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

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

Mike wrote:
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.



From the report...

"The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."

No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it was
under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.


Why would they say it was under part 121? And where does it say he was
not operating under the provisions of 91? If any regs were broken, and
that is no tclear, it would have been 61 in any case. Bertie


Jeez Bertie it was a joke. 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.

There's probably a good chance of some type of state charges and the FAA may
go after him on criminal charges as well. He was pretty stupid to speak to
FSDO on the phone and should have let a lawyer handle it, but a guy like
that can't be too smart to begin with.

"Mike" wrote:
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.

The report lists the N-number and states that the non-certificated pilot is
also the owner. The aircraft number can be located in the FAA aircraft
database, which provides the owner name. The FAA license database can be
searched for the owner's name to see what, if any, certificates the owner
holds or held.

Bottom line appears to suggest:
The listed owner bought the aircraft in 2004 about a month prior to getting
a student pilot certificate. Doesn't appear to have gone past that stage. I
don't know if or how the database handles renewals so the owner might still
have a student license, though were that the case I assume the NTSB report
would have stated "student pilot" not "non-certificated" pilot.

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Mike" wrote:
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.

The report lists the N-number and states that the non-certificated pilot is
also the owner. The aircraft number can be located in the FAA aircraft
database, which provides the owner name. The FAA license database can be
searched for the owner's name to see what, if any, certificates the owner
holds or held.

Bottom line appears to suggest:
The listed owner bought the aircraft in 2004 about a month prior to getting
a student pilot certificate. Doesn't appear to have gone past that stage. I
don't know if or how the database handles renewals so the owner might still
have a student license, though were that the case I assume the NTSB report
would have stated "student pilot" not "non-certificated" pilot.


http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20...WS08/808030343

"The investigation into the crash of a Cessna 172 last weekend in the
Athens area raised the questions when the newspaper learned the pilot,
Paul Kaemmerling, of Liberty, does not hold any type of pilot
certification, though he owns an airplane.

“He had a student pilot certificate, but that expired May 31, 2006, so
he did not have any pilot certificate at the time of the crash,”
National Transportation and Safety Board Safety Investigator Jennifer
Kaiser said earlier in the week. "

On 2008-08-04 15:47:22 -0700, Jim Logajan said:

"Mike" wrote:
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.

The report lists the N-number and states that the non-certificated pilot is
also the owner. The aircraft number can be located in the FAA aircraft
database, which provides the owner name. The FAA license database can be
searched for the owner's name to see what, if any, certificates the owner
holds or held.

Bottom line appears to suggest:
The listed owner bought the aircraft in 2004 about a month prior to getting
a student pilot certificate. Doesn't appear to have gone past that stage. I
don't know if or how the database handles renewals so the owner might still
have a student license, though were that the case I assume the NTSB report
would have stated "student pilot" not "non-certificated" pilot.

I seem to recall reading in AOPA Pilot that the owner of Aviat Aircraft
flew a Pitts for a long time with nothing but a student pilot
certificate. Apparently he was too busy to take the check ride, but he
was pretty good at aerobatics. This was a few years back (but not too
many years back). I suspect he has finished his pilot certificate by
now, though. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Mike" wrote in message
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
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.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in message
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
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. The full NTSB report
should be even more interesting.

On Aug 4, 10:17*pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message

...



"Mike" wrote in message
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
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?

"buttman" wrote in message
...
On Aug 4, 10:17 pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message

...



"Mike" wrote in message
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
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?

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
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
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?