CROSS-WIND RUNWAY RELOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY GRAVENHURST, ON FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Mr. Mark Stirling Airport Manager Muskoka Airport 1011 Airport Road Gravenhurst, Ontario P1P 1R1 Tel: (705) 687-2194 Prepared by: Mr. James Lindsey, M.Sc, C.M. Aviation Consultant GENIVAR, formerly PSMI 5915 Airport Road, Suite 400 Mississauga, ON Tel: 905-678-8582 x307 Fax: 905-678-8582 Email: james.lindsey@genivar.com December, 2011 PSMI No. 07244
Table of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Study Objectives 2 1.3 Study Methodology 2 1.4 Transport Canada Regulations 2 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS RUNWAY 09-27 3 2.1 Physical Characteristics 3 2.2 Operational Characteristics 3 2.3 Airport Usability 3 2.4 Aeronautical Zoning 3 3.0 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA 4 3.1 General 4 3.2 Runway Length and Critical Aircraft Mix 4 3.3 Topographical Conditions 4 3.4 Airport Equipment and Navigational Aids 4 3.5 Objects 4 3.6 Airport Usability Factor 5 4.0 AIRPORT SITE INSPECTION 6 4.1 General 6 4.2 Topographical Observations 6 4.3 Airport Equipment and Navigational Aids 6 4.4 Off-Site Obstructions 7 4.5 Runway Threshold Field Assessment 7 4.6 Runway Alignment Assessment 8 5.0 PROPOSED RUNWAY 14-32 9 5.1 Runway Alignment and Threshold Location 9 5.2 Runway Length 10 5.3 Airport Usability Factor 10 December, 2011 i GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
5.4 Object Removals and Relocations 11 5.4.1 Airport Equipment 11 5.4.2 Electronic Navigational Aids 11 5.4.3 Tree Removals 11 5.5 Physical Characteristics 12 5.6 Aeronautical Zoning 12 6.0 BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE 14 7.0 PREVAILING WIND CONDITIONS 15 7.1 General 15 7.2 Prevailing Winds vs. Airport Usability 15 7.3 Historical Prevailing Wind Conditions 16 7.4 Airport Usability Factor Summary 19 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 8.1 Conclusions 20 8.2 Recommendations 21 8.3 Closing Observations 21 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Historical Year-Round Wind Conditions (1990-2008) Figure 2 Historical Daytime Summer Wind Conditions (1990-2008) Figure 3 Historical Year-Round Wind Direction/Velocity (1990-2008) Figure 4 Historical Daytime Summer Wind Direction/Velocity (1990-2008) 16 17 18 18 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Physical Characteristics Runway 14-32 12 Table 2 Aeronautical Zoning Physical Characteristics 12 Table 3 Budgetary Cost Estimate 14 Table 4 Windrose Airport Usability Code A Aircraft 19 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Airport Layout & Proposed Runway 14-32 Appendix B Budgetary Cost Estimate Appendix C Windrose analysis December, 2011 ii GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
1.0 Introduction and Guiding Principles 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Muskoka Airport (Airport) is a certified regional airport located in Bracebridge, ON, operated by The District Municipality of Muskoka through the Planning and Economic Development Department. The Airport is served by two (2) runways; Runway 18-36 and Runway 09-27. The primary runway; Runway 18-36 is an asphalt runway measuring 6,000 ft x 150 ft serving the majority of the air traffic. The secondary runway; Runway 09-27 is a turf cross-wind runway measuring 2,180 ft x 100 ft and serves the recreational aircraft community with light aircraft. The adjacent diagram sourced from the Canada Flight Supplement shows the existing site conditions of the Muskoka Airport. The co-ordinates for the Airport as found in the Canadian Flight Supplement are: N44 58'29.0" W79 18'12.0" The Airport has recently undertaken a number of studies and assessments related to airfield development and usability. The latest study was completed by GENIVAR in November 2010 to assess the existing airport usability factor using a windrose usability study. The purpose of this study was to assess if the Airport could meet Transport Canada 95% airport usability guidelines with only a single runway; Runway 18-36. The motivation behind the study was that Runway 09-27 restricts the expansion of an airside development area west of Runway 18-36. Recently, a tenant expressed interest in constructing additional hangars in support of pending contracts for aircraft painting and refurbishing. Without the closure or relocation of Runway 09-27, alternative and more costly options would be required to support the proposed development. The study determined that Runway 18-36, achieves a usability factor of 95.48% during year-round conditions, meeting Transport Canada guidelines. However, during day-time summer conditions, the period of time where Runway 09-27 is available to light recreational aircraft, the airport usability factor is only 93.66%. Therefore, a secondary cross-wind runway is recommended to support day-time summer operations by light recreational aircraft. December, 2011 1 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
As a result, in May 2011, the Airport commissioned GENIVAR to assess the physical and operational feasibility of relocating Runway 09-27 to enable the construction of the proposed hangar development. 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES GENIVAR, formerly Pryde Schropp McComb, Inc. was retained by the Muskoka Airport to complete a Cross-Wind Runway Relocation Feasibility Study. The objective of this study was to determine if Runway 09-27 could be relocated such that it would permit the construction of the proposed hangar development while maintaining Transport Canada certification standards and airport usability factor recommendations. 1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY Based on the foregoing objective, the following summarizes the methodology in which this study was undertaken: Collection and review of background information; including: o Airport Operations Manual o Airport Development Plan and Airport Master Plan o Meteorological Data from 1990 2008. o Electronic airport base plans and digital imagery. Review the existing airport usability factor for both year-round conditions and day-time summer conditions. Undertake meetings with Airport staff and complete site inspection. Determine preferred runway alignment based on Transport Canada standards and recommendations for the sitting and orientation of the Runway. Complete an updated airport usability factor for the proposed runway system. Prepare a conceptual layout design; and, Prepare a summary report with recommendations. 1.4 TRANSPORT CANADA REGULATIONS The Cross-Wind Runway Relocation Feasibility Study was completed in accordance with Transport Canada standards and recommendations per TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (4 th Edition) and TP1247 Aviation Land Uses in the Vicinity of Airports (8 th Edition). December, 2011 2 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
2.0 Existing Conditions Runway 09-27 2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Runway 09-27 is a turf cross-wind runway, oriented 080 T (091 M) & 260 T (271 M) and measures 2,180ft x 100ft (644.5m x 30.5m). According to Transport Canada certification standards, Runway 09-27 has a reference code and operational classification of Code 1A non-instrument. A site plan of the Airport is enclosed in Appendix A. Runway 09-27 was observed to be in good condition with only minor undulations and irregularities noted. The runway threshold and edges are identified by red/white markers and is regularly maintained by airport staff throughout the operational season. 2.2 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Runway 09-27 is typically operational in late April / early May and maintained until late October. During a normal season, Runway 09-27 is utilized by approximately 150-200 itinerant aircraft movements (i.e.75-100 flights). 2.3 AIRPORT USABILITY The usability factor for Runway 09-27 was calculated as part of the November 2010 Airport Windrose Usability Study for daytime summer conditions with Code A aircraft that have a maximum cross-wind component of 10 knots. Based on the above criteria, the usability factor for Runway 09-27 was calculated to be 93.97%. When combined with Runway 18-36, the usability factor increases to 96.97% under a two (2) runway system for Code A and C aircraft. 2.4 AERONAUTICAL ZONING Runway 09-27 has federal Airport Zoning Regulations enacted through SOR/84-567 to protect its Obstacle Limitation Surfaces. Due to the physical characteristics of the operational (per certification) Obstacle Limitation Surfaces compared to the registered (per the Airport Zoning Regulations), Runway 09-27 is under protected close into the runway threshold, but is over protected further out. This difference is traced back to the length of the runway strip, whereby the actual length of the runway is longer than what is protected under the Airport Zoning Regulations. However, since the Airport has control over the lands under the approaches, this close in impact is not significant and can be internally mitigated. December, 2011 3 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
3.0 Site Selection Criteria 3.1 GENERAL As discussed in Section 1.2, the intent of this assignment is to assess the feasibility of relocating the existing turf Runway 09-27, in an effort to minimize the cost of expanding commercial developments at the Airport. Therefore, this objective is to provide a replacement to the existing Runway 09-27 which meets Transport Canada standards for certified airports, while also meeting the same operational objectives at the least possible cost. 3.2 RUNWAY LENGTH AND CRITICAL AIRCRAFT MIX The existing Runway 09-27 has a length of 2,180 ft (655 m), which is capable of serving light recreational general aviation aircraft (i.e. Cessna 172 or C172). In order to satisfy the requirements for this aircraft type, a runway of similar length is recommended, but no less than what is required for the departure of a Cessna 172 under normal conditions. Using the Pilots Operating Handbook (POH) for a C172, the take-off ground roll was calculated to be 1,100 ft from a dry grass runway with an elevation of 925 ft and a reference temperature of 25 C the operating conditions for the Muskoka Airport. Therefore, the runway length of the relocated turf-runway would be ideally 2,180 ft but no less than 1,100 ft to satisfy the operational requirements for the critical aircraft mix. 3.3 TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS In order to minimize construction costs, where possible the runway should be located on level ground free of major changes in elevation and not crossing ditches, water bodies or other features which will require major earthworks. 