Stop the noise

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf
blowers,
boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself.

So you don't see any possible technological solution to reducing
aircraft generated noise?


I am not sure how you get that out of my post. However, no amount of
technological progress is going to make us both invisible and silent. Even
if it did, there are some people who would object to the very idea that
airplanes *might* be flying right over their heads without their permission.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

I'm sure glad the engineers continued to pursue a technological cure
for the low-flying police helicopters that routinely routed my slumber
in the '70s. Today those helicopters are nearly silent by comparison.

Larry,

Could it be that quiet helicopters came about for reasons other than
interrupting your sleep?

Just a thought.

BillC85

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
the silence it craves.

The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us. By
"them", I mean people who would just as soon not have airplanes doing
aerobatics directly over their houses. By that definition, "them" is a
large proportion of the general population. Hell, I fly acro, and I
wouldn't want an acro box directly over my house! How about you?

The bozos at STN are way over the line, and they are using threats of legal
action to bully others. But we shouldn't dismiss all noise complaints as
whining by people who will never be happy. If you address complaints in a
good faith manner, maybe you avoid letting things get to the point where
flight schools are getting sued. The bottom line is, most acro boxes are
going to need to over remote, unpopulated or lightly populated areas. If
you happen to live and fly in an urban area, expect a long transit to your
practice area. That's the price you pay for the choices you make. I'm
boxed in by Class B at SPG (Albert Whitted at St Pete), and I have to go out
over the ocean to practice.

"Ed" wrote in message
. com...
The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us. By
"them", I mean people who would just as soon not have airplanes doing
aerobatics directly over their houses. By that definition, "them" is a
large proportion of the general population. Hell, I fly acro, and I
wouldn't want an acro box directly over my house! How about you?

One would assume that the aviation authorities would also prefer people not
to be doing aerobatics over someone's house, given the potential
consequences in the event of an engine or other failure.

D.

It ain't urban.

These folks have gentlemen farmer type places to get away from the noise of
the city on weekends. They are also suing some Harley Drivers (which to me
is something that the police DO need to do more about, but a suit is silly).

What they fail to realize is that someone has to put up with the noise they
create coming and going from their recreational retreat. Someone lived next
to all the places that made noise in manufacturing the materials and goods
that made the homes and things within them. Their recreational retreat is
overall a HUGE pollution issue. They did not NEED to have this retreat, and
they have sullied the landscape with their vehicles and structures. How
ridiculous that they must have a second home! What an attack on mother
earth! etc. etc. etc.



"Ed" wrote in message
. com...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never
find
the silence it craves.

The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us. By
"them", I mean people who would just as soon not have airplanes doing
aerobatics directly over their houses. By that definition, "them" is a
large proportion of the general population. Hell, I fly acro, and I
wouldn't want an acro box directly over my house! How about you?

The bozos at STN are way over the line, and they are using threats of
legal
action to bully others. But we shouldn't dismiss all noise complaints as
whining by people who will never be happy. If you address complaints in a
good faith manner, maybe you avoid letting things get to the point where
flight schools are getting sued. The bottom line is, most acro boxes are
going to need to over remote, unpopulated or lightly populated areas. If
you happen to live and fly in an urban area, expect a long transit to your
practice area. That's the price you pay for the choices you make. I'm
boxed in by Class B at SPG (Albert Whitted at St Pete), and I have to go
out
over the ocean to practice.

A full aerobatic box is 3000 feet x 3000 feet x 3000 feet. Other variations are
possible.
The FAA requires a 1500 foot buffer zone around the perimeter (for jets and
warbirds, this increases to 3000 feet), so you in effect need a 6000 feet x
6000 feet footprint (or 7500 x 7500). Unless you are going to practice
cross-box maneuvers, the width of the box may be decreased.
The floor and visibility requirements are also negotiated, as are
communications and ground observer details.

They are also suing some Harley Drivers (which to me
is something that the police DO need to do more about, but a suit is silly).

I just read the AOPA editorial, and it seems that the suit against the
four aerobats wasn't at all silly. Three? out of four? of them had to
sell their airplanes to pay their legal expenses. So the litigants
achieved a good part of their goal (assuming the planes weren't simply
purchased by pilots who plan to do the same business in the same box).

That's the problem with lawsuits. They tend to work.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Ed wrote:

The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us.

The real problem is that in the last 40 years, it has gradually become possible
to make law by sueing people in civil court. In the '50s, one could be pretty
certain that things would be just fine if one obeyed the laws and regulations.
Now, if some asshole doesn't like your hobby, they can bankrupt you, and you
can't do a damn thing about it. Even if you *do* have the wherewithal to get
the case into court, a single judge can nullify the work of the entire Federal
or State legislative branches which are, according to the various Constitutions
supposed to be deciding these matters.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They
don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
lives.



Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They
just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on
their
lives.



Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.


From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the activity.

I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community is
that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right. Our attitude is
that they need to adapt to us and our activities. This attitude is
perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant. As long as we
continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually lose
the war.

Earl G