Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

In article vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03, "Mike" wrote:


You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you, 12?

I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.

Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.

Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
cellphone usage?)

The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...nalysis_study_
on_cell_phones.pdf

It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?

"But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited, the
range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between 800 and
8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."

"³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate that,
in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a wash
when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of eliminating
those calls,² Cohen said."

Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an analysis
of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't have
been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't being
used?

You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what you've
already made up your mind about.

You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Mxsmanic wrote:
By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It makes
sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
designs at LAX.

I dont know where you get your definitions, but you just proved how much
you DONT know...

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob F. writes:


How many hours had they flown elsewhere before they visited those large
airports?

Doesn't matter. Its "experimental". I could have a million hours on an
airframe and it still be "experimental".

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03, "Mike"
wrote:


You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post
this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you,
12?

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of conclusions
for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical thought.


I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.

Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.

Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
cellphone usage?)

By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...nalysis_study_
on_cell_phones.pdf

It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?

"But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited,
the
range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between
800 and
8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."

"³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate
that,
in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a
wash
when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of
eliminating
those calls,² Cohen said."

Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in economic
terms".


Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an
analysis
of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't
have
been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't
being
used?

Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer letting
people like you do their own research. When proof is provided, you want to
poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios that are
irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows that when
faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you will just
resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change your mind.
So why should I waste my time providing proof of something you're never
going to accept anyway?


You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what
you've
already made up your mind about.

You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Nor do I care really.


Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have I
advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a clue
about my motivations or what I support or don't.

BT writes:

there are no readily available statistics to answer that question.

Unfortunately, unless one knows the total number of movements of both
experimental and other aircraft, as well as the absolute numbers of accidents
for both, the latter alone isn't of much use.

we are working up the statistics on percentage of experimental aircraft vs
other aircraft based at the airport, and also the percentage of training, vs
local vs transient.

Movements would be much more cogent than the number of aircraft based at the
airport.

Many accidents in the past have involved transient pilots not familiar with
high density altitude operations or desert wind conditions.

Which airport is this?

BobR wrote:
On Aug 28, 6:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It makes
sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
designs at LAX.

You are right about the initial tests which is why I will be using an
airport with nice large fields at both ends and no population centers
within a couple of miles. That was a choice that I could make but is
not available to every homebuilder. Most of our airports have been
surrounded by housing developments which greatly restrict operations
including those for non-experimental aircraft.

I'm using a field that is out in the middle of a bunch of soybean and
cotton fields, at least for the initial flights. It is well worth the
extra drive.

Stuff is likely to hit the fan, and I want to have more options than a
subdivision.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BT writes:

there are no readily available statistics to answer that question.

Unfortunately, unless one knows the total number of movements of both
experimental and other aircraft, as well as the absolute numbers of
accidents for both, the latter alone isn't of much use.

You are an idiot.


Bertie

Anthony, the only movements important to your pathetic life are bowel
movements.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:Im_tk.38$sq3.25@trnddc07...

Still waiting for a link there, Mikey Mouth.

Keep hat dancing.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:Nx_tk.42$sq3.39@trnddc07...

Liar, ya just did Mikey Mouth.