Runaway Runway

18Jun09
Noise? What noise?

Noise? What noise?

Here we go again, as we knew we would. The City of Bridgeport and the CT Post are jumping all over the the “crash” of a plane into the blast fence last week. Let us be clear here. It is not about “safety”. If it were, the FAA by law, regulation and just common sense would have shut it down years ago. If it actually were about safety, the City of Bridgeport could simply sign an agreement that they will never expand the runways into Stratford and this “safety” zone is all they will ever ask for. The City of Bridgeport has refused. So much for “safety”.

What it is about is the City of Bridgeport’s acquisition of more Stratford land for free. It doesn’t get any more complex than that. If they are able to acquire more land and extend the runway to the magical 5,000 ft, larger and more frequent aircraft will be able to take-off and land. The revenue for the City of Bridgeport goes up and the property values in the 1st and 2nd districts go down. That will raise property taxes in the 3rd through 10th districts.

This is nothing more than extortion and theft by the City of Bridgeport.

Advertisements


44 Responses to “Runaway Runway”

  1. 1 jezebel282

    Phin:

    “with regard to the airport-the situation is indeed at the turning point. i know and respect the perspective of all that live in lordship with regard to not wanting their lives disrupted and their quality of life ruined as there is no trade off for them. but out of curiousity, i wonder how the rest of the town including lordship would feel if stratford had a 50% ownership with bridgeport(with no cost to the taxpayers) of the airport and that one of the conditions of the safety zone would be to have the tower manned 24/7. this is one of the senarios that has been batted around through higher circles-that bridgeport take the initial $$ loss to move the project forward as the loss to stratford would be in quality of life issues. this was discussed as a potential jump start to the region….”

    There has never been an offer made by the City of Bridgeport that incurs any expense or revenue sharing on their part.

    One last point: It is not just about Lordship or the 2nd District. The Town depends upon all of it’s districts for revenue. When one declines it must be made up by the others.

  2. 2 1george1

    I was typng # 2 while Jeze was posting # 1.

    I wonder about the purchase of the AIRPORT, on the AGENDA of the
    Town Council for the last few years?

    I wonder about the greedy plans of the Republican cabal, which
    needs to change the Town Party BUY LAST, becasue they can not
    get a QUORUM?

    I wonder about those long term plans of the GREEDY LAWYERS?

    I wonder if we are seeing another cover story, where a couple of
    their patsies were back stabbed, like they back stabbed others?

    Or I wonder, if we have a HOSTILE TAKE OVER, where the FEDS
    finally decided to take ALL of the MARBLES?

  3. 3 phineast

    Jez, I hear what you are saying….I was privvy to a discussion on the issue of the revenue sharing/ownership-partnership idea that is being bounced around. Bpt needs cash and a lot of it right now so it is not an offer that they will make willingly but an offer that they may be forced to make via the feds….kind of like Stfd being forced to relocate the road.

  4. 4 jezebel282

    Phin,

    And there is that nagging “no more expansion” commitment. That’s free.

  5. 5 1george1

    As posted in the past.

    FDR: In politics there is no such thing as co-incidence.

    Geo: Everything is Stratford is on someone’s timetable.

  6. 6 1george1

    With Miron effectually out of the way …

    and/or needing powerful friends …

    I wonder?

  7. 7 jezebel282

    Update:

    And Bridgeport wonders why no one in Stratford trusts them?

    DEP says Sikorsky Airport tide gates need to be fixed
    Written by John Kovach
    Thursday, 02 July 2009

    The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued notices of violation to Sikorsky Memorial Airport and the city of Bridgeport regarding tide gates near the airport.

    “They’re going after Bridgeport to fix their tide gate,” said Stratford Councilman Thomas Moore.

    Sikorsky Memorial Airport Manager John Ricci said that Bridgeport was talking with the DEP, and that repairs to the area would most likely be coupled with safety improvements to the city-owned airport that is located entirely in Stratford.

    According to a May 19 letter, the violations were found during inspections of property between Sniffens Lane and Dorne Drive in Stratford conducted Oct. 29, 2008 and April 1, 2009.

    One notice cites the airport and its owner, the city of Bridgeport, and its consultant on proposals to add runoff areas to runways.

    “I think what we’ll be able to do is tie the whole thing to our safety improvements,” Ricci said.

    Peter B. Francis, supervising environmental analyst for the Office of Long Island Sound Programs, wrote, “Such structures are in poor condition and as such have resulted in poor tidal exchange between the tidal lagoon and the upstream tidal creeks.”

    Moore, who photographed the site, found a concrete shaft left covered. “If someone falls in there, they’re done,” he said. “They’re not getting out. The water is four and a half feet deep at low tide.”

    Another cites the airport and three families who own adjacent property for installing a road that has interfered with tidal flow.

    The road is old, DEP Senior Environmental Analyst Kevin Zawoy said, and was created without state permits, among others.

    “The work actually closed off any tidal connection within that creek,” said Zawoy, adding this can lead to flooding.

    “Tidal water can’t get into that area and can’t get out — all the problems with the non-maintained culvert and tide gate structures on airport property,” he said.

    The notice gave Bridgeport 30 days to submit in writing the steps it has taken to correct the issue. “We made contact with both the adjacent property owners and the Sikorsky Airport manager,” Zawoy said.

