In 1994, I moved to a fairly 'rural' area of San Diego, Alpine. Nice place to raise kids, quiet, country-like.

Until the flight schools decided they wanted to practice overhead 50-60 hours a week. Alpine sits between 3 major local landmarks, so some days it seems like they just circle overhead continuously.

Then they practice their deadstick maneuvers...even more irritating.

So I have taken to 'shooting' the most annoying ones, easy to get their owner off the Internet with the "N" number that is required.

They probably think they are too high up for citizens to catch their registration number.

NYa-a-a-a-a, little do they know!


So far all of them except one has been very co-operative when I send them their portrait. I'm still working on the last one, might have to send his pictures to the FAA one of these days.


Or maybe I'm just turning into and old curmudgeon...

Anyone else have issues with flight schools in your area?

Troop, are they violating any flight rules with their maneuvers? What behavior are you trying to stop?

troop,
i know exactly what you mean
i live on a hilltop overlooking Lindo Lake and the Lake Jennings area that is popular for flyovers,
AND am close to the airfield out here,
AND an right underneath the flightpath for the helicopters from the Marine Airbase at Miramar,

things fly right over my house every day,

i sometimes think if i painted a couple long yellow lines down my property things would start landing at my backdoor

it can be annoying once in a while, except for the Marine helos which thump loudly right overhead but are still cool,

i guess it just don't get underneath my skin as much

its probably when they circle the house 10 times as they are looking at the sites,

and the planes that circle Troop's house go right over mine as i live inbetween the small-plane airport and Troop's house,

the small planes are up there just horsing around and don't have many flight rules

Any Cessna folks on here?

Is the first plane a 172 RG model? 200hp Lycoming engine?

The last pic looks like a 80's model 172 without wheel cowlings? 160hp engine?Troop, any pics of the 3rd plane with a shutter fast enough you can see how many blades the prop has?

Topic drift. I miss the days when my stepdad was a pilot for Cessna.

My father was an Air Force pilot, so I'm sorta immune to aircraft noise. Except for the old F4 fighters, man those things were LOUD!

Funny you should ask D-Rod. After my father's AF career was done he had a Cessna dealership for a while. Gosh that was all long ago ...

hanger sweeper Kelly

No problems with flight schools. One of the houses in Reno sits right off the flight path for the tunnel chute for the air races. I love it. But, those are a different animal all together.

Not sure what the minimum floor is that aircraft are supposed to operate above. Anyone have that info? I definitely take their picture when I can if they are unusually low, say under 500 feet.

They aren't really breaking any rules other than common courtesy.

I told one of the managers of an El Cajon flight school that the noise was sort of similar to having a diesel semi idling in front of your house all day. Sometimes it really annoys you, sometimes you get used to it and almost forget it's there; until it leaves. Then you realize how quiet it is without all that background noise.

Most of the time the owner/operator of the flight school assumes the planes must be really low. They have a sort of 'code' that if a citizen can read your reg numbers, you are too low.

LOL, I can read there reg numbers pretty darn high with my camera and the right lighting...they just don't know my equipment. If the guy is genuinely too low, I can practically get a face-recognizable photo of him.

Not exactly, but I do know that RG stands for "retractable gear", and both the 1st and second plane appear to have a retracting system. Although they are completely different, aren't they? (The first plane I ever flew in was a 172, when I was 17 years old.)

My guess is the first one is a 172 RG like you guys said, second is a Piper Warrior or Archer (non retractable gear either way) and the third looks like a standard 172.

My dad flew for a while too, his favorite was a Grumman Tiger, I have done lots of time in a wide variety of small aircraft.

Troop: It's something like 100 feet (maybe it's 500?) above the tallest object within city limits, with a few exceptions for airports or REALLY tall buildings, etc. (i didn't see CMJ's response yet!!!)

The second picture isn't a Cessna. It's a Bonanza or Piper. I don't know much about either.

3rd airplane is NOT a retractable model.

In the 172RG, the front gear folds up UPward. It's an interesting airplane to say the least. The whole up front creates massive amounts of drag. Bob and I flew one once from Wichita to Denver, through the Rockies to Cheyenne, then back to Wichita, where we dropped it at the hanger and picked up the 172 SP back into Independence.

The standard 172R is 160hp. Those things won't hardly get out of their own freaking way. about a 300 fpm climb. The S (or SP models, both speak of the same plane) are 180hp. They have something like 300lbs more take off capacity. They climb better, closer to 500 fpm when loaded. The RG's were made back in the 80s (are not made today). They have a 180hp engine or a 200hp. I forget which. At any rate, they're far more complex then the usual 172 with the RG and variable pitch prop. They cruise about 30mph or so faster than a 172S thanks to the reduced drag of the retracted gear.

Airplanes aren't like cars. You can't go adding more horsepower to the airframe without change all of the characteristics. I believe the 172 RG is actually more/less a slightly modified 175 marketed under the 172 name. The 175's had reliability problems, so when they got those fixed, they just put it back under the 172 model as performance versions. I think! The 172 RG didn't catch on except for flight schools. You buy a Cessna airplane for simplicity and reliability purposes. If you want the complex of RG's, then go buy a faster Beech aircraft. That's, I think, why Cessna didn't start making a RG model back in 1996 when they restarted production in Independence. Also, the 172S came into production around 1998. That and a 182 performs on the same level as a 172 RG yet it has more room and costs about the same.

Just random stuff I remember from the olds day. :-/

Troop - Your wife doing yard work in her bikini again?

No, but...hey! That might solve my problem.