Legal vs. practical cloud cover for VFR

[Mxsmanic]

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?

[Curt Johnson]

Post by Mxsmanic
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

[Gene Seibel]

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Stephen!]

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 think the real question is, "Is it really a cloud if you can see
through it?"

Before you answer, think of the reason for separation from the clouds in
VFR flying.

[jan olieslagers]

Post by Mxsmanic
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!

[Dallas]

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Mark Hansen]

Post by Dallas

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Peter Dohm]

Post by Mark Hansen

Post by Dallas

Post by Mxsmanic
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

[Mark Hansen]

Post by Peter Dohm

Post by Mark Hansen

Post by Dallas

Post by Mxsmanic
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).

[Jon Woellhaf]

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!

[Mark Hansen]

Post by Jon Woellhaf
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.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Peter Dohm
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.

[Mark Hansen]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Peter Dohm
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!

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Peter Dohm
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.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Ricky]

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

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Mxsmanic
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

[Wolfgang Schwanke]

Post by Mxsmanic
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).

No but on the ceiling altitude. 500 ft is the minimum flying altitude.
Therefore you cannot fly VFR legally at all when the ceiling is below
500 ft AGL.

Post by Mxsmanic
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,

The number of closeness or clound is irrelevant. Even if there's an 8
octa cloud cover, you can fly VFR if you simply stay below it. That is
not a problem as long as it's high enough.

Post by Mxsmanic
So, what are
your own limits for how much cloud cover you'll tolerate before filing
IFR or simply not flying VFR?

Even though anything above 500 ft ceiling is technically legal, 1,500
ft is a good practical limit.

[Stephen!]

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
500 ft is the minimum flying altitude.

Please cite the relevant section of the CFR that backs this statement.

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

[Wolfgang Schwanke]

Post by Stephen!

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
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

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.

Post by Stephen!
of the CFR that backs this statement.

Of the what?

Post by Stephen!
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.

[Stephen!]

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke

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

Seriously, the newsgroups this is crossposted to are not US specific,

Exactly... So knowing that, when you cite regulations a reference to
the country about which you are speaking would go a long way to making it
sound like you knew what you were talking about.

For example, the FAA rules for operations in the *U.S.* has this to say
about minimum safe altitudes. Pay particular attention to paragraphs (a)
& (d):

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency
landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000
feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is
conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.


Having time in both fixed wing (land, sea, and glider) and helicopter,
I have spent many an hour cruising below 500' AGL. Especially while
ridge soaring in the glider and just plain messing around in the
helicopter.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke

Post by Stephen!

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
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?

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
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.

Post by Stephen!
of the CFR that backs this statement.

Of the what?

Post by Stephen!
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.)

[Wolfgang Schwanke]

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
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
"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?

Yes that is exactly what it says. Gliders and hang gliders.

[Ricky]

Post by Mxsmanic
 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

Post by Mxsmanic
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

[Robert M. Gary]

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.