US pilotcharged in crash that killed South African teen
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US pilotcharged in crash that killed South African teen
July 08 2006 at 05:00PM
By Rachel d'Oro
Anchorage, Alaska - The pilot in a plane crash that led to a the drowning death of a teen from South Africa was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
Kurt Stenehjem of Anchorage was arrested on Thursday in connection with the felony charges stemming from the July 7, 2005, death of 17-year-old Mark Schroeder of Durban, South Africa.
Stenehjem, 55, and Schroeder were among five people on board the floatplane that crashed in calm weather into Johnstone Lake on the Kenai Peninsula. A floatplane is a plane equipped with pontoons so it can land on water.
Not wearing a lifejacket
Schroeder, who was not wearing a lifejacket, slipped into the glacier-fed lake while the others made it to icebergs with minor injuries.
Schroeder's mother, Lesley Schroeder McLean, said she saw "something cosmic" in the timing of the arrest - a day before the year anniversary of the crash.
Stenehjem is a longtime associate of the family. McLean's husband, Chris, is a former Alaska bush pilot and registered owner of the Maule M7-235 involved in the crash.
"From my heart, I just miss my son. I would rather have him back than have the pilot in jail," Lesley McLean said Friday from Durban. "But we do feel vindicated that justice has been served, although it's not a happy day for me."
State prosecutors could not be reached on Friday, but Alaska State Troopers and Federal Aviation Administration officials could not recall another an Alaska pilot involved in a fatal crash being criminally charged.
'Justice has been served'
Nationally, such prosecutions are uncommon, but not unheard of, said Phil Kolczynski, a Santa Ana, California-based aviation law attorney and former FAA trial attorney. Convictions are even more unusual, he said, typically involving alcohol or drugs - factors not present in the Stenehjem case. Far more common are civil lawsuits claiming negligence.
"It depends on the weight of the evidence," Kolczynski said. "If it weighs a ton, a prosecutor is doing exactly what they should be doing. On the other hand, some cases are politicised."
In its own investigation, the FAA found enough to issue a rare emergency revocation of Stenehjem's commercial pilot license, saying his lack of care and judgment justified immediate action. Among factors noted, the plane was equipped with only four seats even though there were five people on board, it was overloaded and had not undergone an annual inspection. Schroeder had sat in the back where gear was stored.Stenehjem turned himself in to Anchorage authorities Thursday and was released less than two hours later after posting $50 000 bail. Stenehjem said Friday he has not been arraigned. -
Sapa-AP [from]
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?newsl...2R131&set_id=1
By Rachel d'Oro
Anchorage, Alaska - The pilot in a plane crash that led to a the drowning death of a teen from South Africa was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
Kurt Stenehjem of Anchorage was arrested on Thursday in connection with the felony charges stemming from the July 7, 2005, death of 17-year-old Mark Schroeder of Durban, South Africa.
Stenehjem, 55, and Schroeder were among five people on board the floatplane that crashed in calm weather into Johnstone Lake on the Kenai Peninsula. A floatplane is a plane equipped with pontoons so it can land on water.
Not wearing a lifejacket
Schroeder, who was not wearing a lifejacket, slipped into the glacier-fed lake while the others made it to icebergs with minor injuries.
Schroeder's mother, Lesley Schroeder McLean, said she saw "something cosmic" in the timing of the arrest - a day before the year anniversary of the crash.
Stenehjem is a longtime associate of the family. McLean's husband, Chris, is a former Alaska bush pilot and registered owner of the Maule M7-235 involved in the crash.
"From my heart, I just miss my son. I would rather have him back than have the pilot in jail," Lesley McLean said Friday from Durban. "But we do feel vindicated that justice has been served, although it's not a happy day for me."
State prosecutors could not be reached on Friday, but Alaska State Troopers and Federal Aviation Administration officials could not recall another an Alaska pilot involved in a fatal crash being criminally charged.
'Justice has been served'
Nationally, such prosecutions are uncommon, but not unheard of, said Phil Kolczynski, a Santa Ana, California-based aviation law attorney and former FAA trial attorney. Convictions are even more unusual, he said, typically involving alcohol or drugs - factors not present in the Stenehjem case. Far more common are civil lawsuits claiming negligence.
"It depends on the weight of the evidence," Kolczynski said. "If it weighs a ton, a prosecutor is doing exactly what they should be doing. On the other hand, some cases are politicised."
In its own investigation, the FAA found enough to issue a rare emergency revocation of Stenehjem's commercial pilot license, saying his lack of care and judgment justified immediate action. Among factors noted, the plane was equipped with only four seats even though there were five people on board, it was overloaded and had not undergone an annual inspection. Schroeder had sat in the back where gear was stored.Stenehjem turned himself in to Anchorage authorities Thursday and was released less than two hours later after posting $50 000 bail. Stenehjem said Friday he has not been arraigned. -
Sapa-AP [from]
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?newsl...2R131&set_id=1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a small float plane pilot salary, he probably hired the creme de la creme of lawyers 
Donīt know the exact details though. If the plane was indeed over max weight and had not passed its annual, itīs a tough one to defent (both in court and morally)
P
Donīt know the exact details though. If the plane was indeed over max weight and had not passed its annual, itīs a tough one to defent (both in court and morally)
P
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 seats, 5 people= wrong
though I understand that in alaska, planes may be operated 10percent over weight...this was to preclude not taking emergency survival gear.
not making any excuses
though I understand that in alaska, planes may be operated 10percent over weight...this was to preclude not taking emergency survival gear.
not making any excuses
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Zurich Switzerland-not
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably some GS6 FAA type trying to upgrade his "cheap suit" AND get a raise.
Lifejackets aren't required to be worn any more than a parachute.
Spent a year flying out of Palmer and the FAA stayed away from Bush Pilots. Saw Bush planes with oversize car wheets on them parked at the airport.
Lots of stories about FAA types getting the s**t kicked out of them for screwing with bush pilots.
10% overload was allowed up there then but don't know about these days. As far as not having a seat, it wasn't a factor as he drowned due to not having a vest on.
FAA guy in a cheap suit looking for a raise. Wish the pilot luck because we all know he has to live with it and it certainly wasn't intentional.
Airplanes do crash.
Lifejackets aren't required to be worn any more than a parachute.
Spent a year flying out of Palmer and the FAA stayed away from Bush Pilots. Saw Bush planes with oversize car wheets on them parked at the airport.
Lots of stories about FAA types getting the s**t kicked out of them for screwing with bush pilots.
10% overload was allowed up there then but don't know about these days. As far as not having a seat, it wasn't a factor as he drowned due to not having a vest on.
FAA guy in a cheap suit looking for a raise. Wish the pilot luck because we all know he has to live with it and it certainly wasn't intentional.
Airplanes do crash.
No matter how you slice it, this is a bad precedent. This guy may have done some inappropriate things; that has yet to be determined/proven. One is "presumed" innocent until proven guilty in this country.
What's bad is criminal prosecution of a pilot involved in an accident ( I know other countries have a different slant on this...that's not what we're talking about ). This guy may have done bad stuff, but it's a very short jump for some government pencil monkey to paint all pilots in all accidents as criminally liable without regard to circumstances. The public loves a public hanging.
If they hang this guy, the camel's head is in the tent and this job will finally be not worth having.
What's bad is criminal prosecution of a pilot involved in an accident ( I know other countries have a different slant on this...that's not what we're talking about ). This guy may have done bad stuff, but it's a very short jump for some government pencil monkey to paint all pilots in all accidents as criminally liable without regard to circumstances. The public loves a public hanging.
If they hang this guy, the camel's head is in the tent and this job will finally be not worth having.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Observation...
It seems a bit coincidental that all those properly seated and restrained survived the crash and swam to safety but the one person who was not seated and restrained - indeed was "sat in the rear with the gear" did not.
Did he suffer injuries during the accident that contibuted to his subsequent drowning that he might not have otherwise suffered if he had been properly seated and restrained
If this was a contributing factor to the guys death then the pilot is moraly as well as criminaly responsible! Simple as that.
