Controllers of the magenta line...

MAKG1 said:
...While it's legal to depart that way, it's not wise at all...
Click to expand...
I would modify that by saying, "Depending on the conditions, the obstacle environment, etc, it may not be wise."
 
The Oxford English Dictionary define it as "military slang" in origin; dating in recorded use to around 1967. They indicate a probable connection to an older military slang "Balls Out" dating back into the 50's. This latter one is probably attributable to the steam engine governor.
 
tl;dr

Shoulda asked for a special VFR Complied with cloud separation requirements while scud running/circling through the hole.
 
Last edited:
vontresc said:
tl;dr

Shoulda asked for a special VFR Complied with cloud separation requirements while scud running/curcling through the hole.
Click to expand...
No cloud separation requirement for SVFR other than clear of clouds.

It occurs to me that before asking for SVFR to climb up though a hole, I'd want to have recent tops report. I've noticed that I can't tell how high the tops are from looking up through a hole.
 
MAKG1 said:
The situation at hand could very easily have turned into an accidental IMC encounter if correctly described.
Click to expand...

And you know this, how?

Let's review.
  • Sky cover 50% or maybe a tad more, ceiling 600'.
  • Thin clouds, the kind you can see the outline of the sun glowing thru.
  • 30 minutes later the cover was closer to 80% but the ceiling had raised to 800'
  • The sky was clear 30 to 40 miles to the west, my direction of travel.
  • Terrain for that first 30 to 40 miles is dead flat. Mississippi River Delta farm fields. "Flat as a flitter" as mom used to say, whatever the hell a "flitter" is.
  • I'm instrument rated but not current.
Man, if making a decision to go in those conditions is risky, Then I guess I better just just stay on the ground, period. Better yet, I'll stay in my house, in bed, with the covers pulled over my head! ;)
 
timwinters said:
Man, if making a decision to go in those conditions is risky, Then I guess I better just just stay on the ground, period. Better yet, I'll stay in my house, in bed, with the covers pulled over my head! ;)
Click to expand...
But what if your house falls down with you inside, or a tree falls on your house, or your house catches on fire, or you have a gas leak in your house?

Gosh, houses are dangerous...
 
timwinters said:
And you know this, how?

Let's review.
  • Sky cover 50% or maybe a tad more, ceiling 600'.
  • Thin clouds, the kind you can see the outline of the sun glowing thru.
  • 30 minutes later the cover was closer to 80% but the ceiling had raised to 800'
  • The sky was clear 30 to 40 miles to the west, my direction of travel.
  • Terrain for that first 30 to 40 miles is dead flat. Mississippi River Delta farm fields. "Flat as a flitter" as mom used to say, whatever the hell a "flitter" is.
  • I'm instrument rated but not current.
Man, if making a decision to go in those conditions is risky, Then I guess I better just just stay on the ground, period. Better yet, I'll stay in my house, in bed, with the covers pulled over my head! ;)
Click to expand...
You forgot
  • The PIC doesn't understand how big a hole he needs to safely climb through.
That's a pretty big problem.

Why are you bothering to claim "noncurrent" instrument rating? The first thing to go is your basic control and it won't take much at 600 AGL, and it really doesn't help you see and avoid legal aircraft.

Flat ground under the conditions you describe could have obstructions ABOVE the clouds, let alone in them. TV towers in the flats frequently exceed 2000 feet.
 
Dude we covered that a while back 2 miles is plenty big to be circling at a reasonable bank of less than 30 degrees and still be totally legal. The fun police takes the fun out of everything...

<Sigh>
 
MAKG1 said:
Flat ground under the conditions you describe could have obstructions ABOVE the clouds, let alone in them. TV towers in the flats frequently exceed 2000 feet.
Click to expand...

Ummm...no they don't, now you're proving that you don't have a clue and are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Besides, it's my home 'drome, don't you think I know exactly what towers are around? (Hint: the answer is yes, and the only tall towers are north).
 
timwinters said:
Ummm...no they don't, now you're proving that you don't have a clue and are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...

He does that. He ends up in deep holes, almost as deep as the holes Tom digs.
 
timwinters said:
Ummm...no they don't, now you're proving that you don't have a clue and are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Besides, it's my home 'drome, don't you think I know exactly what towers are around? (Hint: the answer is yes, and the only tall towers are north).
Click to expand...

There are 400-500 foot towers all over the place there according to the sectional. That's enough to be a real big problem scud running under a 600 foot ceiling.

You can take off into this legally with SVFR, but don't expect everyone, including your local controllers, to tell you it's a good idea. Just stay away from populated areas so you only kill yourself. That's where the "nonexistent" 1700 foot towers that I don't have a clue about are anyway.

I've dodged enough 2000 foot towers to know they exist and are not rare at all.

