dallas executive airport master plan chapter 4.1 df 2

City of Dallas Dallas Executive Airport

Dallas Executive Airport

Airport Master Plan - Draft Final

4-1Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives /

In the previous chapter, airside and landside facilities required to satisfy the demand through the long range planning period were identifi ed. The next step in the planning process is to evaluate reasonable ways these facilities can be provided. There can be numerous combinations of design alternatives, but the alternatives presented here are those with the perceived greatest potential for implementation.

Any development proposed for a Master Plan is evolved from an analysis of projected needs for a set period of time. Though the needs were deter-mined by utilizing industry accepted statistical methodologies, unforeseen future events could impact the tim-ing of the needs identifi ed. The master planning process attempts to develop a viable concept for meeting the needs caused by projected demands for the next 20 years. However, no plan of ac-tion should be developed which may be inconsistent with the future goals and objectives of the City of Dallas and its citizens, who have a vested interest in the development and operation of the airport.

The development alternatives for Dallas Executive Airport can be categorized into two functional areas: the airside (runways, navigational aids, taxiways, etc.) and landside (hangars, apron, and terminal area). Within each of these areas, specifi c capabilities and facilities are required or desired. In addition, the utilization of airport property to provide revenue support for the airport and to benefi t the economic development and well-being of the region must be considered.

Each functional area interrelates and aff ects the development potential of the others. Therefore, all areas are examined individually and then coordinated as a whole to ensure the fi nal plan is functional, effi cient, and cost-eff ective. The total impact of all these factors on the existing airport must be evaluated to determine if the investment in Dallas Executive Airport will meet the needs of the community, both during and beyond the 20-year planning period.

The alternatives considered are compared using environmental, economic, and aviation factors to

determine which of the alternatives will best fulfi ll the local aviation needs. With this information, as well as input from various airport stakeholders, a fi nal airport concept can evolve into a realistic development plan.

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENTOBJECTIVES

Prior to identifying objectives specifi -cally associated with development of Dallas Executive Airport, non-develop-ment alternatives are briefl y consid-ered. Non-development alternatives include a “no-build” or “do-nothing” al-ternative, the transfer of services to an-other existing airport, or the develop-ment a new airport at a new location.

Dallas Executive Airport plays a critical role in the economic development of the region, specifi cally for the southern portion of the City of Dallas. The air-port also plays an important role in the continuity of the regional, state, and national aviation networks. There is sig-nifi cant public and private investment at the airport. In fact, nearly $30 million in public and private investments have been made at the airport in the last ten years. Pursuit of a non-development alternative would slowly devalue these investments, lead to infrastructure de-terioration, and potentially the loss of signifi cant levels of federal funding for airport improvements. Ultimately, the safety of aircraft, pilots, and persons on the ground could be jeopardized. Dallas Executive Airport serves a vital aviation and economic function for the City of Dallas and the surrounding re-gion. The choice to cease improving and/or maintaining the airport would have serious negative impacts on the regional economy and transportation system. Therefore, the non-develop-ment alternatives should not be con-sidered further.

CHAPTER FOUR -DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES



4-2 / Chapter 4 - Development Alternatives

It is the goal of this eff ort to produce a balanced development plan to best serve forecast aviation demands. However, before defi ning and evaluating specifi c alternatives, airport development objectives should be considered. As owner and operator, the City of Dallas provides the overall guidance for the operation and development of the airport. It is of primary concern that the airport is marketed, developed, and operated for the betterment of the community and its users. With this in mind, the following development objectives have been defi ned for this planning eff ort:

• To preserve and protect public and private investments in existing airport facilities.

• To develop a safe, attractive, and effi cient aviation facility in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

• To develop a balanced facility that is responsive to the current and long term needs of all general aviation users.

• To be refl ective and supportive of the long term planning eff orts currently applicable to the region.

• To develop a facility with a focus on self-suffi ciency in both operational and developmental cost recovery.

• To ensure that future develop-ment is environmentally com-patible.

AIRSIDE PLANNINGALTERNATIVES

Generally, airside issues relate to those airport elements that contribute to the safe and effi cient transition of aircraft and passengers from air transportation to the landside facilities at the airport. This includes the established design standard for the airport, the instrument approach capability, the capacity of the airfi eld, the length and strength of runway pavements, and the layout of the taxiways. Each of these elements was introduced in the previous chapters. This chapter will examine airside issues specifi c to Dallas Executive Airport. These will then be applied to several airside development alternatives. Exhibit 4A presents a summary of the primary airside and landside elements to be considered in this alternatives analysis.

AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS

The information presented in the previous chapter outlined the necessary airfi eld design standards required to meet the current and projected critical aircraft for the airport. As noted, business jets in airport reference code (ARC) D-II comprise the airport’s current critical aircraft. Future critical aircraft designation could transition to an ARC C/D-III if aircraft such as the Global Express, Gulfstream V, and/or the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) operate at the airport at least 250 times annually. It is believed that proper planning should consider this eventuality as the Master Plan is a 20-year planning document.

Table 3G in the previous chapter outlined specifi c airfi eld design standards. Analysis in this chapter will utilize this information to determine if current and future airport facilities

meet standard or require improvement to do so. Analysis to follow will detail the airfi eld design standards and any necessary steps needed to improve non-standard conditions.

Runway Length

Runway 13-31 is currently 6,451 feet long and 150 feet wide, while crosswind Runway 17-35 is 3,800 feet long by 150 feet wide. Runway 13-31 is the airport’s primary runway as it provides the greatest length; yet, crosswind Runway 17-35 is the most utilized runway as it is better suited to meet the predominant winds for all aircraft types. While a higher number of annual operations occur on Runway 17-35, they are primarily those conducted in small aircraft as Runway 17-35 is too short to be utilized by most corporate jet aircraft.

Analysis in Chapter Three indicated that the optimum recommended runway length necessary to satisfy the needs of existing and forecast business jet usage is 7,000 feet. This recommendation was confi rmed in the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting where the airport’s fi xed base operators (FBOs) indicated that their clientele had similarly indicated a runway length need for up to 7,000 feet.

The alternative analysis in this chapter will consider providing a runway length of up to 7,000 feet. The analysis will not only consider the possibility of extending Runway 13-31, but also opportunities to extend Runway 17-35. An extension of either runway will not be simplistic as the airport has been encroached on all sides by urban residential and commercial/industrial development. Furthermore, the airport is bound on all sides by existing roads which include Ledbetter Drive (Loop



12) to the north and U.S. Highway 67 and Red Bird Lane (four-lane divided thoroughfare) to the south. Moreover, on-airport topography will present signifi cant challenges to runway extension options. Further challenging matters, analysis in the previous chapter indicated that the south end of Runway 13-31 does not currently conform to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) runway safety area (RSA) standards. Before any runway extension can be accomplished, the RSA will need to be improved to FAA’s satisfaction. There are many options available for improving the RSA, to include doing

nothing, which will be explored later in this chapter.

Runway Protection Zones

Exhibit 4B presents the existing runway protection zones (RPZs) for all four runway ends. As depicted, the RPZs for Runway 17-35 are fully contained within airport property. Thus, the current RPZs for Runway 17-35 meet FAA design standards.

Both of the RPZs for Runway 13-31 extend beyond current airport

property. As depicted, portions of the Runway 13 RPZ extend just northwest of airport property. The northeastern 1.16-acre triangular portion of the RPZ extends over Ledbetter Drive and four commercial properties. The southwestern 1.46-acre triangular portion of the RPZ extends over Westmoreland Road including one commercial property. In total, 2.62 acres of the Runway 13 RPZ extends beyond airport property. A total of 16.27 acres of the Runway 31 RPZ extends beyond airport property. The southwestern corner of the RPZ covers a portion of the Redbird Mall

Exhibit 4A: ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

AIRSIDE CONSIDERATIONS

LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS

Runway 13-31

Runway 17-35

Taxiways/Marking Aids/Environmental

0

650

660

670

660

650

660

660

640

650

650650

630640

650 630

620

610

600 59

0

620

630

640650

48

660

1.46 Acres1.46 Acres1.46 Acres


620

610

600

610 600

610

62

620

620

610

610

620

61060

0

610620

610

600

620

610

610

610600610

620

630 630

640

650

620

610

600

590

590600610620630

640

590600

600

590

610

620

630

610

620

630

600

600

640630

640

650

660 640

670

660

650

660

640

630

630

640

620

660650640

630620

630

630

630

640

630

630

64063

0

640

640

64064

0

650

640

650

660

670

670

660

630

640

650

630

650

640

670 67

0

670

660

650

650

640

630

640

650

650

650660

660

660

640

630

620

620

610

650

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

650

64063

0 620

640

630

640

620610600

630640

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

648

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

630630

640

630

630

64063

0

630640

640

620620

610

610

610610

630630

6

603’

