Why bother about light aircraft noise.

[[email protected]]

I has looking at a TV show about traffic violations including the odd
high speed chases.
Part of the show was about the technical integerty of vehicles being
pulled over.
One of the things the police looked at was the sound level of cars and
motorcycles, especially the ones with the sporty exhausts.

So things went like: Your VW golf is rated at 84db and it produces 106
so you get a fine of ... and show us your car in two weeks with the
original exhaust.
There was a bike that is allowed to produce 92db at 5000 rpm.

Hmmm, 84 and 92 db.
My noise certificate shows that my plane(1974 MS880B) produces 69db.
That is way below a standard car or bike is allowed.

Now my question is why people complain about light aircraft noise while
there are hordes of cars and bikes that make a lot more noise?

-Kees

[NW_PILOT]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I has looking at a TV show about traffic violations including the odd
> high speed chases.
> Part of the show was about the technical integerty of vehicles being
> pulled over.
> One of the things the police looked at was the sound level of cars and
> motorcycles, especially the ones with the sporty exhausts.
>
> So things went like: Your VW golf is rated at 84db and it produces 106
> so you get a fine of ... and show us your car in two weeks with the
> original exhaust.
> There was a bike that is allowed to produce 92db at 5000 rpm.
>
> Hmmm, 84 and 92 db.
> My noise certificate shows that my plane(1974 MS880B) produces 69db.
> That is way below a standard car or bike is allowed.
>
> Now my question is why people complain about light aircraft noise while
> there are hordes of cars and bikes that make a lot more noise?
>
> -Kees
>


As a bike rider "Loud Pipes Save Lives" & "Lots of Lights will help prevent
riding in a van with lots of spinning lights" Now foot these little rice
grinders with the exhausts that you can here 6 blocks away and they reve
their engines at the stop sign's I look at them and laugh think how dumb
they sound compared to American cubic inches. I would rather here an
airplane, v8 race car, loud motorcycles, jap and American all day long then
here a little rice grinder car's exaust tip with their stereos rattling my
windows.

[OtisWinslow]

That's easy. Because they don't have one and they're not doing
the flying and they're jealous. It's a control issue .. nothing to
do with noise.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Now my question is why people complain about light aircraft noise while
> there are hordes of cars and bikes that make a lot more noise?
>
> -Kees
>

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>That's easy. Because they don't have one and they're not doing
>the flying and they're jealous. It's a control issue .. nothing to
>do with noise.
>

Yes, indeed that was easy.
We didn't even determine who "they" are.
I suppose this refers to all people who complain about airplane noise?


G Faris

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...

>
>Now my question is why people complain about light aircraft noise while
>there are hordes of cars and bikes that make a lot more noise?
>


First off, noise measurements, in Decibels, are meaningless unless the
measurement conditions, specifically the spectral weighting and the
distance from the source are expressed along with the dB number. You
airplane, on takeoff, directly under the departure end of the runway
emits a sound pressure level much higher than 69db/A.

Moreover, you plane continues to emit its 69 dB or more in areas where
people thought they were sheltered from intrusive, urban noise. Way out
in the country - the middle of a forest - the desert - even a remote
island. People view this noise as unnecessary. Highway noise, though
there may be abuses, is considered necessary, because people need to get
where they're going. Large aircraft noise is also considered necessary,
though this does not prevent some people (who chose to move there) from
complaining. Lawnmowers may be much louder than small airport noise in
suburban areas, but they too are considered necessary. Small airplanes,
on the other hand, are commonly perceived as serving the sole purpose of
gratification for their owners and pilots.

Studies in urbanism have shown us that the noises which create the
greatest irritation are those where the noisemaker is "getting kicks".
Constant noise from a major airport, rail exchange or highway may cause
fatigue and irritation over the long term, but the kid racing his dirt
bike at the end of the street is likely to get a bloody nose after an
hour. Or the kids with the boom box on the porch across the street. Your
airplane, to many people, fits in this category. A rich kid's toy,
drilling holes in everyone else's head.

