Gregg Lewis, Joseph G. Taber, Venables, James J. Matteo Iacoviello, Jeffrey D. Warner, Christopher A. Sims, Beata K. Smarzynska, Smarzynska, Beata K. Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz, Luis A.
Romer, Gertler, M. Svensson, Lars E. Svensson, L-E-O, Svensson, Lars E O, Lars E O Svensson, Lars E. Svensson, Abel, "undated". Abel, Andrew B, Abel, Abel, A. Xavier X. Sala-i-Martin, Sala-i-Martin, Xavier, Glaeser, Ellison, G. Bengt Holmstrom, Lucas Jr. Stokey, Miller, Alan B. Ross Levine, Xavier Sala-i-Martin, Kevin M.
Murphy, Kevin M. Diamond, Townsend, R. Robert M. Townsend, "undated". Hall, B. Bronwyn H. Mackinnon, J. Wesley M. Walsh, Menzie D. Constantinides, George M, Campbell, J. Dixit, A. Steve J. Smith, Jr.
Harvey, Daron Acemoglu, Fumio Hayashi, Angus Deaton, Deaton, A. Smith, Clifford Jr. Bruce D. Meyer, Ted O'Donoghue and Matthew Rabin. Uhlig, Harald, Uhlig, H. Brock, W. William A. Hommes, Dohmen, Thomas J. George J. Borjas, Stephen Nickell, Nickell, S. Guido W. Berger, Allen N. Mester, Glenn Hubbard, Campbell, John, Louis S. Sullivan, Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Dufwenberg, M. Heckman, James D. Hamilton, Paul R. Chevalier, J. Judith A. Ellison, Schennach, Pinelopi K.
Knetter, Kenneth R. Poterba, Eugene F. Fama, "undated". Eugene F Fama, "undated". Alesina, A. James A. Spencer, Eric J. Pindyck, Robert S. Robert S. Pindyck, Pindyck, Robert, Thomas Chaney, Waldmann, Robert G. Viral V. Stanley Fischer, Sascha O. Mervyn A. Keller, Wolfgang, Wolfgang Keller, Thaler, David Card, Rob, Kandori, M. Olin Program. Svensson, L. Robert Feenstra, Feenstra, "undated". Athanasios Orphanides, Green, Edward J.
Bruce E. Oswald, Andrew, Oswald, Andrew J. Oswald, Andrew J, Matthew O. David I. Stern, Hashem, Paul A. David T. Coe, D. Bernard, Andrew. Schott, Bernard, Andrew B. McGrattan, Helpman, Elhanan, James M. Summers, Kleibergen, F. Chad Syverson, Kenneth A. Stein, Anthony B. Acemoglu, Daron, Acemoglu, D.
Hardouvelis, Shang-Jin Wei, Soutter, Scharfstein, David. Jaffe, Chiappori, P. Krishna, Vijay, Edward E. Scheinkman, Udell, Gregory, Weitzman, Foster, "undated". Richard H. Barndorff-Nielsen, Ole E. Alan C. Tesar, Monetary Policy? Richard Portes, Danny Quah, Reinhart, Carmen M.
Steven A. Sharpe, Stephen Zeldes, "undated". Stephen P. Zeldes, "undated". Kenneth Rogoff, Glenn D. Rudebusch, G. Violante, Dosi, Giovanni, Margaret M. John B. King, R. Aviv Nevo, Nevo, Aviv, Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy. Department of Economics. Kenneth N. Kuttner, Thomas, D. Bencivenga, V. Andreoni, J. Barth, James R. James R. Nina Pavcnik, Scott Taylor, Edward C. Mountford, A. West, K. Phillippe Weil, Philippe Weil, Dunne, T.
Stock, J. Scott L. Bergstrand, Gregory Mankiw, Alan J. Quah, D. Anil K. Wilcox, Lo, Lo, Andrew W. Andrew Wen-Chuan , Vegh, Redding, Stephen J. Jeffrey M. Rogers, Engel, C. Kandel, E. Carlsson, H. Lazear, Charles F. Manski, Hanson, Parker, Gourinchas, P. Ruhm, Himmelberg, C. Himmelberg, Charles P. Harry H. Prucha, Hylleberg, S. Hyllerberg, S. Verhoogen, Eric A, Verhoogen, Eric, Guido Tabellini, Sala-I-Martin, X. Trajtenberg, M. Michael Woodford, Woodford, Michael, Woodford, M. Kenneth L. Judd, John R. John Hartwick, North, Douglass C. Schwert, G William, William Schwert, Stefano DellaVigna, Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol.
