Meeting and Petition for Pesky Helicopters

[pslamont]

I would like to run a "guess" and say that bnack in 2000 most of us weren't here on island. The population explosion has been in the last three to four years. Before that, this issue simply didn't impact as many people.

I think it is fair to say that the tour companies, in their interest to entertain their customers, seek out "interesting" sights. That is a big part of the problem. They aren't just flying to the park or craters or ocean.

I had the unfortunate experience of having one chopper come close to landing in my front yard. I am not sure what they were so interested in, but they cruised around my 30 acres a couple times and then came in so low they sprayed mud all over my front lanai and windows. It has never happened since but there was absolutely NO reason for this chopper to be down here.

I know the organization has been in the works for a year or two, having found an attorney, etc... to guide the cause. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

It is not reasonable to expect tour operations to stop here, but it is very reasonable to expect the laws to be followed/enforced. I believe that is what this is really all about.

IMHO
Pam

Just another day in P A R A D I S E !!

[Rob Tucker]

Here's my two cents:

There is a long list of issues that Puna faces. While it is interesting to cite the fact that Puna is the fastest growing district in Hawaii and many of the demographics are depressing there is a general perception about Puna that inhibits progress.

That perception is that people in Puna don't vote. Guess how much attention politicians give to a district that can't seem to get involved in it's own solutions. There are other districts who are quite happy with this situation.

For that reason I appreciate the CAOA meeting which is the reason for this topic.

In relation to other topics regarding Pahoa Village, traffic, gyms, schools, lava risks, etc. and on and on: It takes a village to make a village.

I am going to bring forward a topic I posted recently which got little attention and zero discussion. If any of you are interested in changing the perception that Punatics don't vote or get involved there are opportunities to do so.


Punaweb moderator

[JWFITZ]

So far as I can see the FAA is wholly on the side of safety, and minimum altitudes, and bemoan the fact that they are ill-equipped to to enforce what they see is a problem. Flight transponders that continuously read altitude air speed position ect., are on their way--this is clear as well.

I agree also with the implied point that just getting together and randomly gripping about a problem in an ill-informed manner isn't constructive, and this background work is valuable. At this point it's clearly demonstrated, SFAR or no, that the behavior of many of these tour companies is irresponsible, illegal, and dangerous. Most everybody but the tour companies themselves agree on that--and I'm not sure their opinion means much. As well, the current law as well, although subject to some interpretation, certainly doesn't allow for low level flyovers at all. Considering that the first principle of the law is that Helicopters are required to fly a an altitude that at all times allows for a unpowered landing in a safe area, and the maximum glide of most any helicopter is only about 4 to 1, or 4 feet of glide per foot of altitude, no one is going to argue sensibly that flying even 500 feet above forested land is safe by that or any definition. It's easy to see why they get to 1500 feet as a sensible safe height.

What happens with photographic evidence and complaints sent to the FAA? A high res digital camera is cheap and you'll nail them all the time. Any community effort towards this would flood the FAA offices and surely get a response.

[JWFITZ]

quote:

---

Here's my two cents:

There is a long list of issues that Puna faces. While it is interesting to cite the fact that Puna is the fastest growing district in Hawaii and many of the demographics are depressing there is a general perception about Puna that inhibits progress.

That perception is that people in Puna don't vote. Guess how much attention politicians give to a district that can't seem to get involved in it's own solutions. There are other districts who are quite happy with this situation.

For that reason I appreciate the CAOC meeting which is the reason for this topic.

In relation to other topics regarding Pahoa Village, traffic, gyms, schools, lava risks, etc. and on and on: It takes a village to make a village.

I am going to bring forward a topic I posted recently which got little attention and zero discussion. If any of you are interested in changing the perception that Punatics don't vote or get involved there are opportunities to do so.


