DC pilots (update)

"PPT33R" wrote in message
oups.com...
Every time there is some legislation up with potential impact on their
members, the NRA sends phone messages, emails, etc. Even if only a
percentage of members take action, the results are quite effective.

Which has resulted in a *slow* erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights instead
of a *fast* erosion... Which part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they not
understand? We have ONE TRUE GUN LAW -- "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... The
other thousand or so that came afterwards are totally unconstitutional and
shoudl not be obeyed, much less inforced... The cops who inforce them are no
different morally than the death camp guards in WWII... They tried using the
excuse of "just doing my job... just following orders"... It didn't work at
Nuremburg and it shouldn't work now...

"PPT33R" wrote in message
oups.com...
Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.

It probably has something to do with the fact that gun owners KNOW that they
have an inalienable right to bear arms and nothing some scum sucking lawyer
of a politician will be able to do to take away that right no matter what
laws they try to pass... It is our firm belief that if the law is morally
wrong, we do not have a duty to follow that law...

Pilots on the other hand (for the most part) have been brainwashed into
thinking that they do not have flying RIGHTS, rather a LICENSE from the
government... As such, it can be taken away on whatever whim might afflict
the government at that time... This sort of mentality also leads them into a
belief that they shouldn't complain too loudly else the FAA might take
notice of them and deem them unfit to be a *licensed* pilot anymore... If
they considered it a *right*, they would still continue to fly regardless of
what some petty bureaucrat with the FAA might say...

Grumman-581 wrote:

"PPT33R" wrote in message
oups.com...

Unforatunately, I don't meet many aircraft owners and pilots with the
same degree of passion about protecting their freedoms, and would be
willing to make calls and send notes to their congressional reps.


It probably has something to do with the fact that gun owners KNOW that they
have an inalienable right to bear arms and nothing some scum sucking lawyer
of a politician will be able to do to take away that right no matter what
laws they try to pass... It is our firm belief that if the law is morally
wrong, we do not have a duty to follow that law...

Pilots on the other hand (for the most part) have been brainwashed into
thinking that they do not have flying RIGHTS, rather a LICENSE from the
government... As such, it can be taken away on whatever whim might afflict
the government at that time... This sort of mentality also leads them into a
belief that they shouldn't complain too loudly else the FAA might take
notice of them and deem them unfit to be a *licensed* pilot anymore... If
they considered it a *right*, they would still continue to fly regardless of
what some petty bureaucrat with the FAA might say...

Yes, unfortunately aviation didn't exist when the constitution was being
authored. :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

That would help also, but they could be better are organizing their
existing members.

Good point. Sending out pre-addressed postcards for members to send to
congresscritters is a good tactic that AOPA should adopt.

I got interviewed when I flew in to AOPA Expo in Philadelphia. The guy asked for
one thing that I felt that AOPA should do that they aren't. I told him that they
seem to be scared to point fingers at people in Washington. If someone adds an
amendment to a bill that the NRA doesn't like, the entire membership finds out
about it, including the identity of the author of the amendment. AOPA seems to
be scared of crossing anyone in Washington. They'll mention the amendment, but
they won't tell you who sponsored it.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Gary,

What evidence is there as to what he did or didn't do?


The plane flew where it flew.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
What evidence is there as to what he did or didn't do?

The plane flew where it flew.

For the reasons I already enumerated, that's not good evidence as to the
student-pilot passenger's actions or competence. The passenger could've just
been taking a nap, which wouldn't have been improper. Or he could've been
making correct navigational suggestions that the PIC didn't follow. Or even
if the passenger tried to help navigate but was lost too, there's no
evidence that he'd reached the point in his training where he should be
expected to navigate reliably; we don't know if he'd even been signed off
for solo cross-country flight yet.

It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly responsible
for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the passenger's
current training. Fortunately, the FAA and AOPA are being fair-minded about
it--they're strongly criticizing the PIC, but praising the passenger.

--Gary

Gary,

It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly responsible
for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the passenger's
current training


While that may be so, I think it is still within the realm of the warranted to
call both guys idiots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly
responsible
for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the passenger's
current training

While that may be so, I think it is still within the realm of the
warranted to
call both guys idiots.

How is the passenger an idiot for lacking a specialized skill that he may
not even have been trained for yet?

And you still haven't explained how you arrived at the conclusion that the
passenger *didn't* make correct navigational suggestions that the PIC may
have disagreed with and disregarded. Or how you concluded that the passenger
wasn't just doing something else, such as scanning for traffic or taking a
nap, instead of navigating.

Do you assume that your passengers will monitor your navigation when you
fly? Do you call them idiots if they don't?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly
responsible
for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the
passenger's
current training

While that may be so, I think it is still within the realm of the
warranted to
call both guys idiots.

How is the passenger an idiot for lacking a specialized skill that he may
not even have been trained for yet?

And you still haven't explained how you arrived at the conclusion that the
passenger *didn't* make correct navigational suggestions that the PIC may
have disagreed with and disregarded. Or how you concluded that the
passenger wasn't just doing something else, such as scanning for traffic
or taking a nap, instead of navigating.

Do you assume that your passengers will monitor your navigation when you
fly? Do you call them idiots if they don't?


I'm with Gary on this one. On the one hand you have a pilot who has had a
certificate since 1969. On the other hand you have a student pilot which
could be anything from he just stopped by the AME and took the physical up
to he was going for his check ride that day.

This was 100% the error of the PIC. The student had no more responsibility
for this flight than me in the back of a 747 which is limited to if I see
the wing is on fire I should probably mention it to the Stew, but I'm under
no legal obligation to do so.

Gig

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
newsb4ie.3093$DC2.2986@okepread01...
This was 100% the error of the PIC. The student had no more responsibility
for this flight than me in the back of a 747 which is limited to if I see
the wing is on fire I should probably mention it to the Stew, but I'm
under no legal obligation to do so.

Well, to be fair to Thomas, he's not claiming the passenger had any legal
obligation. He's just saying the passenger was an idiot. It would certainly
be idiotic to fail to mention that the wing is on fire.

But that's precisely why that's not a good analogy. Noticing that the wing
is on fire does not require any special effort by the passenger, nor any
special training. But noticing that the plane is off course *does* require a
deliberate effort; and doing it successfully requires more training than the
student passenger may yet have had at his reported 30 hours. And Thomas has
yet to explain how he even concluded that the passenger did *not* correctly
advise the PIC.

--Gary