Cape Cod Airport Neighbors Sign On!!!

[Skylune]

From local paper:

"By Tom J. Sullivan

The line in the sand has been drawn.

We understand you have leadership problems in Barnstable. We empathize
with our Barnstable neighbors, but the voters must step up to the plate
on our behalf.

We don't want your money.

We just want the Barnstable Airport and it's Commissioners to do what is
right. Since 1957 the Barnstable Municipal Airport (BMA) has been
expanding its runway approaches. These approaches go over public and
private land in the Town of Barnstable and the Town of Yarmouth.

Now at a recent Airport Commission meeting the Yarmouth Representative
announced that the approaches would be moved further east into the Town of
Yarmouth. The reason for moving the flight paths now is the new tower
under construction at the hospital.

When will your Airport Commissioners obey the State Laws that regulate
airports?

When will the Airport Commissioners and the Town of Barnstable respect
individual property rights? Federal and State laws require the town to
pay property owners for land takings.

Cotuit councilor Rick Barry is ignoring Barnstable and Yarmouth’s airport
noise pollution with his claim, "the airport was here first, and we
shouldn’t have bought homes in the flight paths."

What has he to say about homes that have been here for decades, and the
flight paths are encroaching over these properties? How would he like
when he is awaken out of a sound sleep at 5:15 AM?

If you want to move into our space, buy our homes.

The time has come for someone in town hall sit down with the property
owners in Barnstable and Yarmouth, after the Airport identifies the
affected property owners, to discuss mitigation for the land takings that
have occurred."

[Steve Foley]

"The reason for moving the flight paths now is the new tower under
construction at the hospital."

Sounds like the neighbors should be fighting the hospital.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> From local paper:
>
> "By Tom J. Sullivan
>
> The line in the sand has been drawn.
>
> We understand you have leadership problems in Barnstable. We empathize
> with our Barnstable neighbors, but the voters must step up to the plate
> on our behalf.
>
> We don't want your money.
>
> We just want the Barnstable Airport and it's Commissioners to do what is
> right. Since 1957 the Barnstable Municipal Airport (BMA) has been
> expanding its runway approaches. These approaches go over public and
> private land in the Town of Barnstable and the Town of Yarmouth.
>
> Now at a recent Airport Commission meeting the Yarmouth Representative
> announced that the approaches would be moved further east into the Town of
> Yarmouth. The reason for moving the flight paths now is the new tower
> under construction at the hospital.
>
> When will your Airport Commissioners obey the State Laws that regulate
> airports?
>
> When will the Airport Commissioners and the Town of Barnstable respect
> individual property rights? Federal and State laws require the town to
> pay property owners for land takings.
>
> Cotuit councilor Rick Barry is ignoring Barnstable and Yarmouth’s airport
> noise pollution with his claim, "the airport was here first, and we
> shouldn’t have bought homes in the flight paths."
>
> What has he to say about homes that have been here for decades, and the
> flight paths are encroaching over these properties? How would he like
> when he is awaken out of a sound sleep at 5:15 AM?
>
> If you want to move into our space, buy our homes.
>
> The time has come for someone in town hall sit down with the property
> owners in Barnstable and Yarmouth, after the Airport identifies the
> affected property owners, to discuss mitigation for the land takings that
> have occurred."
>
>
>
>

[Bushleague]

With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Bush


On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:21:24 -0500, "Skylune"
> wrote:

