The new height limits would only apply to structures in that path, he said. To limit the number of buildings and other structures affected by the proposal, the FAA is recommending airports and local zoning boards work together to select a single flight path for each runway that planes can use in the event that an engine quits, said John Speckin, the FAA deputy regional administrator in charge of the proposal.
Planes taking off usually follow one of about a half-dozen possible flight paths. The proposal could affect buildings as far as 10 miles from an airport. As the distance from an airport increases, the allowable building height increases as well. For example, under the proposal a building located 10,000 feet from the end of a runway would have a maximum allowable height of 160 feet instead of the current limit of 250 feet, according to an analysis by the Weitzman Group, a New York real estate consulting firm. The FAA’s proposal would change the way the agency assesses proposals to build new structures or modify existing structures near 388 airports to take into account the hazard that would be created to one-engine takeoffs. Bigger planes that carry lots of passengers and cargo on lucrative international flights are especially affected.Īirports worry that the problem could cost airlines enough money that they’ll find some routes unprofitable and eliminate service, Oswald said. The problem is exacerbated in hot weather when air is denser and planes require more power during takeoff. Current regulations effectively limit building heights based on the amount of clearance needed by planes with two operating engines.Īirlines already must sometimes cut down on the number of passengers and the amount of cargo carried by planes taking off from airports in Burbank and San Jose in California, and in Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, and near Washington, D.C., among others, so they will be light enough to clear obstructions if only one engine is available, said Chris Oswald, vice president of the Airports Council International-North America. As more buildings, cellphone towers, wind turbines and other tall structures go up near airports, there are fewer safe flight paths available. Planes can fly with only one engine, but they have less power to climb quickly over obstacles.Īirlines have to plan for the possibility that a plane could lose the use of an engine during takeoff even though that doesn’t happen very often. The Federal Aviation Administration proposal, supported by airports and airlines, is driven by encroaching development that limits safe flight paths for planes that might lose power in an engine during takeoff. WASHINGTON - The government wants to dramatically reduce the allowable height of buildings near hundreds of airports - a proposal that is drawing fire from real estate developers and members of Congress who say it will reduce property values. SpaceX closer to launching giant, futuristic rocketship after review US flight cancellations soar ahead of July 4th weekendĪirlines aim to shift blame for flight problems to FAA before any kid is allowed to enter Smaland, disclaimer on IKEA responsibility will be signed and agreed by parents, so there shouldn't be any pseudo concern on who to complain when thgs happen.'Craziest thing ever': 911 call reveals doomed pilot jumped before emergency landing The mother said in response to Ikea that to enter the play area, a waiver has to be signed by the parent to not hold Ikea to account if anything goes wrong, which technically should be enough to protect both parties' interests: To be fair to Ikea, it mentioned that the Tampines branch is newly-renovated with new requirements and it will pass on the feedback from the mother.Īnd from the response, the mother appears fully cognisant of her responsibility. The playground in the Tampines branch allows access to children between 100cm and 120cm, while the Alexandra branch has a wider allowance between 90cm and 130cm.
Moreover, there was an exchange between Ikea and the parent in the original post, which revealed what the real gripe was about.įrom this original post and the replies by both parties, it is clear that the mother was taking issue with the discrepancy between height requirements for Ikea in Tampines and Alexandra.
We hope you can revise your policy and review the reasonableness to set height limit rather than age limit.Įxchange between mother and Ikea on the original post: We as parents also failed to keep our promise made to the little girl before we came. My girl age 5 with around 100cm was rejected from entering the playground, and was deeply upset seeing her brother allowed to enter. However you truly disappointed us especially our little girl with the implementation of height limit between 100cm to 120cm. Hi Ikea Tampines, we appreciate your effort of renovating the Smaland.
0 kommentar(er)
