Minimum rates of climb/descent for VFR

[Mxsmanic]

In the U.S., is there any regulation that prescribes a minimum rate of climb
or descent for changes in altitude during VFR cruise flight? If I decide to
make a gradual climb from 4500 to 6500 feet westbound (gradual meaning 200 fpm
or so), is this allowed, or do I have to meet or exceed some minimum rate?
I'm familiar with the regulations that prescribe the proper altitudes to
maintain, but I don't see anything about rates of climb or descent.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 14, 9:36*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> In the U.S., is there any regulation that prescribes a minimum rate of climb
> or descent for changes in altitude during VFR cruise flight? *If I decide to
> make a gradual climb from 4500 to 6500 feet westbound (gradual meaning 200 fpm
> or so), is this allowed, or do I have to meet or exceed some minimum rate?
> I'm familiar with the regulations that prescribe the proper altitudes to
> maintain, but I don't see anything about rates of climb or descent.

Since you are not flying, why do you care? Pick any altitude you like
and type it in, you'll save valuable simulated flying time that way.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> In the U.S., is there any regulation that prescribes a minimum rate of
> climb or descent for changes in altitude during VFR cruise flight? =


Why? you don't fly.


Bertie

[John[_13_]]

No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> In the U.S., is there any regulation that prescribes a minimum rate of
> climb
> or descent for changes in altitude during VFR cruise flight? If I decide
> to
> make a gradual climb from 4500 to 6500 feet westbound (gradual meaning 200
> fpm
> or so), is this allowed, or do I have to meet or exceed some minimum rate?
> I'm familiar with the regulations that prescribe the proper altitudes to
> maintain, but I don't see anything about rates of climb or descent.

[Mxsmanic]

John writes:

> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.

Thanks.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 12:31*am, "John" > wrote:
> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>
Only true as long as you don't bust airspace or aircraft operating
limitations...

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 12:31*am, "John" > wrote:
> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>

Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.

Cheers

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>>
>
> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> Cheers


Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.

[John[_13_]]

Not to get into the whole parsing argument but for the subset of flight
known as VFR, there are no climb and descent rules that apply only to VFR
flight. The rules about airspace and operating limits apply to both VFR and
IFR flights.

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>

Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:043b8c97-e1d9-463a-9d5f-
:

> On Feb 15, 12:31*am, "John" > wrote:
>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>>
> Only true as long as you don't bust airspace or aircraft operating
> limitations...
>

Well, neither one has much to do with a vertical speed limit.

Bertie

[gatt[_2_]]

>On Feb 14, 9:36 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> In the U.S., is there any regulation that prescribes a minimum rate of
> climb
> or descent for changes in altitude during VFR cruise flight?

No, not in terms of VFR cruise.

-c

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>>
>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.

Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about 25,000fpm
(needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in terms of
indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many flights would
need to worry about this limitation.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>> flight.
>>>
>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>
>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>
> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
> flights would need to worry about this limitation.

Or climb!


But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.


Bertie

[gatt[_2_]]

"John" > wrote in message
news:Ar1tj.6237$CX2.4572@trndny09...
> Not to get into the whole parsing argument but for the subset of flight
> known as VFR, there are no climb and descent rules that apply only to VFR
> flight. The rules about airspace and operating limits apply to both VFR
> and IFR flights.


That's how I viewed the question. The airspace/limits don't specifically
refer to VFR cruise, although cruising under VFR would still make you
subject to broader airspace and operating limits.


-c

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote in
> :
>
>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder >
>> wrote:
>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>> flight.
>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>
> Or climb!
>
>
> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Well personally I would never try do descent faster than 25,000ftm below
10,000 feet, well actually I wouldn't above either....... ;-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Michael Ash > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder
>
>>> wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>>> flight.
>>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>
>> Or climb!
>>
>>
>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Well personally I would never try do descent faster than 25,000ftm
below
> 10,000 feet, well actually I wouldn't above either....... ;-)


Wuss!

Sheesh. It's hard to imagine anything non-military that could do it
anyway! The BD10 was supposed to have had a ROC of 33,000 FPM with the
larger engine, but there can't be much else capable of it.



Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote in
> :
>
>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder >
>> wrote:
>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>> flight.
>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>
> Or climb!
>
>
> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>
>
> Bertie
>


It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster 186,000mps. But
feel free to try and let me know the outcome.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Michael Ash > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder
>
>>> wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>>> flight.
>>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>
>> Or climb!
>>
>>
>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster 186,000mps.
But
> feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>

That may change this year....


Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Michael Ash > wrote in
>> :
>>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder >
>>> wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>>> flight.
>>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>
>> Or climb!
>>
>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster 186,000mps. But
> feel free to try and let me know the outcome.

Not if you and your airplane are massless.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Michael Ash > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>>
>>> Or climb!
>>>
>>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster 186,000mps.
>> But feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>
> Not if you and your airplane are massless.

But then you get into the Ultralight regulations on speed.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:
>>
>> Sheesh. It's hard to imagine anything non-military that could do it
>> anyway! The BD10 was supposed to have had a ROC of 33,000 FPM with the
>> larger engine, but there can't be much else capable of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> The Budweiser jet was kewl!
>

Did Bud sponser the BD 10 or was it somethign different?

Bertie
>
>

[Darkwing]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Michael Ash > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder
> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>>
>>> Or climb!
>>>
>>>
>>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Well personally I would never try do descent faster than 25,000ftm
> below
>> 10,000 feet, well actually I wouldn't above either....... ;-)
>
>
> Wuss!
>
> Sheesh. It's hard to imagine anything non-military that could do it
> anyway! The BD10 was supposed to have had a ROC of 33,000 FPM with the
> larger engine, but there can't be much else capable of it.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>
>

The Budweiser jet was kewl!

[Darkwing]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>

>Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.

>Cheers

You can't descend or climb faster than the speed of sound over most land.
Damn.

[Darkwing]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> :
>>>
>>> Sheesh. It's hard to imagine anything non-military that could do it
>>> anyway! The BD10 was supposed to have had a ROC of 33,000 FPM with the
>>> larger engine, but there can't be much else capable of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Budweiser jet was kewl!
>>
>
> Did Bud sponser the BD 10 or was it somethign different?
>
> Bertie
>>
>>
>

I think Bud sponsored it at air shows but I'm not 100% sure what the deal
was. Here is a pic -
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/bd5j/bd5j-1.jpg

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>> :
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh. It's hard to imagine anything non-military that could do it
>>>> anyway! The BD10 was supposed to have had a ROC of 33,000 FPM with
>>>> the larger engine, but there can't be much else capable of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Budweiser jet was kewl!
>>>
>>
>> Did Bud sponser the BD 10 or was it somethign different?
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> I think Bud sponsored it at air shows but I'm not 100% sure what the
> deal was. Here is a pic -
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/bd5j/bd5j-1.jpg
>
>

Ah, OK, that's the BD 5J. the BD 10 was a whole nuther thing. It looked
like an F-14 and was a two seater. There were two engine options. One
was some sort of bizjet engine and gave very good performance. The other
engine option was much much larger and gave a 30,000 FPM plus rate of
climb. and was capable of mach 1.4.
>


Bertie

[Bob F.]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John writes:
>
>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>
> Thanks.


Actually, now that I think about it, there is a (physical) law that says the
Vertical Speed shall be no faster than the Air Speed. So I guess that would
put a bound on it.
BobF.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 2:19*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>> >> flight.
>>
>> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>
> Well, what if you exceeded the 250 knot limit going down in class E
> below 1000?
>
> Oh boy, would you be in trouble with the FAA then!
>

No, you can do it if ATC waive it. Happens all the time.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 2:19*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>
> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> > Cheers
>
> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.

Well, what if you exceeded the 250 knot limit going down in class E
below 1000?

Oh boy, would you be in trouble with the FAA then!

;)

[[email protected]]

> > It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster 186,000mps.
> But
> > feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>
> That may change this year....
>
> Bertie-

Hey, look. If you got no wikipedia link on that one I'm sorry but I
just gotta call BS on it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:abe412d8-9248-4ec1-b5d3-
:

>> > It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster 186,000mps.
>> But
>> > feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>>
>> That may change this year....
>>
>> Bertie-
>
> Hey, look. If you got no wikipedia link on that one I'm sorry but I
> just gotta call BS on it.
>

Well, it's the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, They're doing an
experiment this year which could open a wormhole, or make a localised black
hole. they'r enot really sure, which is a bit worring. I didn't see it on
the net, but I'm sure you can find plenty!

Bertie

[Dave S]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:36 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> In the U.S., is there any regulation that prescribes a minimum rate of climb
>> or descent for changes in altitude during VFR cruise flight? If I decide to
>> make a gradual climb from 4500 to 6500 feet westbound (gradual meaning 200 fpm
>> or so), is this allowed, or do I have to meet or exceed some minimum rate?
>> I'm familiar with the regulations that prescribe the proper altitudes to
>> maintain, but I don't see anything about rates of climb or descent.
>
> Since you are not flying, why do you care? Pick any altitude you like
> and type it in, you'll save valuable simulated flying time that way.
>
> Cheers

No.. there are no regulations in Microsoft programming language that
prevent MX from climbing or descending at whatever rate he chooses under
CFR (computer flight rules).

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote in
> :
>
>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder >
>> wrote:
>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>> flight.
>>>>
>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>>
>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>
>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>
> Or climb!

Even fewer planes have to worry about that one!

It's interesting to consider that this limit wouldn't even be broken by a
skydiver who hadn't opened his chute yet.

> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.

It seems just about any of them can be waived if you talk to the right
people and have a good enough case. I guess this one is particularly easy
though.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Michael Ash > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder
>>> > wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>>>>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>>>
>>>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>>
>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>
>> Or climb!
>
> Even fewer planes have to worry about that one!
>
> It's interesting to consider that this limit wouldn't even be broken
> by a skydiver who hadn't opened his chute yet.
>
>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>
> It seems just about any of them can be waived if you talk to the right
> people and have a good enough case. I guess this one is particularly
> easy though.

Well, in some cases it's taken as a given. Some heavies go faster than
that clean on departure, for instance. But ATC can give on the spot
dispensation for flow control or on request.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 5:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:abe412d8-9248-4ec1-b5d3-
> :
>
> >> > It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster 186,000mps.
> >> But
> >> > feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>
> >> That may change this year....
>
> >> Bertie-
>
> > Hey, look. If you got no wikipedia link on that one I'm sorry but I
> > just gotta call BS on it.
>
> Well, it's the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, They're doing an
> experiment this year which could open a wormhole, or make a localised black
> hole. they'r enot really sure, which is a bit worring. I didn't see it on
> the net, but I'm sure you can find plenty!
>
> Bertie

Einstein needs to be moved out of the way! ;)

Wow. This one I will be looking up for sure. Thanks!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 5:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:abe412d8-9248-4ec1-b5d3-
>> :
>>
>> >> > It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster
>> >> > 186,000mps.
>> >> But
>> >> > feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>>
>> >> That may change this year....
>>
>> >> Bertie-
>>
>> > Hey, look. If you got no wikipedia link on that one I'm sorry but I
>> > just gotta call BS on it.
>>
>> Well, it's the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, They're doing
>> an experiment this year which could open a wormhole, or make a
>> localised blac
> k
>> hole. they'r enot really sure, which is a bit worring. I didn't see
>> it on the net, but I'm sure you can find plenty!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Einstein needs to be moved out of the way! ;)
>
> Wow. This one I will be looking up for sure. Thanks!


Yeah, looks ineresting. Some people are mildly worried they might end
the universe as well.


This is the place, anyway..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 5:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:abe412d8-9248-4ec1-b5d3-
>> :
>>
>> >> > It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster
>> >> > 186,000mps.
>> >> But
>> >> > feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>>
>> >> That may change this year....
>>
>> >> Bertie-
>>
>> > Hey, look. If you got no wikipedia link on that one I'm sorry but I
>> > just gotta call BS on it.
>>
>> Well, it's the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, They're doing
>> an experiment this year which could open a wormhole, or make a
>> localised blac
> k
>> hole. they'r enot really sure, which is a bit worring. I didn't see
>> it on the net, but I'm sure you can find plenty!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Einstein needs to be moved out of the way! ;)
>
> Wow. This one I will be looking up for sure. Thanks!
>

And this is an article on the worm hole thing.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/07/large-hadron-collider-could-
create-wormholes-a-gateway-for-time-travelers/


Bertie

[[email protected]]

>
> And this is an article on the worm hole thing.
>
> http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/07/large-hadron-collider-could-
> create-wormholes-a-gateway-for-time-travelers/
>
> Bertie-

I love this stuff. I wish I were enough of a mathematician to really
follow the numbers.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:9d78f7d9-155f-4569-ae07-e3bdd3cbdc91
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> And this is an article on the worm hole thing.
>>
>> http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/07/large-hadron-collider-could-
>> create-wormholes-a-gateway-for-time-travelers/
>>
>> Bertie-
>
> I love this stuff. I wish I were enough of a mathematician to really
> follow the numbers.


It's pretty mindblowing. you know about Ronald Mallet? Look him up if you
haven't already heard of him.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> Only true as long as you don't bust airspace or aircraft operating
> limitations...

Are there climb/descent rate restrictions for specific airspaces, for VFR
flights operating without ATC restrictions?

I recall that if ATC tells you to climb or descend, you need to be able to do
so at at least 500 fpm, although I don't remember where I read this. However,
if you're VFR in, say, Class B, and ATC has _not_ directed you specifically to
climb or descend, and you decide to change altitude yourself, is there any
regulatory constraint on the rate that you must use?

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> That's how I viewed the question. The airspace/limits don't specifically
> refer to VFR cruise, although cruising under VFR would still make you
> subject to broader airspace and operating limits.

So are there general limits for climb and descent rates that apply to VFR?

I know there are constraints for climbs and descents directed by ATC, but for
climbs and descents initiated by the pilot on his own (which would usually
apply only to VFR, although there are some IFR examples, too), I can't find a
specific maximum or (especially) minimum.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> Only true as long as you don't bust airspace or aircraft operating
>> limitations...
>
> Are there climb/descent rate restrictions for specific airspaces, for
> VFR flights operating without ATC restrictions?
>

In your world? Nope.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> That's how I viewed the question. The airspace/limits don't
>> specifically refer to VFR cruise, although cruising under VFR would
>> still make you subject to broader airspace and operating limits.
>
> So are there general limits for climb and descent rates that apply to
> VFR?
>
> I know there are constraints for climbs and descents directed by ATC,
> but for climbs and descents initiated by the pilot on his own (which
> would usually apply only to VFR, although there are some IFR examples,
> too), I can't find a specific maximum or (especially) minimum.
>

You are an idiot

Bertie

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Yeah, looks ineresting. Some people are mildly worried they might end
> the universe as well.
>
> This is the place, anyway..
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Just in case Bertie's wording has made anyone jumpy, the universe itself
does this sort of thing all the time (high-energy cosmic rays smashing
into things) and it's still around.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> That's how I viewed the question. The airspace/limits don't specifically
>> refer to VFR cruise, although cruising under VFR would still make you
>> subject to broader airspace and operating limits.
>
> So are there general limits for climb and descent rates that apply to VFR?

Hasn't this question already been answered? Why are you asking it again?

> I know there are constraints for climbs and descents directed by ATC, but for
> climbs and descents initiated by the pilot on his own (which would usually
> apply only to VFR, although there are some IFR examples, too), I can't find a
> specific maximum or (especially) minimum.

Gliders have wildly varying rates of climb and descent, it's extremely
common to maintain 1-200fpm down for very long periods of time, and it's
not too uncommon to maintain very slow ascents for long periods of time
either. This is, of course, perfectly legal, and I'm not aware of any
regulation which only makes this sort of thing legal for the propulsively
challenged.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 9:19*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>
> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> > Cheers
>
> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.

Certainly. Vne is a limit that must not be exceeded (there are
others). This sets a limit on how fast you can legally descend
(remember pilots must fly within operating limits). You must also not
use ascent or descent rate that put you in conflict with ATC unless
you have got clearance. When NORDO you cannot ascend or descend into
controlled space except as part of a flight plan. The descent rate at
or below 500' must be zero or negative except at an aerodrome or
within a LFZ. You can probably now see other examples. Pilots should
think outside the box ;-)

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 9:24*am, "John" > wrote:
> Not to get into the whole parsing argument but for the subset of flight
> known as VFR, there are no climb and descent rules that apply only to VFR
> flight. *The rules about airspace and operating limits apply to both VFR and
> IFR flights.
>

Except when ascent or descent involves separation maybe?

Cheers


>
> > No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>
> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 9:32*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:043b8c97-e1d9-463a-9d5f-
> :
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:31*am, "John" > wrote:
> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>
> > *Only true as long as you don't bust airspace or aircraft operating
> > limitations...
>
> Well, neither one has much to do with a vertical speed limit.
>

A dive which goes over Vne?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 9:39*am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
> > WingFlaps wrote:
> >> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> >>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>
> >> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> > Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>
> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about 25,000fpm
> (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in terms of
> indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many flights would
> need to worry about this limitation.
>

You've got it! Also Vne is usually a lot slower than that for most GA.
There are other "tricky" examples I can think of.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 9:40*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote :
>
> > In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps wrote:
> >>> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> >>>> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
> >>>> flight.
>
> >>> Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> >> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>
> > Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
> > 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
> > terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
> > flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>
> Or climb!
>
> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>

Damn jet jockies. :-)))

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 11:52*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>
> > No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>
> >Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
> >Cheers
>
> You can't descend or climb faster than the speed of sound over most land.
> Damn.

Good one, I hadn't thought of that.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 12:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:abe412d8-9248-4ec1-b5d3-
> :
>
> >> > It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster 186,000mps.
> >> But
> >> > feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>
> >> That may change this year....
>
> >> Bertie-
>
> > Hey, look. If you got no wikipedia link on that one I'm sorry but I
> > just gotta call BS on it.
>
> Well, it's the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, They're doing an
> experiment this year which could open a wormhole, or make a localised black
> hole. they'r enot really sure, which is a bit worring. I didn't see it on
> the net, but I'm sure you can find plenty!
>


You are quite right. But if the worm is small or the hole too small
there's probably not much fun to be had.

Cheers

[Steven P. McNicoll]

On Feb 15, 9:40 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote
> :
>
> >
> > Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
> > 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
> > terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
> > flights would need to worry about this limitation.
> >
>
> Or climb!
>
> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>

No. The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in news:1203047082.57576@nfs-
db1.segnet.com:

> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Yeah, looks ineresting. Some people are mildly worried they might end
>> the universe as well.
>>
>> This is the place, anyway..
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
>
> Just in case Bertie's wording has made anyone jumpy, the universe itself
> does this sort of thing all the time (high-energy cosmic rays smashing
> into things) and it's still around.
>

Exactly.

Stil, they haven't done it in this close a proximity to so many anal
retentive people before. (Swizerland always looks like my mother has been
there, cleaning up after everyone)


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 9:19*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>> >> flight.
>>
>> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>
> Certainly. Vne is a limit that must not be exceeded (there are
> others).

Actuall, that's "should not" There are airplanes in which it's permissable
to go to Vd in an emergency, though they might have Vmo instead of Vne now
I think about it.
I'm not even sure if I've flown one or not...

Never mind!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 9:32*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> news:043b8c97-e1d9-463a-9d5f-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 12:31*am, "John" > wrote:
>> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>> >> flight.
>>
>> > *Only true as long as you don't bust airspace or aircraft operating
>> > limitations...
>>
>> Well, neither one has much to do with a vertical speed limit.
>>
>
> A dive which goes over Vne?
>

Well, yes, flight testing for instance. VNE is 10% below a tested dive
speed. Alos, as I posted before, some airplanes had an emergency dive
speed. Vd. I'd have to look it up to see, though. In any case, it's not a
legal limit, it;'s a design limitation.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> On Feb 15, 9:40 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Michael Ash > wrote
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>> > 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>> > terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>> > flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>> >
>>
>> Or climb!
>>
>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>
>
> No. The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>
>
>

Well, if by seldom you mean every day, sure.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 12:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:abe412d8-9248-4ec1-b5d3-
>> :
>>
>> >> > It is an absolute violation to ascend or descend faster
>> >> > 186,000mps.
>> >> But
>> >> > feel free to try and let me know the outcome.
>>
>> >> That may change this year....
>>
>> >> Bertie-
>>
>> > Hey, look. If you got no wikipedia link on that one I'm sorry but I
>> > just gotta call BS on it.
>>
>> Well, it's the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, They're doing
>> an experiment this year which could open a wormhole, or make a
>> localised blac
> k
>> hole. they'r enot really sure, which is a bit worring. I didn't see
>> it on the net, but I'm sure you can find plenty!
>>
>
>
> You are quite right. But if the worm is small or the hole too small
> there's probably not much fun to be had.

What some are taling about is being able to send messages from the
future to the past via such a hole. You can only send it as far back as
the time as when the hole is opened. Be sending particles back in
something like morse code, for instance, you have a telephone to the
future. Forward comms are easy. All you have to do is leave a note on
the 'fridge.


Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Feb 15, 9:40 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Michael Ash > wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>>>
>>> Or climb!
>>>
>>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>>
>> No. The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well, if by seldom you mean every day, sure.
>
>
> Bertie

Agree, maybe a bit less in USA, but Europe is pretty normal.

[JB]

On Feb 14, 9:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>However,
> if you're VFR in, say, Class B, and ATC has _not_ directed you specifically to
> climb or descend, and ******you decide to change altitude yourself*****

Say, what? You have just committed an airspace violation and the
VATSIM controllers will remotely detonate your aircraft and kill all
onboard. You will be black-balled and not permitted to fly MSFS
again. Then what would you do?

--Jeff

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 9:40 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Michael Ash > wrote
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give
in
>>>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>>>>
>>>> Or climb!
>>>>
>>>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>>>
>>> No. The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, if by seldom you mean every day, sure.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Agree, maybe a bit less in USA, but Europe is pretty normal.
>

All da time in da USA!

For many heavies, min clean speed on takeoff is often over 250 knots and
they have permission to exceed 250 every time they need to. Mostly this
is loooong haul.
But you're right. No speed is more often head in Europe and in many
countries they just don't care what you do. in fact in Europe, they
might get ****ed off with you if you are cleared "high speed" and you
don't keep it moving! Screws things up traffic wise.

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

JB wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:16 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> However,
>> if you're VFR in, say, Class B, and ATC has _not_ directed you specifically to
>> climb or descend, and ******you decide to change altitude yourself*****
>
> Say, what? You have just committed an airspace violation and the
> VATSIM controllers will remotely detonate your aircraft and kill all
> onboard. You will be black-balled and not permitted to fly MSFS
> again. Then what would you do?
>
> --Jeff

Actually, from a quick look at Anthony's Guest Book on his website, it
seems that the VATSIM forum is tired of him as well.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 9:40 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Michael Ash > wrote
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>>>>
>>>> Or climb!
>>>>
>>>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>>>
>>> No. The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, if by seldom you mean every day, sure.

By "seldom" I mean rarely.

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.

It cannot be waived by ATC, but the FAA can waive it--not something it's
likely to do in real time for individual flights, though.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> JB wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 9:16 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> However,
>>> if you're VFR in, say, Class B, and ATC has _not_ directed you
>>> specifically to climb or descend, and ******you decide to change
>>> altitude yourself*****
>>
>> Say, what? You have just committed an airspace violation and the
>> VATSIM controllers will remotely detonate your aircraft and kill all
>> onboard. You will be black-balled and not permitted to fly MSFS
>> again. Then what would you do?
>>
>> --Jeff
>
> Actually, from a quick look at Anthony's Guest Book on his website, it
> seems that the VATSIM forum is tired of him as well.
>

Now there's a suprise. Given the old six degrees lof seperation notion, I
wonder how ling it will take before the critical mass is reached where the
whole planet tires of him.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>
>> The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>
> It cannot be waived by ATC, but the FAA can waive it--not something it's
> likely to do in real time for individual flights, though.
>

Wrong again fjukktad.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Feb 15, 9:40 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> Michael Ash > wrote
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically speaking, it is illegal to descend faster than about
>>>>>> 25,000fpm (needs to be adjusted based on density, since it's give in
>>>>>> terms of indicated airspeed) when below 10,000ft. I doubt too many
>>>>>> flights would need to worry about this limitation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or climb!
>>>>>
>>>>> But in fact this can be waived and very frequently is.
>>>>>
>>>> No. The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if by seldom you mean every day, sure.
>
> By "seldom" I mean rarely.
>
>

If by rarely you mean every day, then sure.


Bertie

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/15/08 01:53, WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 15, 9:19�am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>>
>> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>
> Certainly. Vne is a limit that must not be exceeded (there are
> others). This sets a limit on how fast you can legally descend
> (remember pilots must fly within operating limits). You must also not
> use ascent or descent rate that put you in conflict with ATC unless
> you have got clearance. When NORDO you cannot ascend or descend into
> controlled space except as part of a flight plan.

What? You believe that an aircraft with no radio is not allowed to
enter controlled airspace without being on a flight plan?

Can you please provide a reference to that regulation?

> The descent rate at
> or below 500' must be zero or negative except at an aerodrome or
> within a LFZ. You can probably now see other examples. Pilots should
> think outside the box ;-)
>
> Cheers



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
>
> When NORDO you cannot ascend or descend into
> controlled space except as part of a flight plan.
>

Where?