>From local paper:
>
>"By Tom J. Sullivan
>
>The line in the sand has been drawn.
>
>We understand you have leadership problems in Barnstable. We empathize
>with our Barnstable neighbors, but the voters must step up to the plate
>on our behalf.
>
>We don't want your money.
>
>We just want the Barnstable Airport and it's Commissioners to do what is
>right. Since 1957 the Barnstable Municipal Airport (BMA) has been
>expanding its runway approaches. These approaches go over public and
>private land in the Town of Barnstable and the Town of Yarmouth.
>
>Now at a recent Airport Commission meeting the Yarmouth Representative
>announced that the approaches would be moved further east into the Town of
>Yarmouth. The reason for moving the flight paths now is the new tower
>under construction at the hospital.
>
>When will your Airport Commissioners obey the State Laws that regulate
>airports?
>
>When will the Airport Commissioners and the Town of Barnstable respect
>individual property rights? Federal and State laws require the town to
>pay property owners for land takings.
>
>Cotuit councilor Rick Barry is ignoring Barnstable and Yarmouth’s airport
>noise pollution with his claim, "the airport was here first, and we
>shouldn’t have bought homes in the flight paths."
>
>What has he to say about homes that have been here for decades, and the
>flight paths are encroaching over these properties? How would he like
>when he is awaken out of a sound sleep at 5:15 AM?
>
>If you want to move into our space, buy our homes.
>
>The time has come for someone in town hall sit down with the property
>owners in Barnstable and Yarmouth, after the Airport identifies the
>affected property owners, to discuss mitigation for the land takings that
>have occurred."
>
>
>

[Skylune]

>>by "Steve Foley" > Nov 29, 2005 at 01:47 PM


"The reason for moving the flight paths now is the new tower under
construction at the hospital."

Sounds like the neighbors should be fighting the hospital<


Maybe get the AOPA to see if the hospital can be torn down, so as to
better accomodate the airport's needs. ;-)

I like the writer's point about airports' encroachment on surrounding
residential areas. GA airports in communities that have grown should only
be expanded if the affected communities agree to the expansion after an
open and honest assessment of the pros and cons. As we have seen again
and again and again, once the airport is expanded, the community loses
control to the FAA meatheads who unconcerned about the negative effects of
GA.

[Jay Beckman]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
>
> Maybe get the AOPA to see if the hospital can be torn down, so as to
> better accomodate the airport's needs. ;-)
>
> I like the writer's point about airports' encroachment on surrounding
> residential areas. GA airports in communities that have grown should only
> be expanded if the affected communities agree to the expansion after an
> open and honest assessment of the pros and cons. As we have seen again
> and again and again, once the airport is expanded, the community loses
> control to the FAA meatheads who unconcerned about the negative effects of
> GA.

If a community has an airport that gets government funds of any kind, then
there should be a committee to oversee the operation. If there isn't a
committee, then those who seek redress for greivences should be up their
elected officials rear ends to form one.

If people choose to be sheep and not get involved in their local government
affairs then they get what they get.

Jay B

[Skylune]

>>
by Bushleague > Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM


With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!<<

Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
modified to comply with FARs."

What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
experience increased small plane noise will have people who understandably
will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
letters to newpapers and politicians.

[Skylune]

>>by "Jay Beckman" > Nov 29, 2005 at 02:53 PM


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
>
> Maybe get the AOPA to see if the hospital can be torn down, so as to
> better accomodate the airport's needs. ;-)
>
> I like the writer's point about airports' encroachment on surrounding
> residential areas. GA airports in communities that have grown should
only
> be expanded if the affected communities agree to the expansion after an
> open and honest assessment of the pros and cons. As we have seen again
> and again and again, once the airport is expanded, the community loses
> control to the FAA meatheads who unconcerned about the negative effects
of
> GA.

If a community has an airport that gets government funds of any kind,
then

there should be a committee to oversee the operation. If there isn't a
committee, then those who seek redress for greivences should be up their
elected officials rear ends to form one.

If people choose to be sheep and not get involved in their local
government
affairs then they get what they get.

Jay B<<

I completely agree with each of your points. People who are asleep, and
THEN complain about something the govt does to them absolutely deserve it.


Probably, many airport noise whiners fall into this camp. Others take a
pro-active stance. Personally, I refuse to accept the FAA/Airport
Authority bum rush and their nonsensical public presentations.

[Jose]

> GA airports in communities that have grown should only
> be expanded if the affected communities agree to the expansion after an
> open and honest assessment of the pros and cons.

Communities near airports should only expand if the affected airport
agrees to the expansion after an open an honest assessment of the props
and jets.

<g,d,r> Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bushleague]

Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
familiar with?

