Controllers of the magenta line...

[timwinters]

250? What model O-470 you got on that thing? Stock it should "only" make 230.

I got "Seth's magic cylinders" with my recent overhaul. I had "Seth's magic" on my last run too. Polished, ported, cryo'ed, and.......

Many people who know airplanes just say "woooaaaah" when I go balls to the wall on take-off. I'll show you sometime!

 

[vontresc]

Do I need to quote that on the OWT thread ;-)

 

[denverpilot]

Do I need to quote that on the OWT thread ;-)

Balls to the wall?

Definitely. Tim has verniers and flat knobs, and they only go to the panel, not the firewall.

 

[Lindberg]

A two mile hole 500 feet thick isn't very big. You have 2000 feet laterally, which cuts out almost a mile. So now you have a 1.2 mile hole. You have to climb 2000 feet in that 1.2 miles -- remember 500 below and 1000 above. That's almost four times what a 172 can do, and twice a 182 if you leave it at full throttle (Max performance climb).

You can circle, but it will take more than 30 deg bank. Very tight.

Once you're above the cloud, you don't need 2,000' lateral clearance anymore. So you're not climbing in a 1,500' tall cylinder.

 

[Kritchlow]

It was one of those mornings with post rain waves of low thin clouds rolling thru as the sun tried to burn it off. It varied widely from minute to minute.

If it "varied wildely from minute to minute", why would you ever try to get through the hole?? By the time you get the clearance and attempt to get through the hole, several minutes have past.

 

[timwinters]

Do I need to quote that on the OWT thread ;-)

hell, the MMO I run thru it adds 10 HP, and that doesn't count the other tricks.

 

[MAKG1]

That seems excessively low. IIRC Try flying at Vy to improve your rate of climb. 20 degrees of flaps at 60 KIAS seems like best angle performance to me

If you are trying to get through a hole, best angle is necessary.

 

[MAKG1]

Once you're above the cloud, you don't need 2,000' lateral clearance anymore. So you're not climbing in a 1,500' tall cylinder.

Got a reference to back that up? It's not consistent with the goal of avoiding collisions with IFR aircraft popping out of clouds. Otherwise, I could be 1 foot away from a cloud laterally if I was also 1 foot above it. Doesn't make sense.

 

[jaybee]

Got a reference to back that up? It's not consistent with the goal of avoiding collisions with IFR aircraft popping out of clouds. Otherwise, I could be 1 foot away from a cloud laterally if I was also 1 foot above it. Doesn't make sense.

If you are above it then there is nothing laterally from you....

 

[vontresc]

Just to throw fuel on the fire. In a 2 mile hole with 2000' lateral clearance you still have 6500 feet to work with So let's use a fudge factor and say a mile. That is still a pretty big circle to work with. No more than 20 degrees of bank would even be needed at 80 KTAS. #Math

​

r = v^2 / g (tan bank ang)           
           
Radius    Diameter    Speed(kts)    Bank
3641.099256    7282.198512    60    5
1806.614657    3613.229313    60    10
1188.863101    2377.726201    60    15
875.2224157    1750.444831    60    20
683.1432041    1366.286408    60    25
551.7532851    1103.50657    60    30
454.9435565    909.8871129    60    35
379.6389557    759.2779114    60    40
318.5549077    637.1098154    60    45
267.2993056    534.5986111    60    50
223.0545477    446.1090954    60    55
183.9177617    367.8355234    60    60
           
           
Radius    Diameter    Speed(kts)    Bank
6473.065344    12946.13069    80    5
3211.759389    6423.518779    80    10
2113.534401    4227.068802    80    15
1555.950961    3111.901923    80    20
1214.476807    2428.953615    80    25
980.8947291    1961.789458    80    30
808.7885448    1617.57709    80    35
674.913699    1349.827398    80    40
566.3198359    1132.639672    80    45
475.1987654    950.3975309    80    50
396.5414181    793.0828363    80    55
326.9649097    653.9298194    80    60

​

 

[mscard88]

WTF was that ^^^^??????

 

[vontresc]

Sorry formatting got all hosed up

 

[mscard88]

LOL no worries....

 

[Palmpilot]

If you are above it then there is nothing laterally from you....

The way the table is set up in 91.155, it's not specified whether there's an "and" or an "or" between these lines:

500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.
​

I would be surprised to see the FAA take the more permissive interpretation.​

 

[mscard88]

He would be in the clear above the cloud layer so he wouldn't be near any clouds. That's assuming the cloud layer below him is at least 1000' below.

