'They want to ban recreational flying...'

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.

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.

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......

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

"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.

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

"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

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.

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.

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