Model Airfield—How Much Longer?

Since the fall of 1975, the MG Dietikon has operated its official model airfield in Falrüti, located within the municipal boundaries of Spreitenbach, AG, with the approval of the local municipal council and under a lease agreement with the landowner. This area, located on the left bank of the Limmat River, borders the southern outskirts of the municipality of Oetwil.

Shortly after flight operations began, the municipality of Oetwil attempted, through the Spreitenbach municipal council, to halt the operation of models with internal combustion engines. This effort was unsuccessful, as following test flights accompanied by measurements and observations in Oetwil, the Spreitenbach Environmental Protection Commission deemed the noise to be negligible and upheld our activities.

The municipality of Oetwil, as the landowner—which is a prerequisite—then sued MG Dietikon for violation of personal rights and neighbors’ rights before the justice of the peace in Geroldswil (the chairman’s place of residence). Since no agreement could be reached at this level, the municipality of Oetwil appealed the case to the Zurich District Court.

The first hearing before the district court on April 25, 1978, went in our favor, as the court rejected Oetwil’s request for an immediate ban on flights using internal combustion engines.

At the second hearing, however, which took place on September 21, 1978, and included demonstration flights over the airfield and in Oetwil, the court deemed the noise in the village itself to be non-disturbing, but considered it highly disruptive along the banks of the Limmat—where there are allotment gardens, a tennis court, and a hiking trail. In reaching this assessment, the court deliberately relied not on objectively measurable noise levels but on the subjective “judicial ear.”

The settlement proposed by the court on the same day stipulated that, following a maximum two-year period to search for a new airfield, all operation of combustion-engine model aircraft must cease. Furthermore, a logbook was to be kept effective immediately so that pilots of excessively loud models could be identified and held accountable. We were also given to understand that a potential ruling by the district court—namely, if we did not accept the settlement—would be unfavorable to us. A counterproposal to include in the settlement text a significantly reduced but measurable noise limit—

The proposal to include this provision was rejected by the municipality of Oetwil and also by the court.

In a subsequent hearing on October 26, 1978, the text of the settlement was revised to be somewhat more favorable to us in that it now provides that, after the set deadline, the parties will negotiate directly regarding the possible continued operation of internal combustion engines, provided that, through improvements to the equipment, the noise in the designated area is no longer perceived as disruptive. Under this condition, we agreed to the settlement, particularly to avoid the following negative consequences:

• The Higher Court, as the next higher instance, would very likely have imposed an immediate flight ban at the request of the Oetwil residents and based on the negative district court ruling.
• If the outcome had been unfavorable for us, the ruling would have set a precedent, and other model airfields “would have been next.”
• Litigation costs time and money.

Although there is little chance that we will be able to continue operating the airfield with internal-combustion engine models beyond the set deadline (glider and electric models are excluded from the lawsuit), we are convinced that we made the right decision under the circumstances. It is now up to us to prove that it is not only possible to lower the noise level but also to reduce the high-frequency noise that many find unpleasant. This applies not only to us at MG Dietikon but should be a genuine concern for every model aircraft pilot.

M. Schmocker