Lakeway, TX

Birdman

Go to and check out 6.2.6 in link below. Note part about Federal Gvt
which might be an out?

We can hunt before sun rise and after sunset, log flying time before
and after, etc.

Have you checked how much and what for, any Federal Money goes to
Lakeside?

Been a long time since I landed there but do they have any kind of an
approach where you could shoot low aproaches either in the twilight
zone or after dark (say about mid night )

What you need is a old BT-13 that shakes the fillings of your teeth.

Of course if you had to make an 'emergency landing' I think the Gvt
would step in and take a part?

Think out of the box. As granddad said, don't get mad, get even )

John

http://cityoflakeway.com/tool_pop.as...04-08-16-2.pdf

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````
On 11 Mar 2005 19:55:49 -0800, "birdman" wrote:

Hello,

I have a complaint and feel that I was taken advantage of by the court
system in Lakeway TX. It concerns my landing a small plane at Lakeway
Airport in July, of 2004. I knew that the Airport is closed after
sunset and before sunrise but I was issued a ticket by a police officer
that didn't even know what time sunset was. I wanted to pursue it
via a local television station and see if you could keep other people
from being taken advantage of. The following excerpt is from an email
that I sent to an aviation bulletin board.


"I landed at Lakeway in the middle of July, 2004. Sunset was 8:30 pm
according to the newspaper and other official records. I touched down
at about 8:20 pm and had the airplane tied down and walking away when a
policeman came up and issued me a ticket for landing after sunset. I
told him I touched down at 8:20 pm and asked him of the exact time of
sunset. He didn't know but issued me a $1200 ticket. I had 3
witnesses with sworn affidavits as to the time that I touched down but
no lawyers would touch the case because of Lakeway's reputation of
people loosing cases in court. It is a court of record and they film
all activity so if you loose you not only have to pay the ticket but
you have to pay court costs that are extremely high. They even give
tickets to people walking in the park after sunset when signs are not
in plain sight. It's $200 by the way for that offense. This happen to
a daughter and son-in-law of a local airport resident that was baby
sitting their grandchild while their daughter and son-in-law went out
to eat. They finished dinner early so they decided to go walking in
the park and was promptly issued a ticket in broad daylight for walking
in the park after sunset. They have changed the speed limit signs
overnight and have ticketed the citizens without issuing notices. If
you land anywhere close to sunset, please have accurate touchdown times
and a camera to prove your innocence. It takes more than witnesses to
even get representation for a court hearing. I finally found an AOPA
lawyer to represent me but after talking to his lawyer friends, he
convinced me to ask for deferred adjudication which I did. Lakeway
should abide by FAA regulations of 30 minutes before and after sunset
and should install an AWOS(Automatic Weather Observation Service) to
announce the sunset times in Lakeway because they are obviously
different than the real times."

I have been on probation with Lakeway since July of 2004 and am off
this month. I didn't want to pursue any action until now for fear
that they would automatically raise my fine back to the $1200. I ended
up with 6 months probation and a 750 dollar fine. Please consider
following up on this injustice. I will do anything to help spread the
word about the way the community of Lakeway does business. By the way,
Lakeway had an official sunset link on their website that stated sunset
as being 2031 and after I was issued the ticket the link was taken out
of the website. Is it a coverup? Thanks

"Big John" wrote in message
...

Go to and check out 6.2.6 in link below. Note part about Federal Gvt
which might be an out?


http://cityoflakeway.com/tool_pop.as...04-08-16-2.pdf

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````
On 11 Mar 2005 19:55:49 -0800, "birdman" wrote:

"I landed at Lakeway in the middle of July, 2004. Sunset was 8:30 pm
according to the newspaper and other official records. I touched down
at about 8:20 pm and had the airplane tied down and walking away when a
policeman came up and issued me a ticket for landing after sunset. I
told him I touched down at 8:20 pm and asked him of the exact time of
sunset. He didn't know but issued me a $1200 ticket. I had 3
witnesses with sworn affidavits as to the time that I touched down but
no lawyers would touch the case because of Lakeway's reputation of
people loosing (sic) cases in court.

I (oddly enough) read the noise ordinance provided. I'm wondering why
it is introduced here; It does not seem to be relevant to the discussion:

1. The original poster said nothing about the ticket being for noise
violation. He stated as being for 'landing after sunset' (though there
has been some inference that such rule might be derived from
considerations of noise abatement.)

