Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Jeeves
Exactly. The specs envisioned an accidental hit.

Related to that is the fact that an accidental hit would most likely occur when a plane trying to land, and likely is low on fuel. If conditions are such that a pilot would be unaware of a 1000' building in front of him, the pilot isn't going to put himself in the air even remotely near such buildings unless he has no alternative. If a plane is on the ground during such conditions, it will stay there. If the plane is airborne and has enough fuel to either fly somewhere else where conditions might be better, or else circle at higher elevations while waiting for conditions to improve, the pilot would likely choose one of those options. Landing in dangerous conditions is generally only attempted for lack of a better alternative (although one may defer landing for awhile, "not landing" isn't really a choice).

40 posted on 05/12/2007 5:01:22 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
Experienced eyes........

Anyone involved with controlled demolition would have a different, well educated opinion.

Ask around, maybe you know someone in the industry, they're all saying, well, you know.

"Just one word, Mrs. Robinson."

Thermite.

41 posted on 05/13/2007 7:59:53 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson