HomeMy WebLinkAbout0455.094I
City of Palo Alto
Cit)' l\1anager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CJ1Y COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPAR1MENT: ell)' Manager
AGENDA DATE: Odobei" 3, 1994 CMR.:4S5:94
SUBJECT: ReqD<Sl 10 Esmbtim an Instrument Approach at the Palo Alto
AirpoM
REUliE.'H
The: lo;n~ (<',":"IITr'Jflity F,ebt~o"T1s Cemmitt'x fOf 'h~ Palo Alto Airper., along with th~ Pale
Ai!o Airport AS:"lxi::J..lun, ITQu:,stS. that t.h~ City COtlncil ~i.lpp.)rt the effort to c5tab:ish
in.s!ruTT;~rir appro<!dl FTC".:-e.::lures 3t Palo Al~o AiJ1X)J1.
R£~"illATI{}XS
Staff rec-ommends that the Council reqlJest the Sar.ta Clara County Board of Supervisors. in
its c.apacil)' as airport operator under rhe terms. of the lease \1!ith the City, to request the
Federal Aviation Admir,lstration to ~tu.:l) :..he feasibility of instituting instrument approach
procedures for landings at the Palo Alto Airport.
1'01 JCV IMP.LI.CATIONS
The recomme:xk<l action will result in • revenal of. previoos position taken by the Council.
The City Cruncii, on May 14, 19M, took. position in opposition to. proposed instrument
opproocll At the request of the COO1.",anding officer of the Naval Air Statio" at Moffett Field.
'The b .... for the Cour.cil', opposition was • belief Ll,at an inslrumcnt approach could
poIentiaIJy :esult in ~ daily flight.s, longer boo,"" of active airport use, and changes
to the traffic palltrn. 'The Council believed an instrument IlJlPTOIlch to be inconsistent with
the City's policy to maintain t.~ airvort as a limited use local service facili~. The
information submitted by the Join; Communit)· Relations Committee suggests that an
insIrumcnl "I¥'J'ICh wooJd not result in such impacts. The Committee further contends that,
wilh the closure of !be Naval Air Slation "' Moffett, conditions wiU be sufficiently different,
and the reascns for the 1984 d.nial by the FAA are no longer viable.
FXFC!mVE...S~,1ARY
A request from the loint Community Relations Committee (JCRCPAA) for the CHy's support
for the instrument approach was initially received by the Cirj Manager in April 1994 .
..... 101 )
--,.
,/
5
~ ti .,
"
:1
i
I
I
I
I
A1!achmeoI A, !he r<SpO<lOO from !he City M '''"ge,', 0 ffice, requests further documentation
before. staff recommendation em be made 10 Council. Attachment B, • subsequenlle=
from the JCRCPAA. provides • detailed response '0 staff', quesboru.
Gcnenl aviation ~ operaIie under IWO kiM; of rules. koown as V'FR ar.l IFR. The vUual
ffi8btrules (VFR) whidJ rurrendy goYern air traffic at Palo Alto Airport ~ a 1000 foot
ccilinB and th= rrUJe. visibility for landing. Instrument flight <uk, (IFR) apply where the
FAA bas charted and approved • route for an insIrumenI-=tifiod pilo( 10 approach an airpcrt
whik in the clouds, using navigational >ids, d=:end through the clouds 10 an ~
altitude am land if the airport i. vi.ibk ,.;thin a specified disLlr.:<. The charted instrument
approach provide! alternative instrX'.ions for the pilo< if .r.e airport is still obscured by
cloud., Currently, pilots can =Iue,! a "Spcciol VFR" 10 land aI Palo Allo Aizport. w:ith
conditions of one :nile visibility, which ;n.:.a;15 they WO'Jld rnrn an instru~n! approach to
San Jose, Moffett, \')C" Hay'A-'al"d aL"'POi1..s, break through the cJ..:.llJds, and male a low approach
to Pslo Alto, This is obvioo~ly less deSoirable thl!n u~ir"lg fFR dirt'cl \0 Palo AHa. 1ne
requested ir ••. -"trurt1e,nt approoch appFcs to airc:raft lar.dings', ~\'Cn now, instfUnl'!f'.1-rated pilots
can dt:part the airport under IFR C{lr.d~ijom.
An instrument approach base:i on the Oillaoo \'ORTAC "y~(.tITI v.<:G illitiaJly considered the
mosl viab!: !lavisation aid during tI-« 191\4 FAA i<a.siblilly ;tud)', However, furthe, analysis
using COI!lp"ler simulation led the FAA te condude thaI the esLlblIshment of .uch an
instrument approach would be unacceptable. The FAA cited IS contributing facton: '!he
physical iocation of the Palo Alto Airpcn in relation to NAS Moff~tt; contlicting alrLwt
arrival .. 1d departure~"""'" in the Sooth San Franc,= Sa)' ArCol; ."d .nticipated <lela)',
at NAS Moffctt .. 'ld San lose Airport due 10 limitexl airspace ovailable and controller
worldoad'"
A new FAA feasibility study would establish whethe, circu~ lave changed
significantly over the past ten ~ 10 warrant. different conclus.ion. Moffett airikld is now
uoo.,r diffe,ent management and its lUeS oi the airspace are undergoing change, The
JCRCPAA poi.,. .. out thai !here also is • reduced kyol of aircraft activit)' at Palo Alto
Airport. However, the = s.illulion dOC! oot neceuarily predict !he futun:: the fate of
Reid-Hillview Airport &s wen ... thc City of San Jose's interest in removing ge""ralaviation
from San Jese International Airport could a.ffC4.":l future actj"ity at P3.1o Alto Airport.
Staff has verified !hal the agencies consultld by the lCRCPAA believe there is "..enl in
conducting. new study. 'The Council w:ill have an opportunity to review the findings of the
study when il is compleled.
I'q< loll
•
m l
,
FlSCAl. IMPACT
Authorizing an instrument approach for Ihe Palo Alto Airport would noi involve any expenses
for the City or the County. The approach would make use of existing ground-bued
navigational aids and aircnft instrumentali.oo. The FAA would be responsible for publishing
the approvw procedures on its navigational charts,
ENYJRONMENTAl ASSESSMENT
If the FAA study eslablihseo that an instrument 8ppl'Oal:h is feasible, L'1e FAA wiU dIen
prepare an environmental ....... ment. The City will be among the agencies p<OVided with
an opportUnity to review and comment on the environmental document,
ATIACHMENTS
A, l.etter to N, Pettedis, Chair, ICRCPAA, from V. Rudin, am", oi City Manager, 5/4/94
B, Letter to y, Rudin from N, Petredi" 9119/94
PREPARED BY; Vied Rudin, A"i;tant to the City Manager
CITY MANAGER IU'PROYAL: ~v.u..\.cl1\\, ~V).,~A-__
BERNARD M STROrW'
Assi.tant City Manager
ce; Nicholas p, Petredis, Chair, Joint CQmmurJty Rellltions Committee for the Palo Alto
AiIport
Larry Feldman, Acting Director of Aviation, Santo Clara Coun~j
John Stern, President, Palo Alto Airport Association
ATTACH.h\ENT I:}\" City ~ T~aJ<;)j~!t()
qif,\'(~frlt,' l .' f,,1tlllllgrr
?1ay « r 1994
Nicholas P. Petredis
Chairman
Joint Com;nunity Relations co:ttuni ttee:
for the Palo Alto Airport
541 Thain way
Palo Alto l CA 94306
Dear Nick:
The city Manayer has asy.ed that 1 resporH~ to your lett~r
regarding the request to astablish an irlst~uroent approach for the
Palo Alto Airport. Ecfore. tile City ltanager can Y0.GOr'it'':';cnd to the
City Council t.he action vhid1 is l.-eqllc.sted by the I\irport
committee r '..:e believe there are several issues \-.'hich T"lLlS"t be
addrE'ssed.
As you ;",'ell know, d previous Cit)' COl.1nC i 1 opposed the
introduction of iln inst.rument approach procedure et Palo Alto
Airport, That position was taken on r1ay 14,. 1984, at the request
of the commanding Officer of the Haval Air Station at r~offett
Field. subsequent to that action, the Council received several
letters from pilots contending the information presented by the
Moffett Fie1d representatives .... as F.lrroneous.
