Planes drone out MLK celebration

[daffy]

Today's annual Martin Luther King celebration in Newark, California
was disrupted today by small planes. In a reenactment of the "I have
a dream" speach, the crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.

[Darkwing]

"daffy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Today's annual Martin Luther King celebration in Newark, California
> was disrupted today by small planes. In a reenactment of the "I have
> a dream" speach, the crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.
>

Troll much?

---------------------------------------
DW

[kontiki]

daffy wrote:
> Today's annual Martin Luther King celebration in Newark, California
> was disrupted today by small planes. In a reenactment of the "I have
> a dream" speach, the crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.
>

One time I was trying to watch a football game and got interrupted
several times by tele-marketers calling on the telephone. I couldn't
hear or see anything during that time.

[John Gaquin]

"daffy" > wrote in message

> ......In a reenactment of the "I have
> a dream" speach, the crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.

Why?

[BTIZ]

what is "plane drone"?

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "daffy" > wrote in message
>
>> ......In a reenactment of the "I have
>> a dream" speach, the crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.
>
> Why?
>

[[email protected]]

BTIZ wrote:
> what is "plane drone"?
>
I think it's a derogatory term for a carpenter ;-)

Frank

[Flyingmonk]

maybe it is "drone plane" you know the things they use to practice
shooting SAMs and AAMs. :^)

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Grumman-581]

"daffy" wrote in message
ups.com...
> In a reenactment of the "I have a dream" speach, the
> crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.

You mispelled "plain"... Given that correction, then the reenactment was
just like the original...

[Skylune]

>>by kontiki > Jan 16, 2006 at 09:27 PM


daffy wrote:
> Today's annual Martin Luther King celebration in Newark, California
> was disrupted today by small planes. In a reenactment of the "I have
> a dream" speach, the crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.
>

One time I was trying to watch a football game and got interrupted
several times by tele-marketers calling on the telephone. I couldn't
hear or see anything during that time.<<

Did you try something innovative, such as turning off the ringer? Or even
more imaginative, such as registering for the "do not call list," or
getting an unregistered, unlisted number?

Can you think of clever analogies for victims of GA noise pollution?

[Larry Dighera]

On 16 Jan 2006 11:50:30 -0800, "daffy" >
wrote in om>::

>Today's annual Martin Luther King celebration in Newark, California
>was disrupted today by small planes. In a reenactment of the "I have
>a dream" speach, the crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.

Please provide more information about that which you allege. How many
aircraft were overhead at one time? How close is the nearest airport
to the location of that celebration?

Now if the site chosen for the MLK Jr. celebration was located in the
departure/arrival paths of Compton or Fullerton airports, there is
some culpability on the part of the celebration planners if they
expected absolute quiet. The airspace overlying portions of Norwalk
requires an ATC clearance to operate above 2,500' as a necessity to
accommodate airline traffic at LAX. That may also be a factor in the
low altitude of aircraft operating below the Class B floor over
Norwalk.

In my experience, the noise generated by low-flying aircraft only
affects hearing a conversation directly under it, and that only lasts
for 20 seconds. So please provide more information about the number,
height and frequency of the aircraft you allege disrupted the
ceremonies.

[daffy]

First, the city we are talking about is Newark, not Norwalk.

Second, the small plane (GA) traffic is NON-STOP, where
a new plane passes overhead every 60 seconds or so
everyday, so this plane noise was not done delibertly
during the ML King celebration.

It was hard to hear the speaker while planes flew above
the event.

Yes, the noise lasts only 20 seconds, and if only a few planes
per hour were out, it wouldn't be an issue, but the airspace
above Newark is a pilots fancy.

[Rachel]

daffy wrote:
> Today's annual Martin Luther King celebration in Newark, California
> was disrupted today by small planes. In a reenactment of the "I have
> a dream" speach, the crowd could't hear anything but plane drone.
>
You're right!

Let's ground all small aircraft.

Actually, let's ground ALL aircraft, because everyone knows big ones are
louder than small ones.

[Darkwing]

"daffy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> First, the city we are talking about is Newark, not Norwalk.
>
> Second, the small plane (GA) traffic is NON-STOP, where
> a new plane passes overhead every 60 seconds or so
> everyday, so this plane noise was not done delibertly
> during the ML King celebration.
>
> It was hard to hear the speaker while planes flew above
> the event.
>
> Yes, the noise lasts only 20 seconds, and if only a few planes
> per hour were out, it wouldn't be an issue, but the airspace
> above Newark is a pilots fancy.
>

Maybe the dumbass who decided on that area for the MLK celebration should
relocate for 2007 or buy bigger speakers, either way poor planning was the
problem, not the aircraft. The airport is there year round, not the MLK
celebration, it was no secret that the airport was in the area.

----------------------------------------------
DW

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"daffy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Second, the small plane (GA) traffic is NON-STOP, where
> a new plane passes overhead every 60 seconds or so
> everyday, so this plane noise was not done delibertly
> during the ML King celebration.
>

In other words, somebody made a bad choice in selecting a site near the
airport for the MLK celebration.

