East Coast Visibility

[Kyle Boatright]

I was having lunch with a buddy of mine the other day who has been a pilot
for almost 50 years. We discussed the bad visibility we have in the South
and up the Eastern seaboard in the summer. Haze to 10,000', lateral
visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.

He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
visibility was usually far better than it is today.

Any comments?

KB

[Peter R.]

Kyle Boatright > wrote:

<snip>
> He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
> said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
> long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
> the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
> visibility was usually far better than it is today.
>
> Any comments?

Good to know that some things are getting better as the years go on.
Usually it is the opposite. :)


--
Peter

[Kingfish]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> Haze to 10,000', lateral visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.
>
> He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
> said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
> long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
> the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
> visibility was usually far better than it is today.
>
> Any comments?

I'm confused. You say (he said) vis is better now than in the late
60's/early 70's due to airborne pollution then say vis was far better
in the 50's than it is today.

<scratching head>

[B A R R Y]

Kingfish wrote:
>
> I'm confused. You say (he said) vis is better now than in the late
> 60's/early 70's due to airborne pollution then say vis was far better
> in the 50's than it is today.
>
> <scratching head>

It makes sense to me this way:

Visibility was of a certain quality in the 50's. It got worse in the
60's & 70's. These days, it's better than it was the 60's & 70's, but
not as good as the 50's.

But then again, I've been wrong before! <G>

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:36:34 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Kingfish wrote:
>>
>> I'm confused. You say (he said) vis is better now than in the late
>> 60's/early 70's due to airborne pollution then say vis was far better
>> in the 50's than it is today.
>>
>> <scratching head>
>
>It makes sense to me this way:
>
>Visibility was of a certain quality in the 50's. It got worse in the
>60's & 70's. These days, it's better than it was the 60's & 70's, but
>not as good as the 50's.
>
>But then again, I've been wrong before! <G>

Maybe 1/10th the population. No super highways. One car (at most)
per family. Neighborhood stores you could walk to. Nobody driving
kids everywhere; that's what bikes and buses were for.

Industrial pollution was worse, but it was particulates (or burning
pig**** from Secaucus), rather than oxides of nitorgen, so it stayed
localized and didn't rise very high.

From what I remember as a kid in Hackensack in the '50s, visibility
down low was often marginal (couldn't see the NYC skyline four or five
miles away from Prospect Ave.), but I suspect that was not too
widespread nor did it extend beyond the inversion layer.

Don

[JohnH]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> I was having lunch with a buddy of mine the other day who has been a pilot
> for almost 50 years. We discussed the bad visibility we have in the South
> and up the Eastern seaboard in the summer. Haze to 10,000', lateral
> visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.
>
> He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
> said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
> long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
> the wings.

****ing environmentalists. They even took away our free wing lubes.

[Maule Driver]

That agrees with my experience as a long time resident of both PA (both
coasts) and NJ. Both flying and fishing.

I don't remember the 50s but less was less for the most part (Pittsburgh
being a possible exception).

Air and water quality was going downhill thru the 60s and early 70s. I
remember the smell walking to school in Pgh and the water quality of the
3 rivers thru the 60s and 70s. I played on the strip mined landscape.
Things were the same from Cleveland to NJ.

Beginning in the early-80s I had a chance to re-sample all of the same.
Cleaner air and water throughout. Fish re-appeared in places they had
been poisoned out of. Trees grew where land was reclaimed. It didn't
stink as much in all the usual places, Linden NJ excepted.

People enter the water in downtown Pittsburgh and water ski! I grew up
barely believing that my grandfather regularly swam in the Mong during
the 30s-40s. That was not possible in the 60s.

We found canals inundated with water where previously there were only
industrial drains. Imagine crabbing in a Brooklyn canal.

*Caution* statement that may be incorrectly perceived as political:
During this period, America's economy boomed, as did the world's. People
pushed for environmentally friendly policies from industry and had
their government impose those policies on industry. Industry followed
their "Greed is good" policy and a win-win balance was struck.

