"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
New Definition of ``Cloud'' in Sec. G417.3

In response to comments, the draft regulatory language would define
``cloud'' as a visible mass of water droplets or ice crystals produced by
condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere.

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

As with your previous claim about how we might "go down this road with other
FAA weather descriptions", your extrapolation is flawed.

Please note that the definition specifically uses the words "visible MASS"
and "produced by CONDENSATION" (emphasis mine, of course). Yes, you can
still equivocate over the meaning of those words, but it seems clear to be
that the FAA is absolutely trying to distinguish between what we typically
think of as a cloud, and other forms of water seen in the atmosphere.

Personally, I'd agree the definition may go a little too far. As I've
stated before, I'm of the opinion that an area of condensed moisture that is
not opaque, and through which you can see the requisite VFR required
visibility distance should not be considered a cloud, even if the area is
cloud-shaped.

But to say that the definition would somehow wreak havoc on VFR pilots,
that's just absurd. At most, it would represent a minor change in how we
deal with visible moisture, and for many folks it would represent no change
whatsoever.

Pete