Favorite words of a new Lear 24 F/O

[ShawnC]

Though I agree that the pilots needed to be reported (thats the ATC's job), but it's not something to brag about.

Now the Learjet is a fine aerobatic plane though. Two years ago I saw one doing rolls and loops at Sun n Fun.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

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.

 

[350DRIVER]

You know what, I was making the point, that I thought that it was a maneuver that was way too close to the ground, the opinion about which was reiterated by 3 inspectors, two ATC controllers, and about 3-6 other ATP rated pilots that saw it while on the ground. The inspectors, as well as a couple of the other Lear pilots, that I talked with, each had over 1000 TT of LEAR TIME, and two had over 2500 TT in LEARS!

Key word, you thought it was a maneuver that was too close to the ground. I am sure you had the best view standing next to the runway and you knew the exact angle of climb, power setting, speed, etc,? riiiight (a tad of sarcasm injected). It is none of your business to go after pilots because of what "you thought" took place. If you like the FAA so much and have a hard on for em then by all means go and work there and then you can be a inspector. If something illegal did indeed take place then let the controllers initiate the action(s) against the pilots. How many people were injured or killed? That would be correct..

You know, furthermore, just because we are pilots, and they are FAA, I am frankly a little sick of the constant bitching and moaning in this forum about how the FAA are the bad guys. I have now worked on the side of the FAA, and yes, like every agency, they have their faults, and less than dynamic personalities,and they have come up with some doozies, in the enforcement realm. But, they have a job to do, I had a job to do. I investigated the legal basis and the merits of the investigation of the inspector, and suggested an appropriate sanction. Sometimes the final action was less than suggested, because it was a first time offense, or it was inadvertent. But, as long as they aren't arb and capricious in their enforcement, if you did something wrong, you should be sanctioned. THAT GOES FOR ME TOO!

I do not recall many on this board that refers to the FAA as the "bad guys", in fact some of my closest friends are inspectors and I personally have had nothing but pleasant and positive experiences with my dealings with the numerous fsdo's that I have come in contact with over the years.

I think you may be in the wrong career field. . . Your actions thus far have not moved me or swayed me in any other direction. Lighten up and keep the "emotions" from getting the better part of you.

3 5 0

 

[legaleagle]

Dizel, you are an ass. I sincerely hope that if I ever try this maneuver at 200 ft, I end up in your living room, and take you with me. That goes for all of you who think this guy was justified. What if your family was below this guy? You want him to try it?

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's throw sticks of dynamite around in your bedroom, and see if they go off? Sound like a good idea? Both dynamite and aircraft are safe in the right application, but hey, what the hell, let's see if we can play around the wrong way long enough, and make them explode!

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Oh, I must have missed the part of the Lear series of aircraft being utility category....that right 350drivr?

 

[legaleagle]

Actaully, 350 driver that is the idea of the FAA enforcement hotline. If you think something went wrong as a layman, you should report it, and let more experienced people figure it out. Second, I thought this was wrong because even at 4000fpm, how high are you after 1-2 seconds after takeoff. Get out your E6-B.

And for the other comment, I am not bragging, just trying to convey an example that hopefully won't be repeated. Don't worry, I won't do it again. God Bless!

 

[Snakum]

As of 4 months ago, I am the co-author of two authors on a new aviation law textbook that is being written as an updated treatise for United States Law schools, practitioners, and curious pilots.

Wow ... I'm impressed. I'll bet your little pecker was stiff all day when the teacher made you a hall monitor for the week.

Get a life .... putz.

Minh

 

[Jmmccutc]

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's throw sticks of dynamite around in your bedroom

i don't know about Dynamite, but the girl friend and i occasionally set of "fireworks" in the bedroom...

 

[Dizel8]

"that is the idea of the FAA enforcement hotline. If you think something went wrong as a layman."

The only problem with that, is that there are those inspectors that shoot first and ask question later. You are guilty until proven innocent. Even if you are exonerated, it has a tendency to follow you. Sadly, I know one or two people who faced the Feds, both won, but it was a long, tedious and uncomfortabel experience, with potential carreer ending results.

 

[legaleagle]

Minh,

Just answerin a man questionin my qualifications. Good luck with your flyin!

 

[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