To your point, Jim, see the following from the FAA website:
Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation
safety, the efficiency of the navigable airspace, and air traffic control,
among other things. State and local governments are not permitted to regulate
any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the
navigable airspace.
However, these powers are not the same as regulation of aircraft landing sites,
which involves local control of land and zoning. Laws traditionally related to
state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law
enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.
Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or
regulations governing the operation of aircraft.
However, as indicated, they may generally determine the location of aircraft
landing sites through their land use powers.
On Friday, July 8, 2022, 06:24:06 PM MDT, Jim Thompson <jt@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
And, the twin owns the airport.They can pass ordinances that would be
unpleasant.
On Jul 8, 2022, at 18:56, Kino Chavez <kino.chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of course they are voluntary but some airport communities have gone to
litigation and that is not good. Telluride is a good example.
Kino ChavezTAOSAviation
P: 575-737-9790
E: kino.chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.TAOSAviation.com
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:38 PM Lynz <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
According to the FAA, all noise abatement standards are voluntary. For an
actual restriction, an airport has to prove to the FAA that a voluntary program
isn't adequate.
On Friday, July 8, 2022, 01:32:34 PM MDT, Jim Thompson <jt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why not create a voluntary procedure and remeasure periodically ?
On Jul 8, 2022, at 13:31, Kino Chavez <kino.chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Response;1) Most of the jet traffic into KSKX arrive VFR. That is because ABQ
center normally asks for a cancellation below 16.000ft when transitioning from
the high altitude environment to a VFR arrival. Also, a jet will always do a
VFR arrival into Taos if able to reduce operating costs.2) We have always
gotten far more noise complaints about light GA aircraft than jets. This is
because the big guys are very concerned about operating costs and do not ever
do multiple patterns or sight see over town.3) Believe it or not, TSV and the
Louis Bacon organization have not had any input into the operations at the Taos
Airport. They haven't even asked to.4) The midfield tie downs went away after
we observed numerous occasions where aircraft got stuck in the ruts. In their
attempts to power out of the ruts the aircraft pitched forward and nearly had
prop strikes. We had several times where experimental tail draggers (RVs) have
gotten their tail wheels stuck taxiing in. I have used this safety issue to
hopefully leverage money to rebuild the ramp in the near future.
The town is aggressively looking for an Airport Manager. This could be an
opportunity for an enthusiastic aviator to make a difference.
Kino ChavezTAOSAviation
P: 575-737-9790
E: kino.chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.TAOSAviation.com
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:27 AM Lynz <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, for one, you're targeting small aircraft and local pilots and doing
nothing about jet traffic - which will be on IFR flight plans - and which are
the real noise offenders which upset the community. That's just for starters.
A glaring oversight here is the fact that Taos Ski Valley is now effectively
dictating all flight operations at the airport. And that has been largely kept
from the community. What's next? Tie downs go away to make room for jet
parking as was proposed about a year ago?
On Friday, July 8, 2022, 10:03:38 AM MDT, Steve Hanks <stevehanks@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What’s wrong with VFR pattern restrictions? If it’s good for the town I don’t
understand why it would be a problem. We’re a municipal airport and depend on
the support of the town and the public. It’s good training too. I trust Kino
on this issue.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 8, 2022, at 10:51 AM, Kino Chavez <kino.chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have worked airport PR for a long time. If you ignore the complaints of the
local community, regardless of who came first, the airport will lose. There
were two options available:1) Pass the pilot's name and tail number to the FAA
and let them deal with it (this is what the FAA has asked us to do in the
past). I did not choose, nor do I like this option.2) Handle it in house by
letting the local flying community know of the problem. My preferred solution.
The aircraft that some seem to be focused on is a U.S. Forest service
contracted aircraft that comes in here every year at this time to do survey
work. The aircraft is flying in pre-approved areas at pre-approved altitudes
and did not cause the problem.
Kino ChavezTAOSAviation
P: 575-737-9790
E: kino.chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.TAOSAviation.com
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 9:02 AM David Chasteen <dchasteen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Earlier is better than later on this stuff. Once a critical mass of people have
decided they hate the airport, it's hard to roll it back and then bad things
happen.
https://www.flyingmag.com/shorter-runway-at-ksmo-increases-risk/#:~:text=The%20FAA%20has%20authorized%20the,since%20the%20runway%20was%20shortened.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022, 06:27 Kino Chavez <kino.chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pattern Restrictions have been needed for a long time. The community is going
to demand them. I have been receiving requests for a long time.
Kino ChavezTAOSAviation
P: 575-737-9790
E: kino.chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.TAOSAviation.com
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 4:25 PM Lynz <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Obviously the offender is known to the FBO, so why not just deal with him
directly instead of suggesting flight restrictions affecting all pilots? Then
we can also all be spared the hand wringing and amateur ADS-B CSI. Just a
thought...
