Centennial and Denver Metro Airport Noise Updates. This is not good.

Posted by flightmaster13@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 334 comments

Centennial and Denver Metro Airport Noise Updates. This is not good.

The people complaining about GA airplane nose in the Denver Metro Area (mainly next to the airports) have organized a meeting with the Colorado attorney general. This is not a good sign. From what I understand and what I have seen, the AG and elected officials that represent the area in Washington DC are NOT on our side and are actively lobbying against Centennial (APA) and Rocky Mountain Metro (BJC). Let me remind you that the vast majority of people who are complaining are people who live 1-2 miles north of the approach end of the runway at KAPA, and in a hilariously close distance to both the approach ends and downwind at KBJC. PLEASE SUPPORT LOCAL GENERAL AVIATION! These are people with nothing but time and money on their hands and are actively trying to remove flight schools, along with lots of jobs from the area! Please show up to the noise roundtable meetings and any other meetings where they are trying to take us down. WE NEED SUPPORT! Email, write, and call local and federal elected officials. Let them know we are here. If these people get there way, we will have to bow to the demands of people who moved next to an airport that did not look and see there is an airport there and greedy developers who don’t care about anything except building expensive and unaffordable housing! These people want us gone, all so they can selfishly live their life next to an airport in silence.

Reply to Post

Reply

334 Comments

[-]

Cantland@reddit

What's the least ideal outcome? Noise abatement procedures?

Reply

[-]

DrRichtofen18@reddit

They generally want FAA-published noise abatement procedures, custom patterns to avoid houses, landing fees to stop pattern work, airport curfew, and an immediate ban on 100LL. The more extreme and delusional individuals want the airport closed, which is so unlikely it's not even worth discussing.

Reply

[-]

Cantland@reddit

It just blows my mind that people who built their house next to an airport feel some sort of entitlement to changing airport operations. Ban on 100LL is basically closing KAPA and BJC. There's a very small amount of JET A traffic compared to all the trainers. I get the fact that they are trying to increase their home value by doing this, but you've got to be a pretty big POS to lobby it all the way to the AG.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

You gotta be a pretty big POS to violate a contract with homeowners to not exceed certain noise levels. This isn’t about moving near an airport. The flight volume was perfectly acceptable until 2020. Then, they got greedy.

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

>The flight volume was perfectly acceptable until flight schools started to meet the demands of the current market, which requires training a very large volume of pilots to avoid airfares skyrocketing and/or service to decrease Hmm, that was quite the spelling error I fixed for you. In the meantime, I live nowhere near the airport that you're so hopelessly attacking because you hate everything that isn't something you personally get to enjoy, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. But you should post that contract

Reply

[-]

2020frs@reddit

It’s been posted. Secondly spare me the pilot shortage bs what’s the rate of people actually graduating from flight school? Like 20%? Just a bunch of people looking to get their selfy with headphones on in the cockpit for Facebook. The real problem is lack of traffic controllers.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Haha I love my life and I love aviation. I don’t love bullies. Cheers, friend!

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

Who's a bully? I'd say the guy trying to close an airport for no reason other than being upset that he moved too close to an airport. Still waiting for that contract. Doesn't exist unless you post it here.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I signed it as did most others in my neighborhood. Strange that others would mention this phantom document here as well. I’m not digging through my closing documents any time soon. You can take my word for it, but, as we’ve all learned trust and pilots usually don’t go hand in hand. And I don’t want the airport closed. That airport serves a vital role on the front range. I want it open and operating at the levels that they agreed to.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

How does an airport limit VFR operations, especially after the tower closes for the night?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I don’t know enough of how an airport operates to answer that question.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

This is one of the most truthful things you've said on this thread.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Everything I’ve said is truthful. But, I’m sorry y’all feel threatened. The downvotes make me laugh. The fact is this is what we’re dealing with. The facts are simple.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

In all honesty, I'd really like to see this contract. Because I've never heard of such a thing.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Avigation easement with all counts violated: https://we.tl/t-4ojYuUpUl7

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

This is a hilariously illegitimate contract and I hope your lawyers retire off this. You can't just sign away an infinite block of airspace above your own property. That's not how any of that works.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Seems really weird that the airport would agree to it, then. Sucks they’ll be held liable for abiding by it.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

This is really fascinating. Glad you shared it. I have some comments. 1. First, interesting that the agreement attempts to say that it's asking you to grant a rightaway and "easement" for the airspace over your home (1) for the "passage of all aircraft." YOU as the homeowner do not own that airspace, nor do you have any claim to it that you could sign away. The federal gov regulates the airspace and delegates this authority to the FAA. So seciton 1 is asking you to sign over to them an easement on something that you don't own ..... ? 2. Did this document prohibit them from EVER changing the "master plan." At our airport, we file a master plan every 10 years or so laying out the plans for the next 10 years. It would seem foolish to lock yourself in perpetuity to never growing the airport. 3. Makes me wonder WHY the airport wanted to do this. What was in it for them? Why encumber themselves? Was there an existential threat to the airport at that time? Very weird.... 4. What happens when the easement terminates? (2e) 5. Part 4 lays out that the residential construction is ALREADY in violation of the land-use matrix. This strikes me as a "buyer beware" statement essentially saying that you need to realize what you're buying into. 6. Notably, this is granted to RICHMOND HOMES - not to you. By that, looking at #5, it was Richmond Homes' responsibility to inform you of this (which they did by providing the document) but specifically says that the "Authority shall not ... be liable to any third party" as a result of them failing to do so. This is really interesting, but I think this is going to fall into the category of "it really doesn't say what you think it says." If anyone with legal education can chime in, I'd appreciate that. Particularly in that #1 - no one "owns" the airspace above their heads, so how can the developer here possible "grant" something to the Airport Authority that they can't own? And why did the airport authority need this in the first place? Props for posting this, but I feel pretty strongly after looking at this that this is in no way an open-and-shut case as you're making it out to be.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to us and our legal team thinks it’s an open and shut case, so I guess we’ll find out. Maybe this was the compromise for the airport since they refused to buy the land in the first place. Not sure.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Doesn't make sense to me why "refusing" to buy land with obligate you to do anything like this. Also, you didn't address my point about the fact that the airport doesn't "own" that airspace, and therefore really has no right to grant it to anybody, or regulated, or make rules about it etc. I'm sure you realize that your lawyers make money whether you win or not, lol. Unless this is a contingency case (which I doubt) someone is paying the bills, and the lawyers are running the meter

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I don’t know enough about it to comment on it. It seems clear to me that when buying a home and the airport gives you a document that they’ve signed saying that they’ll do X, that they have the authority to do X and will continue to do X as stated in the document.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

It all honesty, I just don't think that's what the document says. First off the document is between the authority and a home builder. Not between the authority and individual residents. Second, as someone else pointed out, most aviation easements have to do with building height construction. Third there doesn't seem to be any apparent remedy or consequence if the agreement is violated. Or even if it's invalidated. Fourth, it would seem extremely silly for an airport to tie their own hands unless they were under some existential threat back then. Without that context, it's tough to understand the purpose even of this document. Master plans change every 10 to 15 years. Why would an airport voluntarily lock themselves into a master plan from 30 years ago? Don't get me wrong, I find this actually fascinating. I'm all for people and entities living up to their promises. But this document just doesn't make sense on face value. And in all honesty (and I'm not saying this just because I'm a pilot who wants to see all airports remain open) - I don't think this says what you think that it says. I don't think this makes any actionable promises to the homeowners or provides any method to "hold the airport accountable.". I'm hoping you guys aren't being taken for a ride by your lawyers. Is this meeting with the attorney general going to be on zoom?

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Thanks I"ll check it out.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I’ll look for it soon.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

There's nothing they can do. I just looked it up, the tower closes at 10pm, so after that it's an uncontrolled airport. Pilots can do whatever they want, provided they're following federal law. You could literally have jet aircraft come do touch and goes all night long if they wanted to. There's no air traffic authority after 10. I guess you could get the airport to agree to close at 10pm every night, but you've already said you don't want to close the airport. I don't know what the solution is here.

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

> There's nothing they can do. I just looked it up, the tower closes at 10pm, so after that it's an uncontrolled airport. Pilots can do whatever they want, provided they're following federal law. That should honestly be changed and I’m saying that as a pilot. Freedom requires accountability.

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

This may be new to you Europeans, but it really doesn't.

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

This may be new to you Americans, but it absolutely does. That’s why there are laws in the first place.

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

It really doesn't, as you can see in our actual rights to free speech, etc. Unlike whatever you call your speech laws.

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

Free speech is definitely better in the US, yeah. Doesn’t change anything about my point though. Especially considering that even the US has laws (and ironically even laws limiting free speech, lol).

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

You've never had an airport you love closed, have you?

