Debate over runway expansion at Ann Arbor airport heats up

Posted on Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 6:05 a.m.

Debate over runway expansion at Ann Arbor airport heats up

By Ryan J. Stanton

An aerial shot of the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, courtesy of the city.

Residents living in a subdivision next to a small airport in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., watched in disbelief last April as a twin-engine plane crashed into a nearby house and burst into flames.

The pilot had radioed the air traffic control tower seconds earlier to say he was going to turn back due to mechanical difficulties. But his aircraft went down, and he was killed on impact.

Andy McGill and Kathe Wunderlich pose inside their Pittsfield Township home with a large stack of airport records they have obtained while fighting the proposed runway expansion at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

"He was a very experienced pilot -Â he lost an engine on takeoff, tried to turn back, and crashed into a home," said Pittsfield Township resident Sol Castell, a local pilot who lives in a subdivision adjacent to the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport and worries the same could happen here.

The longstanding debate over Ann Arbor's proposed 800-foot runway expansion was rekindled last week at an Ann Arbor City Council meeting. Neighbors - many in the large Stonebridge subdivision west of the airport - pleaded with the council not to approve a $37,250 item contained in the city's 2011-2016 capital improvements plan.

That item represents the city's share of a $1.5 million runway expansion project that would be almost entirely federally funded. But conceding to residents' pleas, council members voted 8-3 to remove the project from the plan and said they're awaiting the results of an environmental assessment study before they make any decisions.

City Council members will have the final say on whether the expansion happens. Although the land is in Pittsfield Township, it is owned and operated by the city.

City Council members say they've heard conflicting arguments for and against the expansion.

Expansion proponents like airport manager Matt Kulhanek and Mark Perry, chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee, are making a hard sell on the project in the name of safety.

But they're up against residents like Andy McGill and Kathe Wunderlich, a husband-wife duo arguing the expansion will do anything but improve safety. They say it will instead result in bigger and heavier planes flying closer to homes.

"They'll be passing over us at 300 feet and below," McGill said. "The margin of recovery if anything goes wrong is so small that eventually one of these planes is going to end up in someone's living room."

McGill and Wunderlich have formed an airport opposition group that has grown to about 400 members. They point out the expansion will not only tack 800 feet onto the runway, but also shift it 150 feet away from State Road, bringing its edge 950 feet closer to their subdivision.

Airport officials say those changes would address a number of safety issues. Foremost, the 150-foot shift eliminates a blind spot for the air traffic control tower. They also say it would provide for an improved approach to the runway and allow for the future widening of State Road.

Officials also say the extension reduces the likelihood of overruns, or cases where pilots go beyond the limits of the current 3,500-foot runway. According to airport officials, at least 11 such instances have occurred between 1998 and 2008, while only one other overrun occurred in the rest of the state.

McGill said he's closely studied the overrun reports and argues only three of them are legitimate. Considering they happened over the course of a decade, three out of 1 million operations isn't bad, he said.

"You have to ask yourself, if everything has been safe here, and it's that tiny little percentage of accidents, and they're all pilot error or mechanical error that a longer runway won't solve, why is the airport pushing so hard for this?" Wunderlich said.

McGill's group claims airport officials want to position the airport to accept aircraft weighing 40,000 pounds - twice the current limit.

"Some of the planes that will be able to come here that can't come now are Learjets, Rockwell Sabres and Mitsubishi Diamonds," McGill said. "That's just three kinds of twin jets, and there are several others."

The flight tower overlooks the terminal at the Ann Arbor Airport.

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

Perry said five to eight types of larger planes will be able to use the airport if the runway expands. But he said that doesn't mean they're going to be lining up to land here.

"You just don't jump in any plane and say, 'Hey, Ann Arbor's got 800 more feet, let's go land there,'" he said.

Perry said the airport isn't seeking bigger planes. He insists the project is about safety, and that's why the expansion only takes the runway up to 4,300 feet, maintaining its B-II category.

"I want to maintain the small community character of that airport. I do not want bigger, louder planes landing in this area," he said. "Maybe that was the agenda two prior times when it was going to go out to 5,000 feet in 1978 and 1993, but this is more of a compromise."

Some residents argue continuing to invest in a financially struggling airport isn't wise. The airport required a $127,000 subsidy from the general fund last year and borrowed more than $1 million to build six new hangars.

Reports show the airport lost out on more than $21,500 in revenue from vacancies in airplane hangars in 2009. Last month, the airport reported another $3,491 loss from 13 vacancies to start the year.

"They've lost money seven out of the last 10 years in operations," McGill said. "The way that the airport has depleted its reserves and has gotten to the point where it's operating on such a shoe-string is a travesty."

Perry said the airport should have ended last year in the black, but a year-end IRS ruling required charging back the airport's employee retirement benefits account for benefits previously paid out.

An overhead view of the airport showing its proximity to surrounding subdivisions. The expansion would take the current 3,500-foot runway an extra 950 feet southwest toward the subdivisions across Lohr Road.

Perry acknowledged aviation is on a decline, which partly explains the hangar vacancies.

"I would say it's a sign of the times," he said. "And the demographics of pilots is rapidly changing. The greatest number of pilots that were trained were in World War II. And since the Vietnam War, we haven't had a war that required the mass training of pilots, so the number of pilots is aging off."

The traffic count at the airport reached its peak with 134,554 operations in 1999. That was down to 64,910 by 2008.

In its heyday, the airport saw nearly 31 flights come and go each hour during tower operations. By 2008, that was down to 15.

Even if the airport experiences a slight uptick from the proposed improvements, Perry argues the traffic counts still won't be what they once were.

Perry cites a study completed by the Michigan Department of Transportation in 1992 called "Value of Airports to Their Communities: Economic Benefits of Aviation." The report showed the airport had a $32.9 million annual impact on the economy, and each of the 56,900-plus annual visitors to Ann Arbor who arrived via the airport spent on average $57 per trip at off-airport spots.

Washtenaw County Commissioner Kristin Judge, a Pittsfield Township resident who lives near the airport and serves on the citizens advisory committee, said she's waiting for the results of the impact study.

"The initial safety concerns cited for the expansion have all been discredited," she said. "The longer runway will allow heavier airplanes no doubt. The longer runway will allow the current jets that use the airport to fill their tanks to capacity and fill their airplanes to capacity with payload."

Many township residents are unhappy the city has control over the decision.

"I really think there is some injustice here where local people are being taken advantage of by the interests of an expansion-hungry airport," said David Healy, who lives near the airport. "The greater injustice is the fact that any decision regarding this expansion will be made by a body with no electoral accountability to the local people."

Perry noted the airport has been in operation since 1928, and the subdivisions were built in the 1980s.

"The airport's not going anywhere, the subdivisions aren't going anywhere," he said. "We've just got to find a way to come together."

Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.

Comments

Polska

Wed, Mar 3, 2010 : 11:25 p.m.

Mr Packman. Or may I assume you are Mr. Airport Manager or Airport Advisory Committee since you use the same logic and spin coming from the pro expansion spin group. A few weeks ago you posted this: "@Polska - If you're going to point us to aircraft accidents, please include the American Airlines B737 overrun in Jamaica on the 23rd of December. Are long runways safer? Ask the crew and passengers on that flight. Are airline pilots better than other pilots? That depends..." This post has the same spirit of ignorance and depict you exhibited towards the public and the AA Council for many months. I responded with the accident report and asked you to look at the weather report. Today, I have the results of this case. Yes, Mr Overrun. once again it was "pilot error". Just like almost all of the ARB so called "overruns". Landing with tailwind in heavy rain, at high speed, mid runway does not mean that the runway is short. Too bad you and the rest of your gang are not honest enough to stop fooling the public with your bogus "overrun" claims. What is really sad is the you have fooled the entire AA Council into wasting more tax dollar based on your bogus "overrun" and "safety" claims. So read this and learn: "Jamaica CAA Releases Factual Report On AA 737 Overrun Aviation Daily Jan 07, 2010, p. 06 Frances Fiorino The American Airlines Boeing 737-800 (N977AN) involved in the Dec. 22 runway overrun at Kingston, Jamaica, attempted to land with tailwinds and in heavy rain, according to the Jamaica Civil Aviation Authoritys preliminary factual report released Jan. 6 The flight originated at Miami Airport at about 8:22 p.m. EST and was en route to Kingston airport with 154 people on board. Instrument Meteorological Conditions prevailed in the area during the aircrafts approach to Runway 12. Air traffic control advised the flight crew of tailwind conditions and offered a circling approach for landing on Runway 30 instead. The pilots repeated their initial request and were cleared to land on Runway 12 with the advisory that the runway surface was wet. The crew said they made visual contact with the runway between 1,000 feet and 700 feet above ground level. The captain, the pilot flying, said he used the Heads Up Display during approach and landing. When the 737s wheels made initial contact 4,000 feet down the 8,900-foot runway, the aircraft was traveling at 148 knots landing airspeed, 162 knots groundspeed and with a 14-knot tailwind component, according to flight data recorder information. The aircraft bounced once and settled to the runway when the autobrakes engaged and reverse thrust and spoilers were deployed, The crew subsequently applied maximum manual braking because the aircraft was not decelerating normally. The aircraft veered to left of centerline and departed the end of the runway at 63 knots groundspeed. At about 10:22 p.m. EST, the 737 went through a perimeter fence, crossed a roadway and came to rest 175 feet beyond the departure end of Runway 12 on a rocky beach about 40 feet from the water line. The fuselage broke into three pieces during the overrun. Numerous injuries were reported among those on board, but there were no fatalities." Any questions Mr. Packman? Of course Mr. Packman, in your twisted logic world and as you displayed with your ignorant post mentioning this case, this would necessitate a runway expansion... Too bad the AA Council gets its information from uninformed unprofessional folks with an agenda.

john d

Tue, Feb 23, 2010 : 2:10 p.m.

Annoyed wrote- --ONE accident the twin engine Cessna 310 crashed into a house, nobody on the ground was injured---- Important note concerning this accident- According to NTSB Identification: CHI71AC030: the aircraft departed Alliance, Ohio with an intended destination of Mason, Michigan. During normal cruise the aircraft loss partial power to one of its engines. The pilot failed to follow approved procedures and crashed during an uncontrolled descent. Could of happened anywhere.

john d

Tue, Feb 23, 2010 : 11:47 a.m.

Annoyed wrote- ---I don't know where everyone is getting their accident info but I just looked at the NTSB database and since 1965 there have been 67 accidents/incidents with 17 fatalities.--- Try this search criteria and you will find what you missed- Date Range 1/1/1962 City - Ann Arbor State - Michigan Injury Severity - Fatal SUBMIT QUERY First fatal noted is in 1965 and last in 2001. Search Fatalities, Ann Arbor, MI 1962 to present # Fatal / Date / Aircraft 1 / 3-8-1965 Johnson Rocket 2 / 6-15-1965 Good Year FG-1 2 / 6/23/1970 N American AT6-F 3 / 11-8-1970 Cessna 310F (N6757X) 3 / 5-23-1973 Cessna 310G (N512R) 1 / 7-6-1978 Cessna 170B 3 / 10-7-1989 Piper PA-28-180 3 / 12-1-1994 Agusta A109A II 2 / 6-21-2001 Masko Mustang MII 20 Total

annoyed

Mon, Feb 22, 2010 : 3:30 p.m.

Saying that the aircraft are going to be 950' closer to your homes because of the runway extension and relocation is misleading. The only time they will be 950' closer to your home is when they are departing runway 6 away from your home. They may be closer as they are coming in on final to land on runway 6, however this is the quietest time of the entire flight. Pilots are also trained to fly a pattern in such a way that if the engine quits you can still make the runway. So if the engine were to quit while they were on final approach for runway 6 and over your house, they would still make it to the airport. I don't know where everyone is getting their accident info but I just looked at the NTSB database and since 1965 there have been 67 accidents/incidents with 17 fatalities. ONE accident the twin engine Cessna 310 crashed into a house, nobody on the ground was injured. All of the other accidents appear to have either occurred on the airport property or vacant land. One accident (3 fatal) in 1996 involved a medical helicopter (which are much louder than most airplanes) that suffered an engine failure after departing a hospital. Are you going to put an end to all helicopter flights and hospital heliports because they are close to your houses?

john d

Sun, Feb 21, 2010 : 11:50 p.m.

Polska You say, There were 9 fatalities in the vicinity of the airport. All related to the airport. None (Not one) had anything to do with runway length. Every single one of these crashes resulting the 9 fatalities, present clear danger to the surrounding communities....... Give me a break. That is like saying the fatalities on I-94 present a present clear danger to surrounding communities. You and your neighbors stand a greater chance of dieing on I94 while talking on your cell phones than from an airplane crashing into your house. If you go to the NTSB website (you know, the National Transportation Safety Board) they list 20 aircraft related fatalities in Ann Arbor since 1965 (not sure where you got your numbers). All in aircraft that CURRENTLY operate out of ARB. The fact of the matter is, the piston aircraft that use ARB are the least safe and highest accident category aircraft. The extension will improve safety for all and allow the larger, safer aircraft access to ARB. But not one has caused any fatalities on the ground. I ask again for you to provide a report or evidence of aircraft that ARB would gain (turbine aircraft) with the extension, crashing into homes. Use the entire USA for your research. Please don't use space shuttle debris...... Now listen, I'm probably like alot of you. I don't want aircraft flying near my home. They make noise, so I have to wait to talk while barbequing until they pass and they may be a nuisance. But you know what? I am not stupid enough to buy a home near an airport. What kind of dummy, who doesn't like air traffic, decides to buy a home right next to an airport? Bottom line- Extending the runway will NOT decrease safety or be hazardous to any surrounding homes. The Safety cry by the residents is just a smoke screen and a PR tool to block any airport improvements. The residents don't care if a pilot dies but they do care about airplanes making noise over their homes...... homes they bought next to an airport!

RickA

Sun, Feb 21, 2010 : 9:28 a.m.

This a simple saftey versus economic development question; is the addition of enough runway length necessary to allow big business class jets access to the airport worth a miniscule additional safety risk to the adjacent neighborhood? In this formally premier manufacturing state (and now rust belt capital of the world) that continues to pander to citizens who demand political decisions that ultimately chase jobs away (for all kinds of touchy-feely reasons).... I'd predict the runway extension is toast, and the future of the airport as it stands today is bleak. Why bother wasting local money on a state component of the national transportation system when there is no economic reason to come to Ann Arbor to create and/or maintain business viability? Just stay home and collect your substinence check.

Russ

Sat, Feb 20, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.

I have read a number of the comments posted here, some are interesting, many seem uninformed. As a professional pilot I can say that a total runway length of 4300 feet is still too short to be of much use to most business jets...at that length, I'm not aware of any business jet, other than perhaps the very smallest, that could depart from Ann Arbor with enough fuel to actually travel more than a short distance and I have flown a number of different business jets...as the pilot of such a jet, I would opt for one of the other airports in the area. I might point out that aircraft performance is directly affected by air temperature, such that the higher the temperature the longer the required runway....and a wet runway with its reduced braking effectiveness can even further increase the demand for greater runway length...so an aircraft taking-off from Ann Arbor on a warm summer day after a passing thunderstorm could be in a difficult situation should an abort become necessary. I have voted yes, an increased runway length does without any doubt or debate improve safety, while granted pilot judgement is important as well. On another note, I have lived next to an airport for several years, it is my opinion, and I'm sure can be demonstrated, that a modern jet has a much smaller noise foot print and for a shorter period of time than nearly any other aircraft type...Russ Smith

packman

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 8:47 a.m.

