Porrini/Kalispell Hilton Garden Inn FAA Response-
Fred and Connie Leistio
From: "Phil Porrini" <phil@rpa-hln.com>
To: <fleistiko@centurytel.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:42 AM
Attach: -.dat
u Subject: Kalispell Hilton Garden Inn -FAA Response
Fred:
Yesterday after another month of waiting, I called and received this
response to the latest information that was sent to the FAA regarding the
Kalispell City Airport airspace.
Phil,
The Western Flight Procedures Office had a chance to evaluate
the drawings you provided and provided these comments:
I have reviewed the 8/30/06 package of engineering DWG's and
survey data prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates for the
f4 proposed Hilton Garden Inn at Kalispell, MT.
DWG F clearly shows the crux of the problem.
The Kalispell City Airport (S27) future RWY31 IFR 40:1 Departure
Obstruction Clearance Surface is penetrated by the proposal.
The DWG note... "DEPARTURE SLOPE ELEVATIONS WERE
CALCULATED BY ADDING 35'- 0" TO RUNWAY THRESHOLD
ELEVATIONS AS PER TERPS, VOLUME 4 CHAPTER 1.3 (DEPARTURE
OCS APPLICATION)."is misleading; and, understates the amount
of penetration.
The actual TERPS wording is..."Adjust the origin height up to 35
feet above the DER as necessary to clear obstacles (see figure 1-
2). Evaluate proposed obstacles assuming the OCS origin is at
DER elevation."
Since this is a proposal, the OCS (Obstacle Clearance Surface)
starts at the DER (Departure End of Runway) elevation; not 35'
above, as mentioned in the DWG's note. The theory here is not
to allow new obstructions to be built in the future IFR departure
area, even if that departure area is already dirty.
With respect to "Marking and lighting"...it can only serve as
mitigation under VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions). Under
IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) the obstructions
lights are of limited value. Pilots operating IFR under FAR Part 91,
can and occasionally do depart under zero -zero conditions. In
my professional opinion this proposal will be a hazard to future
IFR operations at Kalispell City Airport.
Please call or email me with any revisions to the proposal.
So it seems that the small penetrations into 34:1 approach slopes are not an
issue. I was told that they can be mitigated with obstruction lights (although
9/27/2006
_ -a_ - ___
this representative of the FAA claims they are of limited value). The
problem lies with the ultimate 40:1 departure slope during instrument
procedures taking off (departing) to the north. It must be emphasized that
currently the Kalispell City Airport is approved for Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
only. There is no current, nor am I aware of any pending, Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) for this airport. The likelihood of obtaining such is highly
dependant on surrounding features, FAA funding, and rather exhausting
investigation and evaluation by the FAA Flight Procedures Office.
Though the FAA allows for 35 ft to clear existing obstacles on an instrument
departure slope, they do not want new 'obstructions' to be built. Thus this
proposed building, would penetrate the 40:1 departure slope, when starting
at the threshold elevation.
Numerous problems are associated with northbound IFR departures:
a) flights directly over the densely populated area of the city, including
the Central Business District (CBD),
b) flights would be in conflict with published IFR approaches and
departures from Glacier Park International Airport (GPIA),
c) existing obstacles already exist in the northbound 40:1 departure
slope, including hangars, hotel, light poles, etc. (Some or all of these may not be a
'problem' since they exist and the 35 ft allowance can be used).
Given the FAA position, the City must now decide on whether they
have a future interest in northbound instrument departures.
If there is a desire for a future IFR departure to the north, the Hilton is a
problem. Construction of the hotel now will likely create future issues with
the FAA when the airport applies for Federal Funds and especially when a
future instrument procedure is requested.
If the City, at this time, does not envision an IFR departure to the north,
they can make their intentions known in a letter to the FAA, which would
amend the current ALP.
After you have had a chance to review this information please call me. I'd be
willing to meet with you and Jim Patrick to further discuss the options and
course of action. I am also willing to more formally put these comments
into writing if you need them .
Philip P. Porrini @ Robert Peccia & Associates
P.O. Box 5653, 825 Custer Avenue
Helena, MT 59604
(406) 447-5000
(406) 447-5036 fax
(406) 439-8755 cell
email: phil@rpa-hln.com
9/27/2006