FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

Transcription

1 Chapter Three FACILITY REQUIREMENTS In this chapter, existing components of the airport are evaluated so that the capacities of the overall system are identified. Once identified, the existing capacity is compared to the forecast activity levels prepared in Chapter Two to determine where deficiencies currently exist or may be expected to materialize in the future. Once deficiencies in a component are identified, a more specific determination of the approximate sizing and timing of the new facilities can be made. The objective of this effort is to identify, in general terms, the adequacy of the existing airport facilities and outline what new facilities may be needed and when they may be needed to accommodate forecast demands. Having established these facility requirements, alternatives for providing these facilities will be evaluated in Chapter Four to determine the most cost-effective and efficient means for implementation. The cost-effective, efficient, and orderly development of an airport should rely more upon actual demand at an airport than a time-based forecast figure. In order to develop a master plan that is demandbased rather than time-based, a series of planning horizon milestones have been established for Telluride Regional Airport that take into consideration the reasonable range of aviation demand projections. It is important to consider that the actual activity at the airport may be higher or lower than projected activity levels. By planning according to activity milestones, the resultant plan can accommodate unexpected shifts, or changes in the area s aviation demand. 3-1

2 It is important that the plan accommodate these changes so that the Telluride Regional Air port Authority (TRAA) can respond to unexpected changes in a timely fashion. These milestones provide flexibility, while potentially extending this plan s useful life if aviation trends slow over the period. The most important reason for utilizing milestones is that they allow the airport to develop facilities according to need generated by actual demand levels. The demand-based schedule provides flexibility in development, as development schedules can be slowed or expedited according t o actual demand at any given time over the planning period. The resultant plan provides airport officials with a financially responsible and need-based program. Table 3A presents the planning h orizon milestones for each activity demand category. TABLE 3A Planning Horizon Activity Levels Existing (2000) Short Term Planning Horizon Intermediate Term Planning Horizon Long Term Planning Horizon Enplaned Passengers Based Air craft Annual Operations 17, ,608 33, ,100 38, ,100 50, ,500 AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS Airfield facilities include those facilities that are related to the arrival, departure, and ground movement of aircraft. Theses components include: Runways Navigational Approach Aids and Instrument Approaches Taxiways Airfield Lighting, Marking, and Signage The adequacy of existing airfield facilities at Telluride Regional Airport is analyzed from a number of perspectives within each of these components, including (but not limited to): a irfield capacity, runway length, runway pavement strength, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards, airspace configuration, and air traffic control. AIRFIELD CAPACITY An airport s airfield capacity is expressed in terms of its annual service volume (ASV). An nual service volume is a reasonable estimate of the maximum level of aircraft operations that can be accommodated at the airport in a year. Annual service volume accounts for annual differences in runway use, aircraft mix, and weather conditions. The airport s annual service volume was examined utilizing FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 3-2

3 150/ , Airport Capacity and Delay. Factors Influencing Annual Service Volume Exhibit 3A graphically presents the va rious factors included in the calculation of an airport s annual service volume. These include airfield characteristics, meteorological conditions, aircraft mix, and demand characteristics (aircraft operations). These factors are described below.! AIRFIELD CHARACTERISTICS The layout of the runways and taxiways directly affects an airfield s capacity. This not only includes the location and orientation of the runways, but the percent of time that a particular runway or combination of runways is in use and the length, width, weight bearing capacity, and instrument approach capability of each runway at the airport. The length, width, weight bearing capacity, and instrument approaches available to a runway determine which type of aircraft may operate on the runway and if operations can occur during poor weather conditions. Runway Configuration: Telluride Regiona l Airport is served by a single runway 6,870 feet long by 100 feet wide. This runway currently serves a mix of large business jet aircraft, general aviation aircraft, and turboprop commuter airline aircraft. The runway is served by a partial parallel taxiway and three connecting taxiways. Runway Use: Runway use is normally dictated by wind conditions. The direction of takeoffs and landings is generally determined by the speed and direction of wind. It is generally safest for aircraft to takeoff and land into the wind, avoiding a crosswind (wind that is blowing perpendicular to the travel of the aircraft) or tailwind components during these operations. At Telluride Regional Airport, most aircraft depart Runway 27 due to the rapidly rising terrain and box canyon to the east. Commercial airline operating procedures generally prohibit departures to the east as single-engine operations do not provide sufficient climb performance for terrain clearance. A majority of aircraft arrive from the west leading to more landings on Runway 9. For the capacity analysis, Runway 27 and Runway 9 were assumed to be used an equal amount of time for these reasons. Exit Taxiways: Exit taxiways have a sign ifica nt impact on airfield capacity since the number and location of exits directly determines the occupancy time of an aircraft on the runway. There are three taxiways extending between the runway and partial parallel taxiway. The airfield capacity analysis gives credit to exits located within a prescribed range from a runway's threshold. This range is based upon the mix index of the aircraft that use the runway. The exits must be at least 750 feet apart to count as separate exits. For Telluride Regional Air port, the exit taxiways must be within 3,000 to 5,500 feet from the runway threshold. Following this criteria, Runway 9 is 3-3

4 credited with one exit, while Runway 27 is not given credit for any runway exits.! METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS Weather conditions can have a sign ifica nt affect on airfield capacity. Air port capacity is usually highest in clear weather, when flight visibility is at its best. Airfield capacity is diminished as weather conditions deteriorate and cloud ceilings and visibility are reduced. As weather conditions deteriorate, the spacing of aircraft must increase to provide allowable margins of safety. The increased distance between aircraft reduces the number of aircraft which can operate at the airport during any given period. This consequently reduces overall airfield capacity. There are three categories of meteorological conditions, each defined by the reported cloud ceiling and flight visibility. Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions exist whenever the clou d ceiling is greater than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL), and visibility is greater than three statute miles. VFR flight conditions permit pilots to approach, land, or takeoff by visual reference and to see and avoid other aircraft. Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) conditions exist when the reported ceiling is less than 1,000 feet above ground level and/or visibility is less than three statute miles. Under IFR conditions, pilots must rely on instruments for naviga tion and guidance to the runway. Other aircraft cannot be seen and safe separation between aircraft must be assured solely by following air traffic control rules and procedures. As mentioned, this leads to increased distances between aircraft, which diminishes airfield capacity. Poor Visibility Conditions (PVC) exist when the cloud ceiling and/or visibility is less than cloud ceiling and visibility minimums prescribed by the instrument approach procedures for the airport. Essentially, the airport is closed to arrivals during PVC conditions. According to regional data, VFR conditions exist approximately 95 percent of the time, whereas IFR conditions occur the remaining five percent of the time. As detailed previously in Chapter One, the airport has three instrument approach procedures. The best instrument approach procedure allows for aircraft operations when visibility is at least two miles and cloud ceilings are at least 2,600 feet above the ground. This is only sligh tly below VFR conditions and contributes to a high number of diversions and canceled flights, as IFR conditions are frequently below these minima. Air craft with approach speeds above 121 knots are prohibited from using the instrument approach procedures. Therefore, these aircraft can only access the airport during VFR conditions. In the year 2000, there were more than 1,500 operations by aircraft within approach speeds higher than 121 knots. This represented approximately 10 percent of all activity. Telluride Regional Air port is without surface radar coverage as well. This 3-4

5 01MP05-3A-11/5/01 AIRFIELD LAYOUT Runway Configuration Runway Use Number of Exits WEATHER CONDITIONS VFR IFR PVC AIRCRAFT MIX A&B Beechcraft King Air Beechcraft Bonanza C Cessna Citation SAAB 340 Cessna 441 Gulfstream Boeing 737 D Boeing 747 OPERATIONS Arrivals and Departures Total Annual Operations J F M A M J J A S O N D Touch-and-Go Operations Exhibit 3A AIRFIELD CAPACITY FACTORS

6 limits IFR operations, as aircraft cannot be released for an approach or departure until an aircraft which has departed has made positive radar contact, or an aircraft which is arriving has closed its flight plan. This increases aircraft delay and reduces the number of aircraft which can operate at the airport during a given time period. The airfield capacity analysis reduces hourly IFR capacity when the airport is not equipped with an instrument landing system or radar coverage.! AIRCRAFT MIX Air craft mix refers to the speed, size, and fligh t characteristics of aircraft operating at the airport. As the mix of aircraft operating at an airport increases to inclu de larger aircraft, airfield capacity begins to diminish. This is due to larger separation distances that must be maintained between aircraft of different speeds and sizes. Air craft mix for the capacity analysis is defined in terms of four aircraft classes. Classes A and B consist of single and multi-engine aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Aircraft within these classifications are primarily associated with general aviation operations, but does include some business turboprop and business jet aircraft (e.g. the Cessna Citation business jet and Beechcraft King Air). Class C consists of multi-engine aircraft weighing between 12,500 and 300,000 pounds. This is a broad classification that includes business jets, turboprops, and large commercial airline aircraft. Most of the business jets in the national fleet are included within this category. Class D includes all aircraft over 300,000 pounds and includes wide-bodied and jumbo jets. No aircraft within Class D operate, or are expected to operate, at the airport. For the capacity analysis, the percentage of Class C aircraft operating at the airport is critical in determining the annual service volume as this class includes the larger and faster aircraft in the operational mix. The airport charges a landing fee for all aircraft operating at the airport. Using reports on aircraft type prepared from the collection of la nding fees, t he exa ct operational mix for the airport in 2000 was determined. As shown in Table 3B, aircraft in Category C represented 35 percent of operations in Consistent with projections prepared in the previous chapter, the operational fleet mix at the airport is expected to slightly increase its percentage of Class C through the planning period as business jet activities increase through the planning period.! DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS Operations, not only the total number of annual operations, but the manner in which they are conducted, have an important effect on airfield capacity. Peak operational periods, touch-and-go operations, and the percent of arrivals impact the number of annual operations that can be conducted at the airport. 3-5

7 TABLE 3B Aircraft Operational Mix 2000 Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term A & B 65.3% 62.9% 62.2% 61.8% C 34.7% 37.1% 37.8% 38.2% Peak Period Operations: For the airfield capacity analysis, average daily operations and average peak hour operations during the peak month are calculated. These figures were derived from the peak period forecasts prepared in Chapter Two. Touch-and-Go Operations: A touchand-go operation involves an aircraft making a landing and an immediate takeoff without coming to a full stop or exiting the runway. These operations are normally associated with general aviation training operations. Touchand-go activity is counted as two operations since there is an arrival and a departure involved. A high percentage of touch-and-go traffic normally results in a higher operational capacity because one landing a nd one takeoff occurs within a shorter time than individual operations. Touch-andgo operations are prohibited at Telluride Regional Air port. Percent Arrivals: The percentage of arrivals as they relate to the total operations in the design hour is important in determining airfield capacity. Under most circumstances, the lower the percentage of arrivals, the higher the hourly capacity. However, except in unique circumstances, the aircraft arrival-departure split is typically At the airport, traffic information indicated no major deviation from this pattern, and arrivals were estimated to account for 50 percent of design period operations.! CALCULATION OF ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME The preceding information was used in conju nction with the airfield capacity methodology developed by t he FAA to determine airfield capacity for Telluride Regional Air port. Hourly Runway Capacity: The first step in determining annual service volume involves the computation of the hourly capacit y of each runway in use configuration. The percentage use of each runway, the amount of touch-andgo training activity, and the number and locations of runway exits become important factors in determining the hourly capacity of each runway configuration. Annual Service Volume: Once the hourly capacity is known, the annual service volume can be determined. Annual service volume is calculated by the following equation: 3-6

8 Annual Service Volume = C x D x H C = weighted hourly capacity D = ratio of annual demand to average daily demand during t he peak month H = ratio of average daily demand to average peak hour demand during the peak month Following this formula, the current and future annual service volume for Telluride Regional Airport has been estimated. Table 3C summarizes annual service volume data for Telluride Regional Airport through the planning period. TABLE 3C Annual Service Volume Comparison Annual Operations Weighted Hourly Capacity Annual Service Volume Percent Capacity 2000 Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term 15,608 21,100 25,100 32, ,000 48,000 48,000 47, % 43.7% 52.2% 69.1%! CONCLUSION Exhibit 3B compares annual service volume to existing and forecast operational levels. The 2000 total of 15,608 operations represented 31.9% of the annual service volume. By the end of the planning period, total annual operations are expected to represent 69.1% of annual service volume. The annual service volume at Telluride Regional Air port is lower than typically found at similar single runway airports. Several factors contribute to this. First is the limited number of exit taxiways. For Runway 9, VF R hourly capacity is reduced 16 percent since there is only one exit taxiway within the prescribed range. Since there are no taxiways within the prescribed range for Runway 27, VFR hourly capacity to this runway is reduced by 24 percent. Second is the absence of radar coverage and limited approach capability. These factors increase aircraft control requirements and separation between aircraft. IFR hourly capacity is reduced nearly 40 percent due to these factors. FAA Order B, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), indicates that improvements for airfield capacity purposes should be considered when operations reach 60 percent of the annual service volume. Should operations occur as forecast, the airport would reach this level with approximately 28,000 annual operations. 3-7

9 The limitations on approach capability and radar coverage are due to existing terrain features. It is not expected that these issues can be resolved easily, nor are they within the responsibilities of the airport. Therefore, the primary means available at the airport to gain additional operational capacity is through the development of additional taxiways. Providing four exit taxiways for landing in either direction can increase the annual service volume to 56,000 operations by the end of the planning period. While additional radar coverage would enhance the safety of aircraft operations to and from the airport, it would not significantly increase airfield capacity due to the lack of an instrument landing system (ILS). for small aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds and from 13 to 16 knots for aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds. Table 3D summarizes wind coverage for the airport. As shown in the table, the current runway configuration provides greater than 95 percent wind coverage for all crosswind components. Therefore, the runway is properly oriented to prevailing wind flows and aircraft operational safety is maximized. TABLE 3D Wind Coverage Summary Wind Speed Combined Coverage RUNWAY ORIENTATION 10.5 knots 13.0 knots 16.0 knots 98.18% 99.07% 99.69% For the operational safety a nd efficiency of an airport, it is desirable for the primary runway of an airport's runway system to be oriented as close as possible to the direction of the prevailing wind. This reduces the impact of wind components perpendicular to the direction of travel of an aircraft that is landing or taking off (defined as a crosswind). FAA design standards specify that additional runway configurations are needed when the primary runway configuration provides less than 95 percent wind coverage at specific crosswind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed on the basis of crosswinds not exceeding 10.5 knots Source: 1996 Master Plan PHYSICAL PLANNING CRITERIA The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using, or are expected to use, t he airport. Planning for future aircraft use is of particular importance since design standards are used to plan separation distances between facilities. These standards must be determined now since the relocation of these facilities would likely be extremely expensive at a later date. 3-8

10 01MP05-3B-11/5/01 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 49,000 48,000 48,000 ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME 47,000 35,000 ANNUAL OPERATIONS 30,000 25,000 20,000 25,100 32,500 15,000 21,100 10,000 5,000 15,608 OPERATIONAL DEMAND FORECAST LONG TERM SHORT TERM INTERMEDIATE TERM EXISTING Exhibit 3B AIRFIELD DEMAND/CAPACITY

