Things not to do while working on your private ticket...

Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on the
list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You can
draw your own conclusions.

"Mike" wrote in message
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on the
list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You can
draw your own conclusions.



Lucky that no one was killed.

Mike wrote:
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
the list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

I kind of wonder if he was even working on his private ticket, or just
flying outside of regs as usual.


-c

Mike wrote:
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
the list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
can draw your own conclusions.




From the report...

"The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."

No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it was
under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Mike wrote:
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
the list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
can draw your own conclusions.




From the report...

"The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."

No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it was
under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.


Why would they say it was under part 121?


And where does it say he was not operating under the provisions of 91?
If any regs were broken, and that is no tclear, it would have been 61 in
any case.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Mike wrote:
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
the list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
can draw your own conclusions.



From the report...

"The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."

No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it was
under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.


Why would they say it was under part 121?


And where does it say he was not operating under the provisions of 91?
If any regs were broken, and that is no tclear, it would have been 61 in
any case.

Bertie


Jeez Bertie it was a joke. 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.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Mike wrote:
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high
on the list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500.
You can draw your own conclusions.



From the report...

"The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91..."

No it wasn't. Hell they could really stick it to him and say it was
under part 121. He didn't have a certificate for that either.


Why would they say it was under part 121?


And where does it say he was not operating under the provisions of
91? If any regs were broken, and that is no tclear, it would have
been 61 in any case.

Bertie


Jeez Bertie it was a joke. 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.

Ah, OK. Well, you dtill don't know he didn't have a licence yet. Often
there's a bigger picture behind NTSB reports like that, which was the
subtle point i was making.

In any case, it's also not at all clear he did anything stupid as far as
his flying was concerned.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I just don't like seeing people lynched..





Bertie

"Mike" wrote:
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on
the list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
can draw your own conclusions.

The report lists the N-number and states that the non-certificated pilot is
also the owner. The aircraft number can be located in the FAA aircraft
database, which provides the owner name. The FAA license database can be
searched for the owner's name to see what, if any, certificates the owner
holds or held.

Bottom line appears to suggest:
The listed owner bought the aircraft in 2004 about a month prior to getting
a student pilot certificate. Doesn't appear to have gone past that stage. I
don't know if or how the database handles renewals so the owner might still
have a student license, though were that the case I assume the NTSB report
would have stated "student pilot" not "non-certificated" pilot.

"Mike" wrote in message
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
Taking off with your wife and daughter would have to be pretty high on the
list:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080731X01135

The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You can
draw your own conclusions.


Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion about the
certificate issue. There was plenty of runway for the conditions; so if
the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special purpose, and
the engine continued to run correctly we would all have none the wiser.

And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the same tail
number.

Peter

"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
m...


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