Pilot charged with Manslaughter

Matt Whiting wrote:
Then why have licenses at all?

Rhetorical question, I know...

Because they're an indicator that an individual has been trained for a
task to a known standard of competancy. I know of a local guy that
*did* take flying lessons at one point but never got his license, who
got busted not too long ago for flying a King Air 200 for a charter
company. Unbelievable that this could slip between the cracks.

"Christopher Campbell" wrote in message

I think there is something wrong with charging a guy with murder because
he
did not have a piece of paper from the government. Charging someone with
murder for flying without a license is pure vindictiveness -- punishment
for
daring to defy governmental authority. It is not any more dangerous to fly
without a license than with one. You should only be charged for murder if
reckless behavior led to a death. I have no problem with charging him with
murder if he was drunk.

CJ, do you know the difference between "murder" and "manslaughter"?

Are you practicing law without a license? :~)

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...

Christopher Campbell wrote:

I know too many guys who have licenses who are no safer (and, in fact,
considerably less safe) than guys who do.

What????

Who do do?

"Christopher Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:51:55 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ):

Christopher Campbell wrote:

I think there is something wrong with charging a guy with murder because
he
did not have a piece of paper from the government. Charging someone with
murder for flying without a license is pure vindictiveness -- punishment
for
daring to defy governmental authority. It is not any more dangerous to
fly
without a license than with one. You should only be charged for murder
if
reckless behavior led to a death. I have no problem with charging him
with
murder if he was drunk.

So if someone who had never been to medical school posed as a surgeon
and operated on your wife or child and killed them, you'd be OK if they
weren't charged with murder? After all, a medical license is just a
piece of paper from the government.

He should be charged for murder if he made mistakes in procedure that
would
not be expected of a licensed surgeon. He should not be charged with
murder
simply because he did not have a license. He should be charged with murder
because of actual reckless behavior, not for simple non-compliance with a
government regulation.



The lack of a license is prima fascia evidence that he does not have the
skills. It would then shift the burden of proof to him to prove that he did.
This would count for brain surgery or flying.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Just
being stupid normally leads to manslaughter.



I don't think Boyer should be charged, despite the absurd TV ads
running on the weather channel denouncing "special interests."
Outstanding irony, the AOPA denouncing "special interests.."

Q: If he thinks the funding forumula is so fair, why not support this
with numbers?
A: Because it would show the massive subsidies taxpayers and
commercial passengers give to GA.

Happy holidays, and thank you to whomever signed me up to recieve
Flight Training. I do read it each month.

Skylune wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Just
being stupid normally leads to manslaughter.



I don't think Boyer should be charged, despite the absurd TV ads
running on the weather channel denouncing "special interests."
Outstanding irony, the AOPA denouncing "special interests.."

Q: If he thinks the funding forumula is so fair, why not support this
with numbers?
A: Because it would show the massive subsidies taxpayers and
commercial passengers give to GA.

Happy holidays, and thank you to whomever signed me up to recieve
Flight Training. I do read it each month.

I had unblocked you recently but see it was a mistake, your just as
stupid as ever.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message ...
: PILOT CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER AFTER FATAL CRASH
: (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194044)
: A 30-year-old man who was flying a 1972 Bellanca Super Viking when it
: crashed into a pond in northeastern Oklahoma on Saturday night,
: killing all three passengers, has been charged with three counts of
: manslaughter. Thomas Brent Caldwell, 30, of Pryor, Okla., apparently
: never had a pilot certificate and was drinking at the time of the
: accident, authorities said. Killed in the crash were Mariano Carlos,
: 15, of Pryor; and Eduardo Robles, 20, and Campos Gonzalez, 33, both
: from Mexico. Investigators said it appears the engine was not
: producing power when the airplane hit the water, and the passengers
: appear to have drowned.
:

Interesting everyone is calling this guy a pilot!

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The lack of a license is prima fascia evidence that he does not have the
skills.

No. The possession of a license is prima facie evidence that he has
the skills, but the converse is not true. Many people may have the
skills but choose not to get the license. There are far fewer people
who do not have the skills and yet manage to get the license.

It would then shift the burden of proof to him to prove that he did.

Having an accident can be pretty good evidence that he lacked skill.
Not having an accident can be pretty good evidence that he had skill.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...

Matt Whiting wrote:
Then why have licenses at all?

Rhetorical question, I know...

Because they're an indicator that an individual has been trained for a
task to a known standard of competancy. I know of a local guy that
*did* take flying lessons at one point but never got his license, who
got busted not too long ago for flying a King Air 200 for a charter
company. Unbelievable that this could slip between the cracks.

Happens all the time. Quite a few years ago my father (who was also a pilot)
recommended a guy he knew to fly the company twin. My father knew this guy
for a number of years so he checked him out in the aircraft, "one of the
most competent pilots he had seen in years" I remember him saying. Because
this guy was such a master at handling the plane in many different types of
scenarios and seemed knowledgeable in all the procedures the company hired
him. Only one problem, he didn't have a commercial license!. He was such a
good pilot no-one bothered to check to see if he actually had a commercial.
He only had a private with a twin endorsement. It wasn't until almost a year
of flying that someone actually asked the question. (dumb I know but
everyone assumed he was qualified).
He was let go from his job and the company hired a new fully licensed
commercial pilot.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

There was no pilot on board according to the NTSB.

The pilot was unlicensed. The concept of "pilot" predates
the concept of licensing people to engage in that activity
by many years.

Makes me think of Bob Hoover; did he cease to be a pilot while they pulled
his ticket? IE, if he had crashed, would the NTBS have said there was no
pilot on board?

-c