Bush

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
> wrote:

>>>
>by Bushleague > Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM
>
>
>With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
>adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
>www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf
>
>Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.
>
>Have a great one!<<
>
>Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
>This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
>flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
>consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
>comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
>modified to comply with FARs."
>
>What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
>experience increased small plane noise will have people who understandably
>will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
>letters to newpapers and politicians.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Skylune]

by Bushleague > Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM


Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
familiar with?

Bush

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
> wrote:

>>>
>by Bushleague > Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM
>
>
>With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
>adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
>www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf
>
>Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.
>
>Have a great one!<<
>
>Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
>This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
>flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
>consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
>comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
>modified to comply with FARs."
>
>What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
>experience increased small plane noise will have people who
understandably
>will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
>letters to newpapers and politicians. <<

STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based in a
small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been tussling
with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community for
acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed suit
in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
acrobatics over their home.

The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
with national implications.

I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN with
low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
"investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
Details are on their web site.

Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same town
called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and spread
acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a smack
at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
particular school.

Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> by Bushleague > Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM
>
>
> Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
> familiar with?
>
> Bush
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
> > wrote:
>
> >>>
> >by Bushleague > Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM
> >
> >
> >With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
> >adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
> >www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf
> >
> >Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.
> >
> >Have a great one!<<
> >
> >Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
> >This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
> >flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
> >consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
> >comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
> >modified to comply with FARs."
> >
> >What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
> >experience increased small plane noise will have people who
> understandably
> >will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
> >letters to newpapers and politicians. <<
>
> STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based in a
> small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been tussling
> with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community for
> acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
> various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed suit
> in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
> acrobatics over their home.
>
> The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
> the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
> remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
> with national implications.
>
> I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
> started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN with
> low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
> "investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
> compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
> Details are on their web site.
>
> Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same town
> called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and spread
> acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
> unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
> register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a smack
> at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
> particular school.
>
> Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?

In my experience, I have never encountered an "anti-noise" group which
was interested in anything but killing GA and GA airports, with perhaps
a few pilots in-between.

Very often, the attempts at "dialogue" are nothing but
intelligence-gathering efforts, designed to collect information to be
used against the GA people.

The STN people are particularly vicious in their lawsuit harassment
tactics and have sent several people into bankruptcy.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Skylune]

>>by Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nov 30, 2005 at
04:25 PM


In article
<4d7ae85e98f65ed89f44d5868d00b511@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Skylune" <live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> by Bushleague <Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM
>
>
> Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
> familiar with?
>
> Bush
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
> <live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >by Bushleague <Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM
> >
> >
> >With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
> >adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
> >www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf
> >
> >Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.
> >
> >Have a great one!<<
> >
> >Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports
making.

> >This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
> >flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
> >consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
> >comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
> >modified to comply with FARs."
> >
> >What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will
now
> >experience increased small plane noise will have people who
> understandably
> >will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will
write
> >letters to newpapers and politicians. <<
>
> STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based
in
a
> small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been
tussling
> with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community
for
> acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
> various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed
suit
> in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
> acrobatics over their home.
>
> The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
> the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
> remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
> with national implications.
>
> I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
> started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN
with
> low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
> "investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
> compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
> Details are on their web site.
>
> Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same
town
> called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and
spread
> acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
> unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
> register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a
smack
> at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
> particular school.
>
> Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?

In my experience, I have never encountered an "anti-noise" group which
was interested in anything but killing GA and GA airports, with perhaps
a few pilots in-between.

Very often, the attempts at "dialogue" are nothing but
intelligence-gathering efforts, designed to collect information to be
used against the GA people.

The STN people are particularly vicious in their lawsuit harassment
tactics and have sent several people into bankruptcy.<<

Wow. As the saying goes, "Just because you are paranoid does not mean
that you are not being followed."

"Killing GA"?? Maybe some groups have this goal, probably out of utter
frustration. Personally, I won't affiliate with (but I do communicate
with) any anti-noise groups at this point, partly because I have flown a
little, and I continue to sit in the right seat occassionally. I can see
the benefits (and fun) of recreational GA.

