Another home wrecked

[Skylune]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/plane.crash/index.html

Man, this is becoming an epidemic!

[Denny]

First off a BE90 is hardly a small plane being an 1100 horsepower
machine that will haul 15 skydivers and a pilot to altitude...
Secondly this is an epidemic in your mind only with only a tiny
percentage of GA pilots having a turbine rating...
I am unsure how your post slipped through my spam filters, but I'm
happy to reply - and to tighten the filter on your postings...

cheers ... denny


Skylune wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/plane.crash/index.html
>
> Man, this is becoming an epidemic!

[Skylune]

Cheers! And condolences to the homeowners.

[Skywise]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/plane.crash/index.html
>
> Man, this is becoming an epidemic!

Why don't you bitch about all the traffic accidents that
happen? I mean, what's that Allstate commercial say? Once
every 6 seconds or so? Now THAT'S an epidemic.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[gatt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> Man, this is becoming an epidemic!

Damned shame that house wrecked a perfectly good airplane, too! Not to
mention the crew casualties.

The CNN article leads: "A small plane crashed into a house at the end of a
runway..." and it got me a'thinkin'.

What a GREAT PLACE to build a house. Here in Oregon a developer build a
suburb and sold all the lots...behind a National Guard rifle range that had
been used since WWII. Then the homeowners hollered 'cause they were too
goddam dumb to check out the neighborhood before buying.

-c

[Sylvain]

gatt wrote:

> been used since WWII. Then the homeowners hollered 'cause they were too
> goddam dumb to check out the neighborhood before buying.

I almost bought a really nice piece of land with some friend;
great place, and priced significantly lower than market in this
area; being suspicious by nature I investigated a bit; turned
out it was cheap because of a right of way feud -- no other
access -- with a retiree neighbor whose only hobby had been to
sue his neighbors for decades); doesn't have to be next to a
firing range, smelly chemical plant, flood plain, airport,
or other places favored by developers... i.e., in addition
to zoning laws, geological surveys, and others stuff, spend
some time at the local court house reviewing the records! :-)

--Sylvain

[Kingfish]

Inarguable logic at work. Atta boy Brian. Have at 'em!

Skywise wrote:
>
> Why don't you bitch about all the traffic accidents that
> happen? I mean, what's that Allstate commercial say? Once
> every 6 seconds or so? Now THAT'S an epidemic.
>
> Brian

[Kingfish]

Sounds vaguely familiar to those twits that buy homes near an airport
and then bitch about the noise at town meetings. No sympathy for fools
here...

gatt wrote:
> What a GREAT PLACE to build a house. Here in Oregon a developer build a
> suburb and sold all the lots...behind a National Guard rifle range that had
> been used since WWII. Then the homeowners hollered 'cause they were too
> goddam dumb to check out the neighborhood before buying.
>
> -c

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Kingfish" > wrote:

> Sounds vaguely familiar to those twits that buy homes near an airport
> and then bitch about the noise at town meetings. No sympathy for fools
> here...

or the idiots who buy a house next to a farm, and then complains
about the smell of manure.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[[email protected]]

I'd prefer the farm to the local garbage dump. About 20 minutes from me
a developer is
building houses not only across the street from the dump, but the dump
is in the background of every yard. Now, who is the bigger fool, the
developer who invested the big
money, or the buyers of the houses?

[Kingfish]

Caveat Emptor...

wrote:
> Now, who is the bigger fool, the
> developer who invested the big
> money, or the buyers of the houses?

[john smith]

Lune, you need to pick better subject line titles.
I reaad the subject line and thought this thread was about AIDS
(aviation induced divorce syndrome).

[Peter Duniho]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Skylune wrote:
>>
>> [nothing important]
>>
>
> [troll food]


Please do not feed the troll. All of you.

[Greg Farris]

In article
utaviation.com>,
says...
>
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/plane.crash/index.html
>
>Man, this is becoming an epidemic!


Yes it is. Greedy developers building houses in unsafe locations is
reaching epidemic proportions, and these developers should start facing
the financial burden of relocation and demolition of the houses they
build and sell.

[Steve Foley]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>
> Please do not feed the troll. All of you.

Wilco (this time around)

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
>> Sounds vaguely familiar to those twits that buy homes near an airport
>> and then bitch about the noise at town meetings. No sympathy for fools
>> here...
>
> or the idiots who buy a house next to a farm, and then complains
> about the smell of manure.
>
Or buy houses adjacent to a freeway and complain about the noise/dirt...


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'd prefer the farm to the local garbage dump. About 20 minutes from me
> a developer is
> building houses not only across the street from the dump, but the dump
> is in the background of every yard. Now, who is the bigger fool, the
> developer who invested the big
> money, or the buyers of the houses?

The developer realizes that some buyers are absolute idiots.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> Or buy houses adjacent to a freeway and complain about the noise/dirt...


Shoot me, now!!


Montblack

[Skylune]

I wasn't referring to crashes, I was referring to destroyed homes.

Per mile travelled, I would bet more houses are destroyed by airplanes
than cars.

But of course there could be other epidmemics...

LOL

[Skylune]

LOL. Maybe I should have said "pandemic."

Here's another close call from the land down under, from yesterday..

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19456467-1245,00.html?from=public_rss

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
>> Per mile travelled, I would bet more houses are destroyed by airplanes
>> than cars.

And far more lives are lost in cars than light aircraft. 43,200 in
2005. Guess we should close all those car dealerships, huh?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/20/us_traffic_deaths_hit_15_year_high_in_2005/

>> But of course there could be other epidmemics...

By comparison, highway deaths qualify as more of an epidemic than
aircraft. Call me biased here, but if you gotta see facts...

[Skylune]

Calling King, Calling King: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

You keep getting confused, and off the point. Its houses, houses, homes,
residences. Not number of accidents, not car dealerships,...

Oh never mind. The brain damage is apparently too severe.

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Per mile travelled, I would bet more houses are destroyed by airplanes
> than cars.

I'm willing to take that bet. So what are your numbers and how are they
derived?

[Darkwing]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> utaviation.com>,
> says...
>>
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/plane.crash/index.html
>>
>>Man, this is becoming an epidemic!
>
>
> Yes it is. Greedy developers building houses in unsafe locations is
> reaching epidemic proportions, and these developers should start facing
> the financial burden of relocation and demolition of the houses they
> build and sell.
>


You can blame the planning commissioners for that, they should say no but
kickbacks are an amazing thing...

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
> Calling King, Calling King: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
>
> You keep getting confused, and off the point. Its houses, houses, homes,
> residences. Not number of accidents, not car dealerships,...

WTF indeed. It is you that keeps missing the point. You quote two or
three accidents where an aircraft crashes into a house and call it an
epidemic (clearly you don't know the definition of the word, but I'll
leave it at that) Tragic for sure, but it hardly compares to the 43,000
some-odd deaths on the highway last year. That is certainly more of an
epidemic - do you follow now?

> Oh never mind. The brain damage is apparently too severe.

It can't be THAT bad, after all I did finish the training and get my
license. Can you say the same? Eh?

I think Pete Duniho was right. You're just not worth the effort and
pointing out your inconsistencies has become tiring.

[Greg Farris]

In article
utaviation.com>,
says...
>
>
>LOL. Maybe I should have said "pandemic."
>
>Here's another close call from the land down under, from yesterday..
>
>http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19456467-1245,00.html?from=public_rss
>

You had to go global to get a tiny scrap of news in which even the cat
didn't get sick! You are really barking up the wrong tree this time. You
have valid points on many occasions, but your new mania about airplanes
frequently doing damage or injuring people on the ground is pure falsehood,
and if you respect yourself intellectually you should get off it and on to
something better supported by the record.

