Re: A death in the Toyota "family"

"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:JAFah.4036$tM1.3920@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>I told you those hybids weren't safe.[/color]

He was in an experimental vehicle, yes. There's danger, yes, but without
people willing to test things, we'd never get anywhere.

Natalie[color=blue]
>
>
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ekd7q9.1tg.1@news.evilcabal.org...[color=green]
>>
>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15913139/[/url]
>>
>> One of the Prius engineers died in an experimental aircraft.
>>
>> Natalie
>> --[/color][/color]

"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ekf8te.2tc.1@news.evilcabal.org...[color=blue]
>
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:JAFah.4036$tM1.3920@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=green]
>>I told you those hybids weren't safe.[/color]
>
> He was in an experimental vehicle, yes. There's danger, yes, but without
> people willing to test things, we'd never get anywhere[/color]

I have some condoms to test........


..[color=blue]
>
> Natalie[color=green]
>>
>>
>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ekd7q9.1tg.1@news.evilcabal.org...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15913139/[/url]
>>>
>>> One of the Prius engineers died in an experimental aircraft.
>>>
>>> Natalie
>>> --[/color][/color]
>
>
>[/color]

"sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tkKah.21352$uj6.342@edtnps89...[color=blue]
>
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ekf8te.2tc.1@news.evilcabal.org...[color=green]
>>
>> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:JAFah.4036$tM1.3920@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=darkred]
>>>I told you those hybids weren't safe.[/color]
>>
>> He was in an experimental vehicle, yes. There's danger, yes, but without
>> people willing to test things, we'd never get anywhere[/color]
>
> I have some condoms to test........
>
>[/color]
Dude, you seriously need to get laid

LOL

Natalie[color=blue]
> .[color=green]
>>
>> Natalie[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ekd7q9.1tg.1@news.evilcabal.org...
>>>>
>>>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15913139/[/url]
>>>>
>>>> One of the Prius engineers died in an experimental aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> Natalie
>>>> --[/color]
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

In article <tkKah.21352$uj6.342@edtnps89>, [email]sharx35@hotmail.com[/email] says...
[color=blue]
> I have some condoms to test........[/color]

So you are a dick afterall............

"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:_BKah.1763$xc2.404@fe186.usenetserver.com...[color=blue]
> In article <tkKah.21352$uj6.342@edtnps89>, [email]sharx35@hotmail.com[/email] says...
>[color=green]
>> I have some condoms to test........[/color]
>
> So you are a dick afterall............
>[/color]

LOL

Sorry Sharx, but...

OWNED

:-)

Natalie

Wickeddoll® wrote:[color=blue]
>
> He was in an experimental vehicle, yes. There's danger, yes, but without
> people willing to test things, we'd never get anywhere.[/color]

Be aware that "experimental" doesn't mean what non-pilots usually think
it does when applied to small aircraft.

All it really means is that the airplane has never been certified by the
FAA to be used for hire, and the owner can install parts that haven't
been inspected to death by the FAA. Most of these aircraft are built
from kits, many are factory prefabbed to a the limit that the FAA will
still call it a "homebuilt."

Here's an example of one such experimental aircraft brand that has
thousands of examples flying: <http://www.vansaircraft.com/>

For example, if I want to install something as simple as an aftermarket
_light bulb_ that hasn't been preapproved on my "normal" certified
Beechcraft, I need a special inspection and a signoff by the FAA to be
100% legal. This can take months, so I'll pay 10-20 times more for the
"approved" bulb so I can use the airplane. Folks flying "experimental"
aircraft aren't subject to this.

At any small airport, there will often be far more "experiemental"
aircraft than many might think. "Experiental" does not mean a bunch of
guys standing around saying "what do you think will happen if we move
the wing over here?" <G>

Bonehenge

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:55:45 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:
[color=blue]
> Wickeddoll® wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> He was in an experimental vehicle, yes. There's danger, yes, but without
>> people willing to test things, we'd never get anywhere.[/color]
>
> Be aware that "experimental" doesn't mean what non-pilots usually think
> it does when applied to small aircraft.
>
> All it really means is that the airplane has never been certified by the
> FAA to be used for hire, and the owner can install parts that haven't
> been inspected to death by the FAA. Most of these aircraft are built
> from kits, many are factory prefabbed to a the limit that the FAA will
> still call it a "homebuilt."
>
> Here's an example of one such experimental aircraft brand that has
> thousands of examples flying: <http://www.vansaircraft.com/>
>
> For example, if I want to install something as simple as an aftermarket
> _light bulb_ that hasn't been preapproved on my "normal" certified
> Beechcraft, I need a special inspection and a signoff by the FAA to be
> 100% legal. This can take months, so I'll pay 10-20 times more for the
> "approved" bulb so I can use the airplane. Folks flying "experimental"
> aircraft aren't subject to this.
>
> At any small airport, there will often be far more "experiemental"
> aircraft than many might think. "Experiental" does not mean a bunch of
> guys standing around saying "what do you think will happen if we move
> the wing over here?" <G>
>
> Bonehenge[/color]

Thanks for clarifying; I couldn't have said it better.

