Little River Airport Advisory Committee Minutes of 3/22/98 meeting The new, officially appointed Little River Airport Advisory Committee held its Sixth meeting from 4-6pm at The Clubhouse at The Woods on 3/22/98. An agenda for the meeting had previously been posted at Little River Airport and the Little River Post Office on Monday 3/16/98 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, Judith Barry, Patrick Bulmer and Les Proctor also participated in the meeting. approval of minutes ------------------- Tim Scully said that he had received some minor amendments to the rough draft minutes by email from Dave Brewer. No one objected to these. Susan Winding asked that the discussion of the crash last Sunday be deleted and the committee concurred. She also pointed out some duplicate text in Trey's letter and asked that this be corrected. With these corrections, the minutes of the previous meeting were approved. Joel Bornstein said that the minutes of the meeting before last were in error. It was Tim Kuchar's son who died in a crash, not Tim Kuchar. communications -------------- Tim Scully passed out copies of the communications received during the past week: Appendix A - 3/4/98 letter from Les Proctor to the FAA and 3/17/98 reply from the FAA Appendix B - Les Proctor's written answers to questions #10 and 13 Appendix C - 3/19/98 letter from Don Bua, Ukiah airport manager Appendix D - 3/22/98 letter from Trey Loy to the committee Appendix E - email from Lee Edmundson to the committee Appendix F - email from Jim Goodridge regarding weather Dave Brewer said that about 1/2 of the pilots who base their airplanes at Little River live in Ft. Bragg. He defined local as either having an aircraft based at Little River or Virgin Creek, or a local address (between Ft. Bragg and Elk). Lee Edmundson said that his email was superseded by Dave Brewer's latest handout. Lee Edmundson said that he has received some additional letters but forgot to bring them with him, he'll bring them for the next meeting. Susan Winding said that Marilyn Hamilton said that there are 9 based aircraft at Virgin Creek and 2 commuters with 2nd homes in the area. reports of subcommittees ------------------------ Dave Brewer handed out copies of the latest pilot survey data. [see Appendix H]. He said the data are unchanged, but he has added to the summary of the responses by breaking out local vs non-local pilots. The comments section has a new 2nd paragraph which includes a range of estimates of additional night takeoffs. The lower estimate is based on the same rate of takeoffs as in the daytime, while the upper estimate assumes that anyone who lands at night also takes off at night. Dave Brewer said he believes that the lower end of the range is probably most accurate - he doesn't believe that night-time quick turn around flights are common. Susan Winding said that most of the night takeoffs are Sunday night and Monday morning. Dave Brewer agreed, saying that these takeoff times are not related to when the pilots landed, but rather to when they needed to get home. Lee Edmundson said that this is an extrapolated figure. There will clearly be an increase in takeoffs. The point of the debate is how many? At least 11% and it may be as high as 51%. Dave Brewer continued: the section on local pilots is new. There are 47 local pilots, 40 who live here and 7 who commute. Judith Barry asked about Raymond Thoya. Joel Bornstein said, yes, he is included as local. Dave Brewer said that he found a couple of noteworthy statistics. Locals fly 72% of the operations, and locals have a much smaller ratio of projected increase in landings as a result of the GPS. This doesn't mean local pilots will use the approach less, It means that they already get in and will just switch from scud running to a safer procedure. Susan Winding asked: if they don't have a GPS and do the same as they have in the past, won't they now be breaking the law? Tim Scully responded, it all depends on what they do if they have to "miss" the approach. If they climb up through the clouds, it would be illegal. If they don't have an instrument rating and aren't current, it is illegal for them to fly through the clouds now. Dave Brewer said that the data for local pilots were computed directly, while the spreadsheet of non-local data was produced by subtracting the local data from the total. Lee Edmundson passed out his own summary of the data. He said that he has broken out a few numbers, he and Dave have stacked the numbers differently but agree on the underlying data. Dave looks at the impact on total operations while Lee has culled out night landings in particular, because they are more intrusive. People are trying to sleep. The increase is 54%, all you have to do is look at Dave's numbers. Lee Edmundson also said that he looked at the point of view that the real increase in traffic will be from non-locals being able to get in. Lee found that 62% of the additional operations are from non-local pilots. Dave Brewer asked Lee Edmundson if Lee received his last email. Dave Brewer said that it is important not to focus on the absolute numbers, since the number of pilots is small, but to look at the percentages. Lee Edmundson said that he can't comfortably overlook this. Where is increased traffic most likely to come from? From non-resident pilots. If that's the case, and we can firmly stand on the extrapolation, then there will be more increase from an unknown number of additional pilots who hear of the approach. Dave Brewer said, that's why percentages are more meaningful, because you can use them to estimate the unknown values. Please note that non-local pilots fly