Stop the noise

A full aerobatic box is 3000 feet x 3000 feet x 3000 feet. Other variations are
possible.
The FAA requires a 1500 foot buffer zone around the perimeter (for jets and
warbirds, this increases to 3000 feet), so you in effect need a 6000 feet x
6000 feet footprint (or 7500 x 7500). Unless you are going to practice
cross-box maneuvers, the width of the box may be decreased.
The floor and visibility requirements are also negotiated, as are
communications and ground observer details.

On 20 Mar 2004 08:08:57 -0800, (airads) wrote:

Feb. 24 - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday
provided initial support to four Massachusetts pilots - all AOPA
members - facing a lawsuit filed by a few residents. The suit alleges
that the noise signature from the aerobatics performed by the pilots
caused significant harm; they are seeking approximately $1 million in
damages. The pilots are based at various airports, some 20 miles from
the homes of the litigants.

"This is potentially an issue that could affect all pilots engaged in
any type of air commerce - from a Cub to a 747," said AOPA President
Phil Boyer. "We are fully prepared to take this through the federal
system if necessary.

I wonder if they've considered getting a "junk yard lawyer" and
counter suit for harrasment.

If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good
countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more
than what they are aksing. That they have caused great financial harm
(pilots having to sell planes to meet expenses) is already an arguing
point.

I think in these cases we should not just fight the case but take
agressive counter action "if possible" that would make those
considering similar actions in the future to back up and consider the
consequences.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-108x.html

Frank

Roger Halstead wrote:

If the AOPA is serious they really need to come up with a good
countersuit that would cost those filing the original lawsuit far more
than what they are aksing.

The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org
that is sueing these pilots. You don't have grounds for a countersuit unless this
one is settled in favor of the pilots. After that occurs, they'll disolve the
organization, and you won't have anyone to sue. Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though
they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so).

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

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:27:02 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

The problem there is that they have formed an organization, and it is the org
that is sueing these pilots.

It sounds like a jurisdictional issue to me. I doubt the local court
has the right to countermand the FAA's decisions.

Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit (though
they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote:


Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?

- Andrew

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Cub Driver wrote:


Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?

They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
free.

"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

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?

Evidently so.

I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to
want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill
$400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message
...

"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.

Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local
governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps'
casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution.