Impact of Palomar Airport Expansion – Carlsbad

[Coronita]

[quote=jiggy]
For you to assume that I would put my children in danger is ludicrous. The problems with the planes flying over our neighborhood really just got bad within the last two years. Before that it did not bother us. Believe me, if I could afford to move I would. I downsized to buy this home–now it would still cost twice what I paid for it to buy it and anything else is more expensive.
[/quote]

I don’t think that there was an initial assumption questioning you intentionally put your children in harms way initially.

But if you think it is a such a huge safety issue right now, why don’t you move?

You said it yourself, you could probably sell the home for twice as much as what you what you paid for. Assuming you didn’t heloc the heck out of your home. Why not sell it and rent, cash in the profit, and temporarily rent somewhere where it is safer if your family’s safety is really at risk?

Seems like a no brainer then to stay and take any chances on getting issues resolved that may take years…

[Coronita]

[quote=jiggy]
For you to assume that I would put my children in danger is ludicrous. The problems with the planes flying over our neighborhood really just got bad within the last two years. Before that it did not bother us. Believe me, if I could afford to move I would. I downsized to buy this home–now it would still cost twice what I paid for it to buy it and anything else is more expensive.
[/quote]

I don’t think that there was an initial assumption questioning you intentionally put your children in harms way initially.

But if you think it is a such a huge safety issue right now, why don’t you move?

You said it yourself, you could probably sell the home for twice as much as what you what you paid for. Assuming you didn’t heloc the heck out of your home. Why not sell it and rent, cash in the profit, and temporarily rent somewhere where it is safer if your family’s safety is really at risk?

Seems like a no brainer then to stay and take any chances on getting issues resolved that may take years…

[Coronita]

[quote=jiggy]
For you to assume that I would put my children in danger is ludicrous. The problems with the planes flying over our neighborhood really just got bad within the last two years. Before that it did not bother us. Believe me, if I could afford to move I would. I downsized to buy this home–now it would still cost twice what I paid for it to buy it and anything else is more expensive.
[/quote]

I don’t think that there was an initial assumption questioning you intentionally put your children in harms way initially.

But if you think it is a such a huge safety issue right now, why don’t you move?

You said it yourself, you could probably sell the home for twice as much as what you what you paid for. Assuming you didn’t heloc the heck out of your home. Why not sell it and rent, cash in the profit, and temporarily rent somewhere where it is safer if your family’s safety is really at risk?

Seems like a no brainer then to stay and take any chances on getting issues resolved that may take years…

[Deserted]

Let me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.

I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.

After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.

As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.

So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.

Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.

I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).

Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.

So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.

[Deserted]

Let me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.

I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.

After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.

As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.

So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.

Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.

I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).

Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.

So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.

[Deserted]

Let me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.

I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.

After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.

As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.

So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.

Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.

I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).

Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.

So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.

[Deserted]

Let me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.

I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.

After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.

As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.

So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.

Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.

I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).

Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.

So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.

[Deserted]

Let me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.

I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.

After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.

As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.

So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.

Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.

I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).

Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.

So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.

[Anonymous]

Contarian, your arguments are valid and you stated your points well. I thank you for your thoughts on the accident statistics and the quiet hours. Assuming you are correct that the tower being closed has no connection with accidents, I will agree with you that mandating the quiet hours is more of a noise issue. Personally I do not like being awakened in the middle of the night to jet engines, but this is secondary to the safety issues at hand.

The most important issue here is to avoid tragedy. Whatever the reasons for allowing builders to build homes or for allowing the airport to take on more traffic, there is nothing we can do about that now. Like GG said, we all have to work together so that planes do not crash into homes.

I am not an official who granted building permits near the airport, nor did I purchase a home in the flight path. We felt we were far enough away to not encounter problems. One person insinuated that I do not take my childrens’ safety to heart because I am not moving: this is unfair and unfortunately not a black and white issue–that person does not know me, my financial status, nor the reasons why moving is not an option at this time.

I hope that everyone can work together to promote safety. That is all I am asking, as are others involved in these issues. Thank you all for understanding.

