Stop the noise

"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.

Here is the deal, Mr. Doe.

FAA Designees got caught lieing about noise and so EPA used Registered
Professional engineers to prove it in Courts; it is why there is an SFAR36.
If you want to do something about noise in the community, EPA are the ones
with all the leverage.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:49:26 -0500, Jessie Carlson
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

It sounds like a jurisdictional issue to me. I doubt the local court
has the right to countermand the FAA's decisions.

You don't understand. This is Massachusetts. Courts in this very
Liberal state
can do whatever they want, and they aren't accountable to anybody or
anything.

If that is the line the defense attorney is spewing, it's time to find
another more competent one.

Yes, eventually a federal district court or appellate court might hear
the case.
But that will be way down the line, after much direct and collateral
economic
damage is done. And that's what the plaintiffs want.

If a suit is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction solely to harass
the plaintiffs, it could be viewed as abuse of process. The law cuts
both ways.

Right. You have to sue in a court that has power to enforce its ruling.
For instance, if I want to file a small claims action against you, I must do
it in your home (or business) location. That's because the court there can
ask the local police to serve you or to physically arrest you if it turns
criminal.

So, who is it that is being sued? The pilot making the noise? The FAA for
not enforcing its own regs? The local police? The plane's owner? The FBO?
Airport? The complainer should get a really good attorney. And take his
wallet alone.

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"


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.

The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control the
airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that
and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed.

The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as you
have to enjoy yours.

The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably Constitutionally
protected freedom of expression.

Efforts to legislate or sue aerobatics out of existence are probably a
fruitless waste of time and money that will not solve the problem of
aircraft noise and probably sour relations between property owners and
pilots even further. The inability to come to a judicial or legislative
solution will probably result in violence on both sides. That is the path
which is regrettably clear. I think that we all would like to prevent that,
so perhaps a different approach is needed.

The reality is also that pilots are painfully aware of noise problems and
most of us would like to do almost anything to avoid them. We are homeowners
and property owners, too, you know, and a disproportionately large number of
us do live near airports.

You might start asking why we have aerobatics boxes in the first place.
After all, why should every aerobatics pilot in the area be forced to
practice over your house? Why is the problem concentrated there? Maybe what
we need to do is to stop being so restrictive about where people practice
aerobatics -- spread the problem around so that it is not excessively
annoying to anyone. Unfortunately, the effect of organizations like Stop the
Noise has been to concentrate the noise still further, making the lives of
people who live in these areas even more unbearable than it was before. Stop
the Noise and organizations like it are definitely a big part of the
problem. They created this problem in the first place and are making it
worse every day. You might want to think about that before starting your own
chapter of Stop the Noise.

"C J Campbell" writes:

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"


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.

The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control the
airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that
and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed.

The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as you
have to enjoy yours.

The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably Constitutionally
protected freedom of expression.

(...)

You know, I always wonder how much damage we as pilots are doing to
ourselves by brandishing arguments like that.

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

-jav

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"


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.

The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control
the
airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on
that
and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed.

The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as
you
have to enjoy yours.

The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably
Constitutionally
protected freedom of expression.

(...)

You know, I always wonder how much damage we as pilots are doing to
ourselves by brandishing arguments like that.

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to fight
a battle you can only lose.

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.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US
WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
fight
a battle you can only lose.

Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

If you had read the whole post, you would have noticed that I did not excuse
the Pitts pilot or anybody else. I said that noise was a problem, but that
organizations like Stop the Noise actually make the problem worse rather
than better. What I said was that we need a whole new approach to the way we
are dealing with noise issues. What is being done now is obviously not
working and is probably making the problem worse.

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

"Mike Noel" wrote in message
...
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.


You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely. Neither
is it likely that pilots will find a less sensitive area to practice over.
If you think you know of such an area the pilots would certainly be
interested in knowing about it. I am sure that whoever lives in the less
sensitive area will greatly appreciate your efforts, too.

The real problem lies in concentrating all this activity in a small area in
the first place -- probably at the insistence of those affected by noise.
Concentrating it still further is unlikely to improve the situation.

A better approach might be to get rid of aerobatic boxes entirely and let
pilots practice where they want. That would spread the noise out over a
larger area and be less objectionable over all.

No one is saying that there should be no control whatsoever. What many of us
are saying is that the controls we have in place are at best ineffective and
at worst actually make the problem worse. Since you seem to think that
sensible controls are possible, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten
the rest of us as to what those sensible controls might be. Then we can have
a sensible debate about whether those sensible controls are really as
sensible as you think they are.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:35:10 GMT, John Doe
wrote:

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.

Oh, you must be referring to the likes of Lt. Conl. Parker:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

This USAF pilot splattered a Cessna 172 and its ATP pilot over 4 acres
of golf course, and got a reprimand instead of jail time.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:06:08 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control the
airspace above your property.

The reality is, that the solution lies in a technological approach to
aircraft noise reduction.