Originally Posted by
georgeeipi
Go back and look at the quote from my previous post, that was "Megan". There are a few others as well if you go further up the thread.
They confuse regular GA and airline ops with FAA part 91 ops and in Australia Part 132 operations. The FAA risk analysis of their ex military aircraft ops is thorough and can't be dismissed as simply "fear-mongering rubbish" as 43Inches is trying to say in his edited response. Perhaps some here don't like being confronted by a risk analysis? Or they have never seen one before? But there it is in the FAA book. Ex military aircraft ops are inherently riskier ops than normal GA and airline ops and, in the US and Australia they are more tightly controlled.
Unfortunately your so called "risk analysis" is what is killing aviation, especially the GA sector. It's not based on evidence, but on speculation of what could happen. You can harp on about it all you want, but reality is these aircraft involved in this accident do not have any sort of record that would indicate they are less safe than the average single engine piston aircraft that flies out of Essendon. Therefore you are just fear-mongering 'what ifs' that could happen, but probably never will. Unfortunately you are the same ilk that have produced the motorcycle shredders surrounding every major road in Victoria now, because of the 'what if' of a vehicle leaving the hard surface. Billions of dollars wasted, billions more to be wasted as every time a low speed off road adventure happens that would have been just a few embarrassing grass stains ends up in thousands of dollars of repairs, slowed traffic around the works (almost daily on every stretch of highway) and thousands of carbon emmissions and wwasted $$$ from the waiting traffic. The statistical evidence they have done much to alter the road toll, NIL, in fact since they have been introduced the road toll has not changed considerably at all, the claims by the government that they have saved more lives on the road per year than the actual road toll has ever been????
I would not even classify the S-211 as a warbird, it's a basic jet trainer. I also want to know what distance you would prevent these jets from flying near a town, or such, the recent F-35 ejection had the aircraft travel 100km from where the pilot left it.
The reason I laugh at these rules is simply they are to stop the average Joe from looking up and seeing something they don't like, and have next to no safety benefit. "OMG a jet just flew over my house" complain, complain, "what if it crashes, OMG OMG". FAA/CASA response, lets just move the flight path so they don't notice it, not that its less likely to spear off that path and still land on your house.... Planes don't crash straight down, they tend to veer off and aim for day cares and hospitals for children.