582’

507’

475’


630630

620620

610

610 59

0059

0

0 500

SCALE IN FEET

0 500

SCALE IN FEET

660

660

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

ad

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

ad

6262Red Bird LaneRed Bird Lane

West Ledbetter DriveWest Ledbetter Drive

6660606666

U.S. H

ighway 67

(Marv

in D

. Love Fre

eway)

U.S. H

ighway 67

(Marv

in D

. Love Fre

eway)

RUNWAY 13

RUNWAY 31

0 1000 2000

SCALE IN FEET

DATE OF AERIAL: May - 2011

NORTH

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

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

ad

610610

Red Bird LaneRed Bird Lane


S H

ampt

on R

d.S

Ham

pton

Rd.

64064063

063

00640640640640

640

640

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

Saturn Drive

Dallas Executive AirportCity of Dallas

Exhibit 4B: EXISTING RPZ, RSA, OFA

660

dndndndn

Airport Property Line

Runway Safety Area (RSA)

RSA Deficiency

Object Free Area (OFA)

OFA Deficiency

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

LEGEND




and other commercial properties while the northeastern corner of the RPZ extends atop residential properties. Photographic analysis indicates that the current Runway 31 RPZ lies atop fi ve commercial properties and 12 residential units.

FAA design standards call for the airport to provide positive land use control over the land in the RPZ. The purpose and function of the RPZ is to “enhance the protection of people and property on the ground”. The FAA standard is intended to keep the RPZ free of any uses that would promote the congregation of people for extended periods of time. As such, the RPZ should be clear of any uses which support the congregation of people such as residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.

The most eff ective and FAA-recommended control of the RPZ is outright ownership of the land so as to keep it open space. Purchasing airspace and land use rights through avigation easements is another option. Finally, if ownership of the property is not possible, land use controls via zoning can be used. For rural and some suburban airports, the three RPZ control options above can be simply achieved. For urban airports in heavily populated areas, such as the case for Dallas Executive Airport, these three options are very challenging. As indicated, fi ve commercial properties to the north and fi ve commercial properties, including the Redbird Mall, to the south currently populate the Runway 13-31 RPZs. The Runway 31 RPZ also includes 12 residential properties.

Obviously, land contained within both RPZs is in nonstandard use, so re-zoning cannot be achieved to adhere to FAA standards. Property acquisition

is an option. Avigation easements can be purchased and are appropriate in some cases; however, easements are only appropriate for land which is undeveloped and likely to remain in that condition (i.e., agricultural uses). Easements for the Runway 13-31 RPZs would not prohibit the location of incompatible uses as they already exist. Thus, easements are not a viable option for the RPZs. The only option left would be to acquire the property and relocate the incompatible uses outside the RPZs. While an option, the costs would extend into the tens of millions of dollars due to the number and types of commercial uses (i.e., Redbird Mall). This approach has been supported by the FAA under very specifi c circumstances, such as densely populated urban areas where maintaining runway length is of paramount concern. Dallas Executive Airport may not meet this criteria. While this remains an option, it is very likely that the FAA would not support the costs to do so and the costs would likely exceed the ability for the City of Dallas to undertake without federal funding assistance. Therefore, other options must be explored as a means to provide for FAA RPZ design standards.

When factoring costs, a more reasonable solution to the non-standard RPZs would be to modify the existing runway environment so as to move the RPZ off the incompatible land uses. This can be done in two ways. The fi rst would be to simply reduce the runway length. This option would then shift the RPZ in relation to the amount of runway reduced. As previously noted, the airport and its users would like to achieve greater runway length, not less. Reducing the runway pavement would impact both landings in one direction and take-off s in the other. As a result, this option is not preferred and should be avoided if possible.

A second option is to allow the runway pavement to remain intact but instead utilize declared distances to artifi cially limit operational runway length. Declared distances are the eff ective runway length that the airport operator declares available for take-off run, take-off distance, accelerate stop distance, and landing distance requirements. Pilots utilize these measurements in their runway length calculations. The use of declared distances is also a method to achieve runway safety area standards as will be addressed later in the chapter. The four declared distances are defi ned as the following:

Take-off run available (TORA) - The length of the runway declared available and suitable to accelerate from brake release to lift-off , plus safety factors.

