[Deserted]

Be careful: a cashier’s check is not cash. While it should be backed by the FDIC, the check is not completely guaranteed by the bank.

Gotta agree with four walling: a cashier’s check can be canceled by the purchaser of that cashier’s check. All the purchaser has to do is say the check was lost, stolen, or misappropriated. In other words, lie. And I do think that we have seen one or two people lie in their financial dealings over the past year.

Of course, you can take legal action against the fraudster to get your money back — good luck.

Advice: If you get a cashier’s check from an unfamiliar party, immediately have the check verified at your bank and then have the funds immediately transferred to your account.

Best advice: Don’t take cashier’s checks.

[Deserted]

Be careful: a cashier’s check is not cash. While it should be backed by the FDIC, the check is not completely guaranteed by the bank.

Gotta agree with four walling: a cashier’s check can be canceled by the purchaser of that cashier’s check. All the purchaser has to do is say the check was lost, stolen, or misappropriated. In other words, lie. And I do think that we have seen one or two people lie in their financial dealings over the past year.

Of course, you can take legal action against the fraudster to get your money back — good luck.

Advice: If you get a cashier’s check from an unfamiliar party, immediately have the check verified at your bank and then have the funds immediately transferred to your account.

Best advice: Don’t take cashier’s checks.

[Deserted]

Be careful: a cashier’s check is not cash. While it should be backed by the FDIC, the check is not completely guaranteed by the bank.

Gotta agree with four walling: a cashier’s check can be canceled by the purchaser of that cashier’s check. All the purchaser has to do is say the check was lost, stolen, or misappropriated. In other words, lie. And I do think that we have seen one or two people lie in their financial dealings over the past year.

Of course, you can take legal action against the fraudster to get your money back — good luck.

Advice: If you get a cashier’s check from an unfamiliar party, immediately have the check verified at your bank and then have the funds immediately transferred to your account.

Best advice: Don’t take cashier’s checks.

[Deserted]

Be careful: a cashier’s check is not cash. While it should be backed by the FDIC, the check is not completely guaranteed by the bank.

Gotta agree with four walling: a cashier’s check can be canceled by the purchaser of that cashier’s check. All the purchaser has to do is say the check was lost, stolen, or misappropriated. In other words, lie. And I do think that we have seen one or two people lie in their financial dealings over the past year.

Of course, you can take legal action against the fraudster to get your money back — good luck.

Advice: If you get a cashier’s check from an unfamiliar party, immediately have the check verified at your bank and then have the funds immediately transferred to your account.

Best advice: Don’t take cashier’s checks.

[Deserted]

Be careful: a cashier’s check is not cash. While it should be backed by the FDIC, the check is not completely guaranteed by the bank.

Gotta agree with four walling: a cashier’s check can be canceled by the purchaser of that cashier’s check. All the purchaser has to do is say the check was lost, stolen, or misappropriated. In other words, lie. And I do think that we have seen one or two people lie in their financial dealings over the past year.

Of course, you can take legal action against the fraudster to get your money back — good luck.

Advice: If you get a cashier’s check from an unfamiliar party, immediately have the check verified at your bank and then have the funds immediately transferred to your account.

Best advice: Don’t take cashier’s checks.

[Deserted]

General Aviation is dangerous. When I first started flying 25 years ago I hid my head in the sand believing that flying was just as safe as driving a car. After 3000 hours in the air I know it’s not. Any pilot who says so is delusional or uninformed.

Pilots must do everything in their power to fly safely. If they do that, then it’s as safe as driving, maybe even safer. The problem is, so many pilots do not do everything in their power to be safe. Those facts are plain as day.

Recreational pilots have the very worst safety record. Self-piloting business flying is much safer. Charter operations are safer yet (we have passed the “safer than driving” statistic here). Corporate flying is extremely safe. And (other than the recent Hudson River landing) commercial flight is the very safest means of transportation.

Of course commercial flying is safer. You have two professional pilots flying the same routes every week. The aircraft is generally far more capable than that flown by the general aviation pilot. About 90% of accidents are caused by pilot error. And bold amateurs tend to make a lot more errors than seasoned professionals.

