Stop the noise

[airads]

Feb. 24 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday
provided initial support to four Massachusetts pilots - all AOPA
members - facing a lawsuit filed by a few residents. The suit alleges
that the noise signature from the aerobatics performed by the pilots
caused significant harm; they are seeking approximately $1 million in
damages. The pilots are based at various airports, some 20 miles from
the homes of the litigants.

"This is potentially an issue that could affect all pilots engaged in
any type of air commerce - from a Cub to a 747," said AOPA President
Phil Boyer. "We are fully prepared to take this through the federal
system if necessary.



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-1-108x.html

Frank

[C J Campbell]

The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people. They
don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
lives.

We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf blowers,
boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself. The
world in those times was very inefficient. A return to the food production
and manufacturing processes of those days would flood the earth with
pollution and produce only a tiny fraction of vital goods and services.
Billions would die.

There may have been a time when anti-social types could live as hermits in
remote mountain areas and never have to come into contact with another human
for the rest of their lives. That time is over.

You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
the silence it craves.

They assume that flying aerobatics is needless recreation -- as if
recreation is somehow something that we can live without. That assumption is
entirely unfounded. They have built their argument on a rotten foundation.
You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you or
leave the planet.

People need to learn to be more tolerant of being constantly touched by
others, hearing their noise, putting up with their smell, and seeing them
everywhere. Those who cannot be tolerant will suffer endlessly, no matter
how many lawsuits they file.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Nice rant, CJ. I agree with everything but the smell part.

(Seems I've butted heads with the Noise Police with almost every major
interest I've had in life: R/C planes, motocross, now GA. I like things
with noisy engines, darn it! I'm a guy!)


C J Campbell wrote:
> The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They just
> don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people. They
> don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
> lives.
>
> We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf blowers,
> boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
> banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself. The
> world in those times was very inefficient. A return to the food production
> and manufacturing processes of those days would flood the earth with
> pollution and produce only a tiny fraction of vital goods and services.
> Billions would die.
>
> There may have been a time when anti-social types could live as hermits in
> remote mountain areas and never have to come into contact with another human
> for the rest of their lives. That time is over.
>
> You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
> the silence it craves.
>
> They assume that flying aerobatics is needless recreation -- as if
> recreation is somehow something that we can live without. That assumption is
> entirely unfounded. They have built their argument on a rotten foundation.
> You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you or
> leave the planet.
>
> People need to learn to be more tolerant of being constantly touched by
> others, hearing their noise, putting up with their smell, and seeing them
> everywhere. Those who cannot be tolerant will suffer endlessly, no matter
> how many lawsuits they file.
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you

Municipal ordinances generally prohibit folks from making noise before
7am and after 10pm.

[SeeAndAvoid]

Here's a related editorial that was in the local rag today:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/opinion.htm

Btw, "opinions" in this paper are by local citizens who write in, and
although this article is in the "Opinions" section of the website, it was
actually an Editorial by the paper.
---------
Residents deserve chance to air opinions
Talk about under the radar. If not for an overheard snippet of conversation,
Boulder County residents and officials might never had known that the
Federal Aviation Administration is considering creating an aerobatic stunt
flying zone near Rabbit Mountain that would allow pilots to maneuver within
328 feet of the ground.

Someone - the FAA declines to identify the applicant - has requested the
stunt-flying zone near the county's Dowe Flats open space between Longmont
and Lyons. If approved, the zone would allow aerobatics from sunrise to
sunset in airspace 328 feet to 10,000 feet above the ground. Current rules
restrict planes to a 1,000-foot minimum.

And while the FAA now says it will review resident concerns, the agency made
no attempt to notify residents of the area of the application or to
establish any kind of comment process. It's reasons are simple: It doesn't
have to.

That's the problem. On the ground, any significant change that would have a
serious impact on a neighborhood or even entire community would be subject
to a county or municipal hearing process during which residents could come
forward to offer opinions about how a proposal would affect their area and
even their quality of life.

But if not for someone hearing something and then asking Boulder County
Commissioner Ron Stewart if he knew anything about it (he did not), no one
except the original applicant would even be aware such a proposal was on the
table.

Whether the FAA is willing to listen remains unclear. On Wednesday, Boulder
County Commissioner Paul Danish sent a letter to U.S. Rep. Mark Udall that
said the FAA Denver Flight Standards District Office had failed to respond
to the county's request for specific information about the proposal or its
timeline for review. The letter "urgently" requested Udall to intervene to
at least allow the concerns of county officials and residents to be heard.

As it turns out, people do have strong opinions about stunt planes, gunning,
stalling, barrel-rolling and loop-to-looping a little more than a football
field's length above their heads and homes.

Not surprisingly, many people are not enthusiastic about the noise and
spectacle of stunt planes roaring above open space nature areas at the crack
of dawn.

Some people even believe that more remote and far-less populated areas east
of Interstate 25 would be much more appropriate for an aerobatic zone.

While we would never question the FAA's role as czar of the nation's
airspace, we would encourage the agency at least to inform local governments
of proposed changes that might have a significant impact on the the folks on
the ground far below, and to welcome and seriously weigh their opinions and
concerns.

-------------------------------------

Of course the supposed "far-less populated areas east of I-25" are in the
direct path of 4 of DEN Intls runways on the 20nm ring of DEN VOR. Not to
mention the Class B with altitudes varying from 120/100, 120/080, and
120/070.

Chris

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf blowers,
>boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
>banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself.

So you don't see any possible technological solution to reducing
aircraft generated noise?

I'm sure glad the engineers continued to pursue a technological cure
for the low-flying police helicopters that routinely routed my slumber
in the '70s. Today those helicopters are nearly silent by comparison.

Like most technical problems, the solution requires intelligent
thought and compromise.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf
blowers,
> >boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
> >banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself.
>
> So you don't see any possible technological solution to reducing
> aircraft generated noise?
>

I am not sure how you get that out of my post. However, no amount of
technological progress is going to make us both invisible and silent. Even
if it did, there are some people who would object to the very idea that
airplanes *might* be flying right over their heads without their permission.

[Ed]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >
> You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
> the silence it craves.

The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us. By
"them", I mean people who would just as soon not have airplanes doing
aerobatics directly over their houses. By that definition, "them" is a
large proportion of the general population. Hell, I fly acro, and I
wouldn't want an acro box directly over my house! How about you?

The bozos at STN are way over the line, and they are using threats of legal
action to bully others. But we shouldn't dismiss all noise complaints as
whining by people who will never be happy. If you address complaints in a
good faith manner, maybe you avoid letting things get to the point where
flight schools are getting sued. The bottom line is, most acro boxes are
going to need to over remote, unpopulated or lightly populated areas. If
you happen to live and fly in an urban area, expect a long transit to your
practice area. That's the price you pay for the choices you make. I'm
boxed in by Class B at SPG (Albert Whitted at St Pete), and I have to go out
over the ocean to practice.

[Ed]

What ****es me off is the use of the term "stunt". STN and others have
deliberately adopted this term because they know it sounds reckless and
extreme. They want to prejudice the debate before the facts are even
considered. It's a shame when you see spin being applied so blatantly
outside of politics.


"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
link.net...

> ---------
> Residents deserve chance to air opinions
> Talk about under the radar. If not for an overheard snippet of
conversation,
> Boulder County residents and officials might never had known that the
> Federal Aviation Administration is considering creating an aerobatic stunt
> flying zone near Rabbit Mountain that would allow pilots to maneuver
within
> 328 feet of the ground.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They just
> don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They
> don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
> lives.
>
>

Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.

[Earl Grieda]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They
just
> > don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
> >They don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on
their
> > lives.
> >
> >
>
> Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
> for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
> toy.
>

From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the activity.

I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community is
that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right. Our attitude is
that they need to adapt to us and our activities. This attitude is
perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant. As long as we
continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually lose
the war.

Earl G

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
link.net...
> >
> > Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
> airplane
> > for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for
a
> > toy.
> >
>
> From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of
the
> local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
not
> have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
> The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
> constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
> thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
activity.

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
airports that already existed.

> I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community
is
> that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right.

In lieu of the above, it would be the case that our group is right.
Right/wrong is NOT determined but the volume and shrillness of the tantrum
thrown.


> Our attitude is
> that they need to adapt to us and our activities.

As above.

> This attitude is
> perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant.

As above.

> As long as we
> continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
> public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually
lose
> the war.

And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats will
not survive.

[Ed]

Actually the guy who started STN is a wealthy lawyer.


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
> for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
> toy.

[Ed]

> Right/wrong is NOT determined but the volume and shrillness of the tantrum
> thrown.

Yes, and that applies both ways.

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >,
>>You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you
>
>Municipal ordinances generally prohibit folks from making noise before
>7am and after 10pm.

In the above case aerobatics were only performed during daylight hours.
To my line of thinking people have a right to live in an area free of
excessive noise. The equestion becomes what's excessive?
I'm not familar with the above group, but here in Seattle we have a
group that lives next to KSEA (class B Seattle-Tacoma International) which
constantly complains about the noise. Since no one is going to close KSEA
to night operations or even consider reducing the number of operations
they are out of luck. But despite the fact that they choose to live next
to a major airport they feel they have the right to a 'quite' home.
How many times have peopel complained about noise only to discover that
the noise was from a 747 crossing overhead at > 5,000ft.
So for me the question is does a compromise exist? Often it doesn't
because the anti-noise groups don't want quiet they what everyone else
gone :) But we do not have all the facts of the case, maybe pilots are
making excessive noise. Either way local governments should not pass laws
to control airspace. Somethings should be handled at the federal level,
others at the state level, and others at the local level.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:

>
> "Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
> link.net...

>> From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of
>> the
>> local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
>> not
>> have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
>> The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
>> constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
>> thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
>> activity.
>
> Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
> airports that already existed.

Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.

> And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
> correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats will
> not survive.

Is it your view that everyone else's opinion is a "tantrum"? Just wondering.

[David Cartwright]

"Ed" > wrote in message
. com...
> The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us. By
> "them", I mean people who would just as soon not have airplanes doing
> aerobatics directly over their houses. By that definition, "them" is a
> large proportion of the general population. Hell, I fly acro, and I
> wouldn't want an acro box directly over my house! How about you?

One would assume that the aviation authorities would also prefer people not
to be doing aerobatics over someone's house, given the potential
consequences in the event of an engine or other failure.

D.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
('Vejita' S. Cousin) wrote:

> To my line of thinking people have a right to live in an area free of
> excessive noise. The equestion becomes what's excessive?

A huge obstacle is this type of discussion is the fact
that people's perception/recognition of noise is not
rational/logical in that the volume of the sound is not the
main determining factor of whether or not a sound is called
noise.

For example, consider the noise of a dripping faucet (which is
in reality is pretty quiet). It can keep people awake, but
the same people can sleep through louder sounds. We also
have a sensitivity to the importance of sounds (e.g., a telephone
might wake us up quicker than a louder sound).

--
Bob Noel

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Tom Sixkiller at
> wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:
>
> >
> > "Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
>
> >> From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members
of
> >> the
> >> local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
> >> not
> >> have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary
income.
> >> The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
> >> constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives
of
> >> thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
> >> activity.
> >
> > Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
> > airports that already existed.
>
> Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
> have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
> were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
> rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.

Anyone who built even a half-mile from an airport is nuts,
>
> > And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
> > correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats
will
> > not survive.
>
> Is it your view that everyone else's opinion is a "tantrum"? Just
wondering.

If that's what I'd said, you have a point, but try re-reading what's
written.

[airads]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They just
> don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people. They
> don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
> lives.

interesting.......
>

>
> They assume that flying aerobatics is needless recreation -- as if
> recreation is somehow something that we can live without. That assumption is
> entirely unfounded. They have built their argument on a rotten foundation.
> You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you or
> leave the planet.

............or pay you millions of dollars.
>
> People need to learn to be more tolerant of being constantly touched by
> others, hearing their noise, putting up with their smell, and seeing them
> everywhere. Those who cannot be tolerant will suffer endlessly, no matter
> how many lawsuits they file.

well put

What bugs me about this whole thing is that these pilots were
operating within the framework of the FARs. Some of them had to sell
their airplanes to meet legal fees. The acro box was eventually moved.
Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be
enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong".
Their beef is with the FAA. Unfortunately, it looks like these pilots
are going to take it on the chin.


Frank

[TaxSrv]

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote:
> ...
> I'm not familar with the above group, but here in Seattle we have
a
> group that lives next to KSEA (class B Seattle-Tacoma International)
which
> constantly complains about the noise. Since no one is going to
close KSEA
> to night operations or even consider reducing the number of
operations
> they are out of luck.
> ...
> Either way local governments should not pass laws
> to control airspace. Somethings should be handled at the federal
level,
> others at the state level, and others at the local level.

May be more than academic interest that where an airport has air
carrier ops, fed law specifically reserves jurisdiction over noise
matters to the FAA. Otherwise, it's the thorny legal mess of whether
the federal preemption in general trumps, and I believe in general
courts won't object to reasonable restrictions. There's local
prohibitions against late-night student touch-goes and loud jets after
a certain time in a lot of places. Not that I agree, I believe here,
to the extent the issue is beyond citizens' selfish perception
problems, it may be the prolonged noise footprint rather than mere
decibels, compared to now and then in takeoff/landing ops but greater
peak db.

Fred F.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you
>
> Municipal ordinances generally prohibit folks from making noise before
> 7am and after 10pm.