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

Indeed I haven’t, but that’s completely besides the point. Compromises help prevent that. As somebody else in this thread said, if you force the choice between no rules regarding noise at all, or closing the airport entirely, many people will elect politicians that do the latter. It’s in pilots‘ best interest to annoy as few people as possible, which means noise abatement procedures should be considered sensible compromises in densly populated areas.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Seems like it should be relatively easy for you to post that contract if it exists. I mean you're fighting so hard in this thread, post this contract saying what you think it says, and it seems like you would "win." And it seems like you want to win very badly. Pilots don't trust NIMBYs for good reason. Look no further than the People's Republic of of Kalifornia to understand.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I’ll look for it soon. It’s in my closing docs somewhere and, honestly, it’s the weekend. Appeasing people on Reddit hasn’t quite been my number one priority over the past few days.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

You must like the downboats, you certainly collecting them. Don't really care what paints me and what light on an anonymous internet forum, lol. As you said, appeasing people on Reddit isn't really my priority.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Likewise. Love the downvotes. It’s expected when trying to argue an anti-airplane stance in an aviation forum. Even though I’m hella pro aviation. I love flying. Love planes. Love airports. Especially ones that follow rules.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

What rules are you talking about? Airport management can't tell people where they're allowed to fly except when air traffic control is in effect. You guys are complaining about things happening with there's no ATC being done there. When a field is uncontrolled, it's uncontrolled. There's nothing stopping anybody from flying around however they want there.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Avigation easement with all counts violated: https://we.tl/t-4ojYuUpUl7

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

I'm just a dumb and untrustworthy pilot, but I do live in an airpark community and have a background in avaition and law. Your community doesn't own the airspace above it, or have any right to it. Once you enter controlled airspace, the feds own it, not the airport, town, not the county, not the state, the feds. There are federal laws on how pilots need to operate in controlled airspace. When a tower closes the airport loses it's ability to control it's surface, and the airspace reverts to uncontrolled. You could get commander Murdoch in the tower, and have Jared Polis sit right beside him and they don't have any legal authority to tell a pilot what to do once that tower closes.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I always love the "we can continue torturing you because the feds say we can do what we want" argument. Really paints pilots in the greatest light. Empathy, mate. Learn it, use it, love it.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

It's been a really long time since I've done pattern work at BJC friend. I fly big jets into much bigger airports these days. But since this is the second time you've personally attacked me, I'll respond to your argument. I don't think that easement means what you think it means. I don't believe that your community has any right to the airspace above it, even if the airport agreed to do so. Furthermore the AIRPORT doesn't even have a right to that airspace for 8 hours a day, when most of these complaints are happening. I am of the opinion that you are relying on a document which quite literally means nothing to either party. It is fundamentally flawed in that your community does not own or have right to the airspace above it. Furthermore the airport who you have a grievance with doesn't have the legal authority to enforce that document. The airport could literally give in to 100% of your demands. They can stop selling unleaded fuels, they can shut down all the flight schools based there, they can publish suggested noise procedures. But it is a public airport. And if Bugsmasher November 22 poo poo wants to come burn unleaded gas and do pattern work the airport doesn't have any legal authority to tell them no. They can tell them how to do their patterns, or where to fly but they can't simply say we're closed to the public. It's all a moot point anyway because after 10pm there are no air traffic services, the class delta airspace ceases to exist. The airport at that point has no more authority than the guy working the night shift at 7/11 over who flies when and where. You're blaming the airport, as if this is some sort of scheme by them to make money. In reality it's pilots, doing what they are legally allowed to do. Your anger is entirely misdirected, because you didn't understand the fundamentals of what living near a very busy airport entails.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

You’re mostly not wrong. But it’s a very nice way of saying that the pilots couldn’t give two shits about how they make the people below them feel. F- you, I got mine. We’re used to it and it’s no surprise.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

You think a 19 year old student is out there flipping you guys off laughing about how awesome it is to spend $160 an hour to fly the same circles for the 50th time that week? You've got this super victim mentality going, in your mind an injustice has or is occurring, and thus logic dictates that it must clearly be an intentional action by one community against another. But it's not. It's kids learning to fly so they can go get jobs. You just don't want them to do it where you live, you want them to do it where someone else lives. Again, I'd try to solve this with outreach. Talk to the pilots and the schools. See if there can be an agreement, ultimately you're asking students to spend even more money by flying further away to do their training. You want other people to sacrifice their training and their money for your cause. Maybe you'll get them to agree, but if that was my angle I probably wouldn't start off by calling them liars, or stupid, or selfish, or say that they're intentionally torturing people. That's not gonna get a lot of people on your side.

Reply

[-]

DrRichtofen18@reddit

A majority of these people think the entire world is out to get them. Every day, Karen sees a plane fly over and rushes to Facebook to post how "those little boys are having a laugh by torturing us with noise" and "the airport director is bringing up planes from other airports to get back at us (the nimbys)" The world doesn't revolve around you Karen, no one is staring down at your house when they are busy following ATC, watching for traffic, and managing their airplane.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Yes - 120% confident that pilots are retaliating against our community. We have stacks of screenshots of pilots online mentioning looking forward to flying low and targeting particular streets not to mention real world examples.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

As far as the idea that noise level would stay at the same level, that's literally meaningless and has no basis in history. On top of that it's impossible to enforce, so now you're into de jure de facto type shit. Up until about 10 years ago there was a private citizen that operated a Mig 17 fighter plane out of BJC. He died, and the plane is gone, but I'm positive that the Cessna you're hearing don't make anywhere near the amount of noise that old Jack used to make when he'd come screaming off of 29R under afterburner. https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=905DM Your idea that BJC used to be a quieter place in the past might not have a lot of factual basis.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

It’s very possible to enforce and very easy to measure. We have devices scattered around Rock Creek that very consistently measure decibel levels over 90. Also, I have ears and have been here for 6 years. So… I’m not sure what to tell you.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

How would you enforce it? Also, I'm telling you, 10 years ago there was an afterburner equipped Mig based out of BJC. Just because you weren't around to hear it, doesn't mean it wasn't making a shit ton of noise.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I don’t mind the military planes. I don’t mine the tankers. I don’t even mind JSX. The jets are in and out and aren’t doing loops less than 1,000 feet over my home every 34 seconds. I don’t hear the jets. Enforcing it is not my job, but were it, clearly the gas chamber is the only option.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

They're not doing loops, they're flying in the pattern. Loops are an aerobatic maneuver. The pattern altitude is 6,500 at BJC, and has been for 20+ years. But even that is only in effect when the Class D is. After 10pm it's uncontrolled. So, lets say the airport gives in and says they'll do what you ask. How do you want them to enforce it?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Circles, ovals, full circumferences. You know what I mean. Again, enforcing it is not my job nor my area of knowledge. I just want them to. You know, as compassionate and understanding humans would.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

A loop is a specific thing. If you're making a case, it's important to speak factually. Performing loops over population is almost certainly illegal. An aircraft landing or departing is going to transition through that altitude either while climbing or descending. So being below it is normal for certain stages of flight. As I type this there is 1 aircraft in the pattern at BJC, doing left traffic for 30L. He's at 6500 as he should be. ATC is going to enforce this for the most part, unless they need something else. Even then all of it goes out the window when the tower and thus the airspace closes. At that point, most aircraft are going to generally do pattern work at 1,000AGL. But light aircraft, and helicopters are encouraged to be lower, jets higher. All of it is completely non-regulatory. The flight schools, the airport, and even the FAA can't enforce compliance. I just don't know what you want the airport to do here. Like I said earlier, your best bet is going to be community outreach.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

People saying stuff online, doesn't equate to someone going out and actually doing anything. As far as your agreement. I don't think you have anything there, but other people have told you that as well. You agreed to give away something you don't own, in turn for them doing something they can't enforce. It's like two 5 year olds on the playground deciding who gets to be president of the US. Even if they come to an agreement, neither party has the ability to fulfill their end of the deal. Tomorrow if BJC agreed to do everything you ask, how would you get them to enforce it? You're talking about changing federal law, and I'm not positive that the lawyer you've retained is gonna have enough pull with the SCOTUS.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I guess it’ll be fun to watch. Worst case for us is RMMA settles. In addition to the airport, we’re also suing the flight schools, so maybe that’ll go somewhere too.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

How can they possibly enforce something like that when atc isn't in effect?

Reply

[-]

Ok_Butterscotch_4743@reddit

Avigation Agreement all Rock Creek homeowners entered into with BJC, and has since exceeded all limitations stipulated. Satisfied. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10CxJxw\_fWJyP99b7GKff\_lVE7Opcl3dw/view?usp=sharing

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

I saw this posted and my comments for the other poster are as below - would be interested in your responses as well ========= This is really fascinating. Glad you shared it. I have some comments. 1. First, interesting that the agreement attempts to say that it's asking you to grant a right-of-way and "easement" for the airspace over your home (1) for the "passage of all aircraft." YOU as the homeowner do not own that airspace, nor do you have any claim to it that you could sign away. The federal gov regulates the airspace and delegates this authority to the FAA. So seciton 1 is asking you to sign over to them an easement on something that you don't own ..... ? 2. Did this document prohibit them from EVER changing the "master plan." At our airport, we file a master plan every 10 years or so laying out the plans for the next 10 years. It would seem foolish to lock yourself in perpetuity to never growing the airport. 3. Makes me wonder WHY the airport wanted to do this. What was in it for them? Why encumber themselves? Was there an existential threat to the airport at that time? Very weird.... 4. What happens when the easement terminates? (2e) 5. Part 4 lays out that the residential construction is ALREADY in violation of the land-use matrix. This strikes me as a "buyer beware" statement essentially saying that you need to realize what you're buying into. 6. Notably, this is granted to RICHMOND HOMES - not to you. By that, looking at #5, it was Richmond Homes' responsibility to inform you of this (which they did by providing the document) but specifically says that the "Authority shall not ... be liable to any third party" as a result of them failing to do so. This is really interesting, but I think this is going to fall into the category of "it really doesn't say what you think it says." If anyone with legal education can chime in, I'd appreciate that. Particularly in that #1 - no one "owns" the airspace above their heads, so how can the developer here possible "grant" something to the Airport Authority that they can't own? And why did the airport authority need this in the first place? Props for posting this, but I feel pretty strongly after looking at this that this is in no way an open-and-shut case as you're making it out to be.

