On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwAXVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@supernews. com:



Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news:__6dndSb5erX5QrVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@supernews. com...

much snipped
* * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a license yet he went X-C to
* * * * * * * * * * pick
up his wife and child. He might get charged with child endangerment.
He would if I was the DA there.

IMHO, you are a Nazi, and therefore a major irritant!

Peter

I'm a NAZI because I think a person that puts their child and wife in
danger by flying them while legally and obviously actually unqualified
to do so should be charged with child endangerment?

I wouldn't say you're a nazi, but to say that a piece of paper makes
someone a good pilot is not what I'd call reason.
I read the preliminary reoprt and there is no indication that it was
pilot error. It might have been, but you've leapt well beyond what the
evidence suggests. You might well be right about it, and chances are
good, but a piece of paperis, of itself, meaningless.
And, as is often said, a private pilot's licence is a licence to learn.
It might also be aptly applied to any licence. I've seen ATRs, examiners
and people you would most definitely not expect to do so make even
bigger errors in judgement than that which you are accucing this guy.
A fully fueled 172 with three SOB taking off out of a 4,000 foot strip
with a 3,500 foot density altitude is not what could even remotely be
called a tight situation.

Bertie

The credentials document the subject had demonstrated some level of
competency to an examiner. This pilot did not do that. It does not
mean he was not Sire Dud in drag, but the way to bet is that he was a
doofus. That is was likely unlawful is a further assessment of his
lack of judgment.

Of course all would be forgiven if he stayed at a Holiday Inn last
night (playing MSFS of course).