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
  #71  
Old March 28th 04, 07:26 PM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" writes:

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"



Time for a reality check.

That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation

community
and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to

be
regrettably clear.


The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control the
airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that
and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed.

The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as you
have to enjoy yours.

The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably Constitutionally
protected freedom of expression.


(...)

You know, I always wonder how much damage we as pilots are doing to
ourselves by brandishing arguments like that.

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

-jav
  #72  
Old March 28th 04, 07:31 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"



Time for a reality check.

That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation

community
and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going

to
be
regrettably clear.


The reality is that you do not have a Constitutional right to control

the
airspace above your property. The Supreme Court has already ruled on

that
and it is unlikely that this will ever be reversed.

The reality is that pilots have as much right to enjoy their property as

you
have to enjoy yours.

The reality is that aerobatics is an art form and probably

Constitutionally
protected freedom of expression.


(...)

You know, I always wonder how much damage we as pilots are doing to
ourselves by brandishing arguments like that.

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.


Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to fight
a battle you can only lose.


  #73  
Old March 28th 04, 07:40 PM
Mike Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should work
out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
sensitive area to practice over. This is starting to sound like an NRA vs.
gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad because
of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not possible.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"John Doe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:24:25 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"


wrote:

I know I'm not alone in these groups that this is all very disturbing.
Especially if you are operating legally within the regs and being

threatened
in one way or another. I was once, ONCE. (Johnny Dangerously

reference).
Time to take the
fight back to them.


Then you shall have one, Chris.


This is precisely the problem.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am an American homeowner who is

considering
establishing a Stop-the-Noise chapter with my local community.

I have always had a live-and-let-live attitude towards aviation. More than
that, I have always enjoyed watching it. I am an ex-Air Force zoomie.

The issue is that flying "legally" does not make flying in a certain

manner
"right". One can fly with a bad attitude, perhaps with callous disregard
for other pilots in the sky and those on the ground, comply with the

letter
of the FARs and yet be in the wrong. How about the guy that cuts in front

of
you on a "short final", forcing a go around? Life is full of situations
where one's conduct or morals are wrong, yet that person is not

technically
breaking any laws.

I have observed and even beeen personally victimized by pilots choosing to
fly inverted over my home at altitudes less than 1,000' AGL, pilots diving

at
my neighbor's horse pasture in a Pitts in an apparent effort to "run" the
animals (and once costing them $500 dollars in vet bills after an animal
tangled in a fence, badly cutting itself).

There are those few pilots that treat community noise abatement procedures
as a personal affront or insult so they full-atttack the prop and mash in
the throttle over subdivisions. Yes, perfectly legal in most cases. The

PIC
is responsible for safe takeoff procedures; who would question someone's
motives?

You know who you are.

I have a busy life and demanding career. I have never wanted to involve
myself in a ****ing contest with the local aviation community. I have bent
over backwards to aviod lodging complaints with the local FSDO. Instead, I
have recorded and reported instances of flagrant lawbreaking and
irresponsible conduct by aerobatic pilots to AOPA and EAA, simply asking
that efforts be made to unofficially contact these individuals and ask

them
to respect the laws and the public.
Yet I've never received the courtesy of a response from either

organization.
That's been my reward for trying to collaboratively resolve a problem in a
gentlemanly manner.

Like anyone else, I bought my house with the expectation that I could

freely
excercise my constitutional right to peaceably use my property. I

recognize
that this is the 21st century, noise happens, and I don't have an issue

with
95% of general aviation aircraft or their pilots. Aerobatics practice

boxes
don't appear on the terminal or sectional maps, nor does the FAA or flying
club have to notify the public about same. That's wrong.

I also have no sympathy for someone moving next to an airport
then complaining about the noise.

As I said, noise happens. But everyone has a limit. How many hours of
aerobatics in some of the loudest light aircraft on the planet should a
person on the ground have to tolerate? An hour every day? Ten hours of
almost incessant window-rattling every nice weekend? Let's establish a
consensus.. Where's the dividing line between a whining, thin-skinned

psycho
complainer and someone with a legitimate gripe?

