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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Right/wrong is NOT determined but the volume and shrillness of the tantrum thrown. Yes, and that applies both ways. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
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. In the above case aerobatics were only performed during daylight hours. To my line of thinking people have a right to live in an area free of excessive noise. The equestion becomes what's excessive? 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. But despite the fact that they choose to live next to a major airport they feel they have the right to a 'quite' home. How many times have peopel complained about noise only to discover that the noise was from a 747 crossing overhead at 5,000ft. So for me the question is does a compromise exist? Often it doesn't because the anti-noise groups don't want quiet they what everyone else gone But we do not have all the facts of the case, maybe pilots are making excessive noise. 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|