Why bother about light aircraft noise.

G Faris, your points are well taken, my compliments... Just a few
comments in no particular order..
As far as those folks living directly off the end of the runway, there
is nothing I can do about them or their noise complaints... I have to
take off and gain altitude and that requires power, which is noise... I
can only hope that AOPA and the FAA can continue to to point out to the
judges that they are required to judge the law as written, not make
social policy... Regardless of ones political beliefs, the current
administration in Washington also echoes that requirement, which I
suspect has helped GA in these battles, though I have no way to
quantify the effect...

I live in a rural township a quarter mile from the road and from the
nearest neighbor (by choice and by the expenditure of many hundreds of
thousands of dollars)... I do not find the aircraft going overhead (13
miles from a jet port and right under an airway intersection ) to be
objectionable, YMMV... The farmer(s) working the adjacent field(s)
though, shakes the ground with his/their equipment well past midnight
many nights... Recently a group of newer resident, affluent,
complainers in the township, literally foaming at the mouth at the
board meeting, tried to shout the township board into passing a noise
law banning farm operations after sundown... The board supervisor
pointed out that such a law would discriminate against farmers as a
class of person, which is unconstitutional and would be immediately
struck down by the courts... He did offer to make a township noise
ordinance banning all noise producing equipment after sundown - farm
equipment, plus lawn tractors, bikes, mowers, four wheelers, gun
shooting, outdoor stereos, outdoor concerts, etc., which would pass
constitutional muster as not being discriminatory - and how soon would
they like him to get this written up for a vote? The shouters did not
seem to favor that...

As far as avoiding flying over groups of people enjoying solitude, I
have to know they are there where I am flying, a difficult proposition
at best...

cheers ... denny

Hi Greg,

The 69db as stated in my noise certificate are less than meaningless to
me.
I do not know if you are familiar with these certificates but they are
used to calculate the landings fees in some countries.
This and the MTOW determines the basic fee.
To keep the noise(and the complaints) down most airfields ask a higher
fee when landing after 19:00(2xbasic fee), on saturdays(2x),
sundays(3x) and official holidays(3x) during the summer
period(apr~okt).
So, most people think twice before practising circuits during these
times.

But you are right that there are different kinds of noise and aircraft
sound can be a bit annoying.

I've been to a meeting with complainers, some of them are reasonable
people who think that together we can come to a sensible solution(my
idea too).
The most(that I've met) however are fanatics that will not rest before
the airfield is closed.
Those are the ones that go to court for about anything (even
vaguely)related to the field.

I had a good laugh though.
Some examples from complaints against our field:
-Complaints about fast small yellow planes that make this irritating
whining sound.
Airforce trainers from a nearby base.
-The jump plane has a diesel engine now, so it makes more noise.
No, it is 4db less than before.
Etc etc.

Anyway, I think I'm nice to our neighbours.
I allways reduce power at reaching 200~300ft AGL(the other end of our
2500ft runway)
Climbing at 75% and not overflying populated areas, parks, beaches,
etc. when possible.

-Kees






I've been to meetings with complainers, some are reasonable people but
the majority will not rest before the airfield is closed.

I realize I am considered an unwelcome "troll" on this board, but thank you
anyway for your excellent post.

As someone who lives about 3 miles from a GA facility, I can say that the
small single engine GA planes (C-150s, 172s, etc., and certainly the
smaller "experimental" types, are not a major nuisance. I specifically
avoided purchasing property off the ends of the runways, because I
realized the noise would be intrusive.

However, even where I am, I find that there are very inconsiderate pilots
who fly high performance Mooneys and even Pitts below 1000 feet at high
rpm and in clear conditions with no competing traffic. The local airport
has "voluntary" noise abatement procedures, which are routinely ignored by
certain pilots, and of course the FAA makes, at best, perfunctory efforts
to identify offending pilots.