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

Look man, I also made the conscious decision to live close to an airport. When I bought my house, which is directly under the final approach for a GA airport, I did so with the understanding that if that airport gets busier, that's what fucking happens with aviation. Sure enough, my local airport has a CAF bomber that takes off very low and very loud over my house routinely. It's pretty loud and I admittedly didn't know if was there when I moved in. Do you know what I did about it? I shut the fuck up and contin

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

> no way to really limit the traffic short of forcing businesses to cease operation Of course there is. It’s not an all or nothing thing. Democracy means compromises.

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

By friendly agreements regarding pattern restrictions and such, sure. By saying "stop existing or we'll try to close it all down", no.

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

So we agree.

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

Correct. None of these things are being entertained by the local community though, and you know that or you wouldn't be posting here.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

We’ve tried all of these routes. The airport is not interested in a discussion. We’ve proposed options. The airport has ignored them. We’ve attended meetings. The airport has laughed at us. We’d love a compromise. The airport has not made one step towards that direction. Instead, they continue to violate our contract. So, here we are. Funny enough, the inability to move even an inch is going to lead to their entire downfall. So, sorry, not sorry.

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

Well, my property tax changes each year and my mortgage payment adjusts accordingly. So even if that was a good analogy, it still doesn't hold water, because that's how the world works. I still want to see this contract, because who is "the airport"? The flight schools and businesses who operate there are not owned by "the airport". This further reinforces that none of you have any idea what you're talking about, and leads to this thread and everyone else deservedly laughing you out of the room. I'd love to hear some of your proposed solutions that aren't just "fuck you, stop doing what you're doing, I don't like it" because from my experience, that exactly what you people say every time. >the inability to move even an inch is going to lead to their entire downfall Cute.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I, personally, don’t want it closed. Also, independent of the above, because of the airport’s inability to budge, it will end up closed. Do you see the difference in these two statements? Our group contains no housing developers.

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

It won't, but I'm glad your very expensive lawyers have convinced you of that fact. RemindMe! 5 years

Reply

[-]

RemindMeBot@reddit

I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2028-10-22 18:26:58 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2028-10-22%2018:26:58%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/17d9qpk/centennial_and_denver_metro_airport_noise_updates/k5zxpnc/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fflying%2Fcomments%2F17d9qpk%2Fcentennial_and_denver_metro_airport_noise_updates%2Fk5zxpnc%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202028-10-22%2018%3A26%3A58%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2017d9qpk) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

> You can take my word for it, but, as we’ve all learned trust and pilots usually don’t go hand in hand. What kind of stupid-ass generalization is that

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

Pilots are mostly right wing. Right wing idiots are selfish as fuck-- me, me me. It is a generalization that is valid and based on fact.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Lol.... Rich coming from a NIMBY

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

Awww.....poor little Trump snowflake got triggered.

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

Also, you're speaking with a group that is largely made up of professional pilots. There are substantial background and character checks that go into becoming a professional pilot. To say that pilots aren't trustworthy is a pretty aggressive statement to make.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

You’d be shocked at the people we’ve dealt with. It’s not painting the aviation community in any sort of positive light. Vindictive is a better word.

Reply

[-]

tarantulae@reddit

> You can take my word for it, but, as we’ve all learned trust and pilots usually don’t go hand in hand. Pilots had to learn the FARs to get their licenses. We're pretty good at knowing/researching the regulations and what is required. We're asking you to provide one document you are saying existed.

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

That’s a dubious „fixed it for you“. Increased pilot demand is hardly the problem of a local community that already has an agreement about acceptable noise pollution with that airport.

Reply

[-]

Ok-Tiger8734@reddit

Nobody had a problem with it until ATP, Spartan etc. schools came in and fly relentlessly at all hours. BJC had the opportunity to purchase the land 30years ago before the housing was built and passed then signed an aviation easement agreement which they violated. The Karen’s are just people sick of companies making money on their backs and are looking for restitution, or for those schools to leave.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Can you post this aviation easement? That's really interesting, have not seen this before. Would love to read it.

Reply

[-]

2020frs@reddit

It’s been posted on this thread

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

If you bought a house somewhere where Company X was engaging in Behavior A and afterwards a ton of studies showed that Behavior A causes brain damage especially in children, would you want Company X to cease Behavior A?

Reply

[-]

Cantland@reddit

Person A should move from airport B if they don't like the effects of airport B. Simple solution, and everyone wins. The homes around KAPA AND KBJC are 500k+ on the low end and multi million on the high end. These people aren't living in squalor.

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

This logic just doesn’t make sense. In many cases the effects are changing and growing more and more onerous. The idea that there should never be any compromise and pilots should be able to act with impunity regarding lead and noise is unfortunate.

Reply

[-]

zerog_rimjob@reddit

Why are you copy-pasting the same retarded and unrelated comment all over this thread?

Reply

[-]

Ibgarrett2@reddit

APA already has a lion’s share of the flight schools running on 94UL. The STC is free for any planes based there and APA is subsidizing the fuel to 100LL prices. BJC is in process of doing the same things. The folks complainings response when they hear most everyone is flying 94? “Oh, you mean you aren’t going to close the airport? That’s what we wanted”

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

That's fascinating. The lead thing is also a strum and argument. There are no studies showing increased lead levels in people outside of an airport. There was one airport in California that tried to claim this, but their study was a piece of shit and it did not reach statistical significance, which in the normal person world means you can't draw that conclusion from that data.

Reply

[-]

SwoopnBuffalo@reddit

KAPA and KBJC can call their bluff and go all in on G100UL (assuming they can get their hands on it).

Reply

[-]

bhalter80@reddit

I think the airport should try to get grant money to subsidize the G100UL STC for all based aircraft. That way they can say that the airport is G100UL ready when the fuel is and bait the feds into making it or the mythical ASTM drop-in appear

Reply

[-]

Cadet_BNSF@reddit

As far as 100LL goes, it would probably result in forced adoption of the 100UL alternatives that are available

Reply

[-]

DrRichtofen18@reddit

Less operations is what they want. Both APA and BJC sell way more gallons of JET-A compared to 100LL. These people would be very happy to have APA/BJC turn into Aspen or Jackson Hole where pistons are treated like 2nd class citizens. They want to push all the “junky flying lawnmowers” and flight schools out to Greeley or Spaceport (Front Range).

Reply

[-]

brilliant_beast@reddit

They’re closing Santa Monica altogether.

Reply

[-]

Top-Treacle2152@reddit

The hostility from the community(which I live in) surrounding the airport is astounding. Tons of comments ranging from calling every pilot a “little boy” to “being selfish little liars ruining communities so they can feel like god and own the sky in their POS little planes.”

Reply

[-]

throwapondaway@reddit

The lies and vitriol by anti-airport folks is astonishing. Looking for whether there's anything more to do to help it's easy to find noise complaints about planes that hadn't flown in months when the complain was written, complaints about airplanes following regs procedures and noise abatement, misrepresentations about what flights are doing, etc. Aside from continuing to fly safely, in procedure, and in accordance with noise abatement it seems like the only other thing to be done is accept that there exist people who are full of hate.

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Pin3252@reddit

You mean like people who fly their planes over residential communities at 5 AM and show zero consideration for the thousands of people they affect every morning?

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

It really is unbelievable ---their lack of common sense that they seem to be proud of.

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

Common sense, like not buying a house near an airport and then complaining about the noise?

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

Well, you do have to use a few brain cells. Did anyone using the airport expand operations without consulting the community, as the FAA says not to do? But durp duh durp ya live next toooo an airpurt! Muricas!

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

They did consult JeffCO which gave the go-ahead. You sound like one of those NIMBYs that live in Boulder. Go ahead and find those common sense requirements from the FAA and send them over.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

Wow, people are really this dumb? What was the result of 'consulting JeffCO'? Holy fuck, you aren't aware of the GAO recommendations and the FAA studies? It will be amusing to see the community guidelines implemented while bawlbaby pilots whine like little babies.

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

Go ahead and post links, I'm waiting. The noise studies you Karens want aren't the panacea you think they are.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

You'll be waiting a long time, snowflake. Google it; I'm not holding your hand for you like your mommy does.

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

Haha that just proves you are lying.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

It doesn't prove a thing, snowflake. I'll let you get back to having your mommy spoon feed you and wipe your ass for you.

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

It's not the pilot's fault you bought a house at the end of a large runway.

Reply

[-]

aviator94@reddit

I’m just going to start posting this in every one of these threads because there still seems to be a number of people who still seem to think this stuff is caused by people genuinely surprised that airplanes use airports. They aren’t. They knew all along. This was always the plan. They’re perfectly aware these airports are used by GA, and they, be it the developer pushing this crap or the individuals in the homes themselves, bought KNOWING the airport suppresses property value. Then they get the airport closed and the value goes up. It’s simple greed. This doesn’t change how you fight this. Call reps, go to meetings, be polite and well informed, offer solutions, etc. but it should give motivation to know that this is A) greed, so fuck them fight harder, and B) it’s not simple NIMBYs, it’s a targeted planned effort. Godspeed y’all.

