ntsb report

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

As well as comply with 91.177.


They cannot both apply. If the pilot claims to be VFR upon reaching
controlled airspace FAR 91.177 does not come into play at all.

My comment pertains to the pilot actually reaching VFR conditions. His claim
may not be valid, thus 91.177 becomes pertinent if he were to level off less
than 1,000 on top or with less than 3 miles flight visibility.

wrote in message ...

My comment pertains to the pilot actually reaching VFR conditions. His
claim
may not be valid, thus 91.177 becomes pertinent if he were to level off
less
than 1,000 on top or with less than 3 miles flight visibility.


That's not correct either. He was in uncontrolled airspace until he reached
700' AGL and he broke out between 100' and 200' AGL. Had he remained below
700' AGL he's have been in VMC and FAR 91.177 would not apply.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

My comment pertains to the pilot actually reaching VFR conditions. His
claim
may not be valid, thus 91.177 becomes pertinent if he were to level off
less
than 1,000 on top or with less than 3 miles flight visibility.


That's not correct either. He was in uncontrolled airspace until he reached
700' AGL and he broke out between 100' and 200' AGL. Had he remained below
700' AGL he's have been in VMC and FAR 91.177 would not apply.

You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
circumstances of doing such an operation. You have to be prepared to comply
with 91.177. We have lots of places out west where Class E overlies a Class G
airport well above 91.177 altitudes.

wrote in message ...

You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
circumstances of doing such an operation.


You should have identified your comments as such or started a new thread.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
circumstances of doing such an operation.


You should have identified your comments as such or started a new thread.

Somehow, I am not very good at learning the McNicol rules for the Universe.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:36:16 -0800, wrote:



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
circumstances of doing such an operation.


You should have identified your comments as such or started a new thread.

Somehow, I am not very good at learning the McNicol rules for the Universe.



Rule # 2 - Don't misspell his name.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:36:16 -0800, wrote:



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
circumstances of doing such an operation.


You should have identified your comments as such or started a new
thread.

Somehow, I am not very good at learning the McNicol rules for the
Universe.



Rule # 2 - Don't misspell his name.

Rule # 3 - Big brother McNicoll is always right.

wrote in message ...

Somehow, I am not very good at learning the McNicol rules for the
Universe.


It's called netiquette.

wrote in message ...

You have to be prepared to comply with 91.177. We have lots of places out
west
where Class E overlies a Class G airport well above 91.177 altitudes.


The floor of controlled airspace is irrelevant. FAR 91.177 does not apply
to VFR operations.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

You have to be prepared to comply with 91.177. We have lots of places out
west
where Class E overlies a Class G airport well above 91.177 altitudes.


The floor of controlled airspace is irrelevant. FAR 91.177 does not apply
to VFR operations.

But, it applies to climbs in IMC that may require a level-off to avoid entering
Class E without a clearance. As I said, lots of circumstances out west where
you can do that, and it is often done. That what was I was trying to say, but
you in your special way try to "trick it" just to be difficult.