CHAPTER D Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 CHAPTER D Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements INTRODUCTION The capacity of an airfield is primarily a function of the major aircraft operating surfaces that compose the facility and the configuration of those surfaces (runways and taxiways). However, it is also related to and considered in conjunction with wind coverage, airspace utilization, and the availability and type of navigational aids. Capacity refers to the number of aircraft operations that a facility can accommodate on either an hourly or yearly basis. It does not refer to the size or weight of aircraft. Facility requirements are used to determine the facilities needed to meet the forecast demand related to the existing and forecast aircraft fleet. The following evaluation analyzes aircraft operational demand capability, runway length, dimensional criteria, aprons, hangars, vehicular access, and support services. AIRFIELD CAPACITY METHODOLOGY The evaluation method used to determine the capability of the airside facilities to accommodate aviation operational demand is described in the following narrative. Evaluation of this capability is expressed in terms of potential excesses and deficiencies in capacity. The methodology used for the measurement of airfield capacity in this study is described in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay. From this methodology, airfield capacity is defined in the following terms: Hourly Capacity of Runways: The maximum number of aircraft that can be accommodated under conditions of continuous demand during a one-hour period. D. 1

2 Annual Service Volume: A reasonable estimate of an airport's annual capacity (i.e., level of annual aircraft operations that will result in an average annual aircraft delay of approximately one to four minutes). The capacity of an airport s airside facilities is a function of several factors. These factors include the layout of the airfield, local environmental conditions, specific characteristics of local aviation demand, and air traffic control requirements. The relationship of these factors and their cumulative impact on airfield capacity are examined in the following paragraphs. Airfield Layout The arrangement and interaction of airfield components (runways, taxiways, and ramp entrances) refers to the layout or design of the airfield. As previously described, Executive Airport (SAC) is served by three intersecting runways: Runway 2/20, Runway 12/30, Runway 16/34 and one heliport, Heliport H1. The Airport has a system of parallel and angled taxiways that connect to the main apron and hangar areas located west of Runway 2/20. Several taxiways provide access from the runways to the terminal area and aviation facilities. Taxiway M is a 50-foot wide, full length parallel taxiway and provides access to Runway 2/20. Runway 30 is served by Taxiway E and provides access to the terminal area. Runway 34 is served by Taxiway G, which is 50 feet wide, and also connects to Runway 2. Several smaller connecting taxiways provide access between the runways and the terminal area. Taxiways A, B, D, F, H, K, J, L, N, and W are all 40 feet wide. Additionally, Taxiway F provides airside access to Fullertown, which is a small residential community located east of the Airport. Many aircraft owners who utilize Sacramento Executive that reside in Fullertown park their aircraft behind their homes and taxi on small private access ways that connect to Taxiway F. Existing on-airport landside facilities include aircraft parking aprons; aircraft rental, maintenance facilities; fixed base operator facilities; aviation training facilities, and private D. 2

3 aircraft storage structures. The facilities are well situated to take advantage of the existing taxiway system. Environmental Conditions Climatological conditions specific to the location of an airport not only influence the layout of the airfield, but also affect the use of the runway system. Surface wind conditions have a direct effect on the operation of an airport; runways not oriented to take the fullest advantage of prevailing winds will restrict the capacity of the Airport to varying degrees. When landing and taking off, aircraft are able to operate properly on a runway as long as the wind component perpendicular to the direction of travel (defined as a crosswind) is not excessive. To determine wind velocity and direction at Executive Airport, wind data to construct the all-weather wind rose was obtained for the period 1995 to 2004, from observations taken at the Airport (from data gathered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center). The appropriate maximum crosswind component is dependent upon the Airport Reference Code (ARC) for the type of aircraft that use the Airport on a regular basis. As identified later in this chapter, the current ARC for Runway 2/20 (the primary runway) is ARC C-III, while the current ARC for Runway 12/30 is ARC B- III, and the current ARC for Runway 16/34 is B-III. According to FAA AC 150/ , Airport Design, for ARC A-I and B-I airports, a crosswind component of 10.5-knots is considered maximum. For ARC A-II and B-II airports, a crosswind component of 13-knots is considered maximum. For ARC A-III, B-III, and C-I through D-III airports, a crosswind component of 16-knots is considered maximum. Finally, for ARC A-IV through D-VI airports, a crosswind component of 20-knots is considered maximum. In consideration of the Airport s ARC C-III classification, these standards specify that a maximum crosswind of 16-knots be considered in the analysis. In addition, it is known that the Airport will also continue to serve small single and twin-engine aircraft for which the 10.5-knot and 13-knot crosswind component is considered maximum; therefore, three D. 3

4 crosswind components are important to be analyzed for this airport (the 10.5-knot, the 13- knot, and the 16-knot). The following illustration, entitled ALL WEATHER WIND ROSE, illustrates the all weather wind coverage provided at Executive Airport. D. 4

5 Figure D1 ALL WEATHER WIND ROSE: 10.5-, 13-, AND 16-KNOT CROSSWIND COMPONENTS Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Notes: Station 72483, Sacramento, California. Period of Record Tailwind component of five knots. D. 5

