Re: 14 yr old pilot

[Keith Mann]

Belle wrote:
>
> Hi all!
> Does anybody out there know the 14 yr old boy or his parents from
> Rainsville Ala who managed to get a small plane up into the air last
> night? I would really like to interview him or his parents. Please
> help if you can.
> Thanks for everything.
> Linda

I haven't heard about this incident. Tell me more!

Keith Mann

[Belle]

Article published Jun 16, 2005
Alabama boy accused of taking stolen airplane on joy ride

The Associated Press

A 14-year-old boy allegedly found a key inside an unlocked plane and
took the aircraft on a late-night joy ride, buzzing an Alabama town for
nearly 30 minutes as he took off and landed twice.

The youth suffered minor cuts and bruises Wednesday night in his second
landing, which was rough, but authorities still took him to a juvenile
lockup after charging him with theft of a Cessna 152 worth $35,000.

Police said the boy, who wasn't identified because of his age, had no
flying experience. He allegedly took his mother's van from their home
in Rainsville and drove to the airport in Fort Payne, about five miles
away.

Police Chief David Walker said the teen told officers he unhooked the
plane's tie-downs, started the engine and began "driving the plane
around, and the next thing he knew he was in the air."

He said the boy flew for about five minutes before landing on the
runway and taking off again, flying for a longer period over several
areas of town before returning to the airport.

Walker said the plane apparently came in too hard during the boy's
second landing, making him loose control.

"The plane left the runway and the juvenile stated he gave it more
throttle to try to get back in the air and avoid the fence," Walker
said.

The plane cleared the fence, but the engine died and it came down hard
on a road beside the airport. The landing gear collapsed and the
propeller dug into the road.

Walker said officers were notified of the crash around 11:20 p.m. CDT.
Instruments indicated the plane was in the air for 26 minutes in all,
he said.

Mayor Bill Jordan said the airport was secure except for one open gate.

"It's a miracle the boy wasn't killed or someone else wasn't hurt or
killed or that we didn't have significant property damage from the
plane crashing somewhere else," Jordan told the Times-Journal of Fort
Payne. The last thing you think about is a 14-year-old stealing a plane
from the airport."

Authorities said the incident raised questions about homeland security
measures in Fort Payne, a textile town of 13,000 located about 80 miles
northeast of Birmingham. The airport manager acknowledged the issue
hadn't gotten much consideration in the past.

"We've never had a problem before with planes being stolen, so I guess
we have been a little lax in our security," said Larry Noble Cowart,
who owns Valley Aviation, which runs the airport and owns the airplane
that was taken late Wednesday.

Cowart said the boy could have climbed a fence or simply entered
through a gate that typically is left unlocked.

"He could have just walked in. There's no evidence of forced entry. The
plane was tied down with chains, but the planes aren't typically
locked," said Cowart.

The police chief said the boy found the ignition key on a clipboard in
the plane.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Thomas Borchert]

Belle,

First, there is no such thing as a "14-year-old pilot". The regs don't
permit it.

> Authorities said the incident raised questions about homeland security
> measures in Fort Payne,

Well, yeah, I'd expect "the authorities" to say something like that. It's
still BS.

>
> "We've never had a problem before with planes being stolen, so I guess
> we have been a little lax in our security," said Larry Noble Cowart,
> who owns Valley Aviation, which runs the airport and owns the airplane
> that was taken late Wednesday.

That guy, if quoted correctly, is a great help to GA in
post-9/11-panic-mode times - not!

Man, are GA people ever going to get it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> That guy, if quoted correctly, is a great help to GA in
> post-9/11-panic-mode times - not!
>
> Man, are GA people ever going to get it?

the better question is if the security people are ever going
to grasp how little danger GA poses.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Steve Foley]

I thought only usenet posters didn't know the difference between lose and
loose.

I guess The Associated Press doesn't either.

"Belle" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Article published Jun 16, 2005
> Alabama boy accused of taking stolen airplane on joy ride
>
> The Associated Press

> Walker said the plane apparently came in too hard during the boy's
> second landing, making him loose control.

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> > Man, are GA people ever going to get it?
>
> the better question is if the security people are ever going
> to grasp how little danger GA poses.
>

No, that's EXACTLY the wrong question! That question is answered - and
that's EXACTLY what people in GA need to understand, pronto. The answer
is: Never!

The problem is not in the facts (which are undeniably in favor of GA),
it is in politics. Having GA as a scape goat and restricting it to give
the appearance of decisive action against terrorism is excellent
politics. It works with voters, and it works real well. There is hardly
any way around that, short of a massive change of perception of GA in
the public, which I simply don't see happening. Facts don't have
anything to do with it.

AOPA understood that real well after 9/11 and acted very smart with
their airport watch program. This person in Alabama, OTOH, messed up
big-time in that respect.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stubby]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

....
> The problem is not in the facts (which are undeniably in favor of GA),
> it is in politics.

Agreed. Politics has a way of magnifying minor details into major
national concerns. It's like looking at a fly under a microscope and
concluding that Godzilla will be invading the nation shortly.

[Peter R.]

Bob Noel > wrote:

> the better question is if the security people are ever going
> to grasp how little danger GA poses.

True, but the issue is not what is reality, but what the public perceives.
If the general, non-flying public perceives GA to be a danger (incorrectly
reinforced by silly comments made by unthinking FBO owners), they will
pressure their congressmen/woman to push for even more restrictions over
GA.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:35:32 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>::

>
>AOPA understood that real well after 9/11 and acted very smart with
>their airport watch program. This person in Alabama, OTOH, messed up
>big-time in that respect.

Right. Leaving the keys in an unlocked aircraft creates an attractive
nuisance that invites unauthorized use, and virtually creates criminal
behavior.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:25:32 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>::

>there is no such thing as a "14-year-old pilot".

Personally, I'd characterize the lad as possessing superior piloting
skills in light of his young age and absence of any flight training.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:25:32 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>there is no such thing as a "14-year-old pilot".
>
> Personally, I'd characterize the lad as possessing superior piloting
> skills in light of his young age and absence of any flight training.

I'd be real interested to know how much time he has spent on computer flight
simulators.

[Thomas Borchert]

T,

ok, so make that airplane pilot or certified pilot.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> Right. Leaving the keys in an unlocked aircraft creates an attractive
> nuisance that invites unauthorized use, and virtually creates criminal
> behavior.
>

That, too. But the real issue is the negative PR it creates.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> but the issue is not what is reality, but what the public perceives.
>

You done broke the code, Lt.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> Personally, I'd characterize the lad as possessing superior piloting
> skills in light of his young age and absence of any flight training.
>

Yeah, right. Especially his judgement as a pilot - truly superior. A
hero.

What are you guys thinking????

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Personally, I'd characterize the lad as possessing superior piloting
> skills in light of his young age and absence of any flight training.


I'd characterize him as possessing extremely large testicles of the brass
variety. He might want to work on impulse control, though.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Yeah, right. Especially his judgement as a pilot - truly superior. A
> hero.
>
> What are you guys thinking????

Many early computer hackers and virus authors went on to make big careers
as consultants in the computer industry.

Perhaps there is similar hope with this 14 year-old.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Yeah, right. Especially his judgement as a pilot - truly superior. A
> hero.
>
> What are you guys thinking????


I am thinking "where were the parents?" I'm also thinking "who would
leave they keys in an airplane sitting on the ramp?"



JKG

[George Patterson]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> I am thinking "where were the parents?"

Notice that he also stole his mother's van to drive to the airport. His parents
were probably sitting at home saying "I'm a'gonna kill that kid when I catch up
to him."

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

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <kIDse.9370$fa3.2840@trndny01>,
George Patterson > wrote:

> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> >
> > I am thinking "where were the parents?"
>
> Notice that he also stole his mother's van to drive to the airport. His
> parents
> were probably sitting at home saying "I'm a'gonna kill that kid when I catch
> up
> to him."


I doubt it. The parents obviously weren't paying attention to what he
was up to, and obviously left the keys in a place accessible to him.

This kid obviously didn't have much respect for authority, didn't
demonstrate good judgment, was not very bright, and I certainly wouldn't
characterize him as "well-behaved." If that describes your kid and you
know they're generally an irresponsible terror, being a responsible
parent would including eliminating easy access to things that your kid
could use to get into trouble--like your car.

Of course, in my experience, the kids who are irresponsible terrors
usually don't have responsible parents.



