An Open Letter on Tweed-New Haven Airport.

An open Letter to Mathew Lieber and to those for whom he speaks for:

Calls to protect the environment are indeed noble and worthy. Our planet deserves every bit of effort at upkeep that we can provide. As resident creatures of the Earth, it is in all of our interests to protect the environment. Unfortunately, your call (petition of Mathew Lieber) to citizens regarding Tweed is not only laced with inaccuracies, but most importantly, stretches out a single, simple and basic point. And that is...if an EIS is determined necessary, then one will be done. People who pay attention, know this already. We don't need marching in the street for this. If an EA is not adequate, then an EIS will be done. Now, please, put your fist down.

Should your petition above be any indication of your expertise on the above matter, you are truly failing in your civic responsibilities.

Let us begin with reality: The Airport does indeed have an environmental impact. Not a person of common reason would contest this reality. What a person of simple reason would and should contest however is your dramatization (and that of your constituents) of these impacts.

Conveniently, you post and share comments as well as studies as if they are facts. Studies are not always CONCLUSIVE, nor are they always peer reviewed. They are often educated speculation. One need only look at the countless studies done toward that of Cancer research to understand this point. Are these innumerable studies on Cancer and various forms of treatment all to be viewed as Panaceas for this illness? Will Cancer be cured simply because one or ten studies say so? While a study sounds convincing as proof for something, it most certainly is not.

Citing studies as if they are gospel is misleading. You and your constituents are abusing the public with the endowed gift of perceived absolute knowledge.

To add further, your reciting of "Background information" regarding the length of Tweed's Runway is blatantly in error. Not only is HVN's proposed runway extension going to be less than that of Laguardia Airport's runway (6,635 ' versus 7,000') you even state LGA's runway length incorrectly in your statement of this erroneous background. How can you err in such simple facts and call yourself a steward of any kind? This shows the immensity of your poor research. Look at the real, actual charts below that pilots use…heck, take this guy’s word for it while you’re at it!!!

The Airport Master Plan shows in the clearness of day, that the proposed and PREFERRED Runway extension by the HVN Master Plan is 6,635' NOT 7,600 '. (Look above) In this Mathew Lieber, you are perpetuating untruth and allowing misinformation to run rampant.

Further, the length of a runway has no direct bearing on the frequency of flights from a given airport. To compare LGA to HVN is pure rhetoric and shows your clear lack of understanding of aeronautical matters. Tweed will not become near or like LGA because it lacks the infrastructure (landside and airside) now and in the future.

An airport such as Tweed severely lacks the THROUGHPUT CAPACITY to handle a capacity a fraction of what LGA handles. Further, this limit protects the community from the “environmental disaster” you and others proclaim. A lengthening of Tweed Airport’s runway serves to improve operational performance of aircraft to and from its runways, not its throughput capacity.

What amounts to a relocation of a passenger Terminal, a Parking lot and the extension of an airport runway ALL ON CURRENT AIRPORT PROPERTY IS NOT A MASSIVE EXPANSION AS YOU BEMOAN. Your comments and those of others, show that you have not taken the time to read and certainly do not understand the Airport Master Plan Document.

Further and finally, the EA and the EIS are both Federal Procedures that require an immense amount of scrutiny from numerous agencies. To purport otherwise, is to show your maudlin stance on the matter. Should an EA be deemed insufficient for the given projects at HVN, then an EIS will be mandated. SIMPLE. In your petition, you belabor a simple point into numerous conspiratorial and accusatory points which only points out your lack of understanding and/or your proverbial and personal axe to grind. Which is it? The matter is exquisitely simple, if an EA is deemed insufficient then an EIS will be done. Why is this such a difficult concept for you, your group and your supporters to understand?

Every stitch of verifiable and legitimate literature on the subject conveys my very initial and earlier point…if a FONSI is not made, then an EIS will be mandated. That’s how the process works! And if you reflect back to 2002 re: HVN and their EIS regarding RSA and taxiway extensions (among other things) …you probably don’t like the result? Remember, as you and your constituents say, “it’s not a done deal”.

I do not disagree with protecting the environment. The air that I breathe is important to me and to my children as well. My view of the HVN Master Plan is that it serves to improve the mission of the airport, all the while compromising that mission with that of others (to include environmental matters). As you and others frequently allege, I do not believe the AMP process (nor its goals) to be anything other than law abiding and attentive to due process. The misinformation, half stories, drama and blatant lies of those like yourself and that of the " 10,000 Hawks" are what I believe to be the real problem around Tweed.

T. Lorenti. Captain