Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


It states witnesses testified that the ceiling was 100 to 200 feet, and that
the respondent admitted there were clouds at 200 feet.


Well, that means that the bases were at 100 to 200 feet. The tops were not stated in the ruling. So he was at best 500 feet away from clouds upon entering Class E airspace, and most likely much less.


What I find most curious about this incident is that the pilot was found not
to be in violation of FAR 91.155(a) when his own statement obviously
indicates that he was.


My guess at this is that the violation of cloud clearances is hard to prove in court and that it is a small violation that the FAA gave up on. They wanted to get him for being careless and reckless. That was their main purpose, and they weren't interested in a piddly little charge getting in the way.

Its a bit like my driving analogy from a few posts ago about running a red light. If you were speeding by 5 mph when you ran a red light that charge would be secondary and likely not even bothered with or dropped.

So the charge was let go (you'd have to go into the original proceedings to figure out exactly how and why). But, yes, he did violate FAR 91.155, and if the FAA wanted to spend resources on it they probably could have convinced the Judge to agree.