CAK is a commercial airport; relievers are generally general aviation airports.  Hopkins has five relievers of which BKL is the most capable. Cuy County, Medina, Lost Nation, and Lorain County are the other four.

When I drove by BKL today there were big crews working in the parking lot.   From the Shoreway I couldn't tell, but they appeared to be installing new underground utilities.  Perhaps new lighting?     Hopefully they are going to redo the entire lot--it's getting pretty run down.  

 

 

Ultimate Air service from Burke to Cincinnati Lunken resumes on April 12.

On 3/17/2021 at 10:40 AM, Pugu said:

Ultimate Air service from Burke to Cincinnati Lunken resumes on April 12.

 

Cincinnati Business Courier has the story...

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/04/07/airline-that-caters-to-business-travelers-set-to-r.html

Interesting ... Burke's operations per day rank ahead of not just 2020, but also 2019 - and aren't a whole lot less than Akron-Canton's.  For a graphical presentation scroll to the bottom of this page:

 

https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KBKL

 

I could be wrong, but I thought one of the issues with decommissioning Burke was the lack of a replacement reliever airport and the specific considerations are to the number of runways available to relieve Hopkins. So if that's the case wouldn't it still be difficult to get FAA buy in to remove a taxiway and inboard runway? 

 

This idea is better than nothing, but I'm not sure these renovations are worth it given that Burke has been operating at a loss. Unless these would eliminate some of those cost overheads and allow it to be profitable. 

Just close it.  It is an under-utilized airport on prime lakefront property.  Let the FAA spend their money on establishing one of the other nearby airports as a "reliever".

3 hours ago, Luke_S said:

I could be wrong, but I thought one of the issues with decommissioning Burke was the lack of a replacement reliever airport and the specific considerations are to the number of runways available to relieve Hopkins. So if that's the case wouldn't it still be difficult to get FAA buy in to remove a taxiway and inboard runway? 

 

This idea is better than nothing, but I'm not sure these renovations are worth it given that Burke has been operating at a loss. Unless these would eliminate some of those cost overheads and allow it to be profitable. 

 

This kind of development could lead Burke to be profitable however.   Somewhere way up in this thread I suggested developing the lot and terminal complex into condos and offices.   Maybe Zach Reed is stealing my idea.    

 

In other SIM city news, I was flying a simulator the other day and landed at Burke.   The graphics showed a large development on the north east corner of the field, where the current sediment processing facility is operating.   Maybe the manufacturer knows something that we (and Zach Reed) don't know.  

 

 

6 hours ago, Luke_S said:

I could be wrong, but I thought one of the issues with decommissioning Burke was the lack of a replacement reliever airport and the specific considerations are to the number of runways available to relieve Hopkins. So if that's the case wouldn't it still be difficult to get FAA buy in to remove a taxiway and inboard runway? 

 

This idea is better than nothing, but I'm not sure these renovations are worth it given that Burke has been operating at a loss. Unless these would eliminate some of those cost overheads and allow it to be profitable. 

 

6 hours ago, skiwest said:

Just close it.  It is an under-utilized airport on prime lakefront property.  Let the FAA spend their money on establishing one of the other nearby airports as a "reliever".

 

Think about this more thoroughly.... The City of Cleveland would have to submit a plan to the FAA for closing it. That plan for Burke would have to come up with a plan for improving another reliever airport like Cuyahoga County or Lost Nation to offer the same or better features as Burke to take up the slack from Burke. That plan for County or Lost Nation would have to be developed by the owner of one of those airports with buy-in from the communities surrounding those airports to have homes, businesses, roads, utilities, etc. removed. All of that would have to be in the City of Cleveland's plan for closing Burke before the FAA would approve it. That would take a lot of coordination in a metro area known more for balkanization and less for inter-municipality cooperation. Some suburban communities would have to sacrifice many homes and businesses to more air traffic so Cleveland could add many homes and businesses.

