Isabel Goyer goodbye? Where did it go??

Half Fast said:
Good to hear! "Repo" was such utter TV crap it was painful. Just once I wanted to see Kevin, instead of some bizarre subterfuge or B&E method of gaining airport access, to try entering CTAF as the gate code. I'd bet that works at 75% of small airports.
Click to expand...
He doesn't talk about the show. I've never once heard him even talk about repossessing airplanes. He wanted to get the message out about Tango Thirty One Aero Clube. They get to restore the planes, get their license, and travel. You won't see him at Oshkosh without these young people with him. Where people talk about this being a sunset, or dying hobby, this man is really doing something for the future. Check it out.
 
Druvy said:
Can you elaborate? I'm trying to catch up on years of dormancy. Thanks for any info you can provide!
Click to expand...


Go to the POA medical subforum and spend a while reading some of the stories.

Applicants that were diagnosed with ADD as kids 30 years ago, people who were charged and acquitted of an offense, pilots with a minor ailment, etc., etc., get forced into tests and evaluations that are medically unneccessary, sometimes for life. Response times from the FAA that range from six months to over a year. The issues go on and on and on.

It's why so many of us have gone to Basic Med, and is in fact the very reason Congress created Basic Med.
 
Half Fast said:
Go to the POA medical subforum and spend a while reading some of the stories.

Applicants that were diagnosed with ADD as kids 30 years ago, people who were charged and acquitted of an offense, pilots with a minor ailment, etc., etc., get forced into tests and evaluations that are medically unneccessary, sometimes for life. Response times from the FAA that range from six months to over a year. The issues go on and on and on.

It's why so many of us have gone to Basic Med, and is in fact the very reason Congress created Basic Med.
Click to expand...
For what the majority of us fly there's no real reason not to go basic med. Sure there are some commercial guys on here, but for your average Joe Bugsmasher flying his 60 year old Piper/Cessna for breakfast why bother with the 3rd class?
 
Lowflynjack said:
He doesn't talk about the show. I've never once heard him even talk about repossessing airplanes. He wanted to get the message out about Tango Thirty One Aero Clube. They get to restore the planes, get their license, and travel. You won't see him at Oshkosh without these young people with him. Where people talk about this being a sunset, or dying hobby, this man is really doing something for the future. Check it out.
Click to expand...
I remember reading about what he does with kids. If that was the tv show I'd have watched.
 
kyleb said:
Other than new $1,000 headsets that are 5% better than previous $1,000 headsets, there's little new. Cessna is selling 172's and 182's, Piper is selling updated Cherokees, a host of LSA companies are selling remarkably similar airplanes powered by Rotax. And we've already demonstrated every way to crash an airplane, so there are no new stories there.

What's there to write about?
Click to expand...
For a while, there was avionics. And the occasional IFR head-scratcher, if you're into that sort of thing.
 
Lowflynjack said:
If it involves a Cessna or Piper, let me know any ideas you guys have. Hard to keep it interesting!
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in knowing what the future of Piper is. Are they just resigned to their own fate that they'll end up like Mooney? They just sunset the Seneca after doing the same with the Arrow. So now it's the archer...or the 3 seat Archer. And then the PA46. Do they have any desire to attempt to compete with Cirrus or innovate? Or are they too afraid of failing and ok with the slow death

Does Textron have any plans for the Panthera after acquiring Pipistrel? Or were they only interested in the electric design.
 
Capngrog said:
What's an SEO, or a Substack. Professional journalist jargon?
Click to expand...


SEO refers to search engine optimization, creating material using topics and terms that will make it prominent in a Google search or similar.
 
Kent Wien said:
Harsh.
Click to expand...
But true.

Tantalum said:
Surprised at the hatred for Lunken, she seems to fit the mold of that "old school" aviator so many desire to harken back to. There's enough "FAA bad" "tail dragger good" rhetoric here that I'd think someone like her who flies for the joy of flying would be welcome. I guess not.
Click to expand...

That’s a false comparative. It’s not about her joy of flying. It’s about what she did then how she handled it. She wasn’t even remotely apologetic about it and clearly deems herself above the rules. That’s bad for all of us. Her own writings about the topic and the opportunity I had to discuss it with her gave me that impression. And no one said she wasn’t welcome here. I just don’t like her based upon my experience. You get your own opinion obviously! Like all you want.
 
Racerx said:
Does Textron have any plans for the Panthera after acquiring Pipistrel? Or were they only interested in the electric design.
Click to expand...

I think Textron made an ESG purchase with Pipistrel. I would be shocked to see the Panthera survive, let alone develop into a better product.
 
Capngrog said:
What's an SEO, or a Substack. Professional journalist jargon?
Click to expand...

Apologies for not being clearer. Half Fast's definition of SEO is right on. Substack is a newsletter platform: you sign up for it, and get it delivered to your Inbox. Most Substacks have both free and paid versions of the newsletter. Substack is becoming popular as an alternative publishing platform, much like Medium and other sites.
 
But that's what Textron does. They killed the Lancair / Columbia / TTx / 400 / Corvalis (whatever the hell they finally named it), they're letting the Baron and Bonanza birds die on the vine, and have given no indication that they intend to do anything with piston GA outside of pump 172 to the flight schools. Walking from Diamond / Cirrus over to the Textron booth the difference is stark. The placement of a Baron or Bonanza by the tent is accidentally only. They're aggressively pushing their PC-12 and twin beaver knock offs. Most of the times I walk by their tents the piston planes aren't even open to sit in. When they are, you can tell those products are at the end of their development cycle. Big difference from the multiple open planes and throngs of people at Diamond, Cirrus

Now, they're [Textron] are going where the $$$$ is.. so as much as I'd love to blame Textron for their hand in the death of piston GA - I'm not sure if that's fair. There's a lot more money in the Denali / Sky Courier products for sure.

And, if Panthera, Beech, Lancair, etc., can't survive on their own then maybe these products were destined to ultimately fail anyway. So the flip side is, Textron at least kept these lines open for a bit. You can *still* buy a brand new Baron or Bonanza.. maybe if Textron hadn't stepped in you wouldn't be able to... so there's that too
 
Tantalum said:
But that's what Textron does. They killed the Lancair / Columbia / TTx / 400 / Corvalis (whatever the hell they finally named it), they're letting the Baron and Bonanza birds die on the vine, and have given no indication that they intend to do anything with piston GA outside of pump 172 to the flight schools. Walking from Diamond / Cirrus over to the Textron booth the difference is stark. The placement of a Baron or Bonanza by the tent is accidentally only. They're aggressively pushing their PC-12 and twin beaver knock offs. Most of the times I walk by their tents the piston planes aren't even open to sit in. When they are, you can tell those products are at the end of their development cycle. Big difference from the multiple open planes and throngs of people at Diamond, Cirrus

Now, they're [Textron] are going where the $$$$ is.. so as much as I'd love to blame Textron for their hand in the death of piston GA - I'm not sure if that's fair. There's a lot more money in the Denali / Sky Courier products for sure.

And, if Panthera, Beech, Lancair, etc., can't survive on their own then maybe these products were destined to ultimately fail anyway. So the flip side is, Textron at least kept these lines open for a bit. You can *still* buy a brand new Baron or Bonanza.. maybe if Textron hadn't stepped in you wouldn't be able to... so there's that too
Click to expand...
How many of those brands are owned by China? That should also tell you something.
 
John Spartan said:
That’s a false comparative. It’s not about her joy of flying. It’s about what she did then how she handled it. She wasn’t even remotely apologetic about it and clearly deems herself above the rules. That’s bad for all of us. Her own writings about the topic and the opportunity I had to discuss it with her gave me that impression.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you like her or her writing, people should understand they made an example of her. Don't turn off your ADS-B during flight, it's not legal! If you have ADS-B out installed, you have to use it all of the time. If they believe you turned it off on purpose, especially to break a rule, you'll most likely lose you license.

If she had admitted it from the beginning, or had at least had not lied about it, the outcome may have been different. Anyone who thinks she was telling the truth is fooling themselves! "She reiterated her denial that she had done that, attributing the lapse in ADS-B broadcast from her aircraft's transponder to a bad connection, noting that an avionics shop that looked into the issue found the device was loose in the mount."
 
