| Author | Post |
|---|
qcdad
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 03:21 pm |
|
No picture. Sorry about your x wife. Pilot error causes alot of crashes I hear. So does weather. Our monsoons are wicked. I wonder if they could bring down a small jet or helicopter?
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 03:09 pm |
|
My ex-wife started taking flying lessons about the time our divorce started and she got her license shortly before our divorce was final, later that same year.
Yesterday afternoon I got a phone call, that she narrowly escaped injury in the aircraft she was piloting. Seems she was forced to make an emergency landing in Hamilton because of bad weather. Thank God the kids weren't with her.
The FAA issued a preliminary report, citing pilot error: She was flying a single engine aircraft in IFR (instrument flight rules) conditions while only having obtained a VFR (visual flight rules) rating.
The absence of a post-crash fire was likely due to insufficient fuel on board. No one on the ground was injured.
The photograph below was taken at the scene to show the extent of damage to her aircraft.
She was really lucky...
Last edited on Sat Jul 19th, 2008 03:26 pm by DavidB
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3282 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:45 am |
|
I'll let my daughter and her husband/family know tonite, If they could just "hear" these "noises and sounds", it will help them decide. They live in the north part of Orchard Ranch.
Kudos to you Ron for taking that step to demonstrate the "facts."
 peace
Last edited on Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:57 am by Bambi
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:32 am |
|
| Wow, talk about reaching out. Thanks, Pegasus.
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:30 am |
|
Notice Of Neighborhood Meeting at Pegasus Airpark
At the Town Meeting on July 9, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended the Pegasus Airpark Flight Association have a second Neighborhood Meeting with an aircraft demonstration for the residents near the Airpark. Pegasus Airpark is planning this for Saturday morning August 9, 2008 at 8:00 AM at the hangar area in the center of the Airpark. A formal notification letter is attached. We will have some helicopters and other aircraft present to demonstrate the actual noise levels. The meeting area at the center of the Airpark is ½ mile from the ends of the runway so we can have a helicopter depart at the same distance from the crowd as the distance of the runway to the closest house in Orchard Ranch, about (1,500 to 2,000 ft.). We will also give a presentation on the proposed traffic pattern and can demonstrate that also.
The proposal for the helicopter traffic pattern is as follows. This will be graphically depicted in our presentation at the meeting.
Arrivals from North
• Pass Over Mid-Field at 1,500ft AGL (3,000 ft MSL)
• After Mid-Field crossing, descend to 700ft AGL (2,200 ft MSL) within 1.5 nautical mile make a 180 degree turn, continue descent, proceed to main ramp landing zone, or, thence along taxiway to landing zones at either approach end of runways.
Arrivals from Southside
• Approach airfield from South mid-field. Cross under fixed-wing pattern at or below 700 AGL (2,200 ft MSL), continue descent. Proceed to main ramp landing zone, or, thence along taxiway to landing zones at either approach end of runways.
At the present time the traffic departing Gateway Airport (mainly helicopter) generally uses Pegasus Airpark as a check point when transitioning south to depart the Gateway Class D airspace. The helicopter traffic is held below the Gateway fixed wing traffic pattern altitude and usually continues south at 500 AGL or below through the Queen Creek area. The Gateway Class D Airspace extends 6 miles from the Airport to about Riggs Road just on the North side of Orchard Ranch. This can be a significant issue as was demonstrated in the past when Silver State Helicopters was operating out of Gateway with their helicopter training traffic.
If this Pegasus helicopter traffic pattern is adopted it will be published in the FAA Airport Facilities Directory and posted at Gateway Airport. The Gateway tower will be informed and it will become a recommended procedure for the traffic departing Gateway to climb to 3,000 ft MSL if they transition over Pegasus to the south. The reality of this is that most helicopter pilots will not want to climb up and would simply avoid the area by transitioning 3 miles to the east or 3 miles to the west of Pegasus. This would route the Gateway traffic away from the area which would reduce the overall noise near Pegasus.
The Pegasus Airpark Flight Association is also planning a demonstration specifically for the Orchard Ranch residents on Friday evening August 8, 2008. The details are not worked out yet but we propose to demonstrate the helicopter traffic patterns to a group gathered in the Orchard Ranch Community. Some of us from The Flight Association will meet with the residents at a specified time in Orchard Ranch. The Orchard Ranch residents can determine the location. We will have a radio and communicate with a helicopter doing the proposed patterns. The helicopter will fly from the north to land at Pegasus and the residents will experience the noise levels for our proposed pattern which would also be similar to Gateway transitioning traffic at the higher altitude. A second approach will demonstrate helicopter traffic arriving at Pegasus from the south.
Attachment: Pegasus_Notice_of_2nd_Neighborhood _Meeting_Aug_9_08.pdf (Downloaded 7 times)
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:51 pm |
|
bobthebuilder wrote: But more than what the subdivision was zoned for?
No sir.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:50 pm |
|
Diane C. wrote: It's true that the proposal does not ask for a greater quantity of aircraft; however, it is also true that passage of the amendment is likely to increase the number of aircraft that are actually flying over the area, since folks who would not purchase a lot or hangar unless they could fly jets and helicopters might buy into Pegasus if they can fly jets and helicopters (which is one of the reasons the amendment is being proposed). So the effect is indeed likely to be one of increased air traffic, even if the allowed number of aircraft isn't changed.
The effect of Pegasus building out will result in increased air traffic whether j&h are allowed or not. It sounds like your position is that you would like to see Pegasus' growth hindered?
This airport has been here for 50 years, and the permit for the airpark developlment was issued almost 15 years ago ( I was told 1994, don't hold me to this ). Why is it fair, after many of us have made significant investments here, to present hindering the development of our community as reason to be against this proposal?