  8. 8 1george1

    Good job Tom Moore on the Tidal Gate.

    Condolences to Laura Dorobz (?) who lost her grand dad.

    Laura told me 2 years ago she had been helping out with
    her grand parents, in addition to work and other things.

  9. 9 jezebel282

    Stratford sold out again!

    How many different ways and by how many different people can Stratford be sold out?

    City Council OKs court-brokered airport deal
    By Linda Conner Lambeck
    STAFF WRITER
    Updated: 07/06/2009 11:35:24 PM EDT

    BRIDGEPORT — A court-brokered settlement on two pending lawsuits concerning Sikorsky Memorial Airport won a silent nod from the City Council Monday after members heard the details in executive session.

    With 14 members present, only Council Member Robert Walsh, D-132, voted against the resolution. Later, he said he didn’t want to publicly say why.

    City Attorney Mark Anastasi said the matter now goes back to federal court to advise Senior U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight that the deal is finalized.

    “They have all of our approvals,” Anastasi said.

    The deal would reportedly give the city the acre it needs to build a safety zone at the airport. Bridgeport Airport Services would get the nearby Stratford Army Engine Plant’s 4,000-gallon water tank, three pumping systems and pipeline as well as access to sewer services. Hollywood East/Area 51 would then close its deal with the Army to buy the engine plant so it can develop a movie production studio.

    One lawsuit was filed in March by Bridgeport against the U.S. Army over legal title to the 1.075-acre plot being sold to Hollywood East. The second, filed a week later, pitted Bridgeport Airport Services against Bridgeport over fire suppression and sanitary sewage systems. The suits halted the engine plant’s sale in April.

    The deals comes after a crash landing last month at the airport of a chartered single-engine plane. The plane skidded into a runway. No one on board was injured. In 1994, a similar crash killed eight people. The Federal Aviation Administration recommended the safety buffer zone. Bridgeport, which owns the airport, agrees. Stratford, where the airport is located, opposed the airport expansion. Stratford was not party to either lawsuit.

  10. 10 sudds

    WOW! I guess NO ONE on the Council wants to get re-elected, huh???

  11. 11 jezebel282

    Apparently not.

  12. 12 jezebel282

    Update:

    Yet again the Bridgeport Post takes time to justify theft:

    We need to make airport deal a reality
    Updated: 12/08/2009 05:42:13 PM EST

    A long-coming, hard-won deal that may save lives and give a substantial boost to economic development in Stratford seems to be within reach.

    Let’s not let it fail at this point.

    It’s expected that next week U.S. District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. is going to put the final touches on a multi-pronged deal that will, among other things, free up a 1.07-acre parcel that is central to the plan.

    The intertwining pieces and parties include the town of Stratford, the city of Bridgeport, the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Army and the former Army Engine Plant and Sikorsky Memorial Airport.

    Among the positives that could come out of this is creation of the long-needed safety zone for a runway at the airport, the re-routing of a small portion of Main Street in Stratford and development of the long unused Stratford Army Engine plant into a movie production and digital imaging facility.

    The safety zone has been frequently mischaracterized as a runway extension. But what will be installed is 300 feet of what’s known as an Engineered Materials Arresting System, which essentially is lightweight, crushable concrete that crumbles under the weight of an airplane and decelerates it.

    As it is now, an airplane that overshoots this particular runway decelerates by running into a fence.

    Remarkably, both Stratford’s mayor, James Miron, and Bridgeport’s, Bill Finch, have praised the judge’s actions in this case. It’s the first thing related to the airport that the two communities have agreed upon in decades. THAT doesn’t tell you something?

    It’s a win-win situation if ever there was one: potential jobs and tax revenue for the town from the rejuvenated plant, elimination of a dicey curve and flooding from the rerouting of Main Street, and, most important, improved safety at the airport.

    The parties need to stand strong and together until the final i’s are dotted and t’s crossed.

    You see, here’s the problem; Bridgeport only promises potential tax revenue and jobs. There is simply no proof of that. What Bridgeport definitely gets is free land, free water, free sewer usage and a free expanded runway. What’s Stratford so upset about, anyway? Lower property values? Lower property tax revenue? Who cares?

    Remember your promise Mayor Harkins. Let’s keep Stratford for Stratford.

  13. 13 1george1

    Remember your promise Mayor Harkins. Let’s keep Stratford for Stratford.

    2005 EPA Bulletin # 44 shows land across from the AIRPORT is a Raymark
    DUMP SITE.
    It is 17 pages for “PE” nuts.
    It has maps and legends locating each dump site and ground water plume.
    It has descriptions of the situations.
    IF there were NO DANGER from GROUND WATER and VOLITILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, then why did the EPA spend over $ 1 million for VENTS /
    ALARMS in 110 residential basements.

    Question?

    If that 250 acre water plume contains a HEALTH DANGER, what about the
    TOXINS in the DUMP SITES across from the Airport runway and leeches
    directly into the MARSH and ……S H O R T B E A C H?
    I hope there is LOWER concentrations of certain Chemicals….

    I wonder why they fired E L A I N E O ‘ K E E F E ??

    I was surprized to learn and confirmed by Marcia Stewartm that Bridgeport already owned certain land on the other side of Main Street.

  14. 14 jezebel282

    Update:

    Let’s see…Finch, Willinger and Kaolian? What could possibly go wromg?

