Reported by CNN this morning!!!!!

[Capt. Doug]

>Toks Desalu wrote in message > Can you believe this?
> I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific
> regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can
> point it out?
> Why they really want to make us look bad?

The airplane was a DHC-6 Twin Otter bringing tourists from Walker's Cay
Resort (the same as the cable TV fishing show) to Ft. Lauderdale. How
embarrassing! To CNN's credit, they included Walker's statement which points
out that the aircraft was under control of the First Officer during the
captain's nap.

D.

[Bob Gardner]

It was a Part 135 charter with a copilot, from what I read. There is no
regulation that says flat out "don't fall asleep," but there are plenty of
catch-all regulations that provide traps for the unwary.

Why did they do it? To sell a story to CNN and make a few bucks.

Bob Gardner

"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message
news:3f182685@shknews01...
> Guys!
> You could not believe what I saw on CNN before I left for work. I
missed
> the beginning of the segment, but I understood the whole story. A
passenger
> was fliming during the flight. That film was showing on CNN. The pilot got
> caught sleeping while flying. The pilot did not wear the headset. I
noticed
> that he was wearing a ear plug. You could see his head tilt backward with
> his left eye closed. The passenger claimed that he was filming him
sleeping
> for about one hour. At the end of segment, the CNN went to FAA for
comments
> and the FAA claimed that it was against the regulation. FAA claimed that
the
> pilot must be awake and his must be on the control at all the time. There
is
> no way to tell what kind of aircraft but, it was pretty clear that it is
> under general aviation, a high wing with mulit-engine(propeller) aircraft.
> Also, because of pilot's uniform, and other passengers, it indicated that
it
> is under part 121 operation. But, I could be wrong. I have no idea where
the
> flight was but the reporter said he/she was reporting from West Palm
Beach,
> Florida.
> Here my questions:
> Can you believe this?
> I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific
> regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can
> point it out?
> Why they really want to make us look bad?
> Feel free to comment on this.
>
> Toks
> PP_ASEL
>
>

[Ernest Christley]

Toks Desalu wrote:
> Can you believe this?

In a word, yes.

Remember the Peter Principle. Why should the ranks of the pilot corps be
immune from having bums? Any profession you care to name will have
their share of people who are just along for the ride. It just happens
that in this case, the bum got caught and will go back to his propper
level in society. If he works hard and doesn't burn the burgers, he may
actually make shift manager some day.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

[John Harlow]

> Here my questions:
> Can you believe this?

Someone falling asleep flying? Sure, I can believe it. As someone once said,
"flying is long periods of sheer boredom punctuated by moments of sheer
terror".

> I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific
> regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can
> point it out?

Hand? How about those eyelids getting in the way of a pilot's ability to
"see and avoid" as required by 91.113.

> Why they really want to make us look bad?

"They" make "us" look bad?? How did that make you in particular look bad?

I'd say sleeping, drunk and disoriented pilots are all doing their fair
share of making us "look bad".

[Toks Desalu]

Guys!
You could not believe what I saw on CNN before I left for work. I missed
the beginning of the segment, but I understood the whole story. A passenger
was fliming during the flight. That film was showing on CNN. The pilot got
caught sleeping while flying. The pilot did not wear the headset. I noticed
that he was wearing a ear plug. You could see his head tilt backward with
his left eye closed. The passenger claimed that he was filming him sleeping
for about one hour. At the end of segment, the CNN went to FAA for comments
and the FAA claimed that it was against the regulation. FAA claimed that the
pilot must be awake and his must be on the control at all the time. There is
no way to tell what kind of aircraft but, it was pretty clear that it is
under general aviation, a high wing with mulit-engine(propeller) aircraft.
Also, because of pilot's uniform, and other passengers, it indicated that it
is under part 121 operation. But, I could be wrong. I have no idea where the
flight was but the reporter said he/she was reporting from West Palm Beach,
Florida.
Here my questions:
Can you believe this?
I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific
regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can
point it out?
Why they really want to make us look bad?
Feel free to comment on this.

