Little River Airport Advisory Committee Minutes of 2/22/98 meeting revised 2/28/98 The new, officially appointed Little River Airport Advisory Committee held its second meeting from 4-6pm at The Clubhouse at The Woods on 2/22/98. An agenda for the meeting had previously been posted at Little River Airport on Wednesday 2/18/98 and circulated by email. Seven members of the committee were present: Susan Winding, Lee Edmundson, Joel Bornstein, Dave Brewer, Willow Trent, Tim Scully and Trey Loy. Dick Ahrens, Les Proctor, Richard Gallagher, Judith Barry, Grant Wheeler, Pat Scott and Frieda Seigil also attended the meeting. All seven committee members confirmed that they have filed their sworn oaths of office with the County Clerk. approval of minutes ------------------- The minutes of the previous meeting were approved. Trey asked if more people can get on the mailing list for minutes. The committee agreed that they can but that they should contribute to the cost of duplication and mailing. Tim Scully read a 2/19/98 letter received from DPW, handing out copies of the letter to committee members [see Appendix A] along with copies of a 10/30/97 DPW letter cited in the 2/19 letter [see Appendix B]. Both letters had several attachments from the FAA. election of officers -------------------- Trey Loy moved that Tim Scully be confirmed as acting chairman until April 7 and that further election of officers be deferred until after April 7. This was approved without dissent. code of conduct --------------- Tim Scully passed out copies of the Mendocino Coast Recreation and Park District Conflict of Interest Code. Trey Loy said he'd like to read it at home and discuss next week. The committee agreed. Willow Trent expressed concern about the Brown Act. What does it mean? The committee members agreed that we all should read the Brown Act. Trey Loy will bring his copy next week. Lee will do a web search for it. Dick Ahrens gave a brief thumbnail: keep government open, 72 hour agenda requirement, can discuss other topics but can only act on agendized topics, quorum (4) should not meet without posted agenda, sequential phone calls can be a meeting. date, time and place of next meeting ------------------------------------ Dick Ahrens checked The Woods schedule and reported that the Clubhouse is NOT available on March 1st (next Sunday) but is available on Saturday. We discussed either an early Saturday morning meeting at 8am or moving the Sunday meeting to Mendocino. We agreed to wait until the end of the meeting to decide this question. new questions regarding GPS --------------------------- Lee Edmundson asked is Les proctor certified for reading altimeters? What is involved in getting certified (cost, procedure)? Tim Scully said that Les is certified and in fact has additional credentials as a full-fledged weather observer. The training for altimeter reading is only about an hour, while the full weather observer training is much longer. Dick Ahrens said that there is no fee for getting certified to read altimeters but there is a National Weather Service test. We agreed to get documentation in writing regarding this. Susan Winding wants clarification of the ramifications of GPS for IFR takeoffs. She is concerned about a traffic jam on foggy evenings. Grant Wheeler reported that he talked to Jim Goodrich, the climatologist. Jim wants specific questions regarding the weather. He has been a climatologist for over 30 years, by the way. Susan Winding said we need to find out: how old are the weather data, where do they come from? How valid is it to use these data to judge the percentage of time GPS will be useful? Grant Wheeler said that Jim is a "sensor guy", and doesn't usually deal in ceiling and visibility, which are special aviation measurements. Lee Edmundson said we should ask Jim if he is qualified to comment on aviation weather. Trey Loy said he wants to know if there is another way to look at weather. He also would like to explore the relationship between Little River Airport and offshore oil. Tim Scully asked what difference the weather makes. Lee Edmundson said that if the chart is out of date, then perhaps it should be dropped from the report. Further, the report estimates that GPS will be useful 22% of the time and this estimate might be wrong. We need a way of estimating the percentage of time when a GPS approach will be useful . Joel Bornstein asked why that is important. Lee said that if we have GPS there will be flying days opened up or made less dangerous by GPS. This implies an increase in the frequency of events [landings and takeoffs]. The concern is an increase in activity. The report says that the GPS is not intended to increase traffic. If the airport is unintentionally opened up to more traffic, we want to know how we got there. Lee is worried that the 22% figure might be too high or too low. Trey Loy said that's the point. The weather constantly changes, generally in cycles. The weather this year doesn't mean anything when predicting next year. Even if we had perfect current data it wouldn't help us predict next year. The weather service doesn't like to predict more than 5 days in advance. People do need to understand when GPS is not usable. There are two kinds of fog: low and high. GPS is not useful for low fog but allows landings during high fog. We have been relatively fog free the last few years, but it probably will be foggy this summer due to all the rains. Trey Loy went on to explain that traffic and noise are not the same thing. A GPS approach is straight in, producing relatively less noise than a VFR landing which involves circling. We should research and explain fog and how it comes in. GPS needs at least a 400 foot ceiling or so. Lower fog is no good for either GPS or VFR. Yes, GPS increases traffic, but it is less noisy traffic. It won't affect scud running - you can't stop it. Trey Loy said that he has a report to give on this topic. Susan Winding wants the questions regarding the relationship between a Little River GPS approach and Ukiah airport operations to be fully explored. Tim Scully explained that Les Proctor has spoken to the Ukiah airport manager to confirm that Ukiah is not concerned about this. He is working to get a letter from the Ukiah airport manager and letters from Fed Ex and UPS. Tim Scully and Lee Edmundson are also working on a letter to the FAA to get their point of view on this. Joel Bornstein said that the "15 minute limit" only applies to aircraft flying IFR. Normally FedEx and UPS always fly IFR, even in good weather. If they are told there will be a delay, they can cancel IFR and fly a visual approach if the weather permits it. If there is a problem, the FAA can improve their radar coverage. Les Proctor will be here later in the meeting and can report on what he has learned. reports from subcommittees -------------------------- Tim Scully and Lee Edmundson passed out copies of their work, to date, on the airport survey. This consisted of two spreadsheets of airports, one "airports rejected" and the other a list of airports selected for survey, along with the rough draft text of the questions to be asked. Lee Edmundson explained that he supplied a list of airports he obtained from the NTSB records - he tried to identify small, coastal and visitor serving airports. Any airport with a control tower was considered much too large and busy, some airports in the list had already been surveyed and some places named in NTSB reports didn't have public use airports. Hence the list of airports rejected. All airports selected are uncontrolled. About half of them had instrument approaches a year ago, and about half did not. Tim Scully reviewed the survey questions [see Appendix C]. Joel Bornstein commented that several of the airports selected were 30-50 times busier than Little River (e.g., Camarillo and Oceanside), while another has so little activity as to be nearly abandoned (Samoa). Lee Edmundson said that he would like the broad data set, we can consider the percentage increase from a busier airport and scale it to ours. Trey Loy suggested that using multiple choice questions would make it more likely that people would answer the survey. He suggested doing this for the number of people within 5 miles. Lee Edmundson agreed that making the survey easy is a really good idea. Grant Wheeler said that if we substitute terms like rural and suburban, their meaning will be very much open to individual interpretation. Dave Brewer said that he agrees with Trey. Joel Bornstein pointed out that Mendocino is close to Little River, so a count of people might make the area seem more populated than many people feel it is. Lee Edmundson