I’m posting this to all the aviation newsgroups in order to hit the
most people and get the biggest response.
Stan Montgomery whom some of you know as the composite consultant with
Alexander Aeroplane (Supplier of homebuilt aircraft materials) is
thinking about attempting to break the record for single engine
circumnavigation of the world in his homebuilt "E-Racer".
This is in the purely speculative stages right now since the airplane
is not finished yet but that’s the intent once he’s flying and has the
bugs worked out and the systems and engine proven. Stan will be using
a Ford V-6 Nascar based racing engine detuned to develop around 400
horsepower. He is building the wings as "wet" wings to give him the
necessary range. With the power the engine can produce and the ultra
low drag design of the aircraft (very similar to Burt Rutan’s Vari E-Z
and Long E-Z and the Rutan spin-off’s Cozy and Velocity but with
retractable gear) he will be flying high and fast; he has calculated
his top speed at 25,000 feet to be in the range of 380 mph.
Stan’s asked me if I’d like to assist in helping him organize the
flight. I thought that using the Internet would be a great way to get
the word out to all the aviation enthusiasts who might be interested in
participating in some way.
Stan’s been obsessed with this for 10 years and has been actively
building his airplane for 5. He’s been offered assistance from
companies making his propeller, instruments, navigational equipment and
fuel. We’ve not discussed things like fuel stops, routes etc. or even
when this might be attempted, this is the first public announcement of
his intent. What I’m doing right now is testing the waters to see how
many people would be interested in helping in some way. What would be
required of participants? This is not a request for money, Stan’s made
it clear he can’t pay me and I’m not asking anyone to contribute ANY
money. All I’m trying to do at the moment is gauge the level of
interest. Perhaps you might be able to help when a date is decided
upon by assisting in the local paperwork with the your government or by
contributing weather information or input as to when the flight might
best occur or helping obtain necessary clearances. Maybe you can send
the latitude and longitude of good waypoints for navigation. Certainly
notifying the press when the attempt is to be made would be a good idea
so that the maximum amount of positive press is generated because one
of the reasons Stan wants to do this flight is to prove to the world
that building aircraft at home and flying with a non certified engine
is a viable alternative for safe general aviation flying today. You
may also be able to contribute by making suggestions as to what, in
your opinion, should be included in the planning. The flight might be
somewhat historic in that it could be the first global circumnavigation
organized wholly or in part via the Internet. It probably won’t be
confined to the Internet, eventually all mediums of communication will
have to be used but it can certainly start here.
So for the moment I’m looking for responses and maybe some suggestions
as to how you might be helpful. If you yourself do not think you can
be of assistance but know someone who might, spread the word. This is
something at which the Internet can be very good, it can put out
massive amounts of information and contact thousands upon thousands of
people instantaneously.
Now, how to collate the responses and keep people informed. I’ll be
monitoring all news groups where this has been posted but everyone
should feel free to E-Mail me at my usual address which is:
charles.k.sc…@dartmouth.edu. Creating a newsgroup dedicated to this
effort at some point might be possibility although it’s probably not
needed right now. Certainly archiving all responses will be
necessary.
OK, remember this flight is NOT going to happen real soon, so there’s
plenty of time for dialog and suggestions but don’t misunderstand, this
IS going to happen, Stan is incredibly focused on this project to the
point where a typical day is up at 5 or 5:30 AM and an early night
would be in bed at 1:30 AM. Somewhere in there is squeezed work and
family.
Many thanks in advance to all who are interested.
Corky Scott
In article <30lq4n$…@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, InterNews 1….@dartmouth.edu (InterNews1….@dartmouth.edu) writes:
>I’m posting this to all the aviation newsgroups in order to hit the
>most people and get the biggest response.
>Stan Montgomery whom some of you know as the composite consultant with
>Alexander Aeroplane (Supplier of homebuilt aircraft materials) is
>thinking about attempting to break the record for single engine
>circumnavigation of the world in his homebuilt "E-Racer".
>Stan’s asked me if I’d like to assist in helping him organize the
>flight. I thought that using the Internet would be a great way to get
>the word out to all the aviation enthusiasts who might be interested in
>participating in some way.
>Corky Scott
Absolutely. Sign me up…
Joshua Groupp
Aerial Photographer
Chatham,NY
In article <PCPN0730721B…@arthor.cais.com>,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Scott Maclean <scott.macl…@arthor.cais.com> wrote:
>To: Mark R Jensen
>Subject: Help with annoying helico
>In Reply-To: ma…@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Mark R Jensen)
>MRJ>So here’s the sitch. I live near a small airport that has a helicopter
>MRJ>flight school. Nearly (if not every) day these guys fly thier damn
>MRJ>helicopters around and around and around over the the housing
>MRJ>development that I live in while only at what appears to be about 500
>MRJ>feet elevation! This can go on for hours while completing a lap about
>[B.S. deleted]
>MRJ>another direction or at least a higher elevation. Also, what rights do
>MRJ>I have to get these guys to change their ways and show a little
>MRJ>consideration to us home owners. And lastly, who can I bitch to that has
>MRJ>the authority to change this activity short of suing them in court (I am
>MRJ>considering this as a last resort)! Any input would be greatly
>MRJ>appreciated.
