This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

There were two errors in the VFR page.

First, class G (uncontrolled) airspace does not have a cloud clearance requirement other than remaining outside of clouds, so it's not correct to say you must always be some particular distance from clouds. Perhaps we should correct it to say that you must avoid clouds (without going into detail about exactly by how much).

probably correct in the US (I don't know), but ICAO and most other countries say differently to this - there are more rigorous cloud clearance requirements even in Class F/G. ICAO says you still need to be 300m vertically and 1,500m horizontally from cloud (except if 1000m- AGL and 140KIAS or a helecopter); most countries of course translate 300m vertically into 1,000 feet.BaseTurnComplete 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second, even the highest-density congested airspace (class B) can be flown VFR. Only class A airspace (above 14,000 feet MSL) requires IFR flight (assuming VMC prevails). It's not unusual to confuse a requirement to be in contact with ATC and to follow their instructions (or even requirements for explicit clearances) with IFR flight -- they are not the same thing. You can fly VFR in such congested airspace and must refuse ATC instructions that put you into IMC, so you'll hear pilots refuse a clearance "unable to maintain VFR on that heading (at that altitiude)".

At least, this is so in the United States. It's my understanding that most other countries are the same in these two respects.

True with regards to the rules in airspace, however the the way the US structures its airspace is very different to many other countries' airspace structures - for starters other countries make much more use of Class G and often do not have Class A at high level (Europe has agreed to Class C at high level Europe-wide).BaseTurnComplete 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're correct about class G airspace, and I think your addition of the word "usually" was a good way to handle it without adding excessive detail.

BTW, Class A starts at 18,000 msl, not 14,000.

Yes, but if you need to remain outside of the clouds, isn't that still a ``distance from the clouds? Not in the sense of one inch, two inch, but your posistion relative to the clouds?

You are not completely wrong saying the cloud clearance in G is clear of clouds, but you are missing a huge amount of information. Class G has some of the most strenuous and detailed cloud clearance requirements of all airspaces'.

Below 1200ft AGL, regardless of MSL altitude:

                                                                      Day: clear of clouds.
                                                                      Night: 500ft below, 1000ft above, 2000ft horizontal.

More than 1200ft AGL and below 10000ft MSL:

                                                                        Day: 500ft below, 1000ft above, 2000ft horizontal.
                                                                        Night: 500ft below, 1000ft above, 2000ft horizontal.

More than 1200ft AGL and at or above 10000ft MSL :

                                                                        Day + Night: 1000ft below, 1000ft above, 1SM horizontal.

So this responds to your "inches" question ;)

Fly safe,

a fellow pilot.

Annother suggestion: the first paragraph states that the purpose of the VFR wx minima is for 'see and avoid.' While this is true, it is actually the second of two reasons for VFR wx minima. The first, and most important reason, is to keep non-instrument rated pilots out of conditions in which they are deprived of outside references.

I would debate what is to be regarded as the first and second reason. Actually, if your statement was correct, why are VFR minima different depending on the type of airspace. For the pilot's ability to keep an outside reference the type of airspace is irrelevant. In fact I think that the article is correct in making the point that the visual method of separation from other aircraft is what differentiates the VFR from the IFR system. (I am not the author of the article).

I just changed the article summary, but unfortunately, only after seeing this discussion. (Sorry, new wiki user). In any case, I agree with the original poster -- the main reason for VFR minima is to keep non-instrument rated pilots from losing control of the aircraft. The exact cloud separation requirements are, as the 2nd poster says, for see-and-avoid purposes. But if you enter IMC as a VFR pilot, the possibility of a mid-air collision is rather remote compared to the much larger possibility of losing control of the aircraft.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosy-ch (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

Sometimes I hear ex-pilots and Air Force Officers say "...flying VFR" as a metephore to take intiative and get things done without guidance. Would this be an apporiate article to put this in? BRI70 01:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please! The inserted CVFR Chart is nor a example for a VFR Chart nether respects this chart the valid minimal standards for Aeronautical charts (mostly more agreement then standards). In order to avoid publicity for some great distributors, You can use a sample of a ICAO Chart in Europe! The image with the sectional chart of Tel-Aviv is useless for many reasons: - Israel is not a GA-friendly state - The rhules for VFR (GA) are'nt not representative at all for others - the chart contains no objects and signs used for VFR Charts, instead of it's design is the same as IFR sectional charts - Please refer to accredited oragnisations and proposals for VFR like ICAO, EASA and national organisations like DGAC, BAZL, DFS and others (exemples for central Europe) --Cosy-ch (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not does this chart from Israelian airspace not correspond to EASA standards, it is simply a provocation. I wonder if there is 1 of 1 million of VFR rated pilots they even have been flying in this airspace as PIC.

Please, take a picture that reflects our daily view of airspace in Europe or elswhere (the example from EASA has the advantage, that it is identical for the whole Europe and the design standard is very new) --188.61.240.103 (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The chart is still there in 2022. Israel obviously represents a highly atypical ATC environment - it is to all intents and purposes an ongoing war zone. --Ef80 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]