A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Aerobatics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stop the noise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 20th 04, 04:08 PM
airads
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stop the noise

Feb. 24 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday
provided initial support to four Massachusetts pilots - all AOPA
members - facing a lawsuit filed by a few residents. The suit alleges
that the noise signature from the aerobatics performed by the pilots
caused significant harm; they are seeking approximately $1 million in
damages. The pilots are based at various airports, some 20 miles from
the homes of the litigants.

"This is potentially an issue that could affect all pilots engaged in
any type of air commerce - from a Cub to a 747," said AOPA President
Phil Boyer. "We are fully prepared to take this through the federal
system if necessary.



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-108x.html

Frank
Ads
  #2  
Old March 21st 04, 06:00 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf blowers,
boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself. The
world in those times was very inefficient. A return to the food production
and manufacturing processes of those days would flood the earth with
pollution and produce only a tiny fraction of vital goods and services.
Billions would die.

There may have been a time when anti-social types could live as hermits in
remote mountain areas and never have to come into contact with another human
for the rest of their lives. That time is over.

You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
the silence it craves.

They assume that flying aerobatics is needless recreation -- as if
recreation is somehow something that we can live without. That assumption is
entirely unfounded. They have built their argument on a rotten foundation.
You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you or
leave the planet.

People need to learn to be more tolerant of being constantly touched by
others, hearing their noise, putting up with their smell, and seeing them
everywhere. Those who cannot be tolerant will suffer endlessly, no matter
how many lawsuits they file.


  #3  
Old March 21st 04, 06:18 PM
Paul Folbrecht
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nice rant, CJ. I agree with everything but the smell part.

(Seems I've butted heads with the Noise Police with almost every major
interest I've had in life: R/C planes, motocross, now GA. I like things
with noisy engines, darn it! I'm a guy!)


C J Campbell wrote:
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.

We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf blowers,
boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself. The
world in those times was very inefficient. A return to the food production
and manufacturing processes of those days would flood the earth with
pollution and produce only a tiny fraction of vital goods and services.
Billions would die.

There may have been a time when anti-social types could live as hermits in
remote mountain areas and never have to come into contact with another human
for the rest of their lives. That time is over.

You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
the silence it craves.

They assume that flying aerobatics is needless recreation -- as if
recreation is somehow something that we can live without. That assumption is
entirely unfounded. They have built their argument on a rotten foundation.
You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you or
leave the planet.

People need to learn to be more tolerant of being constantly touched by
others, hearing their noise, putting up with their smell, and seeing them
everywhere. Those who cannot be tolerant will suffer endlessly, no matter
how many lawsuits they file.


  #4  
Old March 21st 04, 08:19 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

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.
  #5  
Old March 21st 04, 08:51 PM
SeeAndAvoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here's a related editorial that was in the local rag today:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/opinion.htm

Btw, "opinions" in this paper are by local citizens who write in, and
although this article is in the "Opinions" section of the website, it was
actually an Editorial by the paper.
---------
Residents deserve chance to air opinions
Talk about under the radar. If not for an overheard snippet of conversation,
Boulder County residents and officials might never had known that the
Federal Aviation Administration is considering creating an aerobatic stunt
flying zone near Rabbit Mountain that would allow pilots to maneuver within
328 feet of the ground.

Someone - the FAA declines to identify the applicant - has requested the
stunt-flying zone near the county's Dowe Flats open space between Longmont
and Lyons. If approved, the zone would allow aerobatics from sunrise to
sunset in airspace 328 feet to 10,000 feet above the ground. Current rules
restrict planes to a 1,000-foot minimum.

And while the FAA now says it will review resident concerns, the agency made
no attempt to notify residents of the area of the application or to
establish any kind of comment process. It's reasons are simple: It doesn't
have to.

That's the problem. On the ground, any significant change that would have a
serious impact on a neighborhood or even entire community would be subject
to a county or municipal hearing process during which residents could come
forward to offer opinions about how a proposal would affect their area and
even their quality of life.