Reply

[-]

Fine_Cold315@reddit

Really?? Real Estate is at a high market Value in my neighborhood. Actually prices are astonishing for a production home of plywood and fake brick. In the millions. We have an airport that was nothing more than a cow pasture with one runway when we bought here. The airport was to serve only as a supply chain for Rocky Flats nuclear disposal facility, which is now defunct. The airport remained and make their revenue with corporate jets and flight schools. Now we have flight schools doing patterns over head 10 hrs+ a day with lead fuel dumped on our community and noise pollution with a promise of 4:30am wake-up from their ridiculous activity. The community is angry at a breaking point … a litigation is in the works to be filed against them. Many in my community want this to be their forever home, not their profit home but are being forces to move to remain sane. Your post was designed by a greedy mind

Reply

[-]

na85@reddit

... you really think this is a mass conspiracy to close airports so that property values will go up? Really?

Reply

[-]

aviator94@reddit

Yup. I fully believe it’s a mass global conspiracy orchestrated by the Illuminati to close all the GA airports. No you chud it’s basic property value economics, it doesn’t take much more than 2 brain cells for multiple property owners to come to the same conclusion.

Reply

[-]

na85@reddit

You know, it's okay to admit that GA airplanes are loud. Maybe it's just as simple as some people don't like hearing pattern work all day every day, from sunrise to sunset and sometimes even beyond?

Reply

[-]

aviator94@reddit

You’re right. They are loud. Almost like someone would notice them before buying a house next to the runway of one of the busiest GA airports in the country.

Reply

[-]

RodionsKurucs@reddit

There are also cases where an airport was pretty much dead and suddenly becomes active. In my hometown the airport had at most 10 flights per month with 0 training flights for it's whole life. Then the local Airline opened a flight school and it suddenly went from 1 plane every 3 days, to 7 planes flying and doing pattern work every day (except for winter). The pattern doesnt extend in to the main city unless necessary for seperation, but it does directly overfly a smaller city next to the airport. I never heard any public outrage but I assume people are unhappy

Reply

[-]

Ok_Butterscotch_4743@reddit

Bingo....thank you u/RodionsKurucs . When I moved in 17 years ago - 140K annual flight ops. BJC is on pace to reach 300K this year. When I purchased here BJC was NOT one of the busiest GA airports in the country. Last year it was the 4th busiest. This year it will be 3rd. And by next year it should surpass the other GA airport in the Denver Metro area for 2nd.

Reply

[-]

na85@reddit

>Almost like someone would notice them before buying a house next to the runway of one of the busiest GA airports in the country. Perhaps you have more confidence in the intelligence of the average person than I do.

Reply

[-]

aviator94@reddit

That’s the most fair argument I’ve heard yet. I apologize for calling you a chud.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Lol great reply. He's not wrong either, which might be the most damning thing....

Reply

[-]

Porshuh@reddit

There’s nothing ‘mass’ about it, other than the amount of people who are scumbags. But they don’t secretly talk to each other outside of their individual local anti-airport groups (well, aside the most unhinged few).

Reply

[-]

Ok_Butterscotch_4743@reddit

Interesting conspiracy theory. I live here next to BJC from the post. I bought 17 years ago after having rented in the area for over a year. I never had any issue with the airport the first dozen years living here. Then according to your theory, I woke up one day 5 years ago deciding to finally implement my plan of taking the local airport down to increase my property value. Actually what happened was the average of about 150K flight ops I happily lived with doubled over the last 5 years to what will be 300K flight ops this year making BJC the 3rd busiest regional airport in the nation. And the airport director has made it clear he wants to keep increasing this 10-15% a year until the taxiways are maxed out. That's what the neighboring communities are upset with, not some conspiracy to buy cheap homes and shutdown GA airports.

Reply

[-]

-Seth-Flys@reddit

Update: I went tonight to the event and it was not good, there were a lot of people there to support GA but so many more people absolutely sh*ting on pilots and the airport. I got up and spoke about being a student pilot and how I shouldn’t be expected to fly in an unsafe way or go against ATC or the FARs and was yelled at to go train somewhere else. Also the government at both the local, county and state level are firmly on the anti airport side. We need help to save GA in the Denver metro area at both KAPA and KBJC!

Reply

[-]

LeelssDelta@reddit

Was the meeting recorded or streamed?

Reply

[-]

-Seth-Flys@reddit

Not that I’m aware of

Reply

[-]

LeelssDelta@reddit

Damn. Someone in ops asked if it was.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Lol you weren’t yelled at. The conversation was mostly civil tonight. Except for the older gentleman that brought binders of newspaper articles apparently unaware of the easement. And even he changed sides when spoken to afterwards.

Reply

[-]

-Seth-Flys@reddit

I don’t know what you’re talking about being “civil”. If it was such a civil gathering why were there 4 cops walking around? Was that also for dramatic effect?

Reply

[-]

-Seth-Flys@reddit

And look dude, I get it. There are real issues that need to be solved. But the approach superior is on with “the airport must go” is not the solution.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

No one wants the airport to go. Or, very few, at least. We only want them to follow the easement. Were the airport to fly as they did in 2019, you wouldn’t hear a word from us.

Reply

[-]

throwapondaway@reddit

>We only want them to follow the easement. Were the airport to fly as they did in 2019, you wouldn’t hear a word from us. These are nice talking points, but they're untrue: Rock Creek residents were making plenty of noise in the years prior to COVID. Also, what are you referring to when you say "When pilots have been proven to retaliate against our residents"?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

In case something got out of control? Which it didn’t. For safety reasons. When pilots have been proven to retaliate against our residents, it’s only common sense to have a police presence. Tonight was extremely civil. Especially when comparing to the noise roundtables.

Reply

[-]

Inner_Grapefruit_638@reddit

Out of curiosity, who at the state level was against the airport? Neither the city or county own it, so that’s understandable.

Reply

[-]

-Seth-Flys@reddit

There were 5 state representatives there who clearly want what the towns want. I got Kyle M. Browns card who serves Colorado House District 12. He talked to someone that the state may go as far as removing the airport from being in Jefferson county and move it into Boulder county.

Reply

[-]

Inner_Grapefruit_638@reddit

The airport isn’t even in his district. What an ass hat. Annexing land from one county to another wouldn’t be easy. Besides Boulder county generally overestimates their influence in the state. Something to keep an eye on though.

Reply

[-]

flightmaster13@reddit (OP)

This is what I was afraid of. Appreciate the update. I was unable to go.

Reply

[-]

kingjayrod317@reddit

These people can go fuck themselves. That airport has probably been there longer than the homes have been. They knew what it was moving near an airport

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

These kind of comments make excellent fuel for our lawyers. Thanks! 😊

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Posting here as well for visibility  This is really fascinating. Glad you shared it. I have some comments. 1. First, interesting that the agreement attempts to say that it's asking you to grant a right-oif-way and "easement" for the airspace over your home (1) for the "passage of all aircraft." YOU as the homeowner do not own that airspace, nor do you have any claim to it that you could sign away. The federal gov regulates the airspace and delegates this authority to the FAA. So seciton 1 is asking you to sign over to them an easement on something that you don't own ..... ? 2. Did this document prohibit them from EVER changing the "master plan." At our airport, we file a master plan every 10 years or so laying out the plans for the next 10 years. It would seem foolish to lock yourself in perpetuity to never growing the airport. 3. Makes me wonder WHY the airport wanted to do this. What was in it for them? Why encumber themselves? Was there an existential threat to the airport at that time? Very weird.... 4. What happens when the easement terminates? (2e) 5. Part 4 lays out that the residential construction is ALREADY in violation of the land-use matrix. This strikes me as a "buyer beware" statement essentially saying that you need to realize what you're buying into. 6. Notably, this is granted to RICHMOND HOMES - not to you. By that, looking at #5, it was Richmond Homes' responsibility to inform you of this (which they did by providing the document) but specifically says that the "Authority shall not ... be liable to any third party" as a result of them failing to do so. This is really interesting, but I think this is going to fall into the category of "it really doesn't say what you think it says." If anyone with legal education can chime in, I'd appreciate that. Particularly in that #1 - no one "owns" the airspace above their heads, so how can the developer here possible "grant" something to the Airport Authority that they can't own? And why did the airport authority need this in the first place? Props for posting this, but I feel pretty strongly after looking at this that this is in no way an open-and-shut case as you're making it out to be.

Reply

[-]

DrRichtofen18@reddit

BJC's last master plan update was in 2011, I'm pretty sure covid caused the delay of the 2020 update. Not a lawyer but; This document says the airport was granted the easement for an "infinite height above the property" when I don't believe people own everything above their property, the Feds do, so that can't be granted in the first place. Why not sue the ISS for passing overhead if I do own everything? A quick google of what an avignation easement is, says that it is to restrict property owners from building above a height. So since a court ruled that some of the properties' easements are lifted, that just means they can build a tall building, and the airport can't object? (at least until the FAA gets involved)

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Your understanding is much like mine. The feds own the airspace. Building height would make sense certainly. So this document is more about restricting the homeowners rights then granting them some power over the airport? I mean, that's not at all what is being represented here and presumably what the lawyers are telling them (If those on this thread are telling the truth about what they're being told, which I do believe them). This'll be interesting

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

I genuinely don't understand why you think someone saying "fuck you; you guys are idiots" would be useful for your lawyers. But I'm also not the kind of person dumb enough to buy a house next to an airport, so maybe that's it.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

We have a drinking game going that each time someone says “you bought a house next to an airport” we drink. The alcohol poisoning is tough, but it’s a fun game. Find an original argument. Or look into this deeper, because it has nothing to do with buying a house near an airport. We all loved living here until the airport got greedy and violated their contract.