JKG

[W P Dixon]

I disagree Jonathan,
A responsible parent does not need to hide things from teenagers. A parent
teaching discipline, respect, and responsibility would solve alot more
problems. If he were mine he would not have to worry much about riding in
cars or planes for a spell..because the docs would be removing my foot out
of his butt ! ;)
But I am glad the young renegade did not kill himself, and more so did not
kill anyone else! But we all know how "today's " world goes, he will
probably be put in the time out chair for a few hours and then the parents
will wonder why he is a convicted felon in a few years.
And I do agree the parents probably did not have a clue as to what this
kid did or does. But remember the good old days when parents could be
parents? When I was a kid if you went to a store with your folks and acted
up , you got your backside tore up right there in front of God and everybody
else. Try to do that now and they send your kids to foster care and you to
prison. So maybe the whole blame just isn't on a parents lack of parenting
skills, but a combination of a lack of those skills and interference by the
government.
Myself I feel a 14 year old is old enough to take the blame for his own
actions..I blame this young fellow more than anything else. He is not two,
we should not have to hide the dish cleaners from him anymore, nor should we
have to hide our possessions...he should know right from wrong at this
point. If he doesn't he sure has a hard row to hoe.

Patrick
student SPL
aicraft structural mech

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article <kIDse.9370$fa3.2840@trndny01>,
> George Patterson > wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>> >
>> > I am thinking "where were the parents?"
>>
>> Notice that he also stole his mother's van to drive to the airport. His
>> parents
>> were probably sitting at home saying "I'm a'gonna kill that kid when I
>> catch
>> up
>> to him."
>
>
> I doubt it. The parents obviously weren't paying attention to what he
> was up to, and obviously left the keys in a place accessible to him.
>
> This kid obviously didn't have much respect for authority, didn't
> demonstrate good judgment, was not very bright, and I certainly wouldn't
> characterize him as "well-behaved." If that describes your kid and you
> know they're generally an irresponsible terror, being a responsible
> parent would including eliminating easy access to things that your kid
> could use to get into trouble--like your car.
>
> Of course, in my experience, the kids who are irresponsible terrors
> usually don't have responsible parents.
>
>
>
> JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"W P Dixon" > wrote:

> I disagree Jonathan,
> A responsible parent does not need to hide things from teenagers. A parent
> teaching discipline, respect, and responsibility would solve alot more
> problems. If he were mine he would not have to worry much about riding in
> cars or planes for a spell..because the docs would be removing my foot out
> of his butt ! ;)

I think that you missed my point.

My point was that the parent(s) more than likely did not provide him
with the proper discipline and respect because they likely don't
demonstrate those qualities themselves.

However, a more important point is that the kid and parents are
responsible for this incident, not a lack of security at the airport. A
contributing factor could be the puzzling apparent practice of leaving
keys in airplanes parked on the ramp.



JKG

[Andrew Gideon]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> TheÂ*parentsÂ*obviouslyÂ*weren'tÂ*payingÂ*attentio nÂ*toÂ*whatÂ*he
> was up to, and obviously left the keys in a place accessible to him.

Do parents have to hide their keys? My two boys are still too young for
this to be an issue, but I don't recall this from my own youth. I don't
happen to know where my Mom kept keys, but I recall clearly my Dad coming
home from work and placing his keys (and ID) on a dresser in his bedroom.

[I later started having nightmares when I found myself doing the exact same
thing coming home from work <laugh>.]

- Andrew

[RST Engineering]

Sounds like Presidential timber to me -- certainly Congressional.

{;-)


Jim



> This kid obviously didn't have much respect for authority, didn't
> demonstrate good judgment, was not very bright, and I certainly wouldn't
> characterize him as "well-behaved."

[GeorgeB]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:40:31 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t

>Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>>First, there is no such thing as a "14-year-old pilot". The regs don't
>>permit it.
>
>FAR 61.83 To be eligible for a student pilot certificate, an
>applicant must:
>(b) Be at least 14 years of age for the operation of a
>glider or balloon.

more fundamental, with deference to Mr Borchert's knowledge of rules
and regulations ...

He was reported as a 14 year old pilot, not a 14 year old with a pilot
certificate. He apparently was the pilot, but not a very good one,
and almost certainly not with any PPSE from the USA.

[BTIZ]

> First, there is no such thing as a "14-year-old pilot". The regs don't
> permit it.
>

you are correct... he's a thief x 2.. he took his mothers car without
permission and then the airplane

BT

[BTIZ]

>
>>First, there is no such thing as a "14-year-old pilot". The regs don't
>>permit it.
>
> FAR 61.83 To be eligible for a student pilot certificate, an
> applicant must:
> (b) Be at least 14 years of age for the operation of a
> glider or balloon.
>
>

It was an airplane, not a glider or balloon
BT

[S Narayan]

"Howard" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in news:cgyse.330586
> :
>
>> I thought only usenet posters didn't know the difference between lose and
>> loose.
>>
>> I guess The Associated Press doesn't either.
>
> Newspaper editors have long since stopped doing any actual editing. You
> really would be surprised at the crap that gets by them. "I swear, I am
> not making this up", but in a local paper recently, a subheadline that was
> obviously supposed to just be a temporary placeholder actually got
> through.
> Then again, I suppose they COULD have intended the subheadline to be
> "Subheadline goes here, once you know what this is about, this most boring
> of news stories". Unprofessional though.

I once wrote a letter to the editor (local paper) regarding some aviation
topic and the editor corrected my letter grammatically (only that I was
correct and the correction was wrong). Amazing!

[W P Dixon]

Well leaving your keys in your airplane sure has got to be DUMMMMMB! ;) But
a key anywhere doesn't make someone be a crook. But a lock can sure keep
honest people honest! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article <4bEse.36>
A
> contributing factor could be the puzzling apparent practice of leaving
> keys in airplanes parked on the ramp.
>
>
>
> JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> Do parents have to hide their keys? My two boys are still too young for
> this to be an issue, but I don't recall this from my own youth. I don't
> happen to know where my Mom kept keys, but I recall clearly my Dad coming
> home from work and placing his keys (and ID) on a dresser in his bedroom.


That wasn't quite my point. My point is that irresponsible parenting
often produces irresponsible children, who are able to steal cars and
airplanes. Sometimes, the result is death or injury, and a lawsuit from
the irresponsible parent against someone who had no actual
responsibility for the incident, and sometimes the irresponsible parent
actually wins because they successfully deflect their irresponsible
behavior onto someone else.


JKG

[Mark Hansen]

On 6/17/2005 00:25, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Belle,
>
> First, there is no such thing as a "14-year-old pilot". The regs don't
> permit it.

Uhhhh, what?

The FARs specify the requirements to become a *certificated* pilot.
If you fly an airplane, you're an airplane pilot.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Bernd Aldenhövel]

Hi,

just my 2 cent ...

Belle wrote:
> Article published Jun 16, 2005
> Alabama boy accused of taking stolen airplane on joy ride
> [...]
> Police said the boy, who wasn't identified because of his age, had no
> flying experience.

IIRC, FAA regulations require _legal_ pilots to have their names
published on their website, is that correct?

> He allegedly took his mother's van from their home
> in Rainsville and drove to the airport in Fort Payne, about five miles
> away.

Is driving a car permitted for a 14-yr-boy in Alabama?

Greetings,
Bernd

[Robert Morien]

In article >,
Bernd Aldenhovel > wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just my 2 cent ...
>
> Belle wrote:
> > Article published Jun 16, 2005
> > Alabama boy accused of taking stolen airplane on joy ride
> > [...]
> > Police said the boy, who wasn't identified because of his age, had no
> > flying experience.
>
> IIRC, FAA regulations require _legal_ pilots to have their names
> published on their website, is that correct?
>
> > He allegedly took his mother's van from their home
> > in Rainsville and drove to the airport in Fort Payne, about five miles
> > away.
>
> Is driving a car permitted for a 14-yr-boy in Alabama?
>
> Greetings,
> Bernd

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:09:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>::

>Larry,
>
>> Personally, I'd characterize the lad as possessing superior piloting
>> skills in light of his young age and absence of any flight training.
>>
>
>Yeah, right. Especially his judgement as a pilot - truly superior. A
>hero.

I was referring to his ability to solo without benefit of any flight
instruction.

>What are you guys thinking????

The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
adult is unreasonable.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:42:07 -0400, "Peter R."
> wrote in
>::

>Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, right. Especially his judgement as a pilot - truly superior. A
>> hero.
>>
>> What are you guys thinking????
>
>Many early computer hackers and virus authors went on to make big careers
>as consultants in the computer industry.
>
>Perhaps there is similar hope with this 14 year-old.


Right. That's what I was thinking. Perhaps he's the next Roscoe
Turner or Lincoln Beachy. :-)

[George Patterson]

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

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

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:17:58 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Personally, I'd characterize the lad as possessing superior piloting
>> skills in light of his young age and absence of any flight training.
>
>
>I'd characterize him as possessing extremely large testicles of the brass
>variety. He might want to work on impulse control, though.

Of course, his lack of judgment goes without saying. But I'm doubtful
I could have done as well as him at his age (but MS Flight Simulator
appeared on the market 30 years later).

[RST Engineering]

Does Microsoft FlightSim come readily to mind? I've flown behind it enough
to convince myself that damn near anybody with the motor skills necessary
can learn enough on FlightSIm to take the sucker off and land it correctly.