Take a deep breath and smile.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> I was having lunch with a buddy of mine the other day who has been a pilot
> for almost 50 years. We discussed the bad visibility we have in the South
> and up the Eastern seaboard in the summer. Haze to 10,000', lateral
> visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.
>
> He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
> said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
> long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
> the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
> visibility was usually far better than it is today.
>
> Any comments?
>
> KB
>
>

[Skylune]

by "Kingfish" > Jun 22, 2006 at 11:02 AM



I'm confused. You say (he said) vis is better now than in the late
60's/early 70's due to airborne pollution then say vis was far better
in the 50's than it is today.

<scratching head>

Proof that any fool can get a PPL.

Jeez.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> Haze to 10,000', lateral visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.
>>
>> He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
>> said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on
>> a
>> long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges
>> of
>> the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
>> visibility was usually far better than it is today.
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> I'm confused. You say (he said) vis is better now than in the late
> 60's/early 70's due to airborne pollution then say vis was far better
> in the 50's than it is today.
>
> <scratching head>
>

That's how the conversation went. If you put things in chronological order,
visibility started out good (1950's) , got much worse (Late 60's & early
70's), then improved somewhat.

KB

[Ash Wyllie]

Maule Driver opined

>That agrees with my experience as a long time resident of both PA (both
>coasts) and NJ. Both flying and fishing.

>I don't remember the 50s but less was less for the most part (Pittsburgh
>being a possible exception).

>Air and water quality was going downhill thru the 60s and early 70s. I
>remember the smell walking to school in Pgh and the water quality of the
> 3 rivers thru the 60s and 70s. I played on the strip mined landscape.
>Things were the same from Cleveland to NJ.

>Beginning in the early-80s I had a chance to re-sample all of the same.
> Cleaner air and water throughout. Fish re-appeared in places they had
>been poisoned out of. Trees grew where land was reclaimed. It didn't
>stink as much in all the usual places, Linden NJ excepted.

>People enter the water in downtown Pittsburgh and water ski! I grew up
>barely believing that my grandfather regularly swam in the Mong during
>the 30s-40s. That was not possible in the 60s.

>We found canals inundated with water where previously there were only
>industrial drains. Imagine crabbing in a Brooklyn canal.

>*Caution* statement that may be incorrectly perceived as political:
>During this period, America's economy boomed, as did the world's. People
>pushed for environmentally friendly policies from industry and had
>their government impose those policies on industry. Industry followed
>their "Greed is good" policy and a win-win balance was struck.

>Take a deep breath and smile.

True, but if you are a Pittburger, you must remember/have seen pictures of
Pittsburg in the 30s. They ran the street lights in the daytime because the
pollution from he steel mills blocked the sunlight.

Pittsburg cleaned up early. The rumor has it that the Mellons and Fricks wanted to
survey their property.

>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> I was having lunch with a buddy of mine the other day who has been a pilot
>> for almost 50 years. We discussed the bad visibility we have in the South
>> and up the Eastern seaboard in the summer. Haze to 10,000', lateral
>> visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.
>>
>> He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
>> said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
>> long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges
>> of the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
>> visibility was usually far better than it is today.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> KB
>>
>>


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Stella Starr]

JohnH wrote:

>
> ****ing environmentalists. They even took away our free wing lubes.
>

LOL!

Here in Iowa, weather professionals confirm the abundance of corn is to
blame for the hazy quality of summer air. Tons of water undergoing
transpiration during that season when you can hear the crop growing if
you're on the ground instead of in the air wondering where the horizon is.

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
> by "Kingfish" > Jun 22, 2006 at 11:02 AM
>
> I'm confused. You say (he said) vis is better now than in the late
> 60's/early 70's due to airborne pollution then say vis was far better
> in the 50's than it is today.
>
> <scratching head>
>
> Proof that any fool can get a PPL.
>
> Jeez.

So what was your excuse for not finishing yours?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Maule Driver > wrote:
> Air and water quality was going downhill thru the 60s and early 70s. I
> remember the smell walking to school in Pgh and the water quality of the
> 3 rivers thru the 60s and 70s. I played on the strip mined landscape.
> Things were the same from Cleveland to NJ.

