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

gatt wrote in news:236kdo.i58.19.1
@integratelecom.com:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

"Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good lesson.

Oh, noooo..... Who wants to bet that the sim jockey is going to make
Bertie regret writing that? :

I would submit that getting the training required to earn a license
makes you safer than somebody who bought an airplane and took it flying.


Yep.

But, who knows. He might have had hundreds of hours of endorsed solo
flight and simply never taken the checkride, and flown hundreds of
unregulated hours snce then.

Exactly. in general, i agree wiht the sentiment, but to dismiss it as the
cause of the accident, and backpedal though they may, that is exactly what
they were doing, is to be as stupid as they suppose this guy to be.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:


A willingness to break one law does indeed correlate with a willingness to
break other laws.

Utter nonsense.

Normal, socialized people break laws they concider to be unreasonable,
as in the 55 MPH speed limit, the laws against aiding escaped slaves
of the 19th century, and Prohibition of the 20th century.

Abnormal, unsocialized people don't pay attention to any laws.

Your generalizations, as usual, are crap.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

First of all, in this case a "pilot" wasn't involved to begin with.

Next, I very clearly stated the facts and even instructed the readers to
draw their own conclusions. Any conjecture on my part was clearly stated as
such to anyone approaching full literacy.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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

Bertie,

These are both truly outstanding examples, and your entire position on this
thread has been far better than my mere expression of annoyance. However, I
do plan to take a break from posting to usenet.

Peter

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-


Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.


you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?



What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
accident.

No it's not. My name is in my e-mail address.

On Aug 6, 2:02*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
om...

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?

He may be legally unqualified but that does not _automatically_ mean
he was any less capable as a 172 pilot than any other. Certification
does not increase skill levels...

Cheers

On Aug 6, 3:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



On Aug 5, 10:37*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:4c9c7f43-25bf-4b2a-890b-88f57b2efb41@d77g2
000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote
innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwA
:

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

much snipped
* * * * * * * * * * The guy didn't have a lice
nse
*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.

I agree that it's likely. but it's not proven by any means. In any
case, even a dufus should be able to get a 172 out of a long strip
even on a high DA day.
The 172 was designed with the dufus in mind.
My real objection to this is that the paper is, in of itself, no
gauruntee against idiocy. Lots of pilots at every level are complete
morons. The two things that grate me about this sort of monday
morning quarterbacking in the absence of almost any sort of facts are
these. One, you're hanging the guy without due process, which is
geting altogether too commonplace in this day and age, and secondly,
and more imprtantly. the oportunity to learn something from the
accident is lost. "Get a licence and you'll be safer" is not a good
lesson.

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

Demonstrating some level of competence to a disinterested examiner is,
however, a good lesson. Otherwise one becomes a self professed expert
-- does Anthony come to mind?

I'm not arguing that. You're implying its the underlying cause of the
accident, either intentionally or not. It may be, but to dismiss it as
such this early in the investigation is to close your mind and that is
just about never in the interest of promoting a better approach to
flying.


I thought the report said the engine lost power?

Cheers

On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-

Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?

What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
accident.

I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he was
a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation contributed
to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
area -suggesting some skill doncha think?

Cheers

On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-

Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?

What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
accident.

I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he was
a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation contributed
to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
area -suggesting some skill doncha think?

Cheers

It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
undergone PPL training. Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane. The PICs
lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?

Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks like
one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
obvious.

I'm sure there's much more to be learned, but this is not an accident
review board, it's the 'net. The interesting thing of course is even
in the face of whatever of objective evidence is found, some of us
will stick to our own conclusions. Why let facts intrude?

.

On Aug 6, 8:41*am, wrote:
On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps wrote:



On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-

Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself would
violation of the child endangerment laws of most states? Not much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?

What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in an
accident.

I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he was
a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation contributed
to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a controlled crash
landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine loss over a wooded
area -suggesting some skill doncha think?

Cheers

It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
undergone PPL training.

He must have had PPL training. He did not take a flight test tho' and
I'm not sure a PPL would have stopped an engine failure (even icing
induced?).

Cheers