Keep Those Letters Coming!

[HoUdino]

Supervisor Jeff Stone
P.O. Box 1486
Riverside, CA 92502

Dear Supervisor Stone,

I am writing to you with regards to the Final Draft Hemet-Ryan Airport
Master Plan produced by the County of Riverside Economic Development
Agency.

On the positive side, those who offered the report took the time to
mention at the outset that “because of excellent thermal conditions
for soaring, Hemet-Ryan Airport had historically been a busy location
for sailplanes.” I appreciated that. These thermal conditions continue
to exist today, and the airport would remain as a busy location for
sailplanes had the sailplane pilots not been evicted improperly by the
County. I was very pleased to read that the County is planning to
reopen the sailplane runway (as noted, the master plan says “later
this year (2011)”) but I was terribly dismayed when I read thereafter
that the sailplane operations would be reestablished on a “temporary
basis.” On what grounds? Surely it cannot be with regards to safety,
as the FAA has already stated that the glider runway configuration
represents a safe operation for gliders. With only 2 months left in
2011, the County has precious little time to follow through with its
plan to reinstate the gliders on schedule.

The history section of the Master Plan neglected to mention any
history having to do with sailplane operations at the airport, which
have existed for decades. Rather, the history section focused largely
on CalFire’s use of the field, which in terms of operations has been
low relative to the use of the airport by general aircraft, especially
sailplanes. I found this historical perspective to be rather biased.
For example, I was pleased that Chapter 2 highlighted the
“predominantly” recreational use of the facility with “half of all
operations linked to sailplane use.” How can half of the operations of
the facility be neglected in the “history” section of the Master Plan?

The Master Plan suggests that “because the previously used turf
landing areas will not be reopened, sailplane activity is not expected
to return to historical levels.” Despite the fact that it remains
unclear in the Master Plan specifically why the turf landing area will
not be returned, perhaps the authors are correct – “sailplane activity
is not expected to return to historical levels” – for when they
return, I expect they will be at much higher levels never before seen
in the history of Hemet-Ryan!

On page 2-2, the Master Plan is contradictory: the plan suggests that
“except for sailplane operations, the basic roles that the airport
currently fulfills are expected to continue for the 20 years of this
Master Plan study,” however the very next paragraph begins by stating
“Hemet-Ryan will largely remain a recreational facility.” How can the
latter be possible when >50% of historic operations were sailplane
related and yet sailplanes are being removed over time? The Master
Plan will surely only reduce recreational activity at this facility
rather than have the facility largely remain recreational.

And then, on page 2-3, the real motivations behind all of this become
clear: “Within 2-5 years it is anticipated that the CalFire base will
relocate to the north side of the airport. This move will require
closure of the sailplane runway. Closure of the dedicated sailplane
runway is expected to eliminate sailplane operations at Hemet-Ryan.”
All of this is about ground space. It has really nothing to do with
safety of glider operations (one of the main “reasons” for their
eviction from the airport). It has everything to do with an increased
presence of CalFire on the north side of the airport, which will “open
up opportunities for new aviation uses on the south side” (at the
expense of all sailplane operations, which were historically 50% of
the operations from this facility). Such logic defies what might have
been a well thought out plan.

The current aircraft activity statistics on page 2-4 are woefully
biased because they were taken after all sailplanes were evicted from
the premises illegally by the County. It would be much better to make
use of both historic and current aircraft activity and then place an
asterisk after all sailplane activity after the illegal eviction. This
would be a much more appropriate reflection of reality.

Page 2-6 offers interesting national factors affecting the forecasted
trends in aviation. These forecasts neglect to mention anything about
gliders and also suggest that turbine and rotorcraft will expect an
increase. Did the annual Aerospace Forecast include the anticipated
escalation in aviation gas that can only be expected to occur in this
same time horizon? Given that gliders fly at a fraction of the
required gas, does that not make them the perfect longer term, green-
alternative, outlook? I personally feel that interest in gliders will
expand drastically when the cost of aviation gas is 2-4x what it is
currently 20 years from now. For example, the IATA suggests that jet
fuel prices are already up 35% relative to this time last year
(www.iata.org).

Page 2-6 suggests that the “existing general aviation facilities and
services at Hemet-Ryan Airport are satisfactory for the airport’s
current levels of activity.” I disagree vehemently. There is a large
contingent of general aviation pilots that has been purposefully
excluded from these facilities for the last few years. Their
facilities were demolished, and they have yet to return. When the
sailplane operators do return, there will be a tremendous need for
additional sailplane facilities specifically on the north side of the
airport, simply to return them to the levels that would be “current”
had they not been evicted.

Page 2-8 – “Sailplane operations will increase over the short term,
but are not expected to remain at the Airport. Economic factors are
expected to limit their operations.” What economic factors? The
economic benefit to the County of moving CalFire operations to the
north side of the airport? Honestly, how is that an economic limit to
sailplane operations? What economic factors are limiting sailplane
operations? When the costs of fuel continue to increase, we will see
that economic factors drive private pilots towards lower cost
recreational aspects of aviation such as gliding.

On page 3-1 the Master Plan suggests that the “purpose of the proposed
airfield improvements is to enhance (fire attack operations).” Why?
Why should that be the purpose of the Master Plan? Shouldn’t the
purpose of the Master Plan be to determine a means by which all
current and future uses of Hemet-Ryan can be met simultaneously for
the public? This was the goal of previous Master Plans. Why is the
goal of this Master Plan specifically to enhance the role of CalFire?

On page 3-18, the quote on the runway width of 25 feet makes the
reader feel that the “FAA minimum” of 60 feet is inadequate. However
as noted, sailplanes have found this to be quite adequate, as has
CalTrans Dept of Aeronautics, and the FAA for this facility. It is
worded to make the reader feel that the operation is in some manner
not in accordance with FAA, which is quite incorrect.

On page 3-19, I fail to understand the science behind the hypothesis
that “it is certain the operating from a single runway will
dramatically reduce the capacity for sailplane operations.” Where is
the statistical analysis of this hypothesis? There are many single
runway sailplane operations in Cailfornia that do just fine. I have no
understanding of how this conclusion was reached. Although this is
repeated in the Master Plan as a central theme in the argument to
replace sailplane operations with CalFire on the north side of the
airport, this is one of the best examples of a “straw man” that I have
ever seen.

Several critical assumptions are raised on page 5-2. These include 1)
the CalFire attack base will remain on the airport, 2) sailplane
operations will cease in 2-5 years, and 3) recreational flying will
continue to be the dominant aviation use. Given that the Master Plan
also assumes that March ARB will capture cargo aviation (which uses
large aircraft on the scale of those used by CalFire) and given that
the Master Plan also assumes that there will be funding from some
source some day to construct a new CalFire base, why not build that
CalFire base at March ARB? In light of assumption #3 above, if
assumption #2 holds, then assumption #3 cannot be true given that
sailplanes have historically composed a large percentage of
recreational use. However, if assumption #3 is true, then assumption
#2 is false because to do so would be to not act in accordance with
assumption #3.

On page 5-9, the authors have marked the existing noise contours. I
found it interesting that the topographic maps used were clearly very
old – urban development is now much closer to the runways that what is
depicted in these topos. They are from 1979 (30+ years ago!). Surely
we can find better topos. In the future case presented on Page 5-10,
the contours are expanded slightly, but the runway itself isn’t. I
found that interesting given that other figures from prior sections of
the Master Plan indicated that the main runway might need to be
expanded past the intersection at the southwest corner of the field.
Surely this would affect the noise contours. Thus I believe the
contours for the “future” vision need to be re-examined, and also
placed relative to a more modern topographic representation (perhaps
the County could make use of Google Earth to show the urbanization?)

On page 2 of Appendix A, the authors have included sailplane
operations at night for runway 4 and 22. Why? In fact, why are all of
the percentages of runway uses equivalent for all categories of
aircraft type in this table? Clearly they are not at present, and
never have been historically. This suggests that the model used to
generate the contours is severely flawed or at best overly simplistic.

With regards to the Initial Study prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. on
the Hemet-Ryan Airport Master Plan I would also like to offer the
following comments:

LSA suggests that there would be no impact to aesthetics with this
project. I disagree wholeheartedly. There is a certain scenic view
that accompanies the takeoff and landing of a sailplane that is not
easily replaced when/if the sailplanes are removed permanently from
this location. I have often stopped by the airport over past decades
just to watch these scenic vistas. Thus, I would say the Master Plan
offers potentially significant impact to many in the elimination of
these vistas.

In terms of Air Quality I find it very difficult to fathom that the
applicable air quality plan for this region will allow for the larger
number of larger noisier more polluting air tankers operating at
Hemet. Thus, I question how 3a can have an answer of “no impact” while
3b has potentially significant impact. I also question how a larger
number of private jet and air tanker traffic can have only “less than
significant impact” to the surrounding region, especially to residents
on the north and east sides of the field.

Item 10a suggests that there is no impact of the land use and planning
by “physically dividing an established community.” The glider
operations on the north side of the airport surely represent an
established community. The Master Plan seeks their complete
elimination over time. How can this not be considered a significant
impact that will physically divide an established community?

Item 10b neglects to recall that the FAA has noted no objection to the
return of gliders to the Airport, and yet the County removed them
illegally and has yet to reinstate them. This constitutes strong
conflict with a Federal agency with jurisdiction over the airport.

Item 16c, I cannot understand how an increase in larger, heavier, and
faster aircraft at this airport is assumed to be only a less than
significant impact with regards to the increased safety risks for
homeowners in the flight path of this airport.

In light of all of the above comments, Supervisor Stone, I felt
compelled to comment that the Master Plan is woefully inadequate. I
would ask the County Supervisors to carefully re-examine the
components of this plan having to do with gliding and prepare to re-
instate gliders for the full duration of this Master Plan rather than
make critical assumptions that offer a lack of foresight.

Sincerely,

Name Withheld From The Internet