A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Aerobatics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stop the noise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 24th 04, 12:35 PM
Paul Sengupta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Cartwright" wrote in message
...
"airads" wrote in message
om...
Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be
enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong".


On this side of the pond, you have to have your registration on the
underside of your left wing anyway.


Which country is that?

Paul


  #2  
Old March 23rd 04, 08:58 AM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 20 Mar 2004 08:08:57 -0800, (airads) wrote:

Feb. 24 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday
provided initial support to four Massachusetts pilots - all AOPA
members - facing a lawsuit filed by a few residents. The suit alleges
that the noise signature from the aerobatics performed by the pilots
caused significant harm; they are seeking approximately $1 million in
damages. The pilots are based at various airports, some 20 miles from
the homes of the litigants.

"This is potentially an issue that could affect all pilots engaged in
any type of air commerce - from a Cub to a 747," said AOPA President
Phil Boyer. "We are fully prepared to take this through the federal
system if necessary.


I wonder if they've considered getting a "junk yard lawyer" and
counter suit for harrasment.

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. That they have caused great financial harm
(pilots having to sell planes to meet expenses) is already an arguing
point.

I think in these cases we should not just fight the case but take
agressive counter action "if possible" that would make those
considering similar actions in the future to back up and consider the
consequences.

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



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-108x.html

Frank


  #3  
Old March 23rd 04, 03:27 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #4  
Old March 23rd 04, 03:47 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #5  
Old March 28th 04, 06:49 AM
Jessie Carlson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Larry Dighera wrote:

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.


You don't understand. This is Massachusetts. Courts in this very Liberal state
can do whatever they want, and they aren't accountable to anybody or anything.

Yes, eventually a federal district court or appellate court might hear the case.
But that will be way down the line, after much direct and collateral economic
damage is done. And that's what the plaintiffs want.

  #6  
Old March 23rd 04, 09:12 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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
  #7  
Old March 23rd 04, 09:19 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #8  
Old March 23rd 04, 11:25 PM
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #9  
Old March 24th 04, 10:21 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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
  #10  
Old March 28th 04, 06:24 AM
SeeAndAvoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
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.


Actually the complaint was not filed by the organization, but by
individuals, it can be seen at
http://www.stopthenoise.org/docs/COMPLAINT.ammended.pdf

Plaintiffs:
Robert F. Casey, Jr. 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts. This
presumably is the lawyer that someone said is donating his time, but is also
a Plaintiff.
Rita A. Casey, 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts
David McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts
Amy McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts
Gerard Hall, 34 Lovett Lane, Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
Beverly Smith, 435 Old Ayer Road, Groton, Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The STN site is pretty low tech and a bunch of rambling nonsense. I like
this quote "FAA is an organization of General Aviation pilots tasked with
policing, among other things, General Aviation". Really?
And "It is not our intent to shut down General Aviation", yet a couple
months
ago, this same guy, Bill Burgoyne, said "There is no reason people need to
have them (small airplanes) for transportation as private vehicles"
article at
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/e...olumn&-nothing

Another website, that is a little more professionally done and more
objective is
http://www.planesenseofgroton.org/
although they are publicly posting N-numbers of airplanes that offend them.
Is
that legal?

And if you want to see the height of anti aviation fascism, check out
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter229.htm
Anyone else seen this garbage? These people have way too much time on
their hands.

And http://www.us-caw.org/ US Citizens Aviation Watch. Check the link for
Monitored Airports, see if you're being watched.

I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened
in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference).
Time to take the
fight back to them.
Chris


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.