The other overwhelming factor is... He's in aircraft taking off and landing on water... Why the hell was he not wearing a life-jacket? Could have saved his life and might have saved the pilots career.
Really sad
It seems a bit coincidental that all those properly seated and restrained survived the crash and swam to safety but the one person who was not seated and restrained - indeed was "sat in the rear with the gear" did not.
Did he suffer injuries during the accident that contibuted to his subsequent drowning that he might not have otherwise suffered if he had been properly seated and restrained
If this was a contributing factor to the guys death then the pilot is moraly as well as criminaly responsible! Simple as that.
The other overwhelming factor is... He's in aircraft taking off and landing on water... Why the hell was he not wearing a life-jacket? Could have saved his life and might have saved the pilots career.
Really sad
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
11 Posts
Hardly ever see anyone wearing a life jacket ( or PFD) when they come in to the dock here, in fact only one family plane load this year besides myself, (well you have to see my water landings.) Certainly none of the commercial passengers in Beavers ever do and I've never seen commercial passengers in 180's wear them either.
Interesting mention in the article that seems to have gone un-noticed. The plane belonged to the victims father. It is, in the end, the pilot's responsibility to make sure that the plane is both legal and properly loaded but I would not allow another pilot to fly my plane while it was out of annual and if I was around I wouldn't if it was overloaded.
Just for instance, you toddle off down to the FBO and rent your regular plane, did you check the plane was in annual? I never remember doing so. You have a minor incident and the suits arrive. Next thing you know you have a citation for flying a plane out of annual plus a couple for carelessness and negligence just to make sure.
None of this is to deny that we have particular duties to young people. Two of my kids go out every day to guide on a Zip Trek line and another is a lifeguard at a camp working in a sea situation. I wonder every time they go out if those responsible for running these places have taken every precaution and if the maintenance and training are all they could possibly be. (And I do quiz the boys about it all the time!)
Interesting mention in the article that seems to have gone un-noticed. The plane belonged to the victims father. It is, in the end, the pilot's responsibility to make sure that the plane is both legal and properly loaded but I would not allow another pilot to fly my plane while it was out of annual and if I was around I wouldn't if it was overloaded.
Just for instance, you toddle off down to the FBO and rent your regular plane, did you check the plane was in annual? I never remember doing so. You have a minor incident and the suits arrive. Next thing you know you have a citation for flying a plane out of annual plus a couple for carelessness and negligence just to make sure.
None of this is to deny that we have particular duties to young people. Two of my kids go out every day to guide on a Zip Trek line and another is a lifeguard at a camp working in a sea situation. I wonder every time they go out if those responsible for running these places have taken every precaution and if the maintenance and training are all they could possibly be. (And I do quiz the boys about it all the time!)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it comes down to it the Pilot is the first person to arrive at the crash and he is the first person of whom the "suits" will start asking questions.
It is his absoulute responsibility to check the servicability and certification of the aircraft - " i didn't know it was out of check" will not cut it with the authorities - and rightly so.
If i fly an aircraft, for the first time, i go through the documents with a microscope and then keep an aye on the re-val dates as time goes on. You have to, because you are the one who is protecting yourself, your passengers, your income & assets and your liberty (this guy could be going to jail).
Every time you think about doing something that is a little bit outside the rules (and we all do) you have to ask - "what's this going to look like if the suits arrive or if there is a prang". Then you have to ask "is it worth it". The answer is usually "NO".
Oh and "Jetjackal". It may or may not be true be true that Lifejackets are no more a requirement than parachutes, but would you jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute on? No! Nor should you take off and land on water without a Lifejacket. It's common sense and it really irritates me when people trivialise the wearing of LJ's or mock people for doing so. People continue to survive aeroplane accidnts and drown afterwards because they were not wearing LJ's. WHY!!!!!?????
Safe Flying Ladies and Gents
It is his absoulute responsibility to check the servicability and certification of the aircraft - " i didn't know it was out of check" will not cut it with the authorities - and rightly so.
