A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 05, 04:09 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...caact0511.html
AOPA Action in California
What AOPA is doing for California
COMPILED BY ALTON K. MARSH (From AOPA Pilot, November 2005.)

Truckee-Tahoe Airport seen as battleground
Are the three board members of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport District
planning on violating rules that came with past FAA airport grants?

It looks that way to supporters, and AOPA officials have identified
Truckee-Tahoe Airport as the potential site of the country's next big
airport battle.

After winning a majority of the five airport board seats last year,
noise opponents have now delayed accepting an additional $450,000 in
federal grant money that might restrict their ability to impose noise
or growth limits on the airport. The delay is apparently to allow time
to hear from Denver attorney Peter J. Kirsch on options for imposing
noise restrictions despite requirements that came with the acceptance
in the past of millions of dollars of federal grant money.

However, the board members have already begun to impose restrictions
designed, in sly ways, to reduce evening airport noise. Their first
effort was nearly fatal yet it continues. This incident was related by
airport board President Michael Golden, but airport Manager Dave
Gotshall said he has been unable to confirm it. To help neighbors near
the airport sleep better, the board prohibited staff from selling jet
fuel after 7 p.m. So, an organ transplant jet from the East Coast
landed there recently, desperate to get fuel to continue the journey
to Napa, and its pilots were met by a staff that refused to sell the
fuel because of new board restrictions. The restriction was not
available in a notice to airmen. The jet was forced to go to
Sacramento on very low fuel, then on to Napa, where doctors were
already behind schedule and waiting on the organ.

There is no word on whether the airport board members who imposed the
restriction ever learned of the danger they created. Had the patient
died, it is possible the board would have found itself at the wrong
end of a lawsuit. There is also no full fuel service after 7 p.m. for
100LL, although it can be bought at the self-serve pump, but the new
twist is that even the self-serve pumps have been ordered turned off
after 10 p.m.

That has made a lot of pilots angry.

Golden, an airport supporter, said it appears to him the new board
members want to discourage pilots from patronizing the airport. He
asks that pilots, therefore, intentionally patronize the airport
whenever their plans call for visits to Truckee-Tahoe.

The new board members, elected last fall, are members of the Community
Airport Restoration Effort (CARE) that had raised concerns about
land-use and noise related to the airport. The members directed the
airport staff to have an "informative" meeting with Kirsch. AOPA
officials know the attorney well, since he represented airport
opponents in most major battles that AOPA has fought. At press time
AOPA Regional Representative John Pfeifer was planning on attending
the informational meeting. Kirsch, reached by phone, said he had not
yet been retained by the airport and said he did not know what issues
the airport wanted him to discuss. He referred an AOPA reporter to the
airport staff.

AOPA went to extraordinary steps to prevent the election of the new
members last year by taking out newspaper ads informing the voters
about the value of the airport. The Truckee-Tahoe Airport has accepted
enough funding from the FAA in the past to still have restrictions in
place — most last 20 years — on limitations to airport operations. The
airport also accepted grants for purchase of land, and those grants
require the continued operation of the land as an airport forever. The
restrictions prevent discrimination against classes of pilots and
types of operations.

It appears the new board members feel that past restrictions that
prohibit limiting operations can somehow be evaded, and that the new
money now sought of $450,000 must not be accepted to avoid restarting
the clock on restrictions already in place. To airport professionals,
such views look naive at best, but to attorneys, restrictions are seen
merely as a challenge.

The FAA has indeed cut off grant money for airports that issue unfair
restrictions on operations, but in one case was sued and ordered to
continue the flow of federal money despite violation of FAA grant
assurances.

Do opponents want to close Truckee-Tahoe Airport? The board members
have never said exactly what their goal is, but it looks to supporters
like they are at the very least setting the stage to violate FAA
requirements.

And fuel restrictions make it appear the board doesn't want pilots to
come at night — a typical goal of noise opponents — and doesn't want
the airport to be a refueling stop for long-range jets. One board
member stated he wanted to "negotiate terms and conditions with the
FAA" according to information in the Sierra Sun*, the local Truckee
newspaper.

The three new board members seem unaware that half the airport's 1,000
acres was surplus military property and would return to the
government, not the community, if the airport ever stops operating.

The airport staff had requested permission of the board to seek a
$450,000 grant for hangars already completed at Truckee-Tahoe Airport.
The majority of the members — those favoring restrictions on
operations — voted instead to seek advice on ways around restrictions
that the money would bring, not realizing past FAA money already
brought such restrictions. The restrictions have been explained in the
past to the new board members by Golden.

