"Big John" wrote in message
...

Go to and check out 6.2.6 in link below. Note part about Federal Gvt
which might be an out?


http://cityoflakeway.com/tool_pop.as...04-08-16-2.pdf

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````
On 11 Mar 2005 19:55:49 -0800, "birdman" wrote:

"I landed at Lakeway in the middle of July, 2004. Sunset was 8:30 pm
according to the newspaper and other official records. I touched down
at about 8:20 pm and had the airplane tied down and walking away when a
policeman came up and issued me a ticket for landing after sunset. I
told him I touched down at 8:20 pm and asked him of the exact time of
sunset. He didn't know but issued me a $1200 ticket. I had 3
witnesses with sworn affidavits as to the time that I touched down but
no lawyers would touch the case because of Lakeway's reputation of
people loosing (sic) cases in court.

I (oddly enough) read the noise ordinance provided. I'm wondering why
it is introduced here; It does not seem to be relevant to the discussion:

1. The original poster said nothing about the ticket being for noise
violation. He stated as being for 'landing after sunset' (though there
has been some inference that such rule might be derived from
considerations of noise abatement.)

2. The ordinance has no language relating to sunset, sunrise, daylight or
darkness. The only time-relevant parts are specified in terms of specific
clock times. There is no basis in the ordinance for a violation in
terms of 'after sunset'.

3. While the ordinance directs the Noise Compliance Office to
'consult with airport proprietor to recommend changes in airport
operations to minimize any noise, which the airport owner may
have authority to control in its capacity as proprietor", it also
states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit,
restrict, penalize, enjoin or in any manner regulate the movement
of aircraft, which are in all respects conducted in accordance with
or pursuant to applicable Laws or regulations."

-- while the airport proprietor might, inspired by this ordinance,
elect to close the airport 'after sunset' (if authorized to do so) with
an intent to minimize noise in the spirit of compliance with this
ordinance, such closure would not fall under the authority or
direction of this ordinance, and any violation of such airport policy
or regulation would seem to be a matter pursuant to the authority,
if any, under which such regulation is valid, which would be
unrelated to this ordinance.

4. In any case, a violation of the noise ordinance, except for specific
circumstances of which aircraft operations are not listed,
requires sound that exceeds specified sound levels (between given
hours), "measured for a duration of at least one minute" (Note:
'Measured' and 'at least one minute').

The measurement of such noise is explicitly stated for certain
circumstances (Loudspeakers, radios etc.) in terms of causing
"a noise violation across a residential real property boundary".
It is not clear that this last criterion applies to all circumstances,
but would arguably be a reasonable inference (there's corresponding
language for 'recreational motor vehicles', which *might* be
applicable to some aircraft).

It would require that the occurrence (the 'landing of the aircraft'
produce a measurable noise level in excess of the specified
values (depending on the specific time of day), across such
a residential boundary (arguably). It would seem unlikely
that a landing aircraft would do this.

(An interesting by-the-way - the ordinance also prohibits the
operation of "any motor vehicle or motorcycle not equipped
with a muffler or other sound dissipative device in good working
order, and in constant operation." This would seem to make
electric vehicles illegal.)