![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com... IMHO, if this proposed definition is approved, VFR pilots really WILL be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size or opacity. This rule could therefore open us up to all sorts of violations and liability, which would, in turn, dissuade more people from flying VFR. Which would, in turn, turn even more people away from GA. Quite frankly, I find it insulting that we, as airmen, would not be allowed to judge which "clouds" were safe to fly around -- or through -- under this proposed definition. If this definition passes, flying through a basketball-sized cloud, an area of limited visibility, or a low-hanging tendril of virga will represent a potentially actionable offense -- which is just plain stupid. I think it's pretty obvious that what we were doing by flying around Volkswagen-sized puffies, with ~2000 feet between each puffie, was completely safe and without risk -- yet this rule's proposed definition of "cloud" would make that kind of flying illegal. In short, to regard every "visible mass of water droplets" -- regardless of size or opacity -- as some sort of aerial minefield for VFR pilots, is absurd. Sadly, the "liability police" will probably win this one -- good GOD, we certainly can't allow the rabble to exercise any *judgement* -- and yet another of our freedoms will be lost. Of course, if you listen to guys like Larry and Pete, we've already lost this freedom long ago -- so I guess we can rest assured that *they* won't care. Jay, your comments sound a bit irrational. Are you suggesting that the FAA include the minimum dimensions of visible moisture that define a cloud? The FAA can not and should not let everyone define what a cloud is. Your towering CB might be someone elses "puffie". Like Alan noted, in order for IFR flight to work safely, VFR flights must stay safely far enough away so that both they and the IFR flight can maintain see-and-avoid. The plain and simple truth is that VFR pilots have no business in clouds, period. There is a simple way to fly in the clouds...IFR. If you'd like to fly in the clouds without dealing with those pesky controllers, get the instrument rating and fly around in class G airspace. Beware of 91.13 though. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Palo Alto airport, potential long-term problems... | [email protected] | Piloting | 7 | June 6th 05 11:32 PM |
WI airport closure | Mike Spera | Owning | 0 | March 9th 05 01:53 PM |
N94 Airport may expand into mobile home community, locals supportive | William Summers | Piloting | 0 | March 18th 04 03:03 AM |
Rules on what can be in a hangar | Brett Justus | Owning | 13 | February 27th 04 05:35 PM |