far fewer operations, so a small increase is a large percentage. Joel Bornstein said, we do not get complaints about night traffic. Susan Winding said, I'd complain if I knew where to complain. Tim Scully said, the airport supervisor. Joel Bornstein said, I though we were only going to put hard facts into the report. Where are the hard facts about noise at night? Lee Edmundson said, they are hard facts, we just disagree about presentation. We need the stack the numbers together so the uninitiated reader can understand. Joel Bornstein asked, give them 50 pages? Lee Edmundson said, I agree, we should keep it short. I have compiled a summary of impacts, finding you can extrapolate from the data. It won't add to the bulk of the report, it fits on two pages, but it is critical. We need to paint a picture so that every yobbo on the bus can read it and understand. Joel Bornstein said, why have you and Dave been debating this for the last 15 minutes? Dave Brewer said, I don't think it adds anything, but I don't object to including Lee's numbers. Lee Edmundson said, sometimes a different bending of the rays casts a different light on the subject. He handed out his suggested findings. [see Appendix G] Joel Bornstein asked Lee Edmundson what he meant by proximity. Lee Edmundson explained that it is distance from the noise source. A straight in approach changes proximity. Takeoffs have fixed proximity. Based on the data, these are findings the committee can adopt. I'm not afraid to say that and explain what and what. I've tried to synthesize scud running. The final report wants this data. Tim Scully asked committee members to please send him handouts such as this by email in advance of the meeting, if possible. He asked for a 5 minutes of silence for the committee members to carefully read Lee's handout. Judith Barry said, I'm confused and would appreciate clarification. The GPS requires a current altimeter setting. Pilots will get this from the airport supervisor. If there's no altimeter, the GPS is not usable. After hours, giving the altimeter is at the discretion of the airport supervisor. I can't imagine it being available every night of the year. Why is there so much concern about night operations? Tim Scully responded that some people are concerned about what might happen if the altimeter setting were somehow to become available around the clock. So, a lot of work has gone into coming up with a worst case estimate. Judith Barry said, the report should clearly state that. Lee Edmundson said, the numbers reflect what has been reported by pilots, if the GPS becomes available at night. If this, than that. Dave Brewer said, there is a factual error - it isn't 500 to 700 AGL, it is from the surface to 700 AGL. Also, the 18,000 is MSL. Susan Winding asked, don't the FAA rules say that you have to be 500 feet AGL? Dave Brewer said that he thinks it is clear that scud running WILL decrease. Tim Scully said that Lee's findings don't take into account the long duration, close proximity noise which takes place now when pilots circle above the clouds, looking for a hole near the airport, then depart without landing. This will be greatly reduced by the GPS approach, balancing any increase from additional operations. Dave Brewer said that people on the ground sometimes wonder, what's that fool circling up there trying to do. Joel Bornstein said, the pilot survey numbers are drastically different from the FAA's estimates, the pilots are reporting pie in the sky, with inflated estimates. Tim Scully said, we have other sources of data estimating the impact of an instrument approach - we have the FAA estimate and the have the airport survey data. The findings should include all of these. Dave Brewer agreed, we should include all of the data on impact. Lee Edmundson said that there is a well known precept in law - to go with the best evidence. Prospective questions are better than retrospective questions. Most certainly the people who responded to the survey are the very people who will be making the extra flights. Dave Brewer said that all of the sources of data have problems and strengths. Tim Scully said, all sources of data should be included. It isn't fair to make a post-hoc decision to exclude the answers you don't like and include only the ones you like. Lee Edmundson said, Catalina Island's experience doesn't say a lot about us. Dave Brewer said, I don't agree. Tim Scully said, if you believed that the airport survey data would be worthless, why didn't you speak up BEFORE the data were collected? Why did we waste our time collecting and analyzing "worthless" data? Lee Edmundson said, how can you say that the pilot survey data is less valuable? Dave Brewer responded, it is the difference between a forecast and the actual experience from history. Tim Scully said, we should add the FAA data and the airport data. After all, from a summary point of view, all 3 sources pretty much agree. The FAA estimated about 10% impact, the pilots estimated on the order of 10% impact and the busy airports with traditional non-precision approaches were on the order of 10%. We didn't find any source reporting a 20 times increase or a 10 times increase or even a 5 times increase from an instrument approach. All of the impacts were small. Lee Edmundson said that it is ok to retain these data where pertinent. What's wrong with the summary? Dave Brewer said, I disagree with the last sentence. Why are you including it here? Lee Edmundson said, safety has been a major recurring theme. We don't have data on this, only conjecture. Tim Scully said, we did get data on this in our survey responses. Airports reported an improvement