dallas executive airport master plan chapter 4.4 df 1

620

610

620620

62062

0

620

610

610

620

610620

610610600610

620

650

610

600

590

590600610620630

640

650650

640630620

630640

650660

670

590600

600

590

610

620

630

610

620

630

650640

630

620610

600

600

660

650

640630

640

650

660

670

640

670

670660

670

660

650

660

640

630

630

640

620

660650640

630620

630

630

630

640

630

630

64063

0

640

630

640

630

640

640

640

640

650

640

650

660

670

670

660

630

640

650

630

650

640

670

670

670 67

0

670

660

650

650

640

630

640

650

650

650660

660

660

610

630

630

620

620610

600

590

580580590

670

660

670

660

650

660

660

660650

640

650

650650

660

650

640

630 620

640

630640

620610

630

640

650 630

620

610

600 59

0

600

610

620

630

650

620

640

640

650

630

620

640

650

610

600

630

590

650

640

630620

610

590

590600610620

610

620

630

640650

620

48

660

640

650

630

620

660

640

630

620610

570

640

620

610

600

610 600

610

620620

62062

0

620

610

610

620

61060

0

610620

610

600

620

610

610

610600610

620

630 630

640

650

620

610

600

590

590600610620630

640

650650

640630620

630640

650660

670

590600

600

590

610

620

630

610

620

630

650640

630

620610

600

600

660

650

640630

640

650

660

670

670

670660

670

660

650

660

640

630

630

640

620

660650640

630620

630

630

630

640

630

640

640

650

640

650

660

670

670

660

630

640

650

630

650

640

670

670

670 67

0

670

660

650

650

640

630

640

650

650

650660

660

660

610

630

620

620610

600

590

580580590

670

660

670

660

650

660

660

660650

640

650

650650

660

650

640

630 620

640

630

640

620610600

630640

650 630

620

610

600 59

0

600

610

620

630

650

620

640650

640

650

630

620

640

650

610

600

630

590

650

640

630620

610

590

590600610620

610

620

630

640650

620

48

660

640

650

630

620

660

640

630

620610

570

640

0 1200

SCALE IN FEET

DATE OF AERIAL: May - 2011(merged with Google Earth imageryApril - 2011 for southern coverage)

NORTH

Runway 13-31 (6,451’x150’)

Runw

ay 1

7-35

(5,2

38’x

150’

)

Mar

iner

Dri

ve

Voya

ger D

rive

Voya

ger D

rive

620620610

610

00

Red Bird Lane

Red Bird Lane

West Ledbetter Drive

S H

ampt

on R

d.S

Ham

pton

Rd.

610610

6202020620620

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

Challenger D

rive

Apollo D

r.

Apollo D

r.

Saturn Drive

Saturn Drive

Mar

iner

Dri

ve

650

650

Voya

ger D

rive

Voya

ger D

rive

Red Bird Lane

Red Bird Lane

West Ledbetter Drive

S H

ampt

on R

d.S

Ham

pton

Rd.

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

Apollo D

r.

Apollo D

r.

Runway 13-31 (6,451’x150’)

Runw

ay 1

7-35

(5,2

38’x

150’

)

Challenger D

rive

Saturn Drive

Saturn Drive

Dallas Executive AirportCity of Dallas

Exhibit 4N:RSA COMBINATION METHOD ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2

685’685’685’

6,636’ LDA7,136’ ASDA

7,136’ TODA

6,051’ TORA

630630

620620620620 West Ledbetter DriveWest Ledbetter Drive

RUNWAY13 31

TORA 6,766’ 6,051’TODA 7,136’ 7,136’ASDA 6,643‘ 7,136’LDA 5,558‘ 6,636

TORA: Take-Off Runway AvailableTODA: Take-Off Distance AvailableASDA: Accelerate-Stop Distance AvailableLDA: Landing Distance Available

KEY:

620620620620 West Ledbetter DriveWest Ledbetter Drive

RUNWAY13 31

TORA 6,766’ 6,051’TODA 7,136’ 7,136’ASDA 7,136‘ 7,136’LDA 6,051‘ 6,636

TORA: Take-Off Runway AvailableTODA: Take-Off Distance AvailableASDA: Accelerate-Stop Distance AvailableLDA: Landing Distance Available

KEY:

6,643’ ASDA5,551’ LDA

6,766’ TORA

685’685’685’

6,636’ LDA

7,136’ ASDA/TODA

6,051’ TORA

6,766’ TORA6,051’ LDA

610610

Airport Property Line

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

RSA with Runway Extension

Object Free Area (OFA)

OFA with Runway Extension

Ultimate Airfield Pavement

EMAS Lead-in Pavement

EMAS Bed

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

Departure RPZ

LEGEND

640640

Dallas Executive Airport

Airport Master Plan - Draft Final

4-16 / Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives

would not include providing the full OFA. If the full OFA is also required by the FAA, the ASDA and LDA for Runway 31 would need to be reduced by another 150 feet.