After going to several meetings concerning the planned "improvements"
(i.e. expansions) of the local airport, I saw quite a large number of
people were severely bothered by the unnecessary noise of the
irresponsible few pilots. Of course, some of the local pilot community
has the "to hell with them" attitude (they were at the meeting), and it
became pretty antagonistic.

Since the industry won't police its own, the airport manager doesn't care
and/or is powerless, and the FAA is indifferent to community noise issues,
we so-called anti-GA activists have taken the battle to the politicians,
and the airport is definitely paying a price. I have raised the issue of
local subsidies that our airport is asking from the city (the huge FAA
subsidies are apparently not enough), safety concerns of expanding the
airport, water pollution issues (the runway extension would require
elimination of wetlands), subsidies, etc. and have gotten many responses
from local, state and federal officials. I have had several letters to
the editor published. I have started posting on this and other boards.

I never wanted this fight, but when I am continously and unnecessarily
harrased by low flying pilots in high performance planes, or twin engine
planes in a hurry to get somewhere and/or save fuel by avoiding the noise
abatement suggested routes, I will fight back using every legal means at
my disposal.

I really don't care all that much about the safety and pollution issues.
I care somewhat more about the taxpayer subsidies. But the unnecessary
noise by an irresponsible few has energized me to research and monitor my
local airport, its finances, etc.

For those who dismiss the complainers as cranks, whiners, trolls, or nut
cases (or jealous - LOL), you are digging your own graves. There are
serious and intelligent people who are fighting your industry, and doing
our best to raise the cost of doing business.

I believe in live and let live, but some pilots don't, so I have become a
vocal and constant critic. And, groups are forming to counter the pilots
groups. Its unfortunate, but I won't be driven from my home by private
pilots.

"Sport Pilot" wrote in message
oups.com...
A souped up and light weight rice rocket will beat most stock detroit
muscle cars.

It doesn't need to be that souped up... Recently bought a 2002 Kawasaki ZX-6
(Ninja 600) from a guy at the office (only had 1200 miles on it)... It had a
problem with the carb and when I took it to the dealership to get it fixed,
the mechanic said that it was "only running on 2 and a half cylinders"...
Regardless, it was able to easily get up to 160 mpg (had to slow down for a
curve)... The bike is perfectly stock... Runs quite a bit better with the
carb fixed, but I don't think I'm going to try to top it out... The amount
that I had to lean it over to get around a slight curve on a major 4 lane
highway definitely got my adrenaline pumping... Wasn't sure I was going to
be able to make the curve...

Skylune wrote:

The local airport
has "voluntary" noise abatement procedures, which are routinely ignored by
certain pilots, and of course the FAA makes, at best, perfunctory efforts
to identify offending pilots.

Noise abatement programs are not the jurisdiction of the FAA. The FAA
does not design or enforce noise abatement programs. Those programs are
local.

On 2005-07-08, OtisWinslow wrote:
That's easy. Because they don't have one and they're not doing
the flying and they're jealous. It's a control issue .. nothing to
do with noise.

A small minority, maybe (who then go up to stir up everyone else). Most
people aren't particularly bothered in my experience, and hardly notice
the noise - well, the noise of a typical light trainer with a fixed
pitch prop.

The trouble is we do it to ourselves half the time. I've lost count of
the number of pilots in aircraft with constant speed props who seem to
think it's a great idea to shove the prop to fine pitch on downwind
making a very annoying "rrrrRRRRRRRR" noise (and making the aircraft
MUCH noisier as it flies the rest of downwind). Absolutely no need.
These types also usually fly downwind at such speed that poor C150s are
being forced out of the circuit. The prop can wait until short final.