in safety. The FAA states that an instrument approach is safer than flying VFR in marginal conditions. Joel Bornstein said, the projected benefits far outweigh any negative. Dave Brewer said, 80% of pilots want it because it is safer. Lee Edmundson said, it is my understanding that the GPS mostly just makes it more convenient for pilots. Dave Brewer said, not for Tim - there will be times when he can get in now, but he won't be able to get in with the GPS. Lee Edmundson said, you have instances where someone can get in or out due to GPS... Tim Scully said, not out. GPS doesn't make it easier to take off. Dave Brewer said, I want to strike the last sentence. There is no data to support an increase in risk. Lee Edmundson said, we have no data from the FAA or from other airports regarding exceptional circumstances. Joel Bornstein said, earlier in your summary - missed approaches will be rare and will start 1/2 mile before the aircraft is over the runway, at about 500 feet. By the time the aircraft is over the runway, it will be at 1000 feet. This will produce much less noise impact than a normal takeoff. You have left out the noise eliminated by the approach, which far outweighs any increased noise. Trey Loy said, we need to get to the thing we need to talk about. The first part of Lee's summary is pretty good, the second part is pretty flighty. Tim Scully asked the committee, can we set aside Lee's summary for now? Lee Edmundson said, No. I want to know what can be embraced or rejected. Tim Scully said, we just gave you feedback on that. Dave Brewer said, we talked about increased noise, we need to add something about the offsetting decreases in noise. Susan Winding said, some pilots will attempt to land visually, scud running. If they can't make it, they will climb up illegally. Tim Scully said, it is always illegal for VFR pilots to fly through clouds. Dave Brewer said, but there can be scud running where turn around to miss rather than climbing up through the clouds. Susan Winding said, what if they have flown for 4 hours to get here, they really want to get onto the ground here, they fly the GPS approach and have to do a miss at the end of a long flight? Joel Bornstein said, they do that now without GPS. At the end of a long flight a pilot may be tired, and they scud run looking for the airport. If you drive up from the Bay Area, by the time you get to the woods along the Navarro River, you are tired and won't react as quickly in an emergency. Tim Scully said, IFR procedures are designed with a safety margin for equipment and pilot errors. In general, everyone is aviation agrees that flying an IFR procedure is far safer than trying to fly VFR in marginal conditions. Continued VFR flight into marginal or IFR weather is one of the top killers in aviation. Of course some people will do dumb things whether IFR or VFR, but an IFR procedure is safer than scud running. Dave Brewer commented on the draft report, saying that he would like to see the term "no visibility" replaced with "zero visibility". He'd like to see the 500 foot decision height qualified as approximate and he would like it described as above the runway and not AGL. He commented that radio communication with Oakland Center is not reliable below 4000 feet - pilots are told "you are entering an area of poor radar and radio coverage, radar service is terminated, squawk 1200 and change to advisory frequency." Joel Bornstein said that the ETA is not repeated - that's an enroute procedure, not an arrival procedure. Dave Brewer said, I can tell that Trey has been studying the FARs, this came from the rules regarding enroute and not in radar contact, but that's not what happens here, during landing. In an area of no radar coverage, they treat it like a black box. They only allow one aircraft at a time into the box. They have been including Little River and Ukiah in the same box. If Dave is taking off and Tim is landing, during IFR weather, Dave can't take off until Tim lands. Joel Bornstein said, in this airspace, as it is now, pilots don't have to contact Oakland Center unless they plan to enter Class E airspace. If they are in Class E airspace, arriving here from elsewhere, they may not enter class G airspace unless they are VFR. They are not allowed to make up their own instrument approach. They have to look around, perhaps going out over the ocean, find a hole in the clouds and then call Oakland and cancel IFR. Then they can't fly through clouds unless they lose VFR conditions while landing and have to climb out. Trey Loy said, Tim can rework that section. Lee Edmundson said, change set distances from clouds to minimum distances. Dave Brewer said, I have more markups on page 3, the cloud tops are measured MSL and not AGL. What is syncopated? Trey Loy said, a back beat. Lee Edmundson said, syncopated is better. Dave Brewer asked, how will the altimeter be given? Tim Scully said, the FAA told us in their letter that they will telephone Les [the airport supervisor] and ask him, then Oakland Center will give the altimeter to the pilot by radio. They do it this way because Oakland Center needs to know the pilot has the altimeter before clearing him for the approach. Les Proctor said, yes, that's my understanding. Dave Brewer said, we need to delete the section on estimating the chances of the pilot landing. Lee Edmundson asked, will the incoming pilot be informed of the weather? Les Proctor said, Part 135 flights need an approved weather service. Lee Edmundson asked, what's your inclination? Les Proctor said, if the ceiling is zip and the visibility is 50 feet, I hope that Oakland Center will pass it on. Lee Edmundson asked, will