I also see the other side. I now live full time in an area that used to
be pretty quiet (occassional small plane noise) but now seems to be
directly beneath a busy GA flight path. It IS really, really annoying.

I think most of the anti-noise groups would be more reasonable if any
serious efforts are made to co-exist. But, when the airport is
unresponsive, and the FAA doesn't care, and pilots hide behind the FARs
and the FAA bureacracy to justify a lack of common courtesy, people will
get ****ED. If you drive people crazy long enough, some will fight back,
and hit where it hurts.

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> >>by Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nov 30, 2005 at
> 04:25 PM
>
>
> In article
> <4d7ae85e98f65ed89f44d5868d00b511@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >,
> "Skylune" <live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> > by Bushleague <Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM
> >
> >
> > Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
> > familiar with?
> >
> > Bush
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
> > <live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>
> > >by Bushleague <Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
> > >adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
> > >www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf
> > >
> > >Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.
> > >
> > >Have a great one!<<
> > >
> > >Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports
> making.
>
> > >This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
> > >flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
> > >consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
> > >comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
> > >modified to comply with FARs."
> > >
> > >What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will
> now
> > >experience increased small plane noise will have people who
> > understandably
> > >will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will
> write
> > >letters to newpapers and politicians. <<
> >
> > STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based
> in
> a
> > small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been
> tussling
> > with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community
> for
> > acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
> > various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed
> suit
> > in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
> > acrobatics over their home.
> >
> > The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
> > the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
> > remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
> > with national implications.
> >
> > I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
> > started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN
> with
> > low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
> > "investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
> > compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
> > Details are on their web site.
> >
> > Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same
> town
> > called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and
> spread
> > acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
> > unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
> > register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a
> smack
> > at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
> > particular school.
> >
> > Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?
>
> In my experience, I have never encountered an "anti-noise" group which
> was interested in anything but killing GA and GA airports, with perhaps
> a few pilots in-between.
>
> Very often, the attempts at "dialogue" are nothing but
> intelligence-gathering efforts, designed to collect information to be
> used against the GA people.
>
> The STN people are particularly vicious in their lawsuit harassment
> tactics and have sent several people into bankruptcy.<<
>
> Wow. As the saying goes, "Just because you are paranoid does not mean
> that you are not being followed."
>
> "Killing GA"?? Maybe some groups have this goal, probably out of utter
> frustration. Personally, I won't affiliate with (but I do communicate
> with) any anti-noise groups at this point, partly because I have flown a
> little, and I continue to sit in the right seat occassionally. I can see
> the benefits (and fun) of recreational GA.
>
> I also see the other side. I now live full time in an area that used to
> be pretty quiet (occassional small plane noise) but now seems to be
> directly beneath a busy GA flight path. It IS really, really annoying.
>
> I think most of the anti-noise groups would be more reasonable if any
> serious efforts are made to co-exist. But, when the airport is
> unresponsive, and the FAA doesn't care, and pilots hide behind the FARs
> and the FAA bureacracy to justify a lack of common courtesy, people will
> get ****ED. If you drive people crazy long enough, some will fight back,
> and hit where it hurts.


Unfortunately, many of the "anti-noise" groups are really fronts for
real estate developers who wish to acquire a nice, large, flat area of
land, cheaply, to do their thing -- everybody else be damned. This has
been the case in Concord, CA, Hawthorne, CA, Oceanside, CA, Atlantic
City, NJ and many other sites. All you have to do is look under the
carpet!

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Morgans]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> Unfortunately, many of the "anti-noise" groups are really fronts for
> real estate developers who wish to acquire a nice, large, flat area of
> land, cheaply, to do their thing -- everybody else be damned. This has
> been the case in Concord, CA, Hawthorne, CA, Oceanside, CA, Atlantic
> City, NJ and many other sites. All you have to do is look under the
> carpet!

Come on, Orval. Get back with the trimming... 7 KB for a one paragraph
reply?

Ten lashes with a wet noodle, for your punishment! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Come on, Orval. Get back with the trimming... 7 KB for a one paragraph
> reply?
>
> Ten lashes with a wet noodle, for your punishment! <g>

Agreed. Between Skylune's unreadable posts (due to a terrible newsgroup
program, apparently) and Orval's posting a sentence or two at the bottom of
a four page quote, I don't know what's more frustrating.

