|
I think that 19 times per day person crosses NIMBY into mental health territory.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm going to guess LAX is WAAAAAAY up there. London Heathrow probably is too. Basically any large airport where planes have to go over peoples houses to land, doubly so if they are rich people. People are absolutely NUTS about trying to get Santa Monica airport shut down. I'm guessing the land underneath it is pretty valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I think that 19 times per day person crosses NIMBY into mental health territory. The overwhelming majority of FAA complaints come from a very small number of people who complain dozens of times per day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So not literal Nazis and Klansmen, then. And they don't really show up in polls, either. There are hundreds of thousands of right wing militiamen, neo nazis affiliated with respective organizations, and others There's a reason why the FBI still counts these guys as the number 1 threat
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:The overwhelming majority of FAA complaints come from a very small number of people who complain dozens of times per day. I've only seen Air Force base reports, but yes, the overwhelming majority of reports are from a very, very small group of people. I feel bad for them, because obviously these flights are not going to stop and they seem to be spending a large portion of their life in distress because of it. They also seem to be primarily old people though, so maybe this is the most reliable source of human contact they have. Maybe that's why LAX and Palm Springs have so many complainers!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:I've only seen Air Force base reports, but yes, the overwhelming majority of reports are from a very, very small group of people. I feel bad for them, because obviously these flights are not going to stop and they seem to be spending a large portion of their life in distress because of it. I think you're mistaking "in distress" for "annoyed and with enough free time to let someone else know." I've got a neighbor who reports me to the HOA for having an "abandoned vehicle" if it doesn't move in a week. Motherfucker I've got a stupid TDI volkswagen that we took off the insurance and we're waiting for them to give us a date to hand it in. This is the reason that every Sunday I now go out and move it three spaces over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Those concentration statistics 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Those concentration statistics Honestly I'd be surprised if it wasn't similar for a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
There's a couple airports in Canada restricted to props because the city had allowed so many people to build next to the airport and in the flight path. Toronto's Billy Bishop is the primary culprit.
Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
I suspected SFO might be super duper high, given the approach/departure lanes and how much SFO real estate costs. Would not surprise me if someone complained about sirens as the firefighters were running over a woman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
I've lived near an airport before. Eventually you tune it out. I could imagine if your brain didn't have that filter calling 20 times a day could seem reasonable because you will have completely cracked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I've lived near an airport before. Eventually you tune it out. I could imagine if your brain didn't have that filter calling 20 times a day could seem reasonable because you will have completely cracked. Eventually you can tune out F-16s taking off from the runway that's a few hundred yards from your hooch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
It's weird watching artillery guys sleep through night-time howitzer fire missions like nothings going on, when the howitzers are 200 feet away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
The difference is that those are soldiers who's options are "stfu" "deal with it" and "harden up." It's amazing what you will put up with when you don't have the expectation that a sternly worded letter to the HOA or city council will lead to the smallest annoyance in your life being papered over. edit: the reverse is also true. If you expect the world to be re-made to better suit you at every given turn even the most minor of inconvenience becomes a federal matter. Perhaps literally, depending on how privileged and connected you are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The difference is that those are soldiers who's options are "stfu" "deal with it" and "harden up." It's amazing what you will put up with when you don't have the expectation that a sternly worded letter to the HOA or city council will lead to the smallest annoyance in your life being papered over. On the other hand there's, you know, the 40 years of Marines and dependents being poisoned at Camp Lejeune.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:On the other hand there's, you know, the 40 years of Marines and dependents being poisoned at Camp Lejeune. Isn't Lejeune the one that they just admitted was poisoning people for 40 years?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Eventually you can tune out F-16s taking off from the runway that's a few hundred yards from your hooch. mlmp08 posted:It's weird watching artillery guys sleep through night-time howitzer fire missions like nothings going on, when the howitzers are 200 feet away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Isn't Lejeune the one that they just admitted was poisoning people for 40 years? Yep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:There's a couple airports in Canada restricted to props because the city had allowed so many people to build next to the airport and in the flight path. Toronto's Billy Bishop is the primary culprit. Real estate bubbles cause that sorta poo poo. Actually, is there any other prop-restricted airports in Canada thanks to NIMBY rather than prudence?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
