The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should work
out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
sensitive area to practice over. This is starting to sound like an NRA vs.
gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad because
of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not possible.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"John Doe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"

wrote:

I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being
threatened
in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously
reference).
Time to take the
fight back to them.

Then you shall have one, Chris.


This is precisely the problem.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am an American homeowner who is
considering
establishing a Stop-the-Noise chapter with my local community.

I have always had a live-and-let-live attitude towards aviation. More than
that, I have always enjoyed watching it. I am an ex-Air Force zoomie.

The issue is that flying "legally" does not make flying in a certain
manner
"right". One can fly with a bad attitude, perhaps with callous disregard
for other pilots in the sky and those on the ground, comply with the
letter
of the FARs and yet be in the wrong. How about the guy that cuts in front
of
you on a "short final", forcing a go around? Life is full of situations
where one's conduct or morals are wrong, yet that person is not
technically
breaking any laws.

I have observed and even beeen personally victimized by pilots choosing to
fly inverted over my home at altitudes less than 1,000' AGL, pilots diving
at
my neighbor's horse pasture in a Pitts in an apparent effort to "run" the
animals (and once costing them $500 dollars in vet bills after an animal
tangled in a fence, badly cutting itself).

There are those few pilots that treat community noise abatement procedures
as a personal affront or insult so they full-atttack the prop and mash in
the throttle over subdivisions. Yes, perfectly legal in most cases. The
PIC
is responsible for safe takeoff procedures; who would question someone's
motives?

You know who you are.

I have a busy life and demanding career. I have never wanted to involve
myself in a ****ing contest with the local aviation community. I have bent
over backwards to aviod lodging complaints with the local FSDO. Instead, I
have recorded and reported instances of flagrant lawbreaking and
irresponsible conduct by aerobatic pilots to AOPA and EAA, simply asking
that efforts be made to unofficially contact these individuals and ask
them
to respect the laws and the public.
Yet I've never received the courtesy of a response from either
organization.
That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a
gentlemanly manner.

Like anyone else, I bought my house with the expectation that I could
freely
excercise my constitutional right to peaceably use my property. I
recognize
that this is the 21st century, noise happens, and I don't have an issue
with
95% of general aviation aircraft or their pilots. Aerobatics practice
boxes
don't appear on the terminal or sectional maps, nor does the FAA or flying
club have to notify the public about same. That's wrong.

I also have no sympathy for someone moving next to an airport
then complaining about the noise.

As I said, noise happens. But everyone has a limit. How many hours of
aerobatics in some of the loudest light aircraft on the planet should a
person on the ground have to tolerate? An hour every day? Ten hours of
almost incessant window-rattling every nice weekend? Let's establish a
consensus.. Where's the dividing line between a whining, thin-skinned
psycho
complainer and someone with a legitimate gripe?

Does anyone here have a neighbor with an incessantly-barking dog? How
about
their kids parked in the drive next door with a 1,000-watt stereo in a
Honda? When do the normal intrusions of a modern society cross the line?

The line is definitely crossed when the neighbor gets a second, and larger
barking dog and when their kids amp it up in response to your polite
complaints.

So that's the way it is. When a single high-performance aircraft can
rattle
windows over a 25 square mile area, day in and out, and the pilots refuse
to
consider any sort of mitigation, or even step it up in response to a
request
for a dialogue. Why should they? They're flying "legal".

That's when organizations like Stop-the-Noise happen and grow. Ordinary
people with legitimate gripes that are being ignored and dismissed.
Regrettably, they will attract their share of obscessive anti-aviation
kooks, but it's important to note why outfits like STN have happened. --
Because of the legitimate reasons that I describe above.

I enjoy running my tricked-out 1968 Chevelle SS-396. I've had it since I
was
22 years old and lost my driver's license in those days driving it. It
shouldn't be my neighbor's problem that it costs me $25 bucks in gas to go
to the nearest oval track on a nice weekend instead of opening the headers
and running it every night by their homes. The same standards of
cooperation
and sensibility should apply to the avocation of aerobatic flight, as
well.

Pilots are an elite fraternity, they should be better citizens than a punk
with a thousand-watt stereo in his car.

This is an open plea to the aviation community to ignore the kooks and
accept responsibility concerning the over-the-top impact that some of
their
activities have on the general public. There are many that don't believe
that a constructive dialogue is possible. The only alternative is going to
be escalating tension, complaints and even litigation as has already
occurred. I don't want that, but our community may have no choice but to
follow that example. It is *not* true that members of STN have refused to
negotiate or work with the aviation community. My neighbors and I, as I
described, have bent over backwards trying to seek a mutually-acceptable
resolution to the local situation. The next move needs to be on the part
of
the EAA, IAC and aerobatic pilots. I have seen no willingness *whatsoever*
to accept limitations such as time of day or hours of flight per day or to
voluntarily avoid aerobatic practice over residences where the aged, sick,
or infirm might reside. How about the guy that sleeps days and works
graveyard shift at the fire department? Does he merit some sort of
consideration? The IAC and EAA refuse to even acnowledge that there is a
growing problem on both sides of the issue and the FAA is stuck in the
middle.

Time for a reality check.

That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
community
and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to
be
regrettably clear.

Thank you for reading this.