Frans wrote:
Later on, I met the one how was complaining about me on the radios. He was an FI and had a student with him.
This is your problem.
No doubt he is “the” FI at the aerodrome you were at.
He is never wrong.
He is always right.
He is in charge.
He is God.
Smile, say “if you say so, sorry”, move on with life, and keep the GPS track backed up. 
I totally agree with ALL the comments that any disagreements should be dealt with on the ground, not the air.
Regards, SD..
IMO the answer should have been “You really thought I was over the village? Interesting. That’s not what my GPS track is telling me”
Said in such a way as to cast doubt on what he was saying without actually arguing.
A wonderful cinematographer I used to work with would never argue but would ask questions framed in such a way as to put doubt in a person’s mind so they would usually respond with such words as “What’s wrong with it?” or “You don’t thinks so?” to which he would respond “Nothing” or " If that’s what you really want". By which time any director, even remotely lacking in confidence, was now totally questioning himself.
He had instructed on Harvards in the RAF on attachment in various countries and I often wondered if he used the same technique with his students.
gallois wrote:
Modern aircraft like the DA 40 tdi and those equipped with Rotax engines are much quieter than the old Lycosaurus
This, as always, depends. With a variable pitch prop you can do more things. When I’m down low I intend to reduce RPM as much as reasonably possible. For example, a low-power descent from altitude down to the traffic pattern, and reduction of speed, I go at 1700-1800 RPM (with just enough power to keep engine warm). Several club members already told me that it was hard to hear me at all coming like this back to the airfield. I continue in the traffic pattern at about 2000 RPM and only in short final prepare for go around, where you seldom get over 2400 RPM for some correction. After takeoff, as soon as possible (100 meters above ground for me) I reduce to 2500 RPM, which significantly cuts noise, and establish my typical 75% power for climb. If climb gradient would necessitate higher power output it’s another story, but so far I haven’t come across a field where this was necessary. By this you reduce noise during approach and traffic circuit, which (beside departure) are most vulnerable.
The high revolutions of the Rotax produce some different noise. There are gyrocopters, for instance. So it’s not “the Rotax is quieter”. But yes, in a typical microlight, the Rotax is very quiet, at least outside the aircraft. Never came across a Rotax-driven plane where I could fly without headset (with engine running).
I think with Rotaxes, is that the noise is spread over a much greater spectrum so it isn’t perceived as being so annoyingly loud. With a traditional direct drive engine you have big noise peaks all grouped at the fundamental frequency of the propeller and harmonics thereof, so all the noise is concentrated into a narrow band (and to make things worse, the prop tip speed is quite high so the engine can make good power). With the Rotaxes, the prop sound is less due to lower prop RPM to start with, and with the prop speed and engine note not being harmonics of each other, it really helps reduce the perceived sound level.
Rotax at 5000rpm sounds like sports cars, it’s an acceptable noise 
alioth wrote:
I think with Rotaxes, is that the noise is spread over a much greater spectrum so it isn’t perceived as being so annoyingly loud.
Perception of noise is a complex topic – and not just relating to the spectrum.
One other major driver is also monotony/changes: Even if an old Lyco is (ceteris paribus) 3-6 dB louder than a Rotax, the behavior of the pilot is much more important: If you only adjust power twice during landing (one time when turning base and thus starting final descent and one time when closing the throttle over the threshold), most people will regard the noise as far less annoying, than if you constantly change power.
Living myself almost under the Downwind I can tell you that most of the traffic I don’t even notice – but those which I notice are the ones that fly full power into the downwind, then realize they are much to fast and pull the throttle completely, then realize they loos hight and firewall the throttle again.
And most of these planes are actually Rotaxes … ok, to be fair: Nothing to do with Rotax itself but the bigger the engine gets the more likely it is operated by an experienced pilot.
Frans wrote:
Moral of the story: Not every Swiss airfield is so endangered of it’s closure, as the GA-community might think.
Absolutely. Kägiswil and Münster (which however is highly restricted in its use) are great examples for that. There are others as well, particularly in Western Switzerland.
It is also not so that all of them are directly endangered or at least not anymore, but the base for the often grudging tolerance is that the users of the airfields take extra care. Look at the briefing for Kägiswil for a start. No wonder they got local support, but there is a good reason for that. I got friends who fly there and followed that particular fight closely.
What we have to remember is, that all of those airfields are in private hands of the clubs and all are PPR, usually handled very informally. But there are others, where PPR actually means closed to visiting aircraft or only available under very special conditions such as Hausen, Montricher, Schänis, Münster, Bellechasse, Zweisimmen, St.Stephan and others. Airfields under threat will become more and more restricted as well.
All I am saying is we have to take this seriously and take care. If one of the locals tells me, I have done something wrong, I listen carefully and analyze if he has a point or not. Not many will challenge visitors without reason.
My observation is that when airport traffic starts taking ‘extra care’ it encourages the wacko complaining neighbors, in does not pacify them. Generally FAA takes that approach, not accepting death by 1000 cuts, and it’s kept this problem from growing in the US. Whether it be self appointed airport policemen or neighbors the issue is how to deal with unstable, bored people. In general showing them that their behavior could have unpleasant consequences works better than being pleasant. The trick when you’re one-on-one is do it with a smile, in such a way that they understand you are serious and have the resources to affect them.
It’s really a matter of leadership, because as others have said most people at airports and around them enjoy the activity and are not anal retentive troublemakers.
Silvaire wrote:
In general showing them that their behavior could have unpleasant consequences works better than being pleasant.
What unpleasant consequences? I can’t see how anyone can be punished for complaining about something?
(Well, of course that depends. A neighbour called the tower of our local airbase to complain about noise so often that it became a nuisance to the controllers. Eventually one of the controllers told her that if she kept calling they would prosecute her for aeronautical sabotage – which is an actual crime in Sweden.)
Fairly obviously figuring that out is the art of negotiation.