[george]

On Feb 16, 2:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Well, yes, flight testing for instance. VNE is 10% below a tested dive
> speed. Alos, as I posted before, some airplanes had an emergency dive
> speed. Vd. I'd have to look it up to see, though. In any case, it's not a
> legal limit, it;'s a design limitation.
>

I know one or two jump pilots who drop their load and are back on the
deck picking up the next load before the first have all landed

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 2:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Well, yes, flight testing for instance. VNE is 10% below a tested
>> dive speed. Alos, as I posted before, some airplanes had an emergency
>> dive speed. Vd. I'd have to look it up to see, though. In any case,
>> it's not a legal limit, it;'s a design limitation.
>>
>
> I know one or two jump pilots who drop their load and are back on the
> deck picking up the next load before the first have all landed
>

I doubt they're going past VNE, though. No need, really. I wouldn't want to
be footing their engine bills, though!

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 2:08*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:32*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote in
> >> news:043b8c97-e1d9-463a-9d5f-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Feb 15, 12:31*am, "John" > wrote:
> >> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
> >> >> flight.
>
> >> > *Only true as long as you don't bust airspace or aircraft operating
> >> > limitations...
>
> >> Well, neither one has much to do with a vertical speed limit.
>
> > A dive which goes over Vne?
>
> Well, yes, flight testing for instance. VNE is 10% below a tested dive
> speed. Alos, as I posted before, some airplanes had an emergency dive
> speed. Vd. I'd have to look it up to see, though. In any case, it's not a
> legal limit, it;'s a design limitation.
>

Nope. It's legal from Far 91.7:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating
limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight
Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 2:08*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:65a90348-2292-42ef-8cdc-c81a6
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 9:32*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> news:043b8c97-e1d9-463a-9d5f-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Feb 15, 12:31*am, "John" > wrote:
>> >> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>> >> >> flight.
>>
>> >> > *Only true as long as you don't bust airspace or aircraft
>> >> > operating
>
>> >> > limitations...
>>
>> >> Well, neither one has much to do with a vertical speed limit.
>>
>> > A dive which goes over Vne?
>>
>> Well, yes, flight testing for instance. VNE is 10% below a tested
>> dive speed. Alos, as I posted before, some airplanes had an emergency
>> dive speed. Vd. I'd have to look it up to see, though. In any case,
>> it's not a legal limit, it;'s a design limitation.
>>
>
> Nope. It's legal from Far 91.7:
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
> operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating
> limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight
> Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
> certificating authority of the country of registry.

OK, fair enough.

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 4:20 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > When NORDO you cannot ascend or descend into
> > controlled space except as part of a flight plan.
>

If the aircraft radio fails in flight under VFR, the pilot in command
may operate that aircraft and land if--

(i) Weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums;

(ii) Visual contact with the tower is maintained; and

(iii) A clearance to land is received.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 4:14Â*am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 02/15/08 01:53, WingFlaps wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:19�am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps wrote:
> >> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> >> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 4:14Â*am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> On 02/15/08 01:53, WingFlaps wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 9:19�am, Gig 601XL Builder
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>> >> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
>> >> >> fligh
> t.
>>
>> >> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>
>> >> > Cheers
>>
>> >> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>
>> > Certainly. Vne is a limit that must not be exceeded (there are
>> > others). This sets a limit on how fast you can legally descend
>> > (remember pilots must fly within operating limits). You must also
>> > not use ascent or descent rate that put you in conflict with ATC
>> > unless you have got clearance. When NORDO you cannot ascend or
>> > descend into controlled space except as part of a flight plan.
>>
>> What? You believe that an aircraft with no radio is not allowed to
>> enter controlled airspace without being on a flight plan?
>>
>> Can you please provide a reference to that regulation?
>>
>> > Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*
> Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*The descent rate at
>> > or below 500' must be zero or negative except at an aerodrome or
>> > within a LFZ. You can probably now see other examples. Pilots
>> > should think outside the box ;-)
>>
> An towered airport is controlled airspace so:
>
> Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate
> an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational
> control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained
> between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be
> established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and
> including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in
> flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if
> weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual
> contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is
> received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the
> pilot must comply with §91.185.

Flown nordo into controlled fields loads of times..

Not usually a prob. No flight plan either. Just called the tower by
phone before i departed or flew as a flight of two.

Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 16, 4:20 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > When NORDO you cannot ascend or descend into
>> > controlled space except as part of a flight plan.
>>
>
> If the aircraft radio fails in flight under VFR, the pilot in command
> may operate that aircraft and land if--
>
> (i) Weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums;
>
> (ii) Visual contact with the tower is maintained; and
>
> (iii) A clearance to land is received.
>

?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 4:14 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 02/15/08 01:53, WingFlaps wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:19?am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps wrote:
> >> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> >> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
> >> >> flight.
>
> >> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>
> > Certainly. Vne is a limit that must not be exceeded (there are
> > others). This sets a limit on how fast you can legally descend
> > (remember pilots must fly within operating limits). You must also not
> > use ascent or descent rate that put you in conflict with ATC unless
> > you have got clearance. When NORDO you cannot ascend or descend into
> > controlled space except as part of a flight plan.
>
> What? You believe that an aircraft with no radio is not allowed to
> enter controlled airspace without being on a flight plan?
>
> Can you please provide a reference to that regulation?
>
> > The descent rate at
> > or below 500' must be zero or negative except at an aerodrome or
> > within a LFZ. You can probably now see other examples. Pilots should
> > think outside the box ;-)
>
An towered airport is controlled airspace so:

Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate
an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational
control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained
between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be
established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and
including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in
flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if
weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual
contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is
received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the
pilot must comply with §91.185.




You shouldn't be playing with your daddy's computer.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:
>
> You shouldn't be playing with your daddy's computer.
>
>


Sorry, but this lame is so past it's sell by date I just couldn't let it go
by without comment.

Since there has been so much interest in trolling and what it is and ins't
these days here's a bit of a primer for those interested in the subject.
Any post slyly left to bait an unwitting fjukkwit is technically a troll.
So, just about everybody who has ever posted on usenet has trolled at one
time or another in whatever modest way. This is a good thing sometimes.
Nothing like geting sucked into a trap to wake you up.
However a schoolyard taunt is just lame and hardly worthy of the title
"troll" and so tarnishes the noble tradition.
having said that, lames are OK if they're multi-leveled and/or serve to
illuminate another aspect of the discussion.
Or if they're funny, of course.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 9:52Â*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 4:14Â*am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> >> On 02/15/08 01:53, WingFlaps wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 15, 9:19�am, Gig 601XL Builder
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> WingFlaps wrote:
> >> >> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
> >> >> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR
> >> >> >> fligh
> > t.
>
> >> >> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>
> >> >> > Cheers
>
> >> >> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>
> >> > Certainly. Vne is a limit that must not be exceeded (there are
> >> > others). This sets a limit on how fast you can legally descend
> >> > (remember pilots must fly within operating limits). You must also
> >> > not use ascent or descent rate that put you in conflict with ATC
> >> > unless you have got clearance. When NORDO you cannot ascend or
> >> > descend into controlled space except as part of a flight plan.
>
> >> What? You believe that an aircraft with no radio is not allowed to
> >> enter controlled airspace without being on a flight plan?
>
> >> Can you please provide a reference to that regulation?
>
> >> > Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*
> > Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*The descent rate at
> >> > or below 500' must be zero or negative except at an aerodrome or
> >> > within a LFZ. You can probably now see other examples. Pilots
> >> > should think outside the box ;-)
>
> > An towered airport is controlled airspace so:
>
> > Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate
> > an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational
> > control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained
> > between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be
> > established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and
> > including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in
> > flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if
> > weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual
> > contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is
> > received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the
> > pilot must comply with §91.185.
>
> Flown nordo into controlled fields loads of times..
>
> Not usually a prob. No flight plan either. Just called the tower by
> phone before i departed or flew as a flight of two.
>

Yes, in my thinking that call to the tower established a plan.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 10:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote :
>
>
>
> > You shouldn't be playing with your daddy's computer.
>
> Sorry, but this lame is so past it's sell by date I just couldn't let it go
> by without comment.
>
> Since there has been so much interest in trolling and what it is and ins't
> these days here's a bit of a primer for those interested in the subject.
> Any post slyly left to bait an unwitting fjukkwit is technically a troll.
> So, just about everybody who has ever posted on usenet has trolled at one
> time or another in whatever modest way. This is a good thing sometimes.

Keep up the good work, rattle their cages free from the prattle of
mediocrity!

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 9:52Â*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:b3a149c7-a9b9-4be1-b6fe-b9450
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 16, 4:14Â*am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> >> On 02/15/08 01:53, WingFlaps wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 15, 9:19�am, Gig 601XL Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.
> com
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> WingFlaps wrote:
>> >> >> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for
>> >> >> >> VFR fligh
>> > t.
>>
>> >> >> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>
>> >> >> > Cheers
>>
>> >> >> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>
>> >> > Certainly. Vne is a limit that must not be exceeded (there are
>> >> > others). This sets a limit on how fast you can legally descend
>> >> > (remember pilots must fly within operating limits). You must
>> >> > also not use ascent or descent rate that put you in conflict
>> >> > with ATC unless you have got clearance. When NORDO you cannot
>> >> > ascend or descend into controlled space except as part of a
>> >> > flight plan.
>>
>> >> What? You believe that an aircraft with no radio is not allowed to
>> >> enter controlled airspace without being on a flight plan?
>>
>> >> Can you please provide a reference to that regulation?
>>
>> >> > Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*
>
>> > Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*
> Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*The descent rate at
>> >> > or below 500' must be zero or negative except at an aerodrome or
>> >> > within a LFZ. You can probably now see other examples. Pilots
>> >> > should think outside the box ;-)
>>
>> > An towered airport is controlled airspace so:
>>
>> > Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may
>> > operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an
>> > operational control tower unless two-way radio communications are
>> > maintained between that aircraft and the control tower.
>> > Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from
>> > the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the
>> > aircraft radio fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate
>> > that aircraft and land if weather conditions are at or above basic
>> > VFR weather minimums, visual contact with the tower is maintained,
>> > and a clearance to land is received. If the aircraft radio fails
>> > while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with §91.185.
>>
>> Flown nordo into controlled fields loads of times..
>>
>> Not usually a prob. No flight plan either. Just called the tower by
>> phone before i departed or flew as a flight of two.
>>
>
> Yes, in my thinking that call to the tower established a plan.

Hmm, dunno. I suppose it does. You'd have to ask an ATC type how they'd
classify it, but it's a clearance into the zone at least.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 10:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>> innews:13rbva412cl4s
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > You shouldn't be playing with your daddy's computer.
>>
>> Sorry, but this lame is so past it's sell by date I just couldn't let
>> it g
> o
>> by without comment.
>>
>> Since there has been so much interest in trolling and what it is and
>> ins't
>
>> these days here's a bit of a primer for those interested in the
>> subject. Any post slyly left to bait an unwitting fjukkwit is
>> technically a troll. So, just about everybody who has ever posted on
>> usenet has trolled at one time or another in whatever modest way.
>> This is a good thing sometimes.
>
> Keep up the good work, rattle their cages free from the prattle of
> mediocrity!
>

Thanks. i intend to!

Bertie

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/15/08 12:33, WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:14 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> On 02/15/08 01:53, WingFlaps wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 9:19�am, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 15, 12:31 am, "John" > wrote:
>> >> >> No there are no regulations for climb or descent rates for VFR flight.
>>
>> >> > Err I don't think that's 100% correct but it will do for MX.
>>
>> >> > Cheers
>>
>> >> Please then for my benefit point me to such a regulation.
>>
>> > Certainly. Vne is a limit that must not be exceeded (there are
>> > others). This sets a limit on how fast you can legally descend
>> > (remember pilots must fly within operating limits). You must also not
>> > use ascent or descent rate that put you in conflict with ATC unless
>> > you have got clearance. When NORDO you cannot ascend or descend into
>> > controlled space except as part of a flight plan.
>>
>> What? You believe that an aircraft with no radio is not allowed to
>> enter controlled airspace without being on a flight plan?
>>
>> Can you please provide a reference to that regulation?
>>
>>
> An towered airport is controlled airspace so:

Actually, your statement was much broader than "Class D airspace". It
was "controlled airspace".

But I can see from your response that it's of no value to argue the
point with you - so I won't.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 9:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>>
>> >> The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>>
>> > It cannot be waived by ATC, but the FAA can waive it--not something
>> > it's likely to do in real time for individual flights, though.
>>
>> Wrong again fjukktad.
>>
>
> He's right, you're the fjukktad. (Whatever that is.) The 250 KIAS
> rule can be waived by the Administrator but not by ATC.
>
Nope

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 6:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:17f19905-7814-446d-9800-
> :
>
> > On Feb 15, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> All da time in da USA!
>
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.
>

Prove it.