GF

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Skylune > posted:

> Per mile travelled, I would bet more houses are destroyed by airplanes
> than cars.
>
You're on! Let's see the data that supports this notion.

Neil

[Skylune]

by "Kingfish" > Jun 13, 2006 at 08:42 PM


Skylune wrote:
> Calling King, Calling King: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
>
> You keep getting confused, and off the point. Its houses, houses,
homes,
> residences. Not number of accidents, not car dealerships,...

WTF indeed. It is you that keeps missing the point. You quote two or
three accidents where an aircraft crashes into a house and call it an
epidemic (clearly you don't know the definition of the word, but I'll
leave it at that) Tragic for sure, but it hardly compares to the 43,000
some-odd deaths on the highway last year. That is certainly more of an
epidemic - do you follow now?

> Oh never mind. The brain damage is apparently too severe.

It can't be THAT bad, after all I did finish the training and get my
license. Can you say the same? Eh?

I think Pete Duniho was right. You're just not worth the effort and
pointing out your inconsistencies has become tiring.


<<

Does this mean you wont be my sponsor, on the AOPA student pilot adoption
program??

LOL.

BTW: You have not ever pointed out a single inconsistency in my opinions,
and you can't.

[Skylune]

by Jim Logajan > Jun 13, 2006 at 10:07 PM


"Skylune" > wrote:
> Per mile travelled, I would bet more houses are destroyed by airplanes
> than cars.

I'm willing to take that bet. So what are your numbers and how are they
derived?


<<

I don't have the numbers, and never said (or implied) that I did. I
simply stated that I would bet that is the case. If anyone can get that
data and I am wrong, I will gladly send $25. ;-)

[Jay Honeck]

>> Or buy houses adjacent to a freeway and complain about the noise/dirt...
>
> Shoot me, now!!

You're not *that* close to the freeway!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> "Skylune" > wrote:
>>> Per mile travelled, I would bet more houses are destroyed by airplanes
>>> than cars.
>> I'm willing to take that bet. So what are your numbers and how are they
>> derived?
>
> I don't have the numbers, and never said (or implied) that I did. I
> simply stated that I would bet that is the case. If anyone can get that
> data and I am wrong, I will gladly send $25. ;-)

I would bet the interior of the asteroid Ceres is made of cream cheese. If
anyone can go there and find out I am wrong, I will gladly send $25.

[Skylune]

by Jim Logajan > Jun 14, 2006 at 05:06 PM


I would bet the interior of the asteroid Ceres is made of cream cheese.
If

anyone can go there and find out I am wrong, I will gladly send $25

<<

Well, there do exist many data points about homes destroyed by small
planes. Google it: "Plane crash into homes." Or, if you'd prefer, I'll
attach links to all the hits that popped up -- 4 pages worth, although
many are unrelated to GA or repeats of the same story. ;-)

Saying its an epidemic was intentional hyperbole on my part, and it did
get a reaction. I know the odds are small but, as I have said before,
statistically it is inevitable that a small plane will at some point cause
many deaths on the ground. There have been many close calls recently, and
a small number of deaths have occurred by GA serving (up) America.

Rather than aiming to put more and more pilots (some marginally trained
under the LSA rules) into the air, the AOPA/FAA cabal should instead be
looking to improve the safety of the GA fleet, the training required of
pilots, security at GA airports in vicinity of cities and/or properties
vital to national security (such as reservoirs), reduce noise-, air and
water pollution, etc. Of course, this would cost money, and the AOPA
opposes any and all of this. Instead, they want the tax subsidies to keep
coming in, and the hell with any kind of greater social responsibility. A
truly nefarious organization that acts against the country's best
interests.


Now, are there ANY stories about this asteroid's composition? There are
many stories about GA planes crashing into private property.

[Jose]

> I would bet the interior of the asteroid Ceres is made of cream cheese. If
> anyone can go there and find out I am wrong, I will gladly send $25.

Be careful - we can probably do that from here. :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> You're not *that* close to the freeway!


Define ...*that* close. :-)

Google Earth
N 45.08.38.40
W 93 15.39.24

45°08'38.40"N, 93°15'39.24"W
White vehicle in driveway.

White (westbound) semi, in the middle lane (of the freeway) can be seen over
the TOP of the freeway wall ...if one is at the keyboard in the computer
room, looking out the window. <g>

I don't know how to make my keyboard get the little (45°) circle, so I
cheat. I grab a coordinate off a quick Google web search, paste it
somewhere, then fill in my data around the little circles. Lame, but it
works for me!


Montblack

[Jim Logajan]

"Montblack" > wrote:
> I don't know how to make my keyboard get the little (45°) circle,

On MS Windows, there is a utility called "Character Map" that allows you to
insert unusual characters while typing. It is probably under
"All Programs" -> "Accessories" -> "System Tools" -> "Character Map".

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Well, there do exist many data points about homes destroyed by small
> planes.

No one denies that.

> Saying its an epidemic was intentional hyperbole on my part, and it
> did get a reaction.

So you admit to an irrational attack.

> Rather than aiming to put more and more pilots (some marginally
> trained under the LSA rules) into the air, the AOPA/FAA cabal should
> instead be looking to improve the safety of the GA fleet,

What specifically do you think they should be doing that they aren't doing
now?

> the training
> required of pilots, security at GA airports in vicinity of cities
> and/or properties vital to national security (such as reservoirs),
> reduce noise-, air and water pollution, etc.

What specifically do you think they should be doing that they aren't doing
now on these issues?

> Of course, this would
> cost money, and the AOPA opposes any and all of this. Instead, they
> want the tax subsidies to keep coming in, and the hell with any kind
> of greater social responsibility. A truly nefarious organization that
> acts against the country's best interests.

I see you making lots of demand for restrictions on travel and more
intrusive regulations - so much for your claim to being a libertarian.

I'm all for less government subsidies of GA. If that were your only
complaint you'd probably find more posters here agreeing with you.

[Allen]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
>> You're not *that* close to the freeway!
>
>
> Define ...*that* close. :-)
>
> Google Earth
> N 45.08.38.40
> W 93 15.39.24
>
> 45°08'38.40"N, 93°15'39.24"W
> White vehicle in driveway.
>
> White (westbound) semi, in the middle lane (of the freeway) can be seen
> over the TOP of the freeway wall ...if one is at the keyboard in the
> computer room, looking out the window. <g>
>
> I don't know how to make my keyboard get the little (45°) circle, so I
> cheat. I grab a coordinate off a quick Google web search, paste it
> somewhere, then fill in my data around the little circles. Lame, but it
> works for me!
>
>
> Montblack


103° here yesterday. Hold down the ALT key and press 504 on the numpad.

Allen

[Skylune]

by Jim Logajan > Jun 14, 2006 at 06:41 PM


"Skylune" > wrote:
> Well, there do exist many data points about homes destroyed by small
> planes.

No one denies that.

> Saying its an epidemic was intentional hyperbole on my part, and it
> did get a reaction.

So you admit to an irrational attack.

> Rather than aiming to put more and more pilots (some marginally
> trained under the LSA rules) into the air, the AOPA/FAA cabal should
> instead be looking to improve the safety of the GA fleet,

What specifically do you think they should be doing that they aren't
doing

now?

> the training
> required of pilots, security at GA airports in vicinity of cities
> and/or properties vital to national security (such as reservoirs),
> reduce noise-, air and water pollution, etc.

What specifically do you think they should be doing that they aren't
doing

now on these issues?

> Of course, this would
> cost money, and the AOPA opposes any and all of this. Instead, they
> want the tax subsidies to keep coming in, and the hell with any kind
> of greater social responsibility. A truly nefarious organization that
> acts against the country's best interests.

I see you making lots of demand for restrictions on travel and more
intrusive regulations - so much for your claim to being a libertarian.

