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

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?

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.

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

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

On Aug 5, 11:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



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



The preliminary evidence, and it is a rebuttable assumption, is that
the pilot/owner would make an anal sphincter look good by comparison.
My view is that there's a lesson learned from the way the Navy does
searches at sea. They start close to where they think the target is,
then search in expanding circles -- actually straight edged patterns
-- centered around that point. Sure the assumption could be wrong, but
at this point it's more or less finding someone shot in the head 4
times and deciding it was probably not a suicide. Be nice to see the
guy exonerated, but that is not the way to bet in this case.

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.

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

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

wrote in
:

On Aug 5, 11:20*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.

Bertie



The preliminary evidence, and it is a rebuttable assumption, is that
the pilot/owner would make an anal sphincter look good by comparison.
My view is that there's a lesson learned from the way the Navy does
searches at sea. They start close to where they think the target is,
then search in expanding circles -- actually straight edged patterns
-- centered around that point. Sure the assumption could be wrong, but
at this point it's more or less finding someone shot in the head 4
times and deciding it was probably not a suicide. Be nice to see the
guy exonerated, but that is not the way to bet in this case.

it's not a horse race.


Bertie