airport/documents/Mesquite Master Plan Final.pdf - The City of ...
airport/documents/Mesquite Master Plan Final.pdf - The City of ...
airport/documents/Mesquite Master Plan Final.pdf - The City of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN<br />
METRO AIRPORT
MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>, Texas<br />
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE<br />
Prepared By<br />
C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
May 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>, Texas<br />
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN<br />
Chapter One<br />
INVENTORY<br />
AIRPORT SETTING AND ACCESS .............................. 1-1<br />
AIRPORT HISTORY ........................................... 1-2<br />
Airport Management ..................................... 1-2<br />
Regional Climate ........................................ 1-3<br />
THE AIRPORT’S SYSTEM ROLE ................................ 1-4<br />
AIRPORT FACILITIES ........................................ 1-5<br />
Airside Facilities ......................................... 1-5<br />
Landside Facilities ....................................... 1-9<br />
Airspace Information .................................... 1-12<br />
REGIONAL AIRPORTS ....................................... 1-18<br />
AREA LAND USE AND ZONING ............................... 1-20<br />
Existing Land Uses ..................................... 1-20<br />
Future Land Uses and Zoning ............................. 1-21<br />
Height Zoning .......................................... 1-21<br />
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ........................ 1-22<br />
Population ............................................. 1-23<br />
Employment ........................................... 1-24<br />
Per Capita Personal Income .............................. 1-26<br />
Tax Information ........................................ 1-27<br />
SUMMARY ................................................. 1-27<br />
DOCUMENT SOURCES ...................................... 1-27
Chapter Two<br />
AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS<br />
SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS .............................. 2-2<br />
Population .............................................. 2-2<br />
Employment ............................................ 2-3<br />
Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) ......................... 2-4<br />
FORECASTING APPROACH ................................... 2-4<br />
AIRPORT SERVICE AREA ..................................... 2-5<br />
Airport User Survey ...................................... 2-7<br />
AVIATION TRENDS .......................................... 2-9<br />
National Aviation Trends ................................. 2-9<br />
General Aviation ....................................... 2-10<br />
GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS ............................ 2-12<br />
Based Aircraft .......................................... 2-12<br />
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Projection ........................ 2-21<br />
General Aviation Annual Operations ....................... 2-23<br />
PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 2-26<br />
ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES (AIAs) .................. 2-27<br />
SUMMARY ................................................. 2-28<br />
Chapter Three<br />
AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS<br />
AIRFIELD PLANNING CRITERIA ............................... 3-1<br />
Critical Aircraft ......................................... 3-2<br />
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3-9<br />
Safety Area Design Standards .............................. 3-9<br />
Airfield Capacity ........................................ 3-12<br />
Runways .............................................. 3-13<br />
Taxiways .............................................. 3-21<br />
Navigational Aids and Instrument Approaches ............... 3-22<br />
Airfield Lighting and Marking ............................ 3-25<br />
LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS ................................. 3-27<br />
Hangars ............................................... 3-27<br />
Aircraft Parking Apron .................................. 3-30<br />
General Aviation Terminal Facilities ....................... 3-30<br />
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS .................................. 3-32<br />
Automobile Parking ..................................... 3-32<br />
Fuel Storage ........................................... 3-33<br />
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting ........................... 3-33
Chapter Three (Continued)<br />
Surface Transportation Access ............................ 3-34<br />
SUMMARY ................................................. 3-34<br />
Chapter Four<br />
ALTERNATIVES<br />
NON-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ......................... 4-2<br />
“Do Nothing” Alternative .................................. 4-2<br />
Transfer Aviation Services ................................. 4-3<br />
Construction <strong>of</strong> a New Airport Site .......................... 4-4<br />
AIRFIELD ISSUES ............................................ 4-5<br />
Runway Length ......................................... 4-5<br />
Taxiways ............................................... 4-6<br />
Airfield Design Standards ................................. 4-7<br />
Instrument Approaches ................................... 4-9<br />
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES ................................... 4-10<br />
Airfield Alternative 1 .................................... 4-10<br />
Airfield Alternative 2 .................................... 4-13<br />
Parallel Runway Alternatives ............................. 4-14<br />
Airfield Alternatives Summary ............................ 4-15<br />
Obstruction Analysis .................................... 4-16<br />
LANDSIDE ISSUES .......................................... 4-19<br />
LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES .................................. 4-20<br />
Landside Alternative A .................................. 4-21<br />
Landside Alternative B .................................. 4-22<br />
Landside Alternative C .................................. 4-23<br />
Landside Summary ..................................... 4-24<br />
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER<br />
SITING ALTERNATIVES .................................... 4-24<br />
Line-Of-Sight .......................................... 4-25<br />
Minimum Cab Eye Elevation Analysis ...................... 4-26<br />
Siting Analysis ......................................... 4-26<br />
Site A ................................................. 4-27<br />
Site B ................................................. 4-28<br />
Site C ................................................. 4-28<br />
SUMMARY ................................................. 4-29
Chapter Five<br />
AIRPORT PLANS<br />
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT ................................... 5-1<br />
Airfield Design Standards ................................. 5-2<br />
Airside Recommendations ................................. 5-3<br />
Landside Development .................................... 5-8<br />
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET .................................. 5-9<br />
Inner Portion <strong>of</strong> the Approach Surface <strong>Plan</strong> .................. 5-10<br />
Property Map .......................................... 5-10<br />
Obstruction Survey Drawing .............................. 5-10<br />
SUMMARY ................................................. 5-10<br />
Chapter Six<br />
FINANCIAL PLAN<br />
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES<br />
AND COST SUMMARIES ..................................... 6-2<br />
Short Term Improvements ................................. 6-3<br />
Intermediate Term Improvements .......................... 6-6<br />
Long Term Improvements ................................. 6-6<br />
Improvements Summary .................................. 6-8<br />
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING .......................... 6-8<br />
Federal Grants .......................................... 6-8<br />
State Funding Program ................................... 6-9<br />
FAA Facilities and Equipment Program ..................... 6-11<br />
FINANCING OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .................... 6-11<br />
Operating Revenues ..................................... 6-12<br />
Operating Expenses ..................................... 6-13<br />
Future Cash Flow ....................................... 6-13<br />
SUMMARY ................................................. 6-15<br />
EXHIBITS<br />
1A LOCATION MAP ............................... after page 1-2<br />
1B EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES ................ after page 1-6<br />
1C EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES .............. after page 1-10<br />
1D AREA AIRSPACE .............................. after page 1-14<br />
1E AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION ................... after page 1-14<br />
1F GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE ........... after page 1-20<br />
1G ZONING/FUTURE LAND USE ................... after page 1-22
EXHIBITS (Continued)<br />
2A SERVICE AREA ................................ after page 2-8<br />
2B U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION<br />
AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ...................... after page 2-12<br />
2C REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ........... after page 2-16<br />
2D BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ................. after page 2-20<br />
2E FORECAST SUMMARY ........................ after page 2-28<br />
3A AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES .................. after page 3-2<br />
3B RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS ...................... after page 3-10<br />
3C WINDROSE .................................. after page 3-14<br />
3D AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .......... after page 3-35<br />
3E LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ......... after page 3-35<br />
4A DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ............. after page 4-6<br />
4B RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS ....................... after page 4-8<br />
4C AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1 .................... after page 4-12<br />
4D AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2 .................... after page 4-14<br />
4E PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES ........... after page 4-14<br />
4F OBSTRUCTIONS TO 17 APPROACH ............. after page 4-18<br />
4G OBSTRUCTIONS TO 35 APPROACH ............. after page 4-18<br />
4H LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A ................... after page 4-22<br />
4J LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B ................... after page 4-22<br />
4K LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C ................... after page 4-24<br />
5A MASTER PLAN CONCEPT ....................... after page 5-2<br />
5B PARALLEL TAXIWAY RELOCATION ............. after page 5-8<br />
AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING ........................ after page 5-11<br />
OBSTRUCTION SURVEY DRAWING RW 17-35 .......... after page 5-11<br />
OBSTRUCTION SURVEY DRAWING RW 17 ............ after page 5-11<br />
IPASD RW 35 ...................................... after page 5-11<br />
IPASD RW 17 ...................................... after page 5-11<br />
AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP .......................... after page 5-11<br />
6A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............ after page 6-4<br />
6B DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAGING ............ after page 6-4<br />
A EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS ................... after page B-8<br />
B ULTIMATE NOISE CONTOURS .................. after page B-8
Appendix A<br />
GLOSSARY OF TERMS<br />
Appendix B<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Chapter One<br />
INVENTORY
CHAPTER ONE<br />
INVENTORY<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has maintained a commitment to growing<br />
and improving the <strong>airport</strong> as demand has dictated. <strong>The</strong> first<br />
master plan was completed in 1981. Since then, master plans<br />
have been undertaken in 1985, 1998, and now 2005.<br />
<strong>The</strong> initial step in the preparation <strong>of</strong> an updated master plan for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport (HQZ) is the collection <strong>of</strong> current<br />
information pertaining to the <strong>airport</strong> and the area it serves. <strong>The</strong><br />
information collected in this chapter will be used as a baseline<br />
for subsequent analysis in this study. <strong>The</strong> inventory <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
conditions at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport provides an overview <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong> facilities and services, area airspace, previous <strong>airport</strong><br />
studies, area population and other socioeconomic data, as well<br />
as surrounding land use and development.<br />
<strong>The</strong> information outlined in this chapter was obtained through<br />
on-site inspections <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, including interviews with<br />
<strong>airport</strong> management, <strong>airport</strong> tenants, and representatives <strong>of</strong><br />
various government agencies. Information was also obtained<br />
from previous <strong>airport</strong> studies. Additional <strong>documents</strong> were<br />
provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the<br />
Texas Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation - Aviation Division<br />
(TxDOT), and the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> - <strong>Plan</strong>ning and Zoning.<br />
AIRPORT SETTING AND ACCESS<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is located 15 miles east<br />
<strong>of</strong> downtown Dallas on approximately 350 acres <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>airport</strong>-owned property, within the corporate<br />
1-1 DRAFT
limits <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, Texas.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> lies approximately four<br />
miles southeast <strong>of</strong> the central business<br />
district <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
Exhibit 1A shows the location <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> and its relation to the Dallas/<br />
Fort Worth Metroplex. Neighboring<br />
communities include Garland to the<br />
north, Sunnyvale to the northeast,<br />
Balch Springs to the south, and Dallas<br />
to the west. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
located on the eastern edge <strong>of</strong> Dallas<br />
County. Kaufman County is<br />
approximately one-half mile to the east.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has excellent<br />
access to the surface transportation<br />
network. Interstates 20, 30 and 635,<br />
U.S. Highway 80, and State Highway<br />
352 all traverse the <strong>City</strong>. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is<br />
bounded on the north by Scyene Road<br />
and on the south by Lawson Road.<br />
Direct <strong>airport</strong> access is provided by<br />
Airport Boulevard, which connects from<br />
Scyene Road at the northwest corner <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />
AIRPORT HISTORY<br />
<strong>The</strong> original <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
was built by the Hudson family in 1975.<br />
Originally named the Phil L. Hudson<br />
Municipal Airport, it featured a 4,000foot<br />
by 50-foot asphalt runway and<br />
connecting taxiways. Other amenities<br />
included three 20-unit T-hangar<br />
facilities, underground storage for<br />
Avgas fuel and aircraft tie-down areas.<br />
In 1981, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> began the<br />
acquisition <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> from the<br />
1-2<br />
Hudson family by conducting an<br />
Environmental Assessment (EA) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> grounds. In 1983, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> received federal grant-in-aid<br />
to acquire the <strong>airport</strong> from the Hudson<br />
family. In 1985, the <strong>City</strong> received<br />
additional federal grants which funded<br />
several projects, including:<br />
• Reconstruction <strong>of</strong> the runway,<br />
replacing the asphalt with concrete<br />
and extending the runway to 5,000<br />
feet.<br />
• Widening <strong>of</strong> the runway from 50<br />
feet to 100 feet.<br />
• Extending the parallel taxiway<br />
1,300 feet.<br />
• Conducting an <strong>airport</strong> master plan<br />
study.<br />
• Acquiring additional property.<br />
In 1992, both the runway and taxiway<br />
were extended an additional 1,000 feet,<br />
bringing the total paved runway length<br />
to nearly 6,000 feet. A new updated<br />
master plan was undertaken in 1997.<br />
Table 1A shows a partial list <strong>of</strong> the<br />
major recent improvements made to<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport since 1998.<br />
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is owned<br />
and operated by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> city employs a full-time Airport<br />
Director and a full-time Executive<br />
Secretary. In addition, there are eight<br />
part-time employees. <strong>The</strong> Airport<br />
Director reports to the Deputy <strong>City</strong><br />
Manager.
04MP22-1A-2/14/05<br />
Bowie<br />
Granbury y<br />
Gatesville le<br />
C O R Y E L L<br />
Copperas Cove<br />
Montague<br />
Killeen<br />
Bridgeport<br />
PARKER<br />
PPARKER A R K E R<br />
377<br />
HOOD HHOOD O O D<br />
Glen Rose<br />
Clifton<br />
Florence<br />
81<br />
Meridian<br />
82<br />
Muenster Gainesville<br />
WISE WWISE I S E<br />
Decatur<br />
67<br />
BBOSQUE BOSQUE O S Q U E<br />
B E L L<br />
E. E. Davis Davis St.<br />
St.<br />
8<br />
287<br />
820<br />
Belton<br />
COOKE CCOOKE O O K E<br />
380<br />
MC MMC C<br />
E. Main St. LENNAN<br />
LLENNAN E N N A N<br />
Pioneer Rd.<br />
WEST<br />
35<br />
Cleburne<br />
Cleburne<br />
W I L L I A M S O N<br />
Waco<br />
Temple<br />
35<br />
WEST<br />
35<br />
EAST<br />
35<br />
287<br />
35<br />
M I L A M<br />
377<br />
DENTON<br />
DDENTON E N T O N<br />
Denton<br />
380<br />
Marlin<br />
Whitesboro<br />
Midlothian<br />
EELLIS ELLIS L L I S<br />
HILL HHILL I L L<br />
EAST<br />
35<br />
Long Creek Larkin<br />
84<br />
F A L L S<br />
Cameron<br />
GGRAYSON GRAYSON<br />
R A Y S O N<br />
Frisco<br />
Ennis<br />
Hubbard<br />
69<br />
Sherman<br />
75<br />
Allen<br />
45<br />
Waxahachie<br />
Corsicana<br />
NAVARRO<br />
NNAVARRO A V A R R O<br />
Denison<br />
CCOLLIN COLLIN O L L I N<br />
McKinney<br />
377 Lewisville <strong>Plan</strong>o<br />
Carrollton<br />
Keller Grapevine<br />
Richardson<br />
Addison<br />
Rockwall<br />
North Richland<br />
Farmers<br />
Hills Bedford<br />
Garland<br />
Garland<br />
Branch 635<br />
ROCK<br />
Haltom <strong>City</strong><br />
Euless<br />
WALL<br />
Hurst<br />
River Oaks<br />
Irving Dallas Forney<br />
30<br />
Grand Prairie<br />
Fort Worth Arlington<br />
20<br />
TTARRANT TARRANT<br />
A R R A N T<br />
DDALLAS DALLAS A L L A S <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Crowley Duncanville Duncanville<br />
175<br />
Lancaster<br />
Mansfield<br />
352<br />
Hillsboro<br />
MESQUITE<br />
Faithon Faithon Faithon Lucas Sr Sr Sr Blvd.<br />
Scyene<br />
80<br />
East Glen Blvd.<br />
Newsom<br />
Cartwright<br />
Faithon Lucas Sr Blvd.<br />
Berry<br />
Hearne<br />
Franklin<br />
69<br />
380<br />
30<br />
Kemp<br />
FFANNIN FANNIN A N N I N<br />
Bonham<br />
82<br />
Leonard<br />
Terrell<br />
Greenville<br />
Fairfield<br />
Commerce<br />
80<br />
Edgewood<br />
Kaufman<br />
KAUFMAN<br />
KKAUFMAN A U F M A N<br />
45<br />
HUNT HHUNT U N T<br />
Canton<br />
Athens<br />
84<br />
Mexia<br />
FREESTONE<br />
FFREESTONE R E E S T O N E<br />
79<br />
Groesbeck<br />
MESQUITE<br />
LIMESTONE<br />
LLIMESTONE I M E S METRO T O N E<br />
Buffalo<br />
AIRPORT<br />
L E O N<br />
R O B E R T S O N<br />
Clay Mathis<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
DALLAS CO.<br />
KAUFMAN CO.<br />
69<br />
287<br />
Centerville<br />
L A M A R<br />
Emory<br />
M A D I S O N<br />
Madisonville<br />
Sulphur Springs<br />
20<br />
VAN VVAN A N ZANDT ZZANDT A N D T<br />
G R I M E S<br />
Mineola<br />
175<br />
NORTH<br />
Paris<br />
DELTA DDELTA E L T A<br />
Cooper<br />
RRAINS RAINS A I N S<br />
HOPKINS<br />
HHOPKINS O P K I N S<br />
HENDERSON<br />
HHENDERSON E N D E R S O N<br />
ANDERSON<br />
AANDERSON N D E R S O N<br />
Palestine<br />
Crockett<br />
W A L K E R<br />
NOT TO SCALE Huntsville<br />
Exhibit 1A<br />
LOCATION MAP<br />
Mount M Vernon<br />
Trinity<br />
W O O D<br />
Quitman<br />
S M I T H<br />
C H E R O K E E<br />
Jacksonville<br />
H O U S T O N
TABLE 1A<br />
Projects and Improvements Since 1998<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
• 1998 Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
• Self-serve fuel system for Avgas<br />
• Wash rack meeting EPA standards<br />
• Renovation <strong>of</strong> 60 <strong>City</strong>-owned hangar units<br />
(concrete floors, door and track refabrication,<br />
new siding, ro<strong>of</strong> repairs, painting)<br />
• Painting <strong>of</strong> the 100 ft. x 100 ft. aircraft<br />
maintenance hangar<br />
• AWOS Installation<br />
• Ground Communications Outlet (GCO)<br />
installation<br />
• North ramp pavement improvements<br />
including marking and tie-downs<br />
• South ramp expansion<br />
• PAPI-4 installation on both runway ends<br />
• Lead in lights for both runway ends<br />
• New segmented circle and lighted windsock<br />
• New runway marking and striping<br />
• New taxiway hold-lines and signage<br />
• New terminal building<br />
• Terminal parking area<br />
Source: Airport records and TxDOT records<br />
REGIONAL CLIMATE<br />
Weather conditions must be considered<br />
in the planning and development <strong>of</strong> an<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, as daily operations are affected.<br />
Temperature is a significant factor in<br />
determining runway length needs,<br />
while local wind patterns (both<br />
direction and speed) can affect the<br />
operation and capabilities <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> climate is characterized<br />
as humid subtropical, with hot<br />
summers and mild winters. <strong>The</strong><br />
average daily high temperature ranges<br />
from 56 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in<br />
January to 96 degrees F in both July<br />
and August. TxDOT also lists the<br />
average high temperature in the hottest<br />
month as 96 degrees F.<br />
1-3<br />
• Electrical vault for navigational aids<br />
• Runway 17 safety area improvements<br />
• New drainage plan throughout<br />
• <strong>City</strong> purchase <strong>of</strong> private 25 hangar<br />
units on north end<br />
• New taxiways for future hangar<br />
construction on south end<br />
• Extension <strong>of</strong> Airport Blvd.<br />
• Extension <strong>of</strong> water and sewer utilities<br />
• Perimeter fencing and electric gate<br />
access<br />
• Engineering and design for corporate<br />
and private hangars on south end<br />
• New aircraft maintenance facility in<br />
100 ft. x 80 ft. hangar<br />
• Design underway for two new corporate<br />
hangars (private)<br />
• 2005 new Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Update<br />
• Terminal ramp lighting<br />
• Closed-circuit television system<br />
Average annual precipitation in the<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> area is 39 inches per year. A<br />
large portion <strong>of</strong> the annual precipitation<br />
results from thunderstorm activity,<br />
with occasional heavy rainfall over brief<br />
periods <strong>of</strong> time. Thunderstorms occur<br />
throughout the year, but are most<br />
frequent during the spring months. <strong>The</strong><br />
area receives little snowfall, but can<br />
experience freezing rain and icy<br />
conditions during winter months.<br />
Winds for the area are generally from<br />
the south, averaging between 9 and 13<br />
miles per hour ( 10 - 15 knots). Winds<br />
less than one knot occur approximately<br />
five percent <strong>of</strong> the year. East/west<br />
winds also occur less than five percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> the year. Complete climatic data is<br />
presented in Table 1B.
TABLE 1B<br />
Climate Summary<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>, Texas<br />
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec<br />
Days with Precip. 7 7 8 8 9 7 5 5 6 6 6 7<br />
Wind Speed (mph) 11 11.7 12.6 12.4 11.2 10.7 9.9 9 9.4 9.8 10.7 10.8<br />
Sunshine (%) 52 54 58 61 57 67 75 73 67 63 57 52<br />
Days clear <strong>of</strong> clouds 10 10 10 9 8 11 15 15 13 14 12 11<br />
Partly cloudy days 6 6 8 8 10 12 10 10 9 7 6 6<br />
Cloudy days 16 13 14 13 13 8 6 6 9 10 12 14<br />
Precipitation (in) 2.1 2.5 3.3 3.6 5.4 3.9 2.4 2.1 2.9 4.6 3.1 3<br />
Average High Temp 56 61 68 76 83 91 96 96 89 79 66 58<br />
Average Low Temp<br />
Source: <strong>City</strong>-Data.com<br />
33 38 45 53 62 69 72 71 66 55 44 36<br />
THE AIRPORT’S<br />
SYSTEM ROLE<br />
At the national level, the <strong>airport</strong> is<br />
included in the FAA’s National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).<br />
<strong>The</strong> NPIAS includes a total <strong>of</strong> 3,344<br />
existing <strong>airport</strong>s that are significant to<br />
national air transportation and are<br />
therefore eligible to receive grants<br />
under the FAA Airport Improvement<br />
Program (AIP). <strong>The</strong> NPIAS supports<br />
the FAA’s strategic goals for safety,<br />
system efficiency, and environmental<br />
compatibility by identifying specific<br />
<strong>airport</strong> improvements. An <strong>airport</strong> must<br />
be included in the NPIAS to be eligible<br />
for federal grant-in-aid assistance from<br />
the FAA. As Texas is one <strong>of</strong> eight<br />
“block-grant” states, the distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
these funds is administered by TxDOT -<br />
Aviation Division.<br />
<strong>The</strong> 2005-2009 NPIAS identifies $39.5<br />
billion for <strong>airport</strong> development across<br />
the country. Of that, approximately<br />
seven percent is designated for the 278<br />
reliever <strong>airport</strong>s. Reliever <strong>airport</strong>s are<br />
located in major metropolitan areas and<br />
1-4<br />
serve to provide pilots with an<br />
attractive alternative to using<br />
congested primary and commercial<br />
service <strong>airport</strong>s. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport is one <strong>of</strong> 21 designated reliever<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s in the State <strong>of</strong> Texas and one <strong>of</strong><br />
11 located in the Dallas/Fort Worth<br />
Metroplex region. According to the<br />
NPIAS, reliever <strong>airport</strong>s across the<br />
country have an average <strong>of</strong> 219 based<br />
aircraft and account for 29 percent <strong>of</strong><br />
the nation’s total active aircraft fleet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Texas Airport System <strong>Plan</strong> (TASP)<br />
further classifies <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport in its system plan as a<br />
Transport Airport. Transport <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
are designed to provide access to<br />
turboprop and turbojet business<br />
aircraft, in addition to most single- and<br />
twin-engine piston powered-aircraft.<br />
<strong>The</strong> TASP provides for specific<br />
minimum design standards for runway<br />
length, a parallel taxiway, apron size,<br />
approaches, airfield lighting, visual<br />
approach aids and services such as<br />
restrooms, vending machines, aircraft<br />
fuel, and hours <strong>of</strong> operation.
AIRPORT FACILITIES<br />
Airport facilities can be categorized into<br />
two broad categories: airside and<br />
landside. <strong>The</strong> airside category includes<br />
those facilities which are needed for the<br />
safe and efficient movement <strong>of</strong> aircraft,<br />
such as runways, taxiways, lighting,<br />
and navigational aids. <strong>The</strong> landside<br />
category includes those facilities<br />
necessary to provide a safe transition<br />
from surface to air transportation and<br />
1-5<br />
support aircraft servicing, storage,<br />
maintenance, and operational safety.<br />
AIRSIDE FACILITIES<br />
Airside facilities include runways,<br />
taxiways, <strong>airport</strong> lighting, weather<br />
reporting aids, and navigational aids.<br />
Airside facilities at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport can be seen on the aerial<br />
photograph on Exhibit 1B. Table 1C<br />
summarizes airside facility data.<br />
TABLE 1C<br />
Airside Facility Data<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
Runway Length (feet) 5,999<br />
Runway Width (feet) 100<br />
Runway Surface Material Concrete<br />
Surface Treatment None<br />
Condition Good<br />
Pavement Markings Precision (17-35)<br />
Runway Load Bearing Strength (lbs.)<br />
Single Wheel Loading (SWL) 70,000<br />
Dual Wheel Loading (DWL) 100,000<br />
Runway Lighting Medium Intensity (MIRL)<br />
Taxiway Lighting Green Centerline Reflectors<br />
Approach Lighting REIL (17-35)<br />
4-Light PAPI<br />
LDIN<br />
Visual Aids Rotating Beacon<br />
Lighted Windcone<br />
Segmented Circle<br />
Weather Aids AWOS-3<br />
Instrument Approach Aids ILS Runway 17<br />
Localizer Back Course 35<br />
NDB or GPS Runway 17<br />
PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator<br />
AWOS - Automated Weather Observation System<br />
LDIN - Lead In Light System<br />
ILS - Instrument Landing System<br />
NDB - Non-Directional Beacon<br />
GPS - Global Positioning System<br />
Source: Airport Facility Directory; South Central (Nov. 2004)
04MP22-1B-2/8/06<br />
Lead-In-Lights (LDIN)<br />
(LDIN)<br />
NORTH<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
REILs<br />
Compass Compass Calibration<br />
Pad/Hold Pad/Hold Apron<br />
Apron<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
ILS Glideslope<br />
Antennae<br />
Segmented Segmented Circle/<br />
Wind Cone<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
PAPI-4<br />
AWOS<br />
B<br />
300' C<br />
Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />
100')<br />
D E F<br />
PAPI-4 G<br />
Taxiway A<br />
A<br />
40'<br />
Terminal Area Taxiway<br />
Rotating Beacon<br />
Airport Blvd. Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
Lead-In-Lights (LDIN)<br />
REILs<br />
Hold Hold Apron<br />
Localizer<br />
Exhibit 1B<br />
EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES
Runway<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is served by a<br />
single runway oriented in a north/south<br />
manner. Runway 17-35 is 5,999 feet<br />
long by 100 feet wide. It is in “good”<br />
condition, the highest condition rating<br />
applied by the FAA. Runway 17-35 has<br />
been strength rated at 70,000 pounds<br />
single wheel gear loading (SWL) and<br />
100,000 pounds dual wheel gear loading<br />
(DWL). SWL and DWL refer to the<br />
design <strong>of</strong> certain aircraft landing gear.<br />
SWL aircraft have a single wheel on<br />
each main landing gear strut. DWL<br />
aircraft have two wheels on each main<br />
landing gear strut. <strong>The</strong> more wheels an<br />
aircraft has on each landing gear strut,<br />
the more weight that is distributed on<br />
runway and taxiway surfaces.<br />
Taxiways<br />
<strong>The</strong> taxiway system at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport includes a full-length parallel<br />
taxiway, identified as Taxiway A, and<br />
six entrance/exit taxiways. Taxiway A<br />
is 40 feet wide and is located 300 feet<br />
west <strong>of</strong> the runway (centerline to<br />
centerline). <strong>The</strong> six taxiways providing<br />
entrance to or exit from the runway are<br />
identified as Taxiways B, C, D, E, F,<br />
and G as one moves from the north to<br />
the south. Each <strong>of</strong> these taxiways is<br />
also 40 feet wide.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is an additional taxiway which<br />
provides two-way circulation in the<br />
terminal area. This terminal area<br />
taxiway, approximately 130 feet west <strong>of</strong><br />
Taxiway A, runs from the runway<br />
threshold at the north end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
airfield to the south end, and is<br />
approximately 3,000 feet. It is 30 feet<br />
1-6<br />
wide with several connecting taxiways<br />
linking the terminal area taxiway to<br />
Taxiway A.<br />
Pavement Markings<br />
Pavement markings aid in the<br />
movement <strong>of</strong> aircraft along <strong>airport</strong><br />
surfaces and identify closed or<br />
hazardous areas on the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
precision markings on both ends <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway include the runway centerline,<br />
pavement edge, runway designation,<br />
aiming point, touchdown zone,<br />
threshold, and aircraft holding<br />
positions. <strong>The</strong> holding positions have<br />
been placed on the entrance/exit<br />
taxiways 250 feet from the runway<br />
centerline.<br />
Taxiway and taxilane centerline<br />
markings are provided to assist aircraft<br />
using these <strong>airport</strong> surfaces. Pavement<br />
markings also identify aircraft tiedown<br />
positions on the various apron<br />
areas. It should be noted that a<br />
compass calibration pad is located at<br />
the north end hold bay.<br />
Visual Aids<br />
<strong>The</strong> location <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> at night is<br />
universally indicated by a rotating<br />
beacon, displaying alternating flashes <strong>of</strong><br />
green and white lights 180 degrees<br />
apart. <strong>The</strong> rotating beacon at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport is located on a 50-foot<br />
tower approximately 500 feet to the<br />
northwest <strong>of</strong> the terminal building near<br />
Airport Boulevard.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is also supported by a<br />
segmented circle and a lighted
windcone. <strong>The</strong> segmented circle is<br />
located on the east side <strong>of</strong> the airfield<br />
approximately 360 feet from the runway<br />
centerline. It is approximately 2,100<br />
feet from the north runway threshold.<br />
<strong>The</strong> lighted windcone is located within<br />
the segmented circle.<br />
Runway and Taxiway Lighting<br />
Runway and taxiway edge lighting is<br />
placed near the pavement edge to define<br />
the lateral limits <strong>of</strong> the pavement<br />
surface. <strong>The</strong>se lighting systems are<br />
essential for night and low visibility<br />
conditions to ensure safe and efficient<br />
access to and from the runway.<br />
Runway 17-35 is equipped with medium<br />
intensity runway lighting (MIRL).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se edge lights are preset to low<br />
intensity but can be increased to<br />
medium intensity by the pilot. <strong>The</strong><br />
taxiways are not supported with<br />
lighting; however, the taxiways are<br />
identified with green centerline<br />
reflectors and blue edge reflectors.<br />
Airfield Signage<br />
Airfield identification signs assist pilots<br />
in identifying their location on the<br />
airfield and directing them to their<br />
desired location. Lighted signs are<br />
installed on all taxiway and runway<br />
intersections. <strong>The</strong> signs are located<br />
parallel to the hold lines, giving further<br />
indication to pilots where the hold<br />
positions are located.<br />
1-7<br />
Approach Slope Indicators<br />
Both runway ends are equipped with a<br />
four-box precision approach path<br />
indicator (PAPI) to the left side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway end. A PAPI consists <strong>of</strong> a<br />
system <strong>of</strong> lights located approximately<br />
1,000 feet from the runway threshold.<br />
When interpreted by the pilot, these<br />
lights give an indication <strong>of</strong> being above,<br />
below, or on the designated descent<br />
path to the runway. <strong>The</strong> descent path<br />
to both runway ends is a three percent<br />
slope.<br />
Approach Lighting Systems<br />
Approach lighting systems (ALS) are<br />
used in the approaches to runways as<br />
adjuncts to electronic navigational aids<br />
for the final portion <strong>of</strong> instrument flight<br />
rule (IFR) approaches. <strong>The</strong>y also<br />
enhance guidance for nighttime<br />
approaches under visual flight rule<br />
(VFR) conditions. <strong>The</strong> approach<br />
lighting system provides the pilot with<br />
visual cues concerning aircraft<br />
alignment, roll, height, and position<br />
relative to the threshold.<br />
Both ends <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35 are<br />
equipped with a lead-in light system.<br />
This system provides visual guidance to<br />
landing aircraft by displaying a linear<br />
series <strong>of</strong> static lights leading to the<br />
runway end. With this system, pilots<br />
are able to align their approach to the<br />
extended runway indicated by the<br />
lights.
Runway End<br />
Identification Lighting<br />
Runway end identification lights<br />
(REILs) provide rapid and positive<br />
identification <strong>of</strong> the approach end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway. <strong>The</strong> REIL system consists <strong>of</strong><br />
two synchronized flashing lights located<br />
laterally on each side <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
threshold facing the approaching<br />
aircraft. REILs are installed on both<br />
ends <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35.<br />
Weather Reporting Aids<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is equipped<br />
with an Automated Weather<br />
Observation System - III (AWOS-III).<br />
An AWOS automatically records<br />
weather conditions such as wind speed,<br />
wind gusts, wind direction,<br />
temperature, dew point, altimeter<br />
setting, and density altitude. In<br />
addition, the AWOS-III records<br />
visibility, precipitation, and cloud<br />
height. This information is then<br />
transmitted at regular intervals.<br />
Aircraft in the vicinity can receive this<br />
information if they have their radio<br />
tuned to the correct frequency (118.175<br />
Mhz). In addition, pilots and<br />
individuals can call a published<br />
telephone number and receive the<br />
information via an automated voice<br />
recording.<br />
<strong>The</strong> AWOS-III at <strong>Mesquite</strong> is also<br />
outfitted with an optional system that<br />
provides a connection to the National<br />
Airspace Data Interchange Network<br />
(NADIN). With this connection, the<br />
FAA provides the AWOS data to the<br />
Weather Messaging Switching Service<br />
(WMSS), which in turn distributes the<br />
1-8<br />
data to Flight Service Stations, the<br />
National Weather Service, commercial<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s for pilot briefing, and other<br />
weather information outlets.<br />
Pilot-Controlled Lighting<br />
All airfield lighting systems at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport are controlled through a<br />
pilot-controlled lighting system (PCL).<br />
This allows the pilot to increase the<br />
intensity or turn on various airfield<br />
lighting systems from the aircraft with<br />
the use <strong>of</strong> the aircraft’s transmitter on<br />
the common traffic advisory frequency<br />
(CTAF) at 123.05 Mhz.<br />
Ground Communications<br />
Outlet (GCO)<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is equipped with a GCO<br />
which is a radio transmitter/receiver<br />
with a telephone interface. <strong>The</strong> GCO<br />
allows pilots to communicate directly<br />
with terminal radar approach control<br />
(TRACON) approach and departure<br />
controllers located at Dallas/Fort Worth<br />
International Airport. During poor<br />
weather conditions or when intending to<br />
fly under IFR, controllers are able to<br />
communicate directly with pilots<br />
utilizing <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Pilots<br />
must obtain a clearance to depart prior<br />
to entering clouds or areas <strong>of</strong> poor<br />
visibility. Pilots needing a clearance<br />
can tune their radios to frequency<br />
121.725 Mhz and key the microphone a<br />
specified number <strong>of</strong> times. <strong>The</strong> GCO<br />
recognizes the clicks and automatically<br />
dials a restricted number for air traffic<br />
control. <strong>The</strong> pilot then has the ability<br />
to communicate directly with the<br />
controller.
A GCO is typically a necessity at<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s where direct radio<br />
communications from the aircraft is<br />
impeded by some type <strong>of</strong> interference.<br />
Without a GCO, the pilot would have to<br />
obtain a departure clearance by<br />
telephone from outside the aircraft and<br />
receive a specific departure window. If<br />
that departure window is missed, then<br />
the pilot would have to call TRACON to<br />
receive another departure window.<br />
LANDSIDE FACILITIES<br />
Landside facilities are the ground-based<br />
facilities that support the aircraft and<br />
pilot/passenger handling functions.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se facilities typically include the<br />
terminal building, aircraft storage/<br />
maintenance hangars, aircraft parking<br />
aprons, and support facilities such as<br />
fuel storage, automobile parking,<br />
roadway access, and aircraft rescue and<br />
firefighting. Landside facilities are<br />
identified on Exhibit 1C.<br />
Terminal Building<br />
In 2004, the new terminal building was<br />
dedicated. TxDOT provided 50 percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> the funding for those portions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
5,000-square foot building that are<br />
designated as aviation-related. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> provided the<br />
remaining funds, including the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> additional space for the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> a restaurant. <strong>The</strong><br />
building is located on the west side <strong>of</strong><br />
the south apron. <strong>The</strong> terminal building<br />
has a pilots’ lounge, a public lobby, line<br />
service counter, conference room, public<br />
meeting space/restaurant, rest rooms,<br />
and administrative <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
1-9<br />
Aircraft Hangars<br />
Hangar facilities at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport are comprised <strong>of</strong> T-hangars,<br />
conventional hangars, and executive<br />
hangars. T-hangars provide for<br />
separate storage facilities within a<br />
larger contiguous facility. Conventional<br />
hangars provide a large open space, free<br />
from ro<strong>of</strong> support structures, and have<br />
the capability to store several aircraft<br />
simultaneously. Conventional hangars<br />
are typically 10,000 square feet or<br />
larger. Often conventional hangars are<br />
owned or leased by an <strong>airport</strong> business<br />
such as an FBO. Executive hangars<br />
have the same open space design as<br />
conventional hangars, but they are<br />
typically smaller than 10,000 square<br />
feet. Executive hangars are typically<br />
utilized by individual owners to store<br />
several aircraft or by smaller <strong>airport</strong><br />
businesses.<br />
Table 1D lists the hangar facilities at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. It also<br />
identifies the location by address,<br />
maximum number <strong>of</strong> aircraft that can<br />
use the facility, square footage, and<br />
type <strong>of</strong> occupants in the facility. In<br />
addition, the table also identifies the<br />
ownership <strong>of</strong> the facility. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> has been actively reacquiring<br />
these facilities, and the right column<br />
shows the year that the structures will<br />
revert from private ownership to <strong>City</strong><br />
ownership per the current lease<br />
arrangements.<br />
Airport Businesses<br />
FBOs are those businesses based at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> that provide services directly to<br />
the aviation community utilizing the
<strong>airport</strong>. In some cases, the FBO would<br />
provide line services, fuel, lounge areas,<br />
flight planning, and maintenance. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, however, provides line<br />
services and fueling, as well as terminal<br />
building services. Remaining services<br />
are <strong>of</strong>fered by private businesses based<br />
at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Aviation occupies the <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
facing the airfield in building 1130<br />
#100. <strong>The</strong>ir primary business is flight<br />
training, but they also provide aircraft<br />
rental services. <strong>The</strong>y have a fleet <strong>of</strong><br />
eight aircraft: three Cessna 150s and<br />
five Cessna 172s. In 2004, <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
1-10<br />
Aviation averaged 230 hours <strong>of</strong> flight<br />
training per month.<br />
Moorehead Aviation provides aircraft<br />
maintenance for piston aircraft. <strong>The</strong>y<br />
occupy the largest hangar at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, to the southeast <strong>of</strong> the terminal<br />
building. Moorehead Aviation has been<br />
on the airfield since 1992. Prior to that,<br />
they had been at a number <strong>of</strong> other<br />
regional general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
Although the owner is the only full-time<br />
employee, Moorehead Aviation employs<br />
several mechanics that work on a<br />
contract basis.<br />
TABLE 1D<br />
Hangar Facilities<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Max. #<br />
Ownership<br />
Hangar<br />
<strong>of</strong> Square<br />
Reverts to<br />
Type Address Aircraft Feet Occupant Ownership <strong>City</strong><br />
Executive 900 5 7,800 TX Dept. Public Safety<br />
Classic<br />
<strong>City</strong> -<br />
Executive 910 12 15,000 Industries/Individuals Private -<br />
T-Hangar 920 10 12,000 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />
T-Hangar 930 9 11,000 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />
T-Hangar 940 7 9,500 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />
1130<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
T-hangar #100<br />
1130<br />
19 32,900 Aviation/Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />
T-hangar #200<br />
1130<br />
20 21,000 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />
T-hangar #300 20 21,000 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />
Conventional 1280 7 10,000 Faith Air Inc. Private 2034<br />
Conventional 1290 7 10,000 P&S Aerowest Private 2034<br />
Conventional 1350 7 13,200 Moorehead Aviation <strong>City</strong> -<br />
Executive 1440 3 6,000 Individuals Private 2017<br />
Barr Air<br />
1 <strong>City</strong>/ -/<br />
Executive 1442 10 11,500 Patrol/Individuals<br />
Custom Electronic<br />
2 Private 2017<br />
T-Hangar 1510 7 10,200 Solutions/Individuals Private 2017<br />
T-Hangar 1512 10 10,500 Individuals<br />
Reunion Ranch<br />
Private 2017<br />
T-hangar 1520 19 21,500 Inc./Individuals<br />
Dallas<br />
Private 2025<br />
T-hangar 1530 13 17,600 Avionics/Individuals Private 2017<br />
Total 185 240,700<br />
Source: Airport records
04MP22-1C-2/8/06<br />
Texas<br />
Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Public Safety<br />
Safety<br />
Electrical<br />
Vault<br />
Vault<br />
900<br />
906<br />
NORTH<br />
0 300 600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
T-Hangars<br />
Executive<br />
Hangars<br />
Security Security Gate<br />
Gate<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
940<br />
930<br />
920<br />
910<br />
Fuel Farm<br />
North Apron<br />
Apron<br />
Self-Serve Self-Serve Fuel<br />
Fuel<br />
Wash Rack<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Aviation Aviation<br />
1130 #100<br />
T-Hangars<br />
1130 #200<br />
1130 #300<br />
Rotating<br />
Beacon<br />
P&S Aerowest<br />
1280<br />
South Apron<br />
1290<br />
Faith Air<br />
Runway 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />
Security Gate<br />
1340<br />
1350<br />
Terminal<br />
Building<br />
Conventional<br />
Hangar<br />
Hangar<br />
Moorehead<br />
Aviation<br />
Executive<br />
Hangars<br />
1432<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
1440 1442<br />
Security Gate<br />
1512<br />
1510<br />
T-Hangars<br />
1520<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
1530<br />
T-Hangars<br />
Exhibit 1C<br />
EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES
Faith Air, Inc. occupies the north<br />
conventional hangar on the newly<br />
constructed south apron. <strong>The</strong>y provide<br />
aircraft maintenance for piston aircraft.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y began operation in September <strong>of</strong><br />
2003. <strong>The</strong> general manager foresees<br />
expanding their business to include jet<br />
engine maintenance in the future.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are five full-time employees:<br />
three mechanics, a parts manager, and<br />
the general manager.<br />
P & S Aerowest occupies the<br />
conventional hangar directly north <strong>of</strong><br />
the terminal building. P & S is a<br />
subsidiary <strong>of</strong> the Steve Silver Company,<br />
which is a major furniture wholesaler.<br />
Housed in the hangar is a Cessna<br />
Citation (525) business jet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Texas Department <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Safety (DPS) operates out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
executive hangar at the north end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
airfield. <strong>The</strong>y house a helicopter and a<br />
single engine piston aircraft in the<br />
hangar. <strong>The</strong> DPS utilizes aircraft in<br />
support <strong>of</strong> its law and drug enforcement<br />
operations.<br />
Barr Air Patrol operates out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices and T-hangar complex at the<br />
south end <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>y provide<br />
aircraft parts and provide services for<br />
aerial patrol and inspection.<br />
Other businesses on <strong>airport</strong> property<br />
include Dallas Avionics, Custom<br />
Electronic Solutions, and Reunion<br />
Ranch, Inc.<br />
Aircraft Parking Apron<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are two primary aircraft aprons<br />
utilized for public aircraft parking and<br />
1-11<br />
tie-down at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
<strong>The</strong> north apron, identified on Exhibit<br />
1C, provides approximately 13,400<br />
square yards and 37 marked tie-down<br />
positions. <strong>The</strong> south apron consists <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately 20,000 square yards and<br />
has 14 marked tie-down positions, as<br />
well as transient ramp space. <strong>The</strong><br />
south apron is expected to be lighted to<br />
better facilitate evening operations in<br />
2005.<br />
Secondary apron space is available<br />
fronting Moorehead Aviation and the<br />
south hangar facilities.<br />
Automobile Parking<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are several parking lots available<br />
for vehicle parking at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> terminal building<br />
parking lot provides for 37 spaces, two<br />
<strong>of</strong> which are designated handicapped.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is a second parking lot to the<br />
north <strong>of</strong> hangar number 1130 #100.<br />
This lot can accommodate 44 vehicles.<br />
<strong>The</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> formal parking<br />
spaces is 81. However, most aircraft<br />
owners simply drive their vehicles to<br />
their hangar rather than park in<br />
identified parking and walk to their<br />
aircraft.<br />
Airport Road<br />
Public access to the <strong>airport</strong> is served by<br />
Airport Boulevard. Airport Boulevard<br />
extends from Scyene Road to the<br />
southernmost hangar complex. This<br />
road was recently extended approximately<br />
800 feet from the new terminal<br />
building area to the south hangar<br />
complex.
Fuel Facilities<br />
As the only fuel provider on the airfield,<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> owns the fuel farm<br />
and the fuel trucks. <strong>The</strong> fuel farm<br />
consists <strong>of</strong> two 12,000-gallon above<br />
ground storage tanks. <strong>The</strong> storage<br />
tanks, one for Avgas and the other for<br />
Jet A fuel, are located just west <strong>of</strong> the<br />
north apron. <strong>The</strong> farm is served by a<br />
service road extending from Airport<br />
Boulevard. Fuel is delivered to aircraft<br />
via a 1,000-gallon Avgas truck and a<br />
2,400-gallon Jet A fuel truck. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>airport</strong> recently installed a self-serve<br />
Avgas facility located on the north<br />
apron, near the west fence line,<br />
adjacent to the fuel farm.<br />
Aircraft Rescue and<br />
Firefighting (ARFF)<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are no ARFF facilities<br />
permanently based at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> provides<br />
ARFF services to the <strong>airport</strong> on an “oncall”<br />
basis. Fire Station No. 7 is located<br />
approximately two miles from the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> on Clay-Mathis Road.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has provided advanced<br />
training to firefighters at Fire Station<br />
No. 7 on working with aircraft fires.<br />
<strong>The</strong> station also maintains specialized<br />
foaming agents designed for use with<br />
aircraft fires.<br />
Security Fencing<br />
In 2003, perimeter security fencing was<br />
installed with three electronic gate<br />
access points. Approved individuals are<br />
provided a card with an identifying<br />
1-12<br />
magnetic strip calibrated by the <strong>airport</strong><br />
staff which allows access through the<br />
gates. <strong>The</strong>re are also key pads on the<br />
gates where an access code can be<br />
entered. <strong>The</strong> three gate access points to<br />
the airfield are identified on Exhibit<br />
1C.<br />
Utilities<br />
<strong>The</strong> availability and capacity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
utilities serving the <strong>airport</strong> are factors<br />
in determining the development<br />
potential <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> property, as well<br />
as the land immediately adjacent to the<br />
facility.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is supplied water (looped<br />
water main) and sanitary sewer<br />
services via the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>’s<br />
system. Electrical service is provided to<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> by Reliant Energy. SBC<br />
provides communications and data<br />
lines. Natural gas is not currently<br />
supplied to the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
AIRSPACE INFORMATION<br />
This section <strong>of</strong> the plan identifies<br />
factors influencing air navigation<br />
around and at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> these additional<br />
elements, such as area navigational<br />
aids, area airspace classification, and<br />
approved instrument approach<br />
procedures, have a direct impact on<br />
aircraft using <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
Navigational Aids<br />
Navigational aids are electronic devices<br />
that transmit radio frequencies which<br />
pilots <strong>of</strong> properly equipped aircraft can
translate into point-to-point guidance<br />
and position information. <strong>The</strong> types <strong>of</strong><br />
electronic navigational aids available<br />
for aircraft flying to or from <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport include non-directional<br />
beacon (NDB), very high frequency<br />
omni-directional range (VOR) facilities,<br />
global positioning system (GPS), and an<br />
instrument landing system (ILS).<br />
<strong>The</strong> NDB transmits nondirectional<br />
radio signals whereby the pilot <strong>of</strong> an<br />
aircraft equipped with direction-finding<br />
equipment can determine the bearing to<br />
or from the NDB facility in order to<br />
track to the beacon station. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> NDB is 3.7 nautical miles<br />
(nm) to the north <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35. <strong>The</strong><br />
Jecca NDB is four nm south <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway. Other NDBs in the vicinity <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong> include Lancaster (14 nm),<br />
Travis (14.2 nm), Redbird (17.7 nm),<br />
Caddo Mills (22.6 nm), Cedar Hill (24.4<br />
nm), and Cash (27.3 nm), as depicted on<br />
Exhibit 1D. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
owns and maintains both the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
and Jecca NDB facilities. <strong>The</strong> Redbird<br />
and Cedar Hill facilities are maintained<br />
by the FAA. <strong>The</strong> other regional NDB<br />
facilities are maintained by the local<br />
jurisdictions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> VOR, in general, provides azimuth<br />
readings to pilots <strong>of</strong> properly equipped<br />
aircraft by transmitting a radio signal<br />
at every degree to provide 360<br />
individual navigational courses.<br />
Frequently, distance measuring<br />
equipment (DME) is combined with a<br />
VOR facility (VOR-DME) to provide<br />
distance as well as directional<br />
information to the pilot. Military<br />
tactical air navigation aids (TACANs)<br />
and civil VORs are commonly combined<br />
to form a VORTAC. <strong>The</strong> VORTAC<br />
1-13<br />
provides distance and directional<br />
information to both civil and military<br />
pilots. <strong>The</strong> Cowboy VOR/DME is 20.7<br />
nm to the northwest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
Maverick VOR/DME is 26.7 nm to the<br />
west at Dallas/Fort Worth International<br />
Airport. <strong>The</strong> Ranger and Cedar Creek<br />
VORTACs are within 40 nm <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. Each <strong>of</strong> these facilities are<br />
owned and maintained by the FAA.<br />
GPS is an additional navigational aid<br />
for pilots. GPS was initially developed<br />
by the United States Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Defense for military navigation around<br />
the world. GPS differs from a NDB or<br />
VOR in that pilots are not required to<br />
navigate using a specific facility. GPS<br />
uses satellites placed in orbit around<br />
the earth to transmit electronic radio<br />
signals which pilots <strong>of</strong> properly<br />
equipped aircraft use to determine<br />
altitude, speed, and other navigational<br />
information. <strong>The</strong> network <strong>of</strong> 24 GPS<br />
satellites is maintained by the U.S.<br />
military.<br />
With GPS, pilots can directly navigate<br />
to any <strong>airport</strong> in the country and are<br />
not required to navigate using a specific<br />
navigation facility. <strong>The</strong> FAA is<br />
proceeding with a program to gradually<br />
replace all traditional enroute<br />
navigational aids with GPS over the<br />
next few years. <strong>The</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
FAA phase-out schedule for traditional<br />
navigational aids is planned to occur by<br />
2010. Most navigational aids<br />
supporting busier <strong>airport</strong>s will be<br />
retained.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ILS is a approach and landing aid<br />
designed to identify the exact alignment<br />
path <strong>of</strong> an aircraft. ILS systems are<br />
installed to allow approaches during
periods <strong>of</strong> poor visibility. <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport has one published ILS<br />
approach to Runway 17.<br />
ILS systems provide three functions: 1)<br />
guidance, provided vertically by a glide<br />
slope beacon and horizontally by a<br />
localizer beacon; 2) range, furnished by<br />
marker beacons; and 3) visual<br />
alignment, supplied by the approach<br />
lighting system and runway edge lights.<br />
<strong>The</strong> localizer antenna for Runway 17 is<br />
situated on the extended centerline,<br />
approximately 1,800 feet south <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Runway 35 threshold. <strong>The</strong> antenna<br />
emits very high frequency (VHF)<br />
signals that provide the pilot with<br />
course deviation left or right <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway centerline and the degree <strong>of</strong><br />
deviation. <strong>The</strong> ultra high frequency<br />
(UHF) glide slope (GS) antenna is<br />
located on the northeast side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway, approximately 1,100 feet<br />
southwest <strong>of</strong> the Runway 17 landing<br />
threshold. <strong>The</strong> glide slope antenna<br />
provides a signal indicating whether the<br />
aircraft is above or below the desired<br />
glide path. <strong>The</strong> ILS equipment is<br />
owned and maintained by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
To further assist the ILS approach, an<br />
initial approach fix is established by an<br />
outer marker (<strong>Mesquite</strong> NDB). <strong>The</strong><br />
Runway 17 ILS approach has a 3.0<br />
degree glide slope that intercepts initial<br />
approach fix at a distance <strong>of</strong> 3.2<br />
nautical miles and 1,600 feet above the<br />
threshold. It should be noted that the<br />
ILS Runway 17 approach requires<br />
aircraft not only to be equipped with<br />
ILS receivers, but also automatic<br />
direction finding (ADF) equipment.<br />
1-14<br />
Area Airspace<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA Act <strong>of</strong> 1958 established the<br />
FAA as the responsible agency for the<br />
control and use <strong>of</strong> navigable airspace<br />
within the United States. <strong>The</strong> FAA has<br />
established the National Airspace<br />
System (NAS) to protect persons and<br />
property on the ground and to establish<br />
a safe environment for civil,<br />
commercial, and military aviation. <strong>The</strong><br />
NAS is defined as the common network<br />
<strong>of</strong> U.S. airspace, including air<br />
navigational facilities; <strong>airport</strong>s and<br />
landing areas; aeronautical charts;<br />
associated rules, regulations and<br />
procedures; technical information; and<br />
personnel and material. System<br />
components shared jointly with the<br />
military are also included as part <strong>of</strong> this<br />
system.<br />
To ensure a safe and efficient airspace<br />
environment for all aspects <strong>of</strong> aviation,<br />
the FAA has established an airspace<br />
structure that regulates and establishes<br />
procedures for aircraft using the<br />
National Airspace System. <strong>The</strong> U.S.<br />
airspace structure provides for<br />
categories <strong>of</strong> airspace, controlled and<br />
uncontrolled, and identifies them as<br />
Classes A, B, C, D, E, and G, as<br />
described below. Exhibit 1E generally<br />
illustrates each airspace type in threedimensional<br />
form.<br />
• Class A airspace is controlled<br />
airspace and includes all airspace<br />
from 18,000 feet mean sea level<br />
(MSL) to Flight Level 600<br />
(approximately 60,000 feet MSL).<br />
• Class B airspace is controlled<br />
airspace surrounding high-activity<br />
commercial service <strong>airport</strong>s (i.e.,
04MP22-1D-3/17/05<br />
Lazy G Bar<br />
Decatur<br />
NAS Ft. Worth/<br />
Carswell<br />
Bourland<br />
VR1124 VR1124 VR1124<br />
Rhome<br />
Sycamore<br />
Sycamore<br />
Ft. Ft. Worth<br />
Worth<br />
Spinks<br />
Spinks<br />
Cleburne<br />
Flying C<br />
Palmer<br />
Ft. Worth-<br />
Alliance<br />
Alliance<br />
Hicks<br />
Ft. Worth<br />
Meacham<br />
Northwest<br />
Ranger<br />
VORT VORTAC AC<br />
Ironhead<br />
Denton<br />
Hillsboro<br />
Airport with other than hard-surfaced<br />
runways<br />
Airport with hard-surfaced runways<br />
1,500' to 8,069' in length<br />
Airports with hard-surfaced runways<br />
greater than 8,069' or some multiple<br />
runways less than 8,069'<br />
Non-Directional Radiobeacon (NDB)<br />
VORTAC<br />
VOR-DME<br />
Dallas-Ft. Worth<br />
International<br />
Grand<br />
Prairie<br />
Prairie<br />
Arlington<br />
Lakeview<br />
Mid-Way<br />
Regional<br />
Hayesport<br />
Air Air Park-Dallas<br />
Park-Dallas<br />
Redbird<br />
NDB<br />
Dallas<br />
Executive<br />
Carroll<br />
V V V 18-94 18-94 18-94<br />
V V V 369 369 369<br />
V V V 16-278 16-278 16-278<br />
Aero Country<br />
Addison<br />
Cowboy<br />
VOR-DME<br />
Maverick<br />
VOR-DME Dallas Love<br />
Bishops<br />
Landing<br />
Kittyhawk<br />
MESQUITE<br />
METRO AIRPORT<br />
LEGEND<br />
Jecca<br />
NDB<br />
NDB<br />
Lancaster<br />
NDB<br />
NDB<br />
Lancaster<br />
Compass Rose<br />
Mode C<br />
Ennis<br />
Class B Airspace<br />
Class D Airspace<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> NDB<br />
Class E Airspace with floor<br />
700 ft. above surface<br />
Victor Airways<br />
Military Training Routes<br />
Collin County<br />
Powell NDB<br />
NDB<br />
Rockwall<br />
Rives<br />
Caddo<br />
Mills<br />
Airpark<br />
East<br />
Travis ravis NDB<br />
NDB<br />
Terrell<br />
Hall<br />
V V V 15 15 15<br />
Cedar Creek<br />
VORT VORTAC AC<br />
V 477<br />
V V V 194 194 194<br />
Bonham<br />
VORTAC VORT VORTAC AC<br />
V V 477 477<br />
Caddo<br />
Mills<br />
NDB<br />
Cash NDB<br />
NDB<br />
Phillips<br />
V V V 114 114 114<br />
Majors<br />
Taylor<br />
V V V 16-124-278 16-124-278 16-124-278<br />
V V V 573 573 573<br />
Commerce<br />
Wills Point<br />
V V V 18-54 18-54 18-54<br />
VR188 VR188 VR188<br />
V V V 94 94 94<br />
V V V 569 569 569<br />
Source: Dallas - Ft. Worth Sectional Chart,<br />
US Department <strong>of</strong> Commerce, National<br />
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration<br />
March 17, 2005<br />
NORTH<br />
NOT TO SCALE<br />
Exhibit 1D<br />
AREA AIRSPACE
04MP22-1E-3/17/05<br />
AGL<br />
FL<br />
MSL<br />
LEGEND<br />
- Above Ground Level<br />
- Flight Level in Hundreds <strong>of</strong> Feet<br />
- Mean Sea Level<br />
NOT TO SCALE<br />
CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION<br />
CLASS A Generally airspace above 18,000 feet MSL up to and including FL 600 .<br />
CLASS B<br />
CLASS C<br />
CLASS D<br />
CLASS E<br />
CLASS G<br />
Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for<br />
VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric<br />
Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted<br />
by C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993.<br />
Generally multi-layered airspace from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the<br />
nation's busiest <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered <strong>airport</strong>s with<br />
service by radar approach control.<br />
Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D.<br />
Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E.<br />
Exhibit 1E<br />
AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION
Dallas/Fort Worth<br />
International Airport).<br />
• Class C airspace is controlled<br />
airspace surrounding loweractivity<br />
commercial service (i.e.,<br />
Tucson International Airport) and<br />
some military <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
• Class D airspace is controlled<br />
airspace surrounding low-activity<br />
commercial service and general<br />
aviation <strong>airport</strong>s with an <strong>airport</strong><br />
traffic control tower (ATCT).<br />
All aircraft operating within Class A, B,<br />
C, and D airspace must be in constant<br />
contact with the air traffic control<br />
facility responsible for that particular<br />
airspace sector.<br />
• Class E airspace is controlled<br />
airspace surrounding an <strong>airport</strong><br />
that encompasses all instrument<br />
approach procedures and lowaltitude<br />
federal airways. Only<br />
aircraft conducting instrument<br />
flights are required to be in contact<br />
with air traffic control when<br />
operating in Class E airspace.<br />
While aircraft conducting visual<br />
flights in Class E airspace are not<br />
required to be in radio contact with<br />
air traffic control facilities, visual<br />
flight can only be conducted if<br />
minimum visibility and cloud<br />
ceilings exist.<br />
• Class G airspace is uncontrolled<br />
airspace that does not require<br />
communication with an air traffic<br />
control facility.<br />
Airspace within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport is depicted on Exhibit<br />
1-15<br />
1D. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is located<br />
within transitional Class E airspace<br />
and lies inside the outer ring <strong>of</strong><br />
Dallas/Fort Worth International<br />
Airport’s (DFW) Class B airspace. <strong>The</strong><br />
outer ring <strong>of</strong> DFW Class B airspace<br />
immediately above <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport extends from 4,000 feet MSL to<br />
11,000 MSL. To the northwest, closer<br />
to Dallas Love Field and DFW, the floor<br />
<strong>of</strong> DFW’s Class B airspace staggers<br />
downward, similar to an upside-down<br />
wedding cake. Approximately six miles<br />
further west <strong>of</strong> this point, the DFW<br />
Class B airspace has a floor at ground<br />
level.<br />
<strong>The</strong> airspace for a seven nm radius<br />
around <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
transitional Class E airspace with a<br />
floor 700 feet above ground level (AGL),<br />
extending to 1,200 feet MSL. <strong>The</strong> Class<br />
E airspace surrounding the <strong>airport</strong> has<br />
been established to protect the<br />
instrument approaches to the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is also located<br />
approximately 13 nm west <strong>of</strong> the Class<br />
E airspace surrounding the Terrell<br />
Municipal Airport.<br />
For aircraft enroute or departing to the<br />
south <strong>of</strong> the Dallas/Fort Worth<br />
Metroplex using VOR navigational<br />
facilities, a system <strong>of</strong> federal airways,<br />
referred to as Victor Airways, has been<br />
established. Victor Airways are the<br />
“highways <strong>of</strong> the sky” and they extend<br />
between VOR facilities. <strong>The</strong>y are eight<br />
miles wide and extend from 1,200 feet<br />
AGL to 18,000 feet AGL. Victor<br />
Airways serve primarily smaller pistonengine,<br />
propeller-driven airplanes on<br />
shorter routes. <strong>The</strong>re are two Victor<br />
Airways within a short distance on<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport; approximately
eight miles to the east is V15 and 11<br />
miles to the west is V369.<br />
Instrument Approach Procedures<br />
When the visibility and cloud ceilings<br />
deteriorate to a point where visual<br />
flight can no longer be conducted safely,<br />
aircraft must follow published<br />
instrument approach procedures to<br />
locate and land at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
are currently three published<br />
instrument approach procedures to the<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport: ILS Runway<br />
17, NDB or GPS Runway 17, and<br />
Localizer Back Course Runway 35.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Runway 17 ILS approach provides<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> with the lowest approach<br />
visibility minimums. Utilizing this<br />
approach, a properly equipped aircraft<br />
and pilot can land at the <strong>airport</strong> with<br />
250-foot cloud ceilings and threequarters<br />
<strong>of</strong> a mile visibility. <strong>The</strong> ILS<br />
Runway 17 approach can also be<br />
utilized as a localizer only, or circling<br />
approach. A circling approach allows<br />
the approach to be flown to the opposite<br />
runway end (i.e., the ILS Runway 17<br />
circling approach would be utilized to<br />
land on Runway 35).<br />
Runway 17 is also served by a NDB or<br />
GPS approach. Using the previously<br />
mentioned <strong>Mesquite</strong> NDB or GPS<br />
navigational aids, instrument<br />
approaches for aircraft with approach<br />
speeds less than 121 knots landing on<br />
Runway 17 can be made when the<br />
visibility is at least one mile and the<br />
cloud ceilings are greater than 473 feet<br />
AGL. For aircraft with approach speeds<br />
<strong>of</strong> 121 knots but less than 141 knots,<br />
approaches to Runway 17 can be made<br />
1-16<br />
with 473 foot cloud ceilings and one and<br />
one-quarter mile visibility. This<br />
approach procedure also provides for<br />
circling approaches to Runway 35.<br />
Runway 35 is served by one published<br />
instrument approach. <strong>The</strong> Localizer<br />
Back Course Runway 35 approach<br />
utilizes the <strong>airport</strong>’s localizer for<br />
straight-in approaches from the south<br />
and circling approaches to Runway 17.<br />
<strong>The</strong> localizer emits signals in both<br />
directions. In conducting a back-course<br />
approach, the pilot must adjust to the<br />
opposite signals provided by the<br />
localizer. Details <strong>of</strong> the published<br />
instrument approaches are provided in<br />
Table 1E.<br />
Arrival and Departure Procedures<br />
Due to the congested airspace over the<br />
Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, the FAA<br />
has established a series <strong>of</strong> Standard<br />
Terminal Arrival (STAR) and Departure<br />
Procedures (DP). <strong>The</strong> STAR is a preplanned<br />
air traffic control arrival<br />
procedure designed to provide for the<br />
transition from the enroute phase <strong>of</strong> the<br />
flight to an outer fix or an instrument<br />
approach fix in the terminal area. <strong>The</strong><br />
four published STARs are: Dumpy Two,<br />
Fingr Three, Gregs Five, and Knead<br />
Five.<br />
<strong>The</strong> DP is a preplanned air traffic<br />
control departure procedure that<br />
provides for the transition from the<br />
terminal area to the enroute phase <strong>of</strong><br />
the flight. <strong>The</strong> seven published DPs<br />
are: Dallas Seven, Garland One,<br />
Hubbard Five, Joe Pool Nine, Kingdom<br />
Five, Texoma Seven, and Worth Three.
