Report on Proposed GPS Instrument Approach at Little River Airport

4/6/97

(rough draft, not yet approved)

1. Summary...................................................................................................................................................................

2. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................

2.1 IFR vs VFR..............................................................................................................................................................

2.2 About Instrument Approach Procedures.....................................................................................

3. Issues Surrounding the Proposed GPS Approach.....................................................................

3.1 Increased Traffic and Noise................................................................................................................

3.2 Altimeter Settings.....................................................................................................................................

3.2.1 Liability........................................................................................................................................................

3.2.2 Cost...............................................................................................................................................................

3.2.3 Recommendation for the Future..............................................................................................................

3.2.4 When the Altimeter Setting is not available..........................................................................................

3.3 FAR 77 Surfaces.............................................................................................................................................

3.3.1 Topping or Cutting Trees.........................................................................................................................

3.4 Runway Protection Zones (Clear Zones).....................................................................................

3.4.1 land purchases............................................................................................................................................

3.5 Moving the road..........................................................................................................................................

3.6 Airspace............................................................................................................................................................

3.6.1 Limited number of IFR operations here.................................................................................................

3.6.2 Scud Running..............................................................................................................................................

3.6.3 Airspace Protection...................................................................................................................................

3.7 New Equipment Purchases.....................................................................................................................

3.8 Is this an expansion of the airport?..............................................................................................

3.8.1 What plans does the County have for the airport?..............................................................................

3.9 Other Costs to the County...................................................................................................................

3.10 Automated Weather Station..........................................................................................................

3.11 Is the weather so bad that a non-precision approach is useless?..........................

3.11.1 What do pilots do when the weather is below minimums?...............................................................

3.12 Is A GPS Approach the Right Approach?.......................................................................................

3.13 What has been done so far?..............................................................................................................

3.14 What Does the FAA Need from Us?..................................................................................................

3.14.1 Letter asking for the Approach.............................................................................................................

3.14.2 Technical Data Requirements...............................................................................................................

3.14.3 Environmental Impact Study/Assessment............................................................................................

3.14.4 FAA Form 7480-1 “Notice of Landing Area Proposal”...................................................................

3.14.5 What “Strings” are Attached to the GPS Approach?.......................................................................

4. Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................

5. Future Possibility - a Precision Approach?..................................................................................

5.1 What would a precision approach change?.............................................................................

6. Appendix A:  Glossary...................................................................................................................................

7. Appendix B:   FAA Technical Documents............................................................................................

7.1 “Airport Eligibility Requirements for Establishing an Instrument Approach Procedure (for Airports Not Already Served by a Procedure)”..................................................................................................

7.2 “AC 91-14D - Altimeter Setting Sources”.........................................................................................

7.3 Text From FAR 1 and 1-38 re airspace classifications.........................................................

8. Appendix C:   correspondence re technical issues..................................................................

8.1 May 6, 1994 letter from FAA to California airport operators, offering a GPS approach.              

8.2 April 26, 1995 letter from CalTrans stating that the County would incur no cost for a GPS approach (see item 3 in the letter)................................................................................................................................

8.3 July 22,1996 letter from FAA Flight Procedures Office stating that the road does not need to be moved and that a 20:1 approach surface is adequate............................................................................

8.4 August 6, 1996 letter from FAA Airports District Office confirming that the road does not have to be moved and that a 20:1 approach surface is adequate............................................................

8.5 October 2, 1996 letter from DPW stating that getting a GPS instrument approach would not change the cost of the airport’s insurance....................................................................................................

8.6 November 5, 1996 letter from El Dorado County Airport Operations Manager stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic..................................................................................................

8.7 November 8, 1996 letter from the Hollister airport manager stating that their GPS instrument approach has not increased traffic..................................................................................................

8.8 November 8, 1996 letter from Auburn Municipal Airport stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic.............................................................................................................................................

8.9 November 13, 1996 letter from DPW stating that properly trained private observers may use the County altimeters to give the altimeter setting and they will be covered by the County’s liability insurance........................................................................................................................................................................................

8.10 November 13 letter from Andy Becker (airport supervisor) to DPW stating that he will give the altimeter setting by telephone..............................................................................................................

8.11 January 3, 1997 FAX from Mammoth Lakes Airport stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic.....................................................................................................................................................................

8.12 January 29, 1997 letter from Barry Rosenberg of the FAA Flight Procedures Office stating that the ALP meets all technical data requirements for the GPS approach and providing sample letters of concurrance........................................................................................................................................................

8.13 February 11, 1997 FAX from El Dorado County Airports giving statistics on Placerville airport.         

8.14 February 14, 1997 letter from Auburn Municipal Airport giving statistics on the airport.        

8.15 February 26, 1997, FAX from Hollister Airport giving statistics on the airport.

8.16 March 30 FAX from Rialto Airport stating that their NDB approach doesn’t affect noise or traffic and giving statistics on their airport...............................................................................................

8.17 April 2 FAX from Lompoc airport stating that their VOR, NDB and GPS approaches did not increase traffic and giving statistics on their airport.............................................................................

8.18 March 30 FAX from Camarillo airport stating that their VOR approach did not increase traffic, but did increase noise problems due to the flight path of the approach over residences          

8.19 March 30 FAX from Rio Vista airport stating that their VOR approach did not increase traffic and did not increase noise, but it did improve safety........................................................................

8.20 March 30 FAX from Monterey airport stating that their ILS approach did not increase traffic (but they also said it was essential to a Part 139 airport)............................................................

8.21 March 30 FAX from Cable airport stating that their VOR approach “obviously leads to a few more flights on bad days”.......................................................................................................................................

9. Appendix D:  survey of airport users regarding different instrument approach types 

10. Appendix E: historical weather data and analysis.............................................................

11. Appendix F: correspondence with airport neighbors and users...............................

11.1 January 30, 1996 letter from the Fort Bragg - Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce, in favor of a GPS approach................................................................................................................................................................

11.2 June 23, 1996 letter from Coast Flyers requesting the GPS approach.......................

11.3 September 24, 1996 letter from Joel Bornstein in favor of airport improvements and the GPS approach.......................................................................................................................................................................................

11.4 October 26, 1996 letter from Peter Heinie in favor of the GPS approach................

11.5 October 31, 1996 letter from Dobie Dolphin opposing a GPS approach  and November 11, 1996 answer to her letter from Tim Scully........................................................................................................................

11.6 November 2, 1996 FAX from Jacques Tenzel, M.D. in favor of the GPS approach..

11.7 November 2, 1996 letter from Charlie Eby in favor of the GPS approach...............

11.8 November 3, 1996 letter from Sandy Berrigan opposing the GPS approach and a November 16 answer to her letter from Tim Scully........................................................................................................................

11.9 November 3, 1996 letter from Liz Irwin opposing the GPS approach and raising many questions, and a November 16 answer to her letter from Tim Scully..................................................................

11.10 November 4, 1996 letter from Joanne C. Imperial, M.D. in favor of a GPS approach           

11.11 November 6, 1996 email from Vince Taylor in favor of a GPS approach................

11.12 November 13, 1996 letter from Andy Becker in favor of the GPS approach.........

11.13 November 17, 1996 letter from Judith Barry in favor of a GPS approach............

11.14 March 1997 letter from Frank Robinton in favor an instrument approach..

11.15 March 1997 resolution from the Whitesboro Grange in support of the GPS approach 

12. Appendix G:  Newspaper Articles and Letters to the Editor..........................................

12.1 “Airport Support” by Chris Chandler, Mendocino Beacon, November 22, 1995, Page 1.         

12.2 Bad Weather Bites, by Tom Taylor, in The Mendonesian, December 1995 page 31

12.3 Better Use of the Airport, Joel Bornstein, Mendocino Beacon, October 10, letters to the Editor           

12.4 Editorial, Mendocino Beacon, October 17,1996,  Page 4........................................................

12.5 Noise, instrument landing possibility under discussion, Beacon Staff, Mendocino Beacon, October 17.1996, Page 1..........................................................................................................................................................

12.6 Peace and Quiet, Anne Goncharoff, Mendocino Beacon, October 17(?), 1996, letters to the Editor          

12.7 Airport proposals scrutinized; more work ahead, by Neil Boyle, Mendocino Beacon, October 24, 1996, Page 1.........................................................................................................................................................................

12.8 Keep Little River Airport Little, Arlene Lind, Mendocino Beacon, October 31, 1996, letters to the editor.......................................................................................................................................................................................

12.9 Airport Planning Drawing Feedback, by Beacon Staff, Mendocino Beacon, November 7, 1996, page 1     

12.10 Two More Airport Meetings, Mendocino Beacon, November 14, 1996, page 3........

12.11 Letter on Noise Abatement Policy, Jack Reichel,  Mendocino Beachon, November 14, 1996, Page 4            

12.12 Airport group’s noise policy goes to supervisors, Neil Boyle, Mendocino Beacon, November 21, 1996, page 1.....................................................................................................................................................................................

12.13 Oppose Increased Air Traffic, Tom Wodtezki, Mendocino Beacon, December 26, 1996, page 4        

12.14 Unfounded Concerns, Tim Scully, Mendocino Beacon, January 9, 1997, page 4..

12.15 In the Public Interest, Joanne Imperial, M.D., Mendocino Beacon, January 16, 1997, page 4            

12.16 Airport group continues work on GPS proposal,  Neil Boyle, Mendocino Beacon, January 16, 1997, page 1.......................................................................................................................................................................................

12.17 Not in the Public Interest, Jim Wagoner, Mendocino Beacon, January 23, 1997, page 4     

12.18 It Could Happen Here, Greg Menken, Mendocino Beacon, January 23, 1997, page 5

12.19 Misinterpreted, Joel Bornstein, Mendocino Beacon, January 30, 1997, Page 4.....

12.20 Airport Group Refining GPS Ideas, Mendocino Beacon, February 13, 1997, Page 1.

12.21 Airport’s future debated, Mendocino Beacon, March 13, 1997, Page 1....................

13. Appendix H:  Notes from community meetings re GPS approach and Noise Abatement     

13.1 October 20, 1996 meeting.........................................................................................................................

13.1.1 flyer posted in various locations on October 15, advertising the October 20th meeting............

13.1.2 October 15 email from Dick Ahrens documenting how the meeting was advertised..................

13.1.3 Minutes of October 20, 1996 community meeting.............................................................................

13.2 November 3, 1996 Community Meeting............................................................................................

13.2.1 flyer posted in various locations on October 29, advertising the November 3rd meeting..........

13.2.2 Email from Dick Ahrens regarding posting of flyers for 11/3 meeting..........................................

13.2.3 Minutes of November 3, 1996 community meeting............................................................................

14. Appendix I:  NEXWOS  Automated Weather Station.................................................................

15. Appendix J:   Maps showing the proposed approach centerlines and approach trapazoids.   

16. Appendix K:     Draft  letter  of  concurrence  and environmental letter..........

16.1 Draft letter of Concurrence...........................................................................................................

16.2 Draft environmental impact letter...........................................................................................

17. Appendix L:   Details of what an instrument flight is like..............................................

17.1 Little River to Oakland........................................................................................................................

17.2 Oakland to Little River (assuming a GPS approach)..........................................................

18. Appendix M:   A Brief History of the Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee............

 

 

1.     Summary

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is offering, at no cost to the County, to design a navigational procedure for instrument rated aircraft pilots to approach Little River Airport during limited visibility flying conditions by using the Global Positioning System (GPS). This non-precision flying procedure aids the aircraft pilot to approach the airport through clouds on a specific flight path leading to the runway. The GPS approach procedure is not for actually landing the aircraft “blindly”. To complete a landing after using the GPS approach procedure, the pilot must be able to see the airport at a predetermined height and distance from the airport.

 

A few pilots based at Little River now have the expensive on-board instruments and training to use GPS approach procedures at other airports and would like to have a GPS approach procedure designed for Little River Airport. Several other local pilots have stated that they will buy approved GPS equipment if Little River Airport gets a GPS approach procedure. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is offering to design GPS instrument approaches for most airports in the Unites States. The available historical weather data for the Little River area suggest that such a GPS approach procedure may be useful about 20% of the time, although such estimates are always approximate since the weather varies greatly from year to year.

 

What concerns do the neighbors of the airport have?

Two community meetings and many Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee meetings have been held to discuss the proposed GPS instrument approach and to gain an understanding of community concerns about it. Over 21 articles and letters to the editor have appeared, pro and con in local newspapers about the proposed approach (see Appendix G).

 

Many non-pilot neighbors of the Little River Airport, wishing to maintain a small rural airport with as little noise disturbance as possible, have expressed concerns that a GPS approach procedure will facilitate more traffic and noise, and become impetus to necessitate further airport improvements and expansion. Neighbors have also asked if the GPS report will be a burden on the County’s tight budget, if it involves installing new equipment or lights at the airport, if there will be new liability concerns, if the approach would require them to top their trees and if zoning changes would be required.

 

What is this GPS approach?

The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a navigational aid enabling pilots to know where they are and where they are headed in conditions of limited visibility. A GPS approach procedure is a set of instructions published by the FAA which describe a specific flight path for descent toward landing on a particular runway at a specific airport. Such procedures are used when a layer of clouds limits pilot visibility, allowing pilots to use instruments to navigate while descending to an altitude where visibility is clear enough to complete a landing. The GPS approach procedure does not allow landing if the clouds are lower than about 300 to 400 feet from the ground. The GPS approach procedure includes “missed approach” instructions for times when the pilot flying the approach discovers that the clouds are too low to land and must gain altitude and contact Oakland Center for clearance to an alternate destination.

 

GPS is replacing other means of navigation, such as Loran, for aircraft, ships and many other applications. GPS navigation does not require new equipment on the ground. Aircraft using GPS must have FAA approved GPS receivers installed at the owner’s expense. Pilots must have special training, pass written and flight tests and then must continue to train regularly to legally fly an instrument approach. Their aircraft also must have special equipment, suitable for the approach they plan to fly. This equipment must have its accuracy checked at regular intervals.

 

What changes will it bring?

The GPS approach will change the FAA’s classification of the airspace around the airport. This only affects pilots, and then only in cloudy weather. It keeps pilots who are not on an instrument flight plan further away from the clouds then the current airspace classification does. It will require instrument rated pilots to file an IFR flight plan before flying through the clouds around Little River.

 

The airport supervisor will begin giving the altimeter setting when telephoned by the FAA. This will give pilots flying the instrument approach more accurate altitude information. The airport already has the equipment for this.

 

A GPS approach would improve safety, and would make the airport more accessible in the event of an emergency. All instrument approaches in the United States are being converted to GPS over the next few years.

 

What isn’t it?

The proposed GPS approach does not involve any expansion of the airport. No new equipment or lights will be installed. There is no cost to the airport or to the County. No land has to be acquired. No new insurance is needed.  No zoning changes are needed for the GPS approach - the existing airport height zoning is adequate. The GPS approach does not impose any new regulations to trigger tree topping.  The GPS approach has no effect when the weather is good. Pilots land visually in good weather.

 

There are no plans for airline service or air freight service at Little River airport. The GPS approach is not intended to attract more traffic or commercial users  to the airport, it is intended to improve safety for existing users of the airport. The committee surveyed four California airports that already have GPS approaches and has been consistently told that the GPS approach did not increase traffic and slightly reduced noise, while improving safety.

 

Recommendation

The FAA has all the technical data for designing the approach. All that is needed now is a letter from the County asking for the approach (see details below).

 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that GPS approaches be designed for each landing direction on the runway at Little River. The West approach (called Runway 29) is used normally, due to prevailing winds from the West and Northwest. The East approach (called Runway 11) is used when the wind is strong from the East. The GPS approach will not affect which runway (direction of flight) aircraft use, this is determined by the wind direction.

 

2.     Introduction

This report discusses in detail the FAA’s requirements for obtaining a GPS instrument approach procedure, the costs to the County, the expected impact on the community around the airport and the opinions of users and neighbors of the airport. Many technical terms are used here. See the Glossary in Appendix A for their definitions.

2.1     IFR vs VFR

To understand instrument approaches, it’ll help for you to understand a little about FAA rules.

