Trouble ahead over small plane fees

On 2006-04-11, Skylune wrote:
or silly variants
like the airport was there first.

Why is it 'silly'? I agree pilots should be neigbourly and operate in a
manner not to cause undue noise, but really - if you don't like the
sound of aircraft, don't live close to an airport or under busy flight
paths. It's common sense to do at least that much due diligence when
buying a house (almost certainly the most expensive purchase you'll ever
make).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

by Dylan Smith Apr 12, 2006 at 11:19 AM



Why is it 'silly'? I agree pilots should be neigbourly and operate in a
manner not to cause undue noise, but really - if you don't like the
sound of aircraft, don't live close to an airport or under busy flight
paths. It's common sense to do at least that much due diligence when
buying a house (almost certainly the most expensive purchase you'll ever
make).




It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument. It is
irrelevant, even if true. Lots of things existed that are no longer there
because they were deemed no longer in the best interest of the community
(mills, landfills, etc.).

And if that is the argument, Native Americans would have legitimate
grounds to throw all our asses back across the pond to Europe.

I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships. They must not rely
on taxpayer subsidies, but should be funded by the users unless the local
community finds it beneficial to subsidize the airstrip.

This FAA funding creates a huge mess, and a welfare state, which is what
GA is in this country.

This FAA funding creates a huge mess, and a welfare state, which is what
GA is in this country.

You seem to come from the POV that any shared expense system is a
welfare state. This is not so.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield?

I agree that pilots should do everything in their power to reduce the
impact of what they do - that's just Doing The Right Thing and being
neigbourly (regardless of whether the airport was there first or not).
However, to buy a house near an airfield and kvetch about aircraft noise
seems to suggest that the complainer wasn't smart enough to do their due
diligence - and now expects aircraft operators to pay the price for
their own poor research. This is what seems 'silly'.

I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships.

It works both ways too - townships that get built around existing active
airfields also must co-exist with the airfield. House buyers must accept
some responsibility for doing due diligence and not buying a house near
an active airfield if they find aircraft noise bothersome.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

by Dylan Smith Apr 12, 2006 at 03:29 PM


On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield



In that scenario, of course the new homeowners have no right to bitch.
But there are many other scenarios that are much different.


What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located? These can extend many miles from the airport. Should people
have to become experts in right and left traffic patterns, be able to read
sectionals, etc. when purchasing a home?

Lastly, a group that Boyer attacks as radicals, Stop the Noise, is not
located near any airport. Stunt planes have picked this bucolic (Groton,
Mass) area to practice over. The noise is horrific on sunny weekends. I
have heard it. But these homeowners have no rights under existing FARs.
So they sued in State Court, which AOPA tried to have moved to Federal
Court on pre-emption grounds. (AOPA likes FAA regs when it shields the
industry.) Much to the AOPA's dismay, the court in a remand order ruled
that state statutes do apply, and the case is currently awaiting trial.

What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

What about the airport that was there next to a small sympathetic town,
which grows into a condo-maniac mosnter? Was not the airport there
before the expansion?

Typically both things happen at once as population grows.

And to go back to the highway, traffic on the highway increases and more
trucks go by, turning =that= into a noise-spewing monster. Was not the
resident there before the traffic expansion? Why not close the highway?

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located?

Stop and listen. Ask the homeowner. You're plunking down a sizable
fraction of a million dollars - do some research.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

General aviation is in decline. If that happens it's because the
AIRLINES moved in. Noise spewing monster airports are generally not
caused by GA.

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located? These can extend many miles from the airport. Should people
have to become experts in right and left traffic patterns, be able to read
sectionals, etc. when purchasing a home?

All they have to do is spend a little time in the neighbourhood and TALK
to the neighbours. I know it's totally unheard of to actually talk to
your neighbours these days - but really, when you're plunking down maybe
100 grand or more on a house you ought to at least meet the neighbours
and ask them what the neighbourhood is like. "Oh, I see there's an
airport on the local map - how noisy is it?". If you see an airport on
the map, spend some time in the street and find out whether the sounds
are annoying. But people don't even do this minor bit of easy research.
It doesn't take being an expert in aviation to ask your potential
neighbours what the traffic is like at the airport you spotted on the
map.

Of course, most people don't even bother buying a map when purchasing a
house to find out what's around. They wouldn't dream of buying a house
without doing a structural survey or checking for liens or other
problems - but when it comes to doing a minor bit of legwork to check
that the rest of the neighbourhood is acceptable to them, they don't
bother.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net