Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

Don Lewis wrote:
> Hey guy, where are you living now???
>
>

Dallas for the last couple of years.

If you are looking for perfect safety, you will do well to sit on a
fence and watch the birds; but if you really wish to learn, you must
mount a machine and become acquainted with its tricks by actual trial.

— Wilbur Wright, from an address to the Western Society of Engineers in
Chicago, 18 September 1901.




In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are
usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks.

— Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900.




I learned that danger is relative, and the inexperience can be a
magnifying glass.

— Charles A. Lindbergh




Or? Is it this one that grabs you?

Beware, dear son of my heart, lest in thy new-found power thou seekest
even the gates of Olympus . . . . These wings may bring thy freedom but
may also come thy death.

— Daedalus to Icarus, after teaching his son to use his new wings of wax
and feathers.

In article <1s3b62pjb9hcy.4fhaipx997xx.dlg@40tude.net>,
WJRFlyBoy <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote:

> Any incidents?

Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going to
have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house "screwing
the pooch."

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

Logic would dictate that pilots who live right next to their airplanes
probably fly more than those who have to drive an hour or so to an airport.

And I would think that those who fly more are probably more proficient that
their less-fortunate brothers/sisters.

Which would make me think that living in an air park would probably be
somewhat safer than living next to a typical GA airport...



"Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
news:o_r_fairbairn-E000C6.09363311032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
> In article <1s3b62pjb9hcy.4fhaipx997xx.dlg@40tude.net>,
> WJRFlyBoy <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote:
>
>> Any incidents?
>
> Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going to
> have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house "screwing
> the pooch."
>
> --
> Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws.

Jim



>>: When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"RST Engineering" <jim@rstengineering.com> wrote in news:13td9o855hqofd5
@news.supernews.com:

>
>
> When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws.

Bwawhahwhahwha!

Bertie

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.

In article <1d0iugupxatj4.2zqjtz0v0ds.dlg@40tude.net>,
WJRFlyBoy <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
> > on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
> > live:
> >
> > 1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
> > loaf of bread or a can of paint.
> >
> > 2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
> > start campaigning against the airpark.
> > 3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
> > 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>
> Reasoning here?

The reason is that if the residents don't OWN the runway, they are
potentially at the maercy of the landowners. Even though the residents
may have contractually permanent access, they may have legal hassles if
the landowners attempt to renege on their contracts.

I knew people in CA who had this problem at Sierra Skypark. They
eventually prevailed, but it cost them a lot of hassle and legal fees
when the owner of the runway attempted to close it for development.

> > 5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
> > mind).
> > 6. Those with poor approaches.
> > 7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).
> > 8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
> > bit far away.)
>
> What do you think about Captiva?

I really have not investigated it, but it does not appear to be a place
where I would wish to live.

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

"cavelamb himself" <cavelamb@X> wrote

> Or 14 years old?

Yep, that should have been a choice, too. Then, add one or more of the
other choices, too.
--
Jim in NC

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrgiacona@REMOVE> wrote in message
news:13tgk6hn06roob8@news.supernews.com...
> 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!

It takes all kinds. Some of them are lawyers.

Highflyer