Another small plane SLAMS into home, killing one occupant

They don't care about floods either.


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in
message
news | In article
|
outaviation.com,
| "Skylune" wrote:
|
| What I mean is that they should put these statistics
into the database. I
| realize they describe the accident and the number of
fatalities includes
| those on the ground. I think they should add columns
that include "ground
| injuries, ground fatalities, ground structures
damaged/destroyed" in column
| in this database:
|
| http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp
|
| They already do publish the stats. Ground
(non-participant) injuries
| average about two per year; ground deaths average about
0.33 per year,
| from GA accidents. Search "aviation, buildings &
residence", accidents.
|
| The "hazard" is insignificant, even in built-up areas. Of
course,
| developers really don't care about the hazards that their
developments
| present to aviators.

The pilot and his passenger who crashed last month in Virginia (I think)
were developers flying to their project. They might disagree if they were
still alive. (The recently deceased House Slamming jet pilot was a lawyer
-- interesting how many pilots are lawyers or politicians in real
life.... but that's another rant.)

BTW, there is nothing preventing the airports from purchasing surrounding
land if "encursion" is really such a big issue. Of course, that would
mean the airport would have to shell out some dollars... Cheaper to just
fence off these properties and leave them undeveloped, all for the benefit
of the airport.

Or maybe, Congress should pass a law PROHIBITING POPULATION GROWTH. Boyer
might not oppose that.

Or, if enough pilots began Slamming into homes located near airports, that
would discourage the evil, greedy developers and solve everything. Of
course the developers would protest, producing phony economic benefit
studies, which would be countered by equally phony economic benefit
studies produced by independent agencies, such as AOPA, the state aviation
board, or the airport itself. It would be a food-fight, but entertaining
to observe.....

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
The pilot and his passenger who crashed last month in Virginia (I think)

BTW, there is nothing preventing the airports from purchasing surrounding
land if "encursion" is really such a big issue. Of course, that would
mean the airport would have to shell out some dollars...

Word from Intel, which has a plant literally under the published traffic
pattern for the runway he used, is that folks there are now questioning
whether it's a good idea to continue the airshow now that the plant is so
close.

It should be pointed out, if I haven't already, that INTEL HAS FOR YEARS A
MAJOR SPONSOR of the airshow. If they sponsored and made possible the
airshow and didn't realize they were building a factory right underneath
it...

....that confirms my opinion of the super-high-tech-super-low-common-sense
type of first-rate idiocy that embodies what optomists call The Silicon
Forest and what Portlanders call The Silicon Suburb, or simply Yuppie Hell,
when they hastily remind people that Beaverton is not Portland.

-c

A popular nickname for the Bonanza is Forkedtail Doctor
Killer




"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| The pilot and his passenger who crashed last month in
Virginia (I think)
| were developers flying to their project. They might
disagree if they were
| still alive. (The recently deceased House Slamming jet
pilot was a lawyer
| -- interesting how many pilots are lawyers or politicians
in real
| life.... but that's another rant.)
|
| BTW, there is nothing preventing the airports from
purchasing surrounding
| land if "encursion" is really such a big issue. Of
course, that would
| mean the airport would have to shell out some dollars...
Cheaper to just
| fence off these properties and leave them undeveloped, all
for the benefit
| of the airport.
|
| Or maybe, Congress should pass a law PROHIBITING
POPULATION GROWTH. Boyer
| might not oppose that.
|
| Or, if enough pilots began Slamming into homes located
near airports, that
| would discourage the evil, greedy developers and solve
everything. Of
| course the developers would protest, producing phony
economic benefit
| studies, which would be countered by equally phony
economic benefit
| studies produced by independent agencies, such as AOPA,
the state aviation
| board, or the airport itself. It would be a food-fight,
but entertaining
| to observe.....
|
|
|

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:16:16 -0400, Skylune wrote:

[snip]
Or, if enough pilots began Slamming into homes located near airports,
that would discourage the evil, greedy developers and solve everything.
Of
[snip]

Naw...congress will just pass a law making it illegal. That way, if you
survive you go to jail. Then they will figure out how it's really somehow
linked to terrorism. They then plaster your mug shot all over the news
toughting how they've made the country safer from terrorists.

