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

"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.

wrote in message ...

As well as comply with 91.177.


They cannot both apply. If the pilot claims to be VFR upon reaching
controlled airspace FAR 91.177 does not come into play at all.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

As well as comply with 91.177.


They cannot both apply. If the pilot claims to be VFR upon reaching
controlled airspace FAR 91.177 does not come into play at all.

My comment pertains to the pilot actually reaching VFR conditions. His claim
may not be valid, thus 91.177 becomes pertinent if he were to level off less
than 1,000 on top or with less than 3 miles flight visibility.

wrote in message ...

My comment pertains to the pilot actually reaching VFR conditions. His
claim
may not be valid, thus 91.177 becomes pertinent if he were to level off
less
than 1,000 on top or with less than 3 miles flight visibility.


That's not correct either. He was in uncontrolled airspace until he reached
700' AGL and he broke out between 100' and 200' AGL. Had he remained below
700' AGL he's have been in VMC and FAR 91.177 would not apply.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

My comment pertains to the pilot actually reaching VFR conditions. His
claim
may not be valid, thus 91.177 becomes pertinent if he were to level off
less
than 1,000 on top or with less than 3 miles flight visibility.


That's not correct either. He was in uncontrolled airspace until he reached
700' AGL and he broke out between 100' and 200' AGL. Had he remained below
700' AGL he's have been in VMC and FAR 91.177 would not apply.

You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
circumstances of doing such an operation. You have to be prepared to comply
with 91.177. We have lots of places out west where Class E overlies a Class G
airport well above 91.177 altitudes.