suggested phrasing it: "Is your airport considered to the in a rural neighborhood, a suburban neighborhood or a an urban neighborhood?". This met with general approval. Trey Loy raised questions about how to make the several types of instrument approach into a "boxed" or multiple choice question. Joel Bornstein suggested customizing each survey by filling in the list of approaches we know they have. Dave Brewer said that this is too expensive, it is much better to send a standard survey. Willow Trent expressed a desire to hear what neighbors of these airports think. We agreed that there is no practical way for us to survey them directly, but we agreed to add a question about changes in noise complaints as an indirect measurement of this. Judith Barry suggested adding questions about the number of hangars and the number of based aircraft. Then someone raised the question of airports like Catalina which have an extremely high transient (tourist) traffic level. Lee Edmundson suggested asking for the number of based, commercial and tourist aircraft. Les Proctor said it isn't easy for an airport manager to know if an aircraft is a tourist. We agreed to ask about transients instead. Les Proctor said that he does recognize based aircraft. Joel Bornstein suggested adding a question about whether they have scheduled commercial service. Then there was a discussion about a long lag time in responses. Willow Trent suggested stressing the urgency of the survey. Lee Edmundson suggested sending self-addressed, stamped reply envelopes. Tim Scully said that if we FAX the surveys, we'll probably get FAX responses. Tim Scully handed out two draft letters with questions for the FAA. The first letter [see Appendix D] is to the Los Angeles FAA FPO office. The committee agreed that this was comprehensive. The second proposed letter was address to the Oakland FAA flight standards office [see Appendix E]. Trey Loy suggested holding this letter for a while. Trey has a handout which will cast some of the questions in a different light. Joel Bornstein said that question 1B should be corrected to read "at or above 6000 MSL". Les Proctor reported that he has spoken to the FAA in Oakland regarding holding patterns and delays. He learned that recent changes in the FAA radar capability mean that infringement with Ukiah may no longer be a factor. He spoke with Ben Cosma of flight standards and was then conferenced in with one of the radar controllers for our area. Les was told that the new radar capability allows the FAA to see aircraft as low as about 3200 feet, and probably lower as they fine tune the new equipment. The FAA controller speculated that any holding pattern for Little River might be a 3000 feet and about 10-15 miles NorthWest of the airport, over the ocean. Until the actual GPS approach procedure is designed by Oklahoma City, there is no way for the Oakland FAA folks to give exact answers since the details of the approach make a difference. Les Proctor said that the Little River approach may not involve Ukiah's airspace at all. The Oklahoma City folks may take possible growth at areas like Ukiah into account and may keep the flight paths separated. It isn't beneficial to send airplanes 20-22 miles East [to the Mendocino VOR], they may choose to move the holding pattern NorthWest over the ocean. Lee Edmundson said that the draft report stated that radar doesn't separate aircraft in this area below 5000 feet. Les Proctor said that at one time it was the case, but the new FAA radar now provides coverage down to 3200 feet. Les Proctor also explained that aircraft can be separated by stacking them at different altitudes. Lee Edmundson said that this implies that a GPS approach at Little River will no longer cause delays in Ukiah. Les Proctor agreed that there very likely will no longer be any delay. Lee Edmunsdon said that this is an important issue - we really need a letter from the FAA in Oakland to document this change. Les Proctor said he would ask for such a letter. Dave Brewer and Susan Winding reported on their work on a pilot survey. Dave handed out the draft survey [see Appendix F]. He explained that they wanted the survey to include student pilots, so they used the "current medical" as a key factor in determining "active" status. Lee Edmundson suggested using check boxes for the frequency questions. Trey Loy pointed out that Little River is very seasonal and there are large month-to-month changes. Dave Brewer agreed to change the questions to ask about flights per year and to "box" them as multiple choice. Joel Bornstein said lets include 1-6 and 6-18 to detect low use pilots. Willow Trent asked for a definition of "night". Dave Brewer read one of the definitions from the FARs. Joel Bornstein explained that pilots have to have "night currency" to legally carry passengers at night. For this purpose, night starts one hour after sunset and ends an hour before sunrise. Joel Bornstein asked why we are asking about night takeoffs separately from night landings. Tim Scully said that he makes night takeoffs from Little River but doesn't make night landings. Trey Loy also said that nonpilots have been asking about night takeoffs and landings. Joel Bornstein suggested asking pilots if they fly for business, recreation or commuting. There was a brief debate over the possible future cost of GPS installations in aircraft. Joel Bornstein said he believes they will eventually drop as low as $3000, within 5 to 10 years. Lee Edmundson said he wants to know when pilots without GPS plan to buy it, suggesting a multiple choice question. Tim Scully said that he doesn't plan to buy an approach approved GPS until Little River has a GPS approach, so simply asking about time periods will not be adequate. Lee Edmundson asked about the cost of getting an instrument rating. Joel Bornstein estimated $2000-$4000. There was some discussion of whether this should be stated in the survey. We decided it wasn't necessary. Joel Bornstein said that many people get instrument ratings because they want to become better and safer pilots. He also said that he believes that most IFR equipped aircraft will have approach approved GPS within 5-10 years. Trey Loy said that the last question on the survey is not correct - he'll explain next week. Dave Brewer asked if he means that pilots would climb up to 700 feet and then circle around. Susan Winding asked if the question if wrong. Trey Loy said - go ahead and mail the survey as it is, his correction is technical and can be discussed later. Lee Edmundson asked if it will impact the intent of the survey. Trey Loy said it will not. Les Proctor reviewed the question and said it was ok. Dave Brewer explained that he has 3 address lists. A list of 136 names from LRAPA, about 86 of which have local addresses. From a flight log Les Proctor gave him, he got aircraft tail numbers of airplanes landing at Little River between 11/1/97 and 1/31/98. He researched these in the FAA records and got 10 addresses for aircraft which landed twice and 45 addresses of aircraft which landed once. The addresses he has are for the owners, so he has a cover letter for these folks explaining why they are being surveyed. We agreed it is ok to ask the owner if the pilot is not available. Lee Edmundson asked how the list of 136 names was obtained. Dave Brewer explained that he got it from Dick Ahrens who started from Andy and Nang's list and added all the local pilots he and his friends could think of. The list has been culled by removing bad addresses. Susan Winding pointed out that Robin Bell is not a pilot. Joel Bornstein said that we could run the list through the FAA database. We agreed that was too much work. Dick Ahrens said that Robin Bell and Jim Robichaud were known non-pilots. Lee Edmundson said we should add a notice at the top in bold underlined text URGENT, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU COMPLETE AND MAIL THIS IMMEDIATELY. Joel Bornstein objected to using the word "urgent" in our survey heading. He wants to soften it. He discards mail labeled URGENT. Others agreed with him. Trey Loy asked if we need to raise money to pay for postage. Dave Brewer and Lee Edmundson said they would make contributions. Trey Loy said that he would contribute too, thinks it is good for committee members to pay these costs, his past concern was with having LRAPA fund them. Someone pointed out a possible conflict of interest problem when accepting contributions from non-committee members. Dave Brewer said it is not a problem. He'll use his home address and FAX number for replies. Grant Wheeler volunteered to create a signup form for use in gathering attendance information. We were almost out of time. We agreed to hold the next meeting from 8-10am on Saturday 2/28/98. We agreed on the agenda for the next meeting. The agenda for the next meeting is: - review the minutes of the previous meeting - communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) - continue collecting public questions regarding the proposed GPS approach for Little River - discuss how to research the remaining GPS issues, assigning to appropriate subcommittees - reports from subcommittees regarding research re GPS issues - public comment - report on finances (contributions received, expenses incurred) - agree on a date, time and place for the next meeting - agree on agenda for next meeting Lee Edmundson said he'd like to know what Trey Loy has learned about scud running. He has substantial reservations about sending out flawed surveys. Trey Loy said that he wouldn't hold up the surveys or letters. He wants 15 minutes next Saturday to report on this. He'll check his facts with Les Proctor meanwhile. Joel Bornstein suggested reading FAR 91.119. Dave Brewer gave Lee Edmundson a copy of the FARs. We all agreed it is ok to send the Oakland FAA letter. The meeting was adjourned. 