Sure they do.

Even where such ordinances actually exist and (even more rarely) someone
actually tries to enforce them, they really don't reduce noise much. They
can't. You might as well try to pass a law ordering everybody to stop
breathing on Sundays.

[David Cartwright]

"airads" > wrote in message
om...
> Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be
> enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong".

On this side of the pond, you have to have your registration on the
underside of your left wing anyway.

D.

[Jeremy Lew]

I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues, but
the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in these
suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's
practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being near
three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for prospective
house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in this
area.

If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N of
the Ft. Devens MOA.


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
> airports that already existed.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Philip Sondericker > wrote:

> in article , Tom Sixkiller at
> wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:
>
> >
> > "Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
>
> >> From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of
> >> the
> >> local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
> >> not
> >> have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
> >> The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
> >> constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
> >> thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
> >> activity.
> >
> > Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
> > airports that already existed.
>
> Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
> have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
> were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
> rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.


The "300 feet above someone's house" is an obvious fabrication, as FARs
specify that aerobatic flight (except under waivers) shall be above
1500 ft AGL.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Earl Grieda > wrote:
>
>"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They
>just
>> > don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
>> >They don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on
>their
>> > lives.
>>
>> Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
>airplane
>> for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
>> toy.
>
>From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of the
>local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do not
>have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
>The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
>constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
>thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the activity.

....and the discourse spirals downward...

The assertion about "constant", "repetitive", and "negative effect" on
"thousands" has a screed-like quality to it.

Consider people who procure a house "in the country" and then get fussed in
the spring about the aroma of fields being manured. No, I'm not making this
up.
>
>I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community is
>that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right. Our attitude is
>that they need to adapt to us and our activities. This attitude is
>perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant. As long as we
>continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
>public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually lose
>the war.
>
It's a two way street. I'm looking forward (not) to the Fairwood development
when it gets to the parts on the runway centerline of W00. They seem to
want to put housing directly along it. One hopes the state and/or county
will actually enforce the safety zones around airports that they have devised.
I expect people will bitch and moan about airplane noise.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/22/04 4:03 AM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Tom Sixkiller at
>> wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:

>>> Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
>>> near
>>> airports that already existed.
>>
>> Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
>> have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
>> were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
>> rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.
>
> Anyone who built even a half-mile from an airport is nuts,

So even a half-mile away is too close? How far away is far enough? You've
already eliminated a goodly portion of the land area of the United States...

>>> And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
>>> correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats
>>> will
>>> not survive.
>>
>> Is it your view that everyone else's opinion is a "tantrum"? Just
>> wondering.
>
> If that's what I'd said, you have a point, but try re-reading what's
> written.

I read what was written, which is why I posited the question.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 3/22/04 7:49 AM:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you
>>
>> Municipal ordinances generally prohibit folks from making noise before
>> 7am and after 10pm.
>
> Sure they do.
>
> Even where such ordinances actually exist and (even more rarely) someone
> actually tries to enforce them, they really don't reduce noise much. They
> can't. You might as well try to pass a law ordering everybody to stop
> breathing on Sundays.

I know that on more than one occasion in my younger days I was very
definitely persuaded by law enforcement officers to turn my stereo down
between the hours of 10PM and 7AM. So I suppose that, at least in my case,
the above-mentioned noise ordinances not only existed, but served their
purpose quite effectively.

[Dude]

It ain't urban.

These folks have gentlemen farmer type places to get away from the noise of
the city on weekends. They are also suing some Harley Drivers (which to me
is something that the police DO need to do more about, but a suit is silly).

What they fail to realize is that someone has to put up with the noise they
create coming and going from their recreational retreat. Someone lived next
to all the places that made noise in manufacturing the materials and goods
that made the homes and things within them. Their recreational retreat is
overall a HUGE pollution issue. They did not NEED to have this retreat, and
they have sullied the landscape with their vehicles and structures. How
ridiculous that they must have a second home! What an attack on mother
earth! etc. etc. etc.



"Ed" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message >
> > You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never
find
> > the silence it craves.
>
> The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us. By
> "them", I mean people who would just as soon not have airplanes doing
> aerobatics directly over their houses. By that definition, "them" is a
> large proportion of the general population. Hell, I fly acro, and I
> wouldn't want an acro box directly over my house! How about you?
>
> The bozos at STN are way over the line, and they are using threats of
legal
> action to bully others. But we shouldn't dismiss all noise complaints as
> whining by people who will never be happy. If you address complaints in a
> good faith manner, maybe you avoid letting things get to the point where
> flight schools are getting sued. The bottom line is, most acro boxes are
> going to need to over remote, unpopulated or lightly populated areas. If
> you happen to live and fly in an urban area, expect a long transit to your
> practice area. That's the price you pay for the choices you make. I'm
> boxed in by Class B at SPG (Albert Whitted at St Pete), and I have to go
out
> over the ocean to practice.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ed wrote:
>
> The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us.

The real problem is that in the last 40 years, it has gradually become possible
to make law by sueing people in civil court. In the '50s, one could be pretty
certain that things would be just fine if one obeyed the laws and regulations.
Now, if some asshole doesn't like your hobby, they can bankrupt you, and you
can't do a damn thing about it. Even if you *do* have the wherewithal to get
the case into court, a single judge can nullify the work of the entire Federal
or State legislative branches which are, according to the various Constitutions
supposed to be deciding these matters.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[jsmith]

A full aerobatic box is 3000 feet x 3000 feet x 3000 feet. Other variations are
possible.
The FAA requires a 1500 foot buffer zone around the perimeter (for jets and
warbirds, this increases to 3000 feet), so you in effect need a 6000 feet x
6000 feet footprint (or 7500 x 7500). Unless you are going to practice
cross-box maneuvers, the width of the box may be decreased.
The floor and visibility requirements are also negotiated, as are
communications and ground observer details.

[Roger Halstead]

On 20 Mar 2004 08:08:57 -0800, (airads) wrote:

>Feb. 24 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday
>provided initial support to four Massachusetts pilots - all AOPA
>members - facing a lawsuit filed by a few residents. The suit alleges
>that the noise signature from the aerobatics performed by the pilots
>caused significant harm; they are seeking approximately $1 million in
>damages. The pilots are based at various airports, some 20 miles from
>the homes of the litigants.
>
>"This is potentially an issue that could affect all pilots engaged in
>any type of air commerce - from a Cub to a 747," said AOPA President
>Phil Boyer. "We are fully prepared to take this through the federal
>system if necessary.

I wonder if they've considered getting a "junk yard lawyer" and
counter suit for harrasment.

If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good
countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more
than what they are aksing. That they have caused great financial harm
(pilots having to sell planes to meet expenses) is already an arguing
point.

I think in these cases we should not just fight the case but take
agressive counter action "if possible" that would make those
considering similar actions in the future to back up and consider the
consequences.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>
>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-1-108x.html
>
>Frank

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good
> countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more
> than what they are aksing.

The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org
that is sueing these pilots. You don't have grounds for a countersuit unless this
one is settled in favor of the pilots. After that occurs, they'll disolve the
organization, and you won't have anyone to sue. Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though
they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so).

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:27:02 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org
>that is sueing these pilots.

It sounds like a jurisdictional issue to me. I doubt the local court
has the right to countermand the FAA's decisions.

[Cub Driver]

>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though
>they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Andrew Gideon]

Cub Driver wrote:

>
>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
>>(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
>>to do so).
>
> According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
> contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?

- Andrew

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>>
>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
>>>(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
>>>to do so).
>>
>> According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>> contribution" to defense costs.
>
>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?

They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
free.

[VideoGuy]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>

> Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
> airports that already existed.

Here's another example of this exact senerio;

A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.

Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.

Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office. I
called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport"
that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are
pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as
important to the city as HIS grand, new development!

Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or...
maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did
in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads
around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this "little
airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how
well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their
houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New
Town"?

Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
planes" flying over my new house?

Gary Kasten

[Cub Driver]

>> According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>> contribution" to defense costs.
>
>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?

Evidently so.

I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to
want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill
$400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"VideoGuy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
> near
> > airports that already existed.
>
> Here's another example of this exact senerio;
>
> A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
> plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
> higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
> concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.
>
> Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
> counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
> wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
> the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
> over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
> before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
> the same ownership for almost 25 years.

Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local
governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps'
casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution.

[Paul Sengupta]

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
> "airads" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be
> > enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong".
>
> On this side of the pond, you have to have your registration on the
> underside of your left wing anyway.

Which country is that?

Paul

[Kevin]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "VideoGuy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
>>
>>near
>>
>>>airports that already existed.
>>
>>Here's another example of this exact senerio;
>>
>>A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
>>plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
>>higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
>>concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.
>>
>>Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
>>counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
>>wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
>>the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
>>over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
>>before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
>>the same ownership for almost 25 years.
>
>
> Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local
> governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps'
> casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution.
>
>
>
Wal-Mart is well known to use this method to obtain land the owners
refuse to sell.

[Kevin]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
>>>>(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
>>>>to do so).
>>>
>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>
>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>
>
> They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
> free.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Kevin" > wrote in message
news:RIf8c.82383$Cb.1096751@attbi_s51...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >>Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together,
already
> >>counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this
builder
> >>wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just
across
> >>the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is
now
> >>over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
> >>before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously,
with
> >>the same ownership for almost 25 years.
> >
> >
> > Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local
> > governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls,
Trumps'
> > casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution.
> >
> >
> >
> Wal-Mart is well known to use this method to obtain land the owners
> refuse to sell.

I've heard they've tried it twice. Don't know if the offered "fair market
value, though), but the worst offenders are sports stadiums. In Phoenix,
when they were getting ready to build BankOne Ballpark for the Diamondbacks
it came close to a violent confrontation with the police but local
protesters.

[Ed Haywood]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
>
> If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good
> countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more
> than what they are aksing. That they have caused great financial harm
> (pilots having to sell planes to meet expenses) is already an arguing
> point.


This was a hot topic of discussion on the aerobatics e-mail list last fall.

I wonder how truly serious AOPA is about this issue. They had to be dragged
kicking and screaming into the fight. They got a lot of angry letters and
cancelled memberships before they did anything. To their credit, once they
realized how lame they looked, they did take action to correct it.

Playing "dueling lawyers" won't have the desired effect. The founder of STN
is a Boston lawyer who does all the legal work himself. He has a reputation
of using lawsuits to bully others. You can't cost him more than his time,
which he already donates willingly.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:24:58 GMT, Kevin > wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
>>>>>(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
>>>>>to do so).
>>>>
>>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>>
>>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>>
>>
>> They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
>> free.
>
>
> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
>Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .

How would a living trust prevent someone from needing to pay legal
bills incurred defending themselves from a suit brought against them?
The Stop The Noise group is headed by a lawyer who is doing all their
work for free. The pilots have to pay their defense bills.

IMO if the people involved in this case on the plaintiff's side had to
actually foot the bill for the fees, time, court costs, etc that the
pilots have to it would never have even gotten to court, but as it is
they have nothing at all to lose - they're not paying anything except
some nominal filing and court fees.

[TaxSrv]

"Kevin" wrote:
> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a
Revocable
> Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>

Are you sure that's going to work in your state? Here's sample advice
for
physicians that it won't:

http://www.physiciansnews.com/finance/1101dv.html

[Kevin]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:24:58 GMT, Kevin > wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
>>>>>>(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
>>>>>>to do so).
>>>>>
>>>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>>>
>>>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
>>>free.
>>
>>
>> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
>>Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>
>
> How would a living trust prevent someone from needing to pay legal
> bills incurred defending themselves from a suit brought against them?
> The Stop The Noise group is headed by a lawyer who is doing all their
> work for free. The pilots have to pay their defense bills.
>
> If all your assets were untouchable you would have no need to spend money
defending yourself. Let them get a default judgment. If you have no
assets in
your name and legally own nothing they can never collect.

I was once a manager with a national wholesale finance company (
floorplanning ). We had a dealer take us for $250K because all of his
personal assets were protected by his trust. We spent about $200K in
legal fees and collected nothing.

[Kevin]

TaxSrv wrote:
> "Kevin" wrote:
> > This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a
> Revocable
>
>>Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>>
>
>
> Are you sure that's going to work in your state? Here's sample advice
> for
> physicians that it won't:
>
> http://www.physiciansnews.com/finance/1101dv.html
>
For the ultimate in asset protection and estate planning the offshore
Asset Protection Trust is the way to go. When you combine domestic
strategies with the the asset protection trust, you become 99.9% bullet
proof. With an offshore trust controlling your asset, it becomes very
difficult if not impossible for a creditor to gain control or get the
assets sent back to the U.S.

Just like a revocable living trust, the offshore asset protection trust
allows you to avoid probate and distribute your assets to your heirs.
Since it is governed by an offshore jurisdiction, the trust is not
subject to U.S. claims or orders from U.S. courts.

[ET]

Kevin > wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:

> Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
>>>>>countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
>>>>>financially if they decide to do so).
>>>>
>>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>>
>>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>>
>>
>> They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
>> free.
>
>
> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
> Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>
>

Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
lawyers....


Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
is NOT one of them.

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Jay Honeck]

> I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to
> want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill
> $400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day.

