Cambridge Airport
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dr Davies aside, it's a fact that there is an increasingly powerful environmental lobby out there. If we brush it aside we do so at our peril.
Over the past 40 years, transport aircraft engines have been getting ever quieter, driven by successive chapters of ICAO annex 16. Light aircraft engines on the other hand have remained largely unchanged. The typical Cessna or Piper is as noisy as it was 40 years ago and (apart from a few vintage cars) light aircraft are the only vehiecles in the country that still burn leaded petrol.
If it is to win arguements in the face of environmental lobying, GA needs to show that it is at least taking environmental concerns seriously. This will mean developing quieter engines driving slower turning three or four blade props and burning unleaded fuels.
There is a group of Rotax powered Ban Bis at Cambridge which are significantly quieter than the spam cans. I don't know if they still burn AVGAS, but at least they are showing the way.
Over the past 40 years, transport aircraft engines have been getting ever quieter, driven by successive chapters of ICAO annex 16. Light aircraft engines on the other hand have remained largely unchanged. The typical Cessna or Piper is as noisy as it was 40 years ago and (apart from a few vintage cars) light aircraft are the only vehiecles in the country that still burn leaded petrol.
If it is to win arguements in the face of environmental lobying, GA needs to show that it is at least taking environmental concerns seriously. This will mean developing quieter engines driving slower turning three or four blade props and burning unleaded fuels.
There is a group of Rotax powered Ban Bis at Cambridge which are significantly quieter than the spam cans. I don't know if they still burn AVGAS, but at least they are showing the way.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I feel that any argument regarding the use of less polluting fuels is a valid one, but I really think that we have to get this whole environmental thing into perspective.
GA aircraft such as 152s, PA28s etc etc are such a minor percentage contributor to the overall level of environmental pollution that they barely deserve a mention. If you offer them up against cars, trucks, airliners, busses - then spam cans don't even figure (Mr Davies admits travelling on airliners - was it an electric airliner Mr Davies?). I don't hear Mr so called Doctor Davies complaining about the increasing number of stupid roofless busses that plough around the most sensitive inner streets of Cambridge carrying mountains of fat tourists around the city. These busses are noisy and incredibly dirty when it comes to emmission levels, as well as causing lots of traffic jams in the centre that further add to the pollution. My point is that in the big picture the campaign against GA on an environmental basis is a completely bogus argument.
What we are seeing here, as has been the case for ages, is a concerted campaign against a relative minority of people (i.e. GA pilots) who are singled out for whatever reason, probably because they do something that the majority of people neither understand or have the resources to do so. These campaigns feed on a general lack of understanding of aviation in much the same way that the media does every time an aircraft is involved in an incident.
Slightly off the topic, but an example of ridiculous predudice is this:
My life insurance is loaded by 120% because I am undergoing commercial Pilot training, and also fly privately. Heaven forbid that they find out I drive a car to the airport or statistically they'd have good grounds to refuse me insurance all together...
Frankly I am sick to death of these self appointed self riteous idiots such as Mr Davies who use blind arguments that make little sense to further thier own causes. Either ban all fossil fuel burning engines, and ban all noise making activities and forms of transport - or none of them. We should not allow ourselves to be victimised by a few vocal locals. It is a sad reflection on our so called democracy that such a tiny number of people can cause general aviation so much damage.
GA aircraft such as 152s, PA28s etc etc are such a minor percentage contributor to the overall level of environmental pollution that they barely deserve a mention. If you offer them up against cars, trucks, airliners, busses - then spam cans don't even figure (Mr Davies admits travelling on airliners - was it an electric airliner Mr Davies?). I don't hear Mr so called Doctor Davies complaining about the increasing number of stupid roofless busses that plough around the most sensitive inner streets of Cambridge carrying mountains of fat tourists around the city. These busses are noisy and incredibly dirty when it comes to emmission levels, as well as causing lots of traffic jams in the centre that further add to the pollution. My point is that in the big picture the campaign against GA on an environmental basis is a completely bogus argument.