I'm all for less government subsidies of GA. If that were your only
complaint you'd probably find more posters here agreeing with you

<<

Hi Jim. It was intentional hyperbole. I wouldn't call it an irrational
attack, but there's enough gray area there so I won't disagree. I think
few people (myself included)live in fear of dying from a small plane
crashing into my house. But it does happen, and as the population grows,
the odds increase. This is very simple.

On the safety of the GA fleet, it is more what AOPA is opposing: FAA's
studying older planes is being opposed by AOPA, even though structural
failure has been implicated in various recent crashes. (Also rare, like
crashing into homes, but opposing even a study????) I think the pilots
have a phrase for these planes: "tired iron." One of your very own, on
his web site states that if you don't want the engine to quit mid flight,
buy a new plane. On this site, recently, people were lamenting how easily
the structure of a Piper could be compromised by pushing on the wing-tips.
How would I know, if I am a renter, if the plane has been damaged.

Getting a sport pilot license by presenting a drivers license as proof of
medical fitness is just stupid, and not worthy of debate. There is no
physical required, just an eye test. Losing the drivers license due to a
medical condition happens only AFTER a crash. Boyer of course knows this,
but pursues another intellectually dishonest rhetorical argument to get
more members and planes in the sky.

I think pilots should be drug tested (and yes, I would extend that to
other forms of transportation such as driving). I am not a pure
libertarian -- in a crowded society with competing interests and limited
resources, government MUST play a referee role to some degree. Otherwise,
there would be anarchy.

At least we agree that the subsidies should end. My biggest beef are
complete lack of enforcement of noise restrictions at some airports, being
buzzed and having no one responsible (FAA says its up to the airport
sponsor, and airport sponsor says its up the FAA). There is no
enforcement of the FARs, and constant busting of minimums. Of course the
FAA makes this virtually impossible to prove, unless it is a very high
profile case of a beach in Calif or school (one near here in Massachusetts
last week). Then, the "enforcement" actions tend to be a joke. Voluntary
compliance with the FARs, without real penalty for serious violations, is
a situation that must be changed, IMO. Just like I cannot go hunting
wherever I choose, even though I have an explicit right in the
Constitution to bear arms.

At least you agree with me that GA is subsidized. This is an indisputable
fact when you look at the amounts of revenue, by source, that go into the
Av. Trust Fund. All arguments made here (the AOPA story line, basically)
are simply rhetorical.

[Montblack]

("Allen" wrote)
> 103° here yesterday. Hold down the ALT key and press 504 on the numpad.


°Very cool°

Thanks!

Any other neat keyboard tricks out there?


Montblack
79°

[Jose]

> On the safety of the GA fleet, it is more what AOPA is opposing: FAA's
> studying older planes is being opposed by AOPA, even though structural
> failure has been implicated in various recent crashes. (Also rare, like
> crashing into homes, but opposing even a study????)

"study" is code-speak for "we know what we want to do, let's find a way
to convince people to do it". In politics, there is no such thing as an
impartial study, and to treat the word as if it meant that is ludicrous.

> Getting a sport pilot license by presenting a drivers license as proof of
> medical fitness is just stupid, and not worthy of debate.

That's an example right there. Let's "study" it.

> I think pilots should be drug tested (and yes, I would extend that to
> other forms of transportation such as driving). I am not a pure
> libertarian -- in a crowded society with competing interests and limited
> resources, government MUST play a referee role to some degree. Otherwise,
> there would be anarchy.

You are not a libertarian at all. You seem to be in favor of a society
in which permission is required and innocence must be proven.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jon Woellhaf]

I've always used Alt-0176. 104° -- not normal for Denver, thank goodness.
But it's a dry heat.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Allen" wrote)
>> 103° here yesterday. Hold down the ALT key and press 504 on the numpad.
>
>
> °Very cool°
>
> Thanks!
>
> Any other neat keyboard tricks out there?
>
>
> Montblack
> 79°

[Skylune]

by Jose > Jun 14, 2006 at 08:51 PM


> On the safety of the GA fleet, it is more what AOPA is opposing: FAA's
> studying older planes is being opposed by AOPA, even though structural
> failure has been implicated in various recent crashes. (Also rare,
like
> crashing into homes, but opposing even a study????)

