'They want to ban recreational flying...'

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

I have not read more ignorant, self-important, illogical and just plain
dimwitted crap anywhere else on the internet, than there is on this site. I
just don't even know where to begin.

Be sure to drop these people a note and let them know exactly what you think
of them.

http://www.stopthenoise.org/

July 02, 2003
Shirley, MA

Stop the Noise still battles for quieter skies
First of three parts
By Nathan Jones

REGION -- The sound of small airplanes performing various aerobatic
feats over the skies of this area would give way to peace and quiet if
it were up to Townsend native Bill Burgoyne and his group of like-minded
area residents.

This group not only feels that such activities are dangerous, but it
also thinks they create so much noise that it inhibits residents'
freedom to enjoy their own property.

Burgoyne, a co-founder of the group Stop the Noise, discussed during a
recent interview the problems group members think the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) isn't addressing. Formed in 2000 by area residents
to regain the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their property, Stop the
Noise is now an incorporated not-for-profit organization.

Stop the Noise mission is to ask for at least prohibition on
recreational flying in this area, and, from a longer range perspective,
seek to ban recreational flying entirely. Meanwhile, Plane Sense, a
group recently started by some Groton residents, seeks to compromise
with pilots via measures such as limiting the times or days of the week
during which they can fly.

Burgoyne explained that one critical factor makes the Nashoba Valley a
prime location for airplane aerobatic activities. It is the area's
proximity between the Nashua Municipal Airport and Hanscom Air Force
Base, coupled with the closure of the Moore Airfield at the former Fort
Devens, he said.

All this has created an environment that is simply irresistible to
sport and experimental pilots who fly solely with recreational
interests, Burgoyne said. Exacerbating the problem is the FAA, he said,
which is refusing to enforce its own regulations that his group feels
prohibit such activities in the area.

The efforts of Stop the Noise come at a time when things may be about
to get worse. "Most people don't even know what's coming," he said,
explaining his belief that there is a strong lobby on pilots' behalf
which might ease barriers to becoming a pilot at the expense of safety.
The situation would simultaneously increase air traffic and noise
pollution, he said.

The lobbying effort, Burgoyne said, is spearheaded by the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which may officially represent
pilots, but given what pilots purchase, also represents the aircraft
manufacturers. Burgoyne added that the association is now hoping to make
becoming a pilot of a personal aircraft "as easy as learning to drive a
boat or motorcycle."

Then, Burgoyne continued, are the regulations which the FAA is not
enforcing, namely height restrictions, airway limitations and sight
restrictions that apply to aerobatic flying, not to mention a
disagreement Stop the Noise has with FAA over a definition included in a
regulation.

The area crosses a federal airway, which means there is technically not
supposed any aerobatic flying within four nautical miles of its
boundaries, he said. Further, planes are not supposed to be flying lower
than 1,500 feet or higher than 4,000 feet. This problem is complicated
by the fact that many such planes have only barometric altimeters, which
don't respond to hill elevations, causing the plan to dip below the
1,500-foot minimum, he said.

Lastly, Burgoyne attested to having seen planes performing aerobatic
maneuvers in night or overcast conditions when visibility was clearly
less than the required three miles. He also noted that such flying is
further prohibited because aerobatics are not permissible in a
"congested area," though the FAA has been reluctant to define that term.

Furthering the problem even more, Burgoyne said, is the technical
limitations on the planes themselves, and differing requirements placed
on them that make it harder to identify them and their pilots. Such
problems unique to small aircraft include small fuel tanks, which force
these Nashua- and Hanscom-based planes to stay relatively close to home,
and over local skies, he said.

As far as regulations go, Burgoyne noted that the planes are difficult
to identify because their registration numbers are substantially smaller
than those on standard aircraft. Also, such planes do not have
transponders, which means they show up as blips on the FAA's radar
system, but not as anything more than that, he said. Transponders would
allow a plane's identification to be known from anywhere, as soon as it
popped up on the radar screen.

An FAA spokesman said the agency has investigated all Stop the Noise's
complaints and have found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of
pilots.