Anything done with FAA certification requires swimming through nine miles
of cat shit. Paying passengers deserve this level of oversight.
Recreational pilots can choose to avoid the most onerous regs in some
cases by flying what, in FAA loophole, must be classified as 'experimental.'

As I understand it, the Interavia E3 is a craft based on a proven
Soviet trainer with solid aerobatic design. Although I can't speculate on
the cause I would be willing to bet that the final determination will be
for "pilot error" and not from the much media ballyhooed "experimental"
designation.

Incidentally, the media are idiots when it comes to aircraft. Every
single crash that I've ever read about in the popular media involving
'stall' implies engine failure rather than the more serious loss of lift,
even though the latter was the problem and the engine was turning just
fine when the craft bottomed out. If my engine konks at 200 AGL I can
still land just fine; if my wings lose lift at that altitude I'm in
serious trouble.

--
Mike Harris
Austin TX

"Mike Harris" <root@austin.texas> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.28.21.52.02.603960@austin.texas...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:55:45 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Wickeddoll® wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> He was in an experimental vehicle, yes. There's danger, yes, but
>>> without
>>> people willing to test things, we'd never get anywhere.[/color]
>>
>> Be aware that "experimental" doesn't mean what non-pilots usually think
>> it does when applied to small aircraft.
>>
>> All it really means is that the airplane has never been certified by the
>> FAA to be used for hire, and the owner can install parts that haven't
>> been inspected to death by the FAA. Most of these aircraft are built
>> from kits, many are factory prefabbed to a the limit that the FAA will
>> still call it a "homebuilt."
>>
>> Here's an example of one such experimental aircraft brand that has
>> thousands of examples flying: <http://www.vansaircraft.com/>
>>
>> For example, if I want to install something as simple as an aftermarket
>> _light bulb_ that hasn't been preapproved on my "normal" certified
>> Beechcraft, I need a special inspection and a signoff by the FAA to be
>> 100% legal. This can take months, so I'll pay 10-20 times more for the
>> "approved" bulb so I can use the airplane. Folks flying "experimental"
>> aircraft aren't subject to this.[/color][/color]

OK. Thanks[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> At any small airport, there will often be far more "experiemental"
>> aircraft than many might think. "Experiental" does not mean a bunch of
>> guys standing around saying "what do you think will happen if we move
>> the wing over here?" <G>
>>
>> Bonehenge[/color][/color]

THERE you are! Wondered where you went. Still love that nickname of yours
hehehe[color=blue]
>
> Thanks for clarifying; I couldn't have said it better.[/color]

*I* definitely couldn't have...[color=blue]
>
> Anything done with FAA certification requires swimming through nine miles
> of cat shit. Paying passengers deserve this level of oversight.
> Recreational pilots can choose to avoid the most onerous regs in some
> cases by flying what, in FAA loophole, must be classified as
> 'experimental.'[/color]

GAH[color=blue]
>
> As I understand it, the Interavia E3 is a craft based on a proven
> Soviet trainer with solid aerobatic design. Although I can't speculate on
> the cause I would be willing to bet that the final determination will be
> for "pilot error" and not from the much media ballyhooed "experimental"
> designation.[/color]

That's all they were saying with John Denver's death - was that well-used
plane as well?[color=blue]
>
> Incidentally, the media are idiots when it comes to aircraft. Every
> single crash that I've ever read about in the popular media involving
> 'stall' implies engine failure rather than the more serious loss of lift,
> even though the latter was the problem and the engine was turning just
> fine when the craft bottomed out. If my engine konks at 200 AGL I can
> still land just fine; if my wings lose lift at that altitude I'm in
> serious trouble.
>
> --
> Mike Harris
> Austin TX
>[/color]

Mike, the media are idjits about most everything.

Natalie

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:58:51 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Anything done with FAA certification requires swimming through nine miles
>> of cat shit. Paying passengers deserve this level of oversight.
>> Recreational pilots can choose to avoid the most onerous regs in some
>> cases by flying what, in FAA loophole, must be classified as
>> 'experimental.'[/color]
>
> GAH[/color]

Well, if you're not comfortable with the idea of flying in a light
aircraft I can understand the reaction.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> As I understand it, the Interavia E3 is a craft based on a proven
>> Soviet trainer with solid aerobatic design. Although I can't speculate
>> on the cause I would be willing to bet that the final determination
>> will be for "pilot error" and not from the much media ballyhooed
>> "experimental" designation.[/color]
>
> That's all they were saying with John Denver's death - was that
> well-used plane as well?[/color]

Correct - that was a Rutan design. While slightly ass-heavy it's
basically safe, as long as the pilot doesn't run it out of fuel and mash
the rudder pedal trying to switch tanks 'cause the control has been
switched to the wrong place by the builder.

