| BACK
to letters index
I think I covered it in a letter last year
Michael,
I believe I touched on
this here 11/30/06, from the archives;
Present
practices won't serve us into the future
The gentlemen responding to my comments make good
points. The primary concern is wind. However, on any bad weather
day (such as 11/26/06) two facts become evident; 1) the wind is
generally a crosswind and 2) pilots are landing and taking off.
My observation and experience makes me conclude
that under VFR (Visual Flight Rules) conditions at RM airport are
perfectly suitable for landing 04 (landing on far end towards the
residences) and taking off 22 (leaving away from the residences)
since it is tolerable for pilots under gusty crosswinds to take
off and land with the current procedures. In other words, if they
can when conditions are poor, they certainly can when they are ideal.
I believe all pilots study airport information (AIP’s?)
about destination airports as religiously as they perform pre-flight
checks to assure such things as adequate fuel. Therefore they would
be prepared for the new procedure. Also I believe the FAA has some
sort of advisory frequency here already. Since this is merely a
recreational airport they need not land or take off at all if conditions
are not ideal.
It is not my home that lies in the immediate path
of runway 04 or the approach to 22, so whether it was here prior
to the airport or not is not at issue. An issue is that during the
period of January 1983 through December 1999 (I am searching for
more current stats), 53.4 percent of accidents in the United States
took place during the landing or takeoff phase of flight. This would
tend to place the residences at the end of 04 in some future jeopardy.
As described in the Caltrans 2002 Handbook Basic
Safety Compatibility Qualities, at the end of runway 04 is safety
zone # 4. Caltrans describes how this area is to be planned;
In undeveloped areas, limit residential uses to
very low density (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise),
if alternative uses are impractical, allow higher densities as infill
in urban areas.
Limit nonresidential uses as in Zone 3
Prohibit children’s schools, large day care centers, hospitals,
nursing homes.
(From Table AC –1b Caltrans 2002 Handbook
Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities,
RM Bridge Crossing Amendment 03-0210 and Lakeview Resubmission 11-5
02-0051
Plate AC –C, Adopted Planning Boundary, Map – Visual
Approach.
It would appear Caltrans sees this particular area as problematic
as well. Consider this from NTSB report LAX05LA258, regarding the
crash on 8/03/05, “As the airplane approached Rancho Murieta,
the student pilot configured the airplane for landing on runway
22. While on the base leg of the traffic pattern, the engine experienced
a loss of power. The airplane impacted terrain about 1/4 mile to
the east of the runway, coming to rest upright on a riverbank.”
This is one reason why the final is classified as ZONE 4, and an
aircraft covers a lot of territory very quickly. By the way there
were fatal crashes at RM, on 9/7/2000 and 10/15/1987. Fatal total
(4).
As far as Highway 16, we all recognize the liability
and dangers when driving. In fact to some degree we have the ability
to avoid other driver’s mistakes. This is not the case sitting
in your living room when a pilot recognizes he’s lost power
or the myriad of other problems he/she may encounter. The inevitable
urban sprawl will bring more flyers. Maybe they should get used
to a different approach?
--
Marklin Brown, July 20, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
This is what I was referring to
Marklin,
If you read my post, I was specifically referring to the Map Plate
LU-8 showing the safety zones established by Caltrans and the ALUC
in reference to all the posts about safety.
The
information you are referencing is also important and typically required
information for any development in proximity to an airport.
--
Michael F. Burnett, July 18, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Discussing airport noise and safety
Is
this the document we were suppose to find from Mr. Burnett's e-mail?
AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY
The Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) serves as a regulatory body for defining noise
contours and safety boundaries associated with compatible land uses
around the County’s various airports, including the Rancho
Murieta Airport. The noise contours delineate the noise volume based
on decibel level. The safety boundaries, which are of import for
this discussion, delineate three zones pertinent to the proposed
project (Plate LU -8). First is the clear zone (also referred to
as the Runway Protection Zone), which extends in a trumpet-shape
from either end of the runway. The second is the approach/departure
zone, which further extends out from the trumpet of the clear zone.
The third is the farthest out and is referred to as the overflight
zone (also referred to as the Traffic Pattern Zone). Land use restrictions
apply depending upon the land use and its location within the safety
zones. Note that two approach/departure zones are shown for the
Rancho Murieta Airport. The larger of the two, identified by the
state (Caltrans), extends farther than the County approved boundary.
Given that this boundary is defined to address public safety issues,
this analysis relies on the state’s boundary. Also note that
no Comprehensive Land Use Plan is available for the Rancho Murieta
Airport.
The Rancho Murieta
Airport is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed
Residences projects. As shown on Plate LU -8, neither of The Residences
is in the approach/departure zone or the overflight safety zone.
Thus, there are no airport compatibility issues with development
of either of The Residences.
The Residences
East and West & The Retreat 4-14 06-0252, 01-0069 & 01-0070
4 Land Use
Plate LU -8 Rancho
Murieta Airport/Safety Zone Map The Residences East and West &
The Retreat 4-15 06-0252, 01-0069 & 01-0070
4 Land Use
The three sub-areas
of the Retreat are all similar in distance from the safety boundaries
surrounding the Rancho Murieta airport. Retreat North is approximately
¾ of a mile from the east end of the runway, Retreat East
is slightly more than ¾ mile, and Retreat West is slightly
less than ¾ mile. The proposed location of homes for all
three are within the overflight zone (referred to as the Traffic
Pattern Zone on Plate LU-7) and just outside the approach/departure
zone, though open space areas within Retreat North and East slightly
overlap with the approach/departure zone. Consequently, no homes
are proposed within this area of overlap. According to the Noise
Element of the General Plan, the project’s proposed single-family
detached homes are an allowable use within the overflight zone.
