FAA grounds taunting banner plane

[Jim Logajan]

The FAA sent inspectors to check on a plane that towed a taunting banner
and claimed it had a seatbelt issue, grounding it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_masters_banner_plane

I'm glad to see that the FAA doesn't abuse their police powers when asked
by the rich and politically connected to go find something, anything, to
silence unwelcome but free speech, however one may disagree with it. I'm
glad that didn't happen here.

And kudos to the person on the ground who managed to see a problem with a
seatbelt on the airplane (good eye!) and alerted the FAA to the unsafe
condition. I'm sure the FAA inspectors had a specific reason to inspect the
plane other than it carried a taunting banner.

I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of unsafe
airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of unsafe
> airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".

That looks like a clear abuse of power to me.

Vaughn

[george]

On Apr 10, 12:15*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> .. .

> > I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of unsafe
> > airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".
>
> That looks like a clear abuse of power to me.
>
Like being pulled over for driving while young ?

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of unsafe
> airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".

A bad seat belt can lead a banner-towing aircraft to tragedy, just as surely
as a politically-incorrect message. It's not like a failure to maintain a
fleet of 737s, or ignoring ADs for a couple of 747s, or trivial stuff like
that. This is a question of seat-belt conformance, which has the absolute
highest priority with the FAA because of the fearsome danger it represents to
aviation safety.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
> > I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of unsafe
> > airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".
>
> A bad seat belt can lead a banner-towing aircraft to tragedy, just as surely
> as a politically-incorrect message. It's not like a failure to maintain a
> fleet of 737s, or ignoring ADs for a couple of 747s, or trivial stuff like
> that. This is a question of seat-belt conformance, which has the absolute
> highest priority with the FAA because of the fearsome danger it represents to
> aviation safety.

Just wondering how you'd know that. When's the last time you left the
seat, due clear air turbulence, or when you where trying to join the
mile high club and she leaned back onto the control yoke?

--
Duncan.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Just wondering how you'd know that. When's the last time you left the
> seat, due clear air turbulence, or when you where trying to join the
> mile high club and she leaned back onto the control yoke?

I've seen first-hand what happens when people don't fasten their seat belts.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:31:22 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Dave Doe writes:
>
>> Just wondering how you'd know that. When's the last time you left the
>> seat, due clear air turbulence, or when you where trying to join the
>> mile high club and she leaned back onto the control yoke?
>
>I've seen first-hand what happens when people don't fasten their seat belts.

I havent.
could you demonstrate for me?

Stealth Pilot

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>I've seen first-hand what happens when people don't fasten their seat
>>belts.
>
> I havent.
> could you demonstrate for me?

How about some extended knife edge flight in a breezey with no seat belt?
--
Jim in NC

[Ricky]

On Apr 10, 3:56*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>This is a question of seat-belt conformance,

No, it's not and you are wrong once again.
The issue was not the seat belt, it was someone's
offense at free speech. The seat belt was an issue
discovered after the fact, so once again, you're simply wrong.

Ricky

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> I havent. could you demonstrate for me?

I wasn't given a copy of the scans or x-ray images, as I was uninjured myself.

[Mxsmanic]

Ricky writes:

> No, it's not and you are wrong once again.
> The issue was not the seat belt, it was someone's
> offense at free speech. The seat belt was an issue
> discovered after the fact, so once again, you're simply wrong.

R-r-really? I never thought of that!

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The FAA sent inspectors to check on a plane that towed a taunting banner
> and claimed it had a seatbelt issue, grounding it:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_masters_banner_plane
>
> I'm glad to see that the FAA doesn't abuse their police powers when asked
> by the rich and politically connected to go find something, anything, to
> silence unwelcome but free speech, however one may disagree with it. I'm
> glad that didn't happen here.
>
> And kudos to the person on the ground who managed to see a problem with a
> seatbelt on the airplane (good eye!) and alerted the FAA to the unsafe
> condition. I'm sure the FAA inspectors had a specific reason to inspect the
> plane other than it carried a taunting banner.
>
> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of unsafe
> airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".

I was glad to see that this story made it on TMZ, complete with some
speculation as to the government having money on the outcome of the Masters.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of
>> unsafe airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".
>
> A bad seat belt can lead a banner-towing aircraft to tragedy, just as
> surely as a politically-incorrect message. It's not like a failure to
> maintain a fleet of 737s, or ignoring ADs for a couple of 747s, or
> trivial stuff like that. This is a question of seat-belt conformance,
> which has the absolute highest priority with the FAA because of the
> fearsome danger it represents to aviation safety.

Looks like a couple readers may have missed the sardonic (or should I say
sarcastic or cynical) tone of your post. Much in the same tone my post was
written.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Stealth Pilot writes:
>
> > I havent. could you demonstrate for me?
>
> I wasn't given a copy of the scans or x-ray images, as I was uninjured myself.

What sort of aircraft was it?

--
Duncan.

[george]

On Apr 11, 1:15*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:31:22 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >Dave Doe writes:
>
> >> Just wondering how you'd know that. *When's the last time you left the
> >> seat, due clear air turbulence, or when you where trying to join the
> >> mile high club and she leaned back onto the control yoke?
>
> >I've seen first-hand what happens when people don't fasten their seat belts.
>
> I havent.
> could you demonstrate for me?

Preferably in an open cockpit biplane during aerobatics

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> What sort of aircraft was it?

DC-10

[george]

On Apr 13, 8:40*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote :
>
> > And kudos to the person on the ground who managed to see a problem
> > with a seatbelt on the airplane (good eye!) and alerted the FAA to the
> > unsafe condition. I'm sure the FAA inspectors had a specific reason to
> > inspect the plane other than it carried a taunting banner.
>
> * A ramp check needs no reason.
>
:-)
Some-one didn't read their Regs

[Mxsmanic]

Stephen! writes:

> A ramp check needs no reason.

I'm sure this one had a reason, just not the one claimed for it.

[150flivver]

On Apr 12, 4:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stephen! writes:
> > A ramp check needs no reason.
>
> I'm sure this one had a reason, just not the one claimed for it.

I wonder if the only problem with the seat belt was a missing TSO
compliance tag...

[150flivver]

On Apr 12, 7:25*pm, 150flivver > wrote:

> I wonder if the only problem with the seat belt was a missing TSO
> compliance tag...

It could have been worse--the tow plane might have not had a compass
deviation card in which case countless lives would have been
endangered.

[Ricky]

On Apr 10, 11:25*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> R-r-really? I never thought of that!

Well, that would be nothing new.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Apr 12, 9:32*am, Ari > wrote:

> A little Wacko down in Waco?

Always wacko down in Waco.

Ricky

[george]

On Apr 14, 5:48*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> george > wrote in news:f77819dc-423a-4447-b8ed-
> :
>
> >> ÿ A ramp check needs no reason.
>
> >:-)
> > Some-one didn't read their Regs
>
> * Twasn't me...
>
> * For Part 91, an FAA Aviation Safety Inpector can conduct a ramp check
> whenever the inspector:
>
> (1) Observes an unsafe operation in the traffic pattern or in the ramp
> (2) Is notified by ATC of an unsafe operation
> (3) Conducts normal surveillance
>
> * Number (3) include 'random' ramp checks at the inspectors whim.
>
> Check out FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 6 for more information.

I don't have to. I used to have a bit of paper that proved I knew the
Regs... :-)

[Richard[_11_]]

On Apr 10, 9:45*am, Ricky > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 3:56*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >This is a question of seat-belt conformance,
>
> No, it's not and you are wrong once again.
> The issue was not the seat belt, it was someone's
> offense at free speech. The seat belt was an issue
> discovered after the fact, so once again, you're simply wrong.
>
> Ricky

You missed the class on irony and sarcasm didn't you?

Geez. This forum is like listening to a bunch of whiny teenaged
girls.

Next, up, "well, he made me!" from the MX bashers.

******s should get some hobbies.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Apr 10, 1:00*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Jim Logajan writes:
>
> >> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of
> >> unsafe airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".
>
> > A bad seat belt can lead a banner-towing aircraft to tragedy, just as
> > surely as a politically-incorrect message. It's not like a failure to
> > maintain a fleet of 737s, or ignoring ADs for a couple of 747s, or
> > trivial stuff like that. This is a question of seat-belt conformance,
> > which has the absolute highest priority with the FAA because of the
> > fearsome danger it represents to aviation safety.
>
> Looks like a couple readers may have missed the sardonic (or should I say
> sarcastic or cynical) tone of your post. Much in the same tone my post was
> written.

Well they saw the red flag waved by the Bull (MXsmanic for those
clueless and humourless folks) and like the good little conditioned
soldiers had to go charging after it.

BWAHAHAH! Oh yeah, let's here the "well you don't know how mean that
Mxsmanic dude is! He gave me a wedgie! I'm only...." what?
responding tit for tat?

Grow up girls.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Richard wrote:

> On Apr 10, 9:45*am, Ricky > wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 3:56*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>>This is a question of seat-belt conformance,
>>
>> No, it's not and you are wrong once again.
>> The issue was not the seat belt, it was someone's
>> offense at free speech. The seat belt was an issue
>> discovered after the fact, so once again, you're simply wrong.
>>
>> Ricky
>
> You missed the class on irony and sarcasm didn't you?
>
> Geez. This forum is like listening to a bunch of whiny teenaged
> girls.
>
> Next, up, "well, he made me!" from the MX bashers.
>
> ******s should get some hobbies.

This ****4newsgruppe *is* there hobby.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari[_2_]]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>
>>> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of
>>> unsafe airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".
>>
>> A bad seat belt can lead a banner-towing aircraft to tragedy, just as
>> surely as a politically-incorrect message. It's not like a failure to
>> maintain a fleet of 737s, or ignoring ADs for a couple of 747s, or
>> trivial stuff like that. This is a question of seat-belt conformance,
>> which has the absolute highest priority with the FAA because of the
>> fearsome danger it represents to aviation safety.
>
> Looks like a couple readers may have missed the sardonic (or should I say
> sarcastic or cynical) tone of your post. Much in the same tone my post was
> written.

Tone? In a post?

OK, what's my tone right now?
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Richard[_11_]]

On Apr 14, 3:26*pm, Ari > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Jim Logajan writes:
>
> >>> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of
> >>> unsafe airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".
>
> >> A bad seat belt can lead a banner-towing aircraft to tragedy, just as
> >> surely as a politically-incorrect message. It's not like a failure to
> >> maintain a fleet of 737s, or ignoring ADs for a couple of 747s, or
> >> trivial stuff like that. This is a question of seat-belt conformance,
> >> which has the absolute highest priority with the FAA because of the
> >> fearsome danger it represents to aviation safety.
>
> > Looks like a couple readers may have missed the sardonic (or should I say
> > sarcastic or cynical) tone of your post. Much in the same tone my post was
> > written.
>
> Tone? In a post?
>
> OK, what's my tone right now?
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Incredulity...or perhaps mocking with a nice tinge of sarcasm.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Richard wrote:

> On Apr 14, 3:26*pm, Ari > wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>
>>>>> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of
>>>>> unsafe airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".
>>
>>>> A bad seat belt can lead a banner-towing aircraft to tragedy, just as
>>>> surely as a politically-incorrect message. It's not like a failure to
>>>> maintain a fleet of 737s, or ignoring ADs for a couple of 747s, or
>>>> trivial stuff like that. This is a question of seat-belt conformance,
>>>> which has the absolute highest priority with the FAA because of the
>>>> fearsome danger it represents to aviation safety.
>>
>>> Looks like a couple readers may have missed the sardonic (or should I say
>>> sarcastic or cynical) tone of your post. Much in the same tone my post was
>>> written.
>>
>> Tone? In a post?
>>
>> OK, what's my tone right now?
>> --
>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
> Incredulity...or perhaps mocking with a nice tinge of sarcasm.

Nope I was taking a painful ****.

So much for crystal balling tones from posts. :)
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Richard[_11_]]

On Apr 14, 6:41*pm, Ari > wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Richard wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 3:26*pm, Ari > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
> >>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>>> Jim Logajan writes:
>
> >>>>> I'm sure the FAA would have been equally diligent to complaints of
> >>>>> unsafe airplanes towing banners saying something like "Eat at Joe's".
>
> >>>> A bad seat belt can lead a banner-towing aircraft to tragedy, just as
> >>>> surely as a politically-incorrect message. It's not like a failure to
> >>>> maintain a fleet of 737s, or ignoring ADs for a couple of 747s, or
> >>>> trivial stuff like that. This is a question of seat-belt conformance,
> >>>> which has the absolute highest priority with the FAA because of the
> >>>> fearsome danger it represents to aviation safety.
>
> >>> Looks like a couple readers may have missed the sardonic (or should I say
> >>> sarcastic or cynical) tone of your post. Much in the same tone my post was
> >>> written.
>
> >> Tone? In a post?
>
> >> OK, what's my tone right now?
> >> --
> >> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> >> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
> > Incredulity...or perhaps mocking with a nice tinge of sarcasm.
>
> Nope I was taking a painful ****.
>
> So much for crystal balling tones from posts. :)
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On usenet its more like teabagging...or freeballing, not so much
crystal balling.

[Jim Logajan]

Ari > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Looks like a couple readers may have missed the sardonic (or should I
>> say sarcastic or cynical) tone of your post. Much in the same tone my
>> post was written.
>
> Tone? In a post?

If you hadn't skipped class the day they taught that sort of thing, Usenet
wouldn't be so hard for you to understand. Here are the Cliff Notes on what
"tone" means with respect to writing:

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/What-are-the-types-of-tones-attitudes-in-writing-.id-305408,articleId-7624.html
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/What-is-tone-exactly-and-how-do-you-find-it-in-stories-.id-305408,articleId-8021.html

> OK, what's my tone right now?

Haughty, with a tinge of green.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:42:21 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Ari > wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Looks like a couple readers may have missed the sardonic (or should I
>>> say sarcastic or cynical) tone of your post. Much in the same tone my
>>> post was written.
>>
>> Tone? In a post?
>
> If you hadn't skipped class the day they taught that sort of thing,

You took Usenet 101? Where was that?

> Usenet
> wouldn't be so hard for you to understand. Here are the Cliff Notes on what
> "tone" means with respect to writing:
>
> http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/What-are-the-types-of-tones-attitudes-in-writing-.id-305408,articleId-7624.html
> http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/What-is-tone-exactly-and-how-do-you-find-it-in-stories-.id-305408,articleId-8021.html
>
>> OK, what's my tone right now?
>
> Haughty, with a tinge of green.

Restudy your Cliff notes.

And give up on ever thinking you have a lock on "tone" from Usenet
posts.

Regardless of your advanced education in it.

*laff*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!