"Requesting lower"

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
with an overcast at 1500 feet.


And once again you would be wrong.

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?

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:

because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
with an overcast at 1500 feet.

Oh, for christs sake. There's no place that that wouldn't be legal.

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.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Mxsmanic wrote:

because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
with an overcast at 1500 feet.

Oh, for christs sake. There's no place that that wouldn't be legal.


WTF? Triple negative?

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.