Kid day at the airport...

Third, I guess you haven't been flying long enough to hear of a "block"
assignment, where you got your druthers where to fly between the upper and
lower limits of the block.

Jim


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"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

Jay, your comments sound a bit irrational. Are you suggesting that the
FAA include the minimum dimensions of visible moisture that define a
cloud? The FAA can not and should not let everyone define what a cloud
is. Your towering CB might be someone elses "puffie".

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure there *is* a workable rule here.

Example: Mary and I took the kids on a wonderful flight to Wisconsin today.
The weather was perfect VFR -- CAVU most of the way.

However, for a brief part of the flight we were underneath a vaporously
thin, wraith-like layer of "clouds" just a few hundred feet over us. (We
were cruising at 5500 feet.) It could be easily seen through.

Below us, by an undetermined distance, was a widely scattered layer of
puffies. These ranged in size from basketballs to semi-trucks.

The impression of speed between these "layers" was breath-taking. We knew
it was a localized condition, as the next AWOS ahead made no mention of
clouds or lowered visibility.

The conundrum: Go up, and we'd be in the layer of lowered visibility
which -- under the proposed new FAA definition of "cloud" -- would be
illegal -- even though it could be seen through, and did not represent a
"cloud" or a "layer" in the normal sense of the words. And, of course,
purposefully subjecting ourselves to lowered visibility would be stupid,
anyway.

Go down, and we're dipping our wings in occasional puffies -- which guys
like Dighera, Duniho, and Patterson would have us believe is illegal.

Worse, by virtue of our relative distance from some of these "clouds", some
here would say that we were already illegal -- yet we were in easy VFR
conditions, under VFR flight following, had a zillion miles visibility in
all directions, and no other traffic. We both agreed that we were not in
violation of VFR flight rules.

Those who persist in trying to make this an easy, black and white issue are
not thinking it through. In fact, the more I ponder the issue, the more I
believe that the official definition of "FAA clouds" is best left ambiguous,
lest redefining the word lead to other, unintended regulatory consequences.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:MOqXe.342109$_o.14257@attbi_s71...
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure there *is* a workable rule here.

Well, by all means, we should obviously simply abandon any attempt to
regulate how VFR pilot fly with respect to clouds and visibility! After
all, there is NO workable rule!

Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
cloud clearances requirements.

You know what most people do when that happens? They acknowledge that their
lives would so much simpler if they just got the instrument rating, and they
successfully avoid violating the VFR visibility and cloud clearances
requirements. They do this either by maneuvering around the clouds, or
flying at an altitude that preserves the required visibility and clearances,
or (GASP!) they simply don't fly.

What a concept: the weather doesn't allow one to fly VFR legally, so the
VFR-only pilot just doesn't fly. If you find an area through which you
cannot fly legally, you divert. You go around, over, under, or turn back.

On the bright side, I find your "I am unaffected by any discussion contrary
to my previously determined path" approach to be refreshingly consistent
with everything else you post here. At least you a true to your habits.

Pete

Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
cloud clearances requirements.

Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Apparently not. Why this continues to surprise me, I surely don't know...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

It looks like this thread is degrading. Get out while you can and save
yourself some stress and keystrokes. If you have not convinced any
of the folks who disagree with you by now, you probably won't.

Where do I stand on this issue? I DON'T. I have my own opinions but
don't think it is worth the effort to post them since my opinions are
not fully-formed.

Btw, your original post was really cool and I loved reading it! Please
continue to share your experiences. I liked your "Therapy" post, too.
I can't wait to take my 1 year-old flying, but am stifled by my "Nervous
Nellie" of a wife who won't let me fly my son until she is comfortable
with flying. Anyhow, that's another discussion for another thread on
another day. Please keep writing on how your kids do and don't like
flying. Also, please share how you introduced your family to flying.
You may email me privately if you want at flying (-a-t-) K7SLE-dot-com.

Thanks,

Chris G.



Jay Honeck wrote:
Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
cloud clearances requirements.


Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Apparently not. Why this continues to surprise me, I surely don't know...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2GrXe.342258$_o.334630@attbi_s71...
Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Of course I did. I have no idea why you would think I didn't.

Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Of course I did. I have no idea why you would think I didn't.

Because your response addresses a topic not covered in the subject line, or
my post, perhaps?

But that's okay, Pete. I think this horse is dead anyway. At least you
haven't called me a Nazi...yet!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Interesting. My newsreader inexplicably split this thread in two --
apparently it was so unpalatable? I never even saw this "sub-thread" till
now.

Anyway, sorry I missed responding to this one till now:

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?

The story was written for maximum effect as a narrative. Altitudes and
cloud sizes may not be accurate, and objects may appear to be closer than
they are. In any event, I was not at an IFR altitude.

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

Wrong. I asked that since clouds are not precisely defined, what
constitutes a cloud? You responded with an incredibly lame dictionary
quotation, which does NOT address the issue at hand.

If your dictionary definition is the one we should all use, most of us would
rarely fly.

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?

The broad dictionary definition of "cloud" simply isn't precise enough for
VFR rules. It's a simple concept, really -- we need more precision than the
broad definition provides. This is why thoughtful men have come up with
terms like "cumulous" and "cirrus" -- to differentiate cloud types from one
another.

I simply asked for a definition that will provide for spatial as well as
visual guidance, when flying as a VFR pilot. Right now we've mostly agreed
that a cloud is a "cloud" if it cannot be seen *through* -- but we haven't
agreed on whether a cloud is a "cloud" if it cannot be seen *around*. This
is really the crux of the issue, and it's one that hard-liners simply can't
seem to get their minds around.

Worse, if the FAA goes ahead and defines "cloud" the way they have proposed,
our agreed upon "not a cloud if it can be seen through" will be out the
window. It will simply be illegal to fly VFR in any area of visible
moisture or ice crystals -- which is defining "cloud" WAY too broadly, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

If your dictionary definition is the one we should all use, most of us would
rarely fly.

Bull****. I've never had any trouble staying legal with that definition.

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:hxyXe.347328$_o.262772@attbi_s71...
Because your response addresses a topic not covered in the subject line,
or my post, perhaps?

It appears that YOU failed to read MY post.