    Judge approves transfer of Sikorsky Airport land for safety zone
    By Michael P Mayko, STAFF WRITER
    Published: 12:46 a.m., Sunday, March 7, 2010

    A federal judge signed off on a settlement agreement that will transfer a little more than an acre of land which will be used to extend a safety zone at the Sikorsky Memorial Airport in Stratford.

    But any safety zone expansion which includes a planned redesign of a section of Stratford’s Main Street won’t happen without a fight from that town, which was denied access as a party to the suit and the settlement talks.

    You betcha.

    “We insisted Bridgeport file a formal certificate on the land records that the 1.075 acres could only be used to extend the runway safety zone and not for any future expansion of the airport,” said Willinger, who with former Bridgeport Mayor Thomas W. Bucci Sr., represents Point Stratford Development. “We want no misunderstanding about that.”

    Chuck, have you seen any of the Nateras lately? Or did you fly down to Mexico?

    When contacted Saturday, Willinger said the settlement will clear the way for closing the sale of the Army Engine plant to Point Stratford. It proposes to build a movie production center and digital imaging studio on the site.

    Really? That’s the story you’re sticking to? You wouldn’t happen to have the $8 MILLION in your escrow account, would you?

    Senior U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. put his signature on an order late Friday afternoon in New Haven closing the case brought last year by Bridgeport Airport Services, Inc., also known as Air Atlantic and the city of Bridgeport. Point Stratford Development, LLC and the U.S. Army also signed off on the deal. The judge did retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. He also commended U.S. Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis for the hours she spent mediating the settlement.

    “This is great news for everyone,” Kaolian said of the settlement. “It’s long overdue.”

    Everyone = Bridgeport and Morgan Kaolian.

    Kaolian said the land will be used in a redesign of a section of Route 113 which is Main Street in Stratford by the state Department of Transportation.

    He said the plans include straightening a dangerous curve and lifting the roadway a foot higher which will reduce, if not, stop flooding in the area.

    “The people of Lordship and Stratford will be very pleased once the project is completed,” he said.

    ROTFLMAO! We should lie back and “enjoy” it?

    But Harkins said the safety zone falls atop Stratford’s main sewer line leading into Lordship.

    “How are we going to access it if there is a problem?” he asked.

    The safety zone constructed at the end of runway 6/24 will consist of an engineered materials arrestor system.

    As part of the settlement, Bridgeport will relocate the sewer line, so it is no longer shared by Bridgeport Airport Services’ hangars and the Army Engine Plant. Additionally, the fire suppression sprinkler system which served both Bridgeport Airport Services and the Army Engine Plant will be redesigned at a cost of about $2 million putting both businesses are on separate lines.

    Bridgeport Airport Services houses about $300 million in aircraft in two hangars near the Army Engine Plant. Without the 4,000 gallon water tank, three pumping systems and pipeline, a jet fuel fire could be a disaster, the company claims.

    Gee, it sounds to me like they weren’t so smart to locate their in the first place. Isn’t that the argument Bridgeport uses against Lordship residents?

    The $2 million expenses are expected to be split three ways between Bridgeport, Point Stratford and Bridgeport Airport Services. Most, if not all of the city’s portion is expected to be advance by Bridgeport Airport Services in exchange for considerations on the lease.

    Collect more money from the Nateras? As Sudds would say, “HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”

    It is expected that construction on the runway extension could begin later this year but will require a section of Main Street in Stratford to be re-routed. Once the zone is completed, ownership will transfer to Bridgeport.

    Finch called the settlement “a tremendous step forward” in Bridgeport’s “unfailing efforts to improve the safety of Sikorsky Airport for the benefit of air crews and passengers, as well as motorists and pedestrians who travel Route 113.”

    And a tremendous step back for Stratford.

    Finch promised Bridgeport “will cooperate fully with the FAA and state Department of Transportation to ensure that the construction work on Route 113 and the safety zone will proceed as rapidly as possible so that accidents at Sikorsky Airport can be averted.”

    In the past decade there have been two accidents, including a fatal at this site.

    Mr. Mayko, a “decade” is ten years. 1994 is 16 years ago.

    In June, 2009, a chartered jet carrying six passengers skidded into a fence bordering the Main Street end of the runway where the safety zone would be increased. None of the passengers were injured. However, a similar accident in 1994 killed eight people.

    “We’ve never approved of this,” said Stratford Mayor John Harkins. “It’s in direct violation of a 1978 agreement in which Bridgeport must first come to talk to us about any expansion.”

    You go, John!

    Harkins said he and the town attorney will look at the settlement and then plot a course of action.

    “We will fight this,” said Harkins. “How can Bridgeport come into Stratford and move our Main Street? What if we came into Bridgeport and started moving parts of their streets into Stratford?”

    Absolutely!

    But others like Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, Morgan Kaolian, a pilot and former airport manager and Charles J. Willinger Jr., a lawyer representing Point Stratford Development LLC (formerly known as Hollywood East/Area 51) which agreed to remove the 1.075 acres from its purchase agreement with the U.S. Army for the now-shuttered Army Engine plant, says it serves a significant purpose to everyone’s safety.

    A condition of the land transfer from the U.S. Army to the Federal Aviation Administration and ultimately to Bridgeport will be a filing on Stratford land records that the 1.075 acres could never be used in any future expansion of the airport.

