If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
A full aerobatic box is 3000 feet x 3000 feet x 3000 feet. Other variations are
possible. The FAA requires a 1500 foot buffer zone around the perimeter (for jets and warbirds, this increases to 3000 feet), so you in effect need a 6000 feet x 6000 feet footprint (or 7500 x 7500). Unless you are going to practice cross-box maneuvers, the width of the box may be decreased. The floor and visibility requirements are also negotiated, as are communications and ground observer details. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Halstead wrote: If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more than what they are aksing. The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org that is sueing these pilots. You don't have grounds for a countersuit unless this one is settled in favor of the pilots. After that occurs, they'll disolve the organization, and you won't have anyone to sue. Furthermore, AOPA has not been injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so). George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:27:02 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote in Message-Id: : The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org that is sueing these pilots. It sounds like a jurisdictional issue to me. I doubt the local court has the right to countermand the FAA's decisions. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Furthermore, AOPA has not been injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so). According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial contribution" to defense costs. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
Furthermore, AOPA has not been injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so). According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial contribution" to defense costs. Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft? - Andrew |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote: Cub Driver wrote: Furthermore, AOPA has not been injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so). According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial contribution" to defense costs. Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft? They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for free. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near airports that already existed. Here's another example of this exact senerio; A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town" concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc. Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with the same ownership for almost 25 years. Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office. I called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport" that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as important to the city as HIS grand, new development! Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or... maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this "little airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New Town"? Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little planes" flying over my new house? Gary Kasten |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial contribution" to defense costs. Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft? Evidently so. I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill $400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near airports that already existed. Here's another example of this exact senerio; A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town" concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc. Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with the same ownership for almost 25 years. Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps' casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|