Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

BT writes:

NTSB statistics prove that of the 37 accidents at this airport since the
county took over in 1982, only 3 were experimental aircraft.

What percentage of all aircraft movements were experimental aircraft during
the same period?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:42:43 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" wrote in
message ...
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676

'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the members
of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said at
a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'

Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's naive
for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".

It's his ass, he's loolking to dump the problem out of range.

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob F. writes:

First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
classification. The characteristics may be well known and just doesn't fit
into any other class.

My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to get
around certain troublesome regulations.

And your "impression" is wrong.

It does not mean the airplane is "experimental" in the sense of being
unknown, new, or unproven, nor does it mean that it is home built.

All experimental means is that the manufacturer, whoever that may be,
didn't go through the process to certify the aircraft in one of the
other catagories with the FAA.

The Anatov AN-2 has been made for about 50 years by several former
Soviet block countries, has been used the world over for everything from
transport, military, and airline use, and is probably the most produced
aircraft in history.

Since the Soviet countries had no interest in certifying their aircraft
with the FAA and there were no reciprocal agreements as there are with
some other countries, guess what it is registered as if you buy one and
register it in the US?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Jeff wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:42:43 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" wrote in
message ...
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676

'Clark County Aviation Director Randy Walker said he thinks experimental
airplanes should be restricted to airports that are located in less densely
populated areas. "I think the regulatory process on airport systems need to
be revisited in the coming weeks. I am going to ask to meet with the
members
of our congressional delegation to see if something can be done," he said
at
a news conference. "I do not believe under our circumstances that
experimental and high-risk aircraft operations, such as training and solo
flights, belong in an urban airport," he said.'

Seems pretty short-sighted for an Aviation Director. I also think it's
naive
for him to think that anything will be done "in the coming weeks".

It's his ass, he's loolking to dump the problem out of range.

Then, let his ass be fired -- or placed in charge of clearing the
streets of stray animals! Just get him the hell away from aviation!

Why not stsrt a petition in lark County to get him reassigned?

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

wrote:

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:

My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order to get
around certain troublesome regulations.

And your "impression" is wrong.

Exactly so.

All experimental means is that the manufacturer, whoever that may be,
didn't go through the process to certify the aircraft in one of the
other catagories with the FAA.

Yep. Newly developed aircraft that haven't yet been put into
production, (hint: 777 Freighter, 787, other new types and derivatives)
but are about to enter flight test, all fly as experimental aircraft
during flight test. And only the wildly delusional and stupid believe
that a company like, say, Boeing, is trying to "get around certain
troublesome regulations." This is true for other aircraft manufacturers
as well, particularly in the USA.

The Anatov AN-2 [...] guess what it is registered as if you buy one and
register it in the US?

Anthony has no need to prove knowledge of this. It's a testosterone
thing, y'know. No need to back up anything with facts and cites when
you have Proof By Blatant Assertion.

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:s9Stk.1198$Ro1.612@trnddc04...
"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
news

"Mike" wrote in message
news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
even
though such activity puts other people at risk.

"drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
or....?
Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
nothing
can distract the driver.

(yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
me).

Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking
on the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident
by 4-5 times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really
give a rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if
the inconvienience is slight.

Got any data to support that?

Yes.

Your google broke?

Do your own homework piggy. Put up, shut, or you my bitch.

No problem.

www.google.com

Chinese Proverb: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish
and you feed him for a lifetime.

"John" wrote in message news:0rVtk.9$Af3.5@trnddc06...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:s9Stk.1198$Ro1.612@trnddc04...
"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in message
news

"Mike" wrote in message
news:tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01...
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article Y4Htk.1161$Ro1.744@trnddc04, "Mike"
wrote:

Nobody wants to give up their "right" to
drive with a cell phone, ignore speed limits, run stop lights, etc.
even
though such activity puts other people at risk.

"drive with a cell phone" .... ohmygawd. Hey, what about drive with
one of those GPS thingies, or changing CDs or scanning thru XM radio
or....?
Maybe we should require a sterile car so that nothing, absolutely
nothing
can distract the driver.

(yep - this crusade about talking on a cellphone is a hot button for
me).

Crusade all you want. Argue from silly extremes all you want. Talking
on the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident
by 4-5 times. But you prove my point beautifully. People don't really
give a rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if
the inconvienience is slight.

Got any data to support that?

Yes.

Your google broke?

Your bluffs been called, show your cards or fold your hand.

I don't play that game. I feel no obligation to be your personal research
service on a subject that has been widely reported. But if you explain how
you're too inept to use google, I'll be glad to talk about it. Cell phones
+ driving + risks yields 264,000 results including numerous studies
published in peer reviewed publications on the subject.


PS. We have laws about proper vehicle operation already, we don't need
new laws that call out specific activiries. Enforce what we have already

That's your opinion, unsupported by facts. As I said, you've already proven
my point beautifully. All you want to do now is go off topic.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bob F. writes:

First an "experimental" aircraft in aviation talk is just another
classification. The characteristics may be well known and just
doesn't fit into any other class.

My impression is that many aircraft are called experimental in order
to get around certain troublesome regulations.


That's because you're clueless.

Bertie

there are no readily available statistics to answer that question.
we are working up the statistics on percentage of experimental aircraft vs
other aircraft based at the airport, and also the percentage of training, vs
local vs transient.

Many accidents in the past have involved transient pilots not familiar with
high density altitude operations or desert wind conditions.
BT

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
BT writes:

NTSB statistics prove that of the 37 accidents at this airport since the
county took over in 1982, only 3 were experimental aircraft.

What percentage of all aircraft movements were experimental aircraft
during
the same period?

No..
A much respected and experienced pilot from the Palo Alto CA area



"T. "Tim" Timothy Haag aka HyoogeUmp56" wrote in
g...



http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1199-full.html#198676-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about the pilot? Did he survive?