“Ann Arbor is not such an airport”

While there are no mountains around ARB, homes are an obstacle for an aircraft that can not climb on one engine and actually loses altitude and possibly control when it banks.

Even higher performance aircraft, such as AvFuel Citation drops from a rate of climb of 3500 FPM at Sea Level with both engines running, to around 700 Feet Per min on one engine. That means if such an aircraft was to lose an engine on takeoff, within 20 seconds, the aircraft will fly over homes at around 200′ IF no other problems are present and the pilot flies ‘by the book’.

How would you feel living around that airport ?

By the way, I do not work for a corporation. I fly for an Pt 121 airline. We have to go back and train in the simulator every 3 months if we did not takeoff and land at least three time in 90 days. One of the items we practice EVERY TIME, is engine failure on takeoff. It is THAT critical.

Now lets go back and discuss ARB. The airport’s own FAQs state:

“Page 14:

“During 2008, 98.1% (63,668 operations) of all operations (64,910 operations) at ARB were conducted under Part 91 general”

What is not stated is the fact that Part 91 is the LEAST regulated of the FARs. These folks do not have to practice the more stringent Part 121 requirements. Not in training, performance or even medical requirement.

Back to your comments:

“and in any case you are asking the wrong people to develop these “contingency” plans. It is pilot responsibility, not MDOT, not airport manager, not FAA.”

Excellent observation !

I sure hope you informed the Mayor and Council members that MDOT has absolutely no concern whatsoever with the safety of the community. The ONLY thing MDOT is concerned about is WEIGHT !

MDOT sees it’s mission to take my tax Dollars and make certain all cat. B-2 aircraft can depart FULLY LOADED.

The irony of this mission is that MDOT does not even care if they really NEED to carry all that weight or WHAT they carry.

But again you brought up a very important issue: MDOT does not care about contingency plans or the safety of the community around the airport, even though these are the citizens who paid the taxes for MDOT gets to play with…

As for the FAA. They do care about safety.

Remember: FAR 91. 119 States PIC is to stay 1000′ above an obstacle in a densely populated area. Using the exclusion “except for takeoff and landing” the area around ARB is around 90% LESS safe than what the FAA considers MINIMUM safe altitude.

You also said:

“The PIC flies the machine.”

Exactly ! But when his machine is not certified to climb on one engine there is not much he can do. That is why today with a runway that limits heavier aircraft and a 2500′ stretch of open space past the runway (Clearway), the airport is actually MORE SAFE than it will be with a longer runway. Especially considering the fact that the extended runway will be shifted closer to homes.

I am willing to debate you and the entire Airport Advisory Cmte on this topic. We can also review all accident reports if you like while discussing “purpose and need”.

As I have said: There is nether a “purpose” nor the “need” for this project.

Again, thanks for the discussion !

That is why I asked for contingency plans at the first meeting.”

It’s good that the corporation you flew for required contingency plans for operation at high altitude airports surrounded by mountains.

Ann Arbor is not such an airport and in any case you are asking the wrong people to develop these “contingency” plans. It is pilot responsibility, not MDOT, not airport manager, not FAA. The PIC flies the machine.

My last paragraph should read:

“With aircraft flying over homes today at LESS than 500′ , the last thing I want to see is an even heavier, faster aircraft at less than 100′(Extended Runway operations per URS airport designers)on an emergency over the densely populated areas near the airport.”

“there is no plan to try and attract aircraft that weigh 43,000 or 70,000 pounds. ”

If this is the intent. Why has Mr. Kulhanek informed MDOT that the 20,000 lbs limit should double ?

As I have mentioned. The higher weight is also clearly indicated on the ALP.

“The “doomsday” scenarios that you are creating could in fact happen under today’s runway configuration. A longer runway would provide more decision time for pilots.”

Mr. Hunter, I do not create “doomsday” scenarios. Such scenarios happen as a result of lack of planing.

When I flew 757s in and out of Vail Co. (KEGE), we practiced in the simulator how to clear the mountains in the event we lost and engine on takeoff. We developed a specific procedure and trained for it. We did not just “hope” it would not happen.

That is why I asked for contingency plans at the first meeting.

The departure / arrival profile provided by URS, clearly indicate aircraft flying over homes at less than 100′.

Let me make sure I was clear: Less than 100′ !

This was not made part of the Environmental Assessment.

