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