THE ORIGINAL PROMISES AND PERMIT

Tribal Air Communications -- known to McNeal as New Tribes -- trains missionary pilot/mechanics for flying and working in overseas areas where people still follow their original religion.

In 1991, New Tribes asked permission from the Cochise County supervisors to operate the old McNeal airport as a training facility for New Tribes pilots.
 Some McNeal residents, especially Tom and Florence Bohmfalk, who lived on the property next door for many years before New Tribes came around, were especially concerned about noise and property devaluation from a flying operation moving in.

On April 1, 1991, when Forest Estelle of New Tribes submitted a request for a Special Use permit, he wrote "we plan on doing all we can to be good neighbors and adjust our flight traffic pattern accordingly....  We plan ... to stay well above our nearest neighbor's property.  We plan to use the standard left hand traffic pattern when landing to the south and switching to a non-standard right hand pattern when landing to the north.  This will place the flight of aircraft over the east half of Section 13, and the open land north and south of the airport instead of flying over the village of McNeal."

On May 7, 1991, Judy Anderson (then a Planner II in the Planning Department, later head of the Department, and now retired)
prepared the Department's report to the county Supervisors.  Here's various information from the report:
    From p. 1:  "Landings and take-offs will be directed towards the east."
    From p. 5:  
"The applicant has provided the following information: ...

        "2.  Four single and twin engine small aircraft ... are proposed to be permanently headquartered on the site.
        "3.  Mr. Estelle estimates that these aircraft will each fly about six (6) flights per day Monday through Friday for a total of about 24 flights.  No other aircraft will use the field, except in emergencies or on occasions when Tribal Air maintains other aircraft owned and used by the corporation.  These planes would be permanently headquartered elsewhere.
        "4.  As depicted on the site plan, the aircraft flights will be directed away from McNeal townsite, to the north, south and east over an area that is currently sparsely inhabited.  To help minimize noise on the closest residence, planes will land and take off
1000 feet from the end of the runway, a total distance of 2000 feet from [the Bohmfalks'] residence.
        "5.  ... twenty-five (25) housing units are proposed for staff and pilot trainees....  Also proposed are two hangars, an aircraft parking shade, a grounds maintenance building, and a multi-purpose center ...."
    From p. 10:  " ... flights will take place during daylight hours only...."
    From pp. 14-15:  
"If the Board of Supervisors decides to approve this request the following conditions are recommended: ...
        "3.  Flights to occur between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
        "4.  Flight patterns to reflect patterns on approved plans, weather and traffic permitting."


Anderson's report recommended "DISAPPROVAL of this request" because "it does not appear to be in the best interest of the County to approve" the airport.  Her reasons included "This airfield appears to alter the rural character of the area without providing any services to the local community" and "The applicant has strived to minimize noise impacts on [the Bohmfalk home] by proposing the following:  the airplanes are proposed to take off and land about 2000 feet from this residence and not fly overhead, weather permitting; and flights will take place during daylight hours only.  Nonetheless, some aircraft noise, both from and ground in [sic] the air, will most probably be audible outside of the residence and within the residence when the windows are open."

However, Anderson's report added that "If the Board of Supervisors decides to approve this request the following conditions are recommended," including:
    "1.  The airfield be ... limited to four single or twin engine planes permanently headquartered on the parcel....
    "3.  Flights to occur between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
    "4.  Flight patterns to reflect patterns on approved plans, weather and traffic permitting."

The BOS considered the matter on May 20, 1991.  The next day, the Douglas Daily Dispatch reported that "Anderson said up to 10 flights a day were planned, but Forest Estelle, Tribal Air's vice chairman, said there might be as few as one a day" and "Estelle said 3-4 students a year would be at the strip [and] Tribal Air would make every effort to avoid flying over a neighboring home."

The BOS minutes conclude:  "Further discussion transpired regarding the airfield restrictions, number of flights, the hours and the summary and recommendations listed in [Anderson's report].  A motion was made by Supervisor English to approve Docket SU-91-06 subject to the modified conditions ....  The motion was unanimously carried."

The modified conditions included:
    -- Department item 1, a limitation to 4 planes, was changed to 6.  Department item 3, requiring flying between 8 am and 5 pm only, is not on the list.

    -- Department item 4 and modified item 3 both say "Flight patterns to reflect patterns on approved plans, weather and traffic permitting."  Since the memorandum says "As depicted on the site plan, the aircraft flights will be directed away from McNeal townsite, to the north, south and east," it appears that New Tribes got a permit for flights directed away from McNeal townsite, not toward it.
    -- Department item 5, requiring landscaping along the Bohmfalk property, is not on the New Tribes list.
    -- The remaining items are substantially unchanged.


