Outside reference in IMC

[[email protected]]

I fly in the southeastern US, nearly always under IFR, in a complex
sel. In reading other threads it's pretty clear that some others who
post here don't understand what IMC means. I mostly hand fly, and I'm
guessing 30% or more of my IMC flying is using the outside horizon,
with occasional glances at the VOR needle, altimeter, and DG to assure
myself I'm on course and at the correct altitude. Is that what most of
you GA types experience as well?

Maybe some posters have fogotten that IMC means weather conditions
including visibility and proximity to clouds that are not allowed
under VFR.

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in news:d6d39f71-aa59-4a2e-9709-
:

> I fly in the southeastern US, nearly always under IFR, in a complex
> sel. In reading other threads it's pretty clear that some others who
> post here don't understand what IMC means. I mostly hand fly, and I'm
> guessing 30% or more of my IMC flying is using the outside horizon,
> with occasional glances at the VOR needle, altimeter, and DG to assure
> myself I'm on course and at the correct altitude. Is that what most of
> you GA types experience as well?
>
> Maybe some posters have fogotten that IMC means weather conditions
> including visibility and proximity to clouds that are not allowed
> under VFR.
>

It's just MXSmoron who doesn't know what IMC means. The rest of us do.

[[email protected]]

I am new to the group, just read a little more. Thanks for the head's
up.

On May 20, 1:29 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> wrote in news:d6d39f71-aa59-4a2e-9709-
> :
>
> > I fly in the southeastern US, nearly always under IFR, in a complex
> > sel. In reading other threads it's pretty clear that some others who
> > post here don't understand what IMC means. I mostly hand fly, and I'm
> > guessing 30% or more of my IMC flying is using the outside horizon,
> > with occasional glances at the VOR needle, altimeter, and DG to assure
> > myself I'm on course and at the correct altitude. Is that what most of
> > you GA types experience as well?
>
> > Maybe some posters have fogotten that IMC means weather conditions
> > including visibility and proximity to clouds that are not allowed
> > under VFR.,
>
> It's just MXSmoron who doesn't know what IMC means. The rest of us do.

[Steve Foley]

"Benjamin Dover" > wrote in message
>
> It's just MXSmoron who doesn't know what IMC means. The rest of us do.
>

IMC = I Might Crash ?

[Benjamin Dover]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
news:iaEYj.4155$pk1.2369@trndny07:

> "Benjamin Dover" > wrote in message
>>
>> It's just MXSmoron who doesn't know what IMC means. The rest of us do.
>>
>
> IMC = I Might Crash ?
>

IMC is now used to identify the author of a statement, as in

IMC: Yesterday I flew from ....

Which should be read as:

Ignoramus MXSmanic Comments: Yesterday I flew from ...

[Paul kgyy]

On May 20, 11:25 am, wrote:
> I fly in the southeastern US, nearly always under IFR, in a complex
> sel. In reading other threads it's pretty clear that some others who
> post here don't understand what IMC means. I mostly hand fly, and I'm
> guessing 30% or more of my IMC flying is using the outside horizon,
> with occasional glances at the VOR needle, altimeter, and DG to assure
> myself I'm on course and at the correct altitude. Is that what most of
> you GA types experience as well?

Well, IMC does refer to , well, IMC, which by definition is restricted
visibility. Sometimes there is a horizon, but a good part of the
time, there isn't. Flying offshore in the summer over the Great
Lakes, even VFR conditions do not always present a useable horizon.
If in doubt, I use the gauges and if it's a long trip and not too
turbulent, I let the autopilot do some of the work while I do the
planning ahead.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

The acronyms speak for themselves:

One refers to rules, the other to conditions:

IMC - Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Condition under which flight
instruments are used to maintain control of an aircraft. How used: "Flight
into IMC". One would not say "an IMC rating". If you can use outside
references to maintain flight you are not in IMC... as in "flying in and out
of IMC".

IFR - Instrument Flight Rules - Refers to rules which you follow when
conducting and instrument flight...IMC or not. How used: "I filed IFR
today". One would not say "I have an IFR certificate" or

Notice IMC and IFR are phrases. Your certificate does not say either of
these. You do not have IFR rating, you have an Instrument rating.

--
Regards, BobF.
"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
...
> On May 20, 11:25 am, wrote:
>> I fly in the southeastern US, nearly always under IFR, in a complex
>> sel. In reading other threads it's pretty clear that some others who
>> post here don't understand what IMC means. I mostly hand fly, and I'm
>> guessing 30% or more of my IMC flying is using the outside horizon,
>> with occasional glances at the VOR needle, altimeter, and DG to assure
>> myself I'm on course and at the correct altitude. Is that what most of
>> you GA types experience as well?
>
> Well, IMC does refer to , well, IMC, which by definition is restricted
> visibility. Sometimes there is a horizon, but a good part of the
> time, there isn't. Flying offshore in the summer over the Great
> Lakes, even VFR conditions do not always present a useable horizon.
> If in doubt, I use the gauges and if it's a long trip and not too
> turbulent, I let the autopilot do some of the work while I do the
> planning ahead.

[Steve Foley]

"Bob F." > wrote in message news:au-

> You do not have IFR rating, you have an Instrument rating.

No, I don't.

But I'm working on it.......

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:43:10 -0400, "Bob F." >
wrote:
>
> You do not have IFR rating, you have an Instrument rating.

Usually not, but I have heard people say "I did my IFR with Krusty",
or, "He's working on his IFR", using it as a capability, similar to
"IFR" next to a rentable aircraft.

I know it isn't "right", but I do hear it. <G>

[Bob F.[_2_]]

If you have, or intend to have an instructor rating you need to keep these
things straight. I find myself falling back every once in a while myself so
you have to keep questioning your (own) vocabulary.

For example: It's an attitude indicator, not and artificial horizon. It's
a heading indicator, not a directional gyro. If I catch a student using
terms incorrectly, I'll ask a question about it, for example, if he says he
wants to rent an IFR certified aircraft, I ask "How do you get an aircraft
certified 'IFR'?" The discussion helps remember the proper phrase from
then on.

' "IFR" next to a rentable aircraft." might be ok, implying the aircraft is
equipped, current and ready for IFR flight.

--
Regards, BobF.
"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:43:10 -0400, "Bob F." >
> wrote:
>>
>> You do not have IFR rating, you have an Instrument rating.
>
> Usually not, but I have heard people say "I did my IFR with Krusty",
> or, "He's working on his IFR", using it as a capability, similar to
> "IFR" next to a rentable aircraft.
>
> I know it isn't "right", but I do hear it. <G>

[Tina]

Bob, I agree that what you wrote is what is commonly understood, but
in fact the definition of IMC in the US is related to where weather
conditions prohibit VFR flying. You are in fact in IMC if you are just
below (or above) a cloud deck and the visibility is 20 miles or more.
In controlled airspace if visibility is less than 3 miles you're in
IMC even though you are probably flying by outside reference as much
as you are by reference to instruments.














