Dumb & Dumber

by "Jay Honeck" Jun 6, 2006 at 01:12 PM


That stabilizer is designed to stand much more twisting force than any
real life girl could ever apply to it. Otherwise it would come off
during
the first reasonable bumpy flight. (Nevertheless you shouldn't do what
she
had done, of course.)

There are two stabilator attach points that would have been under
tremendous
twisting load with her pushing waaaay out at the end of the "arm" of the
stabilator. I can't think of any in-flight condition that would put such
an
asymmetric load on the bird.

Also, you must figure that the plane is 30+ years old. God knows how
many

other times those attach points have been subjected to overload.

I cringe every time I think of it.


Sounds like the FAA is correct in studying older planes, a study which the
AOPA is (naturally) "opposing."

Sounds like the FAA is correct in studying older planes, a study which the
AOPA is (naturally) "opposing."

What's the FAA got to do with it? The aircraft *operators* are FAR more
interested in "studying" their older planes than any government bureaucracy.

The point you continually miss is that we don't NEED a government entity
involved in GA -- or most anything else in our society. Aircraft operators
have the highest possible motivation to keep their aircraft airworthy (I.E.:
Presumably they don't want to die -- I know *I* don't.).

In my lifetime of experience, beyond the basics (road construction,
sidewalks, etc.) government doesn't solve ANYTHING. (Or, at best, after 47
years, I'm still awaiting evidence of any success.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

by "Jay Honeck" Jun 8, 2006 at 01:30 PM


Sounds like the FAA is correct in studying older planes, a study which
the
AOPA is (naturally) "opposing."

What's the FAA got to do with it? The aircraft *operators* are FAR more

interested in "studying" their older planes than any government
bureaucracy.

The point you continually miss is that we don't NEED a government entity
involved in GA -- or most anything else in our society. Aircraft
operators
have the highest possible motivation to keep their aircraft airworthy
(I.E.:
Presumably they don't want to die -- I know *I* don't.).

In my lifetime of experience, beyond the basics (road construction,
sidewalks, etc.) government doesn't solve ANYTHING. (Or, at best, after
47
years, I'm still awaiting evidence of any success.)



I don't like regulation much, but some is necessary to protect the public
(speed limits, auto inspections, etc.). The FAA's purported role is
ensuring safety, and as you said, you cannot be sure if a rental has been
damaged from pushing on the wing-tips.

As the planes are coming down onto homes now (another one outside Reno --
fortunately no one on the ground killed this time), the FAA must get
involved. Of course they also want to PROMOTE aviation, so they are
hopelessly conflicted.

You're right Luney, the FAA must get involved. They must stop
developers from building houses, office buildings, malls etc. in the
departure & arrival paths of airports. I suspect there are no more
occurrences of aircraft crashing now than 40 years ago (although with
the pilot population in decline the figure may be less), but with so
much development on top of airports any crash is more likely to hit a
building now.

Skylune wrote:

As the planes are coming down onto homes now (another one outside Reno --
fortunately no one on the ground killed this time), the FAA must get
involved. Of course they also want to PROMOTE aviation, so they are
hopelessly conflicted.

by "Kingfish" Jun 8, 2006 at 10:16 AM


You're right Luney, the FAA must get involved. They must stop
developers from building houses, office buildings, malls etc. in the
departure & arrival paths of airports. I suspect there are no more
occurrences of aircraft crashing now than 40 years ago (although with
the pilot population in decline the figure may be less), but with so
much development on top of airports any crash is more likely to hit a
building now.




Of course you are correct, as always. All development, populuation
growth, etc. must be absolutely subservient to the needs of GA.

My post was meant as tongue-in-cheek (somewhat). Nobody need be
subservient to GA, but just as you take every opportunity to trash
Boyer and AOPA on this forum (ad nauseum) I can use your same absurd
brand of logic to argue that the FAA should, in the interest of
promoting aviation safety, make more of an effort to restrict
developers from encroaching on airports (large & small) thus
endangering building occupants.

Skylune wrote:

Of course you are correct, as always. All development, populuation
growth, etc. must be absolutely subservient to the needs of GA.

Below is a map of your "no build zone." It looks like maybe there is an
area in Nevada that the population should be re-located to. Oh, wait,
that's military space. Oh well...

http://www.gaservingamerica.com/Serv...t_near_you.htm

("De Loon, De Loon wrote")


Loon, I have an idea just for you.

DO NOT including any quoted material from the previous post. That might work
best - for all. It'll be easier to read your posts that way.

Don't worry about us, we'll keep up with the flow of the thread on our end.
Thanks.


Montblack

OK, Mont. Fly safe.

("Skylune" wrote)
OK, Mont. Fly safe.


Thanks, and thanks ...I'll pass it on to the pilot. :-)


Montblack