The battle for Arlington Airport, WA begins:

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

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

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