Re: Last Chance -- Free Beer in Iowa on Sunday!

[EDR]

> Our first annual "Pre-Oshkosh Fly-In Pool Party" starts at 3 PM Sunday here
> in Iowa City!

I am watching the weather for Sunday, enroute KOSU to KIOW. If that
route is blocked, I will have to go direct KOSH. It will all depend on
where the thunderstorms are and how intense they are, and if there are
any lines. My kids do not tolerate turbulence well and as this is their
first trip to OSH, it really needs to be fun I want them to come again.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:14:19 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<%WaUa.144094$Ph3.18630@sccrnsc04>:

>Come enjoy the beer,...

Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but *publicly* providing
intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem less than prudent
to me.

How concerned are you about your civil liability for supplying
alcoholic beverages to en route airman? Do you demand to know who the
"designated pilot" is before serving? Is the location of the free
beer on the airport grounds? Isn't a state liquor license required to
publicly dispense intoxicating liquor legally?

I don't want to be a "wet blanket," but *publicly* providing liquor to
pilots seems foolish to me.

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Jim Weir]

Jesus, I think I knew this guy in college. He was the one shining the
flashlight into all the dark corners during the parties.

Jim


Larry Dighera >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->I don't want to be a "wet blanket," but *publicly* providing liquor to
->pilots seems foolish to me.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:13:30 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>He was the one shining the
>flashlight into all the dark corners during the parties.

Were those parties publicly announced in a worldwide forum?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Scott Skylane]

Larry Dighera wrote:
/snip/
>
> I don't want to be a "wet blanket," but
/snip/

Dighera, you're a wet blanket.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Jason Kennemer]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
Isn't a state liquor license required to
> publicly dispense intoxicating liquor legally?

Usually a liquor license is only required to sell alcohol - to give it away
free is ok. Many restaurants do this to promote an opening before obtaining
approval for their liquor license.

As far as Jay serving free beer, it's up to a responsible adult as to
whether or not to drink the beer, or to drink the beer and try to fly the
same day. However, in these modern times, people never like to take
responsibility for their own actions, and may feel like Jay is responsible
for serving beer to an idiot who'd be willing to go flying right after
downing a 12-pack.

I think Jay's intent is to have a fun afternoon party, and try to keep as
many "guests" as possible at his establishment. I'd be a willing hotel
guest, if I were on my way up to OSH. (Sorry Jay, can't make it up there
this year.)

Maybe next year,
Jason Kennemer

[Margy Natalie]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:14:19 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <%WaUa.144094$Ph3.18630@sccrnsc04>:
>
> >Come enjoy the beer,...
>
> Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but *publicly* providing
> intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem less than prudent
> to me.
>

Let's see, I've invited folks on this forum to a picnic at my house (as I
have in the past). There was alcohol there (hell, it was a party) and
some folks flew in. I have couch space if needed and stated it. Jay has
a damned HOTEL for you to stay in if you choose to drink. En route does
not mean have a beer and take-off.

>
> How concerned are you about your civil liability for supplying
> alcoholic beverages to en route airman? Do you demand to know who the
> "designated pilot" is before serving? Is the location of the free
> beer on the airport grounds? Isn't a state liquor license required to
> publicly dispense intoxicating liquor legally?

Haven't you been reading the details? It's a party, at a hotel. A
private party at that, Jay has invited his FRIENDS from the net.

>
>
> I don't want to be a "wet blanket," but *publicly* providing liquor to
> pilots seems foolish to me.

Go stick yourself in the dryer.

Margy

[AES/newspost]

Attendees can read up on the following:

(Once this thing is flying, the excess energy from the wind turbine can
be used to power Lifters that bring up more beer.)


WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 25 Jul 03 Washington, DC

1. DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: 9 YEARS AND 100 DEATHS LATER.

2. CLIMATE CHANGE: NOW HERE'S THE PLAN, WE STUDY THE PROBLEM.

3. VOTING MACHINES: "HANGING CHAD" WASN'T SO BAD.

4. PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM: THE NATION'S TOP CIVILIAN HONOR

5. INFINITE ENERGY: REVOLUTIONARY AIRCRAFT IS POWERED BY GRAVITY.

An ad in the Wall Street Journal last week sought investors for a
fuel-less aircraft. The idea is refreshing; unlike free-energy
scams that tap the zero-point energy, or shield gravity, Hunt
Aircraft Corp. proposes to do it the old-fashioned way, i.e.,
violate Conservation of Energy. Helium bags lift the winged
craft vertically, whereupon the helium is compressed to make the
craft heavier than air. It then glides downward. At low
altitude, the cycle is repeated. Aha!, you say, compressing the
gas takes work. These guys aren't that dumb. As it glides, a
wind-turbine will generate the power. The inventor has applied
for a patent, but our research uncovered the shocking similarity
to Tom Swift's "Black Hawk" airship described in Tom Swift and
His Electric Rifle (Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1911).

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY.
Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the
University or the American Physical Society -- but they should be.

Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN

[Jack Allison]

> I don't want to be a "wet blanket," but

....then don't...oh rats, too late :-)
--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jay Honeck]

> Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but *publicly* providing
> intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem less than prudent
> to me.

You're kidding, right?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:51:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<wTfUa.145029$ye4.99966@sccrnsc01>:

>> Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but *publicly* providing
>> intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem less than prudent
>> to me.
>
>You're kidding, right?


No.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Jim Weir]

*
* *
* /*
* / *
/
o

Troll-O-Meter






Larry Dighera >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:51:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in Message-Id:
-><wTfUa.145029$ye4.99966@sccrnsc01>:
->
->>> Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but *publicly* providing
->>> intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem less than prudent
->>> to me.
->>
->>You're kidding, right?
->
->
->No.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Capt. Doug]

>Larry Dighera wrote in message > >> Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but
>*publicly* providing intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem
less than >prudent to me.

SOME of us can make responsible decisions WITHOUT input from self-righteous
pompous carriers of public correctness. I wish I could be there.

D.

[Montblack]

I'm with Larry on this one :-)

(waiting patiently for my tobacco-like class action lawsuit settlement
against *Big Fat* to show up any day now in the mail)

I think what Larry is really saying <g>...don't serve chips and dip at your
party - too much downside liability exposure. Big Liquor is next ....but Big
Fat is now!!

If a 17 year old pilot wants a beer, then that's a problem.

We live in such wacky times that if someone crashed after staying at Jay's
place, they might entertain litigation thoughts, based on the idea that they
were unable to get a proper night's sleep, due in part by the fact that they
had to sleep on (an alleged) lumpy mattress.

What? I said *alleged*.

--
Montblack

(Larry Dighera wrote)
>
> Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but *publicly* providing
> intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem less than prudent
> to me. <snip>

[Ben Smith]

Hi Jay - I plan to make a cameo appearance, weather permitting.

How does one get to the hotel after landing at IOW? (Is it walking
distance?)

--
Ben
C172 - N13258 @ 87Y


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:%WaUa.144094$Ph3.18630@sccrnsc04...
> Our first annual "Pre-Oshkosh Fly-In Pool Party" starts at 3 PM Sunday
here
> in Iowa City!
>
> We've now added poolside live music in addition to the "Lifter Technology"
> flight demonstrations. Come enjoy the beer, food, music, and camaraderie
of
> hanging around with a bunch of crazy pilots en route to the Big One in
OSH!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Robert Kesik]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

> No.

Hi,
First post here, but gotta get this outta me .


Sorry to say, but get a life, and go elsewhere with your
talk. This is a get-to-gether, any person who drinks
are responsible for thier actions, nobody else, have a
look throught the FAA regs, find me a paragraph where
it says I CAN'T DRINK BEER and have a party, and
then later after some time, go elsewhere, get ****ed, wait
a while do more flying.


Are you just jealouse because YOU can't fly-in
earlier ? Don't go bragging about, I don't give a
*uck. Just stop your talking, get you ass in gear
go do other things.

There is ABSOLOUTLY nothing wrong with this
party. Got IT ?


Unhappy rec.aviation.piloting reader,
Robert Kesik
EPSC - Spotter. (Poland)

[Jim Fisher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> I don't want to be a "wet blanket," but *publicly* providing liquor to
> pilots seems foolish to me.

Very good point, Larry. However, the FAA has come up with a very good
memnumon . . . newmoni . . .nmenmoni . . mnemonic! to help those of us who
have trouble staying away from the bottle after flying . . , er, flying
after the bottle. Okay, it may not even be a mmnnmneumonic but you get the
idea.

Everyone repeat after me: "Eight minutes from throttle to bottle." . . . Or
was it eight hours . . . or was it from "bottle to throttle"? Speaking of
that if you drink from a can instead of a bottle, do you add or subtract
minutes/hours?

I had considered driving my ass up to Osh detouring to Ioway and dropping in
on your fools on the way. Problem is, three days ago I finally got a firm
offer of my house that has been on the market for 2.5 years. I gotta be out
in three weeks so I'll be packing instead of driving.

If all goes as planned, I'll be flying up there in my own plane again within
a year! . . . or two.

Y'all have one for me, okay?

--
Jim Fisher

[Jay Honeck]

> Sorry to say, but get a life, and go elsewhere with your
> talk. This is a get-to-gether, any person who drinks
> are responsible for thier actions, nobody else, have a
> look throught the FAA regs, find me a paragraph where
> it says I CAN'T DRINK BEER and have a party

If it makes y'all feel better, I have actually (no kidding!) invited a
couple of FAA types to the party.

They drink beer too, you know. :)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Hi Jay - I plan to make a cameo appearance, weather permitting.
>
> How does one get to the hotel after landing at IOW? (Is it walking
> distance?)

That's great, Ben!

While we are within walking distance, just have the line guys at IOW give us
a call. We'll come getcha! :)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Jim Fisher wrote:
> Everyone repeat after me: "Eight minutes from throttle to bottle." . . . Or
> was it eight hours . . . or was it from "bottle to throttle"? Speaking of
> that if you drink from a can instead of a bottle, do you add or subtract
> minutes/hours?

I thought it was no smoking within eight hours of flying and no drinking
within 100 feet of the airplane.

[Jay Honeck]

> Are you planning a live webcast of this event? or at least a live web
> cam????

You volunteering? :)

> Just trying to be as involved as possible with no plane!

Who needs a plane? Drive, bike, ride, or glide in -- we'll have a cold one
for you! :)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:50:25 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Sorry to say, but get a life, and go elsewhere with your
>> talk. This is a get-to-gether, any person who drinks
>> are responsible for thier actions, nobody else, have a
>> look throught the FAA regs, find me a paragraph where
>> it says I CAN'T DRINK BEER and have a party
>
>If it makes y'all feel better, I have actually (no kidding!) invited a
>couple of FAA types to the party.
>
>They drink beer too, you know. :)

You mean, they don't only need a little bit of oil and grease from time to
time? Real humans?

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:25:13 -0500, Jeff Franks wrote:

>Hey Jay,
>
>Are you planning a live webcast of this event? or at least a live web
>cam????
>
>;)


oh yessss ... let's all get again into it in telling Jay what he should
setup for us geeks ... :-))

but sure, a webcam pointing to the airport (or showing the pool, etc.)
wouldn't be the worst of all ideas.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Robert Kesik]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5UmUa.148733$H17.51949@sccrnsc02...

> If it makes y'all feel better, I have actually (no kidding!) invited a
> couple of FAA types to the party.

Hey there jay,

Listen I'm with you on this subject,
I don't see a problem with this fly-in
If I had the money I would flyin
by regular arline and hitch-hike my way
to this meet.

> They drink beer too, you know. :)
Now now, I like my beer *COLD*.
They prolly like it cold themselves.

anyhow, good luck with the get-to-gether.


Greetings,

Robert Kesik
EPSC - Spotter (Poland)

[Jay Honeck]

> Robert Kesik
> EPSC - Spotter. (Poland)

Just curious: what does "EPSC- Spotter" mean?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I find your exploitative lack of discretion rude and offensive.

You know, Larry, up till now I've tolerated you and your motherly attitude
with impish good humor. However, you have now crossed the line. I am now
DEEPLY offended, and will therefore organize a worldwide "PHHHBBBTTTT" in
your general direction.

All those in favor of "PHHHHBBBTTT-ing" Larry, say "AYE!" :)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jeff Franks]

Of course in light of certain posts in this thread, a webcam would only
provide evidence that some adult can't take personal responsibility for
themselves and would have to blame the event host.

Seriously though, Jay for next year (assuming you make it through the
litigation this years event causes), lets plan ahead for it. I have access
to a cheap little webbased camera that can be mounted anywhere (vise type
mount) and plugged into an ethernet jack. So, if you have cable and/or DSL,
this would be a 10 minute setup....and great fun for all us
wannabetheres.....

Jeff

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:25:13 -0500, Jeff Franks wrote:
>
> >Hey Jay,
> >
> >Are you planning a live webcast of this event? or at least a live web
> >cam????
> >
> >;)
>
>
> oh yessss ... let's all get again into it in telling Jay what he should
> setup for us geeks ... :-))
>
> but sure, a webcam pointing to the airport (or showing the pool, etc.)
> wouldn't be the worst of all ideas.
>
> #m
> --
> http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
>
> John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
> "Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:30:42 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>>If they stop and have a few drinks, and spend the night,
>>unless they drink till the sun comes up they will
>>certainly be within the "bottle-to-throttle" rule.
>
>And if they don't spend the night?

anf if they don't trink beer?

> Are you providing complementary 8
>hour accommodations for airmen who accept your free offer, so they can
>responsibly comply with federal regulations?

why should he?

> Or are you chumming for
>lodgers with cheap beer, and charging them for a room once they're
>stranded?


they can sleep whereever they want. Theay can also go downtown for the
reminder of the 8 hours.

>What would you do if you became aware that one of the airmen who
>imbibed your free beer, departed before 8 hours had elapsed, and
>subsequently generated an NTSB report? Doesn't that sort of prudent
>forethought occur to you? Or are you waaaay ahead of me?


So than this person is simply stupid. Is it Jay's fault? Would Jay be sued?
Maybe, because nobody want's to carry his own responsibility. You are
feeding into it.

>There may be a fine old tradition of pilot drinking, but in these
>times when the news media are whipping public GA terrorist hysteria,
>imagine how your free beer offer (archived for eternity, and publicly
>accessible worldwide) looks to the naive public. Do you think it
>reflects positively on airmen? Is it your intent to publicly besmirch
>our ranks?