Unfortunately on his second landing, he hadn't done enough of the
simulation.

Jim



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

[Gordon Burditt]

>> > Article published Jun 16, 2005
>> > Alabama boy accused of taking stolen airplane on joy ride
>> > [...]
>> > Police said the boy, who wasn't identified because of his age, had no
>> > flying experience.
>>
>> IIRC, FAA regulations require _legal_ pilots to have their names
>> published on their website, is that correct?
>>
>> > He allegedly took his mother's van from their home
>> > in Rainsville and drove to the airport in Fort Payne, about five miles
>> > away.
>>
>> Is driving a car permitted for a 14-yr-boy in Alabama?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Bernd
>
>aw, come on. How does a 14 year old without any flying experience manage
>to start an airplane, much less know how to control the throttle?

What's "flying experience"? Actually serving as pilot or co-pilot
of a plane? If the kid has flown with someone in a small plane and
was observant, even if he never touched the controls before, he
might manage to learn enough to get himself in trouble. Or he
might have been interested enough to read books about flying.

Gordon L. Burditt

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >What are you guys thinking????
>
> The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
> adult is unreasonable.

Not necessarily. If the parents imparted proper discipline and values,
chances are the "youth" would have demonstrated more mature judgment.

That being said, I think that Thomas was commenting on what appeared to
be "atta boy" type congratulatory comments, when whatthe "youth" did was
nothing but a careless, reckless, stupid act.



JKG

[Belle]

Good guess, but according to authorities who interviewed the boy, he
has no access to computers or video games. He just hied himself to the
library & read & read & read about small planes & flight manuals.

[Larry Dighera]

On 17 Jun 2005 20:30:43 -0700, "Belle" > wrote in
. com>::

>Good guess, but according to authorities who interviewed the boy, he
>has no access to computers or video games. He just hied himself to the
>library & read & read & read about small planes & flight manuals.

It sounds like someone got a chance to talk with him.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kIDse.9370$fa3.2840@trndny01...
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> >
> > I am thinking "where were the parents?"
>
> Notice that he also stole his mother's van to drive to the airport. His
parents
> were probably sitting at home saying "I'm a'gonna kill that kid when I
catch up
> to him."

Don't bet on it. Probably they were stoned out of their gourds.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Robert Morien]

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

> Robert Morien wrote:
> >
> > aw, come on. How does a 14 year old without any flying experience manage
> > to start an airplane, much less know how to control the throttle?
>
> The ignition switch works just like a car, which he's seen used thousands of
> times. The throttle on a 152 is exactly like that on a farm tractor and is
> clearly labeled. I'd bet he's either been given rides in aircraft or driven a
> tractor.
>


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

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

[Brian Burger]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, George Patterson wrote:

> Robert Morien wrote:
> >
> > aw, come on. How does a 14 year old without any flying experience manage
> > to start an airplane, much less know how to control the throttle?
>
> The ignition switch works just like a car, which he's seen used thousands of
> times. The throttle on a 152 is exactly like that on a farm tractor and is
> clearly labeled. I'd bet he's either been given rides in aircraft or driven a
> tractor.

You're forgetting Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Betcha this brat has it on the family machine. (right alongside the
gigabytes of illegals MP3s & movies...) :)

If you nose thru MSFS's help files patiently enough, and set the realism
settings right, it's easy to duplicate the start sequence of an aircraft.

Brian.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:31:28 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>::

>I think that Thomas was commenting on what appeared to
>be "atta boy" type congratulatory comments,

While some may have inferred that, you'll note that I made no
reference to any judgment of the morality of his alleged actions. I
was remarking about the apparent ease with which he accomplished his
first solo flight.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> > the better question is if the security people are ever going
> > to grasp how little danger GA poses.
>
> True, but the issue is not what is reality, but what the public perceives.
> If the general, non-flying public perceives GA to be a danger (incorrectly
> reinforced by silly comments made by unthinking FBO owners), they will
> pressure their congressmen/woman to push for even more restrictions over
> GA.

There are at least two issues. We (GA) cannot survive if we allow the security
folks to misrepresent the dangers of GA. But we also must address the gross
ignorance of the non-flying public. ****ing away resources to address imaginary
security concerns drains resources from addressing actual security problems.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
> adult is unreasonable.
>

But you'd agree that his behaviour was not, uhm, quite average for
14-year-olds, wouldn't you?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> That being said, I think that Thomas was commenting on what appeared to
> be "atta boy" type congratulatory comments, when whatthe "youth" did was
> nothing but a careless, reckless, stupid act.
>

You got it. That's what I was trying to say with my meager
non-native-speaker skills. Reminded me too much of the reaction Mathias
Rust got here in Germany, back when he landed on the Red Square (yes, kids,
it was THAT Red Square ;-)). Many people thought he was the greatest pilot
alive, when really he was an irresponsible dimwit.

Well, let's just wait and see who gets sued for this - that'll be the one
really responsible...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mark,

> If you fly an airplane, you're an airplane pilot.
>

Uhuh. Like that 10-year-old girl (?) that got killed a while ago while
"piloting" a plane on a publicity stunt, right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stephen McNaught]

So when does the lawsuit from the parents against the airport and the owner
begin? Pain, suffering, distress. You know, it's the American way.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:01:47 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>::

>Larry,
>
>> The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
>> adult is unreasonable.
>>
>
>But you'd agree that his behaviour was not, uhm, quite average for
>14-year-olds, wouldn't you?

The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
may still be). In this country (US) the parents are responsible for
the behavior of their minor (under 18 years of age) children, so they
will at least bear the cost of damage their son caused to the
aircraft, and could conceivably face negligence charges if the
District Attorney feels the case warrants. All this is obvious.

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > If you fly an airplane, you're an airplane pilot.
>
> Uhuh. Like that 10-year-old girl (?) that got killed a while ago while
> "piloting" a plane on a publicity stunt, right?

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>[i]
> > The parents obviously weren't paying attention to what he
> > was up to, and obviously left the keys in a place accessible to him.
>
> Do parents have to hide their keys? My two boys are still too young for
> this to be an issue, but I don't recall this from my own youth. I don't
> happen to know where my Mom kept keys, but I recall clearly my Dad coming
> home from work and placing his keys (and ID) on a dresser in his bedroom.
>
>
same[i]
> thing coming home from work <laugh>.]
>
Now, if you left them in your purse, they'd you'd have a good reason for
nightmares.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:v6Jse.13278$5s1.12355@trndny06...
> Robert Morien wrote:
> >
> > aw, come on. How does a 14 year old without any flying experience manage
> > to start an airplane, much less know how to control the throttle?
>
> The ignition switch works just like a car, which he's seen used thousands
of
> times. The throttle on a 152 is exactly like that on a farm tractor and is
> clearly labeled. I'd bet he's either been given rides in aircraft or
driven a
> tractor.

Throttle, hell...how'd he learn to work the rudders with this feet to taxi
to the runway?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
> car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
> licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
> license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
> illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
> may still be). In this country (US) the parents are responsible for
> the behavior of their minor (under 18 years of age) children, so they
> will at least bear the cost of damage their son caused to the
> aircraft, and could conceivably face negligence charges if the
> District Attorney feels the case warrants. All this is obvious.


But quite often, not so simple. What if the offender has limited to no
ability to pay? What if the driver who hits you on the freeway has no
insurance? What if the guy who hits you has insurance, but you only get
blue-book on a total loss for a car you just drove off the lot yesterday?

Some parents just don't care, and as a result, their kids just don't
care. In the end, the good guy often ends up out of luck in some
fashion.



JKG

[Icebound]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:01:47 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Larry,
>>
>>> The youth is not an adult. To expect him to have the judgment of an
>>> adult is unreasonable.
>>>
>>
>>But you'd agree that his behaviour was not, uhm, quite average for
>>14-year-olds, wouldn't you?
>
> The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
> car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
> licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
> license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
> illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
> may still be). In this country (US) the parents are responsible for
> the behavior of their minor (under 18 years of age) children, so they
> will at least bear the cost of damage their son caused to the
> aircraft, and could conceivably face negligence charges if the
> District Attorney feels the case warrants. All this is obvious.
>
>

It doesn't matter much, though.

He probably already has an agent, a book deal, a deposit on a TV movie, and
a speaking tour on the "Dangers of 14-Year-Olds Let Loose in Poorly Secured
GA Airports". In his adult years, he will open a Flight School with
revolutionary new training techniques that allow Student Solo certification
after just 2 hours dual and a full PPL in an additional 5 hours solo. He
will become a lobbyist/consultant to have the FAA amend their regulations
accordingly.... perhaps even become head of said FAA and revolutionize it
completely.

