Facility Requirements

CHAPTER THREE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS To properly plan for the future of Cox • Runways Field Airport (PRX), it is necessary to • Taxiways translate forecast aviation demand into the • Airfield Design Standards specific types and quantities of facilities • Navigational Approach Aids that can adequately serve this identified • Airfield Lighting, Marking, and Signage demand. In this chapter, existing components of the airport are evaluated Landside facilities are needed for the so that the capacities of the overall interface between air and ground system are identified. Once identified, transportation modes. This includes the existing capacity is compared to the components for general aviation needs forecast activity levels to determine where such as: deficiencies currently exist or may be • General Aviation Terminal Space expected to materialize in the future. Once • Aircraft Hangars deficiencies in a component are identified, • Aircraft Parking Aprons a more specific determination of the • Auto Parking approximate sizing and timing of the new • Airport Support Facilities facilities can be made. The objective of this effort is to identify, As indicated earlier, airport facilities in general terms, the adequacy of the include both airfield and landside existing airport facilities and outline components. Airfield facilities include what new facilities may be needed those that are related to the arrival, and when they may be needed to departure, and ground movement of accommodate forecast demands. aircraft. The components include: Having established these facility require-

3-1 ments, alternatives for providing these area’s aviation demand. It is impor- facilities will be evaluated in Chapter tant that the plan accommodate these Four to determine the most practical, changes so that airport management cost-effective, and efficient direction can respond to unexpected changes in for future development. a timely fashion. These milestones provide flexibility while potentially extending this plan’s useful life if avi- PLANNING HORIZONS ation trends slow over time.

Cost-effective, safe, efficient, and or- The most important reason for utiliz- derly development of an airport should ing milestones is that they allow the rely more upon actual demand at an airport to develop facilities according airport than a time-based forecast fig- to need generated by actual demand ure. In order to develop a Master Plan levels. The demand-based schedule that is demand-based rather than provides flexibility in development, as time-based, a series of planning hori- development schedules can be slowed zon milestones has been established or expedited according to actual de- for Cox Field Airport that takes into mand at any given time over the plan- consideration the reasonable range of ning period. The resulting plan pro- aviation demand projections prepared vides airport officials with a financial- in the previous chapter. ly responsible and needs-based program. Table 3A presents the plan- It is important to consider that the ac- ning horizon milestones for each air- tual activity at any given time at the craft activity category. The planning airport may be higher or lower than milestones of short, intermediate, and projected activity levels. By planning long term generally correlate to the according to activity milestones, the five, ten, and 20-year periods used in resulting plan can accommodate un- the previous chapter. expected shifts or changes in the

TABLE 3A Planning Horizon Activity Summary Cox Field Airport 2009 Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term BASED AIRCRAFT Single Engine 46 50 55 66 Multi-Engine 4 4 4 4 Turboprop 0 1 2 3 Jet 5 6 6 8 Helicopter 1 1 1 2 TOTAL BASED AIRCRAFT 56 62 68 83 ANNUAL OPERATIONS Itinerant 3,050 4,600 6,400 9,900 Local 5,000 5,850 8,350 12,750 Total 8,050 10,450 14,750 22,650 PEAKING OPERATIONS Peak Month (10.7% of annual) 861 1,118 1,578 2,424 Busy Day 40 52 74 113 Design Day 29 37 53 81 Design Hour 5 7 9 14 Annual Instrument Approaches N/A 138 256 495 3-2 DESIGN STANDARDS while airplane wingspan primarily relates to separation criteria involving The design standards applied to an taxiways, taxilanes, and landside facil- airport are based on the type of air- ities. Table 3B presents the ARC cri- craft with the most demanding Airport teria. Reference Code (ARC) expected to regularly use the facility. Regular use As an example, a Beech King Air 200 is defined in the State of Texas as that with an approach speed of 103 knots aircraft or family of aircraft that will and wingspan of 54.5 feet would have perform at least 250 annual opera- an ARC of B-II, while a larger corpo- tions. rate jet, such as a Cessna 750 Citation X, with an approach speed of 123 knots and a wingspan of 63.6 feet DESIGN AIRCRAFT would have an ARC of C-II. Exhibit 3A presents examples of ARC catego- The ARC, as described in Federal Avi- ries and their corresponding aircraft ation Administration (FAA) Advisory type. Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Change 16, Airport Design, is a coding system to TABLE 3B help identify and determine the ap- Airport Reference Code propriate design criteria for an indi- Aircraft Approach Category vidual airport. The ARC correlates Category Speed the design and layout of the airport to A < 91 Knots B 91- < 121 Knots the operational and physical characte- C 121- < 141 Knots ristics of the critical design aircraft. D 141- <166 Knots The identified critical design aircraft E >= 166 Knots directly influences pertinent safety Airplane Design Group¹ criteria such as runway length, run- Tail Height Wingspan way width, separation distances, Group (ft) (ft) building setbacks, and the dimensions I < 20 < 49 II 20- < 30 49- < 79 of required safety areas surrounding III 30- < 45 70- < 118 the runway and taxiway system. IV 45- < 60 118- < 171 V 60- < 66 171- < 214 The ARC has two components. The VI 66- < 80 214- < 262 first component, depicted by a letter, Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport De- is the aircraft approach category, sign which relates to aircraft approach ¹ Utilize the most demanding category. speed (operational characteristic). The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane de- CURRENT CRITICAL AIRCRAFT sign group (ADG) which relates to aircraft wingspan and tail height (physi- As previously discussed, the critical cal characteristics). Generally, air- design aircraft is defined as the most craft approach speed applies to run- demanding category of aircraft which ways and runway-related facilities, conduct 250 or more operations at the

3-3 airport each year. In some cases, number and type of jet aircraft opera- more than one specific make and mod- tions at Cox Field Airport, an analysis el of aircraft comprises the airport’s of instrument flight plan data was critical design aircraft. For example, conducted. Flight plan data was ac- one category of aircraft may be the quired for this study from a private most critical in terms of approach subscription service, Airport IQ. The speed, while another is most critical in data available includes documentation terms of wingspan. Smaller general of instrument flight plans that are aviation piston-powered aircraft with- opened and closed on the ground at in approach categories A and B and the airport. Flight plans that are ADG I and II conduct the majority of opened or closed from the air are not operations at Cox Field Airport. Busi- credited to the airport. Therefore, it is ness turboprops and jets with longer likely that there are more jet opera- wingspans and higher approach tions at the airport that are not cap- speeds also utilize the airport less fre- tured by this methodology. quently. While the airport is used by a number of helicopters, they are not Table 3C presents business jet opera- included in this determination as they tions at Cox Field Airport for the ca- are not assigned an ARC. lendar years 2005 through 2009. The figures include both private aircraft As of April 2010, there were 56 based operators and charter aircraft operat- aircraft at PRX. The majority of these ed under Code of Federal Regulation are single and multi-engine piston- (CFR) Federal Aviation Regulations powered aircraft which fall within ap- FAR Part 135 (primarily fractional proach categories A and B and ADG I. owners and charters). All of these op- There are five jets based at the air- erations would be considered itinerant port; however, two of the five are aged general aviation operations. fighter jet aircraft and one of these jets is not currently operational. The There were a total of 146 business jet remaining three business jets include aircraft operations recorded by Airport two Cessna Citation 525 models and IQ for calendar year 2009. This is one Falcon 50. The Cessna 525s and down from the period high of 300 op- Falcon 50 are all designated as ARC erations recorded in 2005. For each B-II aircraft. As a result, the current year examined, aircraft in the group- critical based aircraft falls in ARC B- ing of ARC B-I and B-II represented II. Next, consideration needs to be the majority of business jet operations. given to itinerant business jet opera- In fact, the ARC B-I and B-II group- tions. ings range from a low of 74 percent to a high of 85 percent of all logged busi- A wide range of transient jet aircraft ness jet operations. The declining operate at the airport. Jet operations trend in business jet operations is a are typically those that will influence definite indicator of the economic re- required airport facilities as the criti- cession and high fuel prices indicative cal aircraft. In order to discern the of the period.

3-4 A-I • Beech Baron 55 C-I, D-I • Beech Bonanza • Cessna 150 • Beech 400

09MP11-3A-04/12/10 • Cessna 172 • Lear 25, 31, 35, 45, • Cessna Citation Mustang 55, 60 • Eclipse 500 • Israeli Westwind • Piper Archer • HS 125-400, 700 • Piper Seneca

less than B-I 12,500 lbs. • Beech Baron 58 C-II, D-II • Beech King Air 100 • Cessna Citation III, VI, VIII, X • Cessna 402 • Gulfstream II, III, IV • Cessna 421 • Canadair 600 • Piper Navajo • ERJ-135, 140, 145 • Piper Cheyenne • CRJ-200/ 700 • Swearingen Metroliner • Cessna Citation I

less than B-II 12,500 lbs. C-III, D-III • ERJ-170, 190 • CRJ 700/900 • Boeing Business Jet • Super King Air 200 • B 737-300 Series • Cessna 441 • MD-80, DC-9 • DHC Twin Otter • Fokker 70, 100 • A319, A320 • Gulfstream V • Global Express over B-I, B-II 12,500 lbs. • Super King Air 350 C-IV, D-IV • Beech 1900 • B-757 • Jetstream 31 • B-767 • Falcon 10, 20, 50 • C-130 • Falcon 200, 900 • DC-8-70 • , III, IV, V Citation II • MD-11 • Saab 340 • Embraer 120 A-III, B-III D-V • DHC Dash 7 • DHC Dash 8 • DC-3 • B-747 Series • Convair 580 • B-777 • Fairchild F-27 • ATR 72 • ATP

Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type.

