09-17-2017, 07:36 AM
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/...eckdam.pdf
"On July 6, 2012, FAA issued the North Shore Helicopter Route Final Rule (the Rule),
Requiring civil
helicopters operating along the north shore of Long
Island to utilize a route located approximately one
mile offshore (the Route), the use of which had previously been voluntary. Helicopter operators carrying
passengers between New York City and Long Island
prefer the Route over other viable options to the south
because it is consistently faster and less susceptible to
weather delays. The Route was originally established
in 2008 following a stakeholder meeting convened
by Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Tim
Bishop to address noise complaints stemming from
helicopter operations along the north shore. As an
outgrowth of that meeting, FAA published the then-
voluntary Route in the Helicopter Route Chart for New
York, effective May 8, 2008.
5
Two years later, on May 26, 2010, in response to an
unspecified number of noise-related complaints from
nearby residents that were brought to FAA’s attention by
elected officials, the agency issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (the NPRM) that would
require
all civil helicopters operating along the north shore of Long Island to
utilize the Route, subject to certain limited exceptions...."
The FAA got sued by a helicopter trade group and the FAA won. The decision was appealed and the trade group lost again.
There is precedent.
"In light of this decision, it is a fair guess that the FAA will find itself increasingly importuned on consistency-of-agency-action grounds to do for other homeowners around the country what it did for the folks living on the north shore of Long Island and who, like them, do not much care for the noise (however small) caused by overflying aircraft. It may be that the FAA will find itself hard-pressed to distinguish what the court has implicitly found to be a “nuisance” for those living on that stretch of land from the impact of aircraft on those living elsewhere."
If the FAA fails to act on Big Island noise complaints, the standard procedure is complain about them to our elected officials. The congress person or senator will issue an inquiry to the agency and they are required by law to respond to any congressional inquiry (I can't remember the time frame I think it's either 15 or 30 days). If your complaint to the elected official includes bullet points (like failure to follow agency's own precedents) they usually get included to what the agency has to reply to.
ETA: content, also this link informative: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/a...noise-rule
"On July 6, 2012, FAA issued the North Shore Helicopter Route Final Rule (the Rule),
Requiring civil
helicopters operating along the north shore of Long
Island to utilize a route located approximately one
mile offshore (the Route), the use of which had previously been voluntary. Helicopter operators carrying
passengers between New York City and Long Island
prefer the Route over other viable options to the south
because it is consistently faster and less susceptible to
weather delays. The Route was originally established
in 2008 following a stakeholder meeting convened
by Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Tim
Bishop to address noise complaints stemming from
helicopter operations along the north shore. As an
outgrowth of that meeting, FAA published the then-
voluntary Route in the Helicopter Route Chart for New
York, effective May 8, 2008.
5
Two years later, on May 26, 2010, in response to an
unspecified number of noise-related complaints from
nearby residents that were brought to FAA’s attention by
elected officials, the agency issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (the NPRM) that would
require
all civil helicopters operating along the north shore of Long Island to
utilize the Route, subject to certain limited exceptions...."
The FAA got sued by a helicopter trade group and the FAA won. The decision was appealed and the trade group lost again.
There is precedent.
"In light of this decision, it is a fair guess that the FAA will find itself increasingly importuned on consistency-of-agency-action grounds to do for other homeowners around the country what it did for the folks living on the north shore of Long Island and who, like them, do not much care for the noise (however small) caused by overflying aircraft. It may be that the FAA will find itself hard-pressed to distinguish what the court has implicitly found to be a “nuisance” for those living on that stretch of land from the impact of aircraft on those living elsewhere."
If the FAA fails to act on Big Island noise complaints, the standard procedure is complain about them to our elected officials. The congress person or senator will issue an inquiry to the agency and they are required by law to respond to any congressional inquiry (I can't remember the time frame I think it's either 15 or 30 days). If your complaint to the elected official includes bullet points (like failure to follow agency's own precedents) they usually get included to what the agency has to reply to.
ETA: content, also this link informative: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/a...noise-rule