648 DECLARED DISTANCE OPTION 1a DISPLACE 31 THRESHOLD BY 97 Considers RSA Limiting Factor No runway extensions 13 31 TORA 6,451 6,451 TODA 6,451 6,451 ASDA 5,958 6,451 LDA 5,958 6,354 Runway 17-35 (3,8 x15 ) 1 2 DATE OF AERIAL: May - 211 West Ledbetter Drive Mariner Drive Voyager Drive Red Bird Bird Lane 57 Runway 13-31 (6,451 x15 ) 64 Westmoreland Road S Hampton Rd. Note: Runway displacement provides RSA prior to landing Runway 31 KEY TODA: Take-Off Distance Available Exhibit 4G: RSA DECLARED DISTANCES - OPTION 1a U.S. Highway 67 (Marvin D. Love Freeway) Challenger Drive Saturn Drive Drive Apollo Dr. Dr. 97 1, 5,958 ASDA/LDA 6,354 LDA 6,451 ASDA 6,451 TORA/TODA
Option 1a also proposes changes to Runway 31 declared distances. The RSA required prior to landing is only feet versus the required 1, feet beyond the far end of the runway. Runway 31 currently provides 57 feet of RSA prior to the landing threshold and the full 1, feet of RSA beyond the far end of the runway. Thus, Option 1a only considers reducing the LDA distance via a displaced threshold. As depicted on Exhibit 4G, the landing threshold would be displaced by 97 feet so as to provide feet of RSA prior to landing (57 feet of existing RSA plus 97 feet of displaced threshold). Thus, the declared distances for Runway 31 would remain 6,451 feet for TORA, TODA, and ASDA. The LDA would be reduced by 97 feet for a total of 6,354 feet. It should be noted that displacing the threshold could trigger the need to relocate the ILS glideslope antenna. Costs for relocating the glideslope antenna can vary widely with a low of $5, to more than $1. million as each site can vary widely. Any displacement options to follow will have to include the potential need to relocate the glideslope antenna. As outlined above, this option would not mitigate for the incompatibilities in the RPZs. The Runway 13 RPZ would still extend off airport property and cover four commercial uses. The Runway 31 RPZ would shift 97 feet to the northwest and would still extend beyond airport property to include five commercial and ten residential properties. It should also be noted that any displacement to Runway 31 could prohibit the use of the lead-in light system. The existing lead-in light system is somewhat simplistic and may not be capable of being placed in-pavement. Without the lead-in light system, the visibility minimums for the instrument landing system (ILS) instrument approach procedure to Runway 31 would likely be raised from ¾-mile to not lower than one mile. It is believed that the approach minimums should be maintained at ¾-mile as the airport is commonly frequented by business jet aircraft and is an FAA reliever airport. As such, any displacement scenario presented herein will also consider the installation of a medium intensity approach lighting system (MALS). Depending on the amount of Runway 31 displacement, some of the MALS lights will need to be placed inpavement which increases the cost of the system. An estimate of $1. million has been included to install MALS units with in-pavement lights. RSA Declared Distance Option 1b The second RSA declared distance option utilizes the very same methodology as in Option 1a; however, it considers the potential for the FAA to also require that the full OFA be provided. Due to the angular property line through the OFA and RSA, the southeastern corner of the OFA is impacted at 475 feet from the runway threshold versus 57 feet for the RSA. As a result, instead of the 493- foot limitations placed on the declared distances proposed in Option 1a, this alternative would need to factor a 525- foot limitation. Under Option 1b, the TODA and TORA for both runway ends would remain the current pavement length of 6,451 feet. As depicted on Exhibit 4H, the 525-foot limitation would require a reduction of the Runway 13 ASDA and LDA to 5,926 feet. This option also requires a greater runway displacement on Runway 31 of 125 feet to allow for the full feet of OFA prior to the landing threshold (only 475 feet of OFA is currently available). As a result, the Runway 31 LDA would be reduced to 6,326 feet. All other declared distances on Runway 31 would remain at 6,451 feet. The Runway 13 RPZ would remain in its present condition under this option. The Runway 31 RPZ would be shifted to the northwest by 125 feet and would still extend beyond airport property and cover four commercial and ten residential properties. RSA Declared Distance Option 2a The next RSA declared distance option considers the potential negative impacts of reducing runway distance as put forth in Options 1a and 1b. The reduction in operational length declared available for Runway 13 is critical as the airport experiences winds from the south more than 7 percent of the year. As a result, Runway 13 is utilized far more than Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives / 4-11