On May 20, 3:43 pm, "Bob F." > wrote:
> The acronyms speak for themselves:
>
> One refers to rules, the other to conditions:
>
> IMC - Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Condition under which flight
> instruments are used to maintain control of an aircraft. How used: "Flight
> into IMC". One would not say "an IMC rating". If you can use outside
> references to maintain flight you are not in IMC... as in "flying in and out
> of IMC".
>
> IFR - Instrument Flight Rules - Refers to rules which you follow when
> conducting and instrument flight...IMC or not. How used: "I filed IFR
> today". One would not say "I have an IFR certificate" or
>
> Notice IMC and IFR are phrases. Your certificate does not say either of
> these. You do not have IFR rating, you have an Instrument rating.
>
> --
> Regards, BobF."Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On May 20, 11:25 am, wrote:
> >> I fly in the southeastern US, nearly always under IFR, in a complex
> >> sel. In reading other threads it's pretty clear that some others who
> >> post here don't understand what IMC means. I mostly hand fly, and I'm
> >> guessing 30% or more of my IMC flying is using the outside horizon,
> >> with occasional glances at the VOR needle, altimeter, and DG to assure
> >> myself I'm on course and at the correct altitude. Is that what most of
> >> you GA types experience as well?
>
> > Well, IMC does refer to , well, IMC, which by definition is restricted
> > visibility. Sometimes there is a horizon, but a good part of the
> > time, there isn't. Flying offshore in the summer over the Great
> > Lakes, even VFR conditions do not always present a useable horizon.
> > If in doubt, I use the gauges and if it's a long trip and not too
> > turbulent, I let the autopilot do some of the work while I do the
> > planning ahead.

[Scott Skylane]

Bob F. wrote:

> The acronyms speak for themselves:
>
> One refers to rules, the other to conditions:
>
> IMC - Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Condition under which
> flight instruments are used to maintain control of an aircraft. How
> used: "Flight into IMC". One would not say "an IMC rating". If you
> can use outside references to maintain flight you are not in IMC... as
> in "flying in and out of IMC".
/snip/

Bob,
Where did you get that definition? The Pilot Controller Glossary states:

"Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Meteorological conditions
expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud,and ceiling less
than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bob F. wrote:

> For example: It's an attitude indicator, not and artificial horizon.
> It's a heading indicator, not a directional gyro.

When and why did the nomenclature on those get changed. I learned to fly
in the late 70's and flew during the early 80's a bunch then laid off
for quite a while and got my helo rating in the mid 90's.

It seemed to have happened sometime before '95 but the helo instructor I
had didn't seem to mind when I called the heading indicator a
directional gyro and there wasn't an attitude indicator in the R22 so it
never came up.

I'll be honest it wasn't until I started building in 2002 that I
realized that everyone was calling them the new names and decided that I
would too.

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 3:44*pm, Scott Skylane > wrote:

> > IMC - Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Condition under which
> > flight instruments are used to maintain control of an aircraft. *How
> > used: *"Flight into IMC". *One would not say "an IMC rating". *If you
> > can use outside references to maintain flight you are not in IMC... as
> > in "flying in and out of IMC".
>
> /snip/
>
> Bob,
> Where did you get that definition? *The Pilot Controller Glossary states:
>
> "Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Meteorological conditions
> expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud,and ceiling less
> than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."

Scott,

You are correct THE WAY I UNDERSTAND the above.

For purposes of logging IMC, I only log it when I am inside a cloud in
my log book, but anything less then VMC conditions is considered
IMC.

So in reality, I have spent many more hours in IMC by legal
definitions then what is in my log book. But I am not seeking anymore
ratings so I don't mind.

And in order to fly VMC, you must be VFR, which means keeping the
appropriate cloud clearances based VFR flight rules.

So, if you are 20 feet above a cloud deck seeing 200 miles ahead under
a glorious sunshine, it is considered IMC because you are not
maintaining VFR clearances from the clouds. And when one thinks about
it, one is flying by instruments since you have no ground references
anyway.

To be in and out of IMC conditions, I see that happening on a
scattered cloud day at the altitude you are flying.

You cannot maintain in and out of IMC on a cloud deck that is
considered broken (I.E horizontal cloud clearances wouldn't be met).at
that cloud altitude like on a day of scattered cumulus.

As far as the official rating, I believe it's IA (Instrument Air) that
allows you to fly IFR which of course allows you to fly IMC.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

Good question. Terms can have multiple definitions. I don't think I said
"definition or defined" (maybe I implied that) but in any case terms can
have multiple definitions. I fall back to my math and engineering
background. I see no contradiction in the "definitions" The Pilot Glossary
has a specific definition and the way I described it is the fundamental
understanding of the words. Like in math, sometimes you remember the rules
and other times you define it from scratch. That's what I did.

Vocabulary is invented so that people can communicate. If you don't have an
understanding between people then you need to change your vocabulary, use it
correctly or invent a new term. IMC, broken down, is precise to me, that
is, "MC" where "I",s are needed. The glossary is less clear to me but
nevertheless conveys the same thought. The glossary's last phrase "less
than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions" says it.
If conditions are worse than VFR, your probably on instruments (or should
be). Like OJ, I go for the throat and state it explicitly.

It would be contradictory to me to say "I was in IMC but didn't need to use
instruments". Then why the "I"?... Kind of like saying "IBM machine".
Listen to what you are saying helps.

JMHO.

--
Regards, BobF.
"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
mmunications...
> Bob F. wrote:
>
>> The acronyms speak for themselves:
>>
>> One refers to rules, the other to conditions:
>>
>> IMC - Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Condition under which flight
>> instruments are used to maintain control of an aircraft. How used:
>> "Flight into IMC". One would not say "an IMC rating". If you can use
>> outside references to maintain flight you are not in IMC... as in "flying
>> in and out of IMC".
> /snip/
>
> Bob,
> Where did you get that definition? The Pilot Controller Glossary states:
>
> "Instrument Meteorological Conditions - Meteorological conditions
> expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud,and ceiling less
> than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Surprisingly, a search for "instrument meteorological conditions" in Chapter
14 of the CFRs yields only 6 hits, most referring to training, the only
definition being found in part 170.3 (below). A similar search for IMC
yields only 2 hits, both in part 170.3.

FAR Part 1 Definitions:
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under
visual flight rules.

FAR 170.3
Instrument flight rules (IFR) means rules governing the procedures for
conducting flight under instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)
instrument flight.
Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) means weather conditions below
the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR).

