Stop the noise

"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.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel
the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the
US
WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
fight
a battle you can only lose.

Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct
about
the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.

snip of nothing of substance

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You
are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is
not
my problem.



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. 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.

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably
Constitutionally
protected freedom of expression.

(...)

You know, I always wonder how much damage we as pilots are doing to
ourselves by brandishing arguments like that.

Odd, isn't it, that tantrums in the media haven't had a deleterious effect?

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs,

Is that the case here?

then we are shooting ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

-jav

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel
the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the
US
WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
fight
a battle you can only lose.

Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct
about
the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.

Wow!! You're 1 for 24. Now want to finish your explanation of "Rare Yen"?

snip of nothing of substance

You don't have a clue what "substance" is.


I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You
are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is
not
my problem.

You didn't state a single "fact".

You can memorize volumes, I've noticed, but your comprehension is minimal.

"Mike Noel" wrote in message
...
The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should
work
out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
sensitive area to practice over.

Do pilots set these areas, or the FAA? Who makes that decison?

This is starting to sound like an NRA vs.
gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad
because
of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not
possible.

Maybe because any gun control "law" is merely a control on the "law"abiding.

--
Regards,
Mike

"C J Campbell" writes:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US
WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to
fight
a battle you can only lose.

Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

If you had read the whole post, you would have noticed that I did not excuse
the Pitts pilot or anybody else. I said that noise was a problem, but that
organizations like Stop the Noise actually make the problem worse rather
than better. What I said was that we need a whole new approach to the way we
are dealing with noise issues. What is being done now is obviously not
working and is probably making the problem worse.

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

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.

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, and I'm always left wondering if we're doing
ourselves more harm by attempting to either shift blame, or by
basically saying "we were here first". Yeah, maybe we were, but if
we're in the minority (and in most cases, we are) then we only make
our uphill quest that much steeper.

-jav

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
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.

Actually the complaint was not filed by the organization, but by
individuals, it can be seen at
http://www.stopthenoise.org/docs/COMPLAINT.ammended.pdf

Plaintiffs:
Robert F. Casey, Jr. 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts. This
presumably is the lawyer that someone said is donating his time, but is also
a Plaintiff.
Rita A. Casey, 92 Washington Street, Ayer, Massachusetts
David McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts
Amy McCoy, 187 Old Groton Road, Ayer, Massachusetts
Gerard Hall, 34 Lovett Lane, Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
Beverly Smith, 435 Old Ayer Road, Groton, Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The STN site is pretty low tech and a bunch of rambling nonsense. I like
this quote "FAA is an organization of General Aviation pilots tasked with
policing, among other things, General Aviation". Really?
And "It is not our intent to shut down General Aviation", yet a couple
months
ago, this same guy, Bill Burgoyne, said "There is no reason people need to
have them (small airplanes) for transportation as private vehicles"
article at
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/e...olumn&-nothing

Another website, that is a little more professionally done and more
objective is
http://www.planesenseofgroton.org/
although they are publicly posting N-numbers of airplanes that offend them.
Is
that legal?


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.



And http://www.us-caw.org/ US Citizens Aviation Watch. Check the link for
Monitored Airports, see if you're being watched.

Most, but certainly not all are a bunch of nut cases. There are some
level headed ones who just don't like the noise, but if you follow the
noise pollution newsgroups you will see about 90% of the posts come
from only a few people who are just plain not rational.

However they do pose a threat to aviation in general, not just general
aviation. Some of them are pretty radical.


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.

When it comes to law I know about zip, but I learned two things from a
friend who is a lawyer.

In cases like this where they are obviously trying to intimidate and
harass the pilots, if at all possible file counter suits in amounts
large enough it will scare off all but the diehards and if you win
it'll make your lawyers rich. The other is you really do get all the
justice you can afford, unless you are very, very lucky.

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

Chris

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:35:10 GMT, John Doe
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote:


although this guy may be a real individual there is to much troll and
not enough truth in here.

The issue is that flying "legally" does not make flying in a certain manner
"right". One can fly with a bad attitude, perhaps with callous disregard
for other pilots in the sky and those on the ground, comply with the letter
of the FARs and yet be in the wrong. How about the guy that cuts in front of

No one can not.

you on a "short final", forcing a go around? Life is full of situations
where one's conduct or morals are wrong, yet that person is not technically
breaking any laws.

Yes, flying in a dangerous and reckless manner is breaking the laws,
or at least regulations.


