...and the #1 stupid Dallas city ordinance is:

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:71011b19a25a3@uwe...
muff528 wrote:

I guess the way the law is written it could be interpreted by
a law enforcement officer to suit either situation.
It would then be left up to a court to decide what the
intention or spirit of the law was when it was written.


Well, I don't think there is much question about the intent, since the
regulation in question is under the "CHAPTER 5 AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORTS"
section. It's obvious that they weren't referring to the boat type of
hydroplane.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1


OOPS! ...didn't see the first line of the original post. :-p

"Dallas" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:39:52 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:

were saying "hydroplane" when they meant "float
plane".

OMG. I believe you're right.
--
Dallas

Here's the full text:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a hydroplane upon any
reservoir or any lake belonging to under control of the city; provided
however, that this section shall not apply to amphibian-type aircraft of any
department of the federal government or of the State of Texas. (Ord. Nos.
8213; 14384)"

Here's the code:

http://www.amlegal.com/dallas_tx/

Oddly enough, the Code of Ordinances does not have a "Definitions" chapter.

-cj

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:16:02 -0700, CJ wrote:

Oddly enough, the Code of Ordinances does not have a "Definitions" chapter.

It strikes me as odd that someone would go out of their way to use the
ambiguous word "hydroplane" while passing over simple, precise and
unambiguous terms like float plane and seaplane.

Maybe he was from Canada? :-)

--
Dallas

"It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a hydroplane upon any
reservoir or any lake belonging to under control of the city; provided
however, that this section shall not apply to amphibian-type aircraft of any
department of the federal government or of the State of Texas. (Ord. Nos.
8213; 14384)"

It pointedly does not exempt any other amphibian-type aircraft.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:05:03 GMT, wrote in
:

a hydrofoil "planes" on big water skis.


Ummm... Think again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofoil
A hydrofoil is a boat with wing-like foils mounted on struts below
the hull. As the craft increases its speed the hydrofoils develop
enough lift for the boat to become foilborne - i.e. to raise the
hull up and out of the water. This results in a great reduction in
drag and a corresponding increase in speed.

A hydrofoil works much like an aircraft wing, but it works in a fluid
medium with a substantially different viscosity.

The viscosity is different, but an airplane wing also works in a fluid.
Maybe you meant liquid?

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 07:48:31 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:05:03 GMT, wrote in
:

a hydrofoil "planes" on big water skis.


Ummm... Think again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofoil
A hydrofoil is a boat with wing-like foils mounted on struts below
the hull. As the craft increases its speed the hydrofoils develop
enough lift for the boat to become foilborne - i.e. to raise the
hull up and out of the water. This results in a great reduction in
drag and a corresponding increase in speed.

A hydrofoil works much like an aircraft wing, but it works in a fluid
medium with a substantially different viscosity.

The viscosity is different, but an airplane wing also works in a fluid.
Maybe you meant liquid?

I meant what I said, and I fail to infer the point you are attempting
to make. I chose the word 'fluid' specifically because it is the
correct term for both media.