Lead Lawsuit Targets Expect $10,000 Legal Bill, Launch GoFundMe

The four partners in a Cessna 172 being sued over the lead emissions the plane emits have launched a GoFundMe campaign to cover legal costs and expenses expected to top $10,000. The partnership is run through Flyboys LLC and and it is that entity that's being sued by the occupant of an apartment in the pattern for two runways, in both directions, at Arlington Municipal Airport in Arlington, Washington. Plaintiff Scott Iceberg, who says he suffers from ulcerative colitis and panic attacks alleges the partners deliberately fly over his home and threaten his health. He also claims the owners are choosing to use 100LL when unleaded alternatives are available but the partners say their engine needs 100LL.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/lead-lawsuit-targets-expect-10000-legal-bill-launch-gofundme

My first question;
Does this particular 172 actually need 100 octane fuel?
If not, the only recourse for the owners is to fold, providing mogas or whatever is available where they are based or within a short distance.
If the aircraft needs 100 octane fuel, and unleaded is not yet available at the base or nearby, that might be a defense.
The last point;
Stop the nonsensical posturing and delays; get unleaded fuel distributed everywhere.
If users Actually have problems using GAMI or whatever; those owners have a basis for action;
GAMI says their fuel works; it is extensively tested; approved for aircraft; people are using it successfully.
Get on with it!
(The Lawyer culture, and “Don’t tell me what to do” culture are holding back logical progress)

2 Likes

Mr. Iceberg has shown a strong and very serious presence here on AVweb and has gone above and beyond the call of duty by submitting various strongly worded comments. Along with his latest excursions comes his sending equally strong-worded threats via Email.

I’ll be buying some popcorn for the times ahead, when Mr. Scott Francis Iceberg learns a few new tricks and his (potentially slightly flawed) interpretation of the law gets tested in court.

I do hope the affected defendants do get some support from the community.

2 Likes

Where is the AOPA in defending the pilots? Just a small fraction of the AOPA President’s salary would provide a decent legal defense. Do they support this wild and unfounded lawsuit designed to bankrupt pilots?

2 Likes

This sounds a lot like the legal wranglings of “Jackass Hill” near Columbia Airport (O22). Residents constantly complain about aircraft “buzzing” their homes (which were built long after the airport so the airport didn’t just sneak up on them). A lot of weekend pilots fly there and aren’t expecting the density altitude in summer and do take a little longer gain altitude.

Or the woman near my home airport (LOCID redacted) who claimed that the airport beacon was causing her horses to stampede when it came on in the evening. Can two horses create a stampede? :thinking:

I hope both parties in this lawsuit get the help they need.

2 Likes

There have been multiple studies around airports that show lead levels no different than any other place in the country.

It doesn’t matter if the 172 needs 100LL. It is the only fuel available, in 99% of the USA.

If making the change to unleaded was easy, it would have been done decades ago. GAMI looks promising but still has a ways to prove itself.

1 Like

If exposure to leaded fuels is truly such a health hazard hospitals and ultimately the morgues would have seen a major influx of FBO ramp fuelers who’ve had up-close & daily exposure over the years. Absent that I’m unconvinced.

Rachael Wallace with the law firm of Stokes Lawerence is the representing aviation attorney for FlyBoys LLC and she is excellent and very well connected to AOPA and many others.

2 Likes

@brianhope Read the complaint. And the other complaints he’s filed in the area. They are informative. @jjbaker I’ll join you and bring extra popcorn. My guess from afar is his prior experience with the courts will not be helpful for what looks to be a frivolous action from this distance. And thanks for the other information. I join you in your hopes.

He has sent two emails to me directly and probably wrote a bunch of other commenters.

Problem with people who’s elevator fails to reach top floor is, that they probably present a safety and security risk for the airport, particular aircraft or people.

So either the guy wakes up from his state of intoxication, trying to delete his comments quickly - or Russ wakes up first and swings the ban-hammer.

1 Like
  1. The article from yesterday answers your question as to whether or not this particular aircraft needs 100LL. If this aircraft owner folds, then Mr. Lettuce will begin filing against every airplane owner at the airport.

  2. G100UL is far from “extensively proven”. The people who are using it now are the beta testers for the fuel. They will be the ones providing the actual extensive testing.

Are you a licensed active pilot ?

Wide awake and that account has been deactivated. Please flag any more of this nonsense you see if he sets up another account.
Russ

This unleaded avgas program might be ok but I suspect that it is not needed. It has as much relevance to anything as the cries of the climate change adherents. This attack on the Cessna 172 pilots needs to be squashed into irrelevance.

Fly them, fix them, instruct them

Mr. Icebergs beef is with the FAA, not with any aircraft owner.

The aircraft owner is using an FAA approved fuel. Period. Full stop.

Let the FAA fight this battle.

Heck no. Let him post to his hearts desire.

Them present those post to the judge.

1 Like

Do not block that user. Allow him to post so his comments can be shown in court.

1 Like

Nah. I think the lawyers have plenty and we don’t need this kind of spectacle in here. It’s amazing the twists and turns these stories take, though.
Russ