www.msnbc.com

Look for the Today Show link

Small box near the center of page ... as of 930mst, it was #6 of 13 video
clips you could choose from.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

I can't wait for the book...

Title suggestions are requested.

If anyone finds it somewhere that doesn't require SP2 downloads and all
that, please post.

Jay Beckman wrote:
> www.msnbc.com
>
> Look for the Today Show link
>
> Small box near the center of page ... as of 930mst, it was #6 of 13 video
> clips you could choose from.
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
>
>

DUH!
would be a title.

CLUELESS over DC
would be another.

I saw the interview on MSNBC.
I read the statement that his lawyer put out which switched between a first
and third person narrative, making me also question the intelligence of his
attorney, although previously, he served as an attorney with the Federal
Aviation Administration. He is past president of the National Transportation
Safety Board Bar Association. hmmm...

"At this point, for the first time, we were able to visually identify our
location as being in a Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ)" Ok, so before they
were able to identify their location they weren't following their progress
and were, for lack of another word, lost?

Nothing I've seen, heard, or read about his flight has changed my opinion of
either his nonchalant attitude and or his inability or unwillingness to
flight plan through complex airspace.

I feel no sympathy for Mr. Sheaffer. I feel a little for Mr. Martin, but he
too, even as a 30 hour student, should have flight planned the route and
made himself extremely familiar with it.

No call to FSS. No VFR or ADIZ flight plan. No flight following. No clue.
No more ticket. No excuses.

Jim



"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I can't wait for the book...
>
> Title suggestions are requested.
>

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> DUH!

> I feel no sympathy for Mr. Sheaffer. I feel a little for Mr. Martin, but
he
> too, even as a 30 hour student, should have flight planned the route and
> made himself extremely familiar with it.
>
> No call to FSS. No VFR or ADIZ flight plan. No flight following. No
clue.
> No more ticket. No excuses.

I agree with Jim 100%. The statement also says that they "took a more
southerly route in order to avoid the restricted airspace over camp david",
but its kinda unbelievable because the direct route was right over DC. To
get into camp david they would have to fly a lot more west that they needed
to get to the airport in NC.
If I ever need to fly under VFR in the proximity of the area, I'd definitely
fly a flight plan and get flight following....

Jay wrote:

> Look for the Today Show link
>
> Small box near the center of page ... as of 930mst, it was #6 of 13
video
> clips you could choose from.

Matt L: "Do you think you did everything else you possibly could of to
avoid this situation?"

Sheaffer: "Yes I do."


Sad...

--
Peter

What a total waste of life. He admitted no responsibility. He said he
didn't do anything wrong. Apparently, just entering the restricted
airspace wasn't enough to show him that **SOMETHING** he did must have
been wrong!! What an idiot. If it were me, (and I'm going to D.C.
tomorrow), I'd lay down real quick, say I'm sorry, say my preflight and
in flight management were obviously not good enough, and play the
innocent person who made a bad mistake and take my lumps. I think this
guy suspects he won't live long enough to get through this suspension.
He's pretty old.!

-Robert, CFI

Robert wrote:

> What a total waste of life.

Not too strong of a statement, is that?

I doubt very much his family and friends think he is a waste of life.
His piloting skills are obviously questionable, as well as the fact
that he is not admitting any responsibility (thanks, no doubt, to that
high priced lawyer sitting next to him in the interview), but to say he
is a total waste of life is just a bit over the top, no?

--
Peter

On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:35:53 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote in <rJIke.1138$rr.509@fed1read01>::

>www.msnbc.com
>
>Look for the Today Show link
>
>Small box near the center of page ... as of 930mst, it was #6 of 13 video
>clips you could choose from.

Here's the link to the video:
http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&p=News_Politics&i=799d30a7-724f-45a3-a62c-c6c8ca634ff6&rf=

> Here's the link to the video:
> http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&p=News_Politics&i=799d30a7-724f-45a3-a62c-c6c8ca634ff6&rf=

All I get is
"Amazing video quality Install this free software, and then receive
select videos delivered to your computer in crystal-clear quality."

I don't know what it is about peddlers of unknown software who seem to
think that just because it's free everyone wants it.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>The statement also says that they "took a more
> southerly route in order to avoid the restricted airspace over camp
david",
> but its kinda unbelievable because the direct route was right over DC. To
> get into camp david they would have to fly a lot more west that they
needed
> to get to the airport in NC.

I looked at that too.
In 0.24 seconds Googleing "DC ADIZ TFR Camp David Prohibited" gave me
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/tfrweb.pdf
as it's #1 return.
This guy went on and on about how he checked so many websites about weather
and such, even the AOPA web site. If he was so worried about the Camp David
P area, he could have found the FAA TFR pdf as easy as I did, and if he
would have, he would have saw the list of requirements not only to enter the
ADIZ, but the intercept procedures as well.

Jim

"suspension".... now there's something that really ****es me off. 1 year
suspension.

I think it should be a life time permanent revocation never able to apply
for a certificate of any kind ever again even after your dead for freaking
EVER!

....and the same thing for any CFI, DE, FSDO Inspector, or pilot/attorney
that tries to help this guy get his certificate back.

Jim

"Peter R." > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Robert wrote:
>
> > What a total waste of life.
>
> Not too strong of a statement, is that?
>
> I doubt very much his family and friends think he is a waste of life.
> His piloting skills are obviously questionable, as well as the fact
> that he is not admitting any responsibility (thanks, no doubt, to that
> high priced lawyer sitting next to him in the interview), but to say he
> is a total waste of life is just a bit over the top, no?

