johnh wrote:
I rather like the French version, Khmer Vert (like the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot and his buddies).
LOL! I have not heard that one before.
Peter wrote
They are low IQ people,
You say that, but I don’t think it’s true at all. Just an excuse for dismissing them without considering why they are doing this.
They are just mules. Sure; they are not totally dumb. They can use whatsapp or telegram, snip a fence, and set off the paint-filled fire extinguisher which somebody set up for them. I will put money on them not having the slightest clue how to do the last bit.
Emir wrote:
Why? Because you don’t own one?
I believe people should fight, or not fight, their own battles. These are straight forward civil cases. Now, are they? I mean, fighting their own battles? I guess not. There’s also something called insurance companies, are they suing anyone? Not likely, but who knows, they could end up suing the airport for all I know.
A biz-jet is a means of transportation, a fancy bus, with no affection value whatsoever. Now, if Jimmy’s Elvis/RV/biz-jet was vandalized, that would be more upsetting, much more, not to mention a Spitfire or similar category aircraft 
So no, because I don’t own one is not it. This doesn’t mean that if I did own one, I wouldn’t be upset. What is your reason for being upset?
Let’s say these events causes a drastic drop in the usage of biz-jets. Why exactly could that be a probable scenario? The only reason would be that owners/users don’t risk/want the negative publicity. This is all this is, a peculiar first world vanity situation, on several levels, and actually a bit funny.
The high profile travellers will just spend a little more on moving the jet away right after arrival.
Actually that already happens a lot anyway, especially if a jet is leased-out. It doesn’t just sit somewhere for a week.
We know the vast majority of pop stars are dumb, but Taylor Swift doesn’t help her cause by blocking somebody using FR24 to track her.
Yes, the airport may well get sued. Normally in GA the airport is not liable for anything whatsoever (or so they pretend) but maybe the big stuff is different.
Why would anybody want to track Taylor Swift?
gallois wrote:
Why would anybody want to track Taylor Swift?
Ha ha Even my brother in law is a “Swifty” He was on her concert a couple of weeks back.
Anyway, all this biz-jet talk made me get the finger out, disregard the slightly bad “taste”, and finally order one of these
Arguably the most popular biz-jet in the world right now, certainly among aviators And now it’s (partly) mine
Peter wrote:
set off the paint-filled fire extinguisher which somebody set up for them. I will put money on them not having the slightest clue how to do the last bit.
I very nearly posted this yesterday The refill instructions on the side of our office extinguisher look easy to follow, but it requires a spanner, a compressor, and a practical mindset. I would have thought a commercially available hand-pump or battery-powered sprayer would have been easier (the kind used for spraying weedkiller or painting fences) but maybe they have insufficient range? They must mix water into the paint to get lower viscosity for better projection. In any event, it definitely shows planning/premeditation.
Peter wrote:
We know the vast majority of pop stars are dumb, but Taylor Swift doesn’t help her cause by blocking somebody using FR24 to track her.
I don’t mind anyone who doesn’t mind, and I also don’t mind if that is being done to public air transport, but I certainly don’t want to be tracked personally. Especially if the tracking sites offer the history of my plane movement data for a fee, to anyone interested! And instead of opting out of this tracking with a new company springing up every now and then, the only sane option is to make it “opt in” only and hit them with the data protection act until this is sufficiently clear.
This level of privacy should extend to everyone, even popular entertainers.
Now, for Taylor Swift, the smart thing would be to say “I have to have my pilots fly my planes randomly across the country that some lackwit has a harder time stalking me and therefore I have to create extra pollution – unless this abuse of flight data tracking stops!”
That’s win/win, either she doesn’t get tracked anymore or the excess carbon footprint is on those who do the tracking.
The refill instructions on the side of our office extinguisher look easy to follow
There are at least 2 types: high pressure (the CO2 ones) and those which have a capsule inside which gets smashed and generates pressure chemically. The water ones use the latter. I still remember the schoolboy humour on the label: “to activate, stand upside down and strike knob on floor”. You just have to know that “knob” is 1970s
but I certainly don’t want to be tracked personally
You can’t really be tracked personally just by some plane spotter. The plane always can be; ADS-B (and Mode S over here) are mandatory. And anybody can set up their own ADS-B receiver; an antenna on a little hill can achieve a radius of some 500-1000nm.
If somebody has access to GAR forms, that’s different. And the police (everywhere) have a long history of selling information. But I am amazed anybody cares where TS actually is. And she must have a large number of stalkers, and a lot of bodyguards.
They must mix water into the paint to get lower viscosity for better projection
Water based paint (emulsion) will come off fairly easily. I would expect they use solvent based paint, removal of which will require an aircraft respray. I can’t find anything online about the paint.
