TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Scope Summary/Methodology RSA-Runway Environment Relationship...

Transcription

1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Scope Summary/Methodology RSA-Runway Environment Relationship EXISTING CONDITIONS Airfield Overview Existing and Future Conditions and Aircraft Use Existing Runway Design Specifications Runway Runway DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Background Runway Relocation, Shifting, or Realignment Runway Length Reduction Combination of Runway Relocation, Shifting, or Reduction Declared Distances Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) SPG EMAS Evaluation ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D ENVIRONMENTAL AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Regulatory Requirements SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Preferred Alternative Cost Estimate SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION...36 Draft

3 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1 Existing Runway Safety Area Runway TABLE 1-2 FAA Reference Code Classifications...4 TABLE Percent of Annual Aircraft Usage...5 TABLE 1-4 Very Light Jet Runway Length Requirements at Maximum Takeoff Weight...6 TABLE 1-5 Existing Light Aircraft Specifications...6 TABLE 1-6 Aircraft Operations Based Upon Fleet Mix...7 TABLE Runway Utilization and Estimated Operations...7 TABLE Runway Utilization and Estimated Operations...8 TABLE 1-9 Existing B-I Light Dimension Standards...9 TABLE 1-10 Pavement Strengths...10 TABLE 1-11 Existing Declared Distance Information...15 TABLE 1-12 Alternative A Declared Distance Information...19 TABLE Operational Usage of Runway TABLE 1-14 Existing Fleet Mix Runway Length Evaluation...20 TABLE 1-15 Alternative A Order of Magnitude Costs...21 TABLE 1-16 Alternative B Order of Magnitude Costs...25 TABLE 1-17 Future Displaced Threshold Requirements...26 TABLE 1-18 Alternative C Order of Magnitude Costs...26 TABLE 1-19 Alternative D Order of Magnitude Costs...30 TABLE 1-20 RSA Alternatives Evaluation...33 TABLE 1-21 Consolidated Costs Estimates...35 Draft

4 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1 Standard Runway Safety Area Profile...3 FIGURE 1-2 Existing Conditions...12 FIGURE 1-3 Declared Distances Sample Schematic...16 FIGURE 1-4 Alternative A RSA Fulfillment using Declared Distances...22 FIGURE 1-5 Alternative B RSA Fulfillment using Dredge and Fill...24 FIGURE 1-6 Alternative C RSA Fulfillment using Declared Distances, Shifting and Dredge and Fill...27 FIGURE 1-7 Alternative D RSA Fulfillment Using Relocated Thresholds...29 Draft

5 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY As a result of safety directives from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), LPA evaluated standardizing runway safety requirements at the Albert Whitted Airport through the use of dredge and fill material on Runways 18, 36 and 24. Based upon the findings of the 2006 master plan update, LPA recommended adding dredge and fill off the north end of Runway 18, and displace the threshold on Runway 36, thereby bringing the safety area into compliance and retaining existing runway length. Based upon the initial master plan findings, at the direction of the FAA, the City of St. Petersburg engaged LPA to perform a Runway Safety Area (RSA) Determination Study to analyze various alternative options as well as financial feasibility. The findings of the RSA study showed that in the long-term use of runway will decrease or be limited to single engine and small multi-engine piston aircraft if the existing runway length was shortened to meet safety area requirements. Although the use of declared distances on Runway in the short-term is the most cost feasible, its use will impact airport capacity overall especially as a direct result of the introduction of the very light jet (VLJ) market. Still the FAA's review of the found that the City's preferred alternative "not practicable" and recommended the use of Declared Distances since the operational analysis showed a negligible impact to the existing aircraft fleet mix. Based upon this decision, the City Administration briefed representatives of the aviation community. It was determined that while the dredge and fill alternative was preferred, the implementation of declared distances until a change in fleet mix warrants was a more practical and cost effective solution to obtaining standardized safety areas. 1.1 INTRODUCTION Scope Summary/Methodology Based upon the development recommended in the 2006 Master Plan Update, the FAA- Airport Districts Office required an evaluation of existing runway safety area (RSA) deficiencies primarily associated with Runway Thus, the Consultant (LPA) using the direction provided in FAA Order , Runway Safety Area Alternative Analyses, evaluated several alternative options to comply with prescribed FAA safety standards. Based upon the current guidelines, SPG has inadequate RSA design standards prior to Runway 18 and 36. Due to topographic limitations, the current runway safety area dimensions on Runways 18 and 36 are as follows: 1

