What's with the turbo prop ego's

[aviatoreb]

Both, the motorcyclist and the car driver are total idiots and operated their respective vehicles illegally.

The motorcyclist does not belong in the left oncoming traffic lane due to the no passing double yellow line, and neither does the car driver.

The motorcyclist doesn't even belong on the road at all because he had no driver's license.

I do see the car driver walking because he will come up with an excuse. He already has saying he got stung by an insect.

The motorcyclist has no excuse whatsoever. None. Not that he deserved what he got by any means but his illegal actions almost got him and his pax killed.

I feel most horrible for the girl pax on the bike. Totally innocent and most hurt.

 

 

Where is the unlike button?

Different orders of magnitude Peter. Not even close.

So if a small child is jay walking across the street outside of the walking zone, then if you deliberately swerve out of the way to hit the kid and the kid dies, then you are both wrong?  End of story?  How about if a kid is jay walking and you get mad at them for it and you secretly follow them home and burn the house down and kill the kid and his family.  Still both wrong? End of story?  Clearly there must be some degree of common decency, sympathy, and understanding of the scale of the response in your reply.  Yes the motorcyclist broke a traffic law in crossing the yellow line.  The driver attacked the motorcyclist as surely as if he had pulled out a gun and shot him.  He used his vehicle as a weapon.

[Andy95W]

Peter seems to see everything solely in terms of right and wrong, black and white.

Therefore the jay walking child was obviously a future hardened criminal.  He had to be stopped before he could strike again.

[PTK]

Where is the unlike button?

Different orders of magnitude Peter. Not even close.

So if a small child is jay walking across the street outside of the walking zone, then if you deliberately swerve out of the way to hit the kid and the kid dies, then you are both wrong?  End of story?  How about if a kid is jay walking and you get mad at them for it and you secretly follow them home and burn the house down and kill the kid and his family.  Still both wrong? End of story?  Clearly there must be some degree of common decency, sympathy, and understanding of the scale of the response in your reply.  Yes the motorcyclist broke a traffic law in crossing the yellow line.  The driver attacked the motorcyclist as surely as if he had pulled out a gun and shot him.  He used his vehicle as a weapon.

"Small child" should not be walking alone in the street. Parent(s) or catetaker are responsible for supervision and safety of the child. It's a totally different and irrelevant example but it is conceivable an unsupervised child can get hit by a vehicle in the street. Happens way too much unfortunately.

There's no evidence that this was a "deliberate" action on the part of the car driver. If you know that's so then you know more than I. No question he is a despicable lower form of life as evidenced by his "...I don't care..." remarks. We agree on that. 

However, that doesn't change the fact that they both broke traffic laws and both are guilty. The motorcyclist, unfortunately, much more so because he had no license on top of operating in a wreckless manner placing himself and the innocent pax in danger. He has no leg to stand on simply because the driver will say he had no intention of hitting the cyclist. 

Think of it this way. Car is driving down the road at or under the speed limit. Belongs there as driver is properly licensed and is being a responsible cautious. No motorcycle attempting to pass him. Is it not conceivable that something, an insect sting perhaps, catches him by surprise and causes him to lose control and swerve but regains control? Is that not conceivable? Because that's what he is going to say. Some will believe him and he'll walk.

What is the cyclist going to say? What is he going to say to his pax when she takes him to court?

You're correct. It is different orders of magnitude. Unfortunate for the cyclist, he'll look like the most at fault.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2015 by PTK

[Yooper Rocketman]

Wow......................I typed up a couple responses, thought about them, and deleted them. 

Ill bite my tongue and say;  Simply amazing.  

[MyNameIsNobody]

Here is my response.  If an educated human being views that video and cannot process the "fault" as a rational human being would...If that human doubles down and concurs that the random stars aligned to produces an insect sting and resultant swerve at the exact moment...If one cannot view one as diabolically evil and the other as a risk assessed and taken...a deliberate decision vs. a deliberate action that resulted in injury then said person is wired incorrectly...in comparison to "the average person".  So at least he has got that going for him.

[Yooper Rocketman]

The car driver is facing 2-20 years and has a serious criminal background.  Some of his comments include; "I thought he was one of those turds that was doing something wrong"  and  "I didn't know there was a passenger."  What do those comments have to do with being stung by a wasp (well now it's changed to a spider) and just "happened" to swerve into the other lane and hit the bike?  You don't need a detective degree to put this into perspective.

Here is a pretty enlightening news article; http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/10/20/driver-arrested-for-granbury-motorcycle-crash/

[Amelia]

Thread drift, much? Yes, people can be stupid, rude, arrogant, self-righteous-to-a-fault, entitled, and a host of other sins. Pilots, sadly, aren't exempt.

