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.
More...
Great editorial! Although at this moment it is true, but what we are striving for is that the FAA becomes proactive rather than reactive. The space here is classified "uncontrolled". What happened in the Hudson River happened in "uncontrolled" airspace. Visual is difficult when you have many planes in the air. With so many airports in a small vicinity, a tower would eleviate this. This loss is so devastating. When you take statistics and use them in generalities, it becomes a vague overview. Statistics applied to this airport is difficult because you need a variation of things to apply to when determining specifics. For example, lets just catagorize airports (small private for public use) in the US that have conflicting runways within a 5 mile radius, a major international airport near a small private for public use airport, two other smaller airports in nearing small towns, etc .. etc.. So how do we accumulate stats on these catagories? Too many variations and not yet evaluated. My case in point, having international control the flights from BLA would help in the safety aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by speakup