6 TABLE 1-1 EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA RUNWAY Item FAA Criteria Existing Runway 18 Safety Area 120 x 240 feet 120 x 50 feet Runway 36 Safety Area 120 x 240 feet 120 x 130 feet Source: Albert Whitted Airport 5010, 2006 Since the master plan update recommends the construction and reconstruction of various facilities, the airport must conform to current runway safety area standards to the extent practicable. The FAA Regional Airports Division Manager is required to make a Runway Safety Area determination in accordance with FAA Order , Runway Safety Area Program, for each runway at federally obligated airports. Further, the FAA will not issue modifications to standards for nonstandard runway safety areas. Recognizing that conformity with these criteria is difficult; this document evaluates various means by which safety area can be accommodated given the physical constraints of the runway environment. The focal point of this study is to conduct an analysis to evaluate the proper airplane design group and safety area requirements that maximize the utilization of the runways at SPG without compromising safety standards set forth by the FAA. Specifically, the aim is to establish the most viable development alternative that feasibly and practicably complies with the guidance prescribed within the FAA Order. As part of this analysis, declared distances, the use of an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS), cut and fill, runway relocation, shifting, or realignment, or a combination of these alternatives were considered and order of magnitude cost estimates were developed. Additional consideration was also given to object free areas, Part 77 surfaces, and building restriction lines used to establish proposed development areas adjacent to Runways 18, 36, and RSA-Runway Environment Relationship The runway safety area is an integral part of the runway environment. RSA dimensions are established in AC 150/ , Airport Design, and are based on the Airport Reference Code (ARC). The RSA is intended to provide a measure of safety in the event of an aircraft s excursion from the runway by significantly reducing the extent of personal injury and the hazard of structural damage during overruns, undershoots and lateral veering. Many circumstances contribute to the potential for aircraft excursions including insufficient runway length, weather conditions with low visibility, site constraints including precipitous terrain drop-offs, bodies of water, wetlands, residential or commercial development, availability of visual and electronic aids for landing, as well as runway contamination caused by rain, snow, and ice. In addition, mechanical failure may inhibit an aircraft s propensity to decelerate in time during landing or while performing an aborted takeoff. As such, the effects of physical constraints of the airport s runway environment are compounded during aircraft mechanical malfunctions. 2

7 The RSA maintains an important role in the runway environment. Its function is to create a buffer between the runway pavement and non-movement areas. According to the FAA, takeoffs and landings are generally regarded as the most critical phases of flight, during which most aircraft accidents occur. During these segments, aircraft are subject to a variety of controls and are constrained by the runway s operational dimensions. Moreover, these dimensions test the aircraft s operational limitations during takeoff and landing maneuvers. A growing list of runway safety area related accidents has contributed to the mounting concern that airports do not provide adequate safety area to reduce injury to persons and property. As a result, the FAA coordinated a study in 1990 that identified a number of airports not in compliance with safety area requirements. Recognizing the significant safety enhancement afforded by runway safety area improvements, the FAA issued Order , Runway Safety Area Program, in an effort to guide the improvement process by identifying potential alternatives to the traditional cleared and graded safety areas, which is illustrated in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1, Standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) Profile Length Structural Pavement Width RSA RSA Source: The LPA Group, 2006 TORA TODA ASDA LDA As illustrated in Figure 1-1, the RSA profile runs beyond the structural pavement of the runway along the extended runway centerline. As previously mentioned, the width and length of the RSA is dependent upon the most critical aircraft using the runway. Figure 1-1 represents the traditional cleared and graded safety areas in which sufficient land can be accommodated beyond both runway ends, without the need to displace any thresholds. In this situation, the full length of the runway may be used for aircraft movement. However, as explored later in this document, alternative RSA accommodations can be achieved by employing other means. 3

8 1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Airfield Overview The Albert Whitted Airport (SPG) has a dual runway system consisting of Runway 6-24 and Runway Runway 6-24 has a published length of 3,677 feet and width of 75 feet, whereas Runway has a published length of 2,864 feet and a width of 150 feet. Runway is supplemented by a full-length parallel taxiway, Taxiway B, on the westernmost side, while Runway 6-24 is augmented by Taxiway A, extending from the beginning of Runway 6 and terminating at Runway These taxiways adjoin various taxiway connectors to provide ingress and egress to/from the runway environments. The airport was developed from spoilage obtained during dredging of the Port of St. Petersburg. As such, SPG lies on a peninsular landmass around which water forms three sides. Runway occupies the easternmost portion of the airport and is situated approximately 290 feet from runway centerline to the water. Runway 6-24 is aligned in a southwest-northeast direction and is situated on the northern portion of the airfield, crossing Runway approximately 440 feet from the Runway 18 threshold. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/ , Airport Design, characterizes an Airport Reference Code (ARC) as a coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of aircraft anticipated to operate at an airport. Each dimensional criterion is specified based on aircraft approach category, represented by a letter A-E corresponding to aircraft approach speed in knots, and airplane design group, represented by a Roman numeral I-VI corresponding to aircraft wingspan in feet. The alphanumeric coding system is most often used to describe the airport s capacity to handle aircraft that correspond to approach speed and wing span. It is also used to determine runway-specific handling capacity. Table 1-2 summarizes the elements of these categorizations. TABLE 1-2 FAA REFERENCE CODE CLASSIFICATIONS Aircraft Approach Category Aircraft Approach Speed (AS) in Knots Airplane Design Group Aircraft Wingspan (WS) A AS < 91 I WS < 49 ft B 91 < AS < 121 II 49 ft < WS < 79 ft C 121 < AS < 141 III 79 ft < WS < 118 ft D 141 < AS < 166 IV 118 ft < WS < 171 ft E 166 < AS V 171 ft < WS < 214 ft Source: The LPA Group, 2006 VI 214 ft < WS < 262 ft 4