The county files contain an acceptance, signed by New Tribes on May 31, 1991, of the conditions imposed by the Board.  This acceptance states in pertinent part:  "This approval was made subject to the approved plans and the following conditions: ...
    "3.  Flight patterns to reflect patterns on approved plans, weather and traffic permitting."


FROM APPROVAL TO MID-2007

New Tribes did not always live up to the conditions imposed in 1991.  In 1993, there was a complaint about New Tribes planes flying over the McNeal school.  New Tribes stopped that practice.  In 1995, New Tribes attempted to add a fire station right next to the Bohmfalks' property, but gave up that effort after intense opposition.  From then until 2007, New Tribes apparently operated with the permit it had been granted.

But in 2007, New Tribes began flying planes directly toward, over, and around McNeal, sometimes very low, often ten or more times per hour, five or six hours at a time.
 One plane would typically make several hours of nonstop takeoffs and landings, 10 to 20 repetitions, perhaps more.

Morning flights typically started at 7:30 a.m., and afternoon flights often picked up at 5 p.m.  There was no peace and quiet for early breakfasts, nor any relaxing right after work.

Flights didn't avoid McNeal.  Instead of landing from the east, and turning east after taking off, flights often land from the west and turn west after takeoff, so that McNeal gets airplane noise from all directions.

Helicopter flights began, with their noise extra hard on the Bohmfalks, because the copter pad was so near their home.

The airport held more than the four planes allowed.  It held four planes under a shed roof out in the open, but an enclosed hangar held three or four more, plus the helicopte
r.

New Tribes was not being a good neighbor, as promised.


On May 22, 2007, I emailed them a friendly reminder about their promise, and posted a discussion of the problem on the net.  I chose to do that instead of complaining to the Department.


THE INITIAL NEW TRIBES RESPONSE

New Tribes made no response for nine days after May 22.

Then on May 31, New Tribes's Tim Sanford phoned.  Our discussion was amicable, and we
set up a meeting with New Tribes for June 28, 2007.  The meeting lasted 2 1/2 hours.

On my way to the meeting, a New Tribes plane made repeated passes just north of McNeal.  I brought this up first thing at the meeting, yet New Tribes denied that the flights existed.  Why New Tribes would deny what I had just seen remains a mystery to me.

During the meeting, New Tribes acknowledged that some flights did fly toward, around, and over McNeal.  
New Tribes argued that the language restricting "Flight patterns to reflect patterns on approved plans, weather and traffic permitting" allows variations from approved plans in a breeze as low as 2 miles per hour.  By that argument, New Tribes could fly any patterns it wanted, as long as the air wasn't absolutely still.

That argument would, of course, nullify the conditions that the county had imposed and New Tribes had appeared to agree to.  That argument makes it hard to believe that New Tribes was acting in good faith.


New Tribes also said that some flights use a runway that's not even shown on the map of flight plans approved back in 1991.
 Here's the map:



New Tribes said it uses an east-west runway, which isn't on the map at all.  I said that the New Tribes permit didn't allow flights from a runway that the permit didn't cover.

The management said New Tribes can do anything the permit doesn't forbid.  That argument contradicts the notorious Section 307 of the county zoning code, which says that whatever isn't specifically permitted, is forbidden.  But New Tribes shows no sign of believing that the laws which apply to the rest of us, also apply to it.

New Tribes's permit as a "private airport" let it headquarter up to 6 planes.  With typically only two or three students, it's not clear why New Tribes needed more than 6 planes.  Nor was New Tribes a public airport, yet it let a rancher use its hangar to store his plane.

New Tribes's permit allowed 6 flights per day for each of 6 planes -- 36 flights a day.  But actually, New Tribes often had "takeoff, land, and repeat" flights for 5 or 6 hours, about 10 or 12 times per hour -- 50 to 72 flights -- then resumed the flights in the afternoon, so New Tribes often flew double or triple the permitted flights per day.

The county permit let New Tribes permanently house one- and two-engine airplanes; back in 1991, the applicant named two specific kinds of Cessna airplane.  But New Tribes, by 2007, housed a helicopter.  New Tribes actually claimed that its permit allowed helicopters because, under the permit, copters were the same as single-engine planes.  Not so.  Copters are loud, choppy, booming, pounding -- much more intrusive than airplanes.  The New Tribes copters make life miserable for the Bohmfalks.  New Tribes told me during the meeting that the helicopter should be gone to its country of destination by Fall, and its pilots would leave before then.