All it takes is a little thought to fly with consideration for our
airport neighbours (and other pilots) - most high performance planes
will slow down to trainer speed just fine if need be (I used to fly a
Bonanza quite often, and I didn't find it hard to go at C150 speed if I
needed to). Even in lower performance planes with fixed pitch props you
can easily reduce your noise footprint - just fly slower at lower RPM.
A C172 can happily fly downwind at 2150 RPM and makes much less noise
than at 2300 RPM. (At one extreme is our Auster towplane, with an O-320,
it happily flies downwind at 1500 RPM and at the same speed as the
gliders, but with a power on stall speed of 30 mph, it is sort of an
extreme :-))

The same thing goes for being neighbourly to other pilots - remember
where your prop blast is going. The worst one I had was when a warbird
came in for the airshow at Galveston whilst I was working on the C140 in
our mechanics's hangar. Now I love the sound of a big radial or a
Merlin, but NOT when it's sandblasting myself, the plane, and blowing
the removed cowling into the back of the hangar!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

True, although there is a noise complaint site for New England on the FAA
website, which I and others have determined is purely for show value.

Furthermore, the FAA funds the ridiculous Part 150 studies noise
compatibility studies, which (as you note) they are not responsible for
enforcing. In our case, NO ONE is responsible for monitoring or
enforcing the voluntary noise abatement procedures -- the airport manager
is either powerless or does not care. Therefore (and unfortunately),
litigation and political pressure are our only recourse to protect our
community. So that's what it has come to in my area. (Expect more
litigation too....)

As I said previously, I will not be driven from my home so that a few
cowboys can have a good time. We did not ask for this fight -- it was
forced upon us. And now, we will use every opportunity and newsbite (user
fees, requested subsidies from the city, water pollution, noise pollution,
traffic concerns, safety issues, etc.) to fight back and raise the pilots'
cost of doing business. Trust me, the local airport can already forget
about the funds they've requested from the city for improvements.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

True, although there is a noise complaint site for New England on the FAA
website, which I and others have determined is purely for show value.

Furthermore, the FAA funds the ridiculous Part 150 studies noise
compatibility studies, which (as you note) they are not responsible for
enforcing. In our case, NO ONE is responsible for monitoring or
enforcing the voluntary noise abatement procedures -- the airport manager
is either powerless or does not care. Therefore (and unfortunately),
litigation and political pressure are our only recourse to protect our
community. So that's what it has come to in my area. (Expect more
litigation too....)

As I said previously, I will not be driven from my home so that a few
cowboys can have a good time. We did not ask for this fight -- it was
forced upon us. And now, we will use every opportunity and newsbite (user
fees, requested subsidies from the city, water pollution, noise pollution,
traffic concerns, safety issues, etc.) to fight back and raise the pilots'
cost of doing business. Trust me, the local airport can already forget
about the funds they've requested from the city for improvements.

Have you ever attempted reasonable discourse on the subject? IIRC, you
came to this newsgroup like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl,
looking to chastise everybody who flies.

Nobody is driving you from your home, but YOU are ready to drive us from
ours!

Most of us in this NG are not afraid to post our real names, rather than
using some fake handle, such as yourself. IMHO, you have little more
standing than the London terrorist bombers.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

Orval,

Don't feed the troll!!

Followup: For example, we store delicious tidbits such as the below (from
the I-pilot website, which the webmaster thinks he has me blocked out of),
and will use them at an opportune time, such as when a crash occurs that
kills people on the ground or destroys property.

The media loves letter to the editor that include factual references to
other stupid pilot tricks that demonstrate the true social cost and nature
of GA. Here's the story from I-pilot's newsletter....

Student pilot faces charges after dropping water balloons
Following in the wake of a drunken man taking two friends joyriding in a
Skyhawk in Connecticut, and a 14-year-old taking a Cessna 152 for a spin
in Florida, two Utah men are facing charges for allegedly dropping water
balloons from a Cessna 150 onto people at a car show over the July 4
weekend. The 21-year-old pilot had his student pilot certificate,
according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Police allege that the student pilot
and his friend on board made low-altitude passes over the town of Logan
and dropped the balloons. 'I don't think they were thinking,' said Police
Lt. Rod Peterson of the two men. 'It was just a very dangerous, very
foolish act on their part.' Police say the student pilot turned off all
the plane's lights while in the air, and that the two admitted to dropping
about five water balloons while at altitudes between 300 and 400 feet AGL.