TV Interview With Pilot From ADIZ Incident

"Peter R." wrote in message
ups.com...
Robert wrote:

What a total waste of life.

Not too strong of a statement, is that?

I doubt very much his family and friends think he is a waste of life.
His piloting skills are obviously questionable, as well as the fact
that he is not admitting any responsibility (thanks, no doubt, to that
high priced lawyer sitting next to him in the interview), but to say he
is a total waste of life is just a bit over the top, no?

Agree with Peter. The guy doesn't deserve to be a pilot anymore, but
Robert's statement is a little bit too much.
It's pretty lame that he did not admit his responsibility, definitely!
He should have said "yea, i was irresponsible, and I overlooked a very
important aspect in my flight planning". Doesn't make him a better pilot,
but at least would show that he is a human being who recognizes his
mistakes.

On 24 May 2005 13:26:09 -0700, "Peter R." wrote:

Robert wrote:

What a total waste of life.

Not too strong of a statement, is that?

I doubt very much his family and friends think he is a waste of life.
His piloting skills are obviously questionable, as well as the fact
that he is not admitting any responsibility (thanks, no doubt, to that
high priced lawyer sitting next to him in the interview), but to say he
is a total waste of life is just a bit over the top, no?

I got the distinct impression that the lawyer was the one that
orchestrated the interview. One certainly could not confuse Matt
Lauer with Chris Matthews.
Rich Russell

"suspension".... now there's something that really ****es me off. 1 year
suspension.

I think it should be a life time permanent revocation never able to apply
for a certificate of any kind ever again even after your dead for freaking
EVER!

....and the same thing for any CFI, DE, FSDO Inspector, or pilot/attorney
that tries to help this guy get his certificate back.

Jim

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
"suspension".... now there's something that really ****es me off. 1 year
suspension.

I think it should be a life time permanent revocation never able to apply
for a certificate of any kind ever again even after your dead for freaking
EVER!

...and the same thing for any CFI, DE, FSDO Inspector, or pilot/attorney
that tries to help this guy get his certificate back.

They are going to appeal because the supension is way longer than others.
Now that is ****ed up. If I had done that, and had gotten only a one year
suspension, I'd be more than willing to accept that and be very happy about
it.
About the student pilot, I don't really know how he didn't think about that
either. 30 hours is not that little. At least he learned a valuable lesson
without having any suspension (which couldn't be done anyways because he
didnt have any responsibility)

Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been pilots.
Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC, and
I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight (who
is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?

g

"Guillermo" wrote

Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been
pilots.
Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC, and
I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight
(who
is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?

It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the student is
just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would be
in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
regs, aren't they?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Guillermo" wrote

Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been
pilots.
Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC,
and
I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight
(who
is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?

It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the student
is
just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would be
in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
regs, aren't they?
--
Jim in NC

Anybody can manipulate the controls and just because you are manipulating
the controls does not mean you are PIC.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Guillermo" wrote

Now, I wonder what would have happened in case both people had been
pilots.
Will they suspend both? Technically only one of the pilots is the PIC,
and
I've been told that it is a good idea to agree on that before a flight
(who
is the PIC), but I wonder who would they charge in that case?

It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the student
is
just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would be
in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
regs, aren't they?

Where does it say that the PIC has to be manipulating the controls?
Student cannot be PIC, but can manipulate the controls, right?

Morgans wrote:

It seems to me that charges could also be filed, for letting a non pilot
manipulate the controls. Since the 70 year old is not a CFI, the student is
just the same as a non pilot, and if he (the student) was PIC, he would be
in violation for taking a passenger with him. Both of these are against
regs, aren't they?

The student cannot carry passengers and so cannot serve as PIC. There is no reg
against allowing non-pilots to manipulate the controls.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Guillermo wrote:

If I had done that, and had gotten only a one year
suspension, I'd be more than willing to accept that and be very happy about
it.

I'm with you. In fact, if I ever screwed up that badly, I would give some
serious thought to just hanging it up.

About the student pilot, I don't really know how he didn't think about that
either. 30 hours is not that little.

Maybe. We don't know the circumstances of his training or how far along he got.
Due to problems getting a medical certificate, I didn't even solo until I had
over 40, and he may be in the same boat. Last time I heard, the average number
of hours to get a PPC was over 70. It's quite possible that he knew nothing
about Xcountry flight planning and just followed along with the planning that
Schaeffer was doing.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Recently, George Patterson posted:

Guillermo wrote:

If I had done that, and had gotten only a one year
suspension, I'd be more than willing to accept that and be very
happy about it.

I'm with you. In fact, if I ever screwed up that badly, I would give
some serious thought to just hanging it up.

Even after they send you the bill for fueling the 2 F-16s, Citation, and
Blackhawk? ;-)

About the student pilot, I don't really know how he didn't think
about that either. 30 hours is not that little.

Maybe. We don't know the circumstances of his training or how far
along he got. Due to problems getting a medical certificate, I didn't
even solo until I had over 40, and he may be in the same boat. Last
time I heard, the average number of hours to get a PPC was over 70.
It's quite possible that he knew nothing about Xcountry flight
planning and just followed along with the planning that Schaeffer was
doing.

Hmm. Doesn't one have to know *something* about x/c planning to pass the
PPC written? Granted, there may be little or no practical experience by 30
hrs., but I'm getting the impression that my training was far too
rigorous!!! ;-)

Neil