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

This contract that you continue to not be able to show any evidence of? And from your description appears to violate federal aviation regulations?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

The airport created the contract. So, if so, the airport wrote a contract that violates federal aviation regulations. Seems odd that they would do that.

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

Alternatively you might be misreading it. Something like "airport shall advise all aircraft to follow publishes noise abatement policies" is essentially a request, "airport shall not support night operations" could mean "no refueling at night" etc.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Yeah, we are very familiar with conditions put in place by the airport that include words like “voluntary” and “suggest” and “recommend” and “advise.” The airport is great at PR and putting these kinds of things into place. The media eats it up. They follow absolutely zero of them. This is not one of those instances.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Again, please post the contract. It's pretty telling that you're seemingly dragging your feet about posting it.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

https://we.tl/t-4ojYuUpUl7

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

It’s the weekend, mate. Making strangers on Reddit happy isn’t exactly my number one priority. I don’t have my closing docs just sitting on my nightstand. I’ll look for it soon.

Reply

[-]

ChronicTown11@reddit

The Town of Superior was founded in the 19th century. I don’t think the Wright Brothers had quite figured it out yet.

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

If you bought a house somewhere where Company X was engaging in Behavior A and afterwards a ton of studies showed that Behavior A causes brain damage especially in children, would you want Company X to cease Behavior A?

Reply

[-]

DirkChesney@reddit

I’m a pilot myself. I fly professionally and recreationally. If an airport isn’t holding their end of a deal/contract then the surrounding community has every right to go after them. Idk why that’s hard for the others here to understand

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Hey, look! A reasonable one! Thank you for comprehending our side.

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

It's really a pity that you don't like flying commercial for any sort of travel need. I guess you're a big fan of trains, maybe? Or just driving?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Lol I take over 100 flights a year. I love aviation. I don’t love bullies.

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

You're wanting to restrict general aviation. You can't have airlines without general aviation. Therefore, you're wanting to restrict commercial aviation.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I don’t want to restrict any general aviation. I want the airport to follow the rules they put in place and we agreed to. This is not unrealistic.

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

> I don’t want to restrict any general aviation So you want there to be less flights at that airport, but without restricting people flying? ??? How does that work in your brain?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

The airport follows their rules. How does this not click in your brain?

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

Because I actually understand how these thing work and you don't. Let me make an analogy here. You bought a house next to a traffic intersection. Maybe the traffic intersection signed an agreement with you that there would be under (some amount) of traffic going thru that intersection. Now there is a larger amount of traffic going thru that intersection. How do you control that? Tell cars to not go thru that intersection? If their google maps tells those cars that driving that direction is how they get to Petsmart, that's the route they're gonna take; there isn't much the traffic intersection can do about that. Now you bought a house next to a traffic intersection, and you're complaining about there being too much road noise. Do you want the interection to close down intermittently? **What rules do you think the airport can put into place to restrict the amount of traffic there?** That's all I'm asking. Do you think the airport should just close between hours this and that? Do you think the airport should hire someone to count landings and once a certain amount has been hit, they close the airport? What rules are you actually looking to see implimented, what rules would make you go "yeah, that's great"?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I'd like the airport to follow the rules we agreed to in our contract. I'm not sure about you, but i think thats a reasonable request. In your analogy, I didnt sign a contract with the highway. I would expect noise from a highway. I don’t expect the airport to exceed the contract. A better analogy would be my bank contacting me to say my mortgage has tripled. Why? Because we want to. But the contract I signed said I would pay X amount. Doesn’t matter. Doing what we want. I’m guessing you’d be reasonably upset by that.

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

> I'd like the airport to follow the rules we agreed to in our contract What rules? What explicit rules did they say they would put into place? Again, what is the thing here that you're expecting? Intermittent closures? > I don’t expect the airport to exceed the contract. How do you think the airport controls how many airplanes take off and land there? We're still circiling this idea that you think the airport can...I don't know, magically tell airplanes coming in that they're not allowed to land there? I can't figure out what you think goes on that the airport would be able to control how many airplanes fly in and out of that airport. **What rules did the airport agree to put into place to restrict flying?**

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Again, no. I want the airport to not exceed the volume of flights they said they wouldn’t. To not exceed the decibel level they said they wouldn’t. To not have passenger flights as they said they wouldn’t. And to not have freight flights as they said they wouldn’t. Beyond that, absolutely the airport should continue operating. No one wants it shut down. That’s absurd.

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

> I want the airport to not exceed the volume of flights they said they wouldn’t. I keep on asking you think and you keep on not being able to answer? How do you expect the airport to lower flight traffic? How do you want them to control the volume of traffic there? Because all I am seeing is "I moved next to an airport, there are more plane noises than I thought there was going to be, make there stop being so many plane noises by restricting the flights into and out of the airport". Can you see why, from my angle, this is really just NIMBY stuff?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

It is not my responsibility to come up with a solution. I don’t create the contract. I’m not the one that thought it was possible. The airport was.

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

What you want is there to be fewer flights.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

I want to see this contract that he keeps talking about. I'm betting this isn't a contract but rather a promise or a statement of goals or something like that now being misrepresented as a "contract" because it benefits them. I'm not even sure how an airport could go about restricting decibels. They can certainly suggest noise abatement. I know some of the older jets are required to have hush kits.... I don't know how that came about? I'm guessing that was an FAA or FAR That was required to enforce that? I've never heard of anything similar for piston planes.

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

He's talking about an Avigation Easement. I can't find the exact wording, but there was a case last year on it: Superior, CO.

Reply

[-]

kingjayrod317@reddit

I would not move near an airport and expect to not hear airplanes

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

Can you point me to a statement from this group saying they don’t expect to hear airplanes?

Reply

[-]

kingjayrod317@reddit

No where here. In the real world people act like airplanes are silent or they won’t hear them near an airport. They say the same thing in CLT. Ahhh it’s too loud I can’t sleep. Bitch move then....

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

If you can find a statement from these residents arguing that they should never ever have to hear airplanes, I’d love to see it. Otherwise this is a straw man argument. The “listening session” this post is based on is largely to discuss the use of leaded fuel, which is a neurotoxin. People who live near airports should be able to expect pilots and companies to make minor efforts to minimize exposure to lead poisoning and, yes, noise. The idea that people who live near airports deserve to be poisoned by lead is nuts.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Your comments are funny. You're calling someone out for a straw man argument. When in fact, lead poisoning is a straw man argument for those who want to close an airport. There's absolutely no evidence that people outside of the conference and airport are exposed to any higher levels of lead than any other random sample of people.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Refer to my other comment where I broke down the data or lack thereof in this study.

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

My point is that nobody deserves to be subjected to lead poisoning, even if they live near an airport. I’d love an explanation of how that’s a straw man argument.

Reply

[-]

235_and_five@reddit

Aww it thinks it has a point

Reply

[-]

CaregiverAlive4756@reddit

Yep. And we all had a legal contract on what is allowed by airport...which these schools are not following. Probably would do you good to actually look into what issue is before commenting.

Reply

[-]

cl_320@reddit

Maybe don't build a house at the end of a runway if you hate pilots and airplanes

Reply

[-]

DatBeigeBoy@reddit

Fuck NIMBYs.

Reply

[-]

ChronicTown11@reddit

I say fuck all of you who start flying planes over people’s homes at 5 AM. You don’t need to do it, yet you do it because you’re more entitled than any “Karen” you complain about.

Reply

[-]

Me_IRL_Haggard@reddit

I got my PPL at my home airport KRMU, had to land steep on the by far most used runway 22L as there is a golf course county club that requested it. Imagine being a student to be coming in steep on every single landing, 40 degrees of flaps every time in a C152 I'm not saying that's what should happen here

Reply

[-]

zerog_rimjob@reddit

Probably a shitty attitude to have, but IMO noise abatement is optional. If it requires me to do something nonstandard and I'm not comfortable doing that, I'm not doing it.

Reply

[-]

ChronicTown11@reddit

It would be nice if some of yous could actually find a way to get comfortable “doing it”.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

No, I agree with you. Safety is first.

Reply

[-]

chrissilly22@reddit

Check out KGUC (Gunnison CO). Beautiful little town, but the pattern is S of the field for no other discernable reason than to avoid overflying the town. That would be great, if there wasn't a nice little mountain/plateau/peak that is right at pattern altitude on the S side of the field .3-1 miles out.

Reply

[-]

Ok_Butterscotch_4743@reddit

Most of the aviation community here hides behind the same tired old comment that you moved next to an airport and now complain about aircraft noise. Or they just skip that and go straight to comments like kingjayrod317 's "These people can go fuck themselves". The issue is more complex than that especially when an airport egregiously violates an easement agreement it's entered into. I've seen no aviation commenters address this easement or provide any compromises or solutions to the situation. No one in the Superior community approached this problem 5 years ago, when the flights schools moved in pushing flight ops towards doubling, wanting to close the airport, but constantly running into these types of comments and sentiment has pushed the neighbors of BJC to reconsider. Avigation Easements with all limitations violated: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10CxJxw\_fWJyP99b7GKff\_lVE7Opcl3dw/view?usp=sharing

Reply

[-]

mr_eddit@reddit

Thank you for providing the first document to help the broader community understand your concerns. Do you have supporting documents for your claim that all limitations have been violated?

