Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

[T. \Tim\ Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56[_4_]]

<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>

[Mxsmanic]

By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It makes
sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
designs at LAX.

[Steve Foley]

"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
message ...
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>

'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the members
of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said at
a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'

Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's naive
for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".

[Scott[_7_]]

T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>

Screw him (Randy Walker). Experimentals are issued airworthiness
certificates from the FAA just as are certified aircraft. If they
restrict experimentals from using the "public use" airports, they can
(and should) forfeit Ferderal funding. Has a certified airplane ever
crashed and killed an innocent on the ground? Nuff said.

Scott
(I fly both certified and experimental and have never so much as
scratched either type)

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It makes
> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
> designs at LAX.

Uttern nonsense.

You haven't a clue what "experimental" means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Steve Foley > wrote:
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
> populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
> be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the members
> of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said at
> a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
> experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
> flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>
> Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's naive
> for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".

Must be election time in Clark County.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
> T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> Screw him (Randy Walker). Experimentals are issued airworthiness
> certificates from the FAA just as are certified aircraft. If they
> restrict experimentals from using the "public use" airports, they can (and
> should) forfeit Ferderal funding. Has a certified airplane ever crashed
> and killed an innocent on the ground? Nuff said.
>
> Scott
> (I fly both certified and experimental and have never so much as scratched
> either type)

The guy is either a politician or he works for one. When the public hears
"experimental" or "home-built", they hear "death trap" because the public at
large has an irrational fear of aviation to begin with. Also you have the
fact that the public at large perceives no impact to themselves by banning
such operations. Relatively small changes could be made to driving laws and
100 times more lives would be saved, but that would impact the public at
large so that ain't gonna happen. Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc. even
though such activity puts other people at risk.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It
> makes
> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their
> new
> designs at LAX.


First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
classification. The characteristics may be well known and just doesn't fit
into any other class.

Secondly, I have personally flown a number of experimental Boeing aircraft
into LAX when I worked for the flight test group there. I believe B747-100
s/n 1 is still classified as experimental. And I flew B401, 2 and 3 (the
first 3 747-400 designated a/c). They too were classified as experimental
and flew into a lot of large airports with heavy population.

--
Regards, Bob F.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It
> makes
> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their
> new
> designs at LAX.

Experimental aircraft do not have "unknown characteristics" any more than
any other aircraft such as certified and military aircraft which are
routinely flight tested in heavily populated areas.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 8/28/2008 7:08 PM Bob F. said the following:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It
>> makes
>> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
>> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out
>> their new
>> designs at LAX.
>
>
> First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
> classification. The characteristics may be well known and just doesn't
> fit into any other class.
>
> Secondly, I have personally flown a number of experimental Boeing
> aircraft into LAX when I worked for the flight test group there. I
> believe B747-100 s/n 1 is still classified as experimental. And I flew
> B401, 2 and 3 (the first 3 747-400 designated a/c). They too were
> classified as experimental and flew into a lot of large airports with
> heavy population.

Another epic fail for Anthony...

[Bob Noel]

In article <Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04>, "Mike" > wrote:

> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc. even
> though such activity puts other people at risk.

"drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio or....?
Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely nothing
can distract the driver.

(yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for me).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
> > <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
> populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
> be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the members
> of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said at
> a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
> experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
> flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>
> Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's naive
> for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".

The guy is obviously an ignorant a$$! He seems to have no experience in
REAL GA -- probably an ex-military heavy driver.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[BobR]

On Aug 28, 6:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. *It makes
> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
> designs at LAX.

You are right about the initial tests which is why I will be using an
airport with nice large fields at both ends and no population centers
within a couple of miles. That was a choice that I could make but is
not available to every homebuilder. Most of our airports have been
surrounded by housing developments which greatly restrict operations
including those for non-experimental aircraft.

[BT]

Randy Walker is not a friend of General Aviation.. he is not in an elected
position.
He is the Administrator for the Clark County Department of Aviation.
He knows not the common people he serves.. he serves only the airlines and
the Metro Airport that brings tourists into this city.

NTSB statistics prove that of the 37 accidents at this airport since the
county took over in 1982, only 3 were experimental aircraft. If Mr Walker
wants to ban the dangerous aircraft, then he needs to ban the factory built
aircraft that accounted for 34 accidents in 26 years.

The County needs to take part of the responsibility. They have allowed
encroachment on an airport that was built in the country, opening day on Dec
7th 1941. They have just spent millions building up the Henderson airport in
the south valley and are now allowing encroachment on that airport to go
unchecked.

Part of the statements of Mr Walker that are not published in AvWeb, but was
on CNN nation wide, were that he also wants to ban student pilots and
training.

BT

"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
message ...
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>
> > "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> > message ...
> > > <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
> >
> > 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
> > airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
> > populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
> > be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the
> > members
> > of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said
> > at
> > a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
> > experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
> > flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
> >
> > Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's
> > naive
> > for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".
>
> The guy is obviously an ignorant a$$! He seems to have no experience in
> REAL GA -- probably an ex-military heavy driver.

Equally likely, he's some local small-pond political type who got the
position because nobody else wanted it, but he figured it would look
good on his resumé on his advance to his ultimate goal of becoming
chairman of the local county board of supervisors.

But he's seen pictures of airplanes in a book. Once.

[Steve Hix]

In article >, "BT" >
wrote:

> Randy Walker is not a friend of General Aviation.. he is not in an elected
> position.
> He is the Administrator for the Clark County Department of Aviation.
> He knows not the common people he serves.. he serves only the airlines and
> the Metro Airport that brings tourists into this city.
>
> NTSB statistics prove that of the 37 accidents at this airport since the
> county took over in 1982, only 3 were experimental aircraft. If Mr Walker
> wants to ban the dangerous aircraft, then he needs to ban the factory built
> aircraft that accounted for 34 accidents in 26 years.
>
> The County needs to take part of the responsibility. They have allowed
> encroachment on an airport that was built in the country, opening day on Dec
> 7th 1941. They have just spent millions building up the Henderson airport in
> the south valley and are now allowing encroachment on that airport to go
> unchecked.
>
> Part of the statements of Mr Walker that are not published in AvWeb, but was
> on CNN nation wide, were that he also wants to ban student pilots and
> training.
>
> BT
>
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
> > <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>

He's a lawyer, right?

[Dale Scroggins[_2_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less
> densely populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport
> systems need to be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to
> meet with the members of our congressional delegation to see if something
> can be done," he said at a news conference. "I do not believe under our
> circumstances that experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as
> training and solo flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>
> Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's
> naive for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".
>
Depends upon whether the approaches & departures of that airport meet the
definition of a "densely populated area" noted in 91.319(c). If the
Director gets an interpretation from a local FAA office that it is, then the
homebuilders in the area might want to examine their operation limitations.

[BT]

The report in today's paper.. (taken with 15 pounds of salt), the aircraft
had recently been approved for operations at the north Las Vegas Airport by
the FAA inspectors.

There was discussions at the airport with the local FSDO in 2006 about
restricting Phase 1 flying at the airport.
This aircraft had meet the restrictions imposed for initial flights, and was
approved for continued operations from VGT.

BT

> Depends upon whether the approaches & departures of that airport meet the
> definition of a "densely populated area" noted in 91.319(c). If the
> Director gets an interpretation from a local FAA office that it is, then
> the homebuilders in the area might want to examine their operation
> limitations.

[BT]

Sadly another airplane has crashed in the vicinity of the North Las Vegas
airport.
A Piper Navajo departed VGT and shortly after departure he called the tower
that he was returning with a rough running engine. The pilot was solo, no
pax. Witnesses on the ground reported the aircraft was on fire and fire
crews were responding to meet the aircraft at the airport when it crashed
short of the runway in a local neighborhood. There were no fatalities to
people on the ground.

BT

"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
message ...
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>

[Steve Foley]

"BT" > wrote in message
...

> Part of the statements of Mr Walker that are not published in AvWeb, but
was
> on CNN nation wide, were that he also wants to ban student pilots and
> training.

Those statements were included in the AvWeb story:

'I do not believe under our circumstances that
experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'

[Mike[_22_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
>> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc. even
>> though such activity puts other people at risk.
>
> "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
> one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
> or....?
> Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely nothing
> can distract the driver.
>
> (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for me).

Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking on
the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by 4-5
times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really give a
rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
inconvienience is slight.

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04>, "Mike" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
>>> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc. even
>>> though such activity puts other people at risk.
>>
>> "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
>> one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
>> or....?
>> Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely nothing
>> can distract the driver.
>>
>> (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for me).
>
> Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking on
> the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by 4-5
> times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really give a
> rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
> inconvienience is slight.

Got any data to support that?

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article <Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04>, "Mike" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
>>>> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
>>>> even
>>>> though such activity puts other people at risk.
>>>
>>> "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
>>> one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
>>> or....?
>>> Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
>>> nothing
>>> can distract the driver.
>>>
>>> (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
>>> me).
>>
>> Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking
>> on the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by
>> 4-5 times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really give
>> a rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
>> inconvienience is slight.
>
> Got any data to support that?

