airport neighbors: extension need exaggerated
We are writing regarding your article entitled “Is Peter O. Knight Airport Keeping You Awake?” published in the October edition of The Davis Islands’ Community News.
We are Davis Islands Homeowners living adjacent to and or near the Peter O. Knight airport. We believe that the airport is a valuable asset to the community. It has been a part of Davis Islands for a long time. We wish the airport a successful and safe future. At the same time, we are concerned about safety, noise and the proposed changes at the airport.
We believe that as residents of the community we have a right to fair, complete and accurate information regarding changes that will affect our community. We believe that we have the right to have a say in those changes. We believe the best results come when all sides work together and everyone’s interests are fairly considered.
We believe and many other neighbors have expressed their feeling that bringing the runway 175 feet closer to their homes makes them less safe. The recent tragedy at the Tate’s home from an accident at Peter O. Knight airport is a very vivid example of how real this concern is.
There has been talk about the need for the airport to do the runway expansion for safety compliance. Here are some relevant facts:
- To date the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has not given Peter O. Knight Airport a date by which their Safety Compliance Regulation Waiver will expire.
- Full compliance with the FAA’s Runway Safety Compliance Regulations can be accomplished on runway 3/21 (the main runway) by simply painting lines and creating a displaced threshold 175 feet to the South of the North end of the main runway. This alone will rectify the issue of noncompliance with FAA Safety Area Regulations.
- The FAA does not require Peter O. Knight Airport to extend the runway towards the residents to comply with safety.
It has been written that as much as 40% of existing traffic would be unable to use Peter O. Knight Airport if the runway is not extended. This is not accurate.
- There are currently 128 aircraft based at Peter O. Knight Airport. If the runway is not extended, three of the 128 aircraft based at Peter O. Knight Airport (approx. 2 %) may experience an impact on their utility of the airport. Those three aircraft would suffer a weight penalty when taking off towards the North. This may or may not impact a particular flight depending on its weight load for the flight. If the weight load for a particular flight was at its maximum this penalty would require the aircraft to carry less cargo or travel a shorter distance before refueling. When taking off towards the South there would be no weight penalty and no impact on the planes utility of the airport.
The impact to the community has been misstated as well:
- At the May 15th Peter O. Knight Airport Public Meeting, the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (HCAA) presented the impact of the runway extension to the community to be NONE. Residents expressed their doubts and requested that the HCAA conduct a Single Event Noise Test.
- At the September 18th Peter O. Knight Airport Public Meeting, the HCAA presented the results of their Single Event Noise Test as between 2 – 5 dBa and not considered significant.
- On October 11th at the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Monthly Board Meeting, the HCAA presented the noise impact to the community to be 17.5 db. This is a significant impact.
- Other noise experts believe the noise impact to the community will be far higher than 17.5 db. There are several reasons for this, the most obvious being that the plane used in the Single Event Noise Test is not the loudest plane utilizing the airport.
The HCAA has now agreed to several noise abatement procedures and is still considering the most important of those procedures; moving the run up area 100 feet back from its current location. (The run up area is the location where a plane conducts its run up procedure prior to take off. This run up procedure consists of revving the engine up for approximately 60 seconds and is a required safety procedure). While we applaud the approval of these procedures and look forward to the approval of the last one, the fact remains that extending the runway 175 feet towards the residents homes will result in a large increase in sound on takeoff. None of the procedures agreed to or contemplated address this.
Unfortunately, the need for this runway extension has been exaggerated while the negative impact to the community grossly understated.
We support the airport and wish it a safe and successful future. At the same time we are disappointed in the manner in which things were presented to the community. We feel that this extension is not in the best interests of the community. We feel it will reduce the safety of those living near the runway extension and greatly increase the sound in the community impacting the ability of those living near the extension to peacefully enjoy their homes in the way they have been accustomed to.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Yours,
Warren Cohen
The Tate Family
Robert B. Greene Family
The Scioscia Family
The Cheeseman Family
Meg Fernandez
October 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Warren: I have had the chance to speak with Charner Reese from the Civic Associaton after my email yesterday. Now that I have calmed down (took me a week), I want to openly say that I am sorry the way things went the way they did the other day. I should not have gotten that upset. She will allow me some time to speak at the meeting being held on November 6th? I feel that with the few of us sticking together we can get some issues and answers resolved. Any information that I find out, I will more than likely forward it to yourself, Charner Reese and especially Lisa Devito. I feel comfortable with her and know her. I am glad you put all of what you had to say in writing to cut down on confusion. I am still waiting for the answers to Lisa Devito’s specific questions as well as my own back from you know who. That office only wants me to be the in between person in order to avoid tons of calls. If you need for me to do any additional footwork this week please let me know. We need to put all of this in writing since we were told one thing and then found out it was something else. I think we should wait to get all of the facts and then come to the bottom line conclusion together whether or not some of us like what is being said or not. If you need to pass my number along to anyone on the board or those closely involved thats okay. I can do some leg work since my season is pretty much dead. AND I DO appreciate all that you have done pertaining to this issue. As for Ryan Tate, I had been told that you or your mother will be contacted pertaining to the fence issue. If not leave me a note in my mailbox.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
I PROMISED I WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION AND HERE IT IS FOR ALL OF YOU TO REVIEW.
