Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 21:20:46 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.4.32.99] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0) with ESMTP id 1845540 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:17:20 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:17:19 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [67.25.110.169] From: "RICHARD Eddinger" X-Original-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Grant Bailey X-Original-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:22:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MSN Explorer 7.02.0005.2201 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0002_01C27CC8.C4CD7DA0" X-Original-Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2002 15:17:19.0837 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6CAA0D0:01C27D02] ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C27CC8.C4CD7DA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When I read the article my impression of the way it was written was that = the runway was unsafe and the reason was because of some ordinance of wh= ich had nothing to do with the fact of was it safe or not. The final deci= sion to land at any runway is always up to the PIC. From what I read the = runway nor the owner of the property had anything to do with this horribl= e accident. Just my 2 cents for what it is worth. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: RicArgente@cs.com Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:14 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Grant Bailey In a message dated 10/22/2002 6:46:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hwasti@st= arband.net writes: =20 An e-mail of complaint to the editors of editors AvWeb is in order. =20 AVweb responds... =20 The brief item in question was based on a comprehensive and detailed exam= ination of the issue in the Spokane Spokesman-Review. There is no specula= tion in the minds of county officials as to the status of the strip in te= rms of their zoning ordinances, and the owners provided the information a= bout referring to it as a road. How the construction of private airstrips= in violation of local ordinances advances the GA cause is a mystery to m= e, as is the apparent perception that our accurate portrayal of the facts= in this case is somehow anti-GA. In fact, the whole airstrip issue was i= ncidental to the fact that two people died and another was hurt. =20 Russ Niles =20 AVweb Writer =20 ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C27CC8.C4CD7DA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When I read th= e article my impression of the way it was written was that the runwa= y was  unsafe and the reason was because of some ordinance of which = had nothing to do with the fact of was it safe or not. The final decision= to land at any runway is always up to the PIC. From what I read the runw= ay nor the owner of the property had anything to do with this horrible ac= cident. Just my 2 cents for what it is worth.
  Dick
 
----- Original Message -----
From:= RicArgente@cs.com
Sent:= Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:14 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
<= B>Subject: [LML] Re: Grant Bailey
 
In a message dated 10/22/2002 6:46:00 PM E= astern Daylight Time, hwasti@starband.net writes:


An e-mail of complaint to the edi= tors of editors AvWeb is in order.

<= BR>AVweb responds...
The brief item in question was based on a comprehe= nsive and detailed examination of the issue in the Spoka= ne Spokesman-Review. There is no speculation in the minds of county o= fficials as to the status of the strip in terms of their zoning ordinance= s, and the owners provided the information about referring to it as a roa= d. How the construction of private airstrips in violation of local ordina= nces advances the GA cause is a mystery to me, as is the apparent percept= ion that our accurate portrayal of the facts in this case is somehow anti= -GA. In fact, the whole airstrip issue was incidental to the fact that tw= o people died and another was hurt.
Russ Niles
AVweb Write= r


------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C27CC8.C4CD7DA0--