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
Bingo. If the airpark succeeds there will be more planes, more traffic in and out, and more tax revenue for TOQC, which is part of the plan for the subdivision.
Reminder, it has been stated by a Pegasus representative that the vast majority flights in and out of Pegasus do not go into Williams Gate airspace (which includes Orchard Ranch) because of the complexity of flying in controlled airspace.
The aircraft flying over Orchard Ranch are mostly originating or terminating at Williams Gate, not Pegusus.
|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 09:30 pm |
|
Diane C. wrote: It's true that the proposal does not ask for a greater quantity of aircraft; however, it is also true that passage of the amendment is likely to increase the number of aircraft that are actually flying over the area, since folks who would not purchase a lot or hangar unless they could fly jets and helicopters might buy into Pegasus if they can fly jets and helicopters (which is one of the reasons the amendment is being proposed). So the effect is indeed likely to be one of increased air traffic, even if the allowed number of aircraft isn't changed. But more than what the subdivision was zoned for?
|
Diane C.
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 09:27 pm |
|
| It's true that the proposal does not ask for a greater quantity of aircraft; however, it is also true that passage of the amendment is likely to increase the number of aircraft that are actually flying over the area, since folks who would not purchase a lot or hangar unless they could fly jets and helicopters might buy into Pegasus if they can fly jets and helicopters (which is one of the reasons the amendment is being proposed). So the effect is indeed likely to be one of increased air traffic, even if the allowed number of aircraft isn't changed.
|
sajuarojack
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 156 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 08:25 pm |
|
| Thanks for the clarification... really don't want any more of them over my head.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 08:04 pm |
|
sajuarojack wrote: Well, I've got too many airplanes and copters flying over my house as it is... I don't want any more up there! And some of them fly so low I could catch them with my pool net... 
I don't give a hoot about any facts either... just vote NO on more craft flying over our communities!
just a point of clarification.
the proposal ISN'T to allow a greater QUANTITY of aircraft.
it is actually to allow a greater VARIETY of aircraft. (and to allow an additional fuel tank/pump at Pegasus Airpark itself)
in the interest of fairness and so that the issue can be debated on its merits, i think that distinction is important. the issue is contentious enough without bringing additional parameters in. again, the proposal is NOT for a greater NUMBER of aircraft or flights allowed. instead it is for a different TYPES of aircraft to be allowed.
|
sajuarojack
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 156 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 07:38 pm |
|
Well, I've got too many airplanes and copters flying over my house as it is... I don't want any more up there! And some of them fly so low I could catch them with my pool net...
I don't give a hoot about any facts either... just vote NO on more craft flying over our communities!
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 07:16 pm |
|
To: Tomogo
Our aviation consultant and myself would like to respond to your question / comments.
Question: I agree that some of the newest aircraft offer jet performance with greatly reduced noise levels. However, their noise levels on approach are much greater than similar sized piston engine aircraft, mostly due to their greater speed.
· Answer: I cannot say why you believe speed has a direct relationship to noise levels especially in a reduced power profile as on approach, however, taking your assertion into account, the issue of speed is negated due to the approach speeds of the VLJ’s. They have approach speeds that emulate the speeds of most small and mid sized multi-engine turbo-prop and piston aircraft and I believe are in some cases smaller or the same size as some single engine piston aircraft. The assumption that their noise levels on approach, due to speed, are much greater is false.
Question: Also, kind of glossed over in the meeting is the longer approaches required for landing these higher performing aircraft.
· Answer: Based on the approach speeds of the VLJ’s and turbo-prop aircraft the turn radius is significantly reduced over the larger and legacy jet aircraft. A normal flight path angle on approach is approx. 3 degrees, or 318ft/NM. This being the case, one should expect aircraft to turn between a 1nm and 3nm final depending on the descent altitude and rate on the Base to Final Leg of the approach. If an aircraft is at 1000ft AGL on the downwind and flies a descending base leg to final will turn the final approach well inside the 3nm distance. As demonstrated at numerous airports both in the valley and around the country, many times each day.
Question: One graphic presented at the meeting showed an aerial view of Pegasus with an arrow pointing outward indicating approach traffic would extend 3 miles.
· Answer: I believe you have misunderstood the aerial view with the arrow. It did not indicate the need for every aircraft to fly a 3nm traffic pattern but merely illustrated the outer boundary of the proposed traffic area. The traffic on downwind would operationally be spread out within this area based on the type/speed/configuration and maneuvering capabilities of the individual aircraft. Sequencing and separation will be facilitated by required VHF communications between aircraft beginning between 5 and 10sm from the airport.
Question: Finally with regard to DNL, I understand that DNL is a federally approved method for measuring noise levels around airports. Essentially it is a measurement of a combination of single events. I can't asses the overall impact to the community with regards to what condition would be worse, but I at least hope those in charge would consider the impact of single noise events in addition to the 65 DNL requirement.
· Answer: I am extremely happy that you understand the federally approved method for measuring and evaluating noise around airports. It is indeed a combination of single day and night events. I understand you are unable to asses the overall impact to the community, that is precisely why the EPA has set the standards for States, Cities, and Communities all over the country to use in doing just that, it is intended to insure that the evaluation is fair to all the actors and levels the playing field so no one political view predominates. I can assure you that the users at the airfield are listening and taking action to ensure that no stone is left unturned and a plan developed that can be implemented and guarantee the airport will remain good neighbors long into the foreseeable future.
Question: A jet engine at a couple hundred feet can exceed 130 decibels which is equivalent to 1024 times the ambient baseline. While most stage 3 aircraft under 12,500 lbs shouldn't be this loud.
