DC pilots (update)

[Hilton]

Hi,

To summarize:
- PIC was ASEL (not a CFI etc etc)
- No WX briefing
- Passenger was a student pilot (essentially a passenger for the flight)
- PIC froze
- Student took over and landed
- Came very close to being shot down
- PIC will have his certificate revoked
- No action against the student - more positive comments than negative

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7847287

Hilton

[Michelle P]

Actually most of of us DC based pilots are at least PP-ASEL. ;-)
THe TSA stopped by the airport yesterday (Hyde Field). We had a nice
chat. I asked how close they came to being shot down.
Had they ventured over the river they would be in the river right now.
Stick a fork in the PIC he is done.
If the TSA is any indication of the damage done by these two will be
short lived. THey realize it was the actions of two idiots and not the
rest of us.
Michelle

Hilton wrote:

>Hi,
>
>To summarize:
>- PIC was ASEL (not a CFI etc etc)
>- No WX briefing
>- Passenger was a student pilot (essentially a passenger for the flight)
>- PIC froze
>- Student took over and landed
>- Came very close to being shot down
>- PIC will have his certificate revoked
>- No action against the student - more positive comments than negative
>
>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7847287
>
>Hilton
>
>
>
>

[PPT33R]

The problem is TSA has been marginalized over the past year or so with
regard to anything other than passenger screening. They really don't
have much to do with this anymore other than just an office to whine
to...

It is now driven by an interagency working group on airspace for the
most part. In that working group, FBI, USSS, and FAMS are driving the
security bandwagon against GA. I cannot emphasize enough how much FBI
and USSS hates GA, in spite of the fact most of them can't spell GA.

It is truly a shame these two idiots pulled this stunt BEFORE the VWS
is operational. If it had only been a week or so from now, they would
have been lit up by the laser and the optical system would have been
able to track them with high-power cameras... I am afraid they set the
cause of GA back at least 2 years.

What? Freedom to fly? We can't allow freedom of flight in this country!
It is a matter of security!!! Then again, all those tankers full of
toxic industrial chemicals must be allowed to move around without
restriction... And in spite of the fact 2 idiots in a blue sedan
terrorized the National Capital Region for over a month with nothing
but a rifle, we can't impose gun control!!! So, whose lobbying group is
more effective?

[Matt Whiting]

PPT33R wrote:

> The problem is TSA has been marginalized over the past year or so with
> regard to anything other than passenger screening. They really don't
> have much to do with this anymore other than just an office to whine
> to...
>
> It is now driven by an interagency working group on airspace for the
> most part. In that working group, FBI, USSS, and FAMS are driving the
> security bandwagon against GA. I cannot emphasize enough how much FBI
> and USSS hates GA, in spite of the fact most of them can't spell GA.
>
> It is truly a shame these two idiots pulled this stunt BEFORE the VWS
> is operational. If it had only been a week or so from now, they would
> have been lit up by the laser and the optical system would have been
> able to track them with high-power cameras... I am afraid they set the
> cause of GA back at least 2 years.
>
> What? Freedom to fly? We can't allow freedom of flight in this country!
> It is a matter of security!!! Then again, all those tankers full of
> toxic industrial chemicals must be allowed to move around without
> restriction... And in spite of the fact 2 idiots in a blue sedan
> terrorized the National Capital Region for over a month with nothing
> but a rifle, we can't impose gun control!!! So, whose lobbying group is
> more effective?
>

Yes, the AOPA could learn something from the NRA. They need to show
that "airplane control" as is currently practiced around DC is as stupid
as "gun control" as is also practiced in DC (murder capital of the
world). Neither makes sense, neither is effective and neither is in the
spirit of the constitution (airplanes) or letter of the constitution (guns).


Matt

[Flyingmonk]

OK, guys... I'm making an official announcement. "Airplanes don't kill
people!, people kill people!" This statement is hereby mine and none
of you better use it without my concent! LOL. Monday I'm going to the
T-shirt shop and ordering me 1000 units of various sizes. Let me know
if anyone wants one. I'll donate 10% of the profits to EAA's Young
Eagles program, promise! I don't know how much they will cost me, but
I won't mark it up much. Just to cover my time and gas money and also
to cover the cost of the beer while I talk my graphics guy into
designing it Pro-Bono.

Let me know how many and what sizes you want. It wont cost much,
promise.


Flyingmonk.

