5 ms·

> if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Honestly, this line really grinds my gears.

> if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Honestly, this line really grinds my gears. Let me explain: First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. Also remember that the loudness and frequency of air travel can change a lot. An airplane every few hours and none during the night? That's probably okay. An airplane every 15 minutes for 24/7? Probably not. But the most important point is that it's a bit of a discussion stopper; in the end, no one really wants to live under a flight path, and we all have to live on the same planet. I'm not saying we can always accommodate everyone, but dismissing people's real daily struggles with this out-of-hand is probably not great, especially as there are many important details missing. I had a noise problem at my previous apartment. I lived about 20 metres from a church repurposed as a "community and arts centre". Turns out, that this is code for "we will do rave parties where we literally pump out 100dB of bass until 5am every weekend during the winter season". I wouldn't have minded if it was the occasional thing, or if it wasn't literally 100dB (that was their limit, which by their own admission they also breached sometimes), or if it wasn't every weekend. I complained but they were very dismissive about it. It's one of the reasons I ended up moving. My point is, there are many factors: loudness, frequency, time of day, etc. In a lot of airports the total loudness may be less (I'll take your word for it), but the frequency and time of day has definitely increased in many cases, as people are flying much more.

c54 8y ago
I appreciate your example especially since it’s something you couldn’t really have looked up beforehand. Imagine searching “raves til 5am in my area” But flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. Caveat emptor, you got a “good deal” on a house because it’s in a loud area. If you cared about the noise then you should’ve done your homework. Or.. move somewhere else? Again— all this only applies to people walking in to buying homes under takeoff paths. If the airport did this to existing homeowners that’s a prolem, and I think complaints are justified. (This case also runs into NIMBYism, which is also a problem, and so on)
- binarycrusader 8y ago
  Flight paths change sometimes. Airports expand, etc.
  - happertiger 8y ago
    This is true. If you live near an airport the disclosure is required by law if you buy a house in the are. However, it doesn’t preclude expansion and changes. If for example your airport moves from 12 hour a day to round-the-clock flights... nothing you can do. It’s a sticky wicket.
    - Carpetsmoker 8y ago
      Not all noise complains are from people who actually live near airports. I already linked this in my other reply, but: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-fil... > located five miles from Reagan National Airport. That's not really close. The reason there are planes there is due to the flight paths: > To reach Reagan National through the congested and closely monitored DC airspace, flights must basically follow the Potomac River. The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood. Also see the other commenter whose living 12 miles from the airport!
    - chii 8y ago
      Cities should of course be building airports outside of the city!
      - sargun 8y ago
        Doesn’t this somewhat defeat the purpose of the airport?
        8y ago
cabalamat 8y ago
> First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. Airports are usually shown on maps. I would expect most people to know what a map is. (If they don't, because e.g. they have cognitive issues, maybe they need to get someone to help them). > It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. People making big purchases should do due dilligence.
- blunte 8y ago
  Loudness of aircraft nearby can vary greatly due to weather conditions. It is quite possible that a location (near an airport) can be relatively quiet one season and very loud another. And if you go home shopping during the quiet period, you may not realize just what you're in for a few months later.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    >>Loudness of aircraft nearby can vary greatly due to weather conditions. So what the Gov to do, ground all air traffic in certain weather conditions? Air travel is a fact of life and planes must land in airports.
    - blunte 8y ago
      You may have read more into my comment than I wrote. I merely explained how a home buyer might reasonably underestimate the noise when agreeing to buy a house near an airport.
tjr225 8y ago
The entire city of Seattle is under a flight path. I can hear a jet right now!
- cyberferret 8y ago
  I would hope that most people who visit/buy in Seattle would realise that one of the biggest airplane manufacturers in the world is based there (and has been for nearly a century), and that there are several airports spread around the city with lots of traffic. I find it really difficult to understand that this wouldn't be a factor with anyone who was looking to purchase a property in the city.
ehnto 8y ago
I rented near a train line for which I was told stopped running in the evenings as it was a passenger line, and only special circumstances had cargo trains coming through. Shortly after I moved in the cargo trains started running full time between 1am to 5am when they gave way to passenger trains on the line. Another thing not mentioned is routine rail maintainence vehicles work at night and they are pretty loud too. The proximity was ridiculous so I expected some noise. But I was not given correct information and it quickly changed anyway.
- thelittleone 8y ago
  I lived by a train line in Australia a few years back. Commuter trains during the weekdays, and freight trains during the night and weekends. I actually found the sound really relaxing and had some of the best sleeps ever. Though I presume not all train lines are alike.
  - ehnto 8y ago