 

BTW, I encourage you to have dinner sometime at Nuevo at North Coast Harbor. Or just hang out at Voinovich Park for an hour or two some evening. Then, count the planes while you enjoy enchiladas at Nuevo or play frisbee with your friends in the park. I'd be interested in hearing your impressions.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

 

Think about this more thoroughly.... The City of Cleveland would have to ...

 

... repay the FAA for the undepreciated value of their investment, which I have heard is something like $50 million at present.

11 hours ago, Cleburger said:

This kind of development could lead Burke to be profitable however.   Somewhere way up in this thread I suggested developing the lot and terminal complex into condos and offices.   Maybe Zach Reed is stealing my idea. 

 

I'm not sure I understand how developing some of the surrounding area would allow the airport to be profitable? 

 

8 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

Think about this more thoroughly.... The City of Cleveland would have to submit a plan to the FAA for closing it. That plan for Burke would have to come up with a plan for improving another reliever airport like Cuyahoga County or Lost Nation to offer the same or better features as Burke to take up the slack from Burke.

 

This is more or less what I was getting at. Wouldn't the FAA expect another airport to improve their services for any incremental reduction in services at Burke? Which, based on what you go on to say, sounds like it would be nearly as difficult to do as closing Burke entirely. 

 

Just seems like a half-measure to me that would be just as difficult to achieve, have a limited benefit due to regulations for building near an airport, and wouldn't address the underlying financial situation of operating Burke. 

 

Will see if spending a bit of time down there and paying attention to the airport does change my impression of the airport. 

As much as I dislike Burke eating up all that lakeside, in a downtown with so many other gaps to fill, it’s not anywhere near the top of the ‘to do’ list for me. In fact, all discussion about it always reminds me of the South Park underpants gnomes approach to business. Get rid of the airport>???>profit!!

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

I'm not sure I understand how developing some of the surrounding area would allow the airport to be profitable? 

 

By attracting aviation related businesses like the kind that surround County airport.     There are also people who buy houses and condos in airstrip developments.   BKL could be a one-of-a-kind urban fly-in residential option, where condo owners can have their plane right outside their back door.  

 

Ultimately no one currently wants to deal with the city of Cleveland as a landlord, but maybe a change of leadership would swing this in a different direction.   

 

 

This would obviously require buy in from the City which we currently don’t have; but if I were them I would be lobbying our (soon to be) new congressperson to insert an earmark into a transpo bill to allow the closing of Burke without having to jump through any unnecessary hoops 🤷🏻‍♂️

On 7/1/2021 at 11:45 AM, Cleburger said:

 

By attracting aviation related businesses like the kind that surround County airport.     There are also people who buy houses and condos in airstrip developments.   BKL could be a one-of-a-kind urban fly-in residential option, where condo owners can have their plane right outside their back door.  

 

Ultimately no one currently wants to deal with the city of Cleveland as a landlord, but maybe a change of leadership would swing this in a different direction.   

 

 

 

Sounds like a great idea!  All it needs is a high wall and big 'ole security gate so the "private plane" class doesn't have to fear that any old average Clevelander can get anywhere near their private lakefront!  Also, while we're at it, we need to expand the yacht clubs- there's lots of space at Edgewater and Gordon Park.

46 minutes ago, X said:

 

Sounds like a great idea!  All it needs is a high wall and big 'ole security gate so the "private plane" class doesn't have to fear that any old average Clevelander can get anywhere near their private lakefront!  Also, while we're at it, we need to expand the yacht clubs- there's lots of space at Edgewater and Gordon Park.

 

I would actually support a greenway bike/ped path around the outside perimeter of the airport, complete with benches for fishing.  The public could access it near the Lean Dog barge, and make their way around 1.75 miles back to a link up at Marginal rd next to Lakeside Yacht club/Aviation High.  It would also make this a one-of-a-kind urban experience, with comparisons to the great waterfront scene at Princess Juliana airport on St Maarten, where crowds gather at the end of the runway to get blasted by jet exhaust!  

 

The question is whether or not the feds would allow this while maintaining the runway safety area.   This could be accomplished by adding either land, or making an over-water pedestrian/bikeway on the departure end of runway 24R.  

