If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:14:31 -0600, A Lieberman
wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:03:48 GMT, wrote: Gee, I don't see any name or ssn. cfeyeeye 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. Allen I wasn't talking about the report. The poster didn't post a report. He posted a link to a report. I doubt he could be violating a federal law by posting a link to a federal website, where a federal agency might be in violation of federal law, but these days with the idiocy that prevails in the Justice Department, who knows? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"bdl" wrote in message oups.com... Can someone explain to me why wasn't he granted the clearance into KIND? Was it because of traffic flow or because of the weather at KIND? According to the decision it was both, but I was unaware that ATC wouldn't grant you a clearance if the destination field was below minimums as a part 91 flight. The report says he was going to Indianapolis, but not necessarily KIND. It may have been that Indianapolis approach simply wasn't accepting additional traffic regardless of destination due to aircraft holding for KIND, which was below minimums. Obviously you'd still need fuel on board to comply with an alternate minimums, etc. As a part 91 flight he could still attempt to execute the approach if the field was below minimums, while air carrier flights wouldn't have been able to, correct? That's true, but if they're already swamped with traffic they're not going to accept additional traffic. I'm not asking about the intelligence of doing such things, obviously, but rather the mechanisms for ATC to deny you a clearance. There may have been a ground stop for traffic destined for airports served by Indianapolis approach. If so, he can't get a clearance for an airport within IND approach airspace. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A Lieberman wrote in
: I don't know the time frame, but I believe the certificate numbers were SSN's before identity thief became a problem. I'm not sure when the FAA started using SSNs for pilot's certificate numbers, but it was after I got mine. My certificate has never used my SSN. -- Regards, Stan "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Steven, as a new Instrument rated pilot, my 'real-world'
experience with the system is pretty limited. And your right, I assumed KIND, when the decision only mentioned Indianopolis. I had assumed that a ground stop (or some other traffic "congestion") was the cause for the lack of clearance into Indianapolis, but the mention in the decision of the weather being below minimums as another reason for not granting a clearance confused me. Assuming a ground stop wasn't in effect (hypothetical situation where noone was going to Indianapolis, other than our wayward pilot) would they still have denied him a clearance because the field was below minimums? There may have been a ground stop for traffic destined for airports served by Indianapolis approach. If so, he can't get a clearance for an airport within IND approach airspace. So ground stop's would affect all aircraft headed for destinations within a given terminal environment, not just a specific airport. That makes sense if you figure that the reason for the ground stop is approach control is overloaded. Adding more airplanes to the system even if they are just stopping at a sattelite field isn't going to help the matter. Sorry for the naive questions. Never had a clearance denied before. Anybody know what happened to him? Did he make it into the airport he was going to? Or was he forced to diver someplace else? The report only makes mention of taking off, not the eventual landing. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"bdl" wrote in message ups.com... Thanks Steven, as a new Instrument rated pilot, my 'real-world' experience with the system is pretty limited. And your right, I assumed KIND, when the decision only mentioned Indianopolis. I had assumed that a ground stop (or some other traffic "congestion") was the cause for the lack of clearance into Indianapolis, but the mention in the decision of the weather being below minimums as another reason for not granting a clearance confused me. Assuming a ground stop wasn't in effect (hypothetical situation where noone was going to Indianapolis, other than our wayward pilot) would they still have denied him a clearance because the field was below minimums? No. Weather at the destination airport is not a basis upon which to deny a departure clearance and the controller working the departure location may not even know what the weather is at the destination. So ground stop's would affect all aircraft headed for destinations within a given terminal environment, not just a specific airport. Not necessarily, but it could. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
No. Weather at the destination airport is not a basis upon
which to deny a departure clearance and the controller working the departure location may not even know what the weather is at the destination. Thanks for your help. Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Looking for a See and Avoid NTSB report | Ace Pilot | Piloting | 2 | June 10th 04 01:01 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Senator asks Navy for report on pilot | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 17th 03 10:08 PM |