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 Susan Winding airport neighbor, non-pilot, business owner ========================================================================== Thanks to Dick Ahrens for scanning and OCR converting appendices A and B. ========================================================================== Appendix A - 2/19/98 letter from DPW with attachments from FAA -------------------------------------------------------------- E. C. CALVERT DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTY OF MENDOCINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 (707) 463-4363 FAX (707) 463-5474 19 February 1998 TO: Little River Airport Advisory Committee FROM: Stanley Townsend, Deputy Director Department of Public Works SUBJECT: GPS APPROACH FAA PROCEDURES It is my understanding that at first meeting of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee questions were asked regarding the procedures utilized by the FAA in the process of establishing GPS approach procedures. In our files we have a letter dated 17 October 1997 from Barry D. Rosenberg, Manager of the FAA Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office (LAX FPO), which outlines the procedures for requesting the establishment of GPS approach procedures. On 30 October 1997 I sent a copy of these procedures to the ad hoc Advisory Committee (via Tim Scully). If the Committee would like another copy, I will be glad to provide one. My understanding is that the Committee's question dealt with the process utilized by the FAA after they receive a request for a GPS Approach. On Tuesday I had a long telephone conversation with Ron Clenney at the LAX FPO on this subject. Mr. Clenney indicated that once they receive a request with all related documentation, they send a coordination letter to the FAA Airports, Airway Facilities and Air Traffic Divisions informing them of the intention to establish the GPS approach procedures. Any comments from these Divisions are incorporated into the whole package, which is sent to the FAA National Flight Procedures Office (NFPO) in Oklahoma City where the proposed procedure is developed. NFPO sends the proposed procedure to Q Check for an actual flight inspection of the approach. Upon passing Q Check, the Air Traffic Division works up the necessary air space restrictions. The whole package goes to the National Flight Data Center which sees to the publishing of the approach procedures with both the National Oceanic Service and with Jepsen. The whole process may take up to one year from receipt of request. Mr. Clenney was not aware of any list that Little River Airport might have once been near the top of but might slip to the bottom of without prompt action. Per Mr. Clenney, all requests are generally processed in the order received. I asked Mr. Clenney if we could get a copy of these procedures in writing. He faxed the attached document which, while not what I'd hoped for, may be of use to the Committee. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me at your convenience. cc: Board of Supervisors File 24-14A ------------------------------------------------------------------ FAA LOS ANGELES FLIGHT PROCEDURES OFFICE LAX FPO DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES (An Outline) The development of a Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to an airport not already served by a procedure is a three stage process including: 1. Establishing Eligibility, 2. Approval, 3. Formulation The FAA Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office, LAX FPO, suggests that you obtain copies of FAR Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace), FAR Part 157 (Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports) and AC 150/5300-13 (Airport Design) for your information and assistance in providing the data requested. These are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. I. ELIGIBILITY A. To be eligible for the original SIAP (first one), the airport must be open for PUBLIC use. If applicable, the sponsor/proponent may provide additional inforrnation as to air taxi or commercial operations, or plans-on-file for such operations, together with any Supplemental Aviation Weather Reporting Station (SAWRS) that may be at or in close proximity to the airport. B. To complete the requirements for eligibility the sponsor/proponent must submit to the LAX FPO a letter signed by the airport owner (Airport Owner, Airport Manager, or City Manager/County Judge) stating: 1.) Concurrence with: a.) The establishment of the Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP). b.) The establishment of controlled airspace from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) for approximately 5 miles around the airport; and, acknowledging that the political subdivision (city, county, township) is aware and concurs that if the FAA provides an IAP for the airport, controlled airspace of approximatcly five nautical miles, 700 feet above the ground, will be established around the airport. 2.) Environmental statements as to: a.) Whether there are noise sensitive areas underlying the proposed flight track. If populated or sparsely populated, so state. b.) Whether the proposed procedure is intended to increase the number of aircraft, or change the type of aircraft using the airport. c.) Whether there has been any publicizing through an airport master plan, media, or town/airport meetings concerning proposed IFR approach procedures, and any public comment. d.) Whether any public controversy is expected. 3.) Awareness that: a.) Approval of an instrument approach procedure to a runway may possibly modify the applicable Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 imaginary surfaces for the affected runway(s). For example, the Primary Surface surrounding the runway is 250 feet total width for visual or circling only approaches but expands to 500 feet for a straight-in non-precision approach. This surface is expected to be maintained free of obstructions. The airport sponsor/owner who is obligated by a Federal Grant Agreement must, insofar as it is within his/her power and reasonably possible, have those objects removed which are obstructions to air navigation, as determined by the criteria contained in Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77, Subpart C. Negligence in accomplishing necessary obstruction clearing could effect compliance obligations with existing or future Federal Grant Agreements. b.) The 20:1 (the 34:1 if applicable) obstruction clearance slopes and the runway Object Free Zone (OFZ) applicable for the airport shall be kept clear of obstacles in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular AC-150/5300-13. c.) Statement as to whether airport operator/users are aware, or not aware, of any significant terrain that may cause turbulence, especially during windy conditions, that significantly affect pilots control of aircraft where they might not be able to hold headings and altitudes in approach procedures. This should be based on the airport's user pilots comments. II APPROVAL After eligibility is determined, an Airport Airspace Analysis will be conducted by coordination within the FAA. During this stage, the Flight Procedures Office sends out coordination to all applicable FAA offices (primarily Airports, Air Traffic, and Airway Facilities). We will also submit FAA form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, to the Airports Office changing your airport status from VFR to IFR. The Airports Office wilI circularize a Non-Rule Making Action (NRA) for comments and may be provided to you in the initial Eligibility stage. The change of airport status may be submitted earlier but must be submitted at this point in order for the procedure development process to continue. A. To assist in the conduct this aeronautical study analysis, four (4) copies of the approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the airport must be submitted to the FAA. If ALPs are not available, four (4) copies of a scaled engineering drawing containing the following information must be provided: 1.) Tie points to section corners, bench marks or other specific geographic or topographic landmarks. 