Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

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!"

"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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.