TABLE 1E<br />
Instrument Approach Data<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
WEATHER MINIMUMS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE<br />
Category A and B Category C<br />
Cloud Height Visibility Cloud Height Visibility<br />
(feet AGL) (miles) (feet AGL) (miles)<br />
ILS Runway 17<br />
Straight-In ILS 250 0.75 250 0.75<br />
Straight-In Localizer 293 1 293 1<br />
Circling 513 1 513 1<br />
Localizer Back Course Runway 35<br />
Straight-In 357 1 357 1<br />
Circling<br />
NDB or GPS Runway 17<br />
513 1 513 1.5<br />
Straight-In 473 1 473 1.25<br />
Circling 513 1 513 1.5<br />
Source: Airport/Facility Directory; South Central U.S., (November, 2004).<br />
Local Operating Procedures<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is situated at<br />
447 feet above mean sea level (MSL). A<br />
standard left-hand traffic pattern has<br />
been established for all aircraft.<br />
Aircraft departing to the south are<br />
requested to climb to 1,000 feet before<br />
turning left. <strong>The</strong>re is a 970-foot tower<br />
2.71 nm southeast <strong>of</strong> the Runway 35<br />
end. Forty-two feet from the north end<br />
threshold and 465 feet to the left <strong>of</strong> the<br />
centerline is a cluster <strong>of</strong> trees that are<br />
approximately 20 feet high.<br />
Air Route Traffic<br />
Control Center (ARTCC)<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA has established 21 Air Route<br />
Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) in the<br />
continental United States to control<br />
aircraft operating under instrument<br />
flight rules (IFR) within controlled<br />
airspace and while in the enroute phase<br />
<strong>of</strong> flight. An ARTCC assigns specific<br />
routes and altitudes along federal<br />
1-17<br />
airways to maintain separation and<br />
orderly air traffic flow. Centers use<br />
radio communication and long range<br />
radar with automatic tracking<br />
capability to provide enroute air traffic<br />
services. Typically, the ARTCC splits<br />
its airspace into sectors and assigns a<br />
controller or team <strong>of</strong> controllers to each<br />
sector. As an aircraft travels through<br />
the ARTCC, one “hands <strong>of</strong>f” control to<br />
another. Each sector guides the aircraft<br />
using discrete radio frequencies.<br />
Fort Worth ARTCC is responsible for<br />
enroute control <strong>of</strong> all aircraft operating<br />
under IFR and participating VFR<br />
aircraft arriving and departing the<br />
Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex area.<br />
Local Air Traffic Control<br />
Although <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is not<br />
served by an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control<br />
tower (ATCT), pilots can broadcast their<br />
intention and position on the common<br />
traffic advisory frequency (CTAF)
channel 123.05 Mhz. Aircraft operating<br />
within the Class B airspace<br />
surrounding the Dallas/Fort Worth<br />
Metroplex or aircraft operating an<br />
instrument flight to <strong>airport</strong>s in the<br />
DFW area are controlled by DFW<br />
regional approach/departure control<br />
available on frequency 125.2 Mhz.<br />
REGIONAL AIRPORTS<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> public-use <strong>airport</strong>s within a<br />
20 nm radius <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
was made to identify and distinguish<br />
the types <strong>of</strong> air services provided in the<br />
region. <strong>The</strong>se <strong>airport</strong>s were previously<br />
identified on Exhibit 1D. Information<br />
pertaining to each <strong>airport</strong> was obtained<br />
1-18<br />
from FAA Form 5010, Airport <strong>Master</strong><br />
Record.<br />
It is important to consider the<br />
capabilities and limitations <strong>of</strong> other<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s when planning for future<br />
changes or improvements at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> following are those<br />
public use <strong>airport</strong>s with asphalt or<br />
concrete runways that can serve general<br />
aviation aircraft. <strong>The</strong>se <strong>airport</strong>s are<br />
listed by their proximity to <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport. Dallas/Fort Worth<br />
International Airport is also discussed<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the significant impact it has<br />
on operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. Table 1F identifies the major<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> each <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
TABLE 1F<br />
Public Use Airports Near <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Distance<br />
Longest Based Annual<br />
Airport Name (nm) Type Runway Aircraft Operations Services<br />
Airpark East Airport<br />
Rockwall Municipal<br />
10 ENE GA 2630' 60 16,000 Fuel<br />
Airport<br />
Rives Air Park<br />
12 NE GA 3373' 86 38,000 Full GA<br />
Airport<br />
Terrell Municipal<br />
13 ENE GA 2800' 3 300 None<br />
Airport 13.5 E GA<br />
Reliever<br />
5000' 85 26,000 Full GA<br />
Lancaster Airport 14 SW (GA) 5000' 195 40,500 Full GA<br />
Full<br />
Dallas Love Field 17 W Commercial 8880' 595 251,000 GA/Comm.<br />
Dallas Executive<br />
Reliever<br />
Airport<br />
Dallas/Fort Worth<br />
18 W (GA) 6,451' 174 96,000 Full GA<br />
Intl. 25 W Commercial 13,400' N/A 800,000 Commercial<br />
Source: FAA Form 5010, Airport <strong>Master</strong> Record<br />
Airpark East Airport is located 10<br />
nautical miles to the east/northeast <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is<br />
served by asphalt Runway 13-31, which<br />
is 2,630 feet long by 30 feet wide.<br />
Airpark East has an estimated 16,000<br />
annual operations and bases 60 single<br />
engine aircraft. <strong>The</strong>re are no published<br />
instrument approaches. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong>
fixed base operator (FBO) provides<br />
100LL fuel services.<br />
Rockwall Municipal Airport,<br />
situated 12 nautical miles north/<br />
northeast, is owned and operated by the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Rockwall. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is served<br />
by Runway 17-35, providing an asphalt<br />
landing area <strong>of</strong> 3,373 feet long by 45<br />
feet wide. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has 86 based<br />
aircraft, including six multi-engine<br />
aircraft. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has an estimated<br />
38,000 operations annually. Four on<strong>airport</strong><br />
businesses provide aviation<br />
services, including flight training,<br />
100LL Avgas fuel sales, aircraft<br />
maintenance, aircraft rental,<br />
sightseeing, and <strong>airport</strong> terminal<br />
building spaces for pilot/passenger<br />
accommodation. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has three<br />
published instrument approach<br />
procedures.<br />
Rives Air Park Airport, is located 13<br />
nautical miles east/northeast <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport in Royse <strong>City</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is served by asphalt<br />
Runway 4-22, which is 2,800 feet long<br />
by 40 feet wide. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has three<br />
based single-engine aircraft and an<br />
estimated 300 annual operations. No<br />
aviation services are currently provided<br />
at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Terrell Municipal Airport is located<br />
13.5 nautical miles east <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is owned by<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Terrell and is served by two<br />
asphalt runways. Crosswind Runway<br />
14-32 extends 3,014 feet long by 75 feet<br />
wide, while primary Runway 17-35 is<br />
5,000 feet long by 75 feet wide. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
are 85 based aircraft, including ten<br />
multi-engine aircraft, and an estimated<br />
26,000 annual operations. Terrell<br />
1-19<br />
Aviation, the <strong>airport</strong>’s only FBO,<br />
provides a full range <strong>of</strong> services<br />
including fuel sales, flight school/flight<br />
training, minor aircraft maintenance<br />
and repair, aircraft rental, courtesy<br />
transportation, and a public telephone.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is one approved instrument<br />
approach, NDB or GPS, to Runway 17.<br />
Lancaster Airport is located 14<br />
nautical miles to the southwest and is<br />
owned and operated by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Lancaster. This <strong>airport</strong> is served by<br />
asphalt Runway 13-31, which extends<br />
5,000 feet long by 100 feet wide.<br />
Lancaster Airport has an estimated<br />
40,500 annual operations and bases 195<br />
aircraft, including 25 multi-engine and<br />
30 turbine powered aircraft. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>airport</strong> is served by two FBOs which<br />
provide an array <strong>of</strong> aviation services,<br />
including fueling, aircraft rental, flight<br />
instruction, and aircraft maintenance.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are two instrument approaches to<br />
the Runway 31 end.<br />
Dallas Love Field, located 17 nautical<br />
miles west/northwest <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport, is a medium hub commercial<br />
service <strong>airport</strong> which had approximately<br />
2.8 million enplane-ments in<br />
2003. Love Field serves as the primary<br />
hub and corporate headquarters for<br />
Southwest Airlines. Owned and<br />
operated by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dallas, the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is served by three runways, with<br />
Runway 13R-31L the longest at 8,800<br />
feet. Although it primarily serves as a<br />
commercial service <strong>airport</strong>, Love Field<br />
is also home to 595 aircraft, including<br />
522 jets. Tower counts reflect<br />
approximately 251,000 annual<br />
operations. <strong>The</strong>re are nine instrument<br />
approaches.
Dallas Executive Airport, formerly<br />
Dallas Redbird Airport, is located 18<br />
nautical miles west/southwest <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Owned and<br />
operated by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dallas, the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is served by two paved runways.<br />
Runway 13-31 provides the greatest<br />
length, measuring 6,451 feet long by<br />
150 feet wide. Runway 31 is served by<br />
an ILS precision approach. Crosswind<br />
Runway 17-35 is 3,801 feet long and<br />
150 feet wide. Both runways are<br />
constructed <strong>of</strong> concrete and are in good<br />
condition <strong>The</strong>re are 174 based aircraft,<br />
including 31 multi-engine and three jet<br />
aircraft. Served by an <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />
control tower, the <strong>airport</strong> has<br />
approximately 96,000 annual<br />
operations, with 65 percent being<br />
training operations. Services provided<br />
include fuel, avionics, courtesy<br />
transportation, aviation accessories,<br />
and restrooms. <strong>The</strong>re are four<br />
instrument approaches approved for use<br />
at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Dallas/Fort Worth International<br />
Airport (DFW) is located 25 nautical<br />
miles northwest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. One <strong>of</strong> the largest and busiest<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s in the world, DFW is classified<br />
as a large hub, commercial service<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. DFW is equipped with seven<br />
paved runways, with the longest<br />
runway being 13,400 feet long. DFW is<br />
served by an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control<br />
tower and provides approach/control<br />
services for the area. An array <strong>of</strong><br />
instrument approach aids, including<br />
precision ILS approaches, aid pilots on<br />
approach during inclement weather<br />
conditions. DFW serves as an<br />
international <strong>airport</strong> and an <strong>airport</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
entry, providing customs services. This<br />
<strong>airport</strong> typically ranks as one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
1-20<br />
busiest <strong>airport</strong>s in the world in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
enplanements (30 million) and<br />
operations (1,000,000). <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> also<br />
serves as a hub for UPS and other cargo<br />
carriers.<br />
AREA LAND USE<br />
AND ZONING<br />
<strong>The</strong> area land use surrounding<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is influenced by<br />
four entities: the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, the<br />
Town <strong>of</strong> Sunnyvale, and Dallas and<br />
Kaufman Counties. Review <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
and future land use and zoning plans is<br />
critical to understanding the potential<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. By understanding the<br />
land use issues surrounding the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
more appropriate recommendations can<br />
be made for the future.<br />
EXISTING LAND USES<br />
Existing land uses surrounding<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport include a mix <strong>of</strong><br />
residential, industrial, and agricultural<br />
land uses. To the north <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
immediately north <strong>of</strong> Scyene Road, is a<br />
Union Pacific rail line. Further to the<br />
northeast is the APAC-Texas, Inc.<br />
industrial concrete mixing facility. To<br />
the immediate east and west <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is primarily agricultural land<br />
with some single-family housing along<br />
Lawson and Scyene Roads. To the<br />
southeast is Devil’s Bowl Speedway, a<br />
commercial dirt racetrack. South and<br />
southwest are new residential<br />
developments, including Falcon’s Lair<br />
and Pecan Creek. To the immediate<br />
west is primarily agricultural lands;<br />
further west is the Creek Crossing<br />
residential development. Exhibit 1F
04MP22-1F-2/8/06<br />
Truss Co.<br />
Oncor Utility<br />
APAC- Texas Texas Inc.<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Residential<br />
Commercial/Industrial<br />
Currently Zoned Zoned Industrial<br />
Industrial<br />
Currently Zoned Zoned Industrial<br />
Industrial<br />
Runway 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />
Catfish<br />
Corner<br />
Corner<br />
Devil's Bowl<br />
Speedway<br />
Speedway<br />
Creek Crossing<br />
NORTH<br />
Gibsons<br />
Shooting<br />
Range<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Pecan Creek<br />
Creek<br />
<strong>The</strong><br />
Village <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
Falcon's<br />
Lair<br />
Falcon's<br />
Lair<br />
Exhibit 1F<br />
GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE
depicts the existing land uses in the<br />
vicinity <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
FUTURE LAND USES<br />
AND ZONING<br />
Exhibit 1G shows the existing zoning<br />
in the <strong>airport</strong> vicinity. Much <strong>of</strong> the<br />
agricultural land which surrounds the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is zoned as Industrial/Business<br />
Park. According to <strong>The</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Development Guide - December 2003,<br />
large tracts <strong>of</strong> undeveloped land near<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>, primarily to the east and<br />
west, should be reserved for<br />
industrial/business park development.<br />
<strong>The</strong> plan recognizes that development<br />
may not occur in the short term but the<br />
plan supports resisting other<br />
development alternatives in order to<br />
maintain compatible land uses near the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> over the long term.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Development Guide identifies those<br />
areas on both sides <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> as the<br />
Airport Industrial District. This<br />
district has been established in order to<br />
“achieve compatible land use goals<br />
relative to <strong>airport</strong> development and to<br />
take advantage <strong>of</strong> the potential<br />
businesses which benefit from proximity<br />
to a general aviation <strong>airport</strong>.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> Town <strong>of</strong> Sunnyvale, directly to the<br />
north <strong>of</strong> Scyene Road, has published its<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial zoning map. <strong>The</strong> map identifies<br />
all parcels along Scyene Road as being<br />
zoned for industrial development.<br />
Further to the northwest is singlefamily<br />
residential zoning, followed by<br />
commercial development along U.S.<br />
Highway 80. To the northeast the<br />
zoning is identified as a flood plain<br />
surrounding Long Creek.<br />
1-21<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> is directly<br />
responsible for planning and zoning on<strong>airport</strong><br />
property and within the city<br />
limits. By Texas law, the <strong>City</strong> can also<br />
plan the land use for those<br />
unincorporated areas that are within<br />
five miles <strong>of</strong> the city boundary. This<br />
extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ)<br />
accounts for approximately 24 square<br />
miles to the east and southeast <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. This area has not been<br />
formally zoned for compatible <strong>airport</strong><br />
land uses.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Development Guide also identifies<br />
improvements to the surface<br />
transportation network that would<br />
provide regional access to the Airport<br />
Industrial District and the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
plan proposes the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
Highway 190 to connect from U.S.<br />
Highway 80 to Interstate 20. <strong>The</strong> four<br />
possible alignments are also presented<br />
on the exhibit.<br />
HEIGHT ZONING<br />
Use <strong>of</strong> the existing properties and<br />
planned future uses <strong>of</strong> land near the<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport include height<br />
and obstruction considerations. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Zoning Ordinance 2943, Phil<br />
L. Hudson Municipal Airport<br />
Hazard Zoning Ordinance, was<br />
established to regulate and restrict the<br />
heights <strong>of</strong> structures and objects <strong>of</strong><br />
natural growth around the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />
enhance safety <strong>of</strong> aircraft in flight and<br />
objects on the ground. Also, the<br />
ordinance considered the potential<br />
conflicts an obstruction could pose on<br />
existing and future approach minimums<br />
at the <strong>airport</strong>.
Recognizing the importance <strong>of</strong><br />
maintaining and enforcing potential<br />
obstructions and hazards to flight, a<br />
zoning board was formed. <strong>The</strong> Airport<br />
Board <strong>of</strong> Adjustment is composed <strong>of</strong> five<br />
members, with three members<br />
appointed by the <strong>Mesquite</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council<br />
and two members appointed by the<br />
Town Council <strong>of</strong> the Town <strong>of</strong> Sunnyvale.<br />
<strong>The</strong> board’s duties include to hear and<br />
decide on appeals from the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
<strong>City</strong> Manager or <strong>Plan</strong>ner, hear and<br />
decide on special considerations or<br />
exceptions to the terms <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ordinance, and to hear and decide on<br />
specific variances. <strong>The</strong> board is<br />
mandated to hold a public meeting and<br />
make written findings <strong>of</strong> facts when<br />
making its legal decisions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> height zoning ordinance was<br />
established following Federal Aviation<br />
Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 77, Objects<br />
Effecting Navigable Airspace. F.A.R.<br />
Part 77 assigns three-dimensional<br />
imaginary areas to the runway in<br />
accordance to the type <strong>of</strong> aircraft and<br />
approach minimums being served.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se imaginary surfaces emanate from<br />
the runway centerline and are<br />
dimensioned to protect approaching and<br />
departing aircraft from the potential<br />
hazard <strong>of</strong> obstructions. Ordinance 2943<br />
considered the imaginary surfaces for a<br />
precision instrument runway with a<br />
1,000-foot primary surface. <strong>The</strong><br />
ordinance also considered Runway 17-<br />
35 at an ultimate length <strong>of</strong> 7,000 feet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ordinance protected the horizontal,<br />
transitional, and conical surfaces<br />
defined by Part 77 for a precision<br />
runway.<br />
1-22<br />
SOCIOECONOMIC<br />
CHARACTERISTICS<br />
Socioeconomic characteristics are<br />
collected and examined to derive an<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> the dynamics <strong>of</strong><br />
growth within the study area. This<br />
information is essential in determining<br />
aviation service level requirements, as<br />
well as forecasting aircraft activity at<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. Statistical analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
population, employment and income<br />
trends will give indications <strong>of</strong> the<br />
economic strength <strong>of</strong> the region and the<br />
ability <strong>of</strong> the region to sustain a strong<br />
economic base over an extended period<br />
<strong>of</strong> time.<br />
Where possible, local or regional data<br />
has been collected. Population data for<br />
those areas in and around the Dallas<br />
Metroplex was obtained from the North<br />
Central Texas Council <strong>of</strong> Governments<br />
(NCTCOG). As the designated<br />
Metropolitan <strong>Plan</strong>ning Organization<br />
(MPO) for the greater Dallas/Fort<br />
Worth Metroplex, NCTCOG publishes<br />
socioeconomic data for the region. <strong>The</strong><br />
Texas Water Development Board<br />
(TWDB) publishes population statistics<br />
on a county and statewide basis. <strong>The</strong><br />
Texas Office <strong>of</strong> the Comptroller also<br />
publishes population statistics that<br />
closely mirror those <strong>of</strong> the TWDB.<br />
Employment information is obtained<br />
from the Texas Workforce Commission.<br />
Income data is obtained from Woods &<br />
Poole Economics, Inc., a nationally<br />
recognized leader in demographic<br />
collection and analysis.
04MP22-1G-2/14/05<br />
LEGEND<br />
Agricultural<br />
Central Business District<br />
Commercial<br />
Duplex Residential<br />
General Retail<br />
Industrial<br />
Light Commercial<br />
Mixed Use<br />
Multi-Family Residential<br />
Office<br />
Service Station<br />
Single Family Residential<br />
Townhouse Residential<br />
SUNNYVALE<br />
A<br />
B<br />
Proposed<br />
Highway Highway 190<br />
190<br />
Alignments Alignment Alignments<br />
MESQUITE, TEXAS<br />
ZONING MAP<br />
C<br />
0 2,000<br />
Feet<br />
4,000<br />
Produced By <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning Division<br />
Last Update March, 2004<br />
D<br />
SEAGOVILLE<br />
MESQUITE ETJ<br />
LR<br />
Collins<br />
AH<br />
FP LR<br />
AH<br />
AH<br />
Seagoville<br />
US 175<br />
Larkin<br />
Clay<br />
Paschal<br />
US Hwy 80<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Dallas<br />
Stark<br />
Simonds<br />
Clay<br />
Lasater<br />
LR<br />
FP<br />
Mathis<br />
Berry<br />
Cartwright<br />
Lawson<br />
IH-20<br />
Shannon<br />
Farmers<br />
May<br />
GB<br />
LR<br />
FLOOD PLAIN<br />
Alto<br />
ast Fork<br />
SF-2<br />
SF-3<br />
SF-2<br />
SF-3<br />
Sunnyvale<br />
Larkin<br />
Berry<br />
SF-3<br />
Scyene<br />
SF-2<br />
Seagoville<br />
Rebecca<br />
SF-3<br />
Lawson<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> ETJ<br />
Malloy Bridge<br />
I<br />
SF-2<br />
FP<br />
SF-2<br />
HC<br />
HC<br />
FLOOD PLAIN<br />
County Rd 200<br />
FM 740<br />
SF-2<br />
SF-2<br />
GB<br />
FP<br />
SF-3<br />
County Rd 202<br />
County Rd 201<br />
SF-2<br />
FP<br />
SF-1<br />
I<br />
County<br />
GB<br />
AR<br />
Rd 209<br />
FM 740<br />
FM 2757<br />
Trinity<br />
SF-2<br />
FM 460<br />
Old Hwy 80<br />
Tradewind<br />
SF-2<br />
FLOOD PLAIN<br />
SF-2<br />
FM 740<br />
Old Nacogodches<br />
Sherwood<br />
Kelly<br />
SF-1<br />
Pecan<br />
Walnut<br />
Union Hill<br />
Overlook<br />
Lovers<br />
Melody<br />
FM 740<br />
Pecan Oak<br />
SF-2<br />
LC<br />
SF-2<br />
SF-2<br />
Tounsand<br />
Forney<br />
County Rd 257<br />
FM 741<br />
High Country<br />
FM 741<br />
Valleyvie<br />
FM 741<br />
FM 741<br />
FM 741<br />
K. C. Road 269<br />
Crandall<br />
SF-1<br />
SF-1<br />
GB<br />
HC<br />
SF-1<br />
HC<br />
HC<br />
HC<br />
HC<br />
SF-4<br />
SF-4<br />
FP<br />
HC<br />
GB SF-4<br />
SF-4<br />
FLOOD PLAIN<br />
I<br />
SF-4<br />
SF-1<br />
FP<br />
I<br />
Glenwood<br />
Ranch<br />
<strong>The</strong>lma<br />
FLOOD PLAIN<br />
I<br />
Griffin<br />
Reeder<br />
County Rd 218<br />
FM 1641<br />
FM 548<br />
Halms<br />
FM 2932<br />
County Rd. 260<br />
University<br />
Reeder<br />
Old Hwy 80<br />
County Rd South<br />
County Rd 211<br />
County Rd 214<br />
County Rd 261<br />
FM 148<br />
Tounsand<br />
TOWN OF SUNNYVALE<br />
ZONING MAP<br />
AR<br />
SF-1<br />
SF-2<br />
SF-3<br />
SF-4<br />
AH<br />
HC<br />
LR<br />
I<br />
LC<br />
GB<br />
FP<br />
LEGEND<br />
Agricultural Residential<br />
Single Family 1<br />
Single Family 2<br />
Single Family 3<br />
Single Family 4<br />
Attached Housing<br />
Highway Commercial<br />
Local Retail<br />
Industrial<br />
Lakeside Commercial<br />
General Business<br />
Flood Plain<br />
Town Center Overlay District<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
Feet<br />
2000<br />
SEPTEMBER 10, 2002<br />
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR AND INTENDED TO BE A<br />
GENERAL GUIDE ONLY. DUE TO GRAPHIC REQUIREMENTS,<br />
SOME AREAS MAY NOT BE EXACT SCALE. FOR ACTUAL<br />
ZONING BOUNDARIES, SEE THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION.<br />
MESQUITE ETJ<br />
LEGEND<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> ETJ<br />
0 5,000<br />
Feet<br />
10,000<br />
Produced By <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning Division<br />
February 17, 2004<br />
Exhibit 1G<br />
ZONING/FUTURE LAND USE
POPULATION<br />
Population is one <strong>of</strong> the most important<br />
elements to consider when planning for<br />
future needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. Historical<br />
TABLE 1G<br />
Historical Population Statistics<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
1-23<br />
population data for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>, Dallas and Kaufman<br />
Counties, and the State <strong>of</strong> Texas are<br />
presented in Table 1G.<br />
Populations 1970 1980 1990 2000<br />
Avg. Annual<br />
Growth Rate<br />
Kaufman County 32,392 39,015 52,220 71,313 2.67%<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>* 55,131 67,053 101,484 124,523 2.75%<br />
Dallas County 1,327,696 1,556,419 1,852,810 2,218,899 1.73%<br />
State <strong>of</strong> Texas** 11,196,730 14,229,191 16,986,510 20,851,820 2.09%<br />
Source: Texas Comptrollers Office; *NCTCOG - 2004 Current Population Estimates; **Texas<br />
Water Development Board<br />
<strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas shows a 2.09 percent<br />
annual growth rate from 1970 to 2000.<br />
This represents very strong growth<br />
when compared to other states. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has enjoyed even<br />
greater growth over the same period.<br />
Kaufman County, which is one-half<br />
mile to the east <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, has also<br />
enjoyed strong growth over the period.<br />
<strong>The</strong> growth rate for Dallas County as a<br />
whole has been 1.73 percent annually.<br />
For a county that also represents an<br />
urban core, this is excellent growth.<br />
This pattern is the opposite <strong>of</strong> the<br />
population trends for urban counties<br />
over the same period, where cities<br />
elsewhere typically lose population.<br />
It is forecast that the population growth<br />
over the next 20 years will slow<br />
somewhat as compared to the last 20<br />
years, but the growth is still significant.<br />
Kaufman County is forecast to continue<br />
to grow at more than two percent<br />
annually over the next 20 years. That<br />
will bring the population from 71,000 to<br />
nearly 126,000. Dallas County and the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> are both expected to<br />
show continued growth. <strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong><br />
Texas is forecast to grow at 1.41 percent<br />
annually. Table 1H represents the<br />
forecast population over the next 20<br />
years.<br />
TABLE 1H<br />
Forecast Population<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Populations<br />
Kaufman<br />
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025<br />
Annual<br />
Growth Rate<br />
County<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
71,313 80,582 90,416 101,632 113,786 126,498 2.32%<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>* 124,523 132,988 136,175 143,014 149,262 151,838 0.80%<br />
Dallas County 2,218,899 2,412,983 2,579,566 2,757,573 2,935,308 3,117,192 1.37%<br />
State <strong>of</strong> Texas 20,851,820 22,725,059 24,395,179 26,185,643 27,917,492 29,584,585 1.41%<br />
Source: Texas Comptrollers Office; *NCTCOG; 2005 population is estimated
EMPLOYMENT<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> a community’s employment<br />
base can be valuable in determining the<br />
overall well-being <strong>of</strong> that community.<br />
In most cases, the community’s makeup<br />
and health is significantly<br />
determined by the availability <strong>of</strong> jobs,<br />
variety <strong>of</strong> employment opportunities,<br />
and types <strong>of</strong> wages provided by local<br />
employers. Information for employment<br />
by industry for Dallas County was<br />
obtained from the Texas Workforce<br />
Commission.<br />
Table 1J summarizes labor force data<br />
for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, Dallas and<br />
Kaufman Counties, and the State <strong>of</strong><br />
Texas. Data for the United Stated is<br />
also provided for comparison purposes.<br />
As shown in the table, <strong>Mesquite</strong>’s labor<br />
force grew by more than 9,400 between<br />
1990 and 2004. This represents an<br />
overall annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> more than<br />
1.00 percent. <strong>The</strong> unemployment rate<br />
for <strong>Mesquite</strong> ranged from a low <strong>of</strong> 2.6<br />
percent to a high <strong>of</strong> 5.1 percent. This<br />
range is lower on average than that <strong>of</strong><br />
Dallas County as a whole. <strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong><br />
Texas’ unemployment rate tracks closer<br />
to Dallas County than the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> fares better than<br />
Dallas County, the State <strong>of</strong> Texas, and<br />
the United States in these employment<br />
categories. This is an indication <strong>of</strong> the<br />
positive employment environment that<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> can provide. Over<br />
the last 15 years, the <strong>City</strong> has had the<br />
lowest unemployment rate <strong>of</strong> the<br />
compared areas.<br />
<strong>The</strong> economic conditions during this 14year<br />
period should be noted. Between<br />
1-24<br />
1995 and 2001, the County and region<br />
experienced a period <strong>of</strong> sustained<br />
economic prosperity. A national<br />
economic slowdown occurred toward the<br />
end <strong>of</strong> 2000. <strong>The</strong> events <strong>of</strong> 9/11<br />
contributed to the continued economic<br />
slowdown. Recent economic trends<br />
show a steady economic upturn.<br />
Table 1K provides a view <strong>of</strong><br />
employment by industry for Dallas<br />
County for 2000 and 2025. Total<br />
employment is projected to increased by<br />
more than 625,000. This represents an<br />
average annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.15<br />
percent. <strong>The</strong> employment base <strong>of</strong><br />
Dallas County is projected to maintain<br />
a mix dominated by services, retail<br />
trade, and finance. Manufacturing<br />
currently represents over 10 percent <strong>of</strong><br />
the employment mix and is projected to<br />
show positive annual growth. <strong>The</strong><br />
largest sector <strong>of</strong> employment for Dallas<br />
County is the services sector. Over one<br />
million people are projected to be<br />
employed in the service sector by 2025,<br />
which represents approximately 40<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the total employment.<br />
<strong>The</strong> major employers in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> are presented in Table 1L.<br />
As is common in cities, the school<br />
district represents the employer with<br />
the greatest number <strong>of</strong> employees. <strong>The</strong><br />
second largest employer is United<br />
Parcel Service, with 2,340 employees.<br />
Eastfield Community College is also a<br />
large local employer, with nearly 1,200<br />
people. Understanding the types <strong>of</strong><br />
employment opportunities will aid in<br />
identifying demand for general aviation<br />
services.
TABLE 1J<br />
Employment Characteristics<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
1990 1995 2000 2004<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Labor Force 59,839 63,522 69,658 69,294<br />
Employment 57,476 61,096 67,853 65,790<br />
Unemployment 2,363 2,426 1,805 3,505<br />
Unemployment Rate 3.9 3.8 2.6 5.1<br />
Dallas County<br />
Labor Force 1,073,211 1,138,760 1,243,459 1,247,568<br />
Employment 1,016,748 1,080,800 1,200,318 1,163,823<br />
Unemployment 56,463 57,960 43,141 83,745<br />
Unemployment Rate 5.3 5.1 3.5 6.7<br />
Kaufman County<br />
Labor Force 25,341 28,775 33,946 36,075<br />
Employment 23,949 27,514 32,508 33,200<br />
Unemployment 1,392 1,261 1,438 2,875<br />
Unemployment Rate 5.5 4.4 4.2 8.0<br />
State <strong>of</strong> Texas<br />
Labor Force 8,618,780 9,592,929 10,401,557 10,978,591<br />
Employment 8,074,107 9,015,240 9,960,436 10,335,723<br />
Unemployment 544,673 577,689 441,121 642,868<br />
Unemployment Rate 6.3 6 4.2 5.9<br />
United States<br />
Labor Force 125,840,000 132,304,000 142,583,000 147,401,167<br />
Employment 118,793,000 124,900,000 136,891,000 139,251,917<br />
Unemployment 7,047,000 7,404,000 5,692,000 8,149,250<br />
Unemployment Rate 5.6 5.6 4 5.5<br />
Source: Texas Workforce Commission<br />
TABLE 1K<br />
Employment by Sector<br />
Dallas County<br />
Economic Sector 2000<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Total<br />
Employment<br />
(2000) 2025<br />
1-25<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Total<br />
Employment<br />
(2025)<br />
Avg. Annual<br />
Growth Rate<br />
(2000-2025)<br />
Mining 17,123 0.90% 16,307 0.65% -0.20%<br />
Construction 108,214 5.72% 137,071 5.44% 0.95%<br />
Manufacturing 193,593 10.23% 205,923 8.17% 0.25%<br />
Transport., Comm., & Utilities 145,586 7.69% 193,699 7.69% 1.15%<br />
Wholesale Trade 149,453 7.89% 180,203 7.15% 0.75%<br />
Retail Trade 278,416 14.71% 343,825 13.65% 0.85%<br />
Finance, Ins., & Real Estate 207,691 10.97% 252,566 10.02% 0.79%<br />
Services 638,035 33.70% 1,005,899 39.92% 1.84%<br />
Federal Civilian Government 28,661 1.51% 32,025 1.27% 0.44%<br />
Federal Military Government 7,413 0.39% 7,817 0.31% 0.21%<br />
State and Local Government 118,986 6.29% 144,412 5.73% 0.78%<br />
Total Employment 1,893,171 100.00% 2,519,747 100.00% 1.15%<br />
Source: Woods and Poole, CEDDS (2004).
TABLE 1L<br />
Major Employers<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Company Business Employees<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> School District Public 4,308<br />
United Parcel Service Transportation 2,340<br />
Eastfield Community College Public 1,191<br />
Baker Drywall Service 1,125<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Public 1,068<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Community Hospital Service 750<br />
Medical Center <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Service 700<br />
Wal-Mart Supercenter Retail 510<br />
TxDOT Transportation 500<br />
Pepsi Cola Bottling Manufacturing 450<br />
Schneider National Service 450<br />
Integra Color Group Manufacturing 410<br />
U.S. Foodservice Wholesale 350<br />
Christian Care Center Service 270<br />
Allmet Building Products Manufacturing 260<br />
Source: 2004 <strong>City</strong>wide Data Summary, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME<br />
Table 1M compares the per capita<br />
personal income (PCPI adjusted to 1996<br />
dollars) for Dallas and Kaufman<br />
Counties, the State <strong>of</strong> Texas, and the<br />
United States between 1990 and 2000.<br />
In addition, the forecast PCPI from<br />
2000 to 2025 is also presented. As<br />
TABLE 1M<br />
Personal Income Per Capita (1996$)<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
1-26<br />
illustrated by the table, Dallas County’s<br />
PCPI has historically been ahead <strong>of</strong> the<br />
United States’ PCPI. This trend is<br />
projected to continue to 2025. <strong>The</strong> table<br />
illustrates the substantial growth in<br />
personal income from 1990 to 2000. It<br />
also projects a return to a more<br />
moderate annual growth through the<br />
forecast period.<br />
HISTORICAL FORECAST<br />
Annual<br />
Annual<br />
Growth<br />
Growth<br />
Rate (1990-<br />
Rate (2000-<br />
Area 1990 2000 2000) 2010 2015 2025 2025)<br />
Dallas County $26,478 $34,115 2.57% $36,171 $38,089 $42,378 0.87%<br />
Kaufman County $17,685 $22,440 2.41% $23,323 $24,558 $26,706 0.70%<br />
State <strong>of</strong> Texas $20,374 $26,066 2.49% $28,691 $30,361 $34,080 1.08%<br />
United States $22,856 $27,712 1.95% $30,680 $32,470 $36,510 1.11%<br />
Source: Woods and Poole, CEDDS (2004)
TAX INFORMATION<br />
Texas is one <strong>of</strong> only four states that<br />
does not have a corporate income tax,<br />
and one <strong>of</strong> only seven states that does<br />
not have an individual income tax. A<br />
6.25 percent state sales tax, a 1.5<br />
percent city sales tax, and a 0.5 percent<br />
tax to the <strong>Mesquite</strong> Quality <strong>of</strong> Life<br />
Corporation (used for transportation,<br />
public safety, and parks and recreation<br />
improvements) comprise <strong>Mesquite</strong>’s<br />
8.25 percent sales tax rate.<br />
SUMMARY<br />
<strong>The</strong> information discussed in this<br />
chapter provides a foundation upon<br />
which the remaining elements <strong>of</strong> the<br />
planning process will be constructed.<br />
Information on current <strong>airport</strong> facilities<br />
and utilization will serve as a basis,<br />
with additional analysis and data<br />
collection, for the development <strong>of</strong><br />
forecasts <strong>of</strong> aviation activity and facility<br />
requirement determinations.<br />
<strong>The</strong> inventory <strong>of</strong> existing conditions is<br />
the first step in the complex process for<br />
determining those factors which will<br />
meet projected aviation demand in the<br />
community and region.<br />
DOCUMENT SOURCES<br />
A variety <strong>of</strong> different sources were<br />
utilized in the inventory process. <strong>The</strong><br />
following listing reflects a partial<br />
compilation <strong>of</strong> these sources. This does<br />
not include data provided by <strong>airport</strong><br />
management as part <strong>of</strong> their records,<br />
nor does it include <strong>airport</strong> drawings and<br />
1-27<br />
photographs which were referenced for<br />
information. On-site inventory and<br />
interviews with staff and tenants<br />
contributed to the inventory effort.<br />
Airport/Facility Directory, South<br />
Central U.S., U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation, Federal Aviation<br />
Administration, National Aeronautical<br />
Charting Office, January 20, 2005.<br />
Dallas-Ft. Worth Sectional Aeronautical<br />
Chart, U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation, Federal Aviation<br />
Administration, National Aeronautical<br />
Charting Office, 73 rd edition, September<br />
30, 2004.<br />
National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong> Integrated Airport<br />
Systems (NPIAS), U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation, Federal Aviation<br />
Administration, 2005-2009.<br />
U.S. Terminal Procedures, South<br />
Central U.S., U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation, Federal Aviation<br />
Administration, National Aeronautical<br />
Charting Office, January 20, 2005.<br />
2003 <strong>Mesquite</strong> Development Guide.<br />
Prepared by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning and Zoning Division.<br />
2004 <strong>City</strong>wide Data Summary,<br />
Prepared by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning and Zoning Division.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Developer’s Handbook.<br />
Prepared by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning and Zoning Division.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Complete Economic and<br />
Demographic Data Source 2004<br />
(CEDDS), Woods & Poole Economics,<br />
Inc., Washington D.C.
A number <strong>of</strong> internet Web sites were<br />
also used to collect information for the<br />
inventory chapter. <strong>The</strong>se include the<br />
following:<br />
North Central Texas Council <strong>of</strong><br />
Governments:<br />
http://www.nctcog.org<br />
FAA 5010 Data:<br />
http://www.airnav.com<br />
http://www.gcr1.com/5010WEB/defaul<br />
t.htm (Airport IQ)<br />
1-28<br />
Texas Water Development Board:<br />
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/home/inde<br />
x.asp<br />
Texas Workforce Commission:<br />
http://www.twc.state.tx.us<br />
U.S. Census Bureau:<br />
http://www.census.gov<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>:<br />
http://www.city<strong>of</strong>mesquite.com<br />
Dallas County:<br />
http://www.dallascounty.org
Chapter Two<br />
AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS
CHAPTER TWO<br />
Aviation demand<br />
forecasts<br />
Facility planning begins by defining the demand that may<br />
reasonably be expected to occur at the facility over a specific<br />
period <strong>of</strong> time. For <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, this involves<br />
forecasts <strong>of</strong> aviation activity indicators through the year 2025.<br />
In this master plan, forecasts <strong>of</strong> based aircraft, based aircraft<br />
fleet mix, annual aircraft operations, and operational peak<br />
periods will serve as the basis for facility development<br />
planning.<br />
It is virtually impossible to predict, with certainty, year-to-year<br />
fluctuations <strong>of</strong> activity when looking 20 years into the future.<br />
However, a trend can be established which delineates long term<br />
growth potential. While a single line is <strong>of</strong>ten used to express<br />
the anticipated growth, it is important to remember that actual<br />
growth may fluctuate above and below this line. Forecasts<br />
serve as guidelines and planning must remain flexible enough<br />
to respond to unforeseen facility needs. This is because<br />
aviation is affected by many external influences, as well as by<br />
the types <strong>of</strong> aircraft used and the nature <strong>of</strong> the available<br />
services and facilities at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Recognizing this, it is intended to develop a master plan for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport that will be demand-based rather than<br />
time-based. As a result, the reasonable levels <strong>of</strong> activity<br />
potential that are derived from this forecasting effort will be<br />
related to the planning horizon levels rather than dates in time.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se planning levels will be established as levels <strong>of</strong> activity<br />
from which specific actions for the <strong>airport</strong> to consider will be<br />
presented.<br />
2-1 DRAFT
In order to fully assess current and<br />
future aviation demand for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport, an examination <strong>of</strong><br />
several key factors is needed. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
include national and regional aviation<br />
trends, historical and forecast<br />
socioeconomic and demographic<br />
information for the area, competing<br />
transportation modes, and facilities.<br />
Consideration and analysis <strong>of</strong> these<br />
factors will ensure a comprehensive<br />
outlook for future aviation demand at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
<strong>The</strong> demand-based manner in which<br />
this master plan is being prepared is<br />
intended to accommodate variations in<br />
demand at the <strong>airport</strong>. Demand-based<br />
planning relates capital improvements<br />
to demand factors, such as based<br />
aircraft operations, instead <strong>of</strong> points in<br />
time. This allows the <strong>airport</strong> to address<br />
capital improvement needs according to<br />
actual demand occurring at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore, should growth in aircraft<br />
operations, or based aircraft slow or<br />
decline, it may not be necessary to<br />
implement some improvement projects.<br />
However, should the <strong>airport</strong> experience<br />
accelerated growth, the plan will have<br />
accounted for that growth and will be<br />
flexible enough to respond accordingly.<br />
SOCIOECONOMIC<br />
PROJECTIONS<br />
<strong>The</strong> local socioeconomic conditions<br />
provide an important baseline for<br />
preparing aviation demand forecasts.<br />
Local socioeconomic variables such as<br />
population, employment, and income<br />
can be indicators for understanding the<br />
dynamics <strong>of</strong> the community and, in<br />
2-2<br />
particular, the trends in aviation<br />
growth. <strong>The</strong> following is a summary <strong>of</strong><br />
the research and projections presented<br />
in Chapter One.<br />
POPULATION<br />
Table 2A summarizes historical and<br />
forecast population estimates for Dallas<br />
and Kaufman Counties, as well as the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>. <strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas’<br />
projections are provided as a point <strong>of</strong><br />
reference. Analysis <strong>of</strong> these areas<br />
which directly impact <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport will provide a more<br />
comprehensive understanding <strong>of</strong> the<br />
socioeconomic situations that affect the<br />
region which supports the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> historical population<br />
information for Dallas County indicates<br />
an annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.82 percent<br />
between 1990 and 2000. Kaufman<br />
County shows an annual growth rate <strong>of</strong><br />
3.17 percent over the same period. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> grew at the same<br />
percent, 2.07, as the State <strong>of</strong> Texas.<br />
Across the board, regional socioeconomic<br />
growth rates were significant<br />
for this time period. <strong>The</strong> greater Dallas<br />
area was one <strong>of</strong> the fastest growing<br />
metropolitan areas in the country. In<br />
fact, many metropolitan areas in the<br />
south, such as Atlanta and Phoenix also<br />
reflected similar annual growth rates.<br />
Many northern cities, however, showed<br />
much slower growth rates or even<br />
negative growth rates over the same<br />
period.<br />
Future population data for Dallas and<br />
Kaufman Counties and the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> are also presented. <strong>The</strong>
population for Dallas County is forecast<br />
to exceed three million by 2025. This<br />
projection equates to an annual growth<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> 1.37 percent between 2000 and<br />
2025. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> is also<br />
projected to continue to grow but at a<br />
TABLE 2A<br />
Socioeconomic Forecast Summary<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
HISTORICAL FORECAST<br />
1990 2000 2010 2015 2025<br />
2-3<br />
more moderate 0.8 percent. Kaufman<br />
County population, on the other hand,<br />
is projected to grow at an annual rate <strong>of</strong><br />
2.32 percent, increasing from 71,000 in<br />
2000 to 126,000 in 2025.<br />
ANNUAL<br />
GROWTH<br />
RATE<br />
1990 to<br />
2000<br />
2000 to<br />
2025<br />
Kaufman County<br />
Population 52,220 71,313 90,416 101,632 126,498 3.17% 2.32%<br />
Employment 23,949 27,514 35,887 38,584 57,741 1.40% 3.01%<br />
PCPI $17,685 $22,440 $23,323 $24,558 $26,706 2.41% 0.70%<br />
Dallas County<br />
Population 1,852,810 2,218,899 2,579,566 2,757,573 3,117,192 1.82% 1.37%<br />
Employment 1,016,748 1,200,318 2,055,686 2,198,367 2,467,769 1.67% 2.92%<br />
PCPI $26,478 $34,115 $36,171 $38,089 $42,378 2.57% 0.87%<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Population 101,484 124,523 136,175 143,014 151,838 2.07% 0.80%<br />
Employment 42,000 53,785 64,733 69,790 75,551 2.50% 1.37%<br />
State <strong>of</strong> Texas<br />
Population 16,986,510 20,851,820 24,395,179 26,185,643 29,584,585 2.07% 1.41%<br />
Employment 8,951,715 11,861,491 14,001,229 15,202,926 17,793,335 2.85% 1.64%<br />
PCPI $20,374 $26,066 $28,691 $30,361 $34,080 2.49% 1.08%<br />
Source: PCPI & Texas Employment - Woods and Poole, CEDDS 2004. PCPI adjusted to $1996;<br />
Historical Employment - Texas Workforce Commission; Population & Future<br />
Employment - NCTCOG.<br />
EMPLOYMENT<br />
Historical and forecast employment<br />
data for the region is also presented in<br />
Table 2A. <strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas is<br />
projected to show an annual<br />
employment growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.64 percent<br />
from 2000 to 2025. Although this<br />
growth is slightly slower than the 2.85<br />
percent from 1990 to 2000, it is still<br />
quite brisk.<br />
Dallas and Kaufman Counties are<br />
projected to experience very strong<br />
employment growth through 2025, at<br />
2.92 percent and 3.01 percent<br />
respectively. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> is<br />
projected to show continued positive<br />
employment growth at 0.8 percent<br />
annually through the planning period.<br />
<strong>The</strong> projected employment growth in<br />
and around <strong>Mesquite</strong> bodes well for the<br />
economic well being <strong>of</strong> the area.
PER CAPITA PERSONAL<br />
INCOME (PCPI)<br />
Table 2A compares per capita personal<br />
income (adjusted to 1996 dollars) for the<br />
selected areas <strong>of</strong> study. From 1990 to<br />
2000, PCPI for Dallas and Kaufman<br />
Counties as well as the State <strong>of</strong> Texas<br />
showed substantial growth. Through<br />
2025, Dallas and Kaufman Counties are<br />
projected to experience moderate gains<br />
in PCPI. In fact, Dallas County is<br />
expected to exceed the PCPI <strong>of</strong> the State<br />
<strong>of</strong> Texas by more than $8,000 per<br />
person annually, through the planning<br />
period.<br />
FORECASTING APPROACH<br />
<strong>The</strong> development <strong>of</strong> aviation forecasts<br />
proceeds through both analytical and<br />
judgmental processes. A series <strong>of</strong><br />
mathematical relationships is tested to<br />
establish statistical logic and rationale<br />
for projected growth. However, the<br />
judgement <strong>of</strong> the forecast analyst, based<br />
upon pr<strong>of</strong>essional experience,<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> the aviation industry, and<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> the local situation, is<br />
important in the final determination <strong>of</strong><br />
the preferred forecast.<br />
<strong>The</strong> most reliable approach to<br />
estimating aviation demand is through<br />
the utilization <strong>of</strong> more than one<br />
analytical technique. Methodologies<br />
frequently considered include trend line<br />
projections, correlation/regression<br />
analysis, and market share analysis.<br />
Trend line projections are probably<br />
the simplest and most familiar <strong>of</strong> the<br />
forecasting techniques. By fitting<br />
2-4<br />
growth curves to historical demand<br />
data, then extending them into the<br />
future, a basic trend line projection is<br />
produced. A basic assumption <strong>of</strong> this<br />
technique is that outside factors will<br />
continue to affect aviation demand in<br />
much the same manner as in the past.<br />
As broad as this assumption may be,<br />
the trend line projection does serve as a<br />
reliable benchmark for comparing other<br />
projections.<br />
Correlation analysis provides a<br />
measure <strong>of</strong> direct relationship between<br />
two separate sets <strong>of</strong> historic data.<br />
Should there be a reasonable<br />
correlation between the data sets,<br />
further evaluation using regression<br />
analysis may be employed.<br />
Regression analysis measures the<br />
statistical relationship between<br />
dependent and independent variables<br />
yielding a “correlation coefficient.” <strong>The</strong><br />
correlation coefficient (Pearson’s “r”)<br />
measures association between the<br />
changes in a dependent variable and<br />
independent variable(s). If the rsquared<br />
(r 2 ) value (coefficient<br />
determination) is greater than 0.90, it<br />
indicates good predictive reliability. A<br />
value below 0.90 may be used with the<br />
understanding that the predictive<br />
reliability is lower.<br />
Market share analysis involves a<br />
historical review <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> activity as a<br />
percentage, or share, <strong>of</strong> a larger<br />
regional, state, or national aviation<br />
market. A historical market share<br />
trend is determined providing an<br />
expected market share for the future.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se shares are then multiplied by the<br />
forecasts <strong>of</strong> the larger geographical area
to produce a market share projection.<br />
This method has the same limitations<br />
as trend line projections, but can<br />
provide a useful check on the validity <strong>of</strong><br />
other forecasting techniques.<br />
It is important to note that one should<br />
not assume a high level <strong>of</strong> confidence in<br />
forecasts that extend beyond five years.<br />
Facility and financial planning usually<br />
require at least a 10-year view, since it<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten takes more than five years to<br />
complete a major facility development<br />
program. However, it is important to<br />
use forecasts which do not overestimate<br />
revenue-generating capabilities or<br />
understate demand for facilities needed<br />
to meet public (user) needs.<br />
A wide range <strong>of</strong> factors is known to<br />
influence the aviation industry and can<br />
have significant impacts on the extent<br />
and nature <strong>of</strong> air service provided in<br />
both the local and national markets.<br />
Technological advances in aviation have<br />
historically altered, and will continue to<br />
change, the growth rates in aviation<br />
demand over time. <strong>The</strong> most obvious<br />
example is the impact <strong>of</strong> jet aircraft on<br />
the aviation industry, which resulted in<br />
a growth rate that far exceeded<br />
expectations. Such changes are<br />
difficult, if not impossible, to predict,<br />
and there is simply no mathematical<br />
way to estimate their impacts. Using a<br />
broad spectrum <strong>of</strong> local, regional, and<br />
national socioeconomic and aviation<br />
information, and analyzing the most<br />
current aviation trends, forecasts are<br />
presented in the following sections.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following forecast analysis<br />
examines each <strong>of</strong> the aviation demand<br />
categories expected at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport through 2025. Each segment<br />
2-5<br />
will be examined individually, and then<br />
collectively, to provide an<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> the overall aviation<br />
activity at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
through 2025.<br />
AIRPORT SERVICE AREA<br />
<strong>The</strong> initial step in determining the<br />
general aviation demand for an <strong>airport</strong><br />
is to define its generalized service area.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> service area is determined<br />
primarily by evaluating the location <strong>of</strong><br />
competing <strong>airport</strong>s, their capabilities<br />
and services, and their relative<br />
attraction and convenience. Also, to aid<br />
in identifying the generalized service<br />
area for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, an<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> the billing addresses for<br />
most <strong>of</strong> the based aircraft owners was<br />
conducted. It should be noted that<br />
aviation demand <strong>of</strong>ten crosses<br />
geographical and political boundaries.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> service area is a generalized<br />
geographical area where there is a<br />
potential market for <strong>airport</strong> services.<br />
Access to general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s,<br />
commercial air service, and<br />
transportation networks enter into the<br />
equation to determine the size <strong>of</strong> a<br />
service area, as well as the quality <strong>of</strong><br />
aviation facilities, distance, and other<br />
subjective criteria. Typically, the<br />
service area for a rural general aviation<br />
<strong>airport</strong> can extend up to 30 miles.<br />
General aviation <strong>airport</strong>s, especially<br />
reliever <strong>airport</strong>s in urban settings, can<br />
expect a service area to extend outward<br />
up to 30 miles.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proximity and level <strong>of</strong> service<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered by other <strong>airport</strong>s are largely the<br />
defining factors when describing the
<strong>airport</strong> service area. A description <strong>of</strong><br />
nearby <strong>airport</strong>s was previously<br />
completed in Chapter One. <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
has five directly-competing general<br />
aviation <strong>airport</strong>s: Dallas Executive,<br />
Lancaster, Addison, Terrell and<br />
Rockwall, and one commercial service<br />
<strong>airport</strong> with a large contingent <strong>of</strong><br />
general aviation aircraft, Dallas Love<br />
Field.<br />
Rockwall, Terrell and Lancaster have<br />
shorter runways and fewer services<br />
available than does <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. Both Rockwall and Terrell are<br />
also somewhat restricted in future<br />
growth capabilities due to<br />
environmental considerations and<br />
natural barriers surrounding the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s. Due to these limitations,<br />
neither <strong>airport</strong> will be capable <strong>of</strong> fully<br />
meeting their aviation demand.<br />
Rockwall’s ability to accommodate any<br />
growth is significantly limited. Terrell<br />
can accommodate most future demand,<br />
however, aircraft desiring more than<br />
5,500 feet will likely base elsewhere. As<br />
a result, the service area for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport would extend to and<br />
include a portion <strong>of</strong> these <strong>airport</strong>s’<br />
service areas.<br />
Addison Airport does have a longer<br />
runway and significant fixed based<br />
operator (FBO) services, but it is near<br />
operational capacity. It is located just<br />
north <strong>of</strong> Dallas Love Field and<br />
northeast <strong>of</strong> DFW. As a result, airspace<br />
congestion can lead to lengthy delays<br />
due to the need for clearances.<br />
Moreover, Addison Airport has very<br />
little room for future development.<br />
Thus, <strong>Mesquite</strong>’s service area will<br />
extend into Addison’s service area,<br />
2-6<br />
attracting aircraft owners who elect to<br />
avoid the urban/busy nature <strong>of</strong> Addison<br />
and base at <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
Dallas Executive is probably the<br />
primary competition for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport, considering the availability <strong>of</strong><br />
a longer runway, an <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />
control tower (ATCT), two large FBOs,<br />
and a new terminal building that is<br />
currently under construction. It is<br />
likely that Dallas Executive will limit<br />
the western extent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
service area.<br />
Dallas Love Field is also attractive to<br />
general aviation users as the runways<br />
are adequate and there are large FBOs<br />
on the field providing the full array <strong>of</strong><br />
general aviation services. A drawback<br />
to Dallas Love Field may be the regular<br />
mixing <strong>of</strong> large commercial aviation and<br />
smaller general aviation aircraft. This<br />
situation is typically not desired by<br />
smaller aircraft owners who would<br />
likely consider an <strong>airport</strong> such as<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>. Love Field will compete with<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> primarily for corporate<br />
aircraft.<br />
As in any business enterprise, the more<br />
attractive the facility is in services and<br />
capabilities, the more competitive it will<br />
be in the market. As the level <strong>of</strong><br />
attractiveness expands, so will the<br />
service area. If an <strong>airport</strong>’s<br />
attractiveness increases in relation to<br />
nearby <strong>airport</strong>s, so will the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />
service area. If facilities are adequate<br />
and rates and fees are competitive at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, some level <strong>of</strong><br />
general aviation activity might be<br />
attracted to the <strong>airport</strong> from<br />
surrounding areas.
In determining the aviation demand for<br />
an <strong>airport</strong>, it is necessary to identify the<br />
role <strong>of</strong> that <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> primary role <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is to serve the<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> general aviation operators in<br />
the region. General aviation is a term<br />
used to describe a diverse range <strong>of</strong><br />
aviation activities which includes all<br />
segments <strong>of</strong> the aviation industry<br />
except commercial air carriers and the<br />
military. This includes recreational<br />
flying in single-engine aircraft, up to<br />
corporate business jets.<br />
In addition, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
a designated reliever <strong>airport</strong>. In this<br />
capacity, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
should be maintained to accommodate<br />
all general aviation aircraft, such as<br />
business jets, to minimize congestion at<br />
commercial service <strong>airport</strong>s. TxDOT<br />
also further identifies <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport as a Transport <strong>airport</strong>. This<br />
designation makes the <strong>airport</strong> eligible<br />
for improvements to accommodate<br />
larger general aviation business jets.<br />
Exhibit 2A depicts the primary service<br />
area for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport as<br />
derived from the analysis <strong>of</strong> the billing<br />
records <strong>of</strong> those aircraft owners that<br />
base at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> largest<br />
concentration <strong>of</strong> based aircraft owners<br />
reside (home or business) in the east<br />
side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dallas. A large<br />
number are also from the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>. Interestingly, the larger<br />
concentrations <strong>of</strong> aircraft owners lie<br />
near immediate highway access,<br />
particularly along I-635, I-30 and I-20.<br />
<strong>The</strong> service area also extends very near<br />
competing Lancaster, Dallas Executive<br />
and Addison <strong>airport</strong>s. Three <strong>of</strong> the<br />
based aircraft owners reside in the<br />
Rockwall area.<br />
2-7<br />
Often a general aviation <strong>airport</strong> may<br />
also have an identifiable secondary<br />
service area. Typically, this area would<br />
extend beyond the primary service area<br />
in order to fill in gaps <strong>of</strong> service<br />
between <strong>airport</strong>s. A secondary service<br />
area has been identified for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport. This area essentially<br />
creates a crescent around the east side<br />
<strong>of</strong> the primary service area. Aircraft<br />
owners in the secondary service area<br />
are typically closer to another <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
but due to a lack <strong>of</strong> facilities may<br />
instead choose to base at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport.<br />
AIRPORT USER SURVEY<br />
In order to obtain a pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> local<br />
general aviation users and their<br />
preferences, an <strong>airport</strong> user survey was<br />
conducted. <strong>The</strong> survey was sent to all<br />
registered aircraft owners living<br />
roughly within a 20-mile radius, as<br />
identified by FAA records. This area<br />
approximates the previously defined<br />
<strong>airport</strong> service area. A total <strong>of</strong> 626<br />
surveys were mailed, 113 responses<br />
were received (18.1 percent response<br />
rate), and 46 respondents indicated that<br />
they base at least one aircraft at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, as presented in<br />
Table 2B.<br />
Thirteen <strong>of</strong> the 46 respondents that<br />
base at <strong>Mesquite</strong> indicated that they<br />
were contemplating the acquisition <strong>of</strong> at<br />
least one additional aircraft within the<br />
next five years. Responses indicated<br />
that each user conducts an average <strong>of</strong><br />
12 operations per month, with local<br />
training operations averaging 10<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> those operations. <strong>The</strong>
espondents indicated that they use<br />
their aircraft for recreation 66 percent<br />
TABLE 2B<br />
Pilot Survey Results<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Total Surveys Sent: 626<br />
Total Survey Responses: 113<br />
Response Rate: 18.1%<br />
Respondents Based @ HQZ: 46<br />
Total Based Aircraft <strong>of</strong> Based Respondents: 54<br />
Based respondents considering another aircraft in next 5 years:<br />
Primary Use <strong>of</strong> Aircraft %<br />
Flight<br />
13<br />
Business Recreation Instruction Other<br />
33.52% 66.33% 0.15% 0.00%<br />
Monthly Operations at HQZ by based respondents: 654<br />
Average Operations for each based aircraft per month:<br />
Percent Touch and Go Operations per based aircraft per<br />
12<br />
month:<br />
Primary Reasons for Basing at <strong>Mesquite</strong> (1-7)<br />
9.81%<br />
Hangar FBO/Terminal Hangar Runway<br />
Convenience<br />
Facilities<br />
Services<br />
2-8<br />
<strong>of</strong> the time and business 33 percent <strong>of</strong><br />
the time.<br />
Costs<br />
Length<br />
Navigation<br />
Aids Other<br />
2.1 3.8 5.0 4.5 5.1 5.1 6.5<br />
Current Aircraft Storage<br />
Tie-down T-hangar Individual Multi<br />
3 16 26 1<br />
Preferred Aircraft Storage<br />
Tie-down T-hangar Individual Multi<br />
1 6 20 3<br />
Improvements Necessary at <strong>Mesquite</strong> (1-6)<br />
Runway/ Airport/ FBO Aircraft<br />
Terminal Navigation<br />
Taxiway Services Apron Hangars Building Aids<br />
5.1 4.2 5.6 3.4 5.4 4.9<br />
Source: Registered Pilot Survey. 1 = ‘Highest Priority’. C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis.<br />
<strong>The</strong> remaining questions on the survey<br />
were related to owner preferences.<br />
Table 2B presents the priority<br />
categories and respondent rankings.<br />
<strong>The</strong> priority scale utilized number “1”<br />
as the highest priority and the number<br />
“7” as the lowest priority. It should be<br />
noted that several respondents simply<br />
checked a category or did not prioritize<br />
at all. Checked categories were given<br />
the priority <strong>of</strong> “1”, while unchecked<br />
categories were weighted with a “7”.<br />
<strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> respondents indicated<br />
several preferences which led them to<br />
base at or has kept them at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
As indicated in the table, the highest<br />
priority for basing at the <strong>airport</strong> was for<br />
convenience (lived or worked closer to<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>). <strong>The</strong> next two highest
04MP22-2A-2/22/05<br />
Johnson<br />
Legend<br />
Water<br />
MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT SERVICE AREA<br />
I635<br />
Primary Service Area<br />
Secondary Service Area<br />
Zip Code Areas<br />
County Boundaries<br />
Major Roads<br />
I35E<br />
I35E<br />
Mid-Way<br />
Ellis<br />
(Based Aircraft Zip Code Location)<br />
76208<br />
75068<br />
75034<br />
75035<br />
75070<br />
75069<br />
76210<br />
76226<br />
75065<br />
75013<br />
75407<br />
75442<br />
75077<br />
75028<br />
75022<br />
Denton 75056<br />
75057<br />
75010<br />
75067<br />
75007<br />
75025<br />
75024<br />
75023<br />
75093<br />
75252 75075<br />
75287<br />
Addison<br />
75074<br />
75082<br />
3<br />
75002<br />
Collin<br />
75094<br />
75098<br />
1<br />
75048<br />
75173<br />
75166<br />
75248 1 1 75080<br />
1<br />
75087<br />
75019 75006<br />
3<br />
75001<br />
1<br />
3<br />
76051<br />
1 75254<br />
75044<br />
75040<br />
75244 1 75240<br />
75081<br />
75089<br />
75234<br />
75243<br />
2<br />
DFW<br />
75251<br />
75229<br />
75042<br />
4<br />
75088<br />
75063<br />
75230<br />
Rockwall<br />
75261<br />
1<br />
75238 75041<br />
4<br />
75039<br />
75231 8 3<br />
75038<br />
75043<br />
75062<br />
75220 Love<br />
75032<br />
76039<br />
75218<br />
4<br />
7520975205<br />
75225<br />
1<br />
2 2 75228<br />
75235 2 1<br />
75150<br />
75214<br />
76155 75061<br />
1<br />
10<br />
75247<br />
6 2<br />
75219 75206<br />
75182<br />
75060<br />
1 1<br />
1 75223<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
2 76006<br />
75227 75149<br />
75212<br />
7520775204<br />
75050<br />
75201<br />
Tarrant<br />
Dallas S352<br />
1 9 <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
75208<br />
76011<br />
75215<br />
75051 75211<br />
75203<br />
6 75126<br />
75181 7<br />
76010 Grand Prairie 75224 75216<br />
75217 75180<br />
75233<br />
76014<br />
Dallas Executive<br />
75236<br />
75253<br />
75052<br />
75237 75241<br />
76018<br />
75116 75232 5<br />
75249<br />
75141<br />
75159<br />
75137<br />
76002<br />
75114<br />
75134<br />
75172 2<br />
76063<br />
76084<br />
76009<br />
76064<br />
75104<br />
76065<br />
75167<br />
75115<br />
75154<br />
75165<br />
75146<br />
I45<br />
Lancaster<br />
75152<br />
Based per Zip<br />
1-3<br />
4-8<br />
9-48<br />
75125<br />
Source: Airport Records. GIS data<br />
compiled by C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates.<br />
75119<br />
I30<br />
I20<br />
Rockwall<br />
75158<br />
Dallas - 48<br />
241,227,226,223,206,219,<br />
205,235,228,218,238,229,<br />
243,244,254,248,372,374,<br />
240,225,214,204<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> - 20<br />
75181,75149,75150<br />
Garland - 14<br />
043,041,040,044,047<br />
75189<br />
75160<br />
Kaufman<br />
Richardson - 5<br />
081,080,082<br />
Rowlett - 4<br />
75088<br />
Forney - 4<br />
75126<br />
Rockwell - 3<br />
75087<br />
Seagoville - 2<br />
75159<br />
0 4 8<br />
Miles<br />
1 inch equals 8 miles<br />
75135<br />
Terrell<br />
75142<br />
U175<br />
Henderson<br />
Majors<br />
Caddo Mills<br />
Hunt<br />
75143<br />
75401<br />
75402<br />
75474<br />
75161<br />
Van Zandt<br />
75147<br />
Sunnyvale - 2<br />
75182<br />
Arlington - 2<br />
76006<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>o - 2<br />
75093,75094<br />
Other - 7<br />
062,048,070,055,<br />
128,181,701<br />
75169<br />
75103<br />
75124<br />
Exhibit 2A<br />
SERVICE AREA
priorities were the <strong>airport</strong>’s aircraft<br />
hangar facilities (3.8) and lower hangar<br />
storage fees (4.5). <strong>The</strong> lowest ranked<br />
category was both runway length and<br />
navigational aids, which had a response<br />
average <strong>of</strong> 5.1.<br />
<strong>The</strong> questionnaire also asked those<br />
surveyed what improvements they felt<br />
were necessary at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. This question asked for a<br />
priority ranking with “1” as the highest<br />
and “6" as the lowest. A clear majority<br />
felt that repairing existing hangars<br />
and/or constructing new hangars was<br />
the top priority. <strong>The</strong> need for improved<br />
FBO services, particularly quality<br />
maintenance facilities, was the second<br />
most common response. Terminal<br />
building or aircraft apron improvements<br />
were <strong>of</strong> the least concern to the based<br />
respondents.<br />
<strong>The</strong> respondents were also asked to<br />
provide general comments. <strong>The</strong> need<br />
for an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower<br />
(ATCT) was a common request. One<br />
respondent sited the lack <strong>of</strong> an ATCT as<br />
a safety concern that discouraged him<br />
from using the <strong>airport</strong>. Another<br />
suggested that because the instrument<br />
landing system (ILS) approach attracts<br />
a large number <strong>of</strong> training flights to the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, the <strong>airport</strong> should consider an<br />
ATCT for improved safety. Other<br />
common improvement suggestions<br />
included a restaurant, improved<br />
highway access and a maintenance FBO<br />
focused on business jets.<br />
2-9<br />
AVIATION TRENDS<br />
NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS<br />
Each year, the Federal Aviation<br />
Administration (FAA) publishes its<br />
national forecast. Included in this<br />
publication are forecasts for large air<br />
carriers, regional air carriers, general<br />
aviation, and FAA workload measures.<br />
<strong>The</strong> forecasts are prepared to meet<br />
budget and planning needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
constituent units <strong>of</strong> the FAA and to<br />
provide information that can be used by<br />
state and local authorities, the aviation<br />
industry, and the general public. <strong>The</strong><br />
current edition when this chapter was<br />
prepared was FAA Aerospace Forecasts-<br />
Fiscal Years, 2005-2016. <strong>The</strong> forecast<br />
uses the economic performance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
United States as an indicator <strong>of</strong> future<br />
aviation industry growth. Similar<br />
economic analyses are applied to the<br />
outlook for aviation growth in<br />
international markets.<br />
In the seven years prior to the events <strong>of</strong><br />
9/11, the U.S. civil aviation industry<br />
experienced unprecedented growth in<br />
demand and pr<strong>of</strong>its. <strong>The</strong> impacts to the<br />
economy and the aviation industry from<br />
the events <strong>of</strong> 9/11 were immediate and<br />
significant. However, the economic<br />
climate and aviation industry are both<br />
experiencing significant upturns. <strong>The</strong><br />
FAA expects the U.S. economy to<br />
experience strong growth over the next<br />
few years, with moderate growth<br />
thereafter. This will positively
influence the aviation industry, leading<br />
to passenger, air cargo, and general<br />
aviation growth throughout the forecast<br />
period (assuming that there will not be<br />
any new successful terrorist incidents<br />
against either U.S. or world aviation).<br />
For the first time since 2000, the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> passenger enplanements on<br />
U.S. commercial carriers increased in<br />
2004. This is due in large part to the<br />
extremely strong growth <strong>of</strong> low-cost<br />
carriers such as Southwest and AirTran<br />
Airways, among others. A total <strong>of</strong> 502.2<br />
million passengers were enplaned in<br />
2004, up 4 percent from 2003, but still<br />
10.6 percent below the 2000 peak. Over<br />
the forecast period, enplanements are<br />
expected to grow 2.9 percent annually.<br />
Regional/commuter passenger enplanements<br />
are projected to increase by 15.4<br />
percent in 2005, 9.9 percent in 2006,<br />
and 6.3 percent in 2007. Between 2008<br />
and 2016, enplanements are projected<br />
to grow at an average rate <strong>of</strong> 3.9<br />
percent annually, reaching 245.5<br />
million by 2016. Over the entire 12year<br />
forecast period, passenger<br />
enplanements are forecast to grow 5.5<br />
percent annually.<br />
An additional measure <strong>of</strong> the health <strong>of</strong><br />
the aviation system is the trend in air<br />
cargo as measured in revenue-ton-miles<br />
(RTM). <strong>The</strong> FAA projects air cargo<br />
RTMs to grow at 5.1 percent annually.<br />
GENERAL AVIATION<br />
In the 10 years since the passage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
General Aviation Revitalization Act <strong>of</strong><br />
2-10<br />
1994 (federal legislation which limits<br />
the liability on general aviation aircraft<br />
to 18 years from the date <strong>of</strong><br />
manufacture) it is clear that the Act has<br />
successfully infused new life into the<br />
general aviation industry. This<br />
legislation sparked an interest to renew<br />
the manufacturing <strong>of</strong> general aviation<br />
aircraft due to the reduction in product<br />
liability, as well as renewed optimism<br />
for the industry. Annual shipments <strong>of</strong><br />
new aircraft rose every year between<br />
1994 and 2000.<br />
<strong>The</strong> growth in the general aviation<br />
industry slowed considerably from 2001<br />
to 2003, having been negatively<br />
impacted by the events <strong>of</strong> 9/11.<br />
Thousands <strong>of</strong> general aviation aircraft<br />
were grounded for weeks due to “no-fly<br />
zone” restrictions imposed on operations<br />
<strong>of</strong> aircraft in security-sensitive areas.<br />
Washington, D.C., continues to<br />
implement these restrictions to this<br />
day. This, in addition to the economic<br />
recession taking place from 2001to<br />
2003, had a negative impact on the<br />
general aviation industry.<br />
In 2004, the general aviation industry<br />
showed a significant increase in<br />
activity, returning to pre-9/11 levels for<br />
most indicators. <strong>The</strong> FAA forecast<br />
assumes that the regulatory<br />
environment affecting general aviation<br />
will not change dramatically. <strong>The</strong><br />
forecast also assumes that the<br />
fractional ownership market will<br />
continue to expand and bring new<br />
operators and shareholders into<br />
business aviation. It also assumes that<br />
another successful terrorist attack on<br />
aviation will not occur.