    It was a shame because I love the sound of trains as well, but this was on a bend and so it was just metal on metal screeching 10 meters from my bedroom wall for 15 minutes as it slowly navigated the hilly section I lived in (Australia too, we have hills I swear). One of my favourite most visceral experiences in life so far was riding next to a freight train as it's two diesel engine cars slowly spooled up their enormous turbochargers, while I sprinted on the bike to keep pace. The sound was immense. I love infrastructure.
Johnny555 8y ago
First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. In California, agents (and homeowners) are required to disclose any known issues with the property, which includes neighborhood noise issues like proximity to an airport. When I bought a house located near a small airport, the selling agent had a separate airport disclosure document that I had to sign.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Yeah, we just bought a house in Los Angeles. They gave us this huge sheet of all these things located within x number of miles of the house. It was kinda useless since everything is within a few miles in la, but was interesting.
paulddraper 8y ago
> Actually I think people frequently don't know. Indeed. I bought my first house under a major flight path and didn't know it. Call me stupid, but I didn't know the traffic patterns. Namely that most traffic to the Salt Lake City Intentional Airport goes on a north-south route, and I lived due south of the airport. (The patterns are due to the surrounding Salt Lake Valley.) So despite being 15+ miles from the airport -- further than most of SLC, where I had lived for years -- the air traffic at my house was incessant at the busy flight times. I'm not sure that was anyone's "fault" except mine, but anyway, yes, I believe people frequently don't know. Fortunately, I grew used to it.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Didn’t you spend any time in the area you were buying a house before you signed?
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    Yes! We had the luxury of being able to visit it several times, since it was an in-state move. But none of our visits happened midnight or early morning where the issue is most apparent.
adrr 8y ago
Sounds like something technology can solve. Service that you can pay to find out noise pollution and other nuisances for a given address.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  It is an opportunity. Much like Nomadlist rates remote working locations on various important factors, it would be good if there could be a neighbourhood rating system that included things like traffic and noise levels. I am sure something already exists.
cyberferret 8y ago
Ok, I am a former pilot, so I guess that my knowledge of the runway directions, and approach paths, extent of the circuit area etc. are at the forefront of my mind when I am in a new city. I know friends that buy property according to how close the nearest coffee shop/cafe is. Not being a coffee drinker, I couldn't care less about that fact - but I know what I need for a comfortable, sane life, and noise abatement is a major factor, which is why I am always looking out for things like train lines, highways and flight paths - even when I am booking an Air BnB for a short holiday stay.
rb666 8y ago
The solution is to stop flying so ridiculously often. It's getting entirely out of hand, and if we want to stop climate change, we need to FLY LESS.
- eps 8y ago
  That's as much of a "solution" as using teleporters is. It's unrealistic.
  - barrow-rider 8y ago
    I do consulting work. My role originally promised 40-60% travel to customer sites. For a while, that was true. Now 95% of my work is webex or hangouts or go2meeting, etc. If I need physical goods somewhere quickly then flying is a must, but doing business across the wire is much easier.
HNLogInShit 8y ago
If you somehow missed the fact that there's an airport in the area you're moving to, then that's your fault, not your realtor's. "remember that the loudness and frequency of air travel can change a lot." Great advice when moving into proximity of an airport. No pilot WANTS to create noise; they don't like it either. But nobody should tolerate scumbags who want to have public airports destroyed for their own profit, which is what most of these fake NIMBYs are. As for the real NIMBYs... they have no case unless they moved there before the airport was built.
VBprogrammer 8y ago
People will also completely disregard the positive changes which have taken place over the same time frame though. Aircraft engines are substantially quieter (and less polluting) than they were 50 years ago. Aircraft have better performance and so climb away much faster. I live on the south side of Heathrow (which has east-west orientated runways). We only get a fraction of the departures anyway but of those only the heaviest aircraft are generally noticeable. The shorthaul (737, A320 etc) aircraft are so high that the noise is negligible. I'm sure 50 years ago this would have been much worse with heavily laden Tridents and VC10s spewing black smoke and clawing for every foot of altitude.
- justinph 8y ago
  They have the performance to climb faster if they wanted to, but they don't. They actually climb slower to save fuel. And the use of smaller aircraft means there are more of them, since they each carry less people, but there's more flying than ever. The result is lower noise level but much more frequent noise.
gambiting 8y ago
I feel the same way when people say "why are you complaining about a pub nearby? didn't you know it was there when you moved in?". The point is - yes, the pub was already there, but so were the anti-noise laws in the area. And the laws say that noise should be kept to minimum after 11pm - the pub that was there for the last 100 years isn't magically exempt from the laws just because it was there for a long time. What's the point of even having anti-noise laws if they are selectively enforced? And worse, if people complaining are vilified because "you knew the pub was there when you moved". Yes, and the law was also there when someone moved.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

