> So, what you are saying is that my having set the visibility to 90 > statute miles was not a good thing? ;) Any ideas as to what I should > expect for a worst-case visibility? The reason I chose such a large > visibility is because the fog effect looked, to me, more like fog and > less like haze.
The numbers I quoted were based on what I get in beautiful and sunny San Diego; I suspect the Bay Area (with out default airport) is often worse. Worst I've seen is 100ft in ground fog while taxiing which was really hard, but the worst you'll legally encounter in the USA is one statute mile while in class G airspace. Generally below 1200 ftagl; check a chart for details. Bear in mind that, even in a C172, you're moving twice as fast as a car. Thus, visibility numbers need to be halved to scale for straight line time. Turning radius is about quadruple a car, so for maneuvering you need to quarter the visibility to get comparable effects. Finally, for navigation, a car generally rarely looks more than a mile ahead for the next roadsign, while the visual aircraft is looking between 2 and 10 miles to a feature. There are _good_ reasons why so many student pilots get lost on X-countrys. Flying at 160 mph in 4 mile visibility by pilotage and without ATC support is a high stress navigation challenge and is dangerous around mountains. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