Yes.

Your google broke?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
> populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
> be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the members
> of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said at
> a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
> experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
> flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>
> Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's naive
> for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".
>
>

Other dangerous flight this yahoo wants banned from urban areas,
"training and solo flights."

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:s9Stk.1198$Ro1.612@trnddc04...
> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article <Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04>, "Mike" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
>>>>> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
>>>>> even
>>>>> though such activity puts other people at risk.
>>>>
>>>> "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
>>>> one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
>>>> or....?
>>>> Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
>>>> nothing
>>>> can distract the driver.
>>>>
>>>> (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
>>>> me).
>>>
>>> Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking
>>> on the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident
>>> by 4-5 times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really
>>> give a rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if
>>> the inconvienience is slight.
>>
>> Got any data to support that?
>
> Yes.
>
> Your google broke?

Do your own homework piggy. Put up, shut, or you my bitch.

[BobR]

Guess the moron will be calling for an end to all flights now since
this was not and experimental and not on a training or initial solo
operation.

BT wrote:
> Sadly another airplane has crashed in the vicinity of the North Las Vegas
> airport.
> A Piper Navajo departed VGT and shortly after departure he called the tower
> that he was returning with a rough running engine. The pilot was solo, no
> pax. Witnesses on the ground reported the aircraft was on fire and fire
> crews were responding to meet the aircraft at the airport when it crashed
> short of the runway in a local neighborhood. There were no fatalities to
> people on the ground.
>
> BT
>
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
> > <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>

[John[_22_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:s9Stk.1198$Ro1.612@trnddc04...
> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article <Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04>, "Mike" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
>>>>> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
>>>>> even
>>>>> though such activity puts other people at risk.
>>>>
>>>> "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
>>>> one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
>>>> or....?
>>>> Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
>>>> nothing
>>>> can distract the driver.
>>>>
>>>> (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
>>>> me).
>>>
>>> Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking
>>> on the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident
>>> by 4-5 times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really
>>> give a rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if
>>> the inconvienience is slight.
>>
>> Got any data to support that?
>
> Yes.
>
> Your google broke?

Your bluffs been called, show your cards or fold your hand.

PS. We have laws about proper vehicle operation already, we don't need new
laws that call out specific activiries. Enforce what we have already

[[email protected]]

On Aug 28, 11:25*pm, "BT" > wrote:
> Sadly another airplane has crashed in the vicinity of the North Las Vegas
> airport.
> A Piper Navajo departed VGT and shortly after departure he called the tower
> that he was returning with a rough running engine. The pilot was solo, no
> pax. Witnesses on the ground reported the aircraft was on fire and fire
> crews were responding to meet the aircraft at the airport when it crashed
> short of the runway in a local neighborhood. There were no fatalities to
> people on the ground.
>
> BT
>
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> g...
>
>
>
> > <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What about the pilot? Did he survive?

[Steve Hix]

In article <o8Rtk.1053$p72.867@trnddc05>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> "BT" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Part of the statements of Mr Walker that are not published in AvWeb, but
> was
> > on CNN nation wide, were that he also wants to ban student pilots and
> > training.
>
> Those statements were included in the AvWeb story:
>
> 'I do not believe under our circumstances that
> experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
> flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'

If the latter is a correct quote, Mr. Walker is an idiot.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob F. writes:

> First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
> classification. The characteristics may be well known and just doesn't fit
> into any other class.

My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to get
around certain troublesome regulations.

> Secondly, I have personally flown a number of experimental Boeing aircraft
> into LAX when I worked for the flight test group there. I believe B747-100
> s/n 1 is still classified as experimental. And I flew B401, 2 and 3 (the
> first 3 747-400 designated a/c). They too were classified as experimental
> and flew into a lot of large airports with heavy population.

How many hours had they flown elsewhere before they visited those large
airports?

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> NTSB statistics prove that of the 37 accidents at this airport since the
> county took over in 1982, only 3 were experimental aircraft.

What percentage of all aircraft movements were experimental aircraft during
the same period?

[Jeff[_13_]]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:42:43 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
> populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
> be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the members
> of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said at
> a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
> experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
> flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>
> Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's naive
> for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".

It's his ass, he's loolking to dump the problem out of range.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob F. writes:
>
>> First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
>> classification. The characteristics may be well known and just doesn't fit
>> into any other class.
>
> My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to get
> around certain troublesome regulations.

And your "impression" is wrong.

It does not mean the airplane is "experimental" in the sense of being
unknown, new, or unproven, nor does it mean that it is home built.

All experimental means is that the manufacturer, whoever that may be,
didn't go through the process to certify the aircraft in one of the
other catagories with the FAA.

The Anatov AN-2 has been made for about 50 years by several former
Soviet block countries, has been used the world over for everything from
transport, military, and airline use, and is probably the most produced
aircraft in history.

Since the Soviet countries had no interest in certifying their aircraft
with the FAA and there were no reciprocal agreements as there are with
some other countries, guess what it is registered as if you buy one and
register it in the US?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:42:43 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:
>
> > "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
> >
> > 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
> > airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
> > populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
> > be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the
> > members
> > of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said
> > at
> > a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
> > experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
> > flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
> >
> > Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's
> > naive
> > for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".
>
> It's his ass, he's loolking to dump the problem out of range.

Then, let his ass be fired -- or placed in charge of clearing the
streets of stray animals! Just get him the hell away from aviation!

Why not stsrt a petition in lark County to get him reassigned?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[yaeedyaeegiisss]

wrote:

> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to get
>>around certain troublesome regulations.
>
> And your "impression" is wrong.

Exactly so.

> All experimental means is that the manufacturer, whoever that may be,
> didn't go through the process to certify the aircraft in one of the
> other catagories with the FAA.

Yep. Newly developed aircraft that haven't yet been put into
production, (hint: 777 Freighter, 787, other new types and derivatives)
but are about to enter flight test, all fly as experimental aircraft
during flight test. And only the wildly delusional and stupid believe
that a company like, say, Boeing, is trying to "get around certain
troublesome regulations." This is true for other aircraft manufacturers
as well, particularly in the USA.

> The Anatov AN-2 [...] guess what it is registered as if you buy one and
> register it in the US?

Anthony has no need to prove knowledge of this. It's a testosterone
thing, y'know. No need to back up anything with facts and cites when
you have Proof By Blatant Assertion.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:s9Stk.1198$Ro1.612@trnddc04...
>> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
>>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article <Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04>, "Mike"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
>>>>>> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> though such activity puts other people at risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
>>>>> one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
>>>>> or....?
>>>>> Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> can distract the driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
>>>>> me).
>>>>
>>>> Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking
>>>> on the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident
>>>> by 4-5 times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really
>>>> give a rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if
>>>> the inconvienience is slight.
>>>
>>> Got any data to support that?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Your google broke?
>
> Do your own homework piggy. Put up, shut, or you my bitch.

No problem.

www.google.com

Chinese Proverb: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish
and you feed him for a lifetime.

[Mike[_22_]]

"John" > wrote in message news:0rVtk.9$Af3.5@trnddc06...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:s9Stk.1198$Ro1.612@trnddc04...
>> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
>>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article <Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04>, "Mike"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
>>>>>> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> though such activity puts other people at risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
>>>>> one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
>>>>> or....?
>>>>> Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> can distract the driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
>>>>> me).
>>>>
>>>> Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking
>>>> on the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident
>>>> by 4-5 times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really
>>>> give a rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if
>>>> the inconvienience is slight.
>>>
>>> Got any data to support that?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Your google broke?
>
> Your bluffs been called, show your cards or fold your hand.

I don't play that game. I feel no obligation to be your personal research
service on a subject that has been widely reported. But if you explain how
you're too inept to use google, I'll be glad to talk about it. Cell phones
+ driving + risks yields 264,000 results including numerous studies
published in peer reviewed publications on the subject.

>
> PS. We have laws about proper vehicle operation already, we don't need
> new laws that call out specific activiries. Enforce what we have already

That's your opinion, unsupported by facts. As I said, you've already proven
my point beautifully. All you want to do now is go off topic.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob F. writes:
>
>> First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
>> classification. The characteristics may be well known and just
>> doesn't fit into any other class.
>
> My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order
> to get around certain troublesome regulations.


That's because you're clueless.

Bertie
>

[BT]

there are no readily available statistics to answer that question.
we are working up the statistics on percentage of experimental aircraft vs
other aircraft based at the airport, and also the percentage of training, vs
local vs transient.

Many accidents in the past have involved transient pilots not familiar with
high density altitude operations or desert wind conditions.
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BT writes:
>
>> NTSB statistics prove that of the 37 accidents at this airport since the
>> county took over in 1982, only 3 were experimental aircraft.
>
> What percentage of all aircraft movements were experimental aircraft
> during
> the same period?

