Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

Larry Dighera wrote:

(Naples sued FAA and won a court
order reinstating their ability to receive future grants. Cost to
local taxpayers to cover legal expenses to "win" this battle? Five
million dollars).

Is this correct? It is not how I read the latest update at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/apf/

but perhaps it is out of date. It claims that the court pushed the case
back at the FAA so it could better define why the Naples stage 2 ban is
"unreasonable".

Now, this is a problem in that it does open the door for localities to
impose noise restrictions yet retain grants. I'd guess from the evidence
the FAA apparently didn't offer (based upon my reading of the opinion at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airpo...on20050603.pdf

) that the FAA was not hoping for such a decision. It now remains with the
FAA how to combat such things.

Unfortunately, I couldn't locate anything indicating what the FAA will be
doing following that court decision.

- Andrew

Careflight is a serious issue for North Tahoe communities, and the Board
should be aware of its liabilities should medevac be made impractical at
night. There are only two practical surface routes available from Tahoe
Forest Hospital to larger, better-equipped hospitals in Reno and the
Sacramento area, and these routes are often closed in winter. When that's
the case, air charter is the only way to get a critical patient out of the
valley.

Tahoe Forest Hospital serves the ski resorts of Squaw Valley, Alpine
Meadows, Northstar and Sugarbowl.

Seth
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Larry Dighera wrote:

(Naples sued FAA and won a court
order reinstating their ability to receive future grants. Cost to
local taxpayers to cover legal expenses to "win" this battle? Five
million dollars).

Is this correct? It is not how I read the latest update at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/apf/

but perhaps it is out of date. It claims that the court pushed the case
back at the FAA so it could better define why the Naples stage 2 ban is
"unreasonable".

Now, this is a problem in that it does open the door for localities to
impose noise restrictions yet retain grants. I'd guess from the evidence
the FAA apparently didn't offer (based upon my reading of the opinion at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airpo...on20050603.pdf

) that the FAA was not hoping for such a decision. It now remains with
the
FAA how to combat such things.

Unfortunately, I couldn't locate anything indicating what the FAA will be
doing following that court decision.

- Andrew

I worked with Kathleen Egan for over a year when we incorporated Truckee and
she impressed me as being a most reasonable and forthright person. She may
have changed, but I'd be willing to cut her a little slack and work with
her.

As I recall, she was one of the first city council members and later mayor
of Truckee. She may have some political debts to pay -- that is always a
possibility.

Jim

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:25:59 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ne.com::

Larry Dighera wrote:

(Naples sued FAA and won a court
order reinstating their ability to receive future grants. Cost to
local taxpayers to cover legal expenses to "win" this battle? Five
million dollars).

Is this correct? It is not how I read the latest update at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/apf/

but perhaps it is out of date. It claims that the court pushed the case
back at the FAA so it could better define why the Naples stage 2 ban is
"unreasonable".

Now, this is a problem in that it does open the door for localities to
impose noise restrictions yet retain grants. I'd guess from the evidence
the FAA apparently didn't offer (based upon my reading of the opinion at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airpo...on20050603.pdf

) that the FAA was not hoping for such a decision. It now remains with the
FAA how to combat such things.

Unfortunately, I couldn't locate anything indicating what the FAA will be
doing following that court decision.

- Andrew


Thanks to the link to information regarding this case.

From a cursory scan of the page, it does appear that the FAA lost the
case. Specifically what language lead you to believe otherwise?

How about a Truckee Fly-In

Scheduled monthly

Starting at 2am....

Props MUST be at full redline speed prior to landing and during all
pattern work...

LOL

Lets see, airport has probably been there for 30 years, houses for 5 and
only AFTER building their expensive houses does the noise bother them.

Where I did my flight training in Ann Arbor Michigan people were
building 500k+ houses right on short final.. Is that the airplane or
airports fault??

It seems when they were buying there house, there was a clause listed
that discussed the airport being nearby (required to disclose in
Michigan)

Shoot, in Arizona where I live now, they were required to tell me about
'heavy military training' from Davis Monthan and Tucson International (I
LIKE watching the A10s and F16s fly overhead in formation
personally...LOL

Just wish they'd go supersonic once and a while...LOL

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD

Schmuck.

Sure, **** the locals off, get the local elected board to take action
against you, and in general screw up the system.

