The debate on the trees at the airport seems a bit cloudy. If they want a lower approach angle what is stopping them? The runway runs north and south, so do the trees, and if the pilot is trying to land east to west, should that person really have a license to fly an aircraft?
If the Centennial Centre wants to transport patients, why not use a helicopter and land at the Ponoka Hospital and Care Centre or have a landing pad made up at their grounds? If they had a landing pad then the patient could fly from hospital to hospital, not from hospital to airport to airport to hospital, leaving out the middleman the two airports.
Or is the concern with GPS navigation accuracy. If this is the case I can stand beside those trees with my $300 handheld GPS (with WASS) and it will tell me where I am, it takes a minimum of three satellites to triangulate your position so if one satellite is too low in the sky it will pick up another somewhere else.
I am positive that the navigation equipment in planes and at the airport would be better than my $300 GPS.
Or is it a safety issue? Would you rather have an out of control aircraft in the trees or out on Highway 2A in traffic? Most airports have some kind of barriers up to separate aircraft from roadways, either concrete, steal post with fence or in the town’s case it has beautiful trees on the east side, open field to the south and barbwire fence to the north.
By the way, I don’t think the wire fence will stop a plane from crossing that road in an emergency. It may keep the cattle off the runway.
Maybe it’s the cost of liability insurance. If that is the case, no matter what you do, insurance companies are always going to get the money they want, one way or the other.