Buzzed?

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.

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.

No, because it is unenforceable.

Jose wrote:

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.

The law isn't worth the paper it's written on, or the sign it's screen
printed on, it's unenforceable.

Robert Chambers wrote:
Where is that airport? sounds like a great place to visit!

I thought folks might like that example ... which, if course, is
completely hypothetical!

Matt

Jose wrote:

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.

Yes, that is my point. It is illegal for a local government to attempt
to create a contract which pre-empts the federal government, therefore
buying fuel here does not constitute a contract.

Matt

It is illegal for a local government to attempt to create a contract which pre-empts the federal government

Is it legal for a citizen to do the same? "I will let you drive my car
as long as you don't fly an airplane into this airport."

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

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:01:55 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
roups.com...
[...] I wonder
if this was indeed an interception, but if so, wouldn't the controller
know? Coincidentally, or not, a small plane crashed into the terminal
at Gainesville just south of there around that time, so perhaps
"someone" felt there might be rogue airplanes out there? Comments???

Don't know. But given that I've heard stories of pilots flying
lower-powered airplanes using other airplanes as simulated targets, it sure
wouldn't surprise me to find someone out there in a Mustang, or L-39, or
what-have-you doing the same thing (though, I assume the visual ID rules out
the L-39, in spite of that plane technically being a single ).


Back in the "old days" it was not uncommon to be flying along US
27/I-75 between Grailing and the straights and see fighters up close.
Of course like the traffic cop you never saw them until they were
there. Having a pair of jets pass 100 yards off each wing tip and 500
MPH plus it certainly startling. Often you could count on them not
being a single pair and if not loaded with ordinance they sometimes
.... never mind.

Down in the Grailing area you end up flying between a gunnery range on
the west and a bombing range on the east. It can sometimes be quite a
show from 5000 feet, but the planes now days give us civvies a wide
berth. (usually)

If you go wayyyy back I was up at the brides when the two F-102s flew
under it. As I understand they ended up grounded. I missed the time
Arthur Godfrey flew his plane under it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
IMHO, the controller should have tracked the airplane to its landing, and
had an FAA inspector find out what was going on. Even better if the C172
pilot could get a good visual on it and identify the type (perhaps that did
happen later).

I would think that ATC would be informed regarding an intercept, and in any
case jet or no jet, I would expect the intercepting aircraft to be flying
slower than 250 knots. Sure doesn't sound like an intercept to me.

Pete

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:57:18 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...17X00210&key=1

"One witness, located at the golf course indicated that he saw the
airplane make a 65-degree bank"

Not 60 degrees, not 70 degrees, but 65. Did he have a protractor with
him?


Damn good eyesight?

I could have used him when I worked on a survey crew.


Kinda like the (very) old Johnny Badmouth joke, "Okay, just a c*#% hair to
the right...".

That is a royal *** hair, sir!

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

In a previous article, Roger said:
Back in the "old days" it was not uncommon to be flying along US
27/I-75 between Grailing and the straights and see fighters up close.

There was a case 5 or 10 years ago when a couple of fighters decided to
play "practice intercept" on a commerical airliner that had been cleared
through their MOA, not realizing that airliners have TCAS now. The
airliner reacted rather violently to the RA, and now the military doesn't
do that any more.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I kept the faith and I kept voting/Not for the iron fist but for the helping
hand/For theirs is a land with a wall around it/And mine is a faith in my
fellow man" --Billy Bragg