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