DOCSLIB.ORG

Complaint Summary 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Complaint Summary 2018 Charles M. Schulz - © P N Sonoma County Airport T S 2018 Complaint Summary www.flySTS.com 2018 Complaint Summary Charles M. Schulz - Sonoma County Airport (STS) The Airport saw a steady decline in noise complaints throughout 2018. The Airport received 162 complaints in 2018, showing a 69.5% decrease from the 531 complaints of 2017. This decline was a continuation from the previous year with the departure of Allegiant Airlines. Of those 162 complaints, 150 were specific to the Airport. The noise complaints were generated from all over Sonoma County, at various times of the day and night, primarily involving airline, corporate, and general aviation aircraft. A breakdown of Airport-related complaints shows that concerns about noise and low-flying craft account for the largest percentage with a combined 94% of the total. Related issues, such as flight paths, maneuvering and frequency accounted for 6%. Non-Airport-related complaints accounted for 7.4% of the total. The Airport contacted other airports in the larger Bay Area to assess how noise complaints as STS compare geographically. In total, the Airport collected data from seven area airports, which vary in size and number of operations. The airport, number of total operations, and amount of complaints are listed below: Number of Number of Operations per Airport Operations Complaints Complaint Buchanan Field Airport (CCR) 109,649 155 707 Livermore Municipal Airport (LVK) 145,980 101 1,445 Monterey peninsula Airport (MRY) 69,320 167 415 Napa County Airport (APC) 50,489 9 5,610 Oakland International Airport (OAK) 241,733 69,346 3 San Jose Airport (SJC) 195,627 143,000 1 Sonoma County Airport (STS) 85,060 162 525 Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport 1 2 Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport 2018 Complaint Summary 2018 Complaint Summary Complaint Comparison by Year Percent of Operations per Total Airport-Related Airport-Related First Time Percent of Total Total Airport-Related Year Complaints Complaints Complaints Callers Complaints Operations Complaints 2014 343 279 81% 193 56% 73,576 264 2015 229 200 87% 152 66% 83,463 417 2016 304 273 90% 176 58% 79,231 290 Year Total Airport Related Percent of First time Percent of Total Operations Per 2017 531 416 78% 105 20% 84,589 178 Complaints Complaints Airport Callers Total Operations Airport-Related 2018 162 150 93% 121 75% 85,060 525 Related Complaints Complaint Average 314 264 86% 149 55% 81,184 335 2010 192 163 84% 134 70% 72,939 447 2011 141 107 76% 83 59% 79,562 743 Summary2012 of Operations146 120 82% 96Total Complaint66% Breakdown78,381 653 2013 198 147 74% 49 25%Complaints79,999 Percent 544 Number of Operations2014 343 85,060279 Noise81% Related 193 56% 76 73,576 46.9% 264 Total Complaints Average 204 162163 Low 79%Flight Related111 55% 65 76,891 40.1% 544 Airport Related Complaints 150 Manuever Related 2 1.2% Airport Related Complaints % 93% Other (flight path, frequency, etc.) 7 4.3% Summary of Operations Non-Aircraft related complaintsTotal Complaint12 Breakdown7.4% 162Complaints 100.0% Percent NumberTotal of Complaints Operations by Caller 73,576 Airport-RelatedNoise Related Complaints by Time129 37.6% Total Complaints Complaints Percent 343 Low Flight Related Complaints 130 Percent 37.9% First-time CallersAirport (2 calls Related or less) Complaints121 74.7% Day279 Maneuver(07:00-18:00) Related 123 9 75.9% 2.6% Frequent Callers Airport(3 calls Related or more) Complaints40 (%) 24.7% Evening81.0% Other(18:00-22:00) (overflights,track,etc)15 75 9.3% 21.9% Anonymous 1 0.6% Night (22:00-07:00) 18 11.1% Total Complaints by Caller Airport Related Complaints by Time Airport-Related Complaints by Source Complaints Percent Complaints Percent First Time Callers (2 callsComplaints or less) Percent193 56.3% Day (07:00-18:00)Complaints 222 Percent 79.6% Hot Air Balloon Frequent Callers (3 calls or more)0 0.0% 126 Sunday36.7% Evening (18:00-22:00)22 21 14.7% 7.5% Helicopter Anonymous 28 18.7% 24 Monday7.0% Night (22:00-07:00)26 36 17.3% 12.9% Jet 33 22.0% Tuesday 16 10.7% Airport Related Complaints by Source Airport Related Complaints by Day Military 6 4.0% Wednesday 34 22.7% Complaints Percent Complaints Percent Propeller Hot Air Balloon 3 2.0% 0 Thursday0.0% Sunday 20 48 13.3% 17.2% Unknown / OtherHelicopter 66 44.0% 54 Friday19.4% Monday 19 36 12.7% 12.9% Firebomber Jet 0 0.0% 54 Saturday19.4% Tuesday 13 28 8.7% 10.0% Airline Military 14 9.3% 20 7.1% Wednesday 23 8.2% Propeller 31 11.1% Thursday 48 17.2% Unknown / Other 113 40.5% Airport-RelatedFriday Complaint Breakdown32 11.5% Firebomber 0 0.0% Saturday 64 23.0% Airline 7 2.5% Complaints Percent Noise Related 76 50.7% Low Flight Related Airport Related65 Complaint Breakdown43.3% Maneuver Related 2 Complaints 1.3% Percent Other (flight path,Noise frequency, Related etc.) 7 107 4.7% 38.4% Low Flight Related 104 37.2% Maneuver Related 6 2.2% Other (overflights,track,etc) 62 22.2% Definition of “Airport Related” A complaint will be considered "Airport Related" if it meets any of the following criteria: A. The operation that triggers the complaint is directly related to takeoff or landing at STS. B. The operation that triggers the complaint takes place within a five mile radius of the Airport C. The operation that triggers the complaint is a direct result of an Airport related event. Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport 3 2018 Complaint Comparisons BY CALLER BY CALLER 0% By Caller 25% 0% 25% First-time Callers (2 calls or less) Frequent Callers (3 calls or more) First-time Callers (2 calls or less) Anonymous Frequent Callers (3 calls or more) Anonymous 75% BY AIRCRAFT TYPE 75% BY AIRCRAFTBy Aircraft TYPE Type 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 9% 19% 19% Hot Air Balloon Hot Air Helicopter Balloon Helicopter Jet Military Jet Propeller Military Unknown / Other 22% Propeller Firebomber Airline Unknown / Other 44% 22% 4% Firebomber 2% BY TIME OF DAY Airline 44%BY TIME OF DAY By11% Time of Day 4% 11% 2% 10% 10% Day (07:00-18:00) Day (07:00-18:00) Evening (18:00-22:00) Evening (18:00-22:00) Night (22:00-07:00) Night (22:00-07:00) 79% 79% 4 Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport 2018 Complaint Comparisons byBy Year Year 600 500 400 300 Total Airport-Related Total Complaints 200 100 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 by Month 10000 By Month 35 9000 30 8000 7000 25 6000 20 5000 15 4000 3000 10 2000 5 1000 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Operations Airport-Related Complaints By Day of Week 40 By Day of Week 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport 5 2018 Noise Complaint Map 2018 Noise Complaints Charles M. Schulz - Sonoma County Airport D ry C re ek Rd K i n l e 128 y «¬ D Healdsburg r ! ! ! NAPA COUNTY O l d R e d w o ! o d H wy C ! h a l !!! k ter H or C ! i P ree l k R l d d R R ! ! ! ! d e ! d i ! s ! ! t ! s e Windsor ! ! ! W ! ! d ! ! R ! a d ! g R ! ! o t s e i l id ! s a t C s a E ! ! ! ! Airport Blvd ! ! ! !! STS Rd ring s ! Sp ! ¤£101 st We ! Mark ! d R River R d d n o R t l ! ! l ! e ! u b ! F a ! r i ! M d R ! !! ! t ! ! e Piner Rd v ! i l ! ! O ! ! «¬116 Guerneville Rd !! ! ! ! !! Hall Rd Santa Rosa Graton Rd ! ! ! ! ! H ! ¬12 i « ! g Occidental Rd h S c ! h o o ! ! l R B R a ! en d n g ! e l t ! e ! t ! R V d Ave a g l i P l w e e d t y Sebastopol u e a v l Rd W ! L u A m Bo a d d h t a e e n R ! m L r a H l e i la a i t r ! r n Tod!d Rd l g n l o o o u R n o R g d a h r H d M w R G y d Mountain View Ave P d l ! e 116 «¬ R a ! t s a n i n Lo o t n P H e Pine Rd y d y il n R l n o w R ny H d o a t Crane C B S ode g a Rohnert Park ! Complaint Call Locations Runway Extension Lines Total 2018 complaints: 162 STS Airport Property 5 Mile Airport Radius Airport-related complaints: 150 Anonymous or no address: 20 ° 0 1 2 4 Miles Total addresses outside of mapped area: 20 Note, many complaints are from the same households with residents who are highly sensitive to aircraft operations. 