Meigs now enjoyed by all!

wrote in message
oups.com...

This is an airport group, besides I consider the value of road taxes to
be reasonable, and not restricted to benefit less than ONE PERCENT of
the population, ditto for schools.


Airports benefit everyone.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Here's some homework, search the Chicago Tribune Archives back to at
least 1989
for a plane (AMR) landing short due to instrument issues, witnessed by
a UAL waiting
for takeoff at ORD.

And a prop crashing into Lemont Rd. (LL22), come back then.

And still waiting for detailed benefits of GA airports supported by
property tax dollars,
for non-pilots.


As the student, it is not your position to assign homework.

wrote in message
oups.com...

So the score is LL22-Two, ORD-One.


Are you saying there has been only one aircraft accident at ORD since
1/1/90?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

So the score is LL22-Two, ORD-One.


Are you saying there has been only one aircraft accident at ORD since
1/1/90?

Involving airborne aircraft with severe damage and passenger injuries,
yes, and still waiting for detailed benefits from GA, so far NONE.

JG

We upgraded to underground lines, cha-cha. Be Gone FLYBOY MOOCHERS, off
my
property tax bill.

JG

Exactly.

Our community looked at the statistics and decided that we or our children
could be injured by vehicles. There were a couple of deaths over the 20
years that we have been here, and quite a few close calls. And every day
there is a kid being hit somewhere in the city.

Well, your neighbors were bad parents, and the cars didn't drop from
the
sky, and the drivers didn't screw up determining head winds and plane
balance.

"...Just after take off I flew over [a resident's] house to the South
East and he observed the windsock, which is 100 yards from his kitchen,
to be out of the Northeast. This was a 180 degree wind shift from what
I had observed prior to takeoff."

(sure, this happens all the time Orville, winds just rotate like a
blooming
tornado--JG)

According to a police report, "...[The witness] stated that he was in
his back yard working in his garden when he heard a 'very very low
plane'. [The witness] said that he heard the plane's engine and it
appeared to be working normally. [The witness] viewed the plane
overhead banking hard to the left. The plane then hit a large pine tree
in his front yard, it continued into the power lines. [The witness]
heard a large boom when he plane crashed into the ground across the
street..."

During a postaccident interview with the National Transportation Safety
Board and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the pilot stated
that the maximum altitude he attained during climbout was approximately
80 feet agl and his use of 10 degrees of flaps was described as
something that he began on his own. He did not weigh the baggage that
was on the airplane and he did not perform performance calculations for
the accident flight. He added that he used 35 inches of manifold
pressure so as not to overboost the engine.

Pilot logbook entries indicate the pilot's last biennial flight review
was on April 11, 1999. FAR 61.56(c) states, "Except as provided in
paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as
pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th
calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in
command, that person has - (1) Accomplished a flight review given in an
aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor; and
(2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized flight instructor who gave
the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the
review.

The pilot received his last instrument proficiency check (IPC) was on
May 8, 2000. FAR 61.57(c) states, "Instrument experience. Except as
provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot
in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6 calendar months, that
person has: (1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in
an aircraft (other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or
simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate
category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a
flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of
the aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought - (i) At
least six instrument approaches; (ii) Holding procedures; and (iii)
Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems." There were no logbook entries regarding instrument
approaches, holding procedures or intercepting and tracking courses
through the use of navigation systems.

When the airplane was returned to Brookeridge Air Park it was placed in
the pilot's hangar where it remained until the day of the accident. The
pilot stated that he pre-flighted the airplane in the morning of the
accident and found nothing unusual during the inspection. He said that
he drained the sumps and found no water or foreign matter in the fuel.
He did note that there was 100 LL in the main tanks.

He and a passenger conducted one local flight, which he described to be
less than one hour. At the end of this flight he landed and taxied to
the fuel pump where he serviced the two main tanks to the top with 80
octane aviation fuel. He stated that he did not drain the sumps after
the tanks were filled.

Again with one passenger, he prepared for another local flight. He said
he taxied N8480A to the east end of runway 27, did a normal run-up and
went through the checklist. He said that the fuel valve was selected to
the left tank. He said that the reason he knew this was from a visual
inspection and the fact that it was customary to start on the left tank
since all fuel bypassed by the carburetor was returned to the left
tank. He said that at no time during the day did he select the
auxiliary tank. He said that he was of the opinion that it was empty
and had no intention to use it.

He said that takeoff was normal, the airplane accelerated normally, and
a positive rate of climb was noted. At that time he selected the
landing gear to be retracted and started the flaps up. He said that at
about 75 to 100 feet above the ground the engine sustained a total
power loss. He said that he lowered the nose and changed the fuel to
the right tank and started pumping the manual fuel pump (wobble pump).
When this did not restore engine power, he took his left hand off the
wobble pump and held the yoke, while he moved the magneto switch with
his right hand. He then said that he realized that continued flight was
not possible and directed his attention to getting the airplane back on
the ground since there were trees ahead. He said he left the throttle
full open. He indicated that he had to force the airplane to the
ground, but due to the excess speed was able to use rudder control to
steer the airplane between two trees and avoid a residence.

He said that after the airplane came to rest there was a large fire
surrounding the airplane. He and his passenger exited the airplane
quickly, but both suffered serious thermal injuries.

The pilot stated that he did not know what caused the loss of power.

Trees were damaged during the impact and post accident fire.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

The pilot, born July 16, 1955, was the holder of a commercial
certificate and a flight instructor's certificate. He had ratings for
single and multi-engine land airplanes and an instrument rating for
airplanes. He was the holder of a second class medical issued October
27, 1994. His most recent biennial flight review was in the accident
airplane on November 11, 1994. His total flight experience was 1,087
hours with 47 hours in this make and model of airplane.

Chuck Yeager Junior was an INSTRUCTOR, and fubared the fuel system,
Yi Carumba!

JG

wrote in message
ups.com...


Exactly.

Our community looked at the statistics and decided that we or our
children
could be injured by vehicles. There were a couple of deaths over the 20
years that we have been here, and quite a few close calls. And every day
there is a kid being hit somewhere in the city.

Well, your neighbors were bad parents, and the cars didn't drop from
the
sky, and the drivers didn't screw up determining head winds and plane
balance.



Oh, some of the trouble was the outsiders, not neighbours. They would speed
through the area. Once, a drunk would hit a lamp-post or tree. They would
blare their stereos too loud. Make those loud popping noises with souped-up
exhausts, or whatever.

We just had to close down cars.

wrote in message
ups.com...

We upgraded to underground lines, cha-cha. Be Gone FLYBOY MOOCHERS, off
my property tax bill.


Your property taxes aren't supporting the airport.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

We upgraded to underground lines, cha-cha. Be Gone FLYBOY MOOCHERS, off
my property tax bill.


Your property taxes aren't supporting the airport.

Years ago, in California, the California Pilots Assn. got the Division
of Aeronautics to conduct surveys to determine the economic value of the
state's GA airports.

The numbers were astounding! If we took the total and divided it by the
number of based airplanes, it came out to around $110K/based airplane --
and that was 25 years ago!

The politicians didn't like that, so they suppressed this program.

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