Another Lead (and noise) lawsuit - KAWO Arlington, WA

[Igor_U]

 

Avweb is reporting on some neighbor of Arlington Airport WA suing owner of C172 for flying and "spreading" lead. He wants lead emissions from aircraft stopped...

More details: 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airport-neighbour-cites-lead-pollution-in-suit/?MailingID=FLY250120003&utm_campaign=avwebflash&utm_medium=newsletter&oly_enc_id=6133D2714401E4Z

 

This is in my neck of woods and I've been flying occasional approach or two to KAWO. Not sure what's next. It could be anyone. Crazy

 

[Aaviationist]

That guy files at least 3 frivolous lawsuits a year. I wouldn’t worry about this one. 
 

if I were the defendant I’d be counter suing for anything related to filing a frivolous lawsuit citing all of his other frivolous suits that have been dismissed. 

Edited Monday at 04:57 PM by Aaviationist

[Rwsavory]

Some people just enjoy filing lawsuits. 
 

https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-king-cnty-superior-court-1

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-waed-2_22-cv-00332/USCOURTS-waed-2_22-cv-00332-0

https://trellis.law/case/53061/24-2-08710-31/scott-iceberg-vs-grandview-management-services-inc

https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/iceberg-v-martin-case-885597779

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51609048/Iceberg_v_Brookstone_Landscape__Design_LLC_et_al

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20210426j05

 

[Ragsf15e]

31 minutes ago, Rwsavory said:

Some people just enjoy filing lawsuits. 
 

https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-king-cnty-superior-court-1

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-waed-2_22-cv-00332/USCOURTS-waed-2_22-cv-00332-0

https://trellis.law/case/53061/24-2-08710-31/scott-iceberg-vs-grandview-management-services-inc

https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/iceberg-v-martin-case-885597779

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51609048/Iceberg_v_Brookstone_Landscape__Design_LLC_et_al

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20210426j05

 

That guy’s probably a great neighbor and a hoot at parties.

[Aaviationist]

1 hour ago, Rwsavory said:

Some people just enjoy filing lawsuits. 
 

https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-king-cnty-superior-court-1

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-waed-2_22-cv-00332/USCOURTS-waed-2_22-cv-00332-0

https://trellis.law/case/53061/24-2-08710-31/scott-iceberg-vs-grandview-management-services-inc

https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/iceberg-v-martin-case-885597779

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51609048/Iceberg_v_Brookstone_Landscape__Design_LLC_et_al

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20210426j05

 

That’s not even all of them. 
 

Again. I don’t think this is going to be an issue. 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

That guy’s probably a great neighbor and a hoot at parties.

Maybe this guy?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Px-YZ_N2Tg

 

[GeeBee]

You can complain, impugn him. He is indeed a serial litigant. However, if you read those cites, he is sustaining some complaints even though he is a "per se" litigant and worse he is extracting concessions from the defendants. You can say, "without merit", "stupid" etc but what about the poor aircraft owners he named in this actions? Can they blow it off like you and say "without merit"? Nope. Unless they or you want a default judgement entered against them or you, they got to go pay a lawyer and answer and defend the suit to the point the judge says "without merit". "Without merit" comes with a hefty price tag for a defendant.  With lead emissions, good luck on that. The filing of this suit should disturb all of us.

 

[Hank]

3 hours ago, Rwsavory said:

Some people just enjoy filing lawsuits. 
 

https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-king-cnty-superior-court-1

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-waed-2_22-cv-00332/USCOURTS-waed-2_22-cv-00332-0

https://trellis.law/case/53061/24-2-08710-31/scott-iceberg-vs-grandview-management-services-inc

https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/iceberg-v-martin-case-885597779

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51609048/Iceberg_v_Brookstone_Landscape__Design_LLC_et_al

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20210426j05

 

In WV, anyone with $35 can file a lawsuit against anyone, for any reason. 

[kerry]

I wonder if the AOPA legal plan will defend you in this kind of lawsuit.

[redbaron1982]

I know nothing about lawsuits or laws, I'm an Engineer and I want to stay away from courts as much as possible.

My question is, reading at the claims made by the plaintiff, it looks like that is *very* easy to win for the defendant, I wouldn't even hire a lawyer. I would reply, item by item, with my own knowledge. For instance, the plaintiff claims that the defendant, on purpose, flew circles over his home but looking at the ADSB data is clear that it's just regular traffic patterns. The same goes for flying at an altitude lower than 1000ft, it's clear that the pilot was in the landing or taking off part, which allows for altitudes lower than 1000ft AGL.

You can make the same statements for using lead fuel. G100LL is only available at a very reduced of airports, it has an ongoing investigation from the FAA regarding material compatibility, and requires a major modification to the aircraft (STC). I know, the STC is just placards, but technically, and STC implies major modification.

And I can keep going, some of the claims are merely opinions, such as "the pilot and operator doesn't care about people", that you can easily make your case that those are opinions and not facts.

Am I completely wrong?

