Steve O1?

Baronman said:
Steveo1Kinevo has stated at least in the past that he's not interested in airline flying. Can't say I blame him, it looks like he has a nice gig.
Click to expand...
It's a pretty common line. Some probably really mean it, but I suspect most who utter it do so precisely because they are not currently flying for an airline.
 
Crop Duster said:
It's a pretty common line. Some probably really mean it, but I suspect most who utter it do so precisely because they are not currently flying for an airline.
Click to expand...

Sure some. But watching his videos and having sent him an email or two I don't think this applies to him. (He's got Saab 340 time by the way.) Watch a few of his videos and he's clearly a capable pilot (and good dude). Unless he has some crazy DWI record I don't know of, he could be at any number of airlines right now.
 
Hacker15e said:
Oh, no kidding? Yeah, thanks, I could tell that, but that's not at all the point.

The point was that perspectives change as we move through life. Stevo may decide that Watermakers Air isn't his jam someday, and may want a different lifestyle regardless of how he sees it today.
Click to expand...

The point appeared to be that eventually we all want to be airline pilots. But thanks for the life lesson.
 
Baronman said:
Sure some. But watching his videos and having sent him an email or two I don't think this applies to him. (He's got Saab 340 time by the way.) Watch a few of his videos and he's clearly a capable pilot (and good dude). Unless he has some crazy DWI record I don't know of, he could be at any number of airlines right now.
Click to expand...
I have zero knowledge of the guy and was not commenting on anyone in particular.
 
And of course, not everyone really wants it. I've personally known three pilots who initially too the airline route and quit. In two cases, they decided the initial years of low pay were not worth the possible long term reward, in another case, it was more than 20 years ago before the pay scale won't to hell. In his case, it was the potential for lots of time away from home. When I asked why he simply told me, "I needed to decide whether I wanted to be an airline pilot or a Dad. I decided on being a Dad."
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
What's this Alaska Airlines reference?
Click to expand...
It's a case, actually one of 2 cases in which an Alaska Airlines pilot flew a right base to a nontowered airport. The pilot's defense was that it was far enough out to be outside the normal traffic pattern and essentially a right turn to a straight in approach. The cases are often cited for the proposition that anything within 6 miles of the airport is in the traffic pattern; others say is really stands more for the proposition that the size of a traffic pattern depends on the airplane involved. Either way you want to read them, though, it's pretty clear the left turn rule applies to nontowered airports that don't have a tower, operating or not.

Only one of the cases, FAA v Boardman, is available on the NTSB website. The one that talks more extensively about the issue, Rivard, is discussed in Boardman but is just old enough to be outside the group collected on the public site.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
It's a case, actually one of 2 cases in which an Alaska Airlines pilot flew a right base to a nontowered airport. The pilot's defense was that it was far enough out to be outside the normal traffic pattern and essentially a right turn to a straight in approach. The cases are often cited for the proposition that anything within 6 miles of the airport is in the traffic pattern; others say is really stands more for the proposition that the size of a traffic pattern depends on the airplane involved. Either way you want to read them, though, it's pretty clear the left turn rule applies to nontowered airports that don't have a tower, operating or not.

Only one of the cases, FAA v Boardman, is available on the NTSB website. The one that talks more extensively about the issue, Rivard, is discussed in Boardman but is just old enough to be outside the group collected on the public site.
Click to expand...


Why did that result in certificate action? Was there loss of separation from another aircraft? Or too close to terrain? Shoot, I can think of worse things that some guys have done but have gotten away with it because they ASAPed it.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Why did that result in certificate action? Was there loss of separation from another aircraft? Or too close to terrain? Shoot, I can think of worse things that some guys have done but have gotten away with it because they ASAPed it.
Click to expand...
Beats me. Maybe it was a time of greater FAA emphasis on enforcement? Maybe some pilot complained about being cut off? Maybe there was a loss of separation, although that's really not a technical issue VFR? Maybe, considering there were apparently two of these involving the same aurline bought in a short timespan, there had already been an effort to handle more informally? Maybe the FAA offered a "plea bargain" that was rejected because the pilots insisted they were right so further action had to be taken? Maybe...
 
Last edited:
MidlifeFlyer said:
Beats me. Maybe it was a time of greater FAA emphasis on enforcement? Maybe some pilot complained about being cut off? Maybe there was a loss of separation, although that's really not a technical issue VFR? Maybe, considering there were apparently two of these involving the same aurline bought in a short timespan, there had already been an effort to handle more informally? Maybe the FAA offered a "plea bargain" that was rejected because the pilots insisted they were right so further action had to be taken? Maybe...
Click to expand...

Like almost all FAA enforcements, there is a lot more to the story. Often the violation that actually gets enforced is only incidental to what the pilots actually did to piss off the FAA.

I had a coworker who landed on a taxiway just for fun and a FSDO inspector was watching. Landing on a taxiway isn't a violation of any FAR by itself, and may not be a violation of 91.13 depending on the circumstances. So the FSDO started digging and found that the VOR check was 2 days out of date.
 
Well, if you don't like the free videos on YouTube, you can set your Hot Tub Time Machine for 1987 and pay $30 a pop for the "Wonderful World of Flying" on VHS.

Richman

PS: those too are available on YouTube. Pretty cool blast from the past.
 
Kingairer said:
I feel like ill be flying with guys in the future who say things like " you don't mind if I live feed this flight do you?" .
Click to expand...

Facetime on short low level flights to a Captain's son has happened before - he just wanted his son to know what he did at work.
 
Too funny. I missed it but apparently Jerry did an ILS so bad - apparently including a 2000 FPM descent and a statement it wis perfectly fine ito intemtuonally be 200' off altitude - that he deleted the video. And the one after it where he talks about how bad it was. The Reddit crew is discussing it.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Too funny. I missed it but apparently Jerry did an ILS so bad - apparently including a 2000 FPM descent and a statement it wis perfectly fine ito intemtuonally be 200' off altitude - that he deleted the video. And the one after it where he talks about how bad it was. The Reddit crew is discussing it.
Click to expand...

It might or might not be because I sent a link with his youtube account to the feds via their online forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top