Opinion ID: 664137
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reported Visibility

Text: 12 Petitioner also argues that substantial evidence does not support the Board's finding that ground visibility at the airport was reported to be less than three statute miles at the time of his landing, under section 91.105(d). (Petitioner's emphasis). 6 Petitioner's claim turns not on what the official visibility actually was, but rather on whether that figure was reported. Petitioner claims the visibility was not reported as it was not shown by substantial evidence that it was communicated to anyone. Because the ground visibility was not reported, he continues, section 91.105(d)(2) controls, and makes flight visibility, rather than ground visibility the relevant factor. 7 This argument fails, for two reasons. 13 First, as recognized by the Board, Petitioner distorts section 91.105(d)'s reference to reported ground visibility beyond recognition. Without citation to any authority, Petitioner argues that the periodic weather observations made and recorded by the Flight Service Specialist are not reported--and therefore 14 C.F.R. Sec. 91.105(d)(1) is without effect--until those observations are actually communicated to someone. 14 As the Board noted, [t]here is no support in logic or Board precedent for the [Petitioner's] suggestion that the probative value of the official airport weather is somehow dependent on whether it has been transmitted in some manner to a pilot. Indeed, the Board regularly looks to the airport watchman's log to ascertain the weather conditions supporting a violation of FAR provisions. See, e.g., Administrator v. Bradway, 1 N.T.S.B. 145, 1967 WL 6262, at  6 (Dec. 29, 1967). 15 The proper inquiry is whether the information that the ground visibility was below VFR minimums was existent and available to Petitioner when he made his approach. Substantial evidence exists in the record that it was, through the weather information network, via the rotating airport beacon, and through radio contact with the tower. 8 16 Petitioner's argument on this ground also fails for a second reason. Even were we to accept the argument that no reported ground visibility obtains absent a communication, there exists sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the ground visibility was reported even under that definition. Before the ALJ, Whitney testified that he put the completed weather observation forms on to the teletype. This testimony would be sufficient to support a reasonable mind in concluding that the reports were actually communicated. Therefore, even if actual communication were required, the Board's decision should nonetheless stand.