On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:33:36 GMT, 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"?

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF ?

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:31:09 -0500, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF



That's the one.

Many thanks.

You do realize that you have posted this gentleman's name and social
security number on the Internet in violation of federal law?



"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:33:36 GMT, 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"?
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF ?
>

You might want to call the NTSB and let them know their offense.. They
are the ones who would be in violation of any such statute, not a
separate individual who posts a LINK to said page.

Dave

OtisWinslow wrote:
> You do realize that you have posted this gentleman's name and social
> security number on the Internet in violation of federal law?
>
>
>
> "Peter Clark" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:33:36 GMT, 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"?
>>
>>http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF ?
>>
>
>
>

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"?

OtisWinslow wrote:
> You do realize that you have posted this gentleman's name and social
> security number on the Internet in violation of federal law?

Are you refering to the Personal Privacy Act (IIRC 5USC550(b))? If so,
this regulates organizations which MAINTAIN A DATABASE containing
personal information. The poster didn't violate it and it's not clear
that publishing individual records from such a database does.

Gee, I don't see any name or ssn.

I see a URL where his name and ss might exist, and if it does, it was
put there by the same federal government that forbids it.

Of course, it relates to a situation where a pilot closely followed a
federal regulation and was busted for doing so, so maybe we are all
simply rattling around in the same rabbit hole.





On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:28:15 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> wrote:

>You do realize that you have posted this gentleman's name and social
>security number on the Internet in violation of federal law?
>
>
>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:33:36 GMT, 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"?
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF ?
>>
>

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"?

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.

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?

I'm not asking about the intelligence of doing such things, obviously,
but rather the mechanisms for ATC to deny you a clearance.

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

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

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
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
>>
> 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 >,
"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.

> wrote in message ...
>
> You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
> circumstances of doing such an operation.
>

You should have identified your comments as such or started a new thread.

> wrote in message ...
>
> 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.
>

The floor of controlled airspace is irrelevant. FAR 91.177 does not apply
to VFR operations.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
> > circumstances of doing such an operation.
> >
>
> You should have identified your comments as such or started a new thread.

Somehow, I am not very good at learning the McNicol rules for the Universe.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> The floor of controlled airspace is irrelevant. FAR 91.177 does not apply
> to VFR operations.

But, it applies to climbs in IMC that may require a level-off to avoid entering
Class E without a clearance. As I said, lots of circumstances out west where
you can do that, and it is often done. That what was I was trying to say, but
you in your special way try to "trick it" just to be difficult.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:36:16 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message ...
>> >
>> > You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
>> > circumstances of doing such an operation.
>> >
>>
>> You should have identified your comments as such or started a new thread.
>
>Somehow, I am not very good at learning the McNicol rules for the Universe.



Rule # 2 - Don't misspell his name.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Somehow, I am not very good at learning the McNicol rules for the
> Universe.
>

It's called netiquette.

> wrote in message ...
>
> But, it applies to climbs in IMC that may require a level-off to avoid
> entering
> Class E without a clearance. As I said, lots of circumstances out west
> where
> you can do that, and it is often done. That what was I was trying to say,
> but
> you in your special way try to "trick it" just to be difficult.
>

In other words, your comments applied to a completely different situation
and you did not identify them as such. This guy was in VMC when he broke
out of the clouds. He was in uncontrolled airspace where VFR minimums are
just one mile visibility and clear of clouds. He can level off there and
not be in violation of FAR 91.177 because FAR 91.177 applies only to IFR
flights.

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:36:16 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
...
> >> >
> >> > You're speaking of the specific case and I am speaking of the general
> >> > circumstances of doing such an operation.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You should have identified your comments as such or started a new
thread.
> >
> >Somehow, I am not very good at learning the McNicol rules for the
Universe.
>
>
>
> Rule # 2 - Don't misspell his name.

Rule # 3 - Big brother McNicoll is always right.

"oneatcer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Rule # 3 - Big brother McNicoll is always right.
>

Probably not always, but definitely very close to it.