![]() |
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 Harlow" wrote in message
... Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more flight restrictions. Well, you and I can agree, I'm sure, that there are at least two philosophies when it comes to stuff like this. We saw the same division with respect to post-9/11 flight restrictions. There are those who feel that if we negotiate, even with fools, we'll wind up with the worst-case outcome. Then there are those who feel that if we don't resist as aggressively as possible at every step, we'll wind up with the worst-case outcome. I personally like to feel that I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't think it makes sense to just dig in our heels and pretend we should be permitted to just keep on as we've always done. But at the same time, why waste effort pretending that people like the STN idiots even come close to having a point? I haven't been following AOPA's involvement, but personally it seems to me that AOPA ought to take this up as an example case, defend the pilots vigorously, and countersue for all legal fees and other associated costs. When AOPA wins, it will make other similar groups think twice before making unreasonable demands. Like I said, I do my best to fly quietly. But only inasmuch as it doesn't affect my safety and my right to exercise my legal privileges as a pilot. I'm more than happy to discuss with someone else their concerns if they feel there's room for improvement, but I will not tolerate someone who has made it clear from the outset that they don't understand aviation, and want it destroyed altogether. I believe most other pilots are similarly interested in neighborly flying. One thing I don't understand is some otherwise careful and considerate pilots' hesitance to get involved when they see another pilot flying in an illegal or unneighborly fashion. Frankly, it's those handful of irresponsible pilots that are going to do us all in, and if we don't clean house, I'm sure someone else (like STN) will be happy to do it for us. We could make some progress in not encouraging groups like STN to be created in the first place if we'd just do a better job of policing our own. In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm just puzzled as to why it's different here. IMHO, it's different because of the degree of hostility expressed by the neighbor. We've actually had at least two "neighbor to an airstrip under construction" threads here, and I wouldn't say that in either case, the person posting exhibited a strong pro-aviation attitude. In the Idaho case, the guy was downright stubborn, and I don't think he ever really understood what we were trying to tell him. But even in that case, he wasn't calling for an end to aviation, or even to block his neighbor's right to an airstrip (though, I admit he may take that tack later...he wasn't doing it here though). Pete |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pete
What ever happened to that guy up north? Did he finally go to his neighbor and find out what was planned and try to workout a compromise? Big John On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:34:51 -0700, "Peter ? wrote: "John Harlow" wrote in message ... Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more flight restrictions. Well, you and I can agree, I'm sure, that there are at least two philosophies when it comes to stuff like this. We saw the same division with respect to post-9/11 flight restrictions. There are those who feel that if we negotiate, even with fools, we'll wind up with the worst-case outcome. Then there are those who feel that if we don't resist as aggressively as possible at every step, we'll wind up with the worst-case outcome. I personally like to feel that I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't think it makes sense to just dig in our heels and pretend we should be permitted to just keep on as we've always done. But at the same time, why waste effort pretending that people like the STN idiots even come close to having a point? I haven't been following AOPA's involvement, but personally it seems to me that AOPA ought to take this up as an example case, defend the pilots vigorously, and countersue for all legal fees and other associated costs. When AOPA wins, it will make other similar groups think twice before making unreasonable demands. Like I said, I do my best to fly quietly. But only inasmuch as it doesn't affect my safety and my right to exercise my legal privileges as a pilot. I'm more than happy to discuss with someone else their concerns if they feel there's room for improvement, but I will not tolerate someone who has made it clear from the outset that they don't understand aviation, and want it destroyed altogether. I believe most other pilots are similarly interested in neighborly flying. One thing I don't understand is some otherwise careful and considerate pilots' hesitance to get involved when they see another pilot flying in an illegal or unneighborly fashion. Frankly, it's those handful of irresponsible pilots that are going to do us all in, and if we don't clean house, I'm sure someone else (like STN) will be happy to do it for us. We could make some progress in not encouraging groups like STN to be created in the first place if we'd just do a better job of policing our own. In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm just puzzled as to why it's different here. IMHO, it's different because of the degree of hostility expressed by the neighbor. We've actually had at least two "neighbor to an airstrip under construction" threads here, and I wouldn't say that in either case, the person posting exhibited a strong pro-aviation attitude. In the Idaho case, the guy was downright stubborn, and I don't think he ever really understood what we were trying to tell him. But even in that case, he wasn't calling for an end to aviation, or even to block his neighbor's right to an airstrip (though, I admit he may take that tack later...he wasn't doing it here though). Pete |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Big John" wrote in message
... What ever happened to that guy up north? Did he finally go to his neighbor and find out what was planned and try to workout a compromise? I have no idea. My only involvement was the thread he posted here. Unless he comes back to tell us the outcome, I guess we'll never know. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! | Scet | Military Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 01:09 AM |
p3/95 | [email protected] | Military Aviation | 1 | September 27th 04 12:27 AM |
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 |