Little River Airport Advisory Committee 2/18/98 The new, officially appointed Little River Airport Advisory Committee held its first meeting from 4-6pm at The Clubhouse at The Woods on 2/15/98. An agenda for the meeting had previously been posted at Little River Airport on Saturday 2/7/98 and circulated by email. Six members of the committee were present: Susan Winding, Lee Edmundson, Joel Bornstein, Dave Brewer, Tim Scully and Trey Loy. Dick Ahrens, Les Proctor, Keith Paulson, Vern Desmond, Richard Gallagher, Sam Levine, Patricia Brown, Eugene Calvert, Grant Wheeler, Michael Moore, Diana Scully and Anne Allen also attended the meeting. The committee members brought snacks, coffee and tea. Tim Scully reported that he had posted an agenda for this meeting on 2/7, at Charles Peterson's suggestion. He reviewed the agenda - discuss the election of officers of the new committee, the election to take place at the next meeting - discuss the adoption of a code of conduct for the committee - agree on a date, time and place for the next meeting - what concerns do committee members have regarding the proposed GPS approach for Little River, and how shall these be addressed? - agree on agenda for next meeting Tim Scully reported that the GPS issue was referred to this committee at the BOS meeting on Tuesday, and that the Supervisors have requested a final report on the issue in time for their meeting on April 7. He suggested that we should consider a series of very closely spaced meetings between now and April 7, so all of the questions can be researched. Tim Scully suggested that we informally select a temporary chairman to serve just for this meeting. Although we have sworn our oraths of office, most of them are not yet recorded in Ukiah, so we can't vote formally yet. Trey Loy suggested that since we are finishing up the GPS issue, which was from the old committee, let Tim Scully be acting chair while we finish up this issue. Trey Loy also suggested that Tim Scully will have to do most of the research on the questions which are pending, as he has in the past. There was no objection to Tim Scully acting as temporary chair. Lee Edmunsdon said he is not comfortable with having Tim Scully do all the research, both because Tim Scully has a life and because he wants non-pilots involved in the research. Tim Scully suggested we should have subcommittees, each containing at least one pilot and one non-pilot to research various issues. This met with general approval. The committee agreed to try to dispose of all the non-GPS issues on the agenda first, then work on collecting all the GPS issues and plan a strategy for researching each issue. Tim Scully apologized for not having a sample code of conduct - he thought he had a copy, but it turned out to only be a sample set of bylaws from another County committee, which did not include the text of its code of conduct. Lee Edmunsdon suggested a code of conduct used by the Forest Advisory Committee: - everyone is heard - no personal attacks - the issues are the issue, not personalities There was general agreement. Tim Scully explained that he will ask the County Clerk for copies of sample codes of conduct from other County committees. These will focus on financial conflicts of interest. He was told that we need to adopt such a code due to recommendations the AAC will make affecting land use and property values. Part of the code of conduct will be guidelines regarding gifts, payments, etc. and there will be a requirement for committee members to fill out Federal Election Commission forms regarding their business interests and investments. The committee agreed to take this up at our next meeting. The committee also agreed to defer formal election of officers until the next meeting. Eugene Calvert was introduced as the new head of the Department of Transportation. He made a brief statement of support for the committee's work. The committee thanked him for attending the meeting. The discussion turned to the scheduling of the next meeting. Susan said that she and Tim Scully had discussed Friday mornings since a couple of people have objected to Sunday afternoons. Trey Loy said that Friday mornings are not ok because they are not open to the public (working people). He suggested continuing to meet on Sunday afternoons, every 2 weeks, for the next 60 days. Lee Edmunsdon pointed out that April 7 isn't 60 days away. He expressed concern about "holes" in the draft GPS report which need intensive research. He is in favor of weekly meetings until the GPS work is done. He said he is ok with Sunday afternoon, for now. Susan Winding said ok to a temporary weekly schedule of Sunday afternoon meetings. Keith Paulson said it is important for the meetings to be after working hours to allow full public participation. Joel Bornstein said he doesn't like giving up Sunday afternoons, but is willing to do so. The committee agreed to meet weekly on Sunday afternoons until the GPS issues have been resolved. Thus, there was no objection to meeting next on 2/22 at 4pm at the Clubhouse at