Stop the noise

"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

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I
can
assure 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,

It is your reading comprehension. Go back and read it again, as Campbell
was postibng that it is too late for compromise. Without compromise all
that is left is a war you can't win. After my post Campbell saw the light
and adopted a conciliatory tone.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote
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.

...and if the other side says there is NO compromise, which many of them
do, then what? I've dealt personally with these types, the ones that loved
9/11 because we couldnt fly. The ones that say no improvement to
any traffic pattern is enough, only eliminating the airport and the
airplanes
will do, and glad to see a fatal accident take another airplane/pilot out of
the
equation - I'm not exagerating. Take a look again at
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
this is the kind of nutcases we're talking about here. The guy who puts
this craphole website together hates everything and everybody: pilots,
controllers, politicians, aircraft manufacturers, and even some of his
anti-aviation counterparts! These are the real problem, a lunatic
fringe. Most of the neighbors I've dealt with are not like this, they're
pretty hot at first, but not off the deep end like STN and this other
clown. Like I said in a previous post, there is no dealing with some
people, try as you may.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote
He said that the movement is making things worse for some people by
concentrating the noise...

I've seen it here, the politically connected (or they have something the
city wants) almosts moves the downwind beyond glide range just to
avoid a couple homes, and I do mean a couple - just to put us all over
a crowded subdivision.

Chris

"John Doe" wrote
Because if you *don't*, you're giving the extremists and rabid
anti-aviation people all the ammo they need.

It doesn't matter, they have all the ammo they need, hopefully they'll
just do the honorable thing and turn the gun around on themselves.
There is no appeasing some of these, maybe you're not one of those,
but you know they exist. Just like on the pilot side, there are the
ones hellbent on ruining it for the rest of us. I know the type, they'd
also try to help in the airport survival but then they'd go out and
intentionally go **** someone off. It'd always be hard to explain
to the neighbors and only make matters worse - I'm not denying
they exist, and what that one pilot did to you after you 'asked' him
to limit his activities over your house, I wouldnt defend.

If you managed to **** me off, a person who served on a flight crew in
the service of this country and formerly gung-ho supporter, even once
proudly
wearing a Pratt and Whitney round motor belt buckle, imagine how livid
others
in the general public are becoming.

I gotta say something here, as this is the second time you've mentioned
your previous somewhat pro-aviation feelings, and often I've seen many
in the anti-aviation groups say the same thing - how they used to be this
or that. Some people are prone to bitching. Some people are prone to
not letting things get to them as much. Some like to jump into fights,
make a lot of noise, and feel self-important for being in a militant
anti-something cause. I'm speaking more of some of your counterparts
than you, and after your last post it sounds like you might not come
back. But, to me anyway, you could be the most decorated pilot there
ever was, but if you're a whackjob, you're a whackjob, regardless of
what previous aviation manufacturer flag you waived. If you've got
something constructive, I dont care if you've never stepped foot in
an airplane if it's something that can help the situation.

Reach out. Talk to us. Work with us. The so-called efforts to accomodate
the
public that you cite haven't been applied to here at all. It's a joke,
right?

Maybe it's a joke there, doesnt mean it is everywhere else. Isn't here.
It's been a few times the city tried to shovel something through, getting
the public on it's side, when it was many of those people who'd get
screwed later with more noise. Example: a tower for our uncontrolled
field. You'd think that users who want the airport to survive would jump
all over this as it'd make it even harder to do away with the airport.
You'd
think the neighbors would hate it as it'd guarantee the long term survival
of
the airport. The city had the neighbors begging for the tower when they
were done with them. The city said 'that way we can keep a closer eye
on all these (supposed) violaters', 'we can take back control of the sky
over your house' (they got tired of the FAA telling them they have no
jurisdiction above the ground, nevermind this'd be an FAA regulated
contract tower). What they didnt mention was little things like PAYING
FOR IT. Since they always take from the airport fund, and love to
show how broke it is all the time, how would they continue to fund
the tower and it's employees. Can you say 'more airport revenue needed'
and how's that done? More tenants, more fuel sales, charter service, maybe
even airline service - eventually the thing the neighbors fought the
hardest,
a longer runway! They also failed to mention that often towers do what
they need for traffic, as in not follow some voluntary noise abatement plan
if safety or traffic warrant. Like a right hand pattern, or longer upwind
or downwind, etc etc. Sometimes it's just a matter of education, and in the
end, everyone was against the tower and the city dropped the issue.
So the neighbors won, but they didnt even know what the fight was. Not
one of them pointed out those facts above, it was all users/pilots. You
could say it was self-serving, but the implications of the tower would
hurt them more than it'd hurt me.
Just because some haven't reached out, talked, and worked with you,
dont generalize. It's a two way street.

In case you don't get my drift, I've had more than enough, I've patiently
tolerated more than enough and I've been radicalized.

Well, there you have it, radicalized - just like I said before, a militant
anti-something cause, this one aviation. Usually these types are not
new to their anti-something leanings. They usually just add to the
problem and offer little in the way of solutions. Do me a favor and
don't parade your kids around for your cause, holding the signs YOU
made and YOU believe in. Have all the free speech you want, just
dont prostitute out your kids - they may not agree with you when, and
if, you let them have an opinion of their own.
I don't know about some of you, but I'd feel pretty lousy about myself
being 'radicalized' into any cause - short of kill or be killed, that's a
cause worth fighting for. This one though is being fought by a small
vocal inflammatory minority that are getting 'kookier' by the day and
could be in danger of alienating themselves out of any logical person's
thoughts or feelings.

Too long as usual,
Chris

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
news
"Tarver Engineering" wrote
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.

..and if the other side says there is NO compromise, which many of them
do, then what?

Then when the issue winds up in civil Court that fact will injure their
case.

I've dealt personally with these types, the ones that loved
9/11 because we couldnt fly. The ones that say no improvement to
any traffic pattern is enough, only eliminating the airport and the
airplanes
will do, and glad to see a fatal accident take another airplane/pilot out
of the
equation - I'm not exagerating. Take a look again at
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
this is the kind of nutcases we're talking about here.

The original poster seems a rational man being harrassed by an individual
pilot for the most part, but I agree that their are nutcases attacked to the
noise issue.

The guy who puts
this craphole website together hates everything and everybody: pilots,
controllers, politicians, aircraft manufacturers, and even some of his
anti-aviation counterparts! These are the real problem, a lunatic
fringe. Most of the neighbors I've dealt with are not like this, they're
pretty hot at first, but not off the deep end like STN and this other
clown. Like I said in a previous post, there is no dealing with some
people, try as you may.

Mullachy is catching on.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote
He said that the movement is making things worse for some people by
concentrating the noise...

I've seen it here, the politically connected (or they have something the
city wants) almosts moves the downwind beyond glide range just to
avoid a couple homes, and I do mean a couple - just to put us all over
a crowded subdivision.

That is a bad idea.

I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South
of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres.

I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development
that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based
here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student
activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere
for their shiny new homestead.

A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any
problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up
until their tax base is bigger than our tax base.

Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money.

BillC85


"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message
...

"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

BillC85 wrote:
I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South
of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres.

I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development
that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based
here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student
activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere
for their shiny new homestead.

A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any
problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up
until their tax base is bigger than our tax base.

Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money.

BillC85


"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message
...

"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





Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands".

Kevin wrote in message news:0E3Fc.10405$XM6.5129@attbi_s53...

VideoGuy wrote:
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.

This sounds like a St Louis area airport. I'm trying to figure out which
one -- St. Charles Muni? That airport is vulnerable, alas. It's privately
owned, and the owner has refused to accept state or federal funds to improve
the runway/taxiways because he wants to be free to sell it.

Meanwhile, with the Page Ave. extension open, there's this nice new
housing development under right base for 16, Creve Coeur. We figure
it's only a matter of time before the noise complaints start, and
since it's also under the approach/departure path for Lambert Field,
we don't expect the complaints about the small airport to be limited
to the planes which are actually *operating* from the small airport.
Never restricted the Noise Police on the ridge south of Spirit. At
one point the airport had a web page showing complaints and indicating
by radar/Tower records what type of plane elicited the complaint.
Many of the complaints were traced to traffic operating out of STL
at 7k or above.

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

No bet. Why bet on a certainty?

Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands".

Alas, Kevin, it's worse than you know. They can *redefine* the flood
plain as being "no longer flood plain" if it's behind a levee taller
than the 500 yr mark. But the previous flood made clear that the
benchmarks have changed because of culvertization and levee building.
So now there are billions of dollars of business and residential developments
in flood plains around St. Louis, without flood insurance (since it's
not a flood plain any more, they don't need it, right?). When a levee-
topping flood or a levee breach occurs, wanna bet they'll swallow hard
and say "well, I knew where I was building". Nah, they'll all come
squawking to Uncle Sugar and pick our pockets.

Cheers,
Sydney