What we are seeing here, as has been the case for ages, is a concerted campaign against a relative minority of people (i.e. GA pilots) who are singled out for whatever reason, probably because they do something that the majority of people neither understand or have the resources to do so. These campaigns feed on a general lack of understanding of aviation in much the same way that the media does every time an aircraft is involved in an incident.
Slightly off the topic, but an example of ridiculous predudice is this:
My life insurance is loaded by 120% because I am undergoing commercial Pilot training, and also fly privately. Heaven forbid that they find out I drive a car to the airport or statistically they'd have good grounds to refuse me insurance all together...
Frankly I am sick to death of these self appointed self riteous idiots such as Mr Davies who use blind arguments that make little sense to further thier own causes. Either ban all fossil fuel burning engines, and ban all noise making activities and forms of transport - or none of them. We should not allow ourselves to be victimised by a few vocal locals. It is a sad reflection on our so called democracy that such a tiny number of people can cause general aviation so much damage.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Doc
Do you have any idea how many ambulance flights there are into Cambridge every week??
I hope you don't object to those flying over you house or should they go to Stansted and get stuck on the M11?
Cambridge is a fine airport and services Adenbrokes and Papworth. Give us a break we could be flying you or your family in a ambulance flight one day.
Do you have any idea how many ambulance flights there are into Cambridge every week??
I hope you don't object to those flying over you house or should they go to Stansted and get stuck on the M11?
Cambridge is a fine airport and services Adenbrokes and Papworth. Give us a break we could be flying you or your family in a ambulance flight one day.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote 'deny the right to quiet enjoyment of their property' Luke?.
You live near an airport, and no doubt purchased it when it was near an airport.
At my flying club we have the same residents complaining time after time and being very offensive to whoever answers the phone, we even get the blame for fighters from the local RAF base!.
Eases off in summer though when no doubt they switch their attention to complaints about the local motorcycle cafe 'venue' which attracts some 4000 bikers on a sunny evening!.
However both the cafe and the airfield were there WELL before the natives moved in, and they no doubt benfitted from a lower price?.
If they built an idealic golf course next door they would no doubt complain about golf balls landing in the garden (worth £3 each)!.
Typical LOGGED complaint,,,a bloody ffffing Spitfire has just come overhead, whatever next?.
No doubt 99.9% of all UK residents would have a video cam handy if they knew a Spitfire would make a 'final' approach over their house!.
Now clear off and get back to working part time charging a fortune for health insurance patients in your 'spare' time and making everyone else wait some 2 hrs after their alloted appointment when doing NHS work.
You live near an airport, and no doubt purchased it when it was near an airport.
At my flying club we have the same residents complaining time after time and being very offensive to whoever answers the phone, we even get the blame for fighters from the local RAF base!.
Eases off in summer though when no doubt they switch their attention to complaints about the local motorcycle cafe 'venue' which attracts some 4000 bikers on a sunny evening!.
However both the cafe and the airfield were there WELL before the natives moved in, and they no doubt benfitted from a lower price?.
If they built an idealic golf course next door they would no doubt complain about golf balls landing in the garden (worth £3 each)!.
Typical LOGGED complaint,,,a bloody ffffing Spitfire has just come overhead, whatever next?.
No doubt 99.9% of all UK residents would have a video cam handy if they knew a Spitfire would make a 'final' approach over their house!.
Now clear off and get back to working part time charging a fortune for health insurance patients in your 'spare' time and making everyone else wait some 2 hrs after their alloted appointment when doing NHS work.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh and Luke,,,,
Used the following to have a look at an aerial view of YOUR house (to see what the 6 inconsiderate pilots saw at the weekend).
http://www.192.com
(Name search to find your address/phone number and postcode)
Then
http://www.getmapping.com
(To use a post code search for a free aerial photo of your house).
I could then use your coordinates as a waypoint in my GPS (as could everyone else), however I wont, just as I have not actually published your address & contact details here.
The Internet is really an amazing thing, as is the voters roll (via 192.com) and the recently completed UK aerial survey.
