FAA NPIAS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. William H. Lawson, Director of Operations, Minnesota Business Aircraft Association, objected for the following reasons: 1. The proposed site is below the TCA, and at 2,000' AMSL, he stated that compliance with FAR requirements would leave only 1,000' for flight between the floor of the TCA and the proposed structure. 2. He identified the site location as a prime student training area with attendant diverse attention requirements to avoid other aircraft, student performance, aircraft instruments, terrain clearance, TCA avoidance, and the proposed 990' AGL tower. 3. He identified VFR traffic from Flying Cloud, Anoka County, Crystal, and Gateway North Airports as routinely transitioning this area in no set pattern. He said that low visibility and/or ceilings make VFR navigation more difficult, and tower -structures more difficult to see and avoid without hazard. 4. He said that raising minimum vector altitudes would increase air traffic controller workload and increase traffic delays by reducing available altitudes for ATC use. He points out that under certain weather conditions, the higher vector altitudes would not allow early issuance of contact/visual approaches at Flying Cloud and Crystal Airports, resulting in further delays. 5. He said the proposal violates the "antenna farm" concept which he claims was agreed to by the aviation community in the early 1970's. Mr. Robert D. Powell, Attorney for the National Business Aircraft Association, opposed the proposal on the basis of the VFR effects associated with High- way 55, a student training area over the site, and future airport development. Mr. Jerome F. Mann, Director of the Air Transport Association of America, discussed raising the vector altitude and the resultant loss of 3,500', and remaining clear of the TCA, as being lost to the IFR system. He claimed that there would be a reduction in IFR transition capacity in the area by limiting system capacity and increasing ATC workload. Mr. C. Dennis Wright, Director, Airspace Technology Department, Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association, objected to the proposal because of its location in relation to the Terminal Control Area, resulting in the compression of VFR traffic into approximately 1,000' of airspace, in airspace also occupied by IFR traffic. He discussed the heavy VFR student training which is conducted in the area of the proposal. He said that the seven flight schools and the flying clubs at Crystal and Flying Cloud Airports utilize the site as their Page 3 of 8 Pages Aeronautical Study No. 81-AGL-1556-OE