A Coalition to
Protect Small Towns from the Helicopter Thrill-Ride Industry, Restore Private
Property Rights, & Educate the Public about the Threat of Helicopter
Tourism
“Just because its legal doesn’t make it right.”
–member of the Cherokee Nation
The
Helicopter tourism industry has become a national nuisance protested by people
around the country. (For
starters, see http://www.hcn.org/issues/204/10561 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/nyregion/21heliport.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=nyregion&adxnnlx=1217772125-fT38LhIiYZVBWcgKDxAVTQ www.helifreenyc.org http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/03_05/03_30_05/fr_chopper_campaign.html http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/04_05/04_13_05/out_protection_gateway.html http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199412/ftr-copter.asp)
Property
values decline. (http://www.stormingmedia.us/59/5900/A590003.html
summarized here http://stophelipad.org/property_values1.shtml)
Helicopter
tourism businesses are dangerous. (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/17078.html http://personalinjury.cprlaw.com/NTSB-Airplane-Accident-Reports-Weather-Encounter-and-Subsequent-Crash-into-the-Pacific-Ocean---Analysis--3-205-201.html also http://www.survivingparadisehawaii.com/story.php?55)
They routinely
violate Federal Aviation Administration advice. (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet search for AC No: 91-36D Subject: VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) FLIGHT NEAR
NOISE-SENSITIVE AREAS)
They operate
through a shaky legal loophole that is propped open by a special interest
lobby. (http://www3.verticalgateway.com/Default.aspx?tabid=510&newsid905=49489& and http://www.usata-dc.com/ )
But they
CAN be, and have been, successfully combated by citizens’ coalitions!
This web
page has been created on behalf of people in Helen, Georgia and elsewhere who
have been the hapless victims of the onslaught of noise pollution and the
invasion of privacy that are the standard byproducts of helicopter tour
businesses like the one recently established in Helen. The goal is to voice grievances and to
educate the public about the dark side of the helicopter thrill-ride industry. People who live in the Helen, GA flight
path, and other flight paths in other communities similarly afflicted, endure
constant low over-flights, which continue not only during the day but late into
the evening while people are trying to enjoy dinner and rest in their homes. To fly a helicopter right over people’s
houses over and over again is an invasion of privacy, and it is rude,
un-neighborly, and a nuisance. To
do it every day for profit is wrong.
It could happen to you!
Why is
this not illegal? Because
legislators and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have not yet made it
illegal. Citizens all around the country are
fighting this problem, and when enough people learn about this threat to
everyone’s quality of life, legislators and the FAA will do something about the
problem. As it stands, the few
helicopter tour operators have organized themselves—as the Helicopter Tour
Operators Committee, under the Helicopter Association International, as well as
the USATA (United States Air Tour Association)—to lobby and pressure the FAA
not to act, while the many people who suffer the consequences of the FAA’s
inaction remain unorganized and thus disenfranchised. People are beginning to speak out to right what is wrong,
and we need your help. If your
home is not yet buzzed by a low flying helicopter 50 times a day, please
realize that it can be at any time if laws are not put in place to stop
it.
Only
recently have helicopters become cheap enough so that helicopter tour operators
can offer very short rides for cheap prices, thus making it more and more
profitable to offer noisy helicopter thrill-rides to tourists even in small,
out-of-the-way tourist destinations like Helen, Georgia. Most flights offered by such businesses
now only last five or ten minutes.
This means the helicopter is constantly taking off and landing creating
a noisy nuisance for everyone around where these short, repeated flights take
place. These helicopter tour over-flights essentially make money by damaging
everyday citizen’s ability to use and enjoy their own property, which naturally
is part of American citizens’ private property rights. This industry is running on borrowed
time. Many helicopter tour
businesses have been shut down already by coalitions of aggrieved
citizens. As it grows and takes on
more of the character of a thrill-ride industry, and spreads its noise
pollution over more communities, a critical mass of fed-up citizens will
form.
Helicopter tour businesses have a
history of creating public outcry.
