Runway Safety Margin Enhancement Project. Matt Kulhanek Director Facilities Management

Transcription

1 Runway Safety Margin Enhancement Project Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Matt Kulhanek Director Facilities Management 1

2 Agenda Background Environmental Assessment Study Airport Improvement Process Airport Economic Impact to the Community Q & A 2

3 Agenda Background Environmental Assessment Study Airport Improvement Process Airport Economic Impact to the Community Q & A 3

4 Background Discussions began late 2002/2003 for the 2007 ALP Snow Removal Equipment (SRE)/Maintenance Building Box Hangars FBO Start Up Business State Road Corridor Project Study 4

5 Background Most airport improvements paid with FAA (95%) & State (2.5%) airport improvement trust funding requires the improvement be shown on an approved airport layout plan (ALP) ARB had poor history with ALP s prior to 2007 Prior attempts failed due to airport opposition: 1960 s (8,000 runway) 1970 s (5,000 runway) 1990 s (5,000 runway) 2007 ALP approved to include State Road rerouting plan (curve in road) SRE building and box hangar improvements 5

6 Background 6

7 Background 2007 ALP 7

8 Background Prior to vote approving 2007 ALP, City Council asked d does this ALP address all of the necessary security and safety needs in this post 9/11 environment? Former airport manager said no, it didn t adequately address: State Road separation (curve was impractical, avoided having the runway debate) Control tower line of site obstruction Unusual number of overruns (11 between , rest of MI one at KBTL) Council passed resolution adopting 2007 ALP and asked airport manager to return with a recommendation dti within 60 days 8

9 Background 9

10 Background 10

11 Background 11

12 Background 12

13 Background Delays by MDOT contributed to having FAA review for approval recommended safety enhancements until late June 2008 Airport Advisory Committee (AAC) approved its recommendation at its August 2008 meeting. City Council approved the amended 2008 ALP including the safety enhancement without changing airport design classification (B II) 13

14 Agenda Background Environmental Assessment Study Airport Improvement Process Airport Economic Impact to the Community Q & A 14

15 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 Control Tower Line of Site Unusually High Number of Runway Overruns 15

16 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 Option #1: Do nothing at all and State Road may not be widened to accommodate State Road Corridor Project (to 4 lane boulevard). Option #2: Curve the State Road right of way to the east through hfloodplain l and wetlands (opposed by Pittsfield Twp). Option #3: Shift runway southwest 150 (preferred by Washtenaw Co. Road Commission) 16

17 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 Option #1 (do nothing) Reasons why AAC recommended Option #3 State Road & intersection at Ellsworth Road has out grown its original traffic volume design capacity, requires modernization Does not cure Part 77 obstacle clearance concern if road widened without separation from runway Part 77 obstacle clearance is 15 above road surface to bottom of obstacle clearancesurface, currently 13.4 without shifting VASI, may require steeper glide slope (i.e., 3 to 3. 5 or up to 3.77 ) shift VASI to SW preserving 3 glide slope without replacing displaced runway would effective shorten runway by moving touch down point to SW Does not resolve control ltower line of site it obstruction bt ti (raise tower cab or build new taller tower) Risk management liability cost avoidance Do nothing is not an option 17

18 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 18

19 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 Option #2 (curve in road) Reasons why AAC recommended Option #3 Too costly to construct road through floodplain and wetlands Requires acquisition isitionofof private property Might not pass mandatory environmental assessment study to qualify for State and Federal funding Does not resolve control tower line of site obstruction (raise tower cab or build new taller tower) Does not resolve risk management liability cost avoidance 19

20 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 20

21 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 Reasons why AAC recommended Option #3 Option #3 (shift runway 150 SW) More cost effective to shift runway rather than relocate State Road infrastructure away from existing runway through floodplain and wetlands Cures Part 77 obstacle clearance safety concern Inherently eliminates tower line of site obstruction at no additional cost Leave in place existing 150 paved runway, but inactive, thereby creating 150 paved safety runoff in addition to about 500 turf safety runoff 21

22 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 22

23 Separation & Clearance of State Road from Rwy 06/24 23

24 Control Tower Line of Site 24

25 Unusually High Number of Runway Overruns Runway 06/24 3,505 x 75 Airport grounds encompass 837 acres Concrete grooved (concrete cap installed 2000) Weight bearing capacity, 2008 ALP rates at 40,000 lb (single wheel) 1977 Washtenaw Engineering study rates at 33,000 lb (S W) Between 1977 & 1994 changed from 12,500 lb (S W) to 20,000 lb (S W) 2010 A/FD remains listed at 20,000 lb (S W) Runway 12/30 2,750 x 100 Turf (closed during winter) 25

26 Unusually High Number of Runway Overruns ARB had 11 known overruns between Data source: FAA/NASA ASRS and AIDS accident/incident reporting During same period, all other Michigan airports had 1 at KBTL 238 public use airports in Michigan 55% publicly owned, stable long term community economic development transportation assets privately held airports under constant pressure for redevelopment/conversion to other uses, not considered stable long term community resource (Washtenaw Young Field) 16 airports with FAA control tower ARB s runway is shortest of all Michigan towered airports 2008: 8 th busiest in MI, 64,910 operations; 1999: 7 th busiest 134,554) Chances of overruns are greater at ARB because of high operations on 3,505 runway 26

27 Unusually High Number of Runway Overruns Calendar Year Longest Runway Longest Runway Total Facility Length Width Operations Ranking 2008 DTW 12, , PTK 6, , BTL 10, , GRR 10, , TVC 6, , YIP 7, , FNT 7, , ARB 3, , DET 5, , AZO 6, , MKG 6, , JXN 5, , LAN 8, , MBS 8, , SAW 12, , APN 9, ,

28 Unusually High Number of Runway Overruns Commitment to City Council Recommended solution would not permit bigger airplanes to operate from ARB that don t already operate at ARB Maintain same airport runway design classification B II B refers to airplane approach category speed of greater than 91 knots and less than 121 knots II refers to airplane design group wingspan more than 49 feet and less than 79 feet Maintain same airport runway environment characteristics no precision instrument approach retain runway width 75 retain ti runway/taxiway separation 28

29 Unusually High Number of Runway Overruns How did we arrive at the recommended 800 runway safety margin extension? FAA AC 150/ Airport Design, Figure A8 1 FAA AC 150/5325 A2 Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, Figure 2.2 Given the commitment to City Council and FAA advisory circulars, 800 was the recommended additional runway safety margin length that should reduce the risk of overruns by about 85% and achieve the goal of not permitting larger airplanes from operating at ARB then are currently operating here. 29

30 Unusually High Number of Runway Overruns 30

31 Unusually High Number of Runway Overruns 31