Lowflynjack said:
Whether or not you like her or her writing, people should understand they made an example of her. Don't turn off your ADS-B during flight, it's not legal! If you have ADS-B out installed, you have to use it all of the time. If they believe you turned it off on purpose, especially to break a rule, you'll most likely lose you license.

If she had admitted it from the beginning, or had at least had not lied about it, the outcome may have been different. Anyone who thinks she was telling the truth is fooling themselves! "She reiterated her denial that she had done that, attributing the lapse in ADS-B broadcast from her aircraft's transponder to a bad connection, noting that an avionics shop that looked into the issue found the device was loose in the mount."
Click to expand...


She wrote a story some years ago about doing a similar thing and switching off her xpdr. No way was she going to get mercy this time.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy her writing.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Whether or not you like her or her writing, people should understand they made an example of her. Don't turn off your ADS-B during flight, it's not legal! If you have ADS-B out installed, you have to use it all of the time. If they believe you turned it off on purpose, especially to break a rule, you'll most likely lose you license.

If she had admitted it from the beginning, or had at least had not lied about it, the outcome may have been different. Anyone who thinks she was telling the truth is fooling themselves! "She reiterated her denial that she had done that, attributing the lapse in ADS-B broadcast from her aircraft's transponder to a bad connection, noting that an avionics shop that looked into the issue found the device was loose in the mount."
Click to expand...
They should have kept her out of planes forever.
 
John Spartan said:
Suuuuuuure. Or maybe just a ban with no path back to flying again.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised at what people have done and barely got a slap on the wrist. She flew under a bridge... she didn't hurt or kill anyone and I believe the punishment worked. Pretty sure she'll never do it again.
 
Lowflynjack said:
You might be surprised at what people have done and barely got a slap on the wrist. She flew under a bridge... she didn't hurt or kill anyone and I believe the punishment worked. Pretty sure she'll never do it again.
Click to expand...
Which means absolutely nothing. What someone else got away with is irrelevant. It was clear you were being hyperbolic. We aren’t talking about whether the punishment “worked” or if she won’t do it again. My opinion was that she should have lost flight privileges permanently. She has a history and is absolutely unrepentant about her action. She already “did it again” to get to this place. Her action could have killed others and is a bad example for all other pilots. It’s sad to see anyone excuse her behavior or offer minimization of the severity of her actions. I assure you that anyone other than her would have been banned forever.
 
John Spartan said:
Which means absolutely nothing. What someone else got away with is irrelevant. It was clear you were being hyperbolic. We aren’t talking about whether the punishment “worked” or if she won’t do it again. My opinion was that she should have lost flight privileges permanently. She has a history and is absolutely unrepentant about her action. She already “did it again” to get to this place. Her action could have killed others and is a bad example for all other pilots. It’s sad to see anyone excuse her behavior or offer minimization of the severity of her actions. I assure you that anyone other than her would have been banned forever.
Click to expand...
LOL, I don't think anyone other than her would have been banned for life, but it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks at this point. She wasn't banned. She didn't hurt anyone even though people like you claim she could have.

I posted here a couple of years ago about a guy the FAA caught giving commercial rides even though he wasn't a commercial pilot and his plane wasn't qualified. They suspended him for a year and yet he continued flying during this time. They knew he was doing it and tried to get local law enforcement to watch him, but they were told no, they had better things to do. If anyone deserved to be banned for life, it was this guy, but from what I've seen, this rarely happens.
 
Lowflynjack said:
LOL, I don't think anyone other than her would have been banned for life, but it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks at this point. She wasn't banned. She didn't hurt anyone even though people like you claim she could have.

I posted here a couple of years ago about a guy the FAA caught giving commercial rides even though he wasn't a commercial pilot and his plane wasn't qualified. They suspended him for a year and yet he continued flying during this time. They knew he was doing it and tried to get local law enforcement to watch him, but they were told no, they had better things to do. If anyone deserved to be banned for life, it was this guy, but from what I've seen, this rarely happens.
Click to expand...
People like me claim she COULD have? Are you actually refuting that she could have killed others with her actions?

I don’t think your story is comparable. Not enough details. But if it’s some dude charging $50 for a ride in his Piper it doesn’t rise to the level of criminality and unsafe behavior as flying under a bridge.
 
John Spartan said:
People like me claim she COULD have? Are you actually refuting that she could have killed others with her actions?

