"Flying too High" by Steven Pomper

Skylune wrote:

I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting that
standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
brainer.

Only if the same is required for your driver's license.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"All your base are belong us!!"

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" plucked another fig (after all,
he IS the Fig Plucker's son), wet the bed and scribbled incoherently:

Who administered the breath test to the pilot?

I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting that
standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
brainer.

I would be happy to take the pee test, if "Skyloser" acts as the
receptacle! We already have the drug test when we get our medical.

The only no-brainers I have seen in this NG are "Skyloser," "jgrove" and
Bill Mulcahy.

BTW "Skyloser" is such a loser that he can't even copy my name right.
No wonder he washed out of pilot school!

Skylune wrote:

True, you cannot legislate common sense, and Boyer really likes to muddy
the waters.

The problem isn't legislating common sense, it's enforcing it.

Saying that people drive drunk, or drive or fly drunk too
does not change anything). Besides, I have seen boaters and auto drivers
being given sobriety checks when they were pulled over. How often does
that happen with pilots?

If alcohol were a factor in only 1% of automobile accidents, there
probably wouldn't be any DWI laws. That's the average statistic for GA.

-cwk.

wrote in message
oups.com...

If alcohol were a factor in only 1% of automobile accidents, there
probably wouldn't be any DWI laws. That's the average statistic for GA.

-cwk.


It's around 50% for automobile accidents and near 0% for aircraft accidents.

Dave Stadt wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

If alcohol were a factor in only 1% of automobile accidents, there
probably wouldn't be any DWI laws. That's the average statistic for GA.

It's around 50% for automobile accidents and near 0% for aircraft accidents.

Around 25% of statistics are BS. About another 25% aren't relevant to
the conversation their brought into. The other 50% are made up.

(-:


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish
thing."
-- Bertrand Russell

The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can fly legally
(LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night in hazy conditions,
unsupervised. This is a fact

I don't think it's appropriate to disparage the deceased, I don't think
the guy was a moron - he just made a bad decision that had tragic
results.

As long as the visibility is 3 miles with a 1000' ceiling, yes you can
fly "unsupervised" at night. Few would attempt VFR flight in those
conditions, and that's where the poor judgement came into play.

"Skylune" wrote:
The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can
fly legally (LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night
in hazy conditions, unsupervised. This is a fact.

He was not a moron, but rather a Kennedy, and Kennedys are people
who must succeed. He was well aware he lacked the skills for this,
but pressed on as Kennedys must. Read the NTSB carefully, and see
the lack of self-confidence, like how he had an instructor with him
on almost all his cross-country trips, on even nice days, and
despite having over 300 hours. Does any pilot here know somebody
who does this? Imagine also how none of his instructors may have
had the courage to tell him, or Uncle Ted, he's a failure at this.
FAA thus need not tighten the rules because of such an
extraordinary case.

Fred F.

TaxSrv wrote:

He was not a moron, but rather a Kennedy, and Kennedys are people
who must succeed. He was well aware he lacked the skills for this,
but pressed on as Kennedys must. Read the NTSB carefully, and see
the lack of self-confidence, like how he had an instructor with him
on almost all his cross-country trips, on even nice days, and
despite having over 300 hours. Does any pilot here know somebody
who does this?

Most people like this don't have the Kennedy money, so they quit and
troll around Usenet groups providing sage wisdom to dumb pilots.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Suddenly, Dr. Frankenstein realized he had left his brain in San
Francisco."
-- The Far Side, Gary Larson

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can fly legally
(LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night in hazy conditions,
unsupervised.

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take responsibility
for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to see and avoid
visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were entirely adequate for
visual separation.

Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a *VFR*
skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic private-pilot
curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes for granted the
basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on the details of en
route and approach procedures.

As with any other aspect of flying, it's possible for a pilot who hasn't
done it enough (and recently enough) to be less than adequately proficient
at it. Pilots have a responsibility is to assess the recency of their
experience and their current proficiency at various tasks, including the
task of flying at night with marginal visibility.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.


Is it? Then what's the purpose in IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?