Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

BT wrote:

Sadly another airplane has crashed in the vicinity of the North Las Vegas
airport.
A Piper Navajo departed VGT and shortly after departure he called the tower
that he was returning with a rough running engine. The pilot was solo, no
pax. Witnesses on the ground reported the aircraft was on fire and fire
crews were responding to meet the aircraft at the airport when it crashed
short of the runway in a local neighborhood. There were no fatalities to
people on the ground.

BT

"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" wrote in
message ...

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676



Was that an "experimental" Navajo? Didn't think so. Looks like
certified airplanes crash too.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bob F. writes:

First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
classification. The characteristics may be well known and just doesn't
fit
into any other class.

My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to
get
around certain troublesome regulations.

And my impression was that you were talking about an aircraft that was
unsafe for flight.


Secondly, I have personally flown a number of experimental Boeing
aircraft
into LAX when I worked for the flight test group there. I believe
B747-100
s/n 1 is still classified as experimental. And I flew B401, 2 and 3 (the
first 3 747-400 designated a/c). They too were classified as
experimental
and flew into a lot of large airports with heavy population.

How many hours had they flown elsewhere before they visited those large
airports?

I don't know exactly, in the case I cited, dozens probably. Everett (Payne
Field), North of Boeing field was built for 747 development because
manufacturing and test facilities were too small and there was no place to
expand since the city was built tightly around the airport. Many maiden
flight took place at Boeing Field and nearby Renton (same situation). It
was a matter of conveniences that Everett was used for their latter flights
and as far as I know, there was never a crash in the neighborhood. Early
maiden flight aircraft actually have a very good statistical record.
--
Regards, Bob F.

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message ...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:AKYtk.32$393.1@trnddc05...
"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:rLXtk.24$393.9@trnddc05...

I don't play that game. I feel no obligation to be your personal
research service on a subject that has been widely reported. But if
you explain how you're too inept to use google, I'll be glad to talk
about it. Cell phones + driving + risks yields 264,000 results
including numerous studies published in peer reviewed publications on
the subject.


That's your opinion, unsupported by facts. As I said, you've already
proven my point beautifully. All you want to do now is go off topic.

Then you should have no problem providing links to a half dozen of these
reports.

I don't. You obviously do.

Then put up or shut up Mikey Mouth. You're all talk.

Pot/Kettle.



Still can't support your wild assed statement, uh Mikey Mouth?

What makes you think you're entitled to anything more than contempt?

When are you going to prove you're anything more than a villiage idiot?

You're not even a pilot. Anthony has more to offer than you.

"Mike" wrote in message
newsyZtk.37$jE1.12@trnddc03...
"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
Day after, I'll be in Italy..


Yeah, prove it liarboi.

You still need to prove you're anything more than a waste of bandwidth.

Changing the subject there aincha Mikey Mouth. Just like Mx.

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!!!)

"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 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?


--
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.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:JOZtk.38$jE1.32@trnddc03...


What makes you think you're entitled to anything more than contempt?

When are you going to prove you're anything more than a villiage idiot?

You're not even a pilot. Anthony has more to offer than you.

Prove you are, prove I'm not.

You're just hat dancing Mikey Mouth.

Driving while using a cell phone increases you chance of accident by 400 to
500%? What a dumb ass.

I'll have to put you up for the Bertie's Dumbest Assed Suckpuppet award.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
Day after, I'll be in Italy..


Yeah, prove it liarboi.





Why do you care, fjukkkwitted one?


Bertie

Cuz ya can't prove it liarboi.

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in :


"Mike" wrote in message
news:JOZtk.38$jE1.32@trnddc03...


What makes you think you're entitled to anything more than contempt?

When are you going to prove you're anything more than a villiage
idiot?

You're not even a pilot. Anthony has more to offer than you.

Prove you are, prove I'm not.


You've pretty much done that already.


You're just hat dancing Mikey Mouth.

Driving while using a cell phone increases you chance of accident by
400 to 500%? What a dumb ass.

I'll have to put you up for the Bertie's Dumbest Assed Suckpuppet
award.



Hmmm, I don;t think they have one of those yet.


I nominate you.






Bertie

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Was there monday and will be there tomorrow evening again...
Day after, I'll be in Italy..


Yeah, prove it liarboi.





Why do you care, fjukkkwitted one?


Bertie

Cuz ya can't prove it liarboi.


You sure crossposting boi?


Bertie