6 Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport 5 Year Summary Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport 7 5 Year Summaries TotalTotal Complaint Complaint Breakdown Breakdown Five Year Total Complaint2014 2015 Breakdown 2016 2017 2018 Average Five Year Noise Related 2014107 201579 2016188 2017402 201876 170 Average Low Flight Related 104 73 42 44 65 Average66 Noise Related 107 79 188 402 76 170 ManeuverNoise Related Related 1076 790 1882 4023 762 1703 Low Flight Related 104 73 42 44 65 66 Other (flightLow Flightpath, Relatedfrequency, etc.) 10462 7348 4241 4427 657 6637 Maneuver Related 6 0 2 3 2 3 NonManeuver-Airport Related Related 646 290 312 553 122 383 Other (flight path, frequency, etc.) 62 48 41 27 7 37 Other (flightTotal path, Complaints frequency, etc.) 34362 22948 30441 53127 1627 31437 Non-Airport Related 64 29 31 55 12 38 Total Complaints 343 229 304 531 162 314 Airport Related Complaints by Aircraft Type Airport Related Complaints by Source Five Year Airport Related Complaints2014 2015 by2016 Aircraft 2017 Type 2018 Average Five Year Hot Air Balloon 20140 20152 20161 20175 20180 2 Average Helicopter 54 18 27 15 28 28 Hot Air Balloon 0 2 1 5 0 2 Jet 54 61 108 77 33 67 Helicopter 54 18 27 15 28 28 Military 20 10 33 0 6 14 Jet 54 61 108 77 33 67 Propeller 31 27 21 32 3 23 Military 20 10 33 0 6 14 Unknown 113 77 34 260 66 110 Propeller 31 27 21 32 3 23 Firebomber 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 113 77 34 260 66 110 Airline 7 5 49 86 14 32 Firebomber 0 0 0 0 0 0 Airline 7 5 49 86 14 32 Airport Related Complaints by Day Airport Related Complaints by Day Five Year Airport Related2014 Complaints 2015 2016 by Day2017 2018 Average Five Year Sunday 201448 201538 201656 2017113 201822 55 Average Monday 36 19 27 61 26 Average34 Sunday 48 38 56 113 22 55 TuesdaySunday 4828 3825 5625 11340 2216 5527 Monday 36 19 27 61 26 34 WednesdayMonday 3623 1936 2718 6144 2634 3431 Tuesday 28 25 25 40 16 27 ThursdayTuesday 2848 25 2573 4068 1620 2747 Wednesday 23 36 18 44 34 31 WednesdayFriday 2332 3631 1851 4497 3419 3146 Thursday 48 25 73 68 20 47 ThursdaySaturday 4864 2526 7323 6853 2013 4736 Friday 32 31 51 97 19 46 Saturday 64 26 23 53 13 36 8 Charles M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report for FY2003 and California Implications -- February 27, 2003
    THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR FEDERAL POLICY RESEARCH 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003 202-546-3700 Fax: 202-546-2390 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.calinst.org SPECIAL REPORT: Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report for FY2003 and California Implications -- February 27, 2003 CONTENTS: On February 12, 2003, congressional negotiators agreed to a Department of Justice .................2 $397.4 billion FY03 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report, H.J. Res. 2, which incorporates the eleven unfinished appropriations measures Department of Commerce ..............3 for non-military domestic spending into one package. After four months Department of the Interior ..............4 passing temporary stop-gap spending measures to maintain government Army Corps of Engineers ..............6 operations, the House passed the bill on February 13 by a vote of 338-83, after the Motion to Recommit failed by a largely party line vote of 193- Department of Energy .................8 226. The Senate passed the Conference Report on February 14. Department of Labor ..................8 The final funding level is about $11.5 billion more than the Department of Health and Human Services $385.9 billion limit the White House had imposed on Congress. In order ................................9 to offset additional spending for education and other programs, the bill Department of Education ............. 12 includes a 0.65 percent across-the-board spending cut. However, Head Department of Transportation ......... 15 Start, the Space Shuttle program, VA medical care, and the Women Infants and Children’s (WIC) program are exempted from the cut. Department of Agriculture ........... 20 The following updates the preliminary analysis that the Department of Veteran Affairs .......
