In West Chatham runway protection zones (RPZs)/safety-zones at both ends of the runway, contain multiple homes, stores, offices and roads, which are declared by the FAA as “unacceptable, incompatible land uses” and unsafe. Where this occurs, the FAA AC150/5300-13A §322 recommends moving the RPZs away from the unacceptable land uses. This then requires planes to land further along the runway, which reduces the available landing distance, but by less than 600ft in Chatham. Aircraft taking-off would still start from one end of the runway, but with a reduced take-off distance. (View these RPZs at mandmtom.us/Airport). These changes should not affect use of the Airport by light aircraft.  Moving the RPZs, to exclude homes, stores and the roads, increases the safety of the affected residents and West Chatham, and mitigates decades of Town zoning negligence. In addition the start of the glide-path surfaces would be correspondingly displaced along the runway, so that beyond the runway, these surfaces would be raised 30ft, thus avoiding the immediate need for expensive avigation easements, and destruction of trees and wetlands. Planes would also fly 30ft higher over residents. This change would have the benefit of eliminating the threat of increased charter traffic at the Airport, because charter flights would have to use Cape Cod Gateway Airport in Hyannis. This would avoid the need for instrument, poor visibility and risky straight‐in approaches, intended primarily for the benefit of commercial flights. Without the large Pilatus PC-12 turbojet, there would also be no need to remove ~12 acres of woodlands and wetlands, and the bike path. AMPU §2.2.3 emphasizes the importance of maintaining vacant RPZs “When feasible, the Airport should make every effort to acquire property under the runway approach and departure surfaces, at a minimum, to the limits of the RPZ.” The FAA warned in a 1983 advisory that allowing residential development, around an airport, would ultimately cause it to close. Well. 38 years later, displacing the RPZs at Chatham Airport is the right thing to do and a win-win compromise. It would be very welcome to the Chatham Community, and would cost nothing compared to the millions of dollars proposed in the AMPU. The FAA only has jurisdiction over airspace, not ground level property. There have been successful displacements at other Airports, and is mentioned as an option by Gale Associates in section 6.3.1 of the AMPU, so this approach can and should be seriously considered.

Starting in 1950, decisions – consciously or unconsciously – were made and re-made in Chatham to effectively prohibit the airport’s (CQX) growth –physical expansion as well as expansion of aircraft use.  Those decisions manifested themselves by land use authorities’ allowing considerable residential development in “runway protection zones” established by law and in the airport approach zone. This development prevents a number of aircraft uses routine at larger airports.

The Airport Commission is now contemplating the impossible task of turning back time, to aid jets and  turboprop charters, and aircraft in poorer weather conditions, in landing at CQX, by allowing potentially lower “non-precision instrument” aircraft approaches to the runway.  This would require appropriating private airspace rights from private properties through “avigation easements,” requiring the Town -- likely in several contested court proceedings -- to pay owners for these low airspace takings.  These are expensive proceedings (watch tax bills soar), and homeowners receiving “compensation” would never be able to sell their properties in the future for more than a pittance.  Who wants to buy a home where airplanes might fly so close to the ground that you cannot even hear yourself think?

 I am not a homeowner earmarked for an avigation easement. But we must stop this madness -- that tries to ignore 70 years of irreversible decision-making by public servants -- which will increase our tax bills while effectively destroying the value of innocent neighbors’ homes. 

The President of the United States said recently that global warming and climate change present the existential challenge of our times.  In 2020 Massachusetts tied for its warmest year in history, and its five warmest years have occurred in the last 8 years.  Most Cape Codders recognize the danger of carbon discharges into the atmosphere.  

So does the science of aviation.  Dan Wolfe, who used to be our Chatham Airport manager and is now CEO of Cape Air in Hyannis, is planning on having 10 electric planes in service by 2024, with the goal of becoming an all-electric airline.  A year ago the world’s largest airline (Delta) announced a $1 billion investment in the same technology, and Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and Amazon Prime, announced a $10 billion investment in kind a week later. 

