Just push the blue button!

Mike wrote:
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know
that it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number
of fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).

John-John was VFR to IMC?

Yep.

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?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know that
it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number of
fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).

John-John was VFR to IMC?

Yep.

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?

That doesn't mean he was VMC at the time of the accident. Based on what
happend I believe he wasn't, 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?

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.

"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.

You asked a question and when you didn't like the response you answered it
yourself. Where I come from, that's known as CS. YMMV.

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?"

"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.

"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."

Bob Noel wrote:

hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still \
I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
It may have been legal VFR.
legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
VMC?
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent
over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night.

That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors,
thats IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.

"Tman" x@x wrote in message
. ..
Bob Noel wrote:

hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still \
I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
It may have been legal VFR.
legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
VMC?
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent
over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors
in the accident were haze, and the dark night.

That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors, thats
IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.

No, that's not necessarily IMC. IMC means less than legal VFR.

I believe he WAS in IMC, however there's little doubt he was at least in
instrument conditions, which is not the same as IMC.

"Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote in message
news
"Tman" x@x wrote in message
. ..
Bob Noel wrote:

hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
\
I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
It may have been legal VFR.
legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
VMC?
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s)
of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent
over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night.

That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors,
thats IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.

No, that's not necessarily IMC. IMC means less than legal VFR.

I believe he WAS in IMC, however there's little doubt he was at least in
instrument conditions, which is not the same as IMC.


As they say, looks like he flew into Cumulo-Granite.

--
Regards, Bob F.