Kalispell City Airport (7)Jane,
Per your request I have performed a cursory review of feasibility for
the three options discussed at the City Council Workshop on February 8,
2010. The following is a brief response to those three options:
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>
뽟潐网轒齓꽔뉕嘳ὗ⽘㕙夳잿죟짯࿋ῌ⿍㿎㽢ᾯ彤潥鷿﹏桯榟骭瞁赐ﰡ衪偼牬ѷ蕠Աﾠꈋ邆ì邆䁲넋輄鼅ۿޯ檺眐◠殰텶麀葡赠氡⢐ୢﺐ籷à夰模藢鞲侳邛䁪灿‵䁕ｧ缄．邛␒큱蓿ꁃ靁矰睱汐ࡀ啲ﮡさì汤熐탲퀠�ꃺ⎅郐ꂛ出ᝯ蜐뽒引漖缗᭻魦敖蕭圣邆蓐뾠㿚ꛟ羅꣏ﰯﺿ？⿿㼀企异迓还⏿⟟㊿⟿��뫯믟濫྾᾿ῡགྷ心濄엿䉿⥟摒ﮟ⮯켮࿏鼰⿑ἳ⼴濕훿啿㕏㚏㪟䥿㤏㫏㽂彄ὄὦ濦
㒄￨轔꽦潦罅㒣㐵뿸ｊ䳿䴏丟伯倿くㄟ̯｟漄뼞羀鼇邓゚肘灼馠ਐ᪕∲∱参蓐툉炘섡゚䁷섑䃴턋釿粠饰虡螟袯㜓ꂌ邛ꁮᅲ緁１ヴ쌉゚Ěꌜ悓䈉氣埳墿赉ࢣ᮰ﺑ踬辿郏ߟ⊺ࡲ畴�尧簐ॱጦ昑䁼愉૿煐睠ీ୰ᩰ！䖕〣섉》꾙뾚쾛߷论餲欲쀑䂂舝杖紹甐ᕲ眠᪀潱㽷焒⊟쁰ㄣ뀓煣჻ೠ⠡ྡྷᾣ⾤㮥湒ᴐጁ⋤ᒳూ槀︠锩隿韏嗜噿媏孿ﾏ齜辬뽞쾷�켼�彭㿿䇿挏븏뺿썿䛯煟쭍蕩䁩獦⹐蔱／鿂ｼཾ⾀㾁
侂菿剟叏탟댏낯녟홯／ྵᾶ⾷忚侹澻꽡拿掿擏쓟엟䚿헟�拑칢手Ή⿌췿츿콏텿퉿펏犟퍈ᏸ杩낫町࣠翠㿫퓴나循澫열ဉ省腩ⱹ挢猈ʦ胰焚瘖獐ᓁ鍠᪣혁배ㅴボ샆䃲ꀈ徐恩胰퇲⼂㌃͐互Ͱ䯋냲び䁫傋ￚ�ձ듊ɰԟ咙ㅫ�䏺悔ݹࣟ௩뒲ﵽ�迴眏�쬃镁༎�范턉儝䁸斡ჯ軹钀鏑ꂠ言ⵂ䥉ꠠ꤀鏃놔솊脃Ⅾ⊰ꠁ珁䁸䆠浩ჿ〞삮ﹷꡡ楐譀躀ᦀᮿꇏ㔑ⰴ㠲ჟᵦ잡⾰Ῑ�湁蹹讀ﱲ桳膎憯䬞ጀ諝拲炯ꖞ턟ᩢ⊯�제뎝ἥ⼦�
铠ﾃ튦僝傟샔熠낮𢡊⫀玦𢡄楐楢ὀ
