East Coast Visibility

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

"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

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.