Kid day at the airport...

Note the first paragraph. The rules are to protect the IFR folks. The
rules as I see it are not stupid.

Sorry, but I disagree. Any rule that forces me to evade or avoid
basketball-sized clouds with the same urgency as 70-story CBs is stupid.

I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
cruise altitude.

No, the puffies were forming at "around 4000 feet." I don't remember the
precise altitude, but it was some odd height, like 3700 feet.

Regardless, we were over rural Iowa. Would I have been playing around the
puffies in Chicago airspace? Of course not. But I was in some of the most
unpopulated airspace in the country.

Why would you want to chance an IFR flight popping out of that yugo size
cloud?

I don't think it's possible to compute the odds of a mid-air collision in
this area, let alone one caused by an IFR plane popping out of Yugo-sized
cloud 300 feet below his assigned altitude. In fact, I would guess that
the odds of being hit by an asteroid in flight are about the same.

Not sure if you monitor the rec.student newsgroup, but I posted my IFR
experiences today, and there was a VFR pilot in conditions that at best
were marginal for VFR flying.

I pop in over there very occasionally. I'll have to check out your thread.

Thanks for your input. I understand your points, but it's the degree and
severity of your reading of the "clear of clouds" rule with which I
disagree.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

This is great, Jay. I always love it when the self righteous get their
dander up. I am just like you. I have flown thru small clouds just for
the hell of it and I will continue to do so.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Note the first paragraph. The rules are to protect the IFR folks. The
rules as I see it are not stupid.


Sorry, but I disagree. Any rule that forces me to evade or avoid
basketball-sized clouds with the same urgency as 70-story CBs is stupid.


I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
cruise altitude.


No, the puffies were forming at "around 4000 feet." I don't remember the
precise altitude, but it was some odd height, like 3700 feet.

Regardless, we were over rural Iowa. Would I have been playing around the
puffies in Chicago airspace? Of course not. But I was in some of the most
unpopulated airspace in the country.


Why would you want to chance an IFR flight popping out of that yugo size
cloud?


I don't think it's possible to compute the odds of a mid-air collision in
this area, let alone one caused by an IFR plane popping out of Yugo-sized
cloud 300 feet below his assigned altitude. In fact, I would guess that
the odds of being hit by an asteroid in flight are about the same.


Not sure if you monitor the rec.student newsgroup, but I posted my IFR
experiences today, and there was a VFR pilot in conditions that at best
were marginal for VFR flying.


I pop in over there very occasionally. I'll have to check out your thread.

Thanks for your input. I understand your points, but it's the degree and
severity of your reading of the "clear of clouds" rule with which I
disagree.

Jay Honeck wrote:
Note the first paragraph. The rules are to protect the IFR folks. The
rules as I see it are not stupid.


Sorry, but I disagree. Any rule that forces me to evade or avoid
basketball-sized clouds with the same urgency as 70-story CBs is stupid.


I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
cruise altitude.


No, the puffies were forming at "around 4000 feet." I don't remember the
precise altitude, but it was some odd height, like 3700 feet.

Regardless, we were over rural Iowa. Would I have been playing around the
puffies in Chicago airspace? Of course not. But I was in some of the most
unpopulated airspace in the country.


Why would you want to chance an IFR flight popping out of that yugo size
cloud?


I don't think it's possible to compute the odds of a mid-air collision in
this area, let alone one caused by an IFR plane popping out of Yugo-sized
cloud 300 feet below his assigned altitude. In fact, I would guess that
the odds of being hit by an asteroid in flight are about the same.


Not sure if you monitor the rec.student newsgroup, but I posted my IFR
experiences today, and there was a VFR pilot in conditions that at best
were marginal for VFR flying.


I pop in over there very occasionally. I'll have to check out your thread.

Thanks for your input. I understand your points, but it's the degree and
severity of your reading of the "clear of clouds" rule with which I
disagree.
Jay;
You seem to be varying the clouds quite a bit. If I recall from your
first post on the subject you said the clouds were the size of a
Semi-truck. Now your arguing about avoiding clouds the size of a
basketball or a Yugo. First rule of digging yourself out of a hole is
to stop digging. There is also a question of if clouds the size of
basketballs even exist. If I recall my weather training correctly
clouds are formed by tempature variations in the air mass that cool the
air to the point where condensation occurs. The temp variations would
not be localized to the point of a foot but be much large then that.
While at some point in the cooling process it would be possible to see a
cloud the size of a basketball, I would not think it would be likely as
the mass of air that has the right tempature would be much larger.

John

Doug Carter wrote:
On 2005-09-17, RST Engineering wrote:

Jay, goddammit, you don't have ONE defender in this ng for your actions.

Probably has a lot more than ONE.

Perhaps, but let's see what they're agreeing with.

Jay started out by stating that sticking a wing into a puffy cloud (apparently
cumulus) the size of a semi while flying VFR at an altitude reserved for IFR
traffic is not a violation of the FARs. Anyone agree with that?

Jay then stated that, since clouds aren't defined, he can make up his own
definition. Anyone agree with that?