[Gary Drescher]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
k.net...
> If the TSA is any indication of the damage done by these two will be short
> lived. THey realize it was the actions of two idiots and not the rest of
> us.

Why do you disparage the student-pilot passenger? The FAA and AOPA have
instead praised his "valiant effort" to take over when the PIC faltered,
according to the article Hilton cited.

--Gary

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:41:45 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>Yes, the AOPA could learn something from the NRA.

like this one?
<http://www.hotze.priv.at/temp/dead-hand.jpg>

#m

--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:41:45 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, the AOPA could learn something from the NRA.
>
>
> like this one?
> <http://www.hotze.priv.at/temp/dead-hand.jpg>

Not bad. :-)

Matt

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-05-14, Hilton > wrote:
> - Came very close to being shot down

From the article:

| The most dangerous breach occurred when Sheaffer crossed into Prohibited
| Area P-56, no-fly airspace covering the White House and the Naval
| Observatory. The Cessna passed over that area while being escorted away
| by the Black Hawk.

I'm not sure which part they're calling dangerous -- that a heavily
armed and almost fully fueled helicopter passed over the White House
or that the pilot of a US military aircraft was stupid enough to
escort a perceived threat right to the heart of the city...

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Robert M. Gary]

The PIC was in his 70's. I imagine he's done either way. :)

[Sully]

On 14 May 2005 07:15:02 -0700, "Flyingmonk" >
wrote:

If you are charging for gas they could get very expensive very quick!!
Let us know how much and I'll let you know how many!

Gary

>OK, guys... I'm making an official announcement. "Airplanes don't kill
>people!, people kill people!" This statement is hereby mine and none
>of you better use it without my concent! LOL. Monday I'm going to the
>T-shirt shop and ordering me 1000 units of various sizes. Let me know
>if anyone wants one. I'll donate 10% of the profits to EAA's Young
>Eagles program, promise! I don't know how much they will cost me, but
>I won't mark it up much. Just to cover my time and gas money and also
>to cover the cost of the beer while I talk my graphics guy into
>designing it Pro-Bono.
>
>Let me know how many and what sizes you want. It wont cost much,
>promise.
>
>
>Flyingmonk.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Yes, the AOPA could learn something from the NRA.

True, but I think they'd need at least four times as many members as they have now.

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'.

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, the AOPA could learn something from the NRA.
>
>
> True, but I think they'd need at least four times as many members as
> they have now.

That would help also, but they could be better are organizing their
existing members. Might even be good for some of the freedom-minded
alphabet groups to join together now and then to jointly lobby for
certain legislation.


Matt

[PPT33R]

Even more important than that, the Legislative Affairs department needs
to adopt NRA's message machine.

Every time there is some legislation up with potential impact on their
members, the NRA sends phone messages, emails, etc. Even if only a
percentage of members take action, the results are quite effective.

Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.

And AOPA does not do a very good job explaining to a Rec Pilot in Idaho
why what happens in the DC ADIZ may someday effect him/her...

[Chris]

"PPT33R" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Even more important than that, the Legislative Affairs department needs
> to adopt NRA's message machine.
>
> Every time there is some legislation up with potential impact on their
> members, the NRA sends phone messages, emails, etc. Even if only a
> percentage of members take action, the results are quite effective.
>
> Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
> same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
> willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.
>
> And AOPA does not do a very good job explaining to a Rec Pilot in Idaho
> why what happens in the DC ADIZ may someday effect him/her...

Different psychology between owning guns that aeroplanes. Gun nuts are
paranoid anyway, that why they have guns whereas pilots have to be a bit
more balanced.

The most dangerous are gun owning pilots who are paranoid schizophrenics
;-))

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:
> "PPT33R" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Even more important than that, the Legislative Affairs department needs
>>to adopt NRA's message machine.
>>
>>Every time there is some legislation up with potential impact on their
>>members, the NRA sends phone messages, emails, etc. Even if only a
>>percentage of members take action, the results are quite effective.
>>
>>Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
>>same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
>>willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.
>>
>>And AOPA does not do a very good job explaining to a Rec Pilot in Idaho
>>why what happens in the DC ADIZ may someday effect him/her...
>
>
> Different psychology between owning guns that aeroplanes. Gun nuts are
> paranoid anyway, that why they have guns whereas pilots have to be a bit
> more balanced.

Fortunately, most pilots are much better informed that you.

Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Gary,

> Why do you disparage the student-pilot passenger?
>

Because he didn't intervene earlier. Seems obvious...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Gary,
>
>> Why do you disparage the student-pilot passenger?
>
> Because he didn't intervene earlier. Seems obvious...

What evidence is there as to what he did or didn't do?

For all we know, he might simply have been taking a nap when the flight
began. There'd be nothing improper about that. He was a non-pilot passenger.

Or for all we know, he might have been making correct navigational
suggestions that the PIC didn't heed.

Or even if the passenger tried to help navigate but was just as lost as the
PIC, that wouldn't necessarily speak poorly of his progress as a student
pilot. Had he already been endorsed for solo cross-country flights? If not,
there should be no expectation that his current training enables him to
navigate reliably.

--Gary

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Chris wrote:
> > "PPT33R" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>Even more important than that, the Legislative Affairs department needs
> >>to adopt NRA's message machine.
> >>
> >>Every time there is some legislation up with potential impact on their
> >>members, the NRA sends phone messages, emails, etc. Even if only a
> >>percentage of members take action, the results are quite effective.
> >>
> >>Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
> >>same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
> >>willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.
> >>
> >>And AOPA does not do a very good job explaining to a Rec Pilot in Idaho
> >>why what happens in the DC ADIZ may someday effect him/her...
> >
> >
> > Different psychology between owning guns that aeroplanes. Gun nuts are
> > paranoid anyway, that why they have guns whereas pilots have to be a bit
> > more balanced.
>
> Fortunately, most pilots are much better informed that you.
>
> Matt

Toads are better informed than he is.

[jls]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Chris wrote:
> > "PPT33R" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>Even more important than that, the Legislative Affairs department needs
> >>to adopt NRA's message machine.
> >>
> >>Every time there is some legislation up with potential impact on their
> >>members, the NRA sends phone messages, emails, etc. Even if only a
> >>percentage of members take action, the results are quite effective.
> >>
> >>Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
> >>same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
> >>willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.
> >>
> >>And AOPA does not do a very good job explaining to a Rec Pilot in Idaho
> >>why what happens in the DC ADIZ may someday effect him/her...
> >
> >
> > Different psychology between owning guns that aeroplanes. Gun nuts are
> > paranoid anyway, that why they have guns whereas pilots have to be a bit
> > more balanced.
>
> Fortunately, most pilots are much better informed that you.
>
> Matt

Huhoh. Chris has stepped on a gun nut's tail.

[Grumman-581]

"PPT33R" wrote in message
oups.com...
> Every time there is some legislation up with potential impact on their
> members, the NRA sends phone messages, emails, etc. Even if only a
> percentage of members take action, the results are quite effective.

Which has resulted in a *slow* erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights instead
of a *fast* erosion... Which part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they not
understand? We have ONE TRUE GUN LAW -- "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... The
other thousand or so that came afterwards are totally unconstitutional and
shoudl not be obeyed, much less inforced... The cops who inforce them are no
different morally than the death camp guards in WWII... They tried using the
excuse of "just doing my job... just following orders"... It didn't work at
Nuremburg and it shouldn't work now...

[Grumman-581]

"PPT33R" wrote in message
oups.com...
> Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
> same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
> willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.

It probably has something to do with the fact that gun owners KNOW that they
have an inalienable right to bear arms and nothing some scum sucking lawyer
of a politician will be able to do to take away that right no matter what
laws they try to pass... It is our firm belief that if the law is morally
wrong, we do not have a duty to follow that law...

Pilots on the other hand (for the most part) have been brainwashed into
thinking that they do not have flying RIGHTS, rather a LICENSE from the
government... As such, it can be taken away on whatever whim might afflict
the government at that time... This sort of mentality also leads them into a
belief that they shouldn't complain too loudly else the FAA might take
notice of them and deem them unfit to be a *licensed* pilot anymore... If
they considered it a *right*, they would still continue to fly regardless of
what some petty bureaucrat with the FAA might say...

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "PPT33R" wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
>>same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
>>willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.
>
>
> It probably has something to do with the fact that gun owners KNOW that they
> have an inalienable right to bear arms and nothing some scum sucking lawyer
> of a politician will be able to do to take away that right no matter what
> laws they try to pass... It is our firm belief that if the law is morally
> wrong, we do not have a duty to follow that law...
>
> Pilots on the other hand (for the most part) have been brainwashed into
> thinking that they do not have flying RIGHTS, rather a LICENSE from the
> government... As such, it can be taken away on whatever whim might afflict
> the government at that time... This sort of mentality also leads them into a
> belief that they shouldn't complain too loudly else the FAA might take
> notice of them and deem them unfit to be a *licensed* pilot anymore... If
> they considered it a *right*, they would still continue to fly regardless of
> what some petty bureaucrat with the FAA might say...

