Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-27-HFAC-min MINUTES HANSCOM FIELD ADVISORY COMMISSION April 27, 2004 1. Brainstorming: In response to discussions at the February meeting, HFAC held a brainstorming session to explore areas where there might be consensus between the aviation and residential communities. John Williams presented a series of questions to facilitate the conversation. In response to some of the questions, there were two points made by residential community members: - The Towns do not support closure of the airport. - The Towns are not interested in operating the airport. The economic benefit of the airport was discussed. Massport reports that in 2000 there was a $110 million economic benefit to the region; this is consistent with Mass. Aeronautics Commission’s analyses of the economic impacts of other airports in Massachusetts. Town representatives feel Massport’s number is exaggerated—Save our Heritage had this analyzed and came up with different results. J. Williams suggested that whatever the number is, there is economic benefit to the communities. According to Sara Mattes, Lincoln’s benefits relate primarily to the Air Force Base because of its support for their schools. In addition, there are a few private pilots in the Town. The liabilities include potential contamination of open water supplies as well as some aircraft noise and traffic on Routes 2 and 2A. Peter Enrich said that in Lexington there is a benefit for the small aircraft owners; he is not aware of local businesses that depend on the airport, but assumes that there are some employees that work for business that are at and/or use the airport. He feels that the fuel tax that the towns receive is trivial. The open space is an asset. Representatives of the Towns noted that the National Park is of particular concern for their communities, and there is a feeling that this is not always taken seriously by those who support growth at the airport. As stewards of the National Park, the Towns believe it is important to limit and contain what happens at the airport. Some Town representatives feel that the benefits of the airport do not outweigh the negative impacts to the park. John Williams discussed a National Business Aircraft Association document that discusses trends and impacts of general aviation. He said that Hanscom is part of a national transportation system, and its activity fluctuates with the rise and fall of national trends. Most of the operations are conducted by transient aircraft, as opposed to activity generated by aircraft that are based in hangars. He believes that Massport policy does very little to change activity at the airport. If the Towns accept the idea that there is an airport, then they need to accept the idea that there will be growth. 1 P. Enrich believes that Massport controls the infrastructure and fees, and these things can impact growth. S. Mattes asked whether Massport would be willing to forego the federal funding that comes with commercial activity. Neither the Towns nor the pilots are prepared to absorb the additional cost of taking that position. Town representatives expressed concern about the noise of aircraft, particularly at night. They wonder if there is anything that can be done to protect the National Park. They also wonder how the commercial operators at Hanscom are surviving financially and whether Massport subsidizes them. These were suggested as possible topics for the June meeting. It was noted that use of a constant descent rate, as suggested by a Town representative at a previous HFAC meeting, would probably not work at Hanscom because of the close proximity to Logan’s traffic. At some airports this procedure is used to decrease noise. It was agreed that the discussion should continue at the June meeting. S. Mattes and J. Williams will determine whether additional information is needed for continued discussion. Minutes: 2. The February Minutes were approved with two corrections: - The word descent was spelled wrong. - Signature did not have the fuel spill; there was a malfunction on a Sky King aircraft that occurred during refueling. Monthly Noise Report: 3.Sara Arnold presented the monthly noise report. Questions focused on complaints—where they come from and how many come from the same person. Community members feel that the number that come from one person is irrelevant; John Williams suggested that knowing how many different people are complaining is relevant and tells part of the story. S. Arnold said that she assumes all complaints are valid, regardless of whether they come from many or only one person. She doesn’t report regularly on the number of different people who complain, but in general there are about 100 to 150 different people who complain, and it is reasonable to provide that information when asked. Planning