2.) Type runway surface, length, width, station point, true azimuth, and runway end/threshold coordinates to the nearest hundredth of a second, in North American Datum (NAD) 83. 3.) The elevation of the highest point of the airport's usable runways (Airport Elevation), the elevation of the runway ends/thresholds to the nearest tenth of a foot above mean sea level (AMSL), and if straight-in minimums are desired the highest centerline elevation in the first 3000 feet of the runway to which the straight-in procedure is to be designed beginning at the threshold (Touchdown Zone Elevation, TDZE) -- to the nearest foot AMSL. 4.) Airport approach and runway lighting using approved terminology to describe the lighting systems; e.g., MALS - medium intensity approach light system, RCLS - runway centerline light system; MIRL - medium intensity runway lighting, etc., 5.) The drawings must also provide runway plan and profile views depicting the 20:1 and 34:1 runway approach obstruction clearance slopes and the runway object free zones in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13. NOTE: The airport sketch on Airport Master Record, FAA Form 5010-1, or an aerial photo is unacceptable for this purpose. B. The aeronautical study will evaluate the airport, navigational facilites, obstacles, lighting and marking, requircd clearances, availability of weather information, and communications and enviromental effects. The following information will be assessed and you may be requested to supply additional verified information concerning any of the following: 1.) Airport. a.) The airport landing surface must be adequate to accommodate the categories/types of aircraft which can reasonably be expected to use the instrument procedure. b.) Permanently installed RUNWAY EDGE LIGHTS (including threshold/runway end lights), defining the lateral and longitudinal boundaries of the runway are required to authorize night minimums. c.) Instrument runway markings (non-precision) are required if visibility credit for approach lighting systems is to be given. As a minimum (runway numbers and centerline), paved runways should be markcd in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5340-1 (Marking of Paved Areas on Airports). d.) Only circling minimums shall be approved where runways are not clearly defined; i.e., unpaved or inappropriately marked runways. 2.) Required Cjearances. Minimum FAA safety standards applicable to the type of airport will be required to be met (Ref. Advisory Circular 150(5300-13.) These include at a minimum adherence to required clear approach area and runway Obstacle Free Zone as defined in the A/C 150/5300-13. Obstacles penetrating FAR Part 77 surfaces which are not required to be moved or lowered per this criteria need to be made conspicuous by marking & lighting in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 (Obstacle Marking and Lighting). 3.) Weather Information. In order to authorize any procedure, an approvcd altimeter setting source must be available. Installation of a local altimeter source must meet the requirements of FAA Advisory Circular 91-14D, Altimeter Setting Sources. An automated weather observation system (AWOS/ASOS) may be advisable particularly in mountainous terrain. Further information is available upon request. Additionally, terminal weather observation (including approved altimeter) and reporting facilities must be available for the airport to serve as an alternate airport or to permit IFR operations by a certificated commuter, air taxi, or air carrier operator. 4.) Communications. Point-to-point communication, such as a public-use commercial telephone, is required at the airport to file and close flight plans (to preclude activation of search and rescue), and shall be available to the public on a 24-hour per day basis. 5.) Environmental effects. Flight paths below 3,000 feet above ground level, will be evaluated for possible environmental effects. If we find an impact which may significantly affect the environmental status quo, you may be required to conduct an environmental assessment and provide the FAA with an environmenntal impact study. You, the proponent, know your area best. Based on the environmental information you provide, if we find no impact that significantly affects the environmental status quo, we will complete an environmental categorical exclusion for the development of the procedure. C. The results of the Airspace Analysis may find: a.) No objection and the approach will be developed. b.) No objection provided certain conditions are met. The sponsor will be notified of these conditions and once the appropriate corrective action has been taken the approach will be developed. c.) The development of the approach is objectionable and the sponsor will be notified that no approach will be developed. D. During the aeronautical study process, the FAA will conduct an internal review of the proposal to receive concurrence with all internal organizational elements for the publication of the procedure. Failure to receive concurrence from organizational elements will result in the approach not being developed. The review concerns some of the following: 1.) FAA controlled air-to-ground communications capability must be available at the Initial Approach Fix minimum altitude and when the aircraft executing the missed approach reaches the missed approach altitude. At lower altitudes, communications shall be required where essential to safe and efficient use of airspace. 2.) The proposed change of airport Status is reviewed to include the current and historical situation at the airport. 3.) A review of the ground based NAVAID is conducted to see if the facility can support the. proposed procedure. This does not apply to GPS procedures. III. FORMULATION After receipt and verification of the information requested in eligibility and approval stages by the Flight Procedures Office, the entire package will be sent forward to the National Flight Procedures Office for formal formulation and development of the instrument approach procedure to begin. After fully developed, all applicable electronic navigational and visual approach lighting facilities must successfully pass ground and flight inspection by the FAA. Ground inspection does not apply to GPS facilities. After passing Flight Inspection, the procedure is forwarded to the National Flight Data Center, who forwards it on to the National Oceanic Service for publication. Where required, the establishment of controlled airspace by Air Traffic, normally beginnng 700 feet above ground level, will be effective concurrent with the publication of the procedure. The process for development and publication may take up to 18 months after SIAP formulation has been requested. Lack of data or inaccurate data may delay publication of the procedure ----------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================== Appendix B - 10/20/97 letter from DPW with attachments from FAA --------------------------------------------------------------- R.V. PARKER, ACTING DIRECTOR Ex-Officio Road Commissioner County Engineer COUNTY OF MENDOCINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 (707)463-4363 FAX (707) 463-5474 30 October 1997 TO: Tim Scully Little River Airport Ad Hoc Advisory Committee 32191 Albion Ridge Road Albion CA 95410 FROM: Stanley Townsend, Deputy Director Department of Public Works SUBJECT: GPS APPROACH Transmitted herewith is a copy of a package of information we received from the FAA (LAX FPO) regarding procedures for obtaining a GPS Approach. In your investigations, you may already have all of this, but I thought I'd send it along just in case. I'm planning to attend the public meeting on 23 November 1997. I assume this is to be at The Woods. Please confirm this, and let me know start time and expected duration (e-mail is fine). I assume that your intent is to report back to the Board's Committee after the meeting, and expect that the Committee will bring the issue