Today was "kid day" for us. First, we took a lunch flight with a good
friend and his son and daughter, ages 2 and 4. Then, later in the day, we
did a sight-seeing flight with my 11 year old daughter, and one of her
school friends.

Both flights were outstanding! We had a high overcast here today, with
some light rain sprinkles, but it was cool and good VFR, with relatively
smooth air.

The first flight was interesting in that it was their first flights, ever,
so they were quite thrilled. It was also unusual in that we had five on
board -- something I've rarely done. We flew to a nearby town for lunch,
and then home, which was more than enough for the young 'uns.

The second flight was more rewarding, personally, as my daughter's friend
was completely enamored with the experience. We circled the city for quite
some time, picking out her school, and her house, and Kinnick Stadium (where
the Iowa Hawkeyes play football), and all the usual stuff.

Then, as an added treat, a scattered layer of puffy clouds developed at
around 4000 MSL -- and she wanted to go "cloud dancing"! We climbed off
east of town, until we were even with the clouds. Wheeling and soaring,
dipping a wing in the little puffies, I had her squealing with delight in
the headphones!

Best of all, I think she gave my incredibly aviation-jaded daughter a fresh
look at how lucky we really are to fly.

There's just nothing better than flying with kids!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:lSqWe.113966$084.49581@attbi_s22...

> Then, as an added treat, a scattered layer of puffy clouds developed at
> around 4000 MSL -- and she wanted to go "cloud dancing"! We climbed off
> east of town, until we were even with the clouds. Wheeling and soaring,
> dipping a wing in the little puffies, I had her squealing with delight in
> the headphones!

I would have liked this story better if you said "a scattered layer of
puffy clouds developed at around 4000 MSL, so I called approach for a pop-up
IFR clearance so we could go cloud dancing..."

Get the rating!

What? How could he have asked for an IFR clearance if he wasn't IFR
rated? I assume he was.

Jay,
There is not much that is more fun than taking kids on their first
ride. I do it for my Boy Scouts all the time (if you are interested, I
can help with the paperwork/insurance req for BSA). I joined CAP just
so I could fly cadets! Introducing people to aviation is awesome!

-Robert, CFI

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> What? How could he have asked for an IFR clearance if he wasn't IFR
> rated? I assume he was.

No, he's not. He simply routinely violates the cloud clearance requirements as
far as "puffies" are concerned.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What? How could he have asked for an IFR clearance if he wasn't IFR
> rated? I assume he was.
>

Jay's not instrument rated and flies exclusively VFR. Jay has repeatedly
mentioned why he hasn't finished his rating, noteably that he doesn't need
it and wouldn't be able to stay proficient, inspite of the fact that he
probably flies 200 hours a year. Considering how much flying he does, he'd
be an excellent candidate for getting an instrument rating. I always enjoy
Jay's flying stories, but I would have liked this one a bit better if he
wasn't violating VFR cloud clearance minimums in the process.

> I would have liked this story better if you said "a scattered layer of
> puffy clouds developed at around 4000 MSL, so I called approach for a pop-up
> IFR clearance so we could go cloud dancing..."

A pop-up IFR clearance to go cloud dancing? We're talking about
dipping a wing in a puffy cloud the size of a semi-truck, separated by
1/2 mile from the next nearest similar-sized cloud.

> Get the rating!

Although there are many valid reasons to obtain an IR, IMHO your
example isn't one of them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> A pop-up IFR clearance to go cloud dancing? We're talking about
> dipping a wing in a puffy cloud the size of a semi-truck, separated by
> 1/2 mile from the next nearest similar-sized cloud.

We're talking about blatant violation of the FARs.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

> > A pop-up IFR clearance to go cloud dancing? We're talking about
> > dipping a wing in a puffy cloud the size of a semi-truck, separated by
> > 1/2 mile from the next nearest similar-sized cloud.
>
> We're talking about blatant violation of the FARs.

Really? What is the technical definition of a "cloud"?

If I can see through it, is it a "cloud"?

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

> There is not much that is more fun than taking kids on their first
> ride. I do it for my Boy Scouts all the time (if you are interested, I
> can help with the paperwork/insurance req for BSA). I joined CAP just
> so I could fly cadets! Introducing people to aviation is awesome!

Thanks, Robert -- but I'm already there! I've flown Cub Scouts, Boy
Scouts, and Girl Scouts, as well as Young Eagles and (unofficially,
although I am in CAP -- just haven't had time to get certified in their
aircraft yet) CAP cadets. (We did the flight under the auspices of
Young Eagles, since I wasn't legit as a CAP pilot.)

Flying with kids is the best thing, IMHO. They generally love flying,
love airplanes, love airports -- and they don't critique my landings!

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

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> We're talking about blatant violation of the FARs.
>
> Really? What is the technical definition of a "cloud"?

I would say if you use the word "cloud" to describe it, it's a cloud.

If you're so sure it doesn't qualify as a cloud, why did you call it a
cloud? What is it, if not a cloud?