Agree with Peter. The guy doesn't deserve to be a pilot anymore, but
Robert's statement is a little bit too much.
It's pretty lame that he did not admit his responsibility, definitely!
He should have said "yea, i was irresponsible, and I overlooked a very
important aspect in my flight planning". Doesn't make him a better pilot,
but at least would show that he is a human being who recognizes his
mistakes.

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> "suspension".... now there's something that really ****es me off. 1 year
> suspension.
>
> I think it should be a life time permanent revocation never able to apply
> for a certificate of any kind ever again even after your dead for freaking
> EVER!
>
> ...and the same thing for any CFI, DE, FSDO Inspector, or pilot/attorney
> that tries to help this guy get his certificate back.

They are going to appeal because the supension is way longer than others.
Now that is ****ed up. If I had done that, and had gotten only a one year
suspension, I'd be more than willing to accept that and be very happy about
it.
About the student pilot, I don't really know how he didn't think about that
either. 30 hours is not that little. At least he learned a valuable lesson
without having any suspension (which couldn't be done anyways because he
didnt have any responsibility)

Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been pilots.
Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC, and
I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight (who
is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?

g

Jim Burns wrote:
>
> I feel no sympathy for Mr. Sheaffer. I feel a little for Mr. Martin, but he
> too, even as a 30 hour student, should have flight planned the route and
> made himself extremely familiar with it.
>
He should have?? He was a passenger. While it may be a good
learning exercise (assuming he was even at that stage of his training),
I wouldn't expect a passenger to go to that kind of effort. If this
was a training flight with an actual instructor, that would be a
different story.

When I go along for a ride as a passenger, I don't flight plan a
proposed route. I let the PIC take care of that.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> I feel no sympathy for Mr. Sheaffer. I feel a little for Mr. Martin, but
> he
> too, even as a 30 hour student, should have flight planned the route and
> made himself extremely familiar with it.

Why? Do you expect your passengers to supervise your navigation?

--Gary

"Guillermo" > wrote

> Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been
pilots.
> Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC, and
> I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight
(who
> is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?

It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the student is
just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would be
in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
regs, aren't they?
--
Jim in NC

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> The "he was a passenger" is a cop out. If you are a pilot, even a student
> pilot with only 30 hours, and you are in the airplane, why wouldn't you do
> everything you could to be prepared??

Perhaps because you understand the concept of PIC and take it seriously. So
you understand that the flight is not in any way your responsibility; and
you have no reason to doubt that the person who *is* responsible is capable
of doing the job. (Or if you *do* have reason to doubt that, then you
shouldn't agree to the trip no matter how "prepared" you are.)

--Gary

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>I expect any student pilot passengers that ride along on cross country
> flights with me to at least show the initiative and interest to figure out
> where we're going, how long it will take, how we're going to get there,
> and
> if we stray off course could we end up running into anything or possibly
> get
> shot down by F16's. If they don't want to do the work at home, we can do
> it
> together, but he will do it. Any student that doesn't at least show that
> much interest can walk, and I don't care if he's a student of mine or of
> any
> other instructor. If a person has something in their wallet that says FAA
> and Pilot on it, they should at least be responsible for their own flight
> safety to what ever extent they can. I have no tolerance for pilots who
> are
> passengers that sit idly by all fat, dumb, and happy, wondering where they
> are rather than knowing. Nowhere did I mention or suggest "supervising"
> the
> PIC, the PIC was in charge, but that doesn't mean that the pilot/passenger
> should be a corpse. What I am suggesting is that Martin could have
> monitored their flight path and watched out for his own ass. He had the
> ability and the knowledge, and if he would have used it, he could have
> saved
> them both a lot of trouble. If I was Martin's CFI, we would begin the
> cross country planning lessons all over and it would last a good while.
>
> Jim
>

I'd start with a review of CRM...

This isn't that much unlike cases where 1st Officers have allowed Captains
to kill both of them (and everyone in the back of the bus) by flying into
t-storms or CFIT without uttering a peep.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> Any student that doesn't at least show that
> much interest can walk, and I don't care if he's a student of mine or of
> any
> other instructor.

That's a perfectly reasonable choice for you to make, especially since
you're an instructor. But there's also nothing unreasonable about a PIC
being willing to carry a student passenger who does *not* take that interest
on that particular flight (especially a PIC who is *not* an instructor); and
there'd be nothing unreasonable about being such a passenger.

But I don't understand why you leap to the conclusion that the student
*didn't* take an interest in planning the flight. The pilots' joint
statement claims they both did pre-flight planning; do you have evidence to
the contrary? The student was actually flying the plane; perhaps he was not
yet far enough along in his training to navigate reliably while doing so, so
he depended on the PIC to interpret where they were (relative to their
pre-planned track) and to say what heading to fly. The PIC got lost, thought
they were elsewhere, and specified the wrong headings.

--Gary

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> That was when the flight became MY responsibility, even though I was not
> PIC
> and was just a passenger, I became PIC and relieved him of his
> "responsibility". I called center, filed IFR, flew the rest of the way
> home, shot the approach down to about 800 ft AGL. Everybody agreed that
> was
> better than flying 300 miles following the interstate at 800 agl.
>
> Sometimes it pays to do what you can instead of just what is required.
> The
> concept of PIC does not relinquish another person from the responsibility
> they have to themselves and their family. The PIC is in charge of the
> flight, no doubt, but I'm still in charge of me and when my
> responsibilities
> to myself and my family conflict with another persons responsibilities as
> PIC, I'd rather be prepared to offer the PIC alternatives.

Cool story! Good thing you were prepared and capable!

I certainly agree that it's a great idea for any passenger to provide
redundancy to the best of his or her ability. I just don't think it's
warranted to criticize a passenger for choosing not to on a particular
flight. Evem a pilot passenger might just choose to take a nap instead.

And (as I elaborated in another post just now), I don't think there's much
evidence that this student *wasn't* taking full interest in the flight. He
was doing all the flying; and he and the PIC have stated that they both did
pre-flight planning of their route (between the Camp David ADIZ and the DC
ADIZ). But they somehow got extremely lost while trying to follow that
route.

--Gary

Jim Burns wrote:

> Along those lines.... I had a friend, a PPL, non instrument rated that had a
> 172, infact, he was the influence that got me interested in flying. Fully
> capable of doing the PIC job, over 1000 hours at the time, I never had a
> reason to doubt it, until one trip.
>
> After I got my PPL and then my IR, we and our wives took a trip together,
> his airplane, he as PIC for the whole trip. However, I also planned it,
> both ways, there and back, and carried my charts and plates along "just in
> case".
>
> Before our trip home, he got the weather and filed VFR. I also got the
> weather and noted the FA at home called for increasing cloudiness and
> lowering ceilings.
>
> We took off and headed out. The weather was just as forecast. Ceilings
> started to come down, so he descended. Up ahead it was obvious that a lower
> layer was also coming in below us. His solution?? "We'll just stay here
> (VFR) between layers then circle down over the interstate and follow it
> home." He couldn't hold altitude within 500 feet while we were between
> layers.
>
> That was when the flight became MY responsibility, even though I was not PIC
> and was just a passenger, I became PIC and relieved him of his
> "responsibility". I called center, filed IFR, flew the rest of the way
> home, shot the approach down to about 800 ft AGL. Everybody agreed that was
> better than flying 300 miles following the interstate at 800 agl.
>
> Sometimes it pays to do what you can instead of just what is required. The
> concept of PIC does not relinquish another person from the responsibility
> they have to themselves and their family. The PIC is in charge of the
> flight, no doubt, but I'm still in charge of me and when my responsibilities
> to myself and my family conflict with another persons responsibilities as
> PIC, I'd rather be prepared to offer the PIC alternatives.

And just how was a student pilot to "assume PIC" when it wasn't legal
for him to do so?

Your situation above isn't anything like the DC situation. It sounds
from the reports that the student did get involved reasonably
appropriately, then again none of us were in the cockpit to know exactly
who did what when.


Matt

Jim Burns wrote:
> The "he was a passenger" is a cop out. If you are a pilot, even a student
> pilot with only 30 hours, and you are in the airplane, why wouldn't you do
> everything you could to be prepared?? which to me starts at home with
> flight planning.

I can see by this and your other post that you expect the student
pilot passenger to act more like a student than a passenger. That's
your perogative. Not being an instructor, I don't generally take that
approach. I don't insist that a student pilot riding with me do any
flight planning or learn anything at all. I'm not an instructor and
I'm not there to teach them anything. If they happen to learn
something on the flight, good for them. But I certainly wouldn't (as a
non-CFI) insist that any student that goes for a ride with me do
detailed flight planning or anything else. If they choose to do so,
that's fine, but when it comes right down to it, I'm the PIC and they
are just a passenger. I can provide them with some practical
experience, and they can take what they can from that, but I'm not
going to pretend to be their instructor.
>
> At 30 hours, I would expect that the student pilot/passenger had completed
> at least part of his cross country training, so I'd expect that if he had
> agreed to do the hands on flying through that type of airspace that he would
> take the effort to flight plan it also.
<snip>

If your assumptions are correct, perhaps you have a point. But
neither you nor I know what kind of 30 hr. student we're talking about.
There's the 30 hr. student that's flying solo X/C and there's the one
who flies once a month and hasn't soloed yet (i.e. clueless newbie).
The latter may not even be at the level of competently planning a
flight of this distance. I'm not going to judge him without more info.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> If they were willing, I think it would be of great benefit for a magazine
> like AOPA's Flight Training to interview both of them and ask them
> questions
> from the pilots, students, and instructors point of view, rather than just
> the news media interviewing them from the talking head "you almost got
> shot
> down and could have killed the President" point of view.

Agreed.

> I guess two pilots planning the same route could get lost in
> unfamiliar territory and neither realize where they were. I would hope
> that
> two heads and four eyes would tilt the odds more in their favor, perhaps
> not. What irritates me the most is that Shaeffer hasn't shown us that he
> understood the complexity of the area other than the Camp David P area.

Yup, that's certainly true. And he seems to have been off course by a good
45 degrees, which is hard to understand.

On the other hand, I once got 30 degrees off course when I plotted a course
while flying, and mistakenly subtracted magnetic variation instead of adding
it. If they did something like that, and also had a crosswind that was
different than forecast, and maybe had some unnoticed gyro drift and some
sloppiness in holding their heading (since the student was flying), and if
they had the bad luck for all those factors to align in the same direction,
and if their pilotage sucked and/or the landmarks were sparse until they
were deeply inside the ADIZ...

