Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

"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.

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?

"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.

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"

"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

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!!!)

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" 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_ho.../12470973.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../19622083.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2006...rowth-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

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_ho.../12470973.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../19622083.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2006...rowth-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.

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.