The battle for Arlington Airport, WA begins:

[Paul Adriance]

On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal and it's associated
community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington Municipal Airport in
Washington state, it is home of the third largest fly-in in the country (run
by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and experimental aircraft in
the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific Northwest. But of more
paticular interest to this news group: It is home to what I believe are the
two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting the Seattle
Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring organization.

On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International Speedway Corp, and
associated county, state and city political leaders. They are seeking to
install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes of the Seattle
area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities near the airport are
recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of the airport. There are
only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location criteria, so our local
locations don't have a lot of competition.

The associated TFRs that come part and parcel with such a facility would
shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and probably for any other
use due to seating capacity. You can be sure "other" events will be
frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the facility. I don't have
data to back any of this up right now, but during the intial salvos of this
conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight, someone mentioned an
airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost 200 days a year due to
a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the whim of the operating
agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar and the ISC probably
will not find much concern over any of this as their pilots and aircraft get
waivers for any of their events while we would be stuck watching them fly
from the ground.

We all know the FAA has no authority over the airpsace anymore, TSA and
Homeland security run the show and don't answer to anyone. Should another
terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise, all bets are off on what
would happen around such facilities. They make the rules as they go and
once the facility is present, it is there to stay with any associated
restrictions, current or yet to exist.

The city and county can't be expected to support the airport, the new
track is a political feather in their cap and money in the government
coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of the equation. It's just
too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is that this fight becomes
an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like those poor airports on the
east coast and Megis.

AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem, but I must say this
first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling in my stomach. My
hope is that others read this and look at the issue and maybe someday,
somewhere, someone who has real influence over these decisions will realize
the load they are being fed by the cities and county and that they really
DON'T have the local public support for such a facility and the crippling
impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar said they would not
site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations with the state
legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly the case and whether
they meant it was wanted by the local populace or by the local government.

If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need it...

Paul Adriance

[Tim Gray]

Here is an intercontinental message of support.

You poor souls... And I always thought of the USA as the last bastion of
free airspace and few folk interfering with your enjoyment.

I am a Brit Glider Pilot, so fly subject to different planning and airspace
restrictions than you do in ther U.S. - but something of what you said
struck a chord with me.

In the UK, we have a non-governmental sporting body called the BGA (British
Gliding Association) who fight our corner for Airspace and conformance with
EU (European Union) legislation with the CAA - (Civil Aviation Authority).
It is a constructive dialogue and not always an easy one - but they do a
bunch of others things for us as well.

I have no personal involvement with the BGA but I am always impressed with
their proactive approach to "policing" our activity and implementing a
middle line before everyone panics and implements "knee jerk" reactions
after an incident reveals some sort of threat or risk. I could never
previously figure out why our own body should act in such a draconian
manner... But now I think I understand.

The BGA issue safety bulletins and oversee the training of new instructers
in a very professional manner... Along with a whole lot of other things you
would expect a sporting body to do. But there are more suprising things -
They hand out sponsorships to youngsters and actively encourage Gliding
clubs to consider the surrounding communities, so that town councils and
planners have a clear view of the very positive effects that having a local
gliding club has on the community as a whole. One of my best ever days in
gliding was taking a local reporter up for a "free" flight. He was expecting
to throw up in an "exorcist" way, but was instead charmed by his quiet tour
of the surrounding hills and fascinated by the science of soaring.
Similarly, we run competitions for local youngsters to become "cadets" -
this always brings many applicants and good coverage in local papers.

Ultimately, I guess we do not inhabit a static world. Our sporting pastimes
and hard won freedoms are always balanced with the needs of others and
changing public opinions. For example:- In the UK, a very large argument has
raged about hunting foxes with dogs and horses. Personally, I think that
sitting on a horse in the pouring rain for 90% of the time whilst otherwise
pursuing some unfortunate creature across muddy countryside is a fairly dumb
idea, given that you might fall off and die... But these red-coated farmers
love nothing more than an afternoon out with their chums doing exactly that.
They argue that this binds them as communities and helps eradicate a pest.
Others argue that it is cruel, inhumane and ineffective. Both sides have now
stopped pusuing each other in the courts... Instead they are both out to
change public perception... And I think I finally get it..It is perception
that drives legislation, influences planning applications and quantifies
risk:- I guess it is our best bet, maybe yours too.

Best of luck, old chap.

Tim Gray



"Paul Adriance" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal and it's associated
> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington Municipal Airport
in
> Washington state, it is home of the third largest fly-in in the country
(run
> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and experimental aircraft
in
> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific Northwest. But of
more
> paticular interest to this news group: It is home to what I believe are
the
> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting the Seattle
> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring organization.
>
> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International Speedway Corp,
and
> associated county, state and city political leaders. They are seeking to
> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes of the Seattle
> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities near the airport are
> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of the airport. There
are
> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location criteria, so our local
> locations don't have a lot of competition.
>
> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel with such a facility
would
> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and probably for any other
> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure "other" events will be
> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the facility. I don't have
> data to back any of this up right now, but during the intial salvos of
this
> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight, someone mentioned an
> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost 200 days a year due
to
> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the whim of the operating
> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar and the ISC
probably
> will not find much concern over any of this as their pilots and aircraft
get
> waivers for any of their events while we would be stuck watching them fly
> from the ground.
>
> We all know the FAA has no authority over the airpsace anymore, TSA
and
> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to anyone. Should
another
> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise, all bets are off on
what
> would happen around such facilities. They make the rules as they go and
> once the facility is present, it is there to stay with any associated
> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
>
> The city and county can't be expected to support the airport, the new
> track is a political feather in their cap and money in the government
> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of the equation. It's
just
> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is that this fight
becomes
> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like those poor airports on
the
> east coast and Megis.
>
> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem, but I must say
this
> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling in my stomach.
My
> hope is that others read this and look at the issue and maybe someday,
> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these decisions will
realize
> the load they are being fed by the cities and county and that they really
> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility and the crippling
> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar said they would
not
> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations with the state
> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly the case and whether
> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or by the local government.
>
> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need it...
>
> Paul Adriance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

