Dropping this student....

[nbv4]

Haven't been able to get a hold of him yet but I will shortly. I will void the most recent endorsement. I'm not going to call the FSDO but I will let him know that I will if I catch him again, not to rat him him out, but as stated before, just to say what the guy is doing and that I told him that he is breaking the regs and see what they say. We do have an obligation to protect the general public and fellow pilots.

I get what people or trying to say about the taxi thing (no endorsement needed) but I'm not sold on it. That's like saying if some stranger comes in the door I can hand them the keys and let them go taxi around. Who is to blame if they cross an active runway, or crash into another airplane?

the person who gave him the keys would be liable. In this case, he owns the airplane so he himself is liable.

You know, this may be a hard concept for some to grasp, but in most cases, the person doing the act is also the one who is liable for that act.

 

[poser765]

the person who gave him the keys would be liable. In this case, he owns the airplane so he himself is liable.

You know, this may be a hard concept for some to grasp, but in most cases, the person doing the act is also the one who is liable for that act.

In some cases knowing someone committed an act that was unsafe and there is strong reason to suggest he is going to do it again, it may not be me that is liable, but i sure as hell would feel responsible if i didn't see to it that it could never happen again.

 

[Alinator]

In some cases knowing someone committed an act that was unsafe and there is strong reason to suggest he is going to do it again, it may not be me that is liable, but i sure as hell would feel responsible if i didn't see to it that it could never happen again.

I understand the feeling of responsibility but think of it this way. Said guy gets narced to FSDO, gets license privileges suspended, cannot complete any further training.

He now had 2 options, sell the aircraft or continue doing what he was doing in the first place with the repercussion not being able to do it legally/insured, which he wasn't doing in the first place anyway. With the second option he no longer has any flight training and is completely out there on his own.

With good talking smashing/threatening/whatever of sense into student's thick head, student abides by rules, completes flight training, goes on to learn something, and doesn't kill his wife and children in the process next time he flies - legally.

The list of scenarios is endless here, but by taking away the option for flight training/licensing, there is actually a greater risk of endangerment involved for Han Solo & the Jedi clan here.

 

[poser765]

I understand the feeling of responsibility but think of it this way. Said guy gets narced to FSDO, gets license privileges suspended, cannot complete any further training.

He now had 2 options, sell the aircraft or continue doing what he was doing in the first place with the repercussion not being able to do it legally/insured, which he wasn't doing in the first place anyway. With the second option he no longer has any flight training and is completely out there on his own.

With good talking smashing/threatening/whatever of sense into student's thick head, student abides by rules, completes flight training, goes on to learn something, and doesn't kill his wife and children in the process next time he flies - legally.

The list of scenarios is endless here, but by taking away the option for flight training/licensing, there is actually a greater risk of endangerment involved for Han Solo & the Jedi clan here.

I know you are just being hypothetical but that is sort of along the same line of saying this gansta is going to go out and get a gun and shoot someone anyway...we might as well at least train him to be a better marksmen so he doesn't hurt himself or someone he wasn't aiming for.

 

[Zero1Niner]

I know you are just being hypothetical but that is sort of along the same line of saying this gansta is going to go out and get a gun and shoot someone anyway...we might as well at least train him to be a better marksmen so he doesn't hurt himself or someone he wasn't aiming for.

truedat :guns:

 

[ppragman]

I think most people would be surprised at the large number of pilots who fly with never having earned a certificate. Once the FAA takes away the certificate there is very little they (the FAA) can do and law enforment agencies are not eager to step in until after a true problem (accident, flying drunk through class B, ect) has occured. I'm not condoning it at all, but it's a sad reality.

Alex.

I was just about to say this. I know many people who flew for years without certs. I know of "charter" ops that don't have certified guys. In fact, its more common (from what I've seen) down south than up here. The FAA really doesn't care, they're more concerned with harassing certificated pilots.

 

[XLR99]

I agree that if I do my job right, the FAA has nothing to punish me with, I already said that

However lets look at this from a different perspective; forget the FAA

I freelance instruct a lot. My reputation as a good instructor is extremely valuable.

If I had this student, and I knowingly let slide all of his blatant disregard for the regulations, and somewhere down the line he bends metal; can you really say that won't negatively affect my reputation?

Would an incident/accident from this same pilot not negatively affect the public image of General Aviation as a whole?

Should he ever become an instructor would he not pass those same anti-authority attitudes onto his students?

Can you say let him slide knowing that his attitudes could very well kill him, his passengers, and any unlucky persons on the ground?

I can't

A bit late to the party, but my thoughts:
I can see the CFI being sucked into a lawsuit by the toolbag's widow after he wraps up the airplane. If all he did was give a talking-to and void the endorsements, I can see him being faulted for not going further and contacting the FSDO. "So Mr Jones, you had knowledge that Mr Smith operated his aircraft without proper endorsements or training on 47 occasions, but you did not contact the FAA? How could you possibly expect an American to have adequate personal responsibility to either follow federal regulations or use common sense, by simply voiding an entry in this, what did you call it, logbook?"
Whether the FSDO has any real teeth to stop him from doing it again the next day is another matter, kind of like the drunks with 17DUIs out driving every day.

I also worry that idiots like this can affect us all in a very negative way: all we need is some do-gooder newsjournalist trolling through looking for info on the Hudson midair, and lo and behold we have a front page article about 'unlicensed pilots raining death and destruction, flying without a flight plan'; congress/aviation experts and TSA would have a field day, and we'd need a full TSA cavity search to get to the T hangars. A bit of conjecture, maybe, but the tide of public opinion is pretty strong against us right now.

 

[Zero1Niner]

A bit late to the party, but my thoughts:
I can see the CFI being sucked into a lawsuit by the toolbag's widow after he wraps up the airplane. If all he did was give a talking-to and void the endorsements, I can see him being faulted for not going further and contacting the FSDO. "So Mr Jones, you had knowledge that Mr Smith operated his aircraft without proper endorsements or training on 47 occasions, but you did not contact the FAA? How could you possibly expect an American to have adequate personal responsibility to either follow federal regulations or use common sense, by simply voiding an entry in this, what did you call it, logbook?"
Whether the FSDO has any real teeth to stop him from doing it again the next day is another matter, kind of like the drunks with 17DUIs out driving every day.

I also worry that idiots like this can affect us all in a very negative way: all we need is some do-gooder newsjournalist trolling through looking for info on the Hudson midair, and lo and behold we have a front page article about 'unlicensed pilots raining death and destruction, flying without a flight plan'; congress/aviation experts and TSA would have a field day, and we'd need a full TSA cavity search to get to the T hangars. A bit of conjecture, maybe, but the tide of public opinion is pretty strong against us right now.

zactly...

 

[shdw]

the person who gave him the keys would be liable. In this case, he owns the airplane so he himself is liable.

You know, this may be a hard concept for some to grasp, but in most cases, the person doing the act is also the one who is liable for that act.

What happens when he crashes into your house and kills your wife and kids while your at work? Who will you say is responsible then? Would you sue the CFI? Maybe you won't, but in this society would you really put it past most not to go after anyone they can for money? Extreme I know, but there are rules and the rules have to be followed.

I have more to add to this on what the FAA says when I find it.

 

[StogieC]

How old is this student?