T-33 Down

[Thomas W Ping]

TV is reporting a T-33 down in a Santa Clarita, California trailer
park. No details other than three burned up trailers.

--
Thomas Winston Ping

[Tony]

Thomas W Ping > wrote in message >...
> TV is reporting a T-33 down in a Santa Clarita, California trailer
> park. No details other than three burned up trailers.

More info here:

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1740969,00.html

[Gene Storey]

Probably an airstrike against the trailer-trash gone bad.

I hope the Homeland Defense can sort out this blatant attack by Canada!

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:JGApb.32$643.9@okepread03...
> Probably an airstrike against the trailer-trash gone bad.
>
> I hope the Homeland Defense can sort out this blatant attack by Canada!

In all the years I flew professionally and watched people I knew die in
airplanes, including some very close to me personally, I never quite
understood how a human being, totally unrelated to an incident and simply a
spectator or the receiver of news; nothing else; could arrive on the scene
after someone had been killed and offer to the world a sentiment as totally
thoughtless and downright cruel as you have done here. Thank God people like
you are a minority in our business.
You will never know how grateful I am that I don't know you.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Paul Hirose]

A fairly detailed article in the L.A. Daily News says the crashed
plane was a 1953 Canadair T-33, tail number N99192, and was based at
the Van Nuys airport. The pilot (believed to be a doctor, name
unknown) was the only person killed. One person on the ground suffered
minor burns.

Some witnesses reported seeing the plane "flip" after cresting a hill
near the trailer park, then dive into the ground.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1740969,00.html

TV reports say the area was cordoned off due to the danger from
ejection seat pyrotechnics.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2604584/detail.html

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

[Bob McKellar]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> news:JGApb.32$643.9@okepread03...
> > Probably an airstrike against the trailer-trash gone bad.
> >
> > I hope the Homeland Defense can sort out this blatant attack by Canada!
>
> In all the years I flew professionally and watched people I knew die in
> airplanes, including some very close to me personally, I never quite
> understood how a human being, totally unrelated to an incident and simply a
> spectator or the receiver of news; nothing else; could arrive on the scene
> after someone had been killed and offer to the world a sentiment as totally
> thoughtless and downright cruel as you have done here. Thank God people like
> you are a minority in our business.
> You will never know how grateful I am that I don't know you.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

If you look at the rest of Mr. Storey's other recent posts, you should not be
surprized by this one. He is at least consistent.

Bob McKellar

[Tex Houston]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
> If you look at the rest of Mr. Storey's other recent posts, you should not
be
> surprized by this one. He is at least consistent.
>
> Bob McKellar

Just this afternoon I had removed him from my 'Block Sender' list along with
several others for whom I could not remember the reason for blocking. He
lasted less than thirty minutes.

Tex

[Dudley Henriques]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you look at the rest of Mr. Storey's other recent posts, you should
not
> be
> > surprized by this one. He is at least consistent.
> >
> > Bob McKellar
>
> Just this afternoon I had removed him from my 'Block Sender' list along
with
> several others for whom I could not remember the reason for blocking. He
> lasted less than thirty minutes.
>
> Tex

Just some random comments on how things like this related to the airshow
scenario.