Comes down to this: How much skin is it off our nose to allow the bigger, faster airplane to get out of our way first? It takes all of what, 3 minutes from his taking the runway to his being cleared to FL 190 on course?  Our Mooney pilot assumes that since he announced he would be taxiing to 24, that meant the airport would be all his very own, from the time he left the ramp, got a mile down the taxiway, copied his clearance, completed his checklist, got done with his run-up, programmed his GPS, looked for his sunglasses, checked for landing traffic, checked the AWOS again, returned a quick phone call, etc, and the runway was still rightfully his until such a time as the kerosene burner saw him tuck his wheels in the wells, climb to a safe altitude, and presumably get the heck out of the way?  OK. I don't understand. The jet jock is ready to go. He is headed elsewhere, promptly. That's the way they operate, at the prices they pay. Maybe our Mooney driver is going to muddle around in the pattern, sightsee over town, head over to do a practice approach or two, go wave to Mom. There might be a  $100 hamburger in his immediate future  Or maybe he is, indeed, bound on important business, too. Whatever. His intentions and time frame were not made clear. He is burning maybe 2 gph at idle, and he is indignant? He COULD have indulged in a little communication, and if he was, in fact, in a tearing rush, with all his preliminaries accomplished, asked politely if the bizjet minded yielding, when he saw him head to the closer runway, which was probably aligned with the jet's departure course. As for me, I'm willing to let the big guy go first, for heaven's sake.

 If uncontrolled airports are to work and be safe, a little cooperation, communication, and courtesy seem awfully important. Those of us who need a referee should operate exclusively out of controlled fields. 

 

[PTK]

...Our Mooney pilot assumes that since he announced he would be taxiing to 24, that meant the airport would be all his very own...His intentions and time frame were not made clear. He is burning maybe 2 gph at idle, and he is indignant? He COULD have indulged in a little communication, and if he was, in fact, in a tearing rush, with all his preliminaries accomplished, asked politely if the bizjet minded yielding, when he saw him head to the closer runway, which was probably aligned with the jet's departure course...

I think what bothered our Mooney pilot is that the Pilatus wasn't impressed by his prop!

Edited October 22, 2015 by PTK

[Marauder]

Thread drift, much?

 

If I got paid a dollar for every time a thread has drifted on this forum, I would be flying a Pilatus.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hank]

Mimi, our Mooney friend couldn't communicate with the Pilatus because Mr. Pilatus was not on the radio. He cranked up, taxied out and his first radio call was departure, head on. Not polite, not safe. Thankfully Erik wasn't pulling onto the runway as he was transmitting, as I've seen some people do; he waited to pull out until after he made his call, or it would have been two planes head on to each other.

My burn is partly the rudeness, but mostly the lack of safety awareness by Mr. I'm In a Hurry, and this attitude is more prevalent by kerosene-burning pilots. If another 2 minutes' fuel burn will hurt him, he should fly something that uses less fuel. That sword cuts both ways, not just at us.

[gsengle]

We have zero evidence of what you just stated.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank]

I remember about 6 months ago at our little rural airport, I got my little mooney fired up just before a charter PC12 fired up.  Then I started to taxi over to rwy24 which was favored by light winds.  I announced it of course.  But rwy6 is closer to the ramp.  In the short time it took me to taxi to 24, the pc12 with two prop pilots and their paying passenger had hustled over to 6 with the mild tail wind - I am sure they heard me announce I was heading to 24, plus we made eye contact as I went over to my plane.  Anyway just as I was announcing taking 24 for departure, they announced departing rwy6.  That was quite a game of chicken they played eh?  So I was ready to go and waited at the hold short of 24 as they took 6 and zoomed past me.

Gsengle, this is the only evidence that we have. I wasn't there as a witness, and neither were you. The Pilatus pilots have provided no input into this thread. Take it for what it's worth, it's all the evidence that there will ever be. Obviously you think the PC12 guys' performance was polite and by the book, but few here seem to agree with you.

P.S.--I'm done arguing this point with a brick wall.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Hank

[22 others]

I now have a good reason to attend the next Mooney fly-in, and I'm bringing a pair of these to enjoy the show:  http://www.amazon.com/GIANT-WHOPPAIR-INFLATABLE-BOXING-GLOVES/dp/B001C1K9QG

Plus I'll have 'em ready for any turboprop pilots we see along the way.

[gsengle]

Gsengle, this is the only evidence that we have. I wasn't there as a witness, and neither were you. The Pilatus pilots have provided no input into this thread. Take it for what it's worth, it's all the evidence that there will ever be. Obviously you think the PC12 guys' performance was polite and by the book, but few here seem to agree with you.

P.S.--I'm done arguing this point with a brick wall.

Hank, not only have you mischaracterized my analysis you stated that the pilots weren't on frequency which is total speculation for which there isn't even a hint of evidence. Did you read the whole thread? This is the kind of feel good piling on I think is unfair.

A brick wall wouldn't be talking about facts and attempting to be fair...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PTK]

 

Mimi, our Mooney friend couldn't communicate with the Pilatus because Mr. Pilatus was not on the radio. He cranked up, taxied out and his first radio call was departure, head on. Not polite, not safe. Thankfully Erik wasn't pulling onto the runway as he was transmitting, as I've seen some people do; he waited to pull out until after he made his call, or it would have been two planes head on to each other.