If i fly an aircraft, for the first time, i go through the documents with a microscope and then keep an aye on the re-val dates as time goes on. You have to, because you are the one who is protecting yourself, your passengers, your income & assets and your liberty (this guy could be going to jail).
Every time you think about doing something that is a little bit outside the rules (and we all do) you have to ask - "what's this going to look like if the suits arrive or if there is a prang". Then you have to ask "is it worth it". The answer is usually "NO".
Oh and "Jetjackal". It may or may not be true be true that Lifejackets are no more a requirement than parachutes, but would you jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute on? No! Nor should you take off and land on water without a Lifejacket. It's common sense and it really irritates me when people trivialise the wearing of LJ's or mock people for doing so. People continue to survive aeroplane accidnts and drown afterwards because they were not wearing LJ's. WHY!!!!!?????
Safe Flying Ladies and Gents
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NTSB report provides a significant amount of information:
Full report is available here
Prior to the flight the pilot gave each passenger a personal flotation device (PFD), and briefed them on its use. The fourth/fatal passenger was seated in the aft cargo compartment atop kayak spray-skirts and gloves. The pilot and all four passengers survived the water impact with a few minor injuries. After the impact, the five survivors climbed onto the fuselage top and wings. The pilot and fatal passenger exited the airplane, leaving their PFD's behind. The other three passengers were wearing their PFD's when the accident occurred, and exited the airplane wearing them. The airplane was sinking, and all the survivors swam to a large, nearby iceberg, but were unable to climb out of the water onto the iceberg. The pilot, and the three passengers wearing PFD's, swam back to the airplane, and climbed out of the water onto the airplane. The pilot borrowed a PFD from one of the passengers, and swam back to the remaining passenger, but was unable to render aid because he'd lost all feeling in his hands due to the cold water. The remaining passenger, without aid of a PFD, slipped below the surface of the lake, and was not seen again. The survivors were able to cut through the fabric fuselage skin to retrieve extra clothing from the baggage compartment, which they gave to the pilot who, according to them, was showing signs of hypothermia. During the accident scenario, two of the passengers were dressed in layered clothing, including fleece, as suggested by the pilot. The other two passengers and the pilot were dressed in cotton levis and cotton shirts. As the airplane continued to slowly sink, two of the passengers swam to a smaller ice cake, which they were able to climb on, and the remaining passenger followed. Prior to the airplane sinking, using an inflated dry-bag, the pilot joined the others on the iceberg.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: US
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am mixed on this. If the pilot actually did give everybody PFD's that is one story. However, if the individual that passed was seated inappropriatly.... if fact... i strongly disagree with that action by the pilot. I have to agree that there are some trying for the larger income. So the fact that i get back to...where he was seated..did that kill him upon impact? If yes then maybe he is respon.... if no..and a PFD was provided to him..then maybe not. When I drive I always force everybody to wear seatbelts... if somebody in the back takes a seatbelt off seconds before impact should I be held liable? When I fly the same..except I am always checking belts like instruments although of course not as often. Maybe all of my friends I take up should have chutes because lets face it... insurance companies and DA's with more power then the attorneys I can afford will prob. win as sad as it is 
.
.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I to understand that some here think life jackets must be worn , or life jackets must be avaliable and the pilot must brief the passengers on their location and use?
There is a big difference.
C.E.
There is a big difference.
C.E.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew Beavers on floats off lake Hood ,Anc,AK for 4 seasons,A/C were all equipped with lifejackets,and all pax were briefed on there use. Insurance required all the A/C were equipped......and NO .....we were not allowed to fly 10% over weight....thats stuff only happens during wartime
.......
and most of all ,if you didnt get a seat,you didnt go....
After flying for 10 yrs in Alaska,these occurances are/were only to common.....just look at the accident statistics....crashed a couple meself
PB
.......and most of all ,if you didnt get a seat,you didnt go....
After flying for 10 yrs in Alaska,these occurances are/were only to common.....just look at the accident statistics....crashed a couple meself
PB
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTDT and the water is F***in cold. So much so that sometimes one cannot get all the survival eqipment on in time.
