Post-accident photos of RV/TBM Avenger Oshkosh taxi collision

[Jim Logajan]

Some post-accident photos (no gore, thankfully) showing the RV and TBM
Avenger were posted on a forum on Doug Reeves' RV website:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=9638

Really gives some perspective on the visibility, or lack thereof, that both
pilots must have experienced.

[Robert M. Gary]

photos????



Jim Logajan wrote:
> Some post-accident photos (no gore, thankfully) showing the RV and TBM
> Avenger were posted on a forum on Doug Reeves' RV website:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=9638
>
> Really gives some perspective on the visibility, or lack thereof, that both
> pilots must have experienced.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> photos????
>

Scroll through the linked thread and you'll find 'em. They are on the 2nd
page.

[Jim Logajan]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> photos????

Sorry - the link is to the whole thread. Here's the link to the specific
post:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=63452&postcount=12

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Some post-accident photos (no gore, thankfully) showing the RV and
>> TBM Avenger were posted on a forum on Doug Reeves' RV website:
>> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=9638
>>
>> Really gives some perspective on the visibility, or lack thereof,
>> that both pilots must have experienced.
>

[.Blueskies.]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message .. .
: "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
: > photos????
:
: Sorry - the link is to the whole thread. Here's the link to the specific
: post:
: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=63452&postcount=12
:
: > Jim Logajan wrote:
: >> Some post-accident photos (no gore, thankfully) showing the RV and
: >> TBM Avenger were posted on a forum on Doug Reeves' RV website:
: >> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=9638
: >>
: >> Really gives some perspective on the visibility, or lack thereof,
: >> that both pilots must have experienced.
: >
:

That is just a shame...easy to see how it could happen...sad day indeed.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > photos????
> >
>
> Scroll through the linked thread and you'll find 'em. They are on the 2nd
> page.

The pictures have now been edited out.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > photos????
>
> Sorry - the link is to the whole thread. Here's the link to the specific
> post:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=63452&postcount=12


Looks like the pictures have been removed ;(. Anyone have the pictures
anywhere else?
-Robert

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:48:50 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:
> The pictures have now been edited out.

Censorship rears its ugly head again... Yet another reason to
appreciate USENET over private forums...

[Skywise]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:48:50 -0400, "Morgans" >
> wrote:
>> The pictures have now been edited out.
>
> Censorship rears its ugly head again... Yet another reason to
> appreciate USENET over private forums...

I've posted them in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation under
the subject of "OSH TBM accident".

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?

[Peter Dohm]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > > photos????
> >
> > Sorry - the link is to the whole thread. Here's the link to the specific
> > post:
> > http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=63452&postcount=12
>
>
> Looks like the pictures have been removed ;(. Anyone have the pictures
> anywhere else?
> -Robert
>
Look on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation with the title "OSH TBM Accident".

That said, REALLY READ the threads on vansairforce.com because there may be
much more to the story when the actual report comes out...

Peter

[john smith]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> That said, REALLY READ the threads on vansairforce.com because there may be
> much more to the story when the actual report comes out...

What is it listed under?
I cannot find them.

[.Blueskies.]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message ...
: That said, REALLY READ the threads on vansairforce.com because there may be
: much more to the story when the actual report comes out...
:
: Peter
:
:

And by that you mean what? The RV cut in front of the Avenger? The Avenger was doing S turns? Folks were on the scene
very quickly? The pictures were 'censored' off the site? Always helps when folks say what they mean...

[Peter Dohm]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> : That said, REALLY READ the threads on vansairforce.com because there may
be
> : much more to the story when the actual report comes out...
> :
> : Peter
> :
> :
>
> And by that you mean what?
> The RV cut in front of the Avenger?
> The Avenger was doing S turns?

All of those and their opposites. None of the posts, that I read, claimed
to have been personally watching prior to the accident. That means that I
lot of us have been shooting from the hip, and perhaps we should take a
break.

> Folks were on the scene very quickly?

Commendable, and not surprising.

> The pictures were 'censored' off the site?

VERY high on my list of pet peaves! It just seems that anything that might
be really usefull or informative has a way of being censored on some
pretext--such as "too disturbing" or the alleged privacy of the next of kin.
The Dale Earnhart crash in NASCAR was one good example and this is another.
The net result seems to be the protection of "expert" findings.

I realize that looks like a contradiction of my earlier comment; however it
is not. The first was a suggestion to wait and review all of the evidence.
The last was an expression of my annoyance at the suppression of portions of
the evidence, making the reasoned arrival at any accurate independent
conclusion difficult or impossible.

(Temporary end of rant.)

> Always helps when folks say what they mean...
>
>

I'm trying.
(Sometimes very trying)

Peter

[Skywise]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
> ...
<Snipola>


>> The pictures were 'censored' off the site?
>
> VERY high on my list of pet peaves! It just seems that anything that
> might be really usefull or informative has a way of being censored on
> some pretext--such as "too disturbing" or the alleged privacy of the
> next of kin.
<Snipola>

In case you missed it, I posted them over in
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation under the subject of "OSH TBM accident".

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?

[Peter Dohm]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
> > ...
> <Snipola>
>
>
> >> The pictures were 'censored' off the site?
> >
> > VERY high on my list of pet peaves! It just seems that anything that
> > might be really usefull or informative has a way of being censored on
> > some pretext--such as "too disturbing" or the alleged privacy of the
> > next of kin.
> <Snipola>
>
> In case you missed it, I posted them over in
> alt.binaries.pictures.aviation under the subject of "OSH TBM accident".
>
> 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?

And thanks for posting them, and defeating some of the censorship.
I did see them, and also posted the location earlier in this thread.

Peter

[Jerry Springer]

>
>>: That said, REALLY READ the threads on vansairforce.com because there may
>
> be
>
>>: much more to the story when the actual report comes out...
>>:
>>: Peter
>>:
>>:
>>
>>And by that you mean what?
>>The RV cut in front of the Avenger?
>>The Avenger was doing S turns?
>
>
> All of those and their opposites. None of the posts, that I read, claimed
> to have been personally watching prior to the accident. That means that I
> lot of us have been shooting from the hip, and perhaps we should take a
> break.
>
>

Actully there was a post on the Matronics RV-List that was written by a
person that witnessed the accident about 100 ft from his location.

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > In case you missed it, I posted them over in
> > alt.binaries.pictures.aviation under the subject of "OSH TBM accident".
> >
>
> And thanks for posting them, and defeating some of the censorship.
> I did see them, and also posted the location earlier in this thread.

They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.
--
Jim in NC

[Jerry Springer]

Morgans wrote:
> > > In case you missed it, I posted them over in
>
>>>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation under the subject of "OSH TBM accident".
>>>
>>
>>And thanks for posting them, and defeating some of the censorship.
>>I did see them, and also posted the location earlier in this thread.
>
>
> They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.


Just checked and they are still there on the
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in

> Just checked and they are still there on the
> alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.

Just to be sure I didn't miss them, what are they named in the subject box?

I'm pretty sure that my server removed them.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Morgans" >
wrote:


> Just to be sure I didn't miss them, what are they named in the subject box?
>
> I'm pretty sure that my server removed them.

"TBM" is in the subject line and reference to OSH.

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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>Morgans wrote:
>> They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.
>Just checked and they are still there on the
>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.

There is no such thing as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site". Each
individual news server carries or doesn't carry usenet newsgroups for as
long as they want, so while they may still be on the server you're looking
at, they may have already expired from the server "Morgans" is looking at.

The news servers I run don't carry alt.binaries at all, because the
terabytes of data involved are too expensive for the non-profits I do it
for.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It might not be practical, it might not be a good idea, but it could work.
Sort of like Windows.
-- berry

[Jerry Springer]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in
>
>
>>Just checked and they are still there on the
>>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.
>
>
> Just to be sure I didn't miss them, what are they named in the subject box?
>
> I'm pretty sure that my server removed them.

The easiest wasy to find them is to look for the sender "skywise"
and then "OSH TBM Accident" they are up this morning. I say these are
very educational photos.

try this link to see them, not sure how long it well be avialable.


http://flickr.com/photos/bowen/tags/oshkosh2006accident/

Could be that some servers don't have the room to keep them up for long.

Jerry

[Jerry Springer]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>
>>Morgans wrote:
>>
>>>They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.
>>
>>Just checked and they are still there on the
>>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.
>
>
> There is no such thing as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site". Each
> individual news server carries or doesn't carry usenet newsgroups for as
> long as they want, so while they may still be on the server you're looking
> at, they may have already expired from the server "Morgans" is looking at.
>
> The news servers I run don't carry alt.binaries at all, because the
> terabytes of data involved are too expensive for the non-profits I do it
> for.
>
No kidding, I do believe that everyone understands that and knows what
we were talking about.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Morgans" wrote)
> I'm pretty sure that my server removed them.