Pete

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> I would have liked this story better if you said "a scattered layer of
>> puffy clouds developed at around 4000 MSL, so I called approach for a
>> pop-up
>> IFR clearance so we could go cloud dancing..."
>
> A pop-up IFR clearance to go cloud dancing?

Why not? Then if you want to fly through a larger cloud, you can do that
too. Unless you're in the middle of a busy approach corridor, you can ask
for a block altitude, radius of present location, or whatever. People
believe you can't do fun stuff like sightseeing or cloud chasing VFR...sure
you can, just need a clearance to do it.

>
> Although there are many valid reasons to obtain an IR, IMHO your
> example isn't one of them.

I appologize as I must have misread your post. I interpreted "dipping a
wing in the little puffies" as flying closer than 500 feet below the cloud,
1000 feet above, or 2000 feet laterally. I'm sorry for the
misunderstanding.

> > Really? What is the technical definition of a "cloud"?
>
> I would say if you use the word "cloud" to describe it, it's a cloud.
>
> If you're so sure it doesn't qualify as a cloud, why did you call it a
> cloud? What is it, if not a cloud?

Well, it's truly a semantic problem. As the Eskimos have 60 words for
"snow", I think we need more words for "cloud."

I think we're also getting hung up on my use of the word "scattered" in
the story -- which, in FAA terminology, means a LOT more clouds (or
whatever they should be called; from hereout I shall call them
"puffies", meaning "less than cloud") than I was playing with. There
were far less than "few" (as the FAA would say), and the puffies were
aligned in a nice, neat row of about five miles in length.

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

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>A pop-up IFR clearance to go cloud dancing? We're talking about
>>>dipping a wing in a puffy cloud the size of a semi-truck, separated by
>>>1/2 mile from the next nearest similar-sized cloud.
>>
>>We're talking about blatant violation of the FARs.
>
> Really? What is the technical definition of a "cloud"?

Yes, really. As far as definition is concerned, the OED will do for me. "Visible
condensed water vapour suspended in the atmosphere high over the general level
of the ground."

> If I can see through it, is it a "cloud"?

Yep. It just has to be visible.

> Is there a size parameter?

Nope.

> I've searched and can't find a technical definition of an
> "FAA cloud".

The FAA usually feels that they don't have to define commonly used English
words. Webster's or Oxford already does that job nicely.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

> > I've searched and can't find a technical definition of an
> > "FAA cloud".
>
> The FAA usually feels that they don't have to define commonly used English
> words. Webster's or Oxford already does that job nicely.

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?

How about something you can see through to the other side? Is that
"cloud" or "haze"?

Mary and I have just spent a few minutes discussing the meaning of the
FAA cloud rules, and have come to this conclusion:

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.

:-)

Seriously, I think this definition gets to the spirit and meaning of
the FAR -- after all, the rule is there primarily to separate aircraft
-- and makes the most sense in practical terms.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

On 16 Sep 2005 11:14:49 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>::

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

Actually, you have to stay _2,000' feet_ laterally away from the cloud
if you're dipping a wing into it.

> > 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.

That's nonsense.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

George Patterson > wrote:

> I'm simply saying that failing to do that and
> bragging about it on usenet is a blatant violation of the FARs.

Perhaps failing to remain clear of clouds by the legal requirements is a
violation of the FARS, but I don't think there is a FAR preventing Jay from
bragging about it on Usenet.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"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.


No George your wrong. The above should read: " I'm simply saying that
failing to do that is a blatant violation of the FARs and bragging about it
on usenet is a violation of good sense."

Peter R. wrote:
>
> Perhaps failing to remain clear of clouds by the legal requirements is a
> violation of the FARS, but I don't think there is a FAR preventing Jay from
> bragging about it on Usenet.

Nope, but that's what makes it "blatant."

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> No George your wrong. The above should read: " I'm simply saying that
> failing to do that is a blatant violation of the FARs and bragging about it
> on usenet is a violation of good sense."

That too.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> I think we're also getting hung up on my use of the word "scattered" in
> the story -- which, in FAA terminology, means a LOT more clouds

If you had fewer clouds than the standard definition of "scattered" (which
isn't the FAA's definition), then perhaps you should have described them as
"few".

But in any case, I'd say what we're "getting hung up on" is your use of the
word "cloud". The number of clouds is irrelevant. If there's just one,
it's still illegal to touch that one cloud while operating VFR (the exact
distance depends on the particular airspace, but there's no allowance for
actually touching a cloud while VFR).

> [...] There
> were far less than "few" (as the FAA would say), and the puffies were
> aligned in a nice, neat row of about five miles in length.

The number, alignment, position, etc. are all irrelevant.

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.

(As a reminder: "legal" is not the same as "safe", just as "illegal is not
the same as "unsafe"...the two terms often coincide, but you need to meet
both "legal" AND "safe" as a pilot).

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.

> 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.

Let's see if that attempt at redirecting the conversation will work out for
you. :)

Pete

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> A "cloud" shall henceforth be defined as something that a plane can
> hide behind -- period.

I could easily hide a plane behind a semi-truck.