--Gary

The "he was a passenger" is a cop out. If you are a pilot, even a student
pilot with only 30 hours, and you are in the airplane, why wouldn't you do
everything you could to be prepared?? which to me starts at home with
flight planning.

At 30 hours, I would expect that the student pilot/passenger had completed
at least part of his cross country training, so I'd expect that if he had
agreed to do the hands on flying through that type of airspace that he would
take the effort to flight plan it also. Granted, he was not PIC, nor was he
under any obligation or requirement to flight plan the trip, but any student
worth his salt would have if knowing in advance that he would be doing the
actual flying through that airspace.

I'll also put some more blame on Mr. Shaeffer for not mentoring the student
pilot towards flight planning the trip. I would expect that suggestion of
any private pilot that takes a cross country flight with a student pilot.
You don't have to be an instructor to promote and display proper flight
planning to students.

....and when I go on a cross country flight "just as a passenger" of another
pilot, I usually will take the trouble to draw a line on a map... takes all
of about 45 seconds. The closest prohibited area here is a live fire
bombing range in the middle of a restricted area which is in the middle of a
MOA, I don't care who the PIC is, I'll still plan the proposed route.

Jim

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
> >
> > I feel no sympathy for Mr. Sheaffer. I feel a little for Mr. Martin,
but he
> > too, even as a 30 hour student, should have flight planned the route and
> > made himself extremely familiar with it.
> >
> He should have?? He was a passenger. While it may be a good
> learning exercise (assuming he was even at that stage of his training),
> I wouldn't expect a passenger to go to that kind of effort. If this
> was a training flight with an actual instructor, that would be a
> different story.
>
> When I go along for a ride as a passenger, I don't flight plan a
> proposed route. I let the PIC take care of that.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

Did anybody else watch the video ?
He is claiming that the student was at the controls the whole time !!
And when asked if he would do anything different next time he said he would
have taken the controls and turned away from Washington.

Does anybody believe this new story ?


"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:rJIke.1138$rr.509@fed1read01...
> www.msnbc.com
>
> Look for the Today Show link
>
> Small box near the center of page ... as of 930mst, it was #6 of 13 video
> clips you could choose from.
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
>
>

>>>>> "i" == iflyatiger > writes:

i> Did anybody else watch the video ? He is claiming that the
i> student was at the controls the whole time !! And when asked
i> if he would do anything different next time he said he would
i> have taken the controls and turned away from Washington.

i> Does anybody believe this new story ?

I believe the pilot is a confused coward who, having screwed up, isn't
man enough to admit it, and instead is more or less blaming the
student pilot! I wonder if the student was going to try to log the
time? They should bust him too. A real couple of bozos.

I expect any student pilot passengers that ride along on cross country
flights with me to at least show the initiative and interest to figure out
where we're going, how long it will take, how we're going to get there, and
if we stray off course could we end up running into anything or possibly get
shot down by F16's. If they don't want to do the work at home, we can do it
together, but he will do it. Any student that doesn't at least show that
much interest can walk, and I don't care if he's a student of mine or of any
other instructor. If a person has something in their wallet that says FAA
and Pilot on it, they should at least be responsible for their own flight
safety to what ever extent they can. I have no tolerance for pilots who are
passengers that sit idly by all fat, dumb, and happy, wondering where they
are rather than knowing. Nowhere did I mention or suggest "supervising" the
PIC, the PIC was in charge, but that doesn't mean that the pilot/passenger
should be a corpse. What I am suggesting is that Martin could have
monitored their flight path and watched out for his own ass. He had the
ability and the knowledge, and if he would have used it, he could have saved
them both a lot of trouble. If I was Martin's CFI, we would begin the
cross country planning lessons all over and it would last a good while.

Jim

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Burns" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I feel no sympathy for Mr. Sheaffer. I feel a little for Mr. Martin,
but
> > he
> > too, even as a 30 hour student, should have flight planned the route and
> > made himself extremely familiar with it.
>
> Why? Do you expect your passengers to supervise your navigation?
>
> --Gary
>
>

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> I believe the pilot is a confused coward who, having screwed up, isn't
> man enough to admit it, and instead is more or less blaming the
> student pilot! I wonder if the student was going to try to log the
> time? They should bust him too. A real couple of bozos.

I agree with you on the pilot. A PIC trying to push some of the
heat onto his passenger is repugnant.

It might be tough to log dual without a CFI's singature. Frankly, as
far as the student is concerned, I'm not ready to hang him. This could
likely be a case of a student that doesn't know much about flying, who
put way more trust in the pilot than he should have.

I can remember when I was a student. I looked up to people who had
been flying for decades and assumed that they knew a hell of a lot more
about flying than I did. I flew with an instructor that was downright
dangerous, but I didn't have a clue until quite a long time later.

Put yourself in the student's shoes and take another look at it.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:13:50 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> Here's the link to the video:
>> http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&p=News_Politics&i=799d30a7-724f-45a3-a62c-c6c8ca634ff6&rf=
>
>All I get is
>"Amazing video quality Install this free software, and then receive
>select videos delivered to your computer in crystal-clear quality."
>
>I don't know what it is about peddlers of unknown software who seem to
>think that just because it's free everyone wants it.
>
>Jose

Sorry about that. I right clicked on the 'Play' button, and selected
'Properties' and cut out the URL. It should have provided the correct
URL to play the video, but ...

