Minutes of 7-16-99 meeting of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee 1. Attendance: A. Members present: Scully, Loy, Winding, Ahrens B. Guests present: Naomi Jarvie, Tom Goncharoff 2. For most of the meeting, only Scully, Loy and Winding were present. Lacking a quorum, the minutes of the previous meeting were not accepted. Also, Trey Loy said that he hadn't received the minutes of the last meeting. He will be sent another copy. 3. Correspondence: Tim Scully reviewed the appended correspondence. 4. Status of the GPS approach - there was a discussion of the proposal to displace the threshold of Runway 29 to delay the need for topping or cutting trees off airport land. Trees on airport land will be cut in the Fall, when a Conservation Camp crew is available. Susan Winding said that trees should be topped instead of cut because this will produce less disturbance of the wind and noise patterns. Tim Scully said that topping is more expensive. Tom Goncharoff said that topping often kills trees. Trey Loy said that he has topped trees and sometimes they survive. Susan Winding said that before any tree are cut on the airport, property owners need to be made aware of the planned cutting. Tom Goncharoff said that his area on Frog Pond Road was affected when trees were cut on airport land, down below his property - the wind path changed. Susan Winding said that the wind now comes across the pond toward her house far more than before the trees next to the pond were cut down. Trey Loy said that when logging, a THP is normally published in the paper and contiguous property owners are formally notified. Tom Goncharoff said the he consulted a forester when he wanted to cut trees on his land. Tim Scully said that he would let DOT know that committee members suggest consulting a forester. 5. Recommending a non-pilot member for the committee - Tom Goncharoff handed out copies of his resume. Trey loy said that he worries that Tom is Dave Brewer's friend and neighbor, and that he was once in the aviation industry. Tom Goncharoff responded that he IS a neighbor and has real concern for his property values. Dick Ahrens arrived so that we had a quorum. The committee voted to reccomend Tom Goncharoff to fill the open non-pilot seat on the committee. 6. Hangars subcommittee report - Trey Loy said that he would like to give an interim status report on how to build affordable hangars, but he'd like to wait until Dave can be present. 7. The next meeting will be held on Friday, 20 August 1999, at 9:00am. 8. Adjournment: 10:05am. ********* The agenda for the next meeting is: Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) Make recommendation for filling the open non-pilot seat on the committee Report on the status of the GPS approach Non-aviation uses of the airport Additional hangars at the airport Noise Abatement policy, what will we send to publishers of pilot guides regarding noise, flight training, etc.? The airport budget, actual income and expenses Reports from subcommittees 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 Members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee ------------------------------------------------------ Dick Ahrens pilot, airport neighbor Dave Brewer pilot, lives near airport 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/20/99 email to DOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: June 20, 1999 4:21 PM To: 'Stan Townsend'; 'Chuck Boyer'; 'Dave Brewer'; 'Dave Thorpe'; 'Dick Ahrens'; 'Joel Bornstein'; 'Little River Airport' Cc: Tim Scully Subject: GPS instrument approach, possible displaced threshold for Runway 29, runway striping You may have been wondering why you haven't heard from me with respect to the work I've been doing to prepare a response to the FAA's questions about the GPS approach. Collecting all of the data has turned out to be a lot more work than I'd expected. We (the LRAPA) have been working on this every Saturday morning. We have set stakes at 100 foot intervals at each end of the runway along the centerline, and have staked out the OFZ at each end. We have been mapping the location and height of the major trees. This latter project is the really time consuming one. Dave Brewer recently bought a laser rangefinder which, together with my transit, has now speeded this up greatly. We are mapping the trees and approach trapezoids in AutoCAD, and will deliver a detailed map when we are done. Meanwhile, I have obtained copies of the relevant Advisory Circulars from the FAA, also spent some time on the phone asking questions of the FAA, and have reached an understanding of the threshold siting issues. I'm sending you this interim report because we need to agree on the threshold location for Runway 29 before the runway markings are repainted after the slurry seal, and I understand that the slurry seal may be done by the end of June. If we could possibly reach a decision this week, it would be good! Then we probably should check in with the FAA (I can do this if you like) to see if they have any problem with our decision before the runway is striped. The size and approach speed of aircraft using the instrument approach