I dont think the arrest passes the smell test in the sense there are those waiting to take something like this to court.
Alaska has always been loose in its observance of the rules and it was just a matter of time with someone in a nice uptown Anchorage office says "lets make an example out of this one"
Rules are rules and if you break them by hanging your A55 out then you had better be prepared to sing the song.
I had to say no to some folks up there on OAS stuff and I have a stack of nasty grams to prove it. Some of those Fed contracts will fly you into the ground. The "we have been doing it for years" still gets an ear.
I dont think the arrest passes the smell test in the sense there are those waiting to take something like this to court.
Alaska has always been loose in its observance of the rules and it was just a matter of time with someone in a nice uptown Anchorage office says "lets make an example out of this one"
Rules are rules and if you break them by hanging your A55 out then you had better be prepared to sing the song.
I had to say no to some folks up there on OAS stuff and I have a stack of nasty grams to prove it. Some of those Fed contracts will fly you into the ground. The "we have been doing it for years" still gets an ear.
Last edited by B Sousa; 16th Aug 2006 at 05:14.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware USA
Age: 67
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negligence Reflects Badly on All
Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide is not about,"suits in big offices." It is about wrongful death. Pilots with integrity have a right to have their professions respected and protected;reckless tragedy reflects badly on all pilots,including those who diligently,honestly and conscientiously run businesses or fly planes. Passengers have legal rights and reasonable expectations that their lives will be protected, and that the Pilot in Command will not disregard rules and common sense. Just as with motor vehicle recklessness, there must be accountability to protect the innocent. It is important to preserve the integrity of the good Pilot's who deserve the respect and protection of the law; pilots who are negligent need to be held fully accountable.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGBA Who grabbed your thong? Aircraft Deaths have been going on for sometime and many far worse than this one dont even get a look from Criminal Courts, usually settled out in a Wrongful Death Suit.
If you have been there you will know its about "Suits in big offices"
Speaking of Auto Accidents, its only been stylish in the last 10-15 years to take things criminally.
I do agree on the accountability end, but as I said maybe you better go up North and look around...Lots of scrap Aluminum on the hills and nobody in jail...
If you have been there you will know its about "Suits in big offices"
Speaking of Auto Accidents, its only been stylish in the last 10-15 years to take things criminally.
I do agree on the accountability end, but as I said maybe you better go up North and look around...Lots of scrap Aluminum on the hills and nobody in jail...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delaware USA
Age: 67
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negligence Reflects Badly on All
Welcome to the big league BS...rogue & cavalier mentality went-out with the barn-stormers. In Command Pilots want laws enforced and protection for passengers, this is common sense to those who fly with safety & integrity. Unregulated wreckless actions = time in jail.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could be an interesting one.
First, the 10% rule is still used in Alaska, I am an A&P, know lots of people flying up there and several Feds from the FSDO there. Now, the 10% rule is almost always used for ferry flights, as flying out of ANC is one way that people get airplanes to Hawaii.
They take airplanes to ANC where someone puts a "toyko tank" in the bird and the local FSDO signs it off for ferry to Hawaii at 10% over normal gross weight. Its not normally done for normal operation but usually on a one time or ferry flight. Thank God that I never had to resort to doing that to get flight time or crossings as its long boring flying and a long swim back should the engine cough.
Second, regarding the annual. If someone owned a plane and asked me to fly their family in it, do you think that the owner is going pull me aside to say "hey, its out of annual but everything is ok, just get in and fly!" The pilot was probably told that "its ok, everything's fine, have a good flight," so lets stop jumping on the pilot for the plane being out of annual. Unless he had been told that it was out of annual AND a witness heard it being done, then that one will be throw out by a first year lawyer.
He was not correct in having 5 people and only 4 seats but you know it was in Alaska and the rules involving flying get bent, much of the time. In a court of law the lawyers will eat him alive but the kid survived the impact. He then did not grab his life vest and complications from that is what cost him his life.