Exhibit 3A AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES TABLE 3C Business Jet Operations Cox Field Airport ARC Aircraft Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 A-I Eclipse 500 0 0 0 4 0 Total A-I 0 0 0 4 0 B-I Falcon 10 8 8 6 0 0 B-I Cessna 500/525 116 130 122 98 64 B-I Beech 390 0 0 8 2 0 B-I MU-300 6 4 0 2 2 B-II Cessna 525A/550 32 34 34 28 22 B-II Cessna 560/560XL 24 32 26 28 22 B-II Hawker 800 6 2 0 0 0 B-II Falcon 20 0 4 0 0 2 B-II Falcon 50 10 0 0 2 0 B-II Falcon 2000 10 8 0 0 2 Total B-I and B-II 212 222 196 160 114 C-I Beechjet 400 8 12 8 4 4 C-I IAI 1124 Westwind 4 0 2 0 0 C-I Lear 24/25 16 2 2 0 0 C-I Lear 31/35 4 18 4 2 6 C-I Lear 45 2 6 16 6 2 C-I Lear 55 4 0 4 0 0 C-II Cessna 650/680 2 2 6 2 10 C-II Cessna 750 Citation X 4 4 0 0 6 C-II Challenger 300/600 0 4 0 2 0 C-II Hawker 800XP 0 8 0 0 0 C-II Hawker 1000 Horizon 0 0 0 0 0 C-II IAI 1125 Astra 0 8 12 0 0 C-II IAI 1126 Galaxy 2 0 0 2 0 C-II Falcon 900EX 0 0 2 0 0 C-II Sabre 65 (NA 265) 0 0 0 2 0 C-II Rockwell Sabre 80 0 0 0 0 2 Total C-I and C-II 46 64 56 20 30 D-I Lear 60 2 2 4 4 2 D-II Gulfstream II (G-1159) 2 0 0 0 0 D-II Gulfstream IV (350/450) 4 12 10 0 0 Total DI and D-II 8 14 14 4 2 Total Business Jet Aircraft Activity 266 300 266 188 146 Source: Airport IQ IFR flight plan data

It should be noted, however, that the provided by Airport IQ. As previously Airport IQ count did not capture at noted, the likely reason is that the least one operator. Discussions with flight plan was opened or closed in the the fixed base operator (FBO) indi- air and thus not counted for Cox Field cated that Campbell’s Soup will utilize Airport. As a result, one should view PRX via its Gulfstream V (G-V) air- the figures in Table 3C as absolutely craft. Neither Campbell’s Soup nor minimums and not the sum total of all the G-V was captured in the data set

3-5 business jet operations over the pe- conditions, however, in higher vo- riod. lumes. Larger jet models could base at Cox Field Airport, however, in few- In the case at Cox Field Airport, it ap- er numbers. pears that a family of aircraft defines the existing critical design aircraft The G-V and Global Express represent when combining a particular approach the largest commonly used business category and ADG. Based upon the jets in the fleet today. These aircraft most demanding approach category are not projected to represent the air- and design group to regularly utilize port’s critical aircraft unless one or the airport, the current critical air- more were to be based at PRX. It is craft for Cox Field Airport is ARC B-II, projected, however, that all business similar to the Cessna Citation 525 jets within ARC C-I through D-II com- models and Falcon 50 that are based bined could exceed the critical aircraft at the airport. operational threshold of 250 annual operations at some point in the future. This would include a higher level of FUTURE CRITICAL AIRCRAFT aircraft operations by the Learjet family, larger Cessna models such as the The aviation demand forecasts indi- Citation X, as well as the Challenger cate the potential for growth in busi- and Gulfstream family of aircraft. ness jet and turboprop aircraft activity at the airport. This includes the addi- Future airport design will follow the tion of three based jets and three requirements posed by the existing based turboprops through the long and ultimate design aircraft. FAA and term planning period. Itinerant busi- Texas Department of Transportation – ness jet and turboprop activity is pro- Aviation Division (TxDOT) standards jected to follow strong growth, re- for aircraft through ARC B-II are bounding from current economic con- much less stringent than for those in ditions. Therefore, business jet and approach categories C and D. With turboprop aircraft will continue to de- this in mind, it is important for airport fine the critical aircraft parameters for planning to consider the potential Cox Field Airport through the plan- need for Cox Field Airport to transi- ning period. tion from ARC B-II to ARC C/D-II during the planning period of this study. Cox Field Airport is capable of serving the full breadth of piston-powered and PRX is somewhat distant from the turboprop general aviation aircraft. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and The airport is also capable of serving serves as an important economic en- the full array of business jet aircraft in gine for both Lamar County and the the fleet today as evidenced by the G- City of Paris, which is the hub for re- V, which has historically operated at gional commerce and business. Given PRX in support of Campbell’s Soup the historic use of PRX by ARC C-I flight operations. Future business jet through D-III aircraft, coupled with aircraft which will base and/or operate the continued and potential increased at PRX are projected to mirror current use by these aircraft, future planning

3-6 will consider ARC C/D-II as the ulti- tion airport in the FAA National Plan mate critical aircraft. This transition of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). is projected to occur beyond the short term period, and as such, long term According to TxDOT Policies and planning will factor into the transition Standards, a Business/Corporate air- of the airport and its facilities to ARC port, such as PRX, should meet the C/D-II design standards. applicable ARC standard which could range between ARC B-II up to and in- While the airport in general will be cluding ARC D-IV, depending upon planned to meet ARC C/D-II stan- actual activity. The existing and pro- dards, each runway will be individual- jected future ARC for the airport, as ly analyzed based on function. Prima- previously discussed, falls within ry Runway 17-35 is the longest run- TxDOT Policies and Standards range way at the airport and is served by the for designated Business/Corporate only straight-in instrument approach airports. procedures. As such, Runway 17-35 will be planned to ultimately conform to all applicable ARC C/D-II stan- AIRPORT FUNCTION dards. The crosswind runways will be considered to accommodate small air- In addition to the above defined roles craft, especially when crosswinds pro- for Texas airports, the TASP further hibit the use of Runway 17-35. Hav- sub-divides airports into functional ing a crosswind runway also provides categories specifically related to the the vital role of serving all aircraft op- type of use that the airport is expected erations when the primary runway is to accommodate. These functional closed for maintenance or emergen- categories include: access, remote, cies. As such, at least one crosswind agricultural, special use, industrial, runway will be designed to conform to multi-purpose, regional, reliever, and full ARC B-II standards over the long commercial. Table 3D presents the term planning period. definition of the airport functional categories including the regional classifi- cation for Cox Field Airport. AIRPORT ROLE

The Texas Airport System Plan TASP Airport Design Standards (TASP), revised in June 2007, classi- fies airports in the state by service The TASP presents the following min- level and role. The five classifications imum design criteria for each defined are: Basic Service, Community Ser- airport role. As already mentioned, vice, Business/Corporate, Reliever, the Cox Field Airport is currently a and Commercial Service. PRX is cur- Business/Corporate airport. Table 3E rently classified as a Busi- presents the TASP design standards ness/Corporate airport in the TASP for each airport service role including and is designated as a general avia- the role of Business/Corporate airport.

