• Read All Comments
• Post a Comment

KFFS Committee
Clearly the CAE/Sabena employees, mostly flight trainers, have come out of the woodwork again, deciding it is once again time to insult, attack and denigrate those whose concern is to take Mesa residents out of harm’s way. Most of you continue to call us names, shout that Falcon Field was here first, and demand that we move out of this area. However, you are unable to state any valid counter arguments that refute our facts.

Each and every time you call us names, every negative phrase you try to pin on us, every time you use personal attacks to discredit our information, you are really indicting YOURSELVES, the employees of CAE/Sabena. You are like little children who throw tantrums because a responsible adult tells them they can’t throw their toys at others and hurt them. It is readily evident you all live in great fear that you will lose your jobs, or lose the extra income from doing business with CAE/Sabena.

We have collected numerous facts over almost a year of investigation and hard work that led to our current concerns. Our committee members have made every effort to provide valid factual information that comes from public information, interviews with city and airport personnel, and discussions with experienced pilots. From the facts and information we have collected, we have formed opinions as related on this website. You accuse us of lying and misrepresenting the facts, yet our information can be verified. Where are YOUR facts? What are your sources of verification?

You don’t bother refuting our facts—because, obviously, you can’t. You, the CAE/Sabena employees, don’t like what you read, so you accuse us of misinformation, inaccuracies and slander. (Libel is actually the correct term when discussing written lies and defamation.) Yet it is YOU who are ranting, whining and coming very close to libeling those of us who have acted in good faith to provide information to our community.

As hard as it is to continually read your insults, hateful comments and personal attacks, we have previously appreciated the many opportunities you have provided to answer YOUR rants and whining by restating the facts again and again. However, it is clear that as long as we provide a forum on our website Comments, you will continue your program of trying to discredit us by personal attacks and innuendo, rather than rational discussions and verified counter facts.

Therefore, this website will no longer print your personal attack type of comments.

We continue to invite comments and discussions of relevant facts and informed opinions.

KFFS Committee




KFFS Committee



09/22/2009 @ 1:02 am - Comment

Dave Miller
A Conspiracy of sinister motives is the only way to interpret the two responses to Mr. DeYoung's question. The FAA, Mesa officials, and law-breaking tower controllers who just can't help themselves in abusing power, destroying communities, and risking their jobs - all conspiring to appease a flight school.

Mr. Gardner's entire post is nothing more than a fearful whine, with misinformation, innacuracies, and slander. Better grab your teddy bear and hold on tight, sir. And meanwhile, check your cholesterol levels, sugar and fat intake, exercise frequency, any slippery floors and stairs, your attention on the roads while driving, and your proximity to lightning - because these and many other conditions are certain to kill you before an airplane does. Just in case you didn't know that.

"You can rant at us and incorrectly say we are insensitive to the impeding human suffering" No, Mr. Knauth, not 'we', only you and the words you wrote. It's not a rant to call you on something so obvious and insensitive, so try and just take responsibility for it. And you still haven't proven any questions asked of you. Without proof, you define ranting.

I for one refuse to allow a few Fearmongers to ruin the priviledge and freedom of flight so many of us pilots worked hard to earn and keep alive. Nimbys naively think by controlling outer conditions, that that will make up for their own lack of discipline in their own personal security of mind and heart. They must be challenged and shown they need to take responsibility for the lives they've created near airports, high tension wires, highways or whatever places 'they' don't like.

I have the priviledge to fly a shelter dog rescue for PilotsnPaws this week to CO. I hope the lovely old girl, a basset hound, doesn't pee over your houses - but you know, you just can't predict these things.


09/17/2009 @ 5:25 pm - Comment

Kyle Rota
I just read the article in the paper today concerning noise and safety concerns about Sabena and other training facilities at Falcon Field. One particular part that stood out to me was the plane that crashed into the orange groves last year being used as an example of a lack of safety.

Now I remember that day very clearly, as I was driving down Mckellips on my way to work at that very time. I saw that plane, and let me set the scene up for you. The plane landed exactly on the Northwest intersection of Greenfield and Mckellips. I drive through this intersection every day and as many of you know, it is right off the end of the south runway. This was a training plane and has a student pilot and his instructor aboard. There is about 100 feet of dirt from the side of the road to the beginning of the orange groves on this part of the intersection, and it maybe continues for a few hundred feet west. This pilot, who suffered engine failure right after takeoff, managed to carefully glide his plane and make an emergency landing on this tiny stretch of dirt between the road and the orange grove. Not a single person, not even those in the plane, anyone on the road, or anyone in the orange groves was hurt. No property was damaged, although the plane was done for.

Now let's look at that situation for a second. Without this training you all are complaining about, that pilot would have careened right into someones house, or the heavily populated Mckellips road, and possibly killed and damaged a large amount of property, but due to his EXCEPTIONAL training offered by Falcon Field, he was able to land safely out of harms way with no damage at all. This man is a god damned hero for how he handled himself in that situation and should be an example of the caliber of training offered by Falcon Field.

Furthermore, the only other crash I have heard of in recent times was before the training plane crashed at Greenfield and Mckellips. It was a small jet I believe, and the pilot suffered engine failure and tried to turn around to land again. Sadly, he turned too sharply and tip-stalled his plane into the orange groves, killing everyone aboard. But again, this pilot did not do any damage to anyone's property or person because he was a good pilot.

I also would like to note the fact that this website states that Falcon Field turned to a pilot training airport because the city needed money. Maybe you aren't familiar with Falcon Field's history, but it has always been a training airport. Back in WWII, the British Royal Air Force was trained at that very airport, and since then there have always been flight lessons offered there.

All in all, I am seeing this group of people as a bunch of whiners who have no idea what they're doing. Falcon Field was there before your houses, and has done everything they can to adhere to your ridiculous demands. You chose to live next to an airport, and the airport isn't going to change for you. If you're so worried about a plane landing on top of you, move somewhere else, you knew the risks when you moved in, and now you have to worry about that minuscule chance of an accident. As far as noise goes, the planes that fly out of Falcon Field, aside from the B-17, B-25, and other WWII warbirds, are extremely quiet, ESPECIALLY Sabena's little trainer planes. Your argument is laughable and comparable to these jokes of lawsuits that have been filed in the recent years, like the woman suing McDonald's for her coffee being hot. If you have a problem, leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
09/17/2009 @ 12:08 pm - Comment

Tom DeYoung
Here's something else for you to take into consideration. This is copied from http://www.mesaaz.gov/Falcon_Field/pdf/FlyFriendlyFAQ.pdf


Q: Why don't aircraft always fly over the desert to the north and northeast of the airport instead of over residential neighborhoods?

A: Specific flight paths are determined based on several factors, including weather conditions, the direction of the prevailing wind and airspace constraints due to other aircraft flying in and out of Phoenix Sky Harbor and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airports. Since safety is the #1 priority, it is sometimes necessary for aircraft to fly over residential areas in order to maintain a safe distance between 2 aircraft in the air.

--

Q: Who can do something about low-flying planes? My concern really isn't noise; it's safety. Who should I contact?

A: Specific safety comments should be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Standards District Office at (480) 419-0111. This office investigates low-flying or potentially unsafe flight incidents.

--

Q: What are the rules regarding how low an aircraft can fly over a residential area? Is there a legal minimum altitude that airplanes can fly over residential areas?

A: Aircraft altitude is established by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations Section 91.119. It is important to be aware of two aspects of this regulation. First, most aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Falcon Field Airport are in the process of landing or taking off. In these cases, this regulation does not apply. Second, helicopters are exempted from this federal regulation. Helicopters are not subject to minimum altitude restrictions provided that the operation of the helicopter is conducted safely.
09/16/2009 @ 8:38 pm - Comment

Tom DeYoung
For one thing, I think you guys are really confused about the relationship between a flight school and the FAA.

Ms. Eisenhauer -- You keep saying that "FAA Tower Controllers feel free to violate not their own Federal Aviation Regulations" but you have yet to give a concrete example. A.R.S. § 28-8486, enacted by the 1999 Legislature, states: "The recorded map shall be sufficient to notify owners and potential purchasers of property that the property is located in or outside of a territory in the vicinity of a public airport." The airport flight pattern map you're talking about is not regulatory - it's to inform people like you that they're buying a house near an airport so "committees" like this don't happen later.

Mr. Knauth -- Have you or anyone you know ever received a speeding ticket or been involved in an auto accident? I quote you saying: "Why are there so many training crashes and incidents if the FAA is doing such a terrific job of regulating?" These are ACCIDENTS. Are you telling me that the Arizona Department of Transportation is responsible for all car ACCIDENTS and vehicle violations? They're the regulating authority, so they must be responsible. You're kidding me, right?
09/16/2009 @ 8:32 pm - Comment

Rmr Resident
This reminds me of the people who try to sue McDonald\'s for being fat. Just like these obese people, everyone who lives in the area knew of the circumstances before hand. I live in Red Mountain Ranch and yes planes fly right over me and land at Falcon Field and even larger airlines fly over ready for their decent at Sky Harbor. This is life, this is expansion, this is how we evolve. If all you complainers want peace and solitude, I'm sure there's plenty of space in the United States that can provide it for you. You knew well enough what you were getting into when you bought your homes.

If only people would use their energy on something more beneficial to mankind, this world would be a better place. Think of all the time spent on this website, on the petition, on going to the city.....could have been spent helping the elderly, the homeless, cleaning up Thomas Rd. after all those bicyclists who leave their empty GU Packets on the streets.

Want to keep busy, go to RedBox and rent a DVD.
09/16/2009 @ 2:25 pm - Comment

Suzanne Halter
Who are these concerned homeowners? I live near Falcon Field and NO ONE asked my opinion. I enjoy seeing the different planes flying over on the weekends. There are some really cool planes in and out of Falcon Field. Most of the people complaining about noise apparently sit at home 24/7 and have nothing better to do than come up with different things to gripe about. Get a hobby! Get some friends! Get out of the house more often!!! Falcon Field has been there for a very long time, and if you don't like living near an airport, you shouldn't have moved into that area in the first place. I am sick of people building or buying homes near airports, dairy farms, orchards,etc then complaining about the area surrounding their home. It was there first! Get over it or move on!!!
09/16/2009 @ 10:55 am - Comment

Steve Nelson
Wow... It\'s amazing the attitude of one like Mr. Juvan who feels that he can move into an area and then change it to fit HIS needs; not caring about others. Whether he\'s stupid or an idiot or needs to move isn\'t really relevant. What he needs to do is contact his home builder and complain about the shoddy workmanship that was done on his house. During the day I hardly ever hear a plane overhead, but I never hear one at night. He must be missing the normal amount of insulation that is in the walls and ceiling for him to be kept up at night with all of the air traffic. What I find interesting is that when I sit out at night, or am out walking, I can\'t recall the last time I heard a plane overhead. During the day, sure, I\'ll hear them if I\'m outside, but not during the night.
09/16/2009 @ 3:11 am - Comment

Steve Nelson
I've lived in Mesa since 1976, was a Police Officer during this time and have lived in the Power & McDowell area for 11 years. I've seen the growth of the homes and the increase in the flights in the area. Not once have I felt that our neighborhood was being "buzzed" nor have I felt a hazard from the planes that I've seen in the area.

Personally, I find one of the comments by Paul Knauth very interesting. To quote, "So, I'm out fixing a sprinkler and watching CAE/Sabena beginners in the distance taking off to the southwest at the rate of about one every minute for hours on end." I have to commend Sabena if they have so many students that they are taking off at the rate of one per minute, which equates to 60 per hour and 480 over an 8 hour period. They're business must be booming. But in reality, it appears that he likes to exaggerate his discription of the problem, so listener beware.

Lastly, I sat through the meetings with ADOT when they were in the process of building our section of the 202. Most of the complaints came from those living in the Las Sendas area and had been relatively new to the area. Many said that they didn't "know" of the freeway. Well, whether they were told of the freeway by their realtors or whether they weren't concerned at the time, it's hard to tell. But from my experience I've found that they fall into the NIMBY crowd. Falcon Field has been in the area for much longer than we've been residents. If they're committing some FAA violation, then they need to punished. If it's because you've moved here and suddenly don't like the fact that Falcon Field is here, then do us all a favor and move to Queen Creek or somewhere else. Before you do, be sure to plan on some due diligence so you're not complaining about something else 5 yrs. from now.
09/16/2009 @ 3:04 am - Comment

Falcon Field resident
Where are the signatures you supposedly received along with the petition? I'll tell you why they aren't attached with your terribly edited petition, BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST. If they do, you probably have only a handful. The signatures you do have are from gripey old farts, misinformed people, or idiots like you that have nothing else to complain about because you have money and a big lonely house in the orange groves. And, where were the environmentalists when you built your house in the orange groves, or when walmart and the strip mall were built up? Don't talk to anyone about pollution, when you bought a house where they mowed down the oranges. Did you complain when they built the freeway a few miles from your house too? Talk about pollution and noise! Move out to the country where you have neighbors that smell as bad as your logic and opinions!
09/15/2009 @ 11:44 pm - Comment

In Harm's Way
IN HARMS WAY

Recent Aircraft accidents involving pilot training here in the valley
should make us aware of the dangers that many Citizens face who have
homes or reside in the vicinity of General Aviation Airports. The
valley has become an attractive location for this type of flying
because of our weather and the abundance of these types of airports.
Most of these training schools train foreign students for aviation
careers and the best end up with Foreign Airlines. They are able to
take advantage of the ability to use our airports for very little cost
since the municipalities that own them have to abide with FAA rules
that are very liberal to the users.

Mesa’s Falcon Field is a prime example since it is rated as the third
busiest General Aviation Airport in the United States. Sabena
airlines from Brussels, Belgium (CAE) (Canadian Corp) has taken over
the airport with over 800 operations per day. They pay no landing
fees or corporate usage fees to the City and virtually have very
little costs of operation for the use of the airport that has been
built and maintained by the Taxpayers of America through the FAA.
Mesa is an example of the disregard for safety of its Residents when
these student flown aircraft are allowed to fly over an ELEMENTRY
SCHOOL, a SUPER WALMART and RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS at all hours of
the day and night. We are in “HARMS WAY” when those aircraft that fly
above us suffer a power plant failure or a Mid Air Collision.

Federal Air Regulations require that each pilot must be at an altitude
over a populated area that if he does encounter that power plant
failure that he can glide to the Airport or an open area. This is not
possible for most of the pilots with the type of patterns that are
allowed to be flown by the FAA tower at Falcon Field. These student
pilots that Sabena trains have to communicate in English which is not
their native language and they also fly their initial solo flight over
the populated areas which are a combination that worries us all. The
Falcon Field area has had its share of both types of accidents in the
past and just a year ago an aircraft nearly missed crashing into
Wal-Mart and did suffer three fatalities. Sabena itself lost an
aircraft with one fatality this past December but luckily it was in an
open area away from the field.

The City of Mesa through the City Managers office is in the process of
attempting to solve this problem by forming an ad-hoc committee of
pilots, residents, and Falcon business people and including the Sabena
Chief Pilot. This committee has recommended that all student training
be moved to the North Runway and the pattern flown would not be any
larger than one that would allow an aircraft to return to the airport
if he encountered a power plant failure. The flight patterns, to the
north, were the only patterns available when the school, Wal-Mart, and
most of the residential development were completed.

The Mesa City Council and the FAA need to take urgent action to
correct this travesty of lack of Safety that continues to keep the
population of North East Mesa “IN HARMS WAY’. Every aircraft that
they hear above them reminds them!
Al Gardner
09/10/2009 @ 10:05 pm - Comment

Paul Knauth
If our comments get under your skin, Mr. Miller, calm down and reflect honestly on whether the largest foreign flight school in the US should be doing its nearly continuous training flights over densely populated areas of Mesa, or any city. Note that the patterns being flown by CAE/Sabena are in complete violation of the longstanding map issued by Falcon Field in response to State Law to protect home buyers. The only training pattern shown is a tight one off the north runway and does not go over neighborhoods. CAE/Sabena has demanded that this map be changed to include the patterns they are somehow now allowed to fly over long-established neighborhoods. The Mayor’s task force sadly acquiesced, but their recommendation will be rejected by the Mayor if he has any sense of government integrity. Any flight school that finds the published pattern inadequate for its needs should relocate. The map was here first.

There have been several training flight crashes in recent years in northeast Mesa. The staggering increase in student flights now orbiting continuously over the city means that chances of a tragic crash into a neighborhood have increased accordingly. You can rant at us and incorrectly say we are insensitive to the impeding human suffering, but ranting at those who brought this safety risk, those who profit from it, participate in it, and defend it is actually the more civil and appropriate response. CAE/Sabena’s activities clearly divide, imperil, and torment citizens in Mesa. Emotions are understandably high. Calls for homeowners to simply learn to live with this new situation are out of line and futile.

Also note that a buzz job is a buzz job. Sit for a time in one of the many neighborhoods previously free of frequent propeller noise and see if you think Sabena is doing buzz jobs! It doesn’t matter to the people being tormented whether it is due to inadequate flight skills, designated procedures, or bad intentions.

I would be happy to discuss these issues with you or any others who think homeowners are wrong to speak out against the current goings-on at an airfield they used to love and support.
09/05/2009 @ 7:56 pm - Comment

Tom DeYoung
Do you honestly think for one minute that the FAA would permit Sabena to continue operating in violation of as many FARs as you say they are?
09/04/2009 @ 10:30 pm - Comment

Dave Miller
A few points I would like to make fall first under T. Eisenhauer's angry rants. The explanation of different engines with different efficientcies does not equate at all with "Sabena doesn't fly efficient aircraft." Nice try at pretzel logic, but your deduction is flat wrong - therefore negating your arrogant demand "that ALL SABENA AIRCRAFT BE IMMEDIATELY GROUNDED".
Second, you say "it is apparent that weather (heat and humidity) isn't a factor in their long, low trajectories.." Prove it -with science, not emotion. And lastly, you say " Sabena's operations, abetted by the FAA, are the act of a company that cares nothing about risking the lives and property of airport neighbors.." Really? Slander, libel, to make a point? You can prove this about these people? Then prove it, or do you just like to argue?

And as for Mr. Knauth, quoting "Sabena incompetents" intending to "buzz the neighborhood" - Show the incompetentcy and prove the intent to "buzz" by the pilots.

But the real revelation of the depth of fear and callousness of these two people, manifested by such vitriolic anger, is shown by Mr. Knauth. After claiming to hear an engine go quiet from his home at low altitude, his reaction is not one of hope for the safety and lives of the soul(s) on board the plane, but his reaction is - "Here we go".

You hear that potentially someone may lose their life near you from an airplane crash, and this is what you think?

I don't know or care what makes you people so incredibly arrogant, hostile, and angry toward others - particularly those working hard to learn a challenging skill like flying - there are seeming injustices and human ignorance everywhere, all the time. Life must drive you constantly away from love with such anger and fear in your hearts.
But with your insanity of fear of safety for the risks of flight by airplane pilots, some being "foreigners" as someone so arrogantly stated before, you will create more antipathy than cooperation with all of the misinformation you spew. And just how will that help everyone involved to find the best solution for all?

But with statements like "Sabena should move!" I guess that wasn't on the table anyway.



08/29/2009 @ 2:23 am - Comment

Chris G
Terri-
As a holder of a commercial pilot’s license, I make it a point to be proficient in all regulations affecting my career. Violations of the regs have varying punishments ranging from a slap on the wrist to certificate revocation. Something that can cause an unplanned job change warrants thorough research. Your interpretation of §91.119 wouldn’t allow any aircraft to operate anywhere. Every commercial flight landing at SkyHarbor would be hard pressed to find adequate landing sites if their engines quit. Imagine O’Hare International or Chicago Midway, Minneapolis-St. Paul or any of the airports in New York City or Washington DC. None of these airports would be able to accommodate departing or arriving aircraft simply because cities have built around them, “causing undue hazard.” If those qualifying words, “except when necessary for takeoff or landing” were to be used solely during a crisis, wouldn’t the regulation site that more concisely? A few examples of how the FAA words their regs involving emergencies:
14CFR§91.3 – Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(b) - In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

14CFR§91.123 – Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.

Earlier in our conversation you assumed that I was pilot. I’ll hazard a guess that you are not. People outside of the industry are not as familiar with the regulations as we are required to be. It’s like a hypochondriac arguing with a physician. §91.119 is to be interpreted exactly as it is written. Low altitudes are necessary during climbout and descent, and are thus exempt during that period. I encourage you to contact the local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) located right in Scottsdale. Ask for their interpretation of §91.119. Feel free not to believe me; I’m just a lowly commercial pilot.

Weather plays a huge role in aircraft performance, as well as perceived noise. Cold air carries sound better than warm air; even an overcast sky can reflect sounds back towards the ground, increasing noise levels. Allow me to clarify about the different types of aircraft Sabena operates. Each model operates differently, but a DiamondStar will act similarly to every other DiamondStar and a Piper Arrow will behave like the other Arrows. Inefficiency isn’t a problem solely with Sabena’s aircraft; every airplane suffers from performance loss due to heat. In fact, Sabena voluntarily grounds their aircraft when the ambient air temperature reaches 43° Celsius (109° Fahrenheit). Safety is also on their mind. Sabena operates a fleet of white aircraft; over 90% of all aircraft at Falcon, and at all other airfields for that matter have white as a predominant color. Proper identification of what aircraft Sabena is actually operating may also be an issue in categorizing who is causing the “problem.” Simply saying a low wing, white airplane isn’t sufficient to prove that it belongs to Sabena.

As far as the accusations of tower controllers not only being in violation of their regulations, but also knowingly causing them is completely off base. Falcon Field recently raised their pattern altitude, voluntarily I might add, to aid in the noise abatement procedures. An unfortunate issue with Falcon, and the other satellite airports in the valley, is that they are nestled under the busy airspace controlled by SkyHarbor. They are unable to enter that airspace without permission, and serious complications will occur with that violation.

-Chris

08/27/2009 @ 6:29 pm - Comment

Chris G
Terri- We live in Arizona. Aircraft of all sorts suffer from a decrease in performance due to heat and humidity. Those “commercial take-off patterns” may not be Sabena students trying to climb out like the big iron does; they may be simply trying to climb. As you might know, aircraft are burdened with the distinct disadvantage of not being able to climb out vertically, as helicopters can. Your hypothesis that the low trajectories their small aircraft fly causes an unsafe situation is not necessarily true. Forcing a student to bleed off every spare knot of airspeed for those precious few feet of altitude is far more risky than a stable climb with a safe margin of speed. Most aircraft have a best rate of climb speed just slightly higher than the stall speed. Imagine those little airplanes climbing out just over their stall speed when they are flying overhead. Altitude isn’t everything.

You are completely correct that the words “when necessary” are crucial in that FAR. Planes simply cannot just pop to the pattern altitude and dive to the ground right before landing. A safe, stable climb or descent is a necessity, isn’t it? You state that some pilots “do not extend their take-offs on such a low trajectory.” One major oversight of yours is that different aircraft have different performance limitations. A Cessna 152 or DA-20 simply doesn’t have the climb performance that a SR22 with a 310 horsepower engine has. Sabena operates a fleet of only six different types of aircraft, and each model is going to perform similarly.

Good pilots follow the rules prescribed by the FAA. You also state that the FAA interprets the regs to give pilots latitude. Sorry to nitpick, but that means those pilots aren’t actually in violation if the controlling agency doesn’t deem it so? Those “hundreds of FAR violations” mustn’t actually be occurring.

-Chris
08/25/2009 @ 12:10 pm - Comment

Terri Eisenhauer
Response to Chris G.'s response of 8/6/09.
Chris, I didn't say Sabena's operations were legal, I said they MAY be legal. I don't know if violating the FARs are legal or illegal. I was responding to someone else's comments. Sabena's operations, abetted by the FAA, are the act of a company that cares nothing about risking the lives and property of airport neighbors and shows a complete lack of common courtesy to everyone around them.
08/21/2009 @ 11:21 am - Comment

Paul Knauth
So, I'm out fixing a sprinkler and watching CAE/Sabena beginners in the distance taking off to the southwest at the rate of about one every minute for hours on end. After they get out 1.3 mile from the END of the runway, they are still low and at full power and turn to buzz the neighborhoods to the south of the airport. Suddenly, as one of these Sabena incompetents starts the turn, the engine goes out. The plane starts dropping and is now seconds from crashing into the homes near Brown and Val Vista. No way this plane could glide back to the airport. No way. "Here we go", I think to myself. Mercifully, the engine starts up and the student continues the buzz job back toward Barbara Bush elementary school.

Twice in the past several months while outside only briefly, I have witnessed Sabena engines going out on approach. It appears to be a common problem. One was high enough that a glide in might have made it; one certainly was not. Sabena beginners tend to power into the glide path close to the airport (to get in more frequent touch and gos?). This is horrible, dangerous flying. What kind of flying practices are these students being taught?

Folks, with this intense frequency of beginner flight activity at low altitudes and no chance of returning to the airport, it is only a matter of time before a Sabena plane crashes again, this time into a Mesa neighborhood. I don't understand how the City or the FAA tower chief can condone their non-stop practice patterns over densely populated areas of northeast Mesa. This is INSANE! I realize a few businesses are profiting from Sabena's dangerous buzz jobs, but what kind of people condone this? How will they sleep when the inevitable happens? Will they realize that they are complicit in the disaster? WE CERTAINLY WILL!
08/20/2009 @ 4:41 pm - Comment

Terri Eisenhauer
Response to Chris G. for his FAR Response Comments from 8/2/09

I will also recopy 91.119 yet again and will emphasize the main WORD you seem to IGNORE.
14CFR-91.119
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

EXCEPT WHEN NECESSARY FOR TAKEOFF OR LANDING. The key words here are not take-off and landing; they are actually WHEN NECESSARY. You see, Chris, it is not necessary for Sabena’s student pilots to train using a commercial take-off pattern from an airport that is surrounded by residential and business properties--and schools, and where a hazard to persons and property definitely exists in the event of an emergency landing.