In the airshow business, and indeed in any scenario involving the use of
high performance airplanes, it's an unfortunate by product that the nature
of that scenario sometimes brings these roaches out of the woodwork. As I
said, thank God they're in the minority. In my experience,most seem to have
a common denominator; they're usually always spectators, not participants.
They watch what takes place with some kind of weird prurient interest,
waiting for something to go wrong. Then, with their interest satisfied, they
run home to tell everybody in sight "You'll NEVER guess what I just
saw??????"
In almost every case, these disgusting excuses for human beings are people
who are commenting about those who possess talent and ability that they
themselves will never know. During my tenure it was actually a joke around
the circuit that if one of us happened to dig a hole ten feet deep in the
middle of show because a control cable snapped, some moron who had
absolutely nothing in common with what had just happened other than the
sheer fact that he was present for the event would be out there by the wreck
before the body had been removed telling the whole f*****g world just what
it was we did wrong. God we hated these people! They're the kind who always
show up after the crash just in time to roast their marshmallows on the
burning wreckage!
This being said, most of the people who fit the description of "spectator"
or "enthusiast" are decent, good people who come out for the thrill of
watching a show or a demonstration and take a genuine interest in both the
airplanes and those of us flying them.
Some of these nice folks even develop into a sort of cult for individual
pilots and their planes. One instance that comes to mind immediately would
be Jim and Katie Ford; two wonderful old folks who had a camper and went to
every airshow the Thunderbirds flew for many years. Every member of several
teams knew Jim and Katie and would actually watch for them at various
events. So highly was the mutual friendship and respect generated between
the team and these two wonderful old people that both Jim and Katie were
made honorary Thunderbirds......and I mean officially....not some PR thing,
but by the Air Force!
I could tell you stories all day long about the nice people we met and knew
when I was flying. I won't waste any more bandwidth discussing this one case
we have here of arrested development.
He's just not worth our time.
All the best as always,
Dudley

[Gene Storey]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> In all the years I flew professionally and watched people I knew die in
> airplanes, including some very close to me personally, I never quite
> understood how a human being, totally unrelated to an incident and simply a
> spectator or the receiver of news; nothing else; could arrive on the scene
> after someone had been killed and offer to the world a sentiment as totally
> thoughtless and downright cruel as you have done here. Thank God people like
> you are a minority in our business.

Probably comes from my having to kill so many people while in the Army,
that life has no meaning. I've also questioned why we had to kill them
one by one, instead of wholesale like Col Tibbets did.

> You will never know how grateful I am that I don't know you.

Ditto, I'm sure, at least for your families sake.

> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Signatureless.

[MLenoch]

>"Gene Storey"

wrote:> I've also questioned why we had to kill them
>one by one, instead of wholesale like Col Tibbets did.
>

Can I sell this line to Oliver Stone? It would sound great in one of his
bizzare movies.
Thx in advance,
VL

[Gene Storey]

"MLenoch" > wrote
> >"Gene Storey"
>
> wrote:> I've also questioned why we had to kill them
> >one by one, instead of wholesale like Col Tibbets did.
> >
>
> Can I sell this line to Oliver Stone? It would sound great in one of his
> bizzare movies.
> Thx in advance,
> VL

Get what you can, while you can...

We used to say "If I was a Colonel, this battle would have been over
10 years ago. Alas, we are Privates."

Flying a T-33 is sort-of like driving an old Dodge truck. Pretty boring
until you get one sideways, going downhill, on a sheet of ice. Then you
start crying for your mama. But with a good size bag of marshmallows,
the fire is quite charming, and old stories are told with a slap on the knee...

[MLenoch]

>"Gene Storey"

wrote:>Flying a T-33 is sort-of like driving an old Dodge truck.

Man, you've got that right!
Definately a '53 Dodge to boot.
VL

[jwalters]

Oct. 26, 1964 Cpt. Billie Joe Myhand died ejecting from a T-33.
Instructor pilot. Buried at Arlington. God bless and RIP, Billie Joe.
RIP. Same for this Dr. Better get right, people.

[Mike Marron]

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>"Gene Storey" > wrote:

>>Probably an airstrike against the trailer-trash gone bad.

>>I hope the Homeland Defense can sort out this blatant attack by Canada!

>In all the years I flew professionally and watched people I knew die in
>airplanes, including some very close to me personally, I never quite
>understood how a human being, totally unrelated to an incident and simply a
>spectator or the receiver of news; nothing else; could arrive on the scene
>after someone had been killed and offer to the world a sentiment as totally
>thoughtless and downright cruel as you have done here.

My sentiments exactly, Dud. But then, aren't your sentiments below
equally as "thoughtless and downright cruel" as Genes?