9 An ARC of B-I Light is currently assigned to SPG. This designation coincides with the most demanding aircraft that operates and performs at least 500 operations per year at the airport. Light refers to the dimensional standards pertaining to facilities for small airplanes (less than 12,500 lbs maximum takeoff weight) exclusively. The most recent master plan acknowledges that the Beech King Air 90 is the critical aircraft meeting the aforementioned criteria for both Runways 6-24 and However, due to technological improvements, aircraft within the Light aircraft category, such as the TBM 850 and Eclipse 500, are expected to surge within the next ten years. Thus, as outlined in the 2006 Master Plan Update, an increase in overall operational activity is expected. Although slightly larger turbine aircraft, such as the Cessna Citation II, do currently operate at SPG, existing and anticipated operations do not warrant an increase in the ARC. Therefore, an ARC of B-I Light will continue to drive airport development Existing and Future Conditions and Aircraft Use The runway system at SPG consists of four active runways, and because of similar lengths, to some extent, the runways are used interchangeably depending upon wind and instrument weather conditions. Based upon discussions with Air Traffic Control, existing operations on runway are currently limited to single-engine piston aircraft primarily due to wind coverage and runway length limitations. Still based upon 300 daily operations, at least 100 operations or 30% are attributed to Runway Further, discussions with SPG air traffic control revealed that Runway 6 represents the primary runway due to wind conditions and length. However, operations on Runways 18 and 36 are still significant due to proximity of airfield and navigational facilities. Runway utilization percentages based upon 2005 and 2006 operations are provided in Table 1-3. TABLE PERCENT OF ANNUAL AIRCRAFT USAGE Runway Total Usage Percent per Runway 6 56% 24 70% 14% 18 18% 36 30% 12% Source: SPG ATCT, 2006 and meteorological data However, based upon the FAA approved airport operating forecast and fleet mix, it is anticipated that use of Runway by very light jet aircraft and light multi-engine turbine aircraft that can operate on shorter runways will likely increase. Operating lengths obtained from manufacturer specifications for very light jets are shown in Table

10 TABLE 1-4 VERY LIGHT JET RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS AT MAXIMUM TAKEOFF WEIGHT Aircraft Take-Off Distance Landing Distance Cessna Citation Mustang 3,120 feet 2,610 feet Adams A-500 2,068 feet 1,818 feet Adams A-700 2,950 feet 2,520 feet Eclipse 500 2,155 feet 2,040 feet Embraer Phenom 100 3,400 feet 3,000 feet Embraer Phenom 300 3,700 feet 3,300 feet Source: Manufacturer Specifications, 2006 In addition to micro jets or very light jets which are poised to enter the market in 2007 and 2008, existing aircraft manufacturers such as Piaggio and EADS also have aircraft which can operate on runways less than 3,000 feet. Examples of which are shown in Table 1-5. TABLE 1-5 EXISTING LIGHT AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS Aircraft Takeoff Distance Landing Distance Piaggio P-180 Avanti 2,850 feet 2,860 feet EADS TBM 850 2,832 feet 2,427 feet Source: Piaggio and EADS Socata, 2006 Thus, according to the approved forecasts as provided in the master plan update, an increase in multi-engine turbine and other operations, primarily associated with very light jet aircraft (VLJs) and the sport pilot aircraft license, is anticipated as shown in Table

11 TABLE 1-6 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BASED UPON FLEET MIX Single- Engine Multi- Engine Piston Turbine 1 Rotorcraft Other 2 Total Year Historic ,649 16, , , ,954 16, , ,829 Future ,431 15, , , ,582 15, , , ,230 14, , , ,421 13, , ,941 Source: Albert Whitted Master Plan Update, 2006, SPG ATCT and The LPA Group Incorporated, 2006 Note: 1 Forecast Increase in Turbine Operations (turboprop and jet engine) in line with FAA Aerospace Forecast, and considers the emergence of very light jets into the system 2 Increase in "Other" Category based upon introduction of light sport aircraft and growth in experimental aircraft as highlighted in the FAA Aerospace Forecast, Therefore, based upon the forecast shown in Table 1-6 and the runway utilization percentages outlined in Table 1-3, the following estimate of operations was determined: TABLE RUNWAY UTILIZATION AND ESTIMATED OPERATIONS Runway Fleet Mix Total 60% 30% 100% Single-Engine 56,732 24,223 80,954 Multi-Engine 11,472 4,950 16,422 Turbine Other Total Operations* 68,287 29,177 97,463 Source: The LPA Group Incorporated and FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Note: Since Rotorcraft are not impacted by runway length, not included in analysis Estimated 30% of Single Engine Piston Aircraft use Runway Estimated 30% of Multi-Engine Piston Aircraft use Runway Estimated 0% of Turbine Aircraft use Runway Estimated 30% of "Other" Aircraft use Runway

12 TABLE RUNWAY UTILIZATION AND ESTIMATED OPERATIONS Runway Fleet Mix Total 60% 30% 100% Single-Engine 56,484 24,207 80,691 Multi-Engine 6,273 2,689 8,963 Turbine 8,991 3,853 12,844 Other 19,266 8,257 27,523 Total Operations 91,014 39, ,022 Source: The LPA Group Incorporated and FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Note: Since Rotorcraft are not impacted by runway length, not included in analysis Estimated 30% of Single Engine Piston Aircraft use Runway Estimated 30% of Multi-Engine Piston Aircraft will use Runway Estimated 30% of Turbine Aircraft (includes light turboprop and VLJs) will use Runway Estimated 30% of "Other" Aircraft (including new light sport aircraft) will use Runway Based upon estimated percentage of daily operations attributed to Runway 18-36, it is estimated that at a minimum 107 daily operations will be attributed to single-engine, multi-engine piston, turbine (composed primarily of VLJs) and light sport aircraft operations in Although it is difficult to obtain an accurate projection of future operations on Runway 18-36, it is expected that utilization of Runway will exceed 30 percent as a direct result of the VLJ and light sport aircraft operational requirements and the addition of a non-precision approach on Runway Existing Runway Design Specifications The FAA sets forth particular dimensional criteria for runway design and runway separation standards. These standards reflect the variation in aircraft design dimensions and provide safety clearance between taxiway and runway environments. The diversity of operational activity at SPG dictates which runway may be used for particular aircraft performance characteristics such as accelerate-stop, takeoff, and landing distance requirements. These dimensions are fundamental components that establish an index from which RSA dimensional criteria are determined. This section will investigate the existing runway design elements at SPG and will facilitate the discussion for recommending alternative modifications to RSA elements that are presented later in this paper Runway 6-24 Runway 6-24 is the primary runway at SPG due to its length and all-weather wind coverage relative to Runway A 558-foot displaced threshold is located on the approach end of Runway 6 to make allowance for building obstructions that penetrate the 8

13 approach surface to the runway. The University of South Florida St. Petersburg lies within close proximity to the airport and would otherwise obstruct this surface without a displaced threshold. Accordingly, a 263 foot displaced threshold is located on the approach end of Runway 24 to accommodate RSA requirements due to limited land mass beyond this end. Criteria outlined by the FAA state that for the ARC B-I designation, a runway width of 60 feet is required for those facilities with approach visibility minimums not lower than 3/4 of a mile. Consequently, for approach visibility minimums lower than 3/4 of a mile, a 75-foot wide runway is required to meet criteria for ARC B-I. Currently, Runway 6-24 has a published width of 75 feet and is striped for visual operations. Existing runway separation criteria for 6-24 fully comply with FAA designated criteria that correspond to an ARC B-I classification for visual runways with not lower than ¾- statute mile approach visibility minimums. As such, Taxiway A provides a taxiway centerline to runway centerline separation of 150 feet. Table 1-9 depicts separation clearances for Runway TABLE 1-9 EXISTING B-I LIGHT DIMENSION STANDARDS Existing Dimension FAA Standard B-I Dimension Runway 6/24 to Taxiway A 150 ft ft Runway 18/36 to Taxiway B ft Runway Width 75 ft 75 ft 150 ft 150 ft 60 ft Displaced Threshold 558 ft 263 ft 0 ft 0 ft --- RSA Length Beyond Runway *240 ft *240 ft 130 ft 50 ft 240 ft ROFA Width 250 ft 250 ft 250 ft ROFA Length Beyond *240 ft *240ft 240 ft 240 ft 240 ft Runway *Note: Runway 6-24 RSA and ROFA Length accommodate through the use of displaced thresholds. Source: The LPA Group; FAA,

14 Runway Runway is used primarily by single-engine piston aircraft. But since Runway 18 is the only instrument approved runway at SPG, larger multi-engine piston and turbine aircraft, such as the Dassault Falcon jet and Cessna Citation II, use the instrumentation on Runway 18 to provide guidance for a circling approach to Runway 6-24 due to runway length limitations. Since winds favor the use of Runway 6-24 approximately 70 percent of the time and the runway is primarily used by small and light aircraft, a runway length analysis for Runway was not conducted as part of the 2006 Master Plan process. Still, the only published instrument approach to SPG in on Runway 18 due to a number of obstructions to Runways 6 and 24. However, the design characteristics and separation standards are the same as those required for Runway Runway is currently 150 feet wide, which exceeds current and anticipated critical aircraft design characteristics. This width is more than double its required size, signifying the need for the runway s entire dimensional profile to be revised to meet B-I standards. Table 1-10 Pavement Strengths, identifies the estimated strength of pavement that the runways at SPG can accommodate at an average level of activity. Both rigid and flexible pavement types exist at SPG. Flexible bituminous (asphalt) pavement exists in most areas, and both runways are considered to be in good condition. The published weight bearing capacity of both runways at SPG are not intended to represent maximum allowable weight or as an operating limitation. As such, many airport pavements are capable of supporting aircraft with gross weights of percent in excess of the published figures. However, permissible operating weights are a matter of agreement between the airport and user. Existing weight bearing capacity for both runways is sufficient to accommodate both existing and future critical aircraft. TABLE 1-10 PAVEMENT STRENGTHS Wheel Configuration Runway Single 60,000 lbs. 60,000 lbs. Dual 105,000 lbs. 105,000 lbs. Dual Tandem 190,000 lbs. 190,000 lbs. Double Dual Tandem Source: The LPA Group Incorporated, Airport Facilities Directory,

15 1.3 DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Background This section presents the initial development considerations that were assessed for SPG given the airport s operational characteristics, number of historical incidents or accidents that may guide the most critical type of development, and the forecast future fleet mix of the airport. Runway 6-24 is designated as the primary runway since it favors prevailing winds nearly 70 percent of the time. The majority of the existing fleet uses this runway on a regular basis. Runway is used for a variety of banner towing and training flights, and is most affected by the lack of RSA. Thus, resolution of the RSA deficiencies on Runway will require specific development with limited options to achieve standards for maintaining safety area beyond the runway ends that satisfy both the airport and FAA regulations. A key component of this development is preserving already limited runway length without stifling potential future growth. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) maintains a database of aircraft incidents detailing the events that occurred at the airport and the causes of those events. As documented by the NTSB, SPG experienced eight aircraft incidents since 1995, one of which was fatal when in April of 1995 an aircraft on approach to Runway 6 crashed into a residence after failing to extend flaps and maintain airspeed. Several other incidents, although non-fatal, occurred on the runways at SPG, and some involved aircraft braking malfunctions. Despite no reported overruns or undershoots, some aircraft have veered off the runway, but came to a stop in the graded safety area adjacent to the runway. These incidents recall the need to maintain proper safety standards in the event of aircraft malfunctions, low visibility, or poor weather conditions. 11

