Houston Controller Talks VFR Pilot Stuck On Top Down To A Safe Landing

I'm reminded of you Ferris Bueller speaking about a Ferarri: "If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up."

Shouldn't of taken to the sky to start with.

I've got to agree on the get there-itis. He acts just like cause he flew it every week, nothing was supposed to get in his way. FAA needs to tag him good; then he needs to get his IFR or stay on the ground.

By the ground it is only 261 miles from Kerrville to Houston. Was all of South TX socked in?

To be clear, he was in VMC when he called for help. VFR over the top is legal in the US for Private Pilots and does not require special equipment nor an IFR rating nor any specific clearance (except, of course, for any airspace specific requirements). The US regulations limit student pilots (61.89(a)(7)) and sport pilots (61.315(c)(13)) to flight with reference to the surface, but no such limits are placed on private pilots. (People sometimes cite 91.507 in the context, but that's incorrect; it applies only to turbine and fractional operations. There are other limitations that apply to part 135 operations.)

In most other countries, VFR over the top requires an instrument rating. And, of course, "legal" isn't always exactly the same as "smart."

And it probably is a feel good thing from the general non flying public but not from the aviation communtity

You're right...especially here in Texas where the weather can change on a dime.

yep, and start plumb over

I should do my homework before I post:

http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/unset/user/40529/FAA_guides_small_plane_through_storm_into_Austin

I think the thing here is that he has made such a media circus out of it and painted himself as a victim. He made mention that he flew it every week and like he was entitled to it. Several in this thread were there on the ground and the wx had been there for awhile. It ain't but about 250 miles across South TX and it was definitely there before he left. I agree with what you said about getting stuck on top but this guy apparently had made no effort toward his IFR. He is a dumb a** for leaving in the first place. Should have got in the car and drove.

Ken..As I said in earlier post I was in Houston that day and flew back to Dallas that day. VFR pilot didn't need to get a weather briefing ... just needed to roll over in bed and peek out the window..watch the morning news. As to fallout...he will be answering a lot of questions and better have some good answers,

I think he ought to get it too but if he didn't break out til 7-800', he was in soup. In big iron, that would have been close to a CAT 1 and you would have already been on DH and looking. He is lucky he got down however way.

I don't agree. Some pilots already fail to declare an emergency when necessary, possibly due to a fear of "paperwork." We don't need to compound that error by making pilots think they'll be on the hook for outrageous fees if they declare an "unnecessary emergency."

Yes, I agree that what happened here seems to have been his fault, and that the time that ATC took to help him was probably expensive and could even have come to the detriment of other aircraft, but that's what emergency services are for. They exist to save lives, and not just for "deserving" victims of happenstance.

To know whether the special attention actually cost anyone anything (aside from possibly clearing airspace during the event; I'll grant you that), you'd have to know whether the ATC system had the reserve capacity to deal with the normal load of traffic plus this one emergency. If it did not, and the emergency hurt other users, then you have an argument, but I'd also say that the system is designed with far too little capacity. If it did have the capacity, then no harm came to those "following the rules," and the argument doesn't hold water.

The punishment (retraining, et cetera) should help make sure that this doesn't happen again, but shouldn't cause others to do something even worse in the future.