During the meeting, I told New Tribes that based on the meeting, I would update the website.  I offered to post any comments by them.  Before updating the website,
I sent New Tribes a draft of the update, and asked if they had any comments or suggestions.

On July 10, New Tribes answered in an email stating "I guess the bottom line is that we view some of those things differently. While I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to critique them or respond back, I don't think that we would desire to do so at this time."  In short -- nothing of substance:  no admission of the facts, just an implication that facts may disappear if looked at right; and no response to the facts or law, just an implication of more delay.

The next day, I replied
"I don't know that 'we view some of those things differently' is going to be a very satisfactory response for anybody as to factual matters such as the conditions placed on the permit -- conditions such as using the runways on the map submitted to the county, and allowing airplanes but not helicopters.  I'll still wait till Wednesday to let you address any of the facts upon which I'm relying."

Later that day, New Tribes responded that their July 10 email was "not intended for publication but rather an attempt at nicely saying that while we don't agree with your assertions, neither did I want to get into a debate regarding the issues nor the fine tuning of those issues. I didn't want to come across as saying what you should or shouldn't put in your website and didn't know how to decline the opportunity to give our views. Sorry about that. Having said that, I do want you to know that we have been discussing your concerns and considering what we can do."

If New Tribes didn't want to "get into a debate regarding the issues," I don't know why they wanted to meet with me at all.  Did they think they could sweet-talk their permit violations out of existence?

And as to New Tribes "considering what we can do," all it had to do was start obeying the law.  But New Tribes had a different plan.


AFTER THE JUNE 2007 MEETING

New Tribes flights got better for a few months.  Then they got worse again -- but not as bad as they were before.

In public, New Tribes pilots did things totally out of place in a populated area. One plane made several dozen deadstick-glide landings that cleared the utility wires on the south edge of Davis Road by only 15-20'.  Flying like that endangers the utilities and the public.

But such public antics were merely a distraction from what New Tribes was preparing behind the scenes.  Despite its sweet talk in our meeting, New Tribes apparently wasn't concerned about its neighbors, and even less with me.  New Tribes went to the county and asked to expand its permit to allow more planes and a helicopter -- in other words, to do part of what it had been doing for some time, in violation of its permit.
The Planning & Zoning Commission heard New Tribes's application on January 9, 2008.

The Bohmfalks submitted a written statement:

"We are unable to attend this hearing due to physical infirmiti
es....
"It is unlikely that we would have attended the hearing in any event.  We do not choose to be publicly humiliated for a second time by NTM.  It has been our experience that NTM feels it is bigger and more powerful than mere individuals and can and will push for its goals similar to a bully in a schoolyard.  The [1991] hearing ... was a total farce and a waste of time.  The outcome had already been decided, as one of your staff members will surely remember. Ms. Judy Anderson ... was subjected to catcalls and sarcastic remarks regarding her presentation by NTM people who were stacked in the audience.  There was no attempt on the part of the Board to stop the behavior, which was totally uncalled for and should not have been allowed.  It was unthinkable that the Board Chairperson would expect one of its own employees to endure such treatment.  She was only doing her job and had done it very well.

"It is our feeling that this present request for modification is only being done to give NTM the appearance of legality.  It has had the extra planes and helicopters on its grounds and flying for at least the last six months. They do not restrict their flying patterns to eastward from their runways.  They consistently fly westward over McNeal and the Elementary School located there. They take off open throttle to the south on their westernmost runway several times a day in a typical touch and go pattern. sometimes making an incredible roaring noise.  It is possible for them to take off without making so much noise; on rare occasions they do it.  The helicopters create much more noise by their nature and cause ground reverberation.... When NTM is actively flying planes, the noise is sufficient that we cannot converse with visitors on our back porch.
"... NTM has a history of forgetting its promises and flaunting its ability to do whatever it pleass whenever the mood strikes.  We have experienced buzzing of our house on an average of once a week.  There always seems to be a hot dog student who gets a high from doing something he/she shouldn't, and after the deed is done what can be said?  If we complain, a gopher appears at our door, hat in hand, says we're sorry.  This gets old.
"We have a vehement opposition to the possibility of helicopters being allowed at all.  Mr. Bohmfalk experienced more than one dangerous situation while serving in Vietnam which involved last minute rescues by helicopter and these situations do not fade easily from memory.  Low flying helicopters bring such memories to the forefront once more.  In addition they are much more noisy than fixed wing planes, as we have previously noted.  We have difficulty understanding the need for them.  We have had to tolerate the fixed wings for 16 years.  Why do they need more? At the first hearing it was stated that it was primarily a teaching facility; the planes were secondary....
"... Before the first hearing one of NTM's representatives told us of its intent.  We stated our opposition at that time and his response was that it didnt matter, it was a done deal and anyway the only others who could complain were in the cemetery, and 'They aren't going to say anything are they?'  Everyone connected with this organization has had that attitude from the outset.  They will read their audience and will say what that particular group wants to hear...."