[BT]

No..
A much respected and experienced pilot from the Palo Alto CA area


>
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> g...
>
>
>
> > <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>-
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What about the pilot? Did he survive?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

jeremy > wrote in
:

> John wrote:
>
>> PS. We have laws about proper vehicle operation already, we don't
>> need new laws that call out specific activiries. Enforce what we
>> have already
>
> Do not ever think of driving in Europe.

let's qualify that. We're talking Germany and Gemrany wannabes here.


> In most countries you will be stopped if spotted eating, drinking,
> talking on the phone, or doing anything that is not driving. On the
> autobahn at speed, you may be cautioned for not having both hands on
> the steering wheel. You can fail your driving test by talking, failing
> to check your mirrors once a minute or resting your elbows on the
> door. You will get tickets for failing to signal a lane change,
> cruising in the fast lane, overtaking on the inside, running out of
> washer fluid, not having a spare tyre, car body damage, misaligned
> headlights, and not having your lights on if your wipers are running.


Snort! Ever drive in Italy? They don't believe in seatbelts. It means
you haven't got confidence in your driving and makes you more likely to
have an accident.
A quick peek at the cars going by there will reveal a huge percentage of
people not bothering with them. The further south you go the fewer wear
them. (Padanians, are, after all, wannabe germans) You can nearly tell
your lattitude by the percentage of non wearers. Same is roughtly true
for france and spain.


And then, OTOH, you can drive as fast as you like just about anywhere
but England.



Bertie

[Ramsey]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Snort! Ever drive in Italy? They don't believe in seatbelts. It means
> you haven't got confidence in your driving and makes you more likely to
> have an accident.
> A quick peek at the cars going by there will reveal a huge percentage of
> people not bothering with them. The further south you go the fewer wear
> them. (Padanians, are, after all, wannabe germans) You can nearly tell
> your lattitude by the percentage of non wearers. Same is roughtly true
> for france and spain.
>
>
> And then, OTOH, you can drive as fast as you like just about anywhere
> but England.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

Like you have ever been there looserboi.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

jeremy > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Snort! Ever drive in Italy? They don't believe in seatbelts. It means
>> you haven't got confidence in your driving and makes you more likely
>> to have an accident.
>> A quick peek at the cars going by there will reveal a huge percentage
>> of people not bothering with them. The further south you go the fewer
>> wear them. (Padanians, are, after all, wannabe germans) You can
>> nearly tell your lattitude by the percentage of non wearers. Same is
>> roughtly true for france and spain.
>
> I drive all over the Northern hemisphere and usually get caught in
> Europe by bad habits learned elsewhere. Turning on a red light always
> catches me, as does the difference in traffic light sequence. I have
> to watch myself after time in Panama, as after midnight traffic lights
> are advisory only.
>
> I have DLs for USA, and most of the EU and the test here is a joke.
>
> The seatbelt issue is of no consequence to many cops in Italy, as they
> consider it your funeral, but they will pop you for overtaking without
> signaling.

Maybe in the north... I've driven a good bit in Italy and as far as I can
tell, th eonly rule is to keep your foot planted and beep a lot.
Hand signals take both hands, of course.
Hand free phones have freed up the italians to talk while driving of
course. Can't talk without your hands..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Snort! Ever drive in Italy? They don't believe in seatbelts. It means
>> you haven't got confidence in your driving and makes you more likely to
>> have an accident.
>> A quick peek at the cars going by there will reveal a huge percentage of
>> people not bothering with them. The further south you go the fewer wear
>> them. (Padanians, are, after all, wannabe germans) You can nearly tell
>> your lattitude by the percentage of non wearers. Same is roughtly true
>> for france and spain.
>>
>>
>> And then, OTOH, you can drive as fast as you like just about anywhere
>> but England.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Like you have ever been there looserboi.

Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
Day after, I'll be in Italy..






Bertie

[Ramsey]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
> Day after, I'll be in Italy..
>

Yeah, prove it liarboi.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
>> Day after, I'll be in Italy..
>>
>
> Yeah, prove it liarboi.

You still need to prove you're anything more than a waste of bandwidth.

[Scott[_7_]]

BT wrote:

> Sadly another airplane has crashed in the vicinity of the North Las Vegas
> airport.
> A Piper Navajo departed VGT and shortly after departure he called the tower
> that he was returning with a rough running engine. The pilot was solo, no
> pax. Witnesses on the ground reported the aircraft was on fire and fire
> crews were responding to meet the aircraft at the airport when it crashed
> short of the runway in a local neighborhood. There were no fatalities to
> people on the ground.
>
> BT
>
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>><http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
>
>
Was that an "experimental" Navajo? Didn't think so. Looks like
certified airplanes crash too.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. writes:
>
>> First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
>> classification. The characteristics may be well known and just doesn't
>> fit
>> into any other class.
>
> My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to
> get
> around certain troublesome regulations.
>
And my impression was that you were talking about an aircraft that was
unsafe for flight.


>> Secondly, I have personally flown a number of experimental Boeing
>> aircraft
>> into LAX when I worked for the flight test group there. I believe
>> B747-100
>> s/n 1 is still classified as experimental. And I flew B401, 2 and 3 (the
>> first 3 747-400 designated a/c). They too were classified as
>> experimental
>> and flew into a lot of large airports with heavy population.
>
> How many hours had they flown elsewhere before they visited those large
> airports?

I don't know exactly, in the case I cited, dozens probably. Everett (Payne
Field), North of Boeing field was built for 747 development because
manufacturing and test facilities were too small and there was no place to
expand since the city was built tightly around the airport. Many maiden
flight took place at Boeing Field and nearby Renton (same situation). It
was a matter of conveniences that Everett was used for their latter flights
and as far as I know, there was never a crash in the neighborhood. Early
maiden flight aircraft actually have a very good statistical record.
--
Regards, Bob F.

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:oyZtk.37$jE1.12@trnddc03...
> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
>>> Day after, I'll be in Italy..
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, prove it liarboi.
>
> You still need to prove you're anything more than a waste of bandwidth.

Changing the subject there aincha Mikey Mouth. Just like Mx.

[Bob Noel]

In article <tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01>, "Mike" > wrote:

> >> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
> >> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc. even
> >> though such activity puts other people at risk.
> >
> > "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
> > one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
> > or....?
> > Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely nothing
> > can distract the driver.
> >
> > (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for me).
>
> Crusade all you want.

it isn't my crusade, the crusade against cellphones is being waged by people
who don't understand how to analysis risk.

> Talking on
> the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by 4-5
> times.

hmmm, if your claim of a 4-5x time greater risk were true, why hasn't
the accident rate increased dramatically during the time period when
cellphone usage has exploded? In fact, the accident rate has remained
flat or decreased slightly (if we believe the NTHSA)


> But you prove my point beautifully.

You don't understand proofs.

> People don't really give a
> rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
> inconvienience is slight.

Then why do people wear motorcycle helmets? and leather jackets or
equivalent protective clothing when riding? Talk about inconvenience.

Now, if you wanted to make the point that people don't care about
the inconvenience of OTHERS as long as it appears that they
are trying to help them even when there is no actual evidence
to support the help being effective....

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less
> densely populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport
> systems need to be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to
> meet with the members of our congressional delegation to see if something
> can be done," he said at a news conference. "I do not believe under our
> circumstances that experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such
> as training and solo flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>

Ban homebuilts and Cessna 150's??? What is he thinking? Isn't he concerned
about aviation safety? This makes no sense at all. Did Mr. Walker learn
NOTHING from 9/11? How could he be so unaware? Isn't the danger presented
by large transport aircraft painfully clear? Does he have any concern for
public safety at all?

Yes, small aircraft are sometimes involved in accidents - but what is the
outcome? Beyond the occupants, it exceedingly rare to involve any innocent
bystanders at all. But what happens when one of the flying WMDs comes down
in a populated area? THOUSANDS DEAD!!!
Can you imagine what would happen if a fully loaded 767 were to experience
problems and crash in to a crowded casino - spewing 5,000 gallons of jet
fuel onto thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people? People that he is
supposed to be protecting!

How can he, or any of us, live with ourselves knowing that this kind of
tragedy isn't just possible, but given time, inevitable?

How can he continue to turn a blind eye to this tremendous threat to human
life?

How can we not DEMAND that these large aircraft be banned from flying over
or landing in the vicinity of a populated area? Clearly, at a MINIMUM, any
aircraft with a gross weight over 30,000 pound should absolutely forbidden
to approach within 50 miles of a populated area. And, I suspect, that if
Mr. Walker were to consider this carefully, he would agree that the only
way that we can be safe is if large aircraft are banned from the sky
completely.

We went to war with Iraq over WMDs, why do we ignore the ones flying over
our heads every day?


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:JOZtk.38$jE1.32@trnddc03...

