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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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


Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But the
lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a reasonable
doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and spirit
of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident had not
happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the case easier.

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.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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


Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But the
lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a reasonable
doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and
spirit of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident had
not happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the case
easier.



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.

What has that got do do with the accident, then?


Bertie

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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

Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But the
lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a reasonable
doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and
spirit of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident had
not happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the case
easier.


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.

What has that got do do with the accident, then?


Bertie




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.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-
:

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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

Of course a piece of paper doesn't make someone a good pilot. But
the
lack of one would be enough in most states to show beyond a
reasonable
doubt that what this guy did was a violation under the scope and
spirit of most state's child endangerment laws even if an accident
had
not happened. The fact that an accident did happen just makes the
case
easier.


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.

What has that got do do with the accident, then?


Bertie




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?




Bertie

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.

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

On Aug 6, 2:02*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
om...

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

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.

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:
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?



Actually I once witnessed a crash involving a properly licensed pilot
who decided to "show off" to the bosses daughter by taking her up in a
twin Apache that he wasn't current on (he hadn't flown for over two
months). He was practicing "touch and goes" and wound up taking the
aircraft through the fence at the end of the runway, across a busy
highway, and into a ditch. He missed hitting a truck by a whisker. The
"boss" wasn't impressed either. He'd left carb heat "on" for both
engines, should have nailed the brakes instead of attempting to take off
(particularly as he'd landed "long" and had allowed too much speed to
bleed off). Pam told me later (when I went to visit her in the
hospital) how he was busy reading the check-list when he looked up to
see the end of the runway approaching.