A couple Questions-Ramp Checks and Experimental Operations

[Badwater Bill]

I sold my experimental airplane sometime ago but I'm looking at buying
another one at this time. I always flew over cities and used my RV-6
just like I would any other airplane with a normal category
airworthiness certificate. But, I remember reading something here
once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
know about that requirement?

Also, I really enjoyed the conversation concerning ramp checks on
private aircraft. Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
airplane. What do you people think of that? I guess the Fed even
told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too
much.

How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
91? Anyone?

Bill

[Capt. Doug]

>Badwater Bill wrote in message But, I remember reading something here
> once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
> populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
> know about that requirement?

I don't know much, but the operating limitations can be changed after flight
testing is successfully completed (ie: after the 40 hours is done).

> Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
> demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
> The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
> airplane. What do you people think of that?

I think that the owner was scared and confused.

> I guess the Fed even
> told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
> ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
> the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too much.
> How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
> 91? Anyone?

I'm not too smart, but I know enough to become invisible when I see the tie
and pocket protector. I see US Gov't license plates on a car and I'm gone.
Some of my friends have had the courage to stand up to them and deny
everything except a peek at their certificates. This works well most of the
time because most inspectors just want to check off the boxes on a form and
go for beer. However, there are a few rather tenacious inspectors with
little knowledge of NTSB case law who will try to ruin your life even if you
are polite and courteous. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong- they
will still cause you headaches- guilty until proven innocent- isn't that how
executive law works?

Aviation law interests me for a couple of reasons. One reason is for the
protection of my livelyhood. Another is to point out when FAA inspectors are
wrong. For a good board, try this site:
'www.propilot.com' and click on Doc's FAR Forum.

D.

[Ken Sandyeggo]

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message >...
> I sold my experimental airplane sometime ago but I'm looking at buying
> another one at this time. I always flew over cities and used my RV-6
> just like I would any other airplane with a normal category
> airworthiness certificate. But, I remember reading something here
> once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
> populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
> know about that requirement?
>
> Also, I really enjoyed the conversation concerning ramp checks on
> private aircraft. Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
> demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
> The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
> airplane. What do you people think of that? I guess the Fed even
> told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
> ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
> the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too
> much.
>
> How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
> 91? Anyone?
>
> Bill

Bill, it's not a letter. If you have old OLs that restrict flight in
congested airways and over congested areas and prohibit major mods
without an inspection, they need to be updated. You have to send a
letter and form to your FSDO and request the new OLs. It can all be
done by mail without any visits by anyone. I believe the form and a
sample letter are either on the EAA site, FAA site or both. If you do
a major mod now, all you have to do is fly off 5 hours over a
non-congested area I believe, and log everything.

Ken J. - Sandy, egg ho

[Ken Sandyeggo]

"Bruce A. Frank" > wrote in message >...
> I remember (from a couple of years ago) an incident of an attempt to ban
> experimentals from L.A. airspace. THe FAA wrote a letter stating that
> all aircraft that had flown off the required test period were granted
> the same rights and privileges as commercially built aircraft and had
> full access to all airspace as allowed by their configuration (such as
> being IFR certified before flying above 18,000). THe letter clarified
> that homebuilts have complete access to Victor flight ways. Some of my
> details may be off a bit, but it amounted to that there were no
> restrictions, other than "for hire", on amateur builts.

Bruce, that's what the law became and the DARs/Inspectors stopped
putting those restrictions in the operating limitations. However,
it's not a blanket exemption. If your OLs were written before that
law became effective, you have to get them updated to be in compliance
or else you have to stay away from congested areas and can't do major
mods without notifying your FSDO. In any incident where they may
look at your old OLs, and if you were where you weren't supposed to be
according to the old wording, shame, shame. It's so easy to get one's
OLs updated, that it's really silly not to. All it costs is a stamp.
Those that haven't looked in awhile should read their OLs, and if the
prohibitions are in there, print out the form and boiler-plate letter
and send them in and get updated.

Ken J. - Updated in Sandy Eggo















Badwater Bill wrote:
> >
> >
> > I sold my experimental airplane sometime ago but I'm looking at buying
> > another one at this time. I always flew over cities and used my RV-6
> > just like I would any other airplane with a normal category
> > airworthiness certificate. But, I remember reading something here
> > once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
> > populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
> > know about that requirement?
> >
> > Also, I really enjoyed the conversation concerning ramp checks on
> > private aircraft. Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
> > demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
> > The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
> > airplane. What do you people think of that? I guess the Fed even
> > told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
> > ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
> > the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too
> > much.
> >
> > How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
> > 91? Anyone?
> >
> > Bill

[Bruce A. Frank]

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that the letter was not a blanket
regulation covering all homebuilts.

