Yet another home wrecked

[Steve Foley]

Runaway truck smashes into home, burns
By Scott J. Croteau and Taryn Plumb TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WORCESTER - The driver of a 10-wheel dump truck lost control on
gravel-covered Forbes Street yesterday, and the truck hit a Jeep on Lincoln
Street, then barreled over an embankment and slammed into the back of a
Paine Street three-decker, setting it ablaze.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steve Foley" > said:
>Runaway truck smashes into home, burns
>By Scott J. Croteau and Taryn Plumb TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
>WORCESTER - The driver of a 10-wheel dump truck lost control on
>gravel-covered Forbes Street yesterday, and the truck hit a Jeep on Lincoln
>Street, then barreled over an embankment and slammed into the back of a
>Paine Street three-decker, setting it ablaze.

Man, these things are dangerous. They should outlaw dump trucks.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Knuth is definitely the ******* something from hell. I just admire him
from a distance, it's safer.
-- Peter da Silva

[Dave Stadt]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Steve Foley" > said:
>>Runaway truck smashes into home, burns
>>By Scott J. Croteau and Taryn Plumb TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
>>WORCESTER - The driver of a 10-wheel dump truck lost control on
>>gravel-covered Forbes Street yesterday, and the truck hit a Jeep on
>>Lincoln
>>Street, then barreled over an embankment and slammed into the back of a
>>Paine Street three-decker, setting it ablaze.
>
> Man, these things are dangerous. They should outlaw dump trucks.

Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam, the
test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.

> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Knuth is definitely the ******* something from hell. I just admire him
> from a distance, it's safer.
> -- Peter da Silva

[Robert M. Gary]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam, the
> test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.

In California you need a medical exam for a commercial driver's license
over a certain weight.

-Robert

[Jay Beckman]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam, the
>> test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.
>
> In California you need a medical exam for a commercial driver's license
> over a certain weight.
>
> -Robert

Weight of the Truck or weight of the Driver?

Just wonderin'

Jay B

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>>Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam, the
>>test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.
>
>
> In California you need a medical exam for a commercial driver's license
> over a certain weight.

PA requires a CDL which I believe also requires drug testing now.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Beckman wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>>>Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam, the
>>>test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.
>>
>>In California you need a medical exam for a commercial driver's license
>>over a certain weight.
>>
>>-Robert
>
>
> Weight of the Truck or weight of the Driver?

Is there a difference?

Matt

[Skylune]

by "Robert M. Gary" <N7093v@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jun 20, 2006 at 05:06 PM


Dave Stadt wrote:
> Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam,
the
> test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.

In California you need a medical exam for a commercial driver's license
over a certain weight.

-Robert

<<

In Mass too. CDL requires drug test, etc. Many trucking companies also
randomly test their drivers. How about flight schools??

Plus, the trucks have mufflers, and there are police that will pull over a
truck that is speeding, or disobeying other traffic laws if they are
spotted. How about small planes?

I saw one idiot last weekend in a Cessna that was no more that 300 feet
up, just cruising around the area. Clear violation of FARs. But, no
there is no agency resposible for enforcement, or even a place to complain
to.

[Allen]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> I saw one idiot last weekend in a Cessna that was no more that 300 feet
> up, just cruising around the area. Clear violation of FARs. But, no
> there is no agency resposible for enforcement, or even a place to complain
> to.

Where were you, where was he and how were you able to get that 300' tape
measure up to his Cessna?

Details, Lune, we need details.

allen

[Skylune]

That would be the FAA type response. There is no enforcement...

I was in a field, attending a high school commencement. The plane was
flying low. I can judge distances.

[Steve Foley]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
> Plus, the trucks have mufflers

So does my airplane

> and there are police that will pull over a
> truck that is speeding, or disobeying other traffic laws if they are
> spotted. How about small planes?

They're called the Feds Against Aviation (FAA)


> I saw one idiot last weekend in a Cessna that was no more that 300 feet
> up, just cruising around the area. Clear violation of FARs.

Not so clear to me. Where did this happen? That's a key point.

