Stories Like this Bug Me

[Kyle Boatright]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15542143/

"More than half of U.S. commercial airports don't have a 1,000-foot margin
at the end of a runway, an overrun area the federal government says is
needed as a safety zone, according to a new report."

"Part of the problem is that airports were built in congested urban areas
and have no room to lengthen their runways."

Repeat after me: "THE AIRPORT WAS THERE FIRST!!". Most airports were built
out in "the sticks" decades ago. In the ensuing decades, urban areas grew up
around the airports.

Too bad no contact address given so the story could be rebutted.

KB

[NW_Pilot]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15542143/
>
> "More than half of U.S. commercial airports don't have a 1,000-foot margin
> at the end of a runway, an overrun area the federal government says is
> needed as a safety zone, according to a new report."
>
> "Part of the problem is that airports were built in congested urban areas
> and have no room to lengthen their runways."
>
> Repeat after me: "THE AIRPORT WAS THERE FIRST!!". Most airports were built
> out in "the sticks" decades ago. In the ensuing decades, urban areas grew
> up around the airports.
>
> Too bad no contact address given so the story could be rebutted.
>
> KB
>


If anyone believes anything that the news media says they deserve to be lied
to!! Goverment media Skull Phuck!

[Robert M. Gary]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15542143/
>
> "More than half of U.S. commercial airports don't have a 1,000-foot margin
> at the end of a runway, an overrun area the federal government says is
> needed as a safety zone, according to a new report."
>
> "Part of the problem is that airports were built in congested urban areas
> and have no room to lengthen their runways."
>
> Repeat after me: "THE AIRPORT WAS THERE FIRST!!". Most airports were built
> out in "the sticks" decades ago. In the ensuing decades, urban areas grew up
> around the airports.
>
> Too bad no contact address given so the story could be rebutted.

Stop listening. The argument that "the airport was there first" has
long since been dead. Its been proven time and time again that it
doesn't make a difference. If you just want something to be ****ed
about, be my guest but history shows that its not a productive position
to take.
I'm park Osage, the "we were here first" arguement didn't work well
there either.

-Robert

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Stop listening. The argument that "the airport was there first" has
> long since been dead. Its been proven time and time again that it
> doesn't make a difference.

It may be true that the fact that the airport was there first does not give
the airport carte blanche to disregard its neighbors.

However, that doesn't mean that it's reasonable for the media to *falsely
claim* that "airports were built in congested urban areas".

[john smith]

The proper claim to be making is that the (insert local government)
failed to realize the importance of the airport to economic development.
In so doing they allowed incompatible land uses by means of bad planning
zoning to encroach upon the airport environs, compromising the saftey of
the very citizens they swore to protect by placing them directly in
harms way.

[Bob Noel]

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> The proper claim to be making is that the (insert local government)
> failed to realize the importance of the airport to economic development.
> In so doing they allowed incompatible land uses by means of bad planning
> zoning to encroach upon the airport environs, compromising the saftey of
> the very citizens they swore to protect by placing them directly in
> harms way.

compromising safety?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
> > The proper claim to be making is that the (insert local government)
> > failed to realize the importance of the airport to economic development.
> > In so doing they allowed incompatible land uses by means of bad planning
> > zoning to encroach upon the airport environs, compromising the saftey of
> > the very citizens they swore to protect by placing them directly in
> > harms way.

> compromising safety?

The topic was "runway safety zones" was it not?
It is not safe to put people in said areas.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The topic was "runway safety zones" was it not?
> It is not safe to put people in said areas.
>

I suppose not, but which was there first, the people or the "runway safety
zone"?

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:40:04 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>
>> In article
>> >,
>> john smith > wrote:
>>
>> > The proper claim to be making is that the (insert local government)
>> > failed to realize the importance of the airport to economic development.
>> > In so doing they allowed incompatible land uses by means of bad planning
>> > zoning to encroach upon the airport environs, compromising the saftey of
>> > the very citizens they swore to protect by placing them directly in
>> > harms way.
>
>> compromising safety?
>
>The topic was "runway safety zones" was it not?
>It is not safe to put people in said areas.

It should be.

The "Runway safety zone" is an addition to a runway that is amply
sufficient for the plane to land on. The runway is also long enough to
accommodate the accelerate/stop distance

The 1000 foot "safety zone" is a more or less arbitrary length that
was chosen under the "If some body really screws up or something goes
wrong how much extra length *should* be sufficient for them to get
stopped. Mechanical failure is rare, but it does happen. Cockpit
screw-ups occasionally do happen. Not taking into account the
likelihood of hydroplaning on a wet runway, braking action nil on snow
covered runways, and misconfiguring the plane for the specific landing
(or take off)

Our nearest commercial airport which has about 10 or 12 scheduled
flights a day (might be more) has never had any one use the over runs
and it has the over runs (safety zones) on all runways. It did have a
Viscount (turboprop) land about a mile short back in 57. All on board
were lost. A safety zone would have done nothing for the airplane or
any one in the area of the crash had it been built up.

And to the post that said the "airport was here first" doesn't mean
anything. More than one entity has claimed eminent domain and cleared
out the area for runway and/or airport expansion. It also depends on
how much support the airport receives from the local government.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Robert M. Gary]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> However, that doesn't mean that it's reasonable for the media to *falsely
> claim* that "airports were built in congested urban areas".

True, but sitting around complaining that the media isn't "reasonable"
isn't productive either. It doesn't change anything.

-Robert

[Blanche]

We're about to have another round of Us v. Them in Denver at APA.
The FAA is starting another 180 days of public comment on noise.
The article in the newspaper started out very positive, citing the
economic impact. That was the first 2 paragraphs. Then the rest of
the article was rather negative, talking about noise, giving the
telephone number to make complaints, and so on.

APA does not take FAA funds for many reasons, including not being
allowed to have scheduled flights. There are lots of charters
but nothing scheduled.

And they keep building directly under the 17 approach, about
2 miles north of the runway. And people keep buying these houses!

[adeian]

I was planning a xcountry to Scottsbluff and noticed in the NOTAMs that 3V5
was closed indefinitely. That's Ft.Collins, Co Downtown. Anybody know
what's happening there?

When I bought my first house I found the perfect place right beside Buckley
AFB's runway. :) I got to see all the cool stuff and loved the noise.
When the other people around me complained I just asked why they bought a
place next to an Air Force Base that had been there 75 years. :)

Paul

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> We're about to have another round of Us v. Them in Denver at APA.
> The FAA is starting another 180 days of public comment on noise.
> The article in the newspaper started out very positive, citing the
> economic impact. That was the first 2 paragraphs. Then the rest of
> the article was rather negative, talking about noise, giving the
> telephone number to make complaints, and so on.
>
> APA does not take FAA funds for many reasons, including not being
> allowed to have scheduled flights. There are lots of charters
> but nothing scheduled.
>
> And they keep building directly under the 17 approach, about
> 2 miles north of the runway. And people keep buying these houses!
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:13:13 -0700, adeian wrote:

> When the other people around me complained I just asked why they
> bought a place next to an Air Force Base that had been there 75 years.

How did they respond?

- Andrew

[Blanche]

adeian > wrote:
>I was planning a xcountry to Scottsbluff and noticed in the NOTAMs that 3V5
>was closed indefinitely. That's Ft.Collins, Co Downtown. Anybody know
>what's happening there?

Downtown closed last month. Developers. And with Fort/Love, the city
was in no way ready to help. They like the developers better.

email me off-list

blanche at acm.org

for more details.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"adeian" > wrote:

> When I bought my first house I found the perfect place right beside Buckley
> AFB's runway. :) I got to see all the cool stuff and loved the noise.
> When the other people around me complained I just asked why they bought a
> place next to an Air Force Base that had been there 75 years. :)

Extra points if they knew that it couldn't have been there 75 years!

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[adeian]

Ok I was off by 11 years. It started construction on May 1942 so 64 years.

Paul

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "adeian" > wrote:
>
>> When I bought my first house I found the perfect place right beside
>> Buckley
>> AFB's runway. :) I got to see all the cool stuff and loved the noise.
>> When the other people around me complained I just asked why they bought a
>> place next to an Air Force Base that had been there 75 years. :)
>
> Extra points if they knew that it couldn't have been there 75 years!
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

[adeian]

They didn't care at all just grumbled and moaned more. I'm always looking
for people to take flying though and I got one of them interested enough in
Aviation to get his PPL. Last I heard his Son was working on his. So a
little good came of it.

Paul

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:13:13 -0700, adeian wrote:
>
>> When the other people around me complained I just asked why they
>> bought a place next to an Air Force Base that had been there 75 years.
>
> How did they respond?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Blanche > wrote:

> adeian > wrote:
>>I was planning a xcountry to Scottsbluff and noticed in the NOTAMs
>>that 3V5 was closed indefinitely. That's Ft.Collins, Co Downtown.
>>Anybody know what's happening there?
>
> Downtown closed last month. Developers. And with Fort/Love, the city
> was in no way ready to help. They like the developers better.
>

Yea, it's too bad. I understand the property was sold earlier this year, and planned to cease operations as
of now. My relatives only live a short distance from 3V5 and it was very convenient flying in there. I've
never been to FNL, but don't expect it to have the same small-airport ambience.

Mike

[Blanche]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> "adeian" > wrote:
>
>> When I bought my first house I found the perfect place right beside Buckley
>> AFB's runway. :) I got to see all the cool stuff and loved the noise.
>> When the other people around me complained I just asked why they bought a
>> place next to an Air Force Base that had been there 75 years. :)
>
>Extra points if they knew that it couldn't have been there 75 years!

It might have been an Army Air Corps base...