Greg

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

In Portland, Intel is now expressing concerns about the wisdom of having
an airshow in a largely residential area.

Which is ironic, given that they've always been a major sponsor.

I volunteered to hang out in a WWII flight suit around the Evergreen P-38 to
keep an eye on it and you couldn't see the flightline from the '38 because
of the huge Intel kiosk featuring the Microsoft flight simulator. (Not to
mention the giant MGB can and SUV inflatables from the other sponsors.)

-c

Well, Intel seems to be making the same argument that I do. The area has
changed, like much of the country. I think it is reasonable to question
the wisdom of having an airshow in close proximity to a densely populated
area.

Why not just move the airshow to a less densely populated area, at a more
remote field? That does not strike me as unreasonable.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...


Why not just move the airshow to a less densely populated area, at a more
remote field? That does not strike me as unreasonable.

We don't have any other towered airfields in the vicinity with 6000-ft
runways and any less-dense populations. Hillsboro was it. Ironically, the
sponsors of the airshow who are also the major corporate users of the
airfield are the ones that built the factories around it.

I mean, guys, you gotta understand, these people are idiots. They fly their
own corporate jets out of there. This guy wasn't part of the airshow at
all. He just flew up to put his plane on static display, and was departing
with one flyby because except for that fat lady singing (F/A-18s, actually),
the airshow was already over.

In other words, it the next plane to auger out there could be one of the
airshow sponsors and, gee, guess what: There WAS a recent crash the
Nike lost a corporate jet and of course the big fuss was simply whether Phil
Knight was on board (he wasn't.)

They fly out of there, have always flown out of there, have sponsored the
airshow and helped bring it to Hillsboro, have had corporate jets crash
there -recently-, build homes and a factory under the pattern dictated by
the airshow they sponsor, and now they're all concerned, confused and
surprised that, gee, there were airplanes at the airshow they helped sponsor
flying in the pattern required for the airshow. How friggin' hard is it to
figure this stuff out before you build an actual factory and supporting
residential subdivisions?

We have people in Oregon who refuse to believe that he was on a flight
pattern. You can show 'em the AIRNAV data that specifically states a
right-hand pattern for that runway, and you can demonstrate that he crashed
on a right downwind leg, and they STILL insist he wasn't on a "flight path."

-c

Skylune wrote:
Well, Intel seems to be making the same argument that I do. The area has
changed, like much of the country. I think it is reasonable to question
the wisdom of having an airshow in close proximity to a densely populated
area.

Why not just move the airshow to a less densely populated area, at a more
remote field? That does not strike me as unreasonable.

That's the usual thing. Build near an airport because the land is
cheap because of the airplanes, then complain about the airplanes and
force the airport to move.

Admittedly, I don't know about the specifics of Intel/Portland, so
maybe it's not the usual thing...

On 19 Jul 2006 20:03:56 -0700, wrote:


Skylune wrote:
Well, Intel seems to be making the same argument that I do. The area has
changed, like much of the country. I think it is reasonable to question
the wisdom of having an airshow in close proximity to a densely populated
area.

Why not just move the airshow to a less densely populated area, at a more
remote field? That does not strike me as unreasonable.

That's the usual thing. Build near an airport because the land is
cheap because of the airplanes, then complain about the airplanes and
force the airport to move.

Admittedly, I don't know about the specifics of Intel/Portland, so
maybe it's not the usual thing...

Nothing particular about Hillsboro. Every quadrant surrounding
Portland, From Rhodendron to Yamhill and from Champoeg to
Battleground, is overbuilt and filled with Californians and shopping
malls. When I lived there, the bumperstickers said: "Don't
Californicate Oregon," but the Jarvisites moved in and eradicated the
simple, barefoot children of Ectopia.

(They did build some nice new GA airfields out around Sandy and
Estacada, though. Credit where due, and all that. I kept the T-craft
at Sandy for a while while Rich still owned the place.)
Don