>
> What makes you think you're entitled to anything more than contempt?
>
> When are you going to prove you're anything more than a villiage idiot?
>
> You're not even a pilot. Anthony has more to offer than you.

Prove you are, prove I'm not.

You're just hat dancing Mikey Mouth.

Driving while using a cell phone increases you chance of accident by 400 to
500%? What a dumb ass.

I'll have to put you up for the Bertie's Dumbest Assed Suckpuppet award.

[Ramsey]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
>>> Day after, I'll be in Italy..
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, prove it liarboi.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Why do you care, fjukkkwitted one?
>
>
> Bertie

Cuz ya can't prove it liarboi.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
>>>> Day after, I'll be in Italy..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, prove it liarboi.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do you care, fjukkkwitted one?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Cuz ya can't prove it liarboi.
>

You sure crossposting boi?


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:oyZtk.37$jE1.12@trnddc03...
>> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
>>>> Day after, I'll be in Italy..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, prove it liarboi.
>>
>> You still need to prove you're anything more than a waste of bandwidth.
>
> Changing the subject there aincha Mikey Mouth. Just like Mx.

Nope, it's all about you...


Always was.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

jeremy > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Hand free phones have freed up the italians to talk while driving of
>> course. Can't talk without your hands..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Really scary when the Italians are on the phone while driving a Vespa
> with the wife and four kids on the back.

Yeah, I had a taxi ride from the airport to the hotel in Rome that rivaled
the chase scene in Ronan once.
They're not even close to being the world's craziest, though. Just
Europe's.


Bertie

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:JOZtk.38$jE1.32@trnddc03...
>
>>
>> What makes you think you're entitled to anything more than contempt?
>>
>> When are you going to prove you're anything more than a villiage idiot?
>>
>> You're not even a pilot. Anthony has more to offer than you.
>
> Prove you are, prove I'm not.

The proof is writen on a turd deep in your colon. Stick your head in a
little farther and you'll find it. I promise.

>
> You're just hat dancing Mikey Mouth.
>
> Driving while using a cell phone increases you chance of accident by 400
> to 500%? What a dumb ass.

Hmm, so which sould I believe, the British Medical Journal, the University
of Utah, The New England Journal of Medicine,

or...

the villiage idiot.

Decisions, decisions.

>
> I'll have to put you up for the Bertie's Dumbest Assed Suckpuppet award.

Coming from the villiage idiot, that really hurts.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:oyZtk.37$jE1.12@trnddc03...
>> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
>>>> Day after, I'll be in Italy..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, prove it liarboi.
>>
>> You still need to prove you're anything more than a waste of bandwidth.
>
> Changing the subject there aincha Mikey Mouth. Just like Mx.

I never changed the subject.

The subject with you has always been how you're a putz unworthy of a
response to any of your questions.

I've already given you as good as you're ever going to get. Feel free to
keep asking ad nausem like a frustrated schoolgirl. The response and the
subject will always be the same.

[john smith]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Yeah, I had a taxi ride from the airport to the hotel in Rome that rivaled
> the chase scene in Ronan once.
> They're not even close to being the world's craziest, though. Just
> Europe's.

Bertie, have you ever driven in San Juan PR during evening rush hour?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

John Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I had a taxi ride from the airport to the hotel in Rome that
>> rivaled the chase scene in Ronan once.
>> They're not even close to being the world's craziest, though. Just
>> Europe's.
>
> Bertie, have you ever driven in San Juan PR during evening rush hour?
>

No. Seems to be a machismo thing, though, eh?


Bertie

[Mike[_22_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> >> Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
>> >> drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
>> >> even
>> >> though such activity puts other people at risk.
>> >
>> > "drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
>> > one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
>> > or....?
>> > Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
>> > nothing
>> > can distract the driver.
>> >
>> > (yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
>> > me).
>>
>> Crusade all you want.
>
> it isn't my crusade, the crusade against cellphones is being waged by
> people
> who don't understand how to analysis risk.
>
>> Talking on
>> the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by
>> 4-5
>> times.
>
> hmmm, if your claim of a 4-5x time greater risk were true, why hasn't
> the accident rate increased dramatically during the time period when
> cellphone usage has exploded? In fact, the accident rate has remained
> flat or decreased slightly (if we believe the NTHSA)

You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number. They do track
injuries and fatalities which have been on a downward trend for the last 30
years or more for a variety of reasons like safer cars, safer roads,
increased seat belt useage, airbags, reduced drunk driving, and a number of
other things. The overall trend proves nothing in relationship to cell
phones unless you can calculate what the rate WOULD be without cell phones,
which has been done. The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/harvard_center_for_risk_analysis_study_on_cell_pho nes.pdf


>
>
>> But you prove my point beautifully.
>
> You don't understand proofs.

Pot/Kettle.

>
>> People don't really give a
>> rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
>> inconvienience is slight.
>
> Then why do people wear motorcycle helmets? and leather jackets or
> equivalent protective clothing when riding? Talk about inconvenience.

By "people" I obviously mean people in general. The numbers for seat belt
useage didn't rise dramatically until states started requiring them despite
the overwealming evidence that they save lives. Drunk driving didn't
decrease until punishment and enforcement were increased. There's other
examples as well.

> Now, if you wanted to make the point that people don't care about
> the inconvenience of OTHERS as long as it appears that they
> are trying to help them even when there is no actual evidence
> to support the help being effective....

My point was people don't care whether there is evidence or not. Clearly
there's evidence to show cell phones (which was just one example, but there
are others) increase risk, but there will always be those who will ignore
such evidence because possible solutions may create an inconvienience to
themselves.

As I said, you proved my point. You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what you've
already made up your mind about.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Smith" > wrote

> Bertie, have you ever driven in San Juan PR during evening rush hour?

I had an interesting taxi ride in Prague, about 6 months after they went
free, that was plenty exciting.

I have not been to PR or Rome, yet.
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn Simon]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote in message
...
> Ban homebuilts and Cessna 150's??? What is he thinking? Isn't he concerned
> about aviation safety? This makes no sense at all. Did Mr. Walker learn
> NOTHING from 9/11? How could he be so unaware? Isn't the danger presented by
> large transport aircraft painfully clear? Does he have any concern for public
> safety at all?
>
> Yes, small aircraft are sometimes involved in accidents - but what is the
> outcome? Beyond the occupants, it exceedingly rare to involve any innocent
> bystanders at all. But what happens when one of the flying WMDs comes down in
> a populated area? THOUSANDS DEAD!!!
> Can you imagine what would happen if a fully loaded 767 were to experience
> problems and crash in to a crowded casino - spewing 5,000 gallons of jet fuel
> onto thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people? People that he is supposed to
> be protecting!
>
> How can he, or any of us, live with ourselves knowing that this kind of
> tragedy isn't just possible, but given time, inevitable?
>
> How can he continue to turn a blind eye to this tremendous threat to human
> life?
>
> How can we not DEMAND that these large aircraft be banned from flying over or
> landing in the vicinity of a populated area? Clearly, at a MINIMUM, any
> aircraft with a gross weight over 30,000 pound should absolutely forbidden to
> approach within 50 miles of a populated area. And, I suspect, that if Mr.
> Walker were to consider this carefully, he would agree that the only way that
> we can be safe is if large aircraft are banned from the sky completely.
>
> We went to war with Iraq over WMDs, why do we ignore the ones flying over our
> heads every day?

Good, very good. You have me convinced.

[Bob Noel]

In article <vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03>, "Mike" > wrote:


> You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post this
> blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you, 12?

> I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.

Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.

Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
cellphone usage?)

> The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
> speaks for itself.
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/harvard_center_for_risk_analysis_study_
> on_cell_phones.pdf

It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?

"But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited, the
range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between 800 and
8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."

"³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate that,
in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a wash
when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of eliminating
those calls,² Cohen said."

Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an analysis
of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't have
been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't being
used?

> You won't even bother with a simple google
> search which a child could perform because it might go against what you've
> already made up your mind about.

You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Tech Support]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:11:06 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

>Steve Foley wrote:
>> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>
>> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
>> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
>> populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
>> be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the members
>> of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said at
>> a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
>> experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
>> flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>>
>> Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's naive
>> for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".
>>
>>
>
>Other dangerous flight this yahoo wants banned from urban areas,
>"training and solo flights."


Do you think he would agree to banning beginners from public streets?

Big John

[Dave S]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It makes
> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
> designs at LAX.

I dont know where you get your definitions, but you just proved how much
you DONT know...

[Dave S]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bob F. writes:

>
> How many hours had they flown elsewhere before they visited those large
> airports?

Doesn't matter. Its "experimental". I could have a million hours on an
airframe and it still be "experimental".

[Mike[_22_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>
>> You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post
>> this
>> blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.
>
> That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you,
> 12?

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of conclusions
for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical thought.

>
>> I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.
>
> Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.
>
> Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
> increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
> exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
> are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
> airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
> have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
> cellphone usage?)

