• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
03:01AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & Headlines“Fly The Plate and You Won’t Get Hurt”

Back to Squawk list

“Fly The Plate and You Won’t Get Hurt”

Submitted
A pilot flying a GPS approaches to Runways 5 at Saratoga Springs Airport with a VDP on the published approach plate is assured a margin of obstacle clearance. The subsequent tree survey showed the tree [that the aircraft struck] extended well into the 20:1 glideslope far in excess of the 34:1 required by this type of approach. The VDP feature of this type of approach assures the pilot that a 34:1 slope from the VDP to the runway threshold is free of obstructions. (www.ainonline.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jetventures
James Huddleston 12
Frank Zilka and his employees are great. They were very helpful during this incident. Here is exactly what happened that night.
The VASI has nothing to do with this incident. The pilot was aware of the Notam. The approach should have been de-commissioned at the same time the VASI was shut down.
I can assure you the approach was flown precisely as depicted on the approach plate.The PIC was aware that this was not a precision approach; however the advisory glide-slope should be used in your scan. The aircraft was on a stabilized approach. All crossing altitudes and minimums were adhered to. After going visual, no changes were made to the stabilized approach. This PIC has never flown the "Dive and Drive" profile. He has flown stabilized approaches his entire career; that is how he flew 56 years and 30,000 plus hours without ever putting a dent on an aircraft. It's hard to maneuver a plane through trees that penetrate the "Clear Fly Zone" by more than eighty feet, especially at night with moderate rain and one and a half mile visibility. The approach plate on the night of the incident clearly showed the shaded arrow between the VDP and TCH indicating the pilot was guaranteed a 34:1 obstacle clearance slope. The survey during the investigation showed a 9:1 would be required.
To give you a better perspective, the error of 946.5 feet from the eighteen year old survey would have equated to a TCH of 96.5 feet at the published TCH instead of 46 feet. Big difference.
The pilot made no error: the FAA took no action against the pilot, did not rule the incident pilot error, conducted a TERP's analysis, and de-commissioned the approach for eight months until the fifteen trees were eventually cut down.
The law enforcement officer did not even see the plane. He did not leave the FBO facilities. The crew was well aware of what had happened ( read the story) but had a letter of confidentiality with the owner and did not feel it was appropriate to tell anyone any more than they had to at that time of night. The FAA was notified the next morning and the investigation went forward.
J. Huddleston has sued no one. He was informed a settlement had been reached. He has had to bite his tongue for four years, wanting to write this article, because he is convinced there are more GPS approaches like this one. He has suffered more from this incident than anyone.
The crew landing on RW 23 may have known what we were told after the incident, "The trees are lower on RW23"; however Albany approach vectored us for GPS RW 5 which was appropriate arriving from the southwest. I regret any hardships Mr. Zilka may have endured during this period, but the tree matter had been known for years and ignored. Look at a copy of the approach plate for the date of the incident.
billindurham
Bill Watson 2
I am not a frequent user of 5B2 but have flown the GPS 5 with twilight snow squalls during the mid-2000s in a SEL. That same weekend, I departed runway 23 during a heavy snow storm. Whoa! Thanks for this account.
Generally speaking, I sense there's a lot of "inertia" in the dense northeast working against keeping approach paths clear (and even closing down too many airports). I now enjoy flying around NC and the SE US where runways are being lengthened and approach paths are generally kept clear.
But I'll be lot more suspicious of all those lovely LPV approaches and thankful I'm not flying anything fast or heavy.
Fenelon
Fenelon 2
Glad that it all worked out safely and the root cause was addressed. Did you end up getting a little mud on the tires?
rick737
richard weiss 2
By 2007, it had become common knowledge for the pilots frequenting 5B2(Saratoga County Airport) to not land RWY 5 at night. The trees were a problem during the day, and a hazard night. Immediately after this incident, the trees in question were taken down and very large clear zones were established on the end of RWY's 5 and 23. So, the question becomes this, if the trees weren't a problem on July 12th 2008, why did they start coming down so quickly afterward? I guess we'll have to wait for the court to decide.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Richard, according to the link below to the local paer, they did not start coming down immediatly. I don't know the start date but but the paper was dated in July of 2010, almost 2 years later. Nothing but NOTAMS for about 7-8 months
preacher1
preacher1 1
Funny that Mr. Zilka,(and I don't know either pary here and have never flown into Saratoga Springs)responds to every other comment here yet has nothing to say about mine yesterday nor Mr. Huddleston's last nite.
iflycessna4fun
Cessna Aircraft 1
I'm unable to find the incident report in the NTSB Accident Synopsis database. Is the date correct? July 13, 2008?
rgraves845
rick graves 1
There are many sad things here - but - let me start by saying: Am not a pilot, but, a friend of aviation!

