" stands for "visual".

[FridayChild]

It's my judgement that both conditions were more than fulfilled in the situation pictured above. I did fly on and entered a circuit above the destination airport, and I did not find any change as compared to the picture above. I think FS was a bit too strict in this case.
Oh well, too bad, I just turned back to the departure airport and by the time I got there the weather was fine again...  ;D

[beaky]

It's my judgement that both conditions were more than fulfilled in the situation pictured above. I did fly on and entered a circuit above the destination airport, and I did not find any change as compared to the picture above. I think FS was a bit too strict in this case.
Oh well, too bad, I just turned back to the departure airport and by the time I got there the weather was fine again...  ;D

The picture above doesn't tell me what conditions were like at your intended destination...
Were there any clouds over the airport, and were any of them below 1000 AGL?
I know you said you flew a circuit above the airport, but were you in the clear?

You can do whatever you want, I'm just curious because I've never had  FS9  deny me VFR access unless it was obviously IMC.

[FridayChild]

The weather conditions at the destination airport were the same as the ones in the picture. You can get an idea of clouds and visibility by looking at the picture, there really was no significant change IMO.
Could it be that FS takes some time to actually load into the weather engine the data it has dowloaded from Jeppesen?
I mean, data are available as soon as they are downloaded, but they are not translated immediately into visual effects?
Or- could it be that from time to time FS dowloads bogus data? I have set the weather engine to refresh data frequently.

[FridayChild]

Today, FS chose to give me a more reasonable treatment. It let me land, but did not clear me to take off again.
This depicts the situation at the destination airport.

I was cleared for landing, and right after I vacated the runway, just for kicks I asked permission to take off again. I was denied it because "airport is currently IFR". This time the weather appeared far worse than yesterday. Yet I was cleared to land, and that is reasonable since I was in a circuit over the airport and I could still see the runway lights (though I could not clearly see the runway until a few hundred feet AGL).  :D

[beaky]

Uyep. Not quite 3 miles there...although it is odd that they let you in. Maybe it was a Special VFR clearance not specified as such...

[FridayChild]

And you can also notice by that last picture that I made a lousy fast and long touchdown... good thing that I was landing at an international airport with lots of runway length to spare.

[Conan Edogawa]

Got the same message as I flew a plane VFR with no more fuel left through foggy areas. So I first had to open one and could land afterwards.