Yeah, I'm in a different situation. The civic association is not out to
close the airport (although there are some members that wouldn't mind). On
the most part, the people don't mind the small planes but are against having
larger and louder jets. I hear their point--especially when those older
Lears that don't have to conform to the latest noise suppression standards
take off on RWY 32.

They are specifically against improvements tailored for jet traffic. To be
honest ,I'm on the fence about the improvements too because I haven't seen
one that would help me as a small-aircraft pilot/owner who may never afford
a jet. As a matter of fact, it would make my flying life WORSE in that there
would be more jet traffic (jet ATC preference, wake turbulence, increased
traffic, etc.). I hear many stories about Teterboro's operations and they're
not good. Someone please chime in nof they think differently--I've never
flown out of there. The fact that FRG and TEB have the same airport
management company makes it a real concern.

So I need to gather more info but still laying low.

Marco

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
[snip]

We are not attempting to halt expansion at any particular airport or at
airports in general. We are concerned about where the recreational
aircraft
go to practice, sightsee or to just mark time. None of these activities is
possible without a subsidy from the property owners on the ground who must
involuntarily absorb the waste noise from these activities. These
activities
can in no way be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are
performed solely for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost
to
those on the ground."

This is nothing but self-important tripe, and honestly, it is just plain
un-American.









Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com