airport/documents/Mesquite Master Plan Final.pdf - The City of ...

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 

METRO AIRPORT

MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT 

Mesquite, Texas 

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE 

Prepared By 

Coffman Associates 

Airport Consultants 

May 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT 


AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 

Chapter One 

INVENTORY 

AIRPORT SETTING AND ACCESS .............................. 1-1 

AIRPORT HISTORY ........................................... 1-2 

Airport Management ..................................... 1-2 

Regional Climate ........................................ 1-3 

THE AIRPORT’S SYSTEM ROLE ................................ 1-4 

AIRPORT FACILITIES ........................................ 1-5 

Airside Facilities ......................................... 1-5 

Landside Facilities ....................................... 1-9 

Airspace Information .................................... 1-12 

REGIONAL AIRPORTS ....................................... 1-18 

AREA LAND USE AND ZONING ............................... 1-20 

Existing Land Uses ..................................... 1-20 

Future Land Uses and Zoning ............................. 1-21 

Height Zoning .......................................... 1-21 

SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ........................ 1-22 

Population ............................................. 1-23 

Employment ........................................... 1-24 

Per Capita Personal Income .............................. 1-26 

Tax Information ........................................ 1-27 

SUMMARY ................................................. 1-27 

DOCUMENT SOURCES ...................................... 1-27

Chapter Two 

AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS 

SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS .............................. 2-2 

Population .............................................. 2-2 

Employment ............................................ 2-3 

Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) ......................... 2-4 

FORECASTING APPROACH ................................... 2-4 

AIRPORT SERVICE AREA ..................................... 2-5 

Airport User Survey ...................................... 2-7 

AVIATION TRENDS .......................................... 2-9 

National Aviation Trends ................................. 2-9 

General Aviation ....................................... 2-10 

GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS ............................ 2-12 

Based Aircraft .......................................... 2-12 

Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Projection ........................ 2-21 

General Aviation Annual Operations ....................... 2-23 

PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 2-26 

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES (AIAs) .................. 2-27 

SUMMARY ................................................. 2-28 

Chapter Three 

AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 

AIRFIELD PLANNING CRITERIA ............................... 3-1 

Critical Aircraft ......................................... 3-2 

AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3-9 

Safety Area Design Standards .............................. 3-9 

Airfield Capacity ........................................ 3-12 

Runways .............................................. 3-13 

Taxiways .............................................. 3-21 

Navigational Aids and Instrument Approaches ............... 3-22 

Airfield Lighting and Marking ............................ 3-25 

LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS ................................. 3-27 

Hangars ............................................... 3-27 

Aircraft Parking Apron .................................. 3-30 

General Aviation Terminal Facilities ....................... 3-30 

SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS .................................. 3-32 

Automobile Parking ..................................... 3-32 

Fuel Storage ........................................... 3-33 

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting ........................... 3-33

Chapter Three (Continued) 

Surface Transportation Access ............................ 3-34 

SUMMARY ................................................. 3-34 

Chapter Four 

ALTERNATIVES 

NON-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ......................... 4-2 

“Do Nothing” Alternative .................................. 4-2 

Transfer Aviation Services ................................. 4-3 

Construction of a New Airport Site .......................... 4-4 

AIRFIELD ISSUES ............................................ 4-5 

Runway Length ......................................... 4-5 

Taxiways ............................................... 4-6 

Airfield Design Standards ................................. 4-7 

Instrument Approaches ................................... 4-9 

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES ................................... 4-10 

Airfield Alternative 1 .................................... 4-10 

Airfield Alternative 2 .................................... 4-13 

Parallel Runway Alternatives ............................. 4-14 

Airfield Alternatives Summary ............................ 4-15 

Obstruction Analysis .................................... 4-16 

LANDSIDE ISSUES .......................................... 4-19 

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES .................................. 4-20 

Landside Alternative A .................................. 4-21 

Landside Alternative B .................................. 4-22 

Landside Alternative C .................................. 4-23 

Landside Summary ..................................... 4-24 

AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER 

SITING ALTERNATIVES .................................... 4-24 

Line-Of-Sight .......................................... 4-25 

Minimum Cab Eye Elevation Analysis ...................... 4-26 

Siting Analysis ......................................... 4-26 

Site A ................................................. 4-27 

Site B ................................................. 4-28 

Site C ................................................. 4-28 

SUMMARY ................................................. 4-29

Chapter Five 

AIRPORT PLANS 

RECOMMENDED CONCEPT ................................... 5-1 

Airfield Design Standards ................................. 5-2 

Airside Recommendations ................................. 5-3 

Landside Development .................................... 5-8 

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET .................................. 5-9 

Inner Portion of the Approach Surface Plan .................. 5-10 

Property Map .......................................... 5-10 

Obstruction Survey Drawing .............................. 5-10 

SUMMARY ................................................. 5-10 

Chapter Six 

FINANCIAL PLAN 

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES 

AND COST SUMMARIES ..................................... 6-2 

Short Term Improvements ................................. 6-3 

Intermediate Term Improvements .......................... 6-6 

Long Term Improvements ................................. 6-6 

Improvements Summary .................................. 6-8 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING .......................... 6-8 

Federal Grants .......................................... 6-8 

State Funding Program ................................... 6-9 

FAA Facilities and Equipment Program ..................... 6-11 

FINANCING OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .................... 6-11 

Operating Revenues ..................................... 6-12 

Operating Expenses ..................................... 6-13 

Future Cash Flow ....................................... 6-13 

SUMMARY ................................................. 6-15 

EXHIBITS 

1A LOCATION MAP ............................... after page 1-2 

1B EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES ................ after page 1-6 

1C EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES .............. after page 1-10 

1D AREA AIRSPACE .............................. after page 1-14 

1E AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION ................... after page 1-14 

1F GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE ........... after page 1-20 

1G ZONING/FUTURE LAND USE ................... after page 1-22

EXHIBITS (Continued) 

2A SERVICE AREA ................................ after page 2-8 

2B U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION 

AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ...................... after page 2-12 

2C REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ........... after page 2-16 

2D BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ................. after page 2-20 

2E FORECAST SUMMARY ........................ after page 2-28 

3A AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES .................. after page 3-2 

3B RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS ...................... after page 3-10 

3C WINDROSE .................................. after page 3-14 

3D AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .......... after page 3-35 

3E LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ......... after page 3-35 

4A DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ............. after page 4-6 

4B RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS ....................... after page 4-8 

4C AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1 .................... after page 4-12 

4D AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2 .................... after page 4-14 

4E PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES ........... after page 4-14 

4F OBSTRUCTIONS TO 17 APPROACH ............. after page 4-18 

4G OBSTRUCTIONS TO 35 APPROACH ............. after page 4-18 

4H LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A ................... after page 4-22 

4J LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B ................... after page 4-22 

4K LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C ................... after page 4-24 

5A MASTER PLAN CONCEPT ....................... after page 5-2 

5B PARALLEL TAXIWAY RELOCATION ............. after page 5-8 

AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING ........................ after page 5-11 

OBSTRUCTION SURVEY DRAWING RW 17-35 .......... after page 5-11 

OBSTRUCTION SURVEY DRAWING RW 17 ............ after page 5-11 

IPASD RW 35 ...................................... after page 5-11 

IPASD RW 17 ...................................... after page 5-11 

AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP .......................... after page 5-11 

6A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............ after page 6-4 

6B DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAGING ............ after page 6-4 

A EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS ................... after page B-8 

B ULTIMATE NOISE CONTOURS .................. after page B-8

Appendix A 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

Appendix B 

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

Chapter One 

INVENTORY

CHAPTER ONE 

INVENTORY 

The City of Mesquite has maintained a commitment to growing 

and improving the airport as demand has dictated. The first 

master plan was completed in 1981. Since then, master plans 

have been undertaken in 1985, 1998, and now 2005. 

The initial step in the preparation of an updated master plan for 

Mesquite Metro Airport (HQZ) is the collection of current 

information pertaining to the airport and the area it serves. The 

information collected in this chapter will be used as a baseline 

for subsequent analysis in this study. The inventory of existing 

conditions at Mesquite Metro Airport provides an overview of 

the airport facilities and services, area airspace, previous airport 

studies, area population and other socioeconomic data, as well 

as surrounding land use and development. 

The information outlined in this chapter was obtained through 

on-site inspections of the airport, including interviews with 

airport management, airport tenants, and representatives of 

various government agencies. Information was also obtained 

from previous airport studies. Additional documents were 

provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 

Texas Department of Transportation - Aviation Division 

(TxDOT), and the City of Mesquite - Planning and Zoning. 

AIRPORT SETTING AND ACCESS 

Mesquite Metro Airport is located 15 miles east 

of downtown Dallas on approximately 350 acres of 

airport-owned property, within the corporate 

1-1 DRAFT

limits of the City of Mesquite, Texas. 

The airport lies approximately four 

miles southeast of the central business 

district of the City of Mesquite. 

Exhibit 1A shows the location of 

Mesquite and its relation to the Dallas/ 

Fort Worth Metroplex. Neighboring 

communities include Garland to the 

north, Sunnyvale to the northeast, 

Balch Springs to the south, and Dallas 

to the west. Mesquite Metro Airport is 

located on the eastern edge of Dallas 

County. Kaufman County is 

approximately one-half mile to the east. 

The City of Mesquite has excellent 

access to the surface transportation 

network. Interstates 20, 30 and 635, 

U.S. Highway 80, and State Highway 

352 all traverse the City. The airport is 

bounded on the north by Scyene Road 

and on the south by Lawson Road. 

Direct airport access is provided by 

Airport Boulevard, which connects from 

Scyene Road at the northwest corner of 

the airport property. 

AIRPORT HISTORY 

The original Mesquite Metro Airport 

was built by the Hudson family in 1975. 

Originally named the Phil L. Hudson 

Municipal Airport, it featured a 4,000foot 

by 50-foot asphalt runway and 

connecting taxiways. Other amenities 

included three 20-unit T-hangar 

facilities, underground storage for 

Avgas fuel and aircraft tie-down areas. 

In 1981, the City of Mesquite began the 

acquisition of the airport from the 

1-2 

Hudson family by conducting an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) of the 

airport grounds. In 1983, the City of 

Mesquite received federal grant-in-aid 

to acquire the airport from the Hudson 

family. In 1985, the City received 

additional federal grants which funded 

several projects, including: 

• Reconstruction of the runway, 

replacing the asphalt with concrete 

and extending the runway to 5,000 

feet. 

• Widening of the runway from 50 

feet to 100 feet. 

• Extending the parallel taxiway 

1,300 feet. 

• Conducting an airport master plan 

study. 

• Acquiring additional property. 

In 1992, both the runway and taxiway 

were extended an additional 1,000 feet, 

bringing the total paved runway length 

to nearly 6,000 feet. A new updated 

master plan was undertaken in 1997. 

Table 1A shows a partial list of the 

major recent improvements made to 

Mesquite Metro Airport since 1998. 

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT 

The Mesquite Metro Airport is owned 

and operated by the City of Mesquite. 

The city employs a full-time Airport 

Director and a full-time Executive 

Secretary. In addition, there are eight 

part-time employees. The Airport 

Director reports to the Deputy City 

Manager.

04MP22-1A-2/14/05 

Bowie 

Granbury y 

Gatesville le 

C O R Y E L L 

Copperas Cove 

Montague 

Killeen 

Bridgeport 

PARKER 

PPARKER A R K E R 

377 

HOOD HHOOD O O D 

Glen Rose 

Clifton 

Florence 

81 

Meridian 

82 

Muenster Gainesville 

WISE WWISE I S E 

Decatur 

67 

BBOSQUE BOSQUE O S Q U E 

B E L L 

E. E. Davis Davis St. 

St. 

8 

287 

820 

Belton 

COOKE CCOOKE O O K E 

380 

MC MMC C 

E. Main St. LENNAN 

LLENNAN E N N A N 

Pioneer Rd. 

WEST 

35 

Cleburne 

Cleburne 

W I L L I A M S O N 

Waco 

Temple 

35 

WEST 

35 

EAST 

35 

287 

35 

M I L A M 

377 

DENTON 

DDENTON E N T O N 

Denton 

380 

Marlin 

Whitesboro 

Midlothian 

EELLIS ELLIS L L I S 

HILL HHILL I L L 

EAST 

35 

Long Creek Larkin 

84 

F A L L S 

Cameron 

GGRAYSON GRAYSON 

R A Y S O N 

Frisco 

Ennis 

Hubbard 

69 

Sherman 

75 

Allen 

45 

Waxahachie 

Corsicana 

NAVARRO 

NNAVARRO A V A R R O 

Denison 

CCOLLIN COLLIN O L L I N 

McKinney 

377 Lewisville Plano 

Carrollton 

Keller Grapevine 

Richardson 

Addison 

Rockwall 

North Richland 

Farmers 

Hills Bedford 

Garland 

Garland 

Branch 635 

ROCK 

Haltom City 

Euless 

WALL 

Hurst 

River Oaks 

Irving Dallas Forney 

30 

Grand Prairie 

Fort Worth Arlington 

20 

TTARRANT TARRANT 

A R R A N T 

DDALLAS DALLAS A L L A S Mesquite 

Crowley Duncanville Duncanville 

175 

Lancaster 

Mansfield 

352 

Hillsboro 

MESQUITE 

Faithon Faithon Faithon Lucas Sr Sr Sr Blvd. 

Scyene 

80 

East Glen Blvd. 

Newsom 

Cartwright 

Faithon Lucas Sr Blvd. 

Berry 

Hearne 

Franklin 

69 

380 

30 

Kemp 

FFANNIN FANNIN A N N I N 

Bonham 

82 

Leonard 

Terrell 

Greenville 

Fairfield 

Commerce 

80 

Edgewood 

Kaufman 

KAUFMAN 

KKAUFMAN A U F M A N 

45 

HUNT HHUNT U N T 

Canton 

Athens 

84 

Mexia 

FREESTONE 

FFREESTONE R E E S T O N E 

79 

Groesbeck 

MESQUITE 

LIMESTONE 

LLIMESTONE I M E S METRO T O N E 

Buffalo 

AIRPORT 

L E O N 

R O B E R T S O N 

Clay Mathis 

Airport Blvd. 

Lawson Rd. 

DALLAS CO. 

KAUFMAN CO. 

69 

287 

Centerville 

L A M A R 

Emory 

M A D I S O N 

Madisonville 

Sulphur Springs 

20 

VAN VVAN A N ZANDT ZZANDT A N D T 

G R I M E S 

Mineola 

175 

NORTH 

Paris 

DELTA DDELTA E L T A 

Cooper 

RRAINS RAINS A I N S 

HOPKINS 

HHOPKINS O P K I N S 

HENDERSON 

HHENDERSON E N D E R S O N 

ANDERSON 

AANDERSON N D E R S O N 

Palestine 

Crockett 

W A L K E R 

NOT TO SCALE Huntsville 

Exhibit 1A 

LOCATION MAP 

Mount M Vernon 

Trinity 

W O O D 

Quitman 

S M I T H 

C H E R O K E E 

Jacksonville 

H O U S T O N

TABLE 1A 

Projects and Improvements Since 1998 

Mesquite Metro Airport 

• 1998 Airport Master Plan 

• Self-serve fuel system for Avgas 

• Wash rack meeting EPA standards 

• Renovation of 60 City-owned hangar units 

(concrete floors, door and track refabrication, 

new siding, roof repairs, painting) 

• Painting of the 100 ft. x 100 ft. aircraft 

maintenance hangar 

• AWOS Installation 

• Ground Communications Outlet (GCO) 

installation 

• North ramp pavement improvements 

including marking and tie-downs 

• South ramp expansion 

• PAPI-4 installation on both runway ends 

• Lead in lights for both runway ends 

• New segmented circle and lighted windsock 

• New runway marking and striping 

• New taxiway hold-lines and signage 

• New terminal building 

• Terminal parking area 

Source: Airport records and TxDOT records 

REGIONAL CLIMATE 

Weather conditions must be considered 

in the planning and development of an 

airport, as daily operations are affected. 

Temperature is a significant factor in 

determining runway length needs, 

while local wind patterns (both 

direction and speed) can affect the 

operation and capabilities of the 

runway. 

The Mesquite climate is characterized 

as humid subtropical, with hot 

summers and mild winters. The 

average daily high temperature ranges 

from 56 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in 

January to 96 degrees F in both July 

and August. TxDOT also lists the 

average high temperature in the hottest 

month as 96 degrees F. 

1-3 

• Electrical vault for navigational aids 

• Runway 17 safety area improvements 

• New drainage plan throughout 

• City purchase of private 25 hangar 

units on north end 

• New taxiways for future hangar 

construction on south end 

• Extension of Airport Blvd. 

• Extension of water and sewer utilities 

• Perimeter fencing and electric gate 

access 

• Engineering and design for corporate 

and private hangars on south end 

• New aircraft maintenance facility in 

100 ft. x 80 ft. hangar 

• Design underway for two new corporate 

hangars (private) 

• 2005 new Airport Master Plan Update 

• Terminal ramp lighting 

• Closed-circuit television system 

Average annual precipitation in the 

Mesquite area is 39 inches per year. A 

large portion of the annual precipitation 

results from thunderstorm activity, 

with occasional heavy rainfall over brief 

periods of time. Thunderstorms occur 

throughout the year, but are most 

frequent during the spring months. The 

area receives little snowfall, but can 

experience freezing rain and icy 

conditions during winter months. 

Winds for the area are generally from 

the south, averaging between 9 and 13 

miles per hour ( 10 - 15 knots). Winds 

less than one knot occur approximately 

five percent of the year. East/west 

winds also occur less than five percent 

of the year. Complete climatic data is 

presented in Table 1B.

TABLE 1B 

Climate Summary 


Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 

Days with Precip. 7 7 8 8 9 7 5 5 6 6 6 7 

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 

Sunshine (%) 52 54 58 61 57 67 75 73 67 63 57 52 

Days clear of clouds 10 10 10 9 8 11 15 15 13 14 12 11 

Partly cloudy days 6 6 8 8 10 12 10 10 9 7 6 6 

Cloudy days 16 13 14 13 13 8 6 6 9 10 12 14 

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 

Average High Temp 56 61 68 76 83 91 96 96 89 79 66 58 

Average Low Temp 

Source: City-Data.com 

33 38 45 53 62 69 72 71 66 55 44 36 

THE AIRPORT’S 

SYSTEM ROLE 

At the national level, the airport is 

included in the FAA’s National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). 

The NPIAS includes a total of 3,344 

existing airports that are significant to 

national air transportation and are 

therefore eligible to receive grants 

under the FAA Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP). The NPIAS supports 

the FAA’s strategic goals for safety, 

system efficiency, and environmental 

compatibility by identifying specific 

airport improvements. An airport must 

be included in the NPIAS to be eligible 

for federal grant-in-aid assistance from 

the FAA. As Texas is one of eight 

“block-grant” states, the distribution of 

these funds is administered by TxDOT - 

Aviation Division. 

The 2005-2009 NPIAS identifies $39.5 

billion for airport development across 

the country. Of that, approximately 

seven percent is designated for the 278 

reliever airports. Reliever airports are 

located in major metropolitan areas and 

1-4 

serve to provide pilots with an 

attractive alternative to using 

congested primary and commercial 

service airports. Mesquite Metro 

Airport is one of 21 designated reliever 

airports in the State of Texas and one of 

11 located in the Dallas/Fort Worth 

Metroplex region. According to the 

NPIAS, reliever airports across the 

country have an average of 219 based 

aircraft and account for 29 percent of 

the nation’s total active aircraft fleet. 

The Texas Airport System Plan (TASP) 

further classifies Mesquite Metro 

Airport in its system plan as a 

Transport Airport. Transport airports 

are designed to provide access to 

turboprop and turbojet business 

aircraft, in addition to most single- and 

twin-engine piston powered-aircraft. 

The TASP provides for specific 

minimum design standards for runway 

length, a parallel taxiway, apron size, 

approaches, airfield lighting, visual 

approach aids and services such as 

restrooms, vending machines, aircraft 

fuel, and hours of operation.

AIRPORT FACILITIES 

Airport facilities can be categorized into 

two broad categories: airside and 

landside. The airside category includes 

those facilities which are needed for the 

safe and efficient movement of aircraft, 

such as runways, taxiways, lighting, 

and navigational aids. The landside 

category includes those facilities 

necessary to provide a safe transition 

from surface to air transportation and 

1-5 

support aircraft servicing, storage, 

maintenance, and operational safety. 

AIRSIDE FACILITIES 

Airside facilities include runways, 

taxiways, airport lighting, weather 

reporting aids, and navigational aids. 

Airside facilities at Mesquite Metro 

Airport can be seen on the aerial 

photograph on Exhibit 1B. Table 1C 

summarizes airside facility data. 

TABLE 1C 

Airside Facility Data 


Runway 17-35 

Runway Length (feet) 5,999 

Runway Width (feet) 100 

Runway Surface Material Concrete 

Surface Treatment None 

Condition Good 

Pavement Markings Precision (17-35) 

Runway Load Bearing Strength (lbs.) 

Single Wheel Loading (SWL) 70,000 

Dual Wheel Loading (DWL) 100,000 

Runway Lighting Medium Intensity (MIRL) 

Taxiway Lighting Green Centerline Reflectors 

Approach Lighting REIL (17-35) 

4-Light PAPI 

LDIN 

Visual Aids Rotating Beacon 

Lighted Windcone 

Segmented Circle 

Weather Aids AWOS-3 

Instrument Approach Aids ILS Runway 17 

Localizer Back Course 35 

NDB or GPS Runway 17 

PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator 

AWOS - Automated Weather Observation System 

LDIN - Lead In Light System 

ILS - Instrument Landing System 

NDB - Non-Directional Beacon 

GPS - Global Positioning System 

Source: Airport Facility Directory; South Central (Nov. 2004)

04MP22-1B-2/8/06 

Lead-In-Lights (LDIN) 

(LDIN) 

NORTH 

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd. 

REILs 

Compass Compass Calibration 

Pad/Hold Pad/Hold Apron 

Apron 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05 

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad 

ILS Glideslope 

Antennae 

Segmented Segmented Circle/ 

Wind Cone 

Airport Property Line 

PAPI-4 

AWOS 

B 

300' C 

Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100') 

100') 

D E F 

PAPI-4 G 

Taxiway A 

A 

40' 

Terminal Area Taxiway 

Rotating Beacon 

Airport Blvd. Blvd. 

Lawson Rd. 

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd. 

Lead-In-Lights (LDIN) 

REILs 

Hold Hold Apron 

Localizer 

Exhibit 1B 

EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES

Runway 

Mesquite Metro Airport is served by a 

single runway oriented in a north/south 

manner. Runway 17-35 is 5,999 feet 

long by 100 feet wide. It is in “good” 

condition, the highest condition rating 

applied by the FAA. Runway 17-35 has 

been strength rated at 70,000 pounds 

single wheel gear loading (SWL) and 

100,000 pounds dual wheel gear loading 

(DWL). SWL and DWL refer to the 

design of certain aircraft landing gear. 

SWL aircraft have a single wheel on 

each main landing gear strut. DWL 

aircraft have two wheels on each main 

landing gear strut. The more wheels an 

aircraft has on each landing gear strut, 

the more weight that is distributed on 

runway and taxiway surfaces. 

Taxiways 

The taxiway system at Mesquite Metro 

Airport includes a full-length parallel 

taxiway, identified as Taxiway A, and 

six entrance/exit taxiways. Taxiway A 

is 40 feet wide and is located 300 feet 

west of the runway (centerline to 

centerline). The six taxiways providing 

entrance to or exit from the runway are 

identified as Taxiways B, C, D, E, F, 

and G as one moves from the north to 

the south. Each of these taxiways is 

also 40 feet wide. 

There is an additional taxiway which 

provides two-way circulation in the 

terminal area. This terminal area 

taxiway, approximately 130 feet west of 

Taxiway A, runs from the runway 

threshold at the north end of the 

airfield to the south end, and is 

approximately 3,000 feet. It is 30 feet 

1-6 

wide with several connecting taxiways 

linking the terminal area taxiway to 

Taxiway A. 

Pavement Markings 

Pavement markings aid in the 

movement of aircraft along airport 

surfaces and identify closed or 

hazardous areas on the airport. The 

precision markings on both ends of the 

runway include the runway centerline, 

pavement edge, runway designation, 

aiming point, touchdown zone, 

threshold, and aircraft holding 

positions. The holding positions have 

been placed on the entrance/exit 

taxiways 250 feet from the runway 

centerline. 

Taxiway and taxilane centerline 

markings are provided to assist aircraft 

using these airport surfaces. Pavement 

markings also identify aircraft tiedown 

positions on the various apron 

areas. It should be noted that a 

compass calibration pad is located at 

the north end hold bay. 

Visual Aids 

The location of the airport at night is 

universally indicated by a rotating 

beacon, displaying alternating flashes of 

green and white lights 180 degrees 

apart. The rotating beacon at Mesquite 

Metro Airport is located on a 50-foot 

tower approximately 500 feet to the 

northwest of the terminal building near 

Airport Boulevard. 

The airport is also supported by a 

segmented circle and a lighted

windcone. The segmented circle is 

located on the east side of the airfield 

approximately 360 feet from the runway 

centerline. It is approximately 2,100 

feet from the north runway threshold. 

The lighted windcone is located within 

the segmented circle. 

Runway and Taxiway Lighting 

Runway and taxiway edge lighting is 

placed near the pavement edge to define 

the lateral limits of the pavement 

surface. These lighting systems are 

essential for night and low visibility 

conditions to ensure safe and efficient 

access to and from the runway. 

Runway 17-35 is equipped with medium 

intensity runway lighting (MIRL). 

These edge lights are preset to low 

intensity but can be increased to 

medium intensity by the pilot. The 

taxiways are not supported with 

lighting; however, the taxiways are 

identified with green centerline 

reflectors and blue edge reflectors. 

Airfield Signage 

Airfield identification signs assist pilots 

in identifying their location on the 

airfield and directing them to their 

desired location. Lighted signs are 

installed on all taxiway and runway 

intersections. The signs are located 

parallel to the hold lines, giving further 

indication to pilots where the hold 

positions are located. 

1-7 

Approach Slope Indicators 

Both runway ends are equipped with a 

four-box precision approach path 

indicator (PAPI) to the left side of the 

runway end. A PAPI consists of a 

system of lights located approximately 

1,000 feet from the runway threshold. 

When interpreted by the pilot, these 

lights give an indication of being above, 

below, or on the designated descent 

path to the runway. The descent path 

to both runway ends is a three percent 

slope. 

Approach Lighting Systems 

Approach lighting systems (ALS) are 

used in the approaches to runways as 

adjuncts to electronic navigational aids 

for the final portion of instrument flight 

rule (IFR) approaches. They also 

enhance guidance for nighttime 

approaches under visual flight rule 

(VFR) conditions. The approach 

lighting system provides the pilot with 

visual cues concerning aircraft 

alignment, roll, height, and position 

relative to the threshold. 

Both ends of Runway 17-35 are 

equipped with a lead-in light system. 