determine some of the key factors involved. If we consider large corporate jets and the Coast Guard C130, then we are stuck with high values in each of these categories (Approach speed "D" and Airplane Design Group IV. landing wt. wingspan approach speed Airport reference Coast Guard C130 155,000lbs 132ft 137kt C-IV Grumman Gulfstream IV 58,500lbs 77ft 145kt D-II The visibility minimums and MDA will determine the other factors. Due to the limitations of AC 150/5300-13 Appendix 2 Figure A2-1, which says that the trapezoid at the runway threshold grows changes +-200 feet to +-500 feet wide at the threshold if the visibility minimum is less than 1 mile, we are stuck with a 1 mile visibility minimum [Parcels 121-360-9 and 121-360-10 are in the way of a 500 foot wide trapezoid, regardless of threshold location]. 1) Threshold Siting Criteria With minimums of 1 mile we are in Row "c" of Figure A2-1 This implies the 20:1 trapezoid starts at the runway theshold at a width of 200 feet on either side of center line and grows to 500 feet on each side of center-line 1500 feet from the threshold There are two parcels not owned by the County, near the approach end of Runway 29 which have tall trees on them which adversely affect the approach if the threshold of Runway 29 remains at the end of the pavement. These parcels are 121-360-9 and 121-360-10. Of the two, 121-360-10 is the biggest problem because it is closest to the runway and it has several trees that are 20 feet too high. If the threshold of Runway 29 is displaced by 400 feet, these trees will no longer be penetrating the approach trapezoid, although some trees on County-owned airport property will be. These could be cut. However, displacing the threshold of Runway 29 will involve moving or adding some threshold lights at the new threshold location, producing an arrangement identical to that existing at the displaced threshold which already exists for Runway 11. It looks as though the best way to meet this requirement for Runway 29 is to displace the threshold 400 feet, but here's a brief summary of pros and cons: * keep threshold at start of pavement: ====================================== pros cons -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - no need to move lights - trees penetrate trapezoid by 20 feet - longest available runway - less useful instrument approach due to higher minimums - someday will need to top trees or do land swaps or purchases as they are a hazard even for VFR flight * displace threshold 400 feet ============================= pros cons --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - most useful instrument approach - added cost of moving threshold lights due to lower minimums - 400 feet less usable runway for landing (not an issue for small aircraft) - delays the need to top trees on non-County land (or to do land swaps or purchases) 2) for runways serving large airplanes (e.g., C-130), the OFZ extends 200 feet on either side of centerline and 200 feet from the end of the runway. The OFZ standard precludes taxiing and parked airplanes and object penetrations, except for frangible visual NAVAIDS. NOTE: all of the existing signs violate this provision because they don't have the frangible mountings specified in AC 150/5345-44F paragraph 4.1.2. Otherwise the OFZ will be OK at each end of the runway, once CDF is done working on Runway 29. The 20:1 trapeziod from Appendix 2 is +-200 feet from centerline at the threshold and grows to +-500 feet at 1500 ft. The RPZ for Category C & D aircraft starts 200 ft from the threshold, with a TOTAL width of 500 ft (+-250ft), growing to 1010ft at 1700 ft from the start of the RPZ. (for 1 mile or more minimums) [see AC 150/5300-13 Chapter 2 Table 2-4] 3) Hold signs and lines The runway should have the "Nonprecision instrument runway markings" shown in Figure 2 of AC 150/5340-1G (page 6). If the threshold of Runway 29 is displaced, as recommended here, then the displaced threshold markings specified in Figure 5 of AC 150/5340-1G (page 10) will need to be added. Since the threshold of 11 is already displaced, these markings will be needed there in any case. Once we have a decision from your office regarding the threshold of 29, the LRAPA proposes to stake out the key points along the runway for the striping, as an aid to this work. We have already staked out the new locations for the hold lines at the three taxiways, The hold line at each taxiway should be 250 feet from the runway centerline IAW AC 150/5340-1G Table 4. The lines should be yellow and should conform to Figure 10. Three Holding position signs are needed (two of the 3 exist but need to be moved to the new position, along with all the other signs). See AC 150/5340-18C Paragraph 5 and see AC 150/5345-44 for detailed sign specifications. Note that the signs must be retroreflective and should be lit whenever the runway lights are lit. The FAA is willing to give us a while to get the lighting worked out. I have given Dave the specs for this. To the left of the hold line for the approach end of 29, a red sign with white letters saying "29". [this sign exists but needs to be moved when the hold line is moved] To the left of the hold line for the central taxiway, a red sign with with letters saying "29-11". [this needs to be made] To the left of the hold line at the approach end of 11, a red sign with white letters "11". [this sign exists but needs to be moved when the hold line is moved.] I have given Dave Thorpe copies of the relevant tables and diagrams. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/24/99 email from Dave Thorpe --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Little River Airport Sent: June 24, 1999 12:44 PM To: Tim Scully Subject: Some Dates For You These are the newest dates from the County: 6/24/99 June 29-30 Weed Spraying maybe one more day. Men working on Field July 12-16 This week crew weed eating the dead weeds. Men working on Field July 19-23 This week contractor working. Field Closed possible only 3 days will know more after talking to contractor Thank you Dave Thorpe Airport Supervisor ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/29/99 letter to Tom Goncharoff ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully 6/29/99 Tom Goncharoff Dear Mr. Goncharoff: I'm writing on behalf of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee to invite you to attend our next meeting, on Friday July 17[sic], at 9am at the Woods. We have had an open non-pilot seat on the committee for several months. You expressed interest in this position in March. The comittee is inviting all of the people who expressed an interest in the position to attend our next meeting. Here's the agenda of the meeting: Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) Make recommendation for filling the open non-pilot seat on the committee Report on the status of the GPS approach Non-aviation uses of the airport Additional hangars at the airport Noise Abatement policy, what will we send to publishers of pilot guides regarding noise, flight training, etc.? The airport budget, actual income and expenses Reports from subcommittees 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 I hope to see you on the 17th. Yours, Tim Scully Chair, LRAAC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6/29/99 letter to Janie Tate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Scully 6/29/99 Janie Tate Dear Ms. Tate: I'm writing on behalf of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee to invite you to attend our next meeting, on Friday July 17, at 9am at the Woods. We have had an open non-pilot seat on the committee for several months. You expressed interest in this position in March. The comittee is inviting all of the people who expressed an interest in the position to attend our next meeting. Here's the agenda of the meeting: Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) Make recommendation for filling the open non-pilot seat on the committee Report on the status of the GPS approach Non-aviation uses of the airport Additional hangars at the airport Noise Abatement policy, what will we send to publishers of pilot guides regarding noise, flight training, etc.? The airport budget, actual income and expenses Reports from subcommittees 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 I hope to see you on the 17th. Yours, Tim Scully Chair, LRAAC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/6/99 email to Patti Campbell ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: July 06, 1999 8:26 AM To: 'Supervisor Patti Campbell' Cc: Tim Scully; 'clerk, Board of Supervisors' Subject: Public Resources committee agenda You may recall that the Little River Airport Advisory committee previously reported several times on issues relating to hangars at Little River Airport. For quite a while, the Little River Airport Advisory Committee has a subcommittee which has been working on the issue of more hangars at Little River Airport. Trey Loy has been taking the lead in that subcommittee. He'd like to present an informal progress report to the County subcommittee which handles airport matters. I understand that it isn't the Health, Welfare, Planning and Transportation any more, and that this now probably belongs to the Public Resources committee. I believe you are on that committee. Trey would like to be agendized for a meeting in August or September, if that is possible. He's also hoping that we could invite Supervisor Colfax to the meeting, assuming he's not a member of the subcommittee. I tried to call Norma to see if we could be added to the agenda for Public Resources, and learned that she is no longer with the County. It also sounded as though the process for getting on the agenda for Public Resources might be more complicated than in the past. Can you give me any advice on how best to proceed? If we do get on the agenda, I would, of course, like to come along with Trey and any other committee members who choose to attend. To be more specific, Trey wants to informally explain progress so far on the issues surrounding the construction of additional hangars at Little River Airport: where they should be located, how they should be funded, how many should be built, etc. This might also be a good time for the Airport Advisory Comittee to check in with Public Resources regarding updating the Airport Master Plan. We've discussed this with DOT. The plan should be updated every 10 years. We propose to work on this. DOT (Stan Townsend and Chuck Boyer) indicated that this would be a good idea. Further, I'd like to know if Public Resources has any direction to give the Airport Advisory Committee. We think we have our work cut out for us, but it never hurts to check to be sure we are all on the same page. Your advice would be appreciated. I hope that all is going well for you. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, Little River Airport Advisory Committee --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/11/99 email from Dave Thorpe --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Little River Airport Sent: July 11, 1999 10:44 AM To: Tim Scully Cc: Joel; Dick Ahrens; Dave Brewer Subject: Fuel Tank Tim Just got done talking to the person that is to put the fuel tank in at the Airport. He has a start date of the 26 of July for work on the pad and then putting the tank in. Possible fuel by the end of Aug. first of Sept. The Pad dimensions are 13X38 with bollards 5 feet from the tank every 4 feet. At least we are getting some word. Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/11/99 email from Dave Brewer --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Brewer Sent: July 11, 1999 1:50 PM To: Little River Airport; Tim Scully Cc: Joel; Dick Ahrens Subject: Re: Fuel Tank Dave, Are they still planning to put it at the edge of the tiedown area rather than at the site of the old fuel island? Dave B. -----Original Message----- From: Little River Airport To: Tim Scully ; Dick Ahrens ; Dave Brewer Date: Sunday, July 11, 1999 10:44 AM Subject: Fuel Tank >Tim > >Just got done talking to the person that is to put the fuel tank in at >the Airport. >He has a start date of the 26 of July for work on the pad and then >putting the tank in. Possible fuel by the end of Aug. first of Sept. > >The Pad dimensions are 13X38 with bollards 5 feet from the tank every 4 >feet. > >At least we are getting some word. > >Dave > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/11/99 email from Dave Thorpe ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Little River Airport Sent: July 11, 1999 2:12 PM To: Dave Brewer Cc: Tim Scully; Joel; Dick Ahrens Subject: Re: Fuel Tank Yes that is the plan, at least at this time. Dave Dave Brewer wrote: > Dave, > > Are they still planning to put it at the edge of the tiedown area rather > than at the site of the old fuel island? > > Dave B. > -----Original Message----- > From: Little River Airport > To: Tim Scully > Cc: Joel ; Dick Ahrens ; Dave Brewer > Date: Sunday, July 11, 1999 10:44 AM > Subject: Fuel Tank > > >Tim > > > >Just got done talking to the person that is to put the fuel tank in at > >the Airport. > >He has a start date of the 26 of July for work on the pad and then > >putting the tank in. Possible fuel by the end of Aug. first of Sept. > > > >The Pad dimensions are 13X38 with bollards 5 feet from the tank every 4 > >feet. > > > >At least we are getting some word. > > > >Dave > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/12/99 email from Janie Tate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janie Tate Sent: July 12, 1999 9:56 AM To: tim.scully Subject: committee application Dear Tim Re: my application for a seat on the airport committee. Since I haven't heard anything from anybody in 4 months I took on some other obligations and am no longer interested. I hope whatever applicant is appointed has the community interests in mind as the airport property is a valuable resource we should all have the right to enjoy. Also I hope the safety of our fly-in visitors and families continues as a high priority. This would include emergency repairs and inspections, nutritional snacks (low blood sugar affects the brain), security (avoidance of vandalism to aircraft), state of the art navigation equipment, ample clean fuel, and available ground transportation. Janie Tate Volunteer firefighter, LVN, EMT, and Property owner. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/12/99 email from Tim Scully ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: July 12, 1999 11:58 AM To: 'Janie Tate'; Tim Scully Subject: RE: committee application I'm sorry it took us so long to realize that the Board wasn't going to act without a recommendation from us. Thank you for your interest and your concern. We'll let you know the next time a position becomes open, in case your situation changes. > -----Original Message----- > From: Janie Tate > Sent: July 12, 1999 9:56 AM > To: tim.scully > Subject: committee application > > > Dear Tim > Re: my application for a seat on the airport committee. > Since I haven't heard anything from anybody in 4 months I took on some > other obligations and am no longer interested. > I hope whatever applicant is appointed has the community interests in > mind as the airport property is a valuable resource we should all have > the right to enjoy. Also I hope the safety of our fly-in visitors and > families continues as a high priority. This would include emergency > repairs and inspections, nutritional snacks (low blood sugar > affects the > brain), security (avoidance of vandalism to aircraft), state > of the art > navigation equipment, ample clean fuel, and available ground > transportation. > Janie Tate > Volunteer firefighter, LVN, EMT, and Property owner. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/12/99 email to Stan Townsend --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: July 12, 1999 4:29 PM To: Tim Scully; 'Stan Townsend'; 'Chuck Boyer'; 'Dave Brewer'; 'Dave Thorpe'; 'Dick Ahrens'; 'Joel Bornstein'; 'Little River Airport' Subject: RE: GPS instrument approach, possible displaced threshold for Runway 29, runway striping Since I sent you the message below on June 20, we have continued to work on Saturday mornings, surveying the location and height of over a hundred trees around the runway. We have marked quite a few trees on airport property for removal or trimming. There are also problem trees off of airport property. I need your approval for the concept of displacing the threshold of Runway 29, as a temporary measure, until some time in the next few years when the land swaps in the Master Plan can be implemented. Then the trees which are off-airport would be on the airport and could be trimmed. The major benefit of this plan is that it reduces the number of trees penetrating the FAR 77 surfaces and it provides a plan for eventually resolving the problem. The displaced threshold would be a temporary measure, probably only of a few years duration. I recommend: 1) let me create a 1st draft response to the FAA which proposes a 400 foot displaced threshold and which lists a bunch of trees on airport land which we propose to remove or trim in the Fall, when the conservation camp crew is available again. 2) you review the draft 3) I ask the FAA to informally review and comment. 4) I make corrections requested by the FAA and send the revised draft to DOT for formal signing and transmission to the FAA. We need to get past step 3 before we'll know how to label the runway when the slurry seal is done. > >From: Tim Scully >Sent: June 20, 1999 4:21 PM >To: 'Stan Townsend'; 'Chuck Boyer'; 'Dave Brewer'; 'Dave Thorpe'; 'Dick >Ahrens'; 'Joel Bornstein'; 'Little River Airport' >Cc: Tim Scully >Subject: GPS instrument approach, possible displaced threshold for >Runway 29, runway striping > >You may have been wondering why you haven't heard from me with respect >to the work I've been doing to prepare a response to the FAA's questions >about the GPS approach. Collecting all of the data has turned out to be a >lot more work than I'd expected. > >We (the LRAPA) have been working on this every Saturday morning. We have >set stakes at 100 foot intervals at each end of the runway along the >centerline, and have staked out the OFZ at each end. We have been mapping >the location and height of the major trees. This latter project is the >really time consuming one. Dave Brewer recently bought a laser rangefinder >which, together with my transit, has now speeded this up greatly. We are >mapping the trees and approach trapezoids in AutoCAD, and will deliver >a detailed map when we are done. > >Meanwhile, I have obtained copies of the relevant Advisory Circulars from >the FAA, also spent some time on the phone asking questions of the >FAA, and have reached an understanding of the threshold siting issues. > >I'm sending you this interim report because we need to agree on the >threshold location for Runway 29 before the runway markings are repainted >after the slurry seal, and I understand that the slurry seal may be done >by the end of June. If we could possibly reach a decision this week, it would >be good! Then we probably should check in with the FAA (I can do this if you >like) to see if they have any problem with our decision before the runway is >striped. > >The size and approach speed of aircraft using the instrument approach >determine some of the key factors involved. > >If we consider large corporate jets and the Coast Guard C130, then we are >stuck with high values in each of these categories (Approach speed "D" >and Airplane Design Group IV. > > landing wt. wingspan approach speed Airport reference >Coast Guard C130 155,000lbs 132ft 137kt C-IV >Grumman Gulfstream IV 58,500lbs 77ft 145kt D-II > >The visibility minimums and MDA will determine the other factors. > >Due to the limitations of AC 150/5300-13 Appendix 2 Figure A2-1, which says >that the trapezoid at the runway threshold grows changes +-200 feet to +-500 >feet wide at the threshold if the visibility minimum is less than 1 mile, we >are stuck with a 1 mile visibility minimum [Parcels 121-360-9 and 121-360-10 >are in the way of a 500 foot wide trapezoid, regardless of threshold location]. > >1) Threshold Siting Criteria > >With minimums of 1 mile we are in Row "c" of Figure A2-1 > > This implies the 20:1 trapezoid starts at the runway theshold at a width > of 200 feet on either side of center line and grows to 500 feet on > each side of center-line 1500 feet from the threshold > >There are two parcels not owned by the County, near the approach end of >Runway 29 which have tall trees on them