16 -=,. L l..&.11elpaciiicll'n acutm!!!!!!!!~ A\l\1JCNe rs1:rnffl Al.SERI" NI I IE>.JUOOI llr. fezb ffl.luidi RIIA DEi U!NATION Sl1DY ElCBlha cotallchs H

17 Another important component of the development consideration process is identifying the potential future fleet mix expected to operate at SPG. Albert Whitted Airport will continue to be classified as a general aviation airport with no likelihood of commercial airport status or the recertification of the airport s operating certificate. However, the airport is poised to attract a sizeable number of new-era micro jet aircraft, which will be introduced in part with the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS). These turbinepowered aircraft are expected to serve smaller communities with the prospect of increasing and bringing new business activity to small general aviation airports. These micro jets which are classified by their weight and existing prototypes are less than 12,500 lbs. Accordingly, this singular operational characteristic does not require additional runway lengthening at SPG to accommodate very light jet (VLJs) aircraft, although RSA improvements are still necessary. In FAA Order , Runway Safety Area Program, five specific alternatives are to be considered for those safety areas that are unable to meet the traditional graded area surrounding the runway. The alternatives evaluation process was resolved through a twostep process that first subjected all design options to a preliminary screening review. In order to achieve the best option for RSA improvements at SPG, several alternatives were analyzed, scrutinized, and then ranked reflecting several factors including cost, environmental impact, safety, and operational efficiency. These alternatives were then refined to include design considerations identified as the most practicable for SPG, which are detailed more thoroughly in the Alternatives Evaluation section of this report Runway Relocation, Shifting, or Realignment Existing runway safety area deficiencies at SPG are a direct result of the constrained land mass on which the airport is situated. The topography and environmental habitats surrounding SPG limits runway lengthening and the sensitivity of such require that RSA deficiencies be resolved by other means. The proximity of the runways to Tampa Bay require safety area modifications to extend into the water, which involves land acquisition by means of dredging and filling portions of the bay adjacent to the airport. This development alternative also requires that Runway be shifted to the north to satisfy safety area requirements beyond Runway 18. Further, shifting Runway to the east is more applicable to the provision for upgrading the approach visibility minimums to less than ¾-statute mile, and is not solely an alternative to resolve RSA deficiencies Runway Length Reduction The consideration for runway length reduction is plausible when existing runway length exceeds that which is required for the existing or projected design aircraft. In this regard, 13

18 since the existing runway length accommodates the operational requirements of the design aircraft (Beech King Air 90), a reduction in runway length is not a sensible alternative to achieving runway safety area at SPG Combination of Runway Relocation, Shifting, or Reduction Consideration was given to a combination of shifting and relocating the runways at SPG, as practicable. Runway relocation was considered in addition to the need for adjusting the runway-to-taxiway centerline separation between Runway and Taxiway B to accommodate the upgrade to the most demanding approach on Runway 18, which is currently equipped to handle non-precision instrument approaches. However, as previously mentioned, shifting the runway s profile laterally is necessary only to achieve less than ¾-statute mile visibility minimums. Due to the lack of viability of the previous development consideration and the limited land upon which the runways can expand, this alternative is limited to runway relocation without considering a simultaneous reduction in runway length Declared Distances In cases where standardizing safety area is considered impracticable for a variety of reasons, an alternative to achieving runway safety is determined through the use of declared distances. The FAA revised its standards for runway safety area and linked its design characteristics with declared distance information in Change 10 of AC 150/ , Airport Design on September 26, Previously, the FAA set forth precise and uniform design characteristics for runway safety area, which established identical dimensions beyond both runway ends. Cognizant that some airports are unable to adhere and comply with these specifications, the FAA incorporated an alternative clause that asserts runway safety areas may be defined within the confines of the runway structural pavement by using declared distances. Consequently, takeoff run available (TORA) would be reduced by the same factor as the standard RSA beyond the runway threshold. For example, localizer antennae may penetrate the inner approach surface for landing aircraft, thus potentially obstructing an aircraft s safe slope to clear them. The refined RSA area, therefore, would be located or overlap the runway structural pavement. As a result, the pavement area under which the relocated RSA is defined may not be used for takeoff or landing distance calculations. The declared distance alternative allows the airport to determine what portions of an operational runway can be considered to satisfy an aircraft s accelerate-stop, takeoff, and landing distance requirements while still complying with standard RSA requirements. This option allows the implementation of declared distances for those airports that cannot provide sufficient distance beyond the runway ends. A brief description of each declared distance is denoted in the following. 14

19 Takeoff Run Available (TORA) the distance to accelerate from brake release to lift-off plus safety factors. Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) the distance to accelerate from brake release past lift-off to start of takeoff climb plus safety factors. Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA) the distance to accelerate from brake release to V 1 and then decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors. Landing Distance Available (LDA) the distance from the threshold to complete the approach, touchdown, and decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors. TABLE 1-11 EXISTING DECLARED DISTANCE INFORMATION Declared Distance Runway 6 Runway 24 TORA TODA ASDA LDA Source: The LPA Group, FAA AFD, 2005 Declared distances are currently in effect for Runway 6-24 at SPG, as highlighted in Table Declared distances are not currently utilized on Runway due to its short length and design aircraft. Still provisions for future runway development to accommodate required RSA dimensions as outlined in the 2006 Master Plan Update will include a 120 foot displaced threshold on Runway

