Stop The Noise petitions FAA to increase N number size

[Earl Grieda]

I was reading GA news and saw this article. I love this quote:

"According to Burgoyne, although the complainer may have a picture of the
aircraft, unless the Nnumber is clearly readable, the FAA will not take
action. "The FAA told us if the N-numbers were bigger, it would help, so we
asked them to make the N-numbers bigger," he said.

"They only have to be three inches high in some cases. The FAA told us 'we
can't do that. AOPA (the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) would never
let us do that.' So that's why we have taken this course of action through
the petition process."
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=9381&-token.src=index&-nothing

I didn't realize that AOPA runs the FAA.

Earl G

[Peter Duniho]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
link.net...
> I didn't realize that AOPA runs the FAA.

If only.

I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny. As if the bulk of their
problem is with aircraft that have the smaller, grandfathered N numbers.
For the vast majority of airplanes, 12-inch numbers are required, and if you
can't read the numbers on those airplanes, the airplane can't possibly be
close enough to be causing an actual problem (i.e. creating significant
noise, never mind violating the FARs).

I know, it's not like the STN idiots care. But hopefully the FAA will
recognize the foolishness of their petition. Actually, I'm hoping that the
FAA will be so offended that STN misquoted them (I can't imagine anyone at
the FAA actually said what they claim the FAA said), that the FAA will just
write them off completely.

Pete

[rip]

Blurry photos of airplanes is a tactic of our local anti-noise group,
too. The first time they pulled out a stack of these photos in a public
meeting, it was hard to stop laughing long enough to respond. And the
reponse was "this is like taking pictures of cars to the police station,
and demanding that they do something about the people using the same
road over and over again. Do you have any idea how foolish you look?"
Imagine that! Actual photographs of airplanes...legally flying! How
disturbing!

Rip

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>I didn't realize that AOPA runs the FAA.
>
>
> If only.
>
> I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny. As if the bulk of their
> problem is with aircraft that have the smaller, grandfathered N numbers.
> For the vast majority of airplanes, 12-inch numbers are required, and if you
> can't read the numbers on those airplanes, the airplane can't possibly be
> close enough to be causing an actual problem (i.e. creating significant
> noise, never mind violating the FARs).
>
> I know, it's not like the STN idiots care. But hopefully the FAA will
> recognize the foolishness of their petition. Actually, I'm hoping that the
> FAA will be so offended that STN misquoted them (I can't imagine anyone at
> the FAA actually said what they claim the FAA said), that the FAA will just
> write them off completely.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Otis Winslow]

The reason they want the pics and positive ID is to file nuisance
lawsuits against legally flying pilots for large sums just to harrass
them.


"rip" > wrote in message
. ..
> Blurry photos of airplanes is a tactic of our local anti-noise group,
> too. The first time they pulled out a stack of these photos in a public
> meeting, it was hard to stop laughing long enough to respond. And the
> reponse was "this is like taking pictures of cars to the police station,
> and demanding that they do something about the people using the same
> road over and over again. Do you have any idea how foolish you look?"
> Imagine that! Actual photographs of airplanes...legally flying! How
> disturbing!
>
> Rip
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > "Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>I didn't realize that AOPA runs the FAA.
> >
> >
> > If only.
> >
> > I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny. As if the bulk of
their
> > problem is with aircraft that have the smaller, grandfathered N numbers.
> > For the vast majority of airplanes, 12-inch numbers are required, and if
you
> > can't read the numbers on those airplanes, the airplane can't possibly
be
> > close enough to be causing an actual problem (i.e. creating significant
> > noise, never mind violating the FARs).
> >
> > I know, it's not like the STN idiots care. But hopefully the FAA will
> > recognize the foolishness of their petition. Actually, I'm hoping that
the
> > FAA will be so offended that STN misquoted them (I can't imagine anyone
at
> > the FAA actually said what they claim the FAA said), that the FAA will
just
> > write them off completely.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny.

There's nothing funny about people who use the civil courts to attack law-abiding
citizens.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> There's nothing funny about people who use the civil courts to attack
law-abiding
> citizens.

Nothing? Nothing at all? I beg to differ. I don't approve of their
tactics, of course, and it's offensive for them to abuse the legal system in
any way. But to say there's NOTHING funny about the situation? Come
on...how can you not be amused at so much stupidity collected in such a
small space?