[Cub Driver]

This sounds like the very same gent who was frothing at the mouth in a
post to a message board, quoted here yesterday. It's a pity the
newspaper reporter made him sound so sane. (Perhaps that's why there
were so few direct quotes in the article.)

It's really a very effective piece. Anyone responding to it ought to
take the high ground.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
> I have not read more ignorant, self-important, illogical and just plain
> dimwitted crap anywhere else on the internet, than there is on this site.
I
> just don't even know where to begin.

One place to begin is to notice that the article's reference to the group's
goal to "ban recreational flying entirely" is more extreme than what the
group's web site says. (You don't say where the article appeared.)

Another good place to begin--as in any conflict--is to recognize the extent
to which the other side has a valid point. In fact, many pilots are as
contemptuously dismissive of noise complaints as are sterotypical teenagers
blasting loud musice without regard for their neighbors.

In other walks of life, we take for granted that the right to engage in
noisy recreation must be balanced against others' right to peace and quiet.
The same should be true of flying.

The folks in Groton, whom the article mentions, are not examples of people
who moved next door to a runway and then started complaining. On the
contrary, they're many miles from the nearest airport. But they're right in
the middle of the practice area used by busy nearby flight schools, so
there's constant maneuvering and aerobatics taking place overhead.

Unfortunately, there are some people on the ground who simply don't care
about a pilot's right to fly. Similarly, there are some people in the air
who just don't care about their neighbors' right to peace and quiet. Pilots
who are oblivious to their noise just because the law currently allows them
to be are inviting changes in the law.

If indeed people who live under a practice area are subjected to constant
airplane noise levels in excess of what would be considered tolerable if it
came from other sources, then some sort of compromise is needed to alleviate
the problem.

--Gary

[Frank]

Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

> I have not read more ignorant, self-important, illogical and just plain
> dimwitted crap anywhere else on the internet, than there is on this site.
> I just don't even know where to begin.
>
> Be sure to drop these people a note and let them know exactly what you
> think of them.
>
> http://www.stopthenoise.org/
>
> July 02, 2003
> Shirley, MA
>
> Stop the Noise still battles for quieter skies
> First of three parts
> By Nathan Jones
>
<snip>

I looked at the site listed above but I couldn't find the place where they
are calling for a ban on motorcycles. Any group that purports to be against
noise but does not include this group loses all credibility. There are far
more of them and they make lots of noise.

(Where I used to live I actually gave up watching anything on TV that I
didn't tape first. Several people in the neighborhood had Harleys. From the
time they started them until they had left the area I would miss 15 minutes
of dialog.)
--
Frank....H

[Brandabc]

Hey... I think the group has a very valid argument. And I fly aerobatics!!

PS- Motorcycles are mentioned also.

[John Harlow]

> Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:
>
> > I have not read more ignorant, self-important, illogical and just plain
> > dimwitted crap anywhere else on the internet, than there is on this
site.
> > I just don't even know where to begin.
> >
> > Be sure to drop these people a note and let them know exactly what you
> > think of them.
> >
> > http://www.stopthenoise.org/

I think they have a point; however, they might get better cooperation if
they went about it in a better way. Perhaps they should scan a sectional
and mark the noise sensitive areas and put it on their site.

[Marco Leon]

A very well thought-out post Gary. I live right by my airport which happens
to be one of the busiest in NY. My immediate neighborhood is under the final
approach of the only ILS-equipped runway. My neighbors have formed one of
the largest and most effective civil associations in the area named after
my street. I realize more than most that many of these folks have a point
and should not be disregarded entirely. I've made it a point to keep a low
profile (being a new neighbor and all) and I've neither submitted a noise
complaint nor openly boast that I'm a pilot and aircraft owner to my
neighbors.

That being said, I would find it very hard to defend the airport when a
business jet takes off at full power over my neighborhood at 1 AM. With
clear skies, no wind, posted noise abatement procedures to use another
runway when able and to make a turn to avoid the noise-sensitive
neighborhood area, I gotta tell ya, even I get quite annoyed! Not so much
that it wakes my wife and son up sometimes but that it makes us pilots and
aircraft owners look bad. I am not looking forward to the day when people
start finding out that I am a pilot (read: AOPA sticker on my car) and get
confronted with a misguided complaint. Thank God many people I talked to did
not mind the noise as much as others.

