EPA update

[Skylune]

Well, I did hear back from the EPA concerning a local GA airport's efforts
to get an exemption from regulations concerning fuel storage. You see,
one of my most annoying local airports sits atop an important aquifer that
supplies the whole region with groundwater. The local FBO's (who control
the airport board) want a certain regulation concerning fuel storage
voided so that they don't have to pay the cost of constructing a storage
area (and probably because they want to put hangars there, to generate
more profit).

Anyway, the EPA was already on to it. Their response was encouraging.
Here it is (with some minor blackouts -- don't want the poor EPA person to
receive threats from some of the whacko pilots, you know, so I blacked out
a few words...)


"skylune" (my real name was on the letter:

Thank you for the e-mail on August 3rd concerning xxx Airways, a
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the municipal airport in xxxxxxxxxxx. The
regulations that xxxxx referred to are the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulations, which are a part of the Clean Water
Act. Specifically, the regulations require the FBO to provide
secondary containment around their fuel trucks at night under their
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan.

EPA-New England's Regional Administrator had recently received a letter
from Senator Judd Gregg, wherein he forwarded two form letters from
members of the aircraft refueling industry in New Hampshire. xxxxx
had sent one of those letters to Senator Gregg. Similar form letters
had been received at EPA headquarters in Washington DC from aircraft
refueling companies around the country.

This industry is taking exception to EPA's publication, in July of 2002,
of revised SPCC regulations. In the preamble to the regulations, EPA
re-stated its position that airport refueler trucks have always been
considered "mobile and portable tanks" under the SPCC regulations.
The refueling industry has disputed this since the regulations became
effective in 1974, and the debate was re-ignited.

You are correct to be concerned about fuel spills contaminating the
xxxxx aquifer, the main source of drinking water in the xxxxx
area. Such fuel spills, whether from fixed bulk storage tanks, or fuel
trucks left full of product overnight, have the same devastating effect
on groundwater quality. Rest assured that the EPA-New England region
is inspecting airports for SPCC compliance, and enforcing the
regulations at FBO's.
xxxxxx
Regional Spill-SPCC Enforcement Coordinator
xxxxx
xxxxx.gov


Nice job Senator. But I wrote that Senator at the same time, as well as
my other US Senator, Congressman, and state reps urging them to NOT relax
any EPA regulations for the financial benefit of the FBOs.

[Jose]

Has there ever been a case of a non-trivial fuel spill from an airport
refueler truck? Ever?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

I don't know.

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wet the bed, took a bite of
skunk cabbage and gloated:

> Well, I did hear back from the EPA concerning a local GA airport's efforts
> to get an exemption from regulations concerning fuel storage. You see,
> one of my most annoying local airports sits atop an important aquifer that
> supplies the whole region with groundwater. The local FBO's (who control
> the airport board) want a certain regulation concerning fuel storage
> voided so that they don't have to pay the cost of constructing a storage
> area (and probably because they want to put hangars there, to generate
> more profit).
>
> Anyway, the EPA was already on to it. Their response was encouraging.
> Here it is (with some minor blackouts -- don't want the poor EPA person to
> receive threats from some of the whacko pilots, you know, so I blacked out
> a few words...)
>
(snip)
>
> Nice job Senator. But I wrote that Senator at the same time, as well as
> my other US Senator, Congressman, and state reps urging them to NOT relax
> any EPA regulations for the financial benefit of the FBOs.

Now, all they have to do is put some retroactive birth control pill into
"Skylune's" water supply! This guy is a real horse's ass!

[Aluckyguess]

How freaking stupid.
Let the FBO sale the fuel. Even if the truck accidentally dumped the whole
truck it wouldn't hurt the ground water.
I would be more worried about someone's septic tank.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Well, I did hear back from the EPA concerning a local GA airport's efforts
> to get an exemption from regulations concerning fuel storage. You see,
> one of my most annoying local airports sits atop an important aquifer that
> supplies the whole region with groundwater. The local FBO's (who control
> the airport board) want a certain regulation concerning fuel storage
> voided so that they don't have to pay the cost of constructing a storage
> area (and probably because they want to put hangars there, to generate
> more profit).
>
> Anyway, the EPA was already on to it. Their response was encouraging.
> Here it is (with some minor blackouts -- don't want the poor EPA person to
> receive threats from some of the whacko pilots, you know, so I blacked out
> a few words...)
>
>
> "skylune" (my real name was on the letter:
>
> Thank you for the e-mail on August 3rd concerning xxx Airways, a
> Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the municipal airport in xxxxxxxxxxx. The
> regulations that xxxxx referred to are the Oil
> Pollution Prevention regulations, which are a part of the Clean Water
> Act. Specifically, the regulations require the FBO to provide
> secondary containment around their fuel trucks at night under their
> Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan.
>
> EPA-New England's Regional Administrator had recently received a letter
> from Senator Judd Gregg, wherein he forwarded two form letters from
> members of the aircraft refueling industry in New Hampshire. xxxxx
> had sent one of those letters to Senator Gregg. Similar form letters
> had been received at EPA headquarters in Washington DC from aircraft
> refueling companies around the country.
>
> This industry is taking exception to EPA's publication, in July of 2002,
> of revised SPCC regulations. In the preamble to the regulations, EPA
> re-stated its position that airport refueler trucks have always been
> considered "mobile and portable tanks" under the SPCC regulations.
> The refueling industry has disputed this since the regulations became
> effective in 1974, and the debate was re-ignited.
>
> You are correct to be concerned about fuel spills contaminating the
> xxxxx aquifer, the main source of drinking water in the xxxxx
> area. Such fuel spills, whether from fixed bulk storage tanks, or fuel
> trucks left full of product overnight, have the same devastating effect
> on groundwater quality. Rest assured that the EPA-New England region
> is inspecting airports for SPCC compliance, and enforcing the
> regulations at FBO's.
> xxxxxx
> Regional Spill-SPCC Enforcement Coordinator
> xxxxx
> xxxxx.gov
>
>
> Nice job Senator. But I wrote that Senator at the same time, as well as
> my other US Senator, Congressman, and state reps urging them to NOT relax
> any EPA regulations for the financial benefit of the FBOs.
>
>

[sfb]

Buried home heating oil tanks are the environmental time bomb. In
theory, the stuff in the septic tank is biodegradable.

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> How freaking stupid.
> Let the FBO sale the fuel. Even if the truck accidentally dumped the
> whole truck it wouldn't hurt the ground water.
> I would be more worried about someone's septic tank.
>

[Jose]

>> Has there ever been a case of a non-trivial fuel spill from an airport refueler truck? Ever?
> I don't know.

The answer is no. There has never been such a spill. Ever.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Has there ever been a case of a non-trivial fuel spill from an airport
> refueler truck? Ever?
>
> Jose
> --

And why would the truck require secondary containment when "parked
overnight" but not when parked during the day or while moving? Why don't
aircraft (some of which can hold more than the fuel truck) require secondary
containment?

Mike
MU-2

[Steve Foley]

This has nothing to do with fuel storage. It is simply another jab at
aviation.

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

> You see, one of my most annoying local airports .................

[Steve Foley]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> I don't know.
>

He has stated that he doesn't care. He's simply trying do anything to
increase the cost of aviation for everyone because some guy flies his mooney
too low.

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article >,
"Aluckyguess" > wrote:

> How freaking stupid.
> Let the FBO sale the fuel. Even if the truck accidentally dumped the whole
> truck it wouldn't hurt the ground water.
> I would be more worried about someone's septic tank.

Maybe you guys have a solution to the problem!

Does "Skylune" have a double-walled tank for his heating oil?
Is his septic tank up to spec?
Has the fire marshall paid him a visit?

IMHO, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

[Steve Foley]

Skylune has stated he doesn't care about the pollution, he's simply trying
to drive the aviation industry under.

He cares nothing about the people he is trying to unemploy.

He cares nothing about the financial losses that he is trying to burden
pilots with.

He is 'getting even' with pilots for not stopping one guy with a loud, low
flying mooney.

"ORVAL FAIRAIRN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
> > How freaking stupid.
> > Let the FBO sale the fuel. Even if the truck accidentally dumped the
whole
> > truck it wouldn't hurt the ground water.
> > I would be more worried about someone's septic tank.
>
> Maybe you guys have a solution to the problem!
>
> Does "Skylune" have a double-walled tank for his heating oil?
> Is his septic tank up to spec?
> Has the fire marshall paid him a visit?
>
> IMHO, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

[Skylune]

Steve: You seem like a reasonable guy. It is not one guy in his mooney
that have really gotten under my skin. (Besides, that jerk seems to have
abandoned his daily 4:55 am training sessions..). Its the Mooney, the
Bonanza, the idiot in the Pitts, the twin Otter, etc. I think about 90%
of the pilots who fly by my summer home try to "fly friendly." There are
the 10% of idiots who create a damned racket nearly every weekend. And,
the idiots at the airport authority have treated me and others I know who
have complained about noise, with utter contempt. So, this is my little
way of hitting back.

Ironically, the level of GA traffic seems to have dropped off quite a bit
over the last two years (maybe I can retire to my summer home afterall!).
Maybe the rising cost of AV gas, rising rental costs etc. are taking a toll
(the silver lining in $70/bbl crude)?

Skylune out.

[Steve Foley]

Your 'little way of hitting back' is costing ME money. Where do you think
the FBO will get the money to pay for this secondary containment equipment?
You've touted the fact that you've reduced airport funding, so the only
source of funds left is from the FBO customers (ME).

The airport authority will turn around and show how they're being socially
responsible by making me pay for this equipment. As stated earlier, no
reported fuel spill has ever occurred that this equipment would prevent.
You're simply taking money from MY pocket because of the Mooney, the
Bonanza, the Pitts, The twin Otter and the etc.

Thanks loads.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Steve: You seem like a reasonable guy. It is not one guy in his mooney
> that have really gotten under my skin. (Besides, that jerk seems to have
> abandoned his daily 4:55 am training sessions..). Its the Mooney, the
> Bonanza, the idiot in the Pitts, the twin Otter, etc. I think about 90%
> of the pilots who fly by my summer home try to "fly friendly." There are
> the 10% of idiots who create a damned racket nearly every weekend. And,
> the idiots at the airport authority have treated me and others I know who
> have complained about noise, with utter contempt. So, this is my little
> way of hitting back.
>
> Ironically, the level of GA traffic seems to have dropped off quite a bit
> over the last two years (maybe I can retire to my summer home afterall!).
> Maybe the rising cost of AV gas, rising rental costs etc. are taking a
toll
> (the silver lining in $70/bbl crude)?
>
> Skylune out.
>

[Skylune]

Well how am I, who bought property about 5 miles from the airport about 15
years ago, specifically avoiding areas around both runways and in the
pattern, being compensated for pilots who want to engage in low level
flying? And for the airport that now means to expand to attract more
business??

I've gone to the meetings, and met the ridiculous "airport here first
argument." (Because of their age, almost all airports were there first.
Does that mean they can expand --with my taxpayer money and commercial
airline surcharges--without limit?) I have been treated with disdain by
the airport staff, and in a patronizing way by the moronic airport
consultant they hired to conduct a public meeting. On the (only three)
occassions I called to complain about a REALLY low, loud flier, I was
treated by disdain by the airport staff and the FAA. (Like anyone on the
ground can get an N number of a plane zoooming about 500 ft overhead....).
So I got fed up, did my research, and exercised my rights to express my
opinion. Never broke any laws, threatened, etc.

Everyone knows that voluntary noise abatement is a total joke. Why is it
that boats, motorcycles, cars, stereos, leaf blowers, barking dogs,
EVERYTHING, are subject to community noise ordinances except GA? Its true
that a leaf blower may make more noise up close (not more than the idiot
Mooney pilot, though). The difference is that my neighbors have respect
for one another, and we are not anonymous, unlike the looney Mooney pilot
who was flying every morning before five -- I guess he likes the smooth
air and how his plane could really rip at that hour......

As far as the EPA regulations, we all must abide by regulations we don't
necessarily agree with. I didn't write them, and I may not even agree
with them. Its the EPA that is costing you money on this particular
issue. And rising fuel prices are taking a toll on everyone.
Discretionary activities, like flying for pleasure (and most boating),
will of course take a disproportionate hit.

[BDS]

"Skylune" > wrote
> Steve: You seem like a reasonable guy. It is not one guy in his mooney
> that have really gotten under my skin. (Besides, that jerk seems to have
> abandoned his daily 4:55 am training sessions..). Its the Mooney, the
> Bonanza, the idiot in the Pitts, the twin Otter, etc. I think about 90%
> of the pilots who fly by my summer home try to "fly friendly." There are
> the 10% of idiots who create a damned racket nearly every weekend. And,
> the idiots at the airport authority have treated me and others I know who
> have complained about noise, with utter contempt. So, this is my little
> way of hitting back.

So my question to you is, was the airport already there when you bought your
summer home? If so, how can you whine about airplane noise without feeling
just a little bit stupid?

G. Raffe

[Jose]

> Well how am I, who bought property about 5 miles from the airport about 15
> years ago, specifically avoiding areas around both runways and in the
> pattern, being compensated for pilots who want to engage in low level
> flying?

The same way I am compensated by people who run leaf blowers in my
neighborhood in the morning when I am trying to sleep.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

So, why not knock on their door and politely ask them to use the blower
later in the day? If they refuse, insisting on their "right to blow
leaves," you can call the cops if your community has a noise ordinance.
If not, ask the town manager or mayor or whatever to consider one.

If they refuse to be reasonable, fly a few low passes over their home at 3
am. You know the FAA will never catch you.

Skylune out.

[Steve Foley]

Why do you feel entitled to compensation? Bad things happen to good people.
Life isn't fair. Live with it.

It seems that you're angry at the 10% (your figure) pilots who create the
problem, along with the establishment for not resolving what you perceive as
a problem, and have decided to do whatever you can to get even. Swatting
flies with a cannon.

Like I said, you are punishing ME, personally, by taking money from my
pocket to pay for a useless containment system. What do you get from it,
except the satisfaction of 'getting even'?

You've stated that everything you've done is legal. Tell me, is it right?

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Well how am I, who bought property about 5 miles from the airport about 15
> years ago, specifically avoiding areas around both runways and in the
> pattern, being compensated for pilots who want to engage in low level
> flying? And for the airport that now means to expand to attract more
> business??
>
> I've gone to the meetings, and met the ridiculous "airport here first
> argument." (Because of their age, almost all airports were there first.
> Does that mean they can expand --with my taxpayer money and commercial
> airline surcharges--without limit?) I have been treated with disdain by
> the airport staff, and in a patronizing way by the moronic airport
> consultant they hired to conduct a public meeting. On the (only three)
> occassions I called to complain about a REALLY low, loud flier, I was
> treated by disdain by the airport staff and the FAA. (Like anyone on the
> ground can get an N number of a plane zoooming about 500 ft overhead....).
> So I got fed up, did my research, and exercised my rights to express my
> opinion. Never broke any laws, threatened, etc.
>
> Everyone knows that voluntary noise abatement is a total joke. Why is it
> that boats, motorcycles, cars, stereos, leaf blowers, barking dogs,
> EVERYTHING, are subject to community noise ordinances except GA? Its true
> that a leaf blower may make more noise up close (not more than the idiot
> Mooney pilot, though). The difference is that my neighbors have respect
> for one another, and we are not anonymous, unlike the looney Mooney pilot
> who was flying every morning before five -- I guess he likes the smooth
> air and how his plane could really rip at that hour......
>
> As far as the EPA regulations, we all must abide by regulations we don't
> necessarily agree with. I didn't write them, and I may not even agree
> with them. Its the EPA that is costing you money on this particular
> issue. And rising fuel prices are taking a toll on everyone.
> Discretionary activities, like flying for pleasure (and most boating),
> will of course take a disproportionate hit.
>
>

[Steve Foley]

Why do you feel entitled to compensation? Bad things happen to good people.
Life isn't fair. Live with it.

It seems that you're angry at the 10% (your figure) pilots who create the
problem, along with the establishment for not resolving what you perceive as
a problem, and have decided to do whatever you can to get even. Swatting
flies with a cannon.

Like I said, you are punishing ME, personally, by taking money from my
pocket to pay for a useless containment system. What do you get from it,
except the satisfaction of 'getting even'?

You've stated that everything you've done is legal. Tell me, is it right?

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Well how am I, who bought property about 5 miles from the airport about 15
> years ago, specifically avoiding areas around both runways and in the
> pattern, being compensated for pilots who want to engage in low level
> flying? And for the airport that now means to expand to attract more
> business??
>
> I've gone to the meetings, and met the ridiculous "airport here first
> argument." (Because of their age, almost all airports were there first.
> Does that mean they can expand --with my taxpayer money and commercial
> airline surcharges--without limit?) I have been treated with disdain by
> the airport staff, and in a patronizing way by the moronic airport
> consultant they hired to conduct a public meeting. On the (only three)
> occassions I called to complain about a REALLY low, loud flier, I was
> treated by disdain by the airport staff and the FAA. (Like anyone on the
> ground can get an N number of a plane zoooming about 500 ft overhead....).
> So I got fed up, did my research, and exercised my rights to express my
> opinion. Never broke any laws, threatened, etc.
>
> Everyone knows that voluntary noise abatement is a total joke. Why is it
> that boats, motorcycles, cars, stereos, leaf blowers, barking dogs,
> EVERYTHING, are subject to community noise ordinances except GA? Its true
> that a leaf blower may make more noise up close (not more than the idiot
> Mooney pilot, though). The difference is that my neighbors have respect
> for one another, and we are not anonymous, unlike the looney Mooney pilot
> who was flying every morning before five -- I guess he likes the smooth
> air and how his plane could really rip at that hour......
>
> As far as the EPA regulations, we all must abide by regulations we don't
> necessarily agree with. I didn't write them, and I may not even agree
> with them. Its the EPA that is costing you money on this particular
> issue. And rising fuel prices are taking a toll on everyone.
> Discretionary activities, like flying for pleasure (and most boating),
> will of course take a disproportionate hit.
>
>

[Skylune]

OK, following talkabout protocol....Steve wrote:

"Why do you feel entitled to compensation? Bad things happen to good
people.
Life isn't fair. Live with it.

It seems that you're angry at the 10% (your figure) pilots who create the
problem, along with the establishment for not resolving what you perceive
as
a problem, and have decided to do whatever you can to get even. Swatting
flies with a cannon.

Like I said, you are punishing ME, personally, by taking money from my
pocket to pay for a useless containment system. What do you get from it,
except the satisfaction of 'getting even'?

You've stated that everything you've done is legal. Tell me, is it
right?"

Steve: I was not clear in my prior post. I do not want compensation. I
simply want the FAA minimums enforced and I want community concerns to be
on the agenda at the airport. I want the airport and the FBOs to tell the
pilots to obey the voluntary noise abatement procedures (safety permitting,
obviously). I want the corrupt FAA bureaucracy to stop taking my taxpayer
money to support private business interests, thereby artificially lowering
the cost of GA to the pilots. In other words, I believe in the free
market, not in subsidizing private interests with MY money. User fees are
fair and equitable, and they are coming. Taxpayers (and commercial
passengers) should not support private hobbies and business interests.

By the way, using Phil Boyer's logic, the EPA regulations are not costing
u a dime: simply pass them on to your customers. (Phil B: commercial
airlines do not subsidize the FAA budget for GA purposes because they pass
the cost onto passengers -- this is his stupid argumement. This guy really
is a gem, and very bad for your industry....)


As far as life being unfair, live with it.... Very true. So you too
should live with the EPA regulations, or exercise your right as a citizen
to have them changed. I did not take a single penny from your pocket; the
EPA made the rules. I simply pointed out that I oppose the aircraft
fueling industry's attempts to thwart an existing EPA regulation. You
should take that reg up with the EPA and your elected officials, like I
do.

Everything I do is legal (well, except obey the 55 mph speed limit), and
yes, "right." If a group of pilots insists that they have the god-given
"right" to make a bunch of noise, fly below minimums, etc, I certainly
have the right to point out the problem to people who might make a
difference.

The minority of flyers who wreak noise havoc are the ones you should be
****ed off at, not me and the other victims of their anti-social
behaviour.

When I went to the airport meeting last year for the expansion project
(they try to make it more palatable by using the word "improvements"),
there were many old residents there that were too unsure or intimidated to
ask questions or complain about the lack of adherence to the voluntary
noise standards. All they knew was that they were being awakened on a
nightly basis (some by FBO's doing work all night, others by takeoffs and
landing, and still others by high RPM runups at night.) Your very own
Skylune of course has no such reservations, and I did my homework before
the meeting. I know about the part 150 study the airport never adhered
to, I know about the traffic pattern, I know about the corrupt authority's
plans to get more city tax dollars after refusing to consider fee
increases..... I just pointed out these issues and asked some questions.
(Funny aside: I thought one of the pilots was gonna punch me out after the
meeting, the way he was glaring at me. But, given that he has about a 44
inch waist and I am an athletic type, I guess he thought twice.... Maybe
he is the Mooney guy. I will catch that N-number one of these days!)

After I began asking questions, many of the elderly residents also began
asking questions and expressing noise complaints. Initially, the airport
people tried (SOP) to portray me as whining whacko. I thanked the others
for backing me up and also standing up for THEIR rights.

As far as my using using a "cannon" to swat flies, you are giving me, a
single individual, far too much credit. But I'm trying to get more people
organized. Unfortunately, many will just suffer in silence against the
well-moneyed, organized local airport cabal. I consider my efforts a
public service.

Skylune out (really this time). Good luck to you (and I mean it, you
seem to be a reasonable guy caught in the middle).

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:01:23 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>::

>I do not want compensation. I
>simply want the FAA minimums enforced and I want community concerns to be
>on the agenda at the airport. I want the airport and the FBOs to tell the
>pilots to obey the voluntary noise abatement procedures (safety permitting,
>obviously).


Personally, I believe your motives are not those you espouse above. If
they were, you'd have approached the problem more directly. I suspect
you feel emotionally emasculated and impotent due to your inability to
effectively think of a way to enforce the no-fly zone over your home
you have deluded yourself into believing should exist.

If I was interested in obtaining the registration number of an
aircraft, I'd monitor the tower radio transmissions. And If I wanted
pilots to be made aware of the voluntary noise abatement procedures,
I'd create suitably large placards and signs, and see that they were
placed in appropriate locations where pilots would find it difficult
to ignore them. Then I'd send personal birthday gifts to the ATC
staff who have some control over the route used by departing flights,
and include a polite request that they instruct pilots in compliance
with the voluntary noise abatement procedures.

But you won't do any of those things, because you just want to vent
your irrational anger and resentment. Taking the type of constructive
action I have suggested to achieve your espoused goals won't satisfy
your emotional need to defend your lack of intelligence, so I guess
the readership of this newsgroup will have to continue to endure your
childish drivel.

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article >,
"BDS" > wrote:

> "Skylune" > wrote
> > Steve: You seem like a reasonable guy. It is not one guy in his mooney
> > that have really gotten under my skin. (Besides, that jerk seems to have
> > abandoned his daily 4:55 am training sessions..). Its the Mooney, the
> > Bonanza, the idiot in the Pitts, the twin Otter, etc. I think about 90%
> > of the pilots who fly by my summer home try to "fly friendly." There are
> > the 10% of idiots who create a damned racket nearly every weekend. And,
> > the idiots at the airport authority have treated me and others I know who
> > have complained about noise, with utter contempt. So, this is my little
> > way of hitting back.
>
> So my question to you is, was the airport already there when you bought your
> summer home? If so, how can you whine about airplane noise without feeling
> just a little bit stupid?
>
> G. Raffe

"Skylune" sounds like some spoiled Nouveau-Riche type from Boston
throwing his weight around. He bought a summer home, expecting some
idyllic "country living" and is irritated when the real world intrudes.

[sfb]

Remind of the lady in the Catskills in upstate New York who couldn't
understand why all those airplanes were always flying over her new
summer home. She was a couple of miles from the biggest sky diving
operation for miles and miles. Knowing where she lived, we thought it
possible she had driven past the airport going to and from the house.

"ORVAL FAIRAIRN" > wrote in message
news:orfairbairn->
> "Skylune" sounds like some spoiled Nouveau-Riche type from Boston
> throwing his weight around. He bought a summer home, expecting some
> idyllic "country living" and is irritated when the real world
> intrudes.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:42:24 GMT, ORVAL FAIRAIRN
> wrote in
>::

>He bought a summer home, expecting some
>idyllic "country living" and is irritated when the real world intrudes.

Baring a nuclear "solution," it's only going to get worse:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/numbers.html

(click the "interactive" link on the left for a graphic presentation)

[Skylune]

I "suspect" you are a fat slob who can't compete in a real sport, and seeks
his thrills by flying a plane. I suspect, based on your stupid
observations that you are also, how shall I say, academically challenged.
I suspect that you bust minimums and buzz peoples homes if you don't get
your way.

Lets see: I called the airport authority to complain about low flying
planes, even pointing out the model number. The response was beyond rude.
I went to a meeting to ask specific questions about the expansion that
they call "improvements." I got push back. I called the FAA's ridiculous
noise complaint line: they asked me for N-numbers and proof. In short, I
got the bum's rush.

You want me to buy a monitor and listen to ATC?!!!! And buy gifts for the
FAA people. And make signs and "place them" strategically???? That is
your "constructive" solution??? Laughable. You are a nut case.

[Skylune]

Your "real pilot world" Orville? LOL

[Steve Foley]

What I object to is your attack on all aviation, not simply the "group of
pilots insists that they have the god-given "right" to make a bunch of
noise, fly below minimums, etc,"

Previously you wrote:
"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."

Legal or not, I still consider it a form of harassment, and you're taking
money away from ME. I don't have customers. I fly for recreation. You're
simply forcing up my costs to be vindictive. I don't agree that it's right.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> OK, following talkabout protocol....Steve wrote:

> Everything I do is legal (well, except obey the 55 mph speed limit), and
> yes, "right." If a group of pilots insists that they have the god-given
> "right" to make a bunch of noise, fly below minimums, etc, I certainly
> have the right to point out the problem to people who might make a
> difference.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:01:15 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>::

>You are a nut case.

Your Freudian Projection is Showing:
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~drw/db/n53#projection

[Skylune]

Since we are all joking around: Video from Larry's flight school:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-732.htm

The plane couldn't hold his weight and the 20 gallons of AV gas he put in
it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:26:33 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>::

>Since we are all joking around:

Ah, the truth is out. It's all a joke. You're just a juvenal
sock-puppet* taunting the airmen, because you aren't old enough to
hold a certificate yet. Thank you for clearing that up.

If you acted a little more mature, you might find that some of us
might be willing to take you aloft, and show you the delights of the
sky.



* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet

[Skylune]

Larry. So sorry I got under your skin. OK, I'll follow your
"constructive advice." I'll go home now and start constructing my signs
to strategically place where pilots can see them, buy a transmitter and
listen to the ATC, and I'll go buy all the controllers Rolexs.

If I do that Larry, can you please take me up in your cool airplane? You
see, private pilots are just the coolest, smartest people on earth, and we
mere mortals all look up to you. Especially you Larry: Your intelligence,
skills and wit are something that everyone should aspire to.

Enjoy the upcoming user fees, ADIZ expansions, and especially the AV gas
prices. Being the savvy flier that you are, I "suspect" that you have
hedged the AV gas prices, so you can continue flying around real cheap
looking for lunch, you pompous ass.

[Skylune]

Ah. So I saw your photo on your silly web page. My suspicions are
confirmed. You are a fat slob who can't compete in an actual sport.
Flying is your method of proving your manhood. Sad, Larry, sad.....
It's not our fault that you are an obese, food addict. Watch that weight
ratio when you fly!

Skylune out.

[Montblack]

("ORVAL FAIRAIRN" wrote)
[snip]
> Now, all they have to do is put some retroactive birth control pill into
> "Skylune's" water supply! This guy is a real horse's ass!


....but I like his pluck, even if he is goofy.


Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:45:41 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>("ORVAL FAIRAIRN" wrote)
>[snip]
>> Now, all they have to do is put some retroactive birth control pill into
>> "Skylune's" water supply! This guy is a real horse's ass!
>
>
>...but I like his pluck, even if he is goofy.

That figures. :-(

[Morgans]

"Steve Foley" > wrote

> Your 'little way of hitting back' is costing ME money.

I for one, would like to find out exactly where this nutcase lives, and have
shifts of four planes doing continuous flybys at 501' agl, 24/7, for
several days. He would find out that two can play hardball.
--
Jim in NC

[CryptWolf]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>news:h2gRe.20528$j41.3004@trndny05...
> This has nothing to do with fuel storage. It is simply another jab at
> aviation.

All I've seen is a major troll. Why announce all this stuff in an
aviation news group at all?

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>>...but I like his pluck, even if he is goofy.

> That figures. :-(


OK, pluck isn't the right word. Moxie? Spunk?

Yes he's a bit of a troll ...and he's goofy ...and he seems to be a one
trick pony. But (for now) I do read some of his posts.


Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:02:02 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>I for one, would like to find out exactly where this nutcase lives, and have
>shifts of four planes doing continuous flybys at 501' agl, 24/7, for
>several days. He would find out that two can play hardball.

He's just a child trolling the newsgroup on his parents' computer.
Empowering him with the ability to cause you to commit inappropriate
behavior is what he craves. Control your emotional reflex, and use
your rational mind; ignore him, and he'll go away.

[Steve Foley]

That would be counterproductive. He would then have a legitimate complaint
regarding airplane noise.

Skylune is using every weapon at his disposal to make pilots lives
miserable. He has done his homework, and is hitting us where it hurts,
simply to get even. His complaints to the EPA have nothing to do with his
concern for pollution.

If you want to fight fire with fire, don't give your opponent ammunition.
Simply do whatever you can do , legally, to make his or her life miserable,
but keep it as far removed from your own interests as you can.

His mode of operation has been to complain to every authority who will
listen about everything he can think of that aviators do wrong. He found the
FBO was doing something wrong, and turned them in. He has already admitted
to violating the speed limit. What else does he do wrong?


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote
>
> > Your 'little way of hitting back' is costing ME money.
>
> I for one, would like to find out exactly where this nutcase lives, and
have
> shifts of four planes doing continuous flybys at 501' agl, 24/7, for
> several days. He would find out that two can play hardball.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[BDS]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:yDCRe.2960$Aw1.2845@trndny02...

> Skylune is using every weapon at his disposal to make pilots lives
> miserable.

> His mode of operation has been to complain to every authority who will
> listen about everything he can think of that aviators do wrong.

I wouldn't worry too much about this guy - the people he is complaining to
are quite familiar with his type, and his hidden selfish agenda.

If the FBO is violating local or federal regulations then they should get
themselves into compliance. That goes without saying regardless of whether
someone dumb enough to buy a house near an airport thinking it would be
quiet there points it out or not.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:27:11 GMT, "BDS"
> wrote in
>::

>"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>news:yDCRe.2960$Aw1.2845@trndny02...
>
>> Skylune is using every weapon at his disposal to make pilots lives
>> miserable.
>
>> His mode of operation has been to complain to every authority who will
>> listen about everything he can think of that aviators do wrong.
>
>I wouldn't worry too much about this guy - the people he is complaining to
>are quite familiar with his type, and his hidden selfish agenda.
>
>If the FBO is violating local or federal regulations then they should get
>themselves into compliance. That goes without saying regardless of whether
>someone dumb enough to buy a house near an airport thinking it would be
>quiet there points it out or not.
>

A voice of reason at last. Thank you.

[Skylune]

As for your first sentence, perhaps you might re-read the original post and
the e-mail I received from the EPA representative. You may read it a
dismissive, but I certainly don't. Also, informing the public last year
about the airport's plans to extract (more) tax dollars in order to avoid
raising user fees might have had an effect -- I can't be sure if it was my
editiorial or city budget-makers already knew about this attempted raid on
the city coffers. Either way, the tax money will not be in the airport's
budget next year. :-)

Second sentence. Obviously this is true, but many of the antagonistic
fliers who post here want this regulation overturned because they feel it
doesn't make sense. But all they do is whine about it, rather than do
some actual work and lobby their elected officials to change the reg.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just obey the rules we agree with?

