Sport Pilot Talk

I flew to Seattle from Eastern Washington a couple of weeks ago and, as usual, I was on top at 10,000' over the pass, on flight follow and could see Mt Rainier poking up out of the clouds off my wing. When it broke up on the west side, I descended VFR to below the clouds. I always keep a road under me per my GPS and am confident I could descend through the clouds in an emergency. I think that is OK.

bitten192 wrote:I flew to Seattle from Eastern Washington a couple of weeks ago and, as usual, I was on top at 10,000' over the pass, on flight follow and could see Mt Rainier poking up out of the clouds off my wing. When it broke up on the west side, I descended VFR to below the clouds. I always keep a road under me per my GPS and am confident I could descend through the clouds in an emergency. I think that is OK.

Are you a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot? Oh nevermind, I just saw "CFI" in your signature.

You are clearly more than qualified to make a flight like that. As a SP, I'd be very wary of it.

In the west flying on top was a non event years ago, what changed? It seems far safer today with weather and SV and terrain in the cockpit.

On my leg from Alturas to Portland I can easily be on top for over an hour.

CharlieTango wrote:In the west flying on top was a non event years ago, what changed?

What changed is that when a healthy and experienced pilot decides to let his or her (totally useless) third class medical certificate lapse, he or she obviously loses basic flying skills!

drseti wrote:

CharlieTango wrote:In the west flying on top was a non event years ago, what changed?

What changed is that when a healthy and experienced pilot decides to let his or her (totally useless) third class medical certificate lapse, he or she obviously loses basic flying skills!

...and becomes a walking (flying) timebomb, far more liable to keel over any second than when they carried a valid medical in their wallet.

Merlinspop wrote:"...and becomes a walking (flying) timebomb, far more liable to keel over any second than when they carried a valid medical in their wallet." . . .

And what is the data reference to back your assertion up?

Wm.Ince wrote:

Merlinspop wrote:"...and becomes a walking (flying) timebomb, far more liable to keel over any second than when they carried a valid medical in their wallet." . . .

And what is the data reference to back your assertion up?

I think it was more tongue in cheek humor, at least I hope it was.

Wm.Ince wrote:

Merlinspop wrote:"...and becomes a walking (flying) timebomb, far more liable to keel over any second than when they carried a valid medical in their wallet." . . .

And what is the data reference to back your assertion up?

Sarchasm - the intellectual gap between the person who makes a sarcastic joke and those who don't get it.

FastEddieB wrote:

Wm.Ince wrote:

Merlinspop wrote:"...and becomes a walking (flying) timebomb, far more liable to keel over any second than when they carried a valid medical in their wallet." . . .

And what is the data reference to back your assertion up?

Sarchasm - the intellectual gap between the person who makes a sarcastic joke and those who don't get it.

Being the holder of a long-expired medical, my tongue was solidly planted in my cheek.

If you can see the ground through the holes in the cloud cover you can fly.

rgstubbsjr wrote:If you can see the ground through the holes in the cloud cover you can fly.

That is my take as well.

Seems almost intentionally vague. It would have been easy to make it a prohibition to fly over a broken layer (though that would have sucked). Or even an overcast layer (which the existing language hints at, but does not say).

rgstubbsjr wrote:If you can see the ground through the holes in the cloud cover you can fly.

The hole in the cloud was at 9000' where Mt Rainier was poking out. I could see ground on Mt Rainier that was 9000' above sea level all the way to the top of the mountain at 14,400'.

Let's not be silly...

That would be visual reference to a surface, not visual reference to the surface

Clear?

FastEddieB wrote:Let's not be silly...

That would be visual reference to a surface, not visual reference to the surface

Clear?

Are you saying that the visible surface has to be directly below you? If not how far from directly below?

Terrain that rises above the layer does much to keep you oriented. There are countless valleys bordered by high terrain in the west, some are small and some are 100 miles across. Are you saying they are all off limits to cross? Can I fly over fog?

I would say the conditions have to be such that the view of the surface allows:

the visual references must be adequate for the pilot to assess horizontal flight path and vertical flight path."

Those conditions seem to fit within the ICAO definition.