 

There are two sets of rules that pilots can fly by. Visual Flight Rules (VFR), can be used by all pilots when the weather is good or clear. VFR means flying visually, being able to see where you are going. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), allows pilots with the proper training, licensing and equipment to fly through clouds, when they can’t see where they are going. Pilots who lack the training or equipment are not allowed to fly IFR and are required to keep a safe distance from clouds, a distance which varies depending on the type of airspace the pilot is flying in (see section 6.3 in Appendix B for details on this).

 

You’ve probably heard of “flight plans”. Pilots may fly VFR without a flight plan, wherever they can legally fly at all (except when crossing international borders). Pilots with “instrument ratings” may fly IFR without a flight plan only in Class “G” or “uncontrolled” airspace. Since most airspace is  “controlled”, normally pilots flying IFR are flying on an IFR flight plan and are in radio contact with an FAA controller on the ground, who acts as a traffic cop, keeping aircraft flying through the clouds safely separated from each other.

2.2     About Instrument Approach Procedures

The purpose of an instrument approach procedure is to improve the safety of landings when the weather limits pilots flight visibility. Instrument approaches are not needed for takeoffs. They are also not needed for landing in good weather.

 

Until recently, instrument approach procedures used ground-based navigation aids which are expensive to install and operate. The Little River Airport Master plan (1990) discusses two instrument approach procedures: a non-precision VOR-DME approach procedure which was designed but never published and a possible future ILS precision approach. These both involve the use of ground-based radio transmitters. The VOR-DME non-precision approach had very high minimums, making it of marginal utility. This was due to the great distance between the nearest ground-based VOR-DME station (in the hills  between  Ukiah and Booneville) and Little River Airport. See the glossary in Appendix A for definitions of VOR, DME, ILS, etc.).

 

The Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation system was originally developed for military use, but has been declassified and made available to non-military users.  Users of GPS have special electronic receivers which pick up and identify signals broadcast from 24 orbiting GPS satellites. These signals contain precisely encoded time signals along with an almanac which tells the receiver the exact position of each satellite. The receiver decodes these signals and computes the receiver’s exact position on the Earth’s surface with reference to longitude and latitude by triangulation.  The Global Positioning System is of such accuracy and usefulness to all types of travel  that older navigational aids are being phased out.

 

The FAA has announced plans to replace all ground-based navigation systems with GPS over the next 10 years or so. Thus, the FAA is starting to phase out all other approach and navigation systems and will evolve into a GPS-only structure in the not-too-distant-future.  Below is a chart showing the FAA’s approximate schedule, by Calendar Year, for phasing out other forms of navigation. The top seven bars in the chart are existing systems that are being phased out. The bottom two bars are advanced “differential” GPS augmentation systems that are being phased in the supplement basic GPS services.

 

See the glossary in Appendix A for definitions of the abbreviations in the chart, such as MLS, NDB, etc. The numbers at the top of the chart are calendar years, starting in 1998 and continuing to 2015.  This chart was produced from information provided by the FAA and published in the February 1997 issue of Avionics Magazine on page 6.

 

Instrument approach procedures which provide both horizontal and vertical guidance are called “precision” approaches. Approach procedures which provide only horizontal guidance are called “non-precision”. The proposed GPS approach is a non-precision approach. Precision GPS approaches are not yet available.

 

Although the accuracy of GPS information can be improved by adding a ground-based "differential" augmentation transmitter (WAAS or LAAS), basic GPS navigation services do not require any ground-based navigation equipment near the airport served by a GPS instrument approach. This expensive equipment is not needed at Little River Airport.

 

In 1994 the FAA began offering to develop GPS approaches for most US airports. A GPS approach procedure does not require the installation of any new instruments or equipment on the ground, although it does require pilots to buy approved equipment to install in their aircraft.

 

Airports all over the U.S. already have GPS approaches. Below is a list of some of the California airports which already have GPS approaches.

 

Alturas                   Hayward                 Orland                              San Andreas

Arcata                     Jackson                  Oroville                             San Francisco

Auburn                   Lakeport                 Palo Alto                          San Jose

Chico                      Lincoln                   Petaluma                           Santa Rosa

Columbia                Lodi                        Pine Mountain Lake         So. Lake Tahoe

Concord                  Marysville              Placerville                         Stockton

Crescent City          Monterey                Red Bluff                          Truckee

Davis                       Napa                       Redding                             Ukiah

Eureka                     Nut Tree                 Rio Vista                           Watsonville

Fortuna                    Oakdale                  Sacramento                       Willows

Grass Valley           Oakland                  Salinas                               Woodland

 

Pilots must have special training and pass written and in flight tests to get an "instrument rating" which allows them to fly by Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and use instrument approach procedures. A little over half of all licensed pilots are instrument rated. Their airplanes must be properly equipped with the instruments required for the procedure they want to use. The rules also specify how often the airplane's instruments must have their calibration checked. Instrument rated pilots are also required to have substantial recent (within the last 6 months) experience or training (an “instrument competency check” by an instrument flight instructor) in controlling an aircraft in IFR conditions and in flying instrument approaches.

 

A GPS approach procedure at Little River Airport would require the FAA to reclassify the airspace immediately surrounding the airport from class “G” Uncontrolled Airspace to Class “E” controlled airspace from 700 feet above the ground to 18,000 feet above sea level. During cloudy weather, only pilots flying by Instrument Flight Rules can be flying through the clouds above Little River Airport. During cloudy weather condition, non-instrument rated pilots must keep a further visual distance from the clouds above Little River Airport than was required with class “G” uncontrolled airspace.

 

The non-precision GPS approach procedure for Little River airport will require the pilot to be in radio contact with Oakland Center, which coordinates and controls all instrument flights in the area. The pilot will either obtain the Little River Airport altimeter setting from Oakland Center (who can obtain it by telephone from the Little River Airport supervisor), or he will obtain it directly from the Little River Airport supervisor by radio. All airports with instrument approaches must provide the current barometric pressure, or have a nearby reliable source of local barometric pressure. Pilots use this to adjust their altimeters to get accurate altitude information. Most airports provide the local altimeter setting to pilots, on request, by radio as they pass nearby. Some airports have automated weather stations broadcasting barometric pressure, wind speed and temperature on VHF radio.

 

The GPS instrument approach being made available to the Little River Airport by the FAA is a non-precision approach procedure for aircraft descending safely through clouds to a predetermined point where the destination airport must be in sight, allowing the landing to be completed by Visual Flight Rules. The FAA determines this “missed approach point” when they design the approach procedure. It will be one mile from the runway and probably between 300 and 400 feet above the airport’s elevation. Each GPS approach procedure has “minimums” specifying the minimum ceiling (height of clouds above the ground) and minimum flight visibility (distance the pilot can see) that must exist at the destination airport before a landing can be made. For example, the PLACERVILLE GPS approach procedure for Runway 5 has straight in minimums of 457 feet above ground level (AGL) and one mile visibility. This means that a pilot using this approach is not allowed to descend closer than 457 feet from the ground without having the airport in sight, with at least one mile visibility. If a pilot arrives at the “missed approach point” on an instrument approach and does not have the airport in sight, he or she flies the missed approach procedure, climbing away from the airport.

 

(This “approach plate” is supplied for illustration and not for navigational use.)

 

Different instrument approaches have different minimums, depending on many factors including the type of aircraft, terrain, obstructions, the altimeter setting source and the type of navigation equipment used.

 

 

3.     Issues Surrounding the Proposed GPS Approach

3.1     Increased Traffic and Noise

The most frequently mentioned concerns at the community meetings and in letters regarding the proposed GPS approach were concerns about the procedure increasing traffic and hence noise at Little River. Some citizens of Little River and Albion are worried that the proposed GPS approach would increase traffic at the airport, hence increasing noise pollution. They believe that if the GPS approach allows aircraft to land during poor weather conditions when they previously could not land, that there would be an increase in the number of landings and thus more noise events in an otherwise quiet natural environment.

 

The users of the airport responded by saying that passing lumber trucks, motorcycles and the sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower or chain saw are as loud or louder than the average airplane.

 

Further, the pilots say that although the GPS approach may enable a few more landings to be completed than could be completed without the approach, it isn’t landings that make the noise. Attempts at landing can create as much or more noise than a successful landing. Currently, it is common for pilots to fly above the clouds in the neighborhood of the airport, circling to look for a “hole” in the clouds so they can get through the clouds without flying through them to land. Although a pilot may end up leaving the area without landing, the neighborhood around the airport has been subjected to far more noise than a straight-in GPS instrument approach would have produced. A pilot using GPS to fly by Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) can approach the airport at a higher altitude before final descent and flying a direct path to the runway, thus broadcasting less noise to the neighborhood. The straight in approach to Runway 29 is over the least populated area surrounding the airport.

 

We contacted several small California airports which have already obtained GPS approach procedures. Only a fraction of based aircraft have purchased and installed approved GPS receivers which allow them to use the GPS approach. All of the airports responded by saying that their GPS approaches did not increase traffic. They also stated that safety was improved and noise and noise complaints were slightly reduced. The noise reduction comes from the straight-in flight path of pilots using an instrument approach, in contrast to the longer and lower flight path used when flying low, under the clouds. See Appendix C

 

November 5, 1996 letter from El Dorado County Airport Operations Manager stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic.

 

November 8, 1996 letter from the Hollister airport manager stating that their GPS instrument approach has not increased traffic.

 

November 8, 1996 letter from Auburn Municipal Airport stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic.

 

January 3, 1997 FAX from Mammoth Lakes Airport stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic.

 

After looking over these responses, neighbors of the airport asked if these airports are really comparable to Little River. We wrote back to ask 5 more questions:

 

1)       How many operations (takeoffs or landings) does your airport have each year?

2)       What percentage are transients? (We have many “transient” tourists in the Summer and the neighbor’s main concern is that tourist traffic might increase.)

3)       How many based aircraft do you have and how many have approach approved GPS receivers?

4)       Was there community concern about your GPS approach, before you got it?

5)       Has the community attitude changed now that you’ve have the GPS approach for a while? How?

 

In March 1997 we FAXed a survey to over 30 California airports in connection with debates on setting up an official Airport Advisory Committee. The survey also included questions about the impact of instrument approaches, and we received 6 responses from airports with instrument approaches. See Appendix C for copies of the responses.

 

March 30 FAX from Rialto Airport stating that their NDB approach doesn’t affect noise or traffic - they’ve had it for 20 years and are unaware of any contraversy.

 

April 2 FAX from Lompoc airport stating that their VOR, NDB and GPS approaches did not increase traffic, they are not sure of the impact on noise and there has been no community concern about their instrument approaches. They noted the improved safety from the approaches.

 

March 30 FAX from Camarillo airport stating that their VOR approach did not increase traffic, but did increase noise problems due to the flight path of the approach over residences (unlike Little River, the straight in approach is over a residential area).

 

March 30 FAX from Rio Vista airport stating that their VOR approach did not increase traffic and did not increase noise, but it did improve safety.

 

March 30 FAX from Monterey airport stating that their ILS approach did not increase traffic (but they also said it was essential to a Part 139 airport). They say the approach is a positive safety factor.

 

March 30 FAX from Cable airport stating that their VOR approach “obviously leads to a few more flights on bad days”. They’ve had their approach since the early ‘60’s.

 

The AOPA airport directory has these notes for the airports we surveyed:

 

Placerville: airport is 3 miles East of the city. Noise abatement: All aircraft, 24 hours, no turns North until 3400’ or clear of city, Runway 23 no turns North of Runway 5 until 3400 MSL. Hours 8am to 5pm Winter, 7am to 7pm Memorial Day through Labor Day.

 

Auburn: 3 miles North of city. Noise Abatement: make 20 degree left turn after departure on Runway 25 to avoid mobile home park and hospital. Hours 8am to 6pm Summer, 8am to 5pm Winter.

 

Hollister: 3 miles North of the city. Noise Abatement:  (none) Hours: 8am to 5pm.

 

Mammoth Lakes: 6 miles East of the city. Noise abatement: informal flight operational restrictions, contact airport manager. Hours: 8am to 5pm.

 

Watsonville: 3 miles NW of city. Noise Abatement: no touch and go Runways 8-27 and Runway 20 from 11pm to 7am. Hours 8am to 5pm daily.

 

Crescent City: 3 miles NW of city. Noise Abatement: none. Hours: 9am to 5pm, service charge after hours.

 

Lompoc: 2 miles North of city. Noise Abatement: not published. Hours: 8am to 6pm daily.

 

Rialto: 3 miles NW of city. Noise Abatement: avoid low flight over residential areas South, West and NorthEast of field. No turns below 2500 MSL on departure, avoid South departure below 2500 MSL.

 

Camarillo: 3 miles W of city. Noise Abatement: Avoid city. No straight-in approach permitted except VOR 26 approach. All quadrants noise sensitive.

 

Rio Vista: 3 miles NW of city. Noise Abatement: Runway 25 calm wind (5 knots or less). Noise sensitive North of Runway 32. Avoid overflight of ranch and corrals North of Runway 32. Hours: 8am to 5pm weekdays, request on weekends.

 

Monterey: 3 miles SE of city. Noise Abatement: On departure no turns passing 900 MSL, remail clear of populated areas. Limit on touch and gos, ground runup and Stage II operations - contact airport manager. Hours: 24.

 

Cable (Upland): 2 miles NW of city. Noise Abatement: no straight ins or outs, immediate left turn after takeoff from Runway 24.  Hours: 7:30am to Sunset.

 

Little River: 3 Miles SE of city. Noise abatement: no straight ins. Hours 8am to 5pm, closed Tuesdays

 

See Appendix C for copies of the responses which are summarized below:

Airport name

operations

per year

% transient

# based

aircraft

approved

GPS

residents

within

2 miles

type of

approach

concern

before

attitude

after

Placerville

68,000

55%

190

unknown #

 

GPS

none

no problem

Auburn

20,000

35%

200

3 so far

 

GPS

none

no problem

Hollister

52,000

35-45%

275

10-15

 

GPS

none

no problem

Mammoth Lakes

no answer yet

 

 

 

 

GPS

 

 

Watsonville

120,000

40%

330

unknown

25,000

LOC, VOR, NDB, GPS

? (old)

unknown

(old)

Crescent City

8,800

17%

31

1

unknown

ILS, VOR, GPS

? (old)

unknown

(old)

Lompoc

36,000

50%

60

10% (6)

40,000

VOR, NDB and GPS

no

no problem

Rialto

110,000

20%

205

unknown

4-5,000

NDB, GPS

? (old)

no problem

Camarillo

172,905

8%

640

unknown

30,000

VOR

yes

didn’t increase traffic but did increase noise

Rio Vista

30-35,000

98%

55

few

5000

VOR

no

positive

Monterey

??

??

150

few

“many”

ILS, LOC, NDB, GPS

no

no, safety first

Cable

88,000

5%

350

unknown

50,000

VOR

? (old)

no

Little River

2500-6000

unknown

21

2-3

 

 

yes

 

 

Some of these airports had instrument approaches which had been in use for many years, and they were not able to compare the traffic and noise before and after. These are marked “? (old)” in the table above. Six of the approaches are of older types (pre-GPS) - most aircraft are equipped to fly these older types of approach. One airport reported increased noise because their instrument approach flight path, unlike the proposed approach at Little River, passes over a dense residential area.

 

Barry Rosenberg of the FAA said that, in his experience, any kind of instrument approach (not just a GPS approach) usually has little impact, generally less than 10%, on traffic, if the instrument approach is added to a runway already in use for visual approaches.

 

3.2     Altimeter Settings

An airport with an instrument approach procedure must provide the current altimeter setting by radio to the incoming pilot, or there must be some reliable source of this information very nearby. The proposed method at the Little River Airport is to have the airport supervisor use the instruments already available in the airport office to give the current altimeter setting during business office hours of 8am to 5pm Wednesday through Monday of each week.

 

Why is the altimeter setting needed?

To fly safely on instruments, a pilot has to not only know where she is, she also has to know how high she is. Just knowing you are near a mountain isn't good enough unless you also know you are high enough to fly over it.

 

For an approach to a landing on instruments this is even more important - the pilot is deliberately flying down toward the ground while in the clouds and unable to see where she is going. Accurate altitude measurement is critical for safe instrument flight, approach and landing.

 

An altimeter is a very accurate barometer - it measures air pressure  precisely. The higher you are, the more of the earth's atmosphere is below you and the less is above you. This results in lower air pressure. If you know what the sea level air pressure is in your neighborhood, you can measure your height above sea level by using an altimeter.

