Let's talk about ATTITUDE

[falconp1]

What happened to the peer system.


We ALL push the boundaries sometimes and need to be told if we transgress

Each and every pilot is responsible for the behavior of their members at their airfield.
If this happened whilst I was present I would have called the pic aside and informed him in a non confrontational way that what he was about to do was illegal.
That way he would most likely understand that his decision was frowned upon and unwise.
This would also make him understand that he is being monitored by his peers and won’t try anything stupid in the future.
We can avoid a lot of incidents and accidents if we enlighten each other.

[KFA]

It is blatantly breaking the law. The pilot knows the law and the consequences of breaking it. I think a temp suspension and a re-write of the airlaw is in order.

[slysi]

I think the guy flying a toddler and a pax was way out of bounds. Imagine if anything happened, just think of the image that would portray again of the thugs flying microlights. Exactly....

Can you imagine the newspaper headlines......MOTHER AND CHILD KILLED IN MICROLIGHT......with the emphasis on microlight.

The PIC must bear the consequence of his decision

[pit bull]

john,

eerstens glo ek dat die PIC weet dat dit nie toelaatbaar is om 3 mense in n trike toe te laat om te vlieg ( gelyktydig) nie.

dit gese, en daar is geen verskoning nie, ......... kan ons almal ( veral die PIC ) bly wees, dat almal veilig is na die episode.

nou is die tyd om hom vas te trap; kry hom voor stok, en laat hy goed verstaan dit is NIE TOELAATBAAR ...............
en ek glo dit sal hom laat dink, voor hy weer so n KANS VAT ( met ander ) se lewens.

my klein-kind is nou 6 en sy vlieg saam met my, sy geniet dit baie. ek is baie, baie versigtig as sy saam vlieg. ( ja enige iets kan gebeur, ek besef dit terdee)
maar dan moet ek byvoeg, net op '''mooi'' weer dae en in die kring. en ek bid dat als goed sal gaan.
veilig vlieg
pit bull

[John Boucher]

So be it chaps... thank you for the feedback!!

For the record.... this one is going to be a rude awakening for someone (and it ain't me!)

[Bundy]

John, I applaud your responsible approach to these sticky matters. It is not easy to act against a fellow pilot, but it is necessary in some situations.

I have a problem with the way CAA has dished out fines in the past. It is again a "blanket way" of dealing with a very complex problem. I have heard of responsible pilots being fined for absolutely no logical reason. One example was a helicopter pilot who did a precautionary landing due to critical fuel level. He reported this as an incident to CAA and was rewarded with a R10k fine for "not having enough fuel for his planned flight". I agree with that fact...it was a simple mistake though...and surely a pilot who plays it safe and decides to land instead of pushing on is not deserving of this? Especially after the pilot himself reported the incident!

I personally maintain that "first time offenders" who have made honest mistakes should not be fined. Hell chaps, this is how we learn! There is no better educational tool than when a pilot himself realises that he has just made a serious %@ up!....We have ALL been there, no one is a perfect PIC. Here I agree with many above...a stiff talking to...and that is usually all that is required to change.

The situation changes however when the offense becomes "habitual", if there is more than one known transgression, or simply if the pilot displays a crappy attitude to being questioned about his conduct.

A hypothetical example: Pilot is reported for dangerous low flying... (and found be have done so)

A warning issued and discussion around the incident would be a perfectly adequate response I would think? I would imagine most of you would agree?

BUT...this is not where it ends.

Upon enquiry around the incident, the following is revealed:

1: Pilot not a member of Misasa(or applicable ARO)
2: Medical certificate expired 6 months ago
3: ATF has not been renewed for two years.

Hmmm...do you see now how the situation changes?

Now we don't have ONE first time offense...but at least 4! (Not to mention all previous illegal flights due to the above facts!)

NOW there is no option but to act, and act harshly in my opinion.

Each case is different, and should be handled as such.
I take my hat off to you guys...NOT an easy job, and unfortunately earns those that have to hand such pilots over the undeserving tag of being called a "rat".

It has to be done though, and I would personally rather be "judged" by members of my own ARO first....than some legal clerk in the Enforcement Dept of CAA who probably isn't even a pilot...