> [...]
> Seriously, I think this definition gets to the spirit and meaning of
> the FAR

First of all, the FAA enforces the letter, not the spirit, of the FARs. I
refer you to the many "can a Private Pilot accept <insert payment here>?"
threads. Secondly, you certainly have not made clear that you have been
obeying the spirit of the FARs.

Pete

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> -- and they don't critique my landings!


....sorry about that. :-)


Montblack

("Brad Zeigler" wrote)
[snip]
> Jay's not instrument rated and flies exclusively VFR. Jay has repeatedly
> mentioned why he hasn't finished his rating, noteably that he doesn't need
> it and wouldn't be able to stay proficient, inspite of the fact that he
> probably flies 200 hours a year. Considering how much flying he does,
> he'd be an excellent candidate for getting an instrument rating.


IIRC, he was near the checkride stage of his IFR training when he got busy
with the hotel.


Montblack

On 16 Sep 2005 10:58:17 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in m>::

>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.

I would guess the cloud street to be a stationary source of
convective activity that generates them. Then the air mass moves
along with the wind, and a trail of clouds is created much the same as
chains of volcanic islands are produced by a tectonic plate sliding
over a source of convective magma rising to the surface. Of course,
the cloud street could have been the result of a sheer line.

Get your glider certificate, and you'll have a better understanding of
meteorology.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>A pop-up IFR clearance to go cloud dancing? We're talking about
>>>dipping a wing in a puffy cloud the size of a semi-truck, separated by
>>>1/2 mile from the next nearest similar-sized cloud.
>>
>>We're talking about blatant violation of the FARs.
>
>
> Really? What is the technical definition of a "cloud"?
>
> If I can see through it, is it a "cloud"?

No.

George Patterson wrote:


>> If I can see through it, is it a "cloud"?
>
>
> Yep. It just has to be visible.

Wrong, if I can see thru it then it isn't a cloud.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Really? What is the technical definition of a "cloud"?

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be duck!"

> The FAA usually feels that they don't have to define commonly used English
> words. Webster's or Oxford already does that job nicely.

Like trying to find their definitions for words like "densely populated"
and "sparsely populated" in the FAA's dictionary.

> If you had fewer clouds than the standard definition of "scattered" (which
> isn't the FAA's definition), then perhaps you should have described them as
> "few".

As I've stated, it was even fewer than "few"...

> But in any case, I'd say what we're "getting hung up on" is your use of the
> word "cloud". The number of clouds is irrelevant. If there's just one,
> it's still illegal to touch that one cloud while operating VFR (the exact
> distance depends on the particular airspace, but there's no allowance for
> actually touching a cloud while VFR).

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

> 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?

> (As a reminder: "legal" is not the same as "safe", just as "illegal is not
> the same as "unsafe"...the two terms often coincide, but you need to meet
> both "legal" AND "safe" as a pilot).

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

> 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...

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

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?

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...

Mary and I have pretty stringent minimums that we won't violate when
flying. At no time do we ever fly in any manner that we don't *both*
agree is "safe." We also both have a solid working knowledge of the
FARs, 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.
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"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> > -- and they don't critique my landings!
>
> ...sorry about that. :-)
>
> Montblack

Did you critique my landings?

Can you say "forward CG"???

<ducking!>

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

ROFL! Run Jay, he can't catch ya! or just stop and tell him a joke,
laughing will kill him! :)

Jim


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > > -- and they don't critique my landings!
> >
> > ...sorry about that. :-)
> >
> > Montblack
>
> Did you critique my landings?
>
> Can you say "forward CG"???
>
> <ducking!>
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

> Secondly, you certainly have not made clear that you have been
> obeying the spirit of the FARs.

I know I shouldn't even bother to respond
(Feel...myself...being...paralyzed...by...the...co bra's...stare...),
but how so?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

> SomehowÂ*treatingÂ*aÂ*Toyota-sizedÂ*puff
> with the same deference as a 50-story cumulo-nimbus cloud seems absurd.

Sure, but I'm not getting w/in 500' of a "50-story cumulo-nimbus cloud".
The legal clearances are a minimum; sanity sometimes dictates additional
spacing.

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.

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

- Andrew

"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 before: "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

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Secondly, you certainly have not made clear that you have been
>> obeying the spirit of the FARs.
>
> but how so?

What do you mean "how so?" The FARs state you must remain clear of clouds
(at a minimum) while flying VFR. Nothing you've written has explained how
it is you managed to put your wing in a cloud, while still remaining clear
of the cloud.

There's an *absence* of that information. I can't explain it other than to
reiterate the absence of that information.