c54 8y ago

I appreciate your example especially since it’s something you couldn’t really have looked up beforehand. Imagine searching “raves til 5am in my area” But flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. Caveat emptor, you got a “good deal” on a house because it’s in a loud area. If you cared about the noise then you should’ve done your homework. Or.. move somewhere else? Again— all this only applies to people walking in to buying homes under takeoff paths. If the airport did this to existing homeowners that’s a prolem, and I think complaints are justified. (This case also runs into NIMBYism, which is also a problem, and so on)

binarycrusader 8y ago
Flight paths change sometimes. Airports expand, etc.
- happertiger 8y ago
  This is true. If you live near an airport the disclosure is required by law if you buy a house in the are. However, it doesn’t preclude expansion and changes. If for example your airport moves from 12 hour a day to round-the-clock flights... nothing you can do. It’s a sticky wicket.
  - Carpetsmoker 8y ago
    Not all noise complains are from people who actually live near airports. I already linked this in my other reply, but: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-files-1000s-of-noise-complaints-against-reagan-national/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/former-astronaut-fil... > located five miles from Reagan National Airport. That's not really close. The reason there are planes there is due to the flight paths: > To reach Reagan National through the congested and closely monitored DC airspace, flights must basically follow the Potomac River. The problem for Vittori's neighborhood is compounded by the fact that the airport recently adopted a new flight navigation system known as NextGen to help cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. This brought planes directly over his Georgetown neighborhood. Also see the other commenter whose living 12 miles from the airport!
  - chii 8y ago
    Cities should of course be building airports outside of the city!
    - sargun 8y ago
      Doesn’t this somewhat defeat the purpose of the airport?
      - 8y ago

cabalamat 8y ago

> First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. Airports are usually shown on maps. I would expect most people to know what a map is. (If they don't, because e.g. they have cognitive issues, maybe they need to get someone to help them). > It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. People making big purchases should do due dilligence.

blunte 8y ago
Loudness of aircraft nearby can vary greatly due to weather conditions. It is quite possible that a location (near an airport) can be relatively quiet one season and very loud another. And if you go home shopping during the quiet period, you may not realize just what you're in for a few months later.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  >>Loudness of aircraft nearby can vary greatly due to weather conditions. So what the Gov to do, ground all air traffic in certain weather conditions? Air travel is a fact of life and planes must land in airports.
  - blunte 8y ago
    You may have read more into my comment than I wrote. I merely explained how a home buyer might reasonably underestimate the noise when agreeing to buy a house near an airport.

tjr225 8y ago

The entire city of Seattle is under a flight path. I can hear a jet right now!

cyberferret 8y ago
I would hope that most people who visit/buy in Seattle would realise that one of the biggest airplane manufacturers in the world is based there (and has been for nearly a century), and that there are several airports spread around the city with lots of traffic. I find it really difficult to understand that this wouldn't be a factor with anyone who was looking to purchase a property in the city.

ehnto 8y ago

I rented near a train line for which I was told stopped running in the evenings as it was a passenger line, and only special circumstances had cargo trains coming through. Shortly after I moved in the cargo trains started running full time between 1am to 5am when they gave way to passenger trains on the line. Another thing not mentioned is routine rail maintainence vehicles work at night and they are pretty loud too. The proximity was ridiculous so I expected some noise. But I was not given correct information and it quickly changed anyway.

thelittleone 8y ago
I lived by a train line in Australia a few years back. Commuter trains during the weekdays, and freight trains during the night and weekends. I actually found the sound really relaxing and had some of the best sleeps ever. Though I presume not all train lines are alike.
- ehnto 8y ago
  It was a shame because I love the sound of trains as well, but this was on a bend and so it was just metal on metal screeching 10 meters from my bedroom wall for 15 minutes as it slowly navigated the hilly section I lived in (Australia too, we have hills I swear). One of my favourite most visceral experiences in life so far was riding next to a freight train as it's two diesel engine cars slowly spooled up their enormous turbochargers, while I sprinted on the bike to keep pace. The sound was immense. I love infrastructure.