3.4 AIRPORT EQUIPMENT AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS In order to minimize construction costs, where possible the runway should be located and oriented such that modifications or relocations to airport equipment and navigational aids is minimized. 3.5 OBJECTS Objects located off-site are outside of the control of the Airport, and are therefore considered fixed and should be avoided. Objects such as on-site airport equipment, navigational aids, and other vegetative features located on airport property are within the December, 2011 4 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
control of the airport, and therefore can be modified, relocated or removed to facilitate the relocated of the turf runway. 3.6 AIRPORT USABILITY FACTOR Transport Canada recommends: The number and orientation of runways at an aerodrome should be such that the usability factor of the aerodrome is not less than 95 per cent for the aeroplanes that the aerodrome is intended to serve (TP312 4 th Edition s.3.1.1.1). As discussed in Section 2.3, a comprehensive analysis was completed in November 2010 assessing the usability factor of the Muskoka Airport. This analysis determined that the existing two (2) runway system meets the Transport Canada criteria using a maximum cross-wind component of 10 knots during daytime summer conditions. Therefore, the proposed runway alignment should, at a minimum, meet the minimum Transport Canada recommendation. Furthermore, where possible the alignment should be such that it exceeds the existing usability factor based on either a single runway or two (2) runway system. December, 2011 5 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
4.0 Airport Site Inspection 4.1 GENERAL On June 20, 2011 a site inspection was conducted to assess possible alignments for the proposed relocated turf-runway. A secondary site inspection was held on June 30, 2011 to validate initial observations regarding the proposed alignment and navigational aids. The primary site inspection held June 20, 2011 was completed by Mr. James Lindsey and Mr. Joshua Horst using the following equipment: Analogue inclinometer & digital laser range finder Hand-held GPS receiver Measuring wheel Digital Camera Compass Prior to undertaking the site inspection, a desktop analysis of the proposed relocated runway was completed using electronic CAD airport site plan which was previously provided by the Airport. The location and orientation of the proposed runway alignment was determined to be approximately northwest southeast based on previous planning analysis completed by both the Airport and previous consultancies as part of the Airport Master Plan. 4.2 TOPOGRAPHICAL OBSERVATIONS Initial observations from the site inspection are that the lands east of Runway 18-36 and north of Runway 09-27 are generally flat, level and of sandy soil conditions. The terrain falls away slightly east of the threshold of Runway 27 towards the fence line surrounding the south-eastern property boundary. No water bodies or other major topographical features were noted within the study area. The only existing structure observed within the general area is a gravel road which runs east/west between the Runway 18-36 and the VHF-DF navigational aid. 4.3 AIRPORT EQUIPMENT AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS The following airport equipment was inventoried within the subject area during the site inspection: Wind Direction Indicator Airport perimeter fencing Airport beacon December, 2011 6 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
Also noted was a VHF-DF, an electronic navigational aid, which unlike other equipment is owned and operated by NAV CANADA. This equipment is used to guide lost aircraft to the airport using radio navigation, and is therefore sensitive to metallic objects. 4.4 OFF-SITE OBSTRUCTIONS In general, the alignment and length of the proposed relocated runway is dictated by offsite obstacles including trees at both ends of the proposed runway and the airport beacon located northwest of the north-western threshold. Tree heights were calculated using the laser range finder, and were determined to be approximately 10m 15m AGL. For the purpose of this analysis, off-site obstacles are fixed, and therefore cannot be removed or modified for the purpose of relocating Runway 09-27. As a result, in order for the runway relocation to be feasible, off-site obstacles must not penetrate the approach surfaces which have a slope of 1:20 (5%) as required by Transport Canada for a Code 1A non-instrument runway. 4.5 RUNWAY THRESHOLD FIELD ASSESSMENT Following an overall inspection of the subject area based on the criteria described in Section 3.0, the approximate location of the proposed runway thresholds was assessed. The purpose of the field assessment was to identify an alignment that provides sufficient length while clearing off-site obstacles as required by Transport Canada. Using the wind direction indicator as a starting point and defined location, off-site obstacles were investigated to assess the approximate threshold location. Utilizing the analogue inclinometer, it was determined that an approach over the trees to the northwest, north of the airport beacon, is feasible based on an approach surface for a Code 1A non-instrument runway. The following pictures show both the approach (left image) and runway alignment (right image) of the north-western threshold location as determined during the site inspection. GPS coordinates of the proposed threshold was recorded for further in-depth analysis. North-western Threshold Facing Northwest (Approach) North-western Threshold Facing Southeast (Alignment) December, 2011 7 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
Standing at the south-eastern corner of the airport, east of the threshold for Runway 27, the location of the reciprocal runway end was assessed. Using a similar method as the north-western threshold, the south-eastern threshold was determined based on the requirements to clear off-site obstacles with an additional consideration of topographical features and the estimated runway alignment relative to the wind direction indicator and airport beacon at the opposite end of the runway. Unlike the north-western threshold, there are a number of vegetative features located on airport property which can be trimmed or removed to facilitate the relocation of the turf runway. Therefore, the analysis of the south-eastern threshold included a visual assessment of the property boundary as marked by the paige-wire fencing located beyond the security/wildlife chaining fencing. The following pictures show both the approach (left image) and runway alignment (right image) of the south-eastern threshold location as determined during the site inspection. GPS coordinates of the proposed threshold was recorded for further in-depth analysis. South-eastern Threshold Facing Southeast (Approach) South-eastern Threshold Facing Northwest (Alignment) 4.6 RUNWAY ALIGNMENT ASSESSMENT Based on the two (2) threshold locations identified during the site inspection, it was determined using a compass that the alignment of the proposed relocated runway is Runway 14-32. December, 2011 8 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
5.0 Proposed Runway 14-32 5.1 RUNWAY ALIGNMENT AND THRESHOLD LOCATION Immediately following the site inspection, GPS coordinates of the airport equipment, navigational aids and proposed threshold locations were digitized into the electronic CAD airport base plan. Also recorded and inputted into the CAD base plan were the approximate tree heights and height of the airport beacon. Using this information, it was determined that the alignment for the relocated Runway 09-27 is 147 T/327 T (136 M/316 M); validating the field assessment of a runway designation number of 14-32 per Transport Canada regulations. The following photographs show the proposed centreline alignment for Runway 14-32, including off-site obstacles impacting the location and orientation of the thresholds: Runway 14 Obstacles and Runway Centerline Alignment Airport Beacon Off-Site Trees Runway Centreline Off-Site Trees Approach Surface Elevation At Object As shown above, there are a number of trees located on the west side of Gravenhurst Parkway, which impacts the threshold location for Runway 14. Runway 32 Obstacles and Runway Centerline Alignment Off-Site Trees Runway Centreline Trees Removals Trees Removals Approach Surface Elevation At Object December, 2011 9 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
As shown above, there are a number of trees which are located both on airport property and off airport property. Those located on airport property are located above the approach surface elevation level, and can therefore be removed. It should be noted that the exact limits of the Airport property boundary are not known, and were not clearly marked during the site inspection. Therefore, the process utilized to identify on site and off-site trees conservatively estimated the depth of the property at this location. Following a detailed site survey, it is anticipated that the threshold will shift further southeast, increasing the proposed runway length. A site plan of the proposed Runway 14-32 is enclosed for reference in Appendix A. 5.2 RUNWAY LENGTH The runway length was calculated using recorded GPS coordinates captured during the site inspection and further validate following the digitization of the field observations. According to the analysis, it was determined that a runway length of 1,850ft is feasible based on the proposed threshold location and orientation for Runway 14-32. As discussed above, it is anticipated that this length will increase following a more detailed site survey which would accurately identify the airport property boundary and the heights and locations of on-site and off-site obstacles. The runway length of 1,850 ft is 330 ft less than the current Runway 09-27, which is not ideal. However, this length exceeds the take-off ground roll requirements for the C172 as determined using the aircraft POH. Therefore, a runway length of 1,850 ft is sufficient to accommodate the aircraft fleet mix of small recreational general aviation aircraft. 