Originally Posted by jdkirkk
There are trade-offs in almost every area of our country today between environmental considerations and cultural growth of various kinds, a move I support. I grew up in rural southern Indiana and my Great Grandfather plowed behind a mule, not as efficient as the H Farmall I drove as a kid but certainly more environmentally conscious. I now live in Santa Barbara, CA, and every project of almost any kind starts with concern for the environment.
After the Korean deal ended I was transferred to a base outside Falmouth, MA. I found the locals very friendly, partied heavily, even dated a gal from Ipswich, MA, and did the tourist bit around Concord and Lexington. Well remembered is a graveyard behind the Unitarian Church on the Green in Lexington, a graveyard that contained whole families of children that had died in some epidemic.
That was in the fifties and I’m sure the area has changed, but it was very pretty, and worth a struggle to protect the remaining beauty.
When G-IV N121JM started its TO roll it was just like hundreds of other takeoffs, but this one ended broken in a ravine where it stopped suddenly from 100 mph and the fuel load didn’t have far to go to find ignition. I notice the entry door was open and it is possible that Teresa Bernhoff might have had time to open that door before her world ended.
Had the flight used Rwy 29 instead of 11 they would probably have survived because there was no ditch/river waiting, and even a cleared road leading through the trees. Still, once the airplane lost its gear and was sliding along on it bottom, ruptured fuel tanks would have probably occurred, but the fuel would not have been so concentrated in one place. The what – ifs do not replace the facts that some good folks died and a good airplane is a pile of junk. The locals helped make that choice..
What I have learned upfront from this tragedy is that the ditches off the ends of the runways at the Santa Barbara Airport SBA should be modified, just in case, and that’s more important than saving the tree frog, or whatever, and a campaign to do just that is now underway.
A better approach would be to determine why this particular aircraft could not fly over the runway end, instead of crashing beyond it. The reason for that is the cause of the tragedy, not the wetlands and forest.
The runway did meet all applicable safety requirements, and actually as lengthened many years ago, which provides additional safety to departing aircraft that do not need over 7,000 feet of runway.
If the proximity of the runway to wetlands and forest are found too dangerous to support jet aircraft, the locals would be more than happy to simply support closing the runway to such aircraft (legally it likely would have to be based on gross weight).
Your information from wikipedia is interesting, but reads like it was written by Massport during the Logan Airport 13/31 saga. (and likely was). It completely misses the politics of the public surrounding this public airport. Remember, these are the same folks who were in hysterics when public stimulus money was used to repair the existing taxiways a few years ago and are still pretty sore that a third FBO is about to open. (their reasoning is that fixed cracks allow more jets to taxi, and more FBOs mean more noise over the historical national park that is adjacent).
Remember, although the politically stuffed Massport steamrolls the local towns on many issues, they certainly do have some sway over the local airport. And they are unlikely to support environmental damage to the wetlands that feed town wells, even if laws permitted that. Remember this is the same airport where local towns attempted (and nearly succeeded) in preventing the removal of tree growth into the approach path for runway 23, which IS on airport property.
And do not think that for one second that locals "made the choice" to put that runway there or decided to relocate the river to where it is today. They did not. You could make a similar claim that the aircraft owner "made the choice" not to have a drogue parachute to stop the aircraft in the event of a high speed abort.
Hanscom was built by the state during a prelude to war, improved by the Army/Air Force during WW II, and returned to the state post war. The adjacent Air Force Base still of course exists, but does not own nor operate the runways.
When the Gulfstream 4 began its roll last month, it had over 8,000 feet of pavement in front of it, including the lengthened safety overrun area. The cause of the death and accident is related to why that particular Gulfstream could not take off prior to the end of the runway.
If reminded of the river and wooded wetlands past the airport boundary, would pilots have decided the risk was too great? Runway 29 was also available (actually usually preferred during the no wind conditions such as those that prevailed the evening of the accident), but Rwy 11 was a much shorter taxi distance. Runway 29 also has lowering terrain followed by a water feature if there is an overrun.
Even if the river was not there, eventually an aircraft moving that fast would find a tree, or a boulder, or an incline, or radio building, or something else. Unless we only allow airports in dry lake beds with miles of flat land surrounding every runway, unfortunately a tragedy will happen when a jet attempts to take off without moving flight control surfaces.
Putting an engineered overrun area (EMAS) may be feasible at Hanscom, I am not sure about the civil engineering requirements let alone finding funding to do so. Would that have prevented the post impact fire?