ASE Future Air Service Planning Study Study Overview What is the changing technology of future commercial aircraft serving ASE? What can ASE do to best sustain future commercial air service? How would ASE accommodate these operations? What are the impacts and benefits to the airport and community? What is best for the future health of the community? Phase I Study Findings TABLE 3.2 AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AIRCRAFT TYPE WINGSPAN FEET/ INCHES CRJ-700 Q-400 CRJ-900 CRJ-1000 E-170 E-175 E-190 E-195 76' 3" 93' 3" 81' 7" 85' 11" 85' 4" 85' 4" 94' 3" 94' 3" E175-E2 E190-E2 E195-E2 MRJ-70 Standard MRJ-90 Standard CS100 Base CS300 Base 101’ 8” 110’ 7” 110’ 7” 95' 9" 95' 9" 115’ 1” 115’ 1” Source: Manufacturers; *E-Jets E2 data are preliminary MAX LW ASE PERFORMANCE (LBS) CAPABLE Current Regional Aircraft 67,000 Yes 62,000 Yes 73,500 No 81,500 No 72,312 No 74,957 No 94,799 No 99,208 No Future Regional Aircraft Yes* 86,201 Yes* 107,431 116,911 TBD* 79,807 TBD 83,776 TBD 110,000 Yes 121,500 Yes MEETS/DOES NOT MEET CURRENT OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Phase II Problem Statement Current regional commercial aircraft (CRJ 700) phasing out in next decade Next generation of larger regional commercial aircraft are anticipated to come into service in next four years ASE wingspan restriction and airfield configuration will not allow the next generation of regional commercial aircraft to operate at ASE FAA is requiring ASE to meet airfield standards of safety to greatest extent possible to accommodate full ADG D-III aircraft Regulatory Environment FAA focus on safety has moved the Agency toward standardization of all commercial service airports Reduces airfield unfamiliarity for commercial pilots Increases safety configurations as all airports will have similar Airport has to prove to FAA that it is not feasible for standards to be met Eliminates airports ability to receive a Modification of Standards if standards can be met Example: Congress has mandated that all commercial service airport runway safety areas meet FAA standard by 2015 This priority toward standardization is now being applied to all FAA standards for airfield configurations FAA Design Standards to Accommodate Airplane Design Group D-III Aircraft Airfield Configuration FAA Standard ASE Current Condition Meets Standard Runway to Taxiway Separation 400’ 320’ Runway Width* 150’ 100’ Runway Holdbar Separation 328’ 272.5’ Runway Safety Area 500’ 500’ Runway Object Free Area 800’ 800’ Taxiway Width 50’ 50’ Taxiway Safety Area 118’ 118’ Taxiway A OFA Width** 186’ 169’ Maximum Wingspan 118’ 95’ *Runway width for ADG D-III is based on aircraft max takeoff weight. For aircraft less than 150,000 lbs the standard width is 100’ **A current MOS is in place for Taxiway A Object Free Area (93’ on west, 76’ on east = 169’) Phase II Findings Airspace Analysis Separation Standard The FAA is requiring ASE to meet standards and will not grant a Modification of Standards unless the standard cannot be met and an equivalent level of safety can be achieved Wingspan Restriction The remaining alternatives meet the FAA standards (excluding RW/TW separation at the Airport Operations Center and to the south) Modification of Standards The 80’ runway shift to the west (meets FAA 400’ RW/TW separation standard) had minimal impact to approach and departure procedures The remaining alternatives allow next generation regional commercial aircraft to operate with reasonable operating restrictions Second Fixed Base Operator The remaining alternatives can accommodate the development of a second FBO on the west side Narrowing Process in a Nutshell Does not meet FAA standards (MOS) • Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 5a, 9, 10, 13 Meets FAA standards with significant impact • Alternatives 4, 6, 7, 7a, 7b, 8 Meets FAA standards (to the greatest extent possible) with major operational impact • Alternatives 3, 11, 12 Meets FAA standards (to the greatest extent possible) with reasonable operational impacts • Alternatives 8a, 12a Alternative 8a - Layout No impact to east side Runway shifts 80’ west and 150’ wide 25’ of usable ramp 400’ Separation 2nd FBO Operational Restriction Owl Creek Road Relocation (2,500’) “Pinch point” Alternative 8a – Owl Creek Road Section East West Owl Creek Road and bike path move Runway Two retaining walls Excavation Airport property line Burlingame Open Space property line Alternative 12a - Layout Alternative 12a layout is same as Alternative 8a with exception to: Owl Creek Road Relocation (900’) West side taxiway south of Airport Operations Center is 320’ from runway Alternative 12a – Owl Creek Road Section West side taxiway at 320’ from runway Owl Creek Road and bike path move less than Alternative 8a One retaining wall Conceptual Cost Least Operational Impact, Highest Ability to Meet Study Objectives Alternative 8a $132 M Alternative 12a $121 M Anticipated Funding Sources: Federal Aviation Administration, Colorado Department of Transportation -Division of Aeronautics, Aspen Pitkin County Airport Enterprise Fund Next Steps Completion of Phase III Input collected from numerous community conversations and two (2) Open Houses (October 30th and November 11th) Provide revisions to the Airport Layout Plan following public outreach and based upon Board direction Phase IV – pending outcome of Phase III Conduct an Environmental Assessment necessary to evaluate environmental impacts associated with potential capital improvements ASE Potential Project Schedule * 2012 Master Plan Update ** Currently Being Evaluated Necessary Local & Federal Approvals Local Review & Approvals Federal Reviews & Approvals Pitkin County United States Army Corps of Engineers Location and Extents 404 Permit Review Aspen/Pitkin County Federal Aviation Airport Design Guidelines Administration Building Permit ALP Revisions Environmental Health Environmental Assessment City of Aspen/Aspen Valley FONSI/ROD Land Trust Potential Change in Use Obstruction for Burlingame Parcel Evaluation/Airspace Analysis Navaid Relocation Modification of Standards Thank You! Jon Peacock, County Manager [email protected] 970-920-5200 www.pitkincountyconnect.com
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
