T-33 Down

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
"Gene Storey" wrote:

Probably an airstrike against the trailer-trash gone bad.

I hope the Homeland Defense can sort out this blatant attack by Canada!

In all the years I flew professionally and watched people I knew die in
airplanes, including some very close to me personally, I never quite
understood how a human being, totally unrelated to an incident and simply
a
spectator or the receiver of news; nothing else; could arrive on the
scene
after someone had been killed and offer to the world a sentiment as
totally
thoughtless and downright cruel as you have done here.

My sentiments exactly, Dud. But then, aren't your sentiments below
equally as "thoughtless and downright cruel" as Genes?

From: Dudley Henriques )
Subject: 40,000 Plus Hits. Thank you all.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2003-11-01 13:31:51 PST

Or perhaps instead, we can just put Mike into the box, assume a
superposition, and then the whole lot of us can go out and have a
drink because none of us really give a **** whether Mike's dead
or NOT!!! :-)))

Hardly. The reference to you being dead was simply an obvious pairing with
"Schrodinger's cat", where the possible death of the cat is a well know
issue in Physics. "Giving a **** about it" is simply a personal option on a
parody, NOT a comment on an actual event.
I can assure you in the abstract that if you actually had died, I don't
believe any of us here on RAM would feel the need to post something as cruel
and thoughtless as did the poster being discussed here now, which was a
comment expressed on an actual event.
I hope this clears up any "misunderstanding" you might have concerning this
issue, as it will be my only comment on it with you. If you pursue it any
further, you'll be talking to yourself or to someone else.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

A fairly detailed article in the L.A. Daily News says the crashed
plane was a 1953 Canadair T-33, tail number N99192, and was based at
the Van Nuys airport. The pilot (believed to be a doctor, name
unknown) was the only person killed. One person on the ground suffered
minor burns.

Some witnesses reported seeing the plane "flip" after cresting a hill
near the trailer park, then dive into the ground.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...740969,00.html

TV reports say the area was cordoned off due to the danger from
ejection seat pyrotechnics.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2604584/detail.html

--

Paul Hirose
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:58:38 GMT, Paul Hirose wrote:

A fairly detailed article in the L.A. Daily News says the crashed
plane was a 1953 Canadair T-33, tail number N99192, and was based at
the Van Nuys airport. The pilot (believed to be a doctor, name
unknown) was the only person killed. One person on the ground suffered
minor burns.

Some witnesses reported seeing the plane "flip" after cresting a hill
near the trailer park, then dive into the ground.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...740969,00.html

TV reports say the area was cordoned off due to the danger from
ejection seat pyrotechnics.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2604584/detail.html

Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
current knowledge advise?

Al

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:



Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
current knowledge advise?


Says who? The Collings Foundation F4 Phantom has live ejection seats.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

You can get L-39s with hot seats also.

Dale wrote in message ...
In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:



Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
current knowledge advise?


Says who? The Collings Foundation F4 Phantom has live ejection seats.

Says who? The Collings Foundation F4 Phantom has live ejection seats.



The T-33 I flew had hot seats.
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
current knowledge advise?


when I was working on T-33s and other jets, this came up, and this was my
answer.When the FAA asks, yes sir, the seat is cold and the tanks are on and
bolted. As soon as he was out of sight, the charges would be put in the seat
and the the tank made jettisonable. My reasoning is, why should a convict on
death row have more chances to save his life than a pilot flying a jet warbird
?
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

On 05 Nov 2003 00:21:13 GMT, (N329DF) wrote:

Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
current knowledge advise?


when I was working on T-33s and other jets, this came up, and this was my
answer.When the FAA asks, yes sir, the seat is cold and the tanks are on and
bolted. As soon as he was out of sight, the charges would be put in the seat
and the the tank made jettisonable. My reasoning is, why should a convict on
death row have more chances to save his life than a pilot flying a jet warbird
?
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

So, at least technically they are not allowed to be armed, or
"armed capable"

I *really* like that attitude. We certainly do not need
more govt. ;-)

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...

So, at least technically they are not allowed to be armed, or
"armed capable"

I *really* like that attitude. We certainly do not need
more govt. ;-)

IIRC, here in Oz, it's not only allowed, but encouraged and I *think*
it's *required* for some
warbirds under some circumstances.

The CO

Alan Minyard wrote:

On 05 Nov 2003 00:21:13 GMT, (N329DF) wrote:

Of course, US civil aircraft (which is what this was) are not
allowed to have ejection seats (IIRC). Can anyone with more
current knowledge advise?


when I was working on T-33s and other jets, this came up, and this was my
answer.When the FAA asks, yes sir, the seat is cold and the tanks are on and
bolted. As soon as he was out of sight, the charges would be put in the seat
and the the tank made jettisonable. My reasoning is, why should a convict on
death row have more chances to save his life than a pilot flying a jet warbird
?
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

So, at least technically they are not allowed to be armed, or
"armed capable"

I *really* like that attitude. We certainly do not need
more govt. ;-)

Al Minyard

I understand that ejection seats 'are' allowed but that they
'must' be inspected and maintained in strict accordance with
certain rules. This is a 'very' costly procedure and can only be
performed by a very few qualified companies. Therefore, the FAA
allows civvy owners to remove them if desired. If you want the
protection then you pay the piper.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

Or am I in error?
--

-Gord.