 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Editorials
As happened this past March, a group of 15 Lancaster residents appeared before their Town Board to seek assistance in ending the risk of airplane mishap and nuisance that is the result of Buffalo-Lancaster Airport pilots not following flight path requirements. “We want to be safe in our homes,” residents repeatedly told the board.
As in March, the complaints may be the same, but the number of residents complaining and the area spread is increasing. In March, Nichter Road residents were told by the Lancaster Supervisor Robert Giza that this was the first he heard of the problem, that airport manager Eric Wobschall and the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) were working on making pilots follow the prescribed route of flying to Cemetery Road and then turning left, and that the town had no jurisdiction in the matter – the airport being private and receiving funding from the federal government.
Councilman John Abraham suggested residents contact Congressman Christopher Lee as the matter was in his realm of jurisdiction. It was also suggested they contact NYS Senator Charles Schumer and the FAA.
Town Board Meeting of June 15th
Well, a different group of residents appeared last Monday before the Lancaster Town Board to petition them for help. They spoke to the board of the following:
• Planes that have been flying over our homes have been involved in three plane crashes elsewhere in the past several weeks. We have pictures of the plane that crashed in Rochester buzzing our houses. We have pictures and video of the plane that crashed in Wales buzzing our house. Do we need a plane to crash in one of our homes before something is done?
• There is no control tower to regulate plane height or path. Planes are flying below the radar readings from the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport. They need to be accountable to someone and they are not.
• We have video of planes buzzing our homes and flying 200-300 feet off the ground. One individual flew 1,000 feet above my house today proving they can obey the rules if they choose to do so.
• We have been to the FAA as you suggested and they told us that as it is a private airport they can do anything they want. The FAA suggested we come back to this board. Mr. Giza, the FAA said you (board) have the power and that’s why we came here tonight. They said you gave the permits.
• We are being told that as the town performed a SEQR on the project and approved the Airport Master Plan you control the ground space and have jurisdiction.
• Flight traffic has increased since the establishment of a flight school. How can we get help to end this flight school? With the flight school in operation now, in five hours I had 60 flyovers, by 13 different aircrafts, with 11 identifying numbers on them. Two didn’t have numbers on them. Actually they are threatening us now by coming at our windows on purpose and we have pictures and video to show that.
• Despite assurances from airport manager Eric Wobschall that all will be well with the runway xpansion, residents contrarily believe the planned runway expansion will exacerbate safety issues. They pointed out that that was the main reason Yahoo decided to not consider Lancaster as a site for their expansion enterprise.
Town response
Supervisor Robert Giza agreed that the problem has worsened because of the flight school operation. He declared that pilots are supposed to go west to Cemetery Road after takeoff and then they are supposed to turn to the left and not go over resident houses at a certain height. “There is now more touch and go practice landings. They land, circle and take off again.” He added that the runway was further south before and was moved further north to make it safer.
Supervisor Giza replied that the permits were issued by the FFA. Councilman Dan Amatura interjected that he has been on the board 5 years and he doesn’t remember the town giving them anything. “The FAA tells you as a private airport they can do anything they want,” said Amatura. “That’s my point; the FAA sends them the money and then tells you to come here. We never gave them any permits and we don’t have control over the flight school. We told that to the group that came here the last time, namely, that the airport is controlled by the FAA, not the Town Board. And, it may be a private airport, but the airspace is controlled by the FAA. We are not saying we don’t want to help you, we are saying we don’t know how to help you.”
A resident asked, “How can we stop the flight school? I believe this is something you can help us on. They are supposed to be following rules. They do whatever they want. If they took the path to Cemetery Road, made a left and were on their way, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But they fly over our houses, make another sharp turn then go over a row of houses and fly in your face. We go to the airport and speak with the manager, show them pictures and are told they have no control of the people once they take off.”