As you know, Federal Aviation Regulations 91.119 states :

“Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.”

I understand very well the exception it makes for takeoff and landings. But I also know all too well that Federal and Michigan law sees 1000′ as minimum safe altitude.

At ARB we are not even close to such altitude.

Yet you advocate a longer runway again using the reasoning of the same ol’ “bogus logic” I have only seen coming from your group and the airport management “Allow pilot more decision time”.

As I am sure you know, pilots are not trained for ample decision time. V1 is a split second go-no go decision.

Your next argument will be: Student pilot…

Answer: They fly touch and goes on the same runway all day long. Obviously they have plenty for a landing and taking off on the remainder of that runway.

Considering the fact most single engine aircraft need less than 1000′, they have more than x3 the runway needed to decide what to do…(As per your logic).

What your logic fails to understand is that shorter runway is the best filter for area residents.

Shorter runway limits aircraft weight. As such high performance heavier aircraft will just have to use Willow Run.

With aircraft flying over homes today at LESS than 100′ (Per URS), the last thing I want to see is an even heavier, faster aircraft in an emergency over the densely populated areas near the airport.

With regard to the crash in 1973. You stated that

“You could not find the official report because the NTSB did not exist at the time.” I provided a link to the accident report, the official NTSB Identification number assigned to the accident report is CHI73AC089. The probably cause was “spatial disorientation” and “improper use of flight controls.” I do not know when NTSB was established, but FAA did investigate the accident and provided a report.

I understand Vmc and how aircraft performance is established. An engine failure after takeoff in a twin is a serious situation if not handled properly…not all such incidents result in crashes…do you agree? The “doomsday” scenarios that you are creating could in fact happen under today’s runway configuration. A longer runway would provide more decision time for pilots.

As far as the weight bearing capacity of the airport is concerned, there is no plan to try and attract aircraft that weigh 43,000 or 70,000 pounds. The 20,000 pound limit that has been established is advertised widely in all of the flight publications that pilots use to plan their flights to and from ARB. Again, the 43,000 and 70,000 pound numbers only reflect the capacity of the runway, not the ramp or taxiways.

In ref. to your statement:

“Mr. Castell mentioned that the weight limit for the runway has been increased to 70,000 pounds and suggests that aircraft weighing that much will soon be operating from the airport. It is true that the runway will support an aircraft with a single wheel configuration of 43,000 pounds and with a dual wheel configuration, the weight is 70,000 pounds. This increase in weight bearing capacity was the result of improvements made several years ago when a layer of concrete was poured over the existing asphalt. The taxiways and ramp areas were not changed…they are the limiting factor and could not possible support an aircraft of those weights. This fact was explained during meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Castell is a member of that committee.”

I was indeed a member of CAC and during the first meeting I asked airport manager Mr. Kulhanek to explain how the weight limit has changed from 12500 lbs to what is advertised today: 20,000 lbs. While I did not get to hear any explanation for this first almost doubling of the weight limit, Mr. Kulhanek informed MDOT Representative that the limit should be (Yes, another double !) changed to 40,000 lbs.

So…here is a question for you Mr. Hunter:

If the limiting factor is indeed what the taxiways are certified for, why does Mr. Kulhanek insisted and why is the limit in the Airport Layout Plan increased to 45,000 lbs and 70,000 lbs (Double wheel) ?

Are you expecting aircraft to land and park on the runway ?

This will also be a perfect time to introduce the public to the makeup of this so called “Citizens Advisory Cmte”

The Cmte includes AA Ward Reps. Ward 4 rep is Mr. Hunter. It just happens, that Mr. Hunter is also on the Airport Advisory Cmte… Yes, that Cmte which is tasked in advising the Mayor and the AA Council about the airport. Yes. The same Cmte which told the AA Council: Overruns are a serious safety issue, we need a longer runway…

Sounds mighty convincing to a non pilot. Yet I seriously doubt Mr. Hunter or Mr. Perry, the Cmte Chair or the airport manger had ever bothered to explain that the real purpose was and is : increasing takeoff and landing weight for aircraft operating out of ARB with total disregard to safety of nearby communities.

Moving on to Ward 3 Rep. on the CAC: That person, just happened to also be a …Flight instructor at ARB.

But wait ! This is not all. The Chairman of that Airport Advisory Cmte I mentioned above. Yep ! He was yet another member of the CAC.