As pilots, I believe we have much to lose in failing to recognize any
legitimacy in people's noise complaints. To date, we have had many
victories using the "airport was here first" argument, along with the
FAA's strong defense of the federal nature of airspace in eminent domain
issues. But this success will not continue forever, if pilots continue
to "shove it in the face" of the complainers. A few smart, well moneyed
lawyers in the pack, and some decisions will start going the other way.
There is much more to gain in continuing to fight, certainly, but in
respect of good neighbor practices. This begins with simply steering
clear of populated areas and more isolated gatherings, when possible.
Meeting with the community groups helps as well - putting a human face
on the pilot community, as well as spreading information - Many
complainers do not recognize that pattern work is a necessary and
essential activity. (No more planes in the pattern = no more airline
pilots to fly them cheaply to Mexico on that vacation they're planning).
The airport users should also nurture good relations with the local
chamber of commerce, and promote understanding of the economic
importance of the airport. Sometimes noise abatement procedures and
pattern modifications can be worked out, which not only reduce noise
over that lawyer's house, but give a sense of dialog and cooperation.

Simply treating the complainers as whining hysterics will prove to be a
losing argument.

G Faris

[Paul kgyy]

Well, it depends where you live. Living in Chicago, I seldom hear
planes overhead because of city noise, though I've been significantly
annoyed by aircraft during concerts in the park (I am a pilot).

If I got tired of the city, bought a house in the country for the
quiet, and a group of local fliers decided to take up aerobatics over
my house, I'd be annoyed if it happened regularly.

[John Gaquin]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
>
> If I got tired of the city, bought a house in the country for the
> quiet,

Anyone who does that has never had the pleasure of listening to tree frogs
or cicadas. The "country" is not quiet, it is just different.

[Paul kgyy]

Here's a clip from another N/G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: F-16 Noise Complaint
>From the Arizona Republic online.....

A complaint post, and the reply:

Complaint:
Quote: A wake-up call from Luke's jets Jun. 23, 2005 12:00 AM

"Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do we thank for the
morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight
formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall,
continuing west over
Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the
Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying
to impress the cashiers at Mervyns' early-bird special? Any response
would be appreciated."


The reply is classic, and a testament to the professionalism and
heroism of the folks in the armed services. The response:

Quote:
Regarding "A wake-up call from Luke's jets" (Letters, Thursday): On
June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four-ship of F-16s
from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the
grave of Capt Jeremy Fresques.


Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at
Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day. At
9 a.m. on June 1 5, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial
Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend.


Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby, and because of the
jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of
taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave
them their son's flag on behalf of the president of the United States
and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the
sacrifices they have endured. A four-ship flyby is a display of respect
the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in defense of freedom.
We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June
15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay
their ultimate respects.

The letter writer asks, "Whom do we thank for the morning air show?"
The 56th Fighter Wing will call for you, and forward your thanks to the
widow and parents of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was
in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of
their lives.


Lt. Col. Scott Pleus
CO 63rd Fighter Squadron
Luke Air Force Base

[Capt. Geoffry Thorpe]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
>>
>> If I got tired of the city, bought a house in the country for the
>> quiet,
>
> Anyone who does that has never had the pleasure of listening to tree frogs
> or cicadas. The "country" is not quiet, it is just different.

Not to mention the gentle hint of manuer in the air.

My neighbor compained about the noise the toads were making in our backyard
pond...

Really.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvous substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Sport Pilot]

NW_PILOT wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I has looking at a TV show about traffic violations including the odd
> > high speed chases.
> > Part of the show was about the technical integerty of vehicles being
> > pulled over.
> > One of the things the police looked at was the sound level of cars and
> > motorcycles, especially the ones with the sporty exhausts.
> >
> > So things went like: Your VW golf is rated at 84db and it produces 106
> > so you get a fine of ... and show us your car in two weeks with the
> > original exhaust.
> > There was a bike that is allowed to produce 92db at 5000 rpm.
> >
> > Hmmm, 84 and 92 db.
> > My noise certificate shows that my plane(1974 MS880B) produces 69db.
> > That is way below a standard car or bike is allowed.
> >
> > Now my question is why people complain about light aircraft noise while
> > there are hordes of cars and bikes that make a lot more noise?
> >
> > -Kees
> >
>
>
> As a bike rider "Loud Pipes Save Lives" & "Lots of Lights will help prevent
> riding in a van with lots of spinning lights" Now foot these little rice
> grinders with the exhausts that you can here 6 blocks away and they reve
> their engines at the stop sign's I look at them and laugh think how dumb
> they sound compared to American cubic inches. I would rather here an
> airplane, v8 race car, loud motorcycles, jap and American all day long then
> here a little rice grinder car's exaust tip with their stereos rattling my
> windows.

