6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVES NORTH PERRY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS SECTION 6: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 6.1 INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, facility needs for the 20-year planning horizon were identified. The next step in the planning process is to identify and evaluate the various ways certain facilities can be provided. This chapter examines possible development alternatives at North Perry Airport to best meet the Airport s long-term aviation needs. In general, three major functional areas are considered in the identification and selection of development alternatives: airside, landside and support facilities. Airside facilities include runways, taxiways, aprons, and navigational aids, while landside facilities consist of all those pertaining to vehicular traffic flow, parking, aircraft storage facilities, ramp areas, and traveler- and visitor-related facilities. Support facilities include aviation fuel, aircraft rescue and firefighting, airport management administration, and utilities. Alternatives for many of these functional areas are presented in text and graphics on the following pages. Advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative are identified and quantified to the extent possible. During the analysis of the various alternatives, consideration was given to the inter-relationship of each of the sub-function areas. While alternatives were examined individually, the interface between the alternatives was also considered to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of the final recommended plan. The recommended plan that emerges from the alternatives analysis is intended to support the goals and objectives of the Airport and be technically, economically, and environmentally sound. 6.2 AIRSIDE ALTERNATIVES RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS As discussed in the Facility Requirements Section, a more detailed analysis of runway length requirements is required in order to determine if the existing and future aircraft operations can be sufficiently served at North Perry Airport. FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, and the FAA Airport Design software Version 4.2D, provide a methodology for determining runway length as a function of the Airport s normal maximum operating temperature, elevation, aircraft loads, and the length of haul (stage length) performed by the critical aircraft. The length of the runway is determined by considering either the family of aircraft having similar performance characteristics (when maximum takeoff weight is 60,000 pounds or less) or a specific aircraft needing the longest runway (when maximum takeoff weight is over 60,000 pounds). The critical aircraft is determined by airport forecasts that estimate at minimum of 500 annual itinerant operations. Aircraft up to and including 12,500 pounds currently operate and are forecasted to operate more than 500 itinerant operations at North Perry Airport. According to the FAA Advisory Circular, the runway length should be designed for a family of small aircraft, defined by the FAA, as under 12,500 pounds maximum takeoff weight. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the airport and runway data used in calculating runway length requirements for North Perry Airport. August 11, 2009 Page 6-1

2 TABLE 6.1 RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR NORTH PERRY AIRPORT AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA Airport Elevation Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of the Hottest Month Maximum Difference in Runway Centerline Elevation Wet and Slippery Runways RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT DESIGN: Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots 9.25 feet 85 o F 0.91 feet 300 feet 800 feet Small Planes with less than 10 passenger seats 75 percent of these small airplanes 2,450 feet 95 percent of these small airplanes 3,020 feet 100 percent of these small airplanes 3,570 feet Small Planes with more than 10 passenger seats 4,170 feet Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 5,300 feet 75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 7,000 feet 100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 5,500 feet 100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 7,810 feet FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design As shown in Table 6.1, in order for North Perry Airport to accommodate 100 percent of small airplanes, a runway length of 3,570 feet is required. Accounting for displaced thresholds on all runways, landing distances at North Perry Airport currently range from 3,000 to 3,181 feet. These lengths accommodate 75 to 95 percent of the small airplanes operating at North Perry Airport. The following runway length alternatives were developed to accommodate 100 percent of the family of small aircraft: No-Build, Implement Declared Distances With Existing Runways, Construct Additional Pavement and Apply Declared Distances, and Accommodate Larger Aircraft. August 11, 2009 Page 6-2

3 6.2.2 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO-BUILD The No-Build alternative essentially considers keeping the North Perry Airport in its present condition and not changing the airfield. The Airport currently meets all FAA dimensional requirements for runway safety areas, runway object free areas, and runway protection zones. In order to accommodate future growth in aviation activity, continual improvement of the facilities at North Perry Airport is recommended. The advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 6.2. TABLE 6.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE 1 Advantages Least expensive alternative Disadvantages Limits operations to smaller aircraft No runway length improvements are provided ALTERNATIVE 2: IMPLEMENT DECLARED DISTANCES WITH EXISTING RUNWAYS This alternative implements Declared Distances in order to maximize existing pavement. FAA guidance states, The use of declared distances for airport design shall be limited to cases of existing constrained airports where it is impractical to provide runway safety area, the runway object free area, or the runway protection zone in accordance with the design standards. Declared distances are the effective runway distances that the airport operator declares available for take-off run, take-off distance, accelerate stop distance, and landing distance available. These are shown in Figure 6.1 and are defined in FAA s Advisory Circular 150/ , Change 11, Airport Design as follows: Take-off run available (TORA): The length of the runway declared available and suitable to accelerate from break release to lift-off, plus safety factors. Take-off distance available (TODA): The TODA plus the length of any remaining runway or clearway beyond the far end of the TORA available to accelerate from break release past lift off to start of take-off climb, plus safety factors. Accelerate stop distance available (ASDA): The length of the runway plus stopway declared available and suitable to accelerate from break release to take-off decision speed, and then decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors. Landing distance available (LDA): The distance from threshold to complete the approach, touchdown, and decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors. Alternative 2 continues to meet all FAA dimensional requirements for runway safety areas, runway object free areas, and runway protection zones. Appendix 14 of FAA s Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design, Change 11, states that when a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) begins at a location other than 200 feet beyond the end of the runway, then two RPZs (approach and departure) are required. The approach RPZ begins 200 feet before the threshold and the departure RPZ begins 200 feet beyond the far end of the TORA. The runway protection zones shown on the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) would remain the same in size and location with the exception of Runway 9R. For Runway 9R, a departure runway protection zone is added at a length of 1,000 feet, 250 feet wide, and 450 feet at the far end of the RPZ for runways serving only small airplanes in Aircraft Approach Categories A and B. August 11, 2009 Page 6-3

4 FIGURE 6.1 ILLUSTRATION OF DECLARED DISTANCES Displaced Threshold RPZ TORA TODA ASDA LDA 200 RPZ FAA s Advisory Circular 150/ , Change 11, Airport Design Figures 6.2 and 6.3 illustrate and Table 6.3 summarizes the results of the declared distances analysis. As illustrated, Runway 9L provides the longest TORA with 3,181 feet and Runway 27R provides the longest LDA with 3,181 feet. All eight runways at North Perry can accommodate 75 percent of small planes. With this option, a majority of the runways can accommodate 95 percent of small planes, though no runway can accommodate 100 percent of small planes. The advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 6.4. August 11, 2009 Page 6-4

