Favorite words of a new Lear 24 F/O

[Flywrite]

Someone mentioned that two professional pilots were screwed over by legaleagle...I would say they screwed themselves over for doing something stupid.

Also, the tone of this thread seems focused on what a (insert expletive here) legaleagle is for;

a. daring to report what he considered to be an unsafe operation, and

b. daring to consider himself qualified to judge whether a roll at 200 agl in a lear is safe or not.

With that observation in mind I would bet a sizable chunk of cash that if the lear pilot had smacked the ground during his little performance everyone would be saying that he was a complete dumba$$ who had taken innocent lives and further hurt the public's perception of aviation.

 

[legaleagle]

Dizel, I agree that some I's are overzealous. That is the downside of the system. But, it's an adversarial system and you or your attorney should be able to trim it down, if it is excessive.

 

[ShawnC]

Someone mentioned that two professional pilots were screwed over by legaleagle...I would say they screwed themselves over for doing something stupid.

Also, the tone of this thread seems focused on what a (insert expletive here) legaleagle is for;

a. daring to report what he considered to be an unsafe operation...

There is a difference between reporting it and practically bragging about it on flightinfo.com (a publicly accessible board).

Heck I think these two should receive a violation.

 

[Dizel8]

But that is the problem, that it is adversarial. It seems silly, if one has done nothing wrong, that one has to hire an attorney. That to me means, that something is wrong with the way the FAA views their objective.

They tried the kinder, friendlier, we are here to help, but it lasted shorter than an icecub in the Sahara. They often fail to realize, that we are in this together, they could learn a lot from the interaction between pilots and ATC.

If a pilot does something wrong, like say bust altitude, does it make sense to revoke his license for 30 days? IMHO the answer is no, but that is a typical response from the Feds. What the Feds should be truly concerned about is willful and intentional, that implies a problem of a much larger nature.

It is interesting to note, that NASA set up the ASR system, because while operational probelms do exist in the system, pilots and ATC personnel were unwilling to approach the FAA, because of the FAA's often unnecessarily heavy handed approach.

 

[legaleagle]

Dizel,

You are right, willful and intentional are penalized MUCH MORE HEAVILY. Inadvertant and 1st time are given leniency. Also, how are you going to encourage someone not to do it again? Ajudication needs some downside to be effective. The FAA is not authorized to fine pilots with money. Furthermore, the problem is that the FAA has dual duties, it is an investigative and an enforecement agency. The dual edged sword of many federal and state adminstrative agencies. It is there for the public's safety, but everytime they enforce, every one cries foul. It is there job to anticipate safetry related issues, and deal with them retroactively. BTW, which is more effective, fining a pilot $500 or suspending his license? I agree that an analysis needs to be done in order to update this. Perhaps commercially rated pilots (even non-revenue earning) are fined, so that they don't lose their livelihood, and commercial and below are subject to certificate actions in the form of suspensions.

Finally, as for the adversarial, the entire American legal system is based on the opportunity to be heard, due process, and facing your accuser. This includes FAA, and common law criminal, civil, etc. The FAA will not get away with what is unjust in the longrun.

 

[dmspilot00]

Originally posted by Dizel8 It is interesting to note, that NASA set up the ASR system, because while operational probelms do exist in the system, pilots and ATC personnel were unwilling to approach the FAA[/B]

Actually, it was the FAA that set up the ASRS; they merely chose NASA as a third party to collect the data and to help maintain confidentiality. But the reason it was set up was indeed the fact that people were unwilling to approach the FAA.

Did they actually used to always say they were "here to help?" A kindler, friendlier FAA--was that George Bush Senior's idea? (That one's just a rhetorical question.)

 

[Snakum]

With that observation in mind I would bet a sizable chunk of cash that if the lear pilot had smacked the ground during his little performance everyone would be saying that he was a complete dumba$$ who had taken innocent lives and further hurt the public's perception of aviation.

Hmmm .... I hadn't considered that. I think I mainly just hate lawyers and I'm taking it out on him.

Sorry Legal ...

Minh

 

[legaleagle]

Minh,

No problem dude. I hate them because they have made insurance premiums and operating costs outrageous in the U.S. Most people hate them because they bill too high. But, as one who just spent $160,000 on law school in the Beantown, and am spending another $10k just to take the California Bar in July, which will allow me to do nothing more than give me the opportunity to find an aviation law job where I can defend pilots, operators, and airports, I hope that I can recoup some of that.

 

[lymanm]

...

Just a technicality, but I would have thought the Lear 24 would have a better climbout rate than 4000 fpm after holding it over the deck for the entire runway length... Anyone able to comment?

