10/05/99 Conrad to Gatessubs INFORMATION: New Runway site Feasibility, Kalispell City Dom: October 5, 1999
Airport
Reply to
Fro-. Helena Flight Standards District Office ten. of Ken Conrad
406-449-5270
To: Helena Airports District Office, HLN-61 Q
ATTN: Gary M. Gates
Gary:
Reference our discussion last week regarding the changes proposed at Kalispell City Airport, addressed in
your memorandum dated September 24, 1999, 1 have considered our discussion and have reviewed the
materials submitted with your memorandum. I have arrived at the following conclusions..
(1) The existence of the three radio towers located south of the existing runway 31 presents a significant
hazard to air navigation.
(2) Realigning the runway heading so as to clear the towers from the Part 77 approach surfaces will not
significantly decrease their potential as a hazard to air navigation.
(3) A reduction in the height of the towers will not significantly lessen their impact as a hazard to air
navigation.
(4) The presence of the towers, in their present location, will negatively impact the visibility requirements
and minimum descent altitudes of the proposed instrument approach procedures ultimately planned
for the airport. The presence of these towers will result in impracticably high minimums.
(5) If an instrument approach procedure is designed for the airport, with the towers located near the
airport, the resulting high minimums will lead to aircraft flying the existing instrument approaches to
adjacent Glacier Park International Airport, with its lower minimums, and then flying to Kalispell City
Airport in Marginal VFR conditions (when in Glass D or F airspace), or in weather conditions
prescribed for operations in Class G airspace (1 mile flight visibility, clear of clouds). This situation
already exists with no instrument approach available at City Airport. The presence of these towers,
regardless of their height or orientation to the runway alignment, presents an even greater hazard
under reduced visibility conditions.
It is my recommendation that, in addition to the lengthening and widening of the existing, or realigned
runway, the three towers be moved far enough from the Kalispell City Airport to preclude them constituting
a hazard to air navigation under either visual or instrument flight rules.
They should be located at a great enough distance from the airport that instrument approach minimums
are not raised to impractical levels.
The move considerations regarding instrument approaches notwithstanding, the presence of these
towers currently presents, and will continue to present, a serious hazard to aircraft operations, whether
VFR or iFR. Regardless of the outcome of the referenced Runway Site Feasibility Study, it is my
recommendation that these towers be relocated from their present position to a location that will
significantly reduce their potential as a hazard to air navigation.
r�
Ken Conrad
Aviation Safely Inspector