Airport issues are confusing and technical so this website attempts to present readable and factual explanations.

Chatham Airport is currently limited to only allowing planes to land in good visibility. The proposal in the AMPU that  continues to be promoted, is that pilots would fly straight-in, in poor visibility using on-board instrumentation, in order to avoid having to divert to Cape Cod Gateway Airport in Hyannis. Straight-in instrument approaches are common at all Airports with suitable facilities including a control tower, but Chatham Airport does not have a control tower so this procedure is dangerous.

Approaches in poor visibility are considered less safe than visual approaches, which is reflected in the more demanding FAA Design Standards for Airports with instrument approaches. In Chatham the more demanding design standards specify a longer runway, extensive tree cutting on private property, greater cleared areas in wetlands  on the Airport itself. They also specify larger safety zones at both ends of the runway devoid of residences. These standards cannot be met in Chatham and trying to accept them would seriously reduce safety for pilots, passengers and people on the ground.

There was a major public outcry from the community, when the Airport Commission included and approved these proposals in the AMPU in August 2019. The first proposal was for 46 FAA so-called avigation easements to be forced on property owners, with great legal costs, which would be borne by the Town.  These easements would allow the FAA permanent access to properties to remove tall trees, and would inflict large losses in property values.  

There was also enormous concern that the numbers of deafening loud 9-passenger charter planes would be significantly increased, aided further by the proposal to install a 10,000 gallon jet-fuel tank. There were also major concerns over environmental damage, and the safety of people living all around the Airport, particularly those living in the safety zones at the ends of the runway, which the Town repeatedly promised the FAA would not be allowed.

Implementation of the AMPU was stated at a nominal $5M, but this could then be used to justify other expenditures leading to 2 or 3 times this cost. The cost-benefit ratio for the tiny number of recreational flyers using the Airport would be extreme.  

Another major source of contention is that the FAA requires the Town as owner of the Airport, to act as the Airport Sponsor, responsible along with the Community for any planning decisions related to the Airport. However over the years the elected Select Board representatives of the Town have ignored their Sponsor responsibilities to understand the Airport issues and decide with the community, what sort of Airport the Town wants or if it wants an Airport at all.

Any discussion of the AMPU is confusing, because  the Chairman of the Airport Commission in June 2020  submitted a very concerning Airport Layout Plan to the FAA to be discussed. One option is to displace the runway thresholds. This would not affect recreational flying and have a negligible cost.  

This Home page presents general aspects of the AMPU issues, but the other pages of this website attempt to present all aspects of the AMPU proposals, which can be confusing, contradictory and concerning. All sections are indexed. 

Chatham has a long history dating back to mid-17th century. Its old houses, fishing industry and distinctive coastline give it a unique character, with a relaxing environment that leads to visitors returning year after year, often purchasing a house and retiring to Chatham. That is the capital value of and the source of income for Chatham. The residents of Chatham benefit from this popularity and seek to enjoy its peace and quiet. and maintain its character. There are proposals for Central West Chatham Development, which include a Senior Center (COA). None of this is compatible with the proposals in the AMPU to develop the Airport.

Chatham Airport is geographically challenged. It is constrained by Great Hill, which is less than 1/2 mile from the runway and 70 ft above it with multiple houses including a 3-storey house at the top, and under the flight path. This doesn't seem like an issue until glide-slopes are drawn. In fact the Airport is surrounded with residences, which have been built in violation of grant assurances signed by the Town. Both ends of the runway are populated with homes, shops, offices and roads in safety zones, which the FAA is  adamantly against. The runway is only 3000ft long and was crammed in right up to the wetlands without any consideration being given to future vegetation growth. There is no control tower and the Airport does not meet the standards for planes with a wingspan greater than 49ft, such as the Pilatus PC-12 turboprop. Today all the residents of these homes are subjected to noise, danger and anxiety from large deafeningly noisy planes both day and night, flying literally at treetop height over their homes. The AMPU proposals seem intended to encourage the charter traffic and make this much worse and much less safe, and are clearly not compatible with developing West Chatham as a Village Center.