Juan C. Karl E. Hart, O. Fitzgerald, Di Tella, R. Venables, Anthony J, Anthony J. David Lopez-Salido, Richard Rogerson, Farmer, Benhabib, J. A, Sebastian Edwards, Milgrom, P. Summers, "undated". Roger B. Satterthwaite, Pablo A. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics. Campbell R. Myerson, Joseph Farrell and Carl Shapiro. Farrell, J. Bruce Sacerdote, Enrique G. French, "undated". Simar, L. Campbell, John Y.
Alan V. Deardorff, Deardorff, A. Lundberg, S. Charles Engel, Guido Imbens, Gary B. Charles T. Fuerst, Durlauf, Steven N. Durlauf, S. Martin D. Evans and Richard K. Evans, Martin D. Lyons, Conley, T. Timothy G. Udry, Conley, Timothy G. Brian J. Liebman, All Heckman, James J, Jensen, Michael C. Lucas, Robert Jr. Johansen, Soren, Tim Bollerslev, White, Halbert, Romer, Paul M, Fama, Eugene F. Engle, Robert F, Hansen, Lars Peter, Urs Fischbacher, Calvo, Guillermo A. Charnes, A.
Hausman, Jerry, Myers, Stewart C. Krugman, Paul, Sims, Christopher A, Stewart C. Majluf, Hamilton, James D, Schmidt, George A. Akerlof, Carhart, Mark M, Nelson, Daniel B, Fama, Eugene F, Kenneth Train, Smith, Perron, Pierre, Kyle, Albert S, But the aim is not to denounce Schumpeter as an ideologue — this would be an impertinent injustice.
Schumpeter's procedures are meticulously open to examination, his categories are scrupulously defined, every assumption is detailed and its implications specified. His analytical apparatus is highly individual but it is used objectively and, on every assessment of his work, to impressive effect. But the more secure Schumpeter's scientific status the more tempting his system becomes to apologetics. And the system makes possible a dramatic ideological coup : the appropriation by the defenders of property and its privileges, of the central dynamic of Marxist theory.
But the dynamic is domesticated, stripped of the menacing ambivalence which marks capitalist accumulation in Capital, since responsibility for all its destructive effects is transferred to society at large. Under the banner of Schumpeter a retreat can be organised from yesterday s presentation of neo-capitalism as harmonious stability, from a social optimism which becomes untenable as the long postwar prosperity fades in the memory and with it the years when the Schumpeterian system was a curious relic of a superceded past.
The failure of Schumpeter's most developed theoretical work, Business Cycles, was partly accidental. Contemporary problems were too pressing for prolonged discussion of a work of historical scholarship. But Business Cycles also has serious intrinsic weaknesses. Creative destruction : the significance of Schumpeter 's Economic Doctrines 22 1. A rigorously abstract — almost symbolic — conceptual structure is married to the thorough quantitative empiricism of Harvard and the Review of Economic Statistics. The fusion is not convincing.
Schum- peter's central categories, entrepreneur, innovation, etc. In Business Cycles theory and data are both presented in exhaustive detail but the mediation between them is clumsy and uncontrolled. The notorious three-cycle schema is a key example of this failing.
Cyclical movements are classified into superimposed waves of 3, 9 and 50 year periods, given the names Kitchin, Juglar, Kon- dratieff. In the United States, where empirical business cycle analysis was highly developed, critics pointed out that concrete economic data is not so easily mastered1. Empirical validation of his theory was made more difficult by Schumpeter's rejection of the new macrodynamic methods being pioneered by Tinbergen, Frisch and Kalecki.
Multiplier and accelerator effects, lags and delays, are not used at all, since such automatic macroeconomic mechanisms cannot be understood in terms of the static allocative rationality of the circular flow or the progressive logic of new enterprise. But in thus preserving the principles of his system, Schumpeter sacrificed powerful tools of investigation which already made his crude cyclical schema technically obsolete. And such faults are more than technical ; they call into question the theory itself.
Schumpeter has difficulty in appropriating, with an adequate recognition of its complexity, the full range of cyclical phenomena. There is a blindness to patterns, such as accelerator effects, which cannot be reconciled with the cycle as a pure dynamic of progress. Schumpeter's system is theoretically impoverished — its central vision is too refined, too one-sided to negotiate the transition from abstract to concrete. Subsequent developments in both theory and policy completed the relegation of the system.
