Flying patterns

Thomas Borchert writes:

Actually, only in Germany, and it is one of the more grave (and
unnecessary and stupid) violations of ICAO rules. ICAO does not prohibit
IFR in class G. German regulation does. IFR in Class G is completely
normal in Europe outside Germany.

"In Germany, anything not permitted is forbidden."

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

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:40:35 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:

You couldn't be more wrong. Whenever the weather is VMC, in most
airspace, you as IFR traffic have to provide separation from VFR
traffic, not the controller.

Only if you have the traffic in sight, IIRC.

I've had ATC call out traffic when I was IFR and ask if I had traffic
in sight. I had to report back that I was in cloud and couldn't see
anything. That was a sufficient answer. I've had other situations when
ATC would call out traffic while I was IFR and I could and did report
the traffic in sight. IFR is just that way.

The material difference between IFR and VFR is that when you're VFR
and you see a cloud, you have to deviate around it. When you're IFR
and you see a cloud you can just punch through it. Under either set of
rules, the pilot has the same responsibility for not crashing into
things.

Controllers sometimes seem to breathe a sigh of relief that you can
almost hear through the radio when you report traffic in sight. It's
like you've relieved them of a great burden. It's not a burden that
the pilot should accept lightly.

RK Henry

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Steve Foley writes:

By 'what' definintion?

You follow their instructions, therefore they are providing
separation. You can't see anything in IMC (the ostensible reason for
flying IFR), so how else are you going to maintain separation?

Most IFR flights are NOT in IMC.

If you see another a/c out the window, fine, but the idea of IFR is to
make flight safe even if you can't see anything out the window.

Wrong.

Neil

Stefan wrote:

Mxsmanic schrieb:

Wrong.


By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
out the window. ATC provides separation.


Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.

Irrelavant for IFR flying.

Newps schrieb:

By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
out the window. ATC provides separation.

Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.

Irrelavant for IFR flying.

Very relevant for separation provided by ATC.

Recently, Newps posted:

Stefan wrote:

Mxsmanic schrieb:

Wrong.


By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
out the window. ATC provides separation.


Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.

Irrelavant for IFR flying.

So... one can fly in Class A under what conditions, and how is that
irrelevant for IFR flying?

Neil

Mxsmanic,

By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
out the window. ATC provides separation.


This kind of completely false statement from you is exactly what gets
you in trouble here. You have no idea what you are talking about from
your pathetic simming, yet you claim to know better than all the people
here that answer you courteously, explain things to you AND fly IFR in
real airplanes every other day.

But I'm quite sure you know all this. You're a troll.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

Not if I do enough research, which is what I'm trying to do.


Good joke. Research "research", then come back and try again.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
You follow their instructions, therefore they are providing
separation.

No. They're not. Not from VFR aircraft, in most airspace.

You can't see anything in IMC (the ostensible reason for
flying IFR), so how else are you going to maintain separation?

An IFR flight often takes you through regions of good visibility. Other
aircraft may be flying VFR there. It is your responsibility to see and avoid
those aircraft; it is not ATC's responsibility to separate you from them.

But we've already explained this to you, and you've ignored the information.
You've also evidently refused to read the relevant sections of the FAA's
Aeronautical Information Manual, Instrument Flying Handbook, or the FARs.
These reference sources, which contradict most of what you post here, are
freely available online, as has been pointed out to you.

Like others here, I've tried hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. But
your persistent willful ignorance convinces me that you are not here for any
honest or friendly purpose.

Neil Gould writes:

Most IFR flights are NOT in IMC.

But IFR means that they are conducted as if they were in IMC,
irrespective of actual conditions.

Wrong.

If it's wrong, then all IFR flights in IMC are unsafe, which defeats
the purpose of IFR.

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