Take-off distance available (TODA) - The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway or clearway beyond the far end of the TORA available to accelerate from brake release past lift-off , to start of take-off climb, plus safety factors.

Accelerate-stop distance avail-able (ASDA) - The length of the runway plus stopway declared available and suitable to accelerate from brake release to take-off deci-sion speed, and then decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors.

Landing distance available (LDA) - The distance from the threshold to complete the approach, touchdown, and decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors.

The TORA and TODA are often equal to the actual runway length which is currently the case at the airport. The ASDA and the LDA are the primary considerations in determining the





runway length available for use by aircraft, as these calculations must consider providing full RSA.

Utilizing declared distances and/or displaced landing thresholds also requires the application of departure RPZs when the landing point declared available on one runway end diff ers from the departure point for operations in the opposite direction. The departure RPZ is similar in function and purpose to the approach RPZ in that it should be clear of incompatible uses. The departure RPZ has a dimension equal to that of the existing RPZ on Runway 13 with each having an inner width of 500 feet, outer width of 1,510 feet, and an overall length of 1,700 feet.

Exhibit 4C presents the alternative of utilizing declared distances as a means to shift the RPZs so that they no longer would be over incompatible land uses. As depicted, the Runway 13 RPZ would need to be shifted a minimum of 400 feet southeast so as to remain on airport property. Since the RPZ begins 200 feet prior to the landing threshold, this alternative would require displacing the Runway 13 landing threshold by 400 feet. Since the approach RPZ to Runway 13 is the same size as the departure RPZ for Runway 31, the exhibit depicts only one RPZ for the north end.

For Runway 31, the declared distance alternative would require the use of both an approach and departure RPZ. First, the approach RPZ would need to be shifted a minimum of 500 feet northwest to remove all incompatible land uses from the RPZ as depicted. It should be noted that the RPZ would still extend beyond airport property and avigation easments would need to be acquired over those areas. The 500-foot approach RPZ shift would require

displacing the Runway 31 landing threshold by 500 feet. In order to maximize take-off length for Runway 13, the departure RPZ could begin no closer than 170 feet northwest of the current runway end.

Based on the changes proposed under this alternative scenario, declared distances can be calculated. For Runway 13, the TODA would remain as the current pavement length, or 6,451 feet. The TORA would be reduced to 6,081 feet in accordance with the departure RPZ reducing the take-off calculation by 370 feet (170 feet northwest of the threshold plus 200-foot buff er). The ASDA would be 6,451 feet and the LDA 6,051 feet due to the 400-foot displaced threshold.

It should be noted, however, that the ASDA and LDA as calculated in this scenario would not provide for the full RSA. To meet the full RSA standard for Runway 13 operations, the ASDA and LDA would have to be reduced by another 493 feet since the current RSA beyond the southeast end of the runway only provides 507 feet. A 493-foot reduction in Runway 13 ASDA and LDA would allow for 1,000 feet of RSA beyond the far end of the runway; however, the 493-foot reduction would leave only 5,958 feet for ASDA. The

Runway 13 LDA would need to be reduced by 493 feet for RSA beyond the far end of the runway and another 400 feet to account for the displaced threshold, leaving only 5,558 feet for LDA. Since this alternative would propose a 500-foot displaced threshold for Runway 31, the RSA standard of 600 feet prior to the runway would be provided; thus no further reduction of the Runway 31 LDA would be required. The RSA beyond the northwest end of the runway currently meets standard so the ASDA for Runway 31 would not have to be further reduced either.