So yes, general aviation is by far the riskiest travel in the air. I don’t know if it’s arrogance, poor training, poor ability, or just plain stupidity. Probably a little of each.

The comment about following instruments is probably related to flight in IMC “Instrument Meteorologic Conditions.” Pilots must pass a written test and a flight test to fly in IMC — it’s a big step up from flying in clear weather. While the FAA mandates fairly strict training and currency standards for pilots as well as specific aircraft capability, it’s not unusual for pilots to “cheat” on their qualifications (no one is really looking!) and fly in IMC when they shouldn’t. It’s dumb, it’s dangerous, it’s illegal — but people do it. Go figure. Probably at least one of the fatal Palomar accidents occurred with that scenario. (Don’t be so surprised — like you never heard of someone driving drunk without a license?)

I don’t want to knock flying — especially flying in Southern California. Southern California has some of the busiest airspace in the world. There’s a reason for that: it has wonderful weather, many great airports, and beautiful scenery. Sometimes it’s so perfect I think I’m having a Zen experience. You just gotta do it right.

[Deserted]

General Aviation is dangerous. When I first started flying 25 years ago I hid my head in the sand believing that flying was just as safe as driving a car. After 3000 hours in the air I know it’s not. Any pilot who says so is delusional or uninformed.

Pilots must do everything in their power to fly safely. If they do that, then it’s as safe as driving, maybe even safer. The problem is, so many pilots do not do everything in their power to be safe. Those facts are plain as day.

Recreational pilots have the very worst safety record. Self-piloting business flying is much safer. Charter operations are safer yet (we have passed the “safer than driving” statistic here). Corporate flying is extremely safe. And (other than the recent Hudson River landing) commercial flight is the very safest means of transportation.

Of course commercial flying is safer. You have two professional pilots flying the same routes every week. The aircraft is generally far more capable than that flown by the general aviation pilot. About 90% of accidents are caused by pilot error. And bold amateurs tend to make a lot more errors than seasoned professionals.

So yes, general aviation is by far the riskiest travel in the air. I don’t know if it’s arrogance, poor training, poor ability, or just plain stupidity. Probably a little of each.

The comment about following instruments is probably related to flight in IMC “Instrument Meteorologic Conditions.” Pilots must pass a written test and a flight test to fly in IMC — it’s a big step up from flying in clear weather. While the FAA mandates fairly strict training and currency standards for pilots as well as specific aircraft capability, it’s not unusual for pilots to “cheat” on their qualifications (no one is really looking!) and fly in IMC when they shouldn’t. It’s dumb, it’s dangerous, it’s illegal — but people do it. Go figure. Probably at least one of the fatal Palomar accidents occurred with that scenario. (Don’t be so surprised — like you never heard of someone driving drunk without a license?)

I don’t want to knock flying — especially flying in Southern California. Southern California has some of the busiest airspace in the world. There’s a reason for that: it has wonderful weather, many great airports, and beautiful scenery. Sometimes it’s so perfect I think I’m having a Zen experience. You just gotta do it right.

[Deserted]

General Aviation is dangerous. When I first started flying 25 years ago I hid my head in the sand believing that flying was just as safe as driving a car. After 3000 hours in the air I know it’s not. Any pilot who says so is delusional or uninformed.

Pilots must do everything in their power to fly safely. If they do that, then it’s as safe as driving, maybe even safer. The problem is, so many pilots do not do everything in their power to be safe. Those facts are plain as day.

Recreational pilots have the very worst safety record. Self-piloting business flying is much safer. Charter operations are safer yet (we have passed the “safer than driving” statistic here). Corporate flying is extremely safe. And (other than the recent Hudson River landing) commercial flight is the very safest means of transportation.

Of course commercial flying is safer. You have two professional pilots flying the same routes every week. The aircraft is generally far more capable than that flown by the general aviation pilot. About 90% of accidents are caused by pilot error. And bold amateurs tend to make a lot more errors than seasoned professionals.