to the Board with a recommendation. If the Board so directs, DPW will prepare the eligibility form (etc.) for signature of the Chair and submission to the FAA. If so, we would like to work with you in the preparation of the necessary documents. See you on the 23rd. cc: File 24-14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Department of Transportation Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office LAX FPO October 17, 1997 Mr. Chuck Boyer, Manager, Business Services Ref: Little River Airport Mendocino County Public Works Courthouse Ukiah, California 95482 Dear Mr. Boyer: Based on your telephone request for stand-alone GPS instrument approach procedures into the Little River airport, we are providing the attached package in order to accommodate expediting certain information and data necessary that you provide to us. Please follow the ELIGIBILITY FORM guidelines to forward a letter back to us with a signature from the airport airport authority which indicates your request and concurrence for these GPS instrument approach procedure by airport name. Advise us in this letter which runway(s) you prefer the instrument approach to serve, and night capability bv indicating your current runway light status. Please keep in mind any noise or operational controversy which may result from your runway request. However, since a new GPS procedure would essentially follow the same flight track to your runways as current VFR traffic, there should be little or no environmental affect. Currently, the most offset that GPS criteria permits is 15 degrees. The normal final segment is 5 miles. Circling only approaches are currently not recommended due to difficulties with airborne receiver software. The ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY/ASSESSMENT page briefly explains the environmental process. Please address each issue. It is vital that you submit in writing the noise impact or controversy you expect, or do not expect, as a result of a new proposed instrument procedure. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Data Requirements page is actually a checklist for you so that you may more easily determine whether your currently approved ALP meets the minimum informational requirements for an instrument approach. However, if you have recently updated an ALP, please provide it to us. Your Airports District Office (ADO) will be able to provide assistance in this area. The ALTIMETER Setting Source required for all instrument approach procedures should meet the minimum technical requirements specified in the attached Advisory Circular 91-14D. This is the easiest, simplest, and cheapest way to establish a local altimeter setting source. Please advise us if you would also like additional access to the GPS procedure with the use of a remote altimeter setting source (RASS). The GPS would have dual minimums, one with local altimeter and one with minimums based on using the RASS. A RASS would result in a penalty (increase) to the RASS approach minimums (not minimums based on local altimeter) as a function of distance and elevation differential. Still, even with the higher RASS minimums, it may extend a few hours of operational capability for your airport. Air Traffic will take care of airspace requirement. We recognize that this appears to be a difficult process but it really isn't. We would like to make it as easy as possible and I have enclosed letter samples of concurrence, environmental, and FBO. Simply change the sample wording to that which applies to your airport, location, and situation. Please don't hesitate to contact me or Ron Clenney if you need assistance. We can be reached at (310) 725 -7124. Barry D. Rosenberg Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office, LAX FPO --------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY/ASSESSMENT New instrument approach procedures, departure procedures, enroute procedures, and modifications to currently approved instrument flight procedures which are conducted below 3,000 feet above the surface and which will tend to increase noise over noise sensitive areas are subject to environmental procedures, analysis and FAA environmental approval. This requires consideration of those operations that will routinely be routed over noise sensitive areas, and includes, but not limited to, residential neighborhoods, education, health, and religious sites; and cultural, historical, and recreation areas. The new procedure(s) that you are requesting may require an environmental assessment. In order for this office to make that determination, you must submit in writing your expectations of the noise impact in the area of the proposed instrument approach. Since impacts are dependent upon the flight track, completion of any assessment may be required following FAA design of the procedure. FAA will determine, based on your environmental input, whether preparation of an environmental assessment is required. FAA environmental approval is required before the proposed flight procedure can be authorized or submitted for publication. We are beginning the process of developing a GPS Instrument Approach Procedure to your airport. The instrument approach will be aligned as nearly as possible with the runway centerline, but may be angled slightly to avoid terrain or obstructions in order to achieve the lowest approach minimums. If you believe that this flight track may cause some noise concerns, please advise us of a more favorable flight track. Please address each of these issues in your letter to us your evaluation of any noise impact concerning the following subjects: Are there noise sensitive areas underlying the proposed flight track? Or if unpopulated or sparsely populated, so state. Whether the proposed procedure is intended to increase the number of aircraft, or change the type of aircraft using the airport. Has there been any publicizing through media or town or airport meetings concerning the proposed approach procedure, and has there been any public comment? Is any public controversy expected concerning the proposed procedure? If you have any questions concerning this matter, don't hesitate to call our LAX Flight Procedures Office at (310) 725-7122 or 7124. --------------------------------------------------------------- AIRPORT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE (FOR AIRPORTS NOT ALREADY SERVED BY A PROCEDURE) ELIGIBILITY: A. The airport must be "open to the public". B. The airport owner or operator must submit to our office a signed letter stating that he/she: 1. Concurs with the Instrument Approach Proposal, and 2. Reguests a change in Airport Status from VFR to IFR, and 3. Concurs with the establishment of controlled airspace (700' AGL floor) for approximately five miles around the airport, and acknowledges that the political subdivision (city, county, township) is aware and concurs with this airspace establishment. 4. Is aware that approval of an instrument approach procedure may modify the applicable FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction identification surfaces for the affected runway(s), and that this may require a revision to or an original Airport Layout Plan (ALP). These surfaces are expected to be maintained free of obstructions. 5. Is aware that the 20:1 or 34:1 obstruction clearance slopes (Whichever is appropriate), and the Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) must be kept clear of obstacles in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13. 6. Is aware or is not aware of any significant terrain in the area of the airport or approach to the airport which may affect control of the aircraft or cause turbulence, especially during windy conditions. This should be based on user comment or complaints. (In this letter, indicate your runway preference for a straight-in instrument approach, and the type of instrument approach desired (e.g.; GPS, VOR.), or this office will make that determination.) Questions concerning these eligibility factors may be addressed to the FAA, Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office, LAX FPO, or phone (310) 725-7122 / 7124. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR ALPs FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORIGINAL INSTRUMIENT APPROACH PROCEDURE Three copies of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) as approved by the FAA must be received by the Flight Procedures Branch in order to proceed with the development of an instrument approach procedure to an airport that has no existing instrument approach. The minimum requirements for the ALP are as follows: All latitude/longitude information must be in North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83) and be to an accuracy of hundredths of a second (two decimal places). All elevations must be to a tenth of a foot. The datum used must be indicated on the ALP. 1. Lat/long of Airport Reference Point (ARP), and airport elevation. 