Lancaster Airport Inc. seeks Town support

[OutsidetheBox]

Lancaster Resident this is a great obervation into a town board / Lancaster airport spectrum. You are right in stating that Mr. Geles is using "scare tactics" to the town board in receiving what Geles wants. Because he (t. Geles) knows that Giza has one ear open to "saving a life" scenerio. So with Giza's vulnerbility~~Geles uses the "scare tactic" card is hoping to get what he wants~~~MORE AND MORE. Well the people of Lancaster will not have it.

I find it a little ironic that you're calling out Geles for using scare tactics when SAC did the same thing last year in regards to aircraft crashing.

A parallel runway is safer than having to back taxi on an active runway. There is no question about it. Now is there enough traffic or is the situation of enough concern that one needs to be constructed, that may be a different story.

May I suggest the Safe Aviation Coalition change their name to something like Taxpayers of Lancaster, since it's quite clear your concern is no longer about just having a safe airport.

[shortstuff]

I find it a little ironic that you're calling out Geles for using scare tactics when SAC did the same thing last year in regards to aircraft crashing.

A parallel runway is safer than having to back taxi on an active runway. There is no question about it. Now is there enough traffic or is the situation of enough concern that one needs to be constructed, that may be a different story.

May I suggest the Safe Aviation Coalition change their name to something like Taxpayers of Lancaster, since it's quite clear your concern is no longer about just having a safe airport.

Box, good question to ask. I do need more information on what you mean about aircraft crashing though. SAC demonstrates the real issues at hand, so I can't defend your implication until you are more clear on your question.

I will say this, Geles has no right to use that tactic if it in the end is to justify his own wants. To address your next paragraph~~that airport is only 10% utilized. If the FAA was so involved in the concept of safety then why is this request now becoming crucial at this time of the game? This project is not something that has suddenly been developed. Outsideofthebox, look at the whole picture please. But I am very interested in your full perspective.

Also, your implying that we encompass the activtist spectrum to Taxpayers of Lancaster maybe a viable suggestion. As a taxpayer sir/mam I am truly concerned about the taxbase of this town, aren't you?

[KevinL]

I find it a little ironic that you're calling out Geles for using scare tactics when SAC did the same thing last year in regards to aircraft crashing.

A parallel runway is safer than having to back taxi on an active runway. There is no question about it. Now is there enough traffic or is the situation of enough concern that one needs to be constructed, that may be a different story.

May I suggest the Safe Aviation Coalition change their name to something like Taxpayers of Lancaster, since it's quite clear your concern is no longer about just having a safe airport.

TO REITERATE FROM MY LAST POST:

The airport creates their own problems and then cries for more taxpayer funds. Tom Geles stated this is a safety issue that must be addressed immediately. While he claims that purchase of town property is required to complete the taxiway, a safe and complete taxiway can be completed within current footprint of airport property. Reason he wants town property is for next phase of build out which would be 2300' of runway and approximately 3500' more of taxiway to the east. All claims are only meant to set airport up for another expansion to allow small jets and aircraft of 79' wing span and up to 45000 lbs. to land at BQR. You do the math: original runway (1995) was 2750' long X 45' wide. The airport decided to build a NEW runway moving such to the north and east of original location. Runway length to date is 3200' X 75' wide and is more than enough to handle current aircraft housed at airport. Parallel taxiway can be added to current runway and relieve airport of self imposed "safety issue". They are trying to cover up true goal that they actually want a 5500' runway with a rating of B2 aircraft. Example: Aircraft landing speed under 121 mph/under 79' wing span and a total 45000 lbs.
Currently, airport is set up for wing span's under 49' and weight of 12,500 lbs. max. Why do we need larger aircraft at BQR when BNIA can easily handle the few that may occassionaly come to this area? BNIA is already set up for these aircraft at no further tax payer expense. A private TAX PAYING enterprise, (Prior Aviation) is already capable of handling aircraft with no additional public monies.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I find it a little ironic that you're calling out Geles for using scare tactics when SAC did the same thing last year in regards to aircraft crashing.

A parallel runway is safer than having to back taxi on an active runway. There is no question about it. Now is there enough traffic or is the situation of enough concern that one needs to be constructed, that may be a different story.

May I suggest the Safe Aviation Coalition change their name to something like Taxpayers of Lancaster, since it's quite clear your concern is no longer about just having a safe airport.

