WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
carpetman, hamptons, flooring
27east.com

427 Comments by localEH

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  >>  

East Hampton Airport Curfews Will Take Effect July 2 After Judge Denies Injunction

Why don't you first list the compromises proposed by the Town Board? List the ways the Town Board has worked to protect local pilots? List the ways the Town Board has responded to local pilots' concerns that they were being punished by the proposed regulations and concerns about the dangerous conditions of the airport? Where is the "spirit of compromise" from your side PBR - oh, nevermind there is none and never has been." Jun 29, 15 1:59 PM

East Hampton Uber Charges Reduced; Drivers Pay $400 Fines

The ironic part is a well known EH cab company driver told me last week that the owner of the cab company wanted Uber to stay. The cab driver said they did not like dealing with the drunken summer kids in Montauk and preferred to serve the local residents of EH/Montauk instead. They were happy to have Uber take the party kids. Once again Cantwell ignores the desire of the community as a whole and makes overreaching draconian rules to please a few vocal opponents." Jun 29, 15 6:09 PM

East Hampton Airport Gets Through First Weekend With Curfews

So you kick, scream, holler, fight, threaten, and demand that the curfews be put in place, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on having the curfew ordinance enacted, then the very first weekend they are in place you immediately COMPLAIN about them?!? " Jul 9, 15 10:00 PM

East Hampton Airport Curfew Violations Climb In Second Week

It's substantial. $1000 for first violation, $4000 for second, $10,000 for third. Plus a whole slew of add on fines and fees amounting to thousands of dollars. It's enough to ground a small single engine prop plane for a year or two (or more). And there is ABSOLUTELY NO NOTICE being provided by the town board to small private pilots. The commercial operators have learned through the lawsuit and locals know, but the town has not made any effort to warn or notify incoming private pilots of small airplanes. " Jul 15, 15 10:53 AM

I completely agree with you. That is exactly the reasonable manner it should be handled. Unfortunately I do not believe the TB has any intention of being that reasonable. Mr. Charlton does not have any discretion in reporting violations to the town and the town is the one that will issue the fines (not Mr. Charlton). When asked about the lack of notice, the TB didn't seem to care. We will have to wait and see. " Jul 15, 15 2:41 PM

There have already been planes who have had to unexpectedly conduct missed approach/go around procedures on landing when they were told over the com by fellow pilots waiting on the ground about the curfew. It's ridiculous the TB is putting people' safety at risk in refusing to provide notice of the curfew. " Jul 15, 15 2:56 PM

I appreciate that as a non-pilot you may not be familiar with these tools.
1. A/FDs are only updated every 60 days, so the new curfews and the criminal penalties and fines are not included in it. Next one is in August.
2. The noise abatement note you reference is only about voluntary noise abatement, not the closure of the airport or the curfew that includes criminal penalties and fines. It is very old and relates to the voluntary procedures of not flying lower than 1000 ft over the beaches, climb at best rate, ramp operations, and the helicopter routes. Nowhere do you see any statement like: Airport closed to all traffic from 11pm-7am due curfew; Aircraft landing after curfew will be subject to criminal penalties and fines.
3. Only the town, as the owner of the airport, can request that additional information be included in the next A/FD publication. We will see if they do that or if it remains silent.
4. The FAA does not allow noise related actions to be included in NOTAMS.
5. There are many ways the TB could at least TRY to notify pilots: Special advisory on ATIS, comment on Flight Aware, publication through AOPA, request for notice to be conveyed through FSS, create a website like most other airports have, etc. None have been done. " Jul 15, 15 10:00 PM

I think you missed my point. A notation of noise abatement in an A/FD means there may be some modifications as to HOW you fly (altitudes, headings, procedures). It does not pertain to WHEN you can fly or use the airport and does not provide any notice that the whole airport will be closed down and violators subject to prosecution and fines. Only a very small handful of airports in the U.S. close entirely at night - this is a very rare thing and would not be expected by inbound pilots. Plus the number provided is not manned 24 hours (or even 12) so you may not reach anyone if you did call. Look at the A/FD for KASE (Aspen), which is one of the few airports that does close, and see the difference in the level of information they provide and warnings about landing outside of authorized hours. Let's see what EH TB does. " Jul 16, 15 1:17 PM

