I am a retired business jet pilot and a retired U.S. Air Force pilot. During a 40-year flying career, I was on every continent except Antarctica. I have operated from a variety of runways that ranged from 2,000 feet of dirt to 15,000 feet of concrete.
Among the airplanes I had the privilege of flying were: Gulfstream 3 and 4, Lockheed JetStar (-8 and 731), numerous Learjets, Fairchild A-10, Northrop T-38, Lockheed C-130 and Cessna A-37.
I flew out of Warsaw in the early '70s and flew a Gulfstream 3 into Warsaw during the '80s and '90s. The runway length was never an issue. During my first 10 years in the Chicago area, I operated from an airport that had a 5,000-foot runway (as opposed to Warsaw's 6,000 feet), a displaced threshold, higher instrument landing minimums, and the nasty Chicago weather. We had to go to an alternate airport about one or two times a year.
In my opinion, there is much misinformation being disseminated about the need for a longer runway in Warsaw. Each generation of business jets has required less runway to fly the same distance or been able to fly a greater distance from the same runway.
The late '60s jets I flew had a range of 1,000 miles from a 6,000-foot runway. From that same runway; the '70s jets had a range of 1,700 miles, in the '80s the range was 3,700 miles and the '90s saw an increase to over 4,000 miles. Landing distance should not be an issue. If contamination makes the current landing length marginal, then the expansion being proposed would not solve that problem. Another 1,000 feet of sliding distance is not an option, but going to another airport is. Fort Wayne or South Bend are not that far away! How many times a year do the current operators go to those airports?
I retired in 2003; therefore, I don't have the performance numbers for the current generation of business jets. However, I can't imagine that the performance has decreased. If, in fact, the local companies are operating with little safety margin, then they bought the wrong airplane.
Concerning the Aviation Trust Fund cited by one of the pilots, I assume it was a typo or he was misquoted. Doing the math means their company purchased about 2.5 million gallons of fuel that year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe that they used that much fuel in one year.
In this economy, our local elected officials don't seem to understand that it can no longer be "business as usual". Buying the bank building at an inflated price shows a total disregard for the taxpayers. It appears that they are demonstrating the same attitude on airport expansion.
I have served on several airport advisory boards. In my experience, when the issue of airport expansion is "shoved down the throats" of the taxpayer, one needs to look closely at ancillary issues. The key issue is, "Who will benefit most from this expansion"? Follow the money trail and you will usually find your answer.
Dale Borkholder
Director of Aviation (retired); Morton International