[ArtVandelay]

I know nothing about lawsuits or laws, I'm an Engineer and I want to stay away from courts as much as possible.
My question is, reading at the claims made by the plaintiff, it looks like that is *very* easy to win for the defendant, I wouldn't even hire a lawyer. I would reply, item by item, with my own knowledge. For instance, the plaintiff claims that the defendant, on purpose, flew circles over his home but looking at the ADSB data is clear that it's just regular traffic patterns. The same goes for flying at an altitude lower than 1000ft, it's clear that the pilot was in the landing or taking off part, which allows for altitudes lower than 1000ft AGL.
You can make the same statements for using lead fuel. G100LL is only available at a very reduced of airports, it has an ongoing investigation from the FAA regarding material compatibility, and requires a major modification to the aircraft (STC). I know, the STC is just placards, but technically, and STC implies major modification.
And I can keep going, some of the claims are merely opinions, such as "the pilot and operator doesn't care about people", that you can easily make your case that those are opinions and not facts.
Am I completely wrong?

You’re assuming it’s about the facts, the jury pool will probably hate the airport too. I can see it now, the slick lawyer during summation, “lead is harming the children and these 1%ers are literally poisoning them with their toys….”

[MikeOH]

45 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

You’re assuming it’s about the facts, the jury pool will probably hate the airport too. I can see it now, the slick lawyer during summation, “lead is harming the children and these 1%ers are literally poisoning them with their toys….”

If it makes it to trial.

I'd respond just like @redbaron1982 suggested in a motion to dismiss.  But, yeah, if that fails and it goes to trial it's going to cost big bucks to defend with a real lawyer and the outcome could be bad

I suspect this scumball lives off getting people to 'settle' versus the risk and cost of lawyers and a trial.

I've often wondered what it would take to prove some kind of pattern of "harassment suits" against people like this guy, and sue him!

[1980Mooney]

I think everyone has missed the bigger issue here. This is the classic problem of city sprawl and encroachment upon an airport.  KAWO was built during WWII as a reliever airport for Seattle to the south and for military training.  It was located about a mile southwest of the city of Arlington, WA built on unused or farm land at the time.  Even by the mind 60's there was not much near the airport.  There was growth in the 70's and beyond.  But the urban growth around the airport has really taken off on the last few years.  The largest Amazon Fulfilment Center in the State of Washington was built literally across the street from the airport.  It was opened last year and employs 2,500 drawing a lot of people to the area.  The 5 story apartment building where the plaintiff lives was built in the last couple years at the same time as the new Amazon center development.  Even the Google satellite and "Street Level" pics are behind don't show the explosive growth.  I bet every scrap of land around the airport will be built up in the next few more years for both residential and commercial.  The land upon which the airport sits will become more and more valuable for commercial development and less valuable as an airport.

The runway patterns, which were once over nothing but farmland, pasture and forest are increasingly over congested area.  If it isn't this lawsuit it will be something else.  What might happen?

• The City might displace the thresholds to keep the patterns closer within the airport perimeter.  Of course that will reduce the usefulness of the airport.
• All the newcomers are also voters. I could be wrong but I bet few of the newcomers are interested in aviation as a hobby.  Support and funding for the airport may decline.

1966

Mapquest Satellite - 2023

Edited Wednesday at 05:59 PM by 1980Mooney

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

This is the classic problem of city sprawl and encroachment upon an airport.

Yes, and this same problem impacts pig farms, gun ranges, racetracks, and the like.  I've been talking with friends about this a lot lately due to similar attacks on airports/operators in our own metro area.  The bottom line is that, for better or worse, a large contingent of the population wants to live (and work) just far enough outside downtown to be "country", but not so far that it's more than a short drive to the grocery store, the doctor, etc.  The sweet spot where you can do that spreads out every 5-10 years in any town or city that's not actively dying.  So until the population collapses and/or literally all the land in the country is developed, airports and things like them are always, eventually going to be at risk from suburbanites.

To keep your airport, you've got to convince the population growing around it that it benefits them, at least indirectly.  The good news is, that's easier to do that with an airport than it is with a racetrack or gun range.  The bad news is, as a group, pilots are pretty terrible at it.  Far too much time and energy is wasted on pointless whining that, "The airport was here first".  The reason this argument is dumb is that it's easily defeated - the pendulum will swing as soon as some reasonably intelligent person argues, "Yes, we agree the airport was here first, but the majority of our citizens don't care.  Just because our community wanted an airport in the 1950s doesn't mean we want one now.  Let's talk about the future, not the past, and that future is best for our citizens if the airport is closed."  If you want to beat that, you've got to focus on why the airport benefits the town, not on childish prior possession arguments that just enrage the public and provide fodder for politicians.

[1980Mooney]

20 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

Yes, and this same problem impacts pig farms, gun ranges, racetracks, and the like.  I've been talking with friends about this a lot lately due to similar attacks on airports/operators in our own metro area.  The bottom line is that, for better or worse, a large contingent of the population wants to live (and work) just far enough outside downtown to be "country", but not so far that it's more than a short drive to the grocery store, the doctor, etc.  The sweet spot where you can do that spreads out every 5-10 years in any town or city that's not actively dying.  So until the population collapses and/or literally all the land in the country is developed, airports and things like them are always, eventually going to be at risk from suburbanites.

