11/25/95 reports on recent events revised 11/27/95 Tim Scully 11/20 Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare meeting ---------------------------------------------------------- I attended the 11/20 meeting in Ukiah. Supervisors Frank McMichael and Charles Peterson were present along with Budge Campbell. Joel Bornstein, Diana Scully and Andy Becker were also present. Supervisor McMichael was double booked for another meeting, so I had to highly summarize our report and he left before the discussion was completed. I presented our 11/13/95 report and asked the Supervisors for direction regarding the committe's priorities. The discussion rapidly turned to the FAA's steps for obtaining grant funding. 0. agree on future airport users, runway and taxiway widths and thickness, size of Runway Protection Zones 1. secure Runway Protection Zones 2. paving, prepare space for more tiedowns and more hangars, including fuel tank removal - the FAA wants to see our pavement maintenance records. Charles told me that there have been some recent zoning changes which I should get from Ray Hall in Planning. Charles thinks these may take care of the Runway Protection Zone issues without the necessity of buying any land. The Airport Land Use Commission provided input to these zoning changes. Mr. Campbell said that he opposes narrowing the runway or taxiway. The Supervisors also expressed a desire to maintain the facility as it is and not diminish it. Someone said it is the only emergency field large enough for big jets for many miles. Budge said that the FAA doesn't want pavement maintenance records, they just want to see a maintenance manual. He also said that when the Ad Hoc Committee delves into Federal funding that we are working on very major issues. He is worried about the limited County staff participation (due to limited staff time). I asked if we should consider different governance for the airport, such as a CSD. Charles said this would be impractical and would not produce the desired effect. He said an airport CSD would only be one or two precincts and probably would include few if any pilots. He said it would be expensive to set up and impractical. Budge said that he is not sure that we should dig up the fibreglass fuel tank, it may only be necessary to remove the two smaller metal tanks. He believes there may be some changes in the Surface Transportation Act (affecting underground tanks). Charles said that Pete Halstad is scheduling work on underground tanks and that the Little River tanks are about three years down the list. I said that I thought it takes about 2 years to get Federal funding, so it is not too soon to start the wheels turning, if that's what is wanted. Charles said he is working on an alternative funding source. Budge said that he prefers State funding to Federal. He also said that full board approval should be obtained before we go for funding on anything. Charles looked at the Public Works list of items and said it looked good to him. The Public Works list of items for a State Improvement Plan: Priority description year cost ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 develop private hangar site 1996 $300,000 2 AC overlay, all paved areas 1996 $912,000 3 Construct tie-down area 1997 $436,000 4 Install airport lighting system 1997 $356,000 5 New operations building 1997 $115,000 6 Land acquisition for clear zones 1998 $480,000 7 Install AWOS system 1998 $60,000 ------------------- total $2,659,000 The users of the airport put the AWOS close to the top of the list. We got back to talking about the runway width. Someone said that movie companies used to use large jets. Frank said that the County would like to attract more films. I said that Paul Krause and Ed Sander did a report on movie company use which found that they didn't need the large jets and would continue to make films without using them. They did report that we should add our location to the film database. Frank said that the County film office is doing this. The discussion returned to the Runway Protection Zone issue. Budge said that this has been a long-standing issue. He said that he is concerned about our plan for a GPS approach because he thinks that few pilots have the right equipment - they may prefer an VOR or NDB approach. I said that it is clear that the FAA plans to replace VOR system with GPS approaches and that approach-approved GPS systems are rapidly dropping in price and increasing in popularity. In a year or two many pilot will have them. The previously proposed VOR approach had very high minimums which made it uninteresting to local pilots. NBDs are more obsolete than VORs. Budge asked the Ado Hoc Committee to poll the pilot community regarding the type of instrument approach they desire. I agreed that we'll do this. Someone then raised the question: if an instrument approach is established at Little River, will it then see use as an instrument training facility, increasing traffic? Would this be bad? We talked about Susan Winding's request for the conservation camp crew to clean up the pond and bring down the remaining trees before they fall. Charles was in favor of this and Budge said that "he'd look into it". Charles said that he wants our committee to work on the issue of how to establish an official airport committee. He'd like to see a committee with 2 pilots, 2 non-pilot neighbors and 1 non-pilot business person. Budge said he'd rather see a County-wide Airport Commission that includes every airport (County, public and private). he said we could put on more people with aviation knowledge and would have more flexibility making County-wide decisions. Charles said that he favors an official Little River committee, but if we go for the County-wide Airport Commission, then the Ad Hoc group would probably still be needed, with one of its members serving on the Airport Commission. He wants us the decide which