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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Roger Halstead
wrote: And if you want to see the height of anti aviation fascism, check out http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter229.htm Anyone else seen this garbage? These people have way too much time on their hands. I may be wrong, but it seems like "ol' Bill" tried to get his license once and failed. Now has it in for anything to do with aviation. Course I could just be mis-remembering. That did happen one time when I thought I was wrong, but really was so... never mind. Perhpas you are confusing a fish with the long island looney bird. -- Bob Noel |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... It is your problem if you lie about it, just as you are also lying about my going to the FSDO about the POH. I never did any such thing. You posted up a letter from the FSDO on the subject at rai. Bet you can't show me that post. I don't even remember arguing with you about the subject. It is not something that I think I would care much about. Near as I can tell you are again misrepresenting my views and actions. The POH and icing limitations has been an ongoing debate at rai for some years. I did post a letter about icing limitations, but it was not to prove that the POH was "part of the type certificate," which is what you originally asserted. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely. Then the pilots will lose. We may finally agree on something there. Unfortunately, I don't see what more the pilots can do. The attitude of your previous posts is the opposite of waht is needed. Just giving people the impression that you care about their noise concerns will help. Apparently you are the only person in the whole world that has the impression that I do not care about noise concerns. How you got that impression was through deliberately misrepresenting what I said. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
That's great! It never occurred to me that this whole problem is *because*
Moore AAF was closed down. It's a great suggestion for STN to get the airspace made inaccessible to aerobatics like they want- reopen the airfield, and put a few E-to-the ground instrument approaches in! Seems to me the "No airlines/FedEx at Hanscom" crowd should be all over this, too. "Jessie Carlson" wrote in message ... Jeremy Lew wrote: 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. Yes the ironic thing is that the Fort Devens airfield (Moore Army Airfield, KAYE) would have made a lovely airport, especially for cargo operations, with excellent adjacent Rail and Freeway connections. The locals made sure this never happened when the Army Base closed. So now we have two large runways with X's all over them. (State police use one of the former runways for high speed driving training). With Moore field closed, the local airspace is available for a training area. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Ed Haywood" wrote: "Roger Halstead" wrote in message If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more than what they are aksing. That they have caused great financial harm (pilots having to sell planes to meet expenses) is already an arguing point. This was a hot topic of discussion on the aerobatics e-mail list last fall. I wonder how truly serious AOPA is about this issue. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the fight. They got a lot of angry letters and cancelled memberships before they did anything. To their credit, once they realized how lame they looked, they did take action to correct it. Playing "dueling lawyers" won't have the desired effect. The founder of STN is a Boston lawyer who does all the legal work himself. He has a reputation of using lawsuits to bully others. You can't cost him more than his time, which he already donates willingly. Why not take the matter up with the MA State Bar Assn.? I'm sure that his methods would skirt the limits of ethics. Maybe you can get him disbarred. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|