Understanding Airspace, Objects, and Their Effects on Airports (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Introduction What Is this Guidebook About? This Guidebook provides a comprehensive and understandable source of information and advice regarding the variety of rules, regulations, design standards, and policies associated with the protection of airspace, evaluation of proposed objects on and near airports, and their effects on navigable airspace. Failure to protect an airport’s navigable airspace can lead to critical degra- dations of the airport’s safety, efficiency, utility, and air service capability. One of the goals of this Guidebook is to provide the reader with a better understanding of the FAA airspace analysis process known as “Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis” (OE/AAA), and the levels of airspace protection it offers and does not offer for air- ports. The OE/AAA process is the primary method by which the FAA determines whether or not an object, most often a proposed man-made structure such as a building, utility tower, or a wind turbine, would constitute an “obstruction” and/or a “hazard” to aircraft operating in the local airspace. The OE/AAA process may also be undertaken to determine whether pro- posed modifications to an airport, such as the extension of a runway or the creation of a new instrument-based approach procedure, would be compatible with the existing terrain and man-made objects. This Guidebook provides step-by-step descriptions of the OE/AAA process, identifying when and how notification of proposed development should be provided to the FAA, what the variety of outcomes of an FAA evaluation may be, and what steps may be taken to achieve appropriate balance between building development and airspace protection, should an issue of conflict arise. The guidebook also describes how the FAA OE/AAA process and outcomes may be incorporated by reference into state and local regulations. Research conducted to prepare this Guidebook also included a series of case studies of airports that have encountered challenges protecting their airspace when faced with nearby proposed building development. These case studies highlight how these airports have overcome initial dif- ficulties and developed a variety of innovative strategies to improve communication among stakeholders, including the FAA, surrounding municipalities, the business community, individ- ual building developers, and the airport’s users, particularly the air carriers. The case studies also highlight how a balance between building development and airspace protection has been or can be achieved and can be continued. Also highlighted are circumstances where reliance on the FAA OE/AAA process alone has not resulted in the level of airspace protection required or desired by the airport sponsor or aviation community. Excerpts from the case studies are highlighted within this Guidebook to provide examples of lessons learned and best practices that may be applied to other airports. 1 C H A P T E R 1 Introduction and Background This Guidebook provides tools for understanding airspace protection issues for key stake- holders at an airport and its surrounding community. It also provides guide- lines to implement airspace protection for local municipali- ties and serves to inform building developers about the processes they should follow in order to avoid conflicts between proposed structures and air- space requirements. The case studies document real-world examples of airspace conflicts, resolutions, and lessons learned.

Why Was the Guidebook Written? The research conducted for this Guidebook was performed through the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). This program was designed to address issues of direct concern to airport management and other groups with interest in the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). The issue of protecting navigable airspace from encroaching development in the vicinity of air- ports is of significant concern, for a number of reasons: ✈ First, the rules and regulations concerning the OE/AAA process have been perceived to be cumbersome and confusing to some in airport management. ✈ Second, there is confusion related to the basic airspace surface mapping required to be pre- pared by airport sponsors for FAA-approved airport layout plan (ALP) drawings, and, in some cases, its apparent inconsistencies with OE/AAA results. ✈ Third, other groups and stakeholders with interests in this area are virtually unaware that many such rules, regulations, and evaluation procedures exist. As a result, a certain number of real estate development plans and actual construction in the vicinity of airports have resulted in serious conflicts with the use of surrounding airspace. Often, resolutions of these conflicts become very time consuming and costly. A primary goal of this Guidebook is to educate, inform, and enable stakeholders by (1) provid- ing a clear description of the current rules, regulations, and policies; (2) identifying the roles of var- ious interested parties and their responsibilities in the application of the rules; and (3) encouraging a cooperative working environment to avoid future conflict based on lessons learned and best practices. Even in situations where the rules, regulations, and policies are understood, conflicts may still arise based on the individual—often inherently conflicting—interests of airport management, private developers, aircraft operators, and local municipalities. This Guidebook provides further examples of best practices, in an attempt to help mitigate or resolve those conflicts. Who Should Understand and Use the Guidebook? This Guidebook has been designed to be used as a reference for groups interested in the use and development of land on and in the vicinity of airports including: ✈ Airport Management ✈ Municipal and Regional Planning Agencies ✈ State Departments of Transportation ✈ Building Developers Each of these groups has different perspectives on land use around airports and/or the use of air- space. This Guidebook is designed to provide a better understanding from each perspective of the rules, regulations, policies, benefits, and costs associated with achieving an appropriate balance between the development of land on and around airports, and the preservation and protection of airspace vital to aircraft operations in the airport environment. Airport Management This Guidebook is primarily focused on the perspective of the airport manager (a term used generically to refer to the staff person or persons authorized to act on the airport’s behalf regard- ing airspace issues), for it is the airport manager who most often is the key figure responsible for managing airport operations and maintaining compatibility with the surrounding community. The airport manager is often expected to be knowledgeable on issues regarding airport land use compatibility, including the protection of airport airspace, and is often the conduit of informa- 2 Understanding Airspace, Objects, and Their Effects on Airports This Guidebook was written to document, clarify, and make recommendations for implementation of airspace protection criteria. The airport manager is a key central figure in the airport–land use compatibility issues, including airspace protection.