 

[uavchaser]

you better pass your test and hurry up and get that aviation law job. how else are you gonna pay your dad back that $170,000. sure the pilot was stupid for letting everyone see but you should be happy, or else we probably wouldn't need an avaition lawyer like yourself.

what a douche

 

[legaleagle]

UAV chaser,

It was my money bro, and $100k in loans. Kiss my ass. Man, you, know what, I posted what I thought might be a constructive thought in the forum directed at no one in particular, and what do I get? I get a bunch of discontent, angry, poor, f)(*ed up people probably working at DQ during their furlough. I have $100k in loans, and I am as poor as they get. But, you know what? I respect people who work very hard, and furthermore, those who don't complain, and try to belittle others to compensate for their f*&ked up lives. So, if you have some issue with me, which you couldn't, because none of you know me, then come up to Boston, and let's work it out face to face. You people sit behind these screennames scratching your balls waiting for your next job or student, and just hammer away at people, even those with constructive questions in the training and FAR sections. Maybe sitting at your desk jacking off has made you anti-social.
Other than defending myself, I have not personally attacked anyone. What the f*(& have you stooges done in life that makes you worthy of personally attacking me?

God I hope you don't ever break a law even inadvertently, sell a house, get married, make a will, buy insurance, get sued, get married, get divorced (which seems like the greatest likelihood based on some of your attitudes), violate a reg, etc., otherwise you will be f(*&ed if you continue this bull*()t against attorneys. It is a profession. I respect the profession of being a pilot, as I am one, and I would expect the same from you with regard to attorneys. Of the people that keep spewing the BS, have you ever had a bad experience with an attorney? I am assuming that you are just perpetuating the unfortunate jokes. How about A-rod making $250 MILLION, a QUARTER OF BILLION DOLLARS. That is like $95k an at bat. I don't hear much criticism there.
My guess is that you won't feel that way when you need an attorney. Then it will all be tears as you cry in their lap asking them to save your butt.

Those of you that antagonize my soon to be profession are losing credibility quickly.

P.S. For those of you who use this site on a hour by hour basis, day after day, have you contributed to the site when they ask for donations? Based on the stats, most of you loudmouth f(*&ups haven't ponied up, but you are the most vocal segment here. I have $100k in law loans, no income, and no family money added to the pot (not because it wasn't there, but because I am 30, and I didn't want to borrow from my parents). I ponied up, so put up or shut up.

Happy flying!

 

[legaleagle]

lymann, even if it was 6000 fpm, what is 6000/60*2-4 sec? And he was not vertical, he probably had a 15-20 degree pitch at best.

 

[CatYaaak]

I will tell you this, if my wife or g/f had been one of the nurse's on board, those two would have had another air ambulance ride.. in the back.

Same here, ATR.

I can't understand those of you jumping on Legal just because he saw this freakin' idiot's obviously dangerous antics (pax on board, and over populated area) and followed his conscious. If indeed they rolled their Lear just after takeoff from Hanscom, the notion that he has to have "X" amount of hours to make a judgement on this is ludicrous.

If you're sitting in a school parking lot waiting for your kid and some idiot comes careening through it at 100+ mph, do you say to yourself "Oh gee, that MIGHT be a bad thing but you know I didn't have a radar gun with me and besides cops are really the only ones who can make a judgement on whether it was legal or dangerous". Do you lose the right to make that value judgement if the one behind the wheel is say, Dale Earnhardt Jr, and you have zero race-speed driving hours? ("Well, Dale thought it was OK to race through your kid's school, so who are YOU to say any differently?"). The regs regarding aerobatic flight are DEFINITELY ones that are written in blood...pilot's blood, unknowing passenger blood, and some blood of those sitting on the ground. Do they have to be overwritten time and time again?

"What the airplane can do" is competely irrelavent in this case, it's about an INTENTIONAL act of incredibly bad judgement, and even the best professional aerobatic pilots aren't immune to fatal accidents, let alone immature wannabe's like this....they splash with great regularity. I've spent more than an average share of my flight time upside down, doing aerobatics for fun, but when I go to work I'm paid and entrusted with the equipment and lives to fly like the company wants me to unless it were to run afoul of the Regs you operate under.

If the crew wants to risk killing themselves on their own time fine...nobody cares except for perhaps a few "tut tuts"...but having a pilot's certificate or flying job does NOT make them above-reproach saints, or give them the right to bring others with them into a smokin' hole or create one in someone's living room while they get their ya ya's out.

For those of you thinking Legal's being a "taddler" or "sanctimonious", I can only assume you'd watch the display and let it go. What then if next month, or year, this same pilot winds up killing a few innocent people when one of those CJ-610s sh1ts the bed during his "show off to the female F/O takeoff", or just has a bad day? When the story comes out, like it or not, a$$holes like this not only destroy lives and equipment, they help destroy the reputation of our profession. YOUR profession! They give credence to any anti-airport NIMBY group out there. As aviation professionals, I'd think you'd do better to censure this no-brain crew than trying to lambast the Messenger.

 

[TopGun-MAV]

how does a lear 24 compare to a beech 1900? i heard that if you loose an engine on takeoff (a V1 cut as we call them at the airlines) its no big deal?

maverick

 

[legaleagle]

Cat,

Thank you, and thank you to those who are voicing some constructive criticism from the flight community itself. I can't imagine why this post has turned into a pilot vs. attorney thing. I am a commercial pilot as well, and earned it with my own money. It took three years.

Thanks again!