"Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote in
:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"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..

But it would mean he would have had visual references like the
moonlight shining off the water, the lighthouse at Gay Head, and the
lights from numerous ships and buoys in the shipping channel below.
These are things he could have used to keep the dirty side down.



Well, it doesn't take long and things like the moon on the water can
have exactly the opposite effect. when the whole thing gets past a
certain poiint someone whp's not so good with instruments can lose it
fast.



Bertie