Yes, unfortunately aviation didn't exist when the constitution was being
authored. :-)


Matt

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> That would help also, but they could be better are organizing their
> existing members.

Good point. Sending out pre-addressed postcards for members to send to
congresscritters is a good tactic that AOPA should adopt.

I got interviewed when I flew in to AOPA Expo in Philadelphia. The guy asked for
one thing that I felt that AOPA should do that they aren't. I told him that they
seem to be scared to point fingers at people in Washington. If someone adds an
amendment to a bill that the NRA doesn't like, the entire membership finds out
about it, including the identity of the author of the amendment. AOPA seems to
be scared of crossing anyone in Washington. They'll mention the amendment, but
they won't tell you who sponsored it.

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'.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gary,

> What evidence is there as to what he did or didn't do?
>

The plane flew where it flew.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> What evidence is there as to what he did or didn't do?
>
> The plane flew where it flew.

For the reasons I already enumerated, that's not good evidence as to the
student-pilot passenger's actions or competence. The passenger could've just
been taking a nap, which wouldn't have been improper. Or he could've been
making correct navigational suggestions that the PIC didn't follow. Or even
if the passenger tried to help navigate but was lost too, there's no
evidence that he'd reached the point in his training where he should be
expected to navigate reliably; we don't know if he'd even been signed off
for solo cross-country flight yet.

It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly responsible
for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the passenger's
current training. Fortunately, the FAA and AOPA are being fair-minded about
it--they're strongly criticizing the PIC, but praising the passenger.

--Gary

[Thomas Borchert]

Gary,

> It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly responsible
> for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the passenger's
> current training
>

While that may be so, I think it is still within the realm of the warranted to
call both guys idiots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly
>> responsible
>> for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the passenger's
>> current training
>
> While that may be so, I think it is still within the realm of the
> warranted to
> call both guys idiots.

How is the passenger an idiot for lacking a specialized skill that he may
not even have been trained for yet?

And you still haven't explained how you arrived at the conclusion that the
passenger *didn't* make correct navigational suggestions that the PIC may
have disagreed with and disregarded. Or how you concluded that the passenger
wasn't just doing something else, such as scanning for traffic or taking a
nap, instead of navigating.

Do you assume that your passengers will monitor your navigation when you
fly? Do you call them idiots if they don't?

--Gary

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly
>>> responsible
>>> for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the
>>> passenger's
>>> current training
>>
>> While that may be so, I think it is still within the realm of the
>> warranted to
>> call both guys idiots.
>
> How is the passenger an idiot for lacking a specialized skill that he may
> not even have been trained for yet?
>
> And you still haven't explained how you arrived at the conclusion that the
> passenger *didn't* make correct navigational suggestions that the PIC may
> have disagreed with and disregarded. Or how you concluded that the
> passenger wasn't just doing something else, such as scanning for traffic
> or taking a nap, instead of navigating.
>
> Do you assume that your passengers will monitor your navigation when you
> fly? Do you call them idiots if they don't?
>

I'm with Gary on this one. On the one hand you have a pilot who has had a
certificate since 1969. On the other hand you have a student pilot which
could be anything from he just stopped by the AME and took the physical up
to he was going for his check ride that day.

This was 100% the error of the PIC. The student had no more responsibility
for this flight than me in the back of a 747 which is limited to if I see
the wing is on fire I should probably mention it to the Stew, but I'm under
no legal obligation to do so.

Gig

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:pb4ie.3093$DC2.2986@okepread01...
> This was 100% the error of the PIC. The student had no more responsibility
> for this flight than me in the back of a 747 which is limited to if I see
> the wing is on fire I should probably mention it to the Stew, but I'm
> under no legal obligation to do so.

Well, to be fair to Thomas, he's not claiming the passenger had any legal
obligation. He's just saying the passenger was an idiot. It would certainly
be idiotic to fail to mention that the wing is on fire.

