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 message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:24:59 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.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

Maybe he didn't.

Maybe he stayed below 700' until he got into an area where the
uncontrolled airspace went to 1200', or the fog was not a factor.

Well, the report says the pilot says he entered controlled airspace at 700'.
But you're right, there might not have been clouds below him by then.

--Gary

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

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

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

"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.