Because that has been deemed to be a violation of FAR 91.13(a).
http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

Ah yes, the "careless or reckless" clause, which makes anything that is
otherwise legal into a violation at the Fed's discretion. This seems
(on the surface) to be a case of a well considered decision that was
(perhaps) incorrect. To me, "careless" implies a decision that was not
well considered, or even considered at all. Not every operational error
is (or should be counted as) "careless". I'll leave aside the question
of whether this in fact =was= an operational error, or just a
disagreement between a pilot and the feds as to what consititued an
unsafe practice under the circumstances (allowing for the fact that the
only truly safe flying practice is to stay on the ground).

I would say that departing uncleared into the clouds immediately after
an IFR departure guarantees that one will be in the proximity of at
least one aircraft, and it's not clear to me that he made sure that the
other aircraft was no longer in the area when he departed.

I wonder if, using this as a precedent, =any= uncleared IFR in
uncontrolled airspace could be considered careless or reckless.
Actually, I'm not sure I'd disagree with that assessment, but if that's
what they'd like to enforce, then it should be written into the regs.
Not to do so makes it a guessing game of how things might be seen to the
bureaucrats, rather than a considered decision of flight safety under
the circumstances. In my opinion, 91.13 should be reserved for
eggregious cases, of which this doesn't appear to be one.

Nonetheless, now that a decision has been rendered, in this particular
case, it is against the law to do so again, even though when student
pilots study the FARs, they do not delve into case history, and so the
law can come up and bite them anyway.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.