Another home wrecked

by Jim Logajan Jun 13, 2006 at 10:07 PM


"Skylune" wrote:
Per mile travelled, I would bet more houses are destroyed by airplanes
than cars.

I'm willing to take that bet. So what are your numbers and how are they
derived?




I don't have the numbers, and never said (or implied) that I did. I
simply stated that I would bet that is the case. If anyone can get that
data and I am wrong, I will gladly send $25. ;-)

"Skylune" wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Skylune" wrote:
Per mile travelled, I would bet more houses are destroyed by airplanes
than cars.
I'm willing to take that bet. So what are your numbers and how are they
derived?

I don't have the numbers, and never said (or implied) that I did. I
simply stated that I would bet that is the case. If anyone can get that
data and I am wrong, I will gladly send $25. ;-)

I would bet the interior of the asteroid Ceres is made of cream cheese. If
anyone can go there and find out I am wrong, I will gladly send $25.

by Jim Logajan Jun 14, 2006 at 05:06 PM


I would bet the interior of the asteroid Ceres is made of cream cheese.
If

anyone can go there and find out I am wrong, I will gladly send $25



Well, there do exist many data points about homes destroyed by small
planes. Google it: "Plane crash into homes." Or, if you'd prefer, I'll
attach links to all the hits that popped up -- 4 pages worth, although
many are unrelated to GA or repeats of the same story. ;-)

Saying its an epidemic was intentional hyperbole on my part, and it did
get a reaction. I know the odds are small but, as I have said before,
statistically it is inevitable that a small plane will at some point cause
many deaths on the ground. There have been many close calls recently, and
a small number of deaths have occurred by GA serving (up) America.

Rather than aiming to put more and more pilots (some marginally trained
under the LSA rules) into the air, the AOPA/FAA cabal should instead be
looking to improve the safety of the GA fleet, the training required of
pilots, security at GA airports in vicinity of cities and/or properties
vital to national security (such as reservoirs), reduce noise-, air and
water pollution, etc. Of course, this would cost money, and the AOPA
opposes any and all of this. Instead, they want the tax subsidies to keep
coming in, and the hell with any kind of greater social responsibility. A
truly nefarious organization that acts against the country's best
interests.


Now, are there ANY stories about this asteroid's composition? There are
many stories about GA planes crashing into private property.

"Skylune" wrote:
Well, there do exist many data points about homes destroyed by small
planes.

No one denies that.

Saying its an epidemic was intentional hyperbole on my part, and it
did get a reaction.

So you admit to an irrational attack.

Rather than aiming to put more and more pilots (some marginally
trained under the LSA rules) into the air, the AOPA/FAA cabal should
instead be looking to improve the safety of the GA fleet,

What specifically do you think they should be doing that they aren't doing
now?

the training
required of pilots, security at GA airports in vicinity of cities
and/or properties vital to national security (such as reservoirs),
reduce noise-, air and water pollution, etc.

What specifically do you think they should be doing that they aren't doing
now on these issues?

Of course, this would
cost money, and the AOPA opposes any and all of this. Instead, they
want the tax subsidies to keep coming in, and the hell with any kind
of greater social responsibility. A truly nefarious organization that
acts against the country's best interests.

I see you making lots of demand for restrictions on travel and more
intrusive regulations - so much for your claim to being a libertarian.

I'm all for less government subsidies of GA. If that were your only
complaint you'd probably find more posters here agreeing with you.

by Jim Logajan Jun 14, 2006 at 06:41 PM


"Skylune" wrote:
Well, there do exist many data points about homes destroyed by small
planes.

No one denies that.

Saying its an epidemic was intentional hyperbole on my part, and it
did get a reaction.

So you admit to an irrational attack.

Rather than aiming to put more and more pilots (some marginally
trained under the LSA rules) into the air, the AOPA/FAA cabal should
instead be looking to improve the safety of the GA fleet,

What specifically do you think they should be doing that they aren't
doing

now?

the training
required of pilots, security at GA airports in vicinity of cities
and/or properties vital to national security (such as reservoirs),
reduce noise-, air and water pollution, etc.

What specifically do you think they should be doing that they aren't
doing

now on these issues?

Of course, this would
cost money, and the AOPA opposes any and all of this. Instead, they
want the tax subsidies to keep coming in, and the hell with any kind
of greater social responsibility. A truly nefarious organization that
acts against the country's best interests.

I see you making lots of demand for restrictions on travel and more
intrusive regulations - so much for your claim to being a libertarian.

I'm all for less government subsidies of GA. If that were your only
complaint you'd probably find more posters here agreeing with you



Hi Jim. It was intentional hyperbole. I wouldn't call it an irrational
attack, but there's enough gray area there so I won't disagree. I think
few people (myself included)live in fear of dying from a small plane
crashing into my house. But it does happen, and as the population grows,
the odds increase. This is very simple.

On the safety of the GA fleet, it is more what AOPA is opposing: FAA's
studying older planes is being opposed by AOPA, even though structural
failure has been implicated in various recent crashes. (Also rare, like
crashing into homes, but opposing even a study????) I think the pilots
have a phrase for these planes: "tired iron." One of your very own, on
his web site states that if you don't want the engine to quit mid flight,
buy a new plane. On this site, recently, people were lamenting how easily
the structure of a Piper could be compromised by pushing on the wing-tips.
How would I know, if I am a renter, if the plane has been damaged.

