he has a motor bike and uses that every evening (custom type) which is just as loud as the heli and overall runs for a longer time?
Then you have the chap who gets the strimmer out on a Sunday afternoon for three hours on a trot.
Ageed, but in both those cases you could get somebody independent (the council enviro health) to mediate. Also both cases have people who could reduce the noise (fit silencer or use electric strimmer). The heli use does not have the benefit of either of these points.
I think when they made the 28 day rule they lumped all forms of transport together, one could argue that landing the helicopter in a garden is just the same (transport wise) as driving a car up the drive - maybe this was correct, maybe not?
I dont think this is right. Simply because the enviro impact of a heli is so much greater than a car (hummers excepted!). How can you treat them the same? I dont mean be draconian on the heli, just use a bit of common sense when making the laws.
Don't forget that the helicopter was designed for just that, trips into confined areas, to base them all at airports would seem to be a waste, we would all have to fly around in fixed wing thing - which by the way aren't all that quiet either...
It would be a waste, but some of the personal use they are used for is a waste of other things in my opinion. Is flying always that necessary? I manage to survive quite well never using one. I am sure there are perfectly good reasons for some of the personal use, but not all. Fixed wings seem much quieter to me than helicopters, maybe it is the height, maybe the frequencies, but no doubt heli's are more intrusive and difficult to mask than fixed wing.