For more than sixty years, Witham Field, Martin County’s airport (named for one of our native sons), has been self-supporting, or at least operated without expense to the County taxpayers. We think that is as it should be. Recent lawsuits filed against the airport by some concerned citizens may cause the Commissioners to “lend” some of our tax dollars to defend these lawsuits. That concerns us, but it also concerns us that conditions are such that some of our own citizens found it necessary to sue our County, us.

As we understand the concerns about the airport, noise seems to be the prevailing problem for most of those negatively affected. Recently the Witham Noise Advisory Committee voted to support legally removing the 460-foot extension, built in 1998, of the main runway to reduce noise and allay some of the concerns about airport expansion. This recommendation has been hailed in the press as a victory for neighbors of the airport. While we agree that this is one of the viable options open to the County, (assuming the FAA agrees) we suspect that noise is not the only concern.

Just moving the takeoffs on the runway 460 feet to the south will have little impact on noise to the north, the most affected area. The loudest noise by the most offensive aircraft occurs during takeoff and when using high levels of thrust reversing on landing. Therefore, moving that takeoff noise 460 feet will have little effect on the people living well behind the departing aircraft. Moving landing aircraft 460 feet down the runway will again have a negligible positive affect on noise to the northern homeowners. In fact, noise may increase, as the shorter runway causes aircraft to slow down earlier and make a higher power approach, along with an increase in the use of reversers earlier in the landing roll. Also, redrawing of the noise contours used in the FAA Part 150 study could significantly delay or remove some of the homes scheduled for buy-out – the real best answer for the folks living north of runway 12 - no matter what recommendation is followed.

Conversely, moving the runway 12 takeoff roll 460 feet south will probably make noise at the golf course and homes to the south noticeably worse. Due to the prevailing winds, jet aircraft takeoff to the south approximately 2/3 of the time and the aircraft will be slightly lower, slower and at full power longer over these properties. Landings from the south will be unchanged since the touchdown zone remains the same.

Making the runway just short enough (legally) that certain aircraft models will not be able to operate during certain weather conditions may reduce the attractiveness of Witham to fractional jet owners/users thereby reducing jet traffic. This may also further restrict larger aircraft, although the narrow, 100 foot wide runway already accomplishes much of that. The problem here is that a number of aviation and non-aviation businesses will be adversely affected and the noisiest aircraft will probably not be restricted anyway. The new runway length will change already approved FAA Part 150 (noise study) findings possibly allowing the study to be challenged and the solutions further delayed. This serves no one and would be unfair to those residents within the buyout zone.

We can only hope that the allure of the prime real estate on which the airport is located did not play a part in driving the recommendation. Some may think that if enough negative affects can be brought forward and publicized the airport will just go away. We do not believe that can happen any time soon and these efforts will just drive up cost and keep some residents’ very real noise problems from receiving the maximum relief which may be available.

Our objective is for the airport to be operated efficiently and safely. We want it to remain self-sufficient and not be dependant on our local tax dollars. We want the land at the airport used effectively. Like all of the other possible solutions, we know that if this recommendation is followed, it will have both positive and negative affects on many in Martin County. We want an unemotional, honest consideration of the recommendation to legally restrict the length of the runway, along with adequate consideration of the consequences.