'They want to ban recreational flying...'

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:26:18 -0700, "David Brooks"
wrote:

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...
(quoting the anti-noise compaigners)
We believe that if there is to be a recreational flying community, then it
must obtain at its own expense areas large enough to accommodate their
waste
noise without spilling over to adjacent properties in excess of the local
regulatory limits. At present, in most communities, the limit is 10
decibels
above background ambient levels.

Sounds like a comment from the noise pollution groups. They have some
real nut jobs and extremists over there. They also have some people
with legit complaints. It only takes a few minutes of reading to
realize that it'd be safer and more comfortable to live off the
approach end of a busy air force base than next door to some of them.

For most communities, the answer is most likely no. Otherwise no one
would be able to mow their lawn as a lawn mower is listed at something
like ... 40 db or more.. No many low flying aircraft exceed the sound
of a lawn mower, unless they have a two blade prop, a big engine and
are just departing the active..

3 db is just detectable...three barely detectable still isn't much.
Lawn mowers are *loud*, so I'd attribute the above statement to pretty
much BS ...

Is that 10db limit really a common restriction? I suppose they mean there
are local ordinances (nothing in the several CCR's I've read recently).
Small planes at 500ft probably exceed that bar.

Small planes at 500 feet over populated areas are already in violation
of the FARs unless taking off and landing. There, the neighbors are
pretty much SOL, although they can be a royal nuisance to the pilots.
More and more airports and communities are making it a requirement
that any noise complaints go on the property record for those who are
neighbors to an airport. So, they can complain, but it's gonna cost
them in the long run.


I must confess to a nimby moment last weekend. I just moved to a (lovely)
house on the side of the hill in Duvall, WA. Most everyone who has learned
to fly here has used the Snoqualmie Valley as a practice area: it's 20 miles
long by half a mile wide, populated only by cows and a prison farm, and even
contains a small square stand of trees that is perfect for the rectangular
course maneuver. Nobody who has spent more than half an hour looking for a
house in Duvall can be unaware of the planes that fly over the developments,
often below 1000agl, as they set up for the valley. Yet on Saturday morning,
after two tiring days unpacking boxes, I was *really* annoyed to be woken up
at 7am by that familiar drone. I am already much more aware of how
difference much a few hundred feet can make.

If only those who fight runway extensions could be so enlightened.
We had a group who opposed lengthening 18/36 from 3000 to 3800. With
that extra 800 feet I could be at pattern altitude by the time I go
over the subdivision. As it is ... I still go over at 200 to 500 feet
on climb out on a hot day.


It's also on a major route up to Arlington, but I only saw three or four
interesting transients this weekend.

We get complaints from the practice area where the students are still
a 1000 feet up and that is mostly swamp. One guy threatened to "take
a shot". He hung up when he figured out the manager was trying to
figure out where he was located.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

-- David Brooks