Stop the noise

http://www.stopthestunts.com

It appears the owner of this domain is also the Innkeeper of

http://www.maplewoodlodge.com/

Which I believe is only a mile north of the airport. So I imagine the stunt
flying might be disrupting his business in some way?

It appears the owner of this domain is also the Innkeeper of

http://www.maplewoodlodge.com/

Which I believe is only a mile north of the airport. So I imagine the
stunt
flying might be disrupting his business in some way?

Well, shoot -- let's move that aerobatic box to Iowa City. It would HELP
*my* business!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"William W. Plummer" wrote:

When I do, I will insist on practicing further out in central MA, or over the

ocean, etc as not to disturb people, even if I have to pay for a bit more
flight time to get out and back.

That's just plain stupid.
You want to practice over an area where you have good depth perception and
discrimination of relative motion. You don't get that over open water. Just
one of the reasons seaplanes crash on glassy water landings. Can you tell the
difference between 6 foot swells and wind blown whitecaps from 300 feet?
Aerobatic maneuvers are flown by reference to landmarks, not compass headings.
Your head has to be out of the cockpit, not inside.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They
don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
lives.



Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They
just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on
their
lives.



Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.


From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the activity.

I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community is
that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right. Our attitude is
that they need to adapt to us and our activities. This attitude is
perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant. As long as we
continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually lose
the war.

Earl G

"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
link.net...

Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for
a
toy.


From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of
the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
activity.

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
airports that already existed.

I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community
is
that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right.

In lieu of the above, it would be the case that our group is right.
Right/wrong is NOT determined but the volume and shrillness of the tantrum
thrown.


Our attitude is
that they need to adapt to us and our activities.

As above.

This attitude is
perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant.

As above.

As long as we
continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually
lose
the war.

And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats will
not survive.

Actually the guy who started STN is a wealthy lawyer.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.

In article ,
You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you

Municipal ordinances generally prohibit folks from making noise before
7am and after 10pm.

In the above case aerobatics were only performed during daylight hours.
To my line of thinking people have a right to live in an area free of
excessive noise. The equestion becomes what's excessive?
I'm not familar with the above group, but here in Seattle we have a
group that lives next to KSEA (class B Seattle-Tacoma International) which
constantly complains about the noise. Since no one is going to close KSEA
to night operations or even consider reducing the number of operations
they are out of luck. But despite the fact that they choose to live next
to a major airport they feel they have the right to a 'quite' home.
How many times have peopel complained about noise only to discover that
the noise was from a 747 crossing overhead at 5,000ft.
So for me the question is does a compromise exist? Often it doesn't
because the anti-noise groups don't want quiet they what everyone else
gone But we do not have all the facts of the case, maybe pilots are
making excessive noise. Either way local governments should not pass laws
to control airspace. Somethings should be handled at the federal level,
others at the state level, and others at the local level.

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:


"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
link.net...

From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of
the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do
not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the
activity.

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
airports that already existed.

Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.

And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats will
not survive.

Is it your view that everyone else's opinion is a "tantrum"? Just wondering.

"Ed" wrote in message
. com...
The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us. By
"them", I mean people who would just as soon not have airplanes doing
aerobatics directly over their houses. By that definition, "them" is a
large proportion of the general population. Hell, I fly acro, and I
wouldn't want an acro box directly over my house! How about you?

One would assume that the aviation authorities would also prefer people not
to be doing aerobatics over someone's house, given the potential
consequences in the event of an engine or other failure.

D.