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
    Napa County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Calistoga Gllderport NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT [AND USE COMMISSION Daniel M. Jonas, Chairman (1989-91) Kathryn J. Winter, Chairperson (1991-92) Tony Holzhauer, Chairman (1 992-94) Mary E. Handel, Chairperson (1 994-95, 1998) John W. Whitridge, Ill, Chairman (1995-96) Juliana Inman, Chairperson (1996-98) Jim King, Chairman (1 998-2000) COMMISSION STAFF Jeffrey R. Redding, Executive Officer Michael Miller, Deputy Planning Director/ALUC Staff Laura J. Anderson, Deputy County Counsel SHUT[ MOEN ASSOCIATES STAFF Michael A. Shutt, Principal David P. Dietz, Director of Planning Projects Coleen AL more, Word Processing and Publication Todd Eroh, Graphics Technician Revised 12/15/99 Table of Contents PART I — INTRODUCTION 1 — INTRODUCTION PURPOSE 1-1 ROLE 1—1 Napa County Airport Land Use Commission 1-2 AUTHORITY 1-2 RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL PLANS 1-2 Overruling 1-4 GENERAL APPROACH 1-4 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN 1-5 2 — COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS NOISE IMPACTS 2-1 Assessment of Airport Impacts 2-1 Noise Compatibility Concepts 2-2 FLIGHT HAZARDS 2-4 Assessing Hazards to Flight 2-4 Limiting Flight Hazards 2-4 SAFETY 2-5 Assessing Safety mpacts 2-5 Limiting Risks of injury or Damage 2-5 OVERFLIGHT IMPACTS 2-6 Assessing Overfligh: Impacts 2-6 Overflight Compatibility Concepts 2-7 PART III * POLICIES, PLANS, AND CRITERIA 3— POLICIES SCOPE OF REVIEW 3-1 Geographic Area o’ Concern Types of Airport Impacts 3-1 Types of Actions Reviewed 3-2 Review Process 3-3 PRIMARY REVIEW POLICIES 3-4 Land
    [Show full text]
  • City of Pittsburg
    City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan December 2018 City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan This page intentionally left blank. ii December 2018 City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan Emergency Operations Center Activation QuickStart Guide The City of Pittsburg (City) Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as support to the command and control by the on-scene incident response. When an incident occurs, there is often insufficient information to determine if the EOC should be activated or how long an activation may last. If this condition occurs, a virtual or partial EOC activation may be initiated. More detailed information on emergency activations levels is contained in Section 4.2.3. Once an EOC activation is commenced, the first arriving staff should use the QuickStart Guide to efficiently setup and operate the EOC. When activated, the EOC responds to the impacts that any incident has on employees, facilities, critical and other infrastructure, and business functions. The EOC carries out this function through: • Information Collection and Evaluation • Operational Planning • Resource Management • Priority Setting • Overall Priorities - Life/Safety - Incident Stabilization - Property Preservation iii December 2018 City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan EOC ACTIVATION CHECKLIST COMPLETED Date/Time TASK Activate the City EOC by assuming the role of EOC Director. Follow building inspection instructions. Consider which EOC should be activated based on damage and inspections. Establish the level of activation with the City Manager’s Office. Use Everbridge to send an EOC Activation notification to staff. The EOC Supply Cabinets are in various areas and contain appropriately titled boxes for each EOC Section. Place the appropriate material at each of the identified workstation locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Existing Conditions
    Buchanan Field Airport Master Planning Program Field A. INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Buchanan A > Inventory of Existing Conditions INTRODUCTION. Buchanan Field Airport (CCR) is the major general aviation reliever airport serving Contra Costa County and multiple communities located in the northeastern portion of the greater San Francisco Bay Area (see Figure A1). The Airport has been a catalyst for business growth in the region and has served as an anchor for the local employment base, as well as meeting the aviation transportation needs. Situated in an unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County, directly adjacent to the thriving urban heartbeat of the City of Concord, Buchanan Field Airport is a vital component of the transportation infrastructure serving the region for tourism and business. Buchanan Field Airport is well equipped to serve regional demand related to general aviation and business aviation needs. The Airport has a reputation as being an excellent aviation facility that offers a safe and efficient operational environment. The Bay Area continues to experience significant increases in business activity, commercial and residential growth, and economic development. Because of this, Buchanan Field Airport is also being presented with increasing operational and facility demands. Many of the areas surrounding the Airport, with many high quality homes and environmental amenities, have experienced significant residential development, resulting in homeowner concerns about the effect that the Airport may have on their lifestyle. Some of these homes and facilities are located within a two to three mile radius of the Airport. Thus, the Airport may influence the social, economic, and physical environments of the area in which it operates.
