Little River Airport Advisory Committee Minutes of 3/15/98 meeting The new, officially appointed Little River Airport Advisory Committee held its fifth meeting from 4-6pm at The Clubhouse at The Woods on 3/15/98. An agenda for the meeting had previously been posted at Little River Airport and the Little River Post Office on Monday 3/9/98 and circulated by email. Seven members of the committee were present: Lee Edmundson, Susan Winding, Joel Bornstein, Dave Brewer, Willow Trent, Tim Scully and Trey Loy. Dick Ahrens, Richard Gallagher, Thomas A. Taylor, Michael Moore and Judith Barry also participated in the meeting. approval of minutes ------------------- Tim Scully said that he had received minor amendments to the rough draft minutes by email. Tim Scully asked Trey Loy for the spelling of the name of the oil company he'd mentioned and Trey provided it. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved. communications -------------- Tim Scully passed out copies of several letters he received: Appendix A - letter from Les Proctor to Bob Veal and reply Appendix B - letter from Les Proctor to Mark Evans and reply Appendix C - letter from Melissa Hayes Appendix D - letter from Trey Loy to the committee Tim Scully went on to report on a telephone call he received from Jim Goodridge (climatologist) this afternoon, in response to emails and phone messages from Tim Scully. To put the phone call in context. Tim Scully read the original questions he sent to Jim Goodridge and Mr. Goodridge's initial FAXed reply [see Appendix E]. Tim Scully had followed up the initial set of questions with two more emails adding additional questions [see Appendix F], and then followed up further by telephone Mr. Goodridge when there was no reply to the emails. Mr. Goodridge returned this call today. Mr. Goodridge explained that he worked for 2 years as a National Weather Service observer in Sacramento in the 1950's, and that his work included aviation weather observations. Since then his work has primarily been climatology and in particular the study of flooding and drainage requirements. Tim Scully asked about the response to question #3 and was told that this response had assumed hourly observations. 365 days/yr x 24 hrs = 8760 observations required for a full year, and the data we have included only 2150 observations. Tim Scully pointed out that the data in question only reported 8 observations per day, one every 3 hours, which would be 2920 observations for a 365 day year, and that the data were evenly distributed around the clock and where reported for all 12 months of the year. Mr. Goodridge said that this implied probably a year's data, allowing for some day's missing observations. Trey Loy said that he would like to describe the weather in our report by season. There is no way to tell how many foggy days there will be in any particular year. In the Winter the main weather problem for pilots is rainy days. In the Summer, low clouds or fog are common, while in Winter the clouds are higher. People in Winter are more likely to be IFR than in Summer because of the more general cloudy weather. Lee Edmundson said that the 22% figure from the draft report has been orbiting for some time. He would like to know if the committee is comfortable with continuing with it. Is it relevant, other than academically? Tim Scully reminded the committee of John Merriman's confirmation of the 22% figure, from data he had collected on his calendar, recording flyable vs non-flyable days. Susan Winding said that she remembers the meeting where John Merriman said that, and that he responded quickly, without referring to the calendar. Trey Loy said that 22% is close to 25% which is a quarter. He also said that the time of day makes a big difference in the fog and clouds. Lee Edmundson said that he is interested in the percentage of days a GPS approach would be useful. Michael Moore said that when he comes home, he tries to target the center of the day. It is so uncertain when the fog will lower, there is an incentive to not use the GPS and to try to clear mid-day weather or at least the highest ceiling (which would be above GPS minimums). Joel said, there may be 22% of days when there are some times when you'd need GPS to be able to land and about 5% days when the fog is so low that even with GPS you'll never be able to land. Susan Winding said that the report should at least say when the data where collected. Tim Scully said that we really don't know. They could be from the 1930's to the 1960's. Should we spend money to get the raw data and find out the dates of the observations? Lee Edmundson responded "no", let's just report the range of possible dates - certainly prior to 1969. Trey Loy said that the Little River area has extremely variable weather conditions. In Summer or Winter it could be cloudy at any time. subcommittee reports -------------------- Lee Edmundson reported that he FAXed all non-responding airports in a follow-up to the airport survey. Joel Bornstein asked how many airports have responded so far. Tim Scully said that 7 of 21 airports have responded. Lee Edmundson said that if we were fund raising, that would be a good response. Lee Edmundson said that he would like to cover extrapolated percentages from the pilot survey which are pertinent to conclusions we'll draw. One percentage in particular is significant. Dave Brewer passed out copies of the latest pilot survey data and a rough draft summary which he hasn't yet had time to discuss with Susan. See Appendix F. Dave Brewer said that if the GPS approach were available at night, this would increase total traffic by 6%. Lee Edmundson said that the raw operations number doesn't specify day or night. We do have night landings at 298 vs 151 additional, don't divide into total operations, but into night operations. Dave Brewer said, that's another question, the original question was how much would overall traffic be affected. Lee Edmundson said that he subtracted the night operations from day and got an increase in day operations of 11%. Dave Brewer said that since the night operations are happening now, why take them out from day operations? Susan Winding said that we should consider Melissa's letter. Lee Edmundson has heard consistent concern about night operations. Dave Brewer said that if we closed the airport at night, then Lee's number would be accurate, but we don't plans to close the airport at night. Lee Edmundson said, right. Dave Brewer said that the existing night operations will continue and the existing day operations will continue. Lee Edmundson agreed. Dave Brewer said that he doesn't see the rationale for taking the night numbers out of the total. Trey Loy said that he'd like to take another tack. This whole thing - everyone worried about people landing at night - depends on the availability of the altimeter. Also, night is different in Summer than in Winter. Lee Edmundson doesn't want to limit night landings willy-nilly, he wants to have a good reason for any limitation. Trey Loy said, people are worried about where the altimeter might come from. The airport supervisor lives right next door. Pilots could call him and ask for it. Tim has a thing there and the draft report doesn't say what it is. At one time we considered having a trained weather observer, possibly someone from the Woods as an alternate source. Trey is worried about the idea of a curfew. Dave Brewer suggested deferring discussion of a curfew until later. Trey Loy said that some people are still confused about what night means. Dave Brewer said that it means from 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise. Dave Brewer returned to reviewing the pilot survey numbers. He said that the results show a 17% increase in traffic if the approach were available 24 hours a day and an 11% increase if it were available only in the daytime. Lee Edmundson said that the reported number of night landings is 298, if you add 151 additional with night GPS and that is a 50% increase in night landings. Susan Winding said that a lot of times a percentage can be misleading, we should also include the actual number. Lee Edmundson agreed that we should indicate a percentage of what. Joel Bornstein pointed out that the projected increase in night landings is less than one every 2 days. Dave Brewer asked if he can add existing night landings to night takeoffs and then divide into the increase. Tim said that although he wished we could, he was sure that opponents would argue that additional night landings imply at least some additional night takeoffs, so the cleanest way to measure this is just to consider landings. Lee Edmundson said that we have to come out with a report which the most skeptical person on earth will agree is solid. Dave Brewer said that he can make an argument for including landings. Tim Scully said that we need to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of bias. Dave Brewer expressed surprise over the number of pilots who reported themselves as business users of the airport. Joel suggested that some of these are commercial charter operators who may be flying passengers whose purpose is pleasure, but whose pilots report themselves as flying for business. Dave Brewer said that 62% of responding pilots are instrument rated. AOPA told him that the national average is 57% of active general aviation pilots. Dave Brewer said that 40% of instrument rated responders have approved GPS installations and 81% are in favor of the GPS approach. Of those in favor, 1/2 are instrument rated. Then pilots are not in favor of the approach. One of the instrument rated pilots has an approach certified GPS in his plane. None the nine without an approach certified GPS have plans to buy one. Joel Bornstein speculated that these 9 pilots probably already know how to find the airport. They probably want to keep their existing "out". Dave Brewer said that he knows one of the 10 pilots, he gets in when conditions are so bad that Dave Brewer wouldn't even taxi. He said that of 105 pilots who communicated with him as a result of the survey, one declined to respond. Tom Taylor said, that was me. You are under legal obligation to share my correspondence with the committee. Tom Taylor asked the committee members if they have seen his letter. Lee Edmundson said no, Tim Scully said yes and Joel Bornstein said no. Dave Brewer read Tom Taylor's letter [see appendix H]. Tom Taylor said that the original questionnaires filled out by pilots must be available for public inspection. Lee Edmundson said that he had no problem with that - we could ship them off to Mr. Townsend for storage. Joel Bornstein said that the committee couldn't afford to publish them in an appendix to the report. Tim Scully suggested that perhaps they could go on file at the airport. Lee Edmundson said that the only other conclusion he calculated from the survey data was that between 2/3 and 4/5 of the increased traffic from the GPS approach was from non-based pilots. He determined this by analyzing the addresses of the pilots. Joel Bornstein speculated, possibly this is because the locals are getting in anyway. Lee Edmundson said, if GPS is made available on a marginal day, more out of town pilots will come. Tim Scully said that currently they come to look and see if they can get in, circling around and making noise. With GPS they will just land straight in. Joel Bornstein said that he certainly wants the increased safety the GPS will bring. Dave Brewer said that when he analyzed the addresses to distinguish local vs out of town pilots, he found there were 28 pilots based at Litte River and some additonal pilots based at Virgin Creek in Ft. Bragg, who should also be considered local. Tim Scully said that some Virgin Creek pilots fly to Little River to get fuel. Susan Winding said that she'd like to distinguish based pilots from "coastal" from out of town. The "coastal" pilots range from Pt. Arena to Ft. Bragg. Lee Edmundson said this is partly academic and partly germane. We are looking at a traffic increase, we can't get around it. The numbers are there. How should we credibly present it? X% based, Y% coastal and Z% total. Dave Brewer said we also should report night vs day, for a total of 6 categories. How local is "based"? Just Little River and Albion? Include Ft. Bragg? Lee Edmundson said, the Ft. Bragg folks don't come for a weekend, we want people who live here. Joel Bornstein said that Virgin Creek (Ft. Bragg) pilots sometimes spend the night here when the weather keeps them here. Trey Loy said, what about people who have a house here and live somewhere else? They pay property taxes in this county and that's important. Dave Brewer said that from the existing data, we could only identify some of these people by looking for commuters