 

The problem is that sea level air pressure varies as the weather changes. These changes in pressure can cause errors of many hundreds of feet in the altitude displayed by an altimeter. Most airports provide the local altimeter setting to pilots, on request by radio, as they pass nearby, so they can adjust their altimeters to account for this.

 

How is the altimeter setting usually supplied?

The normal means of providing the altimeter setting is:

 

·         via the control tower, if there is one

·         from an automated weather station

·         from the airport supervisor or other qualified observer

·         from a nearby airport or official weather station

 

Regardless of where the altimeter setting comes from, it is delivered to pilots by radio, while they are in the air and are approaching the airport.

 

The official FAA weather station nearest to Little River is in Ukiah. This is too far away for its altimeter setting to be very useful at Little River. Ukiah is also separated from us by hills, which cause temperature differences and  magnify the possible differences in air pressure.

 

Control towers are established only at busy airports. Ukiah airport, which is far busier than Little River, is too small for a control tower. We do not expect Little River to ever have a control tower.

 

An automated weather station is the ideal long term solution to having the altimeter setting constantly available by broadcasts over an assigned radio frequency from an electronic machine located at the airport. This equipment, named AWOS, NEXWOS or ASOS, is rather expensive ($25,000 or more), and as yet no source of funding has been identified for Little River (see section 3.10).

 

The remaining alternative is for the airport supervisor (or some other approved person) to provide the altimeter setting. Little River Airport is already equipped which two aircraft-grade altimeters which are calibrated at regular intervals. These meet the requirements of  “AC 91-14D - Altimeter Setting Sources”, the FAA Advisory Circular which describes how altimeters setting are to be obtained. A copy is in Appendix B.

 

The only remaining requirement is for the airport supervisor to give the altimeter setting when it is needed by a pilot to fly the GPS approach. Several issues were raised regarding this:

 

·         the potential liability to the County

·         the cost of adding this duty to the airport supervisor’s job description

·         what happens when the airport supervisor isn’t available

 

3.2.1     Liability

The Mendocino County Risk Management Department determined that the existing insurance policy for the airport already covers the risks associated with an instrument approach and with giving the altimeter setting. See Appendix C:

 

October 2, 1996 letter from the Department of Public Works (DPW) stating that getting a GPS instrument approach would not change the cost of the airport’s insurance.

 

November 13, 1996 letter from DPW stating that properly trained private observers may use the County altimeters to give the altimeter setting and they will be covered by the County’s liability insurance.

3.2.2     Cost

The current airport supervisor’s contract ends in July 1997. He has indicated that he is willing to provide the altimeter setting under his current contract, provided that the FAA telephones him to request it. Although this is an unconventional procedure, the FAA Flight Standards office in Oakland and Oakland Center have indicated that it could be done. They can phone the airport supervisor, get the altimeter setting and pass it on by radio to the pilot flying the approach. This method of providing the altimeter setting does not add any cost to the County.

3.2.3     Recommendation for the Future

We recommend that when the airport supervisor’s contract comes up for renewal, that giving the altimeter setting (by radio) directly to pilots flying an instrument approach be added to the list of duties to be accomplished on a time-available basis. This should not significantly affect the contract cost and is the conventional means of providing the altimeter setting.

3.2.4     When the Altimeter Setting is not available

Many airports are only staffed part time. The instrument approaches to such airports carry a note stating that the procedure is not authorized when the altimeter setting is unavailable. See the Alturas approach, below, for an example of this. This approach plate is provided for illustration only, and is not for navigation.

 

Little River is staffed 6 days a week, from 8am to 5pm. Unless pilots make other arrangements for the getting the altimeter setting, the proposed GPS approach will only be usable during the hours when the airport is staffed, and then only when the airport supervisor is able to provide the altimeter setting. If he is pumping gas or attending to other duties, he will not be able to give the altimeter.

 

It is sometimes possible for pilots to make private arrangements for getting the altimeter setting, and as long as this is from an approved source, they may fly the approach procedure.

 

In a January 29, 1997 letter, the FAA suggested that it may be possible to offer alternative (much higher) minimums for the Little River approach by using the Ukiah altimeter setting when the Little River altimeter setting is not available. (See Appendix C).

 

3.3     FAR 77 Surfaces

 

Federal Aviation Regulation 77 describes imaginary surfaces surrounding each airport. These are shaped somewhat like a huge football stadium, with sides that slope up as you go farther away from the airport. One of the Airport Land Use Commission's jobs is to make sure that these FAR 77 surfaces are not penetrated by anything (buildings, towers, trees, etc.), because any penetrating object will be a hazard to air navigation.

 

Little River Airport is already subject to FAR 77. The slope of the FAR 77 approach surfaces is now 20:1, i.e. they rise 1 foot for every 20 feet you travel away from the airport, starting at the airport surface and continuing until 150 feet above the airport's surface. This "approach surface" is aligned with the runway and extends 5000 feet from the end of the runway at a slope of 20:1. Another “transitional” surface slants sideways from the runway at a 7:1 slope.

 

These FAR 77 surfaces are protected by Mendocino County ordinance 3430, adopted on April 25, 1983.

 

The proposed GPS approach procedure will not change the FAR 77 surfaces and does not require any change in zoning. Letters in Appendix C from the FAA District Office and the FAA Flight Procedures Office confirm that there will be no FAR 77 changes as a result of obtaining a non-precision GPS approach procedure.

 

July 22, 1996 letter from FAA Flight Procedures Office stating that the road does not need to be moved and that a 20:1 approach surface is adequate.

 

August 6, 1996 letter from FAA Airports District Office confirming that the road does not have to be moved and that a 20:1 approach surface is adequate.

 

3.3.1     Topping or Cutting Trees

Several airport neighbors have expressed concerns that getting a GPS approach might require trees in the neighborhood to be topped or cut.

 

The short answer is: no it will not. But this deserves further discussion.

 

As stated earlier, Little River Airport is already subject to FAR 77, which sets height limits for objects around airports. These limits have been enacted into County law by Ordinance 3420, adopted April 25, 1983.

 

The National Ocean Service surveyed the obstructions near Little River Airport in March 1987 and published the results of their survey in an Obstruction Data Sheet ODS 797 and an Obstruction Chart, OC 797. These show that there are numerous trees which penetrate the FAR 77 surfaces.

 

The FAA has been aware of these obstructions since the chart was published in 1987. Unless there is a complaint filed, or unless they observe a grave risk to public safety, they leave the enforcement of FAR 77 to local government. They will not require tree topping unless someone files a complaint.

 

Although it is desirable for safety and to limit the County’s liability in the event of an accident involving an illegal obstruction, it is not mandatory for the offending trees to be topped or cut. The proposed GPS approach will have no effect on this situation.

3.4     Runway Protection Zones (Clear Zones)

See page 22, 52, 79, 83-88 of the Airport Master Plan.

 

There is a "clear zone" or "runway protection zone" at each end of every runway. The runway protection zones at Little River have already been designed for a non-precision approach such as a GPS approach, although the County does not currently own all of the affected land. The land not owned by the County is adequately controlled by the 1983 zoning ordinance.

3.4.1     land purchases

None Required.

 

The Airport Master Plan suggests in Chapter 10 that land swaps be done to trade airport land which is South of the runway for the land in the clear zone to the East of the runway. Although such a land swap is not necessary for the GPS approach procedure, it is still a good idea. The FAA encourages all airports to own the land making up their Runway Protection Zones.

 

3.5     Moving the road

The Albion-Little River Road transects the Little River Airport property, crossing the runway clear zone approximately 100 yards East of Runway 29’s threshold. Aircraft approaching for landing on the commonly used Runway 29 are flying low (between 50 and 100 feet) over any vehicular traffic on Albion-Little River Road. As both the road and the airport are infrequently used in this rural country, seldom are the times when a vehicle is on the road as a landing aircraft passes overhead. Although signs warn drivers that this may happen, when it does occur, the driver may be startled by the sudden appearance of the aircraft. There is no danger unless the aircraft has a failure and crash lands short of Runway 29.

 

During clear weather pilots approach Little River airport at 1000 feet above ground level (AGL), visually inspect the surrounding airspace for other aircraft and normally fly a “U” shaped pattern around the runway that finally brings the aircraft onto “final” approach in a direct line to Runway 29. Aircraft flying the proposed GPS approach procedure may not have initial visual contact with the airport, they may be flying through clouds on instruments, using Instrument Flight Rules. Aircraft flying the proposed GPS approach will have to break out of the clouds and have the runway environment in sight while still one mile from the airport and at least 300-400 feet above the ground, or else they will be required to fly the published missed approach procedure, climbing away from the airport. Thus, aircraft landing after completing the GPS approach will be able to see any traffic on the road well before they fly over it.

 

The possibility of moving Albion-Little River Road further East, so as not to be a hazard for a precision landing procedure, is discussed on Page 99 of the Airport Master Plan. Several citizens expressed concern that this road might have to be moved for the proposed GPS approach. We contacted the FAA and have been assured that this is NOT necessary for the proposed non-precision GPS approach. See Appendix C.

 

July 22,1996 letter from FAA Flight Procedures Office stating that the road does not need to be moved and that a 20:1 approach surface is adequate.

 

August 6, 1996 letter from FAA Airports District Office confirming that the road does not have to be moved and that a 20:1 approach surface is adequate.

 

The discussion of possibly moving the road, in the Airport Master Plan, was in connection with the possibility of a precision instrument approach, such as an ILS. With such an approach, an approach surface slope of 34:1 or 50:1 would be required by the FAA, and aircraft could get as close as ½ mile and within 200 feet of the ground before breaking out of the clouds (see section 5.1 for more discussion of this).

3.6     Airspace

 

There are two kinds of  FAA airspace over Little River Airport. The airspace type doesn’t matter during good weather, but it changes the rules pilots must obey when the weather is cloudy.

 

Little River Airport is currently under FAA class G or uncontrolled airspace extending from ground level up to 5500 feet above mean sea level (MSL).  Above 5500 MSL is FAA Class E controlled airspace, which is within radar overage from Oakland Center, which controls all aircraft flying on instrument (IFR) flight plans in Mendocino County. The air traffic controller keeps aircraft from colliding by knowing their locations and keeping each aircraft on an assigned flight path.

 

In Class G uncontrolled airspace, instrument rated pilots may fly through the clouds at their own risk, without filing a flight plan and without talking to a controller. Pilots flying by visual flight rules (VFR) in class G airspace are required to have a minimum of  1 mile visibility and stay “clear of clouds” below 1200 feet above ground level. VFR pilots may not fly through clouds at any time.

 

It is normal for the floor of class E controlled airspace to be lower. In most of California it is at either 700 or 1200 feet above the ground. Little River is far from the nearest FAA radar station, and there is no radar coverage below about 5500 feet. Since there is no instrument approach, the FAA has left the floor of controlled airspace at the point where their radar coverage stops.

 

The FAA prefers to monitor aircraft flying on instrument flight plans by watching them on radar. In areas of no radar coverage, the FAA limits IFR traffic sharply. For example, in the Little River - Ukiah area, they only allow one airplane at a time to either take off or start an approach for landing on an IFR flight plan. While that one aircraft is operating outside radar coverage they will decline clearance for any other aircraft at either airport. This limits IFR takeoffs or landings to a combined maximum of about one every 15 minutes since each takeoff or landing occupies about that large a time slot.

 

Instrument rated pilots can now take off legally through the clouds from Little River without a clearance as long as the cloud layer is not too thick (less than 5500 feet).  Of course, instrument rated pilots may take off through thick layers of clouds as long as they file a flight plan and obtain a clearance (see Appendix L). And all pilots may legally “scud run”, flying low under the a layer of clouds to land at Little River, without an FAA clearance.

 

Obtaining a GPS instrument approach would lower the floor of Class E controlled airspace to 700 feet above ground level (AGL). This airspace classification does not have anything to do with FAA control of the airport. In Class E airspace, when there is clear visibility, all pilots may fly by visual flight rules. During cloudy condition, non-instrument rated pilots still fly by Visual Flight Rules, but now can only fly in conditions of at least 3 miles visibility and must maintain a minimum clearance from clouds of 500 feet below,  1000 feet above and 2000 feet horizontally.

 

In Class E airspace, when visibility is limited by clouds or fog, instrument rated pilots fly by Instrument Flight Rules and must file a flight plan with Oakland Center (the local FAA control facility).

 

The effects of this change will be:

·         to limit the total number of instrument operations (combined landings and departures) to an approximate maximum of  4 per hour

·         to discourage the current practice of “scud running”

·         to protect the airspace used by pilots flying on instruments

 

3.6.1     Limited number of IFR operations here

The floor of radar coverage in the area from Ukiah to Little River is about 5,500 feet MSL. Oakland Center (the local FAA control facility) treats the whole area as a “one-at-a-time” area for aircraft on instrument flight plans. This means that they only give clearance for one instrument takeoff or one instrument landing at a time at either Ukiah or Little River. While an instrument landing or takeoff (on an IFR flight plan) is in progress at Ukiah, all other aircraft at Ukiah and Little River must wait until the landing is completed or the pilot taking off has climbed high enough to be in radar coverage or reaches VFR conditions. This takes about 15 minutes per operation and limits that maximum number of flight planned IFR operations for Ukiah and Little River to a combined maximum of about four per hour.

3.6.2     Scud Running

Scud running is a slang term used by pilots to connote flight in marginal weather conditions.

 

Little River is currently under class G (uncontrolled) airspace. The floor of controlled airspace is 5500 feet MSL. This means that pilots may fly below 1200 feet above the ground with visibility as poor as 1 mile and only have to remain “clear of clouds” to be VFR. Instrument rated pilots may fly through the clouds without a clearance. Thus, local pilots commonly engage in “scud running” - they fly low to the ground, under the low clouds, to land at Little River when low clouds are present. These flights produce more noise impact than would be produced by flying an instrument approach.

 

Lowering the floor of the Class E airspace to allow instrument rated pilots to fly the GPS approach procedure will limit the ability of non-instrument rated pilots to legally fly to and land at Little River Airport during cloudy weather conditions as Visual Flight Rules will be more restrictive in Class E airspace than in the existing Class G airspace.

 

If the GPS approach procedure is implemented at Little River, controlled Class E airspace will begin at 700 feet AGL. Pilots may not fly lower than 500 feet AGL until they are close to the runway, but this will still leave the airspace between 500 and 700 feet AGL uncontrolled class G airspace, allowing non-instrument rated pilots to fly or scud run as they do now.

 

3.6.3     Airspace Protection

Once the floor of class “E” controlled airspace in lowered from 5500 feet to 700 feet, pilots will be discouraged from “scud running”. Most will prefer to use the GPS instrument approach instead. This will keep their aircraft high above the ground for more of the approach and will reduce the noise impact. Pilots flying on an IFR clearance will be protected from VFR traffic by remaining in controlled airspace until 700 feet AGL.

 

We expect the practice of scud running to taper off over a period of time after a GPS approach has been published, as pilots have approach approved GPS receivers installed.

3.7     New Equipment Purchases

None required by the County.

 

Pilots will need to buy approach approved GPS receivers for their aircraft and have them legally installed and certified. This costs between $6,000 and $10,000. Although this cost is expected to drop a little over time, it probably will not ever be less than $5,000, due to the cost of installation labor.

3.8     Is this an expansion of the airport?

Concerned citizens have asked if this is an expansion of the airport.

 

No. It will not add any new land, pavement, lighting, or equipment to the airport. It will not change the size of the airport. It is not expected to increase traffic and it is not expected to attract any new commercial activity at the airport.

3.8.1     What plans does the County have for the airport?

Neighbors of the airport have asked what the County’s plans are for the airport. The best statement of this is the Airport Master Plan and the associated Airport Layout Plan. The FAA considers the Airport Layout Plan to be the official plan, but the Airport master Plan has much more supporting detail.

3.9     Other Costs to the County

In recent correspondence regarding the airport’s 10 year Capital Improvement Plan, there was discussion of the possible need for a survey of the airport for the GPS approach, and a $3,000 line item was added to the CIP to account for this.

 

A January 29, 1997 letter from Barry Rosenberg of the FAA clarifies that no survey is needed. The existing approved Airport Layout Plan already includes the coordinates needed for the approach, from an earlier survey.

3.10     Automated Weather Station

(AWOS see p66-67 of Master Plan)

 

Although an automated weather station is not required for the GPS approach, users of the airport have been hoping to have one for many years, and having a GPS approach will increase this desire. An automated weather station would also provide benefits to the rest of the community. It would improve the accuracy of weather forecasts for the area, by providing more data to the National Weather Service, and it would make its weather observations available to the public by telephone and VHF radio.

 

There are several types of automated weather observing stations in use at airports. These are variously called AWOS, ASOS and NEXWOS (a variation of ASOS). Each of them comes in different versions, with different capabilities. Some airports have purchased their own automated weather stations, the FAA has paid for the installation of some and the National Weather Service has funded some. There is no Federal funding in sight at this time for an automated weather station at Little River.

 

There are several companies who make FAA approved automated weather stations. We contacted AAI Systems Management Incorporated and obtained a price quote on a  basic automated weather station which reports temperature, dewpoint, wind and the altimeter setting. It broadcasts these weather data by VHF radio and also can answer the telephone and provide the same information to any caller. In July 1996, the cost of such a basic system was $26,650, not including shipping or site preparation.

 

It is possible to hire AAI SMI for $3,600 per year to make 4 on-site visits for preventative maintenance and calibration. Unscheduled maintenance visits would cost more. An alternative is to pay $1100 tuition for a week-long factory training school and have someone local trained to handle this maintenance. The required special tools cost $975. The other specialty tools can be rented for use once a year for a brief time. In either case, the cost of repair parts would be additional.

 

It is possible to upgrade the basic system by adding visibility and cloud height sensors for another $22,260.

 

See Appendix I for letters from AAI SMI.

3.11     Is the weather so bad that a non-precision approach is useless?

Mr. Campbell asked if the weather is so bad that only a precision approach such as an ILS would be good enough. In other words, is the coastal stratus (low clouds) and fog so close to the ground that a non-precision GPS approach would not be adequate to guide pilots to a landing.

 

We won’t know the exact “minimums” for the GPS approach until the FAA designs it. But they will probably be in the range around 300 to 450 feet and 1 mile visibility. The best that a simple GPS approach can offer is 250 and 1, but we have enough trees to raise the minimums above that, at least a little.

 

We looked for historical weather data and found two sources. One is a CDROM with about 2150 observations of ceiling and visibility data, collected over a 3 year period at a Ft. Bragg station about 14 miles from Little River Airport. These data are presented in Appendix 9. They show that when an instrument approach is needed, the vast majority of the time a non-precision approach is adequate. In the early afternoons we have, on average:

 

·         68% good weather, no approach needed (better than 1500 foot ceiling and 3 miles visibility)

·         22% poor weather, non-precision GPS useful (between 1500/3 and 300/1)

·         7% weather too bad  for a non-precision GPS approach (ceiling below 300 feet or visibility less than a mile)

 

The other source of data is from John Merriman, the manager of Coast Flyers, the FBO at Little River Airport. John has kept informal records by making notations on a calendar, and he said that his records agree with the summary we developed from the CDROM weather data - that a non-precision approach would be useful about 22% of the time and that when the weather was bad enough for an instrument approach to be needed, a non-precision approach would usually be adequate.

 

There are times, particularly in summer and in the morning, when the fog and clouds are so low that a non-precision approach would not be adequate, but on most days the weather improves in the afternoon.

 

3.11.1     What do pilots do when the weather is below minimums?

Pilots are required to plan for an alternate destination airport in case the weather is below minimums at their original destination. This alternate airport must have very good current and forecast weather. As a pilot approaches his intended destination, he will normally radio to inquire about the current weather. If the report is very bad, he may divert to his alternate without attempting to fly the instrument approach procedure. If there is no weather reporting service available, or if the weather is reported to be adequate, the pilot will fly the approach.

 

Instrument approaches are designed with the understanding that pilots will fly them down to the “missed approach point” and may find that the weather is too bad for a safe landing. In this case, pilots are trained to fly a “missed approach” procedure which tells them how to climb safely away from the airport and back into the “enroute” airway system. Then they can proceed to their planned alternate destination.

3.12     Is A GPS Approach the Right Approach?

Mr. Campbell asked if a GPS approach is really what pilots want. He suggested that pilots might prefer an NDB, VOR or VOR-DME approach.

 

If money were no object, most pilots would prefer to have an ILS approach. However, at a cost of over $500,000, an ILS approach is not possible for Little River. Also, the FAA plans to phase out ILS, VOR, NDB and VOR-DME approaches over the next 10 years, replacing them all with GPS. Given this information, we surveyed 125 airport users and neighbors by mail. There were 17 responses to the survey, all from pilots who agreed strongly that a GPS approach is the best solution for Little River.

 

See Appendix D for the details of the survey of airport users.

 

3.13     What has been done so far?

The FAA already has a copy of the approved Airport Layout Plan. Barry Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Flight Procedures office says that this gives them all of the technical data they require. See Appendix C:

 

January 29, 1997 letter from Barry Rosenberg, Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office, FAA.

3.14     What Does the FAA Need from Us?

3.14.1     Letter asking for the Approach

The following is a direct quote from the FAA’s “elig.doc which is in Appendix B.

 

The airport owner or operator must submit to our office a signed letter stating that he/she:

1)       Concurs with the Instrument Approach Proposal and

2)       Concurs with the establishment of controlled airspace (700’ AGL floor) for approximately five miles around the airport, and acknowledges that the political subdivision (city, county, township) is aware and concurs with this airspace establishment.

3)       Is aware that approval of an instrument approach procedure may modify the applicable FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction identification surfaces for the affected runway(s), and that this may require a revision to or an original Airport Layout Plan (ALP). These surfaces are expected to be maintained free of obstructions.

4)       Is aware that the 20:1 or 34:1 obstruction clearance slopes (whichever is appropriate), and the Runway Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ) must be kept clear of obstacles in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13.

 

Note that we have letters in hand from the FAA stating that the existing 20:1 approach slope will not change as a result of this procedure. The FAA also provided us with a sample letter of concurrence from Nevada County Airport (see Appendix C, the January 29,1997 letter from Barry Rosenberg).

 

The letter should state for which runway(s) the approach(s) should be designed, and if an offset final approach course is desired, this should be described. A proposed draft letter of concurrence for Little River is in Appendix K.

3.14.2     Technical Data Requirements

The FAA needs technical data such as runway coordinates, length, etc. Barry Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Flight Procedures office tells us that the current Airport Layout Plan, which he has, satisfies these requirements (see his January 29,1997 letter in Appendix C).

 

3.14.3     Environmental Impact Study/Assessment

The FAA wants a letter  giving our evaluation of any noise impact of the proposed GPS approach, concerning the following topics:

·         Are there noise sensitive areas underlying the proposed flight track? If unpopulated or sparsely populated, so state.

·         Whether the proposed procedure is intended to increase the number of aircraft, or change the types of aircraft using the airport.

·         Has there been any publicizing through media or town or airport meetings concerning the proposed approach procedure, and has there been any public comment?

·         Is any public controversy expected concerning the proposed procedure?

 

In a telephone interview on 1/22/97,  Ron Clenney of the FAA Flight Procedures office said that the FAA usually considers less than 500 people per square mile to be sparsely populated, and they normally examine a trapezoid extending by one-half mile on each side of the runway centerline at the runway threshold and extending 1 mile on each side of the runway centerline five miles from the runway threshold. He said that the approach can be offset up to 15 degrees from the runway centerline.

 

He said that they usually issue a “categorical exclusion” from the need for an environmental impact study for a GPS approach to a runway already in use for visual approaches, because adding a GPS approach generally does not have an impact.

 

The approach trapazoid is 7.5 square miles in area. To qualify as sparsely populated, the total population in the trapazoid should be less than 3750. This criterion is easily met for both Runway 29 and Runway 11. See the maps in Appendix J.

 

In his January 29, 1997 letter, Barry Rosenberg supplied a sample letter from Nevada County airport. It shows that we can refer to the environmental (noise) studies that were done for the Airport Master Plan. A suggested draft environmental letter to the FAA for Little River Airport is in Appendix K.

3.14.4     FAA Form 7480-1 “Notice of Landing Area Proposal”

An FAA Form 7480-1 needs to be filled out, giving the FAA notice of Little River Airport’s change of status from VFR to IFR and, if it hasn’t already been done, notifying them of the change in pattern altitude which the noise abatement program brought about.

3.14.5     What “Strings” are Attached to the GPS Approach?

The only “string” is the statement that the County is “aware” that the obstruction clearance slopes and Runway Obstacle Free Zones must be kept clear of obstacles in accordance with FAA Advisory circular AC 150/5300-13. As discussed in 3.3.1, this is not a new requirement and will not lead to the FAA forcing people to top or cut their trees.

 

4.     Recommendations

We recommend that two non-precision GPS approach procedures be requested. A straight-in approach to Runway 29, for normal use, and a straight-in approach to Runway 11 for occasional use during the times when the wind favors Runway 11.

 

We recommend that the final approach course for the approach to Runway 29 be aligned with the runway centerline and that the missed approach procedure should specify a climbing left turn, for compatibility with our noise abatement procedure.

 

We recommend that approach trapazoid for the approach to Runway 11 be offset by 15 degrees to the South (making the final approach course 096 degrees) for noise abatement, and that the missed approach procedure should be a climb on runway heading.

 

5.     Future Possibility - a Precision Approach?

Several neighbors of the airport expressed deep concern that the proposed non-precision GPS approach procedure would be the “nose of the camel under the tent” and that soon the whole camel would be inside, i.e., we’d have a precision instrument approach, airline service with frequent flights, new bright lights shining all night, expensive new equipment on the ground, expansion of the airport, etc., all without further community discussion.

 

This is not the case.

 

The Airport Master Plan (p72-73) discusses the possibility of a precision instrument approach at some time in the future. To our knowledge, there are no plans for a precision approach at Little River Airport. The only precision approaches currently available are ILS systems which are very expensive (over $500,000). Although precision GPS approaches will become available at some time in the future, these may also require some ground based equipment, depending on the FAA’s final plan for differential GPS “augmentation”.

 

Obtaining a GPS approach, either non-precision or precision, will not magically cause an airline to want to start serving Little River. No airline is interested  in serving Little River now because there is not nearly enough demand for such service and thus it would not be profitable. The previous airline service to Little River was dropped because it did not make money in spite of an air mail subsidy (which is no longer available). The previous airline service used a privately owned NDB instrument approach. It is possible that the coastal community may grow and may someday want either an airline or air freight service.

 

Although getting a precision instrument approach does not imply that an airline or other commercial user would start flying to Little River, currently the FAA has stated that they will not design a precision approach for an airport unless it has commercial users who justify designing the approach, and the airport authority specifically requests such an approach. We do not have commercial users of the type the FAA currently wants for a precision approach - either an airline or a light freight carrier such as Fed Ex, UPS, etc.

 

Although the FAA’s requirements may change, and it may someday be possible to get a precision approach without buying new equipment and without having commercial users, we assume that the County will never request such an approach without community discussion. The County has no plans at this time to request a precision approach.

 

Nevertheless, the Airport Master Plan discusses the possibility of a precision approach because the weather at Little River is bad enough (the clouds are low enough) to require a precision approach about 7% of the time. Naturally, the current users of the airport would like to have a precision approach. But a precision approach can’t be justified, considering the small number of users, if it is expensive.

 

Prudent stewardship of the airport should include preserving the future possibility of a precision instrument approach, but such an approach should not be implemented without community involvement and a specific request from the County.

 

5.1     What would a precision approach change?

If a precision approach procedure to Runway 29 were added at some future date, it would require change in the FAR 77 surfaces and corresponding zoning changes in the trapezoid East of the airport, along the approach to runway 29. This would affect the zoning of a few parcels East of the airport, mostly those owned by the Nature Conservancy. See the map in Appendix J.

 

The Airport Master Plan suggests in Chapter 10 that land swaps be done to trade airport land which is South of the runway for the land in the clear zone to the East of the runway. Although it is possible to protect the clear zone for a precision approach with zoning laws, it may be simpler to own the land in fee simple.

 

Precision approaches normally include an approach lighting system. Such a lighting system is installed on the ground and extends for about 3000 feet from the end of the runway. The lights would be turned on only when a pilot is flying the instrument approach, just as the runway lights are. The runway lights (like approach lights) are mounted on the ground and are not visible from the ground off the airport. The airport’s rotating beacon is on a tower, operates continuously during hours of darkness and is visible for many miles around. The rotating beacon produces the light which sometimes annoys airport neighbors. This would not change if an approach lighting system were installed. We do not have funding for an approach lighting system and we do not own the land where approach lights would be installed. This land is currently owned by the Nature Conservancy.

 

The possibility of moving Albion-Little River Road is discussed on Page 99 of the Airport Master Plan, in connection with a possible future ILS precision instrument approach procedure. The road is currently too close to the end of Runway 29 for a precision instrument approach’s height restrictions. If a precision approach were designed, either the road would need to be moved, or a displaced threshold would be required, shortening the useful runway and moving the touchdown zone further from the road.

 

 

6.     Appendix A:  Glossary

 

300 and 1/2 - instrument weather is commonly expressed as a ceiling and a visibility. The ceiling is the distance from the ground to the base of the clouds (300 feet in this example). The visibility is the flight visibility in miles - 1/2 mile in this case.

 

AGL - Above Ground Level - the height above the earth (in contrast to MSL or above mean sea level).

 

ALSF-1 - the standard approach lighting system which consists of a 3000 foot sequence of light bars spaced 100 feet apart, using 200 watt bulbs.

 

Altimeter Setting - an accurate local barometric pressure value which pilots must set in their altimeters to make them accurately show height above sea level. Barometric pressure drops with increasing height, and an altimeter is just a very accurate barometer which measures this air pressure.

 

Approach Lights - these are ground-based lights leading up to the approach end of the runway which make it easier to find the runway when the visibility is poor. There are several approach lighting systems, some with steady lighting, others with strobe lights, some with flashing lights in a sequence which leads toward the runway. These lighting systems improve the "minimums" for an instrument approach by lowering the required flight visibility for safely landing from 1 mile to ½ mile.  Precision approaches normally include an approach lighting system.

 

ASOS - Automatic Surface Observing Station - a robot weather observer similar  to but better than an AWOS. ASOS are slowly replacing AWOS. An ASOS costs from about $25,000 to $150,000 to buy, depending on its features and costs from $3,000 to $15,000 per year to maintain.

 

ATC - Air Traffic Control. Aircraft flying on instrument flight plans are in radio contact with air traffic control. ATC issues “clearances” (instructions) which pilots are required to follow.

 

Augmentation - basic GPS navigation is accurate to several hundred feet. The FAA has plans for augmenting GPS accuracy with “differential” signals from ground based stations. They are considering several plans - some involve a few widely scattered ground stations (Wide Area Augmentation System). Once an augmentation system is in place, GPS accuracy will improve to only a few feet of error and precision GPS approaches will be designed.

 

AWOS - Automatic Weather Observing Station - a robot weather observer which transmits weather information by radio and also makes it available by telephone. The most common AWOS is an AWOS-3 which provides the altimeter setting, temperature, dewpoint, winds, ceiling and visibility. An AWOS-A only provides the altimeter setting.

 

Cat I, II and III - A simple ILS is Category I or Cat I. This usually has approach minimums of a 200 foot ceiling and ½ mile visibility. A Category II approach adds an “inner marker” beacon and lowers the minimums for qualified aircraft and pilots. A Category III approach lowers the minimums still further and can permit “blind” landings by properly equipped pilots and aircraft. Category II and III approaches exist at a few major airports and are generally usable only by commercial airlines due to the special equipment and training required for their use.

 

Differential GPS - GPS navigation is subject to small errors from several sources. It is possible to install a GPS receiver at a known location on the ground and measure these errors (the difference between the known ground position and the position computed from GPS signals). The ground station can broadcast the differences to other GPS users in the neighborhood and their GPS receivers can apply the correction automatically, greatly increasing GPS accuracy. Differential GPS will be used for precision GPS approaches at some time in the future. (See also “augmentation”).

 

Displaced Threshold - if there is an immovable obstacle too close to the end of an airport’s runway, sometimes the FAA authorizes displacing the threshold of the runway. This makes the part of the runway close to the obstacle unusable for landings except as emergency overrun. It adds markings on the runway which instruct pilots to touch down past the displaced threshold.