Nevertheless, the 'FAA feasibj lity study released July 24/
1984, concluded that the establishment of an instrument approach
'Would be unacceptable from thE'. standpoint of safe and efficient use
of airspace by aircraft.
The information compiled by the Palo Alto Airport Association
(which was attached to your letter} suggests that the circumstances
present in 1984 have Changed to a great enough degree that". it is
n~asonable to expe::t the .FAA to do another feasibility study. It
is city staff's opinion that further docunlE!ntation is .... 'arranted if
you wish to persl.lade t!",e City Council t.o reverse its pr.evious
position+
r.o !I..h Ilr::,l
I',; I· I ,\II,\, Cr\ ~4) ).~
H ~, 12'-), }5,,1
-i,5 :12,",.Y.:J1 1',1',
ATTACHMENT .. ~."
: .,
Paqe Two
Attached to this letter i$ a list of ifosues which ""e ask that
you address. Please contact me at your convenienc-e ...... hen the
responses are available. Bill Fellman and 1 could meet with you or
the Committee at t.hat tina::, in order to deterL'tine how and when the
req'.Iest for an instrument approach can be agendiz.ed "fur City
council action.
Ep,c~cs\lre
Sincerely,
/;/U, II\., J~ .
(, Il-{.,.~ G. ~_-
VIceI RUDII1
Assistant to the City 1>1anagc.r
cc: Fill f~llr~n, xDnag~t"1 Real Property
JUrle Fle~i~g, city Man~gel·
John SC9!rlr Palo Alto ?drport .'\SSOciRt.ion
ISSUES RELATED TO REQUEST fOR Ii<STF-,lt"MCNT APPROACH PROCEDURE
PArD "LTO AIRPORT
• Will air operations at Hoffett Fi~ld really be reduced with
the oe,?arture of the Navy? The S.J. Mercury News recently
reported {April 24, lSS4.) that, alt.ho'J.gl1 the ~ana.ge!,.ent and
tenants at Mof!e-ct ... ould change, th.e. nurobcr of flights,
curr~ntly 51,000 .a year, would hold steady. The mix of
airC"raft .. ould be different, hO' .. "ever.
• Can the "'infonaal contacts" ... 'hieD the PAA}' cites be docu:;cented
in 'Jritinq? Would there no~ be no obj~ctions:
-frO.:. NASA?
-froo the ?a.l0 Alt:o control 'fo" .. '€r:
fro~ bay Trac~n?
-fro~ San Jose Airport?
• would the characteristics of the Palo Alto air traffic be apt
to change it'; any .. "~J', e.g.
-higne~ Fe~f0rr~ilc~ a'r~raft?
-irlc~eas~ti T:u-t~r of ftiohts 7
,Ol-to! niqh( fli c:'ht:,'? (;,,'f.' ,:-,r>' ",',:,"1:"2 th<-';t~ '.TR <1110',,'5
n~CJht_ [lie:l'.::, il~, loli'J a~·, tj,:' ",'i!'ibilit,/ co~d.it.ions un~ 'U. 3r,d tj·,-2 p~lDt 1'.' ";Li~I.L Cl.lln:iJt l :,)
• """hat is the de:-,ClJl,j for In, at F"lo ;.lto c'lirport? HO'.<, :r::any
pilots are instru=~~t-~ated?
• Can tr,~ airport "ccc:,,:-:-,cd;~te the increased -traffic due t.o
o-er:-.ancl';;. tOY T'":ore ) ;,stnict.icn by Pa). 0 ;;1 to-ba:s:sd pi l()ts ...... ho
want to beco~e i~strurpnt-~~t~d?
e What facility ~ill s~rvice the instru~~nt approach? On what
na"'igational aids '.,,"ill it depend? ·,,'':'ll::'t operate when the
Palo Alto To~er is clused?
• .An FJ..A-funded noise study rl:"lated to the Palo 2\1 to Airport
conducted a fe'" years ago. Did it address the potential
an instnm.ent approach and the re lated noise inpacts,
any?
was
for
if
• Will there no longer be conflicts with the airspace associated
with San FrdDciscc "'irport, San JQse ~_irport, and Moffett
Field that wpre cited jJ~ the 1984 feasibility study?
