Small aircraft exhaust silencer manufacturers?

William W. Plummer wrote:

Just my opinion: Controlling behavior by taxes and fees is naive,
simplistic and probably ineffective.

There are a couple of very qualified economists who have the opposite
opinion.

If enough people are
sufficiently annoyed, they can hire a sound engineer to measure the
sound level and pursue the issue in the court system

Which is simpler and less bureaucratic?

Offending tail numbers can be published in the newspapers so people will
know the operators are antisocial and should not be encouraged.

In the middle ages this was called the pillory. Thank god (or whomever)
things have changed.

Stefan

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message news:7EW1d.94684$3l3.28793@attbi_s03...
Kees Mies wrote:
It sounds as if the Greens really have everbody by the testicles in
Germany.

No, just the pilots.

Well, I think it is good idea to tax the noisier aircraft a bit more.
Do not forget that airports have neighbours too. And Germany like many
other west European countries is very densly populated.
You see a lot of aircraft overhere with off standard mufflers and
propellors just to keep the noise down.

At my home airfield they charge you extra during the summer months
when you come in after 19:00 or on saturdays and sundays. In this way
they want you to fly during office hours. Before I forget, we have
"noise sensitive areas" too.
They need to be avoided as much as possible.

You can always see the pilots with N-reg aircraft coming out of the
office looking a bit pale and staggering on their feet after they have
paid the landing fees. They do not have a noise certificate thus
paying the highest fee.
I always like to ask them, with a smirk, 'Nice plane, an SR22 isn'it,
what did you pay for your landing? he he he'

-Kees D-EDMB
Just my opinion: Controlling behavior by taxes and fees is naive,
simplistic and probably ineffective. But it does provide more jobs for
bureaucrats to track licenses, compliance and fines. But it's your tax
money...
It works.

A better approach is to make certain tail numbers are readable from the
ground so offenders can be identified. If enough people are
sufficiently annoyed, they can hire a sound engineer to measure the
sound level and pursue the issue in the court system using the existing
noise ordinances.
Thus providing more jobs for those poor lawyers.

Once word of successful prosecution get out, things will change.
Offending tail numbers can be published in the newspapers so people will
know the operators are antisocial and should not be encouraged.
Antisocial people do not care if their names are in the newspaper.

In article ,
(Kees Mies) wrote:

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message
news:7EW1d.94684$3l3.28793@attbi_s03...
Kees Mies wrote:
It sounds as if the Greens really have everbody by the testicles in
Germany.

No, just the pilots.

Well, I think it is good idea to tax the noisier aircraft a bit more.
Do not forget that airports have neighbours too. And Germany like many
other west European countries is very densly populated.
You see a lot of aircraft overhere with off standard mufflers and
propellors just to keep the noise down.

At my home airfield they charge you extra during the summer months
when you come in after 19:00 or on saturdays and sundays. In this way
they want you to fly during office hours. Before I forget, we have
"noise sensitive areas" too.
They need to be avoided as much as possible.

You can always see the pilots with N-reg aircraft coming out of the
office looking a bit pale and staggering on their feet after they have
paid the landing fees. They do not have a noise certificate thus
paying the highest fee.
I always like to ask them, with a smirk, 'Nice plane, an SR22 isn'it,
what did you pay for your landing? he he he'

-Kees D-EDMB
Just my opinion: Controlling behavior by taxes and fees is naive,
simplistic and probably ineffective. But it does provide more jobs for
bureaucrats to track licenses, compliance and fines. But it's your tax
money...
It works.

A better approach is to make certain tail numbers are readable from the
ground so offenders can be identified. If enough people are
sufficiently annoyed, they can hire a sound engineer to measure the
sound level and pursue the issue in the court system using the existing
noise ordinances.
Thus providing more jobs for those poor lawyers.

Once word of successful prosecution get out, things will change.
Offending tail numbers can be published in the newspapers so people will
know the operators are antisocial and should not be encouraged.
Antisocial people do not care if their names are in the newspaper.


Of course, the real problem is that there are always a few people who
are annoyed by the mere fact that someone is flying his own plane. Then
they imagine some "violation" to complain about. We often find these
people living near airports. There are even a few who have moved near
several GA airports, just to make complaints. We often find them in the
Green movement.

William W. Plummer wrote:

Just my opinion: Controlling behavior by taxes and fees is naive,
simplistic and probably ineffective. But it does provide more jobs for
bureaucrats to track licenses, compliance and fines. But it's your tax
money...

other examples in Europe: petrol, cigarettes, alcohol ...

--
Fritz

In article , (Fritz)
wrote:

William W. Plummer wrote:

Just my opinion: Controlling behavior by taxes and fees is naive,
simplistic and probably ineffective. But it does provide more jobs for
bureaucrats to track licenses, compliance and fines. But it's your tax
money...

other examples in Europe: petrol, cigarettes, alcohol ...



And the Democrats want us to be more like Europe? HELL NO!