![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Doe wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid" wrote: I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing. Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference). Time to take the fight back to them. Then you shall have one, Chris. This is precisely the problem. Allow me to introduce myself. I am an American homeowner who is considering establishing a Stop-the-Noise chapter with my local community. I have always had a live-and-let-live attitude towards aviation. More than that, I have always enjoyed watching it. I am an ex-Air Force zoomie. 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 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. 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). 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? 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. That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a gentlemanly manner. Like anyone else, I bought my house with the expectation that I could freely excercise my constitutional right to peaceably use my property. I recognize that this is the 21st century, noise happens, and I don't have an issue with 95% of general aviation aircraft or their pilots. Aerobatics practice boxes don't appear on the terminal or sectional maps, nor does the FAA or flying club have to notify the public about same. That's wrong. I also have no sympathy for someone moving next to an airport then complaining about the noise. As I said, noise happens. But everyone has a limit. How many hours of aerobatics in some of the loudest light aircraft on the planet should a person on the ground have to tolerate? An hour every day? Ten hours of almost incessant window-rattling every nice weekend? Let's establish a consensus.. Where's the dividing line between a whining, thin-skinned psycho complainer and someone with a legitimate gripe? Does anyone here have a neighbor with an incessantly-barking dog? How about their kids parked in the drive next door with a 1,000-watt stereo in a Honda? When do the normal intrusions of a modern society cross the line? The line is definitely crossed when the neighbor gets a second, and larger barking dog and when their kids amp it up in response to your polite complaints. So that's the way it is. When a single high-performance aircraft can rattle windows over a 25 square mile area, day in and out, and the pilots refuse to consider any sort of mitigation, or even step it up in response to a request for a dialogue. Why should they? They're flying "legal". That's when organizations like Stop-the-Noise happen and grow. Ordinary people with legitimate gripes that are being ignored and dismissed. Regrettably, they will attract their share of obscessive anti-aviation kooks, but it's important to note why outfits like STN have happened. -- Because of the legitimate reasons that I describe above. I enjoy running my tricked-out 1968 Chevelle SS-396. I've had it since I was 22 years old and lost my driver's license in those days driving it. It shouldn't be my neighbor's problem that it costs me $25 bucks in gas to go to the nearest oval track on a nice weekend instead of opening the headers and running it every night by their homes. The same standards of cooperation and sensibility should apply to the avocation of aerobatic flight, as well. Pilots are an elite fraternity, they should be better citizens than a punk with a thousand-watt stereo in his car. This is an open plea to the aviation community to ignore the kooks and accept responsibility concerning the over-the-top impact that some of their activities have on the general public. There are many that don't believe that a constructive dialogue is possible. The only alternative is going to be escalating tension, complaints and even litigation as has already occurred. I don't want that, but our community may have no choice but to follow that example. It is *not* true that members of STN have refused to negotiate or work with the aviation community. My neighbors and I, as I described, have bent over backwards trying to seek a mutually-acceptable resolution to the local situation. The next move needs to be on the part of the EAA, IAC and aerobatic pilots. I have seen no willingness *whatsoever* to accept limitations such as time of day or hours of flight per day or to voluntarily avoid aerobatic practice over residences where the aged, sick, or infirm might reside. How about the guy that sleeps days and works graveyard shift at the fire department? Does he merit some sort of consideration? The IAC and EAA refuse to even acnowledge that there is a growing problem on both sides of the issue and the FAA is stuck in the middle. Time for a reality check. 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. Thank you for reading this. Sounds like a troll. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It certainly did not sound like a troll. Some of his specifics were
nonsense. His general point was not. Burgoyne's web rants might be overcome, but continuing to dismiss rational and reasonable opponents will eventually kill aerobatics near most major cities. Deal with it, work with them, or face extinction. "Kevin" wrote in message news ![]() John Doe wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid" wrote: I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing. Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference). Time to take the fight back to them. Then you shall have one, Chris. This is precisely the problem. (big snip) 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. Thank you for reading this. Sounds like a troll. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:43:45 GMT, "Flying Squirrel"
wrote: It certainly did not sound like a troll. Some of his specifics were nonsense. His general point was not. Burgoyne's web rants might be overcome, but continuing to dismiss rational and reasonable opponents will eventually kill aerobatics near most major cities. Deal with it, work with them, or face extinction. You missed the whole point of the reply. I quoted a number of things we do to try to stay good neighbors, dealing with them and not dismissing rational complaints. The original post still appears to me to be either a troll or crank. I have seen no posts on here that dismiss the problem. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com "Kevin" wrote in message news ![]() John Doe wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid" wrote: I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing. Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being threatened in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously reference). Time to take the fight back to them. Then you shall have one, Chris. This is precisely the problem. (big snip) 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. Thank you for reading this. Sounds like a troll. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stop the noise | airads | Owning | 112 | July 6th 04 06:42 PM |
Stop the noise | airads | Aerobatics | 131 | July 2nd 04 01:28 PM |
Stop the noise | airads | General Aviation | 88 | July 2nd 04 01:28 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Prop noise vs. engine noise | Morgans | Piloting | 8 | December 24th 03 03:24 AM |