Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport Runway Shift - 2024

This makes much more sense than completely removing an area the could be used to increase the safety of our airport and the people that use it.

The runway proposal to close/move part of the Driggs runway is actually less safe than leaving the (extended) runway as is. Among other things, the proposal will increase the descent angle to risky levels. That with the shortened runway length will result in greater, significant required braking for landing aircraft which, with wet and or snowy runways conditions (both of which are regular conditions ay Driggs), will-not may—result in unsafe landings and runway excursions.

It is brilliant and clearly a great safety advantage to leave the south end of the Driggs runway intact with clear chevron markings recognizable to any pilot as emergency use only.,It would be a costly waste to dispose of this area and clearly be an asset to flying safety in the event of an over run where additional breaking would be enhanced compared to turf which may result in both aircraft damage, acceleration toward the highway in snow and ice conditions and also provide additional crytical maneuvering and parking for emergency fire and medical vehicles during an accident and possible fire on the runway. Please do not remove this safety asset!!

Anyone not listening to one of the most educated users of the airport is not interested in pilot or community safety. Dr Sugden’s reasoning and approach to this issue seem prudent.

get this done,common sense.time,speed,distance

As a Challenger 604 aircrew that flies N54JC freequently taking our owner to his ranch, we concur with the proposal made by Dr Sugden. Its a safety issue!

It’s high time you stopped this insane plan

Strongly agree with this safety initiative.

Digging up the south 2000 feet of runway is creating a safety hazard for south landing aircraft. Additionally leaving the south end of the runway and using only as a stopway greatly increases safety of landing aircraft especially in winter conditions. Please consider this and the substantial cost savings by leaving the paved south end of the runway.

Why tear up something useful? Please leave the South end of the runway in place for now!

This makes sense, It’s logical, less expensive and could save lives.

Acts of destruction, rarely, if ever benefits society as a whole. Opportunity costs and unintended consequences come to mind here.

Keep KDIJ Safe, efficient and fiscally responsible.

Keep our airport safe and save money

Saving the existing runway end to create a stopway is a great idea. Improves safety and saves the expense of removing the 2000’ of concrete.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I agree wholeheartedly! Aside from the added safety, sounds like a really bad use of taxpayer dollars to go digging up a perfectly good runway.

Having a 2000 foot "safety net" at the end of a downhill runway at high elevation is a safety enhancement regardless of it's technical impact on the ROFA as it would only be used in a runway excursion that a ROFA is designed to protect. A 1 degree downhill slope adds 30% to landing distance while the runway condition varies widely is frequently unknown in winter. The additional cost of maintaining the stopway could be offset for several years by the savings of not removing it.

I am sure that the city of Driggs would want to retain this now existing portion of the runway as an additional option for safety as an overun or safestop extension. This is especially true during the winter months when snow and ice inhibit good braking. It is just one more thing which adds to the safety of the airport in case needed in an emergency situation. I'm sure the FAA would agree if they were requested.

Recitals in this petition, for preservation of existing southern structurally sound runway surface as a Stopway is sound logic, further justified by comments of several petition signers.

Leaving the pavement in place seems a no-brainer! 1. Increase safety (priority) 2. Reduce cost and disruptions 3. Save Insurance premium increases to the City 4. Why create a headache when none exists?!!!! Mitigates future claims against the city if, heaven forbid, an accidental loss happens because the City removed an existing safety zone. Saves liability/indemnity insurance cost to the City. When the City’s indemnification and liability insurance carriers and underwriters learn the City “removed” a runway safety zone and thus increased the risk of accidental loss, the insurance costs of the City of Dirggs will likely increase due to potential increased risk (loss claims or potential injury-related law suits).