tion between local government entities, building developers, and the airport’s users, including air carriers and operators of general aviation aircraft. Conflicts will inevitably arise with respect to the use and protection of local airspace. Such conflicts can be exacerbated when the airport management does not have a complete under- standing of airspace protection, does not have appropriate channels of communication with local jurisdictions, and/or is not fully aware of the requirements of the users of the airport. This Guidebook is intended to provide airport management with a clear understanding and “how-to playbook” regarding airspace protection requirements and the assortment of regulations related to the OE/AAA process. With improved understanding, airport management will be better pre- pared to ensure that the local airspace around their airport is maintained free of objects that may degrade its safety, capacity, efficiency, utility, and air service capability. Local and Regional Planning Agencies, State Transportation Departments While the process of determining the impacts on navigable airspace of proposed development is primarily performed at the federal level, it is usually the local planning agencies—sometimes with state department of transportation backing—that have the ultimate jurisdictional authority deciding whether or not to issue a construction permit for a particular proposed structure. As such, it is critical for local agencies to have policies in place to ensure that proposed development would be compatible with local airport and airspace operations. Surprisingly, however, the overall permit evaluation procedures in most municipalities in the United States lack airspace protection consid- erations. In some states, the state department of transportation, through an aviation division, pro- vides a measure of backup, most commonly by requiring a special permit for proposed structures that would be declared a hazard by the FAA, irrespective of whether the local jurisdiction does. This Guidebook is intended to provide local and regional planning agencies with a better understanding of what it means to consider airspace protection in their overall construction per- mit evaluation process, and to provide examples of how local planning agencies can include air- space analysis as part of their land use planning, zoning, and construction permitting processes. Building Developers Market forces often lead real estate development interests to propose buildings in the vicinity of an airport. Building developers, of course, are interested in maximizing their return on invest- ment, which is most often achieved by developing to the “highest and best use” potential of their land, and as such can desire to build structures of substantial height above the ground. Most building developers are familiar with state and local regulations regarding structure height limits that are based on civic considerations such as urban density, infrastructure, sunlight, view access, water and utility capacity, and the like. However, developers—and even many local jurisdictions—are unaware of height limits based on aeronautical requirements that may extend for many miles around an airport. This Guidebook is designed to provide the building developer with an understanding of the rules and regulations that define when FAA notification must be provided, based on the pro- posed height of a planned structure and the structure’s proximity to an airport or established air- way in the local airspace, and help navigate the OE/AAA process, including interpretations of the FAA’s final height determinations and how they may relate to local permits and entitlements. Building developers are also encouraged to consider that the airport is a regional transportation asset, connecting the local area with distant destinations, providing jobs, and having certain fed- eral obligations to protect airspace. Introduction and Background 3 Local jurisdictions share in the responsi- bility to protect air- space, in that they have final authority over construction permits. Therefore, the construction permit process should include considerations of airspace protection, the two fundamen- tal aspects being FAA notification and FAA determination. Building developers should investigate airspace protection compatibility issues as early as possible in the project planning process.

