It’s “Lets extend the runway at Clever Field” time again. Another meeting is scheduled for 6:30 P.M. on Monday, September 20, 2010, at the new Experimental Aviation Association hanger at the New Philadelphia airport.
The focus of the meeting is the same as it has been. The administration, some of the folks on City Council, and the Lauren Corporation, want to extend the main runway length. The reason for the extension seems to be that Lauren Corporation would like to buy a larger corporate aircraft and a longer runway would be to their advantage. Mention has been made of another corporation, maybe two, which might fly corporate aircraft into the New Philadelphia airport should be runway be lengthened, but determining who those corporations may be, has been difficult to pin down.
It has been said that an expanded runway would bring new business to New Philadelphia, which would certainly be a blessing, but somehow, it never seems to work out that way. Airport construction and enlargement follows the need of existing businesses. If building an airport brings manufacturing to an area, the number of airport facilities would be growing on a daily basis, which obviously it is not.
The adequacy of Henry Clever Field to handle corporate jets, and the possibility of losing FAA certification and funding of the airport if the proposed Master Plan for runway extension is not approved by the City Council, has been called into question.
The Master Plan offers a number of options for runway extension. All of them, every one, would require closing of a number of streets, the taking of existing cemetery plots, and taking of personal property, including family homes, by eminent domain.
The law is specific. Should the city elect to take property by eminent domain, an action done by City Council and approved by the Mayor, the residents of that property have no legal recourse. They cannot stop such action through the courts or any other legal avenue. Their houses will go. The only protection a resident has under an eminent domain order is to challenge the amount paid for their property by the City. Should the resident feel the city’s offer is too low they can challenge that in court and the court will decide what is a fair price for the property. And that’s it.
Much of the concern of proponents of the proposed Master Plan is centered around money, not only for runway extension, but also for maintenance and upgrading of the existing facilities including runways and taxiways. Rehabilitation projects, such as improvements to solve the problem of the aircraft parking area where aircraft tires were sinking into the asphalt on hot days, would still be funded even though the proposed master plan for runway relocation was not approved.
It is necessary to have a current airport layout plan on file with the FAA, which there is, when requesting funding for work on existing facilities. Relocation of the existing runway would require passage of the proposed Master Plan, while funding for maintenance and improvement on any existing facilities shown on the current layout plan is eligible without passage of the proposed Master Plan.
It has been said that without an extension to the runway, the airport may not meet the FAA requirements for handling larger aircraft. A conversation with the FAA cast doubt on that statement.
When asked if the airport classification, as regards the type of aircraft allowed to land on the existing runway, would be downgraded in the future should the proposed master plan not be approved, the response of our FAA contact was prefaced by, “That doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
The FAA spokesman explained that when "class of aircraft" is talked about, the classes are determined according to wingspan and landing airspeed. As the wingspan and airspeed increase, the airport classification increases. An airport designed to accept small single-engine airplanes would have a lower classification than one designed to accommodate a large jet airplane. Airports are designed, and classified, to service what are called critical aircraft, by aircraft types of particular wingspan and airspeed. Clever Field is rated B I, landing speeds of 105 to 139 miles per hour and wingspans up to 49 feet.
Can a larger airplane than that use the airport? Yes. The city cannot ban any airplane from using the airport regardless of size. However, when the critical aircraft changes, the city should consider means of accommodating the larger aircraft. But before such changes need be considered, there must be more than 500 operations per year of larger critical aircraft. When the five hundred operations is a reality, not a projection, then is the time to start to plan how to accommodate the larger aircraft on a regular basis.
Don’t be misled by the number of airplanes based at, or using, the airport as being a justification to increase the runway length. The determining factor is the number of critical aircraft which use Clever Field now and exceed the 500 yearly operations criteria.
There may be a reason to extend the runway at Clever Field but justification is hard to find. The question yet to be answered is what is the advantage to the New Philadelphia tax payer of such a project? The figures and talk from the Administration, the Airport Commission, and some members of City Council, favoring the runway relocation do not support the passage of the proposed Airport Master Plan. Until a greater argument than a local corporation wanting a larger airplane is presented, the Master Plan should be rejected.
(Ed: For more information concerning the proposed Clever Field Master Plan, refer to the New Philadelphia Tattler article New Philadelphia Airport Master Plan Raises Questions dated May 21, 2010.)
