Donald wrote on August 30, 2008 11:27 PM: Well I guess the clark county aviation commission is finally waking up and agreeing with commercial airline pilots that for safety reasons some of these so called planes should be banned from use at North Las Vegas airport. According to the AP wire, meetings with the FAA will be held next week as to what to do and when. I hope they also discuss safety, maintenance, and qualifications for and of Hot and High departures and landings.....

chichen vs egg wrote on August 30, 2008 05:21 PM: Sid wrote on August 29, 2008 03:31 AM:
Don't even start with demanding the airport be closed. Much like the pig farm in N. Las Vegas, the airport was there long before the homes were built around it.

Sid, it's a chicken vs egg argument but very popular with recreational pilots. However, the courts nearly always disagree and maybe it's time this bullied community step up to the plate. Other GA airports & their tenants actually work with residents since their planes transit through residential airspace and generally friendly compromises are created- BUT NOT HERE- why is that? But then- Vegas is a different sort of town.

Look at the 1986 public records- there were MANY homes near the original air field before the county bought- then grew it into NV's 2nd largest airport and one of busiest in the USA. That quite a leap from its original use as a quiet, barely operational private airfield slated for a business park so many folks naturally felt safe in building.

And-it is the 20 year old COUNTY OPERATED reliever airport with the problems- not its quiet little predecessor.

BUT- the county was in a feeding frenzy for land and Hughes was selling. It should have heeded it's study's findings that a major reliever airport would NOT be compatible with existing developement, but they were on a mission so tweeked a whole lot of data, facts and numbers to get approval and funding- then ignored the impacted community. They should have allowed it to revert to non aviation uses as suggested AND find a more suitable hunk of land ( abundant back then) where aviatiors could roam free and homeowners could live peacefully .

Now NLVAT is called "the most dangerous airport in America."

clear skys wrote on August 30, 2008 04:02 PM: .Dear Stop building,

I AGREE, but prior to 1987, we could look up and see NOTHING but stars , in fact Decater ended at Craig. Crime was virtually non-existant, folks ( & pilots) were genuine and friendly- different town and a TOTALLY different airport. What people see now is NOT what was there when thousands constructed their dreams decades ago. In 1987, the county bought a decaying PRIVATELY OWNED airfield recommended for non aviaiton use (too many homes in environs)to relieve McCarren- Soon the skys were literally saturated and it became this insane free for all. They even called themselves the "user friendly airport." It is analogious to a private home being purchased by a municipality & expanded to a mega resort- with lots of noisy entertainment. I live it every day- though today it's blissfully peaceful- predictable after each tragic accident.

When they started adding runways and sending air traffic where it didn't exist before, they should have offered buyouts to anyone concerned living under high volumn,low level flight acitivy- but they never did- blantantly ignoring residents' concerns. Converting our airspace
(without notice/authroization) for their private users was far cheaper. In fact they told one pilot the community's socio-economic status didn't warrent public notification" apparently regardless of how grave the impact might be. There was one wonderful FAA gentleman who listened but residents are generally dismissed as bothersome Nnats. This ain't no Summerlin with all its bucks and city financed lawsuits-just a lot of hard working, humble longtimers who are now in the shadow of an overcrowded, underregulated, and poorly planned county airport.

Some would likely jump at a chance for an adequate buyout with moving expenses..but others would rather reclaim their dreams- maybe now they will listen!

annexed wrote on August 30, 2008 02:51 PM: Aviation Goober, One man's county moron may be another's hero!

But, I think the county refers to flight schools potentially commuting to Jean for their hour long/day long bouts of touch & go's. Heavy flight training just doesn't belong in urban airspace, especially when it can't seem to operate at safe altitudes, though some say the too short runways & inadequate clear zones contribute to the problem. To illustrate: last fall, one flight school plane skillfully made an emergency landing on Decater- he was too low to make the field, but there are too many street landings. Training greatly inflates traffic, safety and noise issues over PREEXISITNG neighborhoods. The skys are already too saturated. Tour flights have also gotten too busy but with a little noise abatement and flying consistant flight paths away from homes as safely as practical -could improve their standing. The general aviation recreational/ business pilots skillfully transit residential skys quickly with minimal impact & should be what this airport is all about. They should stay!

Now the reliever needs a reliever, but moving only some of the most intrusive traffic would go a long way in restoring confidence in the community BUT- more importantly- honest dialog between airport officials, residents, and even pilots. Sharing our airspace requires mutual respect & cooperation.

I blame airport/county planners and the FAA first. Against recommendations, in 1986-7, they purchased and converted a small privately owned and nearly closed utility airfield to a major RELIEVER for McCarran which profoundly changed its size,structure,& scope while significatnly eroding the quality of life for thousands already there- none of who were allowed a voice. After that- greedy developers who sold without disclosures & inept/corrupt city officials who let it happen. Follow with: Buyer beware.