From: Dudley Henriques )
Subject: Re: 40,000 Plus Hits. Thank you all.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2003-11-01 13:31:51 PST

Or perhaps instead, we can just put Mike into the box, assume a
superposition, and then the whole lot of us can go out and have a
drink because none of us really give a **** whether Mike's dead
or NOT!!! :-)))

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>"Gene Storey" > wrote:
>
> >>Probably an airstrike against the trailer-trash gone bad.
>
> >>I hope the Homeland Defense can sort out this blatant attack by Canada!
>
> >In all the years I flew professionally and watched people I knew die in
> >airplanes, including some very close to me personally, I never quite
> >understood how a human being, totally unrelated to an incident and simply
a
> >spectator or the receiver of news; nothing else; could arrive on the
scene
> >after someone had been killed and offer to the world a sentiment as
totally
> >thoughtless and downright cruel as you have done here.
>
> My sentiments exactly, Dud. But then, aren't your sentiments below
> equally as "thoughtless and downright cruel" as Genes?
>
> From: Dudley Henriques )
> Subject: Re: 40,000 Plus Hits. Thank you all.
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
> Date: 2003-11-01 13:31:51 PST
>
> Or perhaps instead, we can just put Mike into the box, assume a
> superposition, and then the whole lot of us can go out and have a
> drink because none of us really give a **** whether Mike's dead
> or NOT!!! :-)))

Hardly. The reference to you being dead was simply an obvious pairing with
"Schrodinger's cat", where the possible death of the cat is a well know
issue in Physics. "Giving a **** about it" is simply a personal option on a
parody, NOT a comment on an actual event.
I can assure you in the abstract that if you actually had died, I don't
believe any of us here on RAM would feel the need to post something as cruel
and thoughtless as did the poster being discussed here now, which was a
comment expressed on an actual event.
I hope this clears up any "misunderstanding" you might have concerning this
issue, as it will be my only comment on it with you. If you pursue it any
further, you'll be talking to yourself or to someone else.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Mike Marron]

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>My sentiments exactly, Dud. But then, aren't your sentiments below
>>equally as "thoughtless and downright cruel" as Genes?

>>From: Dudley Henriques )
>>Subject: Re: 40,000 Plus Hits. Thank you all.
>>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
>>Date: 2003-11-01 13:31:51 PST

>>Or perhaps instead, we can just put Mike into the box, assume a
>>superposition, and then the whole lot of us can go out and have a
>>drink because none of us really give a **** whether Mike's dead
>>or NOT!!! :-)))

>Hardly. The reference to you being dead was simply an obvious pairing with
>"Schrodinger's cat", where the possible death of the cat is a well know
>issue in Physics. "Giving a **** about it" is simply a personal option on a
>parody, NOT a comment on an actual event.
>I can assure you in the abstract that if you actually had died, I don't
>believe any of us here on RAM would feel the need to post something as cruel
>and thoughtless as did the poster being discussed here now, which was a
>comment expressed on an actual event.

Thanks for clarifying. If nothing else, your comment about "not giving
a **** whether Mike's dead" was an indirect and meanspirited reference
to an actual event (e.g: the "Autocollimator" debacle). Now, I don't
have the first clue what Schrodinger's cat is all about, but if you're
so damn intelligent why did you insist that I was wrong about Kramer
having conversations with his imaginary playmate to puff up his ego
and to flame others anonymously? Or are you still out there with
Kramer in La La land and think his pathetic display of "arrested
development" never actually happened?

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:58:38 GMT, Paul Hirose > wrote:

>A fairly detailed article in the L.A. Daily News says the crashed
>plane was a 1953 Canadair T-33, tail number N99192, and was based at
>the Van Nuys airport. The pilot (believed to be a doctor, name
>unknown) was the only person killed. One person on the ground suffered
>minor burns.
>
>Some witnesses reported seeing the plane "flip" after cresting a hill
>near the trailer park, then dive into the ground.
>
>http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1740969,00.html
>
>TV reports say the area was cordoned off due to the danger from
>ejection seat pyrotechnics.
>
>http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2604584/detail.html

Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
current knowledge advise?