SPECIAL THANKS TO A SPECIAL FRIEND FOR GETTING THIS INFO TO US ALL. HERE IT IS AND I WILL HAVE TO SEND THE SECOND HALF SEPARATELY. I HOPE IT ALL FITS.
This has been submitted from a representatives. And I sincerely thank her for getting this information to us particularly with her very busy schedule.
“First checked with the County Attorney about responses to yourquestions. Their office researched the issue and reported that therewas a special act which created the Aviation Authority. The legislationgives exclusive jurisdiction of the airport to the Aviation Authority. I was then told to submit your questions to the Aviation Authority forresponse. This morning, I received the attached from Mr. Cooley, which hopefully, will answer your questions. Mr. Ed Cooley, Senior Directorof Operations and Public Safety, seems very willing to discuss concernswith you or any of the residents. His number is 870-8711.
Continued
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Question 1: Two questions – 1) Why is the Airport calling public meetings if they don’t have to respond to any public concerns?
Answer: The Authority has always been proactive in meeting with the Davis Islands residents to update them on airport development, modifications to the development plan and special events at the Airport. In the most recent case of the change to the configuration of Runway 3-21 and the development of the hangar area on the east side of the airport adjacent to the Seddon Channel, while there was no statutory or regulatory requirement to bring these changes to the Community, the Authority wanted to do so to be a good neighbor and to receive input from the residents.
2) Is there possibly some FAA or State DOT, or other requirement for a public meeting or input that has not been mentioned to us?
Answer: No, there is not a requirement to do so.
Question 2: Two questions – 1) Have they specifically applied for, and received SWFWMD approval with respect to the hangars.
Answer: We have not submitted an application for a SWFWMD drainage permit, however we have met with SWFWMD staff to discuss the project and drainage requirements.
2) If there is an application of any kind to SWFWMD, how would we get a copy?
Answer: The Authority can provide a copy of the application when filed.
Question 3: Two questions – 1) Why is it not possible to have residents work with the Airport on the appearance of the planned hangars?
Answer: At the meeting with the subcommittee of the DICA on October 15, 2007, staff indicated that we would look into the feasibility of buffering the new hangars with vegetation to the extent possible to improve the appearance. The Airport will certainly examine alternatives and share those with the subcommittee.
2) Also, why can there not be discussions of noise abatement measures for current and future hangars? I have asked for perhaps sound-absorbing covering on existing buildings so that the run up noise is not bounced directly across to the residential areas.
Answer: The sound tests have shown that the run up and take off noise is directly from the aircraft, not bouncing off a building.
Question 4: Why can’t the Airport give us any estimate of planes landing and taking off? They say they don’t have a count.
Answer: Staff told the subcommittee that there is not an air traffic control tower at the airport so that there is no absolute count of airport operations. There are estimates of aircraft operations generated through the master planning process based on limited duration counts and valid statistical estimates. Master Plan data indicates estimates of slightly over 50,000 operations per year currently at the Airport. An operation is defined as a take off or a landing of an aircraft. The Authority is examining technology available to accurately count operations at its general aviation airports.
Question 5: Several questions - Who is the regulating authority within the State of Florida DOT that issues their license? What requirements are there for the license, in addition to the runway length, and could we obtain a copy of them? What is the time limit on the requirement that they lengthen the E-W runway?
Answer: Airport inspections and licensing are handled through the Florida Department of Transportation Aviation Office, 605 Suwannee St., MS 46, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450, and telephone no. (850) 414-4500. Licensing is pursuant to Chapter 330, Florida Statutes, Regulation of Aircraft, Pilots and Airports, and Chapter 14-60 Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Airport Licensing, Registration, and Airspace Protection. The Aviation Office issued Peter O. Knight Airport a “Special” license with conditions relative to the safety area compliance. A specific time frame was not provided but the Aviation Office expects that the Authority will pursue a project to correct the safety area discrepancy as rapidly as possible consistent with its ability to plan and program such a project.
Question 6: Are there other similar airports that are located so proximately to predominately residential areas, and if so, do they have any safety or noise abatement measures that could be helpful to POK and DI?
Answer: Each airport has site specific noise abatement procedures based on runway orientation, the airport’s layout and location, and the surrounding land uses. It would be difficult to identify an airport with operation and location conditions similar to POK and apply their noise abatement measures with the hopes that they would have any significant impacts beyond what is already in place and being proposed at POK.
Question 7: Are there any other small airports such as POK that have towers?
Answer: Towers are placed at airports based on traffic volume. You would not expect an airport with traffic volume as low as POK to have an air traffic control tower.
Question 8: Do most airports in residential areas, without control towers, have night landings?
Answer: Yes, airports without control towers operate with a common traffic advisory radio frequency and utilize the same operating procedures at night as they do in the daytime.
Question 9: Where do we find a copy of the Airport Master Plan?
Answer: A copy of the master plan will be made available for review by interested parties at the terminal building at Peter O. Knight Airport. In addition, copies of the Executive Summary of the master plan can be sent to interested parties by contacting Nadine Jones at the Aviation Authority, 870-8773.
Question 10: The residents own direct experience causes them to seriously question the noise test results regarding the change in the E-W runway. Is it possible to have the test reviewed by an independent expert, or to have an independent expert design and conduct an appropriate test? For example, the airport test concluded that a lawnmower and passing truck were louder that an airplane doing a run up. This is contradictory to any experience residents have had living on South Davis Blvd.
Answer: The Authority’s staff members involved in taking the single event noise measurements at Peter O. Knight Airport are fully qualified to take and document such measurements. The variations in readings with changing environmental conditions indicate inherent problems with single event noise measurement and is the reason that the FAA does not utilize single event noise measurement in the national noise guidelines in determining noise impacted areas in the vicinity of airports. We do not believe that any purpose would be served in bringing in an outside expert to validate or redo these noise readings.
Authority staff worked diligently and in good faith with the Davis Islands community through the course of two public information meetings and continued coordination with a subcommittee of the Davis Islands Civic Association to clarify issues and answer questions. Staff had planned to take final action on the Peter O. Knight Airport runway reconfiguration plan to the Authority Board on November 1st. At the request of the DICA, staff has agreed to postpone this action to the December Authority Board meeting to continue to work with the interested parties and allow time for the full DICA Board to review the report from the subcommittee at its meeting on November 6th. Authority staff also plans to be at the DICA Board meeting on November 6th to respond to questions. Staff also plans to be at the County Commission Town Hall meeting on October 25th to provide input and answer any questions which the Commissioners may have.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the questions asked by Davis Islands residents regarding the Peter O. Knight project.
Continued
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
**PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AIRPORT DISTRICT OFFICE AND I AM WAITING ON THOSE ANSWERS
CONTINUED
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
I want all of you to know who the Politician was that had helped us.
I called her office and asked if it would be okay to let everyone know.
It was ROSE FERLITA and her assistant Della were great in researching all of this information for us. I want everyone to know how hard they worked for us and it is greatly appreciated.
I hope she does not mind me saying this but she is the most trustworthy person I know and I am glad she is in Public Office.
The other person that helped us was Kathy Castors office. Thank you and if that was not loud enough THANK YOU.
I don’t know what the above can do for us but at least we have some answers in writing.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Hillsborough County News Release, October 5, 2007
For Immediate Release
For media use only:
Steve Valdez, Manager
Public Information
Telephone: (813) 272-5314
Cellular Phone: (813) 765-6702
Town Hall Meeting Scheduled for Residents in Town ‘N Country, Baycrest, South County, South Tampa and West Tampa
Hillsborough County Commissioners are inviting residents who live in District 1 to a Town Hall meeting later this month. District 1 includes Town ‘N Country, Baycrest, South County, West Tampa and South Tampa areas. They will answer questions, and find out what residents think about the issues in their communities. It’s their chance to speak on the services provided by their County government.
The meeting will be held Thursday, Oct. 25, at the Jefferson High School Auditorium, 4401 W. Cypress St. Exhibits and information provided by many county departments will be available starting at 5:30 p.m., and the question and answer session is scheduled from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Residents who can’t attend the meeting in person can watch it LIVE on HTV22, the county government’s cable channel. During the broadcast, viewers can also call 272-5275 with their questions and comments; or email them to townhallmeeting@hillsboroughcounty.org. The messages will be read throughout the meeting, in between comments and questions from the audience.
In addition to Commissioners, directors of key departments will be at the meeting to answer residents’ questions about specific projects. A newsletter summing up the evening’s discussion will be mailed to everyone who participates in the meeting.
Town Hall meetings are a quarterly tradition for Commissioners. Every few months, they visit various communities throughout the county for a one-on-one, open dialogue with their constituents.
All meeting facilities are accessible in accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Any additional necessary accommodations will be provided with a 48-hour notice by calling 272-5275.
For more information, call Steve Valdez, Communications Department, at 272-5275 (TTY: 301-7173).