@Al The township representatives on the AAC might not be happy that you believe that they were "fooled." Please provide examples of how you believe that they were fooled. This was not some middle of the night deal. The environmental assessment for the project is conducted by FAA, MDOT, and a highly qualified local engineering firm. It is a public process represented by qualified individuals representing all interests.

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 11:54 p.m.

Packman. Your spin spin is all too familiar. "2) The entire manner in which the proposal has been put forth is backhanded and troubling. The proposal is hiding under the guise of being for safety while it is really for expanding the type of aircraft that the airport can service. Answer: If you are from the townships, both Lodi and Pittsfield have representatives on the Airport Advisory Committee, " You forgot to mention that the Lodi and Pittsfield Reps are not pilots and as such can be fooled with your "Overrun" report and made up "safety" issues, just as the rest of the community. You can keep on telling half of the truth and fool some people some of the time. But you can not fool all the people all the time.

Polska

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 11:42 p.m.

John D. You say: >>The problem with this poll is that it solicits the response of unqualified persons. If you are not a pilot or aviation professional, how can you accurately provide an answer.

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 11:30 p.m.

Larry. "The airport is a vital part of the city and its economy." Nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense. Detroit Metro is important. Willow Run could be important. Ann Arbor is meaningless. A C-150 practicing takeoff and landings, contributes nothing meaningful to the economy. The only people who will miss the airport, if it will shut down tomorrow are the air traffic controllers. These folks enjoy a cushy well paying federal job at a huge cost to tax payers. Other than that, it will not be missed by many. Saying otherwise, is nothing but wishful thinking nonsense.

john d

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.

I find Andy McGill's stance interesting yet typical. The statistics show 11 over runs in the last decade, but he takes it upon himself to discount 8 of them. Yet he fails to provide any statistical data to support his "eventually one of these planes is going to end up in someone's living room." statemtent. The aircraft cited at the beginning of the article which crashed into a house in Florida is a Cessna 421. These type of aircraft ALREADY operate into Ann Arbor Airport. Please provide instances of the jet aircraft (the ones you want everyone to fear, 20,000 to 40,000 lbs) crashing into homes at airports with runways that are 4000-4500 feet long. This would be representative of the actual situation. Fear mongering is the tactic of the government and those who do not have the facts on their side. Every aviation professional knows that even small jets are 10 times safer than the piston twin and single engine aircraft that currently operate every day at Ann Arbor airport The problem with this poll is that it solicits the response of unqualified persons. If you are not a pilot or aviation professional, how can you accurately provide an answer. I do not provide opinions on the safety of a medical procedure, because I am not a doctor or medical professional and therefore the value of my contribution would be zero. I am sure there are some, but most of the pollsters have no idea of the FAA performance requirements of turbine aircraft. Without this basic knowledge, no one can accurately provide any sort of safety assessment. The residents of the homes around the airport don't want airplanes near their homes yet they bought homes next to an airport. So their only tact is to skew the facts and cry SAFETY when the reality of the situation is the SAFETY of everyone would be enhanced by the runway extension. Of course, that would not serve their purpose.

john d

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 1:56 p.m.

Bob

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 11:45 a.m.

Thank you Ann Arbor for fighting this! As a former resident and current Ohioan we welcome all Federal funds that you will not use on this project. The Cleveland Clinic welcomes all who need to access our hospitals that cannot use Ann Arbor Airport for U of M hospital. The Buckeyes alumni will gladly take Wolverine money for the transient aircraft on game day. Ann Arbor will wither with the rest of your state even though you call yourself the Tech center of Michigan but can only handle small private piston aircraft unlike the cities of Sumpter, SC/ Kearny, NE/ Shanendowa,IA that stole your manufacturing jobs by modernizing their airports. I guess Ypsilanti is a more advanced area than Ann Arbor. Please protect the new neighborhoods from the falling flying machines from that ancient, once vacant, farmland airport. I'm sure the expanded airport will lower home values faster than your staggering unemployment and lack of foresight. A small group of homeowners are trying to strangle a prize location asset to your incredible city. You will win the Mega Lotto 3 times in your life before a plane will fall on you. Enjoy your helicopter medflight to U of M Med Center when your life depends on it because those wingless birds are much safer than those crazy Stage 3 noise certified turbine aircraft. Please forward all unused fund to Ohio c/o The Birthplace of Aviation!

a2doc

Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.

The last 4 posts have been interesting, but one-sided. The following are a series of points gained from following this issue for the past year. There are many ways of looking at this but my concerns (as a local resident) are:- 1.No one can stop larger planes, including jets, from using a lengthened runway at Ann Arbor Airport least of all the airport themselves. This is irrespective of any classification. The right to land is determined by the pilot. 2.Jets are larger, faster and carry more fuel. They, therefore, hit the ground (or property) harder and faster. 3.Jets increase noise and pollution. 4.A lower takeoff and landing path, that puts planes closer to residential areas is not insignificant. 5.Plane crashes tend to occur near airports. This is not an unfounded or irrational risk there was a recent crash landing (definition an emergency landing under circumstances where a normal landing is impossible) into the Stonebridge community. We, the residents, not the Airport Advisory Committee were with the pilot after he managed to get the plane down on the 5th fairway. He was very shaken up and commented that he only just made it having clipped trees as he descended 6.The increased airport safety argument requirement does not appear to be based on any fact, analysis of the reports suggest the planes rolled off the side of the runway and were pilot error. 7.There are currently no time limits guiding activity at the airport except that the Tower does not operate 24 hours a day. Flights currently take off at midnight passing over the residential subdivisions. 8.The Ann Arbor airport competes with an underutilized local resource Willow Run. It has all of the safety features Ann Arbor Airport currently desires. 9.As a local and federal tax payer, if I have to subsidize a local airport I would like to see increased efficiency by merging operations between Ann Arbor and Willow Run. Having 2 facilities within 10 miles of each other is wasteful. If the decision is made to merge facilities at Ann Arbor, compulsory purchase would solve the current arguments. Does the city council want a Willow Run on Elsworth road? 10.I do not agree with the NIMBY buyers beware argument the City Council has sequentially rejected any previous attempts at airport expansion. They passed a resolution to explicitly oppose any further expansion. 11.The financial benefits, to local business, of this airport appear minimal and certainly offset by a decline in local homeowner tax base. 12. Private Jet travel is declining for many reasons. I would assume it will be increasingly apparent that this is a luxury we can no longer afford. 13.I have seen no evidence that the airport is essential for medical services. The Uof M has its own helipads. The organ transplant team prefers Willow Run for increased safety, reliability and dependability (24 hour capability, with 24 hour tower). I understand these points are one-sided but I havent received any assurances from the pro-expansion opinion, bar being called a Nimby and told that I do not understand such a complex issue This does not move this debate forward, and shows disregard for the airport's residential neighbors. The fact that federal loans and funding has committed us to keeping it open (in some capacity for the medium term) is outrageous. There is no reason to keep making the same mistake. This airport will be under increased scrutiny following this expansion proposal.

Larry Diamond

Sat, Feb 13, 2010 : 12:36 p.m.

The airport is a vital part of the city and its economy. I would not buy a house under power lines. So I did not. The builder just wanted to sell houses. If the customers were concerned they should not have bought a house there. There are plenty of choices. God forbid, if a loved one needs an air ambulance to come to the University of Michigan or to go from the University of Michigan hospital to the Mayo Clinic they would be singing another tune. Longer runways will give those aircraft an extra bit of security on those not so beautiful weather days. If I were the pilot I be thankful for those extra feet and all pilots would too. Let us not forget that the St. Joe's Hospital is also part of the flying medical community that uses the Ann Arbor Airport. The Ann Arbor Airport is training the future pilots that will be flying the home owners to destinations all over the world.

Scott Johnson

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.

Hi all, I am coming into this topic a bit late, but I wanted to address the noise issue a bit. Believe it or not, a runway extension of this length will still not accommodate lager jet aircraft but it can make the few jet operations out of Ann Arbor Airport more neighborhood friendly from a noise stand point. The difference is in something called 1st and 2nd stage climb. Here is the readers digest version of the difference. With a shorter runway, jets use a larger flap setting just to get off the ground (1st segment climb). With the added drag, the aircraft needs to accelerate in the air giving a slower rate of climb and a lower speed thus a longer duration noise footprint. With a longer runway, jets can use a lower flap setting as they have longer to accelerate to takeoff speed. Once they are in the air (2nd segment climb) they are already going faster with a commensurate higher rate of climb and shorter noise footprint. From a length/operations stand point, a longer runway would mean that aircraft departing to the north east would be higher as they cross State st., and in the unlikely event of an emergency, would have greatly improved ability to return to the airport. With departures to the south west, the runway is now 800 closer so again in the unlikely event of a problem, the aircraft can return to the runway. As has been discussed before, 800 closer to Loar rd. means about 50 lower on approach although most pilots try to fly higher from a noise standpoint, and also in the event of problem, the aircraft is within gliding distance of the runway. The very first comment on this subject talks about not needing to rush this debate when safety is involved. That is great advice, but we need to have a real debate, not Rovian fear mongering designed to stop people from logically thinking through the subject.

Doug

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 10:07 p.m.

As a CURRENT flight instructor flying out of the airport: 1. Our flight school is participating in noise abatement procedures whenever feasible for our departures, this includes climbing to altitude as quickly as possible. There is a lot of airports that have implemented abatement procedures to assist in lowering noise levels for our neighbors. 2. I am not concerned about a longer runway for my students and other pilots flying single engine aircraft. We have plenty of runway for takeoff and landing. 3. It is the light-twins and smaller corporate jets I want runway for. The extra runway will give more room in-case of an aborted takeoff, or landing on a wet runway. 4. It is very true that traffic volumes are down everywhere. Here they are down 50% or more from peak. Considering this fact, I don't see traffic or noise pollution increasing to past levels for a long time, if ever. The extra pavement is not going to attract a huge volume of traffic. Remember, most of the traffic is from us small single engine aircraft anyways, we don't need the extra room. The extra room is for departing multi-engine aircraft. 5. With the expansion, there will NOT be any aircraft flying in that are of larger category. Those aircraft are still going to be using Willow Run's 7000'+ runway's. (Just extra margin in case of any error) 6. Safety is taught #1 in our industry, the golf course landing is a perfect example- he chose the best place and no one was hurt. We would rather hurt ourselves than allow someone else on the ground to be hurt. If anyone is extra curious, I'm sure there is a ton of pilots including myself that would take anyone up and demonstrate what we do in the area. DK

packman

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 3:13 p.m.

A2Reality...all very good questions, I will try to add a comment or two to help answer them. 1) The expansion of the runway will enable the airport to service more jets. The safety risks associated with the jets are concerning; however, the noise caused by the jets is a bigger concern for me. Answer: Modern fan-jets are far more quiet than their predecessor turbo jet counterparts, they accelerate quickly and are gone. Modern fan-jets are more reliable and simpler than piston engines. 2) The entire manner in which the proposal has been put forth is backhanded and troubling. The proposal is hiding under the guise of being for safety while it is really for expanding the type of aircraft that the airport can service. Answer: If you are from the townships, both Lodi and Pittsfield have representatives on the Airport Advisory Committee, they are ex officio and not voting, however, voting on the AAC is inconsequential as it is only a recommending body to the AA City Council. 3) The airport isn't making money. As a taxpayer, I'm concerned that expanding the airport will similarly expand the amount to which it needs to be subsidized by taxpayer money. Answer: All airports are a part of the state and federal transportation system, that is why the majority of funding for airport improvements comes from federal sources.

sbbuilder

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 1:50 p.m.

A2reality Thankyou for your kind response. 1) Yes, you are right. Jets are louder, no question. Will there be an increase in jet traffic? Probably. Therefore, there will likely be more noise. 2) Right again. I have no idea what has transpired behind the scenes. You would have to imagine that there is some of that going on, though. The outgoing City Administrator may be burning some political capital. He has nothing to lose. This is how politics works. Like it or not. 3) True again. The airport needs a subsidy to keep operating. But what form of public transportation IS self-sustaining? Our very own AATA receives only about 17% of revenue through fares, the rest being subsidised. Can you think of a single public transportation entity that pays for itself? Amtrak: nope. City buses: nope. Subway systems: nope. Somewhere along the discussion I was hoping that somebody would suggest a compromise. "Hey, instead of 800', how about 400', and we'll call it even." Instead, it's all or nothing. Sad I think bringing up the parallel to the I94 accidents is not diverting attention to something else. Here are some things that both share in common: 1) Both are forms of public transportation. 2) Both receive public funds through the Federal Government. 3) Both fall under the juristiction of Federal control re planning. 4) Both are local to Ann Arbor. 4) Both have involved fatalities. Somehow I can't take seriously the argument that 1.5 million of public funds needs to be spent more judiciously. Out of a budget of 1.7 Trillion, this represents.000088%. I did not mention the 9 fatalities flippantly. In aviation, we constantly strive for safety perfection, yet still fall short. It is simply not possible to have a zero accident rate. Well, unless you park every plane. So what is acceptible? Every pilot must measure the risk/reward equation for themselves. Lastly, and this is for me the most important point, I do not accept the equation that adding 800' of runway = a plane in your living room.

A2Realilty

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 10:48 p.m.

sbbuilder - First off, congrats on being a business owner in Ann Arbor. I also applaud your flying techniques and am sure that they are appreciated by the neighborhoods, even though they may not be recognized. There are three main issues with the expansion of the airport for me: 1) The expansion of the runway will enable the airport to service more jets. The safety risks associated with the jets are concerning; however, the noise caused by the jets is a bigger concern for me. 2) The entire manner in which the proposal has been put forth is backhanded and troubling. The proposal is hiding under the guise of being for safety while it is really for expanding the type of aircraft that the airport can service. 3) The airport isn't making money. As a taxpayer, I'm concerned that expanding the airport will similarly expand the amount to which it needs to be subsidized by taxpayer money.

HeWeGo

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:53 p.m.

>>Nine deaths from flying within 3 miles of the airport in 30 years "aren't bad." Really? Tell that to their families, SBBuilder. And yet only three possibly legitimate overruns -- all from pilot error -- (statistically.000003) and not a single injury in over 30 years on the airport itself are reason enough to justify an airport expansion. It's scary to think that people with such reasoning are permitted to operate a lethal weapon known as an airplane that can jeopardize other people's lives!

packman

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:50 p.m.

Each time any airport is improved by funds in the Airport Airways Trust Fund (generated by airline tickets, tax on jet fuel purchases, etc.) the clock is reset by a + 20 years. If you close the airport, you must pay back the money. The funding ratio is usually 95% fed, 2.5% state, and 2.5% local.

arm

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:26 p.m.