New East Hampton Airport Fees Expected By Weekend

Once again the Town Board has acted without thinking. In their rush to institute the increased fees they eliminated the standard exemptions for locally based aircraft, emergency and medical helicopters, military and Coast Guard aircraft, and non-profit/charity aircraft (ex: AngelFlight, PawsNPilots). So now local pilots will have to pay to land at their OWN airport. Plus if you are an EH resident who needs an emergency medical helicopter to get you to the hospital you either will need to drive yourself to Montauk airport or the SH heliport to get help or you will get a several hundred dollar landing fee bill from the town for the medical helicopter at HTO. How exactly is the elimination of these standard exemptions going to "reduce noise"?" Aug 5, 15 9:30 AM

Summer Season Sees Lots Of Planes, Lots Of Complaints At East Hampton Airport

The data clearly shows that it's just the same small group of people calling more than 30 times per day, instead of the 20 times per day they called last year, in an effort to falsely inflate the complaint numbers. Basing anything on those complaint numbers is absurd since they are patently being manipulated by a small group of anti-airport malcontents who are dead set on getting their way no matter how much cheating and fabrication it takes. " Aug 5, 15 9:38 AM

New East Hampton Airport Fees Expected By Weekend

Only a very small number of aircraft are under 2600lbs, and most of those are considered LSAs and LUAs (light sport/utility aircraft - typically fabric covered wings and no doors). Most small single engine prop modern planes like Cessna 182, Cirrus, Piper, Beechcraft, etc. will now be required to pay landing fees. That's no olive branch - that's a kick in the pants. Have you ever seen that gorgeous fully refurbished T-28 Navy trainer that is hangered on the south side? It will now have to pay $100 to land and park at its own hanger every time it flies. " Aug 5, 15 2:51 PM

In five months the town board won't care anymore. Cantwell had his buddy Zeldin tack an 11th hour amendment on next year's FAA budget that excludes EH from the federal law that prohibits them from illegally diverting the airport revenues away from the airport. It made HTO the only airport in the country exempt from that federal statute, and will allow the town board to completely defund the airport by January." Aug 5, 15 2:57 PM

I am not aware of any other GA airport of similar size that charges a landing fee of any amount to their locally based aircraft. PBR since you're good at research, see if you can find any GA airport out there that charges landing fees to aircraft hangered at the field. Or any GA airports that charge landing fees to medical and military aircraft. I'm curious if this is a first. Let me know what you find. " Aug 6, 15 12:02 AM

I can't think of any other reason why the town board would have Zeldin add a specific exclusion to the FAA funding act that the sole purpose is to prohibit the FAA from instituting a civil or administrative action against the town of EH for "Illegal Diversion of Airport Revenue". Normally the town is required under Federal law to use the airport's own revenue to pay to operate/maintain the airport, and is subject to significant penalties for illegally diverting those funds away from the airport and using them elsewhere. You tell me - why would the town have Zeldin exclude them (and just them) from this law? Why would the town want to illegally divert airport revenues and why would they need carte blanche freedom from any sanctions or penalties? " Aug 6, 15 12:29 AM

