"Highfllyer" wrote in message
...
JFK was flying on a night when the weather was legally VFR.

If he HAD realized that it could be ACTUALLY IFR, while still being easily
VFR LEGALLY and as reported by the aviation weather people he might not
have
messed up.

Reading this, I started to wonder why the FAA doesn't define IFR in terms of
horizon reference, and then it occurred to me that the basis for the IFR/VFR
distinction is mainly aircraft separation. I bet it was only after the fact
that IFR/IMC began to seem synonymous, but my guess is that they were
originally intended to be completely orthogonal concepts. IFR rules were
intended to keep aircraft separated. If you look at all the definitions for
legal VFR flights (i.e. cloud separation and visibility) you'll see that
they are geared towards visual separation of aircraft, with little (or no?)
consideration to flying by visual reference. In time, I think people began
to see them the VFR rules as neccesary and sufficient criteria for VFR
flight.

So, here's a thesis to discuss: was the FAA's original intent with IFR/VFR
distinction simply aimed at aircraft separation and not focused on the issue
of aircraft control by instruments? If you think about it, the fundamental
reason for ATC is to separate aircraft. If there are circumstances where one
could see another airplane to avoid it, but one cannot see the ground (e.g.
New Mexico at night) then the FAA's position seems to be go ahead and fly on
instruments without talking to us.