The Woods. Dick Ahrens verified that this time is available (he is the committee's sponsor for meeting at The Woods). We agreed on an agenda for the 2/22 meeting: - review the minutes of the previous meeting - the election of officers of the committee - the adoption of a code of conduct (re conflicts of interest) for the committee - agree on a date, time and place for the next meeting - continue collecting public questions regarding the proposed GPS approach for Little River - reports from subcommittees regarding research re GPS questions - discuss how to research the remaining GPS questions, assigning to appropriate subcommittees - public comment - agree on agenda for next meeting Tim Scully asked how the committee will pay for the costs of surveys, including duplication, envelopes, mailing, FAX costs, etc. He explained that in the past the Ad Hoc Committee passed the hat, and the LRAPA made up the difference, allowing major donors to make tax deductable contributions. Lee Edmunsdon said that he would donate some cash. Trey Loy said we will pass the hat. Lee Edmunsdon passed around a letter from Steve Antler regarding the GPS issue. Tim Scully read it aloud and borrowed it to copy for the record. [see APPENDIX E for the text of this letter] Tim Scully read a letter sent by DPW/DOT to the FAA regarding the proposed GPS approach. He also related an email communication from Stan Townsend which said that we are no longer "in line" for an approach and thus it will probably be about a year from the time a letter of concurrence is sent until an approach is designed, according to Stan Townsend's telephone conversation with Ron Clenney of the FAA Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office on 2/10/98. Lee Edmunsdon asked the committee if this new information means that we should ask the Supervisors for release from the April 7th deadline for completing work on the GPS. Dave Brewer said that a year's delay isn't a good reason for further delay. Lee Edmunsdon said that we need to work from facts and we should write to the FAA to clarify what the situtation is with respect to the timeline for getting a GPS approach. Tim Scully said that in the past we have been asked to minimize confusion by minimizing the number of times we write to other government agencies. In the past, such letters have often resulted in correspondence or phone calls back to DPW which took up staff time. Whatever we do should be coordinated through DPW/DOT. He asked Eugene Calvert if he felt it appropriate for us to write to the FAA regarding this matter. Eugene Calvert said that we could, but why should we? Lee Edmundson explained that we are a quasi-governmental committee and we need to make a formal record to memorialize each fact. Eugene Calvert said that he doesn't see what bearing this has on the issues, but we can get this information. Michael Moore said that the Supervisors set out a clear task list and a timeline for delivery. If the product is undeliverable, then this could be an issue. FAA actions are a side issue and don't change the Supervisor's mandate. Our time is limited. we should try to get the product out on time. Keith Paulson said that the committee should work diligently to solve the problem given to it by the Board. The FAA's schedule for designing the approach does not affect this. Susan Winding said that recent Ad Hoc minutes quoted Joel Bornstein reporting that Dan Gargis of CalTrans was holding a slot for us. How does CalTrans fit in? Joel Bornstein said that Dan Gargis is frequently in touch with the FAA and has done what he could to reserve a slot for us. Apparently it wasn't enough. Tim Scully suggested that we should focus on compiling a list of questions to be researched, then turn to deciding how to find answers. He read letters written to the BOS by Susan Winding and Willow Trent. [see APPENDIX C for the text of Susan Winding's letter and see APPENDIX D for the text of Willow Trent's letter] Dave Brewer said it is important to get all the questions on the table as soon as possible. Lee Edmundson passed out copies of a handout he had prepared, listing 11 questions regarding GPS. Tim Scully read the handout aloud for the benfit of the public. [see APPENDIX A for the text of this handout] Susan Winding said that she has some additional procedural questions. She gave Tim Scully a copy of a handout with her list of questions. [see APPENDIX B for the text of this handout] Trey Loy said that we should remember the difference between traffic and noise (some operations are quieter than others). He also questioned whether any other airport is exactly like our airport. Ours is unique. Noise is also relative to quietness. He went on to say that we need to know what VFR pilots think about the impact of lowering controlled airspace. Will this new limitation be a serious problem for them? Trey also expressed some concern about a seeming contradiction in the draft report regarding 400 feet vs 700 feet. Tim Scully clarified that the report estimates the approach minimums for the GPS approach to be