Used the following to have a look at an aerial view of YOUR house (to see what the 6 inconsiderate pilots saw at the weekend).
http://www.192.com
(Name search to find your address/phone number and postcode)
Then
http://www.getmapping.com
(To use a post code search for a free aerial photo of your house).
I could then use your coordinates as a waypoint in my GPS (as could everyone else), however I wont, just as I have not actually published your address & contact details here.
The Internet is really an amazing thing, as is the voters roll (via 192.com) and the recently completed UK aerial survey.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Babble,
You are absolutely right about the lack of advance in light aircraft over the last 40 years.
I read an interesting article on tuned exhaust systems for aircraft piston engines - while there is an increase in weight due to the exhaust piping, this is somewhat offset by an approx. 5% increase in HP. But the real gain is in substantially reduced noise levels.
However, any such modifications require major mod. approval, which is apparently too expensive to be realistically retrofitted to the bulk of existing light aircraft.
Why it is not factory-fitted on "mass produced" aircraft such as Piper, Cessna, Robin etc. I don't understand.
Noise reduction like this would remove a lot of the ammunition the "antis" (writing that was sooo like writing "nazis"!) use to support their "cause"
SD
------------------
Hoping and praying should never be confused with planning...
You are absolutely right about the lack of advance in light aircraft over the last 40 years.
I read an interesting article on tuned exhaust systems for aircraft piston engines - while there is an increase in weight due to the exhaust piping, this is somewhat offset by an approx. 5% increase in HP. But the real gain is in substantially reduced noise levels.
However, any such modifications require major mod. approval, which is apparently too expensive to be realistically retrofitted to the bulk of existing light aircraft.
Why it is not factory-fitted on "mass produced" aircraft such as Piper, Cessna, Robin etc. I don't understand.
Noise reduction like this would remove a lot of the ammunition the "antis" (writing that was sooo like writing "nazis"!) use to support their "cause"
SD
------------------
Hoping and praying should never be confused with planning...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Evo, you are a funny person.
WOW is right. There are some pi$$ed off people hammering at the keyboards.
Hope I don't ever offend any of you.
Luke, mate, get on the keyboard and defend yourself, or at least erect a tarp over your place to ward off any 'stray' flour bombs from Barbox's aerial photography mission.
Regards
Noodle
[This message has been edited by Captain Noodle (edited 14 May 2001).]
WOW is right. There are some pi$$ed off people hammering at the keyboards.
Hope I don't ever offend any of you.
Luke, mate, get on the keyboard and defend yourself, or at least erect a tarp over your place to ward off any 'stray' flour bombs from Barbox's aerial photography mission.
Regards
Noodle
[This message has been edited by Captain Noodle (edited 14 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The original complaint seems unnecessarily provocative (and given the time of posting perhaps it is indicative of the level of distraction the original poster and undoubtedly many of his neighbours were driven to over the weekend). However, the reactions in subsequent replies also seem to be equally uncompromising.
For a start here is someone outside of aviation sufficiently interested in aviation to spend time on an aviation forum. He posts an all too common complaint and precious little effort is made at a reasonable response.
I would imagine that the airport was as busy as any other on one of the few good flying weekends so far this year. With so many movements (anyone know typically how many on a sunny weekend?), isn't it possible that, with only 6 people implicated, the original poster has suffered at the hands of an inconsiderate few, and that the majority of flying activity at the airport was done with consideration for the amenity of those who do not care for flying?
If the above is an accurate picture (I don't know, but then the original complaint doesn't make it clear), then a more constructive response would surely have been a little more sympathetic based on attempts to eliminate such inconsiderate and isolated behaviour?
Wouldn't this be a much easier way to stave off determined opposition (which, with such responses, it's quite possible this guy has just become) than simply stand there and shout "we were here first" (which attitude does nothing to address the problem)?
"...if you dont regulate yourselves effectively someone else will come in and do it for you, which isnt a very pleasant experience." That seems to be a real danger at the moment. Isn't it the case that if we in GA spent more time and effort listening to and trying to be reasonable with dissenting voices, those dissenting voices might be prepared to be more reasonable with GA and we might be spared the regulators?
