Stop the noise

warning, LONG, I'd gone private but no email address was given

John Doe, (from the band X?, cool)
I doubt you're a troll, I'm sure someone though will post the definition of
one to prove otherwise, so, don't do a hit-and-run and answer the endless
responses that'll surely come your way. Heck, I could be called a troll
on the aerobatics/misc groups as I've never been there, but since this
is crossposting to those (sorry guys, didnt notice at first), I guess I've
been there now.

"Kooks" is on the mark for describing some of these people, and we have
some of our own. I was just talking to my flying partner and he pointed
out there are alot of pilots out there doing harm to those of us that want
to do our thing with minimal impact to anyone. But when I hear of these
'kooks' that dont even 'approve' of US, that we should be done away with
as well, I'd hope you agree that just isn't right.

Since you introduced yourself, so will I. I also am an American homeowner,
I have taken on a live-and-let live relationship with my neighbors
constantly barking dog. I was here first, and no, I havent gone out and
got a louder dog. I live near a practice area, rarely are there aerobatics,
just
your normal steep turns and stalls. I used to live under base-to-final and
under a skydiving drop zone. The street behind us wasn't too busy when
we moved in, that's changed. Could I've turned into a 'kook' over all those
things? Guess it depends on your personality type.

About airplane noise in particular, just so you know where I'm coming from:
I own a 182, and although I don't do aerobatics, I'll defend their right to
exist as much as any other aviation activity that is currently legal, I hate
discrimination. Our local city government has in one form or another tried
to get rid of various types of aviation activities. They tried to move the
traffic pattern over a heavily congested area so as to substantially
increase
complaints and hopefully eventually close down the airport. I spent alot
of time canvassing those areas, hundreds of homes, with fliers, and speaking
to many of those homeowners. Most were not pilots, were friendly, not
terribly interested in the issue until they were told their elected
officials
had plans for them without asking them. Through exposing them publicly,
we won. By we I don't mean just pilots either. Why would they do this,
besides wanting to shut down the airport? A wealthy landowner with
some attorneys, a real kook who threatened to shoot down pilots and
come after them at the local FBO. That's how some 'kooks' end up, watch
out for some of your members.

I've heard of the pilots who go and pour salt on the people that complain,
it's not hard to do and stay within the regs. It doesn't benefit either
side
though, and dont say the anti-aviation types don't do the same thing. Just
so you know I'm not just a pro-aviation blowhard, I've discussed the
issue with some of the anti-aviation people at city council chambers,
airport advisory board meetings, other meetings to bring both sides
together,
and have been asked by the city to be a mediator. I've mostly learned
there are some people that can't be reasoned with and when the red mist
comes down into their eyes there's no dealing with them. Many we had
good dialogues with, and no I don't offer flights in my airplane to sway
them over to our side, I don't care if they ever fly. I mostly ask what
could we do, short of not fly at all, to improve the situation. I also
explain that the City is often responsible for forcing us to fly where
we do, and that most of us want to leave the smallest noise footprint
as possible and keep it near the airport. Having enemies as neighbors,
many fairly wealthy, does not do us any good.

After securing some goodwill with the neighbors, and many of them said
they were happy with the pilot/user designed noise abatement procedure,
the city then wanted to move the pattern to the opposite side of the
airport over even more houses than the other proposal. Instead of
hundreds of homes, thousands of them. Just so you know the crap we
have to put up with, too. I'm sure there are other pilots that read these
groups that have had to fight governments and groups that are trying
to make the noise situation worse for their own ends. So, yeah, I have
a problem when the anti-aviation group thinking all we do is fight for
our right to make noise. Mostly, for me anyway, it's a fight to not be
noticed. I don't want you to know I'm up there, I dont want to hear you
complaining about me.

Mostly it's an education thing, on both sides. There is a proposal for
an aerobatics box in the local area. The local FSDO is getting heat
for not publicizing it to the people who live in that area. The paper
then runs a few letters and an editorial about it, and gets some facts
wrong (where it is, a better place for it to be, etc). At risk of some
'kook's getting in on the fight, I posted the information, with corrections,
on my site, which is bookmarked by the anti-aviation folks here in
town, don't worry about it. I've even had pro-aviation people have
a problem with me basically inviting the opposition into the issue,
as if they'd not figured it out later when traffic or aerobatics
multiplied over their heads. I guess I just don't view them as the
'opposition' as I spend 99% of my life on the ground, contrary to
what many might believe.