approximately 400 feet, but the exact minimums will be determined in Oklahoma City, by the approach designers. The 700 foot figure is the expected new floor of controlled airspace. There is no direct relationship between the minimums for the approach and the floor of controlled airspace. Patricia Brown said that there are environmental impact issues which where not discussed in the draft report: - increased traffic along the road - increased air pollution from more aircraft She went on to say that the noise abatement policy doesn't excite her because there are no real penalties for offenders, just a slap on the hand and no fine. Lee Edmundson asked what the AAC's mailing address is. Tim Scully said that temporarily it is him address: 32191 Albion Ridge Road Albion, CA 95410 Anne Allen said that when a survey of airports is done, we should consider if they are serving communities as isolated as we are, where emergency services by air may be critical. Joel Bornstein asked: do we want the airport available 24 hours a day for emergency evacuation purposes? Lee Edmunsdon asked: does that open it up to everyone? We need to find out what we can and can't do. He wants a letter from the FAA clarifying this issue, the question of curfews. The community has expressed much concern about 24 hour operation. Sam Levine asked: how will the altimeter setting be given? Tim Scully explained that the Airport Supervisor will give it during ordinary hours of airport operation. Lee Edmundson said: what about alternate sources of approved altimeter setting data, as discussed in the GPS report? Sam Levine suggested that after normal hours of airport operation, the Ukiah altimeter setting might be used, with a severe penalty in minimums. Getting another person approved to give the altimeter setting is different. Lee Edmundson said that we need to clarify this. Les Proctor introduced himself as Airport Supervisor. He said that in a real emergency he can be telephoned and he can return to the airport to provide the altimeter setting. Susan Winding asked: you mean they can call you? Les Proctor said: yes, but only in an emergency. Tim Scully asked if these were all the questions we have now? If so, let's turn to deciding how to answer them. Would explainations of any of the simple issues from pilots be acceptable? Dave Brewer said that we'll have to get answers from the FAA. Lee Edmundson said that there has been lots of controversy over the GPS. We need to go to the source for each fact. We need to document each fact. No disrespect is intended to pilots. But this is worth the extra postage and work. Michael Moore suggested that the questions can be classified into three broad groups: Safety and Procedures in the Air Operational questions on the ground Environmental issues. He went on to say that before any environmental issues can be addressed, the other questions need to be answered. Then there will be specific scenarios whose environmental impact can be evaluated. He suggested that some questions are answerable by reference to FARs [Federal Aviation Regulations] and operational procedures in print [e.g., the Airman's Information Manual]. Others are a little less clear and may be a matter of opinion. Trey Loy said that the County's letter of concurrence is the important thing. We can control the character of the GPS approach by modifying that letter. Are there enough questions here to stop the GPS? If the GPS is going to be here, can we have input regarding its limitations? Lee Edmundson said: someone could refer me to a Federal Aviation Regulation out of context, and might apparently answer a question, but a subsequent regulation might change the answer. He wants to enter into a dialog with the FAA. It is important that it be a dialog. Trey Loy said that he wants to wrap up by 6pm, lets go through the list. Item 1 on Lee Edmunson's list - questions for Ukiah airport, Fed Ex, etc. Tim asked if it would be acceptable for Les Proctor to research these questions and return with written responses from Ukiah, Fed Ex, etc. The committee agreed to this. Item 2 on Lee Edmundson's list - survey of Little River Airport users. Dave Brewer and Susan Winding volunteered to put together a pilot survey to collect data for the pilot-related questions. The committee agreed to use the LRAPA pilot mailing list, which is the most comprehensive current list of active users of Little River Airport. Grant Wheeler expressed concern over the number and scope of questions for the FAA. He suggested that we work through DPW and get the letter reviewed. A typical government answer to a complex question is "go read the rules". Dave Brewer said: let's try asking them. Lee Edmundson said that he doesn't mind appearing to be a complete idiot. He wants to get authoritative answers. Tim Scully asked who at the FAA would be an acceptable source. Could we invite someone like Howard Manning from Flight Standards to visit and answer our questions? Lee Edmundson suggested that we might start by telephoning the FAA, but we should end up getting a written