Supervisor Giza answered, “I don’t know how to get rid of the flight school. Good question, we didn’t hire the guy or encourage him to come there to start a flight school. Giza added, “The FFA needs a bigger airport for small planes. The airport has been there since the 50’s. If anything, it’s safer now than it was years ago. Kids can’t go on the property, etc. The Town has no money invested in it. I don’t know where the idea is coming from that the town gave the airport money to improve the property. The property has always been maintained through federal grant money. Once the federal government takes over with this commitment of dollars, we can’t reverse this that easily."
After again stating that with the runway being relocated and with the future runway expansion from 3,200 feet to 5,500 feet to the east, Supervisor Giza declared that those moves would move lower air traffic patterns and away from their houses.
A resident responded that with today’s technology that could allow for “pretty big” corporate jets landing at the airstrip. The problem is that it is a private corporation that owns private land and runs a private airport with no controls in place. They are a half mile short of Buffalo - Niagara International airspace. There is little flight path area for them to maneuver in.
Other resident concerns/comments/questions
• There is a direct conflict (safety issue) between the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport and the cross winds runway at the Greater Buffalo-Niagara International Airport. Flight paths between the two airports cross at several airspace locations. The Buffalo-Niagara Airport is only five miles away.
• Number of aircraft at Buffalo-Lancaster Airport to date did not exist at time of study. Three years ago there were only five aircraft stationed at the airport. Today, there are several hangers (built with federal funding) that accommodate 43 craft.
• Prior to airport expansion (hangers), air traffic was much less in volume. All other local airports with small craft have shut down. All have relocated the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport. Three years ago the Buffalo-Niagara Airport added the cross winds runway. What was the town thinking when they declared there were no SEQR potential significant adverse impacts and approved the Airport Master Plan; a plan that was conceived in 1995 and but reviewed and updated in 2007.
• The Bob Miller Flight School opened a year ago. The flight school has dramatically increased the number of “touch and go” flights. Students as young as sixteen are able to attend the flight school, put in a minimum of 20 hours of flight instruction time and then required to fly solo for 20 hours before getting an FFA certification. Miller’s school has been “shagged” out of numerous other small airports because of homeowner concerns regarding their safety and quality of life. This concern has even discouraged new businesses from locating nearby, such as Yahoo, and concerns established business owners in the area as well.
It should be noted that a student and instructor were hurt and suffered mnor injuries in a plane crash at a Plymouth MA Airport on Saturday.
A flight instructor and a student pilot suffered minor injuries after their plane flipped over at Plymouth Airport Saturday. Plymouth fire department officials say the pilot and student were practicing takeoffs and landings when their singe-engine Piper Cub had engine trouble.
• No agency will define takeoff and landing distance before aircrafts reach required 500 feet altitude. According to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, (except for takeoff and landing) low-flying aircraft may not fly below an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. The aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person or structure. No person may operate an aircraft over any congested area of a city, town or settlement at an altitude less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. Residents have pictures and videos of violations of aforementioned FAA regulations.
• Aircraft now taking off on the relocated runway have only 45 seconds before entering Buffalo-Niagara International airspace. Instead of turning at Cemetery Road, they now start the left turn process early at Pavement Road. As such they are flying below the 500-foot required altitude level when flying over homes on Nichter Road. Flight school aircraft never reach the 1,000 foot altitude requirement when flying over other congested areas. Turning before hitting proper altitude increase the likelihood of a stall and an aircraft crash.
• There are no monitoring or regulation programs in place. There is no tower to direct traffic or to communicate with the Buffalo-Niagara Airport. It is unregulated airspace where intersecting flight paths are sure to occur.
• What’s in it for the town? Residents examining town assessment data did not find any indication that the airport pays town or school district taxes.
• Residents question whether there is a fire protection plan in place. They question how future jets will be able to take passengers on board without formal search procedures as required in public airports. They share concerns on the potential for drug smuggling.
• Residents are being told they should have known better when moving in to an area neighboring an airport. Many homeowners have lived in the area many years before the expansion projects were conceived three years ago. There were only five small/light planes at the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport at that time and no flight school.
