Enviromentalist suit against 100LL

AdamZ said:
Speaking of Aviation Law Suits and not to hijack but Does anyone know what became of that law suit where the "olive" grower sued local balloon companies?
Click to expand...
Not a hijack since this was a really good example of a BS lawsuit.
 
Gary F said:
Not a hijack since this was a really good example of a BS lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Of the opposite spectrum no less. "I'm rich and can do what I want." That annoying entitlement complex that some rich idiots get.
 
JesseD said:
Of the opposite spectrum no less. "I'm rich and can do what I want." That annoying entitlement complex that some rich idiots get.
Click to expand...
No kidding, those olive growers can be a pompous group.
 
I've lived in California pretty much all of my life. This is why I have no love for Bureaucracies, and the unbelievable power, small special interest groups wield over the majority. California originated the squeaky wheel form of government.

John
 
Last edited:
JesseD said:
Of the opposite spectrum no less. "I'm rich and can do what I want." That annoying entitlement complex that some rich idiots get.
Click to expand...
Many "public interest" groups are very well funded, some of them with taxpayer money. Until we get a loser pays system the rich will always be able to beat up on the less affluent in court.
 
John Baker said:
I've lived in California pretty much all of my life. This is why I have no love for Bureaucracies, and the unbelievable power, small special interest groups wield over the majority. California originated the squeaky wheel form of government.
John
Click to expand...
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
This can only happen if: 1) the majority disagrees with whatever is done; and 2) does nothing about it.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The courts do not necessarily answer to anybody including the legislature or executive branch and can for all practical purposes rule by decree disguised as a legal opinion.
 
Gary F said:
I disagree. The courts do not necessarily answer to anybody including the legislature or executive branch and can for all practical purposes rule by decree disguised as a legal opinion.
Click to expand...

I understand why you say that, but a court's authority - while incredibly broad - is not unlimited.

For instance, let's say that a state has a law, where the intent was only to outlaw some narrow activity. Let's say the state's supreme court interprets it differently, and decides that the law forbids a whole bunch of activities. The state legislature is free to come back and pass a new law overruling the state supreme court.

The same applies in the Federal system - if the U.S. Supreme Court creates an interpretation that we, the majority, disagree with, we're free to overrule the Supreme Court by passing a new law.

The same also applies to the Constitution. Say the Supreme Court decides that the 1st Amendment does not protect internet message boards. We, the people, if we disagree with that ruling, are free to amend the 1st Amendment, thus overruling the Supreme Court.

So, I see why you say it, but the simple fact of the matter is in the old cliche: "Bad things happen when good men do nothing," or however it goes.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I understand why you say that, but a court's authority - while incredibly broad - is not unlimited.

For instance, let's say that a state has a law, where the intent was only to outlaw some narrow activity. Let's say the state's supreme court interprets it differently, and decides that the law forbids a whole bunch of activities. The state legislature is free to come back and pass a new law overruling the state supreme court.

The same applies in the Federal system - if the U.S. Supreme Court creates an interpretation that we, the majority, disagree with, we're free to overrule the Supreme Court by passing a new law.

The same also applies to the Constitution. Say the Supreme Court decides that the 1st Amendment does not protect internet message boards. We, the people, if we disagree with that ruling, are free to amend the 1st Amendment, thus overruling the Supreme Court.

So, I see why you say it, but the simple fact of the matter is in the old cliche: "Bad things happen when good men do nothing," or however it goes.
Click to expand...
OK, you win. I should learn to choose my battles more wisely.
 
There is also a Federal issue. Lets say the suit goes through. If I fly my airplane to California, do I have to stop at the border, defuel, refuel, and do on my way? A patchwork of state regulations vis a vis aviation fuel is definitely an impediment to safety.
 
Gary F said:
OK, you win. I should learn to choose my battles more wisely.
Click to expand...

Haha, it's not a matter of winning. This isn't something that most people - most lawyers even - are ever going to think about.

Instead, it's a matter of being as informed as you possibly can be. I don't know jack about medicine; most of what I know came from watching Outbreak and Scrubs; I'm going to "lose" an argument with a doctor every time. But, even though I've "lost," I'll have learned a tremendous amount.

So, my point was this: complacency is a bad thing. That's not to say that we ought to be jumping up and down, crazy activist style, whenever we see something we don't like or disagree with. But, it is to say that we can't sit back and passively let things happen to us. If the squeaky wheel that's getting the grease is just a little PITA wheel that nobody really likes, but nobody really cares about so they don't bother squeaking louder, then the squeaky little PITA wheel is going to get the grease every time.

So, although you don't want to become the PITA wheel yourself, there's a time to squeak louder. :yes:
 
steingar said:
There is also a Federal issue. Lets say the suit goes through. If I fly my airplane to California, do I have to stop at the border, defuel, refuel, and do on my way? A patchwork of state regulations vis a vis aviation fuel is definitely an impediment to safety.
Click to expand...

If you've got a few minutes, google "dormant commerce clause" - there used to be a decent wikipedia article on it.

The very general gist of it is that because interstate commerce is a Federal matter, the States don't get to enact laws that interfere with interstate commerce.

I remember some case where Nebraska or Kansas enacted a law saying that trailers longer than X' could not pass through the state. That was invalid, because it interfered with interstate commerce - all of a sudden, those trucks had to take a far longer route.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Haha, it's not a matter of winning. This isn't something that most people - most lawyers even - are ever going to think about.

Instead, it's a matter of being as informed as you possibly can be. I don't know jack about medicine; most of what I know came from watching Outbreak and Scrubs; I'm going to "lose" an argument with a doctor every time. But, even though I've "lost," I'll have learned a tremendous amount.
Click to expand...
Not to spin here but lack of understanding never stopped politicians, who are comprised mostly of lawyers, from writing rules that influence how medicine is practiced.

Also, if a court declares something unconstitutional then it can be very difficult to overrule them by passing a constitutional amendment even if a majority does not agree with the court.
 
Gary F said:
Not to spin here but lack of understanding never stopped politicians, who are comprised mostly of lawyers, from writing rules that influence how medicine is practiced.

Also, if a court declares something unconstitutional then it can be very difficult to overrule them by passing a constitutional amendment even if a majority does not agree with the court.
Click to expand...

Oh, for sure. But, again, I think that we can point to the problem as being one more of apathy, than with any problem necessarily in "The Machine," as I like to call it.
 
John Baker said:
I've lived in California pretty much all of my life. This is why I have no love for Bureaucracies, and the unbelievable power, small special interest groups wield over the majority. California originated the squeaky wheel form of government.

John
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you allow ballot initiatives like CA does. Libertarian view of raising taxes by the voters, yet able to force any program they want in existence with a simple referendum, regardless of the funding (or lack of it). Not just regular hippie interest groups either, businesses use it as well. That's why I won't move there, even though a former contract employer offered me some serious green to do so.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I remember some case where Nebraska or Kansas enacted a law saying that trailers longer than X' could not pass through the state. That was invalid, because it interfered with interstate commerce - all of a sudden, those trucks had to take a far longer route.
Click to expand...

But there ARE different requirements in every state, for both weight, physical size, and the "bridge law" (basically, the distance between drive and trailer axles). How's that work? :dunno:

For the most part, if you stay on the Interstates you can have a MGW of 80,000 lb if it's perfectly split 34K on the drives, 34K on the trailer, and the remaining 12K on the steer axle, and your trailer is 53' or less.

The bridge law has a lot of variation. In Wisconsin, for example, the maximum is 40 feet from the kingpin to the center of the rear axle group (between the two trailer axles). Cross into Illinois, it's 40 feet to the center of the rear axle. If you're legal in Illinois you're legal in Wisconsin, but not vice versa. (Most trailers have axles that can be moved fore and aft to allow for weight redistribution without re-loading, and for compliance with the bridge laws). California is the most restrictive, IIRC it's something like 40 feet from the front wall of the trailer to the center of the rear axle.

The number and size of trailers allowed varies greatly, too. If I've driving two sets of triple "pup" (28 foot) trailers through Ohio and Indiana, I've gotta stop prior to crossing into Illinois and turn 'em into doubles and either use a third tractor or come back for the last two. Some states allow triple pups, some states allow full-size doubles, some states allow one full-size and one pup trailer (known as "Rocky Mountain doubles" as Colorado and Wyoming are the states that allow them, IIRC), and some states allow only double pups.

Many states don't allow anything longer than 53' trailers, but some states allow longer - Texas allows 58-footers, and I think Wyoming allows 60-footers. I've only ever seen trailers longer than 53 feet at the Frito-Lay plant in Dallas, though, as most everyone else can't take advantage of them - More loads are restricted by weight than volume, and with the number of states that restrict the longer trailers, you can't go much of anywhere with 'em. But, Frito-Lay loads are obviously very light, and they can go anywhere in Texas with 'em, and I think one or two bordering states as well.

So... How does that work, legally speaking??? :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But there ARE different requirements in every state, for both weight, physical size, and the "bridge law" (basically, the distance between drive and trailer axles). How's that work? :dunno:

For the most part, if you stay on the Interstates you can have a MGW of 80,000 lb if it's perfectly split 34K on the drives, 34K on the trailer, and the remaining 12K on the steer axle, and your trailer is 53' or less.

The bridge law has a lot of variation. In Wisconsin, for example, the maximum is 40 feet from the kingpin to the center of the rear axle group (between the two trailer axles). Cross into Illinois, it's 40 feet to the center of the rear axle. If you're legal in Illinois you're legal in Wisconsin, but not vice versa. (Most trailers have axles that can be moved fore and aft to allow for weight redistribution without re-loading, and for compliance with the bridge laws). California is the most restrictive, IIRC it's something like 40 feet from the front wall of the trailer to the center of the rear axle.

The number and size of trailers allowed varies greatly, too. If I've driving two sets of triple "pup" (28 foot) trailers through Ohio and Indiana, I've gotta stop prior to crossing into Illinois and turn 'em into doubles and either use a third tractor or come back for the last two. Some states allow triple pups, some states allow full-size doubles, some states allow one full-size and one pup trailer (known as "Rocky Mountain doubles" as Colorado and Wyoming are the states that allow them, IIRC), and some states allow only double pups.

Many states don't allow anything longer than 53' trailers, but some states allow longer - Texas allows 58-footers, and I think Wyoming allows 60-footers. I've only ever seen trailers longer than 53 feet at the Frito-Lay plant in Dallas, though, as most everyone else can't take advantage of them - More loads are restricted by weight than volume, and with the number of states that restrict the longer trailers, you can't go much of anywhere with 'em. But, Frito-Lay loads are obviously very light, and they can go anywhere in Texas with 'em, and I think one or two bordering states as well.

So... How does that work, legally speaking??? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Like I said, it was a *very* general explanation (and also mostly from memory at this point).

Basically, the dormant commerce clause prevent states from "unreasonably" interfering with interstate commerce. But, it's not unreasonable for a state to interfere with IC if there's a good reason for it.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Like I said, it was a *very* general explanation (and also mostly from memory at this point).

Basically, the dormant commerce clause prevent states from "unreasonably" interfering with interstate commerce. But, it's not unreasonable for a state to interfere with IC if there's a good reason for it.
Click to expand...

Here's the case I had in mind, by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassel_v._Consolidated_Freightways_Corp.

The wiki version is way easier than the real thing (but take it with a grain of salt). :yes:
 
I don't believe apathy is the real culprit behind California's weirdness, I think people are just resigned to the fact that no matter what they do, vote or not, nothing will change. So all the goofball little special interest groups take advantage of that to promote their various agendas.

You can't go into any high traffic store out here without having at least one clip board waved in your face.

We've just gotten to the point that we are flooded with this crap and we always seem to lose. Each day, it seems like, another wacko idea will be presented to us, in order to save:

A) The planet.

B. The children.

C) The teachers.

D) Minorities.

E) Women.

F) Government pensions.

G) Marijuana.

H) The seals.

I) The Ocean.

J) Little fish in a river somewhere, gnat-catchers, toads, birds, bugs, and on and on.

If we all took an active role of involvement in this nonsense, it would be a full time endeavor, we'd have to quit our jobs. It ain't apathy, it's called being so flooded, we no longer care.

John
 
Last edited:
JesseD said:
I think you don't know too much about the difference between overconsumption and heavy metal toxicity. Not to side with the enviros, but daily consumption of water (assuming no toxic levels of other compounds) won't kill you. Heavy metals, on the other hand, will kill you with just daily exposure past a certain level. Not only that, but other deleterious effects can happen far before lethal toxicity.

Either that or it's a bad attempt at facetious humor. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Definitely not humor. A few years ago a radio station had a water drinking contest. The "winner" consumed the most water and died shortly after from the quantity of water.

http://www.kcra.com/r/21466354/detail.html
 
JesseD said:
How many of them bought houses near an airport? Valid question. Love to get a look at their books and see how many are real estate developer donations.

Oh, and not all enviros are liars. Some care about important things like drinking water and rivers not starting on fire. That hippy-loving, liberal, Nixon created the EPA. I call it illogical progression or a false comparison. People take X and extend it out past logic. They do this the other way too. You see it with enviros here or soccer moms that never go off road driving Hummers. Heck, it becomes part of an image on both sides. They need to identify with X so they do Y because Z said so.
Click to expand...

The list of 2008 donors can be found on the website.
 
murphey said:
Definitely not humor. A few years ago a radio station had a water drinking contest. The "winner" consumed the most water and died shortly after from the quantity of water.

http://www.kcra.com/r/21466354/detail.html
Click to expand...

But Jesse wasn't talking about such extreme examples:

JesseD said:
Not to side with the enviros, but daily consumption of water (assuming no toxic levels of other compounds) won't kill you. Heavy metals, on the other hand, will kill you with just daily exposure past a certain level.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's possible to kill yourself by drinking a ridiculous amount of water. But, drinking a half gallon a day won't kill you, and is actually pretty good for you. Now, drink that same half gallon a day with 3600 ppm of lead in it, and it'll eventually kill ya.
 
Another thing that causes groups such as this to bring suit is that they get 25% of the civil penalties that are assessed as a result of the lawsuit that they brought. So it's a profit-making venture for them, despite the fact that they alleged in the aforementioned interview that profit isn't their motive in doing this. It should also be noted that they haven't yet brought suit. They've just set the wheels in motion so that they can do so in 60 days. They claim that they haven't yet decided whether to actually file suit.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassel_v._Consolidated_Freightways_Corp.
Click to expand...

Aha... I see. I think.

Like I mentioned, there's a fairly universally accepted standard for most states on everything but the bridge law. While some states allow some "extras" like triple trailers, or full-size doubles, they're far from universally allowed. They're also generally not disallowed by one state in between two others that allow it - More like "pockets" that allow extras. For example, the full-size doubles are allowed in New York and Massachusetts. Rocky Mountain doubles in Colorado and Wyoming. Pup triples from Indiana and eastwards, and in some other places too (NV, UT, etc.).

Bridge laws really only affect the loads that can be hauled, and not the vehicles themselves. For instance, a load going to CA might have to be either loaded differently than is normal in most other states, or might have to be a couple pallets less to allow it to be farther forward so that axle weights aren't exceeded when the axles are slid forward to comply with California's bridge law.

So, they're not really restricting things in quite the way Iowa was in Kassel vs. Consolidated Freightways. I also read Bibb vs. Navajo Freight Lines, which was another Dormant Commerce Clause case relating to required safety equipment in IL. Interesting stuff.
 
gprellwitz said:
Another thing that causes groups such as this to bring suit is that they get 25% of the civil penalties that are assessed as a result of the lawsuit that they brought.
Click to expand...

Ok, that kind of crap right there has got to stop. There is far too much financial incentive to file lawsuits in the US, and it's making our health care more expensive, killing GA, and stifling our economy. :incazzato:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Oh, for sure. But, again, I think that we can point to the problem as being one more of apathy, than with any problem necessarily in "The Machine," as I like to call it.
Click to expand...

Is it truly apathy or simply the complexity of the "machine" given the sheer population size and rules we now have? Ever sat in a meeting with three people and came to a consensus conclusion? Now what about 30? WAY different in timeline, execution, and result.

I sincerely believe that we will not see another Constitutional Amendment in our lifetime, or that of my children.

Saying something like "well you CAN change it" but making the bar to change so high that it is practically impossible is specious at best.
 
John Baker said:
I don't believe apathy is the real culprit behind California's weirdness, I think people are just resigned to the fact that no matter what they do, vote or not, nothing will change. So all the goofball little special interest groups take advantage of that to promote their various agendas.

You can't go into any high traffic store out here without having at least one clip board waved in your face.

We've just gotten to the point that we are flooded with this crap and we always seem to lose. Each day, it seems like, another wacko idea will be presented to us, in order to save:

A) The planet.

B. The children.

C) The teachers.

D) Minorities.

E) Women.

F) Government pensions.

G) Marijuana.

H) The seals.

I) The Ocean.

J) Little fish in a river somewhere, gnat-catchers, toads, birds, bugs, and on and on.

If we all took an active role of involvement in this nonsense, it would be a full time endeavor, we'd have to quit our jobs. It ain't apathy, it's called being so flooded, we no longer care.

John
Click to expand...


BRAVO!
 
tdager said:
Is it truly apathy or simply the complexity of the "machine" given the sheer population size and rules we now have? Ever sat in a meeting with three people and came to a consensus conclusion? Now what about 30? WAY different in timeline, execution, and result.

I sincerely believe that we will not see another Constitutional Amendment in our lifetime, or that of my children.

Saying something like "well you CAN change it" but making the bar to change so high that it is practically impossible is specious at best.
Click to expand...

"Resignation" may be worse than either "apathy" or "complacency."

Keep in mind that our government doesn't really work on consensus (even though I feel that this is, by far, the best way to do things). Instead, it works on the will of the majority (as limited by the Constitution). We're not going to agree on everything all of the time.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Keep in mind that our government doesn't really work on consensus (even though I feel that this is, by far, the best way to do things). Instead, it works on the will of the majority (as limited by the Constitution). We're not going to agree on everything all of the time.
Click to expand...

To some degree it does. With all the checks and balances in the legislative process, often you need compromise to get anything done. A good thing too, limits the damage. You only have to look at the previous administration to see how bad things get when the majority really does rule. Some might argue you could do similarly to look at the first couple years of current one.
 
People in California like to think that they are good stewards of the environment or whatnot.

A quick glance at the traffic choked superhighways belies that lipspeak. :rolleyes:
 
MSPAviator said:
People in California like to think that they are good stewards of the environment or whatnot.

A quick glance at the traffic choked superhighways belies that lipspeak. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm in SoCal right now and this place is all about status and the "feel good" that everyone is doing their part to 'save the planet'. As if cutting back to mowing the lawn only 2 x per month is something special. Oh look at me, I use a canvas bag when I go grocery shopping (sez the lady in her single occupant gargantuan SUV jackrabbit starts from the stoplight).

Participating in environmental causes has become a status symbol but like many who fast for Lent, they will participate as long as the impact on their lives is not too great.

The air is dirty brown up to about 4,000 msl.
 
I happen to like California, but in my view the problem with the politics there is that it became TOO democratic, giving people the opportunity to vote on every little issue directly.
 
The big question is what will likely result from the lawsuit or threat of lawsuit and how it might affect other states. If they are successful it would be possible to sell the unleaded version of 100LL which I believe is 94UL using the existing supply system? What if any paperwork would need to be done to use unleaded fuel in those aircraft that can run on it? Will it be possible to modify other engines so that they can run on unleaded? Do any of the lawyers out there have any insight on how long they may be able to sell 100LL in California?

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/news-and-events/press-releases/release-06-02-08.html

http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-04-02_fuel.asp

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regunlead.html
 
Everskyward said:
I happen to like California, but in my view the problem with the politics there is that it became TOO democratic, giving people the opportunity to vote on every little issue directly.
Click to expand...

Definitely true!
 
While I don't care about the lead in 100LL, and agree that the Republik of Kalifornya has in at least some ways gone a bit too far, particularly with their disdain for diesel and 100LL, I seriously hope producers like Lycoming, Continental, etc are developing solutions that are not far fetched, let alone that would cost a limb and a first born...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top