I take issue with several points made in or missing from the article by Jennifer Wadsworth entitled, "Airport neighbor altitude sick," which was published online Friday on the Tracy Press web site, and will presumably appear in print in Sunday's edition.
First, I have specifically stated on numerous occasions, that while the noise can sometimes be annoying, it is not my complaint – because the airport was here before we were. Furthermore, we enjoy the benefits of living close to the airport, including waking up on Saturday mornings to see the sky filled with colorful hot-air balloons. We also enjoy watching the motorized hang-gliders and the aerobatic flying stunts. The issue is solely with a relatively small number of pilots that refuse to abide by Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations, and fly well below the defined minimum altitude for this location, thereby disregarding and endangering the safety and well-being of my family.
Second, and most importantly, the author failed to mention my quoting the specific defined minimum altitudes for what is referred to as the VOR-A approach (pronounced vee-oh-are-alpha,) the VOR standing for VHF omnidirectional range. The minimum defined altitude at this point along this approach is 427 feet above ground level for single-engine planes, and reduces to 387 feet AGL for the GPS approach. These are exceptions to the FAA's general safety regulations that were fairly accurately stated in the article as a minimum of 500 feet above any home, and 1000 feet above the highest point within a 2000 foot radius from the plane's immediate location over a congested area. A congested area is defined as a location where the pilot would be unable to land in an emergency without hitting anything. Even if a pilot were able to avoid the houses and land on a residential road, which would be unlikely with the low approaches, it would be almost impossible to miss cars parked at the curb. These omitted facts seem far more relevant than my status as a trustee of the school district, which has no relevance whatsoever to this issue, although I was parking at the neighborhood school one day last week when a plane flew extremely low, just over the school, as it headed in the direction of my home, and the airport. I have also witnessed planes flying very low over the park at Hidden Lakes, where my son's soccer team holds practice. All of these locations lie directly under the VOR-A approach.
Additionally, I informed the author that my degree and education are in Physics and Engineering, and my spatial cognitive skills test out off the scale. These points, which specifically relate to ‘accurately eyeing a plane's altitude' would also seem more relevant than my status as a school district trustee – but were also omitted.
The 800 foot reference that has been suggested will be changed to 1000 feet is not a regulation, it is a guideline for the airport. The change to 1000 feet will more closely align with FAA regulations, but it none-the-less remains a guideline.
I did suggest a runway pattern change to the Transportation Advisory Commission last month, but it was not my idea. It was a pilot's idea stated to me. Other pilots to whom I conveyed this suggestion would at first balk, and then after a few moments of consideration would agree that that suggestion made sense. Furthermore, I did not suggest an approach change – alluding to the VOR approach – that suggestion came from Rod Buchannan himself during a meeting I had with him and staff subsequent to the Commission meeting, wherein he indicated that the approach was no longer conducive to existing development that has grown near the airport, and under this approach.
Also, the point made by Mr. Buchannan that mine was the only complaint received in the last year is less than forthcoming – as I have spoken to city employees that have indicated that a number of complaints that come from our area are not noted. Mr. Buchannan is referring to what are deemed "official complaints" that come to his phone number at City Hall – not the phone at the airport itself. I just finished speaking with a resident who lives in our development, who said she has been complaining for years, but they tell her without a photo or the identification number of the plane, they are unable to help. This is the same response I had received years ago from the FAA.
Now, I have more than photos – there are numerous video clips I have captured of low-flying aircraft over our neighborhood and my home that are available online at www.bloodyredbaron.org. We have captured N-numbers and contacted the registered owners pointing them to video as evidence of their plane being piloted in violation of FAA regulations.
We have yet to approach the FAA in hopes that we can resolve the issue reasonably with the pilots themselves, but most seem averse to reasonableness. Only one has accepted my open invitation to come and witness the problem for himself. Most declare without proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. This sentiment was conveyed to me by the author as that stated by pilots with whom she spoke. The omission of pertinent information and the overall tone of the article and its presentation seem to exacerbate that perception.
In my opinion it would behoove the author and her editors to get the facts at least as straight as I do when reporting on issues about which I attempt to raise awareness and help resolve, because I will call them on it when they don't.
One more point – if I'm the only one complaining, why are such complaints expected to be such a big topic of discussion at Thursday's meeting?