Residents driven batty by helicopter noise
Thread Starter
PPRuNe Time
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Residents driven batty by helicopter noise
Mar. 20, 2005 12:00 AM
Dan Ables said he and five dozen neighbors in the Patterson Ranch area near the Scottsdale airport are sick of the incessant whipping of helicopter rotors above their homes.
Ables had hoped that a new helicopter guide intended to keep pilots over major roadways would help ameliorate the situation.
On Wednesday, he appeared before the Scottsdale Airport Advisory Commission to let everyone know the guide wasn't working.
"The guide is fine," Ables said. "If pilots followed it, there wouldn't be a problem."
Ables focused on a reporting point listed in the guide as Point Pima. This is an area above Loop 101 and Raintree Drive where helicopter pilots arriving or departing to the east or south are supposed to report to Scottsdale's air-traffic controllers.
"I think the problem is pilots can find the 101, but they can't find Raintree Drive," said Ables who believes that's why they take a shortcut over his neighborhood.
Scott Gray, director of Scottsdale Municipal Airport, said the new guide is only voluntary and is intended for transient pilots, not the 18 helicopters based at the airport and adjacent Scottsdale Airpark businesses. Operators based at the airport sign a letter of agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration to basically follow the same guidelines. If they don't, they can face disciplinary action.
Gray said the airport tried to make the letter of agreement mandatory for transient pilots as well, but the FAA rejected the idea.
All Ables knows is that 28 years ago, when he purchased his home, aircraft noise wasn't an issue, and Scottsdale staff assured him it wouldn't be in the future.
Status: The Scottsdale airport recently concluded a 15-month federally funded noise study. One of the recommendations from consultants Coffman Associates was for the airport to implement a flight track monitoring system, which could be used to determine if pilots are flying too low. However, the airport advisory commission rejected the recommendation Wednesday on the grounds it was far too costly and unnecessary.
Dan Ables said he and five dozen neighbors in the Patterson Ranch area near the Scottsdale airport are sick of the incessant whipping of helicopter rotors above their homes.
Ables had hoped that a new helicopter guide intended to keep pilots over major roadways would help ameliorate the situation.
On Wednesday, he appeared before the Scottsdale Airport Advisory Commission to let everyone know the guide wasn't working.
"The guide is fine," Ables said. "If pilots followed it, there wouldn't be a problem."
Ables focused on a reporting point listed in the guide as Point Pima. This is an area above Loop 101 and Raintree Drive where helicopter pilots arriving or departing to the east or south are supposed to report to Scottsdale's air-traffic controllers.
"I think the problem is pilots can find the 101, but they can't find Raintree Drive," said Ables who believes that's why they take a shortcut over his neighborhood.
Scott Gray, director of Scottsdale Municipal Airport, said the new guide is only voluntary and is intended for transient pilots, not the 18 helicopters based at the airport and adjacent Scottsdale Airpark businesses. Operators based at the airport sign a letter of agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration to basically follow the same guidelines. If they don't, they can face disciplinary action.
Gray said the airport tried to make the letter of agreement mandatory for transient pilots as well, but the FAA rejected the idea.
All Ables knows is that 28 years ago, when he purchased his home, aircraft noise wasn't an issue, and Scottsdale staff assured him it wouldn't be in the future.
Status: The Scottsdale airport recently concluded a 15-month federally funded noise study. One of the recommendations from consultants Coffman Associates was for the airport to implement a flight track monitoring system, which could be used to determine if pilots are flying too low. However, the airport advisory commission rejected the recommendation Wednesday on the grounds it was far too costly and unnecessary.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: USA
I looked up Dan Able's address on the internet. Turns out that the very annoyed Mr. Able lives less than a mile from the airport, virtually under the traffic pattern. He says he bought his house 28 years ago, which would make it 1977. At that time, an entity named "Scottsdale" (The airport manager? The mayor? A realtor?) assured him that noise would not be a problem. Gee, the airport must have been just a sleepy little grass strip back in 1977, eh? Just an uncontrolled backwater field with a couple of Piper Cubs based there that did not fly much, huh?
Err, maybe not. Ya gotta love the internet! The airport has a website, and there's a history link, of course. Turns out the airport was first commissioned in 1942 as a military training field. A church bought the field in 1953, and the City bought it in 1966. The website goes on to say:
Lemme see if I got that right: business jets landed at Scottsdale a full ten years BEFORE Able moved there, and by 1969 127 aircraft were based at Scottsdale? Plus (or maybe including) twenty helicopters? And in 1977 somebody told this Dan Able joker that noise "would not be a problem"?
