http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/3378291.html

Home was reportedly "totally destroyed." Occupant of nearby mobile home
that was struck is dead.

Like I said yesterday, NTSB needs to start keeping track of damaged and
destroyed structures, as well as ground casualties.

In Portland, Intel is now expressing concerns about the wisdom of having
an airshow in a largely residential area.

On 2006-07-19, Skylune > wrote:
> Like I said yesterday, NTSB needs to start keeping track of damaged and
> destroyed structures, as well as ground casualties.

Ummm... they already do.

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

What I mean is that they should put these statistics into the database. I
realize they describe the accident and the number of fatalities includes
those on the ground. I think they should add columns that include "ground
injuries, ground fatalities, ground structures damaged/destroyed" in column
in this database:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp

Then call your Congressman and write the NTSB. There should
also be a record of the planes that crash on ball diamonds
when nobody is there, on golf courses when nobody is
playing, in pastures and whether the field had cows, horses,
sheep, or nudists.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| What I mean is that they should put these statistics into
the database. I
| realize they describe the accident and the number of
fatalities includes
| those on the ground. I think they should add columns that
include "ground
| injuries, ground fatalities, ground structures
damaged/destroyed" in column
| in this database:
|
| http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp
|

I agree with the "nudists", as I assume you are speaking of people. But
who knows? (Does the dead pilot qualify as a hero, do ya think? He
probably was heroically avoiding a much larger gathering of orphans or
something....)

The other data you suggest collecting would clutter up the database too
much IMO, although golf courses DO seem to be a popular alternative
landing site.

Question: If a golfer yells "fore" and then drives, hitting a small plane
buzzing the course or flying in for an off-field landing, would that
violate the FARs? Does the FAA have any jursidiction over golfers, and
how high they can hit the ball when they drive?


I have to think that this whole issue (House Slamming) would go away if
either:
1. Boyer issued a strongly worded statement opposing the slamming of GA
aircraft into homes
2. The FARs were modified to explicity outlaw slamming, crashing,
"impacting" or otherwise causing damage to properties on the ground
3. Alternatively, all private homes should be taken thru eminent domain,
and residents re-located to small portions of the country where
overflights are prohibited.

There could be other solutions to the Home Slamming problem, but we will
have to wait until a large group of people are killed on the ground
because of faulty equipment or "pilot error."

About 20-25 years ago, Jim Bede was going to fly around the
world solo, not refueled. He built a modified glider and
installed special engine and oxygen systems. He did fly it
a couple of times and did set a record for a closed course
over the USA during a test flight. He was asked about the
problem of a single-engine over the oceans 3/4 of the trip.
He answered that he had a placard on the panel...
WATER LANDINGS PROHIBITED



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
|I agree with the "nudists", as I assume you are speaking of
people. But
| who knows? (Does the dead pilot qualify as a hero, do ya
think? He
| probably was heroically avoiding a much larger gathering
of orphans or
| something....)
|
| The other data you suggest collecting would clutter up the
database too
| much IMO, although golf courses DO seem to be a popular
alternative
| landing site.
|
| Question: If a golfer yells "fore" and then drives,
hitting a small plane
| buzzing the course or flying in for an off-field landing,
would that
| violate the FARs? Does the FAA have any jursidiction over
golfers, and
| how high they can hit the ball when they drive?
|
|
| I have to think that this whole issue (House Slamming)
would go away if
| either:
| 1. Boyer issued a strongly worded statement opposing the
slamming of GA
| aircraft into homes
| 2. The FARs were modified to explicity outlaw slamming,
crashing,
| "impacting" or otherwise causing damage to properties on
the ground
| 3. Alternatively, all private homes should be taken thru
eminent domain,
| and residents re-located to small portions of the country
where
| overflights are prohibited.
|
| There could be other solutions to the Home Slamming
problem, but we will
| have to wait until a large group of people are killed on
the ground
| because of faulty equipment or "pilot error."
|

Now we are on the same wavelength. (Or should I say "frequency?").

Another solution would be to mandate installation of placards above the
yoke proclaiming: "House slamming prohibited."

