Change airport plan

EDITOR:

County staff has presented four options for a new airport weight limit. The initial limit adopted by voters was 30,000 pounds. Voters were later convinced by their leaders to modify that to 30,000 pounds for single but 50,000 for dual-wheel aircraft. Now the county wants 60,000/75,000 pounds or, in one option, no limit at all.

Most aircraft of concern are dual-wheel. So what we will have is a limit at least two and one half times what the voters initially adopted.

To see examples of aircraft that could operate under various limits go to the Embraer Web site (www.embraer.com). Embraer makes a popular line of business jets and regional jetliners. Check the maximum gross takeoff weight for each and compare it with the various limits under discussion. Bear in mind that weights can be reduced to squeeze under a weight limit simply by reducing fuel or the load on board.

You will quickly see that neither our current limit nor any of the revisions is a meaningful limit at all. A number of Embraer's regional airliners could operate here under any of these limits. And almost all its business jets.

The other revisions proposed by staff are equally meaningless. Add to that the fact that our district attorney has shown no willingness to enforce airport restrictions in the past. Will he really take on some Silicon Valley mogul who flies his 737 in here in violation of the new ordinance to court? Of course not.

County leaders will tell you they're just doing what the FAA requires and that we have little control. Nonsense. That conveniently ignores the fact that the real problem here is the airport master plan adopted by the county commission itself last year that creates an airport entirely different than the one we've had and the one voters wanted when they adopted a weight limit in the first place.

We can't control aircraft operations. That's the FAA's territory. But we can control our airport's configuration. If we don't want a jetport here, why did we adopt a plan that creates one?

To which the county will likely respond, "Well, the plan doesn't create a jetport and anyway it's complete, there's nothing we can do about it." Which is also nonsense. Just look at Pinon Aero's plans. Jetport. And why did Hutt Aviation bring a 737 here? Jetport. And if the county doesn't want to redo the plan, fine, then just suspend its implementation and leave the airport as is. It works as it is every day.

What really should be on the ballot is a simple advisory measure: "The airport master plan adopted in 2008 should be implemented. Yes or no." That would be a meaningful referendum on our airport's future.

If our leaders value the democratic process and have the courage of their convictions they will put that on the ballot along with whatever meaningless weight limit they settle on. Give voters a real choice and then let the debate proceed.

Terry Burnes

Gardnerville