You could really use a lighter view of the world. You might get a chuckle
once in a while.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> > There's nothing funny about people who use the civil courts to attack
> law-abiding
> > citizens.
>
> Nothing? Nothing at all? I beg to differ. I don't approve of their
> tactics, of course, and it's offensive for them to abuse the legal system
> in
> any way. But to say there's NOTHING funny about the situation? Come
> on...how can you not be amused at so much stupidity collected in such a
> small space?

such stupidity is sad.

such stupidity is disappointing.

such stupidity is offensive.

A little stupidity can be amusing, but on the scale of those
fools, it's anything but funny.

--
Bob Noel

[John Harlow]

> I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny.

Is your opinion the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are completely insane and
there is absolutely no validity to their complaint whatsoever?

[Peter Duniho]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> Is your opinion the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are completely insane
and
> there is absolutely no validity to their complaint whatsoever?

I guess that depends on your definition of "validity". I don't doubt that
they are annoyed by airplane noise. I don't doubt that they feel their
rights are being infringed. However, I expect any person with a complaint
to make an honest, reasonable effort to reach a fair compromise. As soon as
they take a scorched Earth approach such as that being pursued by the "Stop
The Noise idiots" (sic), I feel that they have no right to being considered
at all.

I do my very best to fly as quietly as possible. But the fact remains that
powered aircraft consume a fair amount of energy, a lot of which is emitted
as sound, and that's just a fact of life. I have to put up with genuinely
illegal sources of noise every single day (not having the luxury to live a
hundred miles from my nearest neighbor), and so no, I'm not going to waste a
huge amount of concern on some folks that object to perfectly legal and
comparatively moderate levels of noise.

I don't see how the word "insane" comes into the picture. However, it's
clear that the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are anti-social and have no
respect for the right to the pursuit of happiness except for their own.
These are people that I don't feel deserve the time of day, never mind any
consideration with respect to their complaints.

Does that answer your question?

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I beg to differ.

You're free to do so, of course, but I find no humor in the situation.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[John Harlow]

> However,
> it's clear that the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are anti-social and
> have no respect for the right to the pursuit of happiness except for
> their own. These are people that I don't feel deserve the time of
> day, never mind any consideration with respect to their complaints.
>
> Does that answer your question?

Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more
flight restrictions.

In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly
contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm
just puzzled as to why it's different here.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"John Harlow" > wrote:

> > However,
> > it's clear that the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are anti-social and
> > have no respect for the right to the pursuit of happiness except for
> > their own. These are people that I don't feel deserve the time of
> > day, never mind any consideration with respect to their complaints.
> >
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more
> flight restrictions.
>
> In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly
> contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm
> just puzzled as to why it's different here.
>
>
>

It is different, because we are dealing here with the environmental
equivalent of the Taliban.

They DO NOT WISH to negotiate or compromise! Just read their website and
see. Also, those bringing the harassment suits are "not STN," but
"individual persons who happen to be STN members." (plauaible
deniability here)

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:02:49 -0400, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>> I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny.
>
>Is your opinion the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are completely insane and
>there is absolutely no validity to their complaint whatsoever?

I consider them idiots. I consider many of them unbalanced (read the
alt.activism.noise.pollution group some time), some are fanatical, and
I consider some of them dangerous. Some are to the point like the
guy down south that took a few shots at the crop duster because the
noise was bothering him while he watched the races.

Certainly, *some* of them have valid complaints, but from what I've
seen they are more of a problem than the noise in most instances.

Unfortunately for us, the courts do listen to the lunatic fringe,
particularly when they can afford lawyers, or lawyers see a cause to
champion.

OTOH the lunatic fringe can be sued for harassment if you can afford
it and are willing to take the risk.

We had a noise problem here and it was stirred up by a few agitators
who had built new and expensive homes right off the south end of
18/36.

One thing in our favor was a couple of the obnoxious ones got carried
away and were making false complaints. At that point they lost
credibility with the city.

Now they could have sued at that point, but as they had already been
put on record as making false complaints they would have had one
strike against them. The second strike was the city over all is pretty
much pro aviation. They do see how much the airport is bringing into
the city while industry is leaving.