6 The following table, Table D1, entitled ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE SUMMARY, quantifies the wind coverage offered by the various runways under all weather metrological conditions. Table D1 ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE SUMMARY Wind Coverage Provided Under All Weather Conditions 10.5-Knot 13-Knot 16-Knot Runway 2/ % 96.42% 98.79% Runway % 67.93% 69.86% Runway % 92.99% 94.70% Runway 12/ % 96.96% 99.50% Runway % 83.51% 85.94% Runway % 80.18% 81.55% Runway 16/ % 99.04% 99.79% Runway % 88.80% 89.30% Runway % 65.30% 65.67% Combined Runways 99.96% 99.99% 99.99% Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Notes: Station 72483, Sacramento, California. Period of Record Tailwind component of five knots. Wind analysis tabulation provided by BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY utilizing the FAA Airport Design Software supplied with FAA AC 150/ The recommended wind coverage for an airport is 95%. This means that the runway should be oriented so that the maximum crosswind component does not exceed more than five percent of the time. Together, the three runways provide 99.96% percent wind coverage for the 10.5-knot crosswind component, 99.99% wind coverage for the 13-knot crosswind component and the 16-knot crosswind component. This analysis indicates that the existing runway configuration provides adequate wind coverage for the 13-knot, and the 16-knot crosswind components. D. 6

7 No new runways will be recommended to provide additional wind coverage. In an effort to analyze the effectiveness of the Airport s existing instrument approach capabilities, an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) wind rose has been constructed and is presented in the following figure. Again, wind data from Executive Airport have been used in the construction of the IFR wind rose. D. 7

8 Figure D2 IFR 1 WIND ROSE: 10.5, 13-, AND 16-KNOT CROSSWIND COMPONENTS Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Notes: Station Sacramento, California. Period of Record Ceiling of less than 1,000 feet, but equal to or greater than 200 feet and/or visibility less than three miles, but equal to or greater than ½ mile, and a tailwind component of five knots. D. 8

9 The following table, Table D2, entitled IFR WIND COVERAGE SUMMARY, quantifies the wind coverage offered by the various runways under IFR meteorological conditions. Table D2 IFR WIND COVERAGE SUMMARY 1 Wind Coverage Provided Under IFR Weather Conditions 10.5-Knot 13-Knot 16-Knot Runway 2/ % 96.21% 98.73% Runway % 86.16% 87.61% Runway % 92.85% 95.30% Runway 12/ % 91.01% 99.86% Runway % 89.96% 90.27% Runway % 76.52% 76.76% Runway 16/ % 99.41% 99.95% Runway % 91.57% 92.08% Runway % 76.96% 77.08% Combined Runways 99.99% % % Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Notes: Station 72483, Sacramento, California. Period of Record Wind analysis tabulation provided by Barnard Dunkelberg & Company utilizing the FAA Airport Design Software supplied with FAA AC 150/ Ceiling of less than 1,000 feet, but equal to or greater than 200 feet and/or visibility less than three miles, but equal to or greater than ½ mile, and tailwind component of five knots. From this IFR wind coverage summary, it can be determined that if a single runway is considered, the orientation of either Runway 20 or Runway 16 would offer the best wind coverage during instrument meteorological conditions (Runway 2 is equipped with the Airport s existing Instrument Landing System). Characteristics of Demand Certain site-specific characteristics impact the capacity of the airfield. These characteristics include aircraft mix, runway use, percent arrivals, touch-and-go operations, exit taxiways, and air traffic control rules. D. 9

10 Aircraft Mix. The capacity of a runway is dependent upon the type and size of the aircraft that use the facility. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, categorized aircraft into four classes based on maximum certificated takeoff weight. This differs from the Airport Reference Code defined previously, which classifies aircraft based on aircraft approach speed (A-E). For aircraft mix, aircraft Classes A and B consist of small single engine and twin-engine aircraft (both prop and jet), weighing 12,500 pounds or less, which are representative of the general aviation fleet. Classes C and D aircraft are larger jet and propeller aircraft typical of the business jet fleet, along with those aircraft used by the airline industry and the military. Executive Airport has no operations by Class D aircraft (over 300,000 pounds), nor are any expected to occur in the future. As with the vast majority of General Aviation airports, no records are kept with regard to classification of aircraft by weight at Executive Airport. Therefore, it has been assumed that Class C aircraft operations at the Airport are primarily executive-type turbo prop and jet general aviation aircraft with occasional Class C aircraft for air taxi and charter service. Aircraft mix is defined as the relative percentage of operations conducted by each of these four classes of aircraft. The aircraft mix for Executive Airport is depicted in the following table, entitled AIRCRAFT CLASS MIX FORECAST, Table D3 AIRCRAFT CLASS MIX FORECAST, VFR Conditions IFR Conditions Year Class A & B Class C Class D Class A & B Class C Class D % 30% % 50% % 30% % 50% % 30% % 50% % 30% % 50% % 30% % 50% --- Source: Barnard Dunkelberg & Company. Notes: Class A - Small Single Engine, < 12,500 pounds. Class C - 12, ,000 pounds. 1 Actual. Class B Small Twin-Engine, < 12,500 pounds. Class D - > 300,000 pounds. D. 10

