Kid day at the airport...

Jay Honeck wrote:

I find it heartening that the FAA *is* trying to define what a cloud is
-- I suspect that I'm not the first person to ask this question -- but
I'm disappointed that they are leaning toward such a broad definition.

Trying to define, Hell! They've simply copied the dictionary definition. That
shows they have some sense in this matter, at least.

IMHO, if this proposed definition is approved, VFR pilots really WILL
be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size
or opacity.

We already are. You've just been violating the restriction, that's all.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Jay, goddammit, you don't have ONE defender in this ng for your actions.
Why don't you admit a blunder and get on with it? And you can take your
"puffies" and wipe your ... windshield with them.

Now, Jim, you should know me better than that by now...

:-)

What you did was just flat illegal, and no amount of rationalization is
going to change the fact ... unless as most of us have pointed out that
you can SEE THROUGH the moisture.

That's crap. Worse, if this new FAA definition of "cloud" is passed, even
THAT will be "illegal"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

IMHO, if this proposed definition is approved, VFR pilots really WILL
be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size
or opacity.

We already are. You've just been violating the restriction, that's all.

If you're right, George, it's our right -- no, our duty -- to get stupid
rules changed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

If you're right, George, it's our right -- no, our duty -- to get stupid
rules changed.

I wish you luck.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
ire.net...
On 2005-09-17, RST Engineering wrote:
Jay, goddammit, you don't have ONE defender in this ng for your actions.

Probably has a lot more than ONE. This is one of those threads were
there are way too many idiots dancing on the head of a FAR.

I suggest we form a CA (clouds anonymous) organization. Why just today I
flew between clouds without the required clearance although visibility,
cloud density, cloud spacing and vertical development allowed one to see a
sparrow a half mile away. Guess I'll just sit here and wait for the FAA to
come knocking.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:04:23 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

IMHO, if this proposed definition is approved, VFR pilots really WILL
be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size
or opacity.

We already are. You've just been violating the restriction, that's all.

If you're right, George, it's our right -- no, our duty -- to get stupid
rules changed.

Hi Jay,

While I can understand the battle you are undertaking, please look at my
original post that you did not address in your reply to my original post.

From that post is below:

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with others. The cloud clearance
rules and regs are designed to protect the IFR pilot.

If I am GPS direct off route from point A and point B and plodding along in
and out of clouds, the last thing I would want is an unpleasant surprise
coming out of a cloud.

Mind you, center "may" give me a traffic advisory saying 43L, traffic 12:00
3 miles ahead, 3500 unverified. If either of our altitudes are off, it
will make for an unpleasant meeting.

Traffic is already hard enough to spot on severe clear days. Having my
head inside the cockpit and popping out of a cloud won't give me time to
see you much less avoid you if center doesn't / didn't give me an advisory.

While the big sky theory works, I wouldn't want to fully depend on it.

Note the first paragraph. The rules are to protect the IFR folks. The
rules as I see it are not stupid.

Yes, you may have a yugo size cloud that you are circling, but when I am
plodding along maintaining strict headings and altitudes, when I enter that
yugo size cloud, I expect a clear path on the other side, not parts of a
plane within that cloud. Nor should I have to worried about taking evasive
actions around that cloud.

I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
cruise altitude. And if you were not, I would be betting your eyes were
outside the cockpit and you were not at VFR cruise altitude which would
potentially reduce the 500 foot vertical separation.

Remember, while I am to see and avoid while in VFR conditions PRIOR to
entering that yugo size cloud, entering that cloud on an IFR flight, all
bets are off. My eyes are no longer outside the cockpit. Nor can I see
through yugo size clouds.

Why would you want to chance an IFR flight popping out of that yugo size
cloud?

So, in a nutshell, while that cloud may be innocent enough to a VFR pilot,
it's not so innocent to the IFR pilot that is allowed to enter that cloud.
You, now become a serious hazard to that IFR pilot.

Not sure if you monitor the rec.student newsgroup, but I posted my IFR
experiences today, and there was a VFR pilot in conditions that at best
were marginal for VFR flying.

I sure hope Mary and your standards are higher then that pilot.

Allen

On 2005-09-18, Dave Stadt wrote:

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
ire.net...
On 2005-09-17, RST Engineering wrote:
Jay, goddammit, you don't have ONE defender in this ng for your actions.

I suggest we form a CA (clouds anonymous) organization. Why just today I
flew between clouds without the required clearance although visibility,
cloud density, cloud spacing and vertical development allowed one to see a
sparrow a half mile away. Guess I'll just sit here and wait for the FAA to
come knocking.

My point is that some people seem to hyper focus on fine points in
regulations rather than just use common sense.

The FAR requiring a specific number of *feet* separation from clouds
is simply silly. Are you safer at 500 feet than 499? Perhaps one has
to draw the line somewhere but whats the point in defining the line in a
way that is difficult, if not impossible for the average pilot without
surveying equipment to measure?

In this particular case the FAA requires you to memorize numbers that
have little practical value. Whats the point? You need to be able to
react to traffic and give the other guy a fair chance to see you.

Apparently one is expected to believe that flying though a 10 foot
diameter wispy cloud is less safe that flying a few hundred feet above a
solid overcast. Silly.

Personally, while VFR I avoid anything that reduces my visibility to any
significant degree. I have changed course and altitude to mitigate the
effects of flying into the sun late in the day. Is that required by the
FARs?

"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.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:52:07 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

IMHO, if this proposed definition is approved, VFR pilots really WILL
be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size
or opacity.

We already are. You've just been violating the restriction, that's all.

The first flight I took, there was a (seemingly) handkerchief-sized
cloud ahead. The instructor told me to bear away from it.

"THAT?"

"Can you see through it?"

"No."

"Then bear away from it."



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Can you see through it?"

Under the proposed re-definition of "cloud", that would no longer matter.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"