"Requesting lower"

[Tony]

So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
give you whatever you ask for.

What would you ask for?

I figure something like this: If I go downhill at 200 feet a minute at
my cruising speed it's going to take 5 minutes a thousand feet or 50
minutes to get to pattern altitude. "Hey Center, Mooney XYZ requesting
lower -- can you give me cruise at 5000?"

If they say yes I'll back off the throttle, the airplane is already
trimmed for the right speed, and start down. Close to 5000 feet I'll
ask for lower and continue down, maintaining my en route cruise. I'd
for sure be managing airpseed, CHT, mixture, and so forth -- I look at
those things every time the altimeter unwinds another 500 feet.

What would you do?

[John Theune]

Tony wrote:
> So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
> ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
> is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
> give you whatever you ask for.
>
> What would you ask for?
>
> I figure something like this: If I go downhill at 200 feet a minute at
> my cruising speed it's going to take 5 minutes a thousand feet or 50
> minutes to get to pattern altitude. "Hey Center, Mooney XYZ requesting
> lower -- can you give me cruise at 5000?"
>
> If they say yes I'll back off the throttle, the airplane is already
> trimmed for the right speed, and start down. Close to 5000 feet I'll
> ask for lower and continue down, maintaining my en route cruise. I'd
> for sure be managing airpseed, CHT, mixture, and so forth -- I look at
> those things every time the altimeter unwinds another 500 feet.
>
> What would you do?
>
I believe you will also have to tell them your going to descend at 200
FPM as they expect a higher rate. I'm betting they will allow it but
best to let them know. I know you have to tell them if you can't climb
at 500 FPM and I think they expect the same on descent.

[Roy Smith]

In article . com>,
"Tony" > wrote:

> So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
> ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
> is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
> give you whatever you ask for.
>
> What would you ask for?

How about, "Cancel IFR"?

[Roy Smith]

In article <Zbqrh.14754$Ch1.9592@trndny04>,
John Theune > wrote:

> Tony wrote:
> > So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
> > ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
> > is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
> > give you whatever you ask for.
> >
> > What would you ask for?
> >
> > I figure something like this: If I go downhill at 200 feet a minute at
> > my cruising speed it's going to take 5 minutes a thousand feet or 50
> > minutes to get to pattern altitude. "Hey Center, Mooney XYZ requesting
> > lower -- can you give me cruise at 5000?"
> >
> > If they say yes I'll back off the throttle, the airplane is already
> > trimmed for the right speed, and start down. Close to 5000 feet I'll
> > ask for lower and continue down, maintaining my en route cruise. I'd
> > for sure be managing airpseed, CHT, mixture, and so forth -- I look at
> > those things every time the altimeter unwinds another 500 feet.
> >
> > What would you do?
> >
> I believe you will also have to tell them your going to descend at 200
> FPM as they expect a higher rate. I'm betting they will allow it but
> best to let them know. I know you have to tell them if you can't climb
> at 500 FPM and I think they expect the same on descent.

If there really is nothing going on, they probably don't care how fast or
slow you go down. But, to be more correct about it, you could ask for
"pilot's discretion down to 3000" or whatever.

I ask for PD when I'm on top of a broken layer where I suspect there's ice
in the clouds. PD gives me the freedom to pick the hole I like and dive
through it.

[Tony]

If you get "cruise at" from center, it's up to you how you get there. I
do agree with those who say other than that center expects standard
rates from pilots.

On Jan 17, 9:15 am, John Theune > wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
> > ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
> > is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
> > give you whatever you ask for.
>
> > What would you ask for?
>
> > I figure something like this: If I go downhill at 200 feet a minute at
> > my cruising speed it's going to take 5 minutes a thousand feet or 50
> > minutes to get to pattern altitude. "Hey Center, Mooney XYZ requesting
> > lower -- can you give me cruise at 5000?"
>
> > If they say yes I'll back off the throttle, the airplane is already
> > trimmed for the right speed, and start down. Close to 5000 feet I'll
> > ask for lower and continue down, maintaining my en route cruise. I'd
> > for sure be managing airpseed, CHT, mixture, and so forth -- I look at
> > those things every time the altimeter unwinds another 500 feet.
>
> > What would you do?I believe you will also have to tell them your going to descend at 200
> FPM as they expect a higher rate. I'm betting they will allow it but
> best to let them know. I know you have to tell them if you can't climb
> at 500 FPM and I think they expect the same on descent.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Thomas Borchert]

Tony,

> What would you do?
>

Same, expect for the "reduce power" part. Why not get some of the time
back that you lost during climb?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Nathan Young]

On 17 Jan 2007 06:09:06 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:

>So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
>ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
>is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
>give you whatever you ask for.
>
>What would you ask for?
>
>I figure something like this: If I go downhill at 200 feet a minute at
>my cruising speed it's going to take 5 minutes a thousand feet or 50
>minutes to get to pattern altitude. "Hey Center, Mooney XYZ requesting
>lower -- can you give me cruise at 5000?"
>
>If they say yes I'll back off the throttle, the airplane is already
>trimmed for the right speed, and start down. Close to 5000 feet I'll
>ask for lower and continue down, maintaining my en route cruise. I'd
>for sure be managing airpseed, CHT, mixture, and so forth -- I look at
>those things every time the altimeter unwinds another 500 feet.
>
>What would you do?

In my Cherokee, even at 10k+ AGL I never begin descents until 40/50
miles out. The Cherokee has enough drag that coming down is not an
issue. Typically if I am at 10k+ feet, that is because there is a
tailwind. Up high, the tailwind and calm ride usually provide an
equivalent (or better) groundspeed than the higher airspeed +
decreasing tailwind during a descent.

Also, If it was night, and unfamilar area, I would stay IFR at
altitude, and allow ATC to provide vectors to fly the IAP.

To answer your question: If I wanted a lengthy descent I would do one
of two things:

1. Cancel IFR, and ask to stay on the code for flight following.
2. "Center, Cherokee XYZ requests a 200fpm descent to 3000".
I do not know the FAR, but we are supposed to notify ATC if we cannot
climb or desend at 500fpm or greater.

-Nathan

[Robert M. Gary]

Tony wrote:
> So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
> ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
> is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
> give you whatever you ask for.
>
> What would you ask for?

Your first mistake is to say you're flying a Mooney in your post but
then say your're only doing 120 knots GS. Maybe a super headwind??? ;)
That's actually not a trivial question. The answer seen to be that its
controller specific. Certainly if you are IFR you just says "Mooney 94v
would like to start down", or "Mooney 94v, can we get lower" (sometimes
you don't actually know the altitude they can drop you to since that
close to the airport you are often on vectors.) The same if you are in
class B or C.

However, if you are just VFR in class E the answer is "it depends". If
you tell them your going lower about 60% of controllers will say
"You're VFR, why are you telling me this?". If you don't say anything
about 30% will say "please let me know if you are decending". Of course
sometimes you can tell if they are trying to squeeze you into a slot,
but othertimes it just seems to be the controller. This has often
irritated me but VFR procedures are probably at the bottom of the FAA's
list.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Tony" > wrote:
>
> > So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
> > ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
> > is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
> > give you whatever you ask for.
> >
> > What would you ask for?
>
> How about, "Cancel IFR"?

Cancel IFR 100nm out? At 120 knots that's almost an hour outside your
destination.

-Robert

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> If there really is nothing going on, they probably don't care how fast or
> slow you go down. But, to be more correct about it, you could ask for
> "pilot's discretion down to 3000" or whatever.


I like this answer better than any of the others. I'd be very reluctant to
cancel IFR at night 100 miles from my destination. He's already said it's quiet
so there's no reason to expect Center to run him all over the countryside.

Once I had the clearance, I'd nose over to get the descent rate and then manage
the throttle as required to keep power setting appropriate. A 200 fpm descent
is unlikely to put me near airspeed redline at cruise power but I would come off
the power if I started getting into turbulence down lower.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Tony]

requesting cruise at 5000 gives me everything I want. ATC if granting
it knows what's going on. If it was busy I'd just request lower.

And Mooneys, to answer someone else's question, sometimes find
themselves in head winds.
I wouldn't fly that high in a head wind of course, but a 10000 foot
change in altitide at those speeds makes it easy for others to
understand what's going on.
On Jan 17, 11:16 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > So here's the deal. You're at 11,000 feet doing say 120 knots over the
> > ground and your sea level destination is 100 nm ahead. It's late, ATC
> > is quiet, very little traffic, CAVU, you're pretty sure centger will
> > give you whatever you ask for.
>
> > What would you ask for?Your first mistake is to say you're flying a Mooney in your post but
> then say your're only doing 120 knots GS. Maybe a super headwind??? ;)
> That's actually not a trivial question. The answer seen to be that its
> controller specific. Certainly if you are IFR you just says "Mooney 94v
> would like to start down", or "Mooney 94v, can we get lower" (sometimes
> you don't actually know the altitude they can drop you to since that
> close to the airport you are often on vectors.) The same if you are in
> class B or C.
>
> However, if you are just VFR in class E the answer is "it depends". If
> you tell them your going lower about 60% of controllers will say
> "You're VFR, why are you telling me this?". If you don't say anything
> about 30% will say "please let me know if you are decending". Of course
> sometimes you can tell if they are trying to squeeze you into a slot,
> but othertimes it just seems to be the controller. This has often
> irritated me but VFR procedures are probably at the bottom of the FAA's
> list.
>
> -Robert, CFII

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Cancel IFR 100nm out? At 120 knots that's almost an hour outside your
> destination.

So?

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

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
> > Cancel IFR 100nm out? At 120 knots that's almost an hour outside your
> > destination.
>
> So?

So what' s the point of filing IFR if you're going to cancel an hour
outside your destination just because you want lower?

-Robert, CFII

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> So what' s the point of filing IFR if you're going to cancel an hour
> outside your destination just because you want lower?

Because you had to fly through IMC to get that far, and you want to
fly VFR once the weather permits?

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

[Roy Smith]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary writes:
> >
> > > Cancel IFR 100nm out? At 120 knots that's almost an hour outside your
> > > destination.
> >
> > So?
>
> So what' s the point of filing IFR if you're going to cancel an hour
> outside your destination just because you want lower?
>
> -Robert, CFII

I was joking a little when I suggested "Cancel IFR", but only a little.
IFR gives you certain advantages and certain disadvantages. Unlike the
airlines, us part 91 guys get to pick whether operating under VFR or IFR
works more to our advantage. Sometimes, the easiest way to get what you
want is to cancel.

