Skylune (or family relation) takes to the water...

[Jim Logajan]

"Floatplane Incident Results In Arrest
August 21, 2006
By CAROLYN MOREAU, Courant Staff Writer

MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane on
Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant Sunday,
authorities said."

Remainder of story can be found here:

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jim Logajan" wrote)
> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane
> on Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant
> Sunday, authorities said."


<http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?coll=hc-headlines-local>

First of all, DeLoon DeLoon would not do that!

But ....it does remind me of the famous meeting between Ralph Waldo Emerson
and Henry David Thoreau - in a New England jail: <g>

(From the link)
This exchange was supposed to have taken place on July 23 or 24, 1846, in
the Concord, Massachusetts, jail where Thoreau was placed for nonpayment of
poll taxes.

“Henry, why are you here?” Waldo, why are you not here?


Montblack :-)
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1528.html
ATTRIBUTION:Attributed to RALPH WALDO EMERSON and Henry David
Thoreau.—Arthur Samuel Jones, Thoreau’s Incarceration [As Told by His
Jailer], p. 15 (1962).

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Floatplane Incident Results In Arrest
> August 21, 2006
> By CAROLYN MOREAU, Courant Staff Writer
>
> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane
> on
> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant
> Sunday,
> authorities said."
>
> Remainder of story can be found here:
>
> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
>
> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)

What kind of nut swerves in front of an aircraft? First, that prop is
extremely dangerous to the boater. Second, if you ding the airplane, it'll
cost you. Third, if you hurt someone aboard the airplane, it'll cost you a
LOT. Even if the act is/was illegal, why would someone take matters into
his own hands instead of writing down the N number?

People never cease to amaze me.

KB

[Dave Stadt]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Floatplane Incident Results In Arrest
> August 21, 2006
> By CAROLYN MOREAU, Courant Staff Writer
>
> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane
> on
> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant
> Sunday,
> authorities said."
>
> Remainder of story can be found here:
>
> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
>
> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)

Naaah, the loon is off pondering the fact the US set a record for traffic
deaths last year. In round numbers 43,000. Ought to keep him busy for a
while.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> "Floatplane Incident Results In Arrest
> August 21, 2006
> By CAROLYN MOREAU, Courant Staff Writer
>
> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane on
> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant Sunday,
> authorities said."
>
> Remainder of story can be found here:
>
> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?c
> oll=hc-headlines-local
>
> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)


Does the sentence, "You in a whole heap o' trouble there, boy!" mean
anything to the boater, Mr. Edward Kurtz?

Resisting arrest, too! A *whole* heap o' trouble!

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:

>
> Naaah, the loon is off pondering the fact the US set a record for traffic
> deaths last year. In round numbers 43,000. Ought to keep him busy for a
> while.
>

That's no record. I remember when it was over 50,000 not too long ago.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> > Naaah, the loon is off pondering the fact the US set a record for traffic
> > deaths last year. In round numbers 43,000. Ought to keep him busy for a
> > while.
> >
>
> That's no record. I remember when it was over 50,000 not too long ago.

The following are all years in which the traffic fatalities were over 50,000
(not all years between 1966-1976 where in the 2004 report)

1966
1970
1978-1980

But the 43440 in 2005 is the highest since 1990.

(source www.nhtsa.dot.gov)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane on
> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant Sunday,
> authorities said."
> Remainder of story can be found here:
> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?c
> oll=hc-headlines-local
> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)

No medical, no license required.
Anyone can drive a boat.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:26:26 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>> "Floatplane Incident Results In Arrest
>> August 21, 2006
>> By CAROLYN MOREAU, Courant Staff Writer
>>
>> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane on
>> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant Sunday,
>> authorities said."
>>
>> Remainder of story can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?c
>> oll=hc-headlines-local
>>
>> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)
>
>
>Does the sentence, "You in a whole heap o' trouble there, boy!" mean
>anything to the boater, Mr. Edward Kurtz?

