hamptons local events, express news group

Story - News

Jun 3, 2015 7:01 PMPublication: The Southampton Press

Judge Puts Off Airport Ruling Three More Weeks, Restrictions Will Remain On Hold

A court decision on an injunction on East Hampton Airport restrictions has been postponed. LAURA WEIR
Jun 9, 2015 4:35 PM

East Hampton Town has agreed to put off enforcing its new restrictions on planes and helicopters at East Hampton Airport for another three weeks after a federal judge said that she needed more time before she could issue a ruling on them.

U.S. District Court Judge Joanna Seybert on Wednesday, June 3, told attorneys for the town and the aviation group that has requested an injunction against the restrictions, which were adopted by the East Hampton Town Board in April, that she was going to extend her self-imposed deadline for a ruling on the injunction to June 26. Judge Seybert, who had been expected to issue a ruling on Monday, said she needed more time to consider the complex factors at play in the case.

In a statement last week by their attorney, Peter Kirsch, town officials said they would honor the judge’s request and continue to leave the new restrictions, which limit the time certain aircraft may use the airport, unenforced.

“The town remains confident that it will prevail in the litigation,” the statement from Mr. Kirsch reads. “However, out of respect for the judicial process, the town has agreed to continue to not enforce the local laws pending the court’s decision.”

The new rules for the airport were adopted on April 16. Four days later, an aviation business advocacy group, the Friends of the East Hampton Airport, filed a federal lawsuit against the town seeking to nullify the new restrictions.

The group requested an injunction against the rules being enforced until the lawsuit was adjudicated and asked for an immediate temporary restraining order on the rules. Judge Seybert asked that the town simply refrain from enforcing the new restrictions until she could consider whether an injunction was warranted, and the town agreed.

The regulations implement a curfew banning all flights between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., year-round. Aircraft classified as “noisy” would not be permitted to take off or land between 8 p.m. and 9 a.m., year-round, and those aircraft classified as “noisy” would also be restricted to only one takeoff and landing per week between May and September. These rules would mainly affect helicopter and older jets.

Were Judge Seybert to rule that the injunction is warranted, the rules likely would be put on the shelf a year or more while the case is argued in court. The town had planned to enforce them for the first time this summer.

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Another judge paid off and the rich continue to destroy the east end. Please leave we don't want you here!!!!!!! Go back to manhattan
By Eeuu (12), Hampton bays on Jun 3, 15 9:20 PM
1 member liked this comment
The town needs to man up. Enforce the restrictions now.
By we could run this town! (129), the oceanfront trailer park on Jun 4, 15 3:16 AM
1 member liked this comment
Up to $600 Per landing. Hardly seems free to me....
Light Single Eng Prop $ 10.00
Light Multi-Eng Prop $ 25.00
Single Eng Turbine $ 84.00
Multi-Eng Turbine $125.00
Multi-Eng Turbine +12,500lbs $250.00
Multi-Eng Turbine +25,000lbs $375.00
Multi-Eng Turbine +50,000lbs $600.00