So yes, general aviation is by far the riskiest travel in the air. I don’t know if it’s arrogance, poor training, poor ability, or just plain stupidity. Probably a little of each.

The comment about following instruments is probably related to flight in IMC “Instrument Meteorologic Conditions.” Pilots must pass a written test and a flight test to fly in IMC — it’s a big step up from flying in clear weather. While the FAA mandates fairly strict training and currency standards for pilots as well as specific aircraft capability, it’s not unusual for pilots to “cheat” on their qualifications (no one is really looking!) and fly in IMC when they shouldn’t. It’s dumb, it’s dangerous, it’s illegal — but people do it. Go figure. Probably at least one of the fatal Palomar accidents occurred with that scenario. (Don’t be so surprised — like you never heard of someone driving drunk without a license?)

I don’t want to knock flying — especially flying in Southern California. Southern California has some of the busiest airspace in the world. There’s a reason for that: it has wonderful weather, many great airports, and beautiful scenery. Sometimes it’s so perfect I think I’m having a Zen experience. You just gotta do it right.

[Deserted]

General Aviation is dangerous. When I first started flying 25 years ago I hid my head in the sand believing that flying was just as safe as driving a car. After 3000 hours in the air I know it’s not. Any pilot who says so is delusional or uninformed.

Pilots must do everything in their power to fly safely. If they do that, then it’s as safe as driving, maybe even safer. The problem is, so many pilots do not do everything in their power to be safe. Those facts are plain as day.

Recreational pilots have the very worst safety record. Self-piloting business flying is much safer. Charter operations are safer yet (we have passed the “safer than driving” statistic here). Corporate flying is extremely safe. And (other than the recent Hudson River landing) commercial flight is the very safest means of transportation.

Of course commercial flying is safer. You have two professional pilots flying the same routes every week. The aircraft is generally far more capable than that flown by the general aviation pilot. About 90% of accidents are caused by pilot error. And bold amateurs tend to make a lot more errors than seasoned professionals.

So yes, general aviation is by far the riskiest travel in the air. I don’t know if it’s arrogance, poor training, poor ability, or just plain stupidity. Probably a little of each.

The comment about following instruments is probably related to flight in IMC “Instrument Meteorologic Conditions.” Pilots must pass a written test and a flight test to fly in IMC — it’s a big step up from flying in clear weather. While the FAA mandates fairly strict training and currency standards for pilots as well as specific aircraft capability, it’s not unusual for pilots to “cheat” on their qualifications (no one is really looking!) and fly in IMC when they shouldn’t. It’s dumb, it’s dangerous, it’s illegal — but people do it. Go figure. Probably at least one of the fatal Palomar accidents occurred with that scenario. (Don’t be so surprised — like you never heard of someone driving drunk without a license?)

I don’t want to knock flying — especially flying in Southern California. Southern California has some of the busiest airspace in the world. There’s a reason for that: it has wonderful weather, many great airports, and beautiful scenery. Sometimes it’s so perfect I think I’m having a Zen experience. You just gotta do it right.

[Deserted]

General Aviation is dangerous. When I first started flying 25 years ago I hid my head in the sand believing that flying was just as safe as driving a car. After 3000 hours in the air I know it’s not. Any pilot who says so is delusional or uninformed.

Pilots must do everything in their power to fly safely. If they do that, then it’s as safe as driving, maybe even safer. The problem is, so many pilots do not do everything in their power to be safe. Those facts are plain as day.

Recreational pilots have the very worst safety record. Self-piloting business flying is much safer. Charter operations are safer yet (we have passed the “safer than driving” statistic here). Corporate flying is extremely safe. And (other than the recent Hudson River landing) commercial flight is the very safest means of transportation.

Of course commercial flying is safer. You have two professional pilots flying the same routes every week. The aircraft is generally far more capable than that flown by the general aviation pilot. About 90% of accidents are caused by pilot error. And bold amateurs tend to make a lot more errors than seasoned professionals.