I'd expect you to know your home airport, but when the sectional tells me you have obstructions and you say you don't, I'll believe the sectional.
 
I was wondering what I'd least like to encounter when flying IFR and broke out of a cloud. Transition from the panel to the windshield, get focus from close to distant and look for traffic. Someone a 1000 feet above, or maybe a little less if their estimate of how far from the cloud they are is a little off? Someone 500 feet, or a little less below? Someone 2000 feet or a little less horizontally? I fly pretty low performance airplanes so I'm thinking the guy above is the least dangerous. Horizontally I guess the view is better but 2000 feet ain't much when I'm flying close to 2 miles a minute. Below there's probably less time than above to see and avoid, depending on rate of climb/descent.
 
MAKG1 said:
There are 400-500 foot towers all over the place there according to the sectional. That's enough to be a real big problem scud running under a 600 foot ceiling..
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. Scud running was never in the equation. You said obstructions in and above the clouds, not beneath them. And I would have been far above the clouds before exiting the delta.

MAKG1 said:
I've dodged enough 2000 foot towers to know they exist and are not rare at all.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. I've dodged my share of 2000' towers too, there's a whole gaggle of them out east of Springfield, MO. But that's not what you said. You said "frequently exceed 2000 feet." There are only two are three towers in the entire U.S. That exceed 2000' because that's is the maximum allowed without going through a very onerous permitting process. Anything over 2000' is considered a hazard to aviation. (Like 1999' isn't? :) )

MAKG1 said:
I'd expect you to know your home airport, but when the sectional tells me you have obstructions and you say you don't, I'll believe the sectional.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. I never said there were no obstructions out west. I said all the tall towers were north in direct response to you talking about obstructions in or above the clouds.

Bye now, you're the third to go on ignore. Have a good life hiding under your sheets. (And I won't use Nick's favorite word but I'd sure like to right now! :thumbsup: )
 
flyingron said:
As long as you weren't in a 'surface area of controlled airspace designated for an airport' (or control zone or class E to the ground as you may wish to say), that's fine. If there was a control zone there, you busted the regs.
Click to expand...
I'll try to find a way to go on living. :D
 
To paraphrase EdFred. I think some of y'all need to get off the beach. There seems to be an excessive accumulation of silica on your lady parts...
 
mikeinbama said:
Holy crap! I am 50 years old and just learned something new maybe. Is that where the term comes from? Balls to the wall?
Click to expand...
Yup. The little balls on top of the levers. Pushed up against the firewall. Go fast mode. There's debate about whether it began in wheeled vehicles or aircraft though.
 
timwinters said:
Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. Scud running was never in the equation. You said obstructions in and above the clouds, not beneath them. And I would have been far above the clouds before exiting the delta.



Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. I've dodged my share of 2000' towers too, there's a whole gaggle of them out east of Springfield, MO. But that's not what you said. You said "frequently exceed 2000 feet." There are only two are three towers in the entire U.S. That exceed 2000' because that's is the maximum allowed without going through a very onerous permitting process. Anything over 2000' is considered a hazard to aviation. (Like 1999' isn't? :) )



Ah, the old "lose an argument, change the premise" technique. I never said there were no obstructions out west. I said all the tall towers were north in direct response to you talking about obstructions in or above the clouds.

Bye now, you're the third to go on ignore. Have a good life hiding under your sheets. (And I won't use Nick's favorite word but I'd sure like to right now! :thumbsup: )
Click to expand...

He's the self appointed Cap't Ron, except without the encyclopedic knowledge of the regs, the oodells of experience and the wisdom of old age. (Not that you'll ever see this post, since I'm number two on your ignore list.;) )
 
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Everything that is not prohibited is allowed." Compare the language of 91.155 with 91.119. They're different. And it makes sense when you consider the purpose of the clearance requirements. E.g., if you're ten feet higher than the cloud tops, an aircraft in cruise at the same altitude will also be higher than the cloud tops, and visible to you. Thus it doesn't matter how far you are from the clouds laterally, if you're not on the same horizontal plane.
 
Lindberg said:
"Everything that is not prohibited is allowed." Compare the language of 91.155 with 91.119. They're different. And it makes sense when you consider the purpose of the clearance requirements. E.g., if you're ten feet higher than the cloud tops, an aircraft in cruise at the same altitude will also be higher than the cloud tops, and visible to you. Thus it doesn't matter how far you are from the clouds laterally, if you're not on the same horizontal plane.
Click to expand...

As long as someone isn't climbing out of those clouds into your path. That could ruin your whole day.

As a practical matter, it sounds to me like an SVFR clearance under the OP circumstances would have been just fine. But 10' (I assume chosen for illustration purposes) above a cloud deck flying along side of it seems like a Bad Idea. 1000' away and 10' above, OK. Personally I like to keep several hundred feet between me and things I can't see through.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top