Summer Season Sees Lots Of Planes, Lots Of Complaints At East Hampton Airport

At the risk of getting muddy in the wallow, I'll respond. In this I will not speak for anyone but me, but the general sentiment from the entire aviation side including the ERHC is reasonable limits are acceptable. SOME helicopters and jets (not ALL, just the loudest) could have reasonable limitations placed on them, such as higher approach paths, night time restrictions (12-6am), and increased fees. But instead of working with us to craft reasonable middle ground restrictions, the TB decided to go with the scorched earth method and did exactly what I always said was unreasonable - closing the whole airport at night, banning ALL helicopters and most jets, and defunding the airport. They are STILL refusing to perform desperately needed maintenance and repairs, putting our very lives at risk. They've made sure local small pilots were punished at every opportunity with fines, penalties, and fees. They've made it clear they intend on defunding the whole airport until closure is inevitable. Only a crazy person would align themselves with the very people who wanted to wholesale eliminate them. While I agree that noise mitigation can be improved and a very tiny group of helis are overbearing (Rennart), as a whole they are not our "adversary". However, the TB has made it clear to us that us small local pilots are most certainly theirs. So it's an enemy of my enemy situation. I had hoped that after their TRO defeat the TB would choose to come back to the table to work on mutually crafting reasonable restrictions. Instead they took the bit in their teeth and doubled down on their efforts to defund the airport. Do you really condone the abuse of power by the TB to have themselves excluded from a federal law which would prevent them from illegally diverting airport funds? If a chemical company used their political influence to be solely excluded from federal pollution laws that applied to everyone else you'd blow a gasket - but it's ok for the TB to do this? Instead of blindly supporting the TB perhaps you should be demanding they stop acting like little Napoleons and start working with the aviation groups to craft a reasonable solution that works for both sides. Until then we will fight against the despotic actions of this TB until they can be curtailed at the next election. A small group of 300 people, most who do not live in EH and who have a financial interest in developing the airport land, is playing puppet master to this TB and will end up irreversibly harming our economy and our community if we don't take a stand against them. What side are you on PBR?" Aug 7, 15 11:54 AM

New East Hampton Airport Fees Expected By Weekend

If change is to be expected, the world pace is increasing, and the mantra is GUTI - why are you and your anti-airport brethren fighting so hard to place extreme restrictions on the airport and revert it to pre-1940s use? How about applying that philosophy to yourselves first. " Aug 7, 15 12:05 PM

You research everything, cite obscure sources, and play armchair lawyer every chance you get, but you want us to believe you haven't reviewed the details of this legislation?? Take a few minutes and read it. Pay attention to the statute cited, the terms referenced as being defined by the statute, the heading of the section where those terms are defined ("Recovery of Illegally Diverted Funds"), and what the legislation actually says and creates. Note that it absolutely does NOT do any of the following: 1) does not create local autonomy and control for the town to enact use restrictions, 2) does not distance the town from any FAA involvement in the litigation relating to the restrictions, and 3) does not assist the town in reducing noise (actually sec. (b)(3) specifically authorizes the town to use the revenue for noise mitigation). The ONLY thing it does is preclude the FAA from going after the town to recover the airport's revenues in the event the town decides to illegally divert all of those revenues away from the airport. It allows the town the unfettered ability to make the airport budget $0, and take all airport revenue and use it elsewhere - thereby defunding the whole airport. So, PBR go ahead and read it and then tell us exactly what "reasonable and logical" way the TB would use this legislation other than to close the airport. " Aug 7, 15 12:30 PM

Westhampton Beach Resident, Business Owner Dies In Plane Crash

Absolutely tragic. My deepest condolences to his family and friends. It is very disturbing that it appears NYC area ATC directed him to old Grumman Bethpage airport and told him there was a usable runway there - Grumman closed in 1985 and runways have been gone for well over a decade (now a Honda dealership and UPS facility). Crash happened at the end of where the runway used to be. Heartbreaking. " Aug 19, 15 12:25 PM

The ATC transcripts came out two days ago and other news sources have covered the issue. He was given options of Republic at 6 miles and Bethpage at 3 miles. ATC told him Bethpage was closed but there was still a usable runway and then guided him there. Bethpage closed in 1985, runways were torn up, and it's been a car dealership and warehouses for many years. Crash occurred at the end of where the old main runway used to be, adjacent to tracks. Like I said, heartbreaking and brings tears to your eyes. " Aug 19, 15 2:06 PM