To that end, what purpose does this serve?

It appears that the FAA has taken what was once a very easy to understand
concept and the phrase that clearly defined it and fubared it beyond belief.
If IMC is no longer "actual meteorological conditions requiring flight
solely by reference to instruments", why use the acronym or the term?

The next question this fubar brings to the table is what constitutes
loggable actual instrument flight?

From Assistant Chief counsel, John Cassidy -
"Section 61.51(c)(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight
time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating,
or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That
section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time
only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by
reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions
(imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument
conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is
intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument
flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for
the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate
control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse
weather conditions."

"Actual instrument conditions may occur on a moonless night over the ocean
with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to
maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether
flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and
based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section
61.51(b)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should
include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual
instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove
that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate."

To answer the OP, I simply fly the airplane. My normal mode of operation is
to use both outside visual references and reference to the instruments. The
degree to which I use either, depends upon the conditions at any given
moment.

Jim

[romeomike]

wrote:

>
> As far as the official rating, I believe it's IA (Instrument Air)


Instrument Airplane

[gatt[_3_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> When and why did the nomenclature on those get changed. I learned to fly
> in the late 70's and flew during the early 80's a bunch then laid off
> for quite a while and got my helo rating in the mid 90's.

> I'll be honest it wasn't until I started building in 2002 that I
> realized that everyone was calling them the new names and decided that I
> would too.

I dunno. The x-thousand-hour old-timers around the FBO still refer to
it as the "DG" and I'm not going to pull an Anthony and correct them
every time they do. Nor am I going to discount their wisdom or flight
training.

In any case, the Airplane Flying Handbook glossary has no entry for
Directional Gyro, but under Heading Indicator it says "also called a
directional gyro."

For Attitude Indicator it says "An instrument which uses an artificial
horizon and a miniature airplane..." That makes more sense; the AH is
just a component of a bigger system, so it's kind of like hearing
end-users refer to their "CPU", which also started a few years ago.

-c
"His momma call him Cassius, I call him Cassius." -Eddie Murphy

[romeomike]

wrote:

>
> So in reality, I have spent many more hours in IMC by legal
> definitions then what is in my log book. But I am not seeking anymore
> ratings so I don't mind.

You can only log the time if you are in IMC (not legally VFR) AND you
have to fly solely by instruments. Let's say you are 50 feet below a
cloud deck with 50 miles of forward visibility and nothing obscuring the
ground or horizon. This is legally IMC and IFR applies, but you don't
log it as such because you can fly it without having to fly solely by
reference to instruments.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 20, 4:28 pm, Tina > wrote:
> Bob, I agree that what you wrote is what is commonly understood, but
> in fact the definition of IMC in the US is related to where weather
> conditions prohibit VFR flying. You are in fact in IMC if you are just
> below (or above) a cloud deck and the visibility is 20 miles or more.
> In controlled airspace if visibility is less than 3 miles you're in
> IMC even though you are probably flying by outside reference as much
> as you are by reference to instruments.
>

Lack of VFR does not imply you are in IMC. Lack of VFR only implies
that you need to be on an IFR flight plan.

One could be flying 100' below a cloud deck in visual conditions. This
is not IMC because you do not need to rely on your instruments. But it
is not meet the requirements for VFR either so you need an IFR flight
plan.

There are four terms here which all means different things: VFR, IFR,
VMC, IMC.

One could legally be operating in VMC under IFR or IMC under VFR.

[Tina]

>
> One could legally be operating in VMC under IFR or IMC under VFR.

I think you are only half right. You can surely operate IFR in VMC --
and there are places where that's actually required, but if you are in
IMC, which is defined as in conditions below VFR minima, you had best
be flying IFR.

[Tina]

Opps, I am wrong. Of course you can fly VFR in IMC if you had gotten a
special VFR clearance.


Sorry


On May 20, 7:06 pm, Tina > wrote:
> > One could legally be operating in VMC under IFR or IMC under VFR.
>
> I think you are only half right. You can surely operate IFR in VMC --
> and there are places where that's actually required, but if you are in
> IMC, which is defined as in conditions below VFR minima, you had best
> be flying IFR.

[Marty Shapiro]

Tina > wrote in news:e4886bbc-4a70-4cce-8417-
:

>
>>
>> One could legally be operating in VMC under IFR or IMC under VFR.
>
> I think you are only half right. You can surely operate IFR in VMC --
> and there are places where that's actually required, but if you are in
> IMC, which is defined as in conditions below VFR minima, you had best
> be flying IFR.
>

Special VFR.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[romeomike]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>
> Lack of VFR does not imply you are in IMC. Lack of VFR only implies
> that you need to be on an IFR flight plan.
>

From the AIM: "Instrument Meteorological Conditions--Meteorological
conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and
ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological
conditions." So if you are not in VMC you are in IMC and fly under IFR.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint: qualification
is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace where you could be IMC
and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight plan...where are they?

--
Regards, BobF.
"romeomike" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>>
>> Lack of VFR does not imply you are in IMC. Lack of VFR only implies
>> that you need to be on an IFR flight plan.
>>
>
> From the AIM: "Instrument Meteorological Conditions--Meteorological
> conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and
> ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological
> conditions." So if you are not in VMC you are in IMC and fly under IFR.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 20, 8:06 pm, romeomike > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> > Lack of VFR does not imply you are in IMC. Lack of VFR only implies
> > that you need to be on an IFR flight plan.
>
> From the AIM: "Instrument Meteorological Conditions--Meteorological
> conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and
> ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological
> conditions." So if you are not in VMC you are in IMC and fly under IFR.

yes you are right. I was thinking of instrument flight experience,
which is different from IMC as defined in the AIM.

[Marty Shapiro]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint:
> qualification is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace
> where you could be IMC and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight
> plan...where are they?
>

Glass G airspace. Lot's of it out west.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[romeomike]

Bob F. wrote:
> Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint:
> qualification is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace
> where you could be IMC and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight
> plan...where are they?
>
Yeah, and I live there.

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 4:35 pm, gatt > wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> > When and why did the nomenclature on those get changed. I learned to fly
> > in the late 70's and flew during the early 80's a bunch then laid off
> > for quite a while and got my helo rating in the mid 90's.
> > I'll be honest it wasn't until I started building in 2002 that I
> > realized that everyone was calling them the new names and decided that I
> > would too.
>
> I dunno. The x-thousand-hour old-timers around the FBO still refer to
> it as the "DG" and I'm not going to pull an Anthony and correct them
> every time they do. Nor am I going to discount their wisdom or flight
> training.

