Another small plane SLAMS into home, killing one occupant

"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 the
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