Ken Sandyeggo wrote:
>
> "Bruce A. Frank" > wrote in message >...
> > I remember (from a couple of years ago) an incident of an attempt to ban
> > experimentals from L.A. airspace. THe FAA wrote a letter stating that
> > all aircraft that had flown off the required test period were granted
> > the same rights and privileges as commercially built aircraft and had
> > full access to all airspace as allowed by their configuration (such as
> > being IFR certified before flying above 18,000). THe letter clarified
> > that homebuilts have complete access to Victor flight ways. Some of my
> > details may be off a bit, but it amounted to that there were no
> > restrictions, other than "for hire", on amateur builts.
>
> Bruce, that's what the law became and the DARs/Inspectors stopped
> putting those restrictions in the operating limitations. However,
> it's not a blanket exemption. If your OLs were written before that
> law became effective, you have to get them updated to be in compliance
> or else you have to stay away from congested areas and can't do major
> mods without notifying your FSDO. In any incident where they may
> look at your old OLs, and if you were where you weren't supposed to be
> according to the old wording, shame, shame. It's so easy to get one's
> OLs updated, that it's really silly not to. All it costs is a stamp.
> Those that haven't looked in awhile should read their OLs, and if the
> prohibitions are in there, print out the form and boiler-plate letter
> and send them in and get updated.
>
> Ken J. - Updated in Sandy Eggo
>
>
> Badwater Bill wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I sold my experimental airplane sometime ago but I'm looking at buying
> > > another one at this time. I always flew over cities and used my RV-6
> > > just like I would any other airplane with a normal category
> > > airworthiness certificate. But, I remember reading something here
> > > once about some letter that we need from the Feds in order to fly over
> > > populated areas in EXPERIMENTAL category aircraft. What do you folks
> > > know about that requirement?
> > >
> > > Also, I really enjoyed the conversation concerning ramp checks on
> > > private aircraft. Just the other day in Sitka Alaska some fed
> > > demanded to ramp check a private airplane operating under part 91.
> > > The owner was scared and confused and allowed the Fed inside of his
> > > airplane. What do you people think of that? I guess the Fed even
> > > told the owner he was going to detain him if he didn't submit to the
> > > ramp check. Interesting eh? Since when was a government puke from
> > > the FAA able to legally hold an airplane back from a flight. Too
> > > much.
> > >
> > > How many others of you have had this happen while operating under part
> > > 91? Anyone?
> > >
> > > Bill

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

[Badwater Bill]

Thanks Guys. I appreciate your time. I just wanted to see how many
people thought that they had to let the feds into their airplanes and
ramp check them. Most people still do think that. If I'm ever asked
for my documents and I'm operating privately, I'm going to give them
the name of my attorney and tell the to write her. She will then
forward any appropriate documents they require. Should any of them
become so brazen as to actually try to detain me. I will scribe out
some words on a plain sheet of paper and demand that they sign it and
that it says they have the right and the reason to detain me. Of
course they don't. Not unless they see a wing bolt hanging out or
something like that.

All the little government pukes are too chicken**** to actually stop
you if you confront them. I don't care if they do know a bit of NTSB
case law. Yes, Doug, the Exectutive law as you put is is actually
called "Administrative Law" and is mostly bull **** that can be
contested. The problem is, that it takes you time to do it.

A good example of administrative law is a speed limit sign. Under
statute, the County, or City is required to figure out how fast people
should go on a certain stretch of road. It's not in the statutes,
some little pukey government worm who can't get it up, sits at his
desk and decides how fast cars are going to drive down a road. Some
statute somewhere gives his organization that responsibility.
However, the speed limit he sets is "Administrative Law" not
Statutory Law. It still applies until you spend a hundred grand on
lawyer's fees to challenge it, should you not like it.

BWB

[Capt. Doug]

>Badwater Bill wrote in message > A good example of administrative law is a
speed >limit sign. > However, the speed limit he sets is "Administrative
Law" not
> Statutory Law. It still applies until you spend a hundred grand on
> lawyer's fees to challenge it, should you not like it.

Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave. I
went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for failure
to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.

D.

[Rich S.]

"Capt. Doug" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave.
I
> went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for
failure
> to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
> my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
> servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.

Better check real close, Doug. Here in Washington State, it's against the
law (oops - ordinance) to change lanes more than once every 800'. No matter
the reason, if you do so it's a violation. Doesn't matter if the roadway
designers made it impossible to enter from the left and exit to the right.

Good Luck,
Rich S.

[RobertR237]

In article >,
"Capt. Doug" > writes:

>
>>Badwater Bill wrote in message > A good example of administrative law is a
>speed >limit sign. > However, the speed limit he sets is "Administrative
>Law" not
>> Statutory Law. It still applies until you spend a hundred grand on
>> lawyer's fees to challenge it, should you not like it.
>
>Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave. I
>went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for failure
>to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
>my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
>servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.
>
>D.
>
>

Good for Him! If you went across three lanes to get to an exit ramp you should
have received a ticket. It is a stupid move that I have seen cause accidents
and at least one death. You should have been in the correct lane well before
the exit or gone on to the next exit.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Capt. Doug]

>RobertR237 wrote in message If you went across three lanes to get to an
exit ramp >you should
> have received a ticket. It is a stupid move that I have seen cause
accidents
> and at least one death. You should have been in the correct lane well
before
> the exit or gone on to the next exit.

How quick you are to pass judgement. You weren't even there, were you? Do
you know for a fact that there was any other traffic? Do you know for a fact
that I wasn't in the correct lane well before the exit? Do you know for a
fact how many feet elapsed between each individual lane change? Perhaps you
would do well to take your own advice and cool it off a little before
posting that which you are only guessing at.

D.

[Capt. Doug]

>Rich S. wrote in message > Better check real close, Doug. Here in
Washington State, >it's against the
> law (oops - ordinance) to change lanes more than once every 800'. No
matter
> the reason, if you do so it's a violation. Doesn't matter if the roadway
> designers made it impossible to enter from the left and exit to the right.

That's the background I'll be searching for when I get the time. The state's
Driver's Handbook makes no reference to a specific distance. Even if the
statute does mention a certain distance, how did the officer measure it?
From his line of sight, parallax discounts light poles and he couldn't
easily distinguish the painted lines. I'll find out if he had video during
discovery. He wasn't wearing his hat but their handbook now allows that the
hat isn't a required part of the uniform. The handbook changed after they
lost some cases over hatless officers.

D.

[RobertR237]

In article >,
"Capt. Doug" > writes:

>
>>RobertR237 wrote in message If you went across three lanes to get to an
>exit ramp >you should
>> have received a ticket. It is a stupid move that I have seen cause
>accidents
>> and at least one death. You should have been in the correct lane well
>before
>> the exit or gone on to the next exit.
>
>How quick you are to pass judgement. You weren't even there, were you? Do
>you know for a fact that there was any other traffic? Do you know for a fact
>that I wasn't in the correct lane well before the exit? Do you know for a
>fact how many feet elapsed between each individual lane change? Perhaps you
>would do well to take your own advice and cool it off a little before
>posting that which you are only guessing at.
>
>D.
>
>

Guessing at what you said which was that YOU crossed three lanes to get to the
exit. You made no indication that you did anything else. Sorry if I can't
just blindly give you a lot of support, I have seen what happens when drivers
cross three lanes trying to make an exit they should just bypass. If the cop
gave you a ticket, its a damn safe bet you did so in an unsafe manner. Now
quit whining and pay the ticket.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Barnyard BOb --]

On 29 Sep 2003 06:13:01 GMT, (RobertR237)
wrote:

>>How quick you are to pass judgement. You weren't even there, were you? Do
>>you know for a fact that there was any other traffic? Do you know for a fact
>>that I wasn't in the correct lane well before the exit? Do you know for a
>>fact how many feet elapsed between each individual lane change? Perhaps you
>>would do well to take your own advice and cool it off a little before
>>posting that which you are only guessing at.
>>
>>D.

>Guessing at what you said which was that YOU crossed three lanes to get to the
>exit. You made no indication that you did anything else. Sorry if I can't
>just blindly give you a lot of support, I have seen what happens when drivers
>cross three lanes trying to make an exit they should just bypass. If the cop
>gave you a ticket, its a damn safe bet you did so in an unsafe manner. Now
>quit whining and pay the ticket.
>
>Bob Reed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How odd.
..
Your advice sounds exactly like Jaun's.....
telling you to shut up about your BD-5 screwing. ;-(


Barnyard Bob --

[Ken Sandyeggo]

"Capt. Doug" > wrote in message >...
> >Badwater Bill wrote in message > A good example of administrative law is a
> speed >limit sign. > However, the speed limit he sets is "Administrative
> Law" not
> > Statutory Law. It still applies until you spend a hundred grand on
> > lawyer's fees to challenge it, should you not like it.
>
> Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave. I
> went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for failure
> to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
> my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
> servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.
>
> D.

He'll get time-and-a half for his time. What'll you get for yours?
Harrassment (sic) and a civil servant complaint? Surely you have
something more worthwhile to spend your time and money on. As to your
complaint....did he insult you, curse at you, hit you or push you
around? What are you going to complain about? Make sure it doesn't
happen again? How's that? You'll win? I wouldn't count on it. How
can you be sure? You sound like the typical juvenile that drives like
he owns the road and then gets mad at "daddy" when he gets caught and
punished. Grow up. Win or lose in court, you're the big loser for
all the money and time it'll cost you while the cop puts gobs of
overtime money in his pocket. You act like you're the first one that
ever got a ticket. How many do you have in your portfolio?

KJSDCAUSA

[dale]

> Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave.
I
> went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for
failure
> to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
> my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
> servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.
>
> D.


Captain Doug,
That last part about a civil servant complaint on the officer for doing his
job. You didn't say anything about his conduct or anything else other than
he was too young to shave. That last part makes you an ASSHOLE and aTURD in
my book. I wish I knew your name and where this occurred and I would provide
the court with your e-mail, then we would see how far your civil servant
complaint would go. Crossing three lanes of traffic has nothing to do with
my opinion of you.
Prick!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dale

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>
>>>How quick you are to pass judgement. You weren't even there, were you? Do
>>>you know for a fact that there was any other traffic? Do you know for a
>fact
>>>that I wasn't in the correct lane well before the exit? Do you know for a
>>>fact how many feet elapsed between each individual lane change? Perhaps you
>>>would do well to take your own advice and cool it off a little before
>>>posting that which you are only guessing at.
>>>
>>>D.
>
>>Guessing at what you said which was that YOU crossed three lanes to get to
>the
>>exit. You made no indication that you did anything else. Sorry if I can't
>>just blindly give you a lot of support, I have seen what happens when
>drivers
>>cross three lanes trying to make an exit they should just bypass. If the
>cop
>>gave you a ticket, its a damn safe bet you did so in an unsafe manner. Now
>>quit whining and pay the ticket.
>>
>>Bob Reed
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>How odd.
>.
>Your advice sounds exactly like Jaun's.....
>telling you to shut up about your BD-5 screwing. ;-(
>
>
>Barnyard Bob --
>
>

You don't see a difference, OK, thats your option.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[pac plyer]

"Capt. Doug" > wrote in message >...
> >RobertR237 wrote in message If you went across three lanes to get to an
> exit ramp >you should
> > have received a ticket. It is a stupid move that I have seen cause
> accidents
> > and at least one death. You should have been in the correct lane well
> before
> > the exit or gone on to the next exit.
>
> How quick you are to pass judgement. You weren't even there, were you? Do
> you know for a fact that there was any other traffic? Do you know for a fact
> that I wasn't in the correct lane well before the exit? Do you know for a
> fact how many feet elapsed between each individual lane change? Perhaps you
> would do well to take your own advice and cool it off a little before
> posting that which you are only guessing at.
>
> D.

Pure fiction follows...
Yep no doubt about it Doug. Since you're commuting to work this makes
you automatically guilty. :-( Why would we take the word of a man
with a million dollars of training in fifty-million dollar machines
over a twenty-two year old wonder with one-month OTJ turned loose on
society? ;-)

Reminds me of the old gov "pilot error" refrain. Pre-1980's there was
no such thing as wind shear. Wind quit on that hard landing? asks the
FAA air cop? Automatic pilot error. Had to be. In fact, when you
think about it, it is always pilot error, since we never hold the
government accountable for screwing up transportation in general.
Be nice to fly to work again. Expensive, but oh so satisfying. I
used to lean over in my Aztec and peer out the storm window down at
the commuting bugs inching down their noodle highways at 65mph vrs my
165Knots (best econ) with shear contempt! Oh you pitiful little bugs!
Look out for the man! He's down there somewhere.. under an overpass
just itchin to generate some more revenue for the city! HA HA HA!
There's a cruiser now! Let me just open this little storm window and
fly the bird on this fine morning! Hey officer.. look up! I'm doing
close to 200mph now with em smashed to the wall! Let's buzz this
mo-fo for all those tickets I got in college. One hundred feet's O.K.
in an "other than sparsely populated area" right? Five for persons
or property? What? A patrol car is considered property? What if
it's *your* property we're talking about here? Well, I'm a taxpayer..
so I own a certain percentage of this cop car in my windshield, right?
What the hell, let's do it anyway!

ZZZZZzzzzzzzooooooooooommmmmMMMM!!!!

Pull up and keep the tail pointed at him till I get over this hill
here...
LOL!

Not smart, but it feels so good. Better than drugs, I say!

HA HA HA!

Then I had to join those bugs a year later when they closed my base.
AArragg!

Sometimes you just can't get a break.

pacplyer - out

[Barnyard BOb --]

On 29 Sep 2003 14:30:37 GMT, (RobertR237)
wrote:


>>
>>How odd.
>>.
>>Your advice sounds exactly like Jaun's.....
>>telling you to shut up about your BD-5 screwing. ;-(
>>
>>
>>Barnyard Bob --
>>
>>
>
>You don't see a difference, OK, thats your option.
>
>
>Bob Reed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I see quite well, thank you.

Your cause MIGHT be more just, but....
whinning is whinning and you have
done more than your fair share.

That was my only point.


Barnyard Bob --
If you live in a glass house, be
careful about throwing stones.

[John Ammeter]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:35:29 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
> wrote:

Hey, Barnyard....

Do you mean "whining" or "winning"???

jon


>
>I see quite well, thank you.
>
>Your cause MIGHT be more just, but....
>whinning is whinning and you have
>done more than your fair share.
>
>That was my only point.
>
>
>Barnyard Bob --
>If you live in a glass house, be
>careful about throwing stones.

[pac plyer]

"dale" > wrote in message >...
> > Yeah, just the other day I got a ticket from a kid who could barely shave.
> I
> > went across 3 lanes to get to the exit ramp. He wrote the ticket for
> failure
> > to stay between the lines. It's harrassment. I'll win, but it will take up
> > my time. Then, to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'll slap a civil
> > servant complaint on him. If he wants my time, he's going to get it.
> >
> > D.
>
>
> Captain Doug,
> That last part about a civil servant complaint on the officer for doing his
> job. You didn't say anything about his conduct or anything else other than
> he was too young to shave. That last part makes you an ASSHOLE and aTURD in
> my book. I wish I knew your name and where this occurred and I would provide
> the court with your e-mail, then we would see how far your civil servant
> complaint would go. Crossing three lanes of traffic has nothing to do with
> my opinion of you.
> Prick!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Dale


You do that Dale. If you dare to sink that far into the gutter, don't
be suprised if one of us informs the FAA of your illegal drug use that
you posted right here in RAH. It would be a bit of poetic justice as
far as I am concerned.

Right back up your ass Dale,

pacplyer

[Barnyard BOb --]

:
>
>Hey, Barnyard....
>
>Do you mean "whining" or "winning"???
>
>jon
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

****...
There's far worse butchery here every day.
So, why jerk my chain? <g>

For you spell police nits......
This is a rhetorical question.
No answer needed or wanted.


Barnyard BOb --

[Capt. Doug]

>Ken Sandyeggo wrote in message > He'll get time-and-a half for his time.
What'll >you get for yours?

The satisfaction of knowing that I stand up for what is right.

> Harrassment (sic) and a civil servant complaint? Surely you have
> something more worthwhile to spend your time and money on.

My limited amount of recreational time is more valuable. However, I feel a
need to stand up for what I think is right.

> As to your complaint....did he insult you, curse at you, hit you or push
you
> around? What are you going to complain about?

My complaint is centered around the charge being a subjective judgement
instead of an objective, measureable collection of facts. The officer was
courteous and polite. I question his judgement only. Poor judgment means
false accusations. False accusations coming from an officer are serious.

> Make sure it doesn't happen again? How's that? You'll win? I wouldn't
count on >it. How can you be sure?

I'll present my case in front of the judge. That's how it's done. Most
people just figure losing their case is a forgone conclusion. I'm not a
sheeple- never have been. I'll fight for what I think is right.

>You sound like the typical juvenile that drives like
> he owns the road and then gets mad at "daddy" when he gets caught and
> punished. Grow up.

This is where your post turns into a personal attack. Is that what you
really intended? I tended to hold you in higher regard. Maybe my judgement
IS slipping. :-)

>Win or lose in court, you're the big loser for
> all the money and time it'll cost you while the cop puts gobs of
> overtime money in his pocket. You act like you're the first one that
> ever got a ticket. How many do you have in your portfolio?

Do pilots make the big leagues with a spotty driving record? Not likely. Is
it wrong to stand up for what one feels is right? I defer to our country's
Founding Fathers.

[Warren & Nancy]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> :
> >
> >Hey, Barnyard....
> >
> >Do you mean "whining" or "winning"???
> >
> >jon
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ****...
> There's far worse butchery here every day.
> So, why jerk my chain? <g>
>
> For you spell police nits......
> This is a rhetorical question.
> No answer needed or wanted.
>
> Barnyard BOb --

Hey BOb, did you quit taking your thorazine and rat poison and washing
it down with chardonnay? Oh wait. That was the other curmudgeon that
did that, wasn't it? Or was it?

Warren

[RobertR237]

In article >,
"Capt. Doug" > writes:

>
>> As to your complaint....did he insult you, curse at you, hit you or push
>you
>> around? What are you going to complain about?
>
>My complaint is centered around the charge being a subjective judgement
>instead of an objective, measureable collection of facts. The officer was
>courteous and polite. I question his judgement only. Poor judgment means
>false accusations. False accusations coming from an officer are serious.
>
>

Sounds like he was just questioning your judgement as well. In your case
though, poor judgement has often lead to serious accidents.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>>
>>Hey, Barnyard....
>>
>>Do you mean "whining" or "winning"???
>>
>>jon
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>****...
>There's far worse butchery here every day.
>So, why jerk my chain? <g>
>
>For you spell police nits......
>This is a rhetorical question.
>No answer needed or wanted.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>

Well gee BOb, nobody would or could ever accuse you of doing anything like that
now could they? Seems to me you have done your fair share of whinning too but
then am I just the pot calling the kettle black?

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Bill Higdon]

Warren & Nancy wrote:
>
> Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
>
>>:
>>
>>>Hey, Barnyard....
>>>
>>>Do you mean "whining" or "winning"???
>>>
>>>jon
>>
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>****...
>>There's far worse butchery here every day.
>>So, why jerk my chain? <g>
>>
>>For you spell police nits......
>>This is a rhetorical question.
>>No answer needed or wanted.
>>
>>Barnyard BOb --
>
>
> Hey BOb, did you quit taking your thorazine and rat poison and washing
> it down with chardonnay? Oh wait. That was the other curmudgeon that
> did that, wasn't it? Or was it?
>
> Warren
>

at least we know their not each others "sock puppets"
Bill Higdon
now I'll crawl back in my bomb shelter

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>>Do you mean "whining" or "winning"???
>>>
>>>jon
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>****...
>>There's far worse butchery here every day.
>>So, why jerk my chain? <g>
>>
>>For you spell police nits......
>>This is a rhetorical question.
>>No answer needed or wanted.
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb --
>>
>
>Well gee BOb, nobody would or could ever accuse you of doing anything like that
>now could they?

What have I_ NOT_ been accused of?

> Seems to me you have done your fair share of whinning too but
>then am I just the pot calling the kettle black?
>
>Bob Reed

Yeah, yeah.
When it comes to serious sancti-MOAN-ious whining...
nobody holds a candle, pot or kettle to you. <bfg>


Barnyard BOb --

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>
>> Seems to me you have done your fair share of whinning too but
>>then am I just the pot calling the kettle black?
>>
>>Bob Reed
>
>Yeah, yeah.
>When it comes to serious sancti-MOAN-ious whining...
>nobody holds a candle, pot or kettle to you. <bfg>
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>
>

Damn, now you have gone and hurt my feelings.....wahwahwahwah


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Russell Kent]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> What have I _NOT_ been accused of?

Having a sweet disposition. ;-)

Russell Kent

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
>> What have I _NOT_ been accused of?
>
>Having a sweet disposition. ;-)
>
>Russell Kent
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

How mistaken you are, Russell.

Before becoming Barnyard BOb, I was
referred to as_Sweet Old Bob_ by many.

Shortened to SOB, of course, as a term of endearment.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

[Capt. Doug]

>RobertR237 wrote in message > Sounds like he was just questioning your
judgement >as well. In your case
> though, poor judgement has often lead to serious accidents.

I admit I am not used to having my judgement questioned, and I'm sure the
same is true for the officer. However, IN MY CASE, I've never had a serious
accident. In fact the only accident I've had in well over a decade was when
I was sitting in stalled traffic on the interstate and was rear-ended. Are
you going to say that was bad judgement on my part?

D.

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>RobertR237 wrote in message > Sounds like he was just questioning your
>judgement >as well. In your case
>> though, poor judgement has often lead to serious accidents.
>
>I admit I am not used to having my judgement questioned, and I'm sure the
>same is true for the officer. However, IN MY CASE, I've never had a serious
>accident. In fact the only accident I've had in well over a decade was when
>I was sitting in stalled traffic on the interstate and was rear-ended. Are
>you going to say that was bad judgement on my part?
>
>D.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's bad judgment on your part to air this case in RAH....
even if you enjoy masochism, wasting time and energy.


Barnyard BOb -- Pot, kettle, black. <g>

[RobertR237]

>>>RobertR237 wrote in message > Sounds like he was just questioning your
>>judgement >as well. In your case
>>> though, poor judgement has often lead to serious accidents.
>>
>>I admit I am not used to having my judgement questioned, and I'm sure the
>>same is true for the officer. However, IN MY CASE, I've never had a serious
>>accident. In fact the only accident I've had in well over a decade was when
>>I was sitting in stalled traffic on the interstate and was rear-ended. Are
>>you going to say that was bad judgement on my part?
>>
>>D.
>

Rather or not you have ever HAD a serious accident might only mean that thus
far you have been very lucky. Hell, you have never died yet (like some people)
but you will someday. No, setting stalled in traffic on the interstate and
being rear-ended is not bad judgement on your part. So, does that mean
anything? No, bad judgement on the part of one driver might not cause them to
be involved in an accident but might cause one as a result.

I will give you an example that happened to my daughter. She was traveling
down the service road along the side of the freeway with another car beside
her. The other car suddenly swerved into her lane and my daughter tried to
avoid her and her tire hit the curb and pulled her into the end of a rather
large guardrail. The cars never touched but my daughters car was destroyed as
a result of the collision. The cops gave my daughter a ticket for failure to
maintain control and then told her she should take it to court. She did, and
fortunately for her, the woman who was driving the other car did stop and did
show up in court to admit that she caused the accident. It was a very rare
case of someone actually knowing and caring that THEY had caused an accident,
even though they were not involved in it.

In my thirty years of driving the Houston raceways, I have seen many accidents
result from stupid moves by drivers who were not themselves involved in the
resulting accident. The two most frequent causes are unsignaled and
thoughtless lane changes and people who don't understand that entrance and exit
ramps are for getting upto speed and slowing down, not the main freeway lanes.


That officer, whos judgement you are questioning, has probably seen more
roadway carnage in a couple of years than I have seen in 30 years of driving
the Houston freeways. It doesn't take much of that to realize that poor
judgement is the root cause of most accidents on the roadways as it is in the
air. That officer might just have been more concerned about your safety than
you were.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Capt. Doug]

>Barnyard BOb wrote in message > It's bad judgment on your part to air this
case in >RAH....

Oh yeah, wouldn't want to post off-topic....

> even if you enjoy masochism, wasting time and energy.

More entertaining than watching television with the wife....

D. (getting old....but still grinning :-))

[Capt. Doug]

>RobertR237 wrote in message > That officer, whos judgement you are
questioning, >has probably seen more
> roadway carnage in a couple of years than I have seen in 30 years of
driving
> the Houston freeways. It doesn't take much of that to realize that poor
> judgement is the root cause of most accidents on the roadways as it is in
the
> air. That officer might just have been more concerned about your safety
than
> you were.

Ahh- finally the discourse of a civilized gentleman. I agree with what you
write, mostly. Poor judgement is not the solely confined to the civilian
population. Police officers are not immune from exercising poor judgement.
Just this week, 2 local officers were fired for entering contestants in a
dog-fighting contest and then abandoning the nearly dead dogs along the side
of a road afterwards. Just this month, a local officer was 'not' cleared by
a grand jury for shooting an unarmed suspect. The grand jury stated that his
testimony was significantly different from that of his colleagues. Just this
week, a local officer was fired and charged with crimes for demanding a $500
dollar bribe from an illegal immigrant during a traffic stop.

I can go on, but you get the idea. Most officers exercise good judgement. I
fully support them. I have cooperated and collaborated with many of them.
Some of them are my personal friends and flying buddies. The bad officers
make the job harder and less safe for the good officers. As a concerned
citizen, I am vigilant about helping to identify the officers with judgement
problems.

Then, to get back to bitching, let's talk about the cops who write tickets
for speeding and blasting through yellow lights and failing to use turn
signals. They clock out and then do the same things themselves. Their
defense is that they have had high speed driving training. Shiite! They're
hypocrits!

D.

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Then, to get back to bitching, let's talk about the cops who write tickets
>for speeding and blasting through yellow lights and failing to use turn
>signals. They clock out and then do the same things themselves. Their
>defense is that they have had high speed driving training. Shiite!


>They're hypocrits!
>
>D.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Close, but this ain't hoarse shüz, dood.

They be... hypocrites. <g>



Barnyard BOb -- whining/whinning

[Warren & Nancy]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> >Then, to get back to bitching, let's talk about the cops who write tickets
> >for speeding and blasting through yellow lights and failing to use turn
> >signals. They clock out and then do the same things themselves. Their
> >defense is that they have had high speed driving training. Shiite!
>
> >They're hypocrits!
> >
> >D.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Close, but this ain't hoarse shüz, dood.
>
> They be... hypocrites. <g>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- whining/whinning

They remind me of dear old Dad. "Do as I say, not as I do?

Warren

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> >Then, to get back to bitching, let's talk about the cops who write tickets
>> >for speeding and blasting through yellow lights and failing to use turn
>> >signals. They clock out and then do the same things themselves. Their
>> >defense is that they have had high speed driving training. Shiite!
>>
>> >They're hypocrits!
>> >
>> >D.
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Close, but this ain't hoarse shüz, dood.
>>
>> They be... hypocrites. <g>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -- whining/whinning
>
>They remind me of dear old Dad. "Do as I say, not as I do?
>
>Warren
+++++++++++++++++++++

Cops could drive worse?

When's the last time you saw
a cop getting a ticket?

Howz 'bout the oft times abused....
"professional courtesy" thingy.

Samples...

http://www.domelights.com/discussion/_disc3/000001f1.htm
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27772%257E1643930,00.html


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of fright

[RobertR237]

In article >,
"Capt. Doug" > writes:

>
>Then, to get back to bitching, let's talk about the cops who write tickets
>for speeding and blasting through yellow lights and failing to use turn
>signals. They clock out and then do the same things themselves. Their
>defense is that they have had high speed driving training. Shiite! They're
>hypocrits!
>
>D.
>
>

Yellow lights??? Around here nobody even notices yellow lights and blast
through red lights with a passion. I set at one intersecton and counted the
red-light runners on one instance...there were 12 including a school bus full
of kids which was the last to go through. I saw a 14 wheel fully loaded dump
truck speed-up and run a red light once hitting a small car with three people
inside. They never even knew what hit them.

But yes, the officers do have some judgement problems as well and I have been
witness to many instances myself. No amount of high speed driver training can
make up for the fact that you are on the highway with a lot of drivers who have
NOT had such training.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Rich S.]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...

> When's the last time you saw
> a cop getting a ticket?
>
> Howz 'bout the oft times abused....
> "professional courtesy" thingy.

Then, to take this full circle and back to the subject, do FAA inspectors
ramp check off-duty FAA inspectors?

Rich "Badgers? I don' need no steenkin' badgers!" S

[Jerry Springer]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>
>>Then, to get back to bitching, let's talk about the cops who write tickets
>>for speeding and blasting through yellow lights and failing to use turn
>>signals. They clock out and then do the same things themselves. Their
>>defense is that they have had high speed driving training. Shiite!
>
>
>
>>They're hypocrits!
>>
>>D.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Close, but this ain't hoarse shüz, dood.
>
> They be... hypocrites. <g>
>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- whining/whinning
>

If you think you have good hand/eye coordination, try this on for size.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total
mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the
huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
but the wrod as a
wlohe. Pertty amzanig huh?

Jerry

[Warren & Nancy]

Had some friends that were ramp check after coming in on an angel flight.
the inspectors had been rebuffed by guns when trying to board AF2. They were
a little ****ed.

"Rich S." wrote:

> "Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > When's the last time you saw
> > a cop getting a ticket?
> >
> > Howz 'bout the oft times abused....
> > "professional courtesy" thingy.
>
> Then, to take this full circle and back to the subject, do FAA inspectors
> ramp check off-duty FAA inspectors?
>
> Rich "Badgers? I don' need no steenkin' badgers!" S

[Blueskies]

cool....




--
Dan D.



..
"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
> >
> >>Then, to get back to bitching, let's talk about the cops who write tickets
> >>for speeding and blasting through yellow lights and failing to use turn
> >>signals. They clock out and then do the same things themselves. Their
> >>defense is that they have had high speed driving training. Shiite!
> >
> >
> >
> >>They're hypocrits!
> >>
> >>D.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Close, but this ain't hoarse shüz, dood.
> >
> > They be... hypocrites. <g>
> >
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb -- whining/whinning
> >
>
> If you think you have good hand/eye coordination, try this on for size.
>
> Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
> what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
> the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total
> mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the
> huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
> but the wrod as a
> wlohe. Pertty amzanig huh?
>
> Jerry
>

[RobertR237]

In article et>, Jerry
Springer > writes:

>
>If you think you have good hand/eye coordination, try this on for size.
>
>Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
>what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
>the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total
>mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the
>huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
>but the wrod as a
>wlohe. Pertty amzanig huh?
>
>Jerry
>
>

The worst (or best) part is that I read it without missing a beat and just a
quickly as if every word had been spelled correctly. That is the main reason I
rarely catch misspelled words.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
>>what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
>>the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total
>>mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the
>>huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
>>but the wrod as a
>>wlohe. Pertty amzanig huh?
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>
>The worst (or best) part is that I read it without missing a beat and just a
>quickly as if every word had been spelled correctly. That is the main reason I
>rarely catch misspelled words.
>
>
>Bob Reed
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bull****.

You are illiterate.
Admit it. 8-}


Barnyard BOb --

[RobertR237]

In article >, Barnyard BOb --
> writes:

>>
>>Bob Reed
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Bull****.
>
>You are illiterate.
>Admit it. 8-}
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>
>

Well DUH...what does illiterate mean? ;-)))


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Capt. Doug]

>Rich S. wrote in message > Then, to take this full circle and back to the
subject, do >FAA inspectors ramp check off-duty FAA inspectors?

The FAA has a corporate culture that rivals any real corporation. It has all
the back-stabbing, nit-picking politics. It has union politics too. At my
local FSDO, the union lawyer opened an office on the same floor of the
building. Some FAA inspectors will proceed with enforcement against their
own.

D.

[Del Rawlins]

On 05 Oct 2003 09:58 AM, Capt. Doug posted the following:
>>Rich S. wrote in message > Then, to take this full circle and back to
>>the
> subject, do >FAA inspectors ramp check off-duty FAA inspectors?
>
> The FAA has a corporate culture that rivals any real corporation. It
> has all the back-stabbing, nit-picking politics. It has union politics
> too. At my local FSDO, the union lawyer opened an office on the same
> floor of the building. Some FAA inspectors will proceed with
> enforcement against their own.

For some reason, that doesn't upset me in the least.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Model Flyer]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>

>
> If you think you have good hand/eye coordination, try this on for
size.
>
> Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't
mttaer in
> what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
taht
> the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
total
> mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the
> huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
> but the wrod as a
> wlohe. Pertty amzanig huh?
>
> Jerry

And three I was thinking I had the mind of a chimp, Jerry has just
confirmed the fact that I may indeed have a human brain.
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place


>