Background Airports support local and regional economies by providing services and means of connec- tion to distant destinations that are attractive for both local businesses and the markets they serve. There are instances, however, when other types of economic development, infrastructure for energy or communications, civic and other critical uses of the land create demand for verti- cal development that is at odds with the airspace protection requirements needed for safe and efficient airport operations. Reconciliation of conflicting land uses and airspace needs is an important challenge to airports and their local economic bases alike. Along with the conflicts that often arise due to opposing interests between building develop- ment and airport operations on the “best” use of local lands and their associated airspace, a number of key challenges exist that have recently resulted in increased conflicts and greater dif- ficulty in resolving those conflicts. Incomplete Information Airports, municipal authorities, and building development interests are often working with incomplete, inaccurate, and/or incongruent information with respect to the variety of airspace protection requirements. Often, the initial evaluation of whether or not proposed development will be in conflict with the local airspace around an airport is performed by either the airport management, the local municipal planning office, and/or the developer, using only one basic set of evaluation criteria, which can lead to inaccurate assumptions early in the process. Most often the sole criteria applied are found under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77.25—“Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces” (Refer to Chapter 2, Fundamental Airspace Pro- tection Criteria, for a more detailed description of FAR Part 77). These criteria define a series of three-dimensional aeronautical surfaces, whose geometry is based on the runway configurations at the airport, the weather conditions under which each runway may be used, and the type of air- craft authorized to use each runway. The civil airport imaginary surfaces, which apply to all public-use airports, are almost always the first, and sometimes only, criteria applied because they are depicted on the “Airport Airspace Drawings” in an airport’s FAA-approved ALP drawing set, which is often readily available, public information. However, it should be noted that FAR Part 77 and other airspace protection requirements apply independent of whether or not an ALP drawing set exists. The most common misconception is that if a proposed object does not exceed the elevation of the FAR Part 77 civil airport imaginary surfaces, then it would be compatible with airport operations; and if the proposed object would exceed the elevation of the surfaces, it would be incompatible. In fact, reliance on FAR Part 77 civil airport imaginary surfaces as the sole air- space protection criteria can lead to incorrect conclusions for several reasons: ✈ Penetration of civil airport imaginary surfaces indicates the FAA would classify the object as an “obstruction to air navigation.” Civil airport imaginary surfaces are one of the five types of obstruction criteria defined in FAR Part 77. Other types include being 500 feet in height, being 200 feet in height in proximity to an airport, affecting terminal instrument approach or departure procedures (“TERPS” criteria, a much more complex set of surfaces to be dis- cussed later), and affecting enroute procedures (see §77.23). Objects may be classified as an obstruction under one of the other four types of obstruction standards, even if they would not penetrate a civil airport imaginary surface. 4 Understanding Airspace, Objects, and Their Effects on Airports Airspace protection criteria have different purposes and func- tions. Some are more well-known, others are less well-known. The civil airport imaginary surfaces specified in FAR Part 77 are the most familiar type of air- space protection criteria, but they are only one piece of a much larger puzzle. They should not be considered the sole airspace compatibility criteria.

