Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines to add 400‑foot climb note to directory after debate on enforcement and jurisdiction
Summary
A proposed note in the airport directory asking pilots to maintain runway heading to 400 feet above ground level before turning for noise abatement failed after board members raised enforcement and jurisdiction concerns.
Get email alerts on the Noise Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members debated a proposal to request that pilots maintain runway heading to 400 feet above ground level (AGL) before turning, intended as a noise‑abatement and safety practice for Canyon Ferry Airport. Two motions on the issue failed during the meeting.
A board member proposed placing a note in the Airport/Facility Directory and erecting a sign advising "maintain runway heading to 400 AGL before turning." Supporters cited several observed low, steep turns over nearby residential areas and suggested a 400‑foot minimum as a compromise between safety and practicality. "We're trying to keep an airport there, and we want the community to go along with that... show some respect and ask the pilots to maintain... 400 feet above ground before they do the tear downs for noise abatement," one board member said.
Opponents raised legal and enforcement concerns. Several members argued the county lacks authority to enforce federal flight rules and that the pilot in command retains final authority under Part 91 operations. One board member said the county would have no practical means to measure or enforce the 400‑foot threshold and warned of a "slippery slope" toward trying to regulate pilot operations.
The initial motion (note and sign to maintain runway heading to 400 AGL) failed on the first vote; an amended motion adding an explicit "for noise abatement" purpose also failed. Board members encouraged residents with ongoing complaints to document incidents (e.g., tail numbers or photos) and bring them to the board or to the FAA as appropriate.
No directory entry or sign was approved; the board asked staff to route complaints through the board for record and to forward safety concerns to the FAA where jurisdiction applies.