The costs associated with this alternative have been estimated at $5.14 million. This alternative would also require the relocation of the glideslope and localizer antennas at an estimated $1.5 million and installation of a MALS at $1.0 million. Thus, the total costs for implementing this alternative are estimated at $7.64 million.

RSA Combination Method Alternative 2

Alternative 2 considers all improvements mentioned before and also includes the implementation of EMAS at the south end of the runway. Adding EMAS to the south end of the runway has no impact on any declared distances for Runway 31 as it is aimed specifi cally at improving operational length calculations for Runway 13 only. As discussed, Runway 13 is utilized more frequently than Runway 31 as predominant winds are from the south. Moreover, southerly winds generally fl ow during very hot days. As a result, Runway 13 will generally be in use when turbine aircraft runway length needs are greater as jet aircraft require longer take-off rolls at higher temperatures.

Adding EMAS to the south end of the runway as depicted on Exhibit 4N would not change the TORA or TODA from that provided in Combination Method Alternative 1; however, it would increase the ASDA and LDA calculations. EMAS installation as proposed would allow the south end of the runway to provide the full 1,000-foot equivalent RSA. As a result, the

Runway 13 ASDA would be the full pavement length, or 7,136 feet. The LDA would be 6,051 feet to account for the proposed 400-foot landing threshold displacement (from current runway end).

The costs for RSA Combination Method Alternative 2 would include all of the $7.64 million associated with Alternative 1. It would also include another estimated $5.215 million for EMAS installation. Thus, total estimated costs for implementing Alternative 2 would be $12.86 million.

RSA Combination Method Summary

The primary benefi ts of the combined method alternatives would be the ability to provide greater declared distances than could be provided by simply using declared distances to meet RPZ requirements as presented on Exhibit 4C. The combination alternatives provide less declared distances than those proposed in RSA Declared Distance Options 2, 2b, and 3 presented earlier; however, the combination method would account for the RPZs allowing for FAA standards to be met. Thus, the combination method would satisfy both RSA and RPZ design standards while maximizing operational lengths.

There are two primary drawbacks associated with the two combination methods. First, the costs would be relatively high to include a 685-foot extension for both alternatives and EMAS in Alternative 2. Second, the extended runway pavement would not have full utility. For example, the runway extension would not be usable for landings on Runway 13. While these drawbacks are considered, they do not outweigh the benefi ts achieved as the reduced operational lengths

required for meeting both RSA and RPZ without these improvements would be signifi cant. Reducing the declared distances (or simply reducing the runway length) to below 6,000 feet would signifi cantly reduce the utility of the runway for business jets. As a result, operations would be lost by both itinerant and based aircraft. In fact, some based aircraft operators (i.e., the Gulfstream II and IV) could elect to base their aircraft elsewhere. Obviously, this could pose signifi cant fi nancial impacts on the airport’s FBOs which have invested millions of dollars in facilities aimed at accommodating these aircraft.

The combination method alternatives are the only alternatives presented in this study which meet both RSA and RPZ design standards while also maximizing operational lengths. While the costs are relatively high, the combination method alternatives are feasible and prudent if the FAA requires that the full RSA and RPZ standards be met.

RSA DETERMINATION SUMMARY

Each of the six RSA mitigation alternatives, as prescribed by the FAA, has been analyzed in their application to Dallas Executive Airport and is presented in Table 4A. Three of the six alternatives were considered feasible and/or prudent. Exhibit 4P presents a comparable table for each of the alternatives considered prudent and/or practicable for quick reference.

The preparer of this study cannot choose a single solution as the fi nal plan will fi rst require that the FAA indicate to what extent RSA, OFA, and/or RPZ standards should be met. Once the FAA provides that direction, the best solution can be

Exhibit 4P: RUNWAY 13-31SAFETY AREA ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

Alternative D - Option 2aImplement Declared Distances

Alternative D - Option 2bImplement Declared Distances

Alternative D - Option 3Implement Declared Distances

Alternative E - EngineeredMaterials Arresting System (EMAS)

Alternative F - Option 1Combination Method

Alternative F - Option 2Combination Method

PHYSICAL FACTORS

Effective Runway Length 13 31 13 31 13 31 13 31 13 31 13 31

Take-off Run Available (TORA) 6,986' 6,986' 6,986' 6,986' 7,136' 7,136' 6,451' 6,451' 6,766' 6,051' 6,766' 6,051'

Take-off Distance Available (TODA) 6,986' 6,986' 6,986' 6,986' 7,136' 7,136' 6,451' 6,451' 7,136' 7,136' 7,136' 7,136'

Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 6,493' 6,986' 6,461' 6,986' 6,643' 7,136' 6,451' 6,451' 6,643' 7,136' 7,136' 7,136'

Landing Distance Available (LDA) 6,493' 6,889' 6,461' 6,861' 6,643' 7,039' 6,451' 6,351' 5,558' 6,636' 6,051' 6,636'

Property Acquisition

Facility Relocation

Infrastructure Development

None proposed*

VASI-4 (13 & 31); REILs (13); Runway thresholds (13 & 31);

Localizer; Glideslope antenna

Northerly 535' runway and parallel taxiway extension;

In-pavement MALS onRunway 31 (Remove LDIN)

None proposed*





None proposed*

VASI-4 (13 & 31)); REILs 13; Runway thresholds (13 & 31);




None proposed*

VASI-4 (31); Runway threshold (31); Glideslope antenna

500' by 200' area prepped and stablized for EMAS;


0 acres - Runway 13 RPZ ±2.4 acres - Runway 31 RPZ





0 acres - Runway 13 RPZ ±2.4 acres - Runway 31 RPZ




500' by 200' area prepped and stablized for EMAS;


Aircraft Operations

Facility Maintenance

Meets RSA design standards

Maintain additional 535' of runway and taxiway pavement

Meets RSA and OFAdesign standards


Meets RSA design standards


Meets RSA and OFAdesign standards

Maintain EMAS bed

Meets RSA and RPZdesign standards


Meets RSA and RPZ standards

Maintain additional 685' of runway and taxiway

pavement; Maintain EMAS bed

OPERATIONAL FACTORS

DEVELOPMENT COSTS $5.40 million $5.40 million $6.14 million $6.22 million $7.64 million $12.86 million

* RPZ and departure RPZ would continue to extend beyond airport property. Would require approval by FAA.


Dallas Executive AirportAirport Master Plan - Draft Final

City of Dallas Dallas Executive Airport



4-17Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives /

selected. If the FAA does not require that the RPZs be mitigated from incompatible uses, for example, one of the RSA Alternative D options and/or Alternative E could be the best choice. If the full RSA and RPZ are required, the combination alternatives presented in RSA Alternative F would be the best solution. This study will be presented

to airport staff , Texas Department of Transportation - Aviation Division (TxDOT), FAA, and airport users. It is intended that these meetings will provide proper guidance to make an appropriate choice. The recommended solution will be outlined in the next chapter of this study.

OTHER AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES

Now that the airfi eld standards and RSA determination is complete, analysis for issues relating to other airfi eld developments will be analyzed. Analysis in the previous chapter indicated that Runway 17-35 should be extended to better serve up to small corporate aircraft for periods when the primary runway is closed. Taxiway improvements will also be addressed.

RUNWAY 17-35

Runway 17-35 is currently 3,800 feet long by 150 feet wide. As mentioned earlier, this runway is better suited to predominant winds, especially for small aircraft. It would be ideal for the runway to provide longer runway length to meet the needs of corporate aircraft including small business jets. Moreover, if the runway were extended, it would allow the airport to remain open to serve up to small business jet aircraft when the primary runway is closed. Current plans include a rehabilitation of Runway 13-31. Depending on the type of rehabilitation, Runway 13-31 could need to be closed for anywhere from one month up to nine months. It was determined in the RSA determination section earlier that upgrading Runway 17-35 to ARC C/D-II standards would be cost-prohibitive. Extending the runway so as to provide longer operational length under ARC B-II design, however, can be achieved.

Exhibit 4Q presents two alternatives for extending Runway 17-35. The alternatives consider meeting the full RSA and OFA standards on existing property while also providing the full RPZ for the north end of the runway on property. The southern RPZ can extend into the open area south of the airport as long as the property is acquired in fee or through easements.

Table 4A: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Option #

RSA

Alternative

Prudent

and/or

Feasible Comments

A Provide full RSA No RSA beyond Runway 31 end cannot be

extended due to the location of U.S. Highway

67 and its outer roads.

B Relocate, shift,

or realign

runway

No Relocation not possible in close proximity

due to urbanized area;

Runway shift not advisable due to RPZ shift

over additional commercial and residential

properties;

Realigning runway not feasible; Upgrading

Runway 17-35 to replace Runway 13-31

would not be feasible as it could not provide

more length and would be cost-prohibitive.

C Reduce runway

length

No Would have signifi cant operational impact

on current airport users and FBOs; would

negatively impact sizable investments made

by sponsor, TxDOT, and FBOs.

