Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

[Mxsmanic]

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?

[Curt Johnson[_2_]]

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

[Gene Seibel]

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.

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

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!

[Dallas]

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

[Mark Hansen[_2_]]

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.

[Jim Logajan]

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

[Peter Dohm]

"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

[Mark Hansen[_2_]]

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).

[Jon Woellhaf]

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!

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> Ah yes, simple enough in an airplane, but very difficult in MSFS.

Actually, cloud cover simulation is one of the most accurate parts of the
simulator, especially with weather add-ons. Some simulated skies cannot be
distinguished from the real thing.

[Mark Hansen[_2_]]

On 2/27/2010 4:25 PM, Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> 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!
>
>

I had a great IFR flight once, where we flew right over a cloud base
(about 300' above it) and passed by some really tall cumulus columns.
It was breathtaking.

[Mark Hansen[_2_]]

On 2/27/2010 4:57 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Peter Dohm writes:
>
>> Ah yes, simple enough in an airplane, but very difficult in MSFS.
>
> Actually, cloud cover simulation is one of the most accurate parts of the
> simulator, especially with weather add-ons. Some simulated skies cannot be
> distinguished from the real thing.

Heh heh heh... I new it would get there eventually!

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Peter Dohm writes:
>
>> Ah yes, simple enough in an airplane, but very difficult in MSFS.
>
> Actually, cloud cover simulation is one of the most accurate parts of the
> simulator, especially with weather add-ons. Some simulated skies cannot be
> distinguished from the real thing.

Delusional nonsense.

The sky from a display looks little like the sky from a real airplane unless
you have tunnel vision and stare straight ahead.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 6:57*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Actually, cloud cover simulation is one of the most accurate parts of the
> simulator, especially with weather add-ons. Some simulated skies cannot be
> distinguished from the real thing.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS???? YOU DON'T GET IN A REAL AIRPLANE TO MAKE
THE COMPARISON TO KNOW IT'S ACCURATE

MSFS don't hold a candle in DETAIL or CLARITY to what I see out my
REAL AIRPLANE.

My videos do a better job then MSFS.

[Jim Logajan]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:
> "Stephen!" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in news:fonp57-d46.ln1
>> @wschwanke.de:
>>
>>> 500 ft is the minimum flying altitude.
>>
>> Please cite the relevant section
>
> Über Städten, anderen dicht besiedelten Gebieten, Industrieanlagen,
> Menschenansammlungen, Unglücksorten sowie Katastrophengebieten beträgt
> die Sicherheitsmindesthöhe mindestens 300 Meter (1.000 Fuß) über dem
> höchsten Hindernis in einem Umkreis von 600 Metern, in allen übrigen
> Fällen 150 Meter (500 Fuß) über Grund oder Wasser.
>
> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/luftvo/__6.html

My German is pretty rusty, so perhaps my understanding of the next
sentence in the regulation (which you didn't quote) is incorrect. It
appears to provide an exception:

"Segelflugzeuge, Hängegleiter und Gleitsegel können die Höhe von 150
Metern (500 Fuß) auch unterschreiten, wenn die Art ihres Betriebs dies
notwendig macht und eine Gefahr für Personen und Sachen nicht zu
befürchten ist."

Given the regulation quoted, when German gliders ridge soar, can they
legally do so at heights under 150 m above ground level?

> Translation: Above cities, other densely populated areas, industrial
> installations, crowds, accident scenes and disaster areaas, the
> minimum safe flying altitude is 300 meters (1,000 feet) above the
> tallest obstacle in a perimeter of 600 meters, in all other cases 150
> meters (500 feet) above ground or water.
>
>> of the CFR that backs this statement.
>
> Of the what?
>
>> FYI, I have cruised at or below 500' AGL, leagally, on many
>> occasions.
>
> Seriously, the newsgroups this is crossposted to are not US specific,
> even though they sometimes might appear to be. I was under the
> impression the minimum flying altitude was similarly regulated in all
> or at least a large number of countries and answered accordingly.

Agreed. While I sometimes forget, I always try to specify the
controlling agency or jurisdiction of whatever law or regulation I'm
quoting. (Same for monetary amounts - I try to use US$ for U.S. dollars
to distinguish from other country dollars, or make other clarifying
remarks.)

[Ricky]

On Feb 26, 6:00*am, 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

Wrong two times

>It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since
> it's not defined by regulations.

Wrong again.

VFR/IFR is defined by regulations as cloud clearance and visibility.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Feb 27, 6:57*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Some simulated skies cannot be distinguished from the real thing.

Oh, please, Mx, go get in a real airplane. This statement is absolute
nonsense.

Ricky

[Robert M. Gary]

Remember that what is legal has nothing to do with keeping you safe.
The FAA could care less if you run yourself into a mountain. The
purpose of VFR mins is to keep you away from the "real pilots" who are
IFR and popping in and out of clouds, especially the airlines. The odd
selection of VFR mins at different airspace was a negotiated thing
with airlines way back. The airlines wanted to just get rid of VFR
flying. So today we have regulations that basically say that the
busier the airspace, the further you have to be from a cloud that
could have a 737 popping out at any moment.