Kalispell City Airport ResponseFred,
The following is my draft response to the City’s request on the three
potential options at Kalispell City Airport. Please review and comment.
I would like to send this off to Jane tomorrow.
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>
̼⼁鿐꿑嫿䃿Ⱟⵯ慿䅏䊏䎟ﾯ齥콅⽩翟迠轉꿢凟牯㏹뿨�狿狿冿筏忳援㏵噿圿塏奟婯孿岏ﾟ༂ἃ⼄༼쾌弇洈㧿깁⭐諡᱈ឲର︲ꑷ⎀铱騀ꐂ窐ꑠﾐᆚﾓྕ᪖퀈傮蟯쑀ੰ弶槠䂨⣴饢矰ꀛ邎腿굿ꘒ㛢㡳꾠饀Ꞁ㖠ôꑧ鋠鳟鵏陟ꀸ蒠Ἡ㼔㘁ᚰ긱�
펮ႈ恺ၐﾲ_肃_⌥怺놈濾ၥሦ뾣쾤��넛曪ꀸ╭圣聿倥㿿承曏枿棏껟橏뛿ｯὭཉὊ齹㽌位佯徽竿슏劏原碯螏袿觏ﾋ过ᾎ㽝彟翆췿뉯掟撟펯뎿뗿똏？࿘㾸鿛徺㽮꿀彰᾽쏟璏疟皯㒷彷⿓쐏簟綯线翏胟篯ﾁ茴葯蕿蚏㒕蟿젟즏쪟쮯첿췏컟龏꾐뾑쾒ᾭﾕ倲ၐ꧲㜀飐ꣵ낒놑Ｂ烒怃㊘䌞怑↠ꂂ髿ᬱ蛰ᰀ֑؟ܯ⨿떡䀿䀋ꀸ㉮☓ᱱ１ᒘ䄟ΫꊗἬ迖⺽䤼ㄌΚബ�漎缏㸣풖ჴ�ﮰ蚗熡♦ൡఁ苀蚠ﾰð倥킙焓苼邱飿㠡ᣐ
᥏陯च្㻒ቫꯠᏢﮚ疰ｲꀱ倿톨토鈒숝惯뇻ꊑ挐쌱傠꼠뼡⋿⏏ⓛꮰꉡ년ꈓﮢ퀯샧ᐩᕟᙯ푼픟ＯῙ㿛⼫忝漶翟澻볿뻿뾟㶯㵟䈟⾏ￄ◨⻰Ｕ酶꼃㽁迺鿻꿼뿽쿾ßǯ퇿퉯乿㊯⹏༰꽔꼳뼴켵ｘ轜㫿䍿斏䑿꽟翅ｓ罣ɐ䱢拫轎䧿䪿䯏䳟䷯毿借償伯㽒덶䂡杩倪Ｚ胴䂗�瑳倗Ｈ༪敳韥浰⇨ⱹ厢펖ꈤ濿ꠠ韑艶ꉡዀፃ何클ㅴ큚恅㩾ふè煱쾀펁㊂睎舐䭫偱탱ॿ姰岟萑㍪耐蒿吹苑䍺ₘ虹蝿誉罒ᴳ⽳ណ赧羉殂ａ龋
꾌羔蒇⎂熈놫⃠謅躌辏ꢙቃṀꆠ瀉ⵂ䥉낟⡥�䈒儓ㆢ愉ↂ끮뀐㽡鄒玪끽킜炫慷⛿ૠꤠꬡ馰驟软탕ⰴ㠲끝鱦⹁描뽗簖湁ੀ猒棾舝놫ㄜċ덾鈉拮ီ䔝冰饢ꅏ鮏匜뾣쾤簖癏ᎀﾐ爥鈗恓ᄟ倭恹ꧧ硰槰黠Ꚕ翀恾而偱辪龫햏�愭ሊ鄒ゝゟ♢䐒ၵ炵ふᄌ惲ふ䈒귯꺏꾟ய㎂ᖲ즲羴뗿뚏ኖ뒑똅◷띲઼羱䀋舭甓薟劣넌｡徾澿햏ң뾹쾺ռ⠁煡䕐ⷐᶓｰù䅱皟쀊遮猋䕟얀웏鯟畸㔐脞ｧゝ耠풛⒲ゝ灅ီᏽ涣儭莧挥膞섊ⷿ쾗킏뚟
