You can't make this up!

bflynn said:
Wow, he must have been flying really low if they could identify him as the pilot.

Not saying he wasn't flying the plane, but I wonder if they're identifying him as the owner of the airplane and therefore looking for him assuming he was flying. He probably was, but it could have been someone else. If I was going to do something that stupid, I wouldn't fly my own airplane.

There's also the possibility that he was at the correct altitude because your average person in a crowd can't really tell how high up a plane is.
Click to expand...
All of the Destin area people know Ryan and his wife Rose own FlyTheBeach. Their planes are very easy to identify and fly up and down the coastline multiple times per day. Their rides depart from one of the most popular tourist restaurants in Destin
 
TommyG said:
Can use this.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0860/Sections/0860.13.html
Click to expand...

Just because the state passes a statute does not mean that the state has the authority to do so. Operation of aircraft is a matter that, in my opinion (for what ever that's worth) is subject to preemption under the federal legal doctrine of "field preemption," such that there is no room for a state to attempt to regulate operation of the aircraft in the air. I have read cases that have invalidated similar attempts by local authorities to regulate the conduct of flight, such as aerobatic flight. (I express no opinion about the validity of state efforts to regulate operation of the aircraft while on the ground or on the surface of the water.)

Now, federal preemption does not necessarily prevent states from attempting to enforce federal laws. States are certainly free to attach tort liability under state law from failure to follow applicable federal regulation pertaining to the safe operation of flight. But I don't believe that the states can author a statute like the one set forth in your link without them being invalid under the supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution.
 
Apparently they (Sheriff's Offic
bflynn said:
Wow, he must have been flying really low if they could identify him as the pilot.

Not saying he wasn't flying the plane, but I wonder if they're identifying him as the owner of the airplane and therefore looking for him assuming he was flying. He probably was, but it could have been someone else. If I was going to do something that stupid, I wouldn't fly my own airplane.
Click to expand...
Well, when the Sheriff's Office texts the number on the Koozies and the owner/pilot replies and indicates he's the one doing it.....

https://whnt.com/news/report-details-tense-moments-during-gulf-coast-jam-flyover/
 
It will be interesting to see if the local authorities are able to proceed with the prosecution of Cole. I'm still of the opinion that the locals have no authority in this situation; however, stranger things have happened. It was reported in "Fearless Tower's" above link that " ... a sniper with the Bay County Sheriff’s Office was watching the plane ...". Well, that would have been really great headlines: "BAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE SNIPER SHOOTS PROMOTIONAL ADVERTISING AIRPLANE OUT OF THE AIR. PLANE, WITH NOW DEAD PILOT AT THE CONTROLS, CRASHES INTO CROWD CAUSING PANIC, CONFUSION AND CONSTERNATION. DETAILS AT 11.

Cheers,
Grog
 
Capngrog said:
It will be interesting to see if the local authorities are able to proceed with the prosecution of Cole. I'm still of the opinion that the locals have no authority in this situation; however, stranger things have happened.
Click to expand...
As my insurance agent on another board pointed out, the local law could be easily challenged. But the bigger potential concern with a stunt like this is the negative attention that attracts others (like the FAA) to the event who do have jurisdiction and otherwise may not have been following.
 
Capngrog said:
"BAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE SNIPER SHOOTS PROMOTIONAL ADVERTISING AIRPLANE OUT OF THE AIR. PLANE, WITH NOW DEAD PILOT AT THE CONTROLS, CRASHES INTO CROWD CAUSING PANIC, CONFUSION AND CONSTERNATION. DETAILS AT 11.
Click to expand...

or...'' crashes into crowd, killing 15 spectators, many more injured. Bay County Sheriffs Department claims no officers were involved in the shooting...''
 
They claim they contacted him (text?), telling him that if he didn't clear out, they would shoot him down.

:rolleyes: Easy there Deputy Fife. I support law enforcement, but they were a bit hyped up here. I mean, were they "evil" coozies? With frickin' lasers?
 
