kallis@pen.DEC (06/25/85)
>A surprisingly large number of people simply resent (on a Puritan basis) >other people enjoying themselves in public. Airplanes are just one >target of this resentment. They also object to dirt bikes, cars >"leaving patches", ghetto blasters, public drunkenness, and loud >talking/laughter in restaurants and other public places. (Did you see a >bit of yourself in that list? I admit that I resentsome of those >things myself -- >Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug I don't think t's exactly Puritanism that makes one resent noise. Un- fortunately, any society is a compromise between individual freedoms and collective (in the nonperjorative sense) interactions. Thus, the famous Supreme Court decision: "Freedom of speech does not permit someone to cry `Fire!' in a crowded theater." That is: the degree of individual actions *at some point* has to contend with external strictures imposed by whatever society a person's a member of. If I'm in a theater, I resent people around me talking so loudly I can't hear the dialogue from the screen. Am I being a Puritan? I doubt it. Airplanes are a particularly sticky case. With the exception of sailplanes and some engine-out situations, aircraft make noise. Where the conflict(s) come in are generally classifiable by the following situations: 1) A remote airport becomes less remote when housing is developed close to it. 2) A small airport expands, drawing increasing amounts of traffic. 3) Newer, heavier aircraft are developed that produce increased noise. (This last applies particularly to scheduled airline operations.) 4) People move into a settled area around an airport and then decide they don't want it around. Case #4 is the most dishonest. People who move into an active airport area generally *know* what's there; they decide after the fact that things would be "better" without the aircraft. Cases #1 and #2 can be handled best through public relations efforts. (I have seen some lunkheads who hold airport Open Houses and then instead of trying to gain the friendship of the neighbors try to sell flying lessons! Ordinarily, necessary for business, but for edgy neighbors, it only ag- gravates the problem.) Case #3 requires some sensitivity on the part of the air carriers. In any case, resentment may be at least in part justified if the offending party is thoughtless. (Ex: If you take off early on a weekend morning, do you throttle back after reaching pattern height so as not to disturb the neighbors' sleep? Climbing a little slower can create a reservoir of good will that may be useful later on.) Steve Kallis, Jr.
jimn@cornell.UUCP (Jim Nesheim) (06/27/85)
In article <2883@decwrl.UUCP> kallis@pen.DEC writes: >3) Newer, heavier aircraft are developed that produce increased noise. (This >last applies particularly to scheduled airline operations.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >Steve Kallis, Jr. Noise around an airport *is* a problem, but I don't believe this is a valid argument. New airliners are built using the latest technology in composites and turbofan engines. Composites are stronger and lighter than alloys used today, and contribute to fuel economy by *reducing* weight. Also- new, more efficient turbofan engines are used for fuel economy as well. These turbofan engines are not only efficient, but *quieter* than turbojets. I attended a school located on a good size regional airport, and the new 757's that flew in were quieter than any of the other jets. Jim Nesheim :-)