[Skylune]

>>by "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> Jan 17, 2006 at 01:35 PM


"daffy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> First, the city we are talking about is Newark, not Norwalk.
>
> Second, the small plane (GA) traffic is NON-STOP, where
> a new plane passes overhead every 60 seconds or so
> everyday, so this plane noise was not done delibertly
> during the ML King celebration.
>
> It was hard to hear the speaker while planes flew above
> the event.
>
> Yes, the noise lasts only 20 seconds, and if only a few planes
> per hour were out, it wouldn't be an issue, but the airspace
> above Newark is a pilots fancy.
>

Maybe the dumbass who decided on that area for the MLK celebration should

relocate for 2007 or buy bigger speakers, either way poor planning was
the

problem, not the aircraft. The airport is there year round, not the MLK
celebration, it was no secret that the airport was in the area.

----------------------------------------------
DW<<

Daffy: You must realize that most of the people here sincerely believe
that flying small planes is the greatest technological achievement in the
history of mankind. All social costs, such as noise, air, water
pollution etc. are insignificant in relation to what they perceive are the
huge economic benefits created by ALL FORMS of General Aviation (including
landing at a far away airport and having lunch, or staying overnight in
some fleabag hotel and eating breakfast) as well as the pilots' fun. They
think they are paying taxes thru the nose, though in fact taxpayers are
heaviliy subsidizing their activities.

They cannot be persuaded by facts or sound arguments. Some actually
believe that their planes don't make annoying noise. Many say that if you
experience noise pollution its YOUR FAULT for being near the airport! They
will usually tell you "the airport was there first." This stupid argument
is supposed to protect against any responsibility that the fliers have to
other members of society. Nevermind that the argument is fallacious (most
airports are about 75 years old -- there was other use of this land BEFORE
the nefarious little planes arrived) and nevermind that small airports
have turned into big airports which now generate nonstop noise. They
don't care about the nonflying public, and never will. (But don't take
their tax subsidies away!)

Anyone who complains about the current state of affairs is considered to
be a "troll", a whiner or a "civilian." (Yes, a civilian!: recreational
pilots actually award themselves military recognition. The egos and self
deception are that enormous.)

The only thing to do is to start complaining, LOUDLY, to elected
officials, the newspapers, etc. Organize other victims. The politicians
will act once they see the majority is against subsidized, recreational GA
that creates a noise nuisance. Ignore the FAA. They only care about
promoting aviation and are unconcerned about the general public.

[Larry Dighera]

On 17 Jan 2006 10:18:20 -0800, "daffy" >
wrote in om>::

>First, the city we are talking about is Newark, not Norwalk.

Oops. Despite being a native Californian, I'm not familiar with
Newark. I presume we are discussing the Newark located in Silicon
Valley on the east side of San Francisco Bay between Hayward Executive
Airport and Palo Alto, Moffett Federal and San Jose airports.

>Second, the small plane (GA) traffic is NON-STOP, where
>a new plane passes overhead every 60 seconds or so
>everyday,

There must be a reason for such air traffic congestion. Newark seems
to lie beneath the San Francisco International Airport Class B
airspace, the floor of which ranges between 3,000' and 4,000'. Nearby
are Oakland Class C and San Jose Class C airspace with 1,500' floors,
as well as a Visual Reporting Point to the west. My guess is that VFR
air traffic is being vectored by ATC to that reporting point,
resulting in low altitude congestion in the area of Newark.

>so this plane noise was not done delibertly
>during the ML King celebration.

I wouldn't expect it to be. Rather, it is a natural result of San
Francisco International Airport's (as well as the other airports
mentioned above) influence on the surrounding area.

>It was hard to hear the speaker while planes flew above
>the event.

That is unfortunate. However, I'm sure an eminent advocate of freedom
such as MLK Jr. would have supported the right of freedom to navigate
the skies granted the people of this nation:

Federal Aviation Act of 1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and
declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a
public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace
of the United States.

Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply
recognizes that it exists. None of our rights are granted by the
government, we simply have them.


>Yes, the noise lasts only 20 seconds, and if only a few planes
>per hour were out, it wouldn't be an issue, but the airspace
>above Newark is a pilots fancy.

Perhaps, but I suspect that that aircraft congestion in that area is a
result of FAA design in restricting flights from the Class B and C
airspace in the area.

As our nation's population continues to increase at a net rate of 14
people per second*, we are all going to increasingly find that we
infringe on each other's tranquility; resources such as airspace and
highways are finite, while the population is ever growing.

I am sorry your celebration was marred by aircraft noise, but given
the facts, I can only predict that the increasing population will
continue to increasingly impact our environment.


*
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/18/national1750EST0773.DTL&type=printable
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

[Darkwing]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>by "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> Jan 17, 2006 at 01:35 PM
>
>
> "daffy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> First, the city we are talking about is Newark, not Norwalk.
>>
>> Second, the small plane (GA) traffic is NON-STOP, where
>> a new plane passes overhead every 60 seconds or so
>> everyday, so this plane noise was not done delibertly
>> during the ML King celebration.
>>
>> It was hard to hear the speaker while planes flew above
>> the event.
>>
>> Yes, the noise lasts only 20 seconds, and if only a few planes
>> per hour were out, it wouldn't be an issue, but the airspace
>> above Newark is a pilots fancy.
>>
>
> Maybe the dumbass who decided on that area for the MLK celebration should
>
> relocate for 2007 or buy bigger speakers, either way poor planning was
> the
>
> problem, not the aircraft. The airport is there year round, not the MLK
> celebration, it was no secret that the airport was in the area.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> DW<<
>
> Daffy: You must realize that most of the people here sincerely believe
> that flying small planes is the greatest technological achievement in the
> history of mankind. All social costs, such as noise, air, water
> pollution etc. are insignificant in relation to what they perceive are the
> huge economic benefits created by ALL FORMS of General Aviation (including
> landing at a far away airport and having lunch, or staying overnight in
> some fleabag hotel and eating breakfast) as well as the pilots' fun. They
> think they are paying taxes thru the nose, though in fact taxpayers are
> heaviliy subsidizing their activities.
>
> They cannot be persuaded by facts or sound arguments. Some actually
> believe that their planes don't make annoying noise. Many say that if you
> experience noise pollution its YOUR FAULT for being near the airport!
> They
> will usually tell you "the airport was there first." This stupid argument
> is supposed to protect against any responsibility that the fliers have to
> other members of society. Nevermind that the argument is fallacious (most
> airports are about 75 years old -- there was other use of this land BEFORE
> the nefarious little planes arrived) and nevermind that small airports
> have turned into big airports which now generate nonstop noise. They
> don't care about the nonflying public, and never will. (But don't take
> their tax subsidies away!)
>
> Anyone who complains about the current state of affairs is considered to
> be a "troll", a whiner or a "civilian." (Yes, a civilian!: recreational
> pilots actually award themselves military recognition. The egos and self
> deception are that enormous.)
>
> The only thing to do is to start complaining, LOUDLY, to elected
> officials, the newspapers, etc. Organize other victims. The politicians
> will act once they see the majority is against subsidized, recreational GA
> that creates a noise nuisance. Ignore the FAA. They only care about
> promoting aviation and are unconcerned about the general public.
>
>


Most likely most of the people at the MLK celebration also take government
subsidies.

-------------------------------------------------
DW

[Don Tuite]

On 17 Jan 2006 10:18:20 -0800, "daffy" >
wrote:

>First, the city we are talking about is Newark, not Norwalk.
>
>Second, the small plane (GA) traffic is NON-STOP, where
>a new plane passes overhead every 60 seconds or so
>everyday, so this plane noise was not done delibertly
>during the ML King celebration.
>
>It was hard to hear the speaker while planes flew above
>the event.
>
>Yes, the noise lasts only 20 seconds, and if only a few planes
>per hour were out, it wouldn't be an issue, but the airspace
>above Newark is a pilots fancy.

This complaint makes sense. Planes heading for San Carlos, Palo Alto,
Reid Hillview, Hayward, and to some extent, Oakland tend to exit the
Livermore valley via the Sunol gap. The gravel ponds at Niles are
sort of a waypoint, and Lake Elizabeth marks a step transition in the
base of the San Francisco class B, so it's another airplane magnet.
Going west or north, the reporting point for San Carlos is the Coyote
Hills, which is a little north of the Dumbarton Bridge tollboth.
Inbound Palo Alto pilots report the Nummi plant or the salt pile, a
little to the south. I'm not sure where the Hayward reporting point is
from the south, but it's got to be right around there. A little
further south and you're in San Jose's airspace. That actually
protects Milpitas because flying east of 680 puts you out of San Jose
airspace.

The result is that Newark and Fremont take it in the shorts.

I don't have a solution, but the poster is by no means talking through
his hat.

Well, I do know one thing that makes logistical sense. Move Palo Alto
GA and San Jose freight to Moffet.

Don

[Michael]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:05:44 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>Most likely most of the people at the MLK celebration also take government
>subsidies.
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>DW
>

Up to now you sounded like a reasonable advocate for GA - now you just
sound like a bigoted asshole

Michael

[John Theune]

Michael wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:05:44 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Most likely most of the people at the MLK celebration also take government
>>subsidies.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------
>>DW
>>
>
>
> Up to now you sounded like a reasonable advocate for GA - now you just
> sound like a bigoted asshole
>
> Michael
so are you saying that only blacks would be at a MLK celebration?

[Darkwing]

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:05:44 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Most likely most of the people at the MLK celebration also take government
>>subsidies.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------
>>DW
>>
>
> Up to now you sounded like a reasonable advocate for GA - now you just
> sound like a bigoted asshole
>
> Michael

The OP is just a troll and I probably am a bigoted asshole.

-------------------------------------------------
DW

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:08:26 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>::

>
>The OP is just a troll

Dismissing the non-pilot citizen's complaint without compassion nor
regard for its merit will only alienate public empathy for the pilot
community and the issues it finds unfair.

>and I probably am a bigoted asshole.

At least you earn respect for your candor. :-)

[Rachel]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:08:26 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>The OP is just a troll
>
>
> Dismissing the non-pilot citizen's complaint without compassion nor
> regard for its merit will only alienate public empathy for the pilot
> community and the issues it finds unfair.

The problem is, most non-pilots have already made up their minds about
the place of aviation in society. Even if the OP isn't a troll, it's
doubtful anyone will change his mind.

[Skylune]

>>
The OP is just a troll and I probably am a bigoted asshole.

-------------------------------------------------
DW<<

LOL. Don't worry about it. Everyone is an a-hole. I certainly am one.

[Skylune]

by Rachel <fakename@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 17, 2006 at 05:34 PM


Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:08:26 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> <qK-dnWvB4Iza5VDeRVn-pg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>::
>
>
>>The OP is just a troll
>
>
> Dismissing the non-pilot citizen's complaint without compassion nor
> regard for its merit will only alienate public empathy for the pilot
> community and the issues it finds unfair.

The problem is, most non-pilots have already made up their minds about
the place of aviation in society. Even if the OP isn't a troll, it's
doubtful anyone will change his mind.<<

If Daffy can somehow convince the a-hole politicians that the offending
airplane noise was a racist attempt by some rich caucasian fliers to
disrupt the ceremony, he or she will get media attention. Maybe Al
Sharpton will then chime in, which would force Phil Boyer to get involved.
That would be awesome!

