Helicopter school moves in, local pilots get cranky

ZeroPapaGolf

ZeroPapaGolf

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
647
Display Name
Display name:
ZeroPapaGolf
My home airport became host to Upper Limit Aviation earlier this year. They brought in R22s, 44s, and a 206. I think right now they have 8 flying. The airport used to be fairly quiet. There were usually a few guys in the pattern on nice days, an occasional training flight from a nearby airport coming over to fly approaches, and a few business jet in-and-outs throughout the day. So the helicopters added quite a bit of traffic. Apparently this did not sit well with the local pattern flyers.

My experience with the helicopters has been excellent, as has that of a few other guys who are more seasoned pilots. Yes, there is more traffic, but the helicopters are far more courteous than they have to be, going out of their way to make way for fixed wing traffic.

The complaint became known when one of the locals sent a email to the manager and all the hangar tenants with his concerns and complaints. Some of them were a little ridiculous. He complained that he had a wing lifted and was nearly blown over when he taxied by a hovering helicopter (imagine that....). Another complaint was that with so many active aircraft, ctaf is very busy and "it's hard enough to fly a practice approach without all those people jabbering in my ear". Yes, that's a quote.

After he sent that group email, several people replied with their experiences. The comments were mixed, it seemed like the ones that flew for business and travel had no complaints, and the $100 hamburger guys had similar problems as the original pilot. A shocking revelation from one of the emails is that they are pressuring the airport commission to not renew the hangar lease for the school at the end of the year. That seems absurd to me. Those helicopters bring more money in a day to the airport than the complainers do in a month, I guarantee it. I'm confident the commission will kill that idea.

All that long story to ask this, any suggestions on dealing with the differing viewpoints here, and staying safe in a busy, mixed traffic area? I know these guys have a completely different viewpoint on aviation than I do, and I think it's important for both types to work together both for safety and to maintain good relationships within the flying community. But it's also ridiculous to try to shut down a school that's bringing much needed money to the airport because you have poor radio skills and have not read the pertinent parts of the AIM. I guess this is more of a vent than an actual question.
 
Geez... we have enough trouble getting people into aviation & getting businesses to come to airports without a bunch of chuckleheads trying to run 'em off.

How about a group meeting to iron out the differences before taking it to the Commission?
 
Ah, I knew I had left something out. It is going to be discussed at a commission meeting in 3 weeks. The vote to kick them out wouldn't be until later.
 
cheap weenie said:
My home airport became host to Upper Limit Aviation earlier this year. They brought in R22s, 44s, and a 206. I think right now they have 8 flying. The airport used to be fairly quiet. There were usually a few guys in the pattern on nice days, an occasional training flight from a nearby airport coming over to fly approaches, and a few business jet in-and-outs throughout the day. So the helicopters added quite a bit of traffic. Apparently this did not sit well with the local pattern flyers.

My experience with the helicopters has been excellent, as has that of a few other guys who are more seasoned pilots. Yes, there is more traffic, but the helicopters are far more courteous than they have to be, going out of their way to make way for fixed wing traffic.

The complaint became known when one of the locals sent a email to the manager and all the hangar tenants with his concerns and complaints. Some of them were a little ridiculous. He complained that he had a wing lifted and was nearly blown over when he taxied by a hovering helicopter (imagine that....). Another complaint was that with so many active aircraft, ctaf is very busy and "it's hard enough to fly a practice approach without all those people jabbering in my ear". Yes, that's a quote.

After he sent that group email, several people replied with their experiences. The comments were mixed, it seemed like the ones that flew for business and travel had no complaints, and the $100 hamburger guys had similar problems as the original pilot. A shocking revelation from one of the emails is that they are pressuring the airport commission to not renew the hangar lease for the school at the end of the year. That seems absurd to me. Those helicopters bring more money in a day to the airport than the complainers do in a month, I guarantee it. I'm confident the commission will kill that idea.

All that long story to ask this, any suggestions on dealing with the differing viewpoints here, and staying safe in a busy, mixed traffic area? I know these guys have a completely different viewpoint on aviation than I do, and I think it's important for both types to work together both for safety and to maintain good relationships within the flying community. But it's also ridiculous to try to shut down a school that's bringing much needed money to the airport because you have poor radio skills and have not read the pertinent parts of the AIM. I guess this is more of a vent than an actual question.
Click to expand...

Helicopters do not fly the same pattern as fixed wing, so that shouldn't be an issue.

If one is stupid enough to taxi his airplane very close to a hovering helicopter, well, enough said. :nonod:

In addition to the revenue for the local area those helicopters add airport operations which in turn mean more funding for airport improvements.

I owned a helicopter flight school and stayed in a protracted battle with the city and a maniacal airport manager hell bent on putting me out of business. In retrospect if I was to do it again I would never place a helicopter business on an airport but rather go out in the country and put it on a large tract of land.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Helicopters do not fly the same pattern as fixed wing, so that shouldn't be an issue.

