Hillsboro Air Show

[gatt]

Officials have decided that the Hillsboro Air Show will NOT be cancelled due
to the Hawker Hunter accident last summer.

I am of course glad to hear this. The airshow has been going on for well
over a decade, with Intel as one of its primary sponsors. Intel built a
factory under the downwind leg of the main runway, housing developments
sprung up to support the factory...and then everybody freaked out when a
plane crashed into homes in the general vicinity of the factory... that,
again, Intel built near the airshow that Intel sponsors at the airport
that's been there since Hillsboro was a collection of meadows with an
airport in the middle of it.

http://www.katu.com/


A Google Earth point to the crashsite is at
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php?Number=621393

-c

[john smith]

Bad zoning decision.

[lein]

gatt wrote:
> Officials have decided that the Hillsboro Air Show will NOT be cancelled due
> to the Hawker Hunter accident last summer.
>
> I am of course glad to hear this. The airshow has been going on for well
> over a decade, with Intel as one of its primary sponsors. Intel built a
> factory under the downwind leg of the main runway, housing developments
> sprung up to support the factory...and then everybody freaked out when a
> plane crashed into homes in the general vicinity of the factory... that,
> again, Intel built near the airshow that Intel sponsors at the airport
> that's been there since Hillsboro was a collection of meadows with an
> airport in the middle of it.
>
> http://www.katu.com/


Hell, you might as well have an airshow. If you are going to allow
hobbiest Homer fly his Piper in and out of the airport, you might as
well allow a highly train fighter pilot zip around in his well
maintained jet.

[hal lillywhite]

lein wrote:

> Hell, you might as well have an airshow. If you are going to allow
> hobbiest Homer fly his Piper in and out of the airport, you might as
> well allow a highly train fighter pilot zip around in his well
> maintained jet.

In fact you might say it was "Hobbiest Homer" who crashed last show.
He was not officially part of the show and was only there to show off
his airplane. The only blame one can place on the air show is that it
was the show that attracted him there. There is nothing to prevent
someone with a similar aircraft from showing up at that airport any
time.

[gatt]

"lein" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Hell, you might as well have an airshow. If you are going to allow
> hobbiest Homer fly his Piper in and out of the airport, you might as
> well allow a highly train fighter pilot zip around in his well
> maintained jet.


Yep, except it wasn't a "highly trained fighter pilot" in a "well-maintained
jet" that caused the ruckus. And, he wasn't zipping around. He was on the
downwind leg trying to return to the airfield.

-c

[Don Homuth]

On 16 Nov 2006 13:09:12 -0800, "hal lillywhite" >
wrote:

>
>lein wrote:
>
>> Hell, you might as well have an airshow. If you are going to allow
>> hobbiest Homer fly his Piper in and out of the airport, you might as
>> well allow a highly train fighter pilot zip around in his well
>> maintained jet.
>
>In fact you might say it was "Hobbiest Homer" who crashed last show.
>He was not officially part of the show and was only there to show off
>his airplane.

As were all such folks who flew in.

He just happened to have a Much cooler airplane than did most.

> The only blame one can place on the air show is that it
>was the show that attracted him there.

Airplane drivers like to hang with other airplane drivers, and as a
general rule that's somewhere near an airport.

Best time to do that is when there's Something Interesting going on.

> There is nothing to prevent
>someone with a similar aircraft from showing up at that airport any
>time.

Precisely.

But during an air show works just fine too.

Airplanes crash, sometimes. Mechanical failures are seldom
predictable.

Hate to lose a lovely aircraft like that one, though.

[Don Homuth]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:29:22 -0800, "gatt"
> wrote:

>
>"lein" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> Hell, you might as well have an airshow. If you are going to allow
>> hobbiest Homer fly his Piper in and out of the airport, you might as
>> well allow a highly train fighter pilot zip around in his well
>> maintained jet.
>
>Yep, except it wasn't a "highly trained fighter pilot" in a "well-maintained
>jet" that caused the ruckus. And, he wasn't zipping around. He was on the
>downwind leg trying to return to the airfield.

Only after the power loss problem that caused him to try to return, so
he could land upwind.

[gatt]

"Don Homuth" > wrote in message
...

> Airplanes crash, sometimes. Mechanical failures are seldom
> predictable.
>
> Hate to lose a lovely aircraft like that one, though.

Indeed. PBS had a documentary on last night showing one of the reproduction
Me-262s in flight (modern engines, thankfully.) Never thought I'd see that.



-c

[Don Homuth]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:09:41 -0800, "gatt"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Homuth" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Airplanes crash, sometimes. Mechanical failures are seldom
>> predictable.
>>
>> Hate to lose a lovely aircraft like that one, though.
>
>Indeed. PBS had a documentary on last night showing one of the reproduction
>Me-262s in flight (modern engines, thankfully.) Never thought I'd see that.

The axial flow BMW is pretty much how all Modern engines are now
built. The main difference is in the materials and casting techniques
used.

It was a remarkable aircraft without question. Though to be honest,
the sound of a RR Merlin 12 roaring by still is The sound of a WW2
warbird to me.

The P-51, Spitfire and Hurricane all shared that venerable sound.

I just plain Love to hear it.

[gatt]

"Don Homuth" > wrote in message
...

>>Yep, except it wasn't a "highly trained fighter pilot" in a
>>"well-maintained
>>jet" that caused the ruckus. And, he wasn't zipping around. He was on
>>the
>>downwind leg trying to return to the airfield.
>
> Only after the power loss problem that caused him to try to return, so
> he could land upwind.

Jets don't make good gliders. The problem was, he couldn't have turned
directly back toward the field because if he'd have overshot he'd have gone
directly into the crowd.

The HIO airshow has been going downhill for a long time, since they shuffled
the warbirds though and caused a couple of minor ground accidents just so
Truckasaurus or whatever that was could have its full show. I'm surprised
they haven't suspended air demonstrations for Kenny Rogers on the main stage
or something.



-c

[gatt]

"Don Homuth" > wrote in message
...

> It was a remarkable aircraft without question. Though to be honest, the
> sound of a RR Merlin 12 roaring by still is The sound of a WW2
> warbird to me.
>
> The P-51, Spitfire and Hurricane all shared that venerable sound.

Indeed. I'm more of an R-1820 Cyclone fan, myself, but I'd really like to
hear an original Daimler-Benz in a bf109 someday. The one at Evergreen is
considered to priceless to fly (/insure) at this point.

> I just plain Love to hear it.

Unfortunately, the general public has a decreasing appreciation for the old
warbirds. Sad thing. There's a Thunderbolt at Tillamook now, though.

-c

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> Hate to lose a lovely aircraft like that one, though.
>

Yeah, we Know.

[Ockham's Razor]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> "Don Homuth" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It was a remarkable aircraft without question. Though to be honest, the
> > sound of a RR Merlin 12 roaring by still is The sound of a WW2
> > warbird to me.
> >
> > The P-51, Spitfire and Hurricane all shared that venerable sound.
>
> Indeed. I'm more of an R-1820 Cyclone fan, myself, but I'd really like to
> hear an original Daimler-Benz in a bf109 someday. The one at Evergreen is
> considered to priceless to fly (/insure) at this point.
>
> > I just plain Love to hear it.
>
> Unfortunately, the general public has a decreasing appreciation for the old
> warbirds. Sad thing. There's a Thunderbolt at Tillamook now, though.
>
> -c

I listen to the sounds all the time on old tapes of the war birds. the
sounds of a 17, 38, 51, Spits etc are so distinctive that you can
identify them easily.

Years ago in California, East Bay, we were standing in the parking lot
of a hotel in Orinda. the UNMISTAKABLE sound of a 17 became apparent
and lo, one appeared overhead in about a minute. One of the great days
of my life.

--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.

[Don Homuth]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:10:58 -0800, Ockham's Razor >
wrote:


>Years ago in California, East Bay, we were standing in the parking lot
>of a hotel in Orinda. the UNMISTAKABLE sound of a 17 became apparent
>and lo, one appeared overhead in about a minute. One of the great days
>of my life.

The approach to the airport here in Salem comes over the ridge to the
WNW, and the B-24 and B-17 that fly into the area almost yearly often
come right over my place when they're doing their $300/trip events for
the local Tursts and old veterans.

I find the two sounds are hard to tell apart, but the sound of pretty
much Any 4-engined aircraft is mighty similar at that.

One of the Pommy bombers used four RR Merlins, if memory serves. A
friend who was at an airshow there said That was quite the experience.

5-6 years ago or so, came a nice summer day when the B-17 and B-24
flew around Salem, in the company of a nicely restored B-25 *and* a
P-51 that lives nearby as well.

Now *there* was a Treat for the eyes and ears alike!

[Don Homuth]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:54:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> Hate to lose a lovely aircraft like that one, though.
>>
>Yeah, we Know.

Ohferchrissakes, Dosser!

What are you On about this time?

The Hawker Hunter is a lovely aircraft, is it not? That one won't be
replaced any time soon, certainly.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:54:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> Hate to lose a lovely aircraft like that one, though.
>>>
>>Yeah, we Know.
>
> Ohferchrissakes, Dosser!
>
> What are you On about this time?
>
> The Hawker Hunter is a lovely aircraft, is it not? That one won't be
> replaced any time soon, certainly.
>

Yep. And your Very First Thought was for the aircraft. You were the first
to post Anything and made no mention whatsoever about the pilot or the risk
to others. They hadn't even put out the fires and searched the area for
victims before you were Moaning about a chunk of metal. It sorta fits with
your notions of Right and Wrong - or lack of same.

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:34:56 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>

>> The Hawker Hunter is a lovely aircraft, is it not? That one won't be
>> replaced any time soon, certainly.
>>
>Yep. And your Very First Thought was for the aircraft.

That is correct.

> You were the first
>to post Anything and made no mention whatsoever about the pilot or the risk
>to others.

After the crash, the pilot was dead. No one else was hurt.

What would the point have been?

>They hadn't even put out the fires and searched the area for
>victims before you were Moaning about a chunk of metal. It sorta fits with
>your notions of Right and Wrong - or lack of same.

Heh!

Sometimes when you get on your Moral High Horse, you're more
entertaining than usual, Dosser.

Hold a cold wet cloth under your nose, and the nosebleed should end
within minutes.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:34:56 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>
>>> The Hawker Hunter is a lovely aircraft, is it not? That one won't
>>> be replaced any time soon, certainly.
>>>
>>Yep. And your Very First Thought was for the aircraft.
>
> That is correct.
>
>> You were the first
>>to post Anything and made no mention whatsoever about the pilot or the
>>risk to others.
>
> After the crash, the pilot was dead. No one else was hurt.
>
> What would the point have been?
>
>>They hadn't even put out the fires and searched the area for
>>victims before you were Moaning about a chunk of metal. It sorta fits
>>with your notions of Right and Wrong - or lack of same.
>
> Heh!

No, correct.

>
> Sometimes when you get on your Moral High Horse, you're more
> entertaining than usual, Dosser.

And I'm right.

You just don't give a **** about people. I doubt you'd have had any
objections to firing into a crowd if ordered.

[hal lillywhite]

Don Homuth wrote:

> It was a remarkable aircraft without question. Though to be honest,
> the sound of a RR Merlin 12 roaring by still is The sound of a WW2
> warbird to me.

> The P-51, Spitfire and Hurricane all shared that venerable sound.

Not directly related but reminds me of an apocryphal story. It's
interesting even if not true (and I suspect it's not). As the story
goes the Rolls-Royce corp started getting inquiries about, "what model
is that RR that passed me going so fast? After getting several
inquiries from all over western Europe they decided it wasn't
somebody's imagination, and RR got curious. Finally they determined
that the thing was out of Switzerland and identified its home. They
sent someone to ask the owner about it. They drove up to what was
literally a castle and parked what was supposedly the same model car
next to the one in question. The first thing they noticed was that the
one causing the ruckus was a couple of feet longer than the standard
model.

Well, they went inside and talked with the owner who assured them,
"Except for a few parts made in my own machine shop, everything on that
car is standard Rolls-Royce parts." As the story goes, the engine was
a Merlin, indeed made by RR.

[Spread Eagle®]

john smith wrote:

> Bad zoning decision.

You got that right.

Nothing against the air show per se, but it's a major disaster just
waiting to happen, having an air show over a populated area that is
growing more and more dense all the time. It was okay when it began,
but times have changed. It needs to be moved.

[Joetheone]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Don Homuth" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It was a remarkable aircraft without question. Though to be honest, the
> > sound of a RR Merlin 12 roaring by still is The sound of a WW2
> > warbird to me.
> >
> > The P-51, Spitfire and Hurricane all shared that venerable sound.
>
> Indeed. I'm more of an R-1820 Cyclone fan, myself, but I'd really like to
> hear an original Daimler-Benz in a bf109 someday. The one at Evergreen is
> considered to priceless to fly (/insure) at this point.
>
> > I just plain Love to hear it.
>
> Unfortunately, the general public has a decreasing appreciation for the
old
> warbirds. Sad thing. There's a Thunderbolt at Tillamook now, though.
>
> -c
>
Ever check this out?
http://www.warhawkairmuseum.org/index.htm

It's just west of Boise. Pretty cool, and usually a genuine vet hanging
around the place to tell stories.
Nampa airport is right off the freeway. You could follow the freeway all the
way if you wanted to zip over for a day.

