damages for any special inconvenience and discomfort not experienced by the public at large.” Id. at 556, 34 S.Ct. at 658 (quoting Baltimore & Potomac R.R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U.S. 317, 2 S.Ct. 719, 27 L.Ed. 739 (1883)). The Court concluded that the smoke and exhaust from the tunnel were private nuisances borne peculiarly by the plaintiff, and therefore granted compensation. Id. at 557, 34 S.Ct. at 658. A similar rule governs aircraft overflights. Where a plaintiff complains only of noise resulting from normal aircraft operations, not passing directly overhead, this court follows the general rules springing from Causby to deny recovery. See Avery v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 357, 330 F.2d 640, 645 (1964); see also Batten v. United States, 306 F.2d 580, 585 (10th Cir.1962) (<HOLDING>); cf. Richards, 233 U.S. at 554, 34 S.Ct. at
holding that time was not compensable where the employer provided but did not require use of a shuttle holding that where aircraft operations did not physically invade the landowners estate incidental smoke vibrations and noise were not compensable takings holding that regulatory restrictions on abutting landowners right of ingress and egress are not compensable when landowner has adequate alternative means to access property holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate