"Requesting lower"

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.

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?

Matt Barrow 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?

I count two.

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.

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.