Does anyone here have a neighbor with an incessantly-barking dog? How

about
their kids parked in the drive next door with a 1,000-watt stereo in a
Honda? When do the normal intrusions of a modern society cross the line?

The line is definitely crossed when the neighbor gets a second, and larger
barking dog and when their kids amp it up in response to your polite
complaints.

So that's the way it is. When a single high-performance aircraft can

rattle
windows over a 25 square mile area, day in and out, and the pilots refuse

to
consider any sort of mitigation, or even step it up in response to a

request
for a dialogue. Why should they? They're flying "legal".

That's when organizations like Stop-the-Noise happen and grow. Ordinary
people with legitimate gripes that are being ignored and dismissed.
Regrettably, they will attract their share of obscessive anti-aviation
kooks, but it's important to note why outfits like STN have happened. --
Because of the legitimate reasons that I describe above.

I enjoy running my tricked-out 1968 Chevelle SS-396. I've had it since I

was
22 years old and lost my driver's license in those days driving it. It
shouldn't be my neighbor's problem that it costs me $25 bucks in gas to go
to the nearest oval track on a nice weekend instead of opening the headers
and running it every night by their homes. The same standards of

cooperation
and sensibility should apply to the avocation of aerobatic flight, as

well.

Pilots are an elite fraternity, they should be better citizens than a punk
with a thousand-watt stereo in his car.

This is an open plea to the aviation community to ignore the kooks and
accept responsibility concerning the over-the-top impact that some of

their
activities have on the general public. There are many that don't believe
that a constructive dialogue is possible. The only alternative is going to
be escalating tension, complaints and even litigation as has already
occurred. I don't want that, but our community may have no choice but to
follow that example. It is *not* true that members of STN have refused to
negotiate or work with the aviation community. My neighbors and I, as I
described, have bent over backwards trying to seek a mutually-acceptable
resolution to the local situation. The next move needs to be on the part

of
the EAA, IAC and aerobatic pilots. I have seen no willingness *whatsoever*
to accept limitations such as time of day or hours of flight per day or to
voluntarily avoid aerobatic practice over residences where the aged, sick,
or infirm might reside. How about the guy that sleeps days and works
graveyard shift at the fire department? Does he merit some sort of
consideration? The IAC and EAA refuse to even acnowledge that there is a
growing problem on both sides of the issue and the FAA is stuck in the
middle.

Time for a reality check.

That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation

community
and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to

be
regrettably clear.

Thank you for reading this.




  #74  
Old March 28th 04, 07:46 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing

injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting

ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such

transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.


Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US

WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to

fight
a battle you can only lose.


Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.

If you had read the whole post, you would have noticed that I did not excuse
the Pitts pilot or anybody else. I said that noise was a problem, but that
organizations like Stop the Noise actually make the problem worse rather
than better. What I said was that we need a whole new approach to the way we
are dealing with noise issues. What is being done now is obviously not
working and is probably making the problem worse.

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.


  #75  
Old March 28th 04, 07:56 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Noel" wrote in message
...
The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should

work
out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
sensitive area to practice over. This is starting to sound like an NRA

vs.
gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad

because
of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not

possible.


You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely. Neither
is it likely that pilots will find a less sensitive area to practice over.
If you think you know of such an area the pilots would certainly be
interested in knowing about it. I am sure that whoever lives in the less
sensitive area will greatly appreciate your efforts, too.

The real problem lies in concentrating all this activity in a small area in
the first place -- probably at the insistence of those affected by noise.
Concentrating it still further is unlikely to improve the situation.

A better approach might be to get rid of aerobatic boxes entirely and let
pilots practice where they want. That would spread the noise out over a
larger area and be less objectionable over all.

No one is saying that there should be no control whatsoever. What many of us
are saying is that the controls we have in place are at best ineffective and
at worst actually make the problem worse. Since you seem to think that
sensible controls are possible, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten
the rest of us as to what those sensible controls might be. Then we can have
a sensible debate about whether those sensible controls are really as
sensible as you think they are.