It changed sometime in the '80s. Some bureaucrat decided that
everything on the panel had to be an "indicator" of some sort.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 5:36*pm, romeomike > wrote:

> You can only log the time if you are in IMC (not legally VFR) AND you
> have to fly solely by instruments. Let's say you are 50 feet below a
> cloud deck with 50 miles of forward visibility and nothing obscuring the
> ground or horizon. This is legally IMC and IFR applies, but you don't
> log it as such because you can fly it without having to fly solely by
> reference to instruments.

What about the inverse as given in my example? 50 feet above an
overcast?

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 7:30*pm, "Bob F." > wrote:
> Extra credit points! *The statement below is incomplete (hint: qualification
> is missing). *There are lots of places in US airspace where you could be IMC
> and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight plan...where are they?

Where Mx has never departed with him flying a real plane.......
Unless secretarial chairs have the ability to leave the (G)round.

[romeomike]

wrote:
> On May 20, 5:36 pm, romeomike > wrote:
>
>> You can only log the time if you are in IMC (not legally VFR) AND you
>> have to fly solely by instruments. Let's say you are 50 feet below a
>> cloud deck with 50 miles of forward visibility and nothing obscuring the
>> ground or horizon. This is legally IMC and IFR applies, but you don't
>> log it as such because you can fly it without having to fly solely by
>> reference to instruments.
>
> What about the inverse as given in my example? 50 feet above an
> overcast?
>

IMO, given that an overcast may obscure the horizon and not be "level"
or at the same altitude as you progress, I would think you would be
justified in logging it. I for one would want to be scanning instruments
to make sure I'm maintaining altitude, course, level wings, etc. It
wouldn't be quite as intense as if I were in the clouds, but justifiable
to the feds if they examined my log book. I'm sure there are scenarios
that would generate debate but maybe not this one?

[Andrew Sarangan]

On May 20, 9:11 pm, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:
> "Bob F." > wrote m:
>
> > Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint:
> > qualification is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace
> > where you could be IMC and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight
> > plan...where are they?
>
> Glass G airspace. Lot's of it out west.
>

Even in class G you must still follow all the IFR rules, except you
don't need a ATC clearance.

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 9:45*pm, romeomike > wrote:

> IMO, given that an overcast may obscure the horizon and not be "level"
> or at the same altitude as you progress, I would think you would be
> justified in logging it. I for one would want to be scanning instruments
> to make sure I'm maintaining altitude, course, level wings, etc. It
> wouldn't be quite as intense as if I were in the clouds, but justifiable
> to the feds if they examined my log book. I'm sure there are scenarios
> that would generate debate but maybe not this one?

While I personally don't log it in my logbook as IMC time, I think
like you, it's IMC since like you said, sloping clouds give an
illusion of a false horizon. In my training, my instructor said no,
it's not, and we were between layers!

The second reason I personally think it's IMC, is that you have no
ground reference to fly by and have to use instruments to navigate.

[romeomike]

wrote:

>
In my training, my instructor said no,
> it's not, and we were between layers!


I'm not an ultimate authority on this, but I don't get your instructor's
point of view. If someone else can explain how in this scenario one can
safely fly without reference to instruments, you and I are sure to learn
something.

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 11:21*pm, romeomike > wrote:

> I'm not an ultimate authority on this, but I don't get your instructor's
> point of view. If someone else can explain how in this scenario one can
> safely fly without reference to instruments, you and I are sure to learn
> something.

Yep, I didn't get it either but in the full scheme of things, I wasn't
complaining, as at least I had an instructor who wasn't afraid of
touching a cloud. He went on to the regionals, and my second
instructor wouldn't fly in ceilings less then 1000.and my airport
minimums was 1/2 that.

On the other hand, the second instructor had much better cockpit
management so I did have the best of both worlds.

[romeomike]

wrote:

>
> Yep, I didn't get it either but in the full scheme of things, I wasn't



Could it have been a situation where you got authorization for
VFR-on-top to do some air work?

Of course in that case you would not have been just 50 feet above the
cloud layer

because you would have had to comply with VFR cloud clearances.

[Marty Shapiro]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in
:

> On May 20, 9:11 pm, Marty Shapiro >
> wrote:
>> "Bob F." > wrote
>> m:
>>
>> > Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint:
>> > qualification is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace
>> > where you could be IMC and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight
>> > plan...where are they?
>>
>> Glass G airspace. Lot's of it out west.
>>
>
> Even in class G you must still follow all the IFR rules, except you
> don't need a ATC clearance.
>
>
>
>

All of them? Any FAR which states "when operating is controlled air space"
doesn't apply. That still leaves a few, but most of them are gone.

Communication with ATC? Not required in G.

Flight plan? Not required in G. No need to file or activate.

Altitude? Well, yes. But with no ATC communication requirement, you can
change it anytime you want. Unless I missed something in a quick scan,
91.179 doesn't address altitudes below 2,000' AGL and over a flat area,
such as a desert, you only need to be 1,000' AGL per 91.177. So, the rules
on altidude based on direction of flight does not necessarily apply. If
they did in G which only goes to 1,200' AGL, all IFR traffic there would be
one way.

Fuel on board? Well, I guess if you got ramped checked, you should have
statutory IFR reserves on departure, but since you're not required to have
a flight plan in G, what would be used to determine if you met IFR
reserves?

Malfunctions? No report required in G.

Instrument currency? Absolutely must have. No exceptions for class G!

SFAR 97 only applies to published routes, which are at least class E.

So, although it would be very stupid to do so, you can fly IFR in class G
airspace and not follow most of the IFR rules.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

romeomike > wrote in news:1kkcg5-
:

> wrote:
>
>>
> In my training, my instructor said no,
>> it's not, and we were between layers!
>
>
> I'm not an ultimate authority on this, but I don't get your instructor's
> point of view. If someone else can explain how in this scenario one can
> safely fly without reference to instruments, you and I are sure to learn
> something.

VFR over the top (not to be confused with the IFR clearance of VFR on top).

For example, fly from SJC or RHV to TVL. The central valley can be covered
in Tule fog but it could be CAVU above 1,000' AGL. You also have CAVU at
SJC, RHV, and TVL. Climb VFR and then cross the Tule fog.

Now put a ceiling of say FL 250 above you. Again SJC, RHV, and TVL are
CAVU. Clime to 9,500', and cross between the layers VFR.

In either cases, you can see the Sierra Nevada mountains or the coastal
hills on return while you are over the lower level ceiling. Even with 25
mile visibility, you'll have enough time to establish a heading prior to
crossing the central valley and just hold it until you see the hills.

Maybe one of our Canadian friends can tell us if Canada now allows VFR over
the top for private pilots. I know when I was a student it was pointed out
that Canada did not allow this while the U.S. did.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:30:20 -0400, "Bob F." >
wrote:

>Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint: qualification
>is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace where you could be IMC
>and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight plan...where are they?