 

 

Of course, Midway may be "grandfathered" in, but there sure isn't a lot of space between the ends of those runways and people's livinig rooms.

2 minutes ago, bjk said:

Of course, Midway may be "grandfathered" in, but there sure isn't a lot of space between the ends of those runways and people's livinig rooms.

 

The standards aren't as tough as you might think.  

 

Past standards called for the RSA to extend only 60m (200 feet) from the ends of the runway. Currently the international standard ICAO requires a 90m (300 feet) RESA starting from the end of the runway strip (which itself is 60m from the end of the runway), and recommends but not requires a 240m RESA beyond that. In the U.S., the recommended RSA may extend to 500 feet (150 m) in width, and 1,000 feet (300 m) beyond each runway end (according to U.S. Federal Aviation Administration recommendations; 1000 feet is equivalent to the international ICAO-RESA of 240m plus 60m strip). The standard dimensions have increased over time to accommodate larger and faster aircraft, and to improve safety.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area

4 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 It would also make this a one-of-a-kind urban experience, with comparisons to the great waterfront scene at Princess Juliana airport on St Maarten, where crowds gather at the end of the runway to get blasted by jet exhaust!  

Except there are no jumbo jets using Burke.

5 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Except there are no jumbo jets using Burke.

 

True--but the occasional 757 or 737 charter would be well attended! 

3 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

The standards aren't as tough as you might think.  

 

Past standards called for the RSA to extend only 60m (200 feet) from the ends of the runway. Currently the international standard ICAO requires a 90m (300 feet) RESA starting from the end of the runway strip (which itself is 60m from the end of the runway), and recommends but not requires a 240m RESA beyond that. In the U.S., the recommended RSA may extend to 500 feet (150 m) in width, and 1,000 feet (300 m) beyond each runway end (according to U.S. Federal Aviation Administration recommendations; 1000 feet is equivalent to the international ICAO-RESA of 240m plus 60m strip). The standard dimensions have increased over time to accommodate larger and faster aircraft, and to improve safety.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety_area

 

Interesting concept, but the path looks too close to Rwy 6L--near the right angle of the red line above--for FAA operational rules (we don't use ICAO in the US), but the bigger issue will be DHS/TSA security requirements more so than FAA rules.

18 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

Interesting concept, but the path looks too close to Rwy 6L--near the right angle of the red line above--for FAA operational rules (we don't use ICAO in the US), but the bigger issue will be DHS/TSA security requirements more so than FAA rules.

 

Perhaps someone with more map skills can determine actual distances from Google Maps.   Using the 1000' touchdown aiming markers, I would estimate there is already at least 500' from the runway threshold.   Keep in mind the Google Maps overhead view is showing the EMAS system which extends beyond the end of the runway.  EMAS is an arrest system to stop airplanes from overrunning the runway.   I would estimate that it is at least 500' long.   So the walk/bikeway would only need to be some 500' further to the west as current FAA RSA designations have them set at 1000' from the runway end and 250' from the runway centerline. 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

Perhaps someone with more map skills can determine actual distances from Google Maps.

 

Right click, choose Measure Distance.

35 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Right click, choose Measure Distance.

I never knew--thanks! 

 

When someone as dialed into the corporate world as Ronayne is and he is not advocating for Burke to remain an airport...well that speaks volumes. 

9 hours ago, surfohio said:

When someone as dialed into the corporate world as Ronayne is and he is not advocating for Burke to remain an airport...well that speaks volumes. 

He hasn't met the Richmond Heights and Willoughby Hills (lake county) NIMBY's yet.   They aren't going to let any expansion of CGF happen.  

On 8/25/2021 at 2:22 PM, Cleburger said:

 

Perhaps someone with more map skills can determine actual distances from Google Maps.   Using the 1000' touchdown aiming markers, I would estimate there is already at least 500' from the runway threshold.   Keep in mind the Google Maps overhead view is showing the EMAS system which extends beyond the end of the runway.  EMAS is an arrest system to stop airplanes from overrunning the runway.   I would estimate that it is at least 500' long.   So the walk/bikeway would only need to be some 500' further to the west as current FAA RSA designations have them set at 1000' from the runway end and 250' from the runway centerline. 

