noise reduction take-off

[SuperchargedRS]

If you operate outside the Limitations or the procedures in the POH, you are illegal. If you have an accident or incident, your insurance will not cover you. If your boss asks you to operate a way that contradicts the manuals, get it in writing. Ass License Job.

Agreed about following the POH, and as stated, I find no good reason to operate at less than full takeoff power.

But let's not blow smoke.

It's not what you know it's what you can prove, and shy of a pilot making a statement that he wasn't following the POH, or someone getting a video of the throttle and prop on takeoff, the insurance and TC doesn't have jack and will never, ever, be able to prove otherwise.

Now if folks in the industry suspect you did some knuckle head thing like not use full power, though you'll escape issues from insurance and TC, good luck landing another job.

[Shiny Side Up]

Let's make ourselves the least offensive as the public perceives us, okay?

From my experience, I just don't bother anymore. For the most part the general public, those ambivalent to our activity and those against our activity as aviators, don't notice our efforts to play nice. I brought this up, in addition to a list of other factors that the local aviation community had taken upon themselves to help ease the footprint of our activity, and no one noticed or were even aware of the action. To most, one airplane is too much, and while a two-bladed climb prop barking attracts aviators with its noise, the layman doesn't distinguish said climb prop anymore than the others. We won't make these people happy as long a we can't reduce our footprint to none. And I spent years worrying about, tweaking my prop, doing run ups pointed the least offensive way, holding off on starting up during the morning when we could, you name it and it sure as hell didn't change anyone's opinion. The minuscule amount of reduction we're talking about isn't going to move anyone from the "against airplanes" camp to the "don't care" camp. Such things are noticed only by other aviators in the know. Except I won't complain if I hear those square tips barking for a few extra moments, I can appreciate the beauty of brute force applied in such a manner.

In short, let 'er rip.

[PilotDAR]

if that bothers anyone they are free to call a realtor, rent a moving van and find a house that's not next to a airport.

In short, let 'er rip.

Troubling.

At the aerodrome I used to keep my modest 150, we were tolerated - just. And then I carelessly went and flew a bunch of circuits in a 185, with no regard for the noise emitted by the seaplane prop. That was it, the beginning of the end. The neighbours I had known for twenty years living in that community lined up against us. We closed the aerodrome, and I moved, against threats of government action and vandalism against the planes. I bough my own property for a runway, and went to every effort to appease the community with the planes, including lots of public service with them. Never a problem.

We can stand with our commercial brethren, and snark back at the YYZ NIMBYs, because those NIMBYs need YYZ as badly as we do (really more so, I've not landed there myself for 25 years now). The commercial operations have to co exist, because the NIMBYs want to fly to the sunny south, or 'over 'ome just as we do. But the NIMBYs see GA as having zero importance to them, and indeed just a bunch of rich people wasting gas and annoying the environment - zero benefit or interest to them.

If we small number of fliers are actually perceived as thumbing our collective noses at society, we will lose! Twenty years ago we lost, as CAR 516 was introduced, and design compliance for noise compliance became required - about the first time there was a requirement to be demonstrated which was not safety related. Now, if you want me to approve a propeller change to your GA plane, you have a huge bill ahead for the noise compliance - I've flown the testing.

Hopefully, we GA pilots are a part of society, not outcasts. If we cast ourselves out, and are no longer tolerated, we have no one to blame but ourselves. I'll keep flying from my runway, will others still have convenient airports and lakes for their leisure flights?

[Shiny Side Up]

At the aerodrome I used to keep my modest 150, we were tolerated - just. And then I carelessly went and flew a bunch of circuits in a 185, with no regard for the noise emitted by the seaplane prop. That was it, the beginning of the end. The neighbours I had known for twenty years living in that community lined up against us.

PilotDAR, I know where you're coming from, and to be honest I'd tell the story of the exact opposite outcome. The thing I hate to tell you was all those neighbors were probably already lined up against you, the extra noisy prop just gave them a bit more ammo. In our case we had constantly done things to be the good neighbor. In the end no one cared enough to come to our defense when the developers started making their push, but rather the flying could just keep giving ground. Until it was untenable, which in hindsight we should have seen much earlier. The problem I feel is that there are way more interested parties in closing aerodromes in this country than there are keeping them open, so until there is any political will to ensure that aviation is something that matters and has an equal say, if you give any ground they will continue to push. Like it or not, we all have a fight on our hands, it has gone beyond the point of asking and pleading for our survival, but rather its time to fight for it.

Noise at any small aerodrome is a red herring issue that is used to get traction for eventual closure and reduction of aerodrome use to zero. GA airplane make less noise in this country than any other noise source: construction, rail, motor vehicle, you name it, yet constantly comes up as a scapegoat when in reality there are interested parties with eyes on property values. I spoke with a public relations guys who works for CPR, his stance was enlightening on the topic, and something those of us who wish to preserve our interests in flying should note.

Sorry, I just ain't giving in to guys who aren't really coming to the table in the honest spirit of compromise on this issue anymore. There's always money and profit motives behind these things, don't kid yourself otherwise. Follow the money trail and you find the loudest barkers when it comes to "noise".

[SuperchargedRS]

We hand someone try that game here in the US, judge told them to kick rocks.