People will look back at his teen-age indiscretions with amusement, as they
do at their own.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Icebound wrote:

> It doesn't matter much, though.
>
> He probably already has an agent, a book deal, a deposit on a TV movie, and
> a speaking tour on the "Dangers of 14-Year-Olds Let Loose in Poorly Secured
> GA Airports". In his adult years, he will open a Flight School with
> revolutionary new training techniques that allow Student Solo certification
> after just 2 hours dual and a full PPL in an additional 5 hours solo. He
> will become a lobbyist/consultant to have the FAA amend their regulations
> accordingly.... perhaps even become head of said FAA and revolutionize it
> completely.
>
> People will look back at his teen-age indiscretions with amusement, as they
> do at their own.

But did he loop, roll and spin it? If so he's an editor candidate for a
webmag...

[Icebound]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
>I disagree Jonathan,
> A responsible parent does not need to hide things from teenagers. A parent
> teaching discipline, respect, and responsibility would solve alot more
> problems. If he were mine he would not have to worry much about riding in
> cars or planes for a spell..because the docs would be removing my foot out
> of his butt ! ;)
> But I am glad the young renegade did not kill himself, and more so did
> not kill anyone else! But we all know how "today's " world goes, he will
> probably be put in the time out chair for a few hours and then the parents
> will wonder why he is a convicted felon in a few years.

There is lots of evidence that creating a felon out of a 14-year-old does
neither the boy nor society any good, but that's another arguement.

> And I do agree the parents probably did not have a clue as to what this
> kid did or does. But remember the good old days when parents could be
> parents? When I was a kid if you went to a store with your folks and acted
> up , you got your backside tore up right there in front of God and
> everybody else.

Unfortunately, the net effect was for you to then try to spite them all the
more, the next chance you got.

> Try to do that now and they send your kids to foster care and you to
> prison. So maybe the whole blame just isn't on a parents lack of parenting
> skills, but a combination of a lack of those skills and interference by
> the government.

Now I am in agreement that parental discipline is being seriously eroded by
well-meaning anti-abuse laws, but there is something of a difference between
a "lack-of-discipline" , and "dangerous curiousity". The most well-behaved
child in the world, with all the right values, can still have a dangerous
curiousity that he just can't resist testing.


> Myself I feel a 14 year old is old enough to take the blame for his own
> actions..I blame this young fellow more than anything else. He is not two,
> we should not have to hide the dish cleaners from him anymore, nor should
> we have to hide our possessions...he should know right from wrong at this
> point. If he doesn't he sure has a hard row to hoe.
>


At this point we cannot judge whether this fellow is truly a felon, or
simply a kid who could not resist a mis-guided curiosity. I suggest that
half the posters to this NG have participated in some dangerous activity in
their teens, lived through it, and became reasonably model citizens. Most
didn't get caught... many got lucky that they didn't kill someone...

As society got more complicated, it has become easier for mis-guided
teenagers to kill themselves or others, so extra education and caution is
necessary, sure. But a 14-year-old who did a stupid and dangerous thing
should not necessarily be labelled a felon for life.

Civil restitution is something else, but the *criminal* prosecution of a
14-year-old should be guided by his intent, rather than by a knee-jerk
because of the extent of damage caused.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Icebound" > wrote:
> Now I am in agreement that parental discipline is being seriously eroded by
> well-meaning anti-abuse laws, but there is something of a difference between
> a "lack-of-discipline" , and "dangerous curiousity". The most well-behaved
> child in the world, with all the right values, can still have a dangerous
> curiousity that he just can't resist testing.


And if that's the case, the parents need to keep a closer watch on the
child.


JKG

[Jose]

> As society got more complicated, it has become easier for mis-guided
> teenagers to kill themselves or others

It also becomes easier for them to get caught.

The extrapolation of either trend is disturbing.

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 6/17/05 12:17 PM, in article ,
"Howard" > spewed:

> "Steve Foley" > wrote in news:cgyse.330586
> :
>
>> I thought only usenet posters didn't know the difference between lose and
>> loose.
>>
>> I guess The Associated Press doesn't either.
>
> Newspaper editors have long since stopped doing any actual editing. You
> really would be surprised at the crap that gets by them. "I swear, I am
> not making this up", but in a local paper recently, a subheadline that was
> obviously supposed to just be a temporary placeholder actually got through.
> Then again, I suppose they COULD have intended the subheadline to be
> "Subheadline goes here, once you know what this is about, this most boring
> of news stories". Unprofessional though.

**** happens, then you change the procedure. In the Home Depot ad
department, we would put $00.00 as place holders in the ads before the last
minute prices were determined. Care to guess what happened and how much ****
hit the fan?
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[George Patterson]

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

There will be quite a few in any farming community.

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

[W P Dixon]

Seems pretty danged obvious, his intent was to steal a car and an airplane.
And discipline may have caused you to spite your parents but I believe you
just may be in a younger generation than mine. You wouldn't have done it to
my parents! ;)
This young fellow will not learn a blasted thing if he is not held
accountable for his actions. Last time I looked airplane theft and car teft
are felonies. Yep it sux for this boy, but without accountability he will
get the attitude "Oh well I can do anything I want because nothing is going
to happen." And you bet ya, his folks should have to pay back every single
dime to repair what he tore up. Maybe that would teach them a lesson and
hold them accountable for their lack of control over a 14 year old.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I disagree Jonathan,
>> A responsible parent does not need to hide things from teenagers. A
>> parent teaching discipline, respect, and responsibility would solve alot
>> more problems. If he were mine he would not have to worry much about
>> riding in cars or planes for a spell..because the docs would be removing
>> my foot out of his butt ! ;)
>> But I am glad the young renegade did not kill himself, and more so did
>> not kill anyone else! But we all know how "today's " world goes, he will
>> probably be put in the time out chair for a few hours and then the
>> parents will wonder why he is a convicted felon in a few years.
>
> There is lots of evidence that creating a felon out of a 14-year-old does
> neither the boy nor society any good, but that's another arguement.
>
>> And I do agree the parents probably did not have a clue as to what
>> this kid did or does. But remember the good old days when parents could
>> be parents? When I was a kid if you went to a store with your folks and
>> acted up , you got your backside tore up right there in front of God and
>> everybody else.
>
> Unfortunately, the net effect was for you to then try to spite them all
> the more, the next chance you got.
>
>> Try to do that now and they send your kids to foster care and you to
>> prison. So maybe the whole blame just isn't on a parents lack of
>> parenting skills, but a combination of a lack of those skills and
>> interference by the government.
>
> Now I am in agreement that parental discipline is being seriously eroded
> by well-meaning anti-abuse laws, but there is something of a difference
> between a "lack-of-discipline" , and "dangerous curiousity". The most
> well-behaved child in the world, with all the right values, can still have
> a dangerous curiousity that he just can't resist testing.
>
>
>> Myself I feel a 14 year old is old enough to take the blame for his
>> own actions..I blame this young fellow more than anything else. He is not
>> two, we should not have to hide the dish cleaners from him anymore, nor
>> should we have to hide our possessions...he should know right from wrong
>> at this point. If he doesn't he sure has a hard row to hoe.
>>
>
>
> At this point we cannot judge whether this fellow is truly a felon, or
> simply a kid who could not resist a mis-guided curiosity. I suggest that
> half the posters to this NG have participated in some dangerous activity
> in their teens, lived through it, and became reasonably model citizens.
> Most didn't get caught... many got lucky that they didn't kill someone...
>
> As society got more complicated, it has become easier for mis-guided
> teenagers to kill themselves or others, so extra education and caution is
> necessary, sure. But a 14-year-old who did a stupid and dangerous thing
> should not necessarily be labelled a felon for life.
>
> Civil restitution is something else, but the *criminal* prosecution of a
> 14-year-old should be guided by his intent, rather than by a knee-jerk
> because of the extent of damage caused.
>

[SR20GOER]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
>> > the better question is if the security people are ever going
>> > to grasp how little danger GA poses.
>>
>> True, but the issue is not what is reality, but what the public
>> perceives.
>> If the general, non-flying public perceives GA to be a danger
>> (incorrectly
>> reinforced by silly comments made by unthinking FBO owners), they will
>> pressure their congressmen/woman to push for even more restrictions over
>> GA.
>
> There are at least two issues. We (GA) cannot survive if we allow the
> security
> folks to misrepresent the dangers of GA. But we also must address the
> gross
> ignorance of the non-flying public. ****ing away resources to address
> imaginary
> security concerns drains resources from addressing actual security
> problems.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>
Just a quick comment from Oz that we are going thru exactly the same crud.
As well as a photo licence that requires a three way security check we now
are going to require an ASIC card to get onto many airports. Airports have
to implement security fences etc.
All aircraft have to be visibly locked. This stuff is all window dressing.
But, it keeps the mug voting public from looking at the deficit balance of
trade and jobs going offshore, so the Government is spending figures like
AUD$400M to beef up security - results best summarised in my final paragraph
below.

I have done some media releases and get their attention when pointing out
the GA versus RPT comparison.
Here is an extract for your interest. It is written in simple terms because
I did not want the journo to stuff it up!!!!
"So, using simple arithmetic, we can make two immediate comparisons.