Al

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:14:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > If you look at the rest of Mr. Storey's other recent posts, you should
>not
>> be
>> > surprized by this one. He is at least consistent.
>> >
>> > Bob McKellar
>>
>> Just this afternoon I had removed him from my 'Block Sender' list along
>with
>> several others for whom I could not remember the reason for blocking. He
>> lasted less than thirty minutes.
>>
>> Tex
>
>Just some random comments on how things like this related to the airshow
>scenario.
>
>In the airshow business, and indeed in any scenario involving the use of
>high performance airplanes, it's an unfortunate by product that the nature
>of that scenario sometimes brings these roaches out of the woodwork. As I
>said, thank God they're in the minority. In my experience,most seem to have
>a common denominator; they're usually always spectators, not participants.
>They watch what takes place with some kind of weird prurient interest,
>waiting for something to go wrong. Then, with their interest satisfied, they
>run home to tell everybody in sight "You'll NEVER guess what I just
>saw??????"
> In almost every case, these disgusting excuses for human beings are people
>who are commenting about those who possess talent and ability that they
>themselves will never know. During my tenure it was actually a joke around
>the circuit that if one of us happened to dig a hole ten feet deep in the
>middle of show because a control cable snapped, some moron who had
>absolutely nothing in common with what had just happened other than the
>sheer fact that he was present for the event would be out there by the wreck
>before the body had been removed telling the whole f*****g world just what
>it was we did wrong. God we hated these people! They're the kind who always
>show up after the crash just in time to roast their marshmallows on the
>burning wreckage!

Sounds just like "media" reporters

Al Minyard
>
>

[Dale]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:


>
> Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
> allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
> current knowledge advise?


Says who? The Collings Foundation F4 Phantom has live ejection seats.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Paul Hirose]

Today the L.A. Daily News Web site has more information on the crash.

A bomb squad had to search the area for egress system pyrotechnics
before the victim recovery and investigation could begin. Apparently
they knew the T-33 had eight devices, and found all.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1742660,00.html

The dead pilot has been identified as Dan Lavigna, 62, a Tarzana
anesthesiologist. He was married and had four children.

According to the Daily News, Lavigna was the director of the Classic
Jet Aircraft Association. He kept the T-33 and a Hawker Hunter at the
Van Nuys airport.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1742692,00.html

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

[N329DF]

>Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
>allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
>current knowledge advise?
>

when I was working on T-33s and other jets, this came up, and this was my
answer.When the FAA asks, yes sir, the seat is cold and the tanks are on and
bolted. As soon as he was out of sight, the charges would be put in the seat
and the the tank made jettisonable. My reasoning is, why should a convict on
death row have more chances to save his life than a pilot flying a jet warbird
?
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Brian]

You can get L-39s with hot seats also.

Dale > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
> > allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
> > current knowledge advise?
>
>
> Says who? The Collings Foundation F4 Phantom has live ejection seats.

[Ditch]

>> Says who? The Collings Foundation F4 Phantom has live ejection seats.
>
>

The T-33 I flew had hot seats.
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Alan Minyard]

On 05 Nov 2003 00:21:13 GMT, (N329DF) wrote:

>>Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
>>allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
>>current knowledge advise?
>>
>
>when I was working on T-33s and other jets, this came up, and this was my
>answer.When the FAA asks, yes sir, the seat is cold and the tanks are on and
>bolted. As soon as he was out of sight, the charges would be put in the seat
>and the the tank made jettisonable. My reasoning is, why should a convict on
>death row have more chances to save his life than a pilot flying a jet warbird
>?
> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
>Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA

So, at least technically they are not allowed to be armed, or
"armed capable"

I *really* like that attitude. We certainly do not need
more govt. ;-)

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

So this little dippy is your DC connection Henriques?

Bwahahahahahaha

[The CO]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...

