I posted in my blog this morning on the topic and it really boils my blood....:mad:
Does anyone else think it's crazy for people to move in near an airport and complain about it?
Printable View
I posted in my blog this morning on the topic and it really boils my blood....:mad:
Does anyone else think it's crazy for people to move in near an airport and complain about it?
I agree, if your going to buy a home near any facility that creates noise, street traffic, or any commercial activity you need to THINK before you sign the offer. Unfortunately, too many people are so impressed by the nice features a new home offers that they overlook the neighborhood. Developers are only interested in making a profit, will not make any mention of anything that might discourage a sale. Airports are really vulnerable, given the large amount of real estate they require and as the suburbs sprawl they tend to surround the older airports. This is a set-up for real estate developers to grab-up some really prime property and it is happening all over the country. It's not some kind of plot, just a simple opportunity for a few people to make some $$$. There is rarely any serious opposition to expanding a major airport like say O'Hare in part, because the airlines and the local govt. needs the facility and the revenue it generates. Smaller airports with low levels of activity are easy targets, OSU is not small and the best way to fight this stuff is to point out the economic impact the airport makes to the whole community. We just had an election where a lot of talk focused on jobs, closing an airport replaces permanent jobs with a one time bump in construction, very short term thinking.
Joe
:cool:
arizona department of real estate website. airport boundary maps. territory in the vicinity of an airport. mandatory disclosure to buyers before closing. all states should do that. basically - you were told before you bought, so sit down and shut up.
As is here.... note development stalled just NW of airport. when the economy returns there will be houses here..... Attachment 2652
Yes it is crazy. I am still dumbfounded when people come in and say they never new the airport was even here. The airport has been here for years and is right on a busy main road. drivin with blinders and buying houses with blinders.
see 16 Right video...... classic encroachment - embattled airport
imagine being married to one of these people. we can deal with a few complainers around the airports. keep flying and you have won. this is what you may find if you go flying more. seen off NH beach last summer.
Attachment 2653
If I can offer a more long term perspective, I will start by noting that airports are generally inward directed, and the current trend of erecting fences to keep out the general public has made it worse. In the northeast US, it is less and less common for the average airport to have any sort of open house that invites the general public in to see what the airport does, and its positive impact on the community. Our airports are not presenting any positive messaging outside the airport fence.
All of those neighbors vote, and there are a lot more of them than there are airport tenants and transients, so for better or worse, the airport people have to make their presence visible in a positive way. Any many do not. Flying Young Eagles is a start, but can not be the end if you want a healthy relationship with your neighbors. At my local city airport the local Young Eagles Coordinator reaches out to the schools and lots of kids, and their parents, come out. For the image of the airport, its the parents who show up that are most important.
I will note that at the local city airport, the airport manager and the airport authority members have little interest in marketing the airport to the public. They appear to see the non-flying folks outside the fence as noise complaints and potential vandals and terrorists. So if there were a municipal vote to close the facility, what do you think the outcome will be?
In the specific case of White Plains, which I have observed in the distance for a number of years, you have an airport that is almost entirely populated by corporate hangars, an airline terminal, and higher end type general aviation airplanes. The physical plant involves two states and at least two municipalities, all of which have different political interests. The corporate flight departments tend to want to be anonymous for various reasons (business strategy, external and internal politics...) The airlines and charters view the location as just another station. The sum total is that there is nothing on the airport that any of the airport staff or tenants wants to invite the public in to see, there is no positive messaging being delivered to the general public, and all of those neighbors experience the airport as jet noise. And there are a lot of unhappy voters.
As the former Speaker of the US House, "Tip" O'Neil, once observed, "All politics is local".
If you want to make an impact on the future of your local airport, A) Live in or move to the municipality that owns the airport, B) get involved in the politics of the airport. This is not instant gratification, but if you can influence the governing board of the airport, if you can lobby the airport manager to host an event that invites the community to see what goes on at the airport, if you can get the airport to invite all of the local realtors in to tour the airport, you can start to make connections that may result in a neighbor population that views the operations more favorably.
I fly and I vote. You should do both too.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
"Turbo", I am shocked that you would publish on this aviation forum photos of the rear views of half naked young women.
Shame on you.
P S. Where are the front views, and don't you have any from Florida or BVI ?
Here in Big Bear, CA, ( L35) we take special efforts to keep the public aware and informed about the value of the airport to local safety and economy. Our town is located in a forest-fire prone area so the airport is invaluable as a staging place for fire helicopters and the public knows this and is thankful for the safety provided. We also had the Chamber of Commerce calculate how much money the airport brings into the local economy thru vacationers, skiers, fishermen, tourists, fuel sales, restaurants, motels, etc and it was around $4M/yr. During the summer months, we do Young Eagles each month and usually fly around 40 kids per Saturday event, so that makes more good PR with the public. In a rural community atop mountains, anyone with a severe medical emergency like a heart attack needs evacuation down to a large hospital, so the airport is the place for Medevac flights and the public knows this and supports the airport completely. Should we have a bad earthquake or road closures from heavy snows, the airport is the only means for contact with the outside world and is appreciated by local citizens because we don't let them forget with periodic letters in the local newspaper. Whenever a developer even mentions airport land, the locals go to bat against it with the City Council and have successfully preserved our airport.
Bob H
Let me provide a contrarian view. There can be bad neighbors and there can be bad pilotage.
