On 2005-09-18, Dave Stadt wrote:

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
ire.net...
On 2005-09-17, RST Engineering wrote:
Jay, goddammit, you don't have ONE defender in this ng for your actions.

I suggest we form a CA (clouds anonymous) organization. Why just today I
flew between clouds without the required clearance although visibility,
cloud density, cloud spacing and vertical development allowed one to see a
sparrow a half mile away. Guess I'll just sit here and wait for the FAA to
come knocking.

My point is that some people seem to hyper focus on fine points in
regulations rather than just use common sense.

The FAR requiring a specific number of *feet* separation from clouds
is simply silly. Are you safer at 500 feet than 499? Perhaps one has
to draw the line somewhere but whats the point in defining the line in a
way that is difficult, if not impossible for the average pilot without
surveying equipment to measure?

In this particular case the FAA requires you to memorize numbers that
have little practical value. Whats the point? You need to be able to
react to traffic and give the other guy a fair chance to see you.

Apparently one is expected to believe that flying though a 10 foot
diameter wispy cloud is less safe that flying a few hundred feet above a
solid overcast. Silly.

Personally, while VFR I avoid anything that reduces my visibility to any
significant degree. I have changed course and altitude to mitigate the
effects of flying into the sun late in the day. Is that required by the
FARs?