safe vs airworthy

Status
Not open for further replies.
James331 said:
As a CFI if I told a student he met the PTS 100%, but since he couldn't recover a 3 rotation spin on heading I won't sign him off for his ride, Id fully expect to be taken to court, loose and have my crap put on blast.
Click to expand...

The difference is that your student has already paid for, and contracted, services from you. Tom's client has incurred no damages. You would have to compare it with you telling them up front before any training that they will have to perform a three turn spin to a heading for you to sign them off, and letting them decide whether to continue with you or not, and that would be fine.
 
Last edited:
But why bother with the FARs at all then? If he's using his own FARs, just seems like he's trying to take advantage of some guy.
 
James331 said:
But why bother with the FARs at all then? If he's using his own FARs, just seems like he's trying to take advantage of some guy.
Click to expand...

Taking advantage of the guy in what way? Tom could careless who replaces the brakes or where they are bought from. He just wants them replaced.
 
James331 said:
But why bother with the FARs at all then? If he's using his own FARs, just seems like he's trying to take advantage of some guy.
Click to expand...

Because he does not feel the FARs provide the required level of safety in this instance. The way he goes about it takes advantage of no one. He chooses the moral imperative over the legal, and acts on it in the moral way. I see no issue.
 
James331 said:
But why bother with the FARs at all then? If he's using his own FARs, just seems like he's trying to take advantage of some guy.
Click to expand...

There ya go, thinking some one is always being taken advantage of.

Get real.
 
Look, some dude how knows even less about aviation than Tom blows a few thousand upgrading breaks based on Toms own opinion based on...well not the FARs.

And you damn well know if they do bite the hook they'll probably get Tom to do it, and I'm guessing he'll mark the parts up too.

Frankly I've flown some old azz breaks on taildraggers, haven't had a issue, the most unsafe breaks have been on my Stinson, it have Cleveland's which had a metric ton of power, I think the plane would have been safer with 1/2 the breaks.
 
James331 said:
Here is what I would do, Id say you're to spec, I'll sign you off, but I think we should do more work on this even though its outside of the PTS, I believe should should be better at spins.
Click to expand...

If you would do that, you have no understanding of the problem. Or why these old aircraft should be brought into safe condition. Nor do you understand the responsibility of the IA to their customers safety.

Your attitude and lack of knowledge is appalling, your personal attacks on me are proof of your juvenile lack of respect for your self and others.
 
James331 said:
Look, some dude how knows even less about aviation than Tom blows a few thousand upgrading breaks based on Toms own opinion based on...well not the FARs.

And you damn well know if they do bite the hook they'll probably get Tom to do it, and I'm guessing he'll mark the parts up too.

Frankly I've flown some old azz breaks on taildraggers, haven't had a issue, the most unsafe breaks have been on my Stinson, it have Cleveland's which had a metric ton of power, I think the plane would have been safer with 1/2 the breaks.
Click to expand...

Are you on some sort of medication that we should know about? Your post is very strange.
 
Why is it that so many POA threads end up with personal attacks? My lord....
 
James331 said:
Look, some dude how knows even less about aviation than Tom blows a few thousand upgrading breaks based on Toms own opinion based on...well not the FARs.

And you damn well know if they do bite the hook they'll probably get Tom to do it, and I'm guessing he'll mark the parts up too.

Frankly I've flown some old azz breaks on taildraggers, haven't had a issue, the most unsafe breaks have been on my Stinson, it have Cleveland's which had a metric ton of power, I think the plane would have been safer with 1/2 the breaks.
Click to expand...

Your wild a$$ imagination is making you look like a fool.

I don't sell parts or require anyone to use me as their mechanic.
I do not believe you fly taildraggers, or you would not have this attitude on better brakes.
 
I believe this thread has run its course, By By. :)
 
James-

How about if someone hired you to fly a load of cargo. You won't go because the weather is too bad in your opinion, so you stay on the ground.

The customer gets furious with you and demands that you launch immediately or show them the exact language in the FAR's that makes flight in these exact conditions illegal.

You of course can't produce this so the customer says, you have impacted my business I'm going to sue your company and further sue you personally. You should have never agreed to fly my cargo if you were just going to sit on the ground with no legal reason not to fly.

You offer to fly at the first break in the weather even if that means you wait around all night. Of course that would come with a nominal standby fee, but you're happy to do it so that the customers business isn't impacted.

The customer decides you're trying to take advantage of them by running up a standby tab when there is nothing legally preventing you from flying. You are clearly a crook, so the customer decides to tell everyone in town how you tried to screw them over with unnecessary standby charges and how you held their cargo for ransom.

Sound about right?
 
Alexb2000 said:
James-

How about if someone hired you to fly a load of cargo. You won't go because the weather is too bad in your opinion, so you stay on the ground.

The customer gets furious with you and demands that you launch immediately or show them the exact language in the FAR's that makes flight in these exact conditions illegal.

You of course can't produce this so the customer says, you have impacted my business I'm going to sue your company and further sue you personally. You should have never agreed to fly my cargo if you were just going to sit on the ground with no legal reason not to fly.

You offer to fly at the first break in the weather even if that means you wait around all night. Of course that would come with a nominal standby fee, but you're happy to do it so that the customers business isn't impacted.

The customer decides you're trying to take advantage of them by running up a standby tab when there is nothing legally preventing you from flying. You are clearly a crook, so the customer decides to tell everyone in town how you tried to screw them over with unnecessary standby charges and how you held their cargo for ransom.

Sound about right?
Click to expand...

It's real simple

If its within the regs and the planes capabilities I launch.

Tom, on the other hand, makes his own rules on his higher authority on what is safe.

The problem is pilots with little experince actually believe this dude, they will believe their goodyears are "not safe" and blow thousands to upgrade to something else.

If the damn thing is airworthy its airworthy, Tom should make it very clear that according to the manufacturer, the FAA and every other governing body that their airplane is OK, but to Tom its not.
 
James331 said:
It's real simple

If its within the regs and the planes capabilities I launch.

Tom, on the other hand, makes his own rules on his higher authority on what is safe.

The problem is pilots with little experince actually believe this dude, they will believe their goodyears are "not safe" and blow thousands to upgrade to something else.

If the damn thing is airworthy its airworthy, Tom should make it very clear that according to the manufacturer, the FAA and every other governing body that their airplane is OK, but to Tom its not.
Click to expand...

Dude, people hire Tom because he knows what he is talking about...
 
Clark1961 said:
Dude, people hire Tom because he knows what he is talking about...
Click to expand...

This thread as shown quite the opposite.

What next, maybe he won't sign a plane off unless it has BAS seatbelts.
 
James331 said:
This thread as shown quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't. Tom has state why he believes the brakes to be unsafe and other posters with experience with those brakes have agreed with the problems he has reported.
 
James331 said:
This thread as shown quite the opposite.

What next, maybe he won't sign a plane off unless it has BAS seatbelts.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the a$$#ole idiot that got some sort of degree and went to work with some fedex sort of carrier and are trying to have angels dance on the head of a pin?

Your poor spelling and grammar precedes you.

Jim
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
This thread as shown quite the opposite.

What next, maybe he won't sign a plane off unless it has BAS seatbelts.
Click to expand...

They are nice and a great up grade.

Here is what I put in my 170.

Man up, show us what's in yours, man up or shut up.
 

Attachments

  • 20131130_120328.jpg
    20131130_120328.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 21
Tom, you're alright by me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top