The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-03-18 City Council (21)City City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report 4 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: CITY MANAGER March 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT: CMR:194:96 City Manager SUBJECT:Implementation of Instrument Approach at the Palo Alto Airport REQUEST It is requested that the Palo Alto City Council approve the implementation of instrument approach procedures at the Palo Alto Airport. The Council previously supported a request made to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to study the feasibility of an instrument approach. RECOMMENDATIONS Staffrecommends that the Council direct staffto convey to the County of Santa Cl~a, Roads and Airports Department, that the City of Palo Alto has no objection to the implementation and publication of the Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument approach for the Palo Alto Airport. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommended action is consistent with action taken by Council on October 3, 1994, at which time it requested the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in its capacity as airport operator under the terms of the lease with the City, to request the FAA to study the feasibility of instituting instrument approach procedures for landings at the Palo Alto Airport. The County has notified the City that the FAA has drafted, tested and approved a Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument approach for Runway 30 at the airport. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 3, 1994, the Council approved a request presented by the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport (JCRCPAA) to support itsefforts to obtain instrument approach procedures for the Palo Alto Airport. In turn, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1994 authorized the County Aviation Division to request that the FAA study the feasibility of instituting the instrument approach. General aviation pilots operate under two kinds of rules, known as VFR and IFR. The visual flight rules (VFR) which currently govern air traffic at Palo Alto Airport require a 1000 foot CMR:194:96 Page 1 of 3 ceiling and three miles visibility for landing. Instrument flight rules (IFR) apply where the FAA has charted and approved a route for an instrument-certified pilot to approach an airport while in the clouds, using navigational aids, descend through the clouds to an approved altitude and land if the airport is visible within a specified distance. The charted instrument approach provides alternative instructions for the pilot if the airport is still obscured by clouds. Currently, pilots can request a "Special VFR" to land at Palo Alto Airport, with conditions of one mile visibility, which means they would make an instrument approach to San Jose, Moffett, or Hayward airports, break through the clouds, and make a low approach to Palo Alto. This is obviously less desirable than using IFR direct to Palo Alto. The requested instrument approach applies to aircraft landings; even now, instrument-rated pilots can depart the airport under IFR conditions. Prior to submitting the request to the FAA, the Aviation Division and the JCRCPAA had consulted with numerous aviation-related agencies as well as the City to assure that there was no opposition to the request. The system design and testing conducted by the FAA disclosed that the insmmaent approach could not be based on the Oakland and San Francisco VORTAC navigation system, as was originally thought. The FAA is conducting further testing to determine if a similar instrument approach can be based on the San Jose Airport VOR. However, instrument approach procedures using the Global Positioning System did prove feasible. A letter from L. J. Feldman, Acting Director of Aviation, Santa Clara County, provides a detailed description of the GPS approach. (See Attachment A.) The last page of Attachment A is an illustration depicting the route of the instrument approach. The final approach course and the missed approach procedure keep aircraft east of Highway 101, eliminating