3-7

TABLE 3D Texas Airports Functional Category Cox Field Airport Category Typical ARC Function Access A-I, B-I Small airports with minimal service. Very remote facilities supporting oil production, ranching, and medical Remote A-I, B-I access. Agricultural A-I, B-I Located in areas of intense agricultural activity. Special Use A-I, B-I, B-II, C-II Seasonal airports typically related to tourism or recreation. Airport supporting aviation-related business and/or adjacent industrial ac- Industrial B-II Through D-IV tivity. Multi-Purpose A-I, B-I, B-II, C-II Diversified airport activity. Support higher performance aircraft. Support air taxi, commuter Regional B-II, C-II, C-III and charter activity. Reliever B-II, C-II, C-III, D-II Designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at commercial airports. Commercial C-II Through D-VI Scheduled passenger service with more than 2,500 annual enplanements. Source: TxDOT-Division of Aviation: Policies and Standards

AIRFIELD CAPACITY iways. Primary Runway 17-35 is 6,002 feet long by 150 feet wide. Airfield capacity is measured in a va- Both crosswind runways are 4,624 riety of different ways. The hourly feet long by 150 feet wide. capacity of a runway measures the maximum number of aircraft opera-  Runway Use – Runway use in ca- tions that can take place in an hour. pacity conditions will be controlled The annual service volume (ASV) by wind and/or airspace conditions. is an annual level of service that may For Cox Field Airport, the direction be used to define airfield capacity of takeoffs and landings are gener- needs. Aircraft delay is the total de- ally determined by the speed and lay incurred by aircraft using the air- direction of the wind. It is general- field during a given timeframe. FAA ly safest for aircraft to takeoff and Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport land into the wind, avoiding a Capacity and Delay, provides a me- crosswind (wind that is blowing thodology for examining the opera- perpendicular to the travel of the tional capacity of an airfield for plan- aircraft) or tailwind components ning purposes. This analysis takes during these operations. into account specific factors about the airfield. Based upon information received from wind data obtained for the  Runway Configuration – The ex- airport, Runway 17-35 is favorably isting airfield configuration consists oriented for predominant winds. of a three-runway system oriented This is common in the plain states in a triangular fashion. Primary as north/south winds are predomi- Runway 17-35 is served by a nearly nant. Crosswind Runway 14-32 full length parallel taxiway. The provides the next best runway crosswind runways are served only orientation for winds. Both ends of by connecting and entrance/exit tax- primary Runway 17-35 are served 3-8 by at least one published instru- guidance (LPV) approach serving ment approach procedure. The Runway 35 provides the lowest mi- global positioning system (GPS) lo- nimums at three quarters of a mile calizer performance with vertical visibility.

TABLE 3E Texas Airport Design Standards Cox Field Airport Minimum Community Community Business/Corporate Standard Basic Service Service I Service II Reliever Design Standard (ARC) A-I/B-I B-I/B-II B-II B-II through D-IV Length: 95% of Length: 95% of Length: 100% of the small aircraft the small air- the small air- Length: 75% at 60% Runway fleet craft fleet craft fleet useful load Width: 60 feet Width: 60 feet Width: 75 feet Width: 75 feet* Strength: 12,500 Strength: Strength: Strength: 30,000 pounds 12,500 pounds 30,000 pounds pounds Runway end tur- Runway end narounds and turnarounds and Partial parallel Taxiway access to apron access to apron taxiway Full-length parallel 360 s.y. for itine- 360 s.y. for iti- 360 s.y. for iti- rant and 300 s.y. nerant and 300 nerant and 300 360 s.y. for itinerant Apron for based s.y. for based s.y. for based and 300 s.y. for based Non-precision, Non-precision, GPS LPV, 3/4-mile visi- Approach Visual 1-mile visibility 1-mile visibility bility MIRL, taxiway centerline or MIRL, taxiway center- MIRL and tax- edge reflectors line striping or reflec- MIRL and taxiway iway turnout on taxiway to tors and turnout lights Lighting turnout lights lights lighted runway from the active runway Lighted wind Lighted wind indicator, seg- indicator, seg- Wind indicator, mented circle, mented circle, Lighted wind indicator, segmented circle, rotating beacon, rotating beacon, segmented circle, rotat- Visual Aid beacon PAPI PAPI ing beacon, PAPI, REIL AWOS, fuel, AWOS, fuel, airfield signage, AWOS, fuel, lighted Facilities/ terminal build- terminal build- airfield signage, ter- Services Location specific ing ing minal building Cessna King Air Cessna 750 Citation X, Cessna 152, Cess- Cessna 414, 350, Cessna Ci- Challengers, Typical Aircraft na 414 King Air 200 tation 550 Gulfstream Notes: MIRL: Medium Intensity Runway Lighting PAPI: Precision Approach Path Indicator REIL: Runway End Identification Lights LPV: Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance AWOS: Airport Weather Observation System ARC: Airport Reference Code GPS: Global Positioning System * FAA design standard is 100 feet wide

3-9  Exit Taxiways – Exit taxiways tions by Class D aircraft; however, have a significant impact on airfield Class C operations are estimated to capacity since the number and loca- be nearly two percent of total an- tion of exits directly determines the nual operations. The remaining op- occupancy time of an aircraft on the erations are by Class A and Class B runway. For Cox Field Airport, aircraft. those taxiway exits located between 2,000 and 4,000 feet from the run-  Percent Arrivals – Percent arriv- way threshold count in the capacity als generally follow the typical determination. Operations utilizing 50/50 percent split. all runways at the airport are credited with one exit in both direc-  Touch-and-Go Activity – Current tions. local operations account for approximately 60 percent of total annual  Weather Conditions – The airport operations. This figure will likely operates under visual flight rules remain relatively constant over the (VFR) approximately 87 percent of planning period. the time. Instrument flight rules (IFR) apply when cloud ceilings are  Peak Period Operations – For between 500 and 1,000 feet, approx- the airfield capacity analysis, aver- imately ten percent of the year. age daily operations and average Poor visibility conditions (PVC) ap- peak hour operations during the ply for minimums below 500 feet peak month, as calculated in the and one mile. PVC conditions occur previous section, are utilized. Typi- three percent of the year. cal operations activity is important in the calculation of an airport’s  Aircraft Mix – Aircraft mix for the annual service volume as “peak de- capacity analysis is defined in mand” levels occur sporadically. terms of four aircraft classes. The peak periods used in the capac- Classes A and B consist of small ity analysis are representative of and medium-sized propeller and normal operational activity and can some jet aircraft, all weighing be exceeded at various times 12,500 pounds or less. These air- throughout the year. craft are associated primarily with general aviation activity, but do include some air taxi, air cargo, and CAPACITY ANALYSIS commuter aircraft. Class C consists CONCLUSIONS of aircraft weighing between 12,500 pounds and 300,000 pounds which Given the factors outlined above, the would include all business jets (ex- airfield ASV will range between cept the very light jets) and most 150,000 and 200,000 annual opera- turboprop aircraft. Class D aircraft tions. The ASV does not indicate a consists of large aircraft weighing point of absolute gridlock for the air- more than 300,000 pounds. The field; however, it does represent the airport does not experience opera- point at which operational delay for

3-10 each aircraft operation will increase  Airfield Lighting, Marking, exponentially. The current operation and Signage level estimated for PRX represents 5.4  Navigational Aids and Instrument percent of the airfield’s ASV, if the Approach Procedures ASV is considered at the low end of the typical range (150,000 annual operations). By the end of the planning RUNWAY ORIENTATION period, total annual operations (22,650) are expected to represent 15.1 The airport is served by Runway 17-35 percent of the airfield’s ASV consider- oriented in a north-south manner. ing the lower end of the typical ASV Crosswind Runway 14-32 is oriented range. in a northwest-southwest fashion, while crosswind Runway 3-21 is FAA Order 5090.3B, Field Formula- oriented northeast-southwest. For the tion of the National Plan of Integrated operational safety and efficiency of an Airport Systems (NPIAS) and TxDOT’s airport, it is desirable for the primary Policies and Standards, indicate that runway to be orientated as closely as improvements for airfield capacity possible to the direction of the prevail- purposes should begin to be considered ing wind. This reduces the impact of once operations reach 60 to 75 percent wind components perpendicular to the of the annual service volume. This is direction of travel of an aircraft that is an approximate level to begin the de- landing or taking off (defined as a tailed planning of capacity improve- crosswind). ments. At the 80 percent level, the planned improvements should be FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, made. Based on current and projected Change 16, Airport Design, recom- operations developed for this study, mends that a crosswind runway improvements specifically designed to should be made available when the enhance capacity do not need to be primary runway orientation provides considered. less than 95 percent wind coverage for specific crosswind components. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS on the basis of the crosswind not ex- ceeding 10.5 knots (12 mph) for ARC Airfield requirements include the need A-I and B-I; 13 knots (15 mph) for for those facilities related to the arriv- ARC A-II and B-II; 16 knots (18 mph) for ARC C-I through D-II; and 20 al and departure of aircraft. The ade- knots for ARC A-IV through D-VI. quacy of existing airfield facilities at

Cox Field Airport has been analyzed Wind data specific for Cox Field Air- from a number of perspectives, includ- port was obtained from the National ing: Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-

tion (NOAA) National Climatic Center  Runways and is depicted on Exhibit 3B.  Safety Area Design Standards  Taxiways

3-11 Singularly, primary Runway 17-35 month, runway gradient, critical air- provides 93.84 percent wind coverage craft type expected to use the runway, for 10.5 knot crosswinds, 97.03 per- and aircraft loading (weight). Aircraft cent wind coverage at 13 knots, and performance declines as elevation, 99.95 percent coverage at 16 knots. temperature, and runway gradient As a result, Runway 17-35 meets the factors increase. Therefore, these fac- FAA stipulated crosswind component tors increase runway length require- for all but 10.5 knots where it falls ments. short by less than two percent. Run- way 14-32 provides the next best sin- For calculating runway length regular crosswind coverage at 92.13 per- quirements at Cox Field Airport, the cent for 10.5 knots and above 95 per- elevation is 547 feet mean sea level cent for all other crosswind compo- (MSL) and the mean maximum daily nents. Runway 3-21 singularly pro- temperature of the hottest month is 94 vides only 87.87 percent crosswind degrees Fahrenheit (F) (July/August). coverage for 10.5 knot crosswind com- The maximum elevation difference in ponents. All three runways combined Runway 17-35 is 14.3 feet. The mean provide over 99 percent crosswind cov- maximum temperature is 94 degrees erage for all components. Fahrenheit.

