Another small plane SLAMS into home, killing one occupant

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.

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.

"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

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

The difference between the home's speed and the jets would probably be
"statistically insignificant." If this is true, who's to blame?

So it wouldn't be a crash, more of a material convergence.

-c

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
I have to think that this whole issue (House Slamming) would go away if
either...

Haven't you studied the theory of relativity? There is no absolute
motion, only relative motion. The HOUSE slammed into the PLANE, which was
minding its own business on the way to an important crash.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dude, I've done this. There I was, flying along when a planet "slammed" into
me. No signal or nuthin. Of course, it probably thought it had the right of
way.

Al G

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.....

Yes, a sort of meta-physical, existential event that simply is part of the
randomness of the universe.

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...
Yes, a sort of meta-physical, existential event that simply is part of the
randomness of the universe.

Exactly! It wasn't a crash, it was a life-changing string-theory
experiment.

-c

"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