I just have zero regard for these nit wits, you don't hear about a train track being uprooted and moved because some Prius driving, soft shoe intellectual couldn't stand the "noise pollution".

[JeppsOnFire]

How about the other end of this - landing. I live fairly close to the airport because I prefer a short drive to work and I think I'm aware of the noise risk inherent in my home's location. However, I frequently see airplanes, in clear weather, fully configured for landing (read: thrust levers standing way up) before they have intercepted the glidepath. Why would anyone fly that way? The approach controllers level most of these airplanes approx. 3500' AGL so it's not that SOP issue about configured below 1000'. There is a 160 KIAS speed restriction crossing the beacon inbound but that's it.
I fly a swept wing jet so I'm not convinced it's needed as a brake to meet the crossing restriction. I even see B1900's and Kingairs doing this regularly (which can go from 200KIAS TO 130KIAS in about 2 miles with idle power and flap and gear extension) So at 11pm at night, nobody thinks that keeping it cleaner for longer (idle thrust) is a good idea? Are we that handcuffed by procedure these days that common sense is overruled by the potential dangers of actually flying the damn airplane?
Not like I'm going to call the airport authority and complain, obviously, but I do watch those guys and wonder.

[co-joe]

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 5&t=104407

Parallel discussion. OP perhaps your friend has the 2 bladed 88?

[Shiny Side Up]

Prius driving, soft shoe intellectual couldn't stand the "noise pollution".

Actually, those are just the manipulated twits. Guys who got nothing better to do with their time then to show up at every town council meeting, write endless letters to the editor, come up with every reason that noise makes their children retarded and deafens their pets. Pure BS, but the sheeple eat that stuff up. Just like the rest of the usual excuses to curtail aviation: Safety concerns, environmental concerns, economic concerns, or anything else. There was one motivated twit who was trying to prove that the airport was behind an excess amount of geese shitting in public parks. I kid you not.

The real concern is these guys are giving land developers traction to get hold of desirable land, either for its relative cheapness (anyone wonder why there's a lot of houses in Fort Mac being built under the approach path to the runway?) or desirability of location. Show me action to close an aerodrome and I'll show you some land developers who profited from the transaction.

In my mind anymore what needs to be done is vigorous defense. That means confrontation to make sure the bitchers and moaners know that we collectively are prepared to fight and deny the true interests in anti-aviation sentiment movement on that field.

[co-joe]

[Edo]

While most of the discussion has centred on reducing the prop RPM. A few posters have referenced reduced power takeoff even suggesting lowering Mp on takeoff.

On your typical injected piston engine engine (maybe carb too) most of the least portion of throttle is more fuel for cooling. In my mind if you start reducing Mp for noise you run the risk of robbing the engine of that extra cooling.

Turbofans are different AND the manufacturer has a procedure for it. I have never seeN TCM or lycoming publish data for reduced power takeoff. I think TCM everN has an SB prohibiting it

DAR - I'm sure you are aware this when you talk about 19 inch seaplane departures. I've done them too but always from a touch and go so I have 20 ish its of ram cooling and always with a careful watch on CHT.

[ruddersup?]

Almost forty years of flying 185's with reduced power. There I said it. What's the big deal? You're the pilot, you manage your engine how you want. I would, almost always, use reduced power if I was coming off a land airport or if I was on floats coming out of a lake with cottages. Of course if I was loaded to the gills then balls to the wall. Now reducing power is not reducing manifold pressure. I would twist the prop control, depending on the aircraft (usually 5 minor twists of the wrist) so rpm is not below 2650 but I did not touch the throttle. The throttle would come back once I was well clear of obvious discomfort for those on the ground and I was content with the climb performance and acceleration. You can talk all you want about fuel scheduling and the experts might argue with the theory that it is harmful but I've been through many thousands of hours with no ill effects. By the way all 185's have been my own operated commercially. I would agree that it is not a good practice for turbo charged engines because I think fuel scheduling is more critical plus overboosting is probable. Most 185's are not turbocharged.
I constantly hear 185's climbing out in full fine or cruising overhead at much too high an rpm. I shake my head.

[SuperchargedRS]

Prius driving, soft shoe intellectual couldn't stand the "noise pollution".

Actually, those are just the manipulated twits. Guys who got nothing better to do with their time then to show up at every town council meeting, write endless letters to the editor, come up with every reason that noise makes their children retarded and deafens their pets. Pure BS, but the sheeple eat that stuff up. Just like the rest of the usual excuses to curtail aviation: Safety concerns, environmental concerns, economic concerns, or anything else. There was one motivated twit who was trying to prove that the airport was behind an excess amount of geese shitting in public parks. I kid you not.

The real concern is these guys are giving land developers traction to get hold of desirable land, either for its relative cheapness (anyone wonder why there's a lot of houses in Fort Mac being built under the approach path to the runway?) or desirability of location. Show me action to close an aerodrome and I'll show you some land developers who profited from the transaction.

In my mind anymore what needs to be done is vigorous defense. That means confrontation to make sure the bitchers and moaners know that we collectively are prepared to fight and deny the true interests in anti-aviation sentiment movement on that field.

It should be automatic, when the whining nit wits loose, automatic judgement against them for the costs of the airports legal defenses, also be great if the news would run those stories.

"Tonight at 6, local busy bodies forced to pay legal bills after frivolous and laughable lawsuit against airport".