In this specific case, however, the scenario as put to us was that the
pilot expected that center would be able to grant him anything he wanted.
So, he should just ask for what he wants. As I remember, he was looking to
get down to 5000 from his current 11,000, but slowly. Any of the following
would probably work and allow him to keep his IFR if that's what he wanted:

"Request cruise 11,000".

"Request block 5000 to 11,000" (somewhat silly).

"Request pilot's discretion down to 5000"

"Hey center, I'd like to start a nice slow descent down to 5000, you cool
with that?"

[Tony]

Interesting point of discussion., Tom. If I maintain the same ground
speed I'll be touching down (assuming straight in yada yada yada) in 50
minutes. If I gain an average of say 5 kts maintaining the same power
it will be 48 minutes. I figure I invested fuel to get to altitude (not
that 11000 feet flying into a headwind would have been a wise
investment -- how about I say I'm in a 172?) I'll get a little of it
back on the way down.

The thing I like about the Mooney is, it really is clean
aerodynamically. I had a friend who flew gliders and Mooneys, and when
he felt playful on a day with good thermals he's go to idle cutoff in
his M20 and pretend to be a glider for a half hour or so. He showed me
how to do that. He had a nice touch with gliders, gave me the front
seat and the yoke in one a long time ago. I think I bruised his knees I
was yanking the yoke around so much! Total logged time in gliders -- a
fraction of an hour. Total time in a Mooney pretending to be a glider?
Probably a couple of hours. The IO 360 in front starts every time, but
depending on an air start even with a windmilling prop pushes me
outside my own envelope.

To clear up another point -- I do like the idea of saying "Yo, Boston
Center, Mooney XYZ wants to start downhill slowly -- OK with you?" but
I'd rather just ask for permission to cruise at 5000. If granted, I own
the airspace between where I am and 5000 and can start down slowly,
then make additional requests as I get closer in. In real life a long
time ago going into KBED with nice tailwinds at altitude late at night,
when I requested lower a long way out (I probably had 190 kts over the
ground) ATC gave me cruise at 9000, and when I got close to that,
cruise at 7000, and so on. There was opposite direction traffic on the
airway, the restrictions allowed it time to get under me.

It's fun to talk about, but as most of us know, a LOT more fun to do.






On Jan 17, 9:54 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Tony,
>
> > What would you do?Same, expect for the "reduce power" part. Why not get some of the time
> back that you lost during climb?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Roy,

> "Hey center, I'd like to start a nice slow descent down to 5000, you cool
> with that?"
>

Please, with that "CFII" proudly added to your name, don't tell me you
actually teach something like that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Larry Dighera]

On 18 Jan 2007 06:16:19 -0800, "Tony" > wrote in
. com>:

>I had a friend who flew gliders and Mooneys, and when
>he felt playful on a day with good thermals he's go to idle cutoff in
>his M20 and pretend to be a glider for a half hour or so.

That works in a C-150 too. I used to do it over the Antelope
Valley/Mojave Desert in the early '70s. Thermal lift can be quite
strong there at times.

[Jay Somerset]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:12:44 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

> Roy,
>
> > "Hey center, I'd like to start a nice slow descent down to 5000, you cool
> > with that?"
> >
>
> Please, with that "CFII" proudly added to your name, don't tell me you
> actually teach something like that.

I guess it's hard to see Roy's tongue stuck firmly in his cheek in a usenet
posting. :-)
-Jay-

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> I guess it's hard to see Roy's tongue stuck firmly in his cheek in a usenet
> posting. :-)
>

Maybe. But I've heard too much stuff like that on the frequencies between the
"uh,ah,uh, ah" stutterings of beginners and the unreadable jargon of the
"pros". Actually, the pros are often worse. Don't forget, I look at this from
a non-native speaker perspective. When I fly in the US and someone uses ole'
boy slang, it's real easy to have misunderstandings. That's why there are
preset phrases even for cool airline captains. They better use them.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Maybe. But I've heard too much stuff like that on the frequencies between the
> "uh,ah,uh, ah" stutterings of beginners and the unreadable jargon of the
> "pros". Actually, the pros are often worse. Don't forget, I look at this from
> a non-native speaker perspective. When I fly in the US and someone uses ole'
> boy slang, it's real easy to have misunderstandings. That's why there are
> preset phrases even for cool airline captains. They better use them.

Fortunately, you only need to talk to ATC; it isn't necessary to be
able to understand other pilots.

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Maybe. But I've heard too much stuff like that on the frequencies between the
>> "uh,ah,uh, ah" stutterings of beginners and the unreadable jargon of the
>> "pros". Actually, the pros are often worse. Don't forget, I look at this from
>> a non-native speaker perspective. When I fly in the US and someone uses ole'
>> boy slang, it's real easy to have misunderstandings. That's why there are
>> preset phrases even for cool airline captains. They better use them.
>
> Fortunately, you only need to talk to ATC; it isn't necessary to be
> able to understand other pilots.
>
Actually that's not true either. You need to be able to understand
other pilots in order to have a sense of what's going on around you.
That is one of the major sticking points with the idea of going to a
digital radio system that only displays messages intended for a single
plane, you lose the "party line" information.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Actually that's not true either. You need to be able to understand
> other pilots in order to have a sense of what's going on around you.

It helps, but it is not mandatory. In theory, all you need is ATC.
And even if ATC is the only voice you understand, you should still be
safe.

