Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

Peter Dohm writes:

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

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

On 2/27/2010 4:25 PM, Jon Woellhaf wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote, "I think the OP is thinking of the clouds as though they
were a bunch of hot air balloons just floating around the sky which you just
navigate your way around as you fly. Although I agree this *can* happen,
I rarely see it that way in real life (at least at the altitudes I fly)."

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



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

On 2/27/2010 4:57 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Peter Dohm writes:

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

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

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

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Peter Dohm writes:

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

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

Delusional nonsense.

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

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

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

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

My videos do a better job then MSFS.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"Stephen!" wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote in news:fonp57-d46.ln1
@wschwanke.de:

500 ft is the minimum flying altitude.

Please cite the relevant section

Über Städten, anderen dicht besiedelten Gebieten, Industrieanlagen,
Menschenansammlungen, Unglücksorten sowie Katastrophengebieten beträgt
die Sicherheitsmindesthöhe mindestens 300 Meter (1.000 Fuß) über dem
höchsten Hindernis in einem Umkreis von 600 Metern, in allen übrigen
Fällen 150 Meter (500 Fuß) über Grund oder Wasser.

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/luftvo/__6.html

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

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

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

Translation: Above cities, other densely populated areas, industrial
installations, crowds, accident scenes and disaster areaas, the
minimum safe flying altitude is 300 meters (1,000 feet) above the
tallest obstacle in a perimeter of 600 meters, in all other cases 150
meters (500 feet) above ground or water.

of the CFR that backs this statement.

Of the what?

FYI, I have cruised at or below 500' AGL, leagally, on many
occasions.

Seriously, the newsgroups this is crossposted to are not US specific,
even though they sometimes might appear to be. I was under the
impression the minimum flying altitude was similarly regulated in all
or at least a large number of countries and answered accordingly.

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

On Feb 26, 6:00*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

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

Wrong two times

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

Wrong again.

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

Ricky

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

Some simulated skies cannot be distinguished from the real thing.

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

Ricky

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