There must be other local groups that don't what the noise, traffic
congestion, and the property value loss (at least for residential
property) that goes with it. There are probably a lot of local people
that aren't part of a current group that feel the same way. Part of the
challenge is finding and organizing these people.

It's interesting and frustrating that these TFRs exist, as I don't see
how they can protect anyone. If you want to attack an "open air
assembly" with an airplane, you don't have to take off from an airport
next to it. Three terrorists, each with an SUV or van carrying 2000
pounds of explosive could drive into the stadium parking lot and cause
far more devastation. Or are parking lots at stadiums now so far from
the stadium, this isn't possible?

Paul Adriance wrote:
> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal and it's associated
> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington Municipal Airport in
> Washington state, it is home of the third largest fly-in in the country (run
> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and experimental aircraft in
> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific Northwest. But of more
> paticular interest to this news group: It is home to what I believe are the
> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting the Seattle
> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring organization.
>
> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International Speedway Corp, and
> associated county, state and city political leaders. They are seeking to
> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes of the Seattle
> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities near the airport are
> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of the airport. There are
> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location criteria, so our local
> locations don't have a lot of competition.
>
> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel with such a facility would
> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and probably for any other
> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure "other" events will be
> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the facility. I don't have
> data to back any of this up right now, but during the intial salvos of this
> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight, someone mentioned an
> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost 200 days a year due to
> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the whim of the operating
> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar and the ISC probably
> will not find much concern over any of this as their pilots and aircraft get
> waivers for any of their events while we would be stuck watching them fly
> from the ground.
>
> We all know the FAA has no authority over the airpsace anymore, TSA and
> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to anyone. Should another
> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise, all bets are off on what
> would happen around such facilities. They make the rules as they go and
> once the facility is present, it is there to stay with any associated
> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
>
> The city and county can't be expected to support the airport, the new
> track is a political feather in their cap and money in the government
> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of the equation. It's just
> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is that this fight becomes
> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like those poor airports on the
> east coast and Megis.
>
> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem, but I must say this
> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling in my stomach. My
> hope is that others read this and look at the issue and maybe someday,
> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these decisions will realize
> the load they are being fed by the cities and county and that they really
> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility and the crippling
> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar said they would not
> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations with the state
> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly the case and whether
> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or by the local government.
>
> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need it...
>
> Paul Adriance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ian Cant]

I believe the rationale for the TFRs is that if you
have to fly some distance to get there, then there
is time for you to be intercepted and shot down. Of
course, the unfortunate AF pilot who shoots you down
in the confusion of the moment will likely face a court
martial [as per Afghanistan precedents] - not much
consolation to your survivors. And the court battles
when it turns out the TFR was posted after you launched
will be entertaining to those not involved.

Governments are generally not liable for the bad effects
of their policies - that's why we have elections instead.

Ian


At 16:54 10 March 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>There must be other local groups that don't what the
>noise, traffic
>congestion, and the property value loss (at least for
>residential
>property) that goes with it. There are probably a lot
>of local people
>that aren't part of a current group that feel the same
>way. Part of the
>challenge is finding and organizing these people.
>
>It's interesting and frustrating that these TFRs exist,
>as I don't see
>how they can protect anyone. If you want to attack
>an 'open air
>assembly' with an airplane, you don't have to take
>off from an airport
>next to it. Three terrorists, each with an SUV or van
>carrying 2000
>pounds of explosive could drive into the stadium parking
>lot and cause
>far more devastation. Or are parking lots at stadiums
>now so far from
>the stadium, this isn't possible?
>
>Paul Adriance wrote:
>> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal
>>and it's associated
>> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington
>>Municipal Airport in
>> Washington state, it is home of the third largest
>>fly-in in the country (run
>> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and
>>experimental aircraft in
>> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific
>>Northwest. But of more
>> paticular interest to this news group: It is home
>>to what I believe are the
>> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting
>>the Seattle
>> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring
>>organization.
>>
>> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International
>>Speedway Corp, and
>> associated county, state and city political leaders.
>> They are seeking to
>> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes
>>of the Seattle
>> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities
>>near the airport are
>> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of
>>the airport. There are
>> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location
>>criteria, so our local
>> locations don't have a lot of competition.
>>
>> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel
>>with such a facility would
>> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and
>>probably for any other
>> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure 'other'
>>events will be
>> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the
>>facility. I don't have
>> data to back any of this up right now, but during
>>the intial salvos of this
>> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight,
>>someone mentioned an
>> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost
>>200 days a year due to
>> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the
>>whim of the operating
>> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar
>>and the ISC probably
>> will not find much concern over any of this as their
>>pilots and aircraft get
>> waivers for any of their events while we would be
>>stuck watching them fly
>> from the ground.
>>
>> We all know the FAA has no authority over the
>>airpsace anymore, TSA and
>> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to
>>anyone. Should another
>> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise,
>>all bets are off on what
>> would happen around such facilities. They make the
>>rules as they go and
>> once the facility is present, it is there to stay
>>with any associated
>> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
>>
>> The city and county can't be expected to support
>>the airport, the new
>> track is a political feather in their cap and money
>>in the government
>> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of
>>the equation. It's just
>> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is
>>that this fight becomes
>> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like
>>those poor airports on the
>> east coast and Megis.
>>
>> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem,
>>but I must say this
>> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling
>>in my stomach. My
>> hope is that others read this and look at the issue
>>and maybe someday,
>> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these
>>decisions will realize
>> the load they are being fed by the cities and county
>>and that they really
>> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility
>>and the crippling
>> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar
>>said they would not
>> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations
>>with the state
>> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly
>>the case and whether
>> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or
>>by the local government.
>>
>> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need
>>it...
>>
>> Paul Adriance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>-----
>change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
>

