The objective of this section is to identify, in general terms, the adequacy of the existing airport facilities and outline what facilities may be needed to accommodate future demands. Airport facilities include both airside and landside components. Airside components include the runway system (runways and taxiways), navigational aids, lighting, and markings. Landside components include terminal facilities, storage and maintenance hangars, auto parking, access, and support facilities. There are four primary sources from which to examine and determine facility requirements:
Aviation Demand Forecasts: The forecasts of aviation demand developed in the previous chap‐ ter serve as data inputs to various models, which have been constructed following Federal Avia‐ tion Administration (FAA) guidance, to generate facility needs. Design Standards Review: Various design standards that apply to the airport are reviewed as they can change based on modifications to FAA guidance or activity changes at the airport. De‐ sign standards primarily relate to the numerous imaginary safety‐related surfaces and separation distances. Facility Maintenance: Airports are required to maintain their pavement surfaces for the useful life of those pavements. The pavements require routine maintenance and occasionally must be rehabilitated or reconstructed. This category includes maintenance of airport structures and landside facilities. Support Facilities: This category includes all airport‐related facilities that do not naturally fall into the airside or landside categories, including elements such as fuel facilities, access and circu‐ lation, and general on‐airport land use.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-1 Recognizing that many facility needs are based upon demand (rather than a point in time), the require‐ ments are expressed in short‐term (years 1‐5), intermediate term (years 6‐10), and long‐term (years 11‐ 20). This chapter will examine several components of the airport and their respective capacities to de‐ termine future facility needs over the planning period. The identified facility needs will then be exam‐ ined in the alternatives’ evaluation.
The facility requirements are evaluated using guidance contained in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) publications, including:
Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300‐13A (as amended), Airport Design AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity and Delay AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace FAA Order 5090.5, Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and the Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP)
AIRFIELD CAPACITY
An airport’s airfield capacity is expressed in terms of its Annual Service Volume (ASV), which is an esti‐ mate of the maximum number of operations that can be accommodated in a year without excessive delay. The airport’s Annual Service Volume was examined utilizing FAA AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity and Delay.
FACTORS AFFECTING ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME (ASV)
Many factors are included in the calculation of an airport’s ASV. These include airfield characteristics, meteorological conditions, aircraft mix, and demand characteristics (aircraft operations). These factors are described in the following paragraphs.
Airfield Characteristics
The layout of the runways and taxiways directly affects an airfield’s capacity. This not only includes the location and orientation of the runways, but the percentage of time that a runway, or combination of runways, is in use. Additional airfield characteristics include the length, width, load bearing strength, and instrument approach capability of each runway at the airport, all of which determine the type of aircraft that may operate on the runway and if operations can occur during poor weather conditions.
Runway Configuration The existing runway configuration at Skagit Regional Airport (BVS) consists of primary Runway 11‐29 and non‐intersecting Runway 4‐22. Non‐precision instrument approaches are available to Runways 11 and
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-2 29. Airfield capacity is reduced during low visibility (instrument) conditions. Because of the proximity of the runways to one another and the lack of positive air traffic control, capacity has been developed assuming that only one runway is in use at a time.
Runway Use Runway use is normally dictated by wind conditions. The direction of takeoffs and landings is generally determined by the speed and direction of wind. It is generally safest for aircraft to depart and land into the wind, avoiding a crosswind or tailwind component during these operations. Prevailing winds favor the use of Runway 11‐29 in all‐weather and low visibility conditions. Runway 11‐29 accounts for 83 percent of all operations, while Runway 4‐22 accounts for 17 percent of total operations.
Exit Taxiways Exit taxiways have a significant impact on airfield capacity since the number and location of exits directly determines the occupancy time of an aircraft on the runway. The airfield capacity analysis gives credit to exits located within a prescribed range from a runway’s threshold. This range is based upon the mix index of the aircraft that use the runway. The exits must be at least 750 feet apart to count as separate exits. Under these criteria, Runway 11‐29 receives the best exit rating, while Runway 4‐22 receives a lower rating.
Meteorological Conditions Weather conditions have a significant effect on airfield capacity. Airfield capacity is usually highest in clear weather, when flight visibility is at its best. Airfield capacity is diminished as weather conditions deteriorate and cloud ceilings and visibility are reduced. As weather conditions deteriorate, the spacing of aircraft must increase to provide allowable margins of safety. The increased distance between aircraft reduces the number of aircraft which can operate at the airport during any given period. Consequently, this reduces overall airfield capacity.
There are three categories of meteorological conditions, each defined by the reported cloud ceiling and flight visibility. Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions exist whenever the cloud ceiling is greater than 1,000 feet above ground level and visibility is greater than three statute miles. VFR flight conditions permit pilots to approach, land, or take‐off by visual reference, and to see and avoid other aircraft.
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) conditions exist when the reported cloud ceiling is less than 1,000 feet above ground level and/or visibility is less than three statute miles. Under IFR conditions, pilots must rely on instruments for navigation and guidance to the runway. Safe separations between aircraft must be as‐ sured by following air traffic control rules and procedures. This leads to increased distances between aircraft, which diminishes airfield capacity.
Poor Visibility Conditions (PVC) exist when cloud ceilings are less than 500 feet above ground level and visibility is less than one mile.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-3
Meteorological data was collected for a recent continuous 10‐year period from the on‐airport auto‐ mated weather observing system (AWOS). According to data summarized in Table 3A, VFR conditions exist 92.12 percent of the time, IFR conditions (down to a 500‐foot cloud ceiling) 3.58 percent of the time, and PVC conditions (below a 500‐foot cloud ceiling) 4.29 percent of the time.
TABLE 3A Meteorological Observations Skagit Regional Airport Condition Observations % VFR 224,754 92.12% IFR 8,740 3.58% PVC 10,478 4.29% Total 243,972 100.00% VFR: Visual Flight Rules ‐ Cloud ceiling >1,000' and visibility >3‐mile. IFR: Instrument Flight Rules ‐ Cloud ceiling down to 500' and visibility down to 1‐mile. PVC: Poor Visibility Conditions ‐ Cloud ceiling below 500' and visibility below 1‐mile. Source: NOAA Weather Sensor Burlington/Mount Vernon from 1.1.2008 to 12.31.2017
Aircraft Mix Aircraft mix refers to the speed, size, and flight characteristics of aircraft operating at the airport. As the mix of aircraft operating at an airport increases to include larger aircraft, airfield capacity begins to di‐ minish. This is due to larger separation distances that must be maintained between aircraft of different speeds and sizes.
Aircraft mix for the capacity analysis is defined by the FAA in terms of four aircraft classes (although only three are reflected in the mix at BVS). Classes A and B consist of single and multi‐engine aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Aircraft within these classifications are primarily associated with general avia‐ tion operations, but this classification also includes some air taxi aircraft. Class C consists of multi‐engine aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds (but not exceeding 300,000 pounds). The Aircraft Operations Study data for 2016 was used to estimate the percentage of operations in each classification.
For the capacity analysis, the percentage of Class C aircraft operating at the airport is critical in deter‐ mining the annual service volume, as these classes include the larger and faster aircraft in the operational mix. The existing and projected operational fleet mix for BVS is summarized in Table 3B. Consistent with projections prepared in the previous chapter, the operational fleet mix at the airport is expected to in‐ crease its percentage of Class C aircraft as business and corporate use of general aviation aircraft in‐ creases at the airport. The percentage of Class C aircraft is higher during IFR conditions, as some general aviation operations are suspended during poor weather conditions.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-4
TABLE 3B Aircraft Operational Mix Skagit Regional Airport Weather Term A & B¹ C² Existing 98.43% 1.57% Short Term 98.38% 1.62% VFR (Visual) Inter. Term 98.34% 1.66% Long Term 98.04% 1.96% IFR (Instrument) Existing / Future 50% 50% ¹Aircraft 12,500 lbs. or less. ²Aircraft between 12,500‐300,000 lbs. Source: Coffman Associates analysis using FAA AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity and Delay.
Demand Characteristics
Operations‐‐not only the total number of annual operations but also the way they are conducted‐‐have an important effect on airfield capacity. Peak operational periods, touch‐and‐go operations, and the percent of arrivals impact the number of annual operations that can be conducted at the airport.
Peak Period Operations For the airfield capacity analysis, average daily operations during the peak month are calculated based upon data obtained in the Aircraft Operations Study. These peak operational levels were previously calculated for existing and forecast levels of operations. Typical operational activity is important in the calculation of an airport’s annual service level, as “peak demand” levels occur sporadically. The peak periods used in the capacity analysis are representative of normal operational activity and can be ex‐ ceeded at various times through the year.
Touch‐and‐Go Operations A touch‐and‐go operation involves an aircraft making a landing and an immediate takeoff without com‐ ing to a full stop or exiting the runway. These operations are normally associated with general aviation training operations and are included in local operations data.
Touch‐and‐go activity is counted as two operations, as there is an arrival and a departure involved. A high percentage of touch‐and‐go traffic normally results in a higher operational capacity because one landing and one take‐off occurs within a shorter time than individual operations. Training operations at the airport (primarily touch‐and‐go operations) were assumed to account for 40 percent of annual op‐ erations throughout the forecast period.
Percent Arrivals Under most circumstances, the lower the percentage of arrivals, the higher the hourly capacity. Except in unique circumstances, the aircraft arrival‐departure split is typically 50‐50. Traffic information at BVS indicated no major deviations from this pattern.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-5
CALCULATION OF ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME
The preceding information was used in conjunction with the airfield capacity methodology developed by the FAA to determine airfield capacity for BVS.
Hourly Runway Capacity
The first step in determining ASV involves the computation of the hourly capacity of each runway con‐ figuration in use. The percentage of use of each runway configuration in VFR and IFR weather, the amount of touch‐and‐go training activity, and the number and location of runway exits become im‐ portant factors in determining the hourly capacity.
As the mix of aircraft operating at an airport changes to include an increasing percentage of Class C aircraft, the hourly capacity of the runway system is reduced because larger aircraft require longer utili‐ zation of the runway for takeoffs and landings, and because the greater approach speeds of the aircraft require increased separation. There was no significant variation in this analysis, and the weighted hourly capacity remains constant at 91 operations.
Annual Service Volume
Table 3C shows the calculation of the Annual Service Volume which is CxDxH. Following this formula, the existing and future annual service volume for BVS has been estimated at 179,000 operations for each year of the 20‐year planning period.
TABLE 3C Annual Service Volume Calculation Skagit Regional Airport ASV Calculation Input 2017 2022 2027 2037 C = Weighted hourly capacity 91 91 91 91 31,778 annual 33,949 annual 36,231 annual 40,882 annual D = Ratio of annual demand to aver‐ operations/145 operations/155 operations/166 operations/187 age daily demand during the peak design day design day design day design day month operations = 219 operations = 219 operations = 218 operations = 219 145 design day 155 design day 166 design day 187 design day H = Ratio of average daily demand to operations/ operations/ operations/18 operations/21 peak hour demand during the peak 16 design hour 17 design hour = design hour design hour month operations = 9 9 operations = 9 operations = 9 Annual Service Volume = C x D x H 179,000 179,000 179,000 179,000 Note: ASV is rounded to nearest 1,000.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-6
Delay
As the number of aircraft operations approaches the airfield’s capacity, increasing amounts of delay to aircraft operations begin to occur to arriving and departing aircraft in all‐weather conditions. Arriving aircraft delays result in aircraft holding outside the airport traffic area, while departing aircraft delays result in aircraft holding at the runway end until they can safely takeoff.
Currently, total annual delay at the airport is estimated at 53 hours (0.1 minutes per aircraft) (reference Figure 2.2, FAA AC 150/5060‐5). If no capacity improvements are made, total annual delay can be ex‐ pected to reach 136 hours (0.2 minutes per aircraft) by the long‐term planning horizon. Delays five to ten times the average could be experienced by individual aircraft (3 to 6 minutes).