you tell 'em? Les Proctor said, yes. Joel Bornstein said, Oakland Center may or may not choose to pass on an unofficial weather observation from the airport - probably they would. Dave Brewer said, we don't have the equipment for measuring ceiling, visibility, etc. and don't have a qualified observer, so any weather reports from the airport supervisor will be advisory, not regulatory. There is no liability... Les Proctor said, For a Part 135 operator to use the approach, they'd have to rewrite their operation specs to make me their certified weather observer. Lee Edmundson said, so someone could be cleared for the approach when the weather is impossible for completion of it? Tim Scully said, even in the unlikely event that Oakland Center didn't pass on a weather advisory from the airport supervisor, Center will tell the pilot to switch to advisory frequency when he is still at least 5 miles away from Little River. At that time, the pilot can be advised directly by the airport supervisor that the weather is awful. The pilot can choose to switch back to Oakland Center and declare a missed approach. Joel Bornstein said, there is no such thing as "high fog", there are only low clouds. Susan Winding said, since there is no official weather observer... Dave Brewer said, and no equipment to measure ceiling and visibility.... Dave Brewer said, pilots get enroute updates to the altimeter setting as they pass near different airports. Joel Bornstein said, let's change "recalibrate" to "reset". Dave Brewer said, should we demand the local altimeter setting? With a remote altimeter setting source, the minimums would be so high that the approach would not be very usable. Tim said, why don't we say that the approach isn't authorized unless an approved altimeter setting is available? Joel said, cumulus clouds are not always present on rainy days, we often have rain from stratus clouds. Let's just refer to "rain clouds". Trey Loy said, I have been asking for a simple book on weather for several weeks. Tim Scully said, you did a good job. Joel Bornstein said, a pilot can fly the GPS approach without being in radio contact with the airport supervisor. It isn't a handoff from Center, they just tell the pilot to "change to advisory frequency". The pilot may just broadcast blindly to the advisory frequency. Trey Loy asked, but how would the pilot have gotten the altimeter setting? Joel Bornstein explained, if Center already has an altimeter setting from Little River that's less than an hour old, it would be considered valid. Lee Edmundson said, so, IFR can be attempted without two way radio communication with the ground? Joel Bornstein said, we should strike that paragraph. The local altimeter setting is available only during business hours. Lee Edmundson said, but the altimeter might be as old as one hour. Judith Barry said, the last altimeter setting will be given to Center at 5PM, so an approach might be flown up until 6PM. Trey Loy said, the airport supervisor is only on duty from 8-5. Lee Edmundson said, this doesn't take into account a remote altimeter setting source. The FAA in their letter discussed the possibility of a remote altimeter from Sonoma County Airport, except from 11pm to 5am. Joel Bornstein said, the 11pm to 5am is not an FAA rule. Tim Scully said, Trey Loy is proposing a restriction on the availability of the GPS approach. Lee Edmundson asked, should we have a couple of straw votes? One on whether we will recommend a GPS approach and another on whether we want to recommend restrictions. Joel Bornstein said, I'm not happy with the idea of putting restrictions on the availability of the GPS approach. Consider medical flights, pilots coming home after a long trip, GPS is a safety factor. Trey Loy said, the rules can be changed when the altimeter setting becomes available at night. Joel Bornstein said, yes, you can't use the GPS if the altimeter is not available. Trey Loy asked, do we recommend a GPS approach? Lee Edmundson said, this does beg a question Trey Loy said, I'm not for it, but I have found no reason to be against it. Lee Edmundson said, ok, lets take a non-binding vote. 3 pilots voted in favor, there were no opposing votes. Lee Edmundson said, I hope we can agree on a unanimous recommendation. Who finds it advisable to restrict the availability of the GPS approach? 4 non-pilots raised their hands Trey Loy asked, what type of restriction? Is 11pm to 5am ok? Willow Trent and Susan Winding both said, No. It should be the FAA definition of night. Trey Loy said, I am concerned by people who live here and work, shouldn't commuters be allowed to be able to fly home? Lee Edmundson said, I see some reasonableness in that. A great amount of use will be for the convenience of both local and visiting pilots. It would be self-defeating to go through all these contortions to come up with a recommendation that doesn't meet the needs of local pilots. On the other hand, we need to fully appreciate the concerns of neighbors. A happy medium between 24 hours a day and a restriction so narrow that a pilot can't bank on the GPS. Joel Bornstein objected to the idea of a restriction, saying that if the altimeter becomes available, the GPS should be available too. It is not just more convenient, it is also a lot safer to know where you are. If you are restricting the approach at night, you should close the airport at night. Tim Scully objected, oh no, that is a really bad idea. Dave Brewer said, the idea of a night restriction is not based on any finding, it just came up at Tom Taylor's suggestion. Trey Loy said, look at the letter from the Los Angeles FPO, even with the high altitude penalty