Chapter 11. Evaluating
Aeronautical Effect
Section 1. General
11-1-1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED
OBJECTS
Use the guidelines in
Chapter 10 to evaluate
the effects of objects on the airport proposal.
11-1-2. AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS
Traffic patterns shall 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
a. Existing and proposed structures or objects
must be evaluated for their effect on the airport
proposal in reference to instrument procedures. FPOs
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.
b. Air traffic and Flight Procedures personnel
shall 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 adjacent airport.
11-1-4. AIR 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
In accordance 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.
11-1-6. NOISE CONSIDERATION
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 shall 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
problems.
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:
a. Will the proposed operations be conducted in
accordance with visual or instrument flight rules?
b. What is the expected volume of operations?
c. How 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 DATA
a. Visual 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 safely.
b. Instrument 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.
11-1-9. HELICOPTER INGRESS-EGRESS
ROUTES
Proposed 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 areas.
Additionally, 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
Consideration 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).
11-1-11. EXISTING AIRPORTS
Evaluation on the effect of existing airports shall 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.
|