Nine deaths from flying within 3 miles of the airport in 30 years "aren't bad." Really? Tell that to their families, SBBuilder. And yet only three possibly legitimate overruns -- all from pilot error -- (statistically.000003) and not a single injury in over 30 years on the airport itself are reason enough to justify an airport expansion. It's scary to think that people with such reasoning are permitted to operate a lethal weapon known as an airplane that can jeopardize other people's lives!

annoyed

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.

Well I know a little about the AirZoo and that is a great museum/entertainment facility. However the AirZoo operates at a loss or barely breaks even. They can no longer afford to fly their aircraft and have had to sell many of them to keep it going. Wanna close the airport.... sure. Oh by the way, I am pretty sure you will have to pay back all the government money/grants etc... that have been paid to build, operate, or improve the airport so good luck.

sbbuilder

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 1:58 p.m.

It looks like I managed to get under the skin of a few people. Good. I have lived in the AA area since 1980. I live IN the city of AA, and have since 1993. I went to the UofM. And, no, I'm not part of any advisory committee. If you want to verify this, pick a non-partisan third party and I'd be glad to provide this person with any particulars they want. I own my own business, and as you may have surmised, it has to do with building. Enough said. Nine fatal accidents over a thirty year period is phenomenal. No mode of transportation is 100% safe. There are inherent risks that will always be there. Over these past decades, there have been millions of takeoffs and landings. Nine fatalities? Sure, nine too many, but you tell me how that can be reduced. What you guys are suggesting is that with the addition of a few hundred feet of runway, the accident rate will go up significantly. Is that so? Fine, provide statistical, factual data. What you will find is that an incremental increase in runway length will have virtually no measurable impact on overall safety. No matter the length of runway, some pilot or other will figure out a way to land short or long. And what about those communities tightly surrounding the airports I noted earlier? There are houses closer to the runway than the north west tease hangars at ARB. There's not one square inch to put down if something goes wrong. As the photo shows, at ARB there is a ton of real estate where a pilot could elect to land. Accidents are accidents, fatalities are fatalities. I chose to draw a parallel to other types of unsafe modes of transportation where people are dying on a regular basis, and, I guess, you guys must think that's O.K. I didn't presage some distant location. These deaths are occuring around our own town. The argument is completely germane. For years, some pilots, myself included, have voluntarily tried to lessen our sound footprint for neighboring communities. On takeoff, we climb steeply until we reach the airport perimeter, then throttle back, while coarsening the pitch of the prop, and level off a bit, all in an attempt at reducing the sound from the prop and engine. After clearing the area, we add power and steepen the climb rate. On landing, specially when landing on 06, I steepen the approach and perform a short field landing with the throttle at idle. We've been doing this for years, trying to be good neighbors. Just thought you might want to know. Finally, would any of you like to come along for a ride to view our beautiful area from the air? It may give you a whole new perspective.

A2Realilty

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 1:03 p.m.

a2Doc and HeWeGo - I'm not a realtor. (I'm a small business owner in Ann Arbor.) I do, however, really like the suggestions that were made with regard to the AirZoo. I could even see a scenario wherein an IMAX or something was added. It could become a great attraction. I think that this idea should be put forth to the City Council at the next meeting when they discuss the Airport. It would be great to see an alternative idea for the tax dollars that would represent a greater economic and cultural benefit for the community.

packman

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 12:46 p.m.

If you offset the touchdown point to Runway 06 by 800' to the SW, the difference between the old 3 degree glide path and the new 3 degree glide path is only 50' so the altitude above the residential areas is 50' lower. BTW the traffic pattern altitude for small airplanes at ARB was raised several years ago from 800' AGL to 1,000' AGL. That's 200' higher above the ground. I'm not sure why the change was made, but I doubt that anyone noticed...correspondingly I am not sure anyone will notice a difference of 50'.

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 12:10 p.m.

I work at Ann Arbor Airport and everyone I know who flies from here wants to be good neighbors. If you have a problem with someone flying to low, contact the tower and file a complaint. However, having filed a complaint with the FAA for noise, you must inform your realtor, and disclose that complaint to any perspective buyer of your home. I used to live near and in the landing flight path for Pontiac airport. When I purchased my home I knew the airport was there, as you knew about this one. An extreme amount of commerce flows in and out of airports. And a lot of jobs are created and sustained by the Ann Arbor airport, as did it at Pontiac. They are not going to move to an antiquated airport like Willow Run when they have 30 years invested here. Willow Run airport is nearly impossible to get into from the west. Flying in and out is the only way to go there if you have business on the airport. If you have to go off the airport, all visitors to Ann Arbor tell us they want to use our airport instead. It appears to me from looking at the posts and hearing the bickering, that the ones that are against this should spend some time at the airport and talk to the businesses and employees. Some of the planes currently using the airport are limited by length of the airport runway by performance of the plane. If the temperature gets too high they cannot leave. So, if they get stuck here in the summer during the day, they will be leaving at night when its cooler, not when you are at work. The displaced threshold is used for landing to get the aircraft farther away from the traffic on State street. That threshold does not matter during takeoff as that 195 feet can be used for takeoff. Therefore they are still starting the take-off from the same location. The extra 800 feet is a safety factor just in case engines, fuel, performance of the plane is not exactly as it should be by manufacture created performance charts created for the aircraft. Good pilots do not push our aircraft to the limit. We error on the side of safety, yours and ours. We have spent tens of thousands of dollars for our pilots licenses and don't want accidents on our records, because we could lose our jobs and our licenses. I am sorry your realtors lied to you when you purchased your homes, telling you the airport was going close. Buyer beware!

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.

A2Doc & HeWeGo. I have been to the AirZoo. Both my kids and my parents enjoyed it. This is one awesome idea! It will be a focal point of interest to more residents than the select few the airport serves now. It will be much less intrusive than the airport, less risky when it comes to community safety, educational, you name it. And I agree with HeWeGo that it should be much better for our local economy. Great idea!

a2doc

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 10:46 a.m.

Here is a link. http://www.airzoo.org/ "visit now, fly often"! Looks like a lot of fun. It could have a local residents subsidy. Might even rekindle my interest in flying.

HeWeGo

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.

A2Realty. "How about we shut down the airport and turn it into a park? We can then use the money from the general fund that we taxpayers are diverting to subsidize the airport and work on fixing the "REAL WORLD" problems to which you are referring. Sounds like a plan to me." You may be on to something here. Have you ever been to the Airzoo In Kalamazoo? It is sort of a museum, amusement park with airplane simulator ride. You can get biplane rides. See old war birds etc. I am willing to bet the an Airzoo or ArborZoo will serve much more of the public which subsidizes the ARB airport today. It will make AA into a tourist / visitors attraction. It will generate more revenue and will benefit more of the local economy than ARB. Just think how much money the federal Gov will save if they shut down the tower at ARB. Our tax dollars subsidize this tower folks. Our tax dollars will pay for this expansion which is clearly baseless. With ArborZoo, the chance of accident, fuel leak and such will decline and lets not forget that AA gets its water from the aquifer under the Ann Arbor airport. A2Realty. If you are a Realtor, you should start getting investors interested in such project. It should be attractive to the city of AA as well. Pittsfiels could be one of the parties involved. Gaining control of what clearly is important to their residents' quality of life, should be of interest to them. What do you think A2Realty?

blueplatespecial

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 9:39 a.m.

@sbbuilder- That is silly. I never said I was in favor of using tax dollars for new buses. This is a discussion of the airport, not mass transit. Please don't try to redirect the discussion to an unrelated topic. My main beef with the airport expansion is the information/speculation I have seen on economic impact is dubious at best. Since I doubt there would be significant (any) economic impact from the expansion, that leaves me to look at how widespread the benefit would be. Currently the number of people who use the airport is small and I oppose spending $1.5 MM for such a limited population. Before you bring up all the other ridiculous things our government spends money on-- let me preempt by saying I oppose most of those too (public art, convention center, etc.). In fact, I am opposed to spending tax dollars when the benefit is mainly for a relatively people (local or otherwise)

A2Realilty

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.

sbbuilder - Please stop trying to use an analogy of your so-called "REAL WORLD" issues, such as an entrance onto I-94. The analogy is terrible. The concerns that citizens are raising is that the planes servicing an expanded runway create a risk to the citizens while they are in their safety of their homes and yards. The issues that you are trying to equate are different. It is different to be driving, choose to use the on-ramp in question (to continue your analogy), be in control of your vehicle, and potentially put yourself in harm's way. How about we shut down the airport and turn it into a park? We can then use the money from the general fund that we taxpayers are diverting to subsidize the airport and work on fixing the "REAL WORLD" problems to which you are referring. Sounds like a plan to me.

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 8:43 a.m.

A2Doc. >>Lets see how this turns out... the airport may end looking back fondly on those heady days of potential runway expansion.

a2doc

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:16 a.m.

Polska Please don't waste your keyboard clicks. Sbbuilder sounds like he spends most of his time working out how local airports can expand and screw over their residential neighbors. Kind of like the Darth Vader of airport expansion. "You guys made a gamble, the dice are coming up wrong, and you can't stand it. AAnon step one: Admit you made a boo boo, and take responsibility" Does not deserve any response except disdain. Advice: stop responding to him with reasoned comment. Lets see how this turns out... the airport may end looking back fondly on those heady days of potential runway expansion.

Polska

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:01 p.m.

sbbuilder. You know, sbbuilder, somehow you sound just like the airport's own spin machine. Are you the same Airport Advisory person who told the media that the expanded runway will be a parallel runway and allow traffic only in one direction? Now that was some serious backward flip spinning act of nonsense. Anyway, frankly responding to you sbbuilder is more or less a waste of time. First you call "airplane falling out of the sky" a "bunch of mambo jumbo". When I "enlighten" you with how often it actually happens, you act as if you are actually well aware of the risk and even brought up the 9 fatalities in the ARB area... So which is it? Which argument are you going to use today? And then you flip your "logic" again and tell us: "Oh 9 crashes in the surrounding neighborhoods, is really not that bad..." So why are your 11 "overruns" fairytale (Without even one fatality) bad enough to justify risking thousands of lives? With all due respect sbbuilder, are you out of your mind??? There are THREE SCHOOLS right under the 06/24 departure / approach path.. The entire area is now much more populated than during the time the crashes occurred. Obviously the surrounding neighborhood and that includes AA as well (As you know by now, one can not tell exactly when / where and aircraft will crash) will pay the price during the next crash... So now you continue with your twisted logic and tell us about airports in more densely populated areas. See, Mr sbbuilder, we are trying to avoid being in this situation, because when the airplane comes crashing down through your roof, it is just too late. Obviously Mr. "sbbuilder" you do not live in the area. In fact you sound very much like the person who started spinning this fiasco and does not live in AA or Pittsfield. So please spare us your "suggestions" and keep spinning the issue by spreading your half truths as you can do so well. I am sure AvFuel will thank you for this.

sbbuilder

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:43 p.m.

Woops, The last comment should have been addressed to blueplatespecial, not Al. One last nagging thought. A couple folks suggested that pollution was a concern. So, should we take our polluting planes over to YIP and pollute the air for the people living in Ypsi? It's O.K. to pollute their air, and not yours? Are you that special? It's precisely this elitist attitude that really bothers me. You guys made a gamble, the dice are coming up wrong, and you can't stand it. AAnon step one: Admit you made a boo boo, and take responsibility.

sbbuilder

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:21 p.m.

Polska Thanks for the links to aircraft accidents. Yep, they do tend to come down occasionally outside of the runway environment. But here's the point: nine fatalities in a 3 decade period, in a three mile radius from ARB. You can't get much safer than that. The vast majority of airplane accidents (go to the NTSB website to check yourself) are pilot error. That means that the pilot's flying into and out of ARB are doing a pretty good job of keeping everyone alive. Adding a few hundred feet will just change the formula a bit, and the pilots will adapt. Earlier I referred to REAL WORLD safety scenarios surrounding Ann Arbor. I mentioned I94, and the insanely unsafe on-ramps at Jackson. Well, today we have a fatality on I94 south of town. (This is a tragedy for the families involved, and my prayers are with them.) We have numerous fatalities every year on highways immediately around Ann Arbor due in large part to bad highway engineering. I'll ask again: where is the outrage over the continued, senseless loss of life because of bad roads? Yet the anti-expansion folks parade imagined scenarios past us as though they were a fait accompli. Some folks are under the impression that the area surrounding ARB is dense with homes. Again, not true. To the north, east and immediate south-east are business, not homes. The only residential area is Stonebridge to the immediate west. Here are some links to some airports that I have personally flown into numerous times: Downtown Holman Field, St. Paul Minnesota http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=44.933453,-93.056431&spn=0.054443,0.109692&t=h&z=13 Burbank, Los Angeles, California http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.203,-118.351936&spn=0.063604,0.109692&t=h&z=13 And, our own City Airport, Detroit http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.411291,-83.006859&spn=0.02839,0.054846&t=h&z=14 Now these airports, my friends, are in densely populated areas. Have a close look at City. Those are homes within a hundred yards or so of the runway. Are there occasional over-runs? Sure, but if those airports were unsafe, they would have gone bye-bye a long time ago. Noise abatement, once an airport is Federally operated, like ARB, becomes the provenance of the FAA. You can pass all the noise stuff that you want, but whatever the FAA comes up with will trump everything. In the past, unruly neighbors would try to shut down an airport with ridiculous noise abatement laws that would restrict all but a few gnats from flying around. Those local laws were challenged, and wouldn't you know, the FAA said that it was their business to rule on those issues. Al You do know that the AATA is asking for 9 million for new buses? So you think they need a bunch of shiny new buses? The ones they're driving now don't seem too beat up. But hey, what's another 9 million of your taxpayers' money? Every few years it's shiny new buses all over again, paid for by grants from your tax dollars. And you are all bent over 1.5 mill over permanent change at the airport.

blueplatespecial

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.

@sbbuilder. I do not own an airplane or hold a license, so I will not presume to tell you where to land. However, I do pay taxes and I will ask that you do not presume that we should spend $1.5MM tax dollars to expand an airport because YIP is inconvenient for you and a few others.

Bob Needham

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 3:55 p.m.

This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Learjet, and a comment pointing out the misspelling has been removed.

Jon

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:29 p.m.

1. There is an economic benefit to having and maintaining a local airport, especially in a thriving city like Ann Arbor. 2. A few hundred extra feet of runway isn't going to increase the noise level beyond what it's already at, especially when the airport is already home to a Cessna Citation and a few medical transport helicopters. I work at another local airport and besides large transport category aircraft (which AA will never have to worry about), helicopters are about the next noisiest thing. Also, the magic number for runway lengths accomodating the next size larger of aircraft that would really annoy us all is 5000ft. 3. As far as safety goes, based on most general aviation performance criteria, when student are practicing their landings at AA if there skill level is good, they have "just" enough room to land,advance the throttle and take back off again. This maneuver is called a touch-and-go and is common practice in aviation training. If I were a citizen I would be more concerned with an inexperienced pilot attempting one of these and failing. I think this is or should be the primary concern for both the aviation community and the local community alike.

Polska

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 12:28 p.m.