Mr. Art Negrette,
representing the Rancho Murieta Airport, attended the Policy Planning
Commission hearings on the Retreat and requested that several conditions
be added to The Retreat. The requested Conditions were for an avigation
easement (which was added at the Subdivision Review Committee stage);
a disclosure notice to all future homebuyers of The Retreat homes
that they may be subject to nuisance noise from the airport, and
a corresponding “Deed Notice” of said condition; and
a requirement to include additional soundproofing for single-event
noise. All but the last recommendation have been added as a recommended
Condition of Approval. The EIR preparers indicated at the hearing
that single-event noise was a nuisance condition, much like motorcycle
noise, and that there were no adopted thresholds for such noise.
Therefore, this item will not be included as mitigation or as a
Condition of Approval.
--
Marklin Brown, July 18, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Thanks for making it straightforward
Thanks,
Mike. In words of one syllable!
--
Chuck Lentz, July 16, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Responding to your letter
Mr.
Brown:
Prevailing
wind! We have altered the approach to Runway 22 to avoid
overfly!
Re
check the prior post!
--
Chuck Lentz, July 13, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Some other perspectives on our airport
If
you are interested in understanding the how the airport is managed
from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Caltrans, you can
read these reports from Sacramento
County’s Department of Environmental Review and Assessment
(DERA)
The reports contain
a lot of historical information on the RMPUD. The section dealing
with the airport is Airport Compatibility on page 14/25 and you can
reference the map Plate LU -8 Rancho Murieta Airport/Safety Zone Map,
which shows the safety zones.
The
Residences East and West and the Retreats
Murieta
Gardens I & II
--
Michael F. Burnett, July 12, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Why has no one explained why the patterns can't be changed?
Just
for the record, let's review the overall status of this subject:
I suggested after
a series of crashes, that if the pattern was altered in some fashion
(mine was, land only 04 take off only 22), no housing would normally
be affected by day-to-day air traffic if an emergency occurred on
landing or takeoff.
The response to
this has been pretty specific about my intentions, personality, reason,
lack of facts, etc. I appreciate all those issues, and by the way
you may be correct on all counts.
What has never
been addressed is why some alteration to the pattern can't be made.
I find this odd because with the expertise obviously evident in the
responses provided, by now I would have thought chapter and verse
would be quoted about why it is in stone that no changes can be made.
In the meantime,
I say once more, I have no interest in harming the airport. It is
exactly the reverse if you consider what one accident would do to
the airport if an aircraft had to ditch in residential Murieta.
--
Marklin Brown, July 12, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Brown won't deal with reason, statistics or analogies
Please
folks -- don't egg Mr. Brown on. He is not willing to deal with
reason, statistics or analogies. He has his issue -- it is what
it is. I knew when I saw the TV screen that Mr. Brown would
be at it again. (I also blame the media for the way they cover aviation
accidents -- but that is another issue.)
By
the way -- I flew over Rancho Murieta today -- and whew -- I did not
crash.
P.S. Yes -- at the Minimum Safe Altitude...
--
Lou Carmona, July 11, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Here's an answer, but not for me
Marklin,
I have your solution.
http://www.cavehomes.com
The
rest of us will continue to risk it.
--
Kevin Czarnecki, July 11, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
If you want to worry, worry about a car crashing into your house
Marklin,
I would be more worried about events like this
than an airplane crash into my house. Cars crash into homes with a
fatal result far more often than a plane crashes into a house and
has a fatality as a result. Do a simple Google search of "crash
into house fatal" without the quotes and you'll find far more
articles about cars crashes involving a fatality then you will about
plane crashes involving a fatality.
--
Merry Wallace, July 11, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Compare this rate to homicides or auto accidents
Mr.
Brown:
Yes, there was
an aircraft accident in Sanford, Fla.! There also have been 47 fatal
shootings in Sacramento county neighborhoods since Jan. 1, 2007. I
wouldn't even guess at the number of fatal car accidents in California
yesterday, let alone nationwide. Forgot, Stonehouse Road recently,
and the three deaths in Elk Grove last week.
When stationed
at Sanford several years ago, it was a remote area from Orlando. Now
it is like Natomas or Elk Grove, let alone Rancho Murieta. Mass development
with little or no concern for the proximity to an operating airport.
By the way, it was an emergency and the pilot had been vectored to
that field!
--
Chuck Lentz, July 11, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Is every auto accident a wakeup call?
I
already read this in the Bee.
Is every death on Jackson a wakeup call? I look at the airport runway
from my deck. There have been three incidents in the three years that
I have been here. Two were minor. The third was an injury. Then there
was a fourth -- I gave thanks as I watched the helicopter pick up
a person that had been injured on Jackson!
--
Fran Albee, July 11, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Accidents happen -- much more frequently with vehicles
I
knew when I saw this accident on the news someone would air it here.
Marklin, did you buy your house out here before the airport was built?
What about the car accident on 16 and Latrobe last week? You don't
want Highway 16 out here either. Accidents happen, and there are a
lot more vehicle accidents than airplane accidents.
--
Tom Landwehr, July 11, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
A story that should cause concern about airport safety
Wake-up
call --
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=7c65e27a-f0e8-40d7-94c7-ac8925f700a0
--
Marklin Brown, July 10, 2007
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
BACK
to letters index
|