Sad to me:

1) This was not dealt with immediately after the event. Bureaucracy means we need to spend a few 100K to tackle the obvious.

2) Based on everything I read - 600K was allocated by the FAA to cut trees down. Why is my tax dollar going to cut down tree's in NY? Don't start - am not a Tea Party or Republican (nor Democrat) member! I am a realist: If you want planes to land in Saratoga - here are the rules: Cut the damn tree's down!

3) If the house was built after the airport - then - should be at the owners expense. If built before - move the damn airport at taxpayers expense (but federal taxpayers expense).

4) To the pilot - I am very extremely sorry you had to go through this. I am not saying sorry to those who ran the airport - despite red tape they knew they had a problems and let it go based on the problems they would go through to correct it.

Correct me were I am wrong - understanding I debate not to be proved right - but am aggressive to find middle ground and the right answer!
dmaccarter
dmaccarter 1
It is interesting that this incident does not appear in the NTSB index along with a "probable cause". Perhaps it was categorized as an incident and thus excluded from these published reports. I have noticed accidents lately in which the government or its agents may have had possible culpability that were either missing from the NTSBs or the NTSB did not issue a "probable cause" but merely filed a "factual" report.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/AccList.aspx?month=7&year=2008

Hooray for Mr. Huddleston for bringing this situation to light.
eraushiner
Donald Harper 1
The event was classified as an "incident" and does not appear in the NTSB database, but it is on the FAA ASIAS database.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/portal/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20080713857499I&NARR_VAR=
fzilka
Frank Zilka 1
Preacher I lived it payed for it and now laughing about this pr stunt I'm at 5b2 we run the FBO, sued for that reason . Come visit I'll buy you and anyone else a coffee that would like to hear our side. Congrats to Jim ,your friends in the right places . It's a great story and it nearly 80 yrs old you should enjoy yourself.
jj33
Jose Silva 1
I just flew the GPS approach on FS with the same weather condition's and was 1 mile out and hit trees at 950 ft....
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
I don't know anything about 5B2 but I have several comments. 1. There are probably hundreds of approaches similar to this around the US. Old surveys, no actual flight checking by specially equipped FAA aircraft, property developed close to airport approach paths and people either not aware, not able, not wanting and for whatever reason ignoring the situation. 2. The FAA is like the IRS--guilty until proven innocent with regards to the flight crew. What about the airport and the approach? Oh no, that's THEIR (FAA) territory of approval. They certified it so it must be right--yeah, 18 years ago. Baloney! 3. Was there a CVR? An FDR? What has the FO had to say about this. 4. If he "firewalled" it and pitched to 15 degrees after hitting the trees, how eventful was his recovery, in moderate rain, from an unusual attitude at less than 500 feet AGL? There is something to be said about being a "great stick", (old USAF term). Sometimes just being able to fly the airplane has saved many lives. Don't ever forget--fly the airplane! Whatever happened, he did a great job landing and walking away.
fzilka
Frank Zilka 1
I will verify the date. Keep in mind that the lawsuit is not settled. Information may not be public yet.
fzilka
Frank Zilka 1
Preacher and Rich. I'm buying see u soon
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
What's ironic here is that to construct something near an airport you must get a permit and if the local code folks are informed there has to be a survey to make sure it doesn't change any obstacle clearances. Ironically, trees don't stay the same height very long. Some one has to notice and question that and inform the FAA. In defense of the FAA, they can't flight check every airport in the country on a regular basis. About two years ago, I read where there were lots of airports that didn't meet the legal obstacle clearance for either a clearway or stopway. There was a program to enforce compliance. Where did this go wrong here? Well, for one, it costs someone money. Property owners would want the airport to pay and the airport would want the property owners to pay. Here we go to court. The little trees were just fine 19 years ago. Why do I have to cut them now? One has to wonder just how many years and approaches went by with those trees in the obstacle clearance limits?
flyboycpa
flyboycpa 1
Hey Jim...great reply. I've flown many trips in years past with Jim when he was my Chief Pilot for a Learjet operator in Nashville. Jim is as good of a Learjet pilot as anyone I know. Jim's DECADES of experience in the Lear is something to marvel at. His 56 years and 30,000 hours of flying is not an exaggeration. He's as good as they come.

