Lakeway, TX

"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.)

"Ron McKinnon" wrote in message
news:GKlZd.678765$8l.580657@pd7tw1no...
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

Obviously, it was introduced because the person who introduced it doesn't
have a clue regarding the actual issue.

The regulation at issue here is not a noise ordinance, but rather part of
the Lakeway zoning ordinance. Any violation of the zoning ordinance is a
misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $2000 fine. It just happens that part of
the ordinance describes an "aviation district", which is the only place any
aviation is permitted, and where aviation is permitted only between sunrise
and sunset.

As such, none of the rest of your comments are relevant to this discussion
either. Sorry if you wasted a lot of time on them.

Pete

The regulation at issue here is not a noise ordinance, but rather part of
the Lakeway zoning ordinance. Any violation of the zoning ordinance is a
misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $2000 fine. It just happens that part of
the ordinance describes an "aviation district", which is the only place any
aviation is permitted, and where aviation is permitted only between sunrise
and sunset.

Seems to me this would be an illegal usurpation of Federal authority
(over aviation).

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Seems to me this would be an illegal usurpation of Federal authority (over
aviation).

Could be. I'm not an expert in that area of law. I will point out that the
way that the regulations are written, it may not be. I generalized when I
described the regulations, and what they actually prohibit is aircraft
taking off or landing outside of the aviation district. You can fly through
the airspace above other areas within Lakeway, of course. After all, you
would have to in order to get to the aviation district.

Given that the regulation basically addresses only those activities that
occur on the ground, I think it's possible that it doesn't represent an
illegal usurpation of Federal authority. After all, there is precedent for
regulations affecting the operation of aircraft being upheld as legal, as
long as those regulations don't step on the FAA's toes.

Also, all that said, there is ample precedent of regulations that probably
ARE illegal usurpations of Federal authority, but which have never been
contested vigorously enough to have them revoked. AOPA in particular spends
a lot of time warning municipalities about potentially illegal rules, but
I'm not aware of many instances where they actually took a municipality to
court over such rules, nor of an individual doing the same.

A rule that is illegal but which is never contested might as well be legal.

Pete

Dave S wrote:

As soon as you accept the fact that they REALLY dont WANT outsiders
and
you take their business elsewhere, they will be happier, and you will

have less grief in your life.


I've landed and stayed at Lakeway a number of times as a "transient"
and never felt unwelcome there... in fact quite the opposite. They were
more than happy to let me tie down overnight, and waive the tiedown fee
when I bought some fuel, which by the way was very affordable, similar
price as the other popular G.A. fuel stops in the region.

They are very serious about wanting folks to confine takeoff and
landing operations to well after sunrise and well before sunset, and it
is their right to do so. I've run across several pilots who've used the
Lakeway airport that just seem to get really irked about when an
organization who operates a private airport that is published as open
to the public dares to have the audacity to restrict some operations
there. However Lakeway should post the hours of operation to be one
hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset if that's what they really
intend for it to be.

"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...
Ok... I am a firm believer in private property and courtesy...

However.. if this is a PRIVATE field then the city cops have no business
enforcing what amounts to "traffic laws" on this PRIVATE PROPERTY. You
cant get a speeding ticket for ignoring a stop sign on a private road or
in a private parking lot...because city traffic rules dont apply there.

Minor nit: if the private property owner asks for traffic laws to be
enforced, they may be. For example, at a local business campus, some roads
are private. But speed and stop sign enforcement has been done in the past,
on request to the local law enforcement.

More relevant to this particular discussion, note that the laws are actually
part of the zoning regulations, and violations are criminal offenses, not
infractions (as one might expect). There is plenty of precedence for such
laws being enforced on private property.

But, semantics aside.. this is a small affluent town, with a small
affluent town mentality, that stacks the deck against the out of towner
who cuts it close. I think it would be WONDERFUL if they put in an ASOS of
some kind and tied an "airport closed" message to a photo cell...

I certainly agree that the necessary information needs to be made available
to the pilot. Your idea of an ASOS with a notice as to whether the airport
is open or closed is an excellent one. But, my bet is that most
"violations" occur either just before or just after sunset, and inasmuch as
the arrests are probably a decent money maker for the city, there's probably
not much support for spending public money for the benefit of the private
airport.

I also think that given the criminal nature of the offense, an arrest needs
to be accompanied by more than just the officer's statement. Real proof of
violation needs to be provided. Finally, I think it's absurd that a
violation of even a half hour could be considered legitimate, given the
likely true nature of the regulation (noise abatement). Aeronautical safety
must be given highest precedence, and an allowance for the sometimes
variable nature of flight times must be made.

As I mentioned before, I suspect anyone who cared enough could actually take
a violation through the court system and come out on top. But you need
someone willing to pursue it that far, without any guarantee of winning.

Pete