| Author | Post |
|---|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 09:10 pm |
|
Tomogo,
You don’t have to research very far to find the answer on how sound is reduced by distance. Take a look at the Helicopter Association International’s Fly Friendly guide, section 3.1. Everything points to flying higher rather then lower to reduce noise. Approximately a 6 dB drop every time you double the distance. If you are really concerned to see the noise of the transient helicopter flights reduced over Queen Creek you would stand behind the Pegasus Airpark Flight Association to help them get helicopters approved at Pegasus so they can start implementing procedures which will have an effect to raise that traffic higher. The small number of helicopters that would be based at Pegasus would not add to the transient over flights and would give Pegasus the ability to block the lower altitudes with their own designated helicopter traffic pattern. Without it the transient traffic will continue at the low altitudes. I heard that another helicopter training operation may be looking to move into Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport to replace Silverstate helicopters.
3.1 Flyover Height
Maintaining an altitude as high as possible above the ground and flying at airspeeds
consistent with minimum noise output, flight safety and ATC constraints is essential.
Height and distance have a major impact on the noise level observed under the helicopter,
as illustrated in the HAI Fly Higher Chart, shown in Figure 4. It shows the relationship
of flyover height and noise exposure at ground level for different-sized
helicopters. A doubling of height or distance reduces the level by six to seven dB(A). If
the height/distance is increased by a factor of three, the maximum level is decreased by
approximately 10 dB(A), which is equivalent to reducing the loudness by half. The chart
can be used to decide what height should be flown so that the helicopter’s noise output
is compatible with community noise exposure criteria. For example, to be compatible
with the generally accepted criterion of 65 dB(A) max2 for flyover of noise-sensitive
areas, light/small helicopters should fly at altitudes no less than 1,000 feet AGL. For
medium helicopters, the recommended height is 2,000 feet AGL, and, for heavy/large
helicopters, 4,000 ft AGL.
Attachment: Pages13_14_from HAA_Fly_Friendly_Guide.pdf (Downloaded 0 times)
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 03:41 pm |
|
tomogo wrote: Ron in all seriousness. Even if the only way to move the transient helicopter traffic to a higher altitude was to have an approach pattern for helicopters at Pegasus. What would stop those transient pilots from flying East or West of Pegasus at their current altitudes? Also, wouldn't your proposed traffic pattern be a recommendation that is not really enforceable for those transient pilots? I know the pattern could be communicated, but couldn't the same be done for the current air traffic? If you have fixed wing approach patterns, I would think you wouldn't want any air traffic crossing at the same altitude. Oh and yes I do agree helicopters flying higher do reduce the noise, but I'd have to research what the actual noise reduction is and what the difference in altitude is your recommending.
Tomogo,
It is good to see you back, you must have been working on your plan, how is it going and when will we be able to see something in writing. On another note, you are finally seeing the begininig of the effort to manage the airspace around Pegasus. It is a process. You are correct, at first, the transient pilot would be able to do exactly what you said. However, if you remember in our presentations, the first effort is publication in all the FAA and local flight guidance resources. Then the education begins, posters and personal visits to the local operators to enlist the participation. This should solve at least 80 percent of the issue, but that is not the end. Working with the Local FAA during the airspace re-design at IWA will will be able to address the Pegasus issues and move to establish the NOTAMS required to bridge the regulatory control issue, now we will have teeth to enforce our procedures. That is still not the end, later, as Pegasus grows to full capacity, a UNICOM is possible along with an AWOS and finally inclusion in the IFR environment for arrivals and departures which would give the final layer of control over the airspace.
As we have been saying all along. There is no magic bullet. It is not just Jets and helicopters, it is what is done with them and the preparation and approach that is applied to the following years that will guarantee the changes we all seek in addressing the issues of risk, hazard and noise for the furture of Pegasus and Queen Creek. It will not be an overnight change, it will come with a great deal of effort put out by the Flight Association of Pegasus. They are the best equipped to manage the airspace and the effort to help all the residents of Queen Creek enjoy the gem that Pegasus is and will become.
One last item, you ask about traffic crossing at the same altitude of our pattern, you are correct, we do not want any traffic crossing at the same altitude. We would hope they cross with a min of 300 to 500 ft separation. We have a new plan, this plan, to our disappointment, will not allow us to address any of the Orchard Ranch issues. We are limited in our effor to addressing only those risks and hazards associatied with Pegasus, we are not happy about it but we have an obligation to our airpark operations to move forward. We will be having another public meeting soon to outline our plan, we are in the process of reviewing the plan with the Town of Queen Creek, as soon as we are able to meet with the Town so they all have a good understanding of our new plan, we will be schedueling a public meeting to show all interested parties just what we intend to do. It is not our first choice due to the limited nature of addressing all the residents, however, it is what we can do without any changes or approvals from either the FAA or Town. We stand ready to help with addressing all the residents issues. However, in the meantime, we must address our risks and hazards.
By the way, I heard from someone that the Town maybe close to implimenting their own plan. They have been in discussions with the FAA and the Tower folks at IWA to establish a plan. Is this you and Gregs plan, have you been helping the town move forward? If so, I am glad to see you are following through. Based on your postings, I thought you were not taking responsibility for your actions. In any case, it does not matter who manages the airspace as long as someone does. These issues are not going away, they are only going to increase over the next few years and as everyone is fond of saying, Pegasus will eventually fill out and we will have 225 aircrafrt. The time is now to get started on doing everything that can be done to manage the effect. Glad to see you are taking the lead. Anything we can do to help, let us know. We will publish our public meeting date soon. For now, tailwinds and good luck.
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 07:54 am |
|
| Ron in all seriousness. Even if the only way to move the transient helicopter traffic to a higher altitude was to have an approach pattern for helicopters at Pegasus. What would stop those transient pilots from flying East or West of Pegasus at their current altitudes? Also, wouldn't your proposed traffic pattern be a recommendation that is not really enforceable for those transient pilots? I know the pattern could be communicated, but couldn't the same be done for the current air traffic? If you have fixed wing approach patterns, I would think you wouldn't want any air traffic crossing at the same altitude. Oh and yes I do agree helicopters flying higher do reduce the noise, but I'd have to research what the actual noise reduction is and what the difference in altitude is your recommending.