Are there any statistics on the racial makeup of persons possessing
private pilot certificates?

[Darkwing]

"Rachel" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:08:26 -0500, "Darkwing"
>> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>
>>>The OP is just a troll
>>
>>
>> Dismissing the non-pilot citizen's complaint without compassion nor
>> regard for its merit will only alienate public empathy for the pilot
>> community and the issues it finds unfair.
>
> The problem is, most non-pilots have already made up their minds about the
> place of aviation in society. Even if the OP isn't a troll, it's doubtful
> anyone will change his mind.

My dad doesn't like small planes, has never flown with me and probbaly never
will, he thinks small planes are death traps, his mind is made up, he likes
that I do some aerial photography for one of his businesses when he asks but
that is about it for him and GA. Some people just don't get it.

--------------------------------------------------------
DW

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:34:13 -0600, Rachel > wrote
in >::

>Even if the OP isn't a troll, it's
>doubtful anyone will change his mind.

If the OP is rebuffed, and/or if no one makes an attempt to address
his complaints, it is ASSURED his mind will not be changed.

[Rachel]

Skylune wrote:
>>
<snip>
>
> Are there any statistics on the racial makeup of persons possessing
> private pilot certificates?

Who cares? I for one, am sick of mandatory diversity.

By the way, I'm a woman and I don't posses a private pilot certificate.
There must be something wrong with the world.

[daffy]

Thanks for the explination. I knew there must be a reason
for the excess air traffic above Newark.

Don Tuite wrote:
> I don't have a solution, but the poster is by no means talking through
> his hat.

[daffy]

Actually I feel better about the noise if I complain here, since I
figure at least one of you who read this newsgroup must be
flying over my place at some point in time. I also know most
people aren't bothered by the noise, so I have little support.

Feel free not to read my complaining if you don't want to,
since you know it will be basicly repiticious, but with a
different subject about the noise for my next posting.

[Rachel]

daffy wrote:
> Actually I feel better about the noise if I complain here, since I
> figure at least one of you who read this newsgroup must be
> flying over my place at some point in time. I also know most
> people aren't bothered by the noise, so I have little support.

The thing is, it's not like the airport is secret. The planners of the
even KNEW the airport was there. I happen to live within two miles of
one of the busiest airports in the country, and the noise blends into
the background after a while. I bought the place knowing there would be
noise, and accept it (and yes, it's pretty much a 24/7 thing, and they
aren't small airplanes). I'd certainly never start complaining about it.

[Grumman-581]

"daffy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thanks for the explination. I knew there must be a reason
> for the excess air traffic above Newark.

Yeah, it wouldn't be because NJ is a prime tourist location...

Q: Why is NY full of lawyers and NJ full of toxic waste dumps?
A: NJ got first choice.

[Grumman-581]

"daffy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Actually I feel better about the noise if I complain here, since I
> figure at least one of you who read this newsgroup must be
> flying over my place at some point in time.

Well, if I ever do make the mistake of flying up there, I'll be sure to have
a relief tube installed in my plane before hand...

> I also know most people aren't bothered by the noise, so
> I have little support.

And you think that we would be less likely to believe to be a wacko than the
non-pilots? <snicker>

> Feel free not to read my complaining if you don't want to,
> since you know it will be basicly repiticious, but with a
> different subject about the noise for my next posting.

Sounds good... If you can find the time, please feel free to **** off...

<bitch-slap>

<plonk>

[Orval Fairbairn]

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

> >>
> The OP is just a troll and I probably am a bigoted asshole.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> DW<<
>
> LOL. Don't worry about it. Everyone is an a-hole. I certainly am one.

For once, I agree with "Skylune"!

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"daffy" > wrote:

> Actually I feel better about the noise if I complain here, since I
> figure at least one of you who read this newsgroup must be
> flying over my place at some point in time. I also know most
> people aren't bothered by the noise, so I have little support.
>
> Feel free not to read my complaining if you don't want to,
> since you know it will be basicly repiticious, but with a
> different subject about the noise for my next posting.


Some questions:

Is it the noise, or is it some other issue?

Do you think GA is a frivolous activity that should be banned?

Do you think that GA is only for the "rich" and object to the "rich"
flying over your head?

Are you afraid of somebody crashing into your house?

Are you like Sen. Barbara Boxer and hate all those "hobby pilots"?

Are you an environmental extremist who thinks that GA is wasting energy?

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

[George Patterson]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> Yeah, it wouldn't be because NJ is a prime tourist location...

They're talking about California.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Grumman-581]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In other words, somebody made a bad choice in selecting a site near the
> airport for the MLK celebration.

Maybe we'll be lucky and next year they'll select a site *very* close to a
nuclear testing site...

[Grumman-581]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:G2kzf.17901$h47.5556@trnddc08...
> They're talking about California.

Oh well... Newark, CA is probably not a prime tourist spot either...

[Gary Drescher]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> In other words, somebody made a bad choice in selecting a site near the
>> airport for the MLK celebration.
>
> Maybe we'll be lucky and next year they'll select a site *very* close to a
> nuclear testing site...

That's the second time in two days that you've gleefully contemplated the
nuking of minorities or their supporters. Perhaps you think this is
rec.aviation.aryan.nation.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:49:10 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>::

>That's the second time in two days that you've gleefully contemplated the
>nuking of minorities or their supporters. Perhaps you think this is
>rec.aviation.aryan.nation.

