SMA PLT COMPLAINT REGARDING LACK OF ARPT PATTERN MARKINGS AT ARPT.

Narrative

ARPT DIRECTORY INDICATES R-HAND TFC PATTERN FOR RWY 05. ABSENCE OF ARPT MARKINGS INDICATES STANDARD L-HAND PATTERN. TFC USES BOTH L AND R HAND PATTERNS; CREATING COLLISION HAZARD. CITY AUTHORITIES (ARPT MGR) ARE UNRESPONSIVE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THERE IS NO ARPT MGR. THINGS ARE MANAGED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; NONE OF WHOM ARE PLTS AND WHO HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN THE ARPT OR ITS PROBS. RPTR CALLED CITY CLERK WHO WAS MOST POLITE AND SAID SHE WOULD BRING IT BEFORE THE COUNCIL. WHEN RPTR FOLLOWED UP 3 MONTHS LATER HE WAS TOLD THEY JUST DON'T SEEM TO BE INTERESTED. RPTR FEELS THERE WAS A NOISE COMPLAINT SOME YRS BACK AND AN AWARE CITIZEN SUGGESTED A TFC PATTERN CHANGE. THIS WAS DONE AND NOTED IN ARPT FACILITY DIRECTORY BUT NO GND MARKINGS WERE EVER INSTALLED. SO THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH AIM PROCS AND THE ARPT FACILITY DIRECTORY INFO. RPTR WROTE AN IN-DEPTH LETTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING PROPER MARKINGS BUT HAS HEARD NOTHING BACK AND HE SEEMS TOO BUSY TO RETURN PHONE CALLS. RPTR SUGGESTS IF WE DO ANY FOLLOW UP TO DIRECT LETTERS TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.