  15. 15 jezebel282

    Update:

    Bridgeport, Stratford again spar over airport safety zone
    Michael P. Mayko, STAFF WRITER
    Published: 11:21 p.m., Sunday, March 28, 2010

    Three weeks ago, the acre-long expansion of Sikorsky Memorial Airport’s safety zone seemed like a done deal sealed with a federal judge’s blessing.

    But then a flurry of filings in both state and federal court have docket clerk’s heads spinning.

    A week after the March 5 settlement, Stratford filed a breach of contract suit in state court accusing Bridgeport of violating a 1978 agreement by not discussing the expansion.

    A week later, Bridgeport had the case moved to federal court in the hopes of getting it back before Senior U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight Jr.

    Unfortunately for them, the case was randomly assigned to U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton.

    Now Bridgeport has filed a request seeking transfer to Haight, who approved the settlement which would eventually deed the acre to land to Bridgeport. Arterton might approve that this week.

    In the meantime, Stratford filed a motion asking the case be transferred back to state court because there is no federal
    jurisdiction.

    “Our point is this is a violation of a 1978 contract,” Stratford Mayor John Harkins said Sunday. “If they want to increase the size of the safety zone then they are increasing the size of the footprint.”

    Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch denies that’s the case. He repeatedly has said the safety zone expansion is mandated by the federal government and is not a usable area.
    The airport resides in Stratford even though it is owned by Bridgeport.

    “I don’t know of any other municipality or government that would just seize another’s land,” said Harkins. “Bridgeport never even asked us for input. They just took it to court, got their request granted and now want to move forward. Could you imagine the outcry if we wanted to take part of Bridgeport’s Main Street or Park Avenue?”

    At one point Stratford’s Water Pollution Control Authority attempted to intervene before Haight, but never appeared in court. They claim Stratford’s main sewer line trunk lies under the area of Main Street, which will be used for expansion.

    “If the sewer line is damaged or needs repair, access is going to be very difficult,” Harkins said.

    Earlier this month, Finch insisted that would not be an issue and that it would be worked out by the state Department of Transportation, which would oversee the redesign.
    At that time, he said he was hopeful he and Harkins could resolve any differences. That apparently hasn’t happened.

    Bridgeport City Attorney Mark Anastasi could not be reached for comment Sunday.

    The transfer of the acre settled a suit brought against Bridgeport by the Bridgeport Airport Services, also known as Air Atlantic. As part of the settlement, Bridgeport will relocate a sewer line so it is no longer shared by Bridgeport Airport Services’ hanger and the Army Engine Plant. The sprinkler system will also be redesigned so it is no longer shared by the two facilities.

    Charles Willinger Jr., the lawyer for Point Stratford Development, said Sunday he expects his client will close on the purchase of the Army Engine Plant “on or about June 29.”

    June 29th? What year?
    Note to GSA: wait until the check clears before handing the Nateras the keys.

  16. 16 1george1

    I am unsure if I posted or not?

    Bruce Allessie told the economic development commission that it was his
    understanding the army gave the nateras a drop dead date of june 26.

    I am curious as to why and how, Allen christopher became connected with
    Nateras
    Republicans
    Democrats
    Army
    Berchem

    Why do we still use Berchem, with costs to stratford on so many issues?
    Animal Shelter
    Airport
    AVCO
    SHAKESPEARE
    Animal Shelter
    Raymark
    Pensions
    Health Insurance
    Attorney fees
    Bidding
    Change Orders
    Contracts
    more

  17. 17 1george1

    Jeze,
    In your first question about shared ownership with Bridgeport,
    I would prefer 100 % ownership.

    Attorney Fees cost would go down, and partially payment.

    The Feds and State should pay Bridgeport, as part of the money they owe
    for unfunded mandates and take away all town debt..

    Sorry for the delay.
    Sorry to give a direct answwer to your direct question. 😉

  18. 18 jezebel282

    Update:

    Public debates airport safety zone at FAA hearing
    Brittany Lyte, Staff Writer
    Published: 08:35 p.m., Thursday, September 23, 2010

    STRATFORD — The installation of a runway safety zone at Sikorsky Memorial Airport would require a redesign of Main Street and could disturb wetlands and expose toxic soil and groundwater, according to a federal report.

    Yay! More toxic soil and groundwater! We just never have enough of that.

    Stratford Mayor John A. Harkins expressed his discontent with the project and with federal officials’ treatment of Stratford residents as “second-class citizens” in failing to include the town at the bargaining table in matters concerning the airport.

    “Runway safety is important,” he said. “If Stratford is forced to put up with an airport over which we have no control, we’d prefer that airport be safe. But safety improvements must be done in a way that is acceptable to this community. … I understand Bridgeport is economically distressed. However, that does not give anyone the right to march into this community, take our land, hurl insults at us and tell us what to do.”

    He added, “Until such a time as the FAA and (Bridgeport) recognize that Stratford is not their plaything, I will use every resource at my disposal to tie this up in court.”

    You go, John!

  19. 19 1george1

    Yesterday I could not spend any time verifying Ron’s post (i believe true)
    about a Stratford Zoning Public Hearing on Airport environmental impact.

