Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!phri!pesnta!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcmt!ron From: ron@hpfcmt.UUCP (ron) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <16900010@hpfcmt.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 14:41:00 EDT Article-I.D.: hpfcmt.16900010 Posted: Mon Jun 24 14:41:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 06:28:46 EDT References: <1680@amdahl.UUCP> Lines: 18 Nf-ID: #R:amdahl:1680:hpfcmt:16900010:37777777600:710 Nf-From: hpfcmt!ron Jun 24 08:41:00 1985 Re: San Jose etc 1. Commercial aircraft will probably not glide into the airports they use anytime this *century*. It doesn't make sense with their high rate of descent power-off. 2. Most of my war-stories about airport noise are usually in the sequence of: (1) Airport is built away from town. (2) Developer buys cheap land under the approach and departure ends of the runway (3) Homeowners demand that the airport closed because of the noise. (4) Municipality closes the airport because of the noise. I've seen it done at the old Seattle NAS, Fentress aux field for USN in Va., they tried it with my old soaring field and others will fall before it's over. Ron Miller, CFI-G at: {ihnp4}!hpfcla!ron