This system provides visual guidance to 

landing aircraft by displaying a linear 

series of static lights leading to the 

runway end. With this system, pilots 

are able to align their approach to the 

extended runway indicated by the 

lights.

Runway End 

Identification Lighting 

Runway end identification lights 

(REILs) provide rapid and positive 

identification of the approach end of the 

runway. The REIL system consists of 

two synchronized flashing lights located 

laterally on each side of the runway 

threshold facing the approaching 

aircraft. REILs are installed on both 

ends of Runway 17-35. 

Weather Reporting Aids 

Mesquite Metro Airport is equipped 

with an Automated Weather 

Observation System - III (AWOS-III). 

An AWOS automatically records 

weather conditions such as wind speed, 

wind gusts, wind direction, 

temperature, dew point, altimeter 

setting, and density altitude. In 

addition, the AWOS-III records 

visibility, precipitation, and cloud 

height. This information is then 

transmitted at regular intervals. 

Aircraft in the vicinity can receive this 

information if they have their radio 

tuned to the correct frequency (118.175 

Mhz). In addition, pilots and 

individuals can call a published 

telephone number and receive the 

information via an automated voice 

recording. 

The AWOS-III at Mesquite is also 

outfitted with an optional system that 

provides a connection to the National 

Airspace Data Interchange Network 

(NADIN). With this connection, the 

FAA provides the AWOS data to the 

Weather Messaging Switching Service 

(WMSS), which in turn distributes the 

1-8 

data to Flight Service Stations, the 

National Weather Service, commercial 

airports for pilot briefing, and other 

weather information outlets. 

Pilot-Controlled Lighting 

All airfield lighting systems at Mesquite 

Metro Airport are controlled through a 

pilot-controlled lighting system (PCL). 

This allows the pilot to increase the 

intensity or turn on various airfield 

lighting systems from the aircraft with 

the use of the aircraft’s transmitter on 

the common traffic advisory frequency 

(CTAF) at 123.05 Mhz. 

Ground Communications 

Outlet (GCO) 

The airport is equipped with a GCO 

which is a radio transmitter/receiver 

with a telephone interface. The GCO 

allows pilots to communicate directly 

with terminal radar approach control 

(TRACON) approach and departure 

controllers located at Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport. During poor 

weather conditions or when intending to 

fly under IFR, controllers are able to 

communicate directly with pilots 

utilizing Mesquite Metro Airport. Pilots 

must obtain a clearance to depart prior 

to entering clouds or areas of poor 

visibility. Pilots needing a clearance 

can tune their radios to frequency 

121.725 Mhz and key the microphone a 

specified number of times. The GCO 

recognizes the clicks and automatically 

dials a restricted number for air traffic 

control. The pilot then has the ability 

to communicate directly with the 

controller.

A GCO is typically a necessity at 

airports where direct radio 

communications from the aircraft is 

impeded by some type of interference. 

Without a GCO, the pilot would have to 

obtain a departure clearance by 

telephone from outside the aircraft and 

receive a specific departure window. If 

that departure window is missed, then 

the pilot would have to call TRACON to 

receive another departure window. 

LANDSIDE FACILITIES 

Landside facilities are the ground-based 

facilities that support the aircraft and 

pilot/passenger handling functions. 

These facilities typically include the 

terminal building, aircraft storage/ 

maintenance hangars, aircraft parking 

aprons, and support facilities such as 

fuel storage, automobile parking, 

roadway access, and aircraft rescue and 

firefighting. Landside facilities are 

identified on Exhibit 1C. 

Terminal Building 

In 2004, the new terminal building was 

dedicated. TxDOT provided 50 percent 

of the funding for those portions of the 

5,000-square foot building that are 

designated as aviation-related. The 

City of Mesquite provided the 

remaining funds, including the 

construction of additional space for the 

development of a restaurant. The 

building is located on the west side of 

the south apron. The terminal building 

has a pilots’ lounge, a public lobby, line 

service counter, conference room, public 

meeting space/restaurant, rest rooms, 

and administrative offices. 

1-9 

Aircraft Hangars 

Hangar facilities at Mesquite Metro 

Airport are comprised of T-hangars, 

conventional hangars, and executive 

hangars. T-hangars provide for 

separate storage facilities within a 

larger contiguous facility. Conventional 

hangars provide a large open space, free 

from roof support structures, and have 

the capability to store several aircraft 

simultaneously. Conventional hangars 

are typically 10,000 square feet or 

larger. Often conventional hangars are 

owned or leased by an airport business 

such as an FBO. Executive hangars 

have the same open space design as 

conventional hangars, but they are 

typically smaller than 10,000 square 

feet. Executive hangars are typically 

utilized by individual owners to store 

several aircraft or by smaller airport 

businesses. 

Table 1D lists the hangar facilities at 

Mesquite Metro Airport. It also 

identifies the location by address, 

maximum number of aircraft that can 

use the facility, square footage, and 

type of occupants in the facility. In 

addition, the table also identifies the 

ownership of the facility. The City of 

Mesquite has been actively reacquiring 

these facilities, and the right column 

shows the year that the structures will 

revert from private ownership to City 

ownership per the current lease 

arrangements. 

Airport Businesses 

FBOs are those businesses based at the 

airport that provide services directly to 

the aviation community utilizing the

airport. In some cases, the FBO would 

provide line services, fuel, lounge areas, 

flight planning, and maintenance. The 

City of Mesquite, however, provides line 

services and fueling, as well as terminal 

building services. Remaining services 

are offered by private businesses based 

at the airport. 

Mesquite Aviation occupies the offices 

facing the airfield in building 1130 

#100. Their primary business is flight 

training, but they also provide aircraft 

rental services. They have a fleet of 

eight aircraft: three Cessna 150s and 

five Cessna 172s. In 2004, Mesquite 

1-10 

Aviation averaged 230 hours of flight 

training per month. 

Moorehead Aviation provides aircraft 

maintenance for piston aircraft. They 

occupy the largest hangar at the 

airport, to the southeast of the terminal 

building. Moorehead Aviation has been 

on the airfield since 1992. Prior to that, 

they had been at a number of other 

regional general aviation airports. 

Although the owner is the only full-time 

employee, Moorehead Aviation employs 

several mechanics that work on a 

contract basis. 

TABLE 1D 

Hangar Facilities 


Max. # 

Ownership 

Hangar 

of Square 

Reverts to 

Type Address Aircraft Feet Occupant Ownership City 

Executive 900 5 7,800 TX Dept. Public Safety 

Classic 

City - 

Executive 910 12 15,000 Industries/Individuals Private - 

T-Hangar 920 10 12,000 Individuals City - 



1130 

Mesquite 

T-hangar #100 

1130 

19 32,900 Aviation/Individuals City - 

T-hangar #200 

1130 

20 21,000 Individuals City - 

T-hangar #300 20 21,000 Individuals City - 

Conventional 1280 7 10,000 Faith Air Inc. Private 2034 

Conventional 1290 7 10,000 P&S Aerowest Private 2034 

Conventional 1350 7 13,200 Moorehead Aviation City - 

Executive 1440 3 6,000 Individuals Private 2017 

Barr Air 

1 City/ -/ 

Executive 1442 10 11,500 Patrol/Individuals 

Custom Electronic 

2 Private 2017 

T-Hangar 1510 7 10,200 Solutions/Individuals Private 2017 

T-Hangar 1512 10 10,500 Individuals 

Reunion Ranch 

Private 2017 

T-hangar 1520 19 21,500 Inc./Individuals 

Dallas 

Private 2025 

T-hangar 1530 13 17,600 Avionics/Individuals Private 2017 

Total 185 240,700 

Source: Airport records

04MP22-1C-2/8/06 

Texas 

Department 

of Public Safety 

Safety 

Electrical 

Vault 

Vault 

900 

906 

NORTH 

0 300 600 

SCALE IN FEET 

T-Hangars 

Executive 

Hangars 

Security Security Gate 

Gate 


940 

930 

920 

910 

Fuel Farm 

North Apron 

Apron 

Self-Serve Self-Serve Fuel 

Fuel 

Wash Rack 


Aviation Aviation 

1130 #100 

T-Hangars 

1130 #200 

1130 #300 

Rotating 

Beacon 

P&S Aerowest 

1280 

South Apron 

1290 

Faith Air 

Runway 17-35 (5,999' x 100') 

Security Gate 

1340 

1350 

Terminal 

Building 

Conventional 

Hangar 

Hangar 

Moorehead 

Aviation 

Executive 

Hangars 

1432 

Airport Blvd. 

1440 1442 

Security Gate 

1512 

1510 

T-Hangars 

1520 


1530 

T-Hangars 

Exhibit 1C 

EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES

Faith Air, Inc. occupies the north 

conventional hangar on the newly 

constructed south apron. They provide 

aircraft maintenance for piston aircraft. 

They began operation in September of 

2003. The general manager foresees 

expanding their business to include jet 

engine maintenance in the future. 

There are five full-time employees: 

three mechanics, a parts manager, and 

the general manager. 

P & S Aerowest occupies the 

conventional hangar directly north of 

the terminal building. P & S is a 

subsidiary of the Steve Silver Company, 

which is a major furniture wholesaler. 

Housed in the hangar is a Cessna 

Citation (525) business jet. 

The Texas Department of Public 

Safety (DPS) operates out of the 

executive hangar at the north end of the 

airfield. They house a helicopter and a 

single engine piston aircraft in the 

hangar. The DPS utilizes aircraft in 

support of its law and drug enforcement 

operations. 

Barr Air Patrol operates out of the 

offices and T-hangar complex at the 

south end of the airport. They provide 

aircraft parts and provide services for 

aerial patrol and inspection. 

Other businesses on airport property 

include Dallas Avionics, Custom 

Electronic Solutions, and Reunion 

Ranch, Inc. 

Aircraft Parking Apron 

There are two primary aircraft aprons 

utilized for public aircraft parking and 

1-11 

tie-down at Mesquite Metro Airport. 

The north apron, identified on Exhibit 

1C, provides approximately 13,400 

square yards and 37 marked tie-down 

positions. The south apron consists of 

approximately 20,000 square yards and 

has 14 marked tie-down positions, as 

well as transient ramp space. The 

south apron is expected to be lighted to 

better facilitate evening operations in 

2005. 

Secondary apron space is available 

fronting Moorehead Aviation and the 

south hangar facilities. 

Automobile Parking 

There are several parking lots available 

for vehicle parking at Mesquite Metro 

Airport. The airport terminal building 

parking lot provides for 37 spaces, two 

of which are designated handicapped. 

There is a second parking lot to the 

north of hangar number 1130 #100. 

This lot can accommodate 44 vehicles. 

The total number of formal parking 

spaces is 81. However, most aircraft 

owners simply drive their vehicles to 

their hangar rather than park in 

identified parking and walk to their 

aircraft. 

Airport Road 

Public access to the airport is served by 

Airport Boulevard. Airport Boulevard 

extends from Scyene Road to the 

southernmost hangar complex. This 

road was recently extended approximately 

800 feet from the new terminal 

building area to the south hangar 

complex.

Fuel Facilities 

As the only fuel provider on the airfield, 

the City of Mesquite owns the fuel farm 

and the fuel trucks. The fuel farm 

consists of two 12,000-gallon above 

ground storage tanks. The storage 

tanks, one for Avgas and the other for 

Jet A fuel, are located just west of the 

north apron. The farm is served by a 

service road extending from Airport 

Boulevard. Fuel is delivered to aircraft 

via a 1,000-gallon Avgas truck and a 

2,400-gallon Jet A fuel truck. The 

airport recently installed a self-serve 

Avgas facility located on the north 

apron, near the west fence line, 

adjacent to the fuel farm. 

Aircraft Rescue and 

Firefighting (ARFF) 

There are no ARFF facilities 

permanently based at Mesquite Metro 

Airport. The City of Mesquite provides 

ARFF services to the airport on an “oncall” 

basis. Fire Station No. 7 is located 

approximately two miles from the 

airport on Clay-Mathis Road. 

The airport has provided advanced 

training to firefighters at Fire Station 

No. 7 on working with aircraft fires. 

The station also maintains specialized 

foaming agents designed for use with 

aircraft fires. 

Security Fencing 

In 2003, perimeter security fencing was 

installed with three electronic gate 

access points. Approved individuals are 

provided a card with an identifying 

1-12 

magnetic strip calibrated by the airport 

staff which allows access through the 

gates. There are also key pads on the 

gates where an access code can be 

entered. The three gate access points to 

the airfield are identified on Exhibit 

1C. 

Utilities 

The availability and capacity of the 

utilities serving the airport are factors 

in determining the development 

potential of the airport property, as well 

as the land immediately adjacent to the 

facility. 

The airport is supplied water (looped 

water main) and sanitary sewer 

services via the City of Mesquite’s 

system. Electrical service is provided to 

the airport by Reliant Energy. SBC 

provides communications and data 

lines. Natural gas is not currently 

supplied to the airport. 

AIRSPACE INFORMATION 

This section of the plan identifies 

factors influencing air navigation 

around and at Mesquite Metro Airport. 

Consideration of these additional 

elements, such as area navigational 

aids, area airspace classification, and 

approved instrument approach 

procedures, have a direct impact on 

aircraft using Mesquite Metro Airport. 

Navigational Aids 

Navigational aids are electronic devices 

that transmit radio frequencies which 

pilots of properly equipped aircraft can

translate into point-to-point guidance 

and position information. The types of 

electronic navigational aids available 

for aircraft flying to or from Mesquite 

Metro Airport include non-directional 

beacon (NDB), very high frequency 

omni-directional range (VOR) facilities, 

global positioning system (GPS), and an 

instrument landing system (ILS). 

The NDB transmits nondirectional 

radio signals whereby the pilot of an 

aircraft equipped with direction-finding 

equipment can determine the bearing to 

or from the NDB facility in order to 

track to the beacon station. The 

Mesquite NDB is 3.7 nautical miles 

(nm) to the north of Runway 17-35. The 

Jecca NDB is four nm south of the 

runway. Other NDBs in the vicinity of 

the airport include Lancaster (14 nm), 

Travis (14.2 nm), Redbird (17.7 nm), 

Caddo Mills (22.6 nm), Cedar Hill (24.4 

nm), and Cash (27.3 nm), as depicted on 

Exhibit 1D. The City of Mesquite 

owns and maintains both the Mesquite 

and Jecca NDB facilities. The Redbird 

and Cedar Hill facilities are maintained 

by the FAA. The other regional NDB 

facilities are maintained by the local 

jurisdictions. 

The VOR, in general, provides azimuth 

readings to pilots of properly equipped 

aircraft by transmitting a radio signal 

at every degree to provide 360 

individual navigational courses. 

Frequently, distance measuring 

equipment (DME) is combined with a 

VOR facility (VOR-DME) to provide 

distance as well as directional 

information to the pilot. Military 

tactical air navigation aids (TACANs) 

and civil VORs are commonly combined 

to form a VORTAC. The VORTAC 

1-13 

provides distance and directional 

information to both civil and military 

pilots. The Cowboy VOR/DME is 20.7 

nm to the northwest of the airport. The 

Maverick VOR/DME is 26.7 nm to the 

west at Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport. The Ranger and Cedar Creek 

VORTACs are within 40 nm of the 

airport. Each of these facilities are 

owned and maintained by the FAA. 

GPS is an additional navigational aid 

for pilots. GPS was initially developed 

by the United States Department of 

Defense for military navigation around 

the world. GPS differs from a NDB or 

VOR in that pilots are not required to 

navigate using a specific facility. GPS 

uses satellites placed in orbit around 

the earth to transmit electronic radio 

signals which pilots of properly 

equipped aircraft use to determine 

altitude, speed, and other navigational 

information. The network of 24 GPS 

satellites is maintained by the U.S. 

military. 

With GPS, pilots can directly navigate 

to any airport in the country and are 

not required to navigate using a specific 

navigation facility. The FAA is 

proceeding with a program to gradually 

replace all traditional enroute 

navigational aids with GPS over the 

next few years. The completion of the 

FAA phase-out schedule for traditional 

navigational aids is planned to occur by 

2010. Most navigational aids 

supporting busier airports will be 

retained. 

The ILS is a approach and landing aid 

designed to identify the exact alignment 

path of an aircraft. ILS systems are 

installed to allow approaches during

periods of poor visibility. Mesquite 

Metro Airport has one published ILS 

approach to Runway 17. 

ILS systems provide three functions: 1) 

guidance, provided vertically by a glide 

slope beacon and horizontally by a 

localizer beacon; 2) range, furnished by 

marker beacons; and 3) visual 

alignment, supplied by the approach 

lighting system and runway edge lights. 

The localizer antenna for Runway 17 is 

situated on the extended centerline, 

approximately 1,800 feet south of the 

Runway 35 threshold. The antenna 

emits very high frequency (VHF) 

signals that provide the pilot with 

course deviation left or right of the 

runway centerline and the degree of 

deviation. The ultra high frequency 

(UHF) glide slope (GS) antenna is 

located on the northeast side of the 

runway, approximately 1,100 feet 

southwest of the Runway 17 landing 

threshold. The glide slope antenna 

provides a signal indicating whether the 

aircraft is above or below the desired 

glide path. The ILS equipment is 

owned and maintained by the City of 

Mesquite. 

To further assist the ILS approach, an 

initial approach fix is established by an 

outer marker (Mesquite NDB). The 

Runway 17 ILS approach has a 3.0 

degree glide slope that intercepts initial 

approach fix at a distance of 3.2 

nautical miles and 1,600 feet above the 

threshold. It should be noted that the 

ILS Runway 17 approach requires 

aircraft not only to be equipped with 

ILS receivers, but also automatic 

direction finding (ADF) equipment. 

1-14 

Area Airspace 

The FAA Act of 1958 established the 

FAA as the responsible agency for the 

control and use of navigable airspace 

within the United States. The FAA has 

established the National Airspace 

System (NAS) to protect persons and 

property on the ground and to establish 

a safe environment for civil, 

commercial, and military aviation. The 

NAS is defined as the common network 

of U.S. airspace, including air 

navigational facilities; airports and 

landing areas; aeronautical charts; 

associated rules, regulations and 

procedures; technical information; and 

personnel and material. System 

components shared jointly with the 

military are also included as part of this 

system. 

To ensure a safe and efficient airspace 

environment for all aspects of aviation, 

the FAA has established an airspace 

structure that regulates and establishes 

procedures for aircraft using the 

National Airspace System. The U.S. 

airspace structure provides for 

categories of airspace, controlled and 

uncontrolled, and identifies them as 

Classes A, B, C, D, E, and G, as 

described below. Exhibit 1E generally 

illustrates each airspace type in threedimensional 

form. 

• Class A airspace is controlled 

airspace and includes all airspace 

from 18,000 feet mean sea level 

(MSL) to Flight Level 600 

(approximately 60,000 feet MSL). 

• Class B airspace is controlled 

airspace surrounding high-activity 

commercial service airports (i.e.,

04MP22-1D-3/17/05 

Lazy G Bar 

Decatur 

NAS Ft. Worth/ 

Carswell 

Bourland 

VR1124 VR1124 VR1124 

Rhome 

Sycamore 

Sycamore 

Ft. Ft. Worth 

Worth 

Spinks 

Spinks 

Cleburne 

Flying C 

Palmer 

Ft. Worth- 

Alliance 

Alliance 

Hicks 

Ft. Worth 

Meacham 

Northwest 

Ranger 

VORT VORTAC AC 

Ironhead 

Denton 

Hillsboro 

Airport with other than hard-surfaced 

runways 

Airport with hard-surfaced runways 

1,500' to 8,069' in length 

Airports with hard-surfaced runways 

greater than 8,069' or some multiple 

runways less than 8,069' 

Non-Directional Radiobeacon (NDB) 

VORTAC 

VOR-DME 

Dallas-Ft. Worth 

International 

Grand 

Prairie 

Prairie 

Arlington 

Lakeview 

Mid-Way 

Regional 

Hayesport 

Air Air Park-Dallas 

Park-Dallas 

Redbird 

NDB 

Dallas 

Executive 

Carroll 

V V V 18-94 18-94 18-94 

V V V 369 369 369 

V V V 16-278 16-278 16-278 

Aero Country 

Addison 

Cowboy 

VOR-DME 

Maverick 

VOR-DME Dallas Love 

Bishops 

Landing 

Kittyhawk 

MESQUITE 

METRO AIRPORT 

LEGEND 

Jecca 

NDB 

NDB 

Lancaster 

NDB 

NDB 

Lancaster 

Compass Rose 

Mode C 

Ennis 

Class B Airspace 

Class D Airspace 

Mesquite NDB 

Class E Airspace with floor 

700 ft. above surface 

Victor Airways 

Military Training Routes 

Collin County 

Powell NDB 

NDB 

Rockwall 

Rives 

Caddo 

Mills 

Airpark 

East 

Travis ravis NDB 

NDB 

Terrell 

Hall 

V V V 15 15 15 

Cedar Creek 

VORT VORTAC AC 

V 477 

V V V 194 194 194 

Bonham 

VORTAC VORT VORTAC AC 

V V 477 477 

Caddo 

Mills 

NDB 

Cash NDB 

NDB 

Phillips 

V V V 114 114 114 

Majors 

Taylor 

V V V 16-124-278 16-124-278 16-124-278 

V V V 573 573 573 

Commerce 

Wills Point 

V V V 18-54 18-54 18-54 

VR188 VR188 VR188 

V V V 94 94 94 

V V V 569 569 569 

Source: Dallas - Ft. Worth Sectional Chart, 

US Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

March 17, 2005 

NORTH 

NOT TO SCALE 

Exhibit 1D 

AREA AIRSPACE

04MP22-1E-3/17/05 

AGL 

FL 

MSL 

LEGEND 

- Above Ground Level 

- Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet 

- Mean Sea Level 

NOT TO SCALE 

CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION 

CLASS A Generally airspace above 18,000 feet MSL up to and including FL 600 . 

CLASS B 

CLASS C 

CLASS D 

CLASS E 

CLASS G 

Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for 

VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted 

by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993. 

Generally multi-layered airspace from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the 

nation's busiest airports. 

Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered airports with 

service by radar approach control. 

Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered airports. 

Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D. 

Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E. 

Exhibit 1E 

AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION

Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport). 

• Class C airspace is controlled 

airspace surrounding loweractivity 

commercial service (i.e., 

Tucson International Airport) and 

some military airports. 

• Class D airspace is controlled 

airspace surrounding low-activity 

commercial service and general 

aviation airports with an airport 

traffic control tower (ATCT). 

All aircraft operating within Class A, B, 

C, and D airspace must be in constant 

contact with the air traffic control 

facility responsible for that particular 

airspace sector. 

• Class E airspace is controlled 

airspace surrounding an airport 

that encompasses all instrument 

approach procedures and lowaltitude 

federal airways. Only 

aircraft conducting instrument 

flights are required to be in contact 

with air traffic control when 

operating in Class E airspace. 

While aircraft conducting visual 

flights in Class E airspace are not 

required to be in radio contact with 

air traffic control facilities, visual 

flight can only be conducted if 

minimum visibility and cloud 

ceilings exist. 

• Class G airspace is uncontrolled 

airspace that does not require 

communication with an air traffic 

control facility. 

Airspace within the vicinity of Mesquite 

Metro Airport is depicted on Exhibit 

1-15 

1D. Mesquite Metro Airport is located 

within transitional Class E airspace 

and lies inside the outer ring of 

Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport’s (DFW) Class B airspace. The 

outer ring of DFW Class B airspace 

immediately above Mesquite Metro 

Airport extends from 4,000 feet MSL to 

11,000 MSL. To the northwest, closer 

to Dallas Love Field and DFW, the floor 

of DFW’s Class B airspace staggers 

downward, similar to an upside-down 

wedding cake. Approximately six miles 

further west of this point, the DFW 

Class B airspace has a floor at ground 

level. 

The airspace for a seven nm radius 

around Mesquite Metro Airport is 

transitional Class E airspace with a 

floor 700 feet above ground level (AGL), 

extending to 1,200 feet MSL. The Class 

E airspace surrounding the airport has 

been established to protect the 

instrument approaches to the airport. 

Mesquite Metro Airport is also located 

approximately 13 nm west of the Class 

E airspace surrounding the Terrell 

Municipal Airport. 

For aircraft enroute or departing to the 

south of the Dallas/Fort Worth 

Metroplex using VOR navigational 

facilities, a system of federal airways, 

referred to as Victor Airways, has been 

established. Victor Airways are the 

“highways of the sky” and they extend 

between VOR facilities. They are eight 

miles wide and extend from 1,200 feet 

AGL to 18,000 feet AGL. Victor 

Airways serve primarily smaller pistonengine, 

propeller-driven airplanes on 

shorter routes. There are two Victor 

Airways within a short distance on 

Mesquite Metro Airport; approximately

eight miles to the east is V15 and 11 

miles to the west is V369. 

Instrument Approach Procedures 

When the visibility and cloud ceilings 

deteriorate to a point where visual 

flight can no longer be conducted safely, 

aircraft must follow published 

instrument approach procedures to 

locate and land at the airport. There 

are currently three published 

instrument approach procedures to the 

Mesquite Metro Airport: ILS Runway 

17, NDB or GPS Runway 17, and 

Localizer Back Course Runway 35. 

The Runway 17 ILS approach provides 

the airport with the lowest approach 

visibility minimums. Utilizing this 

approach, a properly equipped aircraft 

and pilot can land at the airport with 

250-foot cloud ceilings and threequarters 

of a mile visibility. The ILS 

Runway 17 approach can also be 

utilized as a localizer only, or circling 

approach. A circling approach allows 

the approach to be flown to the opposite 

runway end (i.e., the ILS Runway 17 

circling approach would be utilized to 

land on Runway 35). 

Runway 17 is also served by a NDB or 

GPS approach. Using the previously 

mentioned Mesquite NDB or GPS 

navigational aids, instrument 

approaches for aircraft with approach 

speeds less than 121 knots landing on 

Runway 17 can be made when the 

visibility is at least one mile and the 

cloud ceilings are greater than 473 feet 

AGL. For aircraft with approach speeds 

of 121 knots but less than 141 knots, 

approaches to Runway 17 can be made 

1-16 

with 473 foot cloud ceilings and one and 

one-quarter mile visibility. This 

approach procedure also provides for 

circling approaches to Runway 35. 

Runway 35 is served by one published 

instrument approach. The Localizer 

Back Course Runway 35 approach 

utilizes the airport’s localizer for 

straight-in approaches from the south 

and circling approaches to Runway 17. 

The localizer emits signals in both 

directions. In conducting a back-course 

approach, the pilot must adjust to the 

opposite signals provided by the 

localizer. Details of the published 

instrument approaches are provided in 

Table 1E. 

Arrival and Departure Procedures 

Due to the congested airspace over the 

Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, the FAA 

has established a series of Standard 

Terminal Arrival (STAR) and Departure 

Procedures (DP). The STAR is a preplanned 

air traffic control arrival 

procedure designed to provide for the 

transition from the enroute phase of the 

flight to an outer fix or an instrument 

approach fix in the terminal area. The 

four published STARs are: Dumpy Two, 

Fingr Three, Gregs Five, and Knead 

Five. 

