If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:24:07 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote: In your case: ** plonk ** Did you fall into a lake? Ah, not, that was you... His way of saying not to waste his time. lol Been on Usenet for over a decade. -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that might kill someone. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "Rich S."
wrote: To those who are frightened of such a risk, please find a nice condo - in New Jersey (no offence to the Jerseyites) Everybody hates New Jersey, but somebody has to live there. Dan Mc |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
On Mar 17, 6:20*am, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote: Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ? *You might even have to decide to give the airplane to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident happens to you - if you take up being a pilot. *Planes and houses don't grow on trees, but they are much easier to replace than people. I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within two miles of any airport. *Is it a reasonable risk? *I think so. Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions. (rest snipped for brevity) Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are unwarranted. In the meantime, your arguments with those who actually fly and understand the relevant issues neither serve your ultimate goal nor help those who, like you, participate in this group to learn because authoritatively stated misinformation is counterproductive. A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20 meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well. Be patient, listen, and learn! Best, Neil I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat. First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an airpark and you have major, potential carnage. Everyone, almost, assumed that I was looking to find serious and conclusive faults to the airpark lifestyle. Here's a heads up. If anyone had simply asked, instead of assuming, what my interest level is, and why, they would have gotten the straight answer. I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place (beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want. Pilots complain about the public's misconceptions about airparks and air safety. Chicken and egg, I have sat in way too many pilot-public debates where both sides are at odds and are carrying attitudes to those discussions. This thread is a very good example. One of the powers of being labeled as a under-educated, Mr, KnowItAll is that people get all hot and bothered for no good reason /but/ they spill their guts and let the verbiage fly. I take copious notes as my Daddy said, "You can learn from anyone something, shake the tree to make the hornets fly if you have too -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that might kill someone.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So according to you, everybody over reacted to your oh so simple request for information. I would contend that you in fact brought it on yourself from the very first post forward and the one that finally got me involved was totally off the charts. . Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going to . have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house "screwing . the pooch." YOUR RESPONSE BELOW: .Let's start this over Captiva. . .Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent death. . .Yes? . .Make sense? .???? In the future, you might get a much more acceptable response by stating you purpose and engaging in a reasoned discussion of the issues. You instead decided on an approach that you fully well knew would result in exactly the response you got and then whine about it. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
On Mar 17, 11:19 am, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, WJRFlyBoy posted: On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote: Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are unwarranted. [...] I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat. I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread. Hmmmm. Perhaps the reason for your confusion is: "WJRFlyBoy View profile More options Nov 22 2007, 3:16 pm Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting From: WJRFlyBoy Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:16:22 -0500 Local: Thurs, Nov 22 2007 3:16 pm Subject: Advice Requested Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author It's time to stop talking and start doing so I would appreciate any advice on how to assess a flight school, instructor, pricing and any other suggestions. No advice too basic, trust me Including what I should have included in this post or requested in the first place TIA Location: SW Florida/Bonita Springs Objective: Flight for business (SE USA), travel between two homes (Caribbean) and simple pleasure My Age: mid 50s -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! " |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
Recently, WJRFlyBoy posted:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote: Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are unwarranted. [...] I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat. I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread. In that amount of time, it would seem to me that you would have flown into airports with far less tolerance than 60' off centerline. To me, 60' is as good as a mile, since the wingspans of the planes I fly are far less than that and many runways have trees and other obstructions closer than those houses. First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an airpark and you have major, potential carnage. From my perspective, and those of several others, the issues are risk management and judgement rather than some inherently difficult circumstance of the layout you described. As another person pointed out during this discussion, those living in an airpark would get a lot of practice flying into and out of that strip, which further reduces the risks. Best, Neil |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
