ORIGINAL: extra-nut
ORIGINAL: Bob Pastorello
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
To me the whole thing is NOT stupid. To me it happened because some outside influence jumped into a small nest with his own big ideas. I have been told that a small group wanted to fly from some city property and the city provided the initial 250' runway for a few persons to sport fly to their content. Now IMO that is just super.
Then in comes some AMA designated Hot Shot and sees a great opportunity if the City would provide a better facility. He addresses the city with great ideas of if the site be provided, then he would organize BIG events that would bring High-Dollar persons from far distances to operate in large events and bring in those yankee green $$$ for local establishments. The city went out and provided the facility without real knowledge or consideration of the situation. I am told the AMA DVP stated to Mr. Big Shot that such was a bad idea. However Mr. BS went on, convinced the city that all was feasable and not to worry.
Now that is how I was briefed and IMO the Briefer was truly concerned that an interstate was only just over 600 ft. from the end of the runway. I think it is a serious problem. AMA will not risk a flying facility, the city is not going to admit to a big mistake, the Big Shot isn't now doing anything, and a good group of recreational RCers are all without a flying site.
So don't get too smart alecky, until more information comes forth. Actually I have witnessed almost the same situation at another facility, and am now trying to change the same. Only problem is at this field, it was not taxpayers financing the facility, it was I.
You are very nearly accurate in all details. Your briefer left out an important, and vital part - the ''AMA Official'' **MET** with the City Officials/Owners, reviewed plans, discussed everything and THEN gave the thumbs up/go ahead. Your research and briefer is very good.
The rest of your story is also, sadly, quite accurate.
Well put Hoss.
Thanks Bob, I also think that its important that ''they'' actually ''MET'' with city folks. That really adds the Hmmmmm factor as to why we are in this situation at all.
Here is what Jim Rice said about it:
''I think the issue is should we expend a lot of city money and our sweat equity to build a field that is likely not as safe as any of the three of us would prefer and that may well not satisfy the new FAA rules when they are published. We do not know what those might be exactly but have heard the verbiage of 1,500 feet lateral distance of clear overflight, Remains to be seen if that is an accurate figure but if it is this field and others will be outside of those parameters.
Extending the current runway encourages the use of bigger/faster aircraft which only increases the likelihood of overflight of a major interstate highway. I have visited with one of the modelers who flies there on a regular basis and he says they routinely have concerns over the proximity of the freeway to their runway when flying airplanes that either traverse the 1,000 feet quickly or that are so large that one doesn't realize they are beyond the boundaries of the field.
If we are to be good partners with the city, we cannot ask them to expend the money they would have to expend and then likely lose the AMA insurance protection due to the unsafe proximity of the freeway. I have the authority to suspend insurance for a given site and based on Les's evaluation of the site I would likely not approve sanctioning of events at that field''
How does somone NOT understand that?
Thanks Hoss...... As for the discussion of AMA closing fields that are close to highways, from the bolded Jim Rice text it appears that there is some advance knowledge that this may be a new FAA requirement.
Brad