Macrodynamics, the investigation of fluctuations as mechanical phenomena with no discussion of their social rationality, increasingly held the field. Richard Goodwin, in an early mathematical model of the cycle, tried to combine Schumpeterian and Keynesian insights but there were few — if any -. In the fifties Nicholas Kaldor pronounced respectful obsequies over the grave. The entrepreneurs thus become an unruly problem group whose anti-social behaviour can be controlled by well- designed institutional reforms2.
Kaldor's critique, of course, reflects the hopes derived from a long, buoyant expansion. From system to myth. It is, then, appropriate that the turbulent economic climate of the seventies and eighties should reawaken interest in Schumpeter's work. In retrospect, the long phase of neglect may seem a characteristically Schumpeterian phenomenon — a long Kondratieff upswing stemming from fundamental innovations in the nineteen- thirties. The concern is with the determinants of broad phases of capitalist development, not Schumpeter's obsolete short-run macroeconomics.
More disturbing is a different kind of discourse, the revival of an ethos not derived from Schumpeter so much as read into him. The tendency here is to adopt not Schumpeter's results or substantive insights, but his categories, which are used to sustain a dubious ideology of crisis. In accordance with Schumpeter, the waste, iniquity and suffering of an overproduction crisis can be attributed to the inflexibility of society in general ; capitalist enterprise is exculpated while.
Creative destruction : the significance of Schumpeter' s economic doctrines Creative destruction versus financial stabilisation. The distortions of todays' Schumpeterian myth cannot be fully established while discussion is confined to changes in productive techniques and business organisation. It cannot be taken for granted that these issues are the only central ones. In Schumpeter, as we have seen, the account is more nuanced : capitalist development cannot be specified — even in principle — without considering financial factors since development resources are provided by forced saving, by expansions of bank credit.
Nevertheless, finance is secondary — the central drama is enacted by the entrepreneur. Successful enterprise will transform the finan- tial sphere : the obligations of existing producers are devalued by their competitive failure. This will be a minor disturbance if the credit system is robust — if the eliminated companies have funded their fixed interest obligations so that their failure falls only on their equity. The opposite case, where they are highly geared towards short-term credits, can provoke a deflationary crisis.
In Schumpe- ter's view this is a malfunction of the monetary system. This account, however logical, is related to today's events only by the contrast it presents to reality. First, the proprieties have not been observed : a characteristic of the postwar expansion was to load households, companies and governments with short-term debt. By the criteria of nineteenth century capitalism, the resulting financial structures are very unhealthy.
But this does not mean that they will rapidly succumb to the shock of innovation. On the contrary, the need to avoid such a collapse has been recently a major constraint on real economic adjustment. There are certainly many failures and bankruptcies, but these indicate creative destruction in a highly original form. Debtors pay the penalty of elimination from the competitive struggle — in mild or draconian ways they. But creditors often emerge unscathed. The concrete productive unit may vanish, but the abstract financial claim which it supports continues to exist.
Losses by creditors are limited by the need to sustain the monetary system as a whole ; if losses cannot be absorbed by banks themselves then the monetary authorities will, must, intervene. Institutionalised inflation gradually became self-defeating, but disinflation has been limited by the need to avoid the generalised liquidation of assets which marks the classical business cycle. Instead, monetary deflation is applied in graduated doses, while continuous interventions in industry try to contain the disruptive pressure on credit markets.
Top 1 Research Items by Number of Citations
If there is any validity in this argument, then appeals to Schum- peter, the promotion of crisis as a heroic struggle between progressive capitalism and archaic societies, are a grotesque traverty of the actual forces in play. Schumpeter's capitalism is progressive by definition — all conservative resistance to the new is excluded by the categories. The claims of capital in an empirical sence, the weight of an inherited financial structure on present and future production, clearly cannot be seen as committed to growth and renewal. Yet an objective assessment of actual policies — for instance, interest rates kept at unprecedented levels for five years — must conclude that the encouragement of new, innovative, enterprise is not their only ambition.
In Schumpeter, creative destruction means the destruction of capital values, not productive forces - the triumph of enterprise over tradition. Today his name is invoked to defend financial mechanisms against the dissolution of established patterns of social development, and real resources are recklessly dissipated in the attempt.
Actors and elites. A fundamental distinction between leaders and led runs through all Schumpeter's social theory. The theme appears in Schumpe-. Much subsequent American political theory has built on this presentation of the voter as passive, as a consumer.
In this view, democracy is an imperfect market process, with strategic conflicts similar to those of monopolistic competition. Similar difficulties arise in his economic theory. As shown in Table 1. Restrictions on Aircraft Operations Public opposition can result in political action to impose restrictions on aircraft operations.
Responding to the survey, 53 airports It should be noted that restrictions are typically intended to cover mandatory regulations such as curfews or maximum limits on oper- ations. In many instances, noise abatement procedures are imposed, which are considered to be operational limitations, not restrictions. Many airports have noise abatement procedures for night time operations, which are successful when traffic is relatively light.
Consequently, it is important to note the difference between restrictions and more general limitations such as noise abatement procedures The most frequently cited restriction, reported by 44 airports, involves modification of flight procedures. Other restrictions include curfew on aircraft operations including voluntary curfews , restriction of certain aircraft types, limiting the number of aircraft operations, voluntary noise abatement procedures, and preferential runway use.
Twenty-four airports reported more than one type of restriction in place. These restrictions on aircraft operations impose artificial limits on airport capacity that can exacerbate or leave aircraft delays unchecked at congested airports, resulting in increased aircraft Introduction 1. Consequences of airport land use incompatibility to different stakeholders. Consequences to the aviation system and its users: Delays and constraints to airport development, leading to system delays.
Restrictions on aircraft operations, leading to system delays and travel time penalties. Constraints to runway approach protection, leading to runway capacity constraints and safety risks. Litigation and related costs. Increased risk of aviation crashes from the presence of tall structures, visual obstructions, and wildlife attractants. Consequences to people who live near airports: Exposure to noise.
Exposure to aviation crash risk. Consequences to concerned local and regional jurisdictions: Unrealized local and regional economic benefits due to constraints on airport growth. Airports where incompatible land uses delayed or prevented airport development. Airports where incompatible land uses led to restrictions on aircraft operations. Modified flight procedures often lead to additional minutes of flight, when pilots are required to take a less direct route for take off and landing.
Impact on Approach Protection The presence of incompatible land uses also can compromise runway approach protection, restricting runway use and posing potential hazard to aircraft safety. Of the airport survey respondents, 17 airports, representing Litigation and Related Costs Community opposition can often lead to litigation. As summarized in Table 1. The majority of the reported cases 25 airports involved noise. The other cases involved land uses with a high concentration of people, tall structures, and land uses that attract wildlife. Litigation involves legal fees and other costs.
Figure 1. Airports where incompatible land uses impacted runway approach protection. Only 12 airports responded, in whole or in part, and the responses were insufficient to serve as basis for any generalized estimate of the costs associated with litigation.
The responses showed wide variation from airport to airport. The mag- nitude of costs depends upon the type of litigation, duration, and outcome. Increased Development Costs Actions to lessen environmental impacts have increased the costs of development, more so when incompatible land uses are present. The NEPA of calls for an environmental review of federal actions, including airport expansion projects. In particular, noise-mitigation measures include acquiring noise-sensitive properties, relocating people, modifying structures to reduce noise, encouraging compatible zoning, and assisting in the sale of affected properties.
In addition to these efforts, some airports have voluntarily established some type of noise monitoring sys- tem, and conduct public outreach and education programs. Since the early s, the federal government has issued grants to mitigate noise around various airports, predominately air carrier airports. Increased Aviation Accident Risk The safety of aircraft and their occupants, as well as people on the ground, is a very impor- tant concern for aviation policy. Aviation accident rates have fallen over the years due to Introduction 1. Air transport has become the safest way to travel with 0.
However, when they do occur, aviation accidents are costly. They can result in substantial loss of lives, injuries, property damage, and substantial monetary costs associated with hospitalization, accident investigation, and litigation, in cer- tain cases. Accident data suggest that aircraft accidents in the vicinity of airports tend to occur near runway ends under the approach and departure flight paths.
Consequences and Costs to People Who Live Near Airports Community opposition to growth in airport operations and expansion of airport capacity often arises because people are exposed to potentially adverse environmental impacts of avia- tion GAO Of these, aircraft noise is the leading cause of community opposition, and local air quality effects are increasingly gaining attention. In addition to being exposed to adverse environmental effects, people who live in certain areas near the airport face greater risk of exposure to aviation accidents.
Exposure to Aircraft Noise While more stringent noise standards and advances in technology have made aircraft qui- eter, aviation noise will remain a concern when communities allow incompatible land uses, such as residences, schools, and hospitals, to be built near airports. Incompatible land uses expose people to aircraft noise, a leading cause of community opposition to airport expansion according to a GAO report. A World Health Organization WHO report entitled Community Noise, found that noise gives rise to a number of health problems, ranging from insomnia, stress, and mental disorders, to heart and blood circulation problems.
The more severe of these adverse health effects, however, have not been demonstrated to occur at noise levels typically experienced around airports. While the WHO report has not been able to demonstrate that severe health effects occur at or near airports, this report indicates that there is certainly a basis for local citizens to perceive a noise impact from aircraft operations and overflights. Exposure to Aviation Accident Risk The presence of land uses with a high concentration of people near airports, especially near the runway approach and departure areas, increases third-party exposure to aviation accident risk.
This topic is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7 of this document. Consequences and Costs to Concerned Local and Regional Jurisdictions Airports are local economic engines; they stimulate local economic activity, create employment, and generate income to local residents. To the extent that incompatible land uses around airports constrain airport use and efficient air service, local and regional jurisdictions cannot realize the full potential of airports to generate positive regional economic impacts.
Given that the negative consequences of airport land use incompatibility are substantial, why do incompatible uses, particularly housing, continue to develop around airports? First, people, and businesses that employee these people, are drawn to live near airports to have easy access to travel and employment opportunities. Residential development, which results from this attraction, in turn, benefits local jurisdictions by expanding the local tax base. These costs fall into three categories: welfare losses, planning and enforcement costs, and fiscal losses.
Dis- allowing residential developments near airports may result in welfare losses, because it may reduce the supply of land available for residential development in the entire city or county, making build- able land scarcer and indirectly limiting choices elsewhere in the city or county Dings, et al Additionally, there are staffing and related costs involved in formulating land use plans and enforc- ing land use controls.
Finally, local governments can also suffer from fiscal losses from a reduced property tax base, if alternative land uses do not generate the same amount in net fiscal revenues as residential development. While fiscal losses do not necessarily translate into economic welfare losses to society, as a whole, they are probably the more palpable consideration to local government officials and planners. In contrast, the benefits of preventing incompatible land use development, while far more sub- stantial in costs, are diffused among many different stakeholders who otherwise suffer the conse- quences of incompatible land uses.
These consequences often include: the airport sponsors and users who suffer the consequences of operational restrictions, development constraints, and safety hazards; the people living near airports who are exposed to negative environmental effects; and the local and regional jurisdictions that fail to realize the full economic impact of unconstrained air service. Finally, there is likely a cost to the dynamic of the real estate market in the local community. For example, the cost of potentially lost development opportunities to the real estate market should be considered as a consequence.
In many instances, the methods to address this are looked at in a sim- ilar, if not identical method to traditional planning and zoning whereas a local community has been empowered to define and implement policies to protect the health, safety and welfare of the pub- lic good. This can mean zoning property to limit or restrict uses, so long as the property is not com- pletely stripped of development potential. In some states the litmus test for this condition varies so it is recommended that additional review of local zoning laws be investigated to establish the spe- cific test appropriate to determine usable value for a property.
Summary With more than 19, airports in the United States, over 5, of which are open to the pub- lic, airports represent a significant resource that plays an essential transportation and economic Introduction 1. Preservation of this resource from the encroachment of incompatible land use is an important task for not only the FAA, but also every airport spon- sor and state aviation department.
The development of this guide and the subsequent use of the data by airport managers and local community planners will provide airport sponsors and host communities with a comprehensive resource of information and recommendations that can be used to address land use compatibility issues and protect the viability of every airport.
Local communities and airport sponsors must play a significant role in the preservation of the aviation system since they are the agencies tasked with the development, implementation, and maintenance of land use compatibility programs that can protect their individual airports. With the growth of the global economy, transportation of goods and passengers is increasingly becom- ing a key element of the aviation industry. Airport sponsors need to maintain and develop existing aviation infrastructure to ensure that the aviation system is preserved to meet future needs. Estab- lishing compatible land uses near airports is a key component in the preservation and growth of this industry.
S air transportation system. Land use compatibility with airports is comprised of two components: the concerns associated with compatibility, and the type of land use considered. Together, these components help deter- mine the level of compatibility a certain land use has with its surrounding environs.
This chapter examines both of these components. The first component includes the types of compatibility concerns that affect the relationship between airports and their environs. These concerns include: airport impacts that adversely affect the livability of neighboring communities and community land use characteristics that can adversely affect the viability of airports. Airport land use compatibility concerns can broadly be classified as related either to noise related issues or safety related concerns.
Each of these primary areas are addressed in this chapter to provide a foundation for understanding the potential impacts of each. Other types of airport impacts, like traffic generation and air quality, are also important environmentally, but have minimal relationship to the compatibility between airports and nearby land uses and thus are not addressed here.
The second component examined in this chapter covers the seven general types of land use and the concerns associated with each. Since the specific classifications can vary by community, the def- initions in this section are kept broad to allow flexibility in interpretation and implementation by local planners and elected officials. Definition of Compatible Land Use The first challenge to addressing airport land use compatibility issues is to define what consti- tutes compatibility and incompatibility.