Reply

[-]

Ok_Butterscotch_4743@reddit

Thank you for the considerate response. There are 5 stipulations in the limitations section. I'll concede the first one labelled (a) hasn't been violated as it's merely the designation given by the FAA for a regional airport near a commercial airport, mainly DIA. The rest deal with changes in airport usage (addition of passenger or freight traffic), improvements to runways, and most crucially noise increases. The easiest supporting evidence is the subdivision's legal win, against the airport and it's county owner, vacating the easement because the court found the noise limitations specifically had been exceeded. This lawsuit was appealed twice by the airport/county. Colorado's appeals court upheld the ruling against BJC. The second appeal was before the state's Supreme court which they declined to review. Termination of the easement now opens all legal pathways for the homeowners to pursue lawsuits for property and personal damages caused by the noise nuisance. https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailycamera.com%2F2022%2F05%2F16%2Frock-creek-hoa-files-legal-appeal-about-avigation-easement-ruling%2F As for the runway improvements, in 2014 the airport widened, strengthened the base, and repaved their 12L/30R runway. This improvement was "meant to accommodate larger and heavier planes" violating limitation (c). https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.broomfieldenterprise.com%2F2014%2F04%2F11%2Fbroomfield-airport-to-undergo-runway-construction-through-june%2F Finally, JSX has begun operating at BJC. I know there is a current dispute as to what FAA reg the JSX operation should fall under. It definitely can't be considered private charter flights, and they currently use a loophole to claim it's a charter service that then sells the individual seats online to the public. There is also a large extension planned to the southwest of the airport which, given the duplicitous behavior of airport management in the past, we are concerned about as it creates easier access to a FedEx sorting facility about a 1/2 mile southwest. https://airlinegeeks.com/2022/09/24/jsx-expands-in-colorado/ Also, this airport has not completed a full master plan update since 1998. These are usually expected about every 10 years by the FAA, and especially if an airport is receiving grants and making facility improvements. Conveniently this allows them to avoid updating modelled noise contours which were already nearing the easement limits in 1998 when flight ops were half of what they currently are.

Reply

[-]

FluxCrave@reddit

NIMBYS will NIMBY. Hate to see it

Reply

[-]

ChronicTown11@reddit

They “NIMBY” because you fly over their houses once per minute starting as early as 5 AM.

Reply

[-]

autobahn@reddit

stupid rich karens

Reply

[-]

ChronicTown11@reddit

Sez the guy who flies his own plane. Insert eyeroll, please.

Reply

[-]

DrRichtofen18@reddit

"But my realtor said only a few plane use the airport a day"

Reply

[-]

themitchapalooza@reddit

The navy has a training field in south Alabama that closed for a year for runway resurfacing. In that year they build a million houses around the field and all these realtors told the buyers “see all that construction out there? They’re tearing up the old airfield there. You’ll never see a navy T-6 here again” and those homeowners are NOT happy now that the resurfacing is complete and the planes are back

Reply

[-]

darthcoder@reddit

I loved living underneath the approach lanes at Hanscom AFB. I got to see the last F14 demonstrators doing work around my house the last time they were at an airshow there. A C5 galaxy overflow me waking me up one morning. They had one HELL of a headwind that day because it took forever to fly past my window view. Nothing that big and fat should be able to fly but holy God. When I moved I missed it terribly. Only the really big stuff or fighters taking off under full combat power (only ever happened during the airshows) could wake me up. Mostly just transports and civilian contract airliners during the WoT for the most part. Plus all the civil aviation from that side of the airfield.

Reply

[-]

SparrowFate@reddit

I used to live at the end of Hill AFB's runway. Watching F35s and F22s was fucking sick. Then the occasional A10 and F16. And the occasional formation flight of mixed. I miss living near that base.

Reply

[-]

Brambleshire@reddit

ya which field is this

Reply

[-]

themitchapalooza@reddit

Barin

Reply

[-]

SubSoda1@reddit

Which field was this?

Reply

[-]

themitchapalooza@reddit

Barin

Reply

[-]

aceball522@reddit

If I had to guess it would be Evergreen or Brewton.

Reply

[-]

WiscoJoe@reddit

As someone who lives in the community, it's the pattern flights from the flight school that are the problem, along with the significantly increased overall traffic from the airport. People don't mind the GA planes, it's when they circle the houses all day at lower altitudes it gets annoying. I also think the leaded fuel issue is driving this. A lot of goodwill would be built by a quicker transition away from leaded fuel.

Reply

[-]

bhalter80@reddit

\+100 on the lead thing, I think that the endangerment finding is a good thing because it will force action and enable the airports to start requesting money to fund being "G100UL ready". That way the airports can team up with these guys demanding FAA action rather then being adversaries

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

The problem is none of the studies have proven increased exposure to people outside the airport. Well I understand that "this makes sense," In my world evidence has to back up even claims that "makes sense" because they're not always true! Can you point me to a study showing increased lead levels in people under a flight pattern near an airport? I'm aware of one study in California, but that study was methodologically flawed and failed to show a statistically significant difference. Again, the evidence would say that this study proves nothing.

Reply

[-]

Ok_Butterscotch_4743@reddit

Since you reference the Santa Clara airport study you are aware of it. This was a multi-year study conducted by a researcher out of CSU here in Fort Collins, CO who specializes in lead impact studies. This study is the most comprehensive and conclusive study that has been completed recently so yes, it is the main study pointed to. Where is the information explaining that this was flawed and failed to show statistically significant changes?

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Yeah and I reviewed that study. You can see my post about it yesterday in the comments section. It's trash. Terrible study. Most of the findings did not reach statistical significance, and the "increase" in lead he found downwind and close to the airport was less than 15% of the maximally permissible amount per the CDC. Absolutely nothing in that very biased study to confirm what people want it to say - or are claiming that it says.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

Are they flying at unreasonable hours where people can't sleep in their own homes? If so, why?

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Pin3252@reddit

ATP and McAir are routinely flying as early as 5 AM (and sometimes earlier) when civil daylight starts a lot earlier. My guess is that student pilots and CFIs choose these times because they are before they have to show up for their day jobs. The summer of 2023 was the worst yet, again, driven largely by ATP and McAir.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

I can understand why citizens are going to fix that as it doesn't pass the common sense test.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Yes

Reply

[-]

Broseph-Stalling@reddit

The people I've heard complaining are near BJC. I've got 2 non-aviation friends that have both mentioned it to me this year. Turns out ATP is so booked up, they start flying every morning 1 hour before sunrise. Turns out that Seminoles doing pattern work above your house at 430am all summer pisses people off.

Reply

[-]

G25777K@reddit

I have no idea why ATP are at such a busy airport, surely down south or out by DIA at space port airport would be a better solution.

Reply

[-]

Ok_Butterscotch_4743@reddit

Absolutely u/G25777K .....As a resident next to BJC, I try to point out to anyone I can that, instead of flying circles causing 2/3rds of the overflights, these flight schools should be out east at the spaceport where there are no houses and definitely no subdivisions for at least 1.5miles or more from anywhere around the 2 runways. Also, it has perpendicular runways allowing more flight opportunities in varying wind directions - that should be helpful to the flight schools insistence to cram in nonstop training flights.

Reply

[-]

ThatLooksRight@reddit

When I moved in to my house, I knew there was an airport. The flight school had Diamonds, which are surprisingly quiet, and flew a tight pattern. Since that place went out of business during COVID, ATP has now moved in with loud as all get out 172/152s, and their large patterns take them right over my house. Allllll day….WWAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH No, I’m not lobbying to get the airport closed. But it sure is annoying.

Reply

[-]

Vee-One-Rotate@reddit

Imagine being a pilot and not knowing the difference between a 152 and a 172. Simply brilliant.

Reply

[-]

DontChaseWaterfall5@reddit

Found the ATP CFI….

Reply

[-]

Figit090@reddit

They'll probably post this on snapchat.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

"But we want to make loud noise over people's homes WHENEVER WE WANT. " MUH RIGHTS!

Reply

[-]

ThatLooksRight@reddit

Ok, I guess they only fly 172s? Who gives a crap. They’re loud.

Reply

[-]

Vee-One-Rotate@reddit

172’s are not loud Karen.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

\^I think I can see part of the reason there is a problem in Colorado.\^

Reply

[-]

Vee-One-Rotate@reddit

No kidding

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

It's you. Your refusal to believe that a 172 pounding the pattern can be loud and annoying is the problem.

Reply

[-]

Vee-One-Rotate@reddit

Imagine being a pilot and complaining about airplane nose…at an airport. What a Karen.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

Again, it is pretty obvious we can see part of the reason there is a problem in Colorado. Not the brightest, eh?

Reply

[-]

Infinite5kor@reddit

Compared to a Diamond, they sure as shit are.

Reply

[-]

Vee-One-Rotate@reddit

Imagine being a pilot and complaining about airplane noise. What a Ken.

Reply

[-]

Vee-One-Rotate@reddit

172’s are not loud, you’re just a little bitch.

Reply

[-]

flightmaster13@reddit (OP)

ATP flight school is a thorn in our sides at both APA and BJC. They are causing the vast majority of the problems and the people who complain know ATP flight school by name.

Reply

[-]

vtjohnhurt@reddit

Can the state force ATP to relocate to a less densely populated area?

