peter j. kirsch ga airport use limitations: policy update university of california institute of...
TRANSCRIPT
Peter J. Kirsch
GA Airport Use Limitations: Policy Update
University of California Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California Institute of Transportation StudiesAviation Noise Symposium 2004Aviation Noise Symposium 2004
Jet Set GoJet Set GoEnvironmental Aviation Takes OffEnvironmental Aviation Takes Off
Today’s Presentation
• Why Focus on GA Airports?
• New FAA Policy – Weight Limits
• Trends in FAA Policymaking
• Implications
Focus on GA Airports
• Success of ANCA at large commercial airports
• 25 Years of Part 150 successes (primarily commercial airports)
• Absence of land use buffers (commercial and industrial land uses)
• Post 2001 growth patterns
200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000
OPERATIONS
(Los Angeles) VNY
MSP
(Denver) APA
BOS
(Phoenix) DVT
(Daytona) DAB
(Orlando) SFB
(Los Angeles) LGB
SFO
(Tulsa) RVS
JFK
(Seattle) BFI
(Ft. Lauderdale) FXE
(New York) TEB
GA Airport ≠ Small Airport
GA AirportsCommercial Airports
Weight Limitations –Recent History
Teterboro Decision
• February 2002 FAA response to Boeing complaint
• TEB has prior-permission rule for aircraft over 100,000 pounds MTOW
• Boeing: limit not based on pavement strength; could handle BBJ @ 171,000 #
Teterboro
• “No federal obligation” to allow aircraft over 100,000 pounds because of design standards at this airport.
• “The FAA cannot require an airport owner to reconstruct airport pavements to accommodate a heavier aircraft.”
• The proprietor “reserves the right to make managerial and planning decisions relative to the long term use” of the airport.
New FAA Weight Policy
• Controversial – 2000+ comments• Defines when weight limit is
“reasonable” under grant assurances• Realigns the balance: protect
physical facility vs. allow access• Bright line rules probably
unreasonable• Does not apply to airport geometry
(?)
New Weight Policy
1. Proprietor has obligation to accommodate heaviest aircraft that desire to use airport.
2. “In most cases it should not be necessary or appropriate to impose aircraft operating restrictions to protect pavement from occasional operations of aircraft which exceed the published pavement strength.”
3. Weight may be limited only to the extent needed to prevent actual damage and excessive wear.
New Weight Policy
4. Use actual weight bearing capacity, not design criteria for limitations.
5. Proprietor has burden to demonstrate reasonableness.
6. Can avoid regulatory scrutiny by upgrading pavement to accommodate all who desire to operate.
7. Proprietor must have engineering evidence on the “effect of operations” at certain weights.
New Weight Policy
8. Limits “motivated by interest in mitigating noise” are unreasonable and impermissible.
9. Policy is draft in name only: “the FAA will apply the policy as proposed” until a final policy is adopted.
Implications of New Policy
• No bright lines; lots of PPRs
• Invitation to challenge historic limitations
• Unintended consequences– Maintenance– Runway improvements– Operational costs
• Education of public
Why the Concern About Weight?
• Explosion in corporate GA traffic
• New GA aircraft (BBJ, C320, Global Exp.)
• Blurred size distinction – GA vs. commercial aircraft
• FAA perception: weight is surrogate for noise/ growth limits
• Community perception: weight is surrogate for impacts/ commercial operations
Introduction of Larger GA Aircraft
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
MTOW
BBJ
A-320
737-800
Global Express
G-V
G-IV
CRJ700
Embraer 145
Lear 60
Lear 45
Beech 1900
Commercial AircraftGA Aircraft
Context
• Weight policy is latest in recent trend over last 24+ months: Increased FAA (and FAA HQ) control over airport operations, decision making
Context: Recent Trends
• Part 139 revisions (9 seat rule)
• Safety/operational limitations
• Reevaluation of old noise rules
• Renewed strict application of noise compatibility threshold (65 dB DNL)
• Aggressive attack noise rules (new verb: to be Napled)
FAAFAAAirports
The Historic BalanceThe Historic Balance
Airport F
acilities
Airport F
acilities
FAA
Airports
The The New New BalanceBalance
Reactions to FAA Initiatives
• Concern about facility maintenance
• Increased proprietor focus on GA traffic
• Alternate, creative approaches
• Pleas to Congress
Congressional Involvement
• Passenger Service: Centennial (Arapahoe County, CO)
• Stage 2 Ban: Jackson Hole (WY)
• Weight Limits: Teterboro (NJ)
• New Runway: Louis Armstrong (New Orleans, LA)
• Airspace Reallocation: UT, AZ, NJ
FAAFAA
The The NewNew New Balance New Balance ??
AirportsAirportsCongressCongress PublicPublic
Conclusions and Observations
• Historic agency antagonism• Increasingly aggressive approach• Substantially greater federal control –
– Weight– Noise– Safety
• Agency focus on purpose, intent purpose, intent or or effecteffect• Exceptions for industry-promoted efforts
Questions
Source documents are posted
on our web site or
we can email you copies
www.AirportAttorneys.com
Contact Information
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell1675 BroadwaySuite 2300Denver, CO 80202Tel: 303 825 7000Cell: 303 898 1665Fax: 303 825 7005Email: [email protected]: www.AirportAttorneys.com