IMC vs. VMC

roncachamp said:
Yes, as I said, again, you were not looking at the whole picture.

How's that Venn Diagram coming along?
Click to expand...


Yes I was, but I specifically only put into text daytime cloud clearances, because that's all I was discussing. I was 90% done with the Venn Diagram but then realized you wouldn't understand it anyway.
 
EdFred said:
Yes I was, but I specifically only put into text daytime cloud clearances, because that's all I was discussing.
Click to expand...

If you think you're looking at the whole picture when only considering daytime you don't understand what "whole picture " means.

I was 90% done with the Venn Diagram but then realized you wouldn't understand it anyway.
Click to expand...

Unlikely.
 
roncachamp said:
If you think you're looking at the whole picture when only considering daytime you don't understand what "whole picture " means.



Unlikely.
Click to expand...

Try reading what I typed again. Get back to me when you become familiar with what the terms specific and qualify mean, and how they apply to this situation.

Based on your responses so far, I can say more than likely.
 
EdFred said:
Try reading what I typed again. Get back to me when you become familiar with what the terms specific and qualify mean, and how they apply to this situation.

Based on your responses so far, I can say more than likely.
Click to expand...

So my responses indicate I'm probably not smart enough to understand your Venn Diagram? Can you explain why?

Let's take a look at your first message in this discussion and see if we can conclude anything about your level of intelligence.

I wrote, "Nobody flies VFR in the clouds. If they're in the clouds they are not operating in accordance with Visual Flight Rules."

You altered that to, "Nobody LEGALLY flies VFR in the clouds. If they're in the clouds they are not operating in accordance with Visual Flight Rules.", declaring it to be "Fixed for truth."

Can you explain how my statement was "broken"?
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
I wrote, "Nobody flies VFR in the clouds. If they're in the clouds they are not operating in accordance with Visual Flight Rules."
Click to expand...

If an aircraft on an IFR flight plan violates an IFR rule, is it no longer flying IFR?
 
roncachamp said:
So my responses indicate I'm probably not smart enough to understand your Venn Diagram? Can you explain why?

Let's take a look at your first message in this discussion and see if we can conclude anything about your level of intelligence.

I wrote, "Nobody flies VFR in the clouds. If they're in the clouds they are not operating in accordance with Visual Flight Rules."

You altered that to, "Nobody LEGALLY flies VFR in the clouds. If they're in the clouds they are not operating in accordance with Visual Flight Rules.", declaring it to be "Fixed for truth."

Can you explain how my statement was "broken".
Click to expand...

If I am not flying IFR (see 91.167 through 91.193) and not flying SVFR (91.157) what am I flying? Gotta be VFR, unless there some sort of bizarro set of flight rules out there I am not seeing, and if I am catching clouds with the tips of my wings, that doesn't automatically convert me to being under IFR if I haven't complied with applicable parts of 91.167 - 91.193 - not to mention part 61. So, I am still flying VFR, I am just not doing so LEGALLY.

Just like going 95 miles an hour on the highway, I'm still doing it, I'm just not legal, but I'm still on the highway. So let's go back to your original statement of nobody flying VFR in the clouds. If they ARE in the clouds and they are not flying IFR, what are they doing?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This sounds to me like "Because they feel like it." I'm not seeing how they can come up with anything that ought to reasonably hold up. Weather stations are wrong, witnesses outside of the plane really can't have much of an idea, unless it's some other plane who is at the same position and same altitude while being in IMC, or alternately is in VMC and sees you popping out of a cloud.
Click to expand...
By law, credibity is an issue to be decided by the ALJ. Read those cases, and you'll see how that works.
 
EdFred said:
If I am not flying IFR (see 91.167 through 91.193) and not flying SVFR (91.157) what am I flying? Gotta be VFR, unless there some sort of bizarro set of flight rules out there I am not seeing, and if I am catching clouds with the tips of my wings, that doesn't automatically convert me to being under IFR if I haven't complied with applicable parts of 91.167 - 91.193 - not to mention part 61. So, I am still flying VFR, I am just not doing so LEGALLY.

Just like going 95 miles an hour on the highway, I'm still doing it, I'm just not legal, but I'm still on the highway. So let's go back to your original statement of nobody flying VFR in the clouds. If they ARE in the clouds and they are not flying IFR, what are they doing?
Click to expand...

I can answer your questions after you answer mine, or I can take your response as a "No." The choice is yours.
 
roncachamp said:
I can answer your questions after you answer mine, or I can take your response as a "No." The choice is yours.
Click to expand...

I have already answered why I don't think you you would understand the Venn diagram, this post I am replying to provides more reason why I continue to think so, and my post prior to this was my answer as to why I added "legally" earlier in the thread.

Is he flying under VFR? Yes. Is he breaking VFR rules, yes. But still under VFR, because he's not IFR or SVFR.
 
EdFred said:
Exactly my point, thank you!!!
Click to expand...
Yup. Doesn't matter whether you claim you were IFR or VFR, nor which reg the FAA cites (IFR or VFR) -- the standard penalty is pretty much the same for all the possible citations (60-180 day suspension).
 
EdFred said:
I have already answered why I don't think you you would understand the Venn diagram, this post I am replying to provides more reason why I continue to think so, and my post prior to this was my answer as to why I added "legally" earlier in the thread.

Is he flying under VFR? Yes. Is he breaking VFR rules, yes. But still under VFR, because he's not IFR or SVFR.
Click to expand...

The question was "Can you explain how my statement was 'broken'?, I take your response as a "No."
 
roncachamp said:
The question was "Can you explain how my statement was 'broken'?, I take your response as a "No."
Click to expand...

Further reason for me to believe you wouldn't understand the Venn diagram.
 
EdFred said:
Further reason for me to believe you wouldn't understand the Venn diagram.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why your reluctance to answer my question gives you reason to believe I wouldn't understand the Venn diagram?
 
roncachamp said:
Can you explain why your reluctance to answer my question gives you reason to believe I wouldn't understand the Venn diagram?
Click to expand...

Your disagreeing with his answer does not mean that he didn't answer your question.
 
roncachamp said:
How do you know you had completely legal cloud clearances? Not saying you didn't, but how do you know you're, for example, 2200' laterally from a cloud and not 1800' from it?
Click to expand...

The answer is that you can't know definitively with that kind of accuracy because you have no frame of reference to judge size and therefore distance. The rule is therefore meant to be a guideline. But here's a question for the legal eagles here - isn't it up to me to determine my visibility? After all, I'm the only one at that place in the sky. I too have been at airports that were calling overcast 500 only to get up there and be able to see for 3+ miles through a scattered layer of haze balls. Are there any cases in which a pilot claimed that his visibility was beyond legal mins and was busted because of evidence believed to be contrary to the PIC's assertion?
 
PittsDriver said:
Are there any cases in which a pilot claimed that his visibility was beyond legal mins and was busted because of evidence believed to be contrary to the PIC's assertion?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I know of one where the pilot's version of flight visibility from the cockpit was accepted over all evidence to the contrary, and the charge relating to visibility was tossed by the NTSB. However, they still found him careless/reckless in violation of 91.13 for landing in a snow storm with 1/16 mile vis and going off the runway. I guess the moral of the story is that if you prang a plane doing something dumb, the FAA will find a way to smack you. See Administrator v. Pisarek at http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4338.PDF for the details.
 
Last edited:
PittsDriver said:
Thanks Ron, that's what I was looking for.
Click to expand...

I found it interesting that the response included a statement to the effect that using the edge lighting to identify the runway location instead of the painted centerline stripes indicated that the pilot lacked the required forward visibility when over the runway. IME when there's snow on the runway, even after the runway has been plowed, the centerline is often covered and invisible. That said, one would think that any pilot using the runway edge lighting to locate the runway would attempt to land halfway between them rather than putting one main wheel closer than 10 ft to a light on one side.
 
gismo said:
That said, one would think that any pilot using the runway edge lighting to locate the runway would attempt to land halfway between them rather than putting one main wheel closer than 10 ft to a light on one side.
Click to expand...

