The battle for Arlington Airport, WA begins:

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