5.3 AIRPORT USABILITY FACTOR Using the same meteorological data used in the November 2010 windrose and usability factor study, the usability factor for Runway 14-32 was calculated. According to this analysis, Runway 14-32 achieves a usability factor of 96.98% based on a maximum cross-wind component of 10 knots during daytime summer conditions. At 96.98%, this usability factor is substantially greater than the existing Runway 09-27 at 93.97%, and furthermore exceeds Transport Canada regulations for single runway airport usability. When combined with Runway 18-36, the usability factor for the two (2) runway system increases to 98.91% which again exceeds the existing conditions at 96.97%. In fact, due to the ability for the proposed Runway 14-32 to capture the high velocity winds (those greater than 10 knots) which originate from the northwest, the existing single runway usability factor for Runway 14-32 exceeds the combined usability factor for Runway 09-27 and Runway 18-36. December, 2011 10 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
In terms of single runway usage, from a windrose usability perspective, Runway 14-32 is the preferred runway alignment and could support single runway operations according to Transport Canada recommendations. 5.4 OBJECT REMOVALS AND RELOCATIONS The following details the objects and equipment that must be removed or relocated to enable the construction and operation of the proposed relocated Runway 14-32: 5.4.1 Airport Equipment One of the objectives in determining the alignment of Runway 14-32 was to avoid the existing airport beacon. The airport beacon sits atop an old steal structure located on the west side of Gravenhurst Parkway, and has been at the Airport since its original construction. The wind direction indicator, located near the proposed threshold of Runway 14, must be relocated south to avoid the runway strips for the adjacent two (2) runways. During the site inspection, this equipment appeared to be in good condition, and therefore could be relocated rather than replaced; however new cabling would be required for the lighting system. Also, airport security fencing located at the south-eastern corner of the Airport must be relocated to clear the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Runway 14-32. Where possible the fencing, which is fairly new and in good condition, will be reused to minimize costs. 5.4.2 Electronic Navigational Aids NAV CANADA owns and operates a VHF-DF at the Airport. As this equipment uses radio frequencies to triangulate the position of aircraft, it is sensitive to adjacent metallic objects. Transport Canada, through TP1247 Aviation Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports (8 th Edition), provides guidance on the protection against electronic interference of electronic navigational aids. Based on the proposed location and alignment of Runway 14-32, the runway will remain clear of the 45 m radius protection area; which should be clear of all objects, but is within the 90 m radius protection area; which should be clear of trees, fences and vehicles. As this equipment is owned and operated by NAV CANADA, consultation through the Land Use Program using the Land Use Proposal Submission Form should be initiated to determine if relocations or modifications to the VHF-DF is required. 5.4.3 Tree Removals As discussed above, there are a number of trees located on airport property which must be removed to accommodate the proposed Runway 14-32. The majority of these trees December, 2011 11 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
are located under the approach surface of Runway 32, however there is also a group of trees located immediately east of the threshold to Runway 32. The thresholds for Runway 14-32 have been located such that trimming or removal of off-site trees is not required. Therefore, all of the trees which must be modified are on airport property and are therefore within the control of the Airport. However, in the event that additional off-site tree clearing is possible, primarily to the southeast, additional runway length is feasible. The recommended tree removals are shown in Appendix A. 5.5 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Based on the foregoing analysis, the following Table 1 summarizes the proposed physical characteristics for Runway 14-32: Table 1 Physical Characteristics Runway 14-32 Criteria Runway 14 Runway 32 Runway Length 1,850 ft (564 m) Runway Width 100 ft (30.5 m) Threshold Co-ordinates N44 58 11.53 W79 18 13.36 N44 58 01.18 W79 17 52.15 Runway Orientation 136 M / 147 T 316 M / 327 T 5.6 AERONAUTICAL ZONING Similar to Runway 09-27, Runway 14-32 will have a reference code and operational classification of Code 1A Non-Instrument, and therefore, will both have similar Obstacle Limitation Surfaces physical characteristics; as summarized in Table 2 below: Table 2 Aeronautical Zoning Physical Characteristics Criteria Runway 14 Runway 32 Reference Code Code 1A - NI Code 1A - NI Runway Strip Distance from Threshold 30m 30m Width (each side of CL) 30m 30m Approach Surface Length 2,500m 2,500m Divergence 10% 10% Slope 5% (1:20) 5% (1:20) Transitional Surface Slope 20% (1:5) 20% (1:5) Notes: Per TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices 4 th Edition. December, 2011 12 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