[brien]

I wouldn't worry too much about the airport, to the south too many houses no
room for a Nascar track. To the north same and also a river, to the east
hills to the west Indian reservation, they might put it their but it is at
least 10 to 15 miles in any direction away. At that distance it might have
some effect but should not shut the airport down for events.

"Ian Cant" > wrote in message
...
> I believe the rationale for the TFRs is that if you
> have to fly some distance to get there, then there
> is time for you to be intercepted and shot down. Of
> course, the unfortunate AF pilot who shoots you down
> in the confusion of the moment will likely face a court
> martial [as per Afghanistan precedents] - not much
> consolation to your survivors. And the court battles
> when it turns out the TFR was posted after you launched
> will be entertaining to those not involved.
>
> Governments are generally not liable for the bad effects
> of their policies - that's why we have elections instead.
>
> Ian
>
>
> At 16:54 10 March 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >There must be other local groups that don't what the
> >noise, traffic
> >congestion, and the property value loss (at least for
> >residential
> >property) that goes with it. There are probably a lot
> >of local people
> >that aren't part of a current group that feel the same
> >way. Part of the
> >challenge is finding and organizing these people.
> >
> >It's interesting and frustrating that these TFRs exist,
> >as I don't see
> >how they can protect anyone. If you want to attack
> >an 'open air
> >assembly' with an airplane, you don't have to take
> >off from an airport
> >next to it. Three terrorists, each with an SUV or van
> >carrying 2000
> >pounds of explosive could drive into the stadium parking
> >lot and cause
> >far more devastation. Or are parking lots at stadiums
> >now so far from
> >the stadium, this isn't possible?
> >
> >Paul Adriance wrote:
> >> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal
> >>and it's associated
> >> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington
> >>Municipal Airport in
> >> Washington state, it is home of the third largest
> >>fly-in in the country (run
> >> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and
> >>experimental aircraft in
> >> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific
> >>Northwest. But of more
> >> paticular interest to this news group: It is home
> >>to what I believe are the
> >> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting
> >>the Seattle
> >> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring
> >>organization.
> >>
> >> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International
> >>Speedway Corp, and
> >> associated county, state and city political leaders.
> >> They are seeking to
> >> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes
> >>of the Seattle
> >> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities
> >>near the airport are
> >> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of
> >>the airport. There are
> >> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location
> >>criteria, so our local
> >> locations don't have a lot of competition.
> >>
> >> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel
> >>with such a facility would
> >> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and
> >>probably for any other
> >> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure 'other'
> >>events will be
> >> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the
> >>facility. I don't have
> >> data to back any of this up right now, but during
> >>the intial salvos of this
> >> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight,
> >>someone mentioned an
> >> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost
> >>200 days a year due to
> >> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the
> >>whim of the operating
> >> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar
> >>and the ISC probably
> >> will not find much concern over any of this as their
> >>pilots and aircraft get
> >> waivers for any of their events while we would be
> >>stuck watching them fly
> >> from the ground.
> >>
> >> We all know the FAA has no authority over the
> >>airpsace anymore, TSA and
> >> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to
> >>anyone. Should another
> >> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise,
> >>all bets are off on what
> >> would happen around such facilities. They make the
> >>rules as they go and
> >> once the facility is present, it is there to stay
> >>with any associated
> >> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
> >>
> >> The city and county can't be expected to support
> >>the airport, the new
> >> track is a political feather in their cap and money
> >>in the government
> >> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of
> >>the equation. It's just
> >> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is
> >>that this fight becomes
> >> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like
> >>those poor airports on the
> >> east coast and Megis.
> >>
> >> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem,
> >>but I must say this
> >> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling
> >>in my stomach. My
> >> hope is that others read this and look at the issue
> >>and maybe someday,
> >> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these
> >>decisions will realize
> >> the load they are being fed by the cities and county
> >>and that they really
> >> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility
> >>and the crippling
> >> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar
> >>said they would not
> >> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations
> >>with the state
> >> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly
> >>the case and whether
> >> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or
> >>by the local government.
> >>
> >> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need
> >>it...
> >>
> >> Paul Adriance
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >-----
> >change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
> >
> >Eric Greenwell
> >Washington State
> >USA
> >
> >
>
>
>

[John Gilbert]

Ian,

I believe you are naive if you think TFR's are only about "security".
Do you really think there are jets above Seahawk stadium (or other
event) waiting for someone to violate the TFR and shoot them down? No.
The big event folks (pro football, Nascar, etc.) want commercial
control of the airspace above the event, pure and simple. Remember,
there are no banners being flown these days. The advertisers have to
pay the $$$'s to the event organizers to be there.