Johnny555 8y ago

First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. In California, agents (and homeowners) are required to disclose any known issues with the property, which includes neighborhood noise issues like proximity to an airport. When I bought a house located near a small airport, the selling agent had a separate airport disclosure document that I had to sign.

cortesoft 8y ago
Yeah, we just bought a house in Los Angeles. They gave us this huge sheet of all these things located within x number of miles of the house. It was kinda useless since everything is within a few miles in la, but was interesting.

paulddraper 8y ago

> Actually I think people frequently don't know. Indeed. I bought my first house under a major flight path and didn't know it. Call me stupid, but I didn't know the traffic patterns. Namely that most traffic to the Salt Lake City Intentional Airport goes on a north-south route, and I lived due south of the airport. (The patterns are due to the surrounding Salt Lake Valley.) So despite being 15+ miles from the airport -- further than most of SLC, where I had lived for years -- the air traffic at my house was incessant at the busy flight times. I'm not sure that was anyone's "fault" except mine, but anyway, yes, I believe people frequently don't know. Fortunately, I grew used to it.

isostatic 8y ago
Didn’t you spend any time in the area you were buying a house before you signed?
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Yes! We had the luxury of being able to visit it several times, since it was an in-state move. But none of our visits happened midnight or early morning where the issue is most apparent.

adrr 8y ago

Sounds like something technology can solve. Service that you can pay to find out noise pollution and other nuisances for a given address.

cyberferret 8y ago
It is an opportunity. Much like Nomadlist rates remote working locations on various important factors, it would be good if there could be a neighbourhood rating system that included things like traffic and noise levels. I am sure something already exists.

cyberferret 8y ago

Ok, I am a former pilot, so I guess that my knowledge of the runway directions, and approach paths, extent of the circuit area etc. are at the forefront of my mind when I am in a new city. I know friends that buy property according to how close the nearest coffee shop/cafe is. Not being a coffee drinker, I couldn't care less about that fact - but I know what I need for a comfortable, sane life, and noise abatement is a major factor, which is why I am always looking out for things like train lines, highways and flight paths - even when I am booking an Air BnB for a short holiday stay.

rb666 8y ago

The solution is to stop flying so ridiculously often. It's getting entirely out of hand, and if we want to stop climate change, we need to FLY LESS.

eps 8y ago
That's as much of a "solution" as using teleporters is. It's unrealistic.
- barrow-rider 8y ago
  I do consulting work. My role originally promised 40-60% travel to customer sites. For a while, that was true. Now 95% of my work is webex or hangouts or go2meeting, etc. If I need physical goods somewhere quickly then flying is a must, but doing business across the wire is much easier.

HNLogInShit 8y ago

If you somehow missed the fact that there's an airport in the area you're moving to, then that's your fault, not your realtor's. "remember that the loudness and frequency of air travel can change a lot." Great advice when moving into proximity of an airport. No pilot WANTS to create noise; they don't like it either. But nobody should tolerate scumbags who want to have public airports destroyed for their own profit, which is what most of these fake NIMBYs are. As for the real NIMBYs... they have no case unless they moved there before the airport was built.

VBprogrammer 8y ago

People will also completely disregard the positive changes which have taken place over the same time frame though. Aircraft engines are substantially quieter (and less polluting) than they were 50 years ago. Aircraft have better performance and so climb away much faster. I live on the south side of Heathrow (which has east-west orientated runways). We only get a fraction of the departures anyway but of those only the heaviest aircraft are generally noticeable. The shorthaul (737, A320 etc) aircraft are so high that the noise is negligible. I'm sure 50 years ago this would have been much worse with heavily laden Tridents and VC10s spewing black smoke and clawing for every foot of altitude.

justinph 8y ago
They have the performance to climb faster if they wanted to, but they don't. They actually climb slower to save fuel. And the use of smaller aircraft means there are more of them, since they each carry less people, but there's more flying than ever. The result is lower noise level but much more frequent noise.

gambiting 8y ago

I feel the same way when people say "why are you complaining about a pub nearby? didn't you know it was there when you moved in?". The point is - yes, the pub was already there, but so were the anti-noise laws in the area. And the laws say that noise should be kept to minimum after 11pm - the pub that was there for the last 100 years isn't magically exempt from the laws just because it was there for a long time. What's the point of even having anti-noise laws if they are selectively enforced? And worse, if people complaining are vilified because "you knew the pub was there when you moved". Yes, and the law was also there when someone moved.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]