Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article tNRtk.1134$w51.346@trnddc01, "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.

it isn't my crusade, the crusade against cellphones is being waged by
people
who don't understand how to analysis risk.

Talking on
the phone while driving increases risk of having a serious accident by
4-5
times.

hmmm, if your claim of a 4-5x time greater risk were true, why hasn't
the accident rate increased dramatically during the time period when
cellphone usage has exploded? In fact, the accident rate has remained
flat or decreased slightly (if we believe the NTHSA)

You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number. They do track
injuries and fatalities which have been on a downward trend for the last 30
years or more for a variety of reasons like safer cars, safer roads,
increased seat belt useage, airbags, reduced drunk driving, and a number of
other things. The overall trend proves nothing in relationship to cell
phones unless you can calculate what the rate WOULD be without cell phones,
which has been done. The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...l_pho nes.pdf




But you prove my point beautifully.

You don't understand proofs.

Pot/Kettle.


People don't really give a
rat's arse about being safer if it inconvieniences them, even if the
inconvienience is slight.

Then why do people wear motorcycle helmets? and leather jackets or
equivalent protective clothing when riding? Talk about inconvenience.

By "people" I obviously mean people in general. The numbers for seat belt
useage didn't rise dramatically until states started requiring them despite
the overwealming evidence that they save lives. Drunk driving didn't
decrease until punishment and enforcement were increased. There's other
examples as well.

Now, if you wanted to make the point that people don't care about
the inconvenience of OTHERS as long as it appears that they
are trying to help them even when there is no actual evidence
to support the help being effective....

My point was people don't care whether there is evidence or not. Clearly
there's evidence to show cell phones (which was just one example, but there
are others) increase risk, but there will always be those who will ignore
such evidence because possible solutions may create an inconvienience to
themselves.

As I said, you proved my point. You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what you've
already made up your mind about.

"John Smith" wrote

Bertie, have you ever driven in San Juan PR during evening rush hour?

I had an interesting taxi ride in Prague, about 6 months after they went
free, that was plenty exciting.

I have not been to PR or Rome, yet.
--
Jim in NC

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote in message
...
Ban homebuilts and Cessna 150's??? What is he thinking? Isn't he concerned
about aviation safety? This makes no sense at all. Did Mr. Walker learn
NOTHING from 9/11? How could he be so unaware? Isn't the danger presented by
large transport aircraft painfully clear? Does he have any concern for public
safety at all?

Yes, small aircraft are sometimes involved in accidents - but what is the
outcome? Beyond the occupants, it exceedingly rare to involve any innocent
bystanders at all. But what happens when one of the flying WMDs comes down in
a populated area? THOUSANDS DEAD!!!
Can you imagine what would happen if a fully loaded 767 were to experience
problems and crash in to a crowded casino - spewing 5,000 gallons of jet fuel
onto thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people? People that he is supposed to
be protecting!

How can he, or any of us, live with ourselves knowing that this kind of
tragedy isn't just possible, but given time, inevitable?

How can he continue to turn a blind eye to this tremendous threat to human
life?

How can we not DEMAND that these large aircraft be banned from flying over or
landing in the vicinity of a populated area? Clearly, at a MINIMUM, any
aircraft with a gross weight over 30,000 pound should absolutely forbidden to
approach within 50 miles of a populated area. And, I suspect, that if Mr.
Walker were to consider this carefully, he would agree that the only way that
we can be safe is if large aircraft are banned from the sky completely.

We went to war with Iraq over WMDs, why do we ignore the ones flying over our
heads every day?

Good, very good. You have me convinced.

In article vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03, "Mike" wrote:


You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you, 12?

I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.

Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.

Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
cellphone usage?)

The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...nalysis_study_
on_cell_phones.pdf

It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?

"But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited, the
range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between 800 and
8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."

"³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate that,
in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a wash
when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of eliminating
those calls,² Cohen said."

Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an analysis
of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't have
been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't being
used?

You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what you've
already made up your mind about.

You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Mxsmanic wrote:
By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It makes
sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
designs at LAX.

I dont know where you get your definitions, but you just proved how much
you DONT know...

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob F. writes:


How many hours had they flown elsewhere before they visited those large
airports?

Doesn't matter. Its "experimental". I could have a million hours on an
airframe and it still be "experimental".

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03, "Mike"
wrote:


You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post
this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you,
12?

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of conclusions
for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical thought.


I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.

Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.

Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
cellphone usage?)

By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...nalysis_study_
on_cell_phones.pdf

It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?

"But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited,
the
range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between
800 and
8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."

"³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate
that,
in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a
wash
when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of
eliminating
those calls,² Cohen said."

Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in economic
terms".


Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an
analysis
of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't
have
been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't
being
used?

Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer letting
people like you do their own research. When proof is provided, you want to
poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios that are
irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows that when
faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you will just
resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change your mind.
So why should I waste my time providing proof of something you're never
going to accept anyway?


You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what
you've
already made up your mind about.

You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Nor do I care really.


Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have I
advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a clue
about my motivations or what I support or don't.

BT writes:

there are no readily available statistics to answer that question.

Unfortunately, unless one knows the total number of movements of both
experimental and other aircraft, as well as the absolute numbers of accidents
for both, the latter alone isn't of much use.

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.

Movements would be much more cogent than the number of aircraft based at the
airport.

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

Which airport is this?

BobR wrote:
On Aug 28, 6:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
By definition, experimental aircraft have unknown characteristics. It makes
sense that you'd want to test them out away from heavily populated areas.
Boeing and other civilian and military manufacturers don't test out their new
designs at LAX.

You are right about the initial tests which is why I will be using an
airport with nice large fields at both ends and no population centers
within a couple of miles. That was a choice that I could make but is
not available to every homebuilder. Most of our airports have been
surrounded by housing developments which greatly restrict operations
including those for non-experimental aircraft.

I'm using a field that is out in the middle of a bunch of soybean and
cotton fields, at least for the initial flights. It is well worth the
extra drive.

Stuff is likely to hit the fan, and I want to have more options than a
subdivision.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

BT writes:

there are no readily available statistics to answer that question.

Unfortunately, unless one knows the total number of movements of both
experimental and other aircraft, as well as the absolute numbers of
accidents for both, the latter alone isn't of much use.

You are an idiot.


Bertie