To echo your point Gary, you are absolutely right. We all live in the same
atmosphere (some, like me, closer to them than others) and some of us need
to stop being so self-riteous and inconsiderate as pilots and consider
compromise with the sane neighbors. Otherwise, we'll make it easy for other
people and eventually the politicians to sympathize with their cause and get
blind-sided by the adoption irrational anti-GA laws. This concern became
very real the other day when I received a newsletter from my town supervisor
where he was touting how much he was against anything to do with airport
expansion.

Marco



"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message ...
[snip]
>
> Unfortunately, there are some people on the ground who simply don't care
> about a pilot's right to fly. Similarly, there are some people in the air
> who just don't care about their neighbors' right to peace and quiet.
Pilots
> who are oblivious to their noise just because the law currently allows
them
> to be are inviting changes in the law.
>
> If indeed people who live under a practice area are subjected to constant
> airplane noise levels in excess of what would be considered tolerable if
it
> came from other sources, then some sort of compromise is needed to
alleviate
> the problem.
>
> --Gary
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Jeff Franks]

Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to ask
the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"

Nashville, TN's airport was out in the boonies 30 years ago. Since then the
city has encompassed it and now the airport authority has to buy home owners
new storm windows every so often......doesn't make much sense to me.

[John Harlow]

> Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask
> the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"
>
> Nashville, TN's airport was out in the boonies 30 years ago. Since then
the
> city has encompassed it and now the airport authority has to buy home
owners
> new storm windows every so often......doesn't make much sense to me.

Simple solution: move the airport baseball team to the other side of the
field! ;)

[Peter Duniho]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask
> the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"

IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut
down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with
respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're there
first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who move
in later.

Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being
unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However,
most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are
aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's
much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with the
neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns.

Pete

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

> > Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
> ask
> > the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"
>
> IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut
> down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with
> respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're
there
> first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who
move
> in later.
>
> Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being
> unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However,
> most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are
> aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's
> much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with
the
> neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns.
>

Well, that is of course a good point, but the major problem with this group
is that it makes very little mention of anyone living next to or near an
actual airport. Rather, they wish to assert their property rights for the
homes they own, all the way to the airspace above them (which is of course a
ridiculous proposition). They want to ban 'recreational' flying in any way,
shape or form over private property, in favor of pilots purchasing and
reserving plots of deserted land to fly over. They in fact state directly
that this is not a grievance against any airport, but rather against all
recreational flight activities, such as practice, sightseeing or any kind of
fun. They go on to refer to such activities: "These activities can in no way
be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are performed solely
for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to those on the
ground."

Here is the particuar excerpt that I have the biggest problem with:
"Our goal is to remove the aerobatic and recreational flyers from the skies
over our private property. This will be achieved by the assertion of
property rights of the owners of the land and airspace through which these
recreational aircraft fly, enforcement of federal, state and local
environmental and public health laws, and by identifying and publishing the
names and contact information for the organizations and individuals
responsible for this abusive behavior.

We believe that if there is to be a recreational flying community, then it
must obtain at its own expense areas large enough to accommodate their waste
noise without spilling over to adjacent properties in excess of the local
regulatory limits. At present, in most communities, the limit is 10 decibels
above background ambient levels. This is no different from requiring that
the local rod and gun club secure and maintain an area for their activities
that will ensure abutters that they will not be the recipients of waste
noise or stray rounds.

We are not attempting to halt expansion at any particular airport or at
airports in general. We are concerned about where the recreational aircraft
go to practice, sightsee or to just mark time. None of these activities is
possible without a subsidy from the property owners on the ground who must
involuntarily absorb the waste noise from these activities. These activities
can in no way be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are
performed solely for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to
those on the ground."

This is nothing but self-important tripe, and honestly, it is just plain
un-American.

[C J Campbell]

There are nuts out there trying to ban everything. I have a tough time
believing that anyone with such extremist views is a real threat -- beyond
the fact that this is the sort of whacko that eventually gets frustrated
with everybody's refusal to see things his way, so he resorts to violence.

