EPA update

I thought it was Statute feet rather than nautical feet.


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Yeah. I was thinking in realtor terms because i was responding to Steve
Foley....

Skylune out.

Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?

Just wondering....

I'm not sure who the 'Net Jet' crowd is. As far as fractionals, I think
they're typically small jets that still don't need 6000 feet. I think you're
looking at attracting airline carriers. I know US Airways was there in 96
when I landed there.

Expansion wouldn't hurt GA. A short delay for wake turbulance is a small
price to pay for commercial aircraft paying most of the expenses. It's kinda
like motorcycles using the highway system. They certainly don't need six
lane highways, but it's nice to be able to cruise to Disney along 95 rather
than Route 1.

Now some questions for you:

What is your goal?

Are you trying to eliminate the cowboys? General Aviation? All Aviation?

What would make you happy?

You earlier stated (correct me if I am mis-stating your position) that you
really wanted minimum altitudes and noise abatement procedured enforced, but
because that isn't being done, you are going after everything aviation.



"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?

Just wondering....

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:40:25 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote in
::

I'm not sure who the 'Net Jet' crowd is.

http://www.netjets.com/default.asp
Typically up-scale first class travelers who don't want to endure the
airline security gauntlet.

Yeah, commerical carriers, that makes sense...

Funny how they give two bogus public presentations (click on their web
page) where they portray the runway extension option and the second runway
option as "improvements" and only for "safety purposes." They are
blatently lying to us, and holding the public meetings (run by the paid
airport consultant) only so they can check off the box on the grant
approval form to get the 95% FAA grant from the AIP. I'm trying to fight
them.

This (my anti GA ranting) all happened kind of incrementally over the past
two years. We've had property up here for years; always some airplane
noise, but not like today. So, last year, after I moved up here
semi-fulltime, I phoned in about a couple of really low, loud fliers when
we were having a barbecue in my backyard. I left a polite message on the
airport's VMM, and I got a return call from some woman with a really bad
attitude. OK, so I got dissed by some stupid staff person.... No big
deal. Then it happens again, and again. One time, the airport mgr
actually called me back and was very reasonable, but then he gave me the
bum rush -- said he would post a notice on the website about flying
friendly. He did nothing. Zero. Just kept the same old voluntary noise
abatement procedures posted, the ones that many ignore routinely, the ones
that have been there for years... So I concluded no sense in wasting a
call to those people any longer. Alternatives....

So I call the FAA. Got the bureaucrat treatment when I called their
ridiculous NE noise # (u guys have a handful with those lazy bureaucrats,
that is for sure.)

Then, I notice on the airport web site a public meeting for a so-called
improvement project. Given that I got nowhere with the airport or FAA, I
figure this is my chance. So I did my homework, and off we go.... Went to
the meeting. Asked alot of questions about the purpose of the project,
how they didn't implement the abatement procedures they said they would in
the 1990 part 150 study, etc.

I was not a popular guy there with the guys with the worn, brown leather
jackets, or the hired gun consultant with the Ann Taylor outfit(although
she tried to remain very smooth.....), or the airport manager, etc. The
other noise victims, mostly elderly people, got encouraged though and also
started asking questions after I listened for half an hour and started
questioning.

I kept doing homework. Pilot friend of mine on LI (the guy I have to keep
showing how to operate the GPS....) tells me about AOPA, etc. I did some
flying years back at FRG, but quit. Not enough time with work, family,
etc. So I know a bit already. Start "trolling' on these kinds of boards
for a few months, just picking up the pilot talk. Reading the FARs,
reading AV web, i-Pilot, etc. And here we are, exchanging insults and
making vague threats....

What do I want? To live and let live. Fly friendly. That is all. No
one asks for silence. I have a boat: it makes noise, it burns gas. But I
can operate it obnoxiously (and plenty do), or courteously. Pilots have
the same choice. But, given that they can operate anymously, i think
there is a higher A-hole percentage than with car drivers or boaters. And
their seems to be some serious ego issues with some of the flyers, judging
by how you go after each other on this board.

You are right about my real agenda: excessive noise. The tax subsidies I
pay are just adding insult to injury, but are not the main issue. Neither
is air or water pollution.

Anyway, this is now counterproductive. The AV gas prices will force less
discretionary flying, driving, and boating. If the noise doesn't let up
here, I will retire elsewhere. Probably up in VT in a narrow valley
(Quechee area is nice). No way the planes can choose that as a practice
area.

Anyway, good luck Steve. I think you are probably a responsible flyer.
If I'm right, and 95% shared your attitude, there would definitely be less
anti GA activism around the country.

"Skylune" wrote

If the noise doesn't let up
here, I will retire elsewhere.

Oh, Pleeeeze, go ahead and make that choice, right now. The noise won't
stop. They are doing nothing against the law, so there is NOTHING you can
do, but whine.

Perhaps we can all pitch in, and help with your moving expenses; anything to
stop your endless noise!
--
Jim in NC

1. I just want the abatement procedures adhered to, not the noise to stop,
as you put it.

2. The noise will decrease due to soaring AV gas prices -- its already
lessened this year.

3. As I've shown, I can do much more than "whine." No one has answered a
single question. You attack me, the messenger. You guys are whining. I
am doing something.

4. People are breaking the FAR 1000 ft minimums. It is a fact. Proving
it is impossible, as you probably know, due to FAA lack of interest.

Anyway, I am suspending my efforts given that AV gas prices are doing the
job. I'm going to keep an eye on things, and continue to monitor. (And
I'll be happy to take your check for liquidated damages.... ;-) )

If the local airport continues to try to pull a fast one, I will be back
with a vengeance Some of the businesses at the airport are actively
encouraging evasion of other states' sales taxes (which should be paid
based upon the state in which the plane is based -- its called a Use tax).
I know who to contact in neighboring states to inform them of the tax
dollars they are losing to these businesses.....

Skylune, over and out.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?

Just wondering....

In order for the FedEx crowd to use the airport, it would have to be
able to take much higher landing weights than for GA airports.

Does anybody in the kneejerk reaction crowd know what kind of
certificated landing weights are being proposed?

Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

7,000 feet is considered a transport catagory runway. Look up Part 150
for runway specifications for different aircraft.
What makes you think 5,500 to 6,000 is not necessary for normal GA
aircraft and operations? Just because it isn't a jet doesn't mean there
isn't a requirement for it.
Twins have accellerate/stop distances requirements for aborted takeoffs.
An aircraft landing without brakes would have to roll the full length to
safely slow down.
And on and on. There are many more reasons.

If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?

Why do you think that?

Skylune wrote:

Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

Even if that's true you do realize that the jets that Net Jets and the
other fractionals fly is quieter than your average spam can, right?