way we'd prefer to go. Charles said he has been working with the Western Commercial State Center (WCSC) and the State Port Authority. These bodies have been involved in the Vandenberg, McClellan and Pt. Arena privatizations. They are planning high tech economic development, R&D facilities and parts manufacturing facilities for the commercial aerospace industry. This industry will launch 1000-2000 commercial satellites from Vandenburg over the next 10 years. He expects to see the first Mendocino Coast development as part of this program by the end of 1996. We get to pick and choose and can have a non-toxic, non-polluting industry with high paying jobs. Charles would like to see this at Little River Airport. The WCSC has $100 million for infrastructure funding and also has a lot of clout with the FAA. Charles repeated that he'd like to preserve the existing airstrip without giving up any. He said we should ask the FAA about the provision in the 1948 grant which says that the County has to keep the airport ready for handover to the Federal government in time of war. The noise abatement policy came up next. Budge and Charles asked us to get State clearance in addition to the FAA's approval. Then we should write to Budge who will ask Peter Klein (County Counsel) to bless the procedure. The near-term budget items were discussed. Mr. McMichael had left by this time. Charles wants to move forward with the day use fee. Budge said it is too late to implement fees for the December cycle, Charles said he wants to make it effective July 1996. I handed out copies of Charlie Meinershagen's spreadsheet of airport fees. Budge said that this is a bad list of airports because most of them are not "destination" airports. He said we should include all the airports on the County's list from its earlier fee survey (e.g., Monterey and Nut Tree) because they are destination airports. I pointed out that they all have far more facilities than Little River. Then someone said something that made it clear we were discussing the day use fee, and Budge removed his objection. Budge is opposed to a day use fee. He wants to develop an RV-tent camping facility on the South side of the airport. I reported on what the FAA said about this - that we should avoid the mistakes Columbia airport made, where campers walk across the active runway to get to the airport office and to town. The FAA also said that any air camping facility must be well fenced to keep little kids from wandering onto the runway or taxiways and getting hurt. Charles repeated that we need to make the airport "break even" by July. Charles suggested lowering the tiedown fee. Joel suggested charging everyone a tiedown fee if they stay over 3 hours and buy less than 10 gallons of gas. Budge said he is in favor of enveloping airplanes and that a lock-box is in the County shop and soon will be installed at the airport. Charles likes the idea of just one fee. He'd like to keep it simple. Andy suggested calling it a "minimum tiedown fee". Charles said we need to have this resolved by January 1st and wants another report from the Ad Hoc Committee. I asked if I could get copies of the airport activity logs. Budge said to contact Chuck and request copies. Charles said that the logging of the airport is showed as contributing $450,000 toward balancing the county budget. He thinks that's optimistic and it probably will only yield $250,000. Budge said he'd like the timber money to go to the airport. He said, if the Board wants the airport to make money, we can do it. Charles said he'll try to get some of the money devoted to an economic development study of non-aviation uses of airport land. There was some discussion of the traffic problem at the intersection of Airport Road and Highway 1. Charles and Budge talked about how to get this intersection on the waiting list for improvement. We talked about the alternatives of a stoplight and widening the road for a left-turn lane. Charles rejected these and maintained that the right solution is to lower the road so that people can see further. Charles talked about using developer impact fees to fund some of the highway work. Joel asked why The Woods was allowed to expand greatly without paying such fees. Charles responded that the decision was made in Normal deVall's time in a different political climate. I asked Budge if we could have a volunteer crew paint the outside of the airport office. Charles said that we'd have to have someone involved who really understands "prep work". Budge said he'd have to ask "Buildings and Grounds" about it, since it is their department. I asked again what the committe's priorities should be: * short term budget (report on day use fee) * contact State about noise abatement policy, get their blessing * Little River AAC vs County Wide AAC * follow up with Ray Hall on Runway Protection Zone status * ask FAA if the zoning changes are sufficient, ask about the "military use" clause and status as emergency airport re keeping runway at current width. * discuss future uses of the airport, hold a community meeting * poll the pilot community about what kind of instrument approach is wanted. Charles said that if the FAA pushes them hard enough, the County will "give the airport back to them". He also said that if push comes to shove, that he would be willing to see the runway narrowed. Charles would like to increase the number of business users. Andy said that these users tend to fly turbine aircraft, often jets. Chamber of Commerce ------------------- Joel Bornstein spoke to the Chamber of Commerce on Monday 11/20. The 11/22 Mendocino Beacon had a front page article titled "Airport Support: Chamber urges Board of Supervisors to invest in Little River Airport". The Board voted unanimously to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging them to put up matching funds for a federal grant to pay for updated airport technology. The Beacon article said that a possible source for these funds is the sale of timber on airport land. AWOS Research ------------- Jack Reichel did further research on AWOS (Automated Weather Observing Station). His report is below: To: Airport Advisory Committee, Little River Airport From: Jack Reichel Subject: Information on Establishing an Instrument Approach Background ---------- In Tim Scully's report on his 10/28/95 meeting with the FAA Airports District Office in Burlingame, he cited Joe Rodriguez' recommendation to contact Hal Wight, airport manager for the Concord and Byron airports in Contra Costa County, for information on an Automatic Weather Observation Station (AWOS). It has been proposed to the AAC that the installation of an AWOS at Little River Airport would be an important first step in obtaining an instrument approach and would also provide ancillary benefits to the community in general. Accordingly at Tim's request I undertook to obtain information on an AWOS and its applicability to a GPS approach, the only type of instrument approach that is currently considered feasible for Little River. I met with Hal Wight on 11/16. He said he really hadn't had much involvement with the AWOS going in at Concord, because the FAA was handling the project themselves. He referred me to Dave Andrews, manager at Sonoma County Airport (Santa Rosa) where an AWOS had been installed by the county themselves. On 11/20 I phoned Dave (707) 524-7243, and he cordially referred me to Bob Becker in his office, who had direct responsibility for AWOS. Bob was very helpful and advised me of the following: Sonoma County Airport AWOS 1. The system they have (AWOS-3 upgrade) was provided by Handar in San Jose and cost $55,000 in 1992. 90% was re-imbursed by the FAA. They were forced to have an AWOS installed because a few years ago the FAA decided they could no longer use Travis altimeter setting and was on the verge of canceling their ILS instrument approach. 2. The system is very reliable and provides everything they need (ceiling, visibility, temp, dew point, altimeter setting, wind direction & velocity) for their approaches. 3. The FAA insists on an assurance of proper maintenance so they have a contract with Systems & Servicing which costs them about $10 - $12,000 per year. 4. Bob feels that the major problem in today's economic environment will be to obtain the funding. The first step is to have the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors ask for the system to be installed. We then have to work with the FAA in Burlingame to prioritize it. 5. Their AWOS is available to the public on (707) 545-AWOS, and is used extensively by local fisherman, the grape industry and wineries, tourists, etc. Bob feels that all these weather-availability benefits would also accrue to Mendocino/Little River, plus its very important use by Air Ambulances in the event of a medical emergency or catastrophe. 6. Bob invited us up to his office for further discussions and a briefing on their AWOS. Placerville Airport GPS Approach -------------------------------- I had recently noticed that a GPS-only approach has just been published for Placerville Airport, a site that like Little River had previously not had an instrument approach. In reviewing the approach procedure I noticed that there was no use of an AWOS and that the altimeter setting was obtained via the airport advisory frequency (Unicom, the same as is used at Little River airport). There is likewise no control tower at Placerville. In order to clarify that a GPS-only approach can be instituted without use of an AWOS, I phoned the Placerville airport office (916.622.0459) and talked with Dave Nicolls: 1. El Dorado County had tried for 17 years to get an instrument approach approved for Placerville, using the Hangtown VOR which is on the field. Eighteen months ago they abandoned this quixotic pursuit and switched to a GPS-only approach, which they were able to obtain. They now are seeking to capitalize on this success and obtain a GPS-only approach for the Georgetown airport (which I believe is smaller and significantly less-used than Little River). 2. They didn't need an AWOS and simply provide altimeter settings to arriving aircraft via the airport employees transmitting to them on Unicom. They specifically are not certified weather observers and do not provide ceiling or visibility information - this limits any liability to the employees and/or the County. They have added no liability insurance; they just maintained their standard general business liability policy. 3. Aircraft altimeter settings are obtained from two aviation altimeters (standard aircraft units, with Kollsman windows) mounted in a case in the airport office and vented to the outside. The exact airport elevation was first surveyed. The FAA then came up and approved the installation. 4. They wanted an AWOS but the cost told to them ($120,000) was prohibitive so they opted for the above altimeter-only procedure. They feel that this has allowed them to get the ball rolling and that eventually they will probably get an ASOS provided to them when the National Weather Service starts standardizing on ASOS and replacing AWOS. 5. Like Santa Rosa, they feel that the local businesses and residents will benefit once an AWOS or ASOS is available. 6. The GPS approach introduction was coordinated through Barry Rosenberg of the FAA Western Region Flight Procedures Office in L.A. (310-725-7122). The installation inspector who works with Barry is Larry Stewart (310-297-0127). They are both knowlegeable individuals and quite cooperative. 7. Like Bob Becker at Santa Rosa, Dave Nicolls was most helpful and offered to extend any needed assistance in the future. Conclusion: ----------- From my viewpoint, the aspects of the Placerville airport (rural, uncontrolled field with no previous instrument approach) are quite similar to those at Little River. Therefore, the instrument approach recently instituted at Placerville indicates that adoption of a GPS approach at Little River is feasible. Also, it now appears that, contrary to our earlier belief, installation of an AWOS is not a necessary pre-condition, thereby simplifying the economic considerations. Note that we already have a dual-altimeter instrumentation set-up at the Little River airport. I recommend that we actively pursue the incorporation of a GPS-only approach for Little River, similar to that recently approved for Placerville. I believe that this will be a valuable addition to the community's resources, and will enhance the availability of the airport to local businesspeople, government officials and visitors. It will also provide benefits in the event of medical evacuation or catastrophe relief. I also recommend that we continue to pursue the obtaining of an AWOS. Submitted by: _________________ Jack Reichel Controlling Propeller Noise --------------------------- The latest issue of the California Pilot Association newsletter published a very good article "Controlling Propeller Noise" which explains how to reduce noise from prop driven aircraft. I got permission from Jay White, the president of CPA, to reprint parts of the article, which was written by Nubar Deombeleg: Propeller noise in the average general aviation aircraft is largely a function of how fast the prop tips spin through the air, and that in turn is a combination of horsepower, propeller diameter and RPM. An 82 inch propeller pushed by a 285 horsepower engine turning 2750 RPM is ripping through the air at 671 MPH (or Mach .9), producing two very loud sonic booms per revolution. The same propeller turning 2550 RPM spins its tips at only 622 MPH - below the 625 MPH threshold of the transsonic range. Thus a modest reduction in RPM, often as little as 100, can make a significant difference in percieved noise. Many pilots are reluctant to do this because they believe that running engines "over square" in harmful - a mistaken idea. In fact, in some aircraft such as the Lycoming O-540 powered Cessan 182, the engine has been derated by limiting maximum RPM to 2400 - both as a means to limit horsepower to that originally approved for the airframe, and as a side benefit to reduce noise both inside and outside the airplane. Most ungeared engines can be run at full takeoff power at 2400 RPM without adverse consequence (aircraft with fixed pitch props turn no more than that on takeoff). The technique I use with my 260 horsepower Bonanza is to start my takeoff run with full power and RPM (2625). Once airborne and cleaned up, I slowly back the RPM down to 2500, leaving the throttle wide open for maximum climb until reaching pattern altitude. After that I reduce power to crusie-climb. The reduction in RPM cuts my prop tip speed from 640 MPH to 610 MPH, below the irritating transsonic threshold. Assuming that your tachometer is reading accurately (deviations of up to 200 RPM are common) and you know your propeller's diameter, a look at the chart below will show you how to achieve a significant noise reduction in your particular aircraft. [The transsonic speeds have been flagged with asterisks - avoid these!] Finally, remember that high RPM, even with power reduced as when on final approach, can be irritating. There is no real need to push the prop control to max RPM before short final. These techniques will cost you nothing and will give people on the ground less to complain about. table of propeller tip speed in miles per hour vs prop RPM and diameter ----------------------------------------------------------------------- diameter ---------------- propeller RPM -------------------- inches 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2800 ------ ---------------------------------------------------- 74 528 539 550 561 572 583 594 605 616 75 535 547 558 569 580 591 602 614 625* 76 543 554 565 577 588 599 610 622 633* 77 550 561 573 584 596 607 619 630* 641* 78 557 569 580 592 603 615 627* 638* 650* 79 564 576 588 599 611 623 635* 646* 658* 80 571 583 595 607 619 631* 643* 654* 666* 81 578 590 602 614 627* 639* 651* 663* 675* 82 585 598 610 622 634* 646* 659* 671* 683* 83 593 605 617 630* 642* 654* 667* 679* 691* 84 600 612 625* 637* 650* 662* 675* 687* 700* 85 607 620 632* 645* 657* 670* 683* 695* 708* 86 614 627* 640* 652* 665* 678* 691* 704* 715* 87 629* 634* 647* 660* 673* 686* 699* 712* 725* STAY BELOW 625 MPH TIP SPEED, PLEASE! ===================================== 501(c)(3) news -------------- Pledges are still trickling in for the proposed 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation to support Little River Airport. Pledge forms are available at the airport office or by mail from Tim. $500 initial pledges - 4 $250 initial pledges - 2 $200 initial pledges - 1 $100 initial pledges - 4 $500 annual pledges - 1 $250 annual pledges - 1 $150 annual pledges - 1 $100 annual pledges - 2 volunteered for work crew (for airport projects) - 8 volunteered to be fund raiser/director - 6 The California Pilot's Association says that we could form as a chapter of CPA at an initial cost of only $105, including filing fees. We would manage our own bank account (making local decisions about how to spend money we collect in donations). We would pay an accountent to keep books for our chapter and file its tax returns. The CPA chapter annual dues are $50. Michael Moore ------------- I met briefly with Michael Moore. He said that he has to go back to Cambridge, England again and will miss our next meeting. He will try to be back on 12/17 if we hold a meeting then, otherwise he will start attending meetings regularly again in January. Michael expressed a preference for an official Little River Airport Advisory Committe instead of a County-wide Aviation Advisory Commission. He felt that our influence would be diluted too much by the County-wide body.