• Which makes 'the stronger casC" tor .:::.-:.afety consi:d-erations
approving a:1 instnH"ent approa.ch or rn,,"\intaini ng Palo I,lto
Airport fer VFR flight oniy?
...
\
··~\..o::IVE"O
Joint Co.rununity Relations Comnh,tee
for Ute Palo Alto AirpDrt
SH 2D m4
ASSISToINT ClTY!IGit
Qrr e '
~P.~a..u
FN.Ik L-8t'Wd, p~ ...... .......-,.-
c.msWeiI
Vied Rudin
A,:;:slStant to the: City Manager
City of Palo Alto
""0" 130x Im50
P?to Alto, CalUomi2. 94303
Dear Vied:
~ L ItJnI """ ""'-" Pilot It..,.
~801':r:1o r-.-..l". 'T""""","
l..v1"rl~ .. ~
~Cnr-
Your letter ofr.iay 4, 199"1, t(lg~trH'r with lt3 nint' qU.f'3tiol1:5 t(>gar.::iing
our request to establish an insin.mlfO'nt approach at P,ellD .. -\.lto.'3 airport. has
been ('.arefully studied. Th,z Committf .. 'f"S ans,vers 1.0 :tour nine qUe-5"tions a.re
attached.
In addition to y.(Jur questions, the 0Cli:kground of the City Co'm~i],s
decision in 1984 to deny the prior requ(·~t was c<'tr.o,fully reYie-... ·ed. It appE'ars
to us that the City Council's oPI-'<.)sitkm at that time W~ Ua~ on four
concerns that were greatly magnified by the then Commanding Officer at
NAB Moffett who apparentl,'f did nOL wont to share "his'" airspace \I,-ith others.
The Council's four concerns in 1984 appeared to be as f oUoW'S:
1. Creating' an over capacity condition at tht" Airport.
2" Lowering safety"
3. Increasing noise.
4. Objections from the Navy Commanding Officer at "Moffett FiE'!'Jd.
Since May of 1964 tl,ere have been many changes" Moffet! Field is nQ
longer e Navy facility having t-.een turned oveT to NASA on July 1, 1m. The
fear of an over capacit-j situation at the Palo Alto Airport due to the
establishment of a."1 instrument approach is: not now v?lid r if it eyer was. The
number of op€'rations. at Paio Alt.o Air?Ort na3 h~n on a general zl(~wnward
trend since 1960 going from 239000 OP£"'ilX.l{)nS in 1980 to 212000 irl 1993
The tie down situation has gone from a four~fi;\'e yeal wruting period ~,rior to
Vied Rudin
Pag< 2
o
•
Septo<nbe, l 9, j 994
1900 to the present Cortyvacancies. With rcapect to the issue of increased
DoLce levels, any FAA approved approach is expected to be well-east of
Baysho~ therefo~ Dot causing any impacts on residential neighoorhoods.
On May 21, 1994, Ray Leadabrand and I met with Gary Thornton.
Chief, Airport M.anagement Offioe, Moffett Field. He reconfirmed hls position
taken in earlier meetings regarding an instrument approach at Palo Alto. In
principle, he has no objections. However, before he can commit, he needs to
review the FAA proposed approach procedure befo~ it is esteblished. This
requirement should be easily satisfied as be 'will likely be 8l!k~ to be part of
t.he wot'king group established by the FAA to develop the instrument approach
once-it has been requested by the Count.Y.
The CDm.r--...ittee believes that b.av-ing an instnlment approach at the
Palo .AJto PJrport wiU increase the utility and safet.Y of the airport for those
who use their airplanes for business in marginal wE-ather condition:::. It will
also faciLitate m(;dicaJ emergent!)' flights in marginal weather cOliditions and
likely prove to be invaluable in the aftermath of a natural emergency, As
stated in my letter of March 10,1994, this enhancement to the Airport using
existing FAA navigation facilities, will.cost. the City and Cmmty nothing,
After reviewing oW' answers to your questions, we hope that the City
Staff will agree to recommend to the City Council that the City request the
County's Director of Aviation to ask the FAA to chart and publish an
instrument approach for the Palo Alto Airport. The City (,,..(Iuoeil should
understand that once the FAll. charts what they consider to be the optimum
instrument approach into tbe airport, the City will have an opportunity to
review the approach and comment before lt becomes operatiru18l.