Regardless of the wonky fuel control, if Denver had topped the tanks
before takeoff he'd likely be around to torment us today.
[color=blue]
> Mike, the media are idjits about most everything.
>
> Natalie[/color]

The point goes to you on that one, Miz Wickeddoll. I stand corrected. <G>

--
Mike Harris
Austin TX

"Mike Harris" <root@austin.texas> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.29.03.42.47.842636@austin.texas...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:58:51 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Anything done with FAA certification requires swimming through nine
>>> miles
>>> of cat shit. Paying passengers deserve this level of oversight.
>>> Recreational pilots can choose to avoid the most onerous regs in some
>>> cases by flying what, in FAA loophole, must be classified as
>>> 'experimental.'[/color]
>>
>> GAH[/color]
>
> Well, if you're not comfortable with the idea of flying in a light
> aircraft I can understand the reaction.[/color]

Gawd, I hate those things. But jets aren't much better for me. I'm not
afraid of dying, but I'm afraid of dying like *that*[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>
>>> As I understand it, the Interavia E3 is a craft based on a proven
>>> Soviet trainer with solid aerobatic design. Although I can't speculate
>>> on the cause I would be willing to bet that the final determination
>>> will be for "pilot error" and not from the much media ballyhooed
>>> "experimental" designation.[/color]
>>
>> That's all they were saying with John Denver's death - was that
>> well-used plane as well?[/color]
>
> Correct - that was a Rutan design. While slightly ass-heavy it's
> basically safe, as long as the pilot doesn't run it out of fuel and mash
> the rudder pedal trying to switch tanks 'cause the control has been
> switched to the wrong place by the builder.[/color]

Oh man - how scary![color=blue]
>
> Regardless of the wonky fuel control, if Denver had topped the tanks
> before takeoff he'd likely be around to torment us today.[/color]

LOL 'torment' - you're evil[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Mike, the media are idjits about most everything.
>>
>> Natalie[/color]
>
> The point goes to you on that one, Miz Wickeddoll. I stand corrected. <G>
>
> --
> Mike Harris[/color]


:-)

Natalie

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:28:46 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Well, if you're not comfortable with the idea of flying in a light
>> aircraft I can understand the reaction.[/color]
>
> Gawd, I hate those things. But jets aren't much better for me. I'm not
> afraid of dying, but I'm afraid of dying like *that*[/color]

Why? Quick and clean, not lingering and painful. <VBG> Statistically,
the drive to the airport is more dangerous... but phobias are, by
definition, immune to rationality. My wife is the same way and I
ultimately let my medical certificate lapse as it was a hobby I was
destined to enjoy alone.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> Regardless of the wonky fuel control, if Denver had topped the tanks
>> before takeoff he'd likely be around to torment us today.[/color]
>
> LOL 'torment' - you're evil[/color]

True; my duties are mainly ceremonial, I regret to report.

ROOOCKY MOUNTAIN HIIIIGHIEIEIEIEIEIE!!!!!!

GAH! It wasn't pilot error, Denver took along his guitar. The craft
made the ultimate sacrifice to spare us all. A moment of silence, if you
please, for our fallen carbon-fiber comrade...
--
Mike Harris
Austin TX

"Mike Harris" <root@austin.texas> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.30.02.21.42.394133@austin.texas...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:28:46 -0500, Wickeddoll® wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Well, if you're not comfortable with the idea of flying in a light
>>> aircraft I can understand the reaction.[/color]
>>
>> Gawd, I hate those things. But jets aren't much better for me. I'm not
>> afraid of dying, but I'm afraid of dying like *that*[/color]
>
> Why? Quick and clean, not lingering and painful. <VBG> Statistically,
> the drive to the airport is more dangerous... but phobias are, by
> definition, immune to rationality. My wife is the same way and I
> ultimately let my medical certificate lapse as it was a hobby I was
> destined to enjoy alone.
>[/color]

*toasting Mrs. Harris* You GO girl.[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Regardless of the wonky fuel control, if Denver had topped the tanks
>>> before takeoff he'd likely be around to torment us today.[/color]
>>
>> LOL 'torment' - you're evil[/color]
>
> True; my duties are mainly ceremonial, I regret to report.[/color]

bwahahaha![color=blue]
>
> ROOOCKY MOUNTAIN HIIIIGHIEIEIEIEIEIE!!!!!!
>
> GAH! It wasn't pilot error, Denver took along his guitar. The craft
> made the ultimate sacrifice to spare us all. A moment of silence, if you
> please, for our fallen carbon-fiber comrade...
> --
> Mike Harris
> Austin TX[/color]

ROFL!

You owe me a laptop keyboard - and you can do the Hail Marys I have to do
for laughing at that.

Natalie