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 05:39 am |
|
tomogo wrote: Ron, that was just sarcasm. I'm just responding to Mike's statements the same way he has twisted mine. I know what he meant. The fact is helicopters do make noise. While we can argue whether adding rotorcraft to Pegasus will have a net increase or decrease, I think we can agree that the vast majority of helicopters are louder than the vast majority of the aircraft currently operating at Pegasus.
tomogo,
Maybe louder if you’re standing next to one but they will be farther away then the present transient helicopters are when they fly over. If the Pegasus proposed helicopter traffic pattern can make the transient helicopters fly higher don’t you agree the overall noise will be less? Remember, any Pegasus helicopter traffic operations would be magnitudes less then transient helicopters that already fly over.
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 08:45 pm |
|
| Ron, that was just sarcasm. I'm just responding to Mike's statements the same way he has twisted mine. I know what he meant. The fact is helicopters do make noise. While we can argue whether adding rotorcraft to Pegasus will have a net increase or decrease, I think we can agree that the vast majority of helicopters are louder than the vast majority of the aircraft currently operating at Pegasus.
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 06:18 pm |
|
tomogo wrote: The few helicopters that would be operating out of pegasus would create no noise per se
Really, in my 15 years of experience in the rotorcraft industry, I didn't think we had quite perfected that Hollywood "whisper mode" used in the movie Blue Thunder. But thats right, your the aviation expert presenting just the facts. I know the NOTARs are pretty darn quiet, but that no noise thing is really impressive.
tomogo,
Anything can be taken out of context but let's stick with the facts. “The few helicopters that would be operating out of Pegasus would create no noise per se”. When you look at the data in the part 150 noise study you will see the DNL levels are at the highest point at the ends of the active runway and that highest number is what anyone would refer to when speaking about noise. The Pegasus noise study included helicopter traffic but the helicopters would use the Pegasus proposed traffic pattern which does not go near the ends of the runway where the DNL is the highest. How could they contribute to noise at a point where they do not fly? They may contribute to some increase in the side DNL numbers but those side numbers would still be well below the DNL number at the end of the runway. This is all a moot point anyway because Pegasus Airpark will never be able to reach an operational number high enough to get close to 65 DNL which is the standard established by the EPA for an airport to be a compatible land use next to a residential area.
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 10:40 pm |
|
The few helicopters that would be operating out of pegasus would create no noise per se
Really, in my 15 years of experience in the rotorcraft industry, I didn't think we had quite perfected that Hollywood "whisper mode" used in the movie Blue Thunder. But thats right, your the aviation expert presenting just the facts. I know the NOTARs are pretty darn quiet, but that no noise thing is really impressive.
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:27 am |
|
| This just goes to show how much you understand the noise level and the effect the community is experiencing now. If all the helicopters went to gateway and departed south to go fly, they will all do what they are doing now. Flying low level over Orchard Ranch and Pegasus. The few helicopters that would be operating out of pegasus would create no noise per se, and the 65dnl requirement at pegasus would never be exceeded. By the way, if all the helicopters went to gateway and flew south over Orchard ranch, they would never even be counted in the noise assesmemt numbers of pegasus. Please, you must begin useing the facts instead of emotion to get the management of the airspace under control for the future, once the traffic begins to increase, it will be a much harder proposition.
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:22 am |
|
Bambi,
I was suprised to see this post from you. Did you not get anything from the information presented to you. Are you really sure you want what you are asking for as it relates to traffic management in the future? I had the impression you were getting the picture, but, it seems I was wrong. 225 aircraft are comming! We things get going here, please don't come back with I did not understand or I did not know. We have presented the information and the facts, I hope you go back and take a look at them. Truly understand what you are asking for.
Take care...
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:17 am |
|
I only have a few comments as you make my point each time you respond with anything but a taste of your plan. Just like the the DNL issue which you have failed to accept as the national standard in favor of your opinon that it should be a single event mesurement, by the way, I never said that single event noise levels don't have an effect on people. I said that it is not used as the standard by the US government or EPA/FAA. You would not even be able to use your lawn mower if that were the case; just not fair to the general population. But, I just wanted to point out that once again you twist words and concepts to make yourself look good to those that you have misled. You say that you just used a report for the noise study you presented that you even now admit was misleding and was in no way a comparison of the airpark to airparks. Yet, somehow you try and make this ok. Another misleding event at your hands, only this time you and greg decided to take some other residents along on your fantasy trip and put their credibility at risk, if I were them, I would be hopping mad. But, maybe you still have them convinced and off balance. Again, another issue you can't accept, the applicant gets to make a presentation with slides and computers and the like and the residents get to contact their reps and then get up and talk for 3 mins each. That is the process. But, once again, not in your world. Man, I just have to know what the weather is like on your planet! By the way, I never give my opinon in these presentations, unlike you, I rely on the facts even when they my not be strickly in my best interest. The truth is the truth, try it sometime.... I will close this message to you by once again saying, you really should get the real facts and absorb the meaning of what you and your group is asking for. "Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it". Still waiting for you and gregs plan, any idea when we might see someting?
tomogo wrote:
You and Mr. Clark made it quite clear at all the meetings that you attended that you represented some 200 signatures that were never submitted or that we ever saw.
We said we represented a group of concerned neighbors. Greg, Tom and Nancy did collect over 200 signatures in a petition format in opposition to the Special Use Permit amendment. These signatures were provided to town staff, Mr. Wayne Balmer at the second planning and zoning meeting covering the issue.
You in fact were part of that very group that you gave 3 mins each to, when you delivered your report on noise and the real estate values, and later that night after the meeting when we were all outside the room, agreed that your examples were those of airports with commerical operations and non residential communities.
The group that you are referring too was a handful of folks (4 to be precise) that each took a portion of a larger presentation and attempted to condense a lot of information into 4 seperate 3 minute verbal rebuttals, without the aid of powerpoint, graphics or other media. Our request to use the computer, a powerpoint presentation and allow one speaker to use the allotted time of 10 folks was denied.
The real estate studies were indeed conducted within municipal and commercial airports. We have not located a study regarding private airparks at this time. The actual stuides were provided to the zoning commission for review and their own interpretation. No effort was ever made to portray the real estate value studies as having been conducted near a private residential airpark. However, the studies focused directly on the value of homes impacted by increases in the DNL within the airport noise contours. The conclusions presented in the studies found that increased airport noise has a negative relationship to home resale value. If a study exists for residential airparks that shows otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it.
But, you lead the residents and the commission to beleive that you had done your homework and that you were being truthful in your presentation.