I also made a statement opposing a broader permit. My overall basis was that New Tribes habitually violates the promises it made, and the permit it got, back in 1991. There were several specific reasons for my opposition:
The area around McNeal is mostly residential. Having an airport close to residences is risky. The more planes you add, the more likely an accident could occur which could wipe out a residence or even the school.
Copters are risky. New Tribes copters are especially risky. On November 23, 2007, a New Tribes pilot in New Guinea crashed and destroyed his copter (he survived fine). He was flying with a fuel drum dangling below the copter from a cable, but he said the crash just happened "somehow." If a fully trained New Tribes pilot doesn't understand the risk of a cable swinging, with a heavy weight at its end, near a metal rod protruding from the copter, and unbalancing the copter until it crashes, then why should New Tribes trainees be taught inadequate skills near a residential area?
(There was another New Tribes incident on March 31, 2008. A New Tribes plane crashed in Bolivia, after the plane lost power while landing.
With two crashes of trained New Tribes pilots over a four month stretch, New Tribes planes must be especially risky.)
New Tribes did not adhere to the restrictions set in 1991. New Tribes is supposed to take off and land toward the east, north, and south, not toward McNeal. However, we often see them flying low directly over McNeal, and have heard that they fly over Elfrida.
The Bohmfalks had to live with airplanes flying over their property for 17 years. They shouldn't have to live with even more noise, especially copters. New Tribes even intends to add jet copters, which are louder than internal combustion machines.
The other county airports that New Tribes shunned in 1991 are still open and available to them. New Tribes established its airport to train a few pilots to fly into remote areas. They did not apply to be a local airport for commuters or for ranchers to park their airplanes.

For the hearing, New Tribes had 17 letters "for," and 6 letters against. Most of the support was from New Tribes employees and families. No Commissioner mentioned the possibility that people with New Tribes might tend to overlook its permit violations.

A new subject came up at the hearing. I asked about making New Tribes planes' identifying numbers more legible, and New Tribes treated the matter as a joke, by saying that you could tell which planes belonged to New Tribes -- they're the ones without numbers. New Tribes's little joke was enjoyed by al -- and the matter was dropped. So it remains impossible, in practice, to identify a particular New Tribes plane which is flying unsafely or illegally.

New Tribes got its expanded permit.


CONTINUING BAD CONDUCT SINCE GETTING AN EXPANDED PERMIT

Almost immediately, New Tribes began violating its expanded permit. On January 16, 2008, I emailed to Department employee Mike Turisk: "This morning, generally around 8 to 9 am, a New Tribes plane was taking off right towards McNeal, due west from the airport. I believe that violates a condition in the expanded permit. If it does not, please explain to me why it doesn't." Mr. Turisk emailed back: "In order for your complaint to be considered as official, you must fill out a complaint form" found at a specific URL.

It takes a lot to get me to complain to the county about anything. I went to the private meeting in June 2007 precisely in order to avoid getting the county involved. So I never followed up on my January complaint.

On February 6, I emailed New Tribes at 11:38 a.m.: "about 3 minutes ago, a helicopter flew [from the] west and landed at New Tribes. One of yours; and in your opinion, is such a flight allowed by your expanded permit?" After flying from the west directly over Davis Road, the copter dropped out of sight below the trees and appeared to land at New Tribes. New Tribes answered the next day that this was a "gyro-copter owned by a pilot from Bisbee. This was NOT our aircraft nor our pilot.... we will [try] and ask him to avoid flying near McNeal."

New Tribes did not address the issue of the pilot's landing at this private airport, which is not licensed to serve non-New Tribes planes.

On April 8, New Tribes conducted normal operations -- except that April 8 was a Saturday, and New Tribes's permit does not allow Saturday operations.

Such illegal flights have continued on and off. I don't live close enough to the airport to catch them all, nor do I log every one I catch. The Bohmfalks do live close enough to the airport to catch them all, but neither do they log every one they catch. You see, this is not a vendetta against New Tribes, with neighbors logging every minor violation; we complain only when New Tribes's string of violations again becomes insufferable.

The latest example: on August 4, a New Tribes plane took off, turned west, and flew directly over McNeal. There was no wind to speak of, the sky was clear, and the air was humid and dense -- meaning, there was lots of lift. In other words, no need to fly that pattern.

At 10:53 a.m. on August 4, I emailed New Tribes asking if that pilot had "some strong reason for directly violating the terms of NTM's permit, or was he a renegade who should be denied flying privileges by NTM because he knew the terms & violated them?"

New Tribes did not answer, so on August 6, a couple of days later, I posted the entire note on the internet, and sent copies of the posting to New Tribes and to its national organization. Getting the national organization involved is what preceded New Tribes calling me, back in 2007.

On August 7, The day after my posting, I got a call from New Tribes. They wanted to talk. This was, again, continuing the same course that New Tribes took in 2007. I, not wanting to receive a repeat of the "great greasing of 2007," emailed back that I'd rather have the information by mail.

About noon on August 8, New Tribes answered that "As much as you like to e-mail, I prefer to talk. I find that questions can be answered best that way and that the sterility of the written word can sometimes miscommunicate.... Regarding the flight on Monday ... it was not an NTMA aircraft. We have posted, as per county instructions, several signs that ask pilots to avoid McNeal and we also seek to verbally remind anyone who would come to visit our facilities. I will be glad to personally remind the pilot of that if and when I see him again."

Just shy of 3 hours later, I emailed back
"... I feel just as strongly in favor of email over an oral conversation.  This really isn't a social matter, & what you call 'the sterility of the written word' is my goal here.  I have no reason to contest that you are telling your pilots not to do what this guy did; but since you've already warned him, & he did it anyway, I don't think that another oral reminder 'if and when' you see him again is good enough.  I'd like his name and the plane's registration #, so that I can take the matter to the FAA.  I don't really think it's appropriate for you to shield this pilot from the consequences of his violating the ordinance.  So, if you would, please, send me his name and the plane #, & I'll take it from there...."

About 11 a.m. on August 12, New Tribes emailed back
"I did get to talk to the individual about what happened. He felt bad about that and said that he remembered but by then it was too late. So at least he is trying to comply. Mike, you mention wanting his information so that you can handle it yourself. If I am understanding you correctly, it might be good for you to know that everything that he did was legal in the eyes of the FAA. When takeoffs and landings bring a plane over a town or house, it is allowed to go below the normal altitude restrictions. So the FAA would view this complaint as a frivolous one. The restriction is something that NTMA has agreed to with the county and agreed to ask others to do the same. We have done so and will continue to do so. The
pilot could actually complain to the FAA that you are harassing him since he is legal. So this is just for your consideration as to what you want to do."

The reader will note that this incident was the second time in 2008 that New Tribes was caught letting its airport be used as a public airport, instead of only for teaching purposes. Each time, New Tribes shielded the individual involved. And this time, in August, New Tribes appeared to be threatening me with dire legal consequences if I followed up a complaint, and let the FAA do its job.

My answer, emailed at 5:04 p.m. on August 12, was "
Thanks for the input .... However, I reckon I can handle my own legal risks.  If this pilot wants to argue that it's frivolous for me to complain about his violating the terms that the airport agreed to, he can.  Will you please give me his name, and the plane #, so that I can complain, to the county and/or the FAA, as needed?  Since you already have that information, I figure that your emailing it by 5 pm tomorrow, Wednesday, August 13, is appropriate.  If you won't, you'll be in a very odd position legally yourself -- holding NTMA above the law, and protecting people who violate the permit that was issued to you.  Thank you for your anticipated cooperation."

The "anticipated cooperation" hasn't happened. New Tribes hasn't answered.


WHAT TO DO NOW?

Evidently New Tribes, despite its honeyed words when pilots are caught violating its permit, is going to shield the pilots from any actual consequences. It's hard to know how to deal with an organization that holds itself above the law.

One idea is publicity. When New Tribes lets pilots act badly, publicize it. New Tribes likes to present itself as an organization concerned with people; that image won't last long if New Tribes is revealed as an organization which pretends concern for the distant people whose lives it disrupts, yet treats its real-life neighbors with contempt.

Any more ideas?