To add to Kevin's post:

What I find ironic is that when Mr. Geles attended a Town Board meeting last spring, he told the Town Board, SAC and all attendees that there were no safety concerns with pilots flying low over resident homes as they were forced to do so to stay out of Buffalo-Niagara International Airport restricted airspace. At that meeting, at the summer general public meeting at the airport where FAA and BNIA attended, and since that time, no mention was ever brought up about the need for a full length taxiway and/or the importance of it for safety operations for small single and double engine aircraft operating out of the airport.

Six months ago Geles declares the airport a safe operation. Nothing changes, but Geles laments we need a full parallel taxiway for safe operation. He then adds the FFA insists on it. They do, should the airport further expand. It should not! If it is true that the airport is only being 10% utilized a short stuff maintains, someone sold the FAA a fairy tale.

The full length parallel taxiway is needed for aircraft with wing spans of 79 feet and for corporate jets – which does nothing to add value to the town and which adversely impacts the quality of life of the community. Geles is blowing smoke because he needs town owned (taxpayer) property and to recoup his E&E property purchase state funding money (taxpayer money).

What is even more ironic is that the town absolves itself from helping the airport in any manner and Geles openly stated at last spring’s meeting and at the recent Town Board work session that the town approved endorsing resolutions for the airport to get funding.

As for SAC bringing forward the waste of government (taxpayer) monies to fund a private entity that services the public, they have done a good job on that end. It doesn’t bother you that millions have been spent on a project that only benefits a few airport users while enriching those that sold property to the airport at outrageous prices?

It doesn't bother you that beside taxpayer money going to fund the airport expansion, Geles is granted 3 IDAs and is seeking another so that he can rent out cheap hangar space and sell cheap gas?

[therising]

I find it a little ironic that you're calling out Geles for using scare tactics when SAC did the same thing last year in regards to aircraft crashing.

A parallel runway is safer than having to back taxi on an active runway. There is no question about it. Now is there enough traffic or is the situation of enough concern that one needs to be constructed, that may be a different story.

May I suggest the Safe Aviation Coalition change their name to something like Taxpayers of Lancaster, since it's quite clear your concern is no longer about just having a safe airport.

There's two separate issues of safety here - safety of those on the ground, and safety of the pilots on the runway. And, these two issues do not contradict each other.

I have much less concern about the safety of the pilots on the runway. When someone decides they want to become an amateur pilot, they do so, knowing that there are major safety issues involved. And, they do so, knowing that it could kill them. So....I would much rather see two planes crash into each other on the runway, than one plane crash into a house.

[OutsidetheBox]

As for SAC bringing forward the waste of government (taxpayer) monies to fund a private entity that services the public, they have done a good job on that end. It doesn’t bother you that millions have been spent on a project that only benefits a few airport users while enriching those that sold property to the airport at outrageous prices?

It doesn't bother you that beside taxpayer money going to fund the airport expansion, Geles is granted 3 IDAs and is seeking another so that he can rent out cheap hangar space and sell cheap gas?

I've always said I've never been a fan of the IDA money that has been provided to the airport as I don't believe that's a proper use of IDA funding.

As for the other gov't money for the improvements of the airport, no, that doesn't bother me. The money comes from an allocated source that is collected solely by aviation taxes and goes directly back to aviation. Makes sense to me.

There's two separate issues of safety here - safety of those on the ground, and safety of the pilots on the runway. And, these two issues do not contradict each other.

I have much less concern about the safety of the pilots on the runway. When someone decides they want to become an amateur pilot, they do so, knowing that there are major safety issues involved. And, they do so, knowing that it could kill them. So....I would much rather see two planes crash into each other on the runway, than one plane crash into a house.

SAC's claim was that they cared about the safety of the pilots as well as those on the ground. If this isn't true and they only care about those on the ground, fine, just say so. But don't pretend like you want a safer environment for everyone then.

[KevinL]

I've always said I've never been a fan of the IDA money that has been provided to the airport as I don't believe that's a proper use of IDA funding.

As for the other gov't money for the improvements of the airport, no, that doesn't bother me. The money comes from an allocated source that is collected solely by aviation taxes and goes directly back to aviation. Makes sense to me.




SAC's claim was that they cared about the safety of the pilots as well as those on the ground. If this isn't true and they only care about those on the ground, fine, just say so. But don't pretend like you want a safer environment for everyone then.

