A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

death of GA in NY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 16th 05, 05:52 PM
Skylune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Having had some experience with federal grants in the past, I agree with
all you've said, except the last sentence.

Misportraying the project as purely for safety rather than the expansion
that it obviously is just generates more distrust of the people running
the airport. They've lost all credibility with me and other locals I
know. That's why I've bypassed them and gone directly to the press and
politicians.

Many people are aware that the project is really an expansion now,
although one of the local pols admitted he had no idea what was going on
until I wrote him. Then he realized (hallelujah!), that the "safety
improvements" were in fact just a business plan; playing off the much
higher prices of BED (landing fees, higher fuel prices, etc.)

Anyway, they had to put the whole project on hold because of wetlands
impact. Originally, they had no intention of doing an environmental
impact study. Or an update to the nearly 20 year old part 150 study (not
that that means anything, they never implemented some of the requirements
anyway). At one of the public meetings, one resident actually stood up
and said something like: "If you're not going to study the noise, or the
groundwater, or the traffic (car traffic -- airport is in a largely
residential area), what ARE you going to study?'

The FAA person sat quietly in the audience writing something on a notepad,
while the consultant fumbled for an answer that would sound good.

Sad state of affairs. Basically the airport knows that if they call the
project what it is --expansion -- there would be a backlash. Thats y they
are trying to give us the bum rush. And what they've gotten is ........a
backlash. And lost credibility





  #52  
Old September 16th 05, 11:36 PM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve Foley" wrote

They're calling it a safety improvement because that's where the money is.
It also makes them look good by bringing money into the local economy.


Not necessarily.

The FAA has long term plans for airport improvements. In Hickory NC, the
runway and over run area being extended is one thing that the FAA was "very"
much interested in seeing done. We had to relocate streets, to get the job
done.

Once again, the local people often have no say in these things. The FAA
gets its way, if you want it's money.
--
Jim in NC

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Death toll now 10 times 9/11 X98 Military Aviation 9 June 11th 04 05:23 AM
~ US JOINS CHINA & IRAN AS TOP DEATH PENALTY USERS ~ Matt Wiser Military Aviation 0 April 8th 04 02:55 PM
About death threats and other Usenet potpourri :-) Dudley Henriques Military Aviation 4 December 23rd 03 07:16 AM
"Air Force rules out death in spy case" Mike Yared Military Aviation 5 November 10th 03 07:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.