Oh wait. Then beer is for sure a beverage for the terrorists. Everybody
trinking beer is a terrorist. Trinking beer and beeing a pilot .. well, you
should hang yourself. Immediately.

>It's bad enough to be inundated daily with a mailbox full of ground
>trees, and unsolicited e-mail will soon exceed the legitimate by a
>factor of 1,000; now you've chosen to publicly soil the airman image
>ostensibly to attract pilots to your business for personal gain thinly
>disguised as free beer.

well, he lives there at the hotel. Sure, the argument for attracting people
to the hotel remains.

> I'm offended, and I think you are foolish to
>publicly put yourself, business, and family at risk of legal
>liability.

yes, only in America.

>You can call me self-righteous as a defense, but it doesn't change the
>facts. The regulations are clear in requiring 8 hours of abstinence
>from liquor before flying.


Jay, let everbody sign an agreement before you give them free beer that you
told them about the bottle or throttle 8 hours thing and that they keep you
free of any liability.

> You are publicly offering pilots free
>alcohol in a global forum.


maybe also non pilots will have the ability to get a free one.

> If pilots accept your offer of a drink,
>they're effectively grounded for 1/3rd of a day.


yes. and now?

> The government and
>news media are doing their best to portray GA as a terrorist's tool,
>and airmen as blundering fools who flout federal attempts to establish
>"security." Enthusiastically crying the delights of inebriation in a
>public forum by airmen entrusted with the life-and-death safety of
>their passengers and those countless numbers over whom they navigate,
>is not smart.

maybe you should call the media to Jay's privat party.

>I find your exploitative lack of discretion rude and offensive.
>
>I know. I know. You're just trying to turn a buck and be congenial,
>but think man. Think.

Yes, Jay mentions his hotel too often, agreed, but only because of fear
what the general public might think? Another freedom lost over there?

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:01:54 -0500, Jeff Franks wrote:

>I have access
>to a cheap little webbased camera that can be mounted anywhere (vise type
>mount) and plugged into an ethernet jack. So, if you have cable and/or DSL,
>this would be a 10 minute setup....and great fun for all us
>wannabetheres.....

I am in search for such _cheap_ good webcams (like Axis) with ethernet. But
the are average going $300 to $400 ... can you point me to a good seller?

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Jeff Franks]

A friend of mine bought this one from the X10 folks (the ones with all the
popup ad's everywhere). It costed him about $100 with a few add-ons. It
plugs directly into and ethernet jack and has its own ip. I don't think it
has a builtin webserver, but it might. But with IIS on a Win2k machine (or
better), this would be fairly easy to setup...

Check them out. they have several options and pretty good quality
camera's.....if you can get past their marketing strategy.


www.x10.com


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:01:54 -0500, Jeff Franks wrote:
>
> >I have access
> >to a cheap little webbased camera that can be mounted anywhere (vise type
> >mount) and plugged into an ethernet jack. So, if you have cable and/or
DSL,
> >this would be a 10 minute setup....and great fun for all us
> >wannabetheres.....
>
> I am in search for such _cheap_ good webcams (like Axis) with ethernet.
But
> the are average going $300 to $400 ... can you point me to a good seller?
>
> #m
> --
> http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
>
> John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
> "Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Jeff Franks]

Did I just say "it *costed* him"? My rural Tennessee education must be
catching up with me....

;)

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
> A friend of mine bought this one from the X10 folks (the ones with all the
> popup ad's everywhere). It costed him about $100 with a few add-ons. It
> plugs directly into and ethernet jack and has its own ip. I don't think
it
> has a builtin webserver, but it might. But with IIS on a Win2k machine
(or
> better), this would be fairly easy to setup...
>
> Check them out. they have several options and pretty good quality
> camera's.....if you can get past their marketing strategy.
>
>
> www.x10.com
>
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:01:54 -0500, Jeff Franks wrote:
> >
> > >I have access
> > >to a cheap little webbased camera that can be mounted anywhere (vise
type
> > >mount) and plugged into an ethernet jack. So, if you have cable and/or
> DSL,
> > >this would be a 10 minute setup....and great fun for all us
> > >wannabetheres.....
> >
> > I am in search for such _cheap_ good webcams (like Axis) with ethernet.
> But
> > the are average going $300 to $400 ... can you point me to a good
seller?
> >
> > #m
> > --
> > http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
> >
> > John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
> > "Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html
>
>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:07:42 -0500, Jeff Franks wrote:

>A friend of mine bought this one from the X10 folks


never will I ever click on their link on purpose.
haven't heard anything good about the product (except you)

>(the ones with all the
>popup ad's everywhere). It costed him about $100 with a few add-ons. It
>plugs directly into and ethernet jack and has its own ip.


ok.

> I don't think it
>has a builtin webserver, but it might.

ok

> But with IIS on a Win2k machine (or
>better),

.... so install linux? :-))

> this would be fairly easy to setup...
>
>Check them out. they have several options and pretty good quality
>camera's....


hm, the at least look like beeing not good quality.

>.if you can get past their marketing strategy.
>
>
>www.x10.com

*doh*

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Philip Sondericker]

in article HIiUa.147652$H17.51379@sccrnsc02, Jay Honeck at
wrote on 7/25/03 4:05 PM:

>>>> Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but *publicly* providing
>>>> intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem less than prudent
>>>> to me.
>>>
>>> You're kidding, right?
>>
>> No.
>
> Okay, on what basis are you concerned? If they stop and have a few drinks,
> and spend the night, unless they drink till the sun comes up they will
> certainly be within the "bottle-to-throttle" rule.
>
> Heeeeyyy, wait a minute. I suppose I could confiscate their plane keys at
> the entrance so they can't leave? Then I could offer to be their
> "designated flier"??!! What a GREAT idea!
>
> Thanks, Larry, for suggesting yet another way for me to amass hours in other
> makes and models...

I'll weigh in on this, maybe because I'm feeling sensitive from a recent
thread in the student newsgroup in which it was asserted that smokers lacked
the requisite judgement to be pilots. Yes, I'm a smoker.

As most adult drinkers know, there is such a thing as moderation and common
sense. As long as I'm in bed by 8 or 9 PM, I'm virtually assured of a
restful night's sleep. If for some reason I feel like caca the next morning,
I can always exercise my adult judgement and choose not to fly.

One thing of which I am certain: determining my ability to fly safely is
absolutely nobody's responsibility but my own.

[Jay Honeck]

> this is childish. and you know it.
> He has his point. Maybe valid to a certain degree and in the light of your
> new security, freedom and your old "I sue you for that I have not thought
> about the consequences".

Yes, it is. And IMHO it highlights Larry's suffocating paranoia better than
if I had blasted back with what I really WANTED to say to people like him.

Larry has no points to make, valid or otherwise. I don't know where he
lives, but the America I choose to live in has NOT degenerated to the point
where I can no longer throw a party for you guys, for fear of reprisals.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Philip
Sondericker > wrote:

> One thing of which I am certain: determining my ability to fly safely is
> absolutely nobody's responsibility but my own.

shack

--
Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> Perhaps we represent polar-opposite points of view. You insist on
> impishness, and I maturity.
>
> Which do you feel is more appropriate for airmen to display publicly?

Congratulations, Larry! You've earned a position as the very first (and
thus far, only) person in my "killfile"!

