Kid day at the airport...

"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.

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".

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure there *is* a workable rule here.

Example: Mary and I took the kids on a wonderful flight to Wisconsin today.
The weather was perfect VFR -- CAVU most of the way.

However, for a brief part of the flight we were underneath a vaporously
thin, wraith-like layer of "clouds" just a few hundred feet over us. (We
were cruising at 5500 feet.) It could be easily seen through.

Below us, by an undetermined distance, was a widely scattered layer of
puffies. These ranged in size from basketballs to semi-trucks.

The impression of speed between these "layers" was breath-taking. We knew
it was a localized condition, as the next AWOS ahead made no mention of
clouds or lowered visibility.

The conundrum: Go up, and we'd be in the layer of lowered visibility
which -- under the proposed new FAA definition of "cloud" -- would be
illegal -- even though it could be seen through, and did not represent a
"cloud" or a "layer" in the normal sense of the words. And, of course,
purposefully subjecting ourselves to lowered visibility would be stupid,
anyway.

Go down, and we're dipping our wings in occasional puffies -- which guys
like Dighera, Duniho, and Patterson would have us believe is illegal.

Worse, by virtue of our relative distance from some of these "clouds", some
here would say that we were already illegal -- yet we were in easy VFR
conditions, under VFR flight following, had a zillion miles visibility in
all directions, and no other traffic. We both agreed that we were not in
violation of VFR flight rules.

Those who persist in trying to make this an easy, black and white issue are
not thinking it through. In fact, the more I ponder the issue, the more I
believe that the official definition of "FAA clouds" is best left ambiguous,
lest redefining the word lead to other, unintended regulatory consequences.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:MOqXe.342109$_o.14257@attbi_s71...
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure there *is* a workable rule here.

Well, by all means, we should obviously simply abandon any attempt to
regulate how VFR pilot fly with respect to clouds and visibility! After
all, there is NO workable rule!

Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
cloud clearances requirements.

You know what most people do when that happens? They acknowledge that their
lives would so much simpler if they just got the instrument rating, and they
successfully avoid violating the VFR visibility and cloud clearances
requirements. They do this either by maneuvering around the clouds, or
flying at an altitude that preserves the required visibility and clearances,
or (GASP!) they simply don't fly.

What a concept: the weather doesn't allow one to fly VFR legally, so the
VFR-only pilot just doesn't fly. If you find an area through which you
cannot fly legally, you divert. You go around, over, under, or turn back.

On the bright side, I find your "I am unaffected by any discussion contrary
to my previously determined path" approach to be refreshingly consistent
with everything else you post here. At least you a true to your habits.

Pete

Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
cloud clearances requirements.

Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Apparently not. Why this continues to surprise me, I surely don't know...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

It looks like this thread is degrading. Get out while you can and save
yourself some stress and keystrokes. If you have not convinced any
of the folks who disagree with you by now, you probably won't.

Where do I stand on this issue? I DON'T. I have my own opinions but
don't think it is worth the effort to post them since my opinions are
not fully-formed.

Btw, your original post was really cool and I loved reading it! Please
continue to share your experiences. I liked your "Therapy" post, too.
I can't wait to take my 1 year-old flying, but am stifled by my "Nervous
Nellie" of a wife who won't let me fly my son until she is comfortable
with flying. Anyhow, that's another discussion for another thread on
another day. Please keep writing on how your kids do and don't like
flying. Also, please share how you introduced your family to flying.
You may email me privately if you want at flying (-a-t-) K7SLE-dot-com.

Thanks,

Chris G.



Jay Honeck wrote:
Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
cloud clearances requirements.


Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Apparently not. Why this continues to surprise me, I surely don't know...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2GrXe.342258$_o.334630@attbi_s71...
Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Of course I did. I have no idea why you would think I didn't.

Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Of course I did. I have no idea why you would think I didn't.

Because your response addresses a topic not covered in the subject line, or
my post, perhaps?

But that's okay, Pete. I think this horse is dead anyway. At least you
haven't called me a Nazi...yet!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:hxyXe.347328$_o.262772@attbi_s71...
Because your response addresses a topic not covered in the subject line,
or my post, perhaps?

It appears that YOU failed to read MY post.