Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Today's Letters: Knight Airport is nothing to fear

Re: Davis Islanders, airport panel clash over runway (story, Jan. 11)

I really enjoyed your article about the Peter O. Knight Airport. I just thought that you should know that not everyone agrees with those who signed the petition to oppose the runway extension. Although I am no longer an active pilot, I do tend to sympathize more on the side of safety for the pilots and their passengers. I find it difficult to feel sorry for the homeowners on the southwest end of the runway as they built their new homes higher, thus giving them more exposure to aircraft noise while increasing (although admittedly minor) the risk around the safety zone.

The fear generated by the accident at the Tate house, while understandable, is a red herring in the discussion of the runway lengthening. A few feet either way and it would be a completely different discussion. If there is any fear on Davis Islands, it should be about the port, where dangerous operations are going on around the clock. I am personally glad that I chose to live on the west side of the islands as I at least have more warning time when an accident occurs in the port.

David P. Gibbs, Davis Islands

A small price to pay for safety

I have been a tenant at Peter O. Knight since 1973. I am an avid recreational pilot, and more than five of my closest friends live very close to the airport.

I read your most recent article and thought it was somewhat one-sided, so I thought I would offer you a little insight.

My point of view is as follows: The runway in question is Runway 3. The reference to the King Air aircraft is incorrect. Yes, it is important for these aircraft to be able to utilize the runway, but if that runway were not allowed to be extended as proposed, it would be a disaster for aviation.

Let me give the for instance.

I fly mostly single- and small twin-engine aircraft. If that runway was shortened by 175 feet, I would have to relocate, and so would a large number of my fellow pilots.

When departing on Runway 3, the shipping channel is immediately past the end of the runway, and on the other side of that channel there are numerous fuel storage tanks. I shudder to think what would happen if a malfunction caused an impact with a fuel storage tank. The 175 feet proposed actually interprets to anywhere from 150 to 300 feet of additional altitude. If 175 feet were to be taken away, the safety cushion would go away. The impact of the runway extension, even though it is mandatory for the King Air aircraft, is equally mandatory for smaller, slower, less-powerful aircraft in order to maintain the safety buffer and avert a potential disaster of impact with a fuel storage tank.

As for the noise issue, it may be true that a slight noise increase may be felt at the beginning of Runway 3, but it also would be that much quieter to the folks on the opposite end, which is much more populated.

A slight noise issue is a very small price to pay for additional safety. After all, the airport has been here long before any of the residents. When purchasing a home near an airport, there are some pros and cons.

The Aviation Authority has done many things and has donated land to Davis Islands as a gesture of goodwill. They are good neighbors, and the suggestion of anything other than integrity and good communication, frankly, is offensive.

Steve Dendrinos, Sunset Park

[Last modified January 17, 2008, 23:33:17]