I don’t think your story is comparable. Not enough details. But if it’s some dude charging $50 for a ride in his Piper it doesn’t rise to the level of criminality and unsafe behavior as flying under a bridge.
Click to expand...
The bridge is 240 feet tall with a span between girders of 440 feet. I think any student pilot could have pulled it off without it being a mass casualty event.
 
Racerx said:
The bridge is 240 feet tall with a span between girders of 440 feet. I think any student pilot could have pulled it off without it being a mass casualty event.
Click to expand...
Hyperbole rears it’s head again. So it needs to be a mass casualty event to be a problem? Will the next pilot who sees the high profile person “pull it off” be less lucky? Could she have crashed onto a car? Could she have merely killed herself? I’m sure every pilot on the board could “pull it off”. It’s not allowed for a reason. Safety of the public. Safety of the pilot. Not damaging property. How easy it was or wasn’t is no matter. It was wrong to do. Even if you want to excuse it away.
 
John Spartan said:
People like me claim she COULD have? Are you actually refuting that she could have killed others with her actions?

I don’t think your story is comparable. Not enough details. But if it’s some dude charging $50 for a ride in his Piper it doesn’t rise to the level of criminality and unsafe behavior as flying under a bridge.
Click to expand...
No, I'm highlighting your word 'could'. She 'could' have, but she didn't. She most likely would have only killed herself if she'd hit the bridge.

What the guy in my story did was way worse than what Martha did. He didn't have the training or the equipment the FAA requires to keep people safe. The FAA pointed out 5 fatal accidents in one year where people were posing as commercial pilots and giving rides. The unsuspecting passengers lost their lives, thinking they were in capable hands.
 
John Spartan said:
People like me claim she COULD have? Are you actually refuting that she could have killed others with her actions?

I don’t think your story is comparable. Not enough details. But if it’s some dude charging $50 for a ride in his Piper it doesn’t rise to the level of criminality and unsafe behavior as flying under a bridge.
Click to expand...

I think the guy giving commercial rides was a much bigger concern than Martha. The non-flying public doesn't ask to see pilot credentials, nor airworthiness certificates; they trust that there is a system in place that will keep them safe. The guy apparently lied about being a commercial pilot, and lied about having an aircraft airworthy for the intended purpose, in order to fly unsuspecting passengers for profit--and then kept flying even during the suspension he earned.

You called out Martha for not being apologetic, thinking she was above the rules, unrepentant about her actions, and a bad example for all pilots. Maybe so, but the fake commercial pilot eclipsed her in each of those categories.
 
Lowflynjack said:
No, I'm highlighting your word 'could'. She 'could' have, but she didn't. She most likely would have only killed herself if she'd hit the bridge.

What the guy in my story did was way worse than what Martha did. He didn't have the training or the equipment the FAA requires to keep people safe. The FAA pointed out 5 fatal accidents in one year where people were posing as commercial pilots and giving rides. The unsuspecting passengers lost their lives, thinking they were in capable hands.
Click to expand...

Your statement is completely illogical. Yes. COULD have is exactly the point. That she didn’t doesn’t excuse the act. You can only punish the living soooo…. Duh?

Again, not comparable but sounds like a serious problem. I bet there are 5 examples of bad pilot judgement that also end in death available to highlight why Lunkin should have been punished. Your example doesn’t really apply to this one.
 
GaryM said:
I think the guy giving commercial rides was a much bigger concern than Martha. The non-flying public doesn't ask to see pilot credentials, nor airworthiness certificates; they trust that there is a system in place that will keep them safe. The guy apparently lied about being a commercial pilot, and lied about having an aircraft airworthy for the intended purpose, in order to fly unsuspecting passengers for profit--and then kept flying even during the suspension he earned.

You called out Martha for not being apologetic, thinking she was above the rules, unrepentant about her actions, and a bad example for all pilots. Maybe so, but the fake commercial pilot eclipsed her in each of those categories.
Click to expand...

Well, I’ve not read anything about that or talked to the pilot. Your fake commercial pilot sounds like a jerk too.
 
John Spartan said:
Your statement is completely illogical. Yes. COULD have is exactly the point. That she didn’t doesn’t excuse the act. You can only punish the living soooo…. Duh?

Again, not comparable but sounds like a serious problem. I bet there are 5 examples of bad pilot judgement that also end in death available to highlight why Lunkin should have been punished. Your example doesn’t really apply to this one.
Click to expand...
Whatever... the good thing is, nobody cares what you think. She wasn't banned for life, so keep wishing that she was!

Oh, here are some aviation headlines for you, they're all about the same:
YouTuber Deliberately Crashed His Plane for Views (FAA says he can reapply in a year!)
Fake Commercial Helicopter Pilot Crashes
Texas Hot Air Ballon Crash Kills 16 (Launched in fog, took Valium & Oxycode. "Flew with enough Benadryl in his system to have the equivalent blood-alcohol content of a drunken driver"
Investigation of 2019 Kerrville Plane Crash Point to Insufficient Fuel, Carrier Rule Infraction (6 People killed. "Fortmann found that Weiss, who co-owned the plane, was paid and signed a contract for carrying the passengers, although he hadn’t obtained an air carrier certificate"
Plane Flies Under Mackinac Bridge
 
Just to add to the understanding of severity.

Lunkin was a “LONGTIME FORMER FAA SAFETY INSPECTOR AND VETERAN FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR”

those details likely mattered too.

In her subsequent writings she self described herself as a victim of unfair revocation. She gave an interview and giggled and proclaimed when asked if she had flown under the bridge before… “I better claim the fifth I that one”. She published an extensive lie story about having a failed ADSB and how she only flew under the bridge on a whimsical “bucket list spur of the moment” kind of decision. Im sure people are sick of the argument. plenty has already occurred elsewhere here. I doubt we will sway either other to change POV.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-lunken-has-privileges-revoked.131753/page-13
 
Lowflynjack said:
Whatever... the good thing is, nobody cares what you think. She wasn't banned for life, so keep wishing that she was!

Oh, here are some aviation headlines for you, they're all about the same:
YouTuber Deliberately Crashed His Plane for Views (FAA says he can reapply in a year!)
Fake Commercial Helicopter Pilot Crashes
Texas Hot Air Ballon Crash Kills 16 (Launched in fog, took Valium & Oxycode. "Flew with enough Benadryl in his system to have the equivalent blood-alcohol content of a drunken driver"
Investigation of 2019 Kerrville Plane Crash Point to Insufficient Fuel, Carrier Rule Infraction (6 People killed. "Fortmann found that Weiss, who co-owned the plane, was paid and signed a contract for carrying the passengers, although he hadn’t obtained an air carrier certificate"
Plane Flies Under Mackinac Bridge
Click to expand...

FYI - Lunkin was allowed to re-apply in 3 months instead of waiting the full year like everyone else. Even getting punished she got special treatment.
 
John Spartan said:
Just to add to the understanding of severity.

Lunkin was a “LONGTIME FORMER FAA SAFETY INSPECTOR AND VETERAN FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR”

those details likely mattered too.

In her subsequent writings she self described herself as a victim of unfair revocation. She gave an interview and giggled and proclaimed when asked if she had flown under the bridge before… “I better claim the fifth I that one”. She published an extensive lie story about having a failed ADSB and how she only flew under the bridge on a whimsical “bucket list spur of the moment” kind of decision. Im sure people are sick of the argument. plenty has already occurred elsewhere here. I doubt we will sway either other to change POV.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-lunken-has-privileges-revoked.131753/page-13
Click to expand...

I have only been around aviation since 2015 when I learned to fly. Martha helped me learn how to land when I was training at Lunken airport. I think that is pretty cool?
 
Gary Ward said:
I have only been around aviation since 2015 when I learned to fly. Martha helped me learn how to land when I was training at Lunken airport. I think that is pretty cool?
Click to expand...

If you told me she was a blast to fly with I wouldn’t be shocked. Older pilots generally can be more enjoyable in my experience. I like older people most of the time anyway to be honest. And learning anything from a legend can be cool. Doesn’t make her action OK though. :)
 
John Spartan said:
FYI - Lunkin was allowed to re-apply in 3 months instead of waiting the full year like everyone else. Even getting punished she got special treatment.
Click to expand...
She had everything taken away and was a student pilot all over again. And lost her examiner privileges.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top