Stop the noise

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They
don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
lives.



Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They
just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on
their
lives.



Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.


From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the activity.

I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community is
that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right. Our attitude is
that they need to adapt to us and our activities. This attitude is
perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant. As long as we
continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually lose
the war.

Earl G

"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
link.net...

Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for
a
toy.


From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of
the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
activity.

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
airports that already existed.

I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community
is
that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right.

In lieu of the above, it would be the case that our group is right.
Right/wrong is NOT determined but the volume and shrillness of the tantrum
thrown.


Our attitude is
that they need to adapt to us and our activities.

As above.

This attitude is
perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant.

As above.

As long as we
continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually
lose
the war.

And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats will
not survive.

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:


"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
link.net...

From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of
the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
activity.

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
airports that already existed.

Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.

And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats will
not survive.

Is it your view that everyone else's opinion is a "tantrum"? Just wondering.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:


"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
link.net...

From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members
of
the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary
income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives
of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
activity.

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
airports that already existed.

Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.

Anyone who built even a half-mile from an airport is nuts,

And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats
will
not survive.

Is it your view that everyone else's opinion is a "tantrum"? Just
wondering.

If that's what I'd said, you have a point, but try re-reading what's
written.

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/22/04 4:03 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
airports that already existed.

Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.

Anyone who built even a half-mile from an airport is nuts,

So even a half-mile away is too close? How far away is far enough? You've
already eliminated a goodly portion of the land area of the United States...

And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats
will
not survive.

Is it your view that everyone else's opinion is a "tantrum"? Just
wondering.

If that's what I'd said, you have a point, but try re-reading what's
written.

I read what was written, which is why I posited the question.

In article ,
Philip Sondericker wrote:

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:


"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
link.net...

From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of
the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
activity.

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
airports that already existed.

Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.


The "300 feet above someone's house" is an obvious fabrication, as FARs
specify that aerobatic flight (except under waivers) shall be above
1500 ft AGL.

I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues, but
the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in these
suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's
practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being near
three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for prospective
house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in this
area.

If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N of
the Ft. Devens MOA.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
airports that already existed.

Jeremy Lew wrote:

I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues, but
the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in these
suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's
practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being near
three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for prospective
house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in this
area.

If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N of
the Ft. Devens MOA.

Yes the ironic thing is that the Fort Devens airfield (Moore Army Airfield,
KAYE) would have made a lovely airport, especially for cargo operations, with
excellent adjacent Rail and Freeway connections. The locals made sure this
never happened when the Army Base closed.

So now we have two large runways with X's all over them. (State police use one
of the former runways for high speed driving training).

With Moore field closed, the local airspace is available for a training area.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
airports that already existed.

Here's another example of this exact senerio;

A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.

Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.

Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office. I
called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport"
that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are
pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as
important to the city as HIS grand, new development!

Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or...
maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did
in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads
around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this "little
airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how
well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their
houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New
Town"?

Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
planes" flying over my new house?

Gary Kasten