Pete

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>If you had fewer clouds than the standard definition of "scattered" (which
>>isn't the FAA's definition), then perhaps you should have described them as
>>"few".
>
>
> As I've stated, it was even fewer than "few"...
>
>
>>But in any case, I'd say what we're "getting hung up on" is your use of the
>>word "cloud". The number of clouds is irrelevant. If there's just one,
>>it's still illegal to touch that one cloud while operating VFR (the exact
>>distance depends on the particular airspace, but there's no allowance for
>>actually touching a cloud while VFR).
>
>
> IMHO we need a better working definition of "cloud". 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.
>
>
>>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?
>
>
>>(As a reminder: "legal" is not the same as "safe", just as "illegal is not
>>the same as "unsafe"...the two terms often coincide, but you need to meet
>>both "legal" AND "safe" as a pilot).
>
>
> Right. I believe I was both, but it's all going to come down to the
> FAA's definition of "cloud".
>
>
>>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...
>
> Crap. We could go down this road with other FAA weather descriptions,
> too.
>
> 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?
>
> 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...
>
> Mary and I have pretty stringent minimums that we won't violate when
> flying. At no time do we ever fly in any manner that we don't *both*
> agree is "safe." We also both have a solid working knowledge of the
> FARs, 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.
> 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"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Jay;
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. You can do it if you choose, but don't delude
yourself into thinking that it's legal. I drive over the speed limit
but I know I'm breaking the rules. It does not stop me from speeding
but I know that I may hve to pay the price and I accept it.
John

PS. I would not brag about it on the net if I were you. Speeding they
have to catch me doing but the FAA operates by a differnet set of rules.

Good job on sharing the experience with the kids. Stay safe.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

"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

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.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> 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.

Trying to define, Hell! They've simply copied the dictionary definition. That
shows they have some sense in this matter, at least.

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

We already are. You've just been violating the restriction, that's all.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

> 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.

Now, Jim, you should know me better than that by now...

:-)

> 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.

That's crap. Worse, if this new FAA definition of "cloud" is passed, even
THAT will be "illegal"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> IMHO, if this proposed definition is approved, VFR pilots really WILL
>> be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size
>> or opacity.
>
> We already are. You've just been violating the restriction, that's all.

If you're right, George, it's our right -- no, our duty -- to get stupid
rules changed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> If you're right, George, it's our right -- no, our duty -- to get stupid
> rules changed.

I wish you luck.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
ire.net...
> 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.

I suggest we form a CA (clouds anonymous) organization. Why just today I
flew between clouds without the required clearance although visibility,
cloud density, cloud spacing and vertical development allowed one to see a
sparrow a half mile away. Guess I'll just sit here and wait for the FAA to
come knocking.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:04:23 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>>> IMHO, if this proposed definition is approved, VFR pilots really WILL
>>> be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size
>>> or opacity.
>>
>> We already are. You've just been violating the restriction, that's all.
>
> If you're right, George, it's our right -- no, our duty -- to get stupid
> rules changed.

Hi Jay,

While I can understand the battle you are undertaking, please look at my
original post that you did not address in your reply to my original post.

From that post is below:

>>>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.

Note the first paragraph. The rules are to protect the IFR folks. The
rules as I see it are not stupid.

Yes, you may have a yugo size cloud that you are circling, but when I am
plodding along maintaining strict headings and altitudes, when I enter that
yugo size cloud, I expect a clear path on the other side, not parts of a
plane within that cloud. Nor should I have to worried about taking evasive
actions around that cloud.

I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
cruise altitude. And if you were not, I would be betting your eyes were
outside the cockpit and you were not at VFR cruise altitude which would
potentially reduce the 500 foot vertical separation.

Remember, while I am to see and avoid while in VFR conditions PRIOR to
entering that yugo size cloud, entering that cloud on an IFR flight, all
bets are off. My eyes are no longer outside the cockpit. Nor can I see
through yugo size clouds.

Why would you want to chance an IFR flight popping out of that yugo size
cloud?

So, in a nutshell, while that cloud may be innocent enough to a VFR pilot,
it's not so innocent to the IFR pilot that is allowed to enter that cloud.
You, now become a serious hazard to that IFR pilot.

Not sure if you monitor the rec.student newsgroup, but I posted my IFR
experiences today, and there was a VFR pilot in conditions that at best
were marginal for VFR flying.

I sure hope Mary and your standards are higher then that pilot.

Allen

On 2005-09-18, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
> ire.net...
>> On 2005-09-17, RST Engineering > wrote:
>> > Jay, goddammit, you don't have ONE defender in this ng for your actions.

> I suggest we form a CA (clouds anonymous) organization. Why just today I
> flew between clouds without the required clearance although visibility,
> cloud density, cloud spacing and vertical development allowed one to see a
> sparrow a half mile away. Guess I'll just sit here and wait for the FAA to
> come knocking.

My point is that some people seem to hyper focus on fine points in
regulations rather than just use common sense.

The FAR requiring a specific number of *feet* separation from clouds
is simply silly. Are you safer at 500 feet than 499? Perhaps one has
to draw the line somewhere but whats the point in defining the line in a
way that is difficult, if not impossible for the average pilot without
surveying equipment to measure?

In this particular case the FAA requires you to memorize numbers that
have little practical value. Whats the point? You need to be able to
react to traffic and give the other guy a fair chance to see you.

Apparently one is expected to believe that flying though a 10 foot
diameter wispy cloud is less safe that flying a few hundred feet above a
solid overcast. Silly.

Personally, while VFR I avoid anything that reduces my visibility to any
significant degree. I have changed course and altitude to mitigate the
effects of flying into the sun late in the day. Is that required by the
FARs?

