 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Editorials
After waiting some 35 minutes, listening to others speak on the benefits of the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport (BLA), ground safety measures, how the planes at BLA were under radar watch from the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport (BNIA) and confusing aircraft flight altitude limits, the residents got their opportunity to present their safety concerns – which is what the meeting was really supposed to be about.
Acting as one of several spokespersons for about 40 resident attendees coming from multiple town areas, Nichter Road resident Dave Hangauer informed the board that their group had also been in contact with the FAA. He added that they had performed an extensive search and probably more informed than Mr. Geles.“We know what the regulations are, what the minimum altitudes are as well. That’s why we had the FAA come out. We are of the understanding that over a populated area, or a congested area, the minimum altitude is 1,000 feet above the highest object. When planes are flying over a congested area, they should also be at a thousand feet.”
Hangauer declared that is the standard requirement unless there is an issue for the pilot. He went on to tell how pilots making left turns early were far below that minimum altitude limit but were found in compliance by the FAA. He described how in 2006 the BNIA opened what is called the crosswinds runway while the main runway was under reconstruction. That created a direct conflict with the BLA runway. “So now a lot of commercial traffic is coming in near where the divot is (in the no-fly five mile radius of the BNIA airspace). This created a dangerous situation. So the BNIA told the pilots to turn early. Don’t go out to Cemetery Road like you used to. When there were ten planes at the BLA, there were no complaints. The complaints have started since then and this has all been documented.”
Hangauer continued: “But the BNIA crosswinds runway did not go away. It is still there and in use, although not as often. So, the pilots understandingly don’t want to end up in BNIA airspace, so they turn early. When there is take-off or landing, it’s pilot discretion as to when they turn and at what altitude until they reach the traffic pattern altitude. Traffic pattern altitude at most modern private airports is 1,000 feet above the ground. The BLA has not yet modernized their standard and are still at 800 feet. The recommendation, not requirement, from the FAA is to not make the what’s called the crosswind turn (here left turn) unless you are at least within 300 feet of the traffic pattern altitude; which would be 700 feet if it were the thousand feet standard at most modern private airports, 500 feet in the case if the BLA. The pilots are turning much sooner than Cemetery Rd, and at lower altitude, to try avoiding the BNIA “no-fly” space. What you have done now is to take one dangerous situation and substituted another one.”
“We need to use some common sense here. Yes, they are within the regulations of the FAA, not their recommendations. Obviously, the flight school adds to the danger. What can we do about this?
1) We know we have to be reasonable right now with all the money spent by the FAA, to the tune of $7 - $12 million of taxpayer money. It is our recommendation to put the BLA under the control of the BNIA tower. This would definitely improve safety because they would take off when there would be no commercial flights coming into the crosswinds runway; they could go out pass Cemetery Road to an altitude of a thousand feet if necessary before they make their turn, do their pattern and come back and land – all of this done very safely. They wouldn’t then have to fly over Westwood Park at 300 feet, which is what happens now – and we have proof of this and will be happy to provide it. So this (safety concern) doesn’t have to be if the BLA is under the control of the BNIA tower.
2) The second issue concerns young trainee pilots. As was admitted here earlier, you only have to be sixteen years old to fly the plane; you can do your first solo flight and get your license at seventeen. Is this a good thing? To put a sixteen year old in the controls of a plane and fly at low altitude over residential areas so they can avoid the BNIA airspace; flying over Westwood Park as well. This flight school could be located further away from the BNIA airspace where we don’t have this complication. This is all common sense where you don’t have to be an aviation expert to come to this conclusion. Do we have to wait for an accident to happen before common sense is applied? I am sure a skilled pilot can make the sharp left turn maneuver and gain altitude quickly after coming off the runway, but to put this in the hands of an unskilled pilot is another matter and could lead to a crash.
So, they are in FAA regulation compliance only because they are being considered as part of takeoff and landing maneuver procedures. They are not in compliance with FAA recommendations.
3) Third issue concerns the lengthening of the runway. The more planes the runway expansion will allow means more risk caused by planes flying overhead. The bigger the planes the faster they fly and when they come down the more damage they can cause. Is this how we fix the problem, by bringing in more planes?"
Continuing, Hangauer declared: The common sense approach for solution is to put the BLA under the control of the BNIA tower so that everything is done safely, not have the flight school at BLA and cap the growth at the airport until all safety issues have been addressed. We also believe SEQR issues should be re-reviewed regarding the issues residents are now bringing forward." (There was no prior public hearing held on the matter.)
Hangauer also spoke on Geles’ presentation regarding what a great asset the airport is to Western New York. “We are not denying there a lot of great pilots, that they are good people and recognize what they contribute to Lancaster in particular. We are not against pilots and/or flying and have flying enthusiasts in our group.”
“Mr. Geles brought up that the airport is a great economic benefit to the town of Lancaster. The airport pays taxes Mr. Geles declared. We actually looked into the tax situation and found the annual amount they pay in taxes is a little over $7,000. A lot of single homes in Lancaster pay more than that. This is on a large facility with almost $12 million in improvements; improvements that came from our tax dollars any which way you want to look at it (the aviation fuel taxes Mr. Geles mentioned largely come from commercial airlines wherein general public ticket purchasers pay the tax as part of their ticket price). Our tax dollars paid for the facility improvement and yet they get large tax abatements in PILOTS (3 PILOTS -payment in lieu of taxes). These are the records we have and if we are wrong we would like you to prove they are wrong." (Town Clerk Johanna Coleman confirmed the amount stated was correct.)
Hangauer closed with voicing that a lot of the people that use the airport don’t live in Lancaster. “They come in get gas and leave. There’s nothing wrong with people doing their hobbies. But when it is at somebody else’s expense – especially safety – that’s where we have an issue.”
Hangauer had made it clear that he was made spokesperson by residents from Nichter Road, Pavement Road, Schwartz Road, Ransom Road, Westwood Road and supporters who visited Westwood Park and their neighborhood.
Next: Part IV: More resident responses on safety concerns
© 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]
|