Private pilots take off all the time and do not extend their take-offs on such a low trajectory over the populated residential neighborhoods and surrounding businesses. Therefore, a take-off from Falcon Field runways can almost always be safely accomplished in a manner that would allow the pilots to return to the airport in the event of engine trouble and without risking undue hazard to persons and property on the surface—just as it says in paragraph (a) above. Result: Sabena should not be operating ANYWHERE out of Falcon Field.

Having 7 or 8 aircraft in a pattern doing multiple touch and go operations in any given hour only emphasizes the number of flight violations per hour each day perpetrated by Sabena’s students at the direction of FAA personnel. The increased number of flights emphasizes the difficulty in attaining sufficient altitude when so many are flying in the pattern, and also means extending their low trajectories farther out from the airport over populated areas, further increasing risks to persons and property on the surface—a never-ending cycle of violations to Federal Aviation Regulations. Even worse, private pilots who are caught in Sabena’s dense patterns, find themselves inadvertently violating FARs because they also are not able to attain sufficient altitude to return to the airport in the event of engine trouble.

Your problem, and that of many other members of the aviation community is that you accept the arrogant interpretation of FAA regulations by FAA personnel without bothering to really understand the regulations, what they actually mean AND their intent. Naturally, the FAA is always going to interpret the regulations to give themselves and aviation as much latitude as possible. It is a shame for general aviation that it is being done at the expense of the non-aviation public.

I do agree with you that it is possible a U.S. trained foreign student pilot may eventually become a well-trained commercial pilot. I disagree that they have to right to perform those training operations at an airport that is in the heart of a residential and business community, when those training operations risk the persons and property in areas surrounding the airport, and when the FAA is complicit in violating its own regulations in providing that training. There are many other airports in desert, rural and/or sparsely populated nearby areas that would be happy to accommodate Sabena’s flight training operations. SABENA should move.

08/06/2009 @ 6:19 pm - Comment

Dave Miller
NIMBY\'s are everywhere, in every aspect of society. Fear of danger - fear of drugs - fear of terrorism - fear of loss - all marketed and sold with great success to the fearful by the clever, usually for power.
Would a nimby riding an airliner at night want the pilot to be experienced in night emergencies? Or maybe all of the dilligent touch and goes and emergency procedures he practiced hard at night at Falcon should be cut short so the nimby could have slept better then, but might now from an emergency, crash harder?

Keep emotion out of the discussion and let\'s take responsibility for all of our actions in our lives - that includes buying near an airport, race track, noisy highway, city dump, etc. and trash the holier-than-thou attitudes that do nothing for understanding.

Earplugs needed now by some is a declaration of past awareness - their use is an interesting, daily reminder to be sure.....safety fears of the sky raining aircraft (and people) down onto swingsets reveals a sad gullibility of risk analysis. Maturity would eliminate both issues.




08/06/2009 @ 5:25 pm - Comment

Ed Murphy
I live 3 miles west of Falcon Field. I cannot understand how former airline and military pilots can whine about plane noise when they deliberately and openly purchased homes at the end of a runway. You guys delivered hudnreds of decibels of jet engine noise to those living near airports you flew into and now you are complaining! This is hypocrisy at its highest level.
Most of your innuendos on this web site are false, exaggerated, or jingoistic rhetoric. They have little or no basis in fact. For example, you whine about pollution but the EPA recently found that small engine general aviation aircraft account for something less than 3/10th's of a percent of pollution.
You've been leading the fight against Falcon Field for over 20 years. This is just the latest in your attacks. You obviously won't be satisfied until Falcon Field is gone. You've filled the aviation ignorant neighbors with such misstatements that a 600 foot runway expansion at Falcon a few years ago would result in 737s and 747s flying into Falcon day and night. I remember all that hostile rhetoric.
It is too sad that you guys have nothing better to do in your old age than needlessly attack an airport that has been in continuous operation since 1940 and contributed to the victory against tyranny in World War II. Your selfish, tyrannical attacks are known for what they are
08/06/2009 @ 10:16 am - Comment

Paul Heitmeyer
I don't have a problem with the airport. I've lived in the North flight path for 4 years, and know I need to use earplugs if I want to sleep in past 6am on the weekends. And I don't have a problem with the jets, as they are very quiet and pass by quickly. However, I do have a problem with planes doing constant touch and go's at night after 11pm. There is a huge difference between normal airport traffic and non-stop touch and go's late at night. And this has been a fairly recent development. I've contacted Melissa and Jim over at airport administrations (both nice people), and I've been told it is legal. But that does not make it right. Think of it this way... it is also legal for me to drive my car within the speed limit around and around and around a pilots street past his house at all hours, but that doesn't make it right. Just because you are allowed to do something doesn't mean you should do it. I believe some common courtesy for other people would solve many a problem.
08/05/2009 @ 7:02 pm - Comment

Aldo Distabile
I agree with thomas [if you do not like a PLANE noise MOVE out]
08/05/2009 @ 5:58 pm - Comment

Andrew Elliott
I live off the departure end of 04 at Falcon (in Red Mountain Ranch), and have been flying out of Falcon for more than 20 years. As far as I know, there has never been any restriction against patterns to the Southeast of the field. In fact, normal operations are for such patterns on the Southeast runway (04R/22L), while patterns are to the Northwest on the other runway (04L/22R).

When it is safe to do so, the tower controllers may try to minimize traffic on the SE side, in the interest of being neighborly, but there is no *restriction*. I think the Falcon tower controllers are some of the best. You have only to see the backups and jams at Deer Valley airport, which also has heavy training going on, to appreciate how good they are.

And in response to a question about "How many of the young instructors working for Sabena are commercial pilots?" Well the answer is 100%. You can not get a flight instructor rating with a commercial ticket.

Finally, the net noise from aircraft operations in my area is much lower than that due to the 202, where trucks and motorcycles go by at all hours. Of course, there is no convenient target group for the 202, and anyone who suggested that trucks, motorcycles and loud cars be prohibited on the 202 at night would be laughed at.

So I agree with other posters who suggest that if you personally dislike the perceived noise, or feel unsafe in your home, that you simply move someplace well away from *any* airport.
08/05/2009 @ 1:18 pm - Comment

Keep Falcon Field Safe Committee
Response to Bob Reid’s comments of 7/29/09.

The Keep Falcon Field Safe Committee has no reason to criticize or complain about businesses at Falcon Field—other than the flight operations of CAE/Sabena.

You continue to stress noise complaints, but you refuse to acknowledge the far more serious issues of safety and health risks. Thousands of community residents are asking why our quality of life should be negatively affected in order to support aviation activities.

You also have failed to mention the constant violations to Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) by Sabena students and other FF pilots who are inadvertently caught in Sabena’s long, low flight training patterns. Nor do you seem at all concerned by the complicity of the FAA in those violations that significantly add to the safety risks experienced by Mesa’s residents, schools and businesses.

As an aviation business owner and an apparent supporter of GA activities, you should be extremely concerned about the FARs violations. You should be even more concerned the FAA is not only ignoring the violations, but actually promoting them by directing flights over populated areas; flights that haven’t a prayer of getting back to the airport in the event of engine trouble. The acceptance of these violations by the FAA and aviation community can only serve to damage the ongoing success of general aviation by building increasing animosity in the non-aviation community.

If, 20 years ago, you were flying your ½ dozen planes out of FF day and night without many complaints, it is unlikely you were constantly flying over the developed areas around the airport. Flight training schools at FF trained their students to avoid flying over the developed neighborhoods and businesses, as that appears to be the pattern for (and taught to) most private pilots. But, even you should be able to acknowledge that your six planes are a lot different than 50 planes for up to 400 students per year.

Three years ago we didn’t have problems with flight noise, or the dramatically increased risks to our safety and well-being. There is a very big difference between sporadic traffic with occasional heavy activity and the current, fairly constant activity by student pilots. Especially when the flight training patterns are over an area the previous city government, throughout the last decades, continued to insist would not be subjected to flight patterns in order to protect the safety of residents, schools and businesses.

It is unfortunate the current city government inherited the problems caused by its predecessor. Although the current city government has initiated a task force to study ways to alleviate the problems, it remains to be seen if they will recommend and enforce any material changes to Sabena’s abusive operations.

Until we know the task force’s recommendations, the KFFS Committee will continue to build community support for a government that protects our rights, minimizes risks to our safety, health and well-being, and adds to our quality of life instead of destroying it. We will seek a government that represents our interests, as well as those of the aviation community—instead of representing only the aviation community and aviation related businesses.

08/04/2009 @ 10:51 pm - Comment

Thomas Wheeler
I've lived in Mesa now for over 23 years. I'm located in the flight path for the airport. I have no problem with it. Falcon Field has been here way before all of the homes were built and like myself new about the airport before we built our home. I remember when I was a teenager back in the 60's, I would drive by the airport and that was way before any of the homes were built around it. I believe that if you have a problem with it, you should move.
08/02/2009 @ 4:41 pm - Comment

Michael Heilig
I've lived in NE Mesa for 25 years. I am a Certified Flight Instructor with 6000 hours, many of which have been logged out of Falcon.

I'm sure everyone will agree the airport was here first and when you purchased your homes around the airport you knew that fact. The residents of Red Mountain ranch have this disclosure in their purchase documents. Red Mountain Ranch was built despite the many concerns of pilots, controllers and businessmen who knew future expansion would take place. But, it was quiet on those Sunday afternoons when you looked at those model homes, so you purchased anyway. Should your failure to properly consider the paperwork you signed be something that is ignored at this point? I hardly think so.

We should be proud of the growth of Falcon Field and welcome our new tenants. They bring a substanstial economic boom to NE Mesa. The students reside in apartments nearby, mechanics are employed, fuel is sold, vans for transportation are sold, instructors are employed, managers, etc. I'm sure you cannnot deny we need the business in our town.

Growth of a city includes airport expansion. Look at every airport in the country that lies within a city.

It's going to be interesting when heavy cargo and transportation aircraft use Gateway 24/7. Get used to the fact, Mesa is growing!


08/01/2009 @ 5:08 pm - Comment

Bob Reid
Good afternoon everyone,
From the time lapse on the comments it would appear I am the only person defending the businesses at falcon.
Perhaps others are going to pursue this endeavor on a different track.

I haven’t lived in mesa long. I bought my house and some other properties about twenty years ago from a mortgage company that had foreclosed on the subdivision. Of course over the last twenty years the neighborhood has grown and property values increased.

While this neighborhood was developing I was recruited by the city of mesa to relocate my aviation business from Scottsdale to Falcon.
I came over here with ½ dozen airplanes to include king airs, turbo commanders, Cessna 421’s and one Lear jet.
My company flew out of Falcon day and night with few complaints. Of course the neighborhood the current noise complainers are in was not yet developed. They came later around 93-94-95 time frame.

In 1994 the city had introduced a new master plan for FFZ which included lengthening the runway. It did not include any additional runway strength to allow an increase in the weight of aircraft currently allowed to arrive and depart..Those types of aircraft were destined to go to Gateway.
So the types and size of the aircraft using the field was going to remain the same.

The primary purpose of increasing the runway length was to have a safer departure threshold during the hot summer months when even the small aircraft would have difficulty maintaining a rate of climb so as not to drag out over the houses SW and NE of the field.

The plan was stopped by neighbors that claimed FFZ would turn into another Orange county with 747’s zooming out over their heads.

Of course these people were crazy and would not listen to the fact that runway strength was going to remain the same allowing only the same light aircraft that use Falcon now.

Had the runway been lengthened onto the longbow property you would not have any noise from the little airplanes to complain about. They would not be dragging out over the houses but instead turning out well before Greenfield Road. The noise would be almost a mile away instead of 500 feet as it is now.

It was not destined to happen and the politicians’ at the time all hid under their desks to avoid any perceived conflict and possibly not be re-elected..

Meanwhile, back in Scottsdale…in the late 70’s early 80’s. Residents living off the SW end of the 4800 ft runway had a similar problem with noise.

Scottsdale extended the runway to the North East to 8500 feet. This allowed the departing aircraft to turn out long before they reached Scottsdale Road.. Problem solved..The long runway at Scottsdale encouraged businesses that operated corporate aircraft to move into the area.

The North Scottsdale area exploded in activity to one of the finest first class areas in the Southwest. Thousands employed, great restaurants, TCP golf course and tons of other amenities not enjoyed by the area known now as The Podunk Airport in Mesa..Falcon Field..no fortune 500 companies here. We have Boeing..but they don’t even need a runway..
So…My recommendation to get rid of the noise from Sabena and the other little airplanes that bother you is to ask the city to take advantage of the stimulus program and lengthen the runway..the airplanes will make their turn out before the reach Greenfield and you will barely be able to hear them..

Good luck with that… most of the pansies at city hall don’t have the balls to even suggest it.

07/29/2009 @ 4:15 pm - Comment

KFFS Committee
Response to Bob Reid’s response of 7/21/ and 7/22/09

So you talked to Sabena about their operations and actually think you can rely on their information? Sabena lied directly to the Mayor. They told him they weren’t doing night-time touch and go operations when he and others verified they were. To get around the restriction of touch and go operations, Sabena directed their trainers and students to do stop and go operations, instead. But you either work for Sabena or do business with them, so naturally you believe they are an honorable company who should be given every consideration.

I didn’t know that the FAA had Chief Flight Instructors at FF. I thought they had flight controllers. The same ones who are very defensive about their own contributions to the FAR violations by Sabena students. Exactly what verification did they give you that shows numbers so vastly different from Falcon Field’s own reported numbers? If you send us the official documentation of the FAA’s information, we will report it—after we verify that it is correct.

Falcon Field reported flight operations for 2006, 2007 and 2008 as 249,081, 314,181 and 320,606, respectively. These are official numbers, not the comments pulled from the faulty memory of a FFA tower controller. If you continue to believe our facts are faulty then feel free to get official information from public records. Unless Falcon Field has amended the numbers they reported to us, you will find that our information is factually correct. We only asked FF for the past 3 years’ numbers, but if you insist, we will get public information on the past 7-10 years.

As you can see, the number of flight operations jumped dramatically in 2007 when Sabena arrived at Falcon Field and again in 2008 as Sabena leased additional aircraft and put more training flights in the air. The flight numbers for 2007 and 2008 are not as high as they would have been if there had not been a substantial drop in other (non-Sabena) flights due to the high fuel prices and the deteriorating economy. The arrival of Sabena did increase the traffic count, because without Sabena, the flight operations numbers would have dropped dramatically in 2007 and again in 2008 due to less use by non-Sabena pilots. As is evident, not only did Sabena “take up the slack,” they increased the numbers by a substantial amount.

We also previously stated that our numbers were as of December 2008. In March/April 2009 FF told us Sabena was closer to 70% of total operations than 80%. We could accept that number since our observers were not counting flights everyday of the year, 24/7. However, in December 2008 for the various 1 – 2 hour periods at various times of the day and week that we did observe FF flights, Sabena’s flights were closer to 80%. At the busiest times of flight operations, Sabena training flights took-off approximately every 80 seconds.

As to your analysis of the flight numbers, you state that if 750 flights per day is correct, only half of them matter. So I guess it is your opinion that only the take-offs are a risk, or is it only the landings that are the risk—but not both? And then you state that only half of those matter because there are 2 runways. So I guess the flights that take off from the North runway and fly over our neighborhoods are not a risk, only the ones that take off from the South runway? Or is it the other way around? Maybe it is the flights that take off to the East that pose little risk; or is it the ones that take off to the South? Or is it only the landing operations that are a risk? Somehow you take a number of 750 flight operations per day and reduce it by 75% because YOU don’t notice more flights.

You think by trying to discredit members of our committee who don’t agree with you, you can discredit factual information. It won’t work. Each time you try to discredit us by giving your idea of information that will make Sabena look good to the public, we will answer with verifiable facts. Each time you give your version of information, we will ask you to prove that it is verifiable, as we are able to verify our information.


07/23/2009 @ 11:13 pm - Comment

KFFS Committee
Response to Bob Reid’s comments of 7/21/09

Well, Bob, answering your thoughtless comments and accusations are hardly worth our efforts either, but at least is gives us another opportunity to state a variety of facts we have collected over months of extensive effort in protecting our neighborhoods and community from harm’s way.

State and federal taxes may be collected on every gallon of fuel sold at FF, but those taxes do not support FF. The flow fee is 10 cents per gallon (not at least 10 cents per gallon) and is paid to FF. We have repeatedly asked the airport how much they receive from CAE/Sabena for flow fees, and they tell us they don’t know (or they decline to give us that information.) Sabena stated on their (totally inaccurate) “Economic Benefits to the City of Mesa” Statement that they paid $1,804,000 for fuel in 2008 including city taxes. I am not aware of city taxes for fuel unless they mean the flow fee. That fuel expenditures figure may be a great deal, but it means nothing for the benefit of the city without knowing the number of gallons used in order to calculate the annual flow fee received.

The airport is not self-supporting. Falcon Field is supported by annual grants from the FAA. The FAA is a federal agency that is totally supported by U.S. tax dollars. Every tax paying resident supports FF, including you.

We all pay for fire, trash and other city services, as should the tenants of Falcon Field. However, there was, or is, some discussion going on about increasing the fire/emergency charges to all tenants of FF, even though it is CAE/Sabena, at 70% use of airport facilities, who uses the services most often. Is that fair to other FF tenants?

CAE/Sabena does not pay the city for any leases other than 50 tie down spaces. And, for those leases they receive a 22% discount over what other tenants pay for their tie-down spaces. Each of CAE/Sabena’s planes takes up the same space as other tenants who pay full price for tie down spaces, so why the huge discount? An administrative discount for duplicative paperwork might involve a small discount (1% – 3%?), but each aircraft is supposed to be inspected by FF employees which involves (or, is supposed to) physical effort—so why the huge discount? According to leases and other sources, CAE/Sabena has at least 5 or more twin-engine aircraft, yet they are only being charged the higher tie down lease price for 3 twin-engine aircraft. Another special discount/allowance for CAE/Sabena? On top of this, the new lease charges that become effective August 1, 2009 are structured to affect everyone at FF, including substantially more to some classes of aircraft, but only a nominal increase in tie down lease fees to CAE/Sabena—the tenant who uses 70% or more of airport facilities.

Mr. Yost’s lease payment to the city is due whether he has the building leased or not. He appears to be one of the few benefiting from CAE/Sabena. Without independent economic analysis there is no indication that it also translates to an airport or community benefit. However, his lease with the city states the uses he will make of his building. The uses do not include leasing to a commercial-airline flight training school.

We are sorry aviation businesses are suffering from the Obama administration and in the current economy. However, there are many businesses and individuals throughout the United States, including those in Mesa, AZ that are suffering. What gives you the right to think we should support your aviation activities at the expense to our safety, health and well-being?

Why would you or any other responsible individual assume CAE/Sabena has the right to ignore AZ Statutes and continually violate Federal Aviation Regulations—because aviation business is barely getting by? Do all Sabena employees conclude it is OK to ignore rules and regulations?

The FBO that sells fuel to CAE/Sabena is also one of the few benefiting from doing business with them. However, without knowing the cost of fuel and the net profit the FBO is making on fuel sales, calculating the benefit to the FBO and/or the community is impossible. That is why an independent economic analysis of CAE/Sabena’s is important.

KFFS Committee members and supporters have knowledge and experience in many areas of expertise. For aviation issues, we rely on those who have the knowledge and experience. Even those who are not knowledgeable about aviation know there are qualifications for flight school instructors and that the flight trainers hired by Sabena must be minimally qualified. However, we did not say the instructors were unqualified, we said they were young and inexperienced. If you would like to give us a list of CAE/Sabena’s flight trainers, including when they received their licenses and certificates and how many hours of flight experience each has, we may, then, correct the information we have related.

A person is mature at 21 and we never suggested the flight school’s mechanics take their responsibilities lightly. The qualified flight school mechanics, notwithstanding, other qualified mechanics have stated there are legitimate safety issues and worries regarding Sabena’s aircraft.

We quoted from Al’s comments dated 6/4/09. We would never knowingly slander anyone, nor would Al do so, by repeating slanderous remarks. We know and respect Al for his many fine qualities, including his knowledge and experience of all things aviation. As a retired military flight pilot, commercial airline pilot and commercial airline trainer, Al does business with qualified and experienced individuals. The mechanics he spoke with gave their opinion based on the pressure Sabena’s mechanics are under from Sabena’s apparent insistence that all planes are always ready to fly.

The accident you are referring to did not occur at FF, it occurred within 500 feet of our neighborhoods and just as close to the Wal Mart Strip Mall and hundreds of shoppers and business employees. We have never attributed that fatal accident near FF, and practically on top of our neighborhood, to Sabena. We stated it was another TRAINING flight. It is imperative that everyone realizes the risks and dangers of so many student pilots training over our neighborhoods.

Apparently, Bob, it is you who should get your facts straight, and you should have done it before you accused us of slander. The Keep Falcon Field Safe Committee deals in facts—not innuendo, insults and repetitious name-calling. It is apparent that CAE/Sabena’s employees and/or business partners are afraid of the truth, and afraid to face the damage they are doing to members of the surrounding community.

07/23/2009 @ 11:11 pm - Comment

Federal Aviation Regulations .
                     Message: To Chris G

FAR-91.119(a) Anywhere(below). An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undo hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Obviously you are a pilot.  (a) applies if you are in the pattern (1000ft) and not close to Falcon or close to an open area.  One Falcon Tower Controller (who is a pilot) only allows 3 aircraft in a circuit pattern which keeps those pilots from violating that FAR.  All of the rest of the Controllers that allow up to 7 or 8 in a circuit pattern help to possibly place all of these pilots in violation of the FAR sometime in the circuit.  Long (simulated) 737 departure profiles can also violate this FAR.

Your last paragraph where you state that Falcon Field is offering flight training to students and an invaluable service to both the community and economy is absolutely ridiculous.  Training Foreign Students for Foreign Airlines and the Day and Night constant danger, noise and health issues that households endure cannot be classified positive in any way.  No offence meant to Bob Reid and Tango One!

Before Sabena arrived none of our neighborhoods had any complaints about aircraft traffic because the sounds come and go.  Now they just come and never go away.  Our local population of pilots would love to be back where we were before Sabena where we had sanity when we were in the aviation environment.
07/23/2009 @ 7:52 pm - Comment

KFFS Committee
Marc Wells (comments 7/3/09) completely misses the point of the many facts and opinions expressed on this website. He also continues to insult the intelligence and commitment of those who are both concerned about the increased risks to our safety, health and well-being and outraged at the loss of our rights as residents and citizens perpetrated by the FAA and CAE/Sabena.
It doesn’t matter whether Falcon Field was here first. The KFFS committee and Mesa’s residents have repeatedly stated they had no problem with private flight activity prior to the arrival of CAE/Sabena. What does matter is the inappropriate use being made of our municipal airport; the almost monopoly of airport facilities by one commercial flight training school, and the sheer number of student flights over our homes, schools and businesses. And all of this is being done on tax-payer dollars at our city-owned airport by a foreign company that pays virtually nothing in taxes, fees, or other remuneration for the use of Falcon Field. It is difficult to understand why even aviation community members are not rising up in outrage over this usage. The City of Mesa and Falcon Field clearly are being taken for a ride by CAE/Sabena.

Marc Wells wants to talk about safety. He thinks we are ignorant morons because we define the risks of students learning to fly 737 commercial flight patterns as vastly different than the safety record of 737 commercial airlines. Commercial pilots may have a great safety record, but we are not talking about commercial pilots flying at FF. We are talking about students learning to fly commercial patterns, and being taught to fly by young, fairly inexperienced pilots who are trying to add to their own flight hours. I wonder how many of Sabena’s flight trainers are commercial pilots? He also indicates that pilots have a much better accident ratio than autos. This is immaterial; autos are not driving through our homes at all hours of the day and night.

He admits that private pilots die because of poor judgment, disregarding inconvenient safety recommendations and lack of familiarity with emergency procedures. These are all definitive labels that are applicable to students learning to fly. It applies to Sabena’s students more than others because they are learning to think and understand and communicate in English at the same time they are learning to fly. It doesn’t matter that CAE/Sabena has an excellent safety record. The risks exist and multiply with the number of CAE/Sabena’s operations. I would remind Marc that ALL pilots had an excellent safety record before they crashed and ??-- if lucky, lived to tell the tale.

Al Gardner, who is a retired commercial pilot and commercial pilot trainer, spoke to mechanics at Falcon Field who said Sabena’s planes have a history of mechanical problems, are serviced by young, inexperienced mechanics who are pushed hard to keep them flying everyday and are an “accident waiting to happen” (see comments 6/4/09.) The mechanics told him “they push the maintenance to the limit on all their equipment and have no interest in spending money since the rumor is they are trying to sell the Company.” Every time our committee members and I have been at the airport requesting information, the fire truck has been called out to the runway for an arriving Sabena plane because it reported trouble. Is any of this information supposed to instill confidence in those of us under Sabena’s long flight patterns?

Are Sabena’s weekly meetings discussing safety and oversight the ones when they are directed to ignore the Mayor’s request not to do “touch and go” operations at night after the tower has closed and do “stop and go” operations instead? Is that what they were doing for the entire hour between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. in the early morning hours of July 7th when Sabena students bombarded neighbors south of the airport with their constant flights?

