"buttman" wrote in message
...
On Aug 4, 10:17 pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message

...



"Mike" wrote in message
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high
on
the list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
can
draw your own conclusions.

Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion about
the
certificate issue. There was plenty of runway for the conditions; so
if
the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special
purpose,
and the engine continued to run correctly we would all have none the
wiser.

And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the same
tail number.

Actually there's quite a bit. The plane appears to have been transferred
in
2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was
issued
a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never
completed.
If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a
blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual on
the
plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and
balance,
density altitude, or any other pesky little detail.

he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?

Ah, what was I thinking? I'm sure he's a fine, capable airman with several
hundred hours gained by only the very best decision making skills, and the
fact that his student ticket expired two years ago, and he had no medical,
and he was unauthorized to carry passengers (or himself for that matter)
really only boils down to breaking only one rule and is simply a minor
infraction caused most likely by a paperwork error by the FAA. Surely he
had complete regard for all the REST of the rules, right?