Airport compatible land uses are defined as those uses that can coexist with a nearby airport without either constraining the safe and efficient opera- tion of the airport or exposing people living or working nearby to unacceptable levels of noise or hazards. This definition may appear vague since no specific land use types are identified.
The 1. For instance, land uses typically considered to be compatible with airport operations include commercial, industrial, and some agricultural activities; however, each of these also may contain aspects considered incompatible. That is, what land use characteristics can adversely affect airport operations? These two questions lay the foundation for the evaluation of compatibility for land uses near airports.
At the local level, answers to these questions should guide the development and imple- mentation of compatible land use planning tools and techniques to promote both the safety of aircraft operations and the well-being of persons on the ground near an airport. Noise-Related Issues Aircraft noise is a primary concern when addressing compatible land uses, and is sometimes considered the primary factor affecting or limiting airport operations. Aircraft operations can create sound levels that produce annoyance in communities near airports, as well as, additional effects such as speech interference, sleep disturbance, and affected classroom learning.
These impacts are of concern as they impact the quality of life for residents located near airports. As outlined in Vol. For example, a few very loud events, as might occur around a military air base, some moderately loud events, as near a commercial jet airport, or many relatively quiet events as can occur around a general aviation airport all can be measured in different ways and be preserved with varying levels of impact by local residents.
Alteration of any one of these may affect compatibility and community perceptions of noise. Similarly, each can be examined as a means for improving the compatibility between the airport and the surrounding community. Chapter 6 contains a more detailed assessment of land use compatibility and noise related issues.
Effects of Noise There is no doubt that one of the primary motivations for establishing land use compatibility with respect to aircraft noise is to protect the public health and welfare. The EPA has explicitly examined this motivation on numerous occasions U. Considerable information regarding noise effects is available, and may be useful to both communities and decision makers responsible for either airport or land use devel- opment and more information is developed annually.
Based upon the study research, the most fundamental approach to enhancing noise compat- ibility is to minimize the extent noise disrupts human activities or otherwise creates an annoy- ance. In general, the best approach is to allow fewer people to occupy high noise-sensitive areas. Safety-Related Issues In many ways, addressing the safety aspects of airport land use compatibility planning poses a greater challenge than noise issues. Safety deals with what might happen on rare occasions, whereas noise is concerned with what does happen with every aircraft flight.
For compatibility planning pur- poses, the safety topic can be divided into two broad categories: land use characteristics that con- stitute hazards to flight and can cause or contribute to causing an aircraft accident and land use characteristics that can add to or limit the severity of aircraft accidents when they occur. Within each of these categories are several specific types of concerns.
Land Use Characteristics that Can Be Hazards to Airspace and Overflight Relatively few aircraft accidents are caused by land use conditions that are hazards to flight. The potential exists, however, and protecting against it is essential to airport land use safety Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1. In addition, land use conditions that are hazards to flight may impact the con- tinued viability of airport operations and limit the ability of an airport to operate as designed.
Tall Structures. When people think about land use characteristics that can be hazards to flight, the first thing likely to come to mind is tall structures. A person does not have to have aeronautical expertise to know that a high-rise building would pose a major problem if located at the end of a runway. Less obvious are tall buildings adjacent to a runway or ones located farther from the runway ends. Even structures not near an airport can be hazards to flight if they are tall enough. The principal effect of tall structures is that they can reduce the utility of an airport.
The design of these procedures is directly affected by the height of objects along the runway approach course, as well as those in what is known as the missed approach segment. A new critically high object can necessitate increasing the minimum visibility and cloud ceiling criteria, thus also increasing the likelihood that an aircraft will not be able to land during bad weather. Even under clear weather conditions when pilots visually navigate to an airport, tall objects can adversely affect airport utility.
Airplanes descend to a runway along a fairly shallow slope. Just a few feet of penetration to the approach slope can require modifying the runway to move the landing point farther down the runway known as a displaced threshold , thus giving airplanes less distance in which to stop before reaching the far end of the runway. It is critical to discourage tall structures within the airport approach and departure surfaces. Tall structures can be concerns even far away from an airport.
When en route between airports, most air- craft fly high enough that structures on the ground are not a concern. Helicopters, however, fly at much lower altitudes and most helicop- ter accidents take place while en route rather than when landing or taking off. Other aircraft that fly low are military airplanes. The mil- itary regularly uses defined low-altitude airways during training flights and tall structures can adversely affect the use or safety of these corridors.