64 648 1 2 DATE OF AERIAL: May - 211 DECLARED DISTANCE OPTION 1b DISPLACE 31 THRESHOLD BY 125 Consider OFA Limiting Factor No runway extensions 13 31 TORA 6,451 6,451 TODA 6,451 6,451 ASDA 5,926 6,451 LDA 5,926 6,326 Runway 17-35 (3,8 x15 ) West Ledbetter Drive Mariner Drive Voyager Drive Red Bird Bird Lane 57 Runway 13-31 (6,451 x15 ) Westmoreland Road S Hampton Rd. Note: Runway displacement provides OFA prior to landing Runway 31 KEY TODA: Take-Off Distance Available Exhibit 4H: RSA DECLARED DISTANCES - OPTION 1b U.S. Highway 67 (Marvin D. Love Freeway) Challenger Drive Apollo Dr. Dr. 1, Saturn Drive Drive 125 5,926 ASDA/LDA 6,326 LDA 6,451 ASDA 6,451 TORA/TODA
is Runway 31. Thus, reducing the ASDA for Runway 13 below 6, feet would pose significant operational and economic impacts on airport users and businesses described in RSA Alternative C Decrease Runway Length. Thus, RSA Option 2a proposes similar limitations on the southeast end of the runway but includes pavement extensions at the northwest end of the runway. In RSA Option 2a, the northwest end of the runway is proposed to be extended by 535 feet. This is the maximum extension to the northwest that would allow for the full RSA and OFA north of the extended runway pavement. As depicted on Exhibit 4J, the proposed extension would place the northeastern corner of the OFA at the airport property line. Similar to RSA Declared Distance Option 1a, the landing threshold for Runway 31 would need to be displaced by at least 97 feet to meet the -foot RSA prior to threshold requirements. The associated declared distance calculations for this option are presented on Exhibit 4J. Of note, the 535-foot extension would allow Runway 13 to provide nearly 6,5 feet of ASDA and LDA which is a much better alternative than Options 1a and 1b. Moreover, northerly departures and landings would have increased length available with 6,986 feet of ASDA and 6,889 feet of LDA available. The TORA and TODA would be 6,986 feet for both runways as long as the FAA allows for the RPZs to extend over incompatible uses. As shown on the exhibit, the 535-foot northerly extension would also shift the Runway 13 RPZ 535 feet to the north. The newly shifted RPZ would extend 13 acres beyond current airport property and would encompass 13 commercial units and eight residential units. Obviously, this RPZ shift would significantly increase the incompatible uses in the Runway 13 RPZ. The Runway 31 RPZ would be the same as that proposed in RSA Option 1a. Another important note for this option is the proposed costs associated with a northerly extension. The land northwest of the runway pavement is relatively flat as it has been improved to meet current RSA standards. The area northwest of Taxiway B, however, is not. Approximately 2 feet north of the Taxiway B pavement extended centerline, the topography drops 1 feet. The terrain drops sharply to the east from this point in support of a drainage channel. Costs associated with extending the runway pavement would be relatively typical; however, costs associated with extending parallel Taxiway B would be much greater than typical. The runway pavement extension has been estimated to cost $2.4 million. Extending Taxiway B to the proposed runway end was estimated to cost another $1.5 million. A final factor to consider would be the need to relocate the localizer antenna outside of the RSA which could cost approximately $5,. The installation of a MALS is estimated at $1. million. Thus, the total cost of extending the runway 535 feet to the north, including the extension of Taxiway B, is estimated at $5.4 million. RSA Declared Distance Option 2b Option 2b is the same as Option 2a with the exception of the Runway 31 displaced threshold. As considered in Option 1b, the FAA could require the full OFA to be provided at the south end of the runway. Thus, this option proposes a 125-foot displacement of the Runway 31 threshold instead of 97- foot displacement proposed in Option 2a. The resultant declared distances and a depiction of the improvements are presented on Exhibit 4K. The costs of extending the runway and the RPZ shift for this option are the same as the preceding Option 2a. RSA Declared Distance Option 3 The third declared distance option considers the maximum runway length which can be provided in a conventional manner while using declared distances. This option proposes a 685-foot northwesterly extension which would shift the northern RSA to the current property line. This option would only be feasible if the FAA would agree to allow the OFA to be non-standard. If the northern OFA is allowed to be nonstandard, then it would follow that the southern OFA could be as well. Thus, Option 3 would only propose a 97- foot displacement of Runway 31. The benefits achieved by Option 3 are obvious. The resultant ASDA and LDA on Runway 13 would be 6,643 feet, nearly 1 feet more than currently exists. Moreover, the Runway 31 ASDA and LDA would exceed 7, feet at 7,136 feet and 7,39 feet, respectively. RSA Declared Distance Option 3 is depicted on Exhibit 4L. The negative aspects of this alternative are also obvious. The costs associated with extending the runway 685 feet to the north have been estimated at $2.917 million. The costs to extend Taxiway B to the proposed runway end are estimated at $1.72 million. Installation of a MALS is estimated at $1. million. Finally, the localizer antenna would need to be relocated at an estimated $5,. Thus, the total costs associated with extending the runway and taxiway are estimated 4-12 / Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives
648 57 6 RSA with Runway Extension OFA with Runway Extension Ultimate Airfield Pavement DECLARED DISTANCE OPTION 2a DISPLACE 31 THRESHOLD BY 97 Considers Runway 31 RSA Limiting Factor Considers Runway 13 OFA Limiting Factor Extends Runway NW 535 13 31 TORA 6,986 6,986 TODA 6,986 6,986 ASDA 6,493 6,986 LDA 6,493 6,889 Runway 17-35 (3,8 x15 ) 1 2 DATE OF AERIAL: May - 211 West Ledbetter Drive Mariner Drive Voyager Drive Red Bird Bird Lane Runway 13-31 (6,451 x15 ) Westmoreland Road S Hampton Rd. Note: Runway displacement provides RSA prior to landing Runway 31 KEY TODA: Take-Off Distance Available Exhibit 4J: RSA DECLARED DISTANCES - OPTION 2a U.S. Highway 67 (Marvin D. Love Freeway) Challenger Drive Apollo Dr. Dr. 1, Saturn Drive Drive 97 6,493 ASDA/LDA 6,889 LDA 6,986 ASDA 6,986 TORA/TODA 535
648 Runway 17-35 (3,8 x15 ) Mariner Drive Voyager Drive 57 Runway 13-31 (6,451 x15 ) 6 RSA with Runway Extension OFA with Runway Extension Ultimate Airfield Pavement DECLARED DISTANCE OPTION 2b DISPLACE 31 THRESHOLD BY 125 Considers Runway 31 OFA Limiting Factor Considers Runway 13 OFA Limiting Factor Extends Runway NW by 535 13 31 TORA 6,986 6,986 TODA 6,986 6,986 ASDA 6,461 6,986 LDA 6,461 6,861 West Ledbetter Drive Red Bird Bird Lane Westmoreland Road S Hampton Rd. Note: Runway displacement provides OFA prior to landing Runway 31 KEY TODA: Take-Off Distance Available 1 2 DATE OF AERIAL: May - 211 Exhibit 4K: RSA DECLARED DISTANCES - OPTION 2b U.S. Highway 67 (Marvin D. Love Freeway) Challenger Drive Apollo Dr. Dr. 1, Saturn Drive Drive 125 6,461 ASDA/LDA 6,861 LDA 6,986 ASDA 6,986 TORA/TODA 535
648 Runway 17-35 (3,8 x15 ) Mariner Drive Voyager Drive 57 Runway 13-31 (6,451 x15 ) 6 RSA with Runway Extension OFA with Runway Extension Ultimate Airfield Pavement DECLARED DISTANCE OPTION 3 DISPLACE 31 THRESHOLD BY 97 Considers Runway 31 RSA Limiting Factor Considers Runway 13 RSA Limiting Factor Extends Runway NW 685 13 31 TORA 7,136 7,136 TODA 7,136 7,136 ASDA 6,643 7,136 LDA 6,643 7,39 West Ledbetter Drive Red Bird Bird Lane Westmoreland Road S Hampton Rd. Note: Runway displacement provides RSA prior to landing Runway 31 KEY TODA: Take-Off Distance Available 1 2 DATE OF AERIAL: May - 211 Exhibit 4L: RSA DECLARED DISTANCES - OPTION 3 U.S. Highway 67 (Marvin D. Love Freeway) Challenger Drive Apollo Dr. Dr. 1, Saturn Drive Drive 97 6,643 ASDA/LDA 7,39 LDA 7,136 ASDA 7,136 TORA/TODA 685