>You should:
>a) move, or
>b) learn to fly (and thus) appreciate helicopters.
>If you were idiot enough to move near an airport when you don’t like
>airport noise, then you have no excuse.
I guess you didn’t think about how this would be taken when you wrote it.
It’s pretty nasty. Mark Jensen has a point. Perhaps he moved there before
the helicopter school started, or got large. The noise might not have been
too bad without the helicopters. Perhaps he moved there during a slow
season with only an occasional helicopter overhead.
One thing about helicopters is that they can do much more rapid patterns
than airplanes, plus the noise can be more noticeable. Student pilots
can induce a lot of blade slap, especially in an R22 which is very prone
to it. Get 2 or 3 helicopters up in the pattern, and you can have constant
noise. Get 5 in the pattern (like at the school I learned at) and it’s
a real racket.
>Nothing pisses me off more than when developers build subdivisions under
>the departure path of an airport, then people move in, and start
>bitching about the airport noise.
Well, I agree this is unfortunate. We have one new development about
100 feet off the departure end of our runway at Stow, and they complain
about the noise a lot. A new development is going in on the opposite
side of the runway right now, even closer. I make sure to make a lot of
noise when prospective buyers are around, so that they know what they
are in for.
We did get a nice letter from one lady who congratulated us on our flight
school, but then went on to say that she had just bought the house, and
didn’t see why she should have to put up with our noise!
However, sometimes people buy a house near a sleepy airport which then
grows up. My great aunt owned the farm right under the ILS approach at
Tweed New Haven airport. That airport started as a small grass field, but
eventually they had turbojet airliners going over their house at 500 AGL.
Very upsetting to them. They also had a DC9 crash in their front yard
killing just about everybody on board, and this didn’t make them feel that
great about the airport either…
>bitching about the airport noise. Here at GAI, we have one of the most
>stringent noise abatement procedures in the country, to the point of
>compromising the safety of the flight. I say screw it – I take off, full
>power, in a manner which I consider to be safe for myself, my airplane,
>and my passengers (if any). If the folks on the ground don’t like it –
>then they should MOVE!
Obviously you are part of the problem if you simply ignore the noise
abatement procedures. Perhaps you don’t totally ignore them. You should
excercise a balance between noise and safety. Either extreme can be bad.
You might consider working to improve the noise abatement procedure,
rather than ignore it. In any case, this is getting pretty far off from
the topic of helicopter noise.
My suggestion to Mark Jensen is to talk with the flight school. You’ll
get a lot farther if you don’t go in with a chip on your shoulder. Explore
whether the pattern can be modified to decrease the traffic over your
house. While they probably can’t switch to the other side of the airport,
They may be able to avoid going directly over your house without too
much trouble.
Although it is typical to fly helicopter patterns at 500 feet, we use
1,000 feet at our school for noise reasons. I can’t see that there’s any
negative effect on the students. That alone can make a LARGE difference in
the noise. This is probably the most effective, easiest thing to try first.
You also might want to suggest making the pattern larger, or limiting
the number of helicopters in the pattern at any given time, to decrease
the frequency of helicopters over your house.
You might consider whether there are a few hours a day that you would
really like some quiet (say, dinner time) and request that maybe the
school can avoid pattern work between the hours of 5 and 7. Or that they
don’t start pattern work before 9 am on a Sunday. Stuff like that…
Finally, be reasonable. You DO live near an aiport. From the sounds of
it, they aren’t breaking any rules. If they want to be rude and make
a lot of trouble, they can probably get away with it. You’ll have a very
hard time sueing them. For what it would cost, you could go buy another
house (which MAY be a good idea if the noise is really bugging you). But
most schools are willing to make concesions if you are. One thing you
aren’t going to get is an elimination of the noise.
Let me put it this way: if someone comes in and is nice, requesting some
sort of comprimise on the noise, I’m willing to work with them, to a
certain degree. If someone comes in yelling and screaming, and threatening
to sue, you can guess who’s house is going to get overflown low level at
6 am every Saturday morning. Work with them, be nice, be reasonable, and
see if you can live with the results. If not, move. Really.
Paul
—
THIS | Paul Cantrell "PC"
BRAIN | p…@bos.locus.com
INTENTIONALLY | DoD #1144
LEFT BLANK | HELO/ASEL/ZX10 Pilot
In article <30m2uc$…@lccma.bos.locus.com>, p…@bosserv.bos.locus.com
(Paul Cantrell) wrote:
> Well, I agree this is unfortunate. We have one new development about
> 100 feet off the departure end of our runway at Stow, and they complain
> about the noise a lot. A new development is going in on the opposite
> side of the runway right now, even closer. I make sure to make a lot of
> noise when prospective buyers are around, so that they know what they
> are in for.
Here’s my suggested contingency plan for new developments near airports –
Place flyers on the doors of the new houses invinting prospective homeonwers
to come on over to the airport for an introductory flight, hand them out
to people at the models, etc.
Real estate agents bent on selling houses near an airport will make
extrodinary efforts to mask the presence of the airport – we need to make
sure that the buyer is fully informed of the situation.