First, the 747 is around 340 times the weight of the Cessna.

Second, the 747 carries around 1280 times the explosive weight of fuel
(boom!)



The comparison shows why terrorists will seek out a 747 to maximise impact
damage.



However, it becomes frightening when we calculate the actual impact force of
a 747 versus a Cessna. Impact force is represented by the kinetic energy of
the object and kinetic energy is calculated by the formula "half the mass of
the object multiplied by the velocity squared" (which is why a high speed
car accident does innumerable times the damage of one at half the speed).



When we do the calculations for the 747 and the C172 we find that the 747 at
cruise speed hits a building with 5920 times the force of a C172 at cruise
speed. This is a horrific impact and explains the extent of the skyscraper
damage on Sept 11.



My Army training reminds me of the "expendability" factor. In infantry
attacks, there is a predicted manpower loss; therefore the gaining of the
objective must justify the loss. On the terrorist side, it stands to reason
that a terrorist planning to sacrifice all to get to Allah will likewise
desire maximum "impact" in exchange for his or her life.



The Pareto Principle suggests that we concentrate on the 20 percent of
important issues rather that the other 80 percent of trivia. However, it is
not so easy for the Government on the terrorist front - to date our only
results in capturing terrorists have been picking up their pieces after the
bomb blasts."

[George Patterson]

Icebound wrote:
>
> There is lots of evidence that creating a felon out of a 14-year-old does
> neither the boy nor society any good, but that's another arguement.

Nobody else made him a felon. He accomplished that all by himself. The powers
that be may make him a *convicted* felon, but he's already committed two
felonies that we know of.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Zz4te.6190$EH1.4945@trndny03...
> Robert Morien wrote:
> >
> > But then again I'd bet the universe of 14 year olds that have driven a
> > tractor is pretty small.
>
> There will be quite a few in any farming community.
>

Seeing that our agricultural portion of the population is about 2%, that
still won't be a hell of a lot.

[Matt Barrow]

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> >
> > There are at least two issues. We (GA) cannot survive if we allow the
> > security
> > folks to misrepresent the dangers of GA. But we also must address the
> > gross
> > ignorance of the non-flying public. ****ing away resources to address
> > imaginary
> > security concerns drains resources from addressing actual security
> > problems.

The US installs a massive bureaucracy and expects it to be efficient? HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Seeing that our agricultural portion of the population is about 2%, that
> still won't be a hell of a lot.

Averages don't mean diddly. Rainsville is a community of about 5,000 people with
two farmers' co-ops and a tractor company; ie. a strong agricultural presence.
Betcha a substantial portion of the kids there have some tractor experience.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

> she was not alone, she was with her father and
> a flight instructor,
>

And she was still described, praised, marketed (take your pick) as a
"pilot".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:09:16 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <wl5te.15087$Nx1.1991@trndny05>::

>e's already committed two felonies that we know of.

Which would those be?

Taking your mother's car without permission, nor driving without a
license are not felonies. Because there was apparently no act of
breaking and entering into neither the airport nor aircraft, it's
likely that piloting the plane wasn't grand theft either.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:RW5te.13997$fa3.10258@trndny01...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > Seeing that our agricultural portion of the population is about 2%, that
> > still won't be a hell of a lot.
>
> Averages don't mean diddly. Rainsville is a community of about 5,000
people with
> two farmers' co-ops and a tractor company; ie. a strong agricultural
presence.
> Betcha a substantial portion of the kids there have some tractor
experience.

Well, if you go on the "It only takes one" premise, yeah.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Which would those be?

Stealing an item worth over a certain amount of money is grand larceny. I'm
quite sure both the aircraft and the car qualify.

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

[NW_PILOT]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
> > car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
> > licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
> > license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
> > illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
> > may still be). In this country (US) the parents are responsible for
> > the behavior of their minor (under 18 years of age) children, so they
> > will at least bear the cost of damage their son caused to the
> > aircraft, and could conceivably face negligence charges if the
> > District Attorney feels the case warrants. All this is obvious.
>
>
> But quite often, not so simple. What if the offender has limited to no
> ability to pay? What if the driver who hits you on the freeway has no
> insurance? What if the guy who hits you has insurance, but you only get
> blue-book on a total loss for a car you just drove off the lot yesterday?
>
> Some parents just don't care, and as a result, their kids just don't
> care. In the end, the good guy often ends up out of luck in some
> fashion.
>
>
>
> JKG

Jonathan, I agree 100% with what you say.

[NW_PILOT]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:09:16 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <wl5te.15087$Nx1.1991@trndny05>::
>
> >e's already committed two felonies that we know of.
>
> Which would those be?
>
> Taking your mother's car without permission, nor driving without a
> license are not felonies. Because there was apparently no act of
> breaking and entering into neither the airport nor aircraft, it's
> likely that piloting the plane wasn't grand theft either.
>
>


Wonder if they would call it Joy Flying hehehehehehe

[W P Dixon]

Section 13A-8-11
Unauthorized use of vehicle; unlawful breaking and entering a vehicle.
(a) A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle if:

(1) Knowing that he does not have the consent of the owner, he takes,
operates, exercises control over or otherwise uses a propelled vehicle; or

(2) Having custody of propelled vehicle pursuant to an agreement between
himself or another and the owner thereof whereby the actor or another is to
perform for compensation a specific service for the owner involving the
maintenance, repair or use of the vehicle, he intentionally uses or operates
it, without the consent of the owner, for his own purpose in a manner
constituting a gross deviation from the agreed purpose; or

(3) Having custody of a propelled vehicle pursuant to an agreement with the
owner thereof whereby it is to be returned to the owner at a specified time,
he knowingly retains or withholds possession thereof, without the consent of
the owner, for so lengthy a period beyond the specified time as to render
the retention or possession a gross deviation from the agreement.

(4) Unauthorized use of a vehicle is a Class A misdemeanor, except that if a
person by force or threat of force takes, operates, usurps or exercises
control over a propelled vehicle with an operator or one or more passengers
aboard he is guilty of a Class B felony.

(b) A person commits the crime of unlawful breaking and entering a vehicle
if, without the consent of the owner, he breaks into and enters a vehicle or
any part of a vehicle with the intent to commit any felony or theft. For the
purposes of this section, "enters" means to intrude:

(1) Any part of the body; or

(2) Any physical object connected with the body.

(3) Unlawful breaking and entering a vehicle is a Class C felony.


Section 13A-8-3
Theft of property in the first degree.
(a) The theft of property which exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500) in value, or property of any value taken from the person of
another, constitutes theft of property in the first degree.

(b) The theft of a motor vehicle, regardless of its value, constitutes theft
of property in the first degree.

(c) Theft of property in the first degree is a Class B felony.

Taken from the State of Alabama website concerning laws in that state.
I sure ain't a lawyer but from the statutes I read these seem to be the most
likely charges...if a DA wants to get the kid. I am sure a good DA could add
another half dozen or so charges as well. So the taking of his mom's van
would be a Class A misdemeanor, the airplane however would be a Class B
felony. Of course his mom could refuse to press the theft charges for the
van, but it still leaves the young lad in a jam.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
>

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Sfpte.20872$ej1.16080@trndny09...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Which would those be?
>
> Stealing an item worth over a certain amount of money is grand larceny.
> I'm quite sure both the aircraft and the car qualify.

[W P Dixon]

Section 13A-7-21
Criminal mischief in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal mischief in the first degree if,
with intent to damage property, and having no right to do so or any
reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such a right, he or she
inflicts damages to property:

(1) In an amount exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500); or

(2) By means of an explosion.

(b) Criminal mischief in the first degree is a Class C felony.



Just another example of a felony he could in fact be chraged with,....like I
said a good DA can find alot of charges for something you and I would just
consider he did one thing wrong. Intent will play the major role on this
one. Guess it will be up to a DA to prove intent.



Patrick

student SPL

aircraft structural mech

[John Larson]

I don't think we will survive anyway. There are just too few of us in a
country of over 300 million people.

It will be fairly easy to make some draconian rules, as one sees in Europe,
that will essentially put us out of the air.

All it will take is one person flying a small plane into a stadium loaded
with either a small bomb or toxic chemical to ground us for keeps.

If one remembers, the planes responsible for the carnage of Sept 11 were all
large jetliners yet we were grounded for weeks.
"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
>> > the better question is if the security people are ever going
>> > to grasp how little danger GA poses.
>>
>> True, but the issue is not what is reality, but what the public
>> perceives.
>> If the general, non-flying public perceives GA to be a danger
>> (incorrectly
>> reinforced by silly comments made by unthinking FBO owners), they will
>> pressure their congressmen/woman to push for even more restrictions over
>> GA.
>
> There are at least two issues. We (GA) cannot survive if we allow the
> security
> folks to misrepresent the dangers of GA. But we also must address the
> gross
> ignorance of the non-flying public. ****ing away resources to address
> imaginary
> security concerns drains resources from addressing actual security
> problems.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
>
> I sure ain't a lawyer but from the statutes I read these seem to
> be the most likely charges...if a DA wants to get the kid.