<strong>The</strong> active general aviation aircraft<br />
fleet is expected to increase at an<br />
average annual rate <strong>of</strong> 1.1 percent over<br />
the 12-year forecast period, increasing<br />
from 210,600 in 2003, to 240,070 in<br />
2016. This growth includes the addition<br />
<strong>of</strong> a new aircraft category, light sport<br />
aircraft, which is expected to enter the<br />
active fleet in 2005, and account for<br />
15,410 aircraft in 2016. Light sport<br />
aircraft include small fixed-wing<br />
airplanes, powered-parachutes, gyroplanes,<br />
ultra-lights, and others.<br />
FAA forecasts identify two general<br />
aviation economies that follow different<br />
market patterns. <strong>The</strong> turbojet fleet is<br />
expected to increase at an average<br />
annual rate <strong>of</strong> 5.4 percent, increasing<br />
from 8,153 in 2003, to 15,900 in 2016.<br />
Factors leading to this substantial<br />
growth include expected strong U.S.<br />
and global economic growth; the<br />
continued success <strong>of</strong> fractionalownership<br />
programs; a continuation <strong>of</strong><br />
the shift from commercial air travel to<br />
corporate/business air travel by<br />
business travelers and corporations. In<br />
addition, new micro jets will begin to<br />
enter the fleet in 2006, and grow to<br />
4,500 aircraft by 2016. <strong>The</strong>se aircraft<br />
are expected to stimulate the market for<br />
on-demand air taxis.<br />
Exhibit 2B depicts the FAA forecast for<br />
active general aviation aircraft in the<br />
United States. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> single<br />
engine piston aircraft is projected to<br />
reach 148,000 in 2015, which represents<br />
an average annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> 0.2<br />
percent. During this same time, the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> active multi-engine piston<br />
aircraft in the fleet is expected to<br />
decline by 0.2 percent, resulting in a<br />
2-11<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 17,235 aircraft in 2016. <strong>The</strong><br />
number <strong>of</strong> turboprop aircraft is expected<br />
to increase at an average annual rate <strong>of</strong><br />
3.7 percent over the 12-year forecast<br />
period, to 8,400 active aircraft. <strong>The</strong><br />
rotorcraft fleet is forecast to grow 1.2<br />
percent annually through 2016, while<br />
and the number <strong>of</strong> experimental aircraft<br />
is projected to increase from 20,603 in<br />
2003, to 21,380 in 2010. <strong>The</strong>reafter, the<br />
growth in experimental aircraft is<br />
expected to flatten, primarily due to the<br />
growth in sport aircraft.<br />
<strong>The</strong> declines in the aircraft utilization<br />
rates experienced in 2000 (down 3.2<br />
percent) and 2001 (down 7.2 percent)<br />
were due, in part, to higher fuel prices<br />
and the 2001 U.S. economic recession.<br />
However, the restrictions placed on<br />
general aviation in the aftermath <strong>of</strong> the<br />
9/11 events, contributed heavily to the<br />
decline in utilization in 2001. A strong<br />
recovery in the U.S. economy in 2004<br />
and 2005 has led to increased<br />
utilization rates for most categories <strong>of</strong><br />
general aviation aircraft.<br />
<strong>The</strong> total pilot population is projected to<br />
increase from an estimated 618,633 in<br />
2004, to 750,260 by 2016, which<br />
represents an average annual growth<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> 1.6 percent. <strong>The</strong> student pilot<br />
population increased 0.7 percent in<br />
2004, and is forecast to increase at an<br />
annual rate <strong>of</strong> 1.8 percent over the 12year<br />
forecast period, reaching a total <strong>of</strong><br />
108,800 in 2016. Growth rates for the<br />
other pilot categories over the forecast<br />
period are as follows: airline transport<br />
pilots, up 1.7 percent; recreational<br />
pilots, up 1.6 percent; rotorcraft only, up<br />
1.2 percent; and glider only, up 0.2<br />
percent.
<strong>The</strong> General Aviation Manufacturers<br />
Association (GAMA) publishes a yearly<br />
outlook on the general aviation<br />
industry. <strong>The</strong> most recent edition was<br />
published in early 2005. 2004<br />
represented a year <strong>of</strong> strong recovery for<br />
the general aviation industry. Total<br />
billings reached almost $12 billion,<br />
which is nearly a 20 percent growth<br />
over 2003. GAMA forecasts that the<br />
industry will continue a strong growth<br />
trend.<br />
Over the past several years, the general<br />
aviation industry has launched a series<br />
<strong>of</strong> programs and initiatives whose main<br />
goals are to promote and assure future<br />
growth within the industry. “No <strong>Plan</strong>e,<br />
No Gain” is an advocacy program<br />
created in 1992 by the General Aviation<br />
Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and<br />
the National Business Aircraft<br />
Association (NBAA) to promote<br />
acceptance and increased use <strong>of</strong> general<br />
aviation as an essential, cost-effective<br />
tool for businesses. Other programs are<br />
intended to promote growth in new pilot<br />
starts and introduce people to general<br />
aviation. “Project Pilot”, sponsored by<br />
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots<br />
Association (AOPA), promotes the<br />
training <strong>of</strong> new pilots in order to<br />
increase and maintain the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />
pilot population. <strong>The</strong> “Be a Pilot”<br />
program is jointly sponsored and<br />
supported by more than 100 industry<br />
organizations. <strong>The</strong> NBAA sponsors<br />
“AvKids,” a program designed to<br />
educate elementary school students<br />
about the benefits <strong>of</strong> business aviation<br />
to the community, and career<br />
opportunities available to them in<br />
business aviation. Over the years,<br />
2-12<br />
programs such as these have played an<br />
important role in the success <strong>of</strong> general<br />
aviation and will continue to be vital to<br />
its growth in the future.<br />
GENERAL AVIATION<br />
FORECASTS<br />
To determine the types and sizes <strong>of</strong><br />
facilities that should be planned to<br />
accommodate general aviation activity,<br />
certain elements <strong>of</strong> this activity must be<br />
forecast. Indicators <strong>of</strong> general aviation<br />
demand include:<br />
• Based Aircraft<br />
• Based Aircraft Fleet Mix<br />
• General Aviation Operations<br />
• Peaking Operations<br />
• Annual Instrument Approaches<br />
<strong>The</strong> remainder <strong>of</strong> this chapter will<br />
examine historical trends with regard to<br />
these areas <strong>of</strong> general aviation, and<br />
project future demand for these<br />
segments <strong>of</strong> general aviation activity at<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
BASED AIRCRAFT<br />
<strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> based aircraft is the<br />
most basic indicator <strong>of</strong> general aviation<br />
demand. By first developing a forecast<br />
<strong>of</strong> based aircraft, the trend <strong>of</strong> other<br />
indicators can be projected based upon<br />
this trend, and other factors<br />
characteristic to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport and the area it serves can be<br />
assessed.
04MP22-2B-4/4/05<br />
AIRCRAFT (in thousands)<br />
250<br />
225<br />
200<br />
175<br />
150<br />
125<br />
120<br />
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT (in thousands)<br />
Year<br />
2004<br />
(Est.)<br />
2008<br />
2012<br />
2016<br />
FIXED WING<br />
PISTON TURBINE<br />
ROTORCRAFT<br />
Single Multi-<br />
Sport<br />
Engine Engine Turboprop Turbojet Piston Turbine Experimental Aircraft Other Total<br />
144.0<br />
145.5<br />
147.0<br />
148.0<br />
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT<br />
17.7<br />
17.5<br />
17.4<br />
17.2<br />
7.3<br />
7.7<br />
8.1<br />
8.4<br />
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2005-2016.<br />
ACTUAL FORECAST<br />
FORECAST<br />
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005<br />
YEAR<br />
Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown<br />
at least one hour during the calendar year.<br />
8.4<br />
10.5<br />
13.3<br />
15.9<br />
2.2<br />
2.4<br />
2.5<br />
2.6<br />
4.7<br />
4.9<br />
5.1.<br />
5.3<br />
20.8<br />
21.3<br />
21.4<br />
21.4<br />
N/A<br />
10.8<br />
13.2<br />
15.4<br />
2010<br />
6.2<br />
6.1<br />
5.9<br />
5..8<br />
2015<br />
211.3<br />
227.7<br />
233.9<br />
240.1<br />
Exhibit 2B<br />
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION<br />
AIRCRAFT FORECASTS
Registered Aircraft Forecasts<br />
One method <strong>of</strong> forecasting based<br />
aircraft at an <strong>airport</strong> is to examine local<br />
aircraft ownership, or aircraft<br />
registrations in the region served by the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. By then comparing the historic<br />
aircraft registrations to historic-based<br />
aircraft, a based aircraft forecast can be<br />
developed.<br />
TABLE 2C<br />
Historical Aircraft Registrations for Airport Service Area<br />
Market Share <strong>of</strong> Competing Airports<br />
Aircraft Based At:<br />
Year<br />
Regional<br />
Aircraft<br />
Registrations* <strong>Mesquite</strong> %<br />
2-13<br />
<strong>The</strong> primary service area for aircraft<br />
basing at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
extends approximately to a 20-mile<br />
radius around the <strong>airport</strong>. This<br />
includes the eastern half <strong>of</strong> Dallas<br />
County and the bordering portions <strong>of</strong><br />
Collin, Rockwall and Kaufman<br />
Counties. Aircraft ownership records<br />
for this approximate area were obtained<br />
from the FAA aircraft registration<br />
database, and are presented in Table<br />
2C.<br />
Rockwall<br />
% Lancaster % Terrell %<br />
1993 671 197 29.36% 84 12.52% 110 16.39% 61 9.09%<br />
1994 691 201 29.09 74 10.71 110 15.92 61 8.83<br />
1995 696 201 28.88 74 10.63 110 15.80 61 8.76<br />
1996 710 210 29.58 80 11.27 126 17.75 76 10.70<br />
1997 726 209 28.79 86 11.85 126 17.36 85 11.71<br />
1998 728 209 28.71 86 11.81 126 17.31 85 11.68<br />
1999 721 210 29.13 86 11.93 126 17.48 85 11.79<br />
2000 753 210 27.89 86 11.42 126 16.73 85 11.29<br />
2001 748 215 28.74 86 11.50 126 16.84 85 11.36<br />
2002 758 215 28.36 86 11.35 126 16.62 85 11.21<br />
2003 742 220 29.65 86 11.59 128 17.25 85 11.46<br />
2004 763 226 29.62 86 11.27 130 17.04 85 11.14<br />
Source: Census <strong>of</strong> U.S. Civil Aircraft; *Advantext Aircraft and Airmen Database<br />
<strong>The</strong> table presents historical aircraft<br />
registrations for the approximated<br />
<strong>airport</strong> study area, between 1993 and<br />
2004. A steady growth trend has been<br />
experienced, with an annual average<br />
growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.08 percent. <strong>The</strong> study<br />
area added 92 aircraft registrations<br />
over the period.<br />
<strong>The</strong> table also shows the percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
the registered aircraft that are based at<br />
regional general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> has consistently accounted for<br />
approximately 29 percent. Rockwall,<br />
Lancaster and Terrell also accounted for<br />
a consistent portion <strong>of</strong> the registered<br />
aircraft. As the forecasts are developed,<br />
the distribution <strong>of</strong> registered aircraft<br />
should not vary greatly from this<br />
historical trend unless some unusual<br />
event can appropriately account for a<br />
change, such as an <strong>airport</strong> closing, or a<br />
constrained <strong>airport</strong> condition such as is<br />
the case at Rockwall.
Market Share <strong>of</strong> U.S. Fleet<br />
<strong>The</strong> first registered aircraft forecast was<br />
developed by comparing the aircraft<br />
registered in the study area with the<br />
2-14<br />
United States active fleet <strong>of</strong> general<br />
aviation aircraft. Table 2D provides<br />
historical and forecasted aircraft<br />
registrations since 1995.<br />
TABLE 2D<br />
Service Area Registered Aircraft Forecasts<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
U.S. Active Service Area Registered<br />
Year<br />
Aircraft<br />
Aircraft % <strong>of</strong> U.S. Aircraft<br />
1995 188,089 696 0.3700%<br />
1996 191,129 710 0.3715%<br />
1997 192,414 726 0.3773%<br />
1998 204,711 728 0.3556%<br />
1999 219,464 721 0.3285%<br />
2000 217,533 753 0.3462%<br />
2001 211,447 748 0.3538%<br />
2002 211,244 758 0.3588%<br />
2003 211,190 742 0.3513%<br />
2004 219,100 763 0.3482%<br />
Constant Share Forecast<br />
2010 236,900 825 0.3482%<br />
2015 246,400 859 0.3482%<br />
2025 266,600 929 0.3482%<br />
Increasing Share Forecast<br />
2010 236,900 849 0.3580%<br />
2015 246,400 912 0.3700%<br />
2025 266,600 1,040 0.3900%<br />
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast Data, U.S. Census <strong>of</strong> Civil Aircraft<br />
Two forecasts were developed<br />
considering the study area’s share <strong>of</strong><br />
U.S. active aircraft. First, a forecast<br />
maintaining a constant 0.3482 percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> U.S. active aircraft was developed.<br />
This forecast yields 929 registered<br />
aircraft by 2025. Next, an increasing<br />
share forecast was developed. As<br />
presented in the table, the increasing<br />
share forecast yields 1,040 aircraft by<br />
2025. By the intermediate term <strong>of</strong> the<br />
forecast (roughly 2015), aircraft<br />
registrations would equal the 1995<br />
percentage share <strong>of</strong> U.S. active aircraft<br />
and then grow moderately through the<br />
long term period.<br />
Market Share per 1,000 Population<br />
Another method <strong>of</strong> forecasting study<br />
area aircraft registrations considers the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> aircraft per 1,000 residents<br />
in the study area. Because historical<br />
and forecast population data is not<br />
readily available by zip code, Dallas<br />
County is used for the population<br />
comparison, as it is a serviceable<br />
approximation <strong>of</strong> the study area. Table<br />
2E presents historical and forecast<br />
registered aircraft per 1,000 residents <strong>of</strong><br />
Dallas County.
TABLE 2E<br />
County Aircraft Per 1,000 Resident Population<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Study Area Registered Dallas County<br />
Year<br />
Aircraft<br />
Population<br />
2-15<br />
Aircraft Per 1,000<br />
Residents<br />
1993 671 1,955,791 0.34<br />
1994 691 1,991,375 0.35<br />
1995 696 2,027,606 0.34<br />
1996 710 2,064,496 0.34<br />
1997 726 2,102,058 0.35<br />
1998 728 2,140,302 0.34<br />
1999 721 2,179,243 0.33<br />
2000 753 2,218,899 0.34<br />
2001 748 2,261,967 0.33<br />
2002 758 2,302,149 0.33<br />
2003 742 2,341,141 0.32<br />
2004 763 2,377,544 0.32<br />
Constant Ratio Projection<br />
2010 828 2,579,566 0.32<br />
2015 885 2,757,573 0.32<br />
2025 1,000 3,117,192 0.32<br />
Increasing Ratio Projection<br />
2010 877 2,579,566 0.34<br />
2015 993 2,757,573 0.36<br />
2025 1,247 3,117,192 0.40<br />
Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis<br />
Two forecasts were developed<br />
considering aircraft registrations per<br />
1,000 residents. First, a constant share<br />
<strong>of</strong> 0.32 aircraft per 1,000 residents<br />
yielded 1,000 registered aircraft by<br />
2025. Next, an increasing share<br />
projection reaching 0.40 aircraft per<br />
1,000 residents yielded 1,247 aircraft<br />
registrations in the study area by 2025.<br />
Statistical Trends and Regression<br />
A trend line projection was also<br />
considered for forecasting registered<br />
aircraft in the study area, yielding an<br />
“r 2 " value <strong>of</strong> 0.88. This projection yields<br />
813 registered aircraft by 2010, 851<br />
aircraft registrations by 2015, and 927<br />
registrations by 2025.<br />
Regression analysis was also conducted<br />
comparing Dallas County’s population<br />
to registered aircraft in the study area.<br />
An “r 2 " value <strong>of</strong> 0.88 resulted. For 2010,<br />
this regression forecast yields 807<br />
registrations, the 2015 projection is 841,<br />
and 911 by 2025.<br />
Registered Aircraft Summary<br />
Table 2F summarizes the six<br />
projections and presents the selected<br />
forecast for registered aircraft in the<br />
study area. It appears that no single<br />
projection stands out as the most<br />
reasonable. For this reason, the<br />
selected forecast represents a near<br />
average <strong>of</strong> all the projections. <strong>The</strong><br />
forecasts developed for the study area’s<br />
registered aircraft are also depicted on<br />
Exhibit 2C.
TABLE 2F<br />
Registered Aircraft Projections Summary<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
PROJECTIONS 2010 2015 2025<br />
Share <strong>of</strong> US Active Aircraft Fleet<br />
Constant 825 859 929<br />
Increasing 849 912 1,040<br />
Registered Aircraft per 1,000 Population<br />
Constant 828 885 1,000<br />
Increasing 877 993 1,247<br />
Regression<br />
Trend line: r 2 = 0.88 (Year v Registered) 813 851 927<br />
Pop. v Registered: r 2 =0.88 807 841 911<br />
Selected Forecast 820 870 960<br />
C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis; Population is for Dallas County<br />
Based Aircraft Forecasts<br />
Determining the number <strong>of</strong> based<br />
aircraft at an <strong>airport</strong> can be a<br />
challenging task. With the transient<br />
nature <strong>of</strong> aircraft storage, it can be hard<br />
to arrive at an exact number <strong>of</strong> based<br />
aircraft, as the total can change weekly.<br />
As a result, <strong>airport</strong>s <strong>of</strong>ten don’t keep<br />
records <strong>of</strong> based aircraft. Fortunately,<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> staff at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport has kept detailed records<br />
pertaining to tenants <strong>of</strong> city-owned<br />
hangars. This data, in conjunction with<br />
the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, has<br />
been used to arrive at the based aircraft<br />
data utilized in this analysis. From<br />
discussions with <strong>airport</strong> staff, it appears<br />
that the historical-based aircraft data<br />
provided by the FAA is reasonably<br />
accurate. As such, the FAA data will<br />
provide the foundation for the following<br />
based aircraft forecast.<br />
2-16<br />
Market Share <strong>of</strong> Registered Aircraft<br />
Now that registered aircraft for the<br />
service area has been forecast, based<br />
aircraft at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport can<br />
be examined in comparison to historical<br />
regional registered aircraft. Table 2G<br />
presents based aircraft at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport as a share <strong>of</strong> the study<br />
area’s registered aircraft projection. As<br />
presented in the table, aircraft based at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport as a share <strong>of</strong><br />
the region’s registered aircraft has<br />
remained relatively constant since<br />
1993.<br />
Future based aircraft at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport will depend on several<br />
factors, including the economy,<br />
available <strong>airport</strong> facilities, and<br />
competing <strong>airport</strong>s. Forecasts assume<br />
a reasonably stable economy and<br />
reasonable development <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong>
04MP22-2C-4/5/05<br />
REGISTERED AIRCRAFT<br />
1,400<br />
1,200<br />
1,000<br />
800<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
'93<br />
1995<br />
HISTORICAL<br />
FORECAST<br />
LEGEND<br />
Share <strong>of</strong> U.S. Active Aircraft Fleet<br />
Constant<br />
Increasing<br />
Registered Aircraft per 1,000 Population<br />
Constant<br />
Increasing<br />
Regression<br />
Trendline (Year vs. Registered)<br />
Population vs. Registered<br />
Selected Forecast<br />
2000<br />
2005<br />
Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis; Population is for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
2010 2015 2020<br />
2025<br />
Exhibit 2C<br />
REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS
facilities necessary to accommodate<br />
aviation demand, as well as a limited<br />
development potential at nearby<br />
Rockwall and Terrell Airports. <strong>The</strong><br />
table presents both a constant<br />
projection and an increasing market<br />
TABLE 2G<br />
Based Aircraft vs. Service Area Registered Aircraft<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
2-17<br />
share projection as a percentage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
region’s registered aircraft. It is<br />
assumed that <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
will continue to be capable <strong>of</strong><br />
accommodating increased demand over<br />
the planning period.<br />
Year<br />
Service Area Registered<br />
Aircraft Based Aircraft % <strong>of</strong> Registered Aircraft<br />
1993 671 197 29.36%<br />
1994 691 201 29.09%<br />
1995 696 201 28.88%<br />
1996 710 210 29.58%<br />
1997 726 209 28.79%<br />
1998 728 209 28.71%<br />
1999 721 210 29.13%<br />
2000 753 210 27.89%<br />
2001 748 215 28.74%<br />
2002 758 215 28.36%<br />
2003 742 220 29.65%<br />
2004 763 223 29.23%<br />
Constant Market Share Projection<br />
2010 820 240 29.23%<br />
2015 870 254 29.23%<br />
2025 960 281 29.23%<br />
Increasing Market Share Projection<br />
2010 820 254 31.00%<br />
2015 870 278 32.00%<br />
2025 960 326 34.00%<br />
Sources: FAA TAF; Airport Records<br />
As presented in the table, the first<br />
based aircraft forecast considers that<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> would maintain a constant<br />
market share (29.23 percent) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
study area’s registered aircraft. This<br />
projection would yield 240 aircraft<br />
based at the <strong>airport</strong> in 2010, 254<br />
aircraft in 2015, and 281 aircraft in<br />
2025. <strong>The</strong> second forecast considers an<br />
increasing market share. This<br />
projection would yield 254 aircraft<br />
based at the <strong>airport</strong> in 2010, 278<br />
aircraft in 2015, and 326 aircraft in<br />
2025.<br />
Market Share per 1,000 Population<br />
Often when working with an <strong>airport</strong><br />
located in a metropolitan area, there<br />
are a number <strong>of</strong> methods with which to<br />
compare to population. Trends<br />
comparing the number <strong>of</strong> based aircraft<br />
with both the population <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> and Dallas County were<br />
analyzed. Table 2H presents the<br />
market share forecasts developed using<br />
the population <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> constant share forecast results in
231, 243 and 258 based aircraft, while<br />
the increasing share forecast results in<br />
2-18<br />
246, 272, and 319 based aircraft for the<br />
planning periods.<br />
TABLE 2H<br />
Based Aircraft vs. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Population<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Year Based Aircraft <strong>Mesquite</strong> <strong>City</strong> Population Aircraft per 1,000 Residents<br />
1993 197 106,191 1.86<br />
1994 201 107,808 1.86<br />
1995 201 109,450 1.84<br />
1996 210 111,550 1.88<br />
1997 209 114,350 1.83<br />
1998 209 117,950 1.77<br />
1999 210 119,600 1.76<br />
2000 210 124,523 1.69<br />
2001 215 126,172 1.70<br />
2002 215 127,842 1.68<br />
2003 220 129,500 1.70<br />
2004 223 131,600 1.69<br />
Constant Market Share Projection<br />
2010 231 136,175 1.69<br />
2015 243 143,014 1.69<br />
2025 258 151,838 1.69<br />
Increasing Ratio Projection<br />
2010 246 136,175 1.80<br />
2015 272 143,014 1.90<br />
2025 319 151,838 2.10<br />
Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis<br />
<strong>The</strong> comparison to Dallas County<br />
population shows a similar trend. <strong>The</strong><br />
constant share forecast yields 242, 259,<br />
and 293 based aircraft, while the<br />
increasing share projection yields 251,<br />
278, and 337 based aircraft for each<br />
planning horizon.<br />
Statistical Trends and Regression<br />
Regression analysis was also conducted<br />
on the data sets. As discussed<br />
previously, it is optimal to have an “r 2 "<br />
value above 0.90, which would<br />
represent a very strong correlation.<br />
When comparing based aircraft as the<br />
dependant variable to time (trend line<br />
analyses), an “r 2 " value <strong>of</strong> 0.91 resulted.<br />
This represents 233, 244, and 264<br />
projected based aircraft for 2010, 2015<br />
and 2025, respectively.<br />
When comparing based aircraft to the<br />
population <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, an<br />
“r 2 " value <strong>of</strong> 0.87 resulted. <strong>The</strong> 2010<br />
projection resulted in 224 based<br />
aircraft, and the 2015 and 2025 periods<br />
result in 229 and 236 based aircraft,<br />
respectively.<br />
An additional analysis comparing the<br />
population <strong>of</strong> Dallas County as a whole<br />
to historic <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
based aircraft resulted in an “r 2 " value<br />
<strong>of</strong> 0.91. This comparison results in 232,<br />
241, and 260 based aircraft for each <strong>of</strong><br />
the planning periods.
Comparative Forecasts<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA TAF also contains projections<br />
<strong>of</strong> based aircraft. For 2010, the TAF<br />
projects 245 based aircraft, increasing<br />
to 263 by 2015. <strong>The</strong> 2020 TAF<br />
projection is for 282 based aircraft.<br />
Because the TAF does not project<br />
beyond 2020, an extrapolation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
data was performed resulting in 299<br />
based aircraft for 2025.<br />
Another method <strong>of</strong> projecting based<br />
aircraft is to simply analyze the<br />
historical growth rate <strong>of</strong> based aircraft<br />
at the <strong>airport</strong>. Utilizing the historic<br />
annual average growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.08 from<br />
1993 to 2004, based aircraft would<br />
reach 237 by 2010, 250 by 2015 and 277<br />
by 2025.<br />
<strong>The</strong> 1998 <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> projected 240<br />
based aircraft by 2010 and 280 by 2020.<br />
Interpolating the 1998 <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>,<br />
based aircraft projections yield 259<br />
aircraft in 2015. Extrapolation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
trend results in a forecast <strong>of</strong> 302 based<br />
aircraft for 2025.<br />
Based Aircraft Summary<br />
Deciding which forecast or which<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> forecasts to use to arrive<br />
at a final based aircraft forecast<br />
involves more than just statistical<br />
analysis. Consideration must be given<br />
to the current and future aviation<br />
conditions at the <strong>airport</strong> in the short<br />
term. For example, it is known that<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> is currently constructing Thangar<br />
and executive hangar space that<br />
can accommodate up to 18 aircraft. It is<br />
also known that the <strong>airport</strong><br />
management maintains a ‘waiting list’<br />
2-19<br />
for hangar space. This list is updated<br />
on a yearly basis and currently includes<br />
81 aircraft owners.<br />
Experience indicates that when new<br />
hangars are constructed, those who rent<br />
the space are not always new based<br />
aircraft. Some <strong>of</strong> them will be aircraft<br />
owners who have used tie-downs or<br />
other facilities at the <strong>airport</strong>. Typically,<br />
a new hangar facility will attract up to<br />
75 percent new based aircraft. Also,<br />
approximately 50-75 percent <strong>of</strong> those on<br />
the waiting list will actually sign a<br />
lease when the opportunity becomes<br />
available. Because the <strong>airport</strong><br />
management actively contacts all those<br />
on the list, it is fair to assume that<br />
upwards <strong>of</strong> 75 percent <strong>of</strong> those on the<br />
waiting list would sign a lease and base<br />
at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
In addition, since the last master plan,<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has improved<br />
in a manner to be more attractive to<br />
aircraft owners, especially corporate<br />
owners. New hangars have been and<br />
are continuing to be built, an executive<br />
terminal building has been completed,<br />
more apron space has been added, and<br />
existing facilities have been and are<br />
continuing to be refurbished. Existing<br />
navigational aids such as the ground<br />
communications outlet (GCO) and the<br />
Automated Weather Observing System<br />
(AWOS) are very much desired by<br />
aircraft owners.<br />
<strong>The</strong> level <strong>of</strong> services, amenities and<br />
airfield capabilities <strong>of</strong> other regional<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s can also be a factor when<br />
projecting based aircraft. As previously<br />
mentioned, Rockwall, Terrell, and<br />
Lancaster all have shorter runways<br />
than <strong>Mesquite</strong>. Rockwall and Terrell
are additionally constrained from<br />
adding runway length due to physical<br />
constraints and environmental barriers.<br />
As a result, aircraft owners with larger<br />
aircraft would likely choose <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
since it can better accommodate them.<br />
Other <strong>airport</strong>s in or in close proximity<br />
to the service area for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport include Addison, Dallas<br />
Executive, and Dallas Love Field. Most<br />
smaller aircraft owners are likely to<br />
avoid the busy commercial service<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s such as Dallas Love Field. <strong>The</strong><br />
mixing <strong>of</strong> commercial jets and smaller<br />
general aviation aircraft is a condition<br />
that owners <strong>of</strong> smaller aircraft will<br />
typically avoid. Addison presents<br />
challenges to the general aviation user<br />
since the <strong>airport</strong> is congested and is in<br />
close proximity to the major commercial<br />
service <strong>airport</strong>s in the region. As<br />
previously mentioned, capacity<br />
constraints lead to extended hold times<br />
and clearances to land at Addison.<br />
Dallas Executive Airport will probably<br />
be the most competitive to <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport for a similar type <strong>of</strong><br />
aviation activity. Dallas Executive has<br />
a 6,400-foot runway, and is served by<br />
an ILS approach and a crosswind<br />
runway. It has an ATCT and a new<br />
terminal building is currently under<br />
construction. Since the <strong>airport</strong>s are<br />
nearly 20 miles apart, both should have<br />
the ability to provide general aviation<br />
services to their respective service<br />
areas, with some overlap.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has made a<br />
concerted and successful effort to<br />
position the <strong>airport</strong> to accept significant<br />
growth. As a result, future based<br />
2-20<br />
aircraft should trend toward the higher<br />
projections presented above. Were the<br />
<strong>City</strong> to abandon the aggressive and<br />
positive growth goals for the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
then the lower projections could be<br />
realized. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> has given every<br />
indication that it plans to continue<br />
strong support <strong>of</strong> its <strong>airport</strong>. Table 2J<br />
shows a summary <strong>of</strong> the 12 projections<br />
analyzed for future based aircraft at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> selected<br />
forecast closely resembles the<br />
increasing share <strong>of</strong> registered aircraft in<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> service area. Exhibit 2D<br />
visually depicts the based aircraft<br />
projections, including the selected<br />
forecast.<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Horizons<br />
<strong>The</strong> cost-effective, efficient, and orderly<br />
development <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> should rely<br />
more upon actual demand at an <strong>airport</strong><br />
than on a time-based forecast figure. In<br />
order to develop a master plan that is<br />
demand-based rather than time-based,<br />
a series <strong>of</strong> planning horizon milestones<br />
has been established for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport that take into<br />
consideration the reasonable range <strong>of</strong><br />
aviation demand projections prepared<br />
in this chapter.<br />
It is important to consider that the<br />
actual activity at the <strong>airport</strong> may be<br />
higher or lower than projected activity<br />
levels. By planning according to<br />
activity milestones, the resulting plan<br />
can accommodate unexpected shifts, or<br />
changes, in the area’s aviation demand.<br />
It is important that the plan<br />
accommodate these changes so that the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> staff can respond to unexpected
04MP22-2D-4/5/05<br />
REGISTERED AIRCRAFT<br />
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
'93<br />
1995<br />
HISTORICAL<br />
FORECAST<br />
LEGEND<br />
Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis<br />
Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (<strong>Mesquite</strong>)<br />
Constant<br />
Increasing<br />
Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (Dallas Co.)<br />
Constant<br />
Increasing<br />
Market Share <strong>of</strong> Registered Aircraft<br />
Constant<br />
Increasing<br />
Statistical Trends and Regression<br />
Trendline (Year vs. Based)<br />
Population (Dallas Co.) vs. Based<br />
Population (<strong>Mesquite</strong>) vs. Based<br />
Terminal Area Forecast<br />
Historical Growth Rate<br />
1998 <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
(2015 & 2025 Interpolated from original)<br />
Selected Forecast<br />
2000 2005<br />
2010<br />
2015 2020<br />
2025<br />
Exhibit 2D<br />
BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS
changes in a timely fashion. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
milestones provide flexibility, while<br />
2-21<br />
potentially extending this plan’s useful<br />
life if aviation trends slow over time.<br />
TABLE 2J<br />
Based Aircraft Projections Summary<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
PROJECTIONS 2010 2015 2025<br />
Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (<strong>Mesquite</strong>)<br />
Constant 231 243 258<br />
Increasing 246 272 319<br />
Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (Dallas Co.)<br />
Constant 242 259 293<br />
Increasing 251 278 337<br />
Market Share <strong>of</strong> Registered Aircraft<br />
Constant 240 254 281<br />
Increasing 254 278 326<br />
Statistical Trends and Regression<br />
Trend line (1993-2004): r2 = 0.91 (Year v Based) 233 244 264<br />
Pop (Dal Co.) v Based: r2=0.91 232 241 260<br />
Pop (<strong>Mesquite</strong>) v Based: r2=0.87 224 229 236<br />
Other Forecasts<br />
FAA Terminal Area Forecast 245 263 299<br />
Historical Growth Rate 237 250 277<br />
1998 <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>* 240 259 302<br />
Selected Forecast 255 280 330<br />
Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis; *2015 & 2025 Interpolated/extrapolated from original data.<br />
<strong>The</strong> most important reason for utilizing<br />
milestones is that they allow the <strong>airport</strong><br />
to develop facilities according to need<br />
generated by actual demand levels. <strong>The</strong><br />
demand-based schedule provides<br />
flexibility in development, as<br />
development schedules can be slowed or<br />
expedited in response to actual demand<br />
at any given time over the planning<br />
period. <strong>The</strong> resulting plan provides<br />
<strong>airport</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials with a financiallyresponsible,<br />
need-based program. <strong>The</strong><br />
planning milestones <strong>of</strong> short,<br />
intermediate, and long-term generally<br />
correlate to the five, ten, and twentyyear<br />
periods used in the previous<br />
chapter. For based aircraft the<br />
following planning milestones apply:<br />
• Short Term - 255<br />
• Intermediate Term - 280<br />
• Long Term - 330<br />
BASED AIRCRAFT<br />
FLEET MIX PROJECTION<br />
Knowing the aircraft fleet mix expected<br />
to utilize the <strong>airport</strong> is necessary to<br />
properly plan facilities that will best<br />
serve the level <strong>of</strong> activity and the type<br />
<strong>of</strong> activities occurring at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> existing based aircraft fleet mix is<br />
comprised <strong>of</strong> 182 single-engine, 38<br />
multi-engine, piston-powered aircraft,<br />
one jet-powered aircraft, and two<br />
helicopters. At the present time, there<br />
are no based turboprop fixed wing<br />
aircraft.
As detailed previously, the national<br />
trend is toward a larger percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
sophisticated turboprop, jet aircraft,<br />
and helicopters in the national fleet.<br />
Active multi-engine piston aircraft are<br />
expected to be the only category <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft which shows a decrease in<br />
annual growth. Growth within each<br />
based aircraft category at the <strong>airport</strong><br />
has been determined by comparison<br />
with national projections (which reflect<br />
current aircraft production) and<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> local economic<br />
conditions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> fleet mix <strong>of</strong> the registered aircraft<br />
in the service area from 1998 to 2004<br />
was also identified as a point <strong>of</strong><br />
comparison. Although the number <strong>of</strong><br />
registered aircraft has increased over<br />
the term, the mix <strong>of</strong> aircraft types has<br />
remained nearly constant. Singleengine<br />
piston aircraft represent 74<br />
percent and multi-engine aircraft 12<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the service area’s total.<br />
Turboprop, jet and helicopters each<br />
account for approximately three percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> aircraft registered in the service area.<br />
<strong>The</strong> remaining five percent account for<br />
gliders, ultra-lights and gyro-planes.<br />
TABLE 2K<br />
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Projections<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
EXISTING FORECAST<br />
Aircraft<br />
Short<br />
Inter.<br />
Type 2004 % Term % Term %<br />
2-22<br />
<strong>The</strong> projected trend <strong>of</strong> based aircraft at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport includes a<br />
growing number <strong>of</strong> aircraft in each<br />
category, except multi-engine piston<br />
which are projected to decline in both<br />
percentage mix and total numbers as<br />
well. Growth in turbojet aircraft is<br />
expected to be strong, as is growth in<br />
turboprop aircraft, following national<br />
trends. <strong>The</strong> based aircraft fleet mix<br />
projection for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
summarized in Table 2K.<br />
Currently, single-engine aircraft<br />
compose the largest segment <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
type at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, making<br />
up 82 percent <strong>of</strong> total based aircraft.<br />
Future based aircraft mix will continue<br />
to be dominated by single-engine<br />
aircraft, however, turboprop and<br />
turbojet are projected to increase<br />
rapidly. With the many recent<br />
improvements to the <strong>airport</strong>, as well as<br />
the projected growth in population and<br />
employment in the region, it is<br />
reasonable to expect jets and other<br />
turbo-powered aircraft to base at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
Long<br />
Term %<br />
Single Engine 182 81.61% 205 80.39% 223 79.64% 256 77.58%<br />
Multi-Engine 38 17.04% 38 14.90% 36 12.86% 35 10.61%<br />
Turboprop 0 0.00% 4 1.57% 8 2.86% 15 4.55%<br />
Jet 1 0.45% 5 1.96% 10 3.57% 20 6.06%<br />
Helicopters 2 0.90% 3 1.18% 3 1.07% 4 1.21%<br />
Totals 223 100.00% 255 100.00% 280 100.00% 330 100.00%<br />
Source: FAA Form 5010, C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis
GENERAL AVIATION<br />
ANNUAL OPERATIONS<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are two types <strong>of</strong> operations at an<br />
<strong>airport</strong>: local and itinerant. A local<br />
operation is a take<strong>of</strong>f or landing<br />
performed by an aircraft that operates<br />
within sight <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, or which<br />
executes simulated approaches or<br />
touch-and-go operations at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Itinerant operations are those<br />
performed by aircraft with a specific<br />
origin or destination away from the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. Generally, local operations are<br />
characterized by training operations.<br />
Itinerant operations are characterized<br />
by aircraft landing at the <strong>airport</strong> for<br />
short stays or departing for other<br />
regional/national <strong>airport</strong>s. Itinerant<br />
operations are typically those<br />
conducting business, or tourism, or<br />
simply refueling.<br />
Due to the absence <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />
control tower (ATCT), actual annualized<br />
operational counts are not available for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Operational<br />
estimates were obtained from FAA<br />
Form 5010, FAA Terminal Area<br />
Forecast (TAF), TxDOT’s Airport<br />
Development Worksheet, and from<br />
interviews conducted with <strong>airport</strong> staff.<br />
One method <strong>of</strong> projecting annual<br />
operations is to examine the number <strong>of</strong><br />
operations per based aircraft. In<br />
attempts to quantify more reliably,<br />
rather than simply estimating, the<br />
Texas Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation-<br />
Aviation Division (TxDOT) has<br />
established an operation monitoring<br />
system. <strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> this program was to<br />
ultimately establish a model that will<br />
provide more accurate counts for nontowered<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
2-23<br />
TxDOT’s methodology indicates that for<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s similar to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport (reliever), annual operations<br />
typically are on the order <strong>of</strong> 400-500 per<br />
based aircraft per year. Airports in<br />
major metropolitan areas with high<br />
numbers <strong>of</strong> based aircraft, flight<br />
schools, and with several fixed based<br />
operators, typically will experience the<br />
higher end <strong>of</strong> this range. As <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
continues its development, it can be<br />
expected that the operational numbers<br />
will approach the 500 per based<br />
aircraft, and this is reflected in the<br />
forecast.<br />
An <strong>airport</strong> such as <strong>Mesquite</strong> will<br />
typically experience a 60/40 percent<br />
split between local and itinerant<br />
operations. Although some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sources sited identify a 75/25 split,<br />
there is ample evidence that the trend<br />
at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is toward<br />
more itinerant operations. That<br />
evidence includes the fact that there is<br />
only one active flight school and that<br />
more and more transient jets are using<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. Table 2L presents<br />
estimated historical and forecast<br />
operations for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
It should be noted that the FAA TAF,<br />
Airport <strong>Master</strong> Record, identifies over<br />
113,000 operations at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Each <strong>of</strong> the other resources, including<br />
the TxDOT development worksheet for<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>, identifies approximately<br />
82,000 operations. <strong>The</strong> starting point <strong>of</strong><br />
the forecast in this analysis considers<br />
100,000 annual operations. This<br />
compromise has been arrived at due to<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> the actual observed<br />
activity at the <strong>airport</strong>, pilot responses
<strong>of</strong>fered in the pilot survey, and other<br />
subjective criteria such as the advan-<br />
TABLE 2L<br />
General Aviation Operations Projections<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Based Itinerant<br />
Period Aircraft Operations<br />
2-24<br />
tages <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has over<br />
many regional <strong>airport</strong>s (e.g., ILS).<br />
Local Annual<br />
Operations Operations<br />
2004<br />
FORECAST<br />
223 40,000 60,000 100,000 459<br />
2010 255 51,000 76,500 127,500 500<br />
2015 280 56,000 84,000 140,000 500<br />
2025 330 66,000 99,000 165,000 500<br />
Source: TxDOT Operations Model<br />
<strong>The</strong> high-end (TAF) forecast is not<br />
considered reasonable because there do<br />
not appear to be enough flight hours<br />
conducted by the based flight school to<br />
account for the local operations. In fact,<br />
the flight school would need to conduct<br />
approximately three to four times the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> currently estimated flight<br />
hours to make the TAF local operation<br />
estimate reasonable. Conversely, it is<br />
recognized that <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
attracts training activity from other<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s primarily because <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existence <strong>of</strong> the ILS. <strong>The</strong> low end<br />
(TxDOT/FAA Form 1050) is considered<br />
too low because <strong>of</strong> the obvious growth<br />
observed at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>Mesquite</strong> is<br />
clearly the most attractive general<br />
aviation <strong>airport</strong> in the eastern portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Metroplex, southeast Collin<br />
County, Rockwall and the southeast<br />
Metroplex. For this reason, it is<br />
reasonable to assume that operations<br />
will grow at a significant rate through<br />
the planning period.<br />
Air Taxi Operations<br />
Air Taxi refers to those operators that<br />
are that are certified in accordance with<br />
Operations per<br />
Based<br />
Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.)<br />
Part 135 and are authorized to provide,<br />
on demand, public transportation <strong>of</strong><br />
persons and property by aircraft.<br />
Typically, air taxi operators are<br />
operating as a charter service or under<br />
a fractional-ownership program.<br />
In the post 9/11 environment, many<br />
executives have opted to use private jets<br />
for their travel needs. Fractionalownership<br />
programs were well<br />
positioned to meet this growing<br />
demand. <strong>The</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong><br />
companies including Citation Shares,<br />
NetJets, Bombardier FlexJet, and<br />
Flight Options which provide this<br />
service. Companies or individuals are<br />
able to purchase partial ownership,<br />
typically one-sixteenth or one-eighth <strong>of</strong><br />
an aircraft. This gives them a certain<br />
allotment <strong>of</strong> time to use an aircraft in<br />
the fractional-ownership fleet. In this<br />
regard, fractional ownership is much<br />
like owning a timeshare.<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> air taxi operators can have<br />
a significant impact on the needs <strong>of</strong> an<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. Fractional-ownership<br />
companies utilize business jets almost<br />
exclusively. Many <strong>of</strong> these aircraft are
the larger business jets. As more <strong>of</strong> the<br />
larger business jets utilize the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
the necessary design standards for the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> may change. Charter operators<br />
use a variety <strong>of</strong> piston and turboprop,<br />
and on occasion, jet-powered aircraft.<br />
<strong>The</strong> type <strong>of</strong> aircraft using the <strong>airport</strong><br />
will be a critical element for the <strong>airport</strong><br />
to prepare for in the future.<br />
Without an ATCT, precise operations<br />
counts are not available. Fortunately,<br />
a subscription service (AirportIQ) is<br />
available that provides partial<br />
operational data at non-towered<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s. <strong>The</strong> data provided represents<br />
the absolute minimum number <strong>of</strong><br />
operations. If a flight plan is not<br />
opened prior to take<strong>of</strong>f and/or is not<br />
closed after landing, then the operation<br />
is not credited to the <strong>airport</strong>, thus, not<br />
included in our data set. It is common<br />
for pilots to not file a flight plan until<br />
after departure, or to close it prior to<br />
landing, if Visual Flight Rules (VFR)<br />
can apply.<br />
Because the operational count for air<br />
taxi is the absolute minimum, it is<br />
necessary to increase this number by a<br />
justifiable multiplier in order to have a<br />
realistic reflection <strong>of</strong> operations. It is<br />
reasonable to assume that the<br />
multiplier could be as much as 50<br />
percent, if not more. <strong>The</strong> recent<br />
installation <strong>of</strong> a ground communications<br />
outlet should encourage pilots to file<br />
their flight plans more consistently,<br />
unfortunately the GCO has been<br />
unreliable at times. Until such a time<br />
when the GCO is reliable, the use <strong>of</strong> the<br />
50 percent multiplier will be applied to<br />
air taxi operations counts.<br />
2-25<br />
<strong>The</strong> fractional-ownership industry<br />
experienced significant growth from<br />
1998 to 2002, when the aircraft fleet<br />
grew by 182 percent (Aviation Week).<br />
<strong>The</strong> economic slowdown <strong>of</strong> 2001-2002<br />
caught up to the industry in 2003, but<br />
2004 was another growth year.<br />
According to AvData, Inc., an<br />
independent, Wichita, Kansas-based<br />
aviation research and consulting firm,<br />
fractional-ownership programs are<br />
forecast to experience continued growth<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately 15 percent per year<br />
over the next 20 years. Other industry<br />
analysts are not as optimistic. J.P.<br />
Morgan Analyst, Joseph Nadol, believes<br />
the immediate (next five years) growth<br />
potential is in the single digits (Aviation<br />
Week). For planning purposes, a<br />
moderately increasing trend <strong>of</strong> 10<br />
percent per year will be applied to<br />
operations forecast for air taxi<br />
operations.<br />
As presented in Table 2M, fractional<br />
operations accounted for a total <strong>of</strong> 141<br />
operations from February 2004, to<br />
February 2005. By the long term<br />
planning period, 941 operations by<br />
fractional-ownership operations are<br />
projected. In addition to fractionalownership<br />
programs, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport also attracts charter operations.<br />
During the same one-year time period,<br />
there were 84 charter operations. Of<br />
this total, 16 operations were conducted<br />
by jet-powered aircraft. Charter<br />
operations are projected to increase<br />
from the current 84, to a long term <strong>of</strong><br />
559.
TABLE 2M<br />
Air Taxi Operations Forecast<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Year Charter Fractional Ownership<br />
2-26<br />
Total Air Taxi<br />
Operations<br />
2005* 84 141 225<br />
FORECAST<br />
Short Term 149 251 400<br />
Intermediate Term 223 377 600<br />
Long Term 559 941 1500<br />
Source: AirportIQ database.<br />
* Has been inflated by a factor <strong>of</strong> 1.5, to factor unrecorded operational data.<br />
PEAKING<br />
CHARACTERISTICS<br />
Many <strong>airport</strong> facility needs are related<br />
to the levels <strong>of</strong> activity during peak<br />
periods (busy times). <strong>The</strong> periods used<br />
in developing facility requirements for<br />
this study are as follows:<br />
1. Peak Month - <strong>The</strong> calendar<br />
month when peak aircraft<br />
operations occur.<br />
2. Design Day - <strong>The</strong> average day<br />
in the peak month. This indicator<br />
is derived by dividing the peak<br />
month operations by the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> days in the month.<br />
3. Busy Day - <strong>The</strong> busy day <strong>of</strong> a<br />
typical week in the peak month.<br />
4. Design Hour - <strong>The</strong> peak hour<br />
within the design day.<br />
<strong>The</strong> peak month is an absolute peak<br />
within a given year. All other peak<br />
periods will be exceeded at various<br />
times during the year. However, they<br />
do represent reasonable planning<br />
standards that can be applied without<br />
overbuilding or being too restrictive.<br />
Without an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower,<br />
operational information is not available<br />
to directly determine peak operational<br />
activity at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>refore, peak<br />
period forecasts have been determined<br />
according to trends experienced at<br />
similar <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
Typically, the peak month for activity at<br />
general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s approximates<br />
10 to 15 percent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>’s annual<br />
operations. For planning purposes, peak<br />
month operations have been estimated<br />
as 12 percent <strong>of</strong> annual operations at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> design<br />
day operations were calculated by<br />
dividing the peak month by 30.<br />
<strong>The</strong> design day is primarily used in<br />
airfield capacity calculations.<br />
<strong>The</strong> busy day provides information for<br />
use in determining aircraft parking<br />
apron requirements. <strong>The</strong> busiest day <strong>of</strong><br />
each week accounts for approximately<br />
20 percent <strong>of</strong> weekly operations. Thus<br />
to determine the typical busy day, the<br />
design day is multiplied by 1.4, which<br />
represents 20 percent <strong>of</strong> the days in a<br />
week (7 * 0.2). Design hour operations<br />
were determined using an industry
standard <strong>of</strong> 17.5 percent <strong>of</strong> the design<br />
day operations. <strong>The</strong> general aviation<br />
2-27<br />
peaking characteristics are summarized<br />
in Table 2N.<br />
TABLE 2N<br />
Peak Operations Forecasts<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Current<br />
Annual Operations<br />
Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term<br />
(GA and Air Taxi) 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500<br />
Peak Month (12%) 12,027 15,348 16,872 19,980<br />
Busy Day 561 716 787 932<br />
Design Day 401 512 562 666<br />
Design Hour (17.5%)<br />
Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Analysis<br />
70 90 98 117<br />
ANNUAL INSTRUMENT<br />
APPROACHES (AIAs)<br />
An instrument approach, as defined by<br />
the FAA, is “an approach to an <strong>airport</strong><br />
with the intent to land by an aircraft in<br />
accordance with an Instrument Flight<br />
Rule (IFR) flight plan, when visibility is<br />
less than three miles and/or when the<br />
ceiling is at or below the minimum<br />
initial approach altitude.” To qualify as<br />
an instrument approach at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport, aircraft must land at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> after following one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
published instrument approach<br />
procedures and then properly close their<br />
flight plan on the ground. <strong>The</strong><br />
approach must be conducted in weather<br />
conditions which necessitate the use <strong>of</strong><br />
the instrument approach. If the flight<br />
plan is closed prior to landing, then the<br />
AIA is not counted in the statistics.<br />
Forecasts <strong>of</strong> annual instrument<br />
approaches (AIAs) provide guidance in<br />
determining an <strong>airport</strong>’s requirements<br />
for navigational aid facilities. It should<br />
be noted that practice or training<br />
approaches do not count as annual<br />
AIAs.<br />
Typically, AIAs for <strong>airport</strong>s with<br />
available instrument approaches<br />
utilized by advanced aircraft will<br />
average between one and two percent <strong>of</strong><br />
itinerant operations. Two percent has<br />
been an accepted industry standard for<br />
general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s that currently,<br />
or are expected to, support corporate jet<br />
aircraft, which is the case for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport. Also, the increased<br />
availability <strong>of</strong> low-cost navigational<br />
equipment could allow for smaller and<br />
less sophisticated aircraft to utilize<br />
instrument approaches. National<br />
trends indicate an increasing<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> annual approaches given<br />
the greater availability <strong>of</strong> approaches at<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s with GPS and the availability<br />
<strong>of</strong> more cost-effective equipment. Table<br />
2P summarizes both historical and<br />
forecast AIAs for the planning period.<br />
According to the FAA Air Traffic<br />
Activity statistics, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport had 101 AIAs in 2004. This is<br />
the absolute minimum number <strong>of</strong> AIAs<br />
conducted at the <strong>airport</strong>. As previously<br />
mentioned, to be counted as an AIA, a<br />
flight plan cannot be closed prior to
landing, but this practice is common if<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> comes within visual range.<br />
Tracking <strong>of</strong> AIAs should become more<br />
accurate with the recent installation <strong>of</strong><br />
the ground communications outlet,<br />
2-28<br />
allowing pilots to communicate with the<br />
Fort/Worth ATCT. <strong>The</strong> forecast<br />
presented in Table 2P utilized an<br />
industry standard <strong>of</strong> two percent <strong>of</strong><br />
itinerant operations to account for AIAs.<br />
TABLE 2P<br />
Annual Instrument Approach (AIAs) Projections<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Year AIA's Itinerant Operations Ratio<br />
1995 59 20,000 0.30%<br />
1996 17 20,000 0.09%<br />
1997 10 20,000 0.05%<br />
1998 68 20,000 0.34%<br />
1999 143 20,000 0.72%<br />
2000 81 20,000 0.41%<br />
2001 167 20,500 0.81%<br />
2002 228 27,500 0.83%<br />
2003 148 27,969 0.53%<br />
2004 101 28,439 0.36%<br />
FORECASTS<br />
Short Term 1,028 51,400 2.00%<br />
Intermediate Term 1,132 56,600 2.00%<br />
Long Term 1,350 67,500 2.00%<br />
Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast - Approach Operations<br />
SUMMARY<br />
This chapter has provided demandbased<br />
forecasts <strong>of</strong> aviation activity at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport over the next<br />
20 years. An attempt has been made to<br />
define the projections in terms <strong>of</strong> short,<br />
intermediate and long term<br />
expectations. Elements such as local<br />
socioeconomic indicators, anticipated<br />
regional development and historical<br />
aviation data as well as national<br />
aviation trends were all considered<br />
when determining future conditions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> next step in the master planning<br />
process will be to assess the capacity <strong>of</strong><br />
existing facilities, their ability to meet<br />
forecast demand, and to identify<br />
changes to the airfield and/or landside<br />
facilities which will create a more<br />
functional aviation facility. A summary<br />
<strong>of</strong> aviation forecasts is depicted on<br />
Exhibit 2E.
04MP22-2E-2/8/06<br />
BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT FORECASTS<br />
FORECASTS<br />
BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT<br />
350<br />
350<br />
300<br />
300<br />
250<br />
250<br />
200<br />
200<br />
150<br />
150<br />
100<br />
100<br />
50<br />
50<br />
2004 Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term<br />
Single-Engine 182 205 223 256<br />
Multi-Engine 38 38 36 35<br />
Turboprop 0 4 8 15<br />
Jet 1 5 10 20<br />
Helicopters 2 3 3 4<br />
Total Based Aircraft 223 255 280 330<br />
OPERATIONS FORECASTS<br />
FORECASTS<br />
Itinerant 40,000 51,000 56,000 66,000<br />
Local 60,000 76,500 84,000 99,000<br />
Total GA Operations 100,000 127,500 140,000 165,000<br />
Air Taxi 225 400 600 1,500<br />
Total Annual Operations 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500<br />
PEAK OPERATIONS<br />
OPERATIONS<br />
Peak Month 12,027 15,348 16,872 19,880<br />
Busy Day 561 716 787 932<br />
Design Day 401 512 562 666<br />
Design Hour 70 90 98 117<br />
AIA's<br />
101 1,028 1,132 1,350<br />
BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT FORECASTS<br />
FORECASTS<br />
OPERATIONS FORECASTS<br />
FORECASTS<br />
ANNUAL ANNUAL OPERATIONS<br />
OPERATIONS<br />
200,000<br />
200,000<br />
180,000<br />
180,000<br />
160,000<br />
160,000<br />
140,000<br />
140,000<br />
120,000<br />
120,000<br />
100,000<br />
100,000<br />
80,000<br />
80,000<br />
60,000<br />
60,000<br />
40,000<br />
40,000<br />
20,000<br />
20,000<br />
2004 2004 Short Intermediate<br />
Long<br />
2004<br />
2004 Short<br />
Short Intermediate<br />
Intermediate<br />
Long Long Term<br />
Term Term<br />
Term<br />
Term<br />
Term Term<br />
Term<br />
Exhibit 2E<br />
FORECAST SUMMARY
Chapter Three<br />
AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER THREE<br />
<strong>airport</strong> FACILITY<br />
REQUIREMENTS<br />
To properly plan for the future <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, it is<br />
necessary to translate forecast aviation demand into the specific<br />
types and quantities <strong>of</strong> facilities that can adequately serve this<br />
identified demand. This chapter uses the results <strong>of</strong> the<br />
forecasts conducted in Chapter Two, as well as established<br />
planning criteria, to determine the airside (i.e., runways,<br />
taxiways, navigational aids, marking and lighting) and<br />
landside (i.e., hangars, aircraft parking apron, and automobile<br />
parking) facility requirements.<br />
<strong>The</strong> objective <strong>of</strong> this effort is to identify, in general terms, the<br />
adequacy <strong>of</strong> the existing <strong>airport</strong> facilities, outline what new<br />
facilities may be needed, and when these may be needed, to<br />
accommodate forecast demand. Having established these<br />
facility requirements, alternatives for providing these facilities<br />
will be evaluated in Chapter Four.<br />
AIRFIELD PLANNING CRITERIA<br />
<strong>The</strong> selection <strong>of</strong> appropriate Federal Aviation Administration<br />
(FAA) and Texas Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation (TxDOT) -<br />
Aviation Division design standards for the development and<br />
location <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> facilities is based primarily upon the<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> the aircraft which are currently using, or are<br />
expected to use, the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA has established a coding system to relate <strong>airport</strong><br />
design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics<br />
<strong>of</strong> aircraft expected to use the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. This code, the <strong>airport</strong><br />
3-1 DRAFT
eference code (ARC), has two<br />
components: the first component,<br />
depicted by a letter, is the aircraft<br />
approach speed (operational<br />
characteristic); the second component,<br />
depicted by a Roman numeral, is the<br />
airplane design group and relates to<br />
aircraft wingspan (physical<br />
characteristic). Generally, aircraft<br />
approach speed applies to runways and<br />
runway-related facilities, while aircraft<br />
wingspan primarily relates to<br />
separation criteria involving taxiways,<br />
taxilanes, and landside facilities.<br />
Exhibit 3A depicts typical aircraft<br />
within each ARC.<br />
According to FAA Advisory Circular<br />
(AC) 150/5300-13, Change 8, Airport<br />
Design, an aircraft's approach<br />
category is based upon 1.3 times its<br />
stall speed in landing configuration at<br />
that aircraft's maximum certificated<br />
weight. <strong>The</strong> five approach categories<br />
used in <strong>airport</strong> planning are as follows:<br />
Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.<br />
Category B: Speed 91 knots or more,<br />
but less than 121 knots.<br />
Category C: Speed 121 knots or more,<br />
but less than 141 knots.<br />
Category D: Speed 141 knots or more,<br />
but less than 166 knots.<br />
Category E: Speed greater than 166<br />
knots.<br />
<strong>The</strong> airplane design group (ADG) is<br />
based upon the aircraft’s wingspan.<br />
<strong>The</strong> six ADGs used in <strong>airport</strong> planning<br />
are as follows:<br />
Group I: Up to but not including 49<br />
feet.<br />
3-2<br />
Group II: 49 feet up to but not<br />
including 79 feet.<br />
Group III: 79 feet up to but not<br />
including 118 feet.<br />
Group IV: 118 feet up to but not<br />
including 171 feet.<br />
Group V: 171 feet up to but not<br />
including 214 feet.<br />
Group VI: 214 feet or greater.<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA recommends designing <strong>airport</strong><br />
functional elements to meet the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> the most demanding<br />
ARC for that <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft currently operating at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> are small single-engine aircraft<br />
weighing less than 12,500 pounds. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>airport</strong> is also used by corporate aircraft<br />
ranging from the smaller Lear family <strong>of</strong><br />
business jets to the Gulfstreams, which<br />
can weigh more than 90,000 pounds.<br />
In order to determine facility<br />
requirements, an actual ARC should<br />
first be determined, then appropriate<br />
<strong>airport</strong> design criteria can be applied.<br />
According to the Policies and Standards<br />
document from TxDOT, the critical<br />
aircraft, or aircraft family, must have or<br />
be forecast to have at least 250 annual<br />
operations within one year and 500<br />
operations within five years. To<br />
determine if <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
meets this threshold, a review <strong>of</strong> the<br />
type <strong>of</strong> aircraft currently using and<br />
expected to use <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
follows.<br />
CRITICAL AIRCRAFT<br />
<strong>The</strong> critical aircraft is the aircraft or<br />
family <strong>of</strong> aircraft which account for 250
04MP22-3A-2/8/06<br />
A-I<br />
B-I<br />
B-II<br />
B-I, II<br />
less than 12,500 lbs.<br />
less than 12,500 lbs.<br />
over 12,500 lbs.<br />
A-III, B-III<br />
Beech Baron 55<br />
Beech Bonanza<br />
Cessna 150<br />
Cessna 172<br />
Piper Archer<br />
Piper Seneca<br />
Beech Baron 58<br />
Beech King Air 100<br />
Cessna 402<br />
Cessna 421<br />
Piper Navajo<br />
Piper Cheyenne<br />
Swearingen Metroliner<br />
Cessna Citation I<br />
Super King Air 200<br />
Cessna 441<br />
DHC Twin Otter<br />
Super King Air 300<br />
Beech 1900<br />
Jetstream 31<br />
Falcon 10, 20, 50<br />
Falcon 200, 900<br />
Citation II, CJ2, IV, V<br />
Saab 340<br />
Embraer 120<br />
DHC Dash 7<br />
DHC Dash 8<br />
DC-3<br />
Convair 580<br />
Fairchild F-27<br />
ATR 72<br />
ATP<br />
Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type.<br />
C-I, D-I<br />
C-II, D-II<br />
C-III, D-III<br />
C-IV, D-IV<br />
D-V<br />
Lear 25, 35, 55<br />
Israeli Westwind<br />
HS 125<br />
Gulfstream II, III, IV<br />
Canadair 600<br />
Canadair Regional Jet<br />
Lockheed JetStar<br />
Super King Air 350<br />
Boeing Business Jet<br />
B 727-200<br />
B 737-300 Series<br />
MD-80, DC-9<br />
Fokker 70, 100<br />
A319, A320<br />
Gulfstream V<br />
Global Express<br />
B-757<br />
B-767<br />
DC-8-70<br />
DC-10<br />
MD-11<br />
L1011<br />
B-747 Series<br />
B-777<br />
Exhibit 3A<br />
AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES
or more operations annually. Once the<br />
critical aircraft is identified, the<br />
appropriate <strong>airport</strong> design standards<br />
can be applied.<br />
<strong>The</strong> design standards have been<br />
developed in order to assure that<br />
existing and planned facilities will be<br />
adequate to meet specific aircraft<br />
demands. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
currently designated as a Transport<br />
Airport in the Texas Airport System<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> (TASP). In general, transport<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s should be designed to handle<br />
business jet and turboprop aircraft.<br />
This designation generally corresponds<br />
to a design standard <strong>of</strong> ARC C-II.<br />
Defining the actual critical aircraft can<br />
sometimes be a difficult task. Often,<br />
the design aircraft is based upon the<br />
most demanding aircraft actually based<br />
at the <strong>airport</strong>, where in other cases<br />
itinerant operations can define the<br />
critical aircraft. Typically, more than<br />
one aircraft will compose the critical<br />
aircraft. For example, one aircraft<br />
could be the most critical for approach<br />
speed (e.g., ARC C-I), while another for<br />
wingspan (e.g., ARC B-III). Moreover,<br />
for <strong>airport</strong>s similar to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport, the critical aircraft will<br />
typically be defined by a family <strong>of</strong><br />
similar aircraft which operate at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> on a regular basis. Considering<br />
all aircraft types at the <strong>airport</strong> is<br />
important to ensure all facilities at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> are properly planned.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are currently 38 multi-engine<br />
piston aircraft based at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se aircraft range from ARC A-I to<br />
ARC B-I. <strong>The</strong>re is one jet based at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, a Cessna Citation II (525),<br />
which is a B-I aircraft. Before making<br />
3-3<br />
a final determination <strong>of</strong> the critical<br />
aircraft family, an examination <strong>of</strong> the<br />
transient business jet aircraft using the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> should be considered.<br />
It should be noted that the <strong>airport</strong> is<br />
currently in negotiations with two<br />
aircraft owners looking to base at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. One <strong>of</strong> these owners has a<br />
Gulfstream IV and the other a<br />
Gulfstream II. <strong>The</strong>se aircraft fall in<br />
ARC D-II. Should either <strong>of</strong> these<br />
aircraft base at the <strong>airport</strong>, then the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> design ARC would transition to<br />
D-II.<br />
Jet Operations<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is used by the larger and<br />
faster business jets including the<br />
Citations (525A, 550, 650, 750),<br />
Learjets (24, 35, 45, 55, 60) and<br />
Gulfstreams (II, IV, V). <strong>The</strong>se jet<br />
aircraft range from ARC B-I to D-III.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following analysis <strong>of</strong> the transient<br />
jet usage at the <strong>airport</strong> will aid in<br />
determining the actual design standard<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Table 3A presents private jet<br />
operations (excluding Air Taxi) at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport from February<br />
14, 2004, to February 15, 2005 (12month<br />
operational count).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se operations present the absolute<br />
minimum number <strong>of</strong> private business<br />
jet operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. Operations are only “logged” if<br />
the aircraft executes (either opens or<br />
closes) an instrument flight rule (IFR)<br />
flight plan on the ground at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport. Many aircraft operators,<br />
however, elect to file their flight plan in
the air after departure, or close their<br />
flight plan in the air prior to landing at<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. In either situation, the<br />
operations are not credited to the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> and would not be reflected in the<br />
table. Based on this information, it is<br />
reasonable to assume that the actual<br />
number <strong>of</strong> private business jet<br />
operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
somewhat higher than presented in the<br />
table.<br />
TABLE 3A<br />
Total Private Jet Operations (Minimum)<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005<br />
Annual<br />
ARC Aircraft Type Operations %<br />
3-4<br />
As presented in the table, <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport has experienced a total <strong>of</strong><br />
378 jet operations over the last year.<br />
<strong>The</strong> most demanding aircraft in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> ARC design standard has been the<br />
Gulfstream V, which is in ARC D-III.<br />
Aircraft such as the Challenger 600 and<br />
IAI-Astra also utilize the <strong>airport</strong> and<br />
are in ARC C-II.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong><br />
Jets %<br />
B-I Cessna 501 8 2.1% 4 6.0%<br />
B-I Cessna 525<br />
Mitsubishi (MU-<br />
110 29.1% 3 4.5%<br />
B-I<br />
300) 4 1.1% 2 3.0%<br />
B-I Falcon 10 14 3.7% 2 3.0%<br />
Total B-I 136 36.0% 11 16.4%<br />
B-II Cessna 550 56 14.8% 15 22.4%<br />
B-II Cessna 560 40 10.6% 10 14.9%<br />
B-II Falcon 2000 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
B-II Falcon 50 10 2.6% 2 3.0%<br />
Total B-II 108 28.6% 28 41.8%<br />
C-I Beech 400 44 11.6% 3 4.5%<br />
C-I IAI Westwind 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
C-I Lear 24 14 3.7% 2 3.0%<br />
C-I Lear 25 4 1.1% 2 3.0%<br />
C-I Lear 31A 22 5.8% 5 7.5%<br />
C-I Lear 35 18 4.8% 4 6.0%<br />
C-I Lear 45 14 3.7% 4 6.0%<br />
Total C-I 118 31.2% 21 31.3%<br />
C-II Challenger 600 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
C-II Hawker 800XP 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
C-II IAI Aster 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
Total C-II 6 1.6% 3 4.5%<br />
D-I Lear 60 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
Total D-I 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
D-II Gulfstream II 4 1.1% 2 3.0%<br />
D-II Gulfstream IV 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
Total D-II 6 1.6% 2 3.0%<br />
D-III Gulfstream V 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
Total D-III 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />
Total Activity 378 100.0% 67 100.0%<br />
Source: AirportIQ.com, utilizing FAA data. Airport Management Observations.