Getting a sport pilot license by presenting a drivers license as proof of
medical fitness is just stupid, and not worthy of debate. There is no
physical required, just an eye test. Losing the drivers license due to a
medical condition happens only AFTER a crash. Boyer of course knows this,
but pursues another intellectually dishonest rhetorical argument to get
more members and planes in the sky.

I think pilots should be drug tested (and yes, I would extend that to
other forms of transportation such as driving). I am not a pure
libertarian -- in a crowded society with competing interests and limited
resources, government MUST play a referee role to some degree. Otherwise,
there would be anarchy.

At least we agree that the subsidies should end. My biggest beef are
complete lack of enforcement of noise restrictions at some airports, being
buzzed and having no one responsible (FAA says its up to the airport
sponsor, and airport sponsor says its up the FAA). There is no
enforcement of the FARs, and constant busting of minimums. Of course the
FAA makes this virtually impossible to prove, unless it is a very high
profile case of a beach in Calif or school (one near here in Massachusetts
last week). Then, the "enforcement" actions tend to be a joke. Voluntary
compliance with the FARs, without real penalty for serious violations, is
a situation that must be changed, IMO. Just like I cannot go hunting
wherever I choose, even though I have an explicit right in the
Constitution to bear arms.

At least you agree with me that GA is subsidized. This is an indisputable
fact when you look at the amounts of revenue, by source, that go into the
Av. Trust Fund. All arguments made here (the AOPA story line, basically)
are simply rhetorical.

On the safety of the GA fleet, it is more what AOPA is opposing: FAA's
studying older planes is being opposed by AOPA, even though structural
failure has been implicated in various recent crashes. (Also rare, like
crashing into homes, but opposing even a study????)

"study" is code-speak for "we know what we want to do, let's find a way
to convince people to do it". In politics, there is no such thing as an
impartial study, and to treat the word as if it meant that is ludicrous.

Getting a sport pilot license by presenting a drivers license as proof of
medical fitness is just stupid, and not worthy of debate.

That's an example right there. Let's "study" it.

I think pilots should be drug tested (and yes, I would extend that to
other forms of transportation such as driving). I am not a pure
libertarian -- in a crowded society with competing interests and limited
resources, government MUST play a referee role to some degree. Otherwise,
there would be anarchy.

You are not a libertarian at all. You seem to be in favor of a society
in which permission is required and innocence must be proven.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose Jun 14, 2006 at 08:51 PM


On the safety of the GA fleet, it is more what AOPA is opposing: FAA's
studying older planes is being opposed by AOPA, even though structural
failure has been implicated in various recent crashes. (Also rare,
like
crashing into homes, but opposing even a study????)

"study" is code-speak for "we know what we want to do, let's find a way
to convince people to do it". In politics, there is no such thing as an
impartial study, and to treat the word as if it meant that is ludicrous.

Getting a sport pilot license by presenting a drivers license as proof
of
medical fitness is just stupid, and not worthy of debate.

That's an example right there. Let's "study" it.

I think pilots should be drug tested (and yes, I would extend that to
other forms of transportation such as driving). I am not a pure
libertarian -- in a crowded society with competing interests and
limited
resources, government MUST play a referee role to some degree.
Otherwise,
there would be anarchy.

You are not a libertarian at all. You seem to be in favor of a society
in which permission is required and innocence must be proven.

Jose



Hi Jose. Someone worth debating, with intellectual honesty (unlike the
Boyer-esque fools)....

On your dismissal of all studies, I disagree. Yes, many are rigged (like
ALL the Economic Benefit studies of GA airports), that is true. But not
all. The FAA has a history and mission of ADVOCATING INCREASED aviation
(the LSA is a recent example)and subsidizing GA. Why is it that this
aviation advocacy group already has a pre-determined position on older
aircraft, especially since structural failures have been implicated in
some crashes recently?? I don't understand. They want to put more planes
and pilots in the air, and provide more grants to airports in order to tie
the hands of localities for at least 20 years. They are GA's best friend.
If these airports had to be self supporting, profit making businesses,
there would be way, way less of them, and you would all be paying much,
much more.

On my politics, I do have libertarian leanings. I am not a pure
libertarian who believes that everyone should be home schooled and fend
for themselves. I believe in decriminization of various drugs, and free
market solutions wherever possible: libertarian leanings. I am against
unlimited welfare outlays, government required health care (like Mass is
imposing), etc.

In my politics, government plays a role as a regulator when there are
externalities (such as pollution) or when various groups of society come
into conflict. There must be rules (regulations or laws) to prevent
anarchy.
In a fully libertarian society, I'd be able to fly kites high or shoot off
my Mossberg at fools in low flying planes. I'd have as much right to my
freedoms as the pilots. But this would be ridiculous. This is why I am
against the self-policing of the FARs (to great extent) and "voluntary"
noise abatement procedures, etc.

Take care. I gotta go out to the Left Coast (La La land) by commercial
airliner.

I would bet the interior of the asteroid Ceres is made of cream cheese. If
anyone can go there and find out I am wrong, I will gladly send $25.

Be careful - we can probably do that from here.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.