Al

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 8:23 p.m.

Reading over recent posts, it is clear the point here is that most crashes occur at the vicinity of an airport. As we know ARB had 6 fatalities, non of which BTW, had anything to do with runway length. They occurred when the area around the airport was less populated. One that I recall was near State St. another was in Georgetown. With more homes, obviously the safety margins for home owners, decline. With longer runway hence aircraft carrying more fuel, people and climbing even closer to homes, safety margins are reduced farther. All of this while there is a perfectly good airport, much better than Ann Arbor will ever be, right next door. This is the point one should take from this recent crash. Of course we all feel sad for the pilots and their families. That's a given. We just don't want a repeat, here.

packman

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 6:08 p.m.

The crash (May God Bless the pilots who may be still in the wreckage) is really not relevant to this blog or the airport expansion, although there are some who would spin any aircraft crash to their own advantage. I still say SHAME! "The crash site is in the Cook County Forest Preserve near the River Trails Nature Center but is not near a residential neighborhood."

TheFacts

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 5:56 p.m.

Packman. I am trying to prevent similar occurrence in my neck of the woods. You on the other hand, care only about loading more fuel and payload on airplanes at an airport surrounded by homes. As Chuck said, this hardly gives you the "moral" authority to criticize any of us. Good try though.

ChuckMullin

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 2:31 p.m.

Packman. The media broke this story, not 'facts'. It is clear to me as a lurker that 'facts' was trying to inform us of potential threats an airport can impose on our community. On the flip side are those trying to sneak this expansion scam under our collective nose accompanied with fairy tales, half truth and innuendos told to the Ann Arbor Council members and the media. If you belong to this group, as I suspect from reading you posts, you sure have nerves to criticize and take the "high moral ground" stance. After all, my family's (or our community for that matter) safety was never part of your agenda. Have a nice day Mr. Packman.

packman

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.

To Facts: Never let a crisis go to waste...where have I heard that before? Even before the pilots were identified, you're using their misfortune to further your cause. Shame on you!

HQ

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 10:15 p.m.

People. This is not about "safety". For sure not safety of our community. It is all about increasing takeoff weight for few "special" aircraft at the airport. This is the "reason" used by MDOT to waste your tax dollars. As a responsible council, the AA Council should do the right thing and show their support for our SAFETY and quality of life and send this latest plan where it belongs: The nearest trash can.

Facts

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 4:30 p.m.

Yesterday, at an airport near you: Two dead in plane crash near Wheeling airport By Madhu Krishnamurthy and Sheila Ahern | Daily Herald Staff Contact writer A small jet crashed in the Des Plaines River near Euclid Avenue in Wheeling by the Chicago Executive Airport. Multiple fire departments and police departments were on the scene investigating the crash. Gilbert R. Boucher II | Staff Photographer A small jet crashed in the Des Plaines River near Euclid Avenue in Wheeling. Gilbert R. Boucher II | Staff Photographer The Learjet 35 that went down near the Chicago Executive Airport Tuesday afternoon according to Royal Air Freight's Web site. Chief Jay Reardon with MABAS representing Glenview Fire Department speaks at a press conference Tuesday afternoon at the staging area for the plane crash north of Euclid Ave. at the Des Plaines River. Bill Zars | Staff Photographer A police helicopter flies over the scene of a plane crash Tuesday afternoon. Bill Zars | Staff Photographer Firefighters with life vests ride down River Road to the scene of the plane crash Tuesday afternoon. Bill Zars | Staff Photographer Fire and police gather at a staging area at Camp McDonald River roads Tuesday afternoon. Bill Zars | Staff Photographer Image of plane wreckage near Chicago Executive Airport. ABC 7 Chicago Image of plane wreckage near Chicago Executive Airport. ABC 7 Chicago Rescue personnel walk at the crash scene. Mark Welsh | Staff Photographer Plane parts line the shoreline as police and other personal scan the area for clues of the crash. Mark Welsh | Staff Photographer Rescue personnel arrive at the scene. Mark Welsh | Staff Photographer The overall scene where a Learjet crashed in the Des Plaines River. Mark Welsh | Staff Photographer The smell of jet fuel in the air rescue workers check out the area. Mark Welsh | Staff Photographer 1 of 14 Browse All Image Galleries print story email story Published: 1/5/2010 1:47 PM | Updated: 1/6/2010 12:02 PM Send To: E-mail: To: From: Name: E-mail: Comments: (41) | read | post Buzz up! More Coverage Photo Galleries * Images of the plane crash near Chicago Executive Airport Stories * Other crashes at Chicago Executive Airport [01/05/10] * Human error factor in other Learjet crashes [01/05/10] Investigators have returned to the scene of a plane crash this morning that killed the pilot and co-pilot of a Learjet cargo aircraft after it crashed Tuesday afternoon about a mile short of Chicago Executive Airport Tuesday. The bodies of the two inside the airplane have not been identified and have not been moved to the Cook County medical examiner's office, officials said. It's believed the two remain still inside the wreckage of the plane, officials said. Debris from the downed plane is spread over two large fields and into the Des Plaines River in the area east of River Road between Camp McDonald Road and Euclid Avenue. Authorities stopped recovery efforts at about dusk Tuesday after National Transportation Safety Board investigators took over the scene. Pieces of the wreckage and the pilots' bodies won't be removed until Wednesday, officials said. A Federal Aviation Administration official said Flight 988 was making an approach to Runway 34 when it crashed about 1:30 p.m. The plane was a Royal Air Freight fixed-wing, multi-engine plane headed to the Wheeling airport to pick up freight. The FAA and NTSB have confirmed the pilot and co-pilot were the only people aboard. The crash site is in the Cook County Forest Preserve near the River Trails Nature Center but is not near a residential neighborhood. There were no flames visible when firefighters arrived, according to Mutual Aid Box Alarm System President Jay Reardon, who spoke at an afternoon news conference. Divers from several area fire departments aided in the search for the bodies and in recovering aircraft debris out of the river. Grace Demma, who lives near the crash site, said she was driving home from work when she heard the explosion. "The first thing I thought about was my mom and family," said Demma, a cafeteria worker at Prospect High School. "It's very emotional. You never think this could happen a block away from your house. It's too close." Airport authorities do not know what caused the plane to go down, as there were no transmissions to indicate the aircraft was in trouble. The FAA said the plane had been cleared to land and was making a normal approach over the forest preserve before it crashed. The temperature was 21 degrees with northwest winds at 10 mph and 10-mile visibility. The tower received word of the crash at 1:39 p.m. "Everything appeared normal until the plane went down," said Airport Manager Dennis Rouleau. The plane had 200 gallons of fuel left on board, which Reardon said is now in the Des Plaines River. "I'm not going to speculate" about the crash, said NTSB spokeswoman Pam Sullivan, who arrived at the scene with a team of investigators around 4 p.m. "It's too early to even narrow down what happened." Roads remained closed around the site into Tuesday evening. NTSB officials secured the fields where the debris is strewed. The pieces will be taken to a secure location to study, Sullivan said. Records indicate Flight 988 had left Oakland County International Airport in Pontiac, Mich., to fly to Chicago Executive Airport. The Learjet's next destination was DeKalb Peachtree Airport in Atlanta. Royal Air Freight also suffered a fatal crash in March 2004 when a Mitsubishi MU-2 turboprop carrying a load of freight fell out of the sky in Massachusetts and burst into flames. The 33-year-old pilot was killed. Royal Air Freight is based at the Michigan airport and specializes in both small cargo and business passenger charter service. The FAA says about 50 planes are registered to the company, a collection of Learjets, Falcons and Cessnas, some turboprops and some jets. The company also operates its own engine overhaul hanger. Aside from the 2004 fatal crash, in which the NTSB could not determine why the pilot lost control of the plane, Royal Air Freight has a record of four minor incidents since 2000, according to FAA data. The most serious of them appears to be when a plane ran out of fuel in 2006 while returning to Michigan. The pilot survived the crash. Other incidents involved landing gear problems and blown tires. Among previous crashes at Chicago Executive Airport, formerly known as Palwaukee Airport, were ones in 2006 and 1996 in which four people died in each one. Dennis Tajer, a commercial pilot from Arlington Heights, said it didn't appear weather was a factor. He noted that there could have been a minor malfunction that didn't warrant declaring an emergency but was a distraction for the crew. Landings and takeoffs are generally the most "task-saturated time for pilots," Tajer said. "They require the complete attention of the crew." Rene Ituralde, a cashier at the Citgo station at River and Camp McDonald roads, said he heard a loud noise around 1:30 p.m., but said he had no idea it was a downed plane. Over the years, nearby residents have expressed concern about safety and the airport

