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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ,
('Vejita' S. Cousin) wrote:

To my line of thinking people have a right to live in an area free of
excessive noise. The equestion becomes what's excessive?

A huge obstacle is this type of discussion is the fact
that people's perception/recognition of noise is not
rational/logical in that the volume of the sound is not the
main determining factor of whether or not a sound is called
noise.

For example, consider the noise of a dripping faucet (which is
in reality is pretty quiet). It can keep people awake, but
the same people can sleep through louder sounds. We also
have a sensitivity to the importance of sounds (e.g., a telephone
might wake us up quicker than a louder sound).

--
Bob Noel

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote:
...
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.
...
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.

May be more than academic interest that where an airport has air
carrier ops, fed law specifically reserves jurisdiction over noise
matters to the FAA. Otherwise, it's the thorny legal mess of whether
the federal preemption in general trumps, and I believe in general
courts won't object to reasonable restrictions. There's local
prohibitions against late-night student touch-goes and loud jets after
a certain time in a lot of places. Not that I agree, I believe here,
to the extent the issue is beyond citizens' selfish perception
problems, it may be the prolonged noise footprint rather than mere
decibels, compared to now and then in takeoff/landing ops but greater
peak db.

Fred F.

wrote in message
...
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.

Sure they do.

Even where such ordinances actually exist and (even more rarely) someone
actually tries to enforce them, they really don't reduce noise much. They
can't. You might as well try to pass a law ordering everybody to stop
breathing on Sundays.