|
|
[index]
[month]
[prev]
[next]
[thead-prev]
[thread-next]
Subject: Re: Rushed Release
From: John Stanley
Date: Mon Oct 30 23:23:15 2000
| |
|
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.10010310011080.11409-100000@hobbes.seas.gwu.edu>,
Dan Larsen <badger@seas.gwu.edu> wrote:
>On 31 Oct 2000, John Stanley wrote:
>> I said "at most" because it was the largest value that I was positive
>> was right. I didn't bother looking it up because it wasn't important for
>> the argument. Using 1 mile separation, the claim by Chip that the pilot
>> in the emergency should have filed IFR is even more ludicrous, however.
>> Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
>
>At most it's 1 mile from the clouds. The one mile separation applies to
>clouds, not other aircraft.
Yes, that's what I said. In the material you quoted I was talking about
the pilot's distance from the airport that is IMC (you know, where the
clouds are), not from another aircraft (there were no other aircraft in
the air). What's your point now?
>Visibilities and cloud clearances are something you should legally know.
Which FAR says this? I must OBEY them, but nothing says I cannot use 5
miles as my personal criterion and ignore the FAR altogether, or that I
cannot look the info up when I need it.
>I was asked those on my checkride -- the DE never asked about max airspeed
>below 10,000. She figured I would be in a situation where knowing those
>minimums is necessary.
Sounds like you have had one checkride by the way you put it. No, the DE
isn't going to worry about your knowledge of a rule you won't be able to
break in the kinds of airplanes you're legal to fly.
I've had a DE, and many CFIIs doing BFRs, ask me maximum speeds below
10,000, and my answer has been "faster than I can go." They laughed and
realized the answer was correct, even if it wasn't what they were
looking for.
>You are likely to come into a situation where legal visibility is a factor
>in your flight plan,
Yep, and I have a book in my flight bag that spells it out in detail.
If it becomes an issue in my flight planning, I look it up. No,
actually, I'd just file IFR and not worry about it. (You've got a
different visibility requirement to worry about then, but you've still
no need to memorize it -- it's printed on each approach plate. And even
123 doesn't need to be memorized, you can look up the requirements each
time you plan an IFR flight and still be legal, although a bit slow at
planning.)
>you are also going to come to a point where cloud
>clearances are also something you need to know.
Been there, done that. I've been through the tests that test my ability
to memorize legal details. I may take more, in which case I'll refresh
my memory. The government is good at writing those kinds of tests. I've
even passed a test that asked me all the frequency limits for General
class hams, even though the license I was seeking couldn't legally use
most of them. Pretty soon, I'll be able to. I'll look them up when I
need them.
Based on your next question, let me ask you a "quick" you might need to
know: quick, what's the form number of the license you need to fly out
of the country?
>Quick, am I legal if the vis is only 1 mile?
Legal what? Which visibility, flight or ground? IFR or VFR? Enroute or
in the vicinity of an airport, on an approach, or below MDA/DH? In
which class of airspace? Statute or nautical mile? Day or night? What's
the ceiling? You've not provided enough data to answer definitively.
Surely you must have realized that when you asked. Maybe you didn't.
A better question is not whether it is legal, do you think you are
capable of doing it? If you don't feel capable, legal doesn't matter.
Even so, there is no need to answer that question quickly. If you're on
the ground planning the flight, look it up. If you are in the air, it's
too late to worry about legal, you can't stop flying the plane because
you find yourself in 1 mile visibility. (And I've been there, done that,
too.)
View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: Rushed Release, John Stanley
Next message: Re: IFR in light singles, Alexis Yushin
Next message in thread: Re: Rushed Release, Steven P. McNicoll
Previous message in thread: Re: Rushed Release, John Stanley
|