If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
"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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
"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 transferred in 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was issued 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 the plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and balance, density altitude, or any other pesky little detail. The full NTSB report should be even more interesting. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
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. There's probably a good chance of some type of state charges and the FAA may go after him on criminal charges as well. He was pretty stupid to speak to FSDO on the phone and should have let a lawyer handle it, but a guy like that can't be too smart to begin with. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
"gatt" wrote in message
... 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 I kind of wonder if he was even working on his private ticket, or just flying outside of regs as usual. My guess is he probably was just getting around to it and had full intentions of doing so, but it appears as if he was 2 years or so out of date on everything. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
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 transferred in 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was issued 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 the plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and balance, 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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
"buttman" wrote in message
... 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 transferred in 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was issued 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 the plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and balance, 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? Ah, what was I thinking? I'm sure he's a fine, capable airman with several hundred hours gained by only the very best decision making skills, and the fact that his student ticket expired two years ago, and he had no medical, and he was unauthorized to carry passengers (or himself for that matter) really only boils down to breaking only one rule and is simply a minor infraction caused most likely by a paperwork error by the FAA. Surely he had complete regard for all the REST of the rules, right? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
On Aug 5, 5:59*am, "Mike" wrote:
"buttman" wrote in message ... 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 transferred in 2004, so it's reasonable to assume the new owner (who at one time was issued 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 the plane either and possibly wasn't worried too much about weight and balance, 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? Ah, what was I thinking? *I'm sure he's a fine, capable airman with several hundred hours gained by only the very best decision making skills, and the fact that his student ticket expired two years ago, and he had no medical, and he was unauthorized to carry passengers (or himself for that matter) really only boils down to breaking only one rule and is simply a minor infraction caused most likely by a paperwork error by the FAA. *Surely he had complete regard for all the REST of the rules, right? Would you care to speculate that he'll claim to have kept proficient by flying his flight simulator Beech Barren? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
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, and motivation to fly illegally does not correlate with motivation to rape or murder. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Things not to do while working on your private ticket...
On Aug 5, 7:40*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Would you care to speculate that he'll claim to have kept proficient by flying his flight simulator Beech Barren? If he is willing and able to fly a real airplane without a license, why would he bother with simulation? Some here has told us repeatedly about the advantages of self stimulation -- ah, simulation -- in his otherwise barren life.Why would you think someone else would not want to experience the full richness of that, as well as flying as an uncredentialed pilot? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Private Aero L-39C Albatros everyone in cockpit working hard | Tom Callahan | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 26th 07 05:15 PM |
Things to do as a private pilot ? | [email protected] | Piloting | 49 | June 25th 06 06:16 PM |
WTB: 135 Ticket | AML | Piloting | 28 | May 26th 06 04:10 PM |
WTB:135 Ticket | AML | Owning | 1 | May 24th 06 08:41 PM |
WTB: 135 Ticket | AML | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | May 24th 06 03:32 PM |