Naw. He's just a typical 'all hat and no cattle' Texan with the usual
inferiority-complex based superior attitude. Pathetic. :-)

[Skylune]

by Orval Fairbairn > Jan 18, 2006 at 04:41 AM


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

> >>
> The OP is just a troll and I probably am a bigoted asshole.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> DW<<
>
> LOL. Don't worry about it. Everyone is an a-hole. I certainly am
one.


For once, I agree with "Skylune"!<<

Agreement noted. Welcome to the club!

[Skylune]

by Rachel > Jan 17, 2006 at 07:42 PM


Skylune wrote:
>>
<snip>
>
> Are there any statistics on the racial makeup of persons possessing
> private pilot certificates?

Who cares? I for one, am sick of mandatory diversity.<<

So am I. But the thought of those two windbags, Al Sharpton (racial
arsonist) vs. Boyer the Destroyer (GA apologist and self- described
"defender") having at it would have very high entertainment value.

[daffy]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "daffy" > wrote:
>
> > Actually I feel better about the noise if I complain here, since I
> > figure at least one of you who read this newsgroup must be
> > flying over my place at some point in time. I also know most
> > people aren't bothered by the noise, so I have little support.
> >
> > Feel free not to read my complaining if you don't want to,
> > since you know it will be basicly repiticious, but with a
> > different subject about the noise for my next posting.
>
>
> Some questions:
>
> Is it the noise, or is it some other issue? The noise only.
>
> Do you think GA is a frivolous activity that should be banned? Planes
should be more quiet, or fly higher over populated area. If I had
unlimited
time, I might try it too. But it's not my "hobby".
>
> Do you think that GA is only for the "rich" and object to the "rich"
> flying over your head? No, anyone with a decent job can do it.
>
> Are you afraid of somebody crashing into your house? No.
>
> Are you like Sen. Barbara Boxer and hate all those "hobby pilots"?
I didn't know she felt that way, I will have to look in to what her
reasons are
for it.
>
> Are you an environmental extremist who thinks that GA is wasting energy?
No.
>
> --
> Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Skylune]

>>by "daffy" > Jan 18, 2006 at 10:40 AM


Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "daffy" > wrote:
>
> > Actually I feel better about the noise if I complain here, since I
> > figure at least one of you who read this newsgroup must be
> > flying over my place at some point in time. I also know most
> > people aren't bothered by the noise, so I have little support.
> >
> > Feel free not to read my complaining if you don't want to,
> > since you know it will be basicly repiticious, but with a
> > different subject about the noise for my next posting.
>
>
> Some questions:
>
> Is it the noise, or is it some other issue? The noise only.
>
> Do you think GA is a frivolous activity that should be banned? Planes
should be more quiet, or fly higher over populated area. If I had
unlimited
time, I might try it too. But it's not my "hobby".
>
> Do you think that GA is only for the "rich" and object to the "rich"
> flying over your head? No, anyone with a decent job can do it.
>
> Are you afraid of somebody crashing into your house? No.
>
> Are you like Sen. Barbara Boxer and hate all those "hobby pilots"?
I didn't know she felt that way, I will have to look in to what her
reasons are
for it.
>
> Are you an environmental extremist who thinks that GA is wasting
energy?
No.<<

Daffy: No one here (except me) will believe that you are annoyed by
noise, or think that you have any rights whatsoever. As I said before,
they will blame YOU for being in the path of the noise using various silly
arguments.

As far as your feeling alone in being subjected to the noise pollution:
The FAA will definitely make you feel as though you are the only one
affected if you call those stupid bureaucrats to complain. Don't waste
your time. They don't care at all about the public, just doling out the
grants and exanding airports. They are in total kahoots with the GA
industry, and their nefarious support group, the AOPA. The idiot
president of the AOPA likes to brag about how politically influential they
are. It takes a strong grass roots effort to fight back, and take some
control over property. Complain to politicians, do research and write to
your local papers. Groups have had success in getting noise abatement
provisions enforced, enacting landing fees, etc. Truckee airport in the
Tahoe area is having a pretty good tussle about airplane noise right now,
and its possible they can get some relief for the residents.

The following organization has some useful information/suggestions on how
to deal with the problem. (I'm not a member and don't necessarily endorse
all their strategies, but they are a good data source and you may find it
interesting.) They have a link on their website to other good neighbor
groups. I know there are some active in California.

http://www.stopthenoise.org/

Good luck.

[Grumman-581]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> That's the second time in two days that you've gleefully contemplated the
> nuking of minorities or their supporters. Perhaps you think this is
> rec.aviation.aryan.nation.

Gleefully? <snicker>

California is a minority?

I just hate all this politically correct crap that we see these days...
There are some people whose utmost contribution to the human gene pool would
be their removal from it... I guess I'm just not so neutered by belief in
being PC that I won't voice my thoughts... Nawh, I'm not racist, I hate
everyone equally... Maybe if you live long enough, you too can become a
grumpy old man...

[Grumman-581]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Naw. He's just a typical 'all hat and no cattle' Texan with the usual
> inferiority-complex based superior attitude.

I would hazard to guess that I've spent more time on a cattle ranch than you
have... Unfortunately, these days, I'm more metropolitan based (i.e. in the
Houston area)...

"Never ask a man if he is from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you... If he's
not, don't embarass him."

[Skylune]

by "Grumman-581" <grumman581@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 18, 2006 at 07:46 PM


"Larry Dighera" <LDighera@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:hmrss19kv7gaeec8olqpnp99s8md76bc79@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Naw. He's just a typical 'all hat and no cattle' Texan with the usual
> inferiority-complex based superior attitude.

I would hazard to guess that I've spent more time on a cattle ranch than
you
have... Unfortunately, these days, I'm more metropolitan based (i.e. in
the
Houston area)...

"Never ask a man if he is from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you... If
he's
not, don't embarass him."<<

Kinky Friedman for Governor! Why the hell not?

[Rachel]

Gary Drescher wrote:
<snip>
> That's the second time in two days that you've gleefully contemplated the
> nuking of minorities or their supporters. Perhaps you think this is
> rec.aviation.aryan.nation.
>
>
His point was that right next to an airport is a pretty poor selection
for an outdoor celebration.

[Rachel]

daffy wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Is it the noise, or is it some other issue? The noise only.

Guess what? The airplanes were there FIRST. Like I pointed out before,
i live right under one of the busiest airports in the country. It's
LOUD. Keeps my guest up at night. Should the airlines cease
operations? Cargo companies? Please answer that question.

[Morgans]

"Grumman-581" > wrote

> "Never ask a man if he is from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you... If he's
> not, don't embarass him."


Well spoken, for a Texan. I think the only thing more overblown than
Texas's size, is a Texan's ego. You can have them both.
--
Jim in NC

[Grumman-581]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Well spoken, for a Texan. I think the only thing more overblown than
> Texas's size, is a Texan's ego. You can have them both.

Well, considering the fact that you're from NC, I can understand your
position... Obviously, it is a product of you being unfortunate enough to
live somewhere like that without good BBQ...

[Morgans]

"Grumman-581" > wrote

> Obviously, it is a product of you being unfortunate enough to
> live somewhere like that without good BBQ...

NOT!!!

[Grumman-581]

"Morgans" wrote in message ...
> NOT!!!

I must disagree... You admitted that you are in NC... By definition, you do
not have good BBQ... Surely you knew that it's impossible to have good BBQ
outside of Texas...

[Tom Conner]

"Rachel" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
> <snip>
> > That's the second time in two days that you've gleefully contemplated
the
> > nuking of minorities or their supporters. Perhaps you think this is
> > rec.aviation.aryan.nation.
> >
> >
> His point was that right next to an airport is a pretty poor selection
> for an outdoor celebration.

The poster said he lives in Newark, which is not close to any airports. As
was pointed out by another poster, it turns out that Newark appears to be a
central point for many aircraft departing from, or heading to, San
Francisco, San Carlos, Palo Alto, San Jose, and Reid-Hillview. In a way, it
is kind of funny that someone could move to Newark to be away from an
airport, and end up with more aircraft traffic than if they lived near an
airport.

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "Morgans" wrote in message ...
>
>>NOT!!!
>
>
> I must disagree... You admitted that you are in NC... By definition, you do
> not have good BBQ... Surely you knew that it's impossible to have good BBQ
> outside of Texas...

That is right. Texas has good BBQ and other places have great BBQ. :-)

Matt

[Rachel]

Tom Conner wrote:
> "Rachel" > wrote in message
> ...
<snip>
>
> The poster said he lives in Newark, which is not close to any airports. As
> was pointed out by another poster, it turns out that Newark appears to be a
> central point for many aircraft departing from, or heading to, San
> Francisco, San Carlos, Palo Alto, San Jose, and Reid-Hillview. In a way, it
> is kind of funny that someone could move to Newark to be away from an
> airport, and end up with more aircraft traffic than if they lived near an
> airport.

Sounds like poor research of the area to me.

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> That is right. Texas has good BBQ and other places have great BBQ. :-)
\
Thanks, Matt. Took the words right out of my mouth. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Flyingmonk]

Larry wrote:
>Naw. He's just a typical 'all hat and no cattle' Texan

I'm sure he's got a cow waiting for him at home. :^)

[Skylune]

>>daffy wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Is it the noise, or is it some other issue? The noise only.

Guess what? The airplanes were there FIRST. Like I pointed out before,
i live right under one of the busiest airports in the country. It's
LOUD. Keeps my guest up at night. Should the airlines cease
operations? Cargo companies? Please answer that question.<<

It was two questions, but I would answer "no" to each.

People who move next to busy airports really have no business complaining
about noise, obviously. This does not contradict any of the criticisms
of GA, the FAA mission and culture, enforcement of FARs, local control
over GA airports, etc. that I and others have.

[daffy]

Tom Conner wrote:
> "Rachel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > That's the second time in two days that you've gleefully contemplated
> the
> > > nuking of minorities or their supporters. Perhaps you think this is
> > > rec.aviation.aryan.nation.
> > >
> > >
> > His point was that right next to an airport is a pretty poor selection
> > for an outdoor celebration.
>
> The poster said he lives in Newark, which is not close to any airports. As
> was pointed out by another poster, it turns out that Newark appears to be a
> central point for many aircraft departing from, or heading to, San
> Francisco, San Carlos, Palo Alto, San Jose, and Reid-Hillview. In a way, it
> is kind of funny that someone could move to Newark to be away from an
> airport, and end up with more aircraft traffic than if they lived near an
> airport.

I live in Newark for 30 years or so, and this excess plane noise
is a recent event. It started about 3 years ago. It could be a result
of rerouting because of 9/11, or else I am getting more sensitive to
noise.

Anyone know an area in the Bay Area relatively free of small plane
noise I can move to if needed? South or East Bay area prefered.

