FAA Wants Shorter Buildings Near U.S. Airports

[lockmat]

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to reduce height limits on buildings near airports, but the proposal has sparked disputes between airlines and airports that support the change, and development interests worried about hurting property values.

The FAA says buildings should be shorter to bolster safety at 388 airports nationwide, to give pilots more options up to 10 miles from an airport in case one of an airliner's two engines fails while taking off or landing.

Read the rest here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/28/faa-airports-building-height-limits/13271583/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycommoney-topstories

[JLWM8609]

I don't know how much good reduced height limits would do if the area is inhabited. A plane with engines out 10 miles away from IAH in any direction is going to be over mostly developed land, and there's not many options, whether there's tall buildings or not.

[democide]

So long as the direct flight path of a runway is cleared of high structures, that's all you can ask for.  Ten miles seems too much though.  Anyways, the FAA should focus on other issues, and "accidents" will happen no matter what you do.

[Subdude]

If this is impacting 8000 buildings (planned and existing) then the scope strikes me as excessive.

 

 

[arche_757]

"Avoiding tall buildings by altering flight routes can lead to burning more fuel, and reducing cargo or passengers to lighten a plane's load."   So what?  Personally most aircraft ought to be routed away from population centers any way.

 

I read the part about existing too, and immediately thought of some of our downtown towers... obviously I think this will affect more small buildings/signs/antennas etc. than highrises, but one has to wonder?

 

Also, frankly the FAA ought to encourage airports like Hobby, Love, Reagan National and Laguardia (to name a few) to be reduced in capacity! Doubtful it will happen, but besides being an eyesore and noise/ground/air pollution generators these are also fairly dangerous to have so close in to a major population area.  IAH, DFW, DIA, even Kennedy are built much further from the primary population center and cluster of large/tall buildings.  Seems to me these big population area came before the bigger and much busier airport(s).

 

It seems like this is more of an issue to cater to airlines and not really in the realm of public safety.  Already planes are operating at the 100% mark in terms of weight to fuel ratio.  I recall a time when I was flying to BWI and the pilot came on the loud speaker to announce "We're overweight and need to offload two passengers and their bags"

 

TWO!  That was the margin for error.... TWO!  Not acceptable.

[mollusk]

When Hobby, Love, and LaGuardia were built, they were away from developed areas.  DCA, not so much... but it was on the edge of the city, too.

[arche_757]

^Yes and no.  Hobby was fairly far from Downtown, but it was still in Houston.  Lagaurdia was, and still is just a "hop skip and a jump" over from Manhattan.  Its close enough, and NYC has had large/tall buildings longer than Houston or Dallas.

[mollusk]

^Yes and no.  Hobby was fairly far from Downtown, but it was still in Houston.  Lagaurdia was, and still is just a "hop skip and a jump" over from Manhattan.  Its close enough, and NYC has had large/tall buildings longer than Houston or Dallas.

 

uh, LGA is an eight mile drive from the Empire State Building, according to Google Maps.  It was built on pretty much the least developed area reasonably close to middle Manhattan, unless you go to New Joisey, at a time when the DC3 was pretty much the state of the art.  It was the equivalent of BFE at the time.

 

Hobby is eight miles from Chase Tower, granted by a more direct route.  I'd say this is close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, or atom bombs.

 

-------

 

Now that I'm turning into an old crock, I'm amazed at how much pretty much everything has grown.