ntsb report

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?

"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.

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.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:20:32 GMT, wrote:

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?

Actually, I would contend that the item I posted a link for is not
even a report - it appears to be an administrative law court ruling.
Since court judgments are public record, would the onus not be on the
court to redact any information required to be withheld before
publishing their ruling, especially when the ruling is hosted on a
publicly accessible government website - especially since the link for
this specific item contained on their publicly accessible website was
obtained by doing a 3 second Google search anyway?

"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

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

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.

"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.

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