    [Show full text]
  • American Canyon Emergency Operations Plan
    CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON AMERICAN CANYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN 2009 - 1 - American Canyon Emergency Operation Plan LETTER OF PROMULGATION Approval Date: 11/17/2009 To: Officials, Employees and Citizens of American Canyon The preservation of life, property and the environment is an inherent responsibility of local, state, and federal government. The City of American Canyon has prepared this emergency operations plan to ensure the most effective and economical allocation of resources for protection of people and property in time of an emergency. While no plan can completely prevent death and destruction, good plans carried out by knowledgeable and well-trained personnel can and will minimize losses. This plan establishes the emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements utilizing the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The objective of this plan is to incorporate and coordinate all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding effectively to any emergency. This emergency operations plan is an extension of the State Emergency Plan. It will be reviewed and exercised periodically and revised as necessary to meet changing conditions. The American Canyon City Council gives its full support to this plan and urges all officials, employees and the citizens, individually and collectively, to do their share in the total emergency effort of American Canyon. This letter promulgates the American Canyon Emergency Operations Plan, constitutes the adoption of the American Canyon Emergency Operations Plan and the adoption of the National Incident Management System by the City of American Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint Summary 2015
    Charles M. Schulz - © P N Sonoma County Airport T S 2015 Complaint Summary www.sonomacountyairport.org 2015 Complaint Summary Charles M. Schulz - Sonoma County Airport (STS) The Runway Safety Improvement Project maintained Sonoma County Airport’s compliance with FAA standards and further enhanced operational safety in 2015. The Airport recorded a total of 229 complaints in 2015, which represents a 33% reduction from 2014, which had a total of 343 complaints. Of these 229 complaints, 200, or 87%, were Airport –related (as defined at the bottom of page 3 of this report). Having weathered temporary shifts in air traffic during 2014 due to the 6-month closure of Runway 14- 32 (during which period many residents lodged complaints for the first time), the Airport enjoyed fewer complaints in 2015, especially early in the year. The Airport recorded 152 complaints from first and second time callers in 2015, compared to 193 in 2014. New callers still inquired if there were changes to the flight pattern, perhaps indicating lingering effects from the previous year’s closure. First and second time callers accounted for 66% of overall complaints in 2015. The noise complaints were generated from all over Sonoma County, at various times of the day and night, primarily involving airline, corporate, and general aviation aircraft. A breakdown of Airport-related complaints shows that concerns about noise and low-flying craft account for the largest percentage, with a combined 73% of the total. Related issues, such as overflights and maneuvering, accounted for 27%. Non- Airport-related complaints accounted for 13% of the total.
    [Show full text]
  • Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport Minimum Standards, Development, Facility Use & Lease Policies
    Buchanan Field Airport And Byron Airport Minimum Standards, Development, Facility Use & Lease Policies Approved Date: August 14, 2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Section 1 – Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 8 Section 2 – General Standards (GS) .......................................................................................................... 15 GS-1 The County will to the best of its ability operate the Airports ......................................... 15 GS-2 Airports Open on Nondiscriminatory Basis ....................................................................... 15 GS-3 Compliance with Ordinances, Laws, Rules and Regulations ............................................ 15 GS-4 Regulatory Fines.................................................................................................................. 15 GS-5 Vehicle Operations .............................................................................................................. 16 GS-6 Security Areas ...................................................................................................................... 16 GS-7 Aircraft Operation ............................................................................................................... 17 GS-8 Aircraft Parking ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life
    Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life JUNE 2003 PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Commercial/Primary (29) Metropolitan (20) Regional (66) Community (102) Limited Use (33) Joint Use — Military/Commercial (2) The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report was prepared with funds from a grant provided by the United States Government (80%) and funds from the State of California (20%). Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life FINAL REPORT Prepared for BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS Submitted by Economics Research Associates JUNE 2003 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Benjamin Alan R. Tubbs Study Project Manager District Field Services Manager California Department of Transportation Airborne Express, Mather Field Division of Aeronautics Chuck Oldham R. Austin Wiswell Robert Chung Chief California Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics Carl Williams Senior Policy Director Michael Armstrong California Space Authority, Inc. (CSA) Senior Lead Planner Southern California Association of Governments Bonnie Cornwall (SCAG) Program Manager Division
    [Show full text]
  • Runway Safety Report Safety Runway
    FAA Runway Safety Report Safety Runway FAA Runway Safety Report September 2007 September 2007 September Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 www.faa.gov OK-07-377 Message from the Administrator The primary mission of the Federal Aviation Administration is safety. It’s our bottom line. With the aviation community, we have developed the safest mode of transportation in the history of the world, and we are now enjoying the safest period in aviation history. Yet, we can never rest on our laurels because safety is the result of constant vigilance and a sharp focus on our bottom line. Managing the safety risks in the National Airspace System requires a systematic approach that integrates safety into daily operations in control towers, airports and aircraft. Using this approach, we have reduced runway incursions to historically low rates over the past few years, primarily by increasing awareness and training and deploying new technologies that provide critical information directly to flight crews and air traffic controllers. Other new initiatives and technologies, as outlined in the 2007 Runway Safety Report, will provide a means to an even safer tomorrow. With our partners, FAA will continue working to eliminate the threat of runway incursions, focusing our resources and energies where we have the best chance of achieving success. To the many dedicated professionals in the FAA and the aviation community who have worked so tirelessly to address this safety challenge, I want to extend our deepest gratitude and appreciation for the outstanding work you have done to address this ever-changing and ever-present safety threat.