And things in Pittsburgh are still pretty much the same. The smog is
pretty much gone because so are the steel mills. The rivers are still
dirty and active strip mines are still very prevalent.

The reality is that corporate greed is a very good thing when it's
tempered with responsibility. The net effect of environmental laws is
that cost rise for the business, workers lose their jobs, cost of goods
increases (people can afford less), and when coupled with mismanagement,
all of this often results in corporate bankruptcy. Unfortunately, many
environmental laws are based on junk science or data that has not be
proven as fact. There are many laws which are based on fear and,
unfortunately, those laws have the same negative effect on business and
personal wealth as any laws or regulations based on valid proven data.


JKG

[Jose]

> The reality is that corporate greed is a very good thing when it's
> tempered with responsibility.

How does one instill "responsibility" in a corporation? How many
corporations are innately "responsible"? (that is, would Do The Right
Thing absent any rules, and in the presence of competitors who do not)?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:59:13 +0000, Jose wrote:

> How many
> corporations are innately "responsible"? (that is, would Do The Right
> Thing absent any rules, and in the presence of competitors who do not)?

You're not quite asking the right question. Let's assume that there were
some companies that were to behave "responsibly". The real question is:
would they survive in the face of competition from other companies
behaving "irresponsibly"?

- Andrew

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:12:24 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:59:13 +0000, Jose wrote:
>
>> How many
>> corporations are innately "responsible"? (that is, would Do The Right
>> Thing absent any rules, and in the presence of competitors who do not)?
>
>You're not quite asking the right question. Let's assume that there were
>some companies that were to behave "responsibly". The real question is:
>would they survive in the face of competition from other companies
>behaving "irresponsibly"?
>
Responsibility is a lot to ask of a dumb animal. You use carrots and
sticks. The argument I'm hearing here is: too many sticks, not enough
carrots." There may be some bad carrots, too. My bugbear is tax laws
that force investors to focus too much on quarterly numbers.

Don

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:39:42 +0000, Don Tuite wrote:

> The argument I'm hearing here is: too many sticks, not enough
> carrots." There may be some bad carrots, too.

Of course.

However, I didn't argue that. I merely pointed out that it would be
suicidal for a company to expend extra effort/money on "responsibility" if
some or all of its competition didn't do likewise unless there's some
benefit to doing so.

Whether a carrot provides that benefit or a stick forces all companies to
act this way isn't really by itself interesting. *Which* carrot or
*which* stick is more interesting.

Philosophically, I prefer carrots. But I expect these are actually harder
to get right.

- Andrew

[Maule Driver]

I'd challenge both thoughts...
Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> And things in Pittsburgh are still pretty much the same. The smog is
> pretty much gone because so are the steel mills. The rivers are still
> dirty and active strip mines are still very prevalent.
Well, the rivers are cleaner. A lot cleaner. Which is not to say they
are clean. I have no objective quantitative data. But *no* one
did any visible pleasure boating near the point in the 60s or 70s.
Industrial pollutants were as obvious as human waste is in "straight
pipe" sewage systems in the hollows of KY. Heck, I dumped some of it
myself, industrial pollutants that is.
> The reality is that corporate greed is a very good thing when it's
> tempered with responsibility. The net effect of environmental laws is
> that cost rise for the business, workers lose their jobs, cost of goods
> increases (people can afford less), and when coupled with mismanagement,
> all of this often results in corporate bankruptcy. Unfortunately, many
> environmental laws are based on junk science or data that has not be
> proven as fact. There are many laws which are based on fear and,
> unfortunately, those laws have the same negative effect on business and
> personal wealth as any laws or regulations based on valid proven data.
Well run public corporations don't act 'responsibly' beyond those acts
that contribute to the 'bottom line'. I've worked for a corporation
that was widely considered a very 'responsible' corporate citizen,
particularly in terms of human resource policies. Those policies
serviced the interests of greed very well in terms of attracting and
keeping the best and brightest. Those policies are gone now because
greed's needs have changed. And I genuinely mean 'greed' as in, 'greed
is good'. I respect greed...