Sam Swift
Derg
Roland Dent 1
I have news for you all: the Russian GPS system is better by a factor of four. No one in the USA will accept this fact. NASA know.
sabrady
Robert Brady 1
Richard,

Thanks for your article. I tweeted it as it is very noteworthy. I have to be dismayed that FSDO immediately assume guilty by pilot first, then with your knowledge and resources you prove your operational integrity and the error of the local public airport incompetence. Lucky no one was killed, but great information about assuming too much to an approach plate.
fzilka
Frank Zilka 1
July 13 2008 is the date of the accident
fzilka
Frank Zilka 1
During the Saratoga race season mid July thru sept approx 15 jets / day utilize 5b2, on weekends as many as 30. Not including based jets at the field Depositions and ultimately a trail will clarify many convoluted facts, that will make this a great story. Once your done " flying the plate " your visual . The fact the crew survived , the airplane landed, no one was injured on the ground was a miracle .
preacher1
preacher1 1
I do notice one thing here in the report thogh. In the FAA report its says the survey was off 500'. I believe in Jim's article, he 900+feet. At any rate, either one would make a hell of a difference. sad too is that is has been less than a month that there was squawk on here about all the FAA was doing on checking approaches and whatnot. They sure as hell missed this one.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Now, now guys. Let's please leave out the we are better than you stuff. The USA has problems--yes. Do the other countries have problems?--Yes. Let's just all work for better world wide aviation for everybody. Roland, this was a non-precision approach. Horizontal guidance was not a factor. I always used the distance from touchdown and calculated 300 feet per nautical mile for a point where a 3 degree ILS glide slope would intercept. As a backup to verify you are doing OK, it works every time.
heywoodj123
Heywood Jay 1
Erm, better than what? Than it was several years ago? Well, yeah, but that's not saying much. In the early part of the 2000s their constellation was down well below minimum operational capacity, I think as low as 6 space vehicles (the nominal design is 21 + 3 spares).

But better than GPS? Not. Not even by a long shot. GLONASS clocks are much noisier than the Rb and Cs standards used by GPS, and until the modernized (CDMA) K-type satellites are launched (scheduled for 2013, but may slip) the range accuracy and UDRE will continue to be quite a bit worse.

Perhaps you should do just a little bit of reading before making such asinine, unsubstantiated, and flat-out wrong comments.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Did you get hurt?
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Hahah..Airbus emplore..almost beg flight crews to learn "basic flying skills". This is COMICAL. Really is a joke.
Fenelon
Fenelon 1
It was capturedd by FAA and not elevated to NTSB level.
jetventures
James Huddleston 1
Thanks Sam, coming from a pilot as good as you, I take that as quite a compliment.
btweston
btweston 1
I'm so glad that a few wealthy organizations quibbling over money are preventing fairly important information from being shared with the flying public. God bless America.
jetventures
James Huddleston 1
Thanks Peter. Sounds like you have been there.
rick737
richard weiss 1
Preacher, you would enjoy the visit to the great northeast. Frank is a true gentleman that got caught in the middle of this mess shortly after taking over the duties of running the airport. I live 3 miles away and would enjoy your visit, as well. If you have pass privileges, fly into ALB, we'll pick you up.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Rick, you are probably correct on most of this. The biggest thing that I see here, for this or any other airport, is that a pilot unfamiliar with that airport, has nthing to go on but that approach plate. The Airport may have very well known there was a problem, but it appears from the link below that the county may have been the problem. So many municipalities just don't see their Airport as their gateway to the world or driving the local economic engine, in this case the track.
rick737
richard weiss 1
The tree hugger mentality and the owners of homes built less than ten years before the incident did delay the immediate removal of trees. There was an immediate call for their removal, but the county wouldn't confront the problem vigorously. We all know that politicians view their re-election as far more important than a few burning airplanes.
preacher1
preacher1 1
My typing was terrible here. I got in a hurry and didn't proofread it. I apologize.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I see you're in fine style tonight.LOL
jetventures
James Huddleston 1
The FAA initially quoted a 500 foot error from the 18 year old survey, but later discovered, after the TERP'S analysis, that there was a 946.5 foot error.

NTSB did not investigate this incident because there was no loss of life, or major structural damage.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I have only been up that way on private business once. I flew AA out of KLIT to KORD and connected over to Albany. I rented a car at KALB in clear,bright sunshine, going up to Plattsburgh for the night and a meeting next day. Seems like it started snowing on me about 20 miles out of Albany. I stopped at a rest area somewhere around Glen Falls, and there was about 8-9 inches on the ground and a whole bunch well packed by the time I got to P'burg. Woke up to sunshine the next morning, made my meeting and went by the big house, and across the top over thru Watertown and Utica and back into Albany that night. Beautiful country and some of the nicest folks I ever met. That was back in the late 90's and it doesn't sound like it has changed any.lol. Regarding Frank, I trust you on what you say. You will note from my original comment on this thing, that things didn't really jive and I have lived long enough to know that there are 2 sides to every story. I don't have any pass priveleges as my time, although in big iron, was all 135, BUT, I may surprise you and take you up on that invite one day. However, my old employer does have a lightly used King Air. I may try and borrow it and drop in on Frank and then call you, and we'll all have that cup of coffee. I'd kinda like to hear the rest of this story.LOL(and I'll fly the plate for 5b2)
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Yep, been there-done that. Don't know if it was my skill or luck or probably a combination. At least I'm here to talk about it same as you. I prefer to focus on the aviator part of this story. All the political and government non-action is only typical. We aviators are in a class by ourselves. Only we really know what it's like to fly an approach like that. Only we know the decisions to go or no-go. Go missed or continue. We belong to a unique club. The public has no idea. Never forget it James.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
I can't read Russian. My Bulgarian pal can. He designed some software fot a commercial company. The Russian system was four times more accurate. If I make a mistake I acknowledge it. He designed this 3 years ago. It was part of his degree..physics. Was awarded PhD. Seems you guys are xenophobic hence all those names you called me. Thank God for the visas that let these talented prople to stufy here. They cancel out arrogant nuggets.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Yea my bad, thanks for the advice.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Like I said man, either way that is sad!! What is really bad is that it took you 4 years to get it out!
heywoodj123
Heywood Jay 2
A handful of responses:

1) I _can_ read Russian (fluently). But you don't need to know any Russian at all to be able to check the constellation status of GLONASS and GPS, or to learn about current system performance. A simple web search on the phrase "GLONASS constellation status" will take you to (http://www.glonass-center.ru/en/GLONASS/), which is perfectly readable in English. You could also have just checked the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS) for basic details.

2) You've now written "better by a factor of four" and "four times more accurate" in successive posts, but in neither case do you describe the specific metric you're talking about. Do you mean pseudorage accuracy? 2D or 3D position accuracy? 2Drms? Or some related aviation-relevant performance figure, like integrity or availability?

For what it's worth, GLONASS is not even close to "four times more accurate" than GPS by _any_ metric meaningful to aviation (which is, after all, the point of this thread), including those listed above. Apart from extreme northerly or southerly latitudes, standalone GPS consistently outperforms standalone GLONASS at present (and that has been the case at any time over at least the past ten years).

If you're honestly interested in learning about this stuff, you could start by reading either of van Diggelen's informative articles on satnav accuracy (http://http://old.gpsworld.com/columns/9805innov.html and http://www.gpsworld.com/gps/gnss-accuracy-lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-1134). Then perhaps you can make a claim that is somehow verifiable, debatable, or at least in the same postal code as reality.