As always, only the lawyers win.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[William W. Plummer]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin > wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:
>
> > Peter Clark wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Cub Driver wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
> >>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
> >>>>>countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
> >>>>>financially if they decide to do so).
> >>>>
> >>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
> >>>>contribution" to defense costs.
> >>>
> >>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
> >>
> >>
> >> They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
> >> free.
> >
> >
> > This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
> > Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
> >
> >
>
> Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
> lawyers....
>
>
> Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
> good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
> is NOT one of them.

Yes. That's what my attorney told me. A big reason for a living trust is
to hide your estate distribution plans. Trusts are private documents, wills
are public. A living trust can be sued. And if you go into a nursing
home, a living trust can be raided to pay the bills. With an irrevocable
trust and enough time, you might be able to avoid that.

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to
>> want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill
>> $400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day.
>
> As always, only the lawyers win.

I see AOPA making claims about contributions that aren't enough to help the
pilots keep their planes. In other words, in a twisted way, AOPA is
getting something (for very little) out of this too.

So what does "a substantial contribution" mean if the pilots are having this
much trouble with what is left of the bill? Why not simply provide the
legal staff free of charge? AOPA does have lawyers on staff, no?

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> As always, only the lawyers win.

Yeah, there's a reason this group is headed by an attorney. He's probably getting
a kickback somewhere.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > As always, only the lawyers win.
>
> Yeah, there's a reason this group is headed by an attorney. He's probably
getting
> a kickback somewhere.

Lawyers write all the rules of engagement, they have a legal monopoly (ABA)
and a virtual monopoly in the legislatures -- did you think they'd set it up
any other way?


--
"Flying an airplane is just like riding
a bike -- it's just a lot harder to put
baseball cards in the spokes" -- Capt. Rex Cramer

[Kevin]

ET wrote:
> Kevin > wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:
>
>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
>>>>>>countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
>>>>>>financially if they decide to do so).
>>>>>
>>>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>>>
>>>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
>>>free.
>>
>>
>> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
>>Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>>
>>
>
>
> Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
> lawyers....
>
>
> Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
> good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
> is NOT one of them.

You are correct IF the revocable living trust is used as the only means
to protect assets. If the RLT is used in conjunction with a Family
Limited Partnership its a different matter.
>
Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in a Family
limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.

[Kevin]

ET wrote:
> Kevin > wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:
>
>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
>>>>>>countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
>>>>>>financially if they decide to do so).
>>>>>
>>>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>>>
>>>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
>>>free.
>>
>>
>> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
>>Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>>
>>
>
>
> Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
> lawyers....
>
>
> Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
> good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
> is NOT one of them.
>
If the revocable living trust is used alone you are correct. If used in
conjunction with a FLP it's a different matter.

Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the
Family limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.

[Jay Beckman]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've heard they've tried it twice. Don't know if the offered "fair market
> value, though), but the worst offenders are sports stadiums. In Phoenix,
> when they were getting ready to build BankOne Ballpark for the
Diamondbacks
> it came close to a violent confrontation with the police but local
> protesters.
>
>

Tom,

While it's true that stadia developers are often the most egregious, the
little guy does prevail from time to time. Even in AZ!

Witness this case from Mesa, AZ...

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1002Baileys02.html

Regards,

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
7.4 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

[Kevin]

ET wrote:
> Kevin > wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:
>
>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
>>>>>>countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
>>>>>>financially if they decide to do so).
>>>>>
>>>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>>>
>>>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
>>>free.
>>
>>
>> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
>>Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>>
>>
>
>
> Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
> lawyers....
>
>
> Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
> good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
> is NOT one of them.
>
You are correct if you only have a revocable living trust. However, if
the RLT is used in conjuction with a FLP (Family Limited Partnership)
its a different story.
Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the FLP
and those interests are owned by the trust.

[David]

ET wrote:
> Kevin > wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:
>
>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
>>>>>>countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
>>>>>>financially if they decide to do so).
>>>>>
>>>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>>>
>>>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
>>>free.
>>
>>
>> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
>>Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>>
>>
>
>
> Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
> lawyers....
>
>
> Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of potential
> good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection from lawsuits
> is NOT one of them.


Actually it can when used in conjunction with a FLP.

> Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the FLP (Family Limited Partnership) and those
interests are owned by the trust.

[ET]

Kevin > wrote in news:ZPm8c.730$K91.2594@attbi_s02:

> ET wrote:
>> Kevin > wrote in news:K_f8c.81882$1p.1206019@attbi_s54:
>>
>>
>>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Furthermore, AOPA has not been
>>>>>>>injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a
>>>>>>>countersuit (though they could certainly support the pilots
>>>>>>>financially if they decide to do so).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
>>>>>>contribution" to defense costs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
>>>>free.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
>>>Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your Revocable Living Trust protects you from NOTHING but the probate
>> lawyers....
>>
>>
>> Anyone who told you different LIED to you. There are lots of
>> potential good reasons for having that kind of trust, but protection
>> from lawsuits is NOT one of them.
>
> You are correct IF the revocable living trust is used as the only
> means
> to protect assets. If the RLT is used in conjunction with a Family
> Limited Partnership its a different matter.
>>
> Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in a Family
> limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.
>
>

Be very careful here as well. FLP's have been invalidated based on the
"reason" they were set up. To be "bulletproof" an FLP needs to have a
legit business purpose other than just asset protection. An FLP set up to
run a bunch of rental properties, obviously meets this... but if it only
owns your stock portfolio, you might have a problem.

Either way, the existance of a living trust is irrelevant to the ability of
the FLP to protect your assets. The FLP will work, or not, regardless of
the RLT.

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Ed Haywood]

As we say in the Army, beware of barracks lawyers. :)


> This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
> Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .
>

[Ernest Christley]

Kevin wrote:

> If the revocable living trust is used alone you are correct. If used in
> conjunction with a FLP it's a different matter.
>
> Asset protection can be accomplished when property is held in the
> Family limited partnership and those interests are owned by the trust.
>

The only way to protect your assets is to spend your money on things no
one can take away. Couple years ago, I kinda felt I was about to be
laid off. So I took the family to Disney World. I coulda paid more
bills, but they'd eventually take it all back anyway so WTF. There's no
way they're going to get those memories of plastered on smiles from
riding the rockin' roller coaster. They mine, and always will be!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
(airads) wrote:

> Feb. 24 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday
> provided initial support to four Massachusetts pilots - all AOPA
> members - facing a lawsuit filed by a few residents. The suit alleges
> that the noise signature from the aerobatics performed by the pilots
> caused significant harm; they are seeking approximately $1 million in
> damages. The pilots are based at various airports, some 20 miles from
> the homes of the litigants.
>
> "This is potentially an issue that could affect all pilots engaged in
> any type of air commerce - from a Cub to a 747," said AOPA President
> Phil Boyer. "We are fully prepared to take this through the federal
> system if necessary.
>


AWWWW, people living in the city hear a lot of noise

First we made it so trains couldn't sound their horns to keep the quiet
and smack

Now we can't fly because the noise from a few airplanes does a MILLION
dollars in damage?

How do you quantify that exactly? I live on the right traffic pattern
of our local (heavily utilized for training) airport and I LOVE to look
up at what is coming over....

Shoot, the locals tried to shut down the medical evac helicopter we fly
out of the University of Michigan a few years ago because of the noise!
MEDICAL EVACUATION to a level one trauma center! #7 Hospital in the
nation..More worried about noise than PEOPLES LIVES!

sigh....suburbanites..

[SeeAndAvoid]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
> The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the
org
> that is sueing these pilots. You don't have grounds for a countersuit
unless this
> one is settled in favor of the pilots. After that occurs, they'll disolve
the
> organization, and you won't have anyone to sue.

Actually the complaint was not filed by the organization, but by
individuals, it can be seen at
http://www.stopthenoise.org/docs/COMPLAINT.ammended.pdf

Plaintiffs:
Robert F. Casey, Jr. 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts. This
presumably is the lawyer that someone said is donating his time, but is also
a Plaintiff.
Rita A. Casey, 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts
David McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts
Amy McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts
Gerard Hall, 34 Lovett Lane, Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
Beverly Smith, 435 Old Ayer Road, Groton, Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The STN site is pretty low tech and a bunch of rambling nonsense. I like
this quote "FAA is an organization of General Aviation pilots tasked with
policing, among other things, General Aviation". Really?
And "It is not our intent to shut down General Aviation", yet a couple
months
ago, this same guy, Bill Burgoyne, said "There is no reason people need to
have them (small airplanes) for transportation as private vehicles"
<article at
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=8519&-token.src=column&-nothing

Another website, that is a little more professionally done and more
objective is
http://www.planesenseofgroton.org/
although they are publicly posting N-numbers of airplanes that offend them.
Is
that legal?

And if you want to see the height of anti aviation fascism, check out
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter229.htm
Anyone else seen this garbage? These people have way too much time on
their hands.

And http://www.us-caw.org/ US Citizens Aviation Watch. Check the link for
Monitored Airports, see if you're being watched.

I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened
in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference).
Time to take the
fight back to them.
Chris

[Jessie Carlson]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:27:02 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org
> >that is sueing these pilots.
>
> It sounds like a jurisdictional issue to me. I doubt the local court
> has the right to countermand the FAA's decisions.

You don't understand. This is Massachusetts. Courts in this very Liberal state
can do whatever they want, and they aren't accountable to anybody or anything.

Yes, eventually a federal district court or appellate court might hear the case.
But that will be way down the line, after much direct and collateral economic
damage is done. And that's what the plaintiffs want.

[Jessie Carlson]

Jeremy Lew wrote:

> I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues, but
> the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in these
> suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's
> practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being near
> three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for prospective
> house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in this
> area.
>
> If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N of
> the Ft. Devens MOA.

Yes the ironic thing is that the Fort Devens airfield (Moore Army Airfield,
KAYE) would have made a lovely airport, especially for cargo operations, with
excellent adjacent Rail and Freeway connections. The locals made sure this
never happened when the Army Base closed.

So now we have two large runways with X's all over them. (State police use one
of the former runways for high speed driving training).

With Moore field closed, the local airspace is available for a training area.

[Kevin]

John Doe wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
>>Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened
>>in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference).
>>Time to take the
>>fight back to them.
>
>
> Then you shall have one, Chris.
>
>
> This is precisely the problem.
>
> Allow me to introduce myself. I am an American homeowner who is considering
> establishing a Stop-the-Noise chapter with my local community.
>
> I have always had a live-and-let-live attitude towards aviation. More than
> that, I have always enjoyed watching it. I am an ex-Air Force zoomie.
>
> The issue is that flying "legally" does not make flying in a certain manner
> "right". One can fly with a bad attitude, perhaps with callous disregard
> for other pilots in the sky and those on the ground, comply with the letter
> of the FARs and yet be in the wrong. How about the guy that cuts in front of
> you on a "short final", forcing a go around? Life is full of situations
> where one's conduct or morals are wrong, yet that person is not technically
> breaking any laws.
>
> I have observed and even beeen personally victimized by pilots choosing to
> fly inverted over my home at altitudes less than 1,000' AGL, pilots diving at
> my neighbor's horse pasture in a Pitts in an apparent effort to "run" the
> animals (and once costing them $500 dollars in vet bills after an animal
> tangled in a fence, badly cutting itself).
>
> There are those few pilots that treat community noise abatement procedures
> as a personal affront or insult so they full-atttack the prop and mash in
> the throttle over subdivisions. Yes, perfectly legal in most cases. The PIC
> is responsible for safe takeoff procedures; who would question someone's
> motives?
>
> You know who you are.
>
> I have a busy life and demanding career. I have never wanted to involve
> myself in a ****ing contest with the local aviation community. I have bent
> over backwards to aviod lodging complaints with the local FSDO. Instead, I
> have recorded and reported instances of flagrant lawbreaking and
> irresponsible conduct by aerobatic pilots to AOPA and EAA, simply asking
> that efforts be made to unofficially contact these individuals and ask them
> to respect the laws and the public.
> Yet I've never received the courtesy of a response from either organization.
> That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a
> gentlemanly manner.
>
> Like anyone else, I bought my house with the expectation that I could freely
> excercise my constitutional right to peaceably use my property. I recognize
> that this is the 21st century, noise happens, and I don't have an issue with
> 95% of general aviation aircraft or their pilots. Aerobatics practice boxes
> don't appear on the terminal or sectional maps, nor does the FAA or flying
> club have to notify the public about same. That's wrong.
>
> I also have no sympathy for someone moving next to an airport
> then complaining about the noise.
>
> As I said, noise happens. But everyone has a limit. How many hours of
> aerobatics in some of the loudest light aircraft on the planet should a
> person on the ground have to tolerate? An hour every day? Ten hours of
> almost incessant window-rattling every nice weekend? Let's establish a
> consensus.. Where's the dividing line between a whining, thin-skinned psycho
> complainer and someone with a legitimate gripe?
>
> Does anyone here have a neighbor with an incessantly-barking dog? How about
> their kids parked in the drive next door with a 1,000-watt stereo in a
> Honda? When do the normal intrusions of a modern society cross the line?
>
> The line is definitely crossed when the neighbor gets a second, and larger
> barking dog and when their kids amp it up in response to your polite
> complaints.
>
> So that's the way it is. When a single high-performance aircraft can rattle
> windows over a 25 square mile area, day in and out, and the pilots refuse to
> consider any sort of mitigation, or even step it up in response to a request
> for a dialogue. Why should they? They're flying "legal".
>
> That's when organizations like Stop-the-Noise happen and grow. Ordinary
> people with legitimate gripes that are being ignored and dismissed.
> Regrettably, they will attract their share of obscessive anti-aviation
> kooks, but it's important to note why outfits like STN have happened. --
> Because of the legitimate reasons that I describe above.
>
> I enjoy running my tricked-out 1968 Chevelle SS-396. I've had it since I was
> 22 years old and lost my driver's license in those days driving it. It
> shouldn't be my neighbor's problem that it costs me $25 bucks in gas to go
> to the nearest oval track on a nice weekend instead of opening the headers
> and running it every night by their homes. The same standards of cooperation
> and sensibility should apply to the avocation of aerobatic flight, as well.
>
> Pilots are an elite fraternity, they should be better citizens than a punk
> with a thousand-watt stereo in his car.
>
> This is an open plea to the aviation community to ignore the kooks and
> accept responsibility concerning the over-the-top impact that some of their
> activities have on the general public. There are many that don't believe
> that a constructive dialogue is possible. The only alternative is going to
> be escalating tension, complaints and even litigation as has already
> occurred. I don't want that, but our community may have no choice but to
> follow that example. It is *not* true that members of STN have refused to
> negotiate or work with the aviation community. My neighbors and I, as I
> described, have bent over backwards trying to seek a mutually-acceptable
> resolution to the local situation. The next move needs to be on the part of
> the EAA, IAC and aerobatic pilots. I have seen no willingness *whatsoever*
> to accept limitations such as time of day or hours of flight per day or to
> voluntarily avoid aerobatic practice over residences where the aged, sick,
> or infirm might reside. How about the guy that sleeps days and works
> graveyard shift at the fire department? Does he merit some sort of
> consideration? The IAC and EAA refuse to even acnowledge that there is a
> growing problem on both sides of the issue and the FAA is stuck in the
> middle.
>
> Time for a reality check.
>
> That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation community
> and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to be
> regrettably clear.
>
> Thank you for reading this.
>
>
Sounds like a troll.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
>
> wrote:
>
> >I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
> >Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being
threatened
> >in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously
reference).
> >Time to take the
> >fight back to them.
>
> Then you shall have one, Chris.
>
>
> This is precisely the problem.

Here is the deal, Mr. Doe.

FAA Designees got caught lieing about noise and so EPA used Registered
Professional engineers to prove it in Courts; it is why there is an SFAR36.
If you want to do something about noise in the community, EPA are the ones
with all the leverage.

[C J Campbell]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
>
>
> Time for a reality check.
>
> That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
community
> and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to
be
> regrettably clear.

The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control the
airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that
and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed.

The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as you
have to enjoy yours.

The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably Constitutionally
protected freedom of expression.

Efforts to legislate or sue aerobatics out of existence are probably a
fruitless waste of time and money that will not solve the problem of
aircraft noise and probably sour relations between property owners and
pilots even further. The inability to come to a judicial or legislative
solution will probably result in violence on both sides. That is the path
which is regrettably clear. I think that we all would like to prevent that,
so perhaps a different approach is needed.

The reality is also that pilots are painfully aware of noise problems and
most of us would like to do almost anything to avoid them. We are homeowners
and property owners, too, you know, and a disproportionately large number of
us do live near airports.

You might start asking why we have aerobatics boxes in the first place.
After all, why should every aerobatics pilot in the area be forced to
practice over your house? Why is the problem concentrated there? Maybe what
we need to do is to stop being so restrictive about where people practice
aerobatics -- spread the problem around so that it is not excessively
annoying to anyone. Unfortunately, the effect of organizations like Stop the
Noise has been to concentrate the noise still further, making the lives of
people who live in these areas even more unbearable than it was before. Stop
the Noise and organizations like it are definitely a big part of the
problem. They created this problem in the first place and are making it
worse every day. You might want to think about that before starting your own
chapter of Stop the Noise.

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "John Doe" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
> >
> >
> > Time for a reality check.
> >
> > That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
> community
> > and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to
> be
> > regrettably clear.
>
> The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control the
> airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that
> and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed.
>
> The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as you
> have to enjoy yours.
>
> The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably Constitutionally
> protected freedom of expression.

(...)

You know, I always wonder how much damage we as pilots are doing to
ourselves by brandishing arguments like that.

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

-jav

[Tarver Engineering]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > writes:
>
> > "John Doe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
> > >
> > >
> > > Time for a reality check.
> > >
> > > That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
> > community
> > > and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going
to
> > be
> > > regrettably clear.
> >
> > The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control
the
> > airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on
that
> > and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed.
> >
> > The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as
you
> > have to enjoy yours.
> >
> > The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably
Constitutionally
> > protected freedom of expression.
>
> (...)
>
> You know, I always wonder how much damage we as pilots are doing to
> ourselves by brandishing arguments like that.
>
> I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
> poster was on a rampage.
>
> If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing injuries
> to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting ourselves
> in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such transgressions
> happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to fight
a battle you can only lose.

[Mike Noel]

The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should work
out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
sensitive area to practice over. This is starting to sound like an NRA vs.
gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad because
of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not possible.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"John Doe" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
>
> wrote:
>
> >I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
> >Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being
threatened
> >in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously
reference).
> >Time to take the
> >fight back to them.
>
> Then you shall have one, Chris.
>
>
> This is precisely the problem.
>
> Allow me to introduce myself. I am an American homeowner who is
considering
> establishing a Stop-the-Noise chapter with my local community.
>
> I have always had a live-and-let-live attitude towards aviation. More than
> that, I have always enjoyed watching it. I am an ex-Air Force zoomie.
>
> The issue is that flying "legally" does not make flying in a certain
manner
> "right". One can fly with a bad attitude, perhaps with callous disregard
> for other pilots in the sky and those on the ground, comply with the
letter
> of the FARs and yet be in the wrong. How about the guy that cuts in front
of
> you on a "short final", forcing a go around? Life is full of situations
> where one's conduct or morals are wrong, yet that person is not
technically
> breaking any laws.
>
> I have observed and even beeen personally victimized by pilots choosing to
> fly inverted over my home at altitudes less than 1,000' AGL, pilots diving
at
> my neighbor's horse pasture in a Pitts in an apparent effort to "run" the
> animals (and once costing them $500 dollars in vet bills after an animal
> tangled in a fence, badly cutting itself).
>
> There are those few pilots that treat community noise abatement procedures
> as a personal affront or insult so they full-atttack the prop and mash in
> the throttle over subdivisions. Yes, perfectly legal in most cases. The
PIC
> is responsible for safe takeoff procedures; who would question someone's
> motives?
>
> You know who you are.
>
> I have a busy life and demanding career. I have never wanted to involve
> myself in a ****ing contest with the local aviation community. I have bent
> over backwards to aviod lodging complaints with the local FSDO. Instead, I
> have recorded and reported instances of flagrant lawbreaking and
> irresponsible conduct by aerobatic pilots to AOPA and EAA, simply asking
> that efforts be made to unofficially contact these individuals and ask
them
> to respect the laws and the public.
> Yet I've never received the courtesy of a response from either
organization.
> That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a
> gentlemanly manner.
>
> Like anyone else, I bought my house with the expectation that I could
freely
> excercise my constitutional right to peaceably use my property. I
recognize
> that this is the 21st century, noise happens, and I don't have an issue
with
> 95% of general aviation aircraft or their pilots. Aerobatics practice
boxes
> don't appear on the terminal or sectional maps, nor does the FAA or flying
> club have to notify the public about same. That's wrong.
>
> I also have no sympathy for someone moving next to an airport
> then complaining about the noise.
>
> As I said, noise happens. But everyone has a limit. How many hours of
> aerobatics in some of the loudest light aircraft on the planet should a
> person on the ground have to tolerate? An hour every day? Ten hours of
> almost incessant window-rattling every nice weekend? Let's establish a
> consensus.. Where's the dividing line between a whining, thin-skinned
psycho
> complainer and someone with a legitimate gripe?
>
> Does anyone here have a neighbor with an incessantly-barking dog? How
about
> their kids parked in the drive next door with a 1,000-watt stereo in a
> Honda? When do the normal intrusions of a modern society cross the line?
>
> The line is definitely crossed when the neighbor gets a second, and larger
> barking dog and when their kids amp it up in response to your polite
> complaints.
>
> So that's the way it is. When a single high-performance aircraft can
rattle
> windows over a 25 square mile area, day in and out, and the pilots refuse
to
> consider any sort of mitigation, or even step it up in response to a
request
> for a dialogue. Why should they? They're flying "legal".
>
> That's when organizations like Stop-the-Noise happen and grow. Ordinary
> people with legitimate gripes that are being ignored and dismissed.
> Regrettably, they will attract their share of obscessive anti-aviation
> kooks, but it's important to note why outfits like STN have happened. --
> Because of the legitimate reasons that I describe above.
>
> I enjoy running my tricked-out 1968 Chevelle SS-396. I've had it since I
was
> 22 years old and lost my driver's license in those days driving it. It
> shouldn't be my neighbor's problem that it costs me $25 bucks in gas to go
> to the nearest oval track on a nice weekend instead of opening the headers
> and running it every night by their homes. The same standards of
cooperation
> and sensibility should apply to the avocation of aerobatic flight, as
well.
>
> Pilots are an elite fraternity, they should be better citizens than a punk
> with a thousand-watt stereo in his car.
>
> This is an open plea to the aviation community to ignore the kooks and
> accept responsibility concerning the over-the-top impact that some of
their
> activities have on the general public. There are many that don't believe
> that a constructive dialogue is possible. The only alternative is going to
> be escalating tension, complaints and even litigation as has already
> occurred. I don't want that, but our community may have no choice but to
> follow that example. It is *not* true that members of STN have refused to
> negotiate or work with the aviation community. My neighbors and I, as I
> described, have bent over backwards trying to seek a mutually-acceptable
> resolution to the local situation. The next move needs to be on the part
of
> the EAA, IAC and aerobatic pilots. I have seen no willingness *whatsoever*
> to accept limitations such as time of day or hours of flight per day or to
> voluntarily avoid aerobatic practice over residences where the aged, sick,
> or infirm might reside. How about the guy that sleeps days and works
> graveyard shift at the fire department? Does he merit some sort of
> consideration? The IAC and EAA refuse to even acnowledge that there is a
> growing problem on both sides of the issue and the FAA is stuck in the
> middle.
>
> Time for a reality check.
>
> That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
community
> and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to
be
> regrettably clear.
>
> Thank you for reading this.
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
> > poster was on a rampage.
> >
> > If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
injuries
> > to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
ourselves
> > in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
transgressions
> > happen and are brought out for discussion.
>
> Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US
WRT
> noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
fight
> a battle you can only lose.

Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

If you had read the whole post, you would have noticed that I did not excuse
the Pitts pilot or anybody else. I said that noise was a problem, but that
organizations like Stop the Noise actually make the problem worse rather
than better. What I said was that we need a whole new approach to the way we
are dealing with noise issues. What is being done now is obviously not
working and is probably making the problem worse.

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
> The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
> aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should
work
> out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
> sensitive area to practice over. This is starting to sound like an NRA
vs.
> gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad
because
> of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not
possible.
>

You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely. Neither
is it likely that pilots will find a less sensitive area to practice over.
If you think you know of such an area the pilots would certainly be
interested in knowing about it. I am sure that whoever lives in the less
sensitive area will greatly appreciate your efforts, too.

The real problem lies in concentrating all this activity in a small area in
the first place -- probably at the insistence of those affected by noise.
Concentrating it still further is unlikely to improve the situation.

A better approach might be to get rid of aerobatic boxes entirely and let
pilots practice where they want. That would spread the noise out over a
larger area and be less objectionable over all.

No one is saying that there should be no control whatsoever. What many of us
are saying is that the controls we have in place are at best ineffective and
at worst actually make the problem worse. Since you seem to think that
sensible controls are possible, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten
the rest of us as to what those sensible controls might be. Then we can have
a sensible debate about whether those sensible controls are really as
sensible as you think they are.

[SeeAndAvoid]

<warning, LONG, I'd gone private but no email address was given>

John Doe, (from the band X?, cool)
I doubt you're a troll, I'm sure someone though will post the definition of
one to prove otherwise, so, don't do a hit-and-run and answer the endless
responses that'll surely come your way. Heck, I could be called a troll
on the aerobatics/misc groups as I've never been there, but since this
is crossposting to those (sorry guys, didnt notice at first), I guess I've
been there now.

"Kooks" is on the mark for describing some of these people, and we have
some of our own. I was just talking to my flying partner and he pointed
out there are alot of pilots out there doing harm to those of us that want
to do our thing with minimal impact to anyone. But when I hear of these
'kooks' that dont even 'approve' of US, that we should be done away with
as well, I'd hope you agree that just isn't right.

Since you introduced yourself, so will I. I also am an American homeowner,
I have taken on a live-and-let live relationship with my neighbors
constantly barking dog. I was here first, and no, I havent gone out and
got a louder dog. I live near a practice area, rarely are there aerobatics,
just
your normal steep turns and stalls. I used to live under base-to-final and
under a skydiving drop zone. The street behind us wasn't too busy when
we moved in, that's changed. Could I've turned into a 'kook' over all those
things? Guess it depends on your personality type.