Palo Alto residents’ concerns about aircraft overflights and noise. Furthermore, instrument approaches are flown at a higher altitude than VFR approaches, further reducing the potential for noise. Instrument-rated pilots flying aircraft equipped with approach-certified GPS receivers will be able to use this approach. Neither the County nor the FAA predicts there will be any increase in aviation traffic. FISCAL EVIPACT The GPS instrument approach will be implemented at no cost to the City or the County. The FAA is responsible for publishing the approved procedures on its navigational charts and transmitting the information to the publishers of the flight manuals used by pilots. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The environmental assessment was conducted by the FAA. The proposed instrument approach was found to be "categorically excluded" from a need for further environmental study. (Refer to Attachment B.) CMR:194:96 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHlVIENTS A. Letter from L. J. Feldman, Acting Director of Aviation, Santa Clara County, 2/9/96. B. Environmental Assessment, FAA, 6/19/95. PREPARED BY: Vicci Rudin, Assistant to the City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: cc: Nicholas P. Petredis, Chair, Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport Larry Feldman, Acting Director of Aviation, Santa Clara County Bob Lenox, President, Palo Alto Airport Association John Stem CMR:194:96 Page 3 of 3 ,q, lll .h).q(’. (~nlih ~l:al,l ~.).5 I 4,g Attachment A February 9. 1996 Mr. William Fellman Cit3. of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo ,Alto, CA 94303 Dear Bill. Please find enclosed a cop?. of the Global Positiomng System (GPS) designed b3. FA,A. for Palo Alto Airport. The GPS runway 31 instrument approach procedure for Palo ,Alto .~drport has been drafted, tested and approved b~" the FA,~ regional office in Los Angeles. This draft has been submitted to the National Oceanic Servic~ (NOS) in its textual context. Its charted form is still in the process of being drawn by the regional office in Los .Angeles and is expected to be completed and submitted to the NOS for publication sometime in the near future. Paae one of the provisional draft contains letter and numbers inside rectan=m,dar fig-ures - (OSI - OSAGY W1; - PUDBY WP) - and these correspond to Way Points or reporting points. For instance. PUDBY WP 3724.50/12206.74 means: 37 degrees. 24 minutes and 30 seconds north by 122 degrees. 01 minute. 57 seconds east. The OSI is the three letter designation for the Woodside Voice Omm-Range (VOR) located in the hills above the Ciw of Woodside. The number 5500 inside a small rectang-u.lar box within a circle on the upper right corne~ indicates the minimum safe altitude that arriving aircraft should maintain ff within 25 miles of PUDBY WP ..... That is. a pilot knows that as long as he or she stays at or above that particular altitude, his or her aircraft is safe from any obstruction should he or she lose radio contact with the air traffic controller. Twenty five to fore miles out. arriving aircraft are normally turned over b? Oakland Center (the agency that c~ntrols enrou’te traffic) to Bay Approach (the bod3. responsible for atoning traffic), and Bay TRACON can either direct the aircraft to proc~d to OSI VOR before heading to PUDBY WP (the distance from OSI VOR to PUDBY WP is 12.5 miles) or let the aircraft fly straight to PUDBY WP. All this depends on traffic load or conditions. The aircraft may do its letdown over the holding pattern at PUDBY WP ff it is not vet at 2000 feet. ff it is alread3." at 2000 feet. and no other aircraft is ahead of it in the approach, the pilot (~ill then be instructed to commence his or her approach to Palo Alto Airport on a GPS bearing of 293 degrees, descending to lower altitude until the minimum decision altitude (MDA) of 560 feet is reached. If the pilot does not see the runway at 560 feet, he or she declares a missed approach, climbs to 1000 feet and makes a continuous climbing turn to 2000 feet direct to PUDBY WP and holds until further instructions from Bay TRACON. A similar VOR approach for Palo Alto Airport was designed and tested using the San Francisco and Oakland Airports’ VOR’s but it did not pass the test because the signals from the two VOR stations were found to be erratic and unreliable. The FAA is now in the process of testing a VOR instrument approach out of San Josc Airport’s VOR. ll~),|l(I t~,l .qtllJt’r\l.,~r,~: .