What if you can't see both sides at the same time due to low visibility? :eek:

Chris
 
EdFred said:
If I am not flying IFR (see 91.167 through 91.193) and not flying SVFR (91.157) what am I flying? Gotta be VFR, unless there some sort of bizarro set of flight rules out there I am not seeing, and if I am catching clouds with the tips of my wings, that doesn't automatically convert me to being under IFR if I haven't complied with applicable parts of 91.167 - 91.193 - not to mention part 61. So, I am still flying VFR, I am just not doing so LEGALLY.
Click to expand...

If you aren't following the rules, then you are neither operating under Visual Flight Rules nor Instrument Flight Rules, you are operating outside the rules, aka "Scud Running".
 
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
"If you're in the clouds, you are by definition operating under IFR;"

Not necessarily. You are operating in IMC(Rules vs Conditions). If you are on an IFR flight plan, you are operating legally, if not you are operating illegally. There is a big difference. VFR in the clouds can get you in trouble. IFR will not. Corrections welcome.

Noah Werka
 
Noah Werka said:
Not necessarily. You are operating in IMC(Rules vs Conditions). If you are on an IFR flight plan, you are operating legally, if not you are operating illegally.
Click to expand...
There are times when one can operate IFR in Class G airspace without either flight plan or clearance. So, if you're in IMC without a flight plan/clearance, you may be operating IFR legally, or IFR illegally, or VFR illegally -- depends on circumstances. The only thing one can say for sure is that you are not operating VFR legally.
 
Noah Werka said:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
"If you're in the clouds, you are by definition operating under IFR;"

Not necessarily. You are operating in IMC(Rules vs Conditions). If you are on an IFR flight plan, you are operating legally, if not you are operating illegally. There is a big difference. VFR in the clouds can get you in trouble. IFR will not. Corrections welcome.

Noah Werka
Click to expand...

You can legally operate under Instrument Flight Rules without an IFR flight plan or clearance in Class G airspace.



§ 91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.


No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—


(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and


(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.
 
roncachamp said:
You can legally operate under Instrument Flight Rules without an IFR flight plan or clearance in Class G airspace.
Click to expand...
Sometimes yes, sometimes no -- it depends on circumstances. The FAA and NTSB have determined that doing so in the G-space between the surface and the overlying E-space above an airport where ATC is clearing aircraft for instrument departures and approaches is "careless/reckless" in violation of 91.13 (see Administrator v. Murphy). OTOH, if you're operating between two private ranch airports in Montana entirely clear of all controlled airspace without possible conflict with aircraft that have been cleared into/out of the overlying controlled airspace (i.e., where the base of controlled airspace is 14,500 MSL), then you're probably OK as long as you can get VMC by the 91.177 minimum altitude so you avoid violating 91.175(a) on the letdown.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Unless I decided to sign a confession saying I illegally flew through IMC (regardless of whether I did or not), what would they violate me on? If I had a witness in the plane with me who confirmed that we did not fly through IMC, then what? Word against what?
Click to expand...

Once I was cruising along under a layer and heard a guy on the frequency asking Atlanta Center if they knew where there was a hole he could get down through, after he said "I'm about 600' above this layer". I guess he forgot his official FAA measuring tape that says you're always at least 1,000' above a broken layer!:hairraise:
 
Ron Levy said:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no -- it depends on circumstances.
Click to expand...

Oh? What circumstances prohibit the legal operation of an aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules in Class G airspace without an IFR flight plan or clearance?

The FAA and NTSB have determined that doing so in the G-space between the surface and the overlying E-space above an airport where ATC is clearing aircraft for instrument departures and approaches is "careless/reckless" in violation of 91.13 (see Administrator v. Murphy).
Click to expand...

It isn't possible to operate under Instrument Flight Rules in the G-space between the surface and the overlying E-space above an airport without an ATC clearance. That would put the operation within 700 feet of the surface in violation of FAR 91.177.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top