Why bother about light aircraft noise.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message

If I got tired of the city, bought a house in the country for the
quiet,

Anyone who does that has never had the pleasure of listening to tree frogs
or cicadas. The "country" is not quiet, it is just different.

Not to mention the gentle hint of manuer in the air.

My neighbor compained about the noise the toads were making in our backyard
pond...

Really.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvous substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

In article .com,
says...


Now my question is why people complain about light aircraft noise while
there are hordes of cars and bikes that make a lot more noise?



First off, noise measurements, in Decibels, are meaningless unless the
measurement conditions, specifically the spectral weighting and the
distance from the source are expressed along with the dB number. You
airplane, on takeoff, directly under the departure end of the runway
emits a sound pressure level much higher than 69db/A.

Moreover, you plane continues to emit its 69 dB or more in areas where
people thought they were sheltered from intrusive, urban noise. Way out
in the country - the middle of a forest - the desert - even a remote
island. People view this noise as unnecessary. Highway noise, though
there may be abuses, is considered necessary, because people need to get
where they're going. Large aircraft noise is also considered necessary,
though this does not prevent some people (who chose to move there) from
complaining. Lawnmowers may be much louder than small airport noise in
suburban areas, but they too are considered necessary. Small airplanes,
on the other hand, are commonly perceived as serving the sole purpose of
gratification for their owners and pilots.

Studies in urbanism have shown us that the noises which create the
greatest irritation are those where the noisemaker is "getting kicks".
Constant noise from a major airport, rail exchange or highway may cause
fatigue and irritation over the long term, but the kid racing his dirt
bike at the end of the street is likely to get a bloody nose after an
hour. Or the kids with the boom box on the porch across the street. Your
airplane, to many people, fits in this category. A rich kid's toy,
drilling holes in everyone else's head.

As pilots, I believe we have much to lose in failing to recognize any
legitimacy in people's noise complaints. To date, we have had many
victories using the "airport was here first" argument, along with the
FAA's strong defense of the federal nature of airspace in eminent domain
issues. But this success will not continue forever, if pilots continue
to "shove it in the face" of the complainers. A few smart, well moneyed
lawyers in the pack, and some decisions will start going the other way.
There is much more to gain in continuing to fight, certainly, but in
respect of good neighbor practices. This begins with simply steering
clear of populated areas and more isolated gatherings, when possible.
Meeting with the community groups helps as well - putting a human face
on the pilot community, as well as spreading information - Many
complainers do not recognize that pattern work is a necessary and
essential activity. (No more planes in the pattern = no more airline
pilots to fly them cheaply to Mexico on that vacation they're planning).
The airport users should also nurture good relations with the local
chamber of commerce, and promote understanding of the economic
importance of the airport. Sometimes noise abatement procedures and
pattern modifications can be worked out, which not only reduce noise
over that lawyer's house, but give a sense of dialog and cooperation.

Simply treating the complainers as whining hysterics will prove to be a
losing argument.

G Faris

G Faris, your points are well taken, my compliments... Just a few
comments in no particular order..
As far as those folks living directly off the end of the runway, there
is nothing I can do about them or their noise complaints... I have to
take off and gain altitude and that requires power, which is noise... I
can only hope that AOPA and the FAA can continue to to point out to the
judges that they are required to judge the law as written, not make
social policy... Regardless of ones political beliefs, the current
administration in Washington also echoes that requirement, which I
suspect has helped GA in these battles, though I have no way to
quantify the effect...

I live in a rural township a quarter mile from the road and from the
nearest neighbor (by choice and by the expenditure of many hundreds of
thousands of dollars)... I do not find the aircraft going overhead (13
miles from a jet port and right under an airway intersection ) to be
objectionable, YMMV... The farmer(s) working the adjacent field(s)
though, shakes the ground with his/their equipment well past midnight
many nights... Recently a group of newer resident, affluent,
complainers in the township, literally foaming at the mouth at the
board meeting, tried to shout the township board into passing a noise
law banning farm operations after sundown... The board supervisor
pointed out that such a law would discriminate against farmers as a
class of person, which is unconstitutional and would be immediately
struck down by the courts... He did offer to make a township noise
ordinance banning all noise producing equipment after sundown - farm
equipment, plus lawn tractors, bikes, mowers, four wheelers, gun
shooting, outdoor stereos, outdoor concerts, etc., which would pass
constitutional muster as not being discriminatory - and how soon would
they like him to get this written up for a vote? The shouters did not
seem to favor that...