    If it did happen,
    1 – Why did it not have the same publicity as in Star + Post?
    2 – Why were J Kovach + B Lyte at the Ramada and not at Town Hall?
    3 – Why were J Harkins + K Kelly at the Ramada and not at Town Hall?
    A – They could have spoken first at one and been able to speak later
    at the other.
    B – Why was there no notice to people at Ramada about the other?

    If J Harkins + K Kelly (Attorney on the 1+ care title to Bridgeport) did NOT
    know about both Public Hearings, what does that say about communications
    and competence?

    If J Harkins + K Kelly (Attorney on the 1+ care title to Bridgeport) KNEW
    about both Public Hearings, what does that say about communications
    and HONESTY?

    Every couple years there are 2 major meetings held simultaneously and
    it seems the more important one gets less publicity and attendance?

    I wonder why? 😦

  20. 20 ronmoreau

    Hello George, I was refering to the Ramada hearing.

  21. 21 1george1

    RON,
    Thanks for clarifying as I just confirmed there was NO ZONING
    PUBLIC HEARING in TOWN HALL.

    I ask all readers to write to FAA against AIRPORT expansion
    I ask all readers to write to EPA against RAYMARK Consolidation
    on the BALL FIELD and to remove ALL (or reasojnably most toxins)
    from Stratford.

    If you do not write and they act because of insufficient opposition
    you can only blame yourselves.

  22. 22 ronmoreau

    From these archives…

    Looking for answers about airport
    Connecticut Post Staff
    Article Last Updated: 11/10/2008 05:15:30 PM EST

    The Sikorsky Memorial Airport Advisory Committee has completed its third and final meeting regarding the expansion of the airport runways. I attended the meeting and it was an eye-opener, to say the least.

    The advisory committee won’t use the word “expansion” because members feel “safety areas” is more appropriate. Whatever terminology is used, the idea is to extend and pave the runways to put the safety material on top. The committee cannot guarantee that the safety areas will remain and never be changed to accommodate larger aircraft.

    With or without safety areas, the hangers have been approved and the airport’s terminal is being replaced. If they are true to their word and if the safety areas remain, residents will never be able to use the airport for commercial jet flights. If for some reason the safety areas are removed to accommodate larger aircraft, the noise and pollution will be unbearable.

    This is a no-win situation for Stratford. According the committee’s brochure, “The airport will develop as a general aviation airport, serving both business jets and single and twin engine aircraft.” With the plan, Bridgeport will receive paved runways that are currently in poor condition, compliments of the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition to the runways being paved, the moving of Main Street will be paid for by the state. That’s a great deal for Bridgeport and the corporate airlines. Once again, what’s in it for Stratford?

    The advisory committee used the word “assumptions” in their brochure and presentation. One is the expansion of Runway 24 by 400 feet and moving Main Street. Another assumption is to lengthen Runway 29 by 600 feet. They say Runway 29 will be completed at a later date. Will that be years, months or days? Once again, the runways have to be extended and paved to put the safety material at each end.

    The advisory committee should get its priorities in order and install radar, which is long overdue, along with repaving the existing runways. If safety is such a concern, why are the Gulfstream IV’s flying in and out of Sikorsky now, without radar or safety areas and poor runways?

    The advisory committee announced there will be a public hearing in December. Concerned residents should attend and ask about what changes are in the best interest of Stratford. You can decide for yourself about assumptions and reality.

    I urge the Town Council to reject this proposal and demand that the existing runways be paved and radar be installed before the expansion/safety areas are discussed. This is a serious safety problem and should be addressed now! Progress is good as long as it profits Stratford and not just Bridgeport and corporate airline owners.

    When I moved to Lordship, it was a small airport serving the area with single and twin engine aircraft. U.S. Airlines Turboprops provided a relatively quiet commercial service to Philadelphia. Then the corporate jets arrived, bringing noise and pollution. Did the Lordship residents expect this when they moved here? I doubt it!

    Charles Bitzer

    Stratford

    Food for thought.

  23. 23 ronmoreau

    “U.S. Airlines Turboprops provided a relatively quiet commercial service to Philadelphia.”

    Those ‘ relatively quiet ‘ turboprops (the ALF502) were manufactured right across the street by many of us.

  24. 24 ronmoreau

    The following from the,

    “Draft Written Reevaluation
    for the
    Environmental Impact Statement
    aip 03-09 0002-26
    Igor I. Sikorsky Airport
    Stratford,Connecticut”….

    “On March 9,2001 a single engine aircraft OVERRAN the runway while landing and struck the non-frangible blast fence (see appendix h). On April 23,2004, the NTSB reached out to the town of Stratford by writing that it “strongly urges the town of Stratford to agree to the ‘approved airport layout plan. The board believes that the failure to do so imposes an unnecessary and avoidable safety risk…”

    “overran the runway”

    How does that make it Stratfords problem?

  25. 25 jezebel282

    Ron,

    “How does that make it Stratfords problem?”

    It doesn’t.

    They seem to always leave this out. The airport has a functional Instrument Landing Sytem. Would you like to guess where it points you when it is necessary (in bad weather/poor visibility)? Right at the blast fence.

    There are three other alternatives that end in either a field or water. So…tell us again; who’s fault is it?

  26. 26 1george1

    Ron,
    good posts

  27. 27 jezebel282

    Update:

    Here we go again. The CT Post never fails to blame Stratford for anything that happens at this airport.

