On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:38:44 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Jim Stewart" wrote

I've been thinking about that too. As I understand
the FAA regs, an experimental aircraft, after major
mods, has to undergo 40 hours of flight testing over
an FAA-approved, unpopulated area to shake loose stuff
like this. I think there will be some interesting
questions raised.

Today, Monday, 1PM MST, I saw a new video of the crash from another angle
and much closer to the impact point. At the end of the broadcast, the
"news" announcer said the FAA would (paraphrasing, IIRC, and all that)
likely make changes regarding crowd placement at future races. From the
angle the video was taken, I would have considered where the plane impacted
to be a VERY dangerous position too close to the action, and would have
never sat there. I go to, and have gone to, hundreds of various sporting
events. I prefer to be back enough to have a better overall view, and for a
safety factor. IMHO, those people were much much too close. But there are
purely stupid people in the world who want to get next to the race track, or
close to a police gunfight or whatever. You can't fix stupid and they will
continue to do it.

Steve

The crash was pretty much ON the runway, yet he started way out in the
race course. It was the luck of the draw where he hit. It could have
been on the far side of the course, it could have been away from the
runway, it could have been behind the crowds...frankly..it could have
been anywhere.

It didnt happen during takeoff or landing...the luck of the draw was
what happened. Ya takes your chances and you makes your bets.

Shrug

Gunner

"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)