A souped up and light weight rice rocket will beat most stock detroit
muscle cars. I actually like the sound of a high revving fourbanger,
though I prefer souped up V-8.

[Denny]

G Faris, your points are well taken, my compliments... Just a few
comments in no particular order..
As far as those folks living directly off the end of the runway, there
is nothing I can do about them or their noise complaints... I have to
take off and gain altitude and that requires power, which is noise... I
can only hope that AOPA and the FAA can continue to to point out to the
judges that they are required to judge the law as written, not make
social policy... Regardless of ones political beliefs, the current
administration in Washington also echoes that requirement, which I
suspect has helped GA in these battles, though I have no way to
quantify the effect...

I live in a rural township a quarter mile from the road and from the
nearest neighbor (by choice and by the expenditure of many hundreds of
thousands of dollars)... I do not find the aircraft going overhead (13
miles from a jet port and right under an airway intersection ) to be
objectionable, YMMV... The farmer(s) working the adjacent field(s)
though, shakes the ground with his/their equipment well past midnight
many nights... Recently a group of newer resident, affluent,
complainers in the township, literally foaming at the mouth at the
board meeting, tried to shout the township board into passing a noise
law banning farm operations after sundown... The board supervisor
pointed out that such a law would discriminate against farmers as a
class of person, which is unconstitutional and would be immediately
struck down by the courts... He did offer to make a township noise
ordinance banning all noise producing equipment after sundown - farm
equipment, plus lawn tractors, bikes, mowers, four wheelers, gun
shooting, outdoor stereos, outdoor concerts, etc., which would pass
constitutional muster as not being discriminatory - and how soon would
they like him to get this written up for a vote? The shouters did not
seem to favor that...

As far as avoiding flying over groups of people enjoying solitude, I
have to know they are there where I am flying, a difficult proposition
at best...

cheers ... denny

[[email protected]]

Hi Greg,

The 69db as stated in my noise certificate are less than meaningless to
me.
I do not know if you are familiar with these certificates but they are
used to calculate the landings fees in some countries.
This and the MTOW determines the basic fee.
To keep the noise(and the complaints) down most airfields ask a higher
fee when landing after 19:00(2xbasic fee), on saturdays(2x),
sundays(3x) and official holidays(3x) during the summer
period(apr~okt).
So, most people think twice before practising circuits during these
times.

But you are right that there are different kinds of noise and aircraft
sound can be a bit annoying.

I've been to a meeting with complainers, some of them are reasonable
people who think that together we can come to a sensible solution(my
idea too).
The most(that I've met) however are fanatics that will not rest before
the airfield is closed.
Those are the ones that go to court for about anything (even
vaguely)related to the field.

I had a good laugh though.
Some examples from complaints against our field:
-Complaints about fast small yellow planes that make this irritating
whining sound.
Airforce trainers from a nearby base.
-The jump plane has a diesel engine now, so it makes more noise.
No, it is 4db less than before.
Etc etc.

Anyway, I think I'm nice to our neighbours.
I allways reduce power at reaching 200~300ft AGL(the other end of our
2500ft runway)
Climbing at 75% and not overflying populated areas, parks, beaches,
etc. when possible.

-Kees






I've been to meetings with complainers, some are reasonable people but
the majority will not rest before the airfield is closed.

[Skylune]

I realize I am considered an unwelcome "troll" on this board, but thank you
anyway for your excellent post.

As someone who lives about 3 miles from a GA facility, I can say that the
small single engine GA planes (C-150s, 172s, etc., and certainly the
smaller "experimental" types, are not a major nuisance. I specifically
avoided purchasing property off the ends of the runways, because I
realized the noise would be intrusive.

However, even where I am, I find that there are very inconsiderate pilots
who fly high performance Mooneys and even Pitts below 1000 feet at high
rpm and in clear conditions with no competing traffic. The local airport
has "voluntary" noise abatement procedures, which are routinely ignored by
certain pilots, and of course the FAA makes, at best, perfunctory efforts
to identify offending pilots.