> there is no agency resposible for enforcement, or even a place to complain
> to.

Yes, there is. The issue is that they're not going to expend resources to
quiet a whiner when there are bigger problems to solve.

[Steve Foley]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
> In Mass too. CDL requires drug test, etc. Many trucking companies also
> randomly test their drivers.

> Plus, the trucks have mufflers, and there are police that will pull over a
> truck that is speeding, or disobeying other traffic laws if they are
> spotted.

I guess all these laws didn't do much for the owner of the house that got
hit.

[Skylune]

by "Steve Foley" > Jun 21, 2006 at 02:09 PM


"Skylune" > wrote in message
> In Mass too. CDL requires drug test, etc. Many trucking companies
also
> randomly test their drivers.

> Plus, the trucks have mufflers, and there are police that will pull
over
a
> truck that is speeding, or disobeying other traffic laws if they are
> spotted.

I guess all these laws didn't do much for the owner of the house that got
hit

<<

Obviously not. Just imagine the situation (truckers' behaviours) if there
were no traffic laws, or no enforcement of traffic laws. It would resemble
the current state of GA.

[John T]

You need a medical exam for a CDL. Very simliar to a class 3.

[Skylune]

by John T > Jun 21, 2006 at 10:28 AM


You need a medical exam for a CDL. Very simliar to a class 3

<<

Facts mean nothing to Stadt. He should work for AOPA.

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Obviously not. Just imagine the situation (truckers' behaviours) if there
> were no traffic laws, or no enforcement of traffic laws. It would resemble
> the current state of GA.

Yup, just like the Wild West, only at altitude. Good times.

[Skylune]

by "Kingfish" > Jun 21, 2006 at 09:24 AM


Skylune wrote:
>
> Obviously not. Just imagine the situation (truckers' behaviours) if
there
> were no traffic laws, or no enforcement of traffic laws. It would
resemble
> the current state of GA.

Yup, just like the Wild West, only at altitude. Good times.

<<

Even better than the Wild Wild West (where the good guys could shoot back)
because of the subsidies!

[Steve Foley]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
> I guess all these laws didn't do much for the owner of the house that got
> hit
>
> <<
>
> Obviously not. Just imagine the situation (truckers' behaviours) if there
> were no traffic laws, or no enforcement of traffic laws. It would
resemble
> the current state of GA.

Last nights Boston News (Channel 4) had two lead stories of houses destroyed
or damaged by trucks. I don't recall seeing any stories on the Boston news
about homes destroyed or damaged by GA airplanes.

I also vividly recall a truck off the road and on my front lawn, as well as
the garage down the street torn off the house by a truck.

The only thing I've ever seen damaged by a plane is another plane (low speed
taxi) or a runway light.

Maybe these truck accidents are begin caused by all of these laws.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:52:21 -0400, Skylune wrote:

> That would be the FAA type response. There is no enforcement...

There have been cases of people reporting low-flying aircraft to the FAA,
and at least one with which I'm familiar resulted in an enforcement
action. Therefore, your statement is factually incorrect.

But perhaps some local FSDO staffer provided you with bad information when
you called. You did call the FSDO, right? Or are you just guessing?

> I was in a field, attending a high school commencement. The
plane was
> flying low. I can judge distances.

What model plane? After all, a 210 might look like 152 but appear closer
than reality.

Or were you judging distance against visual cues like sidewalk or street
distance or buildings in the background (ie. appearing behind the aircraft)?

Or can you judge 300' (vs., for example, 500') through pure stereopsis?

Or are you just guessing?

- Andrew

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> That would be the FAA type response. There is no enforcement...
>
> I was in a field, attending a high school commencement. The plane was
> flying low. I can judge distances.

Glad to hear that you finally graduated!

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Even better than the Wild Wild West (where the good guys could shoot back)
> because of the subsidies!

Clearly, this whole subsidy issue has you foaming at the mouth. Why
don't you try writing letters to people that matter, instead of posting
your rants on an aviation newsgroup frequented by pilots? (who don't
care) I still haven't figured out your point in continuing to do this.

