I have a love hate relation ship with noisy airplanes, motorcycles, boats, cars, landscapers. It depends on my mood.

If I was not in the mood for noise and my fellow pilot was doing stop taxi back and take offs in his 180 with the sea plane prop I would probably say something like this.

"When you fly that way it makes people hate airplanes. That makes it hard for the rest of us because people want the airport to leave. Why don't you dial the prop back so you don't piss most of us off?"

Other times I love that sound. It is a complex issue. I could say the airport was here first so go F yourself. That seldom works.

When a guy like me who is a pilot and at time love loud engine noise, says sometimes it bugs me, you know regular people can get down right militant about noise.

I used to work at a fire station 2 miles off the end of 28 PDX. when 3 or 4 pairs of F-15s took off you couldn't yell at a person 3' away and be heard. The price of freedom!

The Longmont City website has a new service request that allows those of you who have visited KLMO a way to leave a positive comment regarding the airport. From a Facebook post:

We'd like to thank the Longmont Airport Advisory Board for their work on streamlining the process for citizens to submit airport comments and "noise" concerns. Our favorite is the one titled "Positive Airport Comments." They've even added a FB login option! It's so simple! There are a variety of other helpful airport links...but we encourage you to create an account, login and send the airport a POSITIVE comment as we've seen lots of them and know they are out there. Follow the link and it's under the "Airport General Inquiries" drop-down:

https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/online ... ce-request

If you have visited KLMO in the past, it would be great if you could leave even a short positive comment.

Verdict is in:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 0Trial.pdf

The Court finds the noise produced by Mile-Hi’s operations is not offensive, annoying, or
inconvenient to a degree significant enough that a normal person in the community would
consider it unreasonable for those individuals who choose to reside in close proximity to
an airport.

Interesting to note the person most vocal about this lives closer to the Boulder airport than the Longmont one and is pretty far off the normal pattern for most of us.

Good news. Favorable ruling for Mile High Skydiving.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/20th_Judicial_District/Cases_of_Interest/Gibbs%20v%20Mile%20Hi%20Skydiving/2013CV31563%20Order%20Re%20-%20Bench%20Trial.pdf

The Court finds the noise produced by Mile-Hi’s operations is not offensive, annoying, or
inconvenient to a degree significant enough that a normal person in the community would
consider it unreasonable for those individuals who choose to reside in close proximity to
an airport. The Plaintiffs are concerned about noise during daytime and early evening
hours, which they believe impacts the use of their backyards and leisure activities. MileHi
planes do not typically operate after dusk. Though the Individual Plaintiffs may at
times find the noise to be irritating or frustrating, the Court finds the gravity of harm to
Plaintiffs in this matter is not significant or severe. An individual may also find it
irritating or frustrating to listen to the sound of motorcycles and trucks on nearby streets,
to hear lawn mowers throughout the day, to hear children’s yells or laughter in a back
yard, or hear the loud playing of music from a neighbor’s home. But simply because a
certain noise level is irritating or frustrating to a small group of people does not equate to
the noise being significant enough that a normal person in the community would find it as
offensive, annoying, or inconvenient.

motosix wrote:Interesting to note the person most vocal about this lives closer to the Boulder airport than the Longmont one and is pretty far off the normal pattern for most of us.

She was however right under the flight path of Independent Skydiving when they were operating out of Boulder and their LZ was the open fields just to the east of her home on Boulder open space property. After successfully running them out of town she turned her efforts toward MHS.

These are sad, sad people...

soyAnarchisto wrote:

motosix wrote:Interesting to note the person most vocal about this lives closer to the Boulder airport than the Longmont one and is pretty far off the normal pattern for most of us.

She was however right under the flight path of Independent Skydiving when they were operating out of Boulder and their LZ was the open fields just to the east of her home on Boulder open space property. After successfully running them out of town she turned her efforts toward MHS.

These are sad, sad people...

Interesting.

What years did Independent Skydiving operate at BDU?

