• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Rambunkscious

Beach Lover
Jan 17, 2007
136
3
Smiling Joe, the no-see-ums issue has been serious until this year. The county now sprays the development twice a week for these pests. There has been a marked improvement, the no-see-ums are absent now as far as I can tell, but cannot guarantee that they will never be seen, just have not seen them for a long time now.

Your comparison with Eglin is a good one, the noise around the largest air force base in the world has not deterred development in that area. There might be some noise around rivercamps but dont think much. Maybe years down the road but not anytime soon.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
Regarding that current road off of 388, leading to the airport, it appears to be east of the long runway, so from the runway to the lots in RC, closest to hwy388, should be less than 3miles as the crow, or jet, flies.
 

Rambunkscious

Beach Lover
Jan 17, 2007
136
3
Smiling Joe, looking at Kurts pictures in the first post on this topic, picture 2 shows the airport entry road on 388 actually being west of the landing strip. So the landing strip would be actually being further to the EAST than originally calculated in the 3 mile calculation and closer to burnt mill creek.

Please correct me if you have superior information.
 
Last edited:

Rambunkscious

Beach Lover
Jan 17, 2007
136
3
Actually, in picture one of Kurts, you can actually see burnt mill creek being an arms length away from the smaller diagonally placed landing strip. My original calculation of 3 to 4 miles appears to be accurate, even conservative. The noise issue is probably a non-event; again, please correct me if your information is more precise. You may be confusing burnt mill creek with crooked creek, the picture is definitely of burnt mill creek and not crooked creek.
 
Last edited:

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
Smiling Joe, looking at Kurts pictures in the first post on this topic, picture 2 shows the airport entry road on 388 actually being west of the landing strip. So the landing strip would be actually being further to the west than originally calculated in the 3 mile calculation and closer to burnt mill creek.

Please correct me if you have superior information.

2924742024_1511426282.jpg


I am only going by what I see in the photos. To me, it appears that the longest runway is running north to south, and it appears to me that this 2nd photo is a northern view, probably taken over or extremely close to hwy 388. If that is correct, RiverCamps would be to the South West of this location. The road shown coming into the airport construction area, from the lower right corner of the photo is the road which I believe they are currently using for construction off of hwy 388. I believe that road connects into CR 388, about 500 yards west of Burnt Creek.

I'm not sure I understand your post above, because if the landing strip is farther west, it would be closer to RiverCamps, which is what I was saying.

If the diagonal stretch of cleared land running from the upper right to the lower left in this photo, is actually the shorter runway, I believe that would be sending planes directly over RiverCamps. It may be the terminal and not a runway at all. I cannot tell from looking at the photos on the airport's link. I need better maps, and cannot be certain based solely on these photos, which aren't even labeled north.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
header-4.jpg


Here is another planning pic from their site, which does show the long runway farther from 388, than I thought, so maybe it is farther than 3 miles, but that NE/SW runway is looking like it may point toward RC. I am going to see if I can find more updated sat photos of Bay County, which also shows the airport clearing.

Regardless, as you say, maybe the pine trees will buffer any sound that exists.
 

Will B

Moderator
Jan 5, 2006
4,530
1,279
Atlanta, GA
Runway 3-21 is the shorter runway. At only 5000 feet in length it would not be the prefered runway. Additionaly, it will not have a full ILS landing system as the longer runway will have. That being said it will primarily be used by small GA aircraft that cannot handle the larger crosswind component that the commericial aircraft can handle. In a worst case scenario, you might have the occasional larger aircraft land on 3-21 in really bad weather and high winds, but their approach will be made against runway 16-34's ILS breaking off at the last moment to land visually on the shorter runway if they are able to. They would probably still take off on the longer runway, though. I don't think noise is going to be a very big issue...
 
Last edited:

Rambunkscious

Beach Lover
Jan 17, 2007
136
3
Smiling Joe, my post 13 has now been edited to say EAST which is correct and now makes sense, sorry for the operator error!!! Thanks for all your effort and research on this topic, maybe you can find some better photos, thanks again. The airport entry road is on the left in both photos, not the right. This entry road is west of the runways.
 
Last edited:

scooterbug44

SoWal Expert
May 8, 2007
16,732
3,330
Sowal
After years of the El outside my window and Grandma's house being in the flight path for O'Hare, I think the traffic from PCB International will be quite bearable! :roll:
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
ram, Bay Co Prop Appraiser's site does show the airport parcel on their maps, but doesn't have updated areal map showing cleared runways. Using their map, from my estimates of the closest end of the longest runway to the closest lot in RiverCamps is 16324 feet, right at three miles. The distance to the near end of the shorter runway is about the same distance. The short runway appears to be directly aligned toward RiverCamps.

Thanks for the correction on the location of the road. I thought they were using the road which comes out to the east of all of this.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter