We are the FAA. We are here to help you...
#11
The FAA should get into the car rental business.
We’re not happy till it Hertz
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, do not ever start a dialogue with the FAA.
Any attempt to communicate with you to get “your side of the story” is an attempt to determine your guilt not your innocence.
Do yourself a favor and join AOPA for their legal plan recreational pilot or otherwise.
Consider it part of the cost of your hobby.
Its not more then one hour’s rental cost.
We’re not happy till it Hertz
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, do not ever start a dialogue with the FAA.
Any attempt to communicate with you to get “your side of the story” is an attempt to determine your guilt not your innocence.
Do yourself a favor and join AOPA for their legal plan recreational pilot or otherwise.
Consider it part of the cost of your hobby.
Its not more then one hour’s rental cost.
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 304
Trent is misrepresenting the nature of the location pretty badly. He want's everyone to believe that this was some remote area. It's not.He says multiple times “very sparsely populated area”, but it ain’t. There are 12 residences within a ¼ mile of the friend’s back yard. That’s not “sparsely populated”
He says "It has a minimum lot size of 10 acres, but a lot of the lots are much bigger." Which really isn’t true, the adjacent lots in the subdivision are no bigger than 12.6 acres, that’s not “much bigger”
As a point of reference a square 10 acre parcel would be 660'x660', granted that's larger than many subdivisions, but it ain't out in the middle of farms and pastures.
He says " A lot of them are vacant as well" Which is not true. Of the 8 lots directly adjacent his friend’s lot all but one have a house built on it (and there’s a house right next to that lot) and of the 24 lots in the subdivision block, all but 3 have houses built on them. This is hardly vacant land.
He says: " The area to the north of them is all BLM, so there's thousands of acres of public land" Which is true as far as it goes, but this is just misdirection. The incident didn’t take place in the open public land to the north, the incident took place in the subdivision where his buddy lives.
So if he's misrepresenting this, what else is he misrepresenting?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post