with non-local addresses. Tim Scully said that we'd have to send out another questionnaire if we wanted to accurately measure this distinction. Joel Bornstein said that we could easily spend the next two weeks just discussing these numbers. Can we stop here? We agree that there is a small increase in traffic and if the GPS ever became available at night, there would be a further increase amounting to 50% of a small number. Lee Edmundson said that he has no problem with these numbers. Dave Brewer said that he and Susan Winding found themselves tempted to just call up a few of the survey responders to ask a few more questions, but they agreed we can't do that. Trey Loy asked if Dave Brewer and Lee Edmundson can agree on numbers to put into our report. Dave Brewer said that he'd like to put an asterisk next to the night number. Lee Edmundson said (smiling) that he'd want to put brackets around the asterisk. Lee Edmundson quoted the draft GPS report, where it said that the GPS approach is not intended to expand the airport or attract new traffic. He said that although that may not be the intention, it clearly will result in some traffic increase. Tim Scully handed out a one page spreadsheet with the details of the results of the airport survey. He also handed out a one page rough draft summary of the results [see Appendix I]. He read the one page summary aloud. Tom Taylor asked what the landing fee is at Catalina Island. Joel Bornstein said $5. Tom Taylor said that implies that they collect $100,000 a year from landing fees. Willow Trent asked if we inquired for opinions of neighbors of other airports. Someone responded that we had no direct way of doing that, but we did ask if there was an increase in noise complaints, which is an indirect measure. Lee Edmundson said that it was a fair summary of the data received. Tim Scully asked if we have any other reports from subcommittees. Lee Edmundson, reporting on his research into accidents at Little River, said that he found the accident on Dave Brewer's property. It was on 2/6/86 and was filed under Ft. Bragg. He read a detailed accident report for the committee. He said that he found only two other accidents on file with the NTSB, the 1991 Mooney accident with 2 deaths and a 1997 hard landing with 4 uninjured. There was a brief discussion of what a hard landing is and what "flare" means. Lee Edmundson said that he searched two sources - one was just a listing of accidents while the other had more detailed case reports. Both were on the internet. Joel Bornstein asked what dates he covered, was there useful information prior to 1983? Lee Edmundson responded that you can search any date. He only found two more accidents, one listed as Ukiah and one in Ft. Bragg. The Ft. Bragg accident turned out to be the 2/6/86 accident on Dave Brewer's property. Tim Scully said that this still leaves us needing the statistical data for all accidents in the US, sorted by day, night, good VFR, Marginal VFR and IFR. Lee Edmundson said that he has retrieved some tables from the NTSB web site but hasn't yet crunched the numbers. He said that pilots tell him it is common wisdom that night IFR is the most dangerous. Tim Scully said, no, night marginal VFR is the most dangerous. Joel Bornstein explained that it often is impossible to see clouds at night. Willow Trent asked for a summary of the Little River fatal accidents. She asked if they are all takeoffs. Lee Edmundson said that two were landing accidents, one was the 2/6/86 takeoff and the one today was a takeoff accident. Willow Trent asked how many total fatal accidents there were. Lee Edmundson said that there were only 3 [not counting today's] cross indexed under Mendocino County. Tim Scully repeated that we still need the general accident statistics for the 6 cases of day vs night, good VFR vs marginal VFR vs IFR. Willow Trent said that she thought we discussed another takeoff accident. Joel Bornstein said that there was an accident [not found in the NTSB records] involving a P51 mustang which made a low approach, pulled up into a quick climbout, stalled and crashed. Willow Trent said, wasn't there another accident where two people died? Tom Taylor said there was an accident involving a Cessna 206 with water in the fuel. Joel Bornstein said that this was a Cessna 182, Tim Kuchar's son, involving water in the fuel. There was one fatality and the accident was in approximately 1976. Trey Loy said, I remember it, I was working for Tim Kuchar at the time. Tim Scully asked if we could agree on an agenda for the next meeting. Tom Taylor said: the last time I'm aware of when the FAA put money into this airport was a grant for the master plan 8-9 years ago. If the FAA spends money on a GPS approach, what obligation will the County incur? In the event that the County becomes strapped for funds, will this limit the County's options for selling the airport? Tim Scully explained that the GPS approach does not involve a grant and there is no dollar value assigned to it by the FAA. In contrast to a Federal grant, which often involves signing a formal set of promises to the FAA to keep the airport open, the letter requesting the GPS approach doesn't promise anything more than an effort to keep the approach airspace clear. The Ad Hoc Committee's research on this determined that the existing zoning law already requires this airspace to be kept clear. No change in this zoning or its enforcement is required if a GPS approach is obtained. There are already a few trees penetrating the FAR 77 surfaces. The FAA doesn't play cop to enforce these limits, they rely on the County, which can exercise discretion. No change in the requirements for this will be brought about by a GPS approach. Trey Loy said that he had been quite concerned about any possible "strings" which might be attached to the GPS, he pushed hard on this issue and he has been satisfied by the research that there are no new "strings". Dave Brewer said that he had expected some input from Trey Loy on how to structure the report. Trey's letter was fine as an introduction, but it didn't provide a structure with gaps to be filled in with the rest of the information we have been gathering. Trey Loy responded that he just started a general statement. He also has marked up his copy of the draft report to flag things he believes are untrue and areas of haphazard writing. We have our