After going to several meetings concerning the planned "improvements"
(i.e. expansions) of the local airport, I saw quite a large number of
people were severely bothered by the unnecessary noise of the
irresponsible few pilots. Of course, some of the local pilot community
has the "to hell with them" attitude (they were at the meeting), and it
became pretty antagonistic.

Since the industry won't police its own, the airport manager doesn't care
and/or is powerless, and the FAA is indifferent to community noise issues,
we so-called anti-GA activists have taken the battle to the politicians,
and the airport is definitely paying a price. I have raised the issue of
local subsidies that our airport is asking from the city (the huge FAA
subsidies are apparently not enough), safety concerns of expanding the
airport, water pollution issues (the runway extension would require
elimination of wetlands), subsidies, etc. and have gotten many responses
from local, state and federal officials. I have had several letters to
the editor published. I have started posting on this and other boards.

I never wanted this fight, but when I am continously and unnecessarily
harrased by low flying pilots in high performance planes, or twin engine
planes in a hurry to get somewhere and/or save fuel by avoiding the noise
abatement suggested routes, I will fight back using every legal means at
my disposal.

I really don't care all that much about the safety and pollution issues.
I care somewhat more about the taxpayer subsidies. But the unnecessary
noise by an irresponsible few has energized me to research and monitor my
local airport, its finances, etc.

For those who dismiss the complainers as cranks, whiners, trolls, or nut
cases (or jealous - LOL), you are digging your own graves. There are
serious and intelligent people who are fighting your industry, and doing
our best to raise the cost of doing business.

I believe in live and let live, but some pilots don't, so I have become a
vocal and constant critic. And, groups are forming to counter the pilots
groups. Its unfortunate, but I won't be driven from my home by private
pilots.

[Grumman-581]

"Sport Pilot" wrote in message
oups.com...
> A souped up and light weight rice rocket will beat most stock detroit
> muscle cars.

It doesn't need to be that souped up... Recently bought a 2002 Kawasaki ZX-6
(Ninja 600) from a guy at the office (only had 1200 miles on it)... It had a
problem with the carb and when I took it to the dealership to get it fixed,
the mechanic said that it was "only running on 2 and a half cylinders"...
Regardless, it was able to easily get up to 160 mpg (had to slow down for a
curve)... The bike is perfectly stock... Runs quite a bit better with the
carb fixed, but I don't think I'm going to try to top it out... The amount
that I had to lean it over to get around a slight curve on a major 4 lane
highway definitely got my adrenaline pumping... Wasn't sure I was going to
be able to make the curve...

[Newps]

Skylune wrote:

The local airport
> has "voluntary" noise abatement procedures, which are routinely ignored by
> certain pilots, and of course the FAA makes, at best, perfunctory efforts
> to identify offending pilots.

Noise abatement programs are not the jurisdiction of the FAA. The FAA
does not design or enforce noise abatement programs. Those programs are
local.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-07-08, OtisWinslow > wrote:
> That's easy. Because they don't have one and they're not doing
> the flying and they're jealous. It's a control issue .. nothing to
> do with noise.

A small minority, maybe (who then go up to stir up everyone else). Most
people aren't particularly bothered in my experience, and hardly notice
the noise - well, the noise of a typical light trainer with a fixed
pitch prop.

The trouble is we do it to ourselves half the time. I've lost count of
the number of pilots in aircraft with constant speed props who seem to
think it's a great idea to shove the prop to fine pitch on downwind
making a very annoying "rrrrRRRRRRRR" noise (and making the aircraft
MUCH noisier as it flies the rest of downwind). Absolutely no need.
These types also usually fly downwind at such speed that poor C150s are
being forced out of the circuit. The prop can wait until short final.

