Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:02:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

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.

A solid set of covenants backed with enforceability (fines and liens) and
good planning, yep you are in good shape.
--
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.

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:02:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:


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.


A solid set of covenants backed with enforceability (fines and liens) and
good planning, yep you are in good shape.


Ok, I get it.

In real life you are a lawyer, right?

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

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.


That's right, your not Santa Claus, you're a ****ing asshole!

In article , 726 wrote:
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.


I have been reading this group for ten years.

I am always pleased to see another post by BobR.
I consider his comments to be intelligent and well written.

In your case: ** plonk **

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
m...

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:47:22 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:



Why do you feel it is off the safety charts? I don't see any issue
with safety beyond any neighborhood anywhere else. You are not
missing anything but may be immagining thing that don't exist.


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



On second thought it's closer to 85' from the centerline. The runway is
100' wide and the minimum setback is 35'. Just about everyone else
puts their hangar up on the runway and sets the house back, but we are a
corner lot so we can taxi down the taxiway and put the hangar down there
and put the house up on the runway. Actually our hangar is attached to
the house. It's going to be great when it's finished (repeat often).

Margy

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:29:02 -0400, Margy Natalie 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


www.TinyURL.com/39avgz

The above was the e.g., note that many homes are 60' OCl

Great way to get Gulf view in a home that is several hundred feet off the
beach though.
I saw that, it just made me jealous (until I thought about hurricane
season).

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.

All of the kids at our airpark (even the little ones) have GREAT respect
for the runway. All of the pilots also know that if any houses are
under construction (almost always) the runway becomes a soccer field
from noon to 1. The players are also very good about keeping away of
planes in the pattern I'm told.

A low pass will clear deer and soccer players.

Margy

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"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
They should have written their HOA materials better. We had to sign
something at closing that stated we knew we were in and aviation
community, there were landing aircraft and we couldn't do anything about
it (not quite the wording, but the jist is the same).

Margy

Margy Natalie wrote:


On second thought it's closer to 85' from the centerline. The runway is
100' wide and the minimum setback is 35'. Just about everyone else
puts their hangar up on the runway and sets the house back, but we are a
corner lot so we can taxi down the taxiway and put the hangar down there
and put the house up on the runway. Actually our hangar is attached to
the house. It's going to be great when it's finished (repeat often).

Margy



It will be great when it's finished.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"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

Thanks for that. Some of those old Cessna numbers really looked a little
too good--so I am expecially glad they were true.

I had previously confirmed that the T-carts were impressive performers, but
have never known anything about the Monocoupes.

Peter