LRH@MIT-MC@sri-unix (08/06/82)
From: "Lyman R. Hazelton, Jr." <LRH at MIT-MC> Although it is not necessarily true here in the northeast, it has been an observation of mine that a considerable number of airports were there BEFORE the housing developements that now surround them; and it gripes me no end that the people who bought that land under the approach want the airport closed in the evening or want me to fly a less than optimal (or less than safe!) approach so that they can have it quiet. I suspect that this may even be true here around Boston, to some extent... after all, Hanscom Field has been there a VERY long time (though not nearly as long as some of the houses near it). I can site at least one example where an old and established airport which when build was out in the sticks was surrounded and finally forced to shut down... they sold the land to a university and bought land way out in the sticks and proceeded to build a new airport. That was 7 years ago... now with that airport came businesses, and with the business came people who wanted to live near their work (at the airport)... well guess what! It is now 7 years later, and those self same people are demanding screwy takeoff and landing patterns and making strong suggestions that maybe this airport ought to be shut down. Damn it, they knew what they were getting when they bought those homes next to the airport! But in the end, there will be more of them than the people who run that airport and the pilots that use it, and they will succeed in closing it. I know how much noise a light, piston powered aircraft makes during a landing... and is NOT MUCH. I don't have any good solutions to this, but I sure do think it stinks.
cjh@CCA-UNIX@sri-unix (08/06/82)
In response to your message of Fri Aug 6 01:59:29 1982:
cjh@CCA-UNIX@sri-unix (08/06/82)
In response to your message of Fri Aug 6 01:59:29 1982: You're half-right; Hanscom just possibly dates from the 1920's, which is old for a large airfield (but I rather doubt it; the original layout was an asterisk, suggesting it was thrown up somewhat later and in a great hurry). But much of the housing around there is a \lot/ older; Hanscom takes chunks out of 4 communities that were established in the 1700's. I don't know if an airport planner has ever tried to foresee the results of the nearby colonization that could reasonably be expected when the airport was created, although I think such planning should be required. I would note, however, that noise problems are far more severe (and far less soluble due to the weight of commercial interests) in other places where the airport substantially postdates the housing. I note that you don't talk about the noise a light piston-powered aircraft makes when it takes off; obviously, if the neighbors are seriously talking about screwy landing patterns the difference should be pointed out. From my own recollections of pilots I would ask how many are being lazy on takeoff and not taxiing to the end of the runway (assuming that it's long enough for shortcuts, which it almost always is at least for light planes)?
G:wing (08/06/82)
Another statement could be made about SFO. Foster City, and the other communities that surround the airport were built AFTER the airport. But still, the fool people who bought around the airport want it to leave, or at least use dangerous noise abatement procedures. And that's the way it is, Friday, August 6, 1982...
rob (08/08/82)
My Cessna 172 is based at Hanscom. I know pilots who were there when
it was a state airport. Very few houses around, many farms, and all
very happy about having an airport close by. I think the majority of
current neighbors also are happy, it is the un-silent minority who
makes the biggest stink.
Note it costs me $25 to start my annual trip to Florida at sun-up at
6 AM while the airforce can take off and land anytime. We have an
11 pm - 7 am curfew. Who makes more noise? Maybe the surcharge
should be based on sound level. Let the noisy Bonanza's change their
habits.
|