landing

[jim cooper]

So... the pilot is landing (3 days ago) at my home airport. The runway is 22/04. The wind is a direct cross wind 12, gusting to 20. I am watching him closely. He is in a T Craft. He overflys the field at about 800 feet,(looking for a hard to see windsock) goes downwind for 22 and on final is on a 40 degree heading to the runway, now at about 300 feet. He has to come over a small group of houses at this point but he is hot footing it and has cut the throttle. Silent. As he nears 22, he straightens it out, lowers his wing into the wind and GREASES it onto the hard surface in a three point. Someone in one of the houses calls the airport and threatens to call the FAA. (This jerk calls them often for imagined violations.) The pilot, a former glider instructor (4000 hrs in gliders, the rest in powered aircraft including his twin commanche, for a total of 9000 hours, put airplane away and leaves. I would not have been up at all. too windy for me but his landing WAS a thing of beauty. Is he guilty of anything? Your answers please! (He mentioned that in 50 years of flying it was the roughest flight in a light aircraft he had ever had. Said he hit his head so hard he thought he would black out!) JC

[Bird]

Re: landing

Nope not guilty and can't be proved that he did anything wrong, and If this had happened to me I would have ended the tail with "thats my story and I'm sticking with it."

[magman]

Re: landing

Any idea of what the "person in the house" is alleging?

Never a good idea to fly over someone's house at low altitude ; whether legal or not.

Deviating from the "normal" flight path is often quite alarming to non-pilots.

Unfortunately; complaints are becoming more common in recent years.

"The airport was there first" argument seems to fall flat with many politicians.

FAA often gets a bad rap on these things but may have to respond even if they don't want to.

My suggestion is to file a "NASA Form" NOW (10 day limit) .

If conditions were as bad as he stated the pilot may be guilty of stupidity.

Plus he could have wrecked a good aircraft.

[jim cooper]

Re: landing

Any idea of what the "person in the house" is alleging?

Never a good idea to fly over someone's house at low altitude ; whether legal or not.

Deviating from the "normal" flight path is often quite alarming to non-pilots.

Unfortunately; complaints are becoming more common in recent years.

"The airport was there first" argument seems to fall flat with many politicians.

FAA often gets a bad rap on these things but may have to respond even if they don't want to.

My suggestion is to file a "NASA Form" NOW (10 day limit) .

If conditions were as bad as he stated the pilot may be guilty of stupidity.

Plus he could have wrecked a good aircraft.

Stupid he is not. when he left earlier in the day it was quite calm. As for low over houses, some approaches to Baltimore-Washington airport are also very low,too low. The approach to Oceana NAS in over the ocean is....too low over houses also but here politics and money enter the equation JC

[magman]

Re: landing

Sorry for the comment.

Somehow I thought it was a local flight.

My guess is the neighbor thought this guy was buzzing him.

Little airports are shutting down due to grief with neighbors.

Politicians listen to votes, not reason.

[crispy critter]

Re: landing

The way I read the FAR rule on this matter is.... 500' above rural or sparcly populated areas, 1000' above congested,heavily populated areas except for takeoff,landing, or anything nessessary for the intended safety of the pilots,passengers,crew,or bystanders. Maybe not in those exact words but that is pretty much the way I understand it.
I know when I'm landing in a strong winds(cross or not) I always carry extra speed and wheel land(if in tailwheel) for the added extra control. Because of the extra speed my approach is usually lower then normal. In my opinion it sounds like the only one guilty of anything is the guy living in a house next to an airport and getting upset because of anything related to an airplane or airport regaurdless of whether it was legal or not! If you the airport was there when you built or bought the house then you should expect thier to be a lot of noise and airplanes flying over at various altitudes and noise levels all hours of the day......if you do not expect it then you are an idiot and need someone to hit you in the head with a tack hammer!

[Howard Wilson]

Re: landing

Hi Jim,

Isn't there another runway there, almost perpendicular? If I remember w/o looking it up....h

[N96290]

Re: landing

Most airports which have taken federal funds have signed an agreement to not allow any zoning which would interfere with operations of that airport and any action again users of that airport is reason for the zoning to be revoked and the houses condemed to be torn down. That was used in California a number of years ago and the issues with the airport were resolved real fast before the bulldozers showed up.

[jim cooper]

Re: landing

Most airports which have taken federal funds have signed an agreement to not allow any zoning which would interfere with operations of that airport and any action again users of that airport is reason for the zoning to be revoked and the houses condemed to be torn down. That was used in California a number of years ago and the issues with the airport were resolved real fast before the bulldozers showed up.

T his airport has one runway, 22/04. There is a grass strip beside it but the same headings. The airport was started in 1954. The houses built in the 60's and 70's, some no more than 10 years ago or less. One person causes the trouble and he has been told to cool it by the Maryland aviation Dept. A real A.H. ! This small airport is given state funds which are the only reason its even open. Hangars are old, father deceased, now run by daughter who does not fly. If the economy were better it would probably have been sold. JC