Todos
← Back to Squawk list
FAA Denies L.A. Anti-helicopter Petitions
Last week the FAA denied a quartet of petitions that sought to impose helicopter minimum altitudes; mandatory routings; and hover, orbit and pooling restrictions on tour and electronic news gathering (ENG) operators for all helicopters operating within the Los Angeles Basin. The petitions were filed by various groups of anti-helicopter activists under the umbrella group known as the Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition. (www.ainonline.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Good move by the FAA. Had they granted this, the same crowd would then go after fixed wing aircraft demanding restrictions that would undoubtedly impact safety and operational efficiency. There will always be one group or another butthurt over something over which they have no control but demand to have it.
Brought to you by SBAWBA (Squirrely Birds Against Whirly Birds Anonymous)perhaps?
What appears to be over looked here; the air space above the surface's private own property is considered private air space from surface to infinity, therefore I'm concerned that both commercial fixed and rotary a/c(excluding law enforcement) are confiscating private property without compensation not to mention violating the local noise ordinances. I find it absurd that there are those who choose to be selective as it relates to Government control. Either "keep the Feds out of our business" but permit the Feds to intervene only if it's beneficial. They do not want the Feds imposing gun control restrictions, yet it's ok if the Feds intervenes by confiscating private property and benefiting "for Profit" commercial a/c.
That at one time was true but now the FAA has authority for all air 500 feet and above, essentially as an easement to the government of all property owners. Likewise many jurisdictions limit mineral rights below individual properties.
Your comment only applies to a five miles radius of an airport and is related to private-owned Drone restriction. Any one attempting to have you believe otherwise is "pulling the wool over your eyes".
I resided in a community near a major airport hub that requested an received approval from the FAA to modify their departure flight vectors. Property owners residing under and in close proximity of those revised departure vectors received one-time noise abatement assistance for their residence and compensation for utilizing their air space.
I resided in a community near a major airport hub that requested an received approval from the FAA to modify their departure flight vectors. Property owners residing under and in close proximity of those revised departure vectors received one-time noise abatement assistance for their residence and compensation for utilizing their air space.
Sorry, it is everywhere as by the old logic each property owner could make a claim against any aircraft ovrhead. Here is the relevant legislation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103
Not sure how you came to the conclusion about infinite private property. That has never been the case. In fact - the definition regarding the airspace reads that it only protects items that are in some fashion attached to the ground and the direct airspace that the protrusion occupies.