questions and answers and they will be there. We need for than percentages and numbers, he wants to make it understandable to the average person. Trey Loy said that the controversy won't go away. There's a benefit and a down side to the GPS. You guys have percentages of up and down. Trey Loy said that he wants to add a section on clouds. One of the main questions was the environmental impact statement the FAA requested. Trey Loy said that he tried to describe our mixed environment with lumbering and the Nature Conservancy. Not a salesmanship job to push this through no matter what. We should put all 26 questions and answers in. Lee Edmundson started to read through the draft report, discussing the points with which he disagreed. He started on page 10 with the discussion of what the GPS isn't, where the report states that the GPS is not intended to attract more traffic and commercial activity. He said that although this may be true, we must acknowledge that traffic will increase. Lee Edmundson also said that he is unhappy with the brief mention in this section of the survey of 4 airports which found no increase in traffic. Tim Scully pointed out that it is an accurate statement of fact, confirmed by repeated surveys. Lee Edmundson moved on to page 14, section 3.3.1 in the opening paragraph where the report acknowledges community concerns. Lee Edmundson said that it stands to reason that increased traffic implies increased noise. He said that the report fails to distinguish noise events from decibel levels. Tim Scully responded by pointing out that without the GPS, we have airplane circling around looking for holes in the clouds, which may never land and are not counted in our traffic figures but which make a great deal of noise. With a GPS they can just fly straight in to land, making less noise. Trey Loy asked, why aren't we discussing my draft? [the letter in Appendix D] Dave Brewer, Willow Trent and Lee Edmundson all responded that "its fine". Lee Edmundson said, it will make a fine introduction to the report. Trey Loy said that he may write some more. We have been here two hours, what more do we plan to do. Tim Scully said that if Lee Edmundson plans to read through the draft report commenting on everything he doesn't like, this will be very painful for taking minutes, which have already grown to 9 pages of handwritten notes. He requested that Lee Edmundson submit his comments in writing. Lee Edmundson said will do that. Trey Loy said, if you liked what I wrote, I'll add something about clouds, we can put the questions and answers at the end. Lee Edmundson said that we don't even have to list the questions, we can just have the answers. We need a section of findings which refer to the surveys and then a section of recommendations. Tim Scully said, followed by an appendix with the supporting letters and data. Susan Winding said, let's keep it under 10 pages. Lee Edmundson said that we should be able to fit the statistics on one page. Dave Brewer said that he wants to acknowledge Willow's work on the Brown Act. The pamphlet she copied for us was the first readable thing he has seen on the subject. Lee Edmundson asked where Les Proctor's written reports are. Tim Scully said that he passed out copies of two letters Les provided, Les had promised to bring the remainder to this meeting. The crash intervened and now we'll have to wait. Dick Ahrens made a brief announcement about the FAA safety seminar which will be held on Tuesday at The Woods. agree on time, date and place of next meeting --------------------------------------------- We agreed to meet again from 4-6pm next Sunday, at the Woods. agree on agenda for next meeting --------------------------------- We agreed that the main task next week will be to work on the report for the Supervisors. We will continue to receive updated subcommittee reports and questions from the public. We agreed that the agenda for the next meeting is: - review the minutes of the previous meeting - communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) - reports from subcommittees regarding research re GPS issues and discussion of the data compiled by them - discuss the report we will deliver on April 1st on the GPS approach at Little River - 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 The meeting was adjourned at 6pm. 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 ========================================================================== Appendix A letter from Les Proctor to Bob Veal and reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- Les Proctor, Airport Supervisor 43001 Little River Airport Rd. Little River, CA 95456 Phone 707-937-5129 E-mail aerodynx March 4,1998 Bob Veal, Ukiah Federal Express Pilot 1505 S. State St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Bob, As you are aware, Little River Airport is in the planning stage of a GPS Approach. One of the concerns is the possible use of the same airspace as Ukiah. Do you feel that this would have a negative impact on Ukiah and do you have any other concerns about the proposed GPS at the Little River Airport? Sincerely, Les Proctor, Airport Supervisor Handwritten response, dated 3/11/98 The advantages of having an approach at Little River Airport would outweigh the disadvantages. signed Robert E. Veal ========================================================================== Appendix B letter from Les Proctor to Mark Evans and reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- Les Proctor, Airport Supervisor 43001 Little River Airport Rd. Little River, CA 95456 Phone 707-937-5129 E-mail aerodynx March 4,1998 Mark Evans, Airborne Express Feeder Pilot 1505 S. State St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mark, As you are aware, Little River Airport is in the planning stage of a GPS Approach. One of the concerns is the possible use of the same airspace as Ukiah. Do you feel that this would have a negative impact on Ukiah and do you have any other concerns about the proposed GPS at the Little River Airport? Sincerely, Les Proctor, Airport Supervisor Handwritten response; As per conversations with Les Proctor, at this time I see no conflict with approaches that will be conducted at Ukiah airport. Airspace allocated for the Little River GPS provides ample separation between participating aircraft. signed Mark Evans ========================================================================== Appendix C letter from Melissa Hayes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/13/98 Dear Tim: I understand you are gathering questions from the community concerning the airport for the B of S meeting on April 7th. My question: If a GPS system is installed, would you please consider a curfew for planes flying out early or late to protect the noise levels experienced by the citizens living below the flight pattern? Thank you. Melissa Hayes cc: Lee Edmundson ========================================================================== Appendix D letter from Trey Loy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trey Loy March 12, 1998 To the members of the Little Rover Airport Advisory Committee, Some initial thoughts on the committee's report to the Board of Supervisors concerning the GPS Approach procedure: The Global Positioning System (GPS) navigational aid originally developed for military use, is a means of determining geographical location in terms of longitude and latitude. An electronic receiver, whether located in a vehicle, boat, aircraft, or hand held, receives encoded and timed radio signals from orbiting satellites, and computes these signals to display position information on a computer screen in various methods. As an aid to aircraft navigation, the Global Positioning System is used by pilots to determine their geographical position while flying. Depending on the sophistication of the GPS receiver, position can appear on the instrument`s display screen as coordinates of latitude and longitude, which the pilot can reference on a paper chart or map, or the screen may display a map, constantly tracking the course of the user. Certain GPS receivers, used by instrument rated aircraft pilots, are permanently mounted in the aircraft with the display screen part of the instrument panel. The onboard computerized GPS receiver can incorporate different software to use the satellite generated signals in different ways, or depict particular geographic areas. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing software applicable to individual airports that allows the instrument rated pilot to fly by the GPS instrumentation on board through no visibility cloud formations on the correct course and altitude for landing at the airport. The stand alone Non-Precision Global Position System Approach Procedure being requested by Little River Airport is not accurate enough to guide the instrument rated pilot all the way to the airport runway for landing. The Approach Procedure is a navigational guide to approach the runway on the correct course for landing, and is not useful closer than one mile from the near end of the runway, at which point the aircraft is still 500 feet above ground level (AGL) on the approach pattern. To continue landing the aircraft at this time, the pilot flying until then on GPS instrumentation through no visibility cloud cover must now have visual contact of the airport runway, and complete the landing by Visual Flight Rules (VFR). If the pilot cannot see the end of the runway when approximately one mile away at a height of 500 feet, conditions are too severe to continue landing, the approach procedure must be aborted, the pilot flying the aircraft up and away from the airport on a predetermined 'missed approach' Course. To obtain the GPS Approach Procedure there will be a change in category of part of the airspace above Little River Airport extending horizontally in a five mile radius. From ground level to 700 feet above ground level (AGL) the airspace will remain the same, Class G Uncontrolled airspace. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) remain the same: aircraft must fly free of clouds, meaning they can fly next to them, but not in them. Within the five mile radius of the Little River Airport, an aircraft intending to land is considered on the approach pattern, and legally is allowed to fly low to the ground free of clouds to reach the landing destination. Scud running, a slang term for flying around and under low cloud cover is not illegal in Class 'G' airspace, just not particularly safe. The airspace above Little River Airport from 700 feet AGL to 5,500 feet AGI, will be reclassified from Class 'G' airspace to Class 'E' airspace, which then, as before, continues to 18,000 feet AGL. The FAA Class 'E' airspace flight rules protect aircraft from colliding, especially aircraft navigating by onboard instruments through no visibility cloudy conditions. All aircraft flying on instruments in Mendocino County airspace are in constant contact with Oakland Flight Center. All aircraft flying on the Mendocino Coast above 4000 feet above sea level are tracked on Oakland Flight Center radar. Below 4000 feet above sea level (About 3500 feet AGL) pilots flying on instruments in cloudy conditions remain in radio contact with Oakland Flight Center, periodically giving position, course, altitude, and destination, and expected time of arrival (ETA). By knowing where all aircraft flying on instrumentation are located at all times, Oakland Flight center can keep the aircraft separated at safe distances. Pilots flying Visual Flight Rules (VFR) in Class 'E' airspace must keep set distances away from clouds to insure not running into an aircraft flying on instruments in the ever changing cloud formations. There is no practical way for legal judgement to be made as to how close an aircraft is to a cloud at a particular moment. Clouds do not appear on radar screens. Also the pilot of an aircraft out of radar range is the only person who knows the actual altitude of the aircraft by the onboard altimeter. Pilots are motivated to follow FAA rules for there own personal safety as flying through clouds is serious business as compared to flying in clear airspace. The GPS Approach Procedure for Little River Airport has been under discussion for well over two years, with an AD Hoc Advisory Committee agendized the item for at least forty meetings, three of which were well publicized community meeting for the public to air their complaints and concerns. Now the newly formed official' Airport Advisory Committee is meeting every week for two months hashing out the details of implementing the landing procedure. It is clearly evident that controversy still surrounds the issue, and will continue no matter the course taken by the Board of