[Turbopilot]

I have yet to hear how they "fooled around." I can understand that, to a non-pilot, maybe going to the "maximum" altitude sounds risky, but that maximum is not the physical limit of the aircraft, it's the lower of either the certified limit of the aircraft or the company's limit (which carries the force of law). It's designed to be a safe limit. Exceeding it is physically possible, just not considered safe. And a pilot would have no reason not to go to the maximum safe altitude limit.

[Zacs Mom]

My comments are based on this account of the incident NTSB to Study What Led to Mo. Plane Crash

Here is an excerpt:

"... There were no passengers on the jet and no one on the ground was injured by the Oct. 14 crash in a residential neighborhood of Jefferson City, Mo.

According to FAA transcripts of air-to-ground conversations, an air traffic controller in Kansas City told the pilots it was rare to see the plane flying that high.

"Yeah, we're actually ... we don't have any passengers on board, so we decided to have a little fun and come up here," one of the pilots said. The transcripts don't identify whether Capt. Jesse Rhodes or First Officer Richard Peter Cesarz made the statement.

~snip~

David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said the issue may be reckless pilots rather than inadequate training or improper recovery procedures.

"This is more a story of pilots having time on their hands and playing with things in the cockpit that they shouldn't," he said.

Flying, he said, is as boring as truck driving most of the time.

"This was boredom and experimentation, these guys experimenting with things they had no business doing," Stempler said.