Mr. Packman. You still fail to understand the basic premise of aviation and traffic. For every car that runs off the road, you do not expand it to a 6 lane highway. The same logic applies to runways. If the weather is severe, as was the case in Jamaica, or above the pilot's ability as was the case with a single engine at ARB landing fast and touching down far past the touchdown zone (Per pilot's own report). No professional will use it as an excuse to expand a runway. landing at another airport would have been the prudent choice. At ARB most aircraft actually wonder to the side of the runway. Why aren't you advocating to widen the runway? Using your "logic" Why not just turn the entire area to one big parking lot, so pilots can land wherever they fill like? The AA case is not concluded yet. But I am willing to bet that unlike your non professional "logic", professional investigators will not end up with runway length as the reason for that accident. Here is more on the case. Make sure to look at the weather: Status: Preliminary Date: 22 DEC 2009 Time: 22:22 Type: Boeing 737-823 (WL) Operator: American Airlines Registration: N977AN C/n / msn: 29550/1019 First flight: 2001-11-30 (8 years ) Engines: 2 CFMI CFM56-7B27 Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 6 Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 148 Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 152 Airplane damage: Substantial Location: Kingston-Norman Manley International Airport (KIN) (Jamaica) Phase: Landing (LDG) Nature: International Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Miami International Airport, FL (MIA/KMIA), United States of America Destination airport: Kingston-Norman Manley International Airport (KIN/MKJP), Jamaica Flightnumber: 331 Narrative: A Boeing 737-823, registered N977AN and operated by American Airlines, sustained substantial damage in a runway excursion accident on landing at Kingston-Norman Manley International Airport (KIN), Jamaica. The six crew members and 148 passengers survived the accident. Flight AA331 operated on a scheduled service from Washington-Ronald Reagan National Airport, DC (DCA) to Kingston with an intermediate stop at Miami International Airport, FL (MIA). The flight left Miami at 20:52. Initial reports indicate that the plane suffered a runway excursion on landing during a rainstorm. The plane skidded across a road and came to rest on a beach. The plane's fuselage was cracked, its right engine broke off from the impact and the left main landing gear collapsed, according to an airline spokesman. Weather reported about the time of the accident [22:22 local, 03:22 UTC] MKJP 230300Z 32008KT 33000 +SHRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 21/20 Q1014 RETSRA (Wind 320 degrees at knots, heavy rain showers, ceiling at 1400 feet, broken clouds, few clouds with cumulonimbus 1,600 ft, scattered clouds 3,000 ft., broken clouds 10,000 ft; temperature 21 degrees C, dew point 20 degrees C, QNH 1014 mb) Weather: MKJP 230430Z 34011KT 44000 RA BKN014 FEW016CB BKN100 21/13 Q1013 RESHRA MKJP 230400Z 32014KT 11500 +SHRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT028 BKN090 21/18 Q1013 RERA MKJP 230300Z 32008KT 33000 +SHRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 21/20 Q1014 RETSRA MKJP 230228Z 31009KT 5000 TSRA BKN014 FEW016CB SCT030 BKN100 22/19 Q1013 MKJP 230200Z 30012KT 5000 SHRA BKN014 SCT030 BKN100 22/20 Q1013 RERA MKJP 230100Z 040033KT 5000 SHRA BKN016 SCT030 BKN100 23/20 Q1013 RERA MKJP 230000Z 32004KT 9999 FEW016 BKN030 BKN100 24/19 Q1012 MKJP 222300Z 00000KT 9999 VCSH SCT016 SCT030 BKN100 24/20 Q1011 (aviation-safety.net) ************** Source: "Flight Safety Information" is a free service of: Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC (Targeting Safety & Risk Management) curt@curt-lewis.com www.curt-lewis.com www.fsinfo.org PH: 817-303-9096 Cell: 817-845-3983 Fax: 682-292-0835

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 12:01 p.m.

arm. >>-However, accidents involving aircraft in the process of takeoff and landing are the most frequent in aviation. With heavier aircraft carrying more fuel and people closer to homes when pilots have less reaction time in an emergency, these pose real risks. In fact, accidents involving aircraft taking off or flying in traffic patterns within a three mile radius of ARB have killed nine people in the last three decades. That includes one plane that flew into a house on Indepenence Street near Pattengill School just after school let out, killing three on the plane -- amazingly none on the ground. With today's increased population density we would not be so lucky. Far from statistically insignificant when compared with the zero injuries that have taken place at the airport in the.000003 overruns, people in the neighborhoods of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield, and Lodi have legitimate reasons to be concerned based on historical evidence and facts, not mere scare-tactics!Airport expansion advocates should have such strong evidence to support their case.

packman

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.

@Polska - If you're going to point us to aircraft accidents, please include the American Airlines B737 overrun in Jamaica on the 23rd of December. Are long runways safer? Ask the crew and passengers on that flight. Are airline pilots better than other pilots? That depends...

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.

Luke. "1. I have not seen the airport plan, but the article that I have commented on raises concerns that the aircraft weight limit was going to be doubled from 20,000lbs to 40,000lbs. In my opinion 70,000 would be silly. Operators of aircraft that large are going to want more than 4,300 ft of runway." Even 40,000 is contrary to Airport spin that is is about "safety". (Besides, I have seen the plan and it does call for 70000 lbs) *It is not about safety. *State St is not going to expand. *The tower "line of sigh" is not an issue. At least it was not in the last 30 years... So obviously every single "argument" they have is false. Hence, why are we even talking about it? "2. Agreed! As is the case in EVERY airport I have ever heard of the airport operating authority has no jurisdiction outside of the airport fence. But as someone else on here pointed out that AA tried to discourage to building of the subdivision off the end of the runway. Makes sense. But township/developer/residents built there anyway." If I buy a lot inside AA, can I tell the city how develop around my lot? Of course not. "3. Noise Abatement Procedures are common when their is an airport in close proximity to a residential area. I see that AA airport also has a voluntary noise abatement procedure. I would like to believe most pilots comply with this, it's simply being neighborly. Maybe it could be encouraged more at AA." This is a good one! ARB Noise abatement procedure is not worth the paper they written on. They are not enforceable and as such are not complied with. As someone else suggested, it is time Pittsfield to start enforcing their code. If they have existing noise code, it should be enforced on the airport. Just as AA would enforced their code, had I bough a lot inside the city. Pushing for expansion is not a smart move. It may backfire on those using the airport today. lets leave ARB as is. It was not an issue before. Obviously, people draw the line with 3500'. If you need more than 3500', ARB will never offer as many services, as much safety and as long runways as Willow Run. No matter how many tax dollars we'll dump into it.

Luke

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:43 a.m.

Polska, "1. The airport plan calls for a limit of 70'000 lbs. 2. It may be news to you, but AA has no jurisdiction outside the airport fence. As such you can not dictate how/ where Pittsfield should develope. Is that clear? 3. In my opinion Pittsfield should start enforcing their noise covenants on the Ann Arbor airport. " 1. I have not seen the airport plan, but the article that I have commented on raises concerns that the aircraft weight limit was going to be doubled from 20,000lbs to 40,000lbs. In my opinion 70,000 would be silly. Operators of aircraft that large are going to want more than 4,300 ft of runway. 2. Agreed! As is the case in EVERY airport I have ever heard of the airport operating authority has no jurisdiction outside of the airport fence. But as someone else on here pointed out that AA tried to discourage to building of the subdivision off the end of the runway. Makes sense. But township/developer/residents built there anyway. 3. Noise Abatement Procedures are common when their is an airport in close proximity to a residential area. I see that AA airport also has a voluntary noise abatement procedure. I would like to believe most pilots comply with this, it's simply being neighborly. Maybe it could be encouraged more at AA.

Polska

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 10:06 a.m.

Luke. "Finally like many others here have stated, if you don't like airplanes, airplane noise, or living near an airport, then you shouldn't have bought, or built a house near an airport. This is another example of cities, neighborhoods, and housing developments encroaching on an airport and therefore causing the safety concerns." 1. The airport plan calls for a limit of 70'000 lbs. 2. It may be news to you, but AA has no jurisdiction outside the airport fence. As such you can not dictate how/ where Pittsfield should develope. Is that clear? 3. In my opinion Pittsfield should start enforcing their noise covenants on the Ann Arbor airport. When neighbors behave badly, such as in this case, maybe the law should be enforced. Just a thought.

Luke

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.

First off you need to look at the past overrun incidents and see how far past the end of the runway did the aircraft travel. If that extra 800ft means that those aircraft would have been able to stay on the runway surface, then you improve the safety of that runway and may help prevent injury and aircraft damage. Second, many, many, corporate flight departments will not allow their turbine aircraft to fly into an airport with less than a 5,000 ft runway. For example one of the aircraft that Mr. McGill mentioned, the Rockwell Sabreliner, requires 5,340ft to takeoff under standard conditions and that's only a 24,000lb jet. The other two jets that Mr McGill brought up, Mitsubishi Diamonds, Learjet 23 through the Learjet 45 are all under 20,000lbs. Finally like many others here have stated, if you don't like airplanes, airplane noise, or living near an airport, then you shouldn't have bought, or built a house near an airport. This is another example of cities, neighborhoods, and housing developments encroaching on an airport and therefore causing the safety concerns.

Polska

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 9:31 a.m.

sbbuilder. "I just think the 'planes falling flaming out of the skies' fear is so much mumbo jumbo." Really? How about this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29828359/ (BTW an identical aircraft, Pilatus, does operate at ARB) Or this: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1A1-D8SOD5BG4.html Or this: http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/minnesota/plane_crash_flying_cloud_August_12_2009 Or this: http://www.pioneerlocal.com/northbrook/news/1974936,glenview-planecrash-010710-s1.article Or this: http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2009/12/two-dead-in-crash-of-twin-engine-plane.html Or this: http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n5/plane-house-home.html Or this: http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n5/plane-house-home.html Or this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29828359/ Strange how they all happen near an airport... Let me know if you need some more "mumbo jumbo". There is a place for heavier aircraft and it is NOT in the midst of our community. Especially not a middle of a community that is not part of your jurisdiction. The tower control airspace and the approach and departure corridors are well into Pittsfield territory. Ann Arbor did not purchase this land to operate an airport! They have plenty of parks inside the city limit they can build airports on should they feel they are in the business of operating airports.

Basic Bob

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 5:53 a.m.

@packman, Pittsfield has a _nonvoting_ seat on the Airport Advisory Committee. Pittsfield residents have struggled to obtain the information on the airport expansion plans even though the city began construction without any permits from either municipality. So maybe it is not a stealth deal to a few, but if you are a Pittsfield resident it has appeared that way until a few months ago.

SBean

Tue, Feb 9, 2010 : 2:18 a.m.

"The traffic count at the airport reached its peak with 134,554 operations in 1999. That was down to 64,910 by 2008." Ryan, do you have similar info for Willow Run? If both airports are experiencing decreased usage, it would seem reasonable to anticipate that the trend will continue with dim prospects of a complete economic recovery, especially as fuel costs continue to rise in the long run (possibly exacerbated by carbon taxes or the equivalent.) No case for anticipated economic benefits from the proposed expansion at a level that would offset that downward trend was put forth by anyone quoted in the article nor in any of the comments (maybe I missed it.) The allure of federal funding doesn't make this a sound investment.

JenM

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 8:37 p.m.

Well, let me state that better. Were the runway to ever be expanded, then there would be a tremendous safety issue with more, larger, heavier planes landing closer to people's homes, as is stated in previous comments.

JenM

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 7:51 p.m.

The supposed safety issues are neither here nor there. I live several miles away from the airport, well within the city limits. Just based on the air traffic the airport generates now, I can tell you that I definitely do not expect to be subject by my city government to any further degradation in noise, air, and water quality that would certainly accompany more jets the likes of the Citation XL. People of Ann Arbor, pay attention. This affects you. This is not just a townships issue. Everyone in the southern half of the city would be affected by an increase in fully loaded Citation-sized jets being able to use Ann Arbor Municipal Airport.

sbbuilder

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 5:55 p.m.

Has anyone bothered asking those horrible jet operators why they so prefer using ARB? There must be a compelling reason. Lots of folks keep suggesting using Willow (YIP). If that's such a hot idea, why haven't the savvy business types figured that one out? Fact is, many people prefer using ARB for their own reasons. I've based out of both airports over the years. At one time, YIP was clearly the best choice for me. I lived right by Ford Lake, and it was very convenient to drive to the NE tease. I live in AA now, and wouldn't think of using YIP as a base. Unless you own and use your own aircraft, may I suggest that you refrain from telling me where to fly out of? Someone needs to do some calculations to determine exactly what specific aircraft will be able to use the new runway. There needs to be clarification here, instead of everyone guessing whether this aircraft or that will be able to use the airport. Those aircraft will most likely be operated under part 135. The restrictions and safety margins are much greater, thus much safer. As far as safety, with regard to transportation, how about the on-ramp area from Jackson Ave. to east bound I-94? Haven't there been multiple fatal accidents there. Vehicles smashing to bits. Cars, semi's, buses, you name it. The fire station on Jackson Ave. must be getting real tired of pulling bodies out of vehicles. But where is the hue and cry here? We don't have to project out possibilities about what might or might not happen at this Federally funded, designed and built piece of transportation. Folks, people are dying there all the time. And at other poorly designed and built highways immediately around AA. I just think the 'planes falling flaming out of the skies' fear is so much mumbo jumbo. We have real safety issues to tend to.

ryben

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 5:54 p.m.

IT wont just effect people in stonebridge. The big planes will effect that whole side of the city and make it loud and unpleasent. I would have moved to willow run or romulas if I wanted it like that. I think big planes should land in willow run and drive 15 minutes if they want to stop in ann arbor and buy stuff. I guess zoning laws dont apply to the city.

avei

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 5:54 p.m.

My oh my! Where do I begin? I have been using the Ann Arbor airport since 1973. It has made possible living in Ann Arbor and paying Ann Arbor taxes while earning a living as a consultant in the midwest and bringing my money into the community and Washtenaw County. The airport is adequate for my needs, and although I would like to have a precision instrument landing system, which will bring increased safety margins for those pilots capable, in marginal weather, I can count on the fingers of one hand, the number of times it would have saved me a trip to Howell or Jackson. I don't use YIP for a variety of reasons, mainly the airport is not well maintained and is expensive to use. If the runway is lengthened, it does add a modicum of safety for my operations, but my aircraft uses but 1/3 of the existing runway. @SalineDion!As an airline pilot, you, of all people should know the type of pilots that fly light aircraft, the kind presently and predominantly using ARB, now and in the future. Your mischaracterization of and disdain for these pilots is offensive and misplaced. I am not a rich person. I do own and operate an aircraft which, on the whole is far less expensive than owning a motorboat or even many cars. It is well maintained, safe and reliable. The vast majority of these pilots make far less than you make if you are a major carrier pilot. They are not "weekend warrior rich boy private pilots." They are well trained and tested by the same FAA certificated instructors and designated pilot examiners that you faced. You know full well that anyone piloting a business jet has to obtain adequate training and knowledge to obtain a type certificate. I more worry flying in one of your airplanes wondering if the flight crew is awake or playing video games on a PC or spent the night in a Montana bar, than I worry about the private pilots who take their safety and flying seriously, as they fly their wives, children and and friends with regularity. Another of your untruths claims undue risk to the residents of Georgetown and SE Ann Arbor. As you might recall one of your fellow, far superior airline pilots (a Sabena B747 pilot, as I recall) managed to run a Cessna C152 out of gas. He was able to land the airplane safely in the Ann Arbor City Dump. No one on the ground was injured, the airplane was unscathed. I submit that any private pilot in that airplane would have been less likely to run it out of gas in the first place and would have had the presence of mind to land it in the city dump instead of Georgetown. When the late Rep. Margaret O'Connor decided to sell her land to the west of Ann Arbor, the original zoning of that land was limited residential, agricultural and light industrial. Much as the land to the south and north of Ann Arbor Airport is now. She used her considerable political influence to have land rezoned to maximize her wealth to create the developments now there. I was told by a real estate agent when looking at those houses that the Ann Arbor airport would soon be closed and there was nothing to worry about. This was far from the truth, then and now. Unfortunately, the zoning was changed, residents live there, and this will not change in the future. We can and should preserve the present buffer zones, residents and to make the airport best serve the needs of the communities that it supports. Any loss of value of real estate in Stonebridge has already occurred as the purchasers and potential future purchasers are well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of living adjacent to an airport that predates their purchase. Extending the runway (or not) will not appreciably affect property values as that has already been factored into the market. Oh, and before I forget, I buy avgas for that airplane and every gallon is taxed, just like the gas people put in their cars (which pays for their roads). This tax (my tax dollars) pays for the runways through the Airport Improvement Fund.

zeeba

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.