I live about one nautical mile north of a general aviation field. When I first moved here there was no control tower. All traffic (crosswind, downwind and base legs) was directed to be south side of the field. Life was good and the unknowing were not aware there was an airport nearby.
Along came a control tower that is not really needed. It was wasted taxpayer dollars in the interests of "safety". They now allow ops on the north side of the field. Which, is generally not a problem.
However, there are some pilots that make low inbound and outbound flights using lots of power. I really love it when a guy with a constant speed prop leaves it in fine pitch and takeoff power for ten minutes after departure. And then there are the helicoptors that seem to fly at tree top level if they want to. The professionally operated business jets are not the problem as they generally depart straight in and out. It is the piston powered boys.
So, as a pilot and as a home owner I am at cross purposes. I cannot support the airport any longer given their failure to take into consideration my concerns. They don't care about me. I can't care about them. If there was a vote to now close the field (which won't happen) I would vote for closure.
Our privately owned airport has been in existance for about 45 years. When we heard that there was to be a large subdivision built just to the north of our airport(N/S Runway), we went to the zoning meeting as a large group. We were successful in getting the developer to show the airport location on the subdivision map, it had to be included in the home owner association information and it had to be noted in every deed that there was an airport adjoining the subdivision and that the subdivision was under the flight pattern for the airport. We have had no problem in 5 years. Now they are going to build one just west of our airport. We again were successful in getting the same stipulations that were in the previous subdivision's requirement to get the zoning. In addition we were able to get the developer to agree to build a 6' chain link fence along the western boundary of our airport as a safety feature to keep kids from coming on the airport property to ride 4-wheelers, etc. on our nice grass runway. Kids are welcome to come to the airport, just not with 4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc. So far, we have survived with no problems from our neighbors. Also, in Louisiana, it is a law that real estate agents must inform potential buyers if there is an airport or any other hazardous activity in the vicinity. And Jethro, in my opinion, you must not be much of a pilot if you would vote to close an airport.
Our local airport was there long before a housing boom in the area; they solved the problem by putting in noise abatement areas - something Jethro needs to push for.
Hey Turbo!,
Did you shoot those photo's from your 'Copter? You may have broken the 500 foot rule, but it was worth the risk!!!
Joe
;)
500' rule doesn't apply to choppers, PPCs, or weightshift...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe LaMantia
Attachment 2655helis rule, less rules, not really, more fun, more $$$$$$.
New Jersey actually made it law that restricts zoning around airports, though people challenge it continually.
What is particularly stupid is that people think that putting 4 dwelling units per acre+ is a less intensive development than putting an industrial park around the airport. Obviously haven't figured out what a few vehicles 9-5 is compared to a gazillion residential travellers all hours of the day.
Amusingly, one of my neighbors on the airpark, who had to drive THROUGH the airpark to get to their house on the lake, never realized that there was a runway just over their house for quite some time after they moved in.
Well those copter rules or lack of that one support a bumper sticker "Copter Pilots Have More Fun!" Now Turbo, go find a nude beach!
Joe
:cool:
I have to offer a word of caution to our helicopter friends about operating altitudes.
14 CFR 91.119 includes the sub-paragraph
"(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface."
It is the "without hazard" clause where the lawyers will get you. That is, if you are at an altitude where you can not auto-rotate to a landing without endangering a civilian on the ground, you are technically in violation. I had to speak to some helicopter folks who were flying over my neighborhood at night at 500' and causing distress among my neighbors. Since I live at a small airport amongst some hills, plus they were flying across the end of the runway at 500' without communicating on our CTAF, in the dark as well as during daylight hours, 14 CFR 91.126(b)(2) was in question also. They don't do that any more.
The sum total is that we learn that not all of the folks on the ground appreciate low level flying, regardless of the type of equipment. I regret that these days, if you are aerially perusing the bathing beauties at the local beach, someone is calling the local airport complaining. So if your local airport has neighbors complaining, we all should look in the mirror and make sure that we are not part of the problem.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news,
Wes
N78PS
I had a supervisery position with a RW operator at a S Loisianna airport a few years ago and someone brought me a document to read. It was a disclosure from a developer addressed to prospective buyers in a developement planned for an ag field accross the street from our facility. There was a place for a buyer to sign to acknowlege notice that there was an airport very close. The developement was started less than 500 feet from our ramp. Also the same distance from a second operator. 1,000' from a third. All operators conducted day/night and predawn operations with various types to include transport types over 17,500 lbs and 3500 HP.
Operations are conducted in accordance with Letters of Agreement (LOAs) that require landing RW ac to be down to 500 agl 10 miles out. Further more, inbound and outbound routes are laid out to permit FW ac in the pattern to operate over the top of RW ac. Many of the RW ac are multi engine, therefore an engine failure does not always require a pilot to consider the underlying terrain. A transition to OEI is done rather than an autorotation. Of course, If traffic permits ops can usully be conducted from the runways.
I made routine approaches to landing in ME ac over the first houses being built. I made my approaches as steep as I safely could, and still cleared rooftops with roofers on them with about 150'. This was done in accordance with the LOAs and with tower clearance. There seemed to be no alternative except to cease operations. Also, amphibs make an earsplitting racket when departing from the nearby RW with their props at max RPM. You would have to be nuts to buy a house in that neighborhood.
Bob