The DP is a preplanned air traffic 

control departure procedure that 

provides for the transition from the 

terminal area to the enroute phase of 

the flight. The seven published DPs 

are: Dallas Seven, Garland One, 

Hubbard Five, Joe Pool Nine, Kingdom 

Five, Texoma Seven, and Worth Three.

TABLE 1E 

Instrument Approach Data 


WEATHER MINIMUMS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE 

Category A and B Category C 

Cloud Height Visibility Cloud Height Visibility 

(feet AGL) (miles) (feet AGL) (miles) 

ILS Runway 17 

Straight-In ILS 250 0.75 250 0.75 

Straight-In Localizer 293 1 293 1 

Circling 513 1 513 1 

Localizer Back Course Runway 35 

Straight-In 357 1 357 1 

Circling 

NDB or GPS Runway 17 

513 1 513 1.5 

Straight-In 473 1 473 1.25 

Circling 513 1 513 1.5 

Source: Airport/Facility Directory; South Central U.S., (November, 2004). 

Local Operating Procedures 

Mesquite Metro Airport is situated at 

447 feet above mean sea level (MSL). A 

standard left-hand traffic pattern has 

been established for all aircraft. 

Aircraft departing to the south are 

requested to climb to 1,000 feet before 

turning left. There is a 970-foot tower 

2.71 nm southeast of the Runway 35 

end. Forty-two feet from the north end 

threshold and 465 feet to the left of the 

centerline is a cluster of trees that are 

approximately 20 feet high. 

Air Route Traffic 

Control Center (ARTCC) 

The FAA has established 21 Air Route 

Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) in the 

continental United States to control 

aircraft operating under instrument 

flight rules (IFR) within controlled 

airspace and while in the enroute phase 

of flight. An ARTCC assigns specific 

routes and altitudes along federal 

1-17 

airways to maintain separation and 

orderly air traffic flow. Centers use 

radio communication and long range 

radar with automatic tracking 

capability to provide enroute air traffic 

services. Typically, the ARTCC splits 

its airspace into sectors and assigns a 

controller or team of controllers to each 

sector. As an aircraft travels through 

the ARTCC, one “hands off” control to 

another. Each sector guides the aircraft 

using discrete radio frequencies. 

Fort Worth ARTCC is responsible for 

enroute control of all aircraft operating 

under IFR and participating VFR 

aircraft arriving and departing the 

Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex area. 

Local Air Traffic Control 

Although Mesquite Metro Airport is not 

served by an airport traffic control 

tower (ATCT), pilots can broadcast their 

intention and position on the common 

traffic advisory frequency (CTAF)

channel 123.05 Mhz. Aircraft operating 

within the Class B airspace 

surrounding the Dallas/Fort Worth 

Metroplex or aircraft operating an 

instrument flight to airports in the 

DFW area are controlled by DFW 

regional approach/departure control 

available on frequency 125.2 Mhz. 

REGIONAL AIRPORTS 

A review of public-use airports within a 

20 nm radius of Mesquite Metro Airport 

was made to identify and distinguish 

the types of air services provided in the 

region. These airports were previously 

identified on Exhibit 1D. Information 

pertaining to each airport was obtained 

1-18 

from FAA Form 5010, Airport Master 

Record. 

It is important to consider the 

capabilities and limitations of other 

airports when planning for future 

changes or improvements at Mesquite 

Metro Airport. The following are those 

public use airports with asphalt or 

concrete runways that can serve general 

aviation aircraft. These airports are 

listed by their proximity to Mesquite 

Metro Airport. Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport is also discussed 

because of the significant impact it has 

on operations at Mesquite Metro 

Airport. Table 1F identifies the major 

characteristics of each airport. 

TABLE 1F 

Public Use Airports Near Mesquite Metro Airport 


Distance 

Longest Based Annual 

Airport Name (nm) Type Runway Aircraft Operations Services 

Airpark East Airport 

Rockwall Municipal 

10 ENE GA 2630' 60 16,000 Fuel 

Airport 

Rives Air Park 

12 NE GA 3373' 86 38,000 Full GA 

Airport 

Terrell Municipal 

13 ENE GA 2800' 3 300 None 

Airport 13.5 E GA 

Reliever 

5000' 85 26,000 Full GA 

Lancaster Airport 14 SW (GA) 5000' 195 40,500 Full GA 

Full 

Dallas Love Field 17 W Commercial 8880' 595 251,000 GA/Comm. 

Dallas Executive 

Reliever 

Airport 

Dallas/Fort Worth 

18 W (GA) 6,451' 174 96,000 Full GA 

Intl. 25 W Commercial 13,400' N/A 800,000 Commercial 

Source: FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record 

Airpark East Airport is located 10 

nautical miles to the east/northeast of 

Mesquite Metro Airport. The airport is 

served by asphalt Runway 13-31, which 

is 2,630 feet long by 30 feet wide. 

Airpark East has an estimated 16,000 

annual operations and bases 60 single 

engine aircraft. There are no published 

instrument approaches. The airport

fixed base operator (FBO) provides 

100LL fuel services. 

Rockwall Municipal Airport, 

situated 12 nautical miles north/ 

northeast, is owned and operated by the 

City of Rockwall. The airport is served 

by Runway 17-35, providing an asphalt 

landing area of 3,373 feet long by 45 

feet wide. The airport has 86 based 

aircraft, including six multi-engine 

aircraft. The airport has an estimated 

38,000 operations annually. Four onairport 

businesses provide aviation 

services, including flight training, 

100LL Avgas fuel sales, aircraft 

maintenance, aircraft rental, 

sightseeing, and airport terminal 

building spaces for pilot/passenger 

accommodation. The airport has three 

published instrument approach 

procedures. 

Rives Air Park Airport, is located 13 

nautical miles east/northeast of 

Mesquite Metro Airport in Royse City. 

The airport is served by asphalt 

Runway 4-22, which is 2,800 feet long 

by 40 feet wide. The airport has three 

based single-engine aircraft and an 

estimated 300 annual operations. No 

aviation services are currently provided 


Terrell Municipal Airport is located 

13.5 nautical miles east of Mesquite 

Metro Airport. The airport is owned by 

the City of Terrell and is served by two 

asphalt runways. Crosswind Runway 

14-32 extends 3,014 feet long by 75 feet 

wide, while primary Runway 17-35 is 

5,000 feet long by 75 feet wide. There 

are 85 based aircraft, including ten 

multi-engine aircraft, and an estimated 

26,000 annual operations. Terrell 

1-19 

Aviation, the airport’s only FBO, 

provides a full range of services 

including fuel sales, flight school/flight 

training, minor aircraft maintenance 

and repair, aircraft rental, courtesy 

transportation, and a public telephone. 

There is one approved instrument 

approach, NDB or GPS, to Runway 17. 

Lancaster Airport is located 14 

nautical miles to the southwest and is 

owned and operated by the City of 

Lancaster. This airport is served by 

asphalt Runway 13-31, which extends 

5,000 feet long by 100 feet wide. 

Lancaster Airport has an estimated 

40,500 annual operations and bases 195 

aircraft, including 25 multi-engine and 

30 turbine powered aircraft. The 

airport is served by two FBOs which 

provide an array of aviation services, 

including fueling, aircraft rental, flight 

instruction, and aircraft maintenance. 

There are two instrument approaches to 

the Runway 31 end. 

Dallas Love Field, located 17 nautical 

miles west/northwest of Mesquite Metro 

Airport, is a medium hub commercial 

service airport which had approximately 

2.8 million enplane-ments in 

2003. Love Field serves as the primary 

hub and corporate headquarters for 

Southwest Airlines. Owned and 

operated by the City of Dallas, the 

airport is served by three runways, with 

Runway 13R-31L the longest at 8,800 

feet. Although it primarily serves as a 

commercial service airport, Love Field 

is also home to 595 aircraft, including 

522 jets. Tower counts reflect 

approximately 251,000 annual 

operations. There are nine instrument 

approaches.

Dallas Executive Airport, formerly 

Dallas Redbird Airport, is located 18 

nautical miles west/southwest of 

Mesquite Metro Airport. Owned and 

operated by the City of Dallas, the 

airport is served by two paved runways. 

Runway 13-31 provides the greatest 

length, measuring 6,451 feet long by 

150 feet wide. Runway 31 is served by 

an ILS precision approach. Crosswind 

Runway 17-35 is 3,801 feet long and 

150 feet wide. Both runways are 

constructed of concrete and are in good 

condition There are 174 based aircraft, 

including 31 multi-engine and three jet 

aircraft. Served by an airport traffic 

control tower, the airport has 

approximately 96,000 annual 

operations, with 65 percent being 

training operations. Services provided 

include fuel, avionics, courtesy 

transportation, aviation accessories, 

and restrooms. There are four 

instrument approaches approved for use 


Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW) is located 25 nautical 

miles northwest of the Mesquite Metro 

Airport. One of the largest and busiest 

airports in the world, DFW is classified 

as a large hub, commercial service 

airport. DFW is equipped with seven 

paved runways, with the longest 

runway being 13,400 feet long. DFW is 

served by an airport traffic control 

tower and provides approach/control 

services for the area. An array of 

instrument approach aids, including 

precision ILS approaches, aid pilots on 

approach during inclement weather 

conditions. DFW serves as an 

international airport and an airport of 

entry, providing customs services. This 

airport typically ranks as one of the 

1-20 

busiest airports in the world in terms of 

enplanements (30 million) and 

operations (1,000,000). The airport also 

serves as a hub for UPS and other cargo 

carriers. 

AREA LAND USE 

AND ZONING 

The area land use surrounding 

Mesquite Metro Airport is influenced by 

four entities: the City of Mesquite, the 

Town of Sunnyvale, and Dallas and 

Kaufman Counties. Review of existing 

and future land use and zoning plans is 

critical to understanding the potential 

of the airport. By understanding the 

land use issues surrounding the airport, 

more appropriate recommendations can 

be made for the future. 

EXISTING LAND USES 

Existing land uses surrounding 

Mesquite Metro Airport include a mix of 

residential, industrial, and agricultural 

land uses. To the north of the airport, 

immediately north of Scyene Road, is a 

Union Pacific rail line. Further to the 

northeast is the APAC-Texas, Inc. 

industrial concrete mixing facility. To 

the immediate east and west of the 

airport is primarily agricultural land 

with some single-family housing along 

Lawson and Scyene Roads. To the 

southeast is Devil’s Bowl Speedway, a 

commercial dirt racetrack. South and 

southwest are new residential 

developments, including Falcon’s Lair 

and Pecan Creek. To the immediate 

west is primarily agricultural lands; 

further west is the Creek Crossing 

residential development. Exhibit 1F

04MP22-1F-2/8/06 

Truss Co. 

Oncor Utility 

APAC- Texas Texas Inc. 

LEGEND 


Residential 

Commercial/Industrial 

Currently Zoned Zoned Industrial 

Industrial 

Currently Zoned Zoned Industrial 

Industrial 

Runway 17-35 (5,999' x 100') 

Catfish 

Corner 

Corner 

Devil's Bowl 

Speedway 

Speedway 

Creek Crossing 

NORTH 

Gibsons 

Shooting 

Range 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


Pecan Creek 

Creek 

The 

Village of 

of 

Falcon's 

Lair 

Falcon's 

Lair 

Exhibit 1F 

GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE

depicts the existing land uses in the 

vicinity of the airport. 

FUTURE LAND USES 

AND ZONING 

Exhibit 1G shows the existing zoning 

in the airport vicinity. Much of the 

agricultural land which surrounds the 

airport is zoned as Industrial/Business 

Park. According to The Mesquite 

Development Guide - December 2003, 

large tracts of undeveloped land near 

the airport, primarily to the east and 

west, should be reserved for 

industrial/business park development. 

The plan recognizes that development 

may not occur in the short term but the 

plan supports resisting other 

development alternatives in order to 

maintain compatible land uses near the 

airport over the long term. 

The Development Guide identifies those 

areas on both sides of the airport as the 

Airport Industrial District. This 

district has been established in order to 

“achieve compatible land use goals 

relative to airport development and to 

take advantage of the potential 

businesses which benefit from proximity 

to a general aviation airport.” 

The Town of Sunnyvale, directly to the 

north of Scyene Road, has published its 

official zoning map. The map identifies 

all parcels along Scyene Road as being 

zoned for industrial development. 

Further to the northwest is singlefamily 

residential zoning, followed by 

commercial development along U.S. 

Highway 80. To the northeast the 

zoning is identified as a flood plain 

surrounding Long Creek. 

1-21 

The City of Mesquite is directly 

responsible for planning and zoning onairport 

property and within the city 

limits. By Texas law, the City can also 

plan the land use for those 

unincorporated areas that are within 

five miles of the city boundary. This 

extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) 

accounts for approximately 24 square 

miles to the east and southeast of the 

airport. This area has not been 

formally zoned for compatible airport 

land uses. 

The Development Guide also identifies 

improvements to the surface 

transportation network that would 

provide regional access to the Airport 

Industrial District and the airport. The 

plan proposes the construction of 

Highway 190 to connect from U.S. 

Highway 80 to Interstate 20. The four 

possible alignments are also presented 

on the exhibit. 

HEIGHT ZONING 

Use of the existing properties and 

planned future uses of land near the 

Mesquite Metro Airport include height 

and obstruction considerations. The 

Mesquite Zoning Ordinance 2943, Phil 

L. Hudson Municipal Airport 

Hazard Zoning Ordinance, was 

established to regulate and restrict the 

heights of structures and objects of 

natural growth around the airport to 

enhance safety of aircraft in flight and 

objects on the ground. Also, the 

ordinance considered the potential 

conflicts an obstruction could pose on 

existing and future approach minimums 

at the airport.

Recognizing the importance of 

maintaining and enforcing potential 

obstructions and hazards to flight, a 

zoning board was formed. The Airport 

Board of Adjustment is composed of five 

members, with three members 

appointed by the Mesquite City Council 

and two members appointed by the 

Town Council of the Town of Sunnyvale. 

The board’s duties include to hear and 

decide on appeals from the Mesquite 

City Manager or Planner, hear and 

decide on special considerations or 

exceptions to the terms of the 

ordinance, and to hear and decide on 

specific variances. The board is 

mandated to hold a public meeting and 

make written findings of facts when 

making its legal decisions. 

The height zoning ordinance was 

established following Federal Aviation 

Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 77, Objects 

Effecting Navigable Airspace. F.A.R. 

Part 77 assigns three-dimensional 

imaginary areas to the runway in 

accordance to the type of aircraft and 

approach minimums being served. 

These imaginary surfaces emanate from 

the runway centerline and are 

dimensioned to protect approaching and 

departing aircraft from the potential 

hazard of obstructions. Ordinance 2943 

considered the imaginary surfaces for a 

precision instrument runway with a 

1,000-foot primary surface. The 

ordinance also considered Runway 17- 

35 at an ultimate length of 7,000 feet. 

The ordinance protected the horizontal, 

transitional, and conical surfaces 

defined by Part 77 for a precision 

runway. 

1-22 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

CHARACTERISTICS 

Socioeconomic characteristics are 

collected and examined to derive an 

understanding of the dynamics of 

growth within the study area. This 

information is essential in determining 

aviation service level requirements, as 

well as forecasting aircraft activity at 

the airport. Statistical analysis of 

population, employment and income 

trends will give indications of the 

economic strength of the region and the 

ability of the region to sustain a strong 

economic base over an extended period 

of time. 

Where possible, local or regional data 

has been collected. Population data for 

those areas in and around the Dallas 

Metroplex was obtained from the North 

Central Texas Council of Governments 

(NCTCOG). As the designated 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) for the greater Dallas/Fort 

Worth Metroplex, NCTCOG publishes 

socioeconomic data for the region. The 

Texas Water Development Board 

(TWDB) publishes population statistics 

on a county and statewide basis. The 

Texas Office of the Comptroller also 

publishes population statistics that 

closely mirror those of the TWDB. 

Employment information is obtained 

from the Texas Workforce Commission. 

Income data is obtained from Woods & 

Poole Economics, Inc., a nationally 

recognized leader in demographic 

collection and analysis.

04MP22-1G-2/14/05 

LEGEND 

Agricultural 

Central Business District 

Commercial 

Duplex Residential 

General Retail 

Industrial 

Light Commercial 

Mixed Use 

Multi-Family Residential 

Office 

Service Station 

Single Family Residential 

Townhouse Residential 

SUNNYVALE 

A 

B 

Proposed 

Highway Highway 190 

190 

Alignments Alignment Alignments 

MESQUITE, TEXAS 

ZONING MAP 

C 

0 2,000 

Feet 

4,000 

Produced By The City of Mesquite Planning Division 

Last Update March, 2004 

D 

SEAGOVILLE 

MESQUITE ETJ 

LR 

Collins 

AH 

FP LR 

AH 

AH 

Seagoville 

US 175 

Larkin 

Clay 

Paschal 

US Hwy 80 


Dallas 

Stark 

Simonds 

Clay 

Lasater 

LR 

FP 

Mathis 

Berry 

Cartwright 

Lawson 

IH-20 

Shannon 

Farmers 

May 

GB 

LR 

FLOOD PLAIN 

Alto 

ast Fork 

SF-2 

SF-3 

SF-2 

SF-3 

Sunnyvale 

Larkin 

Berry 

SF-3 

Scyene 

SF-2 

Seagoville 

Rebecca 

SF-3 

Lawson 

Mesquite ETJ 

Malloy Bridge 

I 

SF-2 

FP 

SF-2 

HC 

HC 

FLOOD PLAIN 

County Rd 200 

FM 740 

SF-2 

SF-2 

GB 

FP 

SF-3 

County Rd 202 

County Rd 201 

SF-2 

FP 

SF-1 

I 

County 

GB 

AR 

Rd 209 

FM 740 

FM 2757 

Trinity 

SF-2 

FM 460 

Old Hwy 80 

Tradewind 

SF-2 

FLOOD PLAIN 

SF-2 

FM 740 

Old Nacogodches 

Sherwood 

Kelly 

SF-1 

Pecan 

Walnut 

Union Hill 

Overlook 

Lovers 

Melody 

FM 740 

Pecan Oak 

SF-2 

LC 

SF-2 

SF-2 

Tounsand 

Forney 

County Rd 257 

FM 741 

High Country 

FM 741 

Valleyvie 

FM 741 

FM 741 

FM 741 

K. C. Road 269 

Crandall 

SF-1 

SF-1 

GB 

HC 

SF-1 

HC 

HC 

HC 

HC 

SF-4 

SF-4 

FP 

HC 

GB SF-4 

SF-4 

FLOOD PLAIN 

I 

SF-4 

SF-1 

FP 

I 

Glenwood 

Ranch 

Thelma 

FLOOD PLAIN 

I 

Griffin 

Reeder 

County Rd 218 

FM 1641 

FM 548 

Halms 

FM 2932 

County Rd. 260 

University 

Reeder 

Old Hwy 80 

County Rd South 

County Rd 211 

County Rd 214 

County Rd 261 

FM 148 

Tounsand 

TOWN OF SUNNYVALE 

ZONING MAP 

AR 

SF-1 

SF-2 

SF-3 

SF-4 

AH 

HC 

LR 

I 

LC 

GB 

FP 

LEGEND 

Agricultural Residential 

Single Family 1 




Attached Housing 

Highway Commercial 

Local Retail 

Industrial 

Lakeside Commercial 

General Business 

Flood Plain 

Town Center Overlay District 

1000 

0 

Feet 

2000 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 

THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR AND INTENDED TO BE A 

GENERAL GUIDE ONLY. DUE TO GRAPHIC REQUIREMENTS, 

SOME AREAS MAY NOT BE EXACT SCALE. FOR ACTUAL 

ZONING BOUNDARIES, SEE THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION. 

MESQUITE ETJ 

LEGEND 

City of Mesquite 

Mesquite ETJ 

0 5,000 

Feet 

10,000 

Produced By The City of Mesquite Planning Division 

February 17, 2004 

Exhibit 1G 

ZONING/FUTURE LAND USE

POPULATION 

Population is one of the most important 

elements to consider when planning for 

future needs of the airport. Historical 

TABLE 1G 

Historical Population Statistics 

Mesquite Airport Master Plan 

1-23 

population data for the City of 

Mesquite, Dallas and Kaufman 

Counties, and the State of Texas are 

presented in Table 1G. 

Populations 1970 1980 1990 2000 

Avg. Annual 

Growth Rate 

Kaufman County 32,392 39,015 52,220 71,313 2.67% 

City of Mesquite* 55,131 67,053 101,484 124,523 2.75% 

Dallas County 1,327,696 1,556,419 1,852,810 2,218,899 1.73% 

State of Texas** 11,196,730 14,229,191 16,986,510 20,851,820 2.09% 

Source: Texas Comptrollers Office; *NCTCOG - 2004 Current Population Estimates; **Texas 

Water Development Board 

The State of Texas shows a 2.09 percent 

annual growth rate from 1970 to 2000. 

This represents very strong growth 

when compared to other states. The 

City of Mesquite has enjoyed even 

greater growth over the same period. 

Kaufman County, which is one-half 

mile to the east of the airport, has also 

enjoyed strong growth over the period. 

The growth rate for Dallas County as a 

whole has been 1.73 percent annually. 

For a county that also represents an 

urban core, this is excellent growth. 

This pattern is the opposite of the 

population trends for urban counties 

over the same period, where cities 

elsewhere typically lose population. 

It is forecast that the population growth 

over the next 20 years will slow 

somewhat as compared to the last 20 

years, but the growth is still significant. 

Kaufman County is forecast to continue 

to grow at more than two percent 

annually over the next 20 years. That 

will bring the population from 71,000 to 

nearly 126,000. Dallas County and the 

City of Mesquite are both expected to 

show continued growth. The State of 

Texas is forecast to grow at 1.41 percent 

annually. Table 1H represents the 

forecast population over the next 20 

years. 

TABLE 1H 

Forecast Population 

Mesquite Airport Master Plan 

Populations 

Kaufman 

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Annual 

Growth Rate 

County 

City of 

71,313 80,582 90,416 101,632 113,786 126,498 2.32% 

Mesquite* 124,523 132,988 136,175 143,014 149,262 151,838 0.80% 

Dallas County 2,218,899 2,412,983 2,579,566 2,757,573 2,935,308 3,117,192 1.37% 

State of Texas 20,851,820 22,725,059 24,395,179 26,185,643 27,917,492 29,584,585 1.41% 

Source: Texas Comptrollers Office; *NCTCOG; 2005 population is estimated

EMPLOYMENT 

Analysis of a community’s employment 

base can be valuable in determining the 

overall well-being of that community. 

In most cases, the community’s makeup 

and health is significantly 

determined by the availability of jobs, 

variety of employment opportunities, 

and types of wages provided by local 

employers. Information for employment 

by industry for Dallas County was 

obtained from the Texas Workforce 

Commission. 

Table 1J summarizes labor force data 

for the City of Mesquite, Dallas and 

Kaufman Counties, and the State of 

Texas. Data for the United Stated is 

also provided for comparison purposes. 

As shown in the table, Mesquite’s labor 

force grew by more than 9,400 between 

1990 and 2004. This represents an 

overall annual growth rate of more than 

1.00 percent. The unemployment rate 

for Mesquite ranged from a low of 2.6 

percent to a high of 5.1 percent. This 

range is lower on average than that of 

Dallas County as a whole. The State of 

Texas’ unemployment rate tracks closer 

to Dallas County than the City of 


The City of Mesquite fares better than 

Dallas County, the State of Texas, and 

the United States in these employment 

categories. This is an indication of the 

positive employment environment that 

the City of Mesquite can provide. Over 

the last 15 years, the City has had the 

lowest unemployment rate of the 

compared areas. 

The economic conditions during this 14year 

period should be noted. Between 

1-24 

1995 and 2001, the County and region 

experienced a period of sustained 

economic prosperity. A national 

economic slowdown occurred toward the 

end of 2000. The events of 9/11 

contributed to the continued economic 

slowdown. Recent economic trends 

show a steady economic upturn. 

Table 1K provides a view of 

employment by industry for Dallas 

County for 2000 and 2025. Total 

employment is projected to increased by 

more than 625,000. This represents an 

average annual growth rate of 1.15 

percent. The employment base of 

Dallas County is projected to maintain 

a mix dominated by services, retail 

trade, and finance. Manufacturing 

currently represents over 10 percent of 

the employment mix and is projected to 

show positive annual growth. The 

largest sector of employment for Dallas 

County is the services sector. Over one 

million people are projected to be 

employed in the service sector by 2025, 

which represents approximately 40 

percent of the total employment. 

The major employers in the City of 

Mesquite are presented in Table 1L. 

As is common in cities, the school 

district represents the employer with 

the greatest number of employees. The 

second largest employer is United 

Parcel Service, with 2,340 employees. 

Eastfield Community College is also a 

large local employer, with nearly 1,200 

people. Understanding the types of 

employment opportunities will aid in 

identifying demand for general aviation 

services.

TABLE 1J 

Employment Characteristics 


1990 1995 2000 2004 


Labor Force 59,839 63,522 69,658 69,294 

Employment 57,476 61,096 67,853 65,790 

Unemployment 2,363 2,426 1,805 3,505 

Unemployment Rate 3.9 3.8 2.6 5.1 

Dallas County 

Labor Force 1,073,211 1,138,760 1,243,459 1,247,568 

Employment 1,016,748 1,080,800 1,200,318 1,163,823 

Unemployment 56,463 57,960 43,141 83,745 


Kaufman County 

Labor Force 25,341 28,775 33,946 36,075 

Employment 23,949 27,514 32,508 33,200 

Unemployment 1,392 1,261 1,438 2,875 


State of Texas 

Labor Force 8,618,780 9,592,929 10,401,557 10,978,591 

Employment 8,074,107 9,015,240 9,960,436 10,335,723 

Unemployment 544,673 577,689 441,121 642,868 

Unemployment Rate 6.3 6 4.2 5.9 

United States 

Labor Force 125,840,000 132,304,000 142,583,000 147,401,167 

Employment 118,793,000 124,900,000 136,891,000 139,251,917 

Unemployment 7,047,000 7,404,000 5,692,000 8,149,250 

Unemployment Rate 5.6 5.6 4 5.5 

Source: Texas Workforce Commission 

TABLE 1K 

Employment by Sector 

Dallas County 

Economic Sector 2000 

% of Total 

Employment 

(2000) 2025 

1-25 

% of Total 

Employment 

(2025) 

Avg. Annual 

Growth Rate 

(2000-2025) 

Mining 17,123 0.90% 16,307 0.65% -0.20% 

Construction 108,214 5.72% 137,071 5.44% 0.95% 

Manufacturing 193,593 10.23% 205,923 8.17% 0.25% 

Transport., Comm., & Utilities 145,586 7.69% 193,699 7.69% 1.15% 

Wholesale Trade 149,453 7.89% 180,203 7.15% 0.75% 

Retail Trade 278,416 14.71% 343,825 13.65% 0.85% 

Finance, Ins., & Real Estate 207,691 10.97% 252,566 10.02% 0.79% 

Services 638,035 33.70% 1,005,899 39.92% 1.84% 

Federal Civilian Government 28,661 1.51% 32,025 1.27% 0.44% 

Federal Military Government 7,413 0.39% 7,817 0.31% 0.21% 

State and Local Government 118,986 6.29% 144,412 5.73% 0.78% 

Total Employment 1,893,171 100.00% 2,519,747 100.00% 1.15% 

Source: Woods and Poole, CEDDS (2004).

