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