WHAT AIRPORT MANAGERSNEED TO KNOW ABOUT TERPS

Association of California AirportsLake Tahoe, CaliforniaSeptember 10, 2014

QED Airport & Aviation Consultants Ronald F. Price, P.E. 904.310.6220 QEDron@aol.com

AGENDA

FAR Part 77 vs. TERPS

Uses of TERPS for other than instrument procedure design

Synergy between airport planning, engineering design and TERPS

Aircraft accidents

Question and Answer session

QED

FAR PART 77 VS. TERPS

FAR Part 77 is a regulatory trigger Fixed geometry by classification of runway use and visibility

TERPS are design criteria Flexible and variable

FAR Part 77 deals with objects Obstructions and hazards

TERPS addresses obstacles by segment Controlling obstacle

QED

INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT TERPS

Under what circumstances is a TERPS obstacle clearance surface slope = 34:1?

When would a TERPS obstacle clearance surface slope = 50:1?

An instrument approach procedure is always feasible, it just a question of what will be the minimums

There is one exception – when the GQS is penetrated, an IAP with vertical guidance is not authorized

The GQS evaluation is the last in the sequence TERPS is an iterative process

QED

PART 77 VS. TERPS – SIZE

Size comparison visualization; drawn to scale LNAV approach to each runway end, 5500’ in length, 250-1 Part 77 conical surface ends 14,200’ from each runway end Runway begins and ends here Horizontal limits of conical surface

OTHER USES OF TERPS

Improve existing IAPs, DPs

Aircraft noise abatement

Land use control

QED

THE TAKEAWAY

Use TERPS to not only improve on existing IAPs and DPs in terms of operational utility, but also to mitigate aircraft noise impacts and control land use

The FAA’s IAP or DP design does not typically consider environmental factors outside the 65 Ldn

Get involved in the procedure design process; the earlier the better

Know which obstacle is controlling current or potential IAP minimums and its accuracy code Take appropriate action

QED

MCGHEE TYSON AIRPORT

MCGHEE TYSON AIRPORT

TERPS AND THE ACIP

12 to 18 months to publish a new IAP

Use this time to meet applicable facility design standards

Update the ACIP and priorities accordingly

Include TERPS feasibility studies in next airport plan Test IAP possibilities (lower minimums and/or environmental

mitigation) Address obstacle issues before FAA FPO is engaged Assess the B/C ratio

QED

PV, LCC B/C RATIO

Numerator – Benefits Operational and safety benefits associated with a decrease in

approach minimums Quantifiable based on weather data and unconstrained demand

for instrument approaches by aircraft class

Denominator – Costs Cost to meet applicable facility design criteria Life-cycle cost to install, operate and maintain the approach

lighting system

B/C Ratio > 1.00 = cost- beneficial < 1.00 = consider requesting higher minimums, or do not

pursue the IAP

QED

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS Liability can be assessed to:

Aircraft owner, operator, manufacturer, subcontractors Airport owner, operator and consulting engineer Airport construction companies Obstruction owners

Airport’s liability concerns Lack of zoning and/or enforcement Negligence in lighting/marking obstructions (FAR Part 77)

Airport liability mitigation measures Zone for ALP ultimate configuration Consider both FAR Part 77 and TERPS Screen FAA Form 7460 submittals Monitor local planning and zoning applications

QED

For further information, contact:

Ronald F. Price, P.E.QED904-310-6220QEDron@aol.com