If government subsidies are such a hot issue for you, start with the
huge tax subsidies given to Big Oil - the same folks who are making
record profits while we all pay $3/gal for autogas. Here's something
that affects you directly, unlike the AIP funds given to airports to
maintain infrastructure. BTW, AIP funding is for all airports large &
small so it's not accurate to call it a subsidy for GA.

[Skylune]

by "Steve Foley" > Jun 21, 2006 at 05:07 PM



Maybe these truck accidents are begin caused by all of these laws

<<

;-)

That was funny, Steve. Maybe you are right....
They should establish a TODA (Truck owners and Drivers Association).
Maybe they can find a retiring TV executive to be president.

[Skylune]

by Orval Fairbairn > Jun 21, 2006 at 05:52 PM




Glad to hear that you finally graduated!
<<

Touche, Orval. ;-)

[Skylune]

by Andrew Gideon > Jun 21, 2006 at 01:15 PM


On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:52:21 -0400, Skylune wrote:

> That would be the FAA type response. There is no enforcement...

There have been cases of people reporting low-flying aircraft to the FAA,
and at least one with which I'm familiar resulted in an enforcement
action. Therefore, your statement is factually incorrect.

But perhaps some local FSDO staffer provided you with bad information
when
you called. You did call the FSDO, right? Or are you just guessing?

> I was in a field, attending a high school commencement. The
plane was
> flying low. I can judge distances.

What model plane? After all, a 210 might look like 152 but appear closer
than reality.

Or were you judging distance against visual cues like sidewalk or street
distance or buildings in the background (ie. appearing behind the
aircraft)?

Or can you judge 300' (vs., for example, 500') through pure stereopsis?

Or are you just guessing?

- Andrew

<<

OK. "No enforcement" is an overstatement. There is rare enforcement,
usually a high profile event like the idiot who buzzed the beach in Calif
last year.

As you know, when you call the FAA they need an N#. Difficult to see on
the ground. Aha, goes the argument, therefore the plane must have been
above 1000 feet. Wrong. Very difficult to catch a small N number on a
low flying, fast moving object. Try reading the license plate number off
a moving car.

And even if you get the N# (and I have), the FAA will want proof, to their
standards. Virtually impossible.

All the (honest) pilots out there know there are some who routinely bust
minimums.

[Steve Foley]

"Skylune" > wrote in message

> That was funny, Steve. Maybe you are right....
> They should establish a TODA (Truck owners and Drivers Association).
> Maybe they can find a retiring TV executive to be president.
>
I think they call themselves Teamsters :)

[Kingfish]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>
> > That was funny, Steve. Maybe you are right....
> > They should establish a TODA (Truck owners and Drivers Association).
> > Maybe they can find a retiring TV executive to be president.
> >

> I think they call themselves Teamsters :)

Funny, I was thinking the same thing <G>

[Skywise]

Skylune took the bait - hook, line, and sinker.

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?

[Skywise]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

<Snipola>
> Obviously not. Just imagine the situation (truckers' behaviours) if there
> were no traffic laws, or no enforcement of traffic laws. It would resemble
> the current state of GA.

What are you talking about? There's no enforcement of traffic
laws as it is. Hell, I've even seen people do really bad driving
right in front of "law enforcement" and nothing happened. Worse
yet, I've seen "law enforcement" do some really bad driving.

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?

[Skylune]

by Skywise > Jun 21, 2006 at 07:26 PM


"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

<Snipola>
> Obviously not. Just imagine the situation (truckers' behaviours) if
there
> were no traffic laws, or no enforcement of traffic laws. It would
resemble
> the current state of GA.

What are you talking about? There's no enforcement of traffic
laws as it is. Hell, I've even seen people do really bad driving
right in front of "law enforcement" and nothing happened. Worse
yet, I've seen "law enforcement" do some really bad driving.

Brian

<<

?

We've all seen examples of bad drivers. We've all also seen police with
flashing lights pulling people over.

One of the reasons I no longer ride a motorcycle is because of bad car and
truck drivers: it just became too dangerous. I'll say it again: if there
were no traffic laws, it would be worse.