In article ,
WJRFlyBoy wrote: First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an airpark and you have major, potential carnage. Everyone, almost, assumed that I was looking to find serious and conclusive faults to the airpark lifestyle. Here's a heads up. If anyone had simply asked, instead of assuming, what my interest level is, and why, they would have gotten the straight answer. I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place (beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want. The picture that I am getting is that "WJRFlyBoy" has a vested interest in shutting down the airpark at North Captiva. Just how many new (expe$sive) home$ can he build there if he can force the place to close? In a previous posting I recited one of my criteria for an airpark place to live: "Big enough to defend itself when the Philistines attack." Is "WJRFlyBoy" one of those Philistines? North Captiva is small, apparently with only 20-30 homes there. The residents would have to shell out a lot of money in lawyers' fees if somebody mounted a strong movement against them. The Chicken Littles would pour out of the woodwork, crying "The sky is FALLING!" In steps Mr. Foxy Loxy, promising to develop houses on the site, if only they can get rid of those pesky, dangerous airplanes. Pilots complain about the public's misconceptions about airparks and air safety. Chicken and egg, I have sat in way too many pilot-public debates where both sides are at odds and are carrying attitudes to those discussions. This thread is a very good example. So have I, when the players behind the scene are developers. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
In article
, Dan wrote: On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "Rich S." wrote: To those who are frightened of such a risk, please find a nice condo - in New Jersey (no offence to the Jerseyites) Everybody hates New Jersey, but somebody has to live there. Why? Are they being punished? |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message news So have I, when the players behind the scene are developers. Buncha developers getting their asses handed to them in Oregon. They came out, developed everything--still are--as fast as possible pretty much ruined the landscape. From the tree nursery I grew up on up on the hill east of Troutdale, you can see the development spreading across the landscape like mold on cheese. The first wave is bulldozers and homes most Oregonians can't afford. The second wave involves gang grafitti, increased vandalism and armed robbery, rising crime statistics, falling property values and huge new homes all around our farm built by the people who "develop" Portland. But, hey, I have an 1951 800-square-foot home appraised at $160,000 and gang activity a mile or so down the road, so, we're genuinely Californicated and ought to be thankful for their plundering of the community. Property values are staying up out here but they'll fall because none of the locals can afford to live here anymore and people from out of state can't sell their land and move here cheaply. They shut down NWPilot's historical old grass strip airport for development. Last time I drove by, it's closed, but the field itself is still undeveloped. 'Course with the huge condos all around so close to the airport that they required red lights on the roof, it's no surprise that complaints against the airport exploded and the outside developers were able to make a case to shut it down. -c |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
"Steve Hix" wrote in message ... In article , Dan wrote: On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "Rich S." wrote: To those who are frightened of such a risk, please find a nice condo - in New Jersey (no offence to the Jerseyites) Everybody hates New Jersey, but somebody has to live there. Why? Are they being punished? Yes! It's a modern day Australia. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:19:45 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are unwarranted. [...] I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat. I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread. No apologies necessary. In that amount of time, it would seem to me that you would have flown into airports with far less tolerance than 60' off centerline. To me, 60' is as good as a mile, since the wingspans of the planes I fly are far less than that and many runways have trees and other obstructions closer than those houses. A few, not many even though 1/2 the T/Os and lands were in very small eown USA. First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an airpark and you have major, potential carnage. From my perspective, and those of several others, the issues are risk management and judgement rather than some inherently difficult circumstance of the layout you described. As another person pointed out during this discussion, those living in an airpark would get a lot of practice flying into and out of that strip, which further reduces the risks. Best, Overall, I believe that you are correct, surely that would be the ase if your own house was on the strip. lol Btw, the layout is interesting part of the airpark development. There may be a higher justification for concern if planes have to use the developments' road system, instead of a segregated access for planes only. -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that might kill someone. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? | WJRFlyBoy | Piloting | 257 | March 28th 08 01:26 PM |
Airparks... | .Blueskies. | Owning | 9 | May 8th 06 04:14 PM |
Airparks and clubs around Phoenix AZ ? | gilan | Home Built | 3 | March 9th 06 01:07 PM |
Airparks near Austin TX | TIm Gilbert | Owning | 14 | October 3rd 05 03:18 PM |
A New, New Direction for a Beaten Dead Horse | Shawn | Soaring | 0 | February 25th 05 01:57 PM |