Conclusion
Table 3D provides a comparison of the Annual Service Volume at existing and forecast operational levels for the existing configuration. The 2017 level of operations uses 18 percent of the Annual Service Vol‐ ume. In 20 years, the percentage is projected to reach 23 percent of the ASV.
TABLE 3D Annual Service Volume Summary Skagit Regional Airport Annual Operations Weighted Hourly Annual Service Percent of (rounded) Capacity Volume (rounded) Capacity EXISTING CONFIGURATION Existing 31,800 91 179,000 18% Short Term 33,900 91 179,000 19% Inter. Term 36,200 91 179,000 20% Long Term 40,900 91 179,000 23% Source: Coffman Associates analysis using FAA AC 150/5060‐5, Airport Capacity and Delay.
FAA Order 5090.3B, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), indi‐ cates that improvements for airfield capacity should be considered when operations reach 75 percent of the Annual Service Volume. Therefore, no projects specifically intended to improve capacity are nec‐ essary at this time.
AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS
The following section examines the projected airside requirements, including runway orientation, run‐ way length, runway width, pavement strength, line‐of‐sight, and gradient. The taxiway system will be
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-7
examined with respect to current design standards for safety, including separation and wingtip clear‐ ances.
RUNWAY CONFIGURATION
The Airport’s airfield system has two runways. Primary Runway 11‐29 is oriented in a northwest/south‐ east manner. Runway 4‐22 is oriented in a southwest/northeast manner. The two runways do not in‐ tersect. Table 3E shows the runway utilization by runway end. As can be seen, in 2016, Runway 11‐29 accounted for 83% of operations and Runway 4‐22 accounted for 17% of operations.
A crosswind runway configuration is common in loca‐ TABLE 3E tions with variable wind patterns and is recommended Runway Usage to meet local wind conditions, if needed. For the oper‐ Skagit Regional Airport ational safety and efficiency of an airport, it is desirable Runway 2016 Operations Percent 4 1,062 3.31% for the primary runway to be oriented as close as pos‐ 22 4,520 14.10% sible to the direction of the prevailing winds which re‐ 11 6,494 20.26% duces the impact of wind components perpendicular 29 19,978 62.33% to the direction of travel of an aircraft that is landing or Total 32,054 100.00% taking off. Source: BVS Aircraft Operations Study (2013‐2016)
FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, recommends a crosswind runway when the primary runway ori‐ entation provides for less than 95 percent wind coverage for specific crosswind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed based on wind not exceeding a 10.5‐knot (12 mph) component for runway design code (RDC) A‐I and B‐I, 13‐knot (15 mph) component for RDC A‐II and B‐II, 16‐knot (18 mph) component for RDC A‐III, B‐III, C‐I through C‐III, and D‐I through D‐III, and 20 knots for larger wing‐ spans.
Exhibit 3A presents both the all‐weather and IFR wind rose for BVS. A wind rose is a graphic tool that gives a succinct view of how wind speed and direction are historically distributed at a location. The table at the top of the wind rose indicates the percent of wind coverage for each runway at specific wind intensity. The wind rose is constructed based on the most recent 10 years of data from the on‐airport weather sensor (e.g., the AWOS). As can be seen on the exhibit, both runways, individually and com‐ bined, provide greater than 95 percent wind coverage. Therefore, Runway 11‐29 is oriented in the proper direction and should be maintained.
According to FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Handbook, only one runway at any NPIAS air‐ port is eligible for on‐going maintenance and rehabilitation funding unless the FAA Airport District Office (ADO) has made a specific determination that a crosswind or secondary runway is justified. A runway that is not a primary runway, crosswind runway, or secondary runway, is an additional runway, which is not eligible for FAA funding. It is not unusual for a two‐runway airport to have a primary runway and an additional runway, and no crosswind or secondary runway. Table 3F presents the eligibility require‐ ments for runway types.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-8
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE INSTRUMENT/POOR VISIBILITY WIND COVERAGE* Runways 10.5 Knots 13 Knots 16 Knots 20 Knots Runways 10.5 Knots 13 Knots 16 Knots 20 Knots Runway 11-29 98.47% 99.36% 99.92% 99.99% Runway 11-29 99.64% 99.84% 99.97% 99.99% Runway 4-22 99.33% 99.65% 99.97% 100.00% Runway 4-22 94.83% 97.04% 99.45% 99.90% All Runways 99.92% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00% All Runways 99.53% 99.90% 99.98% 100.00%
20 KNOTS 2
0
K 16 K 1 6 N
13 K 13 K K OTS 360 10 10.5 KN NOTS OTS 360 10 N 11 N 10 OTS 350 NOTS 11 350 20 KNOTS 20 20 KNOTS 20 .5 NO 340 340 K 16 KNOTS 16 K KNOTS NOT T
OTS S
13 KNOTS N 30 3 KNOTS N 30 330 1 330
NNE NNE S
10.5 KNOTS 10.5 NNW 40 NNW 40 22 320 320 22 50 NE NE 50 310 310 NW NW
60 60
300 300
ENE EN 70 W 0.02 7 90 0 0.01 0.07 90 0.07 01 0.01 E 2 2 0.18 0. 0 WN 0.01 WNW .1 0.01 0.08 0 .04 0.05 .02 0.2 0 0.08 0.19 .3 0.51 0 80 0.49 9 14 8
0.07 0.09 0 0.11 0.03 .06 0.01 0.52 0 0.04 .92 0. .31 0.06 0 0 .65 0 1.47 .69 9 0. 0.14 02 280 0 0.14 0.01 0. 280 65 0.38 0.14 1.71 0.6 0.03 0.25 0.3 0.65 0.68 0.24 0.27 0.06 0.01 0-6 0.77 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.1 0.26 0.01 0-6 0.41 0.11 1 0.66 0.04 0.37 270 W 0.05 KNOTS 0.4 0.11 E 90 0.01 0.23 0.04 0.02 0.33 270 W KNOTS E 90 0.04 0.11 0.01 0.19 70.67% 0.45 0.23 0.02 0.06 0.65 0.01 88.33% 0.16 1.03 0.22 0.03 260 0.09 0.35 260 0.02 1.32 1.3 06 0.35 0. 0 0.26 1 0.32 0.46 01 0. 0 0.04 0.69 1.1 .18 0.67 6 .56 0.02 0. 0.01 0.31 .54 0.89 100 0.04 53 0 10
0.7 1.0 0.01 0.75 0.78 0.62 0.61 0.05 0.04 0.62 0 0.04 WSW .73 WSW 0.56 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.46 250 2 0.03 0 .08 0.18 1 50 0.07 E 0 0.1 0.06 02 0.01 0. 0.02
0.25 0. 0 110 0.05 0.01 .09 ESE ES 11 0.
0.06 08 240 240 0.01 0.02 0 0.03 2 0. 120 1 0.01 01 SW SW 01 2 0. 30 230 SE SE 30 130 1 2 220 10.5 KNOTS4 20 10.5 K 4 SSW 140 SSW 140 13 KNO 1 S SSE TS 3 KN 16 KNOTS 210 16 KNOTS NOTS 210 SSE T S O 20 KNOTS 150 20 KNOTS S 150 S O 200 200 KN OTS TS 160 TS TS 29 OT 160 29.5 N 190 180 170 10.5 KNO 190 170 10 K KN OTS 180 3 13 KNOTS 1 KNO 16 16 20 KN 20 KNOTS
SOURCE: SOURCE: NOAA National Climatic Center NOAA National Climatic Center Asheville, North Carolina Asheville, North Carolina Skagit Regional Airport Skagit Regional Airport Port of Skagit County, Washington Port of Skagit County, Washington Magnetic Declination Magnetic Declination 00° 15' 50" East (Sept. 2018) OBSERVATIONS: 00° 15' 50" East (Sept. 2018) *Conditions where reported cloud ceilings OBSERVATIONS: Annual Rate of Change 243,972 All Weather Observations Annual Rate of Change are less than 1,000' agl and/or visibility is 19,218 IFR Observations 00° 09' 00" West (Sept. 2018) Jan. 1, 2008 - Dec, 31 2017 00° 09' 00" West (Sept. 2018) less than 1 statute mile. Jan. 1, 2008 - Dec, 31 2017
Exhibit 3A DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-9 WINDROSES This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-10
TABLE 3F Runway Eligibility For the following runway type… Must meet all of the following criteria… And is… 1. A single runway at an airport is eligible for devel‐ Primary Runway opment consistent with FAA design and engineer‐ Eligible ing standards. 1. The wind coverage on the primary runway is less Crosswind Runway Eligible if justified than 95% 1. There is more than one runway at the airport. 2. The non‐primary runway is not a crosswind run‐ way. 3. Either of the following: Secondary Runway Eligible if justified a) The primary runway is operating at 60% or more of its annual capacity. b) FAA has made a specific determination that the runway is required. 1. There is more than one runway at the airport. 2. The non‐primary runway is not a crosswind run‐ Additional Runway way. Ineligible 3. The non‐primary runway is not a secondary run‐ way. Source: FAA Order 5100.38D, AIP Handbook
Since the wind coverage on Runway 11‐29 exceeds the 95 percent threshold, Runway 4‐22 is not eligible for federal funding as a crosswind runway. For Runway 4‐22 to be eligible for federal maintenance and rehabilitation funding, the FAA must make a specific determination that the runway is a secondary run‐ way. To date, the FAA has not made this determination and Runway 4‐22 is currently identified as an additional runway that is ineligible for FAA funding.
Runway 4‐22 provides utility to operators of smaller aircraft accounting for more than 5,000 operations in 2016. In planning for the future of this runway, this utility needs to be balanced against the cost for ongoing maintenance and periodic major rehabilitation of the runway. The previous master plan (2007) identified approximately $3.5 million needed for Runway 04/22 rehabilitation. Today, the estimated cost to rehabilitate the runway is $4.7 million. The alternatives chapter will examine potential options for utilization of the Runway 4‐22 infrastructure in consideration of its function as a secondary runway, its value as supporting infrastructure to landside infrastructure, and its ongoing cost to maintain in a safe and operable condition.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-11
Seasonal Wind Analysis
While FAA may determine a secondary runway is required for a variety of reasons, empirical analysis based on the meteorological conditions at the airport may help support a positive determination. For example, some locations may experience significant seasonal wind direction changes which would im‐ pact enough operations to justify a crosswind or secondary runway even when the overall annual wind data exceeds the 95 percent threshold.
A seasonal analysis was conducted utilizing the 10 years of wind data for BVS. It was found that in the winter months, Runway 11‐29 provided 97.81 percent wind coverage at 10.5 knots. While this is slightly lower than the 10‐year average (98.47 percent), it still exceeds the 95 percent threshold. During the summer months, Runway 11‐29 provided 99.05 percent wind coverage at 10.5 knots. Based on the seasonal wind analysis, neither a crosswind nor secondary runway is justified for FAA funding participa‐ tion
RUNWAY DESIGN STANDARDS
The FAA has established several imaginary surfaces to protect aircraft operational areas and keep them free from obstructions that could affect their safe operation. These include the runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway obstacle free zone (OFZ), and runway protection zone (RPZ).
The entire RSA, ROFA, OFZ, and RPZ should be under the direct ownership of the airport sponsor to ensure these areas remain free of obstacles and can be readily accessed by maintenance and emergency personnel. It is not required that the RPZ be under airport ownership, but it is strongly recommended by the FAA. An alternative to outright ownership of the RPZ is the purchase of avigation easements (acquiring control of designated airspace within the RPZ) or having enough land use control measures in place to ensure the RPZ remains free of incompatible development. Currently, the Port has direct own‐ ership of all the surfaces based upon current runway lengths and projected runway classifications.