Reply

[-]

bengenj@reddit

Most schools are governed by federal law. They can lobby the operating authority of the airport to make changes to procedures or get permission to prohibit certain activities during certain times of day

Reply

[-]

zerog_rimjob@reddit

States are still free to regulate their airports in any way they see fit that doesn't violate federal law. I'm sure there's a way to word a law or regulation or procedure that would still allow resident pilots but make it more trouble than its worth for ATP. At that point the problem becomes enforcement.

Reply

[-]

PeakIncentive@reddit

This seems to be changing as federal studies of these topics are increasingly recommending community input on noise. It is becoming harder for state to override common sense adjustments to policy due to noise that causes people to not be able to sleep in their own homes. Local noise ordinances also factor in---an airport can't simply ignore the municipal ordinances. Over time, citizens get policies corrected via state/federal channels. Enforcement is potentially less of an issue as anyone with internet access can look up what specific plane (and owner) is making noise due to pattern work. They can also record a time stamped video and use a phone app with a noise meter. These tools help when policymakers talk to airport leadership who is REQUIRED by federal law to take action on community input.

Reply

[-]

hellswaters@reddit

I can't say about in the states, but I do know some airports will not allow pattern work between specific hours to prevent issues like this.

Reply

[-]

beaninwater@reddit

ATP at BJC has 7 Cessnas and no multis. Compared to the 3 other schools on field who have like 60 Cessnas as well as multis. Getting rid of the smallest school on the field isn’t going to do anything

Reply

[-]

Vee-One-Rotate@reddit

Apparently. Broseph was simply pulling you know what out of his ass.

Reply

[-]

Av8tr1@reddit

>ATP flight school is a thorn in our sides ~~at both APA and BJC~~ to the whole industry. They are causing the vast majority of the problems and the people who complain know ATP flight school by name. Fixed it for you.

Reply

[-]

LeatherConsumer@reddit

At BJC at least, the school that flies the most is definitely McAir and not ATP. ATP definitely flies a lot at BJC but not as much as McAir.

Reply

[-]

Figit090@reddit

I love airplanes, and that would potentially bug me a little.

Reply

[-]

kevininsimi@reddit

I mean yeah that would piss me off too 😂

Reply

[-]

flyingwithfish24@reddit

Fuck just move both the ATP locations to Greeley CO at this point…they can raise all sorts of hell out their and wallow in the cow shit…it’s a perfect ATP location

Reply

[-]

8CYLINDERS117@reddit

That or just do initial take offs and practice touch n goes at an outbase.

Reply

[-]

Top-Treacle2152@reddit

Not an empty quote. Two huge runways and tons of cowshit. I’ve been told the restaurant is great as well.

Reply

[-]

CaptValentine@reddit

"I bought a house for cheap because it's near an airport and nobody wanted to deal with the noise! But now I want a cheap house AND a silent sky! I don't want to get what I paid for, I WANT MORE THAN I PAID FOR! :( :( :( :("

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I just want the airport to follow the contract that they introduced and had us sign. Prior to exceeding that, the flight volume was fine.

Reply

[-]

IAmTheFlyingIrishMan@reddit

What? A public airport has no say in the volume of traffic it experiences. I’m curious about what this contract said.

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

Eh, they could restrict flight schools from using the airport as a home base but yeah, anyone can land and take off.

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

The airport is *not* allowed to define rules for take off and landing (excluding emergencies) in the US?! That’s bonkers. Why are they not allowed to do that, it’s their property…

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

Public airports can't define the rules, but they can offer services in a limited capacity. Private strips can do whatever they want, it's their land. But for a public strip the government has an interest in maintaining as much airport infrastructure as possible and that means your strip is open unless precluded by some temporary hazardous condition like maintenance work. Now a public airport can say "we don't like night flights so we don't have lights for night landings, etc" but if they want public money the strip of pavement is still open.

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

>But for a public strip the government has an interest in maintaining as much airport infrastructure as possible and that means your strip is open unless I’d argue that’s very much not the case. The government has an interest to balance the interests of its citizens. Noise pollution is a serious issue for people’s health and compromises ought to be made. Giving basically a free pass to be as loud as often as you want is just nuts and I don’t feel „We definitely need thousands of airports available at all times“ is a good enough argument to warrant that.

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

Well you can argue that all you want but the regulations set out by the federal government disagree

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

So what? I’m saying your regulations are nuts. But what else did I expect of the land of the fReE.

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

Oh yeah I don't disagree, but that's more a theoretical discussion than this thread was focused on which was more practical

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

This is a simple question that a Google search could solve for you.

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

It absolutely has. It can define opening hours or restrictions for pattern work.

Reply

[-]

sparky256@reddit

Isn’t that a bit of a problem? Don’t live in USA so no skin in the game, but if the options are no rules or no airport, you hardly have your be a full on karen to push for the second option

Reply

[-]

IAmTheFlyingIrishMan@reddit

Well, not restricting traffic and no rules are two very different things. The rules regulating air traffic in the US is a few hundred pages long.

Reply

[-]

Iwantmoretime@reddit

Lol. Cheap house in Colorado.

Reply

[-]

eschmi@reddit

I'll be there. I fly out of KAPA and these stupid nimbys constantly complain because they built their houses and golfcourse at the end of a 10,000ft runway and are surprised planes use it. They can all eat shit.

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

If you bought a house somewhere where Company X was engaging in Behavior A and afterwards a ton of studies showed that Behavior A causes brain damage especially in children, would you want Company X to cease Behavior A?

Reply

[-]

eschmi@reddit

Leaded gas was used in cars until 1996... and a lot of airports are already switching to unleaded. KBJC is already working on switching to unleaded as is KAPA. Their main complaint is the noise because... you guessed it... THEY MOVED NEXT TO AN AIRPORT

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

The airport violated an agreement to not exceed certain noise levels. The volume was fine prior to this. It’s an open and shut conversation.

Reply

[-]

eschmi@reddit

Thats not how airports work.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

It’s how this one works. The contract we signed is clear and has the airport’s signature on it.

Reply

[-]

Adventurous-Cap-3671@reddit

Hey I’m just curious, do you have a copy of this contract? I’d love to see it to see how we could help accommodate it. Thanks!

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

I’ll have to dive into my closing docs. Give me a bit and I’ll get back to you.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Almost a day later, still waiting for this. I've never seen or heard anything like this as part of closing documents. So I really like to see it.

Reply

[-]

eschmi@reddit

I think they're likely referring to noise abatements... which to my knowledge KBJC doesnt have... that was KBDU.

Reply

[-]

Adventurous-Cap-3671@reddit

I appreciate it!

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

I'm curious how you expect the airport to do this.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

The airport said they would fly X amount. We agreed. They’re currently flying Y amount. We’d like them to return to X amount. It’s pretty easy to comprehend.

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

The airport doesn't fly X amount. The airport is a big piece of pavement where people fly into. You need to control what the people flying into and out of the airport are doing, not what the airport is doing. How do you propose doing that?

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

So what I’m hearing is that people who live next to an airport deserve to be poisoned by lead. Got it.

Reply

[-]

eschmi@reddit

No, hence why the airports are being switched over to unleaded. But they knew exactly what they were getting into when they moved there. Its not like people didn't know leaded gas isnt great. Theres a reason we stopped using it in cars on 1996. Shutting down an airport because you're an idiot isnt the answer.

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

Another straw man argument. No one is saying we should shut down the airports or that there should never be noise around an airport. But lead is poison and no one should be exposed to it. That’s totally reasonable. The EPA just released another report about how toxic it is.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

So tell me what you know about studies showing increased exposure to lead for people around airports? Let me clue you in, the California studies did not show a statistically significant increase. They were also extremely poorly done studies, but they couldn't even prove that people on the arrival path had higher levels of lead than other random samples not in the area of an airport. So this whole argument is stupid.

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

You guys are defending poisoning babies. It’s a bad look.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Yep, that is how an idiot would choose to interpret my statements. Or someone with an agenda looking for dad to back that up.

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

Per Forbes: A recent study that was conducted in California found that children who live in close proximity to an airport have at least 21% higher lead levels in their blood. Published in the journal PNAS Nexus, researchers emphasized that in the United States, aviation gasoline is the main source of lead emissions.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Why don't you go ahead and pull that study? The difference was not statistically significant. Meaning that the observed difference could have been there by random chance. You need to take a biostatistics course.

Reply

[-]

Dapper_Message9828@reddit

I’m not a statistician but every single Story on this says the difference was extremely statistically significant, which makes sense considering you guys are springing lead emissions over our houses all day. https://qz.com/2158594/do-you-live-near-enough-to-a-small-airport-to-have-lead-exposure

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Why don't you go to the primary literature instead of reading someone's interpretation of said literature? I just did. This is a statistics laden study. And in fact, as I stated, many of their statistical studies did not reach significance. That is, less than a 5% chance of random error. Which is the acceptable level of error in any medical study. Furthermore, there are confounding factors that are not accounted for. They cite one example as proximity to San Jose speedway, which was an area highly contaminated by leaded fuel and also downwind of the airport. There's no mention of any analysis as to the age of housing any trespective area, would certainly could lead to increased levels of lead if the housing stock downwind were older for instance. There's no mention of potential confounding based on the underground pipes. Are any of those leaded? Moteover -the highest levels observed were all substantially below all medical thresholds of 4.5 ug/dl. In fact the purported increase they suggest is attributable to the airport represents less than 15% of this level. Finally, the study was funded by the county. The same county that is trying to close the airport. So yeah, I think we can safely conclude this study has a lot of issues and biases.

Reply

[-]

Jorfogit@reddit

Seems clear from your posts that you already have been.