I'm sending you the pics.


Montblack

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>>>Morgans wrote:
>>>>They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.
>>>
>>>Just checked and they are still there on the
>>>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site". Each
>> individual news server carries or doesn't carry usenet newsgroups for as
>> long as they want, so while they may still be on the server you're looking
>> at, they may have already expired from the server "Morgans" is looking at.

>No kidding, I do believe that everyone understands that and knows what
>we were talking about.

If "everyone" understands that, what possible reason could you have for
telling Morgans that they're still on your server when you don't even tell
him which server you're talking about? How does that help him? And why
would you refer to your server as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
site"?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Ok I'll "just hit delete". You can be "Delete".
- Ron Ritzman, talking to a spammer

[Jerry springer]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>>In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>>>
>>>>Morgans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.
>>>>
>>>>Just checked and they are still there on the
>>>>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site". Each
>>>individual news server carries or doesn't carry usenet newsgroups for as
>>>long as they want, so while they may still be on the server you're looking
>>>at, they may have already expired from the server "Morgans" is looking at.
>
>
>>No kidding, I do believe that everyone understands that and knows what
>>we were talking about.
>
>
> If "everyone" understands that, what possible reason could you have for
> telling Morgans that they're still on your server when you don't even tell
> him which server you're talking about? How does that help him? And why
> would you refer to your server as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
> site"?
>
>
Just to make you feel like a big shot and come on here and tell us
something that everyone that has been on the internet for over a day and
uses usenet already understands, Morgan had already mentioned that
they were not on his server or he might have missed the title to them.

[zatatime]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:03:45 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>>
>>>Morgans wrote:
>>>
>>>>They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.
>>>
>>>Just checked and they are still there on the
>>>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.
>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site". Each
>> individual news server carries or doesn't carry usenet newsgroups for as
>> long as they want, so while they may still be on the server you're looking
>> at, they may have already expired from the server "Morgans" is looking at.
>>
>> The news servers I run don't carry alt.binaries at all, because the
>> terabytes of data involved are too expensive for the non-profits I do it
>> for.
>>
>No kidding, I do believe that everyone understands that and knows what
>we were talking about.


Actually what you stated is a common misconception. I honestly
thought you didn't understand how usenet worked. This is not a dig,
rather an observation due to the terminology used. I thought Paul did
a good job of explaining the architecture of NNTP.

z

[zatatime]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:29:33 GMT, Jerry springer
> wrote:

>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>>
>>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>>
>>>>In a previous article, Jerry Springer > said:
>>>>
>>>>>Morgans wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just checked and they are still there on the
>>>>>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.
>>>>
>>>>There is no such thing as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site". Each
>>>>individual news server carries or doesn't carry usenet newsgroups for as
>>>>long as they want, so while they may still be on the server you're looking
>>>>at, they may have already expired from the server "Morgans" is looking at.
>>
>>
>>>No kidding, I do believe that everyone understands that and knows what
>>>we were talking about.
>>
>>
>> If "everyone" understands that, what possible reason could you have for
>> telling Morgans that they're still on your server when you don't even tell
>> him which server you're talking about? How does that help him? And why
>> would you refer to your server as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
>> site"?
>>
>>
>Just to make you feel like a big shot and come on here and tell us
>something that everyone that has been on the internet for over a day and
>uses usenet already understands, Morgan had already mentioned that
>they were not on his server or he might have missed the title to them.

The internet has nothing to do with usenet. The internet uses the
HTTP protocol. Usenet uses the NNTP protocol. Both exist without the
need for the other. NNTP is actually older than "the internet."

HTH.
z

[Morgans[_3_]]

"zatatime" > wrote

> The internet has nothing to do with usenet. The internet uses the
> HTTP protocol. Usenet uses the NNTP protocol. Both exist without the
> need for the other. NNTP is actually older than "the internet."
******************************************

You'all have gotten on my last nerve, now.

You all have to remember that most people do not give a rat's A** how or why
it all works. Stop trying to show each other how big your d**ks are, and
get that through your thick heads.

And if usenet has nothing to do with Internet, why do you read it through
services provided by your ISP's?

Really, get a life! Don't try to impress everyone with a bunch of technical
names. General names are plenty for most people to try to comprehend.
--
Jim in NC

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

zatatime > writes:
> The internet has nothing to do with usenet. The internet uses the
> HTTP protocol. Usenet uses the NNTP protocol. Both exist without the
> need for the other. NNTP is actually older than "the internet."

