FW: Kalispell City Airport Response (3)Option 1 - Do Nothing: Leave Runway 13-31 in its current location and
orientation and perform minimal upgrades to improve safety at the
Airport.
This option would not meet FAA design standards for the projected
critical aircraft and would therefore not be eligible for any Federal
funding assistance. Without FAA involvement, there are essentially no
issues with development; the City could pursue what ever improvements
they deem appropriate. Stelling would recommend that the City try to
achieve compliance with the minimum ARC design standards which would be
Design Group I (DG-I) - Small Aircraft Exclusively (SAE). Small
aircraft are planes weighing less than 12,500 pounds; Design Group I
aircraft are planes with wingspans less than 49'. The following is a
brief summary of the issues and the feasibility of meeting DG-I (SAE)
standards:
o Runway 13-31 - Existing runway width of 60' meets minimum width for
DG-I; the existing length will accommodate 75% of the GA fleet.
o Runway Object Free Area - A total width of 250' (125' each side of
centerline) is required. Additional land and clearing would be required
on both sides at the south third of runway.
o Runway Protection Zones - This requirement is not directly related
to the Design Group but is a function of the Approach Category (A, B,
etc.) and Approach Visibility Minimums. The minimum requirement for
Small Aircraft Exclusively and visual approaches is a trapezoidal area
250' x 450' x 1,000' beginning 200' from each runway end. The current
location of Runway 13-31 does not place the RPZ's on airport property as
the FAA would require. Since Option 2 directly addresses a shift to the
south and an extension, this option will not comply with FAA standards
for RPZ's.
o Taxiways - The two existing parallel taxiways are too close to
Runway 13-31. DG-I standards require a minimum separation of 150'
between parallel taxiways and runways. Kalispell City Airport's taxiway
separation is 90'. In addition to the separation, the existing taxiways
do not meet the minimum width requirements for DG-I standards. The
existing taxiways are 20' wide; DG-I standards require 25' wide
taxiways. Different options are possible to construct new parallel
taxiways that meet DG-I standards. Each option will have different
issues associated with it. For example, if additional land is not
acquired on the west side of the runway and south of the connector
taxiway, there will not be sufficient land to extend the parallel
taxiway to Runway 31. To establish the feasibility of meeting DG-I
taxiway standards for all of the options will require further
evaluation.
o Part 77 Airspace - The current ALP does not include information on
Part 77 airspace pertaining to the existing runway and is therefore
difficult to evaluate without significant effort. Some basic
observations are that the KGEZ radio towers are penetrations to the
Runway 31 approach surface and are considered by the FAA to be hazardous
to air navigation. There also appears to be transitional surface (7:1)
penetrations by the Hilton, Rosauers, and Murdochs.
Option 1 Summary - Some property acquisition would be required to
establish the Runway OFA on airport property and total reconstruction of
the taxiways will be necessary to comply with the absolute minimum
design standards established by the FAA. The west side parallel taxiway
could not be extended to the end of Runway 31 without additional land
acquisition. Finally, this option would not meet the FAA's minimum RPZ
requirements. The FAA would not participate in or support Option 1
since it does not meet B-II design standards or RPZ requirements.
Option 2 - Do Nothing: Leave Runway 13-31 in its current location and
orientation but shift it to the south to meet the minimum RPZ
requirements for Runway 13 and extend to a length of 4,200'.
This option would not meet FAA design standards for the projected
critical aircraft and would therefore not be eligible for any Federal
funding assistance. The FAA has stated that they will not support
development of an ARC B-I facility at the Kalispell City Airport. This
option is intended to meet Design Group I (DG-I) standards and is
therefore similar to Option 1. The southerly shift and extension to
4,200' are the elements that differentiate it from Option 1. There are
two sub-categories of the DG-I group: Small Aircraft Exclusively (SAE)
and Not Exclusively Small Aircraft (NESA). SAE planes are those
weighing less than 12,500 pounds while NESA planes are those weighing
more than 12,500; Design Group I aircraft are planes with wingspans less
than 49'. The following is a brief summary of the issues and the
feasibility of meeting DG-I standards with respect to both SAE and NESA
standards:
o Runway 13-31 - Existing runway width of 60' meets minimum width for
DG-I both SAE and NESA. Constructing to a length of 4,200' with a
southerly shift of 700' will require the acquisition of several
commercial properties fronting US Highway 93 and the removal of several
buildings from these properties.
o Runway Object Free Area - A total width of 250' (125' each side of
centerline) is required for SAE; a total width of 400' (200' each side
of centerline) is required for NESA. Additional land and clearing would
be required on both sides of the runway at the south third of runway to
comply with SAE and NESA requirements.
o Runway Protection Zones - This requirement is not directly related
to the Design Group but is a function of the Approach Category (A, B,
etc.) and Approach Visibility Minimums. The minimum requirement for
Small Aircraft Exclusively and visual approaches is a trapezoidal area
250' x 450' x 1,000' beginning 200' from each runway end. The current
location of Runway 13-31 does not place the RPZs on airport property as
the FAA would require. To meet this requirement would require shifting
the runway approximately 700' to the south. Additional land would be
required to the south for a 700' shift and a 600' extension. The
additional land needed would include portions of commercial property
abutting US Highway 93 and a small corner of the property owned by the
Wise family.
o Taxiways - The two existing parallel taxiways are too close to
Runway 13-31. SAE standards require a minimum separation of 150'
between parallel taxiways and runways; NESA standards require a minimum
of 225' of separation. Kalispell City Airport's taxiway separation is
only 90'. In addition to the separation, the existing taxiways do not
meet the minimum width requirements for DG-I standards. The existing
taxiways are 20' wide; DG-I standards (Both SAE and NESA) require 25'
wide taxiways. It will not be possible to have a parallel taxiway on
the east side of the runway that meets DG-I NESA requirements. Rosauers
is too close to the existing runway to provide the separation and object
free areas that are required. It would be possible to meet DG-I SAE
standards, however. Different options are possible to construct new
parallel taxiways that meet DG-I SAE standards. Each option will have
different issues associated with it. To establish the feasibility of
meeting DG-I SAE taxiway standards will require further evaluation.
o Part 77 Airspace - The current ALP does not include information on
Part 77 airspace pertaining to the existing runway and is therefore
difficult to evaluate without significant effort. Some basic
observations are that the KGEZ radio towers are penetrations to the
Runway 31 approach surface and are considered by the FAA to be hazardous
to air navigation. There also appears to be transitional surface (7:1)
penetrations by the Hilton, Rosauers, and Murdochs.
Option 2 Summary - Significant property acquisition would be required to
shift and extend the runway to the south and establish the Runway OFA on
airport property. Several businesses fronting US Highway 93 would need
to be relocated to accommodate the shift and extension. Total
reconstruction of the taxiways will be necessary to comply with the
absolute minimum design standards established by the FAA. The west side
parallel taxiway could be extended to the end of Runway 31 with a minor
amount of additional land acquisition. The FAA would not participate in
or support Option 2 since it does not meet B-II design standards.
Option 3 - Reconstruct the runway to B-II standards along a 14-32
orientation to a length of 3,700'.
The FAA would support the planning and construction of the new runway to
DG-II standards but would not support a runway length limited to 3,700'.
The FAA has indicated that they will support a planning of length of
4,280' which would accommodate 95% of the GA fleet; planning to the
ultimate length for 100% of the GA fleet would not be required for FAA
support. Since a minimum runway length of 4,280' would be required for
FAA support, the issues pertaining to this options will be presented in
that context. This is essentially the option shown on the current ALP
but 500' shorter. The following is a brief summary of the issues and
the feasibility of meeting DG-II standards on a rotated or skewed
alignment and a length of 4,280':
o Runway 14-32 - New runway is constructed to a width of 75' to meet
DG-II standards. As noted above, the FAA would require planning to a
length that accommodates 95% of the GA fleet or 4,280'. Substantial
land acquisition would be required for the rotated alignment, southerly
shift, and extension to 4,280'. All of the new property acquisition
shown on the current Exhibit A Property Map would be required. However,
Cemetery Road would not need to be relocated.
o Runway Object Free Area - A total width of 500' (250' each side of
centerline) is required for DG-II standards. All of the new property
acquisition shown on the current Exhibit A Property Map would be
required to protect the OFA.
o Runway Protection Zones - This requirement is not directly related
to the Design Group but is a function of the Approach Category (A, B,
etc.) and Approach Visibility Minimums. The requirement for Aircraft
Approach Categories A and B with visual approaches (or NPI not lower
than 1 mile) is a trapezoidal area 500' x 700' x 1,000' beginning 200'
from each runway end. The proposed location of Runway 14-32 (as shown on
the ALP) would place the Runway 14 RPZ on airport property; the Runway
32 RPZ would require land acquisition to comply with FAA requirements.
o Taxiways - This option plans for the reconstruction of the taxiways
to DG-II standards. The proposed land acquisition includes the property
necessary to construct the new taxiways that comply with FAA design
standards.
o Part 77 Airspace - This option minimizes obstructions to the Part 77
airspace created by structures fronting US Highway 93. The FAA will
still require that the KGEZ radio towers be removed before they will
support improvements at Kalispell City Airport.
