14 yr old pilot

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:09:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
::

Larry,

Personally, I'd characterize the lad as possessing superior piloting
skills in light of his young age and absence of any flight training.


Yeah, right. Especially his judgement as a pilot - truly superior. A
hero.

I was referring to his ability to solo without benefit of any flight
instruction.

What are you guys thinking????

The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
adult is unreasonable.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
What are you guys thinking????

The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
adult is unreasonable.

Not necessarily. If the parents imparted proper discipline and values,
chances are the "youth" would have demonstrated more mature judgment.

That being said, I think that Thomas was commenting on what appeared to
be "atta boy" type congratulatory comments, when whatthe "youth" did was
nothing but a careless, reckless, stupid act.



JKG

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:31:28 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
wrote in
::

I think that Thomas was commenting on what appeared to
be "atta boy" type congratulatory comments,

While some may have inferred that, you'll note that I made no
reference to any judgment of the morality of his alleged actions. I
was remarking about the apparent ease with which he accomplished his
first solo flight.

Jonathan,

That being said, I think that Thomas was commenting on what appeared to
be "atta boy" type congratulatory comments, when whatthe "youth" did was
nothing but a careless, reckless, stupid act.


You got it. That's what I was trying to say with my meager
non-native-speaker skills. Reminded me too much of the reaction Mathias
Rust got here in Germany, back when he landed on the Red Square (yes, kids,
it was THAT Red Square ;-)). Many people thought he was the greatest pilot
alive, when really he was an irresponsible dimwit.

Well, let's just wait and see who gets sued for this - that'll be the one
really responsible...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Larry,

The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
adult is unreasonable.


But you'd agree that his behaviour was not, uhm, quite average for
14-year-olds, wouldn't you?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:01:47 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
::

Larry,

The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
adult is unreasonable.


But you'd agree that his behaviour was not, uhm, quite average for
14-year-olds, wouldn't you?

The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
may still be). In this country (US) the parents are responsible for
the behavior of their minor (under 18 years of age) children, so they
will at least bear the cost of damage their son caused to the
aircraft, and could conceivably face negligence charges if the
District Attorney feels the case warrants. All this is obvious.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
may still be). In this country (US) the parents are responsible for
the behavior of their minor (under 18 years of age) children, so they
will at least bear the cost of damage their son caused to the
aircraft, and could conceivably face negligence charges if the
District Attorney feels the case warrants. All this is obvious.


But quite often, not so simple. What if the offender has limited to no
ability to pay? What if the driver who hits you on the freeway has no
insurance? What if the guy who hits you has insurance, but you only get
blue-book on a total loss for a car you just drove off the lot yesterday?

Some parents just don't care, and as a result, their kids just don't
care. In the end, the good guy often ends up out of luck in some
fashion.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
may still be). In this country (US) the parents are responsible for
the behavior of their minor (under 18 years of age) children, so they
will at least bear the cost of damage their son caused to the
aircraft, and could conceivably face negligence charges if the
District Attorney feels the case warrants. All this is obvious.


But quite often, not so simple. What if the offender has limited to no
ability to pay? What if the driver who hits you on the freeway has no
insurance? What if the guy who hits you has insurance, but you only get
blue-book on a total loss for a car you just drove off the lot yesterday?

Some parents just don't care, and as a result, their kids just don't
care. In the end, the good guy often ends up out of luck in some
fashion.



JKG

Jonathan, I agree 100% with what you say.

Larry Dighera wrote:
The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
may still be).
----------------------------------reply-----------------------------------------------------

Hello All,

The statutes in Alabama that are used to prosecute a juvenile in Alabama are
different from the adult charges. If there is a charge, it will be
"violation of Youthful Offender Statutes". In other words, the charge will
have no name such as theft of property, etc.. The young man's criminal
history, if convicted, will read "Youthful Offender".

We are hosting a CAP SARX this weekend so I'm sure some of the folks from
that part of the State will have the inside scoop.

Stephen Pearce
Foley, Alabama

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:01:47 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
::

Larry,

The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
adult is unreasonable.


But you'd agree that his behaviour was not, uhm, quite average for
14-year-olds, wouldn't you?

The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
may still be). In this country (US) the parents are responsible for
the behavior of their minor (under 18 years of age) children, so they
will at least bear the cost of damage their son caused to the
aircraft, and could conceivably face negligence charges if the
District Attorney feels the case warrants. All this is obvious.



It doesn't matter much, though.

He probably already has an agent, a book deal, a deposit on a TV movie, and
a speaking tour on the "Dangers of 14-Year-Olds Let Loose in Poorly Secured
GA Airports". In his adult years, he will open a Flight School with
revolutionary new training techniques that allow Student Solo certification
after just 2 hours dual and a full PPL in an additional 5 hours solo. He
will become a lobbyist/consultant to have the FAA amend their regulations
accordingly.... perhaps even become head of said FAA and revolutionize it
completely.

People will look back at his teen-age indiscretions with amusement, as they
do at their own.