"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
I think we're also getting hung up on my use of the word "scattered" in
the story -- which, in FAA terminology, means a LOT more clouds

If you had fewer clouds than the standard definition of "scattered" (which
isn't the FAA's definition), then perhaps you should have described them as
"few".

But in any case, I'd say what we're "getting hung up on" is your use of the
word "cloud". The number of clouds is irrelevant. If there's just one,
it's still illegal to touch that one cloud while operating VFR (the exact
distance depends on the particular airspace, but there's no allowance for
actually touching a cloud while VFR).

[...] There
were far less than "few" (as the FAA would say), and the puffies were
aligned in a nice, neat row of about five miles in length.

The number, alignment, position, etc. are all irrelevant.

IMHO, if you cannot see through the condensed moisture suspended in the air,
it's a cloud. You may argue that it's so small as to not present a safety
issue, but the legal requirement does not provide exceptions for clouds that
are small enough to see around.

(As a reminder: "legal" is not the same as "safe", just as "illegal is not
the same as "unsafe"...the two terms often coincide, but you need to meet
both "legal" AND "safe" as a pilot).

If you can see THROUGH, then you're just fine, IMHO. That's not a cloud,
it's a visibility reduction. If you cannot see through the cloud, you have
no business touching it, no matter how small.

I'm always surprised by the development of puffies in a row --
especially a sharply defined, very small row. It's hard to imagine
what is happening in the atmosphere to cause their development in such
a tighly defined area, but I see them fairly regularly around here.

Let's see if that attempt at redirecting the conversation will work out for
you.

Pete