*plonk*
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[gblack]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:o%wUa.152402$Ph3.19157@sccrnsc04...
: > Seriously though, Jay for next year (assuming you make it through
the
: > litigation this years event causes), lets plan ahead for it. I
have
: access
: > to a cheap little webbased camera that can be mounted anywhere
(vise type
: > mount) and plugged into an ethernet jack. So, if you have cable
and/or
: DSL,
: > this would be a 10 minute setup....and great fun for all us
: > wannabetheres.....
:
: Wow -- that would be cool. I'd like a "permanent" web cam, aimed at
the
: airport, too! :)
: --
Fantastic idea. Especially for us as are in other countries..
--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
Home page: http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:31:29 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:45:51 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in Message-Id:
><zuwUa.150200$N7.20952@sccrnsc03>:
>
>>> I find your exploitative lack of discretion rude and offensive.
>>
>>You know, Larry, up till now I've tolerated you and your motherly attitude
>>with impish good humor. However, you have now crossed the line. I am now
>>DEEPLY offended, and will therefore organize a worldwide "PHHHBBBTTTT" in
>>your general direction.
>>
>>All those in favor of "PHHHHBBBTTT-ing" Larry, say "AYE!" :)
>
>Perhaps we represent polar-opposite points of view. You insist on
>impishness, and I maturity.
>
>Which do you feel is more appropriate for airmen to display publicly?


Hey, it's your word, not mine:


1imp \"imp\ noun [ME impe, fr. OE impa, fr. impian to imp] (bef.
12c)
1 obs : shoot, bud; also : graft
2 a : a small demon : fiend
b : a mischievous child : urchin

Merriam-Webster


Which meaning did you intend? :-)
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Jim Fisher]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> Go stick yourself in the dryer.

Guffaw.

Filed away for future use. Thanks.

--
Jim Fisher

[Big John]

He drank Martini's neat didn't he? Seem to recall reading about his 5
o'clock 'Happy Hour" any time of the day :o)

Big John

Would you pass another 'booze berry' please :o)



On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:44:37 GMT, Philip Sondericker
> wrote:

>in article , Jeff Franks at
wrote on 7/25/03 9:20 PM:
>
>> Your parents voted for Roosevelt all four times...didn't they?
>
>Repealing Prohibition was one of the first things Roosevelt did.
>

[Montblack]

Ok, is shack = Shaq? and a slam dunk?

I'm still not getting it either?

--
Montblack

(Bob Noel wrote)
> > >>shack

> > > I'm sorry, I don't understand this.

> > I think he's agreeing with you.

> "bingo!" would have clearer.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Montblack"
> wrote:

> Ok, is shack = Shaq? and a slam dunk?
>
> I'm still not getting it either?

I've been working with USAF people too much.

shack sometimes means direct hit.

--
Bob Noel

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:18:05 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<hJyUa.151232$N7.20976@sccrnsc03>:

>> this is childish. and you know it.
>> He has his point. Maybe valid to a certain degree and in the light of your
>> new security, freedom and your old "I sue you for that I have not thought
>> about the consequences".
>
>Yes, it is. And IMHO it highlights Larry's suffocating paranoia better than
>if I had blasted back with what I really WANTED to say to people like him.

Instead, why don't you think about the questions I posed in my
articles, perhaps run them by your family for an opinion, and respond
to those POINTS, instead of refocusing the issue on the type of people
you imagine my views represent?

My objection isn't about stifling you in any way, other than when your
behavior could potentially impact the hard earned image of
responsibility airmen must necessarily garner to navigate this
nation's skies.

>Larry has no points to make, valid or otherwise.

I'm sorry you missed the point. I can attempt to make it more
explicit for you if you would like.

>I don't know where he lives, but the America I choose to live in has NOT
>degenerated to the point where I can no longer throw a party for you guys,
>for fear of reprisals.

When you calm down enough to find the point, you'll see that your fear
of reprisal for the reason you state is unfounded.

It's just, that feel compelled (by a sense of aero-dignity) to express
my indignation at the _facts_ of your ill conceived marketing effort
in this forum, and the negative light it publicly casts on GA pilots
in this country.

What one does in private is his business, unless it impacts the rights
of others. Public behavior is subject to public scrutiny, because it
necessarily impacts the public.

Publicly inviting en route pilots to consume alcohol could easily be
spun by the unscrupulous news media into something that would reflect
badly on our fellow airmen. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but ...

In my opinion, your licentious marketing campaign undermines the
public trust granted airmen by those over whom they navigate. Or it
sure wouldn't be difficult to spin it that way.


This is the article to which I'm referring:

From: "Jay Honeck" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Oshkosh Bound? Free Beer in Iowa!
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.217.229.103
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:13:08 GMT

Yes, for those pilots who are hot, tired, thirsty, and en route to
Oshkosh on Sunday, July 27th, Mary and I are holding our First
Annual Fly-In Pool Party at the Alexis Park Inn & Suites in Iowa
City, IA.!

Plug in "IOW" on your GPS, and high-tail it on in -- your flight
into OSH on Monday will be that much shorter (we're just 80
minutes from OSH in our Pathfinder), you'll arrived [sic] more
refreshed -- and, besides, where the heck ELSE are you gonna get
free beer en route to the Big Show, anyway? ;)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[StellaStar]

>
>What would you do if you became aware that one of the airmen who
>imbibed your free beer, departed before 8 hours had elapsed, and
>subsequently generated an NTSB report?

Reckon Jay'd scratch his head and wonder why someone who'd done all the work to
become a pilot would commit such egregious foolishness. You really are a
****head, Larry.

[john smith]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> I am in search for such _cheap_ good webcams (like Axis) with ethernet. But
> the are average going $300 to $400 ... can you point me to a good seller?

Look at www.apple.com and follow the links to the iSight camera and
software. I am wondering if this would serve the purpose?

[john smith]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I don't want to be a "wet blanket," but *publicly* providing liquor to
> pilots seems foolish to me.

Darn lawyers. One cannot even have a friendly party anymore.
If the Wright Brother's had consulted an attorney when they first
thought about building an airplane, they would have gotten out of the
bicycle business, too. (More people die in bicycle accidents than
aircraft accidents.)

[Montblack]

(StellaStar wrote)
> Reckon Jay'd scratch his head and wonder why someone who'd done all the
work to
> become a pilot would commit such egregious foolishness.
<I snipped the rest <G>. Poor Larry. He's had a bad few days>

I'm still running with Larry on this one :-)

People, put down the complimentary chips and back away from the free dip, Do
you want to lose your medicals? Heart attack in-flight?

McDonald's can weather the Big Fat legal storm (for now), can Jay? I don't
think so.

[One Scenario]
NTSB investigators have released preliminary findings: Possible in-flight
heart burn may have caused the pilot to run out of fuel, stall, spin, and
crash ...during the thunderstorm. Other contributing factors: greasy food
stains were found on the yoke, the radio and the door handles. No nacho
chips could be found at the crash scene.

The first post crash lawsuit has already been filed in Iowa District Court,
naming: The Alexis Park Inn, Weber Grill Company, Lloyd's Barbecue sauce,
and Frito-Lay as ....

(This stuff writes itself)

--
Montblack

[Greg Burkhart]

Who says they don't publish partys? Found this in the Notams:

!FDC 3/5802 ZAU IN.. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS GARY/CHICAGO AIRPORT,
GARY, IN.
DUE TO THE AIRPORT HANGAR PARTY NIGHT AIR SHOW,
EFFECTIVE:
0307182200 UTC UNTIL 0307190400 UTC (JULY 18, 1700 UNTIL 2300
LOCAL)...