5 FIGURE 6.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 DECLARED DISTANCES RUNWAY 9R-27L & 9L-27R LEGEND Runway Protection Zone 3,241 TAKE-OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA) AND ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA) 3,060 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 3,181 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) 3,060 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) 3,181 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 3,000 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 3,045 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) 3,045 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 3,000 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) 3,255 TAKE-OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA) AND ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA) August 11, 2009 Page 6-5

6 FIGURE 6.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 DECLARED DISTANCES RUNWAY 18R-36L & 18L-36R LEGEND 3,350 TAKE-OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA) AND ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA) 3,000 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABE (LDA) Runway Protection Zone 3,000 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 3,350 TAKE-OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA) AND ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA) 3,000 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABE (LDA) 3,260 TAKE-OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA) AND ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA) 3,075 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABE (LDA) 3,150 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 3,075 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 3,150 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABE (LDA) 3,260 TAKE-OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA) AND ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA) August 11, 2009 Page 6-6

7 TABLE 6.3 DECLARED DISTANCES FOR EXISTING RUNWAYS AT NORTH PERRY AIRPORT Runways 9R 27L 9L 27R 18R 36L 18L 36R Existing Length 3,000 3,045 3,060 3,181 3,000 3,000 3,150 3,075 TORA (feet) TODA (feet) ASDA (feet) LDA (feet) 3,045 3,000 3,181 3,060 3,000 3,000 3,075 3,150 3,255 3,255 3,241 3,241 3,350 3,350 3,260 3,260 3,255 3,255 3,241 3,241 3,350 3,350 3,260 3,260 3,000 3,045 3,060 3,181 3,000 3,000 3,150 3,075 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-Change 11, Airport Design, Appendix 14 TABLE 6.4 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE 2 Advantages Inexpensive method since no pavement is being added or removed and the existing markings can remain Maximizes useable runway for take-offs and landings Disadvantages Declared distances can be confusing to pilots Does not provide runway length on runways to accommodate 100 percent of small airplanes August 11, 2009 Page 6-7

8 ALTERNATIVE 3: CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT AND APPLY DECLARED DISTANCES Alternative 3 involves constructing additional pavement to runway ends and applying declared distances to achieve runway lengths of a minimum of 3,570 feet needed to accommodate 100 percent of small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats. This alternative still continues to meet the existing Broward Ordinance, which restricts the maximum takeoff weight to 12,500 pounds. This alternative continues to meet all FAA dimensional requirements for runway safety areas, runway object free areas, and runway protection zones RUNWAY 9R-27L As shown in Figure 6.4, Runway 9R would be extended by 675 feet and Runway 27L by 665 feet for a total runway length of 4,595 feet. Runway 9R threshold displacement of 255 feet would remain and the displacement of 210 feet would remain the same on Runway 27. The TORA on Runway 9R would increase from 3,045 to 3,720 feet and the LDA from 3,000 to 3,665 feet. The TORA on Runway 27L would increase from 3,000 to 3,665 feet and the LDA from 3,045 to 3,720 feet. Taxiways M and L would be extended to meet the new runway ends. Due to the location of the Paul J. Maxwell Park on the east side of the airfield, Taxiway M could not be extended by 665 feet to the end of Runway 27L to provide a parallel taxiway for this option. RUNWAY 9L-27R As shown in Figure 6.5, Runway 9L would be extended by 535 feet and Runway 27R by 850 feet for a total runway length of 4,627 feet. The current runway displacements would remain and declared distances applied. The TORA on Runway 9L would increase from 3,181 to 3,716 feet and the LDA from 3,060 to 3,910 feet. The TORA on Runway 27R would increase from 3,060 to 3,910 feet and the LDA from 3,181 to 3,716 feet. Taxiways N and P would be extended to meet the new runway ends. RUNWAY 18R-36L As shown in Figure 6.6, Runway 18R would be extended by 390 feet and Runway 36L by 490 feet for a total runway length of 4,225 feet. The current runway displacements would remain and declared distances applied. The TORA on Runway 18R would increase from 3,000 to 3,490 feet and the LDA from 3,000 to 3,490 feet. The TORA on Runway 36L would increase from 3,000 to 3,490 feet and the LDA from 3,000 to 3,390 feet. A new parallel Taxiway A (west of Runway 18R-36L) would be constructed the length of the runway. Taxiway B would be extended to meet both new runway ends. RUNWAY 18L-36R As shown in Figure 6.7, Runway 18L would be extended by 725 feet and Runway 36R by 595 feet for a total runway length of 4,580 feet. The current runway displacements would remain and declared distances applied. The TORA on Runway 18L would increase from 3,075 to 3,800 feet and the LDA from 3,150 to 3,745 feet. The TORA on Runway 36R would increase from 3,150 to 3,800 feet and the LDA from 3,075 to 3,800 feet. Taxiways D and E would be extended to meet runway ends. In addition, a new taxiway would be needed to connect Runways 27R and 27L. August 11, 2009 Page 6-8

9 FIGURE 6.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT PROPOSED EXTENSIONS RUNWAY 9R-27L WITH DECLARED DISTANCES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Proposed Pavement Runway 9R Runway 27L Existing Pavement Length 3,255 Threshold Displacements 255 ft. 210 ft. Proposed Additional Pavement 675 ft. 665 ft. 675 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT 3,665 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) RW 27L 3,720 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) RW 27L 665 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT TORA 3,720 ft. 3,665 ft. LDA 3,665 ft. 3,720 ft. 3,720 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) 9R 3,665 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) RW 9R August 11, 2009 Page 6-9

10 FIGURE 6.5 ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT PROPOSED EXTENSIONS RUNWAY 9L-27R WITH DECLARED DISTANCES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone 3,716 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) RW 27R 3,910 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) RW 27R Proposed Pavement 535 PROPOSED EXT. 3,910 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) RW 9L 3,716 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) RW 9L 850 PROPOSED EXT. Runway 9L Existing Pavement Length 3,241 Runway 27R Threshold Displacements 181 ft. 60 ft. Proposed Additional Pavement 535 ft. 850 ft. TORA 3,716 ft. 3,910 ft. LDA 3,910 ft. 3,716 ft. August 11, 2009 Page 6-10

11 FIGURE 6.6 ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT PROPOSED EXTENSIONS RUNWAY 18R-36L WITH DECLARED DISTANCES 3,390 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) RW 18R 3,490 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) RW 18R LEGEND 490 PROPOSED EXT. 3,490 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) RW 36L 3,390 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) RW 36L 390 PROPOSED EXT. Runway Protection Zone Proposed Pavement Runway 18R Existing Pavement Length 3,350 Runway 36L Threshold Displacements 350 ft. 350 ft. Proposed Additional Pavement 390 ft. 490 ft. TORA 3,390 ft. 3,490 ft. LDA 3,490 ft. 3,390 August 11, 2009 Page 6-11

12 FIGURE 6.7 ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT PROPOSED EXTENSIONS RUNWAY 18L-36R WITH DECLARED DISTANCES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Proposed Pavement 3,800 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) RW 18L 3,745 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) RW 18L Runway 18L Existing Pavement Length 3,260 Runway 36R PROPOSED 595 EXT. 3,745 TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) RW 36R 3,800 LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA) RW 36R PROPOSED 725 EXT. Threshold Displacements 110 ft. 185 ft. Proposed Additional Pavement 725 ft. 595 ft. TORA 3,800 ft. 3,745 ft. LDA 3,745 ft. 3,800 ft. August 11, 2009 Page 6-12

13 Table 6.5 summarizes the results of declared distances analysis. The advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 6.6. TABLE 6.5 ALTERNATIVE 3 TAKEOFF RUN AND LANDING DISTANCES FOR NORTH PERRY AIRPORT Existing Length (feet) Added Length (feet) TORA (feet) LDA (feet) Runways 9R 27L 9L 27R 18R 36L 18L 36R 3,000 3,045 3,060 3,181 3,000 3,000 3,150 3, ,720 3,665 3,716 3,910 3,390 3,490 3,800 3,745 3,665 3,720 3,910 3,716 3,490 3,390 3,745 3,800 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-Change 11, Airport Design, Appendix 14 TABLE 6.6 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE 3 Advantages Maximizes runway lengths Accommodates 100 percent of small airplanes requiring 3,570 feet of runway Accommodates 75 percent of VLJ fleet Provides opportunities for airport development Disadvantages Additional costs of new pavement for runways and taxiways. Runway operations closer to residential area. Declared distances can be confusing to pilots. ALTERNATIVE 4: ACCOMMODATE LARGER AIRCRAFT This alternative involves lifting the Broward Ordinance restrictions and allowing larger aircraft (including business aircraft) with more than 12,500 pounds of maximum takeoff weight to use North Perry Airport. As shown in Table 6.1, to accommodate 100 percent of larger aircraft with 60 percent useful load, a minimum of 5,500 feet of runway length is required. FAA s Southern Region published a Regional Guidance Letter 00-1, Standard Development for Business Jet Aircraft outlining considerations to consider when reviewing Airport Layout Plans for airports intending to accommodate business jet operations. A copy of this letter is contained in Appendix A. Table 6.7 summarizes these considerations. As outlined in this table, a minimum runway length to accommodate business jet aircraft for a General Aviation Reliever is 6,500 feet. August 11, 2009 Page 6-13

14 TABLE 6.7 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE BUSINESS JET AIRCRAFT Development GA Airports GA Reliever Airports Minimum Runway Length 5,500 feet 1/ 6,500 feet 1/ Full Parallel Taxiway Yes 2/ Yes VGSI Yes Yes REIL Yes Yes Grooving Yes Yes Minimum Instrument Approach Non precision (400-1) 3/ Precision (200-1/2) 3/ Instrument Landing System VOR, LOC, WAAS ILS, WAAS/LAAS Approach Lighting System No Yes AWOS Yes Yes Blast Pads No Yes 4/ Lighting MIRL HIRL Pilot Controlled Lighting Yes Yes Ground Communication Outlet (GCO) 5/ Yes Yes Meet Design Standards in AC 150/ Yes Yes Compatible Land Use Zoning Yes Yes Pavement Strength 30,000 single wheel 6/ 60,000 dual wheel 6/ 1/ Runway length should be determined on a case-by-case basis to meet the needs of the design aircraft. Guidance on runway length requirements is contained in FAA s Advisory Circular150/5325-4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design and RGL 01-2, Runway Length and Strength Requirements for Business Jet Aircraft. 2/ Consider at airports with at least 20,000 annual itinerant operations and/or with landing minimums less than 1 statute-mile visibility and/or less than 400 feet decision height. For all others, the standard configuration is a turnaround at each end. A minimum runway centerline to parallel taxiway centerline separation of 400 feet should be considered to allow for a future precision instrument approach. 3/ The appropriate approach minimums for the airport should be determined based on the requirements of the airport users and the weather conditions at the airport. Appendix 16 of FAA s Advisory Circular 15/5300 should be consulted in determining what airport improvements may be necessary in order to establish the new instrument approach. 4/ Consider at airports with at least 1,000 annual business jet operations or where erosion problems are likely. 5/ Although not AIP eligible, GCO s should be considered in planning for business jets. The airport operator should pursue other funding for the installation of this equipment. 6/ Runway pavement strength should be determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the weight and landing gear configuration of the design aircraft. Guidance on runway strength requirements is contained in RGL 01-2, Runway Length and Strength Requirements for Business Jet Aircraft. FAA s RGL 00-1, Standard Development for Business Jet Aircraft, Revised August 28, 2002 The Master Plan Update, North Perry Airport, December 1996 described six alternatives, two of which include constructing a new 6,000-foot long runway. Appendix B contains these two alternatives. One alternative proposed Runway 27L be extended to 6,000 feet. The other alternative proposed the construction of a 6,000-foot diagonal runway with a northwest-southeast orientation (see Appendix B). Both alternatives are still valid for the purposes of this analysis; these layout alternatives were considered again but with an increased runway length of 6,500 feet, as depicted in Figures 6.8 and 6.9. Advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 6.8. It should be noted that this alternative is not recommended. August 11, 2009 Page 6-14

15 FIGURE 6.8 ALTERNATIVE 4 ACCOMMODATE LARGER AIRCRAFT PROPOSED RUNWAY 9R-27L EXTENSION LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Additional Pavement PROPOSED 3,245 EXTENSION PROPOSED RW 9R-27L (100 X 6500 ) August 11, 2009 Page 6-15

16 FIGURE 6.9 ALTERNATIVE 4 ACCOMMODATE LARGER AIRCRAFT PROPOSED DIAGONAL RUNWAY LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Additional Pavement DIAGONAL RW 100 X 6,500 August 11, 2009 Page 6-16

17 TABLE 6.8 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE 4 Advantages Facilitates North Perry Airport as General Aviation Reliever to FLL. Accommodates business jet aircraft. Increases opportunities for FBO, corporate hangars, and industrial parks. Potential increase of airport revenues. Disadvantages Major impacts to residential and commercial community. Major capital cost of runway, associated taxiway, and residential/commercial property acquisition. Significant impacts to on-airport tenants due to required relocation. Requires the preparation of Environmental Impact Statement. Increases runway dimensional criteria. RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Typically, the most advantageous alternative would be the one that satisfies all of the facility requirements with the least amount of impact. Runway alternatives were evaluated within the following categories: operational performance, financial considerations, environmental impacts, and feasibility. The criteria selected for each category is not all inclusive but provides the qualitative and quantitative means to screen and select a preferred runway alternative. Table 6.9 presents an evaluation matrix that addresses the criteria established for each of the above mentioned categories. As shown, Alternative 4 and the provision of a 6,500-foot runway scores the highest in terms of operational performance but the lowest with respect to environmental impacts. Based upon the evaluation matrix combined with the above identified advantages and disadvantages, Alternative 3 is selected as the recommended runway alternative. Alternative 3 presented four options for expanding runway pavement while implementing declared distances. As shown in Table 6.3, Runway 9R- 27 is the recommended option since it provides the longest runway length on the primary runway with a non-precision approach (Runway 9R). Although additional pavement expansion to increase runway usability would be preferred by users, only one runway accommodating 100 percent of the small aircraft is needed. August 11, 2009 Page 6-17

18 TABLE 6.9 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 No Build Alternative 2 Declared Distances Alternative 3 Add Pavement/ Declared Distances Alternative 4 Accommodate Larger Aircraft NOT RECOMMENDED Operational Performance Capable of accommodating required runway length Capable of accommodating planning levels/beyond Capable of enhancing efficiency Meets FAA planning and design criteria Subtotal Financial Considerations Ability to provide revenue enhancement Causes increase in operational costs Capital Cost Economic Impact/Benefit Subtotal Environmental Impacts Ability to keep RPZs on airport property Capable of not impacting noise Provide compatible land use Proves highest and best use of property Subtotal Feasibility Impacts on Existing Facilities Ability to meet TAC recommendations Likelihood of public acceptance Site constraints Subtotal TOTAL Legend: 1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Satisfactory 4. Very Good 5. Excellent FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans August 11, 2009 Page 6-18

19 6.2.3 TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVES Each runway at North Perry Airport has dual parallel taxiways with the exception of Runway 18R-36L. Parallel Taxiway A was recommended in the 1996 North Perry Airport Master Plan Update by Leigh Fisher Associates, and is currently shown on the 2003 Airport Layout Plan. Taxiway A is not needed for airfield capacity; however, development on the west side of the Airport would necessitate the construction of Taxiway A. For the purposes of this analysis and to enhance operational capacity of the runway, it is recommended that Taxiway A be constructed in a phased manner within the planning period (see Figure 6.10). Advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table TABLE 6.10 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TAXIWAY A Advantages Enhances operational capacity of Runway 18R Provides opportunities for development on west side of Runway 18R Disadvantages Construction costs associated with new parallel taxiway. Impacts banner towing operations NAVIGATIONAL AIDS ALTERNATIVES ESTABLISH PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH Chapter 5: Facility Requirements recommends that at least one runway at the Airport gain precision approach capabilities. The Airport is presently served by a GPS-based non-precision instrument approach to Runway 9R. The lowest approach minimums for the airport are 920 feet mean sea level elevation and 1 1/4 mile visibility. All seven other runways have visual approaches. Before a precision instrument approach of any kind can be established, the FAA would need documentation to evaluate the applicable terminal instrument procedures (TERPS) criteria, the obstacle free zone, and other standards described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design, as well as the imaginary surfaces presented in FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Nearby obstructions and the design of the airfield itself limit the type of approach and approach minimums that can be obtained for a runway. Table 6.11 summarizes the airfield separation criteria for aircraft in Approach Categories A and B (small aircraft less than or equal to 12,500 pounds). August 11, 2009 Page 6-19

20 FIGURE 6.10 PROPOSED TAXIWAY A LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Proposed Pavement August 11, 2009 Page 6-20

21 TABLE 6.11 AIRFIELD SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR AIRCRAFT IN APPROACH CATEGORIES A AND B Visual Runways and Runways with not lower than ¾ statute mile approach visibility minimums: Airplane Design Group I 1/ I II Runway Centerline to: Parallel Runway Centerline 2/ 700 feet 700 feet 700 feet Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline 150 feet 225 feet 240 feet Holdline 3/ 125 feet 200 feet 200 feet Helicopter touchdown pad 4/ 400 feet 400 feet 400 feet Aircraft parking area 125 feet 125 feet 200 feet Taxiway Centerline to: Parallel Taxiway Centerline 69 feet 69 feet 105 feet Parallel Taxilane Centerline 69 feet 69 feet 105 feet Fixed or Movable Object 44.5 feet 44.5 feet 65.5 feet Runways with lower than ¾ statute mile approach visibility minimums: Runway Centerline to: Parallel Runway Centerline 700 feet 700 feet 700 feet Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline 200 feet 250 feet 300 feet Holdline 3/ 175 feet 250 feet 250 feet Helicopter touchdown pad 4/ 400 feet 400 feet 400 feet Aircraft parking area 400 feet 400 feet 400 feet Taxiway Centerline to: Parallel Taxiway Centerline 69 feet 69 feet 105 feet Parallel Taxilane Centerline 69 feet 69 feet 105 feet Fixed or Movable Object 44.5 feet 44.5 feet 65.5 feet 1/ Small aircraft only 2/ Planning recommendation 3/ FAA s Advisory Circular 150/ D, Standards for Airport Sign Systems 4/ FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design FAA s Advisory Circular 150/ , Change 11, Airport Design The existing airfield at North Perry Airport meets Design Group I criteria for visual runways and runways with not lower than ¾ statute mile approach visibility minimums. The existing airfield also meets Design Group I (small aircraft only) criteria for runways with lower than ¾ statute mile approach visibility minimums, with the exception of runway centerline to aircraft parking separation. Portions of apron located near Runway 27L and 18R are within the 400-foot separation criteria. August 11, 2009 Page 6-21

22 FIGURE 6.11 PRECISION APPROACH ALTERNATIVES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone August 11, 2009 Page 6-22