3) You seem to be confusing my pointed comments about your misinformed claims with "all those names [I] called [you]." Please don't mischaracterize my response by claiming it to be something it's not. And your suggestion of xenophobia is quite the ironic ad hominem attack -- particularly since I'm one of those very "proble [sic]" who came here to "stufy [sic]" (albeit many years ago).

As for "arrogant nuggets," I can only observe that, in addition to being wrong, your statement, "No one in the USA will accept this fact," is rather more arrogant than anything I wrote.

4) There's little point in debating one's qualifications on a pseudonymous Internet forum like FA, but based on your comments above, I am quite confident in saying that I am rather better informed on this topic than you. If, however, you wish to have a _substantive_ technical discussion on the merits and drawbacks of satnav for aviation, such as the issues touched upon in Jim Huddleston's parent article, I will be happy to do so with specificity.

-J
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Oh OK...thanks for reply.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Boy, you rang a bell with Haywood! That brought the "lurkiness" out of him. I now know more about GPS than I care to. Turn it on and it works---wow. The plane I flew had GPS as the primary nav source. It came on with the batteries--no switch. If it wasn't OK for navigation, the FMS would tell you (RAIM). As for approaches--most GPS approaches are about non-precision mins. Until we can routinely fly GPS down to 200/ 1/2, I'm not impressed.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Same as me Wayne..generally in the twilight years. Next month I go into theatre to get the small finger on my left hand released from the crooked shape it has morphed into. My right knee needs micro surgery and I should throw away my $5 dollar spectacles.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
No harm, Roland. Just my thoughts. There are holes all over in the system. Gotta watch out!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Don't know who he is old buddy but I'm kinda like you; he's entitled to his opinion but the name calling for basically a first time commenter is kinda immature.lol. You're like me though, you probably ain't gonna lose no sleep over it. Incidentally, most everybody knowing your qualifications, it won't be much of a choice on who to believe. That name callin' business turns a lot of folks off, regardless of how qualified something may seem.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Yup..thanks for the advice.
heywoodj123
Heywood Jay 1
It's true that I rarely comment on FA (but I've been a lurker for quite a long while). But I wrote my doctoral dissertation as part of a project using GPS for aviation (precision approach), so I get a bit peeved when someone makes such obviously misinformed comments as the one above.

-J
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Glad you posted. That application in Bulgaria was for a field of photo electric sun collectors and that accuracy was 10mm on a 2D scalar.
heywoodj123
Heywood Jay 1
That sounds like it would almost certainly be a survey-grade receiver. These are typically used in a fixed location and achieve much higher accuracy than ordinary receivers, through some combination of dual frequency (explicitly removing errors due to ionospheric delay), high-precision modulation (for GPS, this is the P(Y) code, chipping at 10x the rate of the civilian C/A code and offering nominally 10X the ranging accuracy), carrier-phase tracking (most conventional receivers track only code, not carrier), and time averaging at the static location being surveyed.

There are plenty of GPS-only survey grade receivers available from companies such as Trimble, Leica, Ashtech, and NovAtel. Many of those support a combined GPS+GLONASS solution, which does indeed improve accuracy relative to GPS-only mode (by virtue of more ranging sources and thus a better overhead geometry). But I am not aware of a single major manufacturer that currently produces a GLONASS-only survey-grade receiver. The GLONASS system performance simply doesn't cut it at the moment (for some recent details, see http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=70655 or http://www.gpsworld.com/survey/what-can-glonass-gps-l2c-and-gps-l5-do-you-webinar-qa-follow-9015).

For what it's worth, sub-cm 2D position accuracy is routine for pretty much all modern GPS-only survey-grade receivers (among other things, such devices are sometimes used for tectonic deformation monitoring -- a measurement that requires reliable accuracy on the order of millimeters over the course of months or years). For aviation-grade receivers, all of the above features are used except time averaging, since airplanes generally move around. (Augmentations like WAAS and EGNOS also play a role, but for instrument approaches of the type discussed in the parent article, those are more important in the context of integrity.) In theory, comparable airborne navigation performance is certainly possible using GLONASS alone, but as I said, the Russian system has not been at that level at any time over the past decade or more.

