Says FAA Did Not Consider Increased Traffic When Runway Was Approved

A Seattle-based federal court of appeals has struck down plans for a third runway at Hillsboro, OR, west of Portland (KHIO). While the proponants of a new runway said it would be a boon for aviation-related businesses at the airport, Judge Betty Fletcher, writing for the majority, said the FAA and other agencies "do not explain why this is so and do not refer to anything in the record backing their contention. It strains credulity to claim that increasing HIO's capacity significantly, which in turn would decrease congestion and delay, would have no bearing on the decision of flight schools, the military, emergency medical services, and business and private owners over whether to locate their aircraft at HIO or at other, considerably less busy, GA airports in the area."

Courthouse News Service reports that the FAA said adding a runway at KHIO would not incresase traffic at the GA reliever airport. The agency backed up the statement with internal forecasts which indiate that GA will grow at the airport whether the runway is built or not, a fact cited by the court in its ruling.

The Judge also indicated that a survey of pilots did not even include a question about a new runway, asking instead about restaurants or the availablity of rental cars when making a decision about which airport to use, and the airport master plan also does not mention a new runway.

The review came about as the result of a request from three private citizens in the area, who said the FAA had not done its due dilligence in assessing the need for a new runway.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Sandra Ikuta said the review amounted to little more than "pointless paperwork." "It is conventional wisdom among aviators that 'when the weight of the paper equals the weight of the airplane, only then you can go flying," she said in the dissent. "The majority confirms the truth of this quotation: here a federal agency is trying to reduce airport delays and the concomitant negative environmental effects by commencing a project in anticipation of future growth, and the majority sides with delay and air pollution by imposing pointless paperwork on the agency before the necessary project can go forward."

The matter now goes back to the FAA for "more study."

FMI: www.faa.gov, www.ca9.uscourts.gov