answer. Joel Bornstein said that the FAA is famous for giving different answers from different people in the organization. Lee Edmundson asked how will landing times be apportioned between conflicting flights. Tim Scully responded: first come first served. Lee Edmundson responded that he needs a written answer from a neutral source. Les Proctor will work on this. Trey Loy said that we should move on with the list. In the past too many people wrote to the FAA, the non-pilot letters were not accurate technically. Should we have Tim write the letters as in the past? Tim Scully offered to draft a letter and then circulate it for comment. Dave said that it should not be necessary for the whole committee to review the questions - lets have a subcomittee. We agreed that Lee Edmundson and Tim Scully will handle the FAA questions. Lee Edmundson asked: what if there is an IFR pilot talking to Oakland Center and a VFR pilot who is not? Dave Brewer said: the answer is that IFR pilots are told to "change to advisory frequency" when 5 or 10 miles away from Little River. Then everyone (IFR and VFR) is on the same radio frequency. Lee Edmundson said that he can accept that answer - it isn't necessary for every single question to be referred to the FAA. Item #3 on Lee Edmundson's list: survery appropriate comparable airports. Joel Bornstein said other airports aren't exactly comparable. Tim Scully said, in earlier surveys we tried to hit several dimensions of similarity. If we plan to do more surveys, we need to agree on what kinds of similarity we want to look for. Dave Brewer explained that the logic of the earlier surveys was to ask airports with older non-GPS approaches about their experience to get an idea of what GPS will be like when GPS receivers are as common as older types of radios. Does that work for the committee? Susan Winding said that if an airport has had its approaches for 10 years, it is too long unless they have accurate records of traffic. About 5 years would be ok. She wants coastal airports with fog to be surveyed. Trey Loy pointed out that airport surveys only get information from the airport supervisor or manager. The perception of noise and traffic by neighbors is probably different from the that by airport staff. In the end, is it worth the effort to do these surveys? Lee Edmunson said that extrapolating from some data is more rigorous than starting with nothing at all. Lee Edmundson and Tim Scully agreed to be a subcomittee to do the airport surveys. They will look for airports similar in one or more of the dimensions of interest, which include: small size, coastal, visitor destination, has had instrument approach for about 5 years, etc. Dave Brewer asked for an explaination of Lee's question #4 - resolve the question regarding "properly trained and approved substitute". Lee Edmundson referred to page 10 of the report. Is it the intention to have a certified alternate observer for the altimeter setting? Is it the intention to have a 24 hour GPS? After some discussion, Lee Edmundson shapened the question to: "Can we limit night GPS approaches to emergency use only?" Trey Loy said that can be put in the letter of concurrence. We decided that this is an FAA question. We moved on to Lee's issue #5 - weather data. Tim Scully suggested that we ask Grant Wheeler's friend Jim Goodrich, an expert climatologist, for an opinion on the utility of the weather data. Grant Wheeler said that Jim has a new opinion on this, as a result of further research. Joel Bornstein asked: why do we care about the weather data. Tim Scully suggested that we just collect data for now. We agreed that item #6 on Lee's list (holding patterns) is an FAA question which Tim and Lee will research. Keith Paulson, Lee Edmundson and Joel Bornstein all volunteered to search web sites for aircraft accident statistics. Tim Scully suggested that it is important to make the right comparisons: compare scud running vs flying an instrument approach, both day and night. Lee's question #8 regarding the accident history at Little River Airport was delegated to Les Proctor. Lee Edmundson's question #9 was about the priority of IFR vs VFR traffic. Les Proctor explained how the airport advisory frequency works - it is a published frequency for each airport. It is on VFR maps. Dave Brewer pointed out that it is also on IFR approach plates. We agreed to refer Lee's question #9 to Les Proctor. Grant Wheeler asked if we should try to reach closure on additional questions. Tim Scully asked if we want to set a cutoff date, such as next Sunday. Dave Brewer said that there should be no cutoff, but that we should strongly encourage folks to get their questions in now. Lee Edmundson agreed - the sooner the better. Lee Edmundson's question #10 was about VFR pilots flying when the weather is below VFR minimums. Does this make "bandits" out of VFR pilots? Lee asked what enforcement procedure applies in cases like this. We agreed to refer this question to Les Proctor. Someone started to relate the enforcement question to noise abatement. Grant