VFR to MVFR/IFR on GoPro--would you post it on YouTube?

TangoWhiskey

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name
Display name:
3Green
Seems like just asking for the Feds to pay you a visit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nosSl1zV3G8&t=12m30s

I'd post it as a yt link, but the above takes you 12.5 minutes into the video, to the portion in question.

Thoughts? I hate knowing I'm a IFR rated pilot and we have VFR guys punching into clouds without a clearance. :yikes:

And then they post it on YouTube and tell the other VFR guys "that's how you do it, folks!"

:nono::nono: :dunno:
 
It >might< be arguable whether he actually entered IMC, but he sure was not adhering to VFR cloud separation regulations. In either case, not real smart to do something illegal then post the evidence for all to see.
 
That guy is Instrument rated.

Edit..I see that is not the question. haha sorry carry on.
 
Any chance he was in Class B or G?

Or on an SVFR clearance through a Class D?
 
Last edited:
He was definitely IMC for a while, but was on FF, talking to ATC, with a (presumably) discrete squawk, so not much of a collision hazard. But definitely not smart to post it on YT or tell VFR pilots "that's how you do it!". :no:
 
Stupid methodology. Head over water and head straight for the deck and maintain maximum clearance under the clouds within gliding range of a nearshore/waterline landing.
 
I recognize this guy, I have seen several of his videos on YT. He is a skilled pilot but something about him is a little off (I cannot put my finger on it) and needless to say he does not instill much confidence in me.
 
EdFred said:
Well, if someone said it on the internet it must be true, right?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but in this case, it's a guy describing what he did himself, and what we see in the video is entirely consistent.

Why would we presume he's lying? It would be to his advantage to say he was indeed on an IFR clearance, but he said "VFR to MVFR."
 
MAKG1 said:
Of course not, but in this case, it's a guy describing what he did himself, and what we see in the video is entirely consistent.

Why would we presume he's lying? It would be to his advantage to say he was indeed on an IFR clearance, but he said "VFR to MVFR."
Click to expand...

Practical joker. There are a few people left in the world with a sense of humor. And some of thme like to post crap just because they know people like you will get all riled up about it.

I once talked with a girl who wasn't the brightest bulb in the the string of Christmas tree lights. I had her convinced, and never did tell her otherwise that the way we navigated through the clouds (before GPS was prevelant) was the FAA maintained a network of balloons at several thousand feet, and they all had signs on them pointing in the direction of the airways, and we followed signs on them, just like you would on the interstates. Doesn't make it true, does it?
 
EdFred said:
Practical joker. There are a few people left in the world with a sense of humor. And some of thme like to post crap just because they know people like you will get all riled up about it.
Click to expand...

I'm*not riled up about it at all. I couldn't care less. I suppose I might if I ever flew IFR in that part of Florida, but that's not very likely.

But it's more than a little stupid to say you did something illegal on the internet, whether it's true or not.
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm*not riled up about it at all. I couldn't care less. I suppose I might if I ever flew IFR in that part of Florida, but that's not very likely.

But it's more than a little stupid to say you did something illegal on the internet, whether it's true or not.
Click to expand...

Hell, I said I've flown drunk on this very message board. I'm not expecting the FAA to come knocking.

In other news what we saw in the Jurassic Park series of movies didn't actually happen either.
 
Last edited:
BigBadLou said:
I recognize this guy, I have seen several of his videos on YT. He is a skilled pilot but something about him is a little off (I cannot put my finger on it) and needless to say he does not instill much confidence in me.
Click to expand...

I like his videos. His accent is a little off maybe you're picking up on that. He reminds me of the bad guy from "no country for old men"
 
MAKG1 said:
Of course not, but in this case, it's a guy describing what he did himself, and what we see in the video is entirely consistent.

Why would we presume he's lying? It would be to his advantage to say he was indeed on an IFR clearance, but he said "VFR to MVFR."
Click to expand...

If he said "VFR to MVFR" my suspicion is that he was actually flying IFR. Nobody ever mixes up the terms VFR/VMC and IFR/IMC... :lol: And considering there are no MARGINAL Visual Flight Rules, I'd say he meant "VMC to MVMC".
 
Just as a matter of general policy, I try to avoid posting about my illegal activities on social media sites :D
 
I roll through the stop sign in my neighborhood EVERY day... *waits for the knock on my door*
 
ahkahn said:
If he said "VFR to MVFR" my suspicion is that he was actually flying IFR. Nobody ever mixes up the terms VFR/VMC and IFR/IMC... :lol: And considering there are no MARGINAL Visual Flight Rules, I'd say he meant "VMC to MVMC".
Click to expand...

http://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php?word=MVFR

MVFR
Marginal Visual Flight Rules - in an aviation product, refers to the general weather conditions pilots can expect at the surface. VFR stands for Visual Flight Rules and MVFR means Minimum or Marginal Visual Flight Rules. MVFR criteria means a ceiling between 1,000 and 3,000 feet and/or 3 to 5 miles visibility.
Click to expand...