What an asshole... oh, sorry, I saw you were an MD. What a PUTZ you are.

Jim


"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
How about a Truckee Fly-In

Scheduled monthly

Starting at 2am....

Props MUST be at full redline speed prior to landing and during all
pattern work...

LOL

Lets see, airport has probably been there for 30 years, houses for 5 and
only AFTER building their expensive houses does the noise bother them.

by "RST Engineering" jim@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 12, 2005 at 08:24 PM


Schmuck.

Sure, **** the locals off, get the local elected board to take action
against you, and in general screw up the system.

What an asshole... oh, sorry, I saw you were an MD. What a PUTZ you are.

Jim


"Chris Schmelzer" chriss@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in message
news:chriss-E55C45.14521112112005@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about a Truckee Fly-In

Scheduled monthly

Starting at 2am....

Props MUST be at full redline speed prior to landing and during all
pattern work...

LOL

Lets see, airport has probably been there for 30 years, houses for 5
and
only AFTER building their expensive houses does the noise bother
them.


An example of one of the many arrogant putzes that just doesn't give a
damn about the effects his actions have on others. And supposedly a
physician!! LOL.

I have been following the Truckee story closely, and this development is
outstanding news!! Bravo for a community exerting local control!!!

And enough of the tired, the airport was there first bs. This trite
argument is (1) irrelevant and (2) BS. I'll bet the airport, like all
others, are putting more and more flying go karts up there and just
telling the locals to deal with it. It won't fly, and will only get
worse!

I'm hoping that this is just sarcastic wishful thinking because it's
about as counterproductive as it gets when dealing with noise
situations like this. As David Bowie said, it's putting out a fire
with gasoline.

Being based at an airport (1V5 - Boulder,CO) that is always in the
crosshairs of the anti-GA loonies, I can say that showing a
conscious effort to mitigate noise helps in a small way to mitigate
the complaints. And yes, 1V5 was here long before the houses but
rational arguments don't hold water with the people making the
complaints.

Before flying into Truckee-Tahoe recently for the first time in
September, I was sure to log into their website and study the arrival
and departure procedures so as to try and not violate their noise
regs. Avoiding overflight of residential areas both in Truckee and
Boulder is a small step to try and avoid the calls to the airport from
the hearing sensitive idiots.

Alan Bloom
'60 C182

Dogs can fly.
http://www.flyingmutts.com


On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:52:11 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
wrote:

How about a Truckee Fly-In

Scheduled monthly

Starting at 2am....

Props MUST be at full redline speed prior to landing and during all
pattern work...

LOL

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:49:54 GMT, (Alan) wrote:


I'm hoping that this is just sarcastic wishful thinking because it's
about as counterproductive as it gets when dealing with noise
situations like this. As David Bowie said, it's putting out a fire
with gasoline.

Being based at an airport (1V5 - Boulder,CO) that is always in the
crosshairs of the anti-GA loonies, I can say that showing a
conscious effort to mitigate noise helps in a small way to mitigate
the complaints. And yes, 1V5 was here long before the houses but
rational arguments don't hold water with the people making the
complaints.

Before flying into Truckee-Tahoe recently for the first time in
September, I was sure to log into their website and study the arrival
and departure procedures so as to try and not violate their noise
regs. Avoiding overflight of residential areas both in Truckee and
Boulder is a small step to try and avoid the calls to the airport from
the hearing sensitive idiots.

You mean I wasn't supposed to take that sight seeing trip over those
big homes in Boulder on the way home?:-))

I go into BJC and avoid 1V5

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Alan Bloom
'60 C182

Dogs can fly.
http://www.flyingmutts.com


On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:52:11 -0600, Chris Schmelzer
wrote:

How about a Truckee Fly-In

Scheduled monthly

Starting at 2am....

Props MUST be at full redline speed prior to landing and during all
pattern work...

LOL

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:53:25 -0500, Roger
wrote:

You mean I wasn't supposed to take that sight seeing trip over those
big homes in Boulder on the way home?:-))

I go into BJC and avoid 1V5

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


No problem, so long you avoid the big house with the observatory and
they can't see your tail number.

Keep messing around I'll start lobbying for that new jail to be built
on Clyde Road!

Alan Bloom
Dogs can fly.
www.flyingmutts.com