Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rat dog micro-cap picks... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Silver_Bullet who wrote (7676)	4/8/2002 10:22:08 AM
From: Bucky Katt	Respond to of 48461

More half-wits in the news> Boy Blames Air Security Orders Sat Apr 6, 2:43 PM ET ASPEN, Colo. - A 14-year-old boy believes he got sick because airport security personnel made him take a drink from a bottle of untreated stream water he wanted to carry on an airplane so he could take it to school. Elliot Gosko told the Aspen Daily News that he suspects he was infected by Giardia, a microorganism sometimes found in untreated water, but that tests aren't complete. He said he became nauseous and missed two days of school last week after returning home to Pennsylvania from a visit to Aspen. The newspaper didn't give his hometown. Security measures added since Sept. 11 require that passengers drink from liquids they are taking on an aircraft to prove the liquids are not dangerous, said Mike Fergus, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites). However, Paul Turk, spokesman for the federal Transportation Security Administration, said airport security screeners can simply inquire about the contents of drink containers. He said there is no requirement that travelers drink from unsealed containers as proof of safety. Fergus said Elliot never told security personnel at Aspen's Sardy Field what was in his bottle. "If we had been told it was creek water there is no way we would have asked him to take a swig of it, unless we had reason to believe it was something else," Fergus said. Elliot's father, George Gosko Jr., said he thinks the security agents went too far, but Fergus said they were just doing their jobs. "I know the screeners were not told it was creek water and I'm sorry, obviously," Fergus said. ________________________________________________________ Actually, we are in the market for a used Cessna 208 (Caravan) The reliability of the turbo-prop is the main reason, and the mega-carry capacity.. The 208 is also much cheaper used than the Pilatus. As for the Citation, things happen real fast in a jet, I don't know if I could enjoy myself, but yes, the INVN bucks are pretty nice!!! bobcroweaircraft.com The Australian CAA study concluded that the single turbine was at least as safe as the piston twin in regard to engine-failure related accidents, and also stated that "forced landings at night are not necessarily as hazardous as might be expected and are mostly survivable: the fatal accident rate at night, while higher than by day, is only about 8 percent." The Australian CAA concluded that the probability of a fatal accident due to engine failure on a single-engined turbine aircraft was 0.07 per 100,000 hours, compared to "the best performing piston twins" rate of 0.15 per 100,000 hours. That says you’re at least twice as safe in a turbine single as in a piston twin. UK CAA analysis of fatal accidents to aircraft of less than 5,700kg (12,500lb) on both private and commercial operations from 1985 to 1994 showed only 6 out of 166 (3.6 percent) were due to engine stoppage. The UK data included 4 fatals to light twins due to loss of control following engine failure or asymmetric power, compared to 9 fatals in single-engined aircraft, based on a sample of 8 million flight hours. Taking into account the probable number of hours of single and twin-engined aircraft in the sample, this indicates a far higher frequency of powerplant-related fatal accidents on twins than singles; (there are 7,500 singles on the UK register compared to 350 light twins). Analysis by Robert E. Breiling associates for Pilatus Aircraft concluded that piston-engined general aviation aircraft were involved in 2.86 times more accidents than turboprop aircraft per 100,000 flight hours, when considering all causes. The Swedish CAA study of the mid-1980s concluded that the fatal accident rate for single-turboprops, due to engine failure, was estimated at 0.13 per 100,000 flight hours. The study concluded that operations with SE turboprops are comparable with other commercial operations. Cessna C208 Caravan fatals in the USA, 1985-1996 (2.6 million flight hours), were 0.56 per 100,000 hours; fatal accidents due to mechanical failures of the engine were zero. Of the five non-fatal accidents involving engine failure or shutdown, three occurred in 1990 and 1991 due to oil loss, because the oil cap was left off or improperly installed; a modification has been introduced to prevent such an occurrence. The remaining two were actual engine mechanical failures (scavenge pump and gas producer turbine failures).