A proper use of warning labels and placards would solve many
problems...
1. At birth, girls should have there actual birthday
tattooed on their palm, along with a date when sex will be
legal.
2. A warning that wooden houses are not fireproof on all
doors and in each bedroom.
3. A sign at every street corner to show the high water mark
from storms within the past 100 years... WARNING RENTERS
and BUYERS This area is under 10 feet of water every 4-7
years on average.
4. Failing to breathe at least 15 times per hour may be
fatal, recommended that you breathe 5-15 times per minute.
5. Checking for gasoline in the fuel tank with a match is
dangerous.
6. Wearing a Superman costume will not allow you to jump
from tall buildings safely.
7. Vacationing in a war zone is hazardous to your family.
8. Sleeping on the railroad tracks, cars, trains, airplanes
and robbers may attack you.
9. Tiger Woods balls are the same size as every other
player's
10. The Indian casino is just east of THE stoplight in
Newkirk, Oklahoma



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| Now we are on the same wavelength. (Or should I say
"frequency?").
|
| Another solution would be to mandate installation of
placards above the
| yoke proclaiming: "House slamming prohibited."
|

> I have to think that this whole issue (House Slamming) would go away if
> either...

Haven't you studied the theory of relativity? There is no absolute
motion, only relative motion. The HOUSE slammed into the PLANE, which
was minding its own business on the way to an important crash. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I guess relatively speaking, the house (and plane) were moving at
supersonic speeds, given the earth's velocity as it revolves around the
sun, and as it spins on its axis.

The difference between the home's speed and the jets would probably be
"statistically insignificant." If this is true, who's to blame?

The homeowner, the pilot, God (or if you are from California, the
randomness of the universe)?

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> What I mean is that they should put these statistics into the database. I
> realize they describe the accident and the number of fatalities includes
> those on the ground. I think they should add columns that include "ground
> injuries, ground fatalities, ground structures damaged/destroyed" in column
> in this database:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp

They already do publish the stats. Ground (non-participant) injuries
average about two per year; ground deaths average about 0.33 per year,
from GA accidents. Search "aviation, buildings & residence", accidents.

The "hazard" is insignificant, even in built-up areas. Of course,
developers really don't care about the hazards that their developments
present to aviators.

They don't care about floods either.


"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
message
...
| In article
|
utaviation.com>,
| "Skylune" > wrote:
|
| > What I mean is that they should put these statistics
into the database. I
| > realize they describe the accident and the number of
fatalities includes
| > those on the ground. I think they should add columns
that include "ground
| > injuries, ground fatalities, ground structures
damaged/destroyed" in column
| > in this database:
| >
| > http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp
|
| They already do publish the stats. Ground
(non-participant) injuries
| average about two per year; ground deaths average about
0.33 per year,
| from GA accidents. Search "aviation, buildings &
residence", accidents.
|
| The "hazard" is insignificant, even in built-up areas. Of
course,
| developers really don't care about the hazards that their
developments
| present to aviators.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> In Portland, Intel is now expressing concerns about the wisdom of having
> an airshow in a largely residential area.

Which is ironic, given that they've always been a major sponsor.

I volunteered to hang out in a WWII flight suit around the Evergreen P-38 to
keep an eye on it and you couldn't see the flightline from the '38 because
of the huge Intel kiosk featuring the Microsoft flight simulator. (Not to
mention the giant MGB can and SUV inflatables from the other sponsors.)

-c

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> The difference between the home's speed and the jets would probably be
> "statistically insignificant." If this is true, who's to blame?

So it wouldn't be a crash, more of a material convergence.

-c

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> I have to think that this whole issue (House Slamming) would go away if
>> either...
>
> Haven't you studied the theory of relativity? There is no absolute
> motion, only relative motion. The HOUSE slammed into the PLANE, which was
> minding its own business on the way to an important crash. :)
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dude, I've done this. There I was, flying along when a planet "slammed" into
me. No signal or nuthin. Of course, it probably thought it had the right of
way. ;)

Al G

The pilot and his passenger who crashed last month in Virginia (I think)
were developers flying to their project. They might disagree if they were
still alive. (The recently deceased House Slamming jet pilot was a lawyer
-- interesting how many pilots are lawyers or politicians in real
life.... but that's another rant.)

BTW, there is nothing preventing the airports from purchasing surrounding
land if "encursion" is really such a big issue. Of course, that would
mean the airport would have to shell out some dollars... Cheaper to just
fence off these properties and leave them undeveloped, all for the benefit
of the airport.

Or maybe, Congress should pass a law PROHIBITING POPULATION GROWTH. Boyer
might not oppose that.

Or, if enough pilots began Slamming into homes located near airports, that
would discourage the evil, greedy developers and solve everything. Of
course the developers would protest, producing phony economic benefit
studies, which would be countered by equally phony economic benefit
studies produced by independent agencies, such as AOPA, the state aviation
board, or the airport itself. It would be a food-fight, but entertaining
to observe.....

Yes, a sort of meta-physical, existential event that simply is part of the
randomness of the universe.