:dunno:
 
I fly with pockets full of cole slaw. To each his own.
 
write-stuff said:
It >might< be arguable whether he actually entered IMC, but he sure was not adhering to VFR cloud separation regulations. In either case, not real smart to do something illegal then post the evidence for all to see.
Click to expand...

If you can't maintain VFR then you are, by definition, in IMC.
 
I thought by definition if you didn't have cloud clearance, you're in IFR conditions. Most of the time he was VMC in IFR conditions from what I saw. He should have been down on the water.
 
Henning said:
I thought by definition if you didn't have cloud clearance, you're in IFR conditions. Most of the time he was VMC in IFR conditions from what I saw. He should have been down on the water.
Click to expand...
If you don't have cloud clearance, you're in IMC. I'm pretty sure "IFR conditions" means ceiling less than 1000 feet and/or vis less than 3 sm.

He wasn't in instrument conditions because he didn't need to be on the gauges to control the plane. But unless the camera is tricking us, he was definitely in IMC a lot of the time.

MVFR is something else, it's a term used by TAF forecasters for conditions where the vis is 3 to 5 sm and the ceiling 1000 to 3000 feet. You can't really tell for sure if the ceiling was MVFR, and the reason the vis was MVFR for him is he was too bloody close to the clouds. :mad:
 
I know that people do this and have done it for years before YouTube. But the music.... :vomit:
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Or on an SVFR clearance through a Class D?
Click to expand...

or any other airspace formerly known as a control zone. Definitely NOT a class B. He may be within Palm Beach's class C surface area on his way to LNA but it looks like they brought him in north of it and sent him down the coast.

However, it definitely looks like he was "in it" for a second or two. Of course he probably didn't notice because he was too farking head down talking about how great his MFD was showing the weather.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
If you don't have cloud clearance, you're in IMC. I'm pretty sure "IFR conditions" means ceiling less than 1000 feet and/or vis less than 3 sm.

He wasn't in instrument conditions because he didn't need to be on the gauges to control the plane. But unless the camera is tricking us, he was definitely in IMC a lot of the time.

MVFR is something else, it's a term used by TAF forecasters for conditions where the vis is 3 to 5 sm and the ceiling 1000 to 3000 feet. You can't really tell for sure if the ceiling was MVFR, and the reason the vis was MVFR for him is he was too bloody close to the clouds. :mad:
Click to expand...

I would think, IMC is when you have to fly by reference to instruments. IFR conditions (when you need to file) are those when you need to file IFR because of Rules, such as cloud clearance or visibility, even when one would still be capable of control by ground reference.

Either way though, he was not legaly flying VFR that flight. Legal would have been low over the water, where he should have been.

Would I post this video on YouTube? **** no.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I would think, IMC is when you have to fly by reference to instruments. IFR conditions are those when you need to file IFR because of Rules, such as cloud clearance or visibility, even when one would still be capable of control by ground reference.
Click to expand...

You might think that but it's not supported by the regs.

IMC is conditions that are less than legal VFR. It has nothing to do with whether you need instruments to stay upright. Closer than the cloud clearances for the particular airspace you are in is IMC.

Actual instrument conditions are when you can't fly without reference to the instruments. This can occur either in IMC or VMC and really is only applicable to logging instrument time.

Yeah, I'd not post it (or at least find a way to edit out the illegal parts) either.
 
***DISCLAIMER*** I jumped to the 12:00 mark and watched a bit, then jumped to the end, but in that timeframe it looked to me like he was 100% vfr the entire time. ran thru some lite rain/mist, but you could see the ground the entire time. then, I'm reading his comment differently than the OP is, I heard him say "this is how you deal with those thing", talking about getting AROUND clouds, or rain cells. to me it didn't seem like he was like 'yeah, whuddup boyeeee, das how u do it!'.

couple other things though:

1) I've watched a few of his videos, his radio work needs a lot of, uh, work. too many "uh, uh, uh's"....stop saying "uh" after every word you speak. I know there's a small language barrier there, but it's gotta get better.

2) Isn't anyone else concerned about that approach into lantana? he's calling 'entering left downind for 9' followed by another guy calling 'entering right downwind for 9', followed by traffic departing rwy9, then the other guy calls 'entering rite base for 9' then he calls 'entering left base for 9', followed by 'TRAFFIC', followed by a helo in rite closed traffic for 9, then the other guy calls final, then he calls final. WTF am I missing with this situation?

3) cole slaw.
 
eman1200 said:
ran thru some lite rain/mist, but you could see the ground the entire time.
Click to expand...
Seeing the ground doesn't make him legal. Being less than 1000 feet horizontal or 500 feet below a cloud is illegal. Losing 3 miles visibility is illegal.
 
