Comments on: Council Talks Transportation, Budget it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Stew Nelson Stew Nelson Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:25:52 +0000 Gale,

I am not sure what you mean?


Safety is my only agenda. I don’t fly light aircraft but I have many friends that do. Getting the FAA to pay for the improvements is a plus! Sorry I am losing my patience with SC. He is making this way more of an issue than it needs to be.


The wells are not any where near the proposed project.

By: LiberalNIMBY LiberalNIMBY Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:22:01 +0000 An another subject, I find the politicking over the East-West “Commuter” Line objectionable. There is zero reason to believe that anyone will step forward with the required funds to get these trains into Detroit in a timely manner anytime soon, if ever. Please, politicians, stop trying to prod the experts into being optimistic for the sake of your campaigns. SE Michigan communities are perennially hopeful-yet-greedy when it comes to trains, and when these things “that are just about to happen” don’t come to pass, it does more harm to their prospects in the long run. Please, let the facts speak for themselves.

By: Vivienne Armentrout Vivienne Armentrout Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:12:17 +0000 I find it odd that the safety of our water supply has not been stressed in the discussion of airport expansion. The Steere Farm wells near the airport is about our last source of clean groundwater. We have lost the Montgomery well (or the Northwest territory well, or whatever) to Pall 1, 4-dioxane contamination and that is moving through our groundwater in mostly an eastern direction, I think. We use water from the Huron but that also receives water potentially contaminated by the Pall discharges. We should be prioritizing groundwater protection in the airport area.

By: Rod Johnson Rod Johnson Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:34:43 +0000 Steve, I’ve heard many people suggest (here or in other forums, I’m not sure) that the motive behind this is to allow larger aircraft to use the airport, though in all the official discussion everyone seems very careful to steer clear of the topic. True or not, conspiracy theory or not, that idea’s in the air in this debate, so I can understand why Stew is engaging it even though I agree it does seem to be sort of a non sequitur in this thread.

By: Steve Bean Steve Bean Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:06:41 +0000 Stew, your second paragraph includes considerations not related to safety. It appears that safety isn’t your only agenda. That’s okay. I think that those factors are reasonable to consider. However, you might pay more attention to your words relative to the attention you’ve been paying to Sol’s.

You have twice referred to the mix of aircraft not changing. I didn’t see anyone contend otherwise in the report or other comments here, which makes it look like a red herring.

By: Gale Logan Gale Logan Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:41:59 +0000 Stew! I am surprised to hear you are down on conspiracy theorists seeing that most of your posts on other city issues show you are closely aligned with them. Guess it depends on the issue.

By: Stew Nelson Stew Nelson Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:01:04 +0000 I only have one agenda and that is a safer operation at the airport. I am firmly opposed, and have been for more years than I care to remember on changing the mix of aircraft landing and departing for our local airport.

Displacing the runway threshold will create a safer approach and lengthening the runway by 800 feet help prevent overruns. The FAA is paying for 97% of this expansion and it will benefit the current operators. There have been very few sound complaints at the airport since we raised the traffic pattern altitude and asked pilots to vary their patterns when doing touch and go’s. It will have minimal impact on the airport neighbors. It is a very fair trade-off. Nothing is ever as black and white as SC tries to make things.


By: S. Castell S. Castell Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:57:57 +0000 Mike.

Stew is a retired pilot indeed. What he forgot to tell you is that he was the previous Chairman of the AAC. For some reason when these guys are indoctrinated, they all come out with the same line: Bigger is better.

If there is one major fault of the AAC is their failure to recognize one simple fact: Every airport has a different purpose. One of the reasons they fail to recognize it, is because they do not allow opposing opinions.

In fact, I still have the Email when they opposedmy inclusion (The only resident with a real dog in the fight and knowledge in aviation matters) in the so called Citizens Advisory Committee. They said I was “biased”. Obviously they forgot to take a good look at the mirror that day.

Anyway lets remember that ARB was a grass strip and the land was purchased for water rights.

Years later we have an airport with control tower …(Don’t get me started on how much we the tax payers are paying to maintain this tower. It will be an eye opener if you realize what every C-150 touch and go costs YOU the tax payer.)

If only some folks would stop pushing this “bigger is better” for their own personal agenda, thousands of folks could live in harmony with ARB as a hobby airport for weekend fliers and aircraft owners.

There is Willow Run for corporate jets and charter outfits and DTW Metro for heavy metal and international flights .

We are very fortunate here at AA that we don’t have to suffer the negative byproducts of a larger airport yet reap all the economic benefits.

What do you think Mike ?

By: Stew Nelson Stew Nelson Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:04:14 +0000 Mike,

You must be kidding of course. I am a retired commercial pilot. The thing that upsets me is that there are so many real experts that could weigh in on this issue in the area yet we need to listen to the conspiracy theorists, dilettantes and people with true hidden agendas spout of with sound bites ad infinitum.


By: Mike Petraszko Mike Petraszko Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:13:27 +0000 Stew

Do you work for AvFuel? They are big sponsors of the rwy extension.

Mike P