2. Runway thresholds, and displaced runway thresholds (if any) lat/long and elevations. 3. Touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) (the highest runway elevation in the first 3000' of runway) of any runway which will have published straight-in minimums. 4. Runway lengths, widths, type of surface, marking, lighting, and runway centerline alignment (true). 5. Lat/long and elevation of any Non-Fed on-airport NAVAID to be used in the instrument approach procedure. If you need help contact the Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office (LAX FPO) at (310) 725-7122. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Advisory Circular U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Subject: ALTIMETER SETTING SOURCES Date: 4/9/79 AC No: 91-14D Initiated by: AFS-830 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular provides the aviation public and industry with guidelines for setting up reliable altimeter setting sources. 2. CANCELLATION. Advisory Circular (AC) 91-14C, dated 6/14/78 is canceled. 3. GUIDELINES. An altimeter setting source should either: a. Consist of the Standard Altimeter Setting Indicator (ASI); or b. Meet the minimum technical requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) below and be operated in accordance with paragraph (3). (1) Instrumentation. Two aircraft-type sensitive altimeters should meet the specifications of Technical Standard Order C10b or meet the standards of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 43, Appendix E. One aircraft-type sensitive altimeter meeting these specifications may be utilized at locations where a Part 121 or 135 operator has established a procedure for periodic cross-checking of the altimeter as specified in paragraph 3b(2)(iii). The height (of the instruments) above mean sea level, surveyed accurately within one foot, is marked on the instruments or posted immediately adjacent to them. Outside venting of the altimeter or altimeters is necessary only when the room in which the instruments are located is shown to be subject to a pressure differential compared to ambient atmospheric pressure. (2) Calibration. The instruments should be calibrated and recertified to the specifications of Part 43, Appendix E, by an appropriately certificated, FAA-approved instrument repair station: (i) Within 30 days prior to initial installation or retention as a spare, and every 24 months thereafter. (ii) At stations utilizing two altimeters, anytime a difference of more than .05 of an inch of mercury exists between the two instruments with indicator hands set to the instrument elevation. Immediately after calibration, the difference between the two instruments should not exceed .02 of an inch of mercury. (iii) At stations utilizing one altimeter, any time a difference of more than .04 of an inch of mercury exists on two successive cross-checks between the station reference altimeter and the mean of the readings obtained from the two altimeters installed in an aircraft maintained under the provisions of Part 121 or the continuous airworthiness maintenance provisions of FAR Part 135. (iv) The instruments should be calibrated to achieve maximum accuracy in the altitude range at which they will be used. (Instruments so calibrated should be marked "not for use in aircraft.") All readings should be adjusted as required by the altimeter correction card furnished by the calibration station. The instrument should be kept in a temperature-controlled environment similar to the temperature at which the instrument was calibrated. (3) Procedures. The operator should establish procedures to ensure that responsible persons are competent to obtain accurate altimeter settings. (i) At stations employing two altimeters, a tested method is as follows: (A) Set both instruments to the posted height, tap or vibrate each to remove friction effects, then reset if necessary. (B) Adjust the readings as required by the altimeter correction card. (C) The altimeter setting, in inches of mercury, appears in the small window. The difference between instrument readings may not exceed .05 of an inch. The lower of the two readings is the official altimeter setting. (D) The difference between instrument readings should be logged in a permanent record at least once a day. (ii) At stations using one altimeter, a tested method is as follows: (A) Set the instrument to posted height, tap or vibrate to remove friction effects, then reset if necessary. (B) Adjust the reading as required by the altimeter correction card, and record the reading. (C) From a Part 121 or 135 aircraft parked on a designated ramp area of known elevation, secure altimeter readings from both captain's and first officer's altimeters which should be adjusted to indicate the actual elevation of the ramp plus the height of the instruments above the ramp before the altimeters are read. (D) Determine the mean of the two aircraft altimeter readings and compare the mean with the reading from the station altimeter. If the difference between the mean and the station altimeter exceeds .04 of an inch, the altimeter setting should be reported as "missing," and if the difference exceeds .04 of an inch on two successive cross-checks, the altimeter should be recalibrated before further use. (E) The cross-check should be done daily, if an aircraft is available, but not less than three times a week. The difference between the reference instrument and the mean of the aircraft altimeter readings should be logged in a permanent record. (4) System Aprovals. Altimeter setting sources installed in accordance with this AC and intended for use with approved instrument approach procedure will require initial approval and periodic inspection by the FAA. Initial approval and annual inspections should be accomplished by the appropriate FAA district office (General Aviation District Office, Air Carrier District Office of Flight Standards District Office). (5) Future System. The FAA and private industry are developing automatic altimeter setting reporting systems that may include wind and other weather elements. Automatic weather reporting systems will be required to meet FAA and National Weather Service accuracy and reliability standards before they can be used to support instrument flight rule operations. J. A. FERRARESE Acting Director Flight Standards Service --------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janis Brand Lake Tahoe Airport Airport Administration 1901 Airport Road, Suite 100 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Tel: 916-542-6180 Fax: 916-544-6366 To: Ron Clenney, FAA Tel: 310-725-7124 Fax: 310-643-5753 Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 Subject: GPS APPROACH Number of pages includlng thls cover sheet: 1 Per our previous conversations, I have discussed aircraft performance and control related to our surrounding terrain with several local pilots including Larry Levi of Emerald Bay Aviation and Gerald Capps of Alpine Lake Aviation. All of the pilots I have spoken with have the same general response that they have no aircraft control problems related to significant terrain or precipitous terrain. They state the weather is not severe enough to affect altitude control or the ability to maintain headings. It is our staff's opinion, in consideration of the experience related by local operators, terrain is not a factor in aircraft operations at Lake Tahoe Airport. ----------------------------------------------------------------- September 26, 1997 City of Tehachapi 115 South Robinson Street Tehachapi, California 93561 (805) 822-2200 Mr. Barry D. Rosenberg, Manager Federal Aviation Administration Los Angeles Flight Procedure Office LAX FPO/ALP-220 P.O. Box 92007.WPC Los Angeles, CA 90009 Dear Mr. Rosenberg, This is our request for a stand-alone instrument approach procedure into the Tehachapi Municipal Airport at Tehachapi, CA. We concur with the establishment of a stand-alone straight-in instrument approach for Runway 29 at the Tehachapi Municipal Airport located in Tehachapi, CA. Our Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) system is operable for Runway 29 only. We are aware that the approval of an instrument approach procedure may modify the applicable Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) part 77, imaginary obstruction identification surfaces for Runway 29 and this may require a revision to our Airport Layout Plan. These