EDIT... Apparently this was in 2013:

http://www.timescall.com/news_region-news/ci_24565869/denial-independent-skydive-company-landing-zone-near-boulder

It is about time:

"not offensive, annoying, or inconvenient to a degree significant enough that a normal person in the community would consider it unreasonable for those individuals who choose to reside in close proximity to an airport."

This is the first time I have heard a ruling where the distinction is made about "individuals who choose to reside in close proximity to an airport". So finally it is recognized that people who pick homes near airports should expect a different noise level than those that don't decide to live near airports.

This is only common sense, but the haters who consistently whine to government about airport noise usually get a sympathetic ear. What a refreshing ruling in an upside down world. Mike

Same here, never heard before in noise & access rulings.The statement of the court should be copied and referred to as a example [* not precedent*] in ongoing noise complaint battles. Such rulings can and should be referred to in politely worded comment letters in response to complaints affecting long established airports. As Mike states above, its a refreshing statement in a upside down world and certainly of use when dealing with this stuff.

The entire opinion of the Judge is incredibly well written and clear--not a lot of legal jargon. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... 0Trial.pdf While it's not precedent for any other noise complaint in any other court, it's so well written that it's very likely to be a model, i.e., persuasive, for other courts. She very clearly did her job well.

I've always been amazed how up in arms citizens get about noise, when an airport (or any other noise producing entity) was there when they bought their homes. Granted that in some cases, the noise impact in a relatively quiet country airport can increase if the airport grows both in size and operations, the fact is that it's usually relatively new-to-the-area residents who raise the most ruckus, as it was in the Longmont case.

Cary

Crazy dingbats filed an appeal recently...

http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local ... based-suit

She wants 25k in donations for the appeal, and 67k to pay legal costs to the defendants.

That adds up to nearly 100k.

That would have bought a lot of pretty sweet earplugs.

The judge implied the plaintiff was an abnormal citizen. I heard she was pretty furious about that for some reason. Perhaps the judge shouldn't have implied it at all and told her straight up.

Well, Ms. Gibbs is likely to get a real lesson in how the legal system works. For one thing, at the rate the Court of Appeals works, it's unlikely that the appeal will be decided for more than a year. If her appeal lacks any legal merit, she might have to pay even more of Mile-Hi's legal fees, and in any event, she'll have to pay her own. I haven't seen her appeal, so I can't comment on whether it has any merit at all. But the percentages are against her, as more than 90% of appeals are not successful--that's true nationwide, but also in Colorado. That alone discourages many from appealing adverse judgments.

Being PO'd at the Judge for calling her other than normal, incidentally, is not by any means a basis for an appeal. It's not a retrial by any means, and the Judge's factual findings, unless totally unsupported by the evidence, will stand. The only basis for appeals is that the Judge made a legal mistake, such as misunderstood the law, failed to apply applicable law to the facts, etc. Without a jury, the chances of the Judge making any significant legal error is much slimmer. In other words, Ms. Gibbs and "the organization" are skiing uphill against an avalanche. That doesn't mean that they can't succeed, but it does mean that their chances are really, really slim.

Cary

Gary,
Thanks for that reply! Coming from a legal person as yourself, it holds more merit to me than the usual internet responses. Having had to listen to what we always called 'barracks lawyers', I have learned to either do my own research or get legal counsil before agreeing or believing what I read or am told.

I almost hate to say this, but people such as her, need to get a serious wake up call. They seem to think they can push their thinking and mindset on everyone. Unfortunately there are getting more and more of these types out there and they are good at gathering sheeple.

I live close to the airport and the noise really pisses me off. It usually goes like this. 6 AM laying bed about to go to work and the whine of the engine. Damn that must be Larry, I wonder where he is going, wish I could go. Or, listen to that engine, probably O-520 or O-550 on a 185, god I wish I had one of those on my cessna 170. Even worse is the sound of the round engine, makes me want to go up to the airport smack that pilot around and steel his airplane. Of course military aircraft are the worst. What makes them so special I could fly that thing - give me the keys and get out of the way. I guess I am just an angry person but dont worry I get over it on a daily basis.

WWhunter wrote:I almost hate to say this, but people such as her, need to get a serious wake up call.

