"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
but the question I would have for you was
why do you feel the burning desire to ask questions in which you are
already convinced of the answer?

You are making an invalid assumption. I merely asked if you (or
anyone)
had seen wx reports that the conditions were IMC. I was seeking
information. Please don't attempt to read more into the question
than that.

No, that's not what you asked. Go back and read it again.

To the contrary. It is what I asked. quote "hmmm, all the wx reports
I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still legal). Do you have
reference to reports that the conditions were not VMC?"

Not quite, Bob. The question you originally asked was:

"John-John was VFR to IMC?"

After you received my answer, you proceeded to answer it yourself. So the
real reason you asked it was simply to be argumentative. In other words,
CS. If you don't agree with my assertion, then provide your own references
and we can discuss it like two rational people. If you want to go down the
road of CS, then expect such to be noted.

To answer your latest question, yes I do.

One report:
"Another pilot had flown from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Long Island, New York,
and crossed the Long Island Sound on the same evening, about 1930. This
pilot stated that during his preflight weather briefing from an FSS, the
specialist indicated VMC for his flight. The pilot filed an IFR flight plan
and conducted the flight at 6,000 feet. He stated that he encountered
visibilities of 2 to 3 miles throughout the flight because of haze. He also
stated that the lowest visibility was over water, between Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, and eastern Long Island."

So here we have a pilot reporting IMC in the exact area and he goes on to
say the worst of it was over water. I put a high degree of reliability on
his estimate for a couple of reasons. One, his report came when there was
still daylight and he could better judge visibility. Two, he was IFR and
had no reason to overstate the visibility as a pilot of a VFR flight might.

Another pilot:
The pilot stated that he departed TEB "...in daylight and good flight
conditions and reasonable visibility. The horizon was not obscured by haze.
I could easily pick our land marks at least five [miles] away." The pilot
also stated that he did not request or receive flight information after his
departure from TEB. Once clear of the New York Class B airspace, he stated
that he climbed his airplane to 17,500 feet and proceeded towards Nantucket.
He reported that above 14,000 feet, the visibility was unrestricted;
however, he also reported that during his descent to Nantucket, when his
global positioning system (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over Martha's
Vineyard, he looked down and "...there was nothing to see. There was no
horizon and no light....I turned left toward Martha's Vineyard to see if it
was visible but could see no lights of any kind nor any evidence of the
island...I thought the island might [have] suffered a power failure."

So here we have another pilot who was flying over Martha's Vinyard on his
approach to ACK. It doesn't mention altitude, but he did say that he was on
his descent. So he was somewhere between 17,500 and probably around 12,000.
That's 2-3 miles up and he can't see the lights. There were no low level
clouds that night. That indicates the haze was very thick and visibilities
would have been very low in the haze layer.

The only other report comes from a pilot of a VFR flight (who almost
certainly isn't going to report visibilities of less than 3 miles) and even
he says he doesn't remember seeing the Gay Head lighthouse. Even his
estimation says it was "3-5 miles" which was right on the edge of IMC.

So what references do you have, Bob?

MVY might have been reporting VMC, but that was on the surface, over dry
land, and about 18 miles away from the crash site.