Isn't interferring with an aircraft a Federal offense as well.
Then there are the anti-terrorism laws dealing with behaviour around
airplanes. Don't know if he'd get caught on any of those or not. Had
he actually left a mark on the plane he could be looking at big
time.<:-))




>
>Resisting arrest, too! A *whole* heap o' trouble!
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[cjcampbell]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
> > > Naaah, the loon is off pondering the fact the US set a record for traffic
> > > deaths last year. In round numbers 43,000. Ought to keep him busy for a
> > > while.
> > >
> >
> > That's no record. I remember when it was over 50,000 not too long ago.
>
> The following are all years in which the traffic fatalities were over 50,000
> (not all years between 1966-1976 where in the 2004 report)
>
> 1966
> 1970
> 1978-1980
>
> But the 43440 in 2005 is the highest since 1990.
>
> (source www.nhtsa.dot.gov)

Funny how the highest traffic fatality rates were during the years of
the 55mph speed limit.

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"cjcampbell" > wrote:

> > The following are all years in which the traffic fatalities were over
> > 50,000
> > (not all years between 1966-1976 where in the 2004 report)
> >
> > 1966
> > 1970
> > 1978-1980
> >
> > But the 43440 in 2005 is the highest since 1990.
> >
> > (source www.nhtsa.dot.gov)
>
> Funny how the highest traffic fatality rates were during the years of
> the 55mph speed limit.

The numbers given were total fatalities, not rates.

The TSF2004.pdf available somewhere on www.nhtsa.dot.gov (I don't
remember where) shows the fatality RATE pretty much decreasing each year
since 1966. As with any statistic it is essential to ask why. Possible
explanations include (1) improved vehicle safety, (2) improved road safety
(e.g., better guard rails), and (3) medical improvements.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[cjcampbell]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article om>,
> "cjcampbell" > wrote:
>
> > > The following are all years in which the traffic fatalities were over
> > > 50,000
> > > (not all years between 1966-1976 where in the 2004 report)
> > >
> > > 1966
> > > 1970
> > > 1978-1980
> > >
> > > But the 43440 in 2005 is the highest since 1990.
> > >
> > > (source www.nhtsa.dot.gov)
> >
> > Funny how the highest traffic fatality rates were during the years of
> > the 55mph speed limit.
>
> The numbers given were total fatalities, not rates.
>
> The TSF2004.pdf available somewhere on www.nhtsa.dot.gov (I don't
> remember where) shows the fatality RATE pretty much decreasing each year
> since 1966. As with any statistic it is essential to ask why. Possible
> explanations include (1) improved vehicle safety, (2) improved road safety
> (e.g., better guard rails), and (3) medical improvements.

I remember reading in the Wall Street Journal that better tires
accounted for more than half of it.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> What kind of nut swerves in front of an aircraft?

I'm local and familiar with that lake. It's a relatively quiet lake,
with an engine limit for boats to keep speed and noise down. Some
reports stated that the man had to be subdued by police, so I wonder if
alcohol was a factor.

[[email protected]]

> Funny how the highest traffic fatality rates were during the years of
> the 55mph speed limit.

No supprise, people fall asleep with speeds like that. ;-)

-Kees.

[Jay Honeck]

> I remember reading in the Wall Street Journal that better tires
> accounted for more than half of it.

Tires are but one area that have vastly improved since the 1960s.

Cars in general are SO much better now. I remember my Dad trading his
Pontiacs at 50,000 miles, because they were about run out. People who
got 100,000 miles were in the local paper.

Now, I've got over 100K miles on 2 out of our 4 vehicles -- and I
barely drive the other two, so they'll likely last forever.

Driver's education is another area that is radically improved. In the
1960s, the majority of drivers had received NO instruction at all. My
son just went through it and received his license two weeks ago, and it
was WORK to earn that piece of paper, for both he and us.

Drunk driving laws -- something that barely existed until the '80s --
are now strictly enforced. This reduces fatalities dramatically.

There are some downsides, however. Traffic engineers have gone off the
deep end to ensure safety, often (IMHO) at the expense of common sense
and efficiency. In my neck of the woods, for example, traffic is
deliberately engineered to stop often, so that people can't drive too
fast. Worse, NO ONE is allowed to turn left at stop lights anymore,
without a specific, dedicated green arrow. We are no longer trusted to
determine whether it's safe to turn or not, regardless of oncoming
traffic -- or the lack thereof.

The fuel wasted due to these two measures alone is astronomical.
Hopefully the pendulum will swing back, and these types of "safety"
measures will be adjusted -- but I'm not holding my breath.

BTW: I thank Congress DAILY for raising freeway speed limits back to
70 mph. There was nothing sillier than driving slowly on a 6-lane
autobahn!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I remember reading in the Wall Street Journal that better tires
>> accounted for more than half of it.
>
> Tires are but one area that have vastly improved since the 1960s.