 

[jaybee]

The way the table is set up in 91.155, it's not specified whether there's an "and" or an "or" between these lines:

500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.
​

I would be surprised to see the FAA take the more permissive interpretation.​

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table:

Any distance that would violate any of the three specifications.
As said, once you are above the deck - there is nothing laterally from your location.

EDIT -
If you are going through a hole, then there is nothing above or below you - so the only distance that applies is horizontal. Once you are above the hole, there is still nothing below you and there is nothing to your horizontal. Continue till 1000' above.

 

[vontresc]

The way the table is set up in 91.155, it's not specified whether there's an "and" or an "or" between these lines:

500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.
​

I would be surprised to see the FAA take the more permissive interpretation.​

Think about it. If you had to maintain 2000' lateral separation from a solid cloud deck above you, how would you do that?

 

[Mike Smith]

Balls to the wall?

Definitely. Tim has verniers and flat knobs, and they only go to the panel, not the firewall.

Holy crap! I am 50 years old and just learned something new maybe. Is that where the term comes from? Balls to the wall?

 

[azure]

Think about it. If you had to maintain 2000' lateral separation from a solid cloud deck above you, how would you do that?

You don't. If the cloud deck is solid, then you are automatically within 2000 feet horizontal distance from any cloud and therefore must be 500 feet below the deck or 1000 feet above it (for most classes of airspace).

 

[vontresc]

You don't. If the cloud deck is solid, then you are automatically within 2000 feet horizontal distance from any cloud and therefore must be 500 feet below the deck or 1000 feet above it (for most classes of airspace).

Aaand that was my point.

Of course in the glider I am ALWAYS 501' below cloudbase...

 

[Palmpilot]

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and §91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table:

Any distance that would violate any of the three specifications.
As said, once you are above the deck - there is nothing laterally from your location.

EDIT -
If you are going through a hole, then there is nothing above or below you - so the only distance that applies is horizontal. Once you are above the hole, there is still nothing below you and there is nothing to your horizontal. Continue till 1000' above.

I doubt that the FAA would buy that interpretation. The word "laterally" does not appear in that part of the regulation, so it could be argued that if a cloud is 500 feet below you and 500 feet to the side, then your vertical distance from it is 500 feet, and your horizontal distance from it is 500 feet.

 

[Palmpilot]

Think about it. If you had to maintain 2000' lateral separation from a solid cloud deck above you, how would you do that?

I think the FAA would say that as long as you are at least the required distance below a cloud, then your horizontal distance from it doesn't matter.

 

[Palmpilot]

Holy crap! I am 50 years old and just learned something new maybe. Is that where the term comes from? Balls to the wall?

I thought it had to do with speed governors that had balls that spin farther outwards when the governor spins faster.

 

[jaybee]

I doubt that the FAA would buy that interpretation. The word "laterally" does not appear in that part of the regulation, so it could be argued that if a cloud is 500 feet below you and 500 feet to the side, then your vertical distance from it is 500 feet, and your horizontal distance from it is 500 feet.

If you ascend through a hole there is nothing below you...

 

[mscard88]

If you ascend through a hole there is nothing below you...

terra firma is

 

[vontresc]

I doubt that the FAA would buy that interpretation. The word "laterally" does not appear in that part of the regulation, so it could be argued that if a cloud is 500 feet below you and 500 feet to the side, then your vertical distance from it is 500 feet, and your horizontal distance from it is 500 feet.

Maybe you should ask for an interpretation from the Chief Counsel. What could possibly go wrong...

While you're at it ask them how many FSDO inspectors can dance on the head of a pin .

 

[jaybee]

terra firma is

ok, you got me. probably some birds and ants too...

 

[jaybee]

I must admit, I messed up... in the OP's situation... 91.155 doesn't apply. He requests SVFR and climbs through the hole "clear of clouds".

 

[Palmpilot]

If you ascend through a hole there is nothing below you...

When they wrote "below," they didn't specify whether they meant "directly below," or "below your altitude," so the wording is ambiguous. If you were observed flying 50 feet diagonally from a cloud that was not directly below you, do you think the FAA would resolve that ambiguity in your favor?

 

[Mike Smith]

I thought it had to do with speed governors that had balls that spin farther outwards when the governor spins faster.

I actually used my google-fu and found an interesting blurb with a picture of some older four engine plane with the explanation that at full throttle all four "balls were to the wall"

 

[Palmpilot]

I must admit, I messed up... in the OP's situation... 91.155 doesn't apply. He requests SVFR and climbs through the hole "clear of clouds".

