JackieL

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

I live north of Scio Church Road and planes fly over our house all of the time. It is not just Stonebridge that is affected. No to any expansion.

Tim

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 8:03 a.m.

Actually, Athens Georgia, home of the University of Georgia Bulldogs (Go Dawgs!) has two runways. The primary runway is 5,522 feet x 100 feet wide and has a weight bearing capacity of 125,000lbs. This runway is being lengthened to 6,122 feet to safely accommodate business aircraft. In order to fully realize the economic potential of an airport to its community an airport should at least have a 5,000 foot runway with a full ILS system. This will support over 90% of business aircraft in all weather conditions. The Governor of Georgia realizing this set aside 35 million state dollars to ensure there was an airport with a 5,000' runway within a 45 minute drive of anywhere in the state. An airport is a major component in the economic development of a community!

A2Q2

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 3:05 p.m.

Ex ARB Pilot. "Willow Run, a fully instrumented facility is only a few minutes away from ARB. It has runways that accommodate even the worst pilots to land safely in the most inclement conditions. Who in the world would be lacking the good judgement to land in Ann Arbor even if it had ILS? Individuals trying to save a few minutes at the expense of their own safety as well as that of thousands of others. Sounds much like those types that caused the financial catastrophe,self centered egomaniacs. Ex-ARB pilot" Excellent observation and probably the reason why 4 Charter outfits have left ARB and the latest, PrivateAir is now also operating out of Willow Run. Willow Run offers more than ARB ever will, no matter how many millions of Dollars one would sink into ARB, it will never be more than a hobby type airport. This in particular is an excellent questions and one that makes me wonder whenever I see a multimillion dollar company's CEO pushes the safety margins and flies his jet out of ARB: "Who in the world would be lacking the good judgement to land in Ann Arbor even if it had ILS? Individuals trying to save a few minutes at the expense of their own safety as well as that of thousands of others." As you say: "Trying to save few minutes..." And placing thousands at risk in the process.

Al

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 2:30 p.m.

Mr. EA Jackson. You say: "The fact of the matter is that the size of the plane is not limited by length of the runway, but by the load-bearing strength and thickness of the pavement on the runway. " Reality is: The weight, size of an aircraft and its ability to operate from a certain runway is directly related to runway length. There are other applicable considerations as well, but since you fail to understand even the basics of aerodynamics and physics, I will not even bother mentioning them. Also remember that the Airport Layout Plan the Council has already approved (Most probably not even realizing they have approved it...) allows for weights up to 70,000 lbs. 70000 lbs is not a "Jumbo jet" but it is almost 4 times heavier than what is allowed today and 6 times heavier than previous weight limit of 12500 lbs. As per the airport designers, aircraft will pass over homes at 94'... Are you really trying to make the argument that having heavier aircraft pass over homes at this extremely low altitude, is safe? You say: "Small corporate jets are already using the Ann Arbor Airport. Landing on a 3,500 foot runway presents few problems, but a longer runway would improve the safety for take-offs of all planes, something the residents of Stonebridge and other nearby subdivisions should take into consideration. Incidentally," You really need to brush up on your understanding of aerodynamics. Let me try... Aircraft today, pass over homes at less than 500'. (The FAA considers 1000' as minimum safe altitude over densely populated area). So, you take this runway and expand it closer to homes. What do you think will be the result? A. Aircraft will have more separation for homes? B. Aircraft will have less separation from homes? c. No change. Let me help you out here. First with longer runway, we are now allowing aircraft to carry more weight. (Heavier aircraft require longer runway to get airborne.) End result: Heavier aircraft getting airborne closer to homes and as such climbing much closer to homes. But Mr. Jackson, don't take my word for it, ask URS. They work as airport designers for MDOT And you continue... "Incidentally, it is inconceivable to me that anyone buying a home in that area not knowing previously the presence and location of that airport." Were you really the Pittsfield Township supervisor? Did you know where Pittsfield starts and AA ends? Was the safety of the Pittsfield residents any consideration to you, or was your main goal in life to please special interest groups associated with the airport? You do remember that AA bought this land for its water rights and not to operate an airport, don't you? You continue: "Landings at the Ann Arbor Airport are made by a visual approach as there is no Instrument Landing System (ILS) in place there. In other words, if the airport is socked in by weather conditions, a pilot must divert to another airport having an ILS or find an airport clear of such weather conditions. The federal government will not approve the installation of an ILS at an airport with a runway less than 5,000 feet. " 1. The airport has FAA approved GPS approaches. Get your facts straight. 2. You must be closely connected to the ARB special interest groups. Thanks for sharing the final goal with us! So... we really need a 5000' runway. See, the Airport Advisory Committee and Airport management is trying to make folks believe that "Airport category will remain the same". They want us to think that a category B2 airport is only 4300' runway. What they are not telling the public and/or Council is that even a 5000' runway can still be "same category" airport. 5000' will allow aircraft to carry even more weight than 4300' and much more weight than the existing 3500'. 3. Willow Run has ILS approaches already. Willow Run has 24/7 crash and rescue team (You do realize that ARB has the Pittsfield Fire Department supporting it, don't you?). Willow Run has weather reporting services. Willow Run has excellent road infrastructure. Willow Run has FAA, maintenance and training facilities. And best of all not expanding ARB will allow Ann Arbor to maintain their claim of being a Green City. Have a great day Mr. Jackson! Oh, by the way, I have not heard of anyone saying: "You lengthen the runway and youll have jumbo jets landing here." Must be your imagination. Take care.

Mikio Hiraga

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 1:44 p.m.

Willow Run, a fully instrumented facility is only a few minutes away from ARB. It has runways that accommodate even the worst pilots to land safely in the most inclement conditions. Who in the world would be lacking the good judgement to land in Ann Arbor even if it had ILS? Individuals trying to save a few minutes at the expense of their own safety as well as that of thousands of others. Sounds much like those types that caused the financial catastrophe,self centered egomaniacs. Ex-ARB pilot

Polska

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.

Zeeba. "And aircraft noise is what turned that apartment community from upscale to ghetto." *safety* of thousands of residents, is the main reason why this runway and airport should not expand. What you mention is yet another reason the AA Council should never consider the expansion. Eventually the decline in property value will exacerbate the already dire situation of their school system. Many Pittsfield residents pay millage into the AA school system. This potential decline for their schools revenue will be far worse than the additional hamburger a student pilot from the airport may purchase. Not to mention that that student pilot was going to eat anyway...while millage decline will be a permanent fact for the AA (and Saline for this matter) schools system. Beside, with other airports for business traffic in close proximity, the ARB expansion plan not only does not pass the smell test, but is a far cry away from even making a hint of common sense. And last. lets not forget that Ann Arbor does not control the area outside the airport fence. Should they place Pittsfield residents at risk, they better make sure they have excellent insurance coverage. Especially after being informed in detail so many times about the enhanced risk. Aircraft flying over homes at ***less*** than 100' is not something a sane insurer will jump on. If after all that Ann Arbor, the "green" city, still finds the urge to become an airport operator, they should build an airport within their city limit and expand it all day long. I am sure a politician running on such platform will get elected real fast in AA...

zeeba

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 10:25 a.m.

The problem with expanding the airport is that it will encourage greater use by corporate jets. And corporate jets are still plenty loud. When I lived in Lake of the Wood in Ypsi, corporate jets were at least as big a problem as the cargo jets that flew in. And aircraft noise is what turned that apartment community from upscale to ghetto.

Basic Bob

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 8:57 a.m.

@SalineDoe, you seem to have a lot of insider information about the Pittsfield administration. But your jabs at former officials and unwavering support of the current admin is suspect as long as you remain anonymous.

George or Barbara Perkins

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 8:48 a.m.

Jack Morris's memories of the Airport Advisory Committee we both served on a quarter of a century ago are colorful, but his "facts" are not up to date. Those who wish to check the current situation should log on www.stopa2runwayextension.com and click on facts. There are two major errors in his letter. He asserts that the size of aircraft using the airport is limited by "the load-bearing strength and thickness of the pavement." This is certainly what City Council thought when they repeatedly, over a forty year period, stipulated an upper limit of 12,500 pounds on a 3500 foot runway. However, the current airport manager describes that same runway as supporting from 20,000 to 80,000 pounds, depending on his audience for the statement. The current Board and Supervisor of Pittsfield Charter Township have,this year, passed three resolutions relative to this issue. The first opposed any lengthening of the runway, the second rejected the shoddy work done on the "environmental assessment report," and the third authorized the expenditure of funds to partner with community groups to hire an aviation law firm and an aviation consulting firm to reply to that report with technical detail. The resulting study can be accessed at the above website. It was nostalgic to hear from Mr. Morris after all these years, but whether it's because he no longer lives nearby or because information about this project has been so difficult to obtain, he appears to have missed his flight on this occasion. Barbara Perkins

SalineDoe

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.

Is this the same Jack Morris that now lives full-time and is registered in Florida? I don't even believe he still owns a home in the area, and if he does, he only stays here part of the year. Seems like he has the perspective of a different area nowadays.

a2doc

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 11:12 p.m.