Disc brakes versus drum.
Rack & pinion steering versus ball joint
MacPherson struts versus old style shocks
Better lights especially tail lights.

And of course, shoulder belts and air bags.

One thing that many don't realize is the highways are better engineered
including materials and breakaway barriers.

OTOH, city traffic engineering is MUCH WORSE and in many cases borders on
voluntary manslughter.

>
....
> Driver's education is another area that is radically improved. In the
> 1960s, the majority of drivers had received NO instruction at all. My
> son just went through it and received his license two weeks ago, and it
> was WORK to earn that piece of paper, for both he and us.

Many states will not issue a license to a driver under 18 unless they've
passed a DE class.

> Drunk driving laws -- something that barely existed until the '80s --
> are now strictly enforced. This reduces fatalities dramatically.

DUI enforcement has been falling for years except around holidays.

> There are some downsides, however. Traffic engineers have gone off the
> deep end to ensure safety, often (IMHO) at the expense of common sense
> and efficiency. In my neck of the woods, for example, traffic is
> deliberately engineered to stop often, so that people can't drive too
> fast.

Hate to tell you this, Jay, but that's a myth -- much better is
synchronizing the lights right at the speed limit. If you find traffic
stopping all the time, it's because it leads to a lot more red light running
(ie, LOTSA $$$).

That's why the overwhelming majority of cities that installed red light
cameras also shortened yellow lights from an average of 7.5 seconds prior to
the cameras, to 3.5-4.0 seconds after. Also, light sync changed from 0-3.5
MPH under the limit to 10 or more MPH _OVER_.

>Worse, NO ONE is allowed to turn left at stop lights anymore,
> without a specific, dedicated green arrow. We are no longer trusted to
> determine whether it's safe to turn or not, regardless of oncoming
> traffic -- or the lack thereof.
>
> The fuel wasted due to these two measures alone is astronomical.

Well over a billion barrels a year

> Hopefully the pendulum will swing back, and these types of "safety"
> measures will be adjusted -- but I'm not holding my breath.
>
> BTW: I thank Congress DAILY for raising freeway speed limits back to
> 70 mph. There was nothing sillier than driving slowly on a 6-lane
> autobahn!

Congress didn't raise them, they removed the 55 FEDERAL limit (remember?).
Out west, 75MPH is common.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> Funny how the highest traffic fatality rates were during the years of
>> the 55mph speed limit.
>
> No supprise, people fall asleep with speeds like that. ;-)

No " ;-) " needed; the history is well founded and documented.

[Matt Barrow]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>> "Floatplane Incident Results In Arrest
>> August 21, 2006
>> By CAROLYN MOREAU, Courant Staff Writer
>>
>> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane
>> on
>> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant
>> Sunday,
>> authorities said."
>>
>> Remainder of story can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?c
>> oll=hc-headlines-local
>>
>> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)
>
>
> Does the sentence, "You in a whole heap o' trouble there, boy!" mean
> anything to the boater, Mr. Edward Kurtz?
>
> Resisting arrest, too! A *whole* heap o' trouble!

Yeah, right! Probation and Community Service, maybe court costs.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> BTW: I thank Congress DAILY for raising freeway speed limits back to
> 70 mph. There was nothing sillier than driving slowly on a 6-lane
> autobahn!
>

Congress didn't raise freeway speed limits back to 70 mph. They just
repealed the national speed limit, which should never have been passed to
begin with. The states were then free to set speed limits within their
states.

[john smith]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > BTW: I thank Congress DAILY for raising freeway speed limits back to
> > 70 mph. There was nothing sillier than driving slowly on a 6-lane
> > autobahn!

> Congress didn't raise freeway speed limits back to 70 mph. They just
> repealed the national speed limit, which should never have been passed to
> begin with. The states were then free to set speed limits within their
> states.

Sadly, Ohio is still 55 trucks, 65 autos.... sigh!

[Stubby]

john smith wrote:
>> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane on
>> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant Sunday,
>> authorities said."
>> Remainder of story can be found here:
>> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?c
>> oll=hc-headlines-local
>> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)
>
> No medical, no license required.
> Anyone can drive a boat.

But there are maritime right-of-way rules. Airplanes on the water must
obey these as well as boats. Seaplane bases are just like real airports
and are regulated by Federal law.

I used to fly on a river at 10AM on Saturday mornings. My only
conclusion is there are many drunks on their SkiDoos at that time. They
even try to become propellor-bait by trying to out run the plane or in
some cases, playing "chicken" with it. I haven't read about any
accidents involving these fools so we can't rely on Darwin to cull out
the weak ones.

[Jules]

Stubby wrote:

> But there are maritime right-of-way rules. Airplanes on the water must
> obey these as well as boats.

Doesn't an aircraft taking off have the right of way over a power boat?

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Jules wrote:
>
>
> Stubby wrote:
>
>> But there are maritime right-of-way rules. Airplanes on the water
>> must obey these as well as boats.
>
> Doesn't an aircraft taking off have the right of way over a power boat?
>


Believe it or not, no, which is contrary to what you'd think. Check FAR
91.115. Airplanes are pretty low on the pecking order when on water.

However, the guy in CT, purposely and repeatedly messed with the aircraft.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 25 Aug 2006 02:23:02 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:
> Funny how the highest traffic fatality rates were during the years of
> the 55mph speed limit.

Perhaps from everyone trying to pass the slow ass drivers who insisted
on only doing 55 mph on the two lane roads?

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:30:35 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:
> I'm local and familiar with that lake. It's a relatively quiet lake,
> with an engine limit for boats to keep speed and noise down. Some
> reports stated that the man had to be subdued by police, so I wonder if
> alcohol was a factor.

Alcohol involved with boating? SAY IT AIN'T SO !!!

<burp>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 25 Aug 2006 05:08:03 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:
> Cars in general are SO much better now. I remember my Dad trading his
> Pontiacs at 50,000 miles, because they were about run out. People who
> got 100,000 miles were in the local paper.

I can remember a '69 Pontiac that I had that actually got scary to
drive past around 85 mph or so... The front end felt like it was
wanting to become airborne... Hell, my '95 Jeep XJ feels better than
that Pontiac at that speed and it has the aerodynamics of a ****in'
brick...

> Driver's education is another area that is radically improved. In the
> 1960s, the majority of drivers had received NO instruction at all. My
> son just went through it and received his license two weeks ago, and it
> was WORK to earn that piece of paper, for both he and us.

For Iowa ??? I figured with all the damn straight roads up there,
they weren't too concerned with driving ability... For the same reason
that they don't have inspection stickers on cars...

> Drunk driving laws -- something that barely existed until the '80s --
> are now strictly enforced. This reduces fatalities dramatically.

I don't agree with the current drunk driving laws... I know for a fact
that with a 12-pack in me, I drive better than Grace's younger sister
even if she is perfectly sober... I think they should have an alcohol
rating on the drivers licenses so that you can 'qualify' with various
blood alcohol levels... If you can still pass the test with a certain
percentage of alcohol in your bloodstream, you can't get a DWI at that
level... Hell, that should make getting your license so much more
interesting... <burp>

> There are some downsides, however. Traffic engineers have gone off the
> deep end to ensure safety, often (IMHO) at the expense of common sense
> and efficiency. In my neck of the woods, for example, traffic is
> deliberately engineered to stop often, so that people can't drive too
> fast. Worse, NO ONE is allowed to turn left at stop lights anymore,
> without a specific, dedicated green arrow. We are no longer trusted to
> determine whether it's safe to turn or not, regardless of oncoming
> traffic -- or the lack thereof.

Texas is that way also... It really irritates me when I'm on a
motorcycle and the sensor in the road does not register my vehicle
being there and won't give me the arrow... Louisiana, on the other
hand, still tends to have generic non-protected green lights that
allow you to use your own judgement on whether you can safely make the
turn...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:27:34 -0400, Stubby
> wrote:
> I used to fly on a river at 10AM on Saturday mornings. My only
> conclusion is there are many drunks on their SkiDoos at that time.

I always figured that if you drink before noon, you're treading on
being classified as an alcoholic... On the other hand, I'm not exactly
sure where the cutoff point is from the night before... I've kind of
suspected that daybreak was probably a good cutoff point though...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:44:41 -0400, Jules
> wrote:
> Doesn't an aircraft taking off have the right of way over a power boat?

Let's make it a bit more interesting... What about a sailboat?

[Jules]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Jules wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Stubby wrote:
>>
>>> But there are maritime right-of-way rules. Airplanes on the water
>>> must obey these as well as boats.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't an aircraft taking off have the right of way over a power boat?
>>
>
>
> Believe it or not, no, which is contrary to what you'd think. Check FAR
> 91.115. Airplanes are pretty low on the pecking order when on water.
>
> However, the guy in CT, purposely and repeatedly messed with the aircraft.


