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

"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

buttman wrote in
:

On Aug 4, 10:17*pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message

...



"Mike" wrote in message
newsgIlk.165$ZV1.149@trnddc07...
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.

Not much there to draw any conclusion from, beyond the assertion
about
the
certificate issue. *There was plenty of *runway for the conditions;
so if
the fuel was good, the prop was not repitched for some special
purpose, and the engine continued to run correctly we would all
have none the wiser.

And yes, am familiar with the model and vintage, although not the
same tail number.

Actually there's quite a bit. *The plane appears to have been
transferr
ed in
2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was
iss
ued
a student certificate) had attempted to gain a PP-SEL and never
completed
.
If you want to go down the road of conjecture, someone who has such a
blatant disregard for the FAR possibly didn't have a current annual
on th
e
plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and
balanc
e,
density altitude, or any other pesky little detail.

he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?


PKB


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

buttman writes:

he also probably raped his daughter and also most likely murdered a
few people as well. Because when you show willingness to break one
rule, there is no limit of what you're capable of, right?

A willingness to break one law does indeed correlate with a
willingness to break other laws. However, you also need motivation to
break a law,

Pretty juch makes you the most law abiding person to ever have lived.


Bertie

Jim Logajan wrote:
"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.

The report lists the N-number and states that the non-certificated pilot is
also the owner. The aircraft number can be located in the FAA aircraft
database, which provides the owner name. The FAA license database can be
searched for the owner's name to see what, if any, certificates the owner
holds or held.

Bottom line appears to suggest:
The listed owner bought the aircraft in 2004 about a month prior to getting
a student pilot certificate. Doesn't appear to have gone past that stage. I
don't know if or how the database handles renewals so the owner might still
have a student license, though were that the case I assume the NTSB report
would have stated "student pilot" not "non-certificated" pilot.


http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20...WS08/808030343

"The investigation into the crash of a Cessna 172 last weekend in the
Athens area raised the questions when the newspaper learned the pilot,
Paul Kaemmerling, of Liberty, does not hold any type of pilot
certification, though he owns an airplane.

“He had a student pilot certificate, but that expired May 31, 2006, so
he did not have any pilot certificate at the time of the crash,”
National Transportation and Safety Board Safety Investigator Jennifer
Kaiser said earlier in the week. "

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?

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.

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:

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?

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

On Aug 5, 10:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote innews:n4Kdnes90ILuwAXVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@supernews. com:



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

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?

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.

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

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