In 2018 the Airport Commission initiated the rewriting of its Airport Management Plan, which is required every 20years, and Gale Associates were hired for $360,000 plus expenses. The revised and controversial plan is referred to as the Airport Management Plan. Update  The AMPU Chapter 6, containing the major proposals, was hastily approved by the Airport Commission in August 2019 and submitted to the FAA, without any Sponsor or Community approval, despite the fact that the current one is still valid until 2023. The nature of the proposals, and the behavior of the Airport Commission, aroused concerns and outrage in the community, that have been further exacerbated by a greater awareness of the proposals and the actions of the Airport Commission, in declining to listen to community  input.

The appropriately renamed Cape Code Gateway Airport in Hyannis is only 15 miles away. It has 2 runways each over 5000ft long, which meet precision instrument approach standards for poor weather landings with visibility as low as 1/2 mile and a minimum descent height of 200ft. It has a control tower, which allows straight-in approaches, fuel-services, emergency services and an infra-structure of rental car services etc.

A less than credible Airport Economic Impact Study was published in 2019, which claimed that Chatham Airport employed 156 people earning $4,777,000 and this contributed a total output of $13,919,000. We can only assume that this grossly inflated glossy document was intended by MassDOT to stimulate funding from Beacon Hill. The Airport cannot possibly employ 156 full-time or full-time equivalent people, and their purported output has been further multiplied by some unspecified and arbitrary multiplier. The State has done this study twice and each time refused to provide or has destroyed the relevant data,

The Airport Commission/Town agrees to pay all the utility bills (alarm systems, electricity, natural  and LP gas  and telephones), maintenance and costs of repairs and service for, vehicles, paved surfaces, fuel facilities, buildings, perimeter fencing, and non-FAA or non-State funded equipment.

AMPU Chap 6 was submitted to the FAA in August 2019 without Sponsor approval or community discussion. It included a proposal for 46 'avigation easements', which would give the FAA control of your property to cut down trees that are declared too tall. An application for an Environmental Assessment was made in 2020 and approved by the Town Manager without approval by the Select Board, who had asked that it be delayed until there was an agreed plan. The amount approved was $347,000, but it appears to be only for a partial assessment and does not appear to include social and noise assessments. A commissioner submitted an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to the FAA in June 2020. It had not been approved by a quorum of the AC or discussed with the Sponsor or the community. As will be discussed later, it contains errors and is neither realistic or a plan. Nonetheless the FAA, which after a self–declared cursory review, approved it in July 2020. The submission of an unapproved 5-year plan described below is also questionable.

•  “The transition from instrument flight to visual flight during an instrument approach can be very challenging, especially during low visibility operations.” 
• “Additionally, single-pilot operations make the transition even more challenging, because the pilot must continue to fly by the instruments, while attempting to acquire a visual reference for the runway.”

The FAA says (AC150/5325-4B) that “Requirements to operate the runway during periods of Inclement Meteorological Conditions is highest among airplanes used for business and air taxi purposes”.

Gale Associates writes in the AMPU that “It is the Airport’s Manager’s wish to establish a non-precision-straight-in with vertical guidance approach with lower minimums”.

Most aircraft accidents are cited as being caused by pilot error, namely mis-judgement, disregarding weather forecasts and conditions etc.

The FAA has a major concern for people living in the safety zones, and the Town of Chatham has a moral and financial responsibility for those residents. 

The rules seem clear. Chatham Airport has received numerous AIP grants for airport improvement projects, and every time grant assurances have been signed  by the the Town as Airport Sponsor. 

Assurance 19. “Operation and Maintenance. a) states that the airport ….shall be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal agencies…” Similarly under the AIP Regulations 14CFR 152 and FAA Airport Compliance Manual — Order 5190.6B, “if an airport accepts AIP money, grant assurances require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions”, ie The Airport must meet AC 150/5300-13A Airport Design for the Design Aircraft.

Accordingly, ground based dimensions, Runway Protection Zones, approach types and approach and departure surfaces should comply with the FAA standards for the most demanding and the “aircraft that most frequently uses it” and this should be the Design Aircraft.

