Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:40:01 -0700, yaeedyaeegiisss
wrote:

wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:

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

And your "impression" is wrong.

Exactly so.

All experimental means is that the manufacturer, whoever that may be,
didn't go through the process to certify the aircraft in one of the
other catagories with the FAA.

Yep. Newly developed aircraft that haven't yet been put into
production, (hint: 777 Freighter, 787, other new types and derivatives)
but are about to enter flight test, all fly as experimental aircraft
during flight test. And only the wildly delusional and stupid believe
that a company like, say, Boeing, is trying to "get around certain
troublesome regulations." This is true for other aircraft manufacturers
as well, particularly in the USA.

Even completely certificated types (172/182) with gear (a-la the G1000
prototypes where the installed equipment doesn't meet the list on the
god-knows-how-old TC) are splapped with the experimental label until
the amended TC process is completed.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:00:54 -0400, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

"hummingbird" wrote in message
.. .


Fokken good rant, D00d


Thanks.

Usenet history was made right here, Cappie!
--
Tel (239) 732-8660
Toll Free 1-888-732-8660
Christoph A. Zierhut, Real Estate Broker ABR®
Motto: "Der Furher Was Right About De Jew"

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:

Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's been
there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.

In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?

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?

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:01:40 -0400, Bob F. wrote:

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:19:04 +0000, Scott wrote:

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.

The pilot got out, crawled on top, and was rescued about 20 metres
offshore by 3 drunk carpenters. Who used a mini-surf board. On the way
to shore, the pilot, over 70 said "Man, I think I had a stroke or
something".

So let's outlaw old pilots...in Navahos...near drunk carpenters.

So I have to ask? How many "strokes" did it take for him to get to shore?
:-)

That was painful. lol

He was blind, too, by the stroke....God I hope so.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:09:05 -0400, Ernest Christley wrote:

Gezellig wrote:

The pilot got out, crawled on top, and was rescued about 20 metres
offshore by 3 drunk carpenters. Who used a mini-surf board. On the way
to shore, the pilot, over 70 said "Man, I think I had a stroke or
something".

So let's outlaw old pilots...in Navahos...near drunk carpenters.

Ummm? I believe they have (it's called a 'medical' in the vernacular).

He was 72 and had his clearance. Want to make a cutoff year for PPL?

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 10:31:17 -0700, Tom C wrote:

Now you have this guy who hates GA and the clueless people who were
sold a bill of goods by developers that encroached on an airport that's
been
there since WW II and we have one melting ball of wax.

In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?


This isn't an airpark. This has been an established airport since the
1940's.Up until the big Vegas boom, this county owned facility was
surrounded by nothing but desert. Like so many other growing towns (like
what has happened in CA and Long Island NY), the soccer moms and urban
drones decided that all that flat land around the airport to be prime home
sites. The built up all around it including runway ends. Now there are
shouts about noise and "danger." These same dangers have been there since
the 1940's when the Las Vegas Gunnery School was initiated during the war.
This airport never has been an airpark. It has always been an airport
designed for heavy training and GA traffic. The land around it should never
have been used for homes.

If you go to http://www.skyvector.com and type in VGT you will see the last
vestiges of open area around the airport. You will also see A-481. This is a
designated high performance take off area for KLSV (Nellis AFB). The yellow
area under it wasn't there 15 years ago. This is also true for the yellow
area around VGT. The city exploded to the north and surrounded the airport.
Another good Google search is Las Vegas pig farm.

Example:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../12470973.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../19622083.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2006...rowth-farm.htm


Bottom line greedy developers and people who don't do their homework are now
razing a stink. GA is going to pay for it - as usual.

Tom C

"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.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:55:54 -0700, Tom C wrote:

In another thread I was reading about the hazards of airparks. The
discussion were adamant about that not being the case yet here I have
this opinion stated three or four times in this thread. Care to comment?

This isn't an airpark. This has been an established airport since the
1940's.Up until the big Vegas boom, this county owned facility was
surrounded by nothing but desert. Like so many other growing towns (like
what has happened in CA and Long Island NY), the soccer moms and urban
drones decided that all that flat land around the airport to be prime home
sites. The built up all around it including runway ends. Now there are
shouts about noise and "danger." These same dangers have been there since
the 1940's when the Las Vegas Gunnery School was initiated during the war.
This airport never has been an airpark. It has always been an airport
designed for heavy training and GA traffic. The land around it should never
have been used for homes.

If you go to http://www.skyvector.com and type in VGT you will see the last
vestiges of open area around the airport. You will also see A-481. This is a
designated high performance take off area for KLSV (Nellis AFB). The yellow
area under it wasn't there 15 years ago. This is also true for the yellow
area around VGT. The city exploded to the north and surrounded the airport.
Another good Google search is Las Vegas pig farm.

Example:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../12470973.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../19622083.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2006...rowth-farm.htm

Bottom line greedy developers and people who don't do their homework are now
razing a stink. GA is going to pay for it - as usual.

Tom C

Thx for the reply.