 

FAA - Federal Aviation Administration - this government agency regulates aviation nationally

 

FAR 77 - the Federal Aviation Regulation covering "Objects affecting navigable airspace". It sets standards for the heights of obstructions such as buildings, towers, trees, etc. in the neighborhood of airports.

 

FBO - Fixed Base Operator. This is a business, based on the airport, offering services to pilots. An FBO may operate a fight school, a charter service, a maintenance shop, sell fuel or sell pilot supplies.

 

GPS - Global Positioning System - a navigation system which uses 24 satellites in low Earth orbit. GPS can provide accurate position information anywhere on the Earth. This appears likely to be the dominant  navigation system by the year 2000, if not sooner.

 

IFR - Instrument Flight Rules - aircraft must fly by these rules when the weather is not good enough to fly VFR - by visual flight rules. Only instrument rated pilots are allowed to fly IFR. Instrument flight is done by reference to instruments instead of by looking outside the aircraft. If an instrument flight plan is filed, FAA controllers keep IFR aircraft separated from each other. An instrument flight plan must be filed to fly IFR in controlled airspace.

 

ILS - Instrument Landing System, consisting of a localizer transmitter which provides precise horizontal guidance to the runway, a glide slope transmitter which provides precise vertical guidance to the  runway and one or more marker beacon transmitters which provide confirmation of key locations along the approach path. Requires  three or more transmitters and antenna systems on and near the airport. Most ILS systems also have approach lighting systems.

 

Instrument Approach Procedure - this is a published procedure or set of steps for pilots to follow to safely land at a particular airport,  using a particular means of navigation, such as ILS, GPS, NDB, VOR,  Loran, etc. The FAA develops and publishes these procedures and flies them once every year to verify that the approach procedure is still  safe.

 

LAAS - Local Area Augmentation System - a ground-based transmitter for differential GPS which provides local corrections for errors in GPS data. Category II and III precision GPS approaches will probably require local augmentation. These will eventually be installed at major airports.

 

Loran - a navigation system which depends on a few widely scattered low frequency transmitters which are operated by the Coast Guard and which was originally developed for mariners. At one time pilots  believed that Loran would replace VOR navigation, but GPS has in turn begun to replace Loran.

 

MALSR - this consists of seven light bars spaced 200 feet apart and a number of sequenced flashing lights extending the system to a total length of 3000 feet.

 

Minimums - a instrument approach procedure spells out a set of steps for navigating safely to a landing. Each procedure has "minimums" which  specify the lowest permitted ceiling and worst visibility            conditions for safely and legally flying the approach procedure. The minimums specify a minimum descent altitude.

 

Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA)- the lowest altitude an aircraft can descend to without seeing the runway environment clearly. If a pilot descends to MDA and reached the missed approach point without seeing the runway environment, he must execute a “missed approach procedure”, climbing back up to a higher altitude.

 

MLS - Microwave Landing System - an alternate technology for precision approaches that began being deployed a few years ago. The FAA now plans to abandon MLS in favor of GPS.

 

NDB - a non-directional beacon transmitter - used commonly for navigation before WW II, subject to interference from weather and not very accurate. Requires a transmitter on the ground, on or near the airport.

 

Runway 29 - runways are named by their magnetic compass direction divided by 10. Thus your compass will show 290 degrees (WestNorthWest)  if you are facing down runway 29. Each physical runway has two names,  one for each direction of landing. Little River has 29 and 11. Runway       29 is most commonly in use, due to the prevailing winds.

 

SSALR -  an approach lighting system consisting of seven light bars and eight sequenced flasher lights, all spaced 200 feet apart. The complete system extends 3000 feet from the runway threshold.

 

SVFR - Special Visual Flight Rules. These allow non-instrument rated pilots to fly with 1 mile visibility and clear of clouds in controlled airspace, but only with a clearance from ATC.

 

TACAN - this is a military version of VOR-DME navigation

 

TERPS manual - this is the FAA's bible for developing instrument procedures and is the "United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures".

 

VFR - Visual Flight Rules. All licensed pilots may fly VFR if the weather is good. VFR flight involves being able to see and avoid other aircraft, and being able to navigate visually.

 

VOR-DME - a VOR (Very high frequency OmniRange) transmitter provides more  accurate directional guidance than an NDB. The VOR system mostly  replaced NDBs after WW II. DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) allows the distance from a VOR transmitter to be measured, increasing       navigational accuracy. The nearest VOR-DME transmitter to Little River is in the hills above Ukiah, about 22 nautical miles away. The FAA is planning to replace the VOR system with GPS eventually,  to stop having to maintain expensive ground equipment.

 

WAAS - Wide Area Augmentation System - a transmitter (which may be either ground or space-based) which provides error correction for GPS signals over a wide area. WAAS is expected to be adequate to provide Category I precision approaches at most airports, possibly without the requirement for a local augmentation transmitter.

 

7.     Appendix B:   FAA Technical Documents

 

7.1     “Airport Eligibility Requirements for Establishing an Instrument Approach Procedure (for Airports Not Already Served by a Procedure)”

 

7.2     “AC 91-14D - Altimeter Setting Sources”

 

7.3     Text From FAR 1 and 1-38 re airspace classifications

Controlled airspace means an airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR  flights in accordance with the airspace classification.

 

 NOTE: Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers Class A, Class  B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace.

 

Class A Airspace (U.S. Positive Control Areas). All operations must be conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR) and are subject to ATC  clearances and instructions. ATC separation is provided to all aircraft.

 

Class B Airspace (U.S. Terminal Control Areas). Operations may be conducted under IFR, special visual flight rules (SVFR), or VFR. However, all aircraft are subject to ATC clearances and instructions. ATC  separation is provided to all aircraft.

 

 

Class C Airspace (U.S. Airport Radar Service Areas). Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR; however, all aircraft are subject to ATC clearances and instructions. ATC separation is provided to all aircraft operating under IFR or SVFR and, as necessary, to any aircraft  operating under VFR when any aircraft operating under IFR is involved.  All VFR operations will be provided with safety alerts and, upon request,  conflict resolution instructions.

 

Class D Airspace (U.S. Control Zones for Airports with Operating Control Towers and Airport Traffic Areas that are not associated with a TCA or an ARSA). Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR;  however, all aircraft are subject to ATC clearances and instructions. ATC  separation is provided to aircraft operating under IFR or SVFR only. All traffic will receive safety alerts and, on pilot request, conflict  resolution instructions.

 

Class E Airspace (U.S. General Controlled Airspace), Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR. ATC separation is provided only to aircraft operating, under IFR and SVFR within a surface area. As far as  practical, ATC may provide safety alerts to aircraft operating under VFR.

 

Class G Airspace (U.S. Uncontrolled Airspace). Operations may be conducted under IFR or VFR. ATC separation is not provided.

 

 

FAR 1, Amendment 1-38

 

                           Airspace Reclassification

 

  Adopted: November 14, 1991                     Effective: September 16, 1993

AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATIONS

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    AIRSPACE         Class A Air-      CLASS B        CLASS C         CLASS D         CLASS E       CLASS G

    FEATURES           space           Airspace       Airspace        Airspace        Airspace      Airspace

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Former Airspace   Positive          Terminal       Airport Radar   Airport Traf-   General      Uncontrolled

   Equivalent        Control           Control        Service         fic Areas       Controlled   Airspace

                     Areas             Areas          Areas           and Control     Airspace

                                                                       Zones

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Operations per-    IFR              IFR and VFR     IFR and VFR     IFR and VFR     IFR and VFR   IFR and VFR

   mitted

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Entry Pre-         ATC clearance    ATC clearance   ATC clearance   ATC clearance   ATC Clearance  None

   requisites                                         for IFR         for IFR         for IFR

                                                      Radio           Radio           Radio

                                                      contact for     contact for     contact for

                                                      all             all             all IFR

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Minimum Pilot      Instrument       Private or      Student         Student         Student        Student

   Qualifications    rating           student         certificate     certificate     certificate    certifi-

                                       certificate                                                    cate

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Two-way Radio      Yes              Yes             Yes              Yes            Yes for IFR     NO

   communications                                                                     operations

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  VFR Minimum        Not applicable   3 statute       3 Statute        3 statute      *3 Statute    **1 Statute

   Visibility                         miles           miles            miles          miles          mile

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  VFR Minimum        Not applicable   Clear of        500 feet below,  500 feet       *500 feet      **500 feet

   Distance from                     clouds           1000 feet        below, 1000    below, 1000    below,

   Clouds                                             above, and       feet above,    feet above,    1000 feet

                                                      2000 feet        and 2000       and 2000       above,

                                                      horizontal       feet hori-     feet hori-     and 2000

                                                                       zontal         zontal         feet hor-

                                                                                                      izontal

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Aircraft           All              All             IFR, SVFR,       IFR, SVFR       IFR, SVFR      None

   Separation                                         and runway       and runway

                                                      operations       operations

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Conflict           Not applicable   Not applicable  Between IFR      No              No             No 

   Resolution                                         and VFR

                                                      operations

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Traffic            Not applicable   Not applicable  Yes              Workload       Workload      Workload

   Advisories                                                          permitting     permitting    permitting

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Safety             Yes              Yes             Yes              Yes            Yes             Yes

 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  * Different visibility minimum and distance from cloud requirements exist for operations above 10,000 feet

  MSL.

  ** Different visibility minima and distance from cloud requirements exist for night operations, operations

  above 10,000 MSL and operations below 1,200 feet AGL.

8.     Appendix C:   correspondence re technical issues

8.1     May 6, 1994 letter from FAA to California airport operators, offering a GPS approach.

8.2     April 26, 1995 letter from CalTrans stating that the County would incur no cost for a GPS approach (see item 3 in the letter).

8.3     July 22,1996 letter from FAA Flight Procedures Office stating that the road does not need to be moved and that a 20:1 approach surface is adequate.

8.4     August 6, 1996 letter from FAA Airports District Office confirming that the road does not have to be moved and that a 20:1 approach surface is adequate.

8.5     October 2, 1996 letter from DPW stating that getting a GPS instrument approach would not change the cost of the airport’s insurance.

8.6     November 5, 1996 letter from El Dorado County Airport Operations Manager stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic.

8.7     November 8, 1996 letter from the Hollister airport manager stating that their GPS instrument approach has not increased traffic.

8.8     November 8, 1996 letter from Auburn Municipal Airport stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic.

8.9     November 13, 1996 letter from DPW stating that properly trained private observers may use the County altimeters to give the altimeter setting and they will be covered by the County’s liability insurance.

8.10     November 13 letter from Andy Becker (airport supervisor) to DPW stating that he will give the altimeter setting by telephone.

8.11     January 3, 1997 FAX from Mammoth Lakes Airport stating that their GPS approach has not increased traffic.

8.12     January 29, 1997 letter from Barry Rosenberg of the FAA Flight Procedures Office stating that the ALP meets all technical data requirements for the GPS approach and providing sample letters of concurrance.

8.13     February 11, 1997 FAX from El Dorado County Airports giving statistics on Placerville airport.

8.14     February 14, 1997 letter from Auburn Municipal Airport giving statistics on the airport.

8.15     February 26, 1997, FAX from Hollister Airport giving statistics on the airport.

8.16     March 30 FAX from Rialto Airport stating that their NDB approach doesn’t affect noise or traffic and giving statistics on their airport.

8.17     April 2 FAX from Lompoc airport stating that their VOR, NDB and GPS approaches did not increase traffic and giving statistics on their airport.

8.18     March 30 FAX from Camarillo airport stating that their VOR approach did not increase traffic, but did increase noise problems due to the flight path of the approach over residences

8.19     March 30 FAX from Rio Vista airport stating that their VOR approach did not increase traffic and did not increase noise, but it did improve safety.

8.20     March 30 FAX from Monterey airport stating that their ILS approach did not increase traffic (but they also said it was essential to a Part 139 airport).

8.21     March 30 FAX from Cable airport stating that their VOR approach “obviously leads to a few more flights on bad days”.

 

 

9.     Appendix D:  survey of airport users regarding different instrument approach types

 

In the Ad Hoc Committee’s January 7, 1996 report to the Health Welfare, Planning and Transportation Committee, we reported on a survey, conducted by mail in December 1995, of 125 airport users and neighbors. One of the motivations for the survey was a question raised by Budge Campbell. He asked whether the pilots who use Little River really wanted a GPS instrument approach instead of a VOR, NDB, VOR-DME or other form of approach. The survey included a short essay explaining the various types of instrument approach and asked pilots to rate the desirability of each.

 

The mailing list for the survey was compiled by merging the airport supervisor’s list of airport users with lists of attendees from various airport meetings.

 

There were 17 responses to the survey, all of them from pilots. Seven of the respondents were Mendocino County residents and three of the ten non-residents said that they own a second home in Mendocino County. Nine of the seventeen responders had instrument ratings. The pilots voted strongly in favor of a GPS approach. The most desired form of approach was a non-precision GPS approach with an approach lighting system (which would improve the visibility minimums from 1 mile to ½ mile). The least desired form of approach was an NDB approach.

 

The table below presents the data. Each pilot was asked to rank all of the approach types, with the most desirable being 1 and the least being 7. Many pilots only marked some of the approach types, as can be seen from the “number of responses” column. The average rank is the sum of responses for an approach type divided by the number of responses. The normalized rank gives additional weight to the number of responses by dividing the average rank by the number of responses. The smallest normalized numbers are associated with the most desired approach type.

 

Type of Approach

number of responses

sum of ranks

average rank sum/number

 

normalized rank (rank/number)

non-precision GPS with approach lights

11

21

1.91

0.17

non-precision GPS

10

20

2.00

0.20

precision GPS

8

14

1.75

0.22

ILS

4

14

3.50

0.88

VOR-DME

6

32

5.33

0.89

Loran

3

12

4.00

1.33

NDB

1

5

5.00

5.00

10.     Appendix E: historical weather data and analysis

 

The table immediately below is raw meteorological data for Little River Airport from a CDROM, “International Station Meteorological  Climate Summary, version 2.0 dated June 1992., produced by the Naval Oceanography Command Detachment, Asheville.

 

POR = period of record, i.e., how many years data are presented.

NO OBS is the number of observations where it is a positive number

               -29 means “statistical estimate”

               -50 means “Ace Data, computer, derived or substituted from data available 1964”

               -72590 indicates that the data were from a nearby station, #72590, which is Ft. Bragg, CA, elevation 752 feet, latitude 39 28N longitude 123 45W, a location on top of Bald Hill. This is about 14 miles from Little River Airport. Note that Little River Airport is at a slightly lower elevation, 572 feet, which may imply that ceilings would be slightly better at Little River than on Bald Hill.

 

   STA NO. 73198    MENDOCINO CO            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA    LATITUDE 3915N     LONGITUDE 12345W     ELEVATION(FT) 00572

                                                           AREA NUMBER   2      

      POR   NO

PARAMETER DESCRIPTION  JAN   FEB   MAR   APR   MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC  ANN   (YRS)  OBS

                                                                                                                                  

 ABS MAX TMP (F)        76    78    77    78    90    86    77    82    90    84    82    81    90     25 -72590

MEAN MAX TMP (F)        56    57    58    59    62    64    64    64    65    64    61    58    61     25 -72590

MEAN MIN TMP (F)        40    40    41    44    47    49    49    49    49    47    44    42    45     25 -72590

 ABS MIN TMP (F)        24    28    29    26    34    39    41    40    38    32    29    27    24     25 -72590

 MEAN NO DAYS

TMP = OR GTR 90(F)     0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0     10 -72590

    MEAN NO DAYS

TMP = OR LES 32(F)     3.0   1.0   1.0   0.3   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.3   1.0   6.6     10 -72590

    MEAN NO DAYS

TMP = OR LES  0(F)     0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0      3 -72590

MEAN DEW PT TMP (F)     40    41    40    42    46    49    51    51    51    49    45    40    45      3 -72590

MEAN REL HUM (PCT)      76    81    78    81    86    87    87    82    79    82    80    73    81      3 -72590

MEAN PRESS ALT (FT)    398   432   445   441   466   482   478   478   490   453   411   388   447      0    -50

MEAN PRECIP (IN)      7.60  6.54  4.96  2.59  1.52  0.52  0.07  0.08  0.63  2.23  4.72  6.52  38.0     67 -72590

MEAN SNOW FALL (IN) ************   0.0******   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0************     25    -29

MEAN NO DAYS PRECIP

= OR GTR 0.1 IN       11.3  10.2   7.2   5.7   4.0   1.4   0.4   0.4   1.8   4.0   7.2  10.2  63.8     67    -29

  MEAN NO DYS SNOW FALL

= OR GTR 1.5 IN     ************   0.0******   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0************     25    -29

MEAN NO DYS W/OCUR

VSBY LES 1/2 MI        7.0   6.4   6.5   9.0  13.3  14.1  22.0  17.0  21.0  14.0   6.5   3.0 139.8      3 -72590

MEAN NO DYS TSTMS      0.0   0.0   1.0   0.0   0.0   0.5   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.5   2.0      3 -72590

P FREQ WND SPD

= OR GTR 17 KTS        5.4   8.1   7.1   5.6   3.6   2.4   1.2   1.0   2.2   1.0   2.0   3.4   3.6      3 -72590

P FREQ WND SPD

= OR GTR 28 KTS        0.1   0.3   0.1   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.1   0.1      3 -72590

P FREQ LES 5000 FT

A/O LES 5 MI          40.8  38.3  34.5  34.2  56.7  48.6  55.5  36.1  42.6  47.3  36.1  38.6  42.4      3 -72590

P FREQ LES 1500 FT A/O LES 3 MI                                                                                                

 FOR  00-02 LST       14.5  26.3  18.8  18.3  42.3  43.4  62.2  26.3  42.2  40.0  25.1  24.7  32.0      3 -72590

      03-05 LST       15.7  21.1  19.9  17.2  45.8  47.5  62.0  39.2  37.8  39.8  22.9  21.0  32.5      3 -72590

      06-08 LST       21.0  18.7  23.8  19.0  45.2  46.3  63.2  43.0  42.2  37.3  20.1  24.2  33.7      3 -72590

      09-11 LST       17.2  14.0  21.1  17.8  41.1  45.7  43.5  29.0  31.7  40.0  21.7  20.0  28.6      3 -72590

      12-14 LST       26.3  25.1  18.5  19.4  45.5  50.0  39.1  28.5  25.6  33.3  21.1  20.0  29.4      3 -72590

      15-17 LST       21.5  27.1  24.7  19.4  50.6  49.7  48.4  36.6  34.4  36.0  24.4  26.9  33.3      3 -72590

      18-20 LST       22.6  27.5  23.1  20.0  57.1  48.8  57.5  39.2  40.0  43.5  25.7  23.1  35.7      3 -72590

      21-23 LST       18.8  24.0  15.7  20.6  47.3  38.3  58.4  33.3  44.4  37.1  27.2  26.9  32.7      3 -72590

P FREQ LES 300 FT A/O LES 1 MI                                                                                                

 FOR  00-02 LST        2.2  11.7   7.0   9.4  25.6  25.8  55.1  23.1  30.0  18.9   5.6   5.9  18.4      3 -7259

      03-05 LST        2.7   7.6   4.8   8.9  32.1  32.9  59.2  29.6  26.7  19.4   4.5   4.8  19.4      3 -72590

      06-08 LST        8.1  10.5   5.4   8.4  33.3  35.0  56.2  34.4  28.3  16.2   5.0   3.8  20.4      3 -72590

      09-11 LST        4.3   6.4   8.6   8.9  19.6  20.4  23.7  15.1  13.9  12.4   3.3   4.3  11.7      3 -72590

      12-14 LST        8.6   4.1   7.1   5.0   7.8   9.9  10.3   8.6   6.1  12.4   3.3   2.7   7.2      3 -72590

      15-17 LST        9.1   8.8   7.0   3.3  14.9  13.7  19.4  18.8  16.7  15.6   5.6   5.9  11.6      3 -72590

      18-20 LST        8.1   8.8   6.5   8.3  22.6  17.9  47.8  27.4  30.6  17.2   6.7   3.8  17.1      3 -72590

      21-23 LST        3.8   8.2   9.7   9.4  24.6  19.8  52.4  23.7  31.1  19.9   6.1   3.8  17.7      3 -72590

                                                                                                                                  

                                                      MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS                                                         

                                                                                                                                  

POR   NO 

PARAMETER DESCRIPTION  JAN   FEB   MAR   APR   MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC   ANN   (YRS)   OBS

                                                                                                                                  

CIG = GTR 1000 FT AND VSBY = GTR 3 MI

             16 LST   26.0  21.6  26.0  25.5  18.3  15.5  17.0  20.0  20.5  20.0  24.0  24.5 258.9      3 -72590

             22 LST   26.5  23.1  26.0  25.0  18.3  18.9  13.0  21.0  17.0  20.0  24.5  27.5 260.8      3 -72590

             04 LST   29.0  25.5  26.0  26.0  17.7  15.3  11.5  19.0  19.5  20.5  25.5  27.5 263.0      3 -72590

             10 LST   26.5  25.0  24.5  26.5  19.9  15.0  18.0  22.0  21.5  18.0  24.5  28.5 269.9      3 -72590

CIG = GTR 2000 FT AND VSBY = GTR 3 MI W/SFC WND LES 10KTS

             16 LST   16.5   7.8  10.5  10.5   7.8   7.8   9.0  12.0  15.5  14.5  16.5  15.0 143.4      3 -72590

             22 LST   17.5  14.2  17.5  13.0  11.1  12.2  10.5  15.5  13.5  16.0  19.0  16.5 176.5      3 -72590

             04 LST   18.5  13.2  16.5  20.0  12.2  12.5  10.5  16.5  17.0  16.5  17.5  17.5 188.4      3 -72590

             10 LST   17.5  16.2  17.0  14.0  12.7  11.6  16.5  19.0  18.5  16.0  17.0  19.5 195.5      3 -72590

SFC WND = GTR 17 KTS AND NO PRECIP.

             16 LST    2.1   4.1   3.5   3.5   2.2   1.1   0.5   1.5   2.0   0.5   1.7   1.6  24.3      3 -72590

             22 LST    1.5   0.0   2.0   0.5   0.6   0.5   1.0   0.0   1.0   0.0   0.0   1.0   8.1      3 -72590

             04 LST    2.7   0.5   2.1   0.0   1.2   0.6   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.5   0.5   1.5   9.6      3 -72590

             10 LST    1.0   0.5   0.5   1.5   0.6   0.5   0.0   0.0   0.5   0.0   1.5   0.5   7.1      3 -72590

SFC WND 4-10 KTS AND TMP 33-89 DEG F AND NO PRECIP.

             16 LST   14.7  13.7  19.8  18.0  20.3  18.9  26.0  20.0  17.0  18.3  17.2  14.0 217.9      3 -72590

             22 LST   14.7  13.2  13.2  14.7  17.2  13.6  11.5  12.5  13.0  18.9  12.3  14.7 169.5      3 -72590

             04 LST   21.2  11.4  14.4  14.7  14.3  12.7  11.0  13.5   7.0  14.2  16.7  18.3 169.4      3 -72590

             10 LST   18.1  16.3  15.7  18.8  16.9  22.2  26.5  23.0  18.0  15.7  11.7  16.5 219.4      3 -72590

SKY COVER LES 3/10 AND VSBY = GTR 3 MI

             16 LST ******************************************************************************      0      0

             22 LST ******************************************************************************      0      0

             04 LST ******************************************************************************      0      0

             10 LST ******************************************************************************      0      0

CIG = GTR 2500 FT AND VSBY = GTR 3 MI

             16 LST   21.5  16.7  21.0  22.0  13.8  13.3  16.0  20.0  20.0  18.5  18.5  19.5 220.8      3 -72590

             22 LST   18.5  18.6  23.0  22.0  15.5  18.3  12.5  21.0  16.5  18.5  20.5  21.0 225.9      3 -72590

             04 LST   22.0  20.6  21.5  23.0  14.4  15.3  11.5  19.0  19.5  17.5  20.5  21.0 225.8      3 -72590

             10 LST   22.5  20.6  22.5  21.0  16.6  13.9  18.0  21.5  21.0  16.5  20.0  23.0 237.1      3 -72590

CIG = GTR 6000 FT AND VSBY = GTR 3 MI

             16 LST   17.0  13.7  19.0  18.5  12.7  13.3  16.0  20.0  20.0  17.0  17.0  18.0 202.2      3 -72590

             22 LST   17.5  17.2  20.0  19.0  13.8  18.3  12.5  21.0  16.5  18.0  19.0  18.5 211.3      3 -72590

             04 LST   18.5  17.7  20.5  20.5  12.7  15.3  11.5  19.0  19.5  17.0  19.5  18.5 210.2      3 -72590

             10 LST   17.0  17.2  20.5  18.5  14.4  13.3  18.0  21.5  21.0  15.0  19.0  20.0 215.4      3 -72590

CIG = GTR 10000 FT AND VSBY = GTR 3 MI

             16 LST   13.0  13.2  18.5  17.0  12.2  12.8  16.0  20.0  20.0  16.0  16.0  13.0 187.7      3 -72590

             22 LST   14.5  16.7  19.5  18.5  12.2  18.3  12.5  21.0  16.5  17.5  17.0  17.0 201.2      3 -72590

             04 LST   16.5  17.2  19.0  20.0  11.6  15.3  11.5  19.0  19.5  16.5  18.5  17.5 202.1      3 -72590

             10 LST   13.0  15.2  18.5  17.0  13.3  13.3  18.0  21.5  21.0  12.0  17.0  16.0 195.8      3 -72590

                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                  

                    STA NO. 73198    MENDOCINO CO            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                     

 

The tables below are “processed” data. We’ve taken the raw percentage of time the weather is worse than 1500 and 3 (1500 foot ceiling and 3 miles visibility) and subtracted from it the percentage of time the weather is worse than 300 and 1. The difference is labeled “P - GPS”, and is the probability that the weather will fall in the range between 1500/3 and 300/1, the weather when a nonprecision GPS approach would be useful.  We’ve also computed the ratio between P-GPS and 300/1.

 

As in the tables above, the rows are for 3 hour periods in local standard time (lst).

 

 

January

January

January

January

 

February

February

February

February

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

00-02 lst

14.5

2.2

12.3

5.59

 

26.3

11.7

14.6

1.25

03-05 lst

15.7

2.7

13

4.81

 

21.1

7.6

13.5

1.78

06-08 lst

21

8.1

12.9

1.59

 

18.7

10.5

8.2

0.78

09-11 lst

17.2

4.3

12.9

3.00

 

14

6.4

7.6

1.19

12-14 lst

26.3

8.6

17.7

2.06

 

25.1

4.1

21

5.12

15-17 lst

21.5

9.1

12.4

1.36

 

27.1

8.8

18.3

2.08

18-20 lst

22.6

8.1

14.5

1.79

 

27.5

8.8

18.7

2.13

21-23 lst

18.8

3.8

15

3.95

 

24

8.2

15.8

1.93

 

 

 

 

March

March

March

March

 

April

April

April

April

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

00-02 lst

18.8

7

11.8

1.69

 

18.3

9.4

8.9

0.95

03-05 lst

19.9

4.8

15.1

3.15

 

17.2

8.9

8.3

0.93

06-08 lst

23.8

5.4

18.4

3.41

 

19

8.4

10.6

1.26

09-11 lst

21.1

8.6

12.5

1.45

 

17.8

8.9

8.9

1.00

12-14 lst

18.5

7.1

11.4

1.61

 

19.4

5

14.4

2.88

15-17 lst

24.7

7

17.7

2.53

 

19.4

3.3

16.1

4.88

18-20 lst

23.1

6.5

16.6

2.55

 

20

8.3

11.7

1.41

21-23 lst

15.7

9.7

6

0.62

 

20.6

9.4

11.2

1.19

 

 

May

May

May

May

 

June

June

June

June

 

p < 1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

00-02 lst

42.3

25.6

16.7

0.65

 

43.4

25.8

17.6

0.68

03-05 lst

45.8

32.1

13.7

0.43

 

47.5

32.9

14.6

0.44

06-08 lst

45.2

33.3

11.9

0.36

 

46.3

35

11.3

0.32

09-11 lst

41.1

19.6

21.5

1.10

 

45.7

20.4

25.3

1.24

12-14 lst

45.5

7.8

37.7

4.83

 

50

9.9

40.1

4.05

15-17 lst

50.6

14.9

35.7

2.40

 

49.7

13.7

36

2.63

18-20 lst

57.1

22.6

34.5

1.53

 

48.8

17.9

30.9

1.73

21-23 lst

47.3

24.6

22.7

0.92

 

38.3

19.8

18.5

0.93

 

 

July

July

July

July

 

August

August

August

August

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

00-02 lst

62.2

55.1

7.1

0.13

 

26.3

23.1

3.2

0.14

03-05 lst

62

59.2

2.8

0.05

 

39.2

29.6

9.6

0.32

06-08 lst

63.2

56.2

7

0.12

 

43

34.4

8.6

0.25

09-11 lst

43.5

23.7

19.8

0.84

 

29

15.1

13.9

0.92

12-14 lst

39.1

10.3

28.8

2.80

 

28.5

8.6

19.9

2.31

15-17 lst

48.4

19.4

29

1.49

 

36.6

18.8

17.8

0.95

18-20 lst

57.5

47.8

9.7

0.20

 

39.2

27.4

11.8

0.43

21-23 lst

58.4

52.4

6

0.11

 

33.3

23.7

9.6

0.41

 

 

September

September

September

September

 

October

October

October

October

 

p <1500/3

p<300/1

p - GPS

ratio

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

00-02 lst

42.2

30

12.2

0.41

 

40

18.9

21.1

1.12

03-05 lst

37.8

26.7

11.1

0.42

 

39.8

19.4

20.4

1.05

06-08 lst

42.2

28.3

13.9

0.49

 

37.3

16.2

21.1

1.30

09-11 lst

31.7

13.9

17.8

1.28

 

40

12.4

27.6

2.23

12-14 lst

25.6

6.1

19.5

3.20

 

33.3

12.4

20.9

1.69

15-17 lst

34.4

16.7

17.7

1.06

 

36

15.6

20.4

1.31

18-20 lst

40

30.6

9.4

0.31

 

43.5

17.2

26.3

1.53

21-23 lst

44.4

31.1

13.3

0.43

 

37.1

19.9

17.2

0.86

 

 

November

November

November

November

 

December

December

December

December

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

 

p <1500/3

p <300/1

p - GPS

ratio

00-02 lst

25.1

5.6

19.5

3.48

 

24.7

5.9

18.8

3.19

03-05 lst

22.9

4.5

18.4

4.09

 

21

4.8

16.2

3.38

06-08 lst

20.1

5

15.1

3.02

 

24.2

3.8

20.4

5.37

09-11 lst

21.7

3.3

18.4

5.58

 

20

4.3

15.7

3.65

12-14 lst

21.1

3.3

17.8

5.39

 

20

2.7

17.3

6.41

15-17 lst

24.4

5.6

18.8

3.36

 

26.9

5.9

21

3.56

18-20 lst

25.7

6.7

19

2.84

 

23.1

3.8

19.3

5.08

21-23 lst

27.2

6.1

21.1

3.46

 

26.9

3.8

23.1

6.08

 

 

 

11.     Appendix F: correspondence with airport neighbors and users

11.1     January 30, 1996 letter from the Fort Bragg - Mendocino Coast Chamber of Commerce, in favor of a GPS approach.

11.2     June 23, 1996 letter from Coast Flyers requesting the GPS approach

11.3     September 24, 1996 letter from Joel Bornstein in favor of airport improvements and the GPS approach

11.4     October 26, 1996 letter from Peter Heinie in favor of the GPS approach

11.5     October 31, 1996 letter from Dobie Dolphin opposing a GPS approach  and November 11, 1996 answer to her letter from Tim Scully

11.6     November 2, 1996 FAX from Jacques Tenzel, M.D. in favor of the GPS approach

11.7     November 2, 1996 letter from Charlie Eby in favor of the GPS approach

11.8     November 3, 1996 letter from Sandy Berrigan opposing the GPS approach and a November 16 answer to her letter from Tim Scully

11.9     November 3, 1996 letter from Liz Irwin opposing the GPS approach and raising many questions, and a November 16 answer to her letter from Tim Scully

11.10     November 4, 1996 letter from Joanne C. Imperial, M.D. in favor of a GPS approach

11.11     November 6, 1996 email from Vince Taylor in favor of a GPS approach

11.12     November 13, 1996 letter from Andy Becker in favor of the GPS approach

11.13     November 17, 1996 letter from Judith Barry in favor of a GPS approach

11.14     March 1997 letter from Frank Robinton in favor an instrument approach

11.15     March 1997 resolution from the Whitesboro Grange in support of the GPS approach

 

12.     Appendix G:  Newspaper Articles and Letters to the Editor

12.1     “Airport Support” by Chris Chandler, Mendocino Beacon, November 22, 1995, Page 1.