Marc says safety at Falcon Field is better now that Sabena is part of the picture. It is true that we haven’t had a major accident or fatality at FF since the summer of 2008—almost a year. Statistically, however, it is not IF one will happen, it is WHEN; and statistically, WHEN is anytime now.



07/20/2009 @ 6:23 pm - Comment

Bob Reid
I believe Paul made the comment.."The Sabena students are proud of their near death experiences that happen as they fly over our neighborhood. You'll hear the ground warning signal blaring in the cockpit and see the stall indicator flashing as the wanna-be pilot flares and pulls the nose up way short of the runway. Would you like that over your house? Try 800 landings PER DAY! Its only a matter of time until something horrible happens...":

Paul..That is quite an exaggeration..800 landing per day?
there are 800 minutes in 13.33 hours..that would be more than one landing a minute..where are you getting your stats?

I know the administration likes to brag about the "movements’" at Falcon..which means every time an aircraft moves on the ramp it is counted..800 landings a day? come on… we would constantly see an aircraft in the pattern.. It's all BS isn't it..trying to scare the neighbors into complaining..while demonizing the flight school.

Bob Reid


07/18/2009 @ 9:07 am - Comment

Chris G
To \"Disgusted with the Lot of Them\"-
The name change to CAE Global Academy was not to escape \"negativity associated with the name.\" CAE, a company based in Canada, recently purchased Sabena.

To Jim Allen-
Sabena students, as well as numerous employees at Falcon Field support local businesses daily. I recently went to Subway, a neighbor of Buffalo Wild Wings, and had to wait in line behind about 12 Sabena students taking their lunch. With the present economical situation, many other factors such as high rental rates at the strip mall may have played a role other than a pilot\'s failure to \"support community businesses.\"

To \"Federal Aviation Regulations\"-
14CFR §91.119
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

Stating that Sabena students routinely violate this regulation is completely inaccurate. Subsection (b) applies during level maneuvering flight and students are not in violation during the student\'s departure climbout due to the first part of the FAR- Except when necessary for takeoff or landing. An FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) is based in Scottdale. The Western Pacific region, which Arizona resides has a reputation of having an extremely strict rule enforcement policy. Surely violations would have been issued if the regulations were truly being broken. I challenge you to contact Sabena, or any of the flight schools based at Falcon or airports elsewhere and ask what their maneuvering altitude is for training flights. I can guarantee that it is above 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle.

To Pat Tregaskes-
The Mesa Police Department owns a blue and white helicopter, and Omniflight, and air ambulance service also operates a blue and white one. Both use general aviation as a vital part of their operations. Be sure to let them know about their loud aircraft as the police is performing aerial monitoring or when the air ambulance services are rescuing car accident victims or transporting patients to hospitals.

People who live near interstates don\'t lobby to reduce traffic on the roads to lessen noise, they cope with it because of the service it brings. Falcon Field is offering flight training to students, an invaluable service to both the community and economy. That Harley Davidson idling right in front of your homes is much more of a noise issue than an airplane climbing overhead.

-Chris
07/17/2009 @ 1:36 pm - Comment

Pat Tregaskes
I am very concerned regarding all of the helicopter touch and go\'s that are passing directly over our property during their flights. I have written before and have not gotten a response. I have tried yesterday and today (7-15, 16) to click on the noise complaint button and the web page will not come up. This morning starting at 7:45, there is a blue and white jet propelled heli flying over our home. I know they are out of MD because I went to their facility and saw them. I talked to the security guard . This has been approximately a month ago and still they are overstepping or over-flying their boundary which is to stay EAST of the north-south canal between Greenfield and Val Vista. Yesterday I left a message with MD but have had no response. I challenge anyone to come over to my home and just see and listen to what we have to put up with. All the companies that the helicopters are out of need to do is have a meeting with their pilots and tell them they have had numerous complaints from citizens and to stay EAST of the canal. How simple is that?? Probably too simple for the city council to understand.
07/16/2009 @ 12:29 pm - Comment

Marc Wells
Its funny that you people built or bought your homes near an airport and now think you are justified in complaining about the noise. A person who builds a home near an airport and then complains about noise doesn't have the intellect to be a community leader, so they are rightly called whiners.

Its also funny that you morons think flying 737 patterns is unsafe, even though airlines have a safety record 50 times better than private or general aviation. Just goes to show your ignorance.

Private pilots and passengers have 16 fatalities per hundred million miles. Ten times higher than automobile drivers. Private pilots die because of poor judgement, disregarding inconvenient safety reccomendations and lack of familiarity with emergency procedures.

Airline have a fatality rate approximately 50 times better than private pilots, with 0.34 deaths per hundred million miles. This is because they are trained to a very high standard. They are taught from the very beginning to put safety first and formost. Sabena Flight Academy in Belgium and Sabena Airline Training Center here in Mesa, are regarded as the finest fligh schools in the world. Specifically because of the emphasis on safety.

Sabena pilots have more restritions on how they operate and have regular safety meetings and oversight.

Despite dramatically increasing the operations tempo at Falcon Field, the accident/inciden rate has actually decreased! Which means that Sabena's emphasis on safety is directly beneficial to you cry-babies.

So stop whining about safety, when safety is better now than before Sabena moved in both in percentages and straight numbers. And Stop whining about noise because you were stupid enough to build/buy houses close to an airport that predates your homes.

07/03/2009 @ 11:09 pm - Comment

Federal Aviation Regulations
Federal Aviation Regulations


Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

A while back a Pilot from Falcon Field quoted this FAR as being violated by Sabena pilots flying out of Falcon Field. He used the example of the low (buss job) departures that Sabena is famous for since they teach simulated 737 departures for the benefit of the Foreign Airlines that they train Pilots for. He also says that the touch and go patterns that they fly are loose and wide and that Falcon Tower allows so many aircraft in these patterns that this type of operation is a direct violation. You add in these inexperienced pilots who are all foreigners whose primary language is not English and you have an extremely dangerous situation. Any engine failure for those aircraft that are not close to Falcon means that that aircraft is not going to make it to the Field. This is the reason for the regulation and Sabena is violating this regulation hundreds of times every day. Even worse is that they violate it at night and most of the flights at night are done without the benefit of a controller in the tower.

This Pilot who reported this was absolutely right and before Sabena arrived most Pilots who plan on staying in the pattern at Falcon tried to follow the FAR’s by trying to gain the 1000 ft as soon as possible and turn to the downwind of the runways so as to always be in a position to make it back if they had an engine failure. Those Pilots on a departure would normally gain the altitude needed as they turned away from the residential or congested area and started looking for areas ahead that would be available if they had an Engine failure.

The high volume of traffic that Sabena has created has forced other local pilots into positions that they themselves are in violation because of the extreme amount of traffic.

07/02/2009 @ 11:48 pm - Comment

Paul Knauth
I’m getting tired of those who continually refer to Al Gardner and Dave Wayne as “whiners”. Al and Dave are leaders and spokesmen for citizens concerned about safety at Falcon Field now that a foreign flight school has essentially taken over. To those hurling insults at them: note that both are former USAF fighter pilots who subsequently flew for commercial airlines and now regularly fly small planes out of Falcon Field. Al spent 9 years training pilots at Williams AFB and several years training commercial pilots for United Airlines. He is one of the few ever to survive a mid-air collision after getting hit by an errant student pilot (a foreign student having communication problems, BTW). Both live near enough to observe the foreign beginners trying to learn to fly over densely populated areas of Mesa. Both hear the confused tower communications made difficult by thick accents and inexperience. Both know that it is just a matter of time before one of these beginners flying so irresponsibly low throughout their patterns will not make it to the airport following an engine problem.

Al and Dave are pillars of the community who have contributed much to Mesa. I doubt any of you people insulting them have one tenth their flight experience. You clearly have no knowledge of the situation here and are callously indifferent toward families living under flight patterns newly established to accommodate this enormous flight school. Those insulting from the east coast, those personally profiting from the current situation, and those responding to silly calls from paranoid flight organizations falsely claiming that general aviation is under assault here SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES. Talking about whiners!! Peeuw.

06/29/2009 @ 8:09 pm - Comment

Jim Allen
6/28Just sent this to the Mesa Trib. After yesterday's article "Irked in Mesa":


After reading the article "Mesa residents irked", I am fuming. Who are these
people that don't care a bit that our community is being taken over by the
flight schools at Falcon Field? Should large flight training companies have
all rights because they are paying taxes to the community, and the people
that live in the community have NONE? Should they have the right to take off
every 80 seconds at 5:30 am just because they can? I don't want to shut down
the flight schools at F.F., I am just hoping that F.F. and the flight
schools will do their part to be more neighborly. I used to love opening the
windows on those cool nights but not anymore, not unless we need to be up at
the crack of dawn. But like having an obstinate child it looks like we, the
community members, have to be the parents and raise our voices to help them
refocus on having good manners.

Are the pilots in the flight schools really supporting the community
businesses in the area? A great restaurant, Buffalo “WINGS” Grill and Bar,
right across the street from Falcon Field just closed. Great place for a
pilot to watch some sports and have a meal. If they are really supporting
the community, would this restaurant have closed?

Home values are not only dropping from the economy, but also from the
increase in noise pollution, and safety issues. Air pollution is also
increasing as flights increase, as are the chances of a plane crashing into
a home, and that affects all of us whether the noise bothers you or not. Is
being the 3rd busiest small public airport in the country something to be
proud of? Are we striving to be number one, or should we slow down and think
about this as a community by talking out our difference of opinions? We all
know what it is like to build the freeway after the traffic already out of
control. It is not good for anyone and it creates unnecessary frustration.
Let’s think about this and come to some agreeable solutions, win win!

I have several pilots in my neighborhood that love planes and love to fly
but they are even saying enough is enough. They feel F.F and the flight
schools could do more to be neighborly but are choosing not to. Don’t be
bothered by the fact that they have created a web site to talk things over.
Embrace it, and realize they just want F.F. and the flight schools to take
them serious and slow down to talk it over. A good nights sleep and a
healthy & safe neighborhood is great for Mesa and that should be important
to all concerned!

SleeplessinMesa

06/28/2009 @ 9:03 pm - Comment

Disgusted with the Lot of Them
It looks like Sabena Air Training Center changed their name this month to CAE Global Academy Phoenix.

If they want to be named …Phoenix, why aren't they operating out of Sky Harbor or another Phoenix airport?

They probably changed their name to get away from the negativity associated with the name, Sabena. That was a dumb decision. Their lies, negative attitude and poor neighbor policy will follow them whatever of their name. Only an abrupt change of heart (OMG, does CAE Global/Sabena even have a heart?) or, more likely, a change of upper management, will have any positive results. Unfortunately for the parent company, CAE, Inc., the mud will now stick to them. Too bad they are saddled with such a loser.

It’s time to clean house; starting from the top. If our U.S. representatives won’t stop the FAA and give our rights back, let’s get new ones . If our city doesn’t understand that it represents us, kick them out. If the FAA and Falcon Field won’t stop hurting Mesa’s residents, close them down! It is definitely past time for a citizen revolt!

Keep up the good work, people. We need SOMEONE to speak for US!

06/23/2009 @ 9:21 pm - Comment

Terri Eisenhauer
We have been informed by the City Manager’s office that the Falcon Field Ad-hoc Task Force will recommend the City quickly replace the existing flight pattern map (showing NO flight patterns south of the airport) with a map showing CAE/Sabena’s current flight patterns south of Falcon Field. The Ad-hoc Task Force members consist of City of Mesa (City Manager’s office) representatives, Sabena’s General Manager, 3 additional Falcon Field tenants or AOPA representatives, 1 community member, and 2 KFFS committee members. Please read the following email comments:

“Natalie Lewis (City Manager’s office) just informed me that the ad hoc Task Force is going to recommend that the City move quickly to replace the pattern/noise map that State Law requires Falcon Field to post. This is the one that alerts potential home buyers of where aircraft typically fly. If true, this is a really dirty trick. How can it be legal for the City to do this? Falcon Field posted its map, the City zoned residential areas, and people bought. Now they post a new map showing beginner patterns going right over your home?

I urge our reps on the Task Force to fight this. Instead, Sabena needs to be constrained to the exisiting (map) patterns--at a minimum!”

We have previously reported that the under AZ State Statute, Falcon Field (and other airports) are required to file flight pattern maps with the Arizona State Real Estate Dept. for the sole purpose of informing potential property buyers about the flight patterns of the airport before they make their property purchases.

We have also previously reported that Falcon Field has continued to file maps showing NO flight patterns south of the airport. In fact, that information was used by the City of Mesa in order to approve zoning for both the Barbara Bush Elementary School and the Wal Mart store and strip mall that were subsequently built south of the airport. The airport’s and City’s comments during pre-zoning hearings were that there was no risk to our children attending a school and no risk to a concentration of people shopping at Wal Mart and other stores in their area BECAUSE there were NO flight patterns south of Falcon Field.