JM - No, the fact that the runway expansion will make the airport accessible to more business jets is EXACTLY what we understand - and is the reason we oppose it. The minor economic gain A2 would realize - given that Willow Run is a far better corporate jet hub - would be far outweighed by the economic damage that would occur by trashing home values in the Stonebridge, Travis Pointe and all the other neighborhoods in southwest Pittsfield Township. To repeat what I said before, if you want to see what expanding the airport will do to SW Pittsfield and SE Ann Arbor, just take a look at what's happened to the Ford Lake area since Willow Run was rejuvenated - and the majority of traffic and noise there is due to business jets.

nunya

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 4:58 p.m.

Not only do I live in Stonebridge, I live directly across from the expansion spot. And, I also have no sympathy for a NIMBY argument. My problem is the cost. I'm not talking about the $37k. I am talking about the millions in federal dollars. Let's not forget the cost of all these impact studies. Oh, and how much more will it cost for ongoing maintenance of this expanded airport. If it is just for safety like the airport management says, I really do not think history has shown that there is enough of a safety problem to justify the cost. Let's all write our congressmen and ask them to spend this transportation money on roads instead. Or, maybe just give it back!

Mark Breeding

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 4:39 p.m.

Bringing Ann Arbor Airport up to current standards is an excellent idea. Those new standards evolved through the experience of disasters large and small at other airports, and will improve the margin of safety here, a very good thing. Yes, it MAY bring a very few, but likely unnoticeable, number of larger small jets to our town, but it will NOT be less safe. Further, extrapolate the argument that larger planes are less safe and the 747 would be a VERY dangerous airplane. This is not true, hence the argument fails as well. Don't forget, most of those hoping for less traffic at our airport had their wish granted in spades on September 11, 2001. It will be many many years before traffic at our beloved airport rises to that level again. Allow aviation to serve us here locally. It can only benefit our community.

A2Realilty

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 4:35 p.m.

JM - There is already an airport that can handle all of the traffic that you mentioned within 15 minutes of Ann Arbor; it is Willow Run. There aren't any businesses out there that would rebuke Ann Arbor as a location if they had to use Willow Run as their airport. It simply isn't inconvenient. There is NO DATA that supports the notion that expanding the runway will bring in business and revenue to Ann Arbor. Quite to the contrary, there is data that indicates that Willow Run is currently under used and the Ann Arbor Airport has lost money in 7 of the last 10 years. Besides, this proposal is all about SAFETY, right? (insert laughs and jokes here) Expanding the runway is a terrible idea.

arm

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 4:26 p.m.

Perhaps H. Johnson can understand the overrun statistics based on my analysis with this assistance: - Overruns occur when planes are slowing after landing on the runway, typically at low speed. They rarely produce injury, which is why not a single injury has been reported on the airport in 30 years, according to the NTSB. -However, accidents involving aircraft in the process of takeoff and landing are the most frequent in aviation. With heavier aircraft carrying more fuel and people closer to homes when pilots have less reaction time in an emergency, these pose real risks. In fact, accidents involving aircraft taking off or flying in traffic patterns within a three mile radius of ARB have killed nine people in the last three decades. That includes one plane that flew into a house on Indepenence Street near Pattengill School just after school let out, killing three on the plane -- amazingly none on the ground. With today's increased population density we would not be so lucky. Far from statistically insignificant when compared with the zero injuries that have taken place at the airport in the.000003 overruns, people in the neighborhoods of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield, and Lodi have legitimate reasons to be concerned based on historical evidence and facts, not mere scare-tactics! Airport expansion advocates should have such strong evidence to support their case.

Mumbambu, Esq.

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 4:23 p.m.

It's too bad there isn't a low income area on the other side of the airport so the plans could be modified to expand the other way.

H Johnson

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 3:28 p.m.

So, are they saying that operations at the airport are safe or unsafe? In one part of the article, they alarmingly say that "...eventually one of these planes is going to end up in someone's living room." (which is statistically very unlikely) Then the article continues with them describing how there haven't been many overruns and that the airport's operations have been overwhelmingly safe: "McGill said he's closely studied the overrun reports and argues only three of them are legitimate. Considering they happened over the course of a decade, three out of 1 million operations isn't bad, he said." Seems more like they are trying to disguise their irritation of having bought a house next to the (long-extant) airport by playing on people's fears and evoking the spectre of a fiery plane crash to stir people up.

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 3:21 p.m.

What people don't seem to realize is that an increase in runway length makes the airport more usable...and marketable...to POTENTIAL users of the airport. A 3500 foot runway presents significant performance limitations to some of the most popular corporate aircraft presently in operation. These performance limitations range from having to limit the passenger load to one or two people, to limiting the fuel to an unusable range, to not being able to operate into the airport at all. Lengthening the runway makes it possible for many aircraft types to use the Ann Arbor airport in realistic range and load scenarios. More aircraft will be able to operate into Ann Arbor nonstop, and more aircraft will be able to carry a realistic, usable passenger load into Ann Arbor. This makes the airport more marketable to people and companies across the country. And THAT brings money into the city. Bring on the expansion.

zeeba

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 1:39 p.m.

Mark Perry's comment about competing with Willow Run and "big, loud jets" misses the point. Not all jets are big, but ALL are loud. No one expects Ann Arbor will get the MD-80 cargo jets that frequent Willow Run, but small business jets will arrive in greater numbers. And those are plenty loud to spoil life for everyone within 3 miles fanning out from either end of the runway.

lawguy

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.

Packman et al: If the airport and others were so open with runway expansion plans, why did the city see fit to violate City Council Resolution R-31-1-07 passed unanimously in February 2007 -- requiring the city to return to Council with the expansion plans and share those plans with the surrounding communities? The airport did neither because it wanted to operate secretly! Instead, it went to MDOT and proposed the expansion, which was approved by MDOT a year later. The expansion plan was then approved by the FAA in June 2008. Only then was news of the plan shared with the Airport Advisory Council and people in the surrounding communities. The transparency of the airport's openness on this issue has been black. Why? When people have something to hide they usually have a reason -- and most often it is something they would rather keep from the public and open debate! Ann Arbor's letter to Pittsfield, for instance, officially informing it of the expansion plan, was dated 59 days after the plan was officially approved by the FAA. Federal law bars appeals in federal court after 60 days. Convenient timing to support Packman's community "openness," don't you think? In fact, to see what a conspiracy this entire process has been, see the pdf document attached to Ann Arbor City Council Resolution 08-0836, which approved the current Airport Layout Plan resolution, and it is obvious this expansion was long in the works. Some pages of that 10-page pdf with the 4,300-foot runway included are dated as early as 2004!

packman

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 11:45 a.m.

"Bad neighbor" "ram through" "middle of the night deal" "stealth expansion" "rush into this" "hidden motives" "no discussion" are all quotes from the uninformed. Please be advised that Pittsfield and Lodi townships have had seats on the Ann Arbor Airport Advisory Committee during the planning, programming, and discussion of the runway project.

packman

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 11:43 a.m.

Ryan J. Stanton

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 11:42 a.m.

Here's Mark Perry's comment on Ann Arbor and Willow Run: "I oppose expanding the runway greater than 4,300 feet and widening it beyond 75 feet. I will not support it because my commitment to City Council is maintaining the B-II aircraft. If you want to bring other airplanes in, go over to Willow. It's that simple. I want to maintain the small community character of the (Ann Arbor) airport. I think that replicating an asset such as Willow Run in Ann Arbor is probably not a wise use of our precious resources and I do not want bigger, louder planes landing in this area. I don't. Willow Run serves a whole different part of the aviation community that we could never compete for. The airport as it is right now, even up to 4,300 feet, you're not going to bring in big loud jets like we've been accused that's our agenda."

Peg

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 11:25 a.m.

For a moment, let's skip the online shouting and concentrate on economic reality. I just viewed Willow Run Airport's website for the first time. I did so to educate myself and I urge others to do the same (www.willowrunairport.com). I was impressed by the extensive services they provide. Because my tax dollars also go toward Willow Run, I don't want to fund a duplication of services by funding an expansion at Ann Arbor's airport. Tax dollars are in short supply these days and most entities, including government and schools, are searching for ways to collaborate so funds go farther and are not wasted. Whether or not you live in Ann Arbor, an expansion at its airport would come out of your Federal taxes - this is not free money. Willow Run offers everything that those who favor expansion in Ann Arbor want, but it appears they are unwilling to make that very short drive (and incredibly short flight) to the east. Personal convenience for just a few cannot justify negatively impacting many. I assume that pro-expansion pilots and others will respond and will give their opinions about why Willow Run isn't the answer. I'd like to hear those reasons. I'd also like to hear from officials at Willow Run Airport about services that are available now and about their future plans. Willow Run is also significant because it is a key player in the Detroit Region Aerotropolis (www.detroitregionaerotropolis.com). Washtenaw County is one of the Partners for Success in this regional collaboration so it makes sense to support it and not expand Ann Arbors airport. Regional collaboration has never been more important. Even the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Chambers of Commerce have joined forces and are now one larger organization. If the Ann Arbor Chamber can look to the east, so can pilots and businesses that need a longer runway.

a2doc

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 11:16 a.m.

Yes, I think it would surprise a lot of the aviation crew that the local residents were broadly supportive of a small, hobby, airport before this expansion was rammed trough without discussion. Of course, the people that would accept and live by a small airport would tend to be positive towards aviation. In fact, at one point, I contemplated taking some flying lessons myself. Funnily enough, since the airport has been acting like a corporate bully - I have gone off the idea of the lessons.. Shame really!

Polska

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 11 a.m.

Another hypocritical response : "Don't buy a house at the end of a runway." It is about time for folks to understand that AA does not own the property outside the airport fence and the land was not purchase for the purpose of operating an airport, but for water rights. If AA Council is interested in operating an airport, may I suggest they open one inside the AA city limit. They can expand it and move runway as close to homes as they like. Let's see how far this plan will float at AA...

zeeba

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 11 a.m.

A2doc - good points. Saying the airport neighbors have no right to complain and should have expected the expansion is like saying someone who bought a home on a quiet side street 20 years ago has no right to complain when the county decides to convert it into a four-lane bypass.

a2doc

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 10:44 a.m.

On another story an aviator based at Ann Arbor Airport describes his opposition to expansion, based on what he feels is an attempt to replace local hobby flying with corporate jets. He mentions that he feels bad about the loss of goodwill in the local community to the airport. Here is my response that may help some of you "expansion regardless of cost" aviators understand how a local resident feels when a "neighbour" betrays trust. There has to be some middle ground between my feeling that the airport is better now closed and your view that it needs expansion. I would suggest that that middle ground is that it stays as it is. "I could only hope that there were some sensible members of the aviation community based at the Ann Arbor Airport, I was delighted to hear your take on this. When we moved into the area we were told (by realtors and locals) that the airport had tried to expand on several occasions - but this had always been blocked by the city council. In fact we were very reassured to find that they has actually passed a resolution to NEVER expand the airport... We saw the airport as a nice local, neighborly resource. Something that helped local aviators to enjoy their hobby, and in fact seeing small planes taking off and landing in the near distance on a summers day was very pleasant... Imagine our surprise when we find that the airport had gone behind the local peoples back, without notification or chance for debate, and secured federal funding for an expansion and movement of the runway towards our beautiful subdivision. This is not the action of a considerate neighbor. The airport now is home to a Citation jet - the noise from which is deafening as it prepares for take off. As it warms up its jets the smell of aviation fuel, blown on the prevailing wind, is potent in the subdivision. Thankfully, the screech of its engines lasts for a short period of time - as it disappears at some velocity into the distance. This can not be the shape of the future for this airport. These communities can not coexist in these circumstances. On one side an airport is committed to expansion to attract more and larger jets, under fictitious safety concerns. Disregarding and attempting to politically outmaneuver its neighbors - to get its long sought after expansion. The goodwill has gone. The airport is a bad neighbor and must be prepared for a fight. This may result in unseen circumstances as the airport receives increased scrutiny of both its operations and finance. These are tough times to take money, be it federal or local, away from what may be seen as more worthy causes; be it park maintenance, road repair, senior centers etc"

Duane Collicott

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 10:34 a.m.

Don't buy a house at the end of a runway.

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.

Ryan. "Airport manager Matt Kulhanek wrote me an e-mail today " It really does not matter what the numbers are when we have a project that is entirely based on false premise. The "safety" argument clearly does not hold water. The line of sight from the tower...For crying out laud, they have been operating like this for 20 or 30 years. Besides, it is nothing a camera feed to the tower can't fix. Or they can just remove the hangar they build at the wrong spot. Increasing risk for thousands or residents is not an option to cover up for airport mistakes and "safety" spin.

zeeba

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 10:02 a.m.

It's not just Stonebridge, it's the entire southwest corner of Pittsfield Twp. that will be ruined if they expand the runway and bring in business jets. If you want a preview, take a look at the decline of the Ford Lake area since Willow Run was reinvented as cargo and business jet hub. Most of the traffic there is business jets and I can tell you from experience that no one wants to live within 3 miles of the end of a runway handling those. Why do you think Lake of the Woods, which was built as an upscale apartment community with a golf course and tennis courts, is now a ghetto? BTW, I don't live in the area that would be affected by the airport expansion, I just don't want to see another ruined neighborhood.

Ryan J. Stanton

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 9:36 a.m.

Point of clarification: The $1.5 million price tag for the expansion was the figure used by city officials when it came to the City Council last week in the capital improvement plan. But apparently the numbers are still being firmed up. Airport manager Matt Kulhanek wrote me an e-mail today to say, "The AIP, which is an MDOT planning document, is revised annually and a combination of amounts from the 2010 and 2011 years show the actual amounts. The 2010 number includes $65,000 for design work and 2011 includes $1,262,000 for actual construction. The total current estimate on the project is the sum of these amounts or $1,327,000. The runway safety extension project was originally put in the Citys CIP when it was initially created in December 2008. The initial estimate on the project was $1,490,000. The amounts in the CIP are not typically refined each year, as the City does a two year budget process, unless there are significant changes. The CIP is a planning document and not an appropriations document. If the project moves forward, the dollar amounts would be finalized before the project went to Council for consideration."

jmac

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 8:53 a.m.

