Vintage Jet Slams Into Homes Near Air Show

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...

Is the crash site still identified as NE 58th? That's north of Baseline,
south of Cornell and a little west of 231st, essentially 1.5
miles off the approach end of 30.

That's accurate. A wider pattern would have likely put him in the Intel
plant.

Just from a noise standpoint, that's a dumb**** place to site housing.

Yeah...but, as my friends in the area like to point out, you get to watch
the airshow from your backyard. :/

-c
(The B-2, B-17, etc, generally flew wider patterns.)

gatt wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...

Exactly. There is no need to add sensationalism.

They didn't. They described it. The jet very clearly slammed into the home.

-c

Slammed is a word that doesn't need to be included. It's pretty subjective.

Don Tuite wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:16 GMT, "gatt"
wrote:

For perspective, somebody died in the Sandy River again yesterday. I
mentioned to my wife that this old man augured his jet and died doing
something he loved after living a long, successful life. Meanwhile, we've
watched teenagers use the "DO NOT JUMP FROM BRIDGE" sign as a handhold while
they jumped from the bridge and smacked their brains all over the rocks
below. Oregon is at, what, 20 drowning deaths this year since June 1?

But they don't set fire to any houses when they go splat.

So we should all stop flying because we *might* injure someone else in
the process?

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:50:53 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Don Tuite wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:16 GMT, "gatt"
wrote:

For perspective, somebody died in the Sandy River again yesterday. I
mentioned to my wife that this old man augured his jet and died doing
something he loved after living a long, successful life. Meanwhile, we've
watched teenagers use the "DO NOT JUMP FROM BRIDGE" sign as a handhold while
they jumped from the bridge and smacked their brains all over the rocks
below. Oregon is at, what, 20 drowning deaths this year since June 1?

But they don't set fire to any houses when they go splat.

So we should all stop flying because we *might* injure someone else in
the process?

If we want to keep our airports from closing, we might reconsider
doing low-level aerobatics in clapped-out '50s-era warbirds when
encroaching subdivisions underlie the box.

I'd like to hear Dudley's take when he's ready to post.

Don

"Emily" wrote in message
...

Slammed is a word that doesn't need to be included. It's pretty
subjective.

What exact difference does it make? What does it change? Journalists
aren't hired for their ability to undramatize the dramatic, and the jet
slammed into a house. It didn't strike, it didn't impact, it didn't bounce
off of, it didn't land on, they didn't collide...it smashed into the friggin
house.

It hit the house and friggin' exploded. Er, if that's too incriminating or
something, let's just say it combusted? The entire house is gone. Almost
no wreckage of the house remained an hour afterward, let alone the plane.
The houses next to it looked like a plane had crashed into them. The house
that the plane slammed into didn't look like it, 'cause there isn't much
left but scorched earth, dirt and random debris.

There's no point in dumbing down or deceiving the public. It slammed into
the house, and the last time I checked, slammed is a word and its primary
definition of slam is "strike." It would be ludicrous to deny that the
plane struck the house, and the word is no more subjective than "crashed
into."

-c

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

But they don't set fire to any houses when they go splat.

So we should all stop flying because we *might* injure someone else in the
process?

Are we putting words into other people's mouths now?

-c

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...

If we want to keep our airports from closing, we might reconsider
doing low-level aerobatics in clapped-out '50s-era warbirds when
encroaching subdivisions underlie the box.

Unfortunately, as utterly unsympathetic as I am to people who willingly
build homes under the traffic pattern for the largest runway in the state
next to PDX International, it's already happening:

"Following the crash of a vintage jet at the Oregon International Air Show
on Sunday, the FAA and NTSB will investigate the incident and recommend any
changes that need to be made. Some residents think the area around the
airport is now too residential for the show to continue. "
http://www.katu.com

This reminds me of an incident across town where somebody developed the hill
immediately behind the Camp Withycomb rifle range. All these folks moved
into Oregon (or were dumb enough not to know that the Camp has been there
since WWII), bought these fancy brand new homes and then were Suddenly
Outraged to discover that their home was directly downrange from a military
installation. Talk about not doing your friggin' research. The rifle
range is no longer with us. The air show, at least in Hillsboro, has been
declining due to corporate stupidity for years now. (For example, last time
I went, you couldn't see the flight line from the static exhibits because of
the giant inflatable Chevy Suburban and MGD beer cans, and there was almost
TWO ground accidents because they were herding the warbirds through to make
sure there was time for the Rocket Powered Semi and the Truckasaurus
thingie.)

If the airshow goes, this crash was just one more nail in a nearly-complete
coffin. But still...

-c

Don Tuite wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:50:53 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Don Tuite wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:16 GMT, "gatt"
wrote:

For perspective, somebody died in the Sandy River again yesterday. I
mentioned to my wife that this old man augured his jet and died doing
something he loved after living a long, successful life. Meanwhile, we've
watched teenagers use the "DO NOT JUMP FROM BRIDGE" sign as a handhold while
they jumped from the bridge and smacked their brains all over the rocks
below. Oregon is at, what, 20 drowning deaths this year since June 1?

But they don't set fire to any houses when they go splat.
So we should all stop flying because we *might* injure someone else in
the process?

If we want to keep our airports from closing, we might reconsider
doing low-level aerobatics in clapped-out '50s-era warbirds when
encroaching subdivisions underlie the box.

Quite a few accidents of newer aircraft in previously straight and level
flight have killed people on the ground. It's just a dangerous line of
thought.

gatt wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
...

Slammed is a word that doesn't need to be included. It's pretty
subjective.

What exact difference does it make? What does it change? Journalists
aren't hired for their ability to undramatize the dramatic, and the jet
slammed into a house. It didn't strike, it didn't impact, it didn't bounce
off of, it didn't land on, they didn't collide...it smashed into the friggin

Yes, it did strike, it did impact, and it did collide. Yet the media
uses the word slammed.

You know, I grew up with a couple of military officers for parents, who
viewed the media as a necessary evil. I didn't understand why until I
started flying.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:50:53 -0500, Emily wrote:

So we should all stop flying because we *might* injure someone else in the
process?

People need to stop living so as to avoid risk of injury or death.

- Andrew