TABLE 1L 

Major Employers 


Company Business Employees 

Mesquite School District Public 4,308 

United Parcel Service Transportation 2,340 

Eastfield Community College Public 1,191 

Baker Drywall Service 1,125 

City of Mesquite Public 1,068 

Mesquite Community Hospital Service 750 

Medical Center of Mesquite Service 700 

Wal-Mart Supercenter Retail 510 

TxDOT Transportation 500 

Pepsi Cola Bottling Manufacturing 450 

Schneider National Service 450 

Integra Color Group Manufacturing 410 

U.S. Foodservice Wholesale 350 

Christian Care Center Service 270 

Allmet Building Products Manufacturing 260 

Source: 2004 Citywide Data Summary, City of Mesquite 

PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME 

Table 1M compares the per capita 

personal income (PCPI adjusted to 1996 

dollars) for Dallas and Kaufman 

Counties, the State of Texas, and the 

United States between 1990 and 2000. 

In addition, the forecast PCPI from 

2000 to 2025 is also presented. As 

TABLE 1M 

Personal Income Per Capita (1996$) 


1-26 

illustrated by the table, Dallas County’s 

PCPI has historically been ahead of the 

United States’ PCPI. This trend is 

projected to continue to 2025. The table 

illustrates the substantial growth in 

personal income from 1990 to 2000. It 

also projects a return to a more 

moderate annual growth through the 

forecast period. 

HISTORICAL FORECAST 

Annual 

Annual 

Growth 

Growth 

Rate (1990- 

Rate (2000- 

Area 1990 2000 2000) 2010 2015 2025 2025) 

Dallas County $26,478 $34,115 2.57% $36,171 $38,089 $42,378 0.87% 

Kaufman County $17,685 $22,440 2.41% $23,323 $24,558 $26,706 0.70% 

State of Texas $20,374 $26,066 2.49% $28,691 $30,361 $34,080 1.08% 

United States $22,856 $27,712 1.95% $30,680 $32,470 $36,510 1.11% 

Source: Woods and Poole, CEDDS (2004)

TAX INFORMATION 

Texas is one of only four states that 

does not have a corporate income tax, 

and one of only seven states that does 

not have an individual income tax. A 

6.25 percent state sales tax, a 1.5 

percent city sales tax, and a 0.5 percent 

tax to the Mesquite Quality of Life 

Corporation (used for transportation, 

public safety, and parks and recreation 

improvements) comprise Mesquite’s 

8.25 percent sales tax rate. 

SUMMARY 

The information discussed in this 

chapter provides a foundation upon 

which the remaining elements of the 

planning process will be constructed. 

Information on current airport facilities 

and utilization will serve as a basis, 

with additional analysis and data 

collection, for the development of 

forecasts of aviation activity and facility 

requirement determinations. 

The inventory of existing conditions is 

the first step in the complex process for 

determining those factors which will 

meet projected aviation demand in the 

community and region. 

DOCUMENT SOURCES 

A variety of different sources were 

utilized in the inventory process. The 

following listing reflects a partial 

compilation of these sources. This does 

not include data provided by airport 

management as part of their records, 

nor does it include airport drawings and 

1-27 

photographs which were referenced for 

information. On-site inventory and 

interviews with staff and tenants 

contributed to the inventory effort. 

Airport/Facility Directory, South 

Central U.S., U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, National Aeronautical 

Charting Office, January 20, 2005. 

Dallas-Ft. Worth Sectional Aeronautical 

Chart, U.S. Department of 



Charting Office, 73 rd edition, September 

30, 2004. 

National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS), U.S. Department of 


Administration, 2005-2009. 

U.S. Terminal Procedures, South 

Central U.S., U.S. Department of 



Charting Office, January 20, 2005. 

2003 Mesquite Development Guide. 

Prepared by the City of Mesquite 

Planning and Zoning Division. 

2004 Citywide Data Summary, 



City of Mesquite Developer’s Handbook. 



The Complete Economic and 

Demographic Data Source 2004 

(CEDDS), Woods & Poole Economics, 

Inc., Washington D.C.

A number of internet Web sites were 

also used to collect information for the 

inventory chapter. These include the 

following: 

North Central Texas Council of 

Governments: 

http://www.nctcog.org 

FAA 5010 Data: 

http://www.airnav.com 

http://www.gcr1.com/5010WEB/defaul 

t.htm (Airport IQ) 

1-28 

Texas Water Development Board: 

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/home/inde 

x.asp 

Texas Workforce Commission: 

http://www.twc.state.tx.us 

U.S. Census Bureau: 

http://www.census.gov 

The City of Mesquite: 

http://www.cityofmesquite.com 

Dallas County: 

http://www.dallascounty.org

Chapter Two 

AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS

CHAPTER TWO 

Aviation demand 

forecasts 

Facility planning begins by defining the demand that may 

reasonably be expected to occur at the facility over a specific 

period of time. For Mesquite Metro Airport, this involves 

forecasts of aviation activity indicators through the year 2025. 

In this master plan, forecasts of based aircraft, based aircraft 

fleet mix, annual aircraft operations, and operational peak 

periods will serve as the basis for facility development 

planning. 

It is virtually impossible to predict, with certainty, year-to-year 

fluctuations of activity when looking 20 years into the future. 

However, a trend can be established which delineates long term 

growth potential. While a single line is often used to express 

the anticipated growth, it is important to remember that actual 

growth may fluctuate above and below this line. Forecasts 

serve as guidelines and planning must remain flexible enough 

to respond to unforeseen facility needs. This is because 

aviation is affected by many external influences, as well as by 

the types of aircraft used and the nature of the available 

services and facilities at the airport. 

Recognizing this, it is intended to develop a master plan for 

Mesquite Metro Airport that will be demand-based rather than 

time-based. As a result, the reasonable levels of activity 

potential that are derived from this forecasting effort will be 

related to the planning horizon levels rather than dates in time. 

These planning levels will be established as levels of activity 

from which specific actions for the airport to consider will be 

presented. 

2-1 DRAFT

In order to fully assess current and 

future aviation demand for Mesquite 

Metro Airport, an examination of 

several key factors is needed. These 

include national and regional aviation 

trends, historical and forecast 

socioeconomic and demographic 

information for the area, competing 

transportation modes, and facilities. 

Consideration and analysis of these 

factors will ensure a comprehensive 

outlook for future aviation demand at 

Mesquite Metro Airport. 

The demand-based manner in which 

this master plan is being prepared is 

intended to accommodate variations in 

demand at the airport. Demand-based 

planning relates capital improvements 

to demand factors, such as based 

aircraft operations, instead of points in 

time. This allows the airport to address 

capital improvement needs according to 

actual demand occurring at the airport. 

Therefore, should growth in aircraft 

operations, or based aircraft slow or 

decline, it may not be necessary to 

implement some improvement projects. 

However, should the airport experience 

accelerated growth, the plan will have 

accounted for that growth and will be 

flexible enough to respond accordingly. 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

PROJECTIONS 

The local socioeconomic conditions 

provide an important baseline for 

preparing aviation demand forecasts. 

Local socioeconomic variables such as 

population, employment, and income 

can be indicators for understanding the 

dynamics of the community and, in 

2-2 

particular, the trends in aviation 

growth. The following is a summary of 

the research and projections presented 

in Chapter One. 

POPULATION 

Table 2A summarizes historical and 

forecast population estimates for Dallas 

and Kaufman Counties, as well as the 

City of Mesquite. The State of Texas’ 

projections are provided as a point of 

reference. Analysis of these areas 

which directly impact Mesquite Metro 

Airport will provide a more 

comprehensive understanding of the 

socioeconomic situations that affect the 

region which supports the airport. The 

analysis of historical population 

information for Dallas County indicates 

an annual growth rate of 1.82 percent 

between 1990 and 2000. Kaufman 

County shows an annual growth rate of 

3.17 percent over the same period. The 

City of Mesquite grew at the same 

percent, 2.07, as the State of Texas. 

Across the board, regional socioeconomic 

growth rates were significant 

for this time period. The greater Dallas 

area was one of the fastest growing 

metropolitan areas in the country. In 

fact, many metropolitan areas in the 

south, such as Atlanta and Phoenix also 

reflected similar annual growth rates. 

Many northern cities, however, showed 

much slower growth rates or even 

negative growth rates over the same 

period. 

Future population data for Dallas and 

Kaufman Counties and the City of 

Mesquite are also presented. The

population for Dallas County is forecast 

to exceed three million by 2025. This 

projection equates to an annual growth 

rate of 1.37 percent between 2000 and 

2025. The City of Mesquite is also 

projected to continue to grow but at a 

TABLE 2A 

Socioeconomic Forecast Summary 


HISTORICAL FORECAST 

1990 2000 2010 2015 2025 

2-3 

more moderate 0.8 percent. Kaufman 

County population, on the other hand, 

is projected to grow at an annual rate of 

2.32 percent, increasing from 71,000 in 

2000 to 126,000 in 2025. 

ANNUAL 

GROWTH 

RATE 

1990 to 

2000 

2000 to 

2025 

Kaufman County 

Population 52,220 71,313 90,416 101,632 126,498 3.17% 2.32% 

Employment 23,949 27,514 35,887 38,584 57,741 1.40% 3.01% 

PCPI $17,685 $22,440 $23,323 $24,558 $26,706 2.41% 0.70% 

Dallas County 

Population 1,852,810 2,218,899 2,579,566 2,757,573 3,117,192 1.82% 1.37% 

Employment 1,016,748 1,200,318 2,055,686 2,198,367 2,467,769 1.67% 2.92% 

PCPI $26,478 $34,115 $36,171 $38,089 $42,378 2.57% 0.87% 


Population 101,484 124,523 136,175 143,014 151,838 2.07% 0.80% 

Employment 42,000 53,785 64,733 69,790 75,551 2.50% 1.37% 

State of Texas 

Population 16,986,510 20,851,820 24,395,179 26,185,643 29,584,585 2.07% 1.41% 

Employment 8,951,715 11,861,491 14,001,229 15,202,926 17,793,335 2.85% 1.64% 

PCPI $20,374 $26,066 $28,691 $30,361 $34,080 2.49% 1.08% 

Source: PCPI & Texas Employment - Woods and Poole, CEDDS 2004. PCPI adjusted to $1996; 

Historical Employment - Texas Workforce Commission; Population & Future 

Employment - NCTCOG. 

EMPLOYMENT 

Historical and forecast employment 

data for the region is also presented in 

Table 2A. The State of Texas is 

projected to show an annual 

employment growth rate of 1.64 percent 

from 2000 to 2025. Although this 

growth is slightly slower than the 2.85 

percent from 1990 to 2000, it is still 

quite brisk. 

Dallas and Kaufman Counties are 

projected to experience very strong 

employment growth through 2025, at 

2.92 percent and 3.01 percent 

respectively. The City of Mesquite is 

projected to show continued positive 

employment growth at 0.8 percent 

annually through the planning period. 

The projected employment growth in 

and around Mesquite bodes well for the 

economic well being of the area.

PER CAPITA PERSONAL 

INCOME (PCPI) 

Table 2A compares per capita personal 

income (adjusted to 1996 dollars) for the 

selected areas of study. From 1990 to 

2000, PCPI for Dallas and Kaufman 

Counties as well as the State of Texas 

showed substantial growth. Through 

2025, Dallas and Kaufman Counties are 

projected to experience moderate gains 

in PCPI. In fact, Dallas County is 

expected to exceed the PCPI of the State 

of Texas by more than $8,000 per 

person annually, through the planning 

period. 

FORECASTING APPROACH 

The development of aviation forecasts 

proceeds through both analytical and 

judgmental processes. A series of 

mathematical relationships is tested to 

establish statistical logic and rationale 

for projected growth. However, the 

judgement of the forecast analyst, based 

upon professional experience, 

knowledge of the aviation industry, and 

assessment of the local situation, is 

important in the final determination of 

the preferred forecast. 

The most reliable approach to 

estimating aviation demand is through 

the utilization of more than one 

analytical technique. Methodologies 

frequently considered include trend line 

projections, correlation/regression 

analysis, and market share analysis. 

Trend line projections are probably 

the simplest and most familiar of the 

forecasting techniques. By fitting 

2-4 

growth curves to historical demand 

data, then extending them into the 

future, a basic trend line projection is 

produced. A basic assumption of this 

technique is that outside factors will 

continue to affect aviation demand in 

much the same manner as in the past. 

As broad as this assumption may be, 

the trend line projection does serve as a 

reliable benchmark for comparing other 

projections. 

Correlation analysis provides a 

measure of direct relationship between 

two separate sets of historic data. 

Should there be a reasonable 

correlation between the data sets, 

further evaluation using regression 

analysis may be employed. 

Regression analysis measures the 

statistical relationship between 

dependent and independent variables 

yielding a “correlation coefficient.” The 

correlation coefficient (Pearson’s “r”) 

measures association between the 

changes in a dependent variable and 

independent variable(s). If the rsquared 

(r 2 ) value (coefficient 

determination) is greater than 0.90, it 

indicates good predictive reliability. A 

value below 0.90 may be used with the 

understanding that the predictive 

reliability is lower. 

Market share analysis involves a 

historical review of airport activity as a 

percentage, or share, of a larger 

regional, state, or national aviation 

market. A historical market share 

trend is determined providing an 

expected market share for the future. 

These shares are then multiplied by the 

forecasts of the larger geographical area

to produce a market share projection. 

This method has the same limitations 

as trend line projections, but can 

provide a useful check on the validity of 

other forecasting techniques. 

It is important to note that one should 

not assume a high level of confidence in 

forecasts that extend beyond five years. 

Facility and financial planning usually 

require at least a 10-year view, since it 

often takes more than five years to 

complete a major facility development 

program. However, it is important to 

use forecasts which do not overestimate 

revenue-generating capabilities or 

understate demand for facilities needed 

to meet public (user) needs. 

A wide range of factors is known to 

influence the aviation industry and can 

have significant impacts on the extent 

and nature of air service provided in 

both the local and national markets. 

Technological advances in aviation have 

historically altered, and will continue to 

change, the growth rates in aviation 

demand over time. The most obvious 

example is the impact of jet aircraft on 

the aviation industry, which resulted in 

a growth rate that far exceeded 

expectations. Such changes are 

difficult, if not impossible, to predict, 

and there is simply no mathematical 

way to estimate their impacts. Using a 

broad spectrum of local, regional, and 

national socioeconomic and aviation 

information, and analyzing the most 

current aviation trends, forecasts are 

presented in the following sections. 

The following forecast analysis 

examines each of the aviation demand 

categories expected at Mesquite Metro 

Airport through 2025. Each segment 

2-5 

will be examined individually, and then 

collectively, to provide an 

understanding of the overall aviation 

activity at Mesquite Metro Airport 

through 2025. 

AIRPORT SERVICE AREA 

The initial step in determining the 

general aviation demand for an airport 

is to define its generalized service area. 

The airport service area is determined 

primarily by evaluating the location of 

competing airports, their capabilities 

and services, and their relative 

attraction and convenience. Also, to aid 

in identifying the generalized service 

area for Mesquite Metro Airport, an 

analysis of the billing addresses for 

most of the based aircraft owners was 

conducted. It should be noted that 

aviation demand often crosses 

geographical and political boundaries. 

The airport service area is a generalized 

geographical area where there is a 

potential market for airport services. 

Access to general aviation airports, 

commercial air service, and 

transportation networks enter into the 

equation to determine the size of a 

service area, as well as the quality of 

aviation facilities, distance, and other 

subjective criteria. Typically, the 

service area for a rural general aviation 

airport can extend up to 30 miles. 

General aviation airports, especially 

reliever airports in urban settings, can 

expect a service area to extend outward 

up to 30 miles. 

The proximity and level of service 

offered by other airports are largely the 

defining factors when describing the

airport service area. A description of 

nearby airports was previously 

completed in Chapter One. Mesquite 

has five directly-competing general 

aviation airports: Dallas Executive, 

Lancaster, Addison, Terrell and 

Rockwall, and one commercial service 

airport with a large contingent of 

general aviation aircraft, Dallas Love 

Field. 

Rockwall, Terrell and Lancaster have 

shorter runways and fewer services 

available than does Mesquite Metro 

Airport. Both Rockwall and Terrell are 

also somewhat restricted in future 

growth capabilities due to 

environmental considerations and 

natural barriers surrounding the 

airports. Due to these limitations, 

neither airport will be capable of fully 

meeting their aviation demand. 

Rockwall’s ability to accommodate any 

growth is significantly limited. Terrell 

can accommodate most future demand, 

however, aircraft desiring more than 

5,500 feet will likely base elsewhere. As 

a result, the service area for Mesquite 

Metro Airport would extend to and 

include a portion of these airports’ 

service areas. 

Addison Airport does have a longer 

runway and significant fixed based 

operator (FBO) services, but it is near 

operational capacity. It is located just 

north of Dallas Love Field and 

northeast of DFW. As a result, airspace 

congestion can lead to lengthy delays 

due to the need for clearances. 

Moreover, Addison Airport has very 

little room for future development. 

Thus, Mesquite’s service area will 

extend into Addison’s service area, 

2-6 

attracting aircraft owners who elect to 

avoid the urban/busy nature of Addison 

and base at Mesquite. 

Dallas Executive is probably the 

primary competition for Mesquite Metro 

Airport, considering the availability of 

a longer runway, an airport traffic 

control tower (ATCT), two large FBOs, 

and a new terminal building that is 

currently under construction. It is 

likely that Dallas Executive will limit 

the western extent of the Mesquite 

service area. 

Dallas Love Field is also attractive to 

general aviation users as the runways 

are adequate and there are large FBOs 

on the field providing the full array of 

general aviation services. A drawback 

to Dallas Love Field may be the regular 

mixing of large commercial aviation and 

smaller general aviation aircraft. This 

situation is typically not desired by 

smaller aircraft owners who would 

likely consider an airport such as 

Mesquite. Love Field will compete with 

Mesquite primarily for corporate 

aircraft. 

As in any business enterprise, the more 

attractive the facility is in services and 

capabilities, the more competitive it will 

be in the market. As the level of 

attractiveness expands, so will the 

service area. If an airport’s 

attractiveness increases in relation to 

nearby airports, so will the size of the 

service area. If facilities are adequate 

and rates and fees are competitive at 

Mesquite Metro Airport, some level of 

general aviation activity might be 

attracted to the airport from 

surrounding areas.

In determining the aviation demand for 

an airport, it is necessary to identify the 

role of that airport. The primary role of 

Mesquite Metro Airport is to serve the 

needs of general aviation operators in 

the region. General aviation is a term 

used to describe a diverse range of 

aviation activities which includes all 

segments of the aviation industry 

except commercial air carriers and the 

military. This includes recreational 

flying in single-engine aircraft, up to 

corporate business jets. 

In addition, Mesquite Metro Airport is 

a designated reliever airport. In this 

capacity, Mesquite Metro Airport 

should be maintained to accommodate 

all general aviation aircraft, such as 

business jets, to minimize congestion at 

commercial service airports. TxDOT 

also further identifies Mesquite Metro 

Airport as a Transport airport. This 

designation makes the airport eligible 

for improvements to accommodate 

larger general aviation business jets. 

Exhibit 2A depicts the primary service 

area for Mesquite Metro Airport as 

derived from the analysis of the billing 

records of those aircraft owners that 

base at the airport. The largest 

concentration of based aircraft owners 

reside (home or business) in the east 

side of the City of Dallas. A large 

number are also from the City of 

Mesquite. Interestingly, the larger 

concentrations of aircraft owners lie 

near immediate highway access, 

particularly along I-635, I-30 and I-20. 

The service area also extends very near 

competing Lancaster, Dallas Executive 

and Addison airports. Three of the 

based aircraft owners reside in the 

Rockwall area. 

2-7 

Often a general aviation airport may 

also have an identifiable secondary 

service area. Typically, this area would 

extend beyond the primary service area 

in order to fill in gaps of service 

between airports. A secondary service 

area has been identified for Mesquite 

Metro Airport. This area essentially 

creates a crescent around the east side 

of the primary service area. Aircraft 

owners in the secondary service area 

are typically closer to another airport, 

but due to a lack of facilities may 

instead choose to base at Mesquite 

Metro Airport. 

AIRPORT USER SURVEY 

In order to obtain a profile of local 

general aviation users and their 

preferences, an airport user survey was 

conducted. The survey was sent to all 

registered aircraft owners living 

roughly within a 20-mile radius, as 

identified by FAA records. This area 

approximates the previously defined 

airport service area. A total of 626 

surveys were mailed, 113 responses 

were received (18.1 percent response 

rate), and 46 respondents indicated that 

they base at least one aircraft at 

Mesquite Metro Airport, as presented in 

Table 2B. 

Thirteen of the 46 respondents that 

base at Mesquite indicated that they 

were contemplating the acquisition of at 

least one additional aircraft within the 

next five years. Responses indicated 

that each user conducts an average of 

12 operations per month, with local 

training operations averaging 10 

percent of those operations. The

espondents indicated that they use 

their aircraft for recreation 66 percent 

TABLE 2B 

Pilot Survey Results 


Total Surveys Sent: 626 

Total Survey Responses: 113 

Response Rate: 18.1% 

Respondents Based @ HQZ: 46 

Total Based Aircraft of Based Respondents: 54 

Based respondents considering another aircraft in next 5 years: 

Primary Use of Aircraft % 

Flight 

13 

Business Recreation Instruction Other 

33.52% 66.33% 0.15% 0.00% 

Monthly Operations at HQZ by based respondents: 654 

Average Operations for each based aircraft per month: 

Percent Touch and Go Operations per based aircraft per 

12 

month: 

Primary Reasons for Basing at Mesquite (1-7) 

9.81% 

Hangar FBO/Terminal Hangar Runway 

Convenience 

Facilities 

Services 

2-8 

of the time and business 33 percent of 

the time. 

Costs 

Length 

Navigation 

Aids Other 

2.1 3.8 5.0 4.5 5.1 5.1 6.5 

Current Aircraft Storage 

Tie-down T-hangar Individual Multi 

3 16 26 1 

Preferred Aircraft Storage 

Tie-down T-hangar Individual Multi 

1 6 20 3 

Improvements Necessary at Mesquite (1-6) 

Runway/ Airport/ FBO Aircraft 

Terminal Navigation 

Taxiway Services Apron Hangars Building Aids 

5.1 4.2 5.6 3.4 5.4 4.9 

Source: Registered Pilot Survey. 1 = ‘Highest Priority’. Coffman Associates Analysis. 

The remaining questions on the survey 

were related to owner preferences. 

Table 2B presents the priority 

categories and respondent rankings. 

The priority scale utilized number “1” 

as the highest priority and the number 

“7” as the lowest priority. It should be 

noted that several respondents simply 

checked a category or did not prioritize 

at all. Checked categories were given 

the priority of “1”, while unchecked 

categories were weighted with a “7”. 

The majority of respondents indicated 

several preferences which led them to 

base at or has kept them at the airport. 

As indicated in the table, the highest 

priority for basing at the airport was for 

convenience (lived or worked closer to 

the airport). The next two highest

04MP22-2A-2/22/05 

Johnson 

Legend 

Water 

MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT SERVICE AREA 

I635 

Primary Service Area 

Secondary Service Area 

Zip Code Areas 

County Boundaries 

Major Roads 

I35E 

I35E 

Mid-Way 

Ellis 

(Based Aircraft Zip Code Location) 

76208 

75068 

75034 

75035 

75070 

75069 

76210 

76226 

75065 

75013 

75407 

75442 

75077 

75028 

75022 

Denton 75056 

75057 

75010 

75067 

75007 

75025 

75024 

75023 

75093 

75252 75075 

75287 

Addison 

75074 

75082 

3 

75002 

Collin 

75094 

75098 

1 

75048 

75173 

75166 

75248 1 1 75080 

1 

75087 

75019 75006 

3 

75001 

1 

3 

76051 

1 75254 

75044 

75040 

75244 1 75240 

75081 

75089 

75234 

75243 

2 

DFW 

75251 

75229 

75042 

4 

75088 

75063 

75230 

Rockwall 

75261 

1 

75238 75041 

4 

75039 

75231 8 3 

75038 

75043 

75062 

75220 Love 

75032 

76039 

75218 

4 

7520975205 

75225 

1 

2 2 75228 

75235 2 1 

75150 

75214 

76155 75061 

1 

10 

75247 

6 2 

75219 75206 

75182 

75060 

1 1 

1 75223 


2 76006 

75227 75149 

75212 

7520775204 

75050 

75201 

Tarrant 

Dallas S352 

1 9 Mesquite 

75208 

76011 

75215 

75051 75211 

75203 

6 75126 

75181 7 

76010 Grand Prairie 75224 75216 

75217 75180 

75233 

76014 

Dallas Executive 

75236 

75253 

75052 

75237 75241 

76018 

75116 75232 5 

75249 

75141 

75159 

75137 

76002 

75114 

75134 

75172 2 

76063 

76084 

76009 

76064 

75104 

76065 

75167 

75115 

75154 

75165 

75146 

I45 

Lancaster 

75152 

Based per Zip 

1-3 

4-8 

9-48 

75125 

Source: Airport Records. GIS data 

compiled by Coffman Associates. 

75119 

I30 

I20 

Rockwall 

75158 

Dallas - 48 

241,227,226,223,206,219, 

205,235,228,218,238,229, 

243,244,254,248,372,374, 

240,225,214,204 

Mesquite - 20 

75181,75149,75150 

Garland - 14 

043,041,040,044,047 

75189 

75160 

Kaufman 

Richardson - 5 

081,080,082 

Rowlett - 4 

75088 

Forney - 4 

75126 

Rockwell - 3 

75087 

Seagoville - 2 

75159 

0 4 8 

Miles 

1 inch equals 8 miles 

75135 

Terrell 

75142 

U175 

Henderson 

Majors 

Caddo Mills 

Hunt 

75143 

75401 

75402 

75474 

75161 

Van Zandt 

75147 

Sunnyvale - 2 

75182 

Arlington - 2 

76006 

Plano - 2 

75093,75094 

Other - 7 

062,048,070,055, 

128,181,701 

75169 

75103 

75124 

Exhibit 2A 

SERVICE AREA

priorities were the airport’s aircraft 

hangar facilities (3.8) and lower hangar 

storage fees (4.5). The lowest ranked 

category was both runway length and 

navigational aids, which had a response 

average of 5.1. 

The questionnaire also asked those 

surveyed what improvements they felt 

were necessary at Mesquite Metro 

Airport. This question asked for a 

priority ranking with “1” as the highest 

and “6" as the lowest. A clear majority 

felt that repairing existing hangars 

and/or constructing new hangars was 

the top priority. The need for improved 

FBO services, particularly quality 

maintenance facilities, was the second 

most common response. Terminal 

building or aircraft apron improvements 

were of the least concern to the based 

respondents. 

The respondents were also asked to 

provide general comments. The need 

for an airport traffic control tower 

(ATCT) was a common request. One 

respondent sited the lack of an ATCT as 

a safety concern that discouraged him 

from using the airport. Another 

suggested that because the instrument 

landing system (ILS) approach attracts 

a large number of training flights to the 

airport, the airport should consider an 

ATCT for improved safety. Other 

common improvement suggestions 

included a restaurant, improved 

highway access and a maintenance FBO 

focused on business jets. 

2-9 

AVIATION TRENDS 

NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS 

Each year, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) publishes its 

national forecast. Included in this 

publication are forecasts for large air 

carriers, regional air carriers, general 

aviation, and FAA workload measures. 

The forecasts are prepared to meet 

budget and planning needs of the 

constituent units of the FAA and to 

provide information that can be used by 

state and local authorities, the aviation 

industry, and the general public. The 

current edition when this chapter was 

prepared was FAA Aerospace Forecasts- 

Fiscal Years, 2005-2016. The forecast 

uses the economic performance of the 

United States as an indicator of future 

aviation industry growth. Similar 

economic analyses are applied to the 

outlook for aviation growth in 

international markets. 

In the seven years prior to the events of 

9/11, the U.S. civil aviation industry 

experienced unprecedented growth in 

demand and profits. The impacts to the 

economy and the aviation industry from 

the events of 9/11 were immediate and 

significant. However, the economic 

climate and aviation industry are both 

experiencing significant upturns. The 

FAA expects the U.S. economy to 

experience strong growth over the next 

few years, with moderate growth 

thereafter. This will positively

influence the aviation industry, leading 

to passenger, air cargo, and general 

aviation growth throughout the forecast 

period (assuming that there will not be 

any new successful terrorist incidents 

against either U.S. or world aviation). 

For the first time since 2000, the 

number of passenger enplanements on 

U.S. commercial carriers increased in 

2004. This is due in large part to the 

extremely strong growth of low-cost 

carriers such as Southwest and AirTran 

Airways, among others. A total of 502.2 

million passengers were enplaned in 

2004, up 4 percent from 2003, but still 

10.6 percent below the 2000 peak. Over 

the forecast period, enplanements are 

expected to grow 2.9 percent annually. 

Regional/commuter passenger enplanements 

are projected to increase by 15.4 

percent in 2005, 9.9 percent in 2006, 

and 6.3 percent in 2007. Between 2008 

and 2016, enplanements are projected 

to grow at an average rate of 3.9 

percent annually, reaching 245.5 

million by 2016. Over the entire 12year 

forecast period, passenger 

enplanements are forecast to grow 5.5 

percent annually. 

An additional measure of the health of 

the aviation system is the trend in air 

cargo as measured in revenue-ton-miles 

(RTM). The FAA projects air cargo 

RTMs to grow at 5.1 percent annually. 

GENERAL AVIATION 

In the 10 years since the passage of the 

General Aviation Revitalization Act of 

2-10 

1994 (federal legislation which limits 

the liability on general aviation aircraft 

to 18 years from the date of 

manufacture) it is clear that the Act has 

successfully infused new life into the 

general aviation industry. This 

legislation sparked an interest to renew 

the manufacturing of general aviation 

aircraft due to the reduction in product 

liability, as well as renewed optimism 

for the industry. Annual shipments of 

new aircraft rose every year between 

1994 and 2000. 

The growth in the general aviation 

industry slowed considerably from 2001 

to 2003, having been negatively 

impacted by the events of 9/11. 

Thousands of general aviation aircraft 

were grounded for weeks due to “no-fly 

zone” restrictions imposed on operations 

of aircraft in security-sensitive areas. 

Washington, D.C., continues to 

implement these restrictions to this 

day. This, in addition to the economic 

recession taking place from 2001to 

2003, had a negative impact on the 

general aviation industry. 

In 2004, the general aviation industry 

showed a significant increase in 

activity, returning to pre-9/11 levels for 

most indicators. The FAA forecast 

assumes that the regulatory 

environment affecting general aviation 

will not change dramatically. The 

forecast also assumes that the 

fractional ownership market will 

continue to expand and bring new 

operators and shareholders into 

business aviation. It also assumes that 

another successful terrorist attack on 

aviation will not occur.

The active general aviation aircraft 

fleet is expected to increase at an 

average annual rate of 1.1 percent over 

the 12-year forecast period, increasing 

from 210,600 in 2003, to 240,070 in 

2016. This growth includes the addition 

of a new aircraft category, light sport 

aircraft, which is expected to enter the 

active fleet in 2005, and account for 

15,410 aircraft in 2016. Light sport 

aircraft include small fixed-wing 

airplanes, powered-parachutes, gyroplanes, 

ultra-lights, and others. 

FAA forecasts identify two general 

aviation economies that follow different 

market patterns. The turbojet fleet is 

expected to increase at an average 

annual rate of 5.4 percent, increasing 

from 8,153 in 2003, to 15,900 in 2016. 

Factors leading to this substantial 

growth include expected strong U.S. 

and global economic growth; the 

continued success of fractionalownership 

programs; a continuation of 

the shift from commercial air travel to 

corporate/business air travel by 

business travelers and corporations. In 

addition, new micro jets will begin to 

enter the fleet in 2006, and grow to 

4,500 aircraft by 2016. These aircraft 

are expected to stimulate the market for 

on-demand air taxis. 

Exhibit 2B depicts the FAA forecast for 

active general aviation aircraft in the 

United States. The number of single 

engine piston aircraft is projected to 

reach 148,000 in 2015, which represents 

an average annual growth rate of 0.2 

percent. During this same time, the 

number of active multi-engine piston 

aircraft in the fleet is expected to 

decline by 0.2 percent, resulting in a 

2-11 

total of 17,235 aircraft in 2016. The 

number of turboprop aircraft is expected 

to increase at an average annual rate of 

3.7 percent over the 12-year forecast 

period, to 8,400 active aircraft. The 

rotorcraft fleet is forecast to grow 1.2 

percent annually through 2016, while 

and the number of experimental aircraft 

is projected to increase from 20,603 in 

2003, to 21,380 in 2010. Thereafter, the 

growth in experimental aircraft is 

expected to flatten, primarily due to the 

growth in sport aircraft. 

The declines in the aircraft utilization 

rates experienced in 2000 (down 3.2 

percent) and 2001 (down 7.2 percent) 

were due, in part, to higher fuel prices 

and the 2001 U.S. economic recession. 

However, the restrictions placed on 

general aviation in the aftermath of the 

9/11 events, contributed heavily to the 

decline in utilization in 2001. A strong 

recovery in the U.S. economy in 2004 

and 2005 has led to increased 

utilization rates for most categories of 

general aviation aircraft. 

The total pilot population is projected to 

increase from an estimated 618,633 in 

2004, to 750,260 by 2016, which 

represents an average annual growth 

rate of 1.6 percent. The student pilot 

population increased 0.7 percent in 

2004, and is forecast to increase at an 

annual rate of 1.8 percent over the 12year 

forecast period, reaching a total of 

108,800 in 2016. Growth rates for the 

other pilot categories over the forecast 

period are as follows: airline transport 

pilots, up 1.7 percent; recreational 

pilots, up 1.6 percent; rotorcraft only, up 

1.2 percent; and glider only, up 0.2 

percent.

The General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) publishes a yearly 

outlook on the general aviation 

industry. The most recent edition was 

published in early 2005. 2004 

represented a year of strong recovery for 

the general aviation industry. Total 

billings reached almost $12 billion, 

which is nearly a 20 percent growth 

over 2003. GAMA forecasts that the 

industry will continue a strong growth 

trend. 

Over the past several years, the general 

aviation industry has launched a series 

of programs and initiatives whose main 

goals are to promote and assure future 

growth within the industry. “No Plane, 

No Gain” is an advocacy program 

created in 1992 by the General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and 

the National Business Aircraft 

Association (NBAA) to promote 

acceptance and increased use of general 

aviation as an essential, cost-effective 

tool for businesses. Other programs are 

intended to promote growth in new pilot 

starts and introduce people to general 

aviation. “Project Pilot”, sponsored by 

the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA), promotes the 

training of new pilots in order to 

increase and maintain the size of the 

pilot population. The “Be a Pilot” 

program is jointly sponsored and 

supported by more than 100 industry 

organizations. The NBAA sponsors 

“AvKids,” a program designed to 

educate elementary school students 

about the benefits of business aviation 

to the community, and career 

opportunities available to them in 

business aviation. Over the years, 

2-12 

programs such as these have played an 

important role in the success of general 

aviation and will continue to be vital to 

its growth in the future. 


FORECASTS 

To determine the types and sizes of 

facilities that should be planned to 

accommodate general aviation activity, 

certain elements of this activity must be 

forecast. Indicators of general aviation 

demand include: 

• Based Aircraft 

• Based Aircraft Fleet Mix 

• General Aviation Operations 

• Peaking Operations 

• Annual Instrument Approaches 

The remainder of this chapter will 

examine historical trends with regard to 

these areas of general aviation, and 

project future demand for these 

segments of general aviation activity at 

the airport. 

BASED AIRCRAFT 

The number of based aircraft is the 

most basic indicator of general aviation 

demand. By first developing a forecast 

of based aircraft, the trend of other 

indicators can be projected based upon 

this trend, and other factors 

characteristic to Mesquite Metro 

Airport and the area it serves can be 

assessed.

04MP22-2B-4/4/05 

AIRCRAFT (in thousands) 

250 

225 

200 

175 

150 

125 

120 

U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT (in thousands) 

Year 

2004 

(Est.) 

2008 

2012 

2016 

FIXED WING 

PISTON TURBINE 

ROTORCRAFT 

Single Multi- 

Sport 

Engine Engine Turboprop Turbojet Piston Turbine Experimental Aircraft Other Total 

144.0 

145.5 

147.0 

148.0 

U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT 

17.7 

17.5 

17.4 

17.2 

7.3 

7.7 

8.1 

8.4 

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2005-2016. 

ACTUAL FORECAST 

FORECAST 

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

YEAR 

Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown 

at least one hour during the calendar year. 

8.4 

10.5 

13.3 

15.9 

2.2 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

4.7 

4.9 

5.1. 

5.3 

20.8 

21.3 

21.4 

21.4 

N/A 

10.8 

13.2 

15.4 

2010 

6.2 

6.1 

5.9 

5..8 

2015 

211.3 

227.7 

233.9 

240.1 

Exhibit 2B 

U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION 

AIRCRAFT FORECASTS

Registered Aircraft Forecasts 

One method of forecasting based 

aircraft at an airport is to examine local 

aircraft ownership, or aircraft 

registrations in the region served by the 

airport. By then comparing the historic 

aircraft registrations to historic-based 

aircraft, a based aircraft forecast can be 

developed. 

TABLE 2C 

Historical Aircraft Registrations for Airport Service Area 

Market Share of Competing Airports 

Aircraft Based At: 

Year 

Regional 

Aircraft 

Registrations* Mesquite % 

2-13 

The primary service area for aircraft 

basing at Mesquite Metro Airport 

extends approximately to a 20-mile 

radius around the airport. This 

includes the eastern half of Dallas 

County and the bordering portions of 

Collin, Rockwall and Kaufman 

Counties. Aircraft ownership records 

for this approximate area were obtained 

from the FAA aircraft registration 

database, and are presented in Table 

2C. 

Rockwall 

% Lancaster % Terrell % 

1993 671 197 29.36% 84 12.52% 110 16.39% 61 9.09% 

1994 691 201 29.09 74 10.71 110 15.92 61 8.83 

1995 696 201 28.88 74 10.63 110 15.80 61 8.76 

1996 710 210 29.58 80 11.27 126 17.75 76 10.70 

1997 726 209 28.79 86 11.85 126 17.36 85 11.71 

1998 728 209 28.71 86 11.81 126 17.31 85 11.68 

1999 721 210 29.13 86 11.93 126 17.48 85 11.79 

2000 753 210 27.89 86 11.42 126 16.73 85 11.29 

2001 748 215 28.74 86 11.50 126 16.84 85 11.36 

2002 758 215 28.36 86 11.35 126 16.62 85 11.21 

2003 742 220 29.65 86 11.59 128 17.25 85 11.46 

2004 763 226 29.62 86 11.27 130 17.04 85 11.14 

Source: Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft; *Advantext Aircraft and Airmen Database 

The table presents historical aircraft 

registrations for the approximated 

airport study area, between 1993 and 

2004. A steady growth trend has been 

experienced, with an annual average 

growth rate of 1.08 percent. The study 

area added 92 aircraft registrations 

over the period. 

The table also shows the percentage of 

the registered aircraft that are based at 

regional general aviation airports. 

Mesquite has consistently accounted for 

approximately 29 percent. Rockwall, 

Lancaster and Terrell also accounted for 

a consistent portion of the registered 

aircraft. As the forecasts are developed, 

the distribution of registered aircraft 

should not vary greatly from this 

historical trend unless some unusual 

event can appropriately account for a 

change, such as an airport closing, or a 

constrained airport condition such as is 

the case at Rockwall.

Market Share of U.S. Fleet 

The first registered aircraft forecast was 

developed by comparing the aircraft 

registered in the study area with the 

2-14 

United States active fleet of general 

aviation aircraft. Table 2D provides 

historical and forecasted aircraft 

registrations since 1995. 

TABLE 2D 

Service Area Registered Aircraft Forecasts 


U.S. Active Service Area Registered 

Year 

Aircraft 

Aircraft % of U.S. Aircraft 

1995 188,089 696 0.3700% 

1996 191,129 710 0.3715% 

1997 192,414 726 0.3773% 

1998 204,711 728 0.3556% 

1999 219,464 721 0.3285% 

2000 217,533 753 0.3462% 

2001 211,447 748 0.3538% 

2002 211,244 758 0.3588% 

2003 211,190 742 0.3513% 

2004 219,100 763 0.3482% 

Constant Share Forecast 

2010 236,900 825 0.3482% 

2015 246,400 859 0.3482% 

2025 266,600 929 0.3482% 

Increasing Share Forecast 

2010 236,900 849 0.3580% 

2015 246,400 912 0.3700% 

2025 266,600 1,040 0.3900% 

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast Data, U.S. Census of Civil Aircraft 

Two forecasts were developed 

considering the study area’s share of 

U.S. active aircraft. First, a forecast 

maintaining a constant 0.3482 percent 

of U.S. active aircraft was developed. 

This forecast yields 929 registered 

aircraft by 2025. Next, an increasing 

share forecast was developed. As 

presented in the table, the increasing 

share forecast yields 1,040 aircraft by 

2025. By the intermediate term of the 

forecast (roughly 2015), aircraft 

registrations would equal the 1995 

percentage share of U.S. active aircraft 

and then grow moderately through the 

long term period. 

Market Share per 1,000 Population 

Another method of forecasting study 

area aircraft registrations considers the 

number of aircraft per 1,000 residents 

in the study area. Because historical 

and forecast population data is not 

readily available by zip code, Dallas 

County is used for the population 

comparison, as it is a serviceable 

approximation of the study area. Table 

2E presents historical and forecast 

registered aircraft per 1,000 residents of 

Dallas County.

TABLE 2E 

County Aircraft Per 1,000 Resident Population 


Study Area Registered Dallas County 

Year 

Aircraft 

Population 

2-15 

Aircraft Per 1,000 

Residents 

1993 671 1,955,791 0.34 

1994 691 1,991,375 0.35 

1995 696 2,027,606 0.34 

1996 710 2,064,496 0.34 

1997 726 2,102,058 0.35 

1998 728 2,140,302 0.34 

1999 721 2,179,243 0.33 

2000 753 2,218,899 0.34 

2001 748 2,261,967 0.33 

2002 758 2,302,149 0.33 

2003 742 2,341,141 0.32 

2004 763 2,377,544 0.32 

Constant Ratio Projection 

2010 828 2,579,566 0.32 

2015 885 2,757,573 0.32 

2025 1,000 3,117,192 0.32 

Increasing Ratio Projection 

2010 877 2,579,566 0.34 

2015 993 2,757,573 0.36 

2025 1,247 3,117,192 0.40 

Source: Coffman Associates Analysis 

Two forecasts were developed 

considering aircraft registrations per 

1,000 residents. First, a constant share 

of 0.32 aircraft per 1,000 residents 

yielded 1,000 registered aircraft by 

2025. Next, an increasing share 

projection reaching 0.40 aircraft per 

1,000 residents yielded 1,247 aircraft 

registrations in the study area by 2025. 

Statistical Trends and Regression 

A trend line projection was also 

considered for forecasting registered 

aircraft in the study area, yielding an 

“r 2 " value of 0.88. This projection yields 

813 registered aircraft by 2010, 851 

aircraft registrations by 2015, and 927 

registrations by 2025. 

Regression analysis was also conducted 

comparing Dallas County’s population 

to registered aircraft in the study area. 

An “r 2 " value of 0.88 resulted. For 2010, 

this regression forecast yields 807 

registrations, the 2015 projection is 841, 

and 911 by 2025. 

Registered Aircraft Summary 

Table 2F summarizes the six 

projections and presents the selected 

forecast for registered aircraft in the 

study area. It appears that no single 

projection stands out as the most 

reasonable. For this reason, the 

selected forecast represents a near 

average of all the projections. The 

forecasts developed for the study area’s 

registered aircraft are also depicted on 

Exhibit 2C.

TABLE 2F 

Registered Aircraft Projections Summary 


PROJECTIONS 2010 2015 2025 

Share of US Active Aircraft Fleet 

Constant 825 859 929 

Increasing 849 912 1,040 

Registered Aircraft per 1,000 Population 

Constant 828 885 1,000 

Increasing 877 993 1,247 

Regression 

Trend line: r 2 = 0.88 (Year v Registered) 813 851 927 

Pop. v Registered: r 2 =0.88 807 841 911 

Selected Forecast 820 870 960 

Coffman Associates Analysis; Population is for Dallas County 

Based Aircraft Forecasts 

Determining the number of based 

aircraft at an airport can be a 

challenging task. With the transient 

nature of aircraft storage, it can be hard 

to arrive at an exact number of based 

aircraft, as the total can change weekly. 

As a result, airports often don’t keep 

records of based aircraft. Fortunately, 

the airport staff at Mesquite Metro 

Airport has kept detailed records 

pertaining to tenants of city-owned 

hangars. This data, in conjunction with 

the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, has 

been used to arrive at the based aircraft 

data utilized in this analysis. From 

discussions with airport staff, it appears 

that the historical-based aircraft data 

provided by the FAA is reasonably 

accurate. As such, the FAA data will 

provide the foundation for the following 

based aircraft forecast. 

2-16 

Market Share of Registered Aircraft 

Now that registered aircraft for the 

service area has been forecast, based 

aircraft at Mesquite Metro Airport can 

be examined in comparison to historical 

regional registered aircraft. Table 2G 

presents based aircraft at Mesquite 

Metro Airport as a share of the study 

area’s registered aircraft projection. As 

presented in the table, aircraft based at 

Mesquite Metro Airport as a share of 

the region’s registered aircraft has 

remained relatively constant since 

1993. 

Future based aircraft at Mesquite 

Metro Airport will depend on several 

factors, including the economy, 

available airport facilities, and 

competing airports. Forecasts assume 

a reasonably stable economy and 

reasonable development of airport

04MP22-2C-4/5/05 

REGISTERED AIRCRAFT 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

'93 

1995 

HISTORICAL 

FORECAST 

LEGEND 

Share of U.S. Active Aircraft Fleet 

Constant 

Increasing 

Registered Aircraft per 1,000 Population 

Constant 

Increasing 

Regression 

Trendline (Year vs. Registered) 

Population vs. Registered 

Selected Forecast 

2000 

2005 

Source: Coffman Associates Analysis; Population is for the City of Mesquite. 

2010 2015 2020 

2025 

Exhibit 2C 

REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS

facilities necessary to accommodate 

aviation demand, as well as a limited 

development potential at nearby 

Rockwall and Terrell Airports. The 

table presents both a constant 

projection and an increasing market 

TABLE 2G 

Based Aircraft vs. Service Area Registered Aircraft 


2-17 

share projection as a percentage of the 

region’s registered aircraft. It is 

assumed that Mesquite Metro Airport 

will continue to be capable of 

accommodating increased demand over 

the planning period. 

Year 

Service Area Registered 

Aircraft Based Aircraft % of Registered Aircraft 

1993 671 197 29.36% 

1994 691 201 29.09% 

1995 696 201 28.88% 

1996 710 210 29.58% 

1997 726 209 28.79% 

1998 728 209 28.71% 

1999 721 210 29.13% 

2000 753 210 27.89% 

2001 748 215 28.74% 

2002 758 215 28.36% 

2003 742 220 29.65% 

2004 763 223 29.23% 

Constant Market Share Projection 

2010 820 240 29.23% 

2015 870 254 29.23% 

2025 960 281 29.23% 

Increasing Market Share Projection 

2010 820 254 31.00% 

2015 870 278 32.00% 

2025 960 326 34.00% 

Sources: FAA TAF; Airport Records 

As presented in the table, the first 

based aircraft forecast considers that 

the airport would maintain a constant 

market share (29.23 percent) of the 

study area’s registered aircraft. This 

projection would yield 240 aircraft 

based at the airport in 2010, 254 

aircraft in 2015, and 281 aircraft in 

2025. The second forecast considers an 

increasing market share. This 

projection would yield 254 aircraft 

based at the airport in 2010, 278 

aircraft in 2015, and 326 aircraft in 

2025. 

Market Share per 1,000 Population 

Often when working with an airport 

located in a metropolitan area, there 

are a number of methods with which to 

compare to population. Trends 

comparing the number of based aircraft 

with both the population of the City of 

Mesquite and Dallas County were 

analyzed. Table 2H presents the 

market share forecasts developed using 

the population of the City of Mesquite. 

The constant share forecast results in

231, 243 and 258 based aircraft, while 

the increasing share forecast results in 

2-18 

246, 272, and 319 based aircraft for the 

planning periods. 

TABLE 2H 

Based Aircraft vs. Mesquite Population 


Year Based Aircraft Mesquite City Population Aircraft per 1,000 Residents 

1993 197 106,191 1.86 

1994 201 107,808 1.86 

1995 201 109,450 1.84 

1996 210 111,550 1.88 

1997 209 114,350 1.83 

1998 209 117,950 1.77 

1999 210 119,600 1.76 

2000 210 124,523 1.69 

2001 215 126,172 1.70 

2002 215 127,842 1.68 

2003 220 129,500 1.70 

2004 223 131,600 1.69 

Constant Market Share Projection 

2010 231 136,175 1.69 

2015 243 143,014 1.69 

2025 258 151,838 1.69 

Increasing Ratio Projection 

2010 246 136,175 1.80 

2015 272 143,014 1.90 

2025 319 151,838 2.10 


The comparison to Dallas County 

population shows a similar trend. The 

constant share forecast yields 242, 259, 

and 293 based aircraft, while the 

increasing share projection yields 251, 

278, and 337 based aircraft for each 

planning horizon. 


Regression analysis was also conducted 

on the data sets. As discussed 

previously, it is optimal to have an “r 2 " 

value above 0.90, which would 

represent a very strong correlation. 

When comparing based aircraft as the 

dependant variable to time (trend line 

analyses), an “r 2 " value of 0.91 resulted. 

This represents 233, 244, and 264 

projected based aircraft for 2010, 2015 

and 2025, respectively. 

When comparing based aircraft to the 

population of the City of Mesquite, an 

“r 2 " value of 0.87 resulted. The 2010 

projection resulted in 224 based 

aircraft, and the 2015 and 2025 periods 

result in 229 and 236 based aircraft, 

respectively. 

An additional analysis comparing the 

population of Dallas County as a whole 

to historic Mesquite Metro Airport 

based aircraft resulted in an “r 2 " value 

of 0.91. This comparison results in 232, 

241, and 260 based aircraft for each of 

the planning periods.

Comparative Forecasts 

The FAA TAF also contains projections 

of based aircraft. For 2010, the TAF 

projects 245 based aircraft, increasing 

to 263 by 2015. The 2020 TAF 

projection is for 282 based aircraft. 

Because the TAF does not project 

beyond 2020, an extrapolation of the 

data was performed resulting in 299 

based aircraft for 2025. 

Another method of projecting based 

aircraft is to simply analyze the 

historical growth rate of based aircraft 

at the airport. Utilizing the historic 

annual average growth rate of 1.08 from 

1993 to 2004, based aircraft would 

reach 237 by 2010, 250 by 2015 and 277 

by 2025. 

The 1998 Master Plan projected 240 

based aircraft by 2010 and 280 by 2020. 

Interpolating the 1998 Master Plan, 

based aircraft projections yield 259 

aircraft in 2015. Extrapolation of the 

trend results in a forecast of 302 based 

aircraft for 2025. 

Based Aircraft Summary 

Deciding which forecast or which 

combination of forecasts to use to arrive 

at a final based aircraft forecast 

involves more than just statistical 

analysis. Consideration must be given 

to the current and future aviation 

conditions at the airport in the short 

term. For example, it is known that 

Mesquite is currently constructing Thangar 

and executive hangar space that 

can accommodate up to 18 aircraft. It is 

also known that the airport 

management maintains a ‘waiting list’ 

2-19 

for hangar space. This list is updated 

on a yearly basis and currently includes 

81 aircraft owners. 

Experience indicates that when new 

hangars are constructed, those who rent 

the space are not always new based 

aircraft. Some of them will be aircraft 

owners who have used tie-downs or 

other facilities at the airport. Typically, 

a new hangar facility will attract up to 

75 percent new based aircraft. Also, 

approximately 50-75 percent of those on 

the waiting list will actually sign a 

lease when the opportunity becomes 

available. Because the airport 

management actively contacts all those 

on the list, it is fair to assume that 

upwards of 75 percent of those on the 

waiting list would sign a lease and base 

at Mesquite Metro Airport. 

In addition, since the last master plan, 

Mesquite Metro Airport has improved 

in a manner to be more attractive to 

aircraft owners, especially corporate 

owners. New hangars have been and 

are continuing to be built, an executive 

terminal building has been completed, 

more apron space has been added, and 

existing facilities have been and are 

continuing to be refurbished. Existing 

navigational aids such as the ground 

communications outlet (GCO) and the 

Automated Weather Observing System 

(AWOS) are very much desired by 

aircraft owners. 

The level of services, amenities and 

airfield capabilities of other regional 

airports can also be a factor when 

projecting based aircraft. As previously 

mentioned, Rockwall, Terrell, and 

Lancaster all have shorter runways 

than Mesquite. Rockwall and Terrell

are additionally constrained from 

adding runway length due to physical 

constraints and environmental barriers. 

As a result, aircraft owners with larger 

aircraft would likely choose Mesquite 

since it can better accommodate them. 

