Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of
cloud cover? VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from
clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds
in the sky (unless they are so close together that one cannot maintain the
required clearance). Nevertheless, it seems to me that at some point the
clouds are so numerous and close together that flying VFR becomes more of an
irritation than a pleasure, with constant dodging of clouds and possibly
changes in altitude. It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since
it's not defined by regulations. So, what are your own limits for how much
cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing IFR or simply not flying VFR?

Mxsmanic wrote:
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of
cloud cover? VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from
clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds
in the sky (unless they are so close together that one cannot maintain the
required clearance). Nevertheless, it seems to me that at some point the
clouds are so numerous and close together that flying VFR becomes more of an
irritation than a pleasure, with constant dodging of clouds and possibly
changes in altitude. It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since
it's not defined by regulations. So, what are your own limits for how much
cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing IFR or simply not flying VFR?

If you can't make a 180 and still maintaining clearance, the clouds are
too close together.

Curt

On Feb 26, 6:00*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of
cloud cover? *VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from
clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds
in the sky (unless they are so close together that one cannot maintain the
required clearance). Nevertheless, it seems to me that at some point the
clouds are so numerous and close together that flying VFR becomes more of an
irritation than a pleasure, with constant dodging of clouds and possibly
changes in altitude. It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since
it's not defined by regulations. So, what are your own limits for how much
cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing IFR or simply not flying VFR?

I've flown VFR only for over 30 years, and legal is generally
practical in my experience. Clouds are usually well layered and as
long as legal or personal ceiling and visibilities are met there's not
a problem. There can be a problem if terrain varies much along your
path and ceilings are low. Sometimes that makes it a bit difficult to
determine that it'll be OK along the entire route. One can fly in a
widely scattered layer and dodge clouds, but that's not usually
necessary because you can go above or below the layer.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

Mxsmanic schreef:
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in terms of
cloud cover? VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from
clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds
in the sky (unless they are so close together that one cannot maintain the
required clearance). Nevertheless, it seems to me that at some point the
clouds are so numerous and close together that flying VFR becomes more of an
irritation than a pleasure, with constant dodging of clouds and possibly
changes in altitude. It also seems that this would be a personal limit, since
it's not defined by regulations. So, what are your own limits for how much
cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing IFR or simply not flying VFR?

Flying is an expensive hobby, to me at least. My flying must be real fun
to be worth its money, and that requires weather well above VFR minima.

Also, you should not consider one single aspect of the weather. The law
has no other option, of course, than defining minima for each weather
element, but I consider weather as a whole when deciding to fly or not.

Still, when I decide NOT to fly, it is mostly because either the
visibility is below legal minimum, or wind and/or turbulence are
stronger than I like.

My 0.02 euro!

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from
clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds
in the sky

Not quite true.

The cloud ceiling is defined as the lowest cloud layer that is reported as
broken or overcast.

Broken is defined as 5/8 to 7/8 coverage.

So VFR does specify limits of cloud density.


--
Dallas

On 2/27/2010 1:24 PM, Dallas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from
clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of clouds
in the sky

Not quite true.

The cloud ceiling is defined as the lowest cloud layer that is reported as
broken or overcast.

Broken is defined as 5/8 to 7/8 coverage.

So VFR does specify limits of cloud density.



Well, that wasn't the point. Even if the sky was 7/8 covered with
clouds, you can legally fly VFR through a hole in the coverage,
provided you don't violate the cloud clearance and visibility minimums
for the area you are flying.

The ceiling doesn't really matter in this regard.

Mxsmanic wrote:
At what point does VFR become too troublesome to be practical, in
terms of cloud cover?

Bows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
I've looked at clouds that way

But now they only block visual flight
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud's illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2010 1:24 PM, Dallas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from
clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of
clouds
in the sky

Not quite true.

The cloud ceiling is defined as the lowest cloud layer that is reported
as
broken or overcast.

Broken is defined as 5/8 to 7/8 coverage.

So VFR does specify limits of cloud density.



Well, that wasn't the point. Even if the sky was 7/8 covered with
clouds, you can legally fly VFR through a hole in the coverage,
provided you don't violate the cloud clearance and visibility minimums
for the area you are flying.

The ceiling doesn't really matter in this regard.

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

Peter :-))))
Lover of simple things

On 2/27/2010 3:39 PM, Peter Dohm wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2010 1:24 PM, Dallas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

VFR only requires that one stay a certain distance away from
clouds, but it doesn't impose any limit on the number or proximity of
clouds
in the sky

Not quite true.

The cloud ceiling is defined as the lowest cloud layer that is reported
as
broken or overcast.

Broken is defined as 5/8 to 7/8 coverage.

So VFR does specify limits of cloud density.



Well, that wasn't the point. Even if the sky was 7/8 covered with
clouds, you can legally fly VFR through a hole in the coverage,
provided you don't violate the cloud clearance and visibility minimums
for the area you are flying.

The ceiling doesn't really matter in this regard.

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

Peter :-))))
Lover of simple things

I think the OP is thinking of the clouds as though they were a bunch
of hot air balloons just floating around the sky which you just
navigate your way around as you fly. Although I agree this *can*
happen, I rarely see it that way in real life (at least at the
altitudes I fly).

Mark Hansen wrote, "I think the OP is thinking of the clouds as though they
were a bunch of hot air balloons just floating around the sky which you just
navigate your way around as you fly. Although I agree this *can* happen,
I rarely see it that way in real life (at least at the altitudes I fly)."

I've flown (legally, while IFR) through canyons of fluffy white clouds, but
only a couple times. It's an experience I (and my wife, who was with me)
will never forget!