The focus of the meeting is the same as it has been. The administration, some of the folks on City Council, and the Lauren Corporation, want to extend the main runway length. The reason for the extension seems to be that Lauren Corporation would like to buy a larger corporate aircraft and a longer runway would be to their advantage. Mention has been made of another corporation, maybe two, which might fly corporate aircraft into the New Philadelphia airport should be runway be lengthened, but determining who those corporations may be, has been difficult to pin down.
It has been said that an expanded runway would bring new business to New Philadelphia, which would certainly be a blessing, but somehow, it never seems to work out that way. Airport construction and enlargement follows the need of existing businesses. If building an airport brings manufacturing to an area, the number of airport facilities would be growing on a daily basis, which obviously it is not.
The adequacy of Henry Clever Field to handle corporate jets, and the possibility of losing FAA certification and funding of the airport if the proposed Master Plan for runway extension is not approved by the City Council, has been called into question.
The Master Plan offers a number of options for runway extension. All of them, every one, would require closing of a number of streets, the taking of existing cemetery plots, and taking of personal property, including family homes, by eminent domain.
The law is specific. Should the city elect to take property by eminent domain, an action done by City Council and approved by the Mayor, the residents of that property have no legal recourse. They cannot stop such action through the courts or any other legal avenue. Their houses will go. The only protection a resident has under an eminent domain order is to challenge the amount paid for their property by the City. Should the resident feel the city’s offer is too low they can challenge that in court and the court will decide what is a fair price for the property. And that’s it.
Much of the concern of proponents of the proposed Master Plan is centered around money, not only for runway extension, but also for maintenance and upgrading of the existing facilities including runways and taxiways. Rehabilitation projects, such as improvements to solve the problem of the aircraft parking area where aircraft tires were sinking into the asphalt on hot days, would still be funded even though the proposed master plan for runway relocation was not approved.
It is necessary to have a current airport layout plan on file with the FAA, which there is, when requesting funding for work on existing facilities. Relocation of the existing runway would require passage of the proposed Master Plan, while funding for maintenance and improvement on any existing facilities shown on the current layout plan is eligible without passage of the proposed Master Plan.
It has been said that without an extension to the runway, the airport may not meet the FAA requirements for handling larger aircraft. A conversation with the FAA cast doubt on that statement.
When asked if the airport classification, as regards the type of aircraft allowed to land on the existing runway, would be downgraded in the future should the proposed master plan not be approved, the response of our FAA contact was prefaced by, “That doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
The FAA spokesman explained that when "class of aircraft" is talked about, the classes are determined according to wingspan and landing airspeed. As the wingspan and airspeed increase, the airport classification increases. An airport designed to accept small single-engine airplanes would have a lower classification than one designed to accommodate a large jet airplane. Airports are designed, and classified, to service what are called critical aircraft, by aircraft types of particular wingspan and airspeed. Clever Field is rated B I, landing speeds of 105 to 139 miles per hour and wingspans up to 49 feet.
Can a larger airplane than that use the airport? Yes. The city cannot ban any airplane from using the airport regardless of size. However, when the critical aircraft changes, the city should consider means of accommodating the larger aircraft. But before such changes need be considered, there must be more than 500 operations per year of larger critical aircraft. When the five hundred operations is a reality, not a projection, then is the time to start to plan how to accommodate the larger aircraft on a regular basis.
Don’t be misled by the number of airplanes based at, or using, the airport as being a justification to increase the runway length. The determining factor is the number of critical aircraft which use Clever Field now and exceed the 500 yearly operations criteria.
There may be a reason to extend the runway at Clever Field but justification is hard to find. The question yet to be answered is what is the advantage to the New Philadelphia tax payer of such a project? The figures and talk from the Administration, the Airport Commission, and some members of City Council, favoring the runway relocation do not support the passage of the proposed Airport Master Plan. Until a greater argument than a local corporation wanting a larger airplane is presented, the Master Plan should be rejected.
(Ed: For more information concerning the proposed Clever Field Master Plan, refer to the New Philadelphia Tattler article New Philadelphia Airport Master Plan Raises Questions dated May 21, 2010.)
I would just like to say a sincere "thank you" for your informative blogging. This mess of a project would not only uproot my family and I, but also places that are a deep part of this area's history (Schoenbrunn , cemetery).
ReplyDeleteI really hope your blog is linked somewhere on Facebook and any other place possibly accessible to the public! All generations need to be aware of what our City is doing!