If one is stupid enough to taxi his airplane very close to a hovering helicopter, well, enough said. :nonod:

In addition to the revenue for the local area those helicopters add airport operations which in turn mean more funding for airport improvements.

I owned a helicopter flight school and stayed in a protracted battle with the city and a maniacal airport manager hell bent on putting me out of business. In retrospect if I was to do it again I would never place a helicopter business on an airport but rather go out in the country and put it on a large tract of land.
Click to expand...

They are looking to find some rural areas to use as well. Being surrounded by farmland, it shouldn't be a problem. That will reduce the load somewhat.
 
We had a RW flight school and 100 airplanes in hangars and the RW guys threatened to move if we put in a self service fuel pump that they said would be in their auto rotation pattern. The self serve fuel pump is there, so is the school. Its been 5 years so I do not know if they just couldn't find someplace else that would take them within 12 miles of town or what.

I do not mind the helo guys being out there but those remote control toys are a pain in the ass.
 
My guess is that the helicopter operation isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is that something changed in the status quo and a minority of the people at the airport got butthurt over it. Similar complaints would have been made if a fixed wing flight school came in.
 
So better the airport should shut down and be sold off to build houses or a mall
due to lack of traffic?
 
cheap weenie said:
Ah, I knew I had left something out. It is going to be discussed at a commission meeting in 3 weeks. The vote to kick them out wouldn't be until later.
Click to expand...

What would be grounds for non-renewal of the lease ? 'Because some cranky old guy doesn't like it' is not a reason.

There are lots of these buzzing mosquitos at HEF in Manassas, they fly their patterns on one side at one altitude, the airplanes are either on the other side or at a higher altitude. At an uncontrolled field, it can get busy, they are no different from gliders or skydivers.

Unless the school does something contrary to their lease, they have as much or little right to operate at the airport as anyone else.

What can be an issue is if they hover-taxi past tied down aircraft, hover taxi across freshly seeded grass or close to hangars etc. Within reason, the airport can set up rules on those kinds of things, the rest is education.
 
weilke said:
What would be grounds for non-renewal of the lease ? 'Because some cranky old guy doesn't like it' is not a reason.

There are lots of these buzzing mosquitos at HEF in Manassas, they fly their patterns on one side at one altitude, the airplanes are either on the other side or at a higher altitude. At an uncontrolled field, it can get busy, they are no different from gliders or skydivers.

Unless the school does something contrary to their lease, they have as much or little right to operate at the airport as anyone else.

What can be an issue is if they hover-taxi past tied down aircraft, hover taxi across freshly seeded grass or close to hangars etc. Within reason, the airport can set up rules on those kinds of things, the rest is education.
Click to expand...

I agree!!

We had problems at our local airport with "transient" helo flight school operations. Once we talked to the school managers and instructors, things got better.

There is no need to hover taxi behind a row of tied down aircraft and watch them dance on the ropes. Especially when you stop behind each aircraft. What are you proving?

There is no need to do hover practice on the runway next to a row of tied out fiberglass gliders getting ready to launch, take it to the other end of the airport.

The first lesson to helo students should be....Pay attention to your rotor wash.

I say work with them, support them, keep the business at the airport. You want an airport, not a housing tract.
 
Airport design and facilities can be important insofar as the hassles are concerned. At KADS the chopper shop was at the far NE end of Uniform, which meant air-taxi by the ramps for the Cirrus shop, charter hangar, flight school, two MX shops and several large storage hangars. It wasn't a particularly pleasant situation. I don't know if anybody ever bitched to the airport manager, but can attest to some heart-felt cussing.

weilke said:
What would be grounds for non-renewal of the lease ? 'Because some cranky old guy doesn't like it' is not a reason.

There are lots of these buzzing mosquitos at HEF in Manassas, they fly their patterns on one side at one altitude, the airplanes are either on the other side or at a higher altitude. At an uncontrolled field, it can get busy, they are no different from gliders or skydivers.

Unless the school does something contrary to their lease, they have as much or little right to operate at the airport as anyone else.

What can be an issue is if they hover-taxi past tied down aircraft, hover taxi across freshly seeded grass or close to hangars etc. Within reason, the airport can set up rules on those kinds of things, the rest is education.
Click to expand...
 
I for one, welcome our new helicopter overlords.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
The fixed wing pilots who have more than half a brain need to show up at that meeting and demand that the helo school be allowed to continue operations.
They need to point out ot the commissioners that taxiing so close to a hovering chopper that the airplane is affected is 'per se' a violation of the careless and reckless section of the FAR and THAT pilot might need to be banned form the airport, not the chopper that was operating within the regulations.

