Urgent Help please

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Flintstone,

I'm guessing that you're not aware that the man who said...

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"

...was one Douglas Bader. Certainly a man who had his faults, but in this respect he was absolutely spot on. Some rules, however, such as those that say "don't lie about your qualifications to get a job flying an aeroplane" do not deserve the flexible treatment which Douglas suggests...

[kwachon]

Spot on Kit. Could not have said it better. Pass the popcorn, this can only get better...

[SNS3Guppy]

Perhaps you're thinking of MEP/IR privileges for private flying, which are slightly, though only slightly, different..?

No. Presumably MEP means multi engine privileges. I hold an FAA ATPL, which has no expiration, nor do any FAA multi engine privileges. FAA instrument currency is as described, 6 approaches in 6 months, with holding, and tracking of a course logged (soon to be changed somewhat). Formerly a requirement existed for 6 hours of instrument time every 6 months, but this was dropped several years ago.

For multi privileges, the recency of experience requirement is only category and class specific (airplane, multi engine land), and involves landings...three takeoffs and landings (at night for night privileges, to a full stop).
If one wants those privileges under charter or airline regulations, additional requirements apply, but that's about it. No expiration dates at all.
If I understand correctly, then; the original poster arrived with expired pilot certificates and was unable to fly at all?

Regardless of what ATC's saying now too many people here are quick to crucify others on the basis of a snippet of information, a crumb, a partial story.

We can only respond with what ATC provides us. ATC has made the decision to supply only part of the story, and let us not forget that he came here looking for counsel on taking a former employer to court. He sought that counsel based on misinformation; he deceived his employer, and attempted to deceive us, too. As we act only upon what is provided, and ATC only provided a partial story particular to what he wanted us to hear (and has refused to provide all the story), we can safely conclude that if any crucifixion has taken place, ATC has crucified himself.

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"

...was one Douglas Bader.

Douglas Bader was one of my heroes as a kid. He still is.

[His dudeness]

Quote Flintstone:
I notice I never got an answer to my question "Never broken a rule?".
I did, I did! - do I get a chocolate bar now ?

[Flintstone]

Originally Posted by Kit

I'm guessing that.............

BUZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!! You guessed wrong Kit. I'm well aware of the quote and the man himself having read a fair bit about and by him.

Your guess (or untested assumption) is a classic example of what I wrote earlier about people here being prepared to express opinions and pass sentence without knowing the full story. You guessed I'm not aware of the quote just as some people ****-canned ATC from the off on the basis of a partial story. I'm fairly sure that we still don't know all the details either.

Breaking rules and making wild guesses have as much place in aviation as each other. I'm curious though as to which rules exactly you're happy to break? That's assuming you agree with Bader? I'll lay the question open to kwachon too as he's in close agreement with you.

Which rules, specifically, are you prepared to break in aviation? Please tell me you only mean those which prevent you from protecting your aircraft, passengers and self in an emergency.

His dudeness. I've a Kit-Kat, Mars, Hershey bar or Snickers. Which would you like? NCR, you get second dibs though I've just found a Creme Egg covered in fluff down the back of the sofa you can have.

[abovetheclouds]

Listen, I have given the full story the reason extra checks were made is that one of the other pilots had an I.R renewal and was under the understanding that the MEP was renewed the same time it turned out that it had not then everyone was checked up, I made a mistake I just wanted to know if I should make a claim for some payment, I didn't ask to be told I made a mistake I already Know this why does every one judge instead of just giving advice. Is everyone so self obsessed they are all perfect and don't make mistakes.

Rgds
ATC

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Flintstone,

I guessed wrong. Big deal.

Which rules, specifically, are you prepared to break in aviation?

Fascinating topic for a paper, or lecture, or new way of analysing regulation (genuinely, there might be mileage in this given the western 'problem' with pilots stepping outside the rules). Lots of research required. Not cheap.

Your guess (or untested assumption) is a classic example of what I wrote earlier about people here being prepared to express opinions and pass sentence without knowing the full story

No, it was a guess in a thread on a web forum; I said so with clarity. Back in your box!

By the way, how did a creme egg get down the back of your sofa? Must have been some night!

ATC,

We've judged you because you've given us all the evidence we need to secure a <<PPRuNE conviction>>.

I made a mistake

No, a mistake is a specific type of human error - google it if you want to know more. Your actions amounted to much, much, more.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

By the way, [free advice alert] if you synchronize your IR renewals with your MEP renewals you'll save time and money, but end up with slightly longer check rides once a year.

[kwachon]

Flintstone, I am not going to get into it with you as that is not the reason for writing. The point of all the exchanges was not breaking the rules, but telling lies with regard to qualifications and currency and trying to sue when he got caught. Enough said.

[Flintstone]

Originally Posted by Kit

I guessed wrong. Big deal.

Yep. You guessed wrong, used that incorrect guess to suggest that I pay blind obeisance to 'rules', inferred that I am a fool for doing so and now submit a '' in place of an apology for your misplaced sleight. How........interesting.

Originally Posted by Kit

Fascinating topic for a paper, or lecture, or new way of analysing regulation (genuinely, there might be mileage in this given the western 'problem' with pilots stepping outside the rules). Lots of research required. Not cheap.

Except I'm not asking for such research. I'm merely asking you, Kit, who expound the acceptability of breaking rules to clarify which rules you would break. It costs nothing but a few seconds of your time. Come now, if you can find the time to educate ATC as to the error of his ways and me, mine surely you can afford to clarify which rules you will/would/do break?

Originally Posted by Kit

No, it was a guess in a thread on a web forum; I said so with clarity. Back in your box!

