On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:01:54 -0500, Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

D00dles, put that crack pipe down. Seriously, right now, put that
sonafabitch down, you're flying *high* alright.

For the Love Of God, D00dles, get professional help and I don't mean a
CFI.

Your posts are the electronic ejaculations of a eunuch.
But I do have some advice for you.

Over the years, letters to Dear Abby and Ann Landers have convinced us
that at least some domestic goddesses prefer performing their duties in
the nude. For those inclined to this state of undress, Ann recommends
wearing an apron while frying bacon.

It will keep you from fire-greasing your Pee(pee). lol
I'm in the flight safety business. My opinion on this matter reflects
ONLY that aspect of the incident and is not intended to reflect the
legal end of the equation. I drool so get my bucket ready.
For me, the answer is obvious. Had I been asked for input on what
transpired that input would directly address the fact that by
definition, this aircraft while in operation requires a pilot in
command at all times. In the flight safety context, this equates to no
action taking place concerning the operation of the aircraft that is
accomplished without the complete knowledge and consent of that pilot
in command. In other words, this aircraft was, at various times during
the progress of it's flight, NOT in control of the required decision
making process of BOTH the pilots in question AND the ATC on the
ground responsible for traffic separation. So **** 'em, the FAA burned
them without stakes adios cocksuckers.
For me, as a safety adviser, there is absolutely no argument with the
FAA action based on the safety issue. As I said, the legal issues are
another matter yet to be decided.I'll comment on that after I dump my
droolbucket.
Dudley Henriques