[kloot piloot]

Rather ironic would be a hypothetical situation where a pregnant passenger (1 day before giving birth) would be deemed legal, yet the next day (baby "outside") illegal.

[John Boucher]

Problem is Kloot, and I have said this many times before... as a norm pilots are not under scrutiny. I think the term "Fun Police" comes to mind and that we are not.

Each pilot has a responsibility to his/her fellow aviators as well as PAX that he/she is legal and complies to the CARS. As Bundy has said, there are situations that occur where an oversight becomes a really sticky situation. I advocate a remedial or behavioral remedy which does not seem to be welcomed by the powers that be. It is thus contradictory for CAA to be advocating how they intend dropping the accident rate and then dish out the fines without the corrective measure. This is clearly one department working on it's own and following the letter of the law to a tee and becoming a law unto their own without accountability... maybe that is set to change with a couple of cases going to court where they are going to have to have their ducks in a row and no, these are not clear cut cases like the examination fraud or transferring an aircraft onto your name without the real owner knowing about it....

Now you have the wealthy offender and you have the poor offender. So let's split this up...

The wealthy chap grabs his wallet and just pays the fine to make the problem go away... Absolutely no change in his attitude, no corrective measures etc. and off he goes to do exactly the same as he has .... Enforcement is happy - job well done - coffers filled, let's wait for the next fool!

The poor chap on the other hand has his whole flying budget for the year nullified. He wants to fly, is passionate about his recreational sport, lives for the moment he can go and fly - all gone now. He doesn't stay current cause he doesn't have the money to do just that... he either is tossed out of the equation, rides the wave, loans on his bond. Is he now safer? Is prepared to say write Air Law, do a Radio Refresher course, a flight test and before all this is done, his license is under suspension pending! Yet again Enforcement is happy - job well done - coffers filled, let's wait for the next fool!

But then you have the chap that just does not give a stuff... so what, CAA gave me trouble getting my ATF because I did some untoward mods, who cares about the ARO that I am supposed to belong to, medicals are for sissies, who needs a valid ATF or license (the government does what they like in any case) bullshits his logbooks and no one is going to tell me how to fly, where to fly and when to fly and who can fly with me, so on and so on - sorry - can't help this person (and yes, I do know a couple of these types, bumped heads with them and I was made to look like the fool...problem is when they do kill someone, they end up killing themselves too without having to take responsibility for their actions and transgressions!)

[kloot piloot]

Very well put John ! That is about as good a summary of "attitude" as one will get

As for the pregnant fairy, I just had a hypothetical jab at the attitude of taking an almost conceiving lady for a flip (pushing risk levels to the limit, yet legal, but from an attitude level, totally iresponsible or "illegal").

[John Boucher]

Here SKIN should help.. he is after all the doctor

Am told that preggie woman shouldn't fly after around 32 - 34 weeks local and 32 weeks international flights (and not longer than 4 hours, so Mauritius is a go!)

I would love to hear what the instructors on the forum have to say about this? When do you regard a "bambino" and "bambino" and when do you safely consider taken the little one up as a singular passenger.

I took our daughter up for the first time in the Cheetah when she was 3 years old. She was strapped in properly and securely and well, fell asleep after 5 or 10 minutes... however, she did on take say she wants to go back - until she looked outside, saw a large body of water and calmly said - "John, kyk daardie groot swembad....!" and all was forgotten. Now, when it's prop clear, she wants to be the PAX.

I think about a child going up, no parent to comfort, panic, screaming, pilot workload increases... not a healthy situation in my books!

[Alkemac]

Why should this and the consequences be any different from doing the same thing on a motorbike ?

[kloot piloot]

Why should this and the consequences be any different from doing the same thing on a motorbike ?

It is obvious, the PIC might be crushed in the event of an accident ...

[Alkemac]

that's just a whole lot of loving right there....

[Dobbs]

Firstly, I concur 100% with those that say it was totally irresponsible and the pilot needs a talking to, however, what does the law say -

CAR 91.07.18 (2)

the pilot in command shall insure that multiple occupancy of aircraft seats does not occur other than by one adult and one infant, who is properly secured by a child restraint device (in all probability, there was no such restraint device).

[Nkwazi]

But is a 5 year old an infant?? I think not.