for a remote altimeter, the procedure would not be authorized between 11pm and 5am. Tim Scully said, that's just because Sonoma County tower is closed during those hours. Dave Brewer said, there is no evidence that night operations are a problem. Lee Edmundson said, don't ask me so what, ask and airport neighbor. Dave Brewer said, why is there no record of night complaints? Lee Edmundson said, complain to who? Susan Winding said, they go out any time of night, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday and wake me up. Lee Edmundson said, I'd go for a GPS approach, monitored for a year, we'll give the Board of Supervisors an update after it has been in use for a year and make supplemental recommendations which could range from going 24 hours a day to getting rid of it entirely. Why an arbitrary cut off? Noise has more impact at night and there is no way of reasonably estimating the impact. Joel Bornstein said, watch how it goes, collect traffic statistics Tim Scully said, I think that the FAA will count the number of approaches that are flown. Lee Edmundson said, we should recommend that no alternate altimeter setting source should be allowed for this first year. Lee Edmundson said, I thought we agreed in a previous meeting that no Q&A was needed. Dave Brewer said, that's what we were sent to do. The Board of Supervisors referred the GPS to this committee specifically because it wanted answers to several questions. Tim Scully requested the committee members to give him prompt feedback, preferably via email. The committee members without email can take their feedback to a committee member with email, for transmission to Tim. Lee Edmundson agreed, send your markups to Tim. agree on time, date and place of next meeting --------------------------------------------- We agreed to meet again from 4-6pm next Sunday, at the Woods. [Later, Lee Edmundson contacted the committee by telephone and got agreement to extend the next meeting to start at 2pm and end at 6pm.] 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 - complete 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 FAA and reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- Les Proctor, Airport Supervisor 43001 Little River Airport Rd. Little River, CA 95456 Phone 707-937-5129 March 4, 1998 Ward E. Huston, Air Traffic Mgr. Oakland Center 5125 Central Ave. Fremont, CA 94536 Dear Mr. Huston, A stand alone GPS approach for the Little River Airport is in the planning stages. Due to strong local concerns, an advisory committee has been appointed by the Mendocino County Supervisors. The following questions have been raised: 1. Their first concern is noise pollution and traffic regarding a holding pattern above the airport, town or populated area. In a phone conversation with Ben Cosma and a controller for the Ukiah-Little River area, the controller felt that the logical location may be an area of recently improved radar coverage 10 to 15 statute miles northwest of Little River. Do you concur? 2. Their second concern is whether or not the sharing of airspace with Ukiah will inconvenience Ukiah. Without seeing the approach, this is a difficult question at best, but a point brought up during our conversation was that the Little River approach may not involve the Mendocino VOR. The IAF may be a waypoint distant from the VOR, which would seem to solve this problem. Is this possible? I understand your response is purely an educated guess, but because it has been difficult to answer these questions to local satisfaction any help would be appreciated. The advisory committee must present their report to the supervisors by early April, consequently, your written reply is requested as soon as practicable. Sincerely, Les Proctor, Little River Airport Supervisor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Department Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center of Transportation 5125 Central Ave Federal Aviation Fremont, CA 94536 Administration MAR 17 1998 Mr. Les Proctor Airport Supervisor 4301 Little River Airport Little River, CA 95456 Dear Mr. Proctor: In response to your letter of March 4, 1998, Oakland Center contacted the Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office to gather information concerning the proposed GPS Approach into Little River Airport. Oakland Center is the air traffic control facility that will control the approach once it is published. The Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office is the part of the FAA that is instrumental in designing the approach. We have learned that the approach is not yet designed, and therefore, it is difficult to answer the questions contained in your letter. A copy of the letter has been forwarded to the Flight Procedures Office so that they are aware of the concerns. We do not know where holding patterns will be located for the approach, and therefore, cannot comment further on that question. We do believe, however, that approaches into Little River will probably have an impact on operations at Ukiah. The impact will be less if the approach does not use the Mendocino VORTAC. This will not be known until the approach is designed. Further questions regarding the air traffic control aspects of the approach may be directed to Michael Jengo, Jr., Support Manager, Airspace and operations, at 510 745-3469. Questions regarding the design of the approach should be directed to the Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office, at 310 725-7124. Sincerely, Ward E. Huston Air Traffic Manager ========================================================================== Appendix B - Les Proctor's answers to items # 10 & # 