Buzzed?

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?



--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"All this news about Terri Schiavo, and i JUST realized that when they
talk about her living in a persistent vegetative state, they don't mean
Florida." - Rone

In article
outaviation.com,
says...


The one that kills several innocents on the ground is coming --
statistically inevitable. That will generate lots of negative press, and
place safety, noise, pollution square in the public eye again. Boyer will
be busy spinning bull****.



Well, if you're including larger turboprops, bizjets and airliners in your
estimate you may be correct. However if you're referring to small singles
and twins, it's hard to understand how you can describe something that
virtually never happens as being "statistically inevitable".

Of course it's possible - a 172 could hit car on the freeway and slam it
into another car or something - you almost need to find such a scenario,
where the destructive force invloved is greater than that engendered by the
little plane itself, which was only the trigger event. Otherwise, small
planes crashing just don't pack enough destructive force to make the killing
of several innocents on the ground "statistically inevitable".
Statistically, the most likely result, in fact, is that this will not happen
any time soon.

GF

by Greg Farris Apr 18, 2006 at 06:07 PM


In article
outaviation.com,
says...


The one that kills several innocents on the ground is coming --
statistically inevitable. That will generate lots of negative press,
and
place safety, noise, pollution square in the public eye again. Boyer
will
be busy spinning bull****.



Well, if you're including larger turboprops, bizjets and airliners in
your

estimate you may be correct. However if you're referring to small singles

and twins, it's hard to understand how you can describe something that
virtually never happens as being "statistically inevitable".

Of course it's possible - a 172 could hit car on the freeway and slam
it

into another car or something - you almost need to find such a scenario,
where the destructive force invloved is greater than that engendered by
the
little plane itself, which was only the trigger event. Otherwise, small
planes crashing just don't pack enough destructive force to make the
killing
of several innocents on the ground "statistically inevitable".
Statistically, the most likely result, in fact, is that this will not
happen
any time soon.



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.....

Here's a listing since last week. Yes, it is springtime, and the little
planes are falling! One fell behind a house in Mass, another crashes into
a terminal in Fla, the one that crashed onto a school field in NH. There
were several other stories that had the links down, but things are off to
a roaring start in April!

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...inquirer_local

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...ws/20crash.txt

http://www.kxly.com/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=1753

http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/2648241.html

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/page...tory/cececa4a4

http://www.wofl.com/_ezpost/data/39693.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/16/Ci...burned_i.shtml

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,5290356.story

http://www.klbk.com/news/default.asp...ownews&id=1547

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...rash13-ON.html

http://www.townonline.com/melrose/lo...ticleid=470880

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs....=2006604120309

"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?

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.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
---------------- hit any user to continue ----------------

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Lucky break school was out. Imagine, a "strong wind" caused this crash.
Unbelievable.
...
By LORNA COLQUHOUN
Union Leader Correspondent
snip.

Initial indications are that a strong wind prevented the plane from
gaining altitude; the Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.



I'm with ya Skylune.
I find Ms. Colquhoun's claim that "the wind prevented the plane from gaining
altitude" pretty hard to believe too.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

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

Calibrated eyeball, the left one... try it, keep UR tongue in the
right side of UR mouth...

Dave



On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:15:49 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"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?

....and don't tug on Superman's cape, don't spit into the wind...

There is a song there someplace....

Dave


On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:08:50 -0000, 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 :-)