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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|