Activism Change

Stop The Noise petitions FAA to increase N number size

Question:

I was reading GA news and saw this article.  I love this quote:  "According to Burgoyne, although the complainer may have a picture of the aircraft, unless the Nnumber is clearly readable, the FAA will not take action. "The FAA told us if the N-numbers were bigger, it would help, so we asked them to make the N-numbers bigger," he said. "They only have to be three inches high in some cases. The FAA told us ‘we can’t do that. AOPA (the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) would never let us do that.’ So that’s why we have taken this course of action through the petition process." http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-tok… I didn’t realize that AOPA runs the FAA. Earl G

Response:

I didn’t realize that AOPA runs the FAA.

If only. I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny.  As if the bulk of their problem is with aircraft that have the smaller, grandfathered N numbers. For the vast majority of airplanes, 12-inch numbers are required, and if you can’t read the numbers on those airplanes, the airplane can’t possibly be close enough to be causing an actual problem (i.e. creating significant noise, never mind violating the FARs). I know, it’s not like the STN idiots care.  But hopefully the FAA will recognize the foolishness of their petition.  Actually, I’m hoping that the FAA will be so offended that STN misquoted them (I can’t imagine anyone at the FAA actually said what they claim the FAA said), that the FAA will just write them off completely. Pete

Response:

Blurry photos of airplanes is a tactic of our local anti-noise group, too. The first time they pulled out a stack of these photos in a public meeting, it was hard to stop laughing long enough to respond. And the reponse was "this is like taking pictures of cars to the police station, and demanding that they do something about the people using the same road over and over again. Do you have any idea how foolish you look?" Imagine that! Actual photographs of airplanes…legally flying! How disturbing! Rip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I didn’t realize that AOPA runs the FAA. If only. I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny.  As if the bulk of their problem is with aircraft that have the smaller, grandfathered N numbers. For the vast majority of airplanes, 12-inch numbers are required, and if you can’t read the numbers on those airplanes, the airplane can’t possibly be close enough to be causing an actual problem (i.e. creating significant noise, never mind violating the FARs). I know, it’s not like the STN idiots care.  But hopefully the FAA will recognize the foolishness of their petition.  Actually, I’m hoping that the FAA will be so offended that STN misquoted them (I can’t imagine anyone at the FAA actually said what they claim the FAA said), that the FAA will just write them off completely. Pete

Response:

The reason they want the pics and positive ID is to file nuisance lawsuits against legally flying pilots for large sums just to harrass them.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Blurry photos of airplanes is a tactic of our local anti-noise group, too. The first time they pulled out a stack of these photos in a public meeting, it was hard to stop laughing long enough to respond. And the reponse was "this is like taking pictures of cars to the police station, and demanding that they do something about the people using the same road over and over again. Do you have any idea how foolish you look?" Imagine that! Actual photographs of airplanes…legally flying! How disturbing! Rip I didn’t realize that AOPA runs the FAA. If only. I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny.  As if the bulk of their problem is with aircraft that have the smaller, grandfathered N numbers. For the vast majority of airplanes, 12-inch numbers are required, and if you can’t read the numbers on those airplanes, the airplane can’t possibly be close enough to be causing an actual problem (i.e. creating significant noise, never mind violating the FARs). I know, it’s not like the STN idiots care.  But hopefully the FAA will recognize the foolishness of their petition.  Actually, I’m hoping that the FAA will be so offended that STN misquoted them (I can’t imagine anyone at the FAA actually said what they claim the FAA said), that the FAA will just write them off completely. Pete

Response:

I think the Stop The Noise idiots are pretty funny.

There’s nothing funny about people who use the civil courts to attack law-abiding citizens. George Patterson      This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to      play "Your cheatin’ heart", and the bride just requested "Don’t come home      a’drinkin’ with lovin’ on your mind".

Response:

There’s nothing funny about people who use the civil courts to attack law-abiding citizens.

Nothing?  Nothing at all?  I beg to differ.  I don’t approve of their tactics, of course, and it’s offensive for them to abuse the legal system in any way.  But to say there’s NOTHING funny about the situation?  Come on…how can you not be amused at so much stupidity collected in such a small space? You could really use a lighter view of the world.  You might get a chuckle once in a while. Pete

Response:

There’s nothing funny about people who use the civil courts to attack law-abiding citizens. Nothing?  Nothing at all?  I beg to differ.  I don’t approve of their tactics, of course, and it’s offensive for them to abuse the legal system in any way.  But to say there’s NOTHING funny about the situation?  Come on…how can you not be amused at so much stupidity collected in such a small space?

such stupidity is sad. such stupidity is disappointing. such stupidity is offensive. A little stupidity can be amusing, but on the scale of those fools, it’s anything but funny. — Bob Noel

Response:

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?

Response:

Is your opinion the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic) are completely insane and there is absolutely no validity to their complaint whatsoever?

I guess that depends on your definition of "validity".  I don’t doubt that they are annoyed by airplane noise.  I don’t doubt that they feel their rights are being infringed.  However, I expect any person with a complaint to make an honest, reasonable effort to reach a fair compromise.  As soon as they take a scorched Earth approach such as that being pursued by the "Stop The Noise idiots" (sic), I feel that they have no right to being considered at all. I do my very best to fly as quietly as possible.  But the fact remains that powered aircraft consume a fair amount of energy, a lot of which is emitted as sound, and that’s just a fact of life.  I have to put up with genuinely illegal sources of noise every single day (not having the luxury to live a hundred miles from my nearest neighbor), and so no, I’m not going to waste a huge amount of concern on some folks that object to perfectly legal and comparatively moderate levels of noise. I don’t see how the word "insane" comes into the picture.  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? Pete

Response:

I beg to differ.

You’re free to do so, of course, but I find no humor in the situation. George Patterson      This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to      play "Your cheatin’ heart", and the bride just requested "Don’t come home      a’drinkin’ with lovin’ on your mind".

Response:

  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.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   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)

Response:

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 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

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

Response:

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 The Warbird’s Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Response:

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

Response:

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

Response:

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 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   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.

Response:

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 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 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

Response:

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

Response:

Filed under: Activism

Related Posts

• alt.activism
• "The Nobel Peace Prize for a Hatemonger?"
• MH consumer advocacy info
• Synthetic oil?
• The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: A Costly and Dangerous Mistake
• [Fwd: Re: Shaw.]
• Pictures of real virgin pussy! Real Hymen! 4767
• ***EMAIL PROCESSOR WANTED URGENTLY***
• Saving Babies is Part of a Humanitarian Ideology
• Mile Marker all wheel drive coupler