Home
Democratic Committee
Aero-Bull
In reply to Mr. Paler's letter of 9/2/99, I'd
like to, yet
again, exasperatingly, make the following
corrections: (1) Mr. Paler states that I was "scaring the public
about the Gulfstream 5" Fact is, all I did was state that the Ford
Motor Company's Gulfstream 5 (G-V) had visited our
airport and was the first G-V ever to do so.
And in doing so, just happened to be the largest aircraft to ever visit
our airport. By coincidence I took off in my aircraft (a Piper Arrow
2) directly behind, and, for the first time ever at East Hampton Airport,
I was delayed 3 minutes because of
self-imposed wake turbulence departure minimums.
You really should have seen her takeoff. It was an awesome display
of power and state-of-the-art aviation technology. (2) Mr.
Paler states that the G-V could have landed
on runway 10/28 prior to it's reconstruction
to 100' width, "but did not exist prior to the end 1998". Fact is,
that the Gulfstream 5 existed in 1995 and the following Gulfstream 5's
have been privately registered continuously with the FAA since 1996:
N300L, N777GV, N636MF, N158AF
and N313RG. In total there are 84 Gulfstream
5's currently registered in the United States. This information is
readily available on the internet (http://www.avweb.com) to anyone who
would like to do homework on the subject they speak on. (3)
Mr. Paler states that the fact that "the aircraft did not make its turn
on the far taxiway is irrelevant to its size". I submit, as I did
in my article 2 weeks ago, that it would not have had to go through all
those gyrations if it was not in danger of taking out a sign or tree because
of it's magnificent 94' wingspan. In contrast my Arrow's wingspan
is 32'6". Remember the issue of the 75' wide runway? Once again,
I'm not an anti-aircraft/anti-airport activist. I love aviation and
everything about it. As a resident of East Hampton, however, I will
have my say as to what I believe our airport should resemble and I believe
that this aircraft and those of this class should not be here. (4)
Mr. Paler states that "the noise level of the G-V has been proven to be
no higher than the G-IV". Fact is, he may be right, I haven't got
the slightest idea. However, based on the fact that everything else
Mr. Paler had stated in his letter last week is wrong, and there was an
eyewitness, Mr. O'Neill, at the departure end of the runway at the
time who complained about increased noise in the issue of 2 weeks ago,
my money would be on, noisier. (5) Mr. Paler states that
I am an FAA Air Traffic Controller. Partially true. I am an
FAA Air Traffic Control Supervisor. Besides maintaining operational
currency on an active radar position, just like the air traffic controller
who works for me, my job duties involve many other things. Managing
a portion of the Northeast Corridor and providing the best ATC service
to our users, you, is my number 1 priority. I am especially proud
of the 350 highly dedicated controllers who have worked with and for me
for the past 18 years and invite anyone interested in seeing how our airspace
system works in "real-time" to come and visit. You can e-mail requests
to me at aviator@bonac.com and I'll arrange a day and time. (6)
Lastly, Mr. Paler speaks on behalf of the East Hampton Aviation Association
and states that he and his associates are "very puzzled and can only wonder
at my true motivation". I can only respond that I couldn't give a
hoot as to what the East Hampton Aviation Association is puzzled about.
My true motivation, should there be any further doubt, is to make the East
Hampton Airport, our airport, the best little airport in the great state
of New York and I invite everyone interested in this endeavor to let their
voice be heard both here, in this forum, and to our local representatives
and candidates. Let your voices be heard. Otherwise, as you
can see by Mr. Paler's and the East Hampton Aviation Association's lack
of research, and proficiency in guesswork, you'll only be exposed to aero-bull.
Sincerely,
Barry W. Leach