While the FAA expects a single run- FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5235- way to provide 95 percent coverage for 4B, Runway Length Requirements for all crosswind components, primary Airport Design, provides guidelines to Runway 17-35 could offer sufficient determine runway lengths for civil coverage if the two crosswind runways airports. In conjunction with this AC, were not available. If the airport was the FAA provides a computer program not currently served by two crosswind that estimates runway length esti- runways, the FAA would likely not participate in constructing a new mates for several categories of aircraft crosswind runway given the primary based on the input factors. Table 3F runway’s crosswind coverage of nearly presents the runway length results 95 percent for 10.5 knots. As a result, from the computer program. at least one of the crosswind runways should be planned to remain for use by The Advisory Circular segregates aircraft up to ARC B-II. Analysis later business jets (large airplanes) into two in this chapter will detail long term categories: 1) aircraft that make up 75 planning recommendations for the percent of the national fleet; and 2) crosswind runways. aircraft that make up 100 percent of the national fleet. Small- and medium-size business jets, such as Cess- RUNWAY LENGTH na Citation models 500-650, Dassault Falcon models 10-50, and Learjet

models 20-45, make up the first 75 Runway length requirements are percent of the national fleet. The re- based upon five primary elements: maining 25 percent of the fleet in- airport elevation, the mean maximum cludes large business jets, such as daily temperature of the hottest

3-12

Bombardier Challenger models 600- Learjet models 35-60, and Dassault 605, Cessna Citation models 650-750, Falcon models 900-2000.

TABLE 3F General Aviation Runway Length Analysis Cox Field Airport AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA Airport Elevation ...... 547 feet Mean daily maximum temperature ...... 94º F Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation ...... 14.7 feet Haul length for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds ...... 1,000 miles Wet and slippery runways RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats 75 percent of these small airplanes ...... 2,800 95 percent of these small airplanes ...... 3,300 100 percent of these small airplanes ...... 3,900 Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats ...... 4,500 Business jets of 60,000 pounds or less ...... 75 percent at 60 percent useful load ...... 5,500 100 percent at 60 percent useful load ...... 7,200 75 percent at 90 percent useful load ...... 5,900 100 percent at 90 percent useful load ...... 9,200 Business jets of more than 60,000 pounds ...... 6,200 Reference: AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design

The FAA and TxDOT typically only length required for aircraft weighing accept planning for runway length re- more than 60,000 pounds based on quirements at 60 percent useful load certain stage or trip lengths. As pre- unless specific justification can be sented in the table, aircraft that weigh made for a need to plan for 90 percent more than 60,000 pounds require useful load. Planning for jet aircraft 6,200 feet of runway length for 1,000- at 90 percent useful load is not prac- mile stage lengths. For shorter trip ticable because many aircraft are lengths, however, the runway length weight-restricted during the climb af- required is less than 6,000 feet. While ter takeoff. In other words, due to the some aircraft may be weight-restricted need to maintain a certain positive on very hot days, the current length of climb rate after departure, the aircraft Runway 17-35 is adequate to serve the can rarely be fully loaded. vast majority of current and projected operations. As a result, the current As shown in Table 3F, the current length of Runway 17-35 should be length of Runway 17-35 at 6,002 feet maintained at 6,002 feet through the meets the runway length require- planning period. ments for both 75 percent of business jets at 60 percent useful load and 100 As noted in the previous section, only percent of business jets at 60 percent one crosswind runway is necessary to useful load. The runway length soft- meet the FAA crosswind coverage cri- ware program also generalizes the teria. The crosswind runway should

3-13 be capable of meeting the runway Consideration should then be given to length needs of aircraft up to and in- which of the two crosswind runways cluding ARC B-II. According to Table should be maintained through the 3F, approximately 3,900 feet of run- planning period. Both crosswind runway length is required to meet the ways could remain operational until needs of 100 percent of all small air- their useful life expires and/or if the craft (equivalent to ARC B-II). Both City of Paris elects to self-fund capital crosswind runways currently measure costs associated with the third run- 4,654 feet. While the lengths of the way. The primary consideration in crosswind runways exceed FAA crite- choosing the runway to remain is ria, the extra length would serve a analysis of the combined wind cover- valuable capacity during periods when age provided by each crosswind run- primary Runway 17-35 is closed for way with primary Runway 17-35. maintenance, emergencies, etc. As a Secondary considerations include result, at least one crosswind runway geometrical, environmental, and fi- should remain and be maintained at nancial factors associated with the exits current length. isting layout of each runway.

Exhibit 3B presents the wind cover- CROSSWIND RUNWAYS age of each crosswind runway combined with primary Runway 17-35. As Due to the high operational and capi- detailed, the combination of Runway tal costs of maintaining airfield pave- 17-35 and Runway 14-32 provides the ments, the FAA and TxDOT do not best dual crosswind component cover- participate in grant funding assistance age, although the difference is rela- for improvements not deemed justified tively minor. The dual combination of and/or necessary. Three runways at the primary runway with each cross- Cox Field Airport are not required to wind runway exceeds the FAA’s 95 meet safety requirements outlined by percent coverage criteria. As a result, the FAA as evidenced by the wind rose either runway would be suitable to presented on Exhibit 3B. In fact, if a remain. Therefore, the choice of which new airport were to be constructed on runway should remain will require the existing Cox Field Airport site, on- further analysis considering geome- ly one runway would be constructed. trical and economic factors. That Since crosswind runways currently ex- analysis will be conducted in the fol- ist at PRX, the FAA and TxDOT will lowing chapter. likely only support continued funding assistance of two runways since Run- way 17-35 does not fully meet the 95 RUNWAY WIDTH percent threshold; however, the funding assistance for maintaining one crosswind runway may be very low The FAA design standard for runway priority. It should also be noted that width is dependent on the critical de- the remaining crosswind runway could sign aircraft and the approach visibili- only be supported to meet the needs of ty minimums. The existing critical ARC A-I through B-II based on FAA design aircraft falls in ARC B-II with crosswind coverage criteria. future planning proposed to conform 3-14 to ARC C/D-II. The lowest visibility RUNWAY STRENGTH minimum provided is a GPS LPV instrument approach procedure to Run- The pavement strength of the airport way 35. This approach provides visi- surfaces should be planned to meet bility minimums not lower than ¾- the needs of the critical design air- mile. The minimum runway width craft. As a Business/Corporate air- standard for these conditions is 100 port, the primary runway pavement feet. Runway 17-35 is currently 150 strength should be at least 30,000 feet wide and meets FAA and TxDOT pounds single wheel loading (SWL), standards. For runways served by ½- while 60,000 pounds would be prefer- mile visibility approach minimums, a able for large business jet aircraft. runway width of 100 feet is required. SWL refers to the type of landing gear As a result, the width of Runway 17- an aircraft has; thus, the available 35 should be maintained to at least area for that aircraft to disburse its 100 feet through the planning period. weight on the pavement. SWL aircraft have a single wheel on each land- Both of the crosswind runways are al- ing strut. Dual wheel loading (DWL) so 150 feet wide. As previously noted, landing gear has two wheels on each one of the crosswind runways is not strut. The existing pavement strength needed to meet FAA wind coverage is 60,000 pounds SWL and 95,000 criteria. The remaining crosswind pounds DWL. The crosswind runway runway should meet ARC B-II stan- should provide a minimum pavement dards. The FAA calls for a runway strength of 12,500 pounds SWL. width of 75 feet to meet ARC B-II standards for visual runways and Primary Runway 17-35 currently pro- runways served by instrument ap- vides a runway pavement strength of proach procedures with not lower than 30,000 pounds SWL. This strength ¾-mile visibility minimums. will be adequate for the short term; however, consideration should be giv- Future planning will consider a cross- en to increasing the pavement wind runway with minimums not low- strength to 60,000 pounds by the long er than ¾-mile visibility. As a result, term. The heavier weight bearing ca- the FAA and TxDOT will likely only pacity will allow the runway to better support a crosswind runway width of serve large business jets that are pro- 75 feet. The current width of the jected to increasingly utilize the air- crosswind runway is twice as large as port, such as the Gulfstream family of FAA design standards require. There- aircraft. fore, the FAA and TxDOT will likely only provide grant-in-aid funding as- Future planning for the crosswind sistance for a 75-foot wide crosswind runway should consider providing a runway. The City of Paris will likely pavement strength capable of accom- have to self-fund pavement width im- modating all small aircraft (those un- provements in excess of the 75-foot der 12,500 pounds) and small to me- standard.