If you don't agree that we were being truthful, I believe you are mistaken. Given a limited 3 minute time period to verbally provide a lot of information is difficult at best. We had done our homework and discussed the findings of our research. Like I said before, the forum for presenting the information was a bit unbalanced and did not provide for any of us in opposition, to ask, or field questions from the commission as you were provided. In my opinion, the process restricted an open and honest discussion from both sides of the argument.
You used the residents in an underhanded way, one which I am sure, they were not even aware of. You presented information to the council that was inaccurate and false. You did a good job of explaining noise, but, once again you tainted the data by trying to insist that the single event noise measurement was valid.
This is your opinion Mike. When you say we used the residents, I once again believe you completely overestimate the organization and structure of a small group of concerned neighbors getting together to put together an opposition to the change. To say a single noise event has no impact to a community is to discount existing noise ordinances that address specifically, single noise events. I never discounted the validity of DNL as a standard measurement, but merely pointed out that it did not provide an accurate picture of the true sound levels of single noise events. Your statement that single noise event measurements are invalid is itself false and inaccurate. Again, only having 3 minutes to verabally address the commission leaves the ability to provide source references for our data and supporting documentation absent. I'm actually quite offended that you are calling us "liars". My words not yours, but obviously implied in this response.
but just not validated by the rules regulations and policies of the United States.
Last time I checked the 1st Amendment of the United States allows us to offer our opinion within the confines of the rules of the zoning commission. Just because you disagree with our opinion doesn't mean it wasn't valid.
you inlisted those in your group to carry your water and present the material you and Greg prepared.
The information verbally presented was prepared by more than just Greg and I. Like I said, there were a handful of residents involved in this entire process, with 100's of neighbors not wanting to see jets and helicopters in thier backyard either.
You on the other hand will have to explain to everyone you fooled, just why they will continue to be exposed to low flying helicopters over their community.
For someone that doesn't even live in the community MTAS, you sure seem extremely concerned about our well being. I'm just a home owner close enough to Pegasus to be impacted by changes in flight operations at the airpark. I'm not responsible for the overflight of transient air traffic from PMGW or for approach and departure patterns from Pegasus. Nor am I a member of the town council elected to represent the best interests of their constituents by making informed decisions. Some concerned neighbors asked for my help in addressing the request and I provided technical input regarding noise. Thats about it. Those same neighbors circulated a petition to sign in opposition to the stipulation changes. The way you percieve this it was a subversive underground, underhanded movement to deprive the Flight Association of their request, regardless of the facts. I know for someone like you in the aviation community, the loss of any effort to expand a field for which you obviously have a lot of knowledge and passion, is viewed as a defeat.
Despite the picture you paint, I have said multiple times on this forum and even at the first zoning meeting that I believe Pegasus to be a vital part of this community. It offers a unique opportunity for pilots to live their dream. I have no desire to see Pegasus go away. I have repeatedly acknowledged that the addition of the newest Stage 4 compliant VLJs on the market such as the Eclipse 500 would be a "welcome" addition to Pegasus. I have also truthfully acknowledged that the vast majority of rotorcraft and "gas turbine" (see I'm learning your language MTAS) powered aircraft are louder than the vast majority of piston engined fixed wing aircraft.
Oh and Mike...why do you keep responding to some very old posts? I think you need to check which page you're on before you write a diatribe on an issue thats probably already been well addressed.
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:51 am |
|
| That is a great document, however, it does not tell the whole story. I know it can be confusing. As I said in my last response to you. If you want the true story and need to do it in person, we will be there. Just send me a private email with your phone number or send me a note and I will send you mine. Don't worry, it is not that complicated, it is just new complex material, but, not rocket science. We will spend whatever time is required to help you understand the facts. We hope you call......
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:51 am |
|
| That is a great document, however, it does not tell the whole story. I know it can be confusing. As I said in my last response to you. If you want the true story and need to do it in person, we will be there. Just send me a private email with your phone number or send me a note and I will send you mine. Don't worry, it is not that complicated, it is just new complex material, but, not rocket science. We will spend whatever time is required to help you understand the facts. We hope you call......
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:47 am |
|
CSI_QueenCreek
The 65DNL is a day night average. This is the method the US govenment (EPA) uses to measure the effect of all types of noise. The single event noise level, or db is not used. If it were, you would not even be able to run your lawn mower in your own neighborhood. Talk about throwing Orchard Ranch under the bus. By not doing anything about it, you guarantee that the Orchard Ranch residents will continue the way it is, legal low flying aircraft directly over the community. As a matter of fact, it will increase very shortly due to the need to now go about protecting the arrival and departure paths at pegasus as well as the pattern altitudes. For your posting one can see that you crave information. I believe you can find everything regarding noise, procedures and changes on both the Town website and the pegasus website. After you read through all the material that has been presented, I believe you will have a better understanding of the situation. Just one last thing. Pegasus will have 225 aircraft based at the airpark. Once there are 225 aircraft, and the airpark is full, it will operate well under the 65DLN requried. Pegasus airpark will never be like any of the other local airports in the area. It will never come close to the amount of departures and arrivals that now happen daily at those airports. It is a residential community with no commerical operations, ever. It will never allow training, it does not allow closed traffic or touch and goes. The fact is that the town does not have to change its standards one bit to allow helicopters to operate at pegasus. As a matter of record, anyone that lives in Queen Creek and has the room to land can land and takeoff in a helicopter, anywhere in Queen Creek except the airpark. Now, does that sound like it has to lower its standard. The standard in Queen Creek is that helicopters can land anywhere, they just have to control dust. That seems a bit discriminatory to me, how about you? As for the jet issue. The new stage 4 jets and those jets that are stage 3, VLJ, operate in some cases at a lower noise level then some of the aircraft currently allowed to operate at pegasus. In fact, Pegasus can have 225 of them, even though they will not exceed the 65dnl, they are still not a quiet. Once again, talk about throwing the Orchard Ranch residents under the bus. By keeping out the stage 3 and stage 4 jets, you guarantee that the airpark will never be able to attract the quieter aircraft and reduce the dnl level even further below the 65dnl. So, I can see you have been fooled by Greg and Tomogo. They have been telling people what they think will whip them into a frenzy. If you are intersted in learning the truth and need to do it one on one or in a small group that you might put together, then feel free to call on me and I will spend as much time as necessary going over the facts. I will do everything I can to help you understand the nature of the operation and the aircraft. Please, read the material, put your group togther, engage in the real effort and call. We will be gald to assist you with your desire to learn the fact. Pegasus is now putting together an alternate plan to address the things still left to its management control. We are waiting for a plan from Greg and Tomogo, but all we get is distorted facts and argument about what the meaning of is, is. Don't fall into this trap, learn the facts and assist your Town in creating a plan that will address the risk and hazard issues uncovered during this process.