11 Runway Use. The use configuration of the runway system is defined by the number, location, and orientation of the active runway(s) and relates to the distribution and frequency of aircraft operations to those facilities. Both the prevailing winds in the region and the existing runway complex at Executive Airport combine to dictate the utilization of the existing runway system. Runway 20 is the most utilized runway end, with an estimated 78% of operations using this runway end. The runway use percentage of the Runway 2 end is estimated at approximately 10%, the Runway 30 end at approximately 8%, the Runway 12 end at approximately 4% while both ends of Runway 16/34 are estimated at less than 1% of total runway use. In fact, according to 2005 ATCT records, Runway 16/34 was used for only nine total annual aircraft operations. Percent Arrivals. Runway capacity is also significantly influenced by the percentage of all operations that are arrivals. Because aircraft on final approach are typically given absolute priority over departures, higher percentages of arrivals during peak periods of operations reduce the Annual Service Volume (ASV). The operations mix occurring on the runway system at Executive Airport reflects a general balance of arrivals to departures. Therefore, it was assumed in the capacity calculations that arrivals equal departures during the peak period. Touch-And-Go Operations. A touch-and-go operation refers to an aircraft maneuver in which the aircraft performs a normal landing touchdown followed by an immediate takeoff without stopping or taxiing clear of the runway. These operations are normally associated with flight training and are included in local operations figures. Touch-and-go (local) operations comprise approximately 17% of the general aviation operations at Executive Airport (according to SCAS records). This percentage of local touch-and-go operations is expected to remain relatively constant throughout the planning period. Exit Taxiways. The capacity of a runway is greatly influenced by the ability of an aircraft to exit the runway as quickly and safely as possible. Therefore, the quantity and design of the exit taxiways can directly influence aircraft runway occupancy time and the capacity of the runway system. The number of exit taxiways at Executive Airport appears adequate for existing operations as all three runways are served by at least two exit taxiways in addition to the exits at each runway end. The demand and potential for future taxiway locations will be D. 11

12 examined as the Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) is formulated in the following chapter, Airport Development Alternatives, of the Master Plan. This examination for the CDP not only will include exit taxiways, but taxiways that serve to simplify the existing airfield complexity as well as meet the needs of additional or redesigned landside facilities. Air Traffic Control Rules. The FAA specifies separation criteria and operational procedures for aircraft near an airport contingent upon aircraft size, availability of radar, sequencing of operations, both advisory and/or regulatory, which may be in effect at the Airport. The impact of air traffic control on runway capacity is most influenced by aircraft separation requirements dictated by the mix of aircraft utilizing the Airport. Presently, there are no special air traffic control rules in effect at Executive Airport that significantly impact operational capacity. It should also be noted that the Airport has published, voluntary noise abatement procedures that are designed to minimize exposure of residential areas to aircraft noise. These noise abatement procedures do not significantly impact the operational capacity of the Airport, and are used at the discretion of air traffic control and pilots in consideration of safety. AIRFIELD CAPACITY ANALYSIS As previously described, the determination of capacity for Executive Airport uses the methodology described in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, along with the Airport Design Software computer program that accompanies AC 150/ , Airport Design. Several assumptions are incorporated in these capacity calculations: arrivals equal departures, the percent of touch-and-go operations is between zero and 50% of total operations, there is a full-length parallel taxiway to the primary runway with ample exits and no taxiway crossing problems, there are no airspace limitations, the Airport has at least one runway equipped with an ILS and the necessary air traffic control facilities to carry out operations in a radar environment, IFR weather conditions occur roughly 5% of the time, and approximately 80% of the time the Airport is operated with the runway use configuration that produces the greatest hourly capacity. D. 12

13 Applying information generated from the analysis described, the optimized capacity for the Airport s runway system can be formulated in terms of the following results: Hourly Capacity of Runways (VFR and IFR) Annual Service Volume (ASV) For an airport with crosswind runways and a fleet mix similar to Executive Airport the ASV is estimated to be approximately 200,000 operations, with a VFR capacity of roughly 77 operations per hour, and an IFR capacity of approximately 57 operations per hour. As can be seen, this estimated Annual Service Volume is more than the number of annual operations forecast for the end of the planning period (137,446). Thus, the Airport will continue to operate well below the level where unacceptable delays may occur. Simply stated, the need for additional runway and exit taxiway facilities to meet future demand appears to be unneeded. However, some taxiway improvements are needed at the Airport to meet design requirements and to mitigate for an overly complex airfield layout. These are discussed later in this chapter and are reflected in the Conceptual Development Plan for the Airport. GROUND ACCESS CAPACITY The capacity of a ground access system is a function of the maximum number of vehicles accommodated by a particular facility. At Executive Airport, this relates primarily to the roadway system capacity, which is the number of vehicles that can use a certain roadway section in a given time period. The capacity analysis for the roadways providing access to the Airport, as well as the airport roadway system, is based on the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209. According to this manual, it is normally preferred that roadways operate below capacity to provide reasonable flow and minimize delay to the vehicles using it. The manual defines different operating conditions, known as levels-ofservice. The levels-of-service are functions of the volume and composition of the traffic and the speeds attained. Six levels-of-service have been established, designated by the letters A-F, providing for best to worst service in terms of driver satisfaction. Level-of-service A D. 13

14 roadways are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic system. A level-of-service C (stable traffic flow and minimal delays) is generally the preferred level-ofservice for an urban road system. Average hourly volumes of airport service roadways of typical facilities at level-of-service C and D are summarized in the following table entitled GROUND ACCESS FACILITY VOLUME. The various ranges given in the table makes their use in defining roadway capacity analysis useful primarily for initial problem testing. Table D4 GROUND ACCESS FACILITY VOLUME Average Hourly Volume 1 Facility Type (Vehicle/Hour/Lane) 2 Main-access and feeder freeways (controlled access, no signalization) 1,000-1,600 Ramp to and from main-access freeways, single lane 900-1,200 Principal arterial (some cross streets, two-way traffic) 900-1,600 Main-access road (signalized intersections) 700-1,000 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, Notes: 1 Highway Level-of-Services C and D. 2 Passenger-Car Equivalents. The basis of the access roadway capacity assessment at a general aviation airport is on the service provided between the various aviation use areas on the Airport and the regional highway system. Executive Airport is accessed via Freeport Boulevard (California State Route 160) from the west. Florin Road provides access to the Airport from the south, 24 th Street provides access from the east, and Fruitridge Road provides access from the north. The information presented in the previous table would indicate that, at a level-of-service in the C to D range, the existing airport access roads have a capacity between 600 to 1,200 vehicles per hour. All indications are that this capacity is adequate to serve on-airport demand. However, this analysis does not take into consideration background traffic (i.e., the normal city traffic, unrelated to the operation of the Airport, which could affect the future ability of the roadway system to accommodate demand). Future on-airport roadway D. 14

15 improvements will focus on providing good access to future facility development areas and on security issues related to separation of areas accessible to automobiles from the aircraft operational areas. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS This section presents the analysis of requirements for airside and landside facilities necessary to meet aviation demand at Executive Airport. For those components determined to be deficient, the type and size of facilities required to meet future demand is identified. Airside facilities examined include the runways, taxiways, runway protection zones, thresholds, and navigational aids. Landside facilities include such facilities as hangars, aircraft apron areas and airport support facilities. This analysis uses the recommended growth scenario set forth in the forecasts of aviation activity for establishing future airside development needs at the Airport. This is not intended to dismiss the possibility that, due to the unique circumstances in the region, either accelerated growth or consistently higher or lower levels of activity may occur. Aviation activity levels should be monitored for consistency with the forecasts. In the event of changes, the schedule of development should be adjusted to correspond to the demand for facilities rather than be set to predetermined dates of development. By doing this, overbuilding or under-building can be avoided. Airport Reference Code (ARC)/Design Aircraft Analysis The types of aircraft presently utilizing an airport and those projected to utilize the facility in the future are important considerations for planning airport facilities. An airport should be designed in accordance with the Airport Reference Code (ARC) standards that are described in AC 150/ , Airport Design. The ARC is a coding system used to relate and compare airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the aircraft intended to operate at the Airport. The ARC has two components that relate to the Airport s Design Aircraft (often referred to as the critical aircraft). The first component, depicted by a letter (i.e., A, B, C, D, or E), is the aircraft approach category, and relates to aircraft approach speed based upon operational characteristics. The second component, depicted by a Roman D. 15

16 numeral (i.e., I, II, III, IV, or V), is the aircraft design group and relates to aircraft wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally speaking, aircraft approach speed applies to runways and runway-related facilities, while aircraft wingspan is primarily related to separation criteria associated with taxiways and taxilanes. Examples of aircraft by ARC are illustrated in the following figure entitled REPRESENTATIVE AIRCRAFT BY AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC) DESIGNATION. Runway 2/20 Primary Runway. Runway 2/20 accommodates much of the small aircraft traffic at the Airport, and the majority of the large aircraft (aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds) traffic. The existing Airport Layout Plan (ALP) (last updated in 2002) for Executive Airport does not list a specific design aircraft for any of the three runways. In the ALP airport data table, the ARC for the Airport is listed at C-III, however, the dimensional criteria for Runways 12/30 and 16/34 seem to indicate that these runways have been planned and designed to ARC B-III standards. Executive Airport accommodates a significant amount of large business jet activity with aircraft makes such as Cessna Citations, Learjets, Gulfstream jets, Falcon jets, Beechjets and various Raytheon and Bombardier jet aircraft. An analysis of 2007 Aircraft Situational Display to Industry 1 (ASDI) data for the Airport was conducted to estimate the number of charter and business jet operations by specific aircraft type occurring annually. This analysis indicated that over 2,000 annual commercial charter jet and private business jet operations occur annually at the Executive Airport, while approximately 780 Approach Category C and D operations occurred in There are very few general aviation aircraft included in airport design group III. The primary business jet aircraft in design group III are the Bombardier Global Express, the Gulfstream V and the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ). 1 ASDI is a data service available through the U.S. Department of Transportation that provides information on the position and flight plans of aircraft within the U.S. However, the system may not contain all flight plans due to a program developed by the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) entitled Block Aircraft Registration Request (BARR) which allows its membership to block flight plans from entering the ASDI system. D. 16

17 According to the ASDI database, Executive Airport accommodated less than 50 of these large design group III aircraft operations in However, because the runway has historically planned for and meets the majority of dimensional criteria for group III aircraft, it is appropriate to continue to maintain the historical ARC for Runway 2/20 of C-III. The existing approach visibility minimum of ½-mile to Runway 2 should be maintained. Consideration should be given to a future instrument approach procedure to Runway 20 with a visibility minimum of one mile. D. 17

