Re: John Travolta sues his home airport
Nobody Important
This is a not a very good PR move for Travolta as 'green' is in and an old
707 is not very friendly to the envormeintment as are private jets in
general.
Look at what happed to this guy's Hummer.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/07/18/mans_hummer_targeted_by_environmentalists/4910/
He proved his point that he is a pilot and can fly a 707. Anything more is
ego and hurting the planet. That jets needs to be parked somewhere for good.
Dudley Henriques
> http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/07/21/2007-07-21_travolta_sues_airport_for_lying_to_faa.html
>
> Travolta sues airport for lying to FAA
>
> The Grease star sues owners of airport near his home in Florida
>
> BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> Saturday, July 21st 2007
>
>
> OCALA, Fla. — John Travolta sued the owners of the airport outside his
> exclusive "fly-in" community, claiming they lied to the Federal
> Aviation Administration to keep him from landing his Boeing 707 there.
>
> In the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, the actor claims Greystone
> Airport owners James and Christine Garemore falsely changed the
> airport master record in 2006 to indicate that it could not support
> large airplanes.
>
> Travolta has a home at the Jumbolair Aviation Estates in Ocala and
> wanted to fly his Boeing 707 there. It is an affluent, 550-acre
> community with a $6 million runway — the largest paved, private
> airfield in the United States.
>
> The lawsuit is seeking an injunction requiring the Garemores to
> immediately withdraw the 2006 report and authorize flights with the
> airport master record as it existed before. It also seeks to nullify
> the report because of false or misleading information to the FAA and
> to prohibit "future baseless filings."
>
> "The runway is not suitable for heavy aircraft. It is cracking and
> breaking," James Garemore told The Associated Press on Friday. "They
> are bringing this lawsuit against me, and all I was doing was trying
> to maintain safety here."
>
> Todd Hopson, Garemore's attorney, said his client never stopped
> Travolta from landing on the 7,550-foot runway.
>
> Michael J. McDermott, Travolta's attorney, said Garemore's comments
> about the runway not being safe for large airplanes is incorrect.
>
> "It's spin in order to cover his butt because he knows that he is in
> big trouble for doing what he did, and we intend to establish that,"
> McDermott said.
>
> The lawsuit was filed under the corporations Jett Clipper Johnny and
> Constellation and as Ellen Bannon and Margaret Rau, who are trustees
> of Hawker Investment Trust, the titled property owner for Travolta's
> nine-acre spread near Jumbolair.
>
> The Garemores established Greystone Airport in the 1980s, and
> Jumbolair was founded by exercise equipment guru Arthur Jones. The
> Garemores built the main runway to accommodate Jones' 707s, but his
> flights were not as frequent as Travolta's and did not deteriorate the
> runway as much, Garemore said.
>
> Travolta built an $8 million home there and has continually used the
> runway without incident, the lawsuit said. It also claims Travolta was
> assured he would be able to use the airport.
>
> FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the administration is not involved in
> the dispute.
>
>
Typical elitist scenario and the usual lawyer bull crap dotting the i's
and crossing the t's for a rich client to nail some poor slob who has
caused "disfavor".
Using the law, they will unfortunately probably win against the FBO.
Outside the law however, there is most likely a real concern by the FBO
for the condition of their runway if being used consistantly by a heavy
aircraft whose owner doesn't have to pay for the runway damage and
maintainence his airplane very well might cause.
All in all, regardless of whether he wins or loses, I see this as a very
bad move for Travolta. He obviously enjoys being in aviation, and doing
this in the manner it's being done won't bode him well in the aviation
community, where FBO's are fighting for their very existence against a
system and circumstances that are hard enough as they are without Mr.
Travolta making them any harder.
Dudley Henriques
Larry Dighera
<edna....@boeing.707> wrote in
<ju94a31ap61jp99apmk1hq0h95pq3lgmom@news>:
>http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/07/21/2007-07-21_travolta_sues_airport_for_lying_to_faa.html
>
>Travolta sues airport for lying to FAA
>
>OCALA, Fla. — John Travolta sued the owners of the airport outside his
>exclusive "fly-in" community, claiming they lied to the Federal
>Aviation Administration to keep him from landing his Boeing 707 there.
>
>In the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, the actor claims Greystone
>Airport owners James and Christine Garemore falsely changed the
>airport master record in 2006 to indicate that it could not support
>large airplanes.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/17FL
Runway 18/36
Dimensions: 7550 x 210 ft. / 2301 x 64 m
Surface: asphalt, in poor condition
FIRST 1800 FT OF RY 18 DETERIORATING WITH POT HOLES AND SEVERE
CRACKING.
1 ASPHALT SURFACE IS ONLY 2 INCHES THICK. PAVEMENT STRUCTURE CAN
ONLY SUPPORT LIGHT LOAD SINGLE WHEEL ACFT. HEAVIER ACFT MAY CAUSE
IMMEDIATE STRUCTUAL DAMAGE TO THE DETERIORATED SURFACE AND MAY
GENERATE FOD.
RY 18/36 NOT CROWNED OR GRVD CAUSING STANDING WATER DURING AND
AFTER RAIN.
Satllite photos:
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?cp=29.280252|-82.124815&style=h&lvl=14&v=1
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=OCALA,+FL&ie=UTF8&ll=29.277266,-82.120314&spn=0.025605,0.037766&t=k&z=15&om=1
Note Travolta home due east of airport with B707 in front.
PUSSS...@aol.com
> Edna Turnbladder wrote:
> >http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/07/21/2007-07-21_travolta_sues...
>
> > Travolta sues airport for lying to FAA
>
> > The Grease star sues owners of airport near his home in Florida
>
> > BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> > Saturday, July 21st 2007
>
> > exclusive "fly-in" community, claiming they lied to the Federal
> > Aviation Administration to keep him from landing his Boeing 707 there.
>
> > In the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, the actor claims Greystone
> > Airport owners James and Christine Garemore falsely changed the
> > airport master record in 2006 to indicate that it could not support
> > large airplanes.
>
> > Travolta has a home at the Jumbolair Aviation Estates in Ocala and
> > wanted to fly his Boeing 707 there. It is an affluent, 550-acre
No kidding...stf up Travolting and agree to chip in to cover damages
caused by your over-sized environment rat. I can't wait for someone to
out this creep with photos of him getting it up the butt! That's the
only thing I want to hear about him in the news.
Billie
Larry Dighera
<dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in
<zaedncshgJlXrT_b...@rcn.net>:
>Typical elitist scenario and the usual lawyer bull crap dotting the i's
>and crossing the t's for a rich client to nail some poor slob who has
>caused "disfavor".
How can you possibly reach that conclusion without knowing the current
condition of the runway?
Dudley Henriques
situation :-)
Dudley Henriques
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
It's usenet; people immediately jump to conclusions without any
facts all the time.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:40:15 +0000, Edna Turnbladder
> <edna....@boeing.707> wrote in
> <ju94a31ap61jp99apmk1hq0h95pq3lgmom@news>:
> >http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/07/21/2007-07-21_travolta_sues_airport_for_lying_to_faa.html
> >
> >Travolta sues airport for lying to FAA
> >
> >OCALA, Fla. ? John Travolta sued the owners of the airport outside his
> >exclusive "fly-in" community, claiming they lied to the Federal
> >Aviation Administration to keep him from landing his Boeing 707 there.
> >
> >In the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, the actor claims Greystone
> >Airport owners James and Christine Garemore falsely changed the
> >airport master record in 2006 to indicate that it could not support
> >large airplanes.
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/17FL
> Runway 18/36
> Dimensions: 7550 x 210 ft. / 2301 x 64 m
> Surface: asphalt, in poor condition
> FIRST 1800 FT OF RY 18 DETERIORATING WITH POT HOLES AND SEVERE
> CRACKING.
> 1 ASPHALT SURFACE IS ONLY 2 INCHES THICK. PAVEMENT STRUCTURE CAN
> ONLY SUPPORT LIGHT LOAD SINGLE WHEEL ACFT. HEAVIER ACFT MAY CAUSE
> IMMEDIATE STRUCTUAL DAMAGE TO THE DETERIORATED SURFACE AND MAY
> GENERATE FOD.
> RY 18/36 NOT CROWNED OR GRVD CAUSING STANDING WATER DURING AND
> AFTER RAIN.
> Satllite photos:
> http://local.live.com/default.aspx?cp=29.280252|-82.124815&style=h&lvl=14&v=1
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=OCALA,+FL&ie=UTF8&ll=29.277266,-82.120314&spn=0.025605,0.037766&t=k&z=15&om=1
> Note Travolta home due east of airport with B707 in front.
Isn't this what the lawsuit is all about, i.e. Travolta's side claims
the above is falsified?
Dudley Henriques
I'm not reaching a conclusion, only an opinion. I base this opinion on
what appears to be a private party initiating litigation against an FBO
who made a decision about his runway based on HIS best assessment of the
prevailing conditions of that runway as those conditions relate to the
complainant's aircraft; an FBO who has to pay insurance and maintainence
costs for that runway vs someone wanting to use that runway under THEIR
conditions not acceptable to the FBO.
Being denied those conditions, the private party now wishes to FORCE
THEIR conditions upon the FBO.
My opinion doesn't so much concern who is right or who is wrong in this
matter but rather that the entire situation bodes ill for Travolta in
the community.
Please feel free to disagree. I have no wish to influence anyone else's
opinions on Usenet.
Dudley Henriques
Ron Wanttaja
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:14:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in
>> <zaedncshgJlXrT_b...@rcn.net>:
>>
>>> Typical elitist scenario and the usual lawyer bull crap dotting the i's
>>> and crossing the t's for a rich client to nail some poor slob who has
>>> caused "disfavor".
>>
>> How can you possibly reach that conclusion without knowing the current
>> condition of the runway?
>
>I'm not reaching a conclusion, only an opinion. I base this opinion on
>what appears to be a private party initiating litigation against an FBO
>who made a decision about his runway based on HIS best assessment of the
>prevailing conditions of that runway as those conditions relate to the
>complainant's aircraft; an FBO who has to pay insurance and maintainence
>costs for that runway vs someone wanting to use that runway under THEIR
>conditions not acceptable to the FBO.
Dudley, I think the whole issue is your central paragraph: "...an FBO who made
a decision about his runway based on HIS best assessment of the prevailing
conditions of that runway." Do we know if that's the true reason?
Travolta's question is whether the FBO's action was based on legitimate concern
over the runway condition, or due to the FBO wanting to stop Travolta from
flying his 707 there for other reasons (noise complaints, dislike of the man
himself, fears of lawsuits over damages due to other deficiencies of the
airport, etc.).
Note another line in the original posting: "...Garemore [the FBO] built the main
runway to accommodate Jones' 707s, but his flights were not as frequent as
Travolta's and did not deteriorate the runway as much, Garemore said."
I know nothing of runway design, but this seems a stretch. Is there some sort
of standard that says, "The runway has to be X inches thick if a 707 is going to
operate there 12 times a year, and X+Y if a 707 is going to operate there 48
times a year..."?
Agreed, fewer operations will cause less deterioration. But how is that
reflected in the original design specification? What engineering basis is the
FBO going to use to claim that the runway was perfectly adequate for the owner
of the 707 he designed it for, but not Travolta's 707? Was Travolta warned when
he bought the airport property? Did the FBO bring the alleged runway
deficiencies to Travolta's attention immediately once he learned Travolta was
planning on flying a 707 from the strip?
I'd be pretty damn mad if I bought property on an airport, flew for five years,
then was told I couldn't fly from there anymore....
Ron Wanttaja
Larry Dighera
<dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in
<L_KdnfOEEdoToD_b...@rcn.net>:
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:14:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in
>> <zaedncshgJlXrT_b...@rcn.net>:
>>
>>> Typical elitist scenario and the usual lawyer bull crap dotting the i's
>>> and crossing the t's for a rich client to nail some poor slob who has
>>> caused "disfavor".
>>
>> How can you possibly reach that conclusion without knowing the current
>> condition of the runway?
>>
>
>I'm not reaching a conclusion, only an opinion.
It appears to me, that you have reached the conclusion that Travolta's
case is without merit without any evidence to support that conclusion.
>I base this opinion on what appears to be a private party initiating
>litigation against an FBO who made a decision about his runway based on
>HIS best assessment of the prevailing conditions of that runway as those
>conditions relate to the complainant's aircraft;
Are you able to provide any supporting evidence for your assertion,
that the airport owner's assessment is reasonable and rational? Are
you able to provide any _INFORMATION_ about this issue at all?
>an FBO who has to pay insurance and maintainence
>costs for that runway vs someone wanting to use that runway under THEIR
>conditions not acceptable to the FBO.
I appreciate the airport owner's position, but if Travolta was assured
he would be able to use the airport for his B707 operations, and he
predicated his investment of $8-million in home construction costs on
that assurance, and there is no evidence to support the airport
owner's revised airport master record changes, what would your opinion
be?
>Being denied those conditions, the private party now wishes to FORCE
>THEIR conditions upon the FBO.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the condition of the runway is inconsistent with
the revised airport master record. Without information about the true
condition of the runway, it's not possible to reach a conclusion in
this matter.
>My opinion doesn't so much concern who is right or who is wrong in this
>matter but rather that the entire situation bodes ill for Travolta in
>the community.
Is that significant? How?
>Please feel free to disagree.
It's not possible to agree or disagree without more facts.
Hawkeye
that end means that the FBO is responsible to keep the infrastructure
in proper condition based upon the needs of the community...much like
a municipality? Could it be that the FBO didn't plan to provide enough
capital in reserve to keep up the facilities. Expansion of new
properties looks as if it has slowed, maybe lot sales are not what
they had anticipated. It was sold as an airfield capable of handing
such aircraft as the 707. Did they think he (Mr. Travolta) would only
use his once or twice a year. Aircraft that sit tend to deteriorate,
why spend the money to restore it if your going to let is sit and rot.
Mr Travolta is no different than any other aircraft owner, flying
their aircraft for pleasure and business. He restored his 707 and uses
it to travel around the world, keeping a part of aviation heritage
alive for the enjoyment of others. Owners of many older large aircraft
fly around charging for rides, he doesn't, most are not economical to
operate or as environmentally friendly as newer aircraft, but it is
their choice to do so. I think the owners of the property failed to
anticipate the usage of the facilities and failed to lure enough
customers into the area to build enough homes to generate enough
revenue to provide continuing maintenance and upkeep. Or maybe they
just lost interest in the project. Since it is a private field, no
monies are available from the federal government. Maybe a local
government has a program to provide local businesses with financial
assistance. What ever, if the field is deteriorating as claimed other
residents who utilize it for their aircraft are at risk as well. I
believe Mr Travolta is not only looking out for his interests in this,
but other users of the field as well. JMHO.
Bob Noel
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
> ............then again, I see we have the Mensa approach to the
> situation :-)
> Dudley Henriques
check out the crossposts... (which I deleted since I don't want to post there...)
--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)
kontiki
he can just go buy his own airport. hehe
Morgans
"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
> I'd be pretty damn mad if I bought property on an airport, flew for five
> years,
> then was told I couldn't fly from there anymore....
Especially with all of the improvements and money he has spent on the
property.
--
Jim in NC
Ron Wanttaja
>I don't know why he would waste time suing someone for that...
>he can just go buy his own airport. hehe
Are there any for sale that can handle 707-class airplanes? Please point to the
listings.
Ron Wanttaja
Taylor
> http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/07/21/2007-07-21_travolta_sues...
>
> Travolta sues airport for lying to FAA
>
>
> BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> Saturday, July 21st 2007
>
> exclusive "fly-in" community, claiming they lied to the Federal
> Aviation Administration to keep him from landing his Boeing 707 there.
>
> In the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, the actor claims Greystone
> Airport owners James and Christine Garemore falsely changed the
> airport master record in 2006 to indicate that it could not support
> large airplanes.
>
> flights were not as frequent as Travolta's and did not deteriorate the
> runway as much, Garemore said.
>
> runway without incident, the lawsuit said. It also claims Travolta was
> assured he would be able to use the airport.
>
> FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the administration is not involved in
> the dispute.
The fucking kook will probably demand payments in the form of
Scientology conversions of all the airport's workers. Hope he crashes.
kontiki
Dude... be creative... he can build his own if he wants.
kontiki
>
> The fucking kook will probably demand payments in the form of
> Scientology conversions of all the airport's workers. Hope he crashes.
>
Ouch. That's brutal.
Dudley Henriques
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:08:29 -0400, Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:14:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in
>>> <zaedncshgJlXrT_b...@rcn.net>:
>>>
>>>> Typical elitist scenario and the usual lawyer bull crap dotting the i's
>>>> and crossing the t's for a rich client to nail some poor slob who has
>>>> caused "disfavor".
>>> How can you possibly reach that conclusion without knowing the current
>>> condition of the runway?
>> I'm not reaching a conclusion, only an opinion. I base this opinion on
>> what appears to be a private party initiating litigation against an FBO
>> who made a decision about his runway based on HIS best assessment of the
>> prevailing conditions of that runway as those conditions relate to the
>> complainant's aircraft; an FBO who has to pay insurance and maintainence
>> costs for that runway vs someone wanting to use that runway under THEIR
>> conditions not acceptable to the FBO.
>
> Dudley, I think the whole issue is your central paragraph: "...an FBO who made
> a decision about his runway based on HIS best assessment of the prevailing
> conditions of that runway." Do we know if that's the true reason?
No. At this point in time there would be of course,no way of making a
positive assessment for the truth in the FBO's position. If you read
carefully, you will notice I inserted the phrase "appears to be" in my
text. The reason that phrase appears in the paragraph is because what
follows is simply one man's read on the conditions as they "APPEAR to
exist. These conditions can certainly be other than that and I am making
no attempt to present them as fact.
>
> Travolta's question is whether the FBO's action was based on legitimate concern
> over the runway condition, or due to the FBO wanting to stop Travolta from
> flying his 707 there for other reasons (noise complaints, dislike of the man
> himself, fears of lawsuits over damages due to other deficiencies of the
> airport, etc.).
Travolta might very well have a case if his assertions are correct. My
opinion is simply my own and in no way should be misconstrued into an
attempt to try the case on Usenet. :-)
>
> Note another line in the original posting: "...Garemore [the FBO] built the main
> runway to accommodate Jones' 707s, but his flights were not as frequent as
> Travolta's and did not deteriorate the runway as much, Garemore said."
>
> I know nothing of runway design, but this seems a stretch. Is there some sort
> of standard that says, "The runway has to be X inches thick if a 707 is going to
> operate there 12 times a year, and X+Y if a 707 is going to operate there 48
> times a year..."?
>
> Agreed, fewer operations will cause less deterioration. But how is that
> reflected in the original design specification? What engineering basis is the
> FBO going to use to claim that the runway was perfectly adequate for the owner
> of the 707 he designed it for, but not Travolta's 707? Was Travolta warned when
> he bought the airport property? Did the FBO bring the alleged runway
> deficiencies to Travolta's attention immediately once he learned Travolta was
> planning on flying a 707 from the strip?
>
> I'd be pretty damn mad if I bought property on an airport, flew for five years,
> then was told I couldn't fly from there anymore....
>
> Ron Wanttaja
So would I as a matter of fact. Perhaps the difference between myself
and Travolta is that I would have long ago forseen that the runway might
be an issue coming down the road and would have at least TRIED to become
involved in some way with the airport itself; as a staunch backer and
friend if nothing else.
Perhaps Travolta tried this and failed. Perhaps he didn't. Either way he
now has a problem taking on in a hostile environment the very
environment he sought out and invested millions of dollars in to be
near. No matter how you slice this down, it appears to me anyway as
something missed, or something gone terribly wrong along the way.
I see nothing but negatives for Travolta's position....but who
knows.......he could come up smelling like roses for all I know.
As I said previously, my opinion on the matter is not an attempt to try
the case for either side; only to state that I believe Travolta's
decision to act in this manner might not bode well for him in the
aviation community at large. I feel perfectly capable of having this
opinion without having to justify it when and if challenged.
Dudley Henriques
Morgans
"Taylor" > wrote
> The fucking kook will probably demand payments in the form of
> Scientology conversions of all the airport's workers. Hope he crashes.
I don't know if you know this, but you should.
In and among aviators, NO ONE wishes such a fate upon another. It is the
only act worthy of having your name erased from existence, and not spoken
among the aviation groups.
Shame on you.
Shun mode on.
PLONK ! ! !
Dudley Henriques
> The fucking kook will probably demand payments in the form of
> Scientology conversions of all the airport's workers. Hope he crashes.
>
Taylor huh? Well, that ought to be easy enough to remember and avoid in
the future anyway :-)).
Usenet being what it is, I'll assume you already know that you are free
to post something like this on a pilot's forum.
You might not however be aware that saying things like this on this
forum will result in many pilots shunning you down the line.
Anyway, you won't have to worry about me posting to you in the future so
there's one down already :-))
Dudley Henriques
Taylor
;-) Never said he dies. Just hope he has a close call. Maybe it'll put
a new perspective on life. Hopefully get him to ditch his money-
grubbing, outrageous religious views.
kontiki
Hmmm. Well, whether you like it or not Travolta has earned his
way to his present position... in both fame and fortune. He
started out rather meagerly actually, so he must have something
going for him to have achieved so much. I know he has been a pilot
for many years.. long before he was a success in show biz.
Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily a Travolta fan (although I
enjoyed a couple of his movies) ... all too often I hear about
how "money grubbing" someone is because they have been successful
at what they have worked hard at at for many years.
America is a great country and offers the vast majority of people
equal opportunity to fame and fortune. It is how you got there and
what you do once you are there that really matters in my opinion.
FDR
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:zaedncshgJlXrT_b...@rcn.net...
LOL. One rich sob suing another. Bif deal.
Ron Wanttaja
Snort. It took 10 years to get approval to add another runway to Seattle's
Sea-Tac airport. DIA took...how many years? Part of the problem in aviation
today is the near-impossility of getting new airports built.
Travolta can no doubt afford to build his own airport, but unless he goes deep
into the deserts, he's not going to be able to get quick approval.
Ron Wanttaja
Larry Dighera
<ron.wa...@comcast.net> wrote in
<f115a35bj4eo5pr7q...@4ax.com>:
>Part of the problem in aviation today is the near-impossility
>of getting new airports built.
The other part of the problem is the closure of airports at the rate
of a week by municipal politicians pandering to developers.
Mxsmanic
> The Garemores established Greystone Airport in the 1980s, and
> Jumbolair was founded by exercise equipment guru Arthur Jones. The
> Garemores built the main runway to accommodate Jones' 707s, but his
> flights were not as frequent as Travolta's and did not deteriorate the
> runway as much, Garemore said.
I believe the runway is only thin asphalt, which might withstand occasional
large aircraft landing, but not regular traffic. Most airports have concrete
runways several feet thick if they intend to welcome big iron.
I don't see why Travolta doesn't just pay for a new runway. He's the only
resident that needs something that can handle 707s.
Mxsmanic
> I know nothing of runway design, but this seems a stretch. Is there some sort
> of standard that says, "The runway has to be X inches thick if a 707 is going to
> operate there 12 times a year, and X+Y if a 707 is going to operate there 48
> times a year..."?
Large airliners put enormous stress on runways, which is why several feet of
concrete tends to be preferred, instead of a few inches of asphalt. Even
heavy-duty runways may crack under the stress of large aircraft if they are
continually stressed at the same point, as early ILS systems proved.
Mxsmanic
> I don't know why he would waste time suing someone for that...
> he can just go buy his own airport. hehe
Better still, he can pay to have the runway paved in concrete, which would
probably cost less than the lawsuit.
BTR1701
"Nobody Important" <nob...@myfakeemailserver.org> wrote:
> He proved his point that he is a pilot and can fly a
> 707. Anything more is ego and hurting the planet.
Why do people like you insist on talking about "hurting the planet"? The
planet was here long before human beings and will be here long after
we're extinct. It will go along just fine.
This planet has suffered far more cataclysmic events than a few degrees
increase in temperature. Massive asteroids have impacted and scourged
the surface of the earth, often eradicating 90% of all life. And yet
here the planet is, no worse for wear.
It's spectacularly egotistical for mankind to believe it can really do
anything to "hurt the planet". Even if we launched a nuclear holocaust,
the planet would bounce back just fine in a million or so years.
Andrew Gideon
> SINGLE WHEEL ACFT
Unicycle aircraft?
- Andrew
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Wonderful.
Now please explain to us what happens when you leave deviled eggs
sitting in the sun too long.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Here's a news flash for you; the winner of a lawsuit doesn't pay
anything, the loser pays.
It should take little more than some pictures and maybe a trip to
the airport to prove which side is correct.
I wouldn't think Travolta's lawyers would be dumb enough to file a suit
if all the defendant has to do to get it dismissed is show some pictures
and say "Look at that".
But, you never know about lawyers.
B A R R Y
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:41:01 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> SINGLE WHEEL ACFT
>
>
>Unicycle aircraft?
>
Think wheels per leg.
Morgans
"FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote
> LOL. One rich sob suing another. Bif deal.
So you felt the need to quote over 80 lines, for that one line'r?
--
Jim in NC
Lord Vader III
wrote:
> This is a not a very good PR move for Travolta as 'green' is in and an old
> 707 is not very friendly to the envormeintment as are private jets in
> general.
>
> Look at what happed to this guy's Hummer.
>
> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/07/18/mans_hummer_targeted_b...
>
> He proved his point that he is a pilot and can fly a 707. Anything more is
A private jet is one thing, a 707 is rather large for an individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
Why on Earth would that idiot Travolta need a plane that big? Unless
he's compensating for something else ...
LVIII
Zinj
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com says...
<snip>
> Here's a news flash for you; the winner of a lawsuit doesn't pay
> anything, the loser pays.
Bullshit.
Otherwise, the 'Church' of Scientology would be out of business.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Unique
btr1702-B856B1...@news.giganews.com,
"Hurting the planet" is shorthand for several rather complex notions,
but it's not incorrect either. i.e. If someone cuts me it will heal
quickly, but that doesn't mean that I wasn't hurt.
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Centennial Miniseries,
Holocaust, Pearl, Amerika, Space, George Washington, Anzacs,
Marco Polo, Captains and the Kings, Peter the Great, Noble House,
and more...
Bob Moore
when Arthur attempted to start an airline in the Los Angeles area using
3 B-707 aircraft that he had purchased. The attempt failed when Arthur
refused to provide adequate financial data to the DOT. Forbes listed him
as one of the 400 most wealthy individuals in the country at the time.
Arthur employed me back in Ocala as a 707 pilot and to train Terri for a
B-707 Type Rating.
I was one of the first of the pilots to fly his 707 freighter from that
runway which at the time was somewhat less than 6,000'.
At light weights, this was enough runway to takeoff as long as all four
engines were running and in fact, once past Vmcg, three engines were
enough. The problem was in getting to Vmcg. No matter how light the
weight, Vmcg required a runway length long enough to accommodate a
takeoff weight of 245,000# and at 5,600', we were only long enough for
235,000#.
I explaned this to Arthur a couple of times but he didn't seem to care.
Seems as if when he planned the runway, they (?) planned for V1, but not
for Vmcg, but V1 cannot be less than Vmcg.
Arthur was one of the most disgusting individuals that I have ever
met.....I didn't last long, a couple of flights and I was out of there,
back to Miami.