Supervisors. Many residents want to maintain a rural atmosphere in a community some believe cannot support much more growth because of limitations of road infrastructure, availability of water, and sewerage problems due to adverse soil conditions. The approach from the south east to runway 29 passes directly over 80 acres of Nature Conservancy property that abuts the County owned airport property. The approach from the north west to runway 11 passes over Van Damn State Park and Little River Golf Course, both within a mile of the runway. Next to timber production the local economy is based on tourism, the beautiful and serene maritime scenery being the main attraction. Local businesses, of course, want every potential customer whether traveling by air, land, or sea to pass before their doors. But at the same time these businesses want to maintain a certain atmosphere 'au natural'. In the nearby business conscious Historical Preservation Town of Mendocino, aircraft are asked to fly above 2000ft AGL to lessen noise and visual pollution. Some local residents worry that having a GPS Approach procedure will increase the amount of air traffic, thus increasing the accumulative impact of noise pollution. At the same time, these lovers of natural quiet see the advantage the GPS navigational aid for emergency hospital patient transport, and rescue assistance in the advent of a large coastal disaster. The GPS approach Procedure will increase traffic somewhat by allowing instrument rated pilots with the GPS receiver installed onboard to land during certain climatic cloud conditions that would not have been navigable before implementation of the GPS Procedure, but the approach landing instrument guided flight pattern would be directly to the airport causing less aircraft noise pollution for a shorter period of time than an aircraft flying Visual Flight Rules. ========================================================================== Appendix E questions for Jim Goodridge and his initial answers ----------------------------------------------------------------- From tim To: gwheeler Subject: weather data I just realized that I owe you this email with specific questions for Jim Goodridge. I'm not on MCN, so I do not have permission to look him up in the email address directory - maybe you could forward this to him? Some concerned citizens want to know how much impact a GPS approach will have on traffic and noise at Little River Airport. They reason that a GPS approach will allow aircraft to more safely land in marginal weather than they can now, and that this may increase traffic and noise. They want to know what percent of the time the weather will be in the range when a GPS approach is "useful". Budge Campbell earlier wanted to know if the weather was in the "marginal" range enough to be worth the effort of getting a GPS. He thought is might be either too "good" or too "bad" most of the time. Again, his concern was, what percent of the time is the weather "marginal". The definition of "marginal" weather for purposes of this discussion is a flight visibility of 1 mile or more and a ceiling somewhere in the range from 300 feet to 1500 feet above ground level. If the visibility is below 1 mile or the ceiling is below 300 or maybe 400 feet, then a GPS approach won't work. When the ceiling is at 1000 feet, the weather is technically "VFR", by 1500 feet an instrument approach is rarely needed. That's all background. Here are the questions: First, regarding the dataset for station #73198, labeled Mendocino Co. 1) Where were these data collected? 2) Over what period of time? (What range of dates, i.e., how old are these data?) 3) Are these data too old to be useful in estimating the weather now and over the next few years? Or does the age of the data make any difference? 4) Is there any source of data which would allow an estimate of the percentage of time the weather will be "marginal" at Little River Airport? If so, what? 5) How accurate is any estimate likely to be? 6) Some people say that the weather varies so much from year to year that even if we had current data they wouldn't allow us to more accurately predict next year's or the year after's. Can you comment on this? 7) Is the rough estimate we have now (22%) about as good as we can expect? 8) Do you have any estimate of the range of variation in this? I hope I have correctly captured the concerned citizens questions. Any help we can get with these would be greatly appreciated. Tim Scully ........................................................................... Questions regarding Data set for station #73198 for Mendocino County Airport. Responses of Jim Goodridge Consulting -Engineer and former California State Climatologist March 8. 1998 These are the questions compiled by Tim Scully and forwarded to me by Grant Wheeler and dated 27 February 1999. 1) These records were from an airport which was apparently was located north of Fort Bragg and about 4 miles inland from the ocean at an elevation of 752 feet. This was determined from plotting the coordinates on the San Francisco Aeronautical Chart. These summaries were taken from "US Naval Weather Service, World Wide Airfield Summaries, Volume VIII, Parts I and 2, May and June 1969. They were prepared by the Environmental and Technical Applications Center, Air Weather Service. A hard copy version is available from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, VA 22151. A CDROM version is available from WeatherDisk Associates, Inc., 4584 NE 89th, Seattle WA 98115. 2) These data sets are believed to be of pre World War II origin because there was a Federal project to organize weather records in the late 1930's. They were probably tabulated from once an hour visual observations of trained weather observers. The number of observations are tabulated in the right hand column. The actual dates are unknown to me. The actual records of weather observations of this type are filed at the National Climatic data Center located in Ashville NC. The negative numbers in the right hand column denote that the Mendocino County Airport data were taken from station 72590 which apparently is the airport site northeast of Fort Bragg at Latitude 39d28mN, longitude 124d45mW at an elevation of 752 feet above sea level. 3) In my opinion these records are not too old to be useful for documenting flight weather conditions. Data on flight weather in the 1930's was more critical at the time when aircraft were more fragile. Weather was then even more important to flying then than now because there were more low level flights. However these records represent about a quarter of a year of total record; except there were more than two years of wind temperature and dew point record. It was common to operate flight weather stations only in day light hours, so it could represent a year of 9 to 5 type records- 4) Other sources of summarized record at a coastal sites would be at Arcata to the North or Hamilton AFB to the South. These stations may too far away to be useful to Mendocino County Airport studies. There could be non-summarized data at places like Shelter Cove, but it would be costly to summarize it and them it may not apply to Mendocino County Airport, 5) They are the best and only data available. Aviation weather records were then and are now very carefully quality-controlled records. These records were, apparently judged to be adequate for the Air Force to use for Mendocino County Airport when it was a military base many years ago. 6) Weather is highly variable. Predictions for flight weather for a few hours in are generally quite good. Weather predictions for tomorrow are getting better all the time. Some predictions for a week in advance are beginning to be useful. Predictions of next year's weather have very little utility as they have a signal to noise ratio of less than about 0.2. The one thing that we can be sure of is ever changing weather. The last time we had four consecutive years of heavy rainfalls was in the early 1940's. If the last 100 years of weather record were any indication, it would be hard to believe that we could have another wet and stormy year, but the study of weather remains the study of change. 7) We have some indicators that near coast sea surface temperatures have been higher since the mid 1970's. Higher sea surface temperatures are related to the increased frequency of storms. This is because of the increasing water holding capacity of warm air. Fifty years of good sea water temperature records that I have studied in the North Pacific Ocean indicate a fifty year downward trend of temperatures. It is falling at the rate of 4 to 6 degrees F. per 100 years, at latitude 40N. These decreasing temperatures start starting on the Asian Coast and extending to within a few hundred miles of our Coast. There is a narrow band of near shore coastal water showing a lot of warming since the mid 1970's. If this condition is a function of the deep ocean circulation then the future weather may not look any thing like the models of El Nino weather that we read about. . The program of good measurement of seawater temperature was associated with monitoring the movement of Russian submarines. The future of these good sea water temperature data sets is uncertain. 8) In calculating a 10 year running average of the coefficient of variation of California's annual average rain I have found that it has increased from about .25 to about .35 over the last 100 years. The climate of California has been getting wetter. This pattern if continued translates to more rainy days per year, but this period also contains the drought years of 1976 and 1977, ========================================================================== Appendix F follow-up questions for Jim Goodridge ----------------------------------------------------------------- From tim Sun Mar 8 09:03:06 1998 To: jdg Subject: Airport weather Cc: tim Grant Wheeler called me last night to say that you might have preliminary answers to the airport committee questions this afternoon. If so, please send 'em along via email. One more question, from Lee Edmundson: How qualified are you to comment on aviation weather? I guess that brings up a related question: Is it necessary to be a aviation weather expert to evaluate the weather data we have? I appreciate any help you can give us. Thanks! ........................................................................... From tim Sun Mar 8 11:23:03 1998 To: jdg Subject: Re: Airport weather Cc: tim Thank you for your FAX! I have a follow-up question: You said that the ceiling and visibility data were less than a year's complete data. I notice that the spreadsheet has data for every month, and that the POR column says 3 years. I also note that the times of observation seem to indicate observations at 04, 10, 16 and 2200 hrs local time. Can you discuss this a bit further? To a naive reader, the spreadsheet seems to imply year-round data collected over a 3 year period. And it claims to include observations before 9am and after 5pm local time. ========================================================================== Appendix G Dave Brewer's handouts regarding the pilot survey ----------------------------------------------------------------- SURVEY OF PILOTS A questionnaire, Appendix __., was sent to 176 pilots or owners of airplanes using Little River Airport. The list of addresses consisted of 121 people from the Little River Pilot's Association address list plus 55 owners of aircraft which landed at Little River between November 1, 1997 and January 31, 1998. Following is a summary of the results of the survey. A spread sheet showing all of the results is included: ........................................................................... Local Address ................ 46 Active Pilot? ................ 98 Own plane? ................ 78 Takeoff/land at LR average ops < 5 times a year ............ 18 average = 2 36 5-15 times a year ........... 36 average = 10 360 15-50 times a year .......... 28 average = 32.5 910 > 50 times a year .......... 16 average = 75 1200 ---- total ops 2506 Night landings at LR ........ 298 Will the GPS approach effect on night landings?............ 25 %total operations Additional night landings/yr .. 151 .. 6.03% Will the GPS approach effect day landings? ................ 46 Additional day landings/yr .. 275 .. 10.96% Night takeoffs/year from LP .. 277 Instrument takeoffs/year .... 267 Reason for flying to/from LR % active pilots Business .................... 44 .. 45% Recreation .................. 71 .. 72% Commuter .................... 13 .. 13% Instrument rated? ............ 61 .. 62% Plan to get rating? ......... 22 .. 22% < 6 months ................. 2 6 months - 2 yrs ........... 17 > 2 years .................. 