<strong>The</strong>re was a total <strong>of</strong> 242 operations by<br />
business jet aircraft in ARC B-II and<br />
larger. Of those 242, 134 were<br />
conducted by aircraft in ARC C-I or<br />
larger. <strong>The</strong> greatest number <strong>of</strong><br />
operations in any single ARC family<br />
was 136 in ARC B-I, while ARC C-I<br />
aircraft registered 118 operations.<br />
More than 35 percent <strong>of</strong> private<br />
itinerant business jet operations at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> were conducted by aircraft in<br />
ARC C-I or greater.<br />
<strong>The</strong> table also presents the number <strong>of</strong><br />
operations by aircraft type. <strong>The</strong> Cessna<br />
525 model, which includes the based jet,<br />
performed the most business jet<br />
operations (110) at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
were three different Cessna 525s that<br />
accounted for this total. <strong>The</strong>re was a<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 15 different Cessna 550 and ten<br />
different Cessna 560 jets that conducted<br />
operations at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> limitations <strong>of</strong> the aircraft<br />
operational data were detailed in the<br />
air taxi operational forecasts presented<br />
in Chapter Two. <strong>The</strong> reported<br />
operations only include those that open<br />
or close their instrument flight plans<br />
while on the ground at the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport. Many operators,<br />
however, elect to open their flight plans<br />
after departure or before landing, as the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> location does not allow for radio<br />
contact with DFW approach/departure<br />
control center from the ground (limited<br />
radio signal). Thus, the 378 private jet<br />
operations presented in Table 3B<br />
represent the absolute minimum<br />
number <strong>of</strong> operations, whereas, the<br />
actual number was much higher.<br />
<strong>The</strong> air taxi forecasts factor in an<br />
estimated 50 percent increase <strong>of</strong> the<br />
3-5<br />
actual reported operations. This<br />
multiplier should also be applied to the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> private business jet<br />
operations. Thus, adjusting the total<br />
actual reported business jet operations<br />
with the estimated multiplier yields 567<br />
private business jet operations for the<br />
period. If the assumption were made<br />
that the operational fleet mix would<br />
remain the same, there would have<br />
been 363 operations by jet aircraft that<br />
are ARC B-II or larger. Of this total,<br />
192 operations would be ARC C-I<br />
through D-III.<br />
As presented in Table 3B, the <strong>airport</strong><br />
was utilized by a wide variety <strong>of</strong><br />
corporate users with varying<br />
originations and destinations. <strong>The</strong><br />
originations/destinations listed are not<br />
the only ones for each aircraft, however,<br />
they represent the most demanding<br />
operations (e.g., longest haul lengths).<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the private operators over the<br />
last year originated from or were<br />
destined to an intrastate location. A<br />
large portion <strong>of</strong> the traffic, however,<br />
originated from, or departed to points<br />
beyond the State <strong>of</strong> Texas, including<br />
trips to both the east and west coasts.<br />
Another segment <strong>of</strong> corporate aircraft<br />
users operate under F.A.R. Part 135 (air<br />
taxi) rules for hire and through<br />
fractional-ownership programs. Air taxi<br />
operators are governed by FAA rules<br />
which are more stringent than those<br />
required for private aircraft owners.<br />
For example, aircraft operating under<br />
Part 135 rules must inflate their<br />
calculated runway length requirements<br />
by 20 percent for safety factors.
TABLE 3B<br />
Representative Private Jet Operations<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Most Demanding Representative Users<br />
Aircraft<br />
Type ARC Name Origin/Destination<br />
Gulfstream II D-II ACG3 LLC Lakefront, LA; Addison, TX<br />
Gulfstream II D-II Boxing Cat Productions Burbank, CA<br />
Gulfstream IV D-II Coanda, Inc. Palm Beach, FL<br />
Hawker 800XP C-II 800XP Holdings LLC South Padre Island, TX<br />
IAI Astra C-II Printpack, Inc. Fulton County, GA<br />
Lear 45 C-I Eaton Leasing Corp. WK Kellogg, MI; San Antonio, TX<br />
Beech 400 C-I LGI Services LLC Montgomery County, TX<br />
Beech 400 C-I Nektor Industries Scottsdale, AZ; Enid, OK<br />
Lear 31A C-I Russell Stover Candies Kansas <strong>City</strong> Downtown, MO<br />
Lear 35 C-I Sales Operating Control Serv. Witham Field, FL; Palm Springs, CA;<br />
Lear 31A C-I Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Rogers, AR; Troy, AL; LaGrange, GA<br />
Lear 35A C-I Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Black Hills, SD; Rogers, AK<br />
Falcon 2000 B-II Entergy Services DFW, TX<br />
Cessna 560 B-II Florida Power & Light Palm Beach, FL<br />
Falcon 50 B-II Health Management Assoc. Jackson Hole, WY; Naples, FL<br />
Cessna 560 B-II Moran Foods, Inc. Spirit, MO<br />
Cessna 550 B-II Plastics Engineering Sheboygan, WI<br />
Cessna 550 B-II Texarkana Holdings Cincinnati, OH; Kissimmee, FL<br />
Cessna 525 B-I P & S Aerowest St. Paul, MN; Lehigh, PA; Greenville, SC<br />
IAI: Israel Aircraft Industries<br />
Source: AirportIQ.com, utilizing FAA data. February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005<br />
Fractional-ownership operators are<br />
actual aircraft owners who acquire a<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> an aircraft with the ability to<br />
use any aircraft in the program’s fleet.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se programs have become quite<br />
popular over the last several years,<br />
especially since 9-11. Some <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
notable fractional-ownership programs<br />
include NetJets, Bombardier FlexJet,<br />
Citation Shares, and Flight Options.<br />
From February 14, 2004, to February<br />
15, 2005, these operators accounted for<br />
an additional 141 operations as<br />
previously presented in Table 2M.<br />
Table 3C provides additional<br />
information regarding the ARC <strong>of</strong> many<br />
3-6<br />
<strong>of</strong> the aircraft utilized by the fractional<br />
and charter companies which operate at<br />
the <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
Critical Design<br />
Aircraft Conclusion<br />
<strong>The</strong> largest based aircraft in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft reference code (ARC) will <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
account for the design standard to be<br />
applied to the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> largest<br />
aircraft currently based at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport is a Cessna Citation 525.<br />
This is a B-I aircraft. To determine if
the actual <strong>airport</strong> ARC is something<br />
other than B-I, an examination <strong>of</strong><br />
3-7<br />
known itinerant operations at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> was conducted.<br />
TABLE 3C<br />
Representative Air Taxi Jet Usage<br />
February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Operator Aircraft ARC<br />
FRACTIONALS<br />
Destination Operations<br />
NetJets IAI Galaxy C-II DFW, TX 2<br />
BAE 125/1000 C-II Colorado Springs, CO 2<br />
BAE 125/1000 C-II Austin, TX 4<br />
Cessna 560 B-II Adams Field, AR; Joslin Field, ID 4<br />
Cessna 560 B-II Memphis, TN; Centennial, CO 20<br />
Bombardier Lear 31 C-I Waco, TX 2<br />
Flight Options Cessna 650 C-II Kyle-Oakley, KY 2<br />
Embrier Legacy D-III Big Springs, TX 2<br />
Falcon 50 B-II Spirit, MO 2<br />
Beech 400 C-I Victoria, TX; Kyle-Oakley, KY;<br />
Sarasota, FL; Peoria, IL<br />
14<br />
CHARTERS<br />
Ameristar Jet Lear 25 C-I Branson, MO; Allen-Parish, LA 4<br />
East Coast Jets Lear 35 C-I Westchester, NY 2<br />
Executive Jet Cessna 560 B-II Dallas, TX 2<br />
United Exec. Jet<br />
Source: AirportIQ.<br />
Lear 55 C-I San Antonio, TX 2<br />
At non-towered <strong>airport</strong>s, determining a<br />
reasonable operational count by aircraft<br />
type can be difficult. Fortunately, a<br />
subscription database called AirportIQ,<br />
collects the number <strong>of</strong> instrument<br />
operations by aircraft type. This figure<br />
represents the absolute minimum<br />
possible number <strong>of</strong> operations. As<br />
discussed previously, a multiplier <strong>of</strong> 50<br />
percent (1.5) is applied to the total jet<br />
operation counts in an effort to arrive at<br />
a realistic picture <strong>of</strong> the current activity<br />
level at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
<strong>The</strong> combination <strong>of</strong> private itinerant jet<br />
(378), charter jet (16) and fractional jet<br />
operations (94) indicates that, at a<br />
minimum, there were 488 itinerant jet<br />
operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
over a one-year period, as presented in<br />
Table 3D. Of those, 352 were by<br />
aircraft in ARC B-II and larger, and <strong>of</strong><br />
those, 194 were C-I or larger. When<br />
adjusted with the 1.5 multiplier, the<br />
total number <strong>of</strong> itinerant jet operations<br />
over the one-year analysis period is 732.<br />
Of those, 291 were C-I or larger.<br />
Because the C-I and B-II operations<br />
exceed the 250 annual operations<br />
threshold as established by TxDOT, the<br />
current critical aircraft is ARC C-II.
TABLE 3D<br />
Minimum Itinerant Jet Operations by ARC<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Aircraft Reference<br />
Code (ARC) Private Jet Ops Fractional Jet Ops Charter Jet Ops Total<br />
B-I 136 0 0 136<br />
B-II 108 42 8 158<br />
C-I 118 28 8 154<br />
C-II 6 18 0 24<br />
D-I 2 2 0 4<br />
D-II 6 2 0 8<br />
D-III 2 2 0 4<br />
Total 378 94 16 488<br />
Source: AirportIQ database<br />
In the short term (within 5 years), the<br />
critical aircraft can be expected to<br />
remain C-II. Future aircraft mix can<br />
expect to include a larger percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
corporate aircraft. Increased corporate<br />
aircraft utilization is typical at general<br />
aviation <strong>airport</strong>s surrounded by<br />
growing or established population and<br />
employment centers. Once utilized only<br />
by large conglomerate-type<br />
corporations, corporate aircraft<br />
(especially jets) have been increasingly<br />
utilized by a wider variety <strong>of</strong><br />
companies. FAA trends indicate that<br />
businesses are increasingly utilizing<br />
corporate aircraft. This is also evident<br />
by the substantial growth <strong>of</strong> fractionalownership<br />
programs. <strong>The</strong> fractionalownership<br />
programs have recently<br />
announced increased numbers <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft owners to meet this growing<br />
demand.<br />
As the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex<br />
continues to expand, Dallas County can<br />
expect positive population and<br />
employment growth. This trend will<br />
position the <strong>airport</strong> well for serving the<br />
growing business community. In<br />
addition, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has<br />
already developed a reputation in the<br />
3-8<br />
general aviation community for a clean,<br />
attractive <strong>airport</strong>, with highly<br />
competitive fuel prices. Other<br />
amenities, such as the new terminal<br />
building, also attract air traffic.<br />
As previously discussed, one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
visible trends in general aviation today<br />
is the growth <strong>of</strong> the fractionalownership<br />
programs, and corporate<br />
aircraft use in general. <strong>Plan</strong>ning for<br />
fractional-ownership aircraft is difficult<br />
as it is an on-demand service, however,<br />
since these aircraft currently operate at<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>, planning should consider<br />
meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong><br />
highly-utilized fractional-ownership<br />
aircraft. Although these aircraft can<br />
range up to ARC D-III, most fractionalownership<br />
aircraft are in ARC B-I to C-<br />
II. Thus, future facility planning<br />
should include the potential for the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> to be utilized by the majority <strong>of</strong><br />
business jets on the market.<br />
<strong>The</strong> previous chapter indicated that by<br />
the long term planning period, 20 jets<br />
are forecast to be based at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Thus, the combination <strong>of</strong> operations by<br />
based business jet aircraft, along with<br />
transient corporate jet operations, will
determine the critical aircraft for the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Interviews conducted with <strong>airport</strong> staff<br />
indicate that there is a possibility that<br />
up to two large business jets may be<br />
prepared to base at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport in the near future. Discussions<br />
are ongoing with the owner <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Gulfstream IV (D-II) and the owner <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Gulfstream II (D-II). If either one bases<br />
at <strong>Mesquite</strong>, then the critical aircraft<br />
will immediately become ARC D-II.<br />
In conclusion, the current ARC for the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is C-II. In the very short term,<br />
the ARC could transition to ARC D-II,<br />
and possibly D-III, should a Gulfstream<br />
V base at the <strong>airport</strong>. Ultimate<br />
planning, however, should conform to at<br />
least ARC C/D-II to meet the needs <strong>of</strong><br />
business aircraft up to and including<br />
the G-II/IV. <strong>The</strong>re are some design<br />
standard differences between the C/D-II<br />
and D-III aircraft. <strong>The</strong>se differences<br />
will be identified as the facility<br />
requirements are studied throughout<br />
this chapter.<br />
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS<br />
Airfield requirements include the need<br />
for those facilities related to the arrival<br />
and departure <strong>of</strong> aircraft. <strong>The</strong><br />
adequacy <strong>of</strong> existing airfield facilities at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has been<br />
analyzed from a number <strong>of</strong> perspectives,<br />
including:<br />
C Safety Area Design Standards<br />
C Airfield Capacity<br />
C Runways<br />
C Taxiways<br />
C Navigational Approach Aids<br />
3-9<br />
C Airfield Lighting, Marking, and<br />
Signage<br />
SAFETY AREA<br />
DESIGN STANDARDS<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA has established several safety<br />
surfaces to protect aircraft operational<br />
areas and keep them free from<br />
obstructions that could affect the safe<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> aircraft. <strong>The</strong>se include the<br />
runway safety area (RSA), obstacle free<br />
area (OFA) and runway protection zone<br />
(RPZ). <strong>The</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> these safety<br />
areas are dependant upon the critical<br />
aircraft, and thus, the ARC <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway.<br />
<strong>The</strong> entire RSA is required to be on<br />
<strong>airport</strong> property. If necessary design<br />
standards push the RSA beyond the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> property line, then fee simple<br />
acquisition will need to be undertaken.<br />
<strong>The</strong> OFA and RPZ can extend beyond<br />
<strong>airport</strong> bounds as long as obstructions<br />
do not exist in these areas. It is not<br />
required that the RPZ be under <strong>airport</strong><br />
ownership, but it is strongly<br />
recommended. An alternative to<br />
outright ownership <strong>of</strong> the RPZ is the<br />
purchase <strong>of</strong> avigation easements<br />
(acquiring control <strong>of</strong> designated<br />
airspace within the RPZ). All facility<br />
planning will consider fee simple<br />
acquisition <strong>of</strong> any safety areas.<br />
Exhibit 3B visually depicts the runway<br />
safety areas for ARC C-II at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport.<br />
Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
<strong>The</strong> RSA is defined in FAA Advisory<br />
Circular 150/5300-13, Change 8, Airport
Design, as a “surface surrounding the<br />
runway prepared or suitable for<br />
reducing the risk <strong>of</strong> damage to airplanes<br />
in the event <strong>of</strong> an undershoot,<br />
overshoot, or excursion from the<br />
runway.” <strong>The</strong> RSA is centered on the<br />
runway, dimensioned in accordance to<br />
the approach speed <strong>of</strong> the critical<br />
aircraft using the runway. <strong>The</strong> FAA<br />
requires the RSA to be cleared and<br />
graded, drained by grading or storm<br />
sewers, capable <strong>of</strong> accommodating the<br />
design aircraft and fire and rescue<br />
vehicles, and free <strong>of</strong> obstacles not fixed<br />
by navigational purpose.<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA has placed a higher<br />
significance on maintaining adequate<br />
RSAs at all <strong>airport</strong>s due to recent<br />
aircraft accidents. Under Order 5200.8,<br />
effective October 1, 1999, the FAA<br />
established a Runway Safety Area<br />
Program. <strong>The</strong> Order states, “<strong>The</strong><br />
objective <strong>of</strong> the Runway Safety Area<br />
Program is that all RSAs at federallyobligated<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s . . . shall conform to<br />
the standards contained in Advisory<br />
Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design, to<br />
the extent practicable.” Each Regional<br />
Airports Division <strong>of</strong> the FAA is<br />
obligated to collect and maintain data<br />
on the RSA for each runway at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, and perform <strong>airport</strong><br />
inspections. Texas, as a block-grant<br />
state, has given the inspection and data<br />
collection responsibility to TxDOT-<br />
Aviation Division for general aviation<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
For ARC A/B-II aircraft, the FAA calls<br />
for the RSA to be 150 feet wide and<br />
extend 300 feet beyond the runway<br />
ends. Analysis in the previous section<br />
indicated that Runway 17-35 should be<br />
planned to accommodate aircraft up to<br />
3-10<br />
and including ARC C/D-II. <strong>The</strong> RSA for<br />
ARC C/D-II aircraft is 500 feet wide and<br />
extends 1,000 feet beyond each runway<br />
end. This is also the standard for ARC<br />
D-III aircraft.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> currently provides ample<br />
room to meet B-II standards.<br />
Upgrading to ARC C/D-II could be<br />
challenging, especially at the north end.<br />
<strong>The</strong> location <strong>of</strong> Scyene Road allows only<br />
700 feet <strong>of</strong> RSA. Moreover, drainage<br />
improvements will be necessary as<br />
several ruts have formed along the<br />
southwestern portion <strong>of</strong> the RSA.<br />
Alternative analysis to be conducted in<br />
the next chapter will provide solutions<br />
to meeting RSA standards for ARC C/D-<br />
II aircraft.<br />
Object Free Area(OFA)<br />
<strong>The</strong> runway OFA is “a two-dimensional<br />
ground area, surrounding runways,<br />
taxiways, and taxilanes, which is clear<br />
<strong>of</strong> objects except for objects whose<br />
location is fixed by function (i.e., airfield<br />
lighting).” <strong>The</strong> OFA is centered on the<br />
runway, extending out in accordance to<br />
the critical aircraft design category<br />
utilizing the runway.<br />
For ARC B-II aircraft, the FAA calls for<br />
the OFA to be 500 feet wide, extending<br />
300 feet beyond each runway end. In<br />
order to meet design criteria for ARC<br />
C/D-II, the OFA would require a cleared<br />
area 800 feet wide, extending 1,000 feet<br />
beyond each runway end. <strong>The</strong> standard<br />
for D-III aircraft is also 800 feet by<br />
1,000 feet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> currently meets OFA<br />
standards for ARC B-II aircraft.
04MP22-3B-4/7/05<br />
LEGEND<br />
OFA<br />
Deficiency<br />
Deficiency<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
RSA<br />
Deficiency<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
NORTH<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Exhibit 3B<br />
RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS
Upgrading to ARC C/D-II presents<br />
deficiencies on both the north and<br />
southeast ends <strong>of</strong> the runways. On the<br />
southeast end, the OFA extends beyond<br />
the existing property line into a portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Devil’s Bowl Speedway. On the<br />
north end, only 650 feet <strong>of</strong> OFA is on<br />
<strong>airport</strong> property.<br />
Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ)<br />
Runways served by an instrument<br />
approach, as are both ends <strong>of</strong> Runway<br />
17-35, must consider the FAA’s criteria<br />
for the OFZ. <strong>The</strong> OFZ is an imaginary<br />
surface which precludes object<br />
penetrations, including taxiing and<br />
parked aircraft. <strong>The</strong> only allowance for<br />
OFZ obstructions is visual navigational<br />
aids mounted on frangible bases which<br />
are fixed in their location by function.<br />
3-11<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA’s criterion for runways utilized<br />
by large aircraft and served by an<br />
instrument approach requires a clear<br />
OFZ to extend 200 feet beyond the<br />
runway ends, by 400 feet wide (200 feet<br />
on either side <strong>of</strong> the runway centerline).<br />
<strong>The</strong> OFZ is established to ensure the<br />
safety <strong>of</strong> aircraft operations. If the OFZ<br />
is obstructed, the <strong>airport</strong>’s approaches<br />
could be removed or approach<br />
minimums could be increased.<br />
Currently, there are no OFZ<br />
obstructions at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
Future planning should maintain the<br />
OFZ. Table 3E presents the existing<br />
C/D-II safety area design standards, as<br />
well as the deficiencies to those<br />
standards.<br />
TABLE 3E<br />
Safety Area Design Standards<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
Existing Standards Deficiencies<br />
Airport Reference Code<br />
(ARC)<br />
Runway Safety Area<br />
C-II thru D-III<br />
Width (ft.) 500 Ruts, drainage<br />
Length Beyond Runway End (ft.)<br />
Object Free Area<br />
1,000 North only 700' available<br />
South parking apron and Devil’s<br />
Width (ft.) 800<br />
Bowl Speedway<br />
Length Beyond Runway End (ft.)<br />
Obstacle Free Zone<br />
1,000 North only 650' available<br />
Width (ft.) 400 OK<br />
Length Beyond Runway End (ft.) 200 OK<br />
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 8<br />
Runway Protection Zones (RPZ)<br />
Another consideration is the FAA<br />
recommendation for compatible land<br />
uses. <strong>The</strong> runway protection zone<br />
(RPZ) is a trapezoidal area centered on<br />
the runway and typically beginning 200<br />
feet beyond the runway end. <strong>The</strong> RPZ
has been established by the FAA to<br />
provide an area clear <strong>of</strong> obstructions<br />
and incompatible land uses, in order to<br />
enhance the protection <strong>of</strong> approaching<br />
aircraft, as well as people and property<br />
on the ground. <strong>The</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
RPZ vary according to the visibility<br />
minimums serving the runway and the<br />
type <strong>of</strong> aircraft operating on the<br />
runway.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) is<br />
an area closely mirroring the RPZ, but<br />
extending out and up from the primary<br />
runway surface. <strong>The</strong> TSS is primarily<br />
designed to identify obstructions.<br />
Obstructions to the TSS surface need to<br />
be addressed as soon as possible to<br />
ensure the safety <strong>of</strong> pilots, aircraft and<br />
people and objects on the ground. <strong>The</strong><br />
current TSS slope for Runway 17-35 is<br />
20:1. Should the visibility minimum for<br />
Runway 17 be lowered to one-half mile,<br />
then the TSS slope will be 34:1, while<br />
Runway 35 will remain at 20:1.<br />
3-12<br />
<strong>The</strong> lowest existing visibility minimum<br />
for approach to Runway 17 is threequarters<br />
mile using the ILS. <strong>The</strong><br />
lowest existing visibility minimum for<br />
Runway 35 is one mile. Ultimate<br />
planning will consider lowering the<br />
minimums to one-half mile for Runway<br />
17 and three-quarters mile for Runway<br />
35. A detailed explanation <strong>of</strong> these<br />
visibility minimums is presented later<br />
in this chapter.<br />
It should be noted that the RPZ for ARC<br />
C/D-II aircraft is significantly larger<br />
than the current RPZ for ARC B-II, and<br />
would extend into areas outside the<br />
existing <strong>airport</strong> property line. Future<br />
plans should consider acquiring any<br />
property not contained inside the<br />
existing or planned RPZs. <strong>The</strong><br />
dimensions for the current and planned<br />
runway protection zones are presented<br />
in Table 3F.<br />
TABLE 3F<br />
Runway Protection<br />
Zones<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Existing Ultimate<br />
Runway<br />
Approach Visibility<br />
17 35 17 35<br />
Minimums 3/4 mile (ILS) 1 mile (LOC BC) ½ mile (ILS, GPS) 3/4 mile (GPS)<br />
Inner Width (ft.) 1,000 500 1,000 1,000<br />
Outer Width (ft.) 1,510 1,010 1,750 1,510<br />
Length (ft.) 1,700 1,700 2,500 1,700<br />
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 8<br />
AIRFIELD CAPACITY<br />
A demand/capacity analysis measures<br />
the capacity <strong>of</strong> the airfield facilities (i.e.,<br />
runways and taxiways) in order to<br />
identify and plan for additional<br />
development needs. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport’s single-runway system can<br />
provide up to 230,000 annual operations<br />
under ideal conditions. Since it is<br />
known that there are times when<br />
weather can close the runway (usually<br />
due to precipitation or wind), a more
easonable capacity should start at<br />
approximately 210,000 operations.<br />
FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong> Integrated<br />
Airport Systems (NPIAS), indicates that<br />
improvements to capacity should be<br />
considered when operations approach<br />
60 to 75 percent <strong>of</strong> the airfield’s annual<br />
service volume (ASV). If the projected<br />
long range planning horizon level <strong>of</strong><br />
operations comes to fruition (166,500),<br />
the airfield’s ASV will exceed the 60<br />
percent level shortly after the<br />
intermediate planning horizon. Thus,<br />
additional airfield capacity enhancements<br />
should be considered part <strong>of</strong> this<br />
master plan.<br />
<strong>The</strong> most typical and effective<br />
enhancement to airfield capacity is the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway.<br />
Construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway would<br />
increase the airfield’s ASV to as much<br />
as 300,000 operations. Other capacity<br />
enhancements include construction <strong>of</strong><br />
additional taxiways and improved<br />
navigational instrumentation. For<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, construction <strong>of</strong><br />
additional exit taxiways will not<br />
significantly alleviate congestion due to<br />
the adequacy <strong>of</strong> existing taxiways.<br />
Navigational aid improvements,<br />
including GPS improvements and lower<br />
minimums for the southerly approach,<br />
would provide some relief during poor<br />
weather conditions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway<br />
provides the best capacity increase to an<br />
airfield system. This process, however,<br />
is very costly and TxDOT will require<br />
that the project be justified in order to<br />
receive funding assistance. Quantifying<br />
existing demand without the aid <strong>of</strong> an<br />
3-13<br />
<strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT) is a<br />
difficult task. Another consideration for<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
available <strong>airport</strong> property suitable for<br />
construction. This would require the<br />
acquisition <strong>of</strong> adjacent property which<br />
is currently planned for other industrial<br />
uses.<br />
For planning purposes, however,<br />
consideration will be given to the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway in the<br />
long range planning period. Establishing<br />
the potential for a parallel<br />
runway will provide the <strong>City</strong> with an<br />
option for development <strong>of</strong> adjacent<br />
property. This option will be explored<br />
further in the next chapter.<br />
RUNWAYS<br />
<strong>The</strong> adequacy <strong>of</strong> the existing runway<br />
system at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has<br />
been analyzed from a number <strong>of</strong><br />
perspectives, including runway<br />
orientation, runway length, pavement<br />
strength, width, and safety standards.<br />
From this information, requirements for<br />
runway improvements were determined<br />
for the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Runway Orientation<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is served by single runway<br />
system. Runway 17-35 is orientated in<br />
a north-south manner. For the<br />
operational safety and efficiency <strong>of</strong> an<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, it is desirable for the runway to<br />
be oriented as close as possible to the<br />
direction <strong>of</strong> the prevailing wind. This<br />
reduces the impact <strong>of</strong> wind components<br />
perpendicular to the direction <strong>of</strong> travel
<strong>of</strong> an aircraft that is landing or taking<br />
<strong>of</strong>f.<br />
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,<br />
Change 8, Airport Design, recommends<br />
that a crosswind runway should be<br />
made available when the primary<br />
runway orientation provides for less<br />
than 95 percent wind coverage for<br />
specific crosswind components. <strong>The</strong> 95<br />
percent wind coverage is computed on<br />
the basis <strong>of</strong> the crosswind component<br />
not exceeding 10.5 knots (12 mph) for<br />
ARC A-I and B-I; 13 knots (15 mph) for<br />
ARC A-II and B-II; 16 knots (18 mph)<br />
for ARC C-I through D-II; and 20 knots<br />
for ARC A-IV through D-VI.<br />
Wind data specific to the <strong>airport</strong> was<br />
not available, however, data for<br />
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport<br />
(1988-1997) provides adequate<br />
information for use in this study. This<br />
data is graphically depicted on the<br />
windrose in Exhibit 3C.<br />
As depicted on the exhibit, primary<br />
Runway 17-35 provides 96.04 percent<br />
wind coverage for 10.5 knot crosswinds,<br />
98.15 percent at 13 knots, and 99.48<br />
percent at 16 knots. Runway 17-35<br />
exceeds the 95 percent wind coverage<br />
component.<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis indicates that the existing<br />
runway system provides adequate<br />
crosswind coverage for all aircraft. It<br />
should be noted, however, due to<br />
geographical differences, this data could<br />
be somewhat different from what is<br />
actually experienced in <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
Without more applicable information,<br />
however, a site-specific determination<br />
cannot be made. Thus, based on the<br />
analysis using the best available<br />
3-14<br />
information, future plans for a<br />
crosswind runway do not need to be<br />
considered.<br />
Runway Length<br />
<strong>The</strong> determination <strong>of</strong> runway length<br />
requirements for the <strong>airport</strong> is based on<br />
five primary factors:<br />
C Critical aircraft type expected to<br />
use the <strong>airport</strong><br />
C Stage length <strong>of</strong> the longest<br />
nonstop trip destination<br />
C Mean maximum daily<br />
temperature <strong>of</strong> the hottest month<br />
C Runway gradient<br />
C Airport elevation<br />
Primary Factors<br />
An analysis <strong>of</strong> the existing and future<br />
fleet mix indicates that business jets<br />
will be the most demanding aircraft for<br />
runway length at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. Currently, there is one<br />
business jet based at the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
however, transient operations by the<br />
full range <strong>of</strong> business jets define the<br />
current critical aircraft. <strong>The</strong> typical<br />
itinerant business aircraft utilizing the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> range from the Cessna Citation<br />
family, to Learjets, all the way up to the<br />
Gulfstreams, as presented previously in<br />
Tables 3A and 3B.<br />
Aircraft operating characteristics are<br />
affected by three primary factors: the<br />
temperature, the <strong>airport</strong>’s elevation,<br />
and the gradient <strong>of</strong> the runway. As<br />
each <strong>of</strong> these increase, more runway<br />
length is required to support the<br />
aircraft. Additional factors, which are
aircraft-specific, such as haul length, or<br />
fuel capacity or passenger capacity can<br />
all affect runway length requirements.<br />
<strong>The</strong> mean maximum daily temperature<br />
<strong>of</strong> the hottest month for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport is 96 degrees Fahrenheit (F).<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> elevation is 447 feet above<br />
mean sea level (MSL). <strong>The</strong> maximum<br />
elevation difference for Runway 17-35 is<br />
four feet. Runway 17-35 has a<br />
longitudinal gradient <strong>of</strong> 0.06 percent.<br />
For aircraft in approach categories A<br />
3-15<br />
and B, the runway longitudinal<br />
gradient cannot exceed two percent. For<br />
aircraft in approach categories C and D,<br />
the maximum allowable longitudinal<br />
runway grade is 1.5 percent.<br />
Table 3G outlines the runway length<br />
requirements for various classifications<br />
<strong>of</strong> aircraft that utilize <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. <strong>The</strong>se standards were derived<br />
from the FAA Airport Design Computer<br />
Program for recommended runway<br />
lengths.<br />
TABLE 3G<br />
Runway Length Requirements<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA<br />
Airport elevation 447 feet<br />
Mean daily maximum temperature <strong>of</strong> the hottest month 96.00 F.<br />
Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation 4 feet<br />
Length <strong>of</strong> haul for airplanes <strong>of</strong> more than 60,000 pounds 1,400 miles<br />
Dry runways<br />
RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN<br />
Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats<br />
75 percent <strong>of</strong> these small airplanes 2,700 feet<br />
95 percent <strong>of</strong> these small airplanes 3,300 feet<br />
100 percent <strong>of</strong> these small airplanes 3,900 feet<br />
Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats 4,500 feet<br />
Large airplanes <strong>of</strong> 60,000 pounds or less<br />
75 percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 60 percent useful load 4,900 feet<br />
75 percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 90 percent useful load 7,300 feet<br />
100 percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 60 percent useful load 5,900 feet<br />
100 percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 90 percent useful load 9,400 feet<br />
Airplanes <strong>of</strong> more than 60,000 pounds 6,900 feet<br />
Source: FAA Airport Design Computer Program utilizing Chapter Two <strong>of</strong> AC 150/5325-4A, Runway<br />
Length Requirements for Airport Design.<br />
According to the FAA design program,<br />
to accommodate 75 percent <strong>of</strong> business<br />
jet aircraft at 60 percent useful load,<br />
the runway length should be at least<br />
4,900 feet. To accommodate 100<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 60 percent<br />
useful load, the runway should be 5,900<br />
feet long.<br />
In late 2004, the FAA released a draft<br />
update to Advisory Circular (AC)<br />
150/5325-4B, Runway Length<br />
Requirements for Airport Design. <strong>The</strong><br />
updated AC identifies those aircraft<br />
that were used in calculating the<br />
lengths required in Table 3G. For<br />
example, the “75 percent fleet at 60<br />
percent useful load” provides a runway<br />
length sufficient to satisfy the<br />
operational requirements <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately 75 percent <strong>of</strong> the fleet at<br />
60 percent useful load. <strong>The</strong> AC also
provides direction on runway length for<br />
aircraft operating at 90 percent useful<br />
load.<br />
Paragraph 306 <strong>of</strong> the AC recognizes<br />
that general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s are being<br />
used more frequently by business jets.<br />
General aviation (GA) <strong>airport</strong>s “that<br />
receive regular use by large airplanes<br />
over 12,500 pounds, in addition to<br />
business jets, should provide a runway<br />
length comparable to non-GA <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
That is, the extension <strong>of</strong> an existing<br />
runway can be justified at an existing<br />
GA <strong>airport</strong> that has a need to<br />
accommodate heavier airplanes on a<br />
frequent basis.” This is the exact<br />
3-16<br />
scenario that is currently taking place<br />
at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, and thus,<br />
needs to be planned for.<br />
<strong>The</strong> top half <strong>of</strong> Table 3H presents the<br />
list <strong>of</strong> those aircraft which make up the<br />
75 percent <strong>of</strong> the active business jet<br />
fleet category. <strong>The</strong> bottom half,<br />
presented in Table 3H, represents the<br />
aircraft used for the 100 percent<br />
category in Table 3G. Those aircraft<br />
that fall in the remaining 25 percent,<br />
make up 100 percent <strong>of</strong> the active<br />
business jet category, utilize the <strong>airport</strong><br />
on an infrequent basis, but are likely to<br />
use the <strong>airport</strong> more frequently in the<br />
short term.<br />
TABLE 3H<br />
Aircraft Type as a Percent <strong>of</strong> the Business Jet Fleet<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Manufacturer Models<br />
Airplanes that make up 75 percent <strong>of</strong> the fleet per Table 3G<br />
Beech Jet 400<br />
Cessna 500, 525A, 550, 560, 650 (Citation VII)<br />
Dessault Falcon 10, 20, 50, 200<br />
Hawker 400, 600<br />
IAI Jet Commander 1121, Westwind 1123/1124<br />
Learjet 20, 31, 35, 36, 45<br />
Mitsubishi 300<br />
Sabreliner 40, 60, 75a/80, T-39<br />
Bae 125-700<br />
Raytheon 390 Premier<br />
Aerospatiale Sn-601 Corvette<br />
Airplanes that make up 100 percent <strong>of</strong> the fleet per Table 3G<br />
Bombardier Challenger 600, 601, 604<br />
Cessna 650 (Citation III/VI), 750<br />
Dessault Falcon 900, 900EX, 2000<br />
IAI Astra 1125, Galaxy 1126<br />
Learjet 55, 60<br />
Hawker 800, 800EX, 1000<br />
Sabreliner 65, 75<br />
Source: FAA AC 150/5325-4B<br />
Since it is known that most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
aircraft listed in the 100 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
business jet category utilize the<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, consideration<br />
should be given to providing adequate<br />
runway length for their safe and<br />
efficient operation.
Haul Length<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA Computer Program also<br />
provides an estimation <strong>of</strong> runway<br />
lengths for general aviation aircraft<br />
weighing more than 60,000 pounds.<br />
This group includes the Gulfstream<br />
family <strong>of</strong> aircraft and some new longrange<br />
corporate jets. <strong>The</strong> estimate <strong>of</strong><br />
runway length requirements for the<br />
large corporate aircraft over 60,000<br />
pounds considers all airfield data, but<br />
also considers the typical haul distance.<br />
<strong>The</strong> origin/destination <strong>of</strong> many aircraft<br />
utilizing the <strong>airport</strong> was previously<br />
identified in Table 3C. <strong>The</strong> larger<br />
Gulfstream jets had haul lengths <strong>of</strong><br />
nearly 1,400 miles, to destinations such<br />
as Palm Springs, California, and Palm<br />
Beach, Florida. Other destinations<br />
included St. Paul, MN (1,000 mi.),<br />
Jackson Hole, WY (1,400 mi.),<br />
Kissimmee, FL (1,100 mi.), and Black<br />
Hills, SD (1,100 mi.). Since it is known<br />
that, when conditions allow, business<br />
jet operators are opting for longer haul<br />
lengths, consideration will be given to<br />
accommodate aircraft weighing more<br />
than 60,000 pounds with haul lengths<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1,400 miles. As indicated in Table<br />
3G, aircraft weighing more than 60,000<br />
pounds, with haul lengths <strong>of</strong> 1,400<br />
miles, require a runway length <strong>of</strong> 6,900<br />
feet.<br />
Specific Aircraft Requirements<br />
An additional consideration for runway<br />
length is to analyze the runway length<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> specific aircraft<br />
currently utilizing or planned to utilize<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport in the future.<br />
Table 3J presents the runway length<br />
3-17<br />
needs for a wide variety <strong>of</strong> business jets,<br />
as obtained from the operations<br />
manuals for each aircraft. Figures in<br />
the table consider maximum take-<strong>of</strong>f<br />
and landing weights. It should be noted<br />
that landing length requirements<br />
during contaminated runway conditions<br />
(rainy, with 1/10-inch <strong>of</strong> water on the<br />
runway) increase significantly for<br />
aircraft with single landing gear<br />
configurations due to hydroplaning<br />
potential.<br />
In general, the data specific to each<br />
airplane presented in Table 3J is<br />
similar to the generalized output by the<br />
FAA computer program (presented in<br />
Table 3G). Obviously, <strong>airport</strong> planning<br />
cannot always conform to the worst case<br />
(maximum load) scenario. <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
should at least conform to providing a<br />
runway length capable <strong>of</strong> accommodating<br />
the majority <strong>of</strong> aircraft, the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> the year. In other words,<br />
the runway should be capable <strong>of</strong><br />
handling business jets with typical<br />
weight loading during moderate heat<br />
conditions.<br />
Several aircraft which currently utilize<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> on an infrequent basis can<br />
require runway lengths longer than<br />
6,000 feet. <strong>The</strong> Lear 55, Gulfstream IV<br />
and V, Hawker 800, and Challenger<br />
require up to 7,000 feet. <strong>The</strong>se aircraft<br />
are capable <strong>of</strong> operating at the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
but are weight-restricted during hot<br />
weather days. Weight restrictions can<br />
include taking less fuel and making an<br />
additional stop along the intended<br />
route, boarding fewer passengers, or<br />
taking less cargo. During cooler days,<br />
the weight restrictions could be minor<br />
or may be unnecessary.
TABLE 3J<br />
Runway Length Requirements (Max Take-<strong>of</strong>f/Landing Weights)<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Runway Length Required (in feet) for:<br />
Landings on Dry<br />
Landing on<br />
Aircraft Type Take-<strong>of</strong>f @ 95 F<br />
Runway<br />
Contaminated Runway<br />
Beechjet 400 5,900 4,500 6,000<br />
Challenger CL600 6,900 5,500 7,000<br />
Cessna 550 5,500 2,900 6,000<br />
Cessna 650 6,000 5,300 6,100<br />
Gulfstream IV 7,000 5,400 6,200<br />
Gulfstream V 7,000 4,500 5,500<br />
Hawker 800 8,000 4,000 6,000<br />
Hawker 1000 7,500 5,000 5,600<br />
IAI Westwind 7,300 3,500 7,000<br />
IAI Astra 7,000 5,000 5,000<br />
Lear 35 6,000 3,400 7,000<br />
Lear 55 7,300 3,200 6,400<br />
Source: Aircraft Operating Manuals<br />
Parallel Runway Length<br />
As indicated previously, the forecast<br />
operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
could exceed 60 percent <strong>of</strong> the airfield’s<br />
capacity by the intermediate term <strong>of</strong><br />
this master plan. One option for<br />
increasing airfield capacity is to<br />
construct a parallel runway. A parallel<br />
runway has the added benefit <strong>of</strong><br />
allowing the <strong>airport</strong> to remain open<br />
when the primary runway is closed for<br />
maintenance.<br />
Consideration must be given to the<br />
length <strong>of</strong> a potential parallel runway.<br />
<strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway can at<br />
times be critical to the operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. Times when the primary<br />
runway is down for maintenance could,<br />
in essence, close the <strong>airport</strong> to large<br />
aircraft due to inadequate runway<br />
lengths. Thus, ultimate plans for the<br />
parallel runway should include the<br />
length necessary to accommodate, at a<br />
minimum, ARC B-II aircraft. <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
should also consider use for ARC C-II<br />
3-18<br />
aircraft. Table 3G indicates that a<br />
4,900-foot runway would be necessary<br />
to accommodate most <strong>of</strong> these aircraft.<br />
Another option for planing the parallel<br />
runway would be providing only for<br />
training operations and for small<br />
aircraft exclusively up to ARC B-II. In<br />
order to accommodate aircraft up to B-<br />
II, the potential parallel runway should<br />
be a minimum <strong>of</strong> 4,000 feet long. This<br />
would meet the runway length<br />
requirements for all small aircraft.<br />
Analysis conducted in the next chapter<br />
will consider the potential for providing<br />
a parallel runway up to 4,900 feet long.<br />
Runway Length Summary<br />
Many factors are considered when<br />
determining appropriate runway length<br />
for the safe and efficient operation <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong><br />
starting point for analysis begins with<br />
running the FAA Airport Design<br />
Computer Program. This program is
ased on the criteria for runway length<br />
set forth in AC 150/5300, Airport<br />
Design. <strong>The</strong> output from the computer<br />
program shows a number <strong>of</strong> different<br />
runway lengths based on aircraft<br />
characteristics such as useful load, haul<br />
length, and percent <strong>of</strong> active business<br />
jets. <strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong> the computer<br />
program show that, at a minimum, the<br />
runway should be at least 5,900 feet<br />
long in order to accommodate 100<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the business jet fleet at 60<br />
percent useful load. This would be<br />
adequate for almost all C-II business<br />
jets.<br />
An additional consideration is the haul<br />
length for aircraft weighing over 60,000<br />
pounds. For business jets, this would<br />
include the Gulfstream family <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft. Flight plan data that was<br />
collected and analyzed showed that<br />
when conditions allow (i.e., cooler, dry<br />
days), those heavier business jets will<br />
take on longer haul lengths, up to and<br />
beyond 1,400 miles. <strong>The</strong> FAA Computer<br />
Program calls for a runway length <strong>of</strong><br />
6,900 feet for these aircraft.<br />
An additional source for necessary<br />
runway length is the actual operations<br />
manuals from those business jets<br />
utilizing the <strong>airport</strong>. Analysis indicated<br />
that a number <strong>of</strong> these aircraft have<br />
runway length needs that exceed the<br />
current 6,000 feet. Some had<br />
requirements for over 7,000 feet under<br />
extreme conditions (full load, above 95<br />
degrees).<br />
Corporate aviation departments and<br />
fractional-ownership programs <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
restrict what <strong>airport</strong>s they can use<br />
based on runway length. Often, these<br />
3-19<br />
groups will restrict operations to those<br />
runways that have adequate runway<br />
length plus a buffer. Obviously, the<br />
longer the runway, the more<br />
opportunity these aircraft operators will<br />
have to use the <strong>airport</strong>. Moreover,<br />
fractional aircraft and charter operators<br />
must increase the runway length<br />
requirement by 20 percent under F.A.R.<br />
Part 135 rules.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> these runway length<br />
recommendations are based on the fact<br />
that C-II transient aircraft operations<br />
exceed 250 annual operations, the<br />
threshold as established by TxDOT. If<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the larger business jets were to<br />
base at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> would immediately transition to<br />
the design standard <strong>of</strong> that critical<br />
aircraft. For example, if the Gulfstream<br />
IV operator, who is currently<br />
negotiating for hangar space at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, signs a lease, then the <strong>airport</strong><br />
should conform with D-II design<br />
standards.<br />
Forecast future demand at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport indicates that the <strong>airport</strong><br />
should strive to accommodate all<br />
business jet operations up to and<br />
including those in ARC C/D-II. Thus,<br />
alternative analysis will consider the<br />
possibility <strong>of</strong> lengthening Runway 17-35<br />
to provide 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong> operational<br />
length. While this length may not be<br />
fully capable <strong>of</strong> accommodating all<br />
aircraft needs throughout the year, it<br />
will be adequate for most business jet<br />
operations.<br />
Analysis in the next chapter will<br />
examine potential runway extensions<br />
that could be achieved. <strong>The</strong> analysis
will factor constraints which could<br />
hinder runway extension including<br />
roads, environmental considerations,<br />
and costs. It is important to note that<br />
TxDOT and the FAA will require<br />
specific justification for the runway to<br />
be extended. <strong>The</strong> type <strong>of</strong> aircraft, its<br />
specific runway requirements and<br />
frequency <strong>of</strong> operation, will need to be<br />
provided for funding assistance.<br />
<strong>The</strong>refore, current record-keeping <strong>of</strong><br />
business jet operators should be<br />
maintained and include company<br />
names, aircraft types, and frequency <strong>of</strong><br />
operation at the <strong>airport</strong>, where possible.<br />
Also, <strong>airport</strong> administration should<br />
request that corporate aircraft<br />
operating at the <strong>airport</strong> provide, in<br />
writing, their established runway<br />
length requirements.<br />
Runway Width<br />
Runway 17-35 is currently 100 feet<br />
wide. FAA design standards call for a<br />
runway width <strong>of</strong> 75 feet to serve aircraft<br />
up to ARC B-II, as long as the<br />
instrument approach minimums are<br />
three-quarters mile or greater. For<br />
lower approach minimums and for<br />
aircraft in approach categories C and D,<br />
the runway should be 100 feet wide.<br />
Also, TxDOT standards call for a 100foot-wide<br />
runway for transport category<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s. Runway 17-35 currently<br />
meets FAA and TxDOT criteria for<br />
runway width and should be<br />
maintained as such.<br />
<strong>The</strong> runway shoulder for Group II<br />
aircraft is 10 feet and for Group III it is<br />
20 feet. <strong>The</strong> shoulder areas should be<br />
designed to provide resistance to blast<br />
3-20<br />
erosion and to accommodate the<br />
passage <strong>of</strong> vehicles.<br />
Runway Strength<br />
<strong>The</strong> pavement rating for Runway 17-35<br />
is 70,000 pounds single wheel loading<br />
(SWL).<br />
As previously mentioned, SWL refers to<br />
the aircraft weight based upon the<br />
landing gear configuration with a single<br />
wheel on the landing strut. For dual<br />
wheel configurations (DWL), the<br />
runway is strength rated at 100,000<br />
pounds.<br />
<strong>The</strong> runway strength is adequate<br />
through the long term planning period.<br />
Care should be given to repair the<br />
concrete as needed in order to preserve<br />
both the condition and strength <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway.<br />
Runway Separation<br />
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,<br />
Airport Design, Change 8 also discusses<br />
separation distances between aircraft<br />
and various areas on the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
separation distances are a function <strong>of</strong><br />
the approaches approved for the <strong>airport</strong><br />
and the critical aircraft. <strong>The</strong> airfield<br />
was designed for and currently<br />
conforms to ARC B-II, with approaches<br />
not less than three-quarters-<strong>of</strong>-a-mile.<br />
Under this criterion, the parallel<br />
taxiway needs to be at least 300 feet<br />
from the runway centerline. <strong>The</strong> edge<br />
<strong>of</strong> aircraft parking areas should be 400<br />
feet from the runway centerline.
<strong>The</strong> existing critical aircraft, however,<br />
falls in ARC C/D-II and could possibly<br />
transition ultimately to ARC D-III. <strong>The</strong><br />
lowest approach minimums suggested<br />
are one-half mile (Runway 17). Under<br />
these circumstances, the taxiway<br />
centerline should be at least 400 feet<br />
from the runway centerline. <strong>The</strong><br />
parking areas should be at least 500<br />
feet from the runway centerline.<br />
Should a parallel runway be<br />
constructed, the minimum FAA<br />
recommended separation is 700 feet<br />
from centerline to centerline. This<br />
separation assumes that the proposed<br />
parallel runway would be visual or with<br />
approach minimums not lower than<br />
one-mile visibility.<br />
TAXIWAYS<br />
Taxiways are constructed primarily to<br />
facilitate aircraft movements to and<br />
from the runway system. Some<br />
taxiways are necessary simply to<br />
provide access between the aprons and<br />
runways, whereas other taxiways<br />
become necessary as activity increases<br />
at an <strong>airport</strong>, to provide safe and<br />
efficient use <strong>of</strong> the airfield.<br />
As detailed in Chapter One, the taxiway<br />
system at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
consists <strong>of</strong> a parallel taxiway and six<br />
entrance/exit taxiways serving Runway<br />
17-35. <strong>The</strong> parallel taxiway is 40 feet<br />
wide, as are the entrance/exit taxiways.<br />
<strong>The</strong> terminal area taxiway is 30 feet<br />
wide.<br />
Consideration should be given to the<br />
addition <strong>of</strong> taxiways, as needed, to<br />
3-21<br />
improve airfield circulation and<br />
capacity. <strong>The</strong> current taxiway layout<br />
appears efficient for Runway 17-35,<br />
however, if Runway17-35 were to be<br />
extended, the parallel taxiway would<br />
need to be extended and another exit<br />
taxiway added.<br />
Taxiway width is determined by the<br />
Airplane Design Group (ADG) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
most demanding aircraft to use the<br />
taxiway. As mentioned previously, the<br />
current critical aircraft for the <strong>airport</strong><br />
falls within ADG II. FAA criteria call<br />
for a width <strong>of</strong> 35 feet for taxiways<br />
serving aircraft within Design Group II.<br />
All taxiways at the <strong>airport</strong> currently<br />
meet this requirement. If ADG III is to<br />
be considered, the taxiways serving<br />
these aircraft should be 50 feet wide.<br />
As shown in Table 3K, a taxiway object<br />
free area (TOFA) applies to taxiways<br />
and taxilanes. <strong>The</strong> width <strong>of</strong> the TOFA<br />
is dependant on the wingspan <strong>of</strong> critical<br />
aircraft. For Group II aircraft, the<br />
TOFA is 131 feet wide. For Group III<br />
aircraft, the TOFA is 186 feet wide.<br />
Taxilane separation standards are<br />
slightly lower.<br />
<strong>The</strong> separation distance between the<br />
taxiway/taxilane and any fixed or<br />
movable object is half <strong>of</strong> the TOFA. <strong>The</strong><br />
taxiway shoulder width requirements<br />
are 10 feet for Group II aircraft and 20<br />
feet for Group III aircraft. <strong>The</strong><br />
shoulders need to be traversable by<br />
vehicles and aircraft, should they veer<br />
<strong>of</strong>f the taxiway. Often, a smooth grass<br />
surface is provided.
TABLE 3K<br />
Taxiway Design Standards<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Airplane Design Group<br />
Group II (49' to 79' wingspan) Group III (79' to 118' wingspan)<br />
Taxiway Width (ft.) 35 50<br />
Shoulder Width (ft.)<br />
Object Free Area (ft.)<br />
10 20<br />
Taxiway OFA 131 186<br />
Taxilane OFA<br />
Separation Distances (ft.)<br />
115 162<br />
Taxiway Centerline to Object 65.5 93<br />
Taxilane Centerline to Object 57.5 81<br />
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 8<br />
NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND<br />
INSTRUMENT APPROACHES<br />
Airport and runway navigational aids<br />
are based on FAA recommendations, as<br />
defined in DOT/FAA Handbook<br />
7031.2B, Airway <strong>Plan</strong>ning Standard<br />
Number One, FAA Advisory Circular<br />
150/5300-2D, Airport Design<br />
Standards, Site Requirements for<br />
Terminal Navigation Facilities, and<br />
TxDOT’s Policies and Standards.<br />
Navigational aids provide two primary<br />
services to <strong>airport</strong> operations: precision<br />
guidance to specific runway and/or nonprecision<br />
guidance to a runway or the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> itself. <strong>The</strong> basic difference<br />
between a precision and non-precision<br />
navigational aid is that the former<br />
provides electronic descent, alignment<br />
(course), and position guidance, while<br />
the non-precision navigational aid<br />
provides only alignment and position<br />
location information; no elevation<br />
information is given. <strong>The</strong> necessity <strong>of</strong><br />
such equipment is usually determined<br />
by design standards predicated on<br />
safety considerations and operational<br />
needs. <strong>The</strong> type, purpose, and volume<br />
<strong>of</strong> aviation activity expected at the<br />
3-22<br />
<strong>airport</strong> are factors in the determination<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>’s eligibility for<br />
navigational aids.<br />
Global Positioning System<br />
<strong>The</strong> advancement <strong>of</strong> technology has<br />
been one <strong>of</strong> the most important factors<br />
in the growth <strong>of</strong> the aviation industry in<br />
the second half <strong>of</strong> the twentieth<br />
century. Much <strong>of</strong> the civil aviation and<br />
aerospace technology has been derived<br />
and enhanced from the initial<br />
development <strong>of</strong> technological<br />
improvements for military purposes.<br />
<strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> orbiting satellites to confirm<br />
an aircraft’s location is the latest<br />
military development to be made<br />
available to the civil aviation<br />
community.<br />
Global positioning systems (GPS) use<br />
three or more satellites to derive an<br />
aircraft’s location by a triangulation<br />
method. <strong>The</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> these systems<br />
has been remarkable, with initial<br />
degrees <strong>of</strong> error <strong>of</strong> only a few meters.<br />
As the technology improves, it is<br />
anticipated that GPS may be able to<br />
provide accurate-enough position
information to allow category II and III<br />
precision approaches, independent <strong>of</strong><br />
any existing ground-based navigational<br />
facilities. In addition to the<br />
navigational benefits, it has been<br />
estimated that GPS equipment will be<br />
much less costly than existing precision<br />
approach landing systems.<br />
Instrument Approaches<br />
Instrument approach procedures (IAP)<br />
are a series <strong>of</strong> predetermined<br />
maneuvers established by the FAA,<br />
using electronic navigational aids that<br />
assist pilots in locating and landing at<br />
an <strong>airport</strong> during low visibility and<br />
cloud ceiling conditions. At <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport, there are two published<br />
instrument approaches for Runway 17<br />
and one for Runway 35. <strong>The</strong><br />
approaches are approved for use by<br />
aircraft with approach speeds in<br />
Approach Category A, B and C. None <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong>’s approaches are approved<br />
for D aircraft.<br />
<strong>The</strong> capability <strong>of</strong> an instrument<br />
approach is defined by the visibility and<br />
cloud ceiling minimums associated with<br />
the approach. Visibility minimums<br />
define the horizontal distance that the<br />
pilot must be able to see to complete the<br />
approach. Cloud ceilings define the<br />
lowest level a cloud layer (defined as<br />
feet above the ground) can be situated<br />
for a pilot to complete the approach. If<br />
the observed visibility or cloud ceiling is<br />
below the minimums prescribed for the<br />
approach, the pilot cannot complete the<br />
instrument approach.<br />
Future planning considers the increased<br />
use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> by corporate aircraft.<br />
3-23<br />
<strong>The</strong>se aircraft users are <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
dependent upon instrument approaches.<br />
In fact, some corporate flight<br />
departments are excluded from using<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s without instrument<br />
approaches. Considering these aircraft,<br />
future planning must also consider<br />
improved instrument approach<br />
procedures.<br />
<strong>The</strong> IAPs for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
were discussed in detail in the previous<br />
chapter. <strong>The</strong> ILS Runway 17 approach<br />
affords the lowest cloud ceiling (250'<br />
AGL) and visibility minimums (threequarter<br />
mile). Ultimate planning will<br />
consider the implementation <strong>of</strong><br />
approach minimums down to one-half<br />
mile, utilizing the ILS technology such<br />
as the localizer and glideslope antenna.<br />
<strong>The</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> implementing these<br />
approaches will be studied in the next<br />
chapter. Should there be a parallel<br />
runway, GPS approaches with not lower<br />
than one-mile visibility should be<br />
considered.<br />
Weather Reporting Aids<br />
<strong>The</strong> Automated Weather Observing<br />
System III (AWOS) at the <strong>airport</strong><br />
provides critical weather information to<br />
pilots. One <strong>of</strong> the prime advantages <strong>of</strong><br />
an AWOS is that the information is<br />
very specific to the <strong>airport</strong> environs.<br />
This system should be maintained.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has a lighted wind cone and<br />
segmented circle which provide pilots<br />
with information about wind conditions<br />
and local traffic patterns. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
facilities are required when an <strong>airport</strong><br />
is not served by a 24-hour <strong>airport</strong> traffic
control tower (ATCT). <strong>The</strong>se facilities<br />
should be maintained in the future.<br />
Airport Traffic<br />
Control Tower (ATCT)<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport does not have<br />
an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT);<br />
therefore, no formal terminal air traffic<br />
control services are available at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Aircraft operating within the Class E<br />
airspace immediately surrounding the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> are not required to file any type<br />
<strong>of</strong> flight plan or to contact any air traffic<br />
control facility unless they are operat-<br />
3-24<br />
ing under IFR conditions. Those<br />
aircraft that enter the Class B airspace<br />
in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> would then<br />
be required to be in contact with<br />
controllers at the Fort Worth Air Route<br />
Traffic Control Facility (ARTCC).<br />
<strong>The</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> a fully-funded<br />
ATCT follows guidance provided in FAA<br />
Handbook 7031.2C, Airway <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Standard Number One - Terminal Air<br />
Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic<br />
Control Services. To be identified as a<br />
possible candidate for inclusion in the<br />
FAA Contract Tower Program and thus<br />
eligible to receive an ATCT, the formula<br />
in Table 3L is applied.<br />
TABLE 3L<br />
Airport Traffic Control Tower Calculations<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Formula Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Forecast<br />
Forecast<br />
Forecast<br />
AC/38,000 + 0.000 0.000 0.000<br />
AT/90,000 + 0.003 0.004 0.011<br />
GAI/160,000 + 0.319 0.350 0.413<br />
GAL/280,000 + 0.273 0.300 0.354<br />
MI/48,000 + 0.000 0.000 0.000<br />
ML/90,000 0.000 0.000 0.000<br />
Total<br />
Where:<br />
0.595 0.654 0.777<br />
AC = Air Carrier Operations<br />
AT = Air Taxi Operations<br />
GAI = General Aviation Itinerant Operations<br />
GAL = General Aviation Local Operations<br />
MI = Military Itinerant Operations<br />
ML = Military Local Operations<br />
Source: FAA Handbook 7031.2C, Airway <strong>Plan</strong>ning Standard Number One - Terminal Air<br />
Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services.<br />
This formula is the starting point for<br />
analysis to determine the need for an<br />
ATCT. If the benefit/cost analysis ratio<br />
(BCA) that results from the formula is<br />
above 1.0, then the <strong>airport</strong> would be<br />
eligible for consideration under the FAA<br />
Contract Tower Program.<br />
Experience at <strong>airport</strong>s with similar<br />
annual operations to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro
Airport has shown that when the initial<br />
results <strong>of</strong> the formula in Table 3L are<br />
above 0.5, there is a strong possibility<br />
that the actual BCA ratio may be above<br />
1.0, as the BCA considers additional<br />
factors, not just operations, with<br />
varying degrees <strong>of</strong> weight applied. It is<br />
recommended that the <strong>City</strong> notify the<br />
FAA <strong>of</strong> its desire to be included in the<br />
ATCT program, so that an operational<br />
count and a full BCA analysis can be<br />
conducted.<br />
Initial construction <strong>of</strong> a tower is eligible<br />
for the TxDOT-Aviation Division 90/10<br />
cost sharing program, up to $1.66<br />
million. <strong>The</strong>se funds are from <strong>of</strong> the<br />
FAA AIP program which TxDOT<br />
administers as a block-grant state.<br />
Under the FAA Contract Tower<br />
Program, an updated BCA is conducted<br />
on a yearly basis. Should the BCA fall<br />
below the 1.0 ratio, then the FAA would<br />
shift to a cost-sharing program and<br />
provide operational funding equal to the<br />
calculated ratio. For example, if a BCA<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.76 results, then the <strong>airport</strong><br />
could be expected to receive funding to<br />
cover 76 percent <strong>of</strong> the operational<br />
costs. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> would then be<br />
responsible for the remaining 24<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the annual operating costs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Contract Tower Program was<br />
established in 1982 to provide funding<br />
for air traffic control services at lower<br />
activity level ATCTs. At contract<br />
towers, the FAA funds all or portions <strong>of</strong><br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> a qualified contractor to<br />
operate the ATCT. Initially, low-level<br />
FAA-operated towers were converted to<br />
the contract tower program. However,<br />
this program has grown to include<br />
establishing new services at <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
3-25<br />
which were previously without air<br />
traffic control services. As <strong>of</strong> 2005,<br />
there were 223 <strong>airport</strong>s in the FAA<br />
Contract Tower Program.<br />
AIRFIELD LIGHTING<br />
AND MARKING<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong> lighting and<br />
pavement marking aids serving pilots<br />
using the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>se aids assist<br />
pilots in locating the <strong>airport</strong> and<br />
runway at night or in poor visibility<br />
conditions. <strong>The</strong>y also assist in the<br />
ground movement <strong>of</strong> aircraft.<br />
Visual Approach Aids<br />
To provide pilots with visual glideslope<br />
and descent information, visual<br />
approach slope indicators (VASIs) or<br />
precision approach path indicators<br />
(PAPIs) are commonly found to the side<br />
<strong>of</strong> the runway. <strong>The</strong>se systems can<br />
consist <strong>of</strong> either a two- or four-box unit.<br />
Four-box systems are recommended for<br />
use by business jet aircraft. Currently,<br />
both ends <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35 are served<br />
by four-box PAPIs. <strong>The</strong>se are the<br />
recommended visual descent aids and<br />
should be maintained through the<br />
planning period.<br />
In conjunction with lowering the<br />
approach minimums to Runway 17 from<br />
a three-quarter mile to one-half mile, a<br />
more sophisticated approach lighting<br />
system will be needed. <strong>The</strong> Medium<br />
Intensity Approach Lighting System<br />
with Runway Alignment Indicator<br />
Lights (MALSR) is commonly used. A<br />
MALSR is used by pilots to align the
aircraft with the centerline <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway. Up to 63 steady-burning lights<br />
are used to create a reference plane,<br />
and up to eight lights create a<br />
sequential strobing flash pattern that<br />
rolls toward the runway threshold. <strong>The</strong><br />
MALSR requires 2,400 feet prior to the<br />
threshold. <strong>The</strong> first 1,400 feet from the<br />
threshold is the reference grid and the<br />
last 1,000 feet is the flashing lights.<br />
Runway 35 would not need the MALSR<br />
system, as the planned approach<br />
visibility is three-quarters mile and the<br />
existing lead-in-light system is<br />
adequate.<br />
Runway End Identification Lighting<br />
(REIL) is provided on both ends <strong>of</strong><br />
Runway 17-35. Because <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existence <strong>of</strong> the lead-in-light system,<br />
the REILs are not required on the<br />
Runway 35 end. When the full MALSR<br />
is installed on Runway 17, it is<br />
recommended that the REILs be<br />
removed to avoid pilot confusion. <strong>The</strong>y<br />
can be relocated to the potential<br />
parallel runway or provided to another<br />
<strong>airport</strong> with the need.<br />
Other visual approach aids include the<br />
segmented circle, the lighted wind cone<br />
and the universal beacon. <strong>The</strong>se are<br />
valuable tools to pilots and should be<br />
maintained throughout the planning<br />
period. <strong>The</strong> potential parallel runway<br />
should be outfitted with a two-box PAPI<br />
and REILs.<br />
Runway and Taxiway Lighting<br />
Runway identification lighting provides<br />
the pilot with a rapid and positive<br />
identification <strong>of</strong> the runway and its<br />
3-26<br />
alignment. Runway 17-35 is equipped<br />
with Medium Intensity Runway<br />
Lighting (MIRL). When the approach<br />
minimum is lowered to one-half mile,<br />
High Intensity Runway Lighting will<br />
need to be installed.<br />
TxDOT Policies and Standards indicate<br />
that <strong>airport</strong>s having more than 100<br />
based aircraft should be served by<br />
taxiway lights, as well as taxiway<br />
guidance signs. Currently, <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
has lighted signs, but there is not<br />
taxiway lighting. Future planning will<br />
consider the addition <strong>of</strong> Medium<br />
Intensity Taxiway Lighting.<br />
<strong>The</strong> pilot-controlled lighting systems<br />
should be maintained through the<br />
planning period. This will allow the<br />
light to be set to a lower intensity at<br />
night, thus allowing the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />
conserve electricity and be a good<br />
neighbor.<br />
As a B-II runway, the parallel should be<br />
planned for MIRL. <strong>The</strong> taxiways and<br />
signs leading to the runway should be<br />
lighted.<br />
Pavement Markings<br />
Runway markings are designed<br />
according to the type <strong>of</strong> instrument<br />
approach available on the runway.<br />
FAA AC 150/5340-1F, Marking <strong>of</strong> Paved<br />
Areas on Airports, provides guidance<br />
necessary to design an <strong>airport</strong>’s<br />
markings. Both ends <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
have precision instrument markings.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se markings should be properly<br />
maintained through the planning<br />
period.
