If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of
cloud cover? VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds in the sky (unless they are so close together that one cannot maintain the required clearance). Nevertheless, it seems to me that at some point the clouds are so numerous and close together that flying VFR becomes more of an irritation than a pleasure, with constant dodging of clouds and possibly changes in altitude. It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since it's not defined by regulations. So, what are your own limits for how much cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing IFR or simply not flying VFR? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
Mxsmanic wrote:
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of cloud cover? VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds in the sky (unless they are so close together that one cannot maintain the required clearance). Nevertheless, it seems to me that at some point the clouds are so numerous and close together that flying VFR becomes more of an irritation than a pleasure, with constant dodging of clouds and possibly changes in altitude. It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since it's not defined by regulations. So, what are your own limits for how much cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing IFR or simply not flying VFR? If you can't make a 180 and still maintaining clearance, the clouds are too close together. Curt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
On Feb 26, 6:00*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of cloud cover? *VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds in the sky (unless they are so close together that one cannot maintain the required clearance). Nevertheless, it seems to me that at some point the clouds are so numerous and close together that flying VFR becomes more of an irritation than a pleasure, with constant dodging of clouds and possibly changes in altitude. It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since it's not defined by regulations. So, what are your own limits for how much cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing IFR or simply not flying VFR? I've flown VFR only for over 30 years, and legal is generally practical in my experience. Clouds are usually well layered and as long as legal or personal ceiling and visibilities are met there's not a problem. There can be a problem if terrain varies much along your path and ceilings are low. Sometimes that makes it a bit difficult to determine that it'll be OK along the entire route. One can fly in a widely scattered layer and dodge clouds, but that's not usually necessary because you can go above or below the layer. -- Gene Seibel Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html Because we fly, we envy no one. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
Mxsmanic schreef:
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of cloud cover? VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds in the sky (unless they are so close together that one cannot maintain the required clearance). Nevertheless, it seems to me that at some point the clouds are so numerous and close together that flying VFR becomes more of an irritation than a pleasure, with constant dodging of clouds and possibly changes in altitude. It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since it's not defined by regulations. So, what are your own limits for how much cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing IFR or simply not flying VFR? Flying is an expensive hobby, to me at least. My flying must be real fun to be worth its money, and that requires weather well above VFR minima. Also, you should not consider one single aspect of the weather. The law has no other option, of course, than defining minima for each weather element, but I consider weather as a whole when deciding to fly or not. Still, when I decide NOT to fly, it is mostly because either the visibility is below legal minimum, or wind and/or turbulence are stronger than I like. My 0.02 euro! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds in the sky Not quite true. The cloud ceiling is defined as the lowest cloud layer that is reported as broken or overcast. Broken is defined as 5/8 to 7/8 coverage. So VFR does specify limits of cloud density. -- Dallas |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
On 2/27/2010 1:24 PM, Dallas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds in the sky Not quite true. The cloud ceiling is defined as the lowest cloud layer that is reported as broken or overcast. Broken is defined as 5/8 to 7/8 coverage. So VFR does specify limits of cloud density. Well, that wasn't the point. Even if the sky was 7/8 covered with clouds, you can legally fly VFR through a hole in the coverage, provided you don't violate the cloud clearance and visibility minimums for the area you are flying. The ceiling doesn't really matter in this regard. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
Mxsmanic wrote:
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of cloud cover? Bows and flows of angel hair And ice cream castles in the air And feather canyons everywhere I've looked at clouds that way But now they only block visual flight They rain and snow on everyone So many things I would have done But clouds got in my way I've looked at clouds from both sides now From up and down and still somehow It's cloud's illusions I recall I really don't know clouds at all |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
... On 2/27/2010 1:24 PM, Dallas wrote: On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds in the sky Not quite true. The cloud ceiling is defined as the lowest cloud layer that is reported as broken or overcast. Broken is defined as 5/8 to 7/8 coverage. So VFR does specify limits of cloud density. Well, that wasn't the point. Even if the sky was 7/8 covered with clouds, you can legally fly VFR through a hole in the coverage, provided you don't violate the cloud clearance and visibility minimums for the area you are flying. The ceiling doesn't really matter in this regard. Ah yes, simple enough in an airplane, but very difficult in MSFS. Peter :-)))) Lover of simple things |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
On 2/27/2010 3:39 PM, Peter Dohm wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 2/27/2010 1:24 PM, Dallas wrote: On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds in the sky Not quite true. The cloud ceiling is defined as the lowest cloud layer that is reported as broken or overcast. Broken is defined as 5/8 to 7/8 coverage. So VFR does specify limits of cloud density. Well, that wasn't the point. Even if the sky was 7/8 covered with clouds, you can legally fly VFR through a hole in the coverage, provided you don't violate the cloud clearance and visibility minimums for the area you are flying. The ceiling doesn't really matter in this regard. Ah yes, simple enough in an airplane, but very difficult in MSFS. Peter :-)))) Lover of simple things I think the OP is thinking of the clouds as though they were a bunch of hot air balloons just floating around the sky which you just navigate your way around as you fly. Although I agree this *can* happen, I rarely see it that way in real life (at least at the altitudes I fly). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR
Mark Hansen wrote, "I think the OP is thinking of the clouds as though they
were a bunch of hot air balloons just floating around the sky which you just navigate your way around as you fly. Although I agree this *can* happen, I rarely see it that way in real life (at least at the altitudes I fly)." I've flown (legally, while IFR) through canyons of fluffy white clouds, but only a couple times. It's an experience I (and my wife, who was with me) will never forget! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT Cloud to cloud lightning - video | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | August 4th 08 01:01 AM |
OT Cloud to cloud lightning - video | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | August 4th 08 01:01 AM |
IFR Practical test requirements | kevmor | Instrument Flight Rules | 13 | January 25th 07 07:18 PM |
Practical welding? | mhorowit | Home Built | 21 | August 23rd 05 04:33 AM |
practical best range application? | xerj | Piloting | 15 | February 6th 05 11:48 PM |