Punaweb moderator

---

Well, I'm very new to the area so my opinion doesn't mean much, but it's not unfair to suggest that there's a lot of people out there who don't vote, because voting has little to no good effect. A lot of us aren't really very sure that our votes go anywhere but in the trash anyhow, and there's certainly next to no recourse in the case of fairly electing someone who simply doesn't honor the promises of their campaigns. For my self, it seems clear to me that government itself is more and more inconsequential every day--and most often when dealing with issues of this nature is simply ineffectual in facilitating any sort of change. Rather, most always, if you've got a complaint you're going to need to slug it out in the courts on your own.

[Thunderfoot]

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


reply,after years of reseach I will tell you that there are altitiude laws and noise laws.If you read deep all that I have been writing,there is more at stake here than noise,safety and such. Our constitutional rights to privacy and the enjoyment of our homes ,and so much more should not be forgotten or lessened because we don't discuss our rights very often.In fact if you do not exercise your rights,they can not help you and worse!!!.Your whale issue was different and this is way beyond a protest.We are a 501©(4) socity welfare non-profit and we are in this for the long hall.Also,the FAA can enforce altitude and safety issues if you give them a video within two days of the incident.The meeting is the arena to talk about this deeper.Thanks.hope to see ya there.

[Thunderfoot]

quote:

---

I know this is a dumb question, but, who are you trying to get to do what?

I love hearing people complain about issues (sarcasm) since I don't seem to get enough of it at work, and I love to hear speakers talk about problems from various perspectives, but without a realistic approach to a real solution, isn't it just a community social meeting?

---

reply:
The CAOA is a legitimate organization with a Board if directors and more.We have a plan,but why would we reveal it before its time?
Also,what does it matter who we are really,but the message we try to speak.Everyone is entitled to their view,but people should not knock the perspective of others in the process of expressing their view.We can all converse here and find solutions together.Don't come to the meeting if that is your view.If you want to know who I am come to the meeting.But please let everyone make up their own mind.That is why all the mudslinging(however subtle) comments are left on this post.
We are strong in our mission and we are in it for the long haul.Thank you for your input.

[Thunderfoot]

[quote]
My concern is that I’m hearing all the talk, but I ain’t seen nobody walk.
REPLY-Isn't the coagulation of an organization proof enough that somebody is walking
What I mean is if this problem has been around for so long, where the heck was everyone on August 21, 2000? The facts are the FAA received no support for extending SFAR 71 from:
The Governor

REPLY; No one knew about these meetings.The FAA promised to personally notify me of meetings and they did not.Even Senator Akaka can't get an answer why the FAA has failed to even finalize one plan.The link is in previous texts

[Thunderfoot]

After responding to quotes today,I want to add:
THANK ALL OF YOU for your words,ideas and input.Also,thank all who has emailed the CAOA at our email address.We are getting swamped with requests,so please bear with us while we respond.Words are not enough to express the honor of your participation in this topic.
Please keep in mind this isn't about emotions,personality differences, economics,politics etc....
This is about our constitutional freedoms and the right to enjoy our homes,parks and zoos etc...and the preservation of our wildlife,national parks etc... and more this topic is deep and wide and if you look,the most passionate discussion on this site right now.THANKS AGAIN

[Thunderfoot]

COOL,THANKS

[JWFITZ]

Cool, I'm with you, but disagree. After looking at this, you have a very strong position to stand on.

I've been involved in a number of disputes like this over the years and am CERTAIN in this case that these guys indeed in violation of the law, and in a big way. It's easy, and rare to find this sort of issue where it's this clear cut. There is a lot of effort to obfuscate the issue, but the law is clear.

It is ILLEGAL to fly any helicopter anywhere where:

You cause property damage in any way.

Or

You are incapable of making a non-powered landing if power failure occurs.

That's it, that is the letter of the law, and that's the fact.

So, obviously, any helicopter over undeveloped terrain that's inside a 1 to 4 ratio of altitude to landing site is indeed operating in an unsafe manner. I'm sure, after reading the issue, the FAA agrees. They seem solid on the whole issue. Their gripe is that they can not/don't have the ability to enforce.

So, it all looks good to me.

Anyhow, Thunderfoot, I'm with the project and will be your new neighbor permanently in about 3 weeks. Unfortunately still marooned in Califonia for the short term, but you can count on me after that.

take care all