So yes, general aviation is by far the riskiest travel in the air. I don’t know if it’s arrogance, poor training, poor ability, or just plain stupidity. Probably a little of each.

The comment about following instruments is probably related to flight in IMC “Instrument Meteorologic Conditions.” Pilots must pass a written test and a flight test to fly in IMC — it’s a big step up from flying in clear weather. While the FAA mandates fairly strict training and currency standards for pilots as well as specific aircraft capability, it’s not unusual for pilots to “cheat” on their qualifications (no one is really looking!) and fly in IMC when they shouldn’t. It’s dumb, it’s dangerous, it’s illegal — but people do it. Go figure. Probably at least one of the fatal Palomar accidents occurred with that scenario. (Don’t be so surprised — like you never heard of someone driving drunk without a license?)

I don’t want to knock flying — especially flying in Southern California. Southern California has some of the busiest airspace in the world. There’s a reason for that: it has wonderful weather, many great airports, and beautiful scenery. Sometimes it’s so perfect I think I’m having a Zen experience. You just gotta do it right.

[Deserted]

Thanks jiggy. (I’m afraid to ask how you got that name.)

I almost feel honored to be part of a blog where people can post without the personal attacks or mindless opinions that one sees on most other websites.

The issues of airport noise and airport safety are here and they’re not going away. They will become more important over time. They are not restricted to San Diego County. There have been contentious battles from Santa Monica to Teterboro.

To fully illustrate the stupidity of regulation consider Montgomery Field. Montgomery Field has a noise abatement ordinance with fairly stiff penalties for late night operations. This ordinance was, as I understand it, developed to placate homeowners who foolishly bought homes in the early 1960’s built right under the departure path.

Forget that Montgomery had been a busy airport since at least the 1940’s. Forget that the San Diego City zoning department was warned to never allow housing in that area. (You must purposely forget a lot if you want to discuss development around airports!)

The noise regulations do NOTHING to mitigate the danger of aircraft operations at Montgomery other than to push operations from late night to daytime or evening-time. They are there to placate the homeowners who knowingly purchased homes under a noisy (and dangerous) departure path. In many people’s opinion, homes that should never have been approved for construction.

About 15 years ago, construction of the mall across the west side of 163 was allowed — again against the advice of most everyone associated with Montgomery. But the developers won. Go figure.

The only bright spot was the recent mandatory removal of the illegal upper two stories from the development just north of Montgomery. I was truly amazed that the City had the cajones to force the issue. Of course, the multistory building itself still poses some hazard, but developers have to wring maximal profit out of the land and ignore “acceptable” danger — don’t they?

I make the sad prediction that an aircraft will have engine failure after take-off from the main runway at Montgomery and crash into the mall. Not if, only when. You know that In and Out Burger? It’s directly in line with the main runway departure path. One day the drive-in window will be a fly-in window.

Montgomery has been made an inherently unsafe airport by allowing this adjacent development. Useless “noise abatement” programs only give the illusion of safety. Montgomery perfectly illustrates how the public’s perception of safety is completely divorced from actual safety.

Don’t even get me started on Lindbergh.

Why am I posting? I don’t even know. Venting I guess. Mainly against the psychotic zoning approval in San Diego County which knowingly allows the design and construction of unsafe development.

[Deserted]

Thanks jiggy. (I’m afraid to ask how you got that name.)

I almost feel honored to be part of a blog where people can post without the personal attacks or mindless opinions that one sees on most other websites.

The issues of airport noise and airport safety are here and they’re not going away. They will become more important over time. They are not restricted to San Diego County. There have been contentious battles from Santa Monica to Teterboro.

To fully illustrate the stupidity of regulation consider Montgomery Field. Montgomery Field has a noise abatement ordinance with fairly stiff penalties for late night operations. This ordinance was, as I understand it, developed to placate homeowners who foolishly bought homes in the early 1960’s built right under the departure path.

Forget that Montgomery had been a busy airport since at least the 1940’s. Forget that the San Diego City zoning department was warned to never allow housing in that area. (You must purposely forget a lot if you want to discuss development around airports!)

