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

gatt writes:

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.

Learning makes you a good pilot; getting training does not.

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.

Yup. Like all those unlicensed pilots in Alaska.

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

For the record the ONLY error in judgment I'm accusing this guy of is
flying without a license and specifically doing it with his wife and
child aboard.

That's not an error in judgement, it's just illegal.

writes:

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.

How do you know what training he has or has not undergone?

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.

As well as licensed pilots who, despite having managed to pass the tests,
still don't know how to fly safely.

The PICs lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?

Yes. Unfortunately speculation isn't fact.

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.

Why did JFK crash? He was a licensed pilot, after all, so he should not have
crashed.

More_Flaps wrote:
On Aug 6, 2:02 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
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?

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

It does as far as the law is concerned.

writes:

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.

Once they have broken a law and gotten away with it, there are fewer
psychological obstacles to breaking other laws.

nobody writes:

We know you have no motivation to fly (legally or illegally),
but that has no correlate with motivation to rape.

I don't recall saying that I have _no_ motivation to fly.

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

So if a student pilot crashes in his solo flight no pilots were involved

Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:


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.

Learning makes you a good pilot; getting training does not.

Not interested in peanut-gallery flight training philosophy from
somebody who's never even tried flight training. But, thanks anyway.


-c

Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote:
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?).
Icing on departure? Ummm, itsn't that the least likely case?

Well, consider:
Symptom was lack of power, not total loss of power, so fuel starvation
seems unlikely. Pilot claimed he did preflight and runup after fueling, so
carburetor icing seems to be a reasonable guess.

On this page about the subject,
http://whitts.alioth.net/Pagea9Carbu...and%20Heat.htm
Gene Whitt states that "Carburetor icing during takeoff is not as rare as
some would like to believe."

On Aug 5, 5:04*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
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.

How do you know what training he has or has not undergone?

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.

As well as licensed pilots who, despite having managed to pass the tests,
still don't know how to fly safely.

The PICs lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?

Yes. *Unfortunately speculation isn't fact.

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.

Why did JFK crash? *He was a licensed pilot, after all, so he should not have
crashed.

Read the NTSB report re JFK Jr -- in fact I think you have, so why are
you asking this question?