If yuu or any of the City Staff have que.lions regarding the information
in this lett"r, or if yuu need further dete, John Stern or I will be glad to
provide the information.
NPP:jr
cc: Co~-.ruttee Members
ene.
V k.-d Ruai n
ril.~3
&ptember 19, 1994
ISSUES RELATED TQ REQUEST t'QR INSTRUMENT APPROACH
PALO ALTO AWPOIIT
Before answering your specific questions, I believe it would be helpful
\:.0 place the issues you raise in the context of the status of general aviation on
• national bam as well as at tho Palo AltD Airport. As yeu will recall, when
the request for an instnlment approach was !ast studied in ]98-<1, one of the
major concerns. of the City Council wru; exc~g the capacit.y of the airport
with Tel"",,! to both the availability of tie-downs and the nUll] b,,, of
operations. To 3J.""1.Swer this lssue; wp.looke-d. at histone data as weU as the
FA.A 's projected tlgures.
A very useful SOlli"ce offore"C'ast dat8 is the _.FAA_ . .t\\:Ua.tinn.1.9tCCP..s.15.
fj.§cai Years 1994~~; Document. FAA-f.PO-94.1, pu.l)lished Mii.rch J 994.
At page V· '1.4 it reads: "'!'hfl number of active single engi.Il~ airr::raft i.rt the
Unitt>d State'S is project<d to decline from 143,580 aircrillt in 199.3 te 131,000
in 1998 a.'1d to remain at that level throughout the remainder of the forecast
period~ (until 2005). It continues to sta~ that: "Multi-engine pistc-n aL'"('r-aft
are also expected to decline in ab~lute numbers from 18,536 in ]993 to
17.30D ill Hj98. However, it lS e""peded to lncrea&e somewhat in the latter
yean; of the for"<:aSt period to 17,600 in 2005.'
With respect to the County tie-dO\YUS at the airport the actual
experien~ was consistent with the FAA forecast Frior to 1990 there was a 4-
5 year waiting period to obtain one of the 366 County lie-down 'poees;
presently. ilie.;:·e ale 40 'o'aca...""1Ci-e5. The deotirJng trEnd (i.I1crease in vacancies)
is illustrated in the following table.
Iilw: SPaces Oc!:lU!i\tl1 VAcAncjes
10·91 355 11
5·92 343 23
5-93 339 27
5-94-330 36
9-8-94 326 40
VIOO Rudin
P'I" 4
S<ptoml><. 19, ; 99-4
Usingdau. provided by the FAA Office of Aviation Policr and Plan.., it
'"'" poooiblo to determine the total annual operations and the instrument
departu,.... during the period 198()'1993 as well .. the foreoast oPerations for
the period 1994-2010. This data is I.bulated below.
The PalQ Alto Aj[pOrt Operatjons
1980-2010
ill.r Total Op.ergtion." Instrument D~a:rtyres
1 f1:3() 239000 ,5000
19S! 225000 3000
1952 165000 2000
1803 168000 3000
19&1 202000 3000
1985 186000 4000
1956 192000 4000
1957 2170{10 4000
1988 215000 4000
1959 210000 5000
1990 234000 5000
1991 231000 6000
1992 233000 6000
1993 212000 5000
1994 (estimated) 213000 5000
1995 (estimated) 213000 5000
2000 (estimated) 216000 6000
2005 (estimated) 218000 7000
2010 (estimated) 220000 6000
iu; can be seen from these statistics, the FAA estimates that the total
operations at the Paio Alto Airport in year 2010 will not even reach the levels
achieved ill the peak operati,n.ol yean; of 1980,198l,1990, 1991, and 1992.
This is e. direct refiecllotl oflhe national decline jn the number of aircraft in
U-"-e in general aviation.