surfaces are expected to be maintained free of obstruction. We anticipate using the automated weather observation system located at Edwards Air Force Base who is located approximately thirty (30) statute miles east of the Tehachapi Municipal Airport for the certified altimeter setting source. We are aware that flight paths below three thousand feet (3,000') above ground will be evaluated for possible environmental effects, but feel that there will be no added adverse environmental or noise conditions as the approach would be about the same as present, which is aligned with the centerline of Runway 29. Our past history shows no complaints of noise from the areas under the approach to Runway 29 as the areas are mostly agricultural. We do anticipate that the proposed procedure may increase the number of aircraft that use our airport, but do not anticipate a change in the the type of aircraft using the airport in the past or at the present. Our hope is that the proposed procedure could possible reduce the number of scud-running pilots coming through the Tehachapi Pass on their way to Bakersfield and who have the ability to use the GPS procedure into our airport. The requested procedure has been discussed by the City Manager during staff meetings and the Tehachapi Airport Commissioners have discussed this issue at several of their meetings open to the public and have directed the Airport Manager to issue the necessary information to request for the GPS procedure. AII concur the need for the GPS procedure without any opposition from the community. We, do not expect any public controversy concerning the proposed procedure. We concur with the Instrument Approach Proposal and request a change in Airport Status from VFR to IFR and concur with the establishment of controlled airspace (700' AGL floor) for approximately five (5) miles around the airport, and acknowledge that the City is aware and concurs with this airspace establishment. We are also aware that the 20:1 obstruction clearance slope and the Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) must be kept clear of obstacles in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13. We are not aware of any significant terrain in the area of the airport which may affect control of the aircraft or cause turbulence during windy conditions. We have not had any user complaints. I am enclosing a copy of the Latitude and Longitude coordinates, which are as follows: Latitude: 35-08-04.83553 North Longitude: 118-26-23.11450 West Airport Elevation is 3997'. Touchdown Zone Elevation (TDZE) (the highest runway elevation in the first 3000' of runway) is 3997'. Runway length is 4035', runway width is 50', type of surface is asphalt, lighting is medium intensity (MIRL) and runway centerline is true. Enclosed is a request for GPS APPROACH by Zond Corporation's Chief Pilot, Michael H. McCann. The company is a tenant on the Tehachapi Municipal Airport and are presently using the following aircraft for their business purposes: Cessna Conquest N83CH Baron N555RD Cessna 182 N182WF Also, enclosed is a request for a GPS approach by Benbow Aviation, a fixed base operator (FBO) on the airport owned by Mr. Lou Vandenberg. His operation consists of flight training, aircraft charter and leasing and aircraft maintenance. The fleet of aircraft consists of single engine land (SEL) through multi-engine land (MEL) light twins. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (805) 822-2220 or fax (805) 822-8559. I sincerely feel that the GPS approach would be an asset for our airport, especially as a safety factor during marginal weather. Your consideration on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, James J. Cummo, Sr. Airport Manager -------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================ Appendix C - rough draft airport survey handout ----------------------------------------------- rough draft airport survey 2/22/98 The Little River Airport Advisory Committee is surveying other airports to collect data to help Mendocino County decide whether or not to apply for a GPS instrument approach procedure for Little River Airport. Concerned neighbors of the airport want to know what impact this will have: - will it increase traffic and noise? - will it bring new development to the airport? - will it bring new businesses which might attract more noisy traffic? - will it affect safety? - will it have a negative impact on VFR pilots? - are there other environmental impacts to be considered? Our airport is a tourist destination located on the coast, where stratus and fog are a major weather factor. Our airport is located in a very quiet rural neighborhood, where neighbors are more keenly aware of air traffic than in a busier city. Our traffic level is currently quite low, in the range from 2500 to 6,000 takeoffs and landings a year. Some of the questions below are intended to help us know how similar your airport is to ours, along each of several dimensions. We would appreciate some information about your airport to help us in this process. Percentage of your traffic from tourism______ Number of takeoffs and landings per year ______ Number of "operations" per year __________ Number of people living within a 5 mile radius of airport _______ Is the airport in a very quiet rural neighborhood? ___________ Does your airport authority activly seek growth in airport use?________ How many businesses are located on the airport? ______________ Please describe them: __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Did your instrument approach attract more businesses?_____________ Does your airport authority actively solicit businesses to set up shop on the airport, independently of having an instrument approach? ................................................________________ How much (in %) do you think obtaining any kind of instrument approach has affected noise at your airport ................ ____________ How much (in %) do you think obtaining any kind of instrument approach has affected traffice at your airport............. ____________ What are the hours of operation for your instrument approach?.................................................. _____________ What are the hours your airport is attended? ______________ How do pilots obtain the altimeter setting?______________________________ List all types of instrument approach your airport has and when each was obtained: type of approach when obtained impact of obtaining approach ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) _____________ _____________ ___________________________ 2) _____________ _____________ ___________________________ 3) _____________ _____________ ___________________________ 4) _____________ _____________ ___________________________ 5) _____________ _____________ ___________________________ If your airport does not have an instrument approach, are you considering getting one?.................................... _______________ Why/Why not? _______________________________________________________________ ============================================================================ Appendix D - rough draft letter for LA Flight Procedures office: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mendocino County is in the final stages of researching a possible GPS approach for Little River Airport (O48). The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors recently appointed an Airport Advisory Committee and has tasked the new committee with completing research on this topic, begun by an Ad Hoc Committee. The new committee has been ordered to produce a final report by early April. This leaves us little time for collecting solidly documented answers to concerns raised by airport neighbors. Your quick written response can help us greatly. The committee asks that you avoid simply advising us to read the rulebook. Several concerned citizens have pointed out that it is all too easy to cite one regulation out of context, missing another which substantially changes the picture. We need your help in providing an objective and well informed opinion on the questions outlined below. 