To keep your airport, you've got to convince the population growing around it that it benefits them, at least indirectly.  The good news is, that's easier to do that with an airport than it is with a racetrack or gun range.  The bad news is, as a group, pilots are pretty terrible at it.  Far too much time and energy is wasted on pointless whining that, "The airport was here first".  The reason this argument is dumb is that it's easily defeated - the pendulum will swing as soon as some reasonably intelligent person argues, "Yes, we agree the airport was here first, but the majority of our citizens don't care.  Just because our community wanted an airport in the 1950s doesn't mean we want one now.  Let's talk about the future, not the past, and that future is best for our citizens if the airport is closed."  If you want to beat that, you've got to focus on why the airport benefits the town, not on childish prior possession arguments that just enrages the public and provide fodder for politicians.

I have said it before, but Bill Cutter, who founded Cutter Aviation, originally made his money by building airports in or near Albuquerque city limits and then selling them to residential developers as the city grew.  He was "there first" because he knew the land was not worth much at the time, but he could make money by flipping the airport as the land value grew.  Yet we as plane owners want to fight this obvious fact of urban development.

And yes I used to target practice outdoors within the city limits of Albuquerque in the early '60s.  We used arroyos.  New homes moved closer and closer to our favorite shooting spots.  Of course careless shooters ruined it for everyone with stray shots hitting peoples' homes or cars. 

[Scott Iceberg]

Haha. You boys aren't too bright. I'm guessing it's result of long term lead exposure, and resulting cognitive dysfunction.

I do love all the attention. See ya in court, boys.

[aviatoreb]

Wasnt there a law in the 1920s or something that cleared air space above a private property as not owned by the owner of the terra firma property - which without it - it would have been impossible to have air travel?  That law seems relevant here.

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Wasnt there a law in the 1920s or something that cleared air space above a private property as not owned by the owner of the terra firma property - which without it - it would have been impossible to have air travel?  That law seems relevant here.

Yes, the federal government seized ownership without providing any compensation or consideration for the historic owners of the airspace. However, the federal government didn’t get a free pass. In exchange, the federal government became responsible for regulating activities in that airspace that may have a deleterious affect upon the health safety, and the welfare for those on the ground. That same federal government has acknowledged that lead is a known hazard to human health.  
 

 

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

I have always joked that one reason I will never get a divorce is that hitmen are cheaper than lawyers.  At some point, someone may find that fitting here, too.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

I have always joked that one reason I will never get a divorce is that hitmen are cheaper than lawyers.  At some point, someone may find that fitting here, too.

Yeah - unfortunately as pilot/owners we always think that here is just one "target" out there trying to interfere with our lifestyle.  Maybe because there is only one "target" sticking his head up that day.  We forget that we are the "1/10 of 1%" out there.  Let's just hope they don't start hiring someone to shoot at us.

Student pilot finds bullet holes in wing, fuel tank after landing plane at Massachusetts airport – KIRO 7 News Seattle

[MikeOH]

Nothin' wrong with a good game of whack-a-mole

[Aaviationist]

On 1/22/2025 at 4:07 PM, Scott Iceberg said:

Haha. You boys aren't too bright. I'm guessing it's result of long term lead exposure, and resulting cognitive dysfunction.

I do love all the attention. See ya in court, boys.

The only attention your getting is that that proves you belong in the looney bin. 

[aviatoreb]

6 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Yes, the federal government seized ownership without providing any compensation or consideration for the historic owners of the airspace. However, the federal government didn’t get a free pass. In exchange, the federal government became responsible for regulating activities in that airspace that may have a deleterious affect upon the health safety, and the welfare for those on the ground. That same federal government has acknowledged that lead is a known hazard to human health.  
 

 

So we agree.  That law that I cited has sway in this case.

In the United States, the 1946 Supreme Court decision United States v. Causby overturned the common law doctrine that private property rights extend indefinitely upwards, instead ruling that they end 300 feet above the highest terrain (including buildings), the lower limit of the "public highway" defined by Congress in the Air Commerce Act of 1926.

Whether we agree or not that is the law.  My thought is, why is this law not nullifying this law suit immediately?

[redbaron1982]

7 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

So we agree.  That law that I cited has sway in this case.

In the United States, the 1946 Supreme Court decision United States v. Causby overturned the common law doctrine that private property rights extend indefinitely upwards, instead ruling that they end 300 feet above the highest terrain (including buildings), the lower limit of the "public highway" defined by Congress in the Air Commerce Act of 1926.

Whether we agree or not that is the law.  My thought is, why is this law not nullifying this law suit immediately?

So can I shoot down a drone that's lower than 300ft?

From time to time we get roofing companies here with drones flying 20ft above my home taking pictures. 

[aviatoreb]

32 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

So can I shoot down a drone that's lower than 300ft?

From time to time we get roofing companies here with drones flying 20ft above my home taking pictures. 

Sounds fine to me.