One would have thought that the $67K penalty would have worked as such! But she sounds like instead she's going to double down. I guess she won't have to worry about the flight path soon since the drop zone is going to end up owning her house...

I'm just so sick of complainers in every aspect of my life.

1) If you like airplanes you'll find people complaining about noise, or safety, even if they chose to buy a home on the approach/departure end of a runway for an airport that existed for 30 years before their home was built.

I did my initial flight training at KOSU (Ohio State's airport in Columbus, OH) some 15 years ago, and people were complaining about airport noise back then. But, a picture hanging on the wall in the flight school showed an aerial view of the airport in the 1940's (or maybe it was the 50's or 60's), when it was the ONLY thing in the area. A bunch of folks later showed up, built houses next to the airport, then decided that the airplanes just have to go.

2) I also own and ride horses. People complain about horses, too. They shouldn't be allowed on trails, they shouldn't be able to poop fertilizer in the backcountry, they shouldn't be allowed on a 10 acre agriculturally zoned property that abuts a housing development (when the housing development was built last year), etc.

3) I also shoot competitively (long range rifle stuff, mostly). And, naturally, people complain that we shouldn't be able to shoot guns, own guns, or use guns on a range that has been in use for longer than I've been alive. This comes, again, because someone built their house next to a shooting range.

Sigh.

coloradokevin wrote:I'm just so sick of complainers in every aspect of my life.

1) If you like airplanes you'll find people complaining about noise, or safety, even if they chose to buy a home on the approach/departure end of a runway for an airport that existed for 30 years before their home was built.

I did my initial flight training at KOSU (Ohio State's airport in Columbus, OH) some 15 years ago, and people were complaining about airport noise back then. But, a picture hanging on the wall in the flight school showed an aerial view of the airport in the 1940's (or maybe it was the 50's or 60's), when it was the ONLY thing in the area. A bunch of folks later showed up, built houses next to the airport, then decided that the airplanes just have to go.

2) I also own and ride horses. People complain about horses, too. They shouldn't be allowed on trails, they shouldn't be able to poop fertilizer in the backcountry, they shouldn't be allowed on a 10 acre agriculturally zoned property that abuts a housing development (when the housing development was built last year), etc.

3) I also shoot competitively (long range rifle stuff, mostly). And, naturally, people complain that we shouldn't be able to shoot guns, own guns, or use guns on a range that has been in use for longer than I've been alive. This comes, again, because someone built their house next to a shooting range.

Sigh.

XX10

Why? She's not spending her own money! But i feel her patrons will desert her. You can only piss into the wind for so long.

rw2 wrote:

WWhunter wrote:I almost hate to say this, but people such as her, need to get a serious wake up call.

One would have thought that the $67K penalty would have worked as such! But she sounds like instead she's going to double down. I guess she won't have to worry about the flight path soon since the drop zone is going to end up owning her house...

Rodney King was some sort of A-hole, but his most memorable comment was right on: "Why can't we just get along?" But it seems as if everyone wants to insist on "rights"--often "rights" that don't exist, and never existed, by law. A variation of the Golden Rule seems to apply: your right to swing your fist stops before it hits my nose.

On the topic of unjustified noise complaints, while I was chairing the Laramie Airport Board, for a time the old Frontier Airlines brought in jet service, using 737s to replace the Convair 580s they'd previously been using. Well, you can imagine the complaints on those rare occasions when the 737s had to take off on 3 instead of the usual 21! Yet that happened very seldom, and when it did, the airplane was over flying almost none of town on a straight out departure--it was north of all but one subdivision. But you would think that it had just barreled down Grand Avenue at 1000 AGL to hear the complaints.

Later when we were redoing the Airport Master Plan, we had to have public hearings to explain the "safety zones", which stretch out for quite some distance on either end of any runway at an airport receiving federal funds. The actual impact on residences is non-existent. But I was amazed at the ruckus people raised over their perception that the airport was going to take their homes--and I could see that they didn't believe me when I said that the safety zone designation was only to prohibit building taller structures.

Yet that airport has been there since about 1934 and had airline traffic as early as 1945--so who was there first? Certainly none of those who were the loudest.

<end rant>

Cary