For a start here is someone outside of aviation sufficiently interested in aviation to spend time on an aviation forum. He posts an all too common complaint and precious little effort is made at a reasonable response.
I would imagine that the airport was as busy as any other on one of the few good flying weekends so far this year. With so many movements (anyone know typically how many on a sunny weekend?), isn't it possible that, with only 6 people implicated, the original poster has suffered at the hands of an inconsiderate few, and that the majority of flying activity at the airport was done with consideration for the amenity of those who do not care for flying?
If the above is an accurate picture (I don't know, but then the original complaint doesn't make it clear), then a more constructive response would surely have been a little more sympathetic based on attempts to eliminate such inconsiderate and isolated behaviour?
Wouldn't this be a much easier way to stave off determined opposition (which, with such responses, it's quite possible this guy has just become) than simply stand there and shout "we were here first" (which attitude does nothing to address the problem)?
"...if you dont regulate yourselves effectively someone else will come in and do it for you, which isnt a very pleasant experience." That seems to be a real danger at the moment. Isn't it the case that if we in GA spent more time and effort listening to and trying to be reasonable with dissenting voices, those dissenting voices might be prepared to be more reasonable with GA and we might be spared the regulators?
Guest
Posts: n/a
g-oose
While I cannot speak for anyone else, it was the nature of Luke Davies post that upset me.
Had he posted a reasonable comment outlining what he felt the problem was and asking for advice about what could be done, I bet he would have got assistance here. As it was, he posted a deliberately inflamatory comment. Read his first line. It got the response it deserved. It's called trolling, and it has killed more than a couple of websites that I was once very fond of.
If he has the guts to come back and try and be a bit more adult about things, then I'm sure he would get a different response. I'm not holding my breath.
While I cannot speak for anyone else, it was the nature of Luke Davies post that upset me.
Had he posted a reasonable comment outlining what he felt the problem was and asking for advice about what could be done, I bet he would have got assistance here. As it was, he posted a deliberately inflamatory comment. Read his first line. It got the response it deserved. It's called trolling, and it has killed more than a couple of websites that I was once very fond of.
If he has the guts to come back and try and be a bit more adult about things, then I'm sure he would get a different response. I'm not holding my breath.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi All, been away for the weekend so quite amazed at the response to this post.seems one or two of us feel that it shouldnt even be present,why all the replies.we should not have to fight and argue our point against a NIMBY on these forums surly.I thought this was a site for professional and private aviation persons!!judging by the number of posts from this person its obiously a wind up and he is just a sad git who gets off on so many people responding to his views.Possibly no one in the real world listens to him.Why not invite him to a PpRune bash to share his views,we could always have an air ambulance standing by,just in case ofcourse,!! Lets just ignore him in the future, Bye for now
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree that Luke made his point amazingly badly. The trouble is that people like him, if he is serious, get listened to by the like of South Cambs council. And that is bad news.
There's a piece in Flyer this month about some silencers that the White Waltham fleet have fitted to their Warriors: good for them. If Cabair would do the same at Elstree and various others at their flying schools in noise sensitive areas then we would have effective counter arguments against the awkward difficult councils full of councillors who never think that the pilots who took them to Malaga or Lanzarote trained on the same PA28s that they are now complaining about.
Unless we get serious about reducing the noise in our aeroplanes someone will do it for us: like they have in Germany.
There's a piece in Flyer this month about some silencers that the White Waltham fleet have fitted to their Warriors: good for them. If Cabair would do the same at Elstree and various others at their flying schools in noise sensitive areas then we would have effective counter arguments against the awkward difficult councils full of councillors who never think that the pilots who took them to Malaga or Lanzarote trained on the same PA28s that they are now complaining about.
Unless we get serious about reducing the noise in our aeroplanes someone will do it for us: like they have in Germany.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nishko: it's a good question and I don't have an answer, except to say that I suspect most circuit traffic at most noise sensitive airfields is school planes, and that fitting silencers to these would probably address 75% of the circuits flown.
It's not an easy job to persuade people to pay more for club planes, but I reckon that where I fly, fitting the whole fleet with silencers like the one in Flyer mag. would cost GBP6,000. Spread over two years @ 4,500 hours a year flown by club planes, you are talking less than £1 an hour. Amortised over the life of the engine (say three years @ 750 hours per year) it's less than 50p per hour.....
It's not an easy job to persuade people to pay more for club planes, but I reckon that where I fly, fitting the whole fleet with silencers like the one in Flyer mag. would cost GBP6,000. Spread over two years @ 4,500 hours a year flown by club planes, you are talking less than £1 an hour. Amortised over the life of the engine (say three years @ 750 hours per year) it's less than 50p per hour.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nishco
You can't pay don't fly. I know that some will roast me for that but this is the world we live in.
Noise is a problem that needs to be addressed, not to be ignored. The problem is that the CAA and the FAA do not like silencers. For a small club or privet individual the cost to licence such a mode is too high, you also need to licence it for each a/c type and for each engine. At Elstree the C-336 & C-337 are not aloud to land because of the noise they create.
You can't pay don't fly. I know that some will roast me for that but this is the world we live in.
Noise is a problem that needs to be addressed, not to be ignored. The problem is that the CAA and the FAA do not like silencers. For a small club or privet individual the cost to licence such a mode is too high, you also need to licence it for each a/c type and for each engine. At Elstree the C-336 & C-337 are not aloud to land because of the noise they create.
Guest
Posts: n/a
AC-DC,
"....You can't pay don't fly. ...."
Oh yes, of course, well done!!! Why didn't thousands of other people think of that first? You are clearly a remarkable intellect for solving this complicated problem.
It has obviously passed you by, but GA pilots already do pay huge amounts for their flying already, far more than they probably need to thanks to ever more restrictive legislation and unfair pricing. Do you really think that placing them under yet more financial obligation is a fair way to take this problem forward?
We are still in great danger here of a complaining and very vocal minority dictating the dos and don'ts to everyone else, and comments like yours put you in danger of ranking among them.
I agree that if noise is created for an unreasonable period of time, and at a ridiculous level it is a problem, but we are talking here about a small number of people who want silence around their own personal castle regardless of the rest of the world around them. They are no doubt the same people who were seemingly surprised by the existence of Stansted airport when they moved to the village of the same name. They have little chance of closing that down, so they start rounding on smaller aircraft flyers instead.
If you live right near to an airport, then you will hear aircraft flying circuits - tough sh*t, move somewhere else. If you don't live near an airport then you may hear an aircraft fly over occasionally, and the noise (which is quieter than your lawn mower) will pass in a few seconds. Big deal.
I suspect these people aren't really complaining about noise - they are probably just expressing a far deeper problem, a problem seated in their intellect.
[This message has been edited by Nishko (edited 15 May 2001).]
"....You can't pay don't fly. ...."
Oh yes, of course, well done!!! Why didn't thousands of other people think of that first? You are clearly a remarkable intellect for solving this complicated problem.
It has obviously passed you by, but GA pilots already do pay huge amounts for their flying already, far more than they probably need to thanks to ever more restrictive legislation and unfair pricing. Do you really think that placing them under yet more financial obligation is a fair way to take this problem forward?
We are still in great danger here of a complaining and very vocal minority dictating the dos and don'ts to everyone else, and comments like yours put you in danger of ranking among them.
I agree that if noise is created for an unreasonable period of time, and at a ridiculous level it is a problem, but we are talking here about a small number of people who want silence around their own personal castle regardless of the rest of the world around them. They are no doubt the same people who were seemingly surprised by the existence of Stansted airport when they moved to the village of the same name. They have little chance of closing that down, so they start rounding on smaller aircraft flyers instead.
If you live right near to an airport, then you will hear aircraft flying circuits - tough sh*t, move somewhere else. If you don't live near an airport then you may hear an aircraft fly over occasionally, and the noise (which is quieter than your lawn mower) will pass in a few seconds. Big deal.
I suspect these people aren't really complaining about noise - they are probably just expressing a far deeper problem, a problem seated in their intellect.
[This message has been edited by Nishko (edited 15 May 2001).]