A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stop the noise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 20th 04, 05:08 PM
airads
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stop the noise

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.



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-108x.html

Frank
  #2  
Old March 21st 04, 07:00 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf blowers,
boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself. The
world in those times was very inefficient. A return to the food production
and manufacturing processes of those days would flood the earth with
pollution and produce only a tiny fraction of vital goods and services.
Billions would die.

There may have been a time when anti-social types could live as hermits in
remote mountain areas and never have to come into contact with another human
for the rest of their lives. That time is over.

You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
the silence it craves.

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.

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.


  #3  
Old March 21st 04, 07:18 PM
Paul Folbrecht
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nice rant, CJ. I agree with everything but the smell part.

(Seems I've butted heads with the Noise Police with almost every major
interest I've had in life: R/C planes, motocross, now GA. I like things
with noisy engines, darn it! I'm a guy!)


C J Campbell wrote:
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.

We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf blowers,
boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself. The
world in those times was very inefficient. A return to the food production
and manufacturing processes of those days would flood the earth with
pollution and produce only a tiny fraction of vital goods and services.
Billions would die.

There may have been a time when anti-social types could live as hermits in
remote mountain areas and never have to come into contact with another human
for the rest of their lives. That time is over.

You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
the silence it craves.

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.

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.


  #4  
Old March 21st 04, 11:44 PM
Ed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #5  
Old March 22nd 04, 05:33 AM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #6  
Old March 22nd 04, 06:00 AM
Earl Grieda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #7  
Old March 22nd 04, 06:41 AM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.




  #8  
Old March 22nd 04, 06:46 AM
Ed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually the guy who started STN is a wealthy lawyer.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

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.



  #10  
Old March 22nd 04, 09:55 AM
David Cartwright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed" wrote in message
. com...
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?


One would assume that the aviation authorities would also prefer people not
to be doing aerobatics over someone's house, given the potential
consequences in the event of an engine or other failure.

D.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stop the noise airads Aerobatics 131 July 2nd 04 01:28 PM
Plasma Reduces Jet Noise (Turbines?) sanman Home Built 1 June 27th 04 12:45 AM
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons Curtl33 General Aviation 7 January 10th 04 12:35 AM
Noise Nazis at it Again! Orval Fairbairn Home Built 13 December 9th 03 11:06 PM
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! Bill Mulcahy General Aviation 3 October 1st 03 05:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.