· Answer: While you may be correct regarding the effect of some jet engines exceeding the 130 db, I am glad to see you recognize the stage 3 and certainly stage 4 aircraft under 12,500lbs will never even come close to this number. In fact, they will be significantly less then number required to exceed even the 65DNL that is the current standard both nationally and at the airpark. Of course that being said, the airpark has a limitation for all aircraft at 12,500lbs and this group is not requesting a modification to that limitation for any aircraft category.
Question: I would ask that the flight association provide noise contour maps to the surrounding residents based upon the proposed flight paths.
· Answer: Since the noise contours are geared to the 65DNL and since, as the published part 150 noise study indicates the boundary noise contour is in the upper 40’s and lower 50’s the 65DNL is so close in to the runway that it becomes moot once past the airpark operations boundary. In other words, the noise contour or footprint is significantly reduced below the 40 to 50 DNL that it becomes part of the background din.
Question: Perhaps a compromise to this request would be to restrict jet aircraft to stage 4-noise compliance and restrict helicopter size to under 5000lbs. After all, the "latest and greatest" technology from such companies as Eclipse (nice jet aircraft btw) have no issues meeting stage 4 compliance.
· Answer: Regarding limiting aircraft to stage 4: Stage 4 is a reduction of 10db average at the 3 recording points of the stage 3 max limit. One can assert that all stage 3 aircraft, even the modified stage 2 to stage 3 aircraft, all far exceed the max limitation outlined in part 36 for stage 3 and in doing so exceed the minimum for qualifying for stage 4 status. In other words, I can think of no stage 3 aircraft, offhand, that would not be grand fathered in based on my reading of the Stage 4 Aircraft Noise Standards; Final Rule published by the Federal Aviation Administration. All, if not most stage 3 aircraft would be included operationally and of course stage 4 have a 10db reduction based on type certification after 2006. In other words the stage 4 aircraft may or may not be any quieter than the stage 3 aircraft now flying. The only effect stage 4 has is a lowering of the stage 3 roof by 10db. Once again, since most if not all stage 3 aircraft are well lower that the stage 3 roof, they should all fall well within the new limits set for stage 4. The entire method of evaluation is modified for stage 4. It would be inappropriate to insist on an operational limitation for the airpark that the FAA itself recognizes as moot in all but the most remote cases. [size=]
· As for limiting the helicopters to something other than the current limitation for the airpark: Helicopters are unlike fixed wing aircraft as they have a gap between the large and small helicopters. The type of community here is largely a sport or recreational community. If you look at a large cross section of airparks around the country you would find that most enthusiasts tend to favor the smaller production and kit helicopters in the 500 to 5000lb weight class. There are a few helicopter types between 5000lb and 12,500. These are few and far between in this type of community setting. However, there will likely be a few over the years that will be well below the 12,500lb max limit but just over the 5000lb limit you suggest. Once again, this is a synthetic limitation. Those helicopters weighting more than 5000lbs but less then 12,500 will not cause the airpark to exceed the 65DNL. This is the current standard; only those aircraft preventing the airpark from operating within the established limitations should be excluded. Allowing inappropriate limitations to be established for the sake of having limitations should be avoided as it causes confusion in the future. Limitations should have an affect on the situation at hand, if they do not, then they are inappropriate.
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 12:39 am |
|
I had the opportunity to attend the P&Z meeting on the 9th. Like many of the folks in attendance, my only notification regarding the change request came via a post card in the mail. I live in the unincorporated area of Maricopa County just west of Ellsworth, North of SanTan off of 205th street.
I have been an aerospace engineer for the past 15 years and know a few things about aircraft and noise levels. While the applicant painted a rosey picture of the latest and greatest technologies offering lower noise levels than the current aircraft operating out of Pegasus, they failed to indicate what the worst case conditions would be. I agree that some of the newest aircraft offer jet performance with greatly reduced noise levels. However, their noise levels on approach are much greater than similar sized piston engined aircraft, mostly due to their greater speed. Also, kind of glossed over in the meeting is the longer approaches required for landing these higher performing aircraft. One graphic presented at the meeting showed an aerial view of Pegasus with an arrow pointing outward indicating approach traffic would extend 3 miles. Three miles puts the approaches out at Sossaman road to the West and past Meridan to the East While the overall noise levels may still not exceed 65DNL, the actual noise impact from this change will have a much greater impact to the entire community.
Also keep in mind that Orchard Ranch is not the only community impacted by this change. Housing communities to the West, East and South are also impacted, even though they fall outside the town limits.
With regard to helicopter traffic patterns, while I'm not too concerned about an R22 or R44 operating out of Pegasus, the proposed amendments would allow helicopters as large as a Bell 412 (the old Army Huey to most folks). While I'm sure the number of larger jets or helicopters operating from Pegasus would be small, their individual impact to the community should be taken into account.
Finally with regard to DNL. I understand that DNL is a federally approved method for measuring noise levels around airports. However, it is extremely important to understand that the 65DNL noise limit can be arrived at in many different ways. Essentially it is a measurement of a combination of single events. A low number of very loud single events is equivelant to a much greater number of lower level single events. What does this really mean? Pegasus can still meet its DNL requirements but have some fairly loud aircraft operating within its control. I can't asses the overall impact to the community with regards to what condition would be worse, but I at least hope those in charge would consider the impact of single noise events in addition to the 65 DNL requirement. Also keep in mind that the decibel scale is exponential. For every 10dB increase, the noise level actually doubles. So while a 10dB increase from say 60dB to 70dB doesn't sound like much, it actually doubles the noise level. When comparing 30dB (a quiet rural area as the ambient baseline) to 88.2dB (the sound level of a Cessna Citation CJ1+, which is allowed under the new provisions, upon landing ) the noise level increases 64 times more than the ambient baseline level. A jet engine at a couple hundred feet can exceed 130 decibels which is equivelant to 1024 times the ambient baseline. While most stage 3 aircraft under 12,500 lbs shouldn't be this loud, it will be up to the flight association to enforce the rules for jet operation.