 

 

 

 

Any public access to reach areas north of Burke would mean pushing the runway east for whatever clearance that the FAA and security would require.  It would appear that when EMAS was created, the option to add it on to the runway to the west was not permitted.  Any extension of the landfill to the west would start to affect the Coast Guard access to their facility.  As the Coast Guard recently made some major improvements to their facility, they aren't going anywhere.

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Any public access to reach areas north of Burke would mean pushing the runway east for whatever clearance that the FAA and security would require.  It would appear that when EMAS was created, the option to add it on to the runway to the west was not permitted.  Any extension of the landfill to the west would start to affect the Coast Guard access to their facility.  As the Coast Guard recently made some major improvements to their facility, they aren't going anywhere.

The EMAS wasn't added to the end of 6L because there is plenty of land for run off there and there is no precision approach procedure as there is on 24R.  

 

Landfill would be needed if you could do a pier-over water bike/pedway as depicted: 

 

On 8/24/2021 at 12:28 PM, Cleburger said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

The EMAS wasn't added to the end of 6L because there is plenty of land for run off there and there is no precision approach procedure as there is on 24R.  

 

Landfill would be needed if you could do a pier-over water bike/pedway as depicted: 

 

 

Would or would not?

10 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Would or would not?

Sorry typo.  WOULD NOT.  

 

 

 

 

No actual news, but it'll be fun to watch the air traffic at BKL for the RRHOF Ceremonies. 

 

Always used to love riding by during cavs runs and seeing what was on the tarmac. 

Some actual news.

 

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/10/28/burke-lakefront-airport-receives-scrutiny-about-whether-its-even-necessary/

44 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Some actual news.

 

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/10/28/burke-lakefront-airport-receives-scrutiny-about-whether-its-even-necessary/

Actual news about a flight being added at Hopkins that they turned into a clickbait piece about Burke that says nothing new.  

On 10/29/2021 at 4:18 PM, Cleburger said:

Actual news about a flight being added at Hopkins that they turned into a clickbait piece about Burke that says nothing new.  

 

Was about to say. It's nothing more than a rehash of everyone's opinion about BKL.

16 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Was about to say. It's nothing more than a rehash of everyone's opinion about BKL.

Not everyone's 😜

But with a new mayor, who knows what might happen. Maybe the city finally stops kicking the can down the road.

Just now, LibertyBlvd said:

But with a new mayor, who knows what might happen. Maybe the city finally stops kicking the can down the road.

 

At least Bibb has teased the idea of studying it and seeing if it's worth it to shut it down. Kelley seems same old/keep on keeping on with it. 

2 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

But with a new mayor, who knows what might happen. Maybe the city finally stops kicking the can down the road.

 

2 hours ago, GISguy said:

At least Bibb has teased the idea of studying it and seeing if it's worth it to shut it down. Kelley seems same old/keep on keeping on with it. 

 

Bibb may be saying that because that's what most people want to hear or maybe because he thinks so too or maybe because he has no clue. Overall, on most topics, he has no clue that's for sure. In a political risky move, Kelley is telling the truth---it should be kept open and he would keep it open.

Hard-to-believe news from an aviation blog site Patreon (membership required):  Hahn Airlines of Bedford, MA, an air taxi "coordinator", which I think means they handle bookings for a bunch of small air taxi operators who do the actual flying, has proposed 30 departures a day from Burke to 15 cities. They also propose 18 a day from Hopkins. This is only part of their plan to fly to dozens of cities across the country. The aircraft will be single-engine Cessnas. Some of the cities make sense - ones that used to have service in the Continental hub years; others, like Cape May, NJ, (a nice little place but not in December!!!) are very hard to believe.

 

The blogger said the flights will be listed in the Official Airline Guide edition due to be published next weekend. We'll see.

