Page:Aircraft Accident Report for 1972 Sacramento Canadair Sabre accident.pdf/34

 Honorable John H. Shaffer guidelines in the General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook that use a cruising speed of 130 knots as a criterion for "Dead Line" separation from spectator areas during airshows; in excess of 130 knots, the minimum is 1,500 feet and at lower speeds it is 500 feet. Although this rule may be suitable for the protection of designated spectator areas that parallel the demonstration runway, it does not take into account the potential trajectory of disassociated aircraft parts and their hazard to persons and property in the line of flight, near the airport boundaries.

The built-up area around the Sacramento Executive Airport raises serious questions with regard to the suitability for airshows of this and similar airports, especially when one considers the practicability of applying the following sample of a special provision from the pertinent handbook: "The holder of the airshow waiver shall insure that roads adjacent to the airport, as specified below, are devoid of vehicular traffic and the property adjoining the airport shall be free of spectators. "This provision was not incorporated in the certificate of waiver for the Sacramento airshow; if it had been, it would have been very difficult to implement. In this respect, it is of interest to note that the 92 accidents that occurred during airshows or air racing in a recently researched 8-year period (1964-1971) did not result in injuries to other than aircraft occupants. The Board is of the opinion that open space around most of the airports involved played a predominant role in protecting public and property beyond the designated spectator areas.

With regard to the catastrophic consequences of this accident, the public hearing produced no evidence of specific regulatory provisions, or firm guidelines, at the Federal, State, or local level, that would have precluded the construction of public or private facilities in such close proximity to the departure end of Runway 30. The Board is unable to find any direct reference to the safety of persons or property on the ground in Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace) or in Advisory Circular 150/5190-3 (Model Airport Zoning Ordinance). This does not imply that such consideration is not given during aeronautical studies and hearings, or that this accident was typical in its environmental impact of the approximately 25,780 takeoff and landing accidents that occurred on, or in the immediate vicinity of U.S. airports during the earlier-mentioned 8-year period. The Board also recognizes that the responsibility for prudent restrictions on the use of land around airports, and construction thereon, rests with local jurisdictions. However, advisory guidance, and the judicious use of controls in the fund allocations under the Airport Development Aid Program, could be influential in convincing the jurisdictions involved that the compatibility considerations of airports and surrounding environment should not only include noise, pollution, and similar factors, but also a practical regard for the safety of people and property on the ground.