Toks
PP_ASEL

[bob zee]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
. com...
> It just happens
> that in this case, the bum got caught and will go back to his propper
> level in society. If he works hard and doesn't burn the burgers, he may
> actually make shift manager some day.

i second this one!!! well put!

--
bob z.
p.s. summer breeze... makes me feel fine...

"people with less brain power than you are doing more difficult things
everyday"©

[Ricky Robbins]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:56:07 -0700, "Toks Desalu"
> wrote:

>Guys!
> You could not believe what I saw on CNN before I left for work. I missed
>the beginning of the segment, but I understood the whole story.

Watched in on Fox yesterday or the day before. I was amazed as well.
He was snoozing along pretty good; shame they had to wake him up to
land. He was fired, by the way, and the FAA was investigating. Fox
told the name of the airline, but I forget. I don't think it was a
major.

Ricky

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Harlow wrote:
>
> Someone falling asleep flying? Sure, I can believe it. As someone once said,
> "flying is long periods of sheer boredom punctuated by moments of sheer
> terror".

As far as I know, the original version of this comes from "Fate is the Hunter",
by Ernest Gann. He was referring to piloting commercial airliners in the late
thirties.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Robert Moore]

"Harry Gordon" wrote
> I too saw the film and he was sitting in the left seat
> which means he is the pilot-in-charge.

Harry...perhaps you meant pilot-in-command? No such thing
as pilot-in-charge in FAA-Land.
I have hundreds of hours as pilot-in-command of Boeing-707s
occupying the right-hand seat.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

[Drew Hamilton]

Harry Gordon > wrote:
>Toks, I'm just a student pilot right now, [...]
>he was sitting in the left seat which means he is the pilot-in-charge. It

As you're a student pilot, I'm sure that you've spent several hours in the
left seat of an aircraft without being the pilot-in-command.

- awh

[Harry Gordon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if "you're" flying the left seat of an airplane
with paying passengers in the back seats, you are NOT a student pilot :-).

Harry

"Drew Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Gordon > wrote:
> >Toks, I'm just a student pilot right now, [...]
> >he was sitting in the left seat which means he is the pilot-in-charge. It
>
> As you're a student pilot, I'm sure that you've spent several hours in the
> left seat of an aircraft without being the pilot-in-command.
>
> - awh
>

[Robert Perkins]

On 18 Jul 2003 19:22:06 -0700, (Kevin Darling)
wrote:

>I've heard from many airline pilot friends that they have
>(unofficially) slept on long trips.

So have I, from a pilot on the ComAir payroll.

I think the pilot's mistake was not so much that he was asleep while
another had the controls; the safety problem with that is not as
critical in a 2-crew airplane at cruise.

Rather, it was that he let his passengers get unsettled enough to
document it. Never scare the pax, right? They pay the bills for the
flight, after all...

So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was
*very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked?

Rob

[Phillip]

"Harry Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> Correct me if I'm wrong but if "you're" flying the left seat of an
airplane
> with paying passengers in the back seats, you are NOT a student pilot :-).
>
> Harry
>

So you assume the PIC can't be in the right seat?

[Capt. Doug]

>Robert Perkins wrote in message > I think the pilot's mistake was not so
much that he >was asleep while another had the controls; the safety problem
with that is not as
> critical in a 2-crew airplane at cruise.

Walker's flies a few times per week, one hour out and one hour back, always
during the day with the crew being home every night. It's not a high demand
job. Doing back-to-back red-eyes out to LAX can tax one with fatigue, but
not doing a cake job like Walker's. Besides, a professional pilot makes sure
he is well rested before taking a flight, or he calls out sick.

The FO is certainly capable of flying the plane. However, radar services are
NOT available for much of their route and there is a lot of traffic crossing
that route. An extra set of eyes scanning for traffic is a valuable safety
asset.

