Sound Aircraft Services - The Blade and its co-plaintiffs allege that starting May 19, East Hampton Town and Sound "completely shuts down air service prior to loading and unloading passengers and cargo." . . This doubles the amount of time an aircraft has to ground between flights and flights. . . Significantly limiting the total number of flights during a given period.
Blade Air Mobility and East End Hangars were among the plaintiffs who successfully sought a temporary restraining order to close East Hampton Airport on May 16, claiming the city was violating the terms of that order, and filed a petition with the New York State Supreme Court. This is contempt and bringing the city into compliance with daily fines.
Sound Aircraft Services
The plaintiffs, including a group called the Coalition to Keep East Hampton Airport Open, convinced Judge Paul Baisley to issue a temporary restraining order a day before the city closed the airport as a public facility and reopened 33 hours later. Private with new restrictions on aviation. City officials and outside counsel for the city have repeatedly said the city is fully complying with Justice Baisley's order.
Ask The Captain: What Are Those Strange Sounds On A Plane?
Last week, a consultant to the city, William O'Connor of the Cooley law firm, said he asked his firm to get a handle on the process and steps needed to close the airport "because of the high level of litigation." Since the city announced last winter that it would implement restrictions on aircraft operations.
Many supporters of keeping the airport open have expressed a willingness to make compromises to maintain the more than 80-year-old airport. But in a memorandum filed last Thursday, the Blades and seven individual petitioners alleged that the temporary restraining order prohibits the city and its agents from "closing the airport," "taking or continuing any action to effectuate the closure" and "implementing" any new. In the use restrictions, the "City" is in clear violation of this Court's order, enforcing some of those 'new use restrictions' against the Blades et al.
A restriction put in place limits flights to one take-off and one landing per day. The Blade and its co-plaintiffs allege that on May 19, the day the new airport opened, the city and its agent, Sound Aircraft Services, "required a complete shutdown of planes and helicopters before loading and unloading passengers and cargo — resulting in 20 to 30 minutes before re-ignition." 'Cooling down' duration - this effectively doubles the time an aircraft is on the ground between flights and thus limits the total number of flights in a given period."
The complainants said this was completely contrary to the provisions of the temporary injunction. The new restrictions on loading and unloading effectively limit the number of flights at the airport and restrict air traffic to other parts of Long Island "during the summer high season."
Aviation Sector Needs Sound Regulation And Competition, Not Freedom From Taxes
Also starting May 19, "the city is forcing aircraft operators to meet new indemnification and insurance requirements to gain access to special flight instrument landing procedures, making it difficult to use the airport."
The city, they said, "has suspended the review of aircraft operators' applications to access special instrument landing procedures required to use the airport in adverse weather conditions, completely suspending airport approval prior to takeoff." "Taken together, these new de facto restrictions on the use of these airports represent a serious assault on the public's right to access these public airports as they existed when this court issued its TRO."
Furthermore, Mr O'Connor's statement last week asking consultants to start closing the airport "as soon as possible" was inconsistent with the ban on the temporary retraining order closing the airport, the complainants alleged. "Thus, the city now effectively accepts what its objective is - to permanently close the operations of this airport
- and it intends to continue in that direction regardless of what this Court directs. That is the definition of contempt."
The Competition To Bring Back Supersonic Flight Is Heating Up
The complainants alleged that the situation was "a mess of the city's own making". They said holding the city in contempt and imposing fines from the issuance of the temporary restraining order until the usage restrictions imposed are lifted "and correct the attempt to close the airport permanently."
A memorandum from East End Hangars, which includes five residents of Hampton Hangars and Montauk, where flights to East Hampton should be restricted for fear of exploding helicopter traffic at the village's small, private airport, raised the same objection. "The town and town board have shown that contempt citations and related fines will do nothing to stop their inhumane behavior," it said.
Judge Beasley's order to show cause, dated last Thursday, is scheduled for a hearing next Thursday in state Supreme Court in Riverhead, where the town board will answer why the town and the town should not be held in civil contempt for violating the temporary restraining order. . And why should the board not levy a daily fine for contempt? It is unclear whether the board or its representatives will appear in court next Thursday.
...your support of the East Hampton Star helps us deliver the news, arts and community information you need. Every reader counts, whether you're an online subscriber, get the paper in the mail, delivered to your home in Manhattan, or just walk through it. We appreciate you being a part of the Star family.
Private Jets Are In High Demand But Short Supply. This Company Hopes Its Flight Sharing Service Can Help Plug The Gap
Your subscription to The Star does more than get you great art, news, sports and outdoor stories. It makes everything possible for us. The Town of East Hampton will soon begin a detailed environmental study of its airport property in Wainscott. Credit: Gordon M. Grant
The Town of East Hampton will soon begin a detailed environmental study of its airport property, part of which has been designated a state Superfund site, to determine the extent of water and soil contamination associated with firefighting foam.
The state Department of Environmental Protection added 47 of the city's 570 acres of Wainscot property to its Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in 2019 based on the detection of perfluorinated compounds. According to a 2018 DEC study, historical use and storage of aqueous film-forming foam, a fire-fighting agent used in training exercises and to extinguish fires, has affected groundwater at the site.
The state health department and DEC will oversee the investigation, which will include sampling soil borings, collecting soil vapor and indoor air samples, and sampling groundwater wells to determine the source of contamination at the site, the DEC said in a bulletin.
Meet The New Generation Of Supersonic Passenger Planes
He said that the first phase of work will start in September and it is likely to take a month to complete. Phases two and three are expected to be completed in the spring of 2022, according to the DEC.
The data collected is summarized in a study, which is then used to evaluate potential cleanups at the site. DEC will choose which cleanup plan it prefers.
"The goal of the [cleanup] plan is to protect public health and the environment," the DEC said in its bulletin.
The chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) were found in more than 200 private wells near Wainscott, prompting the city to fund a $24 million project to extend 45,000 feet of public water to the area. . Some studies have linked the compounds to immune system problems, thyroid disorders and cancer, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Breaking The Sound Barrier > Air Force Historical Support Division > Fact Sheets
The foam is not used or stored by the town, Nicholas Rigano, an attorney representing East Hampton in the PFAS case, said during a May town board work session. It is used and operated by the East Hampton Fire Department, which is managed by the Village of East Hampton.
The city sued the village for restitution, and the case was transferred to federal court in South Carolina, where hundreds of PFAS-related lawsuits are pending.
The amount of PFOS/PFOA found at Rigano Airport — a combined 299 parts per trillion — was lower than other sites, including the Hampton Base Fire Department, where levels of 2,400 parts per trillion were found.
"We don't yet know the full extent of the problem at East Hampton Airport, but based on the information we have today, the extent is far less than many other sites in New York State," Rigano told the board. Since the Noise Abatement Program was established in 1967, it has long promoted safe, standardized, and uncomplicated operating procedures that are effective in reducing noise exposure. In 2015, the program was revised for the first time in decades to reflect how technological advances have affected modern operating requirements.
Airline Execs Sound Alarm On How 5g Service Could Affect Planes
When available, pilots should use the words recommended by their company
Sound of an aircraft, aircraft sound effects, aircraft sound barrier, first aircraft to break the sound barrier, model aircraft sound systems, gt power aircraft sound system, rc aircraft sound systems, aircraft sound insulation, sound aircraft, aircraft engine sound, aircraft landing sound, aircraft breaking sound barrier
0 Comments