Contact us anytime, and we will make time to help you.
starleen wrote:
As for Pegasus, The place is hardly occupied. The rationale in the letters makes good sense to me. I wish I could afford a place in Pegasus!
The standard for the town to drop their standards shouldn't be based on the occupancy rate of Pegasus. Just because Pegasus looks like a ghost town doesnt mean we throw all the Orchard Ranch neighbors under the bus. I guess under the jet would be more applicable in this case. The standard must be higer such as what is the benefit to the overall town? Who will benefit and how if this were allowed? Tell us something other than how it will fill up Pegasus ghost town.
One noticies you have only talked about jets on this and the topic is quite clear to say helicopters too. You don't say anything about helicopter noise. Is it less than 65DNL? What is DNL? I know a plane or helicopter must be louder than 65 db which most people know.
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:44 am |
|
Little Libby wrote:
I am psyched....(Oh, I told you that already). So I started looking for help on the internet today for my 'Queen Creek Heliport' Plan. Besides a zillion tidbits I found (like AOPA, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and HAI, Helicopter Association International and FAA, Aim / Fars, I ran across this little tidbit:
http://www.rotor.com/portals/12/Fly%202007.pdf
Or, "How to fly a helicopter 'friendly'"
After you read this you will see the people 'against helicopters' really screwed themselves! (and their neighbors... )
Libby
ps: I got a lot to report, but now it is Friday night. BYOB  
Hi Little Libby,
Thanks for the HAI guide. I added it to my library of aviation information. So much information, for example in section 3.1, there is that 6 dB noise reduction thing for every time you double the distance from a helicopter. We used that in one of our presentations about how we could reduce the transient aircraft noise in the area if we had a helicopter pattern to make the transient helicopters fly higher. I guess no body was listening. I’m glad you are.
You don’t need to have an FAA designated heliport to land a helicopter on your property. Only the property owner’s permission is needed. Anyone in Queen Creek can for example if they have an area large enough (driveway without obstacles, or grass area) charter a helicopter and be picked up at their house. This actually happens very often on a routine basis. If they live at Pegasus Airpark, they can’t. They have to use the property next door. Does that make sense?
If you are interested in getting an FAA approved heliport made on your property we would be glad to help you out with the FAA forms and paperwork. It does not involve the Town and is surprisingly simple. It would then be published on the aviation charts.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 333 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:14 pm |
|
I suspect you will be waiting a long, long time. Their plan was to get the ammendment shot down by way of scare tactics. That's where the thought process ends.
Now that they got what they want, they're done other than trying to continue to justify this misguided effort. I suppose I can understand their position to some extent. After campaigning so hard for so long, it would make them look like fools to back off now and realize that this will actually bring more of what they were supposedly fighting against. It takes a big person to admit when they're wrong.
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 05:43 am |
|
Greg,
Well, there you go again with with the value argument without any real evidence. Making the same ole assertions without any truth to them. I would love to answer you but all I hear is BLH, BLH, BLH. How about trying something new, or at least be able to back up your statements with fact. Oh yea, I forgot, you and Tomogo don't let the facts get in your way.... Just, this is what I want and the rest of the world, well you get it. Anyway, all this talk and not a plan in site. STILL WAITING.... How about just a small part of is, something to wet our whistle. Standing by... not idlely but standing by. It won't be long now, we can't wait for your group forever.
In any case. Truly looking forward to the plan, with all the work you must be doing it should be great. Talk to you soon..
|
Little Libby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:42 am |
|
I am psyched....(Oh, I told you that already). So I started looking for help on the internet today for my 'Queen Creek Heliport' Plan. Besides a zillion tidbits I found (like AOPA, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and HAI, Helicopter Association International and FAA, Aim / Fars, I ran across this little tidbit:
http://www.rotor.com/portals/12/Fly%202007.pdf
Or, "How to fly a helicopter 'friendly'"
After you read this you will see the people 'against helicopters' really screwed themselves! (and their neighbors... )
Libby
ps: I got a lot to report, but now it is Friday night. BYOB
Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:45 am by Little Libby
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:36 pm |
|
You and Mr. Clark made it quite clear at all the meetings that you attended that you represented some 200 signatures that were never submitted or that we ever saw.
We said we represented a group of concerned neighbors. Greg, Tom and Nancy did collect over 200 signatures in a petition format in opposition to the Special Use Permit amendment. These signatures were provided to town staff, Mr. Wayne Balmer at the second planning and zoning meeting covering the issue.
You in fact were part of that very group that you gave 3 mins each to, when you delivered your report on noise and the real estate values, and later that night after the meeting when we were all outside the room, agreed that your examples were those of airports with commerical operations and non residential communities.
The group that you are referring too was a handful of folks (4 to be precise) that each took a portion of a larger presentation and attempted to condense a lot of information into 4 seperate 3 minute verbal rebuttals, without the aid of powerpoint, graphics or other media. Our request to use the computer, a powerpoint presentation and allow one speaker to use the allotted time of 10 folks was denied.
The real estate studies were indeed conducted within municipal and commercial airports. We have not located a study regarding private airparks at this time. The actual stuides were provided to the zoning commission for review and their own interpretation. No effort was ever made to portray the real estate value studies as having been conducted near a private residential airpark. However, the studies focused directly on the value of homes impacted by increases in the DNL within the airport noise contours. The conclusions presented in the studies found that increased airport noise has a negative relationship to home resale value. If a study exists for residential airparks that shows otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it.
But, you lead the residents and the commission to beleive that you had done your homework and that you were being truthful in your presentation.
If you don't agree that we were being truthful, I believe you are mistaken. Given a limited 3 minute time period to verbally provide a lot of information is difficult at best. We had done our homework and discussed the findings of our research. Like I said before, the forum for presenting the information was a bit unbalanced and did not provide for any of us in opposition, to ask, or field questions from the commission as you were provided. In my opinion, the process restricted an open and honest discussion from both sides of the argument.
You used the residents in an underhanded way, one which I am sure, they were not even aware of. You presented information to the council that was inaccurate and false. You did a good job of explaining noise, but, once again you tainted the data by trying to insist that the single event noise measurement was valid.