What's a Night Air show? Showing off the B-1??? ;-)

I didn't see a Notam for IOW for Sunday's party...

[Grumman-581]

"john smith" wrote ...
> I thought it was no smoking within eight hours of flying and
> no drinking within 100 feet of the airplane.

Hmmm... If that was the case, then nearly everyone in the North 40 last year
violated the second part of that rule... <grin>

[Grumman-581]

"Jay Honeck" wrote ...
> While we are within walking distance, just have the line guys at IOW give
us
> a call. We'll come getcha! :)

Can't taxi up to the hotel?

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:28:11 GMT, john smith wrote:

>Martin Hotze wrote:
>> I am in search for such _cheap_ good webcams (like Axis) with ethernet. But
>> the are average going $300 to $400 ... can you point me to a good seller?
>
>Look at www.apple.com and follow the links to the iSight camera and
>software. I am wondering if this would serve the purpose?


Nope. Not a cam to connect to a computer for chatting or other stuff. A
standalone camera with Ethernet interface, optional 802.11b, built-in
server. Just like the Axis cam or some others.

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_sotu.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:22:45 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> I don't want to be a "wet blanket," .....
>
>Then why are you being one?
>

The second clause of the sentence you quoted should have given you a
clue:

"I don't want to be a "wet blanket," but *publicly* providing
liquor to pilots seems foolish to me."

For further enlightenment, I direct your attention to: Message-ID:
>

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Dave]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but *publicly* providing
> intoxicating liquor to pilots en route to KOSH seem less than prudent
> to me.
>

<snip>

~Dave

Actually,I was going to post a response to Larry, but realized the
scissors sound byte said it all

[Video Guy]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ODAUa.153788$H17.54419@sccrnsc02...
>
> Congratulations, Larry! You've earned a position as the very first (and
> thus far, only) person in my "killfile"!
>
> *plonk*
> --
>

Ditto Jay

Being only a 6 or 7 month lurker in this NG, I wasn't exactly sure how to
setup a killfile. But Larry's incredible negativity and reluctance to join
even the fringe area of the "still living" forces me to learn. Oh, Wait a
second. Does it mean because I now have learned a new skill that Larry's
comments have *some* value? :) ?? ah... no :((

While I'm at it, maybe most of Martin Holtze's stuff would be happier there
too.

OK Larry and Martin, FLAME AWAY! Sorry I'll have to miss it.

GWK

[Drew Hamilton]

Video Guy <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote:
>second. Does it mean because I now have learned a new skill that Larry's
>comments have *some* value? :) ?? ah... no :((

No, because you wouldn't have had to learn the skill if it wasn't for him.

Just like you can't say that you've saved somebody's life if you push
him off the dock and then jump in and rescue him from drowning...

- awh

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> The second clause of the sentence you quoted should have given you a
> clue:

Bull****. If you don't want to be something, don't be. If you decide to
actually *be* a wet blanket (as you were), then you MUST want to be one.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Montblack]

(Video Guy wrote)
<snip>
> While I'm at it, maybe most of Martin Holtze's stuff would be happier
there
> too.
>
> OK Larry and Martin, FLAME AWAY! Sorry I'll have to miss it.

Trying not to get sent to the cornfield too...

While you're free to *plonk* anyone you want, I would like to plead Marty's
case. He's a little different, sure. He is often (mostly) political, I'll
give you that one.

He can also be like a "Terrier on a pant cuff" at times ...but darn it, he
grows on you after a while. Just a thought.

--
Montblack

[Montblack]

(Martin Hotze wrote)
> But: what shall I do for a living over there?
>
> Hm, I might run a hotel, hm, aviation themed might not be that bad, ...
> :-))

Psst ...Marty. Want to put Jay out of business?

Open Marty's Giant Beach Party "Wet-N-Wild" Waterpark Hotel and Internet
Cafe across the street from him. <g>

--
Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:34:51 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> >:
>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The second clause of the sentence you quoted should have given you a
>>>> clue:
>>>
>>>Bull****. If you don't want to be something, don't be. If you decide to
>>>actually *be* a wet blanket (as you were), then you MUST want to be
>one.
>>
>> Ha Ha... You're logic makes me laugh.
>> The gravity of the issue outweighed the risk of rebuke. Perhaps it
>> all depends on your point of view.
>>
>> What is it in life that really matters to you? Is it flying? Is the
>> risk of further restriction worth a beer in public? Those airmen who
>> would answer 'yes' put ALL of us at risk.
>>
>> I guess it's about values, and responsibility, and exploitation, and
>> _responsible_ freedom of expression, and ... Personally, I'd prefer
>> to see the image of airmen elevated in the public eye in these
>> troubling times, not publicly portrayed as frat-boys unleashed. This
>> _public_ tailhookesque marketing campaign is the wrong image of
>> airmen, at the wrong time, and I said so.
>>
>> It was the "en route" aspect of this article that I found just a
>> little too over-the-top:
>>
>> Subject: Oshkosh Bound? Free Beer in Iowa!
>> Message-ID: <UTyQa.59032$Ph3.6151@sccrnsc04>
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.217.229.103
>> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:13:08 GMT
>>
>> Yes, for those pilots who are hot, tired, thirsty, and en route to
>> Oshkosh on Sunday, July 27th, Mary and I are holding our First
>> Annual Fly-In Pool Party at the Alexis Park Inn & Suites in Iowa
>> City, IA.!
>>
>> Plug in "IOW" on your GPS, and high-tail it on in -- your flight
>> into OSH on Monday will be that much shorter (we're just 80
>> minutes from OSH in our Pathfinder), you'll arrived more refreshed
>> -- and, besides, where the heck ELSE are you gonna get free beer
>> en route to the Big Show, anyway? ;)
>> --
>>
>> Stopping EN ROUTE and having a beer mandates a pilot ground himself
>> for a subsequent 1/3rd of a day. I saw no offer of free lodging to
>> facilitate that mandatory 8 hours period. Thus, it would appear from
>> an objective point of view, that pilots were being lured into
>> violating regulations.
>>
>> Perhaps Mr. Honeck could accomplish his marketing objectives via
>> e-mail, instead of this public forum.
>>


On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:05:57 GMT, John Theune >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry:
>I suggest you re-read the post in question.

At your suggestion, I have.

>It clearly states that the party is on Sunday and your flight on MONDAY
>will be much shorter.

Implicit in your statement is the notion that pilots en route to OSH
will be attending the party on the day BEFORE they depart for their
final OSH destination. And that therefore they will have a night's
rest before taking to the skies.

Because the two dates are in two separate paragraphs, I would hardly
characterize that implication as "clearly' stated. Further, I would
not expect the non-flying public reading that article to readily
perceive that implication.

>I don't see where Jay has a responsabilty to provide free lodging to anyone
>if they chose to break the rules.

If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal
regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen,
his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing
guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO.

>If you want a beer, then don't plan on flying further that day.

Right. No question.

But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself
without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period?
Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck
in that article? What are his options?

He can:

1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_
rate _if_ there is a vacancy.

2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full
rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round
trip transportation charges.

3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8
hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical
condition.

3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard
the regulations.

4. ...

So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his
aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly,
perhaps more costly than anticipated.

What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a
host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed
by his ill conceived marketing scheme.

Your analysis of the issue is appreciated. Thank you for taking the
time to point out the facts you mentioned. Indeed, I was unaware of
them.

But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still
a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[John Theune]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:34:51 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
>>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The second clause of the sentence you quoted should have given you
>>>>> a clue:
>>>>
>>>>Bull****. If you don't want to be something, don't be. If you decide
>>>>to actually *be* a wet blanket (as you were), then you MUST want to
>>>>be
>>one.
>>>
>>> Ha Ha... You're logic makes me laugh.
>>> The gravity of the issue outweighed the risk of rebuke. Perhaps it
>>> all depends on your point of view.
>>>
>>> What is it in life that really matters to you? Is it flying? Is
>>> the risk of further restriction worth a beer in public? Those
>>> airmen who would answer 'yes' put ALL of us at risk.
>>>
>>> I guess it's about values, and responsibility, and exploitation, and
>>> _responsible_ freedom of expression, and ... Personally, I'd prefer
>>> to see the image of airmen elevated in the public eye in these
>>> troubling times, not publicly portrayed as frat-boys unleashed.
>>> This _public_ tailhookesque marketing campaign is the wrong image of
>>> airmen, at the wrong time, and I said so.
>>>
>>> It was the "en route" aspect of this article that I found just a
>>> little too over-the-top:
>>>
>>> Subject: Oshkosh Bound? Free Beer in Iowa!
>>> Message-ID: <UTyQa.59032$Ph3.6151@sccrnsc04>
>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.217.229.103
>>> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:13:08 GMT
>>>
>>> Yes, for those pilots who are hot, tired, thirsty, and en route
>>> to Oshkosh on Sunday, July 27th, Mary and I are holding our
>>> First Annual Fly-In Pool Party at the Alexis Park Inn & Suites
>>> in Iowa City, IA.!
>>>
>>> Plug in "IOW" on your GPS, and high-tail it on in -- your flight
>>> into OSH on Monday will be that much shorter (we're just 80
>>> minutes from OSH in our Pathfinder), you'll arrived more
>>> refreshed -- and, besides, where the heck ELSE are you gonna get
>>> free beer en route to the Big Show, anyway? ;)
>>> --
>>>
>>> Stopping EN ROUTE and having a beer mandates a pilot ground himself
>>> for a subsequent 1/3rd of a day. I saw no offer of free lodging to
>>> facilitate that mandatory 8 hours period. Thus, it would appear
>>> from an objective point of view, that pilots were being lured into
>>> violating regulations.
>>>
>>> Perhaps Mr. Honeck could accomplish his marketing objectives via
>>> e-mail, instead of this public forum.
>>>
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:05:57 GMT, John Theune >
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
>>Larry:
>>I suggest you re-read the post in question.
>
> At your suggestion, I have.
>
>>It clearly states that the party is on Sunday and your flight on
>>MONDAY will be much shorter.
>
> Implicit in your statement is the notion that pilots en route to OSH
> will be attending the party on the day BEFORE they depart for their
> final OSH destination. And that therefore they will have a night's
> rest before taking to the skies.
>
> Because the two dates are in two separate paragraphs, I would hardly
> characterize that implication as "clearly' stated. Further, I would
> not expect the non-flying public reading that article to readily
> perceive that implication.
>
>>I don't see where Jay has a responsabilty to provide free lodging to
>>anyone if they chose to break the rules.
>
> If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal
> regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen,
> his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing
> guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO.
>
>>If you want a beer, then don't plan on flying further that day.
>
> Right. No question.
>
> But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself
> without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period?
> Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck
> in that article? What are his options?
>
> He can:
>
> 1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_
> rate _if_ there is a vacancy.
>
> 2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full
> rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round
> trip transportation charges.
>
> 3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8
> hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical
> condition.
>
> 3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard
> the regulations.
>
> 4. ...
>
> So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his
> aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly,
> perhaps more costly than anticipated.
>
> What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a
> host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed
> by his ill conceived marketing scheme.
>
> Your analysis of the issue is appreciated. Thank you for taking the
> time to point out the facts you mentioned. Indeed, I was unaware of
> them.
>
> But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still
> a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time.
>
>

Larry;
Your stock just went up in my eyes. I disagree with your opinion on this
matter, but not with your method of expressing your thoughts.

John

[Greg Burkhart]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself
> without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period?
> Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck
> in that article? What are his options?
>
> He can:
>
> 1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_
> rate _if_ there is a vacancy.
>
> 2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full
> rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round
> trip transportation charges.
>
> 3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8
> hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical
> condition.
>
> 3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard
> the regulations.
>
> 4. ...
>
> So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his
> aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly,
> perhaps more costly than anticipated.
>
> What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a
> host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed
> by his ill conceived marketing scheme.
>
> Your analysis of the issue is appreciated. Thank you for taking the
> time to point out the facts you mentioned. Indeed, I was unaware of
> them.
>
> But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still
> a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time.

Everyone that attended arrived with plans to stay the night either at Jay's
or somewhere close by and the free beer was just an added 'perk'. They
didn't come in for the free beer and then try to figure out where to stay.
Give pilots some credit, they know the regulations and how to take
responsibility.

[Jeff Franks]

> But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself
> without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period?
> Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck
> in that article? What are his options?
>
> He can:
>
> 1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_
> rate _if_ there is a vacancy.
>
> 2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full
> rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round
> trip transportation charges.
>
> 3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8
> hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical
> condition.
>
> 3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard
> the regulations.
>
> 4. ...
>

So if the pilot ends up walking the street because he drank when he
shouldn't have.....this is Jay's fault?

> So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his
> aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly,
> perhaps more costly than anticipated.

More costly than anticipated by the pilot? SO WHAT??!?!?! Thats the pilots
problem. If he had planned on leaving 3 hours later, he should have drank
Diet Coke. This is NOT Jay's issue.

>
> What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a
> host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed
> by his ill conceived marketing scheme.

"...puts guests in such a situation"???? Jay is not putting ANYONE in ANY
situation. We're not talking about 5 year olds being attracted to the
playground equipment in a building zone. We're talking about adults who can
legally consume alcohol whenever they like. If they bust a reg in the
process....oops, still not Jay's fault. I can't believe that someone could
think it would be.

> But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still
> a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time.
>
PR for pilots should always be on the front of our minds. But this is about
personal responsibility, not some liberal wanting to get rich off of "evil
big insurance".

[Drew Hamilton]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
>If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal
>regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen,
>his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing
>guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO.

I finally figured it out. You're an American! Of course! That's
why you're so willing to say that it's Jay's fault that some pilot --
er, I mean airman -- did something stupid. Whatever happened to personal
responsibility? You know, people being responsible for their own
actions?

Look, pil--er--airmen know that they can't drink and fly. You are
suggesting that anybody who flies into Jay's party intending to keep on
flying the same day would absolutely not be able to stop themselves
from drinking a beer? Or perhaps that Jay would tie them down and
pour beer down their throat? No. Jay just had a party, and for those
people who were planning on staying over, or those people who weren't
flying, there was some beer available.

By your reasoning, FBOs shouldn't provide courtesy cars because
p--airmen might use them to drive into town and have a drink.

