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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|