Kid day at the airport...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
[...]
BTW, I've never seen a definition of "cloud" either. I'm not sure I'd use
the "see through" description. Although that does make sense, I think I'd
use a stricter definition: a region with less than VFR visibility.

That is, if there's a chunk of sky with visibility below 3 miles, I'd call
that a cloud.

While I see the appeal in that definition, I don't believe it's the right
one.

That is, "flight visibility" simply refers to how far a pilot can see from
his position. A chunk of airspace smaller than 3 miles cannot possibly have
"visibility below 3 miles". You need at least 3 miles of airspace in order
to see 3 miles.

Perhaps you are using the "3 miles" as a theoretical gauge, where it merely
represents the average density of a 3 mile chunk of airspace through which a
pilot can see, but no farther. But that doesn't help in determining how far
the pilot can see.

Imagine an area of reduced visibility, isolated in an area of 100 mile
visibility, which if it were completely solid would allow the pilot to see
only 2 miles, but which is only 1/2 mile across. The pilot could easily see
through that area, and easily beyond to the required 3 miles. I would not
consider it reasonable to restrict the pilot from flying through that area
of reduced visibility, given that the pilot can continuously maintain 3
miles of visibility, in spite of being within an area of higher density
reduction of visibility.

Of course, all of the above assumes 3 miles visibility is the true minimum
visibility for VFR flight. The actual minimum is 1 mile, under the right
conditions.

I'm not sure exactly why that definition appeals to me, but it does.
Perhaps because it fits with other limitations on VFR flight.

The limitation for visibility is separate from the limitation for cloud
clearances. Invoking the visibility requirements as a way of defining a
cloud is tempting, but misguided, IMHO.

Pete

Good advice for Jay and the rest of us John. We all break the rules,
some more than others. If we all obey all the rules, the world would
be a safer place, but a little more boring.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:g0EWe.9$iu5.6@trndny04...
Jay Honeck wrote:

So, you're telling me that I'd have to stay 1000 feet away from a cloud
the size of, say, my Subaru? How 'bout a basketball?

No, the *FAA* is telling you that. I'm simply saying that failing to do that and bragging about it on usenet
is a blatant violation of the FARs.

A "cloud" shall henceforth be defined as something that a plane can
hide behind -- period.

Redefine English if you want; the State of New Jersey does it all the time.

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"...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
PPASEL-IA, but not needed on this flight

Sometimes it's a result of thermal activity, bubbles of warmed, moist air
rising from plowed fields, parking lots and so forth.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
I'm always surprised by the development of puffies in a row --
especially a sharply defined, very small row. It's hard to imagine
what is happening in the atmosphere to cause their development in such
a tighly defined area, but I see them fairly regularly around here.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

That's not a cloud,
it's a visibility reduction.

That's a neat definition. :-)

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

I disagree. If you can see through it, it is not a cloud. If it is a
softball but you can't see through it, it is a cloud.

Jim



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

A "cloud" shall henceforth be defined as something that a plane can
hide behind -- period. If it can be seen through, or is small enough
so that an aircraft can't hide behind it, we shall not deem it to be a
"cloud", but shall rather refer to it as a "puffie" -- which we will be
allowed to play in.

I don't think you and Mary agreeing that something is safe gets to
override the FARs. It pretty clear that the FARs say no touching the
clouds when your VFR.

Well, if your definition of "cloud" means ANY condensed water vapor in any
concentration or size, I guess you're right.

That ain't my definition of "cloud", and I don't believe that's the
spirit -- or the letter -- of the FAR.

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

I'm not bragging, I'm stating what I believe to be true.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("Jim Burns" wrote)
ROFL! Run Jay, he can't catch ya! or just stop and tell him a joke,
laughing will kill him!


I celebrated 30 days tonight by going to the dollar theater to see
Cinderella Man - a movie about guys punching one another in the gut :-o

I'll have to drop some more "F-CG" before I drive down to take a flying
lesson in Greg's Ercoupe.


Montblack
No 3 mile walk tonight - movie instead. Oh no, bad habits returning... :-(

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
I'll have to drop some more "F-CG" before I drive down to take a flying
lesson in Greg's Ercoupe.

If I keep going to these Fly-In breakfasts each Sunday, I may have to
recheck my weight and balance myself! ;-)

Hector (1D6) and Jackson (MJQ) this Sunday...

-Greg B.

Peter Duniho wrote:

IÂ*would
not consider it reasonable to restrict the pilot from flying through that
area of reduced visibility, given that the pilot can continuously maintain
3 miles of visibility, in spite of being within an area of higher density
reduction of visibility.

That's a good point. I *was* thinking along the lines of a visual density,
but that's not what the FARs actually discuss.

TheÂ*actualÂ*minimumÂ*isÂ*1Â*mile,Â*underÂ*theÂ*ri ghtÂ*
conditions.

Heh I've *heard* of class G, but around here it's mostly filled with
things (ie. trees, buildings, grass, the occasional airport, etc.).

- Andrew