When presented with a dictionary definition, Jay argued that, since it wasn't
precise enough to suit him, he should be allowed to make up his own definition.
Anyone agree with that?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:laeXe.376007$xm3.315405@attbi_s21...
Sorry, but I disagree. Any rule that forces me to evade or avoid
basketball-sized clouds with the same urgency as 70-story CBs is stupid.

What "urgency"? You *intentionally* flew your airplane into the cloud.
There would be no urgency at all, except for your choice to approach the
cloud.

Under normal circumstances, a pilot can easily avoid the smallest clouds
without any effort at all. If the clouds are really as small and infrequent
as you are describing, no dramatic maneuvering would be required at all.

I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
cruise altitude.

No, the puffies were forming at "around 4000 feet." I don't remember the
precise altitude, but it was some odd height, like 3700 feet.

The previous poster erred in even considering the altitude. IFR traffic can
and does fly at any altitude.

Regardless, we were over rural Iowa. Would I have been playing around the
puffies in Chicago airspace? Of course not. But I was in some of the
most unpopulated airspace in the country.

The FARs do not distinguish between Class E airspace in the middle of
nowhere and Class E airspace smack in the middle of a densely populated
area. It's all Class E, and everyone is required to follow the same rules.

I don't think it's possible to compute the odds of a mid-air collision in
this area

Of course it is. You can compute the odds of anything.

let alone one caused by an IFR plane popping out of Yugo-sized cloud 300
feet below his assigned altitude.

Again, of course you can.

In fact, I would guess that the odds of being hit by an asteroid in flight
are about the same.

Even if the computed odds are exceedingly small (and I am positive the odds
are greater than being hit by an asteroid), that doesn't change the legality
of the practice. Furthermore, lots of pilots have relied on the "big sky"
theory of traffic avoidance, and followed it to their doom.

Pete

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:44:22 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

The previous poster erred in even considering the altitude. IFR traffic can
and does fly at any altitude.

Peter,

While it's possible that IFR traffic can fly at any altitude, in my short
flying career, I have never heard of IFR traffic being assigned a VFR
altitude or an altitude other then ending in 1000's of feet.

I have requested an altitude of "opposite traffic" altitude and been
approved, but never have I heard anybody request a VFR altitude. (I.E I was
westbound at 4000 and requested 3000 feet.)

Per http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0703.html VFR on top traffic is
treated as VFR and not IFR traffic. Standard separation does not apply and
cloud clearances are exactly the same for VFR on top traffic as VFR over
the top traffic.

While the traffic is IFR in the system, it is flown under VFR rules, and
that IFR traffic cannot enter clouds when he / she is VFR on top.

So, when I posted 4000 feet, that is a standard IFR traffic altitude (even
thousands) as opposed to VFR altitudes that end in 500 (I.E 4500).

So, based on the above reading, I interpret it that even though I am IFR in
the system, as long as I am at a VFR cruising altitude, I cannot penetrate
clouds.

If I could not maintain visual conditions, I would need to notify ATC and
they would probably put me back on an IFR cruising altitude based on
direction of flight.

Allen

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
ire.net...
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.

I agree with you 1,000%. Fact is nowadays it is hard to find people that
can think for themselves or that have a lick of common sense. Those folks
sense need to follow rules made by someone else to make them feel warm and
fuzzy.

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...
While it's possible that IFR traffic can fly at any altitude, in my short
flying career, I have never heard of IFR traffic being assigned a VFR
altitude or an altitude other then ending in 1000's of feet.

First of all, "fly" is not the same as "being assigned". Secondly, IFR
traffic is regularly assigned altitudes "other than ending in 1000's of
feet". I guess you need a longer flying career before you discover this on
your own (hint: it happens most commonly at the beginning and end of an IFR
flight).

Pete

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:vhhXe.5275$T55.4460@trndny06...
Doug Carter wrote:
On 2005-09-17, RST Engineering wrote:

Jay, goddammit, you don't have ONE defender in this ng for your actions.

Probably has a lot more than ONE.

Perhaps, but let's see what they're agreeing with.

Jay started out by stating that sticking a wing into a puffy cloud
(apparently
cumulus) the size of a semi while flying VFR at an altitude reserved for
IFR
traffic is not a violation of the FARs. Anyone agree with that?

That he might have been climbing or descending and stuck a wing into widely
spaced clouds the size of a semi that could not hide IFR traffic......yes.

Jay then stated that, since clouds aren't defined, he can make up his own
definition. Anyone agree with that?

Yes....we can all make up our own definitions.

When presented with a dictionary definition, Jay argued that, since it
wasn't
precise enough to suit him, he should be allowed to make up his own
definition.
Anyone agree with that?

Sure, he can make his own definition any time he wants as can all of us.
Could be his definition is better that any other previously published and
might become the legal standard. Definitions are in constant flux.
Dictionaries aren't legal documents far as I know. Definitions vary widely
depending on the dictionary referenced.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

The hell you say. They are the bottom rung of the definitions if there is
nothing specific above it. You been signing JD after your name lately?

Jim



"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
news
Dictionaries aren't legal documents far as I know.