\h~ Ihlt-I M I h)ll~l,I I;l, lIl~’;I .\l\,tr;l~l,, ll~)ll t h~llz, tlt’.%..I,illl~.’.q l I:~’,dl It.. I/klllllt’ .Nk-IXt’IIII~I Attachment A- pg. 2 The FA.a,’s next step is to finalize the approach procedure and have the NOS publish it in their instrument approach procedures chart book. Jcppesen Sanderson will then publish it in their instrument letdown charts as well. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter so that we can teL1 FAA to proceed. Thank you very much. Lawrencet Feldman o ~I G I N-AL GPS RW-Y 31 SAY TR.~CON 120-i 133.95 134,5 LNICOM 122,95 (CTAF Z!8.6) L CSOGY WP 3727.~0/!2206-74 PUDZY WP 3724.30/!2201.57 ~- 2000 ~=~ Pu--O~Y WP ~nd ho!d. OSOGY WP 293 5.2h FROM FAF SCALE: 1:250,000 FR~MC)NT Attachment A - pg. 4 ¯ 2699’ TERRAIN/TREE-FEEDER .599’POWER LINE - INITIAL/HOLD-IN-LIEU b~JJ4 ¯ 250’CRANE - FINAL 1.~;r .377’T-LTOWER - MISSED APPROACH "i " ’~ -.~." V,,-o--’A, \ .~" ; .." .-, .. KNBR 680 kHZ. - Class C - BAY APPROACH on 135.4 8,000 1,500 SFC ~SAN ~ Towe~. 119.0 ¯Ap C|ass D ~ss C ~00 CC HILLS ¯4 TOLL Class B 4,000 PALO ALTO AIRP(Tower. 1 ~4000 " COURSE ,~[[acnment A - pg. 5 LESLIE SALT - Class C - BAY APPROACH on 121.3 E 8,[ 6,f Class 4000 1500 "MANY RED ROOFS I:~’~$LAC ~’AND STADIUM Mountain ; ~o ACCELORATOR ..APPROACH San Francisco I~~, / Pi~ Gui~ ~ Cali~nia Aiq~. ~ 1993. U~xJ will= immfissi~m of lhe imblish~:r. ClassC ~ . Sunn Attachment B DEPARTMENT OF TRA.~SPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADM~N’]STRATION ENVIRONMENTAL CONS~ERATIONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED ACTIONS III.OTIffER ENVIRONMENTAL CQNSIDE _RATIONS; 1. This approach is not intended or expected to increase the namber of aircra£% or change the type-or size of aJzeraft that use the airport. The final segment of this procedure will follow the same approach path that current VYR traffic fly. 2. A letter from the airport authority (attached) indicates that the propose procedure would not create any adverse noise impact on arty noise sensitive area. IV. ~: After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained hereiz~ tho undersigned finds that the proposed Federal action is consistent with c’~sting nm~onal environmenta! polioie~ and d~rmines that the action m~y be "categorically excluded" from further environmental study under FA_A Order 1050.1D, Appendix 4, paragraph 4k. Barry D. Rosenberg Manager, Los Angeles Flight Procedures O~ice, LAX FPO Attachment B - pg. 2 County of Santa Clara Heicl-I lill~iCw .aJrl)nrf F’alo ,.~.lv~ ,&kpon. ~fl~ (hmnLv FAA BarD" Ros~g Manager, Flight ~o~ Bt~ch A~-220 P.O. ~n 92007 ~gel~, CA 90009 This is in re.spons~ to your r~lues~ for information regarding an increas~ in noise ov~ nois= s~nsit~¢ ur~ ~t~ound Palo Aim Airpor~ ~ a result of an i~ aFprm~h. Bdore making th¢ i~lurst to FAA for an instnn’nent appto~h, we ev~lua~l for the City of I~o Aim the possibility of ~Jl incre.~ in nois~ S~.ral factors were ~msid~. Fill’t, an instnun~nt approach will not r~alt in high= l~rformanc~ ai~p!on~ using th~ Airpo~ This is ’ txzauss tl~ pdmary factor d=t~rmining the l:X~formanc~ of ak~raR using an airport is runway lemgth. The le.nT~h of ~hr runway is no~ changing Nu-xt, it w’~ the opinion of Palo Ako’s towrr mnnagc.r at th~ time of our ~waluaflort, flm~ e.xrgp¢ for th~ first f~w w~=ks of the new approach procech~e’s oreration, r~ msasurabl¢ increase in [raffle would ocrur. ~ addition, w¢ ~c no in.fast in night ol~afion~ sinc¢ ~ of th~ instmmer~ conditions occur in ~ts morning. Th~ appm~h will be wr, ll east of th~ Bayshom Fr~ov,~y and flown a~ a higlmr altilud~ ~ the e~fi~g ~ roulr, there.by ~ating no advr~s~ noL~ iml~x on any noise sensitive m’eas. Ill can provid~ any fonher information i~arding enviromnsnial factors, please le~ me know. Sl.t~rely, /u:ting County Airports’ Dkector Ct]tllI[~’ LLXL’L’tlIIvU: l¢ICl~ard WIIIL’IID~’I’g ,.~