Vke; Rudin
Page 5
•
\
------------...... ""
s<-ptembcr 19, 1994
A.nsl!.'ers To The Nine OnestioIlB
1. Apticipated. Tome at Moffett Field Under NASA Management
The official position of NASA is that the number of o'PE'ratioru st Moffett
Field will remain at 51000 per ~-ear. the SAme as when the Na\")" W83 &t the
Field. We be1iev'f' it is a high mimate as the operational P-3 ~drons have
been m~) ... 'Nl8.nd a 'I,'l'!!<:y llcti'.e t1yi.r.:g c;ub has been dos~. Hm. ... e .... er, e;--en at
51000 operatioIl!> '?t"T F'ai' (1~l 0JX>ratl\ln;; r~r day; it !S Ei. very small number
for an airport n"lth dual n:nws,"-s., To put tho5J:> o~rsti{:n.s Ln persp€'CtiYe, Palo
Ait(1 AJrp.::lii had 21~DOO Or*THir.ns duri,.,,;-19931.5:3D oJ.:o€'ntions per day) a.."1d
S".ll Carlos Ai.rr>0rt hdO 16:)OG~1 C';-:~nlt!(1j,5 [-438 per c!3:,·'1. KAS ........ hO~3 to le3~e
!3p-1Ct"> W rC3-crn" Equadror,.;, te· ,·!f:"t'c ~r'.: cn.~t'3-r<:' op>:r2te' thE' b~e, but t,::. d8.t~,
NAS.!-\ h.'l.'> t,f'{'n lms,l:-'-'::",.;.:;f,J in :l~tr:-,d;ng '·t7Tlf~.n!"" !':' the f:€'ld,
Ail Of~iS')nS w~:; contactE"ci are €).r~e-d to!:-:? heavily invoh"e-d in any FAA
study to establish an in.:5trumE"!1t app~a('b, howF,'el", they were not in a
po:sitinr'r to spea}.; furmall:-.' for the-i!'" !,"€'~pe('tl.,.f' age-ncies. Then comment..::
should be ,iewed as definitivE' btlt no! finnl. My if'.t>.'rpretation of their
pcsitions is that if the FAA can design a saft-approacn, they will support it.
In s.ilhering infonnation fo!' this lette-r, I esp.;."Ci.illy wanted to include
comments regarding NASA's po.r;ition on a.lj instrument approach into the
Palo /tJto Airport. I was able to meet Wlth Gary Thornton, th.e person now
responsible for NASA'£' o~rations at Moffett Field, Although he was not
willing to document t-..is comment.! u rr.til the approach has been designed and
gone through the iull FAA approval process, I am very confident b. (therefore,
NASA) will not opJXlS" an lmtrument approach into Palo Alto's airport. Also,
Mr. Thornton, as wetl 3;:, tho? othH pe-vplt' contacted, expre:.osed a wlllingne~s to
di.scuss the !SSile \\-it.h memhers of the City Staff.
NASA: Gary Thornton, Chier, Airport Management Office, Moffett Field-
415-604-0685. Mr. Thornton rdS no objection to the CDncept of an
instrument approach at Palo .. \lto /dipOrt. At our me"t'trng, he said that if
fhp FAA's rcvle' .... of the TNpJc;;t [(".r ·lD :nstrumt:'nt approach results in a
flllding that such an approach is sa.i€". he ,,\"ould support it. He belie\"es.li
fmding that it is "Mfe" would by n~ity take into account MofTett
,
Vied R(ldin
PagJ! 6
·,.---
\
September 19, 1994
Field's operations. The Committee trunks this is alQgical.and reason.&blp
position; we believe that his concerns will be satisfied since he will likely be
an integral part of the working group that will .,tab lis h the approach.
• P.ln AIm Centrol Tow.r: Sherry 1. Byrd, Air Traffic Man~r for the Palo
Alto Airport -415-493-0641. Ms. Byrd does not believe tb.at an instTum""t
approach for Palo Alto Airport will cause the FAA To ... e" any problems.
