Buzzed?

Ted wrote:

I was quite annoyed at his complete contempt for proper airport procedures until I saw him use about 450 feet of runway to lift off. His climb out was essentially vertical and in another few moments he flew over my head and out of sight

So your annoyance turned to awe after seeing his T/O performance? G


I doubt that's any justification for what he did, if that's what you
meant.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Ted wrote:

I was quite annoyed at his complete contempt for proper airport
procedures until I saw him use about 450 feet of runway to lift off.
His climb out was essentially vertical and in another few moments he
flew over my head and out of sight

So your annoyance turned to awe after seeing his T/O performance? G


I doubt that's any justification for what he did, if that's what you
meant.


Not a justification exactly but its hard to stay annoyed with someone who
just cut in front of you when a few moments later he is gone and out of
sight..

We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude. Well, his antics finally caught up with him. He was
doing low level aerobatics over a marina on a near by lake and he
crashed and killed himself. Luckily he missed anyone on the water or in
the marina.

Ross

Ted wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Ted wrote:


I was quite annoyed at his complete contempt for proper airport
procedures until I saw him use about 450 feet of runway to lift off.
His climb out was essentially vertical and in another few moments he
flew over my head and out of sight

So your annoyance turned to awe after seeing his T/O performance? G


I doubt that's any justification for what he did, if that's what you
meant.



Not a justification exactly but its hard to stay annoyed with someone who
just cut in front of you when a few moments later he is gone and out of
sight..

Ross Richardson wrote:

We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude. Well, his antics finally caught up with him. He was
doing low level aerobatics over a marina on a near by lake and he
crashed and killed himself. Luckily he missed anyone on the water or in
the marina.

A death well deserved.

We had a AH from around here pull some low-flying crap a month, or so,
ago in Roseville, CA (near Sacramento). Unfortunately, he had a
passenger (who may have been an enabler). They died when they crashed
their "hottie" homebuilt into a home and also killed a totally innocent
19 year old young man asleep in his bedroom.

by Sam Spade Apr 18, 2006 at 06:36 AM



A death well deserved.

We had a AH from around here pull some low-flying crap a month, or so,
ago in Roseville, CA (near Sacramento). Unfortunately, he had a
passenger (who may have been an enabler). They died when they crashed
their "hottie" homebuilt into a home and also killed a totally innocent
19 year old young man asleep in his bedroom



Well deserved indeed. That one in Calif was particularly bad, and with
the warm April weather, the carnage over the past several days was
predicatably high. At least 8 signficiant crashes since last Friday,
including into a school field in New Hampshire, the gainesville wreck, a
few more homebuilts, etc.

The one that kills several innocents on the ground is coming --
statistically inevitable. That will generate lots of negative press, and
place safety, noise, pollution square in the public eye again. Boyer will
be busy spinning bull****.

In article
outaviation.com,
says...


The one that kills several innocents on the ground is coming --
statistically inevitable. That will generate lots of negative press, and
place safety, noise, pollution square in the public eye again. Boyer will
be busy spinning bull****.



Well, if you're including larger turboprops, bizjets and airliners in your
estimate you may be correct. However if you're referring to small singles
and twins, it's hard to understand how you can describe something that
virtually never happens as being "statistically inevitable".

Of course it's possible - a 172 could hit car on the freeway and slam it
into another car or something - you almost need to find such a scenario,
where the destructive force invloved is greater than that engendered by the
little plane itself, which was only the trigger event. Otherwise, small
planes crashing just don't pack enough destructive force to make the killing
of several innocents on the ground "statistically inevitable".
Statistically, the most likely result, in fact, is that this will not happen
any time soon.

GF

by Greg Farris Apr 18, 2006 at 06:07 PM


In article
outaviation.com,
says...


The one that kills several innocents on the ground is coming --
statistically inevitable. That will generate lots of negative press,
and
place safety, noise, pollution square in the public eye again. Boyer
will
be busy spinning bull****.



Well, if you're including larger turboprops, bizjets and airliners in
your

estimate you may be correct. However if you're referring to small singles

and twins, it's hard to understand how you can describe something that
virtually never happens as being "statistically inevitable".

Of course it's possible - a 172 could hit car on the freeway and slam
it

into another car or something - you almost need to find such a scenario,
where the destructive force invloved is greater than that engendered by
the
little plane itself, which was only the trigger event. Otherwise, small
planes crashing just don't pack enough destructive force to make the
killing
of several innocents on the ground "statistically inevitable".
Statistically, the most likely result, in fact, is that this will not
happen
any time soon.



Well, we shall see. If a 172 crashes into a house or business, killing
several people on the ground, there will be an outcry. Naturally, a small
plane will not result in hundreds of casualties, but if that one that
crashed on the sports field happened to hit kids on the ground.....

Here's a listing since last week. Yes, it is springtime, and the little
planes are falling! One fell behind a house in Mass, another crashes into
a terminal in Fla, the one that crashed onto a school field in NH. There
were several other stories that had the links down, but things are off to
a roaring start in April!

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...inquirer_local

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...ws/20crash.txt

http://www.kxly.com/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=1753

http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/2648241.html

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/page...tory/cececa4a4

http://www.wofl.com/_ezpost/data/39693.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/16/Ci...burned_i.shtml

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,5290356.story

http://www.klbk.com/news/default.asp...ownews&id=1547

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...rash13-ON.html

http://www.townonline.com/melrose/lo...ticleid=470880

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs....=2006604120309

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:JX51g.75088$bm6.40044@fed1read04...
Ross Richardson wrote:

We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic plane.
Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the area. He
would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the top of
folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away, etc.
Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below pattern
altitude. Well, his antics finally caught up with him. He was doing low
level aerobatics over a marina on a near by lake and he crashed and
killed himself. Luckily he missed anyone on the water or in the marina.

A death well deserved.

We had a AH from around here pull some low-flying crap a month, or so, ago
in Roseville, CA (near Sacramento). Unfortunately, he had a passenger
(who may have been an enabler). They died when they crashed their
"hottie" homebuilt into a home and also killed a totally innocent 19 year
old young man asleep in his bedroom.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...17X00210&key=1

Lucky break school was out. Imagine, a "strong wind" caused this crash.
Unbelievable.



A day earlier, plane incident could have been a tragedy
By LORNA COLQUHOUN
Union Leader Correspondent



HAVERHILL – Even if there had been a baseball game in progress late
Saturday morning, what came over the outfield could not have been more
surprising.

"There were about a dozen members of the baseball team who were prepping
the infield when a plane came low over the outfield," said school
principal Brent Walker, who got to the field at about the same time as
local emergency squads.

The plane, a 1946 Aeronca that had taken off a few moments before at the
Dean Memorial Airport, eventually came to rest near the playground. The
pilot, Keith Merrick, 60, of Post Mills, Vt., and his passenger, Randall
Trask, 58, of Randolph, Vt., were not injured, nor was anyone on the
ground.

Saturday was the first day of the April vacation for local students. Had
it happened at the same time the previous day, Walker said, there would
have been children playing on the swings.

"We're just glad no one was injured," he said.

Haverhill police Chief Jeff Williams said the boys were working on the
infield, getting it ready for the season, when the plane came over the
outfield, clipping a stop sign at the intersection of Airport Drive.

"It caught the left wing and came to rest on the playground," he said.
"Fortunately, no one was on the playground."

According to police reports, the two-seat plane, owned by the Upper Valley
Flying Club in Meriden, took off at about 11:40 a.m. from the airport,
which is located less than a mile from the middle school.

Initial indications are that a strong wind prevented the plane from
gaining altitude; the Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.