However, unlike Runway 09-27, Runway 14-32 will not have federal protection under the Airport Zoning Regulations. As a result, future off-site developments within 900 m of the threshold could impact the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Runway 14-32. Beyond 900m, Approach Surface is greater than 45 m AAE (Above Aerodrome Elevation), and is therefore protected by the Outer Surface. Modifying Airport Zoning Regulations can be an expensive assignment, as land titles of all properties impacted by the changes would need to be revised. Other Airports in southern Ontario have recently undertaken this process, costing in excess of $300,000 each. In the case of the Muskoka Airport, this process would not be cost effective as Runway 14-32 is a turf cross-wind runway with a relatively steep Approach Surface. A more cost effective process would be for the Airport to review development proposals and oppose applications which may impact the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces. December, 2011 13 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
6.0 Budgetary Cost Estimate A budgetary cost estimate of the proposed runway relocation has been prepared, and is summarized in Table 3 below: Table 3 Budgetary Cost Estimate No. Item Quantity Unit Cost Total 1.0 Earthworks 1.1 Topsoil Stripping 2,820 m³ $1.00 $ 2,820.00 1.2 Excavation to Embankment 1,410 m³ $5.00 $ 7,050.00 1.3 Imported Fill 5,650 m³ $10.00 $ 56,500.00 1.4 Place Salvaged Topsoil 22,500 m² $2.00 $ 45,000.00 1.5 Place Imported Topsoil 5,625 m² $5.00 $ 28,125.00 1.6 Hydraulic Seed and Mulch 28,125m² $1.00 $ 28,125.00 2.0 Relocate Lighted Wind Direction Indicator Sub-Total: Earthworks $ 167,620.00 2.1 Relocate Wind Direction Indicator 1 ea. $7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 2.2 New Pull Pit 1 ea. $800.00 $ 800.00 2.3 New Cabling 250m $60.00 $ 15,000.00 Sub-Total: Relocated Lighted Wind Direction Indicator $ 23,300.00 3.0 Security Fence Modifications/Relocations 3.1 Remove Existing Fence 400m $2.00 $ 800.00 3.2 New Security Fence 700m $70.00 $ 49,000.00 4.0 Tree Removals Sub-Total: Security Fence Modifications/Relocations $ 49,800.00 4.1 Clearing and Grubbing 3.4 ha $5,000.00 $ 17,000.00 Sub-Total: Tree Removals $ 17,000.00 Total $257,720.00 Notes: 1. Prices in 2011 Dollars 2. HST not included. 3. Pavement structure to be confirmed by geotechnical investigation & pavement design. 4. Quantities shown are preliminary. 5. Quantities to be verified by topographical survey and design process. 6. Prices do not include engineering or contingency fees. As discussed in Section 5.3.2, it may be required to modify or relocate the VHF-DF, an electronic navigational aid owned and operated by NAV CANADA. Costs associated with the modification of this equipment must be negotiated with NAV CANADA, but could run cost upwards of $150,000 should NAV CANADA force the full cost on the Airport. A detailed breakdown of the budgetary cost estimate is included in Appendix B. December, 2011 14 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
7.0 Prevailing Wind Conditions 7.1 GENERAL During several public meetings with the District Municipality of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Committee, local pilot groups strongly opposed the relocation of the existing Runway 09-27 due to the perceived prevailing wind conditions at the Airport. The purpose of this section is to review the prevailing wind conditions at the Muskoka Airport, and discuss potential usability and safety impacts it would have on the Airport. This section is supplementary to the report titled Muskoka Airport Windrose Usability Study completed by GENIVAR, formally PSMI, in November 2010. 7.2 PREVAILING WINDS VS. AIRPORT USABILITY In meteorology, prevailing winds are defined as the wind direction most frequently observed during a given period (Meteorology Today An Introduction to Weather, Climate and the Environment). However, in aviation both wind direction and velocity are used to assess the take-off and landing performance and capability of aircraft. Aircraft, due to wing design and the theory of flight, have the greatest performance when they take-off and land into the wind. However, this is rarely feasible as wind conditions are constantly changing, yet the alignment of runways are fixed. Therefore, aircraft are designed and pilots are trained to land during cross-wind conditions. There is however a maximum cross-wind component that aircraft are designed to handle and in the case of small recreational aircraft, such as those that use turf runways, it is typically 10 knots. As a result, Transport Canada, along with other International Civil Aviation organizations, recommends the use of a windrose analysis to determine the airport usability factor based on the specified maximum cross-wind component of the design aircraft. By definition a windrose indicates the percentage of time during which observed winds at the site are within corresponding orientation limits and speed limits (Airport Systems Planning, Design and Management). Therefore, prevailing winds account for direction only, while a windrose accounts for wind direction and velocity, the two (2) factors required for calculating the cross-wind component and usability factor. It should also be noted that when used in aviation, a prevailing wind study should assess both the ends of the runway. A single runway has two (2) ends in which aircraft can take-off and land, this is known as the reciprocal runway end. Therefore, when assessing prevailing winds for runways, the analysis should include both directions i.e. Runway 09 & 27, or 14 & 32. December, 2011 15 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
