Vintage Jet Slams Into Homes Near Air Show

"Near miss" despite the grammatical error, implies a hit: it nearly
missed. i.e. it hit.

"Nearly hit" is what people mean when they say "near miss."

"gatt" wrote:


Well, at least they didn't say "completely destroyed" or "partially
destroyed."

(Things are either destroyed or they're not. Otherwise, they might be
nearly-destroyed, heavily damaged, etc., but you still hear the media mangle
that one up.)

Well, I don't think that kind of error is very unique. (g,d,&r)

(Things are either one of a kind (unique) or they are not. They may be
very unusual or nearly unique, but there are no degrees of
uniqueness.)

But I think you and I are on the losing side of the word purity
battle--incorrect usage repeated often enough becomes "common usage",
which in turn becomes "correct".

Same thing with using the ambiguous term "bi-annual" in place of
biennial.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

I agree with Peter. It could have happened anytime and anywhere. When
I saw the video, I had similar thoughts that Morgans wrote. I hope this
is not the end of the airshow, but, now that people have had time to
think and contact lawyers, I'm sure the show will be much smaller, even
though this was not really an airshow crash--just some jet (happens to
be a warbird) that crashed after takeoff.

May that pilot rest in peace and his family find the comfort they need.

Chris G.


Morgans wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote
This was not an aerobatic accident. The airplane was departing to return
to
California. Could've happened anywhere, any time.

After viewing the takeoff, I can't help but think that it looks like he did
not have enough speed to fly, at rotation. Either he should have kept it on
the ground, or in ground effect, for a while. I wondered if he was running
out of runway, but I couldn't tell, viewing the replay. If he was out of
runway, he might should have aborted, perhaps because the engine was not
putting out? It could have been the good 'ole density altitude that got
him, with reduced engine performance, and less lift at the ground speed he
was accustomed to seeing. If it was the engine, from the looks of the
wreck, we will never know. It does appear as though the engine was about
the only thing that survived, in any sizable piece.

A shame, for him, his family and friends, and the whole aviation community.
May he Rest in Peace.

"Near miss" despite the grammatical error, implies a hit: it nearly
missed. i.e. it hit.

"Near miss" is not a grammatical error, and it does not imply a hit. It
implies (in fact, it also declares) a miss - a non-impact.

I don't know of anybody that interprets "near miss" as a hit, and "near"
is not the same as "nearly".

When I got lost at the zoo, I nearly got near the alligator.

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

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
A suggested headline, which may pass AOPA reporter
guidelines might be:

"Heroic effort by experienced pilot averts catastrophe and
ground casualties; Recently constructed home located near
the 75-year old airfield catches fire."


I prefer "Innocent, heroic pilot killed by negligent, irresponsible
homeowner."

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:47:25 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote:


"Skylune" wrote in message
alkaboutaviation.com...
A suggested headline, which may pass AOPA reporter
guidelines might be:

"Heroic effort by experienced pilot averts catastrophe and
ground casualties; Recently constructed home located near
the 75-year old airfield catches fire."


I prefer "Innocent, heroic pilot killed by negligent, irresponsible
homeowner."

Change "homeowner" to "developer and county planning commissioners."

Don

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

Gee, thanks for letting that slip though.

Degree in journalism? That explains a lot.

Yeah, gee. Gawd forbid somebody with an actual college education and
experience in the subject comment on it.

-c

By way of trivia, y'all, it turns out it's the SECOND TIME that pilot had
crashed a jet into a house. The first was 17 years ago and he was flying
with his wife. Nobody on the ground died that time, so, you gotta give the
poor fellow credit; he sure knows how to crash a jet into a suburb without
hurting anybody but himself.

-c

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

No offense, but somebody once told me that journalists were those noble
warriors who came out on the field after the battle to bayonet the
wounded.

Tell it to Ernie Pyle. Somebody might have told you there were flying
saucers and little green men, too, but, y'know what? Ignorance isn't that
interesting.

Just so crybaby whiners like Emily know, I started my extracurricular days
of journalism in the United States Marine Corps.

If any of you have a problem with my service, my sense of patriotism, my
experience as a pilot or as a journalist, that's too damned bad.

-c

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Well, if you don't care how aviation is portrayed in the media, then be
my guest - be ok with it. I'm NOT ok with it.

That's what this temper tantrum is about? You feel that the use of the
word "slam" somehow portrays aviation in a poor light?

Pretty much. I got killfiled and called an idiot for it, and then rather
than just agreeing to disagree, he/she/it came back in to trash-talk my
education, too. Meanwhile, he/she/it badmouths Journalism education and
then expects some sort of special kid glove respect by Journalists in
return.

Gee, why would anybody trust a journalist about matters of journalism?
That's rather like trusting an aviator about aviation. But the difference
between me and people who snivel about words like "slammed" is that I -do-
have military, civilian and academic experience in journalism and I
-do- have experience in aviation. So...

If those qualifications are insufficient, I'd like to know what his/her/its
qualifications are to discuss the subject.

-c