Chapter 11. Evaluating Aeronautical Effect
AND PROPOSED OBJECTS
guidelines in Chapter 10 to
evaluate the effects of objects on the airport proposal.
must be established by the FAA only at those airports where the
provisions of part 91 do not meet aircraft airspace requirements. When
the airspace review indicates the need, traffic patterns may be
established by special rule in part 93, or as outlined in this order
when necessary to ensure compatibility of aircraft operations with
adjacent airports, or for reasons of obstructions, terrain, traffic
separation, or noise abatement. Use the guidelines in paragraph
10-3-2 to evaluate whether the
traffic pattern associated with an airport proposal would conflict with
operations at any other airport. Also, evaluate the traffic pattern
effect on instrument approach procedures and the need for establishment
of traffic pattern altitudes for aircraft separation. The service area
office normally reviews proposals for traffic pattern conflicts.
11-1-3. INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURES
and proposed structures or objects must be evaluated for their effect on
the airport proposal in reference to instrument procedures. FPTs
normally conduct this by applying the standards and criteria contained
in the 8260 Order series to ascertain if the airport proposal would
adversely affect existing or planned instrument approach procedures. Use
the same guidelines to evaluate the compatibility of any existing or
proposed instrument approach procedure with the airport proposal.
traffic and Flight Procedures Team personnel must be especially alert to
ensure aircraft separation when the traffic pattern associated with an
airport proposal would overlap the airspace encompassed by a standard
instrument approach procedure (IAP) for an adjacent airport. When this
occurs, air traffic will recommend actions to ensure that there is at
least 500 feet vertical separation between the traffic pattern altitude
and the altitude associated with the affected portion of the adjacent
instrument approach procedure. If heavy jets are involved, ensure at
least 1,000 feet vertical separation. These same vertical separation
guidelines must be applied when evaluating a proposed IAP when the
airspace required would overlap the traffic pattern airspace at an
TRAFFIC CONTROL PROCEDURES
The extent that
an airport proposal or proposed instrument approach procedure may
adversely affect air traffic control (ATC) procedures may be a
sufficient reason to object to or disapprove a proposal. The proposal
must be thoroughly examined to determine if it would adversely affect
ATC procedures by requiring a restriction on the air traffic flow, or
the proposal may limit the flexibility of entry or exit to or from
affected traffic patterns or airport areas. The need for establishment
of, or existing noise abatement procedures may amplify such problems.
When a proposed instrument approach procedure would be adjacent to the
area of an instrument approach procedure to another airport, determine
whether simultaneous approaches would have an adverse effect on new IAP
or ATC procedures and on the requirement for instrument approaches to
the adjacent airport. Should a proposed instrument approach procedure be
located in a radar environment, determine the radar coverage and ATC
capability to provide radar air traffic control service.
11-1-5. SAFETY OF
PERSONS AND PROPERTY ON THE GROUND
with 40103(b)(2)(B), FAA personnel must evaluate the effect of a
proposal on the safety of persons and property on the ground.
Consideration must be given to the proximity of cities and towns, as
well as flight patterns over heavily populated areas, schools, homes,
hospitals, sports stadiums, outdoor theaters, and shopping centers. The
evaluation must also include the effect of changes in flight operations
required by the proposal and the need for special air traffic rules. In
evaluating the compatibility of proposed airports and the surrounding
terrain, consider the type of aircraft anticipated to use the airport,
their operational performance capability, the effective runway lengths,
and whether a reasonable level of safety of persons and property on the
ground can be expected. Flight Standards and Airports normally conduct
reviews to determine that the safety of persons and property on the
ground are protected.
Part 157 does not
specify that noise factors be considered, however, the FAA policy to
evaluate noise factors in airport airspace analysis studies should be
preserved where necessary in the public interest as part of the overall
FAA noise abatement program.
a. The air
traffic office must identify potential noise problem areas based on
existing and/or contemplated traffic patterns and procedures. When a
noise problem is anticipated, advise the airports office accordingly
with recommendations and/or alternatives, such as nonstandard traffic
patterns or special departure and arrival procedures, etc.
b. When an
airport proposal is circularized, the Airports Office may receive
comments concerning potential noise, environmental, or ecological
11-1-7. AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITY
The type of
aeronautical activity expected at an airport is an important
consideration in the airport analysis process. The following types of
activity should be considered:
the proposed operations be conducted in accordance with visual or
instrument flight rules?
b. What is
the expected volume of operations?
many and what type aircraft will be based on the proposed airport? Be
aware that a large number of aircraft may be based at a private-use
airport that could generate a significant amount of traffic.
d. What is
the most demanding aircraft the airport will accommodate?
11-1-8. WIND ROSE
Flight Rules. Wind conditions affect aircraft in varying degrees. In
landing and takeoff, the smaller aircraft are more affected by wind,
particularly crosswind components. Therefore, when studying a runway
proposal, evaluate the consistency between the proposed runway alignment
and the wind rose data to determine whether operations can be conducted
Flight Rules. When evaluating a proposal to designate a single
instrument landing runway at an airport, consider the consistency
between this designation and the low visibility wind rose.
heliports require evaluation of ingress and egress information by Flight
Standards. Information supplied by Technical Operations Aviation System
Standards may be used for determining whether specific ingress-egress
routes to and from heliports and helipads may be necessary to assure an
adequate level of safety with respect to obstructions and/or congested
consider existing air traffic operations in proximity to a proposed
heliport site and the need for specific ingress-egress routes.
11-1-10. DISPLACED THRESHOLDS AND CHANGING THE RUNWAY END
should be given to displacing a proposed runway threshold when proposed
and existing objects, and/or terrain obstruct the airspace necessary for
landing on or taking off from the runway. Consider changing the location
of the proposed runway end only when no feasible alternatives exist (see
AC 150/5300-13, Appendix 2).
Evaluation on the
effect of existing airports must be made in the same manner as for other
non-Federally assisted airport proposals under the provisions of 49
U.S.C. Section 44718. Such studies may be conducted on those airports
for which there is no record of a previous aeronautical study, or on any
airport when deemed necessary or appropriate.