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—-)—–|

I fly out of Toronto Island Airport up here in beatiful
"Single Payer Universal Health Care" Canada. There
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          

|> 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.

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          

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)

> 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?)

> 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

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
———————————————

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 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?