FYI, Stonebridge is not all that close to the airport; it is down by Ellsworth and Lohr, not Ellsworth and State. But I must add that when I lived in Canton just a few years ago, a small 2-seater plane plowed into a subdivision there just short of the airport. So don't think this 'can't happen', it can and will. It is probably a good thing that housing isn't closer to the Ann Arbor Airport than it currently is. It is more than a little scary when you're driving down State and an airplane coming in for a landing practically skims the roof of your car; no thanks to bigger planes doing the same!

A2voter

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 7:51 a.m.

NIMBY?? There are other taxpaying homeowners in the vicinity to consider. Stonebridge residents are the NEW kids on the block! 40 + years ago when we purchased our home a mile or two Northeast of the airport, air traffic was relatively sparse. Football saturdays were the busiest days & fun to watch with all the planes circling (around, not overhead) with banners. Decades later, the flight paths have changed; it's very scary to look up from my driveway and see the belly of a plane coming in for a landing due to the fact they now fly directly over the house. I can often read the numbers on the plane because they're so close. Homeowners maybe could be paid a sitpend for expansion, but if the homeowners are promised a cut of the $$ will they have to sign off their rights to sue if/when a plane does crash on their property?

Snarf Oscar Boondoggle

Mon, Feb 8, 2010 : 2:44 a.m.

regardless of the chicago midway environs (yikes!), s. castell's observations are stunning and not refuted. at the same time, increased take off weight also means more local fuel revenue and/or more passengers per takeoff. all aircraft take off heavy and land light. the *roundtrip* needs to be equalized, imo. i didn;t do any arithmetic numerology on the percentage increase in teh runway length, but it appears to be somewhat small, all things considered. i used to be rated single engine land, just so you know. i may fly again... she said. the length-space is available and (fwiw) i'd prefer to have concrete sted mud 'out there'.

JenM

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:47 p.m.

I do not live in Stonebridge and I am against the airport expansion. I live on the near SE side of the city. I used to live on the NW side of the city. The noise pollution on this side of town is quite noticeable in comparison, and I regret that after living here for seven years, I still can't get used to it. Nor can I get used to the number, size, and proximity of aircrafts flying over our neighborhoods, schools, playgrounds, and parks on this side of town. As mentioned earlier, those with children attending schools in this area such as Bryant, The Jewish Community Center, Ann Arbor Learning Community, and several preschools, and/or living in the surrounding neighborhoods within the airport's flight paths, should be paying close attention. More and larger jets would be immediately noticeable and would have a negative impact on property values within the city limits, not just Stonebridge. Whatever size planes the airport can accomodate, the airport will be required to accomodate by federal law, so if the expansion were ever to occur, there is no undoing the increase in aircraft size/weight it will allow. Hence, those against expansion must continue to be vigilant.

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 9:54 p.m.

A2Reality. "If this expansion is truly all about safety, then let's do the expansion as proposed, but limit the type of aircraft allowed (by weight, or type, or whatever) to prevent larger, heavier aircraft from using the airport. The limit should be institutued for 50 years." If you read the airport's own FAQs, you will see that you can not limit any aircraft that can land at ARB, from landing here. It is part of being a public airport. Any one who is promising you such limitations is not telling you the entire story. Again, it is in the FAQs. The only way to prevent heavier airplanes, is not to have the runway extended. Its that simple.

Polska

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 9:45 p.m.

How about this: "It was pointed out to me that Lodi Township also passed a resolution in opposition of the runway expansion at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport." Also I live inside the AA city limit and object that even one dime of my already high tax rate will support this airport. Last time I checked AA was all about quality of life. I don't recall operating an airport as being part of a high quality of life. As many have already noticed, Willow Run is just next door and does not pollute or endanger AA area as much.

A2Realilty

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 9:26 p.m.

Marvin - I do not live in Stonebridge. You can find my arguments in the above posts. It is quite clear that there will be minimal, if any, positive financial impact from the proposed expansion. If this expansion is truly all about safety, then let's do the expansion as proposed, but limit the type of aircraft allowed (by weight, or type, or whatever) to prevent larger, heavier aircraft from using the airport. The limit should be institutued for 50 years. With this limitation, the safety concerns would be mitigated by the longer runway. Because the type of aircraft using the airport would be limited to the current type of traffic, the noise, safety, etc. impacting the many subdivisions in the region wouldn't be worse than is currently seen. This solution would seem to satisfy everyone and meet the suggested reason for the expansion... SAFETY. If this solution isn't acceptable to those making the proposal, then the expansion isn't truly about SAFETY and is instead about allowing bigger aircraft to use the airport.

Marvin Face

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 8:55 p.m.

I'd like to hear from someone who does NOT live in Stonebridge argue against the expansion.

S. Castell

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 8:37 p.m.

sbbuilder. The 757 was just an example. Obviously no one in their right mind will try to land a 757 at ARB when Willow Run is just next door. And that exactly was my point. A 757 in DTW, will have in most cases plenty of runway. A 757 at EGE (Eagle Co) 5000' elevation, will not have as much runway. It will get even more interesting if you lose an engine on the departure with 10000' mountains around you. A 747-400 routinely departs at around 850,000 lbs and requires runways over 10000'. Exactly why Mr Loeb talked about : " a runway is either adequate, or it is not". We also continuously monitor our progress and projected Vs planed landing weight, fuel and weather conditions. If conditions change, say a strong crosswind or poor breaking action, we will not just go ahead land at our destination airport and claim the runway was not adequate. We may divert to an alternate airport. Diverting is exactly what anyone who wants the extra margin of safety should do if he/she is not happy with airport conditions at the destination airport. Willow Run is next door. You don't just land on a snow covered runway at ARB without knowing how much runway you will need, and then claim the runway at ARB, is just too short...(True story.) You are correct that airlines have more strict takeoff and landing requirements. We even add to required runway and reduce V1 if the runway is wet or slick. Most of ARB ops however fall under the least regulated Federal Aviation Regulations. FAR Pt 91. Kudos for taking the extra ratings! It is a very smart decision. I don't have to tell you though that many are not as smart or motivated as you. A friend of mine few months back was listening on the frequency to distressed twin engine pilot who was not instrument rated and flew into the weather. Air traffic controllers tried to help him out with vectors out of the weather. When my friend got into his hotel room, he turned on the news just to hear that the pilot crashed and all on board died. There is also one case I recall from the accident reports at ARB. A twin engine tried an approach below legal weather minimums. I am not sure if he was instrument rated or not, but long story short, he got so 'involved' he forgot to lower the landing gear. Hence the FAA report. Lucky for all involved, no one got killed. Lucky for nearby homeowners, he actually saw the runway. Here is the big picture: When you signed up to get your pilot license, you learned that if you make a mistake, it may cost your life. Which is why you took the extra measures to increase the odds in your favor. Home owners on the other hand, did not sign up for that deal and should not have to pay for other peoples mistakes. With around one million operations, ARB "overruns" come at 0.000003 If I want to be generous and count all so called "overruns", including the unreported ones and the "hangar talk", we arrive at: 0.000011 Either numbers is statically irrelevant. Remember not one of the fatalities had anything to with the runway and most occurred when the area was not as densely populated.

MyOpinion

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 8:13 p.m.

On the one hand, it like a good deal for Ann Arbor - contribute $35,000 for a much larger share of federal funds. On the other hand, it looks like the trajectory of flights is downward, leading to a subsidy by the Ann Arbor general fund. Otherwise, we're setting up another bleeding entity, that somehow was not included in the discussion of deficits (parks, golf courses, senior center, pools, etc.). That in itself is telling.

sbbuilder

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 7:57 p.m.

Al I used to base out of YIP, so I know the airport pretty well, and am obviously familiar with the precision approaches. Since basing out of ARB, I've only had to divert to YIP once, due to low minimums. With the advent of approach certified GPS, auto coupled precision approaches allow for a far higher % of completed landings at ARB. Much better than that old VOR based up by Pontiac. Somehow, though, I doubt that any amount of logic or reasoning will sway anyone's opinions on this issue. Either you want a slightly bigger airport, or you don't. I'd like to hear what Mr Castell has to say about stopping distances, and the grossly inadequate runway thickness, though.

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 7:22 p.m.

Voiceoreason. I responded in an adequate manner to the level of your silly "NIMY" argument. If you truly are looking for a credible argument there is an excellent two part post few posts above your original one. But again, I seriously doubt you do.

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 7:12 p.m.

Sbbuilder. Sounds to me for the additional safety you want, you should be flying out of Willow Run. You will enjoy all the runway you need and than some. You will have precision instrument approached to make sure you can land back if weather conditions deteriorate. That was the point, in my opinion, Mr. Castell presented with his example of making the wrong decision and landing an aircraft requiring more than available runway at an airport.

sbbuilder

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 6:36 p.m.

Mr Castell You as a professional pilot should know better. Stating that an airplane needs only so much runway to takeoff is disengenuous at best. How about accelerate stop? That 757 at Metro? I bet on a nice cold winter morning you wouldn't need half that 10000' runway before hitting V1. But that's only half the story, isn't it? By law, you wouldn't be able to release your brakes unless you had enough safety margin built into the takeoff equation. Why not educate the public on that little detail while you're at it? And takeoff weight? That itty, bitty runway at ARB wouldn't be able to handle half the 70000lb weight limit you are touting. That whole runway would have to be ripped up and replaced with one much thicker, with reinforcing. That ain't in the cards by a long shot. Case in point for small planes: 3 people, fuel only to the tabs, in a Piper Arrow (a 4 seat piston single). Hot, muggy July morning. I needed every bit of the runway, knowing that if something went really bad, I could stop by the fence. I'll tell you, having an extra 700' would have been very welcome. There have been numerous times where I've had to plan an extra fuel stop when westbound because I had to leave extra fuel on the ground due to TAKEOFF DISTANCE. What a waste of time and fuel. Now, just to be clear, I wasn't flying some kerosene burner with ten seats. If this scenario is true for a tiny 4-seater, I'm sure it must be true for just about everything else. You're right on one point. Every flight is only as safe as the pilot makes it. Which is why, even though I will probably never exercise the privileges, I added a commercial, CFII, and MEI. At least my insurance carrier believes I'm a safer pilot. The paltry number of accidents is a true testament to pilots who make the right safety decisions.

MaggieD

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 6:08 p.m.

@Ryan Stanton - Is Mark Perry under an illusion that private jets are a form of public transportation or is this fact? As a senior, I am wondering if I qualify for a free pass to ride these planes? @ Voice of Reason - It seems you have decided that NIMBYism is the only credible reason for opposing this proposal, yet many other readers seem to agree that the proposed safety requirements driving this proposal are as equally not credible. In view of your claimed expertize on this proposal what do you think the City of A2 should do - it seems like there is no reason to vote for it and no reason to oppose it. Is it POSSIBLE that we should just leave the airport as it is and save everyone a lot of time and money?

voiceofreason

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 5:41 p.m.

Al, It was an opinion reached based on examining arguments from each side and whether they actually hold weight. Judging by your obvious inability to offer a credible argument in response, your ad hominem attack further proves my point that NIMBYism is the driving force behind the opposition.

Ellen

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 5:24 p.m.

Folks, Is ARB bringing in cash and essential to commerce and growth in A2? Probably not. (I'll stick with Detroit Metro if I really want to think about commerce.) Is it ethical that the communities that surround ARB can not vote for the elected officials who will decide the final fate of the airport? Probably not...so stop knocking them for trying to get the council's attention on the issue. Let me put it this way, would you like Dexter or Saline to have an airport at Buhr Park? Probably not. Are you one of the owners of one of the 141 planes at ARB? I bet not. But if you are one of the many thousands of people who live, work, drive or just hang out in the several square miles that the airplanes flight patterns are under you should care and make your voice heard. If you don't speak up for yourselves, no one will. Bryant Elementary, Ann Arbor Learning Commmunity, the Jewish Community Center, and many other communities and businesses will assume the risk of an expansion. Become an informed citizen.

snapshot

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 5:20 p.m.

Where do I start? 1. Sol Castell is a local pilot worried about a plane crash in his neighborhood but has no issues with the current landing approach over MY neighborhood. 2. The larger aircraft that may be flying in and out with an expansion would require pilots with more credentials and experience and probably require more frequent and extensive maintenance schedules. 3. There's been 11 runway overruns since 1998 which McGill says only '3' are legitimate. I don't even know what that means except that "pilot error" and "mechanical failures" are apparently occuring in those aircraft currently flying over MY house! 4. All the money is coming from the Feds and will create local jobs and increased revenues for the Ann Arbor area. 5. Perry acknowledged that pilots are an aging group. Are there recertification programs to ensure those aging pilots currently flying over my house aren't asleep at the wheel? 6. The airport would have been in the black last year but the IRS charged them back for employee retirement pensions and benefits. What the heck does that mean? 7. If the airport makes a profit in any given year, are they required to pay back the general fund for monies received in prior years? 8. With the expansion in place the current approach would change so that fewer aircraft would fly over my house so I say full steam ahead with the expansion since this seems to be such a "self interest" opposition group, those pilots are aging, and the runway overruns are mostly due to pilot and mechanical error.

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 5:18 p.m.

To add to the subsidy issue. I posed the question to Mark Perry, chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee, and his response was that publicly funded transportation components are not for-profit ventures, and a municipal airport is no exception. "It is part of the federal transportation system and streets don't turn a profit they're subsidized," he said. "There's no other transportation component that's required to turn a profit. Breaking even on a transportation component, whether you're a county road or a city street or a federal highway, I don't think that there are any. I think they're all subsidized."

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 5:14 p.m.

Dear Voiceofreason: Ref your: "After taking time to research the issue, there don't seem to be any credible arguments against the expansion. People who oppose it are simply NIMBY's" This is one insightful response! Thank you for taking the time to do this "extensive" research. I hope there will be enough time for me to go through all of your "research papers". Are you also the person responsible to the airport's "overruns research"? Wow! What a masterpiece. It sure is heartwarming to know that so much "research" is taking place prior to wasting my tax dollars.

drk

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 4:47 p.m.

1. Heavier planes will come because there is no way to legally turn away any plane whose pilot wants to land on an expanded runway that will be approved to handle 45,000 pounds ( as opposed to the 20,000 pounds now approved.) And that's for single axle planes. Double axle planes are approved in the current Airport Layout Plan for 70,000 pounds. That's heavier! 2. Ann Arbor City Councils have repeatedly denied airport expansions--something buyers in Stonebridge and elsewhere were informed before buying or building. The Council actually passed a resolution not to ever expand the airport. You can't criticize residents who love small airports for buying homes in an area that research says would never support an expanded airport and that the city has four times in the past rejected.. 3. NIIMBY? The airport is not in Ann Arbor but in Pittsfield Township. AA did not buy the land to be an airport but for the water rights which it uses today. Do these critics expect Pittsfield Township to stop growing so that ANN Arbor may someday prevail in expanding their airport on what is not a large area of land? 4. People opposed to the airport are not just from Stonebridge but also from many areas of Pittsfield Township as well as Lodi Township and many residents of Ann Arbor who either will be in jeopardy if heavier planes are flying over their heads and who disagree with the city financially supporting the airport. This is not just a Stonebridge issue. Nine deaths have occurred over the Ann Arbor area from plane accidents--not on the airport --in the past 37 years. Don't criticize residents of Stonebridge--they are not alone in their opposition.

voiceofreason

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 4:47 p.m.

