Stop the noise

"Roger Halstead" wrote
snipped, airport situation

Man, your city mustve taken lessons from mine, or vice versa. Damn
near carbon copy with their tactics, glad we're not alone. Lets see...
Neighbors fight runway extension for same reason, they dont buy our
argument that we'd be higher when over their house - more of a head
start, etc.
Blatant lies by the neighbors about who was doing what.
Once they were threatened with the equivalent of liens put against
their properties due to their constant mostly fabricated noise complaints
they chilled, for a while.
One of the complainers is making money on the airport now with a
portable bbq business, but I'm sure he's paying nothing in rent.
The city plays games with the airport fund, money that should go into
it somehow shows up in the general fund.
It's the only airport/city in the state that anyone knows about that you
pay a hefty sales tax/use fee when you bring an airplane there and
base it there.
What little money is in the airport fund, the city uses on binoculars,
camcorders, and radios given to the biggest airport opponents. Which
of course they use to further their cause.
When the city asked me to be a mediator with the neighbors I turned
them down until they level the playing field and quit subsidizing
this anti-airport campaign. I still deal with them privately though,
you can't just ignore them and shut them out.
Chris

It certainly did not sound like a troll. Some of his specifics were
nonsense. His general point was not. Burgoyne's web rants might be
overcome, but continuing to dismiss rational and reasonable opponents will
eventually kill aerobatics near most major cities. Deal with it, work
with them, or face extinction.

"Kevin" wrote in message
newsiE9c.118065$_w.1382198@attbi_s53...
John Doe wrote:
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.

(big snip)
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.


Sounds like a troll.

A million dollar damages? C'mon, don't you get it? As long as the
possibility exists that a court may be prepared to award these kinds of
damages for these kinds of reasons, and there are plenty of examples to show
that some will, then there are always going to be people who are going to
'try their luck'. Sign of the times I'm afraid.

Rick.

"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(airads) wrote:

Feb. 24 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday
provided initial support to four Massachusetts pilots - all AOPA
members - facing a lawsuit filed by a few residents. The suit alleges
that the noise signature from the aerobatics performed by the pilots
caused significant harm; they are seeking approximately $1 million in
damages. The pilots are based at various airports, some 20 miles from
the homes of the litigants.

"This is potentially an issue that could affect all pilots engaged in
any type of air commerce - from a Cub to a 747," said AOPA President
Phil Boyer. "We are fully prepared to take this through the federal
system if necessary.



AWWWW, people living in the city hear a lot of noise

First we made it so trains couldn't sound their horns to keep the quiet
and smack

Now we can't fly because the noise from a few airplanes does a MILLION
dollars in damage?

How do you quantify that exactly? I live on the right traffic pattern
of our local (heavily utilized for training) airport and I LOVE to look
up at what is coming over....

Shoot, the locals tried to shut down the medical evac helicopter we fly
out of the University of Michigan a few years ago because of the noise!
MEDICAL EVACUATION to a level one trauma center! #7 Hospital in the
nation..More worried about noise than PEOPLES LIVES!

sigh....suburbanites..

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

Ahm...can you tone down your drivel a tad? Specifically, the personal
attacks. I don't recall having done that to you in the past.

Actually, I thought your post was a personal attack. I certainly took it
that way.


Now, I picked your three arguments and replied to just those because
that's all I wanted to comment on. I have seen those same arguments
used by others before,

Anything untrue about them? All I am saying is that the legal remedies
sought by Stop the Noise are a waste of time and money and likely to produce
nothing that will help solve the problem. If I was considering starting a
Stop the Noise chapter I would sure want to know about that.

I think there are things that can be done to reduce the noise problem but it
appears that the only possible 'solutions' anyone is willing to look at are
those that move the noise somewhere else, like Montana or, preferably, the
far side of the moon. That being the case, I don't see things improving for
a long time.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:43:45 GMT, "Flying Squirrel"
wrote:

It certainly did not sound like a troll. Some of his specifics were
nonsense. His general point was not. Burgoyne's web rants might be
overcome, but continuing to dismiss rational and reasonable opponents will
eventually kill aerobatics near most major cities. Deal with it, work
with them, or face extinction.