People using commercial airlines are forced to pay more taxes in their ticket cost. EX: fuel, landing fees, basic tax to supplement reliever airports. All fees (hidden in price) are passed on to ticket holder without expressed consent and partially utilized for recreational pilots. If they truly like their sport, they should pay for it, not the traveling public. In regards to your claim, the airport can have their taxiway any time they choose without additional expansion/land. All they have to do is follow proper procedures.

[OutsidetheBox]

People using commercial airlines are forced to pay more taxes in their ticket cost. EX: fuel, landing fees, basic tax to supplement reliever airports. All fees (hidden in price) are passed on to ticket holder without expressed consent and partially utilized for recreational pilots. If they truly like their sport, they should pay for it, not the traveling public. In regards to your claim, the airport can have their taxiway any time they choose without additional expansion/land. All they have to do is follow proper procedures.

And there is also a tax on Avgas that every single aircraft owner/pilot has to pay. So it's not like all of the money collected by airline tickets is the only source of funding. The tax collected from the airlines also funds the airports that they fly into. Sure, as a passenger you have to pay this tax, but you also benefit from this tax.

Can the airport really have their taxiway though? While I'm sure it's not 100% accurate, I measured via the GIS website about 110' between the edge of the runway and the edge of Enterprise Dr. Is 110' enough room for a taxiway with proper, FAA regulated separation between taxiways and runways?

[ichingtheory]

And there is also a tax on Avgas that every single aircraft owner/pilot has to pay. So it's not like all of the money collected by airline tickets is the only source of funding. The tax collected from the airlines also funds the airports that they fly into. Sure, as a passenger you have to pay this tax, but you also benefit from this tax.

Can the airport really have their taxiway though? While I'm sure it's not 100% accurate, I measured via the GIS website about 110' between the edge of the runway and the edge of Enterprise Dr. Is 110' enough room for a taxiway with proper, FAA regulated separation between taxiways and runways?

I am sure kevinl will answer but in the meantime, homework was already done regarding taxiway. This being the case, yes, they are able to construct taxiway as mentioned. Any time you would care to review documents (FACTS) we have, feel free to send me an e-mail.

[KevinL]

And there is also a tax on Avgas that every single aircraft owner/pilot has to pay. So it's not like all of the money collected by airline tickets is the only source of funding. The tax collected from the airlines also funds the airports that they fly into. Sure, as a passenger you have to pay this tax, but you also benefit from this tax.

Can the airport really have their taxiway though? While I'm sure it's not 100% accurate, I measured via the GIS website about 110' between the edge of the runway and the edge of Enterprise Dr. Is 110' enough room for a taxiway with proper, FAA regulated separation between taxiways and runways?

As my previous posts stated, amount of Avgas sold to recreational pilots no where near collects enough taxes to pay for one day of operation at any small/private reliever airports. In regards to your taxiway question, how big of a runway does a under 30' wing span aircraft require? 2750' X 50'.. YOU DO THE MATH. Get back to me... I am sure you will discover you are able to fit a taxiway with allotted space.

[shortstuff]

And there is also a tax on Avgas that every single aircraft owner/pilot has to pay. So it's not like all of the money collected by airline tickets is the only source of funding. The tax collected from the airlines also funds the airports that they fly into. Sure, as a passenger you have to pay this tax, but you also benefit from this tax.

Can the airport really have their taxiway though? While I'm sure it's not 100% accurate, I measured via the GIS website about 110' between the edge of the runway and the edge of Enterprise Dr. Is 110' enough room for a taxiway with proper, FAA regulated separation between taxiways and runways?

The group has done research into this project, but it wasn't really necessary actually, all the masterplans and environmental assessments to backup these concerns are valid and is available to the public.

You have been informed on numerous occasions, but it appears you have a block in not having the ability to process this information. If you are so determined to not understand the value of the project, this information can be provided to you.

To dispell your illusions, people in general care about the safety of both people on the ground and people in the air. If you have not the ability to identify with that it is called "Humanism."

[ichingtheory]

If you want to own a private aircraft and fly from a private or public (taxpayer funded) airport, simple rule should apply, you PLAY you PAY!!

[shortstuff]

If you want to own a private aircraft and fly from a private or public (taxpayer funded) airport, simple rule should apply, you PLAY you PAY!!

Bravo itch.....