Helen, GA is only the latest community to fall victim to the helicopter
tour industry.
1. They’ve been curtailed in national
parks by an act of congress. We
should wonder why they should be allowed free reign in our state parks, such as
Unicoi State Park or Tallulah Gorge, and over game reserves and wilderness
areas.
2. They’ve
been banned, effective by 2010, in Manhattan.
3. In
Tennessee helicopter tour businesses were zoned out of a nine-mile radius from
the Smoky Mountain National Park.
A helicopter tour business owner challenged the law all the way to the
Tennessee Supreme Court and lost, subsequently having his appeal to the Federal
Supreme Court turned down.
4. In
Virgina City, Utah the city council denied a business license to a helicopter
tour entrepreneur, under pressure of overwhelming opposition from the
residents, even though the denial of a license was said to be a move of
questionable legal defensibility.
The would-be helicopter tour operator decided not to try taking the town
to court.
5. Citizens
of Cherokee, NC (through the S.O.S.—Save Our Skies—Coalition) have organized to
defend themselves against a helicopter tour business operating there.
6. Haywood
County, NC, in a preemptive maneuver, has reportedly passed a law or ordinance
saying that no helicopter tour business can operate in or from that
county. Some apparently have said
this law illegally targets a specific business. If so, it shows the lengths to which people have been forced
to go to protect themselves and close the loophole being exploited by
helicopter tour operators. In the
words of a member of the Cherokee Nation, “just because it’s legal doesn’t make
it right.” Or should we say, “just
because it is not YET illegal, doesn’t mean it’s not already wrong.”
7. In Las Vegas,
influential casino owners were able to strike a deal to alter the flight paths
of helicopter tours so they did not pass over their casinos.
8. At the
Grand Canyon, helicopter tours, long decried by Native Americans and other
nearby residents, were finally curtailed.
9. The
National Resource Defense Council has published a study titled “Needless Noise”
about the negative effects for health and wellbeing of helicopter noise
specifically, including a connection with learning disabilities in children.
10. Even the FAA recognizes, officially,
that “excessive aircraft noise can result in annoyance, inconvenience, or
interference with the uses and enjoyment of property, and can adversely affect
wildlife.” http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
11. Citizens in Jackson Hole, Wyoming have
seen the threat of helicopter tourism and are speaking out.
12. This list could go on.
Therefore,
the people of Helen are reacting the way anyone would react, and the way many
others have reacted, to the insult, injury, and risk that is a standard
by-product of this industry.
Sources for the info in this section are on the “Links” page.
“Come on folks, just face it we helo pilots are
much smarter and of superior intellec then you commonors - we can do whatever
we please in the air just like diplomats from the mid east can park any where
they like and NYC can't do a thing - we are protected the same way by our own
goverment. […] even though I make a mint flying rich knuckleheads - I'll just
keep comparing myself to medical pilots and emergency flights - you see the
similarity right - honk your horn - I complain its a public disturbance and you
get a ticket - I buzz your pool party and rattle your dishes - you complain - I
just pout at the FAA baby - too bad for you - too funny.” –a comment posted by
“skyking” on Aug 2, 08 12:58 PM
concerning this article http://www.27east.com/story_detail.cfm?id=158116
Helicopter tours are
dangerous. Many people have died
in commercial helicopter tour crashes.
Fatal
accident rate of helicopter tours, as you can see from the information below,
is about forty three times higher than that of commercial airlines meant for
transportation. The high incidence
of accidents is part of what prompted the FAA to propose regulations that were
eventually tabled under pressure from the commercial helicopter lobby (see
below). It is well documented that
most accidents happen during takeoff and landing, so air tour operators that
run short flights are naturally at an increased risk of helicopter
crashes. Therefore, the following
statistics very likely significantly understate the risks that short-flight
thrill-ride type businesses pose to their customers and those that live below
the helicopter flight path.
"Steve
Bassett, USATA president, said that in 10 years, association
members have
flown 600,000 tours and carried 4.5 million passengers to
the Grand
Canyon. Bassett said there were seven fatal air tour
accidents
involving tourists in that time, all outside Grand Canyon
air space.