About airplane noise in particular, just so you know where I'm coming from:
I own a 182, and although I don't do aerobatics, I'll defend their right to
exist as much as any other aviation activity that is currently legal, I hate
discrimination. Our local city government has in one form or another tried
to get rid of various types of aviation activities. They tried to move the
traffic pattern over a heavily congested area so as to substantially
increase
complaints and hopefully eventually close down the airport. I spent alot
of time canvassing those areas, hundreds of homes, with fliers, and speaking
to many of those homeowners. Most were not pilots, were friendly, not
terribly interested in the issue until they were told their elected
officials
had plans for them without asking them. Through exposing them publicly,
we won. By we I don't mean just pilots either. Why would they do this,
besides wanting to shut down the airport? A wealthy landowner with
some attorneys, a real kook who threatened to shoot down pilots and
come after them at the local FBO. That's how some 'kooks' end up, watch
out for some of your members.

I've heard of the pilots who go and pour salt on the people that complain,
it's not hard to do and stay within the regs. It doesn't benefit either
side
though, and dont say the anti-aviation types don't do the same thing. Just
so you know I'm not just a pro-aviation blowhard, I've discussed the
issue with some of the anti-aviation people at city council chambers,
airport advisory board meetings, other meetings to bring both sides
together,
and have been asked by the city to be a mediator. I've mostly learned
there are some people that can't be reasoned with and when the red mist
comes down into their eyes there's no dealing with them. Many we had
good dialogues with, and no I don't offer flights in my airplane to sway
them over to our side, I don't care if they ever fly. I mostly ask what
could we do, short of not fly at all, to improve the situation. I also
explain that the City is often responsible for forcing us to fly where
we do, and that most of us want to leave the smallest noise footprint
as possible and keep it near the airport. Having enemies as neighbors,
many fairly wealthy, does not do us any good.

After securing some goodwill with the neighbors, and many of them said
they were happy with the pilot/user designed noise abatement procedure,
the city then wanted to move the pattern to the opposite side of the
airport over even more houses than the other proposal. Instead of
hundreds of homes, thousands of them. Just so you know the crap we
have to put up with, too. I'm sure there are other pilots that read these
groups that have had to fight governments and groups that are trying
to make the noise situation worse for their own ends. So, yeah, I have
a problem when the anti-aviation group thinking all we do is fight for
our right to make noise. Mostly, for me anyway, it's a fight to not be
noticed. I don't want you to know I'm up there, I dont want to hear you
complaining about me.

Mostly it's an education thing, on both sides. There is a proposal for
an aerobatics box in the local area. The local FSDO is getting heat
for not publicizing it to the people who live in that area. The paper
then runs a few letters and an editorial about it, and gets some facts
wrong (where it is, a better place for it to be, etc). At risk of some
'kook's getting in on the fight, I posted the information, with corrections,
on my site, which is bookmarked by the anti-aviation folks here in
town, don't worry about it. I've even had pro-aviation people have
a problem with me basically inviting the opposition into the issue,
as if they'd not figured it out later when traffic or aerobatics
multiplied over their heads. I guess I just don't view them as the
'opposition' as I spend 99% of my life on the ground, contrary to
what many might believe.

Groups like STN are just troublemakers that have found a new target,
dont kid yourself. Aviation has to defend itself against nuts like this
all over the country, and many do it in the way I've described above.
Not heavy handed, but trying to peacefully coexist. You sound like
a reasonable person, are you going to align yourself with STN and
their way of operating, or be a little more reasonable? When you
organize, that's what you need to decide. Unfortunately we cannot
'ignore the kooks' like you said. And even when we do 'behave',
which many kooks say we arent even capable of, we get threatened.
I do believe a constructive dialogue is possible, I've seen it and
have done it. But theres always that dangerous fringe with blood
in their eyes, you can spot em a mile away.

> That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
community
> and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to
be
> regrettably clear.

The ball's with both of us in the same court. And the statement you
made here makes my point: it's only the aviation community and
the FAA who has to change? That, like what STN does, is not
negotiating. It's saying "you have to change, not me." and "you
need to adapt to me, not vice-versa." Dont you see the problem
with that tactic? You should, you don't sound stupid.
I'll continue to work with the reasonable ones, but I'll treat the others
the same way the Inquisition, witch hunters, and Nazi's were eventually
dealt with - ignoring them only makes it worse.

Good luck in your endeavor. Hopefully you'll be a problem-solver and
and not a trouble-maker. The world could use more of the former, and
less of the latter.
Chris

[Tarver Engineering]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
> > > poster was on a rampage.
> > >
> > > If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
injuries
> > > to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
ourselves
> > > in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
transgressions
> > > happen and are brought out for discussion.
> >
> > Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US
WRT
> > noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
fight
> > a battle you can only lose.
>
> Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
> hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct about
the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.

<snip of nothing of substance>

> I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
> re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
> However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You
are
> idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is not
my problem.

[Tarver Engineering]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
> > aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should
work
> > out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
> > sensitive area to practice over. This is starting to sound like an NRA
vs.
> > gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad
because
> > of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not
possible.
> >
>
> You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely.

Then the pilots will lose.

[C J Campbell]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> > >
> >
> > You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely.
>
> Then the pilots will lose.
>
>

We may finally agree on something there. Unfortunately, I don't see what
more the pilots can do.

[C J Campbell]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel
the
> > > > poster was on a rampage.
> > > >
> > > > If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
> injuries
> > > > to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
> ourselves
> > > > in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
> transgressions
> > > > happen and are brought out for discussion.
> > >
> > > Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the
US
> WRT
> > > noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
> fight
> > > a battle you can only lose.
> >
> > Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
> > hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.
>
> It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
> especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct
about
> the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.
>
> <snip of nothing of substance>
>
> > I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
> > re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
> > However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You
> are
> > idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.
>
> I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is
not
> my problem.
>
>

It is your problem if you lie about it, just as you are also lying about my
going to the FSDO about the POH. I never did any such thing. I don't even
remember arguing with you about the subject. It is not something that I
think I would care much about. Near as I can tell you are again
misrepresenting my views and actions.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > writes:
>
> > The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably
Constitutionally
> > protected freedom of expression.
>
> (...)
>
> You know, I always wonder how much damage we as pilots are doing to
> ourselves by brandishing arguments like that.

Odd, isn't it, that tantrums in the media haven't had a deleterious effect?

> I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
> poster was on a rampage.
>
> If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing injuries
> to livestock and other low level buzz jobs,

Is that the case here?

> then we are shooting ourselves
> in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such transgressions
> happen and are brought out for discussion.
>
> -jav

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel
the
> > > > poster was on a rampage.
> > > >
> > > > If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
> injuries
> > > > to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
> ourselves
> > > > in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
> transgressions
> > > > happen and are brought out for discussion.
> > >
> > > Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the
US
> WRT
> > > noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
> fight
> > > a battle you can only lose.
> >
> > Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
> > hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.
>
> It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
> especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct
about
> the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.

Wow!! You're 1 for 24. Now want to finish your explanation of "Rare Yen"?

> <snip of nothing of substance>

You don't have a clue what "substance" is.

>
> > I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
> > re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
> > However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You
> are
> > idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.
>
> I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is
not
> my problem.

You didn't state a single "fact".

You can memorize volumes, I've noticed, but your comprehension is minimal.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
> The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
> aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should
work
> out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
> sensitive area to practice over.

Do pilots set these areas, or the FAA? Who makes that decison?

> This is starting to sound like an NRA vs.
> gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad
because
> of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not
possible.

Maybe because any gun control "law" is merely a control on the "law"abiding.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mike

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
> > > poster was on a rampage.
> > >
> > > If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
> injuries
> > > to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
> ourselves
> > > in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
> transgressions
> > > happen and are brought out for discussion.
> >
> > Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US
> WRT
> > noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
> fight
> > a battle you can only lose.
>
> Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
> hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.
>
> If you had read the whole post, you would have noticed that I did not excuse
> the Pitts pilot or anybody else. I said that noise was a problem, but that
> organizations like Stop the Noise actually make the problem worse rather
> than better. What I said was that we need a whole new approach to the way we
> are dealing with noise issues. What is being done now is obviously not
> working and is probably making the problem worse.
>
> I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
> re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
> However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You are
> idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

Ahm...can you tone down your drivel a tad? Specifically, the personal
attacks. I don't recall having done that to you in the past.

Now, I picked your three arguments and replied to just those because
that's all I wanted to comment on. I have seen those same arguments
used by others before, and I'm always left wondering if we're doing
ourselves more harm by attempting to either shift blame, or by
basically saying "we were here first". Yeah, maybe we were, but if
we're in the minority (and in most cases, we are) then we only make
our uphill quest that much steeper.

-jav

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
> wrote:

>"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
>> The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the
>org
>> that is sueing these pilots. You don't have grounds for a countersuit
>unless this
>> one is settled in favor of the pilots. After that occurs, they'll disolve
>the
>> organization, and you won't have anyone to sue.
>
>Actually the complaint was not filed by the organization, but by
>individuals, it can be seen at
>http://www.stopthenoise.org/docs/COMPLAINT.ammended.pdf
>
>Plaintiffs:
>Robert F. Casey, Jr. 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts. This
>presumably is the lawyer that someone said is donating his time, but is also
>a Plaintiff.
>Rita A. Casey, 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts
>David McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts
>Amy McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts
>Gerard Hall, 34 Lovett Lane, Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
>Beverly Smith, 435 Old Ayer Road, Groton, Massachusetts
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>The STN site is pretty low tech and a bunch of rambling nonsense. I like
>this quote "FAA is an organization of General Aviation pilots tasked with
>policing, among other things, General Aviation". Really?
>And "It is not our intent to shut down General Aviation", yet a couple
>months
>ago, this same guy, Bill Burgoyne, said "There is no reason people need to
>have them (small airplanes) for transportation as private vehicles"
><article at
>http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=8519&-token.src=column&-nothing
>
>Another website, that is a little more professionally done and more
>objective is
>http://www.planesenseofgroton.org/
>although they are publicly posting N-numbers of airplanes that offend them.
>Is
>that legal?
>

>And if you want to see the height of anti aviation fascism, check out
>http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter229.htm
>Anyone else seen this garbage? These people have way too much time on
>their hands.

I may be wrong, but it seems like "ol' Bill" tried to get his license
once and failed. Now has it in for anything to do with aviation.
Course I could just be mis-remembering. That did happen one time when
I thought I was wrong, but really was so... never mind.


>
>And http://www.us-caw.org/ US Citizens Aviation Watch. Check the link for
>Monitored Airports, see if you're being watched.

Most, but certainly not all are a bunch of nut cases. There are some
level headed ones who just don't like the noise, but if you follow the
noise pollution newsgroups you will see about 90% of the posts come
from only a few people who are just plain not rational.

However they do pose a threat to aviation in general, not just general
aviation. Some of them are pretty radical.

>
>I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
>Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened
>in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference).
>Time to take the
>fight back to them.

When it comes to law I know about zip, but I learned two things from a
friend who is a lawyer.

In cases like this where they are obviously trying to intimidate and
harass the pilots, if at all possible file counter suits in amounts
large enough it will scare off all but the diehards and if you win
it'll make your lawyers rich. The other is you really do get all the
justice you can afford, unless you are very, very lucky.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Chris
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:35:10 GMT, John Doe >
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid" >
>wrote:
>

<although this guy may be a real individual there is to much troll and
not enough truth in here.

>The issue is that flying "legally" does not make flying in a certain manner
>"right". One can fly with a bad attitude, perhaps with callous disregard
>for other pilots in the sky and those on the ground, comply with the letter
>of the FARs and yet be in the wrong. How about the guy that cuts in front of

No one can not.

>you on a "short final", forcing a go around? Life is full of situations
>where one's conduct or morals are wrong, yet that person is not technically
>breaking any laws.

Yes, flying in a dangerous and reckless manner is breaking the laws,
or at least regulations.

>
>I have observed and even beeen personally victimized by pilots choosing to
>fly inverted over my home at altitudes less than 1,000' AGL, pilots diving at
>my neighbor's horse pasture in a Pitts in an apparent effort to "run" the
>animals (and once costing them $500 dollars in vet bills after an animal
>tangled in a fence, badly cutting itself).

If that is the truth then those individuals are legally responsible
and could be prosecuted if you have the N#s.

>
>There are those few pilots that treat community noise abatement procedures
>as a personal affront or insult so they full-atttack the prop and mash in
>the throttle over subdivisions. Yes, perfectly legal in most cases. The PIC
>is responsible for safe takeoff procedures; who would question someone's
>motives?

No it is not legal in most cases and a pilot with any sense knows
doing so would just make matters worse rather than proving a point.

>
>You know who you are.
>
>I have a busy life and demanding career. I have never wanted to involve
>myself in a ****ing contest with the local aviation community. I have bent
>over backwards to aviod lodging complaints with the local FSDO. Instead, I
>have recorded and reported instances of flagrant lawbreaking and
>irresponsible conduct by aerobatic pilots to AOPA and EAA, simply asking
>that efforts be made to unofficially contact these individuals and ask them
>to respect the laws and the public.
>Yet I've never received the courtesy of a response from either organization.

Both of these organizations would have responded promptly to a
rational complaint. This is what makes me doubt the rest of the post
and believe it to be a troll.

>That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a
>gentlemanly manner.
>
Most of us try to work with organizations, but when one comes on in a
confrontational manner that organization just causes problems.

We had a noise problem at our airport.
I fly a high performance aircraft and at take off RPM I readily admit
it is loud! I also try to be a good neighbor and follow the airport
regulations.

