Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

On Mar 18, 3:01 pm, "Neil Gould" <n...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> Recently, WJRFlyBoy <994wjrfly...@geemail.com726> posted:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
>
> >> A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by
> >> 20 meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will
> >> also learn that there will be times when you will be unable to take
> >> off or land at a chosen airport, and how to judge those times
> >> reasonably well.
>
> > Here's an article extolling a few of the problems of airparks. Note
> > the one re: extraneous activities on the runways.
>
> Apparently, your "experience" doesn't involve flying into airports located
> in rural areas. There are all kinds of "extraneous activities on the
> runways", mostly non-human. A pilot knows how to deal with these
> situations appropriately, minimizing the risks.
>
> Neil

Neil,

His experience doesn't involve flying into anywhere. He nothing more
than a wannabe pilot and based on some of his posts in other threads,
I am not sure he even is a wannabe. I reposted a couple of his posts
from other threads and it proves that he is not a pilot and from what
I can gather as of Feb.28, he hasn't even started with any flight
training.

He is not a pilot and probably never will be.

On Mar 18, 2:20 pm, WJRFlyBoy <994wjrfly...@geemail.com726> wrote:

>
> Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
> this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
> liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.

How in the world do you get off the ground without flying over one or
more of these liabilities?

I smell a red herring...


Dan Mc

WJRFlyBoy <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote in
news:o9s3arwx94sg$.1otw5nux9xs4r.dlg@40tude.net:


>
> Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
> this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
> liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.

Huh?


Bertie

Recently, WJRFlyBoy <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> posted:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by
>> 20 meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will
>> also learn that there will be times when you will be unable to take
>> off or land at a chosen airport, and how to judge those times
>> reasonably well.
>
> Here's an article extolling a few of the problems of airparks. Note
> the one re: extraneous activities on the runways.
>
Apparently, your "experience" doesn't involve flying into airports located
in rural areas. There are all kinds of "extraneous activities on the
runways", mostly non-human. A pilot knows how to deal with these
situations appropriately, minimizing the risks.

Neil

On Mar 18, 12:53 pm, WJRFlyBoy <994wjrfly...@geemail.com726> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
> > I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of
> > instructional
> > and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the
> > FAA,
> > what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would
> > require? I
> > am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI
>
> Note sig below.
>
> 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.

Hell, based on what I have seen, you are not a student...slow or
otherwise. You did get one point right though, you are not qualified
to give advice!

On Mar 18, 6:48 pm, WJRFlyBoy <994wjrfly...@geemail.com726> wrote:


> > I smell a red herring...
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> Get your nose out of the fish section then.


You made a funny!

You're so clever.

And yet so useless....


Dan Mc

Many years ago I had a '170 based at the Waunakee Wisconsin airpark. I was
coming in to land and a little
fellow cuts towards the runway on his bike. As I overfly he drops it right
on the centerline and bolts.
Now there was enough runway left in the denominator and with careful
attention to any more animal crossings I land and scoop up the offending
bicycle.

Pretty soon his lawyer shows up with some sort of explaination I cannot
remember in an effort to get the bike back -- and I get a good chance to
give the Airport Safety Lecture. I suggest that if he would like to sit in
the plane and put the headphones on that is fine. Now the rest of The
Little Rascals are hiding behind rocks and bushes nearby watching to see
what happens. I suggest that if someone can produce a responsible parent
there might be enough daylight for a ride or two. Eventually some parents
are located and it is another chance to reinforce the airport safety lecture
(and make sure bail was posted and a sentencing hearing was scheduled).

One mom had been in the Navy which made her most qualified to interview hobo
pilot and she asked various questions about my freshmen flying background
(she even looked at my logbook). One or two of the kids got Young Eagles
certificates. One of the others certainly learned his lesson as I can be
sure Navy-Mom narced on him.

I did give him his bike back.
Todd





"WJRFlyBoy" <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote in message
news:1bio5hthpitjo$.1tzhqdp3nwbdu.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>
> 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.
> --

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>> Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
>> those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
>> lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
>> there in the case of an accident.
>
> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>
> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>

So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?

If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

In article <9ipqf79qgsi0.z28upxrii1ll.dlg@40tude.net>,
WJRFlyBoy <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> > WJRFlyBoy wrote:

> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>
> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>
> --

Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
values.

Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
county (near Daytona Beach).

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

On Mar 21, 2:09 pm, Gig 601XL Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVE>

> > 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> > 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
> > of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>
> So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?
>
> If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
> my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

Soon you will see that things are not as they appear, for you are
expecting a conversation, when in fact you debate with MXJunior...


Dan Mc