> That is one of the major sticking points with the idea of going to a
> digital radio system that only displays messages intended for a single
> plane, you lose the "party line" information.

Maybe, but if you need to depend on what other pilot's are saying,
then ATC is not doing its job.

Nevertheless, I don't see why a digital radio system would have to
exclude transmissions for other aircraft. I think the safest option
is just to replace analog with digital transmission, without making
_any_ other changes. Once that has become universal, other things can
be tried. But I know that some parties will want to pile on the
gadgets no matter how negative the effect on safety.

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

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Fortunately, you only need to talk to ATC; it isn't necessary to be
> able to understand other pilots.

There is no ATC at un-controlled fields.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> There is no ATC at un-controlled fields.

There are no props on jet aircraft.

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

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> There is no ATC at un-controlled fields.
>
> There are no props on jet aircraft.
>

I don't get the connection.

You stated you ONLY needed the radio to talk to ATC, and I pointed out why I
disagreed with that statement.. What does that have to do with props?

[Tony]

The connection, Steve, is that MX didn't take his meds today.

On Jan 19, 7:59 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in messagenews:tif1r2tck2hq354je8u1ag393hpsrui8rh@4ax .com...
>
> > Steve Foley writes:
>
> >> There is no ATC at un-controlled fields.
>
> > There are no props on jet aircraft.I don't get the connection.
>
> You stated you ONLY needed the radio to talk to ATC, and I pointed out why I
> disagreed with that statement.. What does that have to do with props?

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I don't get the connection.

Exactly. I responded to a non sequitur with another non sequitur.

> You stated you ONLY needed the radio to talk to ATC, and I pointed out why I
> disagreed with that statement.. What does that have to do with props?

What does CTAF have to do with "requesting lower"?

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I don't get the connection.
>
> Exactly. I responded to a non sequitur with another non sequitur.
>
>> You stated you ONLY needed the radio to talk to ATC, and I pointed out why I
>> disagreed with that statement.. What does that have to do with props?
>
> What does CTAF have to do with "requesting lower"?
>
It has everything to do with understanding other pilots which is what I
responded to. You need to keep up with the flow of the coversation.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > I don't get the connection.
>
> Exactly. I responded to a non sequitur with another non sequitur.
>
> > You stated you ONLY needed the radio to talk to ATC, and I pointed out why
> > I
> > disagreed with that statement.. What does that have to do with props?
>
> What does CTAF have to do with "requesting lower"?

OMG. Our little troll has grown up and turned into Steve McNicoll.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> What does CTAF have to do with "requesting lower"?

Forget it.

[Thomas Borchert]

Tony,

> The connection, Steve, is that MX didn't take his meds today.
>

Does he ever?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> It has everything to do with understanding other pilots which is what I
> responded to.

But you don't have to understand other pilots if you are talking to
ATC, and if you are "requesting lower," you are talking to ATC, not
other pilots.

> You need to keep up with the flow of the coversation.

I simply looked at the topic.

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

[Jose]

> It helps, but it is not mandatory. In theory, all you need is ATC.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.

Theory is all well and good, but air traffic procedures have evolved
irrespective of theory, and they have evolved around the present
communications system. Replacing the system with one that is
incompatible with present practice, despite somebody's idea of what is
theoretically "adequate", is not a good idea.

Further, there is no ATC for non-towered airports. We transmit in the
blind to other pilots, and listen to them. It helps.

The other problem with digital is it does not degrade gracefully. That
is essential to any communications system.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> But you don't have to understand other pilots if you are talking to
> ATC, and if you are "requesting lower," you are talking to ATC, not
> other pilots.

But you are using the same system that the other pilots (at uncontrolled
airports) would need to use.

They certainly need to understand other pilots.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Theory is all well and good, but air traffic procedures have evolved
> irrespective of theory, and they have evolved around the present
> communications system. Replacing the system with one that is
> incompatible with present practice, despite somebody's idea of what is
> theoretically "adequate", is not a good idea.

If you can hear only ATC, what do you lose in terms of safety?

> Further, there is no ATC for non-towered airports. We transmit in the
> blind to other pilots, and listen to them. It helps.

No doubt, but the original topic was requesting a lower altitude,
which you would not ask of your fellow pilots on CTAF.

> The other problem with digital is it does not degrade gracefully. That
> is essential to any communications system.

It's not essential, it's just different. There isn't much practical
difference between hearing something incorrectly and not hearing it at
all.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> But you are using the same system that the other pilots (at uncontrolled
> airports) would need to use.

If they are not in contact with ATC, they are using a separate system.

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

[Jose]

> If they are not in contact with ATC, they are using a separate system.

Only in theory.

In present practice, we use the same radios as we use to contact ATC.
There are different frequencies assigned for different types of
communications, but it is the same radio in the cockpit, and the same
system.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> If you can hear only ATC, what do you lose in terms of safety?

Situational awareness of where other aircraft are. I have been made
aware of other aircraft near me by their radio calls to the tower. This
helped me find them visually and avoid making noise.

> No doubt, but the original topic was requesting a lower altitude,
> which you would not ask of your fellow pilots on CTAF.

True. But CTAF is the same system. The same radio. Just a different
frequency.

> It's not essential, it's just different. There isn't much practical
> difference between hearing something incorrectly and not hearing it at
> all.