Markings for a parallel runway should<br />
be at least non-precision, to include<br />
runway centerline, runway designation,<br />
aiming point, and threshold, as well as<br />
aircraft holding positions.<br />
Compass Rose<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is a compass rose painted on the<br />
concrete in the north-end holding apron.<br />
A compass rose is used to calibrate the<br />
aircraft magnetic compass. Unlike the<br />
compass rose found on most maps, this<br />
marking has the navigational ordinals,<br />
dividing the circle into 12 parts at 30<br />
degree intervals. <strong>The</strong> cardinal points<br />
(large marks) are at magnetic north,<br />
south, east and west, with ordinal<br />
indicators at the remaining points. <strong>The</strong><br />
rose found on most maps usually have<br />
4, 8 or 16 markings, with the cardinal<br />
points at true (not magnetic) north,<br />
south, east and west, and ordinals at<br />
angles <strong>of</strong> bisection (e.g., northwest).<br />
LANDSIDE<br />
REQUIREMENTS<br />
Landside facilities are those necessary<br />
for the handling <strong>of</strong> aircraft and<br />
passengers while on the ground. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
facilities provide the essential interface<br />
between the air and ground<br />
transportation modes. <strong>The</strong> capacity <strong>of</strong><br />
the various components <strong>of</strong> each area<br />
was examined in relation to projected<br />
demand to identify future landside<br />
facility needs. This includes<br />
components for commercial service and<br />
general aviation needs such as:<br />
3-27<br />
C Aircraft Hangars<br />
C Aircraft Parking Aprons<br />
C General Aviation Terminal<br />
C Auto Parking and Access<br />
C Airport Support Facilities<br />
HANGARS<br />
Utilization <strong>of</strong> hangar space varies as a<br />
function <strong>of</strong> local climate, security, and<br />
owner preferences. <strong>The</strong> trend in<br />
general aviation aircraft, whether<br />
single- or multi-engine, is toward more<br />
sophisticated aircraft (and, consequently,<br />
more expensive aircraft);<br />
therefore, many aircraft owners prefer<br />
enclosed hangar space to outside tiedowns.<br />
<strong>The</strong> demand for aircraft storage<br />
hangars is dependent upon the number<br />
and type <strong>of</strong> aircraft expected to be based<br />
at the <strong>airport</strong> in the future. For<br />
planning purposes, it is necessary to<br />
estimate hangar requirements based<br />
upon forecast operational activity.<br />
However, hangar development should<br />
be based upon actual demand trends<br />
and financial investment conditions.<br />
While a majority <strong>of</strong> aircraft owners<br />
prefer enclosed aircraft storage, a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> based aircraft will still tiedown<br />
outside (due to the lack <strong>of</strong> hangar<br />
availability, hangar rental rates, and/or<br />
operational needs). <strong>The</strong>refore, enclosed<br />
hangar facilities do not necessarily need<br />
to be planned for each based aircraft.<br />
At <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, most based<br />
aircraft are currently stored in hangars.<br />
According to staff interviews and
<strong>airport</strong> billing records, there are<br />
approximately 10 based aircraft which<br />
utilize the tie-down spaces available on<br />
the north apron.<br />
General aviation <strong>airport</strong>s similar to<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro will typically have 95<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the based aircraft stored in<br />
enclosed hangars, with the remaining<br />
five percent stored outside on the apron.<br />
This standard will be used when<br />
determining needed hangar development.<br />
As previously discussed, the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> staff maintains a wait list <strong>of</strong> 81<br />
aircraft owners. Conversion <strong>of</strong> the wait<br />
list to leases, as well as natural<br />
attrition <strong>of</strong> based aircraft, are reflected<br />
in the based aircraft forecast. <strong>The</strong><br />
based aircraft forecast is the primary<br />
factor in determining hangar needs.<br />
At <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, all multiengine<br />
and jet aircraft will be<br />
considered to be stored in a hangar,<br />
while 95 percent <strong>of</strong> the single-engine<br />
aircraft will be considered for indoor<br />
storage. Of the single-engine aircraft,<br />
90 percent are in T-hangars, while 5<br />
percent are in conventional and<br />
executive hangars. Of the multi-engine<br />
aircraft, 10 percent are considered to be<br />
stored in T-hangars, 35 percent in<br />
conventional hangars, and 55 percent in<br />
executive hangars.<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport <strong>of</strong>fers a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> T-hangar spaces. T-hangars are<br />
popular with aircraft owners having one<br />
aircraft. T-hangars are individual<br />
spaces within a larger structure.<br />
Aircraft owners are allowed privacy and<br />
individual access to their space. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
are 147 individual enclosed T-hangar<br />
units available on the <strong>airport</strong>. Upon<br />
3-28<br />
completion <strong>of</strong> the two new hangar<br />
facilities at the south end <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
there will be an additional 11 T-hangar<br />
units. For T-hangars, a planning<br />
standard <strong>of</strong> 1,200 square feet per based<br />
aircraft will be used to determine future<br />
space requirements.<br />
Conventional hangars are typically<br />
10,000 square feet or larger. <strong>The</strong>y are<br />
open-space facilities with no supporting<br />
structure interference. Often, other<br />
<strong>airport</strong> services are <strong>of</strong>fered from the<br />
conventional hangars. At <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport, there are three<br />
conventional hangars. <strong>The</strong>se are leased<br />
by Moorehead Aviation, P & S Aerowest<br />
and Faith Air. <strong>The</strong> maximum number<br />
<strong>of</strong> aircraft that can be stored in each is<br />
approximately seven. <strong>The</strong>se three<br />
hangars provide a total <strong>of</strong> 33,200 square<br />
feet <strong>of</strong> space.<br />
Executive hangars are typically utilized<br />
by owners <strong>of</strong> larger aircraft or multiple<br />
aircraft. Often a corporate aviation<br />
department will operate out <strong>of</strong> an<br />
executive hangar as well. Executive<br />
hangars are usually smaller than<br />
10,000 square feet and <strong>of</strong>fer the same<br />
open-space storage area as conventional<br />
hangars. <strong>The</strong>re are four executive<br />
hangar structures at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
northernmost hangar, occupied by the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Public Safety, has a<br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> five aircraft. Building 910<br />
has four attached executive hangars. A<br />
maximum <strong>of</strong> four aircraft can be stored<br />
in each, for a total <strong>of</strong> 16 aircraft.<br />
Buildings 1440 and 1442 are also<br />
executive hangars, with a capacity <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately eight aircraft, bringing<br />
the total executive hangar spaces<br />
available to 27. <strong>The</strong>se facilities provide
a total <strong>of</strong> approximately 40,300 square<br />
feet.<br />
Five executive hangar units are<br />
included in the south end hangar<br />
facilities currently under construction.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se will provide a total <strong>of</strong> 11,200<br />
square feet and space for up to seven<br />
additional aircraft. It should be noted<br />
that the T-hangars and the executive<br />
hangars currently under construction<br />
are not included in the calculations for<br />
future aircraft storage needs.<br />
As the trend toward more sophisticated<br />
aircraft continues throughout the<br />
planning period, it is important to<br />
determine the need for more<br />
conventional and executive hangar<br />
3-29<br />
space. A planning standard <strong>of</strong> 1,200<br />
square feet was used for single-engine<br />
aircraft, and 2,500 square feet for multiengine,<br />
jets, and helicopters. Since<br />
portions <strong>of</strong> conventional and executive<br />
hangars are also used for aircraft<br />
maintenance, servicing, and <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
space, a planning standard <strong>of</strong> 15<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the total hangar space is<br />
allocated for these requirements.<br />
Table 3M indicates that the <strong>airport</strong><br />
should plan, in the short term, for more<br />
executive and conventional hangar<br />
space. Additional T-hangar storage<br />
facilities are projected to be needed by<br />
the intermediate term <strong>of</strong> the planning<br />
period.<br />
TABLE 3M<br />
Aircraft Storage Hangar Requirements<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Future Requirements<br />
Currently Short Intermediate Long<br />
Available Term Term Term<br />
Total Based Aircraft 223 255 280 330<br />
Aircraft to be Hangared 214 245 269 317<br />
T-Hangar Units 147 181 197 226<br />
Conventional Hangar Spaces 15 27 31 38<br />
Executive Hangars<br />
Hangar Area Requirements<br />
30 37 42 53<br />
T-hangar Area (sf.) 167,100 216,600 235,800 271,300<br />
Conventional Hangar Area (sf.) 33,200 68,100 76,400 95,100<br />
Executive Hangars (s.f.) 40,300 93,100 104,900 132,100<br />
Maintenance Area (sf.) 36,000 56,000 62,500 75,000<br />
Total Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />
Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis<br />
276,600 433,800 479,600 573,500<br />
It should be noted that the exact<br />
existing storage mix is unknown. Thus,<br />
a typical storage mix was used as the<br />
baseline condition. As a result, the<br />
exact square footage needed between Thangars<br />
and conventional/executive<br />
hangars is an approximation. <strong>The</strong><br />
critical figure to address is the total<br />
hangar area needed. In the short term<br />
planning period, nearly 157,000 square<br />
feet <strong>of</strong> hangar space may be needed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> new south-end hangars under<br />
construction will account for 14,000<br />
square feet for T-hangars and 11,200
square feet for executive hangars.<br />
Thus, planning should begin for an<br />
additional 132,000 square feet <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft storage space.<br />
AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON<br />
A parking apron should provide space<br />
for the number <strong>of</strong> locally-based aircraft<br />
that are not stored in hangars and<br />
transient aircraft. As discussed in the<br />
previous section, <strong>airport</strong>s similar in<br />
characteristics to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport hangar approximately 95<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> based aircraft. Using this<br />
standard, <strong>Mesquite</strong> would currently<br />
need aircraft tie-down space for nine<br />
based aircraft and space for 13 based<br />
aircraft by the long term forecast. For<br />
local tie-down needs, an additional five<br />
spaces are identified for maintenance<br />
activity. A planning criterion <strong>of</strong> 650<br />
square yards per aircraft was used to<br />
determine the apron requirements for<br />
local aircraft.<br />
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13<br />
suggests a methodology by which<br />
transient apron requirements can be<br />
determined from knowledge <strong>of</strong> busy-day<br />
operations. At <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport,<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> itinerant spaces required<br />
was determined to be approximately 18<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the busy-day itinerant<br />
operations. A planning criterion <strong>of</strong> 800<br />
square yards per aircraft was applied to<br />
determine future transient apron<br />
requirements for single- and multiengine<br />
aircraft. For business jets<br />
(which can be much larger), a planning<br />
criterion <strong>of</strong> 1,600 square yards per<br />
business jet position was used. For<br />
3-30<br />
planning purposes, 75 percent <strong>of</strong> these<br />
spaces are assumed to be utilized by<br />
non-jet aircraft, which is in line with<br />
national trends.<br />
Total apron parking requirements are<br />
presented in Table 3N. Currently,<br />
apron area at the <strong>airport</strong> totals<br />
approximately 33,400 square yards,<br />
with approximately 51 total tie-down<br />
positions. As shown in the table, there<br />
will likely be a need for more apron<br />
space throughout the planning period.<br />
As itinerant operations increase,<br />
especially by turbine aircraft,<br />
consideration should be given to<br />
constructing more apron space.<br />
Moreover, additional apron space will<br />
be needed as development moves to the<br />
south end <strong>of</strong> the airfield.<br />
GENERAL AVIATION<br />
TERMINAL FACILITIES<br />
General aviation terminal facilities<br />
have several functions. Space is<br />
required for the pilots’ lounge, flight<br />
planning, concessions, management,<br />
storage, and various other needs. This<br />
space is not necessarily limited to a<br />
single, separate terminal building, but<br />
can include space <strong>of</strong>fered by fixed base<br />
operators for these functions and<br />
services. Currently, the <strong>airport</strong> <strong>of</strong>fers a<br />
separate terminal building which<br />
provides approximately 5,000 square<br />
feet <strong>of</strong> space. <strong>The</strong> existing terminal<br />
facility was dedicated in 2004, and is<br />
located on the enlarged south apron,<br />
approximately midfield. Additional<br />
public space is available in the previous
terminal building area, currently<br />
occupied by <strong>Mesquite</strong> Aviation. This<br />
TABLE 3N<br />
Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
3-31<br />
area provides approximately 2,600<br />
square feet <strong>of</strong> space.<br />
Available<br />
Short<br />
Term<br />
Intermediate<br />
Term<br />
Long<br />
Term<br />
Single-, Multi-engine Transient Aircraft<br />
Positions 39 42 50<br />
Apron Area (s.y.) 30,800 33,900 39,900<br />
Transient Business Jet Positions 13 14 17<br />
Apron Area (s.y.) 20,600 22,600 26,600<br />
Locally-Based Aircraft Positions 15 16 18<br />
Apron Area (s.y.) 9,800 10,400 11,700<br />
Total Positions 51 67 72 85<br />
Total Apron Area (s.y.) 33,400 61,200 66,900 78,200<br />
<strong>The</strong> methodology used in estimating<br />
general aviation terminal facility needs<br />
is based on the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> users<br />
expected to utilize general aviation<br />
facilities during the design hour.<br />
General aviation space requirements<br />
were then based upon providing 90<br />
square feet per design hour itinerant<br />
passenger. Design hour itinerant<br />
passengers is determined by multiply-<br />
ing design hour itinerant operations by<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> passengers on the<br />
aircraft (multiplier). An increasing<br />
passenger count (from 2.0 to 2.3) is used<br />
to account for the likely increase in<br />
larger, more sophisticated aircraft using<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. Table 3P outlines the<br />
general aviation terminal facility space<br />
requirements for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport.<br />
TABLE 3P<br />
General Aviation Terminal Area Facilities<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Short Intermediate Long<br />
Available Term Term Term<br />
Design Hour Operations 70 89 98 115<br />
Design Hour Itinerant Operations 28 36 39 46<br />
Multiplier<br />
Total Design Hour<br />
1.9 2 2.1 2.3<br />
Itinerant Passengers<br />
General Aviation<br />
53 72 82 106<br />
Terminal Building/FBO Public Space (s.f.)<br />
Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Analysis<br />
7,600 6,400 7,400 9,600<br />
As presented in the table, the existing<br />
public spaces appear adequate through<br />
the intermediate term <strong>of</strong> the plan. By<br />
the long term, there may be a need for
additional space. This space may be<br />
provided with an expansion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
terminal building, or other service<br />
providers at the <strong>airport</strong> may wish to<br />
provide public space.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> should continue to identify<br />
and address the needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />
users in terms <strong>of</strong> necessary terminal<br />
space. <strong>The</strong> current terminal building<br />
provides some space for most items<br />
needed by pilots and passengers.<br />
Future functional needs may grow to<br />
exceed the space currently available. In<br />
these circumstances the <strong>airport</strong> should<br />
consider either an addition or a<br />
reconfiguration <strong>of</strong> the interior to meet<br />
these needs. If the terminal building is<br />
not expanded, additional FBO spaces<br />
will be required to meet demand.<br />
SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS<br />
Various facilities that do not logically<br />
fall within classifications <strong>of</strong> airside or<br />
landside facilities have also been<br />
identified. <strong>The</strong>se other areas provide<br />
certain functions related to the overall<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> and include:<br />
automobile parking, fuel storage, and<br />
aircraft rescue and firefighting<br />
facilities.<br />
AUTOMOBILE PARKING<br />
General aviation vehicular parking<br />
demands have been determined for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Space<br />
determinations were based on an<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> existing <strong>airport</strong> use, as<br />
3-32<br />
well as industry standards. Terminal<br />
automobile parking spaces required to<br />
meet general aviation itinerant<br />
demands were calculated by<br />
multiplying design hour itinerant<br />
passengers by a multiplier <strong>of</strong> 2.0, 2.1,<br />
and 2.3 for each planning period. This<br />
multiplier represents the anticipated<br />
increase in corporate operations, and<br />
thus, passengers.<br />
<strong>The</strong> parking requirements <strong>of</strong> based<br />
aircraft owners should also be<br />
considered. Although some owners<br />
prefer to park their vehicles in their<br />
hangars, safety can be compromised<br />
when automobile and aircraft<br />
movements are intermixed. For this<br />
reason, separate parking requirements,<br />
which consider one-half <strong>of</strong> based<br />
aircraft at the <strong>airport</strong>, were applied to<br />
general aviation automobile parking<br />
space requirements. Parking<br />
requirements for the <strong>airport</strong> are<br />
summarized in Table 3Q.<br />
Throughout the planning period,<br />
additional dedicated parking spaces are<br />
forecast to be needed. Currently, most<br />
<strong>airport</strong> users travel across landside<br />
pavements in order to reach their place<br />
<strong>of</strong> business or hangar. Future planning<br />
will develop more dedicated parking<br />
areas, with the goal <strong>of</strong> limiting the<br />
potential interaction <strong>of</strong> aircraft and<br />
vehicles. Locating parking areas in<br />
useful areas is critical for a general<br />
aviation <strong>airport</strong>. If a parking area is<br />
not conveniently located, then <strong>airport</strong><br />
users will continue to drive on aircraft<br />
surfaces.
TABLE 3Q<br />
Vehicle Parking Requirements<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Future Requirements<br />
Available Short Term Inter. Term Long Term<br />
Design Hour Passengers 51 68 78 102<br />
Terminal Vehicle Spaces 37 136 165 234<br />
Parking Area (s.f.) 14,800 54,300 65,900 93,500<br />
General Aviation Spaces 44 128 140 165<br />
Parking Area (s.f.) 17,600 51,000 56,000 66,000<br />
Total Parking Spaces 81 264 305 399<br />
Total Parking Area (s.f.) 32,400 105,300 121,900 159,500<br />
FUEL STORAGE<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has a new fuel<br />
farm on the west side <strong>of</strong> the north<br />
apron. <strong>The</strong> fuel farm consists <strong>of</strong> two<br />
aboveground, 12,000-gallon storage<br />
tanks, one for Jet A fuel and the other<br />
for Avgas fuel. <strong>The</strong>re is a self-serve<br />
pump for Avgas at this location as well.<br />
With a credit card, pilots can access<br />
Avgas 24 hours-a-day. After hours, Jet<br />
A fuel is also available by contacting<br />
<strong>airport</strong> staff, which utilizes two<br />
refueling trucks. <strong>The</strong> Jet A fuel truck<br />
has a 2,400-gallon capacity and the<br />
Avgas truck has a 1,000-gallon capacity.<br />
Fuel storage requirements are typically<br />
based upon maintaining a two-week<br />
supply <strong>of</strong> fuel during an average month.<br />
However, more frequent deliveries can<br />
reduce the fuel storage capacity<br />
requirement. Generally, fuel tanks<br />
should be <strong>of</strong> adequate capacity to accept<br />
a full refueling tanker, which is<br />
approximately 8,000 gallons, while<br />
maintaining a reasonable level <strong>of</strong> fuel in<br />
the storage tank.<br />
Fuel sales records are maintained by<br />
<strong>airport</strong> staff. As presented in Table<br />
3R, Jet A fuel sales have increased<br />
3-33<br />
significantly over the past four years,<br />
while Avgas sales experienced a<br />
declining trend from 2001 to 2003. In<br />
2004, Avgas sales rebounded to the<br />
2001 levels. Although both types <strong>of</strong> fuel<br />
are forecast to show growth through the<br />
planning period, Jet A fuel sales are<br />
expected to increase at a greater rate.<br />
When the forecast fuel sales are<br />
segmented into biweekly refills, the<br />
current storage capacity will be<br />
adequate for Avgas through the<br />
planning period, while Jet A fuel<br />
storage capacity will be exceeded by the<br />
long term planning period. One option<br />
to address this potential storage issue is<br />
to increase the frequency <strong>of</strong> fuel<br />
deliveries. By the long term planning<br />
period, it is suggested that additional<br />
fuel storage facilities be constructed.<br />
AIRCRAFT RESCUE<br />
AND FIREFIGHTING<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is not currently<br />
served by a dedicated aircraft rescue<br />
and firefighting facility (ARFF). <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>airport</strong> is provided with rescue and fire<br />
assistance from Fire Station No. 7,<br />
approximately two miles from the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>.
TABLE 3R<br />
Forecast Fuel Sales<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
HISTORIC FORECAST<br />
2001 2002 2003 2004 2010 2015 2025<br />
Avgas (gal.) 122,000 112,000 102,000 122,000 135,000 147,000 174,000<br />
Jet A (Gal.) 52,000 65,000 82,000 90,000 171,000 237,000 370,000<br />
Source: Airport records. All figures rounded to nearest 1,000.<br />
ARFF services do not necessarily have<br />
to be located on the <strong>airport</strong>. Only<br />
certified <strong>airport</strong>s providing scheduled<br />
passenger service with greater than<br />
nine passenger seats are required to<br />
provide ARFF services. Many corporate<br />
flight departments, however, are<br />
requesting ARFF services at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s they utilize. ARFF facilities<br />
and personnel costs are substantial,<br />
thus, many times not feasible for<br />
smaller communities. If services are<br />
requested, consideration should be<br />
given to meeting “Index A” standards,<br />
which includes aircraft less than 90 feet<br />
in length and requires on-vehicle<br />
carrying <strong>of</strong> at least one <strong>of</strong> the following:<br />
C 500 pounds <strong>of</strong> sodium-based dry<br />
chemical or halon 1211; or<br />
C 450 pounds or potassium-based<br />
dry chemical and water with a<br />
commensurate quantity <strong>of</strong><br />
Aqueous Film Forming Form<br />
(AFFF), to total 100 gallons for<br />
simultaneous dry chemical and<br />
AFFF foam application.<br />
It is considered a good practice to have<br />
some individuals at an <strong>of</strong>f-airfield fire<br />
station trained and certified in aircraft<br />
rescue and firefighting. An additional<br />
step could be taken to outfit the fire<br />
3-34<br />
station with the special firefighting<br />
chemicals such as halon or foam.<br />
SURFACE<br />
TRANSPORTATION ACCESS<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has excellent<br />
access to the surface transportation<br />
network, as discussed in Chapter One.<br />
Scyene and Lawson Roads provide<br />
access from the highway and interstate<br />
network to the <strong>airport</strong>. Both <strong>of</strong> these<br />
roads carry all <strong>airport</strong> traffic, as well as<br />
significant industrial traffic such as<br />
concrete trucks.<br />
When the <strong>airport</strong> functions as a<br />
gateway to the <strong>City</strong>, it is important that<br />
surface access to the <strong>airport</strong> reflect the<br />
positive welcome that the <strong>airport</strong> itself<br />
provides. Numerous aircraft owners<br />
and FBO operators at the <strong>airport</strong><br />
identified improvements to these roads<br />
as their number one concern.<br />
Consideration should be given to<br />
improving these local access roads as<br />
volume increases.<br />
SUMMARY<br />
<strong>The</strong> intent <strong>of</strong> this chapter has been to<br />
outline the facilities required to meet
potential aviation demands projected<br />
for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport for the<br />
planning horizon. A summary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
airfield and general aviation facility<br />
requirements is presented on Exhibits<br />
3D and 3E.<br />
3-35<br />
Following the facility requirements<br />
determination, the next step is to<br />
determine a direction <strong>of</strong> development<br />
which best meets these projected needs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> remainder <strong>of</strong> the master plan will<br />
be devoted to outlining this direction,<br />
its schedule, and its cost.
04MP22-3D-4/7/05<br />
RUNWAY AVAILABLE<br />
AVAILABLE SHORT TERM LONG TERM<br />
TAXIWAYS<br />
NAVIGATIONAL<br />
NAVIGATIONAL<br />
AIDS<br />
LIGHTING &<br />
MARKING<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
5,999' x 100'<br />
70,000# SWL<br />
100,000# DWL<br />
ARC B-II Design<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
Full Parallel Taxiway<br />
Centerline Reflectors<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
PAPI-4<br />
AWOS-III<br />
Localizer<br />
Lead-in-lights<br />
ILS Rwy 17 (3/4 mile)<br />
LOC BC Rwy 35 (1 mile)<br />
NDB or GPS Rwy 17 (1mile)<br />
Rotating Beacon<br />
Medium Intensity<br />
Runway Lighting<br />
Precision Markings<br />
Segmented Circle/<br />
Lighted Windcone<br />
Compass Rose<br />
Lighted Airfield Signs<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
RSA/OFA Improvements<br />
RPZ Acquisition/Easements<br />
ARC C-II Design<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
Relocate Parallel Taxiway<br />
(400' Separation)<br />
Medium Intensity<br />
Taxiway Lighting<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
Airport Traffic Control Tower<br />
Upgrade to MALSR (17)<br />
Approaches for D Aircraft<br />
ILS Rwy 17 (1/2 mile)<br />
GPS Rwy 35 (3/4 mile)<br />
Same<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
7,000' x 100'<br />
Parallel Runway<br />
4,900' x 75'<br />
30,000# SWL<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
Taxiway Extension<br />
Parallel Runway<br />
Full Parallel Taxiway<br />
(Up to 4,900')<br />
Centerline Reflectors<br />
Runway 17-35<br />
Same<br />
Parallel Runway<br />
REILs<br />
GPS Approaches (1 mile)<br />
PAPI-2<br />
Same<br />
Parallel Runway<br />
Non-precision Markings<br />
Medium Intensity<br />
Runway Lighting<br />
Lighted Airfield Signage<br />
Exhibit 3D<br />
AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
04MP22-3E-4/7/05<br />
AIRCRAFT STORAGE HANGARS<br />
T-hangar Positions<br />
Executive Hangar Positions<br />
Conventional Hangar Positions<br />
T-Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />
Executive Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />
Conventional Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />
Maintenance Area (s.f.)<br />
Total Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />
APRON AREA<br />
Transient Positions<br />
Locally-Based Aircraft Positions<br />
Total Positions<br />
Total Apron Area (s.y.)<br />
TERMINAL SERVICES AND<br />
VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE PARKING<br />
Terminal Building Space/<br />
FBO Public Space (s.f.)<br />
Total Parking Spaces<br />
Total Parking Area (s.f.)<br />
AVAILABLE<br />
AVAILABLE<br />
147<br />
30<br />
15<br />
167,100<br />
40,300<br />
33,200<br />
36,000<br />
276,600<br />
AVAILABLE AVAILABLE<br />
N/A<br />
N/A<br />
51<br />
33,400<br />
AVAILABLE<br />
AVAILABLE<br />
7,600<br />
81<br />
32,400<br />
SHORT TERM<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
181<br />
37<br />
27<br />
216,600<br />
93,100<br />
68,100<br />
56,000<br />
433,800<br />
SHORT TERM<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
52<br />
15<br />
67<br />
61, 200<br />
SHORT TERM<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
6,400<br />
264<br />
105,300<br />
INTERMEDIATE<br />
INTERMEDIATE<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
197<br />
42<br />
31<br />
235,800<br />
104,900<br />
76,400<br />
62,500<br />
479,600<br />
INTERMEDIATE<br />
INTERMEDIATE<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
56<br />
16<br />
72<br />
66,900<br />
INTERMEDIATE<br />
INTERMEDIATE<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
7,400<br />
305<br />
121,900<br />
LONG LONG TERM<br />
TERM<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
226<br />
53<br />
38<br />
271,300<br />
132,100<br />
95,100<br />
75,000<br />
573,500<br />
LONG LONG TERM<br />
TERM<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
67<br />
18<br />
85<br />
78,200<br />
LONG LONG TERM<br />
TERM<br />
NEED<br />
NEED<br />
9,600<br />
399<br />
159,500<br />
Exhibit 3E<br />
LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Chapter Four<br />
ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER FOUR<br />
ALTERNATIVES<br />
In the previous chapter, airside and landside facilities required<br />
to satisfy the demand for the long range planning period were<br />
identified. <strong>The</strong> next step in the planning process is to evaluate<br />
reasonable ways these facilities can be provided. <strong>The</strong>re can be<br />
countless combinations <strong>of</strong> design alternatives, but the<br />
alternatives presented are those with the greatest potential for<br />
implementation.<br />
Any development proposed for a master plan is evolved from<br />
an analysis <strong>of</strong> projected needs for a set period <strong>of</strong> time. Though<br />
the needs were determined by the best methodology available,<br />
it cannot be assumed that future events will not change these<br />
needs. <strong>The</strong> master planning process attempts to develop a<br />
viable concept for meeting the needs caused by projected<br />
demands for the next twenty years. However, no plan <strong>of</strong> action<br />
should be developed which may be inconsistent with the future<br />
goals and objectives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> and its citizens,<br />
who have a vested interest in the development and operation <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> development alternatives for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport can<br />
be categorized into two functional areas: airside (runways,<br />
navigational aids, taxiways, etc.) and landside (general aviation<br />
hangars, apron, and terminal area). Within each <strong>of</strong> these areas,<br />
specific facilities are required or desired. In addition, the<br />
utilization <strong>of</strong> the remaining <strong>airport</strong> property to provide revenue<br />
support for the <strong>airport</strong> and to benefit the economic<br />
development and well-being <strong>of</strong> the regional area must be<br />
considered.<br />
Each functional area interrelates and affects the development<br />
potential <strong>of</strong> the others. <strong>The</strong>refore, all areas must be examined<br />
individually, then coordinated as a whole to ensure the<br />
4-1 DRAFT
final plan is functional, efficient, and<br />
cost-effective. <strong>The</strong> total impact <strong>of</strong> all<br />
these factors on the existing <strong>airport</strong><br />
must be evaluated to determine if the<br />
investment in <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
will meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the community,<br />
both during and beyond the planning<br />
period.<br />
When analyzing alternatives for<br />
development, consideration must be<br />
given to a “do nothing” or “no-build”<br />
alternative. Additional consideration<br />
will be given to the possibility <strong>of</strong><br />
removing aviation services altogether<br />
and transferring aviation activity to<br />
surrounding <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
<strong>The</strong> alternatives considered are<br />
compared using environmental,<br />
economic, and aviation factors to<br />
determine which <strong>of</strong> the alternatives will<br />
best fulfill the local aviation needs.<br />
With this information, as well as the<br />
input and direction from local<br />
government agencies and <strong>airport</strong> users,<br />
a final <strong>airport</strong> concept can evolve into a<br />
realistic development plan.<br />
NON-DEVELOPMENT<br />
ALTERNATIVES<br />
Non-development alternatives include<br />
the “no-build” or “do nothing”<br />
alternative, transferring service to an<br />
existing <strong>airport</strong>, or developing an<br />
<strong>airport</strong> at a new location. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
alternatives need to be examined first<br />
to determine whether future<br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
is in the best interest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> and the region as a whole.<br />
4-2<br />
“DO NOTHING” ALTERNATIVE<br />
<strong>The</strong> "do nothing" alternative essentially<br />
considers keeping the <strong>airport</strong> in its<br />
present condition and not providing for<br />
any type <strong>of</strong> improvement to the existing<br />
facilities. <strong>The</strong> primary result <strong>of</strong> this<br />
alternative would be the inability <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> to satisfy the projected aviation<br />
demands <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> service area.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Dallas region has experienced<br />
strong growth in all socioeconomic<br />
categories over the past several<br />
decades. Forecasts indicate this trend<br />
will likely continue throughout and<br />
beyond the long range planning horizon.<br />
Moreover, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> is an<br />
economic center in the eastern portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Metroplex, which requires the<br />
support <strong>of</strong> a highly functional <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se reasons, combined with favorable<br />
regional and national aviation forecasts,<br />
indicate a future need for improved<br />
facilities at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
Improvements recommended in the<br />
previous chapter include a longer<br />
runway, improvements to the taxiway<br />
system, improvement <strong>of</strong> navigational<br />
aids, and the construction <strong>of</strong> additional<br />
hangar facilities. Without these<br />
facilities, regular users and potential<br />
future users <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> will be<br />
constrained from taking maximum<br />
advantage <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>'s air<br />
transportation capabilities.<br />
<strong>The</strong> “do nothing” alternative would lead<br />
to the <strong>airport</strong>’s inability to attract<br />
potential <strong>airport</strong> users. Corporate<br />
aviation plays a major role in the<br />
transportation <strong>of</strong> business leaders and<br />
key employees. Thus, an <strong>airport</strong>’s<br />
facilities are <strong>of</strong>ten the first impression
many corporate <strong>of</strong>ficials will have <strong>of</strong> the<br />
community. If the <strong>airport</strong> does not have<br />
the capability to meet the hangar,<br />
apron, or airfield needs <strong>of</strong> potential<br />
users, the <strong>City</strong>’s capability to attract the<br />
major sector businesses that rely on air<br />
transportation could be diminished.<br />
<strong>The</strong> long term consequences <strong>of</strong> the “do<br />
nothing” alternative extend beyond the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport is part <strong>of</strong> a system <strong>of</strong> public<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s that serve the aviation needs <strong>of</strong><br />
the region. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is a<br />
reliever to Dallas/Fort Worth<br />
International Airport and Dallas Love<br />
Field. As such, the <strong>airport</strong> has a<br />
responsibility to provide adequate<br />
facilities to support the full range <strong>of</strong><br />
general aviation activity so as to reduce<br />
congestion and relieve capacity<br />
constraints at these commercial service<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s. Thus, the effects <strong>of</strong> the “do<br />
nothing” alternative would not only<br />
impact the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> or eastern<br />
Dallas County and western Kaufman<br />
County, but the entire region.<br />
To propose no further development at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport could adversely<br />
affect the long term viability <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, resulting in negative economic<br />
effects on the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> and the<br />
region as a whole. <strong>The</strong>refore, the “do<br />
nothing” alternative is not considered to<br />
be prudent or feasible.<br />
TRANSFER AVIATION SERVICES<br />
<strong>The</strong> alternative <strong>of</strong> shifting aviation<br />
services to another existing <strong>airport</strong> was<br />
found to be an undesirable alternative<br />
due to the lack <strong>of</strong> available <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
4-3<br />
having the facilities or the potential<br />
that <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport provides.<br />
In 2004, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport based<br />
223 aircraft and experienced an<br />
estimated 100,000 total operations.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are no <strong>airport</strong>s on the east side <strong>of</strong><br />
Dallas with the facilities to absorb this<br />
level <strong>of</strong> aviation activity.<br />
Rockwall Municipal Airport is located<br />
12 nautical miles to the northeast. This<br />
<strong>airport</strong> has a single runway that is<br />
3,373 feet long, clearly inadequate for<br />
business jet activity. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Rockwall studied the idea <strong>of</strong> building a<br />
replacement <strong>airport</strong>, but the idea was<br />
rejected by area residents and the issue<br />
is not likely to resurface in the near<br />
future. Terrell Municipal Airport, 13<br />
nautical miles to the east <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>, provides a 5,000-foot runway<br />
which can support some business jet<br />
activity. Terrell could accommodate a<br />
shift <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the aviation activity<br />
from <strong>Mesquite</strong>, if additional landside<br />
improvements were made but its<br />
capacity is limited as the <strong>airport</strong> is<br />
constrained from adding length to the<br />
runway due to the location <strong>of</strong> major<br />
roadways. Lancaster Airport is 14<br />
nautical miles to the southeast. This<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is a reliever <strong>airport</strong> but also has<br />
limitations. Lancaster has limited<br />
space available for landside<br />
development and cannot implement<br />
improved approaches similar to<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> due to environmental and<br />
airspace constraints.<br />
Dallas Executive Airport and Dallas<br />
Love Field would be the only two<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s with the potential to serve the<br />
aviation users at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport, but both have limitations.
Dallas Love Field, 17 nautical miles to<br />
the west, is a busy commercial service<br />
<strong>airport</strong> with more than 600 based<br />
aircraft, 522 <strong>of</strong> which are business jet<br />
aircraft. Dallas Executive is 18<br />
nautical miles to the west with 175<br />
based aircraft. This <strong>airport</strong> could<br />
support much <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Mesquite</strong> aviation<br />
traffic if significant landside<br />
improvements were made.<br />
If a shift <strong>of</strong> aviation services to either<br />
Dallas Love Field or Dallas Executive<br />
Airport were pursued, current users <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport would be forced<br />
to travel to a more distant and less<br />
convenient <strong>airport</strong>. Furthermore, the<br />
continuing growth expected in the<br />
eastern portion <strong>of</strong> the Metroplex<br />
demonstrates the need for a highlyfunctional<br />
and convenient <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
General aviation <strong>airport</strong>s play a major<br />
role in the way companies conduct their<br />
business. <strong>The</strong>se <strong>airport</strong>s are becoming<br />
increasingly important in the post-9/11<br />
aviation environment. Corporate<br />
aircraft use is becoming more affordable<br />
not only for businesses, but also for<br />
individuals. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
expected to accommodate business<br />
aircraft traffic for companies located or<br />
conducting business in central and<br />
eastern portions <strong>of</strong> the Metroplex. This<br />
role is not easily replaced by another<br />
existing <strong>airport</strong> in the system without<br />
tremendous expense and inconvenience.<br />
CONSTRUCTION OF<br />
A NEW AIRPORT SITE<br />
<strong>The</strong> alternative <strong>of</strong> developing an<br />
entirely new <strong>airport</strong> facility in the area<br />
4-4<br />
to meet projected aviation demands was<br />
also considered. This alternative was<br />
similarly found to be unacceptable,<br />
primarily due to economic and<br />
environmental considerations. Land<br />
acquisition, site preparation, and the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>airport</strong> near an<br />
urbanized area can be a very difficult<br />
and costly action. Closing <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport would mean the loss <strong>of</strong> a<br />
substantial investment in a sizable<br />
transportation facility. In a situation<br />
where public funds are limited, the<br />
replacement <strong>of</strong> a functional and<br />
expandable <strong>airport</strong> facility would<br />
represent an unjustifiable loss <strong>of</strong> a<br />
significant public investment.<br />
From social, political, and<br />
environmental standpoints, the<br />
commitment <strong>of</strong> a large land area must<br />
also be considered. <strong>The</strong> public<br />
sentiment toward new <strong>airport</strong>s is<br />
generally negative, as a new <strong>airport</strong><br />
typically requires the acquisition <strong>of</strong><br />
several large parcels <strong>of</strong> privately-owned<br />
property. Furthermore, the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>airport</strong> similar to<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport would likely<br />
take a minimum <strong>of</strong> seven years to<br />
become a reality. <strong>The</strong> potential exists<br />
for significant environmental impacts<br />
associated with disturbing a large land<br />
area when developing a new <strong>airport</strong><br />
site.<br />
<strong>The</strong> only condition at which evaluating<br />
a new <strong>airport</strong> site would be considered<br />
feasible is if the current site becomes<br />
constrained or incapable <strong>of</strong><br />
accommodating aviation demand.<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is bounded on<br />
the north by the Union Pacific Railroad<br />
line and Scyene Road which would
estrict northerly expansion<br />
capabilities. <strong>The</strong>re are approximately<br />
2,500 linear feet from the Runway 35<br />
threshold to the southern <strong>airport</strong><br />
property boundary. It appears that<br />
there is space for potential airfield<br />
expansion if needed. It is anticipated<br />
that the <strong>airport</strong> will not become so<br />
constrained as to prevent future growth<br />
through the long term planning period.<br />
Overall, the non-development<br />
alternatives are considered<br />
unreasonable and should not be<br />
pursued at this time. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport is fully capable <strong>of</strong><br />
accommodating the long term aviation<br />
demands <strong>of</strong> the area and should be<br />
developed in response to those<br />
demands. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has the potential<br />
to continue to develop as a quality<br />
general aviation <strong>airport</strong> that could<br />
greatly enhance the economic<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the community.<br />
<strong>The</strong> previous chapter identified<br />
facilities necessary to meet the forecast<br />
demand throughout the planning<br />
period. <strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> the remainder <strong>of</strong><br />
this chapter is to evaluate alternatives<br />
that meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Necessary facility and <strong>airport</strong> design<br />
issues are examined in the discussion to<br />
follow.<br />
AIRFIELD ISSUES<br />
A commitment to remain at the existing<br />
site and develop facilities sufficient to<br />
meet the long term aviation demands<br />
entails the following requirements:<br />
4-5<br />
! Provide sufficient airside and<br />
landside capacity to meet the<br />
long range planning horizon<br />
demand levels <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
! Develop the <strong>airport</strong> in accordance<br />
with the currently established<br />
Federal Aviation Administration<br />
(FAA) and Texas Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation (TxDOT) criteria.<br />
Chapter Three - Facility Requirements<br />
outlined specific types and quantities <strong>of</strong><br />
facilities necessary to meet projected<br />
aviation demands throughout the<br />
planning period. Expansion will be<br />
required to meet the long range<br />
planning horizon level <strong>of</strong> demand. <strong>The</strong><br />
remainder <strong>of</strong> this chapter will describe<br />
various alternatives for the airside and<br />
landside facilities. Before actual airside<br />
and landside alternatives are presented,<br />
however, it is necessary to discuss items<br />
which are factored into the development<br />
<strong>of</strong> the various alternatives. Exhibit 4A<br />
outlines alternative issues to be<br />
considered in this analysis.<br />
RUNWAY LENGTH<br />
Analysis in the previous chapter<br />
indicated that Runway 17-35 provides<br />
adequate length for most general<br />
aviation airplanes. <strong>The</strong> current runway<br />
length, however, falls short <strong>of</strong> the<br />
requirements for many <strong>of</strong> the larger and<br />
faster business aircraft which currently<br />
operate at the <strong>airport</strong>, especially on hot<br />
days. <strong>The</strong> analysis considered the trend<br />
<strong>of</strong> increased corporate aircraft<br />
operations at the <strong>airport</strong> over the<br />
planning period.
Forecast future demand at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport indicated that the <strong>airport</strong><br />
should strive to accommodate the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> business jet operations up to<br />
and including those in <strong>airport</strong> reference<br />
code (ARC) D-II. As presented in<br />
Chapter Three - Facility Requirements,<br />
many business jets such as the<br />
Challengers, Hawkers, Westwinds,<br />
Astras, and some Learjets have<br />
occasions when up to 7,000 feet are<br />
needed. Thus, alternative analysis will<br />
consider the possibility <strong>of</strong> extending<br />
Runway 17-35 to provide at least 7,000<br />
feet <strong>of</strong> operational length. While this<br />
length may not be fully capable <strong>of</strong><br />
accommodating all aircraft needs<br />
throughout the year, it will be more<br />
than adequate for most aircraft<br />
operations.<br />
Alternative analysis will be developed<br />
with specific attention paid to the<br />
reasonableness <strong>of</strong> implementation, both<br />
from a cost perspective as well as a<br />
feasibility perspective.<br />
TAXIWAYS<br />
<strong>The</strong> taxiway system at an <strong>airport</strong><br />
consists <strong>of</strong> all aircraft transport<br />
surfaces, excluding the runway. It is<br />
typically designated with a yellow<br />
centerline for the movement <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
to and from the runways. Taxiways are<br />
the primary transport surfaces linked<br />
with the runway and its operation.<br />
Such surfaces would include a parallel<br />
taxiway, entrance/exit taxiways, and<br />
connecting taxiways.<br />
Taxilanes are those surfaces that would<br />
typically realize a lower level <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
4-6<br />
activity because the taxilanes provide<br />
direct ingress/egress to a specific<br />
location or <strong>airport</strong> facility. An example<br />
<strong>of</strong> a taxilane would be the surface which<br />
links to a T-hangar complex. Not all<br />
aircraft will use that surface, only those<br />
going to and from the T-hangars.<br />
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-<br />
13, Airport Design, Change 8, provides<br />
standards for taxiway object free areas<br />
(OFAs) surrounding the taxiway<br />
system. <strong>The</strong> taxiway OFA is based on<br />
the critical aircraft design group which<br />
will frequent that particular taxiway.<br />
Design standards for Airplane Design<br />
Group (ADG) II, aircraft with<br />
wingspans from 49 feet to 79 feet,<br />
require the taxiway OFA to be 131 feet<br />
wide. Aircraft within ADG III, with<br />
wingspans from 79 feet to 118 feet,<br />
require a 186-foot-wide taxiway OFA.<br />
<strong>The</strong> taxilane OFA required for ADG II<br />
aircraft is 115 feet wide, whereas it<br />
increases to 162 feet wide for ADG III<br />
aircraft. Analysis <strong>of</strong> the existing and<br />
future taxiway OFA will be provided in<br />
the airside alternatives to follow.<br />
<strong>The</strong> current layout <strong>of</strong> the taxiway<br />
system at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
adequate from a functional perspective.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are six entrance/exit taxiways to<br />
the runway and there is a terminal area<br />
taxiway that improves circulation<br />
among landside facilities. All <strong>of</strong> the<br />
taxiways are 40 feet wide except for the<br />
terminal area taxiway, which is 30 feet<br />
wide. FAA design criteria call for<br />
taxiways serving a critical aircraft in<br />
ADG II to be at least 35 feet wide. For<br />
aircraft in ADG III, the taxiway width<br />
minimum is 50 feet.
04MP22-4A-7/8/05<br />
AIRFIELD CONSIDERATIONS<br />
Consider FAA Design Criteria Upgrade to ARC C/D-II<br />
Consider Extending Runway 17-35<br />
Land Acquisition<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> Improved Instrument Approach Procedures<br />
Evaluate Impacts <strong>of</strong> Safety Area Considerations<br />
Capacity Enhancing Parallel Runway Options<br />
LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS<br />
Maximize Available Property for Facility Development<br />
Develop Conventional, Executive, and T-Hangars<br />
Analyze Current and Future Terminal Building Needs<br />
Locate Airport Traffic Control Tower<br />
Consider Potential for On Airport Non-Aviation Business Development<br />
Exhibit 4A<br />
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Runway and parallel taxiway<br />
separation standards consider both the<br />
critical aircraft and the instrument<br />
approach minimums. <strong>The</strong> current<br />
critical aircraft falls in ARC C/D-II.<br />
<strong>The</strong> current lowest approved visibility<br />
minimum is three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile.<br />
This combination necessitates a<br />
separation, centerline to centerline, <strong>of</strong><br />
300 feet. <strong>The</strong> current runway/taxiway<br />
configuration meets this standard.<br />
<strong>The</strong> runway to taxiway separation<br />
design standard for aircraft in ADG III<br />
is 400 feet with three-quarter-mile<br />
visibility minimums. With visibility<br />
minimums lower than three-quartersmile<br />
for all aircraft, the separation<br />
standard is also 400 feet. Airfield<br />
alternatives will consider increasing the<br />
runway/taxiway separation to 400 feet.<br />
AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS<br />
Analysis in the previous chapter<br />
indicated that the critical aircraft at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has<br />
transitioned from ARC B-II to ARC C/D-<br />
II. With this transition comes<br />
significant changes in FAA and TxDOT<br />
<strong>airport</strong> design standards. Of primary<br />
concern are the runway safety area<br />
(RSA), the object free area (OFA), and<br />
the runway protection zone (RPZ). <strong>The</strong><br />
existing and future safety areas are<br />
presented on Exhibit 4B.<br />
Runway Safety Area<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA defines the RSA as "a defined<br />
surface surrounding the runway<br />
prepared or suitable for reducing the<br />
4-7<br />
risk <strong>of</strong> damage to airplanes in the event<br />
<strong>of</strong> an undershoot, overshoot or excursion<br />
from the runway." <strong>The</strong> RSA is an<br />
integral part <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
environment. RSA dimensions are<br />
established in AC 150/5300-13, Change<br />
8, Airport Design, and are based on the<br />
ARC <strong>of</strong> the critical aircraft for the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> RSA is intended to provide<br />
a measure <strong>of</strong> safety in the event <strong>of</strong> an<br />
aircraft’s excursion from the runway, by<br />
significantly reducing the extent <strong>of</strong><br />
personal injury and aircraft damage<br />
during overruns, undershoots, and<br />
veer-<strong>of</strong>fs. According to the AC, the RSA<br />
must be:<br />
1) cleared and graded and have no<br />
potentially hazardous ruts,<br />
bumps, depressions, or other<br />
surface variations;<br />
2) drained by grading or storm<br />
sewers to prevent water<br />
accumulation;<br />
3) capable, under dry conditions, <strong>of</strong><br />
supporting aircraft rescue and<br />
firefighting equipment, and the<br />
occasional passage <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
without causing structural<br />
damage to the aircraft; and<br />
4) free <strong>of</strong> objects, except for objects<br />
that need to be located in the<br />
safety area because <strong>of</strong> their<br />
function.<br />
Furthermore, the FAA has placed a<br />
higher significance on maintaining<br />
adequate RSAs at all <strong>airport</strong>s due to<br />
recent aircraft accidents. Under Order<br />
5200.8, the FAA established the<br />
Runway Safety Area Program. <strong>The</strong>
Order states, “<strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> the Runway<br />
Safety Area Program is that all RSAs at<br />
federally-obligated <strong>airport</strong>s and all<br />
RSAs at <strong>airport</strong>s certificated under 14<br />
CFR Part 139 shall conform to the<br />
standards contained in Advisory<br />
Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, to<br />
the extent practicable.” Under the<br />
Order, each Regional Airports Division<br />
<strong>of</strong> the FAA is obligated to collect and<br />
maintain data on the RSA for each<br />
runway at federally-obligated <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
Within the last year, the FAA made a<br />
notable change in 150/5300-13 AC,<br />
Airport Design, pertaining to RSAs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> new AC identifies different RSA<br />
measurements for take-<strong>of</strong>f and landing.<br />
For ARC C/D-II aircraft, 600 feet <strong>of</strong><br />
RSA is now required prior to the<br />
approach end <strong>of</strong> the runway, whereas<br />
1,000 feet is still required beyond the<br />
far end <strong>of</strong> the runway. Alternative<br />
analysis must consider providing<br />
adequate RSA, while also providing for<br />
additional runway length.<br />
<strong>The</strong> existing RSA at the <strong>airport</strong> was<br />
designed to conform to B-II design<br />
standards. With the transition to C/D-<br />
II, the RSA expands from 150 feet wide<br />
to 500 feet wide. Portions <strong>of</strong> the RSA,<br />
especially those to the sides and at the<br />
north end <strong>of</strong> the runway, do not meet<br />
RSA standards for ARC C/D-II. Much<br />
<strong>of</strong> the area between the runway and the<br />
parallel taxiway is currently utilized for<br />
drainage. A new drainage plan will<br />
need to be developed and implemented<br />
in order to assure that the full RSA is<br />
cleared and graded and able to support<br />
emergency vehicles as well as<br />
occasional aircraft diversions from the<br />
4-8<br />
runway. Under the current conditions,<br />
the RSA at the south end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
is completely on <strong>airport</strong> property. On<br />
the north end, the RSA extends beyond<br />
<strong>airport</strong> property by approximately 320<br />
feet and is obstructed by perimeter<br />
fencing and Scyene Road.<br />
Object Free Area<br />
<strong>The</strong> runway OFA is defined in FAA<br />
Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change<br />
8, Airport Design, as an area centered<br />
on the runway extending laterally and<br />
beyond each runway end, in accordance<br />
to the critical aircraft design category<br />
utilizing the runway. <strong>The</strong> OFA must<br />
provide clearance <strong>of</strong> all ground-based<br />
objects protruding above the RSA edge<br />
elevation, unless the object is fixed by<br />
function serving air or ground<br />
navigation. For ARC C/D-II design, the<br />
OFA is 800 feet wide, extending 1,000<br />
feet beyond each runway end.<br />
<strong>The</strong> OFA at the south end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway is completely contained on<br />
<strong>airport</strong> property, while it extends<br />
beyond <strong>airport</strong> property at the north<br />
end. <strong>The</strong> northeast portion <strong>of</strong> the OFA<br />
extends approximately 370 feet beyond<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> property line. <strong>The</strong><br />
alternatives section will address how to<br />
regain adequate OFA. It should be<br />
noted that, in some cases, the terrain<br />
encompassing the OFA may fall<br />
significantly below the RSA elevation.<br />
In those cases, objects can be in the<br />
OFA as long as they do not rise above<br />
the elevation <strong>of</strong> the RSA at any given<br />
lateral position.
04MP22-4B-2/8/06<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Airport Blvd. Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
NORTH<br />
3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Minimum<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
1 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Exhibit 4B<br />
RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS
Runway Protection Zone<br />
<strong>The</strong> RPZ is a trapezoidal surface which<br />
begins 200 feet from the runway<br />
threshold. <strong>The</strong> RPZ is a designated<br />
area beyond the runway end that the<br />
FAA encourages <strong>airport</strong>s to own or, in<br />
some fashion, maintain positive control<br />
over. <strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> the RPZ standard is to<br />
increase safety for both pilots and those<br />
on the ground. Unlike the RSA, the<br />
RPZ can have objects located within,<br />
provided the objects are not<br />
obstructions under Federal Air<br />
Regulations (F.A.R.) Part 77, Objects<br />
Affecting Navigable Airspace or FAA<br />
Order 8260.3B, Terminal Instrument<br />
Procedures (TERPS). It should be<br />
noted, however, that the FAA places<br />
high priority on maintaining the RPZ<br />
free <strong>of</strong> items that attract groupings <strong>of</strong><br />
people or permanent residences.<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA does not necessarily require<br />
the fee simple acquisition <strong>of</strong> the RPZ<br />
area, but highly recommends that the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> have positive control over<br />
development within the RPZ. It is<br />
preferred that the <strong>airport</strong> own the<br />
property; however, avigation easements<br />
(ownership <strong>of</strong> airspace within the RPZ)<br />
can be pursued if fee simple purchase is<br />
not possible. It should be noted,<br />
however, avigation easements can <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
cost as much as 80 percent <strong>of</strong> the full<br />
property value and may not adequately<br />
prohibit incompatible land uses from<br />
locating in the RPZ. An avigation<br />
easement would include the space below<br />
the approach surface and within the<br />
RPZ. For planning purposes, where<br />
feasible, alternatives will assume fee<br />
simple acquisition <strong>of</strong> the RPZ and land<br />
on either end <strong>of</strong> the runway not<br />
4-9<br />
currently encompassed by the existing<br />
property line.<br />
<strong>The</strong> existing Runway 17 RPZ extends<br />
beyond <strong>airport</strong> property, across Scyene<br />
Road. Portions <strong>of</strong> this property have<br />
already been acquired by the <strong>airport</strong>. If<br />
this land becomes available for sale, the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> should continue its practice <strong>of</strong><br />
protecting the approaches through feesimple<br />
acquisition <strong>of</strong> the RPZs. Under<br />
the current condition, approximately 10<br />
acres is left to be acquired. When the<br />
approach minimums are improved to<br />
one-half mile, the RPZ is extended by<br />
an additional 19.5 acres, which should<br />
also be considered for fee simple<br />
acquisition.<br />
INSTRUMENT APPROACHES<br />
Many reliever <strong>airport</strong>s have approved<br />
instrument approaches with visibility<br />
minimums as low as one-half mile and<br />
a 200-foot cloud height ceiling. This is<br />
referred to as a Category (CAT) I<br />
approach. At this time, CAT I<br />
approaches require a sophisticated<br />
approach lighting system, a glide-slope<br />
antenna, and a localizer (known as an<br />
instrument landing system or ILS).<br />
Since Runway 17 already has an ILS<br />
approach, the goal <strong>of</strong> this plan is to<br />
provide the necessary recommendations<br />
to obtain a CAT I approach. An<br />
obstruction-free threshold siting surface<br />
(TSS) and the upgrade <strong>of</strong> the existing<br />
approach lighting system to a medium<br />
intensity approach lighting system with<br />
runway alignment indicator lights<br />
(MALSR) is required to meet FAA<br />
requirements for a CAT I approach.
Analysis <strong>of</strong> the existing and future TSS<br />
is presented later in the airfield<br />
alternatives section.<br />
Additional adjustments will need to be<br />
considered when pursuing a one-halfmile<br />
visibility minimum. As previously<br />
mentioned, the runway/taxiway<br />
separation needs to be at least 400 feet.<br />
This would necessitate the construction<br />
<strong>of</strong> a new parallel taxiway, 100 feet<br />
further west than Taxiway A. <strong>The</strong><br />
previous master plan discussed some <strong>of</strong><br />
the existing buildings as potential<br />
obstructions to flight safety. An<br />
updated analysis will be presented in<br />
the section pertaining to obstruction<br />
analysis.<br />
Runway 35 is also considered for<br />
improved approaches, although not to<br />
the CAT I level. A three-quarter-mile<br />
approach is the ultimate recommendation.<br />
Approaches to Runway 35 are<br />
less common than to Runway 17, as<br />
southerly winds prevail. This<br />
recommendation was also made in the<br />
previous master plan. <strong>The</strong><br />
circumstances have not changed and<br />
are not forecast to change to such a<br />
degree that a CAT I approach is<br />
warranted on the Runway 35 end. <strong>The</strong><br />
three-quarter-mile approach would<br />
require an approach lighting system,<br />
such as a MALS or MALSR, and cleared<br />
obstruction surfaces.<br />
<strong>The</strong> process <strong>of</strong> acquiring an instrument<br />
approach procedure with three-quartermile<br />
visibility minimums for Runway<br />
35 can begin in the near term. For<br />
Runway 35, the existing RPZ is<br />
4-10<br />
dimensioned for aircraft in approach<br />
categories C and D with visibility<br />
minimums not lower than one mile.<br />
This entire RPZ falls on <strong>airport</strong><br />
property. Considering improved<br />
minimums at three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile,<br />
the RPZ becomes wider on both sides.<br />
<strong>The</strong> eastern portion <strong>of</strong> the RPZ would<br />
fall on property owned by the Devil’s<br />
Bowl Speedway, as depicted on Exhibit<br />
4B.<br />
As previously discussed, positive control<br />
<strong>of</strong> the RPZ is typically recommended.<br />
To accomplish this, an avigation<br />
easement would need to be acquired<br />
over a small portion <strong>of</strong> the speedway.<br />
Alternatives to be discussed will<br />
analyze extending the runway to the<br />
south. This would shift the RPZ beyond<br />
the speedway property. As a result, it is<br />
not recommended that an easement<br />
over the speedway be pursued while<br />
acquiring improved instrument<br />
approach procedures for the current<br />
Runway 35 end.<br />
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES<br />
<strong>The</strong> following section describes two<br />
airfield development alternatives and<br />
two options for a capacity-enhancing<br />
parallel runway. <strong>The</strong>se alternatives<br />
consider upgrading Runway 17-35 to<br />
ARC C/D-II design criteria, extending<br />
the runway to at least 7,000 feet, and<br />
providing taxiway improvements.<br />
Various improvements to the<br />
instrument approaches are considered<br />
with each alternative, as they will affect<br />
the runway and taxiway design.
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1<br />
Alternative 1, depicted on Exhibit 4C,<br />
considers the recommended<br />
development concept <strong>of</strong> the previous<br />
master plan. As depicted, this<br />
alternative proposed the extension <strong>of</strong><br />
Runway 17-35 1,370 feet to the south,<br />
achieving a pavement length <strong>of</strong> 7,370<br />
feet. This extension, in conjunction<br />
with a three-quarter-mile visibility<br />
minimum for Runway 35, is the<br />
maximum length available when<br />
considering meeting all safety area<br />
standards, as the RSA and OFA would<br />
remain on existing <strong>airport</strong> property and<br />
the southern RPZ is capable <strong>of</strong> being<br />
free <strong>of</strong> incompatible land uses.<br />
As discussed, the previous RSA<br />
standard required 1,000 feet prior to the<br />
runway and beyond the far end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway for critical aircraft in ARC C/D-<br />
II. In order to accommodate this<br />
standard, the north end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
was recommended to be displaced by<br />
370 feet. Displacing a threshold for<br />
limited RSA requires the application <strong>of</strong><br />
declared distances. Declared distances<br />
are the effective runway distances that<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> operator declares available<br />
for take-<strong>of</strong>f run, take-<strong>of</strong>f distance,<br />
accelerate-stop distance, and landing<br />
distance requirements. <strong>The</strong>se are<br />
defined by the FAA as:<br />
Take-<strong>of</strong>f run available (TORA) - <strong>The</strong><br />
length <strong>of</strong> the runway declared available<br />
and suitable to accelerate from brake<br />
release to lift-<strong>of</strong>f, plus safety factors.<br />
Take-<strong>of</strong>f distance available (TODA)<br />
- <strong>The</strong> TORA plus the length <strong>of</strong> any<br />
4-11<br />
remaining runway or clearway beyond<br />
the far end <strong>of</strong> the TORA available to<br />
accelerate from brake release past lift<strong>of</strong>f<br />
to start <strong>of</strong> take-<strong>of</strong>f climb, plus safety<br />
factors.<br />
Accelerate-stop distance available<br />
(ASDA) - <strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong> the runway plus<br />
stopway declared available and suitable<br />
to accelerate from brake release to take<strong>of</strong>f<br />
decision speed, and then decelerate<br />
to a stop, plus safety factors.<br />
Landing distance available (LDA) -<br />
<strong>The</strong> distance from threshold to complete<br />
the approach, touchdown, and<br />
decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ASDA and LDA are the overriding<br />
considerations in determining the<br />
runway length available for use by<br />
aircraft because safety areas must be<br />
considered. <strong>The</strong> ASDA and LDA can be<br />
figured as the useable portions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway minus the area required to<br />
maintain adequate RSA and OFA<br />
beyond the end <strong>of</strong> the runway.<br />
With the predominant wind direction<br />
being from the south, a 1,370-foot<br />
extension was necessary, as<br />
recommended in the previous plan, to<br />
provide at least 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong> operational<br />
length for landings and take-<strong>of</strong>fs in both<br />
directions. <strong>The</strong> new FAA standard calls<br />
for only 600 feet for RSA prior to<br />
landing. As a result, there is no longer<br />
a need to displace the north end<br />
threshold for landing operations to<br />
Runway 17. In this alternative, the<br />
operational length available for<br />
ASDA/LDA calculations utilizing<br />
Runway 17 would be 7,370 feet.
