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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?" IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're there first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who move in later. Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However, most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with the neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns. Well, that is of course a good point, but the major problem with this group is that it makes very little mention of anyone living next to or near an actual airport. Rather, they wish to assert their property rights for the homes they own, all the way to the airspace above them (which is of course a ridiculous proposition). They want to ban 'recreational' flying in any way, shape or form over private property, in favor of pilots purchasing and reserving plots of deserted land to fly over. They in fact state directly that this is not a grievance against any airport, but rather against all recreational flight activities, such as practice, sightseeing or any kind of fun. They go on to refer to such activities: "These activities can in no way be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are performed solely for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to those on the ground." Here is the particuar excerpt that I have the biggest problem with: "Our goal is to remove the aerobatic and recreational flyers from the skies over our private property. This will be achieved by the assertion of property rights of the owners of the land and airspace through which these recreational aircraft fly, enforcement of federal, state and local environmental and public health laws, and by identifying and publishing the names and contact information for the organizations and individuals responsible for this abusive behavior. We believe that if there is to be a recreational flying community, then it must obtain at its own expense areas large enough to accommodate their waste noise without spilling over to adjacent properties in excess of the local regulatory limits. At present, in most communities, the limit is 10 decibels above background ambient levels. This is no different from requiring that the local rod and gun club secure and maintain an area for their activities that will ensure abutters that they will not be the recipients of waste noise or stray rounds. We are not attempting to halt expansion at any particular airport or at airports in general. We are concerned about where the recreational aircraft go to practice, sightsee or to just mark time. None of these activities is possible without a subsidy from the property owners on the ground who must involuntarily absorb the waste noise from these activities. These activities can in no way be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are performed solely for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to those on the ground." This is nothing but self-important tripe, and honestly, it is just plain un-American. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
There are nuts out there trying to ban everything. I have a tough time
believing that anyone with such extremist views is a real threat -- beyond the fact that this is the sort of whacko that eventually gets frustrated with everybody's refusal to see things his way, so he resorts to violence. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, I agree completely that we should do everything we can to "be a good
neighbor". Right or wrong, its stupid to rub our "right" to fly in Joe Public's face. I just don't like the people who wanna make their own bed and not sleep in it. The reason they bought that $200,000 house for $120,000 is because its 2 miles off the end of a runway! (pure example here). Pet peeves aside, my dad built and owns a very nice grass strip airport here in TN. He has worked his butt off to make it what it is and he built it in the middle of nowhere. As the area has grown up around him (not bad yet), he does all he can to make friendly with anyone and everyone around his property. He's become the PR king! Invites all the neighbors to the fly-ins, cookouts, makes his own approaches so that it doesn't cross over certain houses, etc. He's even posted signs on the roads near his runway that "alert" the passersby that there is an airport there. Hopefully it will keep the zoning boards off of him. We'll see...... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I'm in a different situation. The civic association is not out to
close the airport (although there are some members that wouldn't mind). On the most part, the people don't mind the small planes but are against having larger and louder jets. I hear their point--especially when those older Lears that don't have to conform to the latest noise suppression standards take off on RWY 32. They are specifically against improvements tailored for jet traffic. To be honest ,I'm on the fence about the improvements too because I haven't seen one that would help me as a small-aircraft pilot/owner who may never afford a jet. As a matter of fact, it would make my flying life WORSE in that there would be more jet traffic (jet ATC preference, wake turbulence, increased traffic, etc.). I hear many stories about Teterboro's operations and they're not good. Someone please chime in nof they think differently--I've never flown out of there. The fact that FRG and TEB have the same airport management company makes it a real concern. So I need to gather more info but still laying low. Marco "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." [snip] We are not attempting to halt expansion at any particular airport or at airports in general. We are concerned about where the recreational aircraft go to practice, sightsee or to just mark time. None of these activities is possible without a subsidy from the property owners on the ground who must involuntarily absorb the waste noise from these activities. These activities can in no way be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are performed solely for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to those on the ground." This is nothing but self-important tripe, and honestly, it is just plain un-American. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Franks" wrote in message ... Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to ask the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?" I am afraid that argument is not going to work. Unfortunately being first does not mean you can dictate terms. It may be that airport operations have increased or the flight paths changed. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with you 100% Pete. As with any relationship between two entities,
there is always a give-and-take. However, as part of that, sometimes one side takes more than the other creating a situation of "give an inch and they take a mile." It's all part of the game I guess. Marco "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Jeff Franks" wrote in message ... Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to ask the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house? IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're there first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who move in later. Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However, most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with the neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns. Pete Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... There are nuts out there trying to ban everything. I have a tough time believing that anyone with such extremist views is a real threat -- beyond the fact that this is the sort of whacko that eventually gets frustrated with everybody's refusal to see things his way, so he resorts to violence. It's worse than that; they resort to lawyers.. Henry Bibb |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
No need. Nutjobs like this would simply put a big red circle around
the entire sectional, and say this is the noise-sensitive area. The only way to deal with fools like this is to trivialize them. If they had legitimate complaints, then that would be different. But from reading the interview, it's pretty clear these guys are no real threat, and are just a bunch of self-indulgent headcases whinging because they have notheing better to do. Make fun of them, and only indluge people with *real* problems, and who are looking for *realistic* solutions. "John Harlow" wrote in message ... Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote: I have not read more ignorant, self-important, illogical and just plain dimwitted crap anywhere else on the internet, than there is on this site. I just don't even know where to begin. Be sure to drop these people a note and let them know exactly what you think of them. http://www.stopthenoise.org/ I think they have a point; however, they might get better cooperation if they went about it in a better way. Perhaps they should scan a sectional and mark the noise sensitive areas and put it on their site. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I have a tough time believing that anyone with such extremist views is a real threat
I agree. Despite all the evidence that raises doubts about it, the public in general and even the legislators are, for the most part, reasonably sensible people. vince norris. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:26:18 -0700, "David Brooks"
wrote: "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message ... (quoting the anti-noise compaigners) We believe that if there is to be a recreational flying community, then it must obtain at its own expense areas large enough to accommodate their waste noise without spilling over to adjacent properties in excess of the local regulatory limits. At present, in most communities, the limit is 10 decibels above background ambient levels. Sounds like a comment from the noise pollution groups. They have some real nut jobs and extremists over there. They also have some people with legit complaints. It only takes a few minutes of reading to realize that it'd be safer and more comfortable to live off the approach end of a busy air force base than next door to some of them. For most communities, the answer is most likely no. Otherwise no one would be able to mow their lawn as a lawn mower is listed at something like ... 40 db or more.. No many low flying aircraft exceed the sound of a lawn mower, unless they have a two blade prop, a big engine and are just departing the active.. 3 db is just detectable...three barely detectable still isn't much. Lawn mowers are *loud*, so I'd attribute the above statement to pretty much BS ... Is that 10db limit really a common restriction? I suppose they mean there are local ordinances (nothing in the several CCR's I've read recently). Small planes at 500ft probably exceed that bar. Small planes at 500 feet over populated areas are already in violation of the FARs unless taking off and landing. There, the neighbors are pretty much SOL, although they can be a royal nuisance to the pilots. More and more airports and communities are making it a requirement that any noise complaints go on the property record for those who are neighbors to an airport. So, they can complain, but it's gonna cost them in the long run. I must confess to a nimby moment last weekend. I just moved to a (lovely) house on the side of the hill in Duvall, WA. Most everyone who has learned to fly here has used the Snoqualmie Valley as a practice area: it's 20 miles long by half a mile wide, populated only by cows and a prison farm, and even contains a small square stand of trees that is perfect for the rectangular course maneuver. Nobody who has spent more than half an hour looking for a house in Duvall can be unaware of the planes that fly over the developments, often below 1000agl, as they set up for the valley. Yet on Saturday morning, after two tiring days unpacking boxes, I was *really* annoyed to be woken up at 7am by that familiar drone. I am already much more aware of how difference much a few hundred feet can make. If only those who fight runway extensions could be so enlightened. We had a group who opposed lengthening 18/36 from 3000 to 3800. With that extra 800 feet I could be at pattern altitude by the time I go over the subdivision. As it is ... I still go over at 200 to 500 feet on climb out on a hot day. It's also on a major route up to Arlington, but I only saw three or four interesting transients this weekend. We get complaints from the practice area where the students are still a 1000 feet up and that is mostly swamp. One guy threatened to "take a shot". He hung up when he figured out the manager was trying to figure out where he was located. Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) -- David Brooks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
100hr insp + non profit flying clubs | DanH | Owning | 2 | April 29th 04 11:27 PM |
Mountain flying instruction: McCall, Idaho, Colorado too! | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | March 26th 04 11:24 PM |
Progress on Flying Car | Steve Dufour | General Aviation | 5 | December 19th 03 03:48 PM |
FA: WEATHER FLYING: A PRACTICAL BOOK ON FLYING | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 5th 03 12:07 AM |