"Opinion: Closing Minden airport would be a bad plan"

["Stephen Irwin" <stepheni@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Opinion
Closing Minden airport would be a bad plan
By Howard Charney
The Douglas County (NV) Record-Courier


It has recently come to my attention that a small, albeit vocal, minority of
our community would argue that our Minden-Tahoe Airport should be closed. I
suppose they have their reasons, but such a proposal would be ill-conceived
and a grave set back for Douglas County. Why?

The county has challenges ahead. It has a problem with drugs, gangs, and, to
some extent, people at the proverbial "bottom of the pyramid" who have
trouble simply coping with their lives. There is also the very real
possibility of a recession in these United States fueled by many economic
factors. In juxtaposition thereto is the airport. The airport is frequented
by people who spend money...lots of it. 

The people that frequent the airport are usually self sufficient
economically so that they pursue hobbies such as soaring or building their
own experimental aircraft or learning how to fly. These are the kinds of
people that the county would want to be a part of our community. The airport
constitutes a site of personal improvement and advancement. The thought of
closing it is abhorrent to any perspective that the county should provide a
place for people who are self-actualized, self-motivated, and play by strict
rules.

Well, then should the airport allow or perhaps even encourage business jets
to use its facilities? Douglas County should be so lucky as to have business
jet owners and operators choose our airport as a stopover or destination. 

Why? First, those aircraft are piloted by the safest pilots in the sky often
with decades of experience in the airlines or the military. Second, those
aircraft, contrary to popular lay opinion, are actually more quiet than
other aircraft by engineering design but also because their climb rate is 4x
to 10x higher than the climb rate of other general aviation aircraft. The
impact of such a high climb rate is that high end business jet aircraft are
gone from our Valley on departure much faster than most other aircraft. This
has the effect of reducing the noise footprint...not increasing it. Third,
the owners and operators of business jets spend lots of money in our
community. They purchase fuel and maintenance that costs thousands of
dollars per visit. They rent automobiles. 

They frequent our restaurants, and they stay in our hotel rooms. The
economic impact on jobs and community well-being from business usage of the
airport is immense.

So, to the extent that business jet usage is technically and economically
beneficial, artificial weight limits for landing aircraft simply neither
comport with logic nor engineering. That is, if the runway will safely
support an aircraft that weighs, say, 100,000 lbs, it should be permitted to
land. Noise abatement is a consideration (more on that later), but the
physics of the runway is what should solely determine weight limits. Weight
limits only exist in the domain of the civil engineering of the asphalt.

On a topic related to the airport, fire in the Carson Valley and the
surrounding mountains is a reality every July and August. Sometimes the
fires are caused by humans acting imprudently or illegally, but sometimes
the fires are caused by Mother Nature....i.e. lightning. In either case,
every year our Valley is covered in a layer of smoke from time to time. I,
for one, want those fire retardant bombers and helicopters in this valley as
close as possible to my home as can be managed. The threat of fire is very
real, and it is likely that all of our property values are higher with those
bombers, helicopters, and support equipment local to our community.

Our community is growing. Ours is not the first community in the U.S. to be
faced with competing interests in the face of growth ... open space, clean
air, clean water, noise abatement, etc. etc. With a focus on the airport the
best way to accommodate manifestly improved safety and noise abatement is a
control tower for our Douglas County Airport. This is the way that community
growth and airport operation is managed to achieve harmony. A tower controls
aircraft on the ground so that runway incursions do not occur. It is simply
a matter of time before someone dies due to aircraft and/or ground vehicles
colliding at the intersection of the two runways. It is just a matter time
before a death occurs due to a straight - in landing. At some point
self-policing by airport users does not work, and we are at that point. A
tower controls the flow of aircraft on the ground and in the air. It is
precisely the control of flight in the vicinity of the airport that not only
manifestly improves safety but radically enhances noise abatement. There is
no reason to over fly densely populated subdivisions, and a tower will make
that a reality. A Douglas County tower is the natural course in the growth
of our airport and the surrounding community, and any other proposal is not
consistent with maximizing the utility of our community to all its
constituents. Incidentally, every time there is fire that is being fought in
the Valley or the mountains, a tower is in operation at the Douglas County
airport. Further, the populated areas of Palo Alto, San Carlos, and
Livermore are just three examples of densely populated areas that manage
safety and control noise pollution by use of a tower. It is simply untrue
that the county cannot afford a tower. And, those that might argue that we
do not want the FAA controlling our ground and skies are neither arguing for
enhanced airport safety nor noise abatement.

The airport is a shining jewel in the list of positives of what makes
Douglas County a great place to live. A suggestion to close it is not only
illogical but misbegotten and stillborn.

Howard Charney is a Genoa resident.

   Post your opinion on this story in the CAA General Aviation Forum
http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php

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