The city commissioned a study as to how much the airport was costing
and it turned out it was brining in a lot more money than any of us
had thought. The opponents called the study biased and commissioned
their own. The results were their study showed the airport bringing
in about 50% more than did the one by the city.

Fortunately it was the agitators who made the mistakes and the rest
pretty much dropped the whole affair when the agitators gave up.

They gave up, but we never want to count them out.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more
> flight restrictions.

Well, you and I can agree, I'm sure, that there are at least two
philosophies when it comes to stuff like this. We saw the same division
with respect to post-9/11 flight restrictions. There are those who feel
that if we negotiate, even with fools, we'll wind up with the worst-case
outcome. Then there are those who feel that if we don't resist as
aggressively as possible at every step, we'll wind up with the worst-case
outcome.

I personally like to feel that I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't
think it makes sense to just dig in our heels and pretend we should be
permitted to just keep on as we've always done. But at the same time, why
waste effort pretending that people like the STN idiots even come close to
having a point?

I haven't been following AOPA's involvement, but personally it seems to me
that AOPA ought to take this up as an example case, defend the pilots
vigorously, and countersue for all legal fees and other associated costs.
When AOPA wins, it will make other similar groups think twice before making
unreasonable demands.

Like I said, I do my best to fly quietly. But only inasmuch as it doesn't
affect my safety and my right to exercise my legal privileges as a pilot.
I'm more than happy to discuss with someone else their concerns if they feel
there's room for improvement, but I will not tolerate someone who has made
it clear from the outset that they don't understand aviation, and want it
destroyed altogether.

I believe most other pilots are similarly interested in neighborly flying.
One thing I don't understand is some otherwise careful and considerate
pilots' hesitance to get involved when they see another pilot flying in an
illegal or unneighborly fashion. Frankly, it's those handful of
irresponsible pilots that are going to do us all in, and if we don't clean
house, I'm sure someone else (like STN) will be happy to do it for us. We
could make some progress in not encouraging groups like STN to be created in
the first place if we'd just do a better job of policing our own.

> In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a
possibly
> contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm
> just puzzled as to why it's different here.

IMHO, it's different because of the degree of hostility expressed by the
neighbor. We've actually had at least two "neighbor to an airstrip under
construction" threads here, and I wouldn't say that in either case, the
person posting exhibited a strong pro-aviation attitude. In the Idaho case,
the guy was downright stubborn, and I don't think he ever really understood
what we were trying to tell him. But even in that case, he wasn't calling
for an end to aviation, or even to block his neighbor's right to an airstrip
(though, I admit he may take that tack later...he wasn't doing it here
though).

Pete

[Cub Driver]

>Certainly, *some* of them have valid complaints, but from what I've
>seen they are more of a problem than the noise in most instances.

As I've mentioned before, I have an instructor/friend lives within the
"box," and he finds the noise really bad. As a long-time pilot and a
bit of a libertarian he wouldn't dream of joining Stop, but I suspect
his sympathies are with them, at least during the summer months.


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

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Peter Duniho]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> As I've mentioned before, I have an instructor/friend lives within the
> "box," and he finds the noise really bad.

I'm not aware of anyone saying that there's no room for improvement in the
noise situation. But, my understanding is that to some extent, the noise
problem exists because the pilots needing to practice have not been granted
enough variety of locations to practice. Furthermore, the STN idiots aren't
just calling for some reasonable compromise; they are looking to eliminate
general aviation altogether.

> As a long-time pilot and a
> bit of a libertarian he wouldn't dream of joining Stop, but I suspect
> his sympathies are with them, at least during the summer months.

My sympathies are with anyone who is bothered by the noise, and who is
interested in pursuing reasonable solutions that provide for an outcome that
benefits everyone involved. I don't care how much noise occurs above me, my
sympathies would NEVER be with the STN idiots. I can't see why your
friend's would be either. They are not a sympathetic group of people.