- awh

PS, who the hell says "airmen" anymore, anyway?

[Kyler Laird]

Drew Hamilton > writes:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal
>>regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen,
>>his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing
>>guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO.

>By your reasoning, FBOs shouldn't provide courtesy cars because
>p--airmen might use them to drive into town and have a drink.

Heck, some FBOs will fill fuel tanks without even checking the pilot/
airman's weight and balance calculations. Someone needs to crack
down on these people!

--kyler

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:33:39 -0400, Drew Hamilton > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>If Mr. Honeck freely provides the means for pilots to violate federal
>>regulations, and publicly advertises that fact to *en route* airmen,
>>his culpability in the event of a mishap by one of his departing
>>guests would likely be tried in a court of law, IMO.
>
>I finally figured it out. You're an American! Of course! That's
>why you're so willing to say that it's Jay's fault that some pilot --
>er, I mean airman -- did something stupid.

Please don't attribute your inference to my having said it.

>Whatever happened to personal
>responsibility? You know, people being responsible for their own
>actions?
>
>Look, pil--er--airmen know that they can't drink and fly. You are
>suggesting that anybody who flies into Jay's party intending to keep on
>flying the same day would absolutely not be able to stop themselves
>from drinking a beer?

That's ridiculous.

>Or perhaps that Jay would tie them down and
>pour beer down their throat? No. Jay just had a party, and for those
>people who were planning on staying over, or those people who weren't
>flying, there was some beer available.

Unfortunately, Mr. Honeck's worldwide public advertisement made no
mention of any such restrictions.

>By your reasoning, FBOs shouldn't provide courtesy cars because
>p--airmen might use them to drive into town and have a drink.

Pleeezzzze.

A _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a
damaging image of airmen, especially at this time of public fear and
distrust of airmen and small airplanes incited by the news media
seeking sensational stories.

> - awh
>
>PS, who the hell says "airmen" anymore, anyway?

Um, the FAA?


Like the four links at the top of your web page <http://www.awh.org/>,
your comments are not terribly useful.

Go play with your Dremel Tool: :-)

So I was trying to figure out whether a Dremel Tool was something
I should get. They have the following quote up on their customer
testimonial page: "Now with my new Dremel Variable-Speed Rotary
Tool, I no longer need a man."


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:15:57 -0500, "Jeff Franks"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>> But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself
>> without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period?
>> Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck
>> in that article? What are his options?
>>
>> He can:
>>
>> 1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_
>> rate _if_ there is a vacancy.
>>
>> 2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full
>> rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round
>> trip transportation charges.
>>
>> 3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8
>> hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical
>> condition.
>>
>> 3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard
>> the regulations.
>>
>> 4. ...
>>
>
>So if the pilot ends up walking the street because he drank when he
>shouldn't have.....this is Jay's fault?

Is it good manners for a host to fail to provide for his guests needs
that arise as a result of accepting his host's invitation?

>> So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his
>> aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly,
>> perhaps more costly than anticipated.
>
>More costly than anticipated by the pilot? SO WHAT??!?!?! Thats the pilots
>problem. If he had planned on leaving 3 hours later, he should have drank
>Diet Coke. This is NOT Jay's issue.

I'm merely pointing out the facts that an *en route,* party-attendee
pilot faces that might influence his (possibly addled?) judgement.

>>
>> What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a
>> host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed
>> by his ill conceived marketing scheme.
>
>"...puts guests in such a situation"???? Jay is not putting ANYONE in ANY
>situation.

Inviting guests who will be grounded for a third of a day subsequent
to attending the party, without providing them with a place to
wait-out the mandatory flight prohibition period, is putting them in
an awkward position in my opinion. Being an innkeeper, Mr. Honeck's
financial incentive, while somewhat covert, is apparent upon
examination of his free beer offer. Indeed, he subsequently reported
that his inn was fulled to capacity (ostensibility, with paying
guests).

>We're not talking about 5 year olds being attracted to the
>playground equipment in a building zone.

Even if they PUBLICLY conduct themselves like the above referenced
5-year olds? :-)

>We're talking about adults who can legally consume alcohol whenever they like.
>If they bust a reg in the process....oops, still not Jay's fault.

Where I reside, social hosts and bartenders are legally responsible
for the actions of their guests. If they allow guests to take to the
highway while intoxicated, they are subject to legal action. It's
easy to draw a parallel to airways and federal regulations requiring 8
hours abstinence.

Here's some information relating to social host laws:

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/mcguigg.htm
Under traditional common law tort analysis, our inquiry is whether
a social host violated a duty to an injured third person by
serving an alcoholic beverage to a guest whose negligent operation
of a motor vehicle, while adversely affected by the alcohol,
caused injury to a third person. Such an inquiry would require us
to consider whether the social host unreasonably created a risk of
injury to a person who the social host should reasonably have
foreseen might be injured as a result of the guest's intoxication.
If a social host acted negligently in serving an alcoholic
beverage to a guest when there was such a foreseeable risk of
injury to another and injury resulted from the guest's negligence
caused by his intoxication, the law would ordinarily impose
liability in tort on the social host, ...


There are, of course, differences between the operation of a
commercial establishment selling alcoholic beverages for
consumption on the premises and the furnishing of alcoholic
beverages to guests in one's home. Balancing these differences,
courts have found it easier to impose a duty of care on the
licensed operator than on the social host. The threat of tort
liability may serve the public purpose of offsetting the
commercial operator's financial incentive to encourage drinking.
The means of serving beverages in a bar, tavern, or restaurant
normally permits closer control and monitoring of customers and
their consumption than is typically possible in private
gatherings. The commercial vendor may generally (but certainly not
always) have more experience in identifying intoxicated drinkers
than would social hosts and would be better able to"shut off"
consumption without the embarrassment that a social host would
suffer. It has also been suggested that licensed operators can be
expected to have insurance against loss whereas a private
individual would not. Some courts have regarded these various
differences sufficient to justify imposing a duty on licensed
vendors but not on social hosts. See, e.g., Harriman v.Smith, 697
S.W.2d 219, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985); Settlemyer v. Wilmington
Veterans Post No. 49, 11 Ohio St. 3d 123, 127 (1984). Others have
considered the distinctions insignificant in assessing whether a
duty should be imposed, although the differences might have a
bearing on whether particular conduct was negligent. See Coulter
v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 144, 155(1978); Kelly v. Gwinnell,
96 N.J. 538, 547-548 (1984); Koback v. Crook, 123 Wis. 2d
259,267-268 (1985). . . .


There are a few cases which have imposed social host liability
when, as here, the intoxicated guest who operated a motor vehicle
was an adult. In Coulter v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 144,
149-150 (1978), the Supreme Court of California concluded, on both
statutory and common law grounds, that "a social host or other
noncommercial provider of alcoholic beverages owes to the general
public a duty to refuse to furnish such beverages to an obviously
intoxicated person if, under the circumstances, such person
thereby constitutes a reasonably foreseeable danger or risk of
injury to third persons." n8 The "social hosts" in the Coulter
case were the owner-operator and the manager of an apartment
complex alleged to have served a guest(apparently an adult) large
quantities of alcoholic beverages when they knew or should have
known that she was becoming "excessively intoxicated," that she
customarily drank to excess, and that she would be driving a motor
vehicle. Id. at 148. ...


We would recognize a social host's liability to a person injured
by an intoxicated guest's negligent operation of a motor vehicle
where a social host who knew or should have known that his guest
was drunk, nevertheless gave him or permitted him to take an
alcoholic drink and thereafter, because of his intoxication, the
guest negligently operated a motor vehicle causing the third
person's injury. In deciding whether the social host exercised
ordinary prudence in such circumstances, a relevant consideration
will be whether the social host knew or reasonably should have
known that the intoxicated guest might presently operate a motor
vehicle. . .


http://www.alcoholdrugnewsroom.org/pdf_files/East_Social_Host_5_03.pdf
Social host liability laws are being implemented across the nation
to impose civil penalties, usually in the form of monetary
damages, on social hosts for injuries caused by their intoxicated
guests. New Jersey was the first state to adopt a social host
liability law. Since then Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have followed suit.


http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n3/blyth63_text.html
... in 1978[55] the Supreme Court of California held that a social
host could be liable to third persons injured as a result of the
intoxication of the consumer[56] Justice Richardson, with whom the
majority agreed, held that "a social host who furnishes alcoholic
beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, under circumstances
which create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, to others, may
be held legally accountable to those third persons who are injured
when that harm occurs"[57] ...


Social Host Liability

Courts in various states of the US (California, Minnesota, Iowa
and New Jersey) have found limited causes of action to lie against
social hosts for injuries caused by intoxicated guests[53] The New
Jersey Supreme Court ruled in June 1984 that "where the social
host directly serves the guest and continues to do so even after
the guest is physically intoxicated, knowing that the guest will
soon be driving home, the social host may be liable for the
consequences of the resulting drunken driving"[54] Even earlier,
in 1978[55] the Supreme Court of California held that a social
host could be liable to third persons injured as a result of the
intoxication of the consumer[56] Justice Richardson, with whom the
majority agreed, held that "a social host who furnishes alcoholic
beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, under circumstances
which create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, to others, may
be held legally accountable to those third persons who are injured
when that harm occurs"[57] ...


The case of Baumeister must serve as a warning to hosts (and more
particularly to household insurers). The accountability of
licensed hoteliers, with a professional interest in making profits
from serving intoxicating liquor, must attract increasing
attention from the courts, in a climate where the statistics show
a connection between alcohol and road users and where, for the
seriously injured, damages awards are ever increasing. ...

....


>I can't believe that someone could think it would be.

Apparently your lack of belief is not shared by the Judicial system as
is evident by the quotes above.

>> But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still
>> a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time.
>>
>PR for pilots should always be on the front of our minds.

I'm happy we agree about that.

>But this is about personal responsibility,

It's about PUBLICLY providing intoxicating liquor to airmen, as well
as host and guest responsibility.

>not some liberal wanting to get rich off of "evil big insurance".

It could potentially be about an injured party recovering damages from
an insured (or not) social host.

In any event, I think we can agree, that a _publicly_ advertised
tailhookesque marketing campaign is a damaging image of airmen,
especially at this time of public fear and distrust of airmen and
small airplanes incited by the news media seeking sensational stories.
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Drew Hamilton]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>pour beer down their throat? No. Jay just had a party, and for those
>>people who were planning on staying over, or those people who weren't
>>flying, there was some beer available.
>
>Unfortunately, Mr. Honeck's worldwide public advertisement made no
>mention of any such restrictions.

Why should it have? In a world where personal responsibility still meant
something, Jay would not have been responsible for imposing, or
even mentioning such restrictions.

Listen, even accepting your theory about Jay's ulterior motives for
hosting a party, his advertisement was directed at pilots, who know
full well when they can drink and when they can not.

>A _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a
>damaging image of airmen, especially at this time of public fear and
>distrust of airmen and small airplanes incited by the news media
>seeking sensational stories.

You talk about his "tailhookesque" marketing campaign as if people will
suddenly find themselves in Iowa City with a beer in their stomachs,
wondering how it got in there, and unable to fly. Pilots are all big
boys. We know not to drink and fly. How many pilots do you suppose
were doing their flight plans, and went something like this: "Direct
to WEUYD intersection at 6500 feet, then over to the Iowa VOR, and
then pop into Iowa City for a few beers, and then call up terminal
and get vectors for KOSH"? Of course not. People who decided that
they were going to go to the party might have then decided to help out
Jay by spending the night at his hotel. And what's wrong with that?

Either that, or they will say "Well, I'd like to go to the party, but
I'm not interested in staying over in Iowa City, so I won't drink any
beer. I'll just say hi and then keep on going to Oshkosh.

Or "I'd like to go to the party but I am not interested in helping Jay
out so I'll just go to the Best Western instead" (do they have Best
Westerns in the USA?)

Basically, nobody is going to be "stranded" anywhere. Jay did not
trick anybody into doing anything.

>>PS, who the hell says "airmen" anymore, anyway?
>
>Um, the FAA?

Well, according to Transport Canada, I only have a license to fly
"aeroplanes". That doesn't mean that anybody actually uses that
word.


- awh

[john]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:36:00 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

<snip>

>Is it good manners for a host to fail to provide for his guests needs
>that arise as a result of accepting his host's invitation?

<big snip>

one side of this or the other needs to quit contemplating their navel,
concede to the other, & put a fork in it......it's done already, jeez

[Big John]

Larry

----clip----

>Pleeezzzze.
>
>A _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still a
>damaging image of airmen, especially at this time of public fear and
>distrust of airmen and small airplanes incited by the news media
>seeking sensational stories.
>
Have you noticed that the knee jerk following 'Tailhook' has gone away
and saner voices have researched, compiled and pointed out the agendas
of the broads who started all the outcry.

Those who the Navy took down have been reinstated and given places of
responsibility in the Navy structure following all the media 30 second
sound bites have faded into history.

Use of the term tailhookesque is no longer a valid characterization of
anything unless you are trying characterize media bottom feeding.

Big John

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:56:46 -0400, Drew Hamilton > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

This seems a reasonable assessment of Mr. Honeck's intent:

From: "Jason Kennemer" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Last Chance -- Free Beer in Iowa on Sunday!
Message-ID: <1RdUa.145391$Ph3.18576@sccrnsc04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.239.88.13

I think Jay's intent is to have a fun afternoon party, and try to
keep as many "guests" as possible at his establishment.


I believe I've made my points sufficiently clear in the previous
articles I've posted to this message thread.

>>>PS, who the hell says "airmen" anymore, anyway?
>>
>>Um, the FAA?
>
>Well, according to Transport Canada, I only have a license to fly
>"aeroplanes". That doesn't mean that anybody actually uses that
>word.


It would seem that Transport Canada and your countrymen do indeed use
the word 'aeroplane.'

aero•plane \"ar-e-'plan, "er-\ noun [F aeroplane, fr. aero- aer- +
-plane, prob. fr. fem. of plan flat, level, fr. L planus — more at
floor] (1873)
chiefly Brit : airplane

Merriam-Webster



Then there is the he USAF:

air•man \-men\ noun (1873)
1 : a civilian or military pilot, aviator, or aviation
technician
2 : an enlisted man in the air force: as
a : an enlisted man of one of the three ranks below
sergeant
b : an enlisted man ranking above an airman basic and below
an airman first class

Merriam-Webster


Perhaps you might start a thread on this subject.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,