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
  #21  
Old March 22nd 04, 03:39 PM
TaxSrv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote:
...
I'm not familar with the above group, but here in Seattle we have

a
group that lives next to KSEA (class B Seattle-Tacoma International)

which
constantly complains about the noise. Since no one is going to

close KSEA
to night operations or even consider reducing the number of

operations
they are out of luck.
...
Either way local governments should not pass laws
to control airspace. Somethings should be handled at the federal

level,
others at the state level, and others at the local level.


May be more than academic interest that where an airport has air
carrier ops, fed law specifically reserves jurisdiction over noise
matters to the FAA. Otherwise, it's the thorny legal mess of whether
the federal preemption in general trumps, and I believe in general
courts won't object to reasonable restrictions. There's local
prohibitions against late-night student touch-goes and loud jets after
a certain time in a lot of places. Not that I agree, I believe here,
to the extent the issue is beyond citizens' selfish perception
problems, it may be the prolonged noise footprint rather than mere
decibels, compared to now and then in takeoff/landing ops but greater
peak db.

Fred F.

Ads
  #22  
Old March 22nd 04, 04:49 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
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.


Sure they do.

Even where such ordinances actually exist and (even more rarely) someone
actually tries to enforce them, they really don't reduce noise much. They
can't. You might as well try to pass a law ordering everybody to stop
breathing on Sundays.


  #23  
Old March 22nd 04, 05:49 PM
David Cartwright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"airads" wrote in message
om...
Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be
enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong".


On this side of the pond, you have to have your registration on the
underside of your left wing anyway.

D.


  #24  
Old March 22nd 04, 06:04 PM
Jeremy Lew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues, but
the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in these
suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's
practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being near
three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for prospective
house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in this
area.

If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N of
the Ft. Devens MOA.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes

near
airports that already existed.



  #26  
Old March 22nd 04, 08:48 PM
Michael Houghton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Howdy!

In article .net,
Earl Grieda wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"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.


From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the activity.


....and the discourse spirals downward...

The assertion about "constant", "repetitive", and "negative effect" on
"thousands" has a screed-like quality to it.

Consider people who procure a house "in the country" and then get fussed in
the spring about the aroma of fields being manured. No, I'm not making this
up.

I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community is
that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right. Our attitude is
that they need to adapt to us and our activities. This attitude is
perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant. As long as we
continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually lose
the war.

It's a two way street. I'm looking forward (not) to the Fairwood development
when it gets to the parts on the runway centerline of W00. They seem to
want to put housing directly along it. One hopes the state and/or county
will actually enforce the safety zones around airports that they have devised.
I expect people will bitch and moan about airplane noise.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
|
http://www.radix.net/~herveus/
  #29  
Old March 23rd 04, 02:00 AM
Dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It ain't urban.

These folks have gentlemen farmer type places to get away from the noise of
the city on weekends. They are also suing some Harley Drivers (which to me
is something that the police DO need to do more about, but a suit is silly).

What they fail to realize is that someone has to put up with the noise they
create coming and going from their recreational retreat. Someone lived next
to all the places that made noise in manufacturing the materials and goods
that made the homes and things within them. Their recreational retreat is
overall a HUGE pollution issue. They did not NEED to have this retreat, and
they have sullied the landscape with their vehicles and structures. How
ridiculous that they must have a second home! What an attack on mother
earth! etc. etc. etc.



"Ed" wrote in message
. com...

"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.




  #30  
Old March 23rd 04, 02:25 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ed wrote:

The problem is, there are many more of them than there are of us.


The real problem is that in the last 40 years, it has gradually become possible
to make law by sueing people in civil court. In the '50s, one could be pretty
certain that things would be just fine if one obeyed the laws and regulations.
Now, if some asshole doesn't like your hobby, they can bankrupt you, and you
can't do a damn thing about it. Even if you *do* have the wherewithal to get
the case into court, a single judge can nullify the work of the entire Federal
or State legislative branches which are, according to the various Constitutions
supposed to be deciding these matters.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.
 




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 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.