11 The most important characteristics in airfield planning are the approach speed and wingspan of the critical design aircraft anticipated to use the airport now and in the future. The FAA has established a coding system to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of aircraft expected to use the airport. This code, referred to as the airport reference code (ARC), has two components. The first component, depicted by a letter, is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristic); the second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design gr oup (ADG) and relates to aircraft wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally, aircraft approach speed applies to runways and runway-related facilities, while airplane wingspan primarily relates to separation criteria involving taxiways, taxilanes, and landside facilities. According to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/ , Airport Design, Change 6, an aircraft's approach categor y is based upon 1.3 times its stall speed in landing con figuration at that aircraft's maximum certificated weight. The five approach categories used in airport planning are as follows: Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots. The airplane design group (ADG) is based upon the aircraft s wingspan. The six ADG s used in airport planning are as follows: Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet. Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet. Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet. Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet. Group VI: 214 feet or greater. Exhibit 3C presents a summary of representative aircraft by ARC. In order to determine airfield facility requirements, an ARC should first be determined, then appropriate airport design criteria can be applied. This begins with a review of the type of aircraft using and expected to use Telluride Regional Air port. Telluride Regional Airport is currently used by a wide variety of a ircraft, ranging from aircraft used for scheduled airline service to general aviation recreational aircraft, general aviation business aircraft, and a limited number of helicopters. Helicopters are not included in this determination as they are not assigned an ARC. A landing fee is charged to all aircraft operating at Telluride Regional Airport. This fee is based on the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft. Therefore, the TRAA maintains accurate records of all aircraft types operating at the airport. From these 3-9

12 records, an ARC was assigned to all aircraft operating at Telluride Regional Air port in 2000 to determine the design category for the airport. Commercial Aircraft The primary aircraft used for scheduled airline service in 2000 were the 19-seat Beechcraft 1900 and 38-seat DeHavilland Dash 8. Both are twinengine turboprop aircraft. The Beechcraft 1900 falls within ARC B-II, while the DeHavilland Dash 8 falls with ARC A-III. The aviation demand forecasts noted that the Telluride Regional Air port market could support the use of regional jet aircraft in the future. The aviation demand forecasts identified the Canadair CRJ -200 (ARC C-II) as the most likely regional jet aircraft to operate at the airport. A wide range of transient business jets operate at the airport. These include aircraft within the Cessna Citation family of business jets, Gulfstream business jets, Learjet, and Raytheon jet aircraft. In 2000, there were nearly 2,400 operations by business jet aircraft. As evident in Table 3E, most business jet operations were within approach category C. The Cessna Citation II conducted the most operations in 2000, conducting 262 operations. This was followed by the Beechjet 400, which conducted 260 operations in The Gulfstream IV was the most demanding business jet, in terms of wing span, a pproach speed, and weight to operate at the airport in Gulfstream IV aircraft conducted 128 operations in The aviation demand forecasts projected business jet activity to increase through the planning period. General Aviation General aviation aircraft using the airport include small single and multiengine aircraft, which fall within approach categories A and B and ADG I, and business turboprop and jet aircraft, which fall within approach categories B, C, and D and ADGs I and II. The majority of based aircraft fall within ARC A-I and ARC B-I. Representative based aircraft include the Cessna 172 and 182, and Beechcraft Bonanza. Two Cessna Citation II jet aircraft are based at the airport. These aircraft fall within ARC B-II. Critical Design Aircraft Conclusion Table 3F summarizes operations by approach category and airplane design gr oup (ADG) for the airport in As shown in the table, the airport accommodated general aviation aircraft in approach categories A through D and in ADGs I and II. Commercial airline aircraft operated within approach categories A and B and ADGs II and III. Operations by aircraft within approach categor y A were the most numerous and totaled 8,584 in This was followed by approach categor y B, which had 5,316 operations in Opera- 3-10

13 01MP05-3C-11/5/01 Beech Baron 55 Beech Bonanza Cessna 150 Cessna 172 Piper Archer Piper Seneca Lear 25, 35, 55 Israeli Westwind HS 125 A-I C-I, D-I B-I less than 12,500 lbs. Beech Baron 58 Beech King Air 100 Cessna 402 Cessna 421 Piper Navajo Piper Cheyenne Swearingen Metroliner Cessna Citation I C-II, D-II Gulfstream II, III, IV Canadair 600 Canadair Regional Jet Lockheed JetStar Super King Air 350 B-II less than 12,500 lbs. Super King Air 200 Cessna 441 DHC Twin Otter C-III, D-III Boeing Business Jet B B Series MD-80, DC-9 Fokker 70, 100 A319, A320 Gulfstream V Global Express B-I, II over 12,500 lbs. Super King Air 300 Beech 1900 Jetstream 31 Falcon 10, 20, 50 Falcon 200, 900 Citation II, III, IV, V Saab 340 Embraer 120 C-IV, D-IV B-757 B-767 DC-8-70 DC-10 MD-11 L1011 A-III, B-III DHC Dash 7 DHC Dash 8 DC-3 Convair 580 Fokker F-27 ATR 72 ATP D-V B-747 Series B-777 Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type. Exhibit 3C AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES

14 tions in approach category C totaled 1,210 in 2000, while approach category D operations totaled 326. Operations by aircraft with ADG I were the most numerous and totaled 7,406 in Operations within ADG II totaled 7,294, while operations within ADG III totaled 736. TABLE 3E Year 2000 Business Jet Operations by ARC Aircraft Landings Operations ARC Cessna Citation Bravo Cessna Citation Excel Cessna Citation II Cessna Citation Ultra Cessna Citation V Dassault Falcon 20 Dassault Falcon 2000 Dassault Falcon 50 Dassault Falcon 900 Beechjet 400 Learjet 35/36 Learjet 55 Piaggo P.180 Avanti Learjet 31 Learjet 25D Westwind Hawker-Siddeley Hawker-Siddeley BAE Learjet 45 Learjet 24E Challenger 600 Rayt heon/hawker Horizon Cessna Citation X Cessna Citation III Challenger 601 Cessna Citation VII IAI Astra 1125 IAI Galaxy Challenger 604 Gulfstream III Sabreliner 65 Bombardier Global Express Learjet 60 Gulfstream II Gulfstream IV Regional Jet Gulfstream V Totals 1,185 2,370 B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C-II C-II C-II C-II C-II C-II C-II C-II C-II C-II C-II C-III D-I D-II D-II D-II D-III 3-11

15 TABLE 3F Operations by Airport Reference Code GENERAL AVIATION 1 Landings Operations APPROACH CATEGORY Approach Category A Approach Category B Approach Category C Approach Category D 3,929 1, ,858 3,568 1, Total 6,481 12,962 AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP Airplane Design Group I Airplane Design Group II Airplane Design Group III 3,703 2, ,406 5, APPROACH CATEGORY Total 6,481 12,962 AIRLINE Approach Category A Approach Category B ,748 Total 1,237 2,474 AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP Airplane Design Group I Airplane Design Group II Airplane Design Group III , APPROACH CATEGORY Total 1,237 2,474 ALL OPERATIONS Approach Category A Approach Category B Approach Category C Approach Category D 4,292 2, ,584 5,316 1, Total 7,718 15,436 AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP Airplane Design Group I Airplane Design Group II Airplane Design Group III 3,703 3, ,406 7, Total 7,718 15,436 Source: TRAA records. 1 Excludes helicopters, 144 operations in

16 The critical design aircraft is defined as the most demanding category of aircraft which conducts 500 or more operations per year at the airport. In some cases, more than one aircraft comprise the airport s critical design aircraft. One aircraft may be the most critical for runway length, while another is most critical for runway/taxiway width and separation distances. This was the case in the year In 2000, the most demanding approach category was approach category C. This included a wide range of business jets and turboprop aircraft. The most demanding ADG was ADG III. This included the operations of the DeHavilland Dash 8 used regularly in scheduled airline service. Therefore, design standards for the airport are defined by a grouping of a ircraft. Business jets define the operational design standards such as runway safety standards, while runway and taxiway width and separation distances are defined by the DeHavilland Dash 8. Combining the operational requirements of the business jets with the wingspan requirements of the DeHavilland Dash 8, t he ARC for the airport is best described as ARC C-III. The ARC B-III design categor y has been applied to the design of runway facilities in the past. However, it is evident from this analysis, that an adjustment to the design category is warranted. Future planning should consider the increased use of the airport by business jets and the potential transition to regional jets. In the future, increased use of the airport by aircraft within approach category D can be expected. Therefore, the appropriate ARC for Telluride Regional Airport is ARC D-III. The design of taxiway and apron areas should consider the wingspan requirements of the most demanding aircraft to operate within that specific functional area on the airport. The airfield taxiways and passenger terminal area should consider ADG III design requirements to accommodate the wingspan requirements of the commuter airline aircraft. Transient general aviation apron and aircraft maintenance and repair hangar areas should consider ADG II requirements to accommodate typical business jet aircraft. T-hangar and small conventional hangar areas should consider ADG I requirements as these commonly serve smaller single and multi-engine piston aircraft. AIRFIELD SAFETY STANDARDS The FAA has established several imaginary surfaces to protect aircraft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions that could affect the safe operation of aircraft. These include the object free area (OFA), obstacle free zone (OFZ), runway protection zone (RPZ), and runway safety area (RSA). The OFA is defined as a twodimensional gr ound area surrounding runways, taxiways, a nd taxilanes which is clear of objects except for objects whose location is fixed by function. The RSA is defin ed as "a defin ed surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an 3-13