at approximately $6.14 million. Maybe more significant would be the increased incompatible uses in the shifted RPZ. An estimated 12 commercial units would be in the shifted RPZ which is higher than any other alternative and eight more than current. An estimated 15 residential units would lie under the shifted RPZ which is also higher than any other option and significant as the current Runway 13 RPZ does not contain any residential units. RSA Declared Distance Option Summary Prior FAA approval for implementation of declared distances is always required. A primary goal of the declared distance options was to provide maximum safety standards and will also provide a runway length capable of serving existing and future business jet operators. Through the existing declared distances, design standards for the RSA and OFA can be met. The analysis, however, did not adjust the declared distances so as to also meet RPZ requirements as was done earlier in the chapter. The current RPZ for both ends of the runway extends beyond airport property and covers incompatible uses. The Runway 13 RPZ covers five commercial properties, while the Runway 31 RPZ also covers five commercial properties but also 12 residences. This determination would consider the declared distance Options 2a, 2b, and 3 to be prudent and/or feasible as long as the FAA allows for OFA and RPZ modification to standards accordingly. As such, these alternatives can be considered further until and/or unless the FAA deems them objectionable. RSA ALTERNATIVE E: ENGINEERED MATERIALS ARRESTING SYSTEM (EMAS) EMAS is an engineered compressible concrete material that is situated beyond the runway end for the purpose of safely stopping an aircraft overrun. EMAS is not considered as a substitute for aircraft undershoots; thus, feet of RSA is still necessary prior to the landing threshold. EMAS has a similar function to the sandy, high-speed exits provided on highways in mountainous terrain in order to safely stop a runaway tractor-trailer. The FAA considers the installation of EMAS as an acceptable substitute to providing the full RSA. EMAS is designed to stop an aircraft overrun by exerting predictable deceleration forces on the landing gear as the EMAS material crushes. It is designed to minimize the potential for structural damage to the aircraft, since such damage could result in injuries to passengers and/or affect the predictability of deceleration forces. Guidance for evaluating an EMAS alternative and for determining the maximum financially feasible cost for RSA improvements is provided in FAA Order 52.9, Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems. A standard EMAS installation is capable of safely stopping a design aircraft that leaves the runway end traveling at 7 knots or less. The RSA where the EMAS is located should also provide for potential short landings to runway ends with vertical guidance. Vertical guidance to Runway 31 is available via the ILS glideslope antenna and the visual approach slope indicator (VASI) lights. Therefore, a standard EMAS bed would be a portion of the -foot RSA needed prior to landing. The manufacturer and installer of EMAS has provided an analysis of the system required for given the airport s current critical aircraft. Based on their analysis, the EMAS system which would need to be installed would consist of a 265-foot by 17-foot paved lead-in surface leading into the 235-foot by 17-foot EMAS bed. In order to allow for emergency equipment, an area 5 feet long by 2 feet wide should be prepped and stabilized as depicted on Exhibit 4M. The EMAS bed and installation is estimated to cost $4.4 million (212 cost basis). The lead-in pavement and site preparation is estimated to cost $815,. A MALS is estimated at $1. million. Thus, total EMAS costs are estimated at $6.22 million. The benefits of providing EMAS would be that it would serve as the full 1,- foot RSA for Runway 13 operations. As such, all declared distances for Runway 13 under the EMAS option would be the current runway length of 6,451 feet. For Runway 31, all declared distances Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives / 4-13
6 Exhibit 4M: EMAS OPTION Ru nw ay 65 13-3 1 (6,4 51 x 15 ) 65 64 63 64 1 6 26 5 63 23 5 17 EMAS BED D. Lo ve Fr e ew ay ) LEAD-IN PAVEMENT ar vin 61 TORA TODA ASDA LDA 13 6,451 6,451 6,451 6,451 31 6,451 6,451 6,451 6,351 U. 3 2 DATE OF AERIAL: May - 211 TODA:Re Take-Off Distance Available ane ane Lan Bird La Red R Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives 61 6 61 / KEY: 4-14 S. 61 Hi gh wa y 67 (M SITE PREP 62
with the exception of the LDA would also be 6,451 feet. The LDA would be reduced by 1 feet; however, as the landing threshold would need to be displaced in order to provide the full feet of RSA prior to landing. Adding EMAS to the south end of Runway 13-31 is a viable and even prudent option. This option would allow the runway to provide equal length as is provided currently. The negative attribute of this alternative is the cost. Basically, adding EMAS would cost approximately $5.215 million while only preserving existing runway length. Obviously, this option is much better than losing operational runway length as proposed in several previous alternative options. Considering the significant investments, both public and private, already made in the airport, EMAS would support and protect these investments. As such, this alternative is considered viable and prudent and may be explored further in this study. RSA ALTERNATIVE F: COMBINATION METHOD The combination method provides for the flexibility to combine runway relocation, shifting, realignment, EMAS, and/or reduction in order to provide the full RSA. Any combination method will have to include declared distances in order to meet RSA standards. The combination method could also be utilized to shift the RPZs to meet design standards (as was depicted earlier on Exhibit 4C). So far in this RSA determination analysis, the only consideration given in each alternative was for the RSA only without mitigation proposed for the RPZ. This approach was taken so as to independently study the RSA apart from the RPZ issues. It is very possible, however, that the FAA will require any RSA solution to include a solution for meeting the RPZ standard. In fact, the mitigating factor in the FAA decision would be the obligation of federal grant funds necessary to improve the RSA. The FAA many times will not require a change in non-standard conditions until such time as a grant request is made. Thus, it is important that this analysis provide some alternative measures to meet both RSA and RPZ standards that are acceptable to the airport and the FAA if required. Exhibit 4N presents two alternatives which propose combinations of previously outlined alternatives. Both alternatives include a 685-foot northerly extension so as to maximize runway length in both directions. Each alternative also includes a 4-foot displacement of the Runway 13 landing threshold and a 5-foot displacement of the Runway 31 landing threshold. As proposed, the displacements would shift the approach RPZs to both runways and the departure RPZ for Runway 31 away from incompatible land uses. In fact, the approach RPZ for Runway 13 and departure RPZ for Runway 31 would be fully contained on existing airport property as they are essentially the same surface (same size and same location). The approach RPZ for Runway 31 would still extend beyond existing airport property; however, the area outside current property would be over roads and/or areas without any structures. From this point, the alternatives differ in their approach. RSA Combination Method Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would utilize those improvements outlined above but would then apply declared distances to mitigate RSA deficiencies. For Runway 13, the 685-foot extension would allow for the runway to provide a TODA of 7,136 feet which would equate to the entire length of new pavement. The TORA would be slightly shorter at 6,766 feet which would account for a reduction of 37 feet due to the shifted departure RPZ as depicted. The ASDA for Runway 13 would be 6,643 feet which would be computed by adding 685 feet (proposed extension) to the existing 6,451 feet of runway length, and then subtracting 493 feet which is the RSA deficiency beyond the far end of the runway. The LDA for Runway 13 would be the least of all declared distances at 5,558 feet. The LDA would be calculated by reducing the current runway length, 6,451 feet by 4 feet for the displacement, and another 493 feet for RSA deficiency at the far end of the runway. It should be noted that this alternative would not provide for the full OFA beyond the far end of the runway. If the full OFA is required by the FAA, the ASDA and LDA would need to be reduced by another 32 feet. For Runway 31, the TORA would be 6,51 feet to account for the departure RPZ which would require the calculation to end at the proposed location of the Runway 13 displaced threshold (6,451 feet minus 4 feet). The TODA would include the entire length of pavement at 7,136 feet. The ASDA would also include the entire length of pavement, or 7,136 feet as the full 1, feet of RSA could be provided beyond the proposed extension. The LDA for Runway 31 under this alternative would be 6,636 feet to account for the full length of runway pavement minus the proposed 5-foot displaced threshold (7,136 minus 5 feet). Similar to the Runway 13 declared distances, the Runway 31 declared distances for ASDA and LDA Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives / 4-15