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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Earl Grieda" wrote in message link.net... 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. Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near airports that already existed. 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. In lieu of the above, it would be the case that our group is right. Right/wrong is NOT determined but the volume and shrillness of the tantrum thrown. Our attitude is that they need to adapt to us and our activities. As above. This attitude is perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant. As above. 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. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not defending the way these people are dealing with their issues, but
the pratice area for the KBED-based flight school which is involved in these suits is 15-20 NM away from the airport. If that's "near", then it's practically impossible to live in eastern Massachusetts without being near three or four airports. It would be entirely unreasonable for prospective house buyers to consider that small plane noise might be a problem in this area. If anyone is interested, the practice area in question is NW of KBED, N of the Ft. Devens MOA. "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near airports that already existed. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Actually the guy who started STN is a wealthy lawyer.
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. That's a pretty far stretch. They don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their lives. I would imagine that depends on what those effects are. When people live close enough to affect each other there are frequently compromises to be made if everyone is to be reasonably happy. 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. In speaking to people who really dislike GA planes (even in the BED area) I have never found this to be the case. Where do you get this from? And leave the SUV issue out of this. Your statement is screwy anyhow; are you implying that because someone can't afford a SUV that they hide this by claiming the SUVs are bad for the environment? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message et... 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. That's a pretty far stretch. Not really. http://tinyurl.com/3gveu Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, by Helmut Schoeck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. interesting....... They assume that flying aerobatics is needless recreation -- as if recreation is somehow something that we can live without. That assumption is entirely unfounded. They have built their argument on a rotten foundation. You simply cannot ask everyone who bothers you to stop bothering you or leave the planet. ............or pay you millions of dollars. People need to learn to be more tolerant of being constantly touched by others, hearing their noise, putting up with their smell, and seeing them everywhere. Those who cannot be tolerant will suffer endlessly, no matter how many lawsuits they file. well put What bugs me about this whole thing is that these pilots were operating within the framework of the FARs. Some of them had to sell their airplanes to meet legal fees. The acro box was eventually moved. Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong". Their beef is with the FAA. Unfortunately, it looks like these pilots are going to take it on the chin. Frank |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stop the noise | airads | Aerobatics | 131 | July 2nd 04 01:28 PM |
Plasma Reduces Jet Noise (Turbines?) | sanman | Home Built | 1 | June 27th 04 12:45 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Noise Nazis at it Again! | Orval Fairbairn | Home Built | 13 | December 9th 03 10:06 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |