Logging Approach Question

Agreed. My reference was to flying simulated (under the hood) in vmc without
a SP
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:34:11 -0400, "pgbnh"
wrote:

If I am flying VMC,
other than simulated (with appropriate SP), then flying by instrument
reference is wrong (and stupid).

Except for a moonless. cloudy night over water (or desert), where you may
be legal VFR, but with no outside references.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Make up your mind. In your initial message you said you were in VMC the
whole time. That means you never got closer to any cloud than allowed by
FAR 91.155 and had at least 3 miles visibility at all times.

I don't see any need to harass him about that. It's quite clear to me
after reading his initial post only once that at some point during the
approach he was below the cloud clearance requirements for VMC.

wrote in message
ups.com...

I don't see any need to harass him about that. It's quite clear to me
after reading his initial post only once that at some point during the
approach he was below the cloud clearance requirements for VMC.


What in his initial post indicated that to you?

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:34:11 -0400, "pgbnh" wrote:

If I am flying VMC,
other than simulated (with appropriate SP), then flying by instrument
reference is wrong (and stupid).

Except for a moonless. cloudy night over water (or desert), where you may
be legal VFR, but with no outside references.

Been there. Done that. I agree.

It is actually possible to have IMC with no clouds around at all.
Out here in the desert southwest (NM, AZ), on a moonless night away from
the cities and towns, the ground is, quite literally, invisible. No lights.
No roads. No nothin'. It's pitch black. And given the irregularity of the
horizon due to mountains and hills, it's almost impossible to tell if you're
level by looking outside and trying to judge the horizon by the stars.

While it may be technically VMC, and "legal" VFR, it's not safe.
Filing IFR and "going on the gauges" is the right thing to do in that case.

-- Dane

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:52:09 +0000 (UTC), (Dane
Spearing) wrote:

Filing IFR and "going on the gauges" is the right thing to do in that case.

I agree with "going on the gauges", but why do you need to file IFR?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On 9/15/05 8:56 PM, in article ,
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:52:09 +0000 (UTC), (Dane
Spearing) wrote:

Filing IFR and "going on the gauges" is the right thing to do in that case.

I agree with "going on the gauges", but why do you need to file IFR?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I would say that you don't need to, but if you're on the gauges, your
outside scan is minimal and it just might be prudent to have a second set of
eyeballs looking out for you with radar. FF is good too, but they may not be
able to handle you as VFR traffic.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:03:26 -0400, Wizard of Draws
wrote:

I would say that you don't need to, but if you're on the gauges, your
outside scan is minimal and it just might be prudent to have a second set of
eyeballs looking out for you with radar. FF is good too, but they may not be
able to handle you as VFR traffic.

I sure don't object to someone filing IFR whenever they have to "go on the
gauges". However, when I'm on an IFR flight plan, I really don't have much
difficulty including the outside in my scan. When VMC on a moonless, dark
night, the ability to see other traffic is enhanced, in my experience.

Flying from, let us say, PVC (Provincetown) to Nashua (ASH), going VFR
gives one a lot of flexibility that IFR does not. I've never had a problem
with flight following in that area.

And I can imagine that other areas IFR flight would also be unneccessarily
restrictive in terms of routes or altitudes, especially if in a non-radar
environment.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Well, you're right it's not actually too clear. Although assuming he's
not lying, it seems likely that he's misusing the term VMC.

He says "I was in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been
illegal to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds". This
tells me he thinks he was too close to clouds at some point to be legal
for VFR. This further implies he is aware there exists a cloud
clearance requirement for legal VFR. So assuming he's not lying when he
estimates he was too close to them for VFR, then he must have
mistakenly used the term VMC to mean he remained clear of clouds.

At least that's the way I read it. The first time through.

On 17 Sep 2005 01:50:53 -0700, wrote:

Well, you're right it's not actually too clear. Although assuming he's
not lying, it seems likely that he's misusing the term VMC.

He says "I was in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been
illegal to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds". This
tells me he thinks he was too close to clouds at some point to be legal
for VFR. This further implies he is aware there exists a cloud
clearance requirement for legal VFR. So assuming he's not lying when he
estimates he was too close to them for VFR, then he must have
mistakenly used the term VMC to mean he remained clear of clouds.

Special VFR? It's still VFR rules, but just clear the clouds in the
airport area.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

At least that's the way I read it. The first time through.

Would the approach controller be able to give him a special VFR
clearance? I've only ever gotten one from a tower.


Roger wrote:
On 17 Sep 2005 01:50:53 -0700, wrote:

Well, you're right it's not actually too clear. Although assuming he's
not lying, it seems likely that he's misusing the term VMC.

He says "I was in VMC the whole time yet it probably would have been
illegal to fly in VFR as I would have been close to the clouds". This
tells me he thinks he was too close to clouds at some point to be legal
for VFR. This further implies he is aware there exists a cloud
clearance requirement for legal VFR. So assuming he's not lying when he
estimates he was too close to them for VFR, then he must have
mistakenly used the term VMC to mean he remained clear of clouds.

Special VFR? It's still VFR rules, but just clear the clouds in the
airport area.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

At least that's the way I read it. The first time through.