> >> For many heavies, min clean speed on takeoff is often over 250 knots and
> >> they have permission to exceed 250 every time they need to.
>
> > Yes, but that's done in accordance with the regulation, not under a
> > waiver from it.
>
> Nope
>

Yup:


§ 91.117 Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may
operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4
nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace
area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This
paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B
airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this
section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a
Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor
designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated
airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).

(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is
greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the
aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34292, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-
219, 55 FR 34708, Aug. 24, 1990; Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65657, Dec. 17,
1991; Amdt. 91-233, 58 FR 43554, Aug. 17, 1993]

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 8:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>
> >> >> The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>
> >> > It cannot be waived by ATC, but the FAA can waive it--not something
> >> > it's likely to do in real time for individual flights, though.
>
> >> Wrong again fjukktad.
>
> > He's right, you're the fjukktad. (Whatever that is.) The 250 KIAS
> > rule can be waived by the Administrator but not by ATC.
>
> Nope
>


Yup:


§ 91.117 Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may
operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4
nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace
area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This
paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B
airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this
section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a
Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor
designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated
airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).

(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is
greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the
aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34292, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-
219, 55 FR 34708, Aug. 24, 1990; Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65657, Dec. 17,
1991; Amdt. 91-233, 58 FR 43554, Aug. 17, 1993]

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 9:21 pm, wrote:

> > Nope
>
> Yup:
>
> § 91.117 Aircraft speed.
>
> (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator...

Any possibility the Administrator has delegated it internally within
FAA?

F--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 8:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:0f15696b-ff1a-486f-8ae3-5aff769cbf76@j
> 28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 9:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>>
>> >> >> The 250 KIAS speed limit can be waived but very seldom is.
>>
>> >> > It cannot be waived by ATC, but the FAA can waive it--not
>> >> > something it's likely to do in real time for individual flights,
>> >> > though.
>>
>> >> Wrong again fjukktad.
>>
>> > He's right, you're the fjukktad. (Whatever that is.) The 250 KIAS
>> > rule can be waived by the Administrator but not by ATC.
>>
>> Nope
>>
>
>
> Yup:
>


Nope.





>
> § 91.117 Aircraft speed.
>
> (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
> operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
> more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
>
> (b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may
> operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4
> nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace
> area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This
> paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B
> airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this
> section.
>
> (c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a
> Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor
> designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated
> airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).
>
> (d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is
> greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the
> aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
>
> [Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34292, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-
> 219, 55 FR 34708, Aug. 24, 1990; Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65657, Dec. 17,
> 1991; Amdt. 91-233, 58 FR 43554, Aug. 17, 1993]
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 6:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:17f19905-7814-446d-9800-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> All da time in da USA!
>>
>> > Nope.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>
> Prove it.
>
>
>> >> For many heavies, min clean speed on takeoff is often over 250
>> >> knots an
> d
>> >> they have permission to exceed 250 every time they need to.
>>
>> > Yes, but that's done in accordance with the regulation, not under a
>> > waiver from it.
>>
>> Nope
>>
>
> Yup:
>

Nope


Bertie
>
> § 91.117 Aircraft speed.
>
> (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
> operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
> more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
>
> (b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may
> operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4
> nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace
> area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This
> paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B
> airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this
> section.
>
> (c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a
> Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor
> designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated
> airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).
>
> (d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is
> greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the
> aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
>
> [Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34292, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-
> 219, 55 FR 34708, Aug. 24, 1990; Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65657, Dec. 17,
> 1991; Amdt. 91-233, 58 FR 43554, Aug. 17, 1993]
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:7f03c718-a3d3-4093-8c09-97088b1c8fb1
@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 15, 9:21 pm, wrote:
>
>> > Nope
>>
>> Yup:
>>
>> § 91.117 Aircraft speed.
>>
>> (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator...
>
> Any possibility the Administrator has delegated it internally within
> FAA?
>


Oh for god sakes, don't help him!

He's doing fine on his own.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Any possibility the Administrator has delegated it internally within
> FAA?

The regulations (including this one) make a clear distinction between ATC and
the Administrator, so even if he were to delegate it, it would not be to ATC.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Any possibility the Administrator has delegated it internally within FAA?
>

Not on a national basis. There was a test done some years ago within the
Houston Class B airspace that authorized ATC to assign speeds in excess of
250 KIAS. I'm not aware of anything similar at this time.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 10:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote :
>
>
>
> > You shouldn't be playing with your daddy's computer.
>
> Sorry, but this lame is so past it's sell by date I just couldn't let it go
> by without comment.
>
> Since there has been so much interest in trolling and what it is and ins't
> these days here's a bit of a primer for those interested in the subject.
> Any post slyly left to bait an unwitting fjukkwit is technically a troll.
> So, just about everybody who has ever posted on usenet has trolled at one
> time or another in whatever modest way. This is a good thing sometimes.
> Nothing like geting sucked into a trap to wake you up.
> However a schoolyard taunt is just lame and hardly worthy of the title
> "troll" and so tarnishes the noble tradition.
> having said that, lames are OK if they're multi-leveled and/or serve to
> illuminate another aspect of the discussion.
> Or if they're funny, of course.
>

I don't think he meant it as a troll. It was just the best he could
think of.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 10:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>> innews:13rbva412cl4s
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > You shouldn't be playing with your daddy's computer.
>>
>> Sorry, but this lame is so past it's sell by date I just couldn't let
>> it g
> o
>> by without comment.
>>
>> Since there has been so much interest in trolling and what it is and
>> ins't
>
>> these days here's a bit of a primer for those interested in the
>> subject. Any post slyly left to bait an unwitting fjukkwit is
>> technically a troll. So, just about everybody who has ever posted on
>> usenet has trolled at one time or another in whatever modest way.
>> This is a good thing sometimes. Nothing like geting sucked into a
>> trap to wake you up. However a schoolyard taunt is just lame and
>> hardly worthy of the title "troll" and so tarnishes the noble
>> tradition. having said that, lames are OK if they're multi-leveled
>> and/or serve to illuminate another aspect of the discussion.
>> Or if they're funny, of course.
>>
>
> I don't think he meant it as a troll. It was just the best he could
> think of.
>

Yeh, i suppose it was just a lame.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Any possibility the Administrator has delegated it internally within
>> FAA?
>
> The regulations (including this one) make a clear distinction between
> ATC and the Administrator, so even if he were to delegate it, it would
> not be to ATC.
>

Now here's a man who has no idea. Wwhy don't we ask him?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> .
> ..
>>
>> Any possibility the Administrator has delegated it internally within
>> FAA?
>>
>
> Not on a national basis. There was a test done some years ago within
> the Houston Class B airspace that authorized ATC to assign speeds in
> excess of 250 KIAS. I'm not aware of anything similar at this time.
>
>
>

Obviously.


