Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
On a more constructive note, however, thinking about issue while surfing--how about a county voters initiative for a heavy tax on aviation fuels? Since basically the helicopters capitalize on profits made by enjoying other people's attempts at privacy and conserving the natural environment--and I can't imagine the flights will be banned wholly, at the very least the tour operators owe the rest of us something for the hassle and damage to private property values they cause.
How about a tax of a buck a gallon on aviation fuel and send the revenues to help chemical/substance abuse rehab--or some other needy cause...
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Well having looked into it a bit more.
This is going to be a tough nut to crack. I've been involved in a number of protest actions against similar problems--mostly whale watching boats in the Puget Sound area. In that case violations were clear, the law was broken daily, and law enforcement simply refused to do anything about the issue. Ultimately, the issue was/is solved, as the the whales are dying like flies and 5 years from now it won't be a problem anymore.
This is different. So far as I can tell, there's really no law that the 'copter guys are breaking. There isn't any minimum legal altitude for helicopter operation--even the US Supreme Ct has weighed in on this. Noise ordinance can apply, but only if it's on the books and is very difficult to enforce. So, I don't really see where the argument is going to go--and any protest in my mind without a leg to stand on(or an OR ELSE) is pretty much only a whine, and isn't going to go anywhere.
So maybe mashed potatoes are a great idea after all...or something similar.
Get into model rocketry. It's wholly legal, but if you shoot off rockets above a certain size you need to file hazard reports 24 hours before the launch, and the FAA clears space for you. It's legal, doesn't cost anything, and uses the same ill-fitting rules the helicopters fly by. It actually makes it a violation for them to fly over your house if you're planning a launch, and one that a pilot will loose a license over, as they're supposed to check for such events before they fly. I suppose that's my next step.
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Whoops--the above for helicopters wholly not true. Here's the letter of the law.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/fiel...lowfly.pdf
Clearly, low flying helicopters over forested areas are dangerously in violations of 91.119
clause (a). The law is there and there indeed is recourse within the FAA.
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 145
Joined: Apr 2005
quote:
Whoops--the above for helicopters wholly not true. Here's the letter of the law.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/fiel...lowfly.pdf
Clearly, low flying helicopters over forested areas are dangerously in violations of 91.119
clause (a). The law is there and there indeed is recourse within the FAA.
The problems I see here with the law are
91.119
c. define sparsely populated areas?????
d. Helicopters may be operated at less than minimum altitudes (500 feet), due to their unique landing abilities, law enforcement, medical needs????
So I think a meeting will be necessary and the CAOA will need community help to see any response or improvement in this threatening nuisance.
One would hope/think that advocates for the native bird populations would want to be involved also as this is not only a residential quality of life issue, but an environmental issue for the declining bird populations.
mella l
mella l
Art and Science
bytheSEA
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
The issue is:
A) There IS no respected flight path. No due diligence on your part of a property buyer will determine that. Sure, they fly up to the crater, but out to the new flows and willy nilly where they feel like with complete disregard to the people below.
B) Clearly, if you're unfortunate to be within the line of sight between the airport and any new "attraction" you'll have helicopter trouble regardless of where you are on the island. And then, I suppose--some of you may become more interested.
For myself--it might surprise you at this point--I DON'T have helicopter problems. But I know people that do-and really do. But I'll still say, you're not much of a citizen, and you certainly don't represent any sort of "aloha" spirit if you aren't as interested in your neighbors property rights and troubles as you are in your own.
C) Clearly there is damage being caused. I'm not a real estate expert, but I'll bet that if you've got a piece of property that so happens to be where the tours fly, it's likely worth a third less that it would be without. That is very significant indeed, and considered island wide the tour helicopters are likely a deficit to the economy as a whole.
D) As for the middle ground sort of arguments--listen, all would be needed was responsibility on part of tour operators. Just don't fly at tree top level. Keep them up in the air out of simple decency and safety. But, if you fly at altitude you'll burn a lot more fuel, right? Well, that costs money--and obviously it's more important to these people to take the common good and put it in their pocket than respect anyone else. Simple courtesy is all that's needed here. It doesn't exist.
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 145
Joined: Apr 2005
quote:
Just three questions and no answers?
So I assume that the flight problems are looked at in the same vane as junk cars lying around your home and challenging neighbors who have different needs regarding barking dogs, or industrial noise level lifestyles, whether it is music or other source. Is this the case?
1. Where is the Nelson Corridor?
2. Is there a map denoting this permissible flight path?
3. Do realtors, or sellers need to disclose it if a property is in a regulated and lawful flight path?
I understand when the weather is clouded in the activity slows, diminishes and then vanishes.
Mahalo All
mella l
mella l
mella l
Art and Science
bytheSEA
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Well, I wasn't there, so I can't comment on that. I'd say however, that if you read SFAR 71 the rules are sensible safe and fair and I doubt few would protest.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan...enDocument
Note--TOUR HELICOPTERS MUST REMAIN 1500 feet from any persons or property! This is pretty hard to argue with.
The problem is again--the tour companies do NOT play by the law.
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Well, I wasn't there, so I can't comment on that. I'd say however, that if you read SFAR 71 the rules are sensible safe and fair and I doubt few would protest.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan...enDocument
Note--TOUR HELICOPTERS MUST REMAIN 1500 feet from any persons or property! This is pretty hard to argue with.
The problem is again--the tour companies do NOT play by the law.
The FAA is wholly aware of the problem as well and intends remedy, as this more recent paper asserts.
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2007/A07_18_26.pdf
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
I'd suppose:
First: Most people don't read the FAA literature each morning over coffee.
Second: Even if you had, you'd get the impression that SFAR 71 was let lapse(all or in part, I'm still not clear on that) with the understanding that it was to be replaced with a national rule. That national rule was due last month, but they're still dragging their feet, and it's anybodies guess as to what is in it.
Still, and what DOES remain, is that helicopters are NOT allowed to fly in hazardous conditions or where they damage property. While that limit was defined by SFAR 71 at 1500 feet, and that limit has now expired, the principle that engendered it has not, nor has the precedent SFAR 71 set--that within expert opinion, a 1500 foot minimum altitude is reasonable, and below that is often unsafe.
So we'll see.
Ultimately, I guess, fuel prices will take care of the problem anyhow.
|