One other thing I did not see at the P&Z meeting were any graphics depicting the noise contours for Pegasus operations. Prior to approval of any changes to the current restrictions, I would ask that the flight association provide noise contour maps to the surrounding residents based upon the proposed flight paths.
Perhaps a compromise to this request would be to restrict jet aircraft to stage 4 noise compliance and restrict helicopter size to under 5000lbs. Afterall, the "latest and greatest" technology from such companies as Eclipse (nice jet aircraft btw) have no issues meeting stage 4 compliance.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 10:55 am |
|
a pretty good turnout for Wed night's P&Z Meeting. a lot of good questions and dialog. it was to the largest extent quite civil which is what i have come to expect from my neighbors over the course of the past 5 or 6 years.
certainly everyone understands the issue is an emotional one since it affects for most of us the greatest single expense we'll ever encounter. that tends to lead to passionate debate and responses to one another. i would just ask that we continue to be respectful of one another and allow them to speak their opinions and give comment for their precious three minutes without interuption and without audible commentary from others.
all that said, P&Z did a fantastic job of asking for additional time for neighborhood outreach and meetings. i am hopeful that the applicants will set up a couple of opportunities for any/all interested to come out to Pegasus and hear and see just exactly what is being proposed. there was a lot of good information presented by those in favor and those in opposition... but since even within each of those separate factions there seemed to be some contradictions - we obviously have nearly as much mis-information out there as we have factual.
i commend P&Z for also giving direction to applicant and staff to look at the security issues immediately and without hesitation.
as a council member, i continue to remain undecided and dedicated still to learning all that i can about the proposal. i will continue to work to learn about potential impacts (both positive and negative) in order to make the best decision when i get to see it (presumably late Sept or Oct meeting)
|
Mike Spanos
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 07:41 am |
|
Hello Diane
I don’t make promises I can’t keep and I don’t make enemies. I also cannot live in a community were people do not approve of my actions.
I will personally see that we change the wording to our proposal.
Please consult with the members of your board and tell me what you would like to see changed. I have a full day tomorrow, it will not be easy but you have my word I will try my best to convince the Pegasus board and have these changes done before the meeting so we can arrive to a peaceful resolution.
Feel free to e-mail me direct mspanos@neta.com it may expedite things.
If you have any questions, my cell phone is 602 751 6414.
Best Regards
Mike Spanos
|
Diane C.
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 05:48 am |
|
Last edited on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 05:49 am by Diane C.
|
Diane C.
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 05:46 am |
|
Mike,
Thank you for all of the information you have posted. The more information we have, the more we will be able to engage in constructive dialogue about this issue. I plan to be at the meeting tomorrow to ask more questions, and I hope you will be there, as you seem to know quite a bit about the ins and outs of the situation.
I must admit that I still have a couple of strong reservations about this amendment, especially as it is currently worded, but I appreciate your assistance in helping all of us better understand the issues.
|
Mike Spanos
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 04:57 am |
|
Hello Clark
In order to have a Jet or a Helicopter in Pegasus you must own a House or a Hangar. You cannot just park your aircraft or fly into the airpark even to just get fuel.
We are looking at Stellar, Sky Ranch and Mogollon airpark. I have a business inside Stellar and looking to buy a house at Mogollon. So, I’m familiar with both.
We will never have the traffic Stellar has, they have businesses and training that we will never allow here at Pegasus. We do not have the zoning for businesses, I can only imagine what it would take after this fun experience.
Clark, if you look at Stellar we are talking max 4 Jets and 5 helicopters maybe. It is mostly speculation we are after, just like the 4x4 car that you never use but yet you spent the extra money just in case ever need it.
As you depart NE from Sky Ranch airpark, witch is private just like Pegasus, at the end of the runway within 2000 to 3000 feet you will find desert mountain community with home values ranging from 3 to 15 million. These homes are directly under the flight path.
Here is some realistic neighboring houses next to Sky Ranch. This house is 300 yards from the runway 4 bedroom 4 bath $749k.
http://www.realtor.com/map/search/listingdetail.aspx?ctid=27565&typ=1&sid=5fdff2e3b0454598857fff69f187f317&pg=4&lid=1093480349&lsn=32&srcnt=121
Here is a 4 bedroom 3 bath 1 acre lot 500 yards from the runway at $769k.
http://www.realtor.com/map/search/listingdetail.aspx?ctid=27565&typ=1&sid=5fdff2e3b0454598857fff69f187f317&pg=4&lid=1098414725&lsn=35&srcnt=121
How about a 2 bedroom 2.5 bath 200 yards from the runway $895k.
http://www.realtor.com/map/search/listingdetail.aspx?ctid=27565&typ=1&sid=5fdff2e3b0454598857fff69f187f317&pg=5&lid=1077505985&lsn=47&srcnt=121
Here is one 4 bedroom, 3 Bath 200 yards from the runway $1,195,000.
http://www.realtor.com/map/search/listingdetail.aspx?ctid=27565&typ=1&sid=5fdff2e3b0454598857fff69f187f317&pg=7&lid=1098366309&lsn=70&srcnt=121
Here is one 3 Bedroom, 3.5 Bath 500 yards from the runway $1,250,000.