All it takes is a little thought to fly with consideration for our
airport neighbours (and other pilots) - most high performance planes
will slow down to trainer speed just fine if need be (I used to fly a
Bonanza quite often, and I didn't find it hard to go at C150 speed if I
needed to). Even in lower performance planes with fixed pitch props you
can easily reduce your noise footprint - just fly slower at lower RPM.
A C172 can happily fly downwind at 2150 RPM and makes much less noise
than at 2300 RPM. (At one extreme is our Auster towplane, with an O-320,
it happily flies downwind at 1500 RPM and at the same speed as the
gliders, but with a power on stall speed of 30 mph, it is sort of an
extreme :-))

The same thing goes for being neighbourly to other pilots - remember
where your prop blast is going. The worst one I had was when a warbird
came in for the airshow at Galveston whilst I was working on the C140 in
our mechanics's hangar. Now I love the sound of a big radial or a
Merlin, but NOT when it's sandblasting myself, the plane, and blowing
the removed cowling into the back of the hangar!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Skylune]

True, although there is a noise complaint site for New England on the FAA
website, which I and others have determined is purely for show value.

Furthermore, the FAA funds the ridiculous Part 150 studies noise
compatibility studies, which (as you note) they are not responsible for
enforcing. In our case, NO ONE is responsible for monitoring or
enforcing the voluntary noise abatement procedures -- the airport manager
is either powerless or does not care. Therefore (and unfortunately),
litigation and political pressure are our only recourse to protect our
community. So that's what it has come to in my area. (Expect more
litigation too....)

As I said previously, I will not be driven from my home so that a few
cowboys can have a good time. We did not ask for this fight -- it was
forced upon us. And now, we will use every opportunity and newsbite (user
fees, requested subsidies from the city, water pollution, noise pollution,
traffic concerns, safety issues, etc.) to fight back and raise the pilots'
cost of doing business. Trust me, the local airport can already forget
about the funds they've requested from the city for improvements.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> True, although there is a noise complaint site for New England on the FAA
> website, which I and others have determined is purely for show value.
>
> Furthermore, the FAA funds the ridiculous Part 150 studies noise
> compatibility studies, which (as you note) they are not responsible for
> enforcing. In our case, NO ONE is responsible for monitoring or
> enforcing the voluntary noise abatement procedures -- the airport manager
> is either powerless or does not care. Therefore (and unfortunately),
> litigation and political pressure are our only recourse to protect our
> community. So that's what it has come to in my area. (Expect more
> litigation too....)
>
> As I said previously, I will not be driven from my home so that a few
> cowboys can have a good time. We did not ask for this fight -- it was
> forced upon us. And now, we will use every opportunity and newsbite (user
> fees, requested subsidies from the city, water pollution, noise pollution,
> traffic concerns, safety issues, etc.) to fight back and raise the pilots'
> cost of doing business. Trust me, the local airport can already forget
> about the funds they've requested from the city for improvements.

Have you ever attempted reasonable discourse on the subject? IIRC, you
came to this newsgroup like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl,
looking to chastise everybody who flies.

Nobody is driving you from your home, but YOU are ready to drive us from
ours!

Most of us in this NG are not afraid to post our real names, rather than
using some fake handle, such as yourself. IMHO, you have little more
standing than the London terrorist bombers.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Matt Barrow]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> utaviation.com>,
> "Skylune" > wrote:

Orval,

Don't feed the troll!!

[Skylune]

Followup: For example, we store delicious tidbits such as the below (from
the I-pilot website, which the webmaster thinks he has me blocked out of),
and will use them at an opportune time, such as when a crash occurs that
kills people on the ground or destroys property.

The media loves letter to the editor that include factual references to
other stupid pilot tricks that demonstrate the true social cost and nature
of GA. Here's the story from I-pilot's newsletter....

Student pilot faces charges after dropping water balloons
Following in the wake of a drunken man taking two friends joyriding in a
Skyhawk in Connecticut, and a 14-year-old taking a Cessna 152 for a spin
in Florida, two Utah men are facing charges for allegedly dropping water
balloons from a Cessna 150 onto people at a car show over the July 4
weekend. The 21-year-old pilot had his student pilot certificate,
according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Police allege that the student pilot
and his friend on board made low-altitude passes over the town of Logan
and dropped the balloons. 'I don't think they were thinking,' said Police
Lt. Rod Peterson of the two men. 'It was just a very dangerous, very
foolish act on their part.' Police say the student pilot turned off all
the plane's lights while in the air, and that the two admitted to dropping
about five water balloons while at altitudes between 300 and 400 feet AGL.

[Skylune]

1. Using my actual name would obviously result in increased harassment.
This has been demonstrated by others who attempted to be "reasonable."