But if not for someone hearing something and then asking Boulder County
Commissioner Ron Stewart if he knew anything about it (he did not), no one
except the original applicant would even be aware such a proposal was on the
table.

Whether the FAA is willing to listen remains unclear. On Wednesday, Boulder
County Commissioner Paul Danish sent a letter to U.S. Rep. Mark Udall that
said the FAA Denver Flight Standards District Office had failed to respond
to the county's request for specific information about the proposal or its
timeline for review. The letter "urgently" requested Udall to intervene to
at least allow the concerns of county officials and residents to be heard.

As it turns out, people do have strong opinions about stunt planes, gunning,
stalling, barrel-rolling and loop-to-looping a little more than a football
field's length above their heads and homes.

Not surprisingly, many people are not enthusiastic about the noise and
spectacle of stunt planes roaring above open space nature areas at the crack
of dawn.

Some people even believe that more remote and far-less populated areas east
of Interstate 25 would be much more appropriate for an aerobatic zone.

While we would never question the FAA's role as czar of the nation's
airspace, we would encourage the agency at least to inform local governments
of proposed changes that might have a significant impact on the the folks on
the ground far below, and to welcome and seriously weigh their opinions and
concerns.

-------------------------------------

Of course the supposed "far-less populated areas east of I-25" are in the
direct path of 4 of DEN Intls runways on the 20nm ring of DEN VOR. Not to
mention the Class B with altitudes varying from 120/100, 120/080, and
120/070.

Chris


  #6  
Old March 21st 04, 10:07 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf blowers,
boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself.


So you don't see any possible technological solution to reducing
aircraft generated noise?

I'm sure glad the engineers continued to pursue a technological cure
for the low-flying police helicopters that routinely routed my slumber
in the '70s. Today those helicopters are nearly silent by comparison.

Like most technical problems, the solution requires intelligent
thought and compromise.
  #7  
Old March 21st 04, 10:16 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

We could return to an existence where airplanes, motorcycles, leaf

blowers,
boom boxes, jet skis and all other noisy artifacts of civilization were
banned, but that would be tantamount to a ban on civilization itself.


So you don't see any possible technological solution to reducing
aircraft generated noise?


I am not sure how you get that out of my post. However, no amount of
technological progress is going to make us both invisible and silent. Even
if it did, there are some people who would object to the very idea that
airplanes *might* be flying right over their heads without their permission.


  #8  
Old March 21st 04, 10:44 PM
Ed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
You can regulate it all you want, but the anti-noise crowd will never find
the silence it craves.


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?

The bozos at STN are way over the line, and they are using threats of legal
action to bully others. But we shouldn't dismiss all noise complaints as
whining by people who will never be happy. If you address complaints in a
good faith manner, maybe you avoid letting things get to the point where
flight schools are getting sued. The bottom line is, most acro boxes are
going to need to over remote, unpopulated or lightly populated areas. If
you happen to live and fly in an urban area, expect a long transit to your
practice area. That's the price you pay for the choices you make. I'm
boxed in by Class B at SPG (Albert Whitted at St Pete), and I have to go out
over the ocean to practice.


  #9  
Old March 21st 04, 10:47 PM
Ed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What ****es me off is the use of the term "stunt". STN and others have
deliberately adopted this term because they know it sounds reckless and
extreme. They want to prejudice the debate before the facts are even
considered. It's a shame when you see spin being applied so blatantly
outside of politics.


"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
link.net...

---------
Residents deserve chance to air opinions
Talk about under the radar. If not for an overheard snippet of

conversation,
Boulder County residents and officials might never had known that the
Federal Aviation Administration is considering creating an aerobatic stunt
flying zone near Rabbit Mountain that would allow pilots to maneuver

within
328 feet of the ground.



  #10  
Old March 22nd 04, 04:33 AM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.