But that's precisely why that's not a good analogy. Noticing that the wing
is on fire does not require any special effort by the passenger, nor any
special training. But noticing that the plane is off course *does* require a
deliberate effort; and doing it successfully requires more training than the
student passenger may yet have had at his reported 30 hours. And Thomas has
yet to explain how he even concluded that the passenger did *not* correctly
advise the PIC.

--Gary

[John Smith]

Good example of "eating our own."

We don't stick together, we assume the worst of each other, and (for people
who really are in the main mostly annoyed at the governments ever-greater
restrictions on us) believe whatever the investigators and/or the media says
about this incident.

My guess is, the most critical people here have the least amount of time in
an AC and have no clue what flying was like in the 50's and 60's, as I and
many more here do.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Gary,
>
>> It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly
>> responsible
>> for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the passenger's
>> current training
>>
>
> While that may be so, I think it is still within the realm of the
> warranted to
> call both guys idiots.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[John Lakesford]

Funny, and I really did laugh at that.

However, I am in my 70's and I have been flying since 1958. I don't get off
course, I know where I am whenever I fly, and I live near DC. But the
difference is, I don't immediately attack and call pilots who make mistakes,
even one as severe as this, idiots or some of the other names bantered about
here.

I guess that is because I have made some real doozy mistakes flying from
time to time.

I really wonder if you guys are that good, I mean, to never have made a huge
mistake, alone these lines?

If not, I guarantee one day you will. We all do.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The PIC was in his 70's. I imagine he's done either way. :)
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Gary,

> Well, to be fair to Thomas, he's not claiming the passenger had any legal
> obligation. He's just saying the passenger was an idiot.

Actually, I was just taking sides with someone who said that originally, IIRC.
But I have to say you're right: There is a chance he didn't do anything because
he couldn't yet, because of the level of his training.

> And Thomas has
> yet to explain how he even concluded that the passenger did *not* correctly
> advise the PIC.
>

Again, I think that possibility is simply ruled out by the fact that the plane
penetrated the ADIZ.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> If not, I guarantee one day you will. We all do.
>

You are, of course, right. However, there are huge mistakes, and then
there are HUGE mistakes. What makes this mistake REALLY HUGE and what
makes many pilots here get very excited about it, is the fact that it
is highly likely the flying all of us do will suffer from that one
mistake of one pilot. That is the difference. It's big, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> But I have to say you're right: There is a chance he didn't do anything
> because
> he couldn't yet, because of the level of his training.

Good, I'm glad we agree on that!

>> And Thomas has
>> yet to explain how he even concluded that the passenger did *not*
>> correctly
>> advise the PIC.
>
> Again, I think that possibility is simply ruled out by the fact that the
> plane
> penetrated the ADIZ.

Thomas, I don't mean to be obtuse here, but you keep repeating that claim
without answering my question as to *why* you believe it. That is: *why* do
you believe that the plane's penetration of the ADIZ rules out the
possibility that the passenger gave correct navigational advice that the PIC
was unconvinced by and didn't heed? (Passenger: "Look, we were at XYZ and
flew heading 210 at 95 knots for 30 minutes, so that would put us here
inside the ADIZ." PIC: "No, no, we're over here to the west of the ADIZ.
Look, there's the lake next to the highway.")

A *competent* PIC would likely have been persuaded by sound guidance from
the passenger; but we already know this PIC was massively incompetent.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> We don't stick together, we assume the worst of each other, and (for
> people who really are in the main mostly annoyed at the governments
> ever-greater restrictions on us) believe whatever the investigators and/or
> the media says about this incident.

You're invoking a stereotype that doesn't fit this situation at all. The
news media has been quoting investigators as *praising* the student-pilot
passenger. Those pilots who've been unjustifiably condemning the passenger
have been *disregarding* what investigators and the media have been pointing
out about the incident.

--Gary

[Thomas Borchert]

Gary,

> That is: *why* do
> you believe that the plane's penetration of the ADIZ rules out the
> possibility that the passenger gave correct navigational advice that the PIC
> was unconvinced by and didn't heed?
>

That is a possibility, although I don't really know how someone couldn't react
to "That's the Capitol over there, and the Washington Monument, see?".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

Thomas wrote:

> Because he didn't intervene earlier. Seems obvious...

Isn't there a well-documented cockpit phenomenon that occurs when
coupling a very green pilot with a very experienced pilot, something
about the inexperienced one being afraid to point out the mistakes of
the experienced one?