Whoever it was, they lied.
Earth to Dan Able: Airports never, ever get *less* busy over time. Doesn't happen. Airports always get *more* busy...until they close, of course. And when an airport closes, the surrounding airports get busier. See how that works?
Funnelling traffic along corridors in the air is counter-productive. It just concentrates the noise over a smaller area. Sooner or later, there'll be a group calling itself "Raintree Drive Residents Against Airport Noise And People Who Live In Patterson Ranch" (RDRAANAPWLIPR) who'll be complaining about all the helicopter traffic up and down their street at all hours of the day and night. See where this is going?
Mr. Able's house ought to be paid off by now. Scottsdale has grown up around him, so his property is undoubtedly worth more now than when he bought it in 1977. Maybe a lot more. So if Mr. Able doesn't like the noise of development...the noise of progress fer cryin' out loud, he should sell the house and move further out into the country. I hear Roswell, New Mexico is nice. Then again, maybe not. Not enough locals, too many aliens and tourists.
It's always something.
Err, maybe not. Ya gotta love the internet! The airport has a website, and there's a history link, of course. Turns out the airport was first commissioned in 1942 as a military training field. A church bought the field in 1953, and the City bought it in 1966. The website goes on to say:
...The first fixed base operator was selected in April 1967, and the first business jets landed at Scottsdale Airport in August 1967. The first airpark tenant, Casa Precision, broke ground for its first building unit in August 1968. By December 1969, 127 aircraft and 20 helicopters were based at Scottsdale Airport (SDL).
Whoever it was, they lied.
Earth to Dan Able: Airports never, ever get *less* busy over time. Doesn't happen. Airports always get *more* busy...until they close, of course. And when an airport closes, the surrounding airports get busier. See how that works?
Funnelling traffic along corridors in the air is counter-productive. It just concentrates the noise over a smaller area. Sooner or later, there'll be a group calling itself "Raintree Drive Residents Against Airport Noise And People Who Live In Patterson Ranch" (RDRAANAPWLIPR) who'll be complaining about all the helicopter traffic up and down their street at all hours of the day and night. See where this is going?
Mr. Able's house ought to be paid off by now. Scottsdale has grown up around him, so his property is undoubtedly worth more now than when he bought it in 1977. Maybe a lot more. So if Mr. Able doesn't like the noise of development...the noise of progress fer cryin' out loud, he should sell the house and move further out into the country. I hear Roswell, New Mexico is nice. Then again, maybe not. Not enough locals, too many aliens and tourists.
It's always something.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
From: uk
One has to wonder if Dan Able ever travels by air and if he does, does he consider the people who live near the airport that he uses. I doubt it very much.
Although one has to sympathise on the one hand with this gentleman in that the noise is intrusive however, there is no sympathy for him as he bought a house where aircraft noise was there before he bought the property. Same as those who buy houses in flood areas and wonder and complain to the local authority when they are flooded out.
I have no sympathy with this guy BUT there could be a solution if routings could be adjusted.
Although one has to sympathise on the one hand with this gentleman in that the noise is intrusive however, there is no sympathy for him as he bought a house where aircraft noise was there before he bought the property. Same as those who buy houses in flood areas and wonder and complain to the local authority when they are flooded out.
I have no sympathy with this guy BUT there could be a solution if routings could be adjusted.
Fit like min?
Joined: Nov 2004
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 2,161
Likes: 4
From: ...
Not so long ago,a resident at ABZ living just across from the east apron was driven to distraction by the noise coming from the CHC Scotia apron.
Fed up with the helicopter noise,he resorted to hitting GOLF BALLS over the security fence from his garden into the apron.
Amazingly, he only got fined.
Ironically peace reigned for about a year after CHC moved to the west side,only for Bond Mk2 to move in!!
Justice!
Fed up with the helicopter noise,he resorted to hitting GOLF BALLS over the security fence from his garden into the apron.
Amazingly, he only got fined.
Ironically peace reigned for about a year after CHC moved to the west side,only for Bond Mk2 to move in!!
Justice!
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
From: England
I hereby offer Mr Ables the price he paid for his home in 1977 (that's fair isn't it? - it means he will have lived there for 28 years for free!) In fact just to show good faith I will pay the value in pounds sterling - what a bargain.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1
From: the cockpit
In Oz we call them NIMBYs, the Not In My Back Yard brigade (but it's ok in someone else's back yard of course).
When he moved in in 1977, I wonder if it crossed his mind that the property was cheap, and I wonder if he even stopped to consider that jet and helicopter equipped airport a mile from his house might be the reason for that?
rotordog, that was a fantastic post. Pity the papers dont run with it. Why don't you consider emailing it the media that ran the story in the first place? Or better still, a rival paper?