18 BarnardDunkelberg Company { ARC A-I Single-Engine Aircraft - 2 to 6 Seats Beech Bonanza dehaviland DHC-2 Beaver Cessna-150 { ARC B-I Twin-Piston Aircraft - 4 to 10 Seats Beech King Air B100 Piper Navajo Beech Baron 58 { ARC B-I Very Light Jet/Small Cabin 4-6 Seats Eclipse 500 Citation Mustang Adam Aircraft A700 { ARC B-II Twin-Turboprop/Business Jet/Small Cabin Aircraft 6 to 12 Seats - Includes most commercial turboprop aircraft. Cessna Citation II/III/VII Dassault Falcon 50 Dassault Falcon 900 ARC C/D-II Commercial/Business Jet - 6 to 70 Seats Citation X Bombardier CL-600 Challenger {Gulfstream IV ARC C/D-III Large Commercial/Business Jet - 14 to 110 Seats Gulfstream V Bombardier BD-700 Global Express {Boeing Business Jet Source: Aircraft Ground Service Guide, 2002 and Aircraft Manufacturer. Note: Representative Aircraft not to scale. Figure D3 Representative Aircraft By Airport Reference Code (ARC) Designation EXECUTIVE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN D.18

19 Runway 12/30 and 16/34 Crosswind Runways. These runways are used primarily by smaller general aviation aircraft. The existing Airport Layout Plan for Executive Airport does not list a design aircraft for either runway; however, the SCAS has historically maintained an ARC of B-III for both runways. There are very few general aviation aircraft with an ARC of B-III. Consequently, it is recommended that the ARC designation of B-II be considered for Runways 12/30 and 16/34. An appropriate design aircraft with an ARC of B-II would be the Cessna 550 Citation II. According to the ASDI database, this aircraft completed approximately 127 operations at Executive Airport in The information provided in Tables D6 and D7 compares dimensional criteria for ARC B-III to the requirements of ARC B- II. The likely approach visibility minimum for a future instrument procedure for Runway 12/30 is one mile. The likely approach visibility minimum for Runway 16/34 will remain visual approaches only. Airside Facilities Dimensional Criteria. FAA Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design, recommends standard widths, minimum clearances, and other dimensional criteria for runways, taxiways, safety areas, aprons, and other physical airport features. Dimensions are recommended with respect to the Aircraft Approach Category and Airplane Design Group designations (the Airport Reference Code), and availability and type of approach instrumentation. Because different aircraft types utilize the runways at Executive Airport, each runway has an appropriate Airport Reference Code (ARC) as described in the previous sections of this chapter. Existing dimensions and the corresponding standard design criteria applicable to Executive Airport are contained in the following tables. One table is provided for each runway. As identified in Table D5, Runway 2/20 meets or exceeds all C-III airport design standards, with the exception of the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) off the approach end of Runway 2 (departure end of Runway 20). According to the 2002 Airport Layout Plan, the SCAS owns an easement that encompasses the entire RSA, but not the entire boundaries of the ROFA. Both the ROFA and RSA are also potentially penetrated D. 19

20 by the perimeter service roads and the location of the perimeter fence also requires verification to ensure that the fence does not penetrate either the RSA or ROFA. The perimeter fence beyond the Runway 2 threshold loops around most of the RSA width; however, the fence may need to be widened to 500 feet to meet C-III RSA width standards. Additionally, a City of Sacramento drainage ditch bisects the Runway 2/20 RSA approximately 500 feet south of the Runway 2 threshold. The construction of a ditch cover for this area of the drainage ditch has been identified as a priority project and is independent from the Master Plan. It is also recommended that the hold lines on the connector taxiways to Runway 2/20 be repainted parallel to runway centerline. Runways 12/30 and 16/34 do not meet all B-III airport design standards. The primary nonstandard conditions associated with Runway 12/30 are related to the ROFA off each end of the runway. The ROFA off the approach end of Runway 30 extends off airport property in two areas and is potentially penetrated by both the perimeter service road and the fence. The ROFA off the approach end of Runway 12 is penetrated by a T-hangar facility. The non-standard conditions related to Runway 16/34 exist off the approach end of Runway 34. Both the RSA and ROFA extend off airport property in this area and are potentially penetrated by the perimeter service road and fence. Also, the runway centerline to aircraft parking setback on both runways, and the parallel taxiway separation and hold line separation dimensions on Runway 16/34 do not meet ARC B-III standards. These design standard deficiencies are highlighted in the following tables and in the figure entitled EXISTING ARC C-III AND B-III DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA. As recommended previously, Runways 12/30 and 16/34 are not often utilized by aircraft in Design Group III (wingspans of 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet). Consequently, a more appropriate ARC for both of these runways is ARC B-II (wingspans of 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet). As indicated in the following tables, the application of the B-II dimensional criteria would address or correct the design standard deficiencies related to the RSA and ROFA off the end of Runways 12, 30 and 34. D. 20

