Stop the noise

"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.

"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.

interesting.......



They assume that flying aerobatics is needless recreation -- as if
recreation is somehow something that we can live without. That assumption is
entirely unfounded. They have built their argument on a rotten foundation.
You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you or
leave the planet.

............or pay you millions of dollars.

People need to learn to be more tolerant of being constantly touched by
others, hearing their noise, putting up with their smell, and seeing them
everywhere. Those who cannot be tolerant will suffer endlessly, no matter
how many lawsuits they file.

well put

What bugs me about this whole thing is that these pilots were
operating within the framework of the FARs. Some of them had to sell
their airplanes to meet legal fees. The acro box was eventually moved.
Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be
enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong".
Their beef is with the FAA. Unfortunately, it looks like these pilots
are going to take it on the chin.


Frank

"airads" wrote in message
om...
Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be
enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong".

On this side of the pond, you have to have your registration on the
underside of your left wing anyway.

D.

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.

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.

Howdy!

In article .net,
Earl Grieda wrote:

"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.

....and the discourse spirals downward...

The assertion about "constant", "repetitive", and "negative effect" on
"thousands" has a screed-like quality to it.

Consider people who procure a house "in the country" and then get fussed in
the spring about the aroma of fields being manured. No, I'm not making this
up.

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.

It's a two way street. I'm looking forward (not) to the Fairwood development
when it gets to the parts on the runway centerline of W00. They seem to
want to put housing directly along it. One hopes the state and/or county
will actually enforce the safety zones around airports that they have devised.
I expect people will bitch and moan about airplane noise.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

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.

It ain't urban.

These folks have gentlemen farmer type places to get away from the noise of
the city on weekends. They are also suing some Harley Drivers (which to me
is something that the police DO need to do more about, but a suit is silly).

What they fail to realize is that someone has to put up with the noise they
create coming and going from their recreational retreat. Someone lived next
to all the places that made noise in manufacturing the materials and goods
that made the homes and things within them. Their recreational retreat is
overall a HUGE pollution issue. They did not NEED to have this retreat, and
they have sullied the landscape with their vehicles and structures. How
ridiculous that they must have a second home! What an attack on mother
earth! etc. etc. etc.



"Ed" wrote in message
. com...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never
find
the silence it craves.

The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us. By
"them", I mean people who would just as soon not have airplanes doing
aerobatics directly over their houses. By that definition, "them" is a
large proportion of the general population. Hell, I fly acro, and I
wouldn't want an acro box directly over my house! How about you?

The bozos at STN are way over the line, and they are using threats of
legal
action to bully others. But we shouldn't dismiss all noise complaints as
whining by people who will never be happy. If you address complaints in a
good faith manner, maybe you avoid letting things get to the point where
flight schools are getting sued. The bottom line is, most acro boxes are
going to need to over remote, unpopulated or lightly populated areas. If
you happen to live and fly in an urban area, expect a long transit to your
practice area. That's the price you pay for the choices you make. I'm
boxed in by Class B at SPG (Albert Whitted at St Pete), and I have to go
out
over the ocean to practice.

Ed wrote:

The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us.

The real problem is that in the last 40 years, it has gradually become possible
to make law by sueing people in civil court. In the '50s, one could be pretty
certain that things would be just fine if one obeyed the laws and regulations.
Now, if some asshole doesn't like your hobby, they can bankrupt you, and you
can't do a damn thing about it. Even if you *do* have the wherewithal to get
the case into court, a single judge can nullify the work of the entire Federal
or State legislative branches which are, according to the various Constitutions
supposed to be deciding these matters.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

A full aerobatic box is 3000 feet x 3000 feet x 3000 feet. Other variations are
possible.
The FAA requires a 1500 foot buffer zone around the perimeter (for jets and
warbirds, this increases to 3000 feet), so you in effect need a 6000 feet x
6000 feet footprint (or 7500 x 7500). Unless you are going to practice
cross-box maneuvers, the width of the box may be decreased.
The floor and visibility requirements are also negotiated, as are
communications and ground observer details.