Volunteer Pilots Fly Young Cancer Patients into East Hampton Airport

This is what local pilots enjoy doing for our community. This is one of many reasons why our airport is so important to this community. We need our community to stand up against the small aggressive group of people who are working with the current EH Town Board to close the airport and develop the land. Help save our airport!" Aug 20, 15 1:03 PM

NTSB: Milo Was Directed To Defunct Runway Before Crash

An investigation will be done into why the controller sent him to a non-existent airport that has not been on any sectionals for years. It's tragic and heartbreaking, and strikes at the very core of the trust relationship between pilot and ATC. The time/altitude he used up navigating to and looking for the non-existent airport could have been used to pick a better/safer off airport landing spot (ex:golf course) instead of forcing down on a busy road with overhead obstructions. It's a stark reminder for pilots: you fly your airplane and let ATC fly their tower - make your own decisions in an emergency. Just so sad, hopefully this doesn't ever happen again." Aug 25, 15 9:19 AM

East Hampton Town To Spend $1 Million On Airport Legal Fight In 2015 Alone

Let the 30 people who call the noise hotline non-stop to run up the fake complaint numbers (one admitted calling the hotline nearly 75,000 times) to get their greedy developer hands on the airport land pay for these attorney fees. Why is the town spending millions to help these 30 people, 3/4 of whom don't even live in EH? Why did Burke-Gonzalez just illegally divert $400k out of the airport's own revenues to pay more attorney fees, while refusing to perform critical safety related maintenance at the airport that is desperately needed? Instead of using the airport revenue to cut the trees in the flight path, put up a deer/turkey fence to keep wildlife off the runways, install a functioning weather reporting system, or repair the giant cracks in the shorter runway, the board diverted the money to their attorneys and now says there is none left to fix anything. Stop this idiocy, use the $1M for more important things, and let the airport perform its own maintenance with it's own funds. Time to start voting these people out in November!" Sep 16, 15 1:36 AM

Nice threat. Once again you attack, harass, and intimidate anyone who opposes your group in order to silence any opposition and hide the truth that you are actually just a very small fringe group who represents no one but yourselves. " Sep 16, 15 8:38 AM

Thanks for proving my point above. Why can't you Quiet Skies people be civil? Your Facebook page is filled with your macabre schadenfreude every time a pilot dies or is injured within 100 miles of here, regardless of the fact that none were from HTO. You even attacked those who questioned your morality when you gloated over the death of poor Joe Milo from Westhampton. How can anyone take you seriously?" Sep 18, 15 7:46 PM

You know by now that closing the airport will change nothing. The town will NEVER be able to have any impact on aircraft in flight - it's not even a possibility. So the same helis will still fly right over your house heading to Montauk or SH heliport. The seaplanes will still fly over your house and land in the water in Sag and Shelter and Three Mile Harbor. The Jets will still do long low approaches over your house heading into Gabreski. NONE of what you are proposing will change how many aircraft are flying over you or at what altitude. You will NEVER control that by simply closing HTO. But you already know that and still want to close it...because it's all a land grab for you. If you really wanted to address noise and aircraft in flight the people you want to gain the support and sympathy of is the pilots. But you've burned that bridge to the ground and are working hard on salting the remaining earth around it. " Sep 19, 15 11:13 AM

me, but you don't see me demanding the town poison, cut, and firebomb all goldenrod plants in town limits. These unreasonable hyper-sensitive people should not be running the show.
2. Don't let people with a financial interest in the closure and development of the airport land be in charge. If they have said they want to develop the land, then they should be excluded from participating in any efforts to resolve the noise issue.
3. Take closure of the airport off the table - permanently. Stop threatening and bullying everyone with the nuclear option, it's not productive. Anyone who has said they want to close the airport should also be excluded.
4. Perform the desperately needed maintainence - NOW. These are life safety issues that they town has intentionally ignored for years based on the guidance and urging of Gruber and Dalene. It is a ticking time bomb until someone tragically dies. K. Burke-Gonzalez just illegally pulled $400k out of the fund that was supposed to pay for this maintainence to pay for her attorneys, and said that she'd "look into" getting a bond to pay for it sometime in the distant future. This shows how reckless the town is being, and makes us wonder if she and others are wanting someone to die so they can take drastic action to close the airport (just like was done with rwy 4/22). If you really want to get the cooperation of pilots, perform this maintenance NOW. " Sep 22, 15 10:18 AM