In this alternative, the ASDA and LDA<br />
for Runway 35 operations, take-<strong>of</strong>fs and<br />
landings to the north, would be 7,000<br />
feet. Because the RSA on the far end <strong>of</strong><br />
the runway needs to be 1,000 feet long,<br />
both the ASDA and LDA would be<br />
reduced according to the limited RSA.<br />
Implementing declared distances would<br />
require some minor changes to the<br />
airfield. <strong>The</strong> last 370 feet <strong>of</strong> runway<br />
lights on the Runway 17 end would<br />
have to be masked-out in order to<br />
properly identify the declared threshold.<br />
For <strong>airport</strong>s with distance-to-go<br />
markers, these would have to be<br />
relocated to reflect the shortened<br />
runway length. <strong>The</strong> runway would not<br />
have to be re-marked and none <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing light stands would have to be<br />
moved.<br />
<strong>The</strong> difference between this alternative<br />
and the recommended plan in the<br />
previous master plan is not having to<br />
displace the runway threshold. With<br />
the reduced RSA standards for landing<br />
operations, threshold displacement is no<br />
longer necessary at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. Previous RSA standards<br />
required the need for a 1,370-foot<br />
extension, in order to provide at least<br />
7,000 feet <strong>of</strong> runway length in the<br />
predominant operational direction to<br />
the south. <strong>The</strong> new standard, however,<br />
allows for the <strong>airport</strong> to meet RSA<br />
requirements for Runway 17 without<br />
displacement.<br />
Implementing a threshold displacement,<br />
as recommended in the previous<br />
master plan, would require a number <strong>of</strong><br />
potentially costly runway changes.<br />
First, the glideslope antenna would<br />
4-12<br />
need to be relocated. Second, the light<br />
stands from the approach lighting<br />
system would need to be relocated, with<br />
at least one <strong>of</strong> these being placed in the<br />
displaced pavement. Third, the runway<br />
marking would need to be reapplied in<br />
order to reflect the new runway<br />
threshold. None <strong>of</strong> these expenses are<br />
now necessary.<br />
As indicated on Exhibit 4C, the RPZ<br />
for Runway 17 considers providing CAT<br />
I weather minimums. <strong>The</strong> approach<br />
lighting system would require an<br />
upgrade from the existing LDIN system<br />
to a MALSR. <strong>The</strong> MALSR lights begin<br />
approximately 200 feet from the runway<br />
threshold and are spaced to a maximum<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> 2,400 feet, as indicated on<br />
the exhibit.<br />
Runway 35 is planned for approach<br />
visibility minimums not lower than<br />
three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile. <strong>The</strong> existing<br />
LDIN system will meet the requirement<br />
for approach lights. In order to<br />
implement the extension, these light<br />
stands would need to be relocated. <strong>The</strong><br />
lights begin 200 feet from the threshold<br />
and are spaced to a length <strong>of</strong> 1,400 feet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> relocated lights will be able to<br />
remain completely on <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />
In addition, the localizer would need to<br />
be relocated outside the RSA.<br />
Consideration should also be given to<br />
the runway/taxiway separation when<br />
planning for improved approach<br />
minimums. For an ARC C/D-II runway<br />
with visibility minimums lower than<br />
three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile, the parallel<br />
taxiway centerline must be at least 400<br />
feet from the runway centerline. Thus,<br />
in order to achieve CAT I minimums on
04MP22-4C-6/17/05<br />
MALSR<br />
DECLARED DISTANCES<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Take<strong>of</strong>f Run Available (TORA)<br />
Take<strong>of</strong>f Distance Available (TODA)<br />
Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA)<br />
Landing Distance Available (LDA)<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
Runway 17 Runway 35<br />
7,370'<br />
7,370'<br />
7,370'<br />
7,370'<br />
7,370'<br />
7,370'<br />
7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Airport Blvd. Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
ASDA / LDA 7,370'<br />
7,370'<br />
ASDA / LDA LDA 7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x x 100') Ultimate (7,370' x 100')<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Line<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
NORTH<br />
1,370' Runway<br />
Extension<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
35<br />
3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Minimum<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Lead In In Lights<br />
Lights<br />
Localizer<br />
Exhibit 4C<br />
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1
Runway 17, the parallel taxiway would<br />
need to be relocated 100 feet to the<br />
west, as depicted on the exhibit. It<br />
should be noted that the terminal area<br />
taxiway would need to be removed to<br />
accommodate the relocated parallel<br />
taxiway.<br />
Airfield Alternative 1 is estimated to<br />
have a total associated cost <strong>of</strong> $6.15<br />
million. This includes $600,000 for<br />
purchase and calibration <strong>of</strong> the Runway<br />
17 MALSR, $750,000 for relocation <strong>of</strong><br />
the Runway 35 LDIN and localizer, $1.6<br />
million for the runway extension, and<br />
$3.2 million for the construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
relocated parallel taxiway.<br />
Advantages: <strong>The</strong> extension would<br />
provide a minimum <strong>of</strong> 7,000 feet<br />
operational length for landings and<br />
take-<strong>of</strong>fs in both directions. OFA and<br />
RSA requirements are met on both ends<br />
<strong>of</strong> the runway. <strong>The</strong> expenses associated<br />
with displacing the threshold are<br />
avoided. <strong>The</strong> total runway extension<br />
would be 1,370 feet.<br />
Disadvantages: This alternative would<br />
be more costly than a 1,000-foot<br />
extension.<br />
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2<br />
This alternative was also presented in<br />
the previous master plan, but was<br />
rejected because the previous FAA RSA<br />
standard necessitated displacing the<br />
Runway 17 threshold. In doing so,<br />
6,630 feet <strong>of</strong> LDA would be available for<br />
operations to the south. <strong>The</strong> new FAA<br />
RSA design standard makes this<br />
alternative much more attractive.<br />
4-13<br />
<strong>The</strong> proposed 1,000-foot extension<br />
would allow the runway to provide an<br />
ASDA and LDA <strong>of</strong> 7,000 feet, as<br />
presented on Exhibit 4D. As<br />
discussed, the far end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
still needs to provide the full 1,000 feet<br />
<strong>of</strong> safety area. Thus, operations to the<br />
north would have available 370 feet less<br />
operational length to use. In effect, the<br />
northernmost 370 feet <strong>of</strong> runway<br />
combined with the 630 feet currently<br />
available beyond the north runway end<br />
would provide the full 1,000-foot RSA<br />
needed.<br />
<strong>The</strong> improved instrument approach for<br />
both runway ends, presented in the<br />
previous alternative, are also<br />
considered here. Runway 17 should be<br />
considered for a CAT I approach, while<br />
Runway 35 is considered for a threequarters-mile<br />
approach. Runway 17<br />
would need a MALSR, while Runway 35<br />
could continue to utilize the LDIN. In<br />
order to achieve CAT I approach<br />
minimums for ARC C/D-II aircraft, the<br />
parallel taxiway would need to be<br />
relocated 100 feet to the west.<br />
Airfield Alternative 2 is estimated to<br />
have a total associated cost <strong>of</strong> $5.55<br />
million. This includes $600,000 for<br />
purchase and calibration <strong>of</strong> the Runway<br />
17 MALSR, $750,000 for relocation <strong>of</strong><br />
the Runway 35 LDIN and localizer, $1.2<br />
million for the runway extension, and<br />
$3 million for the construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
relocated parallel taxiway.<br />
Advantages: Not as expensive as<br />
Alternative 1. Provides 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong><br />
runway length for southerly departures.<br />
Meets safety area requirements.
Disadvantages: <strong>The</strong> runway would not<br />
provide 7,000 feet for northerly take-<strong>of</strong>fs<br />
and landings; instead, 6,630 feet would<br />
be declared.<br />
PARALLEL RUNWAY<br />
ALTERNATIVES<br />
Annual operation projections, conducted<br />
in Chapter Two - Aviation Forecasts,<br />
indicated that the <strong>airport</strong> could<br />
experience 166,500 annual aircraft<br />
operations by the long term planning<br />
horizon. Once annual operations reach<br />
60 percent <strong>of</strong> the airfield’s annual<br />
service volume (ASV), consideration<br />
should be given to capacity<br />
enhancement solutions. <strong>The</strong> current<br />
ASV <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />
estimated at 210,000 annual operations;<br />
thus, the projected long term operations<br />
would reach approximately 80 percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> the airfield’s ASV. By the<br />
intermediate planning horizon, annual<br />
operations are projected to be 67<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> ASV.<br />
Analysis in Chapter Three - Facility<br />
Requirements presented an option <strong>of</strong><br />
constructing a parallel runway designed<br />
to accommodate smaller aircraft the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> the time, which would<br />
increase the total ASV to approximately<br />
340,000. It would also be prudent for<br />
this runway to be designed to<br />
accommodate most <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />
activity for periods when the existing<br />
runway is closed. When single-runway<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s close for lengthy periods <strong>of</strong> time<br />
(up to one year for a runway<br />
reconstruct), the negative economic<br />
impacts can be severe. As a result, the<br />
parallel runway is recommended to be<br />
4-14<br />
considered at 5,000 feet in length so<br />
that all smaller aircraft and many<br />
business jet aircraft can still operate at<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. Exhibit 4E depicts two<br />
parallel runway alternatives, one to the<br />
east and the other to the west <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing runway.<br />
Parallel Runway Alternative A<br />
This alternative considers locating the<br />
parallel runway to the west <strong>of</strong> Airport<br />
Blvd. <strong>The</strong> proposed runway is designed<br />
to be 5,000 feet long and 75 feet wide.<br />
<strong>The</strong> safety areas are planned to meet<br />
ARC B-II standards and the approaches<br />
are considered to have visibility<br />
minimums <strong>of</strong> one mile. <strong>The</strong> runway is<br />
situated so that RPZs will not<br />
encompass any populated areas. Only<br />
a small portion <strong>of</strong> the south RPZ would<br />
cross Berry Road, over a wooded area.<br />
This portion <strong>of</strong> land would be<br />
recommended to be purchased in fee<br />
simple to prevent land uses<br />
incompatible with the RPZ.<br />
Approximately 153 acres, primarily<br />
farmland (currently zoned industrial),<br />
would need to be acquired in order to<br />
implement this option. Also included in<br />
this tract is one homestead to the north<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed runway. It is estimated<br />
that land to be acquired would cost<br />
approximately $4.6 million. This option<br />
would also require significant<br />
earthwork and fill, in order to provide a<br />
relatively flat area for the southern<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the runway. Site preparation<br />
alone is estimated at $900,000, and the<br />
runway/taxiway would cost<br />
approximately $6.2 million, for a total<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> $11.7 million.
04MP22-4D-2/8/06<br />
MALSR<br />
DECLARED DISTANCES<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Take<strong>of</strong>f Run Available (TORA)<br />
Take<strong>of</strong>f Distance Available (TODA)<br />
Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA)<br />
Landing Distance Available (LDA)<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
Runway 17 Runway 35<br />
7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
6,630'<br />
6,630'<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Airport Blvd. Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
ASDA / LDA 7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
ASDA / LDA 6,630'<br />
6,630'<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x x 100') Ultimate (7,000' x 100')<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Line<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
NORTH<br />
1,000' Runway<br />
Extension<br />
35<br />
3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Minimum<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Lead Lead In In Lights<br />
Lights<br />
Localizer<br />
Exhibit 4D<br />
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2
04MP22-4E-2/8/06<br />
1 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
Minimum<br />
MALSR<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />
Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
17<br />
L<br />
17<br />
R<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE A<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE B<br />
Ultimate Runway 17L-35R (5,000' x 75')<br />
75')<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />
100')<br />
75'<br />
Ultimate Runway 17R-35L (5,000' x x 75')<br />
75') 35<br />
35<br />
R<br />
L<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
1 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
35'<br />
NORTH<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
Lead In Lights<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
3/4 Mile Visibility Visibility Minimum<br />
Minimum<br />
Exhibit 4E<br />
PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES
Advantages: Preserves the east side <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong> for potential commercial/<br />
industrial development. Reduces RPZ<br />
exposure over populated areas.<br />
Disadvantages: Effectively cuts the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> in two, due to the need for an<br />
access taxiway. Longer taxiways and<br />
extensive site preparation make this<br />
the more expensive option. A new south<br />
entrance would be necessary should any<br />
future landside development take place<br />
to the south.<br />
Parallel Runway Alternative B<br />
This alternative provides a 5,000-foot<br />
by 75-foot runway and full-length<br />
parallel taxiway east <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proposed runway centerline is<br />
situated at the FAA design minimum <strong>of</strong><br />
700 feet from the Runway 17-35<br />
centerline. This runway would be<br />
planned for visual or not lower than<br />
one-mile visibility minimums.<br />
<strong>The</strong> position <strong>of</strong> the parallel runway, as<br />
depicted on Exhibit 4E, is based upon<br />
maintaining at least a 20:1 approach<br />
clearance to both runway ends. An<br />
eastside parallel runway would require<br />
the acquisition <strong>of</strong> approximately 95<br />
acres <strong>of</strong> farmland (currently zoned<br />
industrial) and at least one homestead,<br />
at an estimated cost <strong>of</strong> $2.8 million.<br />
<strong>The</strong> estimated cost <strong>of</strong> constructing the<br />
proposed runway/taxiway is $5.7<br />
million, for a total project cost <strong>of</strong> $8.5<br />
million.<br />
Advantage: Maintains maximum<br />
available space on westside terminal<br />
4-15<br />
area for development. Less expensive<br />
than parallel runway Alternative A.<br />
Disadvantages: South RPZ goes over<br />
the Devil’s Bowl Speedway. <strong>The</strong> north<br />
end RPZ goes over the cement-mixing<br />
business. A portion <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
industrial-zoned land would be lost.<br />
Parallel Taxiway Only Option<br />
Parallel Runway Alternative B assumes<br />
a standard 35-foot-wide parallel<br />
taxiway. An additional sub-option for<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> is to consider only the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> an eastside parallel<br />
taxiway at a width <strong>of</strong> 75 feet, in order to<br />
provide an alternate runway for those<br />
times when the primary runway is<br />
closed. Safety areas meeting ARC B-II<br />
standards would also be considered.<br />
To accomplish this alternative, a<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the farmland, 100 feet wide<br />
and 6,400 feet long (approximately 15<br />
acres) running parallel to the existing<br />
eastern property line, would need to be<br />
acquired in order for the OFA to be on<br />
<strong>airport</strong> property. This option should<br />
only be considered preceding a planned<br />
closure <strong>of</strong> the primary runway for<br />
reconstruction.<br />
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES<br />
SUMMARY<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis performed above<br />
considered several methods which<br />
attempt to provide additional runway<br />
length to meet increased demand by<br />
corporate aircraft, while also attempt-
ing to meet FAA and TxDOT <strong>airport</strong><br />
design criteria. Airfield Alternative 1,<br />
the southerly 1,370-foot extension <strong>of</strong><br />
Runway 17-35, should be strongly<br />
considered. This extension would<br />
provide, at a minimum, 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong><br />
operational runway length in both<br />
directions. For a reliever <strong>airport</strong> such<br />
as <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, it would be<br />
optimal for the operational length<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> the runway be met in<br />
both directions.<br />
This alternative also provides for the<br />
longest runway length which could be<br />
achieved at the <strong>airport</strong>. Due to the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> the railroad tracks to the<br />
north and the residential communities<br />
to the south, 1,370 feet is the most that<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> can add in terms <strong>of</strong> runway<br />
length, while maintaining RSA and<br />
OFA on <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />
Airfield Alternative 1 also considers<br />
improvements to the instrument<br />
approaches to the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
precision ILS approach to Runway 17<br />
currently has visibility minimums not<br />
lower than three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile for<br />
approach categories A, B, and C<br />
aircraft. This approach is considered<br />
for improved visibility minimums not<br />
lower than one-half mile for approach<br />
categories A, B, C, and D aircraft.<br />
To meet FAA and TxDOT standards for<br />
the improved approaches, Runway 17<br />
would require an upgrade <strong>of</strong> the<br />
approach lighting system from the<br />
LDIN to a MALSR. In addition, the<br />
existing parallel taxiway would need to<br />
be relocated to 400 feet (centerline to<br />
centerline) from the runway.<br />
4-16<br />
<strong>The</strong> second airfield alternative<br />
considers a 1,000-foot southerly<br />
extension to the runway. Based on the<br />
predominant southerly wind direction,<br />
this will provide 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong><br />
operational length for the majority <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>airport</strong> operations. This is especially<br />
true during hot days when runway<br />
length available is most critical. This<br />
alternative also considers the necessary<br />
upgrade <strong>of</strong> the approach lights and<br />
relocation <strong>of</strong> the taxiway, in order to<br />
improve the instrument approaches.<br />
This option is considered to be viable<br />
since it will serve the majority <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft most <strong>of</strong> the year. It is also<br />
likely to be moderately less expensive<br />
than Alternative 1, since it proposes 370<br />
feet less pavement length. <strong>The</strong> primary<br />
disadvantage is only 6,630 feet <strong>of</strong><br />
operational length for northerly<br />
operations would be available. <strong>Final</strong>ly,<br />
a reliever <strong>airport</strong> would be better served<br />
with the recommended operational<br />
length provided by both runway ends.<br />
As discussed, the capacity <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />
may become an issue by the<br />
intermediate term <strong>of</strong> the plan. Two<br />
options for a 5,000-foot parallel runway<br />
were considered. <strong>The</strong> eastside option is<br />
considered to be more desirable from a<br />
planning perspective, primarily because<br />
it does not bisect the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
eastside parallel runway also requires<br />
less property acquisition and site<br />
preparation.<br />
OBSTRUCTION ANALYSIS<br />
This section will present information<br />
regarding the potential for improved
approach procedures. Where possible,<br />
especially at reliever <strong>airport</strong>s, approach<br />
minimums should be as low as possible,<br />
considering safety and financial<br />
constraints. <strong>The</strong> best approach<br />
minimums possible will prevent aircraft<br />
from having to divert to another <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
which can cause financial hardship for<br />
the operator, on-<strong>airport</strong> businesses, and<br />
the <strong>City</strong> (lost fuel revenue).<br />
A key priority which needs to be<br />
considered is protecting the <strong>airport</strong> from<br />
the potential for flight obstructions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> FAA has established criteria aimed<br />
at protecting the <strong>airport</strong> from these<br />
flight obstructions. First, FAA criterion<br />
stipulates that obstructions not be<br />
placed too near the runway ends or<br />
parallel to the runway. <strong>The</strong> obstruction<br />
clearance requirements are based on<br />
the ARC and/or the weight <strong>of</strong> the<br />
critical aircraft, as well as the type <strong>of</strong><br />
approaches established or planned for<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. Minimum obstruction<br />
clearance is required for all runways,<br />
and it becomes more restrictive as the<br />
approaches progress from visual to nonprecision,<br />
to precision.<br />
<strong>The</strong> three resources for determining<br />
airspace obstructions are the FAA’s<br />
F.A.R. Part 77, Objects Affecting<br />
Navigable Airspace, Terminal<br />
Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and AC<br />
150/5300-13, Change 8, Airport Design.<br />
Part 77 is more <strong>of</strong> a filter which<br />
identifies potential obstructions. <strong>The</strong><br />
Threshold Siting Surface (TSS), defined<br />
in Airport Design and TERPS, is the<br />
critical surface considered by TxDOT<br />
and the FAA. If there is a penetration<br />
to the TSS slope, then action must be<br />
taken by the <strong>airport</strong> to eliminate the<br />
4-17<br />
obstruction, otherwise the approved<br />
approaches to the <strong>airport</strong> can be<br />
removed. TERPS analysis is used to<br />
evaluate and develop instrument<br />
approach procedures including visibility<br />
minimums and cloud heights associated<br />
with approved approaches.<br />
Analysis in the previous chapter<br />
indicated that the plan should consider<br />
improved instrument approach<br />
capabilities for Runway 17-35. At<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, the lowest<br />
visibility minimums for aircraft in<br />
approach categories A, B, and C is<br />
three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile utilizing the<br />
ILS approach on Runway 17. Runway<br />
35 has visibility minimums not lower<br />
than one mile for aircraft in approach<br />
categories A, B, and C. Currently, there<br />
are no approved instrument approaches<br />
to either runway end for aircraft in<br />
approach category D.<br />
<strong>The</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> the existing TSS<br />
surface are described in AC 150/5300-<br />
13, Change 8, Airport Design. Appendix<br />
2, paragraph 5h, applies to runways<br />
with precision approaches, such as<br />
Runway 17. This TSS begins 200 feet<br />
from the runway threshold, is centered<br />
on the extended runway centerline and<br />
is 800 feet wide, which increases out to<br />
a width <strong>of</strong> 1,900 feet at a distance <strong>of</strong><br />
10,000 feet. This TSS must provide an<br />
obstacle clearance for a 34:1 approach<br />
slope. Future approach visibility<br />
minimums consider one-half mile for<br />
Runway 17. <strong>The</strong> dimensions for this<br />
approach will remain the same.<br />
<strong>The</strong> current TSS slope for Runway 35 is<br />
defined by Appendix 2, paragraph 5f.<br />
This TSS has the same dimensions as
the TSS for Runway 17, except the<br />
obstruction-free slope is 20:1. Future<br />
approach visibility minimums consider<br />
three-quarters-mile for Runway 35.<br />
<strong>The</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> the TSS slope for<br />
these approaches remain the same.<br />
Exhibits 4F and 4G present an<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> the TSS associated with<br />
existing and alternative approach<br />
procedures for Runways 17 and 35,<br />
respectively. <strong>The</strong> top portions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
exhibits display the plan, or “overhead”<br />
view <strong>of</strong> each TSS. <strong>The</strong> bottom half <strong>of</strong><br />
each exhibit depicts the pr<strong>of</strong>ile view <strong>of</strong><br />
the TSS conditions.<br />
Exhibit 4F presents the airspace<br />
obstruction evaluation for Runway 17<br />
considering existing and alternative<br />
conditions. <strong>The</strong>re are no identified<br />
obstructions to the 34:1 TSS slope<br />
under both the existing and planned<br />
approaches for Runway 17. It should be<br />
noted that F.A.R. Part 77 requires that<br />
additional elevation be added to roads<br />
and railroads in order to provide<br />
clearance over vehicles and trains.<br />
Railroads require an additional 23 feet<br />
and roads such as Scyene Road require<br />
an additional 15 feet. <strong>The</strong> TSS clears<br />
these potential obstructions.<br />
Exhibit 4G presents airspace<br />
obstruction analysis for the Runway 35<br />
end. <strong>The</strong> existing TSS slope, as well as<br />
the TSS slope associated with a 1,000foot<br />
and 1,370-foot extension, are<br />
presented. <strong>The</strong>re are no existing TSS<br />
penetrations to the existing TSS slope.<br />
<strong>The</strong> only TSS penetration identified for<br />
the future condition is a single tree that<br />
penetrates by one foot associated with<br />
4-18<br />
the 1,370-foot runway extension<br />
scenario.<br />
Building Obstructions<br />
F.A.R. Part 77, Objects Affecting<br />
Navigable Airspace, was developed to<br />
protect the airspace and approaches to<br />
runways from hazards which would<br />
affect the safe and efficient operation <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> previous master plan recommended<br />
that a number <strong>of</strong> T-hangars be removed.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se hangars penetrate the 500-foot<br />
primary surface, as defined in F.A.R.<br />
Part 77. <strong>The</strong>se hangars were also in<br />
poor condition, with dirt floors, leaky<br />
ro<strong>of</strong>s, and deteriorating paint. Since<br />
then, the hangars have been<br />
rehabilitated. As a result, this plan will<br />
not consider the removal <strong>of</strong> the Thangars.<br />
Instead, these hangars should<br />
remain a revenue-generating source for<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Ultimately, it is the FAA and their<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> the airspace surrounding<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport that will<br />
determine if any buildings will be<br />
obstructions to the ultimate <strong>airport</strong><br />
design. This plan will proceed under<br />
the assumption that none <strong>of</strong> the<br />
buildings will need to be removed or<br />
relocated in order to achieve<br />
improvements to the approaches.<br />
<strong>The</strong> north end Department <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Safety (DPS) hangar may be an<br />
obstruction to the departure surface as<br />
described in TERPS. This surface is<br />
1,000 feet wide, centered on the
unway, beginning at the end <strong>of</strong> usable<br />
runway. It angles up at a 40:1 slope to<br />
a width <strong>of</strong> 6,466 feet at a distance <strong>of</strong><br />
10,200 feet. This surface would be<br />
penetrated by the DPS hangar. <strong>The</strong><br />
FAA has not yet provided guidance on<br />
mitigation <strong>of</strong> such penetrations, other<br />
than to indicate that special operating<br />
departure procedures may need to be<br />
implemented.<br />
LANDSIDE ISSUES<br />
<strong>The</strong> orderly development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />
terminal area, those areas along the<br />
flight line parallel to the runway, can be<br />
the most critical, and probably the most<br />
difficult to control on the <strong>airport</strong>. A<br />
development approach <strong>of</strong> taking the<br />
path <strong>of</strong> least resistance can have a<br />
significant effect on the long-term<br />
viability <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong>. Allowing<br />
development without regard to a<br />
functional plan could result in a<br />
haphazard array <strong>of</strong> buildings and small<br />
ramp areas, which will eventually<br />
preclude the most efficient use <strong>of</strong><br />
valuable space along the flight line.<br />
Activity in the terminal area should be<br />
divided into high, medium, and low<br />
intensity levels at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
high-activity area should be planned<br />
and developed to provide aviation<br />
services on the <strong>airport</strong>. An example <strong>of</strong><br />
the high-activity area is the <strong>airport</strong><br />
terminal building and adjoining aircraft<br />
parking apron, which provides outside<br />
storage and circulation <strong>of</strong> aircraft. In<br />
addition, large conventional hangars<br />
housing fixed base operators (FBOs),<br />
corporate aviation departments, or<br />
storing a large number <strong>of</strong> aircraft would<br />
4-19<br />
be considered a high-activity use. A<br />
conventional hangar structure in the<br />
high-activity area should be a minimum<br />
<strong>of</strong> 6,400 square feet (80 feet by 80 feet).<br />
<strong>The</strong> best location for high-activity areas<br />
is along the flight line near midfield, for<br />
ease <strong>of</strong> access to all areas <strong>of</strong> the airfield.<br />
<strong>The</strong> medium-activity use category<br />
defines the next level <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> use and<br />
primarily includes smaller corporate<br />
aircraft that may desire their own<br />
executive hangar storage on the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
A hangar in the medium-activity use<br />
area should be at least 50 feet by 50<br />
feet, or a minimum <strong>of</strong> 2,500 square feet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> best location for medium-activity<br />
use is <strong>of</strong>f the immediate flight line, but<br />
still readily accessible. Parking and<br />
utilities such as water and sewer should<br />
also be provided in this area.<br />
<strong>The</strong> low-activity use category defines<br />
the area for storage <strong>of</strong> smaller single<br />
and twin-engine aircraft. Low-activity<br />
users are personal or small business<br />
aircraft owners who prefer individual<br />
space in shade or T-hangars. Lowactivity<br />
areas should be located in lessconspicuous<br />
areas. This use category<br />
will require electricity, but generally<br />
does not require water or sewer<br />
utilities.<br />
In addition to the functional<br />
compatibility <strong>of</strong> the terminal area, the<br />
proposed development concept should<br />
provide a first-class appearance for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Consideration<br />
to aesthetics should be given high<br />
priority in all public areas, as the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> can serve as the first impression<br />
a visitor may have <strong>of</strong> the community.
Since the completion <strong>of</strong> the previous<br />
master plan in 1998, the terminal<br />
building and the primary transient<br />
apron have shifted to the south. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
have been three new large hangars<br />
constructed as well, each <strong>of</strong> which has<br />
access to the apron area. This<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the south apron<br />
provides greater separation <strong>of</strong> activity<br />
levels and lends to greater efficiency <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft movement.<br />
Ideally, terminal area facilities at<br />
general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s should follow<br />
a linear configuration parallel to the<br />
primary runway. <strong>The</strong> linear<br />
configuration allows for maximizing<br />
available space, while providing ease <strong>of</strong><br />
access to terminal facilities from the<br />
airfield. Each landside alternative will<br />
address development issues.<br />
Separation <strong>of</strong> activity levels and<br />
efficiency <strong>of</strong> layout will be provided as<br />
well.<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is located on<br />
approximately 350 acres. Typically,<br />
general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s will reserve<br />
the first 1,000 feet parallel to the<br />
runway for aviation-related activity<br />
exclusively. This distance would allow<br />
for the location <strong>of</strong> taxiways, apron, and<br />
hangars. <strong>The</strong> eastside property line is<br />
approximately 520 feet from the runway<br />
centerline and the west side provides<br />
approximately 1,000 feet <strong>of</strong> separation.<br />
In those circumstances where ultimate<br />
demand levels fall short <strong>of</strong> the ultimate<br />
build-out need, some <strong>airport</strong>s will<br />
encourage non-aviation commercial or<br />
industrial development. Encouragement<br />
<strong>of</strong> non-aviation development on<br />
<strong>airport</strong> property can provide an<br />
4-20<br />
additional revenue source in the form <strong>of</strong><br />
long-term land leases for the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Consideration will be given to this<br />
possibility in the landside development<br />
alternatives to follow.<br />
LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES<br />
<strong>The</strong> following section describes three<br />
landside development alternatives.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se alternatives consider general<br />
aviation facility development providing<br />
for separation <strong>of</strong> activity levels. <strong>The</strong><br />
goal <strong>of</strong> this analysis is to indicate<br />
development potentials which would<br />
provide the <strong>City</strong> with a specific goal for<br />
future development. <strong>The</strong> resultant plan<br />
will aid the <strong>City</strong> in strategic marketing<br />
<strong>of</strong> available properties. <strong>The</strong> following<br />
development alternatives analysis<br />
utilizes accepted <strong>airport</strong> planning<br />
methodologies in conjunction with FAA<br />
AC 5300/13, Change 8, Airport Design.<br />
<strong>The</strong> three alternatives described below<br />
are not the only options for<br />
development. In some cases, a portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> one alternative could be intermixed<br />
with another. Also, some development<br />
concepts could be replaced with others.<br />
<strong>The</strong> final recommended plan only serves<br />
as a guide for the <strong>City</strong>. Many times,<br />
<strong>airport</strong> operators change their plan to<br />
meet the needs <strong>of</strong> specific users. <strong>The</strong><br />
goal in analyzing landside development<br />
alternatives is to focus future<br />
development so that <strong>airport</strong> property<br />
can be maximized.<br />
Each <strong>of</strong> the landside alternatives<br />
presented reflects the ultimate buildout<br />
potential for the <strong>airport</strong>. What is<br />
presented exceeds the aviation needs
forecast over the next 20 years. This<br />
analysis is designed to provide a<br />
planned ultimate direction for <strong>airport</strong><br />
development. Staging <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development to meet demand-based<br />
indicators as well as comprehensive<br />
financial plans will be presented in<br />
Chapter Six, once the final master plan<br />
concept is determined.<br />
LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A<br />
Landside Alternative A, depicted on<br />
Exhibit 4H, is considered to be a<br />
constrained development pattern which<br />
assumes that the <strong>airport</strong> will not<br />
acquire additional property for future<br />
landside development. Under this<br />
condition, all levels <strong>of</strong> activity would<br />
need to be accommodated inside the<br />
existing fence line. <strong>The</strong> principal<br />
philosophy followed is to group facilities<br />
supporting similar activity levels<br />
together.<br />
<strong>The</strong> northern terminal area between<br />
the Department <strong>of</strong> Public Safety (DPS)<br />
hangar and Airport Blvd. is considered<br />
for the development <strong>of</strong> two 10-unit Thangars<br />
and a connected executive<br />
hangar facility. <strong>The</strong> executive hangar<br />
facility would be similar in design and<br />
function to the executive hangars in<br />
building 910, immediately to the south.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se hangars could be utilized by<br />
owners <strong>of</strong> one or more aircraft, typically<br />
single or multi-engine.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first <strong>of</strong> three potential <strong>airport</strong><br />
traffic control tower (ATCT) sites is<br />
proposed immediately to the south <strong>of</strong><br />
the new south terminal T-hangars.<br />
This site will be further discussed later<br />
4-21<br />
in this chapter. Two more T-hangar<br />
facilities with adjoining executive<br />
hangars are considered south <strong>of</strong> Site A<br />
for the ATCT. Immediately to the south<br />
<strong>of</strong> these T-hangars, a large apron is<br />
proposed, with space available for<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> large conventional<br />
hangars. This development pattern is<br />
designed to maximize <strong>airport</strong> property<br />
by setting the hangar development to<br />
the west as far as feasible, and will also<br />
allow for a large apron to be<br />
constructed.<br />
A portion <strong>of</strong> the area proposed for apron<br />
and conventional hangar development<br />
to the south is currently an important<br />
drainage route, as it slopes toward a<br />
ravine which flows southeast away from<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. This area also has some<br />
elevation changes as great as ten feet.<br />
It is likely that the drainage channels<br />
would need to be maintained by placing<br />
drainage piping under a portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
apron. In addition, there may be<br />
significant site preparation necessary to<br />
bring the area up to grade. Since this<br />
area is considered for public apron<br />
space, the improvements are eligible for<br />
TxDOT funding. <strong>The</strong> revenuegenerating<br />
hangar pads would be<br />
eligible for limited TxDOT funding (if<br />
any).<br />
<strong>The</strong> proposed layout <strong>of</strong> hangars for this<br />
area provides for three large 200-foot x<br />
200-foot conventional hangars, two <strong>of</strong><br />
which face the main apron and one <strong>of</strong><br />
which faces a short stub taxilane. Two<br />
smaller hangars (150 feet x 150 feet)<br />
also face the stub taxilane. A third 150foot<br />
x 150-foot hangar is positioned to<br />
face the main apron. Due to concern<br />
about the alignment <strong>of</strong> Airport
Boulevard, Alternative 1A shows a<br />
second potential layout for hangars in<br />
this area.<br />
<strong>The</strong> portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> property<br />
immediately south <strong>of</strong> this proposed<br />
apron area is left undeveloped in order<br />
to facilitate drainage from the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> plan proposes using an<br />
underground piping system to drain<br />
water from the runway areas, under the<br />
apron and out to the ravine. It is<br />
unlikely that hangars could be<br />
constructed on top <strong>of</strong> this drainage<br />
route; thus, the area is left undeveloped.<br />
<strong>The</strong> south end <strong>of</strong> the terminal flight line<br />
is considered for T-hangar development.<br />
This area would front a potential<br />
runway extension. Due to the existing<br />
property limitations, this area would<br />
require a separate entrance from Berry<br />
Road. Although dividing facilities with<br />
separate entrance/exit points is not<br />
desirable, it is not uncommon. When it<br />
is necessary to do so, it is recommended<br />
that the facilities support the same<br />
activity level, such as low-activity Thangars<br />
in this case.<br />
Advantages: No additional property<br />
acquisition is necessary. Development<br />
potential can meet forecast aviation<br />
demand through the long term <strong>of</strong> this<br />
plan. Likely the least expensive<br />
potential development pattern.<br />
Disadvantages: A portion <strong>of</strong> the flight<br />
line remains privately-owned. Airport<br />
is effectively split in two, due to private<br />
ownership <strong>of</strong> this land. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />
would become constrained for any other<br />
development in the future.<br />
4-22<br />
LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B<br />
Landside Alternative B considers<br />
limited property acquisition to the<br />
southwest <strong>of</strong> the runway in order to<br />
provide the <strong>airport</strong> control <strong>of</strong> all<br />
potential development along the flight<br />
line. Currently there are approximately<br />
17 acres, not under <strong>airport</strong> control, that<br />
are within 1,000 feet <strong>of</strong> the runway.<br />
Exhibit 4J depicts development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
terminal flight line with this area under<br />
<strong>airport</strong> ownership.<br />
With the added space for development<br />
along the flight line, the north end area<br />
to the west <strong>of</strong> the DPS hangar is<br />
considered for executive hangar<br />
development. This area would be<br />
highly desirable as the area is readily<br />
developable with utilities near by, the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> exit is close, and taxiways are<br />
available. Space has been allocated for<br />
two 150-foot x 150-foot hangars.<br />
South <strong>of</strong> the new T-hangars, three more<br />
T-hangar facilities are considered.<br />
Further south, the concept <strong>of</strong> a large<br />
apron designed to support FBO and<br />
transient aircraft operations is<br />
continued. Four large conventional<br />
hangars face the apron and are recessed<br />
to allow greater apron usage. To the<br />
south <strong>of</strong> the conventional hangars is a<br />
series <strong>of</strong> executive hangar complexes. A<br />
number <strong>of</strong> different development<br />
patterns are presented, each <strong>of</strong> which<br />
optimizes space available. <strong>Final</strong>ly, a<br />
series <strong>of</strong> T-hangars is considered for the<br />
south end <strong>of</strong> the terminal flight line,<br />
again positioning those low-activity<br />
levels away from the central portion <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong>.
04MP22-4H-2/8/06<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
LEGEND<br />
ALTERNATIVE A1<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
Fuel Farm<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Ultimate Parking/Roads<br />
Ultimate Building<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,000' (7,000' x x 100')<br />
100')<br />
ATCT<br />
Site A<br />
Drainage Area<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
NORTH<br />
1,000' Runway<br />
Extension<br />
35<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
3/4 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
Minimum<br />
Exhibit 4H<br />
LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A
04MP22-4J-2/8/06<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />
C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
ATCT<br />
Site B<br />
Fuel Farm<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Ultimate Parking/Roads<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,000' (7,000' x x 100')<br />
100')<br />
Ultimate Building<br />
Drainage Area<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
NORTH<br />
1,000' Runway<br />
Extension<br />
35<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
3/4 Mile Mile Visibility<br />
Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
Minimum<br />
Exhibit 4J<br />
LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B
Airport drainage is again an important<br />
consideration. This alternative<br />
considers the potential to pave over<br />
drainage piping with apron space or<br />
roads as necessary. As there may be<br />
times when access to the drainage<br />
piping is necessary, construction <strong>of</strong><br />
hangars on top <strong>of</strong> the piping is not<br />
considered.<br />
Landside Alternative B considers<br />
locating the ATCT on the north end <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> site considered is<br />
currently occupied by a public parking<br />
lot. As necessary, this parking lot can<br />
be expanded to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> tower<br />
employees. This location is further<br />
discussed later in this chapter.<br />
Advantages: <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> would have<br />
ownership <strong>of</strong> the entire westside flight<br />
line. More land is available for<br />
development. Separation <strong>of</strong> activity<br />
levels is improved.<br />
Disadvantages: <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> may run<br />
out <strong>of</strong> land available for development in<br />
the distant future. This likely would<br />
not happen within the next 20 years,<br />
but it could sometime thereafter. This<br />
circumstance should be avoided as<br />
experience at other busy reliever<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s has shown.<br />
LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C<br />
Landside Alternative C considers a<br />
more unrestricted development plan. It<br />
provides for property acquisition to the<br />
west <strong>of</strong> Airport Boulevard. This area<br />
encompasses approximately 88 acres.<br />
<strong>The</strong> previously discussed 11 acres to the<br />
southwest <strong>of</strong> the runway along the<br />
4-23<br />
flight line is also considered. As<br />
depicted on Exhibit 4K, this allows for<br />
optimal separation <strong>of</strong> activity levels and<br />
it allows for the development <strong>of</strong><br />
commercial/industrial parcels which<br />
would generate revenue in the form <strong>of</strong><br />
land leases for the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
A main feature <strong>of</strong> this alternative is the<br />
relocation <strong>of</strong> Airport Boulevard and the<br />
creation <strong>of</strong> a grand entrance to the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> that links directly with the<br />
terminal building area. <strong>The</strong> relocation<br />
<strong>of</strong> Airport Boulevard also creates space<br />
for additional aviation-related parcels<br />
with taxiway access, as well as nonaviation<br />
related business development<br />
parcels.<br />
Utilization <strong>of</strong> the land will easily allow<br />
for the separation <strong>of</strong> activity levels. <strong>The</strong><br />
existing executive hangar apron<br />
immediately to the south <strong>of</strong> the<br />
terminal building is continued to the<br />
west, allowing for the development <strong>of</strong><br />
more hangars. To the west <strong>of</strong> the new<br />
south end T-hangars, a T-hangar<br />
complex is developed. Continued<br />
development along the flight line<br />
includes a large apron area fronted by<br />
large FBO/conventional hangars. <strong>The</strong><br />
remaining flight line is considered for<br />
aviation-related hangar development.<br />
This alternative considers locating the<br />
ATCT immediately to the south <strong>of</strong> the<br />
terminal building. This location is<br />
further discussed later in this chapter.<br />
Advantages: This alternative provides<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> with a development plan<br />
that will meet aviation needs well<br />
beyond the 20-year scope <strong>of</strong> this plan.<br />
As revenue-generating commercial/
industrial parcels become available,<br />
additional aviation-related parcels<br />
nearer the terminal area are made<br />
available, and maintaining a separation<br />
<strong>of</strong> activity levels is more uniform. This<br />
alternative also better situates the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> if the FAA determines that any<br />
existing hangar development obstructs<br />
approaches to the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Disadvantages: <strong>The</strong> property to the<br />
west <strong>of</strong> Airport Boulevard is currently<br />
zoned for industrial/commercial<br />
development. A portion <strong>of</strong> that acreage<br />
would change to <strong>airport</strong> use, thus<br />
reducing the total area for<br />
industrial/commercial development.<br />
This alternative would likely be more<br />
expensive in the short term, considering<br />
significant property acquisition costs.<br />
LANDSIDE SUMMARY<br />
All three alternatives propose<br />
development which would exceed the<br />
demand levels proposed in this plan.<br />
Each does, however, give the <strong>City</strong> a<br />
future vision <strong>of</strong> what the <strong>airport</strong> could<br />
become. This vision is important, as it<br />
shifts the focus from haphazard, buildas-you-go<br />
development, to a long-term,<br />
focused development process. As a<br />
result, the <strong>City</strong> will be capable <strong>of</strong><br />
providing a first-class <strong>airport</strong> which<br />
maximizes <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />
It appears that all three development<br />
alternatives would sufficiently<br />
accommodate the long term aviation<br />
demand. Actual demand levels will<br />
likely dictate facility development. For<br />
example, if the <strong>airport</strong> were required to<br />
house a large number <strong>of</strong> small aircraft,<br />
4-24<br />
the decision to build (or allow private<br />
developers to build) T-hangars would be<br />
prudent. However, if corporate aircraft<br />
are more demanding, executive or<br />
conventional hangar development<br />
would be necessary. <strong>The</strong> ultimate plan<br />
will provide the <strong>City</strong> with the means to<br />
meet the future needs <strong>of</strong> these demands<br />
in an efficient manner.<br />
AIRPORT TRAFFIC<br />
CONTROL TOWER<br />
SITING ALTERNATIVES<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT)<br />
is the focal point for controlling flight<br />
operations within the <strong>airport</strong>'s<br />
designated airspace and all aircraft and<br />
vehicle movement on the <strong>airport</strong>'s<br />
runways and taxiways. Site selection<br />
involves certain mandatory<br />
requirements concerning the ultimate<br />
planned development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following operational and spatial<br />
requirements are identified in FAA<br />
Order 6480.4, Airport Traffic Control<br />
Tower Siting Criteria.<br />
Mandatory Siting Requirements<br />
• <strong>The</strong>re must be maximum<br />
visibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />
patterns.<br />
• <strong>The</strong>re must be a clear,<br />
unobstructed, and direct view <strong>of</strong><br />
the approaches to all runways or<br />
landing areas and to all runway<br />
and taxiway surfaces.
04MP22-4K-2/8/06<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />
C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Industrial/<br />
Commercial<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />
Corporate<br />
Parcels<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
Fuel Farm<br />
Industrial/<br />
Commercial<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,000 (7,000 x x 100')<br />
100')<br />
ATCT<br />
Site C<br />
Aviation Related<br />
Parcels<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Ultimate Parking/Roads<br />
Ultimate Building<br />
Corporate<br />
Parcels<br />
Corporate Parcels<br />
Drainage Area<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
NORTH<br />
1,000' Runway<br />
Extension<br />
35<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
3/4 Mile Mile Visibility<br />
Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
Minimum<br />
Exhibit 4K<br />
LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C
• <strong>The</strong> proposed site must be large<br />
enough to accommodate current<br />
and future building needs<br />
including employee parking<br />
spaces.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> proposed tower must not<br />
violate F.A.R. Part 77 surfaces<br />
unless it is absolutely necessary.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> proposed tower must not<br />
derogate the signal generated by<br />
any existing or planned<br />
electronic navigational aid.<br />
Nonmandatory Siting<br />
Requirements<br />
• To assure adequate depth<br />
perception, the line-<strong>of</strong>-sight to<br />
aircraft movement areas should<br />
be perpendicular to the direction<br />
<strong>of</strong> aircraft travel.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> tower cab should be oriented<br />
to face north or alternatively to<br />
the east, south, or west. Every<br />
effort should be made to prevent<br />
an aircraft approach from being<br />
aligned with the rising or setting<br />
sun.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> controller's visibility should<br />
not be impaired by direct or<br />
indirect external lighting<br />
sources.<br />
• All aircraft movement areas<br />
including parking aprons, tiedown<br />
spaces, run-up pads, etc.,<br />
should be visible from the ATCT.<br />
4-25<br />
• Consideration must be given to<br />
local weather phenomena to<br />
preclude restriction to visibility<br />
due to fog or ground haze.<br />
• Exterior noise should be at a<br />
minimum and sites should be<br />
evaluated for expected noise<br />
levels.<br />
• Access to the site should not<br />
require controllers to cross a<br />
runway or taxiway.<br />
• Consideration should be given to<br />
planned <strong>airport</strong> expansion,<br />
especially for the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
buildings, hangars, runway/<br />
taxiway extensions, etc. to<br />
preclude the relocation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ATCT at a later date.<br />
Requirements for a new ATCT site<br />
include several important<br />
considerations. <strong>The</strong> area required for a<br />
tower site will range from one or more<br />
acres depending on the types <strong>of</strong><br />
facilities to be combined at the site. For<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, an area <strong>of</strong> up<br />
to one acre should be provided for the<br />
future site <strong>of</strong> the ATCT.<br />
LINE-OF-SIGHT<br />
In order to determine actual tower<br />
elevations for each site, analysis <strong>of</strong> cab<br />
eye elevation must be conducted. Cab<br />
eye elevation is the projected height at<br />
which a controller will view aircraft<br />
activity from the ATCT.
<strong>The</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> cab eye elevation must<br />
factor two considerations: determine the<br />
minimum eye level elevation utilizing<br />
the criteria provided in FAA Order<br />
6480.4 and evaluate any structures<br />
located between the ATCT site and<br />
surface movement areas to determine if<br />
they may obstruct the line-<strong>of</strong>-sight. An<br />
obstructed view is commonly referred to<br />
as a shadow. A tall structure which<br />
casts a shadow or loss <strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong> a<br />
particular surface area would require<br />
the cab eye elevation to be increased in<br />
order to view the surface area in<br />
question.<br />
Consideration should also be given to<br />
alterations or additions to surface<br />
movement areas. This chapter is<br />
considering runway extension<br />
alternatives that could extend Runway<br />
17-35 from between 1,000 feet and<br />
1,370 feet south.<br />
MINIMUM CAB EYE<br />
ELEVATION ANALYSIS<br />
FAA Order 6480.4 provides a method<br />
for determining the minimum cab eye<br />
elevations for proposed ATCT sites.<br />
This calculation was established to<br />
meet the minimum requirements for<br />
visual depth perception. According to<br />
the Order, the line-<strong>of</strong>-sight from the<br />
tower cab eye level must intersect the<br />
grade <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> traffic surface in<br />
question (parking apron, taxiway,<br />
runway, etc.) at an angle <strong>of</strong> 35 minutes<br />
or greater. <strong>The</strong> formula provided in the<br />
Order and utilized in this analysis is as<br />
follows:<br />
4-26<br />
E e = E as + [ D x Tangent (35 minutes + G s) ]<br />
whereas:<br />
E e = Eye level elevation (MSL)<br />
E as = Average elevation for<br />
section <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />
surface in question<br />
D = Distance from proposed tower<br />
site to section <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />
surface in question<br />
G s = Angular slope <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />
traffic surface measured<br />
from horizontal and in<br />
direction <strong>of</strong> proposed<br />
tower site<br />
It should be noted that the cab eye<br />
elevation provides the mean sea level<br />
(MSL) or above ground level (AGL)<br />
height at which a controller will be<br />
viewing from. Actual tower heights will<br />
be higher to accommodate the cab ro<strong>of</strong><br />
and necessary antenna equipment. It<br />
can be expected that the actual tower<br />
height will be at least seven feet higher<br />
than the cab eye elevation calculation<br />
indicates.<br />
SITING ANALYSIS<br />
Three sites have been analyzed and are<br />
presented on landside alternatives A, B,<br />
and C. When considering ATCT<br />
locations, it is important to consider all<br />
factors including the cost <strong>of</strong> construction<br />
to both the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> and<br />
TxDOT. TxDOT funds the construction<br />
<strong>of</strong> up to two ATCTs per year, and the
program was recently increased to <strong>of</strong>fer<br />
90 percent matching funds, instead <strong>of</strong><br />
50 percent, for construction costs up to<br />
$1.6 million.<br />
Initial consideration was given to<br />
locating the tower on the east side <strong>of</strong><br />
the airfield because <strong>of</strong> the obstructionfree<br />
environment. Locating on the east<br />
side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> would require a new<br />
access road to be constructed, a parking<br />
lot, extension <strong>of</strong> all utilities including<br />
electricity, water, sewer, and<br />
communications lines, as well as land<br />
acquisition. It is likely that the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
all these elements would be<br />
substantially more than a westside site.<br />
In addition, having the tower facing<br />
west is considered the least desirable.<br />
For these reasons, an eastside ATCT is<br />
removed from further consideration.<br />
Site A is located immediately south <strong>of</strong><br />
the newly constructed T-hangars, while<br />
site B is located in the public parking<br />
lot immediately south <strong>of</strong> the north end<br />
aircraft tie-down apron. Site C is<br />
situated immediately south <strong>of</strong> the<br />
terminal building.<br />
<strong>The</strong> three alternative sites have been<br />
analyzed and calculations have been<br />
made for line-<strong>of</strong>-sight and cab eye<br />
elevation minimums. Each site was<br />
evaluated for line-<strong>of</strong>-sight to each<br />
runway end, including to the proposed<br />
runway extension ends. During<br />
engineering <strong>of</strong> the ATCT, further<br />
analysis will include compensating<br />
shadows (those surfaces potentially<br />
blocked by hangars). <strong>The</strong> following<br />
paragraphs provide specific analysis for<br />
each site according to siting criteria<br />
established by the FAA.<br />
4-27<br />
SITE A<br />
As previously mentioned, Site A is<br />
located immediately south <strong>of</strong> the newest<br />
and southernmost T-hangars.<br />
According to spot elevation information<br />
for the <strong>airport</strong>, Site A is at<br />
approximately 442.5 feet MSL and is<br />
700 feet from the runway centerline.<br />
Site A is depicted on Exhibit 4H.<br />
Cab Eye Elevation<br />
<strong>The</strong> minimum cab eye elevation for the<br />
most demanding pavement surface is<br />
491 feet MSL or approximately 48.2 feet<br />
AGL.<br />
Mandatory Siting Requirements<br />
Visibility is clear and unobstructed to<br />
both runway ends under all<br />
alternatives. <strong>The</strong> site is nearly at<br />
midfield, which aids visibility. As the<br />
site is currently undeveloped and, thus,<br />
unconstrained for development, there<br />
will be enough room for employee<br />
parking as well as future expansion.<br />
This site will not derogate the signal<br />
generated by any <strong>of</strong> the existing or<br />
planned navigational aids.<br />
As is the case with many ATCTs, a 48foot-tall<br />
tower, 700 feet from the<br />
runway would obstruct the 7:1<br />
transitional surface for precision<br />
approaches. Consultation with the FAA<br />
would be necessary to get approval to<br />
this site.
Nonmandatory Siting<br />
Requirements<br />
Depth perception <strong>of</strong> all surface areas to<br />
be controlled should be adequate. <strong>The</strong><br />
controller’s line-<strong>of</strong>-sight will be<br />
perpendicular or oblique, not parallel, to<br />
the line established by aircraft and/or<br />
ground vehicle movement. <strong>The</strong> cab eye<br />
elevation will intersect all <strong>airport</strong><br />
surfaces.<br />
<strong>The</strong> tower cab will be oriented to face<br />
east which is ideal when considering<br />
east/west facing towers. Visibility is not<br />
expected to be impaired by direct or<br />
indirect external lighting sources.<br />
Visibility to all areas requiring control<br />
is good.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are no known local weather<br />
phenomena that would restrict visibility<br />
for any tower location. Noise levels at<br />
this site may be an issue if it is located<br />
too close to the existing T-hangars. An<br />
appropriate buffer should be considered.<br />
Access to the site will not cross areas <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft operations. No future<br />
construction is planned that would<br />
derogate visibility from this site.<br />
SITE B<br />
As illustrated on Exhibit 4J, Site B is<br />
to the south <strong>of</strong> the north tie-down<br />
apron, where the public parking lot is<br />
currently located. According to spot<br />
elevation information for the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
Site B is at approximately 445.4 feet<br />
MSL and is situated 600 feet from the<br />
runway centerline.<br />
4-28<br />
Cab Eye Elevation<br />
<strong>The</strong> minimum cab eye elevation for<br />
existing conditions is 493 MSL or 48<br />
feet AGL.<br />
Mandatory Siting Requirements<br />
With the site being at the northern<br />
third <strong>of</strong> the airfield, care should be<br />
given to any future southerly<br />
development so as to avoid development<br />
that obstructs tower line-<strong>of</strong>-sight. All<br />
approaches are clearly visible and there<br />
is no navigational aid interference.<br />
<strong>The</strong> tower again will obstruct the F.A.R.<br />
Part 77 transitional surface. This does<br />
not preclude construction at this site; it<br />
means additional review and analysis<br />
will need to be conducted. <strong>The</strong> site is<br />
large enough to accommodate future<br />
building needs and employee parking.<br />
Nonmandatory Siting<br />
Requirements<br />
All nonmandatory requirements are<br />
essentially the same as with Site A.<br />
SITE C<br />
Exhibit 4K shows Site C, which is<br />
located immediately to the south <strong>of</strong> the<br />
terminal building. Spot elevation<br />
information for the <strong>airport</strong> indicates<br />
that Site C is at approximately 444.7<br />
feet MSL.
Cab Eye Elevation<br />
<strong>The</strong> minimum cab eye elevation for<br />
existing conditions is 493 feet MSL or<br />
48 feet AGL.<br />
Mandatory Siting Requirements<br />
Visibility <strong>of</strong> airborne traffic patterns is<br />
good. Visibility is adequate for all<br />
primary <strong>airport</strong> surfaces except for a<br />
small portion <strong>of</strong> Taxiway A immediately<br />
to the east <strong>of</strong> the Moorehead hangar on<br />
the main terminal area hangar.<br />
Consideration will be given to removing<br />
or relocating this hangar.<br />
This site plot provides sufficient area to<br />
accommodate the initial building and<br />
the addition <strong>of</strong> a base building in the<br />
future if required. Also, this area would<br />
readily supply parking areas.<br />
Minimum cab eye elevations for this<br />
site indicate that the tower will likely<br />
penetrate the F.A.R. Part 77<br />
transitional surface, however, should<br />
not be an obstruction to flight. <strong>The</strong><br />
tower should not derogate the<br />
performance <strong>of</strong> any existing or planned<br />
electronic facilities.<br />
Nonmandatory Siting<br />
Requirements<br />
Depth perception <strong>of</strong> all surface areas to<br />
be controlled will be adequate. <strong>The</strong><br />
controller’s line-<strong>of</strong>-sight will be<br />
perpendicular or oblique, not parallel, to<br />
the line established by aircraft and/or<br />
ground vehicle movement.<br />
4-29<br />
<strong>The</strong> tower cab will be oriented to face<br />
east. This orientation will likely pose<br />
visibility problems for viewing aircraft<br />
approaches around sunrise. Visibility<br />
to all areas requiring control is<br />
excellent and would not be impaired or<br />
shadowed. Access to the site, once<br />
constructed, would not require crossing<br />
aircraft operation areas.<br />
SUMMARY<br />
<strong>The</strong> process utilized in assessing the<br />
airside and landside development<br />
alternatives involved a detailed<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> short and long term<br />
requirements, as well as future growth<br />
potential. Current <strong>airport</strong> design<br />
standards were considered at every<br />
stage in the analysis. Safety, both air<br />
and ground, were given a high priority<br />
in the analysis <strong>of</strong> alternatives.<br />
After review and input from the<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Advisory Committee, <strong>City</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials, and the public, a recommended<br />
concept will be developed by the<br />
consultant. <strong>The</strong> resultant plan will<br />
represent an airside facility that fulfills<br />
safety design standards, and a landside<br />
complex that can be developed as<br />
demand dictates. <strong>The</strong> development plan<br />
for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport must<br />
represent a means by which the <strong>airport</strong><br />
can evolve in a balanced manner, both<br />
on the airside and landside, to<br />
accommodate the forecast demand. In<br />
addition, the plan must provide<br />
flexibility to meet activity growth<br />
beyond the long range planning horizon.
<strong>The</strong> following chapters will be dedicated<br />
to refining the basic concept into a final<br />
plan with recommendations to ensure<br />
4-30<br />
proper implementation and timing for a<br />
demand-based program.
Chapter Five<br />
AIRPORT PLANS
CHAPTER FIVE<br />
AIRPORT PLANS<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> master planning process has evolved through<br />
several analytical efforts in the previous chapters. <strong>The</strong>se efforts,<br />
intended to analyze future aviation demand, establish airside<br />
and landside needs and evaluate options for the future<br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport and its facilities.<br />
In the previous chapter, several development alternatives were<br />
analyzed to explore different options for the future growth and<br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> development<br />
alternatives have been refined into a single recommended<br />
concept for the master plan after meeting with the <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Advisory Committee (PAC), which provided feedback to the<br />
consultant. This chapter describes, in narrative and graphic<br />
form, the recommended direction for the future use and<br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT<br />
<strong>The</strong> recommended master plan concept incorporates airside<br />
development elements suggested in Airfield Alternative 1,<br />
presented in Chapter Four - Alternatives. Landside develop-<br />
ment closely follows the improvements suggested in Landside<br />
Alternative C. As a result, the recommended concept provides<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> with the ability to meet the increasing demands on<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> by corporate aircraft, while also providing adequate<br />
space for small, general-aviation aircraft operators.<br />
It is important to note that the finalized concept provides for<br />
anticipated facility needs over the next twenty years, as well as<br />
establishing a vision and direction for meeting facility needs beyond<br />
the planning period. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has experienced significant<br />
5-1 DRAFT
growth over the last several years and<br />
the <strong>City</strong> has responded to this growth<br />
with the construction <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>airport</strong><br />
terminal building, apron area, and<br />
other ancillary facilities. Continued<br />
growth is expected as the DFW<br />
Metroplex expands eastward.<br />
Moreover, the planned extension <strong>of</strong><br />
State Highway 190 will be routed<br />
roughly along Lawson Road to the east.<br />
<strong>The</strong> highway improvement will be a<br />
significant spur for additional<br />
development in the area, including the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> following sections<br />
summarize the airside and landside<br />
development recommendations as<br />
illustrated on Exhibit 5A.<br />
AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS<br />
<strong>The</strong> Federal Aviation Administration<br />
(FAA) and the Texas Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transportation (TxDOT) - Aviation<br />
Division have established design<br />
criteria to define the physical<br />
dimensions <strong>of</strong> runways and taxiways<br />
and the imaginary surfaces surrounding<br />
them which provide for the safe<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> aircraft at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se design standards also define the<br />
separation criteria for the placement <strong>of</strong><br />
landside facilities.<br />
As discussed previously, FAA and<br />
TxDOT design criteria primarily center<br />
around the <strong>airport</strong>’s critical design<br />
aircraft. <strong>The</strong> critical aircraft is the<br />
most demanding aircraft or family <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft which will conduct 250 or more<br />
operations (take-<strong>of</strong>fs or landings) per<br />
year at the <strong>airport</strong>. Factors included in<br />
<strong>airport</strong> design are an aircraft’s<br />
wingspan, approach speed, and in some<br />
cases, the runway approach visibility<br />
5-2<br />
minimums. <strong>The</strong> FAA has established<br />
the Airport Reference Code (ARC) to<br />
relate these factors to airfield design<br />
standards.<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is presently<br />
used by a wide range <strong>of</strong> general aviation<br />
aircraft. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> these aircraft<br />
include single and multi-engine aircraft<br />
which fall into ARC A-I and B-I<br />
categories. In addition, larger business<br />
turboprop and turbojet aircraft that fall<br />
within approach categories B, C, and D<br />
are using the <strong>airport</strong> more frequently.<br />
<strong>The</strong> largest based aircraft at the <strong>airport</strong><br />
is the Cessna Citation 525, an ARC B-I<br />
aircraft. Analysis conducted in Chapter<br />
Three - Facility Requirements,<br />
concluded that the current critical<br />
aircraft is defined by a wide variety <strong>of</strong><br />
transient aircraft operators at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> analysis indicated that the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> had a minimum <strong>of</strong> 194<br />
operations by aircraft ranging from<br />
ARC C-I to D-III. As noted in the<br />
analysis, this figure is likely much<br />
lower than actual due to reporting<br />
difficulties (e.g., activity must initiate<br />
or complete an instrument flight plan at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport). It is very<br />
likely that the actual number <strong>of</strong><br />
operations by ARC C-I through D-II is<br />
at least 50 percent higher, or 291<br />
operations. Thus, the current critical<br />
aircraft for the <strong>airport</strong> is ARC C/D-II.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> anticipates that<br />
turbojet aircraft use, particularly<br />
business jet aircraft use, would increase<br />
in the future, consistent with national<br />
trends and FAA forecasts. It is<br />
anticipated that the <strong>airport</strong> will be<br />
increasingly utilized by businesses and<br />
fractional-ownership groups who are
04MP22-5A-2/8/06<br />
MALSR<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />
C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Industrial/<br />
Commercial<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />
Corporate<br />
Parcels<br />
ATCT<br />
Site B<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
Fuel Farm<br />
Industrial/<br />
Commercial<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,370 (7,370 x x 100')<br />
100')<br />
ATCT<br />
Site C<br />
Aviation Related<br />
Parcels<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Ultimate Parking/Roads<br />
Ultimate Building<br />
ATCT<br />
Site A<br />
Corporate<br />
Parcels<br />
ASDA / LDA 7,370'<br />
7,370'<br />
ASDA / LDA 7,000'<br />
7,000'<br />
Corporate Parcels<br />
Drainage Area<br />
Highway 190 Easement<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
Alignment Alignment<br />
190 190 Highway Highway<br />
Proposed Proposed<br />
NORTH<br />
1,370' Runway<br />
Extension<br />
35<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Lead In In Lights<br />
Lights<br />
Localizer Localizer<br />
3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Exhibit 5A<br />
MASTER PLAN CONCEPT
conducting business in the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
area or surrounding communities. It is<br />
anticipated that much <strong>of</strong> this growth<br />
will be spurred by the eastward<br />
expansion <strong>of</strong> the Dallas-Fort Worth<br />
Metroplex.<br />
In the future, operations by aircraft in<br />
ARC C/D-II will likely increase. For<br />
this reason, the <strong>airport</strong> should, at a<br />
minimum, conform to FAA and TxDOT<br />
standards for this level <strong>of</strong> activity.<br />
Moreover, consideration should be given<br />
to potentially providing for business jets<br />
which fall in airplane design group III.<br />
<strong>The</strong> G-V, Global Express, and Boeing<br />
Business Jet are group III aircraft and<br />
are increasing in the fleet. <strong>The</strong> plan<br />
should allow for this change in the<br />
future. <strong>The</strong> recommended plan has<br />
been formulated to accommodate ARC<br />
C/D-II aircraft; however, it will be<br />
flexible enough to meet ARC C/D-III<br />
aircraft design in the future if required.<br />
Upgrading the <strong>airport</strong> to ARC C/D-II<br />
design standards will allow the <strong>airport</strong><br />
to accommodate the majority <strong>of</strong><br />
business jets on the market today.<br />
Moreover, meeting these design<br />
requirements will ensure that the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is positioned to remain<br />
competitive for aviation businesses and<br />
those businesses which have aviation<br />
needs. As a result, the <strong>airport</strong> will<br />
serve as a valuable resource for the <strong>City</strong><br />
as it competes for economic<br />
development in the regional<br />
marketplace.<br />
Table 5A summarizes the <strong>airport</strong><br />
design standards to be applied at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> table<br />
presents two airfield planning<br />
5-3<br />
standards for the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> first<br />
column summarizes FAA and TxDOT<br />
airfield design standards for ARC C/D-<br />
II aircraft under current conditions.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> currently meets the<br />
threshold to be required to provide this<br />
level <strong>of</strong> service. <strong>The</strong> middle column<br />
considers the improvements necessary<br />
to accommodate larger business jets<br />
such as a longer runway and improved<br />
approaches to both ends <strong>of</strong> the runway.<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ly, the possibility exists that larger<br />
aircraft such as the Global Express or<br />
G-V could base at the <strong>airport</strong> or use the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> frequently in the future. <strong>The</strong><br />
last column presents the airfield design<br />
criteria for these ARC C/D-III aircraft.<br />
Those standards which differ from the<br />
existing requirements presented in the<br />
first column are highlighted for<br />
comparative purposes.<br />
AIRSIDE RECOMMENDATIONS<br />
<strong>The</strong> recommended airside concept is<br />
presented on Exhibit 5A. Of primary<br />
consideration is providing the runway<br />
system with the means to accommodate<br />
the larger and faster business aircraft<br />
which currently operate at the <strong>airport</strong><br />
and are projected to account for the<br />
critical aircraft in the near future. To<br />
meet these needs, the plan includes a<br />
1,370-foot southerly extension <strong>of</strong><br />
Runway 17-35. This extension will<br />
allow the runway to provide adequate<br />
operational length for nearly all <strong>of</strong> the<br />
business aircraft in the fleet. <strong>The</strong><br />
added length is needed for these aircraft<br />
to accommodate heavy useful loads due<br />
to long trip lengths, especially on hot<br />
days. In addition, the increased length<br />
will better accommodate aircraft during<br />
conditions where the runway is<br />
contaminated (1/10 inch <strong>of</strong> rain water).