[Anonymous]

Contarian, your arguments are valid and you stated your points well. I thank you for your thoughts on the accident statistics and the quiet hours. Assuming you are correct that the tower being closed has no connection with accidents, I will agree with you that mandating the quiet hours is more of a noise issue. Personally I do not like being awakened in the middle of the night to jet engines, but this is secondary to the safety issues at hand.

The most important issue here is to avoid tragedy. Whatever the reasons for allowing builders to build homes or for allowing the airport to take on more traffic, there is nothing we can do about that now. Like GG said, we all have to work together so that planes do not crash into homes.

I am not an official who granted building permits near the airport, nor did I purchase a home in the flight path. We felt we were far enough away to not encounter problems. One person insinuated that I do not take my childrens’ safety to heart because I am not moving: this is unfair and unfortunately not a black and white issue–that person does not know me, my financial status, nor the reasons why moving is not an option at this time.

I hope that everyone can work together to promote safety. That is all I am asking, as are others involved in these issues. Thank you all for understanding.

[Anonymous]

Contarian, your arguments are valid and you stated your points well. I thank you for your thoughts on the accident statistics and the quiet hours. Assuming you are correct that the tower being closed has no connection with accidents, I will agree with you that mandating the quiet hours is more of a noise issue. Personally I do not like being awakened in the middle of the night to jet engines, but this is secondary to the safety issues at hand.

The most important issue here is to avoid tragedy. Whatever the reasons for allowing builders to build homes or for allowing the airport to take on more traffic, there is nothing we can do about that now. Like GG said, we all have to work together so that planes do not crash into homes.

I am not an official who granted building permits near the airport, nor did I purchase a home in the flight path. We felt we were far enough away to not encounter problems. One person insinuated that I do not take my childrens’ safety to heart because I am not moving: this is unfair and unfortunately not a black and white issue–that person does not know me, my financial status, nor the reasons why moving is not an option at this time.

I hope that everyone can work together to promote safety. That is all I am asking, as are others involved in these issues. Thank you all for understanding.

[Anonymous]

Contarian, your arguments are valid and you stated your points well. I thank you for your thoughts on the accident statistics and the quiet hours. Assuming you are correct that the tower being closed has no connection with accidents, I will agree with you that mandating the quiet hours is more of a noise issue. Personally I do not like being awakened in the middle of the night to jet engines, but this is secondary to the safety issues at hand.

The most important issue here is to avoid tragedy. Whatever the reasons for allowing builders to build homes or for allowing the airport to take on more traffic, there is nothing we can do about that now. Like GG said, we all have to work together so that planes do not crash into homes.

I am not an official who granted building permits near the airport, nor did I purchase a home in the flight path. We felt we were far enough away to not encounter problems. One person insinuated that I do not take my childrens’ safety to heart because I am not moving: this is unfair and unfortunately not a black and white issue–that person does not know me, my financial status, nor the reasons why moving is not an option at this time.

I hope that everyone can work together to promote safety. That is all I am asking, as are others involved in these issues. Thank you all for understanding.

[Anonymous]

Contarian, your arguments are valid and you stated your points well. I thank you for your thoughts on the accident statistics and the quiet hours. Assuming you are correct that the tower being closed has no connection with accidents, I will agree with you that mandating the quiet hours is more of a noise issue. Personally I do not like being awakened in the middle of the night to jet engines, but this is secondary to the safety issues at hand.

The most important issue here is to avoid tragedy. Whatever the reasons for allowing builders to build homes or for allowing the airport to take on more traffic, there is nothing we can do about that now. Like GG said, we all have to work together so that planes do not crash into homes.

I am not an official who granted building permits near the airport, nor did I purchase a home in the flight path. We felt we were far enough away to not encounter problems. One person insinuated that I do not take my childrens’ safety to heart because I am not moving: this is unfair and unfortunately not a black and white issue–that person does not know me, my financial status, nor the reasons why moving is not an option at this time.

I hope that everyone can work together to promote safety. That is all I am asking, as are others involved in these issues. Thank you all for understanding.

[Deserted]

Thanks jiggy. (I’m afraid to ask how you got that name.)

I almost feel honored to be part of a blog where people can post without the personal attacks or mindless opinions that one sees on most other websites.