A (bad) guess, like others. At least you're consistent. My box? Really? How arrogant.

Originally Posted by kwachon

Flintstone, I am not going to get into it with you as that is not the reason for writing.

So let me clarify this. It's ok for you to pronounce sentence on ATC on the basis of something he wrote here but when I ask you to clarify which rules you would/will/do break (you admitted as much by your 'could not have put it better myself' comment) you're suddenly all coy? Come, come. No need for such shyness. We're all friends here.

Answer the question please. Both of you. I'm all intrigued now.

[kwachon]

"It's ok for you to pronounce sentence on ATC on the basis of something he wrote here"

Seems like you are getting all screwed up here Flintstone. Please advise when, where and what rules I have broken seeing as you seem to know everything about me, failing that quit stirring the pot when there is nothing to stir!.

[Flintstone]

kwachon.

Kit wrote "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" to which you added " Spot on Kit. Could not have said it better.".

I merely asked which rules need not be obeyed whereupon Kit backpedalled at olympic speed behind a smokescreen of waffle about an expensive survey being required while your defense mechanism kicked in with "Why don't you....?".

At this point I could ask you both again, press you for an answer, labour the point but then you'd become too distracted to learn the lesson here which is that it's not nice being backed into a corner by someone selectively quoting out of context, is it? A little unpleasant being denounced in front of your peers? Uncomfortable being picked on in public?

Maybe next time you'll remember that before coming down on someone with a

Originally Posted by Kit

<<PPRuNE conviction>>.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

It costs nothing but a few seconds of your time

No, you asked me

which rules exactly you're happy to break?

and to answer your question properly would require an analysis of my view of every rule in every situation. I still think this would be a fascinating exercise, though a very time-consuming one. [What do you consider amounts to a 'rule', in any case?]

Classification of rules by pilot interpretation would also be interesting:

As a starter I'd suggest that there are:

1. Some inconvenient rules which are routinely 'broken', without consequence (delaying entering a minor defect into the Tech Log until return to base);

2. Some unworkable rules (never use a mobile phone on the ground engines running);

3. Many unknown or misunderstood rules (temperature corrections to approach minima are hardly ever applied);

4. Some rules which inspire obedience in fear of prosecution (low flying);

5. Some which inspire obedience in fear of catastrophe (flight in IMC below MSA).

Then we'd have to consider the motives for disobedience and the inevitable risk/benefit analysis which takes place when an individual makes such an assessment...

But given that you wrote

used that incorrect guess to suggest that I pay blind obeisance to 'rules', inferred that I am a fool for doing so

...which doesn't make sense, and isn't what I said or inferred at all, I fear that (to misquote a famous line from a film we'll all know), your keyboard is writing cheques that your argument can't cash...

[Flintstone]

Originally Posted by Kit

which doesn't make sense

It makes perfect sense if you take into account the whole of Bader's quote ie, in context (ooh, look. There's that phrase again). I'm sorry if you can't grasp that.

Waffling on now about classification of rules is merely an attempt to drag the thread further off topic. When your turn comes (as it surely will in some way, shape or form) let's hope for your sake those around you are more understanding.

[kwachon]

Flintstone, perhaps you should look at your own comments before judging others and quit spouting that sanctimonious crap about breaking rules.

Glass houses and throwing stones comes to mind!.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Flintstone,

If I ever need to infer or opine that you're a fool, I shall do so with clarity! You may not be a fool, but you're certainly foolish, if you can't see that, in fact, I simply mis-guessed that you didn't know the origin of the quote.

Indeed, I contradicted Bader's tenet by suggesting that some rules are not simply for guidance. In that respect, Bader was wrong, though his statement stands very well as a guiding principle for the informed thinker.

When your turn comes (as it surely will in some way, shape or form) let's hope for your sake those around you are more understanding.

What, my turn to lie about my qualifications? That's not a foolish act, it's stupidity at the least. Lying about your qualifications and then broadcasting the facts to all and sundry (in righteous indignation), here, is a step further still. I really can't understand why you're banging on trying to defend someone who's put forward such a story of deceit...

[No Country Members]

Cheers, Flinstone, I'll take the cream egg. They're bound to improve with age. Just like my good self.

[Flintstone]

kwachon. Did I say I'd never broken a rule? Please try to focus.

Kit. So touchy. I never said you would lie about your qualifications. Feel free to quote me if I did. The suggestion (as you well know) was that at some point we all need to be heard before being condemned. Those of you issueing "<<PPRuNe conviction>>"s would do well to remember that.

My point was that you were very quick, too quick, to sanction someone. The waffle about surveys and the suggestion I was accusing you of breaking rules were merely your reactions to being put on the spot, something you were quite prepared to do to ATC early on but were clearly uncomfortable with yourselves. kwachon's accusation of my being sanctimonious bent the needle on my irony-o-meter and that goes all the way up to 11.

If the lesson here escapes you then I guess there's no hope.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Flintstone,

Not touchy, nor in need of any lessons from you, thanks.

And rather set in my opinion that my reaction to ATC's first post in this thread was completely on the money.

I'm not uncomfortable with anything I've done in an aircraft, thanks. Sometimes I've done the 'wrong' thing, but to err is human, and the 'system' is set up to permit errors. Sometimes I've broken 'rules', perhaps, but never big ones, and never without good cause.

And if there's no hope then I'm just glad that as a hopeless case I have such a smashing job!!!

[Runway Wide]

So what happened?

So apart from all of the stories about rule breaking right/wrong and so on........has anyone worked out if this "pilot" is still working....and where?
Did he claim?
New business in Outer Mongolia might be recruiting?