The primary impact of such a change to the declared distances would be on takeoff calculations by pilots of business jet aircraft that generally need more runway length. With 7,000 feet of runway length considered optimum for current and future aircraft users, a runway length reduction would negatively impact operations. Any length below 6,000 feet would likely impact operations in a way to prohibit some operators from regularly using Dallas Executive Airport. The airport’s FBOs have invested millions of dollars in improvements at the airport to be able to serve large aircraft operators. The city, state, and FAA have also made signifi cant investments. Reducing the operational length of the runway

650

640

630

640

650

670

660

670

660

650

660

660

640

650

650

40

650 630

620

610

600 59

0

610

620

630

640650

660

620

6

610 600

610

620

62062

0

620

610

610

620

61060

0

610620

610

600

620

610

630

630

630

640

630

630

64063

0

640

630

630

640

640

650

620

610

600

610 600

610

62

620

620

610

610

620

61060

0

610620

610

600

620

610

610600610

620

630 630

640

650

620

620630

640

600

610

620

630

660

630

640

650

660

670

670660

670

660

650

660

640

630

630

640

620

660650640

630620

630

630

630

640

630

630

640

640

640

64064

0

650

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

640

630

620

640

620

610

650

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

650

64063

0 620

640

630

640

620610600

630640

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

648

660

640

650

630

660

640

630

620610

570

640

0 1000 2000

SCALE IN FEET

DATE OF AERIAL: May - 2011

5900

590

0 500

SCALE IN FEET

620620

620620630630

64

NORTH

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

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

adW

estm

orel

and

Road

660

660

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

ad

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

ad


61000



S H

ampt

on R

d.S

Ham

pton

Rd.

640640

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

U.S. H

ighway 67 (M

arvin

D. L

ove Freeway)

640640Challe

nger Driv

e

Challenger D

rive

0

Apollo D

r.

Apollo D

r.

500

Saturn Drive

Saturn Drive






Departure RPZ

LEGENDRUNWAY 13

RUNWAY 31

400’

500’

600

600

610

610

610

620

620

630

630

660660

666

630630

640640

650650

660

660

RUNWAY13 31

TORA 6,081’ 6,451’TODA 6,451’ 6,051’ASDA 6,451‘ 6,451’LDA 6,051‘ 5,951’

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

KEY:

*

*

* RSA standards not met by alternative. To meet RSA standards, reduce figure by another 493 feet.

6,451’ TORA

6,081’ TORA

6,051’ LDA

6,051’ TODA

5,951’ LDA

6,451’ ASDA

6,451’ TODA

400’

61010

0 500

SCALE IN FEET

620620Red Bird LaneRed Bird Lane

64064063

063

0064064000

6464

630

630

630630

U.S. H

ighway 67

(Marv

in D

. Love Fre

eway)

U.S. H

ighway 67

(Marv

in D

. Love Fre

eway)

Exhibit 4C: RPZ ALTERNATIVEUSING DECLARED DISTANCES

500’




below 6,000 feet would negatively impact these investments.

The FAA has clearly indicated in published documentation that the goal of meeting RPZ and RSA requirements is to enhance safety but not to override the functionality and utility of a runway and/or airport. As with the alternatives to be presented later in the Runway Safety Area Determination, the FAA will need to be consulted to determine if the alternative would be required or if some other compromise can be reached.

Runway Safety Areas

The RSA is a designated area surrounding the runways. According to the FAA, the RSA is to be:

(1) cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations;

(2) drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulation;

(3) capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and fi refi ghting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft, and;

(4) free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the RSA because of their function (in aiding air navigation).

The dimension of the RSA surrounding the runway is a function of the critical design aircraft. For Runway 13-31 at Dallas Executive Airport, the critical

design aircraft is that group of general aviation aircraft that fall in ARC D-II. Accordingly, the RSA is 500 feet wide and requires 1,000 feet of RSA beyond the far ends of the runway and 600 feet prior to the landing thresholds. Since operations are performed to both runway ends, depending on wind conditions, the RSA eff ectively needs to extend 1,000 feet beyond each runway end.

As was presented on Exhibit 4B, the RSA south of Runway 13-31 is penetrated by the airport’s perimeter fence approximately 507 feet southeast of the runway end. As such, the existing RSA does not meet FAA design standards and will need to be remedied per Federal Law in line with FAA regulations and standards.

The FAA has provided a method for determining appropriate RSA improvements necessary by performing a Runway Safety Area Determination. In order to determine if Runway 13-31 can provide any additional length, improvements to the southern RSA must fi rst be considered. Once a solution is found for the RSA, extension options can be considered. The following section will present the RSA determination alternatives.

RUNWAY 13-31RUNWAY SAFETY AREADETERMINATION

The master planning process is an ap-propriate time to re-evaluate the exist-ing RSA disposition. The FAA prefers a standard runway layout with thresh-olds located at the pavement ends when possible. Several design stan-dards related to RSA have been up-dated by the FAA since the completion of the previous airport layout plan. The following discussion will consider the eff ect of more recent design standards as applied to Dallas Executive Airport.

