Minutes of 12-17-99 Little River Airport Advisory Committee meeting: 1. Present: Tim Scully, Dick Ahrens, Dave Brewer, Trey Loy, Susan Winding, Tom Goncharoff. Guest: Keith Paulson. 2. Minutes of last meeting: Approved with one change (to clarify that we agreed to make hangars the focus of the next several meetings). 3. Communications: 3.1 Scully to Dave Thorpe: airport signs. 3.2 Dave Thorpe to Tim Scully: he will check on signs. 3.3 Tim Scully to DOT, DOT to Tim Scully + 12-13-99 telcom: hangars, trees, GPS. 3.4 DOT to Tim Scully: photographs and signs. 4. Airport Traffic Report: Tim Scully moved, Tom Goncharoff seconded to adopt Dave Brewer's Airport Traffic Report, passed 6 to 0. 5. Non-Aviation Uses of Airport: now on back burner. 6. Hangars: 6.1 BOS directions: work on hangars. 6.2 We now have good relations with DOT and BOS. 6.3 Guest Keith Paulson suggested that the committee work on where the hangars should be placed and get an accurate count of how many are needed. Trey Loy gave his draft report of 16 December 1999: 6.3.1 Location - Northeast: bridge or move a hangar. 6.3.2 Location - Southeast: dirt and tree clearing. 6.3.3 Location - East: hangars or parking. 6.3.4 Location - West: continue present line of hangars. 6.3.5 Location - Far East: Off Albion/Little River Road. 6.3.6 Financing: public/private/mixture. 6.3.7 Tasks and assignments: 6.3.7.1 Write overall report: Ahrens 6.3.7.2 Update maps: Ahrens 6.3.7.3 Update survey of needs: Brewer 6.3.7.4 collect hangar data from earlier research: Scully We agreed that the next meeting will be at 9am on January 21. The agenda for the next meeting is: Approve the minutes of the last meeting Communications (letters, FAXes, etc, sent/received since last meeting) Additional hangars at the airport will be the main focus of this and the next few meetings. Reports from subcommittees Public comment 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 ------------------------------------------------------ Members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee ------------------------------------------------------ Dick Ahrens pilot, airport neighbor Dave Brewer pilot, lives near airport Tom Goncharoff 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: November 23, 1999 4:54 AM To: 'Dave Thorpe' Cc: Tim Scully Subject: signs Tim Scully 11/22/99 Dave Thorpe Airport Supervisor Little River Airport Dear Dave: As you may remember, I wrote to the FAA (at DOT's request) over 6 months ago asking for their approval of the signs we proposed for noise abatement. I never received a written response from the FAA, but when I telephoned to ask about the GPS approach, I was referred to two FAA Advisory Circulars: AC 150/5345-44F "Specification for Taxiway and Runway Signs" and AC 150/5340-18C "Standards for Airport Sign Systems." The Airport Advisory Committee asked me, at its meeting on Friday 11/19, to contact you about getting a price quotation for these signs. I think you have the name and address of a company which specializes in making airport signs. Would you be willing to ask them for a quote? There are four proposed signs, all of them "Information Signs" per AC 150/5340-18C section 11. This means they should have black lettering on a yellow background. They do not need to be lighted, but they should be retroreflective and should meet the specifications of AC 150/5345-44F. - At the mid-field intersection: "No intersection takeoffs - noise abatement". - At the West end of the hangar line - "Please do RWY 11 runups here. Noise sensitive houses to the Northwest." - We recommend a sign at least 2x3', off the pavement to the North of the taxiway at the East end of the runway "Left turn on departure for noise abatement. Please avoid right-hand and straight out departures. Safety supercedes noise abatement." - at the entrance to the airport parking lot: "Noise Sensitive Neighborhood. See details of noise abatment procedure in the airport office." If you would prefer for me to get the quotes, could you pass along the contact information for the sign company? I hope all is going well for you. Warmly, Tim Scully, Ph.D. Chair, LRAAC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Little River Airport Sent: November 29, 1999 8:59 AM To: Tim Scully Subject: Signs Tim I did get your email on the signs for the Airport. I will work on this, and try and have an answer for you this week when you get up here. I have been having a lot of computer problem the last few days. Have no ID of what is going on. Have though of looking into getting a new computer for the office myself. Dave Thorpe Airport Supervisor Little River ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: December 13, 1999 7:01 AM To: 'Chuck Boyer'; Tim Scully; townsens Subject: RE: GPS and Trees Just following up on this. Is there anything I can do to help? I suspect that if we don't respond to the FAA pretty soon, they will drop our request for a GPS approach. > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Boyer > Sent: December 02, 1999 8:33 AM > To: tim.scully, townsens > Subject: RE: GPS and Trees > > > Tim, > > Stan is out of the office all week. I assume that he will > contact you next > week. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: tim.scully > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 5:09 AM > To: tim.scully; townsens > Cc: boyerc > Subject: RE: GPS and Trees > > I'm following up on this issue. I haven't heard from you > and am wondering if there is anything I can do to help > move this forward? I can be reached by telephone today > at xxx > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Scully > > Sent: November 12, 1999 2:21 PM > > To: 'Stanley Townsend'; Tim Scully > > Cc: Chuck Boyer (E-mail) > > Subject: RE: GPS > > > > > > The letter from the FAA pointed out that "current standards > > are not met" for threshold siting, i.e., there are obstacles > > penetrating the 20:1 approach surface. The FAA wants to know > > if we will remove to obstacles, displace the threshold or ask > > them to live with the penetrations (which they may or may not > > agree to do). > > > > I sent one proposed draft response many months ago, but it > > has become obsolete since the idea of displacing the > > threshold of Runway 29 has become moot, and the surveying of > > additional trees has shown that it wouldn't help as much as I > > had originally believed. Now the response depends on what > > will be done about the trees which are too high. If you can > > tell me what the County plans to do with respect to the > > trees, I can easily draft an appropriate response. I'd be > > happy to talk this over with you on the telephone if that > > would be helpful. > > > > I'm sure you know that the users of the airport do very much > > want to have a GPS approach. > > > > Thank you very much for following up on this. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stanley Townsend > > > Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 9:05 AM > > > To: Tim Scully (E-mail) > > > Cc: Chuck Boyer (E-mail) > > > Subject: GPS > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > We got a voice mail from Ron Clenney at FAA/FPO > > > asking: Do we > > > want a GPS approach at Little River Airport? He mentioned > > > awaiting a reply > > > to his 7 May 1999 letter to Michael Scannell. The last I > > > remember, you were > > > working on a draft response. I know we have received a lot > > > of information > > > from you on tree heights that, quite frankly, we haven't > had time to > > > thoroughly review. I'm not sure exactly how that relates > > to Clenney's > > > inquiry. Do you have any suggestion on what to say to > > > Clenney at this time? > > > > > > -- > > > Stanley Townsend, Director > > > Mendocino County Department of Transportation > > > 340 Lake Mendocino Drive > > > Ukiah CA 95482-9432 > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- report on 12/13/99 telephone conversation with Chuck Boyer and Stan Townsend ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 12/13/99 Tim Scully had a brief conference call with Chuck Boyer and Stan Townsend. Chuck Boyer had originally called to ask if Tim knew anything about a Board of Supervisors agenda item regarding a status update from the Public Resources committee regarding hangars at Little River Airport. Tim said that the Airport Advisory Committee is working on the hangar issue as its top priority, but that no new report has been sent to Public Resources since we met with them in September. Perhaps this is their report to the Board from that meeting? Tim asked about the trees and the GPS approach. Stan Townsend explained that DOT is currently trying hard to fill 3 open engineering positions and that meanwhile they are extremely short-handed, and haven't had time to evaluate the tree situation. He proposed framing a response to the FAA which acknowledges the trees and indicates that DOT is still working on evaluating them. Tim agreed to draft a response along these lines and forward it to DOT for further action. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: December 14, 1999 6:41 AM To: 'Chuck Boyer'; 'Stan Townsend' Cc: 'Little River Airport'; Tim Scully Subject: proposed draft letter to the FAA Thank you for talking with me on the telephone yesterday. I have drafted a proposed response to the FAA based on the direction you gave me. I recommend sending a rough draft to Mr. Morse so we can get his feedback before making the final official response. He was open to this idea when I spoke to him several months ago. I can send you fresh plots of the trees and some aerial photos, if you like. I think these would help the FAA to understand where the trees are. ------------------------------ begin proposed draft response --------------------------- Dan Morse Supervisor, Safety Standards Division FAA, San Francisco ADO 831 Mitten Road, Suite 215 Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Morse: I am writing in reply to your letter of May 7, 1999, asking for technical information regarding Little River Airport, in preparation for non-precision GPS instrument approaches. It has taken quite a while to collect the information to provide a detailed response. This is a rough draft response, for your comments. Once we have your comments, we'll send you a formal response. The size and approach speed of aircraft using the instrument approach determine some of the key factors involved. Although the vast majority of the traffic at Little River Airport consists of small light aircraft, there are occasional operations by large and fast aircraft. The largest and fastest are: 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 This suggest that we should use approach speed "D" and Airplane Design Group IV when responding to your questions. The visibility minimums determine the other factors. Although we hope to someday have an instrument approach with less than one mile visibility minimums, it appears that a 1 mile visibility minimum is the lowest practical value at this time, due to the fact that Mendocino County does not at this time own the land needed to secure the larger trapezoids and obstacle free zones associated with lower minimums. 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 threshold 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 With respect to Runway 29, we recommend keeping the threshold at the end of the pavement. The Little River Pilot's Association has surveyed the location and height of 695 trees on and around the airport, using a transit and a laser rangefinder. Quite a few trees were removed from the approach trapezoids since the NOAA Obstruction chart was produced, but there are still 43 trees penetrating the Runway 29 approach trapezoid by amounts ranging up to 30 feet. With respect to Runway 11, we recommend that the threshold of Runway 11 remain displaced at 198 feet. There were five trees identified as penetrating the Runway 11 approach trapezoid by amounts of up to 30 feet. A large number of trees were found to be penetrating the transition zones at the sides of the runway by amounts of up to 45 feet. The appended maps provide more details on the trees. Mendocino County is still investigating and assessing what to do about the trees which are excessively high. Meanwhile, we would appreciate it if you could proceed with the design of the GPS approaches, raising the approach minimims to account for the presence of the trees. 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 is clear with the exception of various signs, some of which lack the frangible mountings specified in AC 150/5345-44F paragraph 4.1.2. 3) Hold signs and lines The runway has been fog sealed and striped as shown in Figure 2 of AC 150/5340-1G with Non-precision instrument runway markings. Runway 11 has the displaced threshold markings specified in Figure 5 of AC 150/5340-1G. The hold line at each taxiway is 250 feet from the runway centerline in accord with AC 150/5340-1G Table 4. The lines are yellow and conform to Figure 10. The required holding position signs are in position at the new hold lines. The signs are retroreflective and adhere to the specifications in AC 150/5340-18C Paragraph 5 and AC 150/5345-44. The hold signs are not lit at this time. The Little River Airport Advisory Committee is starting a review of the Airport Master Plan and ALP. Would the implementation of the GPS approach be delayed if the ALP is not updated until after that review is completed? The review process will probably take over a year. Thank you for your attention. Respectfully Yours, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: Ron Clenney, Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office encl: maps showing tree heights, aerial photos of the airport P.S. below is a summary of the tree survey results. We have surveyed 141 trees in the 20:1 approach trapezoids. 