--
Peter

[Peter R.]

John wrote:

> My guess is, the most critical people here have the least amount of
time in
> an AC and have no clue what flying was like in the 50's and 60's, as
I and
> many more here do.

Please elaborate. How is aviation in the 50's and 60's relevent to
this incident?

--
Peter

[Gary Drescher]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> That is: *why* do
>> you believe that the plane's penetration of the ADIZ rules out the
>> possibility that the passenger gave correct navigational advice that the
>> PIC
>> was unconvinced by and didn't heed?
>
> That is a possibility,

Good, we agree on that now too!

> although I don't really know how someone couldn't react
> to "That's the Capitol over there, and the Washington Monument, see?".

C'mon, do you really think the PIC *saw* the Capitol and *still* didn't know
where he was at that point? There's no evidence of that. (Though according
to the reports, he may have been too panicked by then to react properly,
which is why he soon ceded control to the non-pilot passenger.)

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Thomas wrote:
>
>> Because he didn't intervene earlier. Seems obvious...
>
> Isn't there a well-documented cockpit phenomenon that occurs when
> coupling a very green pilot with a very experienced pilot, something
> about the inexperienced one being afraid to point out the mistakes of
> the experienced one?

Plus, the passenger wasn't even a pilot yet. And there's no evidence that he
*didn't* point out the PIC's mistakes.

--Gary

[Peter R.]

John wrote:

> Good example of "eating our own."

After reading your "eating our own" comment, I would be interested in
your response to AOPA's news and newspaper ad that will be running in
today's USA Today (US newspaper):

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050517adiz.html

Based on my interpretation of this article, it seems that even AOPA is
distancing themselves from this pilot.

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> John wrote:
>
>> Good example of "eating our own."
>
> After reading your "eating our own" comment, I would be interested in
> your response to AOPA's news and newspaper ad that will be running in
> today's USA Today (US newspaper):
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050517adiz.html
>
> Based on my interpretation of this article, it seems that even AOPA is
> distancing themselves from this pilot.
>
> --
> Peter
>

I'm not John but I see nothing wrong with the ad in fact I think it's good
for GA.

[Peter R.]

Gig wrote:

> I'm not John but I see nothing wrong with the ad in fact I think it's
good
> for GA.

I was not implying that the ad was right or wrong. I was simply asking
John what he thought, given that he used the colorful phrase, "eat our
own."

--
Peter

[Jose]

Interesting ad.

2 paragraphs on what happened.
7 paragraphs on what AOPA does.
1 paragraph saying the system works.
1 paragraph saying lots of nice people are pilots.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Blueskies]

"Jose" > wrote in message m...
> Interesting ad.
>
> 2 paragraphs on what happened.
> 7 paragraphs on what AOPA does.
> 1 paragraph saying the system works.
> 1 paragraph saying lots of nice people are pilots.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


And this whole ad thing brings this incident back into the spotlight...why? Self promotion for AOPA? If it or similar
was put up the next day it would make more sense with the short term memory of the general public....

[Dave Stadt]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> > Interesting ad.
> >
> > 2 paragraphs on what happened.
> > 7 paragraphs on what AOPA does.
> > 1 paragraph saying the system works.
> > 1 paragraph saying lots of nice people are pilots.
> >
> > Jose
> > --
> > Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>
>
> And this whole ad thing brings this incident back into the
spotlight...why? Self promotion for AOPA? If it or similar
> was put up the next day it would make more sense with the short term
memory of the general public....


It does more good at this time. All the chatter has died down and ad is the
last thing people will see on the subject and that is what they will
remember. Do it too soon and it gets lost in the noise.

[Blueskies]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message m...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> "Jose" > wrote in message
> m...
>> > Interesting ad.
>> >
>> > 2 paragraphs on what happened.
>> > 7 paragraphs on what AOPA does.
>> > 1 paragraph saying the system works.
>> > 1 paragraph saying lots of nice people are pilots.
>> >
>> > Jose
>> > --
>> > Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
>> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>>
>>
>> And this whole ad thing brings this incident back into the
> spotlight...why? Self promotion for AOPA? If it or similar
>> was put up the next day it would make more sense with the short term
> memory of the general public....
>
>
> It does more good at this time. All the chatter has died down and ad is the
> last thing people will see on the subject and that is what they will
> remember. Do it too soon and it gets lost in the noise.
>
>

OK, not a bad reason...