Buzzed?

I'm not sure, but our city attorney is a pilot with instrument rating
and came up with the proposal that was adopeted. It is even anotated in
the A/FD. We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

John wrote:

Ross Richardson wrote:


We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude.


I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an ordinance
regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local government
that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and surface,
but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already flying.

"Ross Richardson" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure, but our city attorney is a pilot with instrument rating and
came up with the proposal that was adopeted. It is even anotated in the
A/FD. We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

Is he also an aviation attorney?

Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.




John wrote:

Ross Richardson wrote:


We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude.


I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an
ordinance
regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local
government
that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and
surface,
but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already
flying.

Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.

If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally
agree not to fly fast and low, and although you may not be subject to
local criminal sanctions, you would be subject to whatever penalties you
agreed to abide by, same as any other contract.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.

If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally
agree not to fly fast and low, and although you may not be subject to
local criminal sanctions, you would be subject to whatever penalties you
agreed to abide by, same as any other contract.

Define "fast"?
Define "low"?
Does a missed approach meet these definitions?
Isn't a low approach, by its very name, a violation?
How about a balked landing?
I think your local ordinance will be difficult to enforce.

Define "fast"?
Define "low"? [...]
I think your local ordinance will be difficult to enforce.

It's not my ordinance. I did not say it was well written (I have the
same opinion as you that way) but I do say that it is possible to limit
aviation, despite federal provisions, through contract law.

No, I am not a lawyer.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In a previous article, Jose said:
Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.

If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally

What agreement?

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
About Windows XP, seen in Forbes Magazine ..
"...the world's richest Chief Software Architect continues a record for
design elegance unmatched since the Yugo."

What agreement?

This one:

We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign that
says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there, you
have accepted whatever follows.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
What agreement?


This one:

We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.


A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign that
says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there, you
have accepted whatever follows.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there are other requirements for a
contract to be valid. If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here
means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts
wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.


Matt

Where is that airport? sounds like a great place to visit!


Matt Whiting wrote:
Jose wrote:

What agreement?



This one:

We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.



A signature is not required for a contract (or agreement) to be valid
and binding. There is a principle called, I believe, "detrimental
reliance", whose application here would be that if there is a sign
that says (I don't know what the actual one says) "Buying fuel here
constitutes acceptance of the following..." and you buy fuel there,
you have accepted whatever follows.


I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that there are other requirements for a
contract to be valid. If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here
means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts
wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.


Matt

If the sign on the pump said "Buying fuel here means you agree to murder your mother-in-law", I think most courts wouldn't consider that to be entering into a valid contract.

Yes, but (depending on the judge's mother-in-law that has nothing to
do with detrimental reliance. There is another principle wherein a
contract that is impossible, illegal, or dripping with evil would be
null and void. Difficult or mean however would still be upheld. What's
the difference? $300/hr to get a guess.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.