Backcountry Pilot • Experimental and high risk banned after crash?

Experimental and high risk banned after crash?

Discuss the legality of flying the backcountry, FARs, advocacy, and aviation relevant legislation. Registered users only.
23 postsPage 2 of 21, 2

The letter from the writer at the bottom of the article really hits home
m7flyer offline
User avatar
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 11:27 am
Location: WHP, OG41
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... t7FIHuMd0G

m7flyer wrote:The letter from the writer at the bottom of the article really hits home


It seems to makes the most sense of all.

Las Vegas Sun commenter wrote:
A writer on another web site mentioned that he remembers two plane crashes during the 70’s into the area of the previous recent crash that killed three people off the departure end of runway 12 of North Las Vegas Airport. During those years, that area was wide open without any development. When the area was developed into tightly packed residential housing, the writer declined to buy a home in that area because of those two earlier remembered crashes. If that writer can deduce that such an area may be a hazard to live in, why didn’t the City Planners or the land developer come to the same conclusion? Now years later, the North Las Vegas Airport is surrounded by housing. I would recommend that readers view the satellite photo of North Las Vegas Airport on Google Earth.com. It’s free. After viewing that photo, you have to ask yourself, “ Who in their right minds would allow residential housing to be built around the airport like THAT?!” An interview of those earlier City Planners may prove to be very revealing?

Perhaps North Las Vegas Airport has outlived it’s use, no thanks to the earlier City Planners. Perhaps the land should be sold to land developers. Now I'm thinking, is that why Airport Director Randy Walker is so negative about airplanes operating out of North Las Vegas Airport? I wonder? Any talk about selling off the airport property is sure to get those land developers rubbing their hands in glee and salivating over that thought. The money from the land sale can be used to partially reimburse the purchase of land for another reliever airport, perhaps north of the area of Kyle Canyon Road, and west of Hwy 95.

The Las Vegas area badly requires a reliever airport, and such an airport should be built prior to closing North Las Vegas Airport, if that‘s what is in the works. Henderson Airport will eventually go the way of the North Las Vegas Airport. Homes are already intruding into the safe area from the northeast side of that airport. Where ever a new airport is built, I hope to God that the City Planners leave the approach and departure ends of the main runway clear of residential housing! However, if such open areas, such as parks, were not planned for as safety areas, and more residential housing was allowed to surround a new airport, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. It’s been a continuing situation nationwide for decades with our Nation’s smaller airports! Where is the logic in it all? As with most threatened airports, the airport was there before the housings were ever though of.
Zzz offline
Janitorial Staff
User avatar
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: northern
Aircraft: Swiveling desk chair
Half a century spent proving “it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

1SeventyZ wrote:
m7flyer wrote:
Las Vegas Sun commenter wrote:
A writer on another web site mentioned that he remembers two plane crashes during the 70’s into the area of the previous recent crash that killed three people off the departure end of runway 12 of North Las Vegas Airport. During those years, that area was wide open without any development. When the area was developed into tightly packed residential housing, the writer declined to buy a home in that area because of those two earlier remembered crashes. If that writer can deduce that such an area may be a hazard to live in, why didn’t the City Planners or the land developer come to the same conclusion? Now years later, the North Las Vegas Airport is surrounded by housing. I would recommend that readers view the satellite photo of North Las Vegas Airport on Google Earth.com. It’s free. After viewing that photo, you have to ask yourself, “ Who in their right minds would allow residential housing to be built around the airport like THAT?!” An interview of those earlier City Planners may prove to be very revealing?

Perhaps North Las Vegas Airport has outlived it’s use, no thanks to the earlier City Planners. Perhaps the land should be sold to land developers. Now I'm thinking, is that why Airport Director Randy Walker is so negative about airplanes operating out of North Las Vegas Airport? I wonder? Any talk about selling off the airport property is sure to get those land developers rubbing their hands in glee and salivating over that thought. The money from the land sale can be used to partially reimburse the purchase of land for another reliever airport, perhaps north of the area of Kyle Canyon Road, and west of Hwy 95.

The Las Vegas area badly requires a reliever airport, and such an airport should be built prior to closing North Las Vegas Airport, if that‘s what is in the works. Henderson Airport will eventually go the way of the North Las Vegas Airport. Homes are already intruding into the safe area from the northeast side of that airport. Where ever a new airport is built, I hope to God that the City Planners leave the approach and departure ends of the main runway clear of residential housing! However, if such open areas, such as parks, were not planned for as safety areas, and more residential housing was allowed to surround a new airport, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. It’s been a continuing situation nationwide for decades with our Nation’s smaller airports! Where is the logic in it all? As with most threatened airports, the airport was there before the housings were ever though of.


One simple sallution. STOP BIULDING NEW HOMES!!! Not just around airports, but all over the southwest. I know that will never happen, though.

Back when I lived in So. CA, I used to get ticked at my city for sending letters about saving water and using less energy. But it was fine for city leaders to approve new 100-200 home subdivisions. Just didn't make sense to me except for the all mighty tax revenue. If they keep biulding down there, Lake Powell will be dried up, then Lake Mead, Mojove, then Havasu.

Sorry I got off subject a little.
58Skylane offline
User avatar
Posts: 5297
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Cody Wyoming

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Previous
23 postsPage 2 of 21, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base