[Skylune]

by Skywise > Jun 21, 2006 at 07:22 PM


Skylune took the bait - hook, line, and sinker.


<<

Glad you "feel" that way. (Not "think" being you are from Calif. ;-) )

[Kingfish]

Kingfish wrote:
>
> Clearly, this whole subsidy issue has you foaming at the mouth. Why
> don't you try writing letters to people that matter, instead of posting
> your rants on an aviation newsgroup frequented by pilots? (who don't
> care) I still haven't figured out your point in continuing to do this.
>
> If government subsidies are such a hot issue for you, start with the
> huge tax subsidies given to Big Oil - the same folks who are making
> record profits while we all pay $3/gal for autogas. Here's something
> that affects you directly, unlike the AIP funds given to airports to
> maintain infrastructure. BTW, AIP funding is for all airports large &
> small so it's not accurate to call it a subsidy for GA.

No comment on this Lune?

[Skylune]

by "Kingfish" > Jun 22, 2006 at 11:29 AM


Kingfish wrote:
>
> Clearly, this whole subsidy issue has you foaming at the mouth. Why
> don't you try writing letters to people that matter, instead of posting
> your rants on an aviation newsgroup frequented by pilots? (who don't
> care) I still haven't figured out your point in continuing to do this.
>
> If government subsidies are such a hot issue for you, start with the
> huge tax subsidies given to Big Oil - the same folks who are making
> record profits while we all pay $3/gal for autogas. Here's something
> that affects you directly, unlike the AIP funds given to airports to
> maintain infrastructure. BTW, AIP funding is for all airports large &
> small so it's not accurate to call it a subsidy for GA.

No comment on this Lune?

<<

Yes. Dont feed the trolls! LOL

Just kidding. I just hate to (repeatedly) repeat myself (are you from
California??). GA IS heavily subsidized by taxpayers and commercial
airline passengers. This is a documented FACT. Period. There is no
debate, just rhetoric from the likes of the Destroyer. He can't debate it
honestly (i.e. show contributions from GA taxes vs. outlays for GA
airports), so he uses stupid, idiotic, rhetorical arguments, worthy of a
TV executive who made his prior career in the world of make-believe.

On why I don't "write letters" to people that matter.... This is yet
another erroneous assumption by you, King.

Here is the key graph from the BTS (again...sigh). You can parse the
entire report, but you will see that your precious AV gas taxes contribute
less than 2% to the total annual revenues of the trust fund. Far less than
is SPENT on GA airport operating (usually the $150k/annum grant) and
capital grants, which generally cover 95% of the cost of FAA approved
projects.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_06.html

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
>
> Yes. Dont feed the trolls! LOL

Ack! Hoisted by my own petard...

>
> On why I don't "write letters" to people that matter.... This is yet
> another erroneous assumption by you, King.

I never assumed you *didn't* write letters to politicos, just wondered
why you continue to use this newsgroup as a forum for your rants. Not
exactly a "friendly" audience in here (so to speak)

My original question still stands. Why do you froth at the mouth over
these subsidies then? Or are you writing letters to politicians about
the huuuge tax subsidies given to Big Oil, which more *directly*
affects your wallet?

[Skylune]

Hooray: U accept the FACT that GA is subsidized.

I'll answer your other question: In order to more effectively fight your
opponents, it is good practice to understand their mindset.

Now I'm done. See ya.

[Skywise]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

<Snipola>
> One of the reasons I no longer ride a motorcycle is because of bad car and
> truck drivers: it just became too dangerous. I'll say it again: if there
> were no traffic laws, it would be worse.

Then you weren't riding the motorcycle properly.

I've been riding for 19 years, all but one of them in the
LA and Orange County area. I used to have lots of problems,
lot's of close calls. Even had one minor accident. Then
I learned to ride. Now I don't have problems anymore.

What I mean by 'riding properly' is your attitude towards
the traffic on the road. As I've said over and over, I do
what I have to do to stay alive. Laws be damned. Take charge
of your driving situation and MAKE IT into one that is safe.
If you have to break a few rules to create a safe riding
environment because of bad drivers, then do it.

