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
|
|||
|
|||
However,
it's clear that the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are anti-social and have no respect for the right to the pursuit of happiness except for their own. These are people that I don't feel deserve the time of day, never mind any consideration with respect to their complaints. Does that answer your question? Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more flight restrictions. In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm just puzzled as to why it's different here. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"John Harlow" wrote: However, it's clear that the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are anti-social and have no respect for the right to the pursuit of happiness except for their own. These are people that I don't feel deserve the time of day, never mind any consideration with respect to their complaints. Does that answer your question? Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more flight restrictions. In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm just puzzled as to why it's different here. It is different, because we are dealing here with the environmental equivalent of the Taliban. They DO NOT WISH to negotiate or compromise! Just read their website and see. Also, those bringing the harassment suits are "not STN," but "individual persons who happen to be STN members." (plauaible deniability here) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:02:49 -0400, "John Harlow"
wrote: I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny. Is your opinion the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are completely insane and there is absolutely no validity to their complaint whatsoever? I consider them idiots. I consider many of them unbalanced (read the alt.activism.noise.pollution group some time), some are fanatical, and I consider some of them dangerous. Some are to the point like the guy down south that took a few shots at the crop duster because the noise was bothering him while he watched the races. Certainly, *some* of them have valid complaints, but from what I've seen they are more of a problem than the noise in most instances. Unfortunately for us, the courts do listen to the lunatic fringe, particularly when they can afford lawyers, or lawyers see a cause to champion. OTOH the lunatic fringe can be sued for harassment if you can afford it and are willing to take the risk. We had a noise problem here and it was stirred up by a few agitators who had built new and expensive homes right off the south end of 18/36. One thing in our favor was a couple of the obnoxious ones got carried away and were making false complaints. At that point they lost credibility with the city. Now they could have sued at that point, but as they had already been put on record as making false complaints they would have had one strike against them. The second strike was the city over all is pretty much pro aviation. They do see how much the airport is bringing into the city while industry is leaving. The city commissioned a study as to how much the airport was costing and it turned out it was brining in a lot more money than any of us had thought. The opponents called the study biased and commissioned their own. The results were their study showed the airport bringing in about 50% more than did the one by the city. Fortunately it was the agitators who made the mistakes and the rest pretty much dropped the whole affair when the agitators gave up. They gave up, but we never want to count them out. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"John Harlow" wrote in message
... Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more flight restrictions. Well, you and I can agree, I'm sure, that there are at least two philosophies when it comes to stuff like this. We saw the same division with respect to post-9/11 flight restrictions. There are those who feel that if we negotiate, even with fools, we'll wind up with the worst-case outcome. Then there are those who feel that if we don't resist as aggressively as possible at every step, we'll wind up with the worst-case outcome. I personally like to feel that I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't think it makes sense to just dig in our heels and pretend we should be permitted to just keep on as we've always done. But at the same time, why waste effort pretending that people like the STN idiots even come close to having a point? I haven't been following AOPA's involvement, but personally it seems to me that AOPA ought to take this up as an example case, defend the pilots vigorously, and countersue for all legal fees and other associated costs. When AOPA wins, it will make other similar groups think twice before making unreasonable demands. Like I said, I do my best to fly quietly. But only inasmuch as it doesn't affect my safety and my right to exercise my legal privileges as a pilot. I'm more than happy to discuss with someone else their concerns if they feel there's room for improvement, but I will not tolerate someone who has made it clear from the outset that they don't understand aviation, and want it destroyed altogether. I believe most other pilots are similarly interested in neighborly flying. One thing I don't understand is some otherwise careful and considerate pilots' hesitance to get involved when they see another pilot flying in an illegal or unneighborly fashion. Frankly, it's those handful of irresponsible pilots that are going to do us all in, and if we don't clean house, I'm sure someone else (like STN) will be happy to do it for us. We could make some progress in not encouraging groups like STN to be created in the first place if we'd just do a better job of policing our own. In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm just puzzled as to why it's different here. IMHO, it's different because of the degree of hostility expressed by the neighbor. We've actually had at least two "neighbor to an airstrip under construction" threads here, and I wouldn't say that in either case, the person posting exhibited a strong pro-aviation attitude. In the Idaho case, the guy was downright stubborn, and I don't think he ever really understood what we were trying to tell him. But even in that case, he wasn't calling for an end to aviation, or even to block his neighbor's right to an airstrip (though, I admit he may take that tack later...he wasn't doing it here though). Pete |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Certainly, *some* of them have valid complaints, but from what I've seen they are more of a problem than the noise in most instances. As I've mentioned before, I have an instructor/friend lives within the "box," and he finds the noise really bad. As a long-time pilot and a bit of a libertarian he wouldn't dream of joining Stop, but I suspect his sympathies are with them, at least during the summer months. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