Degraded digital is very hard to make out, and easy to make out in
error. Degraded analog is still easy to make out. It has to be very
degraded before it's hard to make out.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> In present practice, we use the same radios as we use to contact ATC.
> There are different frequencies assigned for different types of
> communications, but it is the same radio in the cockpit, and the same
> system.

Yes, but normally you are not talking on UNICOM or some other CTAF at
the same time that you are talking to ATC. It's one or the other.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jose writes:
>
>> In present practice, we use the same radios as we use to contact ATC.
>> There are different frequencies assigned for different types of
>> communications, but it is the same radio in the cockpit, and the same
>> system.
>
> Yes, but normally you are not talking on UNICOM or some other CTAF at
> the same time that you are talking to ATC. It's one or the other.

Not at the exact same moment but pretty damn close at a untowered airport.
And there is nothing to stop a crew of two from one talking to ATC and the
other on CTAF.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Situational awareness of where other aircraft are.

If you are talking to ATC, you have separation services from them plus
your windows in VMC, or all separation services from them in IMC. If
you are not talking to ATC, you have the windows. While hearing from
other aircraft might help a little, that presumes that other pilots
know where they are, which might be stretching things a bit if your
own situational awareness is poor enough that you have to depend on
other pilots. There's no reason to assume that they'd know more about
the big picture than you do.

Additionally, if you're talking to ATC, chances are that nobody on the
frequency is reporting his position, since ATC already knows their
positions. So listening to other pilots won't tell you any more about
where they are.

The only time hearing other pilots might help is if ATC makes a
mistake. In such rare cases it doesn't hurt to be able to hear
everyone, but that's considerably less significant than saying that
you actually need to hear other pilots.

> Degraded digital is very hard to make out, and easy to make out in
> error. Degraded analog is still easy to make out. It has to be very
> degraded before it's hard to make out.

I must be missing a magic talent, because frankly I can hardly make
out what people are saying on the radio even under good conditions.
I'm continually amazed that more mistakes are not made. My guess is
that pilots assume they've heard something through force of habit, and
since radio communication is pretty consistent (and deliberately so),
they are lucky enough that their presumptions are usually correct.

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

[Jose]

> Yes, but normally you are not talking on UNICOM or some other CTAF at
> the same time that you are talking to ATC. It's one or the other.

Yes, but if the ATC radios were digital, then the CTAF ones would be
too, since they are the same radios.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> While hearing from
> other aircraft might help a little, that presumes that other pilots
> know where they are, which might be stretching things a bit

Agreed. Nonetheless it is still helpful. In my actual experience, I
have found aircraft I might not have seen because of hearing their radio
transmissions. I have also overheard their comments about approaches,
runway conditions, other things that are useful to me.

> Additionally, if you're talking to ATC, chances are that nobody on the
> frequency is reporting his position, since ATC already knows their
> positions.

Not always true, especially on initial callup.

> I must be missing a magic talent, because frankly I can hardly make
> out what people are saying on the radio even under good conditions.

It takes practice. But I find (digital) cell phone communications to be
particularly grating and hard to understand through the warble. I have
no trouble with the old analog cells and walkie-talkies.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Additionally, if you're talking to ATC, chances are that nobody on the
> frequency is reporting his position, since ATC already knows their
> positions. So listening to other pilots won't tell you any more about
> where they are.

Taken in the context of enroute IFR (the thread was "requesting lower" - not
VFR ops at uncontrolled airports) I'd have to agree that hearing other
pilots doesn't tell you a whole lot. So you hear something like "Boston
center, United 5412 heavy 6,000 for 16,000" while you are cruising along -
what does that tell you other than your radio works and there's a United
flight somewhere in the airspace, maybe 100 miles away.

> I must be missing a magic talent, because frankly I can hardly make
> out what people are saying on the radio even under good conditions.

Yes, you are missing a talent that is learned through practice and
experience. What you've heard so far is nothing - try copying a clearance
in busy airspace while hand flying in turbulence in IMC.

> I'm continually amazed that more mistakes are not made. My guess is
> that pilots assume they've heard something through force of habit, and
> since radio communication is pretty consistent (and deliberately so),
> they are lucky enough that their presumptions are usually correct.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Agreed. Nonetheless it is still helpful. In my actual experience, I
> have found aircraft I might not have seen because of hearing their radio
> transmissions.

It seems to me that that only shows that you weren't looking out the
window enough. I don't think a radio should be used as a substitute
for that, although obviously if you do have a radio, that might save
you where you might otherwise be in trouble.

Upon reflection, I find it interesting that aircraft collisions are
largely a result of organized aviation. In other words, if everyone
flew around at random altitudes in random directions, the chances of
two aircraft hitting each other would be extraordinarily low--the sky
is a big place. It's actually the organization of things like
airports, approaches, airways, intersections, etc., that makes
collisions more likely, and thus makes their avoidance more important.

Even the FAA warns that with extremely precise RNAV and RVSM
navigation systems today, the chance of a collision is even greater if
one is not constantly vigilant, as it's entirely possible for two
aircraft to head towards _exactly_ the same spot in the sky now--a
spot small enough that they cannot possibly occupy it at the same
time.

> It takes practice. But I find (digital) cell phone communications to be
> particularly grating and hard to understand through the warble. I have
> no trouble with the old analog cells and walkie-talkies.

Maybe the design of the digital systems is defective. Digital isn't
inherently any worse than analog.