Other airports in or in close proximity 

to the service area for Mesquite Metro 

Airport include Addison, Dallas 

Executive, and Dallas Love Field. Most 

smaller aircraft owners are likely to 

avoid the busy commercial service 

airports such as Dallas Love Field. The 

mixing of commercial jets and smaller 

general aviation aircraft is a condition 

that owners of smaller aircraft will 

typically avoid. Addison presents 

challenges to the general aviation user 

since the airport is congested and is in 

close proximity to the major commercial 

service airports in the region. As 

previously mentioned, capacity 

constraints lead to extended hold times 

and clearances to land at Addison. 

Dallas Executive Airport will probably 

be the most competitive to Mesquite 

Metro Airport for a similar type of 

aviation activity. Dallas Executive has 

a 6,400-foot runway, and is served by 

an ILS approach and a crosswind 

runway. It has an ATCT and a new 

terminal building is currently under 

construction. Since the airports are 

nearly 20 miles apart, both should have 

the ability to provide general aviation 

services to their respective service 

areas, with some overlap. 

The City of Mesquite has made a 

concerted and successful effort to 

position the airport to accept significant 

growth. As a result, future based 

2-20 

aircraft should trend toward the higher 

projections presented above. Were the 

City to abandon the aggressive and 

positive growth goals for the airport, 

then the lower projections could be 

realized. The City has given every 

indication that it plans to continue 

strong support of its airport. Table 2J 

shows a summary of the 12 projections 

analyzed for future based aircraft at 

Mesquite Metro Airport. The selected 

forecast closely resembles the 

increasing share of registered aircraft in 

the airport service area. Exhibit 2D 

visually depicts the based aircraft 

projections, including the selected 

forecast. 

Planning Horizons 

The cost-effective, efficient, and orderly 

development of an airport should rely 

more upon actual demand at an airport 

than on a time-based forecast figure. In 

order to develop a master plan that is 

demand-based rather than time-based, 

a series of planning horizon milestones 

has been established for Mesquite 

Metro Airport that take into 

consideration the reasonable range of 

aviation demand projections prepared 

in this chapter. 

It is important to consider that the 

actual activity at the airport may be 

higher or lower than projected activity 

levels. By planning according to 

activity milestones, the resulting plan 

can accommodate unexpected shifts, or 

changes, in the area’s aviation demand. 

It is important that the plan 

accommodate these changes so that the 

airport staff can respond to unexpected

04MP22-2D-4/5/05 

REGISTERED AIRCRAFT 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

'93 

1995 

HISTORICAL 

FORECAST 

LEGEND 


Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (Mesquite) 

Constant 

Increasing 

Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (Dallas Co.) 

Constant 

Increasing 


Constant 

Increasing 


Trendline (Year vs. Based) 

Population (Dallas Co.) vs. Based 

Population (Mesquite) vs. Based 

Terminal Area Forecast 

Historical Growth Rate 

1998 Master Plan 

(2015 & 2025 Interpolated from original) 

Selected Forecast 

2000 2005 

2010 

2015 2020 

2025 

Exhibit 2D 

BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS

changes in a timely fashion. These 

milestones provide flexibility, while 

2-21 

potentially extending this plan’s useful 

life if aviation trends slow over time. 

TABLE 2J 

Based Aircraft Projections Summary 


PROJECTIONS 2010 2015 2025 

Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (Mesquite) 

Constant 231 243 258 

Increasing 246 272 319 

Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (Dallas Co.) 

Constant 242 259 293 



Constant 240 254 281 



Trend line (1993-2004): r2 = 0.91 (Year v Based) 233 244 264 

Pop (Dal Co.) v Based: r2=0.91 232 241 260 

Pop (Mesquite) v Based: r2=0.87 224 229 236 

Other Forecasts 

FAA Terminal Area Forecast 245 263 299 

Historical Growth Rate 237 250 277 

1998 Master Plan* 240 259 302 

Selected Forecast 255 280 330 

Source: Coffman Associates Analysis; *2015 & 2025 Interpolated/extrapolated from original data. 

The most important reason for utilizing 

milestones is that they allow the airport 

to develop facilities according to need 

generated by actual demand levels. The 

demand-based schedule provides 

flexibility in development, as 

development schedules can be slowed or 

expedited in response to actual demand 

at any given time over the planning 

period. The resulting plan provides 

airport officials with a financiallyresponsible, 

need-based program. The 

planning milestones of short, 

intermediate, and long-term generally 

correlate to the five, ten, and twentyyear 

periods used in the previous 

chapter. For based aircraft the 

following planning milestones apply: 

• Short Term - 255 

• Intermediate Term - 280 

• Long Term - 330 


FLEET MIX PROJECTION 

Knowing the aircraft fleet mix expected 

to utilize the airport is necessary to 

properly plan facilities that will best 

serve the level of activity and the type 

of activities occurring at the airport. 

The existing based aircraft fleet mix is 

comprised of 182 single-engine, 38 

multi-engine, piston-powered aircraft, 

one jet-powered aircraft, and two 

helicopters. At the present time, there 

are no based turboprop fixed wing 

aircraft.

As detailed previously, the national 

trend is toward a larger percentage of 

sophisticated turboprop, jet aircraft, 

and helicopters in the national fleet. 

Active multi-engine piston aircraft are 

expected to be the only category of 

aircraft which shows a decrease in 

annual growth. Growth within each 

based aircraft category at the airport 

has been determined by comparison 

with national projections (which reflect 

current aircraft production) and 

consideration of local economic 

conditions. 

The fleet mix of the registered aircraft 

in the service area from 1998 to 2004 

was also identified as a point of 

comparison. Although the number of 

registered aircraft has increased over 

the term, the mix of aircraft types has 

remained nearly constant. Singleengine 

piston aircraft represent 74 

percent and multi-engine aircraft 12 

percent of the service area’s total. 

Turboprop, jet and helicopters each 

account for approximately three percent 

of aircraft registered in the service area. 

The remaining five percent account for 

gliders, ultra-lights and gyro-planes. 

TABLE 2K 

Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Projections 


EXISTING FORECAST 

Aircraft 

Short 

Inter. 

Type 2004 % Term % Term % 

2-22 

The projected trend of based aircraft at 

Mesquite Metro Airport includes a 

growing number of aircraft in each 

category, except multi-engine piston 

which are projected to decline in both 

percentage mix and total numbers as 

well. Growth in turbojet aircraft is 

expected to be strong, as is growth in 

turboprop aircraft, following national 

trends. The based aircraft fleet mix 

projection for Mesquite Metro Airport is 

summarized in Table 2K. 

Currently, single-engine aircraft 

compose the largest segment of aircraft 

type at Mesquite Metro Airport, making 

up 82 percent of total based aircraft. 

Future based aircraft mix will continue 

to be dominated by single-engine 

aircraft, however, turboprop and 

turbojet are projected to increase 

rapidly. With the many recent 

improvements to the airport, as well as 

the projected growth in population and 

employment in the region, it is 

reasonable to expect jets and other 

turbo-powered aircraft to base at 


Long 

Term % 

Single Engine 182 81.61% 205 80.39% 223 79.64% 256 77.58% 

Multi-Engine 38 17.04% 38 14.90% 36 12.86% 35 10.61% 

Turboprop 0 0.00% 4 1.57% 8 2.86% 15 4.55% 

Jet 1 0.45% 5 1.96% 10 3.57% 20 6.06% 

Helicopters 2 0.90% 3 1.18% 3 1.07% 4 1.21% 

Totals 223 100.00% 255 100.00% 280 100.00% 330 100.00% 

Source: FAA Form 5010, Coffman Associates Analysis


ANNUAL OPERATIONS 

There are two types of operations at an 

airport: local and itinerant. A local 

operation is a takeoff or landing 

performed by an aircraft that operates 

within sight of the airport, or which 

executes simulated approaches or 

touch-and-go operations at the airport. 

Itinerant operations are those 

performed by aircraft with a specific 

origin or destination away from the 

airport. Generally, local operations are 

characterized by training operations. 

Itinerant operations are characterized 

by aircraft landing at the airport for 

short stays or departing for other 

regional/national airports. Itinerant 

operations are typically those 

conducting business, or tourism, or 

simply refueling. 

Due to the absence of an airport traffic 

control tower (ATCT), actual annualized 

operational counts are not available for 

Mesquite Metro Airport. Operational 

estimates were obtained from FAA 

Form 5010, FAA Terminal Area 

Forecast (TAF), TxDOT’s Airport 

Development Worksheet, and from 

interviews conducted with airport staff. 

One method of projecting annual 

operations is to examine the number of 

operations per based aircraft. In 

attempts to quantify more reliably, 

rather than simply estimating, the 

Texas Department of Transportation- 

Aviation Division (TxDOT) has 

established an operation monitoring 

system. The goal of this program was to 

ultimately establish a model that will 

provide more accurate counts for nontowered 

airports. 

2-23 

TxDOT’s methodology indicates that for 

airports similar to Mesquite Metro 

Airport (reliever), annual operations 

typically are on the order of 400-500 per 

based aircraft per year. Airports in 

major metropolitan areas with high 

numbers of based aircraft, flight 

schools, and with several fixed based 

operators, typically will experience the 

higher end of this range. As Mesquite 

continues its development, it can be 

expected that the operational numbers 

will approach the 500 per based 

aircraft, and this is reflected in the 

forecast. 

An airport such as Mesquite will 

typically experience a 60/40 percent 

split between local and itinerant 

operations. Although some of the 

sources sited identify a 75/25 split, 

there is ample evidence that the trend 

at Mesquite Metro Airport is toward 

more itinerant operations. That 

evidence includes the fact that there is 

only one active flight school and that 

more and more transient jets are using 

the airport. Table 2L presents 

estimated historical and forecast 

operations for Mesquite Metro Airport. 

It should be noted that the FAA TAF, 

Airport Master Record, identifies over 

113,000 operations at the airport. 

Each of the other resources, including 

the TxDOT development worksheet for 

the airport, identifies approximately 

82,000 operations. The starting point of 

the forecast in this analysis considers 

100,000 annual operations. This 

compromise has been arrived at due to 

consideration of the actual observed 

activity at the airport, pilot responses

offered in the pilot survey, and other 

subjective criteria such as the advan- 

TABLE 2L 

General Aviation Operations Projections 


Based Itinerant 

Period Aircraft Operations 

2-24 

tages Mesquite Metro Airport has over 

many regional airports (e.g., ILS). 

Local Annual 

Operations Operations 

2004 

FORECAST 

223 40,000 60,000 100,000 459 

2010 255 51,000 76,500 127,500 500 

2015 280 56,000 84,000 140,000 500 

2025 330 66,000 99,000 165,000 500 

Source: TxDOT Operations Model 

The high-end (TAF) forecast is not 

considered reasonable because there do 

not appear to be enough flight hours 

conducted by the based flight school to 

account for the local operations. In fact, 

the flight school would need to conduct 

approximately three to four times the 

number of currently estimated flight 

hours to make the TAF local operation 

estimate reasonable. Conversely, it is 

recognized that Mesquite Metro Airport 

attracts training activity from other 

airports primarily because of the 

existence of the ILS. The low end 

(TxDOT/FAA Form 1050) is considered 

too low because of the obvious growth 

observed at the airport. Mesquite is 

clearly the most attractive general 

aviation airport in the eastern portion 

of the Metroplex, southeast Collin 

County, Rockwall and the southeast 

Metroplex. For this reason, it is 

reasonable to assume that operations 

will grow at a significant rate through 

the planning period. 

Air Taxi Operations 

Air Taxi refers to those operators that 

are that are certified in accordance with 

Operations per 

Based 

Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.) 

Part 135 and are authorized to provide, 

on demand, public transportation of 

persons and property by aircraft. 

Typically, air taxi operators are 

operating as a charter service or under 

a fractional-ownership program. 

In the post 9/11 environment, many 

executives have opted to use private jets 

for their travel needs. Fractionalownership 

programs were well 

positioned to meet this growing 

demand. There are a number of 

companies including Citation Shares, 

NetJets, Bombardier FlexJet, and 

Flight Options which provide this 

service. Companies or individuals are 

able to purchase partial ownership, 

typically one-sixteenth or one-eighth of 

an aircraft. This gives them a certain 

allotment of time to use an aircraft in 

the fractional-ownership fleet. In this 

regard, fractional ownership is much 

like owning a timeshare. 

Analysis of air taxi operators can have 

a significant impact on the needs of an 

airport. Fractional-ownership 

companies utilize business jets almost 

exclusively. Many of these aircraft are

the larger business jets. As more of the 

larger business jets utilize the airport, 

the necessary design standards for the 

airport may change. Charter operators 

use a variety of piston and turboprop, 

and on occasion, jet-powered aircraft. 

The type of aircraft using the airport 

will be a critical element for the airport 

to prepare for in the future. 

Without an ATCT, precise operations 

counts are not available. Fortunately, 

a subscription service (AirportIQ) is 

available that provides partial 

operational data at non-towered 

airports. The data provided represents 

the absolute minimum number of 

operations. If a flight plan is not 

opened prior to takeoff and/or is not 

closed after landing, then the operation 

is not credited to the airport, thus, not 

included in our data set. It is common 

for pilots to not file a flight plan until 

after departure, or to close it prior to 

landing, if Visual Flight Rules (VFR) 

can apply. 

Because the operational count for air 

taxi is the absolute minimum, it is 

necessary to increase this number by a 

justifiable multiplier in order to have a 

realistic reflection of operations. It is 

reasonable to assume that the 

multiplier could be as much as 50 

percent, if not more. The recent 

installation of a ground communications 

outlet should encourage pilots to file 

their flight plans more consistently, 

unfortunately the GCO has been 

unreliable at times. Until such a time 

when the GCO is reliable, the use of the 

50 percent multiplier will be applied to 

air taxi operations counts. 

2-25 

The fractional-ownership industry 

experienced significant growth from 

1998 to 2002, when the aircraft fleet 

grew by 182 percent (Aviation Week). 

The economic slowdown of 2001-2002 

caught up to the industry in 2003, but 

2004 was another growth year. 

According to AvData, Inc., an 

independent, Wichita, Kansas-based 

aviation research and consulting firm, 

fractional-ownership programs are 

forecast to experience continued growth 

of approximately 15 percent per year 

over the next 20 years. Other industry 

analysts are not as optimistic. J.P. 

Morgan Analyst, Joseph Nadol, believes 

the immediate (next five years) growth 

potential is in the single digits (Aviation 

Week). For planning purposes, a 

moderately increasing trend of 10 

percent per year will be applied to 

operations forecast for air taxi 

operations. 

As presented in Table 2M, fractional 

operations accounted for a total of 141 

operations from February 2004, to 

February 2005. By the long term 

planning period, 941 operations by 

fractional-ownership operations are 

projected. In addition to fractionalownership 

programs, Mesquite Metro 

Airport also attracts charter operations. 

During the same one-year time period, 

there were 84 charter operations. Of 

this total, 16 operations were conducted 

by jet-powered aircraft. Charter 

operations are projected to increase 

from the current 84, to a long term of 

559.

TABLE 2M 

Air Taxi Operations Forecast 


Year Charter Fractional Ownership 

2-26 

Total Air Taxi 

Operations 

2005* 84 141 225 

FORECAST 

Short Term 149 251 400 

Intermediate Term 223 377 600 

Long Term 559 941 1500 

Source: AirportIQ database. 

* Has been inflated by a factor of 1.5, to factor unrecorded operational data. 

PEAKING 

CHARACTERISTICS 

Many airport facility needs are related 

to the levels of activity during peak 

periods (busy times). The periods used 

in developing facility requirements for 

this study are as follows: 

1. Peak Month - The calendar 

month when peak aircraft 

operations occur. 

2. Design Day - The average day 

in the peak month. This indicator 

is derived by dividing the peak 

month operations by the number 

of days in the month. 

3. Busy Day - The busy day of a 

typical week in the peak month. 

4. Design Hour - The peak hour 

within the design day. 

The peak month is an absolute peak 

within a given year. All other peak 

periods will be exceeded at various 

times during the year. However, they 

do represent reasonable planning 

standards that can be applied without 

overbuilding or being too restrictive. 

Without an airport traffic control tower, 

operational information is not available 

to directly determine peak operational 

activity at the airport. Therefore, peak 

period forecasts have been determined 

according to trends experienced at 

similar airports. 

Typically, the peak month for activity at 

general aviation airports approximates 

10 to 15 percent of the airport’s annual 

operations. For planning purposes, peak 

month operations have been estimated 

as 12 percent of annual operations at 

Mesquite Metro Airport. The design 

day operations were calculated by 

dividing the peak month by 30. 

The design day is primarily used in 

airfield capacity calculations. 

The busy day provides information for 

use in determining aircraft parking 

apron requirements. The busiest day of 

each week accounts for approximately 

20 percent of weekly operations. Thus 

to determine the typical busy day, the 

design day is multiplied by 1.4, which 

represents 20 percent of the days in a 

week (7 * 0.2). Design hour operations 

were determined using an industry

standard of 17.5 percent of the design 

day operations. The general aviation 

2-27 

peaking characteristics are summarized 

in Table 2N. 

TABLE 2N 

Peak Operations Forecasts 


Current 

Annual Operations 

Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term 

(GA and Air Taxi) 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500 

Peak Month (12%) 12,027 15,348 16,872 19,980 

Busy Day 561 716 787 932 

Design Day 401 512 562 666 

Design Hour (17.5%) 

Source: Coffman Analysis 

70 90 98 117 

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT 

APPROACHES (AIAs) 

An instrument approach, as defined by 

the FAA, is “an approach to an airport 

with the intent to land by an aircraft in 

accordance with an Instrument Flight 

Rule (IFR) flight plan, when visibility is 

less than three miles and/or when the 

ceiling is at or below the minimum 

initial approach altitude.” To qualify as 

an instrument approach at Mesquite 

Metro Airport, aircraft must land at the 

airport after following one of the 

published instrument approach 

procedures and then properly close their 

flight plan on the ground. The 

approach must be conducted in weather 

conditions which necessitate the use of 

the instrument approach. If the flight 

plan is closed prior to landing, then the 

AIA is not counted in the statistics. 

Forecasts of annual instrument 

approaches (AIAs) provide guidance in 

determining an airport’s requirements 

for navigational aid facilities. It should 

be noted that practice or training 

approaches do not count as annual 

AIAs. 

Typically, AIAs for airports with 

available instrument approaches 

utilized by advanced aircraft will 

average between one and two percent of 

itinerant operations. Two percent has 

been an accepted industry standard for 

general aviation airports that currently, 

or are expected to, support corporate jet 

aircraft, which is the case for Mesquite 

Metro Airport. Also, the increased 

availability of low-cost navigational 

equipment could allow for smaller and 

less sophisticated aircraft to utilize 

instrument approaches. National 

trends indicate an increasing 

percentage of annual approaches given 

the greater availability of approaches at 

airports with GPS and the availability 

of more cost-effective equipment. Table 

2P summarizes both historical and 

forecast AIAs for the planning period. 

According to the FAA Air Traffic 

Activity statistics, Mesquite Metro 

Airport had 101 AIAs in 2004. This is 

the absolute minimum number of AIAs 

conducted at the airport. As previously 

mentioned, to be counted as an AIA, a 

flight plan cannot be closed prior to

landing, but this practice is common if 

the airport comes within visual range. 

Tracking of AIAs should become more 

accurate with the recent installation of 

the ground communications outlet, 

2-28 

allowing pilots to communicate with the 

Fort/Worth ATCT. The forecast 

presented in Table 2P utilized an 

industry standard of two percent of 

itinerant operations to account for AIAs. 

TABLE 2P 

Annual Instrument Approach (AIAs) Projections 


Year AIA's Itinerant Operations Ratio 

1995 59 20,000 0.30% 

1996 17 20,000 0.09% 

1997 10 20,000 0.05% 

1998 68 20,000 0.34% 

1999 143 20,000 0.72% 

2000 81 20,000 0.41% 

2001 167 20,500 0.81% 

2002 228 27,500 0.83% 

2003 148 27,969 0.53% 

2004 101 28,439 0.36% 

FORECASTS 

Short Term 1,028 51,400 2.00% 

Intermediate Term 1,132 56,600 2.00% 

Long Term 1,350 67,500 2.00% 

Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast - Approach Operations 

SUMMARY 

This chapter has provided demandbased 

forecasts of aviation activity at 

Mesquite Metro Airport over the next 

20 years. An attempt has been made to 

define the projections in terms of short, 

intermediate and long term 

expectations. Elements such as local 

socioeconomic indicators, anticipated 

regional development and historical 

aviation data as well as national 

aviation trends were all considered 

when determining future conditions. 

The next step in the master planning 

process will be to assess the capacity of 

existing facilities, their ability to meet 

forecast demand, and to identify 

changes to the airfield and/or landside 

facilities which will create a more 

functional aviation facility. A summary 

of aviation forecasts is depicted on 

Exhibit 2E.

04MP22-2E-2/8/06 

BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT FORECASTS 

FORECASTS 

BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT 

350 

350 

300 

300 

250 

250 

200 

200 

150 

150 

100 

100 

50 

50 

2004 Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term 

Single-Engine 182 205 223 256 

Multi-Engine 38 38 36 35 

Turboprop 0 4 8 15 

Jet 1 5 10 20 

Helicopters 2 3 3 4 

Total Based Aircraft 223 255 280 330 

OPERATIONS FORECASTS 

FORECASTS 

Itinerant 40,000 51,000 56,000 66,000 

Local 60,000 76,500 84,000 99,000 

Total GA Operations 100,000 127,500 140,000 165,000 

Air Taxi 225 400 600 1,500 

Total Annual Operations 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500 

PEAK OPERATIONS 

OPERATIONS 

Peak Month 12,027 15,348 16,872 19,880 

Busy Day 561 716 787 932 

Design Day 401 512 562 666 

Design Hour 70 90 98 117 

AIA's 

101 1,028 1,132 1,350 

BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT FORECASTS 

FORECASTS 

OPERATIONS FORECASTS 

FORECASTS 

ANNUAL ANNUAL OPERATIONS 

OPERATIONS 

200,000 

200,000 

180,000 

180,000 

160,000 

160,000 

140,000 

140,000 

120,000 

120,000 

100,000 

100,000 

80,000 

80,000 

60,000 

60,000 

40,000 

40,000 

20,000 

20,000 

2004 2004 Short Intermediate 

Long 

2004 

2004 Short 

Short Intermediate 

Intermediate 

Long Long Term 

Term Term 

Term 

Term 

Term Term 

Term 

Exhibit 2E 

FORECAST SUMMARY

Chapter Three 

AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

CHAPTER THREE 

airport FACILITY 

REQUIREMENTS 

To properly plan for the future of Mesquite Metro Airport, it is 

necessary to translate forecast aviation demand into the specific 

types and quantities of facilities that can adequately serve this 

identified demand. This chapter uses the results of the 

forecasts conducted in Chapter Two, as well as established 

planning criteria, to determine the airside (i.e., runways, 

taxiways, navigational aids, marking and lighting) and 

landside (i.e., hangars, aircraft parking apron, and automobile 

parking) facility requirements. 

The objective of this effort is to identify, in general terms, the 

adequacy of the existing airport facilities, outline what new 

facilities may be needed, and when these may be needed, to 

accommodate forecast demand. Having established these 

facility requirements, alternatives for providing these facilities 

will be evaluated in Chapter Four. 

AIRFIELD PLANNING CRITERIA 

The selection of appropriate Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) - 

Aviation Division design standards for the development and 

location of airport facilities is based primarily upon the 

characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using, or are 

expected to use, the airport. 

The FAA has established a coding system to relate airport 

design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics 

of aircraft expected to use the 

airport. This code, the airport 

3-1 DRAFT

eference code (ARC), has two 

components: the first component, 

depicted by a letter, is the aircraft 

approach speed (operational 

characteristic); the second component, 

depicted by a Roman numeral, is the 

airplane design group and relates to 

aircraft wingspan (physical 

characteristic). Generally, aircraft 

approach speed applies to runways and 

runway-related facilities, while aircraft 

wingspan primarily relates to 

separation criteria involving taxiways, 

taxilanes, and landside facilities. 

Exhibit 3A depicts typical aircraft 

within each ARC. 

According to FAA Advisory Circular 

(AC) 150/5300-13, Change 8, Airport 

Design, an aircraft's approach 

category is based upon 1.3 times its 

stall speed in landing configuration at 

that aircraft's maximum certificated 

weight. The five approach categories 

used in airport planning are as follows: 

Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. 

Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, 

but less than 121 knots. 

Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, 


Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, 


Category E: Speed greater than 166 

knots. 

The airplane design group (ADG) is 

based upon the aircraft’s wingspan. 

The six ADGs used in airport planning 

are as follows: 

Group I: Up to but not including 49 

feet. 

3-2 

Group II: 49 feet up to but not 

including 79 feet. 

Group III: 79 feet up to but not 


Group IV: 118 feet up to but not 


Group V: 171 feet up to but not 


Group VI: 214 feet or greater. 

The FAA recommends designing airport 

functional elements to meet the 

requirements of the most demanding 

ARC for that airport. The majority of 

aircraft currently operating at the 

airport are small single-engine aircraft 

weighing less than 12,500 pounds. The 

airport is also used by corporate aircraft 

ranging from the smaller Lear family of 

business jets to the Gulfstreams, which 

can weigh more than 90,000 pounds. 

In order to determine facility 

requirements, an actual ARC should 

first be determined, then appropriate 

airport design criteria can be applied. 

According to the Policies and Standards 

document from TxDOT, the critical 

aircraft, or aircraft family, must have or 

be forecast to have at least 250 annual 

operations within one year and 500 

operations within five years. To 

determine if Mesquite Metro Airport 

meets this threshold, a review of the 

type of aircraft currently using and 

expected to use Mesquite Metro Airport 

follows. 

CRITICAL AIRCRAFT 

The critical aircraft is the aircraft or 

family of aircraft which account for 250

04MP22-3A-2/8/06 

A-I 

B-I 

B-II 

B-I, II 

less than 12,500 lbs. 

less than 12,500 lbs. 

over 12,500 lbs. 

A-III, B-III 

Beech Baron 55 

Beech Bonanza 

Cessna 150 

Cessna 172 

Piper Archer 

Piper Seneca 

Beech Baron 58 

Beech King Air 100 

Cessna 402 

Cessna 421 

Piper Navajo 

Piper Cheyenne 

Swearingen Metroliner 

Cessna Citation I 

Super King Air 200 

Cessna 441 

DHC Twin Otter 


Beech 1900 

Jetstream 31 

Falcon 10, 20, 50 

Falcon 200, 900 

Citation II, CJ2, IV, V 

Saab 340 

Embraer 120 

DHC Dash 7 

DHC Dash 8 

DC-3 

Convair 580 

Fairchild F-27 

ATR 72 

ATP 

Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type. 

