On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:45:25 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ine.com::

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.

I don't have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary at hand, but I did find
this definition of 'unreasonable' on-line:

http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/tcleosehome/newforce.pdf
In general, an action is unreasonable if a reasonable man in
similar circumstances would recognize the act as involving a risk
of harm and a risk of such magnitude as to outweigh the utility of
the act or the manner in which it was done.

Another on-line source that cites Black's Law Dictionary provides this
definition of 'unreasonable':

http://www.doprocess.net/files/missou~2.htm
"Unreasonable" is described as "[i]rrational; foolish; unwise;
absurd; silly; preposterous; senseless; stupid; [n]ot reasonable;
immoderate; exorbitant; [c]apricious; arbitrary; confiscatory."
Black's Law Dictionary 1538 (6th ed. 1990).

So perhaps the FAA needs to reword or better define the term
'unreasonable noise restrictions', so that it does not provide a
loophole in future legal cases.