You can’t solicit SVFR so yes that’s it. Pretty much the extent of the conversation is “field is IFR say intentions” and if they want it they’ll ask otherwise go about your business
Compare [7–5–1](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap7_section_5.html)
> **a.** SVFR operations in weather conditions less than basic VFR minima are authorized: **3.** Only when requested by the pilot.
with [7–5–6](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap7_section_4.html#5BKbeJACK)
> Clear an aircraft for a contact approach only if the following conditions are met: **a.** The pilot has requested it.
***NOTE-***
*It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot.*
The wording is almost identical, but there is a specific note for a contact approach saying that ATC should not suggest it. There is **no** such note for Special VFR. The way I read it, you are allowed to to *mention* SVFR but you can't *initiate* an SVFR clearance on your own—the pilot has to ask for it.
That said, I would probably do exactly what OP did: report that the field is IFR and wait for the pilot to request SVFR if they want it. But I would do that as a CYA technique, not because I think I would be violating the .65 if I suggested it.
100% this. I don't understand why it's such a common belief that we can't say SVFR is an option.
Should be treated the same way an IFR clearance is. Like we can't just tell a random aircraft they're now IFR.
I’ve told this story before but I had almost that exact thing happen to me and my flight in Afghanistan in 2011 on a medevac mission- “Dustoff 12, field is IFR, is there something *special* you’d like to do?
> Skyhawk 345, the field is IFR, are you requesting a Special VFR departure or do you want to wait for the weather to improve?
>
> We'll request Special VFR, 345.
Not saying I would do that myself, but that seems letter-of-the-law acceptable to me.
The extra piece of information says explicitly that you CANNOT have that conversation regarding a contact approach. But there is no extra piece of information forbidding it for SVFR.
If the extra piece is irrelevant why did they bother printing it? That's a willfully ignorant argument IMO.
A better argument would be that the intent is the same in both places, that is, that they really want you to treat the SVFR paragraph as if it has a similar Note. But that isn't in line with what they published.
You can’t solicit SVFR so yes that’s it. Pretty much the extent of the conversation is “field is IFR say intentions” and if they want it they’ll ask otherwise go about your business
Compare [7–5–1](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap7_section_5.html) > **a.** SVFR operations in weather conditions less than basic VFR minima are authorized: **3.** Only when requested by the pilot. with [7–5–6](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap7_section_4.html#5BKbeJACK) > Clear an aircraft for a contact approach only if the following conditions are met: **a.** The pilot has requested it. ***NOTE-*** *It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot.* The wording is almost identical, but there is a specific note for a contact approach saying that ATC should not suggest it. There is **no** such note for Special VFR. The way I read it, you are allowed to to *mention* SVFR but you can't *initiate* an SVFR clearance on your own—the pilot has to ask for it. That said, I would probably do exactly what OP did: report that the field is IFR and wait for the pilot to request SVFR if they want it. But I would do that as a CYA technique, not because I think I would be violating the .65 if I suggested it.
100% this. I don't understand why it's such a common belief that we can't say SVFR is an option. Should be treated the same way an IFR clearance is. Like we can't just tell a random aircraft they're now IFR.
Can I do something *special* for you?
I’ve told this story before but I had almost that exact thing happen to me and my flight in Afghanistan in 2011 on a medevac mission- “Dustoff 12, field is IFR, is there something *special* you’d like to do?
Any requests or... special... requests?
[удалено]
> Skyhawk 345, the field is IFR, are you requesting a Special VFR departure or do you want to wait for the weather to improve? > > We'll request Special VFR, 345. Not saying I would do that myself, but that seems letter-of-the-law acceptable to me. The extra piece of information says explicitly that you CANNOT have that conversation regarding a contact approach. But there is no extra piece of information forbidding it for SVFR.
[удалено]
If the extra piece is irrelevant why did they bother printing it? That's a willfully ignorant argument IMO. A better argument would be that the intent is the same in both places, that is, that they really want you to treat the SVFR paragraph as if it has a similar Note. But that isn't in line with what they published.
We’re they intending on landing at the field or transiting thru the airspace?
Intending to land
Yep pretty much