Dimensional standards for the various safety areas associated with the runways are a function of the type of aircraft expected to use the runways, as well as the instrument approach visibility minimums. Runway 11‐29 has a current runway design code (RDC) of B‐II‐4000 (and future RDC of D‐II‐2400 if a precision instrument approach were added), while Runway 4‐22 has an RDC of B‐I(s)‐VIS. Table 3G pre‐ sents the design standards for Runway 11‐29 and Table 3H presents the design standards for Runway 4‐ 22. The following subsections describe any design standard deficiencies.
In 2016, the safety areas serving Runway 11‐29 were improved to RDC D‐II standards. Under the D‐II standards, the windsock on the west side of the Runway 11 threshold penetrates the RSA by eight feet. Three windsocks, including the one in the RSA, penetrate the D‐II ROFA, as does the segmented circle. None of these are penetrations to the current B‐II RSA and ROFA. Runway 11‐29 meets all current B‐II design standards.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-12
TABLE 3G Runway Design Standards ‐ Runway 11‐29 Skagit Regional Airport Runway 11‐29 / Runway 11‐29 / Does Runway 11‐29 Currently Meet Fu‐ AIRPORT DATA Current Standards Future Standards¹ ture Standards? Critical Aircraft B‐II‐1B D‐II‐2 Yes Runway Design Code B‐II‐4000 D‐II‐2400 Yes Visibility Minimums ⅞‐Mile ½‐Mile/¾‐Mile Yes RUNWAY DESIGN Runway Width 75 100 Yes Runway Shoulder Width 10 10 Yes Blast Pad Length/Width 150 x 95 150 x 120 NA/Not Required RUNWAY PROTECTION Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width 150 500 No/Windsock penetration on Rwy 11 end Length Beyond Departure End 300 1,000 Yes Length Prior to Threshold 300 600 Yes Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) No/Penetration by 3 windsocks, sege‐ Width 500 800 mented circle Length Beyond Departure End 300 1,000 Yes Length Prior to Threshold 300 600 Yes Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Width 400 400 Yes Length Beyond End 200 200 Yes Approach RPZ Rwy 11 Rwy 29 Rwy 11 Rwy 29 Runway 11‐29 RPZ Length 1,000 1,700 1,700 2,500 Yes/Rwy 11; No/Higgins Airport Way cur‐ Inner Width 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 rently passes through Rwy 29 Approach RPZ. Existing condition may not require Outer Width 700 1,510 1,510 1,750 mitigation. Departure RPZ Rwy 11 Rwy 29 Rwy 11 Rwy 29 Runway 11‐29 RPZ Length 1,000 1,000 1,700 Yes/Rwy 11; No/Higgins Airport Way cur‐ Inner Width 500 500 500 rently passes through Rwy 29 Departure RPZ. Existing condition may not require Outer Width 700 700 1,010 mitigation. RUNWAY SEPARATION Runway Centerline to: Parallel Runway NA N/A NA Holding Position 250 250 Yes Parallel Taxiway 300 400 Yes Aircraft Parking Area 400 500 Yes All dimensions in feet BOLD figures denote a future change in design standards from the current conditions. ¹Runway 11‐29 has been designed to D‐II‐2 design standards. Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-13
TABLE 3H Runway Design Standards ‐ Runway 4‐22 Skagit Regional Airport AIRPORT DATA Runway 4‐22 (Existing/Future) Current Condition Critical Aircraft B‐I‐1A (small) B‐I‐1A (small) Runway Design Code B‐I(s)‐VIS B‐I(s)‐VIS Visibility Minimums VIS VIS RUNWAY DESIGN Runway Width 60 60 Runway Shoulder Width 10 10 Blast Pad Length/Width 60 x 80 NA RUNWAY PROTECTION Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width 120 120 Length Beyond Departure End 240 240 Length Prior to Threshold 240 240 Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Width 250 250 Length Beyond Departure End 240 240 Length Prior to Threshold 240 240 Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) Width 250 250 Length Beyond End 200 200 Approach RPZ Length 1,000 1,000 Inner Width 250 250 Outer Width 450 450 Departure RPZ Length 1,000 1,000 Inner Width 250 250 Outer Width 450 450 RUNWAY SEPARATION Runway Centerline to: Parallel Runway N/A N/A Holding Position 125 125 Parallel Taxiway 150 150 Aircraft Parking Area 125 125 All dimensions in feet Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
The RSA is defined in FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, as a “surface surrounding the runway pre‐ pared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to aircraft in the event of undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.” The RSA is centered on the runway and dimensioned in accordance to the approach speed of the critical aircraft using the runway. The FAA requires the RSA to be cleared and
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-14
graded, drained by grading or storm sewers, capable of accommodating the design aircraft and fire and rescue vehicles, and free of obstacles not fixed by navigational purpose.
The existing RSA for Runway 11‐29 is 150 feet wide as centered on the runway and it extends 300 feet beyond the runway ends. The RSA meets the current B‐II standards.
The future RSA for Runway 11‐29 is 500 feet wide as centered on the runway and extends 1,000 feet beyond the runway ends. As a result of the 2016 runway safety improvement project, the RSA currently meets the future design standard. The windsock nearest the Runway 11 threshold is in the future RSA by a depth of eight feet.
The existing and future RSA for Runway 4‐22 is 120 feet wide and extends 240 feet beyond the runway ends. The RSA design standards are met for this runway.
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
The ROFA is “a two‐dimensional ground area, surrounding runways, taxiways, and taxilanes, which is clear of objects except for objects whose location is fixed by function (i.e., airfield lighting).” The ROFA does not have to be graded and level like the RSA; instead, the primary requirement for the ROFA is that no object in the ROFA penetrate the lateral elevation of the RSA. The runway ROFA is centered on the runway, extending out in accordance to the critical aircraft design category utilizing the runway.
The current B‐II ROFA is 500 feet wide and it extends beyond the runway ends 300 feet. There are no penetrations to the current ROFA, thus it meets standard.
The future ROFA for Runway 11‐29 is 800 feet wide as centered on the runway and extends 1,000 feet beyond the runway ends. Three windsocks, the segmented circle, and a small electrical vault are in the future ROFA approximately 370 feet from the runway centerline.
The ROFA for Runway 4‐22 meets standard.
Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)
The OFZ is an imaginary surface that precludes object penetrations, including taxiing and parked aircraft. The only allowance for OFZ obstructions is navigational aids mounted on frangible bases, which are fixed in their location by function, such as airfield signs. The OFZ is established to ensure the safety of aircraft operations. If the OFZ is obstructed, the airport’s approaches could be removed, or approach minimums could be increased.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-15
The current and future OFZ for Runway 11‐29 is 400 feet wide and it extends 200 feet beyond the runway ends. The OFZ for Runway 4‐22 is 250 feet wide and extends 200 feet beyond the runway ends. The OFZ for both runways meet standard.
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
The RPZ is a trapezoidal area centered on the runway, typically beginning 200 feet beyond the runway end. When an RPZ begins at a location other than 200 feet beyond the end of a runway, two RPZs are required (i.e., a departure RPZ and an approach RPZ). The RPZ has been established by the FAA to pro‐ vide an area clear of obstructions and incompatible land uses in order to enhance the protection of approaching aircraft, as well as people and property on the ground. The RPZ is comprised of the central portion of the RPZ and the controlled activity area. The dimensions of the RPZ vary according to the visibility minimums serving the runway and the type of aircraft operating on the runway.
The central portion of the RPZ extends from the beginning to the end of the RPZ, is centered on the runway centerline, and is the width of the ROFA. Only objects necessary to aid air navigation, such as approach lights, are allowed in this portion of the RPZ. The remaining portions of the RPZ, the controlled activity areas, have strict land use limitations. Wildlife attractants, fuel farms, places of public assembly, and residences are prohibited from the entire RPZ.
The FAA has renewed its focus on improving land use compatibility in RPZs. On September 27, 2012, the FAA issued a memo entitled, Interim Guidance on Land Use Within a Runway Protection Zone (Interim Guidance). The Interim Guidance indicates that any new or modified RPZs that include incompatibilities must be reviewed and approved by the FAA headquarters prior to implementation. Table 3J summarizes the actions that typically trigger a change in the size and/or location of the RPZ and lists incompatible land uses.
Since the Interim Guidance only addresses new or modified RPZs, existing incompatibilities are not sub‐ ject to the new guidance. It is still necessary for the airport sponsor to take all reasonable actions to meet the RPZ design standard; FAA funding priority for certain actions, such as relocating existing roads in the RPZ, will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis.
At BVS, the approach RPZ to Runway 29 and the departure RPZ for Runway 11 extend over the airport entrance road (Higgins Airport Way) and the nature trail that runs parallel to the roadway. The nature trail is outside the airport perimeter fence. The existing ¾‐mile approach RPZ encompasses 48.9 acres. The roadway and nature trail occupy 3.8 acres of land within the approach RPZ. The alternatives chapter explores opportunities to remove or minimize incompatible land uses within RPZs.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-16
TABLE 3J New or Modified Land Uses in the RPZ ACTIONS TYPICALLY TRIGGERING A CHANGE IN RPZ DIMENSIONS/LOCATION 1 An airfield project (e.g., runway extension, runway shift) 2 A change in the critical design aircraft that increases the RPZ dimensions 3 A new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the RPZ dimensions 4 A local development proposal in the RPZ (either new or reconfigured) LAND USES REQUIRING COORDINATION WITH FAA HEADQUARTERS Land Use Examples and Notes Including but not limited to: Residences, schools, churches, hospitals, 1 Building and Structures other places of public assembly, etc. Including but not limited to: Golf courses, sports fields, amusement 2 Recreational Land Use parks, other places of public assembly, etc. Including but not limited to: Rail facilities (light or heavy, passenger or 3 Transportation Facilities freight), public roadways, and vehicular parking facilities. 4 Fuel Storage Facilities Above and below ground 5 Hazardous Material Storage Above and below ground 6 Above‐Ground Utility Infrastructure Electrical substations, solar panels, etc. Note: Airport sponsors must continue to work with FAA to remove/mitigate existing RPZ land use incompatibilities. Source: FAA Memo: Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone (Sept. 27, 2012)
Table 3K details the incompatible land uses currently within the Runway 29 approach RPZ. The RPZs for Runway 4‐22 meet design standards.
TABLE 3K Runway Protection Zone Detail Skagit Regional Airport
RPZ Size Owned in Fee Existing Incompatible % Incompati‐ Runway RPZ Dimensions (ft.) (ac.) (ac.)/% Owned Land Uses ble
Rwy 29 Inner Width: 1,000’ Higgins Airport Way ‐ Cur‐ Outer Width: 1,510’ 48.978 ac. 3.8 ac./92.2% Nature Trail 7.80% rent Length: 1,700’ Inner Width: 1,000’ Higgins Airport Way Rwy 29 Outer Width: 1,750’ 78.914 ac. 3.8 ac./95.2% Nature Trail 4.80% ‐ Future Length: 2,500’ Source: Coffman Associates analysis.
Runway/Taxiway Separation
The design standards for the separation between runways and parallel taxiways are determined by the critical aircraft and the instrument approach visibility minimums. The current critical aircraft is repre‐ sented by those aircraft in ARC B‐II for Runway 11‐29 which require a minimum separation of 240 feet.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-17
This separation requirement increases to 300 feet if visibility minimums for the instrument approach drop below ¾‐mile. The future ARC is D‐II, which has a runway to parallel taxiway separation require‐ ment of 300 feet for not lower than ¾‐mile approach minimums and 400 feet for lower than ¾‐mile approach minimums. The existing separation between Runway 11‐29 and parallel Taxiway A is 500 feet. Following consultation with FAA, it was determined to maintain Taxiway A in its current location and not plan to relocate it to 400 feet.