This is your opinion Mike. When you say we used the residents, I once again believe you completely overestimate the organization and structure of a small group of concerned neighbors getting together to put together an opposition to the change. To say a single noise event has no impact to a community is to discount existing noise ordinances that address specifically, single noise events. I never discounted the validity of DNL as a standard measurement, but merely pointed out that it did not provide an accurate picture of the true sound levels of single noise events. Your statement that single noise event measurements are invalid is itself false and inaccurate. Again, only having 3 minutes to verabally address the commission leaves the ability to provide source references for our data and supporting documentation absent. I'm actually quite offended that you are calling us "liars". My words not yours, but obviously implied in this response.
but just not validated by the rules regulations and policies of the United States.
Last time I checked the 1st Amendment of the United States allows us to offer our opinion within the confines of the rules of the zoning commission. Just because you disagree with our opinion doesn't mean it wasn't valid.
you inlisted those in your group to carry your water and present the material you and Greg prepared.
The information verbally presented was prepared by more than just Greg and I. Like I said, there were a handful of residents involved in this entire process, with 100's of neighbors not wanting to see jets and helicopters in thier backyard either.
You on the other hand will have to explain to everyone you fooled, just why they will continue to be exposed to low flying helicopters over their community.
For someone that doesn't even live in the community MTAS, you sure seem extremely concerned about our well being. I'm just a home owner close enough to Pegasus to be impacted by changes in flight operations at the airpark. I'm not responsible for the overflight of transient air traffic from PMGW or for approach and departure patterns from Pegasus. Nor am I a member of the town council elected to represent the best interests of their constituents by making informed decisions. Some concerned neighbors asked for my help in addressing the request and I provided technical input regarding noise. Thats about it. Those same neighbors circulated a petition to sign in opposition to the stipulation changes. The way you percieve this it was a subversive underground, underhanded movement to deprive the Flight Association of their request, regardless of the facts. I know for someone like you in the aviation community, the loss of any effort to expand a field for which you obviously have a lot of knowledge and passion, is viewed as a defeat.
Despite the picture you paint, I have said multiple times on this forum and even at the first zoning meeting that I believe Pegasus to be a vital part of this community. It offers a unique opportunity for pilots to live their dream. I have no desire to see Pegasus go away. I have repeatedly acknowledged that the addition of the newest Stage 4 compliant VLJs on the market such as the Eclipse 500 would be a "welcome" addition to Pegasus. I have also truthfully acknowledged that the vast majority of rotorcraft and "gas turbine" (see I'm learning your language MTAS) powered aircraft are louder than the vast majority of piston engined fixed wing aircraft.
Oh and Mike...why do you keep responding to some very old posts? I think you need to check which page you're on before you write a diatribe on an issue thats probably already been well addressed.
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:08 pm by tomogo
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 333 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:30 pm |
|
| I agree. I also think it might not have been the best idea to call for an up or down vote while questions remained.
|
gsbill
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:35 pm |
|
| I would think at this point that Pegasus should work to get their request back on the agenda. Having one council member absent didnt do Pegasus any good. Pegasus needs to convince the council to see things their way.
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:09 am |
|
Greg,
As far as I know it the jets and helicopter issue is the same as any fixed wing or turbo prop now allowed. The people that have indicated they want this type of aircraft are not purchasing to build because they can't have their aircraft at their home. No one is proposing any type of change to any provision regarding building or owning.
What airparks are you looking at, the ones we have shown and have provided data on are not commerical operations. Commerical areas around any airpark especially this one is not in the control of the airpark, it is the towns responsibility to control any approvals of any change like that. How can you ask about commerical operations or businesses in Pegasus. Those issues are clearly addressed both in documentation form and you have heard directly from the flight association that this is a residential community and there are no plans to make it anything but that. Homes with hangars, why must we keep repeating this verbally and in our presentations. Please stop being paranoid. Read the documents. NO COMMERICAL BUSINESS to be allowed at pegasus.
Aside from the current state of the real estate market, I believe we have gone over this point time and time again. There are no airparks, I repeat AIRPARKS, where the values of the property surrounding the area or the value of the internal properties have gone down due to the airpark operations. At least I can't find any. As we have shown, even in this down market, the value of airpark property and the property adjacent to the airpark has maintained its value or gone up. It might take a bit longer to sell an internal airpark property than others but that is because the market is so much more unique for living on an aipark. I am sure of one thing, the people around an airpark don't suffer as you have put it. In any case, I am sure you are suffering now due to the down market, building out pegasus and attracting more people to build multi million dollar homes will only improve your condition, not drag you down. Just continuing to ask the question does not make it so. Also, with all the time you and Tomogo have spent studing the issue it seems a bit disingenuious to keep asking it, by now you would be able to show us how it has been affected near other airparks. But you can't, heck, I can't. It just aint so.....
There are no negative effects. In fact, we have proven through the data that there is only the chance of improving your condition. We have not ignored anyone. You keep saying that and you keep saying you don't agree with our management proposal. Well, I have to ask you. Where is yours. You have contributed nothing but inuendo and opinion to the mix. You say you are not sold, I am not sure you even grasp the gravity of the situation you find yourself in nor I am sure the benefit of the change on your community. From my experience talking to you and from the quesitions you keep asking, it is unclear wether you will ever get it. You have convinced and kept the residents off balance enough to ensure that not many understand the true nature of the effort put forth by pegasus. Yes, it is about build out, and about completing the project that was started in 1994. But, we have shown that it is about much more. We did not have to address any of the issues that were uncovered or even acknowledge they existed, we could have just pressed on with our own selfish interests. However, we did not, we went over and above the call of duty to understand the concerns of the coummnity, namely yours, and find a way to work towards fixing it now and for the future. But, you have decided to through all that work away. I can only assume you have or are developing a better plan. We are waiting to see your plan so it can be harmonized with our next effort, one I am sure you will not like, but will have to live with due to the fact that It does not require any approvals or changes to any operations at pegasus. It simply protects the arrival and departure paths and reduces the risk to the airpark. We will manage what we can. Hopefully, we will soon see your plan when you take it to the town and assist them in managing the lower portion of the airspace as we have discussed.
Once again you insist on making statement that are false, jets and helicopters will have no negative effect on your values, in fact they will help imporve your values because we would be able to publish procedures that would cause all aircraft to fly higher over the area and reduce noise caused by legal low flying aircraft over your community. But, once again, you have no evidence at all that what you are inferring is true. You simply want to keep saying it. Well, saying over and over again does not make it true. No matter how much you want it to be. The facts are just not there. Please stop trying to lead the residents down a false path, in my mind it is always better to tell the truth. Anything else will come back to bite you in the future.