2. The ordinance has no language relating to sunset, sunrise, daylight or
darkness. The only time-relevant parts are specified in terms of specific
clock times. There is no basis in the ordinance for a violation in
terms of 'after sunset'.

3. While the ordinance directs the Noise Compliance Office to
'consult with airport proprietor to recommend changes in airport
operations to minimize any noise, which the airport owner may
have authority to control in its capacity as proprietor", it also
states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit,
restrict, penalize, enjoin or in any manner regulate the movement
of aircraft, which are in all respects conducted in accordance with
or pursuant to applicable Laws or regulations."

-- while the airport proprietor might, inspired by this ordinance,
elect to close the airport 'after sunset' (if authorized to do so) with
an intent to minimize noise in the spirit of compliance with this
ordinance, such closure would not fall under the authority or
direction of this ordinance, and any violation of such airport policy
or regulation would seem to be a matter pursuant to the authority,
if any, under which such regulation is valid, which would be
unrelated to this ordinance.

4. In any case, a violation of the noise ordinance, except for specific
circumstances of which aircraft operations are not listed,
requires sound that exceeds specified sound levels (between given
hours), "measured for a duration of at least one minute" (Note:
'Measured' and 'at least one minute').

The measurement of such noise is explicitly stated for certain
circumstances (Loudspeakers, radios etc.) in terms of causing
"a noise violation across a residential real property boundary".
It is not clear that this last criterion applies to all circumstances,
but would arguably be a reasonable inference (there's corresponding
language for 'recreational motor vehicles', which *might* be
applicable to some aircraft).

It would require that the occurrence (the 'landing of the aircraft'
produce a measurable noise level in excess of the specified
values (depending on the specific time of day), across such
a residential boundary (arguably). It would seem unlikely
that a landing aircraft would do this.

(An interesting by-the-way - the ordinance also prohibits the
operation of "any motor vehicle or motorcycle not equipped
with a muffler or other sound dissipative device in good working
order, and in constant operation." This would seem to make
electric vehicles illegal.)

"Ron McKinnon" wrote in message
news:GKlZd.678765$8l.580657@pd7tw1no...
I (oddly enough) read the noise ordinance provided. I'm wondering why
it is introduced here; It does not seem to be relevant to the discussion

Obviously, it was introduced because the person who introduced it doesn't
have a clue regarding the actual issue.

The regulation at issue here is not a noise ordinance, but rather part of
the Lakeway zoning ordinance. Any violation of the zoning ordinance is a
misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $2000 fine. It just happens that part of
the ordinance describes an "aviation district", which is the only place any
aviation is permitted, and where aviation is permitted only between sunrise
and sunset.

As such, none of the rest of your comments are relevant to this discussion
either. Sorry if you wasted a lot of time on them.

Pete

The regulation at issue here is not a noise ordinance, but rather part of
the Lakeway zoning ordinance. Any violation of the zoning ordinance is a
misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $2000 fine. It just happens that part of
the ordinance describes an "aviation district", which is the only place any
aviation is permitted, and where aviation is permitted only between sunrise
and sunset.

Seems to me this would be an illegal usurpation of Federal authority
(over aviation).

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Seems to me this would be an illegal usurpation of Federal authority (over
aviation).

Could be. I'm not an expert in that area of law. I will point out that the
way that the regulations are written, it may not be. I generalized when I
described the regulations, and what they actually prohibit is aircraft
taking off or landing outside of the aviation district. You can fly through
the airspace above other areas within Lakeway, of course. After all, you
would have to in order to get to the aviation district.

Given that the regulation basically addresses only those activities that
occur on the ground, I think it's possible that it doesn't represent an
illegal usurpation of Federal authority. After all, there is precedent for
regulations affecting the operation of aircraft being upheld as legal, as
long as those regulations don't step on the FAA's toes.

Also, all that said, there is ample precedent of regulations that probably
ARE illegal usurpations of Federal authority, but which have never been
contested vigorously enough to have them revoked. AOPA in particular spends
a lot of time warning municipalities about potentially illegal rules, but
I'm not aware of many instances where they actually took a municipality to
court over such rules, nor of an individual doing the same.

A rule that is illegal but which is never contested might as well be legal.

Pete