[Peter Duniho]

"Lobby Dosser" > wrote in message
news:Mx87h.9207$bj1.746@trndny05...
> Don Homuth > wrote:
>
> [personality conflict deleted]

Ah, the joys of inappropriate cross-posting.

Thanks "gatt". Please don't do that again.

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:48:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>

>> Sometimes when you get on your Moral High Horse, you're more
>> entertaining than usual, Dosser.
>
>And I'm right.

As you so oftimes declare yourself to be.

>You just don't give a **** about people.

People come and people go.

The aircraft is a loss to History.

> I doubt you'd have had any
>objections to firing into a crowd if ordered.

What's the crowd doing? What is the threat assessment?

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:48:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>
>>> Sometimes when you get on your Moral High Horse, you're more
>>> entertaining than usual, Dosser.
>>
>>And I'm right.
>
> As you so oftimes declare yourself to be.

I am right. You care more about a collection of scrap metal.

>
>>You just don't give a **** about people.
>
> People come and people go.
>
> The aircraft is a loss to History.
>
>> I doubt you'd have had any
>>objections to firing into a crowd if ordered.
>
> What's the crowd doing? What is the threat assessment?
>

Nothing that you know, but your superiors say it's OK.

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:55:10 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:48:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> Sometimes when you get on your Moral High Horse, you're more
>>>> entertaining than usual, Dosser.
>>>
>>>And I'm right.
>>
>> As you so oftimes declare yourself to be.
>
>I am right. You care more about a collection of scrap metal.

Nope. I cared about the plane, when it was still intact. The scrap
metal is just now so much junk.

>>> I doubt you'd have had any
>>>objections to firing into a crowd if ordered.
>>
>> What's the crowd doing? What is the threat assessment?
>>
>Nothing that you know, but your superiors say it's OK.

Hardly the case. If I'm firing at a crowd that, for example, coming
to lynch you and your family, I'm at the shooting end of the firearms
involved. I'd just plain Have to know what the crowd is up to, yes?

You, otoh, would make the Fine Moral Distinction, preformed, that
since shooting into a crowd is Always morally objectionable, letting
the crowd lynch you and your family would be Just Fine with you.

See how that works?

Circumstances differ, and the ways in which they differ alter the
decisions to be taken. Firing into a crowd is Not always morally
objectionable. Nor, under some circumstances, would even such a
Morally Upstanding person as your own glorious self find it so.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:55:10 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:48:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Sometimes when you get on your Moral High Horse, you're more
>>>>> entertaining than usual, Dosser.
>>>>
>>>>And I'm right.
>>>
>>> As you so oftimes declare yourself to be.
>>
>>I am right. You care more about a collection of scrap metal.
>
> Nope. I cared about the plane, when it was still intact. The scrap
> metal is just now so much junk.

It was a collection of scrap metal before it crashed.

>
>>>> I doubt you'd have had any
>>>>objections to firing into a crowd if ordered.
>>>
>>> What's the crowd doing? What is the threat assessment?
>>>
>>Nothing that you know, but your superiors say it's OK.
>
> Hardly the case. If I'm firing at a crowd that, for example, coming
> to lynch you and your family, I'm at the shooting end of the firearms
> involved. I'd just plain Have to know what the crowd is up to, yes?
>
> You, otoh, would make the Fine Moral Distinction, preformed, that
> since shooting into a crowd is Always morally objectionable, letting
> the crowd lynch you and your family would be Just Fine with you.
>
> See how that works?
>
> Circumstances differ, and the ways in which they differ alter the
> decisions to be taken. Firing into a crowd is Not always morally
> objectionable. Nor, under some circumstances, would even such a
> Morally Upstanding person as your own glorious self find it so.

DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?

>

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:18:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:55:10 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > wrote:
>>

>>>I am right. You care more about a collection of scrap metal.
>>
>> Nope. I cared about the plane, when it was still intact. The scrap
>> metal is just now so much junk.
>
>It was a collection of scrap metal before it crashed.

Strange -- it appeared to be a fully funtional Hawker Hunter.

>DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?

Would it be right to fire into a crowd coming to lynch you and your
family?

[gatt]

"Joetheone" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> Ever check this out?
> http://www.warhawkairmuseum.org/index.htm
>
> It's just west of Boise. Pretty cool, and usually a genuine vet hanging
> around the place to tell stories Nampa airport is right off the freeway.
> You could follow the freeway all the
> way if you wanted to zip over for a day.

Never heard of it, but I've bookmarked the site. Seems like there were a
lot more Warhaws at airshows and around ten or fifteen years ago than there
are now.

Any r.a.p. guys know how the planes at the USS Alabama museum have fared
Katrina cleanup? I saw a photo of what looked like the Mustang, Blackbird
et all piled up together like toys in the corner of the building after the
stormsurge, which was altogether heartstopping.
-c

[gatt]

"hal lillywhite" > wrote in message
ps.com...

> Well, they went inside and talked with the owner who assured them,
> "Except for a few parts made in my own machine shop, everything on that
> car is standard Rolls-Royce parts." As the story goes, the engine was
> a Merlin, indeed made by RR.

*reverent pause*

I think I may have read something similar once. Here's one, but apparently
the don't know whether it was a Merlin or a Metor.
http://www.superjohn.f9.co.uk/thebeast.htm

[gatt]

"Lobby Dosser" > wrote in message
news:4l87h.4486$ZN1.4269@trndny03...

>> The Hawker Hunter is a lovely aircraft, is it not? That one won't be
>> replaced any time soon, certainly.
>>
>
> Yep. And your Very First Thought was for the aircraft.


What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his life?

The crash of a rare or unique plane diminishes aviation's physical history.
If the Spirit of St. Louis fell off its cables and crushed a tourist
standing under it, America would not remember the name of the tourist, but
they would remember that the Spirit of St. Louis had fallen from the
ceiling.

I don't saying so slights the value of the victims lives at all. There's
nothing the pilot could have done to save himself but not fly that day.

-c

[gatt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>> [personality conflict deleted]
>
> Ah, the joys of inappropriate cross-posting.
>
> Thanks "gatt". Please don't do that again.