One hot afternoon the wind was out of the SSE and a bit gusty so all
of us were relegated to using 18/36. Unfortunately there is a new
subdivision full of very expensive homes off the end of that runway.
They fought lengthening the runway because they feared bigger planes.
What they received were the old planes coming off a short runway right
over their homes. On a hot day with the wind out of the south they
get a lot of very low flying and noisy traffic.

At 200 feet none of us are coming back on the RPM over a heavily
populated area, or sooner or later they'd be picking up aircraft parts
out of some ones living room. AT 500 feet with a place to go, is
fine, but lower and nothing but homes ... not a chance. Besides, the
sooner we can get to a safe altitude the sooner we can come back on
the power safely.

At any rate, I was using 18 and I was passing over those new homes low
enough to count the boards in the picnic tables in their back yards.
I have no doubt the dishes rattled in the cupboards and they had
trouble talking to each other.

Had they chosen to let us lengthen the runway most planes would be
throttled back and at pattern altitude over their homes instead of
clawing for altitude at full power.

The airport manager told me they had a complaint of me taking off over
the guys house every 5 minutes all after noon. I told him it wasn't
possible even if I tried and I had only made three take offs and
landings that entire day. The manager said, "That's pretty much what
I thought".

The one guy reported me taking off over his house every five minutes
all after noon. He reported my N number. Unfortunately for him, he
only recorded it and then gave me credit for the rest of the noise
without verifying it.
He swore up and down that I went over his house every 5 minutes.
Basically due to the laws of physics, (capabilities of my airplane and
the inability to be in more than one place at a time) his complaint
lost all credibility. That and we had a bunch of high performance
planes there that afternoon including a couple of twins. All had to
use that short runway.

What happened was the noise complainers not only lost their fight, but
I understand they now have to have any noise complaints recorded on
their deed, or property description (it gets recorded some place and
has to be presented when they sell). That and the city found that if
they closed the airport they'd have to pay back the FAA for land
purchase grants based on the present value of the property and not the
original grants. They also got caught with their hands in the
proverbial cookie jar as they'd been renting parking spaces on airport
property for the county fair and the three times yearly antique show.
Nothing wrong with that except they were putting the money in the
general fund instead of the airport. When those funds were included
the airport was making a profit and they didn't want it to show one.
They liked it better if they could show the airport required a
subsidy.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel
> the
> > > > > poster was on a rampage.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
> > injuries
> > > > > to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
> > ourselves
> > > > > in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
> > transgressions
> > > > > happen and are brought out for discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the
> US
> > WRT
> > > > noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than
to
> > fight
> > > > a battle you can only lose.
> > >
> > > Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny
to
> > > hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.
> >
> > It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
> > especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct
> about
> > the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.
> >
> > <snip of nothing of substance>
> >
> > > I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
> > > re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I
intended.
> > > However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised.
You
> > are
> > > idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.
> >
> > I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is
> not
> > my problem.
> >
> >
>
> It is your problem if you lie about it, just as you are also lying about
my
> going to the FSDO about the POH. I never did any such thing.

You posted up a letter from the FSDO on the subject at rai.

> I don't even
> remember arguing with you about the subject. It is not something that I
> think I would care much about. Near as I can tell you are again
> misrepresenting my views and actions.

The POH and icing limitations has been an ongoing debate at rai for some
years.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...

> You didn't state a single "fact".

I stated the facts WRT FAA and noise and even why FAA finds itself in that
position.

> You can memorize volumes, I've noticed, but your comprehension is minimal.

If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I can
assue you that all you will do is elimninate small GA. We already have the
TSA going about claiming that small GA is the biggest threat to National
Security in the US, so making enemies with homeowners is just that much more
of a loser.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...

>
> Maybe because any gun control "law" is merely a control on the
"law"abiding.

Not at all, the new tack is to claim gun control makes Europe like us
better.

[Tarver Engineering]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely.
> >
> > Then the pilots will lose.

> We may finally agree on something there. Unfortunately, I don't see what
> more the pilots can do.

The attitude of your previous posts is the opposite of waht is needed. Just
giving people the impression that you care about their noise concerns will
help. You have to remember that in a class warfare society airplane owners
are already the evil rich and right now the TSA wants small GA gone.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

> >And if you want to see the height of anti aviation fascism, check out
> >http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter229.htm
> >Anyone else seen this garbage? These people have way too much time on
> >their hands.
>
> I may be wrong, but it seems like "ol' Bill" tried to get his license
> once and failed. Now has it in for anything to do with aviation.
> Course I could just be mis-remembering. That did happen one time when
> I thought I was wrong, but really was so... never mind.

Perhpas you are confusing a fish with the long island looney bird.

--
Bob Noel

[C J Campbell]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > It is your problem if you lie about it, just as you are also lying about
> my
> > going to the FSDO about the POH. I never did any such thing.
>
> You posted up a letter from the FSDO on the subject at rai.
>

Bet you can't show me that post.

> > I don't even
> > remember arguing with you about the subject. It is not something that I
> > think I would care much about. Near as I can tell you are again
> > misrepresenting my views and actions.
>
> The POH and icing limitations has been an ongoing debate at rai for some
> years.

I did post a letter about icing limitations, but it was not to prove that
the POH was "part of the type certificate," which is what you originally
asserted.

[C J Campbell]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely.
> > >
> > > Then the pilots will lose.
>
> > We may finally agree on something there. Unfortunately, I don't see what
> > more the pilots can do.
>
> The attitude of your previous posts is the opposite of waht is needed.
Just
> giving people the impression that you care about their noise concerns will
> help.

Apparently you are the only person in the whole world that has the
impression that I do not care about noise concerns. How you got that
impression was through deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

[SeeAndAvoid]

"Roger Halstead" wrote
<snipped, airport situation>

Man, your city mustve taken lessons from mine, or vice versa. Damn
near carbon copy with their tactics, glad we're not alone. Lets see...
Neighbors fight runway extension for same reason, they dont buy our
argument that we'd be higher when over their house - more of a head
start, etc.
Blatant lies by the neighbors about who was doing what.
Once they were threatened with the equivalent of liens put against
their properties due to their constant mostly fabricated noise complaints
they chilled, for a while.
One of the complainers is making money on the airport now with a
portable bbq business, but I'm sure he's paying nothing in rent.
The city plays games with the airport fund, money that should go into
it somehow shows up in the general fund.
It's the only airport/city in the state that anyone knows about that you
pay a hefty sales tax/use fee when you bring an airplane there and
base it there.
What little money is in the airport fund, the city uses on binoculars,
camcorders, and radios given to the biggest airport opponents. Which
of course they use to further their cause.
When the city asked me to be a mediator with the neighbors I turned
them down until they level the playing field and quit subsidizing
this anti-airport campaign. I still deal with them privately though,
you can't just ignore them and shut them out.
Chris

[Flying Squirrel]

That's great! It never occurred to me that this whole problem is *because*
Moore AAF was closed down. It's a great suggestion for STN to get the
airspace made inaccessible to aerobatics like they want- reopen the
airfield, and put a few E-to-the ground instrument approaches in! Seems to
me the "No airlines/FedEx at Hanscom" crowd should be all over this, too.


"Jessie Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeremy Lew wrote:
>
> > I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues,
but
> > the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in
these
> > suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's
> > practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being
near
> > three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for
prospective
> > house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in
this
> > area.
> >
> > If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N
of
> > the Ft. Devens MOA.
>
> Yes the ironic thing is that the Fort Devens airfield (Moore Army
Airfield,
> KAYE) would have made a lovely airport, especially for cargo operations,
with
> excellent adjacent Rail and Freeway connections. The locals made sure
this
> never happened when the Army Base closed.
>
> So now we have two large runways with X's all over them. (State police
use one
> of the former runways for high speed driving training).
>
> With Moore field closed, the local airspace is available for a training
area.
>

[Flying Squirrel]

It certainly did not sound like a troll. Some of his specifics were
nonsense. His general point was not. Burgoyne's web rants might be
overcome, but continuing to dismiss rational and reasonable opponents will
eventually kill aerobatics near most major cities. Deal with it, work
with them, or face extinction.

"Kevin" > wrote in message
news:oiE9c.118065$_w.1382198@attbi_s53...
> John Doe wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
> >>Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being
threatened
> >>in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously
reference).
> >>Time to take the
> >>fight back to them.
> >
> >
> > Then you shall have one, Chris.
> >
> >
> > This is precisely the problem.
> >
(big snip)
> > That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
community
> > and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going
to be
> > regrettably clear.
> >
> > Thank you for reading this.
> >
> >
> Sounds like a troll.
>

[Rick Briggs]

A million dollar damages? C'mon, don't you get it? As long as the
possibility exists that a court may be prepared to award these kinds of
damages for these kinds of reasons, and there are plenty of examples to show
that some will, then there are always going to be people who are going to
'try their luck'. Sign of the times I'm afraid.

Rick.

"Chris Schmelzer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (airads) wrote:
>
> > Feb. 24 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday
> > provided initial support to four Massachusetts pilots - all AOPA
> > members - facing a lawsuit filed by a few residents. The suit alleges
> > that the noise signature from the aerobatics performed by the pilots
> > caused significant harm; they are seeking approximately $1 million in
> > damages. The pilots are based at various airports, some 20 miles from
> > the homes of the litigants.
> >
> > "This is potentially an issue that could affect all pilots engaged in
> > any type of air commerce - from a Cub to a 747," said AOPA President
> > Phil Boyer. "We are fully prepared to take this through the federal
> > system if necessary.
> >
>
>
> AWWWW, people living in the city hear a lot of noise
>
> First we made it so trains couldn't sound their horns to keep the quiet
> and smack
>
> Now we can't fly because the noise from a few airplanes does a MILLION
> dollars in damage?
>
> How do you quantify that exactly? I live on the right traffic pattern
> of our local (heavily utilized for training) airport and I LOVE to look
> up at what is coming over....
>
> Shoot, the locals tried to shut down the medical evac helicopter we fly
> out of the University of Michigan a few years ago because of the noise!
> MEDICAL EVACUATION to a level one trauma center! #7 Hospital in the
> nation..More worried about noise than PEOPLES LIVES!
>
> sigh....suburbanites..

[C J Campbell]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ahm...can you tone down your drivel a tad? Specifically, the personal
> attacks. I don't recall having done that to you in the past.

Actually, I thought your post was a personal attack. I certainly took it
that way.

>
> Now, I picked your three arguments and replied to just those because
> that's all I wanted to comment on. I have seen those same arguments
> used by others before,

Anything untrue about them? All I am saying is that the legal remedies
sought by Stop the Noise are a waste of time and money and likely to produce
nothing that will help solve the problem. If I was considering starting a
Stop the Noise chapter I would sure want to know about that.

I think there are things that can be done to reduce the noise problem but it
appears that the only possible 'solutions' anyone is willing to look at are
those that move the noise somewhere else, like Montana or, preferably, the
far side of the moon. That being the case, I don't see things improving for
a long time.

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:43:45 GMT, "Flying Squirrel"
> wrote:

>It certainly did not sound like a troll. Some of his specifics were
>nonsense. His general point was not. Burgoyne's web rants might be
>overcome, but continuing to dismiss rational and reasonable opponents will
>eventually kill aerobatics near most major cities. Deal with it, work
>with them, or face extinction.

You missed the whole point of the reply.

I quoted a number of things we do to try to stay good neighbors,
dealing with them and not dismissing rational complaints. The
original post still appears to me to be either a troll or crank.

I have seen no posts on here that dismiss the problem.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>"Kevin" > wrote in message
>news:oiE9c.118065$_w.1382198@attbi_s53...
>> John Doe wrote:
>> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
>> >>Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being
>threatened
>> >>in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously
>reference).
>> >>Time to take the
>> >>fight back to them.
>> >
>> >
>> > Then you shall have one, Chris.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is precisely the problem.
>> >
>(big snip)
>> > That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
>community
>> > and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going
>to be
>> > regrettably clear.
>> >
>> > Thank you for reading this.
>> >
>> >
>> Sounds like a troll.
>>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Ed Haywood" > wrote:

> "Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> >
> > If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good
> > countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more
> > than what they are aksing. That they have caused great financial harm
> > (pilots having to sell planes to meet expenses) is already an arguing
> > point.
>
>
> This was a hot topic of discussion on the aerobatics e-mail list last fall.
>
> I wonder how truly serious AOPA is about this issue. They had to be dragged
> kicking and screaming into the fight. They got a lot of angry letters and
> cancelled memberships before they did anything. To their credit, once they
> realized how lame they looked, they did take action to correct it.
>
> Playing "dueling lawyers" won't have the desired effect. The founder of STN
> is a Boston lawyer who does all the legal work himself. He has a reputation
> of using lawsuits to bully others. You can't cost him more than his time,
> which he already donates willingly.
>
>

Why not take the matter up with the MA State Bar Assn.? I'm sure that
his methods would skirt the limits of ethics. Maybe you can get him
disbarred.

[Mike Spera]

Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.

We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
guessed it, my house.

I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
"violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
"violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.

So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
the same homes don't get pummeled forever.

Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
RANGE!!!

Good Luck,
Mike


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Dave Stadt]

Sounds like Schaumburg. The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense. Far as I know the
procedures are voluntary.

