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

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

Ah, OK. Well, you dtill don't know he didn't have a licence yet. Often
there's a bigger picture behind NTSB reports like that, which was the
subtle point i was making.

In any case, it's also not at all clear he did anything stupid as far as
his flying was concerned.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I just don't like seeing people lynched..

The word on the street even before the prelim NTSB was the "pilot" involved
had bought his plane to get his ticket, but never did and even his student
ticket had expired.

"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.

"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.

"gatt" wrote in message
...
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

I kind of wonder if he was even working on his private ticket, or just
flying outside of regs as usual.

My guess is he probably was just getting around to it and had full
intentions of doing so, but it appears as if he was 2 years or so out of
date on everything.

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?

buttman writes:

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?

A willingness to break one law does indeed correlate with a willingness to
break other laws. However, you also need motivation to break a law, and
motivation to fly illegally does not correlate with motivation to rape or
murder.

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?

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?