*grin*

The threat to or.politics. and alt.culture.oregon is substantial, too. I'm
an equal-opportunity cross-poster.

I'll try to honor your request in the future. Y'all have a great weekend!

-c

[gatt]

"Spread Eagle®" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> john smith wrote:
>
>> Bad zoning decision.
>
> You got that right.
>
> Nothing against the air show per se, but it's a major disaster just
> waiting to happen, having an air show over a populated area that is
> growing more and more dense all the time. It was okay when it began,
> but times have changed. It needs to be moved.

Maybe they can move the airport and you can pay the bill for it. How's that
sound?

KEX' afternoon radio show had a listener poll yesterday. 65% or so of the
callers had said that despite the crash they plan to attend the airshow in
the future. Only something like 2% said the crash taught them how dangerous
airplanes were.

The airport was there first. The developers chose to build around it and
hope their dumbass yuppie buyers were too clueless to consider the friggin'
towered airport in their backyard. Caveat emptor. The city and people of
Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
good for a few. That's a polite way of suggesting that if you build your
house by a river you better have flood insurance.

The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out, at
the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.
Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to build
their house under an airport's flight pattern.


=c

[[email protected]]

gatt wrote:
> "Spread Eagle®" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > john smith wrote:
> >
> >> Bad zoning decision.
> >
> > You got that right.
> >
> > Nothing against the air show per se, but it's a major disaster just
> > waiting to happen, having an air show over a populated area that is
> > growing more and more dense all the time. It was okay when it began,
> > but times have changed. It needs to be moved.
>
> Maybe they can move the airport and you can pay the bill for it. How's that
> sound?

> KEX' afternoon radio show had a listener poll yesterday. 65% or so of the
> callers had said that despite the crash they plan to attend the airshow in
> the future. Only something like 2% said the crash taught them how dangerous
> airplanes were.
>
> The airport was there first. The developers chose to build around it and
> hope their dumbass yuppie buyers were too clueless to consider the friggin'
> towered airport in their backyard. Caveat emptor. The city and people of
> Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
> good for a few. That's a polite way of suggesting that if you build your
> house by a river you better have flood insurance.
>
> The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out, at
> the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.
> Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to build
> their house under an airport's flight pattern.

Doesn't matter who was there first. It's the way the area grew. And
don't forget that land use planning in Oregon for the last thirty years
has been strictly controlled thing. I remember when the Hillsboro
airport was out in the middle of nowhere. Not anymore. It's a hazard.

If you stop and think about it, the beauty of it is that financially
it's a win-win deal. The property that the airport sits on now,
situated where it is, is primo upscale suburban real estate. Promo.
It's value to investing developers is astronomical. They could option
it off and start the process of locating another location, probably
much further west along the Sunset Highway, and begin building. The
profit from the sale would pay for the property, the building of a
bigger and more modern airport, and the move to it.

[Lobby Dosser]

"gatt" > wrote:

> The city and people of
> Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
> good for a few.

Beaverton has nothing to do with it. We don't even look alike.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:18:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:55:10 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>I am right. You care more about a collection of scrap metal.
>>>
>>> Nope. I cared about the plane, when it was still intact. The scrap
>>> metal is just now so much junk.
>>
>>It was a collection of scrap metal before it crashed.
>
> Strange -- it appeared to be a fully funtional Hawker Hunter.

IOW, a collection of scrap metal.

>
>>DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?
>
> Would it be right to fire into a crowd coming to lynch you and your
> family?
>

Just answer the question. That's how this works. Unless you're a lying
sleazeball politician.

[Don Homuth]

On 17 Nov 2006 12:20:05 -0800, wrote:

>
>gatt wrote:

>> The airport was there first. The developers chose to build around it and
>> hope their dumbass yuppie buyers were too clueless to consider the friggin'
>> towered airport in their backyard. Caveat emptor. The city and people of
>> Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
>> good for a few. That's a polite way of suggesting that if you build your
>> house by a river you better have flood insurance.
>>
>> The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out, at
>> the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.
>> Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to build
>> their house under an airport's flight pattern.
>
>Doesn't matter who was there first.

Oh, Shur it does!

When the airport went in, the airport developers were Aware of no
nearby conflicts with housing.

When the housing went in, the housing developers were Aware of an
airport in the vicinity, carrying with it Certain Risks, but
deliberately chose to go ahead and develop anyway, reckoning that the
risks were minor.

As they have been, over the years.

>It's the way the area grew.

Doesn't change the obvious Fact of How it grew -- in the full and
certain knowledge of the Real Estate types that land closer to an
airport was cheaper, and therefore more profitable to build houses on.
It's that way in almost every metropolitan area out there.

>And don't forget that land use planning in Oregon for the last thirty years
>has been strictly controlled thing. I remember when the Hillsboro
>airport was out in the middle of nowhere. Not anymore. It's a hazard.

It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.

Now, had they chosen instead to request a Zoning, whereby Real Estate
development would have been prohibited within a reasonable radius of
the airport, that would have been OK. But they didn't.

Choices have consequences, and once made, the consequences get to be
lived with.

>If you stop and think about it, the beauty of it is that financially
>it's a win-win deal. The property that the airport sits on now,
>situated where it is, is primo upscale suburban real estate. Promo.

It could be, if that was its Highest and Best Use. If that is indeed
the case, then the Real Estate Developers have a simple task -- make
an offer to buy the airport and pay the costs of moving it.

D'ya figure they'll actually Do that?

>It's value to investing developers is astronomical. They could option
>it off and start the process of locating another location, probably
>much further west along the Sunset Highway, and begin building. The
>profit from the sale would pay for the property, the building of a
>bigger and more modern airport, and the move to it.

All they must needs do is place a money offer on the table, and it's
open for consideration. Lowered Nose, such things have been done in
other places.

But it must be done when the airport is still fully operational, and
not only After its operations have been curtailed and its value -- and
price -- have been lowered thereby.

If this is such a great idea, then let the bidding begin!

Otherwise, the airport remains where it is.

[Lobby Dosser]

"gatt" > wrote:

>
> "Lobby Dosser" > wrote in message
> news:4l87h.4486$ZN1.4269@trndny03...
>
>>> The Hawker Hunter is a lovely aircraft, is it not? That one won't
>>> be replaced any time soon, certainly.
>>>
>>
>> Yep. And your Very First Thought was for the aircraft.
>
>
> What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
> Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
> life?

I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT include
protecting it with his life.

What's more important, the document or the principles?

>
> The crash of a rare or unique plane diminishes aviation's physical
> history.

So What!

> If the Spirit of St. Louis fell off its cables and crushed a
> tourist standing under it, America would not remember the name of the
> tourist, but they would remember that the Spirit of St. Louis had
> fallen from the ceiling.
>
> I don't saying so slights the value of the victims lives at all.
> There's nothing the pilot could have done to save himself but not fly
> that day.

Then, of course, it set a couple homes on fire. **** the plane!

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:29:51 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:18:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > wrote:
>>

>>
>>>DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?
>>
>> Would it be right to fire into a crowd coming to lynch you and your
>> family?
>>
>Just answer the question. That's how this works.

Not when the assumption within the question is Wrong.

> Unless you're a lying sleazeball politician.

No lying involved, and as a Politician, no one in My community has
used such terms in any descriptive way.

You have Moral Perfection on your side here, Lobby.

So -- use it and answer My question.

The situation is clear:

The Mob is half a block away, armed and coming to kill You and three
members of Your family. Unless stopped, it'll be here in ten minutes.
It is not open to negotiation on your fate.

The helicopters called to evacuate you and your family are 20 minutes
away, though. Not enough time to get you and yours out before the
confrontation starts.

So -- gotta Decide something right quicklike.

My mission as explained was specifically and explicitly to protect
Murken Lives whenever possible. It is possible for me to do that by
opening fire. There is apparently no other option available at the
moment.

My troops are good folks. I trained them. They are competent shots,
highly disciplined, have sufficient ammunition to last through any
firefight, their positions and fields of fire are in good order. I
trust Them and They trust Me.

The decision is mine to take: Do I open fire into the mob in order to
save the lives of You and Your Family?

Make the call, Dosser.

Use your highly developed sense of Perfect Morality that does not
depend on the situation at hand to do it.

Do I open fire into the crowd or not?

What is Right and what is Wrong here?

Do you know?

How?

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>"gatt" > wrote:
>

>> What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
>> Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
>> life?
>
>I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT include
>protecting it with his life.

You'd be wrong in that.

>What's more important, the document or the principles?

The document -- no question about it.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
> moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
> and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.
>

No it wasn't. See UGB.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:29:51 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:18:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>>>DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?
>>>
>>> Would it be right to fire into a crowd coming to lynch you and your
>>> family?
>>>
>>Just answer the question. That's how this works.
>
> Not when the assumption within the question is Wrong.

Answer the question.

DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>"gatt" > wrote:
>>
>
>>> What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
>>> Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
>>> life?
>>
>>I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT
>>include protecting it with his life.
>
> You'd be wrong in that.
>
>>What's more important, the document or the principles?
>
> The document -- no question about it.
>

You are one sick mother****er! Were you this way Before you engaged in
indiscriminate shooting?

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>"gatt" > wrote:
>>
>
>>> What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
>>> Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
>>> life?
>>
>>I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT include
>>protecting it with his life.
>
> You'd be wrong in that.
>

Cite

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:51:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
>> moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
>> and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.
>>
>No it wasn't. See UGB.

The Hillsboro airport predated the UGB.

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:01:40 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > wrote:
>>

>>>What's more important, the document or the principles?
>>
>> The document -- no question about it.
>>
>You are one sick mother****er!

Hardly. We have, as a nation, glorified those who Died For The Flag.

The flag is even Less important than is the document setting forth the
principles the nation was founded on.

> Were you this way Before you engaged in
>indiscriminate shooting?

I have Never engaged in indiscriminate shooting, save with the twin
M-60's on the helicopter.

Otherwise, I picked my targets quite carefully.

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:02:07 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"gatt" > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
>>>> Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
>>>> life?
>>>
>>>I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT include
>>>protecting it with his life.
>>
>> You'd be wrong in that.
>>
>Cite

The guards are armed and their weapons are live.

[Don Homuth]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:15:58 -0800, Don Homuth >
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:02:07 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"gatt" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
>>>>> Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
>>>>> life?
>>>>
>>>>I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT include
>>>>protecting it with his life.
>>>
>>> You'd be wrong in that.
>>>
>>Cite
>
>The guards are armed and their weapons are live.


http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_history.html

The present shrine provides an imposing home. The priceless documents
stand at the center of a semicircle of display cases showing other
important records of the growth of the United States. The Declaration,
the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights stand slightly elevated,
under armed guard, in their bronze and marble shrine.

[Morgans[_2_]]

plonk

[Morgans[_2_]]

and plonk

Take your petty personal bickering to private E-mail. or elsewhere; I (and we,
if I may speak for everyone else) don't care where.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:51:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
>>> moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
>>> and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.
>>>
>>No it wasn't. See UGB.
>
> The Hillsboro airport predated the UGB.
>

No **** Dick Tracy. Do I really need to explain this to you?

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:01:40 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>What's more important, the document or the principles?
>>>
>>> The document -- no question about it.
>>>
>>You are one sick mother****er!
>
> Hardly. We have, as a nation, glorified those who Died For The Flag.
>
> The flag is even Less important than is the document setting forth the
> principles the nation was founded on.
>
>> Were you this way Before you engaged in
>>indiscriminate shooting?
>
> I have Never engaged in indiscriminate shooting, save with the twin
> M-60's on the helicopter.

At least that's settled.

>
> Otherwise, I picked my targets quite carefully.
>

[Don Homuth]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:14:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:51:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
>>>> moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
>>>> and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.
>>>>
>>>No it wasn't. See UGB.
>>
>> The Hillsboro airport predated the UGB.
>>
>No **** Dick Tracy. Do I really need to explain this to you?

Perhaps you should explain it to You.

The Port of Portland acquired the Hillsboro Airport in, if memory
serves, 1966 or thereabouts.

The UGB came into effect in 1979 or thereabouts.

Any use permitted Prior to adoption of the UGB is allowed afterwards
as well.

[Don Homuth]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:15:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:01:40 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > wrote:
>>

>>> Were you this way Before you engaged in
>>>indiscriminate shooting?
>>
>> I have Never engaged in indiscriminate shooting, save with the twin
>> M-60's on the helicopter.
>
>At least that's settled.

At most that's settled.

