C.A.R.E
Citizens Against Runway Expansion


On Jun 21, 2007, I wrote this to Gary Boetcher, who is the president of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, voicing my concern for the safety of passengers, crews and ground personnel, because the proposed runway will be elevated at both ends.

On the west end, the runway will be elevated to clear the interstate highway that borders the airport. Between the end of the runway and the interstate, there is a 100' wide canal. and in my opinion, this elevation provides a perfech launching ramp to put an airplane either in the canal or onto the highway if the airplane should overshoot the runway.

At the opposite end, the runway will be elevated 46', making landing from the east a downgrade situation which will require more power to bring the aircraft to a safe stop.

----- Original Message -----
From: Grant Campbell
To: Gary Boettcher
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: FLL expansion

On June 5, 2007, The Broward County Commission voted to extend runway 9R 27L at Fort Lauderdale International Airport. This expansion has been said to be unsafe by at least two commercial airline pilots because of the amount of slope required to span the FEC Railroad tracks and US1 at the eastern portion of the runway, and because of the elevation required at the west end of the runway to provide vertical clearance for Interstate 95.

A sloped runway in itself seems difficult to negotiate safely, but when it is elevated at both ends, is only 8000 feet long and only 150 feet wide, it seems to this outsider, to be a tragic event waiting to happen.

The proposed alternative north runway expansion would have been the safer option because it would be at a ground level elevation. None of the options available to FLL will accommodate the NLA, or group VI aircraft that will soon dominate air traffic, which to me, makes any expansion absolutely fruitless, when one considers that FLL will never be able to handle the envisioned air traffic.

I am asking the CAPA to rally against this costly and absolutely useless expansion, and please advise the FAA that the 9R 27L expansion represents indeterminate safety concerns.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Grant Campbell


Mr. Boetcher responded:

Grant,

Thank you for writing with your concern. The FAA performance criteria for each of the three climb segments must be met in order for an a/c to land on a respective runway. Simply put, not all a/c may be able to land and/or takeoff on the proposed runway as each aircraft have different performance characteristics.

We land commercial a/c on runways only 5500 feet long with varying degrees of slope on both ends. What may be unsafe for a particular a/c could be perfectly safe for another.

Unless I see some numbers I cannot either oppose or affirm the FLL plans based on your assertions. Is this really a noise complaint issue?

Best regards,
Gary Boettcher
CAPA President


My response was:

No Sir, it is far from a noise issue. See what 2 airline pilots had to sat at the meeting prior to the ratification of the expansion.

MY NAME IS MIKE MCKEEVER.

I'M A 19 - YEAR CAPTAIN WITH A MAJOR COMMERCIAL AIRLINE. I'VE FLOWN THE 727, THE MD 80, THE FOLKER 100, THE BEING 737,757, AND THE BEING 768 & BEFORE THAT, I WAS IN THE AIR FORCE FLYING JET AIRCRAFT AND HELICOPTERS. I'VE NEVER ENCOUNTERED A RUNWAY DESIGN SUCH AS THE DESIGN OF THE SOUTH PROPOSED RUNWAY. WHEN I DISCOVERED IT WAS GOING TO BE ELEVATED ON THE WEST END, I WAS SURPRISED. I WAS IN CREDULOUS.

I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL OF THE PILOTS I FLY WITH. WHEN THEY REALIZE THAT'S THE DESIGN, THEY ALSO ARE AMAZED

THIS IS A POTENTIAL CATASTROPHE WAITING TO HAPPEN. THE CONSULTANTS WITH THE EIS SAID THAT OTHER RUNWAYS DO THE SAME SORT OF THING. I CAN'T THINK OF ONE MAJOR COMMERCIAL AIRPORT RUNWAY IN THE U.S. THAT DOES THAT.

THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE ROADWAYS THAT GO UNDER A RUNWAY, BUT THE RUNWAY ITSELF IS PREDOMINANTLY AT AIRPORT ELEVATION. THE ROADWAY IS WHAT IS NOT AT AIRPORT ELEVATION.