The issues of airport noise and airport safety are here and they’re not going away. They will become more important over time. They are not restricted to San Diego County. There have been contentious battles from Santa Monica to Teterboro.

To fully illustrate the stupidity of regulation consider Montgomery Field. Montgomery Field has a noise abatement ordinance with fairly stiff penalties for late night operations. This ordinance was, as I understand it, developed to placate homeowners who foolishly bought homes in the early 1960’s built right under the departure path.

Forget that Montgomery had been a busy airport since at least the 1940’s. Forget that the San Diego City zoning department was warned to never allow housing in that area. (You must purposely forget a lot if you want to discuss development around airports!)

The noise regulations do NOTHING to mitigate the danger of aircraft operations at Montgomery other than to push operations from late night to daytime or evening-time. They are there to placate the homeowners who knowingly purchased homes under a noisy (and dangerous) departure path. In many people’s opinion, homes that should never have been approved for construction.

About 15 years ago, construction of the mall across the west side of 163 was allowed — again against the advice of most everyone associated with Montgomery. But the developers won. Go figure.

The only bright spot was the recent mandatory removal of the illegal upper two stories from the development just north of Montgomery. I was truly amazed that the City had the cajones to force the issue. Of course, the multistory building itself still poses some hazard, but developers have to wring maximal profit out of the land and ignore “acceptable” danger — don’t they?

I make the sad prediction that an aircraft will have engine failure after take-off from the main runway at Montgomery and crash into the mall. Not if, only when. You know that In and Out Burger? It’s directly in line with the main runway departure path. One day the drive-in window will be a fly-in window.

Montgomery has been made an inherently unsafe airport by allowing this adjacent development. Useless “noise abatement” programs only give the illusion of safety. Montgomery perfectly illustrates how the public’s perception of safety is completely divorced from actual safety.

Don’t even get me started on Lindbergh.

Why am I posting? I don’t even know. Venting I guess. Mainly against the psychotic zoning approval in San Diego County which knowingly allows the design and construction of unsafe development.

[Deserted]

Thanks jiggy. (I’m afraid to ask how you got that name.)

I almost feel honored to be part of a blog where people can post without the personal attacks or mindless opinions that one sees on most other websites.

The issues of airport noise and airport safety are here and they’re not going away. They will become more important over time. They are not restricted to San Diego County. There have been contentious battles from Santa Monica to Teterboro.

To fully illustrate the stupidity of regulation consider Montgomery Field. Montgomery Field has a noise abatement ordinance with fairly stiff penalties for late night operations. This ordinance was, as I understand it, developed to placate homeowners who foolishly bought homes in the early 1960’s built right under the departure path.

Forget that Montgomery had been a busy airport since at least the 1940’s. Forget that the San Diego City zoning department was warned to never allow housing in that area. (You must purposely forget a lot if you want to discuss development around airports!)

The noise regulations do NOTHING to mitigate the danger of aircraft operations at Montgomery other than to push operations from late night to daytime or evening-time. They are there to placate the homeowners who knowingly purchased homes under a noisy (and dangerous) departure path. In many people’s opinion, homes that should never have been approved for construction.

About 15 years ago, construction of the mall across the west side of 163 was allowed — again against the advice of most everyone associated with Montgomery. But the developers won. Go figure.

The only bright spot was the recent mandatory removal of the illegal upper two stories from the development just north of Montgomery. I was truly amazed that the City had the cajones to force the issue. Of course, the multistory building itself still poses some hazard, but developers have to wring maximal profit out of the land and ignore “acceptable” danger — don’t they?

I make the sad prediction that an aircraft will have engine failure after take-off from the main runway at Montgomery and crash into the mall. Not if, only when. You know that In and Out Burger? It’s directly in line with the main runway departure path. One day the drive-in window will be a fly-in window.

Montgomery has been made an inherently unsafe airport by allowing this adjacent development. Useless “noise abatement” programs only give the illusion of safety. Montgomery perfectly illustrates how the public’s perception of safety is completely divorced from actual safety.

Don’t even get me started on Lindbergh.

Why am I posting? I don’t even know. Venting I guess. Mainly against the psychotic zoning approval in San Diego County which knowingly allows the design and construction of unsafe development.

[Author]

Posts