John


Ian Cant > wrote in message >...
> I believe the rationale for the TFRs is that if you
> have to fly some distance to get there, then there
> is time for you to be intercepted and shot down. Of
> course, the unfortunate AF pilot who shoots you down
> in the confusion of the moment will likely face a court
> martial [as per Afghanistan precedents] - not much
> consolation to your survivors. And the court battles
> when it turns out the TFR was posted after you launched
> will be entertaining to those not involved.
>
> Governments are generally not liable for the bad effects
> of their policies - that's why we have elections instead.
>
> Ian
>
>
> At 16:54 10 March 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >There must be other local groups that don't what the
> >noise, traffic
> >congestion, and the property value loss (at least for
> >residential
> >property) that goes with it. There are probably a lot
> >of local people
> >that aren't part of a current group that feel the same
> >way. Part of the
> >challenge is finding and organizing these people.
> >
> >It's interesting and frustrating that these TFRs exist,
> >as I don't see
> >how they can protect anyone. If you want to attack
> >an 'open air
> >assembly' with an airplane, you don't have to take
> >off from an airport
> >next to it. Three terrorists, each with an SUV or van
> >carrying 2000
> >pounds of explosive could drive into the stadium parking
> >lot and cause
> >far more devastation. Or are parking lots at stadiums
> >now so far from
> >the stadium, this isn't possible?
> >
> >Paul Adriance wrote:
> >> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal
> >>and it's associated
> >> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington
> >>Municipal Airport in
> >> Washington state, it is home of the third largest
> >>fly-in in the country (run
> >> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and
> >>experimental aircraft in
> >> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific
> >>Northwest. But of more
> >> paticular interest to this news group: It is home
> >>to what I believe are the
> >> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting
> >>the Seattle
> >> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring
> >>organization.
> >>
> >> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International
> >>Speedway Corp, and
> >> associated county, state and city political leaders.
> >> They are seeking to
> >> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes
> >>of the Seattle
> >> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities
> >>near the airport are
> >> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of
> >>the airport. There are
> >> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location
> >>criteria, so our local
> >> locations don't have a lot of competition.
> >>
> >> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel
> >>with such a facility would
> >> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and
> >>probably for any other
> >> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure 'other'
> >>events will be
> >> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the
> >>facility. I don't have
> >> data to back any of this up right now, but during
> >>the intial salvos of this
> >> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight,
> >>someone mentioned an
> >> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost
> >>200 days a year due to
> >> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the
> >>whim of the operating
> >> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar
> >>and the ISC probably
> >> will not find much concern over any of this as their
> >>pilots and aircraft get
> >> waivers for any of their events while we would be
> >>stuck watching them fly
> >> from the ground.
> >>
> >> We all know the FAA has no authority over the
> >>airpsace anymore, TSA and
> >> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to
> >>anyone. Should another
> >> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise,
> >>all bets are off on what
> >> would happen around such facilities. They make the
> >>rules as they go and
> >> once the facility is present, it is there to stay
> >>with any associated
> >> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
> >>
> >> The city and county can't be expected to support
> >>the airport, the new
> >> track is a political feather in their cap and money
> >>in the government
> >> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of
> >>the equation. It's just
> >> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is
> >>that this fight becomes
> >> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like
> >>those poor airports on the
> >> east coast and Megis.
> >>
> >> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem,
> >>but I must say this
> >> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling
> >>in my stomach. My
> >> hope is that others read this and look at the issue
> >>and maybe someday,
> >> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these
> >>decisions will realize
> >> the load they are being fed by the cities and county
> >>and that they really
> >> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility
> >>and the crippling
> >> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar
> >>said they would not
> >> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations
> >>with the state
> >> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly
> >>the case and whether
> >> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or
> >>by the local government.
> >>
> >> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need
> >>it...
> >>
> >> Paul Adriance
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >-----
> >change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
> >
> >Eric Greenwell
> >Washington State
> >USA
> >
> >

[John Gilbert]

Brien,

There are never too many houses when $'s talk. Take a look at how I-5
cut through North Seattle, for instance. Oh, you say, that was
government that did that by eminent domain? Sure, and government right
now is all for a Nascar track. Eminent domain is the ace in the
sleeve. (and the corollary- everyone has their price)