    Don’t wait for airport tragedy
    Published 04:01 p.m., Monday, June 27, 2011

    Another two people are lucky to be alive after their plane clipped a dangerous fence at Sikorsky Memorial Airport on Saturday, severing a wing and starting a fire.
    On-the-spot firefighters from Stratford and Bridgeport extricated the pilot and a passenger.
    Since no one was killed this time, it’s fine that bickering over removal of that fence and replacing it with a safety zone can drone on for a few more years.
    Urgency will come, apparently, when the next pilot or passenger is actually incinerated in a wreck on the fence — as happened in 1994 when a plane crashed into the fence and eight people died in the ensuing inferno.
    That this fence stands is simply shameful.
    That the Federal Aviation Administration has not taken control of the situation is shameful.
    That critics fight against safety by misrepresenting creation of a safety zone as “expansion” of the airport is most shameful of all.
    Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Don-t-wait-for-airport-tragedy-1442340.php#ixzz1QfLBC76e

    Sigh….

    Here is what is shameful; erecting a steel barricade at the end of that runway. Who the hell did that? Oh yeah, Bridgeport. Maybe it’s shameful not to have a single controller on duty while planes continue to land in any environment. Who decided that? Oh yeah, Bridgeport. Even more shameful is not having any emergency personnel on duty at the airport. Again, Bridgeport.

    Oh, and then there is that flooding of Main Street every time a raindrop falls. Shameful. Who’s fault is that?

    DEP says Sikorsky Airport tide gates need to be fixed
    Written by John Kovach
    Thursday, 02 July 2009

    The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued notices of violation to Sikorsky Memorial Airport and the city of Bridgeport regarding tide gates near the airport.
    “They’re going after Bridgeport to fix their tide gate,” said Stratford Councilman Thomas Moore.
    Sikorsky Memorial Airport Manager John Ricci said that Bridgeport was talking with the DEP, and that repairs to the area would most likely be coupled with safety improvements to the city-owned airport that is located entirely in Stratford.
    According to a May 19 letter, the violations were found during inspections of property between Sniffens Lane and Dorne Drive in Stratford conducted Oct. 29, 2008 and April 1, 2009.
    One notice cites the airport and its owner, the city of Bridgeport, and its consultant on proposals to add runoff areas to runways.

    Shameful.

  28. 28 phineast

    It doesn’t matter where you put the damn fence-if there is no one manning the tower to let the pilot know he is flying too low or he can’t see for himself we will still continue to have situations of pilot error. My worry is if the configuration is changed and it alters the flight path even a little, and we have that same scenario of “pilot error”, it will create an even larger danger to the public by putting condos/housing in the line of fire…literally. I have said for years there is technology that can trigger a gate opening if a plane is gonna fly into it–it sure would be much cheaper to do that than to pee money the state doesn’t have to move a road. Politicians are idiots and lobbyists are crooks…or is it the other way around?

  29. 29 jezebel282

    Phin,

    “there is technology that can trigger a gate opening if a plane is gonna fly into it”

    Amazing! You mean a pilot could remotely trigger the fence to go down if he thinks he will hit it? Like a garage door? Maybe even put up a couple of traffic lights to stop cars if the fence goes down?

    That sounds way too easy for a life saving technology. It will never happen.

  30. 30 1george1

    JEZE: “That sounds way too easy for a life saving technology.
    It will never happen.”

    GEO: This IS STRATFORD!

    I saw something about the STATE + AIRPORTS ….
    Have a BAD FEELIN bout dat!

  31. 31 1george1

    In CT POST FRIDAY.

    There’s absolutely nothing preventing Bridgeport from removing the “safety fence” at Sikorsky Airport used to stop airplanes overrunning runways.

    However, aircraft carriers have shorter runways than Sikorsky Airport. They don’t use crash fence or EMAS (engineered arrestor materials system) to stop jets, do they?

    What would happen if pilots mistakenly land on the EMAS?

    How does an airplane hit a fence about 30 inches below warning lights above the fence?

    Air traffic controllers’ shift ends 10 p.m. There’s no radar (estimated cost under $2,000). Isn’t that reckless by Bridgeport?

    Bridgeport wants a judge’s award of an acre of land to extend the (safety) area or runway (once they own property). Will larger jets endanger Stratford lives, due to likely future crash?

    Don’t Bridgeport and Stratford’s political history suggests lack of credibility?

    Isn’t this preponderantly, self evident, pilot error?

    George Mulligan

    Jeze: I added to your fine comments on the the Mary Brown CT POST
    STORY. Good Job!
    Ron and others, perhaps you can write your displeasure or pleasure?

  32. 32 1george1

    The above Letter in the CT POST was editted.

    I was told last Monday the Manchester Journal inquirer intended
    to publish the below letter.

    A pending Letter to the Editor in the Star is 250 words with 250
    words to reply to Joe Pedoto, whose sarcastic support and mocking
    my parody of my mocking allusions about political Morlock had me
    laughing out loud.
    Joe never gets facts right. However, at least he takes positions!
    I felt he accidently reinforced some of my positions while mocking
    the concept, which I loved.
    Several strangers approached me, thanked me for standing up for
    them and stratford and did not like Joe’s gibes.
    * I am fine with getting mocked by Joe, since I dish it, I take it in stride.
    * I loved Joe’s comments about reality show and Eloi tasting like chicken.
    * His description of HG WELLS Morlocks was accurate, but he was the
    one descibing the RTC and DTC as ape like creatures … NOT ME!
    * Only little green men I have ever seen are on March 17th. 😉
    ———–
    I have yet to see the copy from the MJI, published:

    Defense-less Tax Payers, or Plane Truth?
    June 25 Sunset was 8:31. At 10:10 pm Sikorsky Airport Plane crash, hitting Bridgeport owned runway’s end fence.
    We pray for minimal injuries! Air Traffic controllers shift ends 10:00 pm.