2. If you took the time to try to understand our point of view, you would
realize we spent ALOT of time trying to have a dialogue with the airport
manager, FAA, attended meetings with the airport board, etc..... This is
how I have come to understand the FAA Part 150 studies, aspects of the
FARs, etc. Plus, I flew a bit in a C-150 trainer years back before
deciding I didn't have sufficient time to devote to becoming proficient
enough to fly myself (and others) safely.

3. You, sir, are being presumptous when you say I am not being forced out
of my home. The racket on the weekends, especially, often starting at
5:15am!!!, has become worse and worse. When I see that damned idiot in
the Mooney fly by low and fast(or his buddy in the Bonanza) with the ear
piercing racket, it DOES drive us indoors.

4. These people are the turds in my punch. Why don't you pilots tell
them to cut the S__T???

[Skylune]

And by the way, to compare me to the London Bombers demonstrates your
attitude and stupidity. My response: F___ YOU!

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> 1. Using my actual name would obviously result in increased harassment.
> This has been demonstrated by others who attempted to be "reasonable."

I doubt that you have *ever* attempted to be reasonable!



> 2. If you took the time to try to understand our point of view, you would
> realize we spent ALOT of time trying to have a dialogue with the airport
> manager, FAA, attended meetings with the airport board, etc..... This is
> how I have come to understand the FAA Part 150 studies, aspects of the
> FARs, etc. Plus, I flew a bit in a C-150 trainer years back before
> deciding I didn't have sufficient time to devote to becoming proficient
> enough to fly myself (and others) safely.

So now you want to deny that opportunity to others, who may have more
innate skills/aptitude than you.



> 3. You, sir, are being presumptous when you say I am not being forced out
> of my home. The racket on the weekends, especially, often starting at
> 5:15am!!!, has become worse and worse. When I see that damned idiot in
> the Mooney fly by low and fast(or his buddy in the Bonanza) with the ear
> piercing racket, it DOES drive us indoors.

How many times does that happen? What are they really doing?

> 4. These people are the turds in my punch. Why don't you pilots tell
> them to cut the S__T???

We often do. Why don't you quit being such an ass?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Skywise]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

<Snipola>

Mind telling which airport you're have the problem with? I don't
recall you ever mentioning it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Morgans]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> Have you ever attempted reasonable discourse on the subject? IIRC, you
> came to this newsgroup like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl,
> looking to chastise everybody who flies.

Orval, killfile this turd. He isn't ever going to be worth it, nor is he a
threat. If he was, he wouldn't be talking about it here!
--
Jim in NC

[Skylune]

Orville is an ass, to compare me to a terrorist.

You may not consider me a "threat," but your industry is the camel, and I
am another straw.... In fact, I am several straws, and as I have
mentioned, I (and others) have already killed our local airport's chance
of getting money from the city to fund CIPs by pointing out the airports
failure to implement the monitoring they agreed to in a very old Part 150
study. That, plus the fact that the city is having budget difficulties
and the airport authority is so stupid as to post in its own minutes that
it wants city funds so as not to "burden current users with the costs of
the CIP." This, at the same time the city is facing a budget crisis and
is eliminating athletic programs, etc. from the schools. I used the
authority's own words against them in my letter to the editor. Trust me,
Mr. Turd, the airport knows exactly who I am.

Go on with your superior attitude: You, sir, not I, are the fool, just
like the low-paid bumpkins who run the airport. When they had the recent
public meeting, the local flyboy in his dumb leather jacket came off as the
dumb "turd." Almost as dumb as some of you.....

And no, I will not name the airport. I must remain anynomous due to the
fact that I don't want my house buzzed, which is what happens when people
have the audacity to complain about irresponsible pilots.
People on this site have actually made these threat to other "trolls,"
such as myself. Reasonable dialogue/compromise with you people is
impossible. Therefore, I too will make life difficult politically,
legally, etc.

[[email protected]]

> Orville is an ass, to compare me to a terrorist.
>
> You may not consider me a "threat," but your industry is the camel, and I
> am another straw.... In fact, I am several straws, and as I have
> mentioned, I (and others) have already killed our local airport's chance
> of getting money from the city to fund CIPs by pointing out the airports
> failure to implement the monitoring they agreed to in a very old Part 150
> study. That, plus the fact that the city is having budget difficulties
> and the airport authority is so stupid as to post in its own minutes that
> it wants city funds so as not to "burden current users with the costs of
> the CIP."