The CO one really kinda blows my mind, 30 miles from the airport is not close. They must live somewhere at higher altitude than the airport and literally RIGHT on the flight path. Just, uh, move like a few hundred yards away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I think you're mistaking "in distress" for "annoyed and with enough free time to let someone else know." Totally not the case for most, you're right, I'm just thinking of one person in particular. People with mental illnesses don't always have a lot of options to tune it out or move elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Yeah, it's a weird doctrine politically. You guys are so good we can't fight you straight up so, if we get in a fight we will have to nuke you. The dickslap is a hallmark of feudalism and strongman authoritarianism, so... yeah, welcome to 2017. (And the entirety of Russian history.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Yeah but it's not realistic. If Russia puts themselves at odds with a peer and pulls out a tac nuke the entire international community is going to jump down their throat. Not just NATO, but China and India and every other globally interested party is going to want to nip that in the bud right quick. The penalty for letting Russia (or anyone) muscle off all responsibility for actions like that would just be too steep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Now I'm trying to figure out which airports experience the highest incidence of complaints about noise. This one dude has complained about DCA 6,500 times. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:10
|
|
Murgos posted:Yeah but it's not realistic. If Russia puts themselves at odds with a peer and pulls out a tac nuke the entire international community is going to jump down their throat. Not just NATO, but China and India and every other globally interested party is going to want to nip that in the bud right quick. Well they can just continue to invade neighboring nations where the international response will be
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Why don't we make fighter jets that have rearward firing missiles to clear your tail should the need arise?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Because front-launched missiles can already have "over the shoulder" capability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:Why don't we make fighter jets that have rearward firing missiles to clear your tail should the need arise? Because at that point you're already hosed and it's not worth the weight to carry missiles that are useless unless someone's behind you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:Why don't we make fighter jets that have rearward firing missiles to clear your tail should the need arise? Its hard to train pilots to think in Russian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:44
|
|
Hub Cat posted:Its hard to train pilots to think in Russian. That was a flare not a missile
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Maybe when we can install energy weapons it may be beneficial to take out an enemy missile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:Maybe when we can install energy weapons it may be beneficial to take out an enemy missile. This is why they canceled the YAL-1, the eye was in the wrong spot. Also they have that for countering IR seekers on commercial planes. Heres one example of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Guardian
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Hub Cat posted:Its hard to train pilots to think in Russian. Reminds me, there's an old Israeli joke dating to 1967 (or maybe the Suez) that runs like this: Q: How many gears are on an Egyptian tank? A: Four. Three in reverse and one in forward. Q: Why the one in forward? A: In case they get attacked from behind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:This is why they canceled the YAL-1, the eye was in the wrong spot. DIRCM's on a lot more than commercial planes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:Why don't we make fighter jets that have rearward firing missiles to clear your tail should the need arise? We're just now getting to the point where "defensive missiles" or whatever you want to call them might be technologically viable. The big limiting factors were cost of the guidance system and miniaturization, but there's been some fairly significant advances in both over the last 5 years or so and this very old idea is getting some traction again. It is most practical right now on helicopters - the interception speeds are a lot slower and it is a lot easier to mount things on a helicopter - but depending on how some tech demos go over the next several years you might see some money put towards active kill systems on fixed wing aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
bewbies posted:We're just now getting to the point where "defensive missiles" or whatever you want to call them might be technologically viable. The big limiting factors were cost of the guidance system and miniaturization, but there's been some fairly significant advances in both over the last 5 years or so and this very old idea is getting some traction again. It is most practical right now on helicopters - the interception speeds are a lot slower and it is a lot easier to mount things on a helicopter - but depending on how some tech demos go over the next several years you might see some money put towards active kill systems on fixed wing aircraft. Then after that, missiles will need missiles to defend themselves against defensive missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Then after that, missiles will need missiles to defend themselves against defensive missiles. Missiles fitted with missile-to-missile missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
In a traditional sense, rearward facing missiles would require rearward facing radar, or be IR guided. Once IR seekers became advanced enough to not depend on "hot spot" exhaust gasses (limiting options for a nose on shot on the offensive plane) there was no guarantee that the attacker was going to be exactly on the defenders "six" or sitting in the field of view of a rear facing missile. There is also the issue that a rear firing missile may be at a kinematic disadvantage against an attacker's missiles, depending on the situation. Overall, it had typically been better for survivability to spend your resources to prevent the opponent from gaining such an advantage that rear firing missiles came into play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
The kinematics are a huge problem. Edit: The whole thing is basically a solution to a non-problem in 99.99% of BVR situations anyway. Getting into a tailchase at anything but really close range makes getting a missile kill a lot more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 07:51
|
|