1) Mendocino County Airport (Little River Airport, O48) is considering applying for a GPS approach. Our normal source of altimeter setting is from the Airport Supervisor, who only works during the daytime, but our initial report on the GPS suggests that pilots may be able to arrange for an alternate FAA approved local altimeter setting source. The questions below are aimed at providing the Board of Supervisors with adequate information regarding their options for limiting GPS approach availabilty, should they choose to do so now or in the future. a) Does Mendocino County, the airport owner/operator, have legitimate authority to limit night GPS approaches to emergency fIghts? b) If so, how would such a limitation be put into place? c) Can such limitations be imposed at a later date, or do they have to be requested in the initial letter of concurrance? d) If Little River Airport ever obtains an AWOS, providing 24 hour altimeter setting data, can Mendocino County limit the hours of approved GPS approach operation? Or is it only able to limit the avaialability of the approach by limiting availability of the altimeter setting? e) How would any alternate local altimeter setting source become "approved"? f) Is there any mechanism for assuring that Mendocino County is notified if anyone applies for approval of an alternate local altimeter source? g) If anyone applies for approval of an alternate local altimeter source, does Mendocino County have any say-so about its approval? Thank you for your prompt help with this urgent request. ============================================================================ Appendix E - rough draft letter for Oakland Flight Standards office: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mendocino County is in the final stages of researching a possible GPS approach for Little River Airport. The Board of Supervisors recently appointed an Airport Advisory Committee and has tasked the new committee with completing research on this topic, begun by an Ad Hoc Committee. The new committee has been ordered to produce a final report by early April. This leaves us little time for collecting solidly documented answers to concerns raised by airport neighbors. Your quick written response can help us greatly. The committee asks that you avoid simply advising us to read the rulebook. Several concerned citizens have pointed out that it is all too easy to cite one regulation out of context, missing another which substantially changes the picture. We need your help in providing an objective and well informed opinion on the questions outlined below. 1) Little River Airport is considering applying for a GPS approach. Some of the issues, which have been raised by concerned citizens, revolve around the limitations of radar coverage in the Mendocino County area. One concern is that commissioning a GPS approach at Little River might cause a traffic jam, delaying existing IFR traffic at Ukiah. Another concern is that aircraft might be put into holding patterns over noise sensitive neighborhoods. a) It is our understanding that the area including Little River and Ukiah airports is treated as a single "one at a time" IFR takeoff and landing area, due to the lack of radar coverage below about 5000 MSL. In other words, it is our understanding that if a aircraft is cleared for an IFR takeoff or landing at one of these airports, no other IFR takeoff or landing clearance for these airports will be issued until the first aircraft has climbed back into radar coverage or has landed and cancelled IFR. This limits takeoffs or landings to about one every 15 minutes. Is this an accurate description of the picture? Do you have anything to add to this or to correct? b) If a second aircraft requests IFR approach and landing clearance at one of these airports while a first aircraft is departing or landing, we have been told that the second aircraft would probably either be asked to slow down to delay its arrival at the Mendocino VOR, or that it would probably be asked to "hold" at the Mendocino VOR, probably at an altitude above 6000 MSL. Is this an accurate description? Do you have anything to add or correct in this? 2) There has been quite a bit of discussion of "scud running" vs flying a GPS approach. Little River Airport is coastal and frequently experiences marine stratus cloud cover or fog. The cloud cover frequently only extends a short distance inland. Pilots sometimes fly low under these clouds to land at Little River. Currently the floor of controlled airspace is 5500 MSL in the area around Little River. Instrument rated pilots say that they may legally climb through the stratus layer without a clearance to execute a "miss" when attempting to land without an instrument approach. Non-instrument rated pilots also sometimes scud run, but it is our understanding that they may never legally fly through the clouds. Hence scud running is even more dangerous for them. If we obtain a GPS approach, the floor of controlled airspace will be lowered to 700 AGL near Little River. We believe this will make scud running effectively illegal for all pilots since instrument rated pilots will no longer be able to climb up through the clouds without a clearance. Instrument rated pilots claim that it is much safer to fly an instrument approach than it is to scud run. a) Is this description of the situation accurate? Do you have any corrections or added comments? b) What enforcement procedures exist for reporting and punishing pilots who violate the Federal Aviation Regulations in the neighborhood around Little River Airport? [Some neighbors of the airport want the be assured that there are "teeth" in the rules.] c) what are the legal limits on "scud running"? Can a pilot legally fly 500 feet AGL in a sparsely populated area, remaining clear of clouds with one mile visibility? d) Are pilots forbidden from descending below 500 feet AGL unless they are on a 3 degree approach slope for landing? 3) Related questions have been raised regarding low flying and noise. Some neighbors of the airport believe that aircraft are flying too low over their homes and are creating a hazard and unnecessary noise. Some of the questions raised here also apply to question #2 above. a) What enforcement mechanism exists now for punishing pilots who fly dangerously low? b) How can reports of dangerous flying be made? c) How do we resolve disputes regarding an aircraft's actual height above the ground? d) How do we resolve disputes regarding the identity of offending aircraft? =========================================================================== Appendix F - rough draft pilot survey ------------------------------------- The Little River Airport Advisory Committee is finalizing a report to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on a proposed GPS approach for the airport. In support of that we would appreciate a quick response to the following questions. Because of a deadline set by the supervisors our work has to be complete by the first of April. Are you an active pilot? That is, are you a student, private, commercial, or ATP with a current medical? ____Yes ____No Do you own your own plane? ____Yes ____No Where is the aircraft you normally fly based? How often on the average do you land at Little River? _____ times per month How often do you land at night at Little River? _____ times per month. Would having a GPS approach change how often you land at night at Little River? _____Yes _____No If yes, by how much? _____ times per month Would having a GPS approach change how often you land in the daytime at Little River? ______Yes _____No If yes, by how much? _____ times per month. How often on the average do you take off from Little River? ______ times per month How often do you take off at night from Little River? ______times per month How often do you make instrument take offs from Little River? _____ times per month. Why do you fly to and from Little River? ____ Business _____Recreation Do you have an instrument rating? ____Yes ____No If not, do you plan to get one? ____ Yes ____ No If yes, when? Is the aircraft you normally fly IFR equipped? ____ Yes _____ No Do you normally fly with a VFR only GPS receiver? ____Yes ____ No Is the aircraft you normally fly equipped with an approach-approved GPS receiver? ____Yes ____No As you probably know approach- approved GPS receivers currently cost $6000 to $8000 installed. With this in mind do you plan to purchase an approach approved receiver? ____ Yes ____ No If so, when? The floor of controlled airspace over Little River is currently 5500 ft MSL. If a GPS approach is designed for the airport, the floor will drop to 700 ft AGL. As a result, scud running under a low ceiling will be very difficult because it will be illegal to climb through the overcast if the ceiling turns out to be too low to permit landing. With this in mind, are you in favor of the commissioning of a GPS approach at Little River Airport? ____Yes ____No PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENCLOSED SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPE OR FAX IT TO 707-937-3364. Thanks a lot for your time. Your input is important to us. ==========================================================================