Same goes for formula 1 since theyve rolled back the engine. Formula e and all forms of electric motorsports that are popping up. You lose 2 reasons of what makes it great. Sound and smell.
Boxer motors will always be my fav - the Flat 12 of the Porsche 917 probably most... But I must do with my ole Boxter
It’s administrative law, not criminal. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was there any actual evidence of this second event other than their testimony? Just curious why you just choose to believe the word of the nimby over the YouTuber.
The preponderance of the evidence.
While I agree that the V6s are dull from a sound perspective, the 2.4 V8s were just an example of quantity over quality. Loud screaming, but no actual character. I'll take a V10 or Ferrari's V12 any day over the V8. Or the Cosworth DFV. Now that's a nice V8.
We might be able to play with that one if it were the sole regulatory criterion. But unless you are arguing for a rule change that says you can land anywhere you want if the area is not congested, since the 500' away rule is for "other than congested areas," it's what we have to work with.
I can think of both public and private charted airports where doing a low pass with no intention to land would put you within 500 feet of occupied houses, and since you don't intend to land it isn't necessary for landing. Two public airport examples come to mind. The grass runway at Y99 passes 110 feet from a house. The paved runway at 64G passes 320 feet from a house. Which regulation draws the distinction between doing a low pass with no intention of landing at those airports and doing the same thing somewhere else where a landing would be legal?
Yeah, I balled that up. I meant the case was reviewed by the DC Circuit Court.
I could be wrong, but i was under the impression that you COULD land anywhere you want, so long as it's not prohibited by state/ local law. Trent & friends do most of their landings off airport, and I'd guess he's very familiar with those laws.
If you have permission from the landowner (to not get trespassed) and have secured the area (to not hurt anyone), then nothing prevents you.
You mean the testimony under oath that the YouTuber had the opportunity to controvert if it wasn't true? No, I'm not aware of any evidence other than that.
But other evidence is pretty much irrelevant since the issue is what's in the record.
You're surely not the only person who holds that opinion.
What evidence is there of a second time?
Yeah no nimby mad at someone would ever lie under oath about something you couldn’t possibly prove was a lie.You mean the testimony under oath that the YouTuber had the opportunity to controvert if it wasn't true? No, I'm not aware of any evidence other than that.
There are plenty of ways you can (attempt to) prove that testimony about you flying your plane in a particular place on a particular day is false, such as showing your pilot logbook with no entry that day, testifying that you didn't do it, having your alibi witness testify that you or your plane were somewhere else that day, etc. The main job of the trier of fact is to decide who is telling the truth. I wasn't even in the room when the neighbor testified about it or when other testimony controverted the neighbor. What in the trial record causes you to conclude the trier of fact got this one wrong?
Witness testimony under oath is evidence.
You've completely lost the thread because you desperately want to believe you weren't taken in by a charlatan. So desperate that you'll accuse someone you know nothing about of perjury simply because his testimony doesn't comport with the story in your head. The suspension was based on the first low pass, not the second. But the second is certainly an inconvenient fact that the YouTuber fails to mention.
You asked why I believed the nimby. The answer is because of the preponderance of the evidence. It seems clear to me that Trent was shading the truth and I saw nothing to believe the nimby was. So that's why I believe the nimby even in the absence of another photo.
People calling the FAA and having to talk with a federal employee
Now, we finally arrive at the crux of the biscuit! ^^^^ This ^^^^
Bob Hoover probably has done more for aviation and this country than any 10 members of this board (myself least among them). It didn't stop the FAA from crusading against him at the end of his career, did it? I suppose Bob should have just laid down and taken it too, amirite? After all, they are the experts and know best when airmen can and can't do -- despite the fact that none of them could do what he did.
I don't even know what you're arguing about at this point. The second flight didn't form a basis for the violations, so it doesn't matter much what you believe in that regard with respect to his guilt. But it's one of many things in the record missing from the YouTuber's videos mischaracterizing the proceedings.
The result of Palmer taking it to the court of appeals wasn't a death penalty; it was the imposition of the suspension.
No. But why bring up Hoover here? I see zero similarities between Hoovers case and Palmers. So don’t quite follow the point you’re trying to make.
lol that sounds like an opinion....