... As I've mentioned before, I have an instructor/friend lives within the "box," and he finds the noise really bad. I'm not aware of anyone saying that there's no room for improvement in the noise situation. But, my understanding is that to some extent, the noise problem exists because the pilots needing to practice have not been granted enough variety of locations to practice. Furthermore, the STN idiots aren't just calling for some reasonable compromise; they are looking to eliminate general aviation altogether. As a long-time pilot and a bit of a libertarian he wouldn't dream of joining Stop, but I suspect his sympathies are with them, at least during the summer months. My sympathies are with anyone who is bothered by the noise, and who is interested in pursuing reasonable solutions that provide for an outcome that benefits everyone involved. I don't care how much noise occurs above me, my sympathies would NEVER be with the STN idiots. I can't see why your friend's would be either. They are not a sympathetic group of people. Pete |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:02:49 -0400, "John Harlow"
wrote: I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny. Is your opinion the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are completely insane and there is absolutely no validity to their complaint whatsoever? Yes there is noise there... But we're also talking about a group that slants things WAY TOO FAR. In other words, they registered a complaint with the FAA (Correrct action as far as I'm concerned). The FAA investigated, and watched furter flights being flown "in the box". When the FAA approached the group & told then there was no infringement, they went beserk. They started claiming that their property was from the ground to infinity in the sky. (Can't wait to see that tax bill ). Then they say taht the FAA is in cahoots with teh pilots, and wouldn't turn them in even if they were wrong...haha Bottom line...their assholes with money. Who would've thought that if you move to one of the most populated areas in New England there would be people that make noise ????? btw... they also want to outlaw weed whackers & lawn mowers because they make noise too....... Will there president trade in his Mercedes for a goat?????? Don Paquette PP-ASEL N9723X |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The pilots on the dirty end of the STN stick *have* negotiated. They have been
trying for *years* to come up with a compromise to this situation. In fact, they thought they had one and were blindsided by the latest suit filed by the STN people. The people are just plain nuts. Dave Reinhart John Harlow wrote: However, it's clear that the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are anti-social and have no respect for the right to the pursuit of happiness except for their own. These are people that I don't feel deserve the time of day, never mind any consideration with respect to their complaints. Does that answer your question? Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more flight restrictions. In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm just puzzled as to why it's different here. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pete
What ever happened to that guy up north? Did he finally go to his neighbor and find out what was planned and try to workout a compromise? Big John On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:34:51 -0700, "Peter ? wrote: "John Harlow" wrote in message ... Yep. My concern is this kind of attitude is going to lead us to even more flight restrictions. Well, you and I can agree, I'm sure, that there are at least two philosophies when it comes to stuff like this. We saw the same division with respect to post-9/11 flight restrictions. There are those who feel that if we negotiate, even with fools, we'll wind up with the worst-case outcome. Then there are those who feel that if we don't resist as aggressively as possible at every step, we'll wind up with the worst-case outcome. I personally like to feel that I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't think it makes sense to just dig in our heels and pretend we should be permitted to just keep on as we've always done. But at the same time, why waste effort pretending that people like the STN idiots even come close to having a point? I haven't been following AOPA's involvement, but personally it seems to me that AOPA ought to take this up as an example case, defend the pilots vigorously, and countersue for all legal fees and other associated costs. When AOPA wins, it will make other similar groups think twice before making unreasonable demands. Like I said, I do my best to fly quietly. But only inasmuch as it doesn't affect my safety and my right to exercise my legal privileges as a pilot. I'm more than happy to discuss with someone else their concerns if they feel there's room for improvement, but I will not tolerate someone who has made it clear from the outset that they don't understand aviation, and want it destroyed altogether. I believe most other pilots are similarly interested in neighborly flying. One thing I don't understand is some otherwise careful and considerate pilots' hesitance to get involved when they see another pilot flying in an illegal or unneighborly fashion. Frankly, it's those handful of irresponsible pilots that are going to do us all in, and if we don't clean house, I'm sure someone else (like STN) will be happy to do it for us. We could make some progress in not encouraging groups like STN to be created in the first place if we'd just do a better job of policing our own. In another thread discussing someone building an airstrip next to a possibly contentious neighbor, pilots overwhelmingly suggested negotiation. I'm just puzzled as to why it's different here. IMHO, it's different because of the degree of hostility expressed by the neighbor. We've actually had at least two "neighbor to an airstrip under construction" threads here, and I wouldn't say that in either case, the person posting exhibited a strong pro-aviation attitude. In the Idaho case, the guy was downright stubborn, and I don't think he ever really understood what we were trying to tell him. But even in that case, he wasn't calling for an end to aviation, or even to block his neighbor's right to an airstrip (though, I admit he may take that tack later...he wasn't doing it here though). Pete |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Big John" wrote in message
... What ever happened to that guy up north? Did he finally go to his neighbor and find out what was planned and try to workout a compromise? I have no idea. My only involvement was the thread he posted here. Unless he comes back to tell us the outcome, I guess we'll never know. Pete |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! | Scet | Military Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 01:09 AM |
p3/95 | [email protected] | Military Aviation | 1 | September 27th 04 12:27 AM |
Stop the noise | airads | Owning | 112 | July 6th 04 06:42 PM |
Stop the noise | airads | Aerobatics | 131 | July 2nd 04 01:28 PM |
Stop the noise | airads | General Aviation | 88 | July 2nd 04 01:28 PM |