Exactly.

Our community looked at the statistics and decided that we or our children
could be injured by vehicles. There were a couple of deaths over the 20
years that we have been here, and quite a few close calls. And every day
there is a kid being hit somewhere in the city.

Well, your neighbors were bad parents, and the cars didn't drop from
the
sky, and the drivers didn't screw up determining head winds and plane
balance.

"...Just after take off I flew over [a resident's] house to the South
East and he observed the windsock, which is 100 yards from his kitchen,
to be out of the Northeast. This was a 180 degree wind shift from what
I had observed prior to takeoff."

(sure, this happens all the time Orville, winds just rotate like a
blooming
tornado--JG)

According to a police report, "...[The witness] stated that he was in
his back yard working in his garden when he heard a 'very very low
plane'. [The witness] said that he heard the plane's engine and it
appeared to be working normally. [The witness] viewed the plane
overhead banking hard to the left. The plane then hit a large pine tree
in his front yard, it continued into the power lines. [The witness]
heard a large boom when he plane crashed into the ground across the
street..."

During a postaccident interview with the National Transportation Safety
Board and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the pilot stated
that the maximum altitude he attained during climbout was approximately
80 feet agl and his use of 10 degrees of flaps was described as
something that he began on his own. He did not weigh the baggage that
was on the airplane and he did not perform performance calculations for
the accident flight. He added that he used 35 inches of manifold
pressure so as not to overboost the engine.

Pilot logbook entries indicate the pilot's last biennial flight review
was on April 11, 1999. FAR 61.56(c) states, "Except as provided in
paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as
pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th
calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in
command, that person has - (1) Accomplished a flight review given in an
aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor; and
(2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized flight instructor who gave
the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the
review.

The pilot received his last instrument proficiency check (IPC) was on
May 8, 2000. FAR 61.57(c) states, "Instrument experience. Except as
provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot
in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that
person has: (1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in
an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or
simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate
category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a
flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of
the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought - (i) At
least six instrument approaches; (ii) Holding procedures; and (iii)
Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems." There were no logbook entries regarding instrument
approaches, holding procedures or intercepting and tracking courses
through the use of navigation systems.