"study" is code-speak for "we know what we want to do, let's find a way
to convince people to do it". In politics, there is no such thing as an
impartial study, and to treat the word as if it meant that is ludicrous.

> Getting a sport pilot license by presenting a drivers license as proof
of
> medical fitness is just stupid, and not worthy of debate.

That's an example right there. Let's "study" it.

> I think pilots should be drug tested (and yes, I would extend that to
> other forms of transportation such as driving). I am not a pure
> libertarian -- in a crowded society with competing interests and
limited
> resources, government MUST play a referee role to some degree.
Otherwise,
> there would be anarchy.

You are not a libertarian at all. You seem to be in favor of a society
in which permission is required and innocence must be proven.

Jose

<<

Hi Jose. Someone worth debating, with intellectual honesty (unlike the
Boyer-esque fools)....

On your dismissal of all studies, I disagree. Yes, many are rigged (like
ALL the Economic Benefit studies of GA airports), that is true. But not
all. The FAA has a history and mission of ADVOCATING INCREASED aviation
(the LSA is a recent example)and subsidizing GA. Why is it that this
aviation advocacy group already has a pre-determined position on older
aircraft, especially since structural failures have been implicated in
some crashes recently?? I don't understand. They want to put more planes
and pilots in the air, and provide more grants to airports in order to tie
the hands of localities for at least 20 years. They are GA's best friend.
If these airports had to be self supporting, profit making businesses,
there would be way, way less of them, and you would all be paying much,
much more.

On my politics, I do have libertarian leanings. I am not a pure
libertarian who believes that everyone should be home schooled and fend
for themselves. I believe in decriminization of various drugs, and free
market solutions wherever possible: libertarian leanings. I am against
unlimited welfare outlays, government required health care (like Mass is
imposing), etc.

In my politics, government plays a role as a regulator when there are
externalities (such as pollution) or when various groups of society come
into conflict. There must be rules (regulations or laws) to prevent
anarchy.
In a fully libertarian society, I'd be able to fly kites high or shoot off
my Mossberg at fools in low flying planes. I'd have as much right to my
freedoms as the pilots. But this would be ridiculous. This is why I am
against the self-policing of the FARs (to great extent) and "voluntary"
noise abatement procedures, etc.

Take care. I gotta go out to the Left Coast (La La land) by commercial
airliner.

[Allen]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
> I've always used Alt-0176. 104° -- not normal for Denver, thank goodness.
> But it's a dry heat.
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ("Allen" wrote)
>>> 103° here yesterday. Hold down the ALT key and press 504 on the numpad.
>>
>>
>> °Very cool°
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Any other neat keyboard tricks out there?
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>> 79°

When a ? meets a ? (alt 11 and alt 12) ? (alt 14)

Allen

[Jay Beckman]

"Allen" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> When a ? meets a ? (alt 11 and alt 12) ? (alt 14)
>
> Allen
>

Very clever. It's (alt 14) to my ears...

Jay B

[gatt]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Sounds vaguely familiar to those twits that buy homes near an airport
> and then bitch about the noise at town meetings. No sympathy for fools
> here...


I sit right between the approaches to PDX 28R and 28L. The random F-15
scramblings get to be a bit obnoxious, but I also have the Happy Valley
arrival/departure to KTTD 1,000 feet AGL over my head.

We enjoy that commercial where the 747 flips around the weathervane on the
house. That's what our new neighbors must feel like.

-c

[Jay Honeck]

> °Very cool°

°THAT IS NEAT!°

I'll never, ever remember it, when I need it -- but it's cool, nonetheless!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> On your dismissal of all studies, I disagree.

