Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:57:02 -0500, Highflyer wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...

Or you could say "I never miss a landing" or any other level of irreality.
--

Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
level of irreality.

There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
debate.

By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
children playing on the interstates in the big cities.

Highflyer

I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

---------------snipped----------

The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental A-65.

I have flown several Coupes. Have yet to see 110 mph in level flight
on any of them!

Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they aren't! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY


At one time, I marvelled at how much more capable so many older
designs must have been--and then I learned that some of those old
factory specs were just as imaginative as some of the earliest kits.

Actually, many of them were quite accurate. HF is right, the T-cart would
do close on 100 with an A-65 and so would a Luscombe. The Monocoupe 90 was
very quick and the 30s Cessnas delivered as advertised as well.
The aoirplanes that could be classified as "pilots" airplanes tended to do
waht they said in advertising because if they didn;'t they would be found
out pretty quickly. The airplanes that were pitched more at newcomers
probably suffered more from exageration.


Bertie

"Highflyer" wrote in :


"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.

Reasoning here?


I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from
under you and you end up with a house with a big garage.

There can still be problems. We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer
bought one of the lots. Built a nice house without a hangar. Then
got the runway shutdown because of noise!


Holy crap! if there were ever a case for justifiable homicide.



Bertie

In article ,
WJRFlyBoy wrote:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:57:02 -0500, Highflyer wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...

Or you could say "I never miss a landing" or any other level of irreality.
--

Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
level of irreality.

There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
debate.

By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
children playing on the interstates in the big cities.

Highflyer

I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.

At Spruce Creek, we take such behavior VERY seriously! NOBODY but
aircraft and airport maintenance vehicles are allowed on the runway.
Anybody else is subject to fines and banishment from the property.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:34 GMT, Marty Shapiro wrote:

Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to
answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data
on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off
runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc).


Try NTSB.GOV. They have 140,000 or so aircraft incidents & accidents
available online going back to 1962. You'll have to structure the
appropriate search query.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

Thanks, that worked.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:19:33 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:


lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note
was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three
sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross
extrapolation".


First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic
problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding
of aviation and the risk factors involved. You initial post
demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced
that perception.

I wasn't replying directly to you either, Mr. Sensitive. The only ignorance
going on in this thread is the constant state of denial that accidents GASP
do happen with airplanes and GASP can happen on airstrips next to houses.

Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has
anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types
(Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/
houses, people, etc).


Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you.

Dirty work? Something your hiding, Robert?

Then, of course, we have this issue.

FAR 91.119, which states something like "Except for purposes of take off
and landing, no aircraft shall be operated closer than 500 feet to persons,
vehicles, or structures."
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:34 GMT, Marty Shapiro wrote:

Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to
answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data
on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off
runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc).


Try NTSB.GOV. They have 140,000 or so aircraft incidents & accidents
available online going back to 1962. You'll have to structure the
appropriate search query.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

What I got was a very clean record, all in all, there have been deaths, a
few children....of reported actions and I'm doing a bit of guessing. What
is hard to believe not in ASRS either (voluntary so sampling is
speculative) is that there are /not/ any reporting functions for airparks.

If they are clean of record, then you would think the insurance guys would
have a reporting system or demand one. Maybe they do, I can't find it.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:19:08 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
could find you in someone's living room.

I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse idea.
If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my house
110' off the center line either you are planting a really large aircraft
on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.

Margy

I agree, and might add that 110' from the centerline is pretty generous
compared to some of the residential airparks that I have visited. OTOH, all
that open space does give you that panoramic view you bought it for. :-)

Peter

Which makes people crowd their homes to the strip. That I can understand
when first and second tier homes have obstructed views in most (near) beach
residential developments. Not so "on the strip".
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Mar 14, 1:45*pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:19:33 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note
was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three
sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross
extrapolation".

First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic
problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding
of aviation and the risk factors involved. *You initial post
demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced
that perception.

I wasn't replying directly to you either, Mr. Sensitive. The only ignorance
going on in this thread is the constant state of denial that accidents GASP
do happen with airplanes and GASP can happen on airstrips next to houses.


Apparently, you can't even keep up with who you are replying to.
Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into
perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or
what?


Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has
anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types
(Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/
houses, people, etc).

Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you.

Dirty work? Something your hiding, Robert?


Not hiding anything but I might ask the same of you, just what is your
problem?

Then, of course, we have this issue.

FAR 91.119, which states something like "Except for purposes of take off
and landing, no aircraft shall be operated closer than 500 feet to persons,
vehicles, or structures."

DUH! Guess what, "Except for purposes of take off and landing" which
is the expressed purpose of a landing strip, just what are you fishing
for?

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into
perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or
what?

Excellent counterpoint, you really hit all the high spots.
Is this sort of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or
merely witty banter?

Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?

Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.

Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty.

Feel free to have the last word on me and expect no more gifts, I'm not
****ing Santa Claus.

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.