Project: Parkland Airport - West of Edmonton

[CFR]

This is some helpful info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuville_Airport

Even if the airport stays, it is going to be a very unfriendly situation.

Not going to end well!

[MrWings]

While I support the airport mostly because it is a big FU to the ERAA, I think the process of developing an airport without discussion with local government and surrounding landowners is ludicrous. To wake up one morning to see ANY construction occuring next door without prior knowledge is disconcerting.

Just about all other development, from building a house to a pipeline, follows a process that includes notification and an appeal process. To skip these steps is asking for confrontation. I am shocked that airport development doesn't require this.

[ScreaminBanshee]

I have been involved in the discussions as a local since February. I read about their plans to build an airport in the newspaper and I contacted them. There were also numerous open houses this past spring including meetings with the county. So to say it was a surprise is uneducated response. Maybe it was a surprise to some but I feel that nothing has been kept secret.

[MrWings]

Yes, I'll plead ignornace. I don't recall seeing this thread in February. I'm not from the area so it may have been a big issue locally. I was just going by reports in the media that stated that neighbours felt blindsided.

I retract my above comments about there not being enough notification and "snowballs chance". Thank you for pointing that out SB.

[Beefitarian]

I would like to hear what it is about light piston engined airplanes that carry less fuel than a tractor and no coolant fluids, that is so offensive? Environmental concerns are pretty much not increased by an airport actually in your back yard never mind a mile away from even the strictest Organic farm/orchard. As Tom mentioned land based motor vehicles are quite a bit worse.

I'm not as callous as I might seem here. The environmental impact of this project would be pretty minimal in the past. Leaded fuel is being phased out and that would be the worst part. Though before the 1970s land vehicles used leaded fuel also. That fact does not make it healthy but should add prospective.

[rac007]

.... I was just going by reports in the media ....

And therein lies 99% of the problem between people. They only listen to what the media and the ERAA tells them.

[ScreaminBanshee]

At the end of the day the developers are pretty easy guys to deal with if you talk to them and express your concerns and are open to their responses. This is a great thing for the county, for the city, and for aviation in Canada. Unfortunately some people will react. At the end of the day all we can do is try to be good stewards to aviation.

It is pretty interesting how much aviation heritage and culture Edmonton used to have with the likes of Wop Way and Punch Dickins. It's a shame Blatchford closed but this airport represents a new chapter in aviation for Edmonton and Parkland County.

[ScreaminBanshee]

Attention all aviators, COPA members, and people that are generally progressive towards aviation.

I realize this forums stance on personal attacks and defamation of character but I feel this needs to be brought to everyone's attention. During the last Anti Aerodrome Coop meeting, it appears that some COPA members were in attendance speaking out against the new Parkland Airport. Now I find it funny that COPA members would take a stance against this airport and general aviation. After all some of COPA's mission statements are as follows:

Advocacy
•COPA will raise public awareness and increase understanding of complex issues facing personal aviation.

Infrastructure
•COPA will work with other entities to encourage a vibrant and healthy aviation infrastructure.

Engage and Empower the Membership
•COPA will engage and empower its membership to champion issues of importance to the organization.

Now I don't want to name names but this information is public on the antiaerodromecoop.com website. You can find that here: http://www.antiaerodromecoop.com/progress-updates.html

However I have taken a screen shot just in case they take it down. PM me if they do take it down and you would like to see it.

Why would some of these COPA members go against the COPA mission statement? Why would they deliberately try to escalate the anti aerodrome movement? I'm not sure, but maybe the answer could be found in this article: http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/ ... 966/-1/sag

[rac007]

Some COPA members could be opposing the parkland airport if they have an agenda to push people towards Villenueve or if they are pushing the agenda of the airport authority.

[Prodriver]

They are all drinking from the same Kool-Aid!! and all have a business or land value issue going on out there, it is a nice place but one has to deal w/ land leases from EIA and there is no more land to own. Not to mention that it is a long drive from Nisku and the South side. The Parklkand airport is hooked up to the Henday via Garden Valley Rd, less than halfway from Nisku to Vill, , and close to the new Acheson Business park, it is a great spot.

Why is it people don't like change? It is the only constant.

[Schooner69A]

"...During the last Anti Aerodrome Coop meeting, it appears that some COPA members were in attendance speaking out against the new Parkland Airport."

Comment: I couldn't find any thing related to COPA in the referenced article. Did I miss something? (Not unusual as I have two or three of every tool in my garage)

John

[ScreaminBanshee]

Hi John,

The referenced article showed the names of pilots that were in attendance as valued speakers at an anti aerodrome meeting. They happen to be COPA members.

[Schooner69A]

SB: Merci for that.

John

[MrWings]

There is a big difference between a COPA member speaking out as an individual, a COPA member speaking on behalf of COPA, and the offical stance of the COPA organization.

Just because someone is a COPA member, it doesn't mean that they have to agree and march in step with every COPA position. They aren't frickin' sheep.

[MrWings]

Why is it Canadians don't like change?

Seriously? People do not want the airport because they are Canadian?

[Indanao]

People want the Airport because they are Canadian.

[rac007]

Heard that the first small plane landed at parkland the other day. Exciting, even though it landed on the dirt after the graders made it smooth enough.

[Beefitarian]

That's horrible rac007. Does anyone know if the environment nearby survived?

[rac007]

Don't know. You could go check. But the whole area might be a radioactive crater.

[ScreaminBanshee]

There is a big difference between a COPA member speaking out as an individual, a COPA member speaking on behalf of COPA, and the offical stance of the COPA organization.

Just because someone is a COPA member, it doesn't mean that they have to agree and march in step with every COPA position. They aren't frickin' sheep.

While I agree you don't have to march in step, as a COPA member, I am frustrated that while I am trying to work towards promoting GA, other members are doing the opposite. If you want to speak out against aviation, that's you're right. Then give up your membership because you don't stand for the beliefs and mission of the organization. Maybe I am alone in my views of that.

[Tom H]

Screaminbansee

Gonna modify your quote a little hope you don't mind.

If you want to speak out against a position you don't support, that's you're right. Then give up your membership because you don't stand for the beliefs and mission of the organization.

You're not alone
I have left employment, quit associations and political parties for that very reason more than once.

I will voice my opinion, but not in conflict with other commitments I have made.

Tom H

[MrWings]

While I agree you don't have to march in step, as a COPA member, I am frustrated that while I am trying to work towards promoting GA, other members are doing the opposite. If you want to speak out against aviation, that's you're right. Then give up your membership because you don't stand for the beliefs and mission of the organization. Maybe I am alone in my views of that.

They aren't speaking out against aviation. They are speaking out against a development that they feel threatens their neighbourhood. They weren't speaking for or on behalf of COPA. Can you provide the link in which COPA supports the Parkland airport project?

If you got a 406ELT are you against COPA who is fighting manditory upgrades?

Making this "if you don't support Parkland you don't belong in COPA" argument reminds me of "if you don't support invading Iraq/Afganistan then you don't support the troops". False linkages. And it weakens your stance.

[Tom H]

While I agree you don't have to march in step, as a COPA member, I am frustrated that while I am trying to work towards promoting GA, other members are doing the opposite. If you want to speak out against aviation, that's you're right. Then give up your membership because you don't stand for the beliefs and mission of the organization. Maybe I am alone in my views of that.

They aren't speaking out against aviation. They are speaking out against a development that they feel threatens their neighbourhood. They weren't speaking for or on behalf of COPA. Can you provide the link in which COPA supports the Parkland airport project?

If you got a 406ELT are you against COPA who is fighting manditory upgrades?

Making this "if you don't support Parkland you don't belong in COPA" argument reminds me of "if you don't support invading Iraq/Afganistan then you don't support the troops". False linkages. And it weakens your stance.

Actually Mr. Wings if you look at my altered quote:

If you want to speak out against a position you don't support, that's you're right. Then give up your membership because you don't stand for the beliefs and mission of the organization.

and as noted from COPA quoted in the above post:

Advocacy
•COPA will raise public awareness and increase understanding of complex issues facing personal aviation.

Infrastructure
•COPA will work with other entities to encourage a vibrant and healthy aviation infrastructure.

Engage and Empower the Membership
•COPA will engage and empower its membership to champion issues of importance to the organization.

I made the change for a very specific reason.

I believe that these gentlemen have every right to take their position and I encourage them.

But the current conditions in our country are such that the position they are taking has ramifications beyond simply Parkland Airport and if the opposition is successful it will set a new precedent making any new airport more difficult and expensive to put in place.

It could also lead to a reversal of the Quebec airport ruling and result in a currently operating airport (in Quebec) being closed.

Taking the position they are has far greater reaching effects than Parkland Airport or frankly I would not care or comment.

That potential precedent, to me, changes this from a Parkland Airport issue to an Aviation issue.

So while I will defend their right to their position and encourage them to stand for what they believe in...I personally believe it is hypocritical if they do not step aside from their C.O.P.A. membership during their opposition and rejoin after the conclusion of the issue.

That said C.O.P.A could probably doesn't care...

But for my age I am a very old school, hard line person when it comes to principals.

So to be clear and understood...the potential precedent is my concern, not Parkland Airport.

In my highly biased personal opinion.

[Prodriver]

Heard that the first small plane landed at parkland the other day. Exciting, even though it landed on the dirt after the graders made it smooth enough.

Good now it is an aerodrome!!

[fuelguy]

It seems that Parkland Airport are betting the farm (pardon the pun) on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling concerning the jurisdiction of an aerodrome.
I hope that they clearly understand that applies specifically and only to aviation activities.
In other words, other sort of activities, that are not DIRECTLY aviation related, cannot be permitted/allowed without the real risk of local government legally able to assert their control.

The current business operating at the site, needs to cease and desist. A residence cannot be on the site.
Any business or activity not directly aviation related will void their current exemption from local (non-federal) authorities.

In my humble opinion.