13. -------------------------------------------------------- Item 10- Will there be times when VFR pilots can land and weather is below VFR? Day VFR minimums for Little River Airport are 1 statute mile visibility and clear of clouds. Most pilots are prudent enough not to fly when weather conditions are worse than this. However, there may be times when the weather closes in and someone becomes trapped. In this situation the safest alternative is to expeditiously get this person to the ground. ------------------ Item 13- Is it possible for 2 aircraft to be on approach at the same time? Every aircraft using the approach is in communication and under the control of Oakland Center, a division of the F.A.A. Oak Ctr provides sequencing of aircraft and separates A/C by time and distance. They will only allow one aircraft in the vicinity of the airport at a time. ========================================================================== Appendix C letter from Ukiah airport manager ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 March 19, 1998 Les Proctor, In response to your letter of March 4,1998 regarding airspace utilization with the proposed GPS approach at Little River Airport there are no negative impacts at Ukiah Airport because of this proposal. As you may know, the FAA controls, regulates and maintains all I.F.R. operations nation wide. Further, on any given I.F.R. weather day, Ukiah has 10 to 12 movements. I.F.R. operations at Little River would be much less, perhaps 1 to 2 operations daily. This proposal would not congest traffic, inhabit safety or in any other way be a detriment to aviation on the local community that I am aware of. I hope this addresses your concerns and if you have any questions, please contact me at the following address-. Ukiah Airport 1411 S. State St, Ukiah, CA 95482, 707-467-2817. Sincerely, signed Don Bua, Ukiah Airport Manager "We Are Here To Serve" ========================================================================== Appendix D letter from Trey Loy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trey Loy March 22, 1998 To the members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee: Some more thoughts on the committee's report to the Board of Supervisors concerning the GPS Approach Procedure. The weather conditions at the Little River Airport, located two mile from the Pacific Ocean at a height of 576 feet above sea level, are ever changing because of the interplay of warming and cooling patterns of the land as compared to the adjacent sea. The differing temperature layers of air are constantly stirred by on and off-shore winds, which are in turn effected by the changes in temperature. When the temperature of a particular layer of air cools, moisture is formed; and when that temperature falls below the dew point, the air becomes saturated with water appearing as a cloud. In aeronautical terminology, the layer of saturated air, the cloud, has a ceiling, which is the distance from the bottom of the cloud above ground level (AGL), and a 'top of cloud', which is the distance of the top of the cloud above ground level. During late spring, summer, and early fall, Mendocino Coast weather can be dominated by the unpredictable occurrence of high and low level stratus clouds, or fog. Low coastal fog is termed, even by terrestrial folks, a fog bank, which can be seen as a wall of white cloud hovering over the ocean, and having a top and a bottom. A fog bank is continually changing in thickness and breadth because of the changing temperature patterns. Fog banks drift across the ocean to shore, and then inland some distance, and then drift back out to sea in altering rhythms syncopated by the hour or the day. Many times the northwest end of the runway is enshrouded in fog, while the southeast portion basks in full sunlight. High fog behaves like low fog, except the layer of water saturated air is of higher elevation above the ground. The GPS Approach Procedure can not be useful during periods of low fog when the ceiling of the fog, or it's lowest portion, is less than 500 feet above the airport, because the pilot will not be able to see the runway after descending to that altitude, and cannot continue to land. The GPS Approach Procedure is very useful to the instrument rated pilot when the fog ceiling is above 500 feet above ground level. This is the scenario the GPS Approach Procedure is designed for. The pilot can fly by instruments through the fog cloud on a straight course to approach the runway. The pilot, for the approach procedure, must be in radio contact with Oakland Flight Center, to fly by instruments, and the Little River Airport Supervisor to obtain the current local altimeter setting. When giving the altimeter setting the airport Supervisor can also determine the approximate cloud ceiling at the airport at that time, and inform the pilot of the chances to complete the approach procedure, and land by visual flight rules (VFR). Late fall, winter, and early spring is the rainy season on the Mendocino Coast, with average annual rainfall measuring thirty-five inches. Cumulus rain clouds, which are usually of higher elevation than fog, are the prevalent type of cloud cover. On these cloudy days the ceiling is most often above the minimum 500-foot ceiling, making the GPS Approach Procedure a valuable asset to the instrument rated pilot with the correct equipment on board. ? has estimated the GPS Approach Procedure will be useful at Little River Airport at sometime during one out of four days. To fly the GPS Approach Procedure the instrument rated pilot must have the current local altimeter setting from the airport Supervisor, or a qualified