by Dylan Smith Apr 12, 2006 at 03:29 PM


On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield



In that scenario, of course the new homeowners have no right to bitch.
But there are many other scenarios that are much different.


What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located? These can extend many miles from the airport. Should people
have to become experts in right and left traffic patterns, be able to read
sectionals, etc. when purchasing a home?

Lastly, a group that Boyer attacks as radicals, Stop the Noise, is not
located near any airport. Stunt planes have picked this bucolic (Groton,
Mass) area to practice over. The noise is horrific on sunny weekends. I
have heard it. But these homeowners have no rights under existing FARs.
So they sued in State Court, which AOPA tried to have moved to Federal
Court on pre-emption grounds. (AOPA likes FAA regs when it shields the
industry.) Much to the AOPA's dismay, the court in a remand order ruled
that state statutes do apply, and the case is currently awaiting trial.