Years ago I was jumpseating on PanAm from Frankfurt to Berlin after having non-rev'ed across the pond on vacation. Captain had a group of non-revs standing at the gate. He asked how many were we? We came up with 12 people and there were only 4 pax seats available in the plane. It was the last flight of the night to Berlin. He said "I commute to work and no one is going to be left behind." Two of us got in the jumpseats in the cockpit, every extra flight attendent seat was filled and two lucky people sat in the potty for takeoff and landing. It was illegal as hell but done more often than we care to admit. Yes, I know it would probably not ever happen now but it did then. When nothing happens on the flight, everyone walks away happy, like should have happened in this flight.
Sorry to see something like this happen as everyone involved would much rather have had a good flight, landed at the dock, gone inside and had a sandwich and a pint. Sometimes it does not happen.
First, the 10% rule is still used in Alaska, I am an A&P, know lots of people flying up there and several Feds from the FSDO there. Now, the 10% rule is almost always used for ferry flights, as flying out of ANC is one way that people get airplanes to Hawaii.
They take airplanes to ANC where someone puts a "toyko tank" in the bird and the local FSDO signs it off for ferry to Hawaii at 10% over normal gross weight. Its not normally done for normal operation but usually on a one time or ferry flight. Thank God that I never had to resort to doing that to get flight time or crossings as its long boring flying and a long swim back should the engine cough.
Second, regarding the annual. If someone owned a plane and asked me to fly their family in it, do you think that the owner is going pull me aside to say "hey, its out of annual but everything is ok, just get in and fly!" The pilot was probably told that "its ok, everything's fine, have a good flight," so lets stop jumping on the pilot for the plane being out of annual. Unless he had been told that it was out of annual AND a witness heard it being done, then that one will be throw out by a first year lawyer.
He was not correct in having 5 people and only 4 seats but you know it was in Alaska and the rules involving flying get bent, much of the time. In a court of law the lawyers will eat him alive but the kid survived the impact. He then did not grab his life vest and complications from that is what cost him his life.
Years ago I was jumpseating on PanAm from Frankfurt to Berlin after having non-rev'ed across the pond on vacation. Captain had a group of non-revs standing at the gate. He asked how many were we? We came up with 12 people and there were only 4 pax seats available in the plane. It was the last flight of the night to Berlin. He said "I commute to work and no one is going to be left behind." Two of us got in the jumpseats in the cockpit, every extra flight attendent seat was filled and two lucky people sat in the potty for takeoff and landing. It was illegal as hell but done more often than we care to admit. Yes, I know it would probably not ever happen now but it did then. When nothing happens on the flight, everyone walks away happy, like should have happened in this flight.
Sorry to see something like this happen as everyone involved would much rather have had a good flight, landed at the dock, gone inside and had a sandwich and a pint. Sometimes it does not happen.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Welcome to the big league BS...rogue & cavalier mentality went-out with the barn-stormers."
FGBA So nice you live in a world where you certainly dont get mud on your feet from flying.........You have a long way to go.....
Attitude is all over the place. I see it in the States and more so in Africa where I am currently.
Better take it easy and enjoy the Aviation magazines in the lounge.
Go for Post #3
FGBA So nice you live in a world where you certainly dont get mud on your feet from flying.........You have a long way to go.....
Attitude is all over the place. I see it in the States and more so in Africa where I am currently.
Better take it easy and enjoy the Aviation magazines in the lounge.
Go for Post #3
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chanderlers dad.....is that cow **********(Name Deleted by Admin) still working for the FEDS....all in all I recieved 8 violations in the 10 yrs I flew up there,5 of them were from her,and only one was deserved.....and even that one was a little shakey
......as a previous poster mentioned ...enforcement was tough ,especially when we covered up our N#,s......and for the little blue angel.......stay in the lower 48. ... ...never once gambled with anyones life except for my own...and anyone who,s done solo night freight knows what I mean/.....pb
......as a previous poster mentioned ...enforcement was tough ,especially when we covered up our N#,s......and for the little blue angel.......stay in the lower 48. ... ...never once gambled with anyones life except for my own...and anyone who,s done solo night freight knows what I mean/.....pb