Tom_Waarne
I guess they’re all crawling out of the woodwork now…
I guess they’re all crawling out of the woodwork now…
Yup. 100% as predicted.
Iceberg says he has a chronic illness that makes him more vulnerable to the health impacts of those who “fly around in a little airplane for fun.”
And AVweb gives the attorneys the document to copy and paste from.
One could see the absurdity of such a lawsuit and wonder just about when the first drone operator causes a Loss of life accident and sues the estate of the pilot for a new drone. Can’t make this stuff up folks! This getting mighty silly…
Welcome to America 2025.
They should never have built that stinking airport so close to his apartment…oh, wait it was the other way around. Apartment usually means transient living, not long term, so I imagine he is probably fairly new to the “hood”. So why did he move there? If it were me and those planes were causing me PTSD, I would move again.
The end is nigh… the world endeth not with a bang, but with frivolous lawsuits.
That is why we need a “losing party pays” system.
The carve out allowing 100LL (50% less TEL than 100/130) is a non issue unless you are a unhappy type looking to be a nuisance.
It is unfortunate that these types of frivolous lawsuits are made. But as they say, you can be sued for anything.
Interesting that in the list of documents the plaintiff requests, aircraft and pilot flight logs are not included. Seems like those would be helpful in proving the defendant flies over the apartment up to 100 times per day.
1 reply
What’s next? Is he going to sue the owners of classic cars that drive by his apartment, on their way to the car shows? Those cars don’t have any emission controls, many run lead substitutes, and a great deal of them run loud exhaust systems. I guess crying back to mommy and or moving back into her basement, isn’t an option?
Correct. It is indeed unfortunate that these kinds of lawsuits are made. However, let’s not let our heads explode over a poorly written complaint filled with silly, sophomoric comments and generally devoid of real facts. “He chooses to fly over me?” “He likes lead?” Wow.
What is truly a shame is not where this suit is going (probably nowhere), but what the defendant now has to do to defend against this travesty. He will have to answer the complaint by hiring an attorney. A good attorney should be able to have this thrown out on it’s merit (or lack of) or just answer with demands for more information, etc. Sort of like what the plaintiff demanded with his silly request for irrelevant documents while ignoring more salient information. I’m not an attorney, but isn’t there a burden on the plaintiff to prove how he was harmed other than “it makes me nervous?”
Boy, do we need tort reform.
1 reply
Iceberg should start worrying more about whether people are going to eat his lettuce rather than this airplane lawsuit
I think he has lead in the head. But seriously, any judge with a conscience should throw this out of court.
If there is unleaded fuel of any type at KAWO, or anywhere else in Washington other than Grove Field, I’ve never found it.
And he’s representing himself? A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Okay all you closet aviation climate warriors, tell us how he is correct in suing the airport. This guy is clearly looking for a payday. Like the lawyer in our area that bought himself a wheelchair and took it to local businesses. If he couldn’t get 100% of everywhere he sued the business on behalf of disabled people.
These two are cut from the same cloth.
And this is not a case for more rapid development of electric aircraft, this is a case for the return of common sense.
What is crawling out of the woodwork now are a number of whining Kehoe Principle followers.
Has anyone availed themselves of the various privacy options for ADS-B and had some experience they can relate? Obviously this guy was sitting on Flightaware looking for who was flying overhead “thousands of times per year” given one of his exhibits is a screenshot. I know there’s a couple of options including PIA and LADD (I love acronyms). Any experiences?
I think it’s time for a local pilot group to reach out and help this poor man. I suggest that they gather up a sufficient quantity of heavy tarps and weather-sealant, and cover all the openings to his apartment through which the deadly lead could seep. In a few days, everyone’s problems will go away.
I have an airplane with a STC upgrade to an O-360 as well. As i understand it I am not permitted to apply for an STC to run Mogas or other alternative fuels (even if I wanted to) since that would be stacking one STC on top of another.
Someone should invite him to go out and ride around in a little airplane for fun.