"They are in denial," Golden said in a telephone interview.

*
http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/...10021/-1/rss01
Does Truckee airport have money to burn?

Kathryn Kelly
Special to the Bonanza
September 21, 2005

There are a lot of pilots who live in Incline and have airplanes at
Truckee. Newspapers other than the Sierra Sun do not really cover what
is going on at the airport despite the fact that there are a lot of
pilots on the North Shore, and we all benefit from Careflight and
firefighting operations that run out of the airport. I was therefore
amazed to learn of the actions the airport board has been taking
recently that are detrimental to the airport, and I think other
Bonanza readers will be interested also.

Thursday's airport board agenda in Truckee includes discussion of how
to deal with its $900,000 deficit. Here's an easy answer to recovering
half that amount: Accept $450,000 in grant funding from the FAA.

Why would the board possibly turn down free money? Attendance at last
month's board meeting provided a few clues. President Golden spoke at
length about the fiduciary responsibility of the Board to accept these
funds. Three board members (Eagan, Hetherington, Vatistas) - each of
whom made campaign promises to accept federal funds - spoke out
against accepting funding until they had "more time to study the
issue." But delay and indecision is not a responsible answer; without
an affirmative vote to accept the funds, the airport will lose them.

Are there strings attached to the grants? Sure, and it does not take
expensive attorneys to figure that out Ð it is all written in the FAA
rules. FAA tries to require that airports operate fairly to all
without discriminating against classes of pilots, types of aircraft
and types of operations. They do not always have benefit of law so
their most obvious "stick" is grant assurances. When an airport
accepts FAA money, it certifies that it will continue to operate the
airport in accordance with FAA guidelines for a period of time. The
period varies with type of grant but is generally 20 years. Most
airports cooperate with most assurances although some do choose to
deviate in various ways, most notably by restricting types of aircraft
and establishing curfews.

How much money is at stake? Truckee Airport has accrued $150,000 per
year over the past two years and will accrue another $150,000 in
October for a total of $450,000 in FAA entitlement money Ð if the
board votes to accept it. This money can be applied for to pay for a
project somewhat retroactively. In a recent ruling, the new hangars
that were just constructed at Truckee with taxpayer dollars have been
made eligible for reimbursement by the $450,000 in FAA grant monies.
If the board accepts the money to fund the hangars, the airport will
have $450K to use at its sole discretion Ð or apply to the current
deficit. If the board declines the money, the airport will pay for the
hangars with tax dollars as originally planned, thereby losing
$450,000 in completely fungible money.

Truckee Airport has accepted FAA grants many times in its 50-year
history. Most or all of the typical grant assurances apply to the
airport for the next 17 years regardless of whether more money is
accepted. Accepting more money will not change the existing
assurances, just reset the clock on them three more years. In fact,
grants the airport has accepted for purchase of land are perpetual
already, so accepting more FAA grant funds does not in reality extend
overall airport commitments at all.

At the September board meeting, airport staff requested permission to
apply to FAA for $450,000 to pay for the hangars which have so far
been funded internally from airport funds. The board deferred the
matter, saying they need more time and (costly) outside legal advice
to study the grant assurances. Director Vatistas even stated he wanted
to "negotiate terms and conditions with the FAA" despite the fact that
airport legal counsel advised him that this approach is unlikely to be
successful.

So why would the board risk losing this money? The only stated
objection is grant assurances. If the board fears grant assurances,
they must have in mind opting out of them. The only reason to decline
FAA money is a desire to violate FAA policy about keeping the airport
open and operating it fairly and without discrimination. Since such
assurances are in place now, at least three members of the board
appear to be laying early groundwork for near-term violation of FAA
policy.

If the airport decides to violate other grant assurances already in
place, the FAA most certainly will cut off future grant funding. In at
least one recent case, FAA cut off grant funding to an airport in
Naples, FL who banned Stage II jets. (Naples sued FAA and won a court
order reinstating their ability to receive future grants. Cost to
local taxpayers to cover legal expenses to "win" this battle? Five
million dollars).

Even without assurances, there are many groups who will be harmed by
any closure or severe limitation to the airport. If the airport takes
sufficiently egregious action, some of those groups will respond with
costly legal action. Do we really want to fight expensive legal
battles? Do we want to support a board that thinks we can win and is
willing to commit our tax dollars to do so?