I remember a story of a resident near Amberly Airforce Base in SE Queensland in Oz who complained about all the F111s (now there is a stealthy aeroplane!). The base commander invited him in to show him a huge aerial photograph of the area, gave him a red pen and told him that if he marked his house with a big red circle, they would place a no fly zone around his house quite happily.
Resident looked at the photograph, but couldn't find his house. In fact, he couldn't find his whole suburb! "Ah...", said the base commander, "this photograph was taken five years after F111 operations commenced here at Amberely, so if you don't own one of the six houses on the photograph, you moved here well after the F111."
Unfortunately, holding the moral highground has been no defence against the Mr Ables of this world and residents moving in around pre existing airfields have caused the shutdown of many in Oz. Most notably, this included the cessation of full time operations from the world's oldest operational airfield at Point Cook in Victoria as of 1994, Schofields in Sydney, about to add Hoxton Park in sydney, and to us rotorheads, the biggest treasure of all: the Sydney CBD Heliport.
Accordingly, I declare a jihad on Mr Able and his ilk!!
When he moved in in 1977, I wonder if it crossed his mind that the property was cheap, and I wonder if he even stopped to consider that jet and helicopter equipped airport a mile from his house might be the reason for that?
rotordog, that was a fantastic post. Pity the papers dont run with it. Why don't you consider emailing it the media that ran the story in the first place? Or better still, a rival paper?
I remember a story of a resident near Amberly Airforce Base in SE Queensland in Oz who complained about all the F111s (now there is a stealthy aeroplane!). The base commander invited him in to show him a huge aerial photograph of the area, gave him a red pen and told him that if he marked his house with a big red circle, they would place a no fly zone around his house quite happily.
Resident looked at the photograph, but couldn't find his house. In fact, he couldn't find his whole suburb! "Ah...", said the base commander, "this photograph was taken five years after F111 operations commenced here at Amberely, so if you don't own one of the six houses on the photograph, you moved here well after the F111."
Unfortunately, holding the moral highground has been no defence against the Mr Ables of this world and residents moving in around pre existing airfields have caused the shutdown of many in Oz. Most notably, this included the cessation of full time operations from the world's oldest operational airfield at Point Cook in Victoria as of 1994, Schofields in Sydney, about to add Hoxton Park in sydney, and to us rotorheads, the biggest treasure of all: the Sydney CBD Heliport.
Accordingly, I declare a jihad on Mr Able and his ilk!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
From: uk
The Rotordog has I believe all our blessings to send in his bit to the rival newspaper. The NIMBY are a powerful force backed by spineless local authority moguls and the logic of many of the legal professors. Sadly these NIMBY do not realise the finality of their actions and the injustice that they inflict on others.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: USA
Although I appreciate all the comments, my response to this issue was slightly tongue-in-cheek. Telling people who complain about airport noise that the airport was there first has little, if any effect. Such people often live in a fantasyland or dream world where most other things are allowed to progress and grow...except airports which must for some reason stay at some predetermined (low) traffic levels forever because some some nitwit made an empty promise to a homebuyer twenty-eight years ago that airport noise "wouldn't be a problem" in the future.
If Mr. Ables comes out of his subdivision to Northsight Drive and goes north, oh...about a half-mile, he'll come to a Wal-Mart. We wonder if Mr. Ables protested the construction of the Wal-Mart, which most assuredly occurred in the intervening years since he bought his house. But no, the "convenience" of having a Wal-Mart nearby is probably something of an asset to a guy like Ables. I doubt he opposed it. Yet every Wal-Mart brings with it certain effects on the neighborhood, not all of them good. In mine, the increased traffic levels around the new Wal-Mart Supercenter are quite distressing, especially on the weekend.
But like I said, people get irrational when it comes to airplane noise. Normal arguments do not work on them, for they do not look at the issue objectively. All they know is that airplanes and helicopters rattle the little cheap Wal-Mart figurines on their fake fireplace mantles. It's not a matter of who was there first. Airplane noise is an intrusion, dammit, and it must be stopped!
If I have time, I will send a letter to the local paper, and maybe a gentle one to Mr. Ables. Somehow, I doubt it will do any good.
If Mr. Ables comes out of his subdivision to Northsight Drive and goes north, oh...about a half-mile, he'll come to a Wal-Mart. We wonder if Mr. Ables protested the construction of the Wal-Mart, which most assuredly occurred in the intervening years since he bought his house. But no, the "convenience" of having a Wal-Mart nearby is probably something of an asset to a guy like Ables. I doubt he opposed it. Yet every Wal-Mart brings with it certain effects on the neighborhood, not all of them good. In mine, the increased traffic levels around the new Wal-Mart Supercenter are quite distressing, especially on the weekend.
