Pros and cons changing to E-LSA

[Dan Kent]

Thanks Eddie.

[WmInce]

. . . "Is Scattered considered a ceiling by the FAA? I was taught that broken and overcast were ceilings, but scattered, few and clear (obviously) were not." . . .

 

Correct. Scattered is not a ceiling.

[Anticept]

Actually gentlemen, you are incorrect, in a goofy twisted way. In the context of "remaining in visual contact with the surface", which was the purpose of my post, scattered IS a ceiling.

 

Chief Council Interpretation, Second page, Second and Third paragraph: http://www.faa.gov/a...erpretation.pdf

 

Whether or not they meant to include scattered in that interpretation, I do not honestly know. I just know I saw it there, and "wtf"ed. The Aeronautical Information Manual classifies a ceiling as

broken, overcast, or "obstruficated", and not listed as "thin or partial cover".

[FlyingMonkey]

Actually gentlemen, you are incorrect. In the context of "remaining in visual contact with the surface", scattered IS a ceiling.

 

Chief Council Interpretation, Second page, Second and Third paragraph: http://www.faa.gov/a...erpretation.pdf

 

Whether or not they meant to include scattered in that interpretation, I do not honestly know. I just know I saw it there, and "wtf"ed.

 

Read carefully on page 2, that interpretation is only for student pilots.

[FastEddieB]

Actually gentlemen, you are incorrect. In the context of "remaining in visual contact with the surface", scattered IS a ceiling.

 

Chief Council Interpretation, Second page, Second and Third paragraph: http://www.faa.gov/a...erpretation.pdf

 

Whether or not they meant to include scattered in that interpretation, I do not honestly know. I just know I saw it there, and "wtf"ed.

 

Wow.

 

Just wow.

 

So, a Light Sport pilot in Florida flying with 2,000' scattered clouds would be forced to fly at 1,500' or below?

 

In the summer?

 

That makes no sense at all. It limits Sport Pilots to almost cloudless days - or possibly scud running to stay below any clouds.

 

I'm not shooting the messenger - its just that that does not seem to be the intent behind the wording. Had they meant "must stay below any cloud layer" they could have just said so.

 

edited to add: I just saw Andy's post. Why does this have to be so damn complicated?

[Anticept]

Read carefully on page 2, that interpretation is only for student pilots.

 

How it is written, however, is defining "visual contact with the surface" out of scope. I know what they mean, and nobody in their right mind would violate some poor sport pilot from flying over a cloud, but still.

 

I'm going to write a letter to the Chief Council, and ask if they meant to define it that way. The AIM does not.

[FastEddieB]

 

 

How it is written, however, is defining "visual contact with the surface" out of scope.

 

It really seems to define itself.

 

Visual - with your eyes.

 

Contact with the surface - can see the surface.

 

To interpret that as "totally unimpeded contact with the surface" is to add meaning that's not there.

 

Take that to the bank, and if anyone questions you, just tell 'em Fast Eddie said so!

[WmInce]

. . . "Read carefully on page 2, that interpretation is only for student pilots." . . .

 

Concur.

Nice catch Andy!

[S3flyer]

First we need to clarify the exact language as it pertains to those exercising sport pilot privileges and 'visual contact' is not part of the regulation. The pertinent regulation is 61.315©(13) and states an SP must not operate "without visual reference to the surface". Official reference: http://www.ecfr.gov/....10.1.8&idno=14

 

There was a discussion over at: http://sportpilottal...isual reference

 

No where, that I can find, in FARs, AIM, ACs and legal interpretations does the FAA define 'visual reference to the surface' to be related to cloud cover. Many pilots just make the jump, IMHO, based on knowledge of the PP FARs.

 

EAA interprets it this way at http://www.sportpilo....asp?faqid=3054:

Some common sense has to be used when complying with this requirement. You can fly above clouds; however you must be able to maintain visual reference to the surface. In other words, if you are above the clouds and are not able to see the surface of the ground you have violated this limitation.

 

IMHO -- there are clear definitions of scattered and broken which are used in other FARs so if they would have intended this to be part of the SP rules then they wouldn't have used the language they did. I believe one should use good judgement based on personal experience. A 5000 hr commercial pilot exercising SP privileges may be comfortable with 5/8 coverage while an SP might choose to stay below all layers.

 

I also would NOT seek clarification from the Chief Counsel as this may come back much more limiting than was originally intended (can anyone remember the CFI subpart K question?).

[FlyingMonkey]

Common sense would seem to apply more than trying to extract a finite meaning from the words visual contact with surface.

 

Except common sense rarely applies when the FedGov is involved.

 

The problem is that for most things the FAA will bust you on, you don't get to go to court, because there are no criminal or civil charges, just "regulatory actions". The FARs are (mostly) not criminal statutes, they are regulations. That means administrative hearings with your lawyer against the FAA, which gets the final say. No judge, no jury, so "reasonable" gets no foothold.

 

If the FAA gives you a suspension or revocation of your ticket, all you can do is appeal. To the FAA.

[Anticept]

Except common sense rarely applies when the FedGov is involved.

 

The problem is that for most things the FAA will bust you on, you don't get to go to court, because there are no criminal or civil charges, just "regulatory actions". The FARs are (mostly) not criminal statutes, they are regulations. That means administrative hearings with your lawyer against the FAA, which gets the final say. No judge, no jury, so "reasonable" gets no foothold.

 

If the FAA gives you a suspension or revocation of your ticket, all you can do is appeal. To the FAA.

 

You can appeal in a court for major enforcement action. It's part of the pilot bill of rights.

 

Many don't know this, but you can appeal to the NTSB too. The FAA is a legislative agency, whereas the NTSB is an executive agency. It's weird how it works, but the NTSB can bail you out. It would have to be ONE HELL OF A BS ACTION for them to use this power though.

[sandpiper]

Andy,

 

I thought the recent Pilots Bill of Rights gave us a little better process?

[FlyingMonkey]

I'm not up on the new Bill of Rights stuff, you guys are probably correct. I just know that the only "extra" I pay for with pilot organizations is the AOPA legal services plan...if I ever get a letter from the FAA, I'll be calling that number immediately so somebody who knows all the ins and outs can navigate that maze for me.