The rest is not.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:02:07 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"gatt" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
>>>>> Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
>>>>> life?
>>>>
>>>>I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT
>>>>include protecting it with his life.
>>>
>>> You'd be wrong in that.
>>>
>>Cite
>
> The guards are armed and their weapons are live.
>

So. The FPS is armed. Isn't a single damn one of them looking to throw
themself in front of the flag or any other symbol or even person.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:15:58 -0800, Don Homuth >
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:02:07 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:
>>
>>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"gatt" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What's more important to the average American? The Declaration
>>>>>> of Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with
>>>>>> his life?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT
>>>>>include protecting it with his life.
>>>>
>>>> You'd be wrong in that.
>>>>
>>>Cite
>>
>>The guards are armed and their weapons are live.
>
>
> http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declarati
> on_history.html
>
> The present shrine provides an imposing home. The priceless documents
> stand at the center of a semicircle of display cases showing other
> important records of the growth of the United States. The Declaration,
> the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights stand slightly elevated,
> under armed guard, in their bronze and marble shrine.
>

"Armed Guard" means absolutely NOTHING.

[Don Homuth]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:19:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:


>"Armed Guard" means absolutely NOTHING.

You do have a Strange take on Reality(tm) there, Dosser.

And it shows.

Go visit the national archives.

[Lobby Dosser]

"Morgans" > wrote:

> and plonk
>
> Take your petty personal bickering to private E-mail. or elsewhere; I
> (and we, if I may speak for everyone else) don't care where.
>
>

Gee, I sure hop that's for me. Saves me the trouble of doing it. Assuming
it is, why don't you **** off home. Oh, and you can't speak for Anyone
else.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:14:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:51:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
>>>>> moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their
>>>>> part, and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.
>>>>>
>>>>No it wasn't. See UGB.
>>>
>>> The Hillsboro airport predated the UGB.
>>>
>>No **** Dick Tracy. Do I really need to explain this to you?
>
> Perhaps you should explain it to You.
>
> The Port of Portland acquired the Hillsboro Airport in, if memory
> serves, 1966 or thereabouts.
>
> The UGB came into effect in 1979 or thereabouts.
>
> Any use permitted Prior to adoption of the UGB is allowed afterwards
> as well.
>

Dumb****!

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:15:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:01:40 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> Were you this way Before you engaged in
>>>>indiscriminate shooting?
>>>
>>> I have Never engaged in indiscriminate shooting, save with the twin
>>> M-60's on the helicopter.
>>
>>At least that's settled.
>
> At most that's settled.
>
> The rest is not.
>

DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:19:14 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Armed Guard" means absolutely NOTHING.
>
> You do have a Strange take on Reality(tm) there, Dosser.
>
> And it shows.

Never dealt with the FPS, eh.

>
> Go visit the national archives.
>

"Armed Guard" means absolutely NOTHING.

[Don Homuth]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:32:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> wrote:

>Don Homuth > wrote:
>

>> Go visit the national archives.
>>
>"Armed Guard" means absolutely NOTHING.

Heh!

Love it when you're so intense!

[Spread Eagle ®]

Nothing gets developed anywhere without city, county, or state
approval, any of them or all of them, depending upon the project. This
didn't happen in a vacuum. The city and or county issued building
permits for all of that housing. Government was complicit. And it
had to be. That is prime residential real estate. It's the airport
that's out of place.

Besides, to any thinking person with half a brain it was fully
foreseeable that real estate in that area would become urbanized.
That's one reason why thinking people with a full brain have serious
problems with city and county urban planners. They don't know what
they are doing.

[Larry Caldwell]

In article . com>,
(=?iso-8859-1?q?Spread_Eagle_=AE?=) says...
> Nothing gets developed anywhere without city, county, or state
> approval, any of them or all of them, depending upon the project. This
> didn't happen in a vacuum. The city and or county issued building
> permits for all of that housing. Government was complicit. And it
> had to be. That is prime residential real estate. It's the airport
> that's out of place.
>
> Besides, to any thinking person with half a brain it was fully
> foreseeable that real estate in that area would become urbanized.
> That's one reason why thinking people with a full brain have serious
> problems with city and county urban planners. They don't know what
> they are doing.

Airplanes fly over populated areas all the time, and occasionally one
crashes. Accidents happen. The best way of dealing with the problem is
to improve air safety, not move the airport to some remote area where
nobody will use it. The Hillsboro Airport gets a lot of traffic
precisely because it is so convenient.

If people want to live next to an airport, it's their business, not
yours. Caveat emptor. It's not like the existence of the airport is a
secret.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

[Bill Shatzer]

Don Homuth wrote:

-snip-

> One of the Pommy bombers used four RR Merlins, if memory serves. A
> friend who was at an airshow there said That was quite the experience.

Both the Halifax and the Lancaster used Merlins - though the
approximately 2000 Halifax Mk. IIIs and 300 Lancaster Mk.IIs used
Hercules radial engines instead of the Merlin inlines.

I think there's but two airworthy Lancasters remaining - one with the
Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in England (though the Lancaster
entered service long after the BoB was over - but heh, close enough!)
and the other with the Canadian War Plane Heritage group in Ontario, Canada.

Don't think there are any airworthy Halifaxes remaining so it was likely
one of the Lancasters.

Peace and justice,

[Spread Eagle ®]

Larry Caldwell wrote:

> Airplanes fly over populated areas all the time, and occasionally one
> crashes. Accidents happen. The best way of dealing with the problem is
> to improve air safety, not move the airport to some remote area where
> nobody will use it. The Hillsboro Airport gets a lot of traffic
> precisely because it is so convenient.
>
> If people want to live next to an airport, it's their business, not
> yours. Caveat emptor. It's not like the existence of the airport is a
> secret.


Usually airports are placed as out of the way as possible, and if they
must be in populated areas, the minimization of take off and landing
corridors passing over residential areas as much as possible is done.

But my comment was actually pertinent to the air show, that it's a
disaster waiting to happen, and that as such it should be relocated.
Another poster interpreted that to mean moving the airport, an idea I
got on board, mainly because Washington County is going to get a major
airport ala PDX sooner or later. The population there is going to
require it. I don't believe that the present Hillsboro location can or
will fill that need. They might as well start planning for it now.

[Lobby Dosser]

Don Homuth > wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:32:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth > wrote:
>>
>
>>> Go visit the national archives.
>>>
>>"Armed Guard" means absolutely NOTHING.
>
> Heh!
>
> Love it when you're so intense!
>

Great when you are So Stupid.

[Don Homuth]

On 17 Nov 2006 18:33:38 -0800, "Spread Eagle ®"
> wrote:

>Nothing gets developed anywhere without city, county, or state
>approval, any of them or all of them, depending upon the project. This
>didn't happen in a vacuum.

The cities and counties do not have complete authority over what gets
developed or even zoned. The appeals process for developers can trump
local zoning or approval actions easily enough.

