people are crazy part i-don't-know-how-many
there's a story about a small-plane tragedy in california making its way around the wires today that has me scratching my head at how bizarre some people can be in the way they think about such things. the menlo park fire chief, in discussing the circumstances of the crash of a twin-engine cessna 317 into a home in a residential neighborhood, was quoted to say "either by luck or the skill of the pilot, the plane hit the street and not the homes on either side. that saved people in this community."
let's call a spade a spade here: the luck and the skill of any pilot is always secondary to his or her purely selfish act of flying a motorized projectile over the places where people live. nothing about flying an airplane saved people in this or any other community, who were in no danger of being landed upon by a streaking hulk of out-of-control aluminum right up until the point where some other self-centered person decided to point one at them.
the whole approach to aviation in this country is remarkably skewed towards the people who can afford to fly their own airplanes. i lived for years down the road from a private airfield, and, trust me, there's no relief from noise or any other environmental pollution coming from one of these to be found in any of our existing civil peace statutes. air rights over our homes are likewise completely beyond our influence or control, and too bad if something might drop down out of the sky to tear the roof off our otherwise castle.
now, don't get me wrong, i'm not against the public interest in maintaining safe and well-regulated air travel, and to gain such benefits as might accrue from such a thing, we do need to make some compromise. but when some clown decides he or she "needs" a private plane, and then "accidentally" drops it on somebody, that's where i would be inclined to draw a very stark line.
i don't have the right to drive my car up anyone else's driveway at 150 miles per hour, and, until i do, i would prefer that yahoos in private planes be denied the right to fly their little toys over my building, lest they "accidentally" crash into it, and someone congratulates them for not having run it into the building next door.
let's call a spade a spade here: the luck and the skill of any pilot is always secondary to his or her purely selfish act of flying a motorized projectile over the places where people live. nothing about flying an airplane saved people in this or any other community, who were in no danger of being landed upon by a streaking hulk of out-of-control aluminum right up until the point where some other self-centered person decided to point one at them.
the whole approach to aviation in this country is remarkably skewed towards the people who can afford to fly their own airplanes. i lived for years down the road from a private airfield, and, trust me, there's no relief from noise or any other environmental pollution coming from one of these to be found in any of our existing civil peace statutes. air rights over our homes are likewise completely beyond our influence or control, and too bad if something might drop down out of the sky to tear the roof off our otherwise castle.
now, don't get me wrong, i'm not against the public interest in maintaining safe and well-regulated air travel, and to gain such benefits as might accrue from such a thing, we do need to make some compromise. but when some clown decides he or she "needs" a private plane, and then "accidentally" drops it on somebody, that's where i would be inclined to draw a very stark line.
i don't have the right to drive my car up anyone else's driveway at 150 miles per hour, and, until i do, i would prefer that yahoos in private planes be denied the right to fly their little toys over my building, lest they "accidentally" crash into it, and someone congratulates them for not having run it into the building next door.
Labels: rant
posted by kad barma at 3:59 PM
2 Comments:
Speaking of things people don't *need* to do, I always feel the groan factor coming on when people loosely throw around terms like 'hero' or otherwise say how 'amazing' people are who participate in extreme sports or activities.
It's like, if you're a multimillionaire investment banker and father of four who ALSO happens to climb Mt. Everest and K2as a spare-time hobby, good for you. But I'll view that no differently than someone similarly situated who likes to play Sudoku, or who collects Hannah Montana dolls. When some TV newscaster or local rag calls you "heroic" I just find that ridiculous.
I know I'm kind of taking your original point off on a tangent here, but I've always felt someone's *amazingness* (if that's a word) is best judged by what they do to help or serve others, not by their palette of hobbies, whether it's private flying, adrenaline-rush type of sports, scuba diving, or whatever the case may be.
Ditto for highbrow culture. Someone who sips Cognac and reads Proust is no better to me than someone who guzzles Olde English and reads Hunter S. Thompson.
Very prophetic post, as it turns out. It got me thinking the first day I read it. It was the first thing that came to mind when I first heard reports of the plane flying into the Texas IRS building.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home