http://www.realtor.com/map/search/listingdetail.aspx?ctid=27565&typ=1&sid=5fdff2e3b0454598857fff69f187f317&pg=8&lid=1092507824&lsn=74&srcnt=121
Here is 3 Bed, 3.5 Bath, almost directly under the flight path 600 yards out $1,495,000
http://www.realtor.com/map/search/listingdetail.aspx?ctid=27565&typ=1&sid=5fdff2e3b0454598857fff69f187f317&pg=9&lid=1088914943&lsn=88&srcnt=121
This guy is 300 yards on the runway extended center line 4 Bed, 4.5 Bath $1,699,000
http://www.realtor.com/map/search/listingdetail.aspx?ctid=27565&typ=1&sid=5fdff2e3b0454598857fff69f187f317&pg=10&lid=1097980599&lsn=93&srcnt=121
I would hate to have this property tax bill, awful house in the airpark $4 million.
http://www.realtor.com/map/search/listingdetail.aspx?ctid=27565&typ=1&sid=5fdff2e3b0454598857fff69f187f317&pg=12&lid=1098931122&lsn=118&srcnt=121
Here is the big picture for Sky ranch, click on the following url and wait a few seconds. It will populate with homes for sale and prices. Look at houses on the final approach and departure path. No affect to the price and correct me if I’m wrong but the closer you get to the airport the prices go up. Sky Ranch has 12 operations average per day.
The key here is, no training, no commercial operations, no touch and goes just like Pegasus.
http://www.zillow.com/search/RealEstateSearch.htm?addrstrthood=&citystatezip=carefree+az#view=ver%3D1%26op%3Dsearch%26scen%3Ds1%26map%3D%28Aw%3AAN111902587%21As%3A33815446%21Ae%3AAN111871130%21An%3A33833129%29%26mode%3D%28zoom%3A14%21sortANdir%3Au%21sortANparam%3Ax20%29%26citystatezip%3Dcarefree%20az%26loc%3Dmap
Here is Stellar, click on the following url and again wait a few seconds. It will populate with homes for sale and prices. Look west north and east. I cannot see a relationship between traffic patterns and home values. Stellar has 112 operations per day, Pegasus has 5. We are forecasting best case by 2012 Pegasus to have 11 operations per day.
http://www.zillow.com/search/RealEstateSearch.htm?addrstrthood=&citystatezip=chandler+az#view=ver%3D1%26op%3Dsearch%26scen%3Ds1%26map%3D%28Aw%3AAN111931184%21As%3A33291052%21Ae%3AAN111899727%21An%3A33308843%29%26mode%3D%28zoom%3A14%21sortANdir%3Au%21sortANparam%3Ax20%29%26citystatezip%3Dchandler%20az%26loc%3Dmap
As you can see we have done our homework. We do not wish harm to anyone.
I cannot speak for all the members of the board but I have a feeling the Pegasus flight association would extend use privilege of the airport facilities to our neighbors that wish to join the flight association.
How would you like to own one of these, it gets 27 miles to a gallon at 120 MPH. Wait for the video to download.
http://www.terrafugia.com/company.html
My dear friends and neighbors, again, based on Stellar and other airparks we are looking at possibly 5 personal jets and 5 personal helicopters 10 years from now. Also, these aircraft have a lower dB noise signature that what is already here. I just fail to see the cause for alarm.
Best Regards
Mike Spanos
Last edited on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 05:06 am by Mike Spanos
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3282 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 03:07 am |
|
I think for every plus there is a negative to this issue. That's pretty much the way it is in life.
I have concerns...my family members live next to this air field. Here are my concerns.
First....Starleen...I need more meds.
Next. I used to live by Falcon Field......from 1944 to 1966. Saw many planes come down, short of the runway. Glad I was far enough away....some others weren't so lucky. So, takeoff and landing is my biggest concern. The noise is the loudest during these times, as are the risks....and it is the most dangerous time for the aircraft and those surrounding the area. There are powerlines around this site.....as well as people. Now, what happens when we have an uncontrolled descent? Or say an inexperienced pilot is at the helm? And, oh yes; seen this happen a few times at Pegasus.....buzzing over it with their jets. And, now personal experience. Many pilots on these private jets, maybe because of their lifestyles or the need to impress, but they always offer drinks, including themselves. That's usually the ones buzzing over the site.
Faster presents more danger.....simple as that. The jet fuel holding tank? What if Johnson's sabotuers dip their mops and brooms in there and then ignite it?
Why doesn't Stellar have jets? I'm selling a property in Eloy to a private plane owner. It's a private subdivison with it's own airfield. No one has called to ask if jets are allowed. In other sites we have sold in, no requests for jet space. And helicopters....those are known as widowmakers.....enough said. Worse than a jet.
I know the guys who built that subdivision. They were very lucky to get approval....and that was just for props. You are going to have about 2000 acres of high density housing to the east of you, once Fulton starts his project in Pinal. How will you address that? To the west of you are acre lots,plus, so not as populated....but their lives are just as important.
What will be your hours allowed for takeoff and landing? I noticed many stipulate nothing before 7 a.m. and nothing after 10 p.m. How will you "control" the outsiders, who are stopping by to visit you? Can you guarantee they will leave sober?
Sorry....but I am a grandma, and am concerned for the safety and welfare of my children who live next door, so thus I am telling you my inner most feelings.
I think you are about 10 years too early for this area. People on here have been talking about going back to the days of old where we communed within the rural lifystyle....to bring in jets at this time....well. just bad timing I guess. I'm a realtor and would love to sell your lots....but no demand, whether they allow jets or not at this point.
But, I do wish you alot of luck in your endeavors. Just a difference of opinions.
|
GClark
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 11:45 pm |
|
Mike, Is Pegasus going to require that in order to have a jet or helicopter there they would have to build a home or can they have it there without owning a home?