As for your last sentence, define "near." Are their ANY areas in the
northeast that are not "near" an airport. Or should the entire
northeastern US have an avigation easement for your private benefit??

As I stated, i bought the property about 15 years ago, making sure to
avoid the pattern and areas parallel to the runways. I'm about 5 nm from
the airport. We get buzzed regularly by low flying flights as it is
(wasn't that way 15 years ago, and I WAS THERE FIRST), and now, the
airport wants to expand (or, as they call runway extensions or second
runway contruction, "improve").

No one here (with the exception of Steve Foley) has responded with
anything other than personal attacks or absurd (Dighera) suggestions.
They must be using Phil Boyer logic.

[Steve Foley]

You are within the airspace of a class D airport (so this pretty much
prevents people from endlessly circling your house). But it looks like your
deed is dated last year, not fifteen years ago.

By the way, the airport isn't expanding to accomodate GA aircraft. Nobody I
know with a light aircraft needs over 5000 feet to take off or land.


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

> As for your last sentence, define "near." Are their ANY areas in the
> northeast that are not "near" an airport. Or should the entire
> northeastern US have an avigation easement for your private benefit??
>
> As I stated, i bought the property about 15 years ago, making sure to
> avoid the pattern and areas parallel to the runways. I'm about 5 nm from
> the airport. We get buzzed regularly by low flying flights as it is
> (wasn't that way 15 years ago, and I WAS THERE FIRST), and now, the
> airport wants to expand (or, as they call runway extensions or second
> runway contruction, "improve").
>
> No one here (with the exception of Steve Foley) has responded with
> anything other than personal attacks or absurd (Dighera) suggestions.
> They must be using Phil Boyer logic.
>

[sfb]

Deed dates may be misleading as he could been divorced or put the
property into a trust. You have to go back to the last true sale not the
last transfer.

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:sIGRe.9335$fP.6886@trndny08...
> You are within the airspace of a class D airport (so this pretty much
> prevents people from endlessly circling your house). But it looks like
> your
> deed is dated last year, not fifteen years ago.
>
> By the way, the airport isn't expanding to accomodate GA aircraft.
> Nobody I
> know with a light aircraft needs over 5000 feet to take off or land.
>
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
>
>> As for your last sentence, define "near." Are their ANY areas in the
>> northeast that are not "near" an airport. Or should the entire
>> northeastern US have an avigation easement for your private benefit??
>>
>> As I stated, i bought the property about 15 years ago, making sure to
>> avoid the pattern and areas parallel to the runways. I'm about 5 nm
>> from
>> the airport. We get buzzed regularly by low flying flights as it is
>> (wasn't that way 15 years ago, and I WAS THERE FIRST), and now, the
>> airport wants to expand (or, as they call runway extensions or second
>> runway contruction, "improve").
>>
>> No one here (with the exception of Steve Foley) has responded with
>> anything other than personal attacks or absurd (Dighera) suggestions.
>> They must be using Phil Boyer logic.
>>
>
>

[Steve Foley]

Six hundred thousand constitutes a sale in by book.

"sfb" > wrote in message news:zTHRe.42952$yv2.29226@trnddc04...
> Deed dates may be misleading as he could been divorced or put the
> property into a trust. You have to go back to the last true sale not the
> last transfer.
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:sIGRe.9335$fP.6886@trndny08...
> > You are within the airspace of a class D airport (so this pretty much
> > prevents people from endlessly circling your house). But it looks like
> > your
> > deed is dated last year, not fifteen years ago.
> >
> > By the way, the airport isn't expanding to accomodate GA aircraft.
> > Nobody I
> > know with a light aircraft needs over 5000 feet to take off or land.
> >
> >
> > "Skylune" > wrote in message
> > lkaboutaviation.com...
> >
> >> As for your last sentence, define "near." Are their ANY areas in the
> >> northeast that are not "near" an airport. Or should the entire
> >> northeastern US have an avigation easement for your private benefit??
> >>
> >> As I stated, i bought the property about 15 years ago, making sure to
> >> avoid the pattern and areas parallel to the runways. I'm about 5 nm
> >> from
> >> the airport. We get buzzed regularly by low flying flights as it is
> >> (wasn't that way 15 years ago, and I WAS THERE FIRST), and now, the
> >> airport wants to expand (or, as they call runway extensions or second
> >> runway contruction, "improve").
> >>
> >> No one here (with the exception of Steve Foley) has responded with
> >> anything other than personal attacks or absurd (Dighera) suggestions.
> >> They must be using Phil Boyer logic.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[sfb]

Sounds like you nailed him, but he was allowed the benefit of the doubt.

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:YkIRe.6526$Ni1.3953@trndny03...
> Six hundred thousand constitutes a sale in by book.
>
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:zTHRe.42952$yv2.29226@trnddc04...
>> Deed dates may be misleading as he could been divorced or put the
>> property into a trust. You have to go back to the last true sale not
>> the
>> last transfer.
>>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> news:sIGRe.9335$fP.6886@trndny08...
>> > You are within the airspace of a class D airport (so this pretty
>> > much
>> > prevents people from endlessly circling your house). But it looks
>> > like
>> > your
>> > deed is dated last year, not fifteen years ago.
>> >
>> > By the way, the airport isn't expanding to accomodate GA aircraft.
>> > Nobody I
>> > know with a light aircraft needs over 5000 feet to take off or
>> > land.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Skylune" > wrote in message
>> > lkaboutaviation.com...
>> >
>> >> As for your last sentence, define "near." Are their ANY areas in
>> >> the
>> >> northeast that are not "near" an airport. Or should the entire
>> >> northeastern US have an avigation easement for your private
>> >> benefit??
>> >>
>> >> As I stated, i bought the property about 15 years ago, making sure
>> >> to
>> >> avoid the pattern and areas parallel to the runways. I'm about 5
>> >> nm
>> >> from
>> >> the airport. We get buzzed regularly by low flying flights as it
>> >> is
>> >> (wasn't that way 15 years ago, and I WAS THERE FIRST), and now,
>> >> the
>> >> airport wants to expand (or, as they call runway extensions or
>> >> second
>> >> runway contruction, "improve").
>> >>
>> >> No one here (with the exception of Steve Foley) has responded with
>> >> anything other than personal attacks or absurd (Dighera)
>> >> suggestions.
>> >> They must be using Phil Boyer logic.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Skylune]

Nailed me? I think not. Check the older records too..... Also check
out Long Island real estate while you're at it.....

But you're right about GA not needing over 5,000 SF. The airport is
saying that it is not an expansion, so why do they want another thousand
feet?? Fed Ex charters, anyone????

