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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote:
... I'm not familar with the above group, but here in Seattle we have a group that lives next to KSEA (class B Seattle-Tacoma International) which constantly complains about the noise. Since no one is going to close KSEA to night operations or even consider reducing the number of operations they are out of luck. ... Either way local governments should not pass laws to control airspace. Somethings should be handled at the federal level, others at the state level, and others at the local level. May be more than academic interest that where an airport has air carrier ops, fed law specifically reserves jurisdiction over noise matters to the FAA. Otherwise, it's the thorny legal mess of whether the federal preemption in general trumps, and I believe in general courts won't object to reasonable restrictions. There's local prohibitions against late-night student touch-goes and loud jets after a certain time in a lot of places. Not that I agree, I believe here, to the extent the issue is beyond citizens' selfish perception problems, it may be the prolonged noise footprint rather than mere decibels, compared to now and then in takeoff/landing ops but greater peak db. Fred F. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell" wrote: You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you Municipal ordinances generally prohibit folks from making noise before 7am and after 10pm. Sure they do. Even where such ordinances actually exist and (even more rarely) someone actually tries to enforce them, they really don't reduce noise much. They can't. You might as well try to pass a law ordering everybody to stop breathing on Sundays. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 3/22/04 7:49 AM: wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell" wrote: You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you Municipal ordinances generally prohibit folks from making noise before 7am and after 10pm. Sure they do. Even where such ordinances actually exist and (even more rarely) someone actually tries to enforce them, they really don't reduce noise much. They can't. You might as well try to pass a law ordering everybody to stop breathing on Sundays. I know that on more than one occasion in my younger days I was very definitely persuaded by law enforcement officers to turn my stereo down between the hours of 10PM and 7AM. So I suppose that, at least in my case, the above-mentioned noise ordinances not only existed, but served their purpose quite effectively. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|