14 yr old pilot

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature decided
to
boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think that
the
previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
been
pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
evidence.

Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) , I
fell no obligation to respond.

Huh? You flatly asserted that "many states" a) found out that distinguishing
joyriding from theft had had an "adverse effect", and b) then revised their
laws accordingly. In reply, I pointed out that you have no evidence
whatsoever for the "adverse effect" you alleged in a), and that you are
demonstrably mistaken about b) in the two (not "many") cases you later cited
(Colorado and Arizona).

I don't even know what you mean by my "propensity to add conditions and
qualifiers" (which conditions? which qualifiers?), but regardless, I was
merely pointing out that you are apparently trying to support your policy
agenda by deciding to believe (and to assert as fact) things for which you
have no evidence.

--Gary

Larry Dighera wrote:

In this case, it is unclear to me that the 14 year old is guilty of
trespassing. The airport and aircraft were unlocked, and I have heard
no mention of signs being posted.

In many (possibly most) States, charges of simple trespass can only be pressed
if the individual was told (orally or in writing) not to trespass on the
property. If, however, the individual commits a crime on the property and the
perpetrator was not invited onto the property, that is "criminal trespass." This
is usually a misdemeanor with relatively trivial fines and/or sentences.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature
decided
to
boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think
that
the
previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
been
pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
evidence.

Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) ,
I
fell no obligation to respond.

Huh? You flatly asserted that "many states" a) found out that
distinguishing
joyriding from theft had had an "adverse effect", and b) then revised
their
laws accordingly.

Which is beyond the point that your extended three or four times so go play
with yourself.

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Why buy them, if the store does not have them bolted to the floor it must
mean it is ok to take them!!!!!!!


Yes, but the bolts cause the balloons to leak.



Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.


Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....

Ahhhh,
but see now you can sue the store for having faulty bolted down
balloons!!!! Then write a book about the hardships you have endured
because of store owners bolting down their products ...and then there are
the movie rights!!!! MY OH MY the possibilties are endless!:0

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Why buy them, if the store does not have them bolted to the floor it must
mean it is ok to take them!!!!!!!


Yes, but the bolts cause the balloons to leak.



Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.


Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Huh? You flatly asserted that "many states" a) found out that
distinguishing joyriding from theft had had an "adverse effect",
and b) then revised their laws accordingly.

Which is beyond the point that your extended three or four times
so go play with yourself.

How to sustain a belief in an untenable ideology: 1) Make up fake facts as
needed. 2) When your bluff is called, admit no error; resort to inchoate
insults instead.

Thanks for the info,

Never knew that Norway was part of Germany ;-)

-Kees

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Ahhhh,
but see now you can sue the store for having faulty bolted down
balloons!!!! Then write a book about the hardships you have endured
because of store owners bolting down their products ...and then there are
the movie rights!!!! MY OH MY the possibilties are endless!:0

Quite! A couple years from now you wouldn't have to steal a swimming pool.
Well, your lawyer wouldn't have to. You might be able to afford the water,
though.




Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Why buy them, if the store does not have them bolted to the floor it
must
mean it is ok to take them!!!!!!!


Yes, but the bolts cause the balloons to leak.



Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.


Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:29:24 -0700, unicate wrote:

If it's the one I think you're thinking of (2nd leg of trip originating
from Half Moon Bay, CA), she was not alone, she was with her father and
a flight instructor, and it was reported (accuracy unknown) that to stay
on schedule for the media there and at the next scheduled location, they
knowingly took off into weather. Was that ever verified?

The girls name was Jessica Dubroff and AVWeb has a synopsis of the
crash that is extremely detailed.

http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183036-1.html

To synopsise, the FAA observed that the field elevation (over 6000
feet) was likely a factor. The pilot was not familiar with flights
out of fields at that elevation. In addition, he apparently did not
lean for best performance, there was an approaching thunder storm
which had caused visibility to deteriorate putting the field IFR
before he departed. He then filed for "special IFR" to continue the
flight and ammended that to "special VFR" when the tower professed
ignorance of what "special IFR" was. There was wind shear noted by a
Cessna 414 that departed just ahead of the 177. The pilot of the 414
immediately reported it in hopes the pilot of the 177 would hear it
and abort the attempted takeoff. It was raining pretty heavily at the
time of departure although it was observably clear to the east. The
Cessna was overgross by about 50 lbs.

Reaction to the media could have also been a factor (taking off due to
pressure to complete the record attempt in front of everyone).

The pilot had not stopped at the beginning of the runway to check
anything, he rolled on and took off. It turned right relatively soon
after takeoff to avoid the approaching storm and appeared to be
wobbling and flying slowly. The airplane was observed to descend
nearly vertically from a relatively low height and impacted the ground
in a steep nose down attitude.

The mixture control was at full rich, although the FAA said impact
might have shoved the control forward. The Cessna manual states that
leaning is necessary above 3,000 feet for proper engine performance.

With the clear vision of hindsight, a very bad decision to depart at
that point in the day.

Corky Scott

Robert Morien wrote:
In article v6Jse.13278$5s1.12355@trndny06,
George Patterson wrote:


Robert Morien wrote:


aw, come on. How does a 14 year old without any flying experience manage
to start an airplane, much less know how to control the throttle?

The ignition switch works just like a car, which he's seen used thousands of
times. The throttle on a 152 is exactly like that on a farm tractor and is
clearly labeled. I'd bet he's either been given rides in aircraft or driven a
tractor.




In which case the story might have reflected on how easy it was for a 14
year old to pick up the flying skills necessary just by watching someone
else do the flying.

But then again I'd bet the universe of 14 year olds that have driven a
tractor is pretty small.


I was kind of thinking that also. A 14 year old managed to steal a
plane and fly around for almost a half hour and although he crashed it,
he did not kill himself. It just shows how "easy" flying really is.
The real "hard" part is the book study learning the regs, etc. To get
your landing and maneuvers down smooth just takes practice.

And I have never lived on a farm but I drove a tractor by 14. I visited
a friends uncle's farm a few times and drove one their.