You missed the whole point of the reply.

I quoted a number of things we do to try to stay good neighbors,
dealing with them and not dismissing rational complaints. The
original post still appears to me to be either a troll or crank.

I have seen no posts on here that dismiss the problem.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Kevin" wrote in message
newsiE9c.118065$_w.1382198@attbi_s53...
John Doe wrote:
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.

(big snip)
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.


Sounds like a troll.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:43:04 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

wrote in message
.. .
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.

Do you have such a technological solution?

The noise reduction of helicopters has been nothing short of
spectacular. Noise limits on aircraft in Europe have shown that noise
reduction is not only possible, but it can be a way of life. I once
long ago read of an airman who fitted end-plates to the tips of the
propeller on his Bonanza to prove that they improve efficiency and
reduce noise.

With increasing population density, the issue of reducing noise
pollution is only likely to increase.

How much will it cost?

Ummm... Less than a law suit?

Who is going to pay for it?

Those who create the noise?

What about people who are still bothered by the noise,
even if it is not as bad as before?

I would expect a reduction in ambient noise to result in
proportionally less public complaints.

What about legacy aircraft?

They are noisy.

Given the fact that most aerobatic aircraft are equipped with constant
speed propellers, it would be interesting to note the reduction
propeller noise generation during aerobatic maneuvers with the prop
control less than firewalled. Perhaps there are simple, inexpensive,
compromise solutions that could be adopted without significant impact
on performance.

The reality is there is no technological solution. At least not one that is
going to make everybody happy.

The police helicopters nightly patrolling overhead in the '70s were so
loud that they woke the slumber of those who they purported to
protect. Now they are so silent, that they are no longer an issue. I
would call that a technical solution, and I haven't heard the police
department, nor the residents complaining about it. So technical
solutions to aerial noise are not only possible, but a reality.

The reality is that we all have to put up with some noise and that efforts
to displace that problem to others or concentrate the problem on just a few
people are bound to fail.

Clearly, the solution to noise complaints is to reduce the magnitude
of the noise at its source. Better mufflers and sub-sonic blade tips
are the future, in my opinion.

With regard to an aerobatic box, consider that the magnitude of the
noise diminishes with the _square_ of the distance. If the distance
above the ground is doubled, the sound level will be only 1/4 of what
it was previously. How would raising the aerobatic box to a higher
altitude impact its use?

Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.

We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
guessed it, my house.

I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
"violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
"violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.

So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
the same homes don't get pummeled forever.

Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
RANGE!!!

Good Luck,
Mike


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Sounds like Schaumburg. The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense. Far as I know the
procedures are voluntary.

"Mike Spera" wrote in message
...
Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.

We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
guessed it, my house.

I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
"violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
"violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.

So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
the same homes don't get pummeled forever.

Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
RANGE!!!

Good Luck,
Mike



__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"C J Campbell" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

Ahm...can you tone down your drivel a tad? Specifically, the personal
attacks. I don't recall having done that to you in the past.

Actually, I thought your post was a personal attack. I certainly took it
that way.

It wasn't. It contained a different point of view, but that's hardly a
personal attack. Your posting contained insults, and it was clearly a
personal attack.

Anyway. I dislike continuing flame wars, if you'd like to discuss this
further, please drop me an email.

Happy flying,

-jav

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I
can
assue you that all you will do is elimninate small GA.

It may just be my reading comprehension, but to me it sounded a
lot like Mr Campbell said that we need to compromise, rather than
appease and follow the STN movement. He said that the movement
is making things worse for some people by concentrating the noise
in a single area, and this approach wasn't right...instead of fighting
the two opposing sides, people should compromise to come up with
a new approach.

He stated that pilots can do what they like, but most are painfully
aware of the noise issues and would like to do what they can to
minimise it in a single area...but are forced into one of these areas
by the STN thing.

But then that's the way I read it.

Paul