(It’s a contingency plan because the up-front plan calls for attending
city/county planning meetings to stay informed/provide information
regarding development encroaching on your home ‘drome.)
–
-Mark
Here in California, there are several vocal neighborhood coalitions which
are out to shut down airports (raising their property values). The most
effective way I’ve heard about dealing with this is to inform them of the
full-disclosure laws which require the homeowner/realtor to disclose
material information such as noise complaints to prospective buyers, or
else face possible prosecution on fruad charges. This dramatically reduced
official noise complaints near CCR, HWD, OAK and some other Bay Area
airports.
-Ed
In article <markm-2107940950450…@slc16.xmission.com>, ma…@XMission.com
(Mark A. Matthews) writes:
|> In article <30m2uc$…@lccma.bos.locus.com>, p…@bosserv.bos.locus.com
|> (Paul Cantrell) wrote:
|>
|> > Well, I agree this is unfortunate. We have one new development about
|> > 100 feet off the departure end of our runway at Stow, and they
|> complain
|> > about the noise a lot. A new development is going in on the opposite
|> > side of the runway right now, even closer. I make sure to make a lot
|> of
|> > noise when prospective buyers are around, so that they know what they
|> > are in for.
|>
|> Here’s my suggested contingency plan for new developments near airports
|> –
|> Place flyers on the doors of the new houses invinting prospective
|> homeonwers
|> to come on over to the airport for an introductory flight, hand them
|> out
|> to people at the models, etc.
|>
|> Real estate agents bent on selling houses near an airport will make
|> extrodinary efforts to mask the presence of the airport – we need to
|> make
|> sure that the buyer is fully informed of the situation.
|>
|> (It’s a contingency plan because the up-front plan calls for attending
|> city/county planning meetings to stay informed/provide information
|> regarding development encroaching on your home ‘drome.)
|>
|> —
|> -Mark
–
Edward Schreyer IAC #38 Newsletter Editor
Silicon Graphics Pitts Special N621MS
(415) 390-1086
e…@sgi.com O—-)—–|
scott.macl…@arthor.cais.com (Scott Maclean) writes:
> If you were idiot enough to move near an airport when you don’t like
> airport noise, then you have no excuse. [...]
> Incidentally, I also live near GAI, underneath the downwind leg, and I
> *LIKE* having airplanes flying over all day.
Such tact. Such understanding. Such willingness to get along with other
people. This is the kind of attitude which helps give any group of people a
bad reputation.
Scott, you’re the one making the noise. Why do you have the right to say
you’re going to make noise wherever you want to, and it’s up to the people
on the ground to pick up and move if they don’t like it?
Where I used to live, I had to deal with noise all the time. Not from
airplanes, but from people hanging out in the street late at night blaring
radios and car alarms. It was a major negative influence on my
quality-of-life. Eventually, it drove me from my home. I felt violated,
but eventually I couldn’t stand it and moved away. Are you saying it was my
fault for moving there in the first place? That I should have anticipated
that it would be noisy at night? That I got what I deserved for being an
idiot? Don’t you think that’s blaming the victim?
–
Roy Smith <r…@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
In article <30n7br$…@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, r…@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
wrote:
> Where I used to live, I had to deal with noise all the time. Not from
> airplanes, but from people hanging out in the street late at night blaring
> radios and car alarms. It was a major negative influence on my
> quality-of-life. Eventually, it drove me from my home. I felt violated,
> but eventually I couldn’t stand it and moved away. Are you saying it was my
> fault for moving there in the first place? That I should have anticipated
> that it would be noisy at night? That I got what I deserved for being an
> idiot? Don’t you think that’s blaming the victim?
was it noisy when you moved in? if so, then yes it was partially your
fault for putting yourself in a uncomfortable situation. If the
neighborhood degenerated *after* you moved, then no one should
blame you for being unhappy with the noise.
–
Bob Noel aka Kobyashi Maru
My views are my own, not MITRE’s
(why use a disclaimer when people are
too ———- to understand it?)
In article <PCPN0730721B…@arthor.cais.com>, scott.macl…@arthor.cais.com (Scott Maclean) writes:
|>Nothing pisses me off more than when developers build subdivisions under
|>the departure path of an airport, then people move in, and start
|>bitching about the airport noise.
Yeah, this upsets me too. They built Dulles way out in the boonies to
avoid noise complaints, and there was recently a proposal to build new
houses under the approach paths. Can you say "invitation to complaints"?
|>Here at GAI, we have one of the most
|>stringent noise abatement procedures in the country, to the point of
|>compromising the safety of the flight.
Excuse me? A turn to 340 after departing RWY 32 is "one of the most
stringent noise abatement procedures in the country"? Or is it the
"refrain from RWY 32 takeoffs after 11pm when practical" part that’s
bothering you?
Of course, these are the fixed-wing procedures, but I’ve never seen
a helicopter noise abatement procedure posted.
|> I say screw it – I take off, full
|>power, in a manner which I consider to be safe for myself, my airplane,
|>and my passengers (if any). If the folks on the ground don’t like it –
|>then they should MOVE!
I think some of the claims the homeowners make are unreasonable, but
that’s no reason to intentionally irritate them. The procedures at
GAI are so trivial there’s no reason not to comply.
