Things not to do while working on your private ticket...

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

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.

That's not an error in judgement, it's just illegal.

You're an idiot.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
undergone PPL training.

How do you know what training he has or has not undergone?

Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane.

As well as licensed pilots who, despite having managed to pass the
tests, still don't know how to fly safely.

The PICs lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a
pretty wide door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?

Yes. Unfortunately speculation isn't fact.

Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks
like one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
obvious.

Why did JFK crash? He was a licensed pilot, after all, so he should
not have crashed.


You are an idiot.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Read the NTSB report re JFK Jr -- in fact I think you have, so why
are you asking this question?

Because other people here seem to think that having a license makes
one a competent pilot. JFK is a fine example proving that a license
means hardly anything.


You are an idiot and you will never be a competent anything.

Bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

More_Flaps wrote:
On Aug 6, 2:02 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
m...
much snipped
The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C
to pick
up his wife and child. He might get charged with child
endangerment. He would if I was the DA there.
IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!
Peter
I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife
in danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually
unqualified to do so should be charged with child endangerment?

He may be legally unqualified but that does not _automatically_ mean
he was any less capable as a 172 pilot than any other. Certification
does not increase skill levels...

Cheers

It does as far as the law is concerned.



No, it doesn't.


Bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-


Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.


you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?



What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
accident.


What are you, a walking catalogue of spurious arguments?

No it's not. My name is in my e-mail address


Whoosh.

Bertie

wrote in
:

On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-

Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself
would violation of the child endangerment laws of most states?
Not much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?

What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in
an accident.

I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he
was a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation
contributed to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a
controlled crash landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine
loss over a wooded area -suggesting some skill doncha think?

Cheers

It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
undergone PPL training. Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane. The PICs
lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?

Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks like
one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
obvious.

I'm sure there's much more to be learned, but this is not an accident
review board, it's the 'net. The interesting thing of course is even
in the face of whatever of objective evidence is found, some of us
will stick to our own conclusions. Why let facts intrude?

.



Xachery.

bertie

wrote:
On Aug 4, 2:55 pm, "Mike" wrote:
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.

My question says it all. Experience and ratings are a factor when we
buy hull and liability insurance. This guy may be self insured (OK,
the airplane isn't worth a fortune, but liability could be huge). I
wonder what his exposure is? I have no idea if our umbrella polices
would include coverage for me if I took a seaplane or multi engine
land for an unsupervised flight that ended in a crash, given I am
rated for neither.,


Oh the guy is screwed as far as liability goes. He damaged at least a
light pole and from the news reports at least one transformer. He will
be getting a bill for that and the labor to replace it. They ain't cheap.

Clark wrote in
:

More_Flaps wrote in
news:7fa28711-ed56-49c3-bcd5-
:

On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps wrote:



On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
news:66-

Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in
itself
wou
ld
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not
much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?

What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended
in an accident.

I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he
was a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation
contributed to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a
controlled crash landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine
loss over a wooded area -suggesting some skill doncha think?

Cheers

It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
undergone PPL training.

He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho' and
I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
induced?).
Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?




Nope, not with an O 300. The report will tel.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

I would submit that getting the training required to earn a license
makes you safer than somebody who bought an airplane and took it flying.

Learning makes you a good pilot; getting training does not.

You are a moron.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-
Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?


What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
accident.



Bertie you are being an ass again. I asked you a legit question i order
to respond to your post. You wrote, "you don't know that" and I asked
what didn't I know. There was no argument in my reply spurious or
otherwise.




What are you, a walking catalogue of spurious arguments?
No it's not. My name is in my e-mail address


Whoosh.



Yes, in this case, I agree.