By default, the windrose analysis considers both runway ends when calculating the usability factor. This is why it is the primary method used internationally to assess the usability factor of airport, regardless of their size or critical design aircraft. 7.3 HISTORICAL PREVAILING WIND CONDITIONS The following two (2) diagrams show the historical prevailing wind conditions at the Airport. The yellow area indicates the combined usability factor for both runway directions (i.e. is mirrored), whereby the peak at 120 T is equal to the peak at 300 T. Figure 1 below shows the year-round prevailing wind conditions. As shown, the prevailing winds are from the west (in degrees true), which are approximately 10 off the existing Runway 09-27. However, when considering both Runway 27 and its reciprocal Runway 09, Runway 09-27 is not preferred due to the low percentage of wind from the east. Under these conditions, the winds are predominantly from the southeast and the northwest, and therefore a runway alignment in this orientation is favourable. Figure 1 Historical Year-Round Wind Conditions (1990-2008) December, 2011 16 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
Figure 2 Historical Daytime Summer Wind Conditions (1990-2008) An important consideration when assessing historical prevailing wind conditions is the wind velocity. Since aircraft are able to safely operate on a single runway anytime when winds are less than 10 knots, it is the winds over 10 knots which are concerning to pilots. When the winds exceed 10 knots, the pilot must utilize a runway which, by way of the cross-wind component, reduces the effective cross-wind to a velocity less than 10 knots. In the case of the Muskoka Airport, Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that the prevailing winds, regardless of wind velocity, predominantly come from the west. However, during daytime summer conditions nearly 85% of all winds are less than 10 knots. Therefore it is the remaining 15% of the winds that must be investigated when assessing the preferred alignment of a runway. As a result, the following two (2) figures were generated to assess the wind direction when the wind velocity exceeds 10 knots. As discussed above, a single runway has two (2) approaches, therefore the below figure shows the combined wind direction/velocity percentages based on both ends (i.e. 90 & 270 ). December, 2011 17 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
Figure 3 Historical Year-Round Wind Direction/Velocity (1990-2008) Figure 4 Historical Daytime Summer Wind Direction/Velocity (1990-2008) December, 2011 18 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
As shown above, winds that are over 10 knots (shown in orange) predominantly come from the northwest/southeast. As discussed above, it is these winds that have the greatest impact on flight operations and on the usability factor. Winds that are less than 10 knots (shown in green) are accessible to Code A (light recreational aircraft) on any runway and are not impacted by changes in the runway alignment. 7.4 AIRPORT USABILITY FACTOR SUMMARY Following the assessment of the prevailing wind conditions and the direction of winds over 10 knots, it is clear why Runway 14-32 achieves a greater usability factor over both Runway 09-27 and Runway 14-32, which is briefly summarized below: 1. A prevailing wind analysis assesses only wind direction; however aircraft flight operations are impacted by the combination of wind direction and velocity. 2. The windrose analysis, which is used by international civil aviation authorities, uses both wind direction and velocity to assess the airport usability factor. 3. The actual prevailing winds come from the west (in degrees true) which is 10 off the alignment of Runway 09-27. 4. A single runway has two (2) approaches; however the percentage of time when winds are from the northeast and southwest is very low, resulting in the reciprocal runway having a low usability factor. 5. Winds greater than 10 knots, which are both a concern for pilots and impact the airport usability factor, have a high percentage from the northwest/southeast and a low percentage from the northeast/southwest. As a result, the usability factor for Runway 14-32 is preferred over Runway 09-27 and Runway 18-36, as shown below in Table 4 and enclosed in Appendix C: Table 4 Windrose Airport Usability Code A Aircraft Scenario Criteria Usability Factor A. Runway 09-27 Daytime / Summer 93.79% B. Runway 18-36 Daytime / Summer 93.66% J. Runway 14-32 Daytime / Summer 96.98% H. Runway 09-27 & 18-36 09-27 Daytime Summer / 18-36 Year-round 96.97% I. Runway 14-32 & 18-36 09-27 Daytime Summer / 18-36 Year-round 98.91% Notes: 1. Based on meteorological data for the Muskoka Airport between 1990 and 2008. 