21 Table D5 ARC C-II AND C-III RUNWAY DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, RUNWAY 2/20 (in feet) ARC C-II ARC C-III with < ¾ Mile with < ¾ Mile Existing Visibility Visibility Item Dimension Minimums 1 Minimums 1 Runway 2/20 Runway Width Runway Shoulder Width N/A Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway Centerline (Taxiway M ) Runway Centerline to Aircraft Parking Runway Centerline to Hold Line Runway Safety Area Width Runway Safety Area Length beyond Runway End Runway ,000 1,000 Runway 20 1,000 1,000 1,000 Runway Safety Area Length Prior to Landing Threshold Runway Runway Runway Object Free Area Width Runway Object Free Area Length Beyond RW End Runway ,000 1,000 Runway 20 1,000 1,000 1,000 Runway Obstacle Free Zone Width Runway Obstacle Free Zone Length beyond Runway End Runway Runway Threshold Siting Surface Criteria Runway Criteria Met Criteria Met Runway Criteria Met Criteria Met Parallel Taxiway M Taxiway Width Taxiway Safety Area Width Taxiway Object Free Area Width Taxilane Object Free Area Width Source: Federal Aviation Administration, AC 150/ Notes: Existing dimensions delineated in bold text reflect potential non-standard criteria. N/A = Not applicable. 1 Existing runway approach visibility minimums = ½ Mile 2 Inner-approach OFZ, Inner-transitional OFZ and Precision OFZ standards verified on Inner Approach Drawings. 3 Applies existing type 9 criteria for Runway 02 and type 3 criteria for Runway 20 from Appendix 2, AC 150/ , Chg Potentially penetrated by perimeter road and fence. Perimeter fence line may need to be widened to incorporate RSA width. D. 21

22 Table D6 ARC B-II AND B-III RUNWAY DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, RUNWAY 12/30 (in feet) ARC B-II ARC B-III with > ¾ Mile with > ¾ Mile Existing Visibility Visibility Item Dimension Minimums 1 Minimums 1 Runway 12/30 Runway Width Runway Shoulder Width N/A Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway Centerline Runway Centerline to Aircraft Parking Runway Centerline to Hold Line Runway Safety Area Width Runway Safety Area Length beyond Runway End Runway Runway Runway Safety Area Length Prior to Landing Threshold Runway Runway Runway Object Free Area Width Runway Object Free Area Length Beyond RW End Runway Runway Runway Obstacle Free Zone Width Runway Obstacle Free Zone Length beyond Runway End Runway Runway Threshold Siting Surface Criteria Runway Criteria Met Criteria Met Runway Criteria Met Criteria Met Taxiway E Taxiway Width Taxiway Safety Area Width Taxiway Object Free Area Width Taxilane Object Free Area Width Source: Federal Aviation Administration, AC150/ Notes: Existing dimensions delineated in bold text reflect potential existing non-standard criteria compared with B-III standards. N/A = Not applicable. 1 Existing runway approach visibility minimums = Visual (i.e. greater than ¾ Mile) 2 Applies existing type 9 criteria for Runway 02 and type 3 criteria for Runway 20 from Appendix 2, AC 150/ Chg Penetrated by a T-hangar facility. 4 Potentially penetrated by perimeter service road and fence. D. 22

23 Table D7 ARC B-II AND B-III RUNWAY DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, RUNWAY 16/34 (in feet) ARC B-II ARC B-III with > ¾ Mile with > ¾ Mile Existing Visibility Visibility Item Dimension Minimums 1 Minimums 1 Runway 16/34 Runway Width Runway Shoulder Width N/A Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway Centerline (Taxiway P ) Runway Centerline to Aircraft Parking Runway Centerline to Hold Line Runway Safety Area Width Runway Safety Area Length beyond Runway End Runway Runway Runway Safety Area Length Prior to Landing Threshold Runway Runway Runway Object Free Area Width Runway Object Free Area Length Beyond RW End Runway Runway Runway Obstacle Free Zone Width Runway Obstacle Free Zone Length beyond Runway End Runway Runway Threshold Siting Surface Criteria Runway Criteria Met Criteria Met Runway Criteria Met Criteria Met Taxiway E Taxiway Width Taxiway Safety Area Width Taxiway Object Free Area Width Taxilane Object Free Area Width Source: Federal Aviation Administration, AC 150/ Notes: Existing dimensions delineated in bold text reflect potential existing non-standard criteria compared with B-III standards. N/A = Not applicable. 1 Existing runway approach visibility minimums = Visual (i.e. greater than ¾ Mile) 2 Applies existing type 9 criteria for Runway 02 and type 3 criteria for Runway 20 from Appendix 2, AC 150/ Chg Potentially penetrated by perimeter service road and fence. D. 23

24 Freeport Boulevard Taxiway G SACRAMENTO EXECUTIVE EL. 21 Airport Property Line Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 500 x 700 x 1,000 Visual Approach Minimums BarnardDunkelberg Company EXECUTIVE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Fruitridge Road 24th St. RUNWAY 12/30-3,836' X 100' Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 500 x 1,700 x 1,010 Visual Approach Minimums - All Aircraft Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 500 x 700 x 1,000 Visual Approach Minimums Taxiway P Taxiway N Taxiway D Taxiway M Taxiway F 43rd Ave. T/W A Taxiway B Taxiway W Runway Safety Area Runway Object Free Area Taxiway H RUNWAY 16/34-3,485' X 150' Taxiway E Taxiway J Taxiway H RUNWAY 2/20-5,503' X 150' Taxiway M Taxiway K Runway Object Free Area Runway Safety Area Runway Safety Area Runway Object Free Area Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 500 x 700 x 1,000 Visual Approach Minimums N Approximate Scale 1 = 1,000 LEGEND Non-Standard Runway Safety Area Non-Standard Runway Object Free Area N Scale 1 = 1,000 LEGEND Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 500 x 700 x 1,000 Visual Approach Minimums Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 1,000 x 1,750 x 2,500 Lower than 3/4 Mile Visibility Minimums All Aircraft Figure D4 Existing ARC C-III Figure and B3 B-III Existing Dimensional Airport Criteria Layout D.24 B.7

25 Runway Line-of-Sight. The runway line-of-sight criteria for all three runways are met. Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ). Runways 2/20 and 12/30 intersect and require a clear line-ofsite between certain visibility points. Executive Airport meets FAA design standards for a clear Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) between these intersecting runways. Runway Pavement Strength. The primary runway pavement at Executive Airport (Runway 2/20) can currently support aircraft with gross weights of 60,000 pounds single wheel, 130,000 pounds dual-wheel, and 210,000 pounds dual-tandem wheel landing gear configurations. The pavement strength is adequate to accommodate the existing aircraft fleet mix and all aircraft projected to use the facility within the 20-year planning period. Runway 12/30 pavement can currently support aircraft with gross weights of 30,000 pounds single wheel 43,000 pounds dual wheel, and 67,000 pounds dual-tandem wheel landing gear configurations. The pavement strength for Runway 16/34 is currently reported to support aircraft with gross weights of 60,000 pounds single wheel, 85,000 pounds dual wheel, and 90,000 pounds dual-tandem wheel main landing gear configuration. These strengths are adequate to accommodate projected demand related to aircraft types and operational numbers, although the pavement condition of the south half of the runway is in poor to failing condition 2. Runway Length. The determination of runway length requirements for Executive Airport is based on several factors. These factors include: Airport elevation; Mean maximum daily temperature of the hottest month; Runway gradient; Design aircraft type expected to use the Airport; and, Stage length of the longest nonstop trip destination. 2 The 2007 Pavement Management Program (PMP) report prepared by Pavement Consultants Inc (PCI) reported that the majority of Runway 16/34 was determined to be in fair condition with a functional remaining pavement life of zero years. Further discussion is provided in Section Two, Conceptual Development Plan, in the following chapter, Airport Development Alternatives. D. 25

26 Generally, runway length requirements for design purposes at airports similar to Executive Airport are premised upon the category of aircraft using the Airport. The categories are small aircraft under 12,500 pounds maximum takeoff weight and large aircraft under 60,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight. The general aviation large aircraft fleet includes the majority of the business jet fleet. Runway length requirements are derived from the computer based FAA Airport Design Software supplied in conjunction with Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design. Using this software, four values are entered into the computer, including the airport elevation of 24 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), the Mean Maximum Temperature of the hottest month of 93.0 degrees Fahrenheit, length of haul 500 miles, and the maximum difference in runway elevation at the centerline of 6.2 feet (Runway 2/20). This data generates the general recommendations for runway length requirements at Executive Airport, which are provided in the following table entitled, RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS. D. 26

27 Table D8 RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Dry Runway Takeoff Wet Runway Takeoff Runway Requirement Length (Feet) Length (Feet) Existing Conditions Runway 2/20 5,503 5,503 Runway 12/30 3,836 3,836 Runway 16/34 3,485 3,485 Airplanes less than 12,500 lbs. with less than 10 seats 75% of Small Aircraft Fleet 1 2,540 2,540 95% of Small Aircraft Fleet 1 3,110 3, % of Small Aircraft Fleet 1 3,680 3,680 Airplanes less than 12,500 lbs. with 10 or more seats 4,310 4,310 Airplanes greater than 12,500 lbs. and less than 60,000 pounds 75% of fleet at 60% useful load 4,740 5,390 75% of fleet at 90% useful load 7,000 7, % of fleet at 60% useful load 5,600 5, % of fleet at 90% useful load 8,790 8,790 Airplanes greater than 60,000 pounds 5,020 5,020 Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design. Notes: Lengths based on 24' AMSL airport elevation, 93 F Mean Maximum Temperature of the Hottest Month (July), length of haul 500 miles, and a maximum difference in runway centerline elevation of Under 12,500 pounds. As shown in the preceding table, each of the runway lengths given for large aircraft under 60,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight provides a runway sufficient to satisfy the operational requirements of a certain percentage of the aircraft fleet at a certain percentage of the useful load. Useful load is defined as the difference between the maximum gross takeoff weight and the empty weight of the airplane, exclusive of fuel. The following aircraft are examples of those that comprise 75% of the general aviation aircraft fleet between 12,500 and 60,000 pounds: Learjets, Challengers, Citations, Falcons, Hawkers, and the Westwind. D. 27