  #76  
Old March 28th 04, 08:35 PM
SeeAndAvoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

warning, LONG, I'd gone private but no email address was given

John Doe, (from the band X?, cool)
I doubt you're a troll, I'm sure someone though will post the definition of
one to prove otherwise, so, don't do a hit-and-run and answer the endless
responses that'll surely come your way. Heck, I could be called a troll
on the aerobatics/misc groups as I've never been there, but since this
is crossposting to those (sorry guys, didnt notice at first), I guess I've
been there now.

"Kooks" is on the mark for describing some of these people, and we have
some of our own. I was just talking to my flying partner and he pointed
out there are alot of pilots out there doing harm to those of us that want
to do our thing with minimal impact to anyone. But when I hear of these
'kooks' that dont even 'approve' of US, that we should be done away with
as well, I'd hope you agree that just isn't right.

Since you introduced yourself, so will I. I also am an American homeowner,
I have taken on a live-and-let live relationship with my neighbors
constantly barking dog. I was here first, and no, I havent gone out and
got a louder dog. I live near a practice area, rarely are there aerobatics,
just
your normal steep turns and stalls. I used to live under base-to-final and
under a skydiving drop zone. The street behind us wasn't too busy when
we moved in, that's changed. Could I've turned into a 'kook' over all those
things? Guess it depends on your personality type.

About airplane noise in particular, just so you know where I'm coming from:
I own a 182, and although I don't do aerobatics, I'll defend their right to
exist as much as any other aviation activity that is currently legal, I hate
discrimination. Our local city government has in one form or another tried
to get rid of various types of aviation activities. They tried to move the
traffic pattern over a heavily congested area so as to substantially
increase
complaints and hopefully eventually close down the airport. I spent alot
of time canvassing those areas, hundreds of homes, with fliers, and speaking
to many of those homeowners. Most were not pilots, were friendly, not
terribly interested in the issue until they were told their elected
officials
had plans for them without asking them. Through exposing them publicly,
we won. By we I don't mean just pilots either. Why would they do this,
besides wanting to shut down the airport? A wealthy landowner with
some attorneys, a real kook who threatened to shoot down pilots and
come after them at the local FBO. That's how some 'kooks' end up, watch
out for some of your members.

I've heard of the pilots who go and pour salt on the people that complain,
it's not hard to do and stay within the regs. It doesn't benefit either
side
though, and dont say the anti-aviation types don't do the same thing. Just
so you know I'm not just a pro-aviation blowhard, I've discussed the
issue with some of the anti-aviation people at city council chambers,
airport advisory board meetings, other meetings to bring both sides
together,
and have been asked by the city to be a mediator. I've mostly learned
there are some people that can't be reasoned with and when the red mist
comes down into their eyes there's no dealing with them. Many we had
good dialogues with, and no I don't offer flights in my airplane to sway
them over to our side, I don't care if they ever fly. I mostly ask what
could we do, short of not fly at all, to improve the situation. I also
explain that the City is often responsible for forcing us to fly where
we do, and that most of us want to leave the smallest noise footprint
as possible and keep it near the airport. Having enemies as neighbors,
many fairly wealthy, does not do us any good.

After securing some goodwill with the neighbors, and many of them said
they were happy with the pilot/user designed noise abatement procedure,
the city then wanted to move the pattern to the opposite side of the
airport over even more houses than the other proposal. Instead of
hundreds of homes, thousands of them. Just so you know the crap we
have to put up with, too. I'm sure there are other pilots that read these
groups that have had to fight governments and groups that are trying
to make the noise situation worse for their own ends. So, yeah, I have
a problem when the anti-aviation group thinking all we do is fight for
our right to make noise. Mostly, for me anyway, it's a fight to not be
noticed. I don't want you to know I'm up there, I dont want to hear you
complaining about me.

Mostly it's an education thing, on both sides. There is a proposal for
an aerobatics box in the local area. The local FSDO is getting heat
for not publicizing it to the people who live in that area. The paper
then runs a few letters and an editorial about it, and gets some facts
wrong (where it is, a better place for it to be, etc). At risk of some
'kook's getting in on the fight, I posted the information, with corrections,
on my site, which is bookmarked by the anti-aviation folks here in
town, don't worry about it. I've even had pro-aviation people have
a problem with me basically inviting the opposition into the issue,
as if they'd not figured it out later when traffic or aerobatics
multiplied over their heads. I guess I just don't view them as the
'opposition' as I spend 99% of my life on the ground, contrary to
what many might believe.

