Ibra wrote:
How “SVFR in LFPT CTR” is different from operating “SVFR” in uncontrolled airspace nearby?
I have always understood that there is no such thing as SVFR in uncontrolled airspace. In uncontrolled airspace, there’s either VMC, which allows VFR flight because the visibility is good enough for see&avoid, or IMC in which case you need to fly IFR. But nothing in between.
In controlled airspace you can have VMC conditions which allow VFR flight because see&avoid is possible. But in a marginal situation the visibility might be good enough for VFR navigation but not for see&avoid. In that case SVFR is used. You are still responsible for your own navigation but ATC manages the traffic so that only one VFR aircraft is active in the CTR, or in a section of the CTR, or at a portion of a VFR arrival/departure route at any given time. This eliminates the VFR/VFR collision risk. If the viz then drops below a level where visual navigation is safely possible, then SVFR is no longer possible and the controlled airspace becomes IFR only.
BackPacker wrote:
I have always understood that there is no such thing as SVFR in uncontrolled airspace
I agree, it’s the reason why I put it as " SVFR " for OCAS, but there is a change in VMC conditions at airspace boundaries, SVFR in CTR CAS usually allow a smooth transition from VFR in Golf !
While visibility criteria are easily defined for VFR, distance from clouds is tricky when the volume of airspace is small, should you respect cloud distance for clouds sitting in Golf airspace when flying VFR in Delta airspace just near the boundary? it’s a serious question when flying VFR in the tiny Gatwick with some cloud bank sitting behind Biggin Hill 
probably the reason why UK never implemented ICAO/SERA VMC minima for distances from clouds, we just fly VFR instead of SVFR in CAS
True. The VMC limits in uncontrolled airspace are typically lower than the VMC limits in controlled airspace, because by and large uncontrolled airspace doesn’t have a high traffic density and less fast-moving aircraft. SVFR in controlled airspace at least allows you to reach uncontrolled airspace from a controlled airport, or allows VFR aircraft to be recovered to the airfield in deteriorating conditions.
SVFR exists only in controlled airspace. Outside it’s either VFR minima or not.
Malibuflyer wrote:
And there might also be cases, where such a pilot with limited situational awareness does not immediately understand what ATC is trying to tell him when offering SVFR…
Correct ! Happens regularly at my base. It also seems that quite a few pilots are unfamiliar with the SVFR concept. Appears to be mostly people who don’t normally fly much in controlled airspace and/or to towered airports or don’t fly much in coastal haze, which is a permanent feature of all Californian coastal airports.
Another fun fact about SVFR is that it can make a landing legal which would not be legal under IFR. This situation can arise when the published IFR minimum viz is more than 1 statute mile (this is for FAA-land), but of course the SVFR minimum viz is 1sm.
In the US, SVFR is only available in controlled airspace that begins at the surface. There are some surface controlled airspace that does not allow SVFR. A tower is not required, but if the airspace is E to the surface, SVFR can be requested.
In the US, other types of clearances must be requested by the pilot, for example direct thru a class G airspace and a contact approach,
172driver wrote:
Another fun fact about SVFR is that it can make a landing legal which would not be legal under IFR. This situation can arise when the published IFR minimum viz is more than 1 statute mile (this is for FAA-land), but of course the SVFR minimum viz is 1sm.
I guess similar to IFR/VFR cloud-break with ground contact vs IFR circle-to-land or straight-in on higher OCH/Visibility to runway threshold
Having ground in-sight but no runway in-sight is a bad sign, life expectancy is counted in seconds !
Malibuflyer wrote:
One could have the hypothesis, that a pilot that doesn’t ask for SVFR by himself but needs to be “nudged” by ATC towards it, is not really aware that the weather is worse than VFR. And there might also be cases, where such a pilot with limited situational awareness does not immediately understand what ATC is trying to tell him when offering SVFR…
That could possibly be true for departing traffic, but not arrivals. But even for departures SVFR conditions are no worse than ordinary VFR conditions at an uncontrolled airport in class G airspace.
What ATC can’t offer you but can provide if asked
Some units are instructed not to initially vector aircraft on a VFR clearance. This is to stop them blindly going into cloud.
However if the pilot is confident he can maintain VFR and terrain/obstacle clearance, then explicitly stating he can accept vectors could make a controller’s job easier.
… as well as your own as it saves trying to match up VRPs with ground features.