23 According to Appendix 16 of FAA s Advisory Circular150/ , Change 11, Airport Design, a minimum runway length of 4,200 feet, runway edge lights, parallel taxiway, and approach lights are also required for precision instrument approach runways. Airports try to obtain the lowest minimums possible in order to provide flexibility to pilots using the facility during inclement weather and for training exercises. Regardless, in order to avoid major airfield reconfigurations and costs the approach minimums at North Perry Airport would be restricted to not lower than ¾ statute mile given the dimensional criteria limitations set by the existing runway to taxiway separation of 225 feet. Precision instrument runway alternatives are shown on Figure 6.11 and are based on existing conditions with the aircraft restriction of 12,500 pounds or less. Advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table TABLE 6.12 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PRECISION APPROACH ALTERNATIVES Advantages Provides precision approach to primary runway. Enhances business aircraft operations. Satisfies criteria for on-demand charter services. Disadvantages Major impacts to residential and commercial community. Major capital cost of runway, associated taxiway, and residential/commercial property acquisition. Significant impacts to on-airport tenants due to required relocation. Requires the preparation of Environmental Impact Statement. Since the establishment of a precision instrument approach with current FAA airport design criteria creates major impacts on the community, it is recommended that a precision instrument approach be re-evaluated in the next Master Plan Update as future navigational aid technology and changes in FAA s RPZ criteria could potentially minimize the impacts of implementation of this technology on the community VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI-DIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR) The FAA is considering decommissioning and/or relocating the VOR at Fort Lauderdale International Airport due to potential development conflicts. This anticipated action presents an opportunity for North Perry Airport. As defined in FAA s Advisory Circular 150/ , Change 11, Airport Design, the standard very high frequency omni-range (VOR) located on an airport radiates azimuth information for non-precision instrument approach procedures. Since North Perry Airport has intersecting runways, the siting criteria for the re-located VOR should be adjacent to a runway intersection to provide approach guidance to both runways. The VOR should be located at least 500 feet from the centerline of any runway and 250 feet from any centerline of any taxiway. VORs signals can be distorted by reflections therefore structures should be at least 1,000 feet from the antenna and the site should be level within the 1,000 feet. Metal structures beyond 1,000 feet should not penetrate a 2.5 degree angle measured from the antenna base and trees should not penetrate a 2.0 degree angle. Metal fences should be at least 500 feet from the antenna. The 1996 Master Plan Update mentioned a shortage of VORs available for training purposes in Broward County and southern Florida and recommended that an area in the midfield be reserved for the siting of a VOR should one become available. Alternatives are discussed as follows. August 11, 2009 Page 6-23

24 ALTERNATIVE 1: LOCATE VOR IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT Figure 6.12 presents the 1996 Master Plan alternative of locating the VOR in a quadrant bound by Taxiways B, N, D, and M. Advantages and disadvantages are listed in Figure TABLE 6.13 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF VOR ALTERNATIVE 1 Advantages Meets VOR siting criteria. Provides VOR training for pilots. Provides enhancement to navigational aids provided at North Perry. Disadvantages ASOS, wind measuring equipment, lighted and unlighted wind sock would have to be relocated. VOR would be located within the Runway Visibility Zone. Provides a potential site for a helipad in this area (as shown in 2003 ALP). ALTERNATIVE 2: LOCATE VOR IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT Also shown on Figure 6.11 is an alternative of locating the VOR in a quadrant bound by Taxiways E, N and M. Advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table TABLE 6.1 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF VOR ALTERNATIVE 2 Advantages Meets VOR siting criteria. Provides VOR training for pilots. Provides enhancement to navigational aids provided at North Perry. Disadvantages Prohibits future airport development in this area. Alternative 1 is recommended for siting the VOR if the FAA determines it to be relocated to North Perry Airport. August 11, 2009 Page 6-24

25 FIGURE 6.12 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED VOR LOCATION LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Proposed VOR August 11, 2009 Page 6-25

26 6.3 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES APRONS Chapter 5: Facility Requirements noted that the existing apron space at North Perry Airport is adequate through the mid-term planning horizon, but approximately 1,200 square yards of apron would be needed to meet long-term demand. Figure 6.13 depicts the alternatives to accommodate a future aircraft parking apron. The advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table TABLE 6.15 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF APRON SITES Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Advantages Existing airfield access to runway, ability to expand beyond planning period, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, road access via perimeter road. Existing airfield access to taxiway and runway, ability to expand beyond planning period, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, adjacent to existing FBO and corporate/t-hangars, and provides direct access from perimeter road. Existing airfield access to runway, ability to expand beyond planning period, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, road access via perimeter road. Existing airfield access to three runways, ability to expand beyond planning period, and can accommodate other general aviation facilities. Existing airfield access to two runways, ability to expand beyond planning period, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, road access via perimeter road. Existing airfield access to primary runway, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, adjacent to FBO and corporate /T-Hangars, has access from perimeter road. Disadvantages Banner Towing operations would have to cease in this area, not adjacent to other existing general aviation facilities, and requires construction of parallel Taxiway A. Access to primary runway and general aviation facilities in the southern quadrant is not as convenient. Not adjacent to other existing general aviation facilities and requires construction of parallel Taxiway A. Not adjacent to other existing general aviation facilities, requires construction of access/perimeter road, and would impact recommended helipad site. Not adjacent to other existing general aviation facilities. Can not be expanded beyond planning horizon. August 11, 2009 Page 6-26

27 FIGURE 6.13 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED APRON SITES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Proposed Aviation Development August 11, 2009 Page 6-27

28 Apron alternatives were evaluated within the following categories: operational performance, financial considerations, environmental impacts, and feasibility. The criteria selected for each category is not all inclusive but provides the qualitative and quantitative means to screen and select preferred apron areas. Table 6.16 presents an evaluation matrix that addresses the criteria established for each of the above mentioned categories. Based upon the evaluation matrix combined with the above identified advantages and disadvantages, Sites 2 and 6 are the most appropriate areas to develop additional apron. However, development in other areas is completely consistent with aviation-related development proposed at the Airport. TABLE 6.16 APRON SITES EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Operational Performance Provides balance of airside and landside development Capable of accommodating planning levels/beyond Meets FAA planning and design criteria Subtotal Financial Considerations Ability to provide revenue enhancement Economic Impact/Benefit Subtotal Environmental Impacts Capable of not impacting noise Provide compatible land use Proves highest and best use of property Subtotal Feasibility Impacts on Existing Facilities Ability to meet TAC recommendations Likelihood of public acceptance Site constraints Subtotal TOTAL Legend: 1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Satisfactory 4. Very Good 5. Excellent FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans August 11, 2009 Page 6-28

29 6.3.2 HANGARS Based on Chapter 5: Facilities Requirements, 26 T-Hangars and 8 bulk and/or corporate hangars would be needed in the long-term planning horizon to meet future demand. Since hangar development at North Perry Airport has been historically based on tenant development with little to no funding from BCAD, state or federal programs, Figure 6.14 depicts alternative areas that could be developed for T-Hangars or corporate hangars. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed in Table TABLE 6.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HANGAR SITES Site Advantages Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Existing airfield access to runway, ability to expand beyond planning period, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, road access via perimeter road. Existing airfield access to taxiway and runway, ability to expand beyond planning period, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, adjacent to existing FBO and corporate/t-hangars, and provides direct access from perimeter road. Existing airfield access to runway, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, and road access via perimeter road Existing airfield access to three runways, ability to expand beyond planning period, and can accommodate other general aviation facilities Existing airfield access to two runways, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, and road access via perimeter road Existing airfield access to primary runway, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, and is adjacent to corporate development. Existing airfield access to primary runway, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, adjacent to corporate development, and has access from perimeter road Existing airfield access to primary runway, can accommodate other general aviation facilities, adjacent to corporate development, and has access from perimeter road. Disadvantages Banner Towing operations would have to cease in this area, not adjacent to other existing general aviation facilities, and requires construction of parallel Taxiway A. Access to primary runway and general aviation facilities in the southern quadrants is not as convenient. Not adjacent to other existing general aviation facilities and requires construction of parallel Taxiway A. Not adjacent to other existing general aviation facilities and requires construction of access/perimeter road. Not adjacent to other existing general aviation facilities. Requires paved access/perimeter road, Broward County Aviation Department (Lighting) building located and Air Traffic Control Tower/equipment located in area, and portion of area part of Hollywood Aviation leasehold. Access to runway and general aviation facilities in the northern quadrants is not as convenient. Access to runway and general aviation facilities in the northern quadrants is not as convenient. August 11, 2009 Page 6-29

30 FIGURE 6.14 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED HANGAR SITES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone T-Hangar & Corporate Hangar August 11, 2009 Page 6-30

31 Hangar alternatives were evaluated within the following categories: operational performance, financial considerations, environmental impacts, and feasibility. The criteria selected for each category is not all inclusive but provides the qualitative and quantitative means to screen and select preferred apron areas. Table 6.18 presents an evaluation matrix that addresses the criteria established for each of the above mentioned categories. All of the sites would be appropriate to develop for either T-Hangars, corporate hangars, or a combination of both. Based upon the evaluation matrix combined with the above identified advantages and disadvantages, Sites 2 and 4 appear to be the most advantageous areas to develop T- Hangars and/or Corporate Hangars. TABLE 6.18 HANGAR SITES EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Criteria Operational Performance Provides balance of airside and landside development Capable of accommodating planning levels/beyond Meets FAA planning and design criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site Subtotal Financial Considerations Ability to provide revenue enhancement Economic Impact/Benefit Subtotal Environmental Impacts Capable of not impacting noise Provide compatible land use Proves highest and best use of property Subtotal Feasibility Impacts on Existing Facilities Ability to meet TAC recommendations Likelihood of public acceptance Site constraints Subtotal TOTAL Legend: 1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Satisfactory 4. Very Good 5. Excellent Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans August 11, 2009 Page 6-31

32 6.3.3 FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO)/GENERAL AVIATION (GA) TERMINAL The need for a full service FBO and dedicated GA terminal building was identified through the Master Plan s Technical Advisory committee (TAC). One concept envisioned that the general aviation terminal building could become the primary focal point for itinerant traffic coming to North Perry Airport. A general aviation terminal could house a multitude of services for pilots and passengers including rental cars, pilot ready rooms, and a restaurant. Of course, the services provided would be a business decision made by the final developer/tenant and/or operator of the facility. The following presents alternative sites for a new FBO/GA terminal building. Minimum facility requirements for a FBO are currently outlined in BCAD s Minimum Standards for General Aviation at County Airports, March 28, As a separate task of this Master Plan Update, the Airport s minimum standards are to be reviewed and updated. The siting criteria used for a new FBO facility is referenced from the current Minimum Standards as follows: An FBO at North Perry Airport must: Lease at least a six acre site Construct a 2,000 square foot administration building Provide 15 aircraft tie-down positions Construct a 5,000-square foot maintenance hangar Construct a 10,000-square foot clearspan hangar and/or T-Hangars Construct 60,000 square-foot apron Provide paved automobile parking Provide for 10,000 gallon underground fuel storage and one 250 gallon fuel truck Provide electric security gate to restrict unauthorized access to the ramp ALTERNATIVE 1: CONSTRUCT NEW FBO/GA TERMINAL BUILDING This alternative involves the construction of a full service FBO/GA Terminal in eight possible locations, as shown on Figure The advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table August 11, 2009 Page 6-32

33 FIGURE 6.15 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED FBO/GA TERMINAL SITES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Proposed Aviation Development August 11, 2009 Page 6-33

34 TABLE 6.3 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE 1 Site Advantages Disadvantages Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Provides access from one of the primary entrances into North Perry Airport, does not interfere with Banner Towing operations, adjacent to taxiway, runway, and other corporate/hangar development. Provides access from perimeter road and is large enough to develop six acres required for a FBO, and is near other existing corporate development. Provides direct airfield access to the runway, has access from perimeter road, and contains six acres required to develop a FBO. Provides direct airfield access to two runways and six acres required for a FBO. Provides direct airfield access to the primary runway and has access from the perimeter road. Portion of area has direct airfield access and is adjacent to other existing corporate development. Provides direct frontage to the primary runway, has access from perimeter road, and is adjacent to other existing corporate development. Provides direct frontage to the primary runway and is adjacent to other existing corporate development. Not located near the primary runway with a non-precision instrument approach and does not provide six acres required in the Minimum Standards for a FBO. Requires Banner Towing operations to cease at North Perry, requires construction of parallel Taxiway A, and is not adjacent to primary runway 9R-27L. Is not adjacent to the primary runway, requires the construction of parallel Taxiway A, and is limited by the Building Restriction Line in developing the number and sized hangars required based on Minimum Standards Does not provide landside access and is not adjacent to other existing corporate development. Not adjacent to other corporate development. Broward County Aviation Department (Aviation Lighting) and Air Traffic Control Tower are located in this area and a significant portion of this area is part of Hollywood Aviation s leasehold. Does not provide six acres required in the Minimum Standards for a FBO Does not provide six acres required in the Minimum Standards for a FBO. August 11, 2009 Page 6-34

