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
  #21  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:20 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:33:47 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


"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.


I'm hoping that possibly you are all aware of some aspects of this
case that I haven't been exposed to.

The "story" I heard was that there was a local "box" being used for
aerobatics practice, and the neighbors were sick of listening to it.

If this is true, I'm somewhat sympathetic. I would be interested in
knowing the chronological order of the houses/owners and the
establishment/usage of the box in question.

I useta live about 1/4 of a mile away from an official "box", that was
primarily used by one waiver'ed pilot in a 180 hp Great Lakes. Bear in
mind that I've spent the last 20+ years listening to airplanes taking
off and landing 8-10 hours a day.

In the summertime, with the windows open, it was LOUD. Unless you've
been there, I'm afraid that most of you have no idea how annoying it
is. The aerobatics (at least the ones I was exposed to) consisted of
periodic repeated exposure to sounds comparable to a StationAir on
floats at gross weight taking off at WFO, again, and again, and again.

When I got truly sick of it, I was fortunate enuff to be able to call
over to the airport (12 miles away) and tell them to get ahold of the
Chief Pilot (the waiver'ed pilot) of my Pt 135 employer on the radio
and remind him that ****ing off his Director of Maintenance (yours
truly) on a Saturday afternoon/evening was not in his best interests.

What typically followed was an alleged low pass over my roof, and a
little peace and quiet.

TC

Ads
  #22  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:48 AM
Peter Gottlieb
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.


That's a pretty far stretch.

They
don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
lives.


I would imagine that depends on what those effects are. When people live
close
enough to affect each other there are frequently compromises to be made if
everyone is to be reasonably happy.

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.


In speaking to people who really dislike GA planes (even in the BED area) I
have never found this to be the case. Where do you get this from?

And leave the SUV issue out of this. Your statement is screwy anyhow; are
you implying that because someone can't afford a SUV that they hide this by
claiming the SUVs are bad for the environment?


  #23  
Old March 23rd 04, 09:58 AM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 20 Mar 2004 08:08:57 -0800, (airads) wrote:

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.


I wonder if they've considered getting a "junk yard lawyer" and
counter suit for harrasment.

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.

I think in these cases we should not just fight the case but take
agressive counter action "if possible" that would make those
considering similar actions in the future to back up and consider the
consequences.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



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

Frank


  #24  
Old March 23rd 04, 03:35 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
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.

That's a pretty far stretch.


Not really. http://tinyurl.com/3gveu Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, by
Helmut Schoeck




  #25  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:27 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Roger Halstead wrote:

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.


The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org
that is sueing these pilots. You don't have grounds for a countersuit unless this
one is settled in favor of the pilots. After that occurs, they'll disolve the
organization, and you won't have anyone to sue. Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though
they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so).

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.
  #26  
Old March 23rd 04, 10:12 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though
they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so).


According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #27  
Old March 23rd 04, 10:19 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cub Driver wrote:


Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
to do so).


According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.


Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?

- Andrew

  #28  
Old March 24th 04, 12:25 AM
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Cub Driver wrote:


Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
to do so).


According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.


Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?


They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
free.
  #29  
Old March 24th 04, 07:23 AM
VideoGuy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #30  
Old March 24th 04, 11:21 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.


Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?


Evidently so.

I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to
want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill
$400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
 




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 07:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.