Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While you have the facts right, the reasoning isn't. Air Force One sometimes comes to Yeager to get in an hour of flight time for the crew. They have landed those 747s at Yeager so many times that it's routine. That's what my Washington Air Force source tells me. If it was unsafe, they simply wouldn't do it.
I don't think expanding the airport because "we might need it sometime" is an adequate reason to spend millions of public dollars. The airport already has a massive amount of excess capacity.
I'm certainly not an aviation expert, but Yeager airport's runway is notoriously shorter than a typical peer airport. That alone isn't enough to justify adding a couple thousand feet on to the end. The real concern is the fact that the airport sits on top of a hill and when planes overrun the runway, it is a major problem!
The pilots of Air Force One are elite, so to them it might be "routine". Most pilots of would never attempt landing a 747 at Yeager because of the shorter runway and cliff at the end of it.
I have mixed feelings about it so I'm not in the blow up coonskin camp. But I'm open to putting Yeager Airport, Charleston, and WV in the best spot to succeed. The moving around of dirt could be a great thing for the park. It could enable the development of more ball fields for youth or enable the construction of lake.
I'm certainly not an aviation expert, but Yeager airport's runway is notoriously shorter than a typical peer airport. That alone isn't enough to justify adding a couple thousand feet on to the end. The real concern is the fact that the airport sits on top of a hill and when planes overrun the runway, it is a major problem!
The pilots of Air Force One are elite, so to them it might be "routine". Most pilots of would never attempt landing a 747 at Yeager because of the shorter runway and cliff at the end of it.
I have mixed feelings about it so I'm not in the blow up coonskin camp. But I'm open to putting Yeager Airport, Charleston, and WV in the best spot to succeed. The moving around of dirt could be a great thing for the park. It could enable the development of more ball fields for youth or enable the construction of lake.
No, there is no way this idea is good for Coonskin. It would destroy a large part of the park, simply bury it under a huge landfill. On top of ruining a large part of the park, it would be done with no clear benefit to anybody. "Potential benefit" to the airport? That's not a good enough reason to destroy a public park.
No, there is no way this idea is good for Coonskin. It would destroy a parge part of the park, simply bury it under a huge landfill. On top of ruining a parge part of the park, it would be done with no clear benefit to anybody. "Potential benefit" to the airport? That's not a good enough reason to destroy a public park.
I don't understand why you continue to ignore my point about runway length and safety conditions.
And it's very easy to develop land in a responsible way. Dirt taken from some areas can enable some parts of the park to be developed better. My examples of sports fields or a lake. There's already been talk about building a water reservoir there. People would love a place to paddle board or fish.
I don't understand why you continue to ignore my point about runway length and safety conditions.
And it's very easy to develop land in a responsible way. Dirt taken from some areas can enable some parts of the park to be developed better. My examples of sports fields or a lake. There's already been talk about building a water reservoir there. People would love a place to paddle board or fish.
They want to take 1/3 of the park so the airport can "maybe" improve.
The runway is long enough, and it has a safety stop area at the end.
They want to take 1/3 of the park so the airport can "maybe" improve.
The runway is long enough, and it has a safety stop area at the end.
Long enough by whose standards? Your own?
A great many things in life are done based on a “maybe”. It’s called ambition, and it’s what has brought fortune to the ones bold enough to take action.
Your style of thinking is what has kept WV 49th or 50th in everything
WV has no shortage of space that can be made into park land. If there was such a demand, Charleston would have more parks. I personally think it’s a shame the area doesn’t have more park land. But I also think it’s a shame that WV is stuck in the Stone Age and can’t get anything decent to happen to it.
A great many things in life are done based on a “maybe”. It’s called ambition, and it’s what has brought fortune to the ones bold enough to take action.
Your style of thinking is what has kept WV 49th or 50th in everything
WV has no shortage of space that can be made into park land. If there was such a demand, Charleston would have more parks. I personally think it’s a shame the area doesn’t have more park land. But I also think it’s a shame that WV is stuck in the Stone Age and can’t get anything decent to happen to it.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
Nothing they do to that airport will ever make it busy enough to be the transportation hub you think it should be. Doing that requires combining our small airports, but it will never happen. In order to get big enough to make much difference, a new airport would have to replace Parkersburg as well as Charleston and Huntington. Putting it at a mid point would mean building it at Ripley. Doing that requires an Interstate-type highway from Huntington to Ripley. Adding that to the cost of the airport and the resistance to closing local airports makes it virtually impossible.