The noise regulations do NOTHING to mitigate the danger of aircraft operations at Montgomery other than to push operations from late night to daytime or evening-time. They are there to placate the homeowners who knowingly purchased homes under a noisy (and dangerous) departure path. In many people’s opinion, homes that should never have been approved for construction.

About 15 years ago, construction of the mall across the west side of 163 was allowed — again against the advice of most everyone associated with Montgomery. But the developers won. Go figure.

The only bright spot was the recent mandatory removal of the illegal upper two stories from the development just north of Montgomery. I was truly amazed that the City had the cajones to force the issue. Of course, the multistory building itself still poses some hazard, but developers have to wring maximal profit out of the land and ignore “acceptable” danger — don’t they?

I make the sad prediction that an aircraft will have engine failure after take-off from the main runway at Montgomery and crash into the mall. Not if, only when. You know that In and Out Burger? It’s directly in line with the main runway departure path. One day the drive-in window will be a fly-in window.

Montgomery has been made an inherently unsafe airport by allowing this adjacent development. Useless “noise abatement” programs only give the illusion of safety. Montgomery perfectly illustrates how the public’s perception of safety is completely divorced from actual safety.

Don’t even get me started on Lindbergh.

Why am I posting? I don’t even know. Venting I guess. Mainly against the psychotic zoning approval in San Diego County which knowingly allows the design and construction of unsafe development.

[Deserted]

Thanks jiggy. (I’m afraid to ask how you got that name.)

I almost feel honored to be part of a blog where people can post without the personal attacks or mindless opinions that one sees on most other websites.

The issues of airport noise and airport safety are here and they’re not going away. They will become more important over time. They are not restricted to San Diego County. There have been contentious battles from Santa Monica to Teterboro.

To fully illustrate the stupidity of regulation consider Montgomery Field. Montgomery Field has a noise abatement ordinance with fairly stiff penalties for late night operations. This ordinance was, as I understand it, developed to placate homeowners who foolishly bought homes in the early 1960’s built right under the departure path.

Forget that Montgomery had been a busy airport since at least the 1940’s. Forget that the San Diego City zoning department was warned to never allow housing in that area. (You must purposely forget a lot if you want to discuss development around airports!)

The noise regulations do NOTHING to mitigate the danger of aircraft operations at Montgomery other than to push operations from late night to daytime or evening-time. They are there to placate the homeowners who knowingly purchased homes under a noisy (and dangerous) departure path. In many people’s opinion, homes that should never have been approved for construction.

About 15 years ago, construction of the mall across the west side of 163 was allowed — again against the advice of most everyone associated with Montgomery. But the developers won. Go figure.

The only bright spot was the recent mandatory removal of the illegal upper two stories from the development just north of Montgomery. I was truly amazed that the City had the cajones to force the issue. Of course, the multistory building itself still poses some hazard, but developers have to wring maximal profit out of the land and ignore “acceptable” danger — don’t they?

I make the sad prediction that an aircraft will have engine failure after take-off from the main runway at Montgomery and crash into the mall. Not if, only when. You know that In and Out Burger? It’s directly in line with the main runway departure path. One day the drive-in window will be a fly-in window.

Montgomery has been made an inherently unsafe airport by allowing this adjacent development. Useless “noise abatement” programs only give the illusion of safety. Montgomery perfectly illustrates how the public’s perception of safety is completely divorced from actual safety.

Don’t even get me started on Lindbergh.

Why am I posting? I don’t even know. Venting I guess. Mainly against the psychotic zoning approval in San Diego County which knowingly allows the design and construction of unsafe development.

[Deserted]

Thanks jiggy. (I’m afraid to ask how you got that name.)

I almost feel honored to be part of a blog where people can post without the personal attacks or mindless opinions that one sees on most other websites.

The issues of airport noise and airport safety are here and they’re not going away. They will become more important over time. They are not restricted to San Diego County. There have been contentious battles from Santa Monica to Teterboro.

To fully illustrate the stupidity of regulation consider Montgomery Field. Montgomery Field has a noise abatement ordinance with fairly stiff penalties for late night operations. This ordinance was, as I understand it, developed to placate homeowners who foolishly bought homes in the early 1960’s built right under the departure path.

Forget that Montgomery had been a busy airport since at least the 1940’s. Forget that the San Diego City zoning department was warned to never allow housing in that area. (You must purposely forget a lot if you want to discuss development around airports!)

The noise regulations do NOTHING to mitigate the danger of aircraft operations at Montgomery other than to push operations from late night to daytime or evening-time. They are there to placate the homeowners who knowingly purchased homes under a noisy (and dangerous) departure path. In many people’s opinion, homes that should never have been approved for construction.

About 15 years ago, construction of the mall across the west side of 163 was allowed — again against the advice of most everyone associated with Montgomery. But the developers won. Go figure.

The only bright spot was the recent mandatory removal of the illegal upper two stories from the development just north of Montgomery. I was truly amazed that the City had the cajones to force the issue. Of course, the multistory building itself still poses some hazard, but developers have to wring maximal profit out of the land and ignore “acceptable” danger — don’t they?

I make the sad prediction that an aircraft will have engine failure after take-off from the main runway at Montgomery and crash into the mall. Not if, only when. You know that In and Out Burger? It’s directly in line with the main runway departure path. One day the drive-in window will be a fly-in window.

Montgomery has been made an inherently unsafe airport by allowing this adjacent development. Useless “noise abatement” programs only give the illusion of safety. Montgomery perfectly illustrates how the public’s perception of safety is completely divorced from actual safety.

Don’t even get me started on Lindbergh.

Why am I posting? I don’t even know. Venting I guess. Mainly against the psychotic zoning approval in San Diego County which knowingly allows the design and construction of unsafe development.

[Deserted]

Thanks jiggy. (I’m afraid to ask how you got that name.)

I almost feel honored to be part of a blog where people can post without the personal attacks or mindless opinions that one sees on most other websites.

The issues of airport noise and airport safety are here and they’re not going away. They will become more important over time. They are not restricted to San Diego County. There have been contentious battles from Santa Monica to Teterboro.

To fully illustrate the stupidity of regulation consider Montgomery Field. Montgomery Field has a noise abatement ordinance with fairly stiff penalties for late night operations. This ordinance was, as I understand it, developed to placate homeowners who foolishly bought homes in the early 1960’s built right under the departure path.

Forget that Montgomery had been a busy airport since at least the 1940’s. Forget that the San Diego City zoning department was warned to never allow housing in that area. (You must purposely forget a lot if you want to discuss development around airports!)

The noise regulations do NOTHING to mitigate the danger of aircraft operations at Montgomery other than to push operations from late night to daytime or evening-time. They are there to placate the homeowners who knowingly purchased homes under a noisy (and dangerous) departure path. In many people’s opinion, homes that should never have been approved for construction.

About 15 years ago, construction of the mall across the west side of 163 was allowed — again against the advice of most everyone associated with Montgomery. But the developers won. Go figure.

The only bright spot was the recent mandatory removal of the illegal upper two stories from the development just north of Montgomery. I was truly amazed that the City had the cajones to force the issue. Of course, the multistory building itself still poses some hazard, but developers have to wring maximal profit out of the land and ignore “acceptable” danger — don’t they?

I make the sad prediction that an aircraft will have engine failure after take-off from the main runway at Montgomery and crash into the mall. Not if, only when. You know that In and Out Burger? It’s directly in line with the main runway departure path. One day the drive-in window will be a fly-in window.

Montgomery has been made an inherently unsafe airport by allowing this adjacent development. Useless “noise abatement” programs only give the illusion of safety. Montgomery perfectly illustrates how the public’s perception of safety is completely divorced from actual safety.

Don’t even get me started on Lindbergh.

Why am I posting? I don’t even know. Venting I guess. Mainly against the psychotic zoning approval in San Diego County which knowingly allows the design and construction of unsafe development.

[Author]

Posts