35 ALTERNATIVE 2: ENHANCE EXISTING FBO FACILITIES Alternative 2 involves enhancing existing FBOs at North Perry. As previously described, two FBOs currently operate at North Perry Airport, as shown on Figure Air Superiority occupies six acres on the northern side of the Airport and Hollywood Aviation occupies six acres on the southern side. Advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table TABLE 6.20 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FBO/GA TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 2 Advantages Tenants occupy six acres. Investment to upgrade terminal building only. FBOs located northern and southern side of airfield. Disadvantages Tenants would have to invest in terminal building upgrades. Site constraints. FBO/GA Terminal alternatives were evaluated within the following categories: operational performance, financial considerations, environmental impacts, and feasibility. The criteria selected for each category is not all inclusive but provides the qualitative and quantitative means to screen and select preferred apron areas. Table 6.21 presents an evaluation matrix that addresses the criteria established for each of the above mentioned categories. Based upon the evaluation matrix combined with the above identified advantages and disadvantages, Sites 3, 4, and 5 are the most appropriate areas to develop a new FBO/GA Terminal. It must be noted that Site 7 does provide an opportunity for the existing tenant to construct a GA Terminal. August 11, 2009 Page 6-35

36 TABLE 6.21 NEW FBO/GA TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Criteria Operational Performance Provides balance of airside and landside development Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Alternative 1 Site Site 4 5 Alternative Meets Minimum Standards Capable of accommodating planning levels/beyond Meets FAA planning and design criteria Subtotal Financial Considerations Ability to provide revenue enhancement Economic Impact/ Benefit Subtotal Environmental Impacts Capable of not impacting noise Provide compatible land use Proves highest and best use of property Subtotal Feasibility Impacts on Existing Facilities Ability to meet TAC recommend ations Likelihood of public acceptance Site constraints Subtotal TOTAL Legend: August 11, 2009 Page 6-36 Site 6 1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Satisfactory 4. Very Good 5. Excellent FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans Site 7 Site 8

37 6.3.4 U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION CAPABILITIES The addition of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility has been considered in the past and this section will discuss the application process and requirements of acquiring U.S. CBP service at North Perry Airport. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the agency responsible for handling the day-to-day monitoring of zone activity. There are currently 326 official ports of entry in the United States. Ports of entry are responsible for daily port specific operations. Port personnel are the faces at the border for most cargo and visitors entering the United States. Here, U.S CBP enforces the import and export laws and regulations of the U.S. federal government and implements immigration policies and programs. Ports perform agriculture inspections to protect the U.S. from potential carriers of animal and plant pests or diseases that could cause serious damage to America's crops, livestock, pets, and the environment. Port Everglades and Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport are the nearest Port of Entries to North Perry Airport. User Fee Airports are smaller airports which have been approved by the Commissioner of U.S. CBP to receive, for a fee, the services of a U.S. CBP officer for the processing of aircraft entering the United States and their passengers and cargo. To apply to be designated as U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Airport (UFA), the applicant (North Perry Airport) must meet the following criteria: The volume or value of business at the airport is insufficient to justify the availability of inspectional services at such airport on a non-reimbursable basis; The Governor of the State in which the airport is located supports such designation in writing to the Commissioner of CBP; The requestor (e.g. airport authority) agrees to reimburse CBP for all costs associated with the services, including all expenses of staffing a minimum of one full-time inspector; and The requestor completes an Agriculture Compliance Agreement (ACA) with fixed base operators and garbage haulers for handling the international garbage. The basic steps required in considering an application for designation as an UFA include: Receipt of a letter from the Governor of the state supporting the user fee airport designation; A successful site visit in which CBP officials discuss workload and services and verify that facilities are adequate for inspectional services to be provided; Completing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with CBP, which states the responsibilities, fees, and hours of service; and Completing an ACA with CBP for handling international garbage. An approved UFA receiving CBP services is responsible for payment of the following fees (identified in FAA Fiscal Year 2007): Per Inspector - $140,847 for the first year and $123,438 for succeeding years; Other costs per inspector - $17,042 to $21,062 (1 st year) and $13,620 to $17,640 for succeeding years depending on the location; and Other associated costs such as overtime. In all cases regarding requests for new service, to establish new User Fee Airports, CBP must have the available staffing or the authorization and appropriations to hire additional staffing. This is one of the most important considerations for CBP in its new service determination. The possible advantages and disadvantages of acquiring U.S. Customs and Border Patrol services at North Perry Airport are listed in Table August 11, 2009 Page 6-37

38 TABLE 6.22 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CUSTOMS FACILITY Advantages Possibility for increased operations from tourism to/from the Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and other international locations Possibility for increased revenue from fuel sales Increased charter activities Disadvantages County would incur additional costs to build. County would incur additional costs to operate. County unlikely to recover costs through leasehold revenue. A secure building (approximately 5,000 square feet) would be required for provision of services in a separated building. For convenience, this building should be sited near an FBO HELIPAD A helipad is a designated place at the airport where helicopters arrive and depart. Currently, there is no designated helipad at North Perry Airport and existing helicopter activity is cleared by the Air Traffic Control Tower. Helicopters currently utilize available ramp space, typically close to their hangars and approach and depart via Taxiway L. BCAD and the Air Traffic Control Tower are formalizing operational procedures for helicopters at North Perry Airport that address that helicopters will follow runway and/or taxiway headings. Within the planning horizon, helicopter operations may necessitate the designation of a helipad. For this reason, several helipad sites are being considered. Helipad design follows guidance provided in FAA s Advisory Circular/150/5390-2B, Heliport Design. The helipad is comprised of a paved touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) surrounded by a final approach and takeoff area (FATO). The minimum TLOF dimension is 1.0 times the rotor diameter of the design helicopter. The minimum width, length or diameter of a FATO should be at least 1.5 times the overall length of the design helicopter. A safety area is provided around the entire FATO. The minimum safety area width for general aviation airports is 1/3 rotor diameter but not less than 20 feet. For the purposes of this analysis, the Bell 412EP was used as the design helicopter since it provided the heaviest weight under 12,500 pounds. Figure 6.16 depicts alternative areas that could be developed for a helipad. Advantages and disadvantages of the helipad sites are listed in Table August 11, 2009 Page 6-38