20 Figure 1-3, Declared Distances Sample Schematic TORA Source: The LPA Group, FAA Presentation (Airports Annual Conference), Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) On occasion, aircraft can and do overrun the ends of runways. An overrun occurs when an aircraft surpasses the pavement confines of a runway environment and proceeds into an unpaved area of the airfield not designated for aircraft use. Aircraft overruns usually occur during landing and aborted takeoffs, during which aircraft are unable to sufficiently decelerate in time to remain on runway pavement. According to FAA AC 150/ , Engineered Materials Arresting Systems for Aircraft Overruns, the majority of these aircraft come to rest within 1,000 feet of the runway end and between the extended edges of the runway. Data collected by the FAA over a 12-year period between 1975 and 1987 indicate that nearly 90 percent of aircraft overruns occur at exit speeds of 70 knots or less. Based upon the potential hazards these incidents may cause, the FAA incorporated a model of runway safety areas into airport design standards. In compliance with these standards, the safety area must be capable, under normal (dry) conditions, of supporting aircraft that overrun the runway without causing structural damage to aircraft or injury to its occupants. However, many airports face the issue of natural obstacles, encroaching development, or environmental restrictions that prohibit the feasible development of these safety areas. Due to the difficulty associated with attaining a standard safety area at many airports, the FAA spearheaded research to explore the use of various materials for arresting systems. Commonly referred to as EMAS, this initiative has gained widespread support. An EMAS is designed to stop an aircraft during an overrun by exerting predictable deceleration forces on its landing gear. The EMAS is considered fixed by its function 16

21 and frangible by its design and is intended to fail at a specific impact load. EMAS structures are sloped and built above the existing grade to absorb the aircraft s velocity and forward movement. Centered on the extended runway centerline, the EMAS structure is located beyond the end of the runway at a distance determined by available land area and EMAS materials SPG EMAS Evaluation A core objective of any airport improvement project is balancing effectiveness and cost. The EMAS alternative would be a reasonable means of achieving runway safety area if the expected level of operational activity and fleet diversity were expected to increase over the planning horizon. However, SPG s role within the aviation system will remain as a general aviation reliever serving the needs of light general aviation aircraft. As described in the previous section, design characteristics that dictate the construction of the EMAS bed is based upon historical data formerly obtained by the FAA. The structural integrity of the EMAS is contingent upon several variables that affect the way in which the structure fails upon impact, including the impact load in terms of weight and velocity of the aircraft prior to contact with the arrestor bed. Thus, the design aircraft at SPG, both existing and expected in the near term, are not compatible with the design attributes of the EMAS, which is intended to arrest heavier aircraft with greater exit speeds. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, further consideration was not given to the EMAS alternative as its function is infeasible for the type of operational activity at SPG. 1.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Compliance with FAA mandated RSA requirements may be attained via several alternatives, each having distinctive benefits and associated disadvantages. As previously emphasized, achieving these standards may be afforded by implementing non-standard substitutes to RSA dimensions published in AC 150/ , Airport Design, as practicable. Additionally, the unique topography of Albert Whitted Airport demands additional consideration to be given to potential environmental impacts, which are discussed in Section 1.5. Therefore, based upon the four potential alternatives outlined by the FAA, four viable alternatives were developed specific to SPG Alternative A RSA Fulfillment Using Declared Distances Only As mentioned earlier, the assimilation of declared distances resolves safety area deficiencies by diminishing runway landing and takeoff lengths independently. Airports that implement this methodology publish their declared distances in airport facility directories and other pilot resources. These resources are consulted to determine landing and departure accommodations relative to a specific runway. As shown in Figure 1-4, Alternative A assumes no structural modifications to the runway safety area. Rather, it 17

22 incorporates adjustments to the takeoff run available (TORA) and to the landing distance available (LDA) in order to meet B-I RSA criteria. The existing available RSA length beyond the Runway 18 end is 130 feet, as previously noted in Table 1-9. To achieve a standard 240 foot RSA beyond this runway end for B-I Light aircraft, 110 feet of usable pavement area must be sacrificed, thereby reducing the TORA to 2,754 feet and LDA to 2,564 feet. Reciprocally, existing available RSA length beyond the end of Runway 36 is 50 feet. Thus, an additional 190 feet of pavement must be reserved for safety area, reducing TORA by 2,674 feet and LDA to 2,564 feet. The existing available RSA length beyond the Runway 6 end technically satisfies RSA criteria through the 263 feet displaced threshold. However, based upon the anticipated fleet mix and upgrade of Runway 6-24 to a non-precision approach, it was recommended within the 2005 Master Plan Update that the Runway 24 threshold be relocated to the edge of pavement, approximately 263 feet to the northeast. However, this will make the Runway 24 RSA deficient by nearly 230 feet. Thus, 230 feet of pavement must be sacrificed to achieve RSA standards, thereby increasing the Runway 6 TORA to 3,447 feet and increasing the LDA to 2,942 feet. Table 1-12 outlines the declared distances associated with Alternative A 18