We have stated in our website “Facts” that property values have been negatively affected by CAE /Sabena’s operations at Falcon Field. Instead of requiring the flight school to use the North runway and fly over the desert—to be in compliance with the map—Mesa’s solution is to further hurt its residents by quickly and quietly changing the map (many years after economic decisions by Mesa’s residents were made as a result of their filed map), and allowing CAE/Sabena to continue risking the lives of our children and residents and pounding our neighborhoods.

We have to ask why the City of Mesa/Falcon Field continually protects the operations of this major commercial flight school that, admitted by the City, pays virtually no fees and taxes that support their +70% operations at Falcon Field. There must be agreements under the table somewhere—and that too is a violation.

Any City Official who thinks changing the map instead of seeing that Falcon Field tenants comply with it has lost my vote.

06/23/2009 @ 4:46 pm - Comment

Terri Eisenhauer
According to the AZ Republic, Sabena Air Training Center changed their name this month to CAE Global Academy Phoenix. (I suggest for awhile we refer to them as CAE/Sabena—so we don’t have to keep explaining to those who are unaware, who we are talking about.)
06/23/2009 @ 4:27 pm - Comment

KFFS Committee
For the record, we do not hate Falcon Field or the aviation industry. Nor are we trying to close down businesses. We do not promote anti-aviation bigotry. We are simply trying to protect our families.

Large commercial flight training schools, like Sabena, have many options to operate their flight training in areas that don’t risk significant numbers of any city’s population. They also have the option at Falcon Field of using the North runway and performing their flight training over the desert, again limiting the risk to surrounding populations. However, they choose not to do this. It is too inconvenient for them. Why should they bother to be good neighbors?!! This ‘not-so-good neighbor’ when asked not to do touch and go operations after tower hours, directed their students to do stop and go operations instead. And that shows what kind of voluntary efforts Sabena is willing to make to comply with Falcon Field’s ‘Fly Friendly Zone’ and ‘Good Neighbor Policy.’

For more than 20 years Falcon Field and its neighbors lived happily together. We enjoyed seeing planes flying overhead. We also expected growth at the airport; the kind of growth that would bring real economic benefit to the area—not just to a few businesses at Falcon Field . It is unfortunate that Falcon Field has already lost at least four (4) new corporate tenants because of the flight school’s operations. The economic impact of the loss on just one 75,000 square foot building at Falcon Field is approximately $15 million to $20 million annually.

As one individual said: ‘So, Falcon Field’s goal is to be the busiest muni in the nation. That is a laudable goal for the economy of Mesa if "busy" means…business people are flying in here to tend to their economic engines in Mesa. However, the much-celebrated landing count is due to repetitious student flights, not due to a substantive increase in business people flying in. FF is #3 (written December, 2008) now because of student touch and go landings from a single flight school that brings in minimal bucks and inflicts horrific collateral damage. The sound of Sabena is actually the sound of (Falcon Field’s)….failure. Not only has (FF) failed to bring businesses to FF, it has clogged up the entry portal for traffic that might actually bring in something substantive. The landing statistics are all phony PR that actually mean the opposite of what it says.’ (end quote.)

06/22/2009 @ 3:19 pm - Comment

Terri Eisenhauer
Scott Roberts has made many assumptions that are incorrect. We do not deal in assumptions and opinions. We try to verify our facts before reporting the information.

The members of Keep Falcon Field Safe Committee are supportive of foreign corporations and foreign individuals who wish to do business in our city. We have stressed the foreign ownership of Sabena Commercial Flight School and its foreign commercial student pilots in order to explain that Sabena’s +70% use of the airport facilities seems excessive at a FAA / taxpayer supported municipal airport, especially when they pay virtually nothing for that usage.

The fact that Sabena trains commercial pilots also adds to the safety and health risks experienced by Mesa’s surrounding neighborhoods and community.

We also wish to emphasize that many of the foreign students have difficulty understanding and communicating in the English language—to the extent that it significantly increases the safety risk for Mesa’s residents and businesses who live and operate under the student flight patterns.

We know English is the international language of aviation and that all licensed pilots are required to use it during flight operations. However, many of Sabena’s student pilots have passed an English exam only recently, in order to attend Sabena’s flight training programs. Therefore, they are not truly proficient in the language; they do not yet think in the language and they have difficulty understanding and communicating in it.

For proof of our statements, one only needs to listen to the tower communications from Falcon Field and read the various blogs from the students in which they admit they didn’t understand the tower, but acted anyway. For further verification on the tower’s difficulty understanding and communicating with Sabena’s students, read the article by an FAA examiner who was trying to fly into Falcon Field and was unable to communicate with the tower for an extended period of time while the tower dealt with the foreign students—trying to understand them and make them understand what they needed to do. Other pilots who are waiting to communicate with the tower tell us they do not understand the students' communications with the tower.

These are legitimate reasons for our belief that the type of flight school Sabena operates presents undue risk and is better suited to rural or under-populated areas instead of flying more than 500 flights per day over highly populated residential and business areas of the city. At the very least, Sabena should be directing their student pilots to do their touch and go operations at one of the many other airports in nearby areas; airports that are not surrounded by highly populated residential/business areas.

06/22/2009 @ 2:49 pm - Comment

Trouble at Falcon Field
From Al Gardner’s comments (6/4/09) it seems that many of the tenants, employees and pilots working at, or flying out of, Falcon Field are not happy with Sabena and their operations procedures. They recognize the risks imposed by Sabena’s operations, both to the surrounding community and to other pilots. They believe Sabena’s training flights ‘are an accident, waiting to happen.’ In looking through the website, I find that even an FAA examiner recognizes the problems at Falcon Field posed by Sabena’s operations. Therefore, it is not just a few neighbors who believe they should operate their flight training elsewhere.

It must be Sabena’s employees and a few diehard supporters who are really the self-serving whiners. Do you all get together once a week and plan your attack comments for this website? I read your comments with interest and think your childish insults and ignorant comments more accurately describe you. If you don’t have any real facts to back up your self-serving opinions, you just fall back on the same mantra “you live near an airport, blah, blah, blah, and if you don’t like it move!” You must be really afraid. I find that interesting, too.

A concerned neighbor.

06/22/2009 @ 2:19 pm - Comment

Safety First
Please read these excerpts from a Sabena Flight Academy beginner pilot learning to fly in low-altitude patterns over the homes, businesses, schools, and churches of densely-populated northeast Mesa. These are from JUST ONE Sabena beginner. Sabena wants to put more than 400 foreign beginners per year into learning patterns right over the City of Mesa. In their first year here, one has already crashed. Falcon Field is no place for the largest European flight training school in North America. The Mayor and City Council need to act immediately to protect the citizens of Mesa.

“After a horrible night, being sick and only 4.5 hours of sleep, I woke up at 0430 because I had the first flight of the day. I took some painkillers, left my breakfast for what it was, and went to dispatch with my flymate”

“I found it quit hard, I was sweating, I was nervous, I barely payed any attention to the tower and didn't had the time to listen out what and who was talking on the frequency, and to keep an eye on your instruments and the other traffic was just a hell.”

“I hear the tower speaking to somebody else. I almost have to turn final. Frequency is clear and I wanted to try for a 2nd time when I heard “44P, number two follow the archer, cleared to land, rwy 04R”. I thought immediately “Number two? Did he said number two? Archer? Which Archer? I’m on final you …. !!!!!! *again a Maltese word that I’m not going to repeat*! And off course there’s no Archer in sight! Not in front or behind me. Not on the left or right. But I was wrong, there WAS an Archer…on the runway below, just in front of me, positioned and holding, ready to take off as soon as he got the clearance. There was only one little tiny problem, I was on short final and there was no way I could land. I remember I heard the voice of Achmed The Dead Terrorist in my head saying “holy crap!”. I hit the throttle to full power, flaps up. When the tower finished giving the Archer below me his take off clearance I said “very friendly”, “Falcon tower 44P RUNWAY 04 RIGHT, going around!”. I saw that the aircraft below me started to roll just a couple of seconds before I flew over him. “Archer 44P, roger, make euhm…right traffic and euhm…turn crosswind when able.” I don’t think I was nervous…I didn’t had the time to be stressed, only time to react…I know the plane below me was climbing in the same axis as I was…I looked behind and below and had him in sight. To be sure not to hit him I turned a bit to the right to fly next to the runway and I turned crosswind as soon as possible to separate us. When I extended my crosswind I heard, “Archer 44P, sorry for that, you are number 3 and cleared to land runway 04R, advise when you have the traffic in sight”

“And off course the run-up of the bird was a complete mess again. When I started to do the right magneto check, the plane started to vibrate horrible and the RMP dropped to 1300. Luckily after a couple of months you start to know the aircraft his behavior and I just let the engine run a bit.”

“I put the frequency of the SE practice area in the standby comm. box and I was ready to request the change when the engine started to sound differently. The throttle was at full power, but the RPM's showed me 2100. I wasn't climbing anymore and my speed was dropping. I put the A/C level, went to my normal RPM setting, but the position of the throttle didn't match what the RPM indicator was showing me. And my speed was still dropping slowly. I checked my mixture, everything fine, I put the fuel pump back on... and switched full tanks, just to be sure. Nothing. RPM's still not giving me what I want to see and my speed was now around 70 going to 60kts.

The engine was still running, so I put the engine in idle, to lose some altitude. Instead that I saw the normal 700 RPM's when idle, the damn thing showed me 1600 RPM's. I was nose down, to get some speed back, but it didn't help as much as I had hoped. I entered the traffic pattern altitude a bit to low and with 2200 RPM's for only 65 kts. Abeam the numbers, I put F10 to make use of the 'ballooning effect' to get my ass again a bit higher. Of course, with putting flaps, the speed went more down as well, so I retracted the flaps back. On base, 2200 RPM's, 60kts and dropping. I was below glide, below speed, not the kind of situation I love. I kicked the throttle to 2400 RPM's to maintain some speed and was able to put the 77L just before the numbers on the ground.”

06/21/2009 @ 9:22 am - Comment

rob royal
I would love to keep Falcon Field safe from the likes of some self-serving idiots trying to put the businesses out of business.
The one big question for you self-serving complaining Idiots..why did you move into a house directly under the final approach path of the fourth busiest airport in the nation?
There are thousands living in the immediate vicinity of the airport yet there are less than 20 constant complainers..My advice to you..get a life..if that doesn\'t help..move out from under the flight path.
That should help us keep falcon field safe from self-serving idiots..we can include some politicians’ and bureaucrats in the category as well.. Rob

06/18/2009 @ 12:42 pm - Comment

John Meyer
If you don't like airplane noise, you should not have moved near an airport. By the way, where did you obtain the B-25 photo used in your masthead, and did you obtain permission to use it?
06/18/2009 @ 11:08 am - Comment

Rob Rohr
So I was just wondering if you folks have Yankee Air Musuem the owner of the B-25D you are using on your website permission to use the image since they (YAM) own the copy right to the aircraft and it\\\'s image.

Oh and if the Flight School is as bad as some of you are making it out as Home Land Security would have never given them permission in the first to operated siad flight school. Some of you need to go and read federal Rulesand Regualtion on the owning and operations of Flight Schools for For. Students it\\\'s not the FAA that give the final permission its DHS.
06/18/2009 @ 3:48 am - Comment

Scott Roberts
First, I will assume you are prejudice against foreigners, as you complain about non-English speaking pilots. I must also assume you do not know that to get a certification in the US, you are required to read, write, speak and understand the English language. Also that English is the international language of Aviation, and all certificated(licensed) pilots are REQUIRED to use it during all flight operations. So, to start, your group is both prejudiced and ill-informed.

Second, I must believe that you are in favor of higher taxes, and more unemployment. You see, General Aviation airports pull in a lot of money- and from that money is paid local taxes- those evil foreign students and the companies teaching them, are paying taxes you would otherwise be responsible for. Also, those businesses employ flight instructors- members of your own community(and usually underpaid for their efforts), who probably deal with the same companies you work for, spending their money(made from those evil foreigners, paying to learn a useful, employable skill) at local businesses, which also pay taxes. Also, the fuel used has taxes paid from it- taxes used to support the aviation system, and also state taxes. Lets see, 800 takeoffs & landings a day, using about 6.8 gallons/hour, so about .68 gallons for a circuit of the field(maybe a little less) from fuel taxed(in Az. at $.347/gal) is only about $188.77 a day, but that is considering only that used for 1 takeoff, flight about the pattern, and one landing. Lets assume the average pilot will be flying about 2 hours, from switch on to switches off, roughly 13 gallons. And let us only assume about 5/8 of those 800 daily flights meet the 2 hour criteria, and all of those are in moderate fuel sippers- Cessna 172s. $2,255.50 a day. So lets take the two figures- $2,255.50 + 70.79(3/8 of 188.77, for the 3/8 who just do pattern work.) and make it $2,326.29 a day tax revenue generated, which you do not need to pay... Now, we\\\'ll figure 350 days a year fully flyable weather- it is Arizona, after all, great flying weather. $814,201.50 taxes raked in. Of course this number is incorrect- it is LOW, possibly only 50% of the actual figure, as many pilots do not just make 2 hour trips. But with all those flights, a lot of fuel is sold, and all of it taxed- and by my figures, that is $814,201.50 YOU do not need to pay.