28 A significant factor to consider when analyzing the generalized runway length requirements given in the above table is that the actual length necessary for a runway is a function of elevation, temperature, and aircraft stage length. As temperatures change on a daily basis, the runway length requirements change accordingly (i.e., the cooler the temperature, the shorter the runway necessary). Therefore, if a runway is designed to accommodate 75% of the fleet at 60% useful load, this does not mean that at certain times a larger or more heavily loaded aircraft cannot use the runway. However, the amount of time such operations can safely occur may be restricted. Based on the runway length data presented, the physical constraints of the site, and observations/input received from existing aircraft operators, it was determined that the length of primary Runway 2/20 (at 5,503 feet), the length of Runway 12/30, (the main crosswind runway at 3,836 feet), and the length of Runway 16/34 (at 3,485 feet) are all adequate to accommodate the projected aircraft operational requirements at the Airport. Taxiways. Taxiways are constructed primarily to enable the movement of aircraft between the various functional areas on the Airport and the runway system. Some taxiways are necessary simply to provide access between aircraft parking aprons and runways, whereas other taxiways become necessary to provide more efficient and safer use of the airfield. The existing system of taxiways at Executive Airport is generally well configured to not only meet FAA standards with regard to dimensional criteria, but it also provides aircraft with good access to all aviation-use development areas. However, consideration should be given to meeting FAA runway/taxiway separation standards near the end of Runway 12 and between the end of Runway 16 and parallel Taxiway P. It is also recommended that a connector taxiway be constructed from parallel Taxiway M to the Runway 20 threshold. Further analysis should also be given to the Taxiway A and Taxiway B (connecting Runway 2/20 to Taxiway H ) nonstandard widths and Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) deficiencies. Finally, consideration should be given to the elimination of lead-in taxiways to the Runway 20, 30, and 16 thresholds. Additional analysis related to potential improvements will focus on the provision of good taxi access to future development areas, the benefit of additional exit taxiways to reduce runway occupancy times for arriving aircraft and the provision of redundancy in accessing existing D. 28

29 and future hangar development areas. These issues and recommendations are examined in the following chapter, Airport Development Alternatives. Runway Protection Zones (RPZs). The function of the RPZ is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground beyond the runway ends. This is achieved through airport control of the RPZ areas. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway centerline. It begins 200 feet beyond the end of the area usable for takeoff or landing. The RPZ dimensions are functions of the type of aircraft operating at an airport and the approach visibility minimums associated with each runway end. In consideration of the existing instrument approach minimums and the type of aircraft each runway is designed to accommodate, the following table, entitled RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DIMENSIONS, lists existing RPZ dimensional requirements, along with the requirements for improved approach capabilities. In areas where the airport sponsor does not control land within an RPZ, every effort should be made to acquire the land or acquire some type of land use control, such as an Avigation Easement. D. 29

30 Table D9 REQUIRED RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DIMENSIONS Width at Width at Airport Runway End Length Outer End Controls Item (feet) (feet) (feet) Entire RPZ Existing RPZ Dimensional Requirements: Runway 2 1,000 1,750 2,500 No Runway ,010 1,700 No Runway ,000 Yes Runway ,000 No Runway ,000 Yes Runway ,000 No Required RPZ Dimensions for Various Visibility Minimums: Visual and not lower than 1-mile, Small Aircraft Only , Visual and not lower than 1-mile, Approach Categories A & B , Visual and not lower than 1-mile, Approach Categories C & D 500 1,010 1, Not lower than ¾-mile, all aircraft 1,000 1,510 1, Lower than ¾-mile, all aircraft 1,000 1,750 2, Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design. --- Not applicable. Threshold Siting Surfaces (TSS). These requirements must be examined in conjunction with proposed runway improvements, including any changes to the approach visibility minimums associated with each runway end. Navigational and Visual Landing Aids. Electronic landing aids, including instrument approach capabilities and associated equipment, airport lighting, and weather/airspace services, were detailed in the Inventory chapter of this document. The Airport is currently equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) Category I (CATI) approach to Runway 2. Runway 2 also has one published VOR/GPS precision approach. Navigational aids (NAVAIDS) are instruments providing navigation readings to pilots in appropriately equipped aircraft. A VOR-DME system is a Very High Frequency D. 30

31 Omnidirectional Range Station with Distance Measuring Equipment transmitting very high frequency signals, 360 in azimuth oriented from magnetic north. It is used to measure, in nautical miles, the slant range distance of an aircraft from the facility. A non-directional beacon (NDB), which is a general-purpose low- or medium-frequency radio beacon that aircraft equipped with a loop antenna can home in on or determine its bearing relative to the sending facility. In recognition of the ever increasing availability of GPS approaches at airports around the country, many NDBs are being decommissioned. Within the near future, Global Positioning System (GPS) approaches are expected to be the FAA s standard approach technology. With GPS, the cost of establishing improved instrument approaches should be significantly reduced. Because of the expected continued use of sophisticated business and corporate aircraft at Executive Airport, the ability to implement improved instrument approaches to Runway ends 20, 12 and 30 will be analyzed in the next chapter. Visual Landing Aids (lights). Presently, Runway 20 has four-light Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI) and Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL). In conjunction with the ILS to Runway 2, the runway is equipped with a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR). Runway 12/30 has two-light VASIs and REILs. Runway 2/20 and Runway 12/30 are both equipped medium intensity runway edge lights (MIRL). (Installation of REILs and Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights (PAPI) is scheduled for the summer of 2009 for Runway 12/30.) 16/34 is unlighted. In consideration of any improved instrument approaches that proposed, improved airport lighting is evaluated in later sections of this Airport Master Plan. The type of airport lighting will be dependent on the type of instrument approach capabilities and approach visibility minimums, which will be examined in the next chapter. Landside Facilities Landside facilities are those that are supported by the airside facilities, but are not actually part of the aircraft operating surfaces. This analysis uses the high growth forecast scenario from the previous planning effort for Executive Airport to estimate future landside development needs. These consist of such facilities as passenger terminal facilities, aprons, D. 31