Buzzed?

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote

I'm with ya Skylune.

Capt! You don't need to be agreeing with this nutjob, even if he does say
something right, once every 2 months. (or six)

Jerks like him do nothing to make our flying any easier, or better.

Next time, wait for someone else to say it, or say it yourself,without
referencing him or his post, please. ;-)

In other works, please don't feed the trolls! g
--
Jim in NC

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...17X00210&key=1

"One witness, located at the golf course indicated that he saw the
airplane make a 65-degree bank"

Not 60 degrees, not 70 degrees, but 65. Did he have a protractor with
him?


Damn good eyesight?

I could have used him when I worked on a survey crew.


Kinda like the (very) old Johnny Badmouth joke, "Okay, just a c*#% hair to
the right...".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

What amazes me is that people never tire of lamenting how bad it "could have
been". Small planes crash every day, and by now we know what the result is.
And it's bad enough too - we have to keep working to maintain the improvement
we've already registered. But - "if everything had been different from what
it really was" if for some reason this particular one had been unlike the
last thousand or so, then just think of how bad it could have been...

"If the playing field had been swarming with kids that day..." Of course no
one stops to think that in the mind of a pilot, looking for a spot to put it,
"a field swarming with kids" does not have the same value as " a large, empty
field". There may be an element of luck in that there were no injuries, but
it's also because the pilot did what we are all trained to do. A majority
(yes, over 50%) of light aircraft accidents produce no significant injuries,
and minimal property damage. The number of innocents on the ground injured by
these accidents is so small it is statistically inexistent.

Trees fall on moving cars every day, usually with dramatic results. People
are struck by lightning every day, and hundreds are slaughtered daily on the
nation's roads, yet Skylunes and journalists spend their waking hours
dreaming about how bad a GA accident "could be" someday, somewhere - reverie
completely unsupported by a massive and comprehensive statistical record.

GF

Richard wrote in news:NMadnRPeD6Y3CtjZRVn-
:

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-04-17, Mike Granby wrote:
So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
providing with advisories.

Totally unrelated - but about 2 years ago, a friend of mine was flying
home (in a club C172) when the military controller he was getting radar
service off advised him of 'fast traffic' (a Tornado) that was passing
by. My friend made a sarcastic comment to the controller about the fast
traffic (I think the Tornado in question was flying relatively slowly).

A few minutes later, the C172 started rumbling. My friend started
looking around to see what could be making that sound when the planform
of a Tornado appeared in the windscreen, afterburners fully open!

That taught him about making sarcastic comments about fast military jets
to military controllers :-)



Reminds me of a story I read about the folks having their groundspeeds
checked by ATC as a bragging right...until the SR-71 at altitude
requested the same thing. Heh.

Richard

That's from the book "Sled Driver" by Brian Shul. He recounts a
succession of requests for ground speed readouts progressing from a Cessna
to a Twin Beech to an F-18 and finally the "Sled".

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On 2006-04-18, Skylune wrote:
Well, we shall see. If a 172 crashes into a house or business, killing
several people on the ground, there will be an outcry. Naturally, a small
plane will not result in hundreds of casualties, but if that one that
crashed on the sports field happened to hit kids on the ground.....

Well, it's "statistically inevitable" that a 40-tonne articulated
truck will one day run off a road and into a sports field full of kids.
Let's ban trucks. It's "statistically inevitable" that a car, being
driven purely for recreational purposes, will leave the road and plough
into a line of school children waiting for the bus. Let's ban cars!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-04-18, Skylune wrote:
Here's a listing since last week.

What is your point? We all know the NTSB website address and can read it
for ourselves.
--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

by "Morgans" Apr 18, 2006 at 10:23 PM


"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote

I'm with ya Skylune.

Capt! You don't need to be agreeing with this nutjob, even if he does
say

something right, once every 2 months. (or six)




Well, the AOPA Truth Squad may be difficult for you to hear, but the truth
about
the subsidies to GA and the political nonaccountability of the FAA are
well known to many people out there,
even if you dismiss them under the kool-aid influence of the AOPA.

I assume you think all "civilians" with complaints about GA are "nut
jobs."

"Dylan Smith" wrote

Well, it's "statistically inevitable" that a 40-tonne articulated
truck will one day run off a road and into a sports field full of kids.
Let's ban trucks. It's "statistically inevitable" that a car, being
driven purely for recreational purposes, will leave the road and plough
into a line of school children waiting for the bus. Let's ban cars!

As far as that goes, school busses have killed more kids than airplane
crashes. Let's ban them!
--
Jim in NC

In article , says...

As far as that goes, school busses have killed more kids than airplane
crashes. Let's ban them!


Well, to be exact "busses" have never killed anyone, at least not directly.
They can lead to pregnancies though, which at school age are not socially
constructive. Ban them? It'll never happen!

GF

by "Morgans" Apr 19, 2006 at 10:41 AM


"Dylan Smith" wrote

Well, it's "statistically inevitable" that a 40-tonne articulated
truck will one day run off a road and into a sports field full of kids.
Let's ban trucks. It's "statistically inevitable" that a car, being
driven purely for recreational purposes, will leave the road and plough
into a line of school children waiting for the bus. Let's ban cars!

As far as that goes, school busses have killed more kids than airplane
crashes. Let's ban them




Your points are well taken. But, reality bites: if a small plane crash
burns down a house or kills kids in a playground, there will be an uproar.
This is because there is alot of antipathy towards GA, and because someone
flying for kicks that accidently causes death and mayhem will receive
greater criticism than a school bus crash. School busses are necessary.
Flying around in a cessna for fun is not.