"Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote in
:

"James Robinson" wrote in message
.. .
"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."

That's my point exactly. I have little doubt that visibilities were
good at the airport, but that doesn't mean they were good over the
water.


Even if they were good, that doesn't mean there was a clear horizon..


Bertie