Skylune, will you PLEASE get a decent newsreader? I'm on the verge of
kill-filing you, just because I can't read your posts!

Look closely at your posts compared to everyone else's, and you might catch
my drift. A real newsgroup program puts ">" in front of each quoted line of
text from previous posts. Yours does not.

As a result, readers can't skim to the bottom of the page, past the old
quoted text, to read whatever it is that you have posted. It sounds like a
minor thing, but when you're talking about dozens of posts, and hundreds of
lines of text, it's a gigantic PI the A.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Skylune, will you PLEASE get a decent newsreader?

Or at least put << ON A SEPARATE LINE after your quoted material.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

>> Skylune, will you PLEASE get a decent newsreader?

("Jose" wrote)
> Or at least put << ON A SEPARATE LINE after your quoted material.


I've stopped reading him for that reason. Will pick him up again after the
Holidays - see then if anything has changed.

I've been experimenting with this look (above). I think I like it - not sure
yet.

("Jose" wrote) goes with your quote, not automatically at the top.


Montblack

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:
>
> Come on, Orval. Get back with the trimming... 7 KB for a one paragraph
> reply?
>
> Ten lashes with a wet noodle, for your punishment! <g>

Sorry about that! I will try to snip the crap out in the future. It is,
after all, the Holiday season, when we serve turkeys with all the
trimmings. I need to trim the turkeys better.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Bushleague]

Great info, Thank you. Plane Nonsense no dought belongs to Hyannis Air
Service. Dan Wolf is the Chief of ACK (Cape Air), Bill McGrath, Owner
of Island Air. Since 72% of the flights in and out of HYA are Cessna
402's which both of these airlines own and operate, it may be a place
to start.

Bush

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:56:24 -0500, "Skylune"
> wrote:

>by Bushleague > Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM
>
>
>Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
>familiar with?
>
>Bush
>
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>by Bushleague > Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM
>>
>>
>>With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
>>adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
>>www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf
>>
>>Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.
>>
>>Have a great one!<<
>>
>>Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
>>This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
>>flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
>>consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
>>comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
>>modified to comply with FARs."
>>
>>What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
>>experience increased small plane noise will have people who
>understandably
>>will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
>>letters to newpapers and politicians. <<
>
>STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based in a
>small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been tussling
>with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community for
>acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
>various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed suit
>in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
>acrobatics over their home.
>
>The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
>the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
>remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
>with national implications.
>
>I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
>started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN with
>low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
>"investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
>compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
>Details are on their web site.
>
>Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same town
>called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and spread
>acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
>unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
>register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a smack
>at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
>particular school.
>
>Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?
>
>
>

[Skylune]

>>by Bushleague <Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dec 1, 2005 at 08:06 PM


Great info, Thank you. Plane Nonsense no dought belongs to Hyannis Air
Service. Dan Wolf is the Chief of ACK (Cape Air), Bill McGrath, Owner
of Island Air. Since 72% of the flights in and out of HYA are Cessna
402's which both of these airlines own and operate, it may be a place
to start.

Bush<<

You're welcome.

One correction to what I wrote about the STN lawsuit: A Federal District
Court remanded the case back to the State Court. That's important,
because it bolsters the plaintiffs' contention that the FARs do not
supersede state aeronautical laws. (Details are on the STN website.)

I'm pretty sure the Court is done taking depositions, which would probably
point to a trial date sometime in 2006.

Its wonderful when the legal system works for the victims.

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

>
> I'm pretty sure the Court is done taking depositions, which would probably
> point to a trial date sometime in 2006.
>
> Its wonderful when the legal system works for the victims.

The victims are the law-abiding aerobatic pilots who have had to hire
lawyers to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits brought by a
rich lawyer and his rich friends. So far, the legal system is working
against the victims.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> Unfortunately, many of the "anti-noise" groups are really fronts for
> real estate developers who wish to acquire a nice, large, flat area of
> land, cheaply, to do their thing -- everybody else be damned. This has
> been the case in Concord, CA, Hawthorne, CA, Oceanside, CA, Atlantic
> City, NJ and many other sites. All you have to do is look under the
> carpet!

