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.

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

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.

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! "

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

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.

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?

"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

"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.

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.