"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
> airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
> boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
> attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.
>
> We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
> We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
> closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
> the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
> harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
> procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
> bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
> years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
> guessed it, my house.
>
> I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
> PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
> is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
> absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
> O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
> eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
> their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
> "violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
> they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
> even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
> "violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
> and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
> federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.
>
> So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
> the same homes don't get pummeled forever.
>
> Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
> RANGE!!!
>
> Good Luck,
> Mike
>
>
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Ahm...can you tone down your drivel a tad? Specifically, the personal
> > attacks. I don't recall having done that to you in the past.
>
> Actually, I thought your post was a personal attack. I certainly took it
> that way.

It wasn't. It contained a different point of view, but that's hardly a
personal attack. Your posting contained insults, and it was clearly a
personal attack.

Anyway. I dislike continuing flame wars, if you'd like to discuss this
further, please drop me an email.

Happy flying,

-jav

[Paul Sengupta]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I
can
> assue you that all you will do is elimninate small GA.

It may just be my reading comprehension, but to me it sounded a
lot like Mr Campbell said that we need to compromise, rather than
appease and follow the STN movement. He said that the movement
is making things worse for some people by concentrating the noise
in a single area, and this approach wasn't right...instead of fighting
the two opposing sides, people should compromise to come up with
a new approach.

He stated that pilots can do what they like, but most are painfully
aware of the noise issues and would like to do what they can to
minimise it in a single area...but are forced into one of these areas
by the STN thing.

But then that's the way I read it.

Paul

[Cub Driver]

On 31 Mar 2004 03:15:43 GMT, Mike Spera > wrote:

>So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
>the same homes don't get pummeled foreve

I couldn't agree more.

At least until they move the box over my house. Then I'll sue!

(In truth, I'm safe from that. I live in the Delta airspace of a
former SAC base, now a "tradeport" but still with National Guard
KC-135s. They annoy me sometimes in the summer, but most of the time I
enjoy the business.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Paul Sengupta]

A couple of years ago there was the case of the "Guildford
aerobatic pilot" which became famous in the pilot magazines
here. Pilots...yes, pilots...from the Guildford area wrote in to
the magazines complaining about the incessant noise from the
pilot who did aeros in the vicinity of Guildford.

I used to like watching that (IIRC) Pitts...usually from the top
of the car park here in work. Anyway, after the letters, he went
away. Not seen him/her since. Sigh.

Diana Britten, the British aerobatic champion flies from Fairoaks,
the local airport. I've never seen her practising aeros in this area.
I would like to. :-)

http://www.dianabritten.com/

Paul

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> At least until they move the box over my house. Then I'll sue!
>
> (In truth, I'm safe from that. I live in the Delta airspace of a
> former SAC base, now a "tradeport" but still with National Guard
> KC-135s. They annoy me sometimes in the summer, but most of the time I
> enjoy the business.)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I
can
> > assure you that all you will do is elimninate small GA.
>
> It may just be my reading comprehension, but to me it sounded a
> lot like Mr Campbell said that we need to compromise,

It is your reading comprehension. Go back and read it again, as Campbell
was postibng that it is too late for compromise. Without compromise all
that is left is a war you can't win. After my post Campbell saw the light
and adopted a conciliatory tone.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
> dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense.

There's a complainer that lives off the western end of the runway at 47N. They
initiated a procedure to try to placate her. Every aircraft was expected to make a 45
degree left turn about 100 yards from the end of the runway. About a year after that
went into effect, a Cherokee stalled immediately after turning and pancaked into a
golf course, killing both occupants. They're back to straight out departures now.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[S Green]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> A couple of years ago there was the case of the "Guildford
> aerobatic pilot" which became famous in the pilot magazines
> here. Pilots...yes, pilots...from the Guildford area wrote in to
> the magazines complaining about the incessant noise from the
> pilot who did aeros in the vicinity of Guildford.
>
> I used to like watching that (IIRC) Pitts...usually from the top
> of the car park here in work. Anyway, after the letters, he went
> away. Not seen him/her since. Sigh.
>
> Diana Britten, the British aerobatic champion flies from Fairoaks,
> the local airport. I've never seen her practising aeros in this area.
> I would like to. :-)
>

I have often seen someone aeros over Cantley Field near Wokingham.

[SeeAndAvoid]

> "Tarver Engineering" wrote
> > If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I
> > can assue you that all you will do is elimninate small GA.

...and if the other side says there is NO compromise, which many of them
do, then what? I've dealt personally with these types, the ones that loved
9/11 because we couldnt fly. The ones that say no improvement to
any traffic pattern is enough, only eliminating the airport and the
airplanes
will do, and glad to see a fatal accident take another airplane/pilot out of
the
equation - I'm not exagerating. Take a look again at
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
this is the kind of nutcases we're talking about here. The guy who puts
this craphole website together hates everything and everybody: pilots,
controllers, politicians, aircraft manufacturers, and even some of his
anti-aviation counterparts! These are the real problem, a lunatic
fringe. Most of the neighbors I've dealt with are not like this, they're
pretty hot at first, but not off the deep end like STN and this other
clown. Like I said in a previous post, there is no dealing with some
people, try as you may.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote
> He said that the movement is making things worse for some people by
> concentrating the noise...

I've seen it here, the politically connected (or they have something the
city wants) almosts moves the downwind beyond glide range just to
avoid a couple homes, and I do mean a couple - just to put us all over
a crowded subdivision.

Chris

[SeeAndAvoid]

"John Doe" wrote
> Because if you *don't*, you're giving the extremists and rabid
> anti-aviation people all the ammo they need.

It doesn't matter, they have all the ammo they need, hopefully they'll
just do the honorable thing and turn the gun around on themselves.
There is no appeasing some of these, maybe you're not one of those,
but you know they exist. Just like on the pilot side, there are the
ones hellbent on ruining it for the rest of us. I know the type, they'd
also try to help in the airport survival but then they'd go out and
intentionally go **** someone off. It'd always be hard to explain
to the neighbors and only make matters worse - I'm not denying
they exist, and what that one pilot did to you after you 'asked' him
to limit his activities over your house, I wouldnt defend.

> If you managed to **** me off, a person who served on a flight crew in
> the service of this country and formerly gung-ho supporter, even once
proudly
> wearing a Pratt and Whitney round motor belt buckle, imagine how livid
others
> in the general public are becoming.

I gotta say something here, as this is the second time you've mentioned
your previous somewhat pro-aviation feelings, and often I've seen many
in the anti-aviation groups say the same thing - how they used to be this
or that. Some people are prone to bitching. Some people are prone to
not letting things get to them as much. Some like to jump into fights,
make a lot of noise, and feel self-important for being in a militant
anti-something cause. I'm speaking more of some of your counterparts
than you, and after your last post it sounds like you might not come
back. But, to me anyway, you could be the most decorated pilot there
ever was, but if you're a whackjob, you're a whackjob, regardless of
what previous aviation manufacturer flag you waived. If you've got
something constructive, I dont care if you've never stepped foot in
an airplane if it's something that can help the situation.

> Reach out. Talk to us. Work with us. The so-called efforts to accomodate
the
> public that you cite haven't been applied to here at all. It's a joke,
right?

Maybe it's a joke there, doesnt mean it is everywhere else. Isn't here.
It's been a few times the city tried to shovel something through, getting
the public on it's side, when it was many of those people who'd get
screwed later with more noise. Example: a tower for our uncontrolled
field. You'd think that users who want the airport to survive would jump
all over this as it'd make it even harder to do away with the airport.
You'd
think the neighbors would hate it as it'd guarantee the long term survival
of
the airport. The city had the neighbors begging for the tower when they
were done with them. The city said 'that way we can keep a closer eye
on all these (supposed) violaters', 'we can take back control of the sky
over your house' (they got tired of the FAA telling them they have no
jurisdiction above the ground, nevermind this'd be an FAA regulated
contract tower). What they didnt mention was little things like PAYING
FOR IT. Since they always take from the airport fund, and love to
show how broke it is all the time, how would they continue to fund
the tower and it's employees. Can you say 'more airport revenue needed'
and how's that done? More tenants, more fuel sales, charter service, maybe
even airline service - eventually the thing the neighbors fought the
hardest,
a longer runway! They also failed to mention that often towers do what
they need for traffic, as in not follow some voluntary noise abatement plan
if safety or traffic warrant. Like a right hand pattern, or longer upwind
or downwind, etc etc. Sometimes it's just a matter of education, and in the
end, everyone was against the tower and the city dropped the issue.
So the neighbors won, but they didnt even know what the fight was. Not
one of them pointed out those facts above, it was all users/pilots. You
could say it was self-serving, but the implications of the tower would
hurt them more than it'd hurt me.
Just because some haven't reached out, talked, and worked with you,
dont generalize. It's a two way street.

> In case you don't get my drift, I've had more than enough, I've patiently
> tolerated more than enough and I've been radicalized.

Well, there you have it, radicalized - just like I said before, a militant
anti-something cause, this one aviation. Usually these types are not
new to their anti-something leanings. They usually just add to the
problem and offer little in the way of solutions. Do me a favor and
don't parade your kids around for your cause, holding the signs YOU
made and YOU believe in. Have all the free speech you want, just
dont prostitute out your kids - they may not agree with you when, and
if, you let them have an opinion of their own.
I don't know about some of you, but I'd feel pretty lousy about myself
being 'radicalized' into any cause - short of kill or be killed, that's a
cause worth fighting for. This one though is being fought by a small
vocal inflammatory minority that are getting 'kookier' by the day and
could be in danger of alienating themselves out of any logical person's
thoughts or feelings.

Too long as usual,
Chris

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> A couple of years ago there was the case of the "Guildford
> aerobatic pilot" which became famous in the pilot magazines
> here. Pilots...yes, pilots...from the Guildford area wrote in to
> the magazines complaining about the incessant noise from the
> pilot who did aeros in the vicinity of Guildford.

There was a pilot named Clancy (IIRC) that did a few airshows which I attended. His
wife did the naration for his act. Lots of low-level stuff in a Pitts. His wife spent
most of the show bragging about how loud his engine was (she was pretty loud
herself). I sure wouldn't want to be anywhere near his practice area.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Mike Spera]

Yep, 06C it is. The procedure is voluntary, but, as I said, there are
citizen "police" recording which based pilots don't play along. I
usually try not to trigger the governmental immune system by not looking
like a virus (low keyed, non confrontational). So, I play along. After
all, if I fly a "normal" pattern out of RWY 11, I may broadside someone
flying the "voluntary" procedure.

I often wondered how much it would cost to move the two cronies. Gotta
be cheaper than the loss of a life running this goofy pattern.

Mike

Dave Stadt wrote:
> Sounds like Schaumburg. The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
> dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense. Far as I know the
> procedures are voluntary.
>
> "Mike Spera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
>>airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
>>boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
>>attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.
>>
>>We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
>>We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
>>closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
>>the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
>>harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
>>procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
>>bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
>>years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
>>guessed it, my house.
>>
>>I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
>>PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
>>is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
>>absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
>>O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
>>eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
>>their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
>>"violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
>>they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
>>even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
>>"violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
>>and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
>>federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.
>>
>>So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
>>the same homes don't get pummeled forever.
>>
>>Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
>>RANGE!!!
>>
>>Good Luck,
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________ __________________________
> ___
>
>>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
>
> http://www.uncensored-news.com
>
>> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
> <><><><><><><><>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Tarver Engineering]

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > "Tarver Engineering" wrote
> > > If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible
I
> > > can assue you that all you will do is elimninate small GA.
>
> ..and if the other side says there is NO compromise, which many of them
> do, then what?

Then when the issue winds up in civil Court that fact will injure their
case.

> I've dealt personally with these types, the ones that loved
> 9/11 because we couldnt fly. The ones that say no improvement to
> any traffic pattern is enough, only eliminating the airport and the
airplanes
> will do, and glad to see a fatal accident take another airplane/pilot out
of the
> equation - I'm not exagerating. Take a look again at
> http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
> this is the kind of nutcases we're talking about here.

The original poster seems a rational man being harrassed by an individual
pilot for the most part, but I agree that their are nutcases attacked to the
noise issue.

> The guy who puts
> this craphole website together hates everything and everybody: pilots,
> controllers, politicians, aircraft manufacturers, and even some of his
> anti-aviation counterparts! These are the real problem, a lunatic
> fringe. Most of the neighbors I've dealt with are not like this, they're
> pretty hot at first, but not off the deep end like STN and this other
> clown. Like I said in a previous post, there is no dealing with some
> people, try as you may.

Mullachy is catching on.

> "Paul Sengupta" wrote
> > He said that the movement is making things worse for some people by
> > concentrating the noise...
>
> I've seen it here, the politically connected (or they have something the
> city wants) almosts moves the downwind beyond glide range just to
> avoid a couple homes, and I do mean a couple - just to put us all over
> a crowded subdivision.

That is a bad idea.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
...
> Yep, 06C it is. The procedure is voluntary, but, as I said, there are
> citizen "police" recording which based pilots don't play along. I
> usually try not to trigger the governmental immune system by not looking
> like a virus (low keyed, non confrontational). So, I play along. After
> all, if I fly a "normal" pattern out of RWY 11, I may broadside someone
> flying the "voluntary" procedure.
>
> I often wondered how much it would cost to move the two cronies.

There is that swamp off to the south east.