Well, Intel seems to be making the same argument that I do. The area has
changed, like much of the country. I think it is reasonable to question
the wisdom of having an airshow in close proximity to a densely populated
area.

Why not just move the airshow to a less densely populated area, at a more
remote field? That does not strike me as unreasonable.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Yes, a sort of meta-physical, existential event that simply is part of the
> randomness of the universe.

Exactly! It wasn't a crash, it was a life-changing string-theory
experiment.

-c

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> The pilot and his passenger who crashed last month in Virginia (I think)

> BTW, there is nothing preventing the airports from purchasing surrounding
> land if "encursion" is really such a big issue. Of course, that would
> mean the airport would have to shell out some dollars...

Word from Intel, which has a plant literally under the published traffic
pattern for the runway he used, is that folks there are now questioning
whether it's a good idea to continue the airshow now that the plant is so
close.

It should be pointed out, if I haven't already, that INTEL HAS FOR YEARS A
MAJOR SPONSOR of the airshow. If they sponsored and made possible the
airshow and didn't realize they were building a factory right underneath
it...

....that confirms my opinion of the super-high-tech-super-low-common-sense
type of first-rate idiocy that embodies what optomists call The Silicon
Forest and what Portlanders call The Silicon Suburb, or simply Yuppie Hell,
when they hastily remind people that Beaverton is not Portland.

-c

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...


> Why not just move the airshow to a less densely populated area, at a more
> remote field? That does not strike me as unreasonable.

We don't have any other towered airfields in the vicinity with 6000-ft
runways and any less-dense populations. Hillsboro was it. Ironically, the
sponsors of the airshow who are also the major corporate users of the
airfield are the ones that built the factories around it.

I mean, guys, you gotta understand, these people are idiots. They fly their
own corporate jets out of there. This guy wasn't part of the airshow at
all. He just flew up to put his plane on static display, and was departing
with one flyby because except for that fat lady singing (F/A-18s, actually),
the airshow was already over.

In other words, it the next plane to auger out there could be one of the
airshow sponsors and, gee, guess what: There WAS a recent crash there:
Nike lost a corporate jet and of course the big fuss was simply whether Phil
Knight was on board (he wasn't.)

They fly out of there, have always flown out of there, have sponsored the
airshow and helped bring it to Hillsboro, have had corporate jets crash
there -recently-, build homes and a factory under the pattern dictated by
the airshow they sponsor, and now they're all concerned, confused and
surprised that, gee, there were airplanes at the airshow they helped sponsor
flying in the pattern required for the airshow. How friggin' hard is it to
figure this stuff out before you build an actual factory and supporting
residential subdivisions?

We have people in Oregon who refuse to believe that he was on a flight
pattern. You can show 'em the AIRNAV data that specifically states a
right-hand pattern for that runway, and you can demonstrate that he crashed
on a right downwind leg, and they STILL insist he wasn't on a "flight path."

-c

A popular nickname for the Bonanza is Forkedtail Doctor
Killer




"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| The pilot and his passenger who crashed last month in
Virginia (I think)
| were developers flying to their project. They might
disagree if they were
| still alive. (The recently deceased House Slamming jet
pilot was a lawyer
| -- interesting how many pilots are lawyers or politicians
in real
| life.... but that's another rant.)
|
| BTW, there is nothing preventing the airports from
purchasing surrounding
| land if "encursion" is really such a big issue. Of
course, that would
| mean the airport would have to shell out some dollars...
Cheaper to just
| fence off these properties and leave them undeveloped, all
for the benefit
| of the airport.
|
| Or maybe, Congress should pass a law PROHIBITING
POPULATION GROWTH. Boyer
| might not oppose that.
|
| Or, if enough pilots began Slamming into homes located
near airports, that
| would discourage the evil, greedy developers and solve
everything. Of
| course the developers would protest, producing phony
economic benefit
| studies, which would be countered by equally phony
economic benefit
| studies produced by independent agencies, such as AOPA,
the state aviation
| board, or the airport itself. It would be a food-fight,
but entertaining
| to observe.....
|
|
|

airplanes do not "SLAM" into anything, but then again a GRAND SLAM in
Baseball is an entirely different matter
BT

