Airport Master Plan October 1985 (2)

Home

2 b. The installation or proposed installation of a pre- cision instrument landing system (ILS or MLS) when the FAA Regional Director has determined that the airport is a desirable .location for instrument training activ- ity. 2. The relieved airport: a. Serves a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) with a population of at least 250,000 persons or at least 250,000 annual enplaned passengers, and b. Operates at 60 percent of its capacity, or operated at such a level before being relieved by one or more re- liever airports, or is subject to restrictions that limit activity that would otherwise reach 60 percent of capacity. Airports not meeting all of the above criteria may be included in the plan as reliever airports if they are so designated in a state, regional, or metropolitan system plan and:the FAA concurs in that portion of the plan. On the forecast basis of 36 based aircraft, 9,940 itinerant operations and 14,910 local operations, within the ten year planning period of the NPIAS we cannot foresee entering this airport in the National Plan in this time period. At the time the Metropolitan Airport System Plan Update is completed, ap- proximately one year from now, we will take another look at these para- meters. The system plan update may identify a need which is not now apparent. This is not to say that there is not a state and/or local need for the airport. Metropolitan Airport System Plan (1978) The 1978 Metropolitan System Plan did not designate a role to -this air- port. It is identified as a Minor airport but not designated to be needed in the System as such. Site Constraints A new public use airport developed with Federal funds should be capable of ultimate development to serve light twin engine aircraft (General Utility runway length of .3900 to 4100') with at least Non Precision Instrument ap- proach capability and runway orientation or configuration to provide 95Y wind coverage with a 10.5 knot crosswind component. The layout plan does not show that the present site can meet these parameters. The report does not show this site to be the best in the area or the most cost effective. Due to the limitations of this site we do not believe the master plan study justifies the development of the existing airport as op- posed to possible alternatives. Alternative sites should at least have been evaluated. This includes service from existing airports.