I have observed and even beeen personally victimized by pilots choosing to
fly inverted over my home at altitudes less than 1,000' AGL, pilots diving at
my neighbor's horse pasture in a Pitts in an apparent effort to "run" the
animals (and once costing them $500 dollars in vet bills after an animal
tangled in a fence, badly cutting itself).

If that is the truth then those individuals are legally responsible
and could be prosecuted if you have the N#s.


There are those few pilots that treat community noise abatement procedures
as a personal affront or insult so they full-atttack the prop and mash in
the throttle over subdivisions. Yes, perfectly legal in most cases. The PIC
is responsible for safe takeoff procedures; who would question someone's
motives?

No it is not legal in most cases and a pilot with any sense knows
doing so would just make matters worse rather than proving a point.


You know who you are.

I have a busy life and demanding career. I have never wanted to involve
myself in a ****ing contest with the local aviation community. I have bent
over backwards to aviod lodging complaints with the local FSDO. Instead, I
have recorded and reported instances of flagrant lawbreaking and
irresponsible conduct by aerobatic pilots to AOPA and EAA, simply asking
that efforts be made to unofficially contact these individuals and ask them
to respect the laws and the public.
Yet I've never received the courtesy of a response from either organization.

Both of these organizations would have responded promptly to a
rational complaint. This is what makes me doubt the rest of the post
and believe it to be a troll.

That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a
gentlemanly manner.

Most of us try to work with organizations, but when one comes on in a
confrontational manner that organization just causes problems.

We had a noise problem at our airport.
I fly a high performance aircraft and at take off RPM I readily admit
it is loud! I also try to be a good neighbor and follow the airport
regulations.

One hot afternoon the wind was out of the SSE and a bit gusty so all
of us were relegated to using 18/36. Unfortunately there is a new
subdivision full of very expensive homes off the end of that runway.
They fought lengthening the runway because they feared bigger planes.
What they received were the old planes coming off a short runway right
over their homes. On a hot day with the wind out of the south they
get a lot of very low flying and noisy traffic.

At 200 feet none of us are coming back on the RPM over a heavily
populated area, or sooner or later they'd be picking up aircraft parts
out of some ones living room. AT 500 feet with a place to go, is
fine, but lower and nothing but homes ... not a chance. Besides, the
sooner we can get to a safe altitude the sooner we can come back on
the power safely.

At any rate, I was using 18 and I was passing over those new homes low
enough to count the boards in the picnic tables in their back yards.
I have no doubt the dishes rattled in the cupboards and they had
trouble talking to each other.

Had they chosen to let us lengthen the runway most planes would be
throttled back and at pattern altitude over their homes instead of
clawing for altitude at full power.

The airport manager told me they had a complaint of me taking off over
the guys house every 5 minutes all after noon. I told him it wasn't
possible even if I tried and I had only made three take offs and
landings that entire day. The manager said, "That's pretty much what
I thought".

The one guy reported me taking off over his house every five minutes
all after noon. He reported my N number. Unfortunately for him, he
only recorded it and then gave me credit for the rest of the noise
without verifying it.
He swore up and down that I went over his house every 5 minutes.
Basically due to the laws of physics, (capabilities of my airplane and
the inability to be in more than one place at a time) his complaint
lost all credibility. That and we had a bunch of high performance
planes there that afternoon including a couple of twins. All had to
use that short runway.

What happened was the noise complainers not only lost their fight, but
I understand they now have to have any noise complaints recorded on
their deed, or property description (it gets recorded some place and
has to be presented when they sell). That and the city found that if
they closed the airport they'd have to pay back the FAA for land
purchase grants based on the present value of the property and not the
original grants. They also got caught with their hands in the
proverbial cookie jar as they'd been renting parking spaces on airport
property for the county fair and the three times yearly antique show.
Nothing wrong with that except they were putting the money in the
general fund instead of the airport. When those funds were included
the airport was making a profit and they didn't want it to show one.
They liked it better if they could show the airport required a
subsidy.

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

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel
the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing
injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting
ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such
transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the
US
WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than
to
fight
a battle you can only lose.

Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny
to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct
about
the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.

snip of nothing of substance

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I
intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised.
You
are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.

I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is
not
my problem.



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.

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.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

You didn't state a single "fact".

I stated the facts WRT FAA and noise and even why FAA finds itself in that
position.

You can memorize volumes, I've noticed, but your comprehension is minimal.

If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I can
assue you that all you will do is elimninate small GA. We already have the
TSA going about claiming that small GA is the biggest threat to National
Security in the US, so making enemies with homeowners is just that much more
of a loser.