17 undershoot, overshoot, or excu rsion from the runway." The OFZ is defined as a defined volume of airspace centered above the runway centerline whose elevation is the same as the nearest point on the runway centerline and ext ends 200 feet beyon d each runway end. The RPZ is a twodimensional trapezoidal-shaped surface located along the extended runway centerline to protect people and property on the ground. The FAA expects these areas to be under the control of the airport and free from obstructions. The dimensional requirements for ARC B-III and ARC C- III are summarized on Exhibit 3D. Presently, the airport does not fully meet ARC B-III RSA or OFA design standards. At each end of the runway, the RSA extends the required 600 feet beyon d the runway end; however, each RSA is only 295 feet wide. F AA design standards specify that the RSA be 300 feet wide. Additionally, two areas along the length of the runway do not meet the RSA width requirement. An existing T-hangar, the deicing pad, and electrical vault obstruct the Runway 9-27 OFA and Taxiway A OFA. Presently, the RPZ extends beyond airport property; however, there is no incompatible development within either RPZ. Three separate planning studies were conducted in 2000 and 2001 to examine viable alternatives for the reconstruction of Runway 9-27 to meet RSA and OFA design standards, as well as longitudinal grade requirements and Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 77 primary surface and transitional surface requirements. These studies examined several options, including canting or skewing the runway alignment to achieve safety standards, modified design standards, and developing the required safety areas with the present runway alignment. The most recent study completed in September 2001 included geotechnical analysis to determine options for developing retaining walls to accommodate the fill required to meet RSA grade requirements at each runway end. These studies concluded that maintaining the runway in its present alignment was the preferred runway reconstruction alternative. Skewing the runway would require the relocation of all existing landside facilities and shift the aircraft flight paths over residential areas which are presently not subject to regular overfligh ts. More importantly, skewing the runway would require altering the instrument approaches at the airport, potentially degrading their already limited capability. Having established the preferred runway reconstruction alternatives and means for meeting safety requirements, this master plan will exa mine both airside and landside development options considering the runway remaining in its present alignment. RUNWAY LENGTH The determination of runway length requirements should consider both takeoff and landing requirements. Takeoff requirements are a factor of 3-14

18 01MP05-3D-11/2/01 EXISTING SHORT TERM NEED LONG TERM NEED RUNWAY 9-27 ARC B-III 6,870' x 100' 45,000# SWL 62,000# DWL RUNWAYS AND TAXIWAYS RUNWAY 9-27 ARC C-III 9,200' x 100' 45,000# SWL 75,000# DWL RUNWAY 9-27 ARC C-III 9,200' x 100' 45,000# SWL 75,000# DWL Runway Safety Area 150' each side of runway centerline 600' beyond each runway end Object Free Area 400' each side of runway centerline 600' beyond each runway end Runway Protection Zone Each End Inner Width - 500' Outer Width - 700' Length - 1,000' Blast Pads Each End Runway Safety Area 250' each side of runway centerline 1,000' beyond each runway end Object Free Area 400' each side of runway centerline 1,000' beyond each runway end Runway Protection Zone Each End Inner Width - 500' Outer Width - 1,010' Length - 1,700' Blast Pads Each End Runway Safety Area 250' each side of runway centerline 1,000' beyond each runway end Object Free Area 400' each side of runway centerline 1,000' beyond each runway end Runway Protection Zone Each End Inner Width - 500' Outer Width - 1,010' Length - 1,700' Blast Pads Each End TAXIWAYS Partial Parallel Taxiway Taxiway A - 50' wide 300' from runway centerline Taxiways A2, A3, A4-50' wide KEY None SWL - Single Wheel Loading DWL - Dual Wheel Loading TAXIWAYS Full-length Parallel Taxiway Taxiway Width - 50' 400' from runway centerline Holding Apron Each End Add Exit Taxiways HELIPAD 2 Parking Positions Lighted TAXIWAYS Full-length Parallel Taxiway Taxiway Width - 50' 400' from runway centerline Holding Apron Each End Add Exit Taxiways 2 Parking Positions Lighted Exhibit 3D AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS

19 airport elevation, mean maximum temperature of the hottest month, critical aircraft type, or family of aircraft types expected to use the airport, and stage length of the longest nonstop trip destinations. Aircraft performance declines as each of these factors increase. Landing requirements are a factor of airport elevation, aircraft landing weight and the runway condition (i.e. dry conditions or wet conditions). An analysis of the takeoff and landing requirements of seven models of business jets and three models of regional jets has been completed to confirm the operating requirements of the mix of a ircraft opera ting at Telluride Regional Air port and to define the critical runway length for the airport. The results of this analysis are summarized in Appendix B. In most cases, the allowable takeoff and landing weights for aircraft operating at Telluride Regional Airport is below the aircraft s certifica ted takeoff or landing weight due to the airport s eleva tion of 9,078 feet. The available runway length at the airport further reduces these allowable takeoff and landing weights. This places payload (passenger and/or fuel) restrictions on aircraft operating at the airport. Consequently, any increases in runway length result in measurable increases in takeoff and landing weights. As discussed in Appendix B, while it would be desirable to provide a runway length that would allow for aircraft to operate at their maximum allowable takeoff weight, a runway length up to 11,000 feet would need to be provided. Given the physical constraints of the existing airport site, it is not practical to consider this length of runway. Therefore, the critical runway length for Telluride Regional Airport must be defined by aircraft landing requirements and the need to ensure a departure length that provides a practical payload for both general aviation and commercial airline aircraft. Payload increases are critical for commercial airline aircraft. Increases in payload allow for these aircraft to carry more passengers, which increases the number of available seats on the aircraft for competitive pricing. Increased passengers also add to revenues, which contributes to route profitability and sustained service. Table 3G summarizes the landing requirements of the seven models of business jets and three models of regional jets considered in the analysis. These lengths assume wet runways and regulatory requirements, which increase the runway length needed for landing. For exa mple, F AA regu lations require that commercial airline aircraft can only land at an airport if the available runway length is 40 percent longer than the actual landing length for that aircraft. For aircraft operated in fractional jet programs and aircraft used in for-hire charter services, new proposed rulemaking establishes that the available runway length be 15 percent longer that the actual landing length. As shown in the table, the Canadair RJ200 has the most demanding landing requirement of up to 7,200 feet. 3-15

20 TABLE 3G Landing Length Summary Season 1,2 Aircraft Certificated Landing Weight (pounds) Allowable Landing Weight (pounds) Landing Length GENER AL AVIATION AIR CR AFT Summer Winter Cessna Citation V Cessna Citation V 15,200 15,200 14,500 15,200 6,500 5,500 Summer Winter Beechjet 400A Beechjet 400A 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 6,400 6,100 Summer Winter Bombardier Learjet 31A Bombardier Learjet 31A 15,300 15,300 15,300 15,300 5,300 5,100 Summer Winter Bombardier Learjet 35A/36A Bombardier Learjet 35A/36A 15,300 15,300 15,300 15,300 5,500 5,300 Summer Winter Canadair CL-600 Canadair CL ,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 5,600 5,600 Summer Winter Bombardier Learjet 60 Bombardier Learjet 60 19,500 19,500 19,500 19,500 6,600 6,400 Summer Winter Gulfstream IV Gulfstream IV 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 5,300 5,300 REGIONAL JET AIR CR AFT Summer Winter Fairchild Dornier 328J Fairchild Dornier 328J 31,724 31,724 31,724 31,724 5,900 5,900 Summer 3 Winter Canadair CRJ 200LR Canadair CRJ 200LR 47,000 47,000 43,400 47,000 6,600 7,200 Summer Winter AVRO RJ85 AVRO RJ85 85,000 85,000 75,500 85,000 5,600 6, Degrees Fahrenheit (July) 43 Degr ees Fahren heit (Ma rch) ISA+30 Degrees Celsius Maximum Allowed Landed Weight (where applicable) 60 percent regulatory requirement factored in All distances determined at 9,000 feet elevation, zero wind, zero runway gradient Source: Aircraft Flight Planning Manuals (selected manufacturer) 3-16