Geez, where have we heard this before? Watch out for the AA going into
the
golf course "business" to "raise funds to be self-sufficient". And
going
into the "tech park" business, creating a "high tech" research park on
airport land, again to be "self-sufficient". Monopolizing fuel sales
is big too.

>This, at the same time the city is facing a budget crisis and
> is eliminating athletic programs, etc. from the schools.

But its only a few dollars per month, one starbucks per day. GA-santa
leaves all those presents that are "indirect" and "multiply".

> And no, I will not name the airport. I must remain anynomous due to the
> fact that I don't want my house buzzed, which is what happens when people
> have the audacity to complain about irresponsible pilots.

Those laser view-graph pointers are fun, make sure you're outdoors when
installing new batteries. Practice pointing skills on distant objects.

> People on this site have actually made these threat to other "trolls,"
> such as myself. Reasonable dialogue/compromise with you people is
> impossible. Therefore, I too will make life difficult politically,
> legally, etc.

Rock on, SL.

JG

[Skywise]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

> Orville is an ass, to compare me to a terrorist.
>
> You may not consider me a "threat," but your industry is the camel, and I
> am another straw.... In fact, I am several straws, and as I have
> mentioned, I (and others) have already killed our local airport's chance
> of getting money from the city to fund CIPs by pointing out the airports
> failure to implement the monitoring they agreed to in a very old Part 150
> study. That, plus the fact that the city is having budget difficulties
> and the airport authority is so stupid as to post in its own minutes that
> it wants city funds so as not to "burden current users with the costs of
> the CIP." This, at the same time the city is facing a budget crisis and
> is eliminating athletic programs, etc. from the schools. I used the
> authority's own words against them in my letter to the editor. Trust me,
> Mr. Turd, the airport knows exactly who I am.
>
> Go on with your superior attitude: You, sir, not I, are the fool, just
> like the low-paid bumpkins who run the airport. When they had the recent
> public meeting, the local flyboy in his dumb leather jacket came off as the
> dumb "turd." Almost as dumb as some of you.....
>
> And no, I will not name the airport. I must remain anynomous due to the
> fact that I don't want my house buzzed, which is what happens when people
> have the audacity to complain about irresponsible pilots.

And I thought *I* was paranoid....

How is revealing the airport going to cause YOUR house to be buzzed?
Unless you're the only resident near the airport, nobody is going to
know where the hell you live!

By asking which airport, some here in the group may be able see if
there can be something done about your noise problem from within the
aviation community. But since nobody knows what the problem airport
is, no one here can even look into it, much less do anything about it.

Effectively you are shooting yourself in the foot.


> People on this site have actually made these threat to other "trolls,"
> such as myself. Reasonable dialogue/compromise with you people is
> impossible.

If some stranger comes up to you and starts acting like an ass from
word one, how are you going to react to them?

You need to look at yourself in a mirror and see things from the
perspective of the folks in this group. Some anonymous person comes
in here and starts ranting like a madman making accusations (some
criminal in nature) to everyone and you expect to be treated nicely?
It doesn't matter WHAT newsgroup you do this to.

Don't bother trying to be nice now. You've shot your reputation to
hell. You're only chance *MIGHT* be to stop posting and come back
with a new anonymous identity and act like a civilized person trying
to find a solution to a problem. If you manage to do that without
being recognized as the person you are now, you'll likely get a much
nicer response. But this is highly unlikely as in the short time I've
been reading this group, there's only been one person complaining
about airplane noise.

If you came to this group to seek help in your problem, you've gone
about it the wrong way. If you came to this group to antagonize and
cause problems, then you're be treated as the troll you are.

> Therefore, I too will make life difficult politically,
> legally, etc.

And it's possible to make your life on the internet hell as well,
because you've not done a very good job at being anonymous.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

Skywise > wrote in
:

> "Skylune" > wrote in
> lkaboutaviation.com:

<Snipola>
>> Therefore, I too will make life difficult politically,
>> legally, etc.
>
> And it's possible to make your life on the internet hell as well,
> because you've not done a very good job at being anonymous.

Yep. Took me about an hour of work using publicly available
information on the internet to find out who this is. No, I
won't post any personal information online. My point is, Skylune,
that you're not as anonymous as you think you are. So if I
can figure out who you are, others can too, and they may not be
as nice as I.

Anyway, if my research is corrent, the airport in question is
Boire Field (KASH) in Nashua, NH. The person in question resides
more than 5 miles from the runway.

I used to live 3 miles from a GA airport for several years,
under the outbound route where planes were generally full
throttle. Based on that experience, I can't see what the problem
is. Rarely if ever was an aircraft ever so low or loud as to
be a nuisance. The neighborhood lawnmower cars were louder.

I now live two miles from a military field. It's not very
active but nearly every day there's some F/A-18's or Harriers
landing. A couple weeks ago there were several CH-53's doing
pattern work, one day all three were in formation.

Skylune, do you know how loud a Harrier is when it's less than
a thousand feet over your head and not going any faster than
a C150?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Grumman-581]

"Skywise" wrote in message ...
> Skylune, do you know how loud a Harrier is when it's less than
> a thousand feet over your head and not going any faster than
> a C150?

When I was on the Nimitz, my berthing compartment was one deck below and on
the starboard side of the arresting gear... Rather noisy, but you soon get
to the point that you don't notice it...

[Grumman-581]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:d7HAe.164277$xm3.38895@attbi_s21...
<snp>
> Regardless, it was able to easily get up to 160 mpg (had to slow down for
a
> curve)...
</snip>

Ooops... Replace mpg with mph... Finger fumble strikes again...

[Skylune]

Well, so much for your "research." I've already received e-mail threats...
Its ok. Just par for the course.

But I will take your advice. It is too aggravating to deal with you
subsidized, self-righteous flyers.

[Grumman-581]

"SkyLOON" > dribbled down his momma's chin...
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Well, so much for your "research." I've already received e-mail
threats...
> Its ok. Just par for the course.
>
> But I will take your advice. It is too aggravating to deal with you
> subsidized, self-righteous flyers.

You've shown that you are just envious of pilots... You moved into an area
near an airport and then have the nerve to think that they should modify
their behavior because of you... You really are a pitiful excuse for a human
being... You're just a whiney little bitch... A loser... Nothing more than a
gnat buzzing around -- making some noise, but no bite... Everyone knows that
you are just a kook by the tin foil hat that you wear... Oh, by the way,
your tin foil hat is on a bit too tight... If you had any balls, you would
make a note of the tail numbers of the offending planes and contact the
owners directly... Instead, you whine and bitch about it to others who see
you as the nutcase loser that you are...

<bitch-slap>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> Well, so much for your "research." I've already received e-mail threats...
> Its ok. Just par for the course.
>
> But I will take your advice. It is too aggravating to deal with you
> subsidized, self-righteous flyers.


Just wait, "Skylune." The Supreme Court just made it legal (and easy)
for your town to evict you and turn your trailer park over to WalMart,
so they can collect a lot more taxes from the property.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[George Patterson]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> Just wait, "Skylune." The Supreme Court just made it legal (and easy)
> for your town to evict you and turn your trailer park over to WalMart,
> so they can collect a lot more taxes from the property.

No, they didn't. They simply refused to overturn State laws that have kept it
legal in some areas for centuries.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Skywise]

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

> Well, so much for your "research." I've already received e-mail threats...
> Its ok. Just par for the course.

It's your own fault. You did not take the necessary measures to
hide your email address. What you've done here is like walking
into a police station and while handing the desk sargeant your
ID yelled out "I hate cops!"

> But I will take your advice. It is too aggravating to deal with you
> subsidized, self-righteous flyers.

Obviously you're not taking my advice very seriously because you
just did again what my advice advised against doing.

I'm trying to be nice and give you a little benefit of the doubt.
Your attitude is need of a serious adjustment. The way you are
acting no one is going to take you seriously, even if you were 100%
right.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Newps]

Skylune wrote:

> Well, so much for your "research." I've already received e-mail threats...
> Its ok. Just par for the course.
>
> But I will take your advice. It is too aggravating to deal with you
> subsidized, self-righteous flyers.

You're five miles out and get this worked up? Sorry buddy.