Darlington County Council wants jetport, pilots to prioritize projects

By Candace Jarrett
Morning News Reporter
Published: July 25, 2008

DARLINGTON — Darlington County Council would like the county’s jetport commission to work with the pilots who use the jetport and prioritize which projects need immediate attention, following a work session Friday evening.

The work session began with the council, the commission, county administrator Phyllis Griffitts, S.C. Division of Aeronautics (DOA) inspector Paul Wertz and consultant engineers Gary Lott and Andy Busby with the LPA GROUP, discussing the proposed removal of one end portion of secondary runway 10/34.

The LPA Group was selected by the council to study the jetport and advise the council on what renovations were needed.

The DOA gave the county an ultimatum in March regarding a long list of safety deficiencies at the jetport that needed correction. It faced losing access to state funds for capital improvements and maintenance services.

The letter included a list of concerns regarding specific runways, trees penetrating airspace and runway pavements being in poor condition with debris and foreign objects that could cause damage to jet engines, propellers and other aircraft surfaces.

Lott and Busby told everyone their recommendation still stands as is; that runway 10/34 is in terrible condition, and the opinion of the LPA Group is that only removal of that section of asphalt would stop the foreign object debris.

Commission members had hoped cleaning the sand from the runway and sweeping it more often would alter the council and Wertz’s opinions regarding the removal of the runaway.

The commission even suggested repaving the cracked asphalt so it wouldn’t have to be dug up.

“I say we paint it, make the alterations and leave it at that,” councilman Wesley Blackwell said.

“It’s my understanding that the LPA Group made the decision based on what they were told was a problem,” councilwoman Anne Warr said. “If we fix it, then it wouldn’t be a problem and need to be dug up.”

Wertz said even if it were repaved, it wouldn’t help the situation in the future.

“You can sweep it til the cows come home but it’s going to continue to be a problem,” he said. “(DOA) will continue to write it up. You could put two inches (of pavement) out there but we call that a Band-Aid approach.”

Runway 10/34 is a secondary runway; therefore, the FAA would not fund any renovations toward it. Brining it up to code would be solely the county’s responsibility.

Commission member and chief Sonoco pilot John Welker, along with Sonoco pilot Carroll Jordan, said the secondary runway is easier for landing and they wanted to try to keep the corner portion.

In the end, Wertz suggested the council find out how often Sonoco and other pilots use the runway and weigh whether or not it’s enough to justify allocating money for renovations.

The group also discussed LPA’s recommendation to widen runway 23 simultaneously with getting rid of runway 10/34, along with trees that penetrate the airspace approach on runways 10 and 34.

The council still will have to vote on whether or not to tear up the runway.