May I suggest that you go read a bit about the history of the arpanet,
internet, usenet, and the world wide web?

This should be a good starting point:

http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/

Chris

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Morgans" wrote)
> Stop trying to show each other how big your d**ks are, and get that
> through your thick heads.


Very old punchline:
"Only 4 1/2 inches --- thick."


Montblack

[zatatime]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>You'all have gotten on my last nerve, now.
>
>You all have to remember that most people do not give a rat's A** how or why
>it all works. Stop trying to show each other how big your d**ks are, and
>get that through your thick heads.

I wasn't trying to show anyone how big my dick is. I'd say those with
the thick heads are the ones that don't care to understand technology
they use to some degree. It's a shame that posts applicable to these
forums get your last nerve.
>
>And if usenet has nothing to do with Internet, why do you read it through
>services provided by your ISP's?
I don't.


>Really, get a life! Don't try to impress everyone with a bunch of technical
>names. General names are plenty for most people to try to comprehend.
So then should we just call everything that goes in the air a flight
thingy? That should be good for most people.
z

[john smith]

In article >,
zatatime > wrote:

> I wasn't trying to show anyone how big my dick is. I'd say those with
> the thick heads are the ones that don't care to understand technology
> they use to some degree. It's a shame that posts applicable to these
> forums get your last nerve.

Ahhh! Therein lies the difference!
Many computer users don't care how it works, they only want it to work
correctly when they use it.
It's a machine, nothing more.
You turn it on, it works the way you want it to.
If it doesn't, you find someone to fix it so it does work the way you
want it to.
They don't care how!
They don't care why!
Its not important!
Just make it work!
Period!

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:27:23 GMT, john smith > wrote:
> Ahhh! Therein lies the difference!
> Many computer users don't care how it works, they only want it to work
> correctly when they use it.
> It's a machine, nothing more.
> You turn it on, it works the way you want it to.
> If it doesn't, you find someone to fix it so it does work the way you
> want it to.
> They don't care how!
> They don't care why!
> Its not important!
> Just make it work!
> Period!

Do you have the same philosophy with respect to aircraft? At the very
least, your A&P *really* likes you... How many of his kids have you
put through college? Have you noticed that he has recently bought a
large boat?

[john smith]

In article >,
Grumman-581 > wrote:

> Do you have the same philosophy with respect to aircraft?

There is no correlation between operating a computer and operating an
aircraft.

Personally, yes, I do learn everything I can about the aircraft I fly.
I know others who do not.
Many of the people in my flying club do not.
They cannot afford to purchase their own aircraft, but they can afford
the hourly rates to fly when they want. They don't care. As long as
there are no squawks to ground the airplane, they will fly it. The costs
of maintenance are built into the hourly rental rates.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"john smith" > wrote

> Ahhh! Therein lies the difference!
> Many computer users don't care how it works, they only want it to work
> correctly when they use it.
> It's a machine, nothing more.
> You turn it on, it works the way you want it to.
> If it doesn't, you find someone to fix it so it does work the way you
> want it to.
> They don't care how!
> They don't care why!
> Its not important!
> Just make it work!
> Period!

There you go! I didn't think that was so hard to understand.

I also wonder how many people DO NOT get their newsgroups through services
provided by their ISP's?

No counting the ones who read them at work.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Webb]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "john smith" > wrote
>
>> Ahhh! Therein lies the difference!
>> Many computer users don't care how it works, they only want it to work
>> correctly when they use it.
>> It's a machine, nothing more.
>> You turn it on, it works the way you want it to.
>> If it doesn't, you find someone to fix it so it does work the way you
>> want it to.
>> They don't care how!
>> They don't care why!
>> Its not important!
>> Just make it work!
>> Period!

That's the way most women feel about cars. I don't think they should be
allowed to drive!

[Michelle Settle]

"Ron Webb" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> That's the way most women feel about cars. I don't think they should be
> allowed to drive!

Want to race, big boy?

Michelle

[john smith]

In article >,
"Michelle Settle" > wrote:

> "Ron Webb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > That's the way most women feel about cars. I don't think they should be
> > allowed to drive!
>
> Want to race, big boy?

Don't answer Robb, it's a trick question!

[Bob Chilcoat]

Not to make light of a terrible tragedy, but it is somehow highly ironic
that part of the first message ID could be read "bumf***er".

Sorry, I'll go away now.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>
> Message ID's:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>