12.2     Bad Weather Bites, by Tom Taylor, in The Mendonesian, December 1995 page 31

12.3     Better Use of the Airport, Joel Bornstein, Mendocino Beacon, October 10, letters to the Editor

12.4     Editorial, Mendocino Beacon, October 17,1996,  Page 4

12.5     Noise, instrument landing possibility under discussion, Beacon Staff, Mendocino Beacon, October 17.1996, Page 1.

12.6     Peace and Quiet, Anne Goncharoff, Mendocino Beacon, October 17(?), 1996, letters to the Editor

12.7     Airport proposals scrutinized; more work ahead, by Neil Boyle, Mendocino Beacon, October 24, 1996, Page 1

12.8     Keep Little River Airport Little, Arlene Lind, Mendocino Beacon, October 31, 1996, letters to the editor

12.9     Airport Planning Drawing Feedback, by Beacon Staff, Mendocino Beacon, November 7, 1996, page 1

12.10     Two More Airport Meetings, Mendocino Beacon, November 14, 1996, page 3

 

12.11     Letter on Noise Abatement Policy, Jack Reichel,  Mendocino Beachon, November 14, 1996, Page 4

12.12     Airport group’s noise policy goes to supervisors, Neil Boyle, Mendocino Beacon, November 21, 1996, page 1

12.13     Oppose Increased Air Traffic, Tom Wodtezki, Mendocino Beacon, December 26, 1996, page 4

12.14     Unfounded Concerns, Tim Scully, Mendocino Beacon, January 9, 1997, page 4

12.15     In the Public Interest, Joanne Imperial, M.D., Mendocino Beacon, January 16, 1997, page 4

12.16      Airport group continues work on GPS proposal,  Neil Boyle, Mendocino Beacon, January 16, 1997, page 1

12.17     Not in the Public Interest, Jim Wagoner, Mendocino Beacon, January 23, 1997, page 4

12.18     It Could Happen Here, Greg Menken, Mendocino Beacon, January 23, 1997, page 5

12.19     Misinterpreted, Joel Bornstein, Mendocino Beacon, January 30, 1997, Page 4.

12.20     Airport Group Refining GPS Ideas, Mendocino Beacon, February 13, 1997, Page 1.

12.21     Airport’s future debated, Mendocino Beacon, March 13, 1997, Page 1

 

13.     Appendix H:  Notes from community meetings re GPS approach and Noise Abatement

 

13.1     October 20, 1996 meeting

 

13.1.1     flyer posted in various locations on October 15, advertising the October 20th meeting

 

13.1.2     October 15 email from Dick Ahrens documenting how the meeting was advertised.

From rnnn @ mcn.org Tue Oct 15 19:18:56 1996

To: tim.scully

From: "Richard W. Ahrens" <rnnn @ mcn.org>

Subject: Diligent posting

Cc: joel @ mcn.org

 

                                                  Tuesday, 15 October 1996

Dear Tim,

 

        This is to notify you that the ad hoc committee flyer to advertise

the Little River Airport Community Meeting scheduled for 4:00 pm on Sunday,

20 October 1996 at Coast Flyers was posted on Tuesday, 15 October 1996, in

the following locations.

 

Albion:         Village Hardware

                Inside Albion Post Office

                Outside the Albion grocery store

 

Little River:   Inside Little River Post Office

                Outside Little River grocery store

                In the lobby at The Woods

                Given to the secretary at Pacific Resorts Real Estate

 

Mendocino:      Outside Corners of the Mouth grocery store

                Outside Dick's bar

                Outside Wilkes-Bashford men's store

                Inside Mendocino Bakery

                Given to Katherine Lee, editor of the Mendocino Beacon. 

                        Note:  Kathy said that she would run something

                        in the Mendocino Beacon community bulletin board

                        and that it is possible that Neil Boyle might

                        also write an article, but she did not promise

publication of the article.

 

        Additionally, Joel tells me that he has faxed the information

to five local radio stations, specifically:

                KMFB/KPMO

                KOZT

                KSAY

                KZYX

                KDAC

 

        I called Supervisor Charles Peterson at work in Ukiah and was

told that he wouldn't be in Ukiah until Monday, 21 October, which is

after the meeting.  I then left a message on his tape in Point Arena,

and I also mailed a copy of the flyer to Point Arena with a short

letter.

 

        Yrs,

                         Dick A.

 

13.1.3     Minutes of October 20, 1996 community meeting

 

          Minutes of the Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee

                                    10/20/96

 

The Little River Airport Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee met on Sunday 10/20/96 from 4-6 pm. Seven committee members were present: Tim, Joel, Susan, Jack, Ray, Fran and Trey.  Arlene Lind, Dick Ahrens, Liz Irwin, Dave Brewer, Tom Goncharoff, Ann Goncharoff, Janie Tate, Norma Kelly,

John Merriman, Mary Yakoushkin, Ig Yakoushkin, Don Cruser, Lily Ricardi, Diana Wiedemann, Frant Wheeler, Diana Scully, Richard Gallagher, Mac McNeil, Andy and Nang Becker also attended.

 

We agreed that the next Ad Hoc meeting will take place Sunday, November 3rd from 4-6pm at Coast Flyers. It will be a continuation of the community  meeting on noise abatement and the GPS instrument approach.

 

 

minutes

-------

The minutes of the previous meeting were distributed but not yet discussed or approved.

 

Tim also gave the committee members copies of Budge's letter about emergency aircraft repairs, as promised in the last meeting.

 

community meeting on Noise Abatement

------------------------------------

We handed out copies of two handouts to everyone: a Q&A on the noise policy and a Q&A on the GPS approach. Everyone introduced themselves. A signup sheet was passed around by Susan Winding.

 

Tim briefly presented the noise abatement policy and the responses we have gotten from the FAA and CalTrans, highlighting the problem the FAA pointed out with keeping records of noise complaints.

 

One fellow said that he used to live near San Jose airport. They keep records of noise complaints but not of the names and addresses of the complainers.

 

Someone asked - is the pilot identified? Can the pilot's name be made public? How hard is it to match up airplanes with complaints?

 

Andy said that it often is hard. The kind of information he needs to help identification include:

 

  - where and when did the incident take place

  - was the airplane high wing or low wing?

  - one, two or more engines?

  - what color was the airplane?

 

Diana W. said there is a contradiction here - the majority of property owners want a rural environment and at the same time the airport is trying to get instrumentation and radar to allow more airplanes to use the airport. You will bring in traffic from all over - I am opposed to this. This [the noise policy] is a coverup and a false mitigation. Diana W. lives on "C" Road, off Albion Ridge.

 

Diana W. asked - how would an official committee get formed. Tim explained the process and that it is completely up to the Supervisors.

 

Diana W. asked how long the committee has had its present composition. We reviewed the history of the committee and our struggle to get more non-pilots involved.

 

Someone said - people who are going to come here will come anyway, whether by road or by air. She is worried about pilots flying too low to land in spite of the fog. GPS is inexpensive. We need to balance safety with esthetic  values.

 

Liz Irwin said - let's not invite more pilots. This is primarily a place for people to live. She never asked for the airport to be closed. She doesn't want records to kept of noise complaints.

 

Someone asked - what's to stop the same person from complaining many many  times, greatly inflating the number of complaints?

 

Trey said - noise complaints are hard to litigate.

 

Diana W. - I want enforcement.

 

Someone - trying to estimate the height of an airplane is almost impossible.

 

Diana W. - If you have a camera, take a picture with a tree or something that can be measured.

 

Earlier person - but if you are inside a house and hear an airplane that sounds too low, there's no time to grab a camera before the airplane is gone.

 

Diana W. - a big airplane flew over my house at 200 feet last week

 

Joel - A DC3 was here. Larger airplanes look like they are lower.

 

Jack - We should adopt a noise policy, we don't have one now.

 

Someone - How can we keep larger aircraft from using the airport?

 

Tim explained that the FAA forbids arbitrary access restrictions and reviewed their letter which answered a series of questions like this one.

 

Trey - Jets are different. He'd like to restrict jets, particularly at night. This led to a discussion of curfews. Tim read the section of the FAA letter forbidding arbitrary curfews and noted CalTrans' statement that they might cut off grant funding if we imposed a curfew.

 

Someone - San Jose airport has a curfew with an exemption for Stage 3 jets.

 

Tim explained the FAR 161 and 150 rules which set an average noise threshold before curfews, access restriction, etc. can be imposed.

 

Trey - the FAA's control over Little River is limited.

 

Tim - Possibly, but making them mad will block any future Federal funding, and CalTrans may consider blocking State funding.

 

Someone - can we further research curfews? He'd like to see the committee made official and see a noise policy adopted.

 

Someone - we could schedule a series of demonstration flights at various altitudes so that airport neighbors could get a sense of what they look like.

 

Someone - we should amend the "airport actions" section to state that the goal is to identify the offending pilot.

 

Diana W. - airport management should take responsibility for initiating any "suit".

 

Joel - he speaks to offending pilots, but of course, he has no teeth and can't arrest anyone.

 

Someone suggested that the names of offenders should be posted publicly.

 

GPS Approach

------------

We were running out of time and spent the last 1/2 hour on the GPS approach.

 

Jack gave a brief presentation explaining what GPS is and what the GPS approach is. Tim explained about uncontrolled airspace and how pilots now fly under low clouds to land. We explained the altimeter setting issue. Jack explained what an automated weather station is and how it would provide 24 hour, seven day a week weather to both pilots and non-pilots. Tim described the altimeters in the airport office and how the airport supervisor can give the altimeter setting.

 

Someone asked if we can get a list of airports with stand-alone GPS approaches.

 

Diana W. said that she is afraid that a GPS approach will bring more airplanes. She finds that unacceptable.

 

We ran out of time and agreed to continue the community meeting on Sunday November 3rd from 4 to 6pm.

 

 

13.2     November 3, 1996 Community Meeting

13.2.1     flyer posted in various locations on October 29, advertising the November 3rd meeting

 

13.2.2     Email from Dick Ahrens regarding posting of flyers for 11/3 meeting

 

From rnnn @ mcn.org Wed Oct 30 06:53:43 1996

To: tim (tim scully)

From: "Richard W. Ahrens" <rnnn @ mcn.org>

Subject: GPS handout + ....

 

                                                           10-30-96

Tim -

      

        The meeting announcement flyer was posted in all the

usual locations, specifically:

        Albion:         Village Hardware

                        outside the grocery

                        in the Post Office

        Little River:   at The Woods

                        in the Post Office

                        outside the grocery

                        in the airport office

        Mendocino:      outside Corners of the Mouth

                        outside Wilkes-Bashford

                        outside Dick's

                        inside the bakery

                        copy to Neil Boyle of the Beacon

Joel tells me that he also faxed to the radio stations.

 

Yrs,

        Dick

 

13.2.3      Minutes of November 3, 1996 community meeting

   

          Minutes of the Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee

                                              11/03/96

 

The Little River Airport Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee met on Sunday 11/03/96 from 4-6 pm. Five committee members were present: Tim, Joel, Ray, Fran and Trey.  Dave Paoli, Marion Waldman, Diana Scully,  Valerie Mangrum, Andy Becker, John Merriman, Robin Bell, Patsy Brown, Keith Paulson, Grant Wheeler, Dave Thorpe, Arlene Lind and Diana Weederman (Diane W.) also attended.

 

We agreed that the next Ad Hoc meeting will take place Sunday, November 17th from 4-6pm at Coast Flyers.

 

community meeting on GPS Approach

Tim gave the following handouts to everyone:

 

 - a 12 page introduction to the GPS approach

 - a Q&A about the GPS approach

 - a revised noise policy document, with Q&A

 - a map of the airport vicinity

 - two sample GPS approach plates (Placerville and Auburn)

 

Trey had a handout consisting of Appendix B-2 from FAR 150 (discussing alternative noise abatement procedures)

 

Liz Irwin (of Little River) hand delivered a letter to the committee before the meeting but was unable to stay for the meeting. She wanted to know why the County wasn't represented at the meetings. She expressed concern over the lack of enforceability of the noise policy. She repeated her concern for

the rural residential nature of the neighborhood and dismay over the problem of recorded noise complaints reducing land values. She questioned Tim's assertion that the GPS approach would not increase traffic greatly. And she raised several other questions.

 

Joel delivered a letter from Peter Heine, (a Woods resident) expressing support for the airport and its responsible development. He pointed out its value to the community at large and the fact that there are always people who will move to an area and then complain about any further development.

 

Joel also delivered a letter from Charles Eby (of Little River), expressing  strong support for the airport. Mr. Eby asks why the complainers weren't  aware of the airport when they moved in. He favors the GPS approach.

 

Dobie Dolphin (of Middle Ridge) wrote to the committee to oppose the GPS approach due to concern over possible increases in traffic and hence in noise.

 

Jacques Tenzel (of Albion) FAXed a note to Tim expressing support for the airport and the GPS approach proposal. He noted that the airport is County resource serving the whole coastal community at a modest cost in noise to those who live nearby.

 

Jim Hay of the Chamber of Commerce telephoned early in the meeting to repeat the Chamber's support for an instrument approach, previously expressed in a January 30, 1996 letter to the Board.

 

[The full text of all letters will be attached to the Committee's report.]

 

Everyone introduced themselves. A sign-in sheet was passed around.

 

The meeting began with Tim giving an explanation of the proposed GPS approach.

 

Tim reported that, in response to concerns raised at the previous community meeting, he contacted four rural California airports that have gotten GPS approaches. In telephone interviews with Placerville, Mammoth Lakes, Hollister and Auburn airports, he was told that their GPS approaches have not resulted in increased traffic. The effect has been to improve safety and slightly reduce noise for operations by existing users. He has sent letters requesting more formal written responses for the record.

 

Diane Weederman (Diane W.) expressed concern over the fact that the meetings are being held on Sunday and in a small building. We had prepared a large hangar with extra folding chairs in case of an overflow crowd, but neither meeting attracted more people than could comfortably fit in Coast Flyers' office. We are soliciting written comments from anyone who found the Sunday meeting times to be inconvenient. And people are invited to attend any of our regular meetings, which continue every two weeks on Sundays from 4 to 6 pm.

 

Diane W. expressed concern over the age of the weather data and suggested that the climate is dryer and less cloudy now than it was when the data were collected. Tim asked what difference it makes? If there is less bad weather, then there will be fewer times when the GPS approach will be used. Grant said that he knows Jim Goodrich, a weather expert in Mendocino, and said he'd ask his opinion. Tim gave him the detailed weather data. John Merriman said that he has been marking a calendar for about 10 years

with marks for "good" and "bad" days. He believes that the 22% estimate is about right. He also said that not many people want to visit when the weather is bad.

 

Diane W. asked how many operations (takeoffs and landings) there are a year John said between 3,000 and 4,000.

 

Diane W. argued that the GPS approach would make departures during bad weather easier, thus increasing traffic because people would be less worried about whether they would be "trapped" by weather. Tim pointed out that instrument rated pilots now make instrument departures routinely and that the GPS approach will have no effect on departures. John explained that only non-instrument rated pilots get "trapped".

 

Keith Paulson said that there are fewer aircraft flying at Little River now than when he first started flying here. One objective measure of this is the decrease in fuel sales.

 

John Merriman drew an analogy between the GPS approach and the "Hobbs Knobs" (aka Botts Dots) on the roads which aid drivers in foggy weather.

 

One lady expressed concern that the airport is trying to expand to increase tourism, perhaps with an airline service. John Merriman explained that there was an airline service once, but it wasn't able to make money due to low usage. Tim explained that when there was an airline, they had a private NDB instrument approach. It is relatively easy for anyone to get a private instrument approach, if they are prepared to pay the FAA to develop and test fly it.

 

John said he believes that the airport will only expand with the community.

 

Roy Trillia introduced himself as a non-instrument rated pilot. He said that the GPS approach would actually make it harder for him to get into Little River because the lower controlled airspace will discourage him from trying to slip in when the weather is marginal. Nevertheless, he supports the approach because it will improve safety.

 

Diane W. asked for a show of hands as pilots and non-pilots. We counted 8 of each (some people had been coming and going).

 

Keith Paulson said that he believes that the Ad Hoc Committee has been doing a good job. He was concerned about letters in the newspaper that stated assumptions as facts, and appreciated the work that the Committee has been doing to dig out facts.

 

Trey went over his noise handout from FAR 150 and explained why it is hard to have penalties. He gave a very good explanation of the noise procedure, the problems with weather which can cause variations in exact flight path, etc.

 

Fran asked if the GPS approach would help with noise. Tim explained that pilots using the approach would fly straight in, causing less noise to the sides of the airport.

 

Marion Waldman, who lives near the approach to runway 29 pointed out that about 18 families live near the approach end of 29. She went on to say that she has lived there for 24 years and has never been bothered by the noise, with the exception of one pilot doing aerobatics. She loves knowing that the Coast Guard and sometimes Forest Service aircraft come here.

 

Another lady said that she wants "something put into place to stop pilots who break the rules". She wants penalties.

 

Trey said: why make empty threats. An ordinance with penalties would be expensive and difficult to enforce.

 

Diane W. - there are stages in planning. Noise abatement on "the buddy system" is one step, but she also wants policy in place that will lead the board to draft an ordinance on noise.

 

Someone questioned the Q&A item which suggested that property values might rise as a result of the GPS approach. She doesn't want a land rush and more traffic. Keith Paulson said that he thinks the GPS approach will have no impact at all on real estate values.

 

John Merriman said that he is bothered more by road noise from cars and trucks.

 

Andy expressed concern about item "D" in the revised noise abatement procedure. He said that there are some aircraft on the field which do not have mufflers, because they were designed that way.

 

Robin Bell (who lives near the departure end of runway 29) said that he has noticed a decrease in noise since the noise abatement policy has been discussed. He said that right-hand departures are still sometimes a problem.

 

We will meet next at 4pm on 11/17. The agenda will be:

 

   - approve minutes of 10/13, 10/20 and 11/3 meetings

   - reports on recent events

   - results of COMMUNITY MEETINGS on 10/20 and 11/3

   - noise abatement

   - GPS instrument approach

   - weather observations

   - bylaws for official airport committee

   - non-aviation uses

   - agree on agenda for next meeting

 

 

14.     Appendix I:  NEXWOS  Automated Weather Station

 

July 22, 1996 price quote from AAI SMI

July 22, 1996 letter from AAI SMI regarding maintenance costs, upgrades, etc.

 

15.     Appendix J:   Maps showing the proposed approach centerlines and approach trapazoids.

 

 

16.     Appendix K:     Draft  letter  of  concurrence  and environmental letter

These letters are modeled after the sample letters provided by Barry Rosenberg in his January 29,1997 letter. (See Appendix C).

16.1     Draft letter of Concurrence

Mr. Barry D. Rosenberg, Manager

Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office

LAX FPO/AWP-220

P.O. Box 92007

Los Angeles, CA 90009

 

Re: Airport Eligibility Requirements: GPS Instrument Approach Procedures for Runways 29 and 11, Little River Airport, CA.

 

Dear Mr. Rosenberg:

 

This letter is to inform you that the County of Mendocino:

 

·         Concurs with the establishment of  stand-alone straight-in GPS Instrument Approach Procedures for Runways 29 and 11 at Little River Airport.

 

·         Concurs with the establishment of controlled airspace (700 foot floor above ground level) for approximately five (5) miles around Little River Airport and will conduct its flight operations accordingly.

 

·         Is aware that approval of an instrument approach procedure may modify the applicable Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 imaginary obstruction identification surfaces for Runways 29 and 11, and that this may require a revision to our Airport Layout Plan. These surfaces are expected to be maintained free of obstructions.

 

It is our understanding, from your letter of July 22, 1996, that the existing 20:1 approach slopes are adequate.

 

We anticipate using the certified altimeter setting source described in AC91-14D, Section 3b. We have two aircraft-type sensitive altimeters and a competent person to give the official altimeter setting on request of Oakland Center or FSS by telephone.

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

16.2     Draft environmental impact letter

Mr. Barry D. Rosenberg, Manager

Los Angeles Flight Procedures Office

LAX FPO/AWP-220

P.O. Box 92007

Los Angeles, CA 90009

 

Re: GPS Instrument Approach Procedures for Runways 29 and 11, Little River Airport, CA.

 

Dear Mr. Rosenberg:

 

I am enclosing herewith one copy of Chapter 10 from the Airport Master Plan for Little River Airport. The land use compatibility study was prepared by Hodges & Schutt of Santa Rosa and was adopted by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors as part of the Master Plan on XXXX. The Master Plan was used by Hodges and Schutt in preparing out ALP, which has also been approved by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors.

 

We have held three community meetings to discuss the proposed GPS approach procedures. There have been numerous articles in the local newspapers discussing the proposed approach procedures. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report prepared by the Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee, which includes copies of the newspaper articles and letters received about the GPS approach. We believe that the GPS approach has been thoroughly discussed publicly and do not expect public controversy concerning the GPS approach procedures.

 

The Little River Airport office has the altimeter setting source described in AC91-14D, Section 3b. It has two aircraft-type sensitive altimeters, with responsible, competent persons giving the official altimeter setting on request by telephone to Oakland Center or Ukiah FSS.

 

The winds normally favor an approach to Runway 29 at Little River, which is also our calm wind runway, however we would like to request approaches to both Runway 29 and Runway 11, to provide a straight-in approach during the times when the wind favors Runway 11. We believe that a circling approach would create more noise impact.

 

With respect to the issue of noise sensitive areas underlying the proposed instrument approach flight track for the approach to Runway 29, we suggest a straight-in approach to 29 with the approach track aligned as closely as possible with the runway centerline. The area is very sparsely populated. We have not had noise complaints from straight-in approaches to Runway 29. The complaints we have received have been for departures from 29, for aircraft flying the downwind leg to Runway 29 and for aircraft circling in the neighborhood. The terrain slopes downward to the East of Runway 29 which, in effect adds to the height of approaching aircraft above ground level. The proposed procedure is not intended nor anticipated to increase the number of aircraft, or change the type of aircraft using Little River Airport.

 

We suggest that the missed approach procedure for the Runway 29 approach should require a left turn as soon as it is safe, to harmonize with our noise abatement procedure and minimize noise for the neighbors to the NorthWest of the departure end of Runway 29.

 

With respect to the issue of noise sensitive areas underlying the proposed instrument approach flight track for the approach to Runway 11, we suggest a straight-in approach to 11 with the approach track aligned to 097 degrees magnetic, displacing the approach trapezoid to the South. The area is sparsely populated. We have not had noise complaints from straight-in approaches to Runway 11. The complaints we have received have been for departures from 29 and for aircraft circling in the neighborhood. The terrain slopes downward to the West of Runway 11 which, in effect adds to the height of approaching aircraft above ground level. The proposed procedure is not intended nor anticipated to increase the number of aircraft, or change the type of aircraft using Little River Airport.

 

We suggest that the missed approach procedure for the Runway 11 GPS approach should be straight out.

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

17.     Appendix L:   Details of what an instrument flight is like

17.1     Little River to Oakland

IFR departures from Little River do not require any kind of instrument approach procedure, and this scenario is a typical operation now. Getting a GPS approach procedure won’t affect departures like this.

 

A typical IFR flight from Little River to Oakland might go like this:

 

The pilot files an IFR flight plan by computer 45 minutes before departure. He does a preflight inspection of the aircraft and has it ready to go. He then telephones Oakland Center 15 minutes before planned

departure time and gets a clearance (a specific route to be flown, a transponder code which uniquely identifies his aircraft, an altitude to use and a "clearance void" time, which gives him a 10 minute block of

time in which he can take off legally. It isn't possible to talk to Oakland Center by radio from the ground at Little River.

 

He taxis to the departure end of the runway and completes a "runup" procedure which verifies proper operation of engine, instruments, etc.

 

Pilot: (on the local advisory frequency) Little River Traffic, N1234 departing IFR, Runway 29 Little River

 

He takes off, making a climbing left turn for noise abatement, and proceeds toward the Mendocino VOR. When he has climbed to 5500 feet he makes radio contact with Oakland Center:

 

Pilot: Oakland Center, this is N1234, 15 West of Mendocino climbing through 5.5

 

Center; N1234, radar contact 14 West of Mendocino, maintain 7000.

 

The flight proceeds along the planned route until near San Pablo Bay. Meanwhile the pilot tunes in the automated weather and information service for Oakland airport and gets the latest weather, altimeter setting and runway in use from a tape recording broadcast by radio (Automatic Terminal Identification Service or ATIS). Each hour the tape is updated and given a new phonetic identification code such as "Romeo", "Sierra", "Victor", etc. When the aircraft nears the edge of San Pablo Bay, Oakland Center hands off control to Bay Approach, a different controller.

 

Center: N1234, contact Bay Approach on 127.0

 

Pilot: 127.0, N1234

 

He switches to 127.0.

 

Pilot: Bay Approach, N1234 level at 7, with Victor.

 

Bay: N1234, radar contact 8 Northwest of Pt. Richmond, turn left to 110, descend to 4000, radar vectors for the ILS 27 Right at Oakland

 

Pilot: left to 110, down to 4, N1234

 

The flight proceeds until another airspace boundary is crossed.

 

Bay: N1234, contact Bay Approach on 135.4

 

Pilot: 135.4, N1234.

 

He switches to 135.4.

 

Pilot:  Bay Approach, N1234 level at 4

 

Bay: N1234 radar contact

 

A few minutes later:

 

Bay: N1234, turn right to 180 and descend to 3, radar vector for the ILS 27 Right at Oakland

 

Pilot: right to 180, down to 3, N1234

 

A minute later:

 

Bay: N1234, turn right to 240, intercept the ILS 27 Right, maintain 3 until established, cleared for the ILS 27 Right at Oakland.

 

Pilot: right to 240, cleared for the approach, N1234

 

The pilot is slowing and descending along the ILS glideslope.

 

Bay: N1234, contact Oakland Tower, 118.3

 

Pilot: 118.3, N1234

 

He switches to 118.3.

 

Pilot: Oakland Tower, N1234 7 miles out on the ILS

 

Oakland: N1234 cleared to land 27 Right.

 

Pilot: N1234 cleared to land.

 

When the aircraft has landed safely, the Oakland Tower controller closes the pilot’s flight plan with the Air Traffic Control Center and the flight is officially completed..

 

17.2     Oakland to Little River (assuming a GPS approach)

A typical IFR flight from Oakland might go like this:

 

The pilot files an IFR flight plan with Oakland Flight Service before departure. He does a preflight inspection of the aircraft and has it ready to go. He then radios Oakland Clearance Delivery 10 minutes before the planned departure time and gets a clearance (a specific route to be flown, a transponder code which uniquely identifies his aircraft and  an altitude to use).

 

He then calls Oakland Ground control and gets permission to taxi to the runup area. He taxis to the departure end of the runway and completes a "runup" procedure which verifies proper operation of engine, instruments, etc. Then he radios to Oakland Tower:

 

Pilot: N1234 ready for IFR takeoff, 27 Right.

 

Tower: N1234 hold short pending IFR release.

 

Pilot: N1234 hold short.

 

(the tower contacts Oakland Center and negotiates a takeoff time)

 

Tower: N1234 is cleared for takeoff 27 Right, climb on the Oakland 313 radial, maintain 3, expect higher in 10 minutes.

 

Pilot: N1234 cleared for takeoff, climb on the Oakland 313, maintain 3 and expect higher in 10 minutes.

 

(pilot takes off and climbs on the assigned course)

 

Tower: N1234 radar contact, say altitude

 

Pilot: N1234 400 feet

 

Tower: N1234 contact Bay Departure on 127.0

 

Pilot: Bay on 127.0, N1234

 

He switches to 127.0.

 

Pilot: Bay Departure,  N1234 climbing through 1.0

 

Bay: N1234, radar contact

 

Pilot: N1234

 

A few minutes later.

 

Bay: N1234 climb to and maintain 6, you are cleared direct to the Mendocino VOR

 

Pilot: N1234, up to 6, direct Mendocino.

 

A few minutes later:

 

Bay: N1234, contact Oakland Center 127.8

 

Pilot: Center on 127.8, N1234.

 

He switches to 127.8.

 

Pilot: Oakland Center, N1234 level at 6

 

Center: Radar contact N1234

 

The flight continues until near the Mendocino VOR…

 

Center: N1234, you are 2 miles from the Mendocino VOR. The Little River altimeter is 29.92. What are your intentions?

 

Pilot: 29.92, N1234 plans a full stop landing at Little River.

 

Center: N1234, you are cleared for the GPS approach to Runway 29 at Little River.

 

Pilot: cleared for the approach, N1234

 

The pilot sets his altimeter and begins flying the GPS approach procedure. As he descends below 5500 feet:

 

Center: Radar service terminated. In the event of a missed approach, fly the published miss and contact me on this frequency. Please telephone on arrival to close your IFR flight plan. Change to advisory frequency now.

 

Pilot: thank you, N1234.

 

The pilot switches to 122.7 (Little River’s Unicom frequency) and broadcasts to let any other aircraft know an aircraft is flying the approach.

 

Pilot: Little River traffic, N1234 18 miles out on the GPS approach to Runway 29, Little River.

 

The instrument approach involves flying a GPS course, with step-down fixes that set a new altitude to fly at. The final step-down is 2 or 3 miles from the airport and brings the aircraft down to the “mimimum descent altitude” (MDA) for the approach. If the runway is in sight at the missed approach point, the pilot proceeds to land visually.

 

Pilot: Little River traffic, N1234 on 1 mile final for 29 at Little River.

 

After the pilot has landed, he telephones the Flight Service Station to inform them he is safely on the ground - they then close his flight plan with Oakland Center and the flight is officially completed.

 

(alternative scenario)

 

If the runway is not in sight at the missed approach point, he climbs and makes a left turn to return to the Mendocino VOR; he radios to Little River Unicom:

 

Pilot: Little River traffic, N1234 missed approach

 

On climbing high enough to contact Center:

 

Pilot: Oakland Center, N1234 climbing through 5, missed approach from Little River, I wish to proceed to Ukiah as my alternate.

 

Oakland Center: N1234 radar contact, maintain 6, proceed to the Mendocino VOR, expect clearance for the Localizer 15 approach at Ukiah.

 

…

 

The flight proceeds to a safe landing in Ukiah, where Flight Service closes the pilot’s flight plan.

 

18.     Appendix M:   A Brief History of the Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee

The Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee formed in March 1995 in response to strong concerns from both pilots and neighbors of Little River Airport regarding a wide range of airport-related issues. Our plan was to do research on the various issues, meet as a committee and its subcommittees until we could agree (or agree to disagree) on a draft report for each issue, then hold one or more community meetings until we have heard and incorporated added community input from those meetings and finally present a package of reports to the Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare Committee.

 

The committee is currently structured to comprise four non-pilot community members and three pilots who regularly fly in and out of Little River Airport. One non-pilot, Susan Winding, recently stepped down to alternate status because she has to travel a lot, so we are earnestly seeking another non-pilot member.

 

The table below summarizes how the composition of the committee developed over time.

 

date

number of non-pilots

number of pilots

notes

March 1995

varied

varied

committee formed

8/20/95

two

five

7 voting members elected

10/1/95

one

four

Ron Sieg resigned

10/29/95

two

four

Susan Winding elected

8/18/96

three

three

Ray Yates elected, Michael Moore becomes alternate

9/8/96

four

three

Fran Tucker elected

3/9/97

three

three

Susan Winding becomes alternate

 

The Little River Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee currently structured to consist of 4 non-pilots and 3 pilots. It has been working on many airport issues, including the GPS approach, for 2 years.  The committee meets every other Sunday afternoon from 4-6pm at Coast Flyers. The public is welcome to participate in all of these meetings. The agenda and minutes of the meetings and copies of our reports are available in the airport office.