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

>
> 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, your comments sound a bit irrational. Are you suggesting that the FAA
include the minimum dimensions of visible moisture that define a cloud? The
FAA can not and should not let everyone define what a cloud is. Your
towering CB might be someone elses "puffie". Like Alan noted, in order for
IFR flight to work safely, VFR flights must stay safely far enough away so
that both they and the IFR flight can maintain see-and-avoid. The plain and
simple truth is that VFR pilots have no business in clouds, period. There
is a simple way to fly in the clouds...IFR. If you'd like to fly in the
clouds without dealing with those pesky controllers, get the instrument
rating and fly around in class G airspace. Beware of 91.13 though.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:52:07 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>> IMHO, if this proposed definition is approved, VFR pilots really WILL
>> be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size
>> or opacity.
>
>We already are. You've just been violating the restriction, that's all.

The first flight I took, there was a (seemingly) handkerchief-sized
cloud ahead. The instructor told me to bear away from it.

"THAT?"

"Can you see through it?"

"No."

"Then bear away from it."



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

> "Can you see through it?"

Under the proposed re-definition of "cloud", that would no longer matter.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Note the first paragraph. The rules are to protect the IFR folks. The
> rules as I see it are not stupid.

Sorry, but I disagree. Any rule that forces me to evade or avoid
basketball-sized clouds with the same urgency as 70-story CBs is stupid.

> I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
> ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
> cruise altitude.

No, the puffies were forming at "around 4000 feet." I don't remember the
precise altitude, but it was some odd height, like 3700 feet.

Regardless, we were over rural Iowa. Would I have been playing around the
puffies in Chicago airspace? Of course not. But I was in some of the most
unpopulated airspace in the country.

> Why would you want to chance an IFR flight popping out of that yugo size
> cloud?

I don't think it's possible to compute the odds of a mid-air collision in
this area, let alone one caused by an IFR plane popping out of Yugo-sized
cloud 300 feet below his assigned altitude. In fact, I would guess that
the odds of being hit by an asteroid in flight are about the same.

> Not sure if you monitor the rec.student newsgroup, but I posted my IFR
> experiences today, and there was a VFR pilot in conditions that at best
> were marginal for VFR flying.

I pop in over there very occasionally. I'll have to check out your thread.

Thanks for your input. I understand your points, but it's the degree and
severity of your reading of the "clear of clouds" rule with which I
disagree.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

This is great, Jay. I always love it when the self righteous get their
dander up. I am just like you. I have flown thru small clouds just for
the hell of it and I will continue to do so.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Note the first paragraph. The rules are to protect the IFR folks. The
>>rules as I see it are not stupid.
>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree. Any rule that forces me to evade or avoid
> basketball-sized clouds with the same urgency as 70-story CBs is stupid.
>
>
>>I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
>>ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
>>cruise altitude.
>
>
> No, the puffies were forming at "around 4000 feet." I don't remember the
> precise altitude, but it was some odd height, like 3700 feet.
>
> Regardless, we were over rural Iowa. Would I have been playing around the
> puffies in Chicago airspace? Of course not. But I was in some of the most
> unpopulated airspace in the country.
>
>
>>Why would you want to chance an IFR flight popping out of that yugo size
>>cloud?
>
>
> I don't think it's possible to compute the odds of a mid-air collision in
> this area, let alone one caused by an IFR plane popping out of Yugo-sized
> cloud 300 feet below his assigned altitude. In fact, I would guess that
> the odds of being hit by an asteroid in flight are about the same.
>
>
>>Not sure if you monitor the rec.student newsgroup, but I posted my IFR
>>experiences today, and there was a VFR pilot in conditions that at best
>>were marginal for VFR flying.
>
>
> I pop in over there very occasionally. I'll have to check out your thread.
>
> Thanks for your input. I understand your points, but it's the degree and
> severity of your reading of the "clear of clouds" rule with which I
> disagree.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Note the first paragraph. The rules are to protect the IFR folks. The
>>rules as I see it are not stupid.
>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree. Any rule that forces me to evade or avoid
> basketball-sized clouds with the same urgency as 70-story CBs is stupid.
>
>
>>I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
>>ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
>>cruise altitude.
>
>
> No, the puffies were forming at "around 4000 feet." I don't remember the
> precise altitude, but it was some odd height, like 3700 feet.
>
> Regardless, we were over rural Iowa. Would I have been playing around the
> puffies in Chicago airspace? Of course not. But I was in some of the most
> unpopulated airspace in the country.
>
>
>>Why would you want to chance an IFR flight popping out of that yugo size
>>cloud?
>
>
> I don't think it's possible to compute the odds of a mid-air collision in
> this area, let alone one caused by an IFR plane popping out of Yugo-sized
> cloud 300 feet below his assigned altitude. In fact, I would guess that
> the odds of being hit by an asteroid in flight are about the same.
>
>
>>Not sure if you monitor the rec.student newsgroup, but I posted my IFR
>>experiences today, and there was a VFR pilot in conditions that at best
>>were marginal for VFR flying.
>
>
> I pop in over there very occasionally. I'll have to check out your thread.
>
> Thanks for your input. I understand your points, but it's the degree and
> severity of your reading of the "clear of clouds" rule with which I
> disagree.
Jay;
You seem to be varying the clouds quite a bit. If I recall from your
first post on the subject you said the clouds were the size of a
Semi-truck. Now your arguing about avoiding clouds the size of a
basketball or a Yugo. First rule of digging yourself out of a hole is
to stop digging. There is also a question of if clouds the size of
basketballs even exist. If I recall my weather training correctly
clouds are formed by tempature variations in the air mass that cool the
air to the point where condensation occurs. The temp variations would
not be localized to the point of a foot but be much large then that.
While at some point in the cooling process it would be possible to see a
cloud the size of a basketball, I would not think it would be likely as
the mass of air that has the right tempature would be much larger.

John

Doug Carter wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps, but let's see what they're agreeing with.

Jay started out by stating that sticking a wing into a puffy cloud (apparently
cumulus) the size of a semi while flying VFR at an altitude reserved for IFR
traffic is not a violation of the FARs. Anyone agree with that?

Jay then stated that, since clouds aren't defined, he can make up his own
definition. Anyone agree with that?

When presented with a dictionary definition, Jay argued that, since it wasn't
precise enough to suit him, he should be allowed to make up his own definition.
Anyone agree with that?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:laeXe.376007$xm3.315405@attbi_s21...
> Sorry, but I disagree. Any rule that forces me to evade or avoid
> basketball-sized clouds with the same urgency as 70-story CBs is stupid.

What "urgency"? You *intentionally* flew your airplane into the cloud.
There would be no urgency at all, except for your choice to approach the
cloud.

Under normal circumstances, a pilot can easily avoid the smallest clouds
without any effort at all. If the clouds are really as small and infrequent
as you are describing, no dramatic maneuvering would be required at all.

>> I stand to be corrected, but if I remember correctly, you stated in your
>> ORIGINAL post you were at 4000 feet circling the cloud, which is an IFR
>> cruise altitude.
>
> No, the puffies were forming at "around 4000 feet." I don't remember the
> precise altitude, but it was some odd height, like 3700 feet.

The previous poster erred in even considering the altitude. IFR traffic can
and does fly at any altitude.

> Regardless, we were over rural Iowa. Would I have been playing around the
> puffies in Chicago airspace? Of course not. But I was in some of the
> most unpopulated airspace in the country.

The FARs do not distinguish between Class E airspace in the middle of
nowhere and Class E airspace smack in the middle of a densely populated
area. It's all Class E, and everyone is required to follow the same rules.

> I don't think it's possible to compute the odds of a mid-air collision in
> this area

Of course it is. You can compute the odds of anything.

> let alone one caused by an IFR plane popping out of Yugo-sized cloud 300
> feet below his assigned altitude.

Again, of course you can.

> In fact, I would guess that the odds of being hit by an asteroid in flight
> are about the same.

Even if the computed odds are exceedingly small (and I am positive the odds
are greater than being hit by an asteroid), that doesn't change the legality
of the practice. Furthermore, lots of pilots have relied on the "big sky"
theory of traffic avoidance, and followed it to their doom.

Pete

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:44:22 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> The previous poster erred in even considering the altitude. IFR traffic can
> and does fly at any altitude.

Peter,

While it's possible that IFR traffic can fly at any altitude, in my short
flying career, I have never heard of IFR traffic being assigned a VFR
altitude or an altitude other then ending in 1000's of feet.

I have requested an altitude of "opposite traffic" altitude and been
approved, but never have I heard anybody request a VFR altitude. (I.E I was
westbound at 4000 and requested 3000 feet.)

Per http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0703.html VFR on top traffic is
treated as VFR and not IFR traffic. Standard separation does not apply and
cloud clearances are exactly the same for VFR on top traffic as VFR over
the top traffic.

While the traffic is IFR in the system, it is flown under VFR rules, and
that IFR traffic cannot enter clouds when he / she is VFR on top.

So, when I posted 4000 feet, that is a standard IFR traffic altitude (even
thousands) as opposed to VFR altitudes that end in 500 (I.E 4500).

So, based on the above reading, I interpret it that even though I am IFR in
the system, as long as I am at a VFR cruising altitude, I cannot penetrate
clouds.

If I could not maintain visual conditions, I would need to notify ATC and
they would probably put me back on an IFR cruising altitude based on
direction of flight.

Allen

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
ire.net...
> On 2005-09-18, Dave Stadt > wrote:
> >
> > "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
> > ire.net...
> >> On 2005-09-17, RST Engineering > wrote:
> >> > Jay, goddammit, you don't have ONE defender in this ng for your
actions.
>
> > I suggest we form a CA (clouds anonymous) organization. Why just today
I
> > flew between clouds without the required clearance although visibility,
> > cloud density, cloud spacing and vertical development allowed one to see
a
> > sparrow a half mile away. Guess I'll just sit here and wait for the FAA
to
> > come knocking.
>
> My point is that some people seem to hyper focus on fine points in
> regulations rather than just use common sense.