COMING IN FROM THE WEST, THIS WILL BE LIKE LANDING ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER. FRANKLY, I KNOW SEVERAL GUYS WHO HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD NOT USE THIS RUNWAY. I WOULD NOT USE THIS RUNWAY. I WOULD LOVE TO GO INTO MUCH MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE COST ASPECTS, ABOUT THE OPTIONS.

I THINK THIS IS AN UNNECESSARY EXPANSION. I THINK THIS IS A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY, BUT IT IS A COMPLETELY FLAWED DESIGN. IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS, YOU WILL BE VOTING FOR THE ALBATROSS OF AIRPORT RUNWAYS. THIS IS THE EDSEL OF THE AIRPORT DESIGN WORLD.


MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON. I RESIDE AT 745 NORTHWEST 12TH AVENUE IN DANIA BEACH. I AM CURRENTLY A BOEING TRIPLE 7 CAPTAIN FLYING INTERNATIONAL FOR ONE OF THE LARGEST AIR CARRIERS OUT OF FORT LAUDERDALE.

I HAVE FLOWN CONTINUOUSLY FOR THIS AIRLINE SINCE 1978. BEFORE MY PRESENT JOB, I FLEW FOR THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE FOR SEVEN YEARS AND PRIOR TO THAT CIVILIAN PILOT FOR FOUR YEARS. THIS AMOUNT TO NEARLY 40 YEARS AND OVER 15,000 HOURS OF FLIGHT EXPERIENCE.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I OPPOSE THE B1 C RUNWAY DESIGN DUE TO SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS. THE ALTERNATIVE B1 C8,000 FEET RUNWAY WITH ITS .6 PERCENT UPHILL GRADIENT TO THE EAST IS UNSUITABLE FOR ALL AIRCRAFT 300,000 POUNDS GROSS TAKEOFF WEIGHT. THIS INCLUDES WIDE BODY AIRCRAFT LIKE THE BEING 767 AND AIR BUS. WITH HEAVY RAIN AND STRONG CROSSWIND, THIS RUNWAY WOULD BE DANGEROUS FOR ANY AIRCRAFT.

HERE AT FORT LAUDERDALE, THE PREFERRED NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE DIRECTION IS TO THE EAST OVER PORT EVERGLADES, AND UNFORTUNATELY ALSO JOHN U. LLOYD STATE PARK.

IF THE SPONSORS B1 C DESIGN IS IMPLEMENTED THIS WOULD REQUIRE FOR DEPARTURE AN UPHILL TAKEOFF. CONVERSELY, THE PREFERRED NOISE ABATEMENT DIRECTION FOR LANDING IS TO THE WEST WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A DOWNHILL LANDING. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS EXACTLY OPPOSITE WHAT MOST ALL PILOTS FLYING OUR AIRCRAFT WOULD ELECT TO DO IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY OF THEIR PASSENGERS AND CREW, AND THAT INCLUDES THE COMMISSIONERS. I PERSONALLY WOULD REFUSE TAKING OFF UPHILL OR LANDING DOWNHILL UNLESS MY AIRCRAFT'S WEIGHT WERE EXTREMELY LIGHT AND THEN ONLY ON A DRY RUNWAY WITH NO TAIL WIND COMPONENT. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE OTHER AIRPORTS IN THE NATION THAT HAVE SLOPED RUNWAY. SHOW ME A RUNWAY IN THE UNITED STATES WITH A 6 PERCENT OR GREATER GRADIENT THAT IS SERVED BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REGIONAL JET.


Based on these two statements alone, I would vote against this alternative, but there are other negative considerations as well, not the leasr of which is cost. Unfortunately, that is the driving factor behind the decision to opt for the B1 alternative.It is the most costly. Greed cannot be satisfied with a less expensive alternative, and the more money involved in a project, the more pockets that cn be lined.

Please feel free to respond to this post, or if you would like to join C.A.R.E. please email me at grantcampbell_1@yahoo.com and say you are opposed to this flawed expansion plan at FLL.

I will not use your email address for any reason, but I will add your electonic signature to a petition to stop this nonsense. Together, we can make an impact!