[Jeff Franks]

Oh, I agree completely that we should do everything we can to "be a good
neighbor". Right or wrong, its stupid to rub our "right" to fly in Joe
Public's face. I just don't like the people who wanna make their own bed
and not sleep in it. The reason they bought that $200,000 house for
$120,000 is because its 2 miles off the end of a runway! (pure example
here).

Pet peeves aside, my dad built and owns a very nice grass strip airport here
in TN. He has worked his butt off to make it what it is and he built it in
the middle of nowhere. As the area has grown up around him (not bad yet),
he does all he can to make friendly with anyone and everyone around his
property. He's become the PR king! Invites all the neighbors to the
fly-ins, cookouts, makes his own approaches so that it doesn't cross over
certain houses, etc. He's even posted signs on the roads near his runway
that "alert" the passersby that there is an airport there. Hopefully it
will keep the zoning boards off of him. We'll see......

[Marco Leon]

Yeah, I'm in a different situation. The civic association is not out to
close the airport (although there are some members that wouldn't mind). On
the most part, the people don't mind the small planes but are against having
larger and louder jets. I hear their point--especially when those older
Lears that don't have to conform to the latest noise suppression standards
take off on RWY 32.

They are specifically against improvements tailored for jet traffic. To be
honest ,I'm on the fence about the improvements too because I haven't seen
one that would help me as a small-aircraft pilot/owner who may never afford
a jet. As a matter of fact, it would make my flying life WORSE in that there
would be more jet traffic (jet ATC preference, wake turbulence, increased
traffic, etc.). I hear many stories about Teterboro's operations and they're
not good. Someone please chime in nof they think differently--I've never
flown out of there. The fact that FRG and TEB have the same airport
management company makes it a real concern.

So I need to gather more info but still laying low.

Marco

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
[snip]
>
> We are not attempting to halt expansion at any particular airport or at
> airports in general. We are concerned about where the recreational
aircraft
> go to practice, sightsee or to just mark time. None of these activities is
> possible without a subsidy from the property owners on the ground who must
> involuntarily absorb the waste noise from these activities. These
activities
> can in no way be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are
> performed solely for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost
to
> those on the ground."
>
> This is nothing but self-important tripe, and honestly, it is just plain
> un-American.
>
>
>
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[JerryK]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask
> the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"
>

I am afraid that argument is not going to work. Unfortunately being first
does not mean you can dictate terms.

It may be that airport operations have increased or the flight paths
changed.

[Marco Leon]

I agree with you 100% Pete. As with any relationship between two entities,
there is always a give-and-take. However, as part of that, sometimes one
side takes more than the other creating a situation of "give an inch and
they take a mile." It's all part of the game I guess.

Marco


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
> ask
> > the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?
>
> IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut
> down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with
> respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're
there
> first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who
move
> in later.
>
> Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being
> unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However,
> most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are
> aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's
> much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with
the
> neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns.
>
> Pete
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Henry Bibb]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> There are nuts out there trying to ban everything. I have a tough time
> believing that anyone with such extremist views is a real threat -- beyond
> the fact that this is the sort of whacko that eventually gets frustrated
> with everybody's refusal to see things his way, so he resorts to violence.
>

It's worse than that; they resort to lawyers..

Henry Bibb

[Captain Wubba]

No need. Nutjobs like this would simply put a big red circle around
the entire sectional, and say this is the noise-sensitive area. The
only way to deal with fools like this is to trivialize them. If they
had legitimate complaints, then that would be different. But from
reading the interview, it's pretty clear these guys are no real
threat, and are just a bunch of self-indulgent headcases whinging
because they have notheing better to do. Make fun of them, and only
indluge people with *real* problems, and who are looking for
*realistic* solutions.


"John Harlow" > wrote in message >...
> > Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > I have not read more ignorant, self-important, illogical and just plain
> > > dimwitted crap anywhere else on the internet, than there is on this
> site.
> > > I just don't even know where to begin.
> > >
> > > Be sure to drop these people a note and let them know exactly what you
> > > think of them.
> > >
> > > http://www.stopthenoise.org/
>
> I think they have a point; however, they might get better cooperation if
> they went about it in a better way. Perhaps they should scan a sectional
> and mark the noise sensitive areas and put it on their site.

[vincent p. norris]

> I have a tough time believing that anyone with such extremist views is a real threat

I agree. Despite all the evidence that raises doubts about it, the
public in general and even the legislators are, for the most part,
reasonably sensible people.

vince norris.

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:26:18 -0700, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>(quoting the anti-noise compaigners)
>> We believe that if there is to be a recreational flying community, then it
>> must obtain at its own expense areas large enough to accommodate their
>waste
>> noise without spilling over to adjacent properties in excess of the local
>> regulatory limits. At present, in most communities, the limit is 10
>decibels
>> above background ambient levels.

Sounds like a comment from the noise pollution groups. They have some
real nut jobs and extremists over there. They also have some people
with legit complaints. It only takes a few minutes of reading to
realize that it'd be safer and more comfortable to live off the
approach end of a busy air force base than next door to some of them.

For most communities, the answer is most likely no. Otherwise no one
would be able to mow their lawn as a lawn mower is listed at something
like ... 40 db or more.. No many low flying aircraft exceed the sound
of a lawn mower, unless they have a two blade prop, a big engine and
are just departing the active..

3 db is just detectable...three barely detectable still isn't much.
Lawn mowers are *loud*, so I'd attribute the above statement to pretty
much BS ...
>
>Is that 10db limit really a common restriction? I suppose they mean there
>are local ordinances (nothing in the several CCR's I've read recently).
>Small planes at 500ft probably exceed that bar.

Small planes at 500 feet over populated areas are already in violation
of the FARs unless taking off and landing. There, the neighbors are
pretty much SOL, although they can be a royal nuisance to the pilots.
More and more airports and communities are making it a requirement
that any noise complaints go on the property record for those who are
neighbors to an airport. So, they can complain, but it's gonna cost
them in the long run.

>
>I must confess to a nimby moment last weekend. I just moved to a (lovely)
>house on the side of the hill in Duvall, WA. Most everyone who has learned
>to fly here has used the Snoqualmie Valley as a practice area: it's 20 miles
>long by half a mile wide, populated only by cows and a prison farm, and even
>contains a small square stand of trees that is perfect for the rectangular
>course maneuver. Nobody who has spent more than half an hour looking for a
>house in Duvall can be unaware of the planes that fly over the developments,
>often below 1000agl, as they set up for the valley. Yet on Saturday morning,
>after two tiring days unpacking boxes, I was *really* annoyed to be woken up
>at 7am by that familiar drone. I am already much more aware of how
>difference much a few hundred feet can make.

If only those who fight runway extensions could be so enlightened.
We had a group who opposed lengthening 18/36 from 3000 to 3800. With
that extra 800 feet I could be at pattern altitude by the time I go
over the subdivision. As it is ... I still go over at 200 to 500 feet
on climb out on a hot day.

>
>It's also on a major route up to Arlington, but I only saw three or four
>interesting transients this weekend.

We get complaints from the practice area where the students are still
a 1000 feet up and that is mostly swamp. One guy threatened to "take
a shot". He hung up when he figured out the manager was trying to
figure out where he was located.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>-- David Brooks
>

[David Brooks]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:26:18 -0700, "David Brooks"
> > wrote:

> >Is that 10db limit really a common restriction? I suppose they mean there
> >are local ordinances (nothing in the several CCR's I've read recently).
> >Small planes at 500ft probably exceed that bar.
>
> Small planes at 500 feet over populated areas are already in violation
> of the FARs unless taking off and landing.

It all depends on what the meaning of the word "congested" is. If I thought
of Duvall, WA as congested, I wouldn't have moved there.

-- David Brooks

[Cub Driver]

>For most communities, the answer is most likely no. Otherwise no one
>would be able to mow their lawn as a lawn mower is listed at something
>like ... 40 db or more.. No many low flying aircraft exceed the sound
>of a lawn mower, unless they have a two blade prop, a big engine and
>are just departing the active..