I guess that sometime after that, someone (maybe the FAA) convinced him
to extend the runway. I had been told that it could not be extended
straight ahead due to proximity to a road or houses. One can see now
that it's angle was changed to gain the extra length, and you can also
see the added section. It is my opinion that this added section was
never intended to support the weight of a B-707 except in the event of
an engine failure and an aborted takeoff (stopway).
Arthur and Terri were one of the many interesting experiences that I had
during the three furloughs that I experienced during my 24 years with
PanAm.
Check out the following links for more interesting stuff about Jones.
http://www.jumbolair.com/jumbolair.htm
http://www.jumbolair.com/blacktie.htm
Bob Moore
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> In article <8ufan4-...@mail.specsol.com>,
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com says...
> <snip>
> > Here's a news flash for you; the winner of a lawsuit doesn't pay
> > anything, the loser pays.
> Bullshit.
> Otherwise, the 'Church' of Scientology would be out of business.
Sorry, let me rephrase that, the winner of a lawsuit in the US
doesn't pay anything, the loser pays, unless the winner has really
dumb lawyers, but that ususally precludes winning in the first
place.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
So what is the officially approved airplane size that is suitable
for an individual?
And who is it that is in charge of deciding this?
Matt Whiting
You are still wrong. There is a huge difference between winning a
judgment and collecting said judgment. Who do you think your lawyer
will come after for his/her fee when the loser doesn't pay or can't pay?
Yes, I realize that most smart lawyers will "qualify" the defendant
financially before taking the case, but this still is no guarantee that
a collection on the judgment will ever occur.
Matt
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Yes, and don't forget that the loser might get hit by a meteor, wiping
him and all his assets out before the winner has a chance to collect.
And the loser may turn all his assets in cash right after the trial
and flee to a country where he is untouchable.
And...
James Sleeman
> Why on Earth would that idiot Travolta need a plane that big?
There's the flaw in your logic. Earth has nothing to do with it,
John's aircraft is secretly a space ship for the great lord Xenu! The
DC-10's were getting a little tired.
RomeoMike
BTR1701 wrote:
>
> Why do people like you insist on talking about "hurting the planet"?
Maybe because it affects the survival of the human race?
Invid Fan
<romeo...@nojunk.gmail.com> wrote:
Well, that's something different. The planet itself doesn't care if we
survive or not, and unless we blow the entire thing up it will survive
anything we do even if humanity doesn't...
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Orval Fairbairn
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have flown (but not in the past 3 years) into Greystone and seen the
707 up close. The runway was built to land that type of jet by the
previous owners. It is NOT "thin asphalt!" There are blast fences, etc.
at the ends of the runway.
Travolta used to live near my house (before I lived here) and was
reputedly a pretty nice guy, but his security people apparently were a
pain.
Larry Dighera
wrote in <Xns9974D83616E3Brm...@66.250.146.128>:
>Arthur and Terri were one of the many interesting experiences that I had
>during the three furloughs that I experienced during my 24 years with
>PanAm.
>
>Check out the following links for more interesting stuff about Jones.
>
>http://www.jumbolair.com/jumbolair.htm
>http://www.jumbolair.com/blacktie.htm
Wow! Finally a comment from someone who has some firsthand knowledge
of the issue. Thanks for the insight, Bob.
If your assessment of the runway construction is correct, it would
appear that Travolta may want to consider funding some improvement
work, instead of throwing away in legal fees enough to fund correcting
the runway defects. It's doubtful that his insurance would cover his
B707 operations given the current airport master record.
Zinj
@news.west.earthlink.net>, orfai...@earthlink.net says...
I suspect that this has little to do with the runway, and more with
the fact that the 'community' would like to get rid of John.
Which is a bit weird; maybe.
Probably John's in the *right* and the community is deliberately
faking things to try to get rid of him.
I wonder why? He spent 8 million to build his house, so, I can
understand him not wanting to leave; unless, of course, they can
guarantee him an equitable settlement :)
But, why couldn't he nip this whole thing in the bud? He's an OT!!
How is it possible that a mere wog might frustrate his postulates?
Did he pull it in?
Is it because he's PTS due to his queer associations?
Clearwater wants to know!
Fly N Fish
suit
if all the defendant has to do to get it dismissed is show some
pictures
and say "Look at that".
Think again! I fly out of there all the time and there will be plenty
of pictures. Here are a couple other interesting facts:
The 707 has already suffered FOD damage.
The part of the runway was recently re-sealed because it was causing
FOD from deterioration (it was sealed shortly after damage to his
707).
His G2(3) actually has a heavier foot print and most likely causes
most the damage, but the 707 gets all the press.
The airport manager is not rich. He is a plumber-welder that owns a
grass strip airport.
The manager owns only a small part of the paved strip and according to
the agreement, Jumbolair (Terry Jones - child bride to Author Jones),
is responsible for the maintenance of the paved strip
Terry Jones had an option to buy the Plumber out before Travolta built
his house, but let it expire.
Terry Jones promised Travolta she would get control of the plumbers
property and the rest of the airport, but failed to do
so.....miserably.
Bottom Line....IMHO...... Lawyers that have an inverse intelligence-
compensation ratio allowed Travolta to get into this situation, by not
doing their home work before purchase and lawyers with the same
problematic ratio are trying to get him out. Travolta just wants to
park his toys at the house again and most likely does not treasure the
idea of going after the plumber.
The Child Bride and her new Wacko husband are basically responsible
for this whole mess by trying to pretend they are land developers. OK
#1 rule in land development (in case Terry and Jeremy read this);
never start a development, UNTIL YOU CONTROL THE LAND!
The people who bought land in Jumbolair, including Travolta, did not
do their home work. They found out later that the original builder of
the big paved strip (Author Jones) agreed to maintain the paved strip
while letting the plumber run the airport. Terry's decision to let
that original purchase option expire was a fatal one.
The Plumber never has said Travolta can't land there, he likes
Travolta or at least he use to. He did change the FAA description of
the paved strip in 2006 to reflect the changing condition of the
runway. After two years of almost nightly trips to Clearwater, FL
(when he is in town) in his G2(3), the Northern portion of the runway
where the G2(3) always makes a sharp 180 turn was beginning to come
apart. As the airport manager, it is his job to report the true
condition of the runway, but it is Jumbolair's responsibility to fix
it.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Assuming all you say is true, than it is a lot more complicated
than a simple one side says the runway is crap and the other side
says it is OK.
Which means the original post that started this is a gross over-
simplification of the dispute.
Not surprising.
Mxsmanic
> It's spectacularly egotistical for mankind to believe it can really do
> anything to "hurt the planet". Even if we launched a nuclear holocaust,
> the planet would bounce back just fine in a million or so years.
Far less than a million years. The worst effects would last only a few
decades at the very most, and the ecosystem would recover completely in a
century or less. Essentially the planet wouldn't notice at all. Nothing
human beings do ever makes any dent on the planet. The biggest mistake human
beings make in predicting the future of the planet is usually enormous
overestimation of their own importance therein.
Mxsmanic
> Maybe because it affects the survival of the human race?
The human race most likely is incapable of killing itself off. And the
current problem is overpopulation, not survival.
Mxsmanic
> Here's a news flash for you; the winner of a lawsuit doesn't pay
> anything, the loser pays.
Starting a lawsuit is very different from winning one.
> I wouldn't think Travolta's lawyers would be dumb enough to file a suit
> if all the defendant has to do to get it dismissed is show some pictures
> and say "Look at that".
>
> But, you never know about lawyers.
There are plenty of stupid lawyers in the world. Becoming a lawyer is far
less difficult than being a good lawyer.
Mxsmanic
> I have flown (but not in the past 3 years) into Greystone and seen the
> 707 up close. The runway was built to land that type of jet by the
> previous owners. It is NOT "thin asphalt!" There are blast fences, etc.
> at the ends of the runway.
How thick is the asphalt? Why isn't it concrete?
> Travolta used to live near my house (before I lived here) and was
> reputedly a pretty nice guy, but his security people apparently were a
> pain.
That is the case for quite a few celebrities.
Larry Dighera
<Ric...@mylastname.net> wrote in
<i1g5a3tp5aa99n6lf...@4ax.com>:
>Check some recent pictues of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10393-chernobyl-h...
Chernobyl haunts the Norwegian uplands
12:00 28 October 2006
Tougher controls on the slaughter of sheep have been imposed in
Norway after they were found to be contaminated with unusually
high levels of radioactivity from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) says the
problem has arisen because the sheep have feasted on an unusually
large crop of mushrooms, which were more plentiful than usual
because of wet weather. Previous research has shown that fungi
take up more radioactivity from the soil than grasses or other
plants.
... the discovery of such high levels of radioactivity so long
after the Chernobyl accident came as a surprise. "No one at the
time expected contamination to be so high more than 20 years after
the event," he says.
El Maximo
news:nhq5a31v5vt3qht47...@4ax.com...
> The human race most likely is incapable of killing itself off. And the
> current problem is overpopulation, not survival.
Don't be so sure. You have managed to destroy the value of several good
resources, all by yourself. A few well-placed assholes could destroy the
world.
barb
Could it be because of the free personality test doorhangers distributed
in the neighborhood?
--
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm
"Comparing Scientology to a motorcycle gang is a gross, unpardonable
insult to bikers everywhere. Even at our worst, we are never as bad as
Scientology."
-ex-member, Thunderclouds motorcycle "club"
BTR1701
BTR1701
"Unique" <akjs...@akjsfdsa.biz> wrote:
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message:
> btr1702-B856B1...@news.giganews.com,
>
> > In article <Q_poi.655$zJ1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Nobody Important" <nob...@myfakeemailserver.org> wrote:
> >
> >> He proved his point that he is a pilot and can fly a
> >> 707. Anything more is ego and hurting the planet.
> >
> > Why do people like you insist on talking about "hurting the planet"?
> > The planet was here long before human beings and will be here long
> > after we're extinct. It will go along just fine.
> >
> > This planet has suffered far more cataclysmic events than a few
> > degrees increase in temperature. Massive asteroids have impacted and
> > scourged the surface of the earth, often eradicating 90% of all life.
> > And yet here the planet is, no worse for wear.
> >
> > It's spectacularly egotistical for mankind to believe it can really do
> > anything to "hurt the planet". Even if we launched a nuclear
> > holocaust, the planet would bounce back just fine in a million or so
> > years.
>
> "Hurting the planet" is shorthand for several rather complex notions,
> but it's not incorrect either. i.e. If someone cuts me it will heal
> quickly, but that doesn't mean that I wasn't hurt.
You are also not a gigantic hunk of rock. If I go out and split a rock
in two, have I hurt that rock? No. It's a rock.
The planet is just a bigger rock.
BTR1701
wrote:
The liberals, obviously. Where have you been?
It's their self-appointed job not only to tell people like Travolta the
maximum appropriate size of their planes but also to tell you and me
what kind of car is appropriate to drive, how big our houses should be
and how much of our own money we "need" and how much should be
forcefully donated to other people.
BTR1701
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I was in Malibu last month with my girlfriend, walking up the
beach, and had some hired goon practically assault us, telling us that
we were on private property. I never did find out who's private
property. Probably some movie mogul or rich actor who don't like the
common people messing up their view of the water.
It didn't matter to him when I cited California law that makes the
beaches public property up to the high tide line and no individual
property owner can close off access. The goon actually hinted that
physical harm would come to us if we didn't turn around and leave.
Imagine his surprise when I reached into my pocket, showed him my badge,
and told him that if he laid a finger on me, he could expect to be
spending the weekend in lockup facing several felony charges and his
employer under a microscope for hiring people to assault citizens on the
beach. Then we walked right on past him across his master's pretty
beach. We even took the time to linger for a while and enjoy the view.
Gotta love putting assholes like that in their place.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:1n25a3pj655kbua13...@4ax.com:
> kontiki writes:
>
>> I don't know why he would waste time suing someone for that...
>> he can just go buy his own airport. hehe
>
> Better still, he can pay to have the runway paved in concrete, which
> would probably cost less than the lawsuit.
>
What's it matter to you? You'll never fly off it.
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:jnq5a3h857up3qd9v...@4ax.com:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com writes:
>
>> Here's a news flash for you; the winner of a lawsuit doesn't pay
>> anything, the loser pays.
>
> Starting a lawsuit is very different from winning one.
>
>> I wouldn't think Travolta's lawyers would be dumb enough to file a
>> suit if all the defendant has to do to get it dismissed is show some
>> pictures and say "Look at that".
>>
>> But, you never know about lawyers.
>
> There are plenty of stupid lawyers in the world.
Like your bankruptcy lawyer, for instance?
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
FDR
Spinal Tap couldn't have said it any better.
FDR
Or the conservatives woh tell us who we need to be afraid of, whose phones
need to be illegally tapped, which people we can imprison without trials,
which rich people should get bigger tax breaks, and which companies get
exclusive no-bid contracts worth billions in Iraq.
DougS
> [...]
> Imagine his surprise when I reached into my pocket, showed him my badge,
> Gotta love putting assholes like that in their place.
Unfortunately, in a situation like that only people with badges would be
able to do so :(
If it were joe-blow (me) then I would have to turn around, no matter how
much law I could cite vis-a-vis being able to walk along the beach. (BTW I
am assuming there are exceptions for military reservations <g>)
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Federal law trumps State law.
Besides, you don't really want to be strolling along the beach at
Camp Pendleton in the middle of a Marine landing exercise.
Bigolhomo
>> Better still, he can pay to have the runway paved in concrete, which would
>> probably cost less than the lawsuit.
>
>Here's a news flash for you; the winner of a lawsuit doesn't pay
>anything, the loser pays.
Here's a news flash for you: until the lawsuit is over nobody knows
who the winner is and who the loser is. But the lawyer is going to
get paid either way. Which is cheaper? Paving a runway or paying a
laywer for a case you might lose anyway?
--
Bigolhomo
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Here's a news flash for you: the lawsuit isn't over something as
trivial as paving a runway.
DougS
news:mmlcn4-...@mail.specsol.com...
> In rec.aviation.piloting DougS <dougs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:btr1702-24D1EE...@news.giganews.com...
>> > [...]
>> > Imagine his surprise when I reached into my pocket, showed him my
>> > badge,
>> > [...]
>> > Gotta love putting assholes like that in their place.
>
>> Unfortunately, in a situation like that only people with badges would be
>> able to do so :(
>
>> If it were joe-blow (me) then I would have to turn around, no matter how
>> much law I could cite vis-a-vis being able to walk along the beach. (BTW
>> I
>> am assuming there are exceptions for military reservations <g>)
>
> Federal law trumps State law.
(I know <g>)
>
> Besides, you don't really want to be strolling along the beach at
> Camp Pendleton in the middle of a Marine landing exercise.
I was actually thinking about NASNI and NSWC along the strand, but the
point's the same.
Morgans
"Orval Fairbairn" <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> I don't see why Travolta doesn't just pay for a new runway. He's the only
>> resident that needs something that can handle 707s.
Not to pick on you, Orval, but I don't directly see MX posts.
An interesting note, on how much a new concrete runway could cost.
IF you paved a runway with concrete
If you did not use any reinforcement rod or expansion joints
If you didn't have to pay anything for the labor to put the concrete down
If you were able to get a deal on the concrete for the big volume (at $100 per
yard)
If you did not make any taxiways or ramp areas
If you made it one foot thick and 250 feet wide and 6,000 feet long
It would cost around 5.55 MILLION DOLLARS ! ! ! ! !
There are several of the "if's" that you would not find true for a real 707
runway, and every thing you did to make it appropriate would cost much more,
(probably at least twice as much) but this was just to get an idea of the
magnitude of such an undertaking.
--
Jim in NC
Jim Logajan
Rule 1: In any lawsuit there are typically four parties: the plaintiff, the
plaintiff's lawyer, the defendant, and the defendant's lawyer.
Rule 2: In any lawsuit in which monetary damages are awarded two of the
parties to the lawsuit will be winners and two will be losers.
Rule 3: In any lawsuit, lawyers make sure they never lose when it comes to
the money part.
Matt Whiting
True, it isn't about money at all. It is about Travolta's ego pure and
simple.
Matt
BTR1701
wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting DougS <dougs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:btr1702-24D1EE...@news.giganews.com...
> > > [...]
> > > Imagine his surprise when I reached into my pocket, showed him my badge,
> > > [...]
> > > Gotta love putting assholes like that in their place.
>
> > Unfortunately, in a situation like that only people with badges would be
> > able to do so :(
>
> > If it were joe-blow (me) then I would have to turn around, no matter how
> > much law I could cite vis-a-vis being able to walk along the beach. (BTW I
> > am assuming there are exceptions for military reservations <g>)
>
> Federal law trumps State law.
Not really. Federal law is superior in matters of federal jurisdiction,
which provided by the Constitution. All other matters are state
jurisdiction and when it's state jurisdiction, state law is superior to
federal law.
BTR1701
"FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Those aren't conservatives. I don't know what they are but they stopped
being conservative a long time ago.
BTR1701
"FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Stop being passive-aggressive and actually put forth an argument if you
believe I'm wrong.
FDR
My comment was that you sounded like something Spinal Tap would say. No
more, no less.
FDR
I guess conservatism is a fringe group nowadays.
FDR
Yeah but the Feds are always passing new laws to catch up to the states.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Nope, though some state laws are observed on military reservations,
there is no legal obligation to do so.
Some examples:
State sales taxes are not collected by the PX or PX gas stations.
State drinking age laws are usually observered by the clubs.
Crimes are usually prosecuted under military or federal law.
Now, if you were talking about law in general, as opposed to military
reservations, which was the topic, then your statement is true.
mc
> On Jul 21, 12:14 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Edna Turnbladder wrote:
> > >http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/07/21/2007-07-21_travolta_sues...
>
> > > Travolta sues airport for lying to FAA
>
> > > The Grease star sues owners of airport near his home in Florida
>
> > > BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> > > Saturday, July 21st 2007
>
> > > OCALA, Fla. - John Travolta sued the owners of the airport outside his
> > > exclusive "fly-in" community, claiming they lied to the Federal
> > > Aviation Administration to keep him from landing his Boeing 707 there.
>
> > > In the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, the actor claims Greystone
> > > Airport owners James and Christine Garemore falsely changed the
> > > airport master record in 2006 to indicate that it could not support
> > > large airplanes.
>
> > > Travolta has a home at the Jumbolair Aviation Estates in Ocala and
> > > wanted to fly his Boeing 707 there. It is an affluent, 550-acre
> > > community with a $6 million runway - the largest paved, private
> > > airfield in the United States.
>
> > > The lawsuit is seeking an injunction requiring the Garemores to
> > > immediately withdraw the 2006 report and authorize flights with the
> > > airport master record as it existed before. It also seeks to nullify
> > > the report because of false or misleading information to the FAA and
> > > to prohibit "future baseless filings."
>
> > > "The runway is not suitable for heavy aircraft. It is cracking and
> > > breaking," James Garemore told The Associated Press on Friday. "They
> > > are bringing this lawsuit against me, and all I was doing was trying
> > > to maintain safety here."
>
> > > Todd Hopson, Garemore's attorney, said his client never stopped
> > > Travolta from landing on the 7,550-foot runway.
>
> > > Michael J. McDermott, Travolta's attorney, said Garemore's comments
> > > about the runway not being safe for large airplanes is incorrect.
>
> > > "It's spin in order to cover his butt because he knows that he is in
> > > big trouble for doing what he did, and we intend to establish that,"
> > > McDermott said.
>
> > > The lawsuit was filed under the corporations Jett Clipper Johnny and
> > > Constellation and as Ellen Bannon and Margaret Rau, who are trustees
> > > of Hawker Investment Trust, the titled property owner for Travolta's
> > > nine-acre spread near Jumbolair.
>
> > > The Garemores established Greystone Airport in the 1980s, and
> > > Jumbolair was founded by exercise equipment guru Arthur Jones. The
> > > Garemores built the main runway to accommodate Jones' 707s, but his
> > > flights were not as frequent as Travolta's and did not deteriorate the
> > > runway as much, Garemore said.
>
> > > runway without incident, the lawsuit said. It also claims Travolta was
> > > assured he would be able to use the airport.
>
> > > FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the administration is not involved in
> > > the dispute.
>
> > Typical elitist scenario and the usual lawyer bull crap dotting the i's
> > and crossing the t's for a rich client to nail some poor slob who has
> > caused "disfavor".
> > Using the law, they will unfortunately probably win against the FBO.
> > Outside the law however, there is most likely a real concern by the FBO
> > for the condition of their runway if being used consistantly by a heavy
> > aircraft whose owner doesn't have to pay for the runway damage and
> > maintainence his airplane very well might cause.
> > All in all, regardless of whether he wins or loses, I see this as a very
> > bad move for Travolta. He obviously enjoys being in aviation, and doing
> > this in the manner it's being done won't bode him well in the aviation
> > community, where FBO's are fighting for their very existence against a
> > system and circumstances that are hard enough as they are without Mr.
> > Travolta making them any harder.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> No kidding...stf up Travolting and agree to chip in to cover damages
> caused by your over-sized environment rat. I can't wait for someone to
> out this creep with photos of him getting it up the butt! That's the
> only thing I want to hear about him in the news.
>
> Billie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right with ya Billie! I've had the popcorn ready for like EVER.
mc
mc
C Gattman
> It's spectacularly egotistical for mankind to believe it can really do
> anything to "hurt the planet".
Nope. If you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, if you choose to
feed your kids nicotene and methamphetamines and mercury, launch global
nuclear war or contaminate your breathing supply you're not going to "hurt
the planet." That doesn't mean any of them are a good idea.
>Even if we launched a nuclear holocaust, the planet would bounce back just
>fine in a million or so years.
Well, sheeeeeeeyiiit, hoss. Why didn't anybody say something? Let's have a
nuclear holocaust. We'll be fine in a million or so years.
-c
C Gattman
"FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46a3984e$0$31211$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> You are also not a gigantic hunk of rock. If I go out and split a rock
>> in two, have I hurt that rock? No. It's a rock.
>>
>> The planet is just a bigger rock.
>
> Spinal Tap couldn't have said it any better.
"He drowned in vomit.
"They can't actually prove it was -his- vomit--"
"...they can't dust for vomit."
It's like saying you shouldn't have to worry about starting a car in your
garage with the garage doors closed because you can't hurt the concrete
floor. It's okay to sniff paint because it doesn't harm the can.
-c
C Gattman
"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:210720072334132965%in...@localnet.com...
race?
>
> Well, that's something different. The planet itself doesn't care if we
> survive or not, and unless we blow the entire thing up it will survive
> anything we do even if humanity doesn't...
Stones are inanimate. Thanks for clearing that up.
-c
C Gattman
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Far less than a million years. The worst effects would last only a few
>> decades at the very most, and the ecosystem would recover completely in a
>> century or less. Essentially the planet wouldn't notice at all. Nothing
>> human beings do ever makes any dent on the planet. The biggest mistake
>> human
>> beings make in predicting the future of the planet is usually enormous
>> overestimation of their own importance therein.
>
> Well said.
*snicker*
There's a whole bunch of folks on rec.aviation.piloting laughing right now.
-c
C Gattman
> The liberals, obviously. Where have you been?
>
> It's their self-appointed job not only to tell people like Travolta the
> maximum appropriate size of their planes
Actually, no liberal has presumed to tell Travolta the "maximum appropriate
size" of his airplane. Why do you people have to lie to support your
arguments?
If it wasn't a lie, tell us which "liberal" is telling people what the
maximum appropriate aize of their plane is.
> but also to tell you and me what kind of car is appropriate to drive,
Nobody's stopping you from buying a Hummer or commuting in a Freightliner if
you want. Stop whining and, above all, stop lying.
-c
C Gattman
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:kee4a3tqkra2n6r7r...@4ax.com...
>>Typical elitist scenario and the usual lawyer bull crap dotting the i's
>>and crossing the t's for a rich client to nail some poor slob who has
>>caused "disfavor".
>
> How can you possibly reach that conclusion without knowing the current
> condition of the runway?
Maybe he takes the FBO operator's word as credible? Given that, you know,
the FBO is the most familiar with the runway?
-c
C Gattman
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:L_KdnfOEEdoToD_b...@rcn.net...
> I'm not reaching a conclusion, only an opinion. I base this opinion on
> what appears to be a private party initiating litigation against an FBO
> who made a decision about his runway based on HIS best assessment of the
> prevailing conditions of that runway as those conditions relate to the
> complainant's aircraft;
In other words, he put safety first.
The Travolta example seems to be that if somebody thinks that something is
unsafe, unleash your (Scientologist) lawyers on them. Once the lawyers have
sued the FBO into oblivion, the runway will be perfectly safe.
I'm not gonna hope that Travolta's nosewheel punches a hole through the
tarmac and collapses but if it does, he has it coming. 'Course, he's a
Scientologist from LA which means he'll sue the FBO (and probably Boeing,
and the FAA, and me...)
-c
C Gattman
"Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:8otoi.299$aj...@newsfe12.lga...
>> I'd be pretty damn mad if I bought property on an airport, flew for five
>> years,
>> then was told I couldn't fly from there anymore....
>
> Especially with all of the improvements and money he has spent on the
> property.
Has he spent any on the runway?
Or should the guys flying Cessnas, Mooneys and Pipers take up that
responsibility?
-c
C Gattman
> Are you able to provide any supporting evidence for your assertion,
> that the airport owner's assessment is reasonable and rational? Are
> you able to provide any _INFORMATION_ about this issue at all?
What is this, everybody? An inquest? A trial? Somebody defending a
thesis here? We're exchanging OPINIONS here.
Settle down.
-c
C Gattman
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.210c74d79...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> Otherwise, the 'Church' of Scientology would be out of business.
Any guess where he gathered his pool of lawyers?
Having a little experience seeing legal threats from Scientology myself
(threatening to sue me if I didn't block a user for posting his criticism of
scientology on the usenet, for example) it wouldn't surprise me at all of
the runway has nothing to do with it. The FBO could have simply badmouthed
Scientology and the entire case could be orchestrated payback. I'm very
serious.
-c
C Gattman
> In article <sqq5a3h7tbg83fva3...@4ax.com>,
>The goon actually hinted that physical harm would come to us if we didn't
>turn around and leave.
> Imagine his surprise when I reached into my pocket, showed him my badge,
> and told him that if he laid a finger on me,
Sir, I'm high-fiving you on behalf of the free world!
F'cking GLORIOUS!
-c
Mxsmanic
> There's a whole bunch of folks on rec.aviation.piloting laughing right now.
That's one of the other mistakes that many human beings make.
Mxsmanic
> It didn't matter to him when I cited California law that makes the
> beaches public property up to the high tide line and no individual
> property owner can close off access. The goon actually hinted that
> physical harm would come to us if we didn't turn around and leave.
> Imagine his surprise when I reached into my pocket, showed him my badge,
> and told him that if he laid a finger on me, he could expect to be
> spending the weekend in lockup facing several felony charges and his
> employer under a microscope for hiring people to assault citizens on the
> beach. Then we walked right on past him across his master's pretty
> beach. We even took the time to linger for a while and enjoy the view.
Sounds like his master isn't very good at screening his employees.
> Gotta love putting assholes like that in their place.
It provides important balance.