• As recent residential development has been given for the increase in homeowner complaints, the town should seriously consider placing a moratorium on future development in open spaces where such development could/would be adversely impacted by the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport (especially the vacant land east and west of the airport). Loral Lake residents are being identified as complainers without cause; that they should have known better when moving there. Truth be told, the town approved the Loral Lake development before expansion was proposed and Town Supervisor Robert Giza encouraged the developer to “build in the fashion of Clarence’s Spaulding Lake”. You can’t have it both ways!
• When examining FOILED documents provided by the Town Clerk on Buffalo-Lancaster Airport expansion and Master Plan approval, residents found no written evidence that a public hearing was held on the matter. They assert there should have been some notification of the public hearing and/or a hearing taking place allowing the public an opportunity to present their concerns and opinions.
• As one of the photos show, there are a large number of geese in the area threatening airspace takeoffs, landings and the numerous flight school touch-and-go practice runs.
 |
| Goose in the air |
Writer Comments
Residents living nearby the private airport located at 4343 Walden Avenue deserve better that to be tossed from one agency or individual to another when they simply want the airport to be regulated and managed in such fashion that ensures their safety and preserves their quality of life.
Longtime residents who lived in the vicinity of the airport should not be told that they should have known better and not moved there. Until recently, when the airport became a reliever port for the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, residents were not concerned about air traffic safety issues from an airport with limited flights and with pilots following prescribed flight patterns that kept planes away from their homes.
Since 2007 when a master plan was approved by the town to extend the runway, new build homeowners have been told the same, namely, “you knew an airport was there, why did you build a home or move there.” This statement even came from the mouths of town officials at board meetings when residents addressed the airport safety issues.
Airport manager Eric Wobschall was quoted in the Lancaster Bee as stating that “no rules exists that pilots have to use the Cemetery Road traffic pattern and pilots are only advised to do so because of neighbor complaints.” This contradicts the declaration made by Supervisor Giza that the “rule says” they are to follow the Cemetery Road flight path.
Wobschall is also quoted as saying that if the residents were really concerned about safety they would not want the pilots to deviate from the “standard” traffic pattern. You mean like the one that wasn’t used for years when there were no neighbor complaints? All of a sudden the old flight path puts pilots “dangerously close” to Buffalo airspace, says Wobschall. Could it be that the runway was relocated farther north and the change has adversely impacted Buffalo airspace?
Wobschall also states that he hasn’t heard anything from neighbors in ten years. Residents deny this declaration stating at both meetings that they had been in touch with Wobschall numerous times in the past several months on the safety issues.
It is also stated that the FAA that the FAA has responded to neighbor complaints, but yet the airport has not been cited. The FAA twice visited the airspace area and declared on both occasions that they did not witness any flight path or altitude violations. Neighbors from Loral Lake all the way to Schwartz Road have videos and pictures that show otherwise. The point neighbors are making is that there is no one in control and as it is a private airport it appears to be untouchable? Safety be damned!
Airport neighbors have done every thing asked of them. They have been repeatedly in contact with airport management, have recently appeared before the Lancaster Town Board on two occasions, have been in contact with Congressman Lee, written Senator Schumer and have been in contact with the FAA - pushed from one entity to the other. And at the last meeting Councilman John Abraham again suggested that the board and residents meet with Congressman Lee to determine which entity will handle resident concerns. The residents have already been in contact with Lee and were told it was in the Town Board’s realm.
Supervisor Giza informed the residents that he would invite Wobschall to the next Town Board meeting hoping the meeting will help residents and the airport reach an understanding. “I don’t want to make this a shouting match,” said Giza. How does one compromise on safety?
Lastly, it was suggested that residents contact the Television stations “to open this up to the eyes of all the people.” The residents have every intent of doing so, but before doing so they thought they would go to the individuals and entities that would be responsive to their concerns. So far all they have heard is, “there are no issues,” “it’s not in our jurisdiction,” “you guys have to,” and/or “we’re working on it.”
© Copyright 2009 by Speakupwny.com - hosted by Online Media, Inc
Top of Page
|
|
|
Editorials
Latest Headlines
|
|
Buffalo NY Web hosting By OnLineMedia, Inc
www.olm1.com
Part of
www.onlinebuffalo.com
[where: 14206]
|
