'They want to ban recreational flying...'

I have not read more ignorant, self-important, illogical and just plain
dimwitted crap anywhere else on the internet, than there is on this site. I
just don't even know where to begin.

Be sure to drop these people a note and let them know exactly what you think
of them.

http://www.stopthenoise.org/

July 02, 2003
Shirley, MA

Stop the Noise still battles for quieter skies
First of three parts
By Nathan Jones

REGION -- The sound of small airplanes performing various aerobatic
feats over the skies of this area would give way to peace and quiet if
it were up to Townsend native Bill Burgoyne and his group of like-minded
area residents.

This group not only feels that such activities are dangerous, but it
also thinks they create so much noise that it inhibits residents'
freedom to enjoy their own property.

Burgoyne, a co-founder of the group Stop the Noise, discussed during a
recent interview the problems group members think the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) isn't addressing. Formed in 2000 by area residents
to regain the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their property, Stop the
Noise is now an incorporated not-for-profit organization.

Stop the Noise mission is to ask for at least prohibition on
recreational flying in this area, and, from a longer range perspective,
seek to ban recreational flying entirely. Meanwhile, Plane Sense, a
group recently started by some Groton residents, seeks to compromise
with pilots via measures such as limiting the times or days of the week
during which they can fly.

Burgoyne explained that one critical factor makes the Nashoba Valley a
prime location for airplane aerobatic activities. It is the area's
proximity between the Nashua Municipal Airport and Hanscom Air Force
Base, coupled with the closure of the Moore Airfield at the former Fort
Devens, he said.

All this has created an environment that is simply irresistible to
sport and experimental pilots who fly solely with recreational
interests, Burgoyne said. Exacerbating the problem is the FAA, he said,
which is refusing to enforce its own regulations that his group feels
prohibit such activities in the area.

The efforts of Stop the Noise come at a time when things may be about
to get worse. "Most people don't even know what's coming," he said,
explaining his belief that there is a strong lobby on pilots' behalf
which might ease barriers to becoming a pilot at the expense of safety.
The situation would simultaneously increase air traffic and noise
pollution, he said.

The lobbying effort, Burgoyne said, is spearheaded by the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which may officially represent
pilots, but given what pilots purchase, also represents the aircraft
manufacturers. Burgoyne added that the association is now hoping to make
becoming a pilot of a personal aircraft "as easy as learning to drive a
boat or motorcycle."

Then, Burgoyne continued, are the regulations which the FAA is not
enforcing, namely height restrictions, airway limitations and sight
restrictions that apply to aerobatic flying, not to mention a
disagreement Stop the Noise has with FAA over a definition included in a
regulation.

The area crosses a federal airway, which means there is technically not
supposed any aerobatic flying within four nautical miles of its
boundaries, he said. Further, planes are not supposed to be flying lower
than 1,500 feet or higher than 4,000 feet. This problem is complicated
by the fact that many such planes have only barometric altimeters, which
don't respond to hill elevations, causing the plan to dip below the
1,500-foot minimum, he said.

Lastly, Burgoyne attested to having seen planes performing aerobatic
maneuvers in night or overcast conditions when visibility was clearly
less than the required three miles. He also noted that such flying is
further prohibited because aerobatics are not permissible in a
"congested area," though the FAA has been reluctant to define that term.

Furthering the problem even more, Burgoyne said, is the technical
limitations on the planes themselves, and differing requirements placed
on them that make it harder to identify them and their pilots. Such
problems unique to small aircraft include small fuel tanks, which force
these Nashua- and Hanscom-based planes to stay relatively close to home,
and over local skies, he said.

As far as regulations go, Burgoyne noted that the planes are difficult
to identify because their registration numbers are substantially smaller
than those on standard aircraft. Also, such planes do not have
transponders, which means they show up as blips on the FAA's radar
system, but not as anything more than that, he said. Transponders would
allow a plane's identification to be known from anywhere, as soon as it
popped up on the radar screen.