–
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL-IA — Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
To: Reece R. Pollack
Subject: Help with annoying helico
In Reply-To: re…@eco.twg.com
RRP>Yeah, this upsets me too. They built Dulles way out in the boonies to
RRP>avoid noise complaints, and there was recently a proposal to build new
RRP>houses under the approach paths. Can you say "invitation to complaints"?
My girlfriend lives right near Dulles, and when they are landing runway
30 there, the "big iron" comes DIRECTLY over her house, at about
1000-1500 feet. I think it’s great. She does not. Every time a jet comes
over like that, her cat looks up at the roof, as if she expects to see
landing gear come through or something.
RRP>Excuse me? A turn to 340 after departing RWY 32 is "one of the most
RRP>stringent noise abatement procedures in the country"? Or is it the
RRP>"refrain from RWY 32 takeoffs after 11pm when practical" part that’s
RRP>bothering you?
III. NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE:
A. TAKEOFF RUNWAY 32: Aircraft shall turn right to at least a heading of 340
degrees magnetic as soon as is safe and practicable, utilizing the aircraft
or engine manufacturer’s recommended noise reduction procedures for that
aircraft or engines where consistent with the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)
and Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), or generally accepted National
industry standard/specification;
Where there is no published noise reduction procedure, utilize a climb
speed of less than Va (Maneuvering Speed) and greater than or equal to Vy
or Vyse (best rate(s) of climb) where safe and applicable until reaching
500 AGL or the limits of the Airport Traffic Area for that aircraft,
whichever occurs first; left turns on departure from Runway 32 or right
turns from Ry 14 are not authorized until reaching 1,000 AGL or the Airport
Traffic Area limits from the runway end, whichever occurs later;
B. TAKEOFF 11PM to 7AM: Except for Air Ambulance Flights, utilize Runway 14
for takeoff whenever the Balanced Field Length or Accelerate-Stop Distance
under prevailing conditions (load, wind, temperature, gradient, etc.) is
less than 4,200 feet (NOTE: Ry 14 gradient is + 0.9 % uphill, and
obstructions exist west of the extended runway centerline (check NOTAMS));
C. TURBINE OR HEAVY OR LARGE AIRCRAFT PREFERRED RUNWAY 7AM – 11PM: Due to
runway gradient,the preferred runway for takeoff is Ry 32 for large,
turbine, or heavy aircraft, and for landing Ry 14;
D. NIGHT OPERATIONS: Except for bona-fide Air Ambulance ("Lifeguard"
call-sign) flights, no person may takeoff or land an aircraft designated by
the Federal Aviation Administration (14 CFR 36, or FAA AC 36-3E as amended
from time to time) or the Manufacturer(s) as generally producing noise in
excess of 90 dBA landing or 82 dBA takeoff between the hours of 11PM local
time and 7AM LT; this provision takes effect when supported or enacted by
Resolution by the Montgomery County Council or incorporated in the County’s
noise Code, unless found to be discriminatory and not reasonable by the
Administrator, State Aviation Administration and the Federal Aviation
Administration, by final Administrative/Judicial Order.
Scott MacLean Artificial Horizons BBS
art…@cais.com Aviation! (301) 417-9341
* Free Access * Aviation Files * Usenet Newsgroups * CD-ROMs Online *
I wrote:
> Don’t you think that’s blaming the victim?
r…@mitre.org (Bob Noel) replied:
> was it noisy when you moved in? if so, then yes it was partially your
> fault for putting yourself in a uncomfortable situation. If the
> neighborhood degenerated *after* you moved, then no one should
> blame you for being unhappy with the noise.
Yup, blaming the victim. Let me try and put it another way.
Let’s say a general aviation airport takes up a square one mile on a side.
Let’s say the noise it generates is offensive enough to make all the land
within a half mile of the airport boundary unsuitable for residental use,
that’s a square 2 miles on a side. Let’s not quibble about the actual
numbers, the point is that the noise the airport generates happens not just
over the airport proper, but over some surrounding area.
The people who bought the land to make the airport bought 1 square mile,
and that’s what they pay taxes on. And that’s what the fees charged by the
airport owners to the users goes to maintain. BUT, now you’re saying that
you have the right to dictate what the owners of the other 3 square miles
of land within a half mile of your airport boundary do with *their* land?
What if the most profitable thing they can do is to subdivide it and build
houses on it? Are you, the airport owner, willing to compensate them for
the money they lost by not being able to develop their land to the fullest
extent possible?
Sound pollution is a real problem. Until the polluters realize this and
stop espousing the attitude of "if you don’t like the noise, stay away",
it’s going to continue to be a real problem.
With people in aviation having attitudes like this, is it any wonder that
the National Parks folks are doing whatever they can to keep planes away?
Obnoxiousness and an unwillingness to cooperate often breeds over-reaction
as a response.
–
Roy Smith <r…@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
In article <roy-220794134…@mchip8.med.nyu.edu> r…@nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
>Sound pollution is a real problem. Until the polluters realize this and
>stop espousing the attitude of "if you don’t like the noise, stay away",
>it’s going to continue to be a real problem.
I’ve seen references here on the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. Does
anyone know where there is a copy of this legislation available on the
internet?
