CAA: GA News, "Florida airport's future placed in spotlight"

["Stephen Irwin" <stepheni@xxxxxxxxx>]

Monday, October 1, 2001

Airport's future placed in spotlight
As FAA restrictions choke Albert Whitted Airport, planners evaluate its
long-term value.
By BRYAN GILMER 
The St. Petersburg (FL) Times


ST. PETERSBURG -- The emergency aviation restrictions put in place after
the Sept. 11 attacks have sharpened the city's debate about the future
of Albert Whitted Airport and could soon force a decision on the
facility's viability. 

The restrictions, which have cut takeoffs and landings from the airport
by 75 percent, already have forced Albert Whitted's main vendor to lay
off half his staff of mechanics, fuel attendants and office workers. 

And with no end to the restrictions on Albert Whitted's small plane
flights in sight, the debate about the airport could be sharply tilted
in favor of those who would like to see the 100 acres of hangars and
waterfront runways replaced by parks or development. 

"Advocates have touted the economic impact of the airport," said city
economic development director Ronald Barton, who thinks the city should
redevelop the land. "At this juncture, I would say our economic impact
from the airport is very little. Should we pump capital improvements
into the airport when the future is unsure for (small plane) aviation
and particularly Albert Whitted airspace?" 

Airport advocates, such as Ruth K. Varn, chairwoman of the Airport
Advisory Committee, say it is too soon to begin talking about
dismantling Albert Whitted in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. 

"I think to even bring up that subject would be overreacting," she said.
"We still don't know what the outcome is going to be, the length of
time. The president said he wants people to get back in the air as soon
as possible. That would be all kinds of aircraft." 

Yet now is a key moment in the debate. Today, a City Council
subcommittee is scheduled to discuss a proposal by airport advocates to
plow about $35-million into Albert Whitted for runway extensions and
other improvements over the next couple of decades. 

For nearly three weeks since the terrorist attacks, the federal
government has banned flying by visual flight rules in the airspace
within about 35 nautical miles of major metropolitan airports such as
Tampa International Airport. 

Normal visual flight rules let pilots take off from Whitted and fly
wherever they like without talking to air traffic controllers, unless
they fly toward the large airport. Most of those hobbyist pilots fly
small Cessna and Piper planes out of Whitted. 

Instrument flight rules pilots, such as charter plane pilots, still may
fly from Whitted if they file a flight plan. But many pilots based there
do not have that advanced certification, which means a pilot can fly the
plane in low visibility by looking at its instruments. 

The emergency rules put Tampa air traffic controllers in charge of much
more airspace than normal, including the entire airfield at Whitted.
Virtually every plane controllers see on their radar screens are ones
they are in communication with, under the new rules. And because
instrument flight rules pilots file flight plans, controllers know where
each aircraft is supposed to be going. 

"The reason we have these flight restrictions in place is because of
national security," said Christopher White, a spokesman for the Federal
Aviation Administration in Atlanta. "They've been put in place in
conjunction with the Department of Defense and Department of
Transportation. Our guidance from Washington is that they're in place
until further notice. As with everything, it's under constant review." 

But in a more security-conscious United States, might it make sense to
keep monitoring air traffic in the country's metro areas just that
closely? 

Barton thinks so, especially with MacDill Air Force Base just across
Tampa Bay from Albert Whitted, and especially while MacDill commanders
are deploying their forces around the world in President Bush's response
to terrorism. 

"They're going to be sensitive to when and how they lift those
restrictions, and they're going to look at it differently when it's
around a major military base. You know they're going to look at it." 

Ron Methot runs two businesses at Whitted. He wants a return to less
stringent rules as soon as possible. Since the slowdown, he merged his
Bay Air Flying Service business with the Albert Whitted Flying Club --
which rents planes and helps people learn to fly -- so the businesses
could share staff. 

"It's certainly gone longer than we hoped it would," he said of the
visual flight rules ban. "I don't really know what the long-term outlook
is, but we're discouraged they haven't chosen to open it up yet." 

He said he has been negotiating with his bankers and insurers for
favorable terms that will help him through the falloff in his business. 

Though Methot acknowledges that other similar businesses may go bankrupt
if the grounding of metro visual flight rules flying persists, he says
he is determined to adapt and survive. 

The city should think the same way about the airport, he said. It should
tailor airport improvements so that Albert Whitted can still operate
whatever the new rules. 

Concerns about security on big commercial jetliners are prompting those
with the means to charter their own small plane, Methot noted. And the
displacement of hobbyists' planes could make room for corporate aircraft
that now can't get hangar space at Albert Whitted, he said. 

"You have to change the way the airport operates," he said. "You have to
set it up as an instrument airport that relies more on corporate
aircraft. I don't think people are going to put up with having
condominiums on public land." 

But Barton wonders whether the city wants more medium-size planes flying
into downtown. Already, height restrictions limit what the University of
South Florida-St. Petersburg can build on its campus at the end of one
of Whitted's runways, he notes. To him, fewer flights mean the airport
is not justifying its existence, and more flights make it prone to clash
with other downtown activities. 

An obstacle to redeveloping the land is that the city would be expected
to repay millions of FAA airport improvement grants if it shut down the
airport. But a permanent change in flying rules could allow the city to
ask for that obligation to be forgiven. 

"I think that's premature; though I will tell you if they enact
restrictions that limit the economic viability of the airport, that's
certainly what we would do," Barton said. 

Local architect Tim Clemmons has drawn a plan for how he would redevelop
the airport land. He agrees with Barton's analysis. 

"If it came to be a permanent or semipermanent situation, then that does
play into the debate about what is the highest and best use of the
property."

   Post your opinion on this story in the CAA General Aviation Forum
http://www.californiaaviation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?conf=DCConfID2

*****************************************