Sorry, one other thing - I find it slightly ironic that Mr. Jackson Morris writes this letter as he was the supervisor that approved Stonebridge in its current location. I happen to think he did a great job with his negotiations with the developers that made that sub. He should be commended for how this development turned out over time. It is accepted that Aircraft can now pass over the closest part of this subdivision at a height of 143 feet. By moving the runway 800ft closer, this will be reduced to 94 ft. These measurement were taken by picking the smallest house on that road. The distance to the larger properties is less.... The longer runway will allow larger, fully loaded jets to fly over the subdivision that Mr. Jackson Morris helped create. I understand he had a reputation in office as being generally pro-development and business but why would he want to put the safety of those in "his" development at risk for this expansion?

a2doc

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 10:43 p.m.

Wow, The words "facts" and "Ann Arbor Airport Runway Expansion" used in the same sentence supporting expansion. This has to be a first! This insane idea has been pushed forward by the Special Interest Group of pilots hungry for more tarmac, and then provisionally rubber stamped by a City Council duped by the idea that this is all about safety. Try these facts instead:- 1. The safety argument, used to secure federal funding for expansion, is fictitious. Any runway extension will not improve safety as there are no current safety issues. In fact, the safety impact to those communities around the airport has so far been ignored. 2.The airport provided innacurate and unrepresentative usage data to justify runway expansion to a federal authority. 3.All B-II small aircraft are currently capable of operating on the existing 3,505 ft runway without weight restriction. 4.Any extension to the runway will not change the operation of B-II classification aircraft, but will allow larger aircraft (jets in the C-I and C-II categories) to land and operate out of the airport with full weight and fuel. These larger planes (mainly jets) can and (currently do) use this B-II certified airport but with weight and fuel restrictions. 5.The growth inducing impact of runway expansion was systematically ignored by the provisional Environmental Assessment (paid for by Ann Arbor Tax Payers). 6.The environmental impact of airport expansion has so far been inadequately investigated. The Environmental Assessment failed to correctly address the impact on clean air and ground water. 7.Noise modelling failed to include the innevitable increased jet aircraft traffic and subsequant nightime operations. 8.The presence of hazardous wildlife close to the airport has been ignored, and no plans made for mitigating measures in the multiple water habitats in the very local area. 9.Political jurisdictions were ignored by the Ann Arbor City councils Environmental Assessment. Any litigation following an accident or inverse condemnation class action would be taken against Ann Arbor City Council, which would be unable to afford any judgement served. Pittsfield victims would be left without effective remedy at law. (ps. this is a BIG issue....) 10.There has been prolonged and sequential procedural injustice in the pursuit of this proposed expansion. So, even if you like the idea of moving the end of a runway 950ft closer to densely populated subdivisions because you would like to land your C-I rated jet onto a B-II rated runway fully fueled and loaded - you have to admit that this proposal has been pursued in the weirdest way possible. Please be a good neighbor to Ann Arbor, Pittsfield, Lodi, and Georgetown residents. Stop the proposed Ann Arbor Airport Expansion.

A2Realilty

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 9:51 p.m.

I laugh at the suggestion that this runway expansion is about safety. If the runway is expanded, then the length of the runway will be deemed appropriate for more jets. More jets will use the runway, in fact, this has been touted as an advantage by proponents for the expansion in previous comment discussions. Additionally, by lengthening the runway, more of the existing air traffic that uses the airport will be able to carry higher payloads. This has also been touted in past discussions. Here's the problem... these increased payload aircrafts and jet classes that can't use the runway as it is, will now be using the runway once it is lengthened... HOWEVER, these groups will need MORE runway, so their margin of safety with the increased length will be the same as or worse than that of the existing aircraft that use the runway currently. It's akin to the drug addict saying that if they could just get a bit more of their fix, then things will be perfect today... however, they'll be hurting even more the next day. Safey indeed. The proposed runway expansion is a waste of money, an ecologically unfriendly activity, and an unnecessary expense on an entity which isn't financial self-sufficient and has needed to take money from the City of Ann Arbor's general fund in the vast majority of the years over the past decade. I'd rather spend our tax dollars on schools, roads or firefighters. The runway expansion is a farce.

a2grateful

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 7:02 p.m.

Well, this is just part of the Hieftje folly transportation plan... take a jet... then a folly trolly... to the conference center... that displaced the city's largest affordable housing stock... that's next to the underground parking garage that's no longer needed... because now we have mass transit... even though this area (Detroit, suburbs, and state) continues to lose its mass... As far as there being mansions at the end of the runway... the affected populated area also includes the opposite direction... a flight path line extending over Georgetown to Arborland... This is not just a Stonebridge quality of life issue... it directly puts long established a2 neighborhoods in a flight path... More Hieftje folly flight o fancy... Enjoy a2 taxpayers!

Travis

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.

I always find the publics lack of knowledge in specialized fields interesting (not only aviation). Why? Even while lacking the necessary intellect to pass educated judgment on such a project, assumptions are made. We all know "jumbo" jets will never utilize the Ann Arbor airport. Commercial traffic will remain at the only locally available option, Detroit Metro. Willow Run will remain a corporate and cargo airport (legacy commercial carriers cannot legally operate at Willow Run) and Ann Arbor will remain a general aviation airport with some corporate traffic. This would be the case if the runway were 8,000 feet. In itself, a runway cannot offer the needed support of larger operations. The airports ramp space, lack of any type of cargo facility and overall design will not accommodate. The money for the project is and or will be there. As previously stated, the largest portion of funding will be federal (~95%), followed by a likely 2.5% state and 2.5% local contribution. If the money is not used here, it will be used somewhere else! Why not improve local infrastructure, lure additional business to the area and simply make Ann Arbor more accessible? This project simply adds an additional margin of safety. In its current capacity, there is no room for error during takeoff or landing. The extra length would allow pilots to safely return to the runway with sufficient braking length remaining. It is my assumption a few more takeoffs and landings is easily tolerated compared to an aircraft losing an engine and landing in your front room. If the main objection to this project is the perception of Ann Arbor becoming the next Detroit Metro-everyone can take a deep breath, enjoy the sunshine and relax! Of course this is only my opinion. In the end, I hope both parties in this conflict of interest can make peace and move onto more critical issues.

nunya

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.

Bruceae - I am not an executive and my 2000 square foot 3 bedroom ranch in Stonebridge is hardly a McMansion! As for self importance, who knows. What I do know is that there was an airport there when I bought the house. It has been there since I was a kid. It has always only been a small airport. I don't really care how it is used. What I do care is that there is no reason to spend MY money or YOUR money or any taxpayer money to expand that airport. There are far more pressing issues before we get around to worrying about little ARB!

Melissa

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 11:37 a.m.

The likelihood of a "jumbo jet" ever landing at ARB, even with a runway extension and ILS, are slim to nil. I can think of one true jumbo jet that can even operate out of such a short runway, and it's a military aircraft. As far as ARB being behind technologically behind the times, the airport now has precision GPS approaches that allow airplanes to descend to ~300 feet (ILS gives 200). Visibility requirements are higher for the precision GPS approaches as well, but are still pretty good. I don't know many non-commercial pilots that would fly into an airport with conditions that close to ILS minimums anyway, so the other approaches don't detract that much from the airport's capabilities.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 11:28 a.m.

"After the runway is lengthened someone will say 'Hey, let's add an ILS'. Then after the ILS is installed someone will say, 'Hey, let's thicken the runway'. Next thing you know you have jumbo jets landing at State and Ellsworth." And, soon after that, the space shuttle will be landing in Ann Arbor. Come on, let's get real. Moose is right--this is taxpayer money--except that something like 95% of that money is coming from the federal government and, if A2 does not spend it, some other community will. So scenarios whereby 747s will soon be landing at the airport notwithstanding, this seems like a no brainer: use federal $ to improve the area's airport and, in so doing, using local companies and suppliers who employ local workers. And to the people who live in Stonebridge: You knew the airport was there and pointed at your neighborhood when you built/bought/moved in. Good Night and Good Luck

Moose

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 11:20 a.m.

Extending runways is costly and the cost is borne by the taxpayer, who for the most part, will never use the facility. The extended runways will end up serving a small elite group while reducing the quality of life for the not so elite bunch of folks who live nearby. Why is the city of Ann Arbor in the airport business anyway? What's the economic upside to the taxpayer and where's the bang for the buck analysis? Where's the analysis of the social costs vs allowing more and bigger private jets to land?

bruceae

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 11:14 a.m.

I love how all these self important want to be executives buy their McMansions next to the airport and then bitch because there is an airport there. What's the matter, you didn't check out the area before you bought your home?

a2citizen

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 9:51 a.m.

After the runway is lengthened someone will say "Hey, let's add an ILS". Then after the ILS is installed someone will say, "Hey, let's thicken the runway". Next thing you know you have jumbo jets landing at State and Ellsworth. During Aristotle's day Greece did not have an airport. And having flown into both old and new airports in Athens several times, and having worked in Greece for a year I would not want that type of cultural advancement. Willow Run and DTW are short drives away.