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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (16126)	6/30/2002 12:24:18 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

It is pointless for us to further argue the merits of this specific case as neither of us is armed with many of the facts. I have not seen the reg that governed flying in the area. I don't know what the training mission called for. I don't know what actually happened. Terrain avoidance systems on the aircraft and degree of familiarity with the local area might have a significant bearing on the accident. Consider an aircraft under manual control, the pilot unfamiliar with the area, uneven and changing terrain that disguises true attitude and altitude (plus large snow fields that affect depth perception), a distracted crew and the fact that a deviation of 1,500 ft could be nearly instantaneous and we have a scenario that says, "accident waiting to happen". Absent a finding that the pilot intended to fly under a cable used to secure cars filled with people - I think this is a tough case to prove that a guy belongs in jail forever. I will admit that I have more familiarity with air force flying operations and that there are some differences between air force and navy training doctrines. It is also possible that the navy is less responsive to public complaint (anchors away, what). Again, I am not defending this crew. Just saying that absent more facts that there are many factors that might mitigate guilt. Any time aircraft fly low there will be complaints about noise and flying too close to the ground. Most of these are in areas of regular flight activities, i.e., air bases. When US forces were based in the PI there was at least one very active gunnery range and aircraft using it or, in some cases, approaching it, would probably scare the pants off anyone nearby. Facilities of this nature actually attract people who make a living off of scavenging metal. Even in the case of airfields, most of the people who complain about the noise did not live nearby when the thing was built but were attracted by economic opportunity. Complaints from these specific areas would be received, reviewed, recorded and filed in most cases. Other cases are routinely investigated thoroughly - especially overseas when host governments are involved. However, in the case of buzzing ski areas, some of the people being frightened would be rather affluent and quite capable of raising concerns and attracting attention. I have a hard time believing this type of flying activity was routine and certainly not routinely condoned. I can't address the comments of the former A-7 driver you talked with but I see no indication that he was armed with the facts either. Steven, you are always interesting to "talk" with but I can't help noting that you are often quick to criticize the US, especially when the military is involved. A personal opinion, of course.