    Hmmmm? Was this contrived? Isn’t this preponderantly, self evident, “pilot error?”

    Bridgeport wants judge’s award 1 acre of land, from Stratford’s
    AVCO SAEP, to extend runway (safety) area?
    Bridgeport and Stratford used same law firms for AVCO and/or
    Airport. I can’t figure who represents whom? Not resolving issues,
    perpetuates billings, costing Tax Payers.

    (Aren’t Judges, lawyers, government personnel, and politicians a reinforcing fraternity? Or are they a criminal enterprise?)

    Bridgeport-Stratford political History? Mayor Ganim & Rep Newton
    jailed.
    Mayor Fabrizi admitted cocaine use. Democratic Party chairman
    Miron alleged $ 80,000 tombstone deadbeat! Both un-jailed?

    Bridgeport & Stratford were arsenals of Democracy, with Barnum
    Festival and Shakespearian stage cultural commerce.

    Otherwise successful business people can’t (don’t want to?) eliminate attorney billing issues and create economic engines:
    Eliminate Airport issues; Rebuild Bridgeport’s East Side (1970s-now); Reopen Shakespeare Theater (1983-now);
    Rebuild Pleasure Beach Bridge (1996-now); Open AVCO since 1996/1998; Complete Raymark remediation (1999-now);
    coincidental “government pension kiting” began 1996-1999? Stratford and Bridgeport have Trillion Dollar development pending.

    Although an Independent, I respect real Democrats and Republicans.
    I no longer believe Barnum-esq political science fiction, staged events,
    or apparently legitimate press releases of government and political surrogates, to be the whole truth.

    What’s the whole, plain truth for defense-less Tax Payers?


    JEZE will be smilin about my reference to a certain person,
    as JEZE begrudgingly moves this posting …

    Actually, I may have accidently posted in the RIGHT STRING?

    Accidents happen …….. 😉

  33. 33 phineast

    George- we all know it is all about who is going to get the most money on the “projects” involved and how the money will be steered…

    If you take the money out of the project, my question is will they still be pounding the drums for safety for such a quick and easy fix????????

    For years I have said that when a plane is approaching, landing gates should be lowered to stop traffic-much like what is done on the bridge when it is raised. If the state is TRULY concerned about safety it would start by fixing the tide gate and putting in driver safety gates. It should force BPT to man the tower 24/7/365 if it is open on those days and force them to have radar to help prevent PILOT ERROR. it is cheap and easy to have a MASH fence installed that is a soft flexible material that immediately collapses from any type of impact. or the old standby of the electronic gate opening upon every single approach..but someone has to be in the tower to make that work. Cheap and easy solutions that will not only save lives but save the taxpayers a fortune —which means there will be no political plums to hand out—so lets see if they are really concerned……

  34. 34 1george1

    Hi Phin,
    1 – Happy July 4th
    2 – agree with plums and patronage
    3 – agree with gates.
    4 – agree with lack of real concern about safety
    5 – i make typos too … understandable

  35. 35 phineast

    Enjoy your 4th as well!

  36. 36 jezebel282

    Phin,

    Safety is not the issue at the airport. It never has been. If it were, the FAA or the NTSB would have ordered it shut down. What is at issue are insurance companies. They will not insure larger aircraft until the runway is lengthened. End of story.

    If it were actually safety, a movable gate would indeed solve the problem along with manning the tower. As it is, a pilot can remotely turn on the runway lights with a few clicks of his microphone when the tower is unmanned. Having a gate (pick your material) that drops into a trench and turns on a couple of traffic lights is not a leap in technology. No gate, no problem. It solves the crashing into a steel wall problem, provides a blast fence and maintains the airport in it’s current footprint.

    It does not solve the problem of having a runway that insurance companies would like. Thus, the discussion will continue forever.

  37. 37 1george1

    SUNDAY JULY 3 CT POST
    B 3 Bottom of Page – Story by AP Associated Press

    “MALLOY signs law creating state airport agency”

    A non verfiable source advised me July 2 of pending story
    on JULY 3 that i would initially hate, but come to recognize
    that is “absolutely” the best solution.

    I asked a local press person who did not believe it would
    affect Sikorsky Airport.

    On June 27, Manchester Journal Inquirer publsihed my Letter
    to the Airport about the crash and Trillion $$ Bridgeport and
    Stratford Economic Development.

    I favor intelligent and fair economic development.

    History of Stratford, Bridgeport, CORRUPTicut, and FEDS
    indicate likelihood of lengthened runaway to increase Cocaine
    Traffic to certain ex-Mayors/Mayor and their friends?
    .

