John took some time away from flying, several years in fact. Deciding to rent from the local FBO he did some ground and flight training with one of their instructors. The instructor got John 61.56 legal again and endorsed him to rent from the FBO. The instructor got a new job in a new city.


The rental agreement says John's private insurance is primary and they provided him with minimum coverage amounts. He paid his premium for the year. The rental agreement also says that John must remain 90 days current or must do another checkout flight with them before renting their airplane. John worked out an exception that allows him to fly with ABC, inc that has the same type airplane in their fleet and as long as he does so, he is exempt from their 90 day rule.



John went flying with ABC with their CFI, Jack and did some pattern work, including a night landing to a full stop. John is now day legal according to the FARs.


John wants to improve his confidence but isn't quite ready to fly solo again. He has a friend who is a CFI and is cleared to fly and instruct with ABC. John thinks that 1 or 2 more flights just might get him where he wants to be, but there's an administrative hangup preventing ABC from dispatching any airplanes.


John proposes to his friend that they rent from the FBO and John will be legal PIC and his friend will be a passenger, but by agreement will provide instruction. The CFI friend balks at the arrangement. John wants to preserve the peace but believes the flight is 100% legit, so he finds small print in the FBO rental agreement that says that only approved pilots may operate the controls of their aircraft.


Who is right?

I'm glad you're able to articulate your concerns. I fear you are in the minority of squeaky wheels.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

No sir. I asked, in post #79, and you answered by responding about some other case and Chapelle, and deflection about Rittenhouse.

Are you blind to the vitriol and hatred by politicians and media against a kid who defended himself from three felons intent on killing or injuring him?  Are you blind that they cast the labels of racist and white supremacist on this kid, completely without proof and completely without remorse?  Are you blind that these race hustlers are calling this democrat judge a racist because of how he handled the case? 

You didn’t give me any answer to my questions.

You want things to “get better?”  Here are a few hints:

1. Don’t blame white people for black’s problems.
2. Don’t call everyone with whom you disagree a racist. “Racist” means virtually nothing any more, but is still capable of destroying someone’s life and reputation.
3. Calling whites “racist” by virtue of their skin color will not make things better.  That is making things much worse.

What makes me responsible for what others have made you believe?

This thread is an example of why things don’t “get better”. I clearly articulate that Black people want a better standard of treatment and y’all go off the rails.


I am not your token voice of what Black people think/feel/want for a group that twists it beyond recognition. You asked, I answered and you wanna debate it, which says clearly you didn’t really want to know.


For you is what you earn. Good luck with your eternity.

I submit that the Trans-African slavery differs from everything else that came before in the history of the world.


“ We have, as far as possible, closed every avenue by which the light may enter the slave’s mind. If we could extinguish the capacity to see the light, our work will be complete. They would then be on the level of the beast of the fields and we then should be safe.”- Henry Berry

Can anyone tell me why this trial, where one white guy shot three white guys in self defense, has anything - anything - to do with race?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Jaybird?

I think Dave Chappelle best explained it when he talked about the Amber Guyer trial. It's not that we think she should have been treated more harshly, but we think that everyone should be treated with the same humanity, caring and dignity that Amber was shown.

The feelings of racism come not because Rittenhouse was found NG, but because if the shooter would have been black, there is no faith that the outcome would have been the same.

Capiche?