Wheeler suggested keeping the focus on GPS for now. We agreed to take Lee's question #11 about enforcement procedures to the FAA and also to give Les Proctor a chance to respond to it. Trey Loy said he is not law oriented. But he wants to understand what the non-instrument rated pilot's role is. Joel Bornstein and Trey Loy will research this further. Tim Scully and Lee Edmundson agreed to research the FAA questions. Patricia Brown thanked Lee Edmundson for persisting in getting FAA information. It being 6 PM, the meeting was adjourned. Trey Loy gave Tim Scully $3 toward postage and copying costs. Members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee ------------------------------------------------------ Joel Bornstein pilot, flight instructor lives near airport Dave Brewer pilot, lives near airport Lee Edmundson non-pilot Trey Loy non-pilot, lives near airport Tim Scully pilot, computer programmer, lives near airport commutes by air to Oakland weekly Willow Trent airport neighbor, non-pilot ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Joel Bornstein and Dick Ahrens for getting the following documents scanned and run through OCR so they could be attached to these minutes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX A - Lee Edmundson's handout ------------------------------------ GPS Report -- Items of Concern I) Ukiah Airport Response to Radar Sharing, impact(s) on their flight operations. A) Interview Ukiah Airport Manager B) Copy of Ukiah Airport's Flightlog C) Inquiry to FAA: Will times be apportioned via Schedule? On Demand? How? D) LR Airport Flightlog E) Response of FEDEX, UPS, other commercial carriers, Ukiah pilots. II) Survey of LR Airport based Pilots (and Users?) A) Notice of Proposed Changes in Airspace Classification B) Outline of New Limits C) Ask if they currently, 1) Are IFR certified 2) Are GPS equipped a) If so, do they support LR Airport acquiring a GPS? b) If not, 1) Refer them to new proposed airspace limitations 2) Inform them of conversion cost range (+ IFR Certificate) 3) Ask by when - 6-12-24 months - they expect to convert. D) Ask how often they fly. 1) How often are you prevented from landing at LR Airport due to weather? E) For what purposes do you fly? III) Survey appropriate comparative airports regarding GPS A) Monterey, Carmel, San Luis Obisbo, Coos Bay, etc. - Generate appropriate List. IV) Resolve question regarding Airports Operations 'properly trained and approved substutute.' Is this the intention? V) What dates does the Weather Data in Appendix F (P78) cover? [CDROM is dated 1992] VI) What is the proposed 'Holding Pattern' when pilots are waiting for GPS Clearence? Can LRAAC have Input into this? VII) What are the Air Safety Statistics on VFR vs IFR landings? Night vs Day? General Aviation vs Commercial Carrier? VIII) What is Current Safety Record of LR Airport? IX) Does IFR traffic have landing priority over VFR traffic? How do they know? X) Will there be occasions when VFR could safely land, even though ceiling is below VFR mimimums (Prevailing IFR conditions) Does this make 'bandits' out of VFR pilots? What is response of LR Airport manager to being placed in the position of enforcing this limit? X1) Is there an enforcement procedure currently in place for LR Airport? Should LRAAC develop one in tandem with this Report? As part of the Report? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix B - Susan Winding's handout ------------------------------------ February 15, 1998 Susan Winding Listed below is some of the data which I believe we, should look at and possibly include in the final GPS report to the supervisors. Procedure Questions & How Little River & Ukiah Work together:: a. With a new airport supervisor, how will the altimeter setting be given? Do they contact our airport directly or go through Oakland Tower? (Need copy of new supervisors contract) b. What happens if someone calls for GPS clearance and no one answers (out pumping gas). Pilot continues route to LRA. 2nd pilot calls and gets GPS clearance. There are now two planes landing at the same time. How does this work? c. Clarify with FAA, exactly how this procedure will work sharing the air space and time slots with Ukiah. (Ukiah has been actively promoting their GPS and their traffic has increased 10-20% to date). Does anyone have precedence? What are holding patterns? Where are they located? (page 21) d. How will this 15 min. time slot allocation affect take-offs? Will it make them late into the evening? Visit Ukiah Airport - Once FAA has answered above questions, visit Ukiah to be sure they understand ramifications and to determine their concerns, if any, and the impact on their airport, if any. Survey all airports on the coast - Especially those that are LR size and do not have any other type of instrument approach. In addition to questions on page 74, add Do they have GPS & hours of operation; if 24 hours, how are they providing altimeter setting. If no GPS, do they plan on getting it (Get list of all airports and addresses - Trinidad, Monterey, Half