He could have killed someone in the plane.


Hmm, I am in Canada, it may be different here. A landing aircraft has
the right of way over anything but a sailboat, I think. It's been 15
years and things change.....???

[Peter Duniho]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> I always figured that if you drink before noon, you're treading on
> being classified as an alcoholic...

And if you claim to be safe to drive after a 12-pack, you're not?

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Floatplane Incident Results In Arrest
> August 21, 2006
> By CAROLYN MOREAU, Courant Staff Writer
>
> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane on
> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant Sunday,
> authorities said."
>
> Remainder of story can be found here:
>
> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
>
> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)

Like someone else pointed out, calling FSDO with the N-number would seem
to be the logical course of action. I try to stay away from turning
props whenever possible.

[Emily[_1_]]

john smith wrote:
>> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane on
>> Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant Sunday,
>> authorities said."
>> Remainder of story can be found here:
>> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?c
>> oll=hc-headlines-local
>> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)
>
> No medical, no license required.
> Anyone can drive a boat.

Definitely an activity that needs to be more highly regulated.

[Emily[_1_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Jules wrote:
>>
>>
>> Stubby wrote:
>>
>>> But there are maritime right-of-way rules. Airplanes on the water
>>> must obey these as well as boats.
>>
>> Doesn't an aircraft taking off have the right of way over a power boat?
>>
>
>
> Believe it or not, no, which is contrary to what you'd think. Check FAR
> 91.115. Airplanes are pretty low on the pecking order when on water.
>
> However, the guy in CT, purposely and repeatedly messed with the aircraft.

I've never flown a seaplane, but isn't it fairly unmaneuverable during
takeoff? I know I don't want to be swerving on the runway in a plane
with wheels...

[Emily[_1_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:06:50 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>
>> I've never flown a seaplane, but isn't it fairly unmaneuverable during
>> takeoff? I know I don't want to be swerving on the runway in a plane
>> with wheels...
>
> Read the FAR. I agree with you, but who are we?

Just read it, and I'm trying to apply it to the situation in question.
I'm thinking it's a little hard to yield the right of way when someone
is aiming at you.

[Peter Duniho]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> I've never flown a seaplane, but isn't it fairly unmaneuverable during
> takeoff? I know I don't want to be swerving on the runway in a plane with
> wheels...

Takeoff in a seaplane certainly is a difficult time to be making evasive
maneuvers. However, a) the FARs don't apply to boats, and b) the FARs
aren't very specific anyway. One could read 91.115(e) to mean that
airplanes taking off or landing (ie in a particular vulnerable position)
should have the right of way. But those regulations don't apply to the
boats.

Now, all that said, none of the above applies in the situation in this
thread. Right-of-way rules are for situations in which each vehicle is
traveling normally. The boater in this case was intentionally placing
himself in the way of the seaplane. Even if he had consistently approached
the airplane's path from the right, and even if the maritime right-of-way
rules (the ones that apply to the boater) dictated that he had the right of
way, he would still have been in violation of other laws (the ones he was
actually charged with).

I've never had to deal with the situation described in the article, but I
certainly have aborted a number of takeoffs due to boaters. I've never had
a boater intentionally cross in front of me, but they certainly do tend to
get too close. A common "stupid boater trick" is to try to race the
seaplane during takeoff. If they keep their distance, I don't have a
problem with that, but too often the boater (or even more commonly,
jetskier) approaches the airplane too closely, making a collision impossible
to ensure against, and eliminating maneuvering room I might need to avoid a
collision with another boater who doesn't see me.

I have had less issues with landings. Few boaters notice an airplane until
it's actually on the water, and even on a relatively small lake, it's
usually possible to select a landing site far enough away from the boaters
that they cannot reach the airplane until it's slowed enough to be
reasonably maneuverable (though, an airplane on the water is never really
all that maneuverable).