Of course, the Airport Manager had to be there as well and in my humble opinion was actually running the show. One example is that he and Ms Ackland of JJR actually created the “overrun report”. Neither one of them is either a professional pilot or an accident investigator.

And if you are not cynical enough yet, there was another person on the Cmte. An FAA safety volunteer. And yes, you got it ! It just so happened that he also is a Flight Instructor at ARB…

OK, did I miss anyone ? Oh yes. How could I ?

There is one corporate jet on the airport which belongs to AvFuel. The company which also sells fuel at the airport. The Jet is a Citation XL.

If you Google that jet’s performance, you will realize that ARB is just a little bit too short for it to operate at full takeoff gross weight.

And you got it folks ! The pilot of that jet was yet another member of the CAC. You must be thinking dear reader that I am making this up …I am not.

Mr. Derezinski of the AA Council was another member and to appear neutral there were also few women representing Lodi and Pittsfield yet they lacked the aviation background.

How did I end up on this Cmte ? Well, I was not welcomed. Even even Ms Kristin Judge a Washtenaw County Commissioner and critical of this project needed some “help” to be included. We were “biased”, they claimed.

I guess, we did not posses the right kind of “bias”.

So, long story short, here is a Cmte of folks with one goal in mind: Expanding the runway so aircraft will be able to carry more weight, and to do so, finding “user friendly” reasons for this expansion that they can promote in the media and to the AA Council.

“Safety” is the no brainer they were advocating as the reason to expand.. But of course they are quiet about community safety and history of fatal crashes.

Line of sight from the tower, was another “safety” issue cited.. Mind you, the airport operated like this for the past 20-30 years. When the tower is closed from 8 pm to 8 am, all of a sudden this “problem” is no longer an issue …Is it ?

So where am I going with this ?

These same people, told the public: “Airport Category will remain the same”. Meaning : Do not worry, nothing will change.

What they did not tell:

1. Aircraft will be heavier.

2. Additional aircraft will be able to now operate out of ARB.

3. Cat B-2 Does not mean that the runway can only creep up to 4300′. Even 5000′ runway can still be Cat B-2.

4. Heavier aircraft are more complex, fly faster and carry more fuel. (BTW, did you know that JetFuel contains Lead ? Yes, Ann Arbor, the water you drink come from the airport ! That’s why the city originally bought the land: For water rights, not to operate an airport…)

Obviously, these folks have a proven track record of failing to enlighten the rest of us with all the facts.

So, are we now to sleep soundly at night because they promise us that the fact the Airport layout plan and the actual runway already allow up to 70,000 lbs? It ain’t going to happen because the taxiways are the limiting factor ???

Puhleeeez …

Again, if the taxiway limit is less that 70,000 lbs, why bother changing the advertised limit if the real intent is not to bring in heavier aircraft ?

As I have mentioned before: 70,000 is almost six (!) times more than 12500 lbs.

These folks have long term plans and proven track record. These plans have absolutely no place in the midst of thousands of families. Especially with Willow Run right next door.

Again. Good discussion.

Keep it going.

“I could find no reference in the official accident report to a failed engine. The probable cause was more than likely Spatial disorientation and improper operation of the flight controls. The weather at the time was not good with 600 foot ceiling and visibility of 2 miles or less. ”

You could not find the official report because the NTSB did not exist at the time.

I have to smile though because your group (Ray Hunter is a member of the Airport Advisory Cmte.) is yet to inform the public of any crashes or even bother with reported incidents when it comes to pushing a specific agenda.

That said. It really does not matter what the reason is when an airplane is coming down crashing through your roof.

I would hate to bore you countless other crashes in the vicinity of airports. Here is just one more (Although the article mentions few others at the same airport) as it is a classic example of twin engine ‘performance’, or lack there off on a single engine.

Loss of control as a result of increase in VMc (Minimum control airspeed)during a turn.

“east of the airport when the pilot radioed the air traffic control tower to report that he was going to return due to mechanical difficulties and engine problems. Controllers cleared the air traffic and the runway and told the pilot he was clear to return.

The pilot turned the plane west, back toward the airport, Lamberti said. Southeast of the airport, the plane was headed northwest, trying to go back, when it lost altitude, hit a power line and a tree and then crashed into the house.”

[link]

Thanks for participating. Good discussion !