REFLECTOR: Velocity crash

[NMFlyer1 at aol.com]

Doug, 
 
I agree with your angle, but for now (as was proven in California) they can  
not limit experimentals per se. 
 
There is always a way to tweak the rules though, and run off those  
considered "undesirable". For example, at the Albuquerque international Sunport  
(KABQ), they have kicked out many of the small piston GA aircraft. They have  done 
this by taking back the leases where the hangars were, in favor of building  
larger corporate, turbine and jet facilities. They have also raised gas fees to  
almost 7 bucks a gallon, and charge a 20 dollar ramp fee if you shut down the 
 engines on their ramp. 
 
They can not, however (yet), tell experimental aircraft that they can not  go 
there. It would be a violation of the Grant program that funds the airport.  
Yes, I suppose enough smoke can be raised that would cause those in power to 
try  and accomplish such an act, but luckily the FAA has not put up with that 
yet. 
 
I believe that correct and complete information (not inflammatory media  
coverage) should be used. For example, there are 57 accidents listed before this  
one at the VGT airport. Of those, 4 were experimental (none fatal). 
using the same broad category, 31 of the accidents were Cessnas, with 4  
fatal. 
 
Yes I know there is a gross use imbalance here, but for purposes of  
illustration, it shows that you really should not single out one  unfortunate accident 
and expect to "save the world" as the media and politicians  try to do. 
 
Kurt 
 
 



**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel 
deal here.      
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20080823/438266a1/attachment.htm