1. Don't let the people at the extreme end of the bell curve on noise annoyance be in charge. Most of the people against the airport are hyper-sensitive to aircraft noise because they personally dislike aircraft. They are not even annoyed by cars, trucks, lawn mowers, loud music, boat engines, leaf blowers, church bells, barking dogs, etc. But if they hear even what vaugly sounds like an airplane in the distance they flip out. I am allergic to goldenrod pollen and it annoys" Sep 22, 15 10:18 AM

As for the noise levels themselves, stop lumping all aircraft together. It appears commuter helicopters are the greatest annoyance, so I personally think limiting the number of commuter helicopter flights per day is a solution. But it needs to be a reasonable limit not the absurd thing proposed by the board (ex: two landings per day per tail number, restrict overall number of landings of commuter helis per day to certain number). Also working out more approach routes for helis would be useful. Funneling them all into the November route is likely annoying for those under that route. Limiting the number of helis and jets over the 91db range is reasonable too. Plus charging them a noise surcharge. Since it's supposed to be about noise, the focus needs to be on aircraft that are creating the most noise. Other solution ideas would be welcome if they are reasonable and tailored towards noise reduction. Seaplanes are NOT noisy. The people who complain about them are not actually complaining about their noise - they are complaining about their mere existence. They want to stop all commercial and commuter operations so they yell that seaplanes are noisy. They are not. A Cessna 208 with a Hartzall prop is only 76db if you are standing right next to it. If it's flying over you at 1000-1500ft with its power reduced for landing it is even quieter. Stop trying to throw seaplanes into the restrictions to pad your alternate agenda that has nothing to do with noise. Stop imposing restrictions and penalties on single engine recreational pilots and locally hangered airplanes. Penalizing the small and local pilots is a cheap shot and is in no way related to noise abatement. It's bullying plain and simple, to try to divide the pilot community. " Sep 22, 15 10:47 AM

Cantwell Wants More East Hampton Cops, Code Officers In $73.5 Million Budget

Illegally diverted airport funds. Federal law prohibits using airport funds to pay for the town's attorney's fees and considers such use an illegal diversion, subjecting the town to large fines. So in the long run, the town will have to use tax dollars to reimburse the illegally diverted airport revenues and to pay for the fines. But this town board doesn't care about that and will use any means necessary to shut down the airport now, leaving the taxpayers a huge mess in a few years. " Sep 30, 15 11:40 AM

Why, as a board member of Quiet Skies Coalition, must you misstate actual facts when you comment. Here's your homework per 49 USC 49107(b): "revenues generated by a public airport will be expended for the capital or operating costs of—(A) the airport; (B) the local airport system; or (C) other local facilities owned or operated by the airport owner or operator and directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property." Which part of that law says the money can be used for attorney's fees spent to fight against the airport operation and force its closure? The attorney's fees do not constitute operating costs of the airport or the local airport system - they are spent doing the opposite! In fact, some of the attorney's fees are from defending the lawsuit relating to the town's refusal to perform basic safety related maintenance. " Sep 30, 15 5:31 PM

East Hampton Democrats File Complaint With State Over Helicopter Contributions To GOP Campaign

This board has exposed the taxpayers to increased taxes because they have misspent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting a battle they have been told from the beginning they would lose because their methods were contrary to federal law. They have illegally diverted the airport funds to pay for their legal fees and will not only have to pay that back, but will have to pay hefty fines for it. That money will come from taxpayers. Plus their intentional refusal to perform the maintenance is a ticking time bomb for an accident to occur which will expose the town and its taxpayers to huge multimillion dollar lawsuits. That money will also come from taxpayers. Plus if they get their way, the airport will not longer be self sufficient and will either have to be closed or supported by taxpayer dollars - either way is really bad for the local community and economy. Vote these people out now!" Oct 30, 15 1:55 PM