[Don Tuite]

On 19 Jan 2006 10:20:40 -0800, "daffy" >
wrote:

>I live in Newark for 30 years or so, and this excess plane noise
>is a recent event. It started about 3 years ago. It could be a result
>of rerouting because of 9/11, or else I am getting more sensitive to
>noise.

Of the factors that tend to concentrate traffic over Newark that I
mentioned in an earlier post, that has all been in place for decades.
In recent years, there should be less traffic, because of the
straitened circumstances of the former tech workers in the area. So,
yes, there may be a subjective element to your complaint.

>Anyone know an area in the Bay Area relatively free of small plane
>noise I can move to if needed? South or East Bay area prefered.

What's your poison? Departing jets in Alviso? Trains in Niles?
Everybody else's smog in Milpitas? Canyon (94516) might be a good
bet. Nobody knows it's there, shopping's not too far away on the
east, and Berkeley's close.

Don

[Skylune]

>>by "daffy" > Jan 19, 2006 at 10:20 AM



I live in Newark for 30 years or so, and this excess plane noise
is a recent event. It started about 3 years ago. It could be a result
of rerouting because of 9/11, or else I am getting more sensitive to
noise.

Anyone know an area in the Bay Area relatively free of small plane
noise I can move to if needed? South or East Bay area prefered<<

You say you lived there for over 30 years, and will now simply leave
because of the small planes? Just like that. Originally, your complaint
was MLK celebration being disrupted by little planes.

You will never win a Troll of the Year award with that crock of crap.

[Rachel]

Skylune wrote:
>>>daffy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>

> People who move next to busy airports really have no business complaining
> about noise, obviously. This does not contradict any of the criticisms
> of GA, the FAA mission and culture, enforcement of FARs, local control
> over GA airports, etc. that I and others have.

Look, I'm not a big fan of recreational aviation. To be honest, most of
it bores me. I'm just not sure what YOUR issue is with is.

Personally, I've seen people who are deathly jealous of my lifestyle,
salary, looks, hobbies, whatever, and you sound just like them.

[Andrew Gideon]

daffy wrote:

> Planes
> should be more quiet, or fly higher over populated area.

Amusingly enough, we largely agree about the "fly higher" part. With rare
exceptions (ie. when I'm taking pictures of something on the surface), I
want to be high. Altitude is safety. Altitude is efficiency. Plus, I do
try to be a good neighbor. Most of us do.

Unfortunately, the national airspace system often works to our disadvantage.
And this effects not just Little Planes, but corporate jet traffic too.
People around here are often surprised to learn just how uneager pilots are
to be flying their jets, departing TEB, at ~2000' here. But higher is hard
to get (for certain winds) because of traffic out of EWR.

Someone traveling from (for example) TEB to LDJ is often kept unpleasantly
low (~1000' or less), again because of larger traffic.

Out in a local "practice area", the ceiling is typically 5000'. Above that,
we're not esp. welcome as that's an arrival corridor for larger traffic.

It may look empty to you, but airspace is actually a 3D rendition of a road
map...and some places are quite densely packed. We often don't have the
freedom an outsider would expect.

It's something to keep in mind, I hope.

- Andrew

[Skylune]

>>by Rachel > Jan 19, 2006 at 04:14 PM


Skylune wrote:
>>>daffy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>

> People who move next to busy airports really have no business
complaining
> about noise, obviously. This does not contradict any of the
criticisms
> of GA, the FAA mission and culture, enforcement of FARs, local control
> over GA airports, etc. that I and others have.

Look, I'm not a big fan of recreational aviation. To be honest, most of
it bores me. I'm just not sure what YOUR issue is with is.

Personally, I've seen people who are deathly jealous of my lifestyle,
salary, looks, hobbies, whatever, and you sound just like them.<<

Self flattery! Cool!

[Skylune]

by "Skylune" > Jan 17, 2006 at 07:35 PM


by Rachel <fakename@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 17, 2006 at 05:34 PM


Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:08:26 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> <qK-dnWvB4Iza5VDeRVn-pg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>::
>
>
>>The OP is just a troll
>
>
> Dismissing the non-pilot citizen's complaint without compassion nor
> regard for its merit will only alienate public empathy for the pilot
> community and the issues it finds unfair.

The problem is, most non-pilots have already made up their minds about
the place of aviation in society. Even if the OP isn't a troll, it's
doubtful anyone will change his mind.<<

If Daffy can somehow convince the a-hole politicians that the offending
airplane noise was a racist attempt by some rich caucasian fliers to
disrupt the ceremony, he or she will get media attention. Maybe Al
Sharpton will then chime in, which would force Phil Boyer to get
involved.
That would be awesome!

Are there any statistics on the racial makeup of persons possessing
private pilot certificates?<<

Damn! I was joking about turning this into a racial issue, but there may
be some traction on the race card after all.

In today's news (refering to the Chalk Airways crash off of Miami last
month),
Motley Rice attorney Marlon Kimpson stated, "I am especially outraged
because so many of the victims in this and other 'tired iron' crashes are
minorities and people of modest means. It is unfortunate that we have a
'trickle down' aviation industry - allowing old planes to trickle down to
those who have no alternatives for better transportation."

Here's the release:

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060120005306&newsLang=en

[Rachel]

Skylune wrote:
>>>by Rachel > Jan 19, 2006 at 04:14 PM
>

> Personally, I've seen people who are deathly jealous of my lifestyle,
> salary, looks, hobbies, whatever, and you sound just like them.<<
>
> Self flattery! Cool!