Groups like STN are just troublemakers that have found a new target,
dont kid yourself. Aviation has to defend itself against nuts like this
all over the country, and many do it in the way I've described above.
Not heavy handed, but trying to peacefully coexist. You sound like
a reasonable person, are you going to align yourself with STN and
their way of operating, or be a little more reasonable? When you
organize, that's what you need to decide. Unfortunately we cannot
'ignore the kooks' like you said. And even when we do 'behave',
which many kooks say we arent even capable of, we get threatened.
I do believe a constructive dialogue is possible, I've seen it and
have done it. But theres always that dangerous fringe with blood
in their eyes, you can spot em a mile away.

That's the way it is. The ball's in your court. Unless the aviation

community
and perhaps the FAA can work out a helpful response,.the path is going to

be
regrettably clear.


The ball's with both of us in the same court. And the statement you
made here makes my point: it's only the aviation community and
the FAA who has to change? That, like what STN does, is not
negotiating. It's saying "you have to change, not me." and "you
need to adapt to me, not vice-versa." Dont you see the problem
with that tactic? You should, you don't sound stupid.
I'll continue to work with the reasonable ones, but I'll treat the others
the same way the Inquisition, witch hunters, and Nazi's were eventually
dealt with - ignoring them only makes it worse.

Good luck in your endeavor. Hopefully you'll be a problem-solver and
and not a trouble-maker. The world could use more of the former, and
less of the latter.
Chris


  #77  
Old March 28th 04, 09:01 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing

injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting

ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such

transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.


Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the US

WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to

fight
a battle you can only lose.


Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.


It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct about
the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.

snip of nothing of substance

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You

are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.


I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is not
my problem.


  #78  
Old March 28th 04, 09:03 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Noel" wrote in message
...
The guy makes some legitimate points. Most of us would not want an
aerobatic box over our neighborhood either. The pilots involved should

work
out some kind of compromise with the affected homeowners or find a less
sensitive area to practice over. This is starting to sound like an NRA

vs.
gun control controversy where ANY type of control is considered bad

because
of fear of setting a precedent, so that sensible controls are not

possible.


You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely.


Then the pilots will lose.


  #79  
Old March 29th 04, 01:05 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...


You are quite right, but at this point a compromise is not likely.


Then the pilots will lose.



We may finally agree on something there. Unfortunately, I don't see what
more the pilots can do.


  #80  
Old March 29th 04, 01:13 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

I thought the original message was well written and I didn't feel

the
poster was on a rampage.

If the facts presented are true, like the guy in a Pitts causing

injuries
to livestock and other low level buzz jobs, then we are shooting

ourselves
in our collective foot if we as a group cry foul when such

transgressions
happen and are brought out for discussion.

Acting like Campbell is why FAA no longer has any credibility in the

US
WRT
noise. It is much better to help fix the man's noise problem than to

fight
a battle you can only lose.


Neither one of you clowns read the whole post. It is especially funny to
hear Tarver talking about others lacking credibility, however.


It is very odd that you would write something so clueless Campbell,
especially after you went all the way to the FSDO to prove me correct

about
the POH being part of the Type Certificate of an airplane.

snip of nothing of substance

I strenuously object to your taking a few words out of context and
re-phrasing them to say something the exact opposite of what I intended.
However, based on your previous posts, I certainly am not surprised. You

are
idiots, no question about it. Worse, you have no integrity whatsoever.


I stated the true fact of the matter and you don't like it, but that is

not
my problem.



It is your problem if you lie about it, just as you are also lying about my
going to the FSDO about the POH. I never did any such thing. I don't even
remember arguing with you about the subject. It is not something that I
think I would care much about. Near as I can tell you are again
misrepresenting my views and actions.


 




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 01:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.