[Steve Foley]

Property transferred in 68,92,98,99 and 04. As far as I can tell, the
property in question was never located on Long Island. But if it was, I can
see why you're upset about it being moved so close to an airport.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Nailed me? I think not. Check the older records too..... Also check
> out Long Island real estate while you're at it.....
>
> But you're right about GA not needing over 5,000 SF. The airport is
> saying that it is not an expansion, so why do they want another thousand
> feet?? Fed Ex charters, anyone????
>
>

[Flyingmonk]

It's 5,000 LF not SF, there's a BIG difference, but I'm sure it was
just a typo on your part.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Skylune]

Yeah. I was thinking in realtor terms because i was responding to Steve
Foley....

Skylune out.

[Steve Foley]

I thought it was Statute feet rather than nautical feet.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Yeah. I was thinking in realtor terms because i was responding to Steve
> Foley....
>
> Skylune out.
>

[Skylune]

Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?

Just wondering....

[Skylune]

Check the relatives too, steve! And what I meant was, use your realtor
knowledge to check other holdings, in other states. Check how close one
is to other busy GA airports (hint: use Suffolk County in your deed
search). Never a problem at FRG, never a complaint from me. And I live
somewhat closer to that airport than I do at the one in NH. See, they
take noise abatement and neighborhood complaints seriously. They try to
be good neighbors.

Anyway, the NH one may go because the area has gotten really noisy over
the past several years, and I don't want to retire there and deal with it.
Problem, where to go in the northeast? Other groups near you are having a
massive legal battle, as you know....

[Skylune]

Pretty damned pathetic, but predictable. "Other" skeletons? You must mean
besides my admitting to driving faster than the 55 mph limit. We have had
RE holdings in two states for a long time.

As far as it feeling good ****ing off your detractors, I can definitely
relate..

[Steve Foley]

I'm not sure who the 'Net Jet' crowd is. As far as fractionals, I think
they're typically small jets that still don't need 6000 feet. I think you're
looking at attracting airline carriers. I know US Airways was there in 96
when I landed there.

Expansion wouldn't hurt GA. A short delay for wake turbulance is a small
price to pay for commercial aircraft paying most of the expenses. It's kinda
like motorcycles using the highway system. They certainly don't need six
lane highways, but it's nice to be able to cruise to Disney along 95 rather
than Route 1.

Now some questions for you:

What is your goal?

Are you trying to eliminate the cowboys? General Aviation? All Aviation?

What would make you happy?

You earlier stated (correct me if I am mis-stating your position) that you
really wanted minimum altitudes and noise abatement procedured enforced, but
because that isn't being done, you are going after everything aviation.



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
> lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
> normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
> the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
> my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
> because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)
>
> If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
> community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
> GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?
>
> Just wondering....
>

[Steve Foley]

Where else in the Northeast? Try Worcester. They've never had a commercial
carrier there over three years.

I find your problems with the airport authority ironic. I've been working
with a local group to get the local airport commission to actually do
something to attract an airline. They say they're doing everything they can,
and to butt out.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Check the relatives too, steve! And what I meant was, use your realtor
> knowledge to check other holdings, in other states. Check how close one
> is to other busy GA airports (hint: use Suffolk County in your deed
> search). Never a problem at FRG, never a complaint from me. And I live
> somewhat closer to that airport than I do at the one in NH. See, they
> take noise abatement and neighborhood complaints seriously. They try to
> be good neighbors.
>
> Anyway, the NH one may go because the area has gotten really noisy over
> the past several years, and I don't want to retire there and deal with it.
> Problem, where to go in the northeast? Other groups near you are having
a
> massive legal battle, as you know....
>

[Morgans]

"Steve Foley" > wrote

> That would be counterproductive. He would then have a legitimate complaint
> regarding airplane noise.

I know, and would never do that, but not because of him, but his neighbors.
It would feel good to **** him off, all while being perfectly legal, though.
<g>

I think you are right, about what other skeletons in his closet. Perhaps
some pilot out there with deep pockets would like to hire a P.I. to dig up
some dirt on him?
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:40:25 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote in
>::

>I'm not sure who the 'Net Jet' crowd is.

http://www.netjets.com/default.asp
Typically up-scale first class travelers who don't want to endure the
airline security gauntlet.

[Skylune]

Yeah, commerical carriers, that makes sense...

Funny how they give two bogus public presentations (click on their web
page) where they portray the runway extension option and the second runway
option as "improvements" and only for "safety purposes." They are
blatently lying to us, and holding the public meetings (run by the paid
airport consultant) only so they can check off the box on the grant
approval form to get the 95% FAA grant from the AIP. I'm trying to fight
them.

This (my anti GA ranting) all happened kind of incrementally over the past
two years. We've had property up here for years; always some airplane
noise, but not like today. So, last year, after I moved up here
semi-fulltime, I phoned in about a couple of really low, loud fliers when
we were having a barbecue in my backyard. I left a polite message on the
airport's VMM, and I got a return call from some woman with a really bad
attitude. OK, so I got dissed by some stupid staff person.... No big
deal. Then it happens again, and again. One time, the airport mgr
actually called me back and was very reasonable, but then he gave me the
bum rush -- said he would post a notice on the website about flying
friendly. He did nothing. Zero. Just kept the same old voluntary noise
abatement procedures posted, the ones that many ignore routinely, the ones
that have been there for years... So I concluded no sense in wasting a
call to those people any longer. Alternatives....

So I call the FAA. Got the bureaucrat treatment when I called their
ridiculous NE noise # (u guys have a handful with those lazy bureaucrats,
that is for sure.)

Then, I notice on the airport web site a public meeting for a so-called
improvement project. Given that I got nowhere with the airport or FAA, I
figure this is my chance. So I did my homework, and off we go.... Went to
the meeting. Asked alot of questions about the purpose of the project,
how they didn't implement the abatement procedures they said they would in
the 1990 part 150 study, etc.

I was not a popular guy there with the guys with the worn, brown leather
jackets, or the hired gun consultant with the Ann Taylor outfit(although
she tried to remain very smooth.....), or the airport manager, etc. The
other noise victims, mostly elderly people, got encouraged though and also
started asking questions after I listened for half an hour and started
questioning.

I kept doing homework. Pilot friend of mine on LI (the guy I have to keep
showing how to operate the GPS....) tells me about AOPA, etc. I did some
flying years back at FRG, but quit. Not enough time with work, family,
etc. So I know a bit already. Start "trolling' on these kinds of boards
for a few months, just picking up the pilot talk. Reading the FARs,
reading AV web, i-Pilot, etc. And here we are, exchanging insults and
making vague threats....

