Laserfiche WebLink
runway. There is little room to expand a~ of the runways at the airport, which is <br />currently a fairly busy VFR airport. It has one IFR approach procedure with circling <br />minimums of 500 feet and one to 1S miles visibility. As currently wnfigured, it is <br />not considered an IFR airport. It has a tower and is scheduled (date unknown) to <br />be equipped with a D-Brite radar monitor. With the addition of this equipment, it <br />is assumed that the airport would also become a limited approach control facility with <br />designated airspace concurrent with the radar monitor installation. From an airspace <br />standpoint, the location of Crystal is completely compatible with Minneapolis-St. Paui <br />International As noted in the analysis of Anoka County-Blaine, however, it would <br />conflict with 1FR procedures at that airport if either of the airports increases 1FR <br />operations. <br />(5) IIyiE Cloud <br />Flying Cloud Airport is scheduled to receive a D-Brite radar monitor in the <br />near future. Concurrently, it will be given responsibility for close-in airspace (i.e, a <br />five- to seven-nautical mite radius area around the airport with extensions from the <br />surface up to 3,000 or maybe 4,000 feet). In the close-in airspace, the radar monitor <br />will provide limited approach control service to IFR aircraft. With the radar, aircraft <br />operations from Flying Cloud can be handed off between the two facilities; this <br />enhances 1FR capacity for the region. The increased capacity results from knowing <br />where all aircraft are at alt times and from the fact that radar separation requires <br />considerably less airspace than non-radar separation. <br />When Flying Cloud is equipped in this manner, its role as a reliever for <br />Minneapolis-St. Paul International will be enhanced From an airspace standpoint, <br />Flying Cloud is far enough away from Minneapolis-St. Paul International (10 nautical <br />miles) and its rumvays are aligned so as to have compatible IFR traffic flow with the <br />airport. Its 1FR status wuld be further enhanced if it had an IIS or Mt:S approach <br />procedure from the east. The existing IIS procedure to Runway 9R has Category <br />One minimums of 200 feet and one-half mile visibility. The prevailing winds in the <br />III-33 <br />