73,
C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX
w…@ornl.gov
=========================================================================
= Cooperation requires participation. Competition teaches cooperation. =
=========================================================================
…_ .. …_ ._ _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. …. _.__
The people who bought the land to make the airport bought 1 square mile,
and that’s what they pay taxes on. And that’s what the fees charged by the
airport owners to the users goes to maintain. BUT, now you’re saying that
you have the right to dictate what the owners of the other 3 square miles
of land within a half mile of your airport boundary do with *their* land?
You’ve obviously not spent much time studying land use. What makes the
owners of land for 3 miles around the airport think they can force the
owner of the airport out of business because they have a more profitable
use for their land now? This is the same kind of crap going on when people
put residential developments in rural america near operating farms. To many
people, a farm smells bad.
The issue is not that people in airplanes have a noise attidude, it’s just
that areas around aiports which even with careful planning have been
designated for delevelopment by industrial and commercial uses that aren’t
noise sensitive are facing a real squeeze from people who would like to
rezone the area for higher $/acre heavy residential use in contrast to
the established land user plan for the area. Some of it is pretty
vindictive and silly. Take a look at the Princeton and Allaire airports
in New Jersey. Established airports. Established buffer zones, now
both areas are getting residential property built in the buffer zones.
My favorite laugh is the Princeton airport that decided that commerical
property would cause too much additional traffic on area roads. Har!
This is a part of NJ you can’t go anywhere except by car and they want
to build 1000 houses rather than 30 warehouses?
-Ron
My girlfriend lives right near Dulles, and when they are landing runway
30 there, the "big iron" comes DIRECTLY over her house, at about
1000-1500 feet. I think it’s great. She does not. Every time a jet comes
over like that, her cat looks up at the roof, as if she expects to see
landing gear come through or something.
My heart bleeds. I live near Dulles too, but I like airplane noise. Same
place it looks like (final for 30, downwind for 19L/1R). Can’t
get worked up about noise abatement here, nobody should have been suprised
there wasn’t more than a few farm houses any where near the dulles approach
paths when the airport was built and the projected traffic and noise levels
were to be ***WORSE*** than they are now (nobody projected State III, but
they did expect that most if not all of the traffic to move from National
to Dulles, which never has happened).
RRP>Excuse me? A turn to 340 after departing RWY 32 is "one of the most
RRP>stringent noise abatement procedures in the country"? Or is it the
RRP>"refrain from RWY 32 takeoffs after 11pm when practical" part that’s
RRP>bothering you?
III. NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE:
[ Rest of pretty tame procedure omitted]
So? They have a noise procedure recommending a runway at night. Half of
the fields in the DC area are CLOSED (at least for depatrures at night).
Try CGS or ANP? Not Authorized. A procedure that wants you to avoid
the north side of the field below 1,000′ Ahh…. I used to fly at an
airport (Phillips Army Air Field) that had a very stringent noise abatement
procedure…if you fly south of the field, there’s likely to be a big noise
from a shell hitting your plane.
I’m not sure what your problem is?
This reminds me of a story I was told when working on a book at MCAS
Kaneohe Bay, HI. The base was effectively closed to fixed-wing flying for
a year while the runway was worked on. The standard approach to the
runway is a curved approach around the bay. During this quiet period,
realtors sold a lot of property at the edge of the bay. Then, when the
year was up, the Phantoms came back….
Still, in general I agree. If you move near an airport, expect noise.
———————————————
Steve Mansfield st…@syntax.demon.co.uk
Syntax Editorial rot…@cix.compulink.co.uk
AA-5 G-BBDM EGSG CAA PPL(A) FAA PP-SEL
———————————————
In article <roy-220794134…@mchip8.med.nyu.edu>, r…@nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Don’t you think that’s blaming the victim?
> r…@mitre.org (Bob Noel) replied:
> > was it noisy when you moved in? if so, then yes it was partially your
> > fault for putting yourself in a uncomfortable situation. If the
> > neighborhood degenerated *after* you moved, then no one should
> > blame you for being unhappy with the noise.
> Yup, blaming the victim. Let me try and put it another way.
"blaming the victim"? that reply is that what you call
"blaming the victim"? <sigh> I guess we speak a different language.
try "hoping people will understand the consequences of their
own actions"
> Let’s say a general aviation airport takes up a square one mile on a side.
> Let’s say the noise it generates is offensive enough to make all the land
> within a half mile of the airport boundary unsuitable for residental use,
> that’s a square 2 miles on a side. Let’s not quibble about the actual
> numbers, the point is that the noise the airport generates happens not just
> over the airport proper, but over some surrounding area.
> The people who bought the land to make the airport bought 1 square mile,
> and that’s what they pay taxes on. And that’s what the fees charged by the
> airport owners to the users goes to maintain.
gee, maybe the airport should also buy and maintain the land the
airport "makes unsuitable for residental use"
>BUT, now you’re saying that
me?
> you have the right to dictate what the owners of the other 3 square miles
> of land within a half mile of your airport boundary do with *their* land?
no more right then the other way other around. get it?
> What if the most profitable thing they can do is to subdivide it and build
> houses on it? Are you, the airport owner, willing to compensate them for
> the money they lost by not being able to develop their land to the fullest
> extent possible?
