Narrative:

The last 20 mins of the flight to falcon field from bisbee municipal airport (southeast az) were under a scud/fog/cloud layer with light intermittent rain. Though visibilities were diminished, they were north excess of 1-2 mi at approximately 1200-1500' AGL. So, I was surprised to hear ATIS reporting 200' indefinite ceiling and 1/2 mi visibility. On initial contact with the tower I was informed the airport was IFR. I requested a SVFR approach and was denied. I stated that I had ground contact and requested clearance to land. That was denied also. I was instructed to remain clear of the air traffic area. The controller then suggested I divert to deer valley airport, also reporting IFR. After I explained that I was familiar with the mesa-falcon field area, I was informed there were only 2 choices available if I wanted to land at falcon field--either the controller or I must declare an emergency. I replied, 'emergency declared,' and was cleared to land. In my discussion with the controller in the tower a few mins after landing it became obvious to me that the visibility reporting criteria was inadequate. In a subsequent conversation with the tower supervisor, in the tower, the supervisor said that the visibility reporting procedures being used needed to be updated as they had been initiated several yrs ago and that area conditions had changed substantially, and they were attempting to ge them updated. The controller and I agreed that no emergency had existed. Personally, I found it very difficult to declare an emergency when clearly none existed. I expect that similar reluctance on the part of other pilots could very well lead to aggravating rather than alleviating a given situation. It appears that the FAA's concerns of liability are a real hindrance to their promotion/furtherance of safety. I don't have a solution to the 'deep pocket--sue everyone' problems we are faced with in this country, but it's obvious the situation is not contributing to aviation safety. As for visibility reporting I would suggest that this area of the country suffers from predominantly severe clear conditions. People (including pilots and controllers) accustomed to clear, unrestricted visibilities tend to exaggerate/overstate diminished conditions. Let's help our controllers establish realistic visibility reporting procedures. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states tower personnel said reporter used all the right words, but in the wrong order to allow a clearance. Reporter feels that ATC more concerned about liability than safety. Reporter questioned tower controller why he was reporting such low visibility. Controller looked north and said that creek is about 1/2 mi away. On chart indicates closer to 1 mi. Reporter reinforced comments about exaggeration of diminished visibility because so used to such clear visibility most of the time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT ENCOUNTERS DETERIORATING WX. DENIED SVFR LNDG CLRNC. DECLARED EMERGENCY TO LAND.

Narrative: THE LAST 20 MINS OF THE FLT TO FALCON FIELD FROM BISBEE MUNI ARPT (SE AZ) WERE UNDER A SCUD/FOG/CLOUD LAYER WITH LIGHT INTERMITTENT RAIN. THOUGH VISIBILITIES WERE DIMINISHED, THEY WERE N EXCESS OF 1-2 MI AT APPROX 1200-1500' AGL. SO, I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR ATIS RPTING 200' INDEFINITE CEILING AND 1/2 MI VISIBILITY. ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE TWR I WAS INFORMED THE ARPT WAS IFR. I REQUESTED A SVFR APCH AND WAS DENIED. I STATED THAT I HAD GND CONTACT AND REQUESTED CLRNC TO LAND. THAT WAS DENIED ALSO. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO REMAIN CLR OF THE ATA. THE CTLR THEN SUGGESTED I DIVERT TO DEER VALLEY ARPT, ALSO RPTING IFR. AFTER I EXPLAINED THAT I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE MESA-FALCON FIELD AREA, I WAS INFORMED THERE WERE ONLY 2 CHOICES AVAILABLE IF I WANTED TO LAND AT FALCON FIELD--EITHER THE CTLR OR I MUST DECLARE AN EMER. I REPLIED, 'EMER DECLARED,' AND WAS CLRED TO LAND. IN MY DISCUSSION WITH THE CTLR IN THE TWR A FEW MINS AFTER LNDG IT BECAME OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THE VISIBILITY RPTING CRITERIA WAS INADEQUATE. IN A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR SUPVR, IN THE TWR, THE SUPVR SAID THAT THE VISIBILITY RPTING PROCS BEING USED NEEDED TO BE UPDATED AS THEY HAD BEEN INITIATED SEVERAL YRS AGO AND THAT AREA CONDITIONS HAD CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY, AND THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO GE THEM UPDATED. THE CTLR AND I AGREED THAT NO EMER HAD EXISTED. PERSONALLY, I FOUND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DECLARE AN EMER WHEN CLEARLY NONE EXISTED. I EXPECT THAT SIMILAR RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF OTHER PLTS COULD VERY WELL LEAD TO AGGRAVATING RATHER THAN ALLEVIATING A GIVEN SITUATION. IT APPEARS THAT THE FAA'S CONCERNS OF LIABILITY ARE A REAL HINDRANCE TO THEIR PROMOTION/FURTHERANCE OF SAFETY. I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION TO THE 'DEEP POCKET--SUE EVERYONE' PROBS WE ARE FACED WITH IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT IT'S OBVIOUS THE SITUATION IS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO AVIATION SAFETY. AS FOR VISIBILITY RPTING I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS AREA OF THE COUNTRY SUFFERS FROM PREDOMINANTLY SEVERE CLR CONDITIONS. PEOPLE (INCLUDING PLTS AND CTLRS) ACCUSTOMED TO CLR, UNRESTRICTED VISIBILITIES TEND TO EXAGGERATE/OVERSTATE DIMINISHED CONDITIONS. LET'S HELP OUR CTLRS ESTABLISH REALISTIC VISIBILITY RPTING PROCS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES TWR PERSONNEL SAID RPTR USED ALL THE RIGHT WORDS, BUT IN THE WRONG ORDER TO ALLOW A CLRNC. RPTR FEELS THAT ATC MORE CONCERNED ABOUT LIABILITY THAN SAFETY. RPTR QUESTIONED TWR CTLR WHY HE WAS RPTING SUCH LOW VISIBILITY. CTLR LOOKED N AND SAID THAT CREEK IS ABOUT 1/2 MI AWAY. ON CHART INDICATES CLOSER TO 1 MI. RPTR REINFORCED COMMENTS ABOUT EXAGGERATION OF DIMINISHED VISIBILITY BECAUSE SO USED TO SUCH CLR VISIBILITY MOST OF THE TIME.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.