employee, to recalibrate the onboard altimeter. Differences in barometric pressure at the departed airport compared to the arrival airport could effect the altimeter reading by several hundred feet. A pilot flying blind in clouds wants as accurate altimeter reading as possible, and in fact, the FAA demands a current local altimeter source to use the Approach Procedure. For the safety of the pilot using the GPS Approach Procedure at LIttle River Airport, the airport Supervisor, or certified employee, must be present at the airport and in radio or telephone contact with the approaching aircraft. This means the GPS Approach Procedure is only available during airport business hours of Thursday through Monday, 8 AM to 5 PM. It is at the airport supervisor's discretion, if on the airport premises, to give the altimeter setting to a requesting pilot during non-business hours. But, as part of the noise abatement policy, the GPS Approach Procedure will not be allowed from 11 PM until 5 AM. Thank you for listening, Trey Loy ========================================================================== Appendix E - email from Lee Edmundson ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY OF PILOTS SURVEY -- SELECTIVE 104 Respondents. 58, or 56%, are "non-local". Of these 58, 32 (or 55%) respond that a GPS will effect their day landings/yr. i.e. Over half the non-local pilots report they will contribute 185 (of the reported 275, [ or 67% (2/3rds)] additional day landings per year as a result of a GPS being adopted for Little River Airport. 19 (33% [1/3rd]) of the 58 non-local pilots say the GPS will effect their night landings at the airport. They will contribute 90.5, or 60% of the reported 151 additional night landings per year if a GPS is adopted for Little River Airport. Of the Non-local pilots, they comprise 19 of the 25 pilots who responded that a GPS will effect their night landings. This represents 76% of those responding affirmatively. 70% -- 32 of 46 -- of those responding affirmatively that a GPS will effect their daytime landings are non-local pilots. Their increase in traffic accounts for 67% (2/3rds) of the additional day landings. In sum: of the 104 respondents, 32 ( 31%) are non-local pilots who will account for 67% ( 185/275) of the reported additional day landings; 19 (18% of total) non-local pilots will account for 60% (90.5/151) of the increase in night landings. Overall, day landings at Little River Airport are expected to increase by 12% [275/2229]; night landings are expected to increase by 51% [151/298]. * Total landings (2506) - night landings (277) = Total day landings (2229) -- Lee Edmundson ========================================================================== Appendix F - email from Jim Goodridge ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: "James D. Goodridge" To: Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: New realtime weather data and climate data pages Content-Length: 828 Status: R Dear Friends, Just wanted to let you know that I have two new internet resources = available to you as of this weekend: http://www.mcn.org/c/weather which is realtime weather data from = Mendocino, along with a webcam picture and virtual dials, newly updated, = much more reliable, and with a new look. Also has hourly data available = in ASCII format and graphs, more to come later. http://www.tvweather.com/ca-climate which is my personal California = Climate Information page, to which I am now publishing my data and = reports. This page was down for a few months while I got a permanent = ISDN internet connection, so if you looked at it before, and saw = nothing, please try it again. It will be updated with new things all the = time. Any questions please email me at jdg Thanks and Regards, Jim Goodridge ========================================================================== Appendix G - suggested findings from Lee Edmundson ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noise Impacts at Little River Airport Noise impacts may be evaluated along four dimensions: decibel level (or, loudness), duration, proximity and number of occurrences (or, instances). Regarding a prospective GPS at Little River Airport, the responses to our Little River Airport Advisory Committee's Pilot Survey indicate that instances of noise impacts will increase by 12% (275/2229) for day landings, and by 51% (151/298) for night landings. Additionally, it can be extrapolated from our Survey Data that there Will be an increase in additional day and night take offs, which will, thus, result in an increase in instances of noise impacts at Little River Airport. Adoption of a GPS may, however, actually reduce noise impacts along the dimensions of decibel level, duration and proximity for landings. "A pilot using GPS to fly IFR can approach the airport at a higher altitude before final descent and (can fly) a direct path to the runway, thus broadcasting less noise to the neighborhood." GPS Report, 3.1. P. 14 The GPS 'holding pattern' for landings is expected to be designed to be located to the north and west(?), thus distancing aircraft further from the airport neighborhood. Because take offs are relatively fixed in terms of decibel level, duration and proximity, and because their instances are expected to increase with the adoption of a GPS, we find that aircraft take off noise impacts will increase with a GPS. A note on 'Scud Running': The adoption of a GPS will result in the reclassification of the airspace from Class G (Uncontrolled) to Class E (Controlled airspace from 700' to 18,000'AGL). This airspace reclassification will still leave the airspace between 500' and 700'AGL as 'uncontrolled'. 61/104 (59%) of the pilots responding to the Pilot Survey are currently Instrument rated, although only 24/104 (23%) of respondent's airplanes are currently equipped with IFR GPS, and another 30/104 respond that they plan to purchase an IFR GPS within the next 2 years. Thus, with the adoption of a GPS, after 2 years only 54/104 (52%) of the responding pilots will have aircraft equipped with IFR GPS. Consequently, because almost half of the responding pilots will not have the necessary IFR GPS equipment after 2 years, and because airspace between 500'and 700'AGL remains uncontrolled, we find that the practice of scud-running might marginally decrease with the adoption of a GPS, but that the GPS, in and of itself, will be inadequate to eliminate it. A note on 'missed approach' procedures: Missed Approach Procedures may increase noise impacts at Little River Airport, because, in order to execute the procedure, the pilot must rev the aircraft's engine in order to climb out of the landing approach. These impacts would include instance, decibel level, and proximity A note on safety: Adoption of an IFR GPS may have both positive and negative impacts upon airport and neighborhood safety. The positive effects will result from pilots being able to locate the airport for landing in IFR and marginal VFR conditions. A negative effect might be that having an IFR GPS stimulates pilots to attempt either take offs or landings in conditions wherein adequate visibility is lacking for landing or for a successful return to the airport after take off. ========================================================================== Appendix H - new pilot survey data from Dave Brewer ----------------------------------------------------------------- SURVEY OF PILOTS A questionnaire, Appendix __, was sent to 178 pilots or owners of airplanes using Little River Airport. The list of addresses consisted of 123 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 as Appendix __. All Pilots Responses Comments Respondents 104 Local Address 46 Address between Ft Bragg and Elk Active Pilots 98 License and medical or student Plane owners 78 Takeoffs & Landings at Little River 2506/year 1 op is 1 takeoff +1 landing Night Landings at LR 298/year 1 hr after sunset to 1 hr before sunrise Night Takeoffs at LR 277/year Instrument Takeoffs 267/year These are possible now from Little River GPS Approach Effect % Total Operations Night Landings +151/year 6.0 Day Landings +275/year 11.0 Reason for Using LR % Active Pilots Business 44 45 Respondents gave >1 reason Recreation 71 72 Commuters 13 13 " Instrument Rated 61 62 Plan to Get Instrument Rating 22 22 Plane IFR Equipped 84 86 Use VFR GPS 47 48 Have IFR GPS 24 24 Plan to get IFR GPS 30 31 In Favor of GPS Approach 79 81 10 were opposed, 9 didn't vote Comments. About one quarter of active pilots (24 of 98) and more than a third of instrument rated pilots (24 of 61) 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 total operations would increase by about 11% (275/2506). If the approach were available at night, total operations would increase by about 6% (151/2506), night landings would increase by 51% (151/298) and night takeoffs would increase by 11%-65% ((47-181)/277). We did not ask about additional night takeoffs in the survey and hence don't know what fraction of additional night landings will result in additional night takeoffs. About 80% of active pilots (79 of 98) are in favor of having a GPS approach at Little River. Local Pilots We define "local pilot" to mean any pilot with a local address, or who flies a plane based at least part time at Little River or at Virgin Creek Airport in Fort Bragg, or who flies to Little River or Virgin Creek as a commuter. If we restrict the survey to those pilots, the results are shown below. A spread sheet is presented in Appendix ___. Local Active Pilots Responses Respondents 47 "Local"=local address or LR, Local Address 40 FB-based or commuter Active Pilots 47 Plane owners 33 Takeoffs & Landings % Total Operations by All Pilots at Little River 1806/year 72 Night Landings at LR 218/year 79 Night Takeoffs at LR 188/year 68 Instrument Takeoffs 138/year 51 from Little River GPS Approach Effect % Total Operations by Local Pilots Night Landings +70/year 3.9 Day Landings +104/year 5.7 Reason for Using LR % Local Active Pilots Business 22 Recreation 30 Commuters 13 Instrument Rated 22 47 Plan to Get Instrument Rating 15 32 Plane IFR Equipped 37 Use VFR GPS 21 Have IFR GPS 8 17 Plan to get IFR GPS 14 30 In Favor of GPS Approach 37 79 Comments Not surprisingly, local pilots fly a disproportionately large fraction of the total operations at Little River. The 47 local active pilots represent 48% of all active pilots responding to the survey, but the fly an estimated 1806 operations or 72% of all operations. Local pilots estimate that they will make an additional 104 day landings (38% of the total for all pilots) if a GPS approach is commissioned and an additional 70 night landings (46% of the total) if night approaches are permitted. The percentage increases in total operations are about half of the group of all active pilots or about a quarter of the percentages for the pilots who aren't local. Local Pilots All Pilots Non-Local Pilots Increase Day Ops 6% 11% 24% Increase Night Ops 4% 6% 12% This is not to say that local pilots will use the approach only a quarter as often as non-locals. They currently get into the airport under conditions which keep others from landing. With the approach, they will be able to do so more safely. About 80% (37 of 47) of local pilots are in favor of having a GPS approach at Little River Airport.