Now lets look at our underpaid flight instructors, not to mention the other support staff & operations- mechanics, line boys, etc. and figure the instructor is making around $25,000 a year. Of that, about 25% goes to state and federal takes, and a good deal goes into rent, mortgage, and other housing payments in your township. Then there is the money spent in local businesses. And don\\\'t forget the money spent by the STUDENTS- those foreigners you already have admitted to being worried about, since you are prejudiced against them. They all bring money into your community.

Third- look at your community- 462,823 people(2008 info). About 333,232 of age to pay taxes. Lets say 25% don\\\'t own homes, or rent, where the tax money goes to the city. So249,924 taxpayers. And of those, another 10% are exempt for some reason. 224,931 people paying tax. So, eliminating that $814,201 would only be about $4 per person, per year. Nothing at all. But that was only for FUEL TAX. What about all the other taxes- generated revenue for your state and city generated by the airport. Sure- you are only complaining about the students- the rest of the airport is fine! You\\\'ll spend the $4.00! But what about the sales taxes, employment taxes, and other revenue they generate. I\\\'m sure it is only a few hundred dollars per person. And sure, the local stores can survive- they don\\\'t need foreigner\\\'s business. And flight instructors can go elsewhere(I think your tax base just shrunk a little- when the instructors left, and those businesses depending on their purchases failed) So your tax rates go up.

Oh, and I guess you never read of the history of \\\"your\\\" airport- and I quote from your own city web page:\\\"Originally opened in 1941 as a pilot training base for Royal Air Force pilots during World War II, Falcon Field Airport is committed to providing the public with a valuable air transportation resource that enhances the aeronautical industry for the community by maintaining a high level of safety and friendly professional service. \\\" The RAF was foreigners. And America, being the nice country we are, gave them a place to learn to fly to save their nation. And now we should throw those other evil foreigners out, so you can be a bigoted NIMBY. Grow up and quit crying. There is no danger from the so-called language issue: they have to know enough English to follow the tower\\\'s instructions when they are solo, which is not too long, and not early in the lesson. And there is an FAA Certificated flight instructor with them the rest of the time- And they definitely speak English! I love your use of \\\"Competing for space\\\" What a great battle cry. But false- the tower is controlling that.

Simple economics- Students leave, Taxes Increase. But THAT is what you want! To be ignorant, overtaxed bigots. Please send your student pilots here, to NJ- we can use the revenue & jobs! Especially in this economy!

By the way, Does the Yankee Air Force know you are illegally using the photo of their aircraft without permission, to promote an anti-aviation program? They will know soon- it has already been brought to their attention, I\\\'m sure!

I\\\'m also forwarding this website address to a few letter organizations, and informing them you are promoting anti-aviation bigotry...

Have a great day!
Scott

06/17/2009 @ 11:33 pm - Comment

Paul Krumrei
You should remove a copyrighted aircraft from your website as well. You moved next to an airport, you are more likely to die on the way to work than from an aircraft landing on your head in your own home.

Whoever built this website obviously has nothing better to do with themselves, why not build a website to help the homeless in America, or better yet, take donations and provide things to the troops. You people make me sick to my stomach.
06/17/2009 @ 11:16 pm - Comment

Frank Bonner
Get over your self involved, petty selves. You moved next to an airport, you signed a disclaimer in your mortgage documents that said you were buying a home near an airport and were subject to noise. Now you complain and hide behind some false safety cause. What a bunch of disgusting little people. Sell your home and move.
06/17/2009 @ 1:24 pm - Comment

Reggie Capitan
I'm an outsider who stumbled upon this web site.......am from Delaware.......seems that there are some very angry people here that are not that well infomed......I am a pilot and live right next to DAFB and the C-5's and C-17's take off and land at all hours of the day and night........You have never heard a loud plane until a C-5 takes off and is "heavy" and passes over your house at less than 1000'...........but you know what - I love it........it is the sound of freedom..........the summation of what I have to say is that we are a free capitalistic country...........if the airport grew and expanded that is what it was suppose to do.......I really don't care who is responsible for the growth but everything and every business is to continue to grow or it dies.......example see the current economy.......our growth stopped and our economy collapsed........can you imagine if every business had to wonder if the citizens were going to rally to stop their growth.........our entire system of freedoms would collapse.... even if the maps didn't show that there were flight paths over your area I think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that airports will grow and expand just as our towns, cities, government, population, housing and everything else in a free society grows and expands. Stopping this growth means a slow death for all of us.
06/17/2009 @ 12:05 pm - Comment

DJ Vegh
Keep Falcon Safe? ohhh geeez.... Typical fear mongering in order to accomplish an agenda.

Call it what it really is. it should be:

www.WeMovedIntoHousesThatWereBuiltLongAfterTheAirportWasHereAndNowWereWhinginAboutTheNoise.com
06/17/2009 @ 11:22 am - Comment

Robert Mustari
None of you have a logical leg to stand on. The airport was there LONG before any of you moved in next door. Didn't you wonder why your real estate sales person showed you the property after midnight? Sell your house to a deaf family if you don't like the noise.
06/16/2009 @ 2:58 pm - Comment

Falcon Field Pilot
I am a pilot who flies out of Falcon Field, and I can vouch for those who have complained about the congestion at the airport. I learned to fly at Falcon Field, and can attest to the fact that there is frequently a line of four or five aircraft idling in line for takeoff, with several more doing their preflight run-ups before joining that line. Many times, I have been told that the landing pattern is so full that I am third or even fourth in line for landing. This has become such a problem that my instructor and I would fly to another airport (such as Casa Grande, Phoenix Regional, or Eloy) to practice landings because of the congestion.

It seems that, much of the time, almost all of the planes flying are Sabena student pilots. Their numbers have caused a negative impact on the feel of our "hometown" airport.

To make a comparison of how busy Falcon Field really is, consider the following: Falcon Field is listed on the airnav.com website as having 739 operations per day (an "operation" is a takeoff or landing). On the same website, by comparison, John Wayne airport in southern California has 733; Tucson International has 687; Houston's Hobby airport has 644; Dallas Love Field has 634. These are government figures, not propaganda. Of note, none of these airports are in residential neighborhoods!

Regarding the safety of the Sabena pilots, they are known to fly very wide landing patterns, which given the low altitudes at which the landing pattern is flown, are supposed to be close to the runways, not as far as are commonly flown by the Sabena student pilots. The Federal Air Regulations (FAR 91.119(a)) "prohibit operating an aircraft below an altitude that, if a power unit failed, would not have allowed an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." The rule is also interpreted to mean that the DISTANCE from the airport at which the patterns are flown, are supposed to permit the pilot to land the plane at the airport in the event that power is lost. With this in mind, the hugely extended patterns flown by the Sabena students are, simply put, in violation of the Federal Air Regulations. During training, my instructor told me that the Sabena students are learning to fly the patterns as one would do in a big commercial jet (ie, Boeing 737, 747, Airbus, etc); nobody else at Falcon Field flies the landing patterns so large.

In my mind, since this is a public airport and there is no restriction on who can come and go there, the only sensible way to protect the neighbors from the airport, is to restrict HOW the airport is used.

In California, the Santa Monica airport is located in a residential area, and they have developed rules that govern airport operations to minimize the impact on the surrounding community

The following quotes are from the NOTAMS (Notices to Airmen) for the KSMO (Santa Monica) airport:

The following are the direct quotes, followed by plain English translations for non-pilots:

CURFEW: NO ENGINE STARTS OR DEPS EXPECT PPR LIFEGUARD FLTS 2300-0700 MON-FRI AND 2300-0800 WKENDS.

Curfew: No engine starts or departures (except for LifeFight helicopters) between 11pm and 7 am Mon-Fri and between 11pm and 8 am on weekends

NO TOUCH/GO, STOP/GO, OR LOW APCH PERMITTED ON SAT, SUN, HOLS; WEEKDAYS SS-0700

No "touch and goes" (landings with a brief touch on the runway followed by an immediate takeoff), "stop and goes" (landings followed by a full stop on the runway, then accelerate for takeoff), or "low approach" (flying the length of the runway as though landing, but not actually contacting the runway surface) permitted on Satuday, Sunday, or Holidays. Also not permitted on weekdays between Sunset and 7am.

- HEL FLT TRNG OPN PROHIBITED;

Helicopter flight training operations are prohibited.

- INTXN DEPS AND FORMATION LNDGS/DEPS PROHIBITED

Taking off from locations other than from the end of the runway, and also by formations (greater than one aircraft at a time) is prohibited.


RY 03/21 DEP END APPROX 220 FT FM RESIDENTIAL HOMES. EXTENDED HIGH POWER SETTINGS ON RUN-UP OR DEP NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE COMMUNITY

Runway 3-21 Departure end (the end at which the planes have just taken off) approximately 220 feet from residential homes. Extended high power settings on run-up (testing the engine before takeoff) or departure negatively impact the community.

These measures, if put in place at Falcon Field, would negatively impact the helicopter school at Falcon Field, the helicopter operation at Boeing, the Commemorative Air Force Museum, etc. Therefore, I would propose a "middle ground" that could limit the impact of the flight operations--but would probably make Falcon an undesirable location for a high volume flight school if similar night flight restrictions were enacted.

In addition, if the FAA tower at Falcon would actually start enforcing the FAR's and writing up students who violate the regulations on runway encroachments, flight pattern operations, English proficiency, etc, I believe much of the problem would be solved in a heartbeat.

And, if similar restrictions to those in place at Santa Monica were enacted (and ENFORCED), even more of the problem would be solved.

By the way, I consider the aviation lead pollution to be bogus--the amount of lead in question is truly tiny; and by using such an obviously weak argument to buttress your arguments, you call into question the veracity of all your other arguments as well. There are many good points addressed by this Citizen's Action Committee, but this one (trying to get Sabena to go away by citing the "lead poisoning" issue) makes all those other good arguments seem possibly tainted by half-truths and fear-mongering as well.

Keep up the good work!
06/09/2009 @ 7:28 pm - Comment

Al Gardner
Today I spent the day at the airport talking to mechanics and others since I have a major engine problem with my own airplane. Here are some of the comments that I heard about Sabena from these people. ----I questioned if they had done any work for Sabena? No! since they want it done yesterday and they push the maintenance to the limit on all their equipment and have no interest in spending money since the rumor is they are trying to sell the Company. They hire young inexperienced mechanics and every aircraft they fly is an accident waiting to happen with a history of mechanical problems every day. The Flight instructors they hire are simply Kids instructing Foreign Kids. The solo students who cannot speak English have no business in the air. The patterns these students fly do not resemble what they should be doing. Nobody can understand what they are saying.. Every one at Falcon is upset at how bad the situation is since Sabena arrived. No one wants to be in the air and nobody likes the long lines for takeoff or the inability to talk to the tower or the problems of entering the pattern. They say that Falcon was a country club before Sabena and they were all proud to be there and now they detest the whole situation.

Those are a few of the comments.

Al
06/04/2009 @ 12:39 pm - Comment

Marc Wells
"... dangers of the hideous Sabena Flight Academy."

So there it is, its not about jobs for local people working at Sabena or economic security in these troubled times, or the millions of dollars poured into the local economy, or the fact that Sabena has actually improved safety at Falcon Field by demanding the tower and other operators rise to FAA safety standards.

Its an emotional response to change. Sabena is the scapegoat for a bunch of idiots who bought houses in the vicinity of an airport thinking that you could whine Falcon Field into extinction.
05/26/2009 @ 6:09 am - Comment

Paul Knauth
Here is part of an e-mail I received from Mr. Jeffrey Tripp (Falcon Field Assistant Manager) in response to a noise complaint I filed last December.

"The airport’s recommended noise abatement practices requests that pilots try to fly between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. whenever possible to minimize noise impacts upon the community at night. The majority of flights at Falcon Field occur during daylight hours. If the daytime flights between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. are causing an on-going concern to you, at what times would you suggest as an alternative?"

This response shows what our group was up against when we started.

The City has been lax in protecting the health and safety of residents in northeast Mesa. Falcon Field is no the place for the biggest foreign flight school in North America. Please keep spreading the word. We are making significant progress and are determined to save our neighborhoods from the noise and dangers of the hideous Sabena Flight Academy.
05/24/2009 @ 1:47 pm - Comment

Bill Close
As I read these comments, it makes me mad that our city has done such poor planning in letting houses being built so close to Falcon Field. I have lived in Mesa for over 30 years and have noticed planes flying over places I have leaved at in those 30 years. These planes were flying out of Falcon field and Sky Harbor. I live at Stapley and Univeristy and can sometimes be bothered more by the jets landing at Sky Harbor.