John


"brien" > wrote in message >...
> I wouldn't worry too much about the airport, to the south too many houses no
> room for a Nascar track. To the north same and also a river, to the east
> hills to the west Indian reservation, they might put it their but it is at
> least 10 to 15 miles in any direction away. At that distance it might have
> some effect but should not shut the airport down for events.
>
> "Ian Cant" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I believe the rationale for the TFRs is that if you
> > have to fly some distance to get there, then there
> > is time for you to be intercepted and shot down. Of
> > course, the unfortunate AF pilot who shoots you down
> > in the confusion of the moment will likely face a court
> > martial [as per Afghanistan precedents] - not much
> > consolation to your survivors. And the court battles
> > when it turns out the TFR was posted after you launched
> > will be entertaining to those not involved.
> >
> > Governments are generally not liable for the bad effects
> > of their policies - that's why we have elections instead.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > At 16:54 10 March 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > >There must be other local groups that don't what the
> > >noise, traffic
> > >congestion, and the property value loss (at least for
> > >residential
> > >property) that goes with it. There are probably a lot
> > >of local people
> > >that aren't part of a current group that feel the same
> > >way. Part of the
> > >challenge is finding and organizing these people.
> > >
> > >It's interesting and frustrating that these TFRs exist,
> > >as I don't see
> > >how they can protect anyone. If you want to attack
> > >an 'open air
> > >assembly' with an airplane, you don't have to take
> > >off from an airport
> > >next to it. Three terrorists, each with an SUV or van
> > >carrying 2000
> > >pounds of explosive could drive into the stadium parking
> > >lot and cause
> > >far more devastation. Or are parking lots at stadiums
> > >now so far from
> > >the stadium, this isn't possible?
> > >
> > >Paul Adriance wrote:
> > >> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal
> > >>and it's associated
> > >> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington
> > >>Municipal Airport in
> > >> Washington state, it is home of the third largest
> > >>fly-in in the country (run
> > >> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and
> > >>experimental aircraft in
> > >> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific
> > >>Northwest. But of more
> > >> paticular interest to this news group: It is home
> > >>to what I believe are the
> > >> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting
> > >>the Seattle
> > >> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring
> > >>organization.
> > >>
> > >> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International
> > >>Speedway Corp, and
> > >> associated county, state and city political leaders.
> > >> They are seeking to
> > >> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes
> > >>of the Seattle
> > >> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities
> > >>near the airport are
> > >> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of
> > >>the airport. There are
> > >> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location
> > >>criteria, so our local
> > >> locations don't have a lot of competition.
> > >>
> > >> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel
> > >>with such a facility would
> > >> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and
> > >>probably for any other
> > >> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure 'other'
> > >>events will be
> > >> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the
> > >>facility. I don't have
> > >> data to back any of this up right now, but during
> > >>the intial salvos of this
> > >> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight,
> > >>someone mentioned an
> > >> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost
> > >>200 days a year due to
> > >> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the
> > >>whim of the operating
> > >> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar
> > >>and the ISC probably
> > >> will not find much concern over any of this as their
> > >>pilots and aircraft get
> > >> waivers for any of their events while we would be
> > >>stuck watching them fly
> > >> from the ground.
> > >>
> > >> We all know the FAA has no authority over the
> > >>airpsace anymore, TSA and
> > >> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to
> > >>anyone. Should another
> > >> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise,
> > >>all bets are off on what
> > >> would happen around such facilities. They make the
> > >>rules as they go and
> > >> once the facility is present, it is there to stay
> > >>with any associated
> > >> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
> > >>
> > >> The city and county can't be expected to support
> > >>the airport, the new
> > >> track is a political feather in their cap and money
> > >>in the government
> > >> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of
> > >>the equation. It's just
> > >> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is
> > >>that this fight becomes
> > >> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like
> > >>those poor airports on the
> > >> east coast and Megis.
> > >>
> > >> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem,
> > >>but I must say this
> > >> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling
> > >>in my stomach. My
> > >> hope is that others read this and look at the issue
> > >>and maybe someday,
> > >> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these
> > >>decisions will realize
> > >> the load they are being fed by the cities and county
> > >>and that they really
> > >> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility
> > >>and the crippling
> > >> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar
> > >>said they would not
> > >> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations
> > >>with the state
> > >> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly
> > >>the case and whether
> > >> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or
> > >>by the local government.
> > >>
> > >> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need
> > >>it...
> > >>
> > >> Paul Adriance
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >--
> > >-----
> > >change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
> > >
> > >Eric Greenwell
> > >Washington State
> > >USA
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

[Bruce Greeff]

Hi Eric

Regrettably you confuse the actions of the authorities (and other parties) with
logical behaviour. These actions are seldom logical, or even to the benefit of
any group - not even the bunch of sad souls who get to make them. I get the
feeling that, especially in the USA there is a "machine" that most people agree
is misguided, but none of the cogs has worked out how to change the direction of
the whole.

Probably just showing my typical glider pilot anarchist view of life...

Our latest one is an arbitrary lowering of the Class A airspace to FL145,
despite the fact that large parts of the country are not even covered by
secondary radar, let alone primary radar. There are large tracts of airspace
that are 100s of kilometers from any airway, or controlled airport, but where a
glider pilot will be illegal flying above FL145 - much of this is in the higher
parts of the interior, where the ground is at 4000-5000MSL. Makes life a little
inconvenient. Does nothing to benefit anyone:
The pilots get frustrated, and exposed to more danger of landouts because they
have to fly lower, thermal more often. Sometimes the next thermal would be
reachable from higher...
The controllers now have a whole lot more airspace to worry about, when they are
already understaffed.
The CAA get involved in a whole lot of arbitration and argument between all the
people who now want to fit their activities into less volume.
Nobody wants to fit transponders because this has now become adversarial.

None of this is improving safety or airspace management, to say nothing about
relations between the communities involved.

As I said, don't confuse logic with legislation. At least in the Arlington case
some people are expecting to make a lot of money from building yet another place
to convert fossil fuel into pollution...

> There must be other local groups that don't what the noise, traffic
> congestion, and the property value loss (at least for residential
> property) that goes with it. There are probably a lot of local people
> that aren't part of a current group that feel the same way. Part of the
> challenge is finding and organizing these people.
>
> It's interesting and frustrating that these TFRs exist, as I don't see
> how they can protect anyone. If you want to attack an "open air
> assembly" with an airplane, you don't have to take off from an airport
> next to it. Three terrorists, each with an SUV or van carrying 2000
> pounds of explosive could drive into the stadium parking lot and cause
> far more devastation. Or are parking lots at stadiums now so far from
> the stadium, this isn't possible?
>
> Paul Adriance wrote:
>
>> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal and it's associated
>> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington Municipal
>> Airport in
>> Washington state, it is home of the third largest fly-in in the
>> country (run
>> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and experimental
>> aircraft in
>> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific Northwest. But of
>> more
>> paticular interest to this news group: It is home to what I believe
>> are the
>> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting the Seattle
>> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring organization.
>>
>> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International Speedway
>> Corp, and
>> associated county, state and city political leaders. They are seeking to
>> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes of the Seattle
>> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities near the airport are
>> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of the airport.
>> There are
>> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location criteria, so our local
>> locations don't have a lot of competition.
>>
>> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel with such a facility
>> would
>> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and probably for any other
>> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure "other" events will be
>> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the facility. I don't
>> have
>> data to back any of this up right now, but during the intial salvos of
>> this
>> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight, someone mentioned an
>> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost 200 days a year
>> due to
>> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the whim of the operating
>> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar and the ISC
>> probably
>> will not find much concern over any of this as their pilots and
>> aircraft get
>> waivers for any of their events while we would be stuck watching them fly
>> from the ground.
>>
>> We all know the FAA has no authority over the airpsace anymore,
>> TSA and
>> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to anyone. Should
>> another
>> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise, all bets are off on
>> what
>> would happen around such facilities. They make the rules as they go and
>> once the facility is present, it is there to stay with any associated
>> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
>>
>> The city and county can't be expected to support the airport, the new
>> track is a political feather in their cap and money in the government
>> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of the equation.
>> It's just
>> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is that this fight
>> becomes
>> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like those poor airports
>> on the
>> east coast and Megis.
>>
>> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem, but I must
>> say this
>> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling in my
>> stomach. My
>> hope is that others read this and look at the issue and maybe someday,
>> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these decisions will
>> realize
>> the load they are being fed by the cities and county and that they really
>> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility and the crippling
>> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar said they
>> would not
>> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations with the
>> state
>> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly the case and
>> whether
>> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or by the local
>> government.
>>
>> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need it...
>>
>> Paul Adriance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Bruce Greeff > wrote:
>Hi Eric
>
>Regrettably you confuse the actions of the authorities (and other parties) with
>logical behaviour. These actions are seldom logical, or even to the benefit of
>any group - not even the bunch of sad souls who get to make them. I get the
>feeling that, especially in the USA there is a "machine" that most people agree
>is misguided, but none of the cogs has worked out how to change the direction of
>the whole.

I'm reminded of the "Don't Do Drugs" campaign. A researcher found that
after visits to local schools by "anti-drug" speakers, drug use
increased. Impossible, right?

It seems that the word "Don't" gets lost from the message.
From this and other organizational observations, it's clear
that many organizations do things directly in conflict with
it's stated goals. There's also the problem of an
organization which works itself out of a job. This is why the
police can't QUITE get rid of crime...

The ancient chinese had some interesting ideas. If they had a
part of history they didn't like, they'd simply change history.
If 9-11 had happened to them, they would have simply rebuilt the
world trade center to look exactly the same, and continue on
with no mention they had ever been damaged.

I suspect if a committee were to decide on whether to stay with
a disabled boat or try to swim for shore, they would compromise
and swim, then dogpaddle, exactly halfway between the two...
this is government by comittee, and it is bad...

Sorry about your airport, I suspect it will be marginalized
away...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

Maybe they could put it at Paine Field?

"John Gilbert" > wrote in message
m...
> Brien,
>
> There are never too many houses when $'s talk. Take a look at how I-5
> cut through North Seattle, for instance. Oh, you say, that was
> government that did that by eminent domain? Sure, and government right
> now is all for a Nascar track. Eminent domain is the ace in the
> sleeve. (and the corollary- everyone has their price)
>
> John
>
>
> "brien" > wrote in message
>...
> > I wouldn't worry too much about the airport, to the south too many
houses no
> > room for a Nascar track. To the north same and also a river, to the
east
> > hills to the west Indian reservation, they might put it their but it is
at
> > least 10 to 15 miles in any direction away. At that distance it might
have
> > some effect but should not shut the airport down for events.
> >
> > "Ian Cant" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I believe the rationale for the TFRs is that if you
> > > have to fly some distance to get there, then there
> > > is time for you to be intercepted and shot down. Of
> > > course, the unfortunate AF pilot who shoots you down
> > > in the confusion of the moment will likely face a court
> > > martial [as per Afghanistan precedents] - not much
> > > consolation to your survivors. And the court battles
> > > when it turns out the TFR was posted after you launched
> > > will be entertaining to those not involved.
> > >
> > > Governments are generally not liable for the bad effects
> > > of their policies - that's why we have elections instead.
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > > At 16:54 10 March 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > >There must be other local groups that don't what the
> > > >noise, traffic
> > > >congestion, and the property value loss (at least for
> > > >residential
> > > >property) that goes with it. There are probably a lot
> > > >of local people
> > > >that aren't part of a current group that feel the same
> > > >way. Part of the
> > > >challenge is finding and organizing these people.
> > > >
> > > >It's interesting and frustrating that these TFRs exist,
> > > >as I don't see
> > > >how they can protect anyone. If you want to attack
> > > >an 'open air
> > > >assembly' with an airplane, you don't have to take
> > > >off from an airport
> > > >next to it. Three terrorists, each with an SUV or van
> > > >carrying 2000
> > > >pounds of explosive could drive into the stadium parking
> > > >lot and cause
> > > >far more devastation. Or are parking lots at stadiums
> > > >now so far from
> > > >the stadium, this isn't possible?
> > > >
> > > >Paul Adriance wrote:
> > > >> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal
> > > >>and it's associated
> > > >> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington
> > > >>Municipal Airport in
> > > >> Washington state, it is home of the third largest
> > > >>fly-in in the country (run
> > > >> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and
> > > >>experimental aircraft in
> > > >> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific
> > > >>Northwest. But of more
> > > >> paticular interest to this news group: It is home
> > > >>to what I believe are the
> > > >> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting
> > > >>the Seattle
> > > >> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring
> > > >>organization.
> > > >>
> > > >> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International
> > > >>Speedway Corp, and
> > > >> associated county, state and city political leaders.
> > > >> They are seeking to
> > > >> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes
> > > >>of the Seattle
> > > >> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities
> > > >>near the airport are
> > > >> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of
> > > >>the airport. There are
> > > >> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location
> > > >>criteria, so our local
> > > >> locations don't have a lot of competition.
> > > >>
> > > >> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel
> > > >>with such a facility would
> > > >> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and
> > > >>probably for any other
> > > >> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure 'other'
> > > >>events will be
> > > >> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the
> > > >>facility. I don't have
> > > >> data to back any of this up right now, but during
> > > >>the intial salvos of this
> > > >> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight,
> > > >>someone mentioned an
> > > >> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost
> > > >>200 days a year due to
> > > >> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the
> > > >>whim of the operating
> > > >> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar
> > > >>and the ISC probably
> > > >> will not find much concern over any of this as their
> > > >>pilots and aircraft get
> > > >> waivers for any of their events while we would be
> > > >>stuck watching them fly
> > > >> from the ground.
> > > >>
> > > >> We all know the FAA has no authority over the
> > > >>airpsace anymore, TSA and
> > > >> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to
> > > >>anyone. Should another
> > > >> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise,
> > > >>all bets are off on what
> > > >> would happen around such facilities. They make the
> > > >>rules as they go and
> > > >> once the facility is present, it is there to stay
> > > >>with any associated
> > > >> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
> > > >>
> > > >> The city and county can't be expected to support
> > > >>the airport, the new
> > > >> track is a political feather in their cap and money
> > > >>in the government
> > > >> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of
> > > >>the equation. It's just
> > > >> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is
> > > >>that this fight becomes
> > > >> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like
> > > >>those poor airports on the
> > > >> east coast and Megis.
> > > >>
> > > >> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem,
> > > >>but I must say this
> > > >> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling
> > > >>in my stomach. My
> > > >> hope is that others read this and look at the issue
> > > >>and maybe someday,
> > > >> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these
> > > >>decisions will realize
> > > >> the load they are being fed by the cities and county
> > > >>and that they really
> > > >> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility
> > > >>and the crippling
> > > >> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar
> > > >>said they would not
> > > >> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations
> > > >>with the state
> > > >> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly
> > > >>the case and whether
> > > >> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or
> > > >>by the local government.
> > > >>
> > > >> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need
> > > >>it...
> > > >>
> > > >> Paul Adriance
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >-----
> > > >change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
> > > >
> > > >Eric Greenwell
> > > >Washington State
> > > >USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

[303pilot]

If eminent domain is the gov't's tool, this may be yours
http://www.ij.org/index.shtml.
The folks at Institute for Justice and CastleCoalition.org are winning cases
on this very topic.

Brent

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe they could put it at Paine Field?
>
> "John Gilbert" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Brien,
> >
> > There are never too many houses when $'s talk. Take a look at how I-5
> > cut through North Seattle, for instance. Oh, you say, that was
> > government that did that by eminent domain? Sure, and government right
> > now is all for a Nascar track. Eminent domain is the ace in the
> > sleeve. (and the corollary- everyone has their price)
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > "brien" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > I wouldn't worry too much about the airport, to the south too many
> houses no
> > > room for a Nascar track. To the north same and also a river, to the
> east
> > > hills to the west Indian reservation, they might put it their but it
is
> at
> > > least 10 to 15 miles in any direction away. At that distance it might
> have
> > > some effect but should not shut the airport down for events.
> > >
> > > "Ian Cant" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I believe the rationale for the TFRs is that if you
> > > > have to fly some distance to get there, then there
> > > > is time for you to be intercepted and shot down. Of
> > > > course, the unfortunate AF pilot who shoots you down
> > > > in the confusion of the moment will likely face a court
> > > > martial [as per Afghanistan precedents] - not much
> > > > consolation to your survivors. And the court battles
> > > > when it turns out the TFR was posted after you launched
> > > > will be entertaining to those not involved.
> > > >
> > > > Governments are generally not liable for the bad effects
> > > > of their policies - that's why we have elections instead.
> > > >
> > > > Ian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 16:54 10 March 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > > >There must be other local groups that don't what the
> > > > >noise, traffic
> > > > >congestion, and the property value loss (at least for
> > > > >residential
> > > > >property) that goes with it. There are probably a lot
> > > > >of local people
> > > > >that aren't part of a current group that feel the same
> > > > >way. Part of the
> > > > >challenge is finding and organizing these people.
> > > > >
> > > > >It's interesting and frustrating that these TFRs exist,
> > > > >as I don't see
> > > > >how they can protect anyone. If you want to attack
> > > > >an 'open air
> > > > >assembly' with an airplane, you don't have to take
> > > > >off from an airport
> > > > >next to it. Three terrorists, each with an SUV or van
> > > > >carrying 2000
> > > > >pounds of explosive could drive into the stadium parking
> > > > >lot and cause
> > > > >far more devastation. Or are parking lots at stadiums
> > > > >now so far from
> > > > >the stadium, this isn't possible?
> > > > >
> > > > >Paul Adriance wrote:
> > > > >> On one side of the ring: Arlington Municipal
> > > > >>and it's associated
> > > > >> community:..For those of you unfamiliar with Arlington
> > > > >>Municipal Airport in
> > > > >> Washington state, it is home of the third largest
> > > > >>fly-in in the country (run
> > > > >> by the EAA) and the center of general aviation and
> > > > >>experimental aircraft in
> > > > >> the state of Washington and, arguably, the Pacific
> > > > >>Northwest. But of more
> > > > >> paticular interest to this news group: It is home
> > > > >>to what I believe are the
> > > > >> two largest soaring clubs in Washington state - discounting
> > > > >>the Seattle
> > > > >> Glider Council which is more of an umbrella soaring
> > > > >>organization.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On the other side of the ring: Nascar, International
> > > > >>Speedway Corp, and
> > > > >> associated county, state and city political leaders.
> > > > >> They are seeking to
> > > > >> install a large 30,000+ seat racetrack within 45 minutes
> > > > >>of the Seattle
> > > > >> area. Snohomish county and the two adjacent cities
> > > > >>near the airport are
> > > > >> recommending 3 sites, all roughly within 2 miles of
> > > > >>the airport. There are
> > > > >> only 2 or 3 counties which meet the base location
> > > > >>criteria, so our local
> > > > >> locations don't have a lot of competition.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The associated TFRs that come part and parcel
> > > > >>with such a facility would
> > > > >> shut down Arlington for any motor sports event and
> > > > >>probably for any other
> > > > >> use due to seating capacity. You can be sure 'other'
> > > > >>events will be
> > > > >> frequent so ISC can recoup their investment in the
> > > > >>facility. I don't have
> > > > >> data to back any of this up right now, but during
> > > > >>the intial salvos of this
> > > > >> conflict at an airport commision meeting tonight,
> > > > >>someone mentioned an
> > > > >> airport in the Arizona area that is shut down almost
> > > > >>200 days a year due to
> > > > >> a large venue near it. Even IFR traffic is at the
> > > > >>whim of the operating
> > > > >> agency which can choose to disallow overflight. Nascar
> > > > >>and the ISC probably
> > > > >> will not find much concern over any of this as their
> > > > >>pilots and aircraft get
> > > > >> waivers for any of their events while we would be
> > > > >>stuck watching them fly
> > > > >> from the ground.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We all know the FAA has no authority over the
> > > > >>airpsace anymore, TSA and
> > > > >> Homeland security run the show and don't answer to
> > > > >>anyone. Should another
> > > > >> terrorist event occur, related to GA or otherwise,
> > > > >>all bets are off on what
> > > > >> would happen around such facilities. They make the
> > > > >>rules as they go and
> > > > >> once the facility is present, it is there to stay
> > > > >>with any associated
> > > > >> restrictions, current or yet to exist.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The city and county can't be expected to support
> > > > >>the airport, the new
> > > > >> track is a political feather in their cap and money
> > > > >>in the government
> > > > >> coffers, and I can't say I don't see their side of
> > > > >>the equation. It's just
> > > > >> too bad they can't site it elsewhere. My hope is
> > > > >>that this fight becomes
> > > > >> an exception to the sad disintegration of GA like
> > > > >>those poor airports on the
> > > > >> east coast and Megis.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> AOPA and the EAA are supposedly working the problem,
> > > > >>but I must say this
> > > > >> first public forum has left me with a very sour feeling
> > > > >>in my stomach. My
> > > > >> hope is that others read this and look at the issue
> > > > >>and maybe someday,
> > > > >> somewhere, someone who has real influence over these
> > > > >>decisions will realize
> > > > >> the load they are being fed by the cities and county
> > > > >>and that they really
> > > > >> DON'T have the local public support for such a facility
> > > > >>and the crippling
> > > > >> impact it would have on our airport. I believe Nascar
> > > > >>said they would not
> > > > >> site a facility where it is not wanted during deliberations
> > > > >>with the state
> > > > >> legislature. It remains to be seen if that is truly
> > > > >>the case and whether
> > > > >> they meant it was wanted by the local populace or
> > > > >>by the local government.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If nothing else, wish us luck, we're going to need
> > > > >>it...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Paul Adriance
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >-----
> > > > >change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
> > > > >
> > > > >Eric Greenwell
> > > > >Washington State
> > > > >USA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
>