> The city and or county issued building
>permits for all of that housing. Government was complicit. And it
>had to be. That is prime residential real estate. It's the airport
>that's out of place.

The airport was there first -- back into the 1930's, if what's written
is correct.

>Besides, to any thinking person with half a brain it was fully
>foreseeable that real estate in that area would become urbanized.

It's foreseeable that Most real estate within a hundred miles of any
urban area will become developed. It just takes time to do it.

>That's one reason why thinking people with a full brain have serious
>problems with city and county urban planners. They don't know what
>they are doing.

Sure they do. They take what's there when they start, and attempt to
come up with ways to deal with things from that point forward.
Precisely None of the urban planners involved in Hillsboro were there
when the airport was first emplaced.

But this is easy and simple enough to solve:

Have the Real Estate types make an offer for the airport property,
such that it pays for the value of the airport in place, pays for
replacement property on which to develop a new airport, pays for the
search costs of finding the replacement property, and pays for the
expense of moving from one site to another.

That's the Free Market approach to the Hillsboro airport.

So - let the bidding begin!

And if no real estate developer wishes to do that, then let them
remain quiet until someone comes up with a way to defray the public
costs of replacing it so the real estate developers can benefit from
the action.

Seem fair to you?

[john smith]

In article >,
Don Homuth > wrote:

>
> The cities and counties do not have complete authority over what gets
> developed or even zoned. The appeals process for developers can trump
> local zoning or approval actions easily enough.

In these events, deed notices suffice to warn the owner of potential
hazards and consequences.

[gatt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


>> The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out,
>> at
>> the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.
>> Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to
>> build
>> their house under an airport's flight pattern.

> Doesn't matter who was there first. It's the way the area grew.

Apparently, it does. The airshow and the airport remain, and the dumbass
California types who bought land around an airport and don't like jets can
either suck it up or move the hell out.

General Aviation: 1 NIMBY yuppies and land developers: 0

>I remember when the Hillsboro airport was out in the middle of nowhere.
>Not anymore. It's a hazard.

They shouldn't have built around it then. But they did. I say, we move the
airport under the condition that those dip****s pay for the relocation.
Airports are cheap, right?

>If you stop and think about it, the beauty of it is that financially
>it's a win-win deal.

Then we better move Portland International and Troutdale as well, because
those are in populated areas. The taxpayers will thank you, I'm sure.

>The property that the airport sits on now, situated where it is, is primo
>upscale suburban real estate. Promo.

Nevermind the expense of HAVING TO BUILD NEW AIRPORTS.

>It's value to investing developers is astronomical.

Of course it is. Of course it is.

> The profit from the sale would pay for the property, the building of a
> bigger and more modern airport, and the move to it.

Well, then, all they have to do is build the airport on speculation so that
there's an airport ready to go when HIO shuts down.

Ready...go. No, seriously. Ready.....GO! What? Nobody's interested
in building a new airport so we can shut HIO down?
Or maybe that should be left to the taxpayers?

-c

[gatt]

"Spread Eagle ®" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Usually airports are placed as out of the way as possible, and if they
> must be in populated areas, the minimization of take off and landing
> corridors passing over residential areas as much as possible is done.

So are rifle ranges, but then a bunch of idiots and soccer moms buy into the
developers' brochures and build houses next to them, and then expect
sympathy.

Not Our Problem, unless you also want to close down PDX, Troutdale, LAX,
SeaTac, Dallas and any other airport that causes jets to arrive and depart
over populated areas.

Go on....get it done. We need replacement airports in place and ready to
serve before the others are shut down, the way Denver handled the Stapleton
phase-out.

> But my comment was actually pertinent to the air show, that it's a
> disaster waiting to happen, and that as such it should be relocated.

Nope. Developers and NIMBYs lost the day. Such is the will of the people,
which--I understand--has nothing to do with the will of the developer and
the NIMBY soccer mom, but, in this case, tough-titty-said-the-kitty.
F/A-18s inbound!

-c

[Bill Shatzer]

gatt wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...

-snip-

>>If you stop and think about it, the beauty of it is that financially
>>it's a win-win deal.

> Then we better move Portland International and Troutdale as well, because
> those are in populated areas. The taxpayers will thank you, I'm sure.

It could be worse. The Portland Airport was on Swan Island until 1940.

The sight of 767s swooping over the Fremont Bridge on their final
approach would have been awesome.

Peace and justice,

[gatt]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...

> The sight of 767s swooping over the Fremont Bridge on their final approach
> would have been awesome.

Not to mention watching them screech to a halt at the end of the island or
flapping their wings trying to get airborne. Swan Island would look like a
carrier deck. Departure over the river would have looked like one of those
Dru Blair paintings.

http://www.geocities.com/acefox2/aircraft/B-1Binflight07overthewater-paintingbyDruBlair.jpg

[Morgans[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote

> Not to mention watching them screech to a halt at the end of the island or
> flapping their wings trying to get airborne. Swan Island would look like a
> carrier deck. Departure over the river would have looked like one of those Dru
> Blair paintings.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/acefox2/aircraft/B-1Binflight07overthewater-paintingbyDruBlair.jpg

I love that picture!

OK, now a totally off the wall question!

If you were taking that picture, and the B-1B flew past you (say 100 yards away)
at slightly over Mach 1, how many decibels would you experience? Round numbers,
even?

I know that it would be damn loud, but how loud? Anyone else ever wonder that?
--
Jim in NC

[Bill Shatzer]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "gatt" > wrote

>> Not to mention watching them screech to a halt at the end of the
>> island or flapping their wings trying to get airborne. Swan Island
>> would look like a carrier deck. Departure over the river would have
>> looked like one of those Dru Blair paintings.

>> http://www.geocities.com/acefox2/aircraft/B-1Binflight07overthewater-paintingbyDruBlair.jpg

> I love that picture!

> OK, now a totally off the wall question!

> If you were taking that picture, and the B-1B flew past you (say 100
> yards away) at slightly over Mach 1, how many decibels would you
> experience? Round numbers, even?

> I know that it would be damn loud, but how loud? Anyone else ever
> wonder that?

Would depend on the altitude and the specific configuration of the
aircraft but sonic booms at reasonably short range are generally given
in the 200-220 decibel range.

Really damn loud in other words.

Peace and justice,

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> If you were taking that picture, and the B-1B flew past you (say 100 yards
>> away) at slightly over Mach 1, how many decibels would you experience? Round
>> numbers, even?
>
>> I know that it would be damn loud, but how loud? Anyone else ever wonder
>> that?
>
> Would depend on the altitude and the specific configuration of the aircraft
> but sonic booms at reasonably short range are generally given in the 200-220
> decibel range.
>
> Really damn loud in other words.