21 It is not practical to provide a runway length to accommodate the maximum allowable takeoff weigh t of the aircraft operating at the airport. Therefore, it is best to measure the benefits of a longer departure length by examining the increase in payload provided by a longer departure length. Table 3H summarizes takeoff weights for the business jets and regional jets included in the analysis at departure lengths up to 7,800 feet. Depending on operator requirements, the additional payload provided by a longer runway could be used to carry additional passengers, or fuel for a longer flight. With the exception of the Cessna Citation V, which can operate at its maximum allowable takeoff weight with the existing runway length, the business jets and regional jets included in this analysis experience payload increases as much as 5,000 pounds by providing up to 7,800 feet of departure length at the airport. The available departure length becomes critical in determining the capabilities of the regional jets to operate at the airport. As detailed in Appendix B, for the Canadair CRJ 200, only 18 passengers can be carried on a 200 nautical mile (nm) flight in the summer with a departure length of 6,900 feet. This increases to 19 passengers with a 7,000-foot departure length, 20 passengers with a 7,200-foot departure length, 25 passengers with a 7,600-foot departure length, and 28 passengers with a 7,800-foot departure length. In the winter at the same 200 nm stage length, the Canadair CRJ 200 can carry 40 passengers. With a 7,000-foot departure length, this increases to 43 passengers. At 7,200 feet, 43 passengers can be carried, while 50 passengers can be carried with departure lengths above 7,600 feet. The same is true for the Avro RJ 85. An increase in departure length increases the number of passengers that can be carried 200 nm in the summer from 41 at 6,900 feet to 66 at 7,800 feet. The Bombardier Q300 and Q400 departure lengths have also been examined. The Q300 is 50- to 54-seat turboprop aircraft. The Q400 is a 70- to 78-seat turboprop aircraft. The Q300 maximum takeoff weight is 41,000 pounds. Operations at Telluride Regional Airport are limited to 35,000 pounds in summer and 38,400 pounds in winter. In either case, the departure length is less than 6,300 feet, or within the existing available runway length at the airport. The Q400 has a maximum takeoff weight of 63,750 pounds. There are no weight restrictions for operations in the winter at Telluride Regional Airport; however, the Q400 is limited to a maximum takeoff weight of 54,500 pounds in the summer. The departure length in the winter is 7,700 feet. The summer departure length is 7,600 feet. The maximum takeoff weight with 6,900 feet of runway is 60,100 pounds in the winter and 54,000 pounds in the summer. The maximum takeoff weight with 7,300 feet of runway is 62,000 pounds in the winter and 54,000 pounds in the summer. As shown in this analysis, any increases in runway length provide measurable increases in both departure payload and landing weights. The alternatives 3-17

22 TABLE 3H Takeoff Length and Takeoff Weight Summary Takeoff Weight (pounds) Season 1,2 Aircraft Certificated Takeoff Weight (pounds) Allowable Takeoff Weight (pounds) 7,800' ASDA 7,600' ASDA 7,200' ASDA 7,000' ASDA 6,900' ASDA GENER AL AVIATION AIR CR AFT Summer Winter Cessna Citation V Cessna Citation V 15,900 15,900 15,500 15,900 15,500 15,900 15,500 15,900 15,500 15,900 15,500 15,900 15,500 15,900 Summer Winter Beechjet 400A Beechjet 400A 16,100 16,100 14,000 16,100 14,000 16,100 14,000 16,100 14,000 16,000 13,900 16,000 13,800 15,900 Summer Winter Bombardier Learjet 31A Bombardier Learjet 31A 17,000 17,000 15,700 16,500 15,300 16,500 15,100 16,500 14,700 16,500 14,300 16,500 14,100 16,500 Summer Winter Bombardier Learjet 35A/36A Bombardier Learjet 35A/36A 18,300 18,300 15,800 17,800 14,900 16,100 14,800 16,000 14,600 15,700 14,500 15,600 14,400 15,500 Summer Winter Canadair CL-600 Canadair CL ,000 53,000 44,000 46,000 36,200 39,400 35,800 38,900 34,400 38,000 33,800 37,400 33,500 37,000 Summer Winter Bombardier Learjet 60 Bombardier Learjet 60 23,500 23,500 20,200 21,400 18,000 20,900 17,800 20,600 17,200 20,100 17,000 19,900 16,700 19,700 Summer Winter Gulfstream IV Gulfstream IV 74,600 74,600 64,000 71,000 58,000 64,000 57,000 63,000 56,000 61,500 55,500 61,000 55,000 60,500 REGIONAL J ET AIR CR AFT Summer Winter Fairchild Dornier 328J Fairchild Dornier 328J 34,524 34,524 31,700 34,524 31,500 34,300 31,500 34,200 30,900 33,300 30,400 33,000 30,200 32,900 Summer 4 Winter Canadair CRJ 200LR Canadair CRJ 200LR 53,000 53,000 41,400 47,600 40,000 45,000 39,500 44,500 38,500 43,500 38,250 43,000 38,000 42,500 Summer Winter AVRO RJ85 AVRO RJ85 93,000 93,000 88,500 93,000 75,000 84,000 74,000 83,000 72,000 81,000 71,000 80,000 70,000 79, Degr ees Fahrenheit (July) 43 Degr ees Fahren heit (Ma rch) At Allowable Takeoff Weight ISA+30 Degrees Celsius All distances and weights determined at 9,000 feet elevation, zero wind, zero runway gradient Source: Aircraft Flight Planning Manuals (selected manufacturers) 3-18

23 analysis to follow will exa mine options to increase the runway length to the extent practicable at the airport. A landing length of up to 7,200 feet is needed. RUNWAY WIDTH Runway width is based upon the planning ARC for each runway. For ARC B-III and ARC C-III, the FAA specifies a runway width of 100 feet. Runway 9-27 is 100 feet wide, meeting this requirement. RUNWAY PAVEMENT STRENGTH The most important feature of airfield pavement is its ability to withstand use by aircraft of significant weight on a regular basis. Currently, this includes a wide range of commercial and general aviation aircraft ranging from small single-engine aircraft to turboprop airline aircraft and business jet aircraft. Runway 9-27 presently has a single wheel loading (SWL) strength of 45,000 pounds and 62,000 pounds dual wheel loading (DWL). Additional pavement strength should be considered when the runway is reconstructed to regularly serve large business jets which frequent the airport, such as the Gulfstream IV, which has a 75,000 DWL pavement rating. The Gulfstream IV conducted 128 operations at the airport in The Canadair CRJ-200LR has a pavement strength rating of 53,000 pounds DWL. When the runway is reconstructed, it is recommended that the runway have a pavement strength rating of 45,000 pounds SWL and 75,000 pounds DWL. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES Navigational Aids Navigational aids are electronic devices that transmit radio frequencies which properly equipped aircraft and pilots translate into point-to-point gu idance a nd position information. The types of electronic navigational aids available for aircraft flying to or from Telluride Regional Airport include a very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) facility, global positioning system (GPS), and Loran-C. These systems are sufficient for navigation to and from the airport; therefore, no other navigational aids are needed at the airport. GPS was developed and deployed by the United States Department of Defense as a dual-use (civil and military) radio navigation system. GPS initially provided two levels of service: the GPS standard positioning system (SPS), which supported civil GPS uses; and the GPS precise positioning system (PPS), which was restricted to U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. federal agencies and selected allied armed forces, and government use. The differences in GPS signals have been eliminated and civil users now access the same signal integrity as federal agencies. A GPS modernization effort is underway by t he FAA and 3-19