샿䂍냲Ｌ㔑暾솮犋솨¨造Ꝣ￠悯꒓烶퀶郶熍쁳郶鏟⺢ㇿ谏㏢申⤴㗿㛟㟯ꣶ㗁㡥ꙗ㧒＜ᆌꂌ偶햔够놋懾뼿콀㔑圡搤䊞Ἳ㳿霯蛜ꥡ諱잰기炕恺職ꇲ혠₌펌榿와䟠䠯᰿㕰柾¨㐝萳其¨탆꿻镰洃놮쎦䔞賿긡僷凯㟿έ鈃�ᆦ鈝쏿偶샰꙲�샨傍ｋཌྷఠᶲ뾀℡အ釰놋끳냲鑵⽘㽙제솊j펌怸た駿崁희�ᆏ�ﾯ潪罫썩뫭忡濢翣ｭ痿癿쿰�ῶ⛷⍣햿脯是嶯庿蟏ｿཨὩ⽪쾋佬徏ｰི珿琟甯眿颟硏祯虿ￏ齻
꽼뽽콾�ﾁྃ蓿蔟蘯鴿Չ嗰䋑篡ᅔ牡ꅣ子㪲ၠ秐껽₰倝倁㽢佣斣∵囿㫰㊡攒裿賿路迿／澣⾑꾴侓徔澕羖辗駿뷯骟鮿ꧏ鴟黯ꃿ／ᾡ⾢鿂侤徥澦羧辨죿끿規詿讏놟닯듿／⾶꿖侸徹澺羻込뻿�뾟삿컏�쎟엿／ῆ⿇㿈俉忊濋翌迍悜殀翏运翔헿횏��῟翡뿿俢忣꿰翥ҿ鼊꿲࿑ῒᔯᡏ𢡊ﭯﱿﾏ鿽꿾༁뼡�㼐뼟ۿܟिୟ౯ൿﾏ鼎꼏뼦켑�４༖㓿ᨿᱟᵯṿﾏ［꼠༣뽃�똮洊逥怭狰楧ቮ愭
炀⨭瓠愺番聡䠻择⁐聡ｭ읉弲�㼨伩弪漫缬ⷧ⺏⾟ㆡ〰ㅏ굔ꎓ뼱繌敊깦坠膫慔ꨬ䔠籍㴱扁狲॑汜恉醬뽒Ჭ卷潟㢪戰꽒뽓쥔⡷楥깧㨀။摬堳慏匴ꩴ峀枑䘠晅尰斡獲做ﱉ据ರ漺缻뽮콨�寿屯嵿序梟欟㲿㵿⽳䠴끔㨱큥ƫ쁎矼吺侰什傠盱瞏摡ꭤ─础䵏仏ﻕ伱偟兯浶劁愯承ﶏ支唸囯껹坰䲯祿睵症稲裿穜襦蒪㌱Ń楁灲仹勀穯灠狿蜏瑏Ｏ羏辐⥺翳蚔羕軿询鞈顯靵簏紬冚＋厀ྒྷﾁ�뽬콭滿濟軯輏ꔟ酿꧟㷯坷╰縠窀귟䍏ｩ쁔꾮꾛ｼཾ⾀뾬苿荏たꆿ
ꈟ訯꺏褶㺈쎰媿땋椠怶ꟿꡯ뵿ꨏ쒟앿钏끨ￂ꾱뾲쾳�ﾶྸᾹ뫿蔯묊벟좯颯쪢娄ﭐ῀敡뿠꽏�뇅ﰙ呍꿖薚徙袖凗켧ꚟ䙷蠍傶ꃑ샍潃��섋ᦱ㤵〹�顟ﾓ⣦㿟蚔心㿇翣迆铟꺳颯鯿ྜྷᾞ㿐㾠�澣群꙯ɏկ＿翋迌鿍꿎伉鿼�Ϗ폣묟ﺏ烯乨⾠ް㼵伶娷㐠㘰-㔷ⴵ㘸㈰ﾯǿȏ̟累–ᙸ漗缘萙唷ᫀᬟᰯ錄伝敽ꁊ倓鼞꼟밠ӿՏ⭿Ɐயﾼ漍甎Ｎ㼐休嘒３㓑慮栠傉䡦⛁퇁樺婷䀒蔻뀵斯䧴杠ର淐뀋끴ꍈ佋乄
⒠婰ꬠ弼敩擰苶摦⍀恉뀵䡻婙剰灌义⁋༻Ἴ∽㹽兽撱晀䛐ະㆁﱜ汵꼳ꨌ漽缾輿凿ຢ㓿䢯䧯䯿㠏䷟ｯ罎轏齐꽑켴ᡣ⨓ὖ埿䌤㵯⤃⯿嘏巯庯콟�Ｌ༮եཧὨ旻挟慥�꽣ཪ콥�湳み∿ଲಿ㋏㊶槿垟塿튏≔툰藏）缷轖ἧ⼨㼩潬佰齽濿芟熟犿珏瓟痯藿ὸ⽹㽺뼓꽼忴䊰恔烾俶늁羓龁羅뾃쾄桿Ͽ韢Θⓓ纟㜶隿錢榞͡鿿绿㙣瀦傈ぃ獳낈獍濼過♰媰鵟蝿蠏ʰ褳吖浩獥敎⁷㵒贰襰緯膋ꑡ賯㗏ꇬㅳ㋾툶ྤ羪ྒྷ㽾使ﾮ铿镯陿뎏顏뚯髟鯏뿟ﾝྟ澡쾿횥ꬰ
缾䄯癰澹辽㿁࿅霥㗲焰戯郦㻊䆋�즻㝄劲궓쨳˕칽