By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

>> The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
>> speaks for itself.
>> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/harvard_center_for_risk_analysis_study_
>> on_cell_phones.pdf
>
> It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
> indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?
>
> "But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited,
> the
> range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between
> 800 and
> 8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."
>
> "³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate
> that,
> in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a
> wash
> when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of
> eliminating
> those calls,² Cohen said."

Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in economic
terms".

>
> Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an
> analysis
> of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't
> have
> been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't
> being
> used?

Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer letting
people like you do their own research. When proof is provided, you want to
poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios that are
irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows that when
faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you will just
resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change your mind.
So why should I waste my time providing proof of something you're never
going to accept anyway?

>
>> You won't even bother with a simple google
>> search which a child could perform because it might go against what
>> you've
>> already made up your mind about.
>
> You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Nor do I care really.

>
> Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
> to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have I
advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a clue
about my motivations or what I support or don't.

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> there are no readily available statistics to answer that question.

Unfortunately, unless one knows the total number of movements of both
experimental and other aircraft, as well as the absolute numbers of accidents
for both, the latter alone isn't of much use.

> we are working up the statistics on percentage of experimental aircraft vs
> other aircraft based at the airport, and also the percentage of training, vs
> local vs transient.

Movements would be much more cogent than the number of aircraft based at the
airport.

> Many accidents in the past have involved transient pilots not familiar with
> high density altitude operations or desert wind conditions.

Which airport is this?

[Ernest Christley]

BobR wrote:
> On Aug 28, 6:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It makes
>> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
>> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
>> designs at LAX.
>
> You are right about the initial tests which is why I will be using an
> airport with nice large fields at both ends and no population centers
> within a couple of miles. That was a choice that I could make but is
> not available to every homebuilder. Most of our airports have been
> surrounded by housing developments which greatly restrict operations
> including those for non-experimental aircraft.

I'm using a field that is out in the middle of a bunch of soybean and
cotton fields, at least for the initial flights. It is well worth the
extra drive.

Stuff is likely to hit the fan, and I want to have more options than a
subdivision.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BT writes:
>
>> there are no readily available statistics to answer that question.
>
> Unfortunately, unless one knows the total number of movements of both
> experimental and other aircraft, as well as the absolute numbers of
> accidents for both, the latter alone isn't of much use.

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, the only movements important to your pathetic life are bowel
movements.

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:Im_tk.38$sq3.25@trnddc07...

Still waiting for a link there, Mikey Mouth.

Keep hat dancing.

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:Nx_tk.42$sq3.39@trnddc07...

Liar, ya just did Mikey Mouth.

[Ramsey]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> You sure crossposting boi?
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>>
>

You're the one dragging in the kook groups as usual.

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...
>
> I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of
> conclusions for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical
> thought.

Liar.

>
> By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
> either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.

>
> Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in
> economic terms".

Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.

>
> Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
> certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
> theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer
> letting people like you do their own research. When proof is provided,
> you want to poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios
> that are irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows
> that when faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you
> will just resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change
> your mind. So why should I waste my time providing proof of something
> you're never going to accept anyway?

You should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like this
one.


>
> Nor do I care really.

Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you life,
isn't it?

>
> Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have
> I advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a
> clue about my motivations or what I support or don't.

For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support, you
sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:Im_tk.38$sq3.25@trnddc07...
>
> Still waiting for a link there, Mikey Mouth.
>
> Keep hat dancing.
>
>
>

Yeh, right..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> You sure crossposting boi?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> You're the one dragging in the kook groups as usual.
>
>
>



Nope. It's you..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...
>>
>> I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of
>> conclusions for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical
>> thought.
>
> Liar.
>
>>
>> By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such
>> conclusions either way. Attempting to do so is childish.
>
> Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.
>
>>
>> Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in
>> economic terms".
>
> Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.
>
>>
>> Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis
>> would certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason
>> to suspect theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why
>> I prefer letting people like you do their own research. When proof
>> is provided, you want to poke holes in it by bringing up countless
>> what if scenarios that are irrelevant, if not to the point of
>> ridicule. It simply shows that when faced with evidence you can't
>> refute on a reasonable level, you will just resort to the
>> unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change your mind. So why
>> should I waste my time providing proof of something you're never
>> going to accept anyway?
>
> You should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like
> this one.
>
>
>>
>> Nor do I care really.
>
> Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you
> life, isn't it?
>
>>
>> Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once
>> have I advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do
>> you have a clue about my motivations or what I support or don't.
>
> For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support,
> you sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.=


What's your point, wannabe boi>?


Bertie

[Ramsey]

<Tech Support> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:11:06 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote:
>
>>Steve Foley wrote:
>>> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>>
>>> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
>>> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less
>>> densely
>>> populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need
>>> to
>>> be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the
>>> members
>>> of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he
>>> said at
>>> a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
>>> experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and
>>> solo
>>> flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>>>
>>> Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's
>>> naive
>>> for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Other dangerous flight this yahoo wants banned from urban areas,
>>"training and solo flights."
>
>
> Do you think he would agree to banning beginners from public streets?
>
> Big John


If you consider accident statistics among 16 and 17 year olds, banning them
from the city limits would be MUCH more justifiable than banning training,
solo and experimental flights from the areas proposed.

[Ramsey]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Nope. It's you..
>
>
> Bertie

You and Mikey Mouth make good hat dancing partners.

Have you two been dance partners long?

Did you take lessons together?

Are you two a couple, or just dance partners?

[Ramsey]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's your point, wannabe boi>?
>
>
> Bertie
>

You're the one with a point lamer. It's on the top of your empty head.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Nope. It's you..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You and Mikey Mouth make good hat dancing partners.
>
> Have you two been dance partners long?
>
> Did you take lessons together?
>
> Are you two a couple, or just dance partners?

Ooow! Gay lames!

You haven't done one of those in ages, Maxie.

Good k00k!


Bertie

[hummingbird[_2_]]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:39:16 -0400, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
Fokken good rant, D00d



>> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
>> airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less
>> densely populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport
>> systems need to be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to
>> meet with the members of our congressional delegation to see if something
>> can be done," he said at a news conference. "I do not believe under our
>> circumstances that experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such
>> as training and solo flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'
>>
>
> Ban homebuilts and Cessna 150's??? What is he thinking? Isn't he concerned
> about aviation safety? This makes no sense at all. Did Mr. Walker learn
> NOTHING from 9/11? How could he be so unaware? Isn't the danger presented
> by large transport aircraft painfully clear? Does he have any concern for
> public safety at all?
>
> Yes, small aircraft are sometimes involved in accidents - but what is the
> outcome? Beyond the occupants, it exceedingly rare to involve any innocent
> bystanders at all. But what happens when one of the flying WMDs comes down
> in a populated area? THOUSANDS DEAD!!!
> Can you imagine what would happen if a fully loaded 767 were to experience
> problems and crash in to a crowded casino - spewing 5,000 gallons of jet
> fuel onto thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people? People that he is
> supposed to be protecting!
>
> How can he, or any of us, live with ourselves knowing that this kind of
> tragedy isn't just possible, but given time, inevitable?
>
> How can he continue to turn a blind eye to this tremendous threat to human
> life?
>
> How can we not DEMAND that these large aircraft be banned from flying over
> or landing in the vicinity of a populated area? Clearly, at a MINIMUM, any
> aircraft with a gross weight over 30,000 pound should absolutely forbidden
> to approach within 50 miles of a populated area. And, I suspect, that if
> Mr. Walker were to consider this carefully, he would agree that the only
> way that we can be safe is if large aircraft are banned from the sky
> completely.
>
> We went to war with Iraq over WMDs, why do we ignore the ones flying over
> our heads every day?

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:19:04 +0000, Scott wrote:

> BT wrote:
>
>> Sadly another airplane has crashed in the vicinity of the North Las Vegas
>> airport.
>> A Piper Navajo departed VGT and shortly after departure he called the tower
>> that he was returning with a rough running engine. The pilot was solo, no
>> pax. Witnesses on the ground reported the aircraft was on fire and fire
>> crews were responding to meet the aircraft at the airport when it crashed
>> short of the runway in a local neighborhood. There were no fatalities to
>> people on the ground.
>>
>> BT
>>
>> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>>><http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>
> Was that an "experimental" Navajo? Didn't think so. Looks like
> certified airplanes crash too.

The pilot got out, crawled on top, and was rescued about 20 metres
offshore by 3 drunk carpenters. Who used a mini-surf board. On the way
to shore, the pilot, over 70 said "Man, I think I had a stroke or
something".

So let's outlaw old pilots...in Navahos...near drunk carpenters.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"hummingbird" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:39:16 -0400, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> Fokken good rant, D00d
>

Thanks.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:19:04 +0000, Scott wrote:
>
>> BT wrote:
>>
>>> Sadly another airplane has crashed in the vicinity of the North Las
>>> Vegas
>>> airport.
>>> A Piper Navajo departed VGT and shortly after departure he called the
>>> tower
>>> that he was returning with a rough running engine. The pilot was solo,
>>> no
>>> pax. Witnesses on the ground reported the aircraft was on fire and fire
>>> crews were responding to meet the aircraft at the airport when it
>>> crashed
>>> short of the runway in a local neighborhood. There were no fatalities to
>>> people on the ground.
>>>
>>> BT
>>>
>>> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>
>>>><http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>>
>> Was that an "experimental" Navajo? Didn't think so. Looks like
>> certified airplanes crash too.
>
> The pilot got out, crawled on top, and was rescued about 20 metres
> offshore by 3 drunk carpenters. Who used a mini-surf board. On the way
> to shore, the pilot, over 70 said "Man, I think I had a stroke or
> something".
>
> So let's outlaw old pilots...in Navahos...near drunk carpenters.


So I have to ask? How many "strokes" did it take for him to get to shore?
:-)

--
Regards, Bob F.

[Ricky]

On Aug 28, 6:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. *

Anthony, you are wrong once again.

Tell us all, did you get this information from a reliable source? You
claimed to get your "one must fly by instruments" info from a reliable
source. I asked you several times to give the source information which
you never did do.

Anthony, you are a liar. How about that long-awaited source
information which you so conveniently ignored? Will you ignore even
this request and continue your string of false information?

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Aug 29, 8:45*am, "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote:

> Do your own homework piggy. Put up, shut, or you my b**ch.

In other words...you were wrong.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Aug 29, 12:55*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to get
> around certain troublesome regulations.

Your impression is wrong. You were wrong with your first response. Why
don't you respond to that and say something like; "sorry, I was
wrong?"

> How many hours had they flown elsewhere before they visited those large
> airports?

You were wrong and typed a lie. Now you are hiding behind these new
questions.

Ricky

[Ernest Christley]

Gezellig wrote:

> The pilot got out, crawled on top, and was rescued about 20 metres
> offshore by 3 drunk carpenters. Who used a mini-surf board. On the way
> to shore, the pilot, over 70 said "Man, I think I had a stroke or
> something".
>
> So let's outlaw old pilots...in Navahos...near drunk carpenters.

Ummm? I believe they have (it's called a 'medical' in the vernacular).

[Mxsmanic]

Ernest Christley writes:

> Ummm? I believe they have (it's called a 'medical' in the vernacular).

It's possible to be healthy and old. The correct term is actually "age
discrimination."

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:Im_tk.38$sq3.25@trnddc07...
>
> Still waiting for a link there, Mikey Mouth.

You'll be waiting a very long time.

Perhaps if you ever grow out of being a putz, but I'm not too optimistic
about that.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>

If you went to school, worked on it full time, and gave it your full effort,
perhaps you could work your way up to schmuck someday.

I don't think you have it in you, though.

Good luck.


> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...
>>
>> I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of
>> conclusions for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical
>> thought.
>
> Liar.
>
>>
>> By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
>> either way. Attempting to do so is childish.
>
> Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.
>
>>
>> Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in
>> economic terms".
>
> Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.
>
>>
>> Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
>> certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
>> theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer
>> letting people like you do their own research. When proof is provided,
>> you want to poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios
>> that are irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows
>> that when faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you
>> will just resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change
>> your mind. So why should I waste my time providing proof of something
>> you're never going to accept anyway?
>
> You should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like
> this one.
>
>
>>
>> Nor do I care really.
>
> Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you life,
> isn't it?
>
>>
>> Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have
>> I advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a
>> clue about my motivations or what I support or don't.
>
> For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support, you
> sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.
>
>

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:1Evuk.136$393.111@trnddc05...
>
> If you went to school, worked on it full time, and gave it your full
> effort, perhaps you could work your way up to schmuck someday.
>
> I don't think you have it in you, though.
>
> Good luck.
>

Keep hat dancing and you'll work you way up to Anthony's level someday.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:1Evuk.136$393.111@trnddc05...
>>
>> If you went to school, worked on it full time, and gave it your full
>> effort, perhaps you could work your way up to schmuck someday.
>>
>> I don't think you have it in you, though.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>
> Keep hat dancing and you'll work you way up to Anthony's level someday.

I spent all day yesterday flying while you spent all day waiting for my
reply and that's the best you could come up with? You are truly pathetic.

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

>
> It's possible to be healthy and old. The correct term is actually "age
> discrimination."

Then what's your excuse?

[Ramsey]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:xJwuk.112$Dj1.1@trnddc02...
> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:1Evuk.136$393.111@trnddc05...
>>>
>>> If you went to school, worked on it full time, and gave it your full
>>> effort, perhaps you could work your way up to schmuck someday.
>>>
>>> I don't think you have it in you, though.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>
>> Keep hat dancing and you'll work you way up to Anthony's level someday.
>
> I spent all day yesterday flying while you spent all day waiting for my
> reply and that's the best you could come up with? You are truly pathetic.

You dumb ass. You're a liar and have no clue what I did yesterday.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:xJwuk.112$Dj1.1@trnddc02...
>> "Ramsey" <@##@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:1Evuk.136$393.111@trnddc05...
>>>>
>>>> If you went to school, worked on it full time, and gave it your full
>>>> effort, perhaps you could work your way up to schmuck someday.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you have it in you, though.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Keep hat dancing and you'll work you way up to Anthony's level someday.
>>
>> I spent all day yesterday flying while you spent all day waiting for my
>> reply and that's the best you could come up with? You are truly
>> pathetic.
>
> You dumb ass. You're a liar and have no clue what I did yesterday.

Sure I do. You spent all day right here as the villiage idiot and the time
stamps prove it.

[Tom C]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
> message ...
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker


I just moved my Cherokee from VGT not because of safety, but because this
guy is well known to hate GA. All he wants there are small jet ops. VGT is
enough of a PIA because of McCarran's and Nellis Class B then throw in VGT
class D. Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's been
there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.

All but one Grand Canyon tour operator has been pushed out of VGT. Mercy Air
has no bases there only maintenance. Two fixed wing air ambulances were
pushed to McCarran and Henderson,

All this guy needed was an excuse. Now he has a Velocity into one house and
a certified twin into another.

It's going to get ugly.


Tom C

[Tom C]

"Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
> T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>
> Screw him (Randy Walker). Experimentals are issued airworthiness
> certificates from the FAA just as are certified aircraft. If they
> restrict experimentals from using the "public use" airports, they can (and
> should) forfeit Ferderal funding. Has a certified airplane ever crashed
> and killed an innocent on the ground? Nuff said.


That is exactly what the developers want.

Tom C

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Tom C" *>
wrote:

[snip]
> All this guy needed was an excuse. Now he has a Velocity into one house and
> a certified twin into another.
>
> It's going to get ugly.

It sounds like it was already very very ugly before the latest accident. :-(

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Just go look it up!]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:40:01 -0700, yaeedyaeegiisss
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>>My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to get
>>>around certain troublesome regulations.
>>
>> And your "impression" is wrong.
>
>Exactly so.
>
>> All experimental means is that the manufacturer, whoever that may be,
>> didn't go through the process to certify the aircraft in one of the
>> other catagories with the FAA.
>
>Yep. Newly developed aircraft that haven't yet been put into
>production, (hint: 777 Freighter, 787, other new types and derivatives)
>but are about to enter flight test, all fly as experimental aircraft
>during flight test. And only the wildly delusional and stupid believe
>that a company like, say, Boeing, is trying to "get around certain
>troublesome regulations." This is true for other aircraft manufacturers
>as well, particularly in the USA.

Even completely certificated types (172/182) with gear (a-la the G1000
prototypes where the installed equipment doesn't meet the list on the
god-knows-how-old TC) are splapped with the experimental label until
the amended TC process is completed.

[Christoph Zierhut]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:00:54 -0400, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

> "hummingbird" > wrote in message
> .. .


>> Fokken good rant, D00d
>>
>
> Thanks.

Usenet history was made right here, Cappie!
--
Tel (239) 732-8660
Toll Free 1-888-732-8660
Christoph A. Zierhut, Real Estate Broker ABR®
Motto: "Der Furher Was Right About De Jew"

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:

> Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
> sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's been
> there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.

In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:33:55 -0700, Tom C wrote:

> "Scott" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>
>> Screw him (Randy Walker). Experimentals are issued airworthiness
>> certificates from the FAA just as are certified aircraft. If they
>> restrict experimentals from using the "public use" airports, they can (and
>> should) forfeit Ferderal funding. Has a certified airplane ever crashed
>> and killed an innocent on the ground? Nuff said.
>
> That is exactly what the developers want.
>
> Tom C

Tom, is your point that RE developers did not use the proximity to the
airport as a selling point?