As discussed in the previous chapter,<br />
Runway 17-35 is recommended to be<br />
upgraded to meet ARC C/D-II<br />
standards. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> was initially<br />
developed and maintained as an ARC<br />
B-II <strong>airport</strong>. Business jet activity<br />
increases now exceed the critical<br />
TABLE 5A<br />
Airfield <strong>Plan</strong>ning Design Standards (Ultimate)<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
5-4<br />
aircraft threshold. Thus, the <strong>airport</strong><br />
must now conform to ARC C/D-II design<br />
standards. <strong>The</strong> most significant change<br />
will be improving the runway safety<br />
area to meet the increased design<br />
standards.<br />
Existing<br />
ARC C/D-II<br />
Improved<br />
ARC C/D-II<br />
Ultimate<br />
Potential<br />
ARC C/D-III<br />
DESIGN STANDARDS<br />
Airport Reference Code (ARC) C/D-II C/D-II C/D-III<br />
Lowest Visibility Minimum<br />
Runways<br />
3/4 mile ½ mile ½ mile<br />
Length (ft.) 6,000 7,370 7,370<br />
Width (ft.)<br />
Pavement Strength (lbs.)<br />
100 100 100<br />
Single Wheel (SWL)<br />
70,000 70,000<br />
70,000<br />
Dual Wheel (DWL)<br />
100,000 100,000<br />
100,000<br />
Shoulder Width (ft.)<br />
Runway Safety Area<br />
10 10 20<br />
Width (ft.) 500 500 500<br />
Length Beyond Runway End (ft.) 1,000 1,000 1,000<br />
Length Prior to Landing (ft.)<br />
Object Free Area<br />
600 600 600<br />
Width (ft.) 800 800 800<br />
Length Beyond Runway End (ft.)<br />
Obstacle Free Zone<br />
1,000 1,000 1,000<br />
Width (ft.) 400 400 400<br />
Length Beyond Runway End (ft.)<br />
Taxiways<br />
200 200 200<br />
Width (ft.) 35 35 50<br />
OFA (ft.) 131 131 186<br />
To Fixed or Movable Object (ft.)<br />
Runway Centerline to:<br />
66 66 93<br />
Parallel Taxiway Centerline (ft.) 300 400 400<br />
Aircraft Parking Area (ft.)<br />
Building Restriction Line (ft.)<br />
400 500 500<br />
20 ft. Height Clearance 640 640 640<br />
35 ft. Height Clearance 745 745 745<br />
Runway Protection Zones 17 35 17 35 17 35<br />
Inner Width (ft.) 1,000 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000<br />
Outer Width (ft.) 1,510 1,700 1,750 1,510 1,750 1,510<br />
Length (ft.) 1,700 1,010 2,500 1,700 2,500 1,700<br />
F.A.R. Part 77 Approach Surface Slope 34:1 34:1 50:1 34:1 50:1 34:1<br />
Threshold Siting Surface Slope 20:1 20:1 34:1 20:1 34:1 20:1<br />
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 9
<strong>The</strong> runway safety area (RSA) for ARC<br />
C/D-II is required to be cleared, graded,<br />
stablilized, and suitable to support<br />
aircraft and emergency vehicles. This<br />
area must also be free <strong>of</strong> objects and<br />
ruts. For ARC C/D-II, the RSA is 500<br />
feet wide (centered on the runway) and<br />
extends 1,000 feet beyond each runway<br />
end. Runway 17-35 does not readily<br />
conform with ARC C/D-II RSA<br />
standards as the area between the<br />
runway and parallel taxiway contain an<br />
open drainage channel.<br />
Scyene Road, north <strong>of</strong> the runway,<br />
traverses the ARC C/D-II RSA as<br />
depicted on Exhibit 5A. <strong>The</strong> location <strong>of</strong><br />
Scyene Road allows only 630 feet <strong>of</strong><br />
usable RSA north <strong>of</strong> the runway which<br />
falls short <strong>of</strong> the 1,000-foot standard. It<br />
should be noted, however, that the FAA<br />
has changed the RSA standards to allow<br />
for RSA on the approach end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway to be only 600 feet. Thus, the<br />
northern end <strong>of</strong> the runway is within<br />
standard for ARC C/D-II for southerly<br />
landing operations. It is still a<br />
requirement for the RSA to be<br />
unobstructed 1,000 feet beyond the<br />
take-<strong>of</strong>f end <strong>of</strong> the runway.<br />
<strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> all the airfield alternatives<br />
presented in the previous chapter was<br />
to provide at least 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong><br />
operational length. Although the<br />
recommended plan provides for 7,370<br />
feet <strong>of</strong> pavement, the operational<br />
lengths available for aircraft use are<br />
370 feet less when landing on or taking<strong>of</strong>f<br />
from the Runway 35 end. This is<br />
due to the location <strong>of</strong> Scyene Road. As<br />
a result, the <strong>airport</strong> would have to<br />
implement declared distances for take<strong>of</strong>fs<br />
and landings in a northerly<br />
direction.<br />
5-5<br />
<strong>The</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> declared<br />
distances was discussed in detail in<br />
Airside Alternative 1 in Chapter Four.<br />
Declared distances are the effective<br />
runway distances that the <strong>airport</strong><br />
operator declares available for take-<strong>of</strong>f<br />
run, take-<strong>of</strong>f distance, accelerate-stop<br />
distance, and landing distance<br />
requirements. <strong>The</strong>se are defined by the<br />
FAA as:<br />
C Take-<strong>of</strong>f run available (TORA) -<br />
<strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong> the runway declared<br />
available and suitable to accelerate<br />
from brake release to lift-<strong>of</strong>f, plus<br />
safety factors.<br />
C Take-<strong>of</strong>f distance available<br />
(TODA) - <strong>The</strong> TORA plus the length<br />
<strong>of</strong> any remaining runway or<br />
clearway beyond the far end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
TORA available to accelerate from<br />
brake release past lift-<strong>of</strong>f to start <strong>of</strong><br />
take-<strong>of</strong>f climb, plus safety factors.<br />
C Accelerate-stop distance<br />
available (ASDA) - <strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong><br />
the runway plus stopway declared<br />
available and suitable to accelerate<br />
from brake release to take-<strong>of</strong>f<br />
decision speed, and then decelerate<br />
to a stop, plus safety factors.<br />
C Landing distance available<br />
(LDA) - <strong>The</strong> distance from threshold<br />
to complete the approach,<br />
touchdown, and decelerate to a stop,<br />
plus safety factors.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ASDA and LDA are, in most<br />
situations, the overriding considerations<br />
in determining the runway length<br />
available for use by aircraft because the<br />
RSA must be considered. <strong>The</strong> ASDA<br />
and LDA can be figured as the useable
portions <strong>of</strong> the runway minus the area<br />
required to maintain adequate RSA.<br />
Adequate RSA is required beyond the<br />
take-<strong>of</strong>f end only for ASDA calculations.<br />
For LDA calculations, however,<br />
adequate RSA must be provided beyond<br />
both runway ends. As discussed, the<br />
RSA for the approach end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
need be only 600 feet before the runway<br />
threshold, while the full 1,000 feet is<br />
necessary on the far end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
for C and D aircraft.<br />
With the recommended concept<br />
presented on Exhibit 5A, take-<strong>of</strong>f and<br />
landing operations on Runway 17 will<br />
have the full 7,370 feet available, while<br />
take-<strong>of</strong>f and landing operations for<br />
Runway 35 will have 7,000 feet<br />
available. <strong>The</strong> calculations consider the<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> 370 feet <strong>of</strong> runway for northerly<br />
take-<strong>of</strong>fs and landings due to the<br />
inadequate RSA beyond the Runway 17<br />
end.<br />
Declared distances require some minor<br />
changes to the airfield. <strong>The</strong> runway<br />
caution lights leading to the Runway 17<br />
threshold would need to have their<br />
colors changed to indicate the end <strong>of</strong><br />
useful pavement 370 feet prior to the<br />
actual threshold. In addition, published<br />
runway length would need to indicate<br />
the declared distances. Using declared<br />
distances does not require modification<br />
to the current runway marking scheme.<br />
It should be noted that while the FAA<br />
standards allow for a shortened 600-foot<br />
RSA, the same allowance is not made<br />
for the object free area (OFA). FAA<br />
standards still require a cleared area<br />
800 feet wide extending 1,000 feet<br />
beyond the runway ends. While this<br />
standard remains, its purpose is to<br />
ensure that aircraft which need to<br />
traverse the RSA do not encounter<br />
5-6<br />
obstacles or hazards to its wings. Since<br />
only 600 feet <strong>of</strong> RSA is proposed, the<br />
remaining OFA may not be necessary.<br />
For this reason, a modification to FAA<br />
design standards will be sought from<br />
the FAA. If approved, no further<br />
changes to the proposed development<br />
concept will be necessary.<br />
If a modification <strong>of</strong> standard to the OFA<br />
is not granted by the FAA, the runway<br />
would need to be shortened by 370 feet<br />
for landing operations to Runway 17.<br />
This action would defeat the purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
allowing a 600-foot RSA prior to<br />
landing. Operations using Runway 35<br />
would not be affected as declared<br />
distances would already be in effect.<br />
TxDOT will require specific justification<br />
for the extension, such as an existing<br />
operator at the <strong>airport</strong> whose aircraft<br />
requires the longer runway, before<br />
funding is provided. <strong>The</strong> planned length<br />
will ensure that the <strong>airport</strong> will be<br />
capable <strong>of</strong> accommodating all projected<br />
aircraft activity. During hot weather<br />
conditions, some aircraft may need to be<br />
capable <strong>of</strong> taking <strong>of</strong>f with a full payload;<br />
however, the proposed runway length<br />
should not be a limiting factor in any<br />
business aircraft (up to ARC D-II)<br />
owner’s decision to base or operate at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
<strong>The</strong> design <strong>of</strong> taxiway and apron areas<br />
must also consider the critical aircraft<br />
identified for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
<strong>The</strong> primary consideration is given to<br />
the wingspan <strong>of</strong> the most demanding<br />
aircraft to operate at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />
parallel and connecting taxiways,<br />
transient apron areas, and aircraft<br />
maintenance areas have all been<br />
designed to accommodate aircraft<br />
within ADG II, wherever appropriate.<br />
This standard requires taxiways to be
at least 35 feet wide for aircraft in ARC<br />
C/D-II. Current and future planned<br />
taxiways meet this standard.<br />
<strong>The</strong> existing parallel taxiway is located<br />
300 feet west <strong>of</strong> the runway (centerline<br />
to centerline). This separation is<br />
adequate under current conditions.<br />
Runway 17 provides the <strong>airport</strong>’s lowest<br />
instrument approach visibility<br />
minimums at three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile.<br />
<strong>The</strong> recommended plan considers<br />
upgrading the approach capability <strong>of</strong><br />
Runway 17 to provide a one-half mile<br />
visibility minimum approach. To do<br />
this, the FAA requires the parallel<br />
taxiway to be located at a separation <strong>of</strong><br />
400 feet from the runway. Moreover, as<br />
previously discussed, aircraft in<br />
airplane design group III aircraft may<br />
begin to frequent or base at the <strong>airport</strong><br />
in the future. <strong>The</strong> runway/taxiway<br />
separation standard for ARC C/D-III<br />
aircraft is also 400 feet. For these<br />
reasons, the plan considers ultimately<br />
relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet<br />
to the west.<br />
Relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet<br />
west could pose development issues in<br />
the future. Similar to runway design,<br />
taxiway design must include a cleared<br />
OFA. <strong>The</strong> taxiway OFA is designed<br />
such that the wings <strong>of</strong> an aircraft<br />
traversing the taxiway will not<br />
encounter obstructions along the route.<br />
If the <strong>airport</strong> is to remain at an ARC<br />
C/D-II design standard, the taxiway<br />
OFA is 131 feet. If the <strong>airport</strong><br />
transitions to ARC C/D-III, however,<br />
the taxiway OFA expands to be 186 feet<br />
wide. Exhibit 5B depicts the taxiway<br />
OFA for both scenarios. As illustrated,<br />
the ARC C/D-II taxiway OFA does not<br />
impact any existing structures or<br />
parking areas. For ARC C/D-III,<br />
5-7<br />
however, the taxiway OFA penetrates<br />
several hangars and aircraft parking on<br />
the main terminal ramp. In order to<br />
accommodate these aircraft and this<br />
level <strong>of</strong> design, the obstructions would<br />
need to be removed/relocated and the<br />
aircraft parking areas abandoned.<br />
Analysis in previous chapters indicated<br />
that plans should be made to upgrade<br />
the instrument approach capabilities <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. Currently, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport is served by three instrument<br />
approach procedures. <strong>The</strong> lowest<br />
approved visibility minimum is<br />
provided by the Instrument Landing<br />
System (ILS) Runway 17 approach.<br />
This approach procedure allows<br />
properly trained pilots and equipped<br />
aircraft up to approach category C to<br />
land on Runway 17 with visibility not<br />
lower than three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile and<br />
250-foot cloud ceilings. It is<br />
recommended that this approach be<br />
improved to visibility down to one-half<br />
mile. In order to achieve this minimum,<br />
two improvements are needed. First,<br />
the current lead-in-light system would<br />
need to be replaced by a medium<br />
intensity approach light system with<br />
runway alignment lights (MALSR).<br />
Second, the parallel taxiway would need<br />
to be relocated 100 feet to the west as<br />
discussed above.<br />
Future plans also call for improving the<br />
visibility minimum to Runway 35. <strong>The</strong><br />
plan considers a not lower than threequarters<br />
<strong>of</strong> a mile visibility approach<br />
similar to the existing approach to<br />
Runway 17. Runway 35 is already<br />
served by a lead-in-light system; thus,<br />
no new equipment would need to be<br />
installed. <strong>The</strong> approach can be<br />
provided by global positioning system<br />
(GPS) technology.
<strong>The</strong> recommended concept includes the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> a temporary east side<br />
parallel taxiway measuring 5,000 feet<br />
by 75 feet. This temporary taxiway is<br />
considered for construction at a time<br />
when the primary runway is closed for<br />
a significant period <strong>of</strong> time for<br />
reconstruction. <strong>The</strong> only purpose <strong>of</strong> the<br />
taxiway is to serve as a temporary<br />
runway to insure the <strong>airport</strong> remains<br />
open and can support a large<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> the forecast operations.<br />
Once the runway reconstruction project<br />
is completed, this taxiway can either be<br />
closed or further developed to support<br />
eastside facility development. Any<br />
future plans for the temporary parallel<br />
taxiway should be considered at the<br />
time <strong>of</strong> design.<br />
LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT<br />
All existing landside facilities at<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport are located on<br />
the west side <strong>of</strong> the runway. Taxiway A<br />
connects the main terminal apron,<br />
adjacent the terminal building, to either<br />
end <strong>of</strong> the runway. Hangar<br />
development is located along the west<br />
side <strong>of</strong> the runway with the terminal<br />
building located approximately<br />
midfield. Conventional, executive, and<br />
T-hangar storage is provided at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>, although the <strong>airport</strong> maintains<br />
a waiting list for additional space.<br />
<strong>The</strong> primary goal <strong>of</strong> landside facility<br />
planning is to provide adequate aircraft<br />
storage space while also maximizing<br />
operational efficiencies and land uses.<br />
Achieving this goal yields a<br />
development scheme which segregates<br />
aircraft users (large vs. small aircraft)<br />
while maximizing the <strong>airport</strong>’s revenue<br />
potential.<br />
5-8<br />
Exhibit 5A depicts the recommended<br />
landside development plan for the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> plan closely resembles<br />
Landside Alternative C, presented in<br />
Chapter Four - Facility Requirements.<br />
It represents the opportunity for<br />
significant landside growth which will<br />
require further land acquisition to<br />
implement. In total, approximately 148<br />
acres <strong>of</strong> land would need to be acquired<br />
by the <strong>airport</strong> to implement this<br />
alternative.<br />
While the plan is somewhat aggressive,<br />
it will ensure that the <strong>airport</strong> will have<br />
ample room to expand as aviation<br />
demand dictates. Moreover, as opposed<br />
to the two other alternatives, the plan<br />
should be capable <strong>of</strong> meeting the long<br />
term aviation demand. Landside<br />
Alternatives A and B could constrict<br />
future growth, forcing the need to<br />
acquire and develop the area east <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> at some point in the future. <strong>The</strong><br />
recommended concept will more than<br />
adequately accommodate all projected<br />
aviation demands on the west side <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proposed development in the<br />
northern portion <strong>of</strong> the terminal area<br />
mirrors that proposed and accepted in<br />
the previous master plan. <strong>The</strong> only<br />
significant difference is the proposed<br />
conventional hangar development. As<br />
proposed, the concept includes the<br />
allowance <strong>of</strong> two large conventional<br />
hangars directly behind and west <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Public Safety (DPS)<br />
hangar.<br />
In order to provide greater depth <strong>of</strong><br />
development in the terminal area, the<br />
plan includes the acquisition <strong>of</strong> 88 acres<br />
<strong>of</strong> land immediately west <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />
and development <strong>of</strong> an improved on-
04MP22-5B-12/7/05<br />
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />
Corporate<br />
Parcels Parcels<br />
LEGEND<br />
ATCT<br />
Site B<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Ultimate Parking/Roads)<br />
Group III Taxiway OFA Group II Taxiway OFA<br />
Fuel Farm<br />
Industrial/<br />
Commercial<br />
Commercial<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
ATCT<br />
Site C<br />
Aviation Related<br />
Parcels<br />
Parcels<br />
Ultimate Building<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Corporate Parcels<br />
Drainage Area<br />
Existing Runway Runway 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,370 (7,370 x x 100')<br />
100')<br />
ATCT<br />
Site A<br />
Corporate<br />
Parcels<br />
NORTH<br />
0 400 800<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Exhibit 5B<br />
PARALLEL TAXIWAY RELOCATION
<strong>airport</strong> roadway system. <strong>The</strong> northern<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> this area could be utilized for<br />
corporate flight departments or aviation<br />
businesses. As depicted, the plan<br />
includes the extension <strong>of</strong> a taxiway west<br />
from the DPS hangar to serve this area.<br />
Moving south, the plan considers the<br />
potential for additional corporate parcel<br />
development and the allowance for<br />
commercial or industrial development.<br />
This could include retail centers such as<br />
a restaurant or museum. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the<br />
plan considers allowing the<br />
southernmost existing T-hangar area to<br />
be expanded to the west. A total <strong>of</strong> 12<br />
T-hangar facilities could be<br />
accommodated in this area.<br />
<strong>The</strong> southern terminal area has been<br />
significantly modified from the previous<br />
master plan. This concept proposes the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> large conventional<br />
hangars immediately south <strong>of</strong> the<br />
southernmost existing T-hangars. <strong>The</strong><br />
plan would allow for the development <strong>of</strong><br />
five large conventional hangars and an<br />
adjoining aircraft parking apron. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
facilities could house fixed base<br />
operators or large bulk aircraft storage<br />
hangars. Further south, the proposed<br />
development concept includes corporate<br />
hangar development in a “pod” type<br />
layout. In order to develop in this area,<br />
however, significant drainage<br />
improvements would be necessary as<br />
the area is traversed by a creek. No<br />
buildings could be located on the rerouted<br />
drainage channel, but pavement<br />
could be placed over the drainage route.<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ly, the southernmost portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is planned for five T-hangars.<br />
<strong>The</strong> terminal building was also<br />
examined to determine if it would meet<br />
the needs <strong>of</strong> general aviation passenger<br />
traffic over the 20-year planning period.<br />
<strong>The</strong> current building should be<br />
5-9<br />
sufficient through the long term<br />
planning period to meet the needs <strong>of</strong><br />
general aviation users.<br />
Analysis in Chapters Three and Four<br />
indicated the need to construct an<br />
<strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT) at<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. After careful consideration,<br />
three sites were proposed. At this time,<br />
it appears that the site located in the<br />
parking lot <strong>of</strong> the previous terminal<br />
building would be the best choice. At<br />
this time, the plan will allow for further<br />
study and includes all three sites with<br />
the selected site to be determined later.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ultimate landside plan exceeds the<br />
needs and goal <strong>of</strong> this planning effort.<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> facility development<br />
beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> this planning effort<br />
will, however, provide the <strong>City</strong> with a<br />
vision which will yield a first-class<br />
aviation facility capable <strong>of</strong> maintaining<br />
revenues which exceed operational<br />
costs. It should be noted that the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> all facilities should<br />
consider aesthetics as a high priority.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is <strong>of</strong>ten the first and last<br />
impression a corporate decision-maker<br />
has <strong>of</strong> the community. Consideration<br />
should always be given to the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> facilities which meet<br />
aviation demand while presenting a<br />
positive image to all users.<br />
AIRPORT LAYOUT<br />
PLAN SET<br />
Per FAA and TxDOT requirements, an<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial Airport Layout <strong>Plan</strong> (ALP) has<br />
been developed for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport and can be found at the end <strong>of</strong><br />
this chapter. <strong>The</strong> ALP drawing<br />
graphically presents the existing and<br />
ultimate <strong>airport</strong> layout plan. <strong>The</strong> ALP
is used by the FAA and TxDOT to<br />
determine funding eligibility for future<br />
development projects.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ALP was prepared on a computeraided<br />
drafting (CAD) system for future<br />
ease <strong>of</strong> use. <strong>The</strong> computerized plan<br />
provides detailed information <strong>of</strong><br />
existing and future facility layout on<br />
multiple layers that permit the user to<br />
focus in on any section <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> at<br />
a desirable scale. <strong>The</strong> plan can be used<br />
as base information for design and can<br />
be easily updated in the future to reflect<br />
new development and more detail<br />
concerning existing conditions as made<br />
available through design surveys.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> related drawings, which<br />
depict the ultimate airspace and<br />
landside development, will be included<br />
with the ALP once the draft master<br />
plan concept detailed in this chapter is<br />
finalized. <strong>The</strong> following provides a brief<br />
discussion <strong>of</strong> the additional drawings to<br />
be included with the ALP.<br />
INNER PORTION OF THE<br />
APPROACH SURFACE PLAN<br />
<strong>The</strong> Inner Portion <strong>of</strong> the Approach<br />
Surface <strong>Plan</strong> is a scaled drawing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway protection zone (RPZ), RSA,<br />
object free zone (OFZ), and OFA for<br />
each runway end. A plan and pr<strong>of</strong>ile<br />
view <strong>of</strong> each RPZ is provided to<br />
facilitate identification <strong>of</strong> obstructions<br />
that lie within these safety areas.<br />
Detailed obstruction and facility data is<br />
provided to identify planned<br />
improvements and the disposition <strong>of</strong><br />
obstructions.<br />
5-10<br />
PROPERTY MAP<br />
<strong>The</strong> Property Map provides information<br />
on the acquisition and identification <strong>of</strong><br />
all land tracts under control <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>.<br />
OBSTRUCTION SURVEY<br />
DRAWING<br />
<strong>The</strong> Obstruction Survey Drawing (OSD)<br />
is a new requirement as a part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ALP drawing set. It is a visual<br />
representation <strong>of</strong> the topography and<br />
obstructions within the runway end<br />
environment. <strong>The</strong> OSD is developed for<br />
any runway currently served or planned<br />
to be served by an instrument approach<br />
procedure.<br />
<strong>The</strong> OSD includes the evaluation <strong>of</strong><br />
three critical surfaces: the obstruction<br />
identification surface (OIS), the primary<br />
surface, and threshold siting surface<br />
(TSS). Any penetrations to the ultimate<br />
planned surfaces are presented on this<br />
drawing.<br />
Runway 17 is planned for a precision<br />
approach with not lower than one-half<br />
mile visibility minimums. <strong>The</strong>re are no<br />
reported obstructions for this approach.<br />
Runway 35 is planned for non-precision<br />
type approaches with not lower than<br />
three-quarters-mile visibility minimums.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re are no future obstructions<br />
for the Runway 17 end.<br />
SUMMARY<br />
<strong>The</strong> recommended master plan concept<br />
has been developed in conjunction with
the PAC, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, and the<br />
local citizens, and is designed to assist<br />
the <strong>City</strong> in making decisions on future<br />
development and growth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport. This plan provides the<br />
necessary development to accommodate<br />
and satisfy the anticipated growth over<br />
the next twenty years and beyond.<br />
Flexibility will be very important to<br />
future development at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Activity projected over the next twenty<br />
years may not occur as predicted. <strong>The</strong><br />
5-11<br />
plan has attempted to consider<br />
demands that may be placed on the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> even beyond the twenty-year<br />
planning horizon to ensure that the<br />
facility will be capable <strong>of</strong> handling a<br />
wide range <strong>of</strong> circumstances. <strong>The</strong><br />
recommended plan provides the <strong>City</strong><br />
with a general guide that if followed can<br />
maintain the <strong>airport</strong>’s long term<br />
viability and allow the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />
continue to provide air transportation<br />
service to the region.
Chapter Six<br />
FINANCIAL PLAN
CHAPTER SIX<br />
Financial plan<br />
Information in the previous chapters outlined the <strong>airport</strong>'s<br />
facility needs to meet projected aviation demand for the next 20<br />
years. Alternatives were evaluated which considered long term<br />
layouts to meet the projected facility needs. It is important to<br />
note that these needs were tied to planning milestones which<br />
could occur as projected, however, it is likely that the demand<br />
will fluctuate. Based on the growing nature <strong>of</strong> the Dallas/Fort<br />
Worth Metroplex, aviation demand will likely follow similar<br />
growth. Next, an important element <strong>of</strong> the master planning<br />
process is the application <strong>of</strong> basic economic, financial, and<br />
management rationale to each development item so that the<br />
feasibility <strong>of</strong> each item contained in the plan can be assured.<br />
<strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this chapter is to provide financial management<br />
information and tools which will help make the master plan<br />
achievable and successful. This analysis will provide<br />
decision-makers with the tools to effectively utilize an<br />
invaluable <strong>City</strong> asset.<br />
<strong>The</strong> presentation <strong>of</strong> the financial plan and its feasibility has<br />
been organized into three sections. First, the <strong>airport</strong> develop-<br />
ment schedule, based on the projected capital improvement<br />
program (CIP), is presented in narrative and graphic form.<br />
Secondly, capital improvement funding sources on the federal,<br />
state, and local levels are identified and discussed. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the<br />
chapter presents a cash flow analysis which analyzes the<br />
financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> the recommended CIP.<br />
6-1 DRAFT
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT<br />
SCHEDULES AND<br />
COST SUMMARIES<br />
<strong>The</strong> next step is to determine a realistic<br />
capital improvement schedule and<br />
associated costs for implementing the<br />
plan. This section will identify these<br />
TABLE 6A<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Horizon Milestone Summary<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Current Short Term<br />
6-2<br />
projects and the overall cost <strong>of</strong> each<br />
item in the development plan. <strong>The</strong><br />
recommended improvements are<br />
grouped by the planning horizons:<br />
short term, intermediate term, and long<br />
term. Table 6A summarizes the key<br />
milestones for each <strong>of</strong> the three<br />
planning horizons.<br />
Intermediate<br />
Term Long Term<br />
ANNUAL OPERATIONS<br />
Total Itinerant 40,225 51,400 56,600 67,500<br />
Total Local 60,000 76,500 84,000 99,000<br />
Total Operations 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500<br />
BASED AIRCRAFT<br />
Single Engine 182 205 223 256<br />
Multi-Engine 38 38 36 35<br />
Turboprop 0 4 8 15<br />
Jet 1 5 10 20<br />
Helicopters 2 3 3 4<br />
Total Based Aircraft 223 255 280 330<br />
Total AIAs 101 1,028 1,132 1,350<br />
A key aspect <strong>of</strong> this planning document<br />
is the use <strong>of</strong> demand-based planning<br />
milestones. <strong>The</strong> short term planning<br />
horizon contains items <strong>of</strong> highest<br />
priority. <strong>The</strong>se items should be<br />
considered for development based on<br />
actual demand levels within the next<br />
five years. As short term horizon<br />
activity levels are reached, it will then<br />
be time to program for the intermediate<br />
term based upon the next activity<br />
milestones. Similarly, when the<br />
intermediate term milestones are<br />
reached, it will be time to program for<br />
the long term activity milestones.<br />
Most development items included in the<br />
recommended concept will need to<br />
follow demand indicators. For example,<br />
the plan includes construction <strong>of</strong> new<br />
hangar aprons, taxilanes, and Thangars.<br />
Based aircraft will be the<br />
indicator for additional hangar needs.<br />
If based aircraft growth occurs as<br />
projected, additional hangars will need<br />
to be constructed to meet the demand.<br />
If growth slows or does not occur as<br />
projected, hangar pavement projects can<br />
be delayed. As a result, capital<br />
expenditures will be undertaken as<br />
needed, which leads to a responsible use<br />
<strong>of</strong> capital assets. Some development<br />
items do not correspond specifically to<br />
actual demand levels, such as<br />
maintenance. Maintenance projects are<br />
typically associated with day-to-day
operations or aging factors and should<br />
be monitored and identified by <strong>airport</strong><br />
management.<br />
As a master plan is a conceptual<br />
document, implementation <strong>of</strong> these<br />
capital projects should only be<br />
undertaken after further refinement <strong>of</strong><br />
their design and costs through<br />
architectural and engineering analyses.<br />
Moreover, projects could require<br />
wastewater and drainage improvements.<br />
<strong>The</strong> financial plan addresses<br />
this concern, but any future<br />
development should include analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
the capacity <strong>of</strong> the infrastructure to<br />
support the growth.<br />
<strong>The</strong> cost estimates presented in this<br />
chapter have been increased to allow for<br />
contingencies that may arise on the<br />
project. Capital costs presented here<br />
should be viewed only as estimates<br />
subject to further refinement during<br />
design. Nevertheless, these estimates<br />
are considered sufficiently accurate for<br />
planning purposes. Cost estimates for<br />
each <strong>of</strong> the development projects listed<br />
in the capital improvement plan are<br />
listed in current (2005) dollars.<br />
Exhibit 6A presents the proposed<br />
capital improvement program for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />
SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS<br />
In general, Texas participates in the<br />
State Block Grant Program (SBGP)<br />
and, as such, is the responsible entity<br />
for the distribution <strong>of</strong> federal and state<br />
grant funding for the <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport. Due to the large number <strong>of</strong><br />
requests from <strong>airport</strong>s across the state<br />
6-3<br />
and the limited funding available,<br />
TxDOT will generally provide an<br />
<strong>airport</strong> with intermittent funding<br />
assistance. More to the point, TxDOT<br />
may provide funding for a project in the<br />
current fiscal year, but may not provide<br />
additional assistance for several years<br />
thereafter. This is especially true for<br />
large capital improvement projects.<br />
Smaller projects or maintenance needs<br />
can be met annually, depending upon<br />
the need and funding availability. For<br />
these reasons, development projects in<br />
each planning horizon <strong>of</strong> the CIP have<br />
been scheduled as a group. Thus, the<br />
CIP is not annualized, but the projects<br />
are listed in order <strong>of</strong> projected priority<br />
needs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> CIP presented in this document<br />
will be assimilated into TxDOT’s CIP.<br />
If funding assistance is not available<br />
from TxDOT, the <strong>City</strong> will need to<br />
request discretionary funding<br />
assistance from the FAA. Discretionary<br />
funding is more difficult to receive, as<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport must not only<br />
compete with other state <strong>airport</strong>s, but<br />
also with other <strong>airport</strong>s across the<br />
country.<br />
<strong>The</strong> short term planning horizon CIP<br />
considers 15 projects for the roughly<br />
five-year period and is presented on<br />
Exhibit 6A and illustrated on Exhibit<br />
6B. <strong>The</strong> first four projects listed on the<br />
exhibit have already been budgeted for<br />
fiscal year 2005/06. <strong>The</strong>se projects<br />
include the <strong>City</strong>’s acquisition <strong>of</strong> an 18unit<br />
T-hangar and associated <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
space, construction <strong>of</strong> two, nine-unit Thangars,<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>airport</strong><br />
entrance sign, and development <strong>of</strong> a<br />
fuel containment system for mobile
fueling. <strong>The</strong> fuel containment system<br />
for fuel trucks is a recent environmental<br />
requirement.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first project considered beyond next<br />
year’s budgeted items is the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control<br />
tower (ATCT). TxDOT has an ATCT<br />
program which provides 90 percent<br />
grant funding assistance up to $1.67<br />
million which includes the structure<br />
and equipment. Prior to the<br />
development, an ATCT siting study<br />
should be completed. <strong>The</strong> study will<br />
further define the ATCT location and<br />
costs.<br />
In addition, prior to design <strong>of</strong> an ATCT,<br />
the FAA will conduct a Benefit Cost<br />
Analysis (BCA) in order to justify a<br />
tower. A tower will only be approved if<br />
the result <strong>of</strong> the BCA is greater than<br />
one (1). If the BCA is above one, then<br />
the FAA will also pay the salaries <strong>of</strong> the<br />
controllers under the contract tower<br />
program. <strong>The</strong> FAA will continue to pay<br />
for salaries, provided the BCA remains<br />
greater than one when averaged over a<br />
15-year period. Should the BCA fall<br />
below one, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> would<br />
need to share a portion <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
maintaining the tower, if the tower is to<br />
remain open.<br />
Next, the plan includes improving the<br />
existing runway safety area (RSA) to<br />
meet FAA standards. Previous analysis<br />
identified the <strong>airport</strong>’s critical aircraft<br />
as an <strong>airport</strong> reference code (ARC) C-II.<br />
<strong>The</strong> current RSA meets ARC B-II<br />
standards. Currently, surface water<br />
run-<strong>of</strong>f is channeled along an open<br />
drainage route in the ARC C-II RSA,<br />
6-4<br />
primarily between the runway and<br />
parallel taxiway. This project considers<br />
modifying/improving the drainage and<br />
stabilizing the RSA to meet the<br />
standard.<br />
Two landside improvements are<br />
considered in the short term. First, the<br />
plan considers the construction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
large apron in the northeastern portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> the terminal area. <strong>The</strong> apron could<br />
serve two large conventional hangars<br />
which would house an <strong>airport</strong> business,<br />
large aircraft storage, or bulk aircraft<br />
storage. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has been<br />
approached on numerous occasions<br />
recently for this type <strong>of</strong> development.<br />
This project would also require the<br />
strengthening and widening <strong>of</strong> an<br />
access taxiway to the new apron.<br />
<strong>The</strong> second landside project considers<br />
acquiring land to the south for<br />
additional landside development. <strong>The</strong><br />
50-acre parcel would <strong>of</strong>fer significant<br />
development opportunities for the<br />
future while also protecting the <strong>airport</strong><br />
from additional incompatible land uses.<br />
It is always beneficial and suggested<br />
that the <strong>airport</strong> own land along the<br />
extended flightline.<br />
<strong>The</strong> last projects to be considered in the<br />
short term planning period are<br />
associated with the potential extension<br />
<strong>of</strong> the runway. Prior to any significant<br />
construction on an <strong>airport</strong>, an<br />
environmental assessment (EA) is<br />
required. If there are no significant<br />
environmental discoveries, then the<br />
process can proceed to design and<br />
engineering <strong>of</strong> the runway extension.
04MP22-6A-3/22/06<br />
SHORT TERM PROGRAM (0-5 YEARS)<br />
1 Purchase 18 Unit T-Hangar with <strong>of</strong>fice space<br />
2 Contsruct (2) T-Hangar Buildings (18 units)<br />
3 Fuel Containment for Mobile Refuellers<br />
4 Airport Entrance Sign<br />
5 Construct Airport Traffic Control Tower<br />
6 Improve Runway Safety Area for ARC C/D-II<br />
7 Contstruct Apron for Hangar Development (9,450 sq yds)<br />
8 Acquire 50 Acres <strong>of</strong> Land for Landside Development<br />
9 Install Medium IntensityTaxiway Lights<br />
10 Upgrade Runway Lights<br />
11 Environmental assessment for runway extension<br />
12 Acquire Land For Runway Extension<br />
13 Relocate Localizer and Lead-In Lights<br />
14 Extend Runway and Parallel Taxiway 1,370' South<br />
15 Miscellaneous RAMP Projects<br />
SHORT TERM PROGRAM (0-5 YEARS)<br />
INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM (6-10 YEARS)<br />
1 Expand Terminal Apron South - Phase I<br />
2 Construct Taxiway/Taxilanes for T-Hangar Construction<br />
3 Construct 20 T-Hangar Units<br />
4 Rehabilitate Landside Pavements<br />
5 Miscellaneous RAMP Projects<br />
INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM (6-10 YEARS)<br />
LONG TERM PROGRAM (11-20 YEARS)<br />
1 Relocate Parallel Taxiway to 400 ' from Runway<br />
2 Upgrade Runway 17 Approach (MALSR, Land Purchase)<br />
3 Expand Terminal Apron South - Phase II<br />
4 Extend Airport Road South & Construct Parking Lots<br />
5 Improved Drainage for South Landside Development<br />
6 Extend Utilities for South Landside Development<br />
7 Construct Apron for Corporate Hangar Development<br />
8 Construct Taxiwlanes for T-Hangar Development<br />
9 Construct 20 T-hangar Units<br />
10 Construct Temporary Eastside Parallel Taxiway*<br />
11 Reconstruct Runway 17-35 (Existing 6,000')<br />
12 Acquire 98 Acres <strong>of</strong> Land West <strong>of</strong> Airport Road<br />
13 Miscellaneous RAMP Projects<br />
LONG TERM PROGRAM (10-20 YEARS)<br />
TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS<br />
* FAA discressionary funds<br />
Project Cost<br />
$430,000<br />
800,000<br />
100,000<br />
30,000<br />
1,666,667<br />
600,000<br />
921,400<br />
1,437,500<br />
150,000<br />
150,000<br />
200,000<br />
414,000<br />
750,000<br />
3,388,000<br />
300,000<br />
$11,337,567<br />
$2,166,700<br />
1,083,300<br />
600,000<br />
780,000<br />
300,000<br />
$4,930,000<br />
$3,855,000<br />
1,190,000<br />
3,791,700<br />
780,000<br />
1,140,000<br />
500,000<br />
1,516,700<br />
1,200,000<br />
900,000<br />
4,062,500<br />
7,000,000<br />
1,656,000<br />
600,000<br />
$28,191,900<br />
$44,459,467<br />
TxDOT Share<br />
$0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
1,500,000<br />
540,000<br />
829,260<br />
1,293,750<br />
135,000<br />
135,000<br />
180,000<br />
372,600<br />
675,000<br />
3,049,200<br />
150,000<br />
$8,859,810<br />
$1,950,030<br />
974,970<br />
0<br />
702,000<br />
150,000<br />
$3,777,000<br />
$3,469,500$<br />
1,071,000<br />
3,412,530<br />
390,000<br />
0<br />
0<br />
1,365,030<br />
1,080,000<br />
0<br />
3,656,250<br />
6,300,000<br />
1,490,400<br />
300,000<br />
$22,534,710<br />
$35,171,520<br />
Local Share<br />
$430,000<br />
800,000<br />
100,000<br />
30,000<br />
166,667<br />
60,000<br />
92,140<br />
143,750<br />
15,000<br />
15,000<br />
20,000<br />
41,400<br />
75,000<br />
338,000<br />
150,000<br />
$2,476,957<br />
216,670<br />
108,330<br />
600,000<br />
78,000<br />
150,000<br />
$1,153,000<br />
385,500<br />
119,000<br />
379,170<br />
390,000<br />
1,140,000<br />
500,000<br />
151,670<br />
120,000<br />
900,000<br />
406,250<br />
700,000<br />
165,600<br />
300,000<br />
$5,657,190<br />
$9,287,147<br />
Exhibit 6A<br />
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
04MP22-5A-3/21/06<br />
2<br />
1/2 Mile Visibility<br />
Minimum<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />
C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />
4<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
7<br />
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />
4<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,370 (7,370 x x 100')<br />
100')<br />
6<br />
4<br />
1<br />
1<br />
5 4 3<br />
5<br />
1<br />
2 1 3<br />
12<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />
Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />
Highway 190 Easement<br />
5<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
10<br />
Short Term Improvements<br />
Intermediate Term Improvements<br />
Long Term Improvements<br />
6<br />
4<br />
7<br />
5<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
11<br />
Alignment Alignment<br />
190 190 Highway Highway<br />
Proposed Proposed<br />
8<br />
9<br />
NORTH<br />
10<br />
1,370' Runway<br />
Extension<br />
2<br />
14<br />
3<br />
35<br />
0 800 1600<br />
9<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
8<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
13<br />
12<br />
3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />
Exhibit 6B<br />
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAGING
<strong>The</strong> runway extension project is<br />
strategically placed at the end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
short term planning period due to<br />
current interest from operators to base<br />
larger aircraft at the <strong>airport</strong> that would<br />
need the longer runway. Demand-based<br />
planning allows for the runway<br />
extension project to shift to the<br />
intermediate term if the need for the<br />
additional length is not justifiable in<br />
the short term.<br />
As proposed, the runway would be<br />
extended 1,370 feet south to ensure a<br />
full 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong> operational length in<br />
both directions. As noted in previous<br />
analysis, the northern RSA is limited by<br />
Scyene Road, thus limiting landings<br />
and take-<strong>of</strong>fs to the north by 370 feet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proposed extension project also<br />
includes the extension <strong>of</strong> the parallel<br />
taxiway. It should be noted that the<br />
ultimate plan is to relocate the parallel<br />
taxiway to 400 feet from the runway<br />
(centerline to centerline). This project<br />
considers “jogging” the extended<br />
taxiway out to provide 400 feet <strong>of</strong><br />
separation from the runway. Thus, the<br />
later project will only need to relocate<br />
the original 6,000 feet <strong>of</strong> parallel<br />
taxiway.<br />
<strong>The</strong> runway extension will also require<br />
ancillary projects. Currently, the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> has positive ownership <strong>of</strong> the<br />
entire runway protection zone (RPZ).<br />
Once the runway is extended, the RPZ<br />
will extend beyond current <strong>airport</strong><br />
property limits, across the intersection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Lawson and Berry Roads. At this<br />
time, the plan considers the acquisition<br />
<strong>of</strong> this land to meet FAA and TxDOT<br />
standards. While the cost estimate<br />
6-5<br />
considers fee simple acquisition,<br />
airspace easements could also be<br />
utilized to meet standards. Also, the<br />
extension will require relocation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
localizer antenna and lead-in light<br />
system.<br />
Ongoing maintenance <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />
surfaces is considered throughout the<br />
plan. <strong>The</strong> plan includes utilizing<br />
Routine Airport Maintenance Program<br />
(RAMP) funds available from TxDOT.<br />
Each year, TxDOT <strong>of</strong>fers RAMP funds<br />
totaling $30,000 provided the <strong>airport</strong><br />
sponsor matches that amount. <strong>The</strong> CIP<br />
considers a total <strong>of</strong> $300,000 for each<br />
five-year planning horizon in RAMP<br />
funds.<br />
Two lighting projects are considered for<br />
the short term. <strong>The</strong> installation <strong>of</strong><br />
medium intensity taxiway lighting<br />
(MITL) serving Taxiway A is<br />
recommended by TxDOT for <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
with greater than 100 based aircraft.<br />
In addition to meeting the based<br />
aircraft standard, a number <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
have inadvertently strayed <strong>of</strong>f the<br />
taxiway due to inadequate lighting.<br />
Improving the safety for aircraft on<br />
Taxiway A at nighttime is critical. <strong>The</strong><br />
second project involves repairing the<br />
runway lights, many <strong>of</strong> which are in a<br />
state <strong>of</strong> disrepair.<br />
Short term projects presented on<br />
Exhibit 6A and graphically<br />
depicted on Exhibit 6B have been<br />
estimated to cost approximately<br />
$11.3 million. Of that total, the<br />
local share is projected to be $2.5<br />
million.
INTERMEDIATE TERM<br />
IMPROVEMENTS<br />
<strong>The</strong> intermediate term CIP considers<br />
expansion <strong>of</strong> landside facility<br />
development as well as ongoing<br />
pavement maintenance. Both intermediate<br />
and long term improvements<br />
are depicted on Exhibit 6B.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first project in the intermediate<br />
term considers expanding the apron to<br />
the south in an undeveloped area. This<br />
apron could serve additional<br />
conventional or corporate hangar<br />
growth. It is located in an area that is<br />
relatively flat and ready to develop.<br />
<strong>The</strong> plan also considers additional Thangar<br />
development in the southernmost<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the terminal area,<br />
adjacent to Berry Road. In order to<br />
construct the T-hangars, a new taxiway<br />
and hangar taxilanes would need to be<br />
constructed.<br />
Remaining projects in the intermediate<br />
term CIP include ongoing surface<br />
maintenance and rehabilitation<br />
landside pavements. Various RAMP<br />
projects are also included.<br />
Projects included in the intermediate<br />
term have been estimated<br />
to cost $4.9 million, as presented on<br />
Exhibit 6A and graphically<br />
depicted on Exhibit 6B. <strong>The</strong> total<br />
local share is $1.2 million.<br />
LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS<br />
Long term projects consider<br />
improvements aimed at increased<br />
aviation demand while improving<br />
6-6<br />
airfield facilities to meet growing<br />
business aircraft use. Forecasts suggest<br />
that the number <strong>of</strong> based aircraft may<br />
reach 330 by the long term <strong>of</strong> the<br />
master plan. Of that total, 35 are<br />
turbine-powered, cabin class type<br />
aircraft. <strong>The</strong>se aircraft operators<br />
typically base at <strong>airport</strong>s with high<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> amenities both on the airfield<br />
and landside.<br />
<strong>The</strong> long term CIP considers improving<br />
instrument approach procedures to<br />
provide lower approach visibility<br />
minimums. As previously discussed,<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>’s parallel taxiway is located<br />
too near the runway to allow for<br />
improved approaches. Moreover, the<br />
current 300-foot runway/taxiway<br />
separation is the minimum for ARC<br />
C/D-II aircraft and falls short <strong>of</strong><br />
airplane design group III aircraft<br />
requirements. If the <strong>airport</strong> is utilized<br />
on a frequent basis by group III aircraft,<br />
the separation standard is 400 feet. For<br />
these reasons, the first project in the<br />
long term is the relocation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing 6,000 feet <strong>of</strong> the parallel<br />
taxiway 100 feet to the west. <strong>The</strong><br />
second project listed in the long term<br />
includes the cost <strong>of</strong> installing and<br />
calibrating a medium intensity<br />
approach light system with runway<br />
alignment lights (MALSR) and<br />
acquiring property for the expanded<br />
north RPZ. <strong>The</strong> MALSR will be<br />
required to improve the minimums on<br />
Runway 17.<br />
<strong>The</strong> long term CIP includes continued<br />
hangar development in the southern<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the terminal area. Projects<br />
include apron expansion, corporate<br />
hangar apron construction, and T-
hangar and taxilane construction. All<br />
these projects will require additional<br />
utility and infrastructure improvements.<br />
Currently, western airfield<br />
drainage is routed <strong>of</strong>f-<strong>airport</strong> by a<br />
drainage ditch in the 50 acres proposed<br />
for acquisition in the short term. <strong>The</strong><br />
plan considers improving drainage by<br />
routing it underground with drainage<br />
pipes. While pavement can be placed<br />
atop the drainage structure, hangars/<br />
buildings can not, due to access needs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> concept includes extending Airport<br />
Boulevard south to provide access to the<br />
area. Three additional T-hangar<br />
facilities are also planned.<br />
At this time in the planning horizon,<br />
Runway 17-35 will likely need to be<br />
rehabilitated. <strong>The</strong> runway is<br />
constructed <strong>of</strong> concrete and full<br />
rehabilitation will require complete<br />
reconstruction. If reconstruction is<br />
necessary, the <strong>airport</strong> could face an<br />
extended period <strong>of</strong> complete closure.<br />
This is not desirable as <strong>airport</strong><br />
businesses, including the <strong>City</strong> which<br />
sells fuel, will be crippled by lack <strong>of</strong><br />
revenues. Moreover, all tenants would<br />
likely have to relocate to another local<br />
<strong>airport</strong> during reconstruction.<br />
Reconstruction <strong>of</strong> a concrete runway<br />
could take as long as 10 months to<br />
complete, with a minimum <strong>of</strong> six<br />
months if all factors are favorable. For<br />
this reason, the plan considers the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> an east side parallel<br />
taxiway to serve at first as a “relief”<br />
runway.<br />
As currently proposed, the taxiway<br />
would be 75 feet wide and located 400<br />
feet east <strong>of</strong> the existing runway. This<br />
location provides enough RSA for ARC<br />
6-7<br />
B-II aircraft but if the taxiway would<br />
need to serve all <strong>airport</strong> activity,<br />
additional land to the east would need<br />
to be acquired. Ultimately, this<br />
taxiway could also serve to spur<br />
aviation development on the land east<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> final project item listed in the long<br />
term CIP is the acquisition <strong>of</strong> 98 acres<br />
<strong>of</strong> land west <strong>of</strong> the current <strong>airport</strong><br />
property line. Approximately 50 acres<br />
<strong>of</strong> this land, roughly the middle <strong>of</strong> the<br />
tract, is already owned by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>. <strong>The</strong> cost included in the CIP<br />
considers the cost only <strong>of</strong> the 48 acres<br />
not owned by the <strong>City</strong>. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong>-owned<br />
parcel is considered as a transfer <strong>of</strong><br />
property to the <strong>airport</strong>. Once justified<br />
as needed for development, this land’s<br />
value can be used by the <strong>City</strong> as their<br />
cost-sharing portion <strong>of</strong> grants for<br />
<strong>airport</strong> improvements. This situation is<br />
similar to that in the recent past.<br />
Basically, the land’s value is “credited”<br />
to the <strong>City</strong> and is used as the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
local share grant match until it is<br />
completely drawn down. For example,<br />
if the land is valued at $500,000, the<br />
<strong>City</strong> could leverage that land into $5<br />
million worth <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> improvements<br />
with no additional local fund<br />
expenditures.<br />
Total long term projects listed on<br />
Exhibit 6A and graphically<br />
depicted on Exhibit 6B have been<br />
estimated to cost approximately<br />
$28.2 million in today’s (2005)<br />
dollars. <strong>The</strong> local share is $5.7<br />
million. <strong>The</strong> total CIP program<br />
costs are estimated at 44.5 million<br />
with $9.3 million being the<br />
projected local share.
IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY<br />
<strong>The</strong> CIP covers potential demand-based<br />
development at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
over the next 20 years. Many <strong>of</strong> the<br />
planned facilities at the <strong>airport</strong> are not<br />
included in the CIP, as they are<br />
projected to be necessary beyond the<br />
scope <strong>of</strong> this plan. Some <strong>of</strong> those<br />
projects may include completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
centerfield and southern terminal<br />
development areas.<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> improvements<br />
presented in the recommended concept<br />
are demand-based. <strong>The</strong>se facilities<br />
should be constructed to serve an<br />
existing demand at the <strong>airport</strong> at that<br />
time. This plan does not support<br />
building facilities in order to attract<br />
activity (the “if you build it, they will<br />
come” scenario). Because the plan is<br />
demand-based rather than time-based,<br />
it provides the <strong>airport</strong> management and<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> with the flexibility<br />
to develop facilities as needed. Should<br />
demand increase at a greater rate than<br />
is forecast, implementation <strong>of</strong> these<br />
improvements can be advanced. Should<br />
demand slow, the life <strong>of</strong> the master plan<br />
is effectively increased.<br />
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS<br />
FUNDING<br />
Financing capital improvements at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> will not rely solely on the<br />
financial resources <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Capital improvement funding is<br />
available through various grant-in-aid<br />
programs on both the state and federal<br />
levels. <strong>The</strong> following discussion<br />
outlines key sources <strong>of</strong> funding<br />
6-8<br />
potentially available for capital<br />
improvements at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport.<br />
FEDERAL GRANTS<br />
Through federal legislation over the<br />
years, various grant-in-aid programs<br />
have been established to develop and<br />
maintain a system <strong>of</strong> public <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
across the United States. <strong>The</strong> purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> this system and its federally-based<br />
funding is to maintain national defense<br />
and to promote interstate commerce.<br />
<strong>The</strong> most recent legislation affecting<br />
federal funding was enacted in late<br />
2003 and is entitled, Century <strong>of</strong><br />
Aviation Reauthorization Act, or Vision<br />
100.<br />
<strong>The</strong> four-year bill covers FAA fiscal<br />
years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. This<br />
bill presented similar funding levels to<br />
the previous bill - Air 21. Airport<br />
Improvement Program (AIP) funding<br />
was authorized at $3.4 billion in 2004,<br />
$3.5 billion in 2005, $3.6 billion in 2006,<br />
and $3.7 billion in 2007. This new bill<br />
provides the FAA and, ultimately,<br />
TxDOT the opportunity to plan for<br />
longer term projects versus simple oneyear<br />
reauthorizations.<br />
<strong>The</strong> source for Vision 100 funds is the<br />
Aviation Trust Fund. <strong>The</strong> Aviation<br />
Trust Fund was established in 1970 to<br />
provide funding for aviation capital<br />
investment programs (aviation<br />
development, facilities and equipment,<br />
and research and development). <strong>The</strong><br />
Aviation Trust Fund also finances the<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> the FAA. It is funded by
user fees, taxes on airline tickets,<br />
aviation fuel, and various aircraft parts.<br />
Funds are distributed each year by the<br />
FAA from appropriations by Congress.<br />
A portion <strong>of</strong> the annual distribution is<br />
to primary commercial service <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
based upon enplanement (passenger)<br />
levels. If Congress appropriates the full<br />
amount authorized by Vision 100,<br />
eligible general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s could<br />
receive up to $150,000 <strong>of</strong> funding each<br />
year in Non-Primary Entitlement<br />
(NPE) funds (National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Integrated Airport Systems [NPIAS]<br />
inclusion is required for general<br />
aviation entitlement funding). In the<br />
first three years <strong>of</strong> the program under<br />
AIR-21, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport was<br />
eligible for and received the full<br />
$150,000 in NPE funds. When the<br />
NPIAS was updated in 2005, it only<br />
included $333,333 in improvements for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport for the next five<br />
years. This means that for FY 05 and<br />
until the NPIAS is updated again in<br />
2009, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is only<br />
eligible for $66,667 annually.<br />
<strong>The</strong> remaining AIP funds are<br />
distributed by the FAA based upon the<br />
priority <strong>of</strong> the project for which they<br />
have requested federal assistance<br />
through discretionary apportionments.<br />
A National Priority Ranking System is<br />
used to evaluate and rank each <strong>airport</strong><br />
project. Those projects with the highest<br />
priority are given preference in funding.<br />
<strong>The</strong> state’s federal funding allotment<br />
must be distributed to many <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
each year. As a result, TxDOT will<br />
typically limit the size <strong>of</strong> grants given to<br />
a single <strong>airport</strong> sponsor to ensure<br />
adequate funding for the state <strong>airport</strong><br />
6-9<br />
system as a whole. Thus, the costs <strong>of</strong><br />
implementing the runway extension<br />
may require the <strong>City</strong> to attract<br />
discretionary funding assistance.<br />
STATE FUNDING PROGRAM<br />
<strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas participates in the<br />
federal State Block Grant Program.<br />
Under the State Block Grant Program,<br />
the FAA annually distributes general<br />
aviation state apportionment and<br />
discretionary funds to TxDOT. <strong>The</strong><br />
state then distributes grants to state<br />
<strong>airport</strong>s. In compliance with TxDOT’s<br />
legislative mandate that it “apply for,<br />
receive, and disburse” federal funds for<br />
general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s, TxDOT acts<br />
as the agent <strong>of</strong> the local <strong>airport</strong> sponsor.<br />
Although these grants are distributed<br />
by TxDOT, they contain all federal<br />
obligations.<br />
<strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas also distributes<br />
funding to general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
from the Highway Trust Fund as the<br />
Texas Aviation Facilities Development<br />
Program. <strong>The</strong>se funds are appropriated<br />
each year by the state legislature. Once<br />
distributed, these grants contain state<br />
obligations only.<br />
<strong>The</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> a CIP for the state<br />
entails first identifying the need, then<br />
establishing a ranking or priority<br />
system. Identifying all state <strong>airport</strong><br />
project needs allows TxDOT to establish<br />
a biennial program and budget for<br />
development costs. <strong>The</strong> most recent<br />
TxDOT CIP, Aviation Improvement<br />
Program 2006-2008, assumed that<br />
approximately $22 million in annual<br />
federal AIP grants, which includes $17
million earmarked for Non-Primary<br />
Entitlements and $15 million in state<br />
funds, would be available.<br />
<strong>The</strong> TxDOT biennial program<br />
establishes a project priority system<br />
based upon the following objectives (in<br />
order <strong>of</strong> importance):<br />
! enhance safety<br />
! preserve existing facilities<br />
! bring <strong>airport</strong> up to standards<br />
! upgrade facilities to aid <strong>airport</strong> in<br />
providing for larger aircraft with<br />
longer stage lengths<br />
! improve <strong>airport</strong> capacity<br />
! new <strong>airport</strong> construction to provide<br />
new access to a previously unserved<br />
area<br />
! new <strong>airport</strong>s to provide capacity<br />
relief to existing <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
Each <strong>airport</strong> project for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport must be identified and<br />
programmed into the state CIP and<br />
compete with other <strong>airport</strong> projects in<br />
the state for federal and state funds. In<br />
Texas, <strong>airport</strong> development projects<br />
that meet TxDOT’s discretionary funds<br />
eligibility requirements receive 90<br />
percent funding from the AIP State<br />
Block Grant Program. Eligible projects<br />
include airfield and apron facilities.<br />
Historically, revenue-generating<br />
improvements such as fuel facilities,<br />
utilities, and hangars have not been<br />
eligible for AIP funding. Vision 100,<br />
however, provides the allowance for<br />
NPE funds to be utilized for hangar or<br />
fuel farm construction if all other<br />
airfield needs have been addressed.<br />
6-10<br />
TxDOT has also established the RAMP<br />
to help general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
maintain and, in some circumstances,<br />
construct new facilities. <strong>The</strong> program<br />
was initially designed to help <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
maintain airside and landside<br />
pavements, but has recently been<br />
expanded to include construction <strong>of</strong> new<br />
facilities. RAMP is an annual funding<br />
source in which TxDOT will provide a<br />
50 percent funding match for projects<br />
up to $60,000. Examples <strong>of</strong> new facility<br />
construction projects eligible under<br />
RAMP include constructing <strong>airport</strong><br />
access roads, paving the <strong>airport</strong> public<br />
parking lot, and hangar maintenance.<br />
Newer programs in the TxDOT funding<br />
mechanism include terminal building<br />
and <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT)<br />
funding. TxDOT has funded terminal<br />
building construction on a 50-50 basis,<br />
up to a $600,000 total project cost. It<br />
should be noted that TxDOT has<br />
recently considered upgrading the total<br />
cost allowance on a case-by-case basis.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is already served by a<br />
terminal building; however, this<br />
program could be used to expand the<br />
existing facility when additional space<br />
is needed.<br />
TxDOT also funds the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
up to two ATCTs statewide per year.<br />
TxDOT has recently improved the<br />
program so that ATCT funding could be<br />
provided on a 90-10 basis, up to a total<br />
construction cost <strong>of</strong> $1.67 million. <strong>The</strong><br />
construction <strong>of</strong> an ATCT planned for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is in the short<br />
term CIP.
FAA FACILITIES AND<br />
EQUIPMENT PROGRAM<br />
<strong>The</strong> Airway Facilities Division <strong>of</strong> the<br />
FAA administers the national Facilities<br />
and Equipment (F&E) Program. This<br />
annual program provides funding for<br />
the installation and maintenance <strong>of</strong><br />
various navigational aids and<br />
equipment for the national airspace<br />
system and <strong>airport</strong>s. Under the F&E<br />
program, funding is provided for FAA<br />
<strong>airport</strong> traffic control towers, enroute<br />
navigational aids (such as a VOR), and<br />
on-<strong>airport</strong> navigational aids (such as<br />
REILs and approach lighting systems).<br />
As activity levels and other<br />
developments warrant, the <strong>airport</strong> may<br />
be considered by the FAA Airways<br />
Facilities Division for the installation<br />
and maintenance <strong>of</strong> navigational aids<br />
through the F&E program.<br />
FINANCING OF<br />
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM<br />
Earlier in this chapter, programmed<br />
expenditures were presented in current<br />
(2005) dollars. Future expenditures<br />
were categorized according to assigned<br />
financing responsibilities, with the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>’s responsible expenditures the<br />
primary focus <strong>of</strong> these feasibility<br />
analyses. In this section, the base costs,<br />
assumed to be the financing<br />
responsibility <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, are<br />
adjusted to reflect availability to<br />
determine the projected local share <strong>of</strong><br />
these proposed capital expenditures in<br />
current dollars. Financing assumptions<br />
are then made, and the projected<br />
annual <strong>airport</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> these planned<br />
expenditures is estimated for<br />
6-11<br />
incorporation into the cash flow<br />
analysis.<br />
At the outset, it must be emphasized<br />
that long term feasibility analyses such<br />
as these must be based on many<br />
assumptions. In practice, projects will<br />
be undertaken when demand actually<br />
warrants, thus changing underlying<br />
assumptions. Further, the actual<br />
financing <strong>of</strong> capital expenditures will be<br />
a function <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> circumstances at<br />
the time <strong>of</strong> project implementation (i.e.,<br />
revenue bond financing would likely not<br />
be used unless the actual level <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>airport</strong> earnings and reserves, along<br />
with entitlement and discretionary<br />
grants available at a particular time,<br />
were insufficient to meet project costs).<br />
As a result, the assumptions and<br />
analyses prepared for the master plan<br />
must be viewed in the context <strong>of</strong> their<br />
primary purpose: to examine whether<br />
there is a reasonable expectation that<br />
recommended improvements will be<br />
financially feasible and implementable.<br />
<strong>The</strong> balance <strong>of</strong> project costs, after<br />
consideration has been given to the<br />
various grants available, must be<br />
funded through <strong>airport</strong> resources.<br />
Usually, this is accomplished through<br />
the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> earnings and reserves,<br />
to the extent possible, with the<br />
remaining costs financed through<br />
obligation bonding mechanisms.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is owned and operated by<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> through the<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> various rates and charges<br />
from general aviation sources. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
are, however, restrictions on the use <strong>of</strong><br />
revenues collected by the <strong>airport</strong>. All<br />
receipts, excluding bond proceeds or
elated grants and interest, are<br />
irrevocably pledged to the punctual<br />
payment <strong>of</strong> operating and maintenance<br />
expenses, payment <strong>of</strong> debt service for as<br />
long as bonds remain outstanding, or to<br />
additions or improvements to <strong>airport</strong><br />
facilities. Table 6B presents historical<br />
expenses and revenues for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
Metro Airport.<br />
OPERATING REVENUES<br />
Operating revenues at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport include land leases, hangar<br />
6-12<br />
rentals, fuel sales, and other income.<br />
As shown on Table 6B, revenues for the<br />
previous five years have been exceeded<br />
by operational expenditures. It should<br />
be noted that operating revenues do not<br />
include grants received or transfers-in<br />
from other <strong>City</strong> departments. <strong>The</strong>re is<br />
an annual subsidy to the <strong>airport</strong> from<br />
the <strong>City</strong> to <strong>of</strong>fset annual deficits. <strong>The</strong><br />
subsidy has been on average $125,000,<br />
but only $78,100 last year.<br />
TABLE 6B<br />
Historical Operating Revenues and Expenditures<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
ITEM<br />
OPERATING REVENUES<br />
FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05<br />
Hangar Rental $132,934 $118,167 $76,048 $148,043 $194,890<br />
Tie-Downs 9,152 8,509 8,216 9,389 9,700<br />
Fuel Sales 355,270 351,356 330,072 404,577 479,719<br />
Lease Receipts 21,759 23,706 34,952 34,494 27,542<br />
Other Revenue 9,575 12,645 12,018 13,982 16,664<br />
Equipment Auction 371 0 0 0 0<br />
Total Operating Revenues<br />
OPERATING EXPENSES<br />
$529,061 $514,383 $461,306 $610,485 $728,515<br />
Personnel Services $270,784 $264,202 $248,651 $239,267 $252,368<br />
Contractual Services 119,012 128,093 134,926 143,990 189,304<br />
Fuel 245,014 224,986 232,235 282,214 361,981<br />
Supplies 17,415 17,684 12,931 21,237 23,283<br />
Transfer Debt Service 12,175 12,175 12,175 6,088 45,100<br />
Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment 0 0 0 3,415 2,265<br />
Total Operating Expenses $664,400 $647,140 $640,918 $696,211 $874,301<br />
Net Operating Income/(Loss) ($135,339) ($132,757) ($179,612) ($85,726) ($145,786)<br />
Subsidy from <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> $125,000 $125,000 $160,000 $125,000 $78,100<br />
<strong>The</strong> largest revenue center by far for<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> is fuel sales. In fact, fuel<br />
sales total nearly 66 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>’s total annual revenues. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>City</strong> is the only fuel retailer on the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. Hangar and building rentals<br />
represent the next largest revenue<br />
source for the <strong>airport</strong>, accounting for<br />
approximately 27 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>’s total annual revenues. Hangar<br />
rentals vary in price depending on the<br />
type <strong>of</strong> facility. For example, single-
engine T-hangars with 40-foot to 42-foot<br />
door openings rent from $195 per month<br />
to $301 per month. Hangars with<br />
larger doors rent between $235 per<br />
month to $385 per month.<br />
Lease receipts are obtained from those<br />
who lease <strong>City</strong>-owned buildings/hangars<br />
or have built private hangars with land<br />
leases. <strong>The</strong> typical lease rate is $0.08<br />
per square-foot per year. Tie-down<br />
charges are $55 per month. <strong>The</strong><br />
remaining revenue sources are from<br />
miscellaneous fees/charges.<br />
OPERATING EXPENSES<br />
Generalized operating expenses for<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport include<br />
personnel services, contractual services,<br />
wholesale fuel, supplies, debt<br />
service/amortization, and furniture,<br />
fixtures, and equipment. Fuel is the<br />
largest cost center for the <strong>airport</strong>, with<br />
personnel services being second, at<br />
nearly half as much. Personnel services<br />
include payments for pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
<strong>airport</strong> administration and fuel line<br />
support.<br />
Contractual services include payments<br />
made to contractors to maintain <strong>airport</strong><br />
navigational aids and storm water run<strong>of</strong>f<br />
and <strong>airport</strong> utility costs. Supplies<br />
generally include miscellaneous items<br />
including pr<strong>of</strong>essional memberships,<br />
subscriptions, etc.<br />
As is evident from the table, the <strong>airport</strong><br />
has not generally maintained a positive<br />
operational income over the last five<br />
years. <strong>The</strong> existing revenues do not<br />
generally meet operational costs.<br />
6-13<br />
Airports similar to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />
Airport typically do not maintain a<br />
positive operating income. It should<br />
always be a goal <strong>of</strong> a general aviation<br />
<strong>airport</strong> to be self-sufficient and<br />
hopefully generate a positive cash flow.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following section will discuss<br />
opportunities available for the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />
increase its revenues, over time, to<br />
achieve these goals.<br />
FUTURE CASH FLOW<br />
Revenues<br />
Revenues are anticipated to continue to<br />
grow with aviation activity. As more<br />
aircraft base at the <strong>airport</strong>, revenues<br />
from hangar rentals and fuel sales will<br />
increase proportionately. Revenues will<br />
also be bolstered by transient aircraft<br />
activity that increases fuel sales, and<br />
aviation business that can result in<br />
additional lease revenues for the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. Commission fees are a service<br />
charge that the <strong>airport</strong> collects from<br />
FBOs based on the sale <strong>of</strong> certain<br />
products and services. Currently, there<br />
are no FBO commission fees collected;<br />
however, this is a possible revenue<br />
source as more businesses locate at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>.<br />
As previously mentioned, existing<br />
<strong>airport</strong> revenues are derived from<br />
leases, hangar and building rentals, and<br />
fuel sales. Future revenue projections<br />
considered slightly increasing current<br />
fee rates for existing hangar and land<br />
leases. It is planned that future<br />
conventional and executive hangar<br />
construction will be by private entities.<br />
<strong>The</strong> plan considers T-hangar
development by the <strong>City</strong>. New hangar<br />
and ground leases will need to be<br />
established in such a manner that the<br />
<strong>City</strong> will be able to amortize its<br />
development costs over a reasonable<br />
time period. At the current time, land<br />
lease rates are $0.08 per square-foot per<br />
year. This rate could be increased to<br />
$0.20 per square-foot per year and be in<br />
line with other <strong>airport</strong>s due to utility<br />
availability.<br />
Should the <strong>City</strong> decide to construct Thangar<br />
facilities, costs can generally<br />
equal $30,000 per unit. Thus, a 20-unit<br />
T-hangar could cost as much as<br />
$600,000 to construct. To retire the<br />
bond debt service for the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
a 20-unit facility over a 15-year period<br />
at a six percent interest rate, individual<br />
hangar rates would need to be at least<br />
$200 per month. This does not include<br />
the construction <strong>of</strong> additional taxilane<br />
access to the hangars. T-hangar<br />
taxilanes, however, may be funded at 90<br />
percent by TxDOT (state or federal<br />
grants-in-aid).<br />
If the <strong>City</strong> does not construct the<br />
proposed hangar facilities, the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
only capital cost would be 10 percent <strong>of</strong><br />
the taxilane construction (the<br />
remaining 90 percent would come from<br />
federal or state grants). <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> has<br />
been open to the development <strong>of</strong><br />
privately-owned hangars in the past.<br />
Privately-owned facilities <strong>of</strong>fer the <strong>City</strong><br />
significant savings.<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport also has a<br />
unique opportunity to generate greater<br />
revenue through the development <strong>of</strong><br />
commercial uses on <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proposed acquisition <strong>of</strong> the 80-acre<br />
6-14<br />
parcel west <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> could support<br />
commercial business operations. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
uses can generate lease rates <strong>of</strong> up to<br />
$0.30 per square-foot per year.<br />
Cash flow projections indicate future<br />
revenues should rise at a greater rate<br />
than expenses. <strong>The</strong> analysis presents<br />
average annual projections for each<br />
planning horizon. As presented in<br />
Table 6C, the <strong>City</strong> should be capable <strong>of</strong><br />
obtaining sufficient operating revenues<br />
to <strong>of</strong>fset expenses. Revenue and<br />
expense projections have been made for<br />
the end <strong>of</strong> each planning horizon. Thus,<br />
each planning horizon considers the<br />
facilities and services required to meet<br />
demand requirements.<br />
Expenses<br />
Future expenses could vary depending<br />
upon the <strong>City</strong>’s desire to develop,<br />
operate, and maintain additional<br />
hangars. Similarly, future expenses<br />
could be higher if the <strong>City</strong> develops on<strong>airport</strong><br />
commercial properties. It is<br />
likely that revenue bonds would be<br />
necessary to fund this construction.<br />
Also, the <strong>City</strong> could expect maintenance<br />
costs and administrative costs<br />
associated with operating the facilities.<br />
As the <strong>airport</strong> continues to grow,<br />
additional employees may ultimately be<br />
needed. Most successful general<br />
aviation <strong>airport</strong>s have at least one fulltime<br />
<strong>airport</strong> manager. Often, the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> staff can include up to ten<br />
employees. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport’s<br />
future staffing requirements could<br />
reach seven employees over the long<br />
term. Potential <strong>airport</strong> employees could
include a full-time <strong>airport</strong> manager, an<br />
operations manager, a full-time<br />
administrative assistant, and up to four<br />
maintenance/line operator personnel.<br />
It should be noted that proposed capital<br />
improvements may at times exceed the<br />
<strong>City</strong>’s ability to fund them from general<br />
funds. Thus, debt service (contractual)<br />
obligations will likely continue through<br />
6-15<br />
the long term planning horizon.<br />
Projects which may require bonding and<br />
subsequent debt service expense include<br />
projects associated with the extension <strong>of</strong><br />
Runway 17-35, hangar construction (if<br />
the <strong>City</strong> chooses to construct Thangars),<br />
and infra-structure<br />
improvements to the south terminal<br />
area. Future cash flow analysis is<br />
presented in Table 6C.<br />
TABLE 6C<br />
Projected Operating Revenues and Expenditures (Annual Averages)<br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />
Item<br />
Operating Revenues<br />
Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term<br />
Hangar Rental $376,790 $472,070 $634,560<br />
Tie-Downs 9,230 9,650 10,200<br />
Fuel Sales 693,490 864,530 1,149,890<br />
Lease Receipts 29,190 36,330 44,860<br />
Other Revenue 23,120 25,280 28,270<br />
Total Operating Revenues<br />
Operating Expenses<br />
$1,131,820 $1,407,860 $1,867,780<br />
Personnel Services $333,750 $381,350 $451,470<br />
Contractual Services 155,710 170,240 190,360<br />
Fuel 515,610 615,490 772,060<br />
Supplies 24,730 26,440 28,740<br />
Transfer Debt Service 126,020 171,020 236,380<br />
Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment 2,030 2,120 2,240<br />
Total Operating Expenses<br />
Net Average Annual Operating<br />
$1,157,850 $1,366,660 $1,681,250<br />
Income/(Loss) ($26,030) $41,200 $186,530<br />
SUMMARY<br />
<strong>The</strong> best means to begin the<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the recommendations<br />
in this master plan is to first<br />
recognize that planning is a continuous<br />
process that does not end with<br />
completion and approval <strong>of</strong> this<br />
document. Rather, the ability to<br />
continuously monitor the existing and<br />
forecast status <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> activity must<br />
be provided and maintained. <strong>The</strong> issues<br />
upon which this master plan is based<br />
will remain valid for a number <strong>of</strong> years.<br />
<strong>The</strong> primary goal is for the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />
evolve into a facility that will best serve<br />
the air transportation needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
region and become a self-supporting<br />
economic generator for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> actual need for facilities is most<br />
appropriately established by <strong>airport</strong><br />
activity levels rather than a specified<br />
date. For example, projections have<br />
been made as to when additional
hangars may be needed at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
In reality, however, the timeframe in<br />
which the development is needed may<br />
be substantially different. Actual<br />
demand may be slower to develop than<br />
expected. On the other hand, high<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> demand may establish the need<br />
to accelerate the development.<br />
Although every effort has been made in<br />
this master planning process to conservatively<br />
estimate when facility<br />
development may be needed, aviation<br />
demand will dictate when facility<br />
improvements need to be delayed or<br />
accelerated.<br />
<strong>The</strong> real value <strong>of</strong> a usable master plan<br />
is in keeping the issues and objectives<br />
in the minds <strong>of</strong> the managers and<br />
decision-makers so that they are better<br />
able to recognize change and its effect.<br />
In addition to adjustments in aviation<br />
demand, decisions made as to when to<br />
6-16<br />
undertake the improvements<br />
recommended in this master plan will<br />
impact the period that the plan remains<br />
valid. <strong>The</strong> format used in this plan is<br />
intended to reduce the need for formal<br />
and costly updates by simply adjusting<br />
the timing. Updating can be done by<br />
the manager, thereby improving the<br />
plan’s effectiveness.<br />
In summary, the planning process<br />
requires the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> to<br />
consistently monitor the progress <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> aircraft operations<br />
and based aircraft. Analysis <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
demand is critical to the timing and<br />
need for new <strong>airport</strong> facilities. <strong>The</strong><br />
information obtained from continually<br />
monitoring <strong>airport</strong> activity will provide<br />
the data necessary to determine if the<br />
development schedule should be<br />
accelerated or decelerated.