1 reply
Hopefully, there is an attorney in the area who is also a pilot that will volunteer to defend the pilot pro bono to spare him the expense of fighting this idiotic suit. Also, AOPA needs to file an amicus curae (friend of the court) brief to help put a stop to this type of tactic. Better still, the FAA needs to step in and inform the (state) court that they have no jurisdiction over the matter since fuel specifications and STC requirements dictate that the pilot is in compliance with FEDERAL laws in using 100LL. The biggest problem with this type of legal action is not that you cannot easily defeat it, but that one has to spend their own money and time to even address it.
Unfortunately, I think we all know where this is headed. GAMI had better get busy making more G100UL.
I have to respectfully disagree, Carl. Although his track record is worth a mention, lead lawsuits are being filed elsewhere, too and they play into the whole issue of transitioning to unleaded fuel. Definitely newsworthy. Russ
Sad fact is the USA banned lead in gasoline in 1996 because it is a poison.
A kid born in 1996 has had enough time to go to school, then two universities and qualify as a doctor – and work for years to be on the middle rung of a career by now.
Most people, and dare I say most courts, do not understand why aircraft should be exempt from a lead ban, after all this time.
I don’t think I’d want someone who suffers from panic attacks in my airplane.
As one who flies around 200 hours a year, and hasn’t burned a drop of avgas in 18 years, (I fly a Rotax, which actually prefers mogas) I am somewhat out of the picture, BUT, I am somewhat surprised it’s taken this long for these kinds of BS lawsuits about “spewing lead” to raise their head. To be clear, I’m on the lead spewing side! As in, not enough to matter or quantify, but it does seem like an easy target for the enviro wackos.
I have many patients who are afraid of their own shadows. Their waking thoughts are dominated by panic and anger. I’m glad this guy is not my patient.
Sorry, I did not answer the call. I figure every call I get is a scam. In 2025, I’m mostly right.
It’s inherently stupid for any pilot to expose himself and others to lead. In Washington, it’s a nuisance, or it will be, when I get done.
We have known for thousands of years that lead is a scourge. You pilots in your little silly stupid aircraft deposit 600 tons of lead into the air each year. That’s inherently psychopathic.
See you in court. =)
2 replies
Looks like Mr. Scott Superhero Iceberg has had unintended side-effects from some sort of medication mismatch or other psychological/ medical hiccup.
Screenshots have been secured for legal purposes.
It may be prudent to secure IP data prior to deleting these comments - thats great support for defending attorney and demonstrates that plaintiff has obviously lost control over his emotions or may experience signs of limited mental capacity.
Lets see where this goes. 
Take a look at your local airport’s noise complaints, if they publish them. You’ll find a few people in those rolls who would do things like this if they knew how/knew it was possible. Years ago I remember looking through the complaints for an airport that was local to me at the time and seeing two names repeatedly in there, making multiple complaints per day, every day. Both in areas that were built long after the airport was.
Arlington’s weather this weekend looks cold calm and clear. Great conditions for a Fly-In! There’s lots to do there and it’s a nice field. I suggest an AVweb gathering of solidarity! It would be nice to meet you guys and this is a great opportunity.
These aircraft are using FAA approved fuel. Period. Full stop.
Don’t like it? Take it up with the FAA.
1 reply
Like to add that it’s ASTM approved fuel besides.
I’m sympathetic, but your lawsuit ought to get thrown out of court due to lack of standing. You can’t just sue anyone who flies over your home. You don’t own the sky.
Many of us pilots don’t like the lead either, but it’s all we have for now. Companies like GAMI and Swift are fighting immense resistance to try and eliminate leaded aviation gasoline. You might think you’re helping, but you’re not.
I do remember the lawsuits. They killed small aircraft production. I wonder how this complainant can prove that the 100LL caused his conditions? Also I would imagine the proportion of lead in the air, even around an airport, is miniscule. Addtioinaly, Cessna has not approved any planes to run on unleaded yet, as far as I know, because they are still in the testing phase. I would be more concerned about the aromatics that go into aviation gas than lead. right about now.
Why did he single out this one operator? 4 guys with a partnership hardly fly as much as a charter op or flight school.
Oh well. Anther frivilous law suit it appears. Trouble is, all the angst and level costs to fight something like this, only to ultimately get a judgment against the complainant.