He calculated
that air tour companies during that 10-year period have
a safety
record of 0.98 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown.
Among
commercial airlines, the average number of fatal accidents per
year from 1990
to 1999 was .025 per 100,000 hours flown, according to
the
NTSB." San Diego Union Tribune, August 21, 2001, Ken Ritter,
Associated
Press. http://www.uniontrib.com/news/state/20010821-1343-wst-helicopt.html”
(this according to a Googleanswers responder. See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/17078.html)
It appears helicopter tour businesses
operate on a similar model everywhere, and it is a suspect pattern.
With the exception of places like Las Vegas and Manhattan,
they are usually in sparsely populated areas like national parks, wilderness
areas, and other places of scenic beauty.
All too frequently the affected resident populations appear to be groups
that have historically been discounted and disenfranchised, such as Native
Americans, Native Hawaiians, or rural working class populations with limited
access to the legal system.
Additionally, helicopter tour operators naturally pick a
flight path and tend to stick to it.
In this way complaints are confined to a few people who are severely
affected by a nuisance to which they are told they have no legal right to
object. Not only is this an
infuriating and unjust insult to those people, it also makes it easy for the
helicopter tour operators, and their legal and political backers, to explain
the naturally shrill complaints as coming from a few “oversensitive” people. Only few people are targeted, so little
political opposition is generated.
But this country is founded on the principle that majority rule is
checked by the sanctity of individual rights.
In some cases proprietors are able to strike a deal to alter
the flight path of helicopter tours, therefore usually foisting the burden of
this nuisance onto others. In the
case of the helicopter tour business in Cherokee, the owner/operator has said
he would sell the business to the tribe, but has placed an inflated price on
the property. No doubt similar
deals have been struck openly or behind closed doors in other communities. If a business knowingly creates
hardship for a community, then essentially offers to sell the affected people
their privacy, peace, and quiet back to them at any price, much less an
exorbitant one, then we are dealing with some kind of blackmail.
The FAA came very close to
properly addressing this problem, but the helicopter tour operators’ special
interest lobby narrowly prevailed
In
2003 the FAA almost acted on behalf of the American people it is supposed to
serve by providing a reasonable regulatory policy to protect people from the
nation-wide scourge of unregulated helicopter thrill-ride operators. Proposed rules would have established
minimum altitudes and other safeguards for the people. These rules were implemented in Hawaii,
but due to the lobbying pressure of the industry moguls, they were not adopted
not in the rest of the country where people still deal with the
consequences. According to the
HAI, the proposed rules would have done the following things:
“* Establish a minimum altitude
restriction of 1,500 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) above any person, structure,
vehicle, or vessel
and 1,000 feet
AGL over raw terrain;
* Establish standoff
distance requirements of 1,500 feet to any person, structure, vehicle, or
vessel or 1,000 feet to raw terrain;
Prohibit commercial air tours in Class
G airspace when visibility is less than two statute miles during the day or
three statute miles at night;
* Prohibit operations in
Class G airspace 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 2,000 feet horizontally
from any cloud; and
* Require life preservers
for all occupants, fixed or inflatable floats for single-engine helicopters and
certain multi-engine
helicopters,
passenger briefing, and a helicopter performance plan before each departure.”
(from the
website of the HAI http://www3.verticalgateway.com/Default.aspx?tabid=510&newsid905=49489&)
What the FAA has done is
make the following recommendations to pilots—recommendations that tour
operators routinely do not follow.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Date:
September 17, 2004 AC No: 91-36D Subject: VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) FLIGHT NEAR NOISE-SENSITIVE AREAS
Initiated by: ATO-R
ADVISORY CIRCULAR
1.
PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular
(AC) encourages pilots making VFR flights near noise-sensitive areas to fly at
altitudes higher than the minimum permitted by regulation and on flight paths
that will reduce aircraft noise in such areas.
2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This advisory circular is effective on September 17, 2004.