An FAA spokesman said the agency has investigated all Stop the Noise's
complaints and have found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of
pilots.

This sounds like the very same gent who was frothing at the mouth in a
post to a message board, quoted here yesterday. It's a pity the
newspaper reporter made him sound so sane. (Perhaps that's why there
were so few direct quotes in the article.)

It's really a very effective piece. Anyone responding to it ought to
take the high ground.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...
I have not read more ignorant, self-important, illogical and just plain
dimwitted crap anywhere else on the internet, than there is on this site.
I
just don't even know where to begin.

One place to begin is to notice that the article's reference to the group's
goal to "ban recreational flying entirely" is more extreme than what the
group's web site says. (You don't say where the article appeared.)

Another good place to begin--as in any conflict--is to recognize the extent
to which the other side has a valid point. In fact, many pilots are as
contemptuously dismissive of noise complaints as are sterotypical teenagers
blasting loud musice without regard for their neighbors.

In other walks of life, we take for granted that the right to engage in
noisy recreation must be balanced against others' right to peace and quiet.
The same should be true of flying.

The folks in Groton, whom the article mentions, are not examples of people
who moved next door to a runway and then started complaining. On the
contrary, they're many miles from the nearest airport. But they're right in
the middle of the practice area used by busy nearby flight schools, so
there's constant maneuvering and aerobatics taking place overhead.

Unfortunately, there are some people on the ground who simply don't care
about a pilot's right to fly. Similarly, there are some people in the air
who just don't care about their neighbors' right to peace and quiet. Pilots
who are oblivious to their noise just because the law currently allows them
to be are inviting changes in the law.

If indeed people who live under a practice area are subjected to constant
airplane noise levels in excess of what would be considered tolerable if it
came from other sources, then some sort of compromise is needed to alleviate
the problem.

--Gary

A very well thought-out post Gary. I live right by my airport which happens
to be one of the busiest in NY. My immediate neighborhood is under the final
approach of the only ILS-equipped runway. My neighbors have formed one of
the largest and most effective civil associations in the area named after
my street. I realize more than most that many of these folks have a point
and should not be disregarded entirely. I've made it a point to keep a low
profile (being a new neighbor and all) and I've neither submitted a noise
complaint nor openly boast that I'm a pilot and aircraft owner to my
neighbors.

That being said, I would find it very hard to defend the airport when a
business jet takes off at full power over my neighborhood at 1 AM. With
clear skies, no wind, posted noise abatement procedures to use another
runway when able and to make a turn to avoid the noise-sensitive
neighborhood area, I gotta tell ya, even I get quite annoyed! Not so much
that it wakes my wife and son up sometimes but that it makes us pilots and
aircraft owners look bad. I am not looking forward to the day when people
start finding out that I am a pilot (read: AOPA sticker on my car) and get
confronted with a misguided complaint. Thank God many people I talked to did
not mind the noise as much as others.

To echo your point Gary, you are absolutely right. We all live in the same
atmosphere (some, like me, closer to them than others) and some of us need
to stop being so self-riteous and inconsiderate as pilots and consider
compromise with the sane neighbors. Otherwise, we'll make it easy for other
people and eventually the politicians to sympathize with their cause and get
blind-sided by the adoption irrational anti-GA laws. This concern became
very real the other day when I received a newsletter from my town supervisor
where he was touting how much he was against anything to do with airport
expansion.

Marco



"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message ...
[snip]

Unfortunately, there are some people on the ground who simply don't care
about a pilot's right to fly. Similarly, there are some people in the air
who just don't care about their neighbors' right to peace and quiet.
Pilots
who are oblivious to their noise just because the law currently allows
them
to be are inviting changes in the law.

If indeed people who live under a practice area are subjected to constant
airplane noise levels in excess of what would be considered tolerable if
it
came from other sources, then some sort of compromise is needed to
alleviate
the problem.