I agree with you 1,000%. Fact is nowadays it is hard to find people that
can think for themselves or that have a lick of common sense. Those folks
sense need to follow rules made by someone else to make them feel warm and
fuzzy.

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> While it's possible that IFR traffic can fly at any altitude, in my short
> flying career, I have never heard of IFR traffic being assigned a VFR
> altitude or an altitude other then ending in 1000's of feet.

First of all, "fly" is not the same as "being assigned". Secondly, IFR
traffic is regularly assigned altitudes "other than ending in 1000's of
feet". I guess you need a longer flying career before you discover this on
your own (hint: it happens most commonly at the beginning and end of an IFR
flight).

Pete

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:vhhXe.5275$T55.4460@trndny06...
> Doug Carter wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps, but let's see what they're agreeing with.
>
> Jay started out by stating that sticking a wing into a puffy cloud
(apparently
> cumulus) the size of a semi while flying VFR at an altitude reserved for
IFR
> traffic is not a violation of the FARs. Anyone agree with that?

That he might have been climbing or descending and stuck a wing into widely
spaced clouds the size of a semi that could not hide IFR traffic......yes.

> Jay then stated that, since clouds aren't defined, he can make up his own
> definition. Anyone agree with that?

Yes....we can all make up our own definitions.

> When presented with a dictionary definition, Jay argued that, since it
wasn't
> precise enough to suit him, he should be allowed to make up his own
definition.
> Anyone agree with that?

Sure, he can make his own definition any time he wants as can all of us.
Could be his definition is better that any other previously published and
might become the legal standard. Definitions are in constant flux.
Dictionaries aren't legal documents far as I know. Definitions vary widely
depending on the dictionary referenced.

> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

The hell you say. They are the bottom rung of the definitions if there is
nothing specific above it. You been signing JD after your name lately?

Jim



"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...

> Dictionaries aren't legal documents far as I know.

Third, I guess you haven't been flying long enough to hear of a "block"
assignment, where you got your druthers where to fly between the upper and
lower limits of the block.

Jim


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
> ...

>> While it's possible that IFR traffic can fly at any altitude, in my short
>> flying career, I have never heard of IFR traffic being assigned a VFR
>> altitude or an altitude other then ending in 1000's of feet.
>
> First of all, "fly" is not the same as "being assigned". Secondly, IFR
> traffic is regularly assigned altitudes "other than ending in 1000's of
> feet". I guess you need a longer flying career before you discover this
> on your own (hint: it happens most commonly at the beginning and end of an
> IFR flight).
>
> Pete
>

> Jay, your comments sound a bit irrational. Are you suggesting that the
> FAA include the minimum dimensions of visible moisture that define a
> cloud? The FAA can not and should not let everyone define what a cloud
> is. Your towering CB might be someone elses "puffie".

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure there *is* a workable rule here.

Example: Mary and I took the kids on a wonderful flight to Wisconsin today.
The weather was perfect VFR -- CAVU most of the way.

However, for a brief part of the flight we were underneath a vaporously
thin, wraith-like layer of "clouds" just a few hundred feet over us. (We
were cruising at 5500 feet.) It could be easily seen through.

Below us, by an undetermined distance, was a widely scattered layer of
puffies. These ranged in size from basketballs to semi-trucks.

The impression of speed between these "layers" was breath-taking. We knew
it was a localized condition, as the next AWOS ahead made no mention of
clouds or lowered visibility.

The conundrum: Go up, and we'd be in the layer of lowered visibility
which -- under the proposed new FAA definition of "cloud" -- would be
illegal -- even though it could be seen through, and did not represent a
"cloud" or a "layer" in the normal sense of the words. And, of course,
purposefully subjecting ourselves to lowered visibility would be stupid,
anyway.

Go down, and we're dipping our wings in occasional puffies -- which guys
like Dighera, Duniho, and Patterson would have us believe is illegal.

Worse, by virtue of our relative distance from some of these "clouds", some
here would say that we were already illegal -- yet we were in easy VFR
conditions, under VFR flight following, had a zillion miles visibility in
all directions, and no other traffic. We both agreed that we were not in
violation of VFR flight rules.

Those who persist in trying to make this an easy, black and white issue are
not thinking it through. In fact, the more I ponder the issue, the more I
believe that the official definition of "FAA clouds" is best left ambiguous,
lest redefining the word lead to other, unintended regulatory consequences.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:MOqXe.342109$_o.14257@attbi_s71...
> To be honest, I'm not entirely sure there *is* a workable rule here.

Well, by all means, we should obviously simply abandon any attempt to
regulate how VFR pilot fly with respect to clouds and visibility! After
all, there is NO workable rule!

Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
cloud clearances requirements.

You know what most people do when that happens? They acknowledge that their
lives would so much simpler if they just got the instrument rating, and they
successfully avoid violating the VFR visibility and cloud clearances
requirements. They do this either by maneuvering around the clouds, or
flying at an altitude that preserves the required visibility and clearances,
or (GASP!) they simply don't fly.