Just remember the old adage of, ". . . and when they came for me there was no one left to protest . . . ." Chopper operations might be in the end all there is between having an airport and having strip mall.
 
I wish a rotor operation would move into my home airport. At least someone would be flying. Heck, as it is the place is starting to look a little tacky.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I owned a helicopter flight school and stayed in a protracted battle with the city and a maniacal airport manager hell bent on putting me out of business. In retrospect if I was to do it again I would never place a helicopter business on an airport but rather go out in the country and put it on a large tract of land.
Click to expand...

Given that the airport is a business, it seems foolish to run off a school that bring in more pilots and buys more fuel.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I owned a helicopter flight school and stayed in a protracted battle with the city and a maniacal airport manager hell bent on putting me out of business. In retrospect if I was to do it again I would never place a helicopter business on an airport but rather go out in the country and put it on a large tract of land.
Click to expand...

Puttinga flight school on agricultural land is illegal in most states, or should I say against zoning laws. Unless you advertised it with some connection to agriculture, but IMHO that would be a stretch in court. ;)
 
What I wouldn't give to have a supply of 22s, 44s and a 206 available for rent...
 
The airport commission cannot with hold the helo hangar because pilots complain. It is an "aeronautical activity" and if the commissioner want to pay back all of the Fed funds they used to build the airport and runways they will need to keep the school. That is a very big "stick" for the school. :yes:
 
Seems to me that, as long as the instruction operations are conducted safely and in reasonable coordination with other airport operations, the helo school should be welcomed.

If there are any legitimate concerns, I'd suggest those who hold them should meet informally with the boss at the helo operation, maybe offer some constructive suggestions. When you start asking for government to intervene and offer a "solution," you're likely to get one that does more than you bargained for!

One can hope for great success for a well-run operation like that; good for the airport!
 
I assume we're talking about West Memphis (ULA's other locations don't fit the sleepy little airport bill).
 
Geico266 said:
Puttinga flight school on agricultural land is illegal in most states, or should I say against zoning laws. Unless you advertised it with some connection to agriculture, but IMHO that would be a stretch in court. ;)
Click to expand...

Zoning laws vary greatly from state to state.
 
I fly out of the airport at issue. When I saw the complaining email, I thought "huh?". We've also had some runway construction going on, and that probably contributed to the crankiness. The copters haven't been a problem at all. To the contrary, it's nice to see some activity at the field for a change.

I don't think there's any chance a couple of weekend flyers are going to convince the commission to give the copters the boot. It's money in the bank, and they are not a problem for the majority of pilots there.
 
Money talks, BS walks. I don't see this as a problem that needs any action for it to work itself out. Doesn't seem like the commission has any incentive to kick the RW school out.

I'm ignorant about RW operations. There was some helo training going on at the airport where I did my training for my private, so I saw some of them doing their thing, but it was minimal, and was never a problem. That being said, it has always struck me as odd that they would operate at an airport. Isn't the point of a helo that it doesn't need a runway?
 
Geico266 said:
Puttinga flight school on agricultural land is illegal in most states, or should I say against zoning laws. Unless you advertised it with some connection to agriculture, but IMHO that would be a stretch in court. ;)
Click to expand...

If the area is subject to zoning, you just get a variance or special use permit for a private heliport.
 
PPC1052 said:
Money talks, BS walks. I don't see this as a problem that needs any action for it to work itself out. Doesn't seem like the commission has any incentive to kick the RW school out.

I'm ignorant about RW operations. There was some helo training going on at the airport where I did my training for my private, so I saw some of them doing their thing, but it was minimal, and was never a problem. That being said, it has always struck me as odd that they would operate at an airport. Isn't the point of a helo that it doesn't need a runway?
Click to expand...

They still need access to fuel and maintenance. Probably other reasons, too, but I'm just guessing.
 
PPC1052 said:
Money talks, BS walks. I don't see this as a problem that needs any action for it to work itself out. Doesn't seem like the commission has any incentive to kick the RW school out.

I'm ignorant about RW operations. There was some helo training going on at the airport where I did my training for my private, so I saw some of them doing their thing, but it was minimal, and was never a problem. That being said, it has always struck me as odd that they would operate at an airport. Isn't the point of a helo that it doesn't need a runway?
Click to expand...

An airport comes in handy for training, such as pattern work. Another good training item is using the runway for a "run on" landing practice, such as simulating loss of tail rotor. Also simulating running landings and take offs for high DA operations by limiting collective and scoot the gear along the runway until achieving translational lift.
 
rbridges said:
They still need access to fuel and maintenance. Probably other reasons, too, but I'm just guessing.
Click to expand...

Fuel is cheaper if you self-flue and you dont have to pay a flowage charge to the airport operator. Helicopters are maintenance intensive, every helo school I know of has several mechanics on staff.

The reason to be at an airport is that for the most part it is still cheaper to operate there than to maintain your own facility.
 
RotorAndWing said:
An airport comes in handy for training, such as pattern work. Another good training item is using the runway for a "run on" landing practice, such as simulating loss of tail rotor. Also simulating running landings and take offs for high DA operations by limiting collective and scoot the gear along the runway until achieving translational lift.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation.

I hope it was clear that I was not suggesting the RWs had no right to be at the airport; I was merely expressing my ignorance.
 
Here at 3IS5 we have a heliport available with shop and office with 4 bedrooms 1 1/2 bath for clients to stay.
All this is available for a real low price to a Helli flight school. Drop me an e-mail for info.

Being my airplane has no electric system I installed a ATD300 TAS by Monroy. I power it with a 2650 lipo. I see those Helicopters and all other traffic coming and going from 5nm out.

Makes spotting traffic a little easier, I call this traffic fast movers compared to me moving at 60 or so.

The other fixed wing pilot out here flies a slower plane then I. After he saw this unit working or announcing traffic he is now today looking for a used TAS unit. If I find one before him it will be his x-mas gift
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
I assume we're talking about West Memphis (ULA's other locations don't fit the sleepy little airport bill).
Click to expand...
Correct.



Rwsavory said:
I fly out of the airport at issue. When I saw the complaining email, I thought "huh?". We've also had some runway construction going on, and that probably contributed to the crankiness. The copters haven't been a problem at all. To the contrary, it's nice to see some activity at the field for a change.

I don't think there's any chance a couple of weekend flyers are going to convince the commission to give the copters the boot. It's money in the bank, and they are not a problem for the majority of pilots there.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm betting Linda and company will politely listen, and then shelf the complaints.
Good to meet another AWM pilot on here!
 
Geico266 said:
The airport commission cannot with hold the helo hangar because pilots complain. It is an "aeronautical activity" and if the commissioner want to pay back all of the Fed funds they used to build the airport and runways they will need to keep the school. That is a very big "stick" for the school. :yes:
Click to expand...

Close.

If it is a federally obligated airport (i.e. they receive AIP funds) they are obligated to keep it open for auronautical activity unless such activity affects the safety or effciency of the airport. That's a pretty high threshold, intended to prevent ultralights at O'hare more than keeping helicopters out because CTAF is noisy.

It's not a simple matter of repaying federal funds to shake obligations. These obligations generally last 20 years from the last grant, or perpituity if land was aquired with the funds. Simply repaying the grant doesn't relieve the airport sponsor of its obligations.

If the OP's airport is a federally obligated airport, the grumpy pilots will likely have no case. As part of an airport's obligation is to be as financially self-sufficient as possible, the pilots should be thanking the helicopter school for paying rent and contributing to covering the airport's operating budget, putting less of a burden on fellow hangar tenants, and the local taxpayers.

EDIT: and yes, West Memphis is a federally obligated airport.
 
Brad Z said:
If it is a federally obligated airport (i.e. they receive AIP funds) they are obligated to keep it open for auronautical activity unless such activity affects the safety or effciency of the airport. That's a pretty high threshold, intended to prevent ultralights at O'hare more than keeping helicopters out because CTAF is noisy.
Click to expand...

If a school was shown to operate in a reckless manner, caused damage to based aircraft and facilities, doesn't adhere to airport regulations, I imagine an airport would be within their rights to kick them off the field if they fail to correct those deficiencies.

Am I imagining this or is there significant growth in helicopter schools recently ? A lot of places seem to be filling up with those bugs lately.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Helicopters do not fly the same pattern as fixed wing, so that shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the AIM's view of the world.

In the real world, helicopters DO sometimes use the runway. Yes, the pattern is different, as even an R-22 can execute an extremely steep approach. Because they use the same final, their pattern always intersects ours when using the runway.

When they aren't using the runway, they are by definition in a weird place outside the pattern.

Are these problems? Hell, no. They get out of the way faster than a student pilot in a 172.

There is constant helicopter traffic at PAO, some of which is air ambulance traffic to Stanford. We know how to deal with it. Frankly, they are much easier to deal with than ultralights or gliders. Those get the right of way, don't always have radios (and don't always use them if they do), and especially gliders can have a bit of trouble getting off the runway.
 
RotorAndWing said:
If one is stupid enough to taxi his airplane very close to a hovering helicopter, well, enough said. :nonod:
Click to expand...

What if my airplane's engine is shut off and I'm fueling my airplane? Am I still stupid when a helicopter comes close enough to my airplane to start lifting the wing up? Or how about when I see a helicopter drifting towards my airplane it causes me to drop the fuel hose and run?

I've never had any issues with helicopters in the pattern, but some of the behavior near the fuel island was pretty reckless at one school airport I frequented some years back. That said, I'd never want to turn them away... but it's not always the fixed wing guy's at fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top