> Rather, it was that he let his passengers get unsettled enough to
> document it. Never scare the pax, right? They pay the bills for the
> flight, after all...

They weren't unsettled. They were giggling. They don't pay the bills either.
The island is huge tax write-off for a big corporation. Those passengers
will likely be back. The one on CNN said as much.

> So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was
> *very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. He resigned.

[Dave S]

Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty
time limitations. Whats scary is riding in the back in a 135 op and
looking up to find BOTH of them guys nodding off... its happened more
than once.

Dave PPSEL

Toks Desalu wrote:

> Guys!
> You could not believe what I saw on CNN before I left for work. I missed
> the beginning of the segment, but I understood the whole story. A passenger
> was fliming during the flight. That film was showing on CNN. The pilot got
> caught sleeping while flying. The pilot did not wear the headset. I noticed
> that he was wearing a ear plug. You could see his head tilt backward with
> his left eye closed. The passenger claimed that he was filming him sleeping
> for about one hour. At the end of segment, the CNN went to FAA for comments
> and the FAA claimed that it was against the regulation. FAA claimed that the
> pilot must be awake and his must be on the control at all the time. There is
> no way to tell what kind of aircraft but, it was pretty clear that it is
> under general aviation, a high wing with mulit-engine(propeller) aircraft.
> Also, because of pilot's uniform, and other passengers, it indicated that it
> is under part 121 operation. But, I could be wrong. I have no idea where the
> flight was but the reporter said he/she was reporting from West Palm Beach,
> Florida.
> Here my questions:
> Can you believe this?
> I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific
> regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can
> point it out?
> Why they really want to make us look bad?
> Feel free to comment on this.
>
> Toks
> PP_ASEL
>
>
>

[Dennis O'Connor]

What have you been smoking?!?

"Dave S" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty
> time limitations.

[Robert Perkins]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:54:57 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
> wrote:

>The FO is certainly capable of flying the plane. However, radar services are
>NOT available for much of their route and there is a lot of traffic crossing
>that route. An extra set of eyes scanning for traffic is a valuable safety
>asset.

And I, in the light singles I'm allowed to fly? Were I to fly that
route under part 91, would I therefore be a detrimental safety
liability, if my pax don't scan for traffic?

(And yes, I've had conversations with pilots who reported waking up in
their light single in an unusual attitude. Not fun, I'm told...)

I didn't argue that the man didn't need to be awake. I argue that it
was much worse on the company flying that leg to have a pilot get
caught doing what pilots do on occasion, and have that hit the news
("OMG! a pilot was asleep! That's worse than Palestinian Suicide
Bombers! Run the video again, Bob!") than the actual detriment to
safety warranted.

IOW, pax overreacted. Media (as usual) overreacted.

One thing's for sure, though, IMO. The age-60 rule just got itself
another point in the "pro" column, don't you think?

>> So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was
>> *very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked?
>
>Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. He resigned.

Nixon style, beating them to the pink slip? Or would he have kept his
job after making the national news anyway? eh?

Rob

[Mark Hickey]

Dave S > wrote:

>Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty
>time limitations. Whats scary is riding in the back in a 135 op and
>looking up to find BOTH of them guys nodding off... its happened more
>than once.

Back in '72 I flew Aeroflot across the Atlantic and was shocked to see
the stewardess carrying glasses of cognac to the cabin (and later
returning with the empties). Oh well, we made it.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[pac plyer]

"Capt. Doug" > wrote in message >...
> >Robert Perkins said:

wrote in message > I think the pilot's mistake was not so
> much that he >was asleep while another had the controls; the safety problem
> with that is not as
> > critical in a 2-crew airplane at cruise. <snip, snip>
>
Cap sez:

