Hence my Q in post #8.
Paradoxically here in Europe you could do all of this and post the videos.
But sure people viewing them will say various things… the only way to avoid that is to not post them in the first place, which is a great pity. We had that here a couple of years ago. Somebody posted a video, somebody said something stupid and pompous about it, and within the hour I had my home phone ringing, my mobile phone ringing, an incoming SMS, email… and had to clean up several posts.
I think on Youtube you can disable public comments (desirable since they are invariably banal). On Vimeo you can:
terbang wrote:
somehow you lsost me. There is no SVFR outside a CTR and he wasn’t in in a CTR? Or is there anything I’m getting completely wrong?
Sorry, you are quite right, there was no controlled airspace to the ground at that position. So that is another reason why his SVFR request wasn’t relevant/appropriate, along with this altitude, and the fact that he most likely wasn’t going to be able to remain clear of cloud anyway.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
If makes for a legal VFR approach when conditions are no longer VFR but you can stay in VMC. Or so I believe.
Flight conditions can’t be “VFR” or “IFR” — those are flight rules. Flight conditions are “VMC” or “IMC”.
Special VFR makes for a legal VFR approach (or departure or overflight) when conditions are no longer VMC, but you are still able to fly clear of clouds and with a flight visibility that theoretically allows you to see where you are going.
Special VFR makes for a legal VFR approach (or departure or overflight) when conditions are no longer VMC
Really? 
I reckon you meant to write
“Special VFR makes for a legal VFR approach (or departure or overflight) when conditions are no longer VFR”
VMC means simply not IMC.
VFR means VMC plus a whole pile of stuff which almost nobody can remember e.g. cloud clearance requirement versus altitude versus speed versus day/night versus airspace class.
If this guy as much as touched a cloud then he would not be VMC and thus could not be (any form of) VFR, no?
I also don’t get why anybody on earth would ever voluntarily give up an IFR clearance, unless
but why ever do it enroute? It just puts your back against a wall if you need to get anywhere near IMC, especially if you are filming it.
But the USA has a different culture, with the VFR-on-top being “IFR” but still allowing you to “move around” whereas, presumably, if you were “IFR” then you have to do a precise track coordinated with ATC (which is how European high altitude IFR runs).
Peter wrote:
Really?Really.
I reckon you meant to write
“Special VFR makes for a legal VFR approach (or departure or overflight) when conditions are no longer VFR”
No, I did not. I meant exactly what I wrote.
VFR means VMC plus a whole pile of stuff which almost nobody can remember e.g. cloud clearance requirement versus altitude versus speed versus day/night versus airspace class.
No, you are also confusing VFR with VMC. The “whole pile of stuff” are the VMC requirements.
SERA (and the International Rules of the Air) define Special VFR as “a VFR flight cleared by air traffic control to operate within a control zone in meteorological conditions below VMC.” (My emphasis.)
If this guy as much as touched a cloud then he would not be VMC and thus could not be (any form of) VFR, no?
That goes without saying.
Special VFR in Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA):
- maintain a flight visibility of 1,5km, speed limit of 140kts
I think SVFR is not limited to control zone. It is still VMC but just 1,5km ahead. You can see where you are going but things just pop up faster 
Otherwise the same rules as VFR.
Silvaire wrote:
who makes his plane into a movie studio, and who publishes the results.
Yes, great video quality and with headcam too
It is a good thing there are pilots who put their videos in youtube. Nobody is perfect and the videos are usually fun to watch. I hope there are more and more these great videos in the internet in the future. Also there is a lot to learn from the videos. And a lots to discuss on the euroga. I hope jaunty17 continues to make his videos. They were great. I bet he got all kind of feedback from the last one. Maybe it was a bit on the edge but all went well. I’d prefer people to leave the bashing out of the comments. Lets treat these videopilots nice. These videos are good for the GA anyway.
I’m not sure exactly what this video is. Is it a youtube video made by the pilot, then someone else picked it up, edited it a bit and added comments and suspense?
I linked the US rules for SVFR in my original post on this thread. As per my later post this flight at 12,500 ft would not be eligible as a result of being over 10,000 feet and outside of airspace associated with an airport (of which I believe all in the US in below 10,000 feet)
I think the guy is quite commendable in posting this stuff. Jeez, I guess we all here have made errors of judgment….. I sure as hell have. What I don’t quite get is why he didn’t descend through the hole clearly visible when he asks for SVFR (which, as others have explained, is moot at his position). Personally, I would have informed ATC of intentions, i.e. ‘found a hole, left turn 30 deg, descending to xyz’. This of course only if VFR. What I can’t remember now (and don’t have time to watch the video again) is if at that point he was VFR-on-top or VFR-over-the-top, which are two different things. Explanation here.
