Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

Recently, WJRFlyBoy posted:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:20:58 -0400, Morgans wrote:

There are many, many airports that have structures or natural
obstacles much closer than this one. Yet, airplanes land and
takeoff from these places for many years with no incidents.
Occasionally there are problems, but that is why you buy insurance.

Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?

You might even have to decide to give the airplane
to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident
happens to you - if you take up being a pilot. Planes and houses
don't grow on trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.

I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within
two miles of any airport. Is it a reasonable risk? I think so.

Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.

(rest snipped for brevity)

Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion
that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training
you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are
unwarranted. In the meantime, your arguments with those who actually fly
and understand the relevant issues neither serve your ultimate goal nor
help those who, like you, participate in this group to learn because
authoritatively stated misinformation is counterproductive.

A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20
meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn
that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a
chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well.

Be patient, listen, and learn!

Best,

Neil

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:

Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?

You might even have to decide to give the airplane
to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident
happens to you - if you take up being a pilot. Planes and houses
don't grow on trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.

I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within
two miles of any airport. Is it a reasonable risk? I think so.

Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.

(rest snipped for brevity)

Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion
that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training
you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are
unwarranted. In the meantime, your arguments with those who actually fly
and understand the relevant issues neither serve your ultimate goal nor
help those who, like you, participate in this group to learn because
authoritatively stated misinformation is counterproductive.

A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20
meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn
that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a
chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well.

Be patient, listen, and learn!

Best,

Neil

I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.

First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem
with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted
to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property
damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an
airpark and you have major, potential carnage.

Everyone, almost, assumed that I was looking to find serious and
conclusive faults to the airpark lifestyle. Here's a heads up. If anyone
had simply asked, instead of assuming, what my interest level is, and
why, they would have gotten the straight answer.

I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
(beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.

Pilots complain about the public's misconceptions about airparks and air
safety. Chicken and egg, I have sat in way too many pilot-public debates
where both sides are at odds and are carrying attitudes to those
discussions. This thread is a very good example.

One of the powers of being labeled as a under-educated, Mr, KnowItAll is
that people get all hot and bothered for no good reason /but/ they spill
their guts and let the verbiage fly. I take copious notes as my Daddy
said, "You can learn from anyone something, shake the tree to make the
hornets fly if you have too


--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Mar 17, 6:20*am, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?

*You might even have to decide to give the airplane
to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident
happens to you - if you take up being a pilot. *Planes and houses
don't grow on trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.

I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within
two miles of any airport. *Is it a reasonable risk? *I think so.

Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.

(rest snipped for brevity)

Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion
that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training
you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are
unwarranted. In the meantime, your arguments with those who actually fly
and understand the relevant issues neither serve your ultimate goal nor
help those who, like you, participate in this group to learn because
authoritatively stated misinformation is counterproductive.

A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20
meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn
that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a
chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well.

Be patient, listen, and learn!

Best,

Neil

I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.

First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem
with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted
to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property
damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an
airpark and you have major, potential carnage.

Everyone, almost, assumed that I was looking to find serious and
conclusive faults to the airpark lifestyle. Here's a heads up. If anyone
had simply asked, instead of assuming, what my interest level is, and
why, they would have gotten the straight answer.

I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
(beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.

Pilots complain about the public's misconceptions about airparks and air
safety. Chicken and egg, I have sat in way too many pilot-public debates
where both sides are at odds and are carrying attitudes to those
discussions. This thread is a very good example.

One of the powers of being labeled as a under-educated, Mr, KnowItAll is
that people get all hot and bothered for no good reason /but/ they spill
their guts and let the verbiage fly. I take copious notes as my Daddy
said, "You can learn from anyone something, shake the tree to make the
hornets fly if you have too

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So according to you, everybody over reacted to your oh so simple
request for information. I would contend that you in fact brought it
on yourself from the very first post forward and the one that finally
got me involved was totally off the charts.

. Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going
to
. have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house
"screwing
. the pooch."

YOUR RESPONSE BELOW:

.Let's start this over Captiva.
.
.Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent
death.
.
.Yes?
.
.Make sense?
.????

In the future, you might get a much more acceptable response by
stating you purpose and engaging in a reasoned discussion of the
issues. You instead decided on an approach that you fully well knew
would result in exactly the response you got and then whine about
it.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:11:42 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So according to you, everybody

I didn't say everybody. You and I have this issue every time we post.
You go off half-cocked, posting a bunch of self-determining hooey as
fact.

over reacted to your oh so simple
request for information.

Simple? I don;t see anything simple about this thread. Or the airpark
business. Or determined the truth in the statistics of which, have you
done your homework on that? I have and posted the same. More Bob Hooey.

I would contend that you in fact brought it
on yourself from the very first post forward and the one that finally
got me involved was totally off the charts.

. Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going
to
. have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house
"screwing
. the pooch."

YOUR RESPONSE BELOW:

.Let's start this over Captiva.
.
.Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent
death.
.
.Yes?

See the question mark? =See, there it is again, another question mark.
Wanna see another? =There it is. Learning anything? =There's another
one.

Question marks are not for statement, they are, for, er, lemme see.
Questions.

Let me repeat my previous answer to you in this thread, this time take
notes.

Ready? =There's another one.

"Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?

Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? = =

"You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.

Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty."

.
.Make sense?
.????

In the future, you might get a much more acceptable response by
stating you purpose and engaging in a reasoned discussion of the
issues. You instead decided on an approach that you fully well knew
would result in exactly the response you got and then whine about
it.

Only whining I hear is yours.

Rinse, dry, repeat the above.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
WJRFlyBoy [endless]
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah

Dude... you should spend less time typing, and more time flying.

Or reading about flying.

Or watching airplanes.



Dan Mc

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
WJRFlyBoy [endless]
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah

Dude... you should spend less time typing, and more time flying.

Or reading about flying.

Or watching airplanes.

Dan Mc

Eight hours every evening not enough?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Mar 17, 4:18*pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:11:42 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So according to you, everybody

I didn't say everybody. You and I have this issue every time we post.
You go off half-cocked, posting a bunch of self-determining hooey as
fact.

over reacted to your oh so simple
request for information.

Simple? I don;t see anything simple about this thread. Or the airpark
business. Or determined the truth in the statistics of which, have you
done your homework on that? I have and posted the same. More Bob Hooey.





I would contend that you in fact brought it
on yourself from the very first post forward and the one that finally
got me involved was totally off the charts.

. Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going
to
. have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house
"screwing
. the pooch."

YOUR RESPONSE BELOW:

.Let's start this over Captiva.
.
.Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent
death.
.
.Yes?

See the question mark? =See, there it is again, *another question mark.
Wanna see another? =There it is. Learning anything? =There's another
one.

Question marks are not for statement, they are, for, er, lemme see.
Questions.

Let me repeat my previous answer *to you in this thread, this time take
notes.

Ready? =There's another one.

"Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?

Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? = =

"You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.

Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty."

.
.Make sense?
.????

In the future, you might get a much more acceptable response by
stating you purpose and engaging in a reasoned discussion of the
issues. *You instead decided on an approach that you fully well knew
would result in exactly the response you got and then whine about
it.

Only whining I hear is yours.

Rinse, dry, repeat the above.
--
- Show quoted text -

Overall, you have gotten the responses you asked for and deserved. If
you had wanted to discuss airparks, airpark living, or even the
liability issues of airparks, you went about it in a very strange and
confrontational manner from the outset.

So bitch on, you clearly have nothing to add so PLOINK!

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:50:16 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

Organization: http://groups.google.com
So bitch on, you clearly have nothing to add so PLOINK!

lol

More Bob Hooey.

Recently, WJRFlyBoy posted:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:

Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans'
suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your
flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in
areas such as this are unwarranted. [...]

I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.

I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread. In that
amount of time, it would seem to me that you would have flown into
airports with far less tolerance than 60' off centerline. To me, 60' is as
good as a mile, since the wingspans of the planes I fly are far less than
that and many runways have trees and other obstructions closer than those
houses.

First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational
problem with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or
two, wanted to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person
and property damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put
that in an airpark and you have major, potential carnage.

From my perspective, and those of several others, the issues are risk
management and judgement rather than some inherently difficult
circumstance of the layout you described. As another person pointed out
during this discussion, those living in an airpark would get a lot of
practice flying into and out of that strip, which further reduces the
risks.

Best,

Neil

On Mar 17, 11:19 am, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, WJRFlyBoy posted:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:

Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans'
suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your
flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in
areas such as this are unwarranted. [...]

I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.

I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread.

Hmmmm. Perhaps the reason for your confusion is:

"WJRFlyBoy
View profile
More options Nov 22 2007, 3:16 pm
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
From: WJRFlyBoy
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:16:22 -0500
Local: Thurs, Nov 22 2007 3:16 pm
Subject: Advice Requested
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
It's time to stop talking and start doing so I would appreciate any
advice
on how to assess a flight school, instructor, pricing and any other
suggestions.

No advice too basic, trust me Including what I should have included
in
this post or requested in the first place

TIA

Location: SW Florida/Bonita Springs
Objective: Flight for business (SE USA), travel between two homes
(Caribbean) and simple pleasure
My Age: mid 50s

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! "