Bay Anproach~: Chuck Weinum, Assistant Director·Plans and
Programs -~73-6005 Mr, Weinum was not in a !hlsition to express an
official opimo~ regardJngth~ approach untIl a ('umplE'tE' FAA study h:lS
been mnde and a candidat~ approach 8el~teQ, HC\,ie\"t'!'". bis preliminary
look at t.he previous study did not indjc.9t~ that an instrument apPw3.ch
(~ould not 00 developed" In filct he 'o\a.."o en{'ouraging and op~illlistic that.aIl
approach was p03sibJe.
San Jose Airport: No contacts were made ",-jth the San Jo:;.,~ International
Airport sfnce the FAA will integrate a.""y requirement that the San Jose
Tower may have with respect t'J a Palo Alto instrumpnt approach Yr.'hen
plannin,g the approach. A..,y -requirements should be minimal Slr,ce the
previous approach was based on the San Jose VORDME 1 under:itand
that the San Jost'" tower had no probJelils with t.he P!t~ ... "iou.s -request, and
the currently favored approach would use Oakland navigation aids.
3. Cbo.racterlilitiQl of PaJp Alto Traffic With An Instrument ApltTQlH!h
Any instrument that is designed for tb. Palo Aito Airport will likely b.ave
tbe following characteri..<tics:
An i.Jlstr..lment approech will not result in higher perfvnnanre airplanes
using the Airport. This is SCi because the primary factor detE'rmining the
perfonnance of aircraft using an airport is runway length; a secondary
factor is nmway bearing strength. Neither of tbese are being changed.
It is the opinion of Palo Alto's FAA Air Traffic Manager that except for the
first few weeks there would be no measurable increase in trafflc at the
Airport.
..
, ,
Vied Hud~n
rage 7
\
•
Scptcmbe' 19, j 994
There is no reason to expect an increase in night flights if t(l2re is an
instrument approach since most of the instrument conditiorlB'at Palo Alt.Q
occur in the morning.
4. Demand for An Instnlment Approach
Th~re are three !'..erious needs for RIl instrument approach at the Palo AJto
Airport OOyond the desires of the recreational pilots and flight schools.
First, there are the day-to-day needs of the pilots who US~ their airplanes
as an integral part. c.f their business. This includes, corporation, small
business ov."ners, consultants, ?"eal ('state develcp.ers and lowlly based charter
services that conduct on-call flight operations within the wC'stern United
States.
Second, but no less important, Me the medi~ll'rnerg()ncy flights. 'I'hese
indude bringing pati;::nts to Stanford Uniy~rsit,y H05pitaJ, n.n established
center for heart and heart-lung transplants. For this reason alune, SUH
strongly supported the 1984 request for an instrument approach,
Third, the inevitability of na.tural emergencieEi. For example, {'IS a re-sult
of the Loma Prieta earthquake, Watsonville was cut off from all trans·
portation save that from the air for several days. In fact, many aircraft which
transported supplies for that emergency are similar to those using Palo .:\ito
Airport.
Last.ly, the question of jusi hov .. mnny Palo Alto-basro pilots are
jru;trument rated has been ask.>d. As of May 9, 1994 FAA Records show 368
instrument rated pilots in the 94301·9430£ zip codes which includes all of
Palo Alt.o. This is not the SIillle as the number of instrument rated pilots
using the Palo Alto Airport. A number of instrument rated pilots in the
94301·9430e Zip Code Area do not use the Airport as they are airline pitots
operating from San Francisco and San Jose Airports. Balancing this, howevel'.
is the ract that there are many instrument rated pilots living adjacent to the
94301·94306 Zip Code Area that use the Airport. Taking all these ractors into
consideration it is estimated that there are 400-500 instrument ratP.ti pilots
using the Palo Alto Airport.
. i , ,
Vlui Rudin
PJ.ge 8
•
Sept.~mher 19, 1994
5. Can the Palo Alto Airport Accommodate Increased Traffic Dug to
An lnatrument Auprrutcb .
A check with the two companies that conduct the great majority of the
flight training at the airp<Jrt, the Palo Alto F1ying Club and the West Valley
F1ying C1uh, indk"t"" that there would b<! littl. to no inc!"' ..... ..! demand
for instrument training if an instrument gpproach was available at Palo Alto,
The siatOO rearon is that most serious pilots already have .an iilStrument
rating or are cU.."Tcntly purS"'cling the rating elsewhen" .