Donald wrote on August 30, 2008 11:16 AM: For Goober...The name says it all, hanging around airports in Mayberry..In the real world, we all know that Las Vegas is a'Hot and High' departure city from May until October, and that most of the dinky toys at NLV either are aware, but don't understand or disregard the rules. Teh mandatory retirement age was 62 until last year, and my carrier was one of the first to change it to 63-65, preferring 63. As for my flying, I started off on the DC-10, and graduated to the 757/767 which i still fly, and fortunately do not have to fly into Las Vegas often. The two cities that I fly in and out of have closed and moved a few private airports because of safety concerns and they are much more crowded airspace than Vegas. I look at is this way and so do my fellow pilots, if they move north of the mountains, the only ones they will put in harms way is themselves. I really don't care what they do, as long as these buzz saws you defend stay out of my way on departure or arrival and don't claim a "mechanical" when more than likely it is just plain inexperience or familiarity with conditions and the area. And since you are an authority on crashes as well, 50% are control tour and ground personnel servicing the aircraft as well. Which is why we do thorough inspections and walk arounds prior to departure. Not just make sure the plane is clean and get bugs of the windshield......

Aviation Goober wrote on August 29, 2008 11:12 PM: Donald, if you are a pilot, you should have more knowledge than what you post. But, then again, the most dangerous thing around an airplane is a pilot. 97% of all crashes are the result of pilot error.

Let's start with moving the airport to lower elevation north of the mountains. You talk about a lower elevation. Maybe you aren't familiar with the desert, but the lower the elevation, the higher the heat and the problem is not cured. Maybe you never flew into Phoenix.... who knows.

The airport IS NOT the problem. You talk about toys, but what did you learn to fly in? Do fellow pilots not own GA aircraft? I wonder if you still fly the 757 since you have no clue about mandated retirement age either. You also forget the major push to up the mandatory retirement age. Blaming a MECHANICAL failure on age is ridiculous. Even thinking age is an issue in either of these accidents is grasping at straws.

If you flew into LAS or live here, you would know the traffic patterns of the airports and how they don't truly interfere with each other. The way it is setup is actually logical, but I am sure the S. California area is much better.

Most of these planes were previously at McCarran. Now, we have some county moron pushing to move everything to Jean. There is NOTHING at Jean. Tiedowns and a fuel depot. No hangars. No services. You are also in the direct flight path from Southern California. I am sure a midair collision was never discussed. The NLV airport is not and is close to the open flying areas general aviation uses.

Accidents happen..... we keep seeing cars driving into homes, but there is not push to place cars further away from homes!!

Rory wrote on August 29, 2008 05:58 PM: Would it be more shocking if the news were "plane doesn't hit house at NLV airport today"

TimeRanger wrote on August 29, 2008 01:23 PM: Maybe its time for someone to check the fuel being sold at the airport?

David wrote on August 29, 2008 11:46 AM: Should we close LAS, if there were 2/3 accidents at or around that Airport., I doubt it, they didnt close MDW when they ran off rwy into street., its tragic but hey you cant shut down the airports just from an accident or two., you would see NTSB accident report, starting out as "Well its the Boards findings that this accident could have been avoided if the airport had not been there"

heartfelt wrote on August 29, 2008 11:33 AM: Mike, I am so sorry for your and your brother's family - clearly it was a mechanical which happens to even the most skilled pilots, and reportedly, he did everything possible to find a safer landing place. He seemed a selfless and amazing man who was a notch above most. God speed his assent as he "flies West" Heaven always needs good pilots!

Secondly, David- it may well be poor airport planning- so the DOA and FAA might logically share the blame. The 1996-7 mandated pre-acquisition study (FAR-150) which evaluated the private airfield for acquisition toward conversion) said a RELIEVER would NOT be compatible with high density development ( there were many homes already there & many more planned- but the one active runway back then didn't really impact the exisitng community.) The tiny airport was a great neighbor. Then rides in the DOA- hell bent on "relieving" McCarran of it's pesky GA operations & attracting anyone else they could to previously quiet skys. NO one- including residents or even NLV pilots were going to get in their way! It became an arrogant and self assured bully- unwilling to dialog honestly! The ORIGINAL recommendation was to convert the decaying field to non aviation use due to the exiting homes and NLV heavy development plans. Those facts are fully supported by public records.

Relocating commercial/training traffic away from this urban area would go a long way to improving the airport's safety record- they need to really thin out operations. Unlike most GA airports, this one seems to follow no rules though most GA experienced pilots are pretty good about taking off/landing away from homes as much as practical. It is the commercial and training flights that consume the most airspace at unsafe alitudes.