What other successful airparks are you looking at? The ones I know of have commercial business around them that help make them successful. Is allowing commercial business into Pegasus a longer term plan?
If our values drop due to the proposed change who is going to suffer?
Can you guarantee that values to the surrounding communities will not drop due to the changes proposed?
I do not see that there is any consideration given to the requests of the neighboring communities, I am only hearing the request of Pegasus. There is a strong desire from the residence to not allow this amendment to go through in its current form. You have given us your proposal but I for one am not sold on the amendment the way it is proposed currently. I do not see all benefits and you are ignoring the possible negative affects.
The addition of jets and helicopters will have a negative impact on the value of the homes in the surrounding communities. They will be less desirable therefore dropping their values further that they are currently. Pollution will increase, safety will decrease, liabilities will increase.
I agree that I would like to see the communities in Queen Creek be built out, however I do not see this proposal as a good idea or one that would help achieve their goal of selling more homes. I do not see how a proposal could be passed that would adversely affect surrounding communities for the sake of possibly helping one community.
Thank you,
GClark
|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 10:40 pm |
|
Good post Mike.
Just to give a little perspective to the naysayers:
Here are some common sounds and their decibel ratings: - Near total silence - 0 dB
- A whisper - 15 dB
- Normal conversation - 60 dB
- A lawnmower - 90 dB
- A car horn - 110 dB
- A rock concert - 120 dB
- A gunshot or firecracker - 140 dB
Last edited on Tue Jul 8th, 2008 10:40 pm by bobthebuilder
|
Mike Spanos
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 10:15 pm |
|
Dear All
I’m glad to see we all want Queen Creek to grow.
Please allow me to answer some valid concerns.
I want to see all communities in Queen Creek grow. All we can do is be there to support them if they have any good ideas to help them achieve their goals.
As far as building Pegasus, we are looking what other successful airparks have done and try to do the same. That’s the only evidence we have and all we can do is try and hope for the best. We cannot predict how long it will take or how much increase we will all see. We may not see any of these aircraft for several years.
“OPERATED BY NOISE CONSCIOUS PILOTS” Any aircraft operated irresponsibly can upset residents. It could be a Jet, helicopter or a single engine prop. I also fail to understand see why someone would remove the muffler from his Harley.
If our plan works tax revenue will increase by about $5k per year per new residence built, according to my last tax bill. There are 186 lots in Pegasus.
If our plan for growth does not work, then nothing much is going to change.
As far as what types of Jet engines, it’s in our proposal (no war birds and no old turbo jets).
You are right the lower frequency noise is generated by the helicopter main blades. Heavy old military two bladed helicopters generate a lot of noise. You can’t help but notice them when they fly by. Most of these helicopters exceed the weight restrictions at Pegasus and therefore not allowed. The operating cost of a Huey is ~120 gallons per hour plus ~$600 per hour for scheduled maintenance and timed components. I don’t think we would see any, even if we allowed them. The average helicopter we will see flying out of Pegasus will be quieter than my Cessna 210 I presently operate.
Another fact, helicopters fly at 500 feet. It is considered by the FAA to be the minimum safe altitude in case of engine failure. The helicopters you see over our town are at 500 feet generating 63.0 dB. If you stand at 1000 feet the noise will be 57.9 dB. The nearest house from the runway centerline is half a mile or 2640 feet or less than 51.9 dB and that includes the low frequency sound. Please download the Compare_Average_Noise_Level.pdf and place that number on the chart. What do you see?
Gateway is an option, however it will not help Pegasus and our plan for growth and all the revenue from leased hangars would go to Mesa. We are also establishing stricter noise abatement procedures than Gateway.
Some heath issues that I know are pilots who flew Huey’s in Vietnam developed kidney problems from prolonged exposure to vibration. Those who worked on engines with out proper ear protection developed hearing problems.
The zoning change notices were handled by the city. Law requires notices to be sent to all residents within 1200 feet from the property line. About 43 letters out of 292 sent got returned. The one sent to your association, Orchard Ranchettes Community Association 58 W. Buffalo St. #200, Chandler AZ 85225, was returned as well. All mailing addresses came from the county.
On Wednesday we will be presenting in detail the traffic patterns for the new aircraft types. We will show aerial photographs of the airpark with the proposed traffic patterns for Jets and helicopters. Once you have a clear picture of our proposed changes you may agree with us.
Regards
Mike Spanos
Attachment: Compare_Average_Noise_Level.pdf (Downloaded 2 times)
|
GClark
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 07:17 am |
|
Why do you label my opinion anti-growth. Did I say I don't want Pegasus to build out? Did I say I don't want Queen Creek to grow?
What obstacle? This is not an obstacle it is a policy against Jets and Helicopters and has been in place since the use permit was approved, now you want to call it an obstacle?
What about building out Orchard Ranchettes? Wouldn't that also help with the tax base. What about the Cresleigh community at Ellsworth and Chandler Heights, wouldn't that increase the tax base if it was built out. What about the numerous other communities that would provide additional tax base if they were built out completely. How much faster would the build out of the Airpark take if the change was approved? What would the increased tax base be?
What evidence is there to show that these changes will sell more homes, quicker.
What evidence is there that this change will increase my property values? is it immediate or is it over the long run?(how long)
What evidence is there that only the fan jet engines will be used. What percentage of older louder aircraft will be replace with newer quieter jets. Are there also newer quieter piston engine planes? What is the data on these?
Where is the evidence that shows helicopters are quieter. What about the vibration they put out due to their lower frequency? I understand this has been related to medical conditions.
What about Williams Gateway, isn't that a reasonable option to get around the "obstacle"? Look at the benefits there.