which adversely affect the approach >if the threshold of Runway 29 remains at the end of the pavement. These parcels >are 121-360-9 and 121-360-10. Of the two, 121-360-10 is the biggest problem >because it is closest to the runway and it has several trees that are 20 feet >too high. > >If the threshold of Runway 29 is displaced by 400 feet, these trees will >no longer be penetrating the approach trapezoid, although some trees on >County-owned airport property will be. These could be cut. However, displacing >the threshold of Runway 29 will involve moving or adding some threshold >lights at the new threshold location, producing an arrangement identical to >that existing at the displaced threshold which already exists for Runway 11. > >It looks as though the best way to meet this requirement for Runway 29 >is to displace the threshold 400 feet, but here's a brief summary of >pros and cons: > >* keep threshold at start of pavement: >====================================== >pros cons >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- no need to move lights - trees penetrate trapezoid by 20 feet >- longest available runway - less useful instrument approach due > to higher minimums > - someday will need to top trees or > do land swaps or purchases as > they are a hazard even for VFR flight > >* displace threshold 400 feet >============================= >pros cons >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- most useful instrument approach - added cost of moving threshold lights > due to lower minimums - 400 feet less usable runway for landing > (not an issue for small aircraft) >- delays the need to top trees on > non-County land (or to do land > swaps or purchases) > > >2) for runways serving large airplanes (e.g., C-130), the OFZ extends > 200 feet on either side of centerline and 200 feet from the end of the > runway. > > The OFZ standard precludes taxiing and parked airplanes and object > penetrations, except for frangible visual NAVAIDS. > >NOTE: all of the existing signs violate this provision because they don't >have the frangible mountings specified in AC 150/5345-44F paragraph 4.1.2. >Otherwise the OFZ will be OK at each end of the runway, once CDF is done >working on Runway 29. > >The 20:1 trapeziod from Appendix 2 is +-200 feet from centerline at >the threshold and grows to +-500 feet at 1500 ft. > >The RPZ for Category C & D aircraft starts 200 ft from the threshold, >with a TOTAL width of 500 ft (+-250ft), growing to 1010ft at 1700 ft >from the start of the RPZ. (for 1 mile or more minimums) [see AC 150/5300-13 >Chapter 2 Table 2-4] > >3) Hold signs and lines > >The runway should have the "Nonprecision instrument runway markings" >shown in Figure 2 of AC 150/5340-1G (page 6). If the threshold of Runway 29 is >displaced, as recommended here, then the displaced threshold markings >specified in Figure 5 of AC 150/5340-1G (page 10) will need to be added. >Since the threshold of 11 is already displaced, these markings will be >needed there in any case. > >Once we have a decision from your office regarding the threshold of 29, >the LRAPA proposes to stake out the key points along the runway for the >striping, as an aid to this work. We have already staked out the new >locations for the hold lines at the three taxiways, > >The hold line at each taxiway should be 250 feet from the runway centerline >IAW AC 150/5340-1G Table 4. The lines should be yellow and should conform >to Figure 10. > >Three Holding position signs are needed (two of the 3 exist but need to be >moved to the new position, along with all the other signs). See >AC 150/5340-18C Paragraph 5 and see AC 150/5345-44 for detailed sign >specifications. Note that the signs must be retroreflective and should be >lit whenever the runway lights are lit. The FAA is willing to give us a >while to get the lighting worked out. I have given Dave the specs for this. > >To the left of the hold line for the approach end of 29, a red sign with >white letters saying "29". [this sign exists but needs to be moved when the >hold line is moved] > >To the left of the hold line for the central taxiway, a red sign with >with letters saying "29-11". [this needs to be made] > >To the left of the hold line at the approach end of 11, a red sign with >white letters "11". [this sign exists but needs to be moved when the >hold line is moved.] > >I have given Dave Thorpe copies of the relevant tables and diagrams. > >I'm looking forward to hearing from you. > >Respectfully Yours, > > >Tim Scully > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: July 13, 1999 4:28 PM To: 'Stanley Townsend'; Tim Scully; boyerc dmb001; thorpe; rnnn; jbjb; lrairpt Subject: RE: GPS instrument approach, possible displaced threshold for Runway 29, runway striping I'll get a draft letter to you early next week. Thank you! > -----Original Message----- > From: Stanley Townsend > Sent: July 13, 1999 10:35 AM > To: tim.scully; boyerc; > dmb001; > thorpe; rnnn; jbjb; lrairpt > Subject: RE: GPS instrument approach, possible displaced threshold for > Runway 29, runway striping > > > Thanks for your work. Please draft the letter and provide > for our review. > The signer will be R. V. PARKER, Acting Director. > > -- > Stanley Townsend, Deputy Director Mendocino County Department of Transportation > 340 Lake Mendocino Drive > Ukiah CA 95482-9432 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Little River Airport Sent: July 13, 1999 7:22 AM To: tim.scully Subject: Re: Airport Yes that will be just fine thanks tim.scully wrote: > ok, I'll do it. Is 4' long big enough? > > Yes, thank you for the emails about the fuel work. > > I talked to Chuck Boyer today about the displaced threshold and he asked me > to email Stan Townsend again, which I will do. No decision yet. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Little River Airport > > Sent: July 12, 1999 2:07 PM > > To: Tim Scully > > Subject: Airport > > > > > > Tim is it possible for you to print up a runway & taxi way as large as > > you can with nothing on them so that we can get it all marked > > up for the > > painters. If you could do this it would be best to do 2 or 3 for the > > possible of mistakes. > > Also I hope that you got the last email that I sent you about the fuel > > tank. Work to possible start July 26 > > Thank you Dave Thorpe > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stanley Townsend Sent: July 15, 1999 8:41 AM To: Tim Scully (E-mail) Cc: Chuck Boyer (E-mail) Subject: LRA Seal Project Tim, A couple of times now I have noticed in e-mail correspondence that you have referred to a slurry seal project at Little River Airport. I need to let you know that the pending project is for a fog seal, not a slurry seal. We did cost estimates for both types of seal coats, and there were just not enough available dollars for the slurry option. -- Stanley Townsend, Deputy Director Mendocino County Department of Transportation 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah CA 95482-9432 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: July 15, 1999 8:42 AM To: 'Stanley Townsend'; Tim Scully Cc: Chuck Boyer (E-mail) Subject: RE: LRA Seal Project Ok, thank you for the correction. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stanley Townsend > Sent: July 15, 1999 8:41 AM > To: Tim Scully (E-mail) > Cc: Chuck Boyer (E-mail) > Subject: LRA Seal Project > > > Tim, > > A couple of times now I have noticed in e-mail correspondence > that you have > referred to a slurry seal project at Little River Airport. I > need to let > you know that the pending project is for a fog seal, not a > slurry seal. We > did cost estimates for both types of seal coats, and there > were just not > enough available dollars for the slurry option. > > -- > Stanley Townsend, Deputy Director > Mendocino County Department of Transportation > 340 Lake Mendocino Drive > Ukiah CA 95482-9432 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/16/99 email from Willow Trent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Willow Trent Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 6:39 AM To: Tim Scully, PhD Subject: Can't make it today Tim- There is an emergency situation in my office this morning. I have to go in right now. I won't be able to attend the meeting this morning and I will be away next month when the meeting is scheduled. Sorry! Willow ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resume from Tom Goncharoff, handed out at 7/16/99 meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOM GONCHAROFF Little River, Ca 95456 P E R S O N A L --------------- I AM RETIRED, 70 YEARS OLD, PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY FIT AND INTERESTED IN CONTRIBUTING MY ABILITIES AND TALENTS TO ASSIST THE AIRPORT COMMISSION AND THE COMMUNITY. MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED HERE FULL TIME SINCE 1991. E D U C A T I O N ----------------- B.S. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, U.C.L.A., 1958. E M P L O Y M E N T ------------------- SUBCONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR, PROJECT MANAGER, LOCKHEED CALIFORNIA COMPANY, BURBANK, CA, 1966-1976. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION MANAGER, MARKETING MANAGER, PROGRAM MANAGER, LOCKHEED ELECTRONICS COMPANY, AZUSA, CA AND PLAINFIELD, N.J., 1976-1981. SUBCONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR, PROJECT MANAGER, LOCKHEED MISSILES AND SPACE CO., SUNNYVALE, CA., 1981-1991. RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBCONTRACT NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION. MANAGED TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT, QUALIFICATION AND PRODUCTION PROGRAMS INCLUDING BUDGET PREPARATION AND FISCAL REPORTING TO MANAGEMENT. MANAGED DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A RADAR CROSS SECTION LARGE COMPACT RANGE THAT WAS LOCKHEED CORPORATION FUNDED. THIS ALSO INCLUDED BUDGET AND SCHEDULE PREPARATION AND FISCAL REPORTING TO MANAGEMENT. I N T E R E S T S & A C T I V I T I E S ------------------------------------- ACCESS NEW BOOKS INTO THE DATA BASE AT THE MENDOCINO COMMUNITY LIBRARY, PLAY GOLF, (NOT VERY WELL), HELP THE ALBION/LITTLE RIVER FIREBELLES AUXILIARY PREPARE THE BEANS FOR THEIR ANNUAL BARBECUE AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS VOLUNTEER TASKS.