Pete

[DP]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:02:49 -0400, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>> I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny.
>
>Is your opinion the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are completely insane and
>there is absolutely no validity to their complaint whatsoever?
>
>
Yes there is noise there... But we're also talking about a group that
slants things WAY TOO FAR. In other words, they registered a
complaint with the FAA (Correrct action as far as I'm concerned). The
FAA investigated, and watched furter flights being flown "in the box".
When the FAA approached the group & told then there was no
infringement, they went beserk. They started claiming that their
property was from the ground to infinity in the sky. (Can't wait to
see that tax bill:) ). Then they say taht the FAA is in cahoots with
teh pilots, and wouldn't turn them in even if they were wrong...haha

Bottom line...their assholes with money. Who would've thought that if
you move to one of the most populated areas in New England there would
be people that make noise ?????

btw... they also want to outlaw weed whackers & lawn mowers because
they make noise too.......


Will there president trade in his Mercedes for a goat??????


Don Paquette
PP-ASEL
N9723X

[David Reinhart]

The pilots on the dirty end of the STN stick *have* negotiated. They have been
trying for *years* to come up with a compromise to this situation. In fact,
they thought they had one and were blindsided by the latest suit filed by the
STN people. The people are just plain nuts.

Dave Reinhart


John Harlow wrote:

> > However,
> > it's clear that the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are anti-social and
> > have no respect for the right to the pursuit of happiness except for
> > their own. These are people that I don't feel deserve the time of
> > day, never mind any consideration with respect to their complaints.
> >
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more
> flight restrictions.
>
> In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly
> contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm
> just puzzled as to why it's different here.

[Big John]

Pete

What ever happened to that guy up north? Did he finally go to his
neighbor and find out what was planned and try to workout a
compromise?

Big John


On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:34:51 -0700, "Peter ?
> wrote:

>"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>> Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more
>> flight restrictions.
>
>Well, you and I can agree, I'm sure, that there are at least two
>philosophies when it comes to stuff like this. We saw the same division
>with respect to post-9/11 flight restrictions. There are those who feel
>that if we negotiate, even with fools, we'll wind up with the worst-case
>outcome. Then there are those who feel that if we don't resist as
>aggressively as possible at every step, we'll wind up with the worst-case
>outcome.
>
>I personally like to feel that I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't
>think it makes sense to just dig in our heels and pretend we should be
>permitted to just keep on as we've always done. But at the same time, why
>waste effort pretending that people like the STN idiots even come close to
>having a point?
>
>I haven't been following AOPA's involvement, but personally it seems to me
>that AOPA ought to take this up as an example case, defend the pilots
>vigorously, and countersue for all legal fees and other associated costs.
>When AOPA wins, it will make other similar groups think twice before making
>unreasonable demands.
>
>Like I said, I do my best to fly quietly. But only inasmuch as it doesn't
>affect my safety and my right to exercise my legal privileges as a pilot.
>I'm more than happy to discuss with someone else their concerns if they feel
>there's room for improvement, but I will not tolerate someone who has made
>it clear from the outset that they don't understand aviation, and want it
>destroyed altogether.
>
>I believe most other pilots are similarly interested in neighborly flying.
>One thing I don't understand is some otherwise careful and considerate
>pilots' hesitance to get involved when they see another pilot flying in an
>illegal or unneighborly fashion. Frankly, it's those handful of
>irresponsible pilots that are going to do us all in, and if we don't clean
>house, I'm sure someone else (like STN) will be happy to do it for us. We
>could make some progress in not encouraging groups like STN to be created in
>the first place if we'd just do a better job of policing our own.
>
>> In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a
>possibly
>> contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm
>> just puzzled as to why it's different here.
>
>IMHO, it's different because of the degree of hostility expressed by the
>neighbor. We've actually had at least two "neighbor to an airstrip under
>construction" threads here, and I wouldn't say that in either case, the
>person posting exhibited a strong pro-aviation attitude. In the Idaho case,
>the guy was downright stubborn, and I don't think he ever really understood
>what we were trying to tell him. But even in that case, he wasn't calling
>for an end to aviation, or even to block his neighbor's right to an airstrip
>(though, I admit he may take that tack later...he wasn't doing it here
>though).
>
>Pete
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> What ever happened to that guy up north? Did he finally go to his
> neighbor and find out what was planned and try to workout a
> compromise?

I have no idea. My only involvement was the thread he posted here. Unless
he comes back to tell us the outcome, I guess we'll never know.

Pete