"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
As I've stated, it was even fewer than "few"...

And as I've stated, it really doesn't matter what the number of clouds was.

But since you brought it up: "few" is any number of clouds from 0
(non-inclusive) to fewer than 1/8 sky coverage. The only "fewer than 'few'"
is no clouds at all.

IMHO we need a better working definition of "cloud".

Something wrong with your dictionary?

Remaining "clear
of clouds" or "x distance from clouds" is all fine and dandy when
they're big, massive CBs -- anyone can figure that one out.

But what of these little puffies? Somehow treating a Toyota-sized puff
with the same deference as a 50-story cumulo-nimbus cloud seems absurd.

Why? The bottom line is this: if an airplane could fly through the cloud
without you seeing it until it has emerged, it's a safety hazard. Even the
"semi-truck" sized clouds you described are capable of creating that
situation.

IMHO, if you cannot see through the condensed moisture suspended in the
air,
it's a cloud. You may argue that it's so small as to not present a
safety
issue, but the legal requirement does not provide exceptions for clouds
that
are small enough to see around.

What is the source of that tid-bit, if you don't mind sharing? Or are
you just restating the "clear of clouds" line from the FAR-AIM?

My "source" is the dictionary, along with my opinion. I did write that it
was my opinion. However, it is based on sound, logical reasoning: "if you
cannot see through..." The point of the cloud clearance requirements is to
allow for "see and avoid". If you cannot see through the condensed
moisture, then it is preventing "see and avoid", and the requirements
intended to allow "see and avoid" should prevail.

What is YOUR justification for not counting as a cloud an area of condensed
moisture that blocks your view of possible air traffic?

Right. I believe I was both, but it's all going to come down to the
FAA's definition of "cloud".

As has been pointed out to you: if the FAA does not provide a definition,
you look to your dictionary.

If you can see THROUGH, then you're just fine, IMHO. That's not a cloud,
it's a visibility reduction. If you cannot see through the cloud, you
have
no business touching it, no matter how small.

If that's the FAA's definition of "cloud" I was clearly in violation of
the FARs. I personally don't think that's what is meant by "clear of
clouds" (or even "cloud", for that matter) -- but I can't find any hard
and fast definition of "cloud" in the FARs...

There's a lot of things that the FARs don't define explicitly. However,
that doesn't mean each of us gets to make up our own definition for those
words.

Crap. We could go down this road with other FAA weather descriptions,
too.

I doubt it. At the least, you didn't provide any examples of the above
statement.

What's "fog"? I've flown in haze that was pretty close to fog, and
I've seen fog that wasn't as thick as the haze we routinely fly in
around here in August. Most people would say it's illegal to fly VFR
in fog, no?

There are no aviation regulations governing flight in "fog". There ARE
regulations governing flight in particular visibility conditions, but you
are permitted to fly VFR in "fog" as long as your visibility is at least 1
mile (for Class G airspace and certain other situations...higher for other
kinds of airspace, of course).

You can define "fog" however you like. Since the word isn't used to
describe the rules pertaining to VFR flight, it doesn't matter what the
definition you use is.

What are "known icing conditions"? By some people's definition of the
FARs I fly in them all the time, VFR. Of course, I'm thousands of feet
below the freezing level, in light rain -- but technically I'm in
"known icing conditions" by some definitions...

By which definitions? The FAA says "known icing conditions" are visible
moisture with the outside air temperature at or below freezing. By whose
definition would you be in "known icing conditions" when flying "thousands
of feet below the freezing level"?

The FAA's definition is pretty clear. People can and do violate it. But
that doesn't change the specificity of the FAA's definition.

Mary and I have pretty stringent minimums that we won't violate when
flying.

Apparently they are your own, however. The FAA uses different minimums.

At no time do we ever fly in any manner that we don't *both*
agree is "safe."

As stated befo "legal" and "safe" are not necessarily the same thing.
You can be "safe", and yet still "not legal".

We also both have a solid working knowledge of the
FARs,

So you say.

and we do not consider cloud, er, "Puffie Dancing" (that just
doesn't have the same 'ring' to it) to be in violation of the FARs.

However, it is.

Dipping a wing in a puffie on a clear VFR day, far from any airport,
hundreds of miles from the nearest busy airspace, is one of the true
joys of flying, and it would strike me as sad to think that someone
would view it as "illegal" or "unsafe"...

Replace the activity with any number of other statements: "touching a float
down, on a smooth glassy lake"; "rolling inverted, below a pure blue sky and
above rolling green hills"; "soaring with the condors over the vast desert
in an unpowered glider". They all could be called "one of the true joys of
flying". Yet, they are not legal for all pilots at all times.

Just because something is enjoyable, or even may be "one of the true joys of
flying", does not mean that everyone has the unrestrained privilege to
engage in that activity whenever they like.

Your activity is, at a minimum, illegal. It may well be unsafe as well, at
least in the sense that you have abandoned the cloud clearance requirements
of the FARs, allowing for the potential of other air traffic emerging from a
cloud right where you are.

I will certainly grant that, for small enough clouds, spaced far enough
apart, making some basic assumptions about the slowest air traffic likely to
be flying in your area, you can make an assertion that because you have been
monitoring the airspace prior to your approach to the cloud, and because
that airspace has been clear of traffic, you know no air traffic could have
entered the cloud at a time that would result it leaving the cloud just as
you were adjacent to the cloud.

But none of that makes it legal, and in fact it assumes you have perfect
knowledge of the air traffic in the area, and have not overlooked someone
flying through the area.

As I like to point out to people who roll through stop signs, park on the
wrong side of the street, etc.: practically no one drives their vehicle into
an obstacle that they saw, and yet lots of collisions still occur. The
reason we follow certain rules and regulations is that we sometimes do not
see the obstacle, and following those rules and regulations either keeps us
safely away from the obstacle, or allows us for more room for error, to
avoid the obstacle.

Pete