In your last para. you are just being abtuse. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Just because you believe something does not make it true. Why am I not surprised that you can't see any of these things. You don't want to.. I guess that is just the fact that we and the residents you represent will have to live with. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink... This effort and change helps not just the community of pegasus but it helps Orchard Ranch and in fact the entire community of Queen Creek in many ways, I am truly sorry you don't have the objectivity, foresight, or desire to see it for what it is. I am only sad that you have been able to fool as many people as you have with your retoric. You keep saying, you don't think, you don't believe, you feel, well, time to man up and use that vast experience and knowledge to develop a plan we can look at to assit those that you represent in meeting their needs for the future. Lets see it..... Still waiting. but all we here is the same ole retoric. How about changing the tune and do something positive. We are open to your plan.
Your welcome....... MT
Mike,
Is Pegasus going to require that in order to have a jet or helicopter there they would have to build a home or can they have it there without owning a home?
What other successful airparks are you looking at? The ones I know of have commercial business around them that help make them successful. Is allowing commercial business into Pegasus a longer term plan?
If our values drop due to the proposed change who is going to suffer?
Can you guarantee that values to the surrounding communities will not drop due to the changes proposed?
I do not see that there is any consideration given to the requests of the neighboring communities, I am only hearing the request of Pegasus. There is a strong desire from the residence to not allow this amendment to go through in its current form. You have given us your proposal but I for one am not sold on the amendment the way it is proposed currently. I do not see all benefits and you are ignoring the possible negative affects.
The addition of jets and helicopters will have a negative impact on the value of the homes in the surrounding communities. They will be less desirable therefore dropping their values further that they are currently. Pollution will increase, safety will decrease, liabilities will increase.
I agree that I would like to see the communities in Queen Creek be built out, however I do not see this proposal as a good idea or one that would help achieve their goal of selling more homes. I do not see how a proposal could be passed that would adversely affect surrounding communities for the sake of possibly helping one community.
Thank you,
GClark
|
Little Libby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 07:19 am |
|
hmmm, ok Starleen I agree
except for the ATV's. They did not exist (nor did the smelly, loud, dusty dirt bikes) before just a few years ago! A tractor pulling a load of oranges is ok. A macho yahoo blasting back and forth on a noisy dirt bike is not. The farm life is beautiful. White trash that are too damn lazy to get rid of their old refrigerator and junk cars are not rural.............they are trash! Period!...We have the worst air quality than any place else in the USA including the chemical dumps of NJ, NY, and California.
WAKE UP!  ...............................ahhhhhchooooooooooooo
Lib
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 07:29 am by Little Libby
|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:57 am |
|
Maybe the forest is getting lost in the trees here. Maybe people moved to the "country" to experience a rural lifestyle and didn't understand the scope.
Rural includes crop dusters, farm operations, ATV's on dirt roads, horses and livestock kicking up dust and producing smells and encouraging insects. Historically it means "flying farmers" who fly off dirt strips on their land. And a rural lifestyle means cooperation with neighbors, live and let live.
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:39 am |
|
Tomogo,
Thanks for the presentation compliment, and you did spell my last name correctly. However, You and Mr. Clark made it quite clear at all the meetings that you attended that you represented some 200 signatures that were never submitted or that we ever saw. You in fact were part of that very group that you gave 3 mins each to, when you delivered your report on noise and the real estate values, and later that night after the meeting when we were all outside the room, agreed that your examples were those of airports with commerical operations and non residential communities. You agreed that no where in your presentation did you compare apples to apples. But, you lead the residents and the commission to beleive that you had done your homework and that you were being truthful in your presentation. This is just not the fact. You used the residents in an underhanded way, one which I am sure, they were not even aware of. You presented information to the council that was inaccurate and false. You did a good job of explaining noise, but, once again you tainted the data by trying to insist that the single event noise measurement was valid. Once again, not responsible as you have presented yourselves as experts with vast experience and knowledge. This is what I was talking about when I said you are leading your group down the primerose path, just not being honest. Yes, the comments you made were your opinion, but just not validated by the rules regulations and policies of the United States. Further, here again you complain about process. Lets see, the staff and the applicant got to make a lengthy presentation but you only got 3 mins. I guess for all your experience and your ablity to read, you forgot to check into the actual process you were involved in. But, I thought you did a good job getting all the info out, you inlisted those in your group to carry your water and present the material you and Greg prepared. The only problem that I see is that you misrepresented to them the validity of the data. It was inapproprate data and misleading both to the residents and the commission. And we tried to answer with real data over the next few days. We then provided the valid data. So, while I would not call you a pea brain or a pin head, I would say you will eventually own each and everyone of the residents that you provided material for presentation to an apology. I know you won't see it that way until they demand it, but there it is.
For now, there is no way for the flight association to help the residents of Orchard Ranch or Queen Creek in general. Life will go on and Pegasus will take the necessary steps to manage that portion of the airspace left to its ability. You on the other hand will have to explain to everyone you fooled, just why they will continue to be exposed to low flying helicopters over their community. Or maybe you will come up with a plan we can all work with and address the issues that we so clearly heard from the community. Once again, lets stop holding our breath, stomping our feet, or crying about the rules of process. It is to late for that. You must live in this world, how does the saying go, something like, Give me the strength to change the things I can, the grace to accept the things I can't and the wisdom to know the difference. I think it is the firemans prayer, but useful in your situation. Lets get to work. Lets see what you can come up with, other people are already contributing, but not you or Greg, whats up......
tomogo wrote:
DavidB, I think you unfortunately are giving a little too much credit to Mr. Clark and myself. We did not organize the vast majority of people that spoke in opposition. I wasn't even in attendance at the town council meeting myself, but did attend the previous two zoning commission meetings. Our opposition was nothing more than a small organized group of a handful of people plus 100's of supporting neighbors. With my "myopic" pea brain, I managed to quell some of their fears of having jet fuel stored at the airpark as well as convinced them that allowing Stage 4 jets might have a positive impact on the noise footprint of the airpark in the future. Even I won't take full credit for that, in that the "myopic" people I worked with in opposition of the effort did their research to the best of their ability and came to their own conclusions. They are not aviation experts and had to rely on the limited information they and I were given from the town meeting minutes, the Pegasus presentations, my rather extensive knowledge of aircraft (I never claimed to be a Pilot or Airpark operations expert) and our own vision for what we would like the TOQC and the surrounding area to become.
I raise the questions about safety becoming an issue because they were never part of the original request. I fully understand that during the process certain "issues" were discovered, such as security at Pegasus, safety concerns and issues with transient air traffic.
Thanks for once again stooping to a level below normal civil discourse and calling folks who have a different opinion of what they want their community to look like "anti progress" and "pea brained". Once again, like many others in favor of this effort you have shown your true class.
Once again I will point out some serious disconnects in this process. The applicant for a zoning change is allowed to work with the Town staff to put together a presentation and proposal supporting their change. The applicant is allowed to present in a professional manner, as Pegasus did, a power point presentation supported by facts, figures, graphics, experts and eloquent speakers such as Mr. Tragarz (sp?). The opposition, even when organized, was allowed 3 minutes per individual to speak. We had asked to allow 10 people to allot their time to one person to present a 30 minute cohesive and professional rebuttal, but were denied this request. So what you have at the meetings are 3 minute impassioned emotional responses to hours of presentation material. Its not exactly a clean way for people in organized opposition to present their side.
Now to be clear the town council and the town zoning comission both voted in the majoirty to not allow helicopters as part of the SUP amendment. And both the town zoning commision and council voted in favor of adding jets to the SUP. However, as luck would have it, there were not enough votes to pass the amendment with a greater than 2/3rds majority.
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:05 am |
|
Libby,
Great work, you are now begining to understand our confusion over the helicopter issue. In fact, not allowing helicopters at Pegasus is quite discriminatory. Except for the dust issue you can indeed land a helicopter of any size in any of the parcels you mentioned. Also, the county parcels are all open for business. As long as you have permisson of the land owner, have at it. The dust issue is the only consideration for the Town. But, you have laid out some nice grassy areas. No problem, and belive me these are being looked into. This may very well be the next push except for the binding of the transition tracks, which I guarantee you will not go over well with the residents of Orchard Ranch.
Hangar space or storage buildings would not be a problem either. Yes, you may of hit on just the solution everyone is looking for. Another good idea that needs serious consideration. Thanks for the pictures, I can pull the lat/lons off the picture and do the procedure work for these areas as well. Anyway, thanks for the input, now we are getting down to solutions. Just wish the guys like Greg and Tomogo could contribute something useful as you have done here. We only hear this is bad or I don't like that or this is what this means etc. Nothing helpful only distractions. I think they want to keep all the residents off balance so they can look good. It is a shame. Maybe they will step up to the plate like you. One can only hope.
Take care, great work and keep it coming.
|
Little Libby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 01:56 am |
|
Ok, let's look at this from a logical stand point. And from a real estate perspective. Jets and Jet fuel could probably have been passed ok, the problem was really helicopters right? But you said helicopters could land anyplace else in Queen Creek (with certain safety guidelines) except at Pegasus Airpark. I asked my friends at school to explain this to me and I kinda understand. No dust, No overflying occupied homes and schools below a certain altitude. (Which was very low anyhow.) But it seems if someone came in at a steep angle, did not blow any dust and did not exceed town noise limits (which was far greater than the Pegasus limits) they could land a helicopter of any size whatsoever. Even for commercial purposes as long as the land was zoned commercial.
Well, (without giving too much away) I found 3 separate vacant parcels of land directly adjacent to Pegasus Airpark. One parcel has a commercial zone attached. One parcel was zoned one acre homes but was stopped for engineering problems. The other two were mid and low density housing with one having a required green belt.
Why don't you just purchase or lease a few acres of that land (it is irrigated) and put in a 9 hole golf course with six helipads on grass. If you chose the commercial property you could establish a heli-commuter route between QC and Sky Harbor.
I am sure the developer that owns the property that has a required green belt would love to have you buy the green belt part. (What else is he gonna put there anyhow?) A golf course would qualify as a green belt and all you would need would be one or two additional acres for grass helipads.
Then just punch a hole in the wall and provide golf carts for the pilot/owners to ride back and forth to their houses.
The sample above is just that: "a concept!" I would not give away the better locations........yet
wow, I'm psyched.......Libby
UPDATE: correction,
1.) I have since found two (not one) required green belts.
2.) 4 (not 3) vacant parcels
3.) an Access Gate is already in place as well as deeded right of way to the only parcel that goes through a residential lot.
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 02:29 am by Little Libby
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 06:08 pm |
|
DavidB, I think you unfortunately are giving a little too much credit to Mr. Clark and myself. We did not organize the vast majority of people that spoke in opposition. I wasn't even in attendance at the town council meeting myself, but did attend the previous two zoning commission meetings. Our opposition was nothing more than a small organized group of a handful of people plus 100's of supporting neighbors. With my "myopic" pea brain, I managed to quell some of their fears of having jet fuel stored at the airpark as well as convinced them that allowing Stage 4 jets might have a positive impact on the noise footprint of the airpark in the future. Even I won't take full credit for that, in that the "myopic" people I worked with in opposition of the effort did their research to the best of their ability and came to their own conclusions. They are not aviation experts and had to rely on the limited information they and I were given from the town meeting minutes, the Pegasus presentations, my rather extensive knowledge of aircraft (I never claimed to be a Pilot or Airpark operations expert) and our own vision for what we would like the TOQC and the surrounding area to become.
I raise the questions about safety becoming an issue because they were never part of the original request. I fully understand that during the process certain "issues" were discovered, such as security at Pegasus, safety concerns and issues with transient air traffic.
Thanks for once again stooping to a level below normal civil discourse and calling folks who have a different opinion of what they want their community to look like "anti progress" and "pea brained". Once again, like many others in favor of this effort you have shown your true class.
Once again I will point out some serious disconnects in this process. The applicant for a zoning change is allowed to work with the Town staff to put together a presentation and proposal supporting their change. The applicant is allowed to present in a professional manner, as Pegasus did, a power point presentation supported by facts, figures, graphics, experts and eloquent speakers such as Mr. Tragarz (sp?). The opposition, even when organized, was allowed 3 minutes per individual to speak. We had asked to allow 10 people to allot their time to one person to present a 30 minute cohesive and professional rebuttal, but were denied this request. So what you have at the meetings are 3 minute impassioned emotional responses to hours of presentation material. Its not exactly a clean way for people in organized opposition to present their side.
Now to be clear the town council and the town zoning comission both voted in the majoirty to not allow helicopters as part of the SUP amendment. And both the town zoning commision and council voted in favor of adding jets to the SUP. However, as luck would have it, there were not enough votes to pass the amendment with a greater than 2/3rds majority.