What is likely to happen is that charges will be pressed in the case of the
plane. The mother is unlikely to press charges in the case of the van.
Considering the boy's age, if this is a first offense, he will probably be
remanded for counseling until he's 18. If he gets into trouble again before
that, he will probably wind up in juvenile detention, possibly with time to
serve as an adult. If he stays out of trouble, his record will be sealed. Again,
that's just what's likely in my opinion.

That doesn't change the fact that he's now a felon and he did that all by
himself. Nobody "made him one."

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

[John Larson]

If he knew enough to get into the plane, find the key, push the mixture
control in (or whatever that plane requires) get the engine started - taxi
out to a takeoff point - take off and fly about without crashing - then make
two successful landings - I would bet he could have figured out how to start
the thing without a key.

My dad had a C175 and an Aeronca Champ when I was growing up, and at age 14
I could fly them both. Those of you who started this fun flying stuff later
in life would not probably understand that my brother and I thought we were
invincible. We flew the Champ several times alone when our father was away
on business.

Most of the posters on this board never probably did anything except blindly
obey all the rules and never have taken a chance. That's why there is so
much holier than thou crap when it comes to this kid, and it's my guess not
one of you have a clue who he is or what really happened.


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Well leaving your keys in your airplane sure has got to be DUMMMMMB! ;)
> But a key anywhere doesn't make someone be a crook. But a lock can sure
> keep honest people honest! ;)
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
>
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <4bEse.36>
> A
>> contributing factor could be the puzzling apparent practice of leaving
>> keys in airplanes parked on the ramp.
>>
>>
>>
>> JKG
>

[W P Dixon]

I have to agree with ya George.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:rJqte.15136$Nx1.12513@trndny05...
>
> What is likely to happen is that charges will be pressed in the case of
> the plane. The mother is unlikely to press charges in the case of the van.
> Considering the boy's age, if this is a first offense, he will probably be
> remanded for counseling until he's 18. If he gets into trouble again
> before that, he will probably wind up in juvenile detention, possibly with
> time to serve as an adult. If he stays out of trouble, his record will be
> sealed. Again, that's just what's likely in my opinion.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that he's now a felon and he did that all by
> himself. Nobody "made him one."
>
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

[John Larson]

Gotta have some intent to go with that felony. If he stole moms car
(unlikely in most States since you can't really steal what essentially is
yours within a family.)

If he stole the plane, and then went joyriding in it, that's not a theft in
most States either. If he stole it and sold it, or parted it out etc. then
it may qualify.


"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Sfpte.20872$ej1.16080@trndny09...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Which would those be?
>
> Stealing an item worth over a certain amount of money is grand larceny.
> I'm quite sure both the aircraft and the car qualify.
>
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:47:13 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::


>(4) Unauthorized use of a vehicle is a Class A misdemeanor, except that if a
>person by force or threat of force takes, operates, usurps or exercises
>control over a propelled vehicle with an operator or one or more passengers
>aboard he is guilty of a Class B felony.

> the airplane however would be a Class B felony.

Read it again. I have seen no evidence that the 14 year old used
force in any way with regard to the aircraft.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:58:06 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::

>Just another example of a felony he could in fact be chraged with,...

That would only be true if the DA were able to show the 14 year old
had "intent to damage property."

[W P Dixon]

That is exactly what I said Larry! I do believe I said it would be up to the
DA to prove intent.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:58:06 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Just another example of a felony he could in fact be chraged with,...
>
> That would only be true if the DA were able to show the 14 year old
> had "intent to damage property."

[W P Dixon]

I suggest you read it again...the felony aircraft theft is not in the same
statute as taking the car without permission, both statutes were posted. The
felony would be theft of something with the value of over 2,500 bucks.
Notice the values and the "or" in the statue. Doesn't say he has to meet all
of them just one part of it.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:47:13 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>(4) Unauthorized use of a vehicle is a Class A misdemeanor, except that if
>>a
>>person by force or threat of force takes, operates, usurps or exercises
>>control over a propelled vehicle with an operator or one or more
>>passengers
>>aboard he is guilty of a Class B felony.
>
>> the airplane however would be a Class B felony.
>
> Read it again. I have seen no evidence that the 14 year old used
> force in any way with regard to the aircraft.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:34:02 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote in
>::

>The felony would be theft of something with the value of over 2,500 bucks.

If you're referring to this:

Section 13A-7-21
Criminal mischief in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal mischief in the first
degree if, with intent to damage property, and having no right to
do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such
a right, he or she inflicts damages to property:

(1) In an amount exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500); or ...

the DA would have to convince a jury that the 14 year old had *intent*
to damage the aircraft. I doubt that that was the 14 year old's
intent; after all, if he had wanted to damage the aircraft he could
have done so by means other than taking it aloft.

What motivation would the 14 year old have had to intend damage to the
aircraft? I find it far more likely, that he wanted to experience
flight not inflect damage.

[W P Dixon]

I think it'd be a pretty stupid 14 year old that would think he could get
into a plane , with no training, and not cause any damage. The DA could very
well try to make that point in court and would probably be successful.
Though I did not find it in the Alabama laws I know that in TN, GA, and
KY theft of anything worth over 500 bucks is a felony. Since I could not
find it in black and white I did not mention it, but I am sure that will be
the case in Alabama as well..if I find anything on that line I will let ya
know ;)
In Avweb article it says the van was stolen from the grandmother? Kid
may not be getting any of Granma's good down home cooking for awhile ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:34:02 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>The felony would be theft of something with the value of over 2,500 bucks.
>
> If you're referring to this:
>
> Section 13A-7-21
> Criminal mischief in the first degree.
> (a) A person commits the crime of criminal mischief in the first
> degree if, with intent to damage property, and having no right to
> do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such
> a right, he or she inflicts damages to property:
>
> (1) In an amount exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
> ($2,500); or ...
>
> the DA would have to convince a jury that the 14 year old had *intent*
> to damage the aircraft. I doubt that that was the 14 year old's
> intent; after all, if he had wanted to damage the aircraft he could
> have done so by means other than taking it aloft.
>
> What motivation would the 14 year old have had to intend damage to the
> aircraft? I find it far more likely, that he wanted to experience
> flight not inflect damage.
>

[W P Dixon]

Hi,
Well here it is.

Section 13A-8-3
Theft of property in the first degree.
(a) The theft of property which exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500) in value, or property of any value taken from the person of
another, constitutes theft of property in the first degree.

(b) The theft of a motor vehicle, regardless of its value, constitutes theft
of property in the first degree.

(c) Theft of property in the first degree is a Class B felony.



Patrick

student SPL

aircraft structural mech

[Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB)]

On 2005-06-18 05:30, Belle wrote:
> Good guess, but according to authorities who interviewed the boy, he
> has no access to computers or video games. He just hied himself to the
> library & read & read & read about small planes & flight manuals.
>

If that's true, then I'm impressed.

Any young kid today actually *reading*, and understanding enough about
flight to actually try it out, with partial success (in the context of
'any landing you walk away from is a good landing'), must have a strong
drive to become pilot.

But where were the 'Young Eagles' or glider clubs in his hometown?
There must be ways to put such a kid in contact with airsports legally,
either at the library or at the airport, IMO.

/Rolf

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Read it again. I have seen no evidence that the 14 year old used
> force in any way with regard to the aircraft.

Section 13A-8-3
Theft of property in the first degree.
(a) The theft of property which exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500) in value, or property of any value taken from the person of another,
constitutes theft of property in the first degree.

(b) The theft of a motor vehicle, regardless of its value, constitutes theft of
property in the first degree.

(c) Theft of property in the first degree is a Class B felony.

Ok, I read it again. Where does force come into the matter?

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

[George Patterson]

John Larson wrote:
>
> If he stole the plane, and then went joyriding in it, that's not a theft in
> most States either.

That's grand theft in every State in which I've lived. That would be Tennessee,
Georgia, both Carolinas, and New Jersey.

How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't theft?

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

[Gary Drescher]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05...
> John Larson wrote:
>>
>> If he stole the plane, and then went joyriding in it, that's not a theft
>> in most States either.
>
> How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't
> theft?

In many states, the law distinguishes unauthorized use from theft. If you
intend to keep it (or to destroy it, or to pass it on to someone else), then
you've stolen it; if you just intend to ride around briefly and let the
owner have it back, then you've made unauthorized use of it, which is a
lesser offense. (I'm not sure how the burden of evidence works with regard
to that distinction.)

> That's grand theft in every State in which I've lived. That would be
> Tennessee, Georgia, both Carolinas, and New Jersey.

Are you sure? How do you know?