In juxtaposition to such common sense stands the Chatham Airport Commission, that has just approved a master plan that calls for the installation of a 10,000 gallon Jet–A fuel tank, which would double the fuel storage capacity at the airport and facilitate use of the Chatham airport by larger jet and  charter aircraft and the discharge of even more carbon into the atmosphere. 

The Town of Chatham is a Commonwealth-Designated Green Community -- allegedly a forward-thinking town committed to the fight against climate change.  This green community has adopted a carbon policy.  You can see this policy manifested in the increasing number of electric town vehicles, increasing use and support of solar energy and commitment to on-site renewable energy projects. 

It is high time for the Chatham Airport Commissioners to DECREASE, not increase, the amount of carbon fuel at the airport, incentivize clean alternative technologies, and stop moving in the OPPOSITE direction from that endorsed by the President and all intelligent people in the 21st century.  It is time for the Airport Commission to adopt a carbon policy, join the common sense mission of Cape Codders and right-thinking aviation scientists, and start fighting climate change instead of contributing to its acceleration.

Editor:

The letter last week from an out-of-town pilot is hilarious. He references displacing the thresholds in Chatham, and then proceeds to kid us with a hypothetical in Hyannis, which has two runways, each almost twice as long as the one in Chatham. Turboprops should indeed use Cape Cod Gateway Airport in Hyannis, where there is no need for the rapid deafening deceleration required on Chatham’s short runway.

“Let the experts decide,” he says. Well they have. Gale Associates in the AMPU describes displacing the thresholds as an alternative for mitigating for the vegetative intrusions into the approaches. Additionally the FAA advisory on airport design recommends displacing the thresholds as a means of mitigating for populated RPZs by moving them away from residences, shops, offices gas tanks, roads etc. This is the safest, quickest, easiest and least expensive option on the table. Ask yourself, why is the airport pushing back on it?

The intention of displacing the thresholds is twofold: to protect the safety of the residents, workers, shoppers and drivers in West Chatham and avoid the enormous costs of avigation easements and loss of property values, that would be borne by all the residents of Chatham. The pilot's letter indicates a complete lack of consideration for the costs to the residents of Chatham, ignorance of the AMPU, and advocacy by the FAA with respect to RPZs.

Wake up Chatham! This is not just a West Chatham neighborhood issue. These airport issues effect the tranquility and quality of life for everyone in Chatham. If we let the airport continue to operate unchecked, there will be more hours of air traffic, there will be more loud turboprops and there will be more jets among them. Not just in your back yard, or your ability to sleep with the windows open at night, but the peace and tranquility of every beach, pond, marsh, and stretch of woods is what is at stake here. That is the simple truth of this debate. Simply put, bigger runways means bigger planes. Where is the Chatham charm in that?

In 2020 Massachusetts tied for its warmest year in history, and its five warmest years have occurred since 2012. Cape Codders recognize the danger of carbon discharges into the atmosphere.

So does the science of aviation.  Dan Wolf, the former Chatham Airport manager who is now CEO of Cape Air, plans to have 10 electric planes in service by 2024, with the goal of becoming an all-electric airline.  Last year, the world’s largest airline (Delta) announced a $1 billion investment in the same technology, and Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, announced a $10 billion investment in kind a week later.

This week, the French National Assembly, cognizant that aircraft fuel – which has been called “notoriously dirty” – emits extraordinary amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, voted to end airline routes where a trip can be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.  The bill was prompted by France's Citizens' Convention on Climate that was created by President Macron in 2019.

In juxtaposition to all of this stands the Chatham Airport Commission, which has approved installation of a 10,000 gallon Jet–A fuel tank to double the carbon fuel storage capacity at the airport, facilitating the airport’s use by larger jet and commercial charter aircraft – and more carbon discharge into the atmosphere.

The airport commission should decrease the amount of carbon fuel at the airport and incentivize clean alternative technologies. It is time for the airport commission to start fighting climate change instead of contributing to its acceleration.