Looking back through the thread, I think the issue was how far above the surrounding cloud deck he has to be before he can correctly report that he is in VFR conditions.

 

[jaybee]

When they wrote "below," they didn't specify whether they meant "directly below," or "below your altitude," so the wording is ambiguous. If you were observed flying 50 feet diagonally from a cloud that was not directly below you, do you think the FAA would resolve that ambiguity in your favor?

that just doesn't make any sense. see previous posts. if that were the case no one would ever be able to fly under an overcast or above a layer.

 

[timwinters]

Holy crap! I am 50 years old and just learned something new maybe. Is that where the term comes from? Balls to the wall?

I thought it had to do with speed governors that had balls that spin farther outwards when the governor spins faster.

Some sources attribute it to the old time steam railroad industry but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that rail is the true origin. More substantiated is:

The expression comes from the world of military aviation. In many planes, control sticks are topped with a ball-shaped grip. One such control is the throttle—to get maximum power you push it all the way forward, to the front of the cockpit, or firewall (so-called because it prevents an engine fire from reaching the rest of the plane). So, literally pushing the balls to the (fire)wall would put a plane into a maximum-speed, and figuratively going balls to the wall is doing something all-out, with maximum effort. The phrase is essentially the aeronautical equivalent of the automotive "pedal to the metal." [/QUOTE]

 

[Palmpilot]

that just doesn't make any sense. see previous posts. if that were the case no one would ever be able to fly under an overcast or above a layer.

Then I'm not expressing myself clearly, so I'll try again:

I think the FAA expects you to apply the horizontal limit if, and only if, you are less than the specified vertical distance above or below the cloud. Similarly, I think they expect you to apply the vertical limit if, and only if, you are less than the specified horizontal distance away from the cloud. In other words, if you imagine a cylinder around a VFR aircraft, with the top of the cylinder 500 feet above it, the bottom 1000 feet below it, and the side 2000 feet away*, they don't want any clouds within that cylinder. I think that's what they were trying to accomplish in that regulation. Apparently, the wording leaves open other, less plausible, interpretations.

*(And of course, the distances listed depend on the airspace in question.)

 

[Palmpilot]

Some sources attribute it to the old time steam railroad industry but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that rail is the true origin. More substantiated is:

What is the source of that quote?

 

[jaybee]

Then I'm not expressing myself clearly, so I'll try again:

I think the FAA expects you to apply the horizontal limit if, and only if, you are less than the specified vertical distance above or below the cloud. Similarly, I think they expect you to apply the vertical limit if, and only if, you are less than the specified horizontal distance away from the cloud. I think that's what they were trying to accomplish in that regulation. Apparently, the wording leaves open other, less plausible, interpretations.

No need to be snarky its been an interesting and cordial discussion so far.

I understood your view all along, it just doesn't compute as you had stated it originally. I never said to go into the diagonal zone that you keep referencing.

 

[MAKG1]

If you are above it then there is nothing laterally from you....

Not even close to true.

 

[MAKG1]

I must admit, I messed up... in the OP's situation... 91.155 doesn't apply. He requests SVFR and climbs through the hole "clear of clouds".

As long as the hole is entirely in Class D, which is not likely. And he still has to be 1000 above it when leaving Class D. Still very constraining.

You guys throw SVFR around like it's no big deal. It can easily turn into IMC close to the ground. If you need it, you have screwed up; it's a backup plan at best. While it's legal to depart that way, it's not wise at all. It's best use is to arrive at an airport where the cloud clearances are a bit close (and were forecasted further) and you can see the runway from a distance. Even then, it leaves you with few options if anything goes wrong.

The situation at hand could very easily have turned into an accidental IMC encounter if correctly described. This happened a few years back at Watsonville, when a low time pilot thought he could out climb a fog bank. He lit the hospital on fire and killed his whole family when he spun his Mooney. Fortunately, he didn't kill anyone on the ground. He came real close.

 

[timwinters]

What is the source of that quote?

Wiki

 

[Palmpilot]

No need to be snarky its been an interesting and cordial discussion so far.

I understood your view all along, it just doesn't compute as you had stated it originally. I never said to go into the diagonal zone that you keep referencing.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be snarky. As for the diagonal, I'm bringing that up, because in order to be plausible, I think an interpretation needs to explain why 50 feet vertical combined with 50 feet horizontal would not meet VFR minimums.