Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc. even
though such activity puts other people at risk.

"drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
or....?
Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely nothing
can distract the driver.

(yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for me).

Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking on
the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by 4-5
times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really give a
rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
inconvienience is slight.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc. even
though such activity puts other people at risk.

"drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
or....?
Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely nothing
can distract the driver.

(yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for me).

Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking on
the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by 4-5
times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really give a
rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
inconvienience is slight.

Got any data to support that?

In article tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01, "Mike" wrote:

Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc. even
though such activity puts other people at risk.

"drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
or....?
Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely nothing
can distract the driver.

(yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for me).

Crusade all you want.

it isn't my crusade, the crusade against cellphones is being waged by people
who don't understand how to analysis risk.

Talking on
the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by 4-5
times.

hmmm, if your claim of a 4-5x time greater risk were true, why hasn't
the accident rate increased dramatically during the time period when
cellphone usage has exploded? In fact, the accident rate has remained
flat or decreased slightly (if we believe the NTHSA)


But you prove my point beautifully.

You don't understand proofs.

People don't really give a
rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
inconvienience is slight.

Then why do people wear motorcycle helmets? and leather jackets or
equivalent protective clothing when riding? Talk about inconvenience.

Now, if you wanted to make the point that people don't care about
the inconvenience of OTHERS as long as it appears that they
are trying to help them even when there is no actual evidence
to support the help being effective....

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676

Screw him (Randy Walker). Experimentals are issued airworthiness
certificates from the FAA just as are certified aircraft. If they
restrict experimentals from using the "public use" airports, they can (and
should) forfeit Ferderal funding. Has a certified airplane ever crashed
and killed an innocent on the ground? Nuff said.


That is exactly what the developers want.

Tom C

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:33:55 -0700, Tom C wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676

Screw him (Randy Walker). Experimentals are issued airworthiness
certificates from the FAA just as are certified aircraft. If they
restrict experimentals from using the "public use" airports, they can (and
should) forfeit Ferderal funding. Has a certified airplane ever crashed
and killed an innocent on the ground? Nuff said.

That is exactly what the developers want.

Tom C

Tom, is your point that RE developers did not use the proximity to the
airport as a selling point?

In article ,
Gezellig wrote:

Tom, is your point that RE developers did not use the proximity to the
airport as a selling point?

A search for "Randy Walker" on the Las Vegas SUN website will bring up
209 articles. Scroll through them and you will find many that refer to
law suits related to land deals involving airport land sold to
developers.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:33:55 -0700, Tom C wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56 wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676

Screw him (Randy Walker). Experimentals are issued airworthiness
certificates from the FAA just as are certified aircraft. If they
restrict experimentals from using the "public use" airports, they can
(and
should) forfeit Ferderal funding. Has a certified airplane ever crashed
and killed an innocent on the ground? Nuff said.

That is exactly what the developers want.

Tom C

Tom, is your point that RE developers did not use the proximity to the
airport as a selling point?

They did not openly disclose it. What they would desire is to close the
airport so that land could further be turned into urban blight.

Randy Walker is not a friend of General Aviation.. he is not in an elected
position.
He is the Administrator for the Clark County Department of Aviation.
He knows not the common people he serves.. he serves only the airlines and
the Metro Airport that brings tourists into this city.

NTSB statistics prove that of the 37 accidents at this airport since the
county took over in 1982, only 3 were experimental aircraft. If Mr Walker
wants to ban the dangerous aircraft, then he needs to ban the factory built
aircraft that accounted for 34 accidents in 26 years.

The County needs to take part of the responsibility. They have allowed
encroachment on an airport that was built in the country, opening day on Dec
7th 1941. They have just spent millions building up the Henderson airport in
the south valley and are now allowing encroachment on that airport to go
unchecked.

Part of the statements of Mr Walker that are not published in AvWeb, but was
on CNN nation wide, were that he also wants to ban student pilots and
training.

BT

"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" wrote in
message ...
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676

In article , "BT"
wrote:

Randy Walker is not a friend of General Aviation.. he is not in an elected
position.
He is the Administrator for the Clark County Department of Aviation.
He knows not the common people he serves.. he serves only the airlines and
the Metro Airport that brings tourists into this city.

NTSB statistics prove that of the 37 accidents at this airport since the
county took over in 1982, only 3 were experimental aircraft. If Mr Walker
wants to ban the dangerous aircraft, then he needs to ban the factory built
aircraft that accounted for 34 accidents in 26 years.

The County needs to take part of the responsibility. They have allowed
encroachment on an airport that was built in the country, opening day on Dec
7th 1941. They have just spent millions building up the Henderson airport in
the south valley and are now allowing encroachment on that airport to go
unchecked.

Part of the statements of Mr Walker that are not published in AvWeb, but was
on CNN nation wide, were that he also wants to ban student pilots and
training.

BT

"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" wrote in
message ...
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676

He's a lawyer, right?

"BT" wrote in message
...

Part of the statements of Mr Walker that are not published in AvWeb, but
was
on CNN nation wide, were that he also wants to ban student pilots and
training.

Those statements were included in the AvWeb story:

'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.'