39 TABLE 6.23 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HELIPAD SITES Site Advantages Disadvantages Site 1 Provides adequate area for a helipad; adjacent to Helicopters Inc. Approach and departure path aligned to Runway 18R-36L; requires Banner Tower Operations to cease; not convenient for helicopter operations on the south side of airfield. Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Provides adequate area for a helipad; adjacent to Helicopters Inc. Provides adequate area for a helipad; recommended area in 1996 Master Plan; near Crescent Air; aligned with primary runway 9R-27L. Provides adequate area for a helipad and is near Crescent Air; aligned with primary runway 9R-27L Approach and departure path aligned to Runway 18R-36L; potential noise impacts; not convenient for helicopter operations on the south side of airfield. Located within the Runway Visibility Zone; area may be site for future VOR Area may be site for future VOR Helipad alternatives were evaluated within the following categories: operational performance, financial considerations, environmental impacts, and feasibility. The criteria selected for each category is not all inclusive but provides the qualitative and quantitative means to screen and select preferred apron areas. Table 6.24 presents an evaluation matrix that addresses the criteria established for each of the above mentioned categories. Based upon the evaluation matrix combined with the above identified advantages and disadvantages, Site 4 is the most appropriate area to develop a new helipad if and when operational concerns necessitate specific helicopter approaches and departures to use a helipad. August 11, 2009 Page 6-39

40 FIGURE 6.16 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED HELIPAD SITES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone H Helipad August 11, 2009 Page 6-40

41 TABLE 6.24 HELIPAD SITE EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Operational Performance Provides balance of airside and landside development Capable of enhancing efficiency Meets FAA planning and design criteria Subtotal Financial Considerations Causes increase in operational costs Capital Cost Economic Impact/Benefit Subtotal Environmental Impacts Capable of not impacting noise Provide compatible land use Proves highest and best use of property Subtotal Feasibility Impacts on Existing/Future Facilities Ability to meet TAC recommendations Likelihood of public acceptance Site constraints Subtotal TOTAL Legend: 1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Satisfactory 4. Very Good 5. Excellent FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans 6.4 SUPPORT FACILITIES ALTERNATIVES FUEL STORAGE Currently public aircraft fueling is provided by the Airport s two Fixed Base Operators (Bobby s Landing and Hollywood Aviation) and another tenant (Pelican Airways). Crescent Helicopter s Inc. is permitted to sell fuel to the public but currently does not. Other airport tenants (Broward County Mosquito Control, and Van Wagner Aerial Media) have self-fueling facilities at the Airport but do not sell fuel to the public. BCAD may tighten the criteria for fueling requirements for tenants in updating the minimum standards. There are six fuel farms with underground tanks on airfield property. There are also four fuel trucks at the Airport. Because of the strict requirements governing fuel storage, and in particular underground fuel storage, it is recommended that BCAD discourage additional locations at the Airport for fuel storage but consider consolidating all fuel storage in a single area on the airport as existing underground tanks are abandoned and/or fuel storage expanded. A consolidated fuel farm also allows for better monitoring of leak detection and spill prevention. August 11, 2009 Page 6-41

42 Most important to the siting of the fuel farm is fuel delivery truck access. Access should be available from a primary roadway and not require that the truck access the apron area. Airside access must also be maintained to allow for the airport fuel delivery vehicles to access the fuel storage tanks. As shown on Figure 6.17, six potential sites were evaluated for a consolidated fuel farm. Advantages and disadvantages of each site are listed in Table TABLE 6.25 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CONSOLIDATED FUEL FARM SITES Site Advantages Disadvantages Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Access from one the main airport entrances; fuel delivery trucks would be segregated from airfield; adjacent to airport tenants Access from one of the main airport entrances; fuel delivery trucks would be segregated from airfield; adjacent to airport tenants Access from one of the main airport entrances; fuel delivery trucks would be segregated from airfield; adjacent to airport tenants Fuel delivery trucks would be segregated from airfield access from perimeter road; fuel delivery trucks would be segregated from airfield Above ground tanks would be visible along Pines Blvd.; cannot be expanded beyond planning horizon; not as convenient for tenants located on southern side of airport Above ground tanks would be visible along Pines Blvd.; possible impact to other future development; not as convenient for tenants located on southern side of airport Possible impact to other future development; not as convenient for tenants located on southern side of airport Requires construction of access road from SW 72nd Ave and new perimeter road. Possible impact to other future development; not as convenient for tenants located on northern side of airport Consolidated fuel farm alternatives were evaluated within the following categories: operational performance, financial considerations, environmental impacts, and feasibility. The criteria selected for each category is not all inclusive but provides the qualitative and quantitative means to screen and select preferred apron areas. Table 6.26 presents an evaluation matrix that addresses the criteria established for each of the above mentioned categories. Based upon the evaluation matrix combined with the above identified advantages and disadvantages, Site 2 is selected as the recommended area to develop a new consolidated fuel farm, should BCAD desire to implement such a facility. Currently, BCAD does not intend to develop a consolidated facility so this site will not be depicted on the combined improvement plan. August 11, 2009 Page 6-42

43 TABLE 6.26 CONSOLIDATED FUEL FARM EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Operational Performance Provides balance of airside and landside development Capable of enhancing efficiency Meets FAA planning and design criteria Capable of expanding beyond planning horizon Subtotal Financial Considerations Causes increase in operational costs Capital Cost Economic Impact/Benefit Subtotal Environmental Impacts Provide compatible land use Proves highest and best use of property Subtotal Feasibility Impacts on Existing/Future Facilities Ability to meet TAC recommendations Likelihood of public acceptance Site constraints Subtotal TOTAL Legend: 1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Satisfactory 4. Very Good 5. Excellent FAA s Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans August 11, 2009 Page 6-43

44 FIGURE 6.17 CONSOLIDATED FUEL FARM ALTERNATIVES LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Proposed Fuel Farm August 11, 2009 Page 6-44

45 6.5 COMBINED IMPROVEMENT PLAN The preferred sites and alternatives explored and described in this section have been combined into a single improvement plan, as shown on Figure This combined improvement plan does not serve as the Airport Layout Plan but is reflective of the recommended alternatives discussed in this section. Additional facility improvements that were identified in the Facilities Requirements but not discussed in the alternative section are not depicted on this figure. August 11, 2009 Page 6-45

46 FIGURE 6.18 COMBINED IMPROVEMENT PLAN LEGEND Runway Protection Zone Additional Pavement Proposed Aviation Development Proposed Non-Aviation Development H Helipad Proposed VOR TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE 3,720 FT. LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE 3,665 FT. LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE 3,720 FT. TAKE-OFF RUN AVAILABLE 3,665 FT. August 11, 2009 Page 6-46