Tim Scully 6/5/95 Dear Committee Member: Here is a proposed draft of an interim report for the Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare Committee in Ukiah on 6/19. Please let me know ASAP if you disagree, see errors or omissions. For that matter, let me know if you are opposed to the idea of a report like this. Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee Interim Report (rough proposed draft for 6/19 meeting) Introduction ------------ The Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee formed 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. We are still in the research and discussion phase on almost every issue. We have learned that it takes a great deal of discussion to reconcile the initially divergent viewpoints of the airport users and neighbors of the airport, and we have also learned that digging up the facts on each issue is time consuming. Some of the issues have not yet been discussed in depth by our committee. We have not yet held any community meetings and do not consider any of the material in this interim report to be final. ISSUES ====== Grading and weed control ------------------------ The pilots and neighbors of the airport are in complete agreement that the old County policy of grading the dirt areas between and around the runway and taxiway is a bad method of weed control. It encourages erosion, spreads dust which everyone hates and which leads to another expense for keeping the drainage ditch open. The best weed control strategy would be to mow the weeds, as needed. One airport neighbor suggested planting something ecologically appropriate which would require little or no mowing. Andy Becker ----------- Andy Becker has been airport manager at Little River for a number of years. Until recently, he has also had a maintenance shop at Little River. The pilots at Little River, with the possible exception of Tom Taylor, have found him to be an unusually competent mechanic and good airport manager. The non-pilots on the committee have all expressed support for Andy as a good airport manager. The committee is unanimous in agreeing that the airport manager's contract at Little River doesn't pay enough to keep a good manager if it is his sole support. This low pay has led to high turnover in the job. Many past managers have supplemented this income by other work. The current airport manager's contract forbids this. We feel this is impractical. It is common for airports to be managed by FBO's. This "conflict of interest" is commonly permitted because of economic reality. The committee agrees that it is important for competent aircraft maintenance services to be available at Little River. There is still disagreement on whether the airport manager should be allowed to also be a mechanic, with a minority of the group feeling that this is unfair to other mechanics who may want to work on the field. Most of the pilots feel that all aircraft mechanics are not equal, that Andy is an unusually good mechanic, and that we would be foolish to drive him away. The airport neighbors do not want a large maintenance operation on the airport which would attract aircraft from far away, just for maintenance. They want to see a modest repair facility suitable for local pilots and occasional emergency repair of intinerant aircraft. In other words, they do not want to increase traffic at the airport. With respect to the airport manager's position, we have discussed several possible alternatives: a) - install a card-lock fuel system and shrink the airport manager's job to collecting tie-down fees and other part-time airport maintenance activities, then contract this to an FBO. b) - keep the current duties but make the manager a county employee with better pay and benefits c) - keep the current duties and contract the job to an FBO We felt that option "b" is too expensive. Hangars ------- There are several hangar-related issues: a) - the fate of the existing privately owned portable hangars, which have been in limbo for several years, since the County sent a letter to hangar owners telling them that hangars would be converted to County ownership in July 1999 by buying them at an unspecified depreciated value. The County's letter to hangar owners should be withdrawn until a clear policy has been developed for how hangars would be bought from private owners (if they need to be). The hangar owners feel that a county purchase is unecessary. The committee agrees that if the County insists on buying private hangars, it should pay at least the assesed value used for property tax purposes. b) - how to make more hangars available The barriers to making more hangars available are the uncerntainty over the status of privately owned hangars and the cost of developing the area allocated for more hangars in the Master Plan - this development involves bridging the ditch North of the runway in two places and building new taxiways, an estimated cost of $50,000. The neighbors of the airport are concerned that new hangars not become a magnet to attract more traffic to the airport. They would like to see the number of new hangars, if any, limited to those needed by local pilots. Our research suggests that currently this is about 12 additional hangars. We looked into a possible private-public partnership for building hangars. The costs and return on investment made this approach result in rental fees approaching $250 per month. This is very high for an airport with Little River's level of services and location, about twice what it should be, when comparing data from other airports. If hangars could be built with a long-term low interest loan, the costs would fall more in line with market values. If the future of privately owned hangars is resolved favorably, it is possible that a group of private would-be hangar owners could form to develop a block of hangars with private financing. - how to better manage the hangar waiting list, the rental and sale of hangars Public Works has already taken one good step with the hangar waiting list by making it more publicly visible. The committee agrees that there should be published policies for how County hangars are handled and for how private hangars may be built and sold, so that all interested parties are playing on a level field with good information. We plan to propose such policies. - the recent increases in tiedown and hangar fees have sparked protests from airport users The airport users have been unhappy both about recent fee increases and the process by which they were increased. Many pilots attended a County meeting last year when they were told that fees would not be raised without consulting pilots, then a fee increase was made with no further public input. Transient pilots complain that the nightly tiedown fee is about twice the level of most comparable airports. The neighbors of the airport want fees to be high enough to balance costs at the airport and to avoid attracting more traffic. Noise Abatement and traffic --------------------------- Noise is one of the big issues for neighbors of the airport, surface traffic, on airport road and at the junction of Highway 1 and airport road, is another issue. The airport neighbors would like to see no further increase in either noise or surface traffic. This is one of the driving forces behind their efforts to limit airport improvements. It should be noted that transient aircraft bring business to town. We are seeking input from business (store and B&B owners) on this point. There is particularly strong opposition to helicopter and jet aircraft traffic, due to the high impact these have. The concerns about highway traffic lead the airport neighbors to oppose non-aviation development of airport land. Pilots are concerned that the zoning around the airport has been tweaked to allow smaller parcel sizes than recommended in the Airport Master Plan, leading to higher residential density and more conflict with the airport. This added development also increases traffic on the highway. The committee has been working on a proposed noise abatement policy for the airport which might help. This is not yet in a final form 1. designate aerobatic areas (at least one inland and one at sea) 2. require departing aircraft to reduce power as soon as feasable and to continue climbing to a minimum initial altitude of 2000 feet AGL. 3. Increase the Little River traffic pattern altitude from 800 feet AGL to 1000 feet AGL. 4. During approach and landing, used reduced power settings and as steep a descent as weather conditions and safety allow. 5. Restrict jet traffic to certain time periods. 6. Request all aircraft to maintain a minimum 2000 foot AGL clearance along the Albion-Little River-Mendocino area. Liz said that she didn't think hours of operation were important. The noise abatement committee agreed to work on specific proposals for aerobatic areas and to further research the question of restrictions on hours for jet operations. Trey pointed out that Ukiah has such a restriction. FUEL PRICING and AVAILABILITY: ----------------------------- There are several issues around fuel at Little River - the existing underground fuel tanks will probably have to be converted to above-ground to meet EPA regulations. This probably will have to be done in the next couple of years and will cost in excess of $150,000. - local pilots felt that fuel prices are too high. An investigation revealed that fuel prices are in line with comparable airports. - there has been a lot of interest in card-lock fuel, to provide fuel 24 hours a day and 7 days a week with less staff cost. The capital cost of setting up a card-lock system and the low volume of fuel sales at Little River are the barriers to this system. - there was discussion of making turbine fuel available. This probably would be a moneymaker, but it would attract exactly the sort of traffic not desired by airport nbeighbors: helicopters and jets. WEATHER STATION (AWOS or ASOS) ------------------------------ There is unanimous agreement on the committee that we should have an automated weather station at Little River Airport. It appears that there is no FAA funding available for an AWOS at this time (though more research might turn up grant possibilities). The Califormia Dept of Aeronautics said that they have no specific funding for AWOSs, though the County could choose to use its block grant funds for this purpose. We are trying to find the right person at the National Weather Service to find funding for an ASOS (this is their version of AWOS) from them. The AWOS-A (altimeter only) is no longer manufactured. We might be able to get a used one for about $7500. The AWOS-1 (altimeter, wind, temperature and dewpoint) costs about $15000. The AWOS-3 (adds ceiling and visibility) costs from $50,000-$100,000. The ASOS is the newest type of automated weather station. We don't have a cost figure for it. An ASOS is better than an AWOS-3 because it looks at cloud cover over a larger area, the AWOS only looks straight up. Most new installations are ASOS. Maintenance is an issue. If NOAA, the State or FAA puts in a weather station, they will maintain it at no cost to the County. If we have to buy one on our own, then we have to pay for maintenance. Depending on the station, this can run from $3000 to $8000 per year, I'm told. An alternative is to have someone local go through a training course to do the maintenance (Tim is willing to do this maintenance for free if the training fee is paid for), reducing our costs to just parts. The training costs about $3000. Instrument Approach ------------------- Airport users at Little River have wanted an instrument approach for many years. Recent advances in GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) technology now make this technologically practical. It is no longer necessary to have expensive ground support equipment for an approach, and suitable receivers for general aviation use are becoming affordable and commonly available. The FAA is willing to develop and maintain a GPS approach for Little River at its expense (funded by aviation fuel taxes). They do need a formal request from the county, some answers to technical questions and a statement of no environmental impact. We also would need to cut some trees that have grown into the approach zone. It may be necessary to get some surveying done to update NOAA's obstruction chart which identifies tree locations and heights near the approach area. The type of GPS approach which is now available is a non-precision approach. In the future, precision GPS approaches will become available. It would be good to proceed with the land swaps recommended in the Airport Master Plan to secure the clear zone at the apporach end of runway 29 fo a possible future precision GPS approach (which would be most helpful considering our coastal fog). Although the instrument approach issue has not yet been fully discussed by the committee, it is clear that the airport's neighbors are very concerned about the possible impact of an instrument approach. Some people fear that an instrument approach would make it easier for off-shore oil to move in. In past years, when various other instrument approaches were considered for Little River, the analysis done by various airport managers and the FAA suggested that the increase in traffic, if any, would be about 5%. The flight path used during an official instrument approach would have lower noise impact than that used by either normal VFR approaches (straight-in vs a standard traffix pattern with downwind and base legs) or the home-made approaches now used by pilots when the status cloud layer is low (typically done by flying up Big River canyon on a right base for runway 29 or from the ocean over Little River Inn). Safety of operations at Little River would be enhanced by establishing an instrument approach. Currently, controlled airspace begins at 5000 feet, allowing instrument rated pilots to fly without a clearance up to that altitude. Once an approach is established, this floor whould be lowered to 700 or 1200 feet AGL, requiring operations to be done with a clearance. More AAC discussion and community discussion will be needed on this issue before the concerns of the airport's neighbors can be fully heard and hopefully answered satisfactorily. By the way, if off-shore oil did decide to try to use Little River (unlikely due to poor highway access, public ownership and frequent low fog, compared to the lumber company strip in Fort Bragg which is privately owned and nearly at sea level and hence usually below the fog), the oil companies could easily establish a privately owned instrument approach. MOVIE COMPANY AIRPORT USE: ------------------------- At one time Little River was able to allow large jets to land (by appointment). Movie companies used this capability. We had a subcommittee look into whether this certification should be renewed and whether movie company use of the airport should be encouraged. It looks as though the large jet certification is not really necessary for movie companies - they can and have used smaller aircraft. The question of whether we should encourage movies companies to use the airport and to make movies on the coast is more contraversial and needs public airing. Some people really like having movies made on the coast and some even make money from the activity. Other folks are opposed due to the noise and traffic. Airline use ----------- There seems to be general agreement on the committee that it would be nice if airline service to Little River were resumed. The convenience to the community outweighs the noise and traffic. The barriers to this in the past were: lack of instrument approach and possibly lack of enough regular passengers.