PPC1052 said:
Just because the state passes a statute does not mean that the state has the authority to do so. Operation of aircraft is a matter that, in my opinion (for what ever that's worth) is subject to preemption under the federal legal doctrine of "field preemption," such that there is no room for a state to attempt to regulate operation of the aircraft in the air. I have read cases that have invalidated similar attempts by local authorities to regulate the conduct of flight, such as aerobatic flight. (I express no opinion about the validity of state efforts to regulate operation of the aircraft while on the ground or on the surface of the water.)

Now, federal preemption does not necessarily prevent states from attempting to enforce federal laws. States are certainly free to attach tort liability under state law from failure to follow applicable federal regulation pertaining to the safe operation of flight. But I don't believe that the states can author a statute like the one set forth in your link without them being invalid under the supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution.
Click to expand...

Oooo, barracks lawyering! See if you can work in a reference to Admiralty Law FTW.
 
PPC1052 said:
Sorry, but I don't know what "barracks lawyering" means. Can you clarify?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is Army slang for an overly complex legal theory concocted by a layman to absolve themselves of jeopardy for some low level offense. It sometimes contains assertions about the Constitution, sovereignty, jurisdiction, and natural law philosophy to rationalize that a particular statute is invalid and unenforceable. Examples would include the sovereign citizen movement and the people who refuse to roll their window down for traffic stops.
The Admiralty Law reference comes from TheHullTruth.com, which is a very large boating forum. Barracks/galley lawyers on that forum sometimes attempt to invoke International Maritime Law to invalidate some minor offense involving a dinghy on a pond in Arkansas.
Jokes are not nearly as funny when explained.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Yes, it is Army slang for an overly complex legal theory concocted by a layman to absolve themselves of jeopardy for some low level offense. It sometimes contains assertions about the Constitution, sovereignty, jurisdiction, and natural law philosophy to rationalize that a particular statute is invalid and unenforceable. Examples would include the sovereign citizen movement and the people who refuse to roll their window down for traffic stops.
The Admiralty Law reference comes from TheHullTruth.com, which is a very large boating forum. Barracks/galley lawyers on that forum sometimes attempt to invoke International Maritime Law to invalidate some minor offense involving a dinghy on a pond in Arkansas.
Jokes are not nearly as funny when explained.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good definition of barracks (shiphouse) lawyering embedded in an actual example of barracks lawyering. Is the concept of your definition that any layman expressing an opinion on law is guilty of barracks lawyering? I agree with you that anyone who fails to comply with the orders of a sworn law enforcement lawyer while spouting arcane legal concepts is unwise (a polite term for foolish).

Aviation and Admiralty/Maritime Law share many concepts. In a previous life, I was tasked with consulting several Admiralty/Maritime lawyers concerning local laws/regulations which seemed to conflict with Admiralty/Maritime Law. Guess what? Admiralty/Maritime Law prevailed in those specific cases.

I'm not a lawyer and do not claim to have any significant grasp of law; however, I do have experience with litigation involving both Aviation and Admiralty/Maritime Law. In my particular experiences, Aviation and Admiralty/Maritime law prevailed over the positions of my employer.

In my opinion, laws are written by and for lawyers, who purposely obfuscate the so-called "letter of the law". As pointed out in previous posts in this thread, different jurisdictions often claim authority in cases where they happen to have no authority at all. As to the subject of this thread, the apparent reckless operation of an aircraft, it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out ... legal eagle-wise.

By the way, denigration of a personal opinion is not a joking matter ("Oooo, barracks lawyering!").

Cheers,
Grog
 
lighten-up-francis.jpg
 
Ed Haywood said:
Yes, it is Army slang for an overly complex legal theory concocted by a layman to absolve themselves of jeopardy for some low level offense. It sometimes contains assertions about the Constitution, sovereignty, jurisdiction, and natural law philosophy to rationalize that a particular statute is invalid and unenforceable. Examples would include the sovereign citizen movement and the people who refuse to roll their window down for traffic stops.
The Admiralty Law reference comes from TheHullTruth.com, which is a very large boating forum. Barracks/galley lawyers on that forum sometimes attempt to invoke International Maritime Law to invalidate some minor offense involving a dinghy on a pond in Arkansas.
Jokes are not nearly as funny when explained.
Click to expand...
But he's a lawyer.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Yes, it is Army slang for an overly complex legal theory concocted by a layman to absolve themselves of jeopardy for some low level offense. It sometimes contains assertions about the Constitution, sovereignty, jurisdiction, and natural law philosophy to rationalize that a particular statute is invalid and unenforceable. Examples would include the sovereign citizen movement and the people who refuse to roll their window down for traffic stops.
The Admiralty Law reference comes from TheHullTruth.com, which is a very large boating forum. Barracks/galley lawyers on that forum sometimes attempt to invoke International Maritime Law to invalidate some minor offense involving a dinghy on a pond in Arkansas.
Jokes are not nearly as funny when explained.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. You were trying to insult me. Well, I am actually a lawyer, I actually have an aviation practice and I have actually briefed up this issue in court in support of a federal preemption argument in an aviation related matter. That you don't have the legal education or experience sufficient to understand what I said doesn't make it wrong.

Here, read this case: International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 et al v. City of Morris, Illinois et al, No. 1:2013cv04272 - Document 38 (N.D. Ill. 2014) :: Justia
 
Was there as TFR covering the event, or was it being conducted within a well-marked venue on the sectional and that triggers the 91.119 (b) requirement of 1,000 ft above and 2,000 horizontally from "any open air assembly of persons"?
It's kinda' funny to me, but just one week ago today I took the PAR written test, and there was a question about throwing items from the airplane. Every time I came across that question in my study material, I asked myself what kind of stuff would someone be tossing out of their plane (aside from the errant bottle of urine)? Now I know! promotional material.
 
Last edited:
Well, throwing items from a plane is legal as long as it doesn't pose a hazard to persons or property on the ground. They might be able to charge him with littering, though...
 
Dana said:
Well, throwing items from a plane is legal as long as it doesn't pose a hazard to persons or property on the ground. They might be able to charge him with littering, though...
Click to expand...
True, but even a foam coozie can cause a startled reflex if not expected. Poor Mr. Clumsy gets bopped on his noggin from something "launched from a terrorist threatening a gathering", and he falls to the ground - gravely injured and needing extensive chiropractic attention.
 
Dry Creek said:
True, but even a foam coozie can cause a startled reflex if not expected. Poor Mr. Clumsy gets bopped on his noggin from something "launched from a terrorist threatening a gathering", and he falls to the ground - gravely injured and needing extensive chiropractic attention.
Click to expand...
He should instead go to a real doctor.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
He should instead go to a real doctor.
Click to expand...
Apparently you've never been involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident where an attorney was needed. The "ambulance chasers" always work with small group of dedicated chiropractors, and they send you to one immediately once you have retained the attorney's services. The chiropractor will invariably inform you that your spine "has subluxations as a result of torsional positioning", caused by the accident, of course. It will take months of visits before you're "cured", just in time for the settlement. Voila'!
 
Dry Creek said:
Apparently you've never been involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident where an attorney was needed. The "ambulance chasers" always work with small group of dedicated chiropractors, and they send you to one immediately once you have retained the attorney's services. The chiropractor will invariably inform you that your spine "has subluxations as a result of torsional positioning", caused by the accident, of course. It will take months of visits before you're "cured", just in time for the settlement. Voila'!
Click to expand...
Actually, I made my reply because of such an incident involving a friend. After a few visits he just stopped going, as it was only costing money. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance company was still billed.
 
Capngrog said:
…In my opinion, laws are written by and for lawyers, who purposely obfuscate the so-called "letter of the law"…
Click to expand...

QFT. Add regulations to the that and it’s pretty much all that needs to he said.
 
PPC1052 said:
Here, read this case: International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 et al v. City of Morris, Illinois et al, No. 1:2013cv04272 - Document 38 (N.D. Ill. 2014) :: Justia
Click to expand...

Somewhat not all encompassing here. Flying low over the crowd might have been under federal jurisdiction, but once he dropped stuff out of the plane and it hit the ground he's liable for any applicable violation of ordinances from littering to possible negligence if there were any injuries that resulted from it.
 
Dry Creek said:
Was there as TFR covering the event, or was it being conducted within a well-marked venue on the sectional and that triggers the 91.119 (b) requirement of 1,000 ft above and 2,000 horizontally from "any open air assembly of persons"?
It's kinda' funny to me, but just one week ago today I took the PAR written test, and there was a question about throwing items from the airplane. Every time I came across that question in my study material, I asked myself what kind of stuff would someone be tossing out of their plane (aside from the errant bottle of urine)? Now I know! promotional material.
Click to expand...

Water or fire suppressant, fish stocking, aerial seeding, bales of hay for cattle after blizzard, flour bomb contests at an airport event, to name a few.
 
Shocking it doesn’t seem to have had a revocation issued by now.
77FC68DA-CBD5-4DD1-8F78-625D9C4CD82A.jpeg
 
PPC1052 said:
Ah, I see. You were trying to insult me. Well, I am actually a lawyer, I actually have an aviation practice and I have actually briefed up this issue in court in support of a federal preemption argument in an aviation related matter. That you don't have the legal education or experience sufficient to understand what I said doesn't make it wrong.

Here, read this case: International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 et al v. City of Morris, Illinois et al, No. 1:2013cv04272 - Document 38 (N.D. Ill. 2014) :: Justia
Click to expand...

And as of 2021, the airport manager and the plaintiff are still there. In 2017 there were still feuding.

https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investig...s-investigation-of-morris-city-owned-airport/
 
Country Flier said:
Not sure what that has to do with anything...but...

The subject of the post (Robert Gore) is still dealing with this incident in court. Looks like he has another pre-trial conference 1/21/22.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the Court Case for Morris’s City Airport.

The plaintiffs, Chapter 1 of the International Aerobatics Club and one of its members, Nicholas Scholtes, claim that the City of Morris is impermissibly regulating flight. The defendants are the City of Morris, where the airport from which the Club operates is located, the airport manager, Jeffrey Vogen, and former airport manager and current “Airport consultant” Sid Nelson.

Incident 1 - O’Connor was applying for a new certification with flight instructor Nick Scholtes. The pilot of the crop duster claims the flight instructor intentionally blocked his path, the latest move in an ongoing feud. The crop duster and the airport manager who referred to flight instructor Nick Scholtes as a “trouble maker” in the police report and talked about getting him “kicked out of the airport.” And who is the owner of that crop duster? His name is Sid Nelson.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I was responding to the Court Case for Morris’s City Airport.

The plaintiffs, Chapter 1 of the International Aerobatics Club and one of its members, Nicholas Scholtes, claim that the City of Morris is impermissibly regulating flight. The defendants are the City of Morris, where the airport from which the Club operates is located, the airport manager, Jeffrey Vogen, and former airport manager and current “Airport consultant” Sid Nelson.

Incident 1 - O’Connor was applying for a new certification with flight instructor Nick Scholtes. The pilot of the crop duster claims the flight instructor intentionally blocked his path, the latest move in an ongoing feud. The crop duster and the airport manager who referred to flight instructor Nick Scholtes as a “trouble maker” in the police report and talked about getting him “kicked out of the airport.” And who is the owner of that crop duster? His name is Sid Nelson.
Click to expand...
Um, ok...it has nothing to do with the thread but you derail away then!
 
Clip4 said:
And people on here keep arguing how good Sport instructors are. This idiot didn’t know you you can’t buzz assemblies of people.

Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Date of Issue: 1/6/2020

Ratings:
PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA


Certificate: FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
Date of Issue: 12/26/2019

Ratings:
FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
SPORT
Click to expand...
That is such an asine generic statement. So you have never heard of a PPL or commercial or even CFI doing something completely moronic and foolish despite knowing the rules and regulations? You might want to check your ego at the door next time you choose to comment without using some rationale logic. The act stated above was just stupid and reckless. The certificate didn't even matter.

I realize you recanted your statement but we tend to do more harm to our own than anyone else in the spirit of "policing" and we are always experts. Just watched another YouTuber recently who had to defend themselves against an FAA inquiry because an armchair pilot feels the need to speak up on the most idiotic minutiae to make themselves feel superior. Pilots are a small group overall, yet we tend to eat our own at the first opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Capngrog said:
Does the local Sheriff have jurisdiction over the National Airspace? No. Whatever charges are brought will have to be through the FAA or other entity having jurisdiction over the National Airspace.

Just my opinion.

Cheers,
Grog
Click to expand...
Most states have a few laws governing the airspace within their borders.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top