Kid day at the airport...

On 16 Sep 2005 16:13:40 -0700, "Flyingmonk"
wrote in .com::

If we all obey all the rules, the world would
be a safer place, but a little more boring.

Your passengers and those over whom you aviate like it that way.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:08:48 GMT, John Theune
wrote in 4gIWe.78$zG1.75@trnddc05::

PS. I would not brag about it on the net if I were you.

Oh, it's merely a worldwide forum; what better place to announce your
violations in the best tradition of Steven Lee Rhine and John Larson?
It doesn't really reflect on the public esteem of all airmen. It's
just a family man indulging in his _hobby_, and entertaining the
children. The parents of the neighbor kids would probably have
approved of their flesh and blood cavorting overhead in violation of
Federal Aviation Regulations. After all, he is a federally
certificated airman and local AOPA Airport Support Network
volunteer; how could such an asset to aviation have possibly committed
an actionable transgression? :-)

I'm with Jay here, if you can see a prominent object 3 miles the other side of as you enter it, it is not a
violation, even though the kids in the back seat might say "ooo neet, we flew through a cloud"...

Oh, jeez. Better be careful, or you'll confuse these guys with common
sense. That's GOT to be some sort of violation of an FAR...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 16 Sep 2005 10:40:00 -0700, in rec.aviation.piloting you wrote:

Is there a size parameter? Bigger than a bread-box? Smaller than a
city block? I've searched and can't find a technical definition of an
"FAA cloud".

Hey Jay,

For the FAA definition of a cloud go to
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=15630. Scroll toward the
middle and you will find the following:

quote

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.

/quote

If you can see visible moisture, it's a cloud. While our machines may not
get as high as cirrus clouds, those things look pencil thin, yet they are
called clouds.

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.

Hope this helps.

Allen

Is there a size parameter? Bigger than a bread-box? Smaller than a
city block?

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.

Thanks for the *very* interesting website, Allen. I didn't realize
there was such a site!

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.


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 Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

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.

Jim


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

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.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Heh I've *heard* of class G, but around here it's mostly filled with
things (ie. trees, buildings, grass, the occasional airport, etc.).

Special VFR?

"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

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

The freedom to fly around clouds will be lost. There's a new one. When you
can flap your arms like a bird and fly under your own power then you can
complain about your flying freedoms being lost or restricted.