Experimentals To Be Banned To Rural Airports?

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

Anthony, the only movements important to your pathetic life are bowel
movements.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:Im_tk.38$sq3.25@trnddc07...

Still waiting for a link there, Mikey Mouth.

Keep hat dancing.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:Nx_tk.42$sq3.39@trnddc07...

Liar, ya just did Mikey Mouth.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...


You sure crossposting boi?


Bertie




You're the one dragging in the kook groups as usual.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...

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.

Liar.


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

Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.


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

Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.


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 should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like this
one.



Nor do I care really.

Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you life,
isn't it?


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.

For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support, you
sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.

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


"Mike" wrote in message
news:Im_tk.38$sq3.25@trnddc07...

Still waiting for a link there, Mikey Mouth.

Keep hat dancing.




Yeh, right..


Bertie

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


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...


You sure crossposting boi?


Bertie




You're the one dragging in the kook groups as usual.






Nope. It's you..


Bertie

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


"Mike" wrote in message
news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...

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.

Liar.


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

Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.


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

Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.


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 should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like
this one.



Nor do I care really.

Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you
life, isn't it?


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.

For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support,
you sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.=


What's your point, wannabe boi?


Bertie

Tech Support wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:11:06 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

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".



Other dangerous flight this yahoo wants banned from urban areas,
"training and solo flights."


Do you think he would agree to banning beginners from public streets?

Big John


If you consider accident statistics among 16 and 17 year olds, banning them
from the city limits would be MUCH more justifiable than banning training,
solo and experimental flights from the areas proposed.