93 of these are below the height limits set FAR 77 and hence are not a problem. This leaves 48 surveyed trees in the trapezoids which are too high by amounts varying from 5 feet to 25 feet. Tables are presented below which shows how these are distributed with respect to "excess height". The "bin" values are excess height in feet. Thus, for example, there are 10 trees in the 0-5 foot excess height bin in the table of 141 total trees surveyed in the trapezoids. In the tables below, "Runway 29" refers to the East end of the runway and "Runway 11" refers to the West end of the runway. Table #1 Table #2 Table #3 ----------------------- ------------------------ ------------------- 141 trees in trapezoids Runway 29 trapezoid Runway 29 trapezoid ---------------------- 80 trees, 41 off-airport 41 off-airport trees Bin Frequency ------------------------ -------------------- 0 93 Bin Frequency Bin Frequency 5 10 0 37 0 14 10 13 1 0 1 0 15 7 5 9 5 4 20 9 10 11 10 7 25 9 15 7 15 3 30 0 20 9 20 8 35 0 25 7 25 2 40 0 30 0 30 3 Tables #2 and #3 above show that 43 excessively high trees were surveyed in the Runway 29 trapezoid. Of these, 27 excessively high trees were not on airport land. This is a reflection of parcel 121-360-10, which is not owned by the County and which overlaps the Runway 29 trapezoid. The two tables below show that only five trees were surveyed in the Runway 11 trapezoid which were too high (none were off-airport). Table #4 Table #5 ----------------------- ------------------- Runway 11 trapezoid Runway 11 trapezoid 61 trees, 19 off-airport 19 off-airport trees ----------------------- ------------------- Bin Frequency Bin Frequency 0 56 0 19 5 1 1 0 10 2 5 0 15 0 10 0 20 0 15 0 25 2 20 0 30 0 25 0 35 0 30 0 35 0 35 0 The approach trapezoids are at each end of the runway and have transition zones at their sides. There also is a transition zone along each side of the runway. Approximately 20% of the length of the transition zones were surveyed, a total of 554 trees. Even in the 20% of the transition zones which were surveyed, only a fraction of the trees were measured, but this is hopefully a representative sample. total of all trees Runway 11 transition zones Runway 29 transition zones 695 trees 213 trees, one off-airport 340 trees, 35 off-airport ------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------- Bin Frequency Bin Frequency Bin Frequency 0 296 0 51 0 152 5 40 5 17 1 0 10 74 10 24 5 13 15 79 15 31 10 37 20 89 20 35 15 41 25 59 25 23 20 45 30 38 30 22 25 27 35 17 35 11 30 16 40 3 40 0 35 6 45 0 45 0 40 3 45 0 In the Runway 11 transition zones, 3/4 of the trees surveyed were too high, but only one of these was off airport property. The one off-airport tree surveyed as excessively high in the Runway 11 transition area is on parcel 121-33-7. In the Runway 29 transition zones, a little over 1/2 of the trees surveyed were too high and about 10% of the trees were off airport land. The trees around the airport seem to grow to a maximum height somehwere in the neighborhood of 60 to 80 feet. The transition zones along the side of the runway start at ground level at the edge of the "primary surface" which is 250 feet from the runway centerline and slopes upward 1 foot for every 7 feet of distance from the primary surface. There is already a cleared area for almost 200 feet to the South of the runway edge and nearly 400 feet to the North of the runway edge. At the Runway 11 (West) end of the runway, only a few (7) of the surveyed trees with excessive height were off airport property. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Little River Airport Sent: December 14, 1999 8:06 AM To: tim.scully Subject: Re: proposed draft letter to the FAA Tim I have a new photo of the Airport that is good, so if you want stop in when your are here this weekend and if it will help you can send it with the letter. Also still working on the signs. Dave Thorpe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ handout from Trey Loy's report on hangars ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Trey Loy December 16, 1999 Thoughts on compiling a draft report concerning construction of new hangars at Little River Airport: Location of additional hangars According to 1988 Airport Master Plan area designated, or zoned, for hangars is northeast of existing hangars. This area cannot be accessed from main taxiway with out either building a bridge to cross the wide, deep drainage, or moving an existing privately owned hangar and accompaning concrete pad. The bridge would need to be at least twenty feet wide with concrete abutments at each end and concrete foundationed interspan supports. New asphalt taxi-lanes would have to be laid from main taxi way to bridge, and from bridge to hangar area. The cost of dismantling an existing hangar and moving it to a newly poured concrete pad would be less costly than installing a bridege. Once access is gained to this area, extensive pavement would be required to enable the aircraft to it's respective hangar. pavement-wise the most economical hangar configuration is a single straight alleyway, wide with rows of hangars placed on either side. The most economical multible hangar -construction, nested tee-hangars with grouped hagars sharing common walls, would require pavement on three sides of the building. Land in this area is relatively free of vegetation, excepting a scenic scatteiong of mature Bishop Pine trees. Another area to possibly place new hangars is in an area south east of the Supervisor's office and fuel tank, which is designated on the Master Plan as future aircraft tie-down area. Being adjacent to the presently paved parking area, there is no access cost to this area. Part of this area is cleared and covered with a rocked pavement and used as long term parking for vehicles, while the remaing area is heavily wooded with a rising topography, which would require site preparation for paving and building purposes. Also this area seems more compatable with other uses. Another possible hangar location wuold be the area between the taxiway parallel to Runway and the drainage ditch, past the existing paved tie-down area. Probably this area should be reserved for expansion of tie-down spots. The remaining feasible loaction for hangars and the most economical in terms of connecting asphalt pavement infrastructure, is between the northeast taxiway parallel to Runway and the ditch, following the line of hangar lots already established. Hangar units here would be slighly more expensive to construct than multible hangar bullding, as single, or at most duplex units would be required to allow natural drainage to flow across relatively flat land to the drainage ditch. It is difficult to obtain financing for interconnecting pavement to the hangar location without applying for a grant. Monies spent on this type of improvement cannot be recaptured through rental fees. Small amounts of asphalt or concrete pavement, the countiy Dept. Public Works could possible handle. There needs to be a change in the Airport Master Plan to rezone an area for Aircraft hangar construction. Possible methods of financing new hangar construction: Lease hangar lot and allow private pergon to erect a portable hangar upon a not so portable concrete floor and foundation. Cost to county would be planning, and any pavement infrastructure, then county would begin to receive revenue from lease of lots. This plan allows hangar availability only to those who can afford to assemble their own hangar and lease the lot, excluding pilots who can only afford their aircraft. This is the quickest return of revenue for the county, but by far not the nost profitable in the long haul. Several hangar lots could be leased to a private developer who would construct hangars to be rented to aircraft owners by some system of selection. Bystander speculation of finaces forecast a desired 15% to 20% return over not to long a time requiring substantial rental fees. In either arrangement of private ownership on leased county land, a competition of re-occupancy is established which is not neccesarily healthy for the public interest in a public facility. It is more across the board fair to all pilots of every economic strata to have first come, first serve availabitly to limited hangar space. The County could obtain fiancing from a local bank. In tentative casual talks with representives of the Savings Bank of Mendocino County, such financing is feasible, though is more practable for the privately owner hangars. There would be a 'Point' cost depending on complications of transaction, and at least 10% yearly interst on a limited ten year note, requiring substantial monthly payments, and a land lease of twenty years duration, or twice the length of the loan period. The County has direct access to a loan agency in the form of Cal Trans Aeranautic division which has monies available for aircraft hangar construction. The County can directly borrow hangar funds at 6% interst for terms of up to 17 years duration. The County would not have to lease its own land, enabling rental fees to reflect cost of construction and maintainace only. Approximating the cost of one hangar unit at Twenty five thousand dollars, a rent of only $200.00 to $250.00 would be required. The county would be liable for costs of planning, pavement infrastrusture and drainage, and maintainance, and would not collect any monies from the investment or leasing for the loan period, but after the loan period, which is fully paid by the renter, those rental monies revert to income for the airport. Hangar vacancies would be filled on a first come first serve basis according to a documented and obseervable list. Cal Trans does require a signed lease for one to several years by a prospective aircraft hangar occupant before the loan is initiated. Type of hangar constructuion; Tee shaped hangar compared to square or box building; wood compared to steel framing; painted plywood compared to metal siding, and type of roofing material to withstand coastal conditions. At present I have brochures from four companies selling hangar components. Hangar doors are of special consideration, and come in several styles, including sectional, sliding, rolling, and scissoring. There are several phases to construction: apron pavement, foundation and pad, building construction, and installtion of door. Contractors are available to do all or part of the work. Electricity should be available for each hangar. Lease and/or rental arrangements should be discussed and made uniform. An Idea! If County could obtain Cal Trans loan for new hangars, could loans be made available for the county to purchase privately owned portable hangars when the present owner wants to sell his hangar. After some date, the county would have right of first refusal to purchase the private hangar when it was put up for sale,.using a cal trans loan. The hangar would be rented to the next person on the hangar list. Assesment standards would be a delicate issue. Purchase of private hangars would occur over many years. Though the county would temporarily loose revenue from lease of hangar lots, eventually the county owned hangars would be mortage free producing a tidy income for the little river Airport. angars to be rented to aircraft owners by some system of selection. Bystander speculation of finaces forecast a desired 15% to 20% return over not to long a time requiring substantial rental fees. In either arrangement of private ownership on leased county land, a competition of re-occupancy is established which is not neccesarily healthy for the public interest in a public facility. It is more across the board fair to all pilots of every economic strata to have first come, first serve availabitly to limited hangar space. The County could obtain fiancing from a local bank. In tentative casual talks with representives of the Savings Bank of Mendocino County, such financing is feasible, though is more practable for the privately owner hangars. There would be a 'Point' cost depending on complications of transaction, and at least 10% yearly interst on a limited ten year note, requiring substantial monthly payments, and a land lease of twenty years duration, or twice the length of the loan period. The County has direct access to a loan agency in the form of Cal Trans Aeranautic division which has monies available for aircraft hangar construction. The County can directly borrow hangar funds at 6% interst for terms of up to 17 years duration. The County would not have to lease its own land, enabling rental fees to reflect cost of construction and maintainace only. Approximating the cost of one hangar unit at Twenty five thousand dollars, a rent of only $200.00 to $250.00 would be required. The county would be liable for costs of planning, pavement infrastrusture and drainage, and maintainance, and would not collect any monies from the investment or leasing for the loan period, but after the loan period, which is fully paid by the renter, those rental monies revert to income for the airport. Hangar vacancies would be filled on a first come first serve basis according to a documented and obseervable list. Cal Trans does require a signed lease for one to several years by a prospective aircraft hangar occupant before the loan is initiated. Type of hangar constructuion; Tee shaped hangar compared to square or box building; wood compared to steel framing; painted plywood compared to metal siding, and type of roofing material to withstand coastal conditions. At present I have brochures from four companies selling hangar components. Hangar doors are of special consideration, and come in several styles, including sectional, sliding, rolling, and scissoring. There are several phases to construction: apron pavement, foundation and pad, building construction, and installtion of door. Contractors are available to do all or part of the work. Electricity should be available for each hangar. Lease and/or rental arrangements should be discussed and made uniform. An Idea! If County could obtain Cal Trans loan for new hangars, could loans be made available for the county to purchase privately owned portable hangars when the present owner wants to sell his hangar. After some date, the county would have right of first refusal to purchase the private hangar when it was put up for sale,.using a cal trans loan. The hangar would be rented to the next person on the hangar list. Assesment standards would be a delicate issue. Purchase of private hangars would occur over many years. Though the county would temporarily loose revenue from lease of hangar lots, eventually the county owned hangars would be mortage free producing a tidy income for the little river Airport.