"Requesting lower"

Milen Lazarov writes:

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?

The FARs are actually ambiguous, but they say "distance from clouds
.... 1000 feet below."

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

On 2007-01-21, Mxsmanic wrote:

The FARs are actually ambiguous, but they say "distance from clouds
... 1000 feet below."


How are they ambiguous? They're quite straight, 500 below if below 10,000,
1000 if you're above 10,000 ft AGL. Except Leadville, CO you'll be below
10,000 anywhere in the US.

Milen Lazarov writes:

How are they ambiguous?

The heading in the table says "Distance from clouds," and the
distances are stated as (for example) "500 feet below." It's not
clear whether the aircraft must be 500 feet below the clouds, or the
clouds must be 500 feet below the aircraft. Clearly, this part of the
FARs was not written by a lawyer.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Milen Lazarov writes:
How are they ambiguous?

The heading in the table says "Distance from clouds," and the
distances are stated as (for example) "500 feet below." It's not
clear whether the aircraft must be 500 feet below the clouds, or the
clouds must be 500 feet below the aircraft. Clearly, this part of the
FARs was not written by a lawyer.

If it just said "distance", I'd agree. But it says "Distance from
clouds". Therefore the object in question is the airplane. If it had
said "Distance from airplane", then it would be talking about the
clouds.

As an aside, and I don't know if it's true or not (perhaps someone here
does)... but I recall reading that the reason it was 500' below and
1000' above, is because, in overcast conditions most planes descend at
500' per minute. Thus if a plane pops out of the bottom of a cloud,
you more or less have a minute to spot it. However, airliners ascend
at a higher rate, therefore you need more warning time if a plane pops
out of the top of a cloud. Or I suppose you could claim some
high-vs-low wing bias ;-)

Does anyone know the true reason behind the rule?

Kev

Kev writes:

If it just said "distance", I'd agree. But it says "Distance from
clouds". Therefore the object in question is the airplane. If it had
said "Distance from airplane", then it would be talking about the
clouds.

That is not explicitly stated, and it should be. Otherwise there are
at least two possible interpretations.

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

I don't think there's much confusion about this among pilots in the US.


On Jan 21, 5:56 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Kev writes:
If it just said "distance", I'd agree. But it says "Distance from
clouds". Therefore the object in question is the airplane. If it had
said "Distance from airplane", then it would be talking about the
clouds.That is not explicitly stated, and it should be. Otherwise there are
at least two possible interpretations.

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

Tony writes:

I don't think there's much confusion about this among pilots in the US.

Pilots aren't lawyers, and they are probably afraid to take it to
court.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Kev writes:

If it just said "distance", I'd agree. But it says "Distance from
clouds". Therefore the object in question is the airplane. If it had
said "Distance from airplane", then it would be talking about the
clouds.

That is not explicitly stated, and it should be. Otherwise there are
at least two possible interpretations.

And you make a living teaching English?

John Theune writes:

And you make a living teaching English?

Not entirely, but I make a modest income with it.

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