Federal Aviation Administration wants shorter buildings near U.S. airports

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to reduce height limits on buildings near airports, but the proposal has sparked disputes between airlines and airports that support the change, and development interests worried about hurting property values.

The FAA says buildings should be shorter to bolster safety at 388 airports nationwide, to give pilots more options up to 10 miles from an airport in case one of an airliner's two engines fails while taking off or landing.

The policy change would affect 4,000 tall buildings near airports and 4,000 more that are planned nationwide, according to a 2012 analysis by the Weitzman Group real-estate consultants in New York. Many more developments that haven't yet filed applications with FAA could be affected, according to study author Peter Bazeli, senior vice president of Weitzman.

Airlines and airports say height restrictions are needed after 40 years of tall buildings encroaching on airports. Avoiding tall buildings by altering flight routes can lead to burning more fuel, and reducing cargo or passengers to lighten a plane's load.

"Our first concern, as always, is the safety of the operation of our aircraft," said Victoria Day, a spokeswoman for Airlines for America, a trade group for the largest airlines. "The industry looks forward to working collaboratively with local communities to find win-win solutions."

But developers say the limits could hurt construction plans from Arizona to the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Even the procedure is contentious. FAA is proposing a brisk policy change, rather than a formal rulemaking that critics prefer and that could take years to complete.

Rep. James Moran, D-Va., proposed legislation to require a rulemaking because 170 buildings are affected in his state. Airlines must already ensure there is a safe, alternate route if a plane loses an engine, which is why the policy has traditionally been considered an economic debate, Moran said.

A public-comment period, which has already been extended once, ended Monday.

FAA doesn't directly restrict the height of buildings, but issues a "determination of hazard" when buildings are too tall near airports. At that point, local zoning boards are reluctant to approve construction and buildings can become unaffordable because of higher insurance costs and smaller size.

Summarizing the FAA proposal is difficult because most airports have a variety of flight paths. But one example is that at 10,000 feet from the end of a runway, the current building height limit of 250 feet would be reduced to 160 feet, according to the Weitzman report.

"Certainly it's understandable that there might be some accommodation for disaster scenarios," said Bazeli, the study author. "The real concern here is that there is a really significant impact on property owners and communities and cities, and that certainly wasn't fully vetted in 2012 when it was originally proposed."

The proposal affects communities differently.

Hawaiian Airlines "wholeheartedly supports" the proposal, according to Daniel Lyons, the airline's senior director of operations analytics. All Honolulu flights departing from one runway must turn to the right because of rising terrain and a 447-foot antenna two miles from the runway, but then cranes at a container terminal create another obstacle for wide-body planes, Lyons said.

"If the trend continues of increasing obstacles on departure paths where no alternative (one-engine) path exists, at some point, federally funded runways will no longer be viable for commercial airline operations," Lyons said.

But Jack Longino, mayor of College Park, Ga., which contains several concourses of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, urged the FAA to drop the change. FAA's purpose isn't for the safety of passengers or airlines, but an attempt to reduce the economic impact on airlines that can't load their aircraft to maximum capacity, he said.

Arizona has interests on both sides of the debate.

The city of Phoenix, which owns Sky Harbor International Airport, "desires to preserve what clear airspace remains" beyond the east runway, according to aviation director Danny Murphy.

But four Arizona lawmakers – Republican Reps. Paul Gosar, David Schweikert, Matt Salmon and Trent Franks – said 75 existing and proposed buildings in their state would be hurt.

In Phoenix, the Maricopa County Court Tower and the Virginia G. Piper Sports and Fitness Center would be unable to add equipment or signs to the top of their buildings, the lawmakers said. In Tempe, the proposed Sky Tower would exceed the proposed limit by 217 feet, lawmakers said.

"At a time when the U.S. economy is just starting to turn around, the proposed (one engine) policy threatens to derail much needed economic development," the lawmakers said.

Another hot spot for the debate is Virginia's Arlington County, which surrounds Washington's Reagan National airport.

Rosslyn, along the airport's northern glide path, anticipates 4.5 million square feet of office space and 1,000 new housing units over the next 25 years. The skyline is "meaningful and much-valued asset," according to the Rosslyn Business Improvement District, but the FAA proposal "will hamper development and reduce property values."

But Don Gay, an electronics engineer from Arlington who lives 200 yards from the airport, supported the policy change.

"Safety must be foremost in this decision; not the financial interests of developers and the temporary creation of jobs," Gay said. "There are other places where buildings can be constructed. When aircraft accidents occur adjacent to airports, it will not be the developers who will be subjected to scrutiny and criticism, but the FAA."

- Source:  http://www.usatoday.com