 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Editorials
So far those attending the August 5th Lancaster Airport meeting were told that no planes have ever fallen out of the sky at the Lancaster Airport, told of the safety measures utilized by airport management/pilots, informed that the pilots can fly below altitude requirements and recommendations without FAA violation citation and that FAA investigations on resident complaints were found groundless.
Attendees heard more from the FAA and the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport (BNIA) traffic controller that safety is primo and that the Lancaster Airport is already under the control of the BNIA.
Jeffrey Lynch – Air Traffic Manager, Buffalo Tower
Lynch declared he was present because of expressed resident concerns that the Lancaster airport has no control tower and was not directly linked and under the control of the Buffalo control tower. “This is covered under regulation and demand and there is not a lot of demand by the Lancaster airport for Buffalo for their involvement.” There were 21 IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) operations from the airport in 2005, 46 in 2006, 3 in 2007, 5 in 2008 and so far this year 2. Realistically, not enough operations to justify putting in a control tower at Lancaster. The numbers may be misleading because we do work quite a few aircraft that come out of Lancaster – aircraft that would be asking for weather related services.”
“We did plot out a lot of the radar information (presented to the attendees). Aircraft control’s system is air craft guidance to prevent collisions and manage efficient traffic flow. We run 800 operations a day out of Buffalo that require our services, more in one day than the entire year at Lancaster. We have little demand from Lancaster.”
(Comment: IFR flights are only those where Lancaster airport pilots want to enter Buffalo airspace or get weather information; certainly not total flights out of Lancaster)
The cut out in the five-mile Buffalo airport restricted (five mile) airspace (photo illustrated) is by regulations one mile radius from the reference point of the airport. If an air craft is coming from Lancaster and approaching the Buffalo airport and is at 600 feet it has to contact the Buffalo tower. Radar charting was presented showing plane altitudes over homes in several locations within the flight path. Outside the restricted five-mile Buffalo airspace radius, planes have to stay below 2,200 feet. If planes go past Cemetery Road, they are in Buffalo airspace, in violation. If you go past Cemetery Road you must contact the Buffalo tower.
The Lancaster operation is not that busy that we have to get in there all the time. Referring to the graph, Lynch pointed out planes flying at 1,100 feet and as low as 400 feet. He said some concerns were expressed as to the reliability of radar to track low-flying aircraft. Based on atmospheric conditions, there could be could be limitations. But on this day (of charting), nothing went on that we were not aware of. We do know what’s going on, we do have pictures of where the aircraft are and we do know their altitudes.
Lynch voiced that there were noise concerns and what there take was on that. He said they had no take on that; that a $500,000 study at the Buffalo airport was wasted money as they are doing the same thing they did after the study as before.
(Comment: Noise concerns issues were never brought up by residents)
Tom Felix, Manager, Planning & Programming, Airport Division
Felix spoke on the status of the airport expansion plans. Those before me spoke on the oversight on pilots and the aircraft to ensure safety. We concentrate on the airport environment, working with owner and operators to ensure the runways, the lighting and pavement are kept in a safe and usable manner.
We also assist in the planning and development for present and future use and demand of the airport. We know that the aviation activity is flat, but once the economy improves there will be additional demand. We have to have the facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such demands.
Years back (90’s), the Lancaster airport was designated a reliever airport for the Buffalo airport. This means we would like to make it easier and more attractive to separate general aviation smaller aircraft from the bigger and faster commercial aircraft from the Buffalo airport. We did this through a master plan which was conducted for the Lancaster airport; including safety measures to avoid collisions between the two airports. We spent a lot of money in removing obstructions and purchasing land that might impact takeoff/landing of aircraft (runway expansion).
We then developed a capital improvement plan (CIP). As the demand increased, we spent more money to make the airport safe and able to meet the demand, especially by purchasing more land to keep the area clear of obstructions.
Before we put any money into an airport, we must by federal regulations, conduct an environmental assessment. We looked into the impacts that particular action would have on the community. There is some confusion because of what thresholds are used in determining what constitutes a significant impact in our analysis. They are in different manuals and are established by law. That does not go well with some people because there will be some impact to some people. But there is a time for public involvement, public awareness. I believe that in the case of the master plan here, an actual committee was formed between the airport sponsor and the community (not true as will be later shown) to analyze all the impacts the proposed projects would have on the community.
Felix declared there was a demand for a runway expansion and that an environmental assessment was performed on that proposal by our office as well.
Bob Miller – newly appointed airport manager / Flight School Instructor
I am more sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors than anyone in this room. What we do at the flight school is solve the very complicated regulations when there are changes from time to time from my FAA colleagues. There needs to be a mechanism for an airport to bring these changes into making new pilots aware of the existing rules. Than can only be done by a sophisticated flight school, and that’s the function I provide at this airport.
I am based here, but when we do flight training, we do it at other airports – Akron, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls. We average 2.9 flights a day out of the Lancaster airport.
Miller stated that he has seen flight training done at the Lancaster airport from flight schools in other areas. “So, this is a necessary evil,” he voiced.
We have contacted Carl Kohl (FAA) and petitioned for becoming a Flight 141 sophisticated flight school. This means the FAA is watching our activity daily. Statistics indicate a sophisticated flight school provides the best and safest pilots and that student pilots contribute to only one percent of the accidents.
In fact, our resident pilots are not the problem. This is a public use airport. I am here every day and we are watching pilots using this airport from other areas and pilots training landings and takeoffs from other airports. If a pilot takes off and makes a quick left turn, we shudder. We hold a meeting every Wednesday evening where student and veteran pilots work together to achieve what you want. We all want a safer, better flying environment.
When questioned about low altitude compliance and policing, Miller answered: In most cases, we have to make a turn 300 feet below the pattern altitude. The pattern altitude here is 800 feet. We teach our pilots to reach 500 feet. But as been pointed out earlier, we sometimes cannot get to 500 feet, depending on weather and the pilot aircraft (climb rate).
We will hit 500 feet depending on wind speed and it is always the pilot’s choice. On occasion we will get an east wind; generally a light west wind. If we have an east wind, we will depart that way (to the east) to avoid flying over Loral Lake. We are doing everything possible to work with the residents. If pilots from other areas are doing something wrong, it reflects poorly on the Lancaster airport.
Miller was asked on what SEQR (environmental review) process was in place to validate the flight school and was there a public component on the project. Miller replied that he has been the Certified Flight Instructor at Lancaster. “Just me, no flight school. I came here to teach people how to fly, under Part 61 of FAA flight requirements. Then I found a flight instructor that wanted to help me. Now I have two flight instructors and three airplanes. We are still operating as independent flight instructors. We have independent flight instructors working with tenants here from other airports. There is no organized flight school here.”
“Because I have the same safety concerns you (residents) have submitted a formal application for flight school status under Part 141 to have full supervision of the FAA in my daily operations. My colleagues and I have been working day and night preparing policies, procedures, safety manuals and all the stuff that is required to make that happen. We are meeting with inspectors every week to ensure that we are conforming to the highest level of safety standards. We operate only newer airplanes (2007 is the oldest). If any of my planes would be buzzing houses, as alleged, I would lose my certification.”
NEXT: Part III: Public comments
© Copyright 2023 - Speakupwny.com
hosted by Online Media, Inc
Buffalo Web Design and Web Hosting
Top of Page
|
|
|
Editorials
Latest Headlines
|
|
Buffalo Web hosting and Buffalo Web Design By OnLineMedia, Inc
www.olm1.com
Part of
www.onlinebuffalo.com
|