3-15 dium sized business jets. As noted TAXIWAYS earlier, at some point during the planning period, primary Runway 17-35 Taxiways are constructed primarily to will be closed for maintenance or other facilitate aircraft movements to and reasons. As a result, the crosswind from the runway system. Some tax- runway should be planned to be at iways are necessary simply to provide least 30,000 pounds SWL. Both access between the aprons and run- crosswind runways currently provide ways, whereas other taxiways become 26,000 pounds SWL; however, both necessary as activity increases at an runway pavements are in poor condi- airport to provide safe and efficient tion. The crosswind runway that is use of the airfield. Taxiways designed selected to remain should be streng- to support operations by aircraft in thened during maintenance to meet design group II should be 35 feet wide, the 30,000 pound SWL capacity. while those supporting aircraft in design group III should be 50 feet wide.

RUNWAY/TAXIWAY SEPARATION An object free area applies to taxiways and taxilanes (TOFA). The width of FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, the TOFA is dependent on the discusses required minimum separa- wingspan of critical aircraft. For ADG tion distances between a runway cen- II aircraft, the TOFA is 131 feet wide, terline and various areas on the air- or 65.5 feet on either side of center- port. The separation distances are a line. The taxiway shoulder width re- function of the approaches approved quirements are 10 feet for ADG II. for the airport and the critical design aircraft. The current taxiway system meets FAA design criteria; however, portions The runway to parallel taxiway sepa- of Taxiways A, B, and all of Taxiway C ration standard for a critical aircraft will require significant maintenance in ARC B-II is 240 feet. For ARC C/D- due to poor pavement conditions and II and for runways served by an in- drainage issues. strument approach with not lower than ¾-mile visibility, the separation Planning analysis to be completed in standard is 300 feet. Runways served the next chapter will also consider ex- by approaches with lower than ¾-mile tending parallel Taxiway A to the visibility requires a 400-foot run- south end of Runway 17-35. Current- way/taxiway separation. The current ly, Taxiway A parallels Runway 17-35 separation between Runway 17-35 and up to a point approximately 1,400 feet parallel Taxiway A exceeds 500 feet north of the Runway 35 threshold. At and meets FAA standards. this point, it travels at an acute angle

3-16 to the runway. Aircraft utilizing WAAS-enabled approaches are called Runway 35 must then “back taxi” to LPV approaches, which stands for Lo- the runway end for departure. While calizer Performance with Vertical this geometrical design is not uncom- guidance. As of September 2008, the mon, it will not allow for Runway 35 to FAA had approved 1,333 LPV ap- be served by a precision instrument proaches. This now exceeds the num- approach providing minimums below ber of existing instrument landing sys- 3/4-mile. tem (ILS) approaches. The FAA is planning to also implement the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS), INSTRUMENT which further refines and improves NAVIGATIONAL AIDS the local GPS signal. With LAAS, the GPS LPV approaches will be capable As a reliever airport, the Cox Field of meeting full CAT-I minimums. Airport should be equipped with near all-weather instrument approach ca- LPV approaches have been approved pability. The airport is not currently with visibility minimums not lower served by a precision instrument ap- than ¾-mile without any airport based proach providing Category I (CAT-I) equipment. This is the case for Run- minimums (1/2-mile visibility mini- way 35, which is served by a GPS LPV mums and/or not lower than 200-foot approach providing not lower than ¾- cloud heights). Currently, nearly all mile visibility minimums. Long term CAT-I approaches require extensive planning should consider this ap- on-airport facilities, such as localizer proach being upgraded to full CAT-I and glide-slope antennas, as well as a once LAAS is in place and operational. sophisticated approach lighting sys- The only improvement required would tem (ALS). In the future, these ap- be the addition of an ALS on Runway proaches will be served via GPS tech- 35. Runway 17 is currently served by nology. a GPS LPV approach; however, the approach provides minimums of not The FAA is moving rapidly on imple- lower than one mile. Predominant menting the Wide Area Augmentation winds dictate the use of Runway 17 System (WAAS) to enhance instru- approximately 70 percent of the year. ment approaches across the country. As a result, ultimate planning should The WAAS uses a system of reference also consider a CAT-I LPV approach to stations to correct signals from the Runway 17. GPS satellites to bring positional ac- curacy to within one to two feet. Currently, an ALS is required to at- Where the non-WAAS-enabled GPS tain visibility minimums as low as ½- satellites provide for instrument ap- mile. A medium intensity approach proaches with lateral navigation capa- lighting system (MALSR) is the pre- bilities, WAAS provides for approach- ferred ALS utilized to provide full es with both lateral and vertical navi- CAT-I visibility minimums. In order gation. for Runway 17 and/or 35 to be up-

3-17 graded to CAT-I minimums with runway should also be served by LAAS GPS in the future, a MALSR REILs. would be required. Long term planning will consider the implementation Precision approach path indicators of MALSR to serve both runway ends. (PAPIs) and visual approach slope indicator (VASIs) lights provide pilots The crosswind runways are not cur- with visual descent information to the rently served by a published instru- runway touchdown zone. These sys- ment approach (straight-in approach). tems are similar in that they provide Ultimate planning should consider the the pilot with a visual representation implementation of a published in- of being above, on, or below the proper strument GPS approach to both ends approach glide path. Runway 17 is of the crosswind runway. The ap- currently served by a four-box PAPI, proach should be planned to, at a min- while Runway 35 is served by a four- imum, provide not lower than one mile box VASI. Four-box systems are gen- visibility minimums; however, ¾-mile erally preferred by corporate and air visibility minimums could be achieved carrier aircraft. The crosswind run- with GPS and without an ALS. As a ways are not served by a PAPI or result, analysis in the next chapter VASI system. Ultimate planning will will analyze the ability of the cross- include planning for a two-box PAPI wind runway to achieve not lower system to serve the crosswind runway. than ¾-mile visibility minimums.

WEATHER REPORTING AIDS VISUAL NAVIGATIONAL AIDS Cox Field Airport is currently served Cox Field Airport will need a beacon to by three lighted wind cones. One is provide for rapid identification of the located near each runway end and one airport at night. The airport beacon is is located in the segmented circle. The green on one side and white on the segmented circle provides traffic pat- other. The beacon at the existing air- tern information. These facilities port may be able to be relocated to the should be maintained for the planning new site. period.

Runway end identification lights Two types of automated weather ob- (REILs) are strobe lights set to either serving systems are currently dep- side of the runway ends. These lights loyed at airports around the country. provide rapid identification of the An Automated Surface Observing Sys- runway threshold. REILs should be tem (ASOS) and Automated Weather installed at runway ends not currently Observing System (AWOS) both providing an approach lighting system measure and process surface weather but supporting instrument operations. observations 24 hours per day, with REILs should be planned for both reporting varying from one minute to ends of Runway 17-35 unless or until hourly. These systems provide near a MALSR in installed. The crosswind

3-18 real-time measurements of atmospher- Currently, Runway 17-35 is served by ic conditions. medium intensity runway lights (MIRL) which are required to serve Cox Field Airport is currently served nighttime operations and approach by an AWOS-III which should be procedures. MIRL is also stipulated maintained in the future. The airport for Business/Corporate airports in the is also served by a lighted windcone TASP. The crosswind runway should and tetrahedron which offer imme- also be planned for MIRL. As pre- diate visual information of local winds viously mentioned, the crosswind to pilots. These facilities should also runway will need to serve as the air- be maintained in the future. port’s only runway during periods when Runway 17-35 is closed. With- out MIRL on the crosswind runway, AIRFIELD LIGHTING the airport would be closed for all AND MARKING nighttime operations.

Runway markings are designed ac- A portion of Taxiway B, near the ter- cording to the type of instrument ap- minal ramp and intersection of Run- proach available on the runway. FAA way 17-35, is lighted with medium in- AC 150/5340-1F, Marking of Paved tensity taxiway lights (MITL) as well Areas on Airports, provides guidance as lighted signs. TxDOT planning necessary to design airport markings. standards indicate that airports hav- Runway 17-35 has non-precision ing more than 100 based aircraft markings. These markings are cur- should be served with these lights as rently sufficient and should be main- well as taxiway guidance signs. The tained in the future. If Runway 17 airport does not currently meet this and/or 35 is upgraded to CAT-I mini- standard and forecasts of based air- mums, precision runway marking craft do not indicate that 100 aircraft would be required. Precision mark- will be based at the airport through ings include runway designation, cen- the planning period. Therefore, the terline, edge line, threshold bar, existing taxiway lights arrangement, touchdown zone, and aiming points. as well as airfield signage, will be adequate and should be maintained in The current hold positions associated the future. with primary Runway 17-35 are marked 250 feet from the runway centerline on all taxiways to the west of AIRPORT TRAFFIC the runway. The taxiways leading CONTROL TOWER from Runway 17 to Runway 14 and Runway 35 to Runway 3 are set at 175 The establishment of a new FAA- feet. While this has been approved for funded airport traffic control tower current conditions, the markings (ATCT) follows a two-phase process as would need to be moved out to 250 feet detailed in FAA Handbook 7031.2C, from Runway 17-35 if it is to be served Airway Planning Standard Number by a CAT-I approach to either end. One - Terminal Air Navigation Facili-