Report: 4.S. Arnold noted that updates for projects are attached to the noise report. The initial removal for phase 1 of the vegetation management project is in its final stages. Requests for Proposals (RFPs) have been issued for upgrading the noise monitoring system and for development of the Hangar 24 site. Copies of the RFPs were made available. Commercial Airline Report: 5. Richard Walsh said that despite a newspaper article about Shuttle America potentially converting from turboprops to regional jets, conversations with Shuttle America indicate that they will not be using regional jets at Hanscom. In response to questions, R. Walsh said that the use of regional jets was studied in the Environmental Status and Planning Report. P. Enrich noted that the use of regional jets at Hanscom should trigger a full environmental impact review by the FAA. 2 R. Walsh said that there have been some additional conversations with entities that may be interested in providing commuter service out of Hanscom, but there is nothing definite. He said that Massport is interested in having commuter service continue at Hanscom Field. P. Enrich noted that the Towns do not like “summer surprises” and hopes that this will not become an issue over the summer. Next Meeting: 6. P. Enrich will not be in town on May 18, the next HFAC meeting. Margaret Coppe agreed to chair the meeting. Barbara Patzner will present the State of Hanscom, which has been distributed by email. There will also be a brief presentation by residents from Hudson/Harvard who are concerned about aircraft noise in their communities. 3 HFAC Brainstorming Session April 27, 2004 1. How much of an asset is Hanscom Field for the residents and businesses in the towns surrounding the airport? a. Convenient access to commercial flights b. Convenient access for pilots and passengers to private, owned or chartered aircraft c. Source of local employment d. Airport helps drive economic development in local area, thereby contributing to local economy and tax base e. Direct source of revenue for towns f. Other 2. How much of a liability is Hanscom Field for the residents and businesses in the towns surrounding the airport? a. Aircraft noise b. Airport-related traffic/congestion c. Risk to public safety due to an aviation accident d. Potential danger to the local environment (wetlands, wildlife habitat, etc.) e. Risk of terrorist activity f. Other 3. On balance, do the liabilities so outweigh the assets that, from the point of view of the residents and businesses in the towns surrounding the airport, Hanscom should be closed? 4. If, from the point of view of the residents and businesses in the towns surrounding Hanscom, the airport should remain open, how can Hanscom’s net value (assets minus liabilities) be enhanced? a. What are the most important assets and how can they be strengthened over time? b. What are the most important liabilities and how can they be mitigated over time? 5. What is HFAC’s vision for Hanscom Field, expressed in terms of the volume of flights and the relative importance of private vs. commercial aviation vs. military aviation, piston-powered vs. jets, business jets vs. airliners, passenger flights vs. cargo, daytime use vs. nighttime, the presence of flight instruction, and associated capital infrastructure? To what extent does that differ from Massport’s expressed vision? 4 6. How can HFAC work with Massport and aviation interest groups best to achieve the outcome that maximizes Hanscom’s net value to the residents and businesses in the towns surrounding the airport? 5 HANSCOM FIELD ADVISORY COMMISSION DATE: 4/27/04 HFAC MEMBER ATTENDEES CATEGORYNAMEIN ATTENDANCE Contiguous Towns (4)********************** BedfordSheldon MollX Bedford Alt.Mark Siegenthaler ConcordAnne Shapiro Concord Alt.Charles Blair LexingtonPeter EnrichX Lexington Alt.Michael Barrett LincolnSara MattesX Lincoln Alt.Sarah Holden Local Citizen Groups (2)********************** So. LexMargaret CoppeX No. LexGraydon WheatonX Area Wide Organizations (2)********************** LWVMelodee WagenX LWV Alt. Other Area Towns (2)********************** Carlisle or ActonSteve Lerner WalthamRep. Tom Stanley Waltham Alt.Michael Squillante Businesses Basing Acft at Hanscom (2)********************** East Coast AviationTom Hoban RaytheonMichael Burke Aviation/Aviation Related Businesses (2)********************** Jet AviationFrank Diglio Signature Flight SupportRick BlazeX Signature Alt.Jim Phellps Business Aviation Organization (1)********************** MBAAJohn WilliamsX NBAA (Alt. Org.)Ken HeiderX General Aviation Organization (1)********************** Hanscom Pilots AssociationThomas HirschX Ex-Officio Members********************** MassportSara ArnoldX MassportRichard WalshX MassportCedric DanielX HAFBRhonda Siciliano FAADave BayleyX MMNHPNancy Nelson 6