The separation requirement along Runway 4‐22 is 150 feet, which is the existing separation. The alter‐ natives chapter will evaluate the feasibility of relocating parallel Taxiway A to the standard separation distance of 400 feet.
Hold Line Separation
The hold lines on all taxiways connecting to Runway 11‐29 are 250 feet from the runway centerline, which meets the future D‐II design standard. The existing B‐II hold line standard is 200 feet. The hold lines on taxiways connecting to Runway 4‐22 are 125 feet from the runway centerline, which meets standard.
Aircraft Parking Area Separation
Based on current conditions (B‐II), the aircraft parking areas should be no closer than 250 feet from the Runway 11‐29 centerline. The future C‐II condition requires 400 feet when there are ½‐mile approach minimums. All aircraft parking positions are at least 600 feet from the runway centerline currently. Air‐ craft parking positions should be no closer than 125 feet from the Runway 4‐22 centerline. Currently, all aircraft parking positions are at least 250 feet from the runway centerline. All aircraft parking areas at BVS meet this standard and should be maintained.
RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS
Aircraft operate on a wide variety of available runway lengths. Many factors will govern the suitability of those runway lengths for aircraft, such as elevation, temperature, wind velocity, aircraft operating weight, wing flap settings, runway condition (wet or dry), runway gradient, vicinity airspace obstructions, and any special operating procedures.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provides a five‐ step process for determining runway length needs.
1. Identify the list of critical design airplanes or airplane group. 2. Identify the airplanes or airplane group that will require the longest runway length at maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW).
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-18
3. Determine which of the three methods, described in the AC, will be used for establishing the runway length. 4. Select the recommended runway length from the appropriate methodology. 5. Apply any necessary adjustments to the obtained runway length.
The three methodologies for determining runway length requirements are based on the MTOW of the critical design aircraft or the airplane group. The airplane group consists of multiple aircraft with similar design characteristics. The three weight classifications are those with a MTOW of 12,500 pounds or less, those airplanes weighing over 12,500 pounds but less than 60,000 pounds, and those weighing 60,000 pounds or more. Table 3L shows these classifications and the appropriate methodology to use in runway length determination.
TABLE 3L Airplane Weight Classification for Runway Length Requirements Airplane Weight Category (MTOW) Design Approach Methodology Family grouping of Approach speeds of less than 30 knots Chapter 2: para. 203 small airplanes Approach speeds of at least 30 knots but Family grouping of 12,500 Chapter 2: para. 204 less than 50 knots .small airplanes pounds or With less than 10 Family grouping of less Chapter 2: para. 205, Figure 2‐1 Approach speeds of passengers small airplanes. 50 knots or more With 10 or more Family grouping of Chapter 2: para. 205, Figure 2‐1 passengers small airplanes Family grouping of Chapter 3: Figures 3‐1 or 3‐2 and Over 12,500 pounds but less than 60,000 pounds large airplanes Tables 3‐1 or 3‐2 Individual large Chapter 4: Airplane performance 60,000 pounds or more or Regional Jets airplanes manuals Source: FAA AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design
Runway 11‐29 Length Requirement
Utilizing FAA AC 150/5325‐B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, the following presents the five‐step process for determining the recommended runway length for primary Runway 11‐29.
Step 1: Identify the critical design airplanes or airplane group.
The first step in determining the recommended runway length for an airport is to identify the critical design aircraft or family grouping of aircraft with similar design characteristics. The critical design aircraft or airplane group accounts for at least 500 annual operations. The FAA’s Traffic Flow Management Sys‐ tem Count (TFMSC) database documents those aircraft that fly IFR and/or file a flight plan to or from the airport. Local operations are not captured. Table 3M summarizes the TFMSC data by weight class.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-19
TABLE 3M Jet and Turboprop Operations by Weight Class Skagit Regional Airport OPERATIONS Weight Class 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 12,500 lbs. or less 950 954 1,030 1,298 1,354 Over 12,500 lbs. but less than 60,000 lbs. 924 912 1,056 1,044 1,000 60,000 lbs. or more 32 24 28 54 24 Total Jets and Turboprops 1,906 1,890 2,114 2,396 2,378 Total Jets 886 924 964 962 1,052 Total Turboprops 1,020 966 1,150 1,434 1,326 Source: Traffic Flow Management System Count
As can be seen in Table 3M, there were more than 1,000 operations by aircraft with a MTOW over 12,500 but less than 60,000 pounds in 2018. There were only 24 operations by aircraft with a MTOW greater than 60,000 pounds. Therefore, the appropriate runway length methodology is to examine the general runway length tables from Chapter 3 of AC 150/5325‐4B.
Step 2: Identify the airplanes or airplane group that require the longest runway length at maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW).
Table 3M distinguishes between operations by jets and turboprops. Jet and turboprop operations have increased by an average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent over the past five years. Jet aircraft typically require the longest runway lengths; therefore, the runway length curves in Chapter 3 of AC 150/5325‐ 4B will be utilized.
Step 3: Determine which of the three methods, described in the AC, will be used for establishing the runway length.
The third step in the runway length recommendation process is to select the specific methodology to use. Chapter 3 of the AC groups business jets weighing over 12,500 pounds but less than 60,000 pounds into the following two categories:
75 percent of the fleet; and 100 percent of the fleet.
The AC states that the airplanes in the 75 percent of the fleet category generally need 5,000 feet or less of runway at mean sea level and standard day temperature (59° F), while those in the 100 percent of the fleet category need more than 5,000 feet of runway under the same conditions.
The AC indicates that the airport designer must determine which category to use for runway length de‐ termination. According to the AC, if relatively few airplanes under evaluation are in the 100 percent of the fleet category, then this category should be used for runway length determination. The distinction
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-20
is that there is not a threshold of 500 operations that determines which category to use. Table 3N pre‐ sents the TFMSC operations data for the 100 percent of the fleet category. For each of the past five years, there has been an average of 421 operations by jet aircraft in 100 percent of the fleet category; therefore, the 100 percent of the fleet category is used to determine runway length for BVS.
TABLE 3N Jet Operations in the 100 Percent of the Fleet Category Skagit Regional Airport OPERATIONS¹ Aircraft Type MTOW ARC 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Challenger 600/601/604 Series 48,200 C‐II 2 8 10 6 4 Citation II/SP/Latitude Series 30,800 B‐II 20 24 8 28 18 Citation CJ3/CJ4 17,110 B‐II 98 84 88 72 104 Citation X 36,100 B‐II 22 16 62 38 34 Falcon 900 49,000 B‐II 2 22 26 22 18 Falcon 2000 42,800 B‐II 14 4 16 10 10 Learjet 40 XR Series 21,000 C‐I 130 116 114 102 94 Lear 50 Series 19,500 C‐I 6 0 4 6 0 Learjet 60 Series 22,750 C‐I 22 24 18 18 12 Gulfstream 100/150* 26,100 C‐II 0 2 8 8 6 Gulfstream 200/450/500/600* 69,700 D‐II/D‐III 40 26 40 56 28 Hawker 800 28,000 C‐II 74 60 50 22 30 Hawker 4000* 39,500 B‐II 4 12 14 22 48 TOTAL 434 398 458 410 406 ¹ Traffic Flow Management System Count MTOW: Maximum Take Off Weight ARC: Airport Reference Code Note: FAA AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, identifies the listed aircraft as being in the 75‐100% category. Those with an * are identified by the planner as being in this category.
There are two runway length curves presented in the AC under the 100 percent of the fleet category:
60 percent useful load; and 90 percent useful load.
The useful load is the difference between the maximum allowable structural weight and the operating empty weight (OEW). The useful load consists of passengers, cargo, and usable fuel. The determination of which useful load category to use will have a significant impact on the recommended runway length; however; it is inherently difficult to determine because of the variable needs of each aircraft operator. For shorter flights, pilots may take on less fuel; however, pilots may prefer to ferry fuel so that they don’t have to refuel frequently. Because of the variability in aircraft weights and haul lengths, the 60 percent useful load category is considered the default, unless there are specific known operations that would suggest using the 90 percent useful load category. Examples of a need to use the 90 percent useful load include regular air cargo flights, long haul flights (i.e., cross‐country), or known fuel‐ferrying needs. For this analysis, the default 60 percent useful load category will be used.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-21
Step 4: Select the recommended runway length from the appropriate methodology.
The next step is to examine the 100 percent of the fleet at 60 percent useful load perfor‐ mance chart in Figure 3‐2 of the AC (Figure 3‐ 1). This chart requires the following knowledge:
The mean maximum daily tempera‐ ture of the hottest month: August at 73.8°(F). The airport elevation: 145 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
By locating the appropriate temperature and airport elevation on the performance chart, the recommended runway length, without any adjustments, is 4,892 feet.
Step 5: Apply any necessary adjustments to the obtained runway length.
The recommended runway length deter‐ mined in Step #4 is based on zero effective Figure 3‐1: Business Jet Runway Length Chart runway gradient and dry runways. Step #5 applies adjustments to the raw runway length for these factors. The adjustments are not cumulative and the higher of the two adjustments is the recommended runway length. With an 0.8 percent effective runway gradient (42 feet of elevation difference for Runway 11‐29), the runway length obtained from Step #4 is increased at the rate of 10 feet for each foot of elevation difference between the high and low points of the runway centerline. At BVS, this equates to an additional 420 feet of required runway length. For business jet landing length, the runway length obtained in Step #4 is increased 15 percent up to 5,500 feet for the 60% useful load category and 7,000 feet for the 90 percent useful load category. Table 3P summarizes the data inputs and the final recommended runway length of 5,500 feet for Skagit Regional Airport.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-22
TABLE 3P Runway Length Requirements Skagit Regional Airport Airport Elevation: 145' feet above mean sea level Average High Monthly Temp: 73.8 degrees (August) Runway Gradient: 0.8% Runway 11‐29 (42' elevation change) Raw Runway Runway Length Wet Surface Final Fleet Mix Category Length from with Gradient Landing Length Runway FAA AC Adjustment for Jets (+15%)* Length 100% of fleet at 60% useful load 4,892’ 5,312' 5,500' 5,500' *Max 5,500' for 60% useful load and max 7,000' for 90% useful load in wet conditions Source: FAA AC 150/5325‐4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design.
Note: The performance chart for the 100 percent of the fleet at 90 percent useful load category was also examined should evidence of these types of operations emerge. The recommended runway length in this case is 7,600 feet.
Supplemental Runway Length Analysis for Specific Business Jets Operating at BVS
The required take‐off and landing lengths for maximum load and range (adjusted for temperature and elevation) for many of the turbine aircraft utilizing the airport are presented in Table 3Q, for both dry and wet pavement conditions. The takeoff distance requirements reflect maximum gross weight for the aircraft; however, the percentage of useful load has also been calculated for the existing 5,478‐foot run‐ way length. When the runway length requirement exceeds the available runway length at the given design temperature, aircraft operators may be required to reduce payload. Runway length requirements that exceed the current length of Runway 11‐29 are noted in red type.
Business jets may operate under different regulations depending on the type of flight being conducted, as noted in Table 3Q. These regulations may impact the calculated runway length needed for landing. CFR Part 91k refers to operations conducted via fractional ownership, and Part 135 refers to com‐ muter/on‐demand (charter) operations. Fractional operators must be capable of landing within 80 per‐ cent of the landing distance available (LDA) and commuter/on‐demand operators must be capable of landing within 60 percent of LDA. Operations conducted under CFR Part 25 are general aviation opera‐ tions conducted by private owners.
As can be seen in the table, there are business jets that currently operate at the airport that are weight‐ restricted for both takeoff and landing. If the number of operations by any of these specific aircraft, or a combination of aircraft with similar design characteristics, were to exceed the 500 operations thresh‐ old, then additional runway length is justified for FAA financial participation (but not guaranteed).