SafetyMan

Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 10:01 p.m.

Melissa. ARB has several light twins. Weight aside, even if they are lucky enough to squeeze minimal rate of climb on one engine, what kills most is the increase in Vmc. Again from the FAA: "Tests have shown that Vmc may increase more than three knots for each degree of bank less than five degrees. Loss of directional control may be experienced at speeds almost 20 knots above published Vmc when the wings are held level. The determination of Vmc by flight test pilots in airplane certification is solely concerned with the minimum speed for directional control under one very specific set of circumstances. It has nothing to do with climb performance, nor is it the optimum airplane attitude, bank angle, ball position, or configuration for best climb performance. Many light twins will not maintain level flight near Vmc with one engine inoperative." Two things to remember: 1. Avg. Joe Weekend flier is not a test pilot. 2. "Many light twins will not maintain level flight near Vmc with one engine inoperative." 1+2 = Increase risk to nearby communities. The area today is much more populated than it was back when the last airborne aircraft crashed in AA neighborhood.

Aviator

Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 8:38 p.m.

Sandman. I have been watching this exchange with amusement. Especially your: "Get out of your small town mentality; this is Ann Arbor; the home of the University of Michigan and now the center of monetary generation within the State of Michigan. Live big, dream big, succeed big and share the opportunity to the world..." As a professional pilot I can promise you that I have seen more airports and the communities around them in one year than you will in your lifetime. Let me assure you that I would not like to live in any community next to a busy airport. Anytime an airport expands, nearby towns and communities decline. Ann Arbor is too close to ARB to take that risk. Taking risk when there is absolutely no need to is insanity. I have flown both out of Willow Run and ARB. I will take Willow Run hands down, every day over ARB. It is safer for pilots and nearby communities. Also it could use more traffic. Most folks have moved to AA for the quality of life it offers, they couldn't care less if it has an airport at all. We have friends who moved here with an entire Cardiology group from Syracuse. Do you think they moved here because of ARB? Think again.

Sandman

Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 7:32 p.m.

Al-- Willow Run was built to support the blue collar manufacturing community...I am not about to take a step down, just because I could afford 15-homes in West Willow, on Eugene Ave. I believe the voting public of Ann Arbor and the upper level surrounding townships, will most definitely prevent the possibility of that type of scenario from ever happening in Stone Bridge. Get out of your small town mentality; this is Ann Arbor; the home of the University of Michigan and now the center of monetary generation within the State of Michigan. Live big, dream big, succeed big and share the opportunity to the world...

Al

Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 6:53 p.m.

Sandman. "My home value will definitely skyrocket with a larger, more versitile airport within two miles of my house. Bring it on; my clients and business will grow leaps and bounds..." Why don't you move to Ypsi. I am certain you can find something next to Willow Run. With your delusional theory of home value increase in direct relation to runway length...You should be doing very well with Willow Run's long runways. I think it is safe to say that most of us sane people, value our quality of life and would rather keep ARB at its present size. Let me know if you need help moving. I can recommend reliable movers!

Sandman

Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 6:28 p.m.

The upscale township neighborhoods were built near the airport for higher income families that need convenient access to a smaller airport. This allows the traveling money maker a perk of an airport nearby and/or the pricier hobby of flying and owning a plane; not for lower income families. Bring on the extended runway; this is my passion. I live in one of those neighborhoods and would love to purchase a plane that requires the extension. My home value will definitely skyrocket with a larger, more versitile airport within two miles of my house. Bring it on; my clients and business will grow leaps and bounds...

Melissa

Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 5:02 p.m.

lawguy, I would agree that funds should be spent on security updates. However, the TSA is generally responsible for travel security, not the FAA. The AATF is primarily for infrastructure improvements, and funds are allocated based on the fund's intake (major projects and airports get most of the funding reflecting the airline's larger contribution). I have used the full body scanners and wholeheartedly support their use. They were to be implemented at major airports a few years ago, but that action was blocked by special interests. If people really wanted safety to be a priority, they would allow security screenings like those you see in Israel, including the body scanners, and not think about it just when something happens. Safetyman, I stand corrected on the climb gradient issue. I am more familiar with part 25 standards (and their requirement for a positive climb gradient). However, I do believe that aircraft with MTOWs greater than 6000 lb are still required to demonstrate a positive climb rate at 5000 ft pressure altitude. This is significantly higher than the field altitude, even adjusted for summer density altitudes. From personal experience, most twins using KARB fall into this category, and would thus be able to safely climb single engine away from Stonebridge/Ellsworth businesses.

Al

Sat, Jan 2, 2010 : 8:54 p.m.

Lawguy. You bring up one Excellent point! >>if the best Airport Airways Trust Fund monies can be spent on is an unnecessary runway expansion at ARB, then perhaps Congress should be reallocating those funds on better airport screening and more state-of-the-art security devices so the passengers who contribute the lion's share of those funds can travel without fear. People's lives should come before pavement and politics!

SafetyMan

Sat, Jan 2, 2010 : 6:12 p.m.

"Melissa" Let me say it again, a light twin engine aircraft encountering an engine failure at takeoff, WILL CRASH STRAIGHT ahead. It WILL not climb on one engine at TAKEOFF configuration. Even if it is lucky enough to be at CLIMB configuration, the aircraft is almost uncontrollable due to increase of Vmc. The bast way to regain control will be to pull back the throttle on the "good" engine and try to have a controlled crash straight ahead. You can try and spin it as if the result for the crash is the spin/stall/whatever and "not" engine loss. In the end though, what really matters is the final outcome (which will be triggered by an engine failure) : http://www.google.com/search?q=Twin+Engine+crash+after+takeoff&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a While today, many emergencies can come to conclusion at the 2500' clearway between the end of the runway and Lohr, after the extension, most light twin emergencies will have to come to a stop at someone's living room. More on light twins straight fr the FAA: (Please pay attention to the 1.5% you are trying to spin. It is for *climb* performance, ***not takeoff configuration*** >>SINGLE ENGINE CLIMB PERFORMANCE Climb performance is dependent upon an excess of thrust (power) over what is required for level flight. Loss of power on one engine represents a 50 percent loss of thrust but often an 80 to 90 percent loss of climb performance, sometimes more. The current 14 CFR part 23 single engine climb performance requirements for reciprocating engine twins are as follows: More than 6,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight and/or Vso more than 61 knots: the single engine rate of climb in feet per minute at 5,000 feet MSL must be equal to at least.027 Vso2. For twins type-certificated February 4, 1991 or thereafter, the single engine climb requirement is expressed in terms of a climb gradient, 1.5 percent. 6,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight and Vso 61 knots or less: the single engine rate of climb or climb gradient at 5,000 feet MSL must simply be determined. The rate of climb could be a negative number. There is no requirement for a positive single engine rate of climb at 5,000 feet or any other altitude. Rate of climb is the altitude gain per unit of time, while climb gradient is the actual measure of altitude gained per 100 feet of horizontal travel, expressed as a percentage. An altitude gain of 1.5 feet per 100 feet of horizontal travel is a climb gradient of 1.5 percent. With regard to climb performance, the light twin with one engine inoperative will perform marginally at best, and may not be capable of climbing at all under existing conditions.(Pay attention "Melissa"!!) There is no requirement that a light twin in the takeoff or landing configuration be able to maintain altitude, even at sea level, with one engine inoperative. Pay more attention "Melissa"! : >>ENGINE FAILURE AFTER LIFTOFF The manufacturers recommended procedures for an engine failure shortly after liftoff can be found in the AFM/POH for the specific make and model. However, certain basic procedures follow below. Complete failure of an engine after liftoff can be broadly categorized into one of three scenarios: Landing Gear Down If the failure occurs prior to selecting the gear to the up position, it is recommended that the pilot close both throttles and land on the runway or overrun remaining. Landing Gear Selected Up, Single Engine Climb Performance Inadequate When operating near or above the single engine ceiling and an engine failure is experienced shortly after liftoff, a landing must be accomplished on essentially whatever lies ahead.

lawguy

Sat, Jan 2, 2010 : 4:14 p.m.

In response to Melissa's discourse on what transient pilots contribute to the local economy, I must quarrel with some of your basic comments. First, if they come here anyway for UM games, we don't need the runway extension to attract them; plus, their economic contributions are insignificant. Secondly, if the runway extension will become an attraction to transient jets that do not now come here -- e.g., "lets land from FL 420, waste 1,200 gallons of fuel to get up and down, blow $7,500, and pollute the atmosphere as we do it, all to get a sandwich at Zingerman's, then continue on to the coast" -- then I'm not sure our economy wants or needs that type of business. And, thirdly, if the best Airport Airways Trust Fund monies can be spent on is an unnecessary runway expansion at ARB, then perhaps Congress should be reallocating those funds on better airport screening and more state-of-the-art security devices so the passengers who contribute the lion's share of those funds can travel without fear. People's lives should come before pavement and politics!

Al

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 10:51 p.m.

Packman. Since you asked... There is no "debate" here but several of "pro expansion" special interest groups.Mainly airport "operators" who are too obvious trying to fool readers with the same bogus "reasons" and arguments they have used in the past. As for making "fun" of business folks...Nice try, "packman" trying to alienate those who oppose the expansion. What are you going to try next, the "McMansion" approach?;-) I think readers can see through smoke. Anyway. 1. Lets not overestimate ARBs contribution to the economy.A Cessna 150 flying 'touch and goes', is not much of a contributor to the economy although it give the appearance of a "busy" airport when it comes to takeoff and landings. A business person flying his biz-jet to dine at AA, is contributing to AvFuel's bottom line at the airport, but to the community as a whole it is as meaningless as a C-150 practicing touch and goes. 2. There is a place where folks with serious business jets and safety minded pilots, can land at any weather condition and not risk themselves or surrounding communities. A place with 24/7 FAA tower and rescue equipment. A place which will not tempt weekend fliers to land below legal weather minimums, just to spare a 10 min car ride. It is called Willow Run Airport. As for your claims that ARB's present approach glide path is not "safe". As I have said: If ARB is not safe: shut it down. Fact is that it *is* safe. Fact is the percentage of mishaps at ARB is far below 1%. Fact is the few fatalities, which posed real risk to surrounding communities, had absolutely nothing to do with the length of the runway. These aircraft were all airborne. Back to your "steep approach" claim... All published approaches to ARB are approved by the FAA and are not steeper than the standard 3 deg. glide path. They are all the standard 3 deg. approach. As for visual approaches, well I am certain you are well aware that the Visual Approach Slope Indicator, has the same 3 deg glide path as well. As I have said before if traffic on the road was an issue, there should have been a Notice TO Airman in that regards for the past 30 years. The same way it is issued at Bad Axe, MI for traffic on the road. Obviously for many many years it was not an issue, until someone made it an issue.

packman

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 8:48 p.m.

Al - Your comments to Melissa indicate that you would rather make fun of people who are trying to be serious. Will you just participate in meaningful debate and read each comment carefully? I'm still waiting on you to explain your confusion over my State Stree/runway offset comment.

Peg

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 3:51 p.m.

I've read all of the postings about the proposed runway expansion and I'm shaking my head about some that are inaccurate, conflicting, and mean-spirited. It's interesting when individuals say that those living in "McMansions" near the airport should have known better than to buy/build in that location. I live near the airport, but NOT in a McMansion (What really is that anyway? Doesn't the City of A2 have plenty of large homes as well?)There are homes of all sizes near the airport - not that it should matter. I happen to enjoy the airport - as it is. I enjoy seeing the small planes, especially on a beautiful day, and I truly don't mind the noise from those. On occasion a small jet will take off and it's incredibly loud - not something people should have to listen to on a daily basis when Willow Run can provide for these planes. I'm assuming that those who complain about McMansions are also interested in the goals of a greenbelt and in protecting wildlife. Expanding the airport does not fit with those goals. The areas near the airport are a haven for ducks, geese, blue heron, egrets, swans, hawks, and numerous smaller birds - expanding the airport will directly affect them. Remember the plane that landed in the Hudson River? It was taken down by flocks of geese. Most of the year there are large flocks of birds in the area but in the fall and early winter, after the cornfield next to the airport is plowed, there are hundreds - if not thousands of geese and ducks in that field - right next to the airport. They take to the air in huge flocks from that field and from the many ponds in the area. Adding more and larger planes could be a disaster for planes, people, birds, and other wildlife. Added air and noise polution will affect Pittsfield Township - and also Ann Arbor. Those who want to increase commerce by bringing in larger and heavier planes at Ann Arbor's airport must also be prepared for more people, more houses(more urban sprawl), more traffic, more safety issues, and so on. You can't have it both ways. And if the proposed expansion is the baby of just a few individuals (from what I hear it may be), then shame on them for not caring about the negative impact on so many. Look at the big picture and be thoughtful with your remarks.

Melissa

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 2:46 p.m.

I would like to address several arguments brought up by other members. "Because light twins are not required to climb on one engine at takeoff configuration when certified by the FAA." General aviation aircraft are certified to 14 CFR FAR part 23 (specifically 23.67 for one-engine inop operation), which stipulates a positive climb gradient of at least 1.5 per cent for one-engine inoperative operation. The cause of most twin engine aircraft crashes after engine failures is loss of control (i.e. stall-spin after failing to compensate for increased yawing moment and less thrust). All certified twin engine aircraft are required to demonstrate controllability during one-engine inoperative conditions and will not crash just because of an engine out. "After thinking about it more, this issue definitely sounds like a few privileged folks wanting a place to park their expensive flying toys closer to home." The airport serves more than these few privileged folks"; the airport is an important gateway to the University Hospitals. Lifeguard flights regularly bring sick patients to Ann Arbor to receive treatment. Most of these flights use King Airs, large twins, which would greatly benefit, from a safety perspective, from a longer runway. In addition to transient lifeguard flights, UMs Survival Flight helicopters are based at KARB. "They say these are small jets but they are LOUD" Todays small business jets suffer from stigma based upon old technology turbojets and much larger airliners. While it is true that the sound intensity of the average jet at takeoff closer than 200 feet is around 120 decibels (reference any introductory physics text), this intensity rapidly decreases with increasing distance, and almost immediately after takeoff, when thrust is reduced, both for climb limits and noise abatement. Also, as the aircraft able to use KARB are much smaller than those flying out of larger airports in the region, noise levels will never reach those around Detroit Metro, or even at Willow Run. "...a small prop plane had engine failure not too long ago and landed on the 5th fairway I believe, so a longer runway would not have helped in that situation." Just because one aircraft landed on a golf course instead of the runway after an engine failure, does not mean that a longer runway would not help in the event of another engine failure. In the event of an engine failure in the airport environment, pilots are generally taught to put the aircraft down in a spot no more than thirty degrees from their current course. This is meant to mitigate the stall-spin scenario associated with engine-outs near airports. The increased runway length is not meant to help in this situation. Rather, it affords more time for the pilot to react in events such as emergencies during takeoff, and give extra margins of safety during high density altitude days or poorly executed takeoffs and landings (which occasionally happen to the best of pilots). "Fewer than 100 Ann Arbor voters would benefit from such a lengthening, and many thousands would suffer from the added noise of bigger planes and the possible danger." As to this assertion, I cite the importance of transient aviation to the local economy. Take the average UM football game. People that fly in for game days not only pay ramp and fuel fees. They spend money on rental cars, hotel rooms, and numerous local businesses downtown. Zingermans also attracts many transient pilots, who fly in especially to experience one of the best delis in the world. The fuel fees and taxes that these pilots pay also go toward airport and airspace improvements for everyone (see the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, federal and state fuel taxes, the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), etc.), not just the pilot who bought the gas.

A2Realilty

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 2:43 p.m.

The arguement that "the airport was there before some of the houses were built" is idiotic. If I built a house near the airport that had small prop planes landing at it, I would have every right to complain if an EXPANSION were being made to completely change the type of airplanes that would use the airport. I still have yet to see a single comment in this thread that factually explains how the expansion of the airport will add any revenue to the City of Ann Arbor. I still have yet to see any comments in this thread that identify a specific safety incident that occurred in the last 40 years that the additional length of the runway would have prevented. The legnthening of the runway continues to be a terrible idea with no financial or safety justification.

packman

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.

Al - It is apparent that you misunderstood my statement below...read it again please...I did not say State Road was being offset or widened. Packman. "The end of the runway next to State Road is being offset by 150' so that the approach angle to that runway will be safer and in accord with FAA standards. " Wrong. State St is not being "offset" or widened. There is no money for the project. Yet you are correct that this was the triggering event for this expansion. Now the irony is that State St will stay where it is, but the ARB snowball keeps on rolling.

SafetyMan

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 1:54 a.m.

KtoA. Have you just discovered "density altitude"? We are all very familiar with density altitude. Fact: A single engine aircraft needs LESS THAN ONE HALF of the existing 3500' runway. sea level or at our elevation, summer or winter. Fact: around 80% of aircraft based in ARB are single engine. FACT: A large light twin (C-402) STILL needs about one half of the EXISTING runway for takeoff and LESS than that for landing. Fact: there are around 13 twins at ARB. FACT: Not even one of the the incident reported to the FAA or NTSB are attributed to a "short runway". FACT: Even with all incidents, ARB is extremely safe with a rate of "overrun" of LESS than 1 %. Let me say it one more time: A statistically meaningless number. And the last FACT: IT IS NOT ABOUT SAFETY! Just ask MDOT. Safety was the "cover story" to have the AA Council approve the ALP and of course it is a great story for the media. The REAL REASON behind this push is to allow aircraft fly (REPEAT AFTER ME) HEAVIER, out of ARB. And this my friend, will directly increase the risk to all surrounding communities. You probably do not fly complex aircraft. But in a heavier more complex aircraft a pilot can not just fly the rate of climb he wants. On takeoff, a pilot can not even tell what his CLIMB GRADIENT is going to be (Unlike the 3 Deg glide slope on landing). You fly SPEED according to your weight (V2 to V2+10 kts.) The heavier you are, the LONGER runway you will need and faster airspeed / lower rate, for you climb. Daily, single engine aircraft pass over homes at LESS than 500' AGL. I can PROMISE you that when the runway will be shifted 950' closer to homes, with HEAVIER aircraft climbing out, they WILL fly CLOSER to homes. They will fly MUCH closer if they have engine problem on takeoff. Light twins with engine lost on takeoff, may end up at your living room (If you really live in Stonebridge) In short, yes, SAFETY is an issue, it is the safety of the surrounding communities, we need to be concerned about, NOT the pilots. Pilots with larger aircraft with need for more runway and/or precision instrument approaches, should use Willow Run. They will be foolish to use ARB even with a slightly longer runway. Again, "SAFETY" in this case is nothing more than a SPIN. The REAL intent, is to fly heavier aircraft out of ARB and this just another FACT.

KtoA

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 11:06 p.m.

Response to David K. As you can see by now David K we have different opinions about runway length. I do want to stress as much as possible about one major thing. I do NOT want to see a North West/ Delta commercial airlines operating out of Ann Arbor. What I want to stress is that, we are now in more danger by having a shorter runway than if we would have a longer runway. Now you said that by moving the runway closer to the homes it would make the planes fly over lower. Wellsorry to say; that what determines this is not the aircraft but the pilot (and no pilot would want to fly that low over a house just to do it). Now as we all know the airport was there WAY before the homes were. So if you buy a house near the end of the runway, YOU are also assuming responsibility for living under the path of aircraft flying over. Its the same thing if you live near a Rail Road and expect the train to slow down, or not to carry dangers chemicals when it get close to your house. None of this would be happing if 1) they left the flight path clear of homes 2) Fast talking realtor selling the homes to unsuspecting buyers and telling them that the airport is not open or will close soon and false statements (NOT trying to blame all on the realtors nor am I condemning them for all the problems) 3) I also live in Stonebridge so I know of the risks of living here. I also respect that you took to heart on what I said about density altitude. You are correct about pilots are responsible for operating in a safe way in short runways. But one thing that you left out and its a big one. Pilots are human and they also make mistakes! By having the extra room would allow for redundancy. Once again look towards future needs of the community not up to peoples noses only. I understand it hard to see a reason to extend it, but I know that we will be talking about this again sooner then later. This is progress not retroaction (stepping backwards).

Al

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 7:37 p.m.

Packman. "The end of the runway next to State Road is being offset by 150' so that the approach angle to that runway will be safer and in accord with FAA standards. " Wrong. State St is not being "offset" or widened. There is no money for the project. Yet you are correct that this was the triggering event for this expansion. Now the irony is that State St will stay where it is, but the ARB snowball keeps on rolling. As to "Right now aircraft fly over State Road at an altitude that is too close to the traffic, particularly big trucks." Wrong again. If that was the case two things should happen: 1. The FAA should shut down an unsafe airport ASAP. 2. Whoever is responsible to issue safety NOTAMs, should get fired, as I have yet to see any Notice To Airman issued for ARB in regards to traffic on the road. (As is the case at Bad Axe MI, for example). Obviously, non of the above has occurred. Also, ALL FAA approved approached to both runways ARE the standard 3 Degrees glide slope. "The other end (the one closest to Lohr Road) will be extended by 850' and will provide pilots more time to make decisions if malfunctions occur, i.e., stop on the remaining runway or continue the takeoff." Wrong yet again. A runway is built to allow certain aircraft operations. An aircraft that can not comply with the accelerate-stop distance should not operate out of that runway. Professional pilots have a split second at V1 (Takeoff decision speed) to either stop or go. You don't extend runways to allow for the lowest common denominator have enough time to read the manual and reach a "stop" decision during the takeoff roll. You would not expect the city of AA to expand every road to 4 lanes whenever there is an accident would you? Fact is that a longer runway will REDUCE safety for area residents as it will allow faster, heavier and more complex aircraft to use the runway. Another fact is that they REAL REASON the runway is being extended has nothing to do with safety. It is all about allowing aircraft carry more WEIGHT. I am sure you know how to verify this tiny little fact with MDOT. And you go again with more irrelevant arguments: "The extension will therefore make it safer for all aircraft operating to and from the airport." It is obvious that you belong to a special interest group within the airport. As such I am certain are well aware that NOT EVEN ONE of all documented accidents and incidents had anything to do with runway length "The runway will not be long enough to support scheduled commercial airline operations for a number of reasons, security, no precision approaches, etc." Which is exactly why Willow Run should be the choice when SAFETY is a concern and ARB should be left AS IS for single engine weekend fliers. Anything else will compromise safety of thousands of nearby communities.

SafetyMan

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 6:58 p.m.

Barbara. Excellent points! "The only fatalities at the airport during the same forty year period took place after the plane had taken off from the facility. One of those crashes occurred near Pattengill School and three people in the plane were killed. Fortunately on that occasion no one on the ground was injured, though a house was damaged." Lets also not forget there are several **SCHOOLS** at the departure end of runway 06. One other item I forgot to mention in my response to KtoA is that the light Twin Engine aircraft he is so "concerned" about is the most dangerous aircraft to surrounding homes. Why? Because light twins are not required to climb on one engine at takeoff configuration when certified by the FAA. What does it mean? It means that when a light twin looses an engine on takeoff, it WILL CRASH somewhere along the departure path. It CAN NOT climb on the remaining engine and it does not have additional thrust to allow it to turn back to the airport. When you turn, you need to compensate for the lost lift with more thrust just to maintain altitude. Light twins, do not have any additional thrust. Any doubts? Just Google "twin engine crash after takeoff" http://www.google.com/search?q=twin+engine+crash+after+takeoff+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

SafetyMan

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 6:37 p.m.

KtoA. You say: "Today the present runway length is TOO short for even some LIGHT twin piston (let alone bigger planes that are based at A2 airport) aircraft to take off safely. I have seen, 1st hand account of planes taking off at the very last minute because of the off short runway. This becomes a daily occurrence of seeing planes using every last bit of runway to get off the ground in the summer time." Excellent argument as to why we should NOT extend the runway if lives of nearby residents are of any value. If an aircraft lifts off at the last inch of the runway, that aircraft flies around 150-200 over homes. Can you imagine how low it will fly when it lifts off a runway 950' CLOSER to these homes? As you know FAA requires a minimum altitude of ONE THOUSAND FEET when flying over densely populated areas. Even thought there is an exception for "takeoff and landing", the absolute distance the FAA sees as SAFE is 1000' for densely populated and 500' for sparsely populated areas. Today aircraft routinely fly at LESS, MUCH less than even 500' over homes. Pilots who VALUE SAFETY have the choice to fly in and out of airports that can accommodate their aircraft performance under certain meteorological conditions at any given day. Home owners can not move there homes. 3500' feet runway is prefect for what ARB is and the surrounding neighborhoods. Lets not try and make ARB to what it was never intended to be.

David K

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 6:20 p.m.

Our community needs a much nicer facility for the business jet crowd. Why would some family or VIP coming to the Big House to party in a big VIP suite for a big game want to go park their big jet at Willow Run Airport? EEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Frankly I can't picture Tom Brady & Giselle, Michael Phelps or Derek Jeter at Willow Run, can you?