As far as avoiding flying over groups of people enjoying solitude, I
have to know they are there where I am flying, a difficult proposition
at best...

cheers ... denny

Hi Greg,

The 69db as stated in my noise certificate are less than meaningless to
me.
I do not know if you are familiar with these certificates but they are
used to calculate the landings fees in some countries.
This and the MTOW determines the basic fee.
To keep the noise(and the complaints) down most airfields ask a higher
fee when landing after 19:00(2xbasic fee), on saturdays(2x),
sundays(3x) and official holidays(3x) during the summer
period(apr~okt).
So, most people think twice before practising circuits during these
times.

But you are right that there are different kinds of noise and aircraft
sound can be a bit annoying.

I've been to a meeting with complainers, some of them are reasonable
people who think that together we can come to a sensible solution(my
idea too).
The most(that I've met) however are fanatics that will not rest before
the airfield is closed.
Those are the ones that go to court for about anything (even
vaguely)related to the field.

I had a good laugh though.
Some examples from complaints against our field:
-Complaints about fast small yellow planes that make this irritating
whining sound.
Airforce trainers from a nearby base.
-The jump plane has a diesel engine now, so it makes more noise.
No, it is 4db less than before.
Etc etc.

Anyway, I think I'm nice to our neighbours.
I allways reduce power at reaching 200~300ft AGL(the other end of our
2500ft runway)
Climbing at 75% and not overflying populated areas, parks, beaches,
etc. when possible.

-Kees






I've been to meetings with complainers, some are reasonable people but
the majority will not rest before the airfield is closed.

I realize I am considered an unwelcome "troll" on this board, but thank you
anyway for your excellent post.

As someone who lives about 3 miles from a GA facility, I can say that the
small single engine GA planes (C-150s, 172s, etc., and certainly the
smaller "experimental" types, are not a major nuisance. I specifically
avoided purchasing property off the ends of the runways, because I
realized the noise would be intrusive.

However, even where I am, I find that there are very inconsiderate pilots
who fly high performance Mooneys and even Pitts below 1000 feet at high
rpm and in clear conditions with no competing traffic. The local airport
has "voluntary" noise abatement procedures, which are routinely ignored by
certain pilots, and of course the FAA makes, at best, perfunctory efforts
to identify offending pilots.

After going to several meetings concerning the planned "improvements"
(i.e. expansions) of the local airport, I saw quite a large number of
people were severely bothered by the unnecessary noise of the
irresponsible few pilots. Of course, some of the local pilot community
has the "to hell with them" attitude (they were at the meeting), and it
became pretty antagonistic.

Since the industry won't police its own, the airport manager doesn't care
and/or is powerless, and the FAA is indifferent to community noise issues,
we so-called anti-GA activists have taken the battle to the politicians,
and the airport is definitely paying a price. I have raised the issue of
local subsidies that our airport is asking from the city (the huge FAA
subsidies are apparently not enough), safety concerns of expanding the
airport, water pollution issues (the runway extension would require
elimination of wetlands), subsidies, etc. and have gotten many responses
from local, state and federal officials. I have had several letters to
the editor published. I have started posting on this and other boards.

I never wanted this fight, but when I am continously and unnecessarily
harrased by low flying pilots in high performance planes, or twin engine
planes in a hurry to get somewhere and/or save fuel by avoiding the noise
abatement suggested routes, I will fight back using every legal means at
my disposal.

I really don't care all that much about the safety and pollution issues.
I care somewhat more about the taxpayer subsidies. But the unnecessary
noise by an irresponsible few has energized me to research and monitor my
local airport, its finances, etc.

For those who dismiss the complainers as cranks, whiners, trolls, or nut
cases (or jealous - LOL), you are digging your own graves. There are
serious and intelligent people who are fighting your industry, and doing
our best to raise the cost of doing business.

I believe in live and let live, but some pilots don't, so I have become a
vocal and constant critic. And, groups are forming to counter the pilots
groups. Its unfortunate, but I won't be driven from my home by private
pilots.

Skylune wrote:

The local airport
has "voluntary" noise abatement procedures, which are routinely ignored by
certain pilots, and of course the FAA makes, at best, perfunctory efforts
to identify offending pilots.

Noise abatement programs are not the jurisdiction of the FAA. The FAA
does not design or enforce noise abatement programs. Those programs are
local.

True, although there is a noise complaint site for New England on the FAA
website, which I and others have determined is purely for show value.

