Stop the noise

In article ,
Philip Sondericker wrote:

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:


"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
link.net...

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.

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near
airports that already existed.

Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.


The "300 feet above someone's house" is an obvious fabrication, as FARs
specify that aerobatic flight (except under waivers) shall be above
1500 ft AGL.

"SD" c o f l y i n g @ p c i s y s d o t n e t wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:59:02 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


It used be charged under "Disturbing the Peace", but that was before
police
spent half their time on "drug enforcement" or "revenue gathering".
Barely
thirty years ago, that was the primary function of smaller town police
(any
sort of disturbance), but now...

There is a problem with your theory Tom. As a police officer for
almost 15 years there are even rules that we have to follow. As far
as disturbing the peace, where I was from, there had to be a
complaintant. The police officers Peace could not be broken.

I notice that (in my neighborhood at least) calls about disturbances in
residentail areas are low priority. Even if they do come, they ahve to ba
called back AT LEAST twice. Further, for repeated calls, there must be sworn
affidavits from three neighbors.


So stop your generalization of officers. Most out there are trying to
do thier job and do it right.

Didn't say they weren't -- but YOU don't define the job, your local
legislature (city, county, township...) do.

I am not saying that there are a few
out there that do make us look bad, just like here in the aviation
world. I have been a pilot for almost 8 years now and have seen my
share of people who dont care about what others think and bust Fars
all the time. But it is the system that ties their hands and prevents
them from doing things, not because they dont want to.

That's my point...and that's why many leave the field, so please stay
focused on the point.

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/

"Eric Rood" wrote in message
...
"William W. Plummer" wrote:
When I do, I will insist on practicing further out in central MA, or
over the
ocean, etc as not to disturb people, even if I have to pay for a bit
more
flight time to get out and back.

That's just plain stupid.
You want to practice over an area where you have good depth perception and
discrimination of relative motion. You don't get that over open water.
Just
one of the reasons seaplanes crash on glassy water landings. Can you tell
the
difference between 6 foot swells and wind blown whitecaps from 300 feet?
Aerobatic maneuvers are flown by reference to landmarks, not compass
headings.
Your head has to be out of the cockpit, not inside.

Name calling damages your image and doesn't prove anything.

Except for a few spin entries in a glider, I've never had any aerobatic
training. So, I don't know how the maneuvers are flown. It well could be
that the ocean is not a good practice area, or that flying over certain sea
state is not recommended. This could be similar to not flying into known
icing conditions.

Again, my concern is for the people on the ground and the noise that I might
be causing. Whether or not it is wise to practice aerobatics over the
ocean is a red herring. But I'll take your bait: trying to judge height by
looking down over glassy water in a seaplane is responsible for many
accidents. At least that is what my ASES instructor said.

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/22/04 4:03 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/21/04 9:41 PM:

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
airports that already existed.

Define "near". If they built a home 50 feet from the end of a runway, I'd
have zero sympathy for them. If they built a house a half-mile away, and
were suddenly inundated with aerobatic maneuvers 300 feet above their
rooftops, I would consider their gripes legitimate.

Anyone who built even a half-mile from an airport is nuts,

So even a half-mile away is too close? How far away is far enough? You've
already eliminated a goodly portion of the land area of the United States...

And we as a nation continue to slide (call it whimsically "politically
correct") as we kowtow to one tantrum after another. A nation of brats
will
not survive.

Is it your view that everyone else's opinion is a "tantrum"? Just
wondering.

If that's what I'd said, you have a point, but try re-reading what's
written.

I read what was written, which is why I posited the question.

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 3/22/04 7:49 AM:


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.

I know that on more than one occasion in my younger days I was very
definitely persuaded by law enforcement officers to turn my stereo down
between the hours of 10PM and 7AM. So I suppose that, at least in my case,
the above-mentioned noise ordinances not only existed, but served their
purpose quite effectively.

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.

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.

A full aerobatic box is 3000 feet x 3000 feet x 3000 feet. Other variations are
possible.
The FAA requires a 1500 foot buffer zone around the perimeter (for jets and
warbirds, this increases to 3000 feet), so you in effect need a 6000 feet x
6000 feet footprint (or 7500 x 7500). Unless you are going to practice
cross-box maneuvers, the width of the box may be decreased.
The floor and visibility requirements are also negotiated, as are
communications and ground observer details.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:33:47 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


"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.


I'm hoping that possibly you are all aware of some aspects of this
case that I haven't been exposed to.

The "story" I heard was that there was a local "box" being used for
aerobatics practice, and the neighbors were sick of listening to it.

If this is true, I'm somewhat sympathetic. I would be interested in
knowing the chronological order of the houses/owners and the
establishment/usage of the box in question.

I useta live about 1/4 of a mile away from an official "box", that was
primarily used by one waiver'ed pilot in a 180 hp Great Lakes. Bear in
mind that I've spent the last 20+ years listening to airplanes taking
off and landing 8-10 hours a day.

In the summertime, with the windows open, it was LOUD. Unless you've
been there, I'm afraid that most of you have no idea how annoying it
is. The aerobatics (at least the ones I was exposed to) consisted of
periodic repeated exposure to sounds comparable to a StationAir on
floats at gross weight taking off at WFO, again, and again, and again.

When I got truly sick of it, I was fortunate enuff to be able to call
over to the airport (12 miles away) and tell them to get ahold of the
Chief Pilot (the waiver'ed pilot) of my Pt 135 employer on the radio
and remind him that ****ing off his Director of Maintenance (yours
truly) on a Saturday afternoon/evening was not in his best interests.

What typically followed was an alleged low pass over my roof, and a
little peace and quiet.

TC