Last edited on Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 08:11 pm by tomogo
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 05:40 pm |
|
Hey, Great idea, are you serious? At least you have come up with some idea. For that I congratulate you! It is much more than your leaders Greg and Tomogo have contibuted. Unfortunatly, towns don't have the ability to establish a take off and landing tax unless they own and operate an airport, public. However such a thing is in some areas of the country, it is not called a tax but a landing fee. They range from 5 dollars and up usually depending on landing weight. As an example, the Las Vegas International airport uses a landing fee in an attempt to keep small aircraft from creating congestion at the airport. Last time I was in there, I think it was 20 to 50 dollars, but they waived the fee if you purchased fuel.
In any case, thanks for the idea. It is much more than your leaders Greg Clark and Tomogo have offered up. At least it is a starting point. One last point. This tax would not address the issues that the residents of places like Orchard Ranch and other have brought forward. The traffic arriving to or departing from Pegasus is not the problem. For them it is the legal low flying overflights that need addressing. Since, as some have said, all the people that own based aircraft have alot of money, OK?, then they would all be able to afford to pay any tax that was charged, however, no tax will be paid by the aircraft departing all the airports in the area that are flying over Pegasus and you would not be able to charge them because there are no service being provided and we don't have a fee for sevice ATC system here in the US. So, your idea of a tax can't work and would not solve the problem the residents face now or with the increase of traffic in the future, the effect of growth soon to come.
Since you have taken so much effor to at least come up with a solution and you have an interest, might I suggest you contact Greg and Tomogo and assist them in developing a plan that we can harmonize with. I think you are just the right kind of thinker that they need to get them started and off the circular issues they are stuck on. Looking forward to more of your input. Good Job.
3GGuy wrote:
Hey, I have a solution I think everyone in Queen Creek will like! I want to propose a $250.00 takeoff and landing tax to go for the schools of QC for every aircraft that takes off from Pegasus air park, it’s for our children. I believe back when Pegasus was first proposed, all the affluent aviators that would buy homes there would pay for better schools and parks. Let’s let them and their new friends fulfill Pegasus’s original promises, by letting the current and new residents pay $250.00 every time they take off or land their current propeller or new helicopter or Jet to the Queen Creek general fund. The fees will limit the noise and will help the children of Queen Creek, what could be better? The best part is the current 1790 takeoffs and landings would be a $447.500.00 boost our local schools, then Pegasus can live up to its original promises of affluent aviators boosting property values and helping the community. Everyone should support that! Now Pegasus can finally fulfill its promise of being a benefit to the community instead of its current status of a drain.
|
MTAS
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 05:23 pm |
|
Hey, how about that idea? Not sure if you are serious or not, since as some have said, that everyone that owns an aircraft has lots of money, not, then they all could well afford that tax. No problem, however, I thought you were interested in reducing noise and the low altitude flyovers of the areas like Orchard Ranch? This tax, while not legal, would in no way stop those flyovers. But, giving the devil his due, you are the very first to man up with at least an idea, for that I congratulate you. It is a least a starting point. Much more than your leaders Greg and Tomogo have offered up. Towns actually lack the ability to tax aircraft departures and landings unless they own an airport. Then it would not be a tax but a landing fee. Those are used at public airports across the country, not usually as a revenue generator but a deterrent to come. For example, at Las Vegas Airport, they have a landing fee that is steep(I think 20 to 50 dollars)(most have a 5 to 10 dollar landing fee, sometimes it is based on landing weight), it does not deter the small or large corporate jets, just the small single and twin engine aircraft that are used for recreation. But, this is not the issue at Pegasus, the low level traffic is and this traffic in not from Pegasus, so, this will not address the protections of the residents of Queen Creek. But, good work. Lets keep going, with everyones contributions we will be able to come up with a plan that will work for the future. You should contact Greg Clark and Tomogo. Maybe you can help them with their efforts. Looking forward to seeing more.
3GGuy wrote:
Hey, I have a solution I think everyone in Queen Creek will like! I want to propose a $250.00 takeoff and landing tax to go for the schools of QC for every aircraft that takes off from Pegasus air park, it’s for our children. I believe back when Pegasus was first proposed, all the affluent aviators that would buy homes there would pay for better schools and parks. Let’s let them and their new friends fulfill Pegasus’s original promises, by letting the current and new residents pay $250.00 every time they take off or land their current propeller or new helicopter or Jet to the Queen Creek general fund. The fees will limit the noise and will help the children of Queen Creek, what could be better? The best part is the current 1790 takeoffs and landings would be a $447.500.00 boost our local schools, then Pegasus can live up to its original promises of affluent aviators boosting property values and helping the community. Everyone should support that! Now Pegasus can finally fulfill its promise of being a benefit to the community instead of its current status of a drain.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 333 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 04:36 pm |
|
Little Libby wrote: Every time a logical point was raised by someone on the opposing side you all murmured and made jokes and blabbered. Like little kids.
I did, at times, feel like I was in a 6th grade classroom with all the heckling and clammering from some in attendance. We showed clark and Co respect when they spoke regardless of how utterly absurd some of the statements were. That respect was not mutual and speaks volumes about the people behind fighting progress.
I think it's important to note that this was far from a unanomous vote. At least 1 councilmember appeared to vote against the ammendment solely on the basis that an up or down vote was requested and he was uncertain about the requirements mandated by the FAA to control airspace.
Clark got his victory, but it was because of a little bit of luck that there was a missing member, and perhaps a poor decision to push the vote when the council still had questions that could have been answered if the vote were postponed.
One thing is certain, this fight isn't over.
Mike, I feel you might be wasting your time trying to make a logical argument to this audience. These people want things done their way and even if you developed a jet engine that would produce ZERO noise, they would still fight it. To them, it's about BEING right, not about what IS right. Our efforts should be focused now on the people who will be making the decisions, not those whom we have exhaustively provided data and demonstrations to for apparently no reason. There have been comments here to the effect that no matter what argument is presented, they are against it.
For example, how many times do you have to state that safety issues were uncovered during your study of the airspace and the effect that helicopter traffic patterns might have on it? Then, myopic people like tomogo keep making the same accusation over and over again that you somehow fabricated the safety issue "only after opposition was raised". It makes you wonder just what it would take to have him wrap his little pea brain around that very simple concept.
This whole thing is comical. We just need to regroup and resubmit the request at a later date. Once every single issue and question raised is addressed, there will be only 1 logical decision to be made. I have faith that presented with undeniable facts, the council will make the right decision and approve this request.
|
| |