3-19 ties and Air Traffic Control Services. al services, to corporate and charter The first phase involves identifying jet activity. possible candidacy through an analysis of annual operation levels. The second phase involves a cost-benefit APPLICABLE ARC STANDARDS analysis of the tower location over a 15-year time frame. To be identified The minimum standards for the vari- as a possible candidate for a new ous safety areas surrounding an air- ATCT, the sum of the cost-benefit port are defined in FAA AC 150/5300- formula must be greater than or equal 13, Airport Design. These imaginary to one. surfaces are intended to protect area airspace and keep them free from ob- Airports don’t typically qualify for structions or incompatible land uses ATCT consideration until they have that could affect an aircraft’s safe operation. These include the runway exceeded a minimum of 100,000 an- safety area (RSA), object free area nual operations. This is a generality, (OFA), obstacle free zone (OFZ), and and lower operational levels can still runway protection zone (RPZ). justify the need for an ATCT, providing there is enough qualifying air car- The entire RSA, OFA, and OFZ should rier and/or air taxi operations. Only be under the direct control of the air- the FAA and TxDOT can make a de- port sponsor to ensure these areas re- termination of tower qualifications. main free of obstacles and can be rea- dily accessed by maintenance and PRX does not currently exceed 100,000 emergency personnel. It is not re- annual operations. Aviation forecasts quired that the RPZ be under airport for the planning period presented in ownership, but it is strongly recom- the previous chapter indicate that the mended. An alternative to outright airport will not near this level of oper- ownership of the RPZ is the purchase ations through the planning period. of avigation easements (acquiring con- As a result, an ATCT will not be trol of designated airspace within the planned for PRX. RPZ) or having sufficient land use control measures in place which ensures that the RPZ remains free of incom- AIRFIELD SAFETY AREAS patible development.

Cox Field Airport should be designed, Dimensional standards for the various at a minimum, as a Busi- safety areas associated with the run- ness/Corporate airport, according to way is a function of the ARC as well as the planned approach visibility mini- TxDOT design standards, that meets mums. The planned critical aircraft the requirements of an ARC C/D-II for Runway 17-35 falls in ARC C/D-II. airport. The functional category The crosswind runway will be planned should also be for a regional airport to full ARC B-II design standards. intended to support diversified activity The ultimate plan will continue to from recreational activity from smaller provide ½-mile visibility minimums on piston-powered aircraft, to agricultur- both ends of Runway 17-35 and for not

3-20 lower than ¾-mile visibility mini- the RSAs at the state’s general avia- mums on the crosswind runway, if tion airports. proven feasible in the next chapter. As previously mentioned, the current critical aircraft is ARC-II for all run- Runway Safety Area (RSA) ways due to existing aviation activity. Future planning calls for Runway 17- The RSA is defined as a “surface sur- 35 to meet ARC C/D-II standards, rounding the runway prepared or while the crosswind runway is suitable for reducing the risk of dam- planned for ARC B-II. For ARC C/D-II age to airplanes in the event of an un- runways, the FAA calls for the RSA to dershoot, overshoot, or excursion from be 500 feet wide and extend 1,000 feet the runway.” The RSA is centered on beyond each runway end. The FAA the runway and dimensioned in accor- has recently modified the RSA re- dance to the approach speed of the quirement, allowing for only 600 feet critical aircraft using the runway. of RSA prior to landing. For ARC B- The FAA requires the RSA to be II, the RSA is 150 feet wide and ex- cleared and graded, drained by grad- tends 300 feet beyond each runway ing or storm sewers, capable of ac- end. commodating the design aircraft and fire and rescue vehicles, and free of As depicted on Exhibit 3C, the air- obstacles not fixed by navigational port has sufficient area available to purpose. meet RSA standards for all runways for the current designation of ARC B- The FAA has placed a higher signific- II. The south end of Runway 17-35 ance on maintaining adequate RSAs does not conform to ARC C/D-II stan- at all airports due to recent aircraft dards as trees and the Little Sandy accidents. Under Order 5200.8, effec- Creek are located in the RSA. These tive October 1, 1999, the FAA estab- areas will need to be cleared, graded, lished a Runway Safety Area Program. and stabilized to meet standard. Ta- The Order states, “The objective of the ble 3G presents the various safety Runway Safety Area Program is that area design standards applied to Cox all RSAs at federally-obligated air- Field Airport. ports … shall conform to the standards contained in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, to the ex- Object Free Area (OFA) tent practicable.” Each Regional Air- ports Division of the FAA is obligated The runway object free area (OFA) is to collect and maintain data on the “a two-dimensional ground area, sur- RSA for each runway at the airport rounding runways, taxiways, and tax- and perform airport inspections. The ilanes, which is clear of objects except FAA has been visually inspecting the for objects whose location is fixed by RSAs at each federally obligated air- function (i.e., airfield lighting).” The port for the last ten years with a goal OFA does not have to be graded and to complete the program by 2015. In level as does the RSA; instead, the Texas, TxDOT has been given the re- primary requirement for the OFA is sponsibility to administer and inspect that no object in the OFA penetrates

3-21 the lateral elevation of the RSA. The the critical aircraft design category runway OFA is centered on the run- utilizing the runway. way, extending out in accordance to

TABLE 3G Airfield Design Standards Cox Field Airport Existing Ultimate Ultimate Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Crosswind Runway Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II C/D-II B-II Approach Visibility Minimums 1 Mile ¾ Mile ½ Mile ¾ Mile consider ¾-mile Runway Length 6,002’ Same 4,624’ Runway Width 150’ Same (standard is 100’) 150’ (standard is 75’) Runway Safety Area Width 150’ 500’ 150’ Length Beyond Runway End 300’ 1,000’ 300’ Object Free Area Width 500’ 800’ 500’ Length Beyond Runway End 300’ 1,000’ 300’ Obstacle Free Zone Width 400’ Same 400’ Length Beyond Runway End 200’ Same 200’ Runway Protection Zone Runway 17 Runway 35 Runway 17 Runway 35 Inner Width 500’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ Outer Width 700’ 1,510’ 1,750’ 1,750’ 1,510’ Length 1,000’ 1,700’ 2,500’ 2,500’ 1,700’ Runway Centerline to: Holding Position 250’ Same 200’ Parallel Taxiway Centerline 400’ Same 240’ Taxiway Width 35’ to 40’ Same 35’ to 40’ Taxiway Object Free Area Width 131’ Same 131’ Taxiway Centerline to: Fixed or Moveable Object 65.5’ Same 65.5’ Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 16

For ARC C/D-II aircraft design, the Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) OFA must be 800 feet wide, centered on the runway, and extend 1,000 feet The obstacle free zone (OFZ) is an im- beyond the runway ends. For ARC B- aginary surface which precludes object II the OFA must be 500 feet wide and penetrations, including taxiing and extend 300 feet beyond the runway parked aircraft. The only allowance ends. As depicted on Exhibit 3C, the for OFZ obstructions is navigational OFA for all runways are clear of ob- aids mounted on frangible bases which structions for ARC B-II design; how- are fixed in their location by function, ever, the OFA at the south end of such as airfield signs. The OFZ is es- Runway 17-35 is obstructed for ARC tablished to ensure the safety of air- C/D-II design criteria due to the loca- craft operations. If the OFZ is ob- tion of trees and the Little Sandy structed, the airport’s approaches Creek. These obstructions would need could be removed or approach mini- to be rectified to meet ARC C/D-II mums could be increased. The OFZ is standards. 400 feet wide, centered on the runway, and extends 200 feet beyond the runway ends. 3-22 LEGEND Airport Property Line

09MP11-3C-4/13/10 Avigation Easement Runway Safety Area (RSA) Object Free Area (OFA) Property Acquisition Required RPZ Runway Protection Zone

RPZ not lower than 1 mile

RPZ not lower Runway 3-21 4,624’ x 150’ than 3/4 mile

Runway 14-32 4,624’ x 150’

RPZ Runway 17-35 6,002’ x 150’ lower than 3/4 mile

Little Sandy Creek

PROPERTY ACQUISITION REQUIRED FOR RPZ WITH 271 ASSOCIATED APPROACH MINIMUMS NORTH

Collier Drive Drive Collier Collier Visibility Minimums RUNWAY 1-Mile 3/4-Mile 1/2-Mile Airport Road Runway 17 0 0 0 0 1000 2000 Runway 35 N/A 22 29.9 Runway 14 0 0 Not Planned Runway 32 0 4.11 Not Planned SCALE IN FEET Runway 3 0 2.92 Not Planned FM 1508 1508 FM FM to U.S. 271 to to U.S. 271 Runway 21 0 0 Not Planned

Exhibit 3C AIRFIELD SAFETY STANDARDS A precision obstacle free zone (POFZ) centerline, and is the width of the is further defined for runway ends OFA. Only objects necessary to aid air with a precision approach. The pro- navigation, such as approach lights, posed ½-mile LPV GPS approaches to are allowed in this portion of the RPZ. Runways 17 and 35 would be consi- The remaining portion of the RPZ, the dered precision approaches. As such, Controlled Activity Area, has strict Runway 17-35 would be required to land use limitations. Wildlife attrac- provide a POFZ that is 800 feet wide tants, fuel farms, places of public as- (centered on the runway) and extends sembly, and residences are prohibited. 200 feet beyond the runway threshold. The AC specifically allows surface The POFZ is only in effect when the parking facilities, but they are discou- following conditions are met: raged. a) The runway supports a vertical- Table 3G presents the dimensions of ly guided approach. the existing RPZs for all runway ends. b) Reported ceiling is below 250 As noted, Runway 17 is currently feet and/or visibility is less than served by a not lower than one-mile ¾-mile. straight-in instrument approach. Fu- c) An aircraft is on final approach ture planning will consider minimums within two miles of the runway as low as ½-mile visibility. Runway threshold. 35 is currently served by a not lower than ¾-mile visibility approach with future planning considerations being Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) given to not lower than ½-mile visibility. The crosswind runways are not The runway protection zone (RPZ) is a currently served by an instrument ap- trapezoidal area centered on the run- proach; however, future planning will way, typically beginning 200 feet consider an approach to the crosswind beyond the runway end. The RPZ has runway providing minimums as low as been established by the FAA to pro- ¾-mile visibility minimums. vide an area clear of obstructions and incompatible land uses, in order to Exhibit 3C depicts existing and enhance the protection of approaching planned RPZs for all runway ends. As previously discussed, the size of the aircraft as well as people and property RPZ is dependent on the runway’s ap- on the ground. The RPZ is comprised proach minimums and/or ARC (for not of the Central Portion of the RPZ and lower than one mile visibility condi- the Controlled Activity Area. The ditions only). The existing and planned mensions of the RPZ vary according to RPZs for Runways 17, 14, and 21 are the visibility minimums serving the all contained on existing airport prop- runway and the type of aircraft oper- erty. This includes the RPZ associated ating on the runway. with a CAT-I approach to Runway 17 as well as the potential to provide not The Central Portion of the RPZ ex- lower than ¾-mile visibility mini- tends from the beginning to the end of mums on Runways 14 and/or 21. the RPZ, is centered on the runway

3-23 Runway 35 is currently served by an  General Aviation Parking LPV approach providing not lower  Fuel Storage Capacity than ¾-mile visibility. As depicted on the exhibit, the RPZ for existing conditions extends south beyond current AIRCRAFT HANGARS airport property. Approximately 22.0 acres should be acquired in fee or The demand for aircraft storage han- easement to properly manage the ex- gars typically depends upon the num- isting RPZ for Runway 35. If Runway ber and type of aircraft expected to be 35 is to be served by a CAT-I GPS ap- based at the airport. For planning proach, an additional 29.90 acres purposes, it is necessary to estimate would need to be acquired to properly hangar requirements based upon fore- control the RPZ. cast operational activity. However, future hangar development should be Runways 3 and 32 are not currently based on actual demand and economic served by an instrument approach. conditions. Their associated RPZs fall within existing airport bounds, which includes Utilization of hangar space varies as a the ability to implement a GPS not function of local climate, security, and lower than one mile visibility mini- owner preferences. The trend in gen- mum approach. If the runway ends eral aviation aircraft, whether single were to be served by a not lower than or multi-engine, is toward more so- ¾-mile visibility approach, 2.92 acres phisticated aircraft (and consequently, would need to be acquired for the Runway 3 RPZ, and 4.11 acres would more expensive aircraft); therefore, need to be acquired for the 32 RPZ. many aircraft owners prefer enclosed hangar space to outside tie-downs. At present, seven single engine piston- powered aircraft utilize outside tie- LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS down space. This represents approx-

Landside facilities are those necessary imately 12.5 percent of the based total. for the handling of aircraft and pas- Future planning will consider that on- sengers while on the ground. These ly five of the based aircraft would be facilities provide the essential inter- tie-down as opposed to being based in face between the air and ground hangars if they were available. transportation modes. The capacity of the various components of each area Shade and T-hangars are typically was examined in relation to projected used for smaller single and multi- demand to identify future landside fa- engine aircraft storage. Cox Field cility needs. This includes compo- Airport has one shade hangar facility nents for general aviation needs such which provides six individual covered as: storage positions and a total of 7,250 square feet of space. A total of 29 individual T-hangar positions are pro-  Aircraft Hangars vided in three separate facilities and  Aircraft Parking Aprons provide a total of 29,900 square feet of  General Aviation Terminal 3-24 space. Shade hangars provide aircraft square feet was used for single engine owners with a relatively inexpensive aircraft, and 2,500 square feet for covered storage area. T-hangars are multi-engine aircraft, jets, and heli- popular with aircraft owners having copters. Since portions of executive one aircraft as they are allowed priva- and conventional hangars are also cy and individual access to their space. used for aircraft maintenance, servic- These hangars are individual spaces ing, and office space, a planning stan- nested within a larger structure. All dard of 175 square feet per based air- shade and T-hangars are owned by the craft is allocated for these require- City of Paris and are currently leased. ments.

Executive box hangars are typically Table 3H shows the results of the utilized by owners of larger aircraft or analysis for hangar requirements to multiple aircraft. Executive hangars accommodate those aircraft that are usually smaller than 10,000 would normally be stored in a hangar square feet and offer open-space sto- if space were available. Within the rage. There are currently ten execu- short term, there is a forecast need for tive box hangars at Cox Field Airport, eight T-hangar positions and two box one of which is similar to a T-hangar. hangar positions. Space in the con- One facility provides seven individual ventional hangars appears adequate box units. All executive box hangars, through the short term planning pe- except the seven-unit facility, are pri- riod and will likely be privately con- vately owned. The City of Paris owns structed as needed. the seven-unit executive box hangar. The analysis shows that there is an Conventional hangars are typically immediate need for additional hangar 10,000 square feet or larger and uti- space. While the overall square foo- lized for bulk aircraft storage and by tage figures appear adequate for the airport businesses such as FBOs, short and intermediate terms, this maintenance providers, and flight does not necessarily indicate that a schools. They are open-space facilities demand does not exist. This is be- with no supporting structure interfe- cause these hangars are often leased rence, similar to executive/box han- to a single entity for a specific pur- gars. At Cox Field Airport, there are pose, such as an airport business. Cox two privately owned conventional Field Airport has a wait list for 33 air- hangar facilities, totaling approx- craft. Experience indicates that not imately 29,000 square feet. all of those on the list will accept new spaces, especially if rental fees are The aviation demand forecasts indi- high. Typically, no more than 75 per- cated that the airport is trending to- cent of those on the list will locate to ward an increasing number of based the airport is space is provided. aircraft. A planning standard of 1,500

3-25

TABLE 3H Aircraft Storage Hangar Requirements Cox Field Airport Future Requirements Currently Short Intermediate Long Available Term Term Term Aircraft to be Hangared 49 57 63 78 Shade/T-hangar Positions 29 37 41 50 Executive Box Hangar Positions 16 18 19 23 Conventional Hangar Positions 4 2 3 5 Hangar Area Requirements (s.f.) Shade/T-hangar Area 37,150 46,300 51,300 62,500 Executive Box Hangar Area 51,100 45,000 47,500 57,500 Conventional Hangar Area 29,000 5,000 7,500 12,500 Maintenance/Office Area N/A 10,850 11,900 14,525 Total Hangar Storage Area (s.f.)* 117,250 107,150 118,200 147,025

AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON simply means there should be adequate apron space to allow aircraft to FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, be temporarily parked on the apron. suggests a methodology by which Total apron parking requirements are transient apron requirements can be presented in Table 3J. As indicated determined from knowledge of busy- in the table, the existing apron area day operations. At Cox Field Airport, should be adequate to accommodate the number of itinerant spaces re- future aircraft parking requirements. quired was determined to be approximately 13 percent of the busy-day itinerant operations. A planning crite- GENERAL AVIATION rion of 800 square yards per aircraft TERMINAL FACILITIES was applied to determine future transient apron requirements for single General aviation terminal facilities and multi-engine aircraft. For busi- have several functions. Space is re- ness jets (which can be larger), a quired for a pilots’ lounge, flight plan- planning criterion of 1,600 square ning, concessions, management, sto- yards per aircraft position was used. rage, and various other needs. This For planning purposes, 80 percent of space is not necessarily limited to a these spaces are assumed to be uti- single, separate terminal building, but lized by non-jet aircraft, which is in can include space offered by FBOs for line with national trends. these functions and services. For Cox Field, the airport’s only FBO is based The aircraft apron should also provide in the airport terminal building. The space for locally based aircraft that existing terminal building provides are tied-down and for maintenance ac- approximately 5,330 square feet of tivity. By maintenance activity, this space.

