Stop The Noise petitions FAA to increase N number size

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.

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)

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

"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

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

"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

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

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.

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

"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