Figures 1. Where creation of these types of objects cannot be avoided, the risk to aircraft safety associated with tall structures can be minimized if struc- tures are clearly marked with lighting and if a notice to airmen NOTAM is issued to pilots by the airport. The criteria for evaluating whether a tall structure or other object represents a hazard to flight are established by the FAA.
The primary 1. The standards used to define instrument flight procedures are set forth in the U. Both sets of standards establish a 3-dimensional space in the air above the airport.
Past and future of the ECB monetary policy
The purpose and manner in which each functions differs, however. FAR Part 77 is primarily a notification device. It establishes standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace and the effects of such obstructions on the safe and efficient use of airspace. FAA, as required by the regulations, must be notified of proposed construction or alteration of objects, if those objects reach a height that would exceed FAR Part 77 crite- ria.
These objects include those that are permanent, temporary, or of natural growth. Proponents of objects near airports are required to submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration FAA Form to the FAA, from which the FAA will conduct an airspace analysis and determine if the object would constitute a hazard to air navigation. Objects do not need to be very tall to require submission of a notice. Unless shielded by closer-in objects, notice is required for any object that penetrates a slope from the runway if the runway length is 3, feet or less.
The FAA then conducts an aero- nautical study of the proposed object. Sometimes, the FAA finds an obstruction to not be a hazard to flight if the object is properly marked and lighted and not in a critical location. This process can take several months and local communities, as well as the applicant of a proposed development, should take this into consider- ation in the review process.
Adequate time should be planned to accommodate the review process and allow for receipt of the FAA airspace determination. FAA has reviewed the proposal and determined whether it is or is not a hazard to air navigation. Through this process, FAA may comment on the compatibility of a proposed land use or develop- ment, but it has no ability to regulate the construction or use at the local level. Under the fed- eral regulation of FAR Part 77, the FAA is required to meet the airspace needs of all users and to the extent possible, revised aeronautical procedures and operations to accommodate antenna structures to fulfill broadcast requirements.
Additionally, the authority of the FAA is limited to requiring mitigation for lighting and marking an obstruction. For example, the FAR Part 77 regulations do not empower the FAA to pro- vide recommendations on alterative sites, options for site revision or no-build options. TERPS serves a different function: that of designing instrument flight procedures. Unlike FAR Part 77 surfaces which are static unless the airport gets a new instrument approach procedure, TERPS surfaces can change with alterations in the design of the procedure or because of new obstacles.
TERPS surfaces are always above any obstacles. If any new object penetrates a TERPS surface, the surfaces must be modified which usually means an increase in the approach minimums. Visual Obstructions and Electronic Interference Although not a physical obstruction in the same sense that structures are, visual obstructions also can pose hazards to flight. Maintaining an 1. Proximity from an airport where filing an FAA Form is required. Since many aircraft operations take place without navigational aids, clear visibility of the area around airports is essential.
Land uses that obscure pilot visibility should be limited to ensure safe air navigation. Visibility can be obscured in various ways, including: dust, glare, light emissions, smoke, steam, and smog. Each of these should be managed when feasible, to limit its impact on aircraft and airport operations.
Dust and dust storms carry particles through the air, which can create hazardous conditions due to severe reductions in visibility.
When activities such as construction or farming occur within the vicinity of an airport, there is a risk of exposed dirt and debris being carried by winds across airport operational areas. In areas where low-level flights during approach or departure are suscepti- ble to such dust and risk reduced visibility conditions, caution should be exer- cised to minimize earth disturbance or the creation of open dirt areas that can contribute to these issues.
Glare produced from reflective surfaces can blind or distract pilots dur- ing low-level flight operations. Water surfaces such as storm water detention ponds and light-colored or mirrored building materials can produce glare as well, as illustrated in Figure 1. Measures should be taken to minimize the use of reflective materials in proximity of the airport to address this issue. Additionally, the amount of sun exposure to a surface also may be a consideration. Coordination with the FAA is recommended if a local assessment identifies potential glare associated with various land uses.
Light Emissions. Light emissions often are caused by lights that shine upward in the flight path. Also, lights arranged in a linear pattern can be mistaken for airport lights depicting operational areas. Bright lights, including laser lights, are also a concern because they are distracting and can cause a blurred or momentary loss of vision for pilots as they pass from darkness into well-lit areas.
Efforts should be made to require down-shielded lighting fixtures, as well as minimizing linear lighting near airport environs. Smoke, Steam, and Smog. Smoke, steam, and smog can create a hazardous haze that contributes to reduced visibility for a pilot while operating an aircraft as seen in Figure 1. Generation of these conditions by land uses such as manu- facturing and ethanol plants, or utilities such as electrical generation and nuclear power plants can pose a problem for pilots. Also a potential concern are the ther- mal plumes created by facilities such as these.
A thermal plume may not be visi- ble to pilots, but can cause air turbulence that could be hazardous to aircraft. The location of these types of land uses relative to the airports operational areas should be carefully considered. Airport Land Use Compatibility Concerns 1. Source: www. Example of visibility concerns: glare from building materials.
Another type of hazard to flight that is not always considered, yet may be significant, is electronic or electromagnetic interfer- ence EMI. Certain land uses may generate electronic signals that disrupt aircraft communication or navigation. Considera- tion should be given to possible creation of this form of inter- ference when reviewing proposals for cellular communication tower and other telecommunication facilities. EMI is naturally present in the environment, however, if excessive levels are found in proximity to an airport, EMI may degrade the perform- ance of some air navigational systems such as glide slopes, local- izers, and Air Traffic Control Towers.
As a result, efforts should be made to reduce the level of EMI near airports to maintain the level of performance of the various systems. Wildlife and Bird Attractants. Aircraft collisions with wild- life are a threat to human health and safety and are steadily increasing. Wildlife strikes killed more than people and destroyed over aircraft since according to the FAA Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States Since , 82, wildlife strikes have been reported to the FAA; The number of strikes reported annually has quadrupled since for several reasons, including an increase in the number of aircraft operations, and an increase in popula- tions of hazardous wildlife species.
Gulls are the most common bird species involved in the wildlife strikes reported. Monitoring wildlife activity and habitats on or near airports is an impor- tant first step in determining how to protect airports from wildlife hazards. Development and implementation of a wildlife management plan also plays a critical role in airport planning and zoning by giving an airport the tools and techniques to properly maintain habitat management controls.
These attractants can include architectural features, land- scaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands. While the area for evaluation includes an area five statute miles from the AOA, it results in an area that can be up to nearly seven miles from the airport runways. Guidelines urge airport sponsors to discourage the creation of pools, ponds, sewage lagoons, and fountains on or near an airport. Permanent water sources should be managed by removal, phy- 1.
Example of light emissions: heavily populated areas can cause visual obstructions. Steam emissions creating visual obstructions. Control techniques to manage wildlife hazards or bird attractants include physical removal of wildlife, fence installation, and maintenance of airport grounds in such a manner that it deters wildlife habitation.
Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated or mitigated. In addition to establishing boundaries around the airfield where wildlife attractants should be mitigated or eliminated, the FAA also has established minimum distances between airport features and any on-airport agriculture crop. The U. Department of Agriculture USDA provides a listing of plants that are attractive to wildlife and should be avoided on or near airports. Woody plants such as oaks, firs, pines, maples, and cedars should be avoided, as they provide roosting habitats.
Additionally, upland weeds and shrubs should be discouraged near airports as they provide a food source and habitats for wildlife. Marsh plants such as water lily, wild celery, and wild rice also can provide a food source for a vari- ety of wildlife and are therefore discouraged. Cultivated or ornamental plants such as alfalfa, corn, birch, and dogwood trees species provide food sources, and some habitat options, and should be assessed for feasibility prior to planting. Managing potentially hazardous wildlife on or near airports proves to be a challenge because it typically combines active control measures, such as repellents, along with passive control meas- 1.
Design Groups are based on wing span or tail height, and Category depends on approach speed of the aircraft as shown below: Design Group Category Group I: Wing span up to 49 ft. If the runway will only serve small airplanes 12, lb. The TSS cannot be penetrated by any object. Minimum distances between certain airport features and any on-airport agriculture crops.
Another key component to implementing these short- and long-term control measures is to accurately monitor and record wildlife obstructions on and near airports. Reporting all bird and other wildlife strikes to the FAA is impor- tant for the study of this issue. The manual serves as a reference for wildlife issues within proximity to airports. The MOU establishes that WS has the expertise to provide tech- nical and operational assistance to alleviate wildlife hazards at airports, such as the one shown below in Figure 1.
The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with states, individuals, public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions in the control of nuisance mam- mals and birds deemed harmful to the public. When initial consultations indicate concern, a more complete assessment may be necessary. A wildlife hazard assessment can be conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist to provide the scientific basis for the development, implementa- tion, and refinement of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, if needed.
The Plan is prepared by both the wildlife biologist and airport staff. Airport staff provides historical information regarding wildlife activity at airports.