Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
there in the case of an accident.

Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.

1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.


So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?

If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

On Mar 21, 2:09 pm, Gig 601XL Builder

1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.

So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?

If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

Soon you will see that things are not as they appear, for you are
expecting a conversation, when in fact you debate with MXJunior...


Dan Mc

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:09:42 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
there in the case of an accident.

Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.

1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.


So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?

I took your lead "houses...closer..street..etc. The dangers are both
real and perceived regardless.

If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

There is a real danger. If you care to deny the fact that there is a
history of loss of life, physical destruction to property in airparks,
then you had best opt out. I certainly have no more use to discuss this
with you if you're position so flagrantly flies in the face of reality.

On Mar 21, 10:55 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:

There is a real danger. If you care to deny the fact that there is a
history of loss of life, physical destruction to property in airparks,
then you had best opt out. I certainly have no more use to discuss this
with you if you're position so flagrantly flies in the face of reality.

Like every week there's some broadcast form a local airpark - "Oh the
humanity!!!!"

WJRFlyBoy wrote:


There is a real danger. If you care to deny the fact that there is a
history of loss of life, physical destruction to property in airparks,
then you had best opt out. I certainly have no more use to discuss this
with you if you're position so flagrantly flies in the face of reality.

Have there been accidents at airparks? Sure, but it isn't like it
happens all that often.

The old saying that the bathroom is the most dangerous room in your
house isn't because it faces a landing strip.