3-26

TABLE 3J Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements Cox Field Airport Short Intermediate Long Available Term Term Term Single, Multi-engine Transient Aircraft Positions 2 3 4 Apron Area (s.y.) 1,600 2,400 3,200 Transient Business Jet Positions 1 2 3 Apron Area (s.y.) 1,600 3,200 4,800 Locally Based Aircraft Positions 7 7 7 Apron Area (s.y.) 4,600 4,600 4,600 Total Positions ±10 10 12 14 Total Apron Area (s.y.) 23,111 7,800 10,200 12,600

The methodology used in estimating An increasing passenger count (from general aviation terminal building 1.8 to 2.2) is used to account for the space needs is based on the number of likely increase in larger, more sophis- itinerant users expected to utilize gen- ticated aircraft using the airport. eral aviation facilities during the design hour. General aviation space re- Table 3K outlines the general avia- quirements were then based upon tion terminal facility space require- providing 120 square feet per design ments for Cox Field Airport. As evi- hour itinerant passenger. A design denced in the table, the existing ter- hour itinerant passenger is deter- minal building is properly sized to ac- mined by multiplying design hour iti- commodate existing and future ter- nerant operations by the number of minal space requirements. passengers on the aircraft (multiplier).

TABLE 3K General Aviation Terminal Building Requirements Cox Field Airport Short Intermediate Long Available Term Term Term Design Hour Operations 5 7 9 14 Design Hour Itinerant Operations 2 3 4 7 Multiplier 1.9 2 2.2 2.5 Total Design Hour Itinerant Passengers 3 6 9 17 General Aviation Building Spaces (s.f.) ±5,300 700 1,000 2,000

3-27 GENERAL AVIATION number of passengers per general avi- AUTOMOBILE PARKING ation flight.

General aviation vehicular parking The parking requirements of based demands have also been determined aircraft owners are also considered. for Cox Field Airport. Space determi- Although some owners prefer to park nations were based on an evaluation of their vehicles near their hangars, existing airport use, as well as indus- safety can be compromised when au- try standards. Terminal automobile tomobile and aircraft movements are parking spaces required to meet gen- intermixed. For this reason, separate eral aviation itinerant demands were parking requirements, which consider calculated by multiplying design hour 25 percent of based aircraft at the air- itinerant passengers by a multiplier of port, were applied to general aviation 1.8 for each planning period. This automobile parking space require- multiplier represents the average ments. Parking requirements for the airport are summarized in Table 3L.

TABLE 3L General Aviation Vehicle Parking Requirements Cox Field Airport Future Requirements Short Intermediate Long Available Term Term Term Design Hour Itinerant Passengers 6 9 17 GA Itinerant Spaces 10 16 30 GA Based Spaces 16 17 21 Total GA Parking Spaces 49 26 33 51 Total GA Parking Area (s.f.) 15,500 8,140 10,290 16,060

Throughout the planning period, dedi- FUEL STORAGE cated parking spaces may not be needed as the airport provides nearly Fuel storage requirements are typical- the forecast number needed for the ly based upon maintaining a two-week long term. Future planning should supply of fuel during an average keep the goal in mind of limiting the month. However, more frequent deli- potential interaction of aircraft and veries can reduce the fuel storage ca- vehicles. Locating parking in useful pacity requirements. Fuel tanks must areas is critical for a general aviation be of adequate capacity to accept a full airport. If a parking area is not con- refueling tanker, which is approx- veniently located, then airport users imately 8,000 gallons, while maintain- will continue to drive on aircraft sur- ing a reasonable level of fuel in the faces. storage tank.

3-28 As discussed in Chapter One – Inven- especially for Jet A fuel. As a result, tory, The City of Paris owns the only ultimate planning will consider the fuel storage facilities on the airport expansion of the fuel farm to include and leases the facility to the FBO for another Jet A storage facility. It is resale of fuel. The fuel farm consists projected that additional Jet A storage of two underground storage tanks, one could be required by the long term as dedicated for Avgas and one for Jet A aircraft utilizing Jet A fuel take on fuel. Both storage tanks have a capac- more fuel, thereby depleting resources ity of 10,000 gallons. The fuel farm is more quickly. The plan will consider located approximately 200 feet north the addition of 10,000 gallons of addi- of the terminal building. tional capacity for Jet A storage.

A review of historic fuel sales indicate that the Jet A fuel sales average be- SUMMARY tween 7,500 and 10,000 gallons per month, with the higher average indic- The intent of this chapter has been to ative of sales prior to the economic re- outline the facilities required to meet cession. For Avgas (100LL), monthly potential aviation demands projected sales range between 1,800 and 8,400 for Cox Field Airport for the planning gallons. Fuel purchases will increase horizon. A summary of the airfield as annual operations increase. When and general aviation facility require- maintaining a 14-day fuel supply, the ments is presented on Exhibits 3D current capacity is adequate through and 3E. the long term planning period. Following the facility requirements Given the existing operational level determination, the next step is to de- estimates, the current fuel storage ca- termine a direction of development pacity may be adequate to meet de- which best meets these projected mand for the long term. Future oper- needs. The remainder of the master ational levels could tax the existing plan will be devoted to outlining this storage capacity during peak periods, direction, its schedule, and its costs.

3-29 AVAILABLE SHORT TERM LONG TERM

Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 6,002' x 150' Improve pavement Maintain

09MP11-3D-04/14/10 30,000# SWL to 30,000# SWL 1-Mile Visibility (17) 3/4-Mile Visibility (35) ARC B-II Improve to ARC C/D-II Crosswind Runway Close One Crosswind Runway Crosswind Runways Crosswind Runways Improve Pavement RUNWAYS 4,624' x 150 Same to 30,000# SWL 26,000# SWL Consider: 3/4 Mile Approaches Visual (no approaches) ARC B-II

Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Partial Parallel Taxiway Same Extend Parallel 500+' Separation Taxiway A Full Length 4 Entrance/Exits All Taxiways 35'-40' wide Crosswind Runways Crosswind Runways Crosswind Runway TAXIWAYS Connecting Taxiways Same Close taxiways associated 3 Entrance/Exits with closed runway All Taxiways 35'-40' wide

Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 RNAV/GPS/LPV Add GPS CAT-I (17) Consider: GPS CAT-I (35) VOR AWOS-III Crosswind Runways Crosswind Runways Crosswind Runway AWOS-III Same Consider: GPS 3/4-mile NAVIGATIONAL AIDS NAVIGATIONAL

Airport Beacon Segmented Circle Lighted Windcone Partial MITL Tetrahedron Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 MIRL Add: MALSR(17) Consider: MALSR(35) PAPI-4 (17) Precision Marking (17) Precision Marking (35) VASI-4 (35) REIL (35) Hold Positions - 250' Nonprecision Marking Crosswind Runway LIGHTING & MARKING Crosswind Runways Crosswind Runways Add: MIRL Hold Positions - 175'' Same Nonprecision Marking Basic Marking Holdlines - 250'

SWL: Single Wheel Loading MIRL: Medium Intensity Runway Lighting ARC: Airport Reference Code PAPI: Precision Approach Path Indicator RNAV: Area Navigation VASI: Visual Approach Slope Indicator

KEY GPS: Global Positioning System MALSR: Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System LPV: Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance with Runway Alignment Indicators AWOS: Automated Weather Observation System REIL: Runway End Identifier Lights ExhibitE hibit 3D AIRSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Short Term Intermediate Long Term Available Need Term Need Need 09MP11-3E-04/14/10

AIRCRAFT STORAGE T-hangar Positions 29 37 41 50 Box Hangar Positions 16 18 19 23 Conventional Hangar Positions 4 2 3 5 T-hangar Area (s.f) 37,150 46,300 51,300 62,500 Box Hangar Area (s.f) 51,100 45,000 47,500 57,500 Conventional Hangar Area (s.f.) 29,000 5,000 7,500 12,500 Maintenance Area (s.f.) N/A 10,850 11,900 14,525 Total Hangar Area (s.f.) 117,250 107,150 118,200 147,025

AIRCRAFT APRON Single, Multi-engine Transient Aircraft Positions 2 3 4 Apron Area (s.y.) 1,600 2,400 3,200 Transient Business Jet Positions 1 2 3 Apron Area (s.y.) 1,600 3,200 4,800 Locally-Based Aircraft Positions 7 7 7 Apron Area (s.y.) 4,600 4,600 4,600 Total Positions ±10 10 12 14 Total Apron Area (s.y.) 23,111 7,800 10,200 12,600

GA SERVICES GA Building Space (s.f.) ±5,300 700 1,000 2,000 GA Terminal Parking Spaces 49 26 33 51 GA Terminal Parking Area (s.f.) 15,500 8,140 10,290 16,060 Fuel Storage AvGas Storage Capacity (gallons) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Jet A Storage Capacity (gallons) 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000

Exhibit 3E LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS