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
  #101  
Old March 31st 04, 04:15 AM
Mike Spera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.

We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
guessed it, my house.

I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
"violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
"violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.

So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
the same homes don't get pummeled forever.

Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
RANGE!!!

Good Luck,
Mike


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

  #102  
Old March 31st 04, 05:39 AM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Sounds like Schaumburg. The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense. Far as I know the
procedures are voluntary.

"Mike Spera" wrote in message
...
Interesting debate. I too have no use for old cranks who live near an
airport and constantly complain about the noise. But, aerobatic practice
boxes are not published anywhere. Not sure I can defend a "tough $*^!"
attitude on the part of aerobatic jockeys.

We have a similar problem. I have owned an airplane for over ten years.
We live a couple of miles down the road from the airport. We could live
closer, BUT we chose to live here because we did not want to put up with
the noise. Now, 2 old cranks (hey, I'm over 50, I can say it) have
harassed their village and the police enough that a "noise abatement"
procedure was put in place. To avoid bothering these fine citizens (who
bought homes right next to an airport that preceded their houses by 20
years), airplanes now must fly an extended 2.5 mile upwind to, you
guessed it, my house.

I have to draw the line here pardner. My house was here before THE
PATTERN was moved. In addition, flying this non-standard, 2+ mile upwind
is inherently DANGEROUS to those transients who are not aware of this
absurd procedure. It puts aircraft dangerously close (2 miles) to
O'Hare's innermost ring. The 2 crabbies also had touch and gos
eliminated in this "procedure". They even have "airport volunteers" park
their keesters at the airport with a handheld radio to record any
"violators". Those N-numbers based at the airport are sent reminders if
they violate this unsafe, voluntary procedure. For a time, they were
even contemplating terminating the lease (hangar/tiedown) of repeat
"violators". It appears the village attorney talked some sense into them
and they dropped the threat. They have taken in over $10 million in
federal funds and this type of action might attract the FAA into the fray.

So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
the same homes don't get pummeled forever.

Flexibility won't kill you, but inflexibility might. Remember, you're in
RANGE!!!

Good Luck,
Mike



__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -

http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source





  #103  
Old March 31st 04, 07:29 AM
Javier Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

Ahm...can you tone down your drivel a tad? Specifically, the personal
attacks. I don't recall having done that to you in the past.


Actually, I thought your post was a personal attack. I certainly took it
that way.


It wasn't. It contained a different point of view, but that's hardly a
personal attack. Your posting contained insults, and it was clearly a
personal attack.

Anyway. I dislike continuing flame wars, if you'd like to discuss this
further, please drop me an email.

Happy flying,

-jav
  #104  
Old March 31st 04, 11:42 AM
Paul Sengupta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I

can
assue you that all you will do is elimninate small GA.


It may just be my reading comprehension, but to me it sounded a
lot like Mr Campbell said that we need to compromise, rather than
appease and follow the STN movement. He said that the movement
is making things worse for some people by concentrating the noise
in a single area, and this approach wasn't right...instead of fighting
the two opposing sides, people should compromise to come up with
a new approach.

He stated that pilots can do what they like, but most are painfully
aware of the noise issues and would like to do what they can to
minimise it in a single area...but are forced into one of these areas
by the STN thing.

But then that's the way I read it.

Paul


  #105  
Old March 31st 04, 12:09 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 31 Mar 2004 03:15:43 GMT, Mike Spera wrote:

So, I can see the beef to some extent. At least move the box around so
the same homes don't get pummeled foreve


I couldn't agree more.

At least until they move the box over my house. Then I'll sue!

(In truth, I'm safe from that. I live in the Delta airspace of a
former SAC base, now a "tradeport" but still with National Guard
KC-135s. They annoy me sometimes in the summer, but most of the time I
enjoy the business.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #106  
Old March 31st 04, 02:56 PM
Paul Sengupta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A couple of years ago there was the case of the "Guildford
aerobatic pilot" which became famous in the pilot magazines
here. Pilots...yes, pilots...from the Guildford area wrote in to
the magazines complaining about the incessant noise from the
pilot who did aeros in the vicinity of Guildford.

I used to like watching that (IIRC) Pitts...usually from the top
of the car park here in work. Anyway, after the letters, he went
away. Not seen him/her since. Sigh.

Diana Britten, the British aerobatic champion flies from Fairoaks,
the local airport. I've never seen her practising aeros in this area.
I would like to. :-)

http://www.dianabritten.com/

Paul

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
At least until they move the box over my house. Then I'll sue!

(In truth, I'm safe from that. I live in the Delta airspace of a
former SAC base, now a "tradeport" but still with National Guard
KC-135s. They annoy me sometimes in the summer, but most of the time I
enjoy the business.)



  #107  
Old March 31st 04, 04:16 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I

can
assure you that all you will do is elimninate small GA.


It may just be my reading comprehension, but to me it sounded a
lot like Mr Campbell said that we need to compromise,


It is your reading comprehension. Go back and read it again, as Campbell
was postibng that it is too late for compromise. Without compromise all
that is left is a war you can't win. After my post Campbell saw the light
and adopted a conciliatory tone.


  #108  
Old March 31st 04, 06:43 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Dave Stadt wrote:

The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense.


There's a complainer that lives off the western end of the runway at 47N. They
initiated a procedure to try to placate her. Every aircraft was expected to make a 45
degree left turn about 100 yards from the end of the runway. About a year after that
went into effect, a Cherokee stalled immediately after turning and pancaked into a
golf course, killing both occupants. They're back to straight out departures now.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.
  #109  
Old March 31st 04, 09:25 PM
S Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
A couple of years ago there was the case of the "Guildford
aerobatic pilot" which became famous in the pilot magazines
here. Pilots...yes, pilots...from the Guildford area wrote in to
the magazines complaining about the incessant noise from the
pilot who did aeros in the vicinity of Guildford.

I used to like watching that (IIRC) Pitts...usually from the top
of the car park here in work. Anyway, after the letters, he went
away. Not seen him/her since. Sigh.

Diana Britten, the British aerobatic champion flies from Fairoaks,
the local airport. I've never seen her practising aeros in this area.
I would like to. :-)


I have often seen someone aeros over Cantley Field near Wokingham.


  #110  
Old March 31st 04, 10:18 PM
SeeAndAvoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tarver Engineering" wrote
If you do like Campbell and claim there can be no compromise possible I
can assue you that all you will do is elimninate small GA.


...and if the other side says there is NO compromise, which many of them
do, then what? I've dealt personally with these types, the ones that loved
9/11 because we couldnt fly. The ones that say no improvement to
any traffic pattern is enough, only eliminating the airport and the
airplanes
will do, and glad to see a fatal accident take another airplane/pilot out of
the
equation - I'm not exagerating. Take a look again at
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
this is the kind of nutcases we're talking about here. The guy who puts
this craphole website together hates everything and everybody: pilots,
controllers, politicians, aircraft manufacturers, and even some of his
anti-aviation counterparts! These are the real problem, a lunatic
fringe. Most of the neighbors I've dealt with are not like this, they're
pretty hot at first, but not off the deep end like STN and this other
clown. Like I said in a previous post, there is no dealing with some
people, try as you may.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote
He said that the movement is making things worse for some people by
concentrating the noise...


I've seen it here, the politically connected (or they have something the
city wants) almosts moves the downwind beyond glide range just to
avoid a couple homes, and I do mean a couple - just to put us all over
a crowded subdivision.

Chris



 




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 10:56 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.