瞖鴓ᆣ⑱㊜捾息畧┒東迉鿊꿋謠鹒鿰�낟ㅯ넌僲偱፵홰ￏ�梛愉ꃨ猋·ꄗ�嘌娟嬏尟輯庯／Ὺ揨婬｟ཡὢ鿬㽤替栯楿檏溟潟ｯ罰轱齲꽳뽴왵쏡佶矿卟ￏ��ٯﾯ뿧쿨漊－鿯꿰뿱ᘿԟ＿俻忼濽翾迿鼀꼁뼂Ͽӏᯟ蓩펐ꏳ셱튁붱ዠὣ�륒ऀ秠倭�Ԣ슳郕맿끁ޟடಏඟ⊯／켏伳２༔ἕ⼖輘㳿❯Ჿᶏẟᾯ켠㽁Ｃ༥ἦ⼧⿿टਯ〿㊟㎯켴何Ｗ༹Ἲ⼻輽廿㸿㽟䱯岿䈿䎟䒯콅�ｈཊὋ⽌㱣�欀
欠郣⽏ὓ⽔嗿椿垟畟奯婿宏岟뾯뽝ὠ彾視䙫扭䨠�犐₳⃠䉰札瑰愺㬠菭戉샎⃠荭滧篯콤�ｧཀྵὪ⽫ㅬㅼ氰淟ⳤ渳虏䪞녋净坠Kⱡ쀨ꕅ鲇眱扡譲尩麿筠⮟趞牊扐쾌趫毟睩삷Ⱨ㪠ゅ뵷鉰魯協₪〪ᝅ烈솖烤鑳䥰据璬疏ꉟꏯ闿随ﾟ꾗뾘㾢�齶꽷侭䡱甸㨱뇒㉵㩾킎삈ᆋ꾰늱ﱡ摤烕큡徲킎ힱ睾ⶶ皴辷ﾇ҉Ｑ羉辊隋ꆧ侌龛꾜㡾ΐ㌬ိ徐㽮㨱紳䄡냕ꃍ邋删濾炴ᾫ⾬࿀侮鿉꿊珿뤄牙츟놦쿴즟됂ｈ近闒⿑岻쪼⮋莿⿍쇿欯얂蘏ꚟ꣯
缏⿈㿉鿟忋￢皱콰끡낽忧楃샚뿨룿멕똟햯볟＿侽徾澿迁鿂꿃뿄�䭒ჴ偩ꂰﾏ鿢뿤ἀ裎틪鿰透／ᦑ뾑⼃돒揨翓闒ӯ钔녟憴 Ύ鿮ᛳ䴉ፔ퐏ᚥቑ翯꣐漛༬ᨭ鴝ⶀ皱왐౯࠰䍐摯编輗⊃㔉㤹뼛틿⊳ᮈ캟⢦ﵯǯ῏ἁἭ㼩폎鼒ῖ㿘૿�ཟၯ��㦟鼫꼬⼽켮轀켲༆ἇࣿय䌿㟟య說ശ絛㧯缹桰삈䁬乊渦把뀷㬻⟙ちꡉ 〴ⴶ㔷㠭〶㨲㮏㲟뼽䵽碰ｑནᑔ㜾꽔뽕콖�敽拿䵰姠娯嬿㹌㿟忯轏ག･ཧቋ둨躠
艦懡虑㨀睪㊔䁾ᕬꁋᒠ
傡恆ᵭ䁆苠毃䮴䑏衟忀鐀汀误椬Ⴀᵤȱ鹦蕠䬀箠奈钁劐䥌䭎欠꽬뉭絽톋悞„䧡ㄑ畜䥬䒟䗏ￗ㩇ｭὰ靈罉轊ｹ篿簏㤟经翟胯苿茏？꽊뽋콌龇ꒈｳ鍭擿斏袟遯酿銏鎟钯羿轧齨햗�㖖뭡꼲ⱸ䘲䝏䡟㉦㆜䧿蠯諿謏尔ව乩ﾏྈ꽡뽢콣�뾙�ྙ꿿黟ꃿꄏꈟꌯ댿ꔯ罟澦羧低뼰㋯ｰ༩뿀�뾲ﾰྲ쾛ế쒂徘Ḩ彳ᴯ㟦拃쁟鳞㸱춏ḿ㘓脷邵쁳僓獍乯붿憰赀쨯뒿땏㏰嚶吀浩獥丠硥⁷浒뫀랰ḯ晡䢟틱먯訏ẜㆃ爐２俑뿗俀羫辬㿜꿁뿂쏿얏젟줏쨟쬯
꼿俌꿎ᛓ㜰⾁r皾꿦쿪翮俲❝砵ﰡ戯츄膸ῴ꿶ꐃ㞮ḳ絵惻