FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
llondel
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:17 am
Location: San Jose

FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

#1 Post by llondel » Thu Feb 24, 2022 5:22 am

It appears that our local airport, Reid-Hillview (RHV) is the subject of complaints to the FAA by tenants and pilots regarding the airport owner, Santa Clara County. Letters have been exchanged on the matter, which are reproduced in our local Farcebook group. It should be visible to everyone, if people care to venture there.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/alumroc ... 279633875/

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

#2 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:07 am

llondel wrote:
Thu Feb 24, 2022 5:22 am
It appears that our local airport, Reid-Hillview (RHV) is the subject of complaints to the FAA by tenants and pilots regarding the airport owner, Santa Clara County. Letters have been exchanged on the matter, which are reproduced in our local Farcebook group. It should be visible to everyone, if people care to venture there.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/alumroc ... 279633875/
Heartless swine, shutting down the Little Leaguers! ;)))

Are they looking at the real estate value of the airport and looking to wreck the businesses there, claiming things like violation of contract due illegal subletting etc., with a view to selling parts, or all of the land off, for a quick profit, or have I missed the point? What is their nefarious purpose?
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
llondel
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:17 am
Location: San Jose

Re: FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

#3 Post by llondel » Thu Feb 24, 2022 6:35 pm

The county want to close the airport, presumably because they see $$$ available fro the development process. No thought given to the impact on traffic in the area if they did develop it, and no thought given to the fact that when there are wildfires around, that's where the aircraft refuel/reload. Their line is that the aircraft could go down to Morgan Hill for that, but if you're adding 20 minutes to each drop due to flying the extra distance, you get a lot fewer drops. They recently turned down the latest FAA grant on the grounds that such grants come with obligations to keep the airport in operating condition, current obligations extend to 2031 and accepting another grant would push that date out further.

They seem to be concerned that the ground is contaminated with lead, which is the reason given for evicting the Little League, but if that's the case then the land is definitely unsuitable for a housing development, where the residents would be exposed to the contamination for way more than a few hours a week.

I'm on the FAA's side here, I want them to keep the airport open.

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

#4 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Thu Feb 24, 2022 7:01 pm

llondel wrote:
Thu Feb 24, 2022 6:35 pm
The county want to close the airport, presumably because they see $$$ available fro the development process. No thought given to the impact on traffic in the area if they did develop it, and no thought given to the fact that when there are wildfires around, that's where the aircraft refuel/reload. Their line is that the aircraft could go down to Morgan Hill for that, but if you're adding 20 minutes to each drop due to flying the extra distance, you get a lot fewer drops. They recently turned down the latest FAA grant on the grounds that such grants come with obligations to keep the airport in operating condition, current obligations extend to 2031 and accepting another grant would push that date out further.

They seem to be concerned that the ground is contaminated with lead, which is the reason given for evicting the Little League, but if that's the case then the land is definitely unsuitable for a housing development, where the residents would be exposed to the contamination for way more than a few hours a week.

I'm on the FAA's side here, I want them to keep the airport open.
Greed uber alles! Much the same here as you know!
I'm on the FAA's side here, I want them to keep the airport open.
Good for you.

+1
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
G~Man
Capt
Capt
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:16 pm
Location: California on a fire or a sailboat somewhere.
Gender:
Age: 60

Re: FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

#5 Post by G~Man » Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:04 pm

Did not know they used the airport as a tanker base. For helicopters I have used the old airstrip to the East one time, but we are typically self sufficient and do not need airports.

I did work with Amelia Reid, (Of Reid-Hillview Airport), back in 1997---I was the "Airboss" for the Concord "Wings & Things" airshow and she was one of the performers. The highlight of her show in a Cessna 150 Acrobat I believe it was, she would fly down the crowd line, inverted, with the engine cutout, (as it was gravity fed), she would roll back upright near the end of the line and you would hear the engine splutter back to life.

Amelia Reid
B-) Life may not be the party you hoped for, but while you're here, you may as well dance. B-)

User avatar
llondel
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:17 am
Location: San Jose

Re: FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

#6 Post by llondel » Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:47 pm

G~Man wrote:
Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:04 pm
Did not know they used the airport as a tanker base. For helicopters I have used the old airstrip to the East one time, but we are typically self sufficient and do not need airports.
There were significant reloads there when we had the fire up the hill. I'm assuming that after taking off from the airport with a full load, the helicopters took a more gentle route up to the top of the hill, but having dropped, the straight line back to RHV was straight over the top of our house. I got a few pictures of the Chinook as it thundered over. I don't know if they were refuelling there, but I think the fire retardent was replenished.
DSC_1695.JPG

User avatar
G~Man
Capt
Capt
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:16 pm
Location: California on a fire or a sailboat somewhere.
Gender:
Age: 60

Re: FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

#7 Post by G~Man » Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:37 pm

llondel wrote:
Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:47 pm
I don't know if they were refuelling there, but I think the fire retardent was replenished.
The chinooks, (that one looks like either Billings Flying Service or Coulson, would have come in for fuel as their trucks are too large to go off road. All the type 2 and 3 helicopters would use a forward base or field.
B-) Life may not be the party you hoped for, but while you're here, you may as well dance. B-)

User avatar
llondel
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:17 am
Location: San Jose

Re: FAA Bunfight with Santa Clara County

#8 Post by llondel » Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:43 am

This is the other reasonable picture I managed to get.
DSC_1694.JPG
They were definitely picking something up there, because one of the car dealerships near the airfield was complaining that their cars were getting dirty as a result of the operations. All while people a few miles away were being evacuated due to the approaching wildfire.

The haze is due to all the smoke that was around at the time.

Post Reply