Class G space.

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 12:11*am, romeomike > wrote:
> wrote:

> Could it have been a situation where you got authorization for
> VFR-on-top to do some air work?
>
> Of course in that case you would not have been just 50 feet above the
> cloud layer
>
> because you would have had to comply with VFR cloud clearances.

No, I wished at that time because I was whipped after that lesson! As
you suspected, it was airwork, but it was a local IFR clearance. This
was my second time in IMC, and before doing actual approaches in IMC
for the first time, he had me do some basic airwork in the practice
area. We had ask for a block altitude from 2000 to 4000 feet and he
had me do climbing turns and such. We topped out at about 2500 feet
or so, so he made me dip back down to 2000.

Needless to say, only one minute climbing turns. :-)

I love that trick he showed me about picking up local IFR clearances.
I call CD at my airport, and ask for local IFR clearance to do my IFR
currency. I don't file any flight plans to touch a cloud and no fuss
no muss. It always helps to have really good controllers willing to
work with me that we do have at KJAN as well, so the system really
does work.

[Denny]

Yup, ya cannot teach an old dog new tricks... It is still, and will
remain, a DG and an AH when it comes from me...

Definitions are easy... Dunno what all the fuss is about... Some of
you guys could make the act of taking a breath into a 20 page
thesis...
IMC is clearly defined in the regs... All you have to do is look at
the DUATS <or whatever> and it will tell you if the conditions are
IMC...
VMC is also clearly defined...
Any beginning flight student can rattle off the visibility and ceiling
conditions that constitute VMC, both for the airport traffic area and
for outside of there... If it ain't VMC, then it is IMC - period...

IFR time is logged when I am filed and on an instrument flight plan...
Whether I can or cannot see the horizon is meaningless...
If I am not filed on an instrument flight plan, then no IFR time is
logged, regardless of how much I use the DG and AH to keep it
upright...
And that is it...

denny

[romeomike]

Marty Shapiro wrote:

>
> VFR over the top (not to be confused with the IFR clearance of VFR on top).
>


Yeah, I know about VFR-on-top, but there you have to maintain VFR
clearance of clouds. In the scenario posed by Atlieb, he is cruising 50
feet above a cloud layer, so could not be legally VFR-on-top.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Denny" > wrote
>
> IFR time is logged when I am filed and on an instrument flight plan...
> Whether I can or cannot see the horizon is meaningless...

Here is what the FARs say:

(g) Logging instrument flight time.

(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the
person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual
or simulated instrument flight conditions.

To me this means that technically you cannot log instrument time if you are
using outside references, regardless of the type of flight plan you are on.

BDS

[B A R R Y]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 08:28:31 -0600, HARRY POTTER
> wrote:

>B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:30:20 -0400, "Bob F." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint:
>>>qualification
>>>is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace where you could be
>>>IMC and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight plan...where are they?
>>
>> Class G space.
>
>Thats what I always thought, until I saw an FAA enforcement letter where
>they suspended a pilot for launching intoclass G without a clearance. IIRC,
>he was sitting on the ground awaiting his release from ATC, got tired of
>waiting, and just took off. No one along the line doubts he did indeed stay
>inside uncontrolled airspace, but they still violated him.


Honestly, my area has very, very little G, usually only sfc-700 or
1200 stuff.

That is a strange enforcement, since all of us are taught that we only
need clearance before entering controlled space. Are you sure the
wasn't under the basic G minimums?

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Here is what the FARs say:
>
> (g) Logging instrument flight time.
>
> (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the
> person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual
> or simulated instrument flight conditions.
>
> To me this means that technically you cannot log instrument time if you are
> using outside references, regardless of the type of flight plan you are on.

It also means that you cannot log instrument time if you are depending on
physical sensations. That would not be "solely by reference to instruments."

[Andrew Sarangan]

Cruising altitude requirements still apply, and I am not seeing where
any exemption is made for < 2000' AGL. But it does seem like traffic
has to be only one-way in areas where class G only extends up to
1200'. This is a bit confusing, but perhaps a moot point.


On May 21, 3:43 am, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 9:11 pm, Marty Shapiro >
> > wrote:
> >> "Bob F." > wrote
> >> m:
>
> >> > Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint:
> >> > qualification is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace
> >> > where you could be IMC and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight
> >> > plan...where are they?
>
> >> Glass G airspace. Lot's of it out west.
>
> > Even in class G you must still follow all the IFR rules, except you
> > don't need a ATC clearance.
>
> All of them? Any FAR which states "when operating is controlled air space"
> doesn't apply. That still leaves a few, but most of them are gone.
>
> Communication with ATC? Not required in G.
>
> Flight plan? Not required in G. No need to file or activate.
>
> Altitude? Well, yes. But with no ATC communication requirement, you can
> change it anytime you want. Unless I missed something in a quick scan,
> 91.179 doesn't address altitudes below 2,000' AGL and over a flat area,
> such as a desert, you only need to be 1,000' AGL per 91.177. So, the rules
> on altidude based on direction of flight does not necessarily apply. If
> they did in G which only goes to 1,200' AGL, all IFR traffic there would be
> one way.
>
> Fuel on board? Well, I guess if you got ramped checked, you should have
> statutory IFR reserves on departure, but since you're not required to have
> a flight plan in G, what would be used to determine if you met IFR
> reserves?
>
> Malfunctions? No report required in G.
>
> Instrument currency? Absolutely must have. No exceptions for class G!
>
> SFAR 97 only applies to published routes, which are at least class E.
>
> So, although it would be very stupid to do so, you can fly IFR in class G
> airspace and not follow most of the IFR rules.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yep, I didn't get it either but in the full scheme of things, I wasn't
> complaining, as at least I had an instructor who wasn't afraid of
> touching a cloud.

Even a cloud with a 757 hiding inside?

Is a macho instructor better than a competent instructor? Is it bad to be
afraid of something that can get you killed?

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> It also means that you cannot log instrument time if you are depending on
> physical sensations. That would not be "solely by reference to
instruments."

Who here has ever claimed to fly in IMC while depending (your word) on
physical sensations?