.... but don't be fooled. Greed is an effective and efficient agent
in our society but it will cause workers to lose their jobs even more
effectively than environmental laws. When coupled with mismanagement,
it can and does result in bankruptcy. Business strategies and tactics
are too often based on junk research and data that is far from being
proven as fact. Why not environmental regulation too? :-)

I'm happy to let corporations chase the dollar and drive the economy for
me, but I know that I need government regulation to represent my other
interests and otherwise balance the forces of greed.

Sometimes it seems like it's all about self interest... but perhaps we
humans have more righteous motivations in our souls, but they surely
aren't expressed in corporate institutions.

[zatatime]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:21:30 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
>said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
>long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
>the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
>visibility was usually far better than it is today.


FWIW - I know 2 old timers who say the exact same thing! Even though
I respect them completely with regard to aviation, I always thought
they were full of it when citing this "fact." Now that I see someone
else completely unrelated say the same thing, it makes me pause and
think they're right!

Thanks for this post.
z

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> I was having lunch with a buddy of mine the other day who has been a pilot
> for almost 50 years. We discussed the bad visibility we have in the South
> and up the Eastern seaboard in the summer. Haze to 10,000', lateral
> visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.
>
> He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
> said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
> long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
> the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
> visibility was usually far better than it is today.
>
> Any comments?

I don't believe the oily film part and I don't believe things were
better in the 50s than in the 60s or 70s. I do believe things are
better now than anytime during the 50s-70s.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Skylune wrote:

> by "Kingfish" > Jun 22, 2006 at 11:02 AM
>
>
>
> I'm confused. You say (he said) vis is better now than in the late
> 60's/early 70's due to airborne pollution then say vis was far better
> in the 50's than it is today.
>
> <scratching head>
>
> Proof that any fool can get a PPL.

Yes, you can if you apply yourself.

Matt

[Jim Macklin]

Depending on where you were, oily films were common on
buildings and cars. I remember walking on the city streets
in both my hometown of Springfield and in Chicago and seeing
a black oily scum on the buildings. They had crews
sandblasting the limestone and sandstone buildings.
When I lived in Tulsa back in the early 70s, if the wind was
from the northwest, our car would have a oil film overnight
from the refineries in West Tulsa.
Flying near these places, before scrubbers became common
would leave a nice coat.

I also remember the change in the water color just of the
Chicago shoreline, from gray to blue-green.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Kyle Boatright wrote:
|
| > I was having lunch with a buddy of mine the other day
who has been a pilot
| > for almost 50 years. We discussed the bad visibility we
have in the South
| > and up the Eastern seaboard in the summer. Haze to
10,000', lateral
| > visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.
| >
| > He said that it is much better now than in the late
60's/early 70's. He
| > said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad
that if you went on a
| > long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering
the leading edges of
| > the wings. He also added that when he started flying,
in the 50's,
| > visibility was usually far better than it is today.
| >
| > Any comments?
|
| I don't believe the oily film part and I don't believe
things were
| better in the 50s than in the 60s or 70s. I do believe
things are
| better now than anytime during the 50s-70s.
|
|
| Matt

[.Blueskies.]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> I was having lunch with a buddy of mine the other day who has been a pilot for almost 50 years. We discussed the bad
>> visibility we have in the South and up the Eastern seaboard in the summer. Haze to 10,000', lateral visibility
>> frequently under 5 miles, etc.
>>
>> He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He said the airborne pollution in those days
>> was so bad that if you went on a long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of the
>> wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's, visibility was usually far better than it is today.
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> I don't believe the oily film part and I don't believe things were better in the 50s than in the 60s or 70s. I do
> believe things are better now than anytime during the 50s-70s.
>
>
> Matt

Just drove through Chicago last week, and the car was 'oily' - still a very dirty city.

[Morgans]

".Blueskies." > wrote
>
> Just drove through Chicago last week, and the car was 'oily' - still a
> very dirty city.

You can get that from following just one van, with a transmission rear seal
blown out. Just ask the "mother of all grills" after it got to OSH two
years ago.

You should have seen the smoke roll off of it, when it was lit for the first
time, after the trip! <g>
--
Jim in NC