KtoA

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 6:06 p.m.

As a fellow aviation buff and co-pilot of small aircraft based out of Ann Arbor airport I believe that we need to lengthen the runway. I say this because not one person has posted about this one critical aspect of aircraft performance. What I am talking about is something that affects everything that flys. Density altitude is the magical word. Density altitude makes a plane have a harder time taking off, this generally happens in warm-hot summer weather. Today the present runway length is TOO short for even some LIGHT twin piston (let alone bigger planes that are based at A2 airport) aircraft to take off safely. I have seen, 1st hand account of planes taking off at the very last minute because of the off short runway. This becomes a daily occurrence of seeing planes using every last bit of runway to get off the ground in the summer time. By not lengthening the runway you are hurting multiply aspects of safety, business, and economical, social aspects and above all your hurting the dreams of younger aviators. So please put aside the homes, people views and think about what change can happen by seeing the future local needs and not up to your nose views only. P.S Im 19 years old and know what Im talking about, thank you.

johnnya2

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 4:35 p.m.

Where is all this business the airport is going to generate? Sorry, but the county already has a much better and effective airport for business and corporate jet type work. This is an airport used for weekend pilots. The city should not risk the airport becoming the Pontiac Silverdome which over the course of its use cost state and city taxpayers huge amounts of money. I can think of 100s of other projects (Stadium bridge) that make more sense and help a far larger amount of residents. lets face it, the airport is not even in the city. The city owns the airport and NOTHING around it.

Al

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 12:51 p.m.

Sellers. This has absolutely nothing to do with "safety" of pilots. This has a lot to do with placing thousands of residents at danger. Not even one of previous fatalities had anything to do with runway length, they were all airborne. This was back when the area was less populated. Obviously today, the chance of a crash into a home has increased many folds. This airport contribution to the economy is close to zero, in fact it is closer to become an economic liability on AA's "public services" funds. We have other, much better airports around and absolutely no need to ruin our quality if life.

sellers

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 12:21 p.m.

I support the expansion and relocation for safety reasons. It's still one of the busiest airports in Michigan (non passenger traffic based ones). What I'm surprised is that they are not looking to see if they can sink State St below and have the runway go over the State Street. This would increase the runway size by a lot and remove the dangers of State Street as it looks to increase traffic and go to 4 or 5 lanes.

Al

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 12:20 p.m.

This should be a very simple decision for AA Council members. You CAN NOT claim to support high "quality of life" and at the same time support airport expansion. The city of AA should once and for all make up its mind whether they want to operate an airport, or provide what they claim to its citizens: HIGH QUALITY of LIFE. You can NOT have it both ways. We, as AA citizens and voters, should capitalize on the fact that we have two, far superior airports (Metro and Willow Run) which can be used as real economic growth engines while not damaging our quality of life at Ann Arbor. Simple decision.

treetowncartel

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 12:20 p.m.

The airport is great and I am all for expansion. I do miss the fireworks though.

David Cahill

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 11:08 a.m.

I have been following the attempts of the pilots and some local businesses to expand the airport for the past 30 years. They always come up with one facile excuse or another. Today's A2Journal has an extensive article on this issue which reveals what may be the real reason: "City and airport officials say the moe is for the safety of the airport, allowing pilots more surface to correct mistakes during take-offs and landings, and to allow more of the smaller business-class flights to utilize the airport *as they are now limited by insurance carriers. Having a longer runway will provide some relief in insurance rates for the corporate-owned, single-engine aircraft."* So area residents are to be sacrificed for lower insurance rates! Terrific. The airport has been a thorn in our side for too long. We should do what Rome did to Carthage: Tear down the buildings, plow up the runways, sow the place with salt, and declare the site accursed.

packman

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 9:18 a.m.

The end of the runway next to State Road is being offset by 150' so that the approach angle to that runway will be safer and in accord with FAA standards. Right now aircraft fly over State Road at an altitude that is too close to the traffic, particularly big trucks. The other end (the one closest to Lohr Road) will be extended by 850' and will provide pilots more time to make decisions if malfunctions occur, i.e., stop on the remaining runway or continue the takeoff. The extension will therefore make it safer for all aircraft operating to and from the airport. The runway will not be long enough to support scheduled commercial airline operations for a number of reasons, security, no precision approaches, etc.

kathe

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 1:35 a.m.

For those seeking the facts, please see the website www.stopa2runwayextension.com or go directly to an informational brochure http://a2runway.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/brochure.pdf. These were produced with FOIA'd information as well as factual research. Please be aware that the airport today is safe-the few incidents reported were all caused by pilot error or mechanical failure, not runway length; that if the FAA grant is accepted, heavier planes will come and cannot legally be stopped; that Willow Run is only six air miles away and safe in any weather, unlike the Ann Arbor Airport that has only a part time tower and cannot de-ice due to the aquifer for which the city originally bought the property in Pittsfield Township and still uses to supply water to AA citizens; and that the thousands of nearby residents affected by the airport live in small condos, small and large homes, apartments and subsidized housing, and that any who asked were told by the airport management that the airport would never be expanded.. In fact, the previous four expansion efforts were not passed by any Ann Arbor city council and that a past city council officially resolved to not ever expand the airport. No wonder residents felt safe in building or buying nearby a small airport that they really like just as it is. Residents who make up the grass roots effort to oppose the extended runway do not live just in Stonebridge.. They live in other areas of Pittsfield Township, and in Lodi Township and in the City of Ann Arbor. In fact, both townships of Pittsfield and Lodi have passed resolutions opposing the expansion. Not the city, nor the state nor the federal government is studying the effects on the safety of residents surrounding the airport. Until they do, please do not support this dangerous proposal.

Ryan J. Stanton

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 1:09 a.m.

Here's a story we published last month on the city and Pittsfield Township coming to terms on their dispute over the airport.

Basic Bob

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 12:38 a.m.

Although the airport is in Pittsfield Township, Pittsfield residents have no say in the airport plan. The township board dropped its objections to the airport plan and agreed to let the city issue all permits and inspections. If I remember correctly, the plan moves the runway 150 feet away from State Rd. so the road can be widened to a boulevard south of Ellsworth Rd. That would help commercial property owners on the east side of the airport.

A2Realilty

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 11:30 p.m.

The benefit of lengthening the runway has no substance. There is no evidence of a poor safety record at the Ann Arbor Airport that would be rectified by increasing the length of the airport. There will also not be any new jobs created by the lengthening of the runway aside from a few brief contractor jobs that will have no sustained impact on the city. The potential decline in home values, and associated property tax revenue, from all of the homes that are located within an area that would be affected by noisier, larger air traffic is significant. The lengthening of the runway is a terrible idea.

