wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:29:58 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point
visibility
becomes adequate).


Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded
to
stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As
I
said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

Let's see: The message he responded to stated "when an instrument letdown
to
a civil airport is necessary". Are you saying the gist of the thread was
the opposite of this?

Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility prior to that.


No, you're inferring.

I'm trying to figure out why he's addressing an instrument letdown being
necessary and your addressing visual letdown.


Because the original post described a situation which required an
instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.


He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown being
necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.