Bottom line, it is fiscally irresponsible and negligent for the
airport board not to accept federal grant funding and thus impose
$450,000 on local taxpayers. Let them know your thoughts:

Michael Golden Ð

Kathleen Eagan -


Paul Vatistas -


Mary Hetherington -


Steve Swigard -


The board meets 9 a.m. tomorrow in the airport conference room. Tell
the board to stop procrastinating, accept the federal grants, and
uphold their chartered responsibility as board members to operate the
airport for the benefit of the entire community.

Kathryn Kelly works in Incline and lives in Kings Beach.
  #2  
Old November 11th 05, 05:25 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

Larry Dighera wrote:

(Naples sued FAA and won a court
order reinstating their ability to receive future grants. Cost to
local taxpayers to cover legal expenses to "win" this battle? Five
million dollars).


Is this correct? It is not how I read the latest update at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/apf/

but perhaps it is out of date. It claims that the court pushed the case
back at the FAA so it could better define why the Naples stage 2 ban is
"unreasonable".

Now, this is a problem in that it does open the door for localities to
impose noise restrictions yet retain grants. I'd guess from the evidence
the FAA apparently didn't offer (based upon my reading of the opinion at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airpo...on20050603.pdf

) that the FAA was not hoping for such a decision. It now remains with the
FAA how to combat such things.

Unfortunately, I couldn't locate anything indicating what the FAA will be
doing following that court decision.

- Andrew

  #3  
Old November 12th 05, 04:19 AM
Seth Masia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

Careflight is a serious issue for North Tahoe communities, and the Board
should be aware of its liabilities should medevac be made impractical at
night. There are only two practical surface routes available from Tahoe
Forest Hospital to larger, better-equipped hospitals in Reno and the
Sacramento area, and these routes are often closed in winter. When that's
the case, air charter is the only way to get a critical patient out of the
valley.

Tahoe Forest Hospital serves the ski resorts of Squaw Valley, Alpine
Meadows, Northstar and Sugarbowl.

Seth
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Larry Dighera wrote:

(Naples sued FAA and won a court
order reinstating their ability to receive future grants. Cost to
local taxpayers to cover legal expenses to "win" this battle? Five
million dollars).


Is this correct? It is not how I read the latest update at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/apf/

but perhaps it is out of date. It claims that the court pushed the case
back at the FAA so it could better define why the Naples stage 2 ban is
"unreasonable".

Now, this is a problem in that it does open the door for localities to
impose noise restrictions yet retain grants. I'd guess from the evidence
the FAA apparently didn't offer (based upon my reading of the opinion at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airpo...on20050603.pdf

) that the FAA was not hoping for such a decision. It now remains with
the
FAA how to combat such things.

Unfortunately, I couldn't locate anything indicating what the FAA will be
doing following that court decision.

- Andrew



  #4  
Old November 12th 05, 03:07 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:25:59 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ne.com::

Larry Dighera wrote:

(Naples sued FAA and won a court
order reinstating their ability to receive future grants. Cost to
local taxpayers to cover legal expenses to "win" this battle? Five
million dollars).


Is this correct? It is not how I read the latest update at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/apf/

but perhaps it is out of date. It claims that the court pushed the case
back at the FAA so it could better define why the Naples stage 2 ban is
"unreasonable".

Now, this is a problem in that it does open the door for localities to
impose noise restrictions yet retain grants. I'd guess from the evidence
the FAA apparently didn't offer (based upon my reading of the opinion at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airpo...on20050603.pdf

) that the FAA was not hoping for such a decision. It now remains with the
FAA how to combat such things.

Unfortunately, I couldn't locate anything indicating what the FAA will be
doing following that court decision.

- Andrew



Thanks to the link to information regarding this case.

From a cursory scan of the page, it does appear that the FAA lost the
case. Specifically what language lead you to believe otherwise?

  #5  
Old November 12th 05, 07:02 PM
RST Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

I worked with Kathleen Egan for over a year when we incorporated Truckee and
she impressed me as being a most reasonable and forthright person. She may
have changed, but I'd be willing to cut her a little slack and work with
her.

As I recall, she was one of the first city council members and later mayor
of Truckee. She may have some political debts to pay -- that is always a
possibility.

Jim


  #6  
Old November 12th 05, 09:52 PM
Chris Schmelzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

How about a Truckee Fly-In

Scheduled monthly

Starting at 2am....

Props MUST be at full redline speed prior to landing and during all
pattern work...

LOL

Lets see, airport has probably been there for 30 years, houses for 5 and
only AFTER building their expensive houses does the noise bother them.

Where I did my flight training in Ann Arbor Michigan people were
building 500k+ houses right on short final.. Is that the airplane or
airports fault??

It seems when they were buying there house, there was a clause listed
that discussed the airport being nearby (required to disclose in
Michigan)

Shoot, in Arizona where I live now, they were required to tell me about
'heavy military training' from Davis Monthan and Tucson International (I
LIKE watching the A10s and F16s fly overhead in formation
personally...LOL

Just wish they'd go supersonic once and a while...LOL

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD

  #7  
Old November 12th 05, 10:45 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

Larry Dighera wrote:

From a cursory scan of the page, it does appear that the FAA lost the
case. Specifically what language lead you to believe otherwise?


The FAA's "loss" was limited to a failure to properly define "unreasonable"
such that it applies (or not) to this case. The FAA can still force
airports to eliminate "unreasonable" noise restrictions.

From what I read, it seems to me like the FAA didn't feel the need to defend
their presumption of "unreasonable". I don't know why that would be the
case. However, I can say that I was involved in one legal action where the
opposing attorney did completely miss the major basis upon which the case
was decided, so perhaps that sort of thing isn't uncommon.

So the question is whether the FAA will be revisiting the definition of
"unreasonable" in this case, as the court explicitly provided the FAA that
option as the next step.

- Andrew

  #8  
Old November 13th 05, 05:24 AM
RST Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

Schmuck.

Sure, **** the locals off, get the local elected board to take action
against you, and in general screw up the system.

What an asshole... oh, sorry, I saw you were an MD. What a PUTZ you are.

Jim


"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
How about a Truckee Fly-In

Scheduled monthly

Starting at 2am....

Props MUST be at full redline speed prior to landing and during all
pattern work...

LOL

Lets see, airport has probably been there for 30 years, houses for 5 and
only AFTER building their expensive houses does the noise bother them.



  #9  
Old November 14th 05, 08:07 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:45:25 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ine.com::

Larry Dighera wrote:

From a cursory scan of the page, it does appear that the FAA lost the
case. Specifically what language lead you to believe otherwise?


The FAA's "loss" was limited to a failure to properly define "unreasonable"
such that it applies (or not) to this case.


I don't have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary at hand, but I did find
this definition of 'unreasonable' on-line:

http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/tcleosehome/newforce.pdf
In general, an action is unreasonable if a reasonable man in
similar circumstances would recognize the act as involving a risk
of harm and a risk of such magnitude as to outweigh the utility of
the act or the manner in which it was done.

Another on-line source that cites Black's Law Dictionary provides this
definition of 'unreasonable':

http://www.doprocess.net/files/missou~2.htm
"Unreasonable" is described as "[i]rrational; foolish; unwise;
absurd; silly; preposterous; senseless; stupid; [n]ot reasonable;
immoderate; exorbitant; [c]apricious; arbitrary; confiscatory."
Black's Law Dictionary 1538 (6th ed. 1990).

So perhaps the FAA needs to reword or better define the term
'unreasonable noise restrictions', so that it does not provide a
loophole in future legal cases.
  #10  
Old November 14th 05, 10:40 PM
Skylune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport

by "RST Engineering" jim@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 12, 2005 at 08:24 PM


Schmuck.

Sure, **** the locals off, get the local elected board to take action
against you, and in general screw up the system.

What an asshole... oh, sorry, I saw you were an MD. What a PUTZ you are.

Jim


"Chris Schmelzer" chriss@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in message

news:chriss-E55C45.14521112112005@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about a Truckee Fly-In

Scheduled monthly

Starting at 2am....

Props MUST be at full redline speed prior to landing and during all
pattern work...

LOL

Lets see, airport has probably been there for 30 years, houses for 5

and
only AFTER building their expensive houses does the noise bother

them.


An example of one of the many arrogant putzes that just doesn't give a
damn about the effects his actions have on others. And supposedly a
physician!! LOL.

I have been following the Truckee story closely, and this development is
outstanding news!! Bravo for a community exerting local control!!!

And enough of the tired, the airport was there first bs. This trite
argument is (1) irrelevant and (2) BS. I'll bet the airport, like all
others, are putting more and more flying go karts up there and just
telling the locals to deal with it. It won't fly, and will only get
worse!





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NAS and associated computer system Newps Instrument Flight Rules 8 August 12th 04 05:12 AM
Please help -- It's down to the wire Jay Honeck Home Built 12 July 14th 04 06:05 PM
Here's the Recompiled List of 82 Aircraft Accessible Aviation Museums! Jay Honeck Home Built 18 January 20th 04 05:02 PM
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons Curtl33 General Aviation 7 January 10th 04 12:35 AM
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! Bill Mulcahy General Aviation 3 October 1st 03 05:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.