Miguel Azevedo

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 7:10 p.m.

Excerpt : "....because we believe this will make it significantly more DANGEROUS for the local residents of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield and Lodi." Well folks, the airport has been here since late '30s. You are the ones that moved in and decided to erect your domiciles right on the extended approach! Nobody needs a "safety study" to tell what plain common sense yells loud and clear that this is an unsafe location. This in disregard of advices not to do it.900-950' will not make matters more dangerous than they are today. And AA/MI needs all the business it can get.

Karen Sidney

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 6 p.m.

Roz I can answer your third question. The airport is an enterprise fund of the city of Ann Arbor, which means Ann Arbor City Council controls whether the city spends money to extend the runway. It's located outside the city limits but the city owns it.

treetowncartel

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 4:37 p.m.

The crash near Pattengill was on Emerald Street off of Independence, about half way down on the right hand side.

roz

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 3:41 p.m.

My first takes: (1) The AnnArbor.com story links to the petition but not to any information about the expansion or the organization sponsoring the petition. What are news organizations and hyperlinks for, anyway? Let's have a little research. Just because it's easy to hit the "Publish" button doesn't mean you should. (2) Proponents arguments are as based on supposition right now as the "antis". Data, please. It's impossible, based on this, to be informed enough to form an opinion. What are the arguments in favor? What are the projections of the impact on flights/day, business impact, jobs created by construction, safety, pollution, etc? (3) The petition appears to be aimed at Ann Arbor City Council. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the airport located outside the city limits? Who is the relevant governing body? (See #1) (4) For the record, the project would indeed by in my backyard, but I'm not a NIMBY. I'm a SITM ('Splain It To Me).

Karen Sidney

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 3:25 p.m.

The airport borrowed $1.15 million from the general fund to build box hangers. Does anyone know if these hangers are large enough to accommodate corporate jets? I've heard they are all leased and there is a waiting list. Does anyone know who the lucky 6 lessee's are and how they were selected?

DagnyJ

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 3:03 p.m.

I have no doubt that living near a runway where Boeing 737s take off and land brings air pollution close to where you live. But can someone show me a study about small airports, and proximity to homes?

packman

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 2:51 p.m.

Airport improvements are 95% federal, 2.5% local, and 2.5% state funded. The federal part is called the Airport Airways Trust Fund that receives money from tickets sales ($10 per ticket) and a tax on aviation fuel.

tdw

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 1:59 p.m.

@Zeeba Willow Run arp. had nothing to do with Lake in the woods( which I assume is where you are speaking)decline It was poor management and the fact that they began to accept govt. subsidized housing

zeeba

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 1:27 p.m.

Extending this runway is a safety issue only insofar as allowing more and larger business jets is concerned. The current length is completely adequate for any prop plane now using the airport. Making the airport "business-jet friendly" won't just impact the Stonebridge sub - it will drive down the property values of everything out to Textile and Wagner and beyond, as well as all of southeast Ann Arbor. They say these are small jets but they are LOUD - and will affect the quality of life throughout Ann Arbor. If you want to see the impact of small jet traffic, take a look at what's happened to the Ford Lake area since Willow Run became a small jet hub - what used to be upscale lake living is now a ghetto, due to the noise.

ronn oneal

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 1:24 p.m.

@Dick, Im going to have to favor your commit mostly because your speaking from facts. News homes and Shopping complexes hvae grwon in the past 30yrs, and the Airport and runway should grow also. is my opinion.

scooter dog

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 1:16 p.m.

I don't care if the runway is/was 2 miles away 950 feet closer to the houses is not the point the point is the airport was there long before they built all the houses in a 5 mile radius of aa airport and if the people living around it thought that it was going to stay the same size forever,well you must be living on another planet.Ever heard of imminet domain,if they want your land/house they will take it and you don't have anything to say.All you big shooters dropped the ball when you blew all your bucks on your dream home and the thought of jets drowning out your golf game is too much to stand.Buy ear plugs or move.

George or Barbara Perkins

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 1:16 p.m.

The current proposal is the latest in a forty year campaign to lengthen the runway at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, and it comes as a time when general aviation--the only users of the airport--is in a suicidal decline. Fewer than 100 Ann Arbor voters would benefit from such a lengthening, and many thousands would suffer from the added noise of bigger planes and the possible danger. The only fatalities at the airport during the same forty year period took place after the plane had taken off from the facility. One of those crashes occurred near Pattengill School and three people in the plane were killed. Fortunately on that occasion no one on the ground was injured, though a house was damaged. Barbara Perkins

djm12652

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 12:27 p.m.

Has no one see the private jets taking off and landing there already? Does the reporter have any info on regularly filed flight plans and the aircraft involved? And as far as a safety issue, a small prop plane had engine failure not too long ago and landed on the 5th fairway I believe, so a longer runway would not have helped in that situation.

zeeba

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 12:24 p.m.

Extending this runway is a safety issue only insofar as allowing more and larger business jets is concerned. The current length is completely adequate for any prop plane now using the airport. Making the airport "business-jet friendly" won't just impact the Stonebridge sub - it will drive down the property values of everything out to Textile and Wagner and beyond, as well as all of southeast Ann Arbor. They say these are small jets but they are LOUD - and will affect the quality of life throughout Ann Arbor. If you want to see the impact of small jet traffic, take a look at what's happened to the Ford Lake area since Willow Run became a small jet hub - what used to be upscale lake living is now a ghetto, due to the noise.

DaLast word

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 11:13 a.m.

Poor Candy doesn't seem to realize there are homes west of Stonebridge that could also be affected and some of those, were in fact there before the airport.Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Anything larger than small biz jets should go to Willow run.

scooter dog

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 11:04 a.m.

Who in there right mind would build or buy a house in direct flight path of a airport.Who in there right mind would spend 500k plus to live in stonebridge sub fully knowing that the airport is in direct flight path to their subdivision.The ann arbor airport was there long before all you petition signers moved there so either quit complaining or move.Kinda sounds like you didn't do your homework before buying your dream chalet.

Ryan J. Stanton

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 11:01 a.m.

@Dick Thanks for the history.

Dick Cupka

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 10:37 a.m.

Maybe we can just rerun the Ann Arbor News articles from 30 years ago. From 1979 to 1983 I was a member and chairman of the Ann Arbor Airport Advisory committee. These same studies and arguments were all brought forth by members of the pro-aviation and anti-airport groups. The pro-aviation stance remains the same with safety and economic benefits. However the anti-aviation group at the time was talking about keeping the area pristine for wildlife and nature. Local and State politicians pressured to keep the natural look of the area, and land owners talked of airplanes scaring their horses and vowing to not allow a single tree to be cut down on their properties. Today most of those valued trees and natural areas have been clear cut to make way for the countless subdivisions, shopping plazas and business complexes. The aviation groups would still like to improve safety and the original anti-aviation group members have moved on with the personal and economic gains they made from hiding behind the "Nature Preservation" argument while selling or developing their properties.

