"Requesting lower"

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jose writes:

Situational awareness of where other aircraft are.

If you are talking to ATC, you have separation services from them plus
your windows in VMC, or all separation services from them in IMC. If
you are not talking to ATC, you have the windows. While hearing from
other aircraft might help a little, that presumes that other pilots
know where they are, which might be stretching things a bit if your
own situational awareness is poor enough that you have to depend on
other pilots. There's no reason to assume that they'd know more about
the big picture than you do.

Additionally, if you're talking to ATC, chances are that nobody on the
frequency is reporting his position, since ATC already knows their
positions. So listening to other pilots won't tell you any more about
where they are.

The only time hearing other pilots might help is if ATC makes a
mistake. In such rare cases it doesn't hurt to be able to hear
everyone, but that's considerably less significant than saying that
you actually need to hear other pilots.

Let's say you are approaching a uncontrolled airport with overcast at 1500
ft AGL and there are VFR pilots in the pattern. Do you think that just maybe
this is why there are more than one radio in most aircraft and in virtually
all aircraft that fly IFR regularly?




Degraded digital is very hard to make out, and easy to make out in
error. Degraded analog is still easy to make out. It has to be very
degraded before it's hard to make out.

I must be missing a magic talent, because frankly I can hardly make
out what people are saying on the radio even under good conditions.
I'm continually amazed that more mistakes are not made. My guess is
that pilots assume they've heard something through force of habit, and
since radio communication is pretty consistent (and deliberately so),
they are lucky enough that their presumptions are usually correct.


I have little doubt you are missing many talents and not all of them
magical.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Let's say you are approaching a uncontrolled airport with overcast at 1500
ft AGL and there are VFR pilots in the pattern. Do you think that just maybe
this is why there are more than one radio in most aircraft and in virtually
all aircraft that fly IFR regularly?

I don't know the original purpose for two radios, but it cannot be
that, because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
with an overcast at 1500 feet.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Let's say you are approaching a uncontrolled airport with overcast at 1500
ft AGL and there are VFR pilots in the pattern. Do you think that just maybe
this is why there are more than one radio in most aircraft and in virtually
all aircraft that fly IFR regularly?

I don't know the original purpose for two radios, but it cannot be
that, because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
with an overcast at 1500 feet.

While 1 radio is legal ( as is no radio) its not very uncommon. When
approaching an uncontrolled field IFR any reasonable pilot will have
CTAF dialed in #2 and listening long before ATC releases him, so he
understands what is going on in the pattern.

-robert, CFII

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Let's say you are approaching a uncontrolled airport with overcast at 1500
ft AGL and there are VFR pilots in the pattern. Do you think that just maybe
this is why there are more than one radio in most aircraft and in virtually
all aircraft that fly IFR regularly?

I don't know the original purpose for two radios, but it cannot be
that, because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
with an overcast at 1500 feet.

In the U.S. they'll be there and legal. At a pattern altitude less
than 1200', you're legal during the day if you stay clear of clouds.

Kev

Kev writes:

In the U.S. they'll be there and legal. At a pattern altitude less
than 1200', you're legal during the day if you stay clear of clouds.

Only in Class G, and at a vast number of untowered airports 1000' AGL
is still in Class E (700' floor).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Kev writes:

In the U.S. they'll be there and legal. At a pattern altitude less
than 1200', you're legal during the day if you stay clear of clouds.

Only in Class G, and at a vast number of untowered airports 1000' AGL
is still in Class E (700' floor).

In Class E, with a typical 800'-1000' pattern, they'd still be 500'
below the aforementioned 1500' clouds, and therefore legal.

I soloed under those conditions. Thereafter I was known as "MVFR Kev"
:-)

Kev writes:

In Class E, with a typical 800'-1000' pattern, they'd still be 500'
below the aforementioned 1500' clouds, and therefore legal.

I suppose so. I doubt that anyone ever checks, anyway. Enforcement
is problematic if any kind of objective proof is required.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2007-01-19, Mxsmanic wrote:
Only in Class G, and at a vast number of untowered airports 1000' AGL
is still in Class E (700' floor).

And what is the required cloud clearance in class E?

Milen Lazarov writes:

And what is the required cloud clearance in class E?

1000 above, 500 below when flying below 10000 MSL, and 1000 in both
directions when flying at or above 10000 MSL. So you cannot fly a
pattern at 1000 AGL in Class E if you have a ceiling of 1500.

This applies to the United States (FAR 91.155); I don't know about
other countries.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2007-01-20, Mxsmanic wrote:

1000 above, 500 below when flying below 10000 MSL, and 1000 in both
directions when flying at or above 10000 MSL. So you cannot fly a
pattern at 1000 AGL in Class E if you have a ceiling of 1500.

This applies to the United States (FAR 91.155); I don't know about
other countries.

So if you're at 1000 AGL and the ceiling is 1500, how are you not
500 feet below the clouds? And why you cannot fly the pattern?