Stop the noise

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Dave Stadt wrote:

The departure procedures to the east are absurd and
dangerous. Ought to be a law against such nonsense.


There's a complainer that lives off the western end of the runway at 47N. They
initiated a procedure to try to placate her. Every aircraft was expected to make a 45
degree left turn about 100 yards from the end of the runway. About a year after that
went into effect, a Cherokee stalled immediately after turning and pancaked into a
golf course, killing both occupants. They're back to straight out departures now.


I don't understand. That doesn't sound like an extraordinarily dangerous
maneuver to me (turning, that is. Stalling that close to the ground is obviously
dangerous).

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Paul Sengupta wrote:

Does the lady in question know the seriousness of what she initiated?

I have no idea. There are at least two neighbors there who would applaud the
reduction in the number of pilots using the airport while at the same time use the
crash as ammo to get the field closed. As far as I know, she is not one of them.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

Dave Butler wrote:

I don't understand. That doesn't sound like an extraordinarily dangerous
maneuver to me (turning, that is. Stalling that close to the ground is obviously
dangerous).

I wouldn't classify it as "extraordinarily dangerous" either, but the CFIs with whom
I've flown always caution students about making unnecessary turns below 500' AGL on
takeoff. You're low and slow and it's entirely too easy to bank just a bit too much.
You also don't need the distraction at that point. An old Cherokee leaving Kupper
with two on board would probably be about 200' AGL.

These guys may have just carelessly gotten the nose a bit too high. From what I read
and heard, the plane hit the ground with the wings level.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:



Paul Sengupta wrote:

Does the lady in question know the seriousness of what she initiated?

I have no idea. There are at least two neighbors there who would applaud
the reduction in the number of pilots using the airport while at the same
time use the crash as ammo to get the field closed. As far as I know, she
is not one of them.

The person that killed the pilots should get an annual reminder. Her name
should also be made public.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

The person that killed the pilots should get an annual reminder. Her name
should also be made public.

The person who killed the pilots was one of the pilots. Complaining about noise
doesn't cause a stall.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Andrew Gideon wrote:

The person that killed the pilots should get an annual reminder. Her
name
should also be made public.

The person who killed the pilots was one of the pilots. Complaining about
noise
doesn't cause a stall.

No, but creating hazards by way of a tantrum certainly is a contributory
factor. In the same vein, setting highway traffic controls in a wanton
manner don't CAUSE accidents, but they certainly contribute.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:00:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

I'm sure glad the engineers continued to pursue a technological cure
for the low-flying police helicopters that routinely routed my slumber
in the '70s. Today those helicopters are nearly silent by comparison.

Larry,

Could it be that quiet helicopters came about for reasons other than
interrupting your sleep?

Just a thought.

BillC85

I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South
of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres.

I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development
that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based
here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student
activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere
for their shiny new homestead.

A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any
problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up
until their tax base is bigger than our tax base.

Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money.

BillC85


"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


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

Here's another example of this exact senerio;

A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.

Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.

Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office.
I
called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport"
that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are
pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as
important to the city as HIS grand, new development!

Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or...
maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did
in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads
around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this
"little
airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how
well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their
houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New
Town"?

Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
planes" flying over my new house?

Gary Kasten

BillC85 wrote:
I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South
of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres.

I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development
that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based
here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student
activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere
for their shiny new homestead.

A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any
problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up
until their tax base is bigger than our tax base.

Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money.

BillC85


"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes

near

airports that already existed.

Here's another example of this exact senerio;

A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.

Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.

Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office.

I

called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport"
that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are
pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as
important to the city as HIS grand, new development!

Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or...
maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did
in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads
around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this

"little

airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how
well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their
houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New
Town"?

Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
planes" flying over my new house?

Gary Kasten





Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands".

Kevin wrote in message news:0E3Fc.10405$XM6.5129@attbi_s53...

VideoGuy wrote:
Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.

Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office.

This sounds like a St Louis area airport. I'm trying to figure out which
one -- St. Charles Muni? That airport is vulnerable, alas. It's privately
owned, and the owner has refused to accept state or federal funds to improve
the runway/taxiways because he wants to be free to sell it.

Meanwhile, with the Page Ave. extension open, there's this nice new
housing development under right base for 16, Creve Coeur. We figure
it's only a matter of time before the noise complaints start, and
since it's also under the approach/departure path for Lambert Field,
we don't expect the complaints about the small airport to be limited
to the planes which are actually *operating* from the small airport.
Never restricted the Noise Police on the ridge south of Spirit. At
one point the airport had a web page showing complaints and indicating
by radar/Tower records what type of plane elicited the complaint.
Many of the complaints were traced to traffic operating out of STL
at 7k or above.

Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
planes" flying over my new house?

No bet. Why bet on a certainty?

Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands".

Alas, Kevin, it's worse than you know. They can *redefine* the flood
plain as being "no longer flood plain" if it's behind a levee taller
than the 500 yr mark. But the previous flood made clear that the
benchmarks have changed because of culvertization and levee building.
So now there are billions of dollars of business and residential developments
in flood plains around St. Louis, without flood insurance (since it's
not a flood plain any more, they don't need it, right?). When a levee-
topping flood or a levee breach occurs, wanna bet they'll swallow hard
and say "well, I knew where I was building". Nah, they'll all come
squawking to Uncle Sugar and pick our pockets.

Cheers,
Sydney