Gotta
> be cheaper than the loss of a life running this goofy pattern.
>
> Mike
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > Sounds like Schaumburg. The departure procedures to the east are absurd
and
> > dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense. Far as I know the
> > procedures are voluntary.
> >
> > "Mike Spera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
> >>airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
> >>boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
> >>attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.
> >>
> >>We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
> >>We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
> >>closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
> >>the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
> >>harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
> >>procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
> >>bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
> >>years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
> >>guessed it, my house.
> >>
> >>I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
> >>PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
> >>is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
> >>absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
> >>O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
> >>eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
> >>their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
> >>"violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
> >>they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
> >>even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
> >>"violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
> >>and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
> >>federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the
fray.
> >>
> >>So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
> >>the same homes don't get pummeled forever.
> >>
> >>Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
> >>RANGE!!!
> >>
> >>Good Luck,
> >>Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
__________________________________________________ __________________________
> > ___
> >
> >>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
> >
> > http://www.uncensored-news.com
> >
> >> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
> >
> > <><><><><><><><>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>

[SeeAndAvoid]

47N is one (#16 out of 32) of the airports I'll fly into this summer on my
4,500nm odyssey, of course theres no mention of any special procedures
on my printed out AOPA kneeboard chart for the airport.
Then again, so is BED (#12), where the pilots being sued are based.
Hope during this trip I don't do something that is forbidden locally
but not known beyond the local pilots. Nearly all the 'violations'
at our airport are by pilots not based here, they have no knowledge
of our voluntary noise abatement procedure. They still get a
nastygram in the mail though.
Chris



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
> > dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense.
>
> There's a complainer that lives off the western end of the runway at 47N.
They
> initiated a procedure to try to placate her. Every aircraft was expected
to make a 45
> degree left turn about 100 yards from the end of the runway. About a year
after that
> went into effect, a Cherokee stalled immediately after turning and
pancaked into a
> golf course, killing both occupants. They're back to straight out
departures now.
>
> George Patterson
> Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if
treason
> be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[G.R. Patterson III]

SeeAndAvoid wrote:
>
> 47N is one (#16 out of 32) of the airports I'll fly into this summer on my
> 4,500nm odyssey, of course theres no mention of any special procedures
> on my printed out AOPA kneeboard chart for the airport.

AFAIK, there are no special procedures there now. John Price teaches there, though,
and he can provide the most current info.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mike Spera > wrote:

> Yep, 06C it is. The procedure is voluntary, but, as I said, there are
> citizen "police" recording which based pilots don't play along. I
> usually try not to trigger the governmental immune system by not looking
> like a virus (low keyed, non confrontational). So, I play along. After
> all, if I fly a "normal" pattern out of RWY 11, I may broadside someone
> flying the "voluntary" procedure.
>
> I often wondered how much it would cost to move the two cronies. Gotta
> be cheaper than the loss of a life running this goofy pattern.


You are close enough to Chicago that Louie, Vito, Bruno or Guido should
be able to come out and give you a hand!



> Mike
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > Sounds like Schaumburg. The departure procedures to the east are absurd
> > and
> > dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense. Far as I know the
> > procedures are voluntary.
> >
> > "Mike Spera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
> >>airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
> >>boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
> >>attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.
> >>
> >>We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
> >>We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
> >>closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
> >>the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
> >>harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
> >>procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
> >>bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
> >>years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
> >>guessed it, my house.
> >>
> >>I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
> >>PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
> >>is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
> >>absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
> >>O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
> >>eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
> >>their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
> >>"violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
> >>they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
> >>even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
> >>"violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
> >>and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
> >>federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.
> >>
> >>So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
> >>the same homes don't get pummeled forever.
> >>
> >>Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
> >>RANGE!!!
> >>
> >>Good Luck,
> >>Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > __________________________________________________ __________________________
> > ___
> >
> >>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
> >
> > http://www.uncensored-news.com
> >
> >> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
> >
> > <><><><><><><><>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ____________________________
> _
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
> http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
> <><><><><><><><>
>

[David Reinhart]

In no way, shape or form are the pilots involved saying "tough $*^!" to the "Stop the Noise"
people. They have been working for years in good faith to try and reach a settlement that
everyone can live with. These people in the Shirley area are out to ban *all* recreational
flying and now motorcycles as well.

The aerobatic boxes have been shuffled around, altitudes scrutinized, the works. If this suit
succeeds, aerobatic flight over most of the East Coast of the United States will be a thing of
the past. The entire area will be declared "congested" by the courts.

As a Mass. pilot who has been following this thing for some time (and even peripherally involved
in it) I can assureyou nobody is just trying to blow these people off: this has become a test
of survival for non-commercial aviation.

Dave Reinhart


Mike Spera wrote:

> Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
> airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
> boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
> attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.
>
> We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
> We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
> closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
> the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
> harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
> procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
> bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
> years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
> guessed it, my house.
>
> I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
> PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
> is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
> absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
> O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
> eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
> their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
> "violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
> they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
> even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
> "violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
> and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
> federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.
>
> So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
> the same homes don't get pummeled forever.
>
> Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
> RANGE!!!
>
> Good Luck,
> Mike
>
> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>

[Cub Driver]

>Hope during this trip I don't do something that is forbidden locally
>but not known beyond the local pilots.

I hope you'll report on this very subject, which is a whole lot more
interesting than gallons pumped, hours flown, etc!

I suspect that most airports have their peculiarities. At mine, for
example, there's a nuclear plant to the SSE. The runway is 02/20 with
the prevailing winds favoring a landing from the north. The ocean is
on the east. Most of the locals fly all 45s from the west, using a
midfield or lower crossover if we have to get on the downwind for 20.

(Did I really write that paragraph? It seems very confusing to me,
though the procedure is second nature :)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
> > dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense.
>
> There's a complainer that lives off the western end of the runway at 47N.
They
> initiated a procedure to try to placate her. Every aircraft was expected
to make a 45
> degree left turn about 100 yards from the end of the runway. About a year
after that
> went into effect, a Cherokee stalled immediately after turning and
pancaked into a
> golf course, killing both occupants. They're back to straight out
departures now.

Does the lady in question know the seriousness of what she initiated?

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I used to like watching that (IIRC) Pitts...usually from the top
> > of the car park here in work. Anyway, after the letters, he went
> > away. Not seen him/her since. Sigh.
> >
> > Diana Britten, the British aerobatic champion flies from Fairoaks,
> > the local airport. I've never seen her practising aeros in this area.
> > I would like to. :-)
> >
>
> I have often seen someone aeros over Cantley Field near Wokingham.

Mmm, could be, though that's quite close for Blackbushe, White Waltham,
etc, there. Wokingham has a fairly low ceiling (airways out of Heathrow)
though (Class A goes to the surface a few miles away over Bracknell).
In which direction in Canfley field? Is that where you live? A friend of
mine with a Bulldog at White Waltham lives in Wokingham. Ex-BA
captain, retired a couple of years ago.

My friends Jonathan and Susan got married at Le Manoir in Oxfordshire,
the world famous chef Raymond Blanc's place. After the dinner we were
out in the garden...we heard the varying noise of a plane doing aeros. We
looked up and there was an Extra, fairly high, but nearly in the overhead,
practising aeros. It was almost as if we'd planned it! (Susan's a pilot and
Jon's been gliding in the past...in fact I took Jon up in my plane yesterday
evening for a quick flight).

Paul

[Dave Butler]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>>The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
>>dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense.
>
>
> There's a complainer that lives off the western end of the runway at 47N. They
> initiated a procedure to try to placate her. Every aircraft was expected to make a 45
> degree left turn about 100 yards from the end of the runway. About a year after that
> went into effect, a Cherokee stalled immediately after turning and pancaked into a
> golf course, killing both occupants. They're back to straight out departures now.
>

I don't understand. That doesn't sound like an extraordinarily dangerous
maneuver to me (turning, that is. Stalling that close to the ground is obviously
dangerous).

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> Does the lady in question know the seriousness of what she initiated?

I have no idea. There are at least two neighbors there who would applaud the
reduction in the number of pilots using the airport while at the same time use the
crash as ammo to get the field closed. As far as I know, she is not one of them.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Butler wrote:
>
> I don't understand. That doesn't sound like an extraordinarily dangerous
> maneuver to me (turning, that is. Stalling that close to the ground is obviously
> dangerous).

I wouldn't classify it as "extraordinarily dangerous" either, but the CFIs with whom
I've flown always caution students about making unnecessary turns below 500' AGL on
takeoff. You're low and slow and it's entirely too easy to bank just a bit too much.
You also don't need the distraction at that point. An old Cherokee leaving Kupper
with two on board would probably be about 200' AGL.

These guys may have just carelessly gotten the nose a bit too high. From what I read
and heard, the plane hit the ground with the wings level.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Paul Sengupta wrote:
>>
>> Does the lady in question know the seriousness of what she initiated?
>
> I have no idea. There are at least two neighbors there who would applaud
> the reduction in the number of pilots using the airport while at the same
> time use the crash as ammo to get the field closed. As far as I know, she
> is not one of them.

The person that killed the pilots should get an annual reminder. Her name
should also be made public.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> The person that killed the pilots should get an annual reminder. Her name
> should also be made public.

The person who killed the pilots was one of the pilots. Complaining about noise
doesn't cause a stall.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
> >
> > The person that killed the pilots should get an annual reminder. Her
name
> > should also be made public.
>
> The person who killed the pilots was one of the pilots. Complaining about
noise
> doesn't cause a stall.

No, but creating hazards by way of a tantrum certainly is a contributory
factor. In the same vein, setting highway traffic controls in a wanton
manner don't CAUSE accidents, but they certainly contribute.

[BillC85]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:

> I'm sure glad the engineers continued to pursue a technological cure
> for the low-flying police helicopters that routinely routed my slumber
> in the '70s. Today those helicopters are nearly silent by comparison.
>
Larry,

Could it be that quiet helicopters came about for reasons other than
interrupting your sleep?

Just a thought.

BillC85

[BillC85]

I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South
of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres.

I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development
that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based
here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student
activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere
for their shiny new homestead.

A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any
problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up
until their tax base is bigger than our tax base.

Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money.

BillC85


"VideoGuy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
> near
> > airports that already existed.
>
> Here's another example of this exact senerio;
>
> A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
> plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
> higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
> concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.
>
> Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
> counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
> wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
> the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
> over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
> before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
> the same ownership for almost 25 years.
>
> Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office.
I
> called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport"
> that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are
> pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as
> important to the city as HIS grand, new development!
>
> Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or...
> maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did
> in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads
> around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this
"little
> airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how
> well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their
> houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New
> Town"?
>
> Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
> planes" flying over my new house?
>
> Gary Kasten
>
>

[Kevin]

BillC85 wrote:
> I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South
> of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres.
>
> I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development
> that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based
> here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student
> activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere
> for their shiny new homestead.
>
> A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any
> problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up
> until their tax base is bigger than our tax base.
>
> Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money.
>
> BillC85
>
>
> "VideoGuy" <gkasten at brick dot net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
>>
>>near
>>
>>>airports that already existed.
>>
>>Here's another example of this exact senerio;
>>
>>A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
>>plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
>>higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
>>concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.
>>
>>Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
>>counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
>>wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
>>the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
>>over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
>>before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
>>the same ownership for almost 25 years.
>>
>>Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office.
>
> I
>
>>called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport"
>>that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are
>>pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as
>>important to the city as HIS grand, new development!
>>
>>Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or...
>>maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did
>>in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads
>>around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this
>
> "little
>
>>airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how
>>well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their
>>houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New
>>Town"?
>>
>>Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
>>planes" flying over my new house?
>>
>>Gary Kasten
>>
>>
>
>
>
Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands".

[Snowbird]

Kevin > wrote in message news:<0E3Fc.10405$XM6.5129@attbi_s53>...

VideoGuy wrote:
> >>Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
> >>counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
> >>wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
> >>the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
> >>over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
> >>before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
> >>the same ownership for almost 25 years.
> >>
> >>Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office.

This sounds like a St Louis area airport. I'm trying to figure out which
one -- St. Charles Muni? That airport is vulnerable, alas. It's privately
owned, and the owner has refused to accept state or federal funds to improve
the runway/taxiways because he wants to be free to sell it.

Meanwhile, with the Page Ave. extension open, there's this nice new
housing development under right base for 16, Creve Coeur. We figure
it's only a matter of time before the noise complaints start, and
since it's also under the approach/departure path for Lambert Field,
we don't expect the complaints about the small airport to be limited
to the planes which are actually *operating* from the small airport.
Never restricted the Noise Police on the ridge south of Spirit. At
one point the airport had a web page showing complaints and indicating
by radar/Tower records what type of plane elicited the complaint.
Many of the complaints were traced to traffic operating out of STL
at 7k or above.

> >>Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
> >>planes" flying over my new house?

No bet. Why bet on a certainty?

> Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands".

Alas, Kevin, it's worse than you know. They can *redefine* the flood
plain as being "no longer flood plain" if it's behind a levee taller
than the 500 yr mark. But the previous flood made clear that the
benchmarks have changed because of culvertization and levee building.
So now there are billions of dollars of business and residential developments
in flood plains around St. Louis, without flood insurance (since it's
not a flood plain any more, they don't need it, right?). When a levee-
topping flood or a levee breach occurs, wanna bet they'll swallow hard
and say "well, I knew where I was building". Nah, they'll all come
squawking to Uncle Sugar and pick our pockets.

Cheers,
Sydney