•  Major public outcry from the Chatham Community, especially those subject to avigation easements, with objections to cost, concerns about a potential increase of charter traffic, particularly in poor weather and at night. 
• Destruction of over 12 acres of public wetlands and woodlands, and private environment. 
• Reduced safety for residents living in safety zones . 
• Minimal benefit to the recreational small single-engine piston plane users. 
• Would eventually cost $10-15M and ~$1M or 4% on property taxes and potentially large legal costs incurred by the Town for avigation easements. 
• Properties forced to take avigation easements and their neighbors would seek reduction in assessed values of their properties, and hence property tax income to the Town could be significantly reduced in the future.

The FAA requires a designated Airport Sponsor with whom they expect to deal. In the case of Chatham it is the Town, which owns the Airport. An important issue is that the FAA requires the Airport Sponsor* and the community* to be involved in any decisions related to change at the Airport. The members of the Airport Commission are appointed by the Select Board, but operate based on Mass General Law Chap 90 §51E, which says “… airport commission shall have the Custody, Care and Management of the municipal airport.”  This has led some members of the Airport Commission to act as if they can operate autonomously.

However the Town signs grant assurances every time it takes funding from the FAA and agrees that “The Town as Sponsor shall not give up its Rights, Powers and Authority to own and operate the Airport.”  Very specifically, the FAA regards the Town, which owns the Municipal Airport as the Sponsor* of the Airport. The Town is represented by its elected representatives, the Select Board. This sponsorship was confirmed by Town Counsel at a special meeting in January 2021, but  problems continue as they have done for many years:

• The Board does not undertake its responsibilities and duties as the Sponsor of the Airport.
• The Board fails to interact with the FAA as required*.
• The Board as Sponsor does not exercise Governance* over the Airport.
• The Board appears to ignore the concerns of the community.

 *https://www.faa.gov/airports/central/aip/sponsor_guide/.  

AC 150/5050-4A Community Involvement in Airport Planning 

  AC 150/5070-6B (Chap. 4)

The FAA has issued a Sponsor Guide (www.faa.gov/airports/central/aip/sponsor_guide/), which says:

• Airport planning should be consistent with local goals.
  
• AC 150/5050-4A requires Community Involvement in Airport Planning.
•  Airport sponsors need to take responsibility for the Master Plan. AC 150/5070-6B (Chap. 4).
•  Preparing Airport Master Plans specifies that a Master Plan must present to the public a realistic plan, which addresses all relevant issues and satisfies local, state and federal regulations.
  
• Funding eligibility is critically dependent on early coordination between airport owners and the FAA, and the approval of an Airport Layout Plan.
  
• The airport owner is responsible for preparing an Environmental Assessment. AC 150/5020-1 specifies noise as part of Compatibility Planning for Airports.
  
• The guide points out that many Environmental Assessments (EA) contain analyses of airport noise, compatible land use, social impacts, and induced socio-economic impacts.
• In fact, the FAA requires public and community involvement in discussing noise, when assessing economic versus social tradeoffs.This is not being done in the EA Plan commissioned by the AC.
  
• The FAA is adamantly against unacceptable, incompatible land uses in the overshoot/undershoot safety zones, designed to protect people and property, yet In Chatham there are about 10 homes, along with stores, offices and roads already in these forbidden zones?
  
• The FAA said in a 1983 advisory that residential developments, around an airport, would ultimately cause it to close.
  
• Now after many years of Sponsor neglect, there are residential communities all around the Airport and as predicted, these communities are adamantly against plans, which were submitted by the Airport Commission to the FAA, without any consideration for their safety, financial and social well-being, or coordination with the Sponsor.
  
• The Town has the Right to exercise governance over the Airport, and agrees that it will, every time it signs FAA grant assurances after receiving funding. It continues to ignore that with respect to every single one of the requirements outlined above.
  
• The FAA explicitly states that all changes, plans etc. must be agreed to by the Sponsor, and there must be collaboration with the Community.
  
• The Sponsor Guide states that FAA determinations are not intended to override local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values.

We all like modern gadgetry, but think about it. You use 'horizontal guidance' on your GPS app to drive to a specific house, but the gate and driveway would have to be widened for you to use GPS, without relying on visual input. That is exactly the view of the FAA, which is why the FAA changes all the design standards for instrument approaches.

