VFR in IMC

[SpiraMirabilis]

<snip>

As an aside I don't think you'll ever find an instance of a FSDO bringing enforcement action against a pilot for 91.13 alone or without there being an accident or incident. For a variety of reasons 91.13 is always an "add-on." Mostly because it is hard to prove, even in the Star chamber Administrative Law Court, something was reckless, or that someone's life or property was endangered when in fact nothing happened.

 

[cmill]

As an aside I don't think you'll ever find an instance of a FSDO bringing enforcement action against a pilot for 91.13 alone or without there being an accident or incident. For a variety of reasons 91.13 is always an "add-on." Mostly because it is hard to prove, even in the Star chamber Administrative Law Court, something was reckless, or that someone's life or property was endangered when in fact nothing happened.

Its never careless or reckless until something bad happens.

On a side note, im sure everyone that has posted here has always maintained proper vfr clearances. Most people are smart enough not to shoot their mouth off about it, but i doubt half the people here would be comfortable telling an inspector about some of their "exploits"

 

[ppragman]

Its never careless or reckless until something bad happens.

On a side note, im sure everyone that has posted here has always maintained proper vfr clearances. Most people are smart enough not to shoot their mouth off about it, but i doubt half the people here would be comfortable telling an inspector about some of their "exploits"

When I retire, then they can read it in the forthcoming novel along with everybody else.