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

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

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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..

The word on the street even before the prelim NTSB was the "pilot" involved
had bought his plane to get his ticket, but never did and even his student
ticket had expired.

"Mike" wrote in news:kkQlk.208$EL2.6@trnddc01:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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..

The word on the street even before the prelim NTSB was the "pilot"
involved had bought his plane to get his ticket, but never did and
even his student ticket had expired.


So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?


Bertie

Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy not
being able to keep the plane in the air.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


So that made the airplane fall out of the sky?


Bertie

Well in this case, it might have had something to do with the guy not
being able to keep the plane in the air.


Might being the operative word. In my experience, it's very unwise to point
a finger at another pilot's apparent error until you have all the facts.

Here's a case in point. When the prelim accounts of the Kegworth 737
accident came out nearly every pro pilot on earth either said straight out,
or privately thought, that these guys had made so fundamental a fjukup as
to defy belief. When all the results were in, all but the idiots realised
that anyone might have, and indeed, probably would have, made exactly the
same error...
To a lesser extent, the Air Florida accident is another one. There is more
BS talked about that accident than you'd find in a chicago cattle yard..
Most of that BS originates from the monday morning quarterbacking that took
place in the hours immediatly following the accident.

Bertie

Mike wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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..

The word on the street even before the prelim NTSB was the "pilot"
involved had bought his plane to get his ticket, but never did and even
his student ticket had expired.

Actually I did know he didn't have a license when I wrote that.

"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

Peter Dohm wrote:
"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




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?