I would modify that by saying, "Depending on the conditions, the obstacle environment, etc, it may not be wise."...While it's legal to depart that way, it's not wise at all...
I would modify that by saying, "Depending on the conditions, the obstacle environment, etc, it may not be wise."...While it's legal to depart that way, it's not wise at all...
No cloud separation requirement for SVFR other than clear of clouds.tl;dr
Shoulda asked for a special VFR Complied with cloud separation requirements while scud running/curcling through the hole.
The situation at hand could very easily have turned into an accidental IMC encounter if correctly described.
But what if your house falls down with you inside, or a tree falls on your house, or your house catches on fire, or you have a gas leak in your house?Man, if making a decision to go in those conditions is risky, Then I guess I better just just stay on the ground, period. Better yet, I'll stay in my house, in bed, with the covers pulled over my head!
You forgotAnd you know this, how?
Let's review.
Man, if making a decision to go in those conditions is risky, Then I guess I better just just stay on the ground, period. Better yet, I'll stay in my house, in bed, with the covers pulled over my head!
- Sky cover 50% or maybe a tad more, ceiling 600'.
- Thin clouds, the kind you can see the outline of the sun glowing thru.
- 30 minutes later the cover was closer to 80% but the ceiling had raised to 800'
- The sky was clear 30 to 40 miles to the west, my direction of travel.
- Terrain for that first 30 to 40 miles is dead flat. Mississippi River Delta farm fields. "Flat as a flitter" as mom used to say, whatever the hell a "flitter" is.
- I'm instrument rated but not current.
Flat ground under the conditions you describe could have obstructions ABOVE the clouds, let alone in them. TV towers in the flats frequently exceed 2000 feet.
Ummm...no they don't, now you're proving that you don't have a clue and are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Ummm...no they don't, now you're proving that you don't have a clue and are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Besides, it's my home 'drome, don't you think I know exactly what towers are around? (Hint: the answer is yes, and the only tall towers are north).
There are 400-500 foot towers all over the place there according to the sectional. That's enough to be a real big problem scud running under a 600 foot ceiling..
I've dodged enough 2000 foot towers to know they exist and are not rare at all.
I'd expect you to know your home airport, but when the sectional tells me you have obstructions and you say you don't, I'll believe the sectional.
I'll try to find a way to go on living.As long as you weren't in a 'surface area of controlled airspace designated for an airport' (or control zone or class E to the ground as you may wish to say), that's fine. If there was a control zone there, you busted the regs.
Yup. The little balls on top of the levers. Pushed up against the firewall. Go fast mode. There's debate about whether it began in wheeled vehicles or aircraft though.Holy crap! I am 50 years old and just learned something new maybe. Is that where the term comes from? Balls to the wall?
Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. Scud running was never in the equation. You said obstructions in and above the clouds, not beneath them. And I would have been far above the clouds before exiting the delta.
Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. I've dodged my share of 2000' towers too, there's a whole gaggle of them out east of Springfield, MO. But that's not what you said. You said "frequently exceed 2000 feet." There are only two are three towers in the entire U.S. That exceed 2000' because that's is the maximum allowed without going through a very onerous permitting process. Anything over 2000' is considered a hazard to aviation. (Like 1999' isn't? )
Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. I never said there were no obstructions out west. I said all the tall towers were north in direct response to you talking about obstructions in or above the clouds.
Bye now, you're the third to go on ignore. Have a good life hiding under your sheets. (And I won't use Nick's favorite word but I'd sure like to right now! )
"Everything that is not prohibited is allowed." Compare the language of 91.155 with 91.119. They're different. And it makes sense when you consider the purpose of the clearance requirements. E.g., if you're ten feet higher than the cloud tops, an aircraft in cruise at the same altitude will also be higher than the cloud tops, and visible to you. Thus it doesn't matter how far you are from the clouds laterally, if you're not on the same horizontal plane.Got a reference to back that up? It's not consistent with the goal of avoiding collisions with IFR aircraft popping out of clouds. Otherwise, I could be 1 foot away from a cloud laterally if I was also 1 foot above it. Doesn't make sense.
(Not that you'll ever see this post, since I'm number two on your ignore list. )
"Everything that is not prohibited is allowed." Compare the language of 91.155 with 91.119. They're different. And it makes sense when you consider the purpose of the clearance requirements. E.g., if you're ten feet higher than the cloud tops, an aircraft in cruise at the same altitude will also be higher than the cloud tops, and visible to you. Thus it doesn't matter how far you are from the clouds laterally, if you're not on the same horizontal plane.