The 10 db is probably at a specified distance, similar to what a
neighbor would experience. Say 300 feet? While a lawnmower would in
time deafen its rider (I wear earmuffs), the noise level drops off
pretty fast. The same is true of chainsaws.

Because an aircraft overhead is often a direct line to the hearer,
with much less stuff to soak up the sound, it's apt to be very loud at
500 or even 1000 feet. I live under the traffic pattern of a
"tradeport" so I hear a lot of airplane noise, mostly heavy jets.

This is a university town, and therefore a loud-party town. The
residents often complain about student parties with the loud-hailers
going in the night, and the police department has a noise-meter
(whatever) which it will loan out to folks trying to make a case. Very
rarely do they succeed. I'll ask for more information about this if
anyone is interested.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[John Harlow]

> Well check this out. In Cape May NJ, where the people have been
> fishing since the late 1600's, have let condos be developed by the
> water. Now they complain of diesel fumes and fish odor.

Reminds me of the old joke:

A couple was getting hot and heavy in the back of a car. The girl gets
really excited and tells the guy "kiss me where it stinks!" So he drove her
to New Jersey.

[Cub Driver]

>The town is
>now going to either deny/prohibit more development because this is
>where the jobs are and won't let the fishing industry be dictated by
>developers or owners.

In most parts of North America, boat building has moved inland. You
can always truck a boat to the water, but the waterfront land is too
valuable to be used for construction. More and more I even see
boatyards located inland. In Alton NH there's a yard on a hilltop deep
in the piney woods, where in winter I see scores of boats wrapped in
blue plastic, the blue all gone now of course.

The situation you describe is very common on the Maine coast. Most
communities try hard to accommodate shoreside yards and fishing docks,
because they are part of the reason that tourists come to town. The
problem of course is taxes. The state has to adopt some kind of
current-use taxation to favor the landowner, such as we have here in
New Hampshire with farm and forest land. Shorefront lots are worth
$100,000 and on up--pretty stiff for a lobster dock.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Roger Halstead]

On 09 Jul 2003 14:42:23 GMT, (Brandabc) wrote:

>Hey... I think the group has a very valid argument. And I fly aerobatics!!
>

Student pilots in small airplanes practicing maneuvers are not loud.
Aerobatics as flown at air shows, don't have to be loud.

I think they would not accept an airplane at 2500 feet AGL doing
aerobatics.

I still link them to the lunatic fringe.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>PS- Motorcycles are mentioned also.

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:03:58 -0700, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:26:18 -0700, "David Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Is that 10db limit really a common restriction? I suppose they mean there
>> >are local ordinances (nothing in the several CCR's I've read recently).
>> >Small planes at 500ft probably exceed that bar.
>>
>> Small planes at 500 feet over populated areas are already in violation
>> of the FARs unless taking off and landing.
>
>It all depends on what the meaning of the word "congested" is. If I thought
>of Duvall, WA as congested, I wouldn't have moved there.

Doesn't really matter...congested or not the rule is a 1000 over and
2000 laterally.

I can go out and skim the tree tops (in sparsely populated areas), but
if I discover I just flew over some ones house out there, I violated
the FARs.

Don't fly low over towns, or rural subdivisions ... which would be
classed as congested areas, but that doesn't relieve the pilot from
not flying low over some ones home.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>
>-- David Brooks
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:53:39 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
>>For most communities, the answer is most likely no. Otherwise no one
>>would be able to mow their lawn as a lawn mower is listed at something
>>like ... 40 db or more.. No many low flying aircraft exceed the sound
>>of a lawn mower, unless they have a two blade prop, a big engine and
>>are just departing the active..
>
>The 10 db is probably at a specified distance, similar to what a
>neighbor would experience. Say 300 feet? While a lawnmower would in
>time deafen its rider (I wear earmuffs), the noise level drops off
>pretty fast. The same is true of chainsaws.

Your neighbors lawn mower is going to be a lot louder than 10 db even
at the far side of a normal lot.

You have to stop and realize how little 10 db really is.

>
>Because an aircraft overhead is often a direct line to the hearer,
>with much less stuff to soak up the sound, it's apt to be very loud at
>500 or even 1000 feet. I live under the traffic pattern of a
>"tradeport" so I hear a lot of airplane noise, mostly heavy jets.

