Airport response

EDITOR:

It's an axiom of politics that misrepresentations unchallenged become "truth." Hence a response to John Garvin's March 12 letter.

He says I hold "... to a concept that keeping small aircraft scattered about on the west side will make our airport unattractive (e.g. unsafe) for the 'big guys.'"

I never mentioned safety. And as a pilot I don't advocate compromising safety. The small aircraft to the west are parked. They are an inconvenience to the aircraft we don't want. But hardly a hazard.

Some of those aircraft do cross the main runway to get to the "soaring" runway to the east. Sounds dangerous. But it isn't. Thousands of runway crossing movements occur daily around the country following FAA procedures.

Beware folks, safety is a universal justification of the boosters who turn modest community airports into major community nuisances.

Mr. Garvin says, "We seem to be in agreement that the present voter enacted airport weight ordinance is itself ineffective." And, "The real solution, according to Mr. Burnes, is to not do anything." And Mr. Garvin says that will result in the loss of FAA funding, making the airport a financial burden.

No. The real problem is the airport master plan adopted in 2008, which simply takes things in the wrong direction. And the only thing standing in the way of its implementation is the current weight limit, which the FAA views as discriminatory. It says no more money until the limit is repealed. So we're being asked to do that, so that the county can get on with its expansion plans.

The answer is simple and it's not to do nothing. Amend the master plan to keep the airport configuration as is. Then, and only then, ask the voters to repeal the weight limit, making FAA funding available for projects that keep this the rural airfield most want.

Mr. Garvin says that airport operations have grown only 10 percent over 15 years, so the market will protect us. A year ago one would have said the same thing about Walmart. Now it is due to open in 2012.

Look at Pinon Aero. Pinon has spent serious money to lease land from the county and they've got plans for more than a hundred hangars well suited to the kinds of aircraft we don't want here. The risk is not slow growth from local aviators. It is the likes of Pinon suddenly bringing here some fractional or charter jet operation or an airline or biz jet training program or similar.

Once the airport is reconfigured that will be hard to stop.

Finally, Mr. Garvin says that "essential" requirements for the aircraft we don't want will be subject to voter approval. Presumably that means a precision approach or tower. But those aren't essential. We have excellent flying weather and jets operate at many airports without towers.

And when the boosters decide they need those things they'll mount another disingenuous campaign to convince voters that safety demands them.

Just vote "no" on airport expansion.

Terry Burnes

Gardnerville