--Gary





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to ask
the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"

Nashville, TN's airport was out in the boonies 30 years ago. Since then the
city has encompassed it and now the airport authority has to buy home owners
new storm windows every so often......doesn't make much sense to me.

Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask
the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"

Nashville, TN's airport was out in the boonies 30 years ago. Since then
the
city has encompassed it and now the airport authority has to buy home
owners
new storm windows every so often......doesn't make much sense to me.

Simple solution: move the airport baseball team to the other side of the
field!

"Jeff Franks" wrote in message
...
Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask
the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"

IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut
down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with
respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're there
first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who move
in later.

Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being
unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However,
most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are
aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's
much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with the
neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns.

Pete

Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask
the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"

IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut
down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with
respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're
there
first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who
move
in later.

Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being
unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However,
most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are
aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's
much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with
the
neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns.


Well, that is of course a good point, but the major problem with this group
is that it makes very little mention of anyone living next to or near an
actual airport. Rather, they wish to assert their property rights for the
homes they own, all the way to the airspace above them (which is of course a
ridiculous proposition). They want to ban 'recreational' flying in any way,
shape or form over private property, in favor of pilots purchasing and
reserving plots of deserted land to fly over. They in fact state directly
that this is not a grievance against any airport, but rather against all
recreational flight activities, such as practice, sightseeing or any kind of
fun. They go on to refer to such activities: "These activities can in no way
be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are performed solely
for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to those on the
ground."

Here is the particuar excerpt that I have the biggest problem with:
"Our goal is to remove the aerobatic and recreational flyers from the skies
over our private property. This will be achieved by the assertion of
property rights of the owners of the land and airspace through which these
recreational aircraft fly, enforcement of federal, state and local
environmental and public health laws, and by identifying and publishing the
names and contact information for the organizations and individuals
responsible for this abusive behavior.

We believe that if there is to be a recreational flying community, then it
must obtain at its own expense areas large enough to accommodate their waste
noise without spilling over to adjacent properties in excess of the local
regulatory limits. At present, in most communities, the limit is 10 decibels
above background ambient levels. This is no different from requiring that
the local rod and gun club secure and maintain an area for their activities
that will ensure abutters that they will not be the recipients of waste
noise or stray rounds.

We are not attempting to halt expansion at any particular airport or at
airports in general. We are concerned about where the recreational aircraft
go to practice, sightsee or to just mark time. None of these activities is
possible without a subsidy from the property owners on the ground who must
involuntarily absorb the waste noise from these activities. These activities
can in no way be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are
performed solely for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to
those on the ground."

This is nothing but self-important tripe, and honestly, it is just plain
un-American.

Oh, I agree completely that we should do everything we can to "be a good
neighbor". Right or wrong, its stupid to rub our "right" to fly in Joe
Public's face. I just don't like the people who wanna make their own bed
and not sleep in it. The reason they bought that $200,000 house for
$120,000 is because its 2 miles off the end of a runway! (pure example
here).

Pet peeves aside, my dad built and owns a very nice grass strip airport here
in TN. He has worked his butt off to make it what it is and he built it in
the middle of nowhere. As the area has grown up around him (not bad yet),
he does all he can to make friendly with anyone and everyone around his
property. He's become the PR king! Invites all the neighbors to the
fly-ins, cookouts, makes his own approaches so that it doesn't cross over
certain houses, etc. He's even posted signs on the roads near his runway
that "alert" the passersby that there is an airport there. Hopefully it
will keep the zoning boards off of him. We'll see......

I agree with you 100% Pete. As with any relationship between two entities,
there is always a give-and-take. However, as part of that, sometimes one
side takes more than the other creating a situation of "give an inch and
they take a mile." It's all part of the game I guess.

Marco


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Franks" wrote in message
...
Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask
the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?

IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut
down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with
respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're
there
first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who
move
in later.

Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being
unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However,
most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are
aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's
much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with
the
neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns.

Pete





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com