My burn is partly the rudeness, but mostly the lack of safety awareness by Mr. I'm In a Hurry, and this attitude is more prevalent by kerosene-burning pilots. If another 2 minutes' fuel burn will hurt him, he should fly something that uses less fuel. That sword cuts both ways, not just at us.

This is desperately grasping for straws.

The Pilatus was on the radio. This is why they announced departing 6 before our Mooney friend announced departing 24. And before that he announced taxi to 24. Mr. Pilatus knew this and according to his judgment he could safely expedite his departure from the closest runway to him which was 6. As such he didn't need our Mooney friend's permission.

Mooney, by his own admission, knew the only other plane firing up to depart was the Pilatus. Thus if Mooney wanted to depart first and needed the runway that bad he should've made this clear and asked Pilatus' permission. I'm sure they would've accommodated.

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by PTK

[Hank]

Peter,  do you generally ask permission to depart from pilots who are parked with theireengine not started? I don't. 

[Andy95W]

So again, as I said pages ago, if one of the Pilatus pilots had simply said something conversational like, "hey, Mooney at Podunk airport, if ya'll don't mind we're just gonna blast off on runway 6.  We should be outa your way in no time."

No ruffled feathers, no hard feelings, just professional good-will all around.

And yes, I agree the Pilatus pilots didn't do anything wrong.  They simply could have done things differently.

[Danb]

It appears the gist of this thread was about the paid drivers being rude or egotistical in that vain Erik merely provided his observation of a pilot right or wrong did not act in a polite manner. I agree with most items stated especially, the guy didn't break any rules I know of but also didn't act in a courteous manner. Many non towered airports have airplanes with no radios, what do we expect from, I'd just like to take away we should always see and avoid in the air and on the ground and accept not everyone is courteous. One thing we do know Erik is a nice and courteous guy and I for one would rather take his side than some Commercial pilot not on our side.

[aviatoreb]

.

Edited October 23, 2015 by aviatoreb

[aviatoreb]

And yes, I agree the Pilatus pilots didn't do anything wrong.  They simply could have done things differently.

No, no, I think Peter is right - going to stop using my radios.

[aviatoreb]

I read your post and just sat stunned - for like a day - I wasn't going to reply and put this thread away, this is my last hurrah so its all yours buddy.  

Peter I find your righteous confidence stunning, and frankly scary.  No kidding.  I am writing sincerely.  Feel free to run over motorcycles, and small children and if you have a bug bite then good on you.  You have a defense.  Who knows, maybe you will win your case and maybe that car driver will win his case?  I happen to live in a very small town, with side walks, where children walk home, and sometimes they cross streets. From where I sit, you do not seem to me to understand the difference between the law, pleading the law, having a plausible alibi, and what is real empathy and humanity.  That really scares me.

So why should I think we might agree on radio etiquette when we don't agree on the concept of what is assault with a deadly weapon?  There is clearly too much philosophical ground between us.  So, feel free not to use your radio at an uncontrolled airport.  It's all good.  Your are completely right.  The Mooney pilot was clearly an ass for using his radio progressively and noticing that someone else did not use his.  By the Mooney pilot's own admission he expected a certain behavior that was not required by the law, and that especially is out of line.

 

Edited October 23, 2015 by aviatoreb

[Marauder]

I read your post and just sat stunned.  Peter I find your righteous confidence stunning, and frankly scary.  No kidding.  I am writing sincerely.  Feel free to run over motorcycles, and small children and if you have a bug bite then good on you.  You have a defense.  Who knows, maybe you will win your case and maybe that car driver will win his case?  I happen to live in a very small town, with side walks, where children walk home, and sometimes they cross streets. From where I sit, you do not seem to me to understand the difference between the law, pleading the law, having a plausible alibi, and what is real empathy and humanity.  That really scares me.

So why should I think we might agree on radio educate when we don't agree on the concept of what is assault with a deadly weapon?  There is clearly too much philosophical ground between us.  So, feel free not to use your radio at an uncontrolled airport.  It's all good.  Your are completely right.  The Mooney pilot was clearly an ass for using his radio progressively and noticing that someone else did not use his.  By the Mooney pilot's own admission he expected a certain behavior that was not required by the law, and that especially is out of line.

OMG! Every thread I go to you are causing trouble!

Erik, Erik, Erik... When are you going to learn that Peter is ALWAYS right on EVERYTHING and we are WRONG on EVERYTHING?

I've given up feeding our local troll.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

Talk is cheap.  Ya gotta throw one of your 800 pound honeys at him.

[PTK]

"...I read your post and just sat stunned - for like a day..."

For a whole entire day? Were you able to eat something at least or was your appetite stunned also? 

No kidding. I'm writing sincerely:

I too read your post and was somewhat disappointed.

There is indeed a lot of philosophical ground between us. But please don't be stunned or scared and never lose hope! 

And please don't be so disrespectful as to put words in my mouth.  

We can have differing opinions and still respect each other. 

Nobody has a monopoly on virtue. Not even you professor!

Edited October 23, 2015 by PTK

[Marauder]

Talk is cheap.  Ya gotta throw one of your 800 pound honeys at him.

It's a lot of heavy lifting to get one of those uploaded to the Internet.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk