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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FAA grants AOPA demand for investigation into Meigs closure
What do airmen feel the appropriate penalty might be? http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...04-1-087x.html FAA grants AOPA demand for investigation into Meigs closure Feb. 11 — AOPA's claim that the city of Chicago violated federal law and aviation regulations when it shut down Meigs Field last March has merit, says the FAA, and will be investigated. AOPA filed a formal complaint following the destruction of Meigs's runway on Mayor Richard M. Daley's order, claiming the city failed to provide adequate notice, as required by the FARs. The complaint will not result in the airport's reopening but can lead to the mayor and the city being punished for their actions. "AOPA intends to push for the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the city," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "Mayor Daley and any other state or local official who may want to follow Daley's lead must be made to understand they cannot unilaterally change the National Airspace System." The manager of the FAA's Enforcement Division sent a letter of response to AOPA's complaint against both the mayor and the city, saying "reasonable grounds exist" to begin an informal investigation into the allegations. AOPA maintains that Daley and the city of Chicago violated both the U.S. Code and Federal Aviation Regulations. The U.S. Code states that an airport or landing area not involving the expenditure of federal money may be altered substantially "only if the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration is given reasonable prior notice, so that the Administrator may provide advice on the effects" of the alteration. In order for the administrator to carry out that obligation, Federal Aviation Regulations state that anyone intending to alter a runway, deactivate a runway or airport, or change the status of an airport must submit notice of that intent at least 90 days prior to taking such action. The FARs do provide for immediate emergency action, such as in the case of national security, which was Daley's original claim. However, even in the case of an emergency, if the airport has a charted instrument approach, which Meigs Field did, a minimum of 30 days' notice must be given. .... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Piloting | 133 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |