0
stratostar

Longmont City Council will take up skydiving noise

Recommended Posts

normiss

I would expect 0 and 2 are not a good record to get a case heard at that level, send it back down!



Nothing controversial, no conflicting case law, not even any dissents at the appellate level.

"I don't like the ruling" is not a valid reason for a State Supreme Court to hear a case.

I'd really like the SC to return it with a "don't waste our time with this" sort of response, but it's most likely going to be a simple refusal with no reasons given.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool

I've got a nice crispy new twenty dollar bill that says The CO Supreme Court doesn't even take this case. I just hope for Mile High's sake, the Fat Lady is warming up....
B|



So......if the SC does take the case, are you going to give the 20 to CQS? :$
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool

Are you taking this bet? ;)

I'll gladly send it to Mile High. B|



I only bet when winning is certain......

But, if you are certain, you'd pledge the 20 to Kimmy.

After all, where's the risk if you're never gonna have to pay her out? ;)
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Even in winning, the company should seriously consider investing further in its planes to equip them in such a way that they would make less noise. Other than drastically reducing the number of flights and jumps, this is the one concrete suggestion that has been made for possibly improving the situation."

Yes maybe they can swap out the turbine engines for ION drives. :S

The author had a pretty reasonable stance up until that point.
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DougH

"Even in winning, the company should seriously consider investing further in its planes to equip them in such a way that they would make less noise. Other than drastically reducing the number of flights and jumps, this is the one concrete suggestion that has been made for possibly improving the situation."

Yes maybe they can swap out the turbine engines for ION drives. :S

The author had a pretty reasonable stance up until that point.



Sounds like the author got sucked into a Gibb's argument.
One of her (many) demands was that all the turbo-prop a/c must be equipped with 4-blade props, and not 3-blade props. I'm guessing she got this from marketing materials from companies wanting to sell 4-blade prop conversions. (They also claim fuel savings). I don't know whether a 4-blade prop really makes that much difference in noise, nor do I know whether it is even a viable option for the specific a/c MHS owns.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DougH


The author had a pretty reasonable stance up until that point.



That was my thought exactly. This is probably the most well written, even keeled, unbiased thing I've seen in that rag..... until that point.

All the author had to do is include what CFQS's should do to help mend fences. .....like, pay up and shut up!!:o
Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder



Sounds like the author got sucked into a Gibb's argument.
One of her (many) demands was that all the turbo-prop a/c must be equipped with 4-blade props, and not 3-blade props. I'm guessing she got this from marketing materials from companies wanting to sell 4-blade prop conversions. (They also claim fuel savings). I don't know whether a 4-blade prop really makes that much difference in noise, nor do I know whether it is even a viable option for the specific a/c MHS owns.



As I recall, some company makes a prop conversion for otters, but it's either not for the otter Mile Hi is flying, or the FAA hasn't approved it for the otter Mile Hi is flying.

They haven't flown the otter for the past couple of months anyway, for unspecified reasons. As I recall, something like 70% of the traffic from that airport is as loud as or louder than the otter. Several stunt fliers fly out of there, and there are a couple of other planes (Including a jet or two) that regularly go over my house that are much louder. Getting rid of the dropzone won't end the complaints about noise at the airport, it'll just get rid of an important economic driver in Longmont.
I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder

Petition for Certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court, dated 2017-03-02: http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Petition-for-Certiorari-3.2.17.pdf
:S



20170322 Mile-Hi Opposition to Cert: http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170322-Mile-Hi-Opposition-to-Cert.pdf

20170323 CQS Reply in Support of Cert Petition (final): http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170323-CQS-Reply-in-Support-of-Cert-Petition-final.pdf
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mirage62

Great.... I read both and still don't really understand. In layman terms is this the argument for why CQS shouldn't have to pay - or is this heading to another appeal?



In layman's terms*, it's a pretty good indication that CQS and those that run it are no longer fully in contact with "reality."

And are likely going to have to pay more of Mile Hi's attorney fees.

In very simple terms, an appeal has to correct errors from the original trial. That's it.

It's not a new trial, although an appeals court can order a new trial.

No new evidence, no new arguments, nothing like that.

CQS has to show where the original judge either did something she shouldn't have, or didn't do something she should have. And the would have had to have objected during trial and had those objections overruled.

During the trial, the judge basically bent over backwards to accommodate CQS. She did things that, had CQS won, Mile Hi could have likely won appeals on.

I was a bit disturbed by her rulings and decisions during the trial. It looked almost like she was unfairly favoring CQS. When she ruled that every single one of CQS's claims was without merit, it then looked like she chose to give CQS every break, so that the ruling against them would have a better chance of holding up under appeal.

And if that was her intention, it worked. NONE of the points CQS tried to appeal were validated. The appeals court pretty much said "No." The one issue sent back was a 'technicality', and was part of the ruling about Mile Hi's attorney fees, not the main case. Every aspect of the main case that the judge found was upheld on appeal.

Mile Hi's petition basically says that CQS's appeal is crap. They are trying to introduce new evidence, invalid evidence (journalists aren't legislators or judges) and are simply drawing this process out as long as possible. Perhaps because they can't stand losing, perhaps because they want to bleed Mile Hi for as much money as possible.

In any case, the appeal is not likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. There's not really any reason for them to hear it.

And Mile Hi is likely to be awarded more attorney fees for the "frivolous" appeal.

*Note* - I'm not an attorney, and if one of the folks on here who is (DPREguy for one) says I'm wrong about part of this, then it's likely that I am. But this is my understanding of it.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This sentence gave me a WTF moment:

"Ongoing delay tactics only serve to ratchet up the stakes and further erode public support for aviation. "

WTF? Delay tactics? I'm sure Mile Hi would like this settled as soon as possible!
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've got a nice crispy new twenty dollar bill that says The CO Supreme Court doesn't even take this case. I just hope for Mile High's sake, the Fat Lady is warming up....



No matter. If the CO Supreme Court does not take the case, she goes to a Federal Lawsuit. If the CO Supreme Court takes the case and rules against her, she'll still "take it federal."

Some people just have to piss on the electric fence and once is enough. And then there are some people who piss on it constantly in order to disable the fence in spite of sustaining the incessant shocks. Oh well.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog



No matter. If the CO Supreme Court does not take the case, she goes to a Federal Lawsuit. If the CO Supreme Court takes the case and rules against her, she'll still "take it federal."



Would she not need some quite significant funding for this? Is there no calling time on her for wasting other people's time and money?
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've said this before in this thread and I'll say it again. This is not about her being bothered by an airplane. This is about a leftist using the government to destroy a legitimate business. Her and all of her supporters are far left wing activists.

This is really a fight about free market capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0