FAA throws pilots under the Airbus

Robert Moore wrote:
brian whatcott wrote
Robert Moore wrote:
BTW, what is a "cove"? My "Webster's" doesn't seem to know either.
Cove: Old term in the English vernacular standing for 'fellow'
Refer to Wodehouse.

Yes Brian, I did already know due to my worldwide travels with PanAm,
and my British next door neighbors.
I was just yanking the chain of my very good personal friend, Ramapriya,
who does tend to us a lot of English words/phrases with which the
average American would be unfamiliar.

Bob Moore

Try this. http://www.hps.com/~tpg/ukdict/

Although Cove is not there. I used to travel to the UK often.


--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...
FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
revocation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html

Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
blemish on their lengthy records.

Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
publicity-wise.

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious*

Explain what makes it "bloody serious."

- they're idiots!

These alleged "idiots" have allegedly been flying for decades without
incident. If they _were_ "idiots" (rather than otherwise competent pilots
who made a bad mistake) wouldn't some responsibility fall on the FAA, or
the airlines that employed them? After all, those pilots have to get
periodic reviews of their piloting abilities. If the FAA and airlines
can't spot idiot pilots, they are the fools.

Do you think the FAA examiners who missed recognizing these "idiots"
should also face punitive action due to this incident?

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

Again - if they were fundamentally unable to fly due to being "idiots" -
whose fault is it that they managed to fly for so many years without
incident?

What makes you think an _emergency_ revocation of their certificates is
warranted? Why does it seem likely to you (or the FAA!) that they would
repeat this mistake rather than return to the allegedly incident-free
piloting of their previous decades of piloting?

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.

Speculation is free - so feel free to explain what you think happened.

They risked the lives of over 200 people. This isn't a couple guys in a
Cherokee missing their airport. This was serious stuff.

Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of control and
responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify any lesser remedial
action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should the FAA wait to act?

Why can't the cops take the bad guy directly to the electric chair and skip all that pesky courtroom stuff? That's the same question. Maybe there are mitigating circumstances, maybe not, but a suspension gets the pilots out of the sky immediately, so public safety is "protected", while allowing the system to function properly.

When you are charged by the FAA, you'll be really glad there is some forum to defend yourself.