What do I want? To live and let live. Fly friendly. That is all. No
one asks for silence. I have a boat: it makes noise, it burns gas. But I
can operate it obnoxiously (and plenty do), or courteously. Pilots have
the same choice. But, given that they can operate anymously, i think
there is a higher A-hole percentage than with car drivers or boaters. And
their seems to be some serious ego issues with some of the flyers, judging
by how you go after each other on this board.

You are right about my real agenda: excessive noise. The tax subsidies I
pay are just adding insult to injury, but are not the main issue. Neither
is air or water pollution.

Anyway, this is now counterproductive. The AV gas prices will force less
discretionary flying, driving, and boating. If the noise doesn't let up
here, I will retire elsewhere. Probably up in VT in a narrow valley
(Quechee area is nice). No way the planes can choose that as a practice
area.

Anyway, good luck Steve. I think you are probably a responsible flyer.
If I'm right, and 95% shared your attitude, there would definitely be less
anti GA activism around the country.

[Skylune]

Well, when the last commercial carriers (i think it was US Air) pulled out
a few years back, Worcester airport started having substantial financial
problems. Massport essentially bailed it out. The city was having to
support the airport with some general fund moneys. The airport is still
losing money, and Massport is phasing out its assistance over the next two
or three years. I think the city will need to make some serious decisions
then, unless they can attract more business.

As I understand it, the airport was built as a combined GA/commercial
facility. Commercials business plan was to go to cheaper airport than
Logan, but nearby and convenient to the Boston burbs and all the colleges
in Worcester. Seemed to make sense.

I think there were two problems. 1. The worcester tolerances. As I
understand it, the Worcester area gets some pretty weird wintertime
weather compared to the rest of the state, so there were frequent
closures. 2. No good road network out of the airport. Need to drive
through residential areas.

So the airport got built for commercials/GA, and the commercials pulled
out. Now financial problems. Not exactly rocket science with 20/20
hindsight.

Our problems here are different, but similar. They want to expand to
commercial-- we here its FedEx. Problem: GA airport, located in
residential area, expanding for commercial capability. Some of us are
fighting it.

[Morgans]

"Skylune" > wrote

> If the noise doesn't let up
> here, I will retire elsewhere.

Oh, Pleeeeze, go ahead and make that choice, right now. The noise won't
stop. They are doing nothing against the law, so there is NOTHING you can
do, but whine.

Perhaps we can all pitch in, and help with your moving expenses; anything to
stop your endless noise!
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
> lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
> normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
> the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
> my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
> because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)
>
> If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
> community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
> GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?
>
> Just wondering....

In order for the FedEx crowd to use the airport, it would have to be
able to take much higher landing weights than for GA airports.

Does anybody in the kneejerk reaction crowd know what kind of
certificated landing weights are being proposed?

[john smith]

>>Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
>>lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
>>normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
>>the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
>>my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
>>because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

7,000 feet is considered a transport catagory runway. Look up Part 150
for runway specifications for different aircraft.
What makes you think 5,500 to 6,000 is not necessary for normal GA
aircraft and operations? Just because it isn't a jet doesn't mean there
isn't a requirement for it.
Twins have accellerate/stop distances requirements for aborted takeoffs.
An aircraft landing without brakes would have to roll the full length to
safely slow down.
And on and on. There are many more reasons.

>>If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
>>community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
>>GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?

Why do you think that?

[Skylune]

1. I just want the abatement procedures adhered to, not the noise to stop,
as you put it.

2. The noise will decrease due to soaring AV gas prices -- its already
lessened this year.

3. As I've shown, I can do much more than "whine." No one has answered a
single question. You attack me, the messenger. You guys are whining. I
am doing something.

4. People are breaking the FAR 1000 ft minimums. It is a fact. Proving
it is impossible, as you probably know, due to FAA lack of interest.

Anyway, I am suspending my efforts given that AV gas prices are doing the
job. I'm going to keep an eye on things, and continue to monitor. (And
I'll be happy to take your check for liquidated damages.... ;-) )

If the local airport continues to try to pull a fast one, I will be back
with a vengeance Some of the businesses at the airport are actively
encouraging evasion of other states' sales taxes (which should be paid
based upon the state in which the plane is based -- its called a Use tax).
I know who to contact in neighboring states to inform them of the tax
dollars they are losing to these businesses.....

Skylune, over and out.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:20:29 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote:

>Ironically, the level of GA traffic seems to have dropped off quite a bit
>over the last two years (maybe I can retire to my summer home afterall!).
>Maybe the rising cost of AV gas, rising rental costs etc. are taking a toll
>(the silver lining in $70/bbl crude)?
>
>Skylune out.

I'm missing something here, did someone promise you that if you
retired to your cabin, wherever that is, that you would never hear an
airplane?

Even mosquitos make noise.

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:01:15 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote:

>I "suspect" you are a fat slob who can't compete in a real sport, and seeks
>his thrills by flying a plane. I suspect, based on your stupid
>observations that you are also, how shall I say, academically challenged.
>I suspect that you bust minimums and buzz peoples homes if you don't get
>your way.

Uncalled for. Flying is a vocation like none other and in case you
haven't figured this out yet, pilots are passionate about flying. It's
rather a zen thing and if you don't like flying it's nearly impossible
to understand why anyone does it. But trust me, it's neither easy nor
can an academically challenged person learn it.

Sorry about the Mooney pilot, even smart people can be jerks.

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:02:47 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote:

>As I stated, i bought the property about 15 years ago, making sure to
>avoid the pattern and areas parallel to the runways. I'm about 5 nm from
>the airport. We get buzzed regularly by low flying flights as it is
>(wasn't that way 15 years ago, and I WAS THERE FIRST), and now, the
>airport wants to expand (or, as they call runway extensions or second
>runway contruction, "improve").

But the expansion would hardly extend to your back door would it? You
already mentioned you bought the property making sure you were not in
line with the runway's right? That would not change with the
expansion, you'd still be out from under the runnway.

What is your big beef with the expansion, since it should not change
any flight patterns?

Corky Scott

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> But trust me, it's neither easy nor
> can an academically challenged person learn it.

He knows that. He said he quit flight training because he determined that he
would never be able to do it safely.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Newps]

Skylune wrote:

> Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
> lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
> normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
> the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
> my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
> because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

Even if that's true you do realize that the jets that Net Jets and the
other fractionals fly is quieter than your average spam can, right?

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Skylune wrote:
>
> Even if that's true you do realize that the jets that Net Jets and the
> other fractionals fly is quieter than your average spam can, right?

He didn't know that, but it doesn't matter.