WoW !!!

First, if you don't mind, and won't be offended, where or how did you come to
know of these figures? Qualifications, or read it, or some other? Don't take
offense, like I said, but I would just like to know if these figures are in the
ballpark, but I doubt that they are not. (which means I think they are pretty
close)

Another question comes to mind, as to what else would people be able point at,
as making that kind of volume? Thunder at that same distance, perhaps? I'll
bet the plane is louder than that, though. (size matters?)

Let's see, if I have a small grasp. 125 Decibels is considered the pain
threshold, I think. I also seem to recall that perceived sound volume doubles
at every 10 Decibels. That means that it is 10 times or more louder than pain!

I don't know if I can really get my head wrapped around this one!
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
. ..
> Morgans wrote:
>
>>
>> "gatt" > wrote
>
>>> Not to mention watching them screech to a halt at the end of the island
>>> or flapping their wings trying to get airborne. Swan Island would look
>>> like a carrier deck. Departure over the river would have looked like one
>>> of those Dru Blair paintings.
>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/acefox2/aircraft/B-1Binflight07overthewater-paintingbyDruBlair.jpg
>
>> I love that picture!
>
>> OK, now a totally off the wall question!
>
>> If you were taking that picture, and the B-1B flew past you (say 100
>> yards away) at slightly over Mach 1, how many decibels would you
>> experience? Round numbers, even?
>
>> I know that it would be damn loud, but how loud? Anyone else ever wonder
>> that?
>
> Would depend on the altitude and the specific configuration of the
> aircraft but sonic booms at reasonably short range are generally given in
> the 200-220 decibel range.
>
> Really damn loud in other words.
>
> Peace and justice,
>

I was on the golf course a few years ago when a B-1 flew over it was at an
altitude that you could just barely make out its shape and tell that it was
a B-1. It was way louder than any other plane I've heard at that altitude
including the B-52.

[Lobby Dosser]

"gatt" > wrote:

>
>>The property that the airport sits on now, situated where it is, is
>>primo upscale suburban real estate. Promo.
>
> Nevermind the expense of HAVING TO BUILD NEW AIRPORTS.

The problem is that new airports are inexpensive. All that needs doing is
finding the right public official to bribe,

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...

> I was on the golf course a few years ago when a B-1 flew over it was at an
> altitude that you could just barely make out its shape and tell that it
> was a B-1. It was way louder than any other plane I've heard at that
> altitude including the B-52.

Loudest airplane I've ever heard, for sure, except maybe for the Harriers at
Quantico when they were doing v/stol.

Anybody know if Yeager still does his Mach 1 flyby at the Edwards airshows?

-c

[gatt]

"Lobby Dosser" > wrote in message
news:6mG8h.2192$Kw2.1511@trndny05...
> "gatt" > wrote:
>
>>
>>>The property that the airport sits on now, situated where it is, is
>>>primo upscale suburban real estate. Promo.
>>
>> Nevermind the expense of HAVING TO BUILD NEW AIRPORTS.
>
> The problem is that new airports are inexpensive. All that needs doing is
> finding the right public official to bribe,

As soon as the airport is built, developers will build along the roads to it
and before you know it the airfield will be surrounded by NIMBY newcomers
who think the airport is too close to residential areas and ought to be
moved.

-c

[john smith]

> As soon as the airport is built, developers will build along the roads to it
> and before you know it the airfield will be surrounded by NIMBY newcomers
> who think the airport is too close to residential areas and ought to be
> moved.

Recent examples... DFW, Washington Dulles

[Bill Shatzer]

Morgans wrote:

>>> If you were taking that picture, and the B-1B flew past you (say 100
>>> yards away) at slightly over Mach 1, how many decibels would you
>>> experience? Round numbers, even?

>>> I know that it would be damn loud, but how loud? Anyone else ever
>>> wonder that?

>> Would depend on the altitude and the specific configuration of the
>> aircraft but sonic booms at reasonably short range are generally given
>> in the 200-220 decibel range.

>> Really damn loud in other words.

> WoW !!!

> First, if you don't mind, and won't be offended, where or how did you
> come to know of these figures? Qualifications, or read it, or some
> other? Don't take offense, like I said, but I would just like to know
> if these figures are in the ballpark, but I doubt that they are not.
> (which means I think they are pretty close)

Well, I was going from memory - which turns out to be inaccurate.

In fact, 194 decibels is the theoretical maximum sound level in air.

And sonic booms come very close to that maximum.

http://www.quietsolution.com/Noise_Levels.pdf

But not in excess of 194 dB.

> Another question comes to mind, as to what else would people be able
> point at, as making that kind of volume? Thunder at that same distance,
> perhaps? I'll bet the plane is louder than that, though. (size matters?)

See the referenced chart. A jet aircraft at 30 feet is 160 decibels.

As decibels are logrithmic, 190 decibels would be perceived as about
eight times as loud - (a seat of the pants guessimate without actually
doing the math).

> Let's see, if I have a small grasp. 125 Decibels is considered the pain
> threshold, I think. I also seem to recall that perceived sound volume
> doubles at every 10 Decibels. That means that it is 10 times or more
> louder than pain!

> I don't know if I can really get my head wrapped around this one!

Peace and justice,

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> I was on the golf course a few years ago when a B-1 flew over it was at an
>> altitude that you could just barely make out its shape and tell that it was a
>> B-1. It was way louder than any other plane I've heard at that altitude
>> including the B-52.
>
> Loudest airplane I've ever heard, for sure, except maybe for the Harriers at
> Quantico when they were doing v/stol.
>

Anyone I have ever talked to at OSH says that the B-1B in full afterburner is
the loudest aircraft they have ever heard, bar none. I think it is almost twice
as loud as the Harrier. It is louder, in any case, no doubt.
--
Jim in NC

[gatt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

>> Loudest airplane I've ever heard, for sure, except maybe for the Harriers
>> at Quantico when they were doing v/stol.
>>
>
> Anyone I have ever talked to at OSH says that the B-1B in full afterburner
> is the loudest aircraft they have ever heard, bar none.


FWIW, I watched a NASA Blackbird do a low-pass at Nellis and then light up
the burners, (one of them flamed out on the third pass and the whole plane
yawed for a second.) IT wasn't as loud as the B-1B.


-c

[Lobby Dosser]

"gatt" > wrote:

>
> As soon as the airport is built, developers will build along the roads
> to it
>

while not done do