> So, at least technically they are not allowed to be armed, or
> "armed capable"
>
> I *really* like that attitude. We certainly do not need
> more govt. ;-)

IIRC, here in Oz, it's not only allowed, but encouraged and I *think*
it's *required* for some
warbirds under some circumstances.

The CO

[Regnirps]

A while back there was a T-38 for sale in Trade-A-Plane and one of the features
was 'hot' seats.

-- Charlie Springer

[Les Matheson]

IIRC the issue with ejection seats is that they must be inspected regularly,
as the military specs call for. This is a very expensive proposition and
there are few shops that do it. If they can't be inspected and certified,
the FAA requires they be inerted.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> A while back there was a T-38 for sale in Trade-A-Plane and one of the
features
> was 'hot' seats.
>
> -- Charlie Springer

[[email protected]]

"Les Matheson" > wrote:

>IIRC the issue with ejection seats is that they must be inspected regularly,
>as the military specs call for. This is a very expensive proposition and
>there are few shops that do it. If they can't be inspected and certified,
>the FAA requires they be inerted.

Thanks Les...I was just going to ask why this requirement was
made.

But isn't that just as any other system requirement?...the a/c
must have to be maintained and inspected right?. Seems to me that
the FAA is merely giving the owners an 'out' so as to circumvent
a very costly inspection right?.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On 05 Nov 2003 00:21:13 GMT, (N329DF) wrote:
>
>>>Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
>>>allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
>>>current knowledge advise?
>>>
>>
>>when I was working on T-33s and other jets, this came up, and this was my
>>answer.When the FAA asks, yes sir, the seat is cold and the tanks are on and
>>bolted. As soon as he was out of sight, the charges would be put in the seat
>>and the the tank made jettisonable. My reasoning is, why should a convict on
>>death row have more chances to save his life than a pilot flying a jet warbird
>>?
>> Matt Gunsch,
>> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
>> Riding member of the
>> 2003 world champion drill team
>>Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
>> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
>
>So, at least technically they are not allowed to be armed, or
>"armed capable"
>
>I *really* like that attitude. We certainly do not need
>more govt. ;-)
>
>Al Minyard

I understand that ejection seats 'are' allowed but that they
'must' be inspected and maintained in strict accordance with
certain rules. This is a 'very' costly procedure and can only be
performed by a very few qualified companies. Therefore, the FAA
allows civvy owners to remove them if desired. If you want the
protection then you pay the piper.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

Or am I in error?
--

-Gord.

[Les Matheson]

Costly and needing to be done on a much more than annual (IIRC 45 day )
cycle.

Any ex egress types on here who can remember the inspection interval?
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Les Matheson" > wrote:
>
> >IIRC the issue with ejection seats is that they must be inspected
regularly,
> >as the military specs call for. This is a very expensive proposition and
> >there are few shops that do it. If they can't be inspected and
certified,
> >the FAA requires they be inerted.
>
> Thanks Les...I was just going to ask why this requirement was
> made.
>
> But isn't that just as any other system requirement?...the a/c
> must have to be maintained and inspected right?. Seems to me that
> the FAA is merely giving the owners an 'out' so as to circumvent
> a very costly inspection right?.
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Dave Kearton]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message >
> I understand that ejection seats 'are' allowed but that they
> 'must' be inspected and maintained in strict accordance with
> certain rules. This is a 'very' costly procedure and can only be
> performed by a very few qualified companies. Therefore, the FAA
> allows civvy owners to remove them if desired. If you want the
> protection then you pay the piper.
>
> Seems quite reasonable to me.
>
> Or am I in error?
> --
>
> -Gord.


Mary had an interesting post on this about a year ago. It's not just
repacking the silk but also replacing the pyros, which are all specific
parts for each seat model and time limited.


IIRC some pyros weren't used in large enoough numbers to continue to
manufacture them for sensible prices.




I've heard of seat overhauls here at $US10-15K apiece. At those
prices, I'd punch out anyway - just to get my money's worth.



--


Cheers


Dave Kearton (it was a joke dammit)

[[email protected]]

"Dave Kearton" >
wrote:

>
>
>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message >
>> I understand that ejection seats 'are' allowed but that they
>> 'must' be inspected and maintained in strict accordance with
>> certain rules. This is a 'very' costly procedure and can only be
>> performed by a very few qualified companies. Therefore, the FAA
>> allows civvy owners to remove them if desired. If you want the
>> protection then you pay the piper.
>>
>> Seems quite reasonable to me.
>>
>> Or am I in error?
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>
>Mary had an interesting post on this about a year ago. It's not just
>repacking the silk but also replacing the pyros, which are all specific
>parts for each seat model and time limited.
>
>
>IIRC some pyros weren't used in large enoough numbers to continue to
>manufacture them for sensible prices.
>
>
>
>
>I've heard of seat overhauls here at $US10-15K apiece. At those
>prices, I'd punch out anyway - just to get my money's worth.

:) ...Great, now we got the real skinny...I was just objecting to
reading "Ejection seats aren't allowed in privately owned a/c".

That isn't true at all...
--

-Gord.

[Paul Hirose]

The NTSB has released its preliminary report on the T-33 crash that
killed pilot Dan Lavigna near Santa Clarita, California, on Nov. 2.
Witnesses observed the plane roll over and dive vertically into the
ground at the conclusion of a 180 degree turn. Most said the loud
whine of the engine attracted their attention.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20031112X01888&key=1

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

[funkraum]

> "Les Matheson" > wrote:

>Costly and needing to be done on a much more than annual (IIRC 45 day )
>cycle.
>
>Any ex egress types on here who can remember the inspection interval?
>

I will see if I can find out.

As far as the certification goes It's not just irritating paperwork. A
friend of mine un-safed the seat in a B-57 and the det cord on the
canopy blew, but fortunately not the seat.

As it was the end of three fruitless days (this was pre 9-11) of
messing around he decided to blow town right there and then and made
for the terminal, boots, flightsuit still on. The sniffer machine at
security went nuts because he stank of det-cord and there was then
loads of explaining as to why someone was wearing a flightsuit, stank
of explosives and was covered in bleeding flesh-wounds inflicted by
flying Perspex shrapnel.


Just remember - visor down before you unsafe the seat.

[Rick]

funkraum wrote:

> As it was the end of three fruitless days (this was pre 9-11) of
> messing around he decided to blow town right there and then and made
> for the terminal, boots, flightsuit still on. The sniffer machine at
> security went nuts because he stank of det-cord and there was then
> loads of explaining as to why someone was wearing a flightsuit, stank
> of explosives and was covered in bleeding flesh-wounds inflicted by
> flying Perspex shrapnel.

Nice hangar flying tale but it falls apart when the "pre 9-11" sniffer
machine went off. Which airport had sniffer machines at passenger
screening points at all much less used them to sniff passenger clothing
or carryon baggage?

Rick

[Dale]

In article .net>,
Rick > wrote:

l.
>
> Nice hangar flying tale but it falls apart when the "pre 9-11" sniffer
> machine went off. Which airport had sniffer machines at passenger
> screening points at all much less used them to sniff passenger clothing
> or carryon baggage?

A lot of airports were using the "sniffer" prior to 9-11.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Thomas Schoene]

Rick wrote:

> Nice hangar flying tale but it falls apart when the "pre 9-11" sniffer
> machine went off. Which airport had sniffer machines at passenger
> screening points at all much less used them to sniff passenger
> clothing or carryon baggage?

I have very definite memories of having my bags swabbed and sniffed for
explosives at National Airport long before September 2001.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[funkraum]

> Rick > wrote:
>>funkraum wrote:

>Nice hangar flying tale but it falls apart when the "pre 9-11" sniffer
>machine went off. Which airport had sniffer machines at passenger
>screening points at all much less used them to sniff passenger clothing
>or carryon baggage?
>

Just checked the date: It was July 2001