I did not receive, along with many others, any notification from Pegasus about their intention to submit a request to allow Jets and Helicopters. I found out about it like most of us, from the postcard I received in the mail just last week. I was not invited nor was our HOA contacted to offer any information on their plans. I did hear a few homeowners received an invite to an informational meeting but not too many. It would have been neighborly to include all of Orchard Ranchettes not just a few.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 02:16 am |
|
3GGuy wrote: Hey, I have a solution I think everyone in Queen Creek will like! I want to propose a $250.00 takeoff and landing tax to go for the schools of QC for every aircraft that takes off from Pegasus air park, it’s for our children. I believe back when Pegasus was first proposed, all the affluent aviators that would buy homes there would pay for better schools and parks. Let’s let them and their new friends fulfill Pegasus’s original promises, by letting the current and new residents pay $250.00 every time they take off or land their current propeller or new helicopter or Jet to the Queen Creek general fund. The fees will limit the noise and will help the children of Queen Creek, what could be better? The best part is the current 1790 takeoffs and landings would be a $447.500.00 boost our local schools, then Pegasus can live up to its original promises of affluent aviators boosting property values and helping the community. Everyone should support that! Now Pegasus can finally fulfill its promise of being a benefit to the community instead of its current status of a drain.
Absolute genius! Why don't we just save time and skip the slow rollout. Let's just secede from the United States to form our own socialistic government?
Yeah, the Socialist Republic of Queen Creek. Then, anytime there isn't enough money for something we can simply go take it from somebody who worked their a$$ off to achieve their life's goals. I wonder if this can make the ballot?
On top of this, you insult all Pegasus residents by calling our neighborhood a 'drain on the community'??!? Wow man, that's something else. Want to trade property tax bills for a couple years?
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 02:07 am |
|
Diane C. wrote:3) "The residents feel this restriction is out dated, slowing down sales and delaying the build out of the Airpark, and it does not promote noise reduction or serve anyone’s interests." (page 1)
Here, the proposal indicates that the primary reason for the proposal is to enhance sales. Yet, on page 3, the proposal states,
"We would like to ask the town council to reconsider the original
recommendations that were put in place 15 years ago due to technological
advancements in the aviation industry WITH THE SOLE INTENT to reduce noise, improve safety and fuel efficiency."
The two statements are contradictory, which raises questions as to the reliability of the other information presented.
Why are these 2 statements mutually exclusive? They are both true.
|
Diane C.
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 09:35 am |
|
Mark,
Since you directed this comment to me, I'll be happy to respond. And yes, I have read the documentation, which states, among other things, the following (I capitalized some of the parts that concern me):
1) "Helicopters can be quieter outside the Airpark than most single engine fixed wing aircraft that operate in and out of Pegasus today. Helicopters, IF OPERATED BY NOISE CONSCIOUS PILOTS, can ascent and descent at a much steeper angle than fixed wing aircraft therefore generating very little noise at the airpark boundaries if any at all."
Yet, there is no mention in the proposal of how Pegasus will ensure that all of its helicopter pilots will be noise-conscious.
2) "On the helicopter side you can see the noise signature of a R-22 is also calculated to be less to the community then many piston propeller airplanes. The R-22 is a typical size of WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE based at Pegasus."
Again, there is no language clearly limiting helicopters to the R-22 or like models, though the intent does appear to be there. Also, helicopter noise has a lower frequency than other types of aviation noise, making it much more of a disturbance than other types of aircraft, even if the decibel levels are the same.
3) "The residents feel this restriction is out dated, slowing down sales and delaying the build out of the Airpark, and it does not promote noise reduction or serve anyone’s interests." (page 1)
Here, the proposal indicates that the primary reason for the proposal is to enhance sales. Yet, on page 3, the proposal states,
"We would like to ask the town council to reconsider the original
recommendations that were put in place 15 years ago due to technological
advancements in the aviation industry WITH THE SOLE INTENT to reduce noise, improve safety and fuel efficiency."
The two statements are contradictory, which raises questions as to the reliability of the other information presented.
Finally, I'll reference the passage you cited:
“This issue can be addressed by prohibiting jet aircraft from using Pegasus Airpark that do not meet Stage Three Noise Requirements. A list of jet aircraft that fall into that category is included with this submittal. It is not all inclusive but you can see it will restrict aircraft such as the older Lear jets with turbojet engines and loud war birds.” http://www.pegasus-airpark.com/Pegasus_RZ_08_020_Narrative.pdf
You then state:
"Diane, you seem to be leading us into battle, did you bother reading the documentation? Did you miss page 4? The folks do not have a choice but fly the quieter Jets."
Yes, I did bother to read the documentation, as I mentioned already here and in my previous blog. Here's the rest of that paragraph:
"...Virtually all turbojet powered aircraft do not meet Stage three
and newer modern jet aircraft are only manufactured with quieter fan jet engines. Notification will be made to all prospective lot and Hangar buyers through notices in the purchase contract, C C & R’s and the Pegasus Airpark Operation and Safety Regulations. Enforcement will be through the C C & R’s violation enforcement policies."
While I truly appreciate the association's attention to this area, I am not convinced that the policies will be enforced. As an example, our neighborhood, like Pegasus, is full of good neighbors--people who are considerate and caring people. However, like most neighborhoods, we also have a few folks who are not considerate.
One neighbor lets his dog bark late at night and early in the morning just about every day, despite several requests that he keep the dog in or train the dog not to bark. Constantly barking dogs are specifically prohibited in our CC&Rs, as well as by the law, yet despite several complaints from a variety of folks, the dog still barks day and night.
Another neighbor rides his or her ATV down the horse trails, which is also prohibited by our CC&Rs, and signs are clearly posted at the entrances to these trails. Again, we have been unable to enforce the rules. So, while I have read the proposal, I'm not convinced that the enforcement methods in Pegasus will be any more effective than our own.
I hope this helps you to understand some of my concerns and to see that I have read the documents related to this case. I just don't get the same out of them that you do.
|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 12:27 pm |
|
3GGuy wrote: Hey, I have a solution I think everyone in Queen Creek will like! I want to propose a $250.00 takeoff and landing tax to go for the schools of QC for every aircraft that takes off from Pegasus air park, it’s for our children. I believe back when Pegasus was first proposed, all the affluent aviators that would buy homes there would pay for better schools and parks. Let’s let them and their new friends fulfill Pegasus’s original promises, by letting the current and new residents pay $250.00 every time they take off or land their current propeller or new helicopter or Jet to the Queen Creek general fund. The fees will limit the noise and will help the children of Queen Creek, what could be better? The best part is the current 1790 takeoffs and landings would be a $447.500.00 boost our local schools, then Pegasus can live up to its original promises of affluent aviators boosting property values and helping the community. Everyone should support that! Now Pegasus can finally fulfill its promise of being a benefit to the community instead of its current status of a drain.
Good idea...and everyone in Queen Creek that starts their Harley in the morning can pitch in $350 every time for the loud pipes. And $400 for the barking dogs. And $500 for car alarms in the middle of the night. And $550 for starting a lawnmower in a state that having grass is just stupid. And $600 for noisy kids playing in the street after dark.
If we're going by the levels of noise generated by people around here and you're truly interested in cutting back on "noise." I have yet to see anyone prove that Pegasus actually generates enough noise to make it a nuisance.
|
3GGuy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 06:15 am |
|
Hey, I have a solution I think everyone in Queen Creek will like! I want to propose a $250.00 takeoff and landing tax to go for the schools of QC for every aircraft that takes off from Pegasus air park, it’s for our children. I believe back when Pegasus was first proposed, all the affluent aviators that would buy homes there would pay for better schools and parks. Let’s let them and their new friends fulfill Pegasus’s original promises, by letting the current and new residents pay $250.00 every time they take off or land their current propeller or new helicopter or Jet to the Queen Creek general fund. The fees will limit the noise and will help the children of Queen Creek, what could be better? The best part is the current 1790 takeoffs and landings would be a $447.500.00 boost our local schools, then Pegasus can live up to its original promises of affluent aviators boosting property values and helping the community. Everyone should support that! Now Pegasus can finally fulfill its promise of being a benefit to the community instead of its current status of a drain.
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 05:58 am |
|
I don’t want to raise anyone’s emotions, just express my view that I feel Pegasus Airpark is a very quiet place. There is a lot of discussion about the Gateway Airport traffic so I would like to post some information to compare actual numbers. No matter what type of aircraft flying above, I think everyone would agree that the amount of noise could be related to the amount of air traffic. The attached data was obtained from http://www.myafd.com/
When I looked up Pegasus Airpark the data was from 2004 and not correct so the Pegasus numbers included are from the current noise study. It can be assumed that the other airport data is fairly accurate or at least it was in the last few years. Looking at Gateway airport it shows 434 daily operations so on average every day there are 217 aircraft taking off and 217 aircraft landing. At least some of them have to go through Queen Creek. On the Pegasus side there are on average 5 daily operations so only 2 takeoff’s and 3 landings or on another day 3 takeoff’s and 2 landings. If a pilot departing Pegasus Airpark wants to fly north he has to contact Gateway Tower on the radio to get a Class D Airspace clearance before entering their airspace. The Class D airspace starts a little north of Orchard Ranch. Most pilots would not make more work for themselves unless they have to so most of the Pegasus traffic will avoid the north sectors (Orchard Ranch and downtown Queen Creek).
Pegasus Airpark is a private airport with no commercial operations allowed which is one of the reasons the traffic is so low. It is a quiet place and is most likely to stay quiet no matter what type aircraft are based there. When built out in the future it will still be the quietest airport around and never get close to the 65 DNL noise limit.
Attachment: Local_Airport_Traffic.pdf (Downloaded 3 times)
|
mrbotchagalupe
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 04:17 am |
|
Apology accepted Starleen. I could have been less obtuse. This issue is hitting very close to home for some like myself, with little advance warning or knowledge of the subject matter.
I'm afraid emotions will run high notwithstanding studies as presented.
Botch
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 03:38 am |
|
mrbotchagalupe wrote: Starleen,
Is there any hard data that suggests lifting this stipulation will increase marketability of Pegasus in towns with like demographics? What is the probability that some small plane owners (majority of future buyers) may not be attracted to an aviation community including jets and helicopters offsetting any potential gain?
Pegasus is a highly specialized development bid up during a bubble vulnerable to the forces of the housing ecomony. In my opinion, lifting the stipulation is like "putting lipstick on a pig". It may take years before a housing rebound is in sight.
The argument that lifting the stipulation will increase development is questionable.
By the way, may I suggest less subjective correspondence. One can make a point without insulting others on this board. Real or perceived, residents of the surrounding area do not agree with this initiative and have a right to voice their opinion.
Respectively,
I apologize if I said anything that anyone found insulting, but I can't promise it won't happen again.  This forum is reknowned for rather forthright commentary, and I enjoy the spirit and have developed a thicker skin after 200+ posts and several dressing-downs. I am expressing frustration that people seem to not be evaluating this issue from all angles and with the same time and effort put forth by Pegasus HOA and Pilots.
As for subjectivity, I this is not a court of law but a forum for opinions as well as facts. Nothing I say on this forum interferes with anyone else's priviledge (not right, per the website rules!) to voice opinions (which are by definition, subjective) on this forum.
|
bobthebuilder
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 12:56 am |
|
| |