--Gary

[Stubby]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05...
>
>>John Larson wrote:
>>
>>>If he stole the plane, and then went joyriding in it, that's not a theft
>>>in most States either.
>>
>>How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't
>>theft?
>
>
> In many states, the law distinguishes unauthorized use from theft. If you
> intend to keep it (or to destroy it, or to pass it on to someone else), then
> you've stolen it; if you just intend to ride around briefly and let the
> owner have it back, then you've made unauthorized use of it, which is a
> lesser offense. (I'm not sure how the burden of evidence works with regard
> to that distinct
Peoples' Republic of MA doesn't want kids to have their records ruined
by a grand theft conviction. So they invented "unauthorized use".

Personally, and I know you didn't ask, I think felony convictions should
be tattooed between the 8th and 9th ribs. This area is the least likely
to be damanged in accidents. If guy is a multiple offender or there is
evidence of a scar because a previous tattoo has been removed, fire up
Old Sparky.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
William W. ("Bill") Plummer
7 Country Club Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824
978-256-9570

[Jose]

> I think it'd be a pretty stupid 14 year old that would think he could get into a plane , with no training, and not cause any damage.

Actually, it would probably be a pretty typical 14 year old.

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05...
>
>>John Larson wrote:
>>
>>>If he stole the plane, and then went joyriding in it, that's not a theft
>>>in most States either.

....

>>That's grand theft in every State in which I've lived. That would be
>>Tennessee, Georgia, both Carolinas, and New Jersey.

> Are you sure? How do you know?

Well, let's look.

In Georgia, section 16-8 of the criminal code defines theft as permanently or
temporarily depriving the owner of his property. It is considered a felony if
the value of the item is greater than $500 or if the item is a motor vehicle.

In Tennessee, section 55-5-104 defines taking a vehicle for the purposes of
joyriding as a class-E felony. The aircraft is not defined as a motor vehicle
and falls under the grand larceny section. Warning - this is the slowest web
site it has been my misfortune to encounter in over 10 years.

North Carolina does not post the criminal code (except for an excerpt dealing
with student offenses).

In South Carolina, section 16-21-60 defines taking a vehicle for the purposes of
joyriding as a misdemeanor. Theft of any other item worth over $1,000 is defined
as a felony in section 16-13-30. The plane is not defined as a motor vehicle.

In New Jersey, section 2C:20-10 states that temporary use of a motor vehicle
without permission is a "3rd-degree offense." Temporary use of a conveyance such
as an aircraft would be a "4th-degree offense." In this case, of course, it's
grand theft (a 3rd degree offense) because he totalled it out and can't return
it. You can find that in sections 2C:18-6, 2C:20-1, and 2C:20-2.

New Jersey does not break down crimes in the same way that other States do; all
offenses from 1st degree to 4th degree are considered "crimes" or "high
misdemeanors" and carry the penalties defined for felonies in other States.
Non-felonies are termed "disorderly person offenses" or "misdemeanors" and are
not considered crimes by the State. Disorderly person offenses carry sentences
of 6 months or less. Crimes carry sentences of 1 year or more. Most of that is
in section 2C:1-4.

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

[Gary Drescher]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:IcFte.33$PZ6.19@trndny08...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
>> news:YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05...
>>
>>>John Larson wrote:
>>>
>>>>If he stole the plane, and then went joyriding in it, that's not a theft
>>>>in most States either.
>
>>>That's grand theft in every State in which I've lived. That would be
>>>Tennessee, Georgia, both Carolinas, and New Jersey.
>
>> Are you sure? How do you know?
>
> Well, let's look.
> ...

Cool, thanks for the useful info!

However, in the TN code, I find:
"39-14-106. Unauthorized use of automobiles and other vehicles--Joyriding. A
person commits a Class A misdemeanor who takes another's automobile,
airplane, motorcycle, bicycle, boat or other vehicle without the consent of
the owner and the person does not have the intent to deprive the owner
thereof."

Note that a crash that destroys the vehicle would not keep the joyriding
statute from being applicable, unless the perpetrator had the *intent* to
cause such a crash.

I haven't checked the other states' statutes, but suffice it to say that
even among the states you've lived in, it is not unheard of for the law to
consider unauthorized joyriding in a car or plane to be less serious than
grand theft.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> >
> > Well, let's look.
> > ...
>
> Cool, thanks for the useful info!
>
> However, in the TN code, I find:
> "39-14-106. Unauthorized use of automobiles and other vehicles--Joyriding.
A
> person commits a Class A misdemeanor who takes another's automobile,
> airplane, motorcycle, bicycle, boat or other vehicle without the consent
of
> the owner and the person does not have the intent to deprive the owner
> thereof."

He didn't _intend_ to take the car, the car just swept him up and drove off
down the road with him...

>
> Note that a crash that destroys the vehicle would not keep the joyriding
> statute from being applicable, unless the perpetrator had the *intent* to
> cause such a crash.
>
> I haven't checked the other states' statutes, but suffice it to say that
> even among the states you've lived in, it is not unheard of for the law to
> consider unauthorized joyriding in a car or plane to be less serious than
> grand theft.

Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
"joyriding" had averse effect and now charge a felony.

IOW, coddling criminals begets further criminal activity. Such is why Rudy
Guliiani had the success he did as NYC mayor.

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
> "joyriding" had averse effect

Evidence please?

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
> > "joyriding" had averse effect
>
> Evidence please?
>
Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for that
reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.

[Hotel 179]

>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> > The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's
>> > car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's
>> > licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of
>> > license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and
>> > illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and
>> > may still be).
----------------------------------reply-----------------------------------------------------

Hello All,

The statutes in Alabama that are used to prosecute a juvenile in Alabama are
different from the adult charges. If there is a charge, it will be
"violation of Youthful Offender Statutes". In other words, the charge will
have no name such as theft of property, etc.. The young man's criminal
history, if convicted, will read "Youthful Offender".

We are hosting a CAP SARX this weekend so I'm sure some of the folks from
that part of the State will have the inside scoop.

Stephen Pearce
Foley, Alabama

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
>> > "joyriding" had averse effect
>>
>> Evidence please?
>>
> Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for that
> reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
> there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.

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

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:37:43 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <rhCte.2$Z.0@trndny05>::


>
>Ok, I read it again. Where does force come into the matter?
>

In Section 13A-8-11, to which I mistakenly thought Mr. Dixon was
referring.

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
>> > "joyriding" had averse effect
>>
>> Evidence please?
>>
> Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for that
> reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
> there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.

In addition to your having no evidence to support your assertion that lesser
penalties for unauthorized joyriding have been found to have "adverse
effect", it turns out that the criminal codes in both Colorado and Arizona
(the only examples you cited) do in fact provide for lesser offenses and
penalties for joyriding than for theft.

Arizona's article 13-1803 defines the offense of "Unlawful use of means of
transportation": "A person commits unlawful use of means of transportation
if, without intent permanently to deprive, the person either: 1. Knowingly
takes unauthorized control over another person's means of transportation. 2.
Knowingly is transported or physically located in a vehicle that the person
knows or has reason to know is in the unlawful possession of another person
pursuant to paragraph 1 or section 13-1814.".

Colorado makes an even more sweeping distinction between theft and temporary
unauthorized use. In Colorado, the distinction isn't limited to vehicles,
but applies to theft in general. Colorado's article 18-4-401 defines theft
as follows: "(1) A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or
exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization,
or by threat or deception, and: (a) Intends to deprive the other person
permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or (b) Knowingly
uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive
the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or (c) Uses, conceals,
or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment, or
abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use and
benefit; or (d) Demands any consideration to which he is not legally
entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other
person."

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05>::

>
>How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't theft?

I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in
California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must
have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for
creating an attractive nuisance. As the airport and aircraft were not
locked in this case, and the ignition key was on a clipboard in the
aircraft, it would seem the aircraft owner was guilty of creating an
attractive nuisance in this case.

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05>::
>
>>
>>How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't
>>theft?
>
> I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in
> California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must
> have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for
> creating an attractive nuisance. As the airport and aircraft were not
> locked in this case, and the ignition key was on a clipboard in the
> aircraft, it would seem the aircraft owner was guilty of creating an
> attractive nuisance in this case.

Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with whether or not the act
constitutes theft.

--Gary

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05>::
>
>>How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't theft?
>
> I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in
> California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must
> have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for
> creating an attractive nuisance.

Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.

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

[Stefan]

George Patterson wrote:

> Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.

http://www.berlinien.de/immobilien/bericht1748.html

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in
> California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must
> have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for
> creating an attractive nuisance. As the airport and aircraft were not
> locked in this case, and the ignition key was on a clipboard in the
> aircraft, it would seem the aircraft owner was guilty of creating an
> attractive nuisance in this case.

It was careless for the ignition key to be there, no doubt, but whatever
happened to the old, basic, 9X-out-of-10 accurate logic that if you TAKE
something that doesn't belong to you without the owner's knowledge,
regardless of what you plan to use it for, you've STOLEN it? or that if
you enter someone else's yard or home without their knowledge, YOU are
the one in the wrong for trespassing, regardless of whether the gate was
locked or not?!

