On Mar 14, 1:45*pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:19:33 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note
was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three
sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross
extrapolation".

First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic
problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding
of aviation and the risk factors involved. *You initial post
demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced
that perception.

I wasn't replying directly to you either, Mr. Sensitive. The only ignorance
going on in this thread is the constant state of denial that accidents GASP
do happen with airplanes and GASP can happen on airstrips next to houses.


Apparently, you can't even keep up with who you are replying to.
Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into
perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or
what?


Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has
anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types
(Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/
houses, people, etc).

Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you.

Dirty work? Something your hiding, Robert?


Not hiding anything but I might ask the same of you, just what is your
problem?

Then, of course, we have this issue.

FAR 91.119, which states something like "Except for purposes of take off
and landing, no aircraft shall be operated closer than 500 feet to persons,
vehicles, or structures."

DUH! Guess what, "Except for purposes of take off and landing" which
is the expressed purpose of a landing strip, just what are you fishing
for?