Almost saw someone crash

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message That's baloney. First of all, from the
description given, there were plenty
of witnesses to make a case, plus there's going to be a record of the
damage
to the plane.

Heresay....
From the description given, the only charge that might stick would be flying
an unairworthy aircraft and performing an improper pre-flight, depending on
the extent of damage the wing actually has. Then again, her legal counsel
could claim it was a bird strike (no matter that the bird was still in a
tree).

Secondly, so what if this particular case isn't the one that
gets her? Unless people are willing to report irresponsible piloting like
that, the FSDO never has a chance to even start building a case.

And, perhaps the pilot likes to pander to the over-reacting personalities
for entertainment. The equivilant in a newsgroup would be a troll. Do we
call the authorities for everyone who trolls this group?

As for her attitude becoming "more cavalier", I can't imagine how it could
be any more cavalier than it already is. Just how much worse could she
possibly get? She's already nearly killed herself, running the plane into
something in flight. Any more cavalier, and she won't be a problem
because she WILL be dead.

An enforcement action will change her ways. NOT!
She will likely continue to fly with a suspended certificate. Doctors and
Bonanzas- 'nuff said.

Face it- You weren't there. You can surmise all you want, but you weren't
there. I'll repeat this again for you-

WE NEVER TAKE OUR PROBLEMS TO THE FAA. THEY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS OF THEIR
OWN.

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
[...]
Face it- You weren't there. You can surmise all you want, but you weren't
there.

It's all we have to go on. We are discussing, if you like, a hypothetical
situation, the details of which have been specifically laid out for us. You
have no more authority to say she should NOT have been turned in than I have
to say that she SHOULD have been.

I'll repeat this again for you-

WE NEVER TAKE OUR PROBLEMS TO THE FAA. THEY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS OF THEIR
OWN.

Repeat what? Your all-caps shouting is a completely different issue, and I
vehemently disagree with your position. That's exactly the kind of asinine
"protect our own" attitude that I'm talking about.

I'm not proposing that I, a person that wasn't there and knows nothing
first-hand about the incident, turn her in. I'm proposing the person with
first-hand knowledge of what happened turn her in.

A lot of the problems we have as members of the general aviation community
are caused by a few people who screw it up for the rest of us. And as long
as we sit on our hands and protect those idiots, we have only ourselves to
blame.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message It's all we have to go on. We are
discussing, if you like, a hypothetical
situation, the details of which have been specifically laid out for us.
You
have no more authority to say she should NOT have been turned in than I
have to say that she SHOULD have been.

Do we have all the details? If all the details were laid out, I would be
inclined to think as you do. However, I want to hear the other side to make
sure all the details are laid out.

Repeat what? Your all-caps shouting is a completely different issue, and
I
vehemently disagree with your position. That's exactly the kind of
asinine
"protect our own" attitude that I'm talking about.

It's assinine, until someone does it to you for reasons you think are
assinine. Remember Mr. Bob Hoover?

I'm not proposing that I, a person that wasn't there and knows nothing
first-hand about the incident, turn her in. I'm proposing the person with
first-hand knowledge of what happened turn her in.

First-hand knowledge? Who else was in the plane with her? Witnesses on the
ground tend to be unreliable with their testimony, even if they have a
pilot's certificate.

A lot of the problems we have as members of the general aviation community
are caused by a few people who screw it up for the rest of us. And as
long
as we sit on our hands and protect those idiots, we have only ourselves to
blame.

Agreed. However, instead of sitting on our hands, I advocate inducing peer
pressure. When the original poster stated that he just turned away after
surmising that the pilot was hopeless, I was dissappointed. I have had
excellent results by applying peer pressure. It can be in the form of a
gentile discussion or a rowdy in-your-face emotional confrontation,
depending on the method that seems appropiate at the time. The results are
far better than the snide snears given out when someone threatens to tattle
to the FAA.

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
It's assinine, until someone does it to you for reasons you think are
assinine. Remember Mr. Bob Hoover?

Right, the old "Bob Hoover" argument. Apparently you've forgotten that no
one turned Hoover in. The FAA people who went after him did so on their own
initiative.

In any case, I'm not suggesting that someone turn someone in when they've
done nothing wrong. The problem with the Hoover case wasn't that the FAA
exercised zeal in prosecuting the case. It's that they were prosecuting a
bogus case.

Frankly, if you really think that Hoover's case has anything to do with
this, it's clear you really don't understand what I'm talking about.

By the way, the word is spelled "asinine".

Agreed. However, instead of sitting on our hands, I advocate inducing peer
pressure. When the original poster stated that he just turned away after
surmising that the pilot was hopeless, I was dissappointed.

Peer pressure is well and good in the situations where a) the person
providing the pressure has the courage to confront a complete stranger face
to face, and b) the complete stranger has the inclination to actually listen
and change their behavior as a result. Either of those conditions are
unusual enough, and to find them at the same time is very rare.

[...] The results are
far better than the snide snears given out when someone threatens to
tattle
to the FAA.

I'm not suggesting threatening to "tattle to the FAA". I'm suggesting
actually *doing* it.

Pete