23 Declared Distance TABLE 1-12 ALTERNATIVE A DECLARED DISTANCE INFORMATION Runway 18 Runway 36 Runway 6 Runway 24 Displaced Threshold (Approach End) ' 264' TORA TODA ASDA LDA Source: The LPA Group, 2006 Although this alternative is considered cost effective since it requires no construction, it will limit aircraft use on Runway A sizeable portion of pavement is sacrificed in this alternative in order to achieve adequate B-I RSA criterion. Although maintaining satisfactory dimensions for RSA is crucial, the reduction of runway pavement as a means of doing so reduces the airport s future operating capacity to serve particular aircraft and may lead to a reduction in the airport s future role in the aviation system. As of 2006, Runway accommodates approximately 107 operations per day consisting primarily of single engine and light (under 12,500 pounds) multi-engine piston aircraft. The estimated percentage of use by single engine and multi-engine piston aircraft is provided in Table TABLE OPERATIONAL USAGE OF RUNWAY *Percentage of Operations on Runway Estimated Yearly Ops Aircraft Type Estimated Daily Ops Single-Engine 83% 66 24,223 Multi-Engine 17% 14 4,950 Total Operations 100% ,177 Source: Albert Whitted Airport Air Traffic Control Tower Data and The LPA Group, Inc Based upon existing fleet mix and usage of runway 18-36, the following breakdown of operations perapplying runway length requirements for the existing fleet mix, the operational use of Runway is provided in Table

24 TABLE 1-14 EXISTING FLEET MIX RUNWAY LENGTH EVALUATION Takeoff Adjusted for Landing Adjusted for Aircraft Designation Aircraft Distance over 50 ft Obstacle Elevation, Temperature, etc Distance over 50 ft obstacle Wet Pavement, etc A-I Cessna A-I Beech Baron A-I Piper Archer A-I Piper Seneca B-I Less than 12,500 lbs Beech Baron 58 Pressurized Beech King Air C Beech King Air B Beech King Air A Beech King Air E Piper Navajo before Piper Navajo after Aerostar Source: Aircraft Manufacturers and FAA Takeoff Length and Landing Length Software Key: Red highlight indicates limited runway usage due to Declared Distances Blue highlight indicates limited usage due to existing Runway Length Anticipated order of magnitude costs associated with Alternative A are shown in Table

25 TABLE 1-15 ALTERNATIVE A ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS Project Estimated Costs Remark Pavement Markings on Runway $10,000 Remark Pavement Markings on Runway 24 $5,000 Add Runway Lighting $1,300 Relocate PAPIs on Runway 24 $32,211 Relocate PAPIs & REILs on Runway 18 $50,000 Relocate PAPIs & REILs on Runway 36 $50,000 Construction Total $148,511 20% Engineering and Administrative Fees $29,702 30% Contingency Fees $44,553 Order of Magnitude Total $222,767 Source: The LPA Group Incorporated Engineering Cost Estimates,

26 -=,. L l..&.11elpaciiicll'n acutm!!!!!!!!~ A\l\1JCNe rs1:rnffl Al.SERI" NI I IE>.JUOOI llr. fezb ffl.luidi RIIA DEi U!NATION Sl1DY H

27 1.4.2 Alternative B RSA Fulfillment Using Dredge and Fill As outlined in the 2005 Master Plan Update, runway safety expansion into Tampa Bay will be required to address existing deficiencies. However, the surrounding embankments adjacent to existing land areas of the airport may be reclaimed without posing considerable impacts. As such, Alternative B proposes that additional land areas be reclaimed from the Bay within the immediacy of Runways 18, 24 and 36. This will allow Runway to maintain its current 2,864 usable pavement length. In order to preserve the length of Runway 18-36, approximately 0.75 acres of land must be acquired on the Runway 18 end and 0.45 acres from the Runway 36 end to satisfy RSA requirements. Further, it is recommended that approximately 0.51 acres of land be acquisitioned on the Runway 24 end to allow the removal of the existing 263 foot displaced threshold. Removal of the displaced threshold on Runway 24 is anticipated to accommodate forecast fleet mix operating requirements and the implementation of a nonprecision approach to Runway 6. Figure 1-5 shows the recommended RSA improvements associated with Runways 18, 24 and 36. In total, Approximately 1.71 acres of land must be reclaimed to accommodate standard RSA clearances. This method of attaining runway safety area requirements is costly but may qualify for FAA funding assistance. Due to the potential environmental impacts associated with this project, it is desirable that proposed safety area development on Runways 18 and 36 be coordinated concurrently with development on Runway 24. Further, after consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, it is expected that SPG may obtain clean fill related to the periodic dredging of Tampa Bay. In addition, an evaluation of sea floor depths beyond the sea wall east of Runway revealed previous fill. Therefore, this area is shallower than the channels north of Runway 18 and south of Runway 36. Additionally, an environmental assessment of this area is required to determine the significance and extent of environmental impacts, specifically presence of benthic invertebrate communities as required by FAA Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. 23

