With respect to the legal issues, the reported ceiling listed in the first post of this thread was 300' variable to 1,100'. As special VFR only requires one mile visibility and clear of clouds, and we don't have any information on the prevailing visibility, there appears to be no legal issue with respect to the controllers actions. The pilot made a legitimate request, and it was granted.
The pilot did not require an instrument rating as the flight was not conducted under IFR. The controller is not required to determine if the pilot is instrument rated, or current. The pilot was required by the definition of special VFR, to remain clear of clouds, as specified by 14 CFR 91.157(b)(2).
This pilot entered clouds. Had he not entered clouds, we are not given to know if he would have completed the flight safely, or not. Certainly he would have stood a greater chance than going on instruments. He may have been able to conduct the flight legally and possibly safely had he not entered the clouds.
Regardless, there are few occasions when special VFR is warranted. More often than not, use of special VFR is really abuse of a situation that should be performed under IFR. For pilots who are not qualified to operate under IFR, the use of a special VFR clearance is questionable, as one is placing one's self in a real without backups; it's dangerous.
What this individual did was legal (until entering the clouds), but not safe. As is so often the case, what is legal is not necessarily safe and what is safe isn't always legal. Unless the flight is both legal and safe, it shouldn't be attempted.
Unfortunately, when an individual comes this close and survives, often it provides the false confidence to try to get away with it again. It's times like this that bystanders have an obligation to contact their nearest aviation safety counselor or the FSDO directly, for intervention. The FAA has some rough points and calling them is (or should be) a tough choice for most pilots--certainly professionals. However, in this case, this flight represents a big part fo the function of inspectors, or the aviation safety manager. This individual needs some enforced encouragement at remedial training before his young son doesn't get to grow up to know his father.
Andy, if you happen to see this individual at the airport again, do everyone a favor and let the air out of his tires before he hurts or kills someone. Cleansing the gene pool shouldn't include his children or innocents on the ground. Stupid pilot tricks aren't inherited; they're self-taught.
The pilot did not require an instrument rating as the flight was not conducted under IFR. The controller is not required to determine if the pilot is instrument rated, or current. The pilot was required by the definition of special VFR, to remain clear of clouds, as specified by 14 CFR 91.157(b)(2).
This pilot entered clouds. Had he not entered clouds, we are not given to know if he would have completed the flight safely, or not. Certainly he would have stood a greater chance than going on instruments. He may have been able to conduct the flight legally and possibly safely had he not entered the clouds.
Regardless, there are few occasions when special VFR is warranted. More often than not, use of special VFR is really abuse of a situation that should be performed under IFR. For pilots who are not qualified to operate under IFR, the use of a special VFR clearance is questionable, as one is placing one's self in a real without backups; it's dangerous.
What this individual did was legal (until entering the clouds), but not safe. As is so often the case, what is legal is not necessarily safe and what is safe isn't always legal. Unless the flight is both legal and safe, it shouldn't be attempted.
Unfortunately, when an individual comes this close and survives, often it provides the false confidence to try to get away with it again. It's times like this that bystanders have an obligation to contact their nearest aviation safety counselor or the FSDO directly, for intervention. The FAA has some rough points and calling them is (or should be) a tough choice for most pilots--certainly professionals. However, in this case, this flight represents a big part fo the function of inspectors, or the aviation safety manager. This individual needs some enforced encouragement at remedial training before his young son doesn't get to grow up to know his father.
Andy, if you happen to see this individual at the airport again, do everyone a favor and let the air out of his tires before he hurts or kills someone. Cleansing the gene pool shouldn't include his children or innocents on the ground. Stupid pilot tricks aren't inherited; they're self-taught.
