Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what the
evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances are
good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to learn.
It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners
and people you would most definitely not expect to do so make even
bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing this guy.
A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even remotely be
called a tight situation.


Bertie


Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But the
lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a reasonable
doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and spirit
of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident had not
happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the case easier.

For the record the ONLY error in judgment I'm accusing this guy of is
flying without a license and specifically doing it with his wife and
child aboard.