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?

[soxinbox]

Oh look!, despite what you said, the FAA is taking action against someone
who flew too low to a high school graduation.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/06/07/low_flying_plane_over_school_gets_student_in_troub le/
So all your whining is for naught.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> by "Robert M. Gary" <N7093v@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jun 20, 2006 at 05:06 PM
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam,
> the
>> test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.
>
> In California you need a medical exam for a commercial driver's license
> over a certain weight.
>
> -Robert
>
> <<
>
> In Mass too. CDL requires drug test, etc. Many trucking companies also
> randomly test their drivers. How about flight schools??
>
> Plus, the trucks have mufflers, and there are police that will pull over a
> truck that is speeding, or disobeying other traffic laws if they are
> spotted. How about small planes?
>
> I saw one idiot last weekend in a Cessna that was no more that 300 feet
> up, just cruising around the area. Clear violation of FARs. But, no
> there is no agency resposible for enforcement, or even a place to complain
> to.
>

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
> Hooray: U accept the FACT that GA is subsidized.
>
> I'll answer your other question: In order to more effectively fight your
> opponents, it is good practice to understand their mindset.
>
> Now I'm done. See ya.

Exit Don Quixote to battle another windmill...

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:24:34 -0400, Skylune wrote:

> Try reading the license plate number off
> a moving car.

Well, there goes your theory about ground traffic law enforcement.

> And even if you get the N# (and I have), the FAA will want proof, to their
> standards. Virtually impossible.

Factually incorrect again. In the case with which I'm familiar, at least,
the ground observer was presumed to be able to judge the distance at hand
(I don't recall why, but I do recall that the reasoning seemed specious).

Have you actually discussed this with a FSDO, or are you merely
guessing? I asked before, but I noticed a lack of answer. Is everything
you write just a guess?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:14:20 +0000, soxinbox wrote:

> Oh look!, despite what you said, the FAA is taking action against someone
> who flew too low to a high school graduation.

At least as far as this article is concerned, that's an undecided
question. There's the claim that the student was far higher than the
report to the police, and the tapes involved have yet to be reviewed.

Still, it does show that enforcement is possible when a pilot flies too
low. Is this Skylune fellow always this accurate? Is he or she just a
troll, or another "forever september" holdover?

- Andrew

[Matt Barrow]

"soxinbox" > wrote in message
...
> Oh look!, despite what you said, the FAA is taking action against someone
> who flew too low to a high school graduation.
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/06/07/low_flying_plane_over_school_gets_student_in_troub le/
> So all your whining is for naught.

(His whining is never for naught; it's the only _rise_ he gets in life.)

"Meanwhile, the student's father claims his son was flying at 1,000 feet and
was given clearance to do so. He said air-traffic control tapes from the FAA
tower in Manchester would prove it."

Most "civilians" could not judge distance (or speed) to save their asses.
Ever see someone waiting to enter traffic when the nearest car is a quarter
mile away or more? And waiting....and waiting...and waiting....


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
>
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...

[Kingfish]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> Still, it does show that enforcement is possible when a pilot flies too
> low. Is this Skylune fellow always this accurate? Is he or she just a
> troll, or another "forever september" holdover?
>
> - Andrew

A troll, yes... and apparently someone who at one point wanted to get
his PPL but couldn't hack it for whatever reason. Now he rants on this
newsgroup ad nauseum about his hatred of Phil Boyer and AOPA and how GA
is subsidized by the FAA et al...

[Bob Chilcoat]

Parsing the sentence, I'd say it's the weight of the license :-)

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:Sk0mg.34024$AB3.31554@fed1read02...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>>
>> In California you need a medical exam for a commercial driver's license
>> over a certain weight.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> Weight of the Truck or weight of the Driver?
>
> Jay B

[gatt]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. net...

>> Man, these things are dangerous. They should outlaw dump trucks.
>
> Not only that they are noisy, the drivers don't need a medical exam, the
> test to drive one is simple and there is no re-testing required.

The homeowner should sue to have the street closed down since it's so close
to their house.

-c