Did you hear the one about the 747 cargo plane crashing into the apartment's in holland killing hundreds. I think we should ban fed-ex and ups. Do we really need something overnight and at what cost to humanity.

Posted by: ace at July 19, 2006 09:02 AM

When Hillsboro was attacked on Sunday, I too suspected that Intel might've been the intended target. We can't afford to take that chance again. There's too much at stake. "Accident" can be just another way of saying "Terrorism" and there is no such thing as too much safety, too much security, too much protection. Intel gets it. We're tired of living in abject fear. No more airshow. Shut it down.

Posted by: skyview satellite at July 19, 2006 03:17 PM

If you look at the map of the crash site, you can see why Intel might be just a wee bit concerned.

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 19, 2006 03:30 PM

Exactly.
Intel corporate jets use the Hillsboro Airport for mutiple scheduled trips daily to and from California. The proximity is an incredible convenience for them. Nike also has their own hangar on the property (recall the landing gear failure of an incoming Nike jet some months ago?) which is why you rarely see superstar athletes at PDX.

Corporate executives have to fly. They don't have a choice. but Airshow nutjobs are macho recreationalist clowns and they shouldn't be allowed to use the our public facilities to stage attacks on any of the airport's many neighbors. Shut the airshow down.

Posted by: skyview satellite at July 19, 2006 04:23 PM

Yes let's shut the Hillsboro airport down completely. And someday an accident may happen around PDX again, so let's shut down PDX too. And the sooner the better, we can't afford any more accidents.

Plus I heard someone was hit by light rail, so let's shut it down too.

What I hate about all these naysayers about the air show is what about the poor pilot that died. What if he did not eject out, so that he could possible minimize the damage that the broken plane could cause. Someone died here folks, and that is a shame. It is sad about the damage done, but insurance will make those things whole again.

Posted by: Tex at July 19, 2006 04:33 PM

Yes, and let's cut our losses before some innocent people die. Move this clown act out to the desert where it belongs.

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 19, 2006 04:59 PM

So who has time to read a manual when you are going down.

let's see: Index> Emergency>Power Loss>Cyliders:

Don't turn the airplane!

I once was looking into the door to the cockpit of a commercial jet (remember when you could actually do that?) and in the pocket flap behind the pilot's seat was a placard labelled "Emergency", containing an itemized list of things to do or not do. Want to guess what was #1?

"Fly the airplane!"

Darn mundane chores.

Posted by: Lawrence at July 20, 2006 04:00 PM

I fail to see the difference between a prohibition on air shows and a prohibition of trans-fat foods or smoking outdoors.

Frankly, I would much rather ban smoking within Portland City Limits (private residences excepted), including no smoking in your car.

It is definitely a slippery slope.

Posted by: Mister T at July 20, 2006 06:16 PM

Tex is right - if you're worried about a plane crashing into your house, we might as well close ALL of the airports (including PDX). The pilot that died wasn't "flying" in the air show, he was just leaving for home -- so STOP BLAMING THE AIRSHOW. He could just as easily been flying a Cessna.

Not much different than a Nike or Intel jet leaving from Hillsboro airport on a business trip. Who's to say one of those won't have a problem on takeoff some day.

Posted by: Grumpy at July 20, 2006 08:48 PM

Not much different than a Nike or Intel jet leaving from Hillsboro airport on a business trip.

Sorry, not buying that load. Those companies don't use 50-year-old army surplus jalopies flown by 73-year-old guys with bad flight histories. Only the air show brings that kind of doo-doo.

Put it out in the desert where it belongs.

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 20, 2006 11:47 PM

Jack, any aircraft, improperly maintained, can fail spectacularly and with similar (or worse) effect as this accident, regardless of age.

And any aircraft, properly maintained, can be as safe as any other, regardless of age. Which is to say, unlikely to fail, but no aircraft is ever guaranteed not to fail.

I have personally flown "jalopies" as you put it, without any reservations whatsoever. Mechanically speaking, there's not a thing wrong with them. The newer planes tend to have much nicer avionics, but they aren't necessarily more airworthy than a 50+ year old aircraft. Airplanes have always been manufactured to much higher standards than automobiles, so using the term "jalopy" is misleading at best. There's just no comparison between the average 50 year old airplane and the average 50 year old car.

And as a poster up-thread mentioned, it was one of those shiny newer Nike bizjets that had the landing gear failure a while back. Not a particularly life-threatening mishap (though you never know) but problems obviously do occur with those planes too from time to time.

You are correct that age may be a factor in pilot performance. But age alone is not the determining factor in pilot performance. And pilots must be regularly certified by a medical examiner in order to exercise the priviledge of their licenses (which, frankly, is something we should consider doing with automobile drivers as well). Presumably the pilot in this case had a valid medical certificate, which would indicate that age was not likely a factor in the accident.

In fact, generally speaking you should be more concerned about younger pilots with little experience, as they are far more likely to be involved in accidents related to "pilot error".

Finally, if you think that old pilots in old planes only ever come out for air shows, I'm sorry but you are just flat wrong. General aviation includes a wide range of aircraft and pilots in the air every single day. Many of them fly over or near your house. And any of them could conceivably come crashing down on you at any time.

Eh. That's life.

Posted by: David Wright at July 21, 2006 01:21 AM

Sorry, you're not convincing me that the daredevil clown show needs to continue over Intel and the residential neighborhood.

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 21, 2006 02:44 AM

And he wasn't just going straight home. The NTSB reports that the guy was doing "maneuvers," preparing to make one or more low passes over the airfield:

Event coordinators reported that the pilot planned to make 1-3 non-aerobatic low passes over the runway after departing from runway 30. Subsequent to completing the maneuver(s), the pilot intended to continue the flight to his home airport in Van Nuys, Calif.

Read it and weep, boys. That's still part of the show. (Not that it matters much, but that seems to be a central argument against moving this event out of town.)

Posted by: Jack Bog at July 21, 2006 05:05 AM

[Posted as indicated; restored later.]