A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kid day at the airport...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #26  
Old September 18th 05, 07:46 AM
Brad Zeigler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.