    [Show full text]
  • AIRPORTS COMMITTEE Agenda Items: Items May Be Taken out of Order Based on the Business of the Day and Preference of the Committe
    AIRPORTS COMMITTEE May 8, 2019 11:00 A.M. Director of Airports Office 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord Supervisor Diane Burgis, Chair Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair Agenda Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference Items: of the Committee 1. Introductions 2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes) 3. Review and approve record of meeting for February 13, 2019 (Chair) 4. Receive an update from the Aviation Advisory Committee Chair (Maurice Gunderson) 5. Discuss progress regarding the Byron Airport General Plan Amendment (Will Nelson, Department of Conservation and Development) 6. Discuss resolution of crane height issues at Buchanan Field associated with Highway 4 project 7. Discuss JetSuiteX passenger traffic growth between 2016 and 2019 8. Discuss recent FAA grant funding issues related to Runway 14L/32R pavement rehabilitation project 9. Discuss new UAS (drone)/technology business activity at Buchanan Field and Byron Airports 10. Discuss the State Water Quality Control Board Water Code Section 13267 Order WZ 2019-0005-DWQ for the Determination of the Presence of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Substances at Buchanan Field Airport 11. Airport Director's Report (Items 11.a through 11.e) a. 36-acre non-aeronautical development project, Byron Airport b. 3-acre business park development, Buchanan Field c. 4.6-acre development, Buchanan Field d. Proposed relocation of Confire Station 9 to Airport property, Buchanan Field e. Release of 17-acres for non-aeronautical use, Buchanan Field 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Cal Guard Mobilizes for Deadly Northern California Wildfires Pages 2-12
    SeptemberSeptember -- OctoberOctober 20172017 Vol.12Vol.12 No.No. 44 GRIZZLYGRIZZLYOfficialOfficial NewsmagazineNewsmagazine ofof thethe CaliforniaCalifornia NationalNational GuardGuard Cal Guard mobilizes for deadly Northern California wildfires pages 2-12 40th Infantry Division deploys to Afghanistan on 100th anniversary of its founding pages 13-15 www.calguard.ca.gov/pa Leadership Corner Wildfires illustrate importance of your service Major General David S. Baldwin The Northern California wildfires struck Napa, So- two MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft, which provided aching bones and muscles after long shifts. We were lano and Sonoma counties in October with incredible imagery and data collection for incident commanders. called to duty and our state residents appreciated the swiftness and fury—the most deadly and destructive fact that we were there in their time of need. wildfires in California history. Military police, combat engineers, and transporta- tion Soldiers and Airmen mobilized to assist civilian The Northern California wildfires will go down as one Hundreds of thousands of acres were scorched. More emergency-response agencies by performing search of the worst tragedies in California history. It is just than 8,000 homes and structures were burned, and and recovery, security, traffic control, and escorting for such tragedies that we exist—to support and as- more than 100,000 people displaced, many of them evacuated residents back to their homes. We trans- sist our own communities and civil authorities during finding temporary homes in evacuation centers. ported supplies and people in our vehicles. We even state emergencies. Our response to the recent fires is Hundreds were unaccounted for as the fires, driven provided translators and cultural liaisons, military at- the heart of our state mission.
    [Show full text]