Executive Summary-1 Executive Summary
Executive Summary | June 2014
Executive Summary The primary intent of the Phase II Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) Future Air Service Planning Study was to identify two to four viable options for improving the infrastructure at the airport for the purposes of preserving commercial air service for the airport in the future while at the same time increasing safety and maintaining the efficiency and operational capacity of the airport. Over a six month time period, 18 alternatives were developed and evaluated in coordination with representatives from the FAA, Air Traffic, Pitkin County, air carriers, and multiple industry experts who specialize in flight procedure engineering, economic impact evaluation, and land use planning. Over three meetings, all viable alternatives were discussed and deliberated by this study group, resulting in two alternatives which met the primary objectives of the study, as follows: • Meet or improve FAA standards of safety, efficiency and operational capacity • Minimize the impact on the facilities previously approved in the 2012 Master Plan Update • Accommodate larger future regional commercial aircraft All 18 alternatives which were developed proposed a variety of airfield configurations and improvements in an effort to meet the study objectives above. Some alternatives considered improvements that did not meet FAA standards, while other options strived to meet all associated FAA standard to the extent possible. All alternatives were developed, refined, or removed through the study process. Figure 1 shows the range of the alternatives: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport strive to ensure that ASE operates in a manner to meet standards of safety, efficiency and operational capacity. In order to do so, the Airport must constantly monitor and evaluate such things as enhanced safety standards, changing trends in air travel, consolidations of air carriers, development of NextGen technology, opportunities for business development, and evolving aircraft fleet design—all of this, while maintaining the highest level of safety. To that end, the Airport along with the FAA, have made numerous safety enhancements to the Airport. Through the recently completed Master Planning process, key improvements have been identified to ensure the ongoing safety and viability of the Airport well into the future. Of significance over the past several years is the development and design of new aircraft that provide financial viability to an ever-changing air carrier industry, as well as a more environmentally-sound aircraft to reduce noise and carbon footprints on our communities. This evolution
has resulted in larger regional commercial aircraft that will require the Airport and the FAA to consider infrastructure changes to accommodate ASE’s future commercial air service. Phase I of the Future Air Service Planning Study took an in depth look at the existing fleet versus the future commercial aircraft capable of serving ASE. The outcome of this phase of the study provided an understanding that the existing commercial aircraft which serve ASE will soon be retired from the fleet, and the current airfield configuration of ASE will be incapable of servicing the larger future regional commercial aircraft entering the market. The resulting aircraft capable of serving ASE in the future can be seen in Table 1.
Figure 1
Does not meet FAA standards (MOS) • Alterna ves 1, 2, 5, 5a, 9, 10, 13
The Airport is physically constrained, due to topography and the proximity of Highway 82. In particular, there is little room on the east side of the Runway. The close proximity of Highway 82 limits the available space and makes it practically infeasible to accommodate both the taxiway and the necessary apron parking space while also satisfying the FAA lateral separation standards. The Airport has several Modifications to Standards (MOS) that have been previously approved by the FAA. These modifications have been required to document the
Meets FAA standards with significant impact • Alterna ves 4, 6, 7, 7a, 7b, 8
Meets FAA standards to the greatest extent possible with major opera onal impact • Alterna ves 3, 11, 12
Meets FAA standards to the greatest extent possible with reasonable opera onal impact • Alterna ves 8a, 12a
Table 1: Aircraft Technical Specifications Wingspan Aircraft Type
Feet/Inches
Meets/Does Not Meet Current Operational Restrictions
Meters
Max LW (Lbs.)
ASE Performance Capable
23.2 28.4 24.9 26.2 26 26 28.7 28.7
67,000 62,000 73,500 81,500 72,312 74,957 94,799 99,208
Yes Yes No No No No No No
Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets
31 33.7 33.7 29.2 29.2 35.1 35.1
86,201 107,431 116,911 79,807 83,776 110,000 121,500
Yes* Yes* TBD* TBD TBD Yes Yes
Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet
Current Regional Aircraft
CRJ-700 Q-400 CRJ-900 CRJ-1000 E-170 E-175 E-190 E-195
76’ 3” 93’ 3” 81’ 7” 85’ 11” 85’ 4” 85’ 4” 94’ 3” 94’ 3”
Future Regional Aircraft
E175-E2 E190-E2 E195-E2 MRJ-70 Standard MRJ-90 Standard CS100 Base CS300 Base
101’ 8” 110’ 7” 110’ 7” 95’ 9” 95’ 9” 115’ 1” 115’ 1”
Source: Manufacturers; *E-Jets E2 data are preliminary
| Executive Summary-1
June 2014 | Executive Summary non-standard conditions that currently exist at the airport due to the existing mountainous terrain surrounding the airport and limitations on the available space on the airfield to meet all of the FAA geometric design standards, as well as the overall longitudinal gradient of the land on which the airfield resides. Each of these MOS for non-standard conditions at the Airport have been evaluated and approved by the FAA and have demonstrated that such conditions do provide an acceptable level of safety for air transportation. The FAA currently allows the runway to taxiway centerline distance MOS to operate in conjunction with Title X, Pitkin County Code, which limits the allowable wingspan of aircraft to 95 feet or less. This is the current acceptable level of safety at the airport. This Future Air Service Planning Study provides an industry review of changing commercial aircraft fleet design technology and a comprehensive review of potential alternatives to ensure that ASE can continue to remain a relevant airport well into the future by maintaining commercial air service, while at the same time meeting the needs of the community and the flying public. To address the objectives and intent of the study, the following project scope was developed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and included the following: • Review of regulatory environment • Analysis of airfield and airspace configuration • Feasibility analysis of different options to ensure future commercial air service to ASE (including likelihood of community support, cost, compliance with FAA regulations, etc.) • Presentations to BOCC including draft alternatives and decision point regarding scope and decision regarding Phase III (next steps) This phase of the study provides a conceptual level evaluation for proposed airfield reconfiguration alternatives. These conceptual designs analyzed alternatives in sufficient detail to identify preliminary airspace, and regulatory considerations, as well as provide preliminary cost estimates, of viable options. These various items in the Phase II study are described in more detail in the following paragraphs. Step A Step A of Phase II included analysis for each of the initial nine alternatives as follows: 33Evaluated initial airfield configurations alternative 33Evaluated viability of west side Fixed Base Operator (FBO)
Executive Summary-2 |
33Considered potential MOS required for each alternative 33Evaluated Runway 15 approach surface impacts and airspace impacts 33Studied preliminary impacts to Owl Creek Road The Step A conclusion meeting was held on February 18, 2014 to refine alternatives based upon the study objectives. Six alternatives were carried forward to Step B, while three alternatives were removed. Four new alternatives were created to also be analyzed during Step B. Step B Step B considered ten alternatives resulting from the Step A meeting. New alternatives were developed and analyzed using Step A criteria. Additional analysis was performed on each remaining alternative: 33Assessed impacts to Master Plan and future aircraft parking areas 33Refined impacts to Owl Creek Road and adjacent property 33Evaluated impacts to Highway 82 Right-of-Way 33Considered impact of meeting FAA standards for east side Taxiway Object Free Area and runway holdbar distances The Step B conclusion meeting held on April 3, 2014 further refined alternatives. Three alternatives were carried forward to Step C, while seven alternatives were removed. Three new alternatives were developed for Step C evaluation. Step C As a result of the Step B meeting, six alternatives were further developed and evaluated utilizing analysis from Steps A and B. In addition, the following analysis performed on each of the remaining alternatives: 33Evaluated approach surface for Runway 33 33Refined impacts and improvements to Owl Creek Road 33Developed conceptual construction phasing 33Produced conceptual economic impacts from construction 33Evaluated approach and departure procedures for existing and proposed runway locations 33Identified potential items requiring local and federal approval A meeting for the conclusion of Step C was held on May 30, 2014. One alternative was slightly modified and carried forward to Step D as a new alternative. A previously removed alternative from Step B was restored but slightly modified to be carried forward to Step D as a new alternative. The six alternatives presented at the Step C meeting were removed from the study.
Step D Two remaining alternatives as a result from Step C underwent a more detailed evaluation and design in order to understand impact and cost. 33Developed conceptual design elements (grading, drainage, utilities, etc.) 33Produced conceptual cost estimates 33Explored feasibility of these alternatives 33Prepared Final Report for Phase II Future Air Service Study 33Prepared BOCC presentation With the completion of Step D, it is recommended that Alternatives 8a and 12a be forwarded to the BOCC for further consideration. Conclusion At the conclusion of this four step study process, through much evaluation and collaboration by all parties within the study group, two alternatives remained which the FAA and Airport believe meet the objectives of the study to the highest extent possible. These alternatives are recommended to the BOCC for consideration to move forward to the Phase III of the overall Future Air Service Planning Study. All other alternatives which were considered and removed from the study have been deemed less capable of meeting the objectives as previously stated in this summary. A detailed discussion of the Phase II study process as well as identification and analysis of the two surviving alternatives follows this executive summary of the Future Air Service Planning Study – Phase II Final Report. Exhibits of all alternatives contemplated in this study can be found in Appendices B, C, and D.
Executive Summary The primary intent of the Phase II Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) Future Air Service Planning Study was to identify two to four viable options for improving the infrastructure at the airport for the purposes of preserving commercial air service for the airport in the future while at the same time increasing safety and maintaining the efficiency and operational capacity of the airport. Over a six month time period, 18 alternatives were developed and evaluated in coordination with representatives from the FAA, Air Traffic, Pitkin County, air carriers, and multiple industry experts who specialize in flight procedure engineering, economic impact evaluation, and land use planning. Over three meetings, all viable alternatives were discussed and deliberated by this study group, resulting in two alternatives which met the primary objectives of the study, as follows: • Meet or improve FAA standards of safety, efficiency and operational capacity • Minimize the impact on the facilities previously approved in the 2012 Master Plan Update • Accommodate larger future regional commercial aircraft All 18 alternatives which were developed proposed a variety of airfield configurations and improvements in an effort to meet the study objectives above. Some alternatives considered improvements that did not meet FAA standards, while other options strived to meet all associated FAA standard to the extent possible. All alternatives were developed, refined, or removed through the study process. Figure 1 shows the range of the alternatives: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport strive to ensure that ASE operates in a manner to meet standards of safety, efficiency and operational capacity. In order to do so, the Airport must constantly monitor and evaluate such things as enhanced safety standards, changing trends in air travel, consolidations of air carriers, development of NextGen technology, opportunities for business development, and evolving aircraft fleet design—all of this, while maintaining the highest level of safety. To that end, the Airport along with the FAA, have made numerous safety enhancements to the Airport. Through the recently completed Master Planning process, key improvements have been identified to ensure the ongoing safety and viability of the Airport well into the future. Of significance over the past several years is the development and design of new aircraft that provide financial viability to an ever-changing air carrier industry, as well as a more environmentally-sound aircraft to reduce noise and carbon footprints on our communities. This evolution
has resulted in larger regional commercial aircraft that will require the Airport and the FAA to consider infrastructure changes to accommodate ASE’s future commercial air service. Phase I of the Future Air Service Planning Study took an in depth look at the existing fleet versus the future commercial aircraft capable of serving ASE. The outcome of this phase of the study provided an understanding that the existing commercial aircraft which serve ASE will soon be retired from the fleet, and the current airfield configuration of ASE will be incapable of servicing the larger future regional commercial aircraft entering the market. The resulting aircraft capable of serving ASE in the future can be seen in Table 1.
Figure 1
Does not meet FAA standards (MOS) • Alterna ves 1, 2, 5, 5a, 9, 10, 13
The Airport is physically constrained, due to topography and the proximity of Highway 82. In particular, there is little room on the east side of the Runway. The close proximity of Highway 82 limits the available space and makes it practically infeasible to accommodate both the taxiway and the necessary apron parking space while also satisfying the FAA lateral separation standards. The Airport has several Modifications to Standards (MOS) that have been previously approved by the FAA. These modifications have been required to document the
Meets FAA standards with significant impact • Alterna ves 4, 6, 7, 7a, 7b, 8
Meets FAA standards to the greatest extent possible with major opera onal impact • Alterna ves 3, 11, 12
Meets FAA standards to the greatest extent possible with reasonable opera onal impact • Alterna ves 8a, 12a
Table 1: Aircraft Technical Specifications Wingspan Aircraft Type
Feet/Inches
Meets/Does Not Meet Current Operational Restrictions
Meters
Max LW (Lbs.)
ASE Performance Capable
23.2 28.4 24.9 26.2 26 26 28.7 28.7
67,000 62,000 73,500 81,500 72,312 74,957 94,799 99,208
Yes Yes No No No No No No
Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets
31 33.7 33.7 29.2 29.2 35.1 35.1
86,201 107,431 116,911 79,807 83,776 110,000 121,500
Yes* Yes* TBD* TBD TBD Yes Yes
Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Does Not Meet
Current Regional Aircraft
CRJ-700 Q-400 CRJ-900 CRJ-1000 E-170 E-175 E-190 E-195
76’ 3” 93’ 3” 81’ 7” 85’ 11” 85’ 4” 85’ 4” 94’ 3” 94’ 3”
Future Regional Aircraft
E175-E2 E190-E2 E195-E2 MRJ-70 Standard MRJ-90 Standard CS100 Base CS300 Base
101’ 8” 110’ 7” 110’ 7” 95’ 9” 95’ 9” 115’ 1” 115’ 1”
Source: Manufacturers; *E-Jets E2 data are preliminary
| Executive Summary-1
June 2014 | Executive Summary non-standard conditions that currently exist at the airport due to the existing mountainous terrain surrounding the airport and limitations on the available space on the airfield to meet all of the FAA geometric design standards, as well as the overall longitudinal gradient of the land on which the airfield resides. Each of these MOS for non-standard conditions at the Airport have been evaluated and approved by the FAA and have demonstrated that such conditions do provide an acceptable level of safety for air transportation. The FAA currently allows the runway to taxiway centerline distance MOS to operate in conjunction with Title X, Pitkin County Code, which limits the allowable wingspan of aircraft to 95 feet or less. This is the current acceptable level of safety at the airport. This Future Air Service Planning Study provides an industry review of changing commercial aircraft fleet design technology and a comprehensive review of potential alternatives to ensure that ASE can continue to remain a relevant airport well into the future by maintaining commercial air service, while at the same time meeting the needs of the community and the flying public. To address the objectives and intent of the study, the following project scope was developed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and included the following: • Review of regulatory environment • Analysis of airfield and airspace configuration • Feasibility analysis of different options to ensure future commercial air service to ASE (including likelihood of community support, cost, compliance with FAA regulations, etc.) • Presentations to BOCC including draft alternatives and decision point regarding scope and decision regarding Phase III (next steps) This phase of the study provides a conceptual level evaluation for proposed airfield reconfiguration alternatives. These conceptual designs analyzed alternatives in sufficient detail to identify preliminary airspace, and regulatory considerations, as well as provide preliminary cost estimates, of viable options. These various items in the Phase II study are described in more detail in the following paragraphs. Step A Step A of Phase II included analysis for each of the initial nine alternatives as follows: 33Evaluated initial airfield configurations alternative 33Evaluated viability of west side Fixed Base Operator (FBO)
Executive Summary-2 |
33Considered potential MOS required for each alternative 33Evaluated Runway 15 approach surface impacts and airspace impacts 33Studied preliminary impacts to Owl Creek Road The Step A conclusion meeting was held on February 18, 2014 to refine alternatives based upon the study objectives. Six alternatives were carried forward to Step B, while three alternatives were removed. Four new alternatives were created to also be analyzed during Step B. Step B Step B considered ten alternatives resulting from the Step A meeting. New alternatives were developed and analyzed using Step A criteria. Additional analysis was performed on each remaining alternative: 33Assessed impacts to Master Plan and future aircraft parking areas 33Refined impacts to Owl Creek Road and adjacent property 33Evaluated impacts to Highway 82 Right-of-Way 33Considered impact of meeting FAA standards for east side Taxiway Object Free Area and runway holdbar distances The Step B conclusion meeting held on April 3, 2014 further refined alternatives. Three alternatives were carried forward to Step C, while seven alternatives were removed. Three new alternatives were developed for Step C evaluation. Step C As a result of the Step B meeting, six alternatives were further developed and evaluated utilizing analysis from Steps A and B. In addition, the following analysis performed on each of the remaining alternatives: 33Evaluated approach surface for Runway 33 33Refined impacts and improvements to Owl Creek Road 33Developed conceptual construction phasing 33Produced conceptual economic impacts from construction 33Evaluated approach and departure procedures for existing and proposed runway locations 33Identified potential items requiring local and federal approval A meeting for the conclusion of Step C was held on May 30, 2014. One alternative was slightly modified and carried forward to Step D as a new alternative. A previously removed alternative from Step B was restored but slightly modified to be carried forward to Step D as a new alternative. The six alternatives presented at the Step C meeting were removed from the study.
Step D Two remaining alternatives as a result from Step C underwent a more detailed evaluation and design in order to understand impact and cost. 33Developed conceptual design elements (grading, drainage, utilities, etc.) 33Produced conceptual cost estimates 33Explored feasibility of these alternatives 33Prepared Final Report for Phase II Future Air Service Study 33Prepared BOCC presentation With the completion of Step D, it is recommended that Alternatives 8a and 12a be forwarded to the BOCC for further consideration. Conclusion At the conclusion of this four step study process, through much evaluation and collaboration by all parties within the study group, two alternatives remained which the FAA and Airport believe meet the objectives of the study to the highest extent possible. These alternatives are recommended to the BOCC for consideration to move forward to the Phase III of the overall Future Air Service Planning Study. All other alternatives which were considered and removed from the study have been deemed less capable of meeting the objectives as previously stated in this summary. A detailed discussion of the Phase II study process as well as identification and analysis of the two surviving alternatives follows this executive summary of the Future Air Service Planning Study – Phase II Final Report. Exhibits of all alternatives contemplated in this study can be found in Appendices B, C, and D.
