ntsb report

In article ,
wrote:

You are wrong - it is NOT a no-no.

The NTSB report acknowledges as such.

The NTSB report acknowledges no such thing. All it acknowledges is that
it was not a violation of one particular regulation.

The pilot's contention is that he was operating legally under IFR
without a clearance because the regs require a clearance for IFR only in
controlled airspace. But the controlled airspace only went up to 700
AGL, and the pilot had no way of knowing for sure that the tops of the
clouds were lower than that. But he took off anyway, technically not
violating a reg by doing so, but gambling that he would be able to
complete the flight without violating a reg. That sure sounds careless
and reckless to me.

Not only that, but the pilot went out of his way to flaunt the fact that
he was about to take off into IMC without a clearance. He also tried to
cover up that fact several times by claiming that he was flying under
VFR, which is untenable.

Finally, it would have been trivial for him to obtain a clearance for
takeoff simply by choosing a different destination and then canceling
once he was on top. But instead he decided to lean on the system. No
surprise when the system decided to lean back.

He was held in violation of the
catch-all "careless and negligent", which only exists so that the FAA
can bust pilots when they haven't really violated a regulation.

Perhaps, but it also exists so the FAA can bust pilots when they act
like complete morons.

rg