But like I said, people get irrational when it comes to airplane noise. Normal arguments do not work on them, for they do not look at the issue objectively. All they know is that airplanes and helicopters rattle the little cheap Wal-Mart figurines on their fake fireplace mantles. It's not a matter of who was there first. Airplane noise is an intrusion, dammit, and it must be stopped!
If I have time, I will send a letter to the local paper, and maybe a gentle one to Mr. Ables. Somehow, I doubt it will do any good.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
From: floating around
Strange thing about airport noise as Rotordog says makes people irrational.
I have been flying out of a place for a couple of years now, and I have watched the area grow and develop around the airport,
A couple of years ago I have watched houses being erected along a corridor, and felt a small bit of pity for the people who planned on making one of these houses their new home.
However I knew it was inevitable, it was only a matter of time before they would be up screaming blue murder at the airport authorities to change the long established route, sure enough, it has begun, and politicians are jumping on the resident committee bandwagon to have the airport reduced in size.
I am watching more houses being built along other routes everyday, I have no problem with them building houses their, if they have no problem with me flying over them, somehow I don't think that will be the case!
I wonder if they would be so proactive in their demonstrations if they bought a house along a busy train line, which would be far noisier and more disturbing, I don't think they would bother.
What is it about aviation, how has it become such a soft target?
I have been flying out of a place for a couple of years now, and I have watched the area grow and develop around the airport,
A couple of years ago I have watched houses being erected along a corridor, and felt a small bit of pity for the people who planned on making one of these houses their new home.
However I knew it was inevitable, it was only a matter of time before they would be up screaming blue murder at the airport authorities to change the long established route, sure enough, it has begun, and politicians are jumping on the resident committee bandwagon to have the airport reduced in size.
I am watching more houses being built along other routes everyday, I have no problem with them building houses their, if they have no problem with me flying over them, somehow I don't think that will be the case!
I wonder if they would be so proactive in their demonstrations if they bought a house along a busy train line, which would be far noisier and more disturbing, I don't think they would bother.
What is it about aviation, how has it become such a soft target?
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Taken from the airport data sheet....traffic pattern is left traffic for RWY 03 and right traffic for RWY 21 due to the noise sensitve area. Datat sheet shows 506 traffic movements per day.
- RY 03 PREFERRED FOR CALM WIND AND NOISE ABATEMENT.
- RY 03/21 AND TWYS A & B DESIGNED FOR ACFT WITH WINGSPAN OF 79 FT OR LESS.
- ALL MILITARY ACFT PROVIDE 24 HR ADVANCE NOTICE PRIOR TO ARRIVAL, CALL AIRPORT OPERATIONS (480) 312-8478.
- NO MIDFIELD DEPARTURES ON RY 03 OR RY 21.
- VOLUNTARY NOISE ABATEMENT CURFEW 2200-0600. EXTREMELY NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS ALL QUADRANTS. FOR NOISE ABATEMENT INFORMATION CALL (480) 312-8478.
- COYOTES OCCASIONALLY CROSSING RY 03/21 & TWYS.
- HAWKS INVOF RY 03/21.
- TWY C LIMITED TO ACFT WITH WINGSPAN LESS THAN 63 FT.
- TGL PERMITTED BTWN 0600-2130 ONLY.
- NO MAINTENANCE RUNUPS BTWN 2200-0700.
- RY 03 PREFERRED FOR CALM WIND AND NOISE ABATEMENT.
- RY 03/21 AND TWYS A & B DESIGNED FOR ACFT WITH WINGSPAN OF 79 FT OR LESS.
- ALL MILITARY ACFT PROVIDE 24 HR ADVANCE NOTICE PRIOR TO ARRIVAL, CALL AIRPORT OPERATIONS (480) 312-8478.
- NO MIDFIELD DEPARTURES ON RY 03 OR RY 21.
- VOLUNTARY NOISE ABATEMENT CURFEW 2200-0600. EXTREMELY NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS ALL QUADRANTS. FOR NOISE ABATEMENT INFORMATION CALL (480) 312-8478.
- COYOTES OCCASIONALLY CROSSING RY 03/21 & TWYS.
- HAWKS INVOF RY 03/21.
- TWY C LIMITED TO ACFT WITH WINGSPAN LESS THAN 63 FT.
- TGL PERMITTED BTWN 0600-2130 ONLY.