If you search for 'Pilot' on the http://video.msn.com/ page, it will
be one of the choices returned.

In article >,
"Jim Burns" > wrote:

> The "he was a passenger" is a cop out.

wrong.

What part of "passenger" don't you understand?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Along those lines.... I had a friend, a PPL, non instrument rated that had a
172, infact, he was the influence that got me interested in flying. Fully
capable of doing the PIC job, over 1000 hours at the time, I never had a
reason to doubt it, until one trip.

After I got my PPL and then my IR, we and our wives took a trip together,
his airplane, he as PIC for the whole trip. However, I also planned it,
both ways, there and back, and carried my charts and plates along "just in
case".

Before our trip home, he got the weather and filed VFR. I also got the
weather and noted the FA at home called for increasing cloudiness and
lowering ceilings.

We took off and headed out. The weather was just as forecast. Ceilings
started to come down, so he descended. Up ahead it was obvious that a lower
layer was also coming in below us. His solution?? "We'll just stay here
(VFR) between layers then circle down over the interstate and follow it
home." He couldn't hold altitude within 500 feet while we were between
layers.

That was when the flight became MY responsibility, even though I was not PIC
and was just a passenger, I became PIC and relieved him of his
"responsibility". I called center, filed IFR, flew the rest of the way
home, shot the approach down to about 800 ft AGL. Everybody agreed that was
better than flying 300 miles following the interstate at 800 agl.

Sometimes it pays to do what you can instead of just what is required. The
concept of PIC does not relinquish another person from the responsibility
they have to themselves and their family. The PIC is in charge of the
flight, no doubt, but I'm still in charge of me and when my responsibilities
to myself and my family conflict with another persons responsibilities as
PIC, I'd rather be prepared to offer the PIC alternatives.

Jim

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Burns" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The "he was a passenger" is a cop out. If you are a pilot, even a
student
> > pilot with only 30 hours, and you are in the airplane, why wouldn't you
do
> > everything you could to be prepared??
>
> Perhaps because you understand the concept of PIC and take it seriously.
So
> you understand that the flight is not in any way your responsibility; and
> you have no reason to doubt that the person who *is* responsible is
capable
> of doing the job. (Or if you *do* have reason to doubt that, then you
> shouldn't agree to the trip no matter how "prepared" you are.)
>
> --Gary
>
>

>
> But I don't understand why you leap to the conclusion that the student
> *didn't* take an interest in planning the flight.

I'll agree with you that I did jump to that conclusion. Some of the things
that I do automatically when taking trips, I am sure other people do not do
at all. I should not begin to guess what type of prep the student pilot
did. I guess two pilots planning the same route could get lost in
unfamiliar territory and neither realize where they were. I would hope that
two heads and four eyes would tilt the odds more in their favor, perhaps
not. What irritates me the most is that Shaeffer hasn't shown us that he
understood the complexity of the area other than the Camp David P area.
That relaxed attitude would not be something that I would want a student
exposed to when flying in that airspace. Maybe more will come out and we
won't have to speculate, you make some valid points.

Jim

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> I wonder if the student was going to try to log the time?

As what? There's no provision for logging time as a passenger.

> They should bust him too. A real couple of bozos.

I think pilots who don't understand the difference between a PIC and a
non-pilot passenger should be busted and required to have remedial training
in the FARs. :)

--Gary

If they were willing, I think it would be of great benefit for a magazine
like AOPA's Flight Training to interview both of them and ask them questions
from the pilots, students, and instructors point of view, rather than just
the news media interviewing them from the talking head "you almost got shot
down and could have killed the President" point of view.

One question that I'd have is whether they had a current Washington terminal
chart aboard.

Maybe both pilots did everything they were capable of. Shaeffer has already
said he did.

Jim

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Burns" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That was when the flight became MY responsibility, even though I was not
> > PIC
> > and was just a passenger, I became PIC and relieved him of his
> > "responsibility". I called center, filed IFR, flew the rest of the way
> > home, shot the approach down to about 800 ft AGL. Everybody agreed that
> > was
> > better than flying 300 miles following the interstate at 800 agl.
> >
> > Sometimes it pays to do what you can instead of just what is required.
> > The
> > concept of PIC does not relinquish another person from the
responsibility
> > they have to themselves and their family. The PIC is in charge of the
> > flight, no doubt, but I'm still in charge of me and when my
> > responsibilities
> > to myself and my family conflict with another persons responsibilities
as
> > PIC, I'd rather be prepared to offer the PIC alternatives.
>
> Cool story! Good thing you were prepared and capable!
>
> I certainly agree that it's a great idea for any passenger to provide
> redundancy to the best of his or her ability. I just don't think it's
> warranted to criticize a passenger for choosing not to on a particular
> flight. Evem a pilot passenger might just choose to take a nap instead.
>
> And (as I elaborated in another post just now), I don't think there's much
> evidence that this student *wasn't* taking full interest in the flight. He
> was doing all the flying; and he and the PIC have stated that they both
did
> pre-flight planning of their route (between the Camp David ADIZ and the DC
> ADIZ). But they somehow got extremely lost while trying to follow that
> route.
>
> --Gary
>
>
>

On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:22:49 -0700, "Jim Burns"
> wrote in
>::

>
>One question that I'd have is whether they had a current Washington terminal
>chart aboard.

That is the first question I'd ask also.

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> I expect any student pilot passengers that ride along on cross country
> flights with me to at least show the initiative and interest to figure out
> where we're going, how long it will take, how we're going to get there,
and
> if we stray off course could we end up running into anything or possibly
get
> shot down by F16's. If they don't want to do the work at home, we can do
it

I think Gary and Jim both got good point, but definitely the real experience
of the student pilot is an important factor. If he doesn't know anything
about navigation yet, maybe its ok, but if he does, he should have shown
iniciative to try to see the flight plan and see what's going on. At least
whenI started doing crosscountries, I became very interested in the routings
to take.
Now as a pilot, I always try to contribute positively with the PIC, and I'll
even tell him that I think to do something is a bad idea if I really think
it is. I know I'm not the PIC, but still I have a responsibility with myself
and my family and my friend, the PIC, to try to help as much as I can. The
fact that I am not PIC doesnt mean that I am going to ignore whatever I
think its dangerous just because I'm not PIC.

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> "i" == iflyatiger > writes:
>
> i> Did anybody else watch the video ? He is claiming that the
> i> student was at the controls the whole time !! And when asked
> i> if he would do anything different next time he said he would
> i> have taken the controls and turned away from Washington.
>
> i> Does anybody believe this new story ?
>
> I believe the pilot is a confused coward who, having screwed up, isn't
> man enough to admit it, and instead is more or less blaming the
> student pilot! I wonder if the student was going to try to log the
> time? They should bust him too. A real couple of bozos.

Agree that blaming the student is the most coward thing to do. It doesn't
matter who was driving, but who was the pilot in command. If the airplane
had an autopilot, maybe he would have blamed the autopilot!!!

> And just how was a student pilot to "assume PIC" when it wasn't legal for him to do so?

Using the emergency clause.

I saw the interview and the writups, and really cannot accept at face
value what was said. It just doesn't wash. But another possibility
occurs to me. I don't know how much time the other pilot had, or how
much recent time. But just suppose...

<idle wild speculation>
The pilot hadn't flown much lately, was very rusty, and knew it, and
wanted to get to wherever. He's not really fit to do it himself, so
asks the student to fly him. The student was interested in some CC
experience, but of course can't be PIC and can't take passengers. No
problem - the pilot can =be= PIC for the trip, and let the student do
the flying and navigating and such. (Aside from the possibly
inadvertent lack of currency of the pilot) this makes it legal.

They go off, each figuring the other is responsible for this or that
aspect of the flight. The pilot did most of his flying in the old days,
perhaps even before TCAs, but doesn't give the ADIZ depicted on the
chart its due (flying in a TCA area one just ducks under the tiers and
doesn't have to talk to anyone, no big deal, this other thing is
probably the same). The student hasn't gotten to this part of the
curriculum, and accepts the straight line that the pilot has drawn.
They end up where they are, befuddled, each for different reasons.
</idle wild speculation.>

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Sorry about that. I right clicked on the 'Play' button, and selected
> 'Properties' and cut out the URL. It should have provided the correct
> URL to play the video, but ...
>
> If you search for 'Pilot' on the http://video.msn.com/ page, it will
> be one of the choices returned.

I finally got it to play. I had to use IE (no surprise, this is a
Microsoft site) and activate flash, and also sneak in from behind. Of
course I deactivated flash as soon as I finished. I hope MSN didn't
shove any "free" software on me while I wasn't looking.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Burns wrote:
>
> > Along those lines.... I had a friend, a PPL, non instrument rated that
had a
> > 172, infact, he was the influence that got me interested in flying.
Fully
> > capable of doing the PIC job, over 1000 hours at the time, I never had a
> > reason to doubt it, until one trip.
> >
> > After I got my PPL and then my IR, we and our wives took a trip
together,
> > his airplane, he as PIC for the whole trip. However, I also planned it,
> > both ways, there and back, and carried my charts and plates along "just
in
> > case".
> >
> > Before our trip home, he got the weather and filed VFR. I also got the
> > weather and noted the FA at home called for increasing cloudiness and
> > lowering ceilings.
> >
> > We took off and headed out. The weather was just as forecast. Ceilings
> > started to come down, so he descended. Up ahead it was obvious that a
lower
> > layer was also coming in below us. His solution?? "We'll just stay
here
> > (VFR) between layers then circle down over the interstate and follow it
> > home." He couldn't hold altitude within 500 feet while we were between
> > layers.
> >
> > That was when the flight became MY responsibility, even though I was not
PIC
> > and was just a passenger, I became PIC and relieved him of his
> > "responsibility". I called center, filed IFR, flew the rest of the way
> > home, shot the approach down to about 800 ft AGL. Everybody agreed that
was
> > better than flying 300 miles following the interstate at 800 agl.
> >
> > Sometimes it pays to do what you can instead of just what is required.
The
> > concept of PIC does not relinquish another person from the
responsibility
> > they have to themselves and their family. The PIC is in charge of the
> > flight, no doubt, but I'm still in charge of me and when my
responsibilities
> > to myself and my family conflict with another persons responsibilities
as
> > PIC, I'd rather be prepared to offer the PIC alternatives.
>
> And just how was a student pilot to "assume PIC" when it wasn't legal
> for him to do so?
>
> Your situation above isn't anything like the DC situation. It sounds
> from the reports that the student did get involved reasonably
> appropriately, then again none of us were in the cockpit to know exactly
> who did what when.
>
>
> Matt

It could be the student pilot questioned the PIC frequently although some
here are too closed minded to even consider that possibility.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guillermo" > wrote
>
> > Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been
> pilots.
> > Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC,
and
> > I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight
> (who
> > is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?
>
> It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
> manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the student
is
> just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would be
> in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
> regs, aren't they?
> --
> Jim in NC

Anybody can manipulate the controls and just because you are manipulating
the controls does not mean you are PIC.