28 M IHtl Wrll lbl All'OIIT 1r.re1a,m-.fl.dEa& ALTEFIMTNE B H

29 Anticipated order of magnitude costs associated with Alternative B are shown in Table 1-16 TABLE 1-16 ALTERNATIVE B ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS Project Estimated Costs Dredge and Fill Runway 18 $300,000 Dredge and Fill Runway 36 $175,000 Dredge and Fill Runway 24 $200,000 Relocate PAPIs on Runway 24 $32,211 Runway 24 Markings(new and removal) $5,000 Install MIRL on Runway 24 $2,600 Environmental Assessment $300,000 Environmental Permitting (3 Permits) $150,000 Total Construction and Environmental Costs $1,164,811 20% Engineering and Administrative Fees $232,962 30% Contingency Fees $349,443 Order of Magnitude Total $1,747,217 *Note: Dredge and Fill is based upon RSA requirements and embankment stabilization only. Source: The LPA Group Incorporated Engineering Cost Estimates, Alternative C RSA Fulfillment Using Declared Distance, Shifting, and Dredge and Fill Another alternative to resolving RSA deficiencies at SPG incorporates a hybrid scheme that identifies elements of both Alternatives A and B. This proposal for developing sufficient RSA dimensions assumes that declared distances will be incorporated for Runway 36 and land reclamation for Runways 18 and 24. Although some pavement length must be sacrificed in order to achieve RSA requirements, this option preserves as much length as possible while remaining cognizant of cost. While the standard RSA length requirement for the Runway 6 and Runway 36 ends is achieved through the relocation of the thresholds, the Runway 18 and Runway 24 RSA length requirements is achieved through the reclamation of 1.2 and 0.51 acres, respectively, from Tampa Bay. Figure 1-6 provides a graphical illustration of this alternative. Yet, as discussed in Alternative B, SPG may be the beneficiary of clean fill provided by the Corps of Engineers as a result of periodic dredging of Tampa Bay. 25

30 The shifting of Runway to the north by 110 feet for a total pavement length of 2974 feet will satisfy RSA requirements beyond the Runway 18 end. As a result, landing distance will remain at 2,864 feet and takeoff distance could increase to 2,974 feet. These declared distances, as outlined in Table 1-17, are in conjunction with land reclamation on the Runway 18 end that satisfies RSA dimensional standards. In this alternative, the Runway 6-24 profile will remain the same as that in Alternative B with the provision for shifting the Runway 24 end. Therefore providing the following displaced thresholds: TABLE 1-17 FUTURE DISPLACED THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS RUNWAY TODA ASDA LDA TORA 6 3,677 3,677 3,159 3, ,677 3,437 3,437 3, ,974 2,974 2,864 2, ,974 2,974 2,864 2,974 Source: The LPA Group Incorporated, 2006 Anticipated order of magnitude costs associated with Alternative C are shown in Table TABLE 1-18 ALTERNATIVE C ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS Project Estimated Costs Dredge and Fill Runway 18 $350,000 Dredge and Fill Runway 24 $200,000 Runway 24 Markings (new and removal) $5,000 Runway 18 Design and Construction $273,124 Relocate PAPI Runway 24 $32,211 Relocate PAPI & REILs Runway 18 $50,000 Relocate PAPI & REILs Runway 36 $50,000 Install MIRL on Runway 24 $1,300 Environmental Assessment $300,000 Environmental Permitting (2 Permits) $100,000 Construction Total $1,361,635 20% Engineering and Administrative $272,327 30% Contingency $408,491 Order of Magnitude Total $2,042,453 Source: The LPA Group Incorporated Engineering Cost Estimates,

31 M IHtl Wrll lbl All'OIIT 1r.re1a,m-.fl.dEa&

32 1.4.4 Alternative D RSA Fulfillment Using Relocated Thresholds A fourth alternative for providing RSA criteria is by imposing a threshold relocation option for all runway ends that do not currently satisfy safety area requirements. This alternative does not include pavement area usable for aircraft operations. The relocated threshold is marked by a demarcation bar, which is a 10-foot-wide white-painted stripe that extends across the width of the runway. The distance between the beginning of the runway pavement and the relocated threshold is marked by yellow-painted chevrons, indicating that the pavement is unusable for takeoff, landing, or taxiing aircraft. Alternative D is a cost-effective means of achieving RSA without significant development. However, the critical element of runway length imposes a severe restriction on the available runway pavement suitable for aircraft movement. Effectively, this alternative reduces runway pavement length on Runway by nearly 12 percent to 2,564 feet and on Runway 6-24 by nearly 4 percent to 3,542 feet. This alternative impacts the use of Runway most significantly and has longer-term negative impacts on the development of the airport and its growth in operational activity by light aircraft, especially SATS aircraft. This issue is further compounded when aircraft activity is limited to Runway during Runway 6-24 closures for resurfacing or maintenance. 28

33 M IHtl Wrll lbl All'OIIT 1r.re1a,m-.fl.dEa& AL 'T&NA'IM: D

34 Anticipated order of magnitude costs associated with Alternative A are shown in Table TABLE 1-19 ALTERNATIVE D ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS Project Estimated Costs Relocate Pavement Markings on Runway $10,000 Relocate Pavement Markings on Runway 6-24 $10,000 Remove Runway Lighting (Runway 6 and 24) $2,500 Remove Runway Lighting (Runway 18 and 36) $2,500 Relocate PAPIs & REILs - Runway 18 $50,000 Relocate PAPIs & REILs Runway 36 $50,000 Relocate PAPIs Runway 24 $32,211 Total Construction Costs $157,211 20% Engineering and Adminstrative Fees $31,442 30% Contingency $47,163 Order of Magnitude Total $235,817 Source: The LPA Group Incorporated, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Existing available literature on land use and cover, seagrass cover, occurrence of terrestrial and aquatic protected species, and other environmental related databases for Pinellas County indicates that there is an existing sparse seagrass community east of the Runway 18/36, scattered isolated mangrove trees along the shoreline, and two active burrowing owl dens within the airport. Although, available existing information indicates that these areas do not contain submerged aquatic vegetation or seagrass, regulatory requirements mandate that development projects demonstrate and document avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts. An environmental assessment of proposed development project areas should be performed during the planning or design phase to determine environmental impacts. The following sections discuss environmental considerations based upon previous studies, available geographic information systems (GIS) maps, and data Alternative A Alternative A does not propose any structural activities that would disturb undeveloped land, and, therefore, does not have environmental impacts. 30