> Sound pollution is a real problem. Until the polluters realize this and
> stop espousing the attitude of "if you don’t like the noise, stay away",
> it’s going to continue to be a real problem.
ah, yes, indeed noise/sound pollution is a real problem. However,
different sounds are annoying to different people. Some people
would find trains to be really annoying and would have their
sleep disrupted by the evening trains. However, other people
don’t seem to mind. So, who should live near the tracks?
Do you realize the noise pollution is such a problem because
it is so qualitative? You can’t measure *noise* you can only
measure sound.
And anyway, why is the "if you don’t like the noise, stay away"
attitude such a problem? In housing, if you don’t like the ocean
front, you don’t move there. If you don’t like lots and lots of
snow, then you don’t move to Buffalo NY. If you don’t like the
heat, then don’t move to Florida. get it?
> With people in aviation having attitudes like this, is it any wonder that
> the National Parks folks are doing whatever they can to keep planes away?
> Obnoxiousness and an unwillingness to cooperate often breeds over-reaction
> as a response.
"Obnoxiousness" and "unwillingness"? who is being obnoxious and
unwilling?
–
Bob Noel aka Kobyashi Maru
My views are my own, not MITRE’s
(why use a disclaimer when people are
too ———- to understand it?)
In article <30u26sINN…@topaz.sensor.com>, r…@topaz.sensor.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
> My favorite laugh is the Princeton airport that decided that commerical
> property would cause too much additional traffic on area roads. Har!
> This is a part of NJ you can’t go anywhere except by car and they want
> to build 1000 houses rather than 30 warehouses?
> -Ron
To not appear totally unsupporting of the original poster I will concede
that helicopter training is annoying. I had a friend who lived on site
at SUS, one day while visiting one of those old Bell helicopters with
the big un-muffled Franklin was out giving instruction just hanging there
making lots of noise. I would agree with several others, approach the
flight school nicely and see if they could possibly find a nice big open
field to hover over.
I used to fly out of Solberg-Hunterdon in central NJ, the airport was
opened by Thor Solberg the first Norwegan to fly the Atlantic. Needless
to say it had been there awhile. The area around it appeared to have
been agricultural/industrial for the most part, then came the 80′s.
I suppose the developers knew what they were doing, by cheap land at
the end of a runway, toss up some condos with hot tubs, and hopefully the
yuppies won’t get wise till the check clears. So who’s at fault, why the
airport of course. It’s odd that no one seems to want to go after the
developers in so many of these situations. I used to think that the
mentality of the home owners was to buy the place at a bargan, since it
lies in the path of those damn small planes, then get organized and rid
themselves of the airport. Now I think it’s stupidity on the homeowners
part and schiezterism on the part of the developers with the small air-
ports caught in the middle.
Have to agree Ron, the oddest things happen in New Jersy.
Tim Kramer
N30450 C-177A
It’s nice to see the full text posted, especially for those folk who
aren’t based at GAI.
In article <PCPN07307246…@arthor.cais.com>, scott.macl…@arthor.cais.com (Scott Maclean) writes:
|>III. NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE:
|>
|>A. TAKEOFF RUNWAY 32: Aircraft shall turn right to at least a heading of 340
|> degrees magnetic as soon as is safe and practicable, utilizing the aircraft
|> or engine manufacturer’s recommended noise reduction procedures for that
|> aircraft or engines where consistent with the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)
|> and Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), or generally accepted National
|> industry standard/specification;
|>
|> Where there is no published noise reduction procedure, utilize a climb
|> speed of less than Va (Maneuvering Speed) and greater than or equal to Vy
|> or Vyse (best rate(s) of climb) where safe and applicable until reaching
|> 500 AGL or the limits of the Airport Traffic Area for that aircraft,
|> whichever occurs first; left turns on departure from Runway 32 or right
|> turns from Ry 14 are not authorized until reaching 1,000 AGL or the Airport
|> Traffic Area limits from the runway end, whichever occurs later;
Ok, so they’re asking that you climb at a safe (above Vy or Vyse) but rapid
(less than Va) rate until reaching a reasonable altitude (1000ft AGL). The
turn to 340 takes you over the eastern edge of the residential area instead
of over its center. Nothing unreasonable here.
|>B. TAKEOFF 11PM to 7AM: Except for Air Ambulance Flights, utilize Runway 14
|> for takeoff whenever the Balanced Field Length or Accelerate-Stop Distance
|> under prevailing conditions (load, wind, temperature, gradient, etc.) is
|> less than 4,200 feet (NOTE: Ry 14 gradient is + 0.9 % uphill, and
|> obstructions exist west of the extended runway centerline (check NOTAMS));
When most people are trying to sleep, avoid the housing complex to the
northwest of the field by taking off to the southeast if practical. Nothing
unreasonable here either.
|>C. TURBINE OR HEAVY OR LARGE AIRCRAFT PREFERRED RUNWAY 7AM – 11PM: Due to
|> runway gradient,the preferred runway for takeoff is Ry 32 for large,
|> turbine, or heavy aircraft, and for landing Ry 14;
Big stuff should use the downhill departure or uphill landing during all
but the late-night hours. Sounds like an excellent idea to me.
