Cape Cod Airport Neighbors Sign On!!!

With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Pla...FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Bush


On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:21:24 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:

From local paper:

"By Tom J. Sullivan

The line in the sand has been drawn.

We understand you have leadership problems in Barnstable. We empathize
with our Barnstable neighbors, but the voters must step up to the plate
on our behalf.

We don't want your money.

We just want the Barnstable Airport and it's Commissioners to do what is
right. Since 1957 the Barnstable Municipal Airport (BMA) has been
expanding its runway approaches. These approaches go over public and
private land in the Town of Barnstable and the Town of Yarmouth.

Now at a recent Airport Commission meeting the Yarmouth Representative
announced that the approaches would be moved further east into the Town of
Yarmouth. The reason for moving the flight paths now is the new tower
under construction at the hospital.

When will your Airport Commissioners obey the State Laws that regulate
airports?

When will the Airport Commissioners and the Town of Barnstable respect
individual property rights? Federal and State laws require the town to
pay property owners for land takings.

Cotuit councilor Rick Barry is ignoring Barnstable and Yarmouth’s airport
noise pollution with his claim, "the airport was here first, and we
shouldn’t have bought homes in the flight paths."

What has he to say about homes that have been here for decades, and the
flight paths are encroaching over these properties? How would he like
when he is awaken out of a sound sleep at 5:15 AM?

If you want to move into our space, buy our homes.

The time has come for someone in town hall sit down with the property
owners in Barnstable and Yarmouth, after the Airport identifies the
affected property owners, to discuss mitigation for the land takings that
have occurred."

by Bushleague Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM


With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Pla...FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
modified to comply with FARs."

What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
experience increased small plane noise will have people who understandably
will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
letters to newpapers and politicians.

Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
familiar with?

Bush

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:


by Bushleague Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM


With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Pla...FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
modified to comply with FARs."

What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
experience increased small plane noise will have people who understandably
will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
letters to newpapers and politicians.

by Bushleague Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM


Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
familiar with?

Bush

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:


by Bushleague Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM


With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Pla...FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
modified to comply with FARs."

What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
experience increased small plane noise will have people who
understandably
will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
letters to newpapers and politicians.

STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based in a
small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been tussling
with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community for
acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed suit
in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
acrobatics over their home.

The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
with national implications.

I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN with
low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
"investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
Details are on their web site.

Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same town
called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and spread
acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a smack
at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
particular school.

Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by Bushleague Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM


Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
familiar with?

Bush

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:


by Bushleague Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM


With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Pla...FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
modified to comply with FARs."

What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
experience increased small plane noise will have people who
understandably
will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
letters to newpapers and politicians.

STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based in a
small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been tussling
with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community for
acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed suit
in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
acrobatics over their home.

The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
with national implications.

I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN with
low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
"investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
Details are on their web site.

Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same town
called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and spread
acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a smack
at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
particular school.

Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?

In my experience, I have never encountered an "anti-noise" group which
was interested in anything but killing GA and GA airports, with perhaps
a few pilots in-between.

Very often, the attempts at "dialogue" are nothing but
intelligence-gathering efforts, designed to collect information to be
used against the GA people.

The STN people are particularly vicious in their lawsuit harassment
tactics and have sent several people into bankruptcy.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

by Orval Fairbairn o_r_fairbairn@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 30, 2005 at
04:25 PM


In article
4d7ae85e98f65ed89f44d5868d00b511@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
"Skylune" live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

by Bushleague Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM


Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
familiar with?

Bush

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:


by Bushleague Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM


With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports
making.

This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
modified to comply with FARs."

What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will
now
experience increased small plane noise will have people who
understandably
will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will
write
letters to newpapers and politicians.

STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based
in
a
small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been
tussling
with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community
for
acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed
suit
in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
acrobatics over their home.

The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
with national implications.

I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN
with
low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
"investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
Details are on their web site.

Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same
town
called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and
spread
acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a
smack
at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
particular school.

Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?

In my experience, I have never encountered an "anti-noise" group which
was interested in anything but killing GA and GA airports, with perhaps
a few pilots in-between.

Very often, the attempts at "dialogue" are nothing but
intelligence-gathering efforts, designed to collect information to be
used against the GA people.

The STN people are particularly vicious in their lawsuit harassment
tactics and have sent several people into bankruptcy.

Wow. As the saying goes, "Just because you are paranoid does not mean
that you are not being followed."

"Killing GA"?? Maybe some groups have this goal, probably out of utter
frustration. Personally, I won't affiliate with (but I do communicate
with) any anti-noise groups at this point, partly because I have flown a
little, and I continue to sit in the right seat occassionally. I can see
the benefits (and fun) of recreational GA.

I also see the other side. I now live full time in an area that used to
be pretty quiet (occassional small plane noise) but now seems to be
directly beneath a busy GA flight path. It IS really, really annoying.

I think most of the anti-noise groups would be more reasonable if any
serious efforts are made to co-exist. But, when the airport is
unresponsive, and the FAA doesn't care, and pilots hide behind the FARs
and the FAA bureacracy to justify a lack of common courtesy, people will
get ****ED. If you drive people crazy long enough, some will fight back,
and hit where it hurts.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by Orval Fairbairn o_r_fairbairn@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 30, 2005 at
04:25 PM


In article
4d7ae85e98f65ed89f44d5868d00b511@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
"Skylune" live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

by Bushleague Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM


Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
familiar with?

Bush

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
live-ski-or-die@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:


by Bushleague Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM


With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports
making.

This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
modified to comply with FARs."