Hey, like I said. I don't think it's that cool, but the way others
react...I stand by my opinin, which is that people who are jealous of
others try to bring them down in whatever ways possible.

[Skylune]

by Rachel > Jan 20, 2006 at 05:29 PM




Hey, like I said. I don't think it's that cool, but the way others
react...I stand by my opinin, which is that people who are jealous of
others try to bring them down in whatever ways possible.<<

Yeah. Thats true. But for me its not really all that complicated.

I just hate all the noise from the little pleasure planes that have
infected the area where live. It used to be a few, now and then, but now,
when the weather is nice, the stupid little planes circle around creating a
nonstop racket. Its mostly little Cessnas and Pipers. The guy with the
4:55 A.M. Mooney plane was a pleasure last summer. It never used to be
this NOISY around here (10-15 years ago).

Oh well, that's progress I guess, according to the wonderful people at the
FAA....

[Rachel]

Skylune wrote:
> by Rachel > Jan 20, 2006 at 05:29 PM
>

> I just hate all the noise from the little pleasure planes that have

I don't fly for pleasure, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

>The guy with the
> 4:55 A.M. Mooney plane was a pleasure last summer. It never used to be
> this NOISY around here (10-15 years ago).

How do you know his was a pleasure plane? Perhaps he was commuting to
work. Perhaps he was ferrying blood for a blood bank. He coud have
been doing a million IMPORTANT things. General aviation was not put on
this earth to annoy you. Oh, but you're one of those people who can't
see the comparison to private autos and bus lines. My mistake.

Like I said before, I live under one the largest airports in the nation.
Let me tell you, a full DC-10 (hes, they fly those here) makes a LOT
more noise than a 152. Eventually the noise blends in. Apparently you
just like to cause trouble. Welcome to my killfile, you've finally
started to bore me with your drivel.

[Grumman-581]

"Rachel" > wrote in message
...
> General aviation was not put on
> this earth to annoy you.

Perhaps, but it's a rather welcome side effect... <evil-grin>

[Grumman-581]

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> I just hate all the noise from the little pleasure planes that have
> infected the area where live. It used to be a few, now and then, but now,
> when the weather is nice, the stupid little planes circle around creating
a
> nonstop racket. Its mostly little Cessnas and Pipers. The guy with the
> 4:55 A.M. Mooney plane was a pleasure last summer. It never used to be
> this NOISY around here (10-15 years ago).

Well, you could post your lat/long (GPS) coordinates and we could see if we
can avoid your home...

NOTE TO SELF: Need to get that relief tube STC for my plane...

[Morgans]

"Rachel" > wrote

> Welcome to my killfile, you've finally started to bore me with your
drivel.

*chuckle* You're MUCH more patient than me!
--
Jim in NC

[Rachel]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Rachel" > wrote
>
> > Welcome to my killfile, you've finally started to bore me with your
> drivel.
>
> *chuckle* You're MUCH more patient than me!

LOL...no, just not quite as quick!

[Skylune]

>>by "Grumman-581" > Jan 21, 2006 at
07:41 AM


"Rachel" > wrote in message
...
> General aviation was not put on
> this earth to annoy you.

Perhaps, but it's a rather welcome side effect... <evil-grin> <<

And the pleasure fliers can "tell it to the judge." >hearty laugh<

[Skylune]

by "Grumman-581" > Jan 21, 2006 at
07:44 AM


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> I just hate all the noise from the little pleasure planes that have
> infected the area where live. It used to be a few, now and then, but
now,
> when the weather is nice, the stupid little planes circle around
creating
a
> nonstop racket. Its mostly little Cessnas and Pipers. The guy with
the
> 4:55 A.M. Mooney plane was a pleasure last summer. It never used to
be
> this NOISY around here (10-15 years ago).

Well, you could post your lat/long (GPS) coordinates and we could see if
we
can avoid your home...

NOTE TO SELF: Need to get that relief tube STC for my plane...<<

I understand, from a pilot friend, that the Depends brand works quite
well, and would be far cheaper than getting the STC.

OTOH, maybe get the relief tube. Just make sure to descend low (under
500ft) and slow enough (under about 10 kts) during discharge for maximum
effect.

[Grumman-581]

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> I understand, from a pilot friend, that the Depends brand works quite
> well, and would be far cheaper than getting the STC.

There was actually a discussion on this awhile back... Some people prefer
the 1g ziplok bags with moisture absorbant gell pads in them, some prefer
relief tubes, some prefer gatorade bottles...

> OTOH, maybe get the relief tube. Just make sure to descend low (under
> 500ft) and slow enough (under about 10 kts) during discharge for maximum
> effect.

Yeah, I suspect a hovering flight in a helicopter at a low altitude over
your house would definitely give the maximum effect... Probably end up as a
fine mist after being dispersed by the rotor wash though...

[Skylune]

>>Yeah, I suspect a hovering flight in a helicopter at a low altitude over
your house would definitely give the maximum effect... Probably end up as
a
fine mist after being dispersed by the rotor wash though...<<

Oh, only follow that advice when flying a fixed wing aircraft. For
maximum impact. For helos, you should stick with the Depends or the jug
you carry around.

[George Patterson]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> Yeah, I suspect a hovering flight in a helicopter at a low altitude over
> your house would definitely give the maximum effect... Probably end up as a
> fine mist after being dispersed by the rotor wash though...

Get one of the ones with a spray rig and a tank full of liquid fertilizer?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.