-J
Derg
Roland Dent 1
I know he did something that was new because it caused a stir. What really annoyed the commercial guys was that he wouold not sell the patent. He wanted the system to make his village in Bulgaria totally self dependent upon this field of motorised tilt and turn collectors in an array that tracked the sun 365 days all thru each day.
toolguy105
toolguy105 1
This biggest shame about this article is that litigation had to be completed before it could be written. The almighty dollar trumps life and limb.
fzilka
Frank Zilka 1
This is a great story, I was there the night this lear jet flew through the trees. A great "Story"!! First lets get some facts straight. The notem in place stated no vasis runway 5. Pilot in command was Visual on descent. Now lets go from there, he descended below MDA. Upon his descent he struck trees off airport property. GPS runway 5 is a non precision approach. There were other choices for runways available at the time with vasis and GPS approach. Just prior to this event an airplane landed safely on runway 23 equiped with vasis. Funny that the piot was unawaire that he had hit the trees or said he was untill local law enforcement pointed out the limbs and leaves stuck in his wheel wells. Jim is a nice man and I'm sure a seasoned pilot. Sometimes even the most proficient make errors. It is unfortunate that he sued everyone, the FBO, the county, and the FAA.
preacher1
preacher1 5
I don't see in the story where he descended below MAD, and regardless of the NO VASIS warning, he had the runway visually and was on slope according to the plate. Something just does't jive. As I said below, there are always 2 sides and something is missing here.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I meant MDA
billindurham
Bill Watson 3
He didn't fly below MDA until visual yes. But visual at night is not visual daytime. One can be visual on the runway and see right past trees - my home airport is an example of this (private, no approach).
The VDP has specifications that weren't met. VASI is not required. Local knowledge beyond the pubs is not required. That's the whole point of the system.. keeping planes from hitting anything other than the touchdown zone of a runway.

You call this a great story. It reads like a pretty accurate account of an accident and a defect in the system at 5B2.
Great airport otherwise.
preacher1
preacher1 2
There are always 2 sides for every story. I do have a question though.

You say that he was unaware of the the trees and damage. He clearly states that, although on visual, FO called the trees, that they did hit them and since all else was good, he elected to go on in rather than go around, and got later affirmation of that decision after looking at the aircraft damage when he got on the ground. Can your 2 statements be reconciled?

As far as the trees being off airport property, you make it sound like "that's too bad". Most, not all, airports have height restrictions with property owners for the approach/departure paths off a given runway and per that agreement are responsible for maintaining it, and if need be, plates are based on those. Just curious. He seems to have his ducks in a row, and I am pretty much in agreement with him on "flying the plate". Doesn't matter if it's your 1st time in or if you're based there and in/out daily. Biggest thing I see here though is that he went VFR, so we are definitely to a he said/she said.

I don't know about the lawsuits, but we are talking about a livlihood here in a profession that has to go the extra mile to keep the name clear. That said, I am defintely in agreement with a seasoned veteran making a mistake. How good you are is measured by how you recover. In this case, he landed with a basically intact airplane and no injuries. IMHO
ritschard
ritschard 3
Nice reply.....I agree. Too bad for everybody all way around...live and learn. I WILL FLY HIGHER THAN THE PLATE FOR SURE !
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Ritschard, that's being ultra safe but doing so might make you go missed because the in flight visibility was exactly what was required. You also might not even get below the cloud deck. At least you won't get caught in an out of date approach!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Somebody hmade a comment up here in this string that NC and the Southeast in general, seemed to be lengthning runways and really clearing out approaches, and that there was an "inertia" up north against keeping them clear. I dunno; haven't spent that much time up that way.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, and what is really sad is that, according to the link below, regardless of the NOTAMS and all else, it took another 2 years or so for the county/airport to start the clearing process. As is a typical knee jerk reaction, they started clear cutting the approaches rather than just topping them down or below specs. By taking so long, there is disregard for the aircraft/pilots as well as the property owners. A proactive airport would have had height restrictions in place with the property owners in the first place, but in most cases, that costs money, but lot's less than they spent.