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
. ..
> john smith wrote:
>>> MORRIS -- A local boater who repeatedly swerved in front of a floatplane
>>> on Bantam Lake to prevent it from taking off was arrested on a warrant
>>> Sunday, authorities said."
>>> Remainder of story can be found here:
>>> http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-planefight0821.artaug21,0,5923730.story?c
>>> oll=hc-headlines-local
>>> Could this be a relative of this group's "skylune"? ;-)
>>
>> No medical, no license required.
>> Anyone can drive a boat.
>
> But there are maritime right-of-way rules. Airplanes on the water must
> obey these as well as boats. Seaplane bases are just like real airports
> and are regulated by Federal law.
>
> I used to fly on a river at 10AM on Saturday mornings. My only conclusion
> is there are many drunks on their SkiDoos at that time. They even try to
> become propellor-bait by trying to out run the plane or in some cases,
> playing "chicken" with it. I haven't read about any accidents involving
> these fools so we can't rely on Darwin to cull out the weak ones.

They have quite a few accidents. They make excellent organ donors as most
of their deaths are head injuries which leaves the rest of the typically
young body an excellent source for spare parts.

[cjcampbell]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Driver's education is another area that is radically improved. In the
> 1960s, the majority of drivers had received NO instruction at all.

Rather like here in the Philippines. Actually, majority do not have any
form of license at all. There is a place here in Laoag, though, that
has banners all over town advertising "Learn to drive in 2 days."

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:13:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
> And if you claim to be safe to drive after a 12-pack, you're not?

Nawh, I'm just making a comment on Grace's sister's driving ability
and the fact that it is supposedly acceptable since she passed the
test... I guess I'm also making a comment on the fact that the tests
are too easy from a driving standpoint... Basically, if you don't run
over the examiner, you pass the test, I guess...

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
> Alcohol involved with boating? SAY IT AIN'T SO !!!


2006 - Minnesota Boating Guide
Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) .....Page 34

"BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED (BWI) - The alcohol concentration for impaired
operation is now .08."

<http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/boa****er/boatingguide.pdf>
(Page 35)
"The BWI law does not prohibit drinking alcoholic beverages aboard boats nor
having an open bottle. The law applies to operators of motorboats that are
not anchored, beached, moored, docked or being rowed or propelled by
non-mechanical means at the time of the offense."


Montblack

[Peter Duniho]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Nawh, I'm just making a comment on Grace's sister's driving ability
> and the fact that it is supposedly acceptable since she passed the
> test... I guess I'm also making a comment on the fact that the tests
> are too easy from a driving standpoint... Basically, if you don't run
> over the examiner, you pass the test, I guess...

Ahh, I see. Well, I certainly can agree with all of that. Driver
education, even if it has improved things somewhat (and I'm not convinced
it's what's responsible for improvements in auto safety), is still pretty
much a joke. A few hours under supervision once as a teenager, and you're
apparently good to go for life.

You're right, there are some really crummy drivers out there, including
those worse than a guy on a 12-pack drunk. :)

Pete

[Montblack[_1_]]

("B A R R Y" wrote)
> Believe it or not, no, which is contrary to what you'd think. Check FAR
> 91.115. Airplanes are pretty low on the pecking order when on water.
>
> However, the guy in CT, purposely and repeatedly messed with the aircraft.


We got you covered in Minnesota :-)

2006 - Minnesota Boating Guide
GENERAL PROHIBITIONS ......Page 33/34

<http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/boa****er/boatingguide.pdf>
It's against the law:

To operate a watercraft in a careless or
reckless manner.

To operate a watercraft so that its wash or
wake endangers, harasses, or interferes with
any person or property.

To operate a watercraft so it obstructs or tends
to obstruct ordinary navigation.

To operate a watercraft so that it obstructs or
interferes with the take off, landing, or taxiing
of a seaplane.


Montblack
landof10klakes (at) "Y" h-oo

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:49:06 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:
> 2006 - Minnesota Boating Guide
> Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) .....Page 34
>
> "BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED (BWI) - The alcohol concentration for impaired
> operation is now .08."
>
> <http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/boa****er/boatingguide.pdf>
> (Page 35)
> "The BWI law does not prohibit drinking alcoholic beverages aboard boats nor
> having an open bottle. The law applies to operators of motorboats that are
> not anchored, beached, moored, docked or being rowed or propelled by
> non-mechanical means at the time of the offense."

Yet another really stupid law... I do not see the harm that it might
present to anyone else if a guy is cruising along with a trolling
motor while drinking a beer...