Being on the bottom of the lists in everything is more a function of our habit of repeatedly electing horrible politicians than anything I can say or do. Building a new park so we can ruin the one people like certainly won't pull us out of the economic doldrums.
Nothing they do to that airport will ever make it busy enough to be the transportation hub you think it should be. Doing that requires combining our small airports, but it will never happen. In order to get big enough to make much difference, a new airport would have to replace Parkersburg as well as Charleston and Huntington. Putting it at a mid point would mean building it at Ripley. Doing that requires an Interstate-type highway from Huntington to Ripley. Adding that to the cost of the airport and the resistance to closing local airports makes it virtually impossible.
Being on the bottom of the lists in everything is more a function of our habit of repeatedly electing horrible politicians than anything I can say or do. Building a new park so we can ruin the one people like certainly won't pull us out of the economic doldrums.
You continue to ignore the runway length and safety issues I bring up, which happen to be the reasons that the FAA give for wanting to expand the runway in the first place. Not the potential economic factors.
Quote:
The proposed project being studied would establish standard 1,000-foot-long by 500-foot-wide runway safety areas at both ends of Runway 5-23 and runway extension to meet the takeoff runway length needs of the existing and forecast future aircraft fleet mix at CRW.
What is ridiculous, is the horrible politicians that you claim are the problem continue to be a fruit of the status quo mindset of West Virginia's population. The reason WV is last is because it's people are stuck in the past and have limited ability to think creatively.
I seriously doubt that this will ever happen. Mainly because nothing ever happens in Charleston.
I don’t live in Charleston anymore which makes me both happy and sad so I’m not following the airport controversy as much as I would have. I do have a couple of takes on it though.
First, is a question which I have no answer to but I wonder if having a longer runway helps secure the viability of the airport and National Guard for the future?
Second, from a lot of what I’ve seen there’s something like a mania about the whole “save coonskin” thing that does strike me as more of a fad or something for people to latch onto for having a purpose more so than saving the park.
I don’t live in Charleston anymore which makes me both happy and sad so I’m not following the airport controversy as much as I would have. I do have a couple of takes on it though.
First, is a question which I have no answer to but I wonder if having a longer runway helps secure the viability of the airport and National Guard for the future?
Second, from a lot of what I’ve seen there’s something like a mania about the whole “save coonskin” thing that does strike me as more of a fad or something for people to latch onto for having a purpose more so than saving the park.
The whole thing is perplexing in several ways.
Where'd you end up John?
The situation confuses me a bit as I am not sure how much more runway capacity is needed for current and future flight plans? The runway is more than sufficient to accommodate (and then some) the planes that serve Charleston. Key West has a smaller runway and has a significantly higher volume of flights.
I don’t live in Charleston anymore which makes me both happy and sad so I’m not following the airport controversy as much as I would have. I do have a couple of takes on it though.
First, is a question which I have no answer to but I wonder if having a longer runway helps secure the viability of the airport and National Guard for the future?
Second, from a lot of what I’ve seen there’s something like a mania about the whole “save coonskin” thing that does strike me as more of a fad or something for people to latch onto for having a purpose more so than saving the park.
The whole thing is perplexing in several ways.
Quote:
The situation confuses me a bit as I am not sure how much more runway capacity is needed for current and future flight plans? The runway is more than sufficient to accommodate (and then some) the planes that serve Charleston. Key West has a smaller runway and has a significantly higher volume of flights.
I'm with both of you. I have mixed feelings on the project. I love Coonskin, and have utilized a great deal in my lifetime. In Middle and High School I use to run there 3-4 times a week after school. Growing up my Grandpa took me to the playground there, and we fed the ducks at the pond (yes I know that's bad now). Coonskin is a big part of my upbringing. I don't want to half of it gone.
But I am also one that can see potential for new park development. The land can be reshaped to meet the needs of this generation. New playgrounds, sports fields, trails, shelters, etc... Maybe even a lake. That's the beauty of earth moving projects. Land can be arranged to provide new opportunities for the park, while also providing for the airport's needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