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>I agree with the "nudists", as I assume you are speaking of people. But
> who knows? (Does the dead pilot qualify as a hero, do ya think? He
> probably was heroically avoiding a much larger gathering of orphans or
> something....)
>
> The other data you suggest collecting would clutter up the database too
> much IMO, although golf courses DO seem to be a popular alternative
> landing site.
>
> Question: If a golfer yells "fore" and then drives, hitting a small plane
> buzzing the course or flying in for an off-field landing, would that
> violate the FARs? Does the FAA have any jursidiction over golfers, and
> how high they can hit the ball when they drive?
>
>
> I have to think that this whole issue (House Slamming) would go away if
> either:
> 1. Boyer issued a strongly worded statement opposing the slamming of GA
> aircraft into homes
> 2. The FARs were modified to explicity outlaw slamming, crashing,
> "impacting" or otherwise causing damage to properties on the ground
> 3. Alternatively, all private homes should be taken thru eminent domain,
> and residents re-located to small portions of the country where
> overflights are prohibited.
>
> There could be other solutions to the Home Slamming problem, but we will
> have to wait until a large group of people are killed on the ground
> because of faulty equipment or "pilot error."
>

And a Grand Slam at Denny's is a real oxymoron.



"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:5zBvg.12804$6w.583@fed1read11...
| airplanes do not "SLAM" into anything, but then again a
GRAND SLAM in
| Baseball is an entirely different matter
| BT
|
| "Skylune" > wrote in message
|
lkaboutaviation.com...
| >I agree with the "nudists", as I assume you are speaking
of people. But
| > who knows? (Does the dead pilot qualify as a hero, do
ya think? He
| > probably was heroically avoiding a much larger gathering
of orphans or
| > something....)
| >
| > The other data you suggest collecting would clutter up
the database too
| > much IMO, although golf courses DO seem to be a popular
alternative
| > landing site.
| >
| > Question: If a golfer yells "fore" and then drives,
hitting a small plane
| > buzzing the course or flying in for an off-field
landing, would that
| > violate the FARs? Does the FAA have any jursidiction
over golfers, and
| > how high they can hit the ball when they drive?
| >
| >
| > I have to think that this whole issue (House Slamming)
would go away if
| > either:
| > 1. Boyer issued a strongly worded statement opposing
the slamming of GA
| > aircraft into homes
| > 2. The FARs were modified to explicity outlaw slamming,
crashing,
| > "impacting" or otherwise causing damage to properties on
the ground
| > 3. Alternatively, all private homes should be taken
thru eminent domain,
| > and residents re-located to small portions of the
country where
| > overflights are prohibited.
| >
| > There could be other solutions to the Home Slamming
problem, but we will
| > have to wait until a large group of people are killed on
the ground
| > because of faulty equipment or "pilot error."
| >
|
|

Skylune wrote:
> Well, Intel seems to be making the same argument that I do. The area has
> changed, like much of the country. I think it is reasonable to question
> the wisdom of having an airshow in close proximity to a densely populated
> area.
>
> Why not just move the airshow to a less densely populated area, at a more
> remote field? That does not strike me as unreasonable.

That's the usual thing. Build near an airport because the land is
cheap because of the airplanes, then complain about the airplanes and
force the airport to move.

Admittedly, I don't know about the specifics of Intel/Portland, so
maybe it's not the usual thing...

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Then call your Congressman and write the NTSB. There should
> also be a record of the planes that crash on ball diamonds
> when nobody is there, on golf courses when nobody is
> playing, in pastures and whether the field had cows, horses,
> sheep, or nudists.


I want to see a federal database of all car crashes where the car hit a
house, so that we can force roads to be moved away from houses. Dang
noisy roads. Noisy cars, too.

On 19 Jul 2006 20:03:56 -0700, wrote:

>
>Skylune wrote:
>> Well, Intel seems to be making the same argument that I do. The area has
>> changed, like much of the country. I think it is reasonable to question
>> the wisdom of having an airshow in close proximity to a densely populated
>> area.
>>
>> Why not just move the airshow to a less densely populated area, at a more
>> remote field? That does not strike me as unreasonable.
>
>That's the usual thing. Build near an airport because the land is
>cheap because of the airplanes, then complain about the airplanes and
>force the airport to move.
>
>Admittedly, I don't know about the specifics of Intel/Portland, so
>maybe it's not the usual thing...

Nothing particular about Hillsboro. Every quadrant surrounding
Portland, From Rhodendron to Yamhill and from Champoeg to
Battleground, is overbuilt and filled with Californians and shopping
malls. When I lived there, the bumperstickers said: "Don't
Californicate Oregon," but the Jarvisites moved in and eradicated the
simple, barefoot children of Ectopia.

(They did build some nice new GA airfields out around Sandy and
Estacada, though. Credit where due, and all that. I kept the T-craft
at Sandy for a while while Rich still owned the place.)
Don

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:16:16 -0400, Skylune wrote:

[snip]
> Or, if enough pilots began Slamming into homes located near airports,
> that would discourage the evil, greedy developers and solve everything.
> Of
[snip]

Naw...congress will just pass a law making it illegal. That way, if you
survive you go to jail. Then they will figure out how it's really somehow
linked to terrorism. They then plaster your mug shot all over the news
toughting how they've made the country safer from terrorists.