Groups like STN are just troublemakers that have found a new target,
dont kid yourself. Aviation has to defend itself against nuts like this
all over the country, and many do it in the way I've described above.
Not heavy handed, but trying to peacefully coexist. You sound like
a reasonable person, are you going to align yourself with STN and
their way of operating, or be a little more reasonable? When you
organize, that's what you need to decide. Unfortunately we cannot
'ignore the kooks' like you said. And even when we do 'behave',
which many kooks say we arent even capable of, we get threatened.
I do believe a constructive dialogue is possible, I've seen it and
have done it. But theres always that dangerous fringe with blood
in their eyes, you can spot em a mile away.

That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation
community
and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to
be
regrettably clear.

The ball's with both of us in the same court. And the statement you
made here makes my point: it's only the aviation community and
the FAA who has to change? That, like what STN does, is not
negotiating. It's saying "you have to change, not me." and "you
need to adapt to me, not vice-versa." Dont you see the problem
with that tactic? You should, you don't sound stupid.
I'll continue to work with the reasonable ones, but I'll treat the others
the same way the Inquisition, witch hunters, and Nazi's were eventually
dealt with - ignoring them only makes it worse.

Good luck in your endeavor. Hopefully you'll be a problem-solver and
and not a trouble-maker. The world could use more of the former, and
less of the latter.
Chris

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:06:08 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control the
airspace above your property.

The reality is, that the solution lies in a technological approach to
aircraft noise reduction.

Do you have such a technological solution? How much will it cost? Who is
going to pay for it? What about people who are still bothered by the noise,
even if it is not as bad as before? What about legacy aircraft?

The reality is there is no technological solution. At least not one that is
going to make everybody happy.

The reality is that we all have to put up with some noise and that efforts
to displace that problem to others or concentrate the problem on just a few
people are bound to fail.

People keep saying the FAA has no credibility on this issue. Well, what does
anyone think that the FAA should do about it? I mean, realistically, you are
an FAA guy and you get these continual complaints about noise from
aerobatics over a small area. What are you going to do about it? Move the
box to another area and get complaints from over there? Stop the pilots from
doing aerobatics and put up with their complaints (and lawsuits)?

I truly feel sorry for people living under aerobatics boxes. I really do.
But the truth of the matter is that the box is over their house because so
many people have already complained about the box being somewhere else.

Everyone (and I mean absolutely everyone -- from the property owners to
pilots to the FAA) have their backs against the wall on this issue. There is
not much room left to maneuver (so to speak). I think the anti-noise people
and pilots and the FAA have painted themselves into a corner trying to deal
with it.

I do not think that the insane rhetoric coming from groups like Stop the
Noise is helping at all. It only makes them look like a bunch of ridiculous
crackpots. As for the pilots, we have an obligation to jealously guard our
right to fly, even while we can sympathize with those bothered by the noise.

If you think there are noise complaints now, just think what would happen if
Stop the Noise got its way. The noisy areas would be so concentrated that
they would be almost uninhabitable. In fact, that is what we have now. The
callous disregard of Stop the Noise for the peace and lives of other people
is shocking, when you get right down to it.

"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.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"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. 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.


You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely.

Then the pilots will lose.

wrote:

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:49:26 -0500, Jessie Carlson
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

It sounds like a jurisdictional issue to me. I doubt the local court
has the right to countermand the FAA's decisions.

You don't understand. This is Massachusetts. Courts in this very Liberal state
can do whatever they want, and they aren't accountable to anybody or anything.

If that is the line the defense attorney is spewing, it's time to find
another more competent one.

Not to worry, no civil defense attorney would dare utter a description of the
Massachusetts process when sober.

Yes, eventually a federal district court or appellate court might hear the case.
But that will be way down the line, after much direct and collateral economic
damage is done. And that's what the plaintiffs want.

If a suit is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction solely to harass
the plaintiffs, it could be viewed as abuse of process. The law cuts
both ways.

That would be true only if the state court agrees. But this court is a Massachusetts
court, so it does not. At least until and if a federal court agrees to hear the
case.

"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