3 %instrument rated pilots Aircraft IFR equipped ........ 84 .. 86% fly with VFR GPS? ............ 47 .. 48% Aircraft IFR GPS equipped? .. 24 .. 24% ........ 39% plan to buy IFR GPS? ....... 30 .. 31% < 6 months ................ 4 6 months - 2 years ........ 17 > 2 years ................. 7 In favor of LR GPS approach .. 79 .. 81% Opposed to LR GPS approach .... 10 Total responses ............... 104 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes explaining the categories: Local Address ................ "Local" means a survey sent to Ft. Bragg, Casper, Mendocino, Little River, Albion or Elk. Active Pilot? ................ pilot has license and current medical certificate or is a student pilot Own plane? ................ Takeoff/land at LR < 5 times a year ............ one operation is one takeoff + one landing 5-15 times a year ........... average = 10 15-50 times a year .......... average = 32.5 > 50 times a year .......... 75 is a reasonable estimate of the average number of operations for the heavy users Night landings at LR ........ "Night" is one hour after sundown to one hour before sunrise. Will the GPS approach effect on night landings?............ Additional night landings/yr .. Will the GPS approach effect day landings? ................ Additional day landings/yr .. Night takeoffs/year from LP .. Instrument takeoffs/year .... Instrument takeoffs are possible now even without an instrument approach Reason for flying to/from LR Business .................... Recreation .................. Commuter .................... Instrument rated? ............ AOPA's estimate was 57% of active pilots with instrument rating Plan to get rating? ......... < 6 months ................. 6 months - 2 yrs ........... > 2 years .................. Aircraft IFR equipped ........ fly with VFR GPS? ............ Aircraft IFR GPS equipped? .. plan to buy IFR GPS? ....... < 6 months ................ 6 months - 2 years ........ 3 pilots, included on this line, answered "When Little River gets a GPS approach". > 2 years ................. In favor of LR GPS approach .. 79 pilots were in favor, 10 were not Opposed to LR GPS approach .... and 9 did not vote Total responses ............... .............................................................................. Comments. About one quarter of active pilots (24 of 98) and more than a third of instrument rated pilots (24 of 6 1) fly planes with an approach-approved GPS receiver and hence would benefit at once from a GPS approach at the airport. About two thirds of people who are, or plan to be, instrument rated have or plan to acquire an approach approved GPS (54 of 83). If a GPS approach is commissioned at Little River, these pilots estimate that daytime landings would increase by about 11% (275/2506). If the approach were available at night, landings would increase by about 6% (151/2506). About 80% of active pilots (79 of 98) are in favor of having a GPS approach at Little River. 3/13/98 ========================================================================== Appendix H letter from Thomas A. Taylor ----------------------------------------------------------------- Little River Airport Advisory Committee Ladies and Gentlemen: I regret that I must decline to return the Little River Airport pilot's survey questionnaire recently sent to me, although I thank you for doing so. It is my understanding that under the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act the Committee is obligated to make publicly available the survey responses. Your firmly affixed mailing label makes any assurance of confidentiality or anonymity impossible. I cannot predict how the data will be used. I do not wish to provide my personal information to vendors or the general public at this time. Sincerely Thomas A. Taylor ========================================================================== Appendix I summary of airport survey results ----------------------------------------------------------------- rough draft report on 2/98 airport survey Surveys were FAXed to 21 airports. 7 airports responded to the survey. Three of the responding airports do not have instrument approaches. Two of the airports, Crescent City and Arcata, have ILS precision instrument approaches and commercial service, with 8 on-airport businesses each. They both reported that their ILS approaches were crucial to their commercial operations and estimated a 50% and an 80% traffic impact from their instrument approaches. They reported no noise impact. Both of these airport encourage increased traffic and commercial use, both are coastal and experience a great deal of fog and low clouds. Both have had their instrument approaches for many years. Santa Ynez airport has had a VOR approach since the 1970's, adding a GPS B in 1992 and a GPS A in 1997. They have 10 on-airport businesses and actively seek growth in traffic. They estimate a 20% increase in traffic from their instrument approaches and they report no noise impact from them. They have about 10,000 operations per year. Catalina Island airport has had a VOR and a DME approach since 1968. They have 95% tourist traffic and they actively seek growth in traffic. They have 3 airport businesses. They report no traffic or noise impact from their approaches. They have 20,000 operations per year. Together with data from earlier surveys, we now have reports from 3 airports with ILS precision approaches, 8 airports with older non-precision approaches and 4 more airports with only non-precision GPS approaches. The 3 ILS airports report 0, 50% and 80% traffic increase and all have airline service and on-airport businesses. The 8 airports with older non-precision approaches report unknown, unknown, 0, 0, 0, 0, 10-20%, and 20% traffic increases. The airports reporting traffic increases both have several on-airport businesses and actively seek growth in traffic. The 4 airports with only GPS approaches report 0, 0, 0, and 0.3% traffic increases. They report no noise impact. These results suggest that a non-precision GPS approach at Little River Airport would have a traffic impact somewhere between 0 and 20% and little or no noise impact. Since Little River Airport has only 1 on-airport business and does not actively seek growth in traffic, the impact is likely to be less than 20% - this maximum impact was reported by airports with many businesses and actively seeking growth.