[Gezellig]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:01:40 -0400, Bob F. wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:19:04 +0000, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> BT wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sadly another airplane has crashed in the vicinity of the North Las
>>>> Vegas
>>>> airport.
>>>> A Piper Navajo departed VGT and shortly after departure he called the
>>>> tower
>>>> that he was returning with a rough running engine. The pilot was solo,
>>>> no
>>>> pax. Witnesses on the ground reported the aircraft was on fire and fire
>>>> crews were responding to meet the aircraft at the airport when it
>>>> crashed
>>>> short of the runway in a local neighborhood. There were no fatalities to
>>>> people on the ground.
>>>>
>>>> BT
>>>>
>>>> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>>
>>>>><http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>>>
>>> Was that an "experimental" Navajo? Didn't think so. Looks like
>>> certified airplanes crash too.
>>
>> The pilot got out, crawled on top, and was rescued about 20 metres
>> offshore by 3 drunk carpenters. Who used a mini-surf board. On the way
>> to shore, the pilot, over 70 said "Man, I think I had a stroke or
>> something".
>>
>> So let's outlaw old pilots...in Navahos...near drunk carpenters.
>
> So I have to ask? How many "strokes" did it take for him to get to shore?
> :-)

That was painful. lol

He was blind, too, by the stroke....God I hope so.

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:09:05 -0400, Ernest Christley wrote:

> Gezellig wrote:
>
>> The pilot got out, crawled on top, and was rescued about 20 metres
>> offshore by 3 drunk carpenters. Who used a mini-surf board. On the way
>> to shore, the pilot, over 70 said "Man, I think I had a stroke or
>> something".
>>
>> So let's outlaw old pilots...in Navahos...near drunk carpenters.
>
> Ummm? I believe they have (it's called a 'medical' in the vernacular).

He was 72 and had his clearance. Want to make a cutoff year for PPL?

[john smith]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:

> Tom, is your point that RE developers did not use the proximity to the
> airport as a selling point?

A search for "Randy Walker" on the Las Vegas SUN website will bring up
209 articles. Scroll through them and you will find many that refer to
law suits related to land deals involving airport land sold to
developers.

[Tom C]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:
>
>> Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
>> sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's
>> been
>> there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.
>
> In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
> discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?


This isn't an airpark. This has been an established airport since the
1940's.Up until the big Vegas boom, this county owned facility was
surrounded by nothing but desert. Like so many other growing towns (like
what has happened in CA and Long Island NY), the soccer moms and urban
drones decided that all that flat land around the airport to be prime home
sites. The built up all around it including runway ends. Now there are
shouts about noise and "danger." These same dangers have been there since
the 1940's when the Las Vegas Gunnery School was initiated during the war.
This airport never has been an airpark. It has always been an airport
designed for heavy training and GA traffic. The land around it should never
have been used for homes.

If you go to http://www.skyvector.com and type in VGT you will see the last
vestiges of open area around the airport. You will also see A-481. This is a
designated high performance take off area for KLSV (Nellis AFB). The yellow
area under it wasn't there 15 years ago. This is also true for the yellow
area around VGT. The city exploded to the north and surrounded the airport.
Another good Google search is Las Vegas pig farm.

Example:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-08-Thu-2007/news/12470973.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Sep-16-Mon-2002/news/19622083.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20060925/vegas-growth-farm.htm


Bottom line greedy developers and people who don't do their homework are now
razing a stink. GA is going to pay for it - as usual.

Tom C

[Tom C]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:33:55 -0700, Tom C wrote:
>
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
>>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>>
>>> Screw him (Randy Walker). Experimentals are issued airworthiness
>>> certificates from the FAA just as are certified aircraft. If they
>>> restrict experimentals from using the "public use" airports, they can
>>> (and
>>> should) forfeit Ferderal funding. Has a certified airplane ever crashed
>>> and killed an innocent on the ground? Nuff said.
>>
>> That is exactly what the developers want.
>>
>> Tom C
>
> Tom, is your point that RE developers did not use the proximity to the
> airport as a selling point?

They did not openly disclose it. What they would desire is to close the
airport so that land could further be turned into urban blight.

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:55:54 -0700, Tom C wrote:

>> In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
>> discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
>> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
>
> This isn't an airpark. This has been an established airport since the
> 1940's.Up until the big Vegas boom, this county owned facility was
> surrounded by nothing but desert. Like so many other growing towns (like
> what has happened in CA and Long Island NY), the soccer moms and urban
> drones decided that all that flat land around the airport to be prime home
> sites. The built up all around it including runway ends. Now there are
> shouts about noise and "danger." These same dangers have been there since
> the 1940's when the Las Vegas Gunnery School was initiated during the war.
> This airport never has been an airpark. It has always been an airport
> designed for heavy training and GA traffic. The land around it should never
> have been used for homes.
>
> If you go to http://www.skyvector.com and type in VGT you will see the last
> vestiges of open area around the airport. You will also see A-481. This is a
> designated high performance take off area for KLSV (Nellis AFB). The yellow
> area under it wasn't there 15 years ago. This is also true for the yellow
> area around VGT. The city exploded to the north and surrounded the airport.
> Another good Google search is Las Vegas pig farm.
>
> Example:
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-08-Thu-2007/news/12470973.html
>
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Sep-16-Mon-2002/news/19622083.html
>
> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20060925/vegas-growth-farm.htm
>
> Bottom line greedy developers and people who don't do their homework are now
> razing a stink. GA is going to pay for it - as usual.
>
> Tom C

Thx for the reply.

[BT]

Tom.. may I asked where you moved it to?
Because if you picked 0L7 and CCDoA gets their way.. that airport will be
closed in 2017.

They (CCDoA) won't tell you it will be closed, they are not allowing further
development at the airport, but this is where RandyW wants experimentals to
go. There are no hangers, there are no maint facilities, they are allowing
cracks in the ramp and runways to develop. The legislative language that got
them the BLM land for their new airport says that 0L7 will remain open "as
long as it is feasibly safe".

If they get their way and the new IVP airport opens, say hello to expansion
of the current ClassB, or at least a Class C, and the 0L7 airport will be
within the Class D radius of the IVP operations, so you'll need clearance
from a remote tower to get in and out. Oh.. another thing.. the FAF for the
approach into IVP will be just about where the downwind is for 20R.

Also, CCDoA is making no noise about closing 0L7, and they are making no
noise about developing another "Sport Aviation" facility to take it's place.

BT

"Tom C" *> wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>
>> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker
>
>
> I just moved my Cherokee from VGT not because of safety, but because this
> guy is well known to hate GA. All he wants there are small jet ops. VGT is
> enough of a PIA because of McCarran's and Nellis Class B then throw in VGT
> class D. Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who
> were sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport
> that's been there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.
>
> All but one Grand Canyon tour operator has been pushed out of VGT. Mercy
> Air has no bases there only maintenance. Two fixed wing air ambulances
> were pushed to McCarran and Henderson,
>
> All this guy needed was an excuse. Now he has a Velocity into one house
> and a certified twin into another.
>
> It's going to get ugly.
>
>
> Tom C
>

[Tom C]

61B dodging helicopters :) Only $5 bucks more a month and it's way closer to
home so I make it up in time savings and gas. Plus the best Brew Pub in
Clark County is out there so when I put the plane away I can go for cold
draft and tasty burger.

Tom C
"BT" > wrote in message
...
> Tom.. may I asked where you moved it to?
> Because if you picked 0L7 and CCDoA gets their way.. that airport will be
> closed in 2017.
>
> They (CCDoA) won't tell you it will be closed, they are not allowing
> further development at the airport, but this is where RandyW wants
> experimentals to go. There are no hangers, there are no maint facilities,
> they are allowing cracks in the ramp and runways to develop. The
> legislative language that got them the BLM land for their new airport says
> that 0L7 will remain open "as long as it is feasibly safe".
>
> If they get their way and the new IVP airport opens, say hello to
> expansion of the current ClassB, or at least a Class C, and the 0L7
> airport will be within the Class D radius of the IVP operations, so you'll
> need clearance from a remote tower to get in and out. Oh.. another thing..
> the FAF for the approach into IVP will be just about where the downwind is
> for 20R.
>
> Also, CCDoA is making no noise about closing 0L7, and they are making no
> noise about developing another "Sport Aviation" facility to take it's
> place.
>
> BT
>
> "Tom C" *> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>>
>>> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker
>>
>>
>> I just moved my Cherokee from VGT not because of safety, but because this
>> guy is well known to hate GA. All he wants there are small jet ops. VGT
>> is enough of a PIA because of McCarran's and Nellis Class B then throw in
>> VGT class D. Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people
>> who were sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport
>> that's been there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.
>>
>> All but one Grand Canyon tour operator has been pushed out of VGT. Mercy
>> Air has no bases there only maintenance. Two fixed wing air ambulances
>> were pushed to McCarran and Henderson,
>>
>> All this guy needed was an excuse. Now he has a Velocity into one house
>> and a certified twin into another.
>>
>> It's going to get ugly.
>>
>>
>> Tom C
>>
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:
>
> > Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
> > sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's
> > been
> > there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.
>
> In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
> discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?

HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
about it!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Gezellig > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:
>>
>> > Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
>> > sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport
>> > that's
>> > been
>> > there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.
>>
>> In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
>> discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
>> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
>
> HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
> about it!
>


That was some thread a while ago. Someone was convinced that living at an
airpark was something like a suicide attempt. Data to the contrary was
dismissed as obviously wrong because living near a runway was
pre-determined to be dangerous.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[BT]

roger on 61B and dodging helo's..
which pub would that be?? the A&W?
BT

"Tom C" *> wrote in message
...
> 61B dodging helicopters :) Only $5 bucks more a month and it's way closer
> to home so I make it up in time savings and gas. Plus the best Brew Pub in
> Clark County is out there so when I put the plane away I can go for cold
> draft and tasty burger.
>
> Tom C
> "BT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tom.. may I asked where you moved it to?
>> Because if you picked 0L7 and CCDoA gets their way.. that airport will be
>> closed in 2017.
>>
>> They (CCDoA) won't tell you it will be closed, they are not allowing
>> further development at the airport, but this is where RandyW wants
>> experimentals to go. There are no hangers, there are no maint facilities,
>> they are allowing cracks in the ramp and runways to develop. The
>> legislative language that got them the BLM land for their new airport
>> says that 0L7 will remain open "as long as it is feasibly safe".
>>
>> If they get their way and the new IVP airport opens, say hello to
>> expansion of the current ClassB, or at least a Class C, and the 0L7
>> airport will be within the Class D radius of the IVP operations, so
>> you'll need clearance from a remote tower to get in and out. Oh.. another
>> thing.. the FAF for the approach into IVP will be just about where the
>> downwind is for 20R.
>>
>> Also, CCDoA is making no noise about closing 0L7, and they are making no
>> noise about developing another "Sport Aviation" facility to take it's
>> place.
>>
>> BT
>>
>> "Tom C" *> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676>
>>>>
>>>> 'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker
>>>
>>>
>>> I just moved my Cherokee from VGT not because of safety, but because
>>> this guy is well known to hate GA. All he wants there are small jet ops.
>>> VGT is enough of a PIA because of McCarran's and Nellis Class B then
>>> throw in VGT class D. Now you have this guy who hates GA and the
>>> clueless people who were sold a bill of goods by developers that
>>> encroached on an airport that's been there since WW II and we have one
>>> melting ball of wax.
>>>
>>> All but one Grand Canyon tour operator has been pushed out of VGT. Mercy
>>> Air has no bases there only maintenance. Two fixed wing air ambulances
>>> were pushed to McCarran and Henderson,
>>>
>>> All this guy needed was an excuse. Now he has a Velocity into one house
>>> and a certified twin into another.
>>>
>>> It's going to get ugly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom C
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Tom C]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> roger on 61B and dodging helo's..
> which pub would that be?? the A&W?

Boulder Dam Brewery. Try the IPA and the stout. Heck even the light beer is
good.

Tom C

> BT
>
> "Tom C" *> wrote in message

[Tri-Pacer]

>
> That was some thread a while ago. Someone was convinced that living at an
> airpark was something like a suicide attempt. Data to the contrary was
> dismissed as obviously wrong because living near a runway was
> pre-determined to be dangerous.
>


Damn right they're dangerous. I'm suicidal and want to buy your airpark at a
deep discount

Help me end it all !!!!

PS It's gotta have a nice hangar

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KPLU

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:16:46 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> Gezellig > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:
>>
>>> Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
>>> sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's
>>> been
>>> there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.
>>
>> In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
>> discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
>> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
>
> HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
> about it!

What hazards? Get serious, air parks like any other airfield have
hazards.

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:50:06 -0400, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

>>> In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
>>> discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
>>> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
>>
>> HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
>> about it!
>>
>
> That was some thread a while ago. Someone was convinced that living at an
> airpark was something like a suicide attempt. Data to the contrary was
> dismissed as obviously wrong because living near a runway was
> pre-determined to be dangerous.

The thread I am reading is pretty fairly discussed by the poster. It
does appear that a bunch got their knickers in a wad over the realities
of airpark hazards. What has been lost is my question as to why
developers were /against/ GA, I had wrongly assumed there were
developers who had sold the + benefits of GA to homebuyers.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:18:36 -0700, Tri-Pacer wrote:

>> That was some thread a while ago. Someone was convinced that living at an
>> airpark was something like a suicide attempt. Data to the contrary was
>> dismissed as obviously wrong because living near a runway was
>> pre-determined to be dangerous.
>>
>
> Damn right they're dangerous. I'm suicidal and want to buy your airpark at a
> deep discount
>
> Help me end it all !!!!
>
> PS It's gotta have a nice hangar
>
> Cheers:
>
> Paul
> N1431A
> KPLU

Paul, you should have no problem, there are dozens of them in the USA
for sale.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" wrote in message...
> That was some thread a while ago. Someone was convinced
> that living at an airpark was something like a suicide attempt.
> Data to the contrary was dismissed as obviously wrong because
> living near a runway was pre-determined to be dangerous.
>

Yeah, and the originator of that thread claimed to be a "real estate
developer with aviation interest". I read that as: the fox says to the
chickens "just passing thru".

[Tom C]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...

>>> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
>>
>> HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
>> about it!
>
> What hazards? Get serious, air parks like any other airfield have
> hazards.

Golf developments have more.

Tom "F*&^%$g sand traps" C

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article <niZuk.186$Af3.141@trnddc06>,
"Mike Isaksen" > wrote:

> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" wrote in message...
> > That was some thread a while ago. Someone was convinced
> > that living at an airpark was something like a suicide attempt.
> > Data to the contrary was dismissed as obviously wrong because
> > living near a runway was pre-determined to be dangerous.
> >
>
> Yeah, and the originator of that thread claimed to be a "real estate
> developer with aviation interest". I read that as: the fox says to the
> chickens "just passing thru".

How about "a fox with an interest in chickens?"

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:16:46 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Gezellig > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:
> >>
> >>> Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
> >>> sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's
> >>> been
> >>> there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.
> >>
> >> In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
> >> discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
> >> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
> >
> > HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
> > about it!
>
> What hazards? Get serious, air parks like any other airfield have
> hazards.

Just like roads, parking lots, water buckets, bicycles, frozen salmon...

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:19:12 -0700, Tom C wrote:

> "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
>>>
>>> HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
>>> about it!
>>
>> What hazards? Get serious, air parks like any other airfield have
>> hazards.
>
> Golf developments have more.
>
> Tom "F*&^%$g sand traps" C

More? OK, at least there is a consensus that airparks, as golf courses,
are hazardous.

As I look back on the thread about this subject, I see the same sorts of
blinded airpark enthusiasm. What I find from "Living With Your Plane"
and many other rationale discussions is the admittance to the hazards.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:21:53 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> Gezellig > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:16:46 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Gezellig > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
>>>>> sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's
>>>>> been
>>>>> there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.
>>>>
>>>> In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
>>>> discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
>>>> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
>>>
>>> HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
>>> about it!
>>
>> What hazards? Get serious, air parks like any other airfield have
>> hazards.
>
> Just like roads, parking lots, water buckets, bicycles, frozen salmon...

Correct.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:19:12 -0700, Tom C wrote:
>
> > "Gezellig" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>> this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?
> >>>
> >>> HUH???? What hazards of airparks? There has been nothing in this thread
> >>> about it!
> >>
> >> What hazards? Get serious, air parks like any other airfield have
> >> hazards.
> >
> > Golf developments have more.
> >
> > Tom "F*&^%$g sand traps" C
>
> More? OK, at least there is a consensus that airparks, as golf courses,
> are hazardous.
>
> As I look back on the thread about this subject, I see the same sorts of
> blinded airpark enthusiasm. What I find from "Living With Your Plane"
> and many other rationale discussions is the admittance to the hazards.

WRONG!

What you see is people acknowledging risks associated with any endeavor
-- not specifically airparks. There is nothing to suggest any additional
hazard due to airparks. In fact, the presence of hangar space should
reduce hazards, due to lower environmental degradation than planes
exposed to the elements.

You will find your share of doofuses in any activity -- especially when
shaving or brushing your teeth.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Aug 28, 7:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. *It makes
> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
> designs at LAX.

I

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Aug 28, 7:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. *It makes
> sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
> Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
> designs at LAX.

In the context of this discussion 'experimental' is a misnomer. Many,
if not most homebuilt airplanes are classed by the FAA as
'experimental',
even popular kitplanes of proven design.

--

FF

[Mike[_22_]]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 28, 7:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It
> > makes
> > sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated
> > areas.
> > Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out
> > their new
> > designs at LAX.
>
> In the context of this discussion 'experimental' is a misnomer. Many,
> if not most homebuilt airplanes are classed by the FAA as
> 'experimental',
> even popular kitplanes of proven design.

Even a certified factory aircraft may be reclassified as "experimental".