BDS

[Benjamin Dover]

HARRY POTTER > wrote in
:

> B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:30:20 -0400, "Bob F." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint:
>>>qualification
>>>is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace where you could
>>>be IMC and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight plan...where are
>>>they?
>>
>> Class G space.
>
> Thats what I always thought, until I saw an FAA enforcement letter
> where they suspended a pilot for launching intoclass G without a
> clearance. IIRC, he was sitting on the ground awaiting his release
> from ATC, got tired of waiting, and just took off. No one along the
> line doubts he did indeed stay inside uncontrolled airspace, but they
> still violated him.
>

§ 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation. The FAA's gotcha reg.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> Here is what the FARs say:
>>
>> (g) Logging instrument flight time.
>>
>> (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when
>> the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments
>> under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.
>>
>> To me this means that technically you cannot log instrument time if
>> you are using outside references, regardless of the type of flight
>> plan you are on.
>
> It also means that you cannot log instrument time if you are depending
> on physical sensations. That would not be "solely by reference to
> instruments."
>

Hey, fjukktard, we use physical sensation to trim the airplane.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Yep, I didn't get it either but in the full scheme of things, I
>> wasn't complaining, as at least I had an instructor who wasn't afraid
>> of touching a cloud.
>
> Even a cloud with a 757 hiding inside?
>
> Is a macho instructor better than a competent instructor? Is it bad
> to be afraid of something that can get you killed?
>

You're a total ****ing ignoramus Anthony. Saying one had an instructor who
was not afraid to touch a cloud has absolutely nothing to do with machismo
or flaunting FAA regulations, be they VFR, IFR, or any other area. You
have no idea what that phrase really means and are simply displaying your
lack of knowlege about aviation just so you can see your post in the
nesgroup. You are a complete and total fraud. You have no real intereste
in aviation. What a maroon!

[Mxsmanic]

Buster Hymen writes:

> Saying one had an instructor who
> was not afraid to touch a cloud has absolutely nothing to do with machismo
> or flaunting FAA regulations, be they VFR, IFR, or any other area.

Yes, it does.

The FAA wants you to keep a certain distance from clouds because under VFR you
are maintaining visual separation, and you cannot see what might be inside
those clouds. If you get to close, and another aircraft comes out of the
cloud, you may not have time to react safely.

> What a maroon!

Do you see the irony in this?

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> Saying one had an instructor who
>> was not afraid to touch a cloud has absolutely nothing to do with
>> machismo or flaunting FAA regulations, be they VFR, IFR, or any other
>> area.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> The FAA wants you to keep a certain distance from clouds because under
> VFR you are maintaining visual separation, and you cannot see what
> might be inside those clouds. If you get to close, and another
> aircraft comes out of the cloud, you may not have time to react
> safely.
>
>> What a maroon!
>
> Do you see the irony in this?
>

You are soooo ****ing stooopid. You can legally AND safely fly 50' (and
less) from a cloud while VFR. Been there, done that, no big deal.
Something you won't learn on MSFS, you fjukktard.

All your posts are predicated on your total lack of understanding of real
aviation. All you do is regurgitate stuff which in your total lack of
experience you think might be applicable, but in fact is wrong. You don't
understand aviation one whit. You never have and you never will.

[Mxsmanic]

Buster Hymen writes:

> You are soooo ****ing stooopid. You can legally AND safely fly 50' (and
> less) from a cloud while VFR. Been there, done that, no big deal.

In Class C, D, E, and G, you must maintain 2000' of lateral clearance from the
clouds under VFR (except under 1200' AGL in Class G), below 10,000' MSL.
Flying only 50' away from a cloud under VFR is illegal under these conditions.

The main reason for this is that there may be other aircraft in the clouds.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Flying only 50' away from a cloud under VFR is illegal under these
> conditions.

It's also illegal while intoxicated, if you don't have a pilot certficiate,
if you don't have a medical, if you are taking prescription meds, and a host
of other reasons.

That's not what he was referring to either.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> In Class C, D, E, and G, you must maintain 2000' of lateral clearance from
> the
> clouds under VFR (except under 1200' AGL in Class G), below 10,000' MSL.

The above statement is incorrect.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> You are soooo ****ing stooopid. You can legally AND safely fly 50'
>> (and less) from a cloud while VFR. Been there, done that, no big
>> deal.
>
> In Class C, D, E, and G, you must maintain 2000' of lateral clearance
> from the clouds under VFR (except under 1200' AGL in Class G), below
> 10,000' MSL. Flying only 50' away from a cloud under VFR is illegal
> under these conditions.
>
> The main reason for this is that there may be other aircraft in the
> clouds.
>

As ususal, Anthony, you don't understand. You're just a dip **** who
doesn't understand the real world of aviation. We're not playing MSFS
here.

Try reading what I said. Then try to think. I know that's a major effort
for you and probably causes you much pain, but try.

I said that one can legally and safely fly 50' from a cloud. Only your
incompetent knowledge of aviation causes you to claim otherwise. You are,
as you usually do, proving to the world that you don't know **** from
shinola.

Legally means that no violation of a FAR occurs. Do you understand that?
Its a simple concept. No FAR violation = legal! Got that? Apparently
not, as your response implies violation of the FARS. No violation of the
FARs occured. I wrote nothing of the sort, you moron. All you did was
regurgitate the rules for VFR flight in class C, D, E, and G airspace
without the slightest understanding of what you were reading. In fact, you
managed to inroduce a subtle error in your regurgitation.

You don't begin to understand. You never have and never will. When it
comes to aviation, you're a total failure, just as you've been in all the
other endeavors in your life. Abject failure describes you to a T.

I'll say it again. Under VFR flight rules, there is a way you can legally
and safely fly 50' from a cloud (above, below, or laterally). You, Anthony,
obviously don't know how. But you won't admit that you don't and,
instead, demonstrating that you don't know **** from shinola, incompetently
conclude it can't be done. Wrong again, fjukktard. Wrong again.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> One could legally be operating in VMC under IFR or IMC under VFR.
>
> I think you are only half right. You can surely operate IFR in VMC --
> and there are places where that's actually required, but if you are in
> IMC, which is defined as in conditions below VFR minima, you had best
> be flying IFR.


Or outside of controlled airspace.

Al G

[Tina]

Statement is still true, isn't it? VFR minima are different in
uncontrolled airspace, and since IMC is pretty much defined as weather
conditions in which VFR may not be flown, yada yada yada. Or maybe
I'm missing something too.

I will confess I can't remember when we were last in uncontrolled
airspace!

[B A R R Y]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 15:58:07 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>Statement is still true, isn't it? VFR minima are different in
>uncontrolled airspace, and since IMC is pretty much defined as weather
>conditions in which VFR may not be flown, yada yada yada. Or maybe
>I'm missing something too.
>
>I will confess I can't remember when we were last in uncontrolled
>airspace!

Same here, but that's how I remember it!

Even in "G", you still need 1 mile, clear of clouds (day), to be
legal.

You have to open the IFR plan before entering controlled space, but
you can't go less than 1 and C of C, which would be "IMC" in G.

So, the real answer is, you can't fly in IMC "G", but you can fly in
less than "normal" VFR, since "G" has looser requirements.

