🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <wXtB9Ny00VA9Q810hj@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>>>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.
>> True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more
>>capacities to handle high level of noise ? No.
>
>*Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system.
>
>So we are undercivilised ? Are we ?
>Do you really believe that if the plane makes a lot of noise to
>the point that it is untolerable, just because we are underdevelop
>we can't have it stoped ?
>
>Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries.
>But just wait a while. If you can see what I mean...

I lived under the approach to an airport for a while.  ANYTHING
that threatened to increase the amplitude or duration of the
noise would be staunchly fought by the local residents.  No
political agenda.  No nationalism.  No need for the noise to be
'untolerable'.  No particular bias about machines.  A VERY LARGE
desire for INCREASED PEACE AND QUIET rather than decreased.

Concord was just moving the sound profile in the wrong direction
no matter what airport it wanted to land at.  People want less noise,
not more, from newer aircraft; regardless of national origin.
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)