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

"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

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?

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

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?

I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what the
evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances are
good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to learn.
It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners
and people you would most definitely not expect to do so make even
bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing this guy.
A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even remotely be
called a tight situation.


Bertie

On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwAXVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@supernews. com:



Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news:__6dndSb5erX5QrVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@supernews. com...

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?

I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what the
evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances are
good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to learn.
It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners
and people you would most definitely not expect to do so make even
bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing this guy.
A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even remotely be
called a tight situation.

Bertie

The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was a
doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a further assessment of his
lack of judgment.

Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
night (playing MSFS of course).

wrote in
:

On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote
innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
:



Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news:__6dndSb5erX5QrVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@supernews. com...

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?

I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what
the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances
are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs,
examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to do so
make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing
this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000
foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even
remotely be called a tight situation.

Bertie

The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was a
doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a further assessment of his
lack of judgment.


I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any case,
even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip even on a
high DA day.
The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday morning
quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are these.
One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is geting
altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly, and more
imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the accident is lost.
"Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.

Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
night (playing MSFS of course).

On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote
innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
:

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news:__6dndSb5erX5QrVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@supernews. com...

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?

I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what
the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances
are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs,
examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to do so
make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing
this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000
foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even
remotely be called a tight situation.

Bertie

The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was a
doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a * further assessment of his
lack of judgment.

I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any case,
even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip even on a
high DA day.
The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday morning
quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are these.
One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is geting
altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly, and more
imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the accident is lost.
"Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.



Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
night (playing MSFS of course).

Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner is,
however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed expert
-- does Anthony come to mind?

wrote in
:

On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:4c9c7f43-25bf-4b2a-890b-88f57b2efb41@d77g2
000hsb.googlegroups.com:



On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote
innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
:

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in
message
news:__6dndSb5erX5QrVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@supernews. com...

much snipped
* * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a lice
nse
*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?

I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper
makes someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it
was pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond
what the evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and
chances are good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to
learn. It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen
ATRs, examiners and people you would most definitely not expect to
do so make even bigger errors in judgement than that which you are
accucing this guy. A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off
out of a 4,000 foot strip with a 3,500 foot density altitude is
not what could even remotely be called a tight situation.

Bertie

The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was
a doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a * further assessment of
his lack of judgment.

I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any
case, even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip
even on a high DA day.
The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday
morning quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are
these. One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is
geting altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly,
and more imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the
accident is lost. "Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good
lesson.



Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
night (playing MSFS of course).

Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner is,
however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed expert
-- does Anthony come to mind?

I'm not arguing that. You're implying its the underlying cause of the
accident, either intentionally or not. It may be, but to dismiss it as
such this early in the investigation is to close your mind and that is
just about never in the interest of promoting a better approach to
flying.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.

Oh, noooo..... Who wants to bet that the sim jockey is going to make
Bertie regret writing that? :

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.

But, who knows. He might have had hundreds of hours of endorsed solo
flight and simply never taken the checkride, and flown hundreds of
unregulated hours snce then.

-c

gatt wrote in news:236kdo.i58.19.1
@integratelecom.com:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.

Oh, noooo..... Who wants to bet that the sim jockey is going to make
Bertie regret writing that? :

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.


Yep.

But, who knows. He might have had hundreds of hours of endorsed solo
flight and simply never taken the checkride, and flown hundreds of
unregulated hours snce then.

Exactly. in general, i agree wiht the sentiment, but to dismiss it as the
cause of the accident, and backpedal though they may, that is exactly what
they were doing, is to be as stupid as they suppose this guy to be.


Bertie

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.

But, who knows. He might have had hundreds of hours of endorsed solo
flight and simply never taken the checkride, and flown hundreds of
unregulated hours snce then.

Yup. Like all those unlicensed pilots in Alaska.