Bertie

[Dallas]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Ah, OK, that's the BD 5J. the BD 10 was a whole nuther thing. It looked
> like an F-14 and was a two seater.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Untitled/0118958/L/

Death trap.

--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 11:22 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Any possibility the Administrator has delegated it internally within
> > FAA?
>
> The regulations (including this one) make a clear distinction between ATC and
> the Administrator, so even if he were to delegate it, it would not be to ATC.

You are obviously ignorant as to how U. S, fed agencies routinely
delegate authority downward from statute, thru Regs, and even via
internal procedures. What, losing your touch on Google as your sole
source of expertise? And doesn't the Administrator "write" the Regs?

F--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dallas > wrote in news:1u5nc898ll9l2
:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Ah, OK, that's the BD 5J. the BD 10 was a whole nuther thing. It looked
>> like an F-14 and was a two seater.
>
> http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Untitled/0118958/L/
>
> Death trap.
>

Yeah, hey didn't work too well. I think both crashed.

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 6:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dallas > wrote in news:1u5nc898ll9l2
> :
>
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> Ah, OK, that's the BD 5J. the BD 10 was a whole nuther thing. It looked
> >> like an F-14 and was a two seater.
>
> >http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Untitled/0118958/L/
>
> > Death trap.
>
> Yeah, hey didn't work too well. I think both crashed.
>

Did you know that Bede design suggested that a turbofan powered car
could out perform direct drive in fuel economy? Makes you wonder what
book of aeronautics he worked from.

Cheers

[Dallas]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:20:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Yeah, hey didn't work too well. I think both crashed.

Three of five Bede BD-10s crashed.

N2BD: original prototype, owned by Fuel Fresh in Nevada, unflyable
N9WZ: Peregrine's kit, crashed
N62PJ: Peregrine's kit, crashed
N700JP: Jim Priebe's kit, sold to Monitor Jet, now privately owned in
Canada, unflyable
N7FF: Frank Everett's kit, crashed

I'm sorry, but I think ya gotta be nuts to jump into a prototype GA jet and
become an amateur test pilot. I'll bet the families of the dead pilots
agree with me.

"The second kit-built aircraft, N7FF, broke up in mid-air off the southern
coast of California in 2003 after the pilot had radioed a MAYDAY call in
which he stated that the aircraft "was disintegrating".



--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You are obviously ignorant as to how U. S, fed agencies routinely
> delegate authority downward from statute, thru Regs, and even via
> internal procedures.

I am cognizant of the actual text of the regulations, in which a distinction
between the Administrator and ATC is unambiguously made.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You are obviously ignorant as to how U. S, fed agencies routinely
>> delegate authority downward from statute, thru Regs, and even via
>> internal procedures.
>
> I am cognizant of the actual text of the regulations,

So what, you don't fly.

And BTW, you're not cognizent of which way up is.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:20:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Yeah, hey didn't work too well. I think both crashed.
>
> Three of five Bede BD-10s crashed.
>
> N2BD: original prototype, owned by Fuel Fresh in Nevada, unflyable
> N9WZ: Peregrine's kit, crashed
> N62PJ: Peregrine's kit, crashed
> N700JP: Jim Priebe's kit, sold to Monitor Jet, now privately owned in
> Canada, unflyable
> N7FF: Frank Everett's kit, crashed
>
> I'm sorry, but I think ya gotta be nuts to jump into a prototype GA
> jet and become an amateur test pilot. I'll bet the families of the
> dead pilots agree with me.
>
> "The second kit-built aircraft, N7FF, broke up in mid-air off the
> southern coast of California in 2003 after the pilot had radioed a
> MAYDAY call in which he stated that the aircraft "was disintegrating".
>
>
>

Ah, OK. I didn't know that any kits had been sold, let alone finished. I
thought the accidents testing had killed it completely. Well, the remaining
two don't fly, so I guess it did!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 6:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dallas > wrote in news:1u5nc898ll9l2
>> :
>>
>> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> Ah, OK, that's the BD 5J. the BD 10 was a whole nuther thing. It
>> >> looked
>
>> >> like an F-14 and was a two seater.
>>
>> >http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Untitled/0118958/L/
>>
>> > Death trap.
>>
>> Yeah, hey didn't work too well. I think both crashed.
>>
>
> Did you know that Bede design suggested that a turbofan powered car
> could out perform direct drive in fuel economy? Makes you wonder what
> book of aeronautics he worked from.


Yipes! Kind of a shame about Jim Bede, really. He had some interesting
ideas.
Nothing he ever did panned out unless you consider the AA1 a success.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 4:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I am cognizant of the actual text of the regulations, in which a distinction
> between the Administrator and ATC is unambiguously made.

Yeah, right, Like ATC is not a subordinate function to the FAA
Administrator.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 4:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> I am cognizant of the actual text of the regulations, in which a
>> distinction between the Administrator and ATC is unambiguously made.
>
> Yeah, right, Like ATC is not a subordinate function to the FAA
> Administrator.
>

I have to say I'm kinda disappointed this game seems to be petering out!


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah, right, Like ATC is not a subordinate function to the FAA
> Administrator.

If it is subordinate, then it cannot necessarily do all that the Administrator
can do. QED.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 8:31 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> If it is subordinate, then it cannot necessarily do all that the Administrator
> can do. QED.

If delegated by the Administrator, ATC sure can, moron.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Yeah, right, Like ATC is not a subordinate function to the FAA
>> Administrator.
>
> If it is subordinate, then it cannot necessarily do all that the
> Administrator can do. QED.


If by QED you mean you don't know what you are talking about.


Bertie

>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Yeah, right, Like ATC is not a subordinate function to the FAA
> > Administrator.

> If it is subordinate, then it cannot necessarily do all that the Administrator
> can do. QED.

Until you stuck on the "QED", you had another correct but absolutely
useless statement.

A correct and more usefull statement would be: A subordinate can do
anything the superior authorizes the subordinate to do.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If delegated by the Administrator, ATC sure can, moron.

But the Administrator does not so delegate, except in a few limited
experiments.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If delegated by the Administrator, ATC sure can, moron.
>
> But the Administrator does not so delegate, except in a few limited
> experiments.
>

nope.


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If delegated by the Administrator, ATC sure can, moron.
>
> But the Administrator does not so delegate, except in a few limited
> experiments.
>

Moronic bull****.