On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:25:07 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

Look at the fine print! Those studies are relevant only to airports
serving large numbers of transport-class jets!

While I am sure that noise can negatively impact human health, and
that airport environments can be noisy, I don't see how this study
bolsters neighborhood noise protesters' cause. After all, they made a
conscious decision to reside there, and they benefit from the reduced
cost of property impacted by noise.

THe noise Nazis like to quote such studies and blanket them to all
airports -- clearly a misuse of the findings.

Perhaps. I haven't seen any evidence of that practice, but I haven't
been looking. But I must say, that the piston GA aircraft are noisier
than the airliners today. But in the evening, when there are
airliners strung out as far a Kansas all destined to arrive on the
four runways at KLAX every few minutes, the airline traffic becomes
considerably more of an issue than the occasional GA piston
arrival/departure.

Regardless, the true solution for this issue, and the NAS airline
congestion issue is to construct airline hub airports in sparsely
populated, outlaying locations, and shuttle passengers to and from
local municipal airports al la SATS. Any residential housing that is
permitted within the vicinity of such outlaying airports should
require buyers to acknowledge the noise impact, and waive their right
to litigate that issue.

That would create more air traffic as a result of shuttling, but it
will be dispersed over a larger set of airports than today. But it
could make jumbos more attractive to the airlines, and if that were to
happen, it could reduce the number of flights to some extent.

The real issue with airline congestion, like automobile congestion, is
the exponentially expanding population. As nuclear proliferation
continues, the Russians persist in arming US enemies, and desperate
political factions become more fanatical, the solution looms ever
larger: Nuclear Sterilization. :-(