Community Faces Tough Decision On Airport Expansion
Posted
Gary Gerard-ggerard@timesuniononline.com
It didn't take long for my phone to ring after we ran the story about closing CR 100E to extend the runway at Warsaw Municipal Airport.
Most of the calls weren't surprising. They were from people who live north of the airport who would be inconvenienced - by roughly three miles - each time they drove into Warsaw. They weren't happy about it for obvious reasons.I have to be honest. I rarely use CR 100E, so I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I can see where it would be quite bothersome if I lived north of the airport. Those people just got a nice new Menard's, Martin's and Culver's and now this?
But hey, that's the price of progress, right? An airport with a longer runway could legitimately be considered an economic development that could help attract even more business to the community. The benefits would outweigh the convenience of a bunch of county residents.
That's pretty much the way I figured the thing would play out. All the businesses would be for the expansion and most residents would be against it.
But then I got a call from Steve Kesler, president of Explorer Van. He told me he wasn't sure how Explorer Van made the list of companies urging the airport to extend the runway because, he said, "I am 100 percent dead set against it."
He said the airport was adequate for his company's aviation needs just as it is.
This surprised me a little bit, so I talked to John Slone, chief pilot for DePuy.
"My position as a pilot? Every pilot would like to have a longer runway," he said. "But I feel like the times it's (the extension) really needed is not worth the inconvenience to thousands of people that closing the road would cause."
He added, "There haven't been a tremendous amount of times when we've had to divert or go elsewhere because the runway that we have was inadequate. Most of the time, it's adequate. There are very few times when we've had to divert."
I asked him, if that's the case, why are we even talking about it?
He said all the aviation companies were solicited for information about the adequacy of the runway. "But we weren't asked to give facts. We were asked to give liberal ballpark estimates" on how many times planes had to be diverted.
"I think if all the pilots were asked to give factual data and knew they were going to be held accountable for those figures, you would have seen different information."
Slone said Zimmer would likely benefit most from a runway extension. "They have the biggest airplane that requires the most runway. They are going to be inconvenienced more times than we would. But then again, how many times must they be inconvenienced before we inconvenience thousands of people?"
Then I spoke with Greg Garber, chief pilot for ML Motorsports, who had a completely different take.
His view is that the airport does need the expansion. He characterized the debate this way:
"Some people are speaking out of their own personal standpoint. From a personal standpoint, I wish they wouldn't close the road because I use it all the time," Garber said. "But I think it's important for people to separate their personal opinions from their professional opinions."
Garber said with the landing distances required for the aircraft he operates, the glide slope intersects with only 4,000 feet of runway left. "When there are contaminated runways, (rain or snow) that's not enough. There are times, with a charter group, when we can't legally land with more than a couple passengers on board. For us, it is an operational necessity to have the runway lengthened."
In a packet of information provided by the airport, Garber, along with pilots from Image Air Charter, Biomet and Zimmer offered similar sentiments. And they all talk about the need to divert flights to South Bend or Fort Wayne.
The overall sense I get from this is that there really isn't too big a problem on a nice, sunny day. But when there is rain or snow on the runway, low ceilings, strong winds, winds from the wrong direction or when a plane is too heavy, flights might have to be diverted to bigger airports for safety's sake.
Bill Kolter, corporate vice president, public affairs for Biomet, said with respect to the current proposal, his company is neutral.
He said the issue boils down to two points - safety and convenience.
"Obviously, we have an obligation to the safety of the passengers on our aircraft," he said, but added the convenience of the community also has to be considered.
"We would like to see a study conducted that would assess the impact of this matter on the community. I think that's appropriate. I also think it's appropriate to take a long-term view of aviation in the community."
Kolter said Biomet would support any plan that improves airport safety while minimizing disruption to the community.
"The safety portion is important and we are supportive of a longer runway. But community convenience also is important," he said.
Which brings us straight back to the crux of the issue. Who should be inconvenienced?
The businesses whose flights will inevitably be diverted from time to time because of safety issues on the shorter runway?
Or the people who live north of the airport who will have to drive an extra three miles to get to town every day?
I really can't answer that question because I don't have any idea how often flights are actually diverted in a given year. Is it hundreds? Is it dozens? Is it a few? It would take a bit of research, but I think going forward that's a key question that should be answered.
Of course there are the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard), CAVEs (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) and BANANAs (Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) of the world who will say that it doesn't matter how many flights are diverted, there should be no expansion. That's shortsighted.
I think a community should do what it can to encourage and nourish the local business environment. If so many flights are being diverted that it is impeding a company's ability to do business, that's something the community should address. A healthy local industrial base and functional, efficient airport benefits everyone - even if it means making people add three miles to their trip to town.
But if this is more of an issue of convenience, maybe the business community needs to grin and bear it.
The only thing I know for sure is this:
I'm glad I don't have to make the decision about closing CR 100E.
