Stories Like this Bug Me

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15542143/

"More than half of U.S. commercial airports don't have a 1,000-foot margin
at the end of a runway, an overrun area the federal government says is
needed as a safety zone, according to a new report."

"Part of the problem is that airports were built in congested urban areas
and have no room to lengthen their runways."

Repeat after me: "THE AIRPORT WAS THERE FIRST!!". Most airports were built
out in "the sticks" decades ago. In the ensuing decades, urban areas grew up
around the airports.

Too bad no contact address given so the story could be rebutted.

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15542143/

"More than half of U.S. commercial airports don't have a 1,000-foot margin
at the end of a runway, an overrun area the federal government says is
needed as a safety zone, according to a new report."

"Part of the problem is that airports were built in congested urban areas
and have no room to lengthen their runways."

Repeat after me: "THE AIRPORT WAS THERE FIRST!!". Most airports were built
out in "the sticks" decades ago. In the ensuing decades, urban areas grew
up around the airports.

Too bad no contact address given so the story could be rebutted.

KB



If anyone believes anything that the news media says they deserve to be lied
to!! Goverment media Skull Phuck!

Kyle Boatright wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15542143/

"More than half of U.S. commercial airports don't have a 1,000-foot margin
at the end of a runway, an overrun area the federal government says is
needed as a safety zone, according to a new report."

"Part of the problem is that airports were built in congested urban areas
and have no room to lengthen their runways."

Repeat after me: "THE AIRPORT WAS THERE FIRST!!". Most airports were built
out in "the sticks" decades ago. In the ensuing decades, urban areas grew up
around the airports.

Too bad no contact address given so the story could be rebutted.

Stop listening. The argument that "the airport was there first" has
long since been dead. Its been proven time and time again that it
doesn't make a difference. If you just want something to be ****ed
about, be my guest but history shows that its not a productive position
to take.
I'm park Osage, the "we were here first" arguement didn't work well
there either.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Stop listening. The argument that "the airport was there first" has
long since been dead. Its been proven time and time again that it
doesn't make a difference.

It may be true that the fact that the airport was there first does not give
the airport carte blanche to disregard its neighbors.

However, that doesn't mean that it's reasonable for the media to *falsely
claim* that "airports were built in congested urban areas".

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.

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?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

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.

"john smith" wrote in message
...

The topic was "runway safety zones" was it not?
It is not safe to put people in said areas.


I suppose not, but which was there first, the people or the "runway safety
zone"?

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

Peter Duniho wrote:
However, that doesn't mean that it's reasonable for the media to *falsely
claim* that "airports were built in congested urban areas".

True, but sitting around complaining that the media isn't "reasonable"
isn't productive either. It doesn't change anything.

-Robert