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-23
TABLE 3Q Runway Length Requirements for Business Jets Skagit Regional Airport Elevation: 145' MSL Airfield Parameters Temp: 73.8°F +/‐0.8% Runway 11‐29 % Useful Load for Landing Length Requirements Take‐off Length Runway Parameters Takeoff on C.F.R. Part 25 C.F.R. Part 135 C.F.R. Part 91k Required at MTOW 5,478' Runway (Unfactored) (60% factored) (80% factored) Runway Condition Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Beechjet 400A 4,833 6,167 100% 86% 3,653 5,555 6,088 9,258 4,566 6,944 Citation V (Model 560) 3,824 6,667 100% 71% 3,255 4,830 5,425 8,050 4,069 6,038 Citation 560 XL 4,237 4,237 100% 100% 3,625 5,770 6,042 9,617 4,531 7,213 Citation X 6,639 7,411 77% Off Chart 4,169 5,949 6,948 9,915 5,211 7,436 Citation Bravo 4,995 4,822 100% 100% 3,803 5,980 6,338 9,967 4,754 7,475 Citation Encore 3,948 5,589 100% 91% 3,293 4,960 5,488 8,267 4,116 6,200 Citation Sovereign 4,237 4,996 100% 100% 3,162 4,093 5,270 6,822 3,953 5,116 Citation VII 6,200 6,877 82% 66% 3,392 4,619 5,653 7,698 4,240 5,774 Citation CJ3 3,653 4,038 100% 100% 2,949 4,023 4,915 6,705 3,686 5,029 Challenger 601 6,670 7,140 82% N/A 3,330 3,996 5,550 6,660 4,163 4,995 Falcon 2000 7,445 7,445 80% 77% 3,133 3,603 5,222 6,005 3,916 4,504 Gulfstream 550 5,562 6,292 98% 68% 3,005 4,474 5,008 7,457 3,756 5,593 Gulfstream III 6,775 7,091 79% 78% 2,780 5,201 4,633 8,668 3,475 6,501 Gulfstream IV 5,543 6,327 99% 84% 3,183 6,101 5,305 10,168 3,979 7,626 Gulfstream 150 6,575 7,950 94% 77% 3,187 3,665 5,312 6,108 3,984 4,581 Global Express 7,101 7,208 74% 73% 2,678 3,080 4,463 5,133 3,348 3,850 Hawker 800 (With T/R) 7,217 N/A 71% N/A 2,840 3,660 4,733 6,100 3,550 4,575 Lear 31A 4,813 5,775 100% N/A 2,984 4,178 4,973 6,963 3,730 5,223 Lear 35A O/L N/A 73% N/A 3,196 4,475 5,327 7,458 3,995 5,594 Lear 45 5,985 5,901 90% 76% 2,774 3,543 4,623 5,905 3,468 4,429 Lear 40XR 5,643 5,609 88% 81% 2,775 3,545 4,625 5,908 3,469 4,431 Citation CJ2 3,913 4,310 100% 100% 3,515 5,060 5,858 8,433 4,394 6,325 Premier 1A 4,827 5,244 100% 100% 3,327 4,308 5,545 7,180 4,159 5,385 KEY: MSL ‐ Mean Sea Level; MTOW ‐ Maximum takeoff weight; CFR ‐ Code of Federal Regulations; No Data ‐ No Ultranav calculation available; Off Chart ‐ Calculator result out of limits for aircraft. CFR Part 25: Standard unfactored landing lengths. CFR Part 135: 60% factored landing length as required by commuter/on‐demand operators. CFR Part 91k: 80% factored as required by fractional operators. O/L: Weight limited due to climb performance N/A: No wet data available Figures is red exceed the available runway length. Source: Aircraft operating manuals from UltraNav software.
The future critical aircraft is represented by the Gulfstream IV. Under wet runway takeoff conditions, the Gulfstream IV can justify an extension to 6,300 feet, however documentation of 500 annual opera‐ tions is required. An extension to 7,000 feet will require additional justification based upon individual aircraft type, frequency, and stage length/payload requirements, but should be retained for long‐term planning.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-24
Runway 4‐22 Length Requirements
Utilizing FAA AC 150/5325‐B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, the following presents the five‐step process for determining the recommended runway length for primary Runway 11‐29.
Step 1: Identify the critical design airplanes or airplane group.
Runway 4‐22 is 3,000 feet long and 60 feet wide, with a weight‐bearing capacity of 12,500 pounds. This runway is currently designed for small aircraft and is planned for that utility in the future. The aircraft that use this runway are single engine piston and some multi‐engine piston aircraft, falling in design code B‐I(s). Therefore, the list of critical design aircraft for this runway are those within B‐I(s). Examples include the Baron 58.
Step 2: Identify the airplanes or airplane group that require the longest runway length at maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW).
The airplanes operating on Runway 4‐22 are small (less than 12,500 pounds) single and multi‐engine piston aircraft.
Step 3: Determine which of the three methods, described in the AC, will be used for establishing the runway length.
FAA AC 150/53225‐4B provides three methodologies for evaluating the runway length requirements for a critical design aircraft with a MTOW of 12,500 pounds or less. The three methodologies are:
95 percent of the small aircraft fleet. 100 percent of the small aircraft fleet. Small aircraft having 10 or more passenger seats.
For BVS, it is appropriate to utilize the 95 percent of the small aircraft fleet category because any aircraft that might need a longer runway can utilize the primary runway. Therefore, the appropriate methodol‐ ogy is Chapter 2, paragraph 205, Figure 2‐1.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-25
Step 4: Select the recommended runway length from the appropriate methodology.
Figure 3‐2 shows the selected chart methodology, which has been reproduced directly from the AC. The chart on the left side is the 95 percent of small aircraft category.
The vertical line is positioned at the bottom of the chart (x‐ axis) and it represents the mean maximum temperature of the hottest month at the airport (73.8 Degrees F). As that vertical line intersects the airport field elevation curves (ap‐ proximately 145’ MSL), a horizontal line is drawn to the right, or y‐axis, which results in the recommended runway length determination (see red arrows). The recommended runway length for Runway 4‐22 at BVS is approximately 2,900 feet.
Step 5: Apply any necessary adjustments to the obtained runway length.
Other factors, such as the runway gradient or wet condi‐ tions, may influence the recommended runway length; how‐ ever, the AC specifically states that these factors are not to be considered for a critical aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less. Therefore, no additional adjustment is necessary and Figure 3‐2: Small Aircraft Runway the recommended runway length for Runway 4‐22 at BVS is Length Chart 2,900 feet.
Runway Length Summary
Runway 11‐29 Operations by business jets in the 100 percent of the national fleet at 60 percent useful load category currently justify a runway length of 5,500 feet. A runway length of up to 7,600 feet would be needed for aircraft in the 90 percent useful load category; however, that type of activity is not anticipated at BVS within the 20‐year planning period. The future design aircraft is the Gulfstream IV business jet. Under maximum takeoff weight in wet conditions, this aircraft can justify a runway length of 6,300 feet. Typi‐ cally, FAA will require documentation of the number of operations by the aircraft (or aircraft grouping) to justify a runway extension project. The alternatives chapter will examine the feasibility of extending the runway to at least 6,300 feet, with a long‐term consideration of up to 7,600 feet.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-26
Runway 4‐22
Runway 4‐22 is designed for small aircraft. The recommended runway length is 2,900 feet. At 3,000 feet in length, Runway 4‐22 meets the length requirements for this runway.
RUNWAY WIDTH
The width of each of the existing runways was also examined to determine the need for facility improve‐ ments. Currently, both runways at BVS meet the requirements for the current and projected future aircraft mix. Therefore, no additional runway width is required to serve aircraft expected to operate at the airport through the planning period. It should be noted that the B‐II design standard for runway width is 75 feet when approach minimums are higher than ½‐mile. Approach minimums of ½‐mile re‐ quire a 100‐foot wide runway. The runway width for the future D‐II condition is also 100 feet. Therefore, the existing 100‐foot‐wide runway should be maintained through the planning period.
RUNWAY PAVEMENT STRENGTH
An important feature of airfield pavement is its ability to withstand repeated use by aircraft of significant weight. Runway 11‐29 and taxiway connectors (A1, A2, A3, and A4) were evaluated using the FAA’s pavement design program and found to have a limiting strength of 60,000 pounds single wheel gear and 75,000 pounds dual wheel gear. However, other pavements (including Taxiway A) may not support in‐ creased loading and might require additional analysis. The 60,000/75,000‐pound pavement strength on Runway 11‐29 (and the 12,500‐pound rating for Runway 4‐22) are sufficient for the fleet of aircraft cur‐ rently serving and expected to serve the airport in the future.
It should be noted that the pavement strength rating is not the maximum weight limit. Aircraft weighing more than the certified strength can operate on the runway on an infrequent basis. However, frequent heavy aircraft operations can shorten the lifespan of airport pavements.
RUNWAY LINE‐OF‐SIGHT AND GRADIENT
FAA has instituted various line‐of‐sight requirements to facilitate coordination among aircraft and be‐ tween aircraft and vehicles that are operating on active runways. This allows departing and arriving aircraft to verify the location and actions of other aircraft and vehicles on the ground that could create a conflict.
Line‐of‐sight standards for an individual runway are based on whether there is a parallel taxiway avail‐ able. When a full‐length parallel taxiway is available (as it is for both runways), thus facilitating faster runway exit times, then any point five feet above the runway centerline must be mutually visible, with
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-27
any other point five feet above the runway centerline that is located at less than half the length of the runway. Both runways meet the individual line‐of‐sight standard.
The runway gradient is the maximum allowable slope for a runway. For Runway 11‐29, the standard is no more than 1.5 percent, and not exceeding 0.8 percent in the first and last quarter of the runway length. The runway slopes upward from the southeast end to the northwest end at a grade of 0.8 per‐ cent, thus meeting the gradient standard.
The maximum allowable gradient for Runway 4‐22 is 2.0 percent. The runway slopes upward from the southwest end to the northeast end. The gradient is 0.3 percent, thus meeting the gradient standard.
TAXIWAY DESIGN STANDARDS
The design standards associated with taxiways are determined by the taxiway design group (TDG) and the airplane design group (ADG) of the critical design aircraft that would potentially use that taxiway. Table 3R presents the taxiway design standards to be applied at BVS.
TABLE 3R Taxiway Design Standards Skagit Regional Airport STANDARDS BASED ON WINGSPAN (ADG) ADG I (Runway 4‐22) ADG II (Runway 11‐29) Taxiway Protection Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) width 49’ 79' Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) width 89’ 131' Taxilane Object Free Area width 79’ 115' Taxiway Separation Taxiway Centerline to: Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane 70’ 105' Fixed or Movable Object 44.5’ 65.5' Taxilane Centerline to: Parallel Taxilane 64’ 97' Fixed or Movable Object 39.5’ 57.5' Wingtip Clearance Taxiway Wingtip Clearance 20’ 26' Taxilane Wingtip Clearance 15’ 18' STANDARDS BASED ON TDG TDG 1A TDG 2 Taxiway Width Standard 25’ 35' Taxiway Edge Safety Margin 5’ 7.5' Taxiway Shoulder Width 10’ 15' ADG: Airplane Design Group TDG: Taxiway Design Group Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-28
Taxiway Width Standards
The future design aircraft for the airport and for primary Runway 11‐29 falls in classification D‐II‐2; there‐ fore, the taxiways that may potentially support aircraft within TDG‐2 should be at least 35 feet wide. Currently, Taxiway A is 50 feet wide, therefore, FAA funding for this taxiway (and any others exceeding the design standard) is limited to 35 feet.
The connecting taxiways serving Runway 4‐22 should meet TDG 1A standards, which is a 25‐foot width. The connecting taxiways vary in width from 30‐40 feet. Parallel Taxiway B is 35 feet wide which corre‐ sponds to the TDG 2 standard width. Taxiway B serves numerous aircraft hangars including medium sized box hangars and larger conventional hangars. Aircraft stored in these hangars may include twin engine and turboprops, some of which have a wider wheelbase that corresponds to TDG 2. Taxiway B should be maintained at the standard width of 35 feet.
Table 3S lists the current taxiway widths at BVS as compared to the FAA standard. While all taxiways meet the current standard, several exceed the standard. By regulation, the FAA is unable to financially participate in maintenance, rehabilitation or construction of pavements that exceed the minimum de‐ sign standard. Therefore, the Port should expect future FAA funding of taxiway improvements to be limited to the applicable design standards. Any new taxiways should be planned at standard widths.
TABLE 3S Taxiway Width Standards Skagit Regional Airport Taxiway Designation Standard Width Current Width Taxiway A (Parallel) 35' 50' Taxiway A1 (Rwy 29 Threshold) 35' 50' Taxiway A2 (Connector) 35' 35' Taxiway A3 (Connector) 35' 35' Taxiway A4 (Rwy 11 Threshold) 35' 50' Taxiway B (Parallel) 35' 35' Taxiway B1 (Rwy 22 Threshold) 25' 30' Taxiway B2 (Connector) 25' 30' Taxiway B3 (Rwy 4 Threshold) 25' 40' Taxiway C (Rwy End Connector) 35' 50'
Taxiway A1 leading to the Runway 29 threshold is 50 feet wide at its narrowest point; however, due to FAA engineering design guidance, the required tapers (fillets) converge such that the pavement is slightly wider than the planning standard. This is also the case for Taxiways B1, B2, and B3.
Other Taxiway Design Considerations
FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, provides guidance on taxiway design that has a goal of enhancing safety by providing a taxiway geometry that reduces the potential for runway incursions. A runway
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-29
incursion is defined as, “any occurrence at an airport involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft.”
The following is a list of the taxiway design guidelines and the basic rationale behind each recommenda‐ tion:
1. Taxi Method: Taxiways are designed for “cockpit over centerline” taxiing, with pavement being sufficiently wide to allow a certain amount of wander. On turns, sufficient pavement should be provided to maintain the edge safety margin from the landing gear. When constructing new taxiways, upgrading existing intersections should be undertaken to eliminate judgmental over‐ steering, which is when the pilot must intentionally steer the cockpit outside the marked center‐ line to assure the aircraft remains on the taxiway pavement.
2. Steering Angle: Taxiways should be designed such that the nose gear steering angle is no more than 50 degrees, the generally accepted value to prevent excessive tire scrubbing.
3. Three‐Node Concept: To maintain pilot situational awareness, taxiway intersections should pro‐ vide a pilot a maximum of three choices of travel. Ideally, these are right and left angle turns and a continuation straight ahead.
4. Intersection Angles: Design turns to be 90 degrees wherever possible. For acute angle intersec‐ tions, standard angles of 30, 45, 60, 120, 135, and 150 degrees are preferred.
5. Runway Incursions: Design taxiways to reduce the probability of runway incursions. - Increase Pilot Situational Awareness: A pilot who knows where he/she is on the airport is less likely to enter a runway improperly. Complexity leads to confusion. Keep taxiway systems simple using the “three node” concept. - Avoid Wide Expanses of Pavement: Wide pavements require placement of signs far from a pilot’s eye. This is especially critical at runway entrance points. Where a wide expanse of pavement is necessary, avoid direct access to a runway. - Limit Runway Crossings: The taxiway layout can reduce the opportunity for human error. The benefits are twofold – through simple reduction in the number of occurrences and through a reduction in air traffic controller workload. - Avoid “High Energy” Intersections: These are intersections in the middle third of runways. By limiting runway crossings to the first and last thirds of the runway, the portion of the runway where a pilot can least maneuver to avoid a collision is kept clear. - Increase Visibility: Right angle intersections, both between taxiways and runways, provide the best visibility. Acute angle runway exits provide for greater efficiency in runway usage but should not be used as runway entrances or crossing points. A right angle turn at the end of a parallel taxiway is a clear indication of approaching a runway. - Avoid “Dual Purpose” Pavements: Runways used as taxiways and taxiways used as runways can lead to confusion. A runway should always be clearly identified as a runway and only a runway.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-30
- Indirect Access: Do not design taxiways to lead directly from an apron to a runway. Such config‐ urations can lead to confusion when a pilot typically expects to encounter a parallel taxiway. - Hot Spots: Confusing intersections near runways are more likely to contribute to runway incur‐ sions. These intersections must be redesigned when the associated runway is subject to recon‐ struction or rehabilitation. Other hot spots should be corrected as soon as practicable.
6. Runway/Taxiway Intersections: - Right Angle: Right angle intersections are the standard for all runway/taxiway intersections, ex‐ cept where there is a need for a high‐speed exit. Right angle taxiways provide the best visual perspective to a pilot approaching an intersection with the runway to observe aircraft in both the left and right directions. They also provide optimal orientation of the runway holding position signs, so they are visible to pilots. - Acute Angle: Acute angles should not be larger than 45 degrees from the runway centerline. A 30‐degree taxiway layout should be reserved for high‐speed exits. The use of multiple intersect‐ ing taxiways with acute angles creates pilot confusion and improper positioning of taxiway sign‐ age. - Large Expanses of Pavement: Taxiways must never coincide with the intersection of two run‐ ways. Taxiway configurations with multiple taxiway and runway intersections in a single area create large expanses of pavement, making it difficult to provide proper signage, marking, and lighting.
7. Taxiway/Runway/Apron Incursion Prevention: Apron locations that allow direct access into a runway should be avoided. Increase pilot situational awareness by designing taxiways in such a manner that forces pilots to consciously make turns. Taxiways originating from aprons and form‐ ing a straight line across runways at mid‐span should be avoided. - Wide Throat Taxiways: Wide throat taxiway entrances should be avoided. Such large expanses of pavement may cause pilot confusion and makes lighting and marking more difficult. - Direct Access from Apron to a Runway: Avoid taxiway connectors that cross over a parallel taxi‐ way and directly onto a runway. Consider a staggered taxiway layout that forces pilots to make a conscious decision to turn. - Apron to Parallel Taxiway End: Avoid direct connection from an apron to a parallel taxiway at the end of a runway.
FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, states that, “existing taxiway geometry should be improved whenever feasible, with emphasis on designated hot spots. To the extent practicable, the removal of existing pavement may be necessary to correct confusing layouts.”
There are several existing taxiways that do not currently conform to the taxiway guidelines. The taxiways leading to the Runway 11 threshold are angled, where these should be at 90‐degrees. Taxiway A2 pro‐ vides direct access from the terminal apron to the runway. A portion of Taxiway C is a lead‐in taxiway to the Runway 4 threshold.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-31
The alternatives chapter will examine possible taxiway geometry changes that would improve pilot situ‐ ational awareness and reduce potential pilot confusion. Any changes will consider the reasonableness of each alternative in terms of cost and benefit.
Taxilane Design Considerations
Taxilanes are distinguished from taxiways in that they do not provide access to or from the runway sys‐ tem directly. Taxilanes typically provide access to hangar areas and thus accommodate a slower move‐ ment speed. As a result, taxilanes can be constructed to varying design standards depending on the type of aircraft utilizing the taxilane. For example, a taxilane leading to a T‐hangar area only needs to be designed to accommodate those aircraft typically accessing a T‐hangar.
The taxilane object free area for ADG II aircraft is 115 feet as centered on the taxilane. The taxilane object free area for ADG I aircraft is 79 feet, as centered on the taxilane. Exhibit 3B shows the taxiway and taxilane object free area standard and the existing condition.
Adjacent T‐hangar buildings C and E, there are light poles that are within the taxilane OFA. These should be removed from the taxilane OFA when feasible. The available taxilane object free area between some hangars does not meet standard. When any of these hangars are redeveloped, adequate taxilane OFA should be provided. Any future taxilanes will be considered in the alternatives chapter and will be planned to the appropriate design standard.
INSTRUMENT NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND APPROACH LIGHTING
Instrumentation for runways is important when weather conditions are less than visual (greater than three‐mile visibility and 1,000‐foot cloud ceilings). Published non‐precision instrument approaches are available to Runways 11 and 29.
The airport has a Global Positioning System/Local Performance with Vertical Guidance (GPS/LPV) instru‐ ment approach to Runway 29. This approach provides for visibility minimums as low as ⅞‐mile and cloud ceilings down to 250 feet. The GPS/LPV instrument approach to Runway 11 provides visibility minimums as low as 1¼‐mile and cloud ceilings down to 355 feet.
Past planning has noted the potential installation of Category I precision Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) on each end of Runway 11‐29. However, older systems (such as an ILS, which use a ground‐based localizer and glideslope antenna) are not being installed by the FAA, while many legacy ground‐based systems are being retired. The satellite‐based procedures using area navigation (RNAV) are enabled by GPS with the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), a network of ground stations and geostationary satellites that greatly enhance the accuracy of the GPS signal. RNAV using GPS offers several major ad‐ vantages over a conventional ground‐based ILS approach, including lower implementation and mainte‐ nance cost and less potential for interference from mountainous terrain or other potential obstructions. LPV decision altitudes can be established as low as 200 feet (the LPV approach for Runway 29 is published at 250 feet). Therefore, plans will consider the potential upgrade in the instrument approaches to
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-32
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Higgins Airport Way
79’ r 79’ 79’ r 115’ D
t
r
o 79’ 79’ r p Ai 79’ 115’ 79’
79’ 79’ 79’ 115’ 115’ 115’ 115’ 115’ 115’
A 131’
131’ 131’ NORTH A2 LEGEND A3 A1 Airport Property Line # Taxiway Designator Taxilane Object Free Area (TOFA) Runway 11-29 (5,478’ x 100’) Taxiway OFA 0300 Taxilane OFA Penetration
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Runway 4-22 ( 3,000’ x 60’) B3 B1 B2 131’ B
115’ 115’ 79’ 79’ 79’ 79’ 79’ 79’ 79’ 79’ 79’
Crosswind Dr
Aerial Photo: Google Earth 7-24-17 Exhibit 3B DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-33 TAXIWAY/TAXILANE OBJECT FREE AREA This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-34
Runway 11‐29 using satellite‐based procedures. While these procedures may only improve visibility minimums to ¾‐mile initially, the systems have the potential to bring visibility minimums down to ½‐mile with the addition of approach lighting systems. GPS‐based precision instrument approaches to both ends of Runway 11‐29 will be considered in the alternatives analysis of the master plan.
To provide pilots with visual guidance information during landings to the runway, electronic visual ap‐ proach aids are commonly provided at airports. Currently, Runways 11 and 29 are equipped with four‐ light precision approach path indicators (PAPI‐4) and Runways 4 and 22 are equipped with two‐light precision approach path indicators (PAPI‐2). These systems are adequate and should be maintained.
AIRFIELD MARKING, LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE
Runway markings are designed according to the type of instrument approach available on the runway. Runway 11‐29 has nonprecision instrument markings, while Runway 4‐22 has basic markings. Runway 11‐29 is equipped with medium intensity edge lighting, while Runway 4‐22 is equipped with low intensity edge lighting. Should precision instrument approaches with visibility minimums less than ¾ mile be in‐ stalled on Runway 11‐29, approach lighting and precision marking would be required; however, the me‐ dium intensity edge lighting meets current standards and would not need to be upgraded.
AIRSIDE SUMMARY
Skagit Regional Airport has a nice complement of airside systems with only a few noted areas of interest as presented on Exhibit 3C. While the existing runway system provides adequate capacity and wind coverage, primary Runway 11‐29 will be examined in the following chapter for potential extension to accommodate increasing business jet activity at the airport. In addition, consideration will be given to improvements to the visibility minimums associated with the instrument approaches. Lower visibility minimums would necessitate the application of more restrictive runway protection zones and threshold siting surfaces in the runway approaches.
The primary taxiways (A, C and several associated connectors) exceed design standard for width. As these taxiways require maintenance and/or major rehabilitation, FAA financial participation will likely be limited to the applicable design standard.
There are penetrations to the future RSA and ROFA surrounding Runway 11‐29. The future RSA pene‐ tration is a windsock near the Runway 11 end. The future ROFA penetrations include three windsocks, the segmented circle, and a small electrical vault near the segmented circle. These penetrations should be relocated outside of the safety areas when the airport transitions to ARC D‐II.
Runway 4‐22 is an additional runway that is not necessary based on FAA wind coverage requirements and therefore is ineligible for FAA funding. Therefore, the cost to maintain Runway 4‐22 falls entirely to the airport sponsor. The following chapter will evaluate alternatives for the future of Runway 4‐22.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-35
A summary of the airside facility needs is summarized on Exhibit 3D.
LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS
Landside facilities provide the essential interface between the airside facilities and ground access to and from the airport. The capacities of existing facilities have been examined against the projected require‐ ments to gauge anticipated timing of needs. Included in the following analysis are general aviation ter‐ minal services, automobile parking, fuel storage, aircraft storage, and apron requirements.
AIRCRAFT STORAGE AND PARKING APRON REQUIREMENTS
The demand for aircraft storage hangar area is based upon the forecast number and mix of aircraft ex‐ pected to be based at Skagit Regional Airport in the future. In January 2019, five Port‐owned T‐hangar structures (buildings A, B, C, D, and E) sustained damage due to a significant wind event. One building, Hangar B, is a complete loss. Three of the buildings, Hangars A, C, and D, sustained varying degrees of damage and are available for lease with appropriate levels of access based on condition; the useful life of these buildings has been or will be exceeded by 2020. Hangar E is available for unrestricted use by tenants, but its useful life expires 2021. Combined, these structures represented nearly 55,000 square feet of storage capacity. Given the extent of the damage and the short remaining useful life of the hangar buildings, the following analysis assumes that the 60 storage units will need to be replaced, and the demand may be met either in replacement T‐hangars or box hangars. It has been assumed that most aircraft that are based at the airport year‐round prefer to be stored in either individual hangars or shared conventional hangars. Future requirements are calculated using 1,400 square feet per single engine piston aircraft, 2,200 square feet per multi‐engine piston aircraft, and 3,000 square feet for each turbo‐ prop, jet, and helicopter in the fleet mix. Enclosed area of approximately 40,000 square feet is currently used for storage and maintenance, and this area is also expected to increase with growth in based air‐ craft.
Future hangar requirements for the airport are summarized in Table 3T. As shown in the table, addi‐ tional hangar area will be required throughout the planning period, especially in the short term to re‐ place units that were lost in the January storm. The landside alternatives evaluation will examine the options available for hangar development at the airport and determine the best location for each type of hangar facility.
Parking aprons should provide for the locally based aircraft that are not stored in hangars, itinerant, or transient aircraft, as well as for those aircraft used for air taxi and training activity. In total, the airport has been estimated to have 19,000 square yards of paved tie‐down ramp, with additional paved move‐ ment areas adjacent to hangars.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-36
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Bayview Business Park
Knudson Rd Water Tank Tank Rd Rd
Bay Ridge Rd
Hangars Damaged in January 2019 Wind Event
r
D Higgins Airport Way
t Angled Entrance r o Taxiway Segmented Circle and Airp 1 Direct Access from Windsock in ROFA Ramp to Runway A
A4 A3 A2 A1 Runway 11-29 (5,478’ x 100’)
Public Road in RPZ Windsock 1 Windsock Inside RSA Inside ROFA1 Angled Entrance Taxiway B1
B
B2 C
Crosswind Dr
Bayview Rd
Runway 4-22 ( 3,000’ x 60’) LEGEND Airport Property Line # Taxiway Designator
B3 Runway Safety Area (RSA) Farm to Market Rd Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) PACCAR NORTH Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Technical Center Lead in Taxiway 08001 Not a current safety area penetration. to Runway Only when airport transitions to ARC D-II is SCALE IN FEET this a penetration. Aerial Photo: Google Earth 7-24-17 Ovenell Rd Exhibit 3C DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-37 AIRFIELD AREAS OF INTEREST Facility Directory - (Effective July 2018); Airport records. This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-38 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
AVAILABLE POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT/ CHANGE RUNWAYS Runway 11-29 Runway Design Code (RDC): B-II-4000 Upgrade to RDC D-II-2400 Runway Length: 5,478' Consider Extension to 7,600' Runway Width: 100' Maintain (meets standard) Pavement Strength: 19,000 lbs. SWL (published) Publish actual strength of 60,000 lbs. SWL (May require an EA) Runway Gradient: 0.8 percent Maintain (meets standard) Runway Marking: Non-precision Upgrade to precision marking with precision approach Runway Lighting: MIRL Upgrade to HIRL with precision approach Runway Signage: Meets Standard Maintain conforming signage system Design Standards: RSA, ROFA, OFZ Relocate windsock from RSA, ROFA RPZ Land Use Compatibility: Road and nature trail Consider relocation of road and nature traverse Rwy 29 RPZ (existing condition) trail outside of RPZ Runway 4-22 Active Runway Consider phasing-out runway RDC: B-I(s)-VIS Maintain (meets standard) Runway Length/Width: 3,000' x 60' Maintain (meets standard) Pavement Strength: 12,500 lbs. SWL Maintain (meets standard) Gradient, marking, lighting, signage: 0.03%/basic/LIRL Maintain (meets standard) Design Standards: RSA, ROFA, OFZ, RPZ Maintain (meets standard) TAXIWAYS/TAXILANES TDG 2 for Taxiway A, A1, A2, A3, A4, B, C Plan for uniform 35' taxiways TDG 1A for Taxiways B1, B2, B3 Plan for uniform 25' taxiways Taxilane OFA (ADG I - 79'/ ADG II - 115'): Numerous Plan for meeting taxilane OFA standards hangar/light pole penetrations in terminal area Taxiway Holdlines: Taxiway holdlines: 250' from Runway 11-29 centerline Maintain (meets standard) 125' from Runway 4-22 centerline Maintain (meets standard) Taxiway Geometry: Taxiway geometry: Taxiways A4, C: Angled to Plan for 90-degree threshold taxiways Runway 11-29 threshold Taxiway A2: Direct Access to Runway 11-29 Consider "No-Taxi" Island Taxiway C: Lead-in taxiway to Runway 4 New geometry to eliminate lead-in taxiway NAVIGATIONAL AIDS (NAVAIDS)/WEATHER SENSORS PAPI-4L (Rwy 11-29) Maintain (meets standard) PAPI-2L (Rwy 4-22) Maintain (meets standard) Runway End Identifier Lights (Rwy 11-29) Maintain (meets standard) Segmented Circle Relocate outside Rwy 11-29 ROFA Windsocks Relocate outside Rwy 11-29 RSA/ROFA Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) Phase-out at end of useful life AWOS-3 Maintain (meets standard) INSTRUMENT APPROACH MINIMUMS 7⁄8-mile to Runway 29 Improve to ½-mile (requires ALS) 1-mile to Runway 11 Improve to ¾-mile or ½-mile (requires ALS)
ALS: Approach lighting system MIRL: Medium intensity runway lighting RSA: Runway safety area EA: Environmental assessment OFZ: Obstacle free zone SWL: Single wheel landing gear type HIRL: High intensity runway lighting ROFA: Runway object free area TDG: Taxiway design group
Exhibit 3D DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-39 AIRSIDE FACILITY NEEDS
TABLE 3T Hangar Needs Skagit Regional Airport Currently Current Short Inter. Long Term Available Need¹ Term Term Based Aircraft 134 146 158 168 189 Aircraft to be Hangared (85%) 114 124 134 143 161 Single Engine 91 102 104 105 111 Multi‐Engine, Jet, Helicopters 21 22 31 38 50 Hangar Area Requirements T‐Hangar Area 22,780 38,000 38,000 38,000 40,000 Box Hangar Area 107,270 157,000 165,000 171,000 186,000 Conventional Hangar Area 44,745 77,000 98,000 115,000 144,000 Total Storage Area (s.f.) 174,795 272,000 301,000 324,000 370,000 ¹Current need includes replacement of 55,000 sf. of T‐hangar area destroyed by January 2019 storm. Future T‐hangars estimated at 1,400 sf. per aircraft parking space Future box hangars estimated at 2,200 sf. per aircraft parking space Future conventional hangar estimated at 3,000 sf. per aircraft parking space Source: Coffman Associates analysis.
For planning purposes, a percentage of the based aircraft will be used to determine the parking apron requirements of local aircraft, due to some aircraft requiring dedicated parking apron. The average area requirement for parking of locally based aircraft is smaller than for transient aircraft since the typical mix of transient aircraft has a larger footprint. Therefore, a planning criterion of 650 square yards per aircraft was used to determine the apron requirements for local aircraft, while a planning criterion of 800 square yards was used for single and multi‐engine itinerant transient aircraft and 1,600 square yards for transi‐ ent jets. Total aircraft parking apron requirements are presented in Table 3U. While the total number of tie‐down positions is expected to be sufficient through the planning period, an increase in apron area is projected. This can be attributed to the fact that the current square footage per aircraft parking posi‐ tion is much lower than the planning standards used for the forecasts.
TABLE 3U Aircraft Apron Requirements Skagit Regional Airport Currently Current Short Inter. Long Term Available Need Term Term Local Apron Area (s.y.) 10,650 16,000 16,900 17,600 19,200 Transient Apron Area (s.y.) 8,350 9,800 11,300 13,600 14,900 Total Apron Area (s.y) 19,000 25,800 28,200 31,200 34,100 Note: Area measurements do not include taxilanes. Source: Coffman Associates analysis
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-40
GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL SERVICES
General aviation terminal services have several functions: customs, a pilots’ lounge, flight planning, con‐ cessions, airport management, and storage. Many airports have leasable space in the terminal building for such features as a restaurant, FBO line services, and other needs. These functions have been spread into several buildings at BVS, including the terminal building, FBO facilities, and the airport restaurant.
The methodology used in estimating general aviation terminal facility needs is based on the number of airport users expected to utilize these facilities during the design hour. General aviation space require‐ ments are based upon providing 120 square feet per design hour itinerant passenger. Design hour itin‐ erant passengers are determined by multiplying design hour itinerant operations by the estimated num‐ ber of passengers on the aircraft (multiplier). An increasing passenger count (from 1.9 to 2.2) is used to account for the likely increase in the number of passengers utilizing general aviation services over time. Table 3V outlines the general aviation terminal facility space requirements for the airport.
TABLE 3V General Aviation Service Facilities Skagit Regional Airport Current Short Inter. Existing Long Term Need Term Term Design Hour Operations 17 16 19 23 26 Design Hour Itinerant Operations 10 10 11 14 16 Mulitplier 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total Design Hour Itinerant Passengers 20 20 23 28 31 GA Terminal Building Services (s.f.) 500 360 405 495 555 FBO GA Services (s.f.) 1,500 2,040 2,295 2,805 3,145 Total GA Services (s.f.) 2,000 2,400 2,700 3,300 3,700 Note: 85% of GA services are assumed to be provided by FBO's. Source: Coffman Associates analysis
Based on the calculations in Table 3V, and the areas provided on‐airport in several existing buildings, existing on‐airport space appears adequate through the long‐term planning period.
AUTOMOBILE PARKING
Planning for adequate automobile parking is a necessary element for any airport. Parking needs can effectively be divided between transient airport users and locally based users. Transient users include those employed at the airport and visitors, while locally based users primarily include those attending to their based aircraft. A planning standard of 1.9 times the design hour passenger count provides the minimum number of vehicle spaces needed for transient users. Locally based parking spaces are calcu‐ lated as the number of based aircraft.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-41
At BVS, there are several lots located on the airport, including adjacent to the terminal, near FBO facili‐ ties, adjacent to the FedEx facility, the flight museum, airport maintenance facilities, and storage hang‐ ars. Approximately 178 vehicle parking spaces are available on‐airport in total, with an additional 100 spaces adjacent to Crosswind Drive and the remainder distributed in several lots between Corporate Air Charter and FedEx. A planning standard of 315 square feet is utilized to determine total vehicle parking space necessary. This includes area needed for circulation and handicap clearances.
The total number of parking spaces appears to be adequate through the long‐term planning period. While the total number of spaces appears appropriate, the location of parking spaces should be consid‐ ered. Parking should be made available near new airport businesses or hangars. Parking requirements for the airport are summarized in Table 3W.
Exhibit 3E summarizes the landside requirements.
TABLE 3W General Aviation Vehicle Parking Requirements Skagit Regional Airport Current Short Inter. Long Existing Need Term Term Term Design Hour Itinerant Passengers 20 20 23 28 31 VEHICLE PARKING SPACES GA Itinerant Spaces 34 38 43 52 59 GA Based Spaces 144 73 79 84 95 Total Parking Spaces 178 111 122 136 154 VEHICLE PARKING AREA (s.f.) GA Itinerant Parking Area 10,710 12,000 14,000 17,000 19,000 GA Based Parking Area 45,360 23,000 25,000 26,000 30,000 Total Parking Area (s.f.) 56,070 35,000 39,000 43,000 49,000 Source: Coffman Associates analysis
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Various facilities that do not logically fall within classifications of airside or landside are identified. These support facilities relate to the overall operations of the airport.
FUEL STORAGE
Additional fuel storage capacity should be planned if BVS is unable to maintain an adequate supply and reserve—a 14‐day reserve being common for general aviation airports. Average annual fuel sales of AvGas over the past five years have been steady (2015 being a higher than normal year), while sales of Jet A have been steadily increasing by an average annual growth rate of 15 percent over the past five
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-42
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
CURRENTLY CURRENT INTERMEDIATE SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM AVAILABLE NEED TERM BASED AIRCRAFT Based Aircraft 134 146 158 168 189 Tie-Down Aircraft 22 22 23 25 28
AIRCRAFT TO BE HANGARED Single Engine 101 102 107 112 124 Multi-Engine, Jet, Helicopters 21 22 24 27 33
HANGAR AREA (S. F.) T-Hangars 22,780 38,000 38,000 38,000 40,000 Executive/Box Hangars 107,270 157,000 165,000 171,000 186,000 Conventional Hangar 44,745 77,000 98,000 115,000 144,000 Total Hangar Area 174,795 272,000 301,000 324,000 370,000
AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON (S. Y.) Local Apron Area 10,650 16,000 16,900 17,600 19,200 Transient Apron Area 8,350 9,800 11,300 13,600 14,900 Total Apron 19,000 25,800 28,200 31,200 34,100
AUTO PARKING Parking Spaces 178 111 122 136 154 Parking Area 56,070 35,000 39,000 43,000 49,000
GA TERMINAL SERVICES (FBO/GA TERMINAL BUILDING) Area (s.f.) 2,000 2,400 2,700 3,300 3,700
FUEL STORAGE (GALLONS) Jet A Capacity 20,000 Maintain Maintain Add Capacity Maintain AvGas Capacity 25,000 Maintain Maintain Maintain Maintain Red figures indicate a current and/or future need.
Exhibit 3E DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-43 LANDSIDE FACILITY NEEDS
years. Therefore, projected fuel sales for AvGas are projected to increase at the forecast airport opera‐ tions growth rate (1.27 percent), while Jet A is projected at an annualized growth rate of 15 percent through the short‐term period before moderating to an 8 percent annualized growth rate.
Table 3Y presents a forecast of fuel demand through the planning period. The existing fuel storage ca‐ pacity should be adequate through the intermediate‐term planning period, at which time Jet A storage capacity may need to be expanded.
TABLE 3Y Fuel Storage Requirements Skagit Regional Airport Current Baseline Short Term Inter. Term Long Term Capacity (gal.) Consumption (2017)¹ Jet A Requirements 20,000 Annual Usage (gal.) 191,614 351,000 478,000 1,030,000 Daily Usage (gal.) 525 962 1,310 2,822 14‐Day Storage (gal.) 7,350 13,463 18,334 39,507 Avgas Requirements 25,000 Annual Usage (gal.) 61,596 66,000 70,000 79,000 Daily Usage (gal.) 169 181 192 216 14‐Day Storage (gal.) 2,363 2,532 2,685 3,030 Source: ¹Airport fuel report; Coffman Associates analysis
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Skagit Regional Airport does not have an airport traffic control tower (ATCT); therefore, pilots and ground‐based personnel utilize CTAF/UNICOM (123.075 MHz) to communicate with one another. This is a very common method of communication at general aviation and small commercial service airports.
While it is not anticipated that an ATCT will be justified during the 20‐year planning horizon of this master plan, there has been some interest by local pilots to examine the potential need for a tower. The fol‐ lowing is a discussion and analysis of the requirements for justifying an ATCT.
The FAA has the authority to establish control towers when activity levels and safety considerations merit such action. The general qualifications necessary to become a candidate site for establishment of a control tower are published in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 170, Establishment And Discontinuance Criteria For Air Traffic Control Services And Navigational Facilities. The criteria and com‐ putation methodology are outlined in the FAA report titled, Establishment And Discontinuance Criteria For Air Traffic Control Towers. (Report No. FAA‐APO‐90‐7). Additional information is provided in FAA Handbook 7031.2C, Airway Planning Standard Number One – Terminal Air Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-44
Criteria
According to FAR Part 170.13, the following criteria, along with general facility establishment standards, must be met before an airport can qualify for a control tower:
The airport, whether publicly or privately owned, must be open to and available for use by the public as defined in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982; The airport must be part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems; The airport owners/authorities must have entered into appropriate assurances and covenants to guarantee that the airport will continue in operation for a long enough period to permit the amortization of the control tower investment; The FAA must be furnished appropriate land without cost for construction of the control tower; and The airport must meet the benefit‐cost ratio criteria specified herein utilizing three consecutive FAA annual counts and projections of future traffic during the expected life of the tower facility. (An FAA annual count is a fiscal year or a calendar year activity summary. Where actual traffic counts are unavailable or not recorded, adequately documented FAA estimates of the scheduled and nonscheduled activity may be used.)
The FARs specifically state that an airport is not guaranteed to receive a control tower, even if the airport meets all the criteria listed above. The FAA, responding to an airport sponsor's request for an air traffic control tower, can elect to establish a contract tower. The FAA can either elect to pay for the service in its entirety or enter into a cost‐sharing agreement with the sponsor, depending on the results of the benefit‐cost analysis. Typically, the airport sponsor is responsible for 10 percent of the cost of construc‐ tion and operations.
Benefit‐Cost Ratio
The FAA prescribes benefit‐cost‐based criteria for establishment of control tower facilities as part of its mission to maximize safety and efficiency throughout the airport and airway system consistent with available resources. Decisions to establish and operate control towers are based on benefits exceeding costs.
The criteria and computation methods used in determining the eligibility of terminal locations for VFR tower establishment is based on economic analysis of the costs and benefits of a control tower. The criterion compares the present value of VFR tower benefits (BPV) at a site with the present value of VFR tower costs (CPV) over a 15‐year timeframe. A location is eligible for a control tower when the benefits derived from operating the tower exceed the installation and operation costs or BPV/CPV≥1.00.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-45
Site‐specific activity forecasts are used to estimate three categories of tower benefits:
Benefits from prevented collisions between aircraft. Benefits from other prevented accidents. Benefits from reduced flying time.
Explicit dollar values are assigned to the prevention of fatalities and injuries and time saved.
Tower establishment costs include:
Annual operating costs: staffing, maintenance, equipment, supplies, and leased services. Investment costs: facilities, equipment, and operational start‐up.
The FAA is responsible for calculating the benefit‐cost ratio for determining tower eligibility. While the specific formulas used by the FAA are unknown, the master plan consultant has developed a formula which provides an indication of the need for an ATCT. This formula examines the operational levels at the airport and does not include numerous other factors that the FAA BCA includes. When the results of the formula are above 0.5, then experience has shown that there is a strong possibility that the FAA BCA may be above 1.0.
The formula weighs different operational types with air carrier operations being weighted highest and local training operations being weighted the lowest. Table 3Z presents the formula as applied to current and forecast operations levels at BVS. As can be seen, the result for current operational levels is 0.1807 and for the 20‐year planning horizon, the result is 0.2731. These results would indicate an FAA benefit‐ cost analysis is not necessary within the 20‐year planning horizon for the master plan. To answer the question of when it might be timeA for the FA to conduct a benefit‐cost ratio, the operations forecasts were extended into future years and it is in the year 2069 that this formula exceeds 0.5.
TABLE 3Z ATCT Eligibility Calculations Skagit Regional Airport PLANNING YEAR Formula Function 2019 2039 2069 Air Carrier Operations/38,000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Air Taxi Operations/90,000 + 0.0132 0.0184 0.0306 GA Itinerant Operations/160,000 + 0.1176 0.1799 0.3403 GA Local Operations/280,000 + 0.0479 0.0727 0.1362 Military Itinerant Operations/48,000 + 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 Military Local Operations/90,000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total = 0.1807 0.2731 0.5091 Source: Coffman Associates
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-46
It is inherently difficult to project airport operations over a 20‐year period let alone a 40 year period. The entire nature of aviation and airspace control will likely change significantly over the next 40 years with technology advances, such as autonomous aircraft, drones, and collision avoidance systems. Air‐ port management should monitor operations over time and, if there are any significant changes, the formula can be applied again to give a revised indication if a BCA is warranted.
MAINTENANCE FACILITY
Currently, maintenance equipment is stored in multiple locations, including buildings 35 and 38 (refer‐ ence Exhibit 1F) as well as a vacant T‐hangar. In January 2019, five T‐hangar structures encompassing 58 units were damaged in a storm, which included a unit used for maintenance equipment. As a result, the airport is further deficient in maintenance equipment storage capacity. It is recommended that a consolidated maintenance storage facility be considered. The alternatives chapter will consider appro‐ priate locations.
SUMMARY
This chapter has outlined facility requirements for BVS for a 20‐year planning period.
At its current length of 5,478 feet, Runway 11‐29 meets the needs of many (but not all) business jet operators currently utilizing BVS. Some aircraft require additional runway length to operate under de‐ sired load and range conditions. However, the need for an extension on Runway 11‐29 will be aircraft‐ specific and require FAA‐approved justification. In addition, consideration will need to be given to the potential improvement in the instrument approaches to both Runways 11 and 29. Ultimately, this may include the need to install approach lighting if the minimums can be reduced from the current ⅞‐mile to ½‐mile.
Runway 4‐22 is ineligible for FAA funding because Runway 11‐29 meets FAAs wind coverage standards. As such, the Port would be responsible for funding any maintenance and/or reconstruction of Runway 4‐22.
Hangar requirements for locally based aircraft are projected as a short‐term need due to the recent storms which destroyed and or damaged 58 storage units on the property. The demand for additional storage hangars is expected to increase throughout the planning period and consideration will need to be given to the best locations for various users. Generally, smaller individual hangars are segregated from larger commercial hangars and areas are chosen to provide the greatest flexibility for expansion.
The following chapter will consider various airside and landside alternative layouts.
DRAFT - Facility Requirements 3-47