After taking time to research the issue, there don't seem to be any credible arguments against the expansion. People who oppose it are simply NIMBY's willing to twist any data into a theory which tenuously "justifies" their preconceived opinion. Ann Arbor is attempting to become economically relevant by attracting forward-thinking industry. People need to break from small-mindedness and think about the future.

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 4:45 p.m.

It was pointed out to me that Lodi Township also passed a resolution in opposition of the runway expansion at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport.

S. Castell

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 4:45 p.m.

Pt. 2: Now lets move on to claim 2: It is all about increasing the takeoff weight. In the beginning the airport weight limit was 12,500 lbs. Today, the airport advertises 20,000 lbs limit. During the first meeting of the "Citizens Advisory Cmte", I have asked Mr. Kulhanek, how do they determine the weight limit and how did it almost double over time? I really did not get an answer, but Mr. Kulhanek used my question to inform the MDOT representative that the published limit should be changed to... 40,000 lbs! Yes, another daily double. Remember, this is all while telling the public and the Ann Arbor council that "Airport Category will remain the same". Another half truth at best. So, lets review who are the airport users today: Fr. airnav.com: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KARB Aircraft based on the field: 141 Single engine airplanes: 115 Multi engine airplanes: 21 Jet airplanes: 1 Helicopters: 3 Ultralights: 1 115 Single engine. Lets take a C-152 and C-172. Takeoff roll : 725' / 945' respectively. These 115 aircraft require less than one third of the existing runway. (Source: http://www.enter.net/~kellys00/info.html ) 21 Multi engine. Lets look a a mid size cabin class twin C-402. 1695' ground roll. Requires less than one half of the existing runway. 3 Helicopters and 1 ulralight...Well the ultralight can use the airports parking lot and helicopters do not need a runway. Ok, what's left? What is remaining is the only jet based at ARB: Citation XL. Takeoff distance: 3560' and landing: 3180' (Sea level at ISA) (Source: http://www.cessna.com/citation/citation-xls/citation-xls-specifications.html ) Ahhh...there you have it folks. The Cessna Citation at sea level with max fuel and at max takeoff weight will need a longer runway. Translation: The Citation can not depart ARB with full full fuel and full payload. Which is ladies and gentlemen exactly what MDOT says they intend to use your tax dollars for and the real reason for the expansion: "Accommodate fully loaded aircraft currently using the airport." (Source: http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/fleetandfacility/Airport/Documents/CAC%20Boards_050709.pdf Pg 3. last line). By the way, MDOT's statement is again, only half of the truth. While is sounds as if only aircraft "currently using the airport " will be allowed to carry more weight, this is pure hogwash. What is really means: "aircraft type, like those currently using..." In other words what they are not telling you: No one can forbid any heavier aircraft from using the longer runway. Not only that, but what they are also not telling you is that MDOT's concept of what they call "critical aircraft", will allow much heavier aircraft to land at ARB while not fully loaded, thus creating a new category of "critical aircraft" This will give MDOT and airport operators, yet another future run at another extension...(So to allow this new aircraft to carry it's fully certified takeoff gross weight...). Almost comical if you ask me, but sadly this is your tax dollars in action. This, ladies and gentlemen is why in the Airport Layout Plan they show a max load for runway 06-24 of...70,000 lbs 70,000 lbs! Remember, the Citation XL full takeoff gross weight is only : 20,200 lbs (source: http://www.cessna.com/citation/citation-xls/citation-xls-weights.html) This Citation is the heaviest aircraft on the field today. Yet they are saying they are only interested in "safety" and...yes, you got it : "Airport category will remain the same"... So, somehow folks we ended up with an ALP which includes yet... A new daily double of 70,000 lbs! (Almost four times heavier of what is allowed on the field today.) There you have it, and please, do not let anyone fool you with bogus "safety" hogwash. Thanks for your time.

S. Castell

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 4:43 p.m.

This will be a 2 part response. Pt. 1: Ladies and Gentlemen. Let me be as clear as I can: 1. This is not about "safety". 2. It is all about increasing the takeoff weight. Increasing takeoff weight is what many on the AA Council are opposed to. Increased takeoff weigh is what will increase risk to all area residents. As a member of the Citizen Advisory Cmte and with 25 years of flying and 17000 hrs I have flown single engine aircraft and wide-body jets. I have also instructed on single engine and multi engine aircraft as well as instruments. At one time I owned a C-402 (Light twin engine) and have flown out of short runways, long runways and grass strips. Let's talk about claim 1: But let's not take my word for it as a professional pilot, let's listen to a professional safety investigator. Mr. Bernard Loeb who was director of aviation safety at the NTSB. Here is what he said about a real overrun (Vs a prop striking a taxi light which is considered an "overrun" at ARB ) at Chicago's Midway airport: >>Some safety experts said the size of the runway should not be used as a scapegoat. "It is not the runway length that's the issue," said Bernard Loeb, who was director of aviation safety at the NTSB during the mid-1990s. "Runways are either adequate or they're not"

AlfaElan

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 4:28 p.m.

Having grown up less than a mile directly off the end of Lansing Metro's 5000 foot runway I can understand living by an airport. I still remember the first night in the house as the wall lit up brighter and brighter before the 10:00 jet came over. We learned to tell time by the jets landing and taking off. I also remember reading the name of the Blue Angel pilot as he flew over us. On the other hand while I agree it was not very good of the developer to build off the runway, anyone buying a house there shouldn't be complaining since it was an existing condition and to say that it shouldn't be expanded it silly. The level of risk isn't going to change. Whether the airport is the same length or 950 ft longer the risk is about the same.

a2huron

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 3:49 p.m.

Basic Bob: You are confused. The "agreement" reached by the township and the city last year was over the construction of a building and who had the right the enforce building codes - not the construction of the runway expansion. I just read the same article, so you should too.

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 3:22 p.m.

Here is an innovative concept: Why don't the city of AA open an airport within the AA city limit (They can use one of the parks they are going to privatize) and by all means build it as large and big as you like. Go ahead!

a2doc

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 3:13 p.m.

@ Steven Tutino I think Steve Tutino makes a good point about having a small airport, located near his office space on Phoenix Drive. Ann Arbor airport is handy for making short flights around The Midwest, that may be useful for businesses. Leaving the airport exactly as it is will not stop him taking these short flights. In fact, if he wanted to fly further afield to secure business for Ann Arbor, he could drive the extra 18 minutes - straight down the 94 - to get to Willow Run airport. He would find an under utilized airport with 5 runways, a 24 hour FAA tower, ILS all-weather and cross-wind runways. If he wants to try to drum up some international business there is even US customs facilities. I would suggest making a few calls and doing a little reading on the 18 extra minutes drive to Willow Run, and enjoy the safety of an already expanded airport. In response to a previous comment about Medical flights into Ann Arbor airport, the transplant team almost exclusively use Willow Run as it is seen as safer and has a 24 hour tower (compared to the 12 hour operation at Ann Arbor). Medical teams have 24 hour requirements which Ann Arbor Airport can't satisfy.

newsboy

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 3:05 p.m.

I have simple solution to all of this worry and bickering. If we simply eliminate State Rd, the runway and airport could be expanded to the east on a much larger scale. I believe the old dump is located on Ann Arbor land, thus bringing it all under one roof within the city limits. San Diego has the same concerns about plane crashes, but to eliminate its airport would kill its tourism and business. To move the airport to Willow Run would not change the fact that people live within that air space. What would change is the demographic. The residents of Willow Run and its surrounding areas dont have the money or influence to defend themselves against increased air traffic. I do have some concerns when residents of the townships become politically involved with our city council and schools. I dont believe Ive ever been to a township meeting with the intention of swaying a vote in a place I dont reside. Happy landing, Newsboy~

George or Barbara Perkins

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 2:49 p.m.

In the fortyplus years we've lived in Ann Arbor, proposals to expand the airport have been voted down four times. Last Monday, the local share for the new proposal was removed from the Capital Improvement budget by a vote of 8 to 3. Ann Arbor voters do not want to see this airport expanded; They have make that clear many times, and the current poll, as well as the one taken a few months ago, make their opinions perfectly clear. Council should be listening and shoot down this proposal for a fifth time. Barbara Perkins

Robert Bethune

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 2:34 p.m.

Can anyone explain the statistics in this article? 15 arrivals per hour? One every four minutes? Nonsense. That might happen on one of the six football Saturdays we see each year, but it certainly doesn't happen on any kind of routine basis. You can sit by that field for a long, long time waiting for a plane to take off or land--especially a plane that doesn't belong to the UM Flyers. And almost 57,000 people a year coming in through the airport? That's more than 155 people a day, 365 days a year. Where are the aircraft that are supposed to be bringing them in? Who keeps these counts? Someone needs to investigate those numbers. One of the things I like to do is to catch the arrivals and departures of the Goodyear blimp when it operates out of the airport. To do that, you wind up spending quite a while hanging out by the fence on the days of major events. I have never seen planes every 4 minutes down there, ever.

Basic Bob

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 2:12 p.m.

From annarbor.com on Pittsfield's *opposition* to the expansion: Greden said the agreement was reached largely thanks to a change in leadership in Pittsfield Township... "This really was a great cooperation between the two entities," Greden said... City Manager Roger Fraser agreed there's been a "nice turnaround" with the new township administration... Pittsfield Township Supervisor Mandy Grewal said today one of her first priorities after taking office in November 2008 was to sit down with city officials and resolve the airport dispute. Ms. Grewal's friends attempted to recall the previous administration for letting Walmart build on properly zoned land near their neighborhood. But the airport expansion is OK because it does not fly over Harvest school?

Steven Tutino

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 2:08 p.m.

As a resident of Ann Arbor for 20 years and small business owner I strongly support the runway expansion. The economic benefit of the Ann Arbor Airport is likely impossible to fully calculate. I started a small technology business in 1992 after coming to Ann Arbor to attend the University of Michigan. As we built the business we invested in two airplanes, the second of which was based at the Ann Arbor Airport. With this aircraft we were able to serve clients in New York City and Chicago as economically and efficiently as local firms in those markets. This had clear benefits to the community as we employed engineers based in Michigan to serve clients throughout the midwest, east and southeast US. This past year with my latest company I was able to utilize small aircraft flying from Ann Arbor Airport on two occasions to visit business partners in Toronto, ONT and Peoria, IL. These trips were less than 1 1/2 hours each way from my office in Pittsfield Twp to the clients office (door to door). I simply could not have made these visits in any remotely time efficient way without the Ann Arbor Airport. In both cases we won technology projects with hotel management companies that will be built and supported from Pittsfield Township with staff that live and work in the Ann Arbor community.

HRH

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.

Anyone else notice that Mark Perry is citing a report from 1992 when he discusses the economic benefits of aviation. That was 18 years ago - not only is the validity of this report in research terms likely to be very low, but there has clearly been much change both locally and globally.... 1. A2 airport (ARB) operations are down from 135,000 (in 1999) to 65,000 (in 2008) 2. ARB seems to have lost money in 7 of the last 10 years. 3. In the current economic climate CEOs are regularly being criticized for private jet travel - whilst many seem to be claiming that this airport will bring millions of dollars in revenue / new jobs, is there any objective evidence for this? 4. The City of Ann Arbor prides itself on being "green" - this runway extension will allow larger jets and a greater fuel consumption - wouldn't this increase A2's carbon footprint at a time that the rest of the world is trying to reduce theirs? Finally when will people stop criticizing the local residents and labeling them stupid for moving relatively close to an airport. They are NOT trying to shut down the airport, merely objecting to the airport moving closer to them.

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 1:24 p.m.

For anyone interested, I also have put up on a2docs.org a copy of the airport's noise abatement procedures. Airport officials have prepared a brochure to help pilots reduce and limit the sound footprint of departing and arriving aircraft over nearby populated areas. Pilots are encouraged to use Ellsworth Road as an approach rather than fly over neighborhoods, but residents say that seems to be neglected in practice.

Mike D.

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 1:24 p.m.

Let me get this straight: Because nobody has died yet due to the too-short runway, it isn't a safety issue. We have to wait for someone to die? There are thousands of Camrys in Ann Arbor, but nobody here has died in a runaway Toyota with a stuck accelerator. Under this logic, I guess there's no reason for anyone in Ann Arbor to have their Toyota's accelerator pedal fixed under the recall.

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 1:19 p.m.

Picture is worth thousand words. The last overhead photo in the article is as clear as it gets in regards to why the airport should stay as is. Mr. Perry's argument of who was here first is completely irrelevant. If he wants to explore history; this land was purchased for water rights, not to operate an airport. At the time neither the paved runway or the control tower were in existence.

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.

I have posted a copy of the March 24, 2009, resolution passed by the Pittsfield Township Board in opposition to the proposed runway expansion at a2docs.org. The resolution states that the existing width and length has not posed any substantial safety concerns in the past and that the proposed changes and expansion would shift the runway "dangerously close" to a busy township roadway (Lohr Road) and closer to dense residential subdivisions. "Such a runway expansion will significantly increase air traffic volumes and noise pollution experienced by residential subdivisions in the vicinity of the Ann Arbor airport," it continues, "thereby resulting in a decline of residential home property values." The resolution concludes by stating that the city of Ann Arbor has not fully demonstrated the economic and safety justifications for undertaking the proposed runway expansion and urges the city to reconsider the merits of expanding the runway in light of negative implications it may impose on residents of Pittsfield Township.

GoblueBeatOSU

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 1:16 p.m.

Clara "Do we really want the airport and subdivision to 'come together'?" You could be on to something. As a comparison to other communities about the same size as Ann Arbor. Naperville, IL has a small airport. The airport I am thinking of is known as Naper Aero Club a residential airpark community. The airport has taxi ways and runways that run through the backyards of the homes. Don't know the exact dimensions, but the space looks about the same as the large fairways at Stonebridge. http://naperaero.com/index.html The comment of bringing the airport and homes together made me think of this. It also suggests that the FAA and these homeowners don't have any safety concerns with airplanes landing in their backyards on a daily basis. For those that don't know. Naperville, IL is directly West of Chicago. Population of about 140,000. It does have a small college, but nothing like U of M. A number of high-tech companies are located in the city. Has a great downtown. In a lot of ways, it is like Ann Arbor. So I think a comparison of Naperville to AA is interesting. Helps to know what other towns like AA have done. Not that I am saying we should turn Stonebridge into an airport. Just thought this was something interesting to share related to community airports.

A2Realilty

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 1:12 p.m.