|>D. NIGHT OPERATIONS: Except for bona-fide Air Ambulance ("Lifeguard"
|> call-sign) flights, no person may takeoff or land an aircraft designated by
|> the Federal Aviation Administration (14 CFR 36, or FAA AC 36-3E as amended
|> from time to time) or the Manufacturer(s) as generally producing noise in
|> excess of 90 dBA landing or 82 dBA takeoff between the hours of 11PM local
|> time and 7AM LT; this provision takes effect when supported or enacted by
|> Resolution by the Montgomery County Council or incorporated in the County’s
|> noise Code, unless found to be discriminatory and not reasonable by the
|> Administrator, State Aviation Administration and the Federal Aviation
|> Administration, by final Administrative/Judicial Order.
Translation: If you’re noisy, don’t piss off our neighbors.
I’m sure this one is directly related to the guy who owns the early-model
Citation(?) with the rattle-your-teeth unquieted engines who used to piss
off the neighbors on a regular basis until he relocated to FDK.
In your original message, you called this procedure "one of the most
stringent noise abatement procedures in the country, to the point of
compromising the safety of the flight." Again I ask, why do you consider
this to be so stringent, and which parts of this procedure compromise
the safety of flights?
Comments from folk who fly out of other fields with noise abatement
procedures?
–
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL-IA — Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
Original poster complained of heli training noise over
residential area. Mad, wanted to know what rights he had
to get the FBO to move their training area…
One follow-up said roughly, I think everyone living near an
airport ought to LOVE aircraft noise like me
Now, I am very much like the second guy. I love
aircraft noise – light aircraft and high alt. big iron,
anyway. I am fortunate to live under a favored route
for light a/c traffic out of my training base, and
near a major highway that gets all the traffic
spotting planes circling over my neighborhood. Light
plane noise is music to my ears. It’s certainly not
loud, nor irritating. I like it a lot better than
school bus or garbage truck noise.
My parents house in Austin, TX is under the
ILS for a popular runway, and the big traffic comes in
REAL LOW over the whole Northwest Hills, Shrieeeek.
They are nowhere near the airport, just at higher
elevation (it is a 15 min. drive to the airport.)
So I can also sympathize with the "noise sensitive
area" residents. My advice to pilots is, read the
restrictions in your airport directory and heed them.
These neighborhoods are the ones who have called the
government and asked for noise abatement for their
domestic tranquility.
In reply to the first guy, I think you can do two things.
One, go down and meet the heli school operators. Be friendly,
not aggressive, even if you are frustrated about the noise.
Remember, this is old news to you but it will be the first
time they have heard your position. Ask questions, and
be open to explanations. Talk to any students or instructors
you can meet as well as the person in charge.
Second, if the schools turn out to be unreceptive and if
the noise is REALLY bothering you, you can report the noise
problem to the FAA and ask to have your neighborhood
designated a noise-sensitive area in the airport & facilities
directory. This obliges pilots to make their best effort
to avoid noisy flight right over you. They can’t always
avoid passing overhead, due to rules and safety issues
in their approach to landing and during takeoff. The
safety of the flight takes precedence over noise limits,
but otherwise, the noise controls are enforceable on pilots.
I’ve never seen a report of enforcement in the Canadian
coverage (just lots of fines and suspensions for flying
with documents expired, or taking off below airport minima, etc.)
I dont know how many citizens it takes to get the FAA to
apply noise-abatement or designate a noise-sensitive
area. My hunch is that most residential neighborhoods right
outside most busy airports are already so designated…
Finally, there will still be a certain amount of noise from
helicopters going in and out of the airport no matter where
they practice. So I second the motion to get interested in
aviation, if not sign up for lessons yourself, so you can
"appreciate" the graceful display of technology plus skill
being put on every day. However, if you choose to go for
lessons, I suggest airplanes rather than choppers unless
you are independently wealthy. Airplanes can also break the
bank pretty easily, but not quite as fast…
"If God had meant for man to fly, He would have given him
more money."
Cheers.
–
— Jim Prall "We’ll jump off that bridge
— Trigraph, Inc., Toronto, CANADA when we come to it."
— jimp%trigraph.u…@csri.utoronto.ca
Okay, here’s a new take on the airport noise issue.
I fly out of Toronto Island Airport up here in beatiful
There
"Single Payer Universal Health Care" Canada.
are three flying schools on the airport, and there
is Dash-8 commuter service by Air Ontario. We get lots
of light single transient traffic, at least in the summer,
and a modest traffic of air ambulance service.
The approach path goes over a residential area, which is
designated ‘noise sensitive’, as are the condos along
the waterfront (this island is pretty close to the
shoreline). So we adjust our circuits a bit.
The municipality has a bylaw or something preventing
the airport from accepting jet traffic – any jets,
even if their noise rating is lower than the existing
Dash-8 traffic. Makes little sense, but residents always
get really fiesty when the word "jet" ever comes up.
So, to get to the point. My house is about 6 NM to the NE
of the airport on a favored departure route. Lots of
Cessna traffic at 1000 to 2000 ft. I hear that light
buzzing, lower than a nearby lawnmower, and I look up.
I am happy; the non-pilot neighbors seem not to even
notice. It is not a noise problem at these distances.
Just recently, one school purchased a number of Katana
Dimonas, the brand new, factory-built two-seaters that
were started in Prague and then set up for factory assembly
here in Ontario (better legal climate than U.S. even if
the Statute of Repose gets passed…) It’s a beatiful
aircraft, very sleek white composite, derived from
high performance glider technology.
It is also fuel efficient and VERY QUIET. I started seeing
them flying over my house lately. The key word is SEEING,
I hardly heard them coming. MUCH quieter than the 150s and 172s
taking the same route.
The Katana can out-perform a 150 by a good margin, with about
3.5 GPH at cruise (over 100 kts, talk of a good deal higher,
but I have not got a hard figure to cite.) The engine is
built by Bombardier of Rotax and snowmobile fame. But it
is not an "ultralight", it is a certificated airplane.
Now if they can just find a really nice, cheap, quiet
helicopter for those flight schools…
—
— Jim Prall "We’ll jump off that bridge
— Trigraph, Inc., Toronto, CANADA when we come to it."
— jimp%trigraph.u…@csri.utoronto.ca
In article <1994Jul27.235555.2…@trigraph.uucp>, j…@trigraph.uucp (Jim Prall) writes:
|> Just recently, one school purchased a number of Katana
|> Dimonas, the brand new, factory-built two-seaters that
|> were started in Prague and then set up for factory assembly
|> here in Ontario (better legal climate than U.S. even if
|> the Statute of Repose gets passed…) It’s a beatiful
|> aircraft, very sleek white composite, derived from
|> high performance glider technology.
|>
|> It is also fuel efficient and VERY QUIET. I started seeing
|> them flying over my house lately. The key word is SEEING,
|> I hardly heard them coming. MUCH quieter than the 150s and 172s
|> taking the same route.
You know, I’ve been seeing a couple of these floating around here, and
I do mean "floating". I live right under the downwind leg of rwy 17 at P19,
(TPA is 825′ AGL here).
The one I’ve noticed in the pattern a few times literally "sneaks" by. I
notice it only by the sensation of movement in my peripheral vision. He’s
only carrying partial power at this point, being abeam the numbers in the
downwind. (The airframe looks very efficient, so it probably needs little
power here).
I only hear it in the departure climb, and it’s barely noticable. This is
one very quiet airplane.
Hmmm, if this one belongs to a flight school, I ought to go buy an hour
in it….
–
—————————————————————————–
Steve Cornelius | If you *don’t* like airplane noise,
Phoenix, AZ, USA | then why in the #*!! did you buy a
scornel…@server2.iac.honeywell.com| house next to an airport !?
—————————————————————————–
Not a Honeywell opinion.
Actually, what often happens is that the airport was built far enough away
from developed areas, but the problem occurs when residential sprawl grows
close enough to it that the noise becomes discernable to residents. -Ed
In article <roy-220794134…@mchip8.med.nyu.edu>, r…@nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
writes:
|> I wrote:
|> > Don’t you think that’s blaming the victim?
|>
|> r…@mitre.org (Bob Noel) replied:
|> > was it noisy when you moved in? if so, then yes it was partially
|> your
|> > fault for putting yourself in a uncomfortable situation. If the
|> > neighborhood degenerated *after* you moved, then no one should
|> > blame you for being unhappy with the noise.
|>
|> Yup, blaming the victim. Let me try and put it another way.
|>
|> Let’s say a general aviation airport takes up a square one mile on a
|> side.
|> Let’s say the noise it generates is offensive enough to make all the
|> land
|> within a half mile of the airport boundary unsuitable for residental
|> use,
|> that’s a square 2 miles on a side. Let’s not quibble about the actual
|> numbers, the point is that the noise the airport generates happens not
|> just
|> over the airport proper, but over some surrounding area.
|>
|> The people who bought the land to make the airport bought 1 square
|> mile,
|> and that’s what they pay taxes on. And that’s what the fees charged by
|> the
|> airport owners to the users goes to maintain. BUT, now you’re saying
|> that
|> you have the right to dictate what the owners of the other 3 square
|> miles
|> of land within a half mile of your airport boundary do with *their*
|> land?
|> What if the most profitable thing they can do is to subdivide it and
|> build
|> houses on it? Are you, the airport owner, willing to compensate them
|> for
|> the money they lost by not being able to develop their land to the
|> fullest
|> extent possible?
|>
|> Sound pollution is a real problem. Until the polluters realize this
|> and
|> stop espousing the attitude of "if you don’t like the noise, stay
|> away",
|> it’s going to continue to be a real problem.
|>
|> With people in aviation having attitudes like this, is it any wonder
|> that
|> the National Parks folks are doing whatever they can to keep planes
|> away?
|> Obnoxiousness and an unwillingness to cooperate often breeds
|> over-reaction
|> as a response.
|>
|> —
|> Roy Smith <r…@nyu.edu>
|> Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
|> NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
|> "This never happened to Bart Simpson."
–
Edward Schreyer IAC #38 Newsletter Editor
Silicon Graphics Pitts Special N621MS
(415) 390-1086
e…@sgi.com O—-)—–|