Furthermore, the FAA funds the ridiculous Part 150 studies noise
compatibility studies, which (as you note) they are not responsible for
enforcing. In our case, NO ONE is responsible for monitoring or
enforcing the voluntary noise abatement procedures -- the airport manager
is either powerless or does not care. Therefore (and unfortunately),
litigation and political pressure are our only recourse to protect our
community. So that's what it has come to in my area. (Expect more
litigation too....)

As I said previously, I will not be driven from my home so that a few
cowboys can have a good time. We did not ask for this fight -- it was
forced upon us. And now, we will use every opportunity and newsbite (user
fees, requested subsidies from the city, water pollution, noise pollution,
traffic concerns, safety issues, etc.) to fight back and raise the pilots'
cost of doing business. Trust me, the local airport can already forget
about the funds they've requested from the city for improvements.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

True, although there is a noise complaint site for New England on the FAA
website, which I and others have determined is purely for show value.

Furthermore, the FAA funds the ridiculous Part 150 studies noise
compatibility studies, which (as you note) they are not responsible for
enforcing. In our case, NO ONE is responsible for monitoring or
enforcing the voluntary noise abatement procedures -- the airport manager
is either powerless or does not care. Therefore (and unfortunately),
litigation and political pressure are our only recourse to protect our
community. So that's what it has come to in my area. (Expect more
litigation too....)

As I said previously, I will not be driven from my home so that a few
cowboys can have a good time. We did not ask for this fight -- it was
forced upon us. And now, we will use every opportunity and newsbite (user
fees, requested subsidies from the city, water pollution, noise pollution,
traffic concerns, safety issues, etc.) to fight back and raise the pilots'
cost of doing business. Trust me, the local airport can already forget
about the funds they've requested from the city for improvements.

Have you ever attempted reasonable discourse on the subject? IIRC, you
came to this newsgroup like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl,
looking to chastise everybody who flies.

Nobody is driving you from your home, but YOU are ready to drive us from
ours!

Most of us in this NG are not afraid to post our real names, rather than
using some fake handle, such as yourself. IMHO, you have little more
standing than the London terrorist bombers.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Followup: For example, we store delicious tidbits such as the below (from
the I-pilot website, which the webmaster thinks he has me blocked out of),
and will use them at an opportune time, such as when a crash occurs that
kills people on the ground or destroys property.

The media loves letter to the editor that include factual references to
other stupid pilot tricks that demonstrate the true social cost and nature
of GA. Here's the story from I-pilot's newsletter....

Student pilot faces charges after dropping water balloons
Following in the wake of a drunken man taking two friends joyriding in a
Skyhawk in Connecticut, and a 14-year-old taking a Cessna 152 for a spin
in Florida, two Utah men are facing charges for allegedly dropping water
balloons from a Cessna 150 onto people at a car show over the July 4
weekend. The 21-year-old pilot had his student pilot certificate,
according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Police allege that the student pilot
and his friend on board made low-altitude passes over the town of Logan
and dropped the balloons. 'I don't think they were thinking,' said Police
Lt. Rod Peterson of the two men. 'It was just a very dangerous, very
foolish act on their part.' Police say the student pilot turned off all
the plane's lights while in the air, and that the two admitted to dropping
about five water balloons while at altitudes between 300 and 400 feet AGL.

Here's a clip from another N/G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: F-16 Noise Complaint
From the Arizona Republic online.....

A complaint post, and the reply:

Complaint:
Quote: A wake-up call from Luke's jets Jun. 23, 2005 12:00 AM

"Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do we thank for the
morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight
formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall,
continuing west over
Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the
Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying
to impress the cashiers at Mervyns' early-bird special? Any response
would be appreciated."


The reply is classic, and a testament to the professionalism and
heroism of the folks in the armed services. The response:

Quote:
Regarding "A wake-up call from Luke's jets" (Letters, Thursday): On
June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four-ship of F-16s
from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the
grave of Capt Jeremy Fresques.


Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at
Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day. At
9 a.m. on June 1 5, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial
Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend.


Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby, and because of the
jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of
taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave
them their son's flag on behalf of the president of the United States
and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the
sacrifices they have endured. A four-ship flyby is a display of respect
the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in defense of freedom.
We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June
15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay
their ultimate respects.

The letter writer asks, "Whom do we thank for the morning air show?"
The 56th Fighter Wing will call for you, and forward your thanks to the
widow and parents of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was
in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of
their lives.


Lt. Col. Scott Pleus
CO 63rd Fighter Squadron
Luke Air Force Base