- NO MAINTENANCE RUNUPS BTWN 2200-0700.
Chief Tardis Technician
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: Western Australia S31.715 E115.737
When I was in Victoria (Oz) many years ago, based at Pt Cook (Then an RAAF initial flying training school) A flying weekend was planned and carried out to " Catch up on lost Flying time due to weather",. On the following Monday the local real estate people were complaining to the base Commander about the noise, cos it drove away all the potential customers who didnt like the Idea of living next to an airport.
Apparently they didnt bother to tell the customers about the airfield when selling on the weekends.
Similar thing happened at Pearce in WA.
Apparently they didnt bother to tell the customers about the airfield when selling on the weekends.
Similar thing happened at Pearce in WA.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: USA
One thing I've noticed is that some helicopter pilots really have a hard time with the "fly neighborly" concept. Oh, they'll espouse the party-line during pre-flight, but fall short when it comes to actually putting it into practice.
I often tell a story about a pilot I checked out recently. He was doing pretty well and seemed pretty knowlegeable, but as we approached a local airport that we use for practice, he dropped down to about 300' agl when we were still a good five miles out. There was no compelling reason for it. A farmhouse passed close by under our chin bubbles, and I wondered aloud if everyone loves the sound of helicopter noise? He gave me a blank stare. Pointing to yet another house gliding by under my feet, I said, "I would rather assume that people 'down there' hate helicopter noise and be wrong, than assume the opposite and be wrong. Let's try to not do this again."
This is not the science of rocketry. It should be Basic Helicopter 101. We *MUST* be cognizant of who we are flying over and adjust our operations to the extent possible. If you are approaching an uncontrolled airport properly from the non-traffic pattern side, there is no need to drop down to treetop level. Helicopters can do very nice, very safe approaches that are steeper than your standard 3 degrees. And in fact, holding a little altitude helps give you better situational awareness of where you're going to shoot your approach to. If you're approaching a runway as a fixed-wing would, then fine, shoot a "normal" approach. But there are good reasons for *not* doing that when the aeropuerto is surrounded by noise-sensitive areas, as Scottsdale evidently is.
It's not enough to simply say, "Screw them! We were here first!" Among the many things we are obligated to do, we must look for ways of minimizing our negative, um, impact on the community and the non-aviators who inhabit it. As much as it might be music to our ears, not everybody down there loves the sound of a clattering helicopter above their roof.
I often tell a story about a pilot I checked out recently. He was doing pretty well and seemed pretty knowlegeable, but as we approached a local airport that we use for practice, he dropped down to about 300' agl when we were still a good five miles out. There was no compelling reason for it. A farmhouse passed close by under our chin bubbles, and I wondered aloud if everyone loves the sound of helicopter noise? He gave me a blank stare. Pointing to yet another house gliding by under my feet, I said, "I would rather assume that people 'down there' hate helicopter noise and be wrong, than assume the opposite and be wrong. Let's try to not do this again."
This is not the science of rocketry. It should be Basic Helicopter 101. We *MUST* be cognizant of who we are flying over and adjust our operations to the extent possible. If you are approaching an uncontrolled airport properly from the non-traffic pattern side, there is no need to drop down to treetop level. Helicopters can do very nice, very safe approaches that are steeper than your standard 3 degrees. And in fact, holding a little altitude helps give you better situational awareness of where you're going to shoot your approach to. If you're approaching a runway as a fixed-wing would, then fine, shoot a "normal" approach. But there are good reasons for *not* doing that when the aeropuerto is surrounded by noise-sensitive areas, as Scottsdale evidently is.
It's not enough to simply say, "Screw them! We were here first!" Among the many things we are obligated to do, we must look for ways of minimizing our negative, um, impact on the community and the non-aviators who inhabit it. As much as it might be music to our ears, not everybody down there loves the sound of a clattering helicopter above their roof.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Dog,
I looked up the Alders home address after you did and then looked at the airport information. If everyone follows the noise abatement procedures....no aircraft should be overhead that house. However, it being a controlled airport and the FAR's requiring a helicopter to avoid the flow of Fixed wing traffic...I could see how it could happen. Also...I notice the helicopter altitude is published as a much lower height than the fixed wing altitude for traffic patterns.
I looked up the Alders home address after you did and then looked at the airport information. If everyone follows the noise abatement procedures....no aircraft should be overhead that house. However, it being a controlled airport and the FAR's requiring a helicopter to avoid the flow of Fixed wing traffic...I could see how it could happen. Also...I notice the helicopter altitude is published as a much lower height than the fixed wing altitude for traffic patterns.