I don't dismiss all studies, just the ones with political or economic
ends behind them. "We need a study to show that cell phone use while
driving is (or is not) dangerous." Further, even well designed studies
are subject to misinterpretation by those who stand to benefit -
consider all the heart and diet studies that are done, misinterpreted,
and products sold on that basis.

> Yes, many are rigged (like ALL the Economic Benefit
> studies of GA airports)

.... and all the noise impact studies of GA airports. I wonder how many
developers stand to benefit by getting neighbors up in arms...

> Why is it that this
> aviation advocacy group already has a pre-determined position on older
> aircraft, especially since structural failures have been implicated in
> some crashes recently??

I don't know whether either of your premises is true. But once a
government study begins, politics tends to trump science, and powerful
forces with big voices have something to misinterpret. There is no
reason to feed them. No pattern of crashes has emerged that make me
suspect that there is a general problem with "older aircraft" (a
category which spans =many= categories).

Now if a pattern were to emerge - for example, three huge jetliners
crash into big buildings in one day, then maybe there would be grounds
to study whether small aircraft should be kept away from cities. :)

> On my politics, I do have libertarian leanings.

They are not at all evident.

> I believe in decriminization of various drugs...

The ones you advocate testing pilots for?

> In a fully libertarian society, I'd be able to fly kites high or shoot off
> my Mossberg at fools in low flying planes.

I do not believe that libertarians would be in agreement with that
statement.

> This is why I am against the self-policing of the FARs (to great extent)...

What is special about the FARs (besides your own noise issue) that make
you want to turn aviation into a police state, while espousing
libertarian views elsewhere?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kingfish]

Well said, Jose. Our resident troll chided me saying >>>BTW: You have
not ever pointed out a single inconsistency in my opinions, and you
can't<<<. But you have done just that. Your logic will have no effect
on him, as his head is firmly planted in some dark & stinky place. If
he really thinks he could shoot at low flying aircraft with a shotgun
in a libertarian society he'd have his liberties restricted rather
quickly (in jail).


Jose wrote:
> > On your dismissal of all studies, I disagree.
>
> I don't dismiss all studies, just the ones with political or economic
> ends behind them. "We need a study to show that cell phone use while
> driving is (or is not) dangerous." Further, even well designed studies
> are subject to misinterpretation by those who stand to benefit -
> consider all the heart and diet studies that are done, misinterpreted,
> and products sold on that basis.
>
> > Yes, many are rigged (like ALL the Economic Benefit
> > studies of GA airports)
>
> ... and all the noise impact studies of GA airports. I wonder how many
> developers stand to benefit by getting neighbors up in arms...
>
> > Why is it that this
> > aviation advocacy group already has a pre-determined position on older
> > aircraft, especially since structural failures have been implicated in
> > some crashes recently??
>
> I don't know whether either of your premises is true. But once a
> government study begins, politics tends to trump science, and powerful
> forces with big voices have something to misinterpret. There is no
> reason to feed them. No pattern of crashes has emerged that make me
> suspect that there is a general problem with "older aircraft" (a
> category which spans =many= categories).
>
> Now if a pattern were to emerge - for example, three huge jetliners
> crash into big buildings in one day, then maybe there would be grounds
> to study whether small aircraft should be kept away from cities. :)
>
> > On my politics, I do have libertarian leanings.
>
> They are not at all evident.
>
> > I believe in decriminization of various drugs...
>
> The ones you advocate testing pilots for?
>
> > In a fully libertarian society, I'd be able to fly kites high or shoot off
> > my Mossberg at fools in low flying planes.
>
> I do not believe that libertarians would be in agreement with that
> statement.
>
> > This is why I am against the self-policing of the FARs (to great extent)...
>
> What is special about the FARs (besides your own noise issue) that make
> you want to turn aviation into a police state, while espousing
> libertarian views elsewhere?
>
> Jose
> --
> The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.