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

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Taken in the context of enroute IFR (the thread was "requesting lower" - not
> VFR ops at uncontrolled airports) I'd have to agree that hearing other
> pilots doesn't tell you a whole lot. So you hear something like "Boston
> center, United 5412 heavy 6,000 for 16,000" while you are cruising along -
> what does that tell you other than your radio works and there's a United
> flight somewhere in the airspace, maybe 100 miles away.

Yup. And if they are VFR, they may not be talking to ATC at all
unless they happen to be in the tiny chunks of airspace where it's
required. Even then, once ATC has them on radar, they don't have to
report position.

> Yes, you are missing a talent that is learned through practice and
> experience. What you've heard so far is nothing - try copying a clearance
> in busy airspace while hand flying in turbulence in IMC.

I can't say that it's something I'd enjoy. That's one more reason why
I think a copilot must be very handy for IFR, even in an aircraft that
doesn't require one.

> Nothing could be further from the truth.

Some of the references I've looked at disagree. There's a huge
tendency for pilots to hear what they expect to hear. Tenerife is one
often-cited example, but there are many others.

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

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2007-01-19, BDS > wrote:
>
> Taken in the context of enroute IFR (the thread was "requesting lower" - not
> VFR ops at uncontrolled airports) I'd have to agree that hearing other
> pilots doesn't tell you a whole lot. So you hear something like "Boston
> center, United 5412 heavy 6,000 for 16,000" while you are cruising along -
> what does that tell you other than your radio works and there's a United
> flight somewhere in the airspace, maybe 100 miles away.

It's not always about separation. Hearing a DASH-8 report moderate ice
while descending through 12,000 can be helpful too. Do I know where
exactly he is? Sort of, I know where he's going and how high he is.
Can I ask ATC where was the DASH-8 who just reported ice? You bet I can.

-Milen

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Some of the references I've looked at disagree. There's a huge
> tendency for pilots to hear what they expect to hear. Tenerife is one
> often-cited example, but there are many others.

It may happen occasionally and with devastating results as in your example,
but it's far from SOP. Standard communication protocol is to read back the
critical portions of a clearance. It is now also common to hear "read back
all runway hold short instructions" on ATIS broadcasts due to the number of
runway incursions that result as much from unfamiliarity with a particular
airport as from miscommunication or misunderstanding.

BDS

[Tony Cox]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Additionally, if you're talking to ATC, chances are that nobody on the
> frequency is reporting his position, since ATC already knows their
> positions. So listening to other pilots won't tell you any more about
> where they are.

Almost all pilot initiated ATC calls contain position information
of some sort. Most ATC initiated calls tell you something about
where the traffic will be shortly. Hearing others report is a
significant factor in one's real-life situational awareness,
especially in the vicinity of busy airports. I remember the first
time I flew into a busy Mexican airport & heard most of the
traffic talking Spanish; traffic was there, and lots of it, but I'd
no clue where to look. You'd be surprised at how comforting
it is to hear other pilots and understand what they are saying --
in the real world, that is, not your simulation.

> I must be missing a magic talent, because frankly I can hardly make
> out what people are saying on the radio even under good conditions.

If all you have to worry about is a simulated mid-air, you're unlikely
to have developed the concentration necessary to interpret what you
are hearing. A good friend flies with me often & hears all the ATC
calls I do, but still, after many hours in the cockpit, cannot for the
life of her understand what they are telling me to do!

[BDS[_2_]]

"Milen Lazarov" > wrote

> It's not always about separation. Hearing a DASH-8 report moderate ice
> while descending through 12,000 can be helpful too. Do I know where
> exactly he is? Sort of, I know where he's going and how high he is.
> Can I ask ATC where was the DASH-8 who just reported ice? You bet I can.

Good point. Another one is aircraft that are diverting to avoid buildups
and cells.

BDS

[Tony]

On Jan 19, 1:55 pm, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Milen Lazarov" > wrote
>
> > It's not always about separation. Hearing a DASH-8 report moderate ice
> > while descending through 12,000 can be helpful too. Do I know where
> > exactly he is? Sort of, I know where he's going and how high he is.
> > Can I ask ATC where was the DASH-8 who just reported ice? You bet I can.Good point. Another one is aircraft that are diverting to avoid buildups
> and cells.
>
> BDS

[Tony]

One human factor that's been overlooked -- on late night flights, it is
often very very quiet aloft. I like the sound of a human voice from
time to time, it's reassuring to know the coms are working. Listening
in on aircraft to aircraft frequencies, and chatting as well, is I
think a safety factor. Pilots who make long cross country flights will
understand the reality of my point , others may appreciate at least the
theory.

It could even be a factor for sim pilots gaming a flight.



On Jan 19, 2:25 pm, "Tony" > wrote:
> On Jan 19, 1:55 pm, "BDS" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Milen Lazarov" > wrote
>
> > > It's not always about separation. Hearing a DASH-8 report moderate ice
> > > while descending through 12,000 can be helpful too. Do I know where
> > > exactly he is? Sort of, I know where he's going and how high he is.
> > > Can I ask ATC where was the DASH-8 who just reported ice? You bet I can.Good point. Another one is aircraft that are diverting to avoid buildups
> > and cells.
>
> > BDS- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> One human factor that's been overlooked -- on late night flights, it is
> often very very quiet aloft. I like the sound of a human voice from
> time to time, it's reassuring to know the coms are working. Listening
> in on aircraft to aircraft frequencies, and chatting as well, is I
> think a safety factor. Pilots who make long cross country flights will
> understand the reality of my point , others may appreciate at least the
> theory.
>
> It could even be a factor for sim pilots gaming a flight.

It is. It's always a bit eerie to be the only living soul around with
a radius of a hundred miles. Just driving a car alone on a deserted
highway can do this, especially in the western U.S., where some
highways can look uncannily like the deserted road in the old movie
posters for _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_, which definitely
does not help at all. I think being in a small aircraft can only
magnify this feeling.

I wonder how astronauts in the command modules of Apollo flights to
the moon must have felt while thousands of miles away from their
colleagues on the opposite side of the planet. They didn't even have
a radio to listen to.

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

[BDS[_2_]]

Tony writes:
>
> > One human factor that's been overlooked -- on late night flights, it is
> > often very very quiet aloft. I like the sound of a human voice from
> > time to time, it's reassuring to know the coms are working. Listening
> > in on aircraft to aircraft frequencies, and chatting as well, is I
> > think a safety factor. Pilots who make long cross country flights will
> > understand the reality of my point , others may appreciate at least the
> > theory.

I think the ATC guys get just as lonely - I think I've had them start up the
conversations late at night more often than the other way around.

One sticks in my mind for some reason even though it was quite a few years
ago. The Wilkes-Barre, PA controller said something like "Hey, aren't you
guys the ones who make the sausages?" I was mistaken for another aircraft
with a similar call sign that flew the same route frequently late at night.
We had a nice chat for the few minutes that I was in his airspace.

BDS

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jose writes:
>
>> Situational awareness of where other aircraft are.
>
> If you are talking to ATC, you have separation services from them plus
> your windows in VMC, or all separation services from them in IMC. If
> you are not talking to ATC, you have the windows. While hearing from
> other aircraft might help a little, that presumes that other pilots
> know where they are, which might be stretching things a bit if your
> own situational awareness is poor enough that you have to depend on
> other pilots. There's no reason to assume that they'd know more about
> the big picture than you do.
>
> Additionally, if you're talking to ATC, chances are that nobody on the
> frequency is reporting his position, since ATC already knows their
> positions. So listening to other pilots won't tell you any more about
> where they are.
>
> The only time hearing other pilots might help is if ATC makes a
> mistake. In such rare cases it doesn't hurt to be able to hear
> everyone, but that's considerably less significant than saying that
> you actually need to hear other pilots.

Let's say you are approaching a uncontrolled airport with overcast at 1500
ft AGL and there are VFR pilots in the pattern. Do you think that just maybe
this is why there are more than one radio in most aircraft and in virtually
all aircraft that fly IFR regularly?



>
>> Degraded digital is very hard to make out, and easy to make out in
>> error. Degraded analog is still easy to make out. It has to be very
>> degraded before it's hard to make out.
>
> I must be missing a magic talent, because frankly I can hardly make
> out what people are saying on the radio even under good conditions.
> I'm continually amazed that more mistakes are not made. My guess is
> that pilots assume they've heard something through force of habit, and
> since radio communication is pretty consistent (and deliberately so),
> they are lucky enough that their presumptions are usually correct.


I have little doubt you are missing many talents and not all of them
magical.

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Theune writes:
> > Actually that's not true either. You need to be able to understand
> > other pilots in order to have a sense of what's going on around you.
>
> It helps, but it is not mandatory. In theory, all you need is ATC.
> And even if ATC is the only voice you understand, you should still be
> safe.

And in theory, I should be able to obey traffic laws and stay safe, but
in practice you have to watch out for others. ATC can make mistakes.
For example, with two similar call-signs, if both pilots can hear all
the conversations, they can figure it out easier. Another example is
that of two airplanes being given clearance to land/takeoff/taxi the
same runway. Many many times crashes are avoided by alert pilots
listening to the common channel.

I was flying late one night when I heard ATC give clearance to land at
HPN to a commuter jet. ATC also gave an alert to my presence. When
the jet twice said they didn't see me, I flicked my landing light
on/off a few times. A few moments later, the jet called "Ah okay, have
him in sight now". That made me us both feel better :-)

Kev

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jose writes:
>
>> Situational awareness of where other aircraft are.
>
> If you are talking to ATC, you have separation services from them plus
> your windows in VMC, or all separation services from them in IMC. If
> you are not talking to ATC, you have the windows. While hearing from
> other aircraft might help a little, that presumes that other pilots
> know where they are, which might be stretching things a bit if your
> own situational awareness is poor enough that you have to depend on
> other pilots. There's no reason to assume that they'd know more about
> the big picture than you do.

You fly sims, you don't know what you are talking about. Listening to other
traffic is a big help in picking up other traffic. Why don't you listen to
people that fly real airplanes for a change?

Danny Deger

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

BDS wrote:
> I think the ATC guys get just as lonely - I think I've had them start up the
> conversations late at night more often than the other way around.


I've gotten football scores along with IFR services late at night. Sometimes I
didn't know which of us is more like the Maytag repairman.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Let's say you are approaching a uncontrolled airport with overcast at 1500
> ft AGL and there are VFR pilots in the pattern. Do you think that just maybe
> this is why there are more than one radio in most aircraft and in virtually
> all aircraft that fly IFR regularly?

I don't know the original purpose for two radios, but it cannot be
that, because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
with an overcast at 1500 feet.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Danny Deger writes:

> You fly sims, you don't know what you are talking about.

You're half right.

> Why don't you listen to people that fly real airplanes for a change?

I do, once I have reason to believe that they know what they are
talking about. Unfortunately, that cannot be taken for granted.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
> > So what' s the point of filing IFR if you're going to cancel an hour
> > outside your destination just because you want lower?
>
> Because you had to fly through IMC to get that far, and you want to
> fly VFR once the weather permits?

But that's not what the poster said. The poster was asking about
decending.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

BDS wrote:
> Tony writes:
> >
> > > One human factor that's been overlooked -- on late night flights, it is
> > > often very very quiet aloft. I like the sound of a human voice from
> > > time to time, it's reassuring to know the coms are working. Listening
> > > in on aircraft to aircraft frequencies, and chatting as well, is I
> > > think a safety factor. Pilots who make long cross country flights will
> > > understand the reality of my point , others may appreciate at least the
> > > theory.
>
> I think the ATC guys get just as lonely - I think I've had them start up the
> conversations late at night more often than the other way around.

I was flying back from Mexico several months ago and had just cleared
through San Diego. When I got handed off to Lemoore approach at about
20:30 it was pretty slow. I was in and out of IMC but wx was clearing.
So I asked them if they knew when Harris Ranch restuarant closed. The
controller came back about 5 minutes later, said he had checked with
the menu in the break room, confirmed they were open until 22:00 and
wanted to know if I would like to divert and if he could phone in a
reservation for a table for us!!!! My wife was 1/2 awake and the kids
were asleep in the back but eventually all agreed that steaks after a
week of Mexican food sounded good. He even prefiled an IFR for the rest
of our trip after dinner!!!

-robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> > Let's say you are approaching a uncontrolled airport with overcast at 1500
> > ft AGL and there are VFR pilots in the pattern. Do you think that just maybe
> > this is why there are more than one radio in most aircraft and in virtually
> > all aircraft that fly IFR regularly?
>
> I don't know the original purpose for two radios, but it cannot be
> that, because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
> with an overcast at 1500 feet.

While 1 radio is legal ( as is no radio) its not very uncommon. When
approaching an uncontrolled field IFR any reasonable pilot will have
CTAF dialed in #2 and listening long before ATC releases him, so he
understands what is going on in the pattern.

-robert, CFII

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> > Let's say you are approaching a uncontrolled airport with overcast at 1500
> > ft AGL and there are VFR pilots in the pattern. Do you think that just maybe
> > this is why there are more than one radio in most aircraft and in virtually
> > all aircraft that fly IFR regularly?
>
> I don't know the original purpose for two radios, but it cannot be
> that, because there will be no VFR pilots (legally) in the pattern
> with an overcast at 1500 feet.

In the U.S. they'll be there and legal. At a pattern altitude less
than 1200', you're legal during the day if you stay clear of clouds.

Kev

[BDS[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> I was flying back from Mexico several months ago and had just cleared
> through San Diego. When I got handed off to Lemoore approach at about
> 20:30 it was pretty slow. I was in and out of IMC but wx was clearing.
> So I asked them if they knew when Harris Ranch restuarant closed. The
> controller came back about 5 minutes later, said he had checked with
> the menu in the break room, confirmed they were open until 22:00 and
> wanted to know if I would like to divert and if he could phone in a
> reservation for a table for us!!!! My wife was 1/2 awake and the kids
> were asleep in the back but eventually all agreed that steaks after a
> week of Mexican food sounded good. He even prefiled an IFR for the rest
> of our trip after dinner!!!

The other pilot here at work was flying in the Chicago area a couple years
ago. He was late and a little harried and was on the center frequency when
he asked if someone would mind calling his appointment to let them know he
was going to be late. The controller (who my friend thought was the unicom
operator) said something like "Er, ah, OK", took the info and made the call.
It was shortly afterwards that my friend realized who he made the request
with.

It was a busy time of day and so it was pretty neat that they accommodated
him - maybe the controller was just in shock that someone would request that
center do something like that!

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> In the U.S. they'll be there and legal. At a pattern altitude less
> than 1200', you're legal during the day if you stay clear of clouds.

Only in Class G, and at a vast number of untowered airports 1000' AGL
is still in Class E (700' floor).

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

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2007-01-19, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Only in Class G, and at a vast number of untowered airports 1000' AGL
> is still in Class E (700' floor).

And what is the required cloud clearance in class E?

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
>
> > In the U.S. they'll be there and legal. At a pattern altitude less
> > than 1200', you're legal during the day if you stay clear of clouds.
>
> Only in Class G, and at a vast number of untowered airports 1000' AGL
> is still in Class E (700' floor).

In Class E, with a typical 800'-1000' pattern, they'd still be 500'
below the aforementioned 1500' clouds, and therefore legal.

I soloed under those conditions. Thereafter I was known as "MVFR Kev"
:-)

[Mxsmanic]

Milen Lazarov writes:

> And what is the required cloud clearance in class E?

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.

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[601XL Builder]

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.

[Milen Lazarov]

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?

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Newps]

> 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.

[Milen Lazarov]

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.

[Matt Barrow]

"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?

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Kev]

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[John Theune]

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?

[Newps]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.