These are all desirable sites for economic development. The increase
in tax base
for local governments is huge. And Amtrak service is near all 4
locations you mention.

El Toro and Tustin CA MCAS redevelopment are great examples.

JG

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > Unfortunately, many of the "anti-noise" groups are really fronts for
> > real estate developers who wish to acquire a nice, large, flat area of
> > land, cheaply, to do their thing -- everybody else be damned. This has
> > been the case in Concord, CA, Hawthorne, CA, Oceanside, CA, Atlantic
> > City, NJ and many other sites. All you have to do is look under the
> > carpet!
>
> These are all desirable sites for economic development. The increase
> in tax base
> for local governments is huge. And Amtrak service is near all 4
> locations you mention.
>
> El Toro and Tustin CA MCAS redevelopment are great examples.
>
> JG

Development usually costs local government more than they take in in
taxes -- only the developers make a profit and leave everybody else
holding the bag!

BTW -- I hope that Chicago gets to hold the bag on the Meigs cleanup!

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Skylune]

>> Orval F wrote: Development usually costs local government more than
they take in in
taxes -- only the developers make a profit and leave everybody else
holding the bag!

BTW -- I hope that Chicago gets to hold the bag on the Meigs cleanup!<<

If Chicago is sued, they will identify other PRPs to cover the cleanup
cost. This is what happened at Rocky Flats or Rocky Mountain Arsenal
(forgot which), in the late 80s/early 90s. If Chicago has to pay anything
at all for closing down Megis, it will be immaterial.
Bottom line: Megis shutdown is no big deal for the city.

[Skylune]

>>JGrove wrote:
These are all desirable sites for economic development. The increase
in tax base
for local governments is huge. And Amtrak service is near all 4
locations you mention.

El Toro and Tustin CA MCAS redevelopment are great examples.

JG<<

Yup, subsequent comments to the contrary notwithstanding. Eliminating a
GA airport, which is generally municipally owned and therefore pays no
taxes (in fact, many need local tax support beyond the FAA operating
subsidies -- see Truckee, where a local property tax is levied by the
Airport District), and replacing it with any property tax paying private
entity would be a net positive.

The economic benefit #s thrown about by most GA airports are complete BS:
they usually just add up the payroll of the businesses around the area.

[Skylune]

>>by Orval Fairbairn > Dec 6, 2005 at 11:04
PM


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

>
> I'm pretty sure the Court is done taking depositions, which would
probably
> point to a trial date sometime in 2006.
>
> Its wonderful when the legal system works for the victims.

The victims are the law-abiding aerobatic pilots who have had to hire
lawyers to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits brought by a
rich lawyer and his rich friends. So far, the legal system is working
against the victims.<<

So they claim. And verified by FAA investigation (lol).

But this is irrelevant: The state court will decide if state laws are
being violated. That's why the AOPA/American Free Skies Assn, etc are so
upset. They like to cite FAA rules when they allow a pilot to legally
circle a residence at 1000' all day, but hate FAA when they want to raise
fees, etc.

[Skylune]

>>Skylune wrote:

If Chicago is sued, they will identify other PRPs to cover the cleanup
cost. This is what happened at Rocky Flats or Rocky Mountain Arsenal
(forgot which), in the late 80s/early 90s. If Chicago has to pay
anything
at all for closing down Megis, it will be immaterial.
Bottom line: Megis shutdown is no big deal for the city.<<

Skylune self-corrects (My bad again!! At this rate I could work for
Boyer!): It was Lowry Landfill (not Rocky Flats or the old Arsenal) that
was CERCLA (Superfund) site in early 90s. Lowry was used by lots of
municipalities and other industries. PRPs included the localities, who
had environmental insurance coverage, and big users who were assessed
cleanup costs.

Here is an example of on EPA Consent Decree with a responsible party (in
the case Rockwell International):

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/1995/February/Day-10/pr-141.html