Legal question

[Machismo]

Here is the problem. The company I work for flies tours out of a public airport located on a island. The island is know to be a party spot during the summer, but is inhabited by retirees during the rest of the year, who undoubtedly do not like the idea of college kids, and anyone else who likes to have a good time coming to their peaceful little homes for 4 months out of the year to do ruin their blissful lifestyle.

We fly tours from May until October, and run pretty much non stop for those months only. The locals hate us, I wish I could emphasis the word hate even more than typing allows, but I am sure you can figure out what I am trying to convey. With that being said, they call the FAA pretty much on a regular basis to report "unsafe activity". The Feds have shown up with every call only to sit and talk with us, and watch what we are doing. They will normally do the obligatory ramp check, then make sure all are ducks are in a row, then shake their head, and tell us that they have to come out because there are complaints, but they know every time they have came to visit, we have never displayed any evidence that we are operating unsafely.

The locals have gotten quite upset that nothing has been done to stop our operations, so they have formed a "pilot advisory board" to comment on safety issues on the airport. The board is comprised of all fixed wing pilots with the exception of one helicopter private pilot. With this, they are trying to enforce that we shut down every time we land. They're claiming that hot loading passengers is too dangerous an operation, and they do not want it on the airport. We have been told by a few people that do like the idea us being there because we bring business to them, that they are doing it in hope's that it will cause us to leave because it will make the wait times to long for people to want to stand around in the summer to wait on a ride.

Our landing area is a fenced in area on blacktop with only one entrance, and the passengers are loaded by trained ground crewmen who only approach the aircraft after it has landed, and rolled to idle. We have never had any incident where anyone's life has been put in danger while conducting flight operations.

My question (sorry to be long winded) is, do we have to legally abide by these rules if they are not stated in an A/FD? I was under the impression that unless it states in the FAA prescribed manual what can, and cannot be done on an airport then it not necessarily doesn't matter, but it is something that one doesn't need to fear repercussion from the FSDO.

They are having a town meeting to discuss the matter in a few weeks, and my boss and I are going to be in attendance. I would like to have a few documents that would help back the point I am trying to make. Do anyone have any advice in this matter? If so, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again.

[Bravo73]

Have you already done the obvious things - ie tried to change your routings to be more neighbour friendly and offered to take the loudest 'nay sayers' up for some free trips?

[S76Heavy]

offered to take the loudest 'nay sayers' up for some free trips and then make sure that pictures are taken of them entering and leaving the aircraft and subsequently published in the local newspaper.
That usually creates a rift in these groups.:E

Not in the USA and no idea of the legality of such an "advisory board" but what are the chances of the airport management caving in to their pressure and making you abide by these stupid rules?

Try to get statistics that kill off their safety claims. But it is better to nip it in the bud by being seen as flying neighbourly and as stated above, create division among them if at all possible.

I thought all these old people were deaf anyway? :rolleyes:

[Machismo]

We do everything that we can to try and stop this. We have given rides to some that complain for free. We have changed the route of flight as much as we can, but as soon as you do you upset his new bunch. I had a lady come fly up in her van outraged and asked me if I was the reckless pilot that flew over her house. I was quite dumbfounded and ask where she lived, she pointed to the end of the runway. In my most sincere voice I explained that due to the complaints of others we were asked to take off and land like airplanes, no more direct departs. She said that it was too loud and she wanted it stopped. This is what I have to deal with, she chose to build her house at the approach end of a runway, but I am the one who is at fault.

The airport manager has been on quite a few rides with us, and I would like to say that he would take up for us, but in all reality I do not believe he would. If he were to mandate such a restriction wouldn't it have to be published somewhere? If I fly to an airport I only check the FAA pubs to see what I can, and cannot do, I never check the airports website. Could he legally enforce something the FAA hasn't recognized?

[hueyracer]

Honestly?

Tell them to f*** off!

You can not discuss with these people-because you can only discuss something when everybody is on the same level.

They are just trying to be a**holes-and that´s not going to change, no matter what you try.

We had similar problems with people nearly everywhere....as soon as you start taking them serious, one or two pull back-but the majority only gets more a**"holish" than before....

If there would be anything they could do to stop your operation-they would have done it already..

Next time just call the police-to remove people from an airport that are not supposed to be there.....

[Machismo]

I would love to tell them to just pack sand, but I am just a lowly pilot. El Heffa is the final say in the matter, and he has, on occasion gotten a little...passionate with a few of the naysayers. With that, he would like to go tot he meeting and with a smile show them some sort of paper work saying that he is well within his rights to operate this way.

[Gordy]

Hot refuelling is not a problem---I flew in Hawaii for 7 years, we would shut down at lunch and the end of the day----all other times we hot re-fuelled and hot loaded. We had written procedures that were FAA approved and fromed part of our ops-specs. (I am currently away from home, but can get you a copy if needed).

The FAA produces the AC 91-32B Safety in and around helicopters, that has a section on rapid re-fueling and hot loading----therefore it has their blessing.:

Download Here (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2091-32B.pdf)

Legally, I do not believe the airport can stop you----unless it is a privately funded airport. Most airports in the US receive federal funding, and therefore are prohibited from deviating or regulating against FAA approved procedures----you may want to seek legal council however.

[Gordy]

Try this also, emphasis added by me:

FAR 91.126 (b)(2) (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/BC3EDEE9F4EAA28C86256EEB00519374?OpenDocument)

Sec. 91.126

Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.


(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.
(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace--
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.

[Machismo]

Gordy,

We have told them on quite a few different occasions that we were, in fact, allowed to depart and land however we wanted per the FAA. We have however, tied to "play nice" and use the runways just to quite them down somewhat. They are just starting to get out of hand now, and we feel the need to push back a little. Thanks for the links, I will print them off and we will have them at the meeting.

[hillberg]

Send notices of the continuing opperations to the babys :{,Then take the most vocal A holes to court for order to show cause (restraining order) := & small clames for loss of revanue.:ugh:

[Lama Bear]

It is my understanding that the "avoid the flow" line only pertains to landings. All take offs are to be in accordance with the traffic pattern.

I have been wrong before

[Machismo]

We can deal with using the runway. If we have to shut down after every flight once a line starts to form it will kill the ability to get all the flights done. They do not allow anyone to fly there at night, that rule is in the A/FD.

[Savoia]

I cannot see how such an advisory board would have any legal right to make any demands whatsoever pertaining to your flying operations.

If you believe your operation could be potentially jeopardised by the complainants then this sounds like a job for a capable lawyer and a PR firm.

You've mentioned you are on as island - have you looked at the viability of a pontoon or barge in order to relocate the take-offs and landings to a less populated area?

Mafia Tactics:

1) Arrange for about 20 or so of the complainants to be kidnapped and held in a warehouse/facility with enough space for landing 2-3 helicopters. Pay a couple of the local police (or a security firm) to play-out a stand-off with the 'kidnappers' at the gates of the facility. At some point bring your entire fleet to swoop-in with some black-clothed 'SWAT style' security personnel and load the complainants aboard your aircraft and whisk them away to safety. When they eventually pass by your offices to express their gratitude, mention the fact that you'd appreciate it if they would back-off with their complaints.

2) Hire someone to fly around the island at the lowest legal height in a fully-laden Huey for several hours a day for a couple of weeks. When the complainants are at the point of killing themselves .. you and your crew offer to rid the complainants of the blade-slapping Huey through your 'higher' negotiating powers as fellow blitterblat drivers. Once the Huey is gone and the media have done a good job of crediting your involvement in sending it away .. have 20,000 stickers made-up with the name of your company and a sentence stating that you rid the town of the Huey so that all your complainants will ever hear about you is the fact that you dispatched a greater evil! If you're really clever (and in order to save cost) you'll manage to pull this off by getting an entire flight of the National Guard to run their Huey training ops out of your field for a time.

Many more suggestions but .. its getting late!

;)

[Epiphany]

We fly tours from May until October, and run pretty much non stop for those months

One day you too will be retired and looking for a bit of peace and quiet during the summer months to enjoy your garden. Remember that when you have a noisy helicopter flying over all day every day for 4 months.

[Machismo]

That may be so, but, if I lived on an island that is a tourist attraction I would be more understanding of some things that allow the islanders to make a profit off the same people that we give rides to. Most of those people go and spend money on things that we, the pilots, show them from the air that is quite hard to find otherwise.

[HowlingMad Murdock]

Machismo - sorry to hear of your troubles - hope things settle down.

Savoia-heh,heh,heh-too funny! I particularly like the Huey idea - sounds like a plan to me:D

[topendtorque]

A huey, noisy? in this community,
a BK well.....

[sycamore]

Mach, as well as your tours,do you do anything that could be seen as `helpful` to the community,as well as tourism; such as, local photograhy,filming, organ transfer,SAR, help for Police,Fire,Ambulance services,all of course in the loosest sense,dependent on what your aircraft are....May help to `redress the balance`....

[Saint Evil]

for what it's worth in the UK North Sea we fly a full Commercial Air Transport operation and we load pax rotors running , we also hot refuel. not usually at the same time, but there is provision to do this if operationally required, with certain restrictions.