What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will
now
experience increased small plane noise will have people who
understandably
will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will
write
letters to newpapers and politicians.

STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based
in
a
small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been
tussling
with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community
for
acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed
suit
in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
acrobatics over their home.

The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
with national implications.

I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN
with
low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
"investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
Details are on their web site.

Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same
town
called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and
spread
acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a
smack
at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
particular school.

Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?

In my experience, I have never encountered an "anti-noise" group which
was interested in anything but killing GA and GA airports, with perhaps
a few pilots in-between.

Very often, the attempts at "dialogue" are nothing but
intelligence-gathering efforts, designed to collect information to be
used against the GA people.

The STN people are particularly vicious in their lawsuit harassment
tactics and have sent several people into bankruptcy.

Wow. As the saying goes, "Just because you are paranoid does not mean
that you are not being followed."

"Killing GA"?? Maybe some groups have this goal, probably out of utter
frustration. Personally, I won't affiliate with (but I do communicate
with) any anti-noise groups at this point, partly because I have flown a
little, and I continue to sit in the right seat occassionally. I can see
the benefits (and fun) of recreational GA.

I also see the other side. I now live full time in an area that used to
be pretty quiet (occassional small plane noise) but now seems to be
directly beneath a busy GA flight path. It IS really, really annoying.

I think most of the anti-noise groups would be more reasonable if any
serious efforts are made to co-exist. But, when the airport is
unresponsive, and the FAA doesn't care, and pilots hide behind the FARs
and the FAA bureacracy to justify a lack of common courtesy, people will
get ****ED. If you drive people crazy long enough, some will fight back,
and hit where it hurts.


Unfortunately, many of the "anti-noise" groups are really fronts for
real estate developers who wish to acquire a nice, large, flat area of
land, cheaply, to do their thing -- everybody else be damned. This has
been the case in Concord, CA, Hawthorne, CA, Oceanside, CA, Atlantic
City, NJ and many other sites. All you have to do is look under the
carpet!

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Great info, Thank you. Plane Nonsense no dought belongs to Hyannis Air
Service. Dan Wolf is the Chief of ACK (Cape Air), Bill McGrath, Owner
of Island Air. Since 72% of the flights in and out of HYA are Cessna
402's which both of these airlines own and operate, it may be a place
to start.

Bush

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:56:24 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:

by Bushleague Nov 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM


Beginning with Dan Wolf and Bill McGrath no dought. STN I'm not
familiar with?

Bush

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:55:22 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:


by Bushleague Nov 29, 2005 at 04:33 PM


With the new tower at CCH (Cape Cod Hospital) the BMA is attempting to
adhere to FAR Part 77, obstructions to Navigation. Here's a link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Pla...FAR_Part77.pdf

Planning, it was a three hour course at Harvard.

Have a great one!

Thanks. I agree this seems to be a problem not of the airports making.
This is a problem with uncoordinated planning. The rerouting of the
flight paths should have been anticipated by the hospital construction
consultants. Maybe it was and it was not in their scope of work. Now
comes another agency (the FAA) and says, "approaches now need to be
modified to comply with FARs."

What is missing? The community. Areas around the airport that will now
experience increased small plane noise will have people who
understandably
will get upset. Some will fight. Some will join STN. Some will write
letters to newpapers and politicians.

STN is an acronym for a group called "Stop the Noise," which is based in a
small town in north-central Massachusetts. This group has been tussling
with various flight schools that have chosen to pick their community for
acrobatic flight training. After years of fighting with the FAA, the
various flight schools, etc. about excessive noise, they have filed suit
in state district court against individuals that continue to conduct
acrobatics over their home.

The FAA/AOPA alliance (in this case) tried to get the suit dismissed on
the grounds of federal pre-emption. The state judge disagreed, and
remanded the case to district court for trial. This is a real big one,
with national implications.

I think its also a case where a few pilots got ****ed when the group
started getting vocal, and retaliated by harrassing the people at STN with
low flights. (The fliers obviously deny this, and claim the FAA has
"investigated" and found no violations of FARs.) Rather than seek
compromise, both sides have become radicalized, and then STN sued.
Details are on their web site.

Its interesting that there is another anti-GA noise group in the same town
called "Plane Sense." They tried to negotiate with the pilots and spread
acrobatic training around. Of course they have been completely
unsuccesful. One of the flight schools actually went so far as to
register their planes in the corporate name of "Plane Nonsense," a smack
at Plane Sense and an insight into the mentality of owners of this
particular school.

Dan Wolf, and McGrath: who are these people?

by Bushleague Bushleague@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 1, 2005 at 08:06 PM


Great info, Thank you. Plane Nonsense no dought belongs to Hyannis Air
Service. Dan Wolf is the Chief of ACK (Cape Air), Bill McGrath, Owner
of Island Air. Since 72% of the flights in and out of HYA are Cessna
402's which both of these airlines own and operate, it may be a place
to start.

Bush

You're welcome.

One correction to what I wrote about the STN lawsuit: A Federal District
Court remanded the case back to the State Court. That's important,
because it bolsters the plaintiffs' contention that the FARs do not
supersede state aeronautical laws. (Details are on the STN website.)

I'm pretty sure the Court is done taking depositions, which would probably
point to a trial date sometime in 2006.

Its wonderful when the legal system works for the victims.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:


I'm pretty sure the Court is done taking depositions, which would probably
point to a trial date sometime in 2006.

Its wonderful when the legal system works for the victims.

The victims are the law-abiding aerobatic pilots who have had to hire
lawyers to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits brought by a
rich lawyer and his rich friends. So far, the legal system is working
against the victims.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.