When I go over here on the way back to the airport I'm usually headed
down hill at close to 200 MPH. When I depart I'm usually still near
full power and not much above 1000 feet. It's certainly noticeable,
but no where near as loud as the neighbors lawn mowers over 300 feet
away...and through the trees. And their lawn mowers are no where near
as loud as some guy's Beagles about 5 houses to the West.

So, I try to be a good neighbor even if I have absolutely no sympathy
to the people near the airport. The VOR 14 to MBS starts near here so
when the big jets are flying that they go overhead. Even the old
DC-9s aren't all that loud and most modern day jets are not as loud as
a Bonanza with a 2 blade prop on take off.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>
>This is a university town, and therefore a loud-party town. The
>residents often complain about student parties with the loud-hailers
>going in the night, and the police department has a noise-meter
>(whatever) which it will loan out to folks trying to make a case. Very
>rarely do they succeed. I'll ask for more information about this if
>anyone is interested.
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
>Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Cub Driver]

>full power and not much above 1000 feet. It's certainly noticeable,
>but no where near as loud as the neighbors lawn mowers over 300 feet
>away...and through the trees

I'm relieved to hear it (as it were!). I suppose we notice airplane
engines because they're out of the ordinary. Where I live, highway
noise is out of the ordinary, so motorcycles really bug
me--motorcycles being the one thing apart from sirens that I can hear
from Bay Road.

My houselot is 40 acres, and I can still hear my neighbor's lawnmower.
And of course I can hear the airplanes overhead. Since I am on the
water, of course I can hear all sorts of noise from there--even voices
in boats a mile away.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:11:26 -0700, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> >> Small planes at 500 feet over populated areas are already in violation
>> >> of the FARs unless taking off and landing.
>> >
>> >It all depends on what the meaning of the word "congested" is. If I
>thought
>> >of Duvall, WA as congested, I wouldn't have moved there.
>>
>> Doesn't really matter...congested or not the rule is a 1000 over and
>> 2000 laterally.
>
>Sorry, Roger, but I think you are in direct contradiction of 91.119 here. To
>strip it down a little:

Wellll...not in direct cradiction...I just had the altitudes wrong for
other than congested.

Fly over some ones house hidden in the trees at tree top level and you
are still in violation...OTOH it's highly unlikely they will get your
number even if it's painted phosphorescent orange and illuminated.

>(b) Over congested areas. ...1000, 2000.
>(c) Over other than congested areas... 500 above the surface except
>over...sparsely populated areas (where the "500ft from objects" rule works).
>
>So there are three types of terrain: congested, not congested, and sparsely

If the town has the normal block and house spacing it's probably
considered congested. (over a small area)<:-))

>populated. I assert my small town falls into the second group, although we
>treat the nearby valley as a sparsely populated area.
>
>> I can go out and skim the tree tops (in sparsely populated areas), but
>> if I discover I just flew over some ones house out there, I violated
>> the FARs.
>
>But you only need to get 500ft above them, according to your "(in sparsely
>populated areas)". Common courtesy would suggest more, but not the
>regulations.
>
>> Don't fly low over towns, or rural subdivisions ... which would be
>> classed as congested areas, but that doesn't relieve the pilot from
>> not flying low over some ones home.
>
>As I implied with the Clintonian reference, it depends whether rural
>subdivisions are defined as congested (is there a federal definition of the
>word?). If they are, you have a point, but I think you still made a logical
>slip in the first statement.

Nahhh...never happen <:-))
Not long ago (within the last couple of years) one of the aviation
mags had an article on this topic as to what defines the categories.

>
>Again, we're just arguing regs here. I try to stay 1000ft above my neighbors
>no matter where they live.

It helps for good relations, but even being able to see, or hear a
small plane is too close for some.

Have you ever gone over to alt.activism.noise.polution? Now there you
will find some extreme views. There are even a few with justifiable
complaints. There are also some that fall into the lunatic fringe
that propose extreme measures for the elimination of noise..

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>-- David Brooks
>