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 3:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The FAA wants you to keep a certain distance from clouds because under VFR you
> are maintaining visual separation, and you cannot see what might be inside
> those clouds. *If you get to close, and another aircraft comes out of the
> cloud, you may not have time to react safely.

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ANYBODY HOME?????????????????

DID YOU READ MY POST????????????????????

I was on an IFR clearance.

> > What a maroon!
>
> Do you see the irony in this?

YES! You answered to your name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[B A R R Y]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:45:42 -0600, HARRY POTTER
> wrote:


>
>I realize that. But what I don't understand, is that if the FAA regards
>flying in class G without a clearance unsafe, then why do they have
>specific language that allows IFR flights in uncontrolled airspace...
>
>btw, here is a link to the FAA action:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3935.PDF

He departed immediately after another aircraft?

[Benjamin Dover]

HARRY POTTER > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover wrote:
>
>> HARRY POTTER > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:30:20 -0400, "Bob F." >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Extra credit points! The statement below is incomplete (hint:
>>>>>qualification
>>>>>is missing). There are lots of places in US airspace where you could
>>>>>be IMC and NOT fly under IFR rules, and no flight plan...where are
>>>>>they?
>>>>
>>>> Class G space.
>>>
>>> Thats what I always thought, until I saw an FAA enforcement letter
>>> where they suspended a pilot for launching intoclass G without a
>>> clearance. IIRC, he was sitting on the ground awaiting his release
>>> from ATC, got tired of waiting, and just took off. No one along the
>>> line doubts he did indeed stay inside uncontrolled airspace, but they
>>> still violated him.
>>>
>>
>> § 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation. The FAA's gotcha reg.
>
> I realize that. But what I don't understand, is that if the FAA regards
> flying in class G without a clearance unsafe, then why do they have
> specific language that allows IFR flights in uncontrolled airspace...
>
> btw, here is a link to the FAA action:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3935.PDF
>

ATC can't clear you in airspace they don't control. Had a clearance been
issued, it would have specified where to enter controlled airspace and in
what time window. .

In the reference you cite, they did not penalize the pilot for flying in
IMC under IFR in class G airspace. He was nailed because he flew VFR
(which he stated he was doing to another pilot) in weather which was,
according to other witnesses, IMC. That was the careless and reckless 91.13
violation.

From the very cite you provided: With regard to respondent's assertion
that, "[i]f anytime an aircraft enters clouds in uncontrolled airspace it
is careless without a clearance then the FAR's should be changed," we note
that it would be neither wise nor possible for the FAA to attempt to
specifically prohibit every form of conduct that it considered careless.

[Buster Hymen]

" > wrote in
:

> On May 21, 3:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> The FAA wants you to keep a certain distance from clouds because
>> under VFR
> you
>> are maintaining visual separation, and you cannot see what might be
>> inside
>
>> those clouds. *If you get to close, and another aircraft comes out of
>> th
> e
>> cloud, you may not have time to react safely.
>
> HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ANYBODY HOME?????????????????
>
> DID YOU READ MY POST????????????????????
>
> I was on an IFR clearance.
>
>> > What a maroon!
>>
>> Do you see the irony in this?
>
> YES! You answered to your name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anthony neither understands the value of an instrument instructor who isn't
afraid to touch the clouds nor does he understand the rules and requlations
which apply to both IFR and VFR flight. He may read the FARs, but he lacks
the mental capacity to comprehend them.

What's even more amusing is that not only didn't he understand that you
were on an IFR clearance, but he also fails to understand that it is
possible to legally travel 50' from a cloud while VFR.

He must take some perverse pleasure in continously demonstrating his abject
lack of understanding to the world.

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 4:51*pm, Buster Hymen > wrote:

>*Under VFR flight rules, there is a way you can legally
> and safely fly 50' from a cloud (above, below, or laterally). You, Anthony,
> obviously don't know how. *But you won't admit that you don't and,
> instead, demonstrating that you don't know **** from shinola, incompetently
> conclude it can't be done. *Wrong again, fjukktard. *Wrong again.

Let me give him a hint.

(B)usy airspace you can sidle up to a cloud up close and personal :-)

(G)round, while not as much space 'tween the cumulogranite and white
fluffy kind, it really can be done. NOT my type of flying, will leave
those to the tree topper flyers.

[Buster Hymen]

" > wrote in
:

> On May 21, 4:51*pm, Buster Hymen > wrote:
>
>>*Under VFR flight rules, there is a way you can legally
>> and safely fly 50' from a cloud (above, below, or laterally). You,
>> Anthony
> ,
>> obviously don't know how. *But you won't admit that you don't and,
>> instead, demonstrating that you don't know **** from shinola,
>> incompetentl
> y
>> conclude it can't be done. *Wrong again, fjukktard. *Wrong again.
>
> Let me give him a hint.
>
> (B)usy airspace you can sidle up to a cloud up close and personal :-)
>
> (G)round, while not as much space 'tween the cumulogranite and white
> fluffy kind, it really can be done. NOT my type of flying, will leave
> those to the tree topper flyers.
>
>

You can also ask your friends in ATC for a special favor. If you ask
nicely, they'll probably accomodate you.

[Mxsmanic]

Buster Hymen writes:

> I'll say it again. Under VFR flight rules, there is a way you can legally
> and safely fly 50' from a cloud (above, below, or laterally).

There is a way to do anything you want while flying (FAR 91.3). However, that
doesn't mean that you are usually in a position to legally do so.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> On May 21, 3:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > What a maroon!
> >
> > Do you see the irony in this?
>
> YES! You answered to your name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. In the Warner Bros. cartoons that gave rise to this expression, Bugs
Bunny would say "What a maroon!" in an attempt to call someone else stupid,
not realizing that "maroon" is a mispronunciation of "moron." Thus, he
demonstrated that he was stupid by trying to call someone else stupid.

Now do you see the irony?

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> I'll say it again. Under VFR flight rules, there is a way you can
>> legally and safely fly 50' from a cloud (above, below, or laterally).
>
> There is a way to do anything you want while flying (FAR 91.3).
> However, that doesn't mean that you are usually in a position to
> legally do so.
>

Wrong again, fjukktard.

You don't need to invoke emergency authority under 91.3 to legally and
safely fly 50' from a cloud while VFR.

Anthony, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're pathetic
attempts to slither out of the mistake you've made here continue to display
to everyone reading this forum that you don't know **** from shinola.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> On May 21, 3:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > > What a maroon!
>> >
>> > Do you see the irony in this?
>>
>> YES! You answered to your name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> No. In the Warner Bros. cartoons that gave rise to this expression,
> Bugs Bunny would say "What a maroon!" in an attempt to call someone
> else stupid, not realizing that "maroon" is a mispronunciation of
> "moron." Thus, he demonstrated that he was stupid by trying to call
> someone else stupid.
>
> Now do you see the irony?
>

Another concept you don't understand Anthony. You don't know **** from
shinola.