I don't really think we can judge the man on the basis of the video
interview. The highly publicized incident caught the attention of the
fancy lawyer, and from there on the man is a marionette. Of course he will
not admit having done anything wrong. For all we know, he is remorseful
and wishes he could just fess up and take the medecine he deserves.

The next thing we'll see is him (through the silk suit on his right)
sueing Cessna for inadequate guidance systems on his 40 year-old 152. And
winning!

G Faris

>>>>> "GD" == Gary Drescher > writes:

GD> "Bob Fry" > wrote in
GD> message ...
>> I wonder if the student was going to try to log the time?

GD> As what? There's no provision for logging time as a passenger.

Exactly.

While we'll never know what arrangement the pilot and student had,
look at what the pilot stated on the TV interview: that the student
was doing all the flying, even after the intercepts, while the pilot
spent his time fiddling with the radio. It sure sounds like the
student intended to log some time, but again, we'll never really
know.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guillermo" > wrote
>
> > Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been
> pilots.
> > Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC,
and
> > I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight
> (who
> > is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?
>
> It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
> manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the student
is
> just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would be
> in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
> regs, aren't they?

Where does it say that the PIC has to be manipulating the controls?
Student cannot be PIC, but can manipulate the controls, right?

Greg Farris wrote:
>
> I don't really think we can judge the man on the basis of the video
> interview. The highly publicized incident caught the attention of the
> fancy lawyer, and from there on the man is a marionette. Of course he
> will not admit having done anything wrong. For all we know, he is
> remorseful and wishes he could just fess up and take the medecine he
> deserves.

We can judge him on his actions. His flight through the DC ADIZ alone is
reason to judge him, but keep in mind his lawyer works for him. If he's not
man enough to control his own lawyer, it's all the more reason I'd rather
not have him in a cockpit. If he's remorseful, he needs to express it. In
the meantime, he *is* getting his medicine.

> The next thing we'll see is him (through the silk suit on his right)
> sueing Cessna for inadequate guidance systems on his 40 year-old 152.
> And winning!

Believable, but doubtful nonetheless. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Why do you believe the student intended to log the time? Just because
he was manipulating the controls? I'm not a pilot, or even a student
pilot - but I have done the majority of flying (operating the controls)
on many flights. I have never had any intention of logging that time,
and I have no reason to believe the student pilot in this case intended
to log his time. The student wasn't even flying with a CFI, so who are
you thinking was going to sign off on that logged time? Let's keep the
blame where it belongs in this case - with the PIC.

-Patrick

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >
> > Your situation above isn't anything like the DC situation. It sounds
> > from the reports that the student did get involved reasonably
> > appropriately, then again none of us were in the cockpit to know exactly
> > who did what when.
>
> It could be the student pilot questioned the PIC frequently although some
> here are too closed minded to even consider that possibility.

Could be they were giving each other hand jobs. Could be.

Hey, could be they were both napping.

Now don't be too closed minded about those possibilities.

On 24 May 2005 13:26:09 -0700, "Peter R." > wrote:

>Robert wrote:
>
>> What a total waste of life.
>
>Not too strong of a statement, is that?
>
>I doubt very much his family and friends think he is a waste of life.
>His piloting skills are obviously questionable, as well as the fact
>that he is not admitting any responsibility (thanks, no doubt, to that
>high priced lawyer sitting next to him in the interview), but to say he
>is a total waste of life is just a bit over the top, no?

I got the distinct impression that the lawyer was the one that
orchestrated the interview. One certainly could not confuse Matt
Lauer with Chris Matthews.
Rich Russell

Guillermo wrote:
>
> If I had done that, and had gotten only a one year
> suspension, I'd be more than willing to accept that and be very happy about
> it.

I'm with you. In fact, if I ever screwed up that badly, I would give some
serious thought to just hanging it up.

> About the student pilot, I don't really know how he didn't think about that
> either. 30 hours is not that little.

Maybe. We don't know the circumstances of his training or how far along he got.
Due to problems getting a medical certificate, I didn't even solo until I had
over 40, and he may be in the same boat. Last time I heard, the average number
of hours to get a PPC was over 70. It's quite possible that he knew nothing
about Xcountry flight planning and just followed along with the planning that
Schaeffer was doing.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Morgans wrote:
>
> It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
> manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the student is
> just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would be
> in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
> regs, aren't they?

The student cannot carry passengers and so cannot serve as PIC. There is no reg
against allowing non-pilots to manipulate the controls.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> If you search for 'Pilot' on the http://video.msn.com/ page, it will
> be one of the choices returned.

I really appreciate your efforts, Larry, but that one just redirects me to a
similar "download this software" page --
http://video.msn.com/video/req/req.aspx?rq=11&rf=

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Greg Farris wrote:
> I don't really think we can judge the man on the basis of the video
> interview. The highly publicized incident caught the attention of the
> fancy lawyer, and from there on the man is a marionette.

I agree with this only if the lawyer isn't charging Mr. Schaeffer for this case.
If Schaeffer is paying for it, he's just a lying sleazeball trying to weasel out
of taking responsibility for his actions.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

> I really appreciate your efforts, Larry, but that one just redirects me to a similar "download this software" page --
> http://video.msn.com/video/req/req.aspx?rq=11&rf=

Not only that, but the software requires an OS upgrade. At least for me.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Did anybody else notice the absurdly inaccurate graphic of the DC ADIZ they
used? They were pointing to Andrews Air Force Base as "Dulles" and pointing
to Dulles as "Reagan National". Yet more proof why you can't trust the
"news" to provide accurate "facts".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:
> Did anybody else notice the absurdly inaccurate graphic of the DC ADIZ they
> used? They were pointing to Andrews Air Force Base as "Dulles" and pointing
> to Dulles as "Reagan National". Yet more proof why you can't trust the
> "news" to provide accurate "facts".
>

They probably consulted with Shaeffer on getting the graphics
correct :-)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Recently, George Patterson > posted:

> Guillermo wrote:
>>
>> If I had done that, and had gotten only a one year
>> suspension, I'd be more than willing to accept that and be very
>> happy about it.
>
> I'm with you. In fact, if I ever screwed up that badly, I would give
> some serious thought to just hanging it up.
>
Even after they send you the bill for fueling the 2 F-16s, Citation, and
Blackhawk? ;-)

>> About the student pilot, I don't really know how he didn't think
>> about that either. 30 hours is not that little.
>
> Maybe. We don't know the circumstances of his training or how far
> along he got. Due to problems getting a medical certificate, I didn't
> even solo until I had over 40, and he may be in the same boat. Last
> time I heard, the average number of hours to get a PPC was over 70.
> It's quite possible that he knew nothing about Xcountry flight
> planning and just followed along with the planning that Schaeffer was
> doing.
>
Hmm. Doesn't one have to know *something* about x/c planning to pass the
PPC written? Granted, there may be little or no practical experience by 30
hrs., but I'm getting the impression that my training was far too
rigorous!!! ;-)

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> Hmm. Doesn't one have to know *something* about x/c planning to pass the
> PPC written?

Yes. So? I took the written one morning and flew my 300 nm cross-country the
same afternoon. IOW, I completed nearly all of my flight training before taking
the test. I've read that about half of the students do things in this order.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:17:05 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <Bi3le.2812$5T2.2748@trnddc01>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> If you search for 'Pilot' on the http://video.msn.com/ page, it will
>> be one of the choices returned.
>
>I really appreciate your efforts, Larry, but that one just redirects me to a
>similar "download this software" page --
>http://video.msn.com/video/req/req.aspx?rq=11&rf=
>

You have to have MS Video Enhanced software installed to view the
video. I guess I didn't get that download page you got, because the
software was already installed on my computer.

MSNBC has used every trick in the book it seems. It's just not
possible to get a link to the video by any usual means, and I wasn't
able to find it by perusing IE's cache or the source code either.

This is what it says in the address bar when the video is playing in
IE:
http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&p=News_Politics&i=799d30a7-724f-45a3-a62c-c6c8ca634ff6&rf=


Lot's of good news on the subject here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx?id=3053419&qt=Sheaffer&x=25&y=12
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx?id=3053419&qt=Sheaffer+video

So you're saying that since I now have my FAA liscense, I am no longer
allowed to sit back and enjoy the scenery as a passenger while a friend
of mine acts as PIC?

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> So you're saying that since I now have my FAA liscense, I am no longer
> allowed to sit back and enjoy the scenery as a passenger while a friend
> of mine acts as PIC?

I'd enjoy the scenery, but make a comment if my friend is about to do
something really stupid.

("John T" wrote)
[snip]
>> The next thing we'll see is him (through the silk suit on his right)
>> sueing Cessna for inadequate guidance systems on his 40 year-old 152.
>> And winning!


Cessna 152 was introduced in 1978 - 27 years ago.

No further nits Your Honor.


Montblack

"Guillermo" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Guillermo" > wrote
> >
> > > Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been
> > pilots.
> > > Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC,
> and
> > > I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight
> > (who
> > > is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?
> >
> > It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
> > manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the
student
> is
> > just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would
be
> > in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
> > regs, aren't they?
>
> Where does it say that the PIC has to be manipulating the controls?
> Student cannot be PIC, but can manipulate the controls, right?

Anybody can manipulate the controls.

On 25 May 2005 18:01:55 -0700, "buttman" > wrote:

>So you're saying that since I now have my FAA liscense, I am no longer
>allowed to sit back and enjoy the scenery as a passenger while a friend
>of mine acts as PIC?

If all you were doing is sitting back and enjoying the ride, yes - you
are allowed to just sit back and enjoy the ride. However, in this
case the other guy was at the controls and flying the aircraft. If I
was going somewhere and was at the controls I would expect, regardless
of who was PIC, to have some basic idea of where I was going and the
route used to get there and not just rely on the other guy to say
something along the lines of "head thataway for a while, I'll let you
know."

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>So you're saying that since I now have my FAA liscense, I am no longer
>allowed to sit back and enjoy the scenery as a passenger while a friend
>of mine acts as PIC?
>

What you may not do, apparently, is have a couple of beers while waiting
for your friend to show up, then sit back and enjoy the ride as your
friend acts as PIC. Even if you have no intention of assuming any role
in the planning or execution of the flight.

Others here may say I'm wrong here - and I may be - but there have been
some recent cases of certificate action against pilot passengers that I
have found surprising.

G Faris