I welcome the R-C article on June 10 regarding the airport weight limit, and the editorial on the same topic on June 12. We should encourage comprehensive and spirited debate from all angles before driving decisions that best serve the interests of local aviators and residents alike. However, the subject is complex and so far the dialogue has missed the mark regarding the core facts. Unfortunately, folks with deep financial self-interest are driving the debate, as happens all too often in our county. Allow me to correct the record so everyone can reach an informed opinion before irreversible outcomes and unintended consequences result.
The weight bearing capacity of our airport is not as simple as suggested. Consulting engineers are far from in agreement on the numbers, plus, every airport has taxiways and static ramp areas that are more critical for weight bearing than the actual runways. Those areas are weaker than the runways. So let's be dealing a full deck of cards on this one.
All across the country the FAA has no track record of recovering funding from past years, even when disputes arise, as is the case here. In fact, several cases exist where airports have defied FAA demands for many years with little or no repercussions. There is some small level of exposure, but let's not over-play this one.
The threat to our airport is not commercial aviation as defined by scheduled airlines, gambling junkets, or even freight carriers. That is a red herring that masks the true threat.
The real threat is from external aviation operators looking for a new base to save money - largely business jets. These folks will present little to no service to meet aviation needs within Douglas County. It would be like a "bedroom community" serving large regional populations within a few hundred miles, and there are many examples of this happening all across the country. The result is often a displacement of bona fide aviation operations serving local folks, and serious environmental damage.
Past FAA grant money has gone far beyond keeping the airport "up and running." Millions have already gone towards development and expansion to attract outside aviators, against the repeated expressed will of most of the residents.
The claim that many development projects have been undertaken to serve soaring is plain wrong. The underlying purpose of almost all those projects is to get soaring out of the way, in order to make way for outside jet operators.
Since 2000, millions have been spent on this goal, yet soaring remains the step-child on the airfield. Soaring operations have plummeted, in part due to the undesirable nature of what has been done with the layout and facilities. Meanwhile, other airports across the region are quite literally stealing our beloved soaring visitors, simply by offering better facilities and services.
It is claimed that FAA money is vitally necessary for the financial survival of our airport. That is true only if the future holds extensive growth and a revolution towards a regional jet center - which would greatly up the ante regarding capital investment and operating costs to be borne by the county (and potentially the FAA). If the entire game plan is reset to preserve the historical rural airport character, then operating costs and capital investments are dramatically reduced, to a level that may even be sustainable without future FAA money. This happens successfully elsewhere. Otherwise, we will continue to be beholden to the FAA for their money and its attendant "strings".
Contrary to common belief, the FAA always emphasizes that it is our airport and we get to decide its future. The FAA will not force unwanted growth and radical change in character upon us. Development and major character change, as is already under way, are our choice.
Contrary to the spin, the number of potential jobs and the influx of money resulting from a major influx of bedroom community jets would be quite modest. Bizjets take up a lot of space but generate little by way of jobs, and the special skills necessary would most likely be imported.
County staff claims that people's voices will be heard. With the recent Airport Master Plan it would be impossible to read all the public testimony and then claim that people's voices were heard in the final approved document. I hope for better this time around but it will apparently require more voices and louder voices.
It remains very clear that the only practical mechanism to protect and preserve our airport and the wonderful service it provides to local aviation needs, while limiting the negative environmental impacts, is to strictly limit infrastructure development. Without the necessary infrastructure, outsiders won't find our airport sufficiently attractive to invade. This is the only effective and legal means of defense, along with a very careful eye on environmental impact studies that can halt almost any development project.
Weight restrictions were put in place in 1982 to protect us, and this tool did a good job in a whole different era. In today's world it won't help much. Any ballot initiative or ordinance that does not limit infrastructure will not preserve and protect our airport. Mis-information and bias must be overcome, as must apathy. We are currently proceeding on track to attract outside bizjets at the expense of local aviators, soaring visitors, and our peaceful environment. Will our community get the airport it wants, or the one it deserves? With proper consideration of all the facts and loud voices from many people, I am hopeful that the community will get what it wants and deserves. The R-C can provide a great service by striving to get the full and untainted truth to the residents who own the airport and should be deciding its future.
Jim Herd is a resident of Gardnerville and an aviator.
