KCA - More Airspace DatawC)r _ __ -
- • and Connie Leistiko
From: "Fred and Connie Leistiko" <fleistiko@centu rytel. net>
To: "Ben Dawson" <dawson@hatdaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Kalispell City Airport - More Airspace Data]
IM
Thanks for clearing this up for us yesterday. We got on the phone to Rick
at RPA after our conversation and asked him to get you the solid data you
need to do your job. He will get it to you ASAP and copy it to us also.
Thanks,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Dawson" <da son hatda .com>
To: "Fred and Connie Leistiko" <fleiWilko ceniu tel.net>
Cc: "Rick Donaldson" <rick rya-hln.co >
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Kalispell City Airport -More Airspace Data]
> Fred
> Well, this most recent data from Rick Donaldson puts me in a bit of a
> quandary. I had called him to ask that he confirm the "penetration" data
> for the two towers that accompanied the last information he had sent to
> me, the March 2007 "Sheet 4" FAR part 77 Airport Airspace Drawing. That
> table showed the two towers, labeled HS-2 and HS-3, as penetrating the
> Transitional Surface by 173 feet. This was a bit confusing, because the
> drawing shows that one tower is in the transitional surface area, but the
> other is actually outside of it, in the 3018 foot AMSL horizontal surface
> area.
> Since the two towers appear to have slightly different ground elevations
> AMSL at their bases (3 meters different according to FCC and the topo map
> shows about the same), and since these two surfaces are different, it
> didn't seem to me to be reasonable that they would both have the same
> penetration. So when I called him, he advised that the "ALP" drawings were
> being revised, and sent the material he copied you with by his e-mail
> message below. And this data again shows that the towers as having the
> same base elevation and equal penetration of both "future" and "ultimate"
> departure surfaces, 210 feet and 243 feet respectively.
> The towers are supposedly 325 feet in overall height, of which 5 feet is
> base pier, base insulator, and the top -mounted hazard beacon. According to
> the literature on Paran and Kinstar antennas, the minimum elevation for a
> Paran is 0.05 wavelength, and for a Kinstar 0.08 wavelength, but the only
> Paran for which there is more or less reliable measured data available is
7/3/2007
> one which is 0.08 wavelength as tall as well. 0.08 wavelength at KGEZ's
> frequency of 600 kHz is 40 meters, 131 feet.
> So if the original data Rick Donaldson sent me is controlling, there is
> some possibility that one or the other of these two designs might be made
> to work as a directional array, and therefore approximately replicate the
> performance of the present antenna. If the second set of information he
> sent, per the message below, is controlling, then there is not enough
> vertical space at the location of the present towers. There is a small
> possibility that one or the other of these antennas could be made to work
> in a slightly shorter configuration, because 47CFR73.189(b)(6) does allow
> stations on low frequencies such as 600 kHz some additional "fudge factor"
> below the minimum efficiency requirement, but this would require further
> study and possibly clarification from the FCC staff, since this rule
> provision isn't used very often and may no longer be considered valid. But
> none of this can be done and allow confidence in the result without
> accurate (probably to the nearest foot) elevation data.
> So, I need to know, from Peccia Associates, what the actual real final
> absolute situation really is, and I suspect that I need to have someone -
> a surveyor or civil engineer - confirm the relationship between the
> antenna tower base elevations and the airport elevations. His note seems
> to indicate that some such plan is afoot, but I'd be more comfortable if
> you investigated this and advised me of the situation. Until then, this
> appears to be a moving target.
> Thanks
> Ben
> Benj. F. Dawson III, P.E.
> Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC
> 9500 Greenwood Avenue North
> Seattle, WA 98103 USA
> 206 783 9151
> 206 789 9834 Facsimile
> dawson hatdaw.co
>-------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Kalispell City Airport - More Airspace Data
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:22:09 -0600
> From: Rick Donaldson <ri,rpa-hin.co >
> To: 'Ben Dawson' <dawson @,hatdaw.com>
> CC: Nancy Geary <nancyg c row-hln.co >, Fred Leistiko
> <f[eistiko cDcenturytel.net>, <lpatrick@kalispell.com>, Ryan Mitchell, PE,
> LSI <ryan c,rpa-kal.com>, Jason Smith <jason -' rpa-kal.com>
7/3/2007
> Ben,
>
> Per our conversation today and your request, I am attaching another
> drawing from the DRAFT ALP drawings — it will give you a profile view of
> the previous drawing sent.
> As mentioned in my 5/24/07 email, this profile drawing and the previous
> airspace drawing is the current iteration of the airspace drawings
> currently being revised for the Owner's ALP set. It reflects the 40:1
> departure surface to the south as recently required by the FAA to be
> depicted on the ALP drawings. It also reflects some recent changes
> requested by the Owner as well. In other words, this drawing is somewhat
> different from the most recently approved ALP drawing currently on file
> with the FAA, but we anticipate this airspace to be the one submitted to
> the FAA. next time around.
> Since the FAA has not developed the criteria for what they want shown on
> the ALP for the Departure Surfaces, we haven't been putting penetration
> tables together for those surfaces — it's a long story.
> We will be including them in this next iteration. They are not shown yet.
> Without researching the status of the datum used for each component, I can
> give you the approximate elevations of the pertinent items. Based on our
> discussion I think this will give you an answer to your question — even
> with these approximations.
> _Summary of Elevation *approximations*:_
> Future runway end:
> 2930.4
>
> Ultimate runway end:
>
> 2930
> Future 40:1 Departure Surface Elevation at towers:
> 3045
> Ultimate 40:1 Departure Surface Elevation at towers:
> 3012
7/3/2007
> Ground Elevation at Towers:
> 2930
> Tower Heights
> 325
> Top of Towers
> 3255
> Penetration of Future Departure Surface
> 210
> Penetration of Ultimate Departure Surface
> 243
> Future Departure Surface AGL
> 115
> Ultimate Departure Surface AGL
> 82
> Some items to consider:
> -The 5000' runway length shown is 300' longer than that supported by FAA
> calculations. In other words, the final version of the ALP may have the
> southern runway end 300' shorter on that end. But for now, the Owner wants
> to protect that length.
> -As you can see from the profile, the end if the runway is buried
7/3/2007
> considerably. There are also clearance problems close in - in the vicinity
> of the cemetery. For that reason, the Owner will have us starting on the
> Preliminary Engineering to survey the property and better establish the
> designed runway elevations. I believe these elevations were estimates from
> another engineering firm during a master planning effort. I'm guessing
> that runway end will be raised somewhere around 25-30' compared to where
> it is shown now. However, that still doesn't give you the clearance you
> were looking for in the tower alternate design.
> I hope this helps answer your question.
> Rick Donaldson, P.E.
> Airports Division Manager
> Robert Peccia and Associates
>P.O. Box 5653
> Helena, MT 59604
> (w) 406-447-5000
> (f) 406-447-5036
> (c) 406439-4905
7/3/2007