Stop the noise

ET wrote:
Kevin wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:


Peter Clark wrote:

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.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .




Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
lawyers....


Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
is NOT one of them.

You are correct if you only have a revocable living trust. However, if
the RLT is used in conjuction with a FLP (Family Limited Partnership)
its a different story.
Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the FLP
and those interests are owned by the trust.

ET wrote:
Kevin wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:


Peter Clark wrote:

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.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .




Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
lawyers....


Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
is NOT one of them.


Actually it can when used in conjunction with a FLP.

Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the FLP (Family Limited Partnership) and those
interests are owned by the trust.

Kevin wrote in news:ZPm8c.730$K91.2594@attbi_s02:

ET wrote:
Kevin wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:


Peter Clark wrote:

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.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .




Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
lawyers....


Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of
potential good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection
from lawsuits is NOT one of them.

You are correct IF the revocable living trust is used as the only
means
to protect assets. If the RLT is used in conjunction with a Family
Limited Partnership its a different matter.

Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in a Family
limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.



Be very careful here as well. FLP's have been invalidated based on the
"reason" they were set up. To be "bulletproof" an FLP needs to have a
legit business purpose other than just asset protection. An FLP set up to
run a bunch of rental properties, obviously meets this... but if it only
owns your stock portfolio, you might have a problem.

Either way, the existance of a living trust is irrelevant to the ability of
the FLP to protect your assets. The FLP will work, or not, regardless of
the RLT.

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Kevin wrote:

If the revocable living trust is used alone you are correct. If used in
conjunction with a FLP it's a different matter.

Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the
Family limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.


The only way to protect your assets is to spend your money on things no
one can take away. Couple years ago, I kinda felt I was about to be
laid off. So I took the family to Disney World. I coulda paid more
bills, but they'd eventually take it all back anyway so WTF. There's no
way they're going to get those memories of plastered on smiles from
riding the rockin' roller coaster. They mine, and always will be!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

In article ,
(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.



AWWWW, people living in the city hear a lot of noise

First we made it so trains couldn't sound their horns to keep the quiet
and smack

Now we can't fly because the noise from a few airplanes does a MILLION
dollars in damage?

How do you quantify that exactly? I live on the right traffic pattern
of our local (heavily utilized for training) airport and I LOVE to look
up at what is coming over....

Shoot, the locals tried to shut down the medical evac helicopter we fly
out of the University of Michigan a few years ago because of the noise!
MEDICAL EVACUATION to a level one trauma center! #7 Hospital in the
nation..More worried about noise than PEOPLES LIVES!

sigh....suburbanites..

"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

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.

Jeremy Lew wrote:

I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues, but
the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in these
suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's
practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being near
three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for prospective
house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in this
area.

If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N of
the Ft. Devens MOA.

Yes the ironic thing is that the Fort Devens airfield (Moore Army Airfield,
KAYE) would have made a lovely airport, especially for cargo operations, with
excellent adjacent Rail and Freeway connections. The locals made sure this
never happened when the Army Base closed.

So now we have two large runways with X's all over them. (State police use one
of the former runways for high speed driving training).

With Moore field closed, the local airspace is available for a training area.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:49:26 -0500, Jessie Carlson
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

If that is the line the defense attorney is spewing, it's time to find
another more competent one.

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.

If a suit is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction solely to harass
the plaintiffs, it could be viewed as abuse of process. The law cuts
both ways.

John Doe wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote:


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.


Then you shall have one, Chris.


This is precisely the problem.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am an American homeowner who is considering
establishing a Stop-the-Noise chapter with my local community.

I have always had a live-and-let-live attitude towards aviation. More than
that, I have always enjoyed watching it. I am an ex-Air Force zoomie.

The issue is that flying "legally" does not make flying in a certain manner
"right". One can fly with a bad attitude, perhaps with callous disregard
for other pilots in the sky and those on the ground, comply with the letter
of the FARs and yet be in the wrong. How about the guy that cuts in front of
you on a "short final", forcing a go around? Life is full of situations
where one's conduct or morals are wrong, yet that person is not technically
breaking any laws.

I have observed and even beeen personally victimized by pilots choosing to
fly inverted over my home at altitudes less than 1,000' AGL, pilots diving at
my neighbor's horse pasture in a Pitts in an apparent effort to "run" the
animals (and once costing them $500 dollars in vet bills after an animal
tangled in a fence, badly cutting itself).

There are those few pilots that treat community noise abatement procedures
as a personal affront or insult so they full-atttack the prop and mash in
the throttle over subdivisions. Yes, perfectly legal in most cases. The PIC
is responsible for safe takeoff procedures; who would question someone's
motives?

You know who you are.

I have a busy life and demanding career. I have never wanted to involve
myself in a ****ing contest with the local aviation community. I have bent
over backwards to aviod lodging complaints with the local FSDO. Instead, I
have recorded and reported instances of flagrant lawbreaking and
irresponsible conduct by aerobatic pilots to AOPA and EAA, simply asking
that efforts be made to unofficially contact these individuals and ask them
to respect the laws and the public.
Yet I've never received the courtesy of a response from either organization.
That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a
gentlemanly manner.

Like anyone else, I bought my house with the expectation that I could freely
excercise my constitutional right to peaceably use my property. I recognize
that this is the 21st century, noise happens, and I don't have an issue with
95% of general aviation aircraft or their pilots. Aerobatics practice boxes
don't appear on the terminal or sectional maps, nor does the FAA or flying
club have to notify the public about same. That's wrong.

I also have no sympathy for someone moving next to an airport
then complaining about the noise.

As I said, noise happens. But everyone has a limit. How many hours of
aerobatics in some of the loudest light aircraft on the planet should a
person on the ground have to tolerate? An hour every day? Ten hours of
almost incessant window-rattling every nice weekend? Let's establish a
consensus.. Where's the dividing line between a whining, thin-skinned psycho
complainer and someone with a legitimate gripe?

Does anyone here have a neighbor with an incessantly-barking dog? How about
their kids parked in the drive next door with a 1,000-watt stereo in a
Honda? When do the normal intrusions of a modern society cross the line?

The line is definitely crossed when the neighbor gets a second, and larger
barking dog and when their kids amp it up in response to your polite
complaints.

So that's the way it is. When a single high-performance aircraft can rattle
windows over a 25 square mile area, day in and out, and the pilots refuse to
consider any sort of mitigation, or even step it up in response to a request
for a dialogue. Why should they? They're flying "legal".

That's when organizations like Stop-the-Noise happen and grow. Ordinary
people with legitimate gripes that are being ignored and dismissed.
Regrettably, they will attract their share of obscessive anti-aviation
kooks, but it's important to note why outfits like STN have happened. --
Because of the legitimate reasons that I describe above.

I enjoy running my tricked-out 1968 Chevelle SS-396. I've had it since I was
22 years old and lost my driver's license in those days driving it. It
shouldn't be my neighbor's problem that it costs me $25 bucks in gas to go
to the nearest oval track on a nice weekend instead of opening the headers
and running it every night by their homes. The same standards of cooperation
and sensibility should apply to the avocation of aerobatic flight, as well.

Pilots are an elite fraternity, they should be better citizens than a punk
with a thousand-watt stereo in his car.

This is an open plea to the aviation community to ignore the kooks and
accept responsibility concerning the over-the-top impact that some of their
activities have on the general public. There are many that don't believe
that a constructive dialogue is possible. The only alternative is going to
be escalating tension, complaints and even litigation as has already
occurred. I don't want that, but our community may have no choice but to
follow that example. It is *not* true that members of STN have refused to
negotiate or work with the aviation community. My neighbors and I, as I
described, have bent over backwards trying to seek a mutually-acceptable
resolution to the local situation. The next move needs to be on the part of
the EAA, IAC and aerobatic pilots. I have seen no willingness *whatsoever*
to accept limitations such as time of day or hours of flight per day or to
voluntarily avoid aerobatic practice over residences where the aged, sick,
or infirm might reside. How about the guy that sleeps days and works
graveyard shift at the fire department? Does he merit some sort of
consideration? The IAC and EAA refuse to even acnowledge that there is a
growing problem on both sides of the issue and the FAA is stuck in the
middle.

Time for a reality check.

That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation community
and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to be
regrettably clear.

Thank you for reading this.


Sounds like a troll.