Still trying to figure out how one can legally and safely fly 50' from a
cloud while VFR? What's the matter, Anthony? Can't do a simply search on
the FARs and find the answer? Face it, loser boi, you don't know **** from
shinola. You are a totally worthelss excuse for a human being.

[Mxsmanic]

Buster Hymen writes:

> You don't need to invoke emergency authority under 91.3 to legally and
> safely fly 50' from a cloud while VFR.

I did not say otherwise. I simply pointed out that there are exceptions to
just about every rule.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> You don't need to invoke emergency authority under 91.3 to legally
>> and safely fly 50' from a cloud while VFR.
>
> I did not say otherwise. I simply pointed out that there are
> exceptions to just about every rule.
>

No, Anthony, you're just an asshole who pretends to be a pilot and know
about aviation. Based on you're total lack of experience, you tried to
tell everyone that you could not safely and legally fly 50' from a cloud.

It's been shown that you were totally wrong in your pronouncement about
flying 50' from a crowd, and now, showing your true colors, are trying to
slither away from your error.

YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA and are continuing to prove it each and
every time you try to slither away from your errors.

Fjukktard!

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Buster Hymen schrieb:
> No, Anthony, you're just an asshole who pretends to be a pilot and know
> about aviation.

Most of us know by now. Why don't you save your time and stop answering
him and keep the noise lower? Put him in your filter or whatever, but
pleeeze stop answering him.

thanks.

#m

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 8:16*am, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Buster Hymen schrieb:
>
> > No, Anthony, you're just an asshole who pretends to be a pilot and know
> > about aviation.
>
> Most of us know by now. Why don't you save your time and stop answering
> him and keep the noise lower? Put him in your filter or whatever, but
> pleeeze stop answering him.
>

I'm now wonderring :when does excess ridicule become bullying?

Cheers

[Tina]

The right to fly close to a cloud under VFR is NOT granted by an
exception to any rule. In fact, one should say the restriction on
flying close to clouds is a specific limitation to a more general
rule.

[Helen Waite]

Tina > wrote in news:e1686f82-b858-4bd7-90eb-
:

> The right to fly close to a cloud under VFR is NOT granted by an
> exception to any rule. In fact, one should say the restriction on
> flying close to clouds is a specific limitation to a more general
> rule.
>
>

Something way beyond the mental ability of Anthony to ever understand.

[Mxsmanic]

More_Flaps writes:

> I'm now wonderring :when does excess ridicule become bullying?

All ridicule is bullying.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> I'm now wonderring :when does excess ridicule become bullying?
>
> All ridicule is bullying.
>

Not when it has been earned, as in your case Anthony.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> I'm now wonderring :when does excess ridicule become bullying?
>
> All ridicule is bullying.

Bull****, in your case it's justice.

[Tina]

Once again, remember it takes only one counter example to refute an
absolute statement and demonstrate the person making it is not
truthful. Consider a common defusing technique, called self
ridicule.

On May 23, 2:24 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > More_Flaps writes:
>
> >> I'm now wonderring :when does excess ridicule become bullying?
>
> > All ridicule is bullying.
>
> Bull****, in your case it's justice.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> I'm now wonderring :when does excess ridicule become bullying?
>
> All ridicule is bullying.

"Why is everybody always picking on me?"

- Charlie Brown

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> "Why is everybody always picking on me?"
>
> - Charlie Brown

People who don't fight back are favored targets.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> "Why is everybody always picking on me?"
>>
>> - Charlie Brown
>
> People who don't fight back are favored targets.

You are our favorite target because you are ****ing stupid and a liar.

Still trying to slither around your not knowing how to fly 50' from a cloud
legally and safely?

Fjukktard.

[Mxsmanic]

Buster Hymen writes:

> You are our favorite target because you are ****ing stupid and a liar.

I'm a favorite target because I'm intimidating.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> You are our favorite target because you are ****ing stupid and a liar.
>
> I'm a favorite target because I'm intimidating.
>

No, you're a target because you are a total and complete fraud.

You deluded yourself into believing that playing a game made you a pilot of
superiour skill and then attempted to lecture real pilots on how to fly.

Yet, when it comes to simple questions, like how does one fly 50' from a
cloud both legally and safely, you can't answer correctly.

If you possessed one tenth of one percent of the skill you claim to have,
you wouldn't be begging on Amazon.com. You would be able to hold down a
good, well paying job and could easily afford, even in France, to take an
introductory flight lesson to see what it was really like to fly an
airplane. You are a total waste of life.

You deserve to be the universal target for all the evils which have ever
infested usenet.

Fjukktard.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Buster Hymen writes:

> > You are our favorite target because you are ****ing stupid and a liar.

> I'm a favorite target because I'm intimidating.

You are "intimidating" the same way the whinny, next door, 5 year
old is "intimidating".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> > You are our favorite target because you are ****ing stupid and a liar.
>
>> I'm a favorite target because I'm intimidating.
>
> You are "intimidating" the same way the whinny, next door, 5 year
> old is "intimidating".
>
>

The only thing MXSmanic ever intimidated was his own mind.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 06:24:36 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> You are our favorite target because you are ****ing stupid and a liar.
>
>I'm a favorite target because I'm intimidating.

could you please define what you mean by 'intimidating'

personally I've never thought of someone with marshmellows between the
ears as intimidating. this seems like a new form of delusion to me.

Stealth Pilot

[Tina]

I have to learn not to be drinking coffee when reading Mx's posts.
"Intimidating"? My keyboard suffered from that one.

Thanks for the morning laugh, Mx.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> You are our favorite target because you are ****ing stupid and a liar.
>
> I'm a favorite target because I'm intimidating.

You couldn't intimidate a humming bird. Your just a stupid liar.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Q8VZj.1154$v94.483
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Buster Hymen writes:
>>
>>> You are our favorite target because you are ****ing stupid and a
liar.
>>
>> I'm a favorite target because I'm intimidating.
>
> You couldn't intimidate a humming bird


Apparently he intimidates you.



Bertie
>
>
>
>

[yd+yg+as]

On 5/23/2008 9:24 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> I'm intimidating.

Self-deluded, absolutely. Intimidating, not even a tiny little bit.

Continuing to be unable to discuss aviation in an aviation-
related newsgroup, while bleating that you come to the newsgroup
to discuss aviation, OTOH, makes you, as always, a liar and a
hypocrite.

[yd+yg+as]

On 5/23/2008 10:41 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> All ridicule is bullying.

Ridicule is only bullying if someone thinks they are being
ridiculed and bullied.