Here’s something from Jeff Holmes, our correspondent in Banks, Oregon. It’s a letter he wrote to the Seattle regional office of the Federal Aviation Authority.

To the FAA:

This letter is in regards to the comment period for possible changes in the operations of the Portland International Airport.

My concern with the commercial activities at PDX has to do with the redirecting of flights over the Banks area during inclement weather. I understand that safety is the primary concern, but if the aircraft could be directed to fly more directly over the sunset highway (26), it would lessen the impact on the community. The highway is on the valley floor and the distance is greater for a given altitude. This would require a very slight change in flight paths but would be of significant benefit. While commercial activities are the major focus of this study, my main concern is with the collateral operations of general aviation.

I moved to rural Washington county so that I would not be constantly bombarded with the din of city noise as have many others who live here. For the most part, we enjoy the quiet. That is except for private aircraft. During the nicer days, we are subjected to a constant parade of noisy, low flying inconsiderate pilots. The standard responses are the 500 feet minimum altitude and the “freedom of the skies.” I have found better reasons for higher altitude flying than not. Increased recovery time in the event of a mishap and more efficiency due to lower air density are a few. Maybe the most honest reason for low altitude flight was when a pilot said to me “because it’s fun.” A community’s livability should not be sacrificed just so someone can have “fun.” I have attended many meetings regarding aviation practices and have tried to present compromises that would lessen the impacts on the community with minimal change in aircraft operations.

My first suggestion – and the one that is not only the easiest to do but will have the greatest benefit – is to increase the minimum altitude. I have heard it all about landing approaches and airspace designations. That’s understandable if you’re near an airport. We are 10 miles away and private aircraft are not making a landing, really. I have seen the same type of aircraft on clear sunny days where one is at 1000 feet or higher and merely passing by and the other one is playing airplane limbo. This is like a car passing by your house, it’s a brief disturbance, but it’s not disruptive. The other is like some joker who cuts across the lawn and honks the horn while doing it. I see no valid reason for this practice. Since it’s impossible to determine whether or not someone will engage it this behavior until it happens, it makes all aircraft suspect.

Secondly, are flight corridors. Commercial aircraft use designated routes for efficiency and safety. I have not heard of any who deviate because they “know a shortcut” or “wanna take a closer look at Mt. St. Helens?” General aviation aircraft act as though they have a right to go anywhere at any time. A rule that states that aircraft should seek to avoid residential areas, when there is a choice of paths, should be implemented. While it’s hard to avoid in cities, there are areas of forestland that planes could fly over and still get to their destination safely without disturbing people in their homes.

Lastly is identification. I am not an expert, nor do I intend to be, but I understand that a long time ago airplanes had big numbers on the bottom fo the wings so that they could be easily identified. Now there are small numbers on the side that if the angle isn’t right, are invisible. There is no radar coverage below 2200 feet in our area and all of the pilots know that. It’s no surprise that all of the bad behavior occurs below that. the war on terror notwithstanding, at the least, flights “below the radar” should be banned. If that’s not possible, then better identification should be implemented either through more visible numbers or through some sort of electronic means available to the general public.

While most pilots operate their aircraft in a courteous manner, there are those who give the activity a bad name. As the region inevitably grows, the impact of overflights will increase. Establishing rules that respect other’s right to not be unduly imposed upon wil do much to curtail future conflict. The recent decision against the expansion of Apple Valley Airport would have not have come about without the efforts of a community whose quality of life was not already affected. Only through mutual respect and cooperation can peaceful coexistence be possible.

Thank you,
Jeff Holmes
Banks, Oregon

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 15th, 2007 at 7:29 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.