Option 3 Summary - This option will only garner FAA support if the
planned length of Runway 14-32 is 4,280' to accommodate 95% of the GA
fleet. The City would not necessarily need to construct to a length of
4,280' but they would need to show the 95% length on the ALP and acquire
the land needed to extend to that length. As a result, significant
property acquisition would be required to shift, rotate, and extend the
runway to the south and establish the Runway OFA and RPZs on airport
property. Several residences, including one or two on the Wise
property, would need to be relocated to accommodate the shift, rotation,
and extension. Total reconstruction of the taxiways will be necessary
to accommodate the runway changes and meet design standards established
by the FAA. The FAA would participate in and support Option 3 if it was
planned to a length of 4,280'.
Fred and I met with Gary Gates at the MAD Conference in Missoula on
March 5th to discuss the Kalispell City Airport. The FAA presented
several key development criteria for Kalispell City Airport:
1. The FAA will not support planning or construction of an ARC B-I
facility at Kalispell City Airport. The current level of aviation
activity and projected forecasts require planning for a B-II facility
for FAA support.
2. The FAA would support planning for a runway length less than
100% (4,700') but not less than 95% (4,280'). The City would not
necessarily need to construct to a 95% length but would need to show
that length on the ALP and acquire the necessary land for a future
runway extension. The FAA prefers to leave the 100% length requirement
in the plan for now and allow the EA process to address length through
public comment.
3. The FAA would support additional planning to assess whether
there are other suitable runway orientations (between existing and the
proposed 5 degree rotation) that comply with FAA standards but minimize
the amount of land needed from the Wise family.
4. The FAA is not willing to compromise aviation needs in order to
fit the existing environment or conditions at the airport. In other
words, the FAA won't support an effort to determine what airport
facilities will work on land the airport currently owns or can easily
acquire (ie work around the Wise property).
In summary, the FAA will only support development at Kalispell City
Airport of a facility that meets B-II requirements and is planned for a
minimum runway length of 4,280 feet. Anything short of these
requirements will not be supported by the FAA. Options 1 and 2
therefore would not be eligible for any Federal funding or reimbursement
on past investment. Option 3 would be eligible for Federal funding and
reimbursement provided that the runway is planned to a length of 4,280'.
There is also the potential runway rotation less than 5 degrees that
would decrease the amount of land required from the Wise family and
still meet FAA design standards. The City may want to evaluate this
option further.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Thanks
Jeff Walla, PE
Stelling Engineers, Inc.
1372 Airport Road
Kalispell, MT 59901
phone: 406-755-8602
fax: 406-755-8710
email: jwalla@stellinginc.com <mailto:jwalla@jwalla@stellinginc.com>
㋿㏯༵ἶ⼷㼸鼺꼻潓缼㷿㺏㾟䂯䆿䋏䏟䓯མ罊弯漰缱�ｍ俿倏償刯吿殟嗟噯ｿ�齘꽙뽚콛�罰ዻ牁毀聽ὠ⽡ὥ⽦柿栿楏機汯淏苟溯鮯꾛끯鰭Ꭵ灰甭ꥰ䂝畡瀓蜻戙ᏽ浰罷㽱䡲ᎄｲ閿璀甯ꐿ訟摯䨱ჟ诏圦ᅈ쉡傀䕖쭺t렶狑覑｜냉背쁺ྋ鲓꾋ﾸ래叮샚䃃˰颐癑쉳솀揠�；缚꾖響ꂿ駟糟龟꓿爏獟㹨踸轿皏酏ꝟ쌳冁ꛈ潒摡꾥뾦ꟿ꣏珟괓誟ꆯꉯꍿﾏ龤뾰쾱뾹ﾪྫྷ궷딟뷟䯵ヂ倔鵰ॡ呍 㤹믿벯붿뻏듟쓿쥟롟Ｏ㾹侺徻鿇꿈뿉龿꿀쇏
슿쯏첯為흨獠ߠ轡齢诼〴ⴶ耷㔵㠭〶촲흿迎鿏꿐흽碠��㝄傎�￡緺ñ흡ﱯ텼⿏�翪僶ࡨ曀昽፲㩰Ū闀䃑핵鷠蝤麐�涰ᬢ揑쁉獴䯶䑏힟鹠䠐�晫왩㨀荤時倄邇䡻夂ₖ䱒义⁋紒諒ӑ鹐셀偻捜ㅦќ鱀ﾙ翲鿕꧖揑志淘忚瓿ﳿ经९ݿﻟ慡豯趟��첿ｿ�￮꽹뽺콻弈绿胿脏茟ⅿ萟蕏灟／ἕἙ켕�鼦縚㼞伟₿≟⾿⏯ᆍ␀⾁ꃺ瘾�⼫�꼵뜫㠵鿱澲祤�強혫㞮芔괯㬳絵쀾