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

On Aug 4, 2:55*pm, "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.

Rather makes you wonder about the quality of the run up, doesn't it?
Or the scan just before pulling a little back pressure on the yoke,
you know, that last check that makes you think this thing will fly?

I could happen to any of us, I suppose, it'll be interesting to hear
what really happened. Conditions are marginal for carb ice, aren't
they, but he might have grown some on the taxi out and not cleared
it.

writes:

Read the NTSB report re JFK Jr -- in fact I think you have, so why are
you asking this question?

Because other people here seem to think that having a license makes one a
competent pilot. JFK is a fine example proving that a license means hardly
anything.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Read the NTSB report re JFK Jr -- in fact I think you have, so why
are you asking this question?

Because other people here seem to think that having a license makes
one a competent pilot. JFK is a fine example proving that a license
means hardly anything.

Just like your posting to r.a.p. means hardly anything. If fact, it means
absolutely nothing.

On Aug 6, 11:07*am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:7fa28711-ed56-49c3-bcd5-
:



On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-

Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself
wou
ld
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not
much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?

What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
accident.

I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he was
a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation contributed
to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
area -suggesting some skill doncha think?

Cheers

It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
undergone PPL training.

He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho' and
I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
induced?).

Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?


Nope seen it myself.

Cheers

Flydive wrote:
Mike wrote:
First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.

So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were involved

Assuming he has a student certificate a pilot is involved.

On Aug 4, 2:55 pm, "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.

My question says it all. Experience and ratings are a factor when we
buy hull and liability insurance. This guy may be self insured (OK,
the airplane isn't worth a fortune, but liability could be huge). I
wonder what his exposure is? I have no idea if our umbrella polices
would include coverage for me if I took a seaplane or multi engine
land for an unsupervised flight that ended in a crash, given I am
rated for neither.,

More_Flaps wrote in
:

On Aug 6, 3:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:f222dc0a-21e5-4e45-8f2b-cd30d9f16911@k30g
2000hse.googlegroups.com:



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 l
ice
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.


I thought the report said the engine lost power?


seemed to be a lack of power, was what he actually said. Could have been
any one of a thousand things. Mechanical, carb ice, who knows? A final
report would give a better picture, though.

Bertie

"Mike" wrote in news:Be0mk.241$_H1.178@trnddc05:

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?


Bertie

Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy
not being able to keep the plane in the air.


Might being the operative word. In my experience, it's very unwise to
point
a finger at another pilot's apparent error until you have all the
facts.

First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.


Yes, there was. Licenced or not, that is what you call the guy at the
stick.


Next, I very clearly stated the facts and even instructed the readers
to draw their own conclusions. Any conjecture on my part was clearly
stated as such to anyone approaching full literacy.

Yeah, right. "he's a rapist, or so I've heard"




Bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Flydive wrote:
Mike wrote:
First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.

So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were involved

Assuming he has a student certificate a pilot is involved.

So, the Wrights weren't pilots?



Bertie

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:


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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?


Bertie

Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy
not being able to keep the plane in the air.


Might being the operative word. In my experience, it's very unwise to
point
a finger at another pilot's apparent error until you have all the
facts.

Here's a case in point. When the prelim accounts of the Kegworth 737
accident came out nearly every pro pilot on earth either said
straight out,
or privately thought, that these guys had made so fundamental a
fjukup as to defy belief. When all the results were in, all but the
idiots realised that anyone might have, and indeed, probably would
have, made exactly the same error...
To a lesser extent, the Air Florida accident is another one. There is
more BS talked about that accident than you'd find in a chicago
cattle yard.. Most of that BS originates from the monday morning
quarterbacking that took
place in the hours immediatly following the accident.

Bertie

Bertie,

These are both truly outstanding examples, and your entire position on
this thread has been far better than my mere expression of annoyance.
However, I do plan to take a break from posting to usenet.

OK. Be sure to get your beach towel out early so I can pee on it.

Bertie