Reply

[-]

blacksheepcannibal@reddit

Could you share a few of these studies - since there are a ton - that directly link living near a GA airport with higher rates of brain damage in children?

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

That's the thing, they don't exist. There was a study done in California, I forget which airport. It was very poorly done from a methodologic standpoint. It also failed to show a statistically significant difference. Which basically means that any difference they observed in the study could not be "proven" to be anything more than random variation or random chance. So in cases like that you have to accept the null hypothesis, which would state that there is no difference between people living under the approach path and any other random sample of people.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

These kind of comments make excellent fuel for our lawyers. Thanks! 😉

Reply

[-]

eschmi@reddit

Yeah because a random reddit post from some rando can be used by any lawyer to any effect legally. Goodluck.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Correct. But, it does builds a great character profile for the kind of people we are dealing with. They love it when it’s self served on a silver platter.

Reply

[-]

eschmi@reddit

If you could prove anything said is true. Cant prove its not just some idiot online claiming to be here when i may not be.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Screenshots are pretty cut and dry, and we have loads of them.

Reply

[-]

eschmi@reddit

goodluck :)

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Thanks!

Reply

[-]

Zealousideal_Key_771@reddit

Damn you’re stupid. You realize pilots need to train right?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

Of course. Have at it. But within the limits that the airport introduced and we signed on to.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Agreed, what was this thing that was signed? Can you post a copy?

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

1995. I will when I find it. It hasn’t been my highest priority over the weekend.

Reply

[-]

Zealousideal_Key_771@reddit

All you guys need to do is push for no pattern work after 10pm and before 6am. I know for a fact that most of the flight schools are already adhering to that. But you are not going to win much more than that

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

This is already in effect. It is not followed.

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

You mentioned this thing that was signed a few times, what is it?

Reply

[-]

Schmittfried@reddit

It doesn’t. If any judge accepts that, that’s even more proof your legal system is broken beyond repair.

Reply

[-]

Psychedelick@reddit

Ooh, are they still accepting screenshots? I could go grab some from my local social media of neighborhood NIMBYs wishing all sorts of bodily harm upon student pilots. Would that help build your character profile?

Reply

[-]

CaregiverAlive4756@reddit

Sorry, but the airport allowed those houses to be built and agreed to conditions of use, which are not being followed. That's the issue. So you an eat shit I guess. Lawsuits inbound.

Reply

[-]

Ibgarrett2@reddit

Better check that. There’s a record of the FAA telling Superior to not build homes there. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ClubExpressClubFiles/612720/documents/SuperiorNewspaperArticle_2089661441.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIA6MYUE6DNNNCCDT4J&Expires=1697935811&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DSuperiorNewspaperArticle.pdf&Signature=k98lfaSF7dFKhqbX560Qj%2Bmov3k%3D

Reply

[-]

Mshugge303@reddit

Better check that. Skyestone does not have this.

Reply

[-]

Ibgarrett2@reddit

Excellent. So you live in a different community. Do you have a source for where the airport said it was ok to build there?

Reply

[-]

Mshugge303@reddit

Replying back to your false claim that the homeowners were notified in their settlement docs. False. Don’t mind the planes flying overhead. We do mind the a$$holes that do 30 patterns. At 11 pm. Flying too low.

Reply

[-]

Ibgarrett2@reddit

So you don’t have any documents showing the airport allowed the homes to be built there? I’m genuinely interested if that’s the case and I’d love to see them. I’m just genuinely interested in what was agreed to.

Reply

[-]

Mshugge303@reddit

Zippo. Nada. Nothing in settlement documents at closing.

Reply

[-]

Ibgarrett2@reddit

Nice. You deleted your original comment saying the airport gave permission to build the community there when challenged for the source documents.

Reply

[-]

Mshugge303@reddit

I never deleted any comment of the such. Moronic reply with zero basis.

Reply

[-]

Ibgarrett2@reddit

It’s literally in the top of the thread.

Reply

[-]

Mshugge303@reddit

It’s not a statement I said. It’s a claim by the Reddit person. Without checking to see if it is a valid claim.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

I'm so confused. You're pretty clearly deleted your post. What are you hiding?

Reply

[-]

novaft2@reddit

What lol

Reply

[-]

TrineonX@reddit

Ugh. Everyone hates GA airports that they built their house under until a firefighting tanker needs to fight fires out of BJC to keep that house from burning down. Seriously, when there are front range fires, BJC is where the jets are flying from in my experience. I've never flown Centennial, but my recollection from BJC (confirmed by satellite), is that any flying above houses happens at pattern altitude or higher.

Reply

[-]

12kVStr8tothenips@reddit

I flew out of these extensively during training and both are crucial to have in the metro area including the firefighting that happens out of BJC is literally life saving. Most complaining is from people not liking traffic pattern work outside normal hours which I understand. I like the noise of a plane but not everyone does. I’d be okay with noise ordinance procedures for early morning hours. That way you could still get night training and currency. But we can’t just get rid of them or only operate during daylight hours.

Reply

[-]

caseymac@reddit

They have voluntary noise abatement procedures now. It is not followed.

Reply

[-]

Big_Yeti_21@reddit

How are they not followed?

Reply

[-]

12kVStr8tothenips@reddit

That’s atp for ya…”does it make us money?….then just do it even if it breaks rules”. The fines need to get increased so it’s not worth it to break them anymore.

Reply

[-]

elixyXD@reddit

I live by KBDU, boulder airport which is just north of the Denver metro area, and there’s some idiots who want to get that airport shut down due to noise. I understand that it can get annoying, but first of all, it’s cheap ass housing, as second of all, we’ve been very considerate, putting up protocols such as no touch and goes passed 5:00pm. Still annoying tho…

Reply

[-]

CaregiverAlive4756@reddit

Good. What isn't mentioned here is the legal contracts these airports signed with these communities and their disregard for these contracts. Planes are in constant violation. Shut them down.

Reply

[-]

nyc2pit@reddit

Can you post the contract?

Reply

[-]

Mobilisq@reddit

The corporate interests at BJC alone will likely ensure this is nothing but shouting into the void

Reply

[-]

GoatseFarmer@reddit

Right by my old house and old airport. Shame. I grew up there. The sounds made me love flying.

Reply

[-]

Stationair91@reddit

Did you move in and purchase a home near a preexisting airport, you might be entitled to meet with a group of other complainers and protest the situation you created.

Reply

[-]

shrtsqzz@reddit

If it keeps an airport open, I’m all for no pattern work before 7 or even 8am. This is wildly unpopular, and yes, I learned to land early in the morning, but I’d really like to see flight schools and airports stay open.

Reply

[-]

xMantisx@reddit

I live 0.5mi from an airport with 3 different flight schools, one being ATP with a fair bit of jet traffic as well with it being an international airport. I can hear run ups, take-offs, landings, and I'm positioned on the downwind leg so there is also overhead flights quite often. I can also see the beacon rotating across my bedroom window at night. The sound isn't unbearably loud or jarring and quickly becomes "background noise" after living around it for a while. Maybe I'm a bit biased having lived less than 300ft from an elevated interstate for a few years as well as being into aviation and working towards my PPL.

Reply

[-]

Anakin-groundrunner@reddit

I live right under downwind of our local GA airport, has always at least one CFI there, sometimes two. Obviously a much smaller number of training flights than what OP is talking about, but on days they are hitting the pattern work hard, it's not really all that loud since they are pattern altitude. I feel bad for my sister who lives in the apartment complex that is right off the runway. You either got planes going full power on the climb out or planes idling past you.

Reply

[-]

guynamedjames@reddit

Honestly even as a pilot I'd find that location maddening but I'm also not someone who would move to a place like that.

Reply

[-]

wt1j@reddit

Possible outcomes? New noise abatement procedures? What specifically?

Reply

[-]

ic434@reddit

I'm just waiting until they come after my airport. I've been watching them build these town homes less than half a mile from the end of the runway. Feels like not even 200ft AGL when I pass over. Guess I can try and be a good neighbor and keep an eye on their roofing shingles. Seriously though, we have had several planes crash right in that area, it isn't safe someone is going to end up with an airplane in their attic. .

Reply

[-]

SecretPersonality178@reddit

While I have my own opinion on ATP, it’s just amazes me that people complain about aircraft noise when moving next to an airport. Like people living on golf courses complaining about getting hit by balls all the time.

Reply

[-]

Badsubstance@reddit

Tell these boomers to take their hearing aids out

Reply

[-]

dfelton912@reddit

Mfw I move to a house right across the street from an airport and all the sudden airplanes fly by my house

Reply

[-]

AcademicAd9716@reddit

“Impacted”🤣 By what, people having fun or putting food on the table for their families?

Reply

[-]

Electronic_Raptor@reddit

Isn’t this the kind of thing AOPA is for? Seems like a good opportunity for them to get involved.

Reply

[-]

3deltafox@reddit

When and where are the hearings for when land a mile off the departure end of a runway of the next airport gets rezoned to residential?

Reply

[-]

CaptValentine@reddit

"I bought a house for cheap because it's near an airport and nobody wanted to deal with the noise! But now I want a cheap house AND a silent sky! I don't want to get what I paid for, I WANT MORE THAN I PAID FOR! :( :( :( :("

Reply

[-]

RittySmoke@reddit

By the time they ever get any ground work done you’ll be retired. Shit takes decades. Who gives af

Reply

[-]

jackpot909@reddit

Well midway airport in chicago certainly did not take decades...

Reply