Stop the noise

Dunno. They're targeting *all* aircraft doing anything within earshot
of them. Where does it stop?

Thanks for clarifying the issue.

Upon re-reading my response, this statement comes across as sarcastic -- and
I didn't mean it that way.

Your post truly did clarify the issue for me -- thanks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Saryon wrote:

Dunno. They're targeting *all* aircraft doing anything within earshot
of them. Where does it stop?

According to AOPA, they also have plans to sue motorcycle owners.

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

Cub Driver wrote:

There are nuts on both sides of the issue, and from what I hear, the
AOPA should save its powder for another battle.

I disagree. To quote the AOPA article ...

"Meanwhile, if you check the Stop the Noise Web site (and get ready to be upset),
you will see that they have expanded their scope and now have their sights set
on motorcycles and the coming Sport Pilot movement.

What concerns us — and should concern every pilot — is that, taken to its
improbable conclusion, every pilot in the United States could be adversely
affected by this case. This lawsuit isn't about breaking any regulations; it's
about someone complaining about legal noise overhead. That puts the pilot of a
single-engine trainer flying at 2,500 feet and the pilot of a Boeing 757 flying
at 35,000 feet in equal jeopardy."

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

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:02:34 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I don't know of any pilots on the stop-the-noise crew, but
of course just like they're griping that we don't paint 50' tall
N-numbers on the aircraft so they can't write in and complain, they
don't list themselves by name on their site either so it's hard to
tell who they really are.

I find this statement extraordinarily funny/ironic, coming as it does from
an anonymous poster.

Difference is that I'm doing this for spam avoidance. I'm more than
happy to give real contact info to those who ask for it. Check your
email.

Take care.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:52:48 -0500, Saryon wrote:

Difference is that I'm doing this for spam avoidance.

Then don't use a domain that possibly could be available or be in use.
use a non existing/invalid TLD.

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:26:22 GMT, Martin Hotze
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:52:48 -0500, Saryon wrote:

Difference is that I'm doing this for spam avoidance.

Then don't use a domain that possibly could be available or be in use.
use a non existing/invalid TLD.

I rather thought I had since I do occasionally check to see that mail
would bounce if someone did attempt to mail me:

; DiG 9.2.1 yourlifetime.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 64708
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

but fine, if it makes you both feel better.

They're targeting *all* aircraft doing anything within earshot
of them. Where does it stop?


Maybe when they have to give up their leaf blowers.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:33:28 -0500, Peter Clark wrote:

Difference is that I'm doing this for spam avoidance.

Then don't use a domain that possibly could be available or be in use.
use a non existing/invalid TLD.

I rather thought I had since I do occasionally check to see that mail
would bounce if someone did attempt to mail me:

; DiG 9.2.1 yourlifetime.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 64708
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

this could change within 1 minute.

but fine, if it makes you both feel better.

thanks. :-)

#m

f-up2poster
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

in article , G.R. Patterson III at
wrote on 3/21/04 7:21 AM:



Saryon wrote:

Dunno. They're targeting *all* aircraft doing anything within earshot
of them. Where does it stop?

According to AOPA, they also have plans to sue motorcycle owners.

You know, I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and say that I'm not
entirely unsympathetic to these folks. After years of having my nerves and
eardrums shattered by every jackass on a Harley Davidson or every teenager
with a hotrod, my tolerance for someone else's noisy recreational activities
has hit an alltime low. As a pilot, I try to keep that in mind every time I
fly near a populated area. The most selfish act in the world is to assume
that everyone else wants to share in your activities.

I must hasten to add that I have no idea what kind of noise levels we're
talking about with the aerobatics--if the pilots are in compliance with the
FARs and staying above a certain altitude, what would be the approximate
decibel level for folks on the ground?

On 21 Mar 2004 16:37:45 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:


They're targeting *all* aircraft doing anything within earshot
of them. Where does it stop?


Maybe when they have to give up their leaf blowers.

And when they're at it maybe they should also give up their motorized
lawn mowers, go back to using horses-and-buggies, and have live
four-string-quartets instead of radios for music. Sounds like we're
onto something here....