Moon Bay, Santa Cruz, etc) Survey all Pilots (home based and transient). Do we have a list of names anywhere? Airport Supervisor? Are you an instrument rated pilot? How often do you fly into Little River? Is your primary residence on the Mendocino Coast? Second Home? Do you have a FAA approved GPS currently installed? Do you plan on installing an FAA approved GPS 7 If so, when - 1 Yr., 3 Yr., 5 Yr., When Precision GPS available? Do you have a hangar at little River? Would you want a hangar at Little River? Explanation of how GPS will change current procedures at the airport Do you currently scud run? If a GPS system is installed, will you continue to scud run during the hours the GPS is in operation? Yes No. Enforcement - How can we enforce the GPS procedure to eliminate scud running and the possibility of 2 planes landing at the same time? (page 21 &22 - Legal to scud run between 200 and 500 feet)? This is not safe! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix C - Susan Winding's letter to BOS ------------------------------------------ Date: January 28, 1998 To: Supervisors Peterson, Campbell, Shoemaker, Delbar and Pinches From: Susan Winding, Alternate Member of the Ad Hoc Little River Candidate for Newly formed Li@ River Airport Adviusory Committee RE: GPS System for Little River Airport You are being asked to approve a letter requesting the GPS Approach System for the Little River Airport. As a non-pilot member of the Ad Hoc Committee, business person, and neighbor of the airport, I am requesting that you send this back to the official Little River Advisory Committee for further review. There is no deadline for this decision to be made. The FAA will develop a GPS for LRAP in the future if it is requested. The information in the report which was presented to HWP&T Committee, while impressive in size, was basically compiled by one pilot. There are areas which need initial as well as further discussion. We also need to collect and compile current data. Listed below are some of the main reasons for my request to send this back to the newly formed LRAP committee. 1. Implementating a GPS Instrument Approach at Little River could effect Ukiah Airport. A GPS instrument approach at Little River Airport changes the air space to controlled air space. If weather conditions require a GPS landing, the FAA limit is one plane in the controlled air space every 15 minutes. The Oakland Tower considers Ukiah and Little River the same controlled air space. Thus a plane could only land every 15 minutes between the two airports. What happens when planes want to land at the airports within this 15 mim space? Who has priority? Do they continue to circle in controlled airspace until they can land? Does this unnecessarily increase noise over noise sensitive areas? These scenarios have not been discussed by the ad hod committee and are not covered in the report. 2. A GPS approach at this time would eliminate 18 of the 21 pilots based at Little River from landing in marginal weather. While GPS does not require, expensive land based equipment, it does require each pilot to install equipment in their plane which costs $8,000 to $10,000. Only 3 (maybe 4) pilots currently have this at Little River. Thus if one of the pilots who does not have GPS installed wants to land in marginal weather. they would be breaking the law. However, since there is no way to enforce this, they might try it anyway. 3. A pilot (not on the Ad Hoc Committee) told me that the FAA statistics reflect the accident rate increases significantly when instrument approaches are used versus visual approaches. (This was never mentioned during the ad hoc meetings.) In the last 10 years, there have been 2 fatal accidents at Little River Airport. One was alcohol related and the other was due to scud running (flying in low under the clouds in marginal weather.) While it is true the a GPS would make scud running illegal, I'm not convinced GPS will eliminate scud running due to the cost the pilots incur. Hopefully, each pilot is responsible enough to determine when the risks of landing are too great and lands at an alternative site. 4. While there is quite a lot of valuable data in the GPS Report that was given to the HWP&T committee, some of the data is not current or was unavailable. Thus there is no baseline data to help balance the tradeoffs of need vs. impact on the the surrounding communities. For example: a. The weather data is over 40 years old and was collected at a Fort Bragg Station b. No records have been kept as to the type or number of operations at LRAP. The estimate is 2,500 - 6,000 operations per year and that the GPS would increase it no more than 10%. However, Ukiah Airport has seen a 20% increase in air traffic since they installed GPS. c. GPS is a new technology for the non-military market. (The FAA notified airports in May 1994 re: developing GPS System at no charge.) This fact along with the fact that most pilots do not have GPS installed in their planes yet negate any data regarding airports not experiencing any increase in traffic. d. The airports surveyed were not comparable to LRAP. Why didn't the ad hoc committee select airports that were in coastal tourist towns for comparisons, ie. Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Ashland, OR etc. Thank you for your time and consideration. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix D - Willow Trent's letter to BOS ----------------------------------------- Patricia J. (Willow) Trent February 3, 1998 Supervisor Charles Peterson Mendocino County Board of Supervisors 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mr. Peterson: My husband and I attended the community meeting regarding airport issues on Sunday, November 23, 1997 held at the Community School in Mendocino. The meeting was most informative and I was sorry to hear that you could not be there. During the comment portion of the meeting several interesting points were raised by community members. It was brought out that the airports that had initiated a GPS system and were used as examples of the system having little if no effect on airport traffic were based on airports who had the system in place for a very short period of time. If this is true, data should be gathered from more airports, and airports with a track record. The data presented.in this regard was inadequate and inappropriate. It was pointed out that the GPS would really benefit only the 3 or 4 pilots that currently have the system in their planes. GPS would also have an impact (possibly unfavorable) on the majority of pilots who don't have the system in their planes. Even though issues of safety were emphasized, it was pointed out that we actually have had very few accidents at the airport. It would seem that only a few people would benefit from this system, a system that may have adverse impact on the community. One pilot suggested that if the GPS were put into place it should only be functional during daylight hours. This concept must be thoroughly analyzed. Airport Issues Page 2 The meeting brought up some issues that made us feel less comfortable with the proposed GPS system, at least until some of the question raised could be researched, discussed and analyzed. The ad hoc airport committee did a great deal of work and their presentation was very well done, however, it was pointed out that 2 of 3 or 4 pilots with GPS capability in their planes now sit on the committee. We request that the recommendation regarding the GPS be left to the new committee which might have a chance to research the new concerns without bias. This may be too important a decision which potentially impacts many people adversely. We think a little more time to make the decision is not unreasonable. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Patricia J. (Willow) Trent (Signed) Jason K.T. Trent, M.D. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix E - Steven Antler's letter to AAC ------------------------------------------ STEVEN J. ANTLER MENDOCINO, CALIFORNIA 95460 February 12, 1998 Little River Airport Advisory Committee BY FAX: 937-4369 Re: Review of issues related to implementation of GPS Dear Committee Members, As the individuals who have been officially appointed to advise the Board of Supervisors, it is your sworn-duty to impartially review the issues surrounding GPS implementation. I would hope that you will engage in a full and comprehensive inquiry. Only by researching all the facts will you be able to evaluate all the impacts of the proposed GPS. One factor which was not properly presented in the draft report is the question of the increased air traffic which will result from the GPS. An investigation of this important issue should not be undertaken by anecdotal inquiry to selected airports. Every airport which has gotten a GPS should receive a written questionnaire covering their experience with increased traffic. Particular attention must be paid to airports like ours, where fog previously prevented landings and/or made the availability of the field unpredictable. Other sources of possible traffic increase because of the GPS should also be investigated. Is it more likely that commercial services would use the airport? Flight schools? Professionals coming to the coast? Vacationing pilots? Inland pilots flying in? Once the number of increased flights in accurately estimated, then issues of subsidiary effects such as increased motor traffic on Little River Airport Road and need for additional county services should can also be considered. I know that there are individuals on the Advisory Committee who have been advocates for the GPS because they will.personally benefit from it. I hope that these individuals will not be allowed to control or hamper the proper objective investigation which you have been mandated to undertake. I am sorry that I have previous plans and cannot attend your February 15th meeting. I am very concerned about increased air traffic at the airport. I hope that you will do a comprehensive study of the GPS impacts which is both complete and evenhanded. Sincerely, (Signed) Steven J. Antler