I worry about the New planned neighborhood near William/ Gateway. When will those people start complaining about noise. I saw these when they were biulding the houses at Supersition Springs, and knew those houses were going to be a problem, and sure enough the complaints start roling in.

My real concern is what is a citizen commitee going to do. Is blanance with both Pro and Con opinions in this commitee. The city fathers have really screwed this one up, and have made this commitee and Mr. Wayne the scapegoats and the villians.
05/14/2009 @ 11:27 pm - Comment

Jonah Wilkens
Are you kidding me? You build your house next to an airport and then complain that you hear airplanes? Falcon Field has been training pilots (from Mesa and around the world) since world war two! I've lived near the airport for the last ten years and never experienced a noise increase. The traffic I notice most comes from the police department and medivac helicopters. If you can't handle the "noise", move.
05/13/2009 @ 10:46 am - Comment

Avis and Larry McEachen
We are so happy that some of you have taken the initiative to speak out against the tremendous roars that wake up the little one in our house more than once a week. Some of the planes are so loud and low that we can anticipate a crash into one of the homes in no time at all. When I retired and home during the day for the first time, I noticed the great numbers of flights overhead. That was a few years ago, and the noise and frequency has increased dramatically. Thank you so much for helping us stave off another "invasion" of test flights.
05/12/2009 @ 7:29 pm - Comment

Darshan Dawson
I am one of the "sensitives" who moved into a home close to Falcon Field. It was before the management at Falcon Field began its bid to become the #1 busiest GA airport in the nation and the premier foreign pilot training facility in the country. Prior to 2007, the noise from flights out of Falcon Field was a non issue.

That all changed when a commercial flight school was allowed to operate there. The noise in just one issue. Safety is the issue that should be of concern to everyone. According to the Pilots' Safety Association, pilot training is the most dangerous time for the students, in terms of having crashes,not to mention for us "sensitives" underneath those training flights. Sebena brings in 400 students every three months! Those statistics are frightening! Given the risk of training, the numbers of new students and the density of the population, statistically, it is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN one of these students will come down. In a 3 mile radius surrounding Falcon Field there are 23 schools, 77 places of worship, dozens of strip malls and at least 20,000 households. Where is the best place to crash your plane?
05/12/2009 @ 1:26 pm - Comment

Kirk Thompson
Legitimate safety concens I can support...making sure that the training and the tower procedures are as good as they can be for such a busy facility makes sense on any level. But otherwise, I have to agree with Bill - in principle if not in approach. I live in northwest Tempe about a mile and a half south of the flight path for Sky Harbor. I receive regular updates on "noise" complaints from watchdog groups, and I have no sympathy for THEM, either. If you buy a home next to a dairy, you don't get to cry over about the smell; if you buy a home on a golf course you don't get to complain about balls in your swimming pool; and if you buy a home next to an airport, you forfeit the right to whine about the noise. The airport was there long before the $400K homes were built in the middle of the orange groves. So suck it up people and quit trying to change to world so suit your delicate sensitivities.
05/12/2009 @ 7:32 am - Comment

Matt Miller
A couple points of clarification from a long-time user of the airport:
1) Sabena is not owned by Belgians, they are now separate from the Euro facility which contracts them. Ownership is CAE, a huge training and simulator company.

2) The recent increase isn't mostly from Europeans (flying Piper aircraft), it's Indian & Chinese contracts using Diamond aircraft.

3) Virtually all it's personnel are local CITIZENS.

4) Sabena wasn't kicked out of Scottsdale, they moved here to take up a facility that was already built in the hope of attracting business, under the specific terms & guidance of the City of Mesa, which rejected several other airport development projects in favor of this.

5) As soon as the FAA gets off their butt and approves a non-leaded fuel alternative (currently under review), we pilots won't need much prodding to switch. Until then, we're all breathing what's released into the air from all over the valley, not just within a few miles.

05/11/2009 @ 5:07 pm - Comment

Richard Cutter
Greetings all... Pro and Con.

I took my flight training in Tucson in the 1960's. The Intl. Airport is south of the city and the city fathers were not concerned for awhile until developments were built just off the end of the main runway, including an elementary school 1/4 mile from the runway and just a few hundred feet to the side of the runway. By the seventy's they relocated the school and restricted the rest of the land around the airport to commercial development. Purchased land off the end of the runways to reduce the impact of the airport. This worked out well.. ALSO the city developed a old training base west of the main airport , Ryan Field as a reliever airport ( In the 60's it was in operation but few aircraft were stationed there ) Ryan Field now now handles ( I am guessing at this ) over 80% of small airplane traffic into and out of Tucson. It has worked there. Albuquerque has done the same outside of their developed city areas. Both towns have restricted housing from the areas around these airports. They were looking ahead and planned for it.

Sounds like no such plans were done for your area. So where does it go from here? Lets get together the Pro-Con people that desire to be sensible and plan for an "Out-Of-The-Way" reliever and training airport on some of the hundreds of thousands of acres the state of fed's own south of Phoenix and build a new facility. restrict housing developments around - 5 miles at least - the new airport. This will satisfy most - except for the tree huggers who will complain about killing some lizard -
Reality and planning must take over out thoughts, not complaining. With a unified approach this can happen. It may take awhile but it can be accomplished.


As to leaded gas, my plane can run without it and runs far better. BUT the fed and state governments have required alcohol to be added to the un-leaded car fuel I was using and that will not work in aircraft engines. I spit out lead not because I desire to but was mandated by the feds and state governments. Allow us easy access to clean burning additive free unleaded and that will work well in 80% of small aircraft. I breathe the same air you do and my kids played in the same Arizona dirt your kids do... There is research being done on lead free aviation fuel, write your representatives both state and federal and ask ( not complain ) for action.... Or at the least have then do something to make UnLeaded Auto fuel available at most airports. This will move most aircraft into a cleaner fuel.

Thanks for listening and I hope both sides win and Falcon Field returns back to the nice quiet fun field it was in the 60's.

An Arizonian now living in Colorado ( eat your heart out )
05/11/2009 @ 2:59 pm - Comment

bill dunlap
another showing of how ignorant, self absorbed, idiotic, and down right stupid some people are.
buying overpriced housing near a 70 year old airport.
Someone should check the IQ of every one of these people to make sure they are able to make decisions that effect the rest of us. because right now, I would be afraid to drive around that area due to moron crossing at every intersection.
This will cost the people with IQ's about 34 to pay more in taxes to pay for the lawyers to shut the stupid that started this web site down.
05/11/2009 @ 2:35 pm - Comment

Kevin Recker
I have been coming to Falcon Field for over 40 years and currently fly and train there, I also live directly under the flight path (Groves North.) I have issues with Sabeena but ALSO have issues with the tower clearing the old military aircraft down the runway for high speed low passes (with gear up.) I love old military aircraft, but the Tower HAS got to stop approving those runs! Those are the times where my whole house shakes. I think the new Pattern Altitutde is better and my flight school has posted a number of notices on noise abatement. They are all good. Stop the late night Sabeena flights and do not approve single or tandem go-rounds unless in an emergency and I will consider this progress. Thanks.
05/11/2009 @ 2:00 pm - Comment

Basil Bedford
Quote : "Our wonderful Falcon Field has been turned into a junk airport devoted entirely to training foreign pilots that go on to support foreign businesses that compete with American businesses."

So if it was a American airline training their new pilots, then you would not have a problem then ?

B.
05/11/2009 @ 12:49 pm - Comment

Matthew North
Hey Terri, first of all it seemed like I might have offended you, sorry you took it that way. Second, I never new who Sabena was until I read the paper, I hardly even read the paper anymore because all I hear is a bunch of whiners and media propaganda from left wingers. I don't care who flys in or out of Falcon Field or who pays what, IT'S AN AIRPORT. In response to comparing emergency personal to airplanes and the noise they make, what about the police helicopter that flys in and out of their ? That helicopter makes more noise, flys closer to your homes, and shines its bright spotlight down everywhere all night every night. So what!! This is life, quit your useless whining and grow up. I have to constanly tell my children,just because an adult is older and bigger than you, does not mean they don't still act immature and fight over the most ridiculous things. Play with fire, you get burned, jump in a pool, you get wet, 2+2=4, live next to an airport, expect planes to fly over your house.
05/10/2009 @ 1:00 pm - Comment

Retake Falcon Field Alarm
OK, tell us Robert and James, how big is the area around Falcon Field in which no one should complain? One mile out? Two, three, ....15? TELL US. Do you realize how far out these students are doing their beginner flights? Must all of northeast Mesa be sacrificed to noise, lead pollution, and dangerous beginner flights for a Belgian business enterprise? Sabena is flying up to 9 planes in a pattern (proof available in spite of what the lying Belgian Jean-Pierre Van den Berghe told the Tribune) and the training goes on up to 16 hours a day.


Our wonderful Falcon Field has been turned into a junk airport devoted entirely to training foreign pilots that go on to support foreign businesses that compete with American businesses. It is not training pilots to fight Hitler, so stop talking about how it started. Our federal tax dollars supporting the Tower are now used almost exclusively to train pilots for foreign companies. Make Sabena pay the tower costs and see how long they will enjoy their new playground!!! They have displaced legitimate businesses and got Falcon Field for chump change. Hopefully, the City will move soon to change that. Mesa's citizens should not subsidize this offensive enterprise and its lying general manager.

Also, take a look at the Falcon Field pattern map that Arizona law requires Airports to disclose. Do it before you comment again. It is on the Falcon Field web site. Note there is NO south pattern. This is the map a realtor is required by state law to show. Then, apologize to Terri.

Also, would you tell us if you are personally profiting from Sabena's activities? We really want to know. We are just citizens concerned about our families' safety. What is your motivation for supporting this Belgian flight school?

05/10/2009 @ 9:02 am - Comment

James Raynovic
I find it hard to believe that anyone who buys property near an airport expect not to hear aircraft taking and landing. Falcon Field has a rich history of training pilots since WWII. The flight school at Sabina brings in students from around the world. Boeing and MD helicopters came to Mesa because of Falcon Field. Only a MORON would move next to an airport, and then whine about the noise.
05/09/2009 @ 7:58 pm - Comment

Robert Oakley
In regards to noise complaints.
If you moved to an area around the airport before it was built, you have a right to complain.
If you moved to the area after the airport was built, you need to complain to your Realtor, not the city.
05/09/2009 @ 7:11 pm - Comment

Terri Eisenhauer
According to Matthew North, any views that oppose his own are pointless and shouldn’t be made public (Tribune, Saturday May 9th.) However, It was OK for the Tribune to do a full, front-page ad and full-page story last Saturday, May 2nd, because those views more closely expressed his own.

North states Mesa needs Falcon Field because it makes money (for Mesa.) Does he realize that in recent months, 4 new businesses that were considering locating in Mesa because of the nearby airport have now decided NOT to locate here because Sabena monopolizes Falcon Field’s facilities? This means that 4 new businesses that would have provided jobs and economic activity in Mesa will not be providing those jobs and economic benefits. How many others that we haven’t heard about have opted out because of Sabena?

If he, like others, want to crow about the economic benefit that Sabena provides to Mesa’s economy, then require Mesa to hire an independent study and PROVE IT. Don’t just accept Sabena’s over-inflated numbers they’ve given to our airport director. It is outrageous the City of Mesa allows the unsubstantiated numbers and unsubstantiated and over-inflated economic benefit to be reported under the city’s name.

North goes on to relate the same old argument as other Sabena supporters; Falcon Field has been there longer, and since we moved next to an airport--we should just deal with it--or move. He uses the analogy that Falcon Field is as important to us as city emergency services, such as police and fire. Give us a break. Falcon Field is as far as from being an emergency protector of the city’s residents as you can get.

North, like other Sabena supporters, resorts to name calling and insults. In reality, those descriptions more aptly apply to him and to Falcon Field’s business leaders who stand firmly behind Sabena—you know, the few who are directly profiting from Sabena’s business—the very ones who are incapable of reasoned analysis of the issues at stake.

Was it stupid and idiotic for the thousands of the residents surrounding Falcon Field to trust our city officials and employees? If it was a mistake, it can be rectified.

05/09/2009 @ 6:38 pm - Comment

T. Richard McKinney
First, I'd like to give my support to all the comments that point out the idiocy of people who purchase a home next to a airport and then expect everyone to
acquiesce to their sudden/new found sensitivity to airport activity, of whatever nature or expected that the airport would forever remain as it was the day they bought their home. (Note to Terri Eisenhauer: you have no credibility unless you can produce the contract signed by you, City of Mesa Officals and Falcon Field operators that guarantees that nothing will ever change at Falcon Field from the date you bought your home and going forward.)

It's especially disconcerting that the leader of this nonsense, Dave Wayne, who
spent almost all of his working years accumalating his wealth so he could build
his McMansion next to an airport and at the same time expect everyone to ignore
the fact that he made a career of flying in and out of airports creating the very noise and air pollution, probably for hundred of thousands of people, he now finds so annoying.


05/09/2009 @ 4:53 pm - Comment