 

3 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

I'm not saying Burke needs to be closed immediately, but rather at some point in the future. The city needs to start the dialog. Burke poses safety risks as well with a lake on one side and tall buildings on the other side. There have been some fatal mishaps there over the years.

 

Moving this to the appropriate thread and asking what "fatal mishaps" have there been over the years?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

Moving this to the appropriate thread and asking what "fatal mishaps" have there been over the years?

 

About 5 years ago, a private plane returning to Columbus after a Cavs game crashed into the lake killing 6. And in the 80s, a seagull got sucked into the engine of a T-bird that had performed at the air show resulting in a crash that killed the plot.  Those are a couple mishaps that come to mind.

 

Edited December 5, 20213 yr by LibertyBlvd

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

About 5 years ago, a private plane returning to Columbus after a Cavs game crashed into the lake killing 6. And in the 80s, a seagull got sucked into the engine of a T-bird that had performed at the air show resulting in a crash that killed the plot.  Those are a couple mishaps that come to mind.

 

Any airport will have problems on takeoffs or landings; mishaps will occur.  At least in the cases mentioned at Burke, the only people who where tragically killed were the occupants of the aircraft.  An airport located next to the water will at least lessen the risk to the surrounding areas.  Planes have crashed in the water at LaGuardia in New York and National Airport (now Reagan) in Washington D.C.  During the air races in the late 1940's, a plane crashed into a house in Berea.  Cuyahoga County Airport had a crash that killed 2 people in a house on Bishop Road and another crash near Highland Road that fortunately missed nearby houses in a residential neighborhood.

Airports on water are generally preferable to landlocked facilities as there are fewer operations when most events occur over populated areas. Regarding the beverage guy from Columbus who crashed into Lake Erie that was considered pilot error and if that was not into the lake it could well have been into a skyscraper or a house or street traffic. 

3 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

About 5 years ago, a private plane returning to Columbus after a Cavs game crashed into the lake killing 6. And in the 80s, a seagull got sucked into the engine of a T-bird that had performed at the air show resulting in a crash that killed the plot.  Those are a couple mishaps that come to mind.

 

So crashes that can occur as a result of any airport take off operations...

2 hours ago, Pugu said:

Airports on water are generally preferable to landlocked facilities as there are fewer operations when most events occur over populated areas. Regarding the beverage guy from Columbus who crashed into Lake Erie that was considered pilot error and if that was not into the lake it could well have been into a skyscraper or a house or street traffic. 

If I recall correctly, the beverage guy from Columbus was flying an aircraft that he really didn't know well.  The crash off Highland Road was caused by an engine failure in one of the two engines right after takeoff.  The pilot heroically managed to keep enough control so that it didn't crash into any houses.  

Here is an interesting article about night flights from Burke.

 

https://www.flyingmag.com/aftermath-into-the-dark/

 

Edited December 6, 20213 yr by LibertyBlvd

2 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Here is an interesting article.

 

https://www.flyingmag.com/aftermath-into-the-dark/

Two things here: 

 

1.   These kinds of accidents also happen over land--at airports in the country at night with little or no visual cues.   

 

2.  All of these accidents illustrate why rich people die in their planes.   They are in command of an aircraft they were able to afford, but is above their abilities.   This combination invariably leads to poor choices.   See JFK Jr.  

On 11/17/2021 at 1:42 AM, Dougal said:

Hard-to-believe news from an aviation blog site Patreon (membership required):  Hahn Airlines of Bedford, MA, an air taxi "coordinator", which I think means they handle bookings for a bunch of small air taxi operators who do the actual flying, has proposed 30 departures a day from Burke to 15 cities. They also propose 18 a day from Hopkins. This is only part of their plan to fly to dozens of cities across the country. The aircraft will be single-engine Cessnas. Some of the cities make sense - ones that used to have service in the Continental hub years; others, like Cape May, NJ, (a nice little place but not in December!!!) are very hard to believe.

 

The blogger said the flights will be listed in the Official Airline Guide edition due to be published next weekend. We'll see.

This listing was never published and was apparently a misfile by the usually authoritative Official Airline Guide.  Fun while it lasted.