![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"buttman" wrote in message
... On Aug 4, 10:17 pm, "Mike" wrote: "Peter Dohm" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message news ![]() 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. Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion about the certificate issue. There was plenty of runway for the conditions; so if the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special purpose, and the engine continued to run correctly we would all have none the wiser. And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the same tail number. Actually there's quite a bit. The plane appears to have been transferred in 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was issued a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never completed. If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual on the plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and balance, density altitude, or any other pesky little detail. he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right? Ah, what was I thinking? I'm sure he's a fine, capable airman with several hundred hours gained by only the very best decision making skills, and the fact that his student ticket expired two years ago, and he had no medical, and he was unauthorized to carry passengers (or himself for that matter) really only boils down to breaking only one rule and is simply a minor infraction caused most likely by a paperwork error by the FAA. Surely he had complete regard for all the REST of the rules, right? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 5, 5:59*am, "Mike" wrote:
"buttman" wrote in message ... On Aug 4, 10:17 pm, "Mike" wrote: "Peter Dohm" wrote in message . .. "Mike" wrote in message news ![]() 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. Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion about the certificate issue. There was plenty of runway for the conditions; so if the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special purpose, and the engine continued to run correctly we would all have none the wiser. And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the same tail number. Actually there's quite a bit. The plane appears to have been transferred in 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was issued a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never completed. If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual on the plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and balance, density altitude, or any other pesky little detail. he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right? Ah, what was I thinking? *I'm sure he's a fine, capable airman with several hundred hours gained by only the very best decision making skills, and the fact that his student ticket expired two years ago, and he had no medical, and he was unauthorized to carry passengers (or himself for that matter) really only boils down to breaking only one rule and is simply a minor infraction caused most likely by a paperwork error by the FAA. *Surely he had complete regard for all the REST of the rules, right? Would you care to speculate that he'll claim to have kept proficient by flying his flight simulator Beech Barren? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 5, 7:40*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Would you care to speculate that he'll claim to have kept proficient by flying his flight simulator Beech Barren? If he is willing and able to fly a real airplane without a license, why would he bother with simulation? Some here has told us repeatedly about the advantages of self stimulation -- ah, simulation -- in his otherwise barren life.Why would you think someone else would not want to experience the full richness of that, as well as flying as an uncredentialed pilot? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Private Aero L-39C Albatros everyone in cockpit working hard | Tom Callahan | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 26th 07 05:15 PM |
Things to do as a private pilot ? | [email protected] | Piloting | 49 | June 25th 06 06:16 PM |
WTB: 135 Ticket | AML | Piloting | 28 | May 26th 06 04:10 PM |
WTB:135 Ticket | AML | Owning | 1 | May 24th 06 08:41 PM |
WTB: 135 Ticket | AML | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | May 24th 06 03:32 PM |