  38. 38 jezebel282

    Bridgeport sued in Sikorsky airport crash
    Michael P. Mayko, Staff Writer
    Updated 07:42 a.m., Thursday, October 27, 2011
    Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Bridgeport-sued-in-Sikorsky-airport-crash-2237767.php#ixzz1cAlZVGHj

    “…”The city is negligent in not following the recommendations of the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board to remove the steel girder-supported blast wall and replace it with a frangible wall designed to give way when struck,” Kearns said.
    Additionally Kearns said there are no warning lights on the blast wall to alert aircraft approaching the runway. There are a series of red lights elevated on poles to the east of Runway 24. But Kearns said those lights in poor visibility conditions create the illusion that a pilot “could continue to descend for landing, when in fact the aircraft was several feet from the runway and had not cleared the blast wall.”

    Can we end this debate now? There is no requirement for a “safety” area.

  39. 39 1george1

    I chuckled reading Chris Barnaby’s Letter to the Editor in the Star.

    I suspected it was ghosted by Kevin Kelly (Chris’s campaign manager)
    who put in those lawyerly references and official looking acronyms of
    different agencies.Other than that it looked like they lifted a couple of
    the KEY points I made about “public safety” and the airport.

    I will post what the CT POST editors refuse to run.

  40. 40 1george1

    Here I post what the CT POST editors refuse to run:

    October 14, 2011 228 Word Letter to the Editor, including title
    Safety horizons version 3
    George E. Mulligan, 429 Housatonic Avenue, Stratford, CT. 06615
    ..
    Safety horizons
    ..
    I believe “greed” (related to 16 year Development plans for
    Bridgeport, Stratford and Valley), not “safety” is the causal
    reason for “expanding the footprint” of Bridgeport’s owned
    “Sikorski Airport.”
    ..
    If the issue is “safety,” why don’t the expansion supporters
    and CT POST’S “opinions” about Sikorsky Airport and
    “safety” ever mention the following?
    ..
    Stratford has “safety” issues against airplane crashes, for
    Residents, Business, and Public Sector!
    ..
    “Safety issue,” of “no Radar,” since air traffic controlers’
    binoculars can’t see in dark or fog? Radar can be very
    inexpensively piggy backed.
    ..
    Powerful, new, “safer,” cost effective engines, and planes
    and and take off with shorter needs.
    ..
    Bridgeport owns the safety fence.
    (Then complains about safety, caused by their own fence?)
    ..
    NO evening security (safety) people to prevent smuggling
    drugs or (unlikely) terrorists or (illegal) aliens (gasp!).
    ..
    Raymark asbestos dumpsite, is at runway’s end across
    Route 113 (Hardcopy EPA Bulletin # 44)!
    ..
    Public “safety” related to Bridgeport’s (negligence or
    recklessness?) control of not repairing the tide gates
    flooding the Route 113 at the Airport runway’s end?
    ..
    Hurricane Irene evening, “police blocked Route 113”
    because the road flooded (safety), exasperated by
    tidal gates not being fixed for a decade.
    Police electronic sign at AVCO SAEP stated
    “evacuation in progress.” Sign didn’t state “voluntary”
    because the sign lacked room.

  41. 41 jezebel282

    Update:

    Plane skids off runway at Sikorsky Airport

    No one was injured when a plane skidded off the runway at Sikorsky Memorial Airport Friday, June 15.
    http://stratfordstar.com/news/73581-plane-skids-off-runway-at-sikorsky-airport.html

    Move Main Street! Get rid of the blast fence! Make the runway longer!
    Wait a minute…what? The pilot screwed up? Again? A different runway? Damn!
    Never mind.

  42. 42 1george1

    JEZE – You know your BLOG far better than I do.
    The above comments are too appro ….

    I’m sorry I can’t match all of your druthers, but I think it fair
    to be able to answer comments in a blog string, then copy
    and paste all but the first sentance, and move to my area.

    Short post within string … I get to REBUT, REINFORCE, COMMENT,
    FAIR COMPROMISE.

    Please go to upgrade 3.0 to see the latest Airplane crash today.

    Or … just check the LINK JEZE provided and I don’t know how to
    access, from the original site / poster

  43. 43 1george1

    Airplane was never airborne and had BRAKE FAILURE.

    Without BRAKES, I’m surprises the airplane didn’t bump the fence.

  44. 44 jezebel282

    Update:

    Did anyone think Bridgeport was giving up trying to steal more land from Stratford?

    Bridgeport to sell airport property for $850,000
    Michael P. Mayko
    Updated 11:56 p.m., Monday, October 15, 2012

    BRIDGEPORT –The City Council approved the sale Monday night of a small portion of land at Sikorsky Memorial Airport for $850,000 to a limited liability corporation involving three developers convicted in the corruption scandal that sent former Mayor Joseph P. Ganim to prison.

    The sale also requires a $50,000 contribution by 125 Access Road LLC, made up of Alfred Lenoci Jr.; Michael Schinella, his uncle; Donald Sherman; and Matthew Vetro. That contribution will be used to renovate, restore, repair and maintain the Corsair airplane and monument located at the airport, which is based in Stratford but owned by the city.

    Schinella, Lenoci and Lenoci’s father all pleaded guilty to charges which included providing gifts to Ganim in exchange for development approvals.

    Mayor Bill Finch said the sale involves a small parcel of property that the city leased for 100 years to the group’s limited liability corporation.
    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-to-sell-airport-property-for-850-000-3951315.php#ixzz29YM957J7

    Maybe it’s not possible to find developers in Bridgeport that haven’t been convicted of something.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: