Back to Squawk list
  • 30

FAA Denies L.A. Anti-helicopter Petitions

제출됨
 
Last week the FAA denied a quartet of petitions that sought to impose helicopter minimum altitudes; mandatory routings; and hover, orbit and pooling restrictions on tour and electronic news gathering (ENG) operators for all helicopters operating within the Los Angeles Basin. The petitions were filed by various groups of anti-helicopter activists under the umbrella group known as the Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition. (www.ainonline.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


canuck44
canuck44 12
Good move by the FAA. Had they granted this, the same crowd would then go after fixed wing aircraft demanding restrictions that would undoubtedly impact safety and operational efficiency. There will always be one group or another butthurt over something over which they have no control but demand to have it.
joelwiley
Brought to you by SBAWBA (Squirrely Birds Against Whirly Birds Anonymous)perhaps?
Leonphillips43
What appears to be over looked here; the air space above the surface's private own property is considered private air space from surface to infinity, therefore I'm concerned that both commercial fixed and rotary a/c(excluding law enforcement) are confiscating private property without compensation not to mention violating the local noise ordinances. I find it absurd that there are those who choose to be selective as it relates to Government control. Either "keep the Feds out of our business" but permit the Feds to intervene only if it's beneficial. They do not want the Feds imposing gun control restrictions, yet it's ok if the Feds intervenes by confiscating private property and benefiting "for Profit" commercial a/c.
canuck44
canuck44 2
That at one time was true but now the FAA has authority for all air 500 feet and above, essentially as an easement to the government of all property owners. Likewise many jurisdictions limit mineral rights below individual properties.
Leonphillips43
Your comment only applies to a five miles radius of an airport and is related to private-owned Drone restriction. Any one attempting to have you believe otherwise is "pulling the wool over your eyes".
I resided in a community near a major airport hub that requested an received approval from the FAA to modify their departure flight vectors. Property owners residing under and in close proximity of those revised departure vectors received one-time noise abatement assistance for their residence and compensation for utilizing their air space.
canuck44
canuck44 2
Sorry, it is everywhere as by the old logic each property owner could make a claim against any aircraft ovrhead. Here is the relevant legislation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103
srobak
srobak 0
Not sure how you came to the conclusion about infinite private property. That has never been the case. In fact - the definition regarding the airspace reads that it only protects items that are in some fashion attached to the ground and the direct airspace that the protrusion occupies.
Leonphillips43
Untrue! I recently resided in a community near a major airport hub that requested and received approval from the FAA to modify their departure flight vectors. Property owners residing under and in close proximity of those revised departure vectors received one-time noise abatement assistance to their residence and compensation for utilizing the air space.
Yet; there are those associated with some airports and TRACON would have one to believe they have unrestricted usage of private air space rights.
joelwiley
What is the monetary source of the compensation? Who is paying it?
joelwiley
Here is the FAA Decision 2 on LAAHNC noise petition:
https://www.rotor.org/rotornews/May16/FAADecision2-26.pdf

and a news report with a little background information:
http://smdp.com/los-angeles-residents-petition-reduce-helicopter-noise/151616
WhiteKnight77
As a crew chief in the Marines many years ago flying in the "greater" metropolitan area of LA (Orange County), I can attest to the marine layer (June Gloom) that was ever present in the mornings. It does restrict how high one could fly. While we did have some specific routes to fly to and from the base, it invariably included flying over residences no matter where we went, be it Silverado Canyon in the Santa Ana Mountains or down to Camp Pendleton that took us over Laguna Hills.

Flying ground controlled approaches into Los Alamitos Army Air Field even took us over Disneyland (which is great at night due to the fireworks and getting to see them from above them). The one thing about flying helicopters is one needs to keep their eyes open and head on a swivel due to all the other aircraft in the sky. Flying at a reduced altitude helps to alleviate some of it, but not all of it.
Moviela
These anti-noise Bozo's are using pretext to attempt to remove rights to use airspace by the public that has been long settled.

These clowns are from the same stripe that demands cities organize special parking districts to prevent the public at large from parking in front of their house. They would take for themselves public property that everyone pays for, and should be free to use.

Their true agenda rises from some self-styled privacy rights that do not actually exist in law or equity. The FAA is correct to limit their restrictions and permissions to operate strictly on the basis of flight safety.

While conciliatory in their approach in seeking to get co-operation with flight operators to use alternate routes and hovering techniques, the FAA has rightly refused to take any action that might be interpreted to be a violation of First Amendment rights of the press.

linbb
linbb 2
Soon those whackos down in CA will take care of themselves they want to limit everything except what they want. And what they want runs from absolute gun control to controlling everyone's lives and the way they live except what they decide is right.
OnTheHorizon
U.S. circa pre-21st century: Land of the free, home of the brave.
California, circa 2016: land of the self absorbed, home of the entitled whiners
rocknrollife
Bob Hope Airport is so far behind because it is held hostage by the people. Santa Monica has made so many great strides that is being fought by the people around them
mdlacey
While I don't agree with them, the statist Angelenos should be able to regulate what they want and live with the consequences. Federalism is broken. Those in DC don't have a monopoly on being right. Need to have laboratories of democracy to see what works, not regulatory monarchies who may not get it right.
joelwiley
You have a good point, but I am not sure it is applicable to the subject in the greater LA area (is there a lesser LA area?). They do not seem to be looking for a democratically achieved outcome, but one of akin to the DC 'regulatory monarchies' writ somewhat smaller. These protestations remind me of Al Capp's protest group 'Students Wildly Indignant over Nearly Everything'
jbsimms
Helicopters, especially Police choppers are limited where they can go by the LAX (& other airport) flight paths. Makes it tough when pursuing criminals & the near daily car chase.
HoundDogMech
There will always some one complaining about things that they don't have an interest in. They complain just to hear themselves complain. They'ed complain if they were hung with a new rope ... They just like to beiatch and cause disruption. Doesn't mater what just Beiatch about something. Makes'em feel good or something.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료