A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 26th 10, 01:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default 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?
  #2  
Old February 26th 10, 04:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Curt Johnson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for 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
  #3  
Old February 26th 10, 04:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Gene Seibel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 223
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

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.


  #4  
Old February 27th 10, 02:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
jan olieslagers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

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!
  #5  
Old February 27th 10, 10:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 541
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

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
  #6  
Old February 27th 10, 11:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Mark Hansen[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

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.
  #7  
Old February 27th 10, 11:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

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
  #8  
Old February 28th 10, 12:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

"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




  #9  
Old February 28th 10, 12:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Mark Hansen[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

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).

  #10  
Old February 28th 10, 01:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Jon Woellhaf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

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!


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT Cloud to cloud lightning - video [email protected] Piloting 0 August 4th 08 01:01 AM
OT Cloud to cloud lightning - video [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 0 August 4th 08 01:01 AM
IFR Practical test requirements kevmor Instrument Flight Rules 13 January 25th 07 08:18 PM
Practical welding? mhorowit Home Built 21 August 23rd 05 04:33 AM
practical best range application? xerj Piloting 15 February 7th 05 12:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.