The Chatham Airport Commissionis trying to make changes outlined in the AMPU in great haste, acting without proper authority and consultation, and hoping to have the FAA modify (waive) several design standards such as length of the runway. It seems likely that the charter turboprops would benefit most. The Airport Commission has already spent almost ~$800,000  on the AMPU and an Environmental Assessment. It is now threatening the Community with 22 avigation easements and removing 8 acres of trees and damaging wetland, removing the bike-path  and the fence etc. for several million dollars just to keep the runway open for the larger 9-passenger turboprop charter planes. It wants to introduce non-precision straight-in approaches, which is dangerous without a control tower.  The amounts being quoted for this are probably only part of the cost and starting down this slippery path will  lead to even greater expenditures in the future.

General All this to inflict enormous environmental damage, takeover property rights, reduce property values and change the character of Chatham, despite the close proximity of the better equipped Cape Cod Gateway Airport in Hyannis. These actions would appear to encourage more low-flying, deafening charter turboprop planes at Chatham Airport for the benefit of a few, and to encourage less safe landings in poor visibility, without any regard for the environment, property values, the rights of citizens to enjoy their property in peace and quiet, the character of Chatham, the Community at large and the safety especially of those living, working, shopping or driving in the runway safety zones. It would clearly impinge on plans for developing Central West Chatham. increasing charter traffic is not the goal, then this enormous expenditure for the supposed benefit of a tiny number of recreational flyers, who are mostly not resident in Chatham, is totally inappropriate. 

• Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches requiring 46 avigation easements to meet 30:1 glide-slopes.  
• 40:1 Departure Surfaces requires 46+avigation easements.  
• A 3200ft runway is required instead of 3000ft.  
• The fact that the safety zones are already heavily populated. 
• Any increase in area of the safety zones would be extremely undesirable and unlikely to be allowed.  
• The continuing designation of the runway for "I" design group planes is a restriction on accepting the larger design group "II" planes such as Pilatus PC-12 turboprop planes. 
• A 500ft wide primary surface would lead to decimating 4.5 acres of wetlands and a vernal pool and would likely be disapproved under the Massachusetts Wetlands Act. 
• Removing 8 acres of trees and maybe many more should cause an outcry  
• Relocating the bike-path down an embankment through the Samuel Hawes Park would be difficult and  environmentally damaging in this conservation area of rare plants.  
• Any avigation easements will be vigorously objected to and costly. Even the minimum 22 is too many. 
• Lack of a control tower should prevent 'straight-in'. 
• Any modification of standards (waiving) would be unconscionable, since it would decrease the safety margins for everybody around the Airport, on the flightpath and especially in the safety zones.
  

• Residents and visitors love Chatham because Chatham is a beautiful old town with great character and a peaceful, relaxing environment, and most want to keep it that way.  
• The Airport Commission is bullying the Town of Chatham to pay for an extravagant unrealistic $10M Plan. 
• Despite claims to the contrary made by the current Airport Commission, this would clearly encourage increased charter traffic and set the stage for a regional airport.
• It would reduce the value of many public and private  properties, destroy acres of wetlands and woodlands, and negatively impact the safety and character of Chatham. 
• Overall the cost to benefit ratio is appallingly high, with zero contribution from the proponents of the proposals, and without any benefit to residents. 
• It would cost residents millions in reduced real estate values, and therefore reduced property tax collections, just to save the cost of a ride to Hyannis for a tiny few.  
•  The AMPU plans would be a slippery slope for more financial requests, which should alarm every homeowner, landlord, business, realtor and visitor in Chatham.    
• Any avigation easements to maintain the glide-path surface are unacceptable.  
• Expanding the already populated safety zones, endangering many more residents would be immoral, negligent in the extreme and extremely unlikely to be allowed by the FAA..   
• Noise cannot be mitigated because there are abutting residential properties, all around the Airport. Turboprops and twin-engine taxis create deafening noise of almost 90dB, which completely stop conversation. 85dB is the threshold for harmful noise.
• Chatham Airport is a tiny airport with a short runway, no control tower, constrained by a hill, wetlands, woodlands, and residential development on all sides and with families already living in safety zones, that the FAA insists should not be there.  
• It is not safe or sensible, and would be totally irrational and irresponsible to continue to shoehorn unsuitable planes into an unsuitable airport in unsuitable weather. 
• Using Cape Cod Gateway Airport is safer for pilots, passengers and Chatham residents.