Larry Dighera wrote:

From a cursory scan of the page, it does appear that the FAA lost the
case. Specifically what language lead you to believe otherwise?

The FAA's "loss" was limited to a failure to properly define "unreasonable"
such that it applies (or not) to this case. The FAA can still force
airports to eliminate "unreasonable" noise restrictions.

From what I read, it seems to me like the FAA didn't feel the need to defend
their presumption of "unreasonable". I don't know why that would be the
case. However, I can say that I was involved in one legal action where the
opposing attorney did completely miss the major basis upon which the case
was decided, so perhaps that sort of thing isn't uncommon.

So the question is whether the FAA will be revisiting the definition of
"unreasonable" in this case, as the court explicitly provided the FAA that
option as the next step.

- Andrew