Amelia your #3 is a blatant falsehood that your QSC mouthpiece, Burke-Gonzalez, keeps spreading. First, the RUNWAY desperately needs paving, not the TAXIWAY. The town put a tiny bit of asphalt on a taxiway that didn't need it so they could trumpet that the did "repairs". They did nothing to address or fix the dangers on the actual RUNWAY. Second, the town replaced some light bulbs on a TAXIWAY but refused to fix the lighting on the RUNWAY. Which do you think is more important to see at night. Third, none of the tall trees that protrude into the glide slope have been trimmed and no fence protection has been installed to keep deer, turkey, and other wildlife off the runways. Runway 16-34 is still so cracked and covered with weeds that you'd blow a tire landing on it. The AWOS is still outdated, missing critical weather info, and frequently offline. Nothing has been done. The town board has made it very clear they don't want to make any repairs to the real problems because they think if they make it dangerous enough it will have to be closed down (ex: runway 4-22). To quote Cantwell - promises mean nothing, if you want to garner the real intent of the town board you see if their actions speak louder than their words. How can anyone support a town board that is intentionally putting its residents in harms way. " Nov 2, 15 6:16 PM

UPDATE: Cantwell, Incumbents, Reelected In East Hampton; Schneiderman Takes Southampton Supervisor Seat; Scalera, Bouvier Win Board Seats

They will close our community airport within a year (two at longest) and sell it off to the highest bidders from the Quiet Skies/Gruber/Lipper group to be developed into McMansions. Such a shame to see an 80 year old tradition of local aviation killed by this administration. " Nov 4, 15 10:52 AM

Here is an example of who this administration is working with: Upon hearing the election results, "Kathleen Cunningham, the chairwoman of the Quiet Skies Coalition, yelled, "We showed them!" Someone else yelled, "Blackhawk down!" which garnered a lot of laughs." Nice that these vicious people think its funny to laugh at the deaths of 18 of our brave servicemen, whose bodies were subsequently mutilated and dragged through the streets. Then again this is the same group that posts the deaths of local and regional pilots on their Facebook page with disturbing schadenfreude." Nov 4, 15 11:07 AM

UPDATE: Body Found By Hunter In Woods Apparently About 500 Feet Away From Lilia Aucapina's House

You people watch waaaaaay too many "crime dramas" on TV. Real life investigations are not anything like that. It's also very uncommon to have staged murder scenes. But enjoy your conspiracy theories over a cup of hot cocoa. " Nov 23, 15 6:33 PM

East Hampton Energy Sustainability Committee In Favor Of Plans For Offshore Wind Farm

Anyone with an Internet connection can learn how horrible the wind farm idea has turned out for Europe. Just google "Europe wind farm problems". Not only does it cost more to consumers but the industry is a flop. Leave it to Cantwell to support something that will end up increasing everyone's energy bills. Uber prohibition, rental registry, Montauk parties, closure of the airport...this will fit right in on his list of "accomplishments" that harm the local community. " Feb 10, 16 1:48 PM

Southampton Town Supports State Bill On Future Funding For East Hampton Airport

Just a reality check - no matter how many times the QSC and its bought-and-paid-for political cronies use the phrase "helicopters", their goals are the elimination of ALL aviation of all sizes in the East End. Their proposed restrictions and limitations on funding are designed to equally harm the local recreational aviation community. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by the rejection of the proposals that locally based single engine prop aircraft be excluded from the curfew fines and be excluded from the new landing fees for locally hangered small prop planes. Imagine being told that in addition to your property taxes which pay for roads, you had to pay an extra fee every single time you drove on the street to your house. Don't be fooled by their pretending it's only about helicopters and noise - they won't stop until the airport land is theirs to develop into a whole crop of McMansions for summer people. Funny how when they were asked to pass legislation that said the airport couldn't be defunded or closed without a community vote they adamantly rejected that proposal, but now want to use that same concept to preclude future funding of the airport. " Feb 24, 16 11:15 PM