24 focuses on augmenting the GPS signal to satisfy requirements for accuracy, coverage, availability, and integrity. For civil aviation use, this includes the development of two separate augmentation systems: the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS). The WAAS uses a system of reference stations to correct signals from the GPS satellites for improved naviga tion and approach capabilities. Where the present GPS provides for enroute navigation and limited instrument approach (nonprecision) capabilities, WAAS will provide for Categor y I (cloud ceilings 200 feet above the ground and visibilities restricted to one-half mile) approach capability at nearly every runway end equipped with an instrument approach procedure. The LAAS va ries from the WAAS since the corrected GPS signals are broadcast directly to aircraft within line-of-sight of a ground reference station. The LAAS is expected to support approach capability below Category I and be implemented in areas which are not supported by the WAAS upgrade. The LAAS may also be able to support runway incursion warnings, high-speed turnoffs, missed approaches, departures, vertical takeoffs, a nd surface operations. Once augmented, GPS will become the primary federally-provided radionavigation system. Instrument approach procedures have been established for the airport using the VOR and GPS navigational aids and the localizer (LOC) system installed at the airport. The instrument approach procedures consist of a series of predetermined maneuvers established by the FAA for navigation during inclement weather conditions. As mentioned previously, the LOC system provides the best approach capability for the airport. This approach provides for landings when visibility is restricted to one mile and clou d ceilings are 2,100 feet above the ground. Terrain features, most notably Diamond Hill to the southwest, limit the visibility and cloud ceiling minimums for the airport. Other typical localizer-only approaches have provided visibility and clou d ceiling min im ums as low as 3/4 mile and 300 feet, respectively. The limited approach capability of t he airport leads to diversions and cancelled flights. Diverted or canceled flights vary by month and are most numerous in the winter months. Historically, diversions and cancellations have represented between 10 and 20 percent of scheduled operations in the winter and five to 10 percent of scheduled operations in the remaining months. According to regional climatological data, inclement weather conditions occur approximately five percent of the time. Therefore, improvements to approach capability could be considered a priority. However, with existing n aviga tional aid capabilities, it is not anticipated that the approach minimums could be significantly increased. Approach lighting systems are typically used to lower visibility and cloud ceiling minimums; however, the installation and operational costs for an approach 3-20

25 lighting system at the airport is costprohibitive due to the rapidly declining terrain off each runway end which would require extensive structures to be built and maintained. The improvements to the GPS system should be closely monitored by the airport. GPS may eventually provide the flexibility necessary to improve approach capability to the airport. GPS has the flexibility t o establish nonstandard approach procedures which include turns and varying descent paths. This capability has been provided in the past with the use of the microwave landing system (MLS) and custom-designed approaches approved for the air carrier and airport. Microwave landing systems have been used successfully at high mountain airports similar to Telluride with success; however, their use was limited due to high operational and development costs. The LAAS is a potential replacement system for the microwave landing system. TAXIWAYS Taxiways are constructed primarily to facilitate aircraft movements to and from the runway system. Some taxiways are necessary simply to provide access between the aprons and runways, whereas other taxiways become necessary as activity increases at an airport to provide safe and efficient use of the airfield. Presently, the airport is served by partial parallel Taxiway A and three connecting taxiways. Without a fulllength parallel taxiway, aircraft landing Runway 27 must back-taxi along the runway to access the terminal area. Air craft departing Runway 9 are also required to back-taxi nearly the entire length of the runway. (It should be noted that Runway 9 departures are limited.) Back-taxiing reduces overall airfield capacity and safety as aircraft occupy the active runway for extended periods after landing. To increase airfield safety and capacity, long term facility planning should consider the development of a fulllength parallel taxiway. A benefit of developing a full-length parallel taxiway is the ability t o add additional exit taxiways. As noted in the airfield capacity analysis, additional exit taxiways would increase the annual service volume of the airport. Options for the development of a fulllength parallel taxiway a nd additional exit taxiways will be examined in Chapter Four, Airport Development Alternatives. It should be noted that the capability t o ext end Taxiway A t o the Runway 9 end is limited by terrain features and the localizer antenna. Extending Taxiway A to the Runway 9 end would place Taxiway A within the localizer critical area. The FAA has established standards for taxiway width and runway/taxiway separation distances. Taxiway width is determined by the ADG of the most demanding aircraft to use the taxiway. According to FAA design standa rds, the minimum taxiway width for ADG III is 50 feet. All taxiways are presently 50 feet wide. 3-21

26 Design standards for the separation distances between runways and parallel taxiways are based primarily on the ARC for that particular runway and the type of instrument approach capability. FAA design standards specify a runway/taxiway separation distance of 400 feet for a C-III runway. Presently, Taxiway A is located 300 feet from the Runway 9-27 centerline. Holding aprons provide an area for aircraft to prepare for departure off the taxiway and allow aircraft to bypass other aircraft which are ready for departure. A holding apron is available at the Runway 27 end. Facility planning should include developing a holding apron on the Runway 9 end should full-length parallel taxiway access be developed to this runway end. HELIP AD The airport does not have a designated helipad. Helicopters conducted 144 operations at the airport in 2000 and were required to utilize the same apron areas as fixed-wing aircraft. Typically, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft are segregated to the extent possible. Facility planning should include establishing a designated helipad at the airport. This should be supplemented with two parking positions and be lighted to allow for operations during low visibility con ditions. GLIDER OPERATIONS Gliders conducted 1,482 operations at the airport in The special groundhandling requirements of glider aircraft require that these aircraft occupy the runway for a longer time than powered aircraft which decreases airfield capacity and diminishes sa fety. The alternatives analysis in Chapter Four will exa mine options to increase the efficiency of the ground-handling of glider aircraft and reduce the amount of time that these aircraft occupy the runway. LIGHTING AND MARKING Currently, there are a number of lighting and pavement marking aids serving pilots and aircraft using the Telluride Regional Airport; these are summarized on Exhibit 3E. These lighting and marking aids assist pilots in locating the airport during night or poor weather conditions, as well as assist in the ground movement of aircraft. Identification Lighting The location of an airport at night is universally indicated by a rota ting beacon. The rotating beacon at the airport is located on top of a 50-foot tower, south of the runway, near midfield. The rotating beacon is sufficient and should be maintained in the future. Runway and Taxiway Lighting Runway and taxiway lighting utilizes light fixtures placed near the pavement edge to define the lateral limits of the pavement. This lighting is essential for 3-22

27 01MP05-3E-11/2/01 EXISTING SHORT TERM NEED LONG TERM NEED GPS Runway 9 2 mile visibility, 2,600' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A and B INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES GPS Runway 9 2 mile visibility, 2,600' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A, B, C and D GPS Runway 9 2 mile visibility, 2,600' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A, B, C and D LOC/DME Runway 9 2 mile visibility, 2,100' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A and B VOR/DME or GPS-A 6 mile visibility, 3,300' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A and B LOC/DME Runway 9 2 mile visibility, 2,100' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A, B, C and D VOR/DME or GPS-A 6 mile visibility, 3,300' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A and B LOC/DME Runway 9 2 mile visibility, 2,100' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A, B, C and D VOR/DME or GPS-A 6 mile visibility, 3,300' cloud ceiling minima Approach Categories A and B AIRFIELD LIGHTING AND MARKINGS Rotating Beacon Pilot Controlled Lighting Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lighting Taxiway Edge Reflectors Lighted Runway/Taxiway Directional Signage Precision Approach Path Indicator - 9 and 27 Runway End Identifier Lights - 9 and 27 Distance Remaining Signs Nonprecision Runway Markings Taxiway Centerline Markings Rotating Beacon Pilot Controlled Lighting Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lighting Medium Intensity Taxiway Edge Lighting Lighted Runway/Taxiway Directional Signage Precision Approach Path Indicator - 9 and 27 Runway End Identifier Lights - 9 and 27 Distance Remaining Signs Nonprecision Runway Markings Taxiway Centerline Markings Rotating Beacon Pilot Controlled Lighting Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lighting Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting Lighted Runway/Taxiway Directional Signage Precision Approach Path Indicator - 9 and 27 Runway End Identifier Lights - 9 and 27 Distance Remaining Signs Nonprecision Runway Markings Taxiway Centerline Markings Automated Surface Oservation System Remote Communications Outlet Lighted Wind Indicator Segmented Circle WEATHER/COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Automated Surface Oservation System Remote Communications Outlet Lighted Wind Indicator Segmented Circle Automated Surface Oservation System Remote Communications Outlet Lighted Wind Indicator Segmented Circle KEY LOC - Localizer VOR - Very High Frequency Omindirectional Range Facility GPS - Global Positioning System DME - Distance Measuring Equipment Exhibit 3E AIRFIELD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

