VFR and Zero Cloud Clearance

SkyHog said:
At first glace, I thought y'all were overreacting. Then I saw 5:08-5:21. That is IMC penetration.
Click to expand...

Might be, might not be. Video cameras don't necessarily record the same exact thing you see with your eyes in real time. IOW I'm saying the pilot may have been able to see through the cloud even though the camera couldn't.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Here's some clouds that, although wispy and you could see through them, you don't want to fly through:
4001183209_e78bbf87ca.jpg


They are full of sulfuric acid from a volcano- not good for the plane or you. A zoom lens made them look really close.
Click to expand...

And even if they were regular clouds, if you didn't have VFR cloud clearance minima from the portions you couldn't see through you might not be VFR-legal, depending on the visibility in miles.

I use whether I can see through it as a practical alternative to having transmissometers in the sky. :)
 
Last edited:
Apparently the person who posted the video (presumably the pilot) thought they were clouds.
Here's some quality father / daughter time in the Zenair CH750, playing with the clouds... We love the plane for the great visibility! We tried a grass field landing....
Click to expand...
 
roncachamp said:
It appears you and the pilot are of like mind in that regard.
Click to expand...

It's like Baseball great Ernie Banks says about how he keeps things in perspective and chooses what to worry or concern himself with:

"I care about it, just not that much."
 
Last edited:
If were looking to pile on this guy, I'd criticize his clearing of the final approach path before taking the runway and the way he took off from the far right side of the runway before I'd jump on him for busting a cloud.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
If were looking to pile on this guy, I'd criticize his clearing of the final approach path before taking the runway and the way he took off from the far right side of the runway before I'd jump on him for busting a cloud.


Trapper John
Click to expand...


Funny you say that John. During the video of his takeoff I could hear my CFI saying Center Line, Center Line CENTER LINE!
 
roncachamp said:
Visibility is just part of the VFR requirements, one must also maintain not less than the minimum required distance from clouds. It's a moot point, however, when one is within clouds one has neither the required visibility nor the required distance from clouds.
Click to expand...
If anyone thinks that this video is representative of how you would teach a potential young pilot by endangering lives, then please stop tossing your infants around the house like they are in the Cirque de Soleil.

:nono:
 
Been awhile since I watched the video wasn't he flying low enough to be under any IFR airways? If so no biggie whats he going to do hit someone else who is VFR playing in the clouds?
 
ClimbnSink said:
Been awhile since I watched the video wasn't he flying low enough to be under any IFR airways?
Click to expand...

I don't think that can be determined from the video.

If so no biggie whats he going to do hit someone else who is VFR playing in the clouds?
Click to expand...

Is there a significant difference between that and hitting someone IFR in the clouds?
 
ClimbnSink said:
Been awhile since I watched the video wasn't he flying low enough to be under any IFR airways? If so no biggie whats he going to do hit someone else who is VFR playing in the clouds?
Click to expand...

Does IFR always need to be on airways anymore? Can a suitably equipped plane (/G for example) file direct and sometimes even get "as filed"?
 
IFR flights including direct ones won't be below 3 or 3.5 correct. So if he is at 1,000 agl busting little white puffies who cares, and if he hits a VFR plane at 1,000 agl that was also busting little white puffies well they both knew the risk and decided to play anyway. The only acceptable outrage is if someone busting clouds at altitudes and airspace where there are legal IFR flights playing by the rules and expecting seperation. Everything else is ******* whining.
 
ClimbnSink said:
IFR flights including direct ones won't be below 3 or 3.5 correct. So if he is at 1,000 agl busting little white puffies who cares, and if he hits a VFR plane at 1,000 agl that was also busting little white puffies well they both knew the risk and decided to play anyway. The only acceptable outrage is if someone busting clouds at altitudes and airspace where there are legal IFR flights playing by the rules and expecting seperation. Everything else is ******* whining.
Click to expand...

You mean like IFR airplanes making approaches or departures?
 
ClimbnSink said:
IFR flights including direct ones won't be below 3 or 3.5 correct. So if he is at 1,000 agl busting little white puffies who cares, and if he hits a VFR plane at 1,000 agl that was also busting little white puffies well they both knew the risk and decided to play anyway. The only acceptable outrage is if someone busting clouds at altitudes and airspace where there are legal IFR flights playing by the rules and expecting seperation. Everything else is ******* whining.
Click to expand...
I will point out that IFR flight do fly below 3000 AGL when they are taking off and landing and they are not always on airways, plus they could be traveling at up to 250 knots unless they are below Class B or close to a class C or D airport.
 
And I will point out that if you maintain legal cloud separation and someone comes screaming out of them at you going 250 knots you will be a largish bug splat on their windshield and there isn't anything you can do about it.
 
ClimbnSink said:
IFR flights including direct ones won't be below 3 or 3.5 correct.
Click to expand...

Depends on surface elevation. You shouldn't find enroute IFR aircraft below 1500 AGL, but aircraft on appraoch or departure can be lower.

So if he is at 1,000 agl busting little white puffies who cares, and if he hits a VFR plane at 1,000 agl that was also busting little white puffies well they both knew the risk and decided to play anyway. The only acceptable outrage is if someone busting clouds at altitudes and airspace where there are legal IFR flights playing by the rules and expecting seperation. Everything else is ******* whining.
Click to expand...

Is outrage permitted if he hits an IFR plane at 1000 AGL that was playing by the rules?
 
ClimbnSink said:
IFR flights including direct ones won't be below 3 or 3.5 correct. So if he is at 1,000 agl busting little white puffies who cares, and if he hits a VFR plane at 1,000 agl that was also busting little white puffies well they both knew the risk and decided to play anyway. The only acceptable outrage is if someone busting clouds at altitudes and airspace where there are legal IFR flights playing by the rules and expecting seperation. Everything else is ******* whining.
Click to expand...
I can see it now. :rolleyes:

"Gregg" ClimbnSink climbed then sunk dying aloft whilst popping in and out of clouds. He was smashed to smithereens by a Whining ***** performing the same irresponsible foolishness also in a plane. More at eight...nah, who cares about either of them.

:sleep:
 
Last edited:
I specified altitudes and airspace that protect IFR traffic. If he is out of those who cares. You guys are worse than a bunch of busybody housewives.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I specified altitudes and airspace that protect IFR traffic. If he is out of those who cares. You guys are worse than a bunch of busybody housewives.
Click to expand...
We do not have he authority to choose which FAR's we will obey and which we won't. All we can do is behave responsibly when we make those choices. As for the FAA's feelings about operating in IMC in conflict with cleared IFR traffic, even below the overlying controlled airspace, see Administrator v. Murphy -- and Mr. Murphy got 90 days on the ground to think about his choice.
 
It's worse than flying in the clouds! Did you notice at the very end he passed up a perfectly good runway to land on the grass? What are we coming too... :yikes::D
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top