FAA Order 5300.1F, Modifi cation of Agency Airport Design, Construction, and Equipment Standards, indicates in Paragraph 6.d the following:

“. . . Runway safety areas at both certifi cated and non-certifi cated airports that do not meet dimensional standards are subject to FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program. Modifi cation of Standards is not issued for nonstandard runway safety areas.”

The FAA placed a greater emphasis on meeting RSA standards with the publication of FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, in 1999, following congressional direction. The Order states in Paragraph 5, “The object of the Runway Safety Area Program is that all RSAs at federally obligated airports and all RSAs at airports certifi ed under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139 shall conform to the standards contained in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, to the extent practicable.”

The Order goes on to state in Paragraph 8.b:





“The Regional Airports Division Manager shall review all data collected for each RSA in Paragraph 7, along with the supporting documentation prepared by the region for that RSA, and make one of the following determinations:

(1) The existing RSA meets the current standards contained in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design.

(2) The existing RSA does not meet the current standards, but it is practicable to improve the RSA so that it will meet current standards.

(3) The existing RSA can be improved to enhance safety, but the RSA will still not meet current standards.

(4) The existing RSA does not meet current RSA standards, and it is not practicable to improve the RSA.”

The fi ndings of this Master Plan will aid the Regional Airports Division Manager for the FAA’s Southwest Region in making a determination on the existing condition of RSAs at Dallas Executive Airport. Appendix 2 of FAA Order 5200.8 provides direction for an RSA determination. This includes the alternatives that must be evaluated. Paragraph 3 of Appendix 2 states:

“The fi rst alternative that must be considered in every case is constructing the traditional graded runway safety area surrounding the runway. Where it is not practicable to obtain the entire safety area in this manner, as much as possible should be obtained. Then the following alternatives shall be addressed in the supporting documentation . . . :”

A. Construct the traditional graded runway safety area surrounding the runway.

B. Relocation, shifting, or realignment of the runway.

C. Reduction in runway length where the existing runway length exceeds that which is required for the existing or projected design aircraft.

D. Implementation of declared distances.

E. Installation of Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS).

F. A combination of runway relocation, shifting, grading, realignment, or reduction.

The following sections will outline each alternative for meeting RSA at Dallas Executive Airport. Moreover, some of the alternatives will present options for meeting RSA requirements as well as extensions to the north end of the runway.

RSA ALTERNATIVE A:PROVIDE FULL RSA

The full standard 1,000-foot RSA is currently available northwest of the Runway 13 end. As a result, the northwestern RSA meets FAA standards. Southeast of the Runway 31 end, however, the required 1,000-foot RSA standard is not met. The RSA is fi rst obstructed by the airport perimeter fence approximately 507 feet southeast of the pavement end. Farther southeast, the RSA is obstructed by U.S. Highway 67 and its outer roadways as depicted on Exhibit 4B. The RSA then

extends into an open fi eld southeast of the highway. No inhabitable facility is located in the extended RSA.

Providing the full RSA would require the relocation/re-routing of U.S. Highway 67 and its outer roadways. The areas to the east, south, and west are heavily populated by both residential and commercial uses. Relocating or rerouting the highway would be cost-prohibitive as it would require substantial property acquisition and subsequent displacement of many homes and businesses. Therefore, providing for the full 1,000-foot standard RSA beyond the current runway pavement end is not considered prudent and/or practicable and will no longer be considered in this study.

RSA ALTERNATIVE B: RELOCATE,SHIFT, OR REALIGN THE RUNWAY

The next alternative considers three options of relocating the runway, shifting the runway, and/or realigning the runway. These three alternative options have specifi c defi nitions.

Relocate Runway Option

Per FAA guidelines, to relocate a runway would be to rebuild a new runway in the same orientation on-airport. The airport does not have the space to provide a new runway in the same confi guration without a signifi cantly reduced runway length. Due to the confi guration of existing property and given the high level of urban development surrounding the airport, this is not a prudent or practicable solution.




Shift Runway Option

Shifting the runway would require the removal of at least 493 feet of pavement from the southeast end of the runway and the addition of 493 feet to the northwest end as depicted on Exhibit 4D. If the FAA also requires the full runway object free area (OFA), the minimum runway shift required would be 525 feet. Several impacts would be experienced with a runway shift. The instrument landing system (ILS) serving Runway 31 would have to be relocated and recalibrated. This would include relocating the lead-in approach lighting system. This action can leave the airport without an ILS approach for up to two years while equipment is moved and/or calibrated and new instrument procedures are developed.

Shifting the runway 493 feet (or 525 feet if the full OFA is required) to the northwest would also shift the Runway 13 RPZ farther to the northwest. As a result, additional private commercial and residential property would be introduced into the RPZ which may need to be acquired or not allowed by the FAA. Finally, the FAA discourages roads from being located in the RPZ, especially the central portion of the RPZ. A proposed runway shift to the northwest would place the RPZ over the intersection of Ledbetter Drive and Westmoreland Road into the central portion of the RPZ. FAA standards don’t explicitly prohibit roads from the RPZ, especially those currently located in an existing RPZ. Proposed changes to runway ends which would create a new situation with a road in the RPZ, however, can potentially be rejected by the FAA.

Planning detail cost estimates have been prepared for the runway shift option. The estimates were prepared by the current airport’s engineer

(Garver) and refi ned by the preparer of this study. It is estimated that the proposed 493-foot shift of Runway 13-31 and parallel Taxiway B would cost approximately $2.02 million. The 525-foot shift, to provide full OFA if required by the FAA, is estimated to cost approximately $2.11 million. It should be noted that these costs include new pavements to the northwest end of the runway (runway and taxiway), pavement removal at the southeast end of the runway, and relocation of the ILS glideslope antenna. The cost is relatively high due to signifi cant terrain diff erences north of the runway requiring sizable fi ll and embankment to extend Taxiway B to the northwest.

Extending the runway to the northwest is a viable option, one that will be explored further later in this chapter. Reducing the pavement at the south end of the runway, however, would not be ideal. As previously noted, the current runway length has been shown to be lacking for some of the larger and more demanding business jets. Ultimate planning for the optimum runway length indicated 7,000 feet would be needed. A runway shift to the northwest and a reduction to the southeast end would further reduce the limited area available for any potential runway extension, as an extension to the northwest end is the only option for Runway 13-31. As

a result, the alternative of shifting the runway to the north is not found to be a prudent option and will no longer be considered.

Realign Runway Option

Realigning the runway is another option to consider under this alternative. For Dallas Executive Airport, this option could include building an entirely new runway oriented diff erently to replace Runway 13-31, or it could include improving crosswind Runway 17-35 to serve as the airport’s primary runway. Constructing a realigned runway within the current property boundaries was found not feasible. The airport encompasses a rectangular land mass which is nearly square. The current alignment of Runway 13-31 maximizes the existing area available as it extends from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of airport property. Reorienting the runway would reduce the area available for the runway, thereby, allowing only for a shorter runway length than is currently provided by Runway 13-31. Moreover, the land immediately to the north of Runway 13 is rugged having signifi cant variances in elevation, heavy tree concentration, and creeks and drainage channels. Constructing a new reoriented runway in this area would be cost-prohibitive. As this option could

620

610

600

610 600

610

62

620

620

610

610

620

61060

0

610620

610

600

620

610

610

610600610

620

630 630

640

650

620

610

600

590

590600610620630

590600

600

590

610

0

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

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

640

630

620

620

610

650

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

650660

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

600

630

590

650

640

630620

610

590

590600610620

610

620

630

640650

620

648

660

640

650

630

620

660

640

630

620610

570

640 0 1000 2000

SCALE IN FEET

DATE OF AERIAL:May - 2011

NORTH

Runway 13-31 (6,451’x150’) Runw

ay 1

7-35

(3,8

00’x

150’

)

Mar

iner

Dri

veM

arin

er D

rive

650

650

Voya

ger D

rive

Voya

ger D

rive

Wes

tmor

elan

d Ro

adW

estm

orel

and

Road

610610

6202020620620



S H

ampt

on R

d.S

Ham

pton

Rd.

64064063

063

00640640640640

640

640

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

0

Apollo D

r.

Apollo D

r.

Saturn Drive

Saturn Drive




Ultimate Airfield Pavement

Pavement to be Removed


LEGEND


Exhibit 4D:SHIFTING RUNWAY 13-31 493’ ALTERNATIVE

493’

493’





not provide even equal runway length and having excessive costs, it has been rejected as not prudent, practicable, and/or feasible.

