"Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:

"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.

The most likely problem was poor visibility, but the following suggests
that the haze might have been localized:

During an interview, the tower manager stated that no actions were taken
regarding the ASOS during his shift, which ended just after the accident
occurred. He also stated, "The visibility, present weather, and sky
condition at the approximate time of the accident was probably a little
better than what was being reported. I say this because I remember
aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight
between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft
and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.... To the best of my
knowledge, the ASOS was working as advertised that day with no reported
problems or systems log errors."