Appendix A<br />
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A<br />
Appendix<br />
GLOSSARY OF TERMS<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE<br />
AVAILABLE (ASDA): see declared distances.<br />
AIR CARRIER: an operator which: (1)<br />
performs at least five round trips per<br />
week between two or more points and<br />
publishes flight schedules which specify<br />
the times, days <strong>of</strong> the week, and places<br />
between which such flights are performed;<br />
or (2) transport mail by air<br />
pursuant to a current contract with the<br />
U.S. Postal Service. Certified in accordance<br />
with Federal Aviation Regulation<br />
(FAR) Parts 121 and 127.<br />
AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): a<br />
coding system used to relate <strong>airport</strong><br />
design criteria to the operational (Aircraft<br />
Approach Category) to the physical characteristics<br />
(Airplane Design Group) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
airplanes intended to operate at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP):<br />
<strong>The</strong> latitude and longitude <strong>of</strong> the approximate<br />
center <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
AIRPORT ELEVATION: <strong>The</strong> highest<br />
point on an <strong>airport</strong>’s usable runway<br />
expressed in feet above mean sea level<br />
(MSL).<br />
AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD):<br />
<strong>The</strong> drawing <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> showing the<br />
layout <strong>of</strong> existing and proposed <strong>airport</strong><br />
facilities.<br />
A-1<br />
AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: a<br />
grouping <strong>of</strong> aircraft based on 1.3 times the<br />
stall speed in their landing configuration<br />
at their maximum certificated landing<br />
weight. <strong>The</strong> categories are as follows:<br />
• Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.<br />
• Category B: Speed 91 knots or more,<br />
but less than 121 knots.<br />
• Category C: Speed 121 knots or more,<br />
but less than 141 knots.<br />
• Category D: Speed 141 knots or more,<br />
but less than 166 knots.<br />
• Category E: Speed greater than 166<br />
knots.<br />
AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): a<br />
grouping <strong>of</strong> aircraft based upon<br />
wingspan. <strong>The</strong> groups are as follows:<br />
• Group I: Up to but not including 49<br />
feet.<br />
• Group II: 49 feet up to but not<br />
including 79 feet.<br />
• Group III: 79 feet up to but not<br />
including 118 feet.<br />
• Group IV: 118 feet up to but not<br />
including 171 feet.<br />
• Group V: 171 feet up to but not<br />
including 214 feet.<br />
• Group VI: 214 feet or greater.<br />
AIR TAXI: An air carrier certificated in<br />
accordance with FAR Part 135 and authorized<br />
to provide, on demand, public<br />
transportation <strong>of</strong> persons and property by<br />
aircraft. Generally operates small aircraft<br />
“for hire” for specific trips.<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL<br />
TOWER (ATCT): a central operations<br />
facility in the terminal air traffic control<br />
system, consisting <strong>of</strong> a tower, including<br />
an associated instrument flight rule (IFR)<br />
room if radar equipped, using air/ground<br />
communications and/or radar, visual signaling,<br />
and other devices to provide safe<br />
and expeditious movement <strong>of</strong> terminal air<br />
traffic.<br />
AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CEN-<br />
TER (ARTCC): a facility established to<br />
provide air traffic control service to aircraft<br />
operating on an IFR flight plan<br />
within controlled airspace and principally<br />
during the enroute phase <strong>of</strong> flight.<br />
ALERT AREA: see special-use airspace.<br />
ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH<br />
(AIA): an approach to an <strong>airport</strong> with the<br />
intent to land by an aircraft in accordance<br />
with an IFR flight plan when visibility is<br />
less than three miles and/or when the<br />
ceiling is at or below the minimum initial<br />
approach altitude.<br />
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM<br />
(ALS): an <strong>airport</strong> lighting facility which<br />
provides visual guidance to landing aircraft<br />
by radiating light beams by which<br />
the pilot aligns the aircraft with the<br />
extended centerline <strong>of</strong> the runway on his<br />
final approach and landing.<br />
APPROACH MINIMUMS: the altitude<br />
below which an aircraft may not descend<br />
while on an IFR approach unless the pilot<br />
has the runway in sight.<br />
AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER<br />
(ADF): an aircraft radio navigation system<br />
which senses and indicates the<br />
A-2<br />
direction to a non-directional radio beacon<br />
(NDB) ground transmitter.<br />
AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVA-<br />
TION STATION (AWOS): equipment<br />
used to automatically record weather conditions<br />
(i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind<br />
speed and direction, temperature, dewpoint,<br />
etc...)<br />
AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMA-<br />
TION SERVICE (ATIS): the continuous<br />
broadcast <strong>of</strong> recorded non-control information<br />
at towered <strong>airport</strong>s. Information<br />
typically includes wind speed, direction,<br />
and runway in use.<br />
AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction<br />
expressed as the angular distance<br />
between true north and the direction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
fixed point (as the observer’s heading).<br />
BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles<br />
to the landing runway <strong>of</strong>f its approach<br />
end. <strong>The</strong> base leg normally extends from<br />
the downwind leg to the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
the extended runway centerline. See “traffic<br />
pattern.”<br />
BEARING: the horizontal direction to or<br />
from any point, usually measured clockwise<br />
from true north or magnetic north.<br />
BLAST FENCE: a barrier used to divert<br />
or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash.<br />
BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL):<br />
A line which identifies suitable building<br />
area locations on the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
CIRCLING APPROACH: a maneuver<br />
initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft<br />
with the runway for landing when flying<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
a predetermined circling instrument<br />
approach under IFR.<br />
CLASS A AIRSPACE: see Controlled<br />
Airspace.<br />
CLASS B AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace.<br />
CLASS C AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace.<br />
CLASS D AIRSPACE: see Controlled<br />
Airspace.<br />
CLASS E AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace.<br />
CLASS G AIRSPACE: see Controlled<br />
Airspace.<br />
CLEAR ZONE: see Runway Protection<br />
Zone.<br />
CROSSWIND: wind flow that is not parallel<br />
to the runway <strong>of</strong> the flight path <strong>of</strong> an<br />
aircraft.<br />
COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): a low<br />
power, low/medium frequency radiobeacon<br />
installed in conjunction with the<br />
instrument landing system at one or two<br />
<strong>of</strong> the marker sites.<br />
CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: airspace <strong>of</strong><br />
defined dimensions within which air traffic<br />
control services are provided to<br />
instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual<br />
flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance<br />
with the airspace classification. Controlled<br />
airspace in the United States is<br />
designated as follows:<br />
A-3<br />
• CLASS A: generally, the airspace from<br />
18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to<br />
but not including flight level FL600.<br />
All persons must operate their aircraft<br />
under IFR.<br />
• CLASS B: generally, the airspace from<br />
the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding<br />
the nation’s busiest <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
<strong>The</strong> configuration <strong>of</strong> Class B airspace is<br />
unique to each <strong>airport</strong>, but typically<br />
consists <strong>of</strong> two or more layers <strong>of</strong> air<br />
space and is designed to contain all<br />
published instrument approach procedures<br />
to the <strong>airport</strong>. An air traffic<br />
control clearance is required for all aircraft<br />
to operate in the area.<br />
• CLASS C: generally, the airspace from<br />
the surface to 4,000 feet above the air<br />
port elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding<br />
those <strong>airport</strong>s that have an<br />
operational control tower and radar<br />
approach control and are served by a<br />
qualifying number <strong>of</strong> IFR operations<br />
or passenger enplanements. Although<br />
individually tailored for each <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
Class C airspace typically consists <strong>of</strong> a<br />
surface area with a five nautical mile<br />
(nm) radius and an outer area with a 10<br />
nautical mile radius that extends from<br />
1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the <strong>airport</strong><br />
elevation. Two-way radio communication<br />
is required for all aircraft.<br />
• CLASS D: generally, that airspace from<br />
the surface to 2,500 feet above the air<br />
port elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding<br />
those <strong>airport</strong> that have an<br />
operational control tower. Class D air<br />
space is individually tailored and configured<br />
to encompass published instrument<br />
approach procedures.<br />
Unless otherwise authorized, all<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
persons must establish two-way radio<br />
communication.<br />
• CLASS E: generally, controlled airspace<br />
that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or<br />
D. Class E airspace extends upward<br />
from either the surface or a designated<br />
altitude to the overlying or adjacent<br />
controlled airspace. When designated<br />
as a surface area, the airspace will be<br />
configured to contain all instrument<br />
procedures. Class E airspace encompasses<br />
all Victor Airways. Only aircraft<br />
following instrument flight rules are<br />
required to establish two-way radio<br />
communication with air traffic control.<br />
• CLASS G: generally, that airspace not<br />
classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E.<br />
Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all<br />
aircraft. Class G airspace extends from<br />
the surface to the overlying Class E<br />
airspace.<br />
FL 600<br />
18,000 MSL<br />
14,500<br />
MSL<br />
CLASS CLASS G<br />
G<br />
Nontowered<br />
Airport<br />
700<br />
AGL<br />
CLASS G<br />
CLASS B<br />
40 n.m.<br />
30 n.m.<br />
20 n.m.<br />
12 n.m.<br />
CLASS A<br />
CLASS E<br />
LEGEND<br />
AGL - Above Ground Level<br />
FL - Flight Level in Hundreds <strong>of</strong> Feet<br />
MSL - Mean Sea Level<br />
CLASS G<br />
NOT TO SCALE<br />
Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting<br />
Changes for VFR Products," National<br />
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,<br />
National Ocean Service. Chart adapted<br />
by C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates from AOPA Pilot,<br />
January 1993.<br />
CLASS C<br />
20 n.m.<br />
10 n.m.<br />
CLASS G<br />
Nontowered<br />
1,200 Airport<br />
AGL<br />
CLASS D<br />
10 mi.<br />
CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: see special-use<br />
airspace.<br />
A-4<br />
CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right<br />
angles to the landing runway <strong>of</strong>f its<br />
upwind end. See “traffic pattern.”<br />
DECLARED DISTANCES: <strong>The</strong> distances<br />
declared available for the airplane’s take<strong>of</strong>f<br />
runway, take<strong>of</strong>f distance, acceleratestop<br />
distance, and landing distance<br />
requirements. <strong>The</strong> distances are:<br />
• TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE<br />
(TORA): <strong>The</strong> runway length declared<br />
available and suitable for the ground<br />
run <strong>of</strong> an airplane taking <strong>of</strong>f;<br />
• TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE<br />
(TODA): <strong>The</strong> TORA plus the length <strong>of</strong><br />
any remaining runway and/or clear<br />
way beyond the far end <strong>of</strong> the TORA;<br />
• ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE<br />
AVAILABLE (ASDA): <strong>The</strong> runway plus<br />
stopway length declared available for<br />
the acceleration and deceleration <strong>of</strong> an<br />
aircraft aborting a take<strong>of</strong>f; and<br />
• LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE<br />
(LDA): <strong>The</strong> runway length declared<br />
available and suitable for landing.<br />
DISPLACED THRESHOLD: a threshold<br />
that is located at a point on the runway<br />
other than the designated beginning <strong>of</strong><br />
the runway.<br />
D I S T A N C E<br />
MEASURING<br />
EQUIPMENT<br />
(DME): Equipment<br />
(airborne and<br />
ground) used to<br />
measure, in nautical<br />
miles, the slant range<br />
1NM<br />
2 NM<br />
3 NM<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
distance <strong>of</strong> an aircraft from the DME navigational<br />
aid.<br />
DNL: <strong>The</strong> 24-hour average sound level, in<br />
A-weighted decibels, obtained after the<br />
addition <strong>of</strong> ten decibels to sound levels<br />
for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7<br />
a.m. as averaged over a span <strong>of</strong> one year.<br />
It is the FAA standard metric for determining<br />
the cumulative exposure <strong>of</strong><br />
individuals to noise.<br />
DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel<br />
to the landing runway in the direction<br />
opposite to landing. <strong>The</strong> downwind leg<br />
normally extends between the crosswind<br />
leg and the base leg. Also see “traffic pattern.”<br />
EASEMENT: <strong>The</strong> legal right <strong>of</strong> one party<br />
to use a portion <strong>of</strong> the total rights in real<br />
estate owned by another party. This may<br />
include the right <strong>of</strong> passage over, on, or<br />
below the property; certain air rights<br />
above the property, including view rights;<br />
and the rights to any specified form <strong>of</strong><br />
development or activity, as well as any<br />
other legal rights in the property that may<br />
be specified in the easement document.<br />
ENPLANED PASSENGERS: the total<br />
number <strong>of</strong> revenue passengers boarding<br />
aircraft, including originating, stop-over,<br />
and transfer passengers, in scheduled and<br />
non-scheduled services.<br />
FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the<br />
direction <strong>of</strong> landing along the extended<br />
runway centerline. <strong>The</strong> final approach<br />
normally extends from the base leg to the<br />
runway. See “traffic pattern.”<br />
A-5<br />
FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A<br />
provider <strong>of</strong> services to users <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
Such services include, but are not limited<br />
to, hangaring, fueling, flight training,<br />
repair, and maintenance.<br />
FRANGIBLE NAVAID: a navigational<br />
aid which retains its structural integrity<br />
and stiffness up to a designated maximum<br />
load, but on impact from a greater<br />
load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a<br />
manner as to present the minimum hazard<br />
to aircraft.<br />
GENERAL AVIATION: that portion <strong>of</strong><br />
civil aviation which encompasses all<br />
facets <strong>of</strong> aviation except air carriers holding<br />
a certificate <strong>of</strong> convenience and<br />
necessity, and large aircraft commercial<br />
operators.<br />
GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical<br />
guidance for aircraft during approach and<br />
landing. <strong>The</strong> glideslope consists <strong>of</strong> the following:<br />
1. Electronic components emitting signals<br />
which provide vertical guidance by<br />
reference to airborne instruments<br />
during instrument approaches such as<br />
ILS; or<br />
2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI,<br />
which provide vertical guidance for<br />
VFR approach or for the visual portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> an instrument approach and<br />
landing.<br />
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM:<br />
See “GPS.”<br />
GPS - GLOBAL POSITIONING SYS-<br />
TEM: A system <strong>of</strong> 24 satellites<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
used as reference points to enable navigators<br />
equipped with GPS receivers to<br />
determine their latitude, longitude, and<br />
altitude.<br />
HELIPAD: a designated area for the<br />
take<strong>of</strong>f, landing, and parking <strong>of</strong> helicopters.<br />
HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: a long<br />
radius taxiway designed to expedite aircraft<br />
turning <strong>of</strong>f the runway after<br />
landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus<br />
reducing runway occupancy time.<br />
INSTRUMENT APPROACH: A series<br />
<strong>of</strong> predetermined maneuvers for the<br />
orderly transfer <strong>of</strong> an aircraft under<br />
instrument flight conditions from the<br />
beginning <strong>of</strong> the initial approach to a<br />
landing, or to a point from which a<br />
landing may be made visually.<br />
INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR):<br />
Rules governing the procedures for conducting<br />
instrument flight. Also a term<br />
used by pilots and controllers to indicate<br />
type <strong>of</strong> flight plan.<br />
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM<br />
(ILS): A precision instrument approach<br />
system which normally consists <strong>of</strong> the<br />
following electronic components and<br />
visual aids:<br />
1. Localizer. 4. Middle Marker.<br />
2. Glide Slope. 5. Approach Lights.<br />
3. Outer Marker.<br />
LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE<br />
(LDA): see declared distances.<br />
LOCAL TRAFFIC: aircraft operating in<br />
the traffic pattern or within sight <strong>of</strong> the<br />
A-6<br />
tower, or aircraft known to be departing<br />
or arriving from the local practice areas,<br />
or aircraft executing practice instrument<br />
approach procedures. Typically, this<br />
includes touch-and-go training operations.<br />
LOCALIZER: <strong>The</strong> component <strong>of</strong> an ILS<br />
which provides course guidance to the<br />
runway.<br />
LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL<br />
AID (LDA): a facility <strong>of</strong> comparable<br />
utility and accuracy to a localizer, but is<br />
not part <strong>of</strong> a complete ILS and is not<br />
aligned with the runway.<br />
LORAN: long range navigation, an electronic<br />
navigational aid which<br />
determines aircraft position and speed<br />
by measuring the difference in the time<br />
<strong>of</strong> reception <strong>of</strong> synchronized pulse signals<br />
from two fixed transmitters. Loran<br />
is used for enroute navigation.<br />
MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM<br />
(MLS): an instrument approach and<br />
landing system that provides precision<br />
guidance in azimuth, elevation, and distance<br />
measurement.<br />
MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA<br />
(MOA): see special-use airspace.<br />
MISSED APPROACH COURSE<br />
(MAC): <strong>The</strong> flight route to be followed<br />
if, after an instrument approach, a landing<br />
is not affected, and occurring<br />
normally:<br />
1. When the aircraft has descended to<br />
the decision height and has not<br />
established visual contact; or<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
2. When directed by air traffic control to<br />
pull up or to go around again.<br />
MOVEMENT AREA: the runways,<br />
taxiways, and other areas <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong><br />
which are utilized for taxiing/hover<br />
taxiing, air taxiing, take<strong>of</strong>f, and landing<br />
<strong>of</strong> aircraft, exclusive <strong>of</strong> loading ramps<br />
and parking areas. At those <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
with a tower, air traffic control clearance<br />
is required for entry onto the movement<br />
area.<br />
NAVAID: a term used to describe any<br />
electrical or visual air navigational aids,<br />
lights, signs, and associated supporting<br />
equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc..)<br />
NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line<br />
on a map <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> vicinity connecting<br />
all points <strong>of</strong> the same noise<br />
exposure level.<br />
NONDIRECTIONAL BEACON<br />
(NDB): A beacon transmitting nondirectional<br />
signals whereby the pilot <strong>of</strong> an<br />
aircraft equipped with direction finding<br />
equipment can determine his or her<br />
bearing to and from the radio beacon<br />
and home on, or track to, the station.<br />
When the radio beacon is installed in<br />
conjunction with the Instrument Landing<br />
System marker, it is normally called<br />
a Compass Locator.<br />
NONPRECISION APPROACH PRO-<br />
CEDURE: a standard instrument<br />
approach procedure in which no electronic<br />
glide slope is provided, such as<br />
VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC.<br />
OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): an area on<br />
the ground centered on a runway, taxiway,<br />
or taxilane centerline provided to<br />
A-7<br />
enhance the safety <strong>of</strong> aircraft operations<br />
by having the area free <strong>of</strong> objects, except<br />
for objects that need to be located in the<br />
OFA for air navigation or aircraft<br />
ground maneuvering purposes.<br />
OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): the<br />
airspace below 150 feet above the established<br />
<strong>airport</strong> elevation and along the<br />
runway and extended runway centerline<br />
that is required to be kept clear <strong>of</strong><br />
all objects, except for frangible visual<br />
NAVAIDs that need to be located in the<br />
OFZ because <strong>of</strong> their function, in order<br />
to provide clearance for aircraft landing<br />
or taking <strong>of</strong>f from the runway, and for<br />
missed approaches.<br />
OPERATION: a take-<strong>of</strong>f or a landing.<br />
OUTER MARKER (OM): an ILS navigation<br />
facility in the terminal area<br />
navigation system located four to seven<br />
miles from the runway edge on the<br />
extended centerline indicating to the<br />
pilot, that he/she is passing over the<br />
facility and can begin final approach.<br />
PRECISION APPROACH: a standard<br />
instrument approach procedure which<br />
provides runway alignment and glide<br />
slope (descent) information. It is categorized<br />
as follows:<br />
• CATEGORY I (CAT I): a precision<br />
approach which provides for<br />
approaches with a decision height <strong>of</strong><br />
not less than 200 feet and visibility<br />
not less than 1/2 mile or Runway<br />
Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800)<br />
with operative touchdown zone and<br />
runway centerline lights.<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
• CATEGORY II (CAT II): a precision<br />
approach which provides for<br />
approaches with a decision height <strong>of</strong><br />
not less than 100 feet and visibility<br />
not less than 1200 feet RVR.<br />
• CATEGORY III (CAT III): a precision<br />
approach which provides for<br />
approaches with minima less than<br />
Category II.<br />
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDI-<br />
CATOR (PAPI): A lighting system<br />
providing visual approach slope guidance<br />
to aircraft during a landing<br />
approach. It is similar to a VASI but provides<br />
a sharper transition between the<br />
colored indicator lights.<br />
PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA<br />
(POFA): an area centered on the extended<br />
runway centerline, beginning at the<br />
runway threshold and extending behind<br />
the runway threshold that is 200 feet<br />
long by 800 feet wide. <strong>The</strong> POFA is a<br />
clearing standard which requires the<br />
POFA to be kept clear <strong>of</strong> above ground<br />
objects protruding above the runway<br />
safety area edge elevation (except for<br />
frangible NAVAIDS). <strong>The</strong> POFA applies<br />
to all new authorized instrument<br />
approach procedures with less than 3/4<br />
mile visibility.<br />
PROHIBITED AREA: see special-use<br />
airspace.<br />
REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUT-<br />
LET (RCO): an unstaffed transmitter<br />
receiver/facility remotely controlled by<br />
air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight<br />
service stations (FSSs). RCOs were<br />
established to provide ground-toground<br />
communications between air<br />
A-8<br />
traffic control specialists and pilots at<br />
satellite <strong>airport</strong>s for delivering enroute<br />
clearances, issuing departure authorizations,<br />
and acknowledging instrument<br />
flight rules cancellations or<br />
departure/landing times.<br />
REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER<br />
(RTR): see remote communications outlet.<br />
RTRs serve ARTCCs.<br />
RELIEVER AIRPORT: an <strong>airport</strong> to<br />
serve general aviation aircraft which<br />
might otherwise use a congested air-carrier<br />
served <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
RESTRICTED AREA: see special-use<br />
airspace.<br />
RNAV: area navigation - airborne<br />
equipment which permits flights over<br />
determined tracks within prescribed<br />
accuracy tolerances without the need to<br />
overfly ground-based navigation facilities.<br />
Used enroute and for approaches<br />
to an <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
RUNWAY: a defined rectangular area<br />
on an <strong>airport</strong> prepared for aircraft landing<br />
and take<strong>of</strong>f. Runways are normally<br />
numbered in relation to their magnetic<br />
direction, rounded <strong>of</strong>f to the nearest 10<br />
degrees. For example, a runway with a<br />
magnetic heading <strong>of</strong> 180 would be designated<br />
Runway 18. <strong>The</strong> runway<br />
heading on the opposite end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
is 180 degrees from that runway<br />
end. For example, the opposite runway<br />
heading for Runway 18 would be Runway<br />
36 (magnetic heading <strong>of</strong> 360).<br />
Aircraft can take<strong>of</strong>f or land from either<br />
end <strong>of</strong> a runway, depending upon wind<br />
direction.<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
RUNWAY BLAST PAD: a surface adjacent<br />
to the ends <strong>of</strong> runways provided to<br />
reduce the erosive effect <strong>of</strong> jet blast and<br />
propeller wash.<br />
RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS<br />
(REIL): Two synchronized flashing<br />
lights, one on each side <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />
threshold, which provide rapid and positive<br />
identification <strong>of</strong> the approach end<br />
<strong>of</strong> a particular runway.<br />
RUNWAY GRADIENT: the average<br />
slope, measured in percent, between the<br />
two ends <strong>of</strong> a runway.<br />
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE<br />
(RPZ): An area <strong>of</strong>f the runway end to<br />
enhance the protection <strong>of</strong> people and<br />
property on the ground. <strong>The</strong> RPZ is<br />
trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are<br />
determined by the aircraft approach<br />
speed and runway approach type and<br />
minima.<br />
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): a<br />
defined surface surrounding the runway<br />
prepared or suitable for reducing<br />
the risk <strong>of</strong> damage to airplanes in the<br />
event <strong>of</strong> an undershoot, overshoot, or<br />
excursion from the runway.<br />
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): an<br />
instrumentally derived value, in feet,<br />
representing the horizontal distance a<br />
pilot can see down the runway from the<br />
runway end.<br />
RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ):<br />
an area on the <strong>airport</strong> to be kept clear <strong>of</strong><br />
permanent objects so that there is an<br />
unobstructed line-<strong>of</strong>-site from any point<br />
five feet above the runway centerline to<br />
A-9<br />
any point five feet above an intersecting<br />
runway centerline.<br />
SEGMENTED CIRCLE: a system <strong>of</strong><br />
visual indicators designed to provide<br />
traffic pattern information at <strong>airport</strong>s<br />
without operating control towers.<br />
SHOULDER: an area adjacent to the<br />
edge <strong>of</strong> paved runways, taxiways or<br />
aprons providing a transition between<br />
the pavement and the adjacent surface;<br />
support for aircraft running <strong>of</strong>f the<br />
pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast<br />
protection. <strong>The</strong> shoulder does not necessarily<br />
need to be paved.<br />
SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: <strong>The</strong><br />
straight line distance between an aircraft<br />
and a point on the ground.<br />
SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: airspace <strong>of</strong><br />
defined dimensions identified by a surface<br />
area wherein activities must be<br />
confined because <strong>of</strong> their nature and/or<br />
wherein limitations may be imposed<br />
upon aircraft operations that are not a<br />
part <strong>of</strong> those activities. Special-use airspace<br />
classifications include:<br />
• ALERT AREA: airspace which may<br />
contain a high volume <strong>of</strong> pilot<br />
training activities or an unusual type<br />
<strong>of</strong> aerial activity, neither <strong>of</strong> which is<br />
hazardous to aircraft.<br />
• CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: airspace<br />
wherein activities are<br />
conducted under conditions so<br />
controlled as to eliminate hazards to<br />
nonparticipating aircraft and to<br />
ensure the safety <strong>of</strong> persons or<br />
property on the ground.<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
• MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA<br />
(MOA): designated airspace with<br />
defined vertical and lateral dimensions<br />
established outside Class A<br />
airspace to separate/segregate certain<br />
military activities from instrument<br />
flight rule (IFR) traffic and to identify<br />
for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic<br />
where these activities are conducted.<br />
• PROHIBITED AREA: designated airspace<br />
within which the flight <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft is prohibited.<br />
• RESTRICTED AREA: airspace designated<br />
under Federal Aviation<br />
Regulation (FAR) 73, within which<br />
the flight <strong>of</strong> aircraft, while not wholly<br />
prohibited, is subject to restriction.<br />
Most restricted areas are designated<br />
joint use. When not in use by the<br />
using agency, IFR/VFR operations<br />
can be authorized by the controlling<br />
air traffic control facility.<br />
• WARNING AREA: airspace which<br />
may contain hazards to nonparticipating<br />
aircraft.<br />
STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPAR-<br />
TURE (SID): a preplanned coded air<br />
traffic control IFR departure routing,<br />
preprinted for pilot use in graphic and<br />
textual form only.<br />
STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL<br />
(STAR): a preplanned coded air traffic<br />
control IFR arrival routing, preprinted<br />
for pilot use in graphic and textual or<br />
textual form only.<br />
STOP-AND-GO: a procedure wherein<br />
an aircraft will land, make a complete<br />
stop on the runway, and then commence<br />
a take<strong>of</strong>f from that point. A stop-and-go<br />
is recorded as two operations: one<br />
A-10<br />
operation for the landing and one operation<br />
for the take<strong>of</strong>f.<br />
STRAIGHT-IN LANDING/APPROACH:<br />
a landing made on a runway aligned<br />
within 30 degrees <strong>of</strong> the final approach<br />
course following completion <strong>of</strong> an<br />
instrument approach.<br />
TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION<br />
(TACAN): An ultra-high frequency electronic<br />
air navigation system which<br />
provides suitably-equipped aircraft a<br />
continuous indication <strong>of</strong> bearing and<br />
distance to the TACAN station.<br />
TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE<br />
(TORA): see declared distances.<br />
TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE<br />
(TODA): see declared distances.<br />
TAXILANE: the portion <strong>of</strong> the aircraft<br />
parking area used for access between<br />
taxiways and aircraft parking positions.<br />
TAXIWAY: a defined path established<br />
for the taxiing <strong>of</strong> aircraft from one part<br />
<strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> to another.<br />
TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): a<br />
defined surface alongside the taxiway<br />
prepared or suitable for reducing the<br />
risk <strong>of</strong> damage to an airplane unintentionally<br />
departing the taxiway.<br />
TETRAHEDRON: a device used as a<br />
landing direction indicator. <strong>The</strong> small<br />
end <strong>of</strong> the tetrahedron points in the<br />
direction <strong>of</strong> landing.<br />
THRESHOLD: the beginning <strong>of</strong> that<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the runway available for<br />
landing. In some instances the landing<br />
threshold may be displaced.<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
TOUCH-AND-GO: an operation by an<br />
aircraft that lands and departs on a runway<br />
without stopping or exiting the<br />
runway. A touch-and-go is recorded as<br />
two operations: one operation for the<br />
landing and one operation for the<br />
take<strong>of</strong>f.<br />
TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): <strong>The</strong> first<br />
3,000 feet <strong>of</strong> the runway beginning at<br />
the threshold.<br />
TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION<br />
(TDZE): <strong>The</strong> highest elevation in the<br />
touchdown zone.<br />
TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHT-<br />
ING: Two rows <strong>of</strong> transverse light bars<br />
located symmetrically about the runway<br />
centerline normally at 100-foot intervals.<br />
<strong>The</strong> basic system extends 3,000 feet<br />
along the runway.<br />
TRAFFIC PATTERN: <strong>The</strong> traffic flow<br />
that is prescribed for aircraft landing at<br />
or taking <strong>of</strong>f from an <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> components<br />
<strong>of</strong> a typical traffic pattern are<br />
the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind<br />
leg, base leg, and final approach.<br />
BASE<br />
LEG<br />
FINAL APPROACH<br />
RUNWAY<br />
ENTRY<br />
DOWNWIND LEG<br />
UPWIND LEG<br />
CROSS-<br />
WIND<br />
LEG<br />
DEPARTURE LEG<br />
UNICOM: A nongovernment communication<br />
facility which may provide<br />
<strong>airport</strong> information at certain <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />
Locations and frequencies <strong>of</strong> UNI-<br />
COM’s are shown on aeronautical<br />
charts and publications.<br />
A-11<br />
UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to<br />
the landing runway in the direction <strong>of</strong><br />
landing. See “traffic pattern.”<br />
VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircraft<br />
to provide navigational guidance<br />
by radar.<br />
VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/ OMNIDI-<br />
RECTIONAL RANGE STATION<br />
(VOR): A ground-based electronic navigation<br />
aid transmitting very high<br />
frequency navigation signals, 360<br />
degrees in azimuth, oriented from<br />
magnetic north. Used as the<br />
basis for navigation in the<br />
national airspace<br />
system. <strong>The</strong> VOR<br />
periodically identifies<br />
itself by Morse Code<br />
and may have an<br />
additional voice<br />
identification feature.<br />
300°<br />
240°<br />
VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI-<br />
DIRECTIONAL RANGE STATION/<br />
TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION<br />
(VORTAC): A navigation aid providing<br />
VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and<br />
TACAN distance-measuring equipment<br />
(DME) at one site.<br />
VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or<br />
portion there<strong>of</strong> established in the form<br />
<strong>of</strong> a corridor, the centerline <strong>of</strong> which is<br />
defined by radio navigational aids.<br />
VISUAL APPROACH: An approach<br />
wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan,<br />
operating in VFR conditions under the<br />
control <strong>of</strong> an air traffic control facility<br />
and having an air traffic control authorization,<br />
may proceed to the <strong>airport</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
destination in VFR conditions.<br />
360°<br />
180°<br />
60°<br />
120°<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDI-<br />
CATOR (VASI): An <strong>airport</strong> lighting<br />
facility providing vertical visual<br />
approach slope guidance to aircraft during<br />
approach to landing by radiating a<br />
directional pattern <strong>of</strong> high intensity red<br />
and white focused light beams which<br />
indicate to the pilot that he is on path if<br />
he sees red/white, above path if<br />
white/white, and below path if<br />
red/red. Some <strong>airport</strong>s serving large<br />
aircraft have three-bar VASI’s which<br />
provide two visual guide paths to the<br />
same runway.<br />
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules<br />
that govern the procedures for conducting<br />
flight under visual conditions. <strong>The</strong><br />
term VFR is also used in the United<br />
States to indicate weather conditions<br />
that are equal to or greater than minimum<br />
VFR requirements. In addition, it<br />
is used by pilots and controllers to indicate<br />
type <strong>of</strong> flight plan.<br />
VOR: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirectional<br />
Range Station.”<br />
VORTAC: See “Very High Frequency<br />
Omnidirectional Range Station/Tactical<br />
Air Navigation.”<br />
WARNING AREA: see special-use<br />
airspace.<br />
A-12<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
ABBREVIATIONS<br />
AC: advisory circular<br />
ADF: automatic direction finder<br />
ADG: airplane design group<br />
AFSS: automated flight service<br />
station<br />
AGL: above ground level<br />
AIA: annual instrument<br />
approach<br />
AIP: Airport Improvement<br />
Program<br />
AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford<br />
Aviation Investment and<br />
Reform Act for the 21st<br />
Century<br />
ALS: approach lighting system<br />
ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high<br />
intensity approach lighting<br />
system with<br />
sequenced flashers (CAT I<br />
configuration)<br />
ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high<br />
intensity approach light<br />
ing system with<br />
sequenced flashers (CAT II<br />
configuration)<br />
APV: instrument approach<br />
procedure with vertical<br />
guidance<br />
ARC: <strong>airport</strong> reference code<br />
A-13<br />
ARFF: aircraft rescue and<br />
firefighting<br />
ARP: <strong>airport</strong> reference point<br />
ARTCC: air route traffic control<br />
center<br />
ASDA: accelerate-stop distance<br />
available<br />
ASR: <strong>airport</strong> surveillance radar<br />
ASOS: automated surface<br />
observation station<br />
ATCT: <strong>airport</strong> traffic control<br />
tower<br />
ATIS: automated terminal information<br />
service<br />
AVGAS: aviation gasoline -<br />
typically 100 low lead<br />
(100LL)<br />
AWOS: automated weather observation<br />
station<br />
BRL: building restriction line<br />
CFR: Code <strong>of</strong> Federal Regulations<br />
CIP: capital improvement<br />
program<br />
DME: distance measuring equipment<br />
DNL: day-night noise level<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
DWL: runway weight bearing<br />
capacity for aircraft with<br />
dual-wheel type landing<br />
gear<br />
DTWL: runway weight bearing<br />
capacity for aircraft with<br />
dual-tandem type landing<br />
gear<br />
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration<br />
FAR: Federal Aviation<br />
Regulation<br />
FBO: fixed base operator<br />
FY: fiscal year<br />
GPS: global positioning system<br />
GS: glide slope<br />
HIRL: high intensity runway<br />
edge lighting<br />
IFR: instrument flight rules<br />
(FAR Part 91)<br />
ILS: instrument landing system<br />
IM: inner marker<br />
LDA: localizer type directional<br />
aid<br />
LDA: landing distance available<br />
LIRL: low intensity runway edge<br />
lighting<br />
LMM: compass locator at middle<br />
marker<br />
A-14<br />
LOC: ILS localizer<br />
LOM: compass locator at ILS<br />
outer marker<br />
LORAN: long range navigation<br />
MALS: medium intensity<br />
approach lighting system<br />
MALSR: medium intensity<br />
approach lighting system<br />
with runway alignment<br />
indicator lights<br />
MIRL: medium intensity runway<br />
edge lighting<br />
MITL: medium intensity taxiway<br />
edge lighting<br />
MLS: microwave landing<br />
system<br />
MM: middle marker<br />
MOA: military operations area<br />
MSL: mean sea level<br />
NAVAID: navigational aid<br />
NDB: nondirectional radio<br />
beacon<br />
NM: nautical mile (6,076 .1 feet)<br />
NPES: National Pollutant Discharge<br />
Elimination System<br />
NPIAS: National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong> Integrated<br />
Airport Systems<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
NPRM: notice <strong>of</strong> proposed rulemaking<br />
ODALS: omnidirectional approach<br />
lighting system<br />
OFA: object free area<br />
OFZ: obstacle free zone<br />
OM: outer marker<br />
PAC: planning advisory<br />
committee<br />
PAPI: precision approach path<br />
indicator<br />
PFC: porous friction course<br />
PFC: passenger facility charge<br />
PCL: pilot-controlled lighting<br />
PIW: public information<br />
workshop<br />
PLASI: pulsating visual approach<br />
slope indicator<br />
POFA: precision object free area<br />
PVASI: pulsating/steady visual<br />
approach slope indicator<br />
RCO: remote communications<br />
outlet<br />
REIL: runway end identifier<br />
lighting<br />
RNAV: area navigation<br />
RPZ: runway protection zone<br />
A-15<br />
RSA: Runway Safety Area<br />
RTR: remote transmitter/<br />
receiver<br />
RVR: runway visibility range<br />
RVZ: runway visibility zone<br />
SALS: short approach lighting<br />
system<br />
SASP: state aviation system plan<br />
SEL: sound exposure level<br />
SID: standard instrument<br />
departure<br />
SM: statute mile (5,280 feet)<br />
SRE: snow removal equipment<br />
SSALF: simplified short approach<br />
lighting system with<br />
sequenced flashers<br />
SSALR: simplified short approach<br />
lighting system with runway<br />
alignment indicator<br />
lights<br />
STAR: standard terminal arrival<br />
route<br />
SWL: runway weight bearing<br />
capacity for aircraft with<br />
single-wheel type landing<br />
gear<br />
STWL: runway weight bearing<br />
capacity for aircraft with<br />
single-wheel tandem type<br />
landing gear<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
TACAN: tactical air navigational<br />
aid<br />
TDZ: touchdown zone<br />
TDZE: touchdown zone elevation<br />
TAF: Federal Aviation Administration<br />
(FAA) Terminal<br />
Area Forecast<br />
TODA: take<strong>of</strong>f distance available<br />
TORA: take<strong>of</strong>f runway available<br />
TRACON: terminal radar approach<br />
control<br />
VASI: visual approach slope<br />
indicator<br />
VFR: visual flight rules (FAR<br />
Part 91)<br />
VHF: very high frequency<br />
VOR: very high frequency omnidirectional<br />
range<br />
VORTAC: VOR and TACAN<br />
collocated<br />
A-16<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com
Appendix B<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Appendix B<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed <strong>airport</strong><br />
projects is an essential consideration in the Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> process. <strong>The</strong><br />
primary purpose <strong>of</strong> this Appendix is to review the proposed improvement program<br />
for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport to determine whether the proposed actions could,<br />
individually or collectively, have the potential to significantly affect the quality <strong>of</strong><br />
the environment. <strong>The</strong> information contained in this Appendix was obtained from<br />
various Internet websites and analysis by the consultant. This evaluation considers<br />
all environmental categories outlined in FAA Order1050.1E and Order 5050.4A,<br />
Airport Environmental Handbook.<br />
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> analysis, a number <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> improvements<br />
have been recommended for implementation over the long-range planning horizon.<br />
Following is a discussion <strong>of</strong> planned major projects.<br />
AIRSIDE DEVELOPMENT<br />
<strong>The</strong> recommended airside concept is presented on Exhibit 5A. Of primary<br />
consideration is providing the runway system with the means to accommodate the<br />
larger and faster business aircraft which currently operate at the <strong>airport</strong> and are<br />
B-1
projected to account for the critical aircraft in the near future. To meet these needs,<br />
the plan includes a 1,370-foot southerly extension <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35. This extension<br />
will allow the runway to provide adequate operational length for nearly all the<br />
business aircraft in the fleet.<br />
Additionally, Runway 17-35 is recommended to be upgraded to meet ARC C/D-II<br />
standards. <strong>The</strong> primary result <strong>of</strong> this approach is a change in the Runway Safety<br />
Area (RSA) dimension. For ARC C/D-II, the RSA is 500 feet wide (centered on the<br />
runway) and 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. <strong>The</strong> RSA for ARC C/D-II is<br />
required to be cleared, graded, stabilized, and suitable to support aircraft and<br />
emergency vehicles. This area must also be free <strong>of</strong> objects and ruts. <strong>The</strong> plan also<br />
considers ultimately relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet to the west.<br />
LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT<br />
Exhibit 5A depicts the recommended landside development plan for the <strong>airport</strong><br />
which will require the acquisition <strong>of</strong> approximately 148 acres to implement.<br />
Proposed development in the northern portion <strong>of</strong> the terminal area includes the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> two large conventional hangars. In order to provide for greater<br />
depth <strong>of</strong> development in the terminal area, the plan includes the acquisition <strong>of</strong> 98<br />
acres <strong>of</strong> land immediately west <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> and development <strong>of</strong> an improved on<strong>airport</strong><br />
roadway system. As depicted, the plan includes the extension <strong>of</strong> a taxiway<br />
west from the DPS hangar to serve this area. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the plan considers allowing<br />
the southernmost existing T-hangar area to be expanded to the west.<br />
<strong>The</strong> southern terminal area has been significantly modified from the previous<br />
master plan. This concept proposes the development <strong>of</strong> large conventional hangars<br />
immediately south <strong>of</strong> the southernmost existing T-hangars. <strong>The</strong> plan would allow<br />
for the development <strong>of</strong> five large conventional hangars and adjoining aircraft<br />
parking apron. <strong>The</strong>se facilities could house fixed base operators or large bulk<br />
aircraft storage hangars. Further south, the proposed development concept<br />
includes corporate hangar development in a “pod” type layout. In order to develop<br />
in this area, however, significant drainage improvements would be necessary as the<br />
area is traversed by a creek. No buildings could be located on the re-routed<br />
drainage channel but pavement could be placed atop the route. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the<br />
southernmost portion <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> is planned for five T-hangars.<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS<br />
<strong>The</strong> following sections provide a description <strong>of</strong> the environmental resources which<br />
could be impacted by the proposed <strong>airport</strong> development.<br />
B-2
TABLE A<br />
Environmental Evaluation<br />
Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />
Air Quality. <strong>The</strong> U.S. Environmental<br />
Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted air<br />
quality standards that specify the maximum<br />
permissible short-term and long-term<br />
concentrations <strong>of</strong> various air contaminants.<br />
<strong>The</strong> National Ambient Air Quality<br />
Standards (NAAQS) consist <strong>of</strong> primary and<br />
secondary standards for six criteria<br />
pollutants which include: Ozone (O3),<br />
Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide<br />
(SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ), Particulate<br />
matter (PM10 and PM 2.5), and Lead (Pb).<br />
Potentially significant air quality impacts,<br />
associated with an FAA project or action,<br />
would be demonstrated by the project or<br />
action exceeding one or more <strong>of</strong> the NAAQS<br />
for any <strong>of</strong> the time periods analyzed. Various<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> review apply within both NEPA and<br />
permit requirements.<br />
Coastal Resources. Federal activities<br />
involving or affecting coastal resources are<br />
governed by the Coastal Barriers Resource<br />
Act (CBRA), the Coastal Zone Management<br />
Act (CZMA), and E.O. 13089, Coral Reef<br />
Protection.<br />
Compatible Land Use. <strong>The</strong> compatibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> existing and planned land uses in the<br />
vicinity <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> is usually associated<br />
with the extent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>’s noise<br />
impacts. Typically, significant impacts will<br />
occur over noise-sensitive areas within the<br />
65 DNL noise contour.<br />
Construction Impacts. Construction<br />
impacts typically relate to effects on specific<br />
impact categories, such as air quality or<br />
noise, during construction.<br />
B-3<br />
• <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is located in<br />
Dallas County, Texas. Dallas County is<br />
listed by the EPA as being in<br />
•<br />
nonattainment for 8-hour ozone. A<br />
conformity evaluation will be required<br />
to determine conformity with the State<br />
Implementation <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
Detailed air quality analysis is needed<br />
to determine potential impacts to air<br />
quality that may result from<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the various<br />
•<br />
development projects.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> projects planned at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> could have temporary air quality<br />
impacts during construction. Emissions<br />
from the operation <strong>of</strong> construction<br />
vehicles and fugitive dust from<br />
pavement removal are common air<br />
pollutants during construction.<br />
However, with the use <strong>of</strong> best<br />
•<br />
management practices (BMPs) during<br />
construction, these air quality impacts<br />
can be significantly lessened.<br />
No impacts. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is not located<br />
within a Coastal Management Zone or<br />
Coastal Barrier Area.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> proposed <strong>airport</strong> improvements will<br />
not result in noise impacts to noisesensitive<br />
development, as no noisesensitive<br />
development is contained<br />
within the existing or future 65 DNL<br />
noise contours.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> BMPs during construction is<br />
typically a requirement <strong>of</strong> constructionrelated<br />
permits such as an NPDES<br />
permit. Use <strong>of</strong> these measures typically<br />
has temporary air or water quality<br />
impacts.
TABLE A (Continued)<br />
Environmental Evaluation<br />
Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation Act,<br />
Section 4(f). A significant impact would<br />
occur when a proposed action involves more<br />
than a minimal physical use <strong>of</strong> a Section 4(f)<br />
property, (publicly owned land from a public<br />
park, recreation area, or wildlife and<br />
waterfowl refuge <strong>of</strong> national, state, or local<br />
significance, or any land from a historic site<br />
<strong>of</strong> national, state, or local significance) or is<br />
deemed a “constructive use” substantially<br />
impairing the Section 4(f) property where<br />
mitigation measures do not reduce or<br />
eliminate the impacts. Substantial<br />
impairment would occur when impacts to<br />
Section 4(f) lands are sufficiently serious so<br />
that the value <strong>of</strong> the site in terms <strong>of</strong> its prior<br />
significance and enjoyment are substantially<br />
reduced or lost.<br />
Farmlands. Under the Farmland<br />
Protection Policy Act (FPPA), federal<br />
agencies are directed to identify and take<br />
into account the adverse effects <strong>of</strong> federal<br />
programs on the preservation <strong>of</strong> farmland,<br />
to consider appropriate alternative actions<br />
which could lessen adverse effects, and to<br />
assure that such federal programs are, to<br />
the extent practicable, compatible with state<br />
or local government programs and policies to<br />
protect farmland. <strong>The</strong> FPPA guidelines<br />
apply to farmland classified as prime or<br />
unique, or <strong>of</strong> state or local importance as<br />
determined by the appropriate government<br />
agency, with concurrence by the Secretary <strong>of</strong><br />
Agriculture.<br />
B-4<br />
• According to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />
interactive mapping, the Creek Crossing<br />
Activity Park Area is located<br />
approximately .5 mile from the south<br />
end <strong>of</strong> existing Runway 35. It is not<br />
anticipated that the proposed<br />
development would ‘substantially<br />
impair’ the uses <strong>of</strong> this park. <strong>The</strong><br />
improvements will not require the<br />
physical use <strong>of</strong> any Section 4(f) lands.<br />
• According to <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> zoning,<br />
which was updated in 2004, the<br />
agricultural land surrounding the<br />
<strong>airport</strong> is zoned as Industrial/Business<br />
Park. As the <strong>airport</strong> is surrounded by<br />
land dedicated to urban development,<br />
the FPPA does not likely apply. Further<br />
coordination within the Natural<br />
Resource Conservation Service is<br />
required to confirm this finding.
TABLE A (Continued)<br />
Environmental Evaluation<br />
Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />
Fish, Wildlife, and <strong>Plan</strong>ts. <strong>The</strong> Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National<br />
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)<br />
determines that a significant impact will<br />
result when the proposed action would likely<br />
jeopardize the continued existence <strong>of</strong> a<br />
species in question, or would result in the<br />
destruction or adverse modification <strong>of</strong><br />
federally-designated critical habitat in the<br />
area. Lesser impacts, as outlined by<br />
agencies and organizations having<br />
jurisdiction, may result in a significant<br />
impact.<br />
B-5<br />
• According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service, Endangered Species List for<br />
Dallas County, Texas, five species are<br />
listed, all <strong>of</strong> which are birds.<br />
<strong>The</strong> bald eagle and piping Plover are<br />
both listed as threatened species and<br />
the black-capped Vireo, golden-checked<br />
warbler, and least tern are listed as<br />
endangered species. <strong>The</strong>se species all<br />
require an aquatic habitat as they nest<br />
near coastal areas, rivers, lakes, and<br />
reservoirs.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> East Fork <strong>of</strong> the Trinity River is<br />
located approximately one mile east <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>airport</strong>. In addition, numerous<br />
tributaries to the river are located<br />
within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
• Consultation with the U.S. Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service is needed to determine<br />
if these species would be impacted by<br />
the various development projects at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. A Biological Assessment will<br />
likely be needed to assist with impact<br />
determination.
TABLE A (Continued)<br />
Environmental Evaluation<br />
Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />
Floodplains. Significant impacts to<br />
floodplains occur when a proposed action<br />
results in notable adverse impacts on<br />
natural and beneficial 100-year floodplain<br />
values.<br />
Hazardous Materials, Pollution<br />
Prevention, and Solid Waste. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />
must comply with applicable pollution<br />
control statutes and requirements. Impacts<br />
may occur when changes to the quantity or<br />
type <strong>of</strong> solid waste generated, or type <strong>of</strong><br />
disposal, differ greatly from existing<br />
conditions.<br />
B-6<br />
• According to the Federal Emergency<br />
Management Agency (FEMA) Federal<br />
Insurance Rate Maps dated August 28,<br />
2001, the <strong>airport</strong> is located in a Zone X.<br />
This zone represents an area <strong>of</strong> 500-year<br />
flood; areas <strong>of</strong> 100-year flood with<br />
average depths <strong>of</strong> less than one foot or<br />
with drainage less than one mile; and<br />
areas protected by levees from a 100year<br />
flood.<br />
• As mentioned previously, the East Fork<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Trinity River is located<br />
approximately one-mile east <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> 100-year floodplain<br />
associated with the river remains just<br />
east <strong>of</strong> the Dallas-Kauffman County<br />
line, east <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. Additionally, a<br />
100-year floodplain associated with the<br />
North <strong>Mesquite</strong> Creek, a tributary to<br />
the East Fork Trinity River, is located<br />
approximately one mile west and<br />
southwest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
• No impacts to floodplains are<br />
anticipated as no proposed<br />
improvements are planned to be<br />
constructed within the previously<br />
•<br />
outlined floodplain areas.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> will need to continue to<br />
comply with a National Pollution<br />
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)<br />
permit, which will ensure that pollution<br />
control measures are in place at the<br />
<strong>airport</strong>.<br />
As development occurs at the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />
the permit will need to be modified to<br />
reflect the additional impervious<br />
surfaces and stormwater retention<br />
facilities. <strong>The</strong> addition and removal <strong>of</strong><br />
impervious surfaces may require<br />
•<br />
modifications to this permit should<br />
drainage patterns be modified.<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> increased operations at<br />
the <strong>airport</strong>, solid waste will slightly<br />
increase; however, these increases are<br />
not anticipated to be significant.
TABLE A (Continued)<br />
Environmental Evaluation<br />
Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />
Historical, Architectural,<br />
Archaeological, and Cultural<br />
Resources. Impacts may occur when the<br />
proposed project causes an adverse effect on<br />
a property which has been identified (or is<br />
unearthed during construction) as having<br />
historical, architectural, archaeological, or<br />
cultural significance.<br />
Light Emissions and Visual Impacts.<br />
Impacts occur when lighting associated with<br />
an action will create an annoyance among<br />
people in the vicinity or interfere with their<br />
normal activities. Aesthetic impacts relate<br />
to the extent that the development contrasts<br />
with the existing environment and whether<br />
the jurisdictional agency considers this<br />
contrast objectionable.<br />
Natural Resources and Energy Supply.<br />
In instances <strong>of</strong> major proposed actions,<br />
power companies or other suppliers <strong>of</strong><br />
energy will need to be contacted to<br />
determine if the proposed project demands<br />
can be met by existing or planned facilities.<br />
B-7<br />
• According to the Texas Historical<br />
Commission, no known historic or<br />
•<br />
cultural resource areas are located in<br />
the project area.<br />
A cultural resources survey may be<br />
required by the SHPO for those areas<br />
which have not been previously<br />
•<br />
disturbed. This will most likely be<br />
needed during coordination for the<br />
runway extension and other projects.<br />
Lighting impacts potentially resulting<br />
from the proposed <strong>airport</strong> improvements<br />
will be associated with the proposed<br />
MALSR on Runway 17 as well as the<br />
relocation <strong>of</strong> lead-in lights to Runway<br />
35. Medium intensity runway lights<br />
and runway end identifier lighting are<br />
also found at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> MALSR proposed for Runway 17<br />
will be adjusted to accommodate Scyene<br />
Road. Traffic on Scyene Road will not<br />
be affected by the relocated lights.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> relocated lead-in lights on the south<br />
end <strong>of</strong> the runway extension will be in<br />
closer proximity to the planned<br />
•<br />
residential development in that area.<br />
All lighting at the airfield is controlled<br />
by the pilot. Airfield lighting is not on<br />
continuously.<br />
• Increased use <strong>of</strong> energy and natural<br />
resources are anticipated as operations<br />
at the <strong>airport</strong> grow. None <strong>of</strong> the<br />
planned development projects are<br />
anticipated to result in significant<br />
increases in energy consumption.
TABLE A (Continued)<br />
Environmental Evaluation<br />
Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />
Noise. <strong>The</strong> Yearly Day-Night Average<br />
Sound Level (DNL) is used in this study to<br />
assess aircraft noise. DNL is the metric<br />
currently accepted by the Federal Aviation<br />
Administration (FAA), Environmental<br />
Protection Agency (EPA), and Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as<br />
an appropriate measure <strong>of</strong> cumulative noise<br />
exposure. <strong>The</strong>se three agencies have each<br />
identified the 65 DNL noise contour as the<br />
threshold <strong>of</strong> incompatibility.<br />
Secondary (Induced) Impacts. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
impacts address those secondary impacts to<br />
surrounding communities resulting from the<br />
proposed development, including shifts in<br />
patterns <strong>of</strong> population growth, public service<br />
demands, and changes in business and<br />
economic activity to the extent influenced by<br />
<strong>airport</strong> development.<br />
B-8<br />
• As depicted on Exhibit A, the existing<br />
DNL noise contour extends <strong>of</strong>f <strong>airport</strong><br />
property approximately 250 feet to the<br />
east and 175 feet to the southwest. <strong>The</strong><br />
65 DNL noise contour also extends<br />
beyond Scyene Road to the north. <strong>The</strong>re<br />
are no noise-sensitive land uses within<br />
the contour as these areas are currently<br />
agricultural and open space land uses.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> ultimate 65 DNL noise contour,<br />
depicted on Exhibit B, extends <strong>of</strong>f<br />
existing <strong>airport</strong> property approximately<br />
600 feet to the east and 150 feet to the<br />
west. Southeast <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, the<br />
Devil’s Bowl Racetrack is partially<br />
included within the 65 DNL noise<br />
contour; this is not considered a noisesensitive<br />
land use. <strong>The</strong>re are no noisesensitive<br />
land uses within the ultimate<br />
65 DNL noise contour.<br />
• Significant shifts in patterns <strong>of</strong><br />
population movement or growth or<br />
public service demands are not<br />
anticipated as a result <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
development. It could be expected,<br />
however, that the proposed development<br />
would potentially induce positive<br />
socioeconomic impacts for the<br />
community over a period <strong>of</strong> years. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>airport</strong>, with expanded facilities and<br />
services, would be expected to attract<br />
additional users. It is also expected to<br />
encourage tourism, industry, and trade<br />
and to enhance the future growth and<br />
expansion <strong>of</strong> the community’s economic<br />
base. Future socioeconomic impacts<br />
resulting from the proposed<br />
development are anticipated to be<br />
primarily positive in nature.
04MP22-5A-12/7/05<br />
65<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
DNL Noise Contours<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
65<br />
70<br />
70<br />
75<br />
75<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
NORTH<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Exhibit A<br />
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS
04MP22-5A-2/8/06<br />
65<br />
LEGEND<br />
Airport Property Line<br />
Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />
DNL Noise Contours<br />
Ultimate Pavement<br />
Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />
Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />
65<br />
70<br />
75<br />
Airport Blvd.<br />
Lawson Rd.<br />
Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,370 (7,370 x x 100')<br />
100')<br />
Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />
Alignment Alignment<br />
190 190 Highway Highway<br />
Proposed Proposed<br />
NORTH<br />
35<br />
0 800 1600<br />
SCALE IN FEET<br />
DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />
Exhibit B<br />
ULTIMATE NOISE CONTOURS
TABLE A (Continued)<br />
Environmental Evaluation<br />
Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />
Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental<br />
Justice, and Children’s Environmental<br />
Health and Safety Risks. Impacts occur<br />
when disproportionately high and adverse<br />
human health or environmental effects occur<br />
to minority and low-income populations;<br />
disproportionate health and safety risks<br />
occur to children; and extensive relocation <strong>of</strong><br />
residents, businesses, and disruptive traffic<br />
patterns are experienced.<br />
Water Quality. Water quality concerns<br />
associated with <strong>airport</strong> expansion most <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
relate to domestic sewage disposal,<br />
increased surface run<strong>of</strong>f and soil erosion,<br />
and the storage and handling <strong>of</strong> fuel,<br />
petroleum, solvents, etc.<br />
Wetlands. Wetlands are defined by<br />
Executive Order 11990, Protection <strong>of</strong><br />
Wetlands, as those areas that are inundated<br />
by surface or groundwater with a frequency<br />
sufficient to support, and under normal<br />
circumstances, does or would support a<br />
prevalence <strong>of</strong> vegetation or aquatic life that<br />
requires saturated or seasonally-saturated<br />
soil conditions for growth and reproduction.<br />
Wild and Scenic Rivers. Wild and scenic<br />
rivers (WSR) are designated by the Wild and<br />
Scenic River Act. A National Rivers<br />
Inventory (NRI) is maintained to identify<br />
those river segments which are protected<br />
under this Act.<br />
B-9<br />
• <strong>The</strong> proposed project includes the<br />
•<br />
acquisition <strong>of</strong> approximately 143 acres<br />
<strong>of</strong> land on the west side <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />
property. This land is currently used for<br />
agricultural purposes. One home will be<br />
impacted by the acquisition.<br />
<strong>The</strong> property acquisition process must<br />
comply with the Uniform Relocation<br />
Assistance and Real Property<br />
•<br />
Acquisition Policies Act <strong>of</strong> 1970.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> will need to continue to<br />
comply with an NPDES operations<br />
permit.<br />
• With regard to construction activities,<br />
the <strong>airport</strong> and all applicable<br />
contractors will need to obtain and<br />
comply with the requirements and<br />
procedures <strong>of</strong> the construction-related<br />
NPDES General Permit, including the<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> a Notice <strong>of</strong> Intent and a<br />
Stormwater Pollution Prevention <strong>Plan</strong>,<br />
prior to the initiation <strong>of</strong> project<br />
•<br />
construction activities.<br />
According to a United States Geological<br />
Survey Topographic Map, an unnamed<br />
tributary to North <strong>Mesquite</strong> Creek is<br />
located west <strong>of</strong> the south end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
runway. This area is planned for<br />
multiple hangar facilities.<br />
Further coordination with the U.S.<br />
Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers and local<br />
permitting agencies will be required<br />
prior to construction <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
projects.<br />
• No impacts. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is not located<br />
near any designated wild and scenic<br />
rivers.
KANSAS CITY<br />
(816) 524-3500<br />
237 N.W. Blue Parkway<br />
Suite 100<br />
Lee's Summit, MO 64063<br />
Airport Consultants<br />
PHOENIX<br />
(602) 993-6999<br />
4835 E. Cactus Road<br />
Suite 235<br />
Scottsdale, AZ 85254