Henning said:
I would think, IMC is when you have to fly by reference to instruments. IFR conditions (when you need to file) are those when you need to file IFR because of Rules, such as cloud clearance or visibility, even when one would still be capable of control by ground reference.
Click to expand...
You'd think so because that is the way we use the term colloquially. Traffic at your altitude, 12:00, 3 miles, opposite direction... 8JT is IMC. But technically, it means without the cloud clearance or vis needed to maintain VFR. Less than 500 feet below a cloud in the E is IMC, though you don't need the instruments to stay in control.
 
flyingron said:
Seeing the ground doesn't make him legal. Being less than 1000 feet horizontal or 500 feet below a cloud is illegal. Losing 3 miles visibility is illegal.
Click to expand...


Damn those rules! Yeah, ur right.
 
eman1200 said:
***DISCLAIMER*** I jumped to the 12:00 mark and watched a bit, then jumped to the end, but in that timeframe it looked to me like he was 100% vfr the entire time. ran thru some lite rain/mist, but you could see the ground the entire time. then, I'm reading his comment differently than the OP is, I heard him say "this is how you deal with those thing", talking about getting AROUND clouds, or rain cells. to me it didn't seem like he was like 'yeah, whuddup boyeeee, das how u do it!'.
Click to expand...
Only if you're VFR, you DON'T do it that way. You give the clouds a wide berth because someone might pop out of them, and you both need time to react.

It's illegal, and that's the basic reason why. Being able to see the ground is irrelevant, a VFR-only PPL can fly without ground reference, though it's usually unwise. AFAIK only student pilots and those flying under sport pilot rules are prohibited from flying without the possibility of ground reference.
 
eman1200 said:
***DISCLAIMER*** I jumped to the 12:00 mark and watched a bit, then jumped to the end, but in that timeframe it looked to me like he was 100% vfr the entire time. ran thru some lite rain/mist, but you could see the ground the entire time. then, I'm reading his comment differently than the OP is, I heard him say "this is how you deal with those thing", talking about getting AROUND clouds, or rain cells. to me it didn't seem like he was like 'yeah, whuddup boyeeee, das how u do it!'.

couple other things though:

1) I've watched a few of his videos, his radio work needs a lot of, uh, work. too many "uh, uh, uh's"....stop saying "uh" after every word you speak. I know there's a small language barrier there, but it's gotta get better.

2) Isn't anyone else concerned about that approach into lantana? he's calling 'entering left downind for 9' followed by another guy calling 'entering right downwind for 9', followed by traffic departing rwy9, then the other guy calls 'entering rite base for 9' then he calls 'entering left base for 9', followed by 'TRAFFIC', followed by a helo in rite closed traffic for 9, then the other guy calls final, then he calls final. WTF am I missing with this situation?

3) cole slaw.
Click to expand...

The right (avoiding the flow of FW) & left closed pattern work is common at airports that have helicopter schools. The helos were also using the "right side" of runway 9. One even reported taxiway alpha which is most likely the parallel. In helos we often either offset to the parallel or to the grass to avoid holding up FW traffic.
 
Velocity173 said:
The right (avoiding the flow of FW) & left closed pattern work is common at airports that have helicopter schools. The helos were also using the "right side" of runway 9. One even reported taxiway alpha which is most likely the parallel. In helos we often either offset to the parallel or to the grass to avoid holding up FW traffic.
Click to expand...

the helo clearly identified himself and I understand that. was the other guy announcing also a helo? I didn't pick up on that.

so there's THREE (actually four) people involved here: 1) the evil guy from No country for old men on left traffic, the 'other guy' on rite traffic, the helo on rite tfc, and the departing traffic (the 4th). my concern is the 'other guy', but if he was helo too then I guess it makes a little more sense, although I still never heard or got any indication that he had him in site, and I prob would have extended my downwind after hearing this.
 
eman1200 said:
the helo clearly identified himself and I understand that. was the other guy announcing also a helo? I didn't pick up on that.

so there's THREE (actually four) people involved here: 1) the evil guy from No country for old men on left traffic, the 'other guy' on rite traffic, the helo on rite tfc, and the departing traffic (the 4th). my concern is the 'other guy', but if he was helo too then I guess it makes a little more sense, although I still never heard or got any indication that he had him in site, and I prob would have extended my downwind after hearing this.
Click to expand...

Lol! I was just thinking the same thing about that guy. Reminds me of the dude from No Country For Old Men.

Yeah if I was one of them I would have at least reported the FW in sight. When I do right traffic I always report any FW in sight on the opposite downwind to give them a warm fuzzy. Also, unless the manuever requires the runway, I'll offset to either the parallel or the grass to stay out of their way. Being cognizant of my rotor wash / vortices the whole time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top