Here's the bottom line with regard to the proposed expansion: There are no significant safety incidents in the last 40 years that would have been prevented by increasing the length of the runway. Since there are no safety incidents, the rallying cry that the runway expansion is being done for safety reasons is completely void. If the proposal isn't really about safety, then it is about trying to attract larger aircraft and thereby provide a vague (at best) economic boost to Ann Arbor. If the perceived economic boost were a valid justification for runway expansion, then THAT should be the reason put forth. If the perceived economic boost can't stand on its own merit as a justification for the expansion of the runway, then the proposal should be killed. Expanding the runway is a ridiculous idea that is being promoted in a backhanded manner. Additionally, anyone complaining about "NIMBYism," etc. is failing to recognize that there is a difference between the scenario of establishing residence near an airport and then complaining about the the existence of the airport, and the scenario of establishing residence near an airport and then complaining about the EXPANSION of the airport. Everyone making such a claim about "NIMBYism" just sounds bitter about life.

Moose

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 1:05 p.m.

Before we pour new concrete for extended runways of dubious necessity, let's pour some concrete for a couple of bridges that cross over Stadium Blvd.

Tom Wieder

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 12:41 p.m.

Zollar asked why the city hadn't annexed the airport property from Pittsfield Twp. The problem is, the property isn't contiguous to the city, so it can't be annexed. I believe there was an effort some years ago to annex a portion of State Rd. to the airport, so the airport could be made contiguous and annexed, but that was "shot down." (Pun intended)

aaman

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.

@Kristen Judge I won't disagree with your comments about spending money but my understanding is that the money for the airport cannot be spent on road projects and particularly city projects (unfortunately I have to navigate the Stadium bridge several times a day - always an adventure). I suppose it could be spent on something at Willow Run. As far as safety is concerned, the bad weather argument is another one of those that have no statistics behind them. Larger aircraft are safer because of equipment and performance and are flown by more experienced pilots. The correlation between accidents and number of pilot hours is nearly exact so any arguments about safety related to larger aircraft are just not accurate. @a2guy The "crash landing" you refer to was not a crash. As I recall no one was injured either in the airplane or on the ground. The pilot picked out the best place to land and had the aircraft in control at all times. I assure you that off airport landings of a similar nature happen frequently and very few result in anything more than embarrassment to the pilot and minor airplane damage.

clara

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 12:03 p.m.

"Perry noted the airport has been in operation since 1928, and the subdivisions were built in the 1980s. "The airport's not going anywhere, the subdivisions aren't going anywhere," he said. "We've just got to find a way to come together."" Do we really want the airport and subdivision to 'come together'?

A2guy

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 11:49 a.m.

The fact that you got your house near a small airport does not mean that you do not have the right to oppose the expansion of the airport. I think it would not be fair if the neighbors ask to close the present small airport, but oppose to expansion that benefit a very small group of people is their right; and they should oppose the expansion. About security..let do not forget no too long ago a small plane crash-landed in the Stonebridge Golf course, if larger planes are allowed in the airport, they could land in the golf course and on top of several houses. A fraction of the local and federal money to expand the AA airport can put to be better use in the construction of new private planes terminal at Willow Run. A much cost effective and safer alternative,...and I am sure the money not used in the AA airport can be put to a more productive use in another project that is being cut for lack of funds.

The Grinch

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.

Tough to have any sympathy whatsoever for people who live in a sub that was built in the airport's backyard. Whether or not this expansion is needed or worth the expenditure of taspaer dollars is another issue, but the residents of Stonebridge knew what they were getting when they bought.

Kristin Judge

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 11:34 a.m.

@Mike D. At a Citizens Advisory Committee meeting a member of the environmental study team hired by the City of Ann Arbor mentioned that in bad weather a larger runway is safer. Due to the number of runways and length of the runways at Willow Run, pilots chose to land there in bad weather. An aerial photo of willow run can be seen here: http://www.airnav.com/airport/YIP With my untrained eye it is clear that the amount of land on airport property for planes to use in an emergency without endangering anyone in the case of a bad weather landing is far greater than at ARB. The comment by the engineer was that a longer runway in Ann Arbor will encourage more planes to land here in bad weather. If anyone thinks that is a good idea, I will just have to agree to disagree. @aaman Many locally elected officials are looking to bring in Federal money to this area. If there is an extra $1.5 million dollars in transportation funding, I think it would be better spent on true safety issues like crumbling bridges. We have real safety problems in our community, and this is not one of them. Don't let any government officials spend your tax dollars foolishly. The spending on pet projects has got to stop! As a county commissioner I am watching every penny and will continue to speak out on wasteful government spending.

Basic Bob

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 11:17 a.m.

Kristin Judge, thanks for your comments. Although the current runway is close to State Rd., there is no compelling reason to widen that road or extend the runway. I would rather see federal, state, and county money spent to widen US-12 between I-94 and Saline. That will have a greater benefit to the area. IMO, the Pittsfield township board is quietly supporting the airport expansion. They were more vocal about the safety of allowing Walmart into the community than jet aircraft.

Mike D.

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 11:06 a.m.

@Kristin "Do we really want to encourage more planes to land in Ann Arbor in bad weather?" I don't understand your point here. Why is it better for planes to land elsewhere in bad weather? Or should they just stay aloft until they run out of fuel and crash? I think it's reasonable to have a runway that allows safe landings in all kinds of weather. Even if it means there are a few more planes over your house. The airport was there before your house was built, and it will be there after you're gone.

treetowncartel

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 11:04 a.m.

I like planes, they are fun to watch take off and land too. The more planes to watch the better!

Technojunkie

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:51 a.m.

Having an airport lets businessmen and UofM alumni fly a small plane in and bypass all the TSA nonsense at DTW, not to mention drive time over Michigan's decrepit roads. It's a huge time saver. Crippling such a competitive advantage is short sighted even in good times, let alone now. And as others have said, the airport was there first. You might as well complain about the noise from I-94 while you're at it. Pay attention to your surroundings next time.

treetowncartel

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:47 a.m.

I like planes, they are fun to watch take off and land too. The more planes to watch the better!

limmy

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:46 a.m.

Thank you Kristin, for actual facts. For those who see dollar signs, remember Pfiser and all of the tax breaks and perks they were given.

aaman

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:41 a.m.

There is NO serious debate over safety. This anti-airport sentiment is fueled by people who bought houses next to an airport in the first place and now want to impose their will on others. I agree with the "airport was there first argument" and have little sympathy for those in the flight path. The hysterical worries about planes crashing into living rooms is yet another example of an emotional reaction to an extremely small risk. Here's a link that reports that there are about 8,000 deaths in the home each year just from falls. I challenge anyone to come up with any count of the number of people killed by airplanes falling out of the sky. http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/article/Homeowner/Safety_at_Home Anyone who has lived in AA since the 70's may remember a small plane crash that killed the pilot and passenger (no one on the ground was injured) when the plane came down in a residential neighborhood near Buhr park. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=737&key=0 I suppose based on that incident that all of us who live within three or four miles of any airport should quake in our houses waiting for airplanes to come crashing through the roof. Personally I worry more about meteors and drunk drivers. Anytime the city can spend $37,000 to bring $1.5 million into the local economy I say it's an excellent deal.

Kristin Judge

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.

As a member of the Citizen Advisory Council and the County Commissioner representing Pittsfield Township, I have been involved in this issue from the beginning. The three "safety" issues that were presented to us were: 1. The tower cannot see the planes prior to take off. I asked how long this has been the case. The answer was 30 years! I asked how many accidents were caused by this "safety" concern. The answer was 0! 2. State Road will be expanding. As someone who had read the State Street Corridor Study many times and has worked closely with MDOT, Washtenaw County Road Commission and other state agencies that fund road projects, I can say with certainty that the funding to expand State Street will not be available for at least 20 years. Over 100 miles of roadway in the state of Michigan in the past 2 years have been turned into gravel because of the lack of money for maintenance. There is no money for new road projects like expanding State Street. 3. The "unsafe" number of overruns. I encourage residents to get a copy of the reports on overruns. Some of them are only documented by pilot stories that were not recorded in any official record. None of the overruns were due to a short runway. So, I have not been able to find any safety concerns with the current runway. If there is an economic development reason for expansion, let us know, but we have one of the safest airports around. In the CAC meeting, we were told that expanding the runway would allow planes to land in Ann Arbor during bad weather. Currently, if the weather is bad, pilots chose Willow Run because it had appropriate runways for bad conditions. Do we really want to encourage more planes to land in Ann Arbor in bad weather? Remember too that the Federal money being proposed for this program is still your tax dollars. I have heard airport expansion proponents mention the Federal money like it was free money. It is still our money, and I would like to see it spent wisely.

PR of AA

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.

I agree with a lot of the comments here. I really feel sorry for all of the people who live in the area, what a cruel trick....to build an airport overnight right next to your houses, which were obviously there first........YOU KNEW WHERE THE AIRPORT AND YOUR HOUSE WERE BEFORE YOU MOVED IN!!!!!!

DagnyJ

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:19 a.m.

It's funny that people who bought houses near an airport are now upset about the expansion of the airport. What were they thinking? You made a bad decision. The expansion of the airport is actually not a big deal. I mean, it's not like we're turning it into Metro. There are quite a few runway sizes in the middle. We won't have 747s landing there, and they won't be landing every two minutes, every day. We're talking an incremental change in runway, and it will be good for the city and bring people which means money. There were people who bought houses near UM hospital who used to complain about the noise from the helicopters that brought critically injured people to the ER. NIMBYism in this town runs that deep.

KtoA

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.

Me being a resident of Stonebridge I support the runway expansion. Because for one thing I know how important aviation is to this area. I also know that by having the runway longer it will make it safer for student pilots and medical aircraft to operate in and out of the airport. Now youre probably thinking how so or why? One of the reasons that we need to expand this airport is so that we due increase safety. Also most medial aircraft that use this airport are just able to land and take off. Another item that nobody said anything about a very powerful element that surrounds us all in warm weather, density altitude! Now to counter peoples arguments about willow run only 10 min away, well 10 min is nice but that with no traffic or weather problems. And frankly who wants to use willow run its a dump! Has a rundown Detroit style location and feel to it, frankly no pilot would like to use it, but willow run does serve a purpose that is needed in the area and thats it. In regards to density altitude it doesnt matter if youre flying a small plane or a multimillion dollar plane it affects everyone. In the summer time you see planes that generally dont need long runways to take off but with warmer weather they do! Adding that extract room for error or space helps a lot. Todays planes are much quieter and cleaner that planes from the 60s, so noise and pollution are going to be on the low side. What Im trying to explain is that this airport is very important to the area. Also if you bought a house near the airport YOU are assuming risk of living there just like the Andy McGill and Kathe Wunderlich. We need to see past our short noses and see what the community will need in the future to keep it competitive with others; the Ann Arbor airport is a tool that can help with that.

Dawn

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:11 a.m.

Did it ever occur to you that an expansion could bring much needed income to the area? Those that are now living near the airport, knew it was there before they moved in- it's not something that was hidden from them. It seems that anytime someone Might be inconvenienced they vote against it, no matter how good it could be for the area. It's time to start thinking for the future and stop complaining about what might happen, or what could happen. This country needs to stop whining about every thing and face the fact that things need to change in order to get better. It will never improve as long as we continue to do the same things time after time after time after time.

HRH

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 10:10 a.m.

I share Sol Castell's concerns that a fatal air crash may happen in this neighborhood and am astounded that this article did not even reference the very near miss emergency plane landing onto Stonebridge golf course, that occurred a mere 8 months ago. This plane landed dangerously close to housing and the pilot and his teenage grandson were reported as feeling very lucky to still be alive. I am also astounded to read that the airport received $127,000 from the City of Ann Arbor General fund just last year and is currently seeking another $37,250.........This at a time when the City is facing potential closures/sales of it's parks, golf courses, swimming pools and senior centers. It sounds like this airport is a real drain on Ann Arbor taxpayers money and may affect the wider community's quality of life as much - if not more - than the local Pittsfield Township residents.

sbbuilder

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 9:51 a.m.

Nice one-sided article! Before anyone weighs in with 'and in times of great financial blah blah blah', a line item of only 37,250 is truly peanuts. Ever been down there on a football Saturday? Lots and lots of planes parked on the tarmac. Go over to Willow, and there's nary a one parked for the game. Why's that? I'll let you figure out that one. Nice to have their business. Also, $57/visit/person? Does that include all the fuel those planes purchase? A fill up for a tiny little 4-seater would run about $150-200. A small jet could run about $600-800. That's before one restaurant visit, one car rental, one catered business lunch. OTOH, the pro airport folks have traditionally done a horrible job with their PR. Any one in their right mind would have prepped the local populace, City Council etc. with a barrage of facts, details before pushing this. The airport has been the whipping boy of council seemingly forever, the one thing they love to hate. In the face of all that resistance, small wonder that confusion abounds.

limmy

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.

How would anyone know that years later an airport that has existed for decades would expand? I live in a subdivision quite a ways from the airport and it is in the flight path. I would definitely join in the fight against it. I don't see any advantages at all to the expansion.

Ignatz

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 8:43 a.m.

I don't understand the need to accomadate larger aircraft. Willow Run is just a few miles to the east and from what I understand, it's level of traffic has decreased to a great extent. So, it would seem to be able to handle any additional increase in traffic.

zollar

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 8:42 a.m.

Over the years why hasn't the city annexed the (airport) property from Pittsfield township?

Grover1

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 8:40 a.m.

We have one story about "Budget Woes" and another about fighting over an expansion that could possible attract revenue, for a relatively minor investment by the city? What do we not understand in our culture about the citizen being the economic engine that drives our government? Come on folks, the only way to pull ourselves out of this mess is through new ideas of creating possible revenue draws and attraction for people to move here! WOW

GoblueBeatOSU

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 8:36 a.m.

"I really think there is some injustice here where local people are being taken advantage of by the interests of an expansion-hungry airport," said David Healy,... oh come on. People in Stonebridge bought their homes knowing their was an airport there. There has been talk of expanding this airport for as long as I can remember. We didn't buy in Stonebridge because we didn't want to be at the end of a runway. Sorry, when the people of Stonebridge bought their homes they in effect stated they were in favor of the airport and any future changes to the airport. They did this by buying the homes. This is no different than buying next to a cow farm and after moving in you saying you don't like the smell and you want the farmer to remove the cows. If you don't want to live next to an airport don't buy next to an airport.

zollar

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.

Before that subdivision was developed the city tried to discourage Pittsfield Township not to build at the end of the runway. But they did anyway. So the developers and home buyers knew that the Airport was there and it is clear where the flight path is.

Mike D.

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 7:56 a.m.

This would be classic NIMBYism, but the airport was there first. These people are quick to argue that there is no safety issue with the airport at its current size (despite significant professional evidence to the contrary), and then out of the other sides of their mouths, they sound alarm bells about the imagined safety threat of a longer runway. Based on what? 1 plane crashing into a house in Florida? And these are the same people who say that 3 overruns are statistically insignificant? Please go back to your Stonebridge McMansion, take a correspondence course on introductory logic, and quit whining.

Eric S

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 7:28 a.m.

Ok, someone explain to me why someone who worries about plane crashes and plane noise buys a house in the flight path of an airport. And did they just think that the airport would never grow?

Barb Roether

Sun, Feb 7, 2010 : 7:20 a.m.

When there are families and homes involved and a serious debate over their safety, no need to rush into this.