28 safe operations during night and/or times of low visibility in order to maintain safe and efficient access to and from the runway and aircraft parking areas. Runway 9-27 is presently equipped with medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL). This ligh ting is sufficient and should be maintained in the future. Effective ground movement of aircraft at night is enhanced by the availability of taxiway lighting. Presently, the taxiways at the airport are not lighted and equipped only with retro-reflective markers. Facility planning should include installing medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL) on all existing and future taxiways. Airfield Signs Lighted directional, hold signs, and distance remaining signs are installed at the airport. This signage identifies runways, taxiways, and apron areas. These aid pilots in determining their position on the airport and provide directions to their desired location on the airport. These lighting aids are sufficient and required for the airport certifica tion. Therefore, these lighting aids should be maintained through the planning period. Pilot-Controlled Lighting Telluride Regional Airport is equipped with pilot-controlled lighting (PCL). PCL allows pilots to control the intensity of runway and taxiway lighting using the radio transmitter in the aircraft. PCL also provides for more efficient use of runway and taxiway lighting energy use. A PCL system turns the runway and taxiway lights off or to a lower intensity when not in use. Similar to changing the intensity of the lights, pilots can turn up the lights using the radio transmitter in the aircraft. This system should be maintained through the planning period. Visual Approach Lighting In most instances, the landing phase of any flight must be conducted in visual conditions. To provide pilots with visual descent information during landings to the runway, visual glideslope indicators are commonly provided at airports. A precision approach path indicator (PAPI-4) is installed at each runway end for this purpose. The PAPI-4s installed at the airport are appropriate for the mix of aircraft operating at the airport and should be maintained through the planning period. Runway End Identification Lighting Runway end identification lighting provides the pilot with a rapid and positive identifica tion of the runway end. The most basic system involves runway end identifier ligh ts (REILs). REILs are presently installed at each runway end. As REILs provide pilots with the ability to identify these runway ends and distinguish this lighting from other lighting on the airport and in the approach areas, they 3-23

29 should be maintained through the planning period. Pavement Markings Pavement markings are designed according to the type of instrument approach available on the runway. FAA AC 150/5340-1F, Marking of Paved Areas on Airports, provides the guidance necessary to design an airport's markings. Runway 9-27 is equipped with nonprecision runway markings. These markings are sufficient for the type of instrument approach capability at the airport and should be maintained through the planning period. Taxiway and apron areas also require marking to assure that aircraft remain on the pavement. Yellow centerline stripes are currently painted on all taxiway and apron surfaces at the airport to provide this guidance to pilots. Besides routine maintenance, these markings will be sufficient through the planning period. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL Telluride Regional Air port does not have an operational airport traffic control tower (ATCT); therefore, no formal terminal air traffic control services are available at the airport. A remote communications outlet (RCO) has been established at the airport to provide pilots with a direct communication link to the Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). This communication link facilitates the opening and closing of instrument flight plans. This system should be maintained through the planning period. As mentioned previously in the airfield capacity analysis, the airport does not have radar coverage at the airport surface. Similar to navigational aids, radar coverage is line-of-sight restricted due to existing terrain features. Improved radar coverage would enhance the safety of aircraft operations by allowing for greater situational awareness for air traffic con trol personnel. Upgrading radar coverage is a function of FAA air traffic priorities and funding availability. The establishment of a fully-funded ATCT, staffed and maintained by FAA personnel, follows gu idance provided in FAA Handbook C, Airway Planning Standard Number One - Terminal Air Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services. To be identified as a possible candidate for an ATCT, the sum of the following formula must be greater than or equal to one. The formula is as follows: Using current activity levels and those forecast activity levels prepared in Chapter Two, it is expected that Telluride Regional Airport would not qualify as a possible candidate for a fully-funded FAA ATCT due to levels of air traffic at the airport. At current activity levels, the sum of the formula above is At long term planning horizon levels, the sum is

30 AC + AT + GAI + GAL + MI + ML = X 38,000 90, , ,000 48,000 90,000 Where: AC = Air Carrier Operations AT = Air Taxi Operations GAI = General Aviation Itinerant Operations GAL = General Aviation Local Operations MI = Military Itinerant Operations ML = Military Local Operations OTHER FACILITIES The airport has a lighted wind cone which provides pilots with information about wind conditions. A segmented circle provides traffic pattern information to pilots. These facilities are required when the airport is not served by a 24-hour ATCT and by Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 139, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers. These facilities are sufficient and should be maintained in the future. The automated weather observation system (AWOS) is an important component to airfield operations as it notifies pilots of local weather conditions. This system should be maintained through the planning period and upgraded as needed. Conclusions The airfield system at the airport is served by a wide range of lighting and marking aids. These systems are appropriate for the mix of aircraft operating at the airport; therefore, there are no new requirements for airfield ligh ting or markings. The mix of aircraft operating at the airport in recent years has transitioned to include a greater number of business turboprop and turbojet aircraft. This has changed the airport design category for the airport, increasing the size of most safety areas at the airport. A preferred runway reconstruction alternative has been determined to meet these safety requirements and more fully meet longitudinal grade and safety requirements on the runway. This alternative leaves the runway in its current alignment. While additional runway length and improved instrument approach capability are desired, there are no practical alternatives for improving either at this time. However, improvements to GPS navigation may ultimately provide the airport with a means to develop a custom approach to the airport to increase reliability and accessibility t o the airport. The primary airfield improvement needs are additional pavement strength to serve the growing number of business jets using the airport, additional exit taxiways to improve capacity, a fulllength parallel taxiway to eliminate the need for aircraft to back-taxi along the 3-25

31 runway, and medium intensity taxiway lights to replace the existing r etroreflective markers. Alternatives should be exa mined to increase the efficiency of the gr ound-handling of glider aircraft. A helipad should also be developed. LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS Landside facilities are those necessary for handling aircraft and passengers while on the ground. These facilities provide the essential interface between the air and ground transportation modes. The capacities of the various components of each area were examined in relation to projected demand to identify future landside facility needs. This inclu des components for commercial service and general aviation needs such as: Passenger Airline Terminal General Aviation Terminal Aircraft Hangars Aircraft Parking Aprons Access Airport Support Facilities AIRLINE TERMINAL AREA Components of the terminal area complex include the terminal apron, aircraft ga te positions, t he functional elements within the terminal building, and the public and rental car parking areas. This section identifies the terminal area facilities required to meet the airport s needs through the planning period. These requirements are based upon specific passenger enplanement thresholds, rather than a given year. In this manner, the airport s management can reference the guidelines, even if growth varies from the forecast presented in Chapter Two. The existing airline terminal area facilities were evaluated based on planning gu idelines relating t o the major functional elements of the terminal area as presented in AC 150/5360-9, Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Facilities at Non-hub Locations, the consultant s data base of terminal planning criterion, and information collected during the inventory element to prepare estimates of various terminal building requirements. Passenger Terminal Building Terminal area requirements have been developed for the following fu nctional areas: Ticketing Secure Departure Area Baggage Claim Concessions and Terminal Services Public Lobby Aircraft Gate Positions The methodology utilized in the analysis of the passenger terminal building involved the design hour passenger demands and a comparison of these requirements with existing terminal facilities. The eva luation process includes the major terminal building areas that are normally affected by peaking characteristics. The first destination for enplaning passengers in the terminal building is the airline ticket counters. The 3-26

32 ticketing area consists of the ticket counters, queuing area for passengers to approach the counters, and the ticket lobby which provides cir culation. The ticketing counters are presently located on the north wall of the portion of the terminal which was developed inside the large conventional hangar. The ticket counter provides several ticketing positions at this time and could be configured for additional agent positions as needed. An expansion of the ticket counter length could not be accomplished without relocating or reconfiguring the secure departure area. This ticket lobby is shared with the general public lobby area. As shown on Exhibit 3F, while the length of the ticket counters and ticket counter queuing areas is sufficient for current passenger levels, the airline operating areas are expected to be slightly undersized based upon terminal planning criteria applied in this study. This would indicate that additional baggage make-up and office areas may be needed. The departure area is located along the west wall of the terminal, adjacent to the ticket counter. The security screening devices are located at the entrance. A single doorway provides access to the departure area. While the departure area is properly-sized for the number of peak hour enplanements, the security screening area is congested due to its location immediately adjacent to the doorway and the fact that security screening is available only as the flight is preparing for departure. This concentrates all the passengers at the security screening station in a short period of time. Alternative locations for the screening or configurations of the machines may be considered to provide a more even flow of passengers accessing the security screening and a larger queuing area. The departure area is also located over 100 feet from the aircraft parking positions. This results in a long walk outside from the departure gate to the aircraft. While passenger convenience is an issue, the security of the screened passengers needs to also be considered. This walkway to the aircraft passes the entrance to the general aviation terminal area, where the general aviation passengers are not screened. This requires careful monitoring of the walkway by personnel. While the airport has operational methods in place to ensure this security, this distance between the aircraft and commingling of screened and nonscreened areas is a consideration for examining options for a long term terminal location, with segr ega tion from other civil uses on the airport. The bag claim facilities at the airport are located on the south side of the building, on the lower floor of the terminal. Arriving passengers are directed to the bag claim area after deplaning the aircraft. Bag display is accomplished with fixed shelves which open to the apron for airline access. This area is sufficiently-sized for the current level of passengers. While adequate space for each functional area within the terminal is a primary concern, the flow of passengers between each functional area is also important. Proper terminal planning suggests that arriving and departing passengers be segregated to the extent 3-27

33 possible to reduce congestion and maintain sufficient levels of service and comfort. Typically, the ticketing area precedes the departure area, which is followed by the baggage claim area. Presently, the layout of terminal functions at Telluride Regional Airport generally meets this goal. Departing passenger facilities (ticketing and departure area) are located in a separate portion of the building from baggage cla im. While rental car counters are typically located within the baggage cla im area, t he location of the rental car counters in the same area as ticketing at the airport does not specifically disrupt passenger flows due to the level of peak hour passengers and size of the shared public lobby area. Exhibit 3G summarizes the space available in the existing terminal building and compares it to the anticipated needs for each of the enplanement levels described above. As indicated on the exhibit, with the exception of airline operational areas and restrooms, the size of the functional areas within the terminal can be expected to adequately serve scheduled airline traveler needs through annual enplanement levels of 30,000. At higher enplanement levels, a dditional space within some of the terminal functional areas may be required. Since the current terminal areas have been developed within an existing hangar structure, the current terminal building should not be relied upon as the permanent, long-term terminal. Expansion of the current terminal would be difficult and would require modification of the existing hangar structure; thus limiting its ability for reuse. Better segregation between commercial and general aviation users is needed. The distance from the departure area to aircraft described above should be reduced. Considering these factors, an alternate location for a terminal building should be examined. The airport development alternatives prepared in Chapter Four will examine alternate terminal locations instead of options to expand the existing terminal functional areas. Airline Apron Area The terminal apron consists of the area and facilities used for aircraft gate parking, aircraft support, and servicing operations. In addition to actual gate positions, sufficient room must be provided for aircraft servicing, taxilanes leading to the airfield, and service/fire lanes designated for vehicles used for aircraft ground-servicing and fire equipment. Each gate should be designed to accommodate the largest air carrier aircraft expected to use the position. Apron requirements have been determined considering the wingspan and length of common turboprop and regional jet aircraft. Apron requirements were determined by providing 2,200 square ya rds for each aircraft pa rking position. As shown on Exhibit 3G, additional apron area is expected to be needed through the planning period. Requirements for a loading bridge have not been determined. Aircraft loading is presently conducted at ground level at the airport. Typical regional jets provide this capability. Therefore, it is not expected that the airport would require loading bridges. 3-28

34 01MP05-3F-8/30/04 TICKETING Counter Length (l.f.) Counter Area (s.f.) Ticket Lobby (s.f.) Airline Operations/Bag Make-Up (s.f.) DEPARTURE FACILITIES Aircraft Gates Security Stations Holdroom Area (s.f.) BAGGAGE CLAIM Claim Display (l.f.) Baggage Claim Lobby (s.f.) TERMINAL SERVICES Rental Car Counter Length (l.f.) Office Area (s.f.) Counter Queue Area (s.f.) Food (s.f.) Retail (s.f.) Restrooms (s.f.) PUBLIC LOBBY Seating/Greeting/Farewell Area (s.f.) SUBTOTAL PROGRAMMED AREA General Circulation Mech./Elec., Maint., & Storage (s.f.) TOTAL TERMINAL BUILDING AUTO PARKING Public Parking Employee Rental Car Taxi/Limousine Total Auto Parking TERMINAL CURB Enplane Curb (ft.) Deplane Curb (ft.) Total Curb (ft.) EXISTING 17,125 32,000 38,000 44,000 50, , ,856 5,398 1, , , , , ENPLANEMENTS , , ,450 9,500 1,400 1,100 12, ,070 2, , , ,750 11,000 1,700 1,300 14, ,230 2, , , , ,000 12,200 1,800 1,400 15, ,410 2, , , , ,300 13,700 2,100 1,600 17, Included in public lobby space 2 Employees and other operators use the long term parking area Exhibit 3F PASSENGER TERMINAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

35 01MP05-3G-11/2/01 AIRCRAFT STORAGE HANGARS AVAILABLE SHORT TERM NEED INTERMEDIATE NEED LONG TERM NEED Aircraft to be Hangared T-Hangars Conventional Hangars Hangar Area Requirements T-Hangar Area (s.f.) Conventional Hangar Storage Area (s.f.) Total Hangar Area (s.f.) ,500 7,500 44, ,200 24,500 63, ,700 29, , ,900 52, ,200 AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON EXISTING CURRENT NEED SHORT TERM NEED INTERMEDIATE NEED LONG TERM NEED Single, Multi-engine Transient Aircraft Positions Apron Area (s.y.) --- 7,800 8,100 9,500 11,200 Transient Business Jet Positions Apron Area (s.y.) ,000 19,800 23,000 27,200 Locally-Based Aircraft Positions Apron Area (s.y.) ,500 13,000 12,500 10,500 Airline Parking Positions Apron Area (s.y.) --- 2,200 4,400 4,400 6,600 Total Positions Total Apron Area (s.y.) 2 19,300 49,200 49,200 53,200 58,100 AVAILABLE SHORT TERM NEED INTERMEDIATE NEED LONG TERM NEED General Aviation Terminal Facilities (s.f.) 1,600 2,400 2,900 5,100 General Aviation Automobile Parking Fuel Storage (gallons) 3 100LL AVGAS 10,000 2,700 3,300 4,400 4 JET-A 20,000 52,500 63,500 83,500 Other Facilities Deicing Pad Deicing Pad Aircraft Wash Rack Covered Aircraft Deicing Pad Owner's Maint. Facility/Wash Rack Deicing Pad 1 Includes Designated Tiedown Positions Only 2 Excludes hangar access taxilanes 3 Requirements to maintain 14 day supply 4 Requirements to maintain 5 day supply Exhibit 3G LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS