Listening for Quiet

In article ,
says...


Airbus writes:

Well that's handy - If you're talking about Paris, France the arrival and
departure procedures are designed to circumnavigate the city . . .

Yes, but as I said, even when I lived in another city beneath an arrival path
for one of the world's largest airports, I still didn't hear much.

It used to be entirely forbidden to overfly Paris without special permission,

No, it was never forbidden to overfly Paris - moreover, the rules are stricter
now than ever ...

but now I do see aircraft occasionally flying over the city. I understand
that rules were relaxed some years ago (ironically not long after 9/11), but
at the same time I still see Paris marked as a prohibited area on the charts,
so I'm not sure what the status is exactly.

Not surprising that you are not sure, because you are not a pilot. To pilots,
the rules and procedures are clear, and vector departures and arrivals may
route planes over the city. These are limited for political reasons, and remain
exceptional. . .

In article ,
says...


Airbus writes:

Not surprising that you are not sure, because you are not a pilot. To
pilots,
the rules and procedures are clear, and vector departures and arrivals may
route planes over the city.

If only things were so black and white.

Well, radar vectors are pretty cut and dried - you go where they say.
The arrivals are designed to avoid Paris, but they often vector them right up
to the line - With a 1nm tolerance in B-RNAV a good many of them will be over
the line. Departures often fly over Paris, but they are above 6500ft, where
there is no restriction.

I agree that airplane noise in that and most other cities is insignificaznt
compared with road traffic noise. . .

Airbus writes:

Well, radar vectors are pretty cut and dried - you go where they say.

That's not what I meant. I meant that if only all pilots were fully competent
and all non-pilots were fully incompetent. But the reality is otherwise.

I agree that airplane noise in that and most other cities is insignificaznt
compared with road traffic noise. . .

Unfortunately, everyone drives cars, but hardly anyone flies airplanes, so
cars get the special consideration.

Mx worte

.. That's not what I meant. I meant that if only all pilots were
fully competent
and all non-pilots were fully incompetent. But the reality is otherwise.

To which I, an nonpilot, can agree, however, the wise person would be
voting to beleive the pilot in matters of the practical aspects of
aviation.

Tina writes:

To which I, an nonpilot, can agree, however, the wise person would be
voting to beleive the pilot in matters of the practical aspects of
aviation.

The wisdom I've acquired has taught me to never believe anyone based on
credentials. I have to see someone demonstrate that he actually knows what he
is talking about before I believe him. It's surprising how frequently people
with credentials turn out to be clueless.

Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser to
make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
credentials.

It is laughable when one considers the number of resumes one might see
that claim "Ph.D, Qualified, thesis not completed" Or, among MDs,
"Qualfied for Board Certification."

Such claims make life easier for the decision maker: There are two
broad kinds of mistakes on can make in choosing candidates, or
friends, or experts -- to accept someone now qualified (a mistake of
the first kind) or to reject someone who is qualified (a mistake of
the second kind.) In real life we are best off making many of the
mistakes of the first kind, to avoid making mistakes of the second
kind.

I appreciate that you may never had been a hiring authority, but you
provide good practice to those here who might be.



On Oct 13, 3:59 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Tina writes:
To which I, an nonpilot, can agree, however, the wise person would be
voting to beleive the pilot in matters of the practical aspects of
aviation.

The wisdom I've acquired has taught me to never believe anyone based on
credentials. I have to see someone demonstrate that he actually knows what he
is talking about before I believe him. It's surprising how frequently people
with credentials turn out to be clueless.

writes:

Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser to
make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
credentials.

I've been burned too many times to make this mistake, sometimes in expensive
or dangerous ways. Now I want proof that someone is competent before
believing what he says, and credentials are not proof.

This caution, I assume, has led you to the rich and full life you now
enjoy?


On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser to
make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
credentials.

I've been burned too many times to make this mistake, sometimes in expensive
or dangerous ways. Now I want proof that someone is competent before
believing what he says, and credentials are not proof.

daffy wrote:
Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
for Quiet".
It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
park. The article concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
plane.

I love flying but I also love wilderness camping. Although I would not
vote to ban aircraft from flying over unpopulated areas, I would rather
not hear them when I'm enjoying the wilderness.

In a similar way, I enjoy both fly fishing and white-water canoeing,
although the two are incompatible.

I suggest we simply need to develop a tolerance, or perhaps respect, for
the other fellow's recreation even if it occasionally interferes with ours.

The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
ambient sound....

Well, if really was "a silent sanctuary," then doubling the sound would
not make much difference: two times zero decibels = zero decibels.

vince norris




, and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
source, hunching for
cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

Tina writes:

This caution, I assume, has led you to the rich and full life you now
enjoy?

No, but a past lack of such wariness has been a contributing factor.