ntsb report

A Lieberman wrote:


Check out the CFI number in the report.

I don't know the time frame, but I believe the certificate numbers were
SSN's before identity thief became a problem.



They started using SSNs for airman certificates in the late 1960s or early
1970s. Before that it was just an FAA-assigned number.

wrote in :



A Lieberman wrote:


Check out the CFI number in the report.

I don't know the time frame, but I believe the certificate numbers
were SSN's before identity thief became a problem.



They started using SSNs for airman certificates in the late 1960s or
early 1970s. Before that it was just an FAA-assigned number.

70s, maybe. I got my license in 1968 and it wasn't my SSN. It was some
time before I heard of the cert # & SSN being the same, but I can't
recall exactly when that was, and I was sort of out of the loop on that,
being in the military at the time.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Let's be honest about the facts.
According to the report, he launched into IMC without a release.
That's a NO-NO!

wrote:
Does anyone have a copy of the NTSB report which was posted a while
back concerning the guy who launched IFR in IMC in uncontrolled
airspace into VMC above and was dinged for "careless and negligent"?

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

The NTSB report acknowledges as such. 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.




On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:52:35 GMT, jsmith wrote:

Let's be honest about the facts.
According to the report, he launched into IMC without a release.
That's a NO-NO!

wrote:
Does anyone have a copy of the NTSB report which was posted a while
back concerning the guy who launched IFR in IMC in uncontrolled
airspace into VMC above and was dinged for "careless and negligent"?

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

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

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.


You state the controlled airspace only went up to 700 AGL. I assume that's
a typo, it was uncontrolled airspace from the surface to 700' AGL.

One cannot be above clouds and have VMC upon reaching controlled airspace at
700' AGL, VFR cloud clearance requires a minimum of 1000' above clouds.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
One cannot be above clouds and have VMC upon reaching controlled airspace
at 700' AGL, VFR cloud clearance requires a minimum of 1000' above clouds.

Good point. So the puzzle here is not why the pilot was found to have been
careless and reckless, but rather why he *wasn't* found to have knowingly
entered controlled airspace in IMC without a clearance.

--Gary

In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

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.


You state the controlled airspace only went up to 700 AGL. I assume that's
a typo, it was uncontrolled airspace from the surface to 700' AGL.

Yes, that's what I meant (obviously).

One cannot be above clouds and have VMC upon reaching controlled airspace at
700' AGL, VFR cloud clearance requires a minimum of 1000' above clouds.

Good point.

rg

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
One cannot be above clouds and have VMC upon reaching controlled airspace at
700' AGL, VFR cloud clearance requires a minimum of 1000' above clouds.

As well as comply with 91.177.

cfeyeeye wrote:
You are wrong - it is NOT a no-no.

The NTSB report acknowledges as such. 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.

OK, let's look at this situation. You are out with friends at the movies.
You walk outside and visibility has dropped significantly. You hop in your
car, and your two friends hop in literally putting their lives in your
hands. You manage to drive slowly enough to find the freeway. It is a
single-lane two-way freeway. You accelerate to 65 mph and drive on home.

Careless? Negligent?

From dictionary.com:
1.. Taking insufficient care; negligent: a careless housekeeper; careless
proofreading.
2.. Marked by or resulting from lack of forethought or thoroughness: a
careless mistake.
3.. Showing a lack of consideration: a careless remark.
4.. Unconcerned or indifferent; heedless: careless of the consequences.
5.. Unstudied or effortless: danced with careless grace.
6.. Exhibiting a disposition that is free from cares; cheerful: a careless
grin; a careless wave of the hand.

Hilton