5Z wrote:
snoop wrote:

This whole discussion is about SOARING in clouds.
What we are talking about is operation at say, 6,000' AGL and above in
the middle of Kansas. The only issues are about what is required to be
legal to continue circling up into that nice towering cu. And once
topped out at FL200, the glider pops out the side, then continues on to
the next nice cloud in VMC.

This has been a fascinating discussion, but this post from 5Z is the
only one which actually made any sense to me.

I don't come from the Land of the Free but from over-regulated UK. To
fly in clouds I make sure I'm not in danger of entering controlled
airspace, call on 103.4, and if no-one answers that they're in the same
cloud I climb into it. No instrument rating, nothing but my own
assessment of whether I can do it safely. That's our law. I'm sure
there's an offence of reckless flying (or equivalent), but I'm prepared
to defend my decision so off I go.

Now, if 5Z could tell me how to straighten up and pop out of the side,
rather than blundering about on strange ellipses and eventually sinking
out of the bottom, I might be able to make use of cloud climbs.

What does concern me is this fear of the regulations. OK, I'm a lawyer,
but that just means I know that there's no certainty in any laws. My
view is that if it's not specifically outlawed, and you think that it's
safe and a desirable thing to do, then you should just do it. No
prosecutor brings a case if there not a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

If we're going to restrict ourselves to what's completely risk free, why
are we flying? And if any of us stop doing what is, more likely than
not, legal in our countries, some regulator will use that as an excuse
to stop us doing it in future because there's no demand for it.

What's wrong with you guys? Was the Boston Tea Party for nothing? If you
meet the FAR requirements and want to fly in clouds, why aren't you
doing it?