Little River Ad Hoc Committee interim report 11/18/96 This is a very summarized status report on the issues the Ad Hoc Committee has been working on. Appreciation to DPW ------------------- The Ad Hoc Committee expresses appreciation to the Department of Public Works for the responses it has received to questions surrounding the GPS approach and mechanic availability. We realize that with current budget limitations, it has been a stretch for DPW to do this. Change in Composition of the Ad Hoc Committee --------------------------------------------- For several months, the Ad Hoc Committee has been composed of 3 pilots, 3 non-pilot neighbors and one non-pilot business person from Albion. We also have appointed two "alternate" pilot members to serve when a regular pilot member is absent and are actively seeking "alternate" non-pilot members. Existing Private Hangars ------------------------ At the 7/15/96 HWP&T meeting DPW was assigned the action items to: - draw up a motion for the full board to rescind the earlier minute order - draft a hangar policy and run it past the Ad Hoc Committee We are not aware of any progress on these items. The committee is ready to assist as needed when DPW staff time permits. By-Laws for Official Committee ------------------------------ We have worked through a few drafts of proposed By-Laws for an official Little River Airport Advisory Committee, but haven't reached closure on all the issues yet. - We'd like to know if all committee members must be registered to vote in Mendocino County? At least one existing committee member owns property here but is registered to vote in another county. - We'd also like to know if our concept of "alternate" committee members will be a problem. Alternates are classified as either pilots ot non-pilots and may sit on the committee when a regular member of the same classification is absent Noise Abatement Procedure ------------------------- We held two community meetings at which the prodcedure was discussed. The first meeting on 10/20 was attended by 26 people and the second was attended by 17 people. A revised noise abatement policy has resulted from these meetings and is attached. * Robin Bell (who lives near the departure end of 29) says that he has noticed an improvment in noise since the noise policy discussions began and some pilots started practicing the procedure. * several people expressed support for the proposed noise abatement policy * a few people expressed concern over the lack of "enforceability" of the policy. These citizens wanted offenders to be prosecuted. The enforceability issue is a tough one. The barriers to criminal penalties and enforcement are: - making CalTrans and the FAA unhappy, which may result in reduced funding for the airport - the Constitutional requirement for accused criminals to be able to face their accusers in open court. This implies keeping records of specific complaints if they are to result in prosecution of offenders. This in turn conflicts with the expressed community desire not to keep records of the identity of complainers to avoid affecting property values - the lack of County staff to enforce any criminal law. It is very hard to get the Sheriff's office to send someone out to the airport. * a few people (generally the same ones concerned about enforceability) wanted access restrictions for noisy aircraft such as jets and possibly a curfew to close the airport at night. The FAA and CalTrans have both expressed opposition to arbitrary curfews or access restrictions. Mr. Gargis of CalTrans suggested that the airport's $10,000 annual grant would be jepordized if such action were taken. Several people questioned how a curfew or access restrictions would be enforced. * pilots suggested adding an additional "pilot action" to the procedure which asks pilots to avoid supersonic prop tip speeds * two people asked if the traffic pattern could be changed to keep airplanes from flying over Albion Ridge, moving the traffic over the Albion River valley. * many people expressed displeasure over Attorney General Dan Lundgrin's opinion regarding noise complaints. The consensus seems to be that public records should not be kept of noise complainers, to avoid the undesired side effect of lowering their property values. non-precision GPS Instrument Approach Procedure ----------------------------------------------- We held two community meetings at which the prodcedure was discussed. The first meeting on 10/20 was attended by 26 people and the second was attended by 17 people. We will be delivering a more complete and formal report later, including copies of all letters received pro and con, but briefly: * several people expressed opposition to the proposed instrument approach procedure on the grounds that it would lead to increased traffic at the airport and hence more noise. These people oppose anything that will increase traffic, however slightly. * several people were concerned about potential costs to the County * one person expressed concern that the existing ordinance setting height limits around the airport might be enforced, forcing trees to be cut. * several people expressed support for the GPS approach, stating that it would improve safety. * one person wants a full EIR to be done. This is also the person who is most vocal about wanting criminal penalties for noise violations. * several individuals expressed concern over the age of the weather data, over the records (or lack thereof) of aircraft operations and over why the County was not represented at the community meetings * we have 3 letters expressing concern and opposition to the GPS approach and 8 letters expressing support for it, so far. All letters pro and con will be appended to our report, when it is completed. * the wide availability of inexpensive GPS receivers tempts pilots to develop "bootleg" GPS approaches which are unsafe. An official GPS approach would provide guaranteed obstacle clearance and a safe missed approach procedure. * some people expressed concern that the community meetings were not held in a large enough meeting room, that the meetings should have been held on a weekday evening and that inadequate notice was given. One person said that we should have mailed individual letters to every coastal resident. Although the committee had a stand-by plan for moving the meeting to a large hangar with more folding chairs, the original meeting room was never filled and we were able to comfortably meet in Coast Flyer's office. Our meetings have been well advertised and open to the public for over a year and a half. The 10/20 meeting was featured in a page 1 article in the Beacon 4 days before the meeting and the 11/3 meeting was very well advertised by a larger article on page 1 of the Beacon a week and a half before the meeting, well in excess of the Brown Act requirement. We also FAXed press releases of both meetings to every local radio station over a week in advance and put up posters in public places in Albion, Little River and Mendocino. Several of our committee members are unable to attend week-day evening meetings. We have actively solicited comments by mail from anyone unable to attend the regular meetings. The FAA estimated that any increase in traffic from an instrument approach would be less than 10%. Several pilots pointed out that the GPS approach is useful only during the approximately 22% of the time when the weather is poor. In response to concerns raised at the community meetings, we telephoned 5 rural California airports that have already gotten GPS approaches. One of them didn't have any experience because their approach was too new. The other four told us on the phone that their GPS approaches have NOT increased traffic - they are being used by pilots who were using the airport already. They also agreed that the approaches reduced noise slightly and increased safety. We asked each airport to send us a letter to confirm this more formally, and we have three of the four letters in hand. We have yet to identify any new costs to the County associated with the proposed GPS approach. It will not increase insurance costs, and existing insurance covers liability for giving the altimeter setting. The airport supervisor has indicated that if the FAA telephones him when the altimeter setting is needed for an approach, it would not significantly increase his workload. This is an unconventional procedure - normally the altimeter setting is given over the Unicom. Inqueries to the FAA determined that they are willing "in principle" to draft a Letter of Agreement authorizing this procedure, if DPW and the County formally request it. The FAA has written to state that: - it is not necessary to move Albion-Airport Road - no change in the existing 20:1 approach slope is needed, thus the existing zoning ordinance for height is adequate Request to the Supervisors -------------------------- We would like direction from you. May we proceed to develop a detailed written report on GPS now (more or less along the lines of the hangar report), with the intent of holding one more community meeting after the draft report is ready, or do we need to continue to hold more community meetings now? Most committee members believe that we have heard most concerns expressed. Little River Airport Pilots Association Report ============================================== The pilot's group received a letter from DPW requesting us to paint the airport office door. We will do this on the next sunny weekend. Can the pilot;s group pay the costs of postage and copying documents for the airport advisory committee?