3. CANCELLATION. Advisory
Circular 91-36C, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise Sensitive Areas,
dated October 19, 1984, is cancelled.
4. AUTHORITY. The
FAA has authority to formulate policy regarding use of the navigable airspace
(Title 49 United States Code, Section 40103).
5. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES. This AC has been updated to include a definition of “noise-
sensitive” area and add references to Public Law 100-91; the FAA Noise Policy
for Management of Airspace Over Federally Managed Lands, dated November 1996;
and the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, with other minor
wording changes.
6. BACKGROUND.
a. Excessive aircraft
noise can result in annoyance, inconvenience, or interference with the uses and
enjoyment of property, and can adversely affect wildlife. It is particularly undesirable in areas
where it interferes with normal activities associated with the area’s use,
including residential, educational, health, and religious structures and sites,
and parks, recreational areas (including areas with wilderness
characteristics), wildlife refuges, and cultural and historical sites where a
quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute. Moreover, the FAA recognizes that there
are locations in National Parks and other federally managed areas that have
unique noise-sensitive values. The
Noise Policy for Management of Airspace Over Federally Managed Areas, issued
November 8, 1996, states that it is the policy of the FAA in its management of
the navigable airspace over these locations to exercise leadership in achieving
an appropriate balance between efficiency, technological practicability, and
environmental concerns, while maintaining the highest level of safety.
b. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) receives complaints concerning low flying
aircraft over noise sensitive areas such as National Parks, National Wildlife
Refuges, Waterfowl Production Areas and Wilderness Areas. Congress addressed aircraft flights
over Grand Canyon National Park in Public Law 100-91 and commercial air tour
operations over other units of the National Park System (and tribal lands
within or abutting such units) in the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of
2000.
c. Increased emphasis
on improving the quality of the environment requires a continuing effort to
provide relief and protection from low flying aircraft noise.
d. Potential noise
impacts to noise-sensitive areas from low altitude aircraft flights can also be
addressed through application of the voluntary practices set forth in this
AC. Adherence to these practices
is a practical indication of pilot concern for the environment, which will
build support for aviation and alleviate the need for any additional statutory
or regulatory actions.
7. DEFINITION. For the
purposes of this AC, an area is “noise-sensitive” if noise interferes with
normal activities associated with the area’s use. Examples of noise-sensitive areas include residential,
educational, health, and religious structures and sites, and parks, recreational
areas (including areas with wilderness characteristics), wildlife refuges, and
cultural and historical sites where a quiet setting is a generally recognized
feature or attribute.
8. VOLUNTARY PRACTICES.
a. Avoidance of
noise-sensitive areas, if practical, is preferable to overflight at relatively
low altitudes.
b. Pilots operating
noise producing aircraft (fixed-wing, rotary-wing and hot air balloons) over
noise- sensitive areas should make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 feet
above ground level (AGL), weather permitting. For the purpose of this AC, the ground level of
noise-sensitive areas is defined to include the highest terrain within 2,000
feet AGL laterally of the route of flight, or the uppermost rim of a canyon or
valley. The intent of the 2,000
feet AGL recommendation is to reduce potential interference with wildlife and
complaints of noise disturbances caused by low flying aircraft over
noise-sensitive areas.
c. Departure from or
arrival to an airport, climb after take-off, and descent for landing should be
made so as to avoid prolonged flight at low altitudes near noise-sensitive
areas.
d. This advisory does
not apply where it would conflict with Federal Aviation Regulations, air
traffic control clearances or instructions, or where an altitude of less than
2,000 feet AGL is considered necessary by a pilot to operate safely.
9. COOPERATIVE ACTIONS. Aircraft operators, aviation associations, airport managers,
and others are asked to assist in voluntary compliance with this AC by
publicizing it and distributing information regarding known noise-sensitive
areas.
Signed
________________________________
Sabra
W. Kaulia
Director of
System Operations & Safety
Restore
The Peace supports the following websites and the general cause toward which
they are all working—to save the southern mountains from exploitation and
encourage responsible development and economic activities.
http://www.stopmountaintopremoval.org