2. Combined two (2) runways based on general year-round operating conditions where Runway 18-36 is available year-round, while the turf cross-wind runway is available daytime summer only. Runway 14-32 is therefore preferred over Runway 09-27 in terms of wind conditions and airport usability factor. December, 2011 19 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing, the following was determined: 1. Due to the need for immediate developable lands and economy of construction, the Airport is investigating the feasibility of relocating the existing turf cross-wind runway, Runway 09-27. 2. Runway 09-27 is situated on lands that would require minimal earthworks and service extension for commercial development. 3. A previous meteorological windrose study determined that, though not required according to Transport Canada recommendations, it is recommended that Runway 09-27 be maintained to support cross-wind operations for light single engine recreational aircraft. 4. This study determined that the windrose usability factor for Runway 09-27 during daytime summer conditions with a maximum cross-wind component of 10 knots was 93.79%, increasing to 96.97% when combined with Runway 18-36. 5. Following a site assessment, it was determined that an alternative alignment for the cross-wind runway, in a northwest/southeast orientation is feasible. 6. This proposed Runway 14-32 would measure approximately 1,950 ft x 100 ft which is sufficient to support flight operations by private recreational aircraft. 7. The alignment of the runway is such that the flight path and protection surfaces avoid the airport beacon west of the airport and other off-site obstructions. 8. A number of on-site obstructions, including trees and airport fencing, would have to be removed and/or relocated to ensure compliance with Transport Canada standards and recommendations. 9. The proposed Runway 14-32 achieves a usability factor of 96.98%, increasing to 98.91% when combined with Runway 18-36. 10. Due to the wind conditions at the Muskoka Airport, and the prevalence of winds over 10 knots coming from the northwest/southeast, the usability factor exceeds those of the existing Runway 09-27 and Runway 18-36. 11. The VHF-DF, a navigational aid owned and operated by NAV CANADA, might require relocation due to its proximity to the proposed Runway 14-32. 12. A budgetary cost estimate for the relocation of the turf runway was assessed at $257,720, which excludes the cost, if necessary, to relocate the VHF-DF. December, 2011 20 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
13. Relocating the existing turf runway is therefore: a. Feasible, b. Results in greater usability of the Airport for private single engine general aviation recreational aircraft; and, c. Provides an immediate and cost effective means of increasing lands suitable for commercial development. 8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, the following is recommended: 1. The Airport approve in principle the relocation of the turf runway. 2. The Airport initiate consultations with NAV CANADA through the submission of a Land Use Proposal submission form to assess the operational impact of Runway 14-32 on the VHF-DF. 3. The Airport engage a consultant to initiate the relocation of Runway 09-27 and the design and construction of the proposed Runway 14-32. 4. The Airport engage a consultant to initiate the design and construction of the taxiway and site services extension required to support the proposed commercial development. 8.3 CLOSING OBSERVATIONS The foregoing detailed analysis, which was completed in accordance with both Transport Canada standards and recommendations, and international practices, validated previous analysis and determined that relocating the turf cross-wind runway is not only feasible but would result in increased airport usability. Recently opponents have argued the existing Runway 09-27 is aligned with prevailing winds and relocating the runway would result in unsafe operating conditions for private recreational aircraft. However, historical meteorological data shows this to only be partially valid and excludes the reality that wind conditions greater than 10 knots come not from the west, but from the northwest/southeast and rarely from the northeast. It is these conditions, when winds are greater than 10 knots, that are most concerning to pilots and have the potential to result in cross-wind conditions that exceed the safe operating limits of their aircraft. As a result, it is these wind conditions that have the greatest impact on the usability factor, as is demonstrated by the resulting windrose analysis. Though marginal, the Runway 14-32 at 96.98% is better aligned with the wind conditions than Runway 09-27 and Runway 18-36. December, 2011 21 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
All of which is respectfully submitted, GENIVAR, formerly Pryde Schropp McComb Inc. Prepared By: James P. Lindsey, M.Sc. C.M. Aviation Consultant R:\PSMI-Operations\Working_Files\Projects\07244 - Muskoka Rwy Relocatrion Feasibility\Reports\07244 - Muskoka Xwind Relocation Feasibility Study ver 1a 122311.doc December, 2011 22 GENIVAR, formerly PSMI
APPENDIX A AIRPORT LAYOUT & PROPOSED RUNWAY 14-32
APPENDIX B BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE
APPENDIX C WINDROSE ANALYSIS