FAA grounds taunting banner plane

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

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

Well, that would be nothing new.

Ricky

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

A little Wacko down in Waco?

Always wacko down in Waco.

Ricky

On Apr 14, 5:48*am, "Stephen!" wrote:
george wrote in news:f77819dc-423a-4447-b8ed-
:

ÿ A ramp check needs no reason.

:-)
Some-one didn't read their Regs

* Twasn't me...

* For Part 91, an FAA Aviation Safety Inpector can conduct a ramp check
whenever the inspector:

(1) Observes an unsafe operation in the traffic pattern or in the ramp
(2) Is notified by ATC of an unsafe operation
(3) Conducts normal surveillance

* Number (3) include 'random' ramp checks at the inspectors whim.

Check out FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 6 for more information.

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

On Apr 10, 9:45*am, Ricky wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:56*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

This is a question of seat-belt conformance,

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

Ricky

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

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

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

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

On Apr 10, 1:00*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Grow up girls.

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

On Apr 10, 9:45*am, Ricky wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:56*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

This is a question of seat-belt conformance,

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

Ricky

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

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

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

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

Tone? In a post?

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

On Apr 14, 3:26*pm, Ari wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

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

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

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

Tone? In a post?

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

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

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

On Apr 14, 3:26*pm, Ari wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

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

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

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

Tone? In a post?

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

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

Nope I was taking a painful ****.

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

On Apr 14, 6:41*pm, Ari wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Richard wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:26*pm, Ari wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:00:30 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

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

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

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

Tone? In a post?

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

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

Nope I was taking a painful ****.

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

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