DagnyJ

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 10:32 a.m.

This is federal money already earmarked to be spent. If AA airport lengthens runways, it will be safer. And it will bring some smallish private jets to the airport, which in turn brings revenue to Ann Arbor. The reason Willow Run is below capacity is because it is something of a cargo airport, while AA airport is more of a small passenger plane airport. I remember when people were upset because the life flight helicopers made noise when they went on emergency trips to get injured patients. People in this town are full of self-interest only. If you buy a house near an airport, expect to hear airplanes. Get over it.

a2huron

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 10:19 a.m.

After thinking about it more, this issue definitely sounds like a few privileged folks wanting a place to park their expensive flying toys closer to home. Dominos Pizza and other corporations with company jets in the region would much prefer to have them parked at the AA airport rather than drive to Willow Run/Metro. I bet U of M would suddenly "invest" in a plane they could use to recruit expensive coaches, etc. if they could use a larger runway. The airport administration must be giddy over the idea of new fee revenues coming in (and they probably post supporting comments here, too). If you look closely behind the scenes on this issue, I bet you will find some serious money pushing it under the guise of "safety." Some investigative reporting needed?

Harm

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 10:12 a.m.

If someone wants to go to Ypsi, they would land at Willow Run. If someone wants to come to Ann Arbor, they would land at Ann Arbor airport. As a pilot, I would like to see the Ann Arbor airport runway lengthened.

Richard C

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 9:34 a.m.

Can someone give a reason why this is needed? I haven't been paying enough attention to even realize that this was an issue. If all it does is increase safety at the airport, then I think it's great. However, if the purpose is to increase capacity - then I'd like to see a justification for it. If all it does is allow Automobile company executives and financial gamblers avoid the hoi polloi at Detroit Metro, then I don't see the need for it.

Rhe Buttle

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 9:33 a.m.

I have worked at an airline that was based at Willow Run (YIP)... YIP is perfect for small jets and private aircraft. Instead of expanding the AA airport, do renovations at YIP. Build a new termiinal, on one of the major roads. Get real transportation out there, light rail, taxi stands, limo pickup areas, bus stops. Tear down the bomber plant. GM is going to close it and it is nearly 60 years old. Get rid of the other GM plant there too (which isn't used because of asbestos problems.) And tell GM - "Hey, guess what. IMMMINENT DOMAIN is taking your property for the good of the people" YIP is designated as the backup to Metro. Unfortunately, runway length there is a problem for that too. For a while it was proposed to extend the runout areas across Ecorse Road (see the fenced in properties? That is what they are planned for.) YIP was going to become the air cargo hub of SE Mich. What happened to that? And one final issue - did you know that the city of DETROIT gets $10 from every passenger at Metro? Time to end that - the airport is in Romulus, not Detroit; but whatever happens at Metro, make certain that the same graft and corruption does not cross over to YIP (which, by the way, is mostly in Wayne County. Very interesting story about how Henry Ford built the bomber plant...) Did you know the top officials (and managers) are appointed to their positions, not HIRED? Another hotbed of real problems, but I digress. YES, make them use YIP, its only 10 miles away from the AA airport.

H.

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 8:41 a.m.

The 800 of so feet for the expansion makes a big difference in airline safety. Just as any pilot. This is text book NIMBY. Regarding tax dollars, if the FAA money is not spent here, it will go to some other airport in some other community. It cannot be used for something else in the community. Right or wrong, that is the game. I say spend it here if the City has the future capital to cover maintenance expenses for the additional runway.

a2huron

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 8:40 a.m.

While I live in the northern part of town and the airport doesn't impact me, I can't help but comment on the NIMBY claim. NIMBYism doesn't even remotely apply here. If folks were complaining about the EXISTING airport design noise, traffic, etc., then yes. But to say residents have no grounds to complain of a proposed expansion because of NIMBYism is not at all correct. That is like someone telling me I can't complain about a proposed road widening project in front of my house because "There was a road in front of it when you bought the house." Please. This appears to be a significant change to an existing site. The NIMBY concept doesn't even apply here, unless of course you work for the airport and want to create that impression to advocate for the expansion.

Top Cat

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 8:37 a.m.

With Willow Run Airport running so far below capacity, what is the reason and rationale for the proposed expansion at AA Airport?

Cici

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 6:53 a.m.

After all I have read about this "expansion", I completely fail to see why we need it at all. Any jobs would likely be short term and like the previous commentator said, be outsourced. However that is not even an issue if the main question is: WHY do we need it? Why spend so much $$$ in an economy like this on ANOTHER 'project' that is NOT needed!

djm12652

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 6:16 a.m.

What commercial jets would schedule flights out of A2 with DTW so close? And as far as business jets, they fly in and out of there with no problem from the runway length. I just don't see NWA/Delta or any other airline scheduling commercial flights. And as far as creating jobs in the area, any construction would be bidded out and may not even be a local company as the winner, any needed airline personnel would come from that companies laid-off pool first, so I don't see any advantage to this. I don't see this bringing much, if anything, to the table. Ann Arbor is a destination town; people that would "fly" in for football games already do so in their own aircraft. @heresmine, where might I find the FAA mandate you mention? Do you have a link available?

zollar

Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 10:45 p.m.

Before that neighborhood was built at the end of the runway the city of Ann Arbor opposed it,because of proposed future runway expansion plans, But Pittsfield Township went ahead anyway.So I agree with the above writers.The developers and homeowners knew that they were building/buying next to a existing airport.

Ryan Munson

Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 10:39 p.m.

First dig a hole in the ground and now dig at ground level to expand the runway? I hope these both bring positive results if the latter happens.

nunya

Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 8:57 p.m.

While I agree that the "not in my back yard" argument means nothing since the airport was there first, I disagree that the expansion will benefit anyone. I don't think Willow Run airport is booming with business and any commercial jet needs for the area could certainly be served by it. There is far less traffic since 9/11 due to the reduced number of ad banner flights that inflated the air traffic stats. The airport is safe. This is just another big waste of government money.

heresmine

Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 8:28 p.m.

Amen to the above. The people who bought those houses should be suing the developer who sold them with a "promise" that the airport would be curtailed or closed and the buyers would soon have nothing to worry about. As far as the rules are concerned, the FAA is mandating longer overrun areas as an aid to safety.

Thick Candy Shell

Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 6:47 p.m.

Lengthen the runway tomorrow. The area needs jobs and allowing more commercial/business jets is only the start. Any one who complains needs to stop because the Ann Arbor Airport was there long before there house was. If you were dumb enough to buy a McMansion at the end of what at the time was the busiest "non commercial passenger" airport in the state, that is your fault. Get over it and let the rest of the locals who are stuck in a small house the hope that we can stay here and get a job!