D Declared

distances

Yes Five Options presented with Options 2a, 2b,

and 3 considered prudent and/or feasible;

however, these options would not mitigate

for incompatible land uses in the RPZs.

E EMAS Yes Cost estimated at $6.22 million; would not

mitigate incompatible uses in the RPZs.

F Combination Yes Two combination method alternatives

presented having relatively high costs; Only

alternative which would allow the airport

to comply with both RSA and RPZ design

standards; Should only be considered

prudent and/or feasible if the FAA requires

the full RSA and RPZ to meet standards.

Source: Coff man Associates analysis of FAA Order 5200.8 Runway Safety Area Program

620

610

600

610 600

610

620620

62062

0

620

610

610

620

620

600610

620

630 630

640

650

620

610

600

590

590600610620630

640

650650

640630620

630640

650660

670

590600

600

590

610

620

630

610

620

630

650640

630

620610

600

600

660

650

640630

640

650

660

670

640

670

670660

670

660

650

660

640

630

630

640

660650640

630620

630

630

630

640

630

630

64063

0

640

630

640

630

640

640

640

640

650

640

650

660

670

670

660

630

640

650

630

670

670

670 67

0

670

660

650

650

640

630

640

650

650

650660

660

660

640

630

620

610

620

610

60059

0

580

580

610600 590

620630

630

620

620610

600

590

580580590

670

660

670

660

650

660

660

660650

640

650

650650

660

650

640

630 620

640

630640

620610

630

640

650 630

620

610

600 59

0

590

600

610

620

630

650

620

640

640

650

630

620

640

650

610

600

630

590

650

640

630620

610

590

590600610620

610

620

630

640650

620

48

660

640

650

630

660

640

630

620610

570

640

620

610

600

610 600

610

620620

62062

0

620

610

610

620

61060

0

610620

610

600

620

610

610

610600610

620

630 630

640

650

620

610

600

590

590600610620630

640

650650

640630620

630640

650660

670

590600

600

590

610

620

630

610

620

630

650640

630

620610

600

600

660

650

640630

640

650

660

670

670

670660

670

660

650

660

640

630

630

640

620

660650640

630620

630

630

630

640

630

640

640

650

640

650

660

670

670

660

630

640

650

630

670

670

670 67

0

670

660

650

650

640

630

640

650

650

650660

660

660

640

630

620

610

620

610

60059

0

580

580

610600 590

620630

630

620

620610

600

590

580580590

670

660

670

660

650

660

660

660650

640

650

650650

660

650

640

630 620

640

630

640

620610600

630640

650 630

620

610

600 59

0

590

600

610

620

630

650

620

640650

640

650

630

620

640

650

610

630

590

650

640

630620

610

590

590600610620

610

620

630

640650

620

48

660

640

650

630

620

660

640

630

620610

570

640

0 1200 2400

SCALE IN FEET

DATE OF AERIAL: May - 2011(merged with Google Earth imageryApril - 2011 for southern coverage)

NORTH

Runway 13-31 (6,451’x150’)

Runw

ay 1

7-35

(4,8

35’x

150’

)

Mar

iner

Dri

ve

Voya

ger D

rive

Voya

ger D

rive

West Ledbetter DriveWest Ledbetter Drive

S H

ampt

on R

d.S

Ham

pton

Rd.

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

Challenger D

rive

Apollo D

r.

Apollo D

r.

Saturn Drive

Saturn Drive

Runway 13-31 (6,451’x150’)

Mar

iner

Dri

ve

650

650

Voya

ger D

rive

Voya

ger D

rive

Red Bird Lane

Red Bird Lane


S H

ampt

on R

d.S

Ham

pton

Rd.

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

Challenger D

rive

Apollo D

r.

Apollo D

r.

Saturn Drive

Saturn Drive

Runw

ay 1

7-35

(4,0

0’x1

50’)


ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2

400’

300’ 300’

735’

610610610610

19.58 Acres19.58 Acres19.58 Acres 19.58 Acres19.58 Acres19.58 Acres

Exhibit 4Q: RUNWAY 17-35 EXTENSION OPTIONS ARC B-II STANDARDS

670670

660660

00




Ultimate Airfield Pavement

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

LEGEND




Alternative 1, presented on the left side of Exhibit 4Q, proposes extensions to both ends of the runway. The runway could be extended 303 feet to the south while maintaining the full ARC B-II RSA which extends 300 feet beyond the runway. The RSA would be placed at the airport perimeter fence just north of the perimeter road. The alternative also considers a 409-foot northerly extension. This extension was selected to minimize costs associated with having to fi ll and embank areas farther north. The resultant runway length provided by Alternative 1 would be 4,512 feet. Costs associated with this alternative have been estimated at $4.914 million without consideration of property costs for the south RPZ.

Alternative 2 is essentially the same as Alternative 1, however, the proposed northerly extension of Runway 17-35 is 511 feet. This is the maximum extension possible which would allow the RPZ to remain on current airport property. As proposed, this alternative would provide 4,614 feet of runway length. The costs of implementing Alternative 2 have been estimated at $5.95 million.

The two extension alternatives for Runway 17-35 would improve the runway’s ability to serve small business jets during most days. On hot days, however, the proposed length could be too short to meet turbine aircraft needs. After meeting with the airport staff , TxDOT, and the PAC, an alternative will be selected and carried forward into the next chapter.

TAXIWAYS

The taxiway system at Dallas Executive Airport includes partial parallel taxiways, entrance/exit taxiways, and connector taxiways. The primary

consideration in this analysis is to ensure that the taxiway system meets FAA design standards.

Analysis in the previous chapter indicated that future planning should consider the opportunity for the critical aircraft to transition to ARC C/D-III. Moreover, planning should also factor the implementation of a Category I (CAT I) precision instrument approach procedure with visibility minimums of ½-mile and cloud ceilings as low as 200 feet on Runway 31. In order to meet FAA standards for ARC C/D-III and/or a CAT I instrument approach, the parallel taxiway serving the runway designed for such would need to be separated from the runway by at least 400 feet (centerline to centerline). Partial parallel Taxiway B serving the northwestern portion of Runway 13-31 does not currently meet this standard. Taxiway B is currently located 300 feet east of the runway (centerline to centerline).

Exhibit 4R illustrates the alternative of shifting Taxiway B to a location 400 feet east of the runway centerline. It would also include a new connector stub taxiway linking the east apron with Taxiway B through Runway 17-35. It is believed that the shifted taxiway will also need to serve an extended runway as presented in the Runway Safety Area Determination section earlier. Therefore, Taxiway B would need to be

shifted 100 feet to the east and then extended either 535 feet or 685 feet northwest of its current end location as depicted on the exhibit.

Shifting the taxiway 100 feet east, and then extending it 535 feet to the proposed extended runway is estimated to cost $16.654 million. For the proposed 685-foot extension and 100-foot easterly shift, costs are estimated at $16.96 million. The relatively high costs for relocating and extending Taxiway B are, in large part, due to the signifi cant elevation changes north of existing Taxiway B. Thus, if the runway is extended as proposed in either alternative, the costs associated with shifting the taxiway to be 400 feet east of the runway would likely be considered too high. As a result, Runway 13-31 may not be capable of meeting ARC C/D-III runway-to-taxiway separation standards and thereby not qualify for CAT I instrument approach minimums.

LANDSIDE PLANNING ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of this section is to identify and evaluate viable landside alternatives at Dallas Executive Airport to meet program requirements set forth in the previous chapter. While the airfi eld is comprised of facilities where aircraft movement occurs (runways,

0 600 1200

SCALE IN FEET

DATE OF AERIAL:May - 2011

NORTH


Alternative 2a: No Runway Extension/Ultimate Taxiway B Recocated at 400‘ Separation

Runway/Taxiway Extension

Pavement to be Removed

Alternative 2b: 535’ Runway Extension/Ultimate Taxiway B Recocated at 400‘ Separation




Alternative 2c: 685’ Runway Extension/Ultimate Taxiway B Recocated at 400‘ Separation




LEGEND

Exhibit 4R: TAXIWAY BRAVO 100’ SHIFT ALTERNATIVE

660

670670

670 67

0

670

660

650

650

640

630

640

650

650 650

660

660

660

61

610

600620

630

630

620

620

610

600

590

580

580590

670

660

670

660

650

660

660

660650

640

650

650650

650

660

650

640

630

620

640

630

640

620610600

630

640

650

630

620

610

600

590

610

620

630

650

620

640

650

640

650

630

620

640

650

610

600

630

590

650

640

630

620

610

590

590600

610

620

610

620

630

640650

648

660

640

650

660

640

630

620610

570

Runway 13-31 (6,451’x150’)

Runw

ay 1

7-35

(3,8

00’x

150’

)

Mar

iner

Dri

ve

Voya

ger D

rive

Voya

ger D

rive

670

670

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

adW

estm

orel

and

Road


S H

ampt

on R

d.Challenger D

rive

Apollo D

r.

Saturn Drive

Saturn Drive

Alt. 2c: 685’

Alt. 2b: 535’

400’


Dallas Executive AirportAirport Master Plan - Draft Final





taxiways, etc.), landside facilities are designed to accommodate the transfer of passengers between the air and ground. The primary aviation functions to be accomplished via landside at Dallas Executive Airport include aircraft storage hangars, aircraft parking aprons, general aviation terminal facilities, and automobile parking and access. The interrelationship of these functions is important to defi ning a long-range landside layout for general aviation uses at the airport. Due to an abundance of land available at the airport, careful consideration will also be given to areas that could be considered for non-aviation uses that can provide additional revenue support to the airport and support economic development for the region.

The orderly development of the airport terminal area, those areas along the fl ight line parallel to the runway, can be the most critical, and oftentimes the most diffi cult to control on the airport. A development approach of taking the path of least resistance can have a signifi cant impact on the long-term viability of an airport. Allowing development without regard to a functional plan could result in a haphazard array of buildings and small apron areas, which will eventually preclude the most effi cient use of valuable space along the fl ight line. Landside alternative considerations were summarized previously on Exhibit 4A. The following briefl y describes proposed landside facility improvements.

AVIATION ACTIVITY LEVELS

Landside development areas should be divided into high, medium, and low intensity activity levels at the airport. The high-activity area should be planned and developed to provide aviation

services on the airport. An example of the high-activity areas is the airport terminal building and adjoining aircraft parking apron, which provides tiedown locations and circulation for aircraft. In addition, large conventional hangars used for fi xed base operators (FBOs), aircraft maintenance, corporate aviation departments, or bulk aircraft storage would be considered a high-activity use area. The best location for high-activity areas is along the fl ight line, for ease of access to all areas on the airfi eld. Major utility infrastructure would need to be provided to these areas.

The medium-activity use category defi nes the next level of airport use and primarily includes smaller corporate aircraft that may desire their own executive hangar storage on the airport. The best location for medium-activity use is off the immediate flight line, but still readily accessible to aircraft including corporate jets. Due to an airport’s layout and other existing conditions, if this area is to be located along the flight line, it is best to keep it out of the midfield area of the airport, so as to not cause congestion with transient aircraft utilizing the airport. Parking and utilities such as water and sewer should also be provided in this area.

The low-activity use category defi nes the area for storage of smaller single

and multi-engine aircraft. Low-activity users are personal or small business aircraft owners who prefer individual space in T-hangars and linear box hangars. Low-activity areas should be located in less conspicuous areas. This use category will require electricity, but generally does not require water or sewer utilities.

Ideally, terminal area facilities at airports should follow a linear confi guration parallel to the primary runway system. The linear confi guration allows for maximizing available space while providing ease of access to terminal facilities from the airfi eld. Landside alternatives will address development in specifi c areas on the airport. Separation of activity levels and effi ciency of layout will be discussed as well.

In addition to the functional compatibility of the aviation development areas, the proposed development concept should provide a fi rst-class appearance for Dallas Executive Airport. As previously mentioned, the airport serves as a very important link to the entire region whether it is for business or pleasure. Consideration to aesthetics should be given high priority in all public areas, as the airport can serve as the fi rst impression a visitor may have of the community.




Dallas Executive Airport is located on approximately 1,070 acres. In order to allow for maximum development of the airport while keeping with FAA mandated safety design standards, it is very important to devise a plan that allows for the orderly development of airport facilities. Typically, airports will reserve property adjacent to the run-way system for aviation-related activity exclusively. This will allow for the loca-tion of taxiways, aprons, and hangars.

In those circumstances where ultimate demand levels fall short of ultimate build-out need, some airports will encourage non-aviation commercial or industrial development. The potential of non-aviation development on airport property can provide an additional revenue source in the form of long-term land leases for the airport. As evidenced in Chapter Two, aviation-related growth is forecast to increase throughout the planning period of this Master Plan, thus, a large portion of airport property should be dedicated for airfi eld operations and aviation use; however, planning will consider designating certain portions of airport property for non-aviation development as well.

AIRCRAFT HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Landside alternatives to follow will consider the construction of additional aircraft hangars at Dallas Executive Airport. Hangar development takes on a variety of sizes corresponding with several diff erent uses.

Commercial general aviation activities are essential to providing the necessary services needed on an airport, especially at a reliever airport located in a large metropolitan area such as the case for Dallas Executive Airport. This includes businesses involved

with, but not limited to, aircraft rental and fl ight training, aircraft charters, aircraft maintenance, line service, and aircraft fueling. These types of operations are commonly referred to as FBOs. The facilities associated with businesses such as these include large conventional type hangars that hold several aircraft. High levels of activity often characterize these operations, with a need for apron space for the storage and circulation of aircraft. These facilities are best placed along ample apron frontage with good visibility from the runway system for transient aircraft. Utility services are needed for these types of facilities, as well as automobile parking areas.

The mix of aircraft using Dallas Executive Airport is expected to continue to include business class aircraft which have larger wingspans. These larger aircraft require greater separation distances between facilities, larger apron areas for parking and circulation, and larger hangar facilities.

Aircraft hangars used for the storage of smaller aircraft primarily involve T-hangars or linear box hangars. Since storage hangars often have lower levels of activity, these types of facilities can be located away from the primary apron areas, in more remote locations of the airport. Limited utility services are needed for these areas.

Other types of hangar development can include executive hangars for accommodating several aircraft

simultaneously. Typically, these types of hangars are used by corporations with company-owned aircraft or by an individual or group of individuals with multiple aircraft. These hangar areas typically require all utilities and segregated roadway access. Currently, there is over 500,000 square feet of hangar, offi ce, and maintenance area provided at Dallas Executive Airport made up of a combination of the hangar types previously discussed.

REVENUE SUPPORT LAND USES

Due to the large amount of land on airport property exceeding the space needed for forecast aviation demand, consideration has been given for the City of Dallas – Aviation Department to utilize portions of the airport for non-aeronautical purposes such as commercial, industrial, or manufacturing development. It should be noted that the City does not have the approval to use airport property for non-aeronautical purposes at this time. Non-aviation use of airport property requires specifi c approval from the FAA. The Master Plan process is not the method of obtaining such an approval for non-aeronautical uses, even if these uses are ultimately shown in the Master Plan and on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). A separate request justifying the use of airport property for non-aeronautical uses will be required once the Master Plan is complete. The Master Plan can be a source for developing that justifi cation.



Federal Law obligates an airport sponsor to use all property shown on an ALP and/or Property Map for public airport purposes. A distinction is generally not made between property acquired locally and property acquired with federal assistance. However, property acquired with federal assistance or transferred surplus property from the federal government may have specifi c covenants or restrictions on its use diff erent from property acquired locally.

These obligations will require that the City work with TxDOT to formally request a release from the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in any conveyance deeds and assurances in previous grant agreements. A release is required even if the airport desires to continue to own the land and only lease the land for development. The obligations relate to the use of the land just as much as they do to the ownership of the land.

U.S. Code 47153 authorizes the FAA to release airport land when it is convincingly clear that:

a. Airport property no longer serves the purpose for which it was conveyed. In other words, the airport does not need the land now or in the future because it has no aviation-related or aeronautical use, nor does it serve as approach protection, a compatible land use, or a noise buff er zone.

b. The release will not prevent the airport from carrying out the purpose for which the land was conveyed. In other words, the airport will not experience any negative impacts from relinquishing the land.

c. The release is actually necessary to advance the civil aviation interests of the counters. In other words, there is a measurable and tangible benefi t for the airport or the airport system.

Ultimately, the ability of the City to use airport property for non-aeronautical revenue production will rest upon a determination by the FAA that portions of airport property are no longer needed for airport-related or aeronautical uses. To prove that land is not needed for aeronautical purposes, an assessment and determination of the area that will be required for aeronautical purposes will be needed. The Master Plan provides this analysis.

A formal request to the FAA for a release from federal obligations will have several distinct elements. The major elements of the request will include:

1. A description of the obligating conveyance instrument or grant.

2. A complete property description including a legal description of the land to be released.

3. A description of the property condition.

4. A description of federal obligations.

5. The kind of release requested. (lease or sale)

6. Purpose of the release.

7. Justifi cation for the release.

8. Disposition and market value of the released land.

9. Reinvestment agreement. A commitment by the County to reinvest any lease revenues exclusively for the improvement, operation, and maintenance of the airport.

10. Draft instrument of release.

An environmental determination will also be required. While FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Policies and Procedures, states that a release of an airport sponsor from federal obligations is normally categorically excluded and would not normally require an Environmental Assessment (EA), the issuance of a categorical exclusion is not automatic and the FAA must determine that no extraordinary circumstances exist at the airport. Extraordinary circumstances would include a signifi cant environmental impact to any of the environmental resources governed by Federal Law. An EA may be required if there are extraordinary circumstances.

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE

The building restriction line (BRL) identifi es suitable building areas on the airport. The BRL encompasses runway safety areas, obstruction clearances, RPZs, navigational aid critical areas, areas required for terminal instrument procedures, and other areas necessary for meeting airport line-of-sight requirements.

Two primary factors contribute to the determination of the BRL: type of runway (utility or other-than-utility) and the capability of the instrument approaches. At Dallas Executive Airport, Runways 13-31 and 17-35 are considered other-than-utility runways given that they support business jet




operations and are aff orded straight-in instrument approach procedures. Runway 13-31 provides for precision instrument approach minimums while non-precision instrument approach minimums apply to Runway 17-35.

The BRL is a product of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 transitional surface clearance requirements. These requirements stipulate that no object be located in the primary surface, defi ned as being no closer than 250 feet from a non-precision instrument runway having visibility minimums greater than ¾-mile and no closer than 500 feet to a runway served by a precision or non-precision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as ¾-mile. From the primary surface, the transitional surface extends outward at a slope of one vertical foot to every seven horizontal feet. Traditionally, the BRL is set at a point where the transitional surface is 35 feet above the runway elevation. For Runway 17-35, this distance is 495 feet from the runway centerline. For Runway 13-31, this dimension is 745 feet from the runway centerline. It should be noted that structures can be located between the BRL and the primary surface as long as the highest point of the structure is not a penetration to the 7:1 transitional surface. Careful consideration should be given to potential landside development as it relates to the BRL, especially on the west side of the airport.

Airfi eld development should also be planned so it does not penetrate the runway visibility zone (RVZ). It is recommended that a clear RVZ be maintained where two runways intersect. The RVZ outlines the area needed to be clear of obstructions so that aircraft on both runways can see other aircraft before it is too late to avert

an accident. The distance between the runways’ intersection and each runway end determines the location of each runway’s visibility point.

LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

There are two large areas which are given specifi c attention for planned development at Dallas Executive Airport. The fi rst is the area on the east side of the airport. Currently, the majority of landside development is located on the airport’s east side, and property remains available for future development. Several parcels of land are available that could accommodate both aviation and non-aviation related development. Due to the existing infrastructure (roadways, utilities, etc.) in place to support future development, the east side of the airport could accommodate a signifi cant amount of future growth needs. For these reasons, future development in this area is planned and will be discussed in the next section.

A second area that currently supports limited development is on the west side of the airport. Over 250 acres of land is highlighted in the form of mixed aviation and non-aviation uses. Recent infrastructure improvements have positioned land on the airport’s west side to be attractive for development. As a result, alternatives for potential development in this area will also be discussed. Exhibit 4S provides a generalized land use plan for the future development of Dallas Executive Airport.

The alternatives to be presented are not the only options for development. In some cases, a portion of one alternative could be intermixed with another. Also, some development concepts

could be replaced with others. The fi nal recommended plan only serves as a guide for the airport which will aid the City in strategic marketing of available airport properties. Many times, airport operators change their plan to meet the need of specifi c users. The goal in analyzing landside development alternatives is to focus future development so that airport property can be maximized.

EAST LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS

As previously discussed, the majority of existing development is located on the east side of the airport and consists of a general aviation terminal building, aircraft storage hangars, aircraft parking aprons, and support facilities to include fuel storage, automobile parking, and aircraft rescue and fi refi ghting (ARFF). Exhibit 4T highlights other areas on the east side that could be utilized for aviation-related development. In addition, certain parcels are designated for potential non-aviation development.

Approximately 24 acres of land located between Challenger Drive and Mariner

0 1000 2000

SCALE IN FEET

DATE OF AERIAL:May - 2011

NORTH

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

adW

estm

orel

and

Road

West Ledbetter DriveWest Ledbetter DriveAirport Property Line

Runway Visibility Zone

Airfield Operations

Aviation Related Development

Mixed Use Aviation/Non-Aviation Development

Non-Aviation Related Development

Public/Institutional

Open Space/Recreational

LEGEND

Runway 13-31 (6,451’x150’)

Runw

ay 1

7-35

(3,8

00’x

150’

)

Mar

iner

Dri

veM

arin

er D

rive

Voya

ger D

rive

Voya

ger D

rive

Red Bird LaneRed Bird Lane

S H

ampt

on R

d.S

Ham

pton

Rd.

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

Challenger D

rive

Challenger D

rive

Apollo D

r.

Apollo D

r.

Saturn Drive


Exhibit 4S: GENERALIZED ON-AIRPORT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN

221 ac.221 ac.221 ac.

55 ac.55 ac.55 ac.

112 ac.112 ac.112 ac.

19 ac.19 ac.19 ac.18 ac.18 ac.18 ac.

15 ac.15 ac.15 ac.

11 ac.11 ac.11 ac.

16 ac.16 ac.16 ac.

21 ac.21 ac.21 ac.

89 ac.89 ac.89 ac.

3 ac.3 ac.3 ac.

9 ac.9 ac.9 ac.

11 ac.11 ac.11 ac.

38 ac.38 ac.38 ac.

294 ac.294 ac.294 ac.

123 ac.123 ac.123 ac.

0.8 ac.0.8 ac.0.8 ac.

dallas executive airport master plan chapter 4.4 df 1

Documents