✈ Many stakeholders do not understand the distinction between an airspace “obstruction” and “hazard.” Being classified as an obstruction does not necessarily mean an object would be incom- patible with airport operations; it means (1) the object should be subject to further aeronau- tical study in order to assess whether it would constitute a hazard to air navigation; and (2) assuming it would not be a hazard and is allowed to be constructed, obstruction status subjects it to special marking and lighting requirements. ✈ Approach, departure, and en route operations are developed and maintained through a complex set of criteria known as TERPS, which is shorthand for FAA Order 8260.3B, The United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures. TERPS establishes criteria for Standard Instrument Arrivals (STAR), Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP), Obstacle Departure Pro- cedures (ODP), and Standard Instrument Departures (SID). These procedures are used by pilots to navigate to and from airports using cockpit instruments only—not the pilot’s view out the cockpit window—a technique which must be applied under inclement low-visibility weather or “instrument meteorological conditions” (IMC). These procedures are developed, in part, so that aircraft are on flight paths that safely avoid existing terrain and vertical development in the vicin- ity of the airport, which may not be visible to the pilot during flight. In many cases, the criteria used to determine a safe TERPS departure or approach procedure at an airport can be signifi- cantly lower or higher than the civil imaginary surfaces. While incorporated by reference in Part 77.23 as a type of obstruction standard, the obstacle clearance surfaces (OCSs) protecting TERPS procedures are less well known and often overlooked in initial assessments. ✈ At airports that have commercial service air carriers operating under FAR Part 121—Operat- ing Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations (i.e., the “airlines”), as well as several charter operators operating under FAR Part 135—Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operations, each such carrier must develop emergency flight procedures to be followed in the event of complete loss of power to one engine, known as “One Engine Inoper- ative” (OEI) procedures. The airspace requirements for these procedures are not evaluated in the OE/AAA process; therefore, considerable conflicts may result in the capability or willing- ness of an air carrier to provide certain service—often lucrative long-haul service—at an air- port when new obstacles are constructed that would impede OEI procedures. ✈ Airport design criteria found in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, contain design specifications including airspace clearance requirements for allowable construction immediately surrounding and aligned with the ends of runways. The geometries of these cri- teria do not in all cases match the geometries of FAR Part 77 civil airport imaginary surfaces or TERPS surfaces. ✈ Finally, all airports have established Visual Flight Rules (VFR) procedures allowing improved access and separation from Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic. These procedures are devel- oped using FAR Part 91 and various Air Traffic Control (ATC) criteria. In assessing a proposed structure’s potential airspace conflicts, it is often the case that several previously mentioned criteria are either not considered or appear in conflict with either each other or with local planning criteria. If left unresolved, such ambiguities or gaps in enforcement of air- space protection criteria can lead to even greater conflicts between actual building development and airspace navigation. This Guidebook is designed to assist local planning agencies to consider all of the above types of airspace protection criteria. Based on a review of the case studies, it can be seen that a clear understanding of these airspace protection criteria, including preparation of map- ping or other materials to establish an appropriate expectation of development heights and level of airspace protection, helps set reasonable expectations and minimizes uncertainty and con- flicts. For example, the Daytona Beach and Ohio State University Airport case studies show how a lack of awareness of airspace protection requirements allowed the construction of incompati- ble structures while the other three case studies show how partial understanding of airspace Introduction and Background 5 Working with incom- plete, inaccurate, and/or incongruent information with respect to the variety of airspace protection require- ments can lead to critical conflicts between building development and air navigation. Various airspace protection criteria are established for various functions. They do not always relate directly to one another.

protection requirements led to building development proposals that would have been incompat- ible to proceed to significant stages of design and investment, which in turn spurred the airport sponsors to improve public awareness and approval processes in various creative manners. FAA Analysis Process Misunderstood The FAA’s OE/AAA process is often misunderstood, misinterpreted, or unknown to develop- ers or local planning agencies. The FAA’s OE/AAA process is often misunderstood, misinterpreted, or unknown to those with interests in building development and/or airspace protection. As a result, various issues often arise, including the possibility that notification of potential development is never properly reported to the FAA for evaluation. Failure to file notification not only precludes proper evalu- ation from being performed, but also, because the formal FAA OE/AAA process is often the only vehicle for communicating such notifications to other interested parties (such as airports and their aviation stakeholders) these entities may never become aware of potential development until actual construction has begun, which is often too late to resolve conflicts that may arise between the building development and local airspace protection requirements. A common misunderstanding of the OE/AAA process is that the FAA’s determinations are “enforceable” in that they directly function to limit the height of, or prevent construction of, any proposed building development. In fact, this is not the case. Even if there would be conflicts between proposed development and FAR Part 77, TERPS, or other airspace protection criteria, the FAA does not have direct jurisdictional authority to limit or prevent any such development. Typically, it is the municipality that has this jurisdictional authority. Some municipalities and other state and local governmental entities, even some that are airport sponsors, do not formally consider FAA’s determinations when it comes to airspace protection under their local codes. As a result, FAA recommendations and determinations have the potential of being “ignored” by pro-development interests. Furthermore, at present the FAA does not factor protection of individual airlines’ OEI proce- dures into its determinations. The lack of consideration of individual airlines’ OEI procedures can allow for proposed structures that may be considered compatible development from a safety hazard standpoint by the FAA, but may actually result in decisions by individual airlines to reduce service (i.e., limit markets served or ranges flown) at the airport because of the new obsta- cle. The FAA is addressing this discrepancy in an OEI Pilot Study which is ongoing at the time of this report (March 2010), and is expected to conclude with broadly applicable results later in 2010 or early 2011. At some of the pilot study airports, protection of an aggregate of multiple air- lines’ OEI procedures is being implemented in coordination with local authorities having juris- diction over building height limits. Chapter 4 of this Guidebook provides specific recommendations to address some of the potentially problematic issues described above. How this Guidebook Was Created The development of this Guidebook was the result of a comprehensive review of the FARs, Orders, Advisory Circulars (AC), and other reference materials on the subject of airspace protection and local height zoning regulations. An annotated bibliography of the sources, including descrip- tions of criteria and their purpose, function, and applications may be found in Appendix A. In addition, a series of cases studies was performed at a number of civil use airports. The air- ports selected for study have experienced many of the challenges associated with understanding 6 Understanding Airspace, Objects, and Their Effects on Airports The FAA’s OE/AAA process functions well for a variety of purposes, but is often overlooked. The FAA does not have direct jurisdictional authority to limit building heights.

objects, airspace, and their effect on airport operations, and in turn have developed practices to overcome these challenges. Case studies can be found in Appendix D. Finally, the expertise and experience of the research team dealing with these issues in con- sulting and academic practices was drawn upon to help create a comprehensive, practice-based reference for use by airport managers, municipal and regional planners, and other stakehold- ers with interests in the balance between vertical building development around airports and protection of airport airspace. In addition to this Guidebook, a comprehensive report has been produced, documenting the research as it was conducted step-by-step, per ACRP guidelines. The report is intended for use by researchers, consultants, or anyone with an interest in further technical details. Following this introduction and background chapter, this Guidebook is organized into the following chapters. Chapter 2: Fundamental Airspace Protection Criteria, describes the major types of crite- ria for determining (1) whether objects in the vicinity of an airport should be evaluated for their potential impact on navigable airspace, (2) the criteria for determining obstruction sta- tus, (3) the criteria for determining hazard status, and (4) other criteria related to airport design standards and airline OEI procedures. Chapter 3: Mechanisms and Processes of Airspace Protection, describes the formal process for evaluating objects, including the process for notifying the FAA, the FAA’s process for deter- mining the impact of the object on the local airspace, and procedures for dealing with any con- flicts between objects and the airspace. Chapter 4: Conclusions, Recommendations, and Best Practices, conveys a number of con- clusions and recommendations the research team deduced from the research process and case study examples. The Guidebook appendices elaborate on the subject matter of the research, providing further technical details and illustrations of concepts. Appendix A: The Purpose, Function, and Application of Criteria, provides more technically detailed descriptions of the criteria, including source document information. Appendix B: The Interrelationships Among Criteria, describes how airspace protection cri- teria relate to one another and to municipal height zoning in various manners including regula- tory, functional, and geometric. Appendix C: The FAA’s Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis Process, describes the aeronautical study process, including multiple potential choices and outcomes; from the beginning, assessing whether notification needs to be provided to the FAA; through the aeronau- tical study process resulting in a final determination; to the end, when a building is constructed, and notification of actual construction must be provided to the FAA. Appendix D: Case Studies, provides individual narratives of the case study airports, based on personal interviews, media accounts, reviews of publicly available FAA OE/AAA paperwork and final determinations. Introduction and Background 7 The Guidebook’s main chapters describe the criteria and mechanisms for airspace protection, and provide conclu- sions and recom- mendations based on best practices. The Appendices provide a more thorough technical description of criteria and processes, and provide full descrip- tions of the case studies.