> Walker's flies a few times per week, one hour out and one hour back, always
> during the day with the crew being home every night. It's not a high demand
> job. Doing back-to-back red-eyes out to LAX can tax one with fatigue, but
> not doing a cake job like Walker's. Besides, a professional pilot makes sure
> he is well rested before taking a flight, or he calls out sick. <snip, both ends>

Pac sez:

Right you are Cap Doug... but, Boy, I'm not touching this one with a
ten-foot pole. But you ougtta see how many people are awake on the
flight deck of a "back door" round the world flight somewhere around
MNL to BOM. ;-) Time zones, circadian rhythm disruption, short
layovers, and fatigue from struggling to understand foreign
controllers (over 80% of communication is through facial expressions.)
NASA did sleep studies in the 90's; wired us up for six mo's. The
preliminary report concluded we "were operating in a dangerously
impaired state" from sleep deprivation "most of the time" (night cargo
ops.) Big box-hauler management got wind of this, and saw to it that
the report (which was on their property, and published voluntarily
with their consent,) was never published. UPS pilots sued, and then I
never heard what the outcome was.

Keep the door closed! Never know who's hiding in a suspicious looking
box with a camcorder!

pac "cargo dog" plyer

[Maule Driver]

"Capt. Doug" > wrote in message
news:lP6Sa.62639

> > Rather, it was that he let his passengers get unsettled enough to
> > document it. Never scare the pax, right? They pay the bills for the
> > flight, after all...
>
> They weren't unsettled. They were giggling. They don't pay the bills
either.
> The island is huge tax write-off for a big corporation. Those passengers
> will likely be back. The one on CNN said as much.

A difference without distinction.

> > So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was
> > *very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked?
>
> Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. He resigned.

See above

[Russell Kent]

pac plyer wrote:

> Take a nice nap on the way to Oshgosh! Just make sure your rated co-pilot doesn't do it the same time you do!
> (sorry, your wife or dog do not qualify.) ;-)

Uh, *some* wives do: Margy Natalie, Sydney Hoeltzli, Tina Marie (ok, so technically she isn't married...). And
some husbands do not. And the spelling is "Oshkosh". :-)

Russell Kent

[Scott Schluer]

I saw the same CNN report. They specifically reported that the FAA said your
hands do NOT have to be on the controls at all time.


"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message
news:3f182685@shknews01...
> Guys!
> You could not believe what I saw on CNN before I left for work. I
missed
> the beginning of the segment, but I understood the whole story. A
passenger
> was fliming during the flight. That film was showing on CNN. The pilot got
> caught sleeping while flying. The pilot did not wear the headset. I
noticed
> that he was wearing a ear plug. You could see his head tilt backward with
> his left eye closed. The passenger claimed that he was filming him
sleeping
> for about one hour. At the end of segment, the CNN went to FAA for
comments
> and the FAA claimed that it was against the regulation. FAA claimed that
the
> pilot must be awake and his must be on the control at all the time. There
is
> no way to tell what kind of aircraft but, it was pretty clear that it is
> under general aviation, a high wing with mulit-engine(propeller) aircraft.
> Also, because of pilot's uniform, and other passengers, it indicated that
it
> is under part 121 operation. But, I could be wrong. I have no idea where
the
> flight was but the reporter said he/she was reporting from West Palm
Beach,
> Florida.
> Here my questions:
> Can you believe this?
> I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific
> regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can
> point it out?
> Why they really want to make us look bad?
> Feel free to comment on this.
>
> Toks
> PP_ASEL
>
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:12:34 GMT, Dave S > wrote:

>Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty
>time limitations. Whats scary is riding in the back in a 135 op and
>looking up to find BOTH of them guys nodding off... its happened more
>than once.
>
>Dave PPSEL
>
>Toks Desalu wrote:
>
>> Guys!
>> You could not believe what I saw on CNN before I left for work. I missed
>> the beginning of the segment, but I understood the whole story. A passenger
>> was fliming during the flight. That film was showing on CNN. The pilot got
>> caught sleeping while flying. The pilot did not wear the headset. I noticed
>> that he was wearing a ear plug. You could see his head tilt backward with
>> his left eye closed. The passenger claimed that he was filming him sleeping
>> for about one hour. At the end of segment, the CNN went to FAA for comments
>> and the FAA claimed that it was against the regulation. FAA claimed that the

I think they must have misrepresented it to the FAA. I don't think
it's against the rules for one to take a nap while the other
flys..then again.


>> pilot must be awake and his must be on the control at all the time. There is

The pilot can not be on the controls when the copilot is operating as
PIC.

>> no way to tell what kind of aircraft but, it was pretty clear that it is
>> under general aviation, a high wing with mulit-engine(propeller) aircraft.
>> Also, because of pilot's uniform, and other passengers, it indicated that it
>> is under part 121 operation. But, I could be wrong. I have no idea where the
>> flight was but the reporter said he/she was reporting from West Palm Beach,
>> Florida.
>> Here my questions:
>> Can you believe this?

>> I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific
>> regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can
>> point it out?

If it is, virtually every pilot I know has been violating...what if he
has to take a pee? I think some one over reacted.

>> Why they really want to make us look bad?
>> Feel free to comment on this.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>>
>> Toks
>> PP_ASEL
>>
>>
>>

[Robert Moore]

Roger Halstead wrote
> The pilot can not be on the controls when the copilot is
> operating as PIC.

This would have been a lot more correct if Roger had said
"when the copilot is flying the airplane". The PIC is the
PIC period.
Often, the PIC will perform the duties of a copilot and the
SIC will perform the duties of a pilot. More recent airline
terminology is "pilot flying" and "pilot not flying".

Bob Moore

[Warren & Nancy]

Russell Kent wrote:

> pac plyer wrote:
>
> > Take a nice nap on the way to Oshgosh! Just make sure your rated co-pilot doesn't do it the same time you do!
> > (sorry, your wife or dog do not qualify.) ;-)
>
> Uh, *some* wives do: Margy Natalie, Sydney Hoeltzli, Tina Marie (ok, so technically she isn't married...). And
> some husbands do not. And the spelling is "Oshkosh". :-)
>
> Russell Kent

Nancy would when I was FP, but I couldn't when she was FP.

Warren

[pac plyer]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> Dave S > wrote:
>
> >Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty
> >time limitations. Whats scary is riding in the back in a 135 op and
> >looking up to find BOTH of them guys nodding off... its happened more
> >than once.
>
> Back in '72 I flew Aeroflot across the Atlantic and was shocked to see
> the stewardess carrying glasses of cognac to the cabin (and later
> returning with the empties). Oh well, we made it.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

If that bothers ya, don't fly Air France either. Even though they
flew in U.S. airspace, the frogs were notorious for having a miniature
wine with their trans-Atlantic meals. (but that was before random
booze testing; not sure if that still goes on, unless they perform
their own testing ;-))

pac "sixpack" plyer

[pac plyer]

Curious Question > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> What do you think will happen to the co-pilot for allowing this sort
> of public behaviour by the captain and doing nothing to wake him up and
> stop it.

Nothing. Some sharp words and an easy line-check. He's not PIC.

pacplyer

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
BRUCE FRANK > wrote:
>I thought there actually was a regulation in which pilots, at least on some
>long flights, were allowed to nap with the copilot in control. I am
>surprised that anyone thinks this a big deal particularly in this day when
>there are public service ads that advocate power naps for drivers to stay
>sharp. Since a plane cannot pull into a road side rest area, turn it over to
>the copilot and catch 40 winks! Is the copilot not qualified to fly the
>plane?

On some _really_ long over-water commercial flights, they carry a complete
relief cockpit crew.

[Richard Lamb]

Do you think CNN wold send out a camera crew for my first flight?

[C.D. Damron]

"Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@c-ns.> wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> On some _really_ long over-water commercial flights, they carry a complete
> relief cockpit crew.


I worked for Saudia, they carried a crew of five on their non-stop flights
to and from the US, which included one or more domestic legs in the US and
Arabia. I think the crewing was three pilots and two engineers. In many
cases, one of the engineers was a pilot, as well.

[Capt. Doug]

>Maule Driver wrote in message > A difference without distinction.

I dunno... Hollywood has a saying about there being no such thing as bad
publicity. Walker's couldn't have bought better publicity. Sure, it was a
little embarrassing, but how many folks saw the broadcast and then Googled
Walker's Cay?

D.

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...

> One of the PICs can be. This operation requires two, and the other one had
> better be in the left seat.

George, you know better than that. There is only one PIC.
There may be two PILOTS requried, but only one is PIC.

[Montblack]

(Richard Lamb wrote)
> Do you think CNN wold send out a camera crew for my first flight?

Yes...

....right after the fire dept sends out their crew, but a little before the
NTSB sends out its crew :-)

--
Montblack

[pac plyer]

"Capt. Doug" > wrote in message >...
> >pac plyer wrote in message > Right you are Cap Doug... but, Boy, I'm not
> touching >this one with a ten-foot pole. But you ougtta see how many people
> are awake on the
> > flight deck of a "back door" round the world flight somewhere around
> > MNL to BOM. ;-)
>
> I've never fallen asleep at the yoke, and I'll never do it again.
>
> D. (I get beers for those stories!)

Cap,

I just realized this sucker is cross-posted to students! Ahem! What
I understood you to mean, and what I meant was that a PIC needs to be
diligent in his duty indeed, to thoroughly scan the overhead panel for
momentary fault lights that could flicker in cruise. I have found the
best way to do this is tell the gear-jerker "you got it" and then
crane my neck back over the headrest to get a better peripheral view
of the circut breaker panels....

(mabey you're right about the "safety breifing" term) ;-)


pac "going to scan the OH for a while" plyer

p.s: never did like CNN anyway.

[Mark Hickey]

(pac plyer) wrote:

>I just realized this sucker is cross-posted to students! Ahem! What
>I understood you to mean, and what I meant was that a PIC needs to be
>diligent in his duty indeed, to thoroughly scan the overhead panel for
>momentary fault lights that could flicker in cruise. I have found the
>best way to do this is tell the gear-jerker "you got it" and then
>crane my neck back over the headrest to get a better peripheral view
>of the circut breaker panels....

Naaah, I think the PIC was just offering up a long prayer for the
safety of his plane and passengers. Hard to fault him for that. In
fact, I think it might be discrimination if they were to complain
about his chanting meditation (that probably sounded a lot like
snoring to many of the passengers).

Mark Hickey

[Richard Lamb]

Montblack wrote:
>
> (Richard Lamb wrote)
> > Do you think CNN wold send out a camera crew for my first flight?
>
> Yes...
>
> ...right after the fire dept sends out their crew, but a little before the
> NTSB sends out its crew :-)
>
> --
> Montblack

Probably.

Maybe we should tease it a bit?

Blither- er i mean Intreped Foo- er Aviator attempts to fly
home made airplane.

Will the converted car motor run long enough to get off the ground?

Will the wings stay on?

Film at eleven!


Tune in and find out.

[Donald M. Ross]

I see that you've already met my A&P.

Don


"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Montblack wrote:
> >
> > (Richard Lamb wrote)
> > > Do you think CNN wold send out a camera crew for my first flight?
> >
> > Yes...
> >
> > ...right after the fire dept sends out their crew, but a little before
the
> > NTSB sends out its crew :-)
> >
> > --
> > Montblack
>
> Probably.
>
> Maybe we should tease it a bit?
>
> Blither- er i mean Intreped Foo- er Aviator attempts to fly
> home made airplane.
>
> Will the converted car motor run long enough to get off the ground?
>
> Will the wings stay on?
>
> Film at eleven!
>
>
> Tune in and find out.