Consultants: Curfews Made East Hampton Airport Quieter In 2015

Since you are an executive member of the Quiet Skies Coalition, why don't you point out exactly what "court rulings" from exactly which cases require the town to change the landing fee system to now charge locally based aircraft landing fees.... We will be waiting a long time since that was something completely made up by Cantwell and no such court rulings have been made. But thanks for once again proving her point that people like you and your QSC group are encouraging the town board to attack small recreational pilots and local small aviation with as much, if not more, vitriol as you do outside helicopters. " Mar 22, 16 3:24 PM

Funny PBR how you can't identify the alleged "court rulings" Cantwell referenced either. Instead you just revert to insults and name calling without interjecting a single tidbit of fact. What logic is faulty? What statements are inaccurate? His statements are on video tape for crying out loud. " Mar 22, 16 7:58 PM

You glaringly failed to identify the supposed "court rulings" that you and Cantwell claim were the reason the town was forced to add locally based planes to the fee schedule. Bottom line is the only reason the changes were made was to punish local pilots for not siding with the town board and to stop future flight training at HTO. Since you love to spread mid-information let's clear this up. In pre-2013 the landing fee schedule had low rates and locally based airplanes were excluded. In 2014 the town board majorly jacked up the landing fees but still there was no fee for locally based airplanes. Sound and Friends of HTO filed Part 16 complaints with the FAA objecting to the fee increase. As even the town's consultants explained - no decision has been made on either Part 16 action. Yet in response the town board suddenly announced that it was going to start charging landing fees for locally based airplanes. They did not do it per any court ruling - they did it as revenge since local pilots wouldn't join them against Sound and the Friends group.
The idea that QSC has helped the airport in anyway is delusional and absurd. QSC has FOUGHT every single proposed repair or upgrade. These are the people who bragged about injured or killed pilots on their Facebook page. Check out their ridiculous "concept image" as they declare how unnecessary a deer fence is at HTO. The only reason the few repairs were made was because a lawsuit was filed against the town forcing them to take action. The town paved a closed runway instead of the active one that is full of cracks and weeds. They put in taxiway lighting but none for the runway. Heck the PAPI lights are now broken too. They only installed the new AWOS because in Dec the old one was so broken it was telling planes they were 200-300 ft higher than they were - it was a ticking time bomb for planes using an instrument approach that they would crash into the trees! Oh yeah, those trees that have grown even taller over the past 3 years the board has STILL not cut them. Where's the deer fence or parallel taxiway that the board's own plans says were supposed to be done and finished last year. QSC is about as helpful as two broken legs on a ballet dancer. Your sheep's clothing that "this is only about helicopters" and "no one wants to hurt local pilots" has fallen off. " Mar 22, 16 8:37 PM

The town has zero nil nada no ability to regulate or modify RNAV/GPS (or any other) approaches. Those approach plates and all aircraft in flight are solely governed by the FAA. The town cannot ever tell a plane where it can fly in the air. Instrument approaches by their very nature have to be long straight paths. Geography and physics dictate that if winds are coming from the east then planes on instrument approaches must fly over North Sea to runway 10 (straight line). The use of runway 10 is exclusively determined by wind direction, not random choice. If you meant to talk about helicopters, that's a whole different set of rules and HTO does not have any GPS approaches for helicopters. If you meant to refer to the voluntary helicopter routes that have been created over the past few years, I agree they should be reevaluated to see if additional or modified ones can be proposed so one area doesn't get all the traffic. However if those changes are done at the same pace as the glide slope tree removal it'll take a decade. " Mar 23, 16 10:20 AM

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  >>