Another runway realignment option could include improving Runway 17-35 to replace Runway 13-31 as the airport’s primary runway. In order to do so, Runway 17-35 would need to provide at least 6,451 feet of length with the opportunity to be extended up to an optimum length of 7,000 feet. The improved runway would also need to meet the larger safety area standards for ARC D-II now in place on Runway 13-31 as described earlier. This option presents signifi cant challenges primarily due to topography and existing roads and land uses north and south of the airport.

The terrain in areas north and south of the runway has signifi cant elevation changes. For example, Runway 17 is situated at 650.7 feet mean sea level (MSL). The topography north of the runway end generally falls to the north/northwest. Approximately 470 feet north of the extended runway centerline, the ground topography is 640 feet MSL as depicted on Exhibit 4E. The terrain continues to fall to 630 feet MSL at 770 feet north, 620 feet MSL 1,010 feet north, 610 feet MSL 1,490 feet north, 600 feet MSL 1,660 feet north, and fi nally to 590 feet MSL 1,870 feet north at the property line. The elevation changes support a creek in the north central portion of airport property. South of the runway, the topography is relatively fl at until a point approximately 700 feet south of the extended runway centerline. At this point, the terrain drops only two feet; however, only 30 feet farther west, the terrain falls ten feet and continues to decrease sharply over the next 90 feet south as depicted on the exhibit. An on-airport access road, currently being

improved, then traverses the area and the terrain then continues to fall farther south.

Exhibit 4F presents two alternatives which consider improving Runway 17-35 to meet ARC C/D-II standards while providing maximum runway length within what are considered to be signifi cant boundaries. Both alternatives consider extending the runway north to a point at which the RSA and OFA would meet the northern property line. It is believed that the areas north of the airport, including Ledbetter Drive and residential properties, cannot be mitigated for new runway construction. To the south, Red Bird Lane is considered a boundary in the fi rst alternative (left side of the exhibit), while U.S. Highway 67 is considered a boundary in the second alternative (right side of the exhibit).

Alternative 1 includes extending Runway 17-35 940 feet to the north and 498 feet to the south providing a resultant runway length of 5,238 feet. As noted above, this option would be the maximum length possible to provide full ARC C/D-II RSA and OFA within the northern property line and Red Bird Lane to the south. Obviously, this length falls more than 1,000 feet short of that currently provided by Runway 13-31. In fact, this length is much shorter than can be accomplished by simply reducing the length of Runway 13-31 so as to provide a full safety area. The northerly extension would shift the RPZ north of airport property beyond Ledbetter Drive into a residential area. Approximately 16 acres of the RPZ would be shifted beyond airport property and an estimated seven residential units would fall under the shifted RPZ. The southerly extension, as proposed, would shift the RPZ beyond airport property as well but this area

is open land use and compatible with RPZ standards. The area would need to be acquired fee simple or in easement.

The second alternative presented on the right half of Exhibit 4F also presents a 940-foot northerly extension of Runway 17-35. This alternative, however, would extend south beyond Red Bird Lane to where the OFA would be met by U.S. Highway 67. As such, the alternative presents a 1,747-foot extension to the south. The resultant runway length for this alternative would be 6,487 feet. This alternative would require bridging over Red Bird Lane creating a tunnel structure as closure of the road is not considered feasible or desirable. Similar to Alternative 1, the northern extension would shift the RPZ beyond the northern airport property boundary to include seven residences. The southerly extension would also extend beyond airport property. As depicted, the proposed extension would shift the entire 45 acres of the RPZ off -airport and would encompass an estimated 12 residences.

The option of improving Runway 17-35 to serve as the reoriented primary runway would be costly. Simply increasing the RSA dimensions to meet ARC C/D-II standards would require signifi cant fi ll north and south of the runway without any pavement extensions. Moreover, a creek traverses the wooded areas to the north which would also need to be mitigated in some manner. Obviously then, any extensions of Runway 17-35 to the north or south would require substantial site preparation costs prior to pavement construction.

It has been estimated that the fi rst alternative presented on Exhibit 4Fwould cost $32.33 million. Nearly half of that cost would be for site preparation and embankment to

dallas executive airport master plan chapter 4.1 df 2

Documents