They mention motorboats... Are they saying that sailboating while
intoxicated is acceptable? Oh well, probably easier to not spill your
beer that way...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:07:59 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
> You're right, there are some really crummy drivers out there, including
> those worse than a guy on a 12-pack drunk. :)

All in all, I don't think I'm really all that drunk after a 12-pack...
A little bit of a buzz, but not enough that I probably wouldn't still
drive... It takes me long enough to drink it that most of them have
made it through my system by the time I'm finished... A 12-pack would
be something that probably could be accomplished during a day on the
lake fishing... Depends on the beer, of course... Some are more watery
than others...

Regardless, even if I was falling-down-drunk, I would be a better
driver than Grace's sister... <grin>

[Stubby]

cjcampbell wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Driver's education is another area that is radically improved. In the
>> 1960s, the majority of drivers had received NO instruction at all.
>
> Rather like here in the Philippines. Actually, majority do not have any
> form of license at all. There is a place here in Laoag, though, that
> has banners all over town advertising "Learn to drive in 2 days."
>
Not so. I received a full drivers' ed course in high school in PA. A
discount on insurance was the carrot at the end of the stick.

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:54:48 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
>>. Right-of-way rules are for situations in which each vehicle is
>>traveling normally. The boater in this case was intentionally placing
>>himself in the way of the seaplane.
>
> Absolutely!
>
> I'll bet the boater's lawyer tries to spin it differently. I'll keep
> my eyes on the local papers and post updates if his court appearance
> gets any coverage. Unfortunately, the local papers probably won't
> follow up on this case.

Court records are open to the public; check with them.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:54:48 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>. Right-of-way rules are for situations in which each vehicle is
> >>traveling normally. The boater in this case was intentionally placing
> >>himself in the way of the seaplane.
> >
> > Absolutely!
> >
> > I'll bet the boater's lawyer tries to spin it differently. I'll keep
> > my eyes on the local papers and post updates if his court appearance
> > gets any coverage. Unfortunately, the local papers probably won't
> > follow up on this case.
>
> Court records are open to the public; check with them.


Maybe it *was* "Skylune!" After all, he has yet to weigh in on this
thread!

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
>> "The BWI law does not prohibit drinking alcoholic beverages aboard boats
>> nor
>> having an open bottle. The law applies to operators of motorboats that
>> are
>> not anchored, beached, moored, docked or being rowed or propelled by
>> non-mechanical means at the time of the offense."

> Yet another really stupid law... I do not see the harm that it might
> present to anyone else if a guy is cruising along with a trolling
> motor while drinking a beer...


<http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/boa****er/boatingguide.pdf>
(Page 35)

Drink and troll. Not a problem - unless you blow an .08.

....or unless you're 8 years old - in which case the trolling is still ok,
but the drinking is not.

Check out the top of page 27
(Boats 25hp or less - No age restriction)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2CC253AD
HTML link to pdf Minnesota Boating Guide (above).


Montblack

[Newps]

Grumman-581 wrote:

>>"The BWI law does not prohibit drinking alcoholic beverages aboard boats nor
>>having an open bottle. The law applies to operators of motorboats that are
>>not anchored, beached, moored, docked or being rowed or propelled by
>>non-mechanical means at the time of the offense."
>
>
> Yet another really stupid law... I do not see the harm that it might
> present to anyone else if a guy is cruising along with a trolling
> motor while drinking a beer...

It doesn't prohibit that. You can drink and drive a boat, you just
can't be intoxicated.

[Newps]

Montblack wrote:


>
> Drink and troll. Not a problem - unless you blow an .08.

Another boat leaves Minnesota. I bought my brothers boat, he'll deliver
it to me in October when he comes out to do some bird hunting. Add
eight more cylinders to my CI.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Newps" wrote)
> Add eight more cylinders to my CI.


Urban or rural?

Is your CI > age, yet? :-)


Montblack

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:03:45 -0600, Newps > wrote:
> It doesn't prohibit that. You can drink and drive a boat, you just
> can't be intoxicated.

Well, considering how low the blood alcohol level is in the regs, I
would hazard to guess that most people who do it are over the limit...
Regardless, I don't think that there is any more danger from someone
with a trolling motor than there is with someone paddling and from
what I read, it seems that paddling while intoxicated is prefectly
legal...

[Newps]

The boat will give me a three year buffer. But then the youngest will
need a car soon...

Montblack wrote:

> ("Newps" wrote)
>
>> Add eight more cylinders to my CI.
>
>
>
> Urban or rural?
>
> Is your CI > age, yet? :-)
>
>
> Montblack

[Big John]

Sail boats have the right of way so the rest have to stay sober to
miss them :o)

I wonder what would be the law if he was in a sail boat and sailed in
front of the float plane???????????

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````


On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 07:07:09 GMT, Grumman-581
> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:49:06 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:
>> 2006 - Minnesota Boating Guide
>> Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) .....Page 34
>>
>> "BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED (BWI) - The alcohol concentration for impaired
>> operation is now .08."
>>
>> <http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/boa****er/boatingguide.pdf>
>> (Page 35)
>> "The BWI law does not prohibit drinking alcoholic beverages aboard boats nor
>> having an open bottle. The law applies to operators of motorboats that are
>> not anchored, beached, moored, docked or being rowed or propelled by
>> non-mechanical means at the time of the offense."
>
>Yet another really stupid law... I do not see the harm that it might
>present to anyone else if a guy is cruising along with a trolling
>motor while drinking a beer...
>
>They mention motorboats... Are they saying that sailboating while
>intoxicated is acceptable? Oh well, probably easier to not spill your
>beer that way...

[Jose[_1_]]

> I wonder what would be the law if he was in a sail boat and sailed in
> front of the float plane???????????

If he could sail fast enough, that would be an interesting question. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:50:50 -0500, Big John >
wrote:
> I wonder what would be the law if he was in a sail boat and sailed in
> front of the float plane???????????

I already posed that idea...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:02:37 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> If he could sail fast enough, that would be an interesting question. :)

40 kts?

http://www.hobiecat.com/sailing/TriFoiler%20History%20Original/Longshot/history_trifoiler_longshot.html

[Steph]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Sail boats have the right of way so the rest have to stay sober to
> miss them :o)
>
> I wonder what would be the law if he was in a sail boat and sailed in
> front of the float plane???????????
>
> Big John
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````
>
>


Sailboat has right of way, unless it's a narrow channel, or the aircraft has
to keep a certain orientation to a strong wind, etc, etc.
But just as in the air, it is the pilot's/skippers responsibility at all
times to avoid a collision, notwithstanding the right-of-way rules.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:54:48 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>> I've never flown a seaplane, but isn't it fairly unmaneuverable during
>> takeoff? I know I don't want to be swerving on the runway in a plane with
>> wheels...
>
<snip>

>I've never had to deal with the situation described in the article, but I
>certainly have aborted a number of takeoffs due to boaters. I've never had
>a boater intentionally cross in front of me, but they certainly do tend to
>get too close. A common "stupid boater trick" is to try to race the
>seaplane during takeoff. If they keep their distance, I don't have a

You should see the ore and grain carriers coming up the Saginaw river.
People riding those little "personal water craft" will cross over very
close and actually ride the bow wave of those huge .

>problem with that, but too often the boater (or even more commonly,
>jetskier) approaches the airplane too closely, making a collision impossible
>to ensure against, and eliminating maneuvering room I might need to avoid a
>collision with another boater who doesn't see me.

OTOH I was landing on 05 at Bay city where you come in across some
flooded flats and then the river. There is about a 6 or 8 foot dike
(think I got the right spelling) at the end of the runway. I was
getting close to the river when I realized something didn't look
right. As I got close to the river I realized one of the big boats was
passing the end of the runway with the bow well to the north and the
stern well to the south of the runway. I went full power and into a
climb. Had I stayed on a normal path I would have passed about 30 feet
above the deck and between the bow and stern. There's usually "stuff"
hanging between the two.

when landing on 05 or 36 the thresholds are quite close to the water.


>
>I have had less issues with landings. Few boaters notice an airplane until
>it's actually on the water, and even on a relatively small lake, it's
>usually possible to select a landing site far enough away from the boaters
>that they cannot reach the airplane until it's slowed enough to be
>reasonably maneuverable (though, an airplane on the water is never really
>all that maneuverable).
>
>Pete
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:47:59 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:54:48 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
>
>>. Right-of-way rules are for situations in which each vehicle is
>>traveling normally. The boater in this case was intentionally placing
>>himself in the way of the seaplane.
>
>Absolutely!
>
>I'll bet the boater's lawyer tries to spin it differently. I'll keep
>my eyes on the local papers and post updates if his court appearance
>gets any coverage. Unfortunately, the local papers probably won't
>follow up on this case.

Here in Midland MI they publish the weekly court proceedings in the
local news paper. It's also available on the net. You have to sign up,
but it's free and they don't send you a lot of adds.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com