What a concept: the weather doesn't allow one to fly VFR legally, so the
VFR-only pilot just doesn't fly. If you find an area through which you
cannot fly legally, you divert. You go around, over, under, or turn back.

On the bright side, I find your "I am unaffected by any discussion contrary
to my previously determined path" approach to be refreshingly consistent
with everything else you post here. At least you a true to your habits.

Pete

> Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
> ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
> regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
> regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
> cloud clearances requirements.

Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Apparently not. Why this continues to surprise me, I surely don't know...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

It looks like this thread is degrading. Get out while you can and save
yourself some stress and keystrokes. :) If you have not convinced any
of the folks who disagree with you by now, you probably won't.

Where do I stand on this issue? I DON'T. I have my own opinions but
don't think it is worth the effort to post them since my opinions are
not fully-formed. :)

Btw, your original post was really cool and I loved reading it! Please
continue to share your experiences. I liked your "Therapy" post, too.
I can't wait to take my 1 year-old flying, but am stifled by my "Nervous
Nellie" of a wife who won't let me fly my son until she is comfortable
with flying. Anyhow, that's another discussion for another thread on
another day. Please keep writing on how your kids do and don't like
flying. Also, please share how you introduced your family to flying.
You may email me privately if you want at flying (-a-t-) K7SLE-dot-com.

Thanks,

Chris G.



Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Give me a friggin' break. The scenario you described in your post is
>>ridiculous. It would be MUCH preferable to violate the cruising altitude
>>regulation, than to violate the cloud clearances regulation. But
>>regardless, guess what? Sometimes, you cannot meet the VFR visibility or
>>cloud clearances requirements.
>
>
> Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?
>
> Apparently not. Why this continues to surprise me, I surely don't know...

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:2GrXe.342258$_o.334630@attbi_s71...
> Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?

Of course I did. I have no idea why you would think I didn't.

>> Did you bother to actually *read* anything I wrote?
>
> Of course I did. I have no idea why you would think I didn't.

Because your response addresses a topic not covered in the subject line, or
my post, perhaps?

But that's okay, Pete. I think this horse is dead anyway. At least you
haven't called me a Nazi...yet!

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

Interesting. My newsreader inexplicably split this thread in two --
apparently it was so unpalatable? I never even saw this "sub-thread" till
now.

Anyway, sorry I missed responding to this one till now:

> Jay started out by stating that sticking a wing into a puffy cloud
> (apparently cumulus) the size of a semi while flying VFR at an altitude
> reserved for IFR traffic is not a violation of the FARs. Anyone agree with
> that?

The story was written for maximum effect as a narrative. Altitudes and
cloud sizes may not be accurate, and objects may appear to be closer than
they are. In any event, I was not at an IFR altitude.

> Jay then stated that, since clouds aren't defined, he can make up his own
> definition. Anyone agree with that?

Wrong. I asked that since clouds are not precisely defined, what
constitutes a cloud? You responded with an incredibly lame dictionary
quotation, which does NOT address the issue at hand.

If your dictionary definition is the one we should all use, most of us would
rarely fly.

> When presented with a dictionary definition, Jay argued that, since it
> wasn't precise enough to suit him, he should be allowed to make up his own
> definition. Anyone agree with that?

The broad dictionary definition of "cloud" simply isn't precise enough for
VFR rules. It's a simple concept, really -- we need more precision than the
broad definition provides. This is why thoughtful men have come up with
terms like "cumulous" and "cirrus" -- to differentiate cloud types from one
another.

I simply asked for a definition that will provide for spatial as well as
visual guidance, when flying as a VFR pilot. Right now we've mostly agreed
that a cloud is a "cloud" if it cannot be seen *through* -- but we haven't
agreed on whether a cloud is a "cloud" if it cannot be seen *around*. This
is really the crux of the issue, and it's one that hard-liners simply can't
seem to get their minds around.

Worse, if the FAA goes ahead and defines "cloud" the way they have proposed,
our agreed upon "not a cloud if it can be seen through" will be out the
window. It will simply be illegal to fly VFR in any area of visible
moisture or ice crystals -- which is defining "cloud" WAY too broadly, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> If your dictionary definition is the one we should all use, most of us would
> rarely fly.

Bull****. I've never had any trouble staying legal with that definition.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hxyXe.347328$_o.262772@attbi_s71...
> Because your response addresses a topic not covered in the subject line,
> or my post, perhaps?

It appears that YOU failed to read MY post.

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
>> Because your response addresses a topic not covered in the subject line,
>> or my post, perhaps?
>
> It appears that YOU failed to read MY post.


If it will help kill this thread, I've read both of your posts.


Montblack :-)

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:hFAXe.6595$i86.35@trndny01...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > If your dictionary definition is the one we should all use, most of us
would
> > rarely fly.
>
> Bull****. I've never had any trouble staying legal with that definition.

In NC, we are in a cloud, probably 9/10ths of the year. You've heard of the
Blue
Ridge Mountains, right? That is visible water vapor out there, making them
blue.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
>
> In NC, we are in a cloud, probably 9/10ths of the year. You've heard of the
> Blue
> Ridge Mountains, right?

Yeah, I've flown there. Never had trouble.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.