In an effort to twist straightforward laws to suit the rare cases where
someone may have had an explainable reason, they've given the common
criminal who *definitely* knows that what he's doing is against the law
10 different possible defenses and made the owner of the property
responsible for any and all damages in a lot of cases! Go figure.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:31:22 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>::

>
>Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with whether or not the act
>constitutes theft.

I think it relates to establishing culpability for the flight.

If a person drowns in a pool with an unlocked gate, I believe the
homeowner can be held responsible even if the person was an intruder.

I'm not attempting to assert that this statute is directly applicable
in this case, but it seems to establish some responsibility on the
part of attractive nuisance owners to prevent unauthorized use.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:43:02 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >::

>George Patterson wrote:
>
>> Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.
>
>http://www.berlinien.de/immobilien/bericht1748.html

http://www.babblefish.com/babblefish/

Strange theft! In Norway a Swimming pool was stolen... OSLO (ROOFRIDGE
NEWS) "in Norway was stolen a Swimming pool. According to
Norwegian press reports, the Eigentümer in the garden of its weekend
house found in place of the basin only still another großes hole
before more Über the winter months must someone twenty years old
pools with a diameter of fünf meters have excavated. The owner Brit
Nicolaysen in addition: "it must have been a giant work. The basin was
from steel." Außerdem disappeared also the filter system, several
Schläuche and pipe.

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:31:22 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>
>>Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with whether or not the act
>>constitutes theft.
>
> I think it relates to establishing culpability for the flight.

Even if there were some legal culpability on the part of the owner, that
would not diminish the culpability of the person who took the plane.

> If a person drowns in a pool with an unlocked gate, I believe the
> homeowner can be held responsible even if the person was an intruder.
>
> I'm not attempting to assert that this statute is directly applicable
> in this case, but it seems to establish some responsibility on the
> part of attractive nuisance owners to prevent unauthorized use.

Perhaps. But even if there is some legal responsibility on the part of the
owner, it has no bearing on the question of whether the taking of the plane
constituted theft. (Yet that was the question in response to which you
posted your speculation about the attractive-nuisance culpability.)

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:28:30 -0700, wrote
in >::

>or that if
>you enter someone else's yard or home without their knowledge, YOU are
>the one in the wrong for trespassing, regardless of whether the gate was
>locked or not?!

I think the law to which I referred was written to prevent kids from
drowning in swimming pools in unfenced, unlocked yards. It seems to
establish some culpability for the homeowner who constructs an
attractive nuisance without protecting the public from the danger it
may cause.

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:28:30 -0700, wrote
> in >::
>
>>or that if
>>you enter someone else's yard or home without their knowledge, YOU are
>>the one in the wrong for trespassing, regardless of whether the gate was
>>locked or not?!
>
> I think the law to which I referred was written to prevent kids from
> drowning in swimming pools in unfenced, unlocked yards. It seems to
> establish some culpability for the homeowner who constructs an
> attractive nuisance without protecting the public from the danger it
> may cause.
>
> In this case, it is unclear to me that the 14 year old is guilty of
> trespassing. The airport and aircraft were unlocked, and I have heard
> no mention of signs being posted.

He may not be guilty of trespassing, but he's certainly guilty of
unauthorized use of the airplane.

--Gary

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I think the law to which I referred was written to prevent kids from
> drowning in swimming pools in unfenced, unlocked yards. It seems to
> establish some culpability for the homeowner who constructs an
> attractive nuisance without protecting the public from the danger it
> may cause.

Understood and agreed.
However, suppose you have a gate that is locked, but an 8 yr-old gets a
boost and scales your 6-ft fence. Is the homeowner partially culpable
because his fence wasn't climb-proof? Where do you draw the line?

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

Right, I wasn't suggesting he was trespassing ... but can you say a 14
yr-old doesn't know or understand that he is NOT authorized to get into
an airplane that doesn't belong to him, start it up and fly away with it
just because the ignition key happens to be in it? True, it was careless
to leave the key in it, but at the same time, does there have to be a
sign on the ramp saying "unauthorized use of aircraft constitutes theft"
for it to BE theft?

Again, just getting back to absolute basics ... who over the age of 4
*doesn't* realize that taking a car or airplane or motorcycle that
*doesn't belong to you* *without the owner's knowledge* IS stealing even
if the key happens to be accessible to you, regardless of whether or not
you intended to keep it, give it away, sell it, or return it at some
unspecified later time/date?

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
> >> > "joyriding" had averse effect
> >>
> >> Evidence please?
> >>
> > Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for
that
> > reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
> > there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.
>
> But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
> effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature decided
to
> boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think that
the
> previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
been
> pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
> evidence.
>
Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) , I
fell no obligation to respond. I suggest you spend your own time researching
how auto thefts have changed on the past 20 or so years from "joyriding" to
profession car theft rings/chop shops, some even run but police officers.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:JyVte.121$Z.40@trndny05...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson
> > > wrote in <YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05>::
> >
> >>How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't
theft?
> >
> > I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in
> > California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must
> > have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for
> > creating an attractive nuisance.
>
> Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.
>

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

[Larry Dighera]

We are arguing two different aspects of culpability, I that of the
aircraft owner, and you that of the 14 year old. I accept your
argument; he committed a chargeable offence. But will the aircraft
owner be charged also for his contribution?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> We are arguing two different aspects of culpability, I that of the
> aircraft owner, and you that of the 14 year old. I accept your
> argument; he committed a chargeable offence. But will the aircraft
> owner be charged also for his contribution?
>
>

The airport won't for not keeping the gate locked.

Alabama Code...
Section 4-4-4
Municipal, etc., immunity from liability for negligence.
The construction, maintenance and operation of municipal airports is hereby
declared a public governmental function, and no action or suit shall be
brought or maintained against any municipality for or on account of the
negligence of such municipality or of its officers, agents, servants or
employees, in or about the construction, maintenance, operation,
superintendence or management of any municipal airport.

(Acts 1931, No. 136, p. 197; Code 1940, T. 4, §24.)

[W P Dixon]

Why buy them, if the store does not have them bolted to the floor it must
mean it is ok to take them!!!!!!! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:JyVte.121$Z.40@trndny05...
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson
>> > > wrote in <YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05>::
>> >
>> >>How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't
> theft?
>> >
>> > I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in
>> > California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must
>> > have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for
>> > creating an attractive nuisance.
>>
>> Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.
>>
>
> Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
>> effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature decided
> to
>> boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think that
> the
>> previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
> been
>> pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
>> evidence.
>>
> Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
> strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) , I
> fell no obligation to respond.

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

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

--Gary

[George Patterson]

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

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

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
> >> effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature
decided
> > to
> >> boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think
that
> > the
> >> previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
> > been
> >> pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
> >> evidence.
> >>
> > Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
> > strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) ,
I
> > fell no obligation to respond.
>
> Huh? You flatly asserted that "many states" a) found out that
distinguishing
> joyriding from theft had had an "adverse effect", and b) then revised
their
> laws accordingly.

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

[Matt Barrow]

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

Yes, but the bolts cause the balloons to leak.


> >>
> >> Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.
> >>
> >
> > Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....
> >
> >
>

[W P Dixon]

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

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Why buy them, if the store does not have them bolted to the floor it must
>> mean it is ok to take them!!!!!!! ;)
>>
>
> Yes, but the bolts cause the balloons to leak.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Huh? You flatly asserted that "many states" a) found out that
>> distinguishing joyriding from theft had had an "adverse effect",
>> and b) then revised their laws accordingly.
>
> Which is beyond the point that your extended three or four times
> so go play with yourself.

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

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the info,

Never knew that Norway was part of Germany ;-)

-Kees

[Matt Barrow]

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

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



>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Why buy them, if the store does not have them bolted to the floor it
must
> >> mean it is ok to take them!!!!!!! ;)
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but the bolts cause the balloons to leak.
> >
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Nah!! Just go buy 350,000 water balloons....
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Corky Scott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corky Scott

[Brooks Hagenow]

Robert Morien wrote:
> In article <v6Jse.13278$5s1.12355@trndny06>,
> George Patterson > wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Morien wrote:
>> >
>>
>>>aw, come on. How does a 14 year old without any flying experience manage
>>>to start an airplane, much less know how to control the throttle?
>>
>>The ignition switch works just like a car, which he's seen used thousands of
>>times. The throttle on a 152 is exactly like that on a farm tractor and is
>>clearly labeled. I'd bet he's either been given rides in aircraft or driven a
>>tractor.
>>
>
>
>
> In which case the story might have reflected on how easy it was for a 14
> year old to pick up the flying skills necessary just by watching someone
> else do the flying.
>
> But then again I'd bet the universe of 14 year olds that have driven a
> tractor is pretty small.


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

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