R44, R22 $ 25.00
B06, AS50, AS55, EC20 $160.00
B407 $170.00
EC30, EC35, EC45, H500, EXPL $175.00
A109, A119, BK17 $185.00
B430 $200.00
AS65, E55, S76, $240.00
A139, ...more
By JonathanSabin (6), on Jun 4, 15 8:50 AM
Your answering what question? Nobody but an aviation guy has any idea what the Letters/Numbers signify. Lots of people who don't live near the airport but are under a flight path are reaching their boiling points. Nobody cares about light aircraft. It's the helicopters and loud jets. I can't understand why the recreational aviation community is linking arms with the Blades etc. It's a big mistake.
By harbor (415), East Hampton on Jun 4, 15 10:00 AM
2 members liked this comment
The town board has pushed the recreational aviation community toward the helicopter groups by USING AIRPORT FUNDS TO DEFEND THEIR NOISE RESTRICTIONS. These funds are needed to maintain a safe airport. We have asked the town board to re pave runway 04-22 (too short for jets). Install the AWOS system (weather reporting). Finish the parallel taxiway. Cut the trees to restore the instrument approaches to their original design. Follow the APPROVED airport master plan. Why has there been virtually ...more
By JonathanSabin (6), on Jun 4, 15 10:19 AM
2 members liked this comment
My guess is that the town isn't interested in increasing the volume of landings which I assume would occur with the proposed improvements. I think the town will be more amenable once the noisiest aircraft are prohibited. Do you acknowledge that some helicopters and aircraft make life below miserable for people; even those who don't live adjacent to the airport?
By harbor (415), East Hampton on Jun 4, 15 11:53 AM
1 member liked this comment
You missed his point. The repairs of 04-22 and 16-34 would not increase helicopter or jet traffic by a single solitary flight. They could only be used by small light prop planes because they are too short for anything else. The trees, deer fence, and AWOS are for improved safety only, not performance or volume of aircraft. Helicopters and jets won't increase because a pilot can get accurate wind speed/direction information - that info is most critical to small light planes. So no, I don't agree ...more
By localEH (427), East Hampton on Jun 4, 15 1:58 PM
Actually the new AWOS system will reduce noise. The number of missed approaches will go down as pilots are able to use local weather information rather than weather data from Westhampton to make decisions about flying into East Hampton. A missed approach includes a low pass and a full throttle departure. A missed approach would also typically include an approach and landing at Westhampton. As for noise, I don't believe a helicopter using the correct route and altitude defined in the noise abatement ...more
By JonathanSabin (6), on Jun 4, 15 1:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
Let me ask the anti airport people this: if it's really about noise and your goal is to reduce the amount of aircraft noise, then why were you all so publicly upset when you heard that Blade and other charter groups were investing in quieter helicopters and airplanes that were all BELOW the "noisy" restriction limit? You were furious that they were changing their equipment to be quieter. I would think you'd be happy that your goal of reducing the noise was working and changes were being made to ...more
By localEH (427), East Hampton on Jun 4, 15 2:13 PM
I think there is also an element of visual pollution too. I noticed it especially when I go to the beach at night to see a full moon, for example, and the view is spoiled by having to see one helicopter after another parading over the ocean. Small inconvenience there, but I imagine its worse for those who live near the airport and have the constant passing of aircraft over their homes. I imagine that there is an element of air pollution as well. As the airport as become commercialized in the recent ...more
By Toma Noku (616), uptown on Jun 4, 15 3:29 PM
I agree we should get back to the way things were. Re pave runway 04-22. Cut the trees that interfere with the instrument approaches. However I'm not so sure we need to restore the scheduled commercial helicopter and airplane service that the airport had for decades.......I'd be happy to send you Montauk Caribbean's schedule from 1979.
By JonathanSabin (6), on Jun 4, 15 4:39 PM
I'm not familiar with the long history of the airport and its commercial operations. But maybe those were less of a nuisance then than they have become now. Since 1979 much has changed. Less farms and more houses for one. Easier access to helicopters, higher salaries for and incomes for some. However, i think you knew that.
By Toma Noku (616), uptown on Jun 4, 15 5:31 PM
We were talking about noise, not commercial operations. The anti airport crowd has claimed this is about noise. Now you're moving the goalposts and admitting it's not really noise, it's about getting rid of all commercial operations. HTO has had commercial operations and commuter service since 1945, long before any of you were here. You moved in next to or near it - it was here first. What gives you the right to move here and demand everything and everyone change to make you happy? If you stopped ...more
By localEH (427), East Hampton on Jun 4, 15 6:12 PM
1 member liked this comment
Yes, less farms and more houses. Those who bought out the farmers and built their houses near an eighty year old airport are now learning that airplanes make noise. What else will they learn? That there are dimmer switches for their headlights? How do they ever cross the railroad tracks?
By VOS (1241), WHB on Jun 5, 15 2:11 AM
Here's a proposed compromise for the anti airport group to weigh in on. You say the airport doesn't need FAA funds and doesn't need commercial operations to stay safe and operational. If we agree to the restrictions and even a status quo limit on the number of commercial operations (no increase permitted) would the town agree to fully fund all current and future maintenance and all current and future operations (ie: manpower, facilities, equipment, etc.) to keep HTO operating with all 3 runways ...more
By localEH (427), East Hampton on Jun 4, 15 6:28 PM
I live on sagg main not far off the highway. why am I having jets fly over my house where I can see the rivits on the wings? why can't the planes follow the established flight patters which are very north of the village of sagapoack and are located over and north of the high tension wires.
By xtiego (698), bridgehampton on Jun 4, 15 7:58 PM
There are no "established flight patterns" for fixed wing aircraft (other than IFR approaches). Those are only for helicopters because of their unique flight capabilities (hover, rotate, etc). Fixed wing can approach from any direction into the airport space because they can't maneuver like a helicopter and need to approach to land in a different stabilized manner. Small aircraft enter a pattern (rectangle shape directly around the airport at 1000') to land, while jets usually come straight in ...more
By localEH (427), East Hampton on Jun 5, 15 9:24 AM
good info local.
By dnice (2346), Hampton Bays on Jun 5, 15 9:42 AM
Rivets (not "rivits"). Exaggerate much?! If you want to be taken seriously about noise abatement, why don't you insist the Town implement the Master Plan, which has significant noise abatement measures instead of going about it backwards and inside out. I wouldn't have minded some of the restrictions, but the fines are just ridiculous and the Town has done nothing to really address the problems. It can start by taking care of the airport infrastructure and implement every single measure in it ...more
By ANTI.bs (13), Southampton on Jun 5, 15 6:45 PM
to localEH:


"By the way, modern light jets don't have rivets, they use clean sheet technology."
Could you provide some citations for that assertion? I can't find a single reference that supports it. As far as I can determine, for reasons of strength, flexibility, and avoidance of heat-induced metal fatigue, riveting is still the preferred construction method.

As for the flight restrictions, why not operate the airport ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Jun 5, 15 9:37 PM
You can't "see" rivets unless maybe you’re wing walking so stop with the exaggerations!! Modern jets use thick skin and flush rivets for aerodynamic smoothness. A few jets, use friction stir welding and use no rivets. Just FYI. Any suggestion that those on the ground can observe rivets on any aircraft is pure exaggeration.

The lighter the airplane the more gust sensitive it is, which means when the wind comes from various directions, light airplanes need to use the runway that ...more
By ANTI.bs (13), Southampton on Jun 6, 15 2:51 AM
1 member liked this comment
I'm sure all hearings and rulings will be delayed until after Labor Day
By westhamptonboy (227), Westhampton on Jun 4, 15 9:44 PM
2 members liked this comment
Private jets breaking the silence early in the morning and at night need to be eliminated. All day long is bad enough. We have a right to quiet enjoyment of our properties and to peace inside our houses during resting hours. Noisy low flying helicopters need to be forced to stay at proper altitude along the beaches. This is a summer resort, keep it nice. East Hampton is taking the right step.
By Crabby (63), Southampton on Jun 5, 15 5:13 PM
1 member liked this comment
if the powers that be would just use the existing flight plans which go over north sagaponack over long pond there would be no problems. built a house up there in the early 80 and had to sign off on the flight pattern to sell the house and now NO flights use this pattern WHY
By xtiego (698), bridgehampton on Jun 7, 15 8:10 PM