Furthermore since there woulJ be only a sing!e VOR/D1rE approach·
.available, instrument instruction would c'~mtinw~ to be conducted at. airports
ha\'1flg thE' fuU range of apprcsches (ItS, VOR/D~\1E lll1d ltD F) slJch as at
Lvennorl", Oillanci, Salinas and StocKton.
:l\~lJnp of the involved partie.s,. th(, tm'{er, the fD·:ed base operators or ~he
pilat..'> an~icipat-e any significant increas€ in traffIc to rf'~nllt from an
lr.strument approach.
It is not possible to know Ett this time which navigation facility the FAA
will select to provide the approach to the Airport. This determination Yw1l1 be
the retrult of the requested FAA study, The fjrevious instrument approach was
based on the San Jose VOR/DMR How""." the 1984 FAA Feasibility Study
derennin..! that the Oakland VORTAC would be the preferred facility upon
which Ul base the apprr.>llch. Based on co.nversations with FA.I\. professionals,
we believe the FAA would use the Oakland navigation aid.
When the Tower is closed, the instrument approach would be operational
as is presently the ca.se faY' instrument departures and VFR operations.
However, the instrument approaches '!.'ould probably be conducted at higher
flltitude:i.
7. FAA Fynded Nojse Study
The FAA. FAR 150 Airport Noise Compatibilit.y Study did not specifically
address the case of an instrument approach. This was probably be<'.ause an
instrument approach to the airport would be similar to the existing VFR
Viro Rudin
P>g< 9
5<ptnnOO 19, 1994
approach route but would be flov.7l at a htghe," altitude, Therefore, an
instrument approach should have nCl noise impact on residen u;U ..
neighlx>rhoods.
PIea5>e' note that the last FAA inst:-U.lllt>nt app::oach feasibility study was
not compie1eci until Jt:Jy 24.,19&4. and this was several months after receiving
ne-gativ-e romme:1t5 from the Ci t~· of Palo Alto, May 17, 19H4 and t.he N ,':w)',
:\fsy 15, i9~
It LS not ~'0s.5:'bte tu dis-cu$s p0:5ib!~ traffic conlJi.:-ts &.t. this time in a
c!i:':':lnitiy(> mannE-I" lnformal di:;c-"I~.3:0r.S with Bay Apprr)il(.'h COIltrol
Yi";::';;:'JnnEoi, Chuc~ V;€'iJ1Illn, lOci:..:';:tt'::'~, that he beli~\"t'3 there i~ '-1.I!lple flexibility
U.l dp\,eliJp an in.strumen! aPPI"().3ch that wiill,p [,ccept-ablf! tc cll concerned.
Tb!':' tlnaJ p.llS ..... er CClJ} oul;, (-orne anN the F .. -\.A. has been requl:'stttd to examine
the issue .md the FA.A lIas charted the he"t instrument approach pn:.l'Ct..cJu..--e
available for the Palo Alto Airpo..-t During tlils pe_dud, ali interestPfl parties
~-ill be able t.J CtHIln;.ent.
9. Safety-lJUitnunent ,,:L.YFR Fli@ht Only
A strong case for an ID::lt-ruwf'nt approach can be based on the inherent
safety coruideralions of an FAA approved standard instr-.lJllent approa<:h,
Ra1.iln lb.a.T). !'t'lying. as we do C'l-.lJT'entiy, on haYlng all approaches made under
WR fiight rules, pilots wuuld ha .. -e all approye-:l ~tundardi2ed procedure to
follow.
O~rrently, in marginal weather pilot. landir.g at Palo Alto Airport must fly
low under & cloud deck an&'or in low visibility, sometimes for miles, to re8!:h
the airport. This is aiIectionateiy called. ~scud running.~ This practice, while
perfectly legal to the FAA, is not considered to be a preferred method to land
in marginaJ weather conditions. In this procedure, a pilot uses an !o'AA
published approach _'U1dJor procedure to descttnd below the weather and the.ll,
with the ground in si.{,;itt, th~ pilot maneuvers to Palo Alto Airport