Greg

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> That's the usual thing. Build near an airport because the land is
> cheap because of the airplanes, then complain about the airplanes and
> force the airport to move.
>
> Admittedly, I don't know about the specifics of Intel/Portland, so maybe
> it's not the usual thing...

Well, that's pretty much the way it is. Intel -sponsored- the same airshow
the same years they were building the factory under the pattern.

Minor note: although the airport is Portland-Hillsboro, Portlanders
generally avoid Beaverton. Soccer moms, cellphones and SUVs. Occasionally
they get hit by the light-rail train and sue the transit company because
they didn't have sufficient warning that the train was coming (like, for
example, looking both ways before crossing tracks.)

-c

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...

> Nothing particular about Hillsboro. Every quadrant surrounding Portland,
> From Rhodendron to Yamhill and from Champoeg to
> Battleground, is overbuilt and filled with Californians and shopping
> malls.

Well, Don speaks the native tongue, that's for sure!

>When I lived there, the bumperstickers said: "Don't Californicate Oregon,"
>but the Jarvisites

What is a Jarvisite?! BTW, the average home in Portland sells for about
$300,000 now, and Vancouver caught up.

-c

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:47 GMT, "gatt"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Nothing particular about Hillsboro. Every quadrant surrounding Portland,
>> From Rhodendron to Yamhill and from Champoeg to
>> Battleground, is overbuilt and filled with Californians and shopping
>> malls.
>
>Well, Don speaks the native tongue, that's for sure!
>
>>When I lived there, the bumperstickers said: "Don't Californicate Oregon,"
>>but the Jarvisites
>
>What is a Jarvisite?!
>
Anti-tax. In CA, Howard Jarvis led the fight for proposition 13., a
good idea, but with some flaws nobody can address because it's a red
flag issue. I think Oregon went really over the top when you made it
part of the constitution that it takes 2/3 of the REGISTERED voters to
pass a school bond. Sign a paper in the Safeway parking lot one
afternoon and vote NO the rest of your life simply by staying home on
election day. Norman Rockwell should have painted it.

>BTW, the average home in Portland sells for about
>$300,000 now, and Vancouver caught up.

That sounds like relatiely slow inflation. When we got out of Dodge
and sold our "carpenter's special" tear-down in 1989, we got $100K on
a private contract, double what we'd paid in '77. That was two acres
between Aloha and Hillsboro, about 2 miles south of where that jet
crashed. So there'd be 5 $300K houses there today, except that what's
actually there is a street. For contrast, mean home price in Santa
Clara County is $700K, per this morning's Mercury News. Probably more
here in San Mateo Co.

This is so completely OT, I added the POL tag to the subject line

Don

From what I understand, Mooneys are also considered MD killers. I guess
those Cirrus planes with the deployable chutes are the MD killers de jour
these days....

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...

>>What is a Jarvisite?!
>>
> Anti-tax. In CA, Howard Jarvis led the fight for proposition 13., a
> good idea,

Ah. It's also the name of a really bizarre old former mayor and tycoon in
the Portland area. Sort of a real live Jabba the Hutt.

-c

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> From what I understand, Mooneys are also considered MD
> killers. I guess those Cirrus planes with the deployable chutes
> are the MD killers de jour these days....
>

Wait until these aces start buying the very light jets. Expect more, and
more spectacular, Hillsboro type crashes once these things prolifererate.

Tom Conner wrote:
> Wait until these aces start buying the very light jets. Expect more, and
> more spectacular, Hillsboro type crashes once these things prolifererate.

Not necessarily, Eclipse has outlined the training program that Eclipse
buyers will have to go through (very thorough). If they don't finish
the program their deposit is refunded. It sounds like Mr Raburn
understands how important the training issue will be for the success of
his new jet.
I think the biggest thing that's changed since the days of the "fork
tailed doctor killer" is the insurance companies are much stricter
concerning type training for high performance aircraft. Seeing as they
(ins co's) essentially run the show now, I don't think you'll see VLJs
falling out of the sky because of the recurrent training that will be
required to maintain the policy. I'm sure a few will be lost, if only
due to the numbers of aircraft forecast to be built, but I doubt an
epidemic will result.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> A proper use of warning labels and placards would solve many
> problems...
> 1

My last trip to California, they stuck a label on me that
said I've known to cause cancer in the state.