![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 12, 9:42*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"BobR" wrote About as much sense as Soap....Water....Tub....Shower....People....immine nt death. Stop taking showers and bathing YES? The odds are greater that you will be killed in the tub or shower! *********************************************** Yep. I'm beginning to think this guy or gal your post is replying to is: A) Way too closed minded to belive what people here repeatedly tell him B) Way too paranoid about airplanes to ever want to actually be in one C) Has some medically classifiable psychosis D) An internet kook, along the lines of MX or Ken (or is actually one of them) E) Another of a recurring line of trolls that seems to be parading through the Rec.Aviation groups F) Some combination of the choices above Whatever the answer is, I'm done with future conversations with him. *Time will tell which of the above choices are correct, and I don't think it will take much longer for others to get as tired of him as I have. -- Jim in NC The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out there who are of the same mindset. We shouldn't be allowed to fly because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall out of the sky on top of them. They are the same group of morons who will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well being without a second thought. I wouldn't give a damn except they are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well- preserved body, But rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "....Holy ****....What a RIDE!" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "BobR" wrote in message ... The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out there who are of the same mindset. We shouldn't be allowed to fly because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall out of the sky on top of them. They are the same group of morons who will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well being without a second thought. I wouldn't give a damn except they are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well- preserved body, But rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "....Holy ****....What a RIDE!" Regrettably, that sums it up! :-( Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out there who are of the same mindset. We shouldn't be allowed to fly because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall out of the sky on top of them. They are the same group of morons who will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well being without a second thought. I wouldn't give a damn except they are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own. lol Starting with the Subject Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross extrapolation". Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc). -- 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WJRFlyBoy wrote in
: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote: The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out there who are of the same mindset. We shouldn't be allowed to fly because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall out of the sky on top of them. They are the same group of morons who will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well being without a second thought. I wouldn't give a damn except they are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own. lol Starting with the Subject Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross extrapolation". Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc). Try NTSB.GOV. They have 140,000 or so aircraft incidents & accidents available online going back to 1962. You'll have to structure the appropriate search query. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:34 GMT, Marty Shapiro wrote:
Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc). Try NTSB.GOV. They have 140,000 or so aircraft incidents & accidents available online going back to 1962. You'll have to structure the appropriate search query. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. Thanks, that worked. -- 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:34 GMT, Marty Shapiro wrote:
Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc). Try NTSB.GOV. They have 140,000 or so aircraft incidents & accidents available online going back to 1962. You'll have to structure the appropriate search query. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. What I got was a very clean record, all in all, there have been deaths, a few children....of reported actions and I'm doing a bit of guessing. What is hard to believe not in ASRS either (voluntary so sampling is speculative) is that there are /not/ any reporting functions for airparks. If they are clean of record, then you would think the insurance guys would have a reporting system or demand one. Maybe they do, I can't find it. -- 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 14, 3:39*am, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote: The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out there who are of the same mindset. *We shouldn't be allowed to fly because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall out of the sky on top of them. *They are the same group of morons who will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well being without a second thought. *I wouldn't give a damn except they are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own. lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross extrapolation". First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding of aviation and the risk factors involved. You initial post demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced that perception. Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc). Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:19:33 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross extrapolation". First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding of aviation and the risk factors involved. You initial post demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced that perception. I wasn't replying directly to you either, Mr. Sensitive. The only ignorance going on in this thread is the constant state of denial that accidents GASP do happen with airplanes and GASP can happen on airstrips next to houses. Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc). Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you. Dirty work? Something your hiding, Robert? Then, of course, we have this issue. FAR 91.119, which states something like "Except for purposes of take off and landing, no aircraft shall be operated closer than 500 feet to persons, vehicles, or structures." -- 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 14, 1:45*pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:19:33 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote: lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross extrapolation". First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding of aviation and the risk factors involved. *You initial post demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced that perception. I wasn't replying directly to you either, Mr. Sensitive. The only ignorance going on in this thread is the constant state of denial that accidents GASP do happen with airplanes and GASP can happen on airstrips next to houses. Apparently, you can't even keep up with who you are replying to. Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or what? Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc). Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you. Dirty work? Something your hiding, Robert? Not hiding anything but I might ask the same of you, just what is your problem? Then, of course, we have this issue. FAR 91.119, which states something like "Except for purposes of take off and landing, no aircraft shall be operated closer than 500 feet to persons, vehicles, or structures." DUH! Guess what, "Except for purposes of take off and landing" which is the expressed purpose of a landing strip, just what are you fishing for? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or what? Excellent counterpoint, you really hit all the high spots. Is this sort of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or merely witty banter? 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. Feel free to have the last word on me and expect no more gifts, I'm not ****ing Santa Claus. -- 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airparks... | .Blueskies. | Owning | 9 | May 8th 06 04:14 PM |
Airparks and clubs around Phoenix AZ ? | gilan | Piloting | 3 | March 9th 06 01:07 PM |
Airparks and clubs around Phoenix AZ ? | gilan | Owning | 3 | March 9th 06 01:07 PM |
Airparks near Austin TX | TIm Gilbert | Owning | 14 | October 3rd 05 03:18 PM |
A New, New Direction for a Beaten Dead Horse | Shawn | Soaring | 0 | February 25th 05 01:57 PM |