C-I, D-I 

C-II, D-II 

C-III, D-III 

C-IV, D-IV 

D-V 

Lear 25, 35, 55 

Israeli Westwind 

HS 125 

Gulfstream II, III, IV 

Canadair 600 

Canadair Regional Jet 

Lockheed JetStar 


Boeing Business Jet 

B 727-200 

B 737-300 Series 

MD-80, DC-9 

Fokker 70, 100 

A319, A320 

Gulfstream V 

Global Express 

B-757 

B-767 

DC-8-70 

DC-10 

MD-11 

L1011 

B-747 Series 

B-777 

Exhibit 3A 

AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES

or more operations annually. Once the 

critical aircraft is identified, the 

appropriate airport design standards 

can be applied. 

The design standards have been 

developed in order to assure that 

existing and planned facilities will be 

adequate to meet specific aircraft 

demands. Mesquite Metro Airport is 

currently designated as a Transport 

Airport in the Texas Airport System 

Plan (TASP). In general, transport 

airports should be designed to handle 

business jet and turboprop aircraft. 

This designation generally corresponds 

to a design standard of ARC C-II. 

Defining the actual critical aircraft can 

sometimes be a difficult task. Often, 

the design aircraft is based upon the 

most demanding aircraft actually based 

at the airport, where in other cases 

itinerant operations can define the 

critical aircraft. Typically, more than 

one aircraft will compose the critical 

aircraft. For example, one aircraft 

could be the most critical for approach 

speed (e.g., ARC C-I), while another for 

wingspan (e.g., ARC B-III). Moreover, 

for airports similar to Mesquite Metro 

Airport, the critical aircraft will 

typically be defined by a family of 

similar aircraft which operate at the 

airport on a regular basis. Considering 

all aircraft types at the airport is 

important to ensure all facilities at the 

airport are properly planned. 

There are currently 38 multi-engine 

piston aircraft based at the airport. 

These aircraft range from ARC A-I to 

ARC B-I. There is one jet based at the 

airport, a Cessna Citation II (525), 

which is a B-I aircraft. Before making 

3-3 

a final determination of the critical 

aircraft family, an examination of the 

transient business jet aircraft using the 

airport should be considered. 

It should be noted that the airport is 

currently in negotiations with two 

aircraft owners looking to base at the 

airport. One of these owners has a 

Gulfstream IV and the other a 

Gulfstream II. These aircraft fall in 

ARC D-II. Should either of these 

aircraft base at the airport, then the 

airport design ARC would transition to 

D-II. 

Jet Operations 

The airport is used by the larger and 

faster business jets including the 

Citations (525A, 550, 650, 750), 

Learjets (24, 35, 45, 55, 60) and 

Gulfstreams (II, IV, V). These jet 

aircraft range from ARC B-I to D-III. 

The following analysis of the transient 

jet usage at the airport will aid in 

determining the actual design standard 

of the airport. 

Table 3A presents private jet 

operations (excluding Air Taxi) at 

Mesquite Metro Airport from February 

14, 2004, to February 15, 2005 (12month 

operational count). 

These operations present the absolute 

minimum number of private business 

jet operations at Mesquite Metro 

Airport. Operations are only “logged” if 

the aircraft executes (either opens or 

closes) an instrument flight rule (IFR) 

flight plan on the ground at Mesquite 

Metro Airport. Many aircraft operators, 

however, elect to file their flight plan in

the air after departure, or close their 

flight plan in the air prior to landing at 

the airport. In either situation, the 

operations are not credited to the 

airport and would not be reflected in the 

table. Based on this information, it is 

reasonable to assume that the actual 

number of private business jet 

operations at Mesquite Metro Airport is 

somewhat higher than presented in the 

table. 

TABLE 3A 

Total Private Jet Operations (Minimum) 


February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005 

Annual 

ARC Aircraft Type Operations % 

3-4 

As presented in the table, Mesquite 

Metro Airport has experienced a total of 

378 jet operations over the last year. 

The most demanding aircraft in terms 

of ARC design standard has been the 

Gulfstream V, which is in ARC D-III. 

Aircraft such as the Challenger 600 and 

IAI-Astra also utilize the airport and 

are in ARC C-II. 

Number of 

Jets % 

B-I Cessna 501 8 2.1% 4 6.0% 

B-I Cessna 525 

Mitsubishi (MU- 

110 29.1% 3 4.5% 

B-I 

300) 4 1.1% 2 3.0% 

B-I Falcon 10 14 3.7% 2 3.0% 

Total B-I 136 36.0% 11 16.4% 

B-II Cessna 550 56 14.8% 15 22.4% 

B-II Cessna 560 40 10.6% 10 14.9% 

B-II Falcon 2000 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

B-II Falcon 50 10 2.6% 2 3.0% 

Total B-II 108 28.6% 28 41.8% 

C-I Beech 400 44 11.6% 3 4.5% 

C-I IAI Westwind 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

C-I Lear 24 14 3.7% 2 3.0% 

C-I Lear 25 4 1.1% 2 3.0% 

C-I Lear 31A 22 5.8% 5 7.5% 

C-I Lear 35 18 4.8% 4 6.0% 

C-I Lear 45 14 3.7% 4 6.0% 

Total C-I 118 31.2% 21 31.3% 

C-II Challenger 600 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

C-II Hawker 800XP 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

C-II IAI Aster 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

Total C-II 6 1.6% 3 4.5% 

D-I Lear 60 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

Total D-I 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

D-II Gulfstream II 4 1.1% 2 3.0% 

D-II Gulfstream IV 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

Total D-II 6 1.6% 2 3.0% 

D-III Gulfstream V 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

Total D-III 2 0.5% 1 1.5% 

Total Activity 378 100.0% 67 100.0% 

Source: AirportIQ.com, utilizing FAA data. Airport Management Observations.

There was a total of 242 operations by 

business jet aircraft in ARC B-II and 

larger. Of those 242, 134 were 

conducted by aircraft in ARC C-I or 

larger. The greatest number of 

operations in any single ARC family 

was 136 in ARC B-I, while ARC C-I 

aircraft registered 118 operations. 

More than 35 percent of private 

itinerant business jet operations at the 

airport were conducted by aircraft in 

ARC C-I or greater. 

The table also presents the number of 

operations by aircraft type. The Cessna 

525 model, which includes the based jet, 

performed the most business jet 

operations (110) at the airport. There 

were three different Cessna 525s that 

accounted for this total. There was a 

total of 15 different Cessna 550 and ten 

different Cessna 560 jets that conducted 

operations at the airport. 

The limitations of the aircraft 

operational data were detailed in the 

air taxi operational forecasts presented 

in Chapter Two. The reported 

operations only include those that open 

or close their instrument flight plans 

while on the ground at the Mesquite 

Metro Airport. Many operators, 

however, elect to open their flight plans 

after departure or before landing, as the 

airport location does not allow for radio 

contact with DFW approach/departure 

control center from the ground (limited 

radio signal). Thus, the 378 private jet 

operations presented in Table 3B 

represent the absolute minimum 

number of operations, whereas, the 

actual number was much higher. 

The air taxi forecasts factor in an 

estimated 50 percent increase of the 

3-5 

actual reported operations. This 

multiplier should also be applied to the 

number of private business jet 

operations. Thus, adjusting the total 

actual reported business jet operations 

with the estimated multiplier yields 567 

private business jet operations for the 

period. If the assumption were made 

that the operational fleet mix would 

remain the same, there would have 

been 363 operations by jet aircraft that 

are ARC B-II or larger. Of this total, 

192 operations would be ARC C-I 

through D-III. 

As presented in Table 3B, the airport 

was utilized by a wide variety of 

corporate users with varying 

originations and destinations. The 

originations/destinations listed are not 

the only ones for each aircraft, however, 

they represent the most demanding 

operations (e.g., longest haul lengths). 

Most of the private operators over the 

last year originated from or were 

destined to an intrastate location. A 

large portion of the traffic, however, 

originated from, or departed to points 

beyond the State of Texas, including 

trips to both the east and west coasts. 

Another segment of corporate aircraft 

users operate under F.A.R. Part 135 (air 

taxi) rules for hire and through 

fractional-ownership programs. Air taxi 

operators are governed by FAA rules 

which are more stringent than those 

required for private aircraft owners. 

For example, aircraft operating under 

Part 135 rules must inflate their 

calculated runway length requirements 

by 20 percent for safety factors.

TABLE 3B 

Representative Private Jet Operations 


Most Demanding Representative Users 

Aircraft 

Type ARC Name Origin/Destination 

Gulfstream II D-II ACG3 LLC Lakefront, LA; Addison, TX 

Gulfstream II D-II Boxing Cat Productions Burbank, CA 

Gulfstream IV D-II Coanda, Inc. Palm Beach, FL 

Hawker 800XP C-II 800XP Holdings LLC South Padre Island, TX 

IAI Astra C-II Printpack, Inc. Fulton County, GA 

Lear 45 C-I Eaton Leasing Corp. WK Kellogg, MI; San Antonio, TX 

Beech 400 C-I LGI Services LLC Montgomery County, TX 

Beech 400 C-I Nektor Industries Scottsdale, AZ; Enid, OK 

Lear 31A C-I Russell Stover Candies Kansas City Downtown, MO 

Lear 35 C-I Sales Operating Control Serv. Witham Field, FL; Palm Springs, CA; 

Lear 31A C-I Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Rogers, AR; Troy, AL; LaGrange, GA 

Lear 35A C-I Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Black Hills, SD; Rogers, AK 

Falcon 2000 B-II Entergy Services DFW, TX 

Cessna 560 B-II Florida Power & Light Palm Beach, FL 

Falcon 50 B-II Health Management Assoc. Jackson Hole, WY; Naples, FL 

Cessna 560 B-II Moran Foods, Inc. Spirit, MO 

Cessna 550 B-II Plastics Engineering Sheboygan, WI 

Cessna 550 B-II Texarkana Holdings Cincinnati, OH; Kissimmee, FL 

Cessna 525 B-I P & S Aerowest St. Paul, MN; Lehigh, PA; Greenville, SC 

IAI: Israel Aircraft Industries 

Source: AirportIQ.com, utilizing FAA data. February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005 

Fractional-ownership operators are 

actual aircraft owners who acquire a 

portion of an aircraft with the ability to 

use any aircraft in the program’s fleet. 

These programs have become quite 

popular over the last several years, 

especially since 9-11. Some of the most 

notable fractional-ownership programs 

include NetJets, Bombardier FlexJet, 

Citation Shares, and Flight Options. 

From February 14, 2004, to February 

15, 2005, these operators accounted for 

an additional 141 operations as 

previously presented in Table 2M. 

Table 3C provides additional 

information regarding the ARC of many 

3-6 

of the aircraft utilized by the fractional 

and charter companies which operate at 

the Mesquite Metro Airport. 

Critical Design 

Aircraft Conclusion 

The largest based aircraft in terms of 

aircraft reference code (ARC) will often 

account for the design standard to be 

applied to the airport. The largest 

aircraft currently based at Mesquite 

Metro Airport is a Cessna Citation 525. 

This is a B-I aircraft. To determine if

the actual airport ARC is something 

other than B-I, an examination of 

3-7 

known itinerant operations at the 

airport was conducted. 

TABLE 3C 

Representative Air Taxi Jet Usage 

February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005 


Operator Aircraft ARC 

FRACTIONALS 

Destination Operations 

NetJets IAI Galaxy C-II DFW, TX 2 

BAE 125/1000 C-II Colorado Springs, CO 2 

BAE 125/1000 C-II Austin, TX 4 

Cessna 560 B-II Adams Field, AR; Joslin Field, ID 4 

Cessna 560 B-II Memphis, TN; Centennial, CO 20 

Bombardier Lear 31 C-I Waco, TX 2 

Flight Options Cessna 650 C-II Kyle-Oakley, KY 2 

Embrier Legacy D-III Big Springs, TX 2 

Falcon 50 B-II Spirit, MO 2 

Beech 400 C-I Victoria, TX; Kyle-Oakley, KY; 

Sarasota, FL; Peoria, IL 

14 

CHARTERS 

Ameristar Jet Lear 25 C-I Branson, MO; Allen-Parish, LA 4 

East Coast Jets Lear 35 C-I Westchester, NY 2 

Executive Jet Cessna 560 B-II Dallas, TX 2 

United Exec. Jet 

Source: AirportIQ. 

Lear 55 C-I San Antonio, TX 2 

At non-towered airports, determining a 

reasonable operational count by aircraft 

type can be difficult. Fortunately, a 

subscription database called AirportIQ, 

collects the number of instrument 

operations by aircraft type. This figure 

represents the absolute minimum 

possible number of operations. As 

discussed previously, a multiplier of 50 

percent (1.5) is applied to the total jet 

operation counts in an effort to arrive at 

a realistic picture of the current activity 

level at Mesquite Metro Airport. 

The combination of private itinerant jet 

(378), charter jet (16) and fractional jet 

operations (94) indicates that, at a 

minimum, there were 488 itinerant jet 

operations at Mesquite Metro Airport 

over a one-year period, as presented in 

Table 3D. Of those, 352 were by 

aircraft in ARC B-II and larger, and of 

those, 194 were C-I or larger. When 

adjusted with the 1.5 multiplier, the 

total number of itinerant jet operations 

over the one-year analysis period is 732. 

Of those, 291 were C-I or larger. 

Because the C-I and B-II operations 

exceed the 250 annual operations 

threshold as established by TxDOT, the 

current critical aircraft is ARC C-II.

TABLE 3D 

Minimum Itinerant Jet Operations by ARC 


Aircraft Reference 

Code (ARC) Private Jet Ops Fractional Jet Ops Charter Jet Ops Total 

B-I 136 0 0 136 

B-II 108 42 8 158 

C-I 118 28 8 154 

C-II 6 18 0 24 

D-I 2 2 0 4 

D-II 6 2 0 8 

D-III 2 2 0 4 

Total 378 94 16 488 

Source: AirportIQ database 

In the short term (within 5 years), the 

critical aircraft can be expected to 

remain C-II. Future aircraft mix can 

expect to include a larger percentage of 

corporate aircraft. Increased corporate 

aircraft utilization is typical at general 

aviation airports surrounded by 

growing or established population and 

employment centers. Once utilized only 

by large conglomerate-type 

corporations, corporate aircraft 

(especially jets) have been increasingly 

utilized by a wider variety of 

companies. FAA trends indicate that 

businesses are increasingly utilizing 

corporate aircraft. This is also evident 

by the substantial growth of fractionalownership 

programs. The fractionalownership 

programs have recently 

announced increased numbers of 

aircraft owners to meet this growing 

demand. 

As the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex 

continues to expand, Dallas County can 

expect positive population and 

employment growth. This trend will 

position the airport well for serving the 

growing business community. In 

addition, Mesquite Metro Airport has 

already developed a reputation in the 

3-8 

general aviation community for a clean, 

attractive airport, with highly 

competitive fuel prices. Other 

amenities, such as the new terminal 

building, also attract air traffic. 

As previously discussed, one of the most 

visible trends in general aviation today 

is the growth of the fractionalownership 

programs, and corporate 

aircraft use in general. Planning for 

fractional-ownership aircraft is difficult 

as it is an on-demand service, however, 

since these aircraft currently operate at 

the airport, planning should consider 

meeting the needs of the majority of 

highly-utilized fractional-ownership 

aircraft. Although these aircraft can 

range up to ARC D-III, most fractionalownership 

aircraft are in ARC B-I to C- 

II. Thus, future facility planning 

should include the potential for the 

airport to be utilized by the majority of 

business jets on the market. 

The previous chapter indicated that by 

the long term planning period, 20 jets 

are forecast to be based at the airport. 

Thus, the combination of operations by 

based business jet aircraft, along with 

transient corporate jet operations, will

determine the critical aircraft for the 

airport. 

Interviews conducted with airport staff 

indicate that there is a possibility that 

up to two large business jets may be 

prepared to base at Mesquite Metro 

Airport in the near future. Discussions 

are ongoing with the owner of a 

Gulfstream IV (D-II) and the owner of a 

Gulfstream II (D-II). If either one bases 

at Mesquite, then the critical aircraft 

will immediately become ARC D-II. 

In conclusion, the current ARC for the 

airport is C-II. In the very short term, 

the ARC could transition to ARC D-II, 

and possibly D-III, should a Gulfstream 

V base at the airport. Ultimate 

planning, however, should conform to at 

least ARC C/D-II to meet the needs of 

business aircraft up to and including 

the G-II/IV. There are some design 

standard differences between the C/D-II 

and D-III aircraft. These differences 

will be identified as the facility 

requirements are studied throughout 

this chapter. 

AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS 

Airfield requirements include the need 

for those facilities related to the arrival 

and departure of aircraft. The 

adequacy of existing airfield facilities at 

Mesquite Metro Airport has been 

analyzed from a number of perspectives, 

including: 

C Safety Area Design Standards 

C Airfield Capacity 

C Runways 

C Taxiways 

C Navigational Approach Aids 

3-9 

C Airfield Lighting, Marking, and 

Signage 

SAFETY AREA 

DESIGN STANDARDS 

The FAA has established several safety 

surfaces to protect aircraft operational 

areas and keep them free from 

obstructions that could affect the safe 

operation of aircraft. These include the 

runway safety area (RSA), obstacle free 

area (OFA) and runway protection zone 

(RPZ). The dimensions of these safety 

areas are dependant upon the critical 

aircraft, and thus, the ARC of the 

runway. 

The entire RSA is required to be on 

airport property. If necessary design 

standards push the RSA beyond the 

airport property line, then fee simple 

acquisition will need to be undertaken. 

The OFA and RPZ can extend beyond 

airport bounds as long as obstructions 

do not exist in these areas. It is not 

required that the RPZ be under airport 

ownership, but it is strongly 

recommended. An alternative to 

outright ownership of the RPZ is the 

purchase of avigation easements 

(acquiring control of designated 

airspace within the RPZ). All facility 

planning will consider fee simple 

acquisition of any safety areas. 

Exhibit 3B visually depicts the runway 

safety areas for ARC C-II at Mesquite 


Runway Safety Area (RSA) 

The RSA is defined in FAA Advisory 

Circular 150/5300-13, Change 8, Airport

Design, as a “surface surrounding the 

runway prepared or suitable for 

reducing the risk of damage to airplanes 

in the event of an undershoot, 

overshoot, or excursion from the 

runway.” The RSA is centered on the 

runway, dimensioned in accordance to 

the approach speed of the critical 

aircraft using the runway. The FAA 

requires the RSA to be cleared and 

graded, drained by grading or storm 

sewers, capable of accommodating the 

design aircraft and fire and rescue 

vehicles, and free of obstacles not fixed 

by navigational purpose. 

The FAA has placed a higher 

significance on maintaining adequate 

RSAs at all airports due to recent 

aircraft accidents. Under Order 5200.8, 

effective October 1, 1999, the FAA 

established a Runway Safety Area 

Program. The Order states, “The 

objective of the Runway Safety Area 

Program is that all RSAs at federallyobligated 

airports . . . shall conform to 

the standards contained in Advisory 

Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design, to 

the extent practicable.” Each Regional 

Airports Division of the FAA is 

obligated to collect and maintain data 

on the RSA for each runway at the 

airport, and perform airport 

inspections. Texas, as a block-grant 

state, has given the inspection and data 

collection responsibility to TxDOT- 

Aviation Division for general aviation 

airports. 

For ARC A/B-II aircraft, the FAA calls 

for the RSA to be 150 feet wide and 

extend 300 feet beyond the runway 

ends. Analysis in the previous section 

indicated that Runway 17-35 should be 

planned to accommodate aircraft up to 

3-10 

and including ARC C/D-II. The RSA for 

ARC C/D-II aircraft is 500 feet wide and 

extends 1,000 feet beyond each runway 

end. This is also the standard for ARC 

D-III aircraft. 

The airport currently provides ample 

room to meet B-II standards. 

Upgrading to ARC C/D-II could be 

challenging, especially at the north end. 

The location of Scyene Road allows only 

700 feet of RSA. Moreover, drainage 

improvements will be necessary as 

several ruts have formed along the 

southwestern portion of the RSA. 

Alternative analysis to be conducted in 

the next chapter will provide solutions 

to meeting RSA standards for ARC C/D- 

II aircraft. 

Object Free Area(OFA) 

The runway OFA is “a two-dimensional 

ground area, surrounding runways, 

taxiways, and taxilanes, which is clear 

of objects except for objects whose 

location is fixed by function (i.e., airfield 

lighting).” The OFA is centered on the 

runway, extending out in accordance to 

the critical aircraft design category 

utilizing the runway. 

For ARC B-II aircraft, the FAA calls for 

the OFA to be 500 feet wide, extending 

300 feet beyond each runway end. In 

order to meet design criteria for ARC 

C/D-II, the OFA would require a cleared 

area 800 feet wide, extending 1,000 feet 

beyond each runway end. The standard 

for D-III aircraft is also 800 feet by 

1,000 feet. 

The airport currently meets OFA 

standards for ARC B-II aircraft.

04MP22-3B-4/7/05 

LEGEND 

OFA 

Deficiency 

Deficiency 



Object Free Area (OFA) 

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 


RSA 

Deficiency 


Airport Blvd. 

Lawson Rd. 



NORTH 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


Exhibit 3B 

RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS

Upgrading to ARC C/D-II presents 

deficiencies on both the north and 

southeast ends of the runways. On the 

southeast end, the OFA extends beyond 

the existing property line into a portion 

of the Devil’s Bowl Speedway. On the 

north end, only 650 feet of OFA is on 

airport property. 

Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ) 

Runways served by an instrument 

approach, as are both ends of Runway 

17-35, must consider the FAA’s criteria 

for the OFZ. The OFZ is an imaginary 

surface which precludes object 

penetrations, including taxiing and 

parked aircraft. The only allowance for 

OFZ obstructions is visual navigational 

aids mounted on frangible bases which 

are fixed in their location by function. 

3-11 

The FAA’s criterion for runways utilized 

by large aircraft and served by an 

instrument approach requires a clear 

OFZ to extend 200 feet beyond the 

runway ends, by 400 feet wide (200 feet 

on either side of the runway centerline). 

The OFZ is established to ensure the 

safety of aircraft operations. If the OFZ 

is obstructed, the airport’s approaches 

could be removed or approach 

minimums could be increased. 

Currently, there are no OFZ 

obstructions at Mesquite Metro Airport. 

Future planning should maintain the 

OFZ. Table 3E presents the existing 

C/D-II safety area design standards, as 

well as the deficiencies to those 

standards. 

TABLE 3E 

Safety Area Design Standards 


Runway 17-35 

Existing Standards Deficiencies 

Airport Reference Code 

(ARC) 

Runway Safety Area 

C-II thru D-III 

Width (ft.) 500 Ruts, drainage 

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.) 

Object Free Area 

1,000 North only 700' available 

South parking apron and Devil’s 

Width (ft.) 800 

Bowl Speedway 


Obstacle Free Zone 

1,000 North only 650' available 

Width (ft.) 400 OK 

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.) 200 OK 

Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 8 

Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) 

Another consideration is the FAA 

recommendation for compatible land 

uses. The runway protection zone 

(RPZ) is a trapezoidal area centered on 

the runway and typically beginning 200 

feet beyond the runway end. The RPZ

has been established by the FAA to 

provide an area clear of obstructions 

and incompatible land uses, in order to 

enhance the protection of approaching 

aircraft, as well as people and property 

on the ground. The dimensions of the 

RPZ vary according to the visibility 

minimums serving the runway and the 

type of aircraft operating on the 

runway. 

The Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) is 

an area closely mirroring the RPZ, but 

extending out and up from the primary 

runway surface. The TSS is primarily 

designed to identify obstructions. 

Obstructions to the TSS surface need to 

be addressed as soon as possible to 

ensure the safety of pilots, aircraft and 

people and objects on the ground. The 

current TSS slope for Runway 17-35 is 

20:1. Should the visibility minimum for 

Runway 17 be lowered to one-half mile, 

then the TSS slope will be 34:1, while 

Runway 35 will remain at 20:1. 

3-12 

The lowest existing visibility minimum 

for approach to Runway 17 is threequarters 

mile using the ILS. The 

lowest existing visibility minimum for 

Runway 35 is one mile. Ultimate 

planning will consider lowering the 

minimums to one-half mile for Runway 

17 and three-quarters mile for Runway 

35. A detailed explanation of these 

visibility minimums is presented later 

in this chapter. 

It should be noted that the RPZ for ARC 

C/D-II aircraft is significantly larger 

than the current RPZ for ARC B-II, and 

would extend into areas outside the 

existing airport property line. Future 

plans should consider acquiring any 

property not contained inside the 

existing or planned RPZs. The 

dimensions for the current and planned 

runway protection zones are presented 

in Table 3F. 

TABLE 3F 

Runway Protection 

Zones 


Existing Ultimate 

Runway 

Approach Visibility 

17 35 17 35 

Minimums 3/4 mile (ILS) 1 mile (LOC BC) ½ mile (ILS, GPS) 3/4 mile (GPS) 

Inner Width (ft.) 1,000 500 1,000 1,000 

Outer Width (ft.) 1,510 1,010 1,750 1,510 

Length (ft.) 1,700 1,700 2,500 1,700 


AIRFIELD CAPACITY 

A demand/capacity analysis measures 

the capacity of the airfield facilities (i.e., 

runways and taxiways) in order to 

identify and plan for additional 

development needs. Mesquite Metro 

Airport’s single-runway system can 

provide up to 230,000 annual operations 

under ideal conditions. Since it is 

known that there are times when 

weather can close the runway (usually 

due to precipitation or wind), a more

easonable capacity should start at 

approximately 210,000 operations. 

FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation 

of the National Plan of Integrated 

Airport Systems (NPIAS), indicates that 

improvements to capacity should be 

considered when operations approach 

60 to 75 percent of the airfield’s annual 

service volume (ASV). If the projected 

long range planning horizon level of 

operations comes to fruition (166,500), 

the airfield’s ASV will exceed the 60 

percent level shortly after the 

intermediate planning horizon. Thus, 

additional airfield capacity enhancements 

should be considered part of this 

master plan. 

The most typical and effective 

enhancement to airfield capacity is the 

construction of a parallel runway. 

Construction of a parallel runway would 

increase the airfield’s ASV to as much 

as 300,000 operations. Other capacity 

enhancements include construction of 

additional taxiways and improved 

navigational instrumentation. For 

Mesquite Metro Airport, construction of 

additional exit taxiways will not 

significantly alleviate congestion due to 

the adequacy of existing taxiways. 

Navigational aid improvements, 

including GPS improvements and lower 

minimums for the southerly approach, 

would provide some relief during poor 

weather conditions. 

The construction of a parallel runway 

provides the best capacity increase to an 

airfield system. This process, however, 

is very costly and TxDOT will require 

that the project be justified in order to 

receive funding assistance. Quantifying 

existing demand without the aid of an 

3-13 

airport traffic control tower (ATCT) is a 

difficult task. Another consideration for 

construction of a parallel runway at 

Mesquite Metro Airport is the lack of 

available airport property suitable for 

construction. This would require the 

acquisition of adjacent property which 

is currently planned for other industrial 

uses. 

For planning purposes, however, 

consideration will be given to the 

construction of a parallel runway in the 

long range planning period. Establishing 

the potential for a parallel 

runway will provide the City with an 

option for development of adjacent 

property. This option will be explored 

further in the next chapter. 

RUNWAYS 

The adequacy of the existing runway 

system at Mesquite Metro Airport has 

been analyzed from a number of 

perspectives, including runway 

orientation, runway length, pavement 

strength, width, and safety standards. 

From this information, requirements for 

runway improvements were determined 

for the airport. 

Runway Orientation 

The airport is served by single runway 

system. Runway 17-35 is orientated in 

a north-south manner. For the 

operational safety and efficiency of an 

airport, it is desirable for the runway to 

be oriented as close as possible to the 

direction of the prevailing wind. This 

reduces the impact of wind components 

perpendicular to the direction of travel

of an aircraft that is landing or taking 

off. 

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, 

Change 8, Airport Design, recommends 

that a crosswind runway should be 

made available when the primary 

runway orientation provides for less 

than 95 percent wind coverage for 

specific crosswind components. The 95 

percent wind coverage is computed on 

the basis of the crosswind component 

not exceeding 10.5 knots (12 mph) for 

ARC A-I and B-I; 13 knots (15 mph) for 

ARC A-II and B-II; 16 knots (18 mph) 

for ARC C-I through D-II; and 20 knots 

for ARC A-IV through D-VI. 

Wind data specific to the airport was 

not available, however, data for 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

(1988-1997) provides adequate 

information for use in this study. This 

data is graphically depicted on the 

windrose in Exhibit 3C. 

As depicted on the exhibit, primary 

Runway 17-35 provides 96.04 percent 

wind coverage for 10.5 knot crosswinds, 

98.15 percent at 13 knots, and 99.48 

percent at 16 knots. Runway 17-35 

exceeds the 95 percent wind coverage 

component. 

The analysis indicates that the existing 

runway system provides adequate 

crosswind coverage for all aircraft. It 

should be noted, however, due to 

geographical differences, this data could 

be somewhat different from what is 

actually experienced in Mesquite. 

Without more applicable information, 

however, a site-specific determination 

cannot be made. Thus, based on the 

analysis using the best available 

3-14 

information, future plans for a 

crosswind runway do not need to be 

considered. 

Runway Length 

The determination of runway length 

requirements for the airport is based on 

five primary factors: 

C Critical aircraft type expected to 

use the airport 

C Stage length of the longest 

nonstop trip destination 

C Mean maximum daily 

temperature of the hottest month 

C Runway gradient 

C Airport elevation 

Primary Factors 

An analysis of the existing and future 

fleet mix indicates that business jets 

will be the most demanding aircraft for 

runway length at Mesquite Metro 

Airport. Currently, there is one 

business jet based at the airport, 

however, transient operations by the 

full range of business jets define the 

current critical aircraft. The typical 

itinerant business aircraft utilizing the 

airport range from the Cessna Citation 

family, to Learjets, all the way up to the 

Gulfstreams, as presented previously in 

Tables 3A and 3B. 

Aircraft operating characteristics are 

affected by three primary factors: the 

temperature, the airport’s elevation, 

and the gradient of the runway. As 

each of these increase, more runway 

length is required to support the 

aircraft. Additional factors, which are

aircraft-specific, such as haul length, or 

fuel capacity or passenger capacity can 

all affect runway length requirements. 

The mean maximum daily temperature 

of the hottest month for Mesquite Metro 

Airport is 96 degrees Fahrenheit (F). 

The airport elevation is 447 feet above 

mean sea level (MSL). The maximum 

elevation difference for Runway 17-35 is 

four feet. Runway 17-35 has a 

longitudinal gradient of 0.06 percent. 

For aircraft in approach categories A 

3-15 

and B, the runway longitudinal 

gradient cannot exceed two percent. For 

aircraft in approach categories C and D, 

the maximum allowable longitudinal 

runway grade is 1.5 percent. 

Table 3G outlines the runway length 

requirements for various classifications 

of aircraft that utilize Mesquite Metro 

Airport. These standards were derived 

from the FAA Airport Design Computer 

Program for recommended runway 

lengths. 

TABLE 3G 

Runway Length Requirements 


AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA 

Airport elevation 447 feet 

Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month 96.00 F. 

Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation 4 feet 

Length of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds 1,400 miles 

Dry runways 

RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN 

Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats 

75 percent of these small airplanes 2,700 feet 



Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats 4,500 feet 

Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 

75 percent of business jets at 60 percent useful load 4,900 feet 




Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds 6,900 feet 

Source: FAA Airport Design Computer Program utilizing Chapter Two of AC 150/5325-4A, Runway 

Length Requirements for Airport Design. 

According to the FAA design program, 

to accommodate 75 percent of business 

jet aircraft at 60 percent useful load, 

the runway length should be at least 

4,900 feet. To accommodate 100 

percent of business jets at 60 percent 

useful load, the runway should be 5,900 

feet long. 

In late 2004, the FAA released a draft 

update to Advisory Circular (AC) 

150/5325-4B, Runway Length 

Requirements for Airport Design. The 

updated AC identifies those aircraft 

that were used in calculating the 

lengths required in Table 3G. For 

example, the “75 percent fleet at 60 

percent useful load” provides a runway 

length sufficient to satisfy the 

operational requirements of 

approximately 75 percent of the fleet at 

60 percent useful load. The AC also

provides direction on runway length for 

aircraft operating at 90 percent useful 

load. 

Paragraph 306 of the AC recognizes 

that general aviation airports are being 

used more frequently by business jets. 

General aviation (GA) airports “that 

receive regular use by large airplanes 

over 12,500 pounds, in addition to 

business jets, should provide a runway 

length comparable to non-GA airports. 

That is, the extension of an existing 

runway can be justified at an existing 

GA airport that has a need to 

accommodate heavier airplanes on a 

frequent basis.” This is the exact 

3-16 

scenario that is currently taking place 

at Mesquite Metro Airport, and thus, 

needs to be planned for. 

The top half of Table 3H presents the 

list of those aircraft which make up the 

75 percent of the active business jet 

fleet category. The bottom half, 

presented in Table 3H, represents the 

aircraft used for the 100 percent 

category in Table 3G. Those aircraft 

that fall in the remaining 25 percent, 

make up 100 percent of the active 

business jet category, utilize the airport 

on an infrequent basis, but are likely to 

use the airport more frequently in the 

short term. 

TABLE 3H 

Aircraft Type as a Percent of the Business Jet Fleet 


Manufacturer Models 

Airplanes that make up 75 percent of the fleet per Table 3G 

Beech Jet 400 

Cessna 500, 525A, 550, 560, 650 (Citation VII) 

Dessault Falcon 10, 20, 50, 200 

Hawker 400, 600 

IAI Jet Commander 1121, Westwind 1123/1124 

Learjet 20, 31, 35, 36, 45 

Mitsubishi 300 

Sabreliner 40, 60, 75a/80, T-39 

Bae 125-700 

Raytheon 390 Premier 

Aerospatiale Sn-601 Corvette 

Airplanes that make up 100 percent of the fleet per Table 3G 

Bombardier Challenger 600, 601, 604 

Cessna 650 (Citation III/VI), 750 

Dessault Falcon 900, 900EX, 2000 

IAI Astra 1125, Galaxy 1126 

Learjet 55, 60 

Hawker 800, 800EX, 1000 

Sabreliner 65, 75 

Source: FAA AC 150/5325-4B 

Since it is known that most of the 

aircraft listed in the 100 percent of the 

business jet category utilize the 

Mesquite Metro Airport, consideration 

should be given to providing adequate 

runway length for their safe and 

efficient operation.

Haul Length 

The FAA Computer Program also 

provides an estimation of runway 

lengths for general aviation aircraft 

weighing more than 60,000 pounds. 

This group includes the Gulfstream 

family of aircraft and some new longrange 

corporate jets. The estimate of 

runway length requirements for the 

large corporate aircraft over 60,000 

pounds considers all airfield data, but 

also considers the typical haul distance. 

The origin/destination of many aircraft 

utilizing the airport was previously 

identified in Table 3C. The larger 

Gulfstream jets had haul lengths of 

nearly 1,400 miles, to destinations such 

as Palm Springs, California, and Palm 

Beach, Florida. Other destinations 

included St. Paul, MN (1,000 mi.), 

Jackson Hole, WY (1,400 mi.), 

Kissimmee, FL (1,100 mi.), and Black 

Hills, SD (1,100 mi.). Since it is known 

that, when conditions allow, business 

jet operators are opting for longer haul 

lengths, consideration will be given to 

accommodate aircraft weighing more 

than 60,000 pounds with haul lengths 

of 1,400 miles. As indicated in Table 

3G, aircraft weighing more than 60,000 

pounds, with haul lengths of 1,400 

miles, require a runway length of 6,900 

feet. 

Specific Aircraft Requirements 

An additional consideration for runway 

length is to analyze the runway length 

requirements of specific aircraft 

currently utilizing or planned to utilize 

Mesquite Metro Airport in the future. 

Table 3J presents the runway length 

3-17 

needs for a wide variety of business jets, 

as obtained from the operations 

manuals for each aircraft. Figures in 

the table consider maximum take-off 

and landing weights. It should be noted 

that landing length requirements 

during contaminated runway conditions 

(rainy, with 1/10-inch of water on the 

runway) increase significantly for 

aircraft with single landing gear 

configurations due to hydroplaning 

potential. 

In general, the data specific to each 

airplane presented in Table 3J is 

similar to the generalized output by the 

FAA computer program (presented in 

Table 3G). Obviously, airport planning 

cannot always conform to the worst case 

(maximum load) scenario. Planning 

should at least conform to providing a 

runway length capable of accommodating 

the majority of aircraft, the 

majority of the year. In other words, 

the runway should be capable of 

handling business jets with typical 

weight loading during moderate heat 

conditions. 

Several aircraft which currently utilize 

the airport on an infrequent basis can 

require runway lengths longer than 

6,000 feet. The Lear 55, Gulfstream IV 

and V, Hawker 800, and Challenger 

require up to 7,000 feet. These aircraft 

are capable of operating at the airport, 

but are weight-restricted during hot 

weather days. Weight restrictions can 

include taking less fuel and making an 

additional stop along the intended 

route, boarding fewer passengers, or 

taking less cargo. During cooler days, 

the weight restrictions could be minor 

or may be unnecessary.

TABLE 3J 

Runway Length Requirements (Max Take-off/Landing Weights) 


Runway Length Required (in feet) for: 

Landings on Dry 

Landing on 

Aircraft Type Take-off @ 95 F 

Runway 

Contaminated Runway 

Beechjet 400 5,900 4,500 6,000 

Challenger CL600 6,900 5,500 7,000 

Cessna 550 5,500 2,900 6,000 

Cessna 650 6,000 5,300 6,100 

Gulfstream IV 7,000 5,400 6,200 

Gulfstream V 7,000 4,500 5,500 

Hawker 800 8,000 4,000 6,000 

Hawker 1000 7,500 5,000 5,600 

IAI Westwind 7,300 3,500 7,000 

IAI Astra 7,000 5,000 5,000 

Lear 35 6,000 3,400 7,000 

Lear 55 7,300 3,200 6,400 

Source: Aircraft Operating Manuals 

Parallel Runway Length 

As indicated previously, the forecast 

operations at Mesquite Metro Airport 

could exceed 60 percent of the airfield’s 

capacity by the intermediate term of 

this master plan. One option for 

increasing airfield capacity is to 

construct a parallel runway. A parallel 

runway has the added benefit of 

allowing the airport to remain open 

when the primary runway is closed for 

maintenance. 

Consideration must be given to the 

length of a potential parallel runway. 

The length of a parallel runway can at 

times be critical to the operation of the 

airport. Times when the primary 

runway is down for maintenance could, 

in essence, close the airport to large 

aircraft due to inadequate runway 

lengths. Thus, ultimate plans for the 

parallel runway should include the 

length necessary to accommodate, at a 

minimum, ARC B-II aircraft. Planning 

should also consider use for ARC C-II 

3-18 

aircraft. Table 3G indicates that a 

4,900-foot runway would be necessary 

to accommodate most of these aircraft. 

Another option for planing the parallel 

runway would be providing only for 

training operations and for small 

aircraft exclusively up to ARC B-II. In 

order to accommodate aircraft up to B- 

II, the potential parallel runway should 

be a minimum of 4,000 feet long. This 

would meet the runway length 

requirements for all small aircraft. 

Analysis conducted in the next chapter 

will consider the potential for providing 

a parallel runway up to 4,900 feet long. 

Runway Length Summary 

Many factors are considered when 

determining appropriate runway length 

for the safe and efficient operation of 

aircraft at Mesquite Metro Airport. The 

starting point for analysis begins with 

running the FAA Airport Design 

Computer Program. This program is

ased on the criteria for runway length 

set forth in AC 150/5300, Airport 

Design. The output from the computer 

program shows a number of different 

runway lengths based on aircraft 

characteristics such as useful load, haul 

length, and percent of active business 

jets. The results of the computer 

program show that, at a minimum, the 

runway should be at least 5,900 feet 

long in order to accommodate 100 

percent of the business jet fleet at 60 

percent useful load. This would be 

adequate for almost all C-II business 

jets. 

An additional consideration is the haul 

length for aircraft weighing over 60,000 

pounds. For business jets, this would 

include the Gulfstream family of 

aircraft. Flight plan data that was 

collected and analyzed showed that 

when conditions allow (i.e., cooler, dry 

days), those heavier business jets will 

take on longer haul lengths, up to and 

beyond 1,400 miles. The FAA Computer 

Program calls for a runway length of 

6,900 feet for these aircraft. 

An additional source for necessary 

runway length is the actual operations 

manuals from those business jets 

utilizing the airport. Analysis indicated 

that a number of these aircraft have 

runway length needs that exceed the 

current 6,000 feet. Some had 

requirements for over 7,000 feet under 

extreme conditions (full load, above 95 

degrees). 

Corporate aviation departments and 

fractional-ownership programs often 

restrict what airports they can use 

based on runway length. Often, these 

3-19 

groups will restrict operations to those 

runways that have adequate runway 

length plus a buffer. Obviously, the 

longer the runway, the more 

opportunity these aircraft operators will 

have to use the airport. Moreover, 

fractional aircraft and charter operators 

must increase the runway length 

requirement by 20 percent under F.A.R. 

Part 135 rules. 

All of these runway length 

recommendations are based on the fact 

that C-II transient aircraft operations 

exceed 250 annual operations, the 

threshold as established by TxDOT. If 

one of the larger business jets were to 

base at Mesquite Metro Airport, the 

airport would immediately transition to 

the design standard of that critical 

aircraft. For example, if the Gulfstream 

IV operator, who is currently 

negotiating for hangar space at the 

airport, signs a lease, then the airport 

should conform with D-II design 

standards. 

Forecast future demand at Mesquite 

Metro Airport indicates that the airport 

should strive to accommodate all 

business jet operations up to and 

including those in ARC C/D-II. Thus, 

alternative analysis will consider the 

possibility of lengthening Runway 17-35 

to provide 7,000 feet of operational 

length. While this length may not be 

fully capable of accommodating all 

aircraft needs throughout the year, it 

will be adequate for most business jet 

operations. 

Analysis in the next chapter will 

examine potential runway extensions 

that could be achieved. The analysis

will factor constraints which could 

hinder runway extension including 

roads, environmental considerations, 

and costs. It is important to note that 

TxDOT and the FAA will require 

specific justification for the runway to 

be extended. The type of aircraft, its 

specific runway requirements and 

frequency of operation, will need to be 

provided for funding assistance. 

Therefore, current record-keeping of 

business jet operators should be 

maintained and include company 

names, aircraft types, and frequency of 

operation at the airport, where possible. 

Also, airport administration should 

request that corporate aircraft 

operating at the airport provide, in 

writing, their established runway 

length requirements. 

Runway Width 

Runway 17-35 is currently 100 feet 

wide. FAA design standards call for a 

runway width of 75 feet to serve aircraft 

up to ARC B-II, as long as the 

instrument approach minimums are 

three-quarters mile or greater. For 

lower approach minimums and for 

aircraft in approach categories C and D, 

the runway should be 100 feet wide. 

Also, TxDOT standards call for a 100foot-wide 

runway for transport category 

airports. Runway 17-35 currently 

meets FAA and TxDOT criteria for 

runway width and should be 

maintained as such. 

The runway shoulder for Group II 

aircraft is 10 feet and for Group III it is 

20 feet. The shoulder areas should be 

designed to provide resistance to blast 

3-20 

erosion and to accommodate the 

passage of vehicles. 

Runway Strength 

The pavement rating for Runway 17-35 

is 70,000 pounds single wheel loading 

(SWL). 

As previously mentioned, SWL refers to 

the aircraft weight based upon the 

landing gear configuration with a single 

wheel on the landing strut. For dual 

wheel configurations (DWL), the 

runway is strength rated at 100,000 

pounds. 

The runway strength is adequate 

through the long term planning period. 

Care should be given to repair the 

concrete as needed in order to preserve 

both the condition and strength of the 

runway. 

Runway Separation 

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, 

Airport Design, Change 8 also discusses 

separation distances between aircraft 

and various areas on the airport. The 

separation distances are a function of 

the approaches approved for the airport 

and the critical aircraft. The airfield 

was designed for and currently 

conforms to ARC B-II, with approaches 

not less than three-quarters-of-a-mile. 

Under this criterion, the parallel 

taxiway needs to be at least 300 feet 

from the runway centerline. The edge 

of aircraft parking areas should be 400 

feet from the runway centerline.

The existing critical aircraft, however, 

falls in ARC C/D-II and could possibly 

transition ultimately to ARC D-III. The 

lowest approach minimums suggested 

are one-half mile (Runway 17). Under 

these circumstances, the taxiway 

centerline should be at least 400 feet 

from the runway centerline. The 

parking areas should be at least 500 

feet from the runway centerline. 

Should a parallel runway be 

constructed, the minimum FAA 

recommended separation is 700 feet 

from centerline to centerline. This 

separation assumes that the proposed 

parallel runway would be visual or with 

approach minimums not lower than 

one-mile visibility. 

TAXIWAYS 

Taxiways are constructed primarily to 

facilitate aircraft movements to and 

from the runway system. Some 

taxiways are necessary simply to 

provide access between the aprons and 

runways, whereas other taxiways 

become necessary as activity increases 

at an airport, to provide safe and 

efficient use of the airfield. 

As detailed in Chapter One, the taxiway 

system at Mesquite Metro Airport 

consists of a parallel taxiway and six 

entrance/exit taxiways serving Runway 

17-35. The parallel taxiway is 40 feet 

wide, as are the entrance/exit taxiways. 

The terminal area taxiway is 30 feet 

wide. 

Consideration should be given to the 

addition of taxiways, as needed, to 

3-21 

improve airfield circulation and 

capacity. The current taxiway layout 

appears efficient for Runway 17-35, 

however, if Runway17-35 were to be 

extended, the parallel taxiway would 

need to be extended and another exit 

taxiway added. 

Taxiway width is determined by the 

Airplane Design Group (ADG) of the 

most demanding aircraft to use the 

taxiway. As mentioned previously, the 

current critical aircraft for the airport 

falls within ADG II. FAA criteria call 

for a width of 35 feet for taxiways 

serving aircraft within Design Group II. 

All taxiways at the airport currently 

meet this requirement. If ADG III is to 

be considered, the taxiways serving 

these aircraft should be 50 feet wide. 

As shown in Table 3K, a taxiway object 

free area (TOFA) applies to taxiways 

and taxilanes. The width of the TOFA 

is dependant on the wingspan of critical 

aircraft. For Group II aircraft, the 

TOFA is 131 feet wide. For Group III 

aircraft, the TOFA is 186 feet wide. 

Taxilane separation standards are 

slightly lower. 

The separation distance between the 

taxiway/taxilane and any fixed or 

movable object is half of the TOFA. The 

taxiway shoulder width requirements 

are 10 feet for Group II aircraft and 20 

feet for Group III aircraft. The 

shoulders need to be traversable by 

vehicles and aircraft, should they veer 

off the taxiway. Often, a smooth grass 

surface is provided.

TABLE 3K 

Taxiway Design Standards 


Airplane Design Group 

Group II (49' to 79' wingspan) Group III (79' to 118' wingspan) 

Taxiway Width (ft.) 35 50 

Shoulder Width (ft.) 

Object Free Area (ft.) 

10 20 

Taxiway OFA 131 186 

Taxilane OFA 

Separation Distances (ft.) 

115 162 

Taxiway Centerline to Object 65.5 93 

Taxilane Centerline to Object 57.5 81 


NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND 

INSTRUMENT APPROACHES 

Airport and runway navigational aids 

are based on FAA recommendations, as 

defined in DOT/FAA Handbook 

7031.2B, Airway Planning Standard 

Number One, FAA Advisory Circular 

150/5300-2D, Airport Design 

Standards, Site Requirements for 

Terminal Navigation Facilities, and 

TxDOT’s Policies and Standards. 

Navigational aids provide two primary 

services to airport operations: precision 

guidance to specific runway and/or nonprecision 

guidance to a runway or the 

airport itself. The basic difference 

between a precision and non-precision 

navigational aid is that the former 

provides electronic descent, alignment 

(course), and position guidance, while 

the non-precision navigational aid 

provides only alignment and position 

location information; no elevation 

information is given. The necessity of 

such equipment is usually determined 

by design standards predicated on 

safety considerations and operational 

needs. The type, purpose, and volume 

of aviation activity expected at the 

3-22 

airport are factors in the determination 

of the airport’s eligibility for 

navigational aids. 

Global Positioning System 

The advancement of technology has 

been one of the most important factors 

in the growth of the aviation industry in 

the second half of the twentieth 

century. Much of the civil aviation and 

aerospace technology has been derived 

and enhanced from the initial 

development of technological 

improvements for military purposes. 

The use of orbiting satellites to confirm 

an aircraft’s location is the latest 

military development to be made 

available to the civil aviation 

community. 

Global positioning systems (GPS) use 

three or more satellites to derive an 

aircraft’s location by a triangulation 

method. The accuracy of these systems 

has been remarkable, with initial 

degrees of error of only a few meters. 

As the technology improves, it is 

anticipated that GPS may be able to 

provide accurate-enough position

information to allow category II and III 

precision approaches, independent of 

any existing ground-based navigational 

facilities. In addition to the 

navigational benefits, it has been 

estimated that GPS equipment will be 

much less costly than existing precision 

approach landing systems. 

Instrument Approaches 

Instrument approach procedures (IAP) 

are a series of predetermined 

maneuvers established by the FAA, 

using electronic navigational aids that 

assist pilots in locating and landing at 

an airport during low visibility and 

cloud ceiling conditions. At Mesquite 

Metro Airport, there are two published 

instrument approaches for Runway 17 

and one for Runway 35. The 

approaches are approved for use by 

aircraft with approach speeds in 

Approach Category A, B and C. None of 

the airport’s approaches are approved 

for D aircraft. 

The capability of an instrument 

approach is defined by the visibility and 

cloud ceiling minimums associated with 

the approach. Visibility minimums 

define the horizontal distance that the 

pilot must be able to see to complete the 

approach. Cloud ceilings define the 

lowest level a cloud layer (defined as 

feet above the ground) can be situated 

for a pilot to complete the approach. If 

the observed visibility or cloud ceiling is 

below the minimums prescribed for the 

approach, the pilot cannot complete the 

instrument approach. 

Future planning considers the increased 

use of the airport by corporate aircraft. 

3-23 

These aircraft users are often 

dependent upon instrument approaches. 

In fact, some corporate flight 

departments are excluded from using 

airports without instrument 

approaches. Considering these aircraft, 

future planning must also consider 

improved instrument approach 

procedures. 

The IAPs for Mesquite Metro Airport 

were discussed in detail in the previous 

chapter. The ILS Runway 17 approach 

affords the lowest cloud ceiling (250' 

AGL) and visibility minimums (threequarter 

mile). Ultimate planning will 

consider the implementation of 

approach minimums down to one-half 

mile, utilizing the ILS technology such 

as the localizer and glideslope antenna. 

The possibility of implementing these 

approaches will be studied in the next 

chapter. Should there be a parallel 

runway, GPS approaches with not lower 

than one-mile visibility should be 

considered. 

Weather Reporting Aids 

The Automated Weather Observing 

System III (AWOS) at the airport 

provides critical weather information to 

pilots. One of the prime advantages of 

an AWOS is that the information is 

very specific to the airport environs. 

This system should be maintained. 

The airport has a lighted wind cone and 

segmented circle which provide pilots 

with information about wind conditions 

and local traffic patterns. These 

facilities are required when an airport 

is not served by a 24-hour airport traffic

control tower (ATCT). These facilities 

should be maintained in the future. 

Airport Traffic 

Control Tower (ATCT) 

Mesquite Metro Airport does not have 

an airport traffic control tower (ATCT); 

therefore, no formal terminal air traffic 

control services are available at the 


Aircraft operating within the Class E 

airspace immediately surrounding the 

airport are not required to file any type 

of flight plan or to contact any air traffic 

control facility unless they are operat- 

3-24 

ing under IFR conditions. Those 

aircraft that enter the Class B airspace 

in the vicinity of the airport would then 

be required to be in contact with 

controllers at the Fort Worth Air Route 

Traffic Control Facility (ARTCC). 

The establishment of a fully-funded 

ATCT follows guidance provided in FAA 

Handbook 7031.2C, Airway Planning 

Standard Number One - Terminal Air 

Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic 

Control Services. To be identified as a 

possible candidate for inclusion in the 

FAA Contract Tower Program and thus 

eligible to receive an ATCT, the formula 

in Table 3L is applied. 

TABLE 3L 

Airport Traffic Control Tower Calculations 


Formula Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Forecast 

Forecast 

Forecast 

AC/38,000 + 0.000 0.000 0.000 

AT/90,000 + 0.003 0.004 0.011 

GAI/160,000 + 0.319 0.350 0.413 

GAL/280,000 + 0.273 0.300 0.354 

MI/48,000 + 0.000 0.000 0.000 

ML/90,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total 

Where: 

0.595 0.654 0.777 

AC = Air Carrier Operations 

AT = Air Taxi Operations 

GAI = General Aviation Itinerant Operations 

GAL = General Aviation Local Operations 

MI = Military Itinerant Operations 

ML = Military Local Operations 

Source: FAA Handbook 7031.2C, Airway Planning Standard Number One - Terminal Air 

Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services. 

This formula is the starting point for 

analysis to determine the need for an 

ATCT. If the benefit/cost analysis ratio 

(BCA) that results from the formula is 

above 1.0, then the airport would be 

eligible for consideration under the FAA 

Contract Tower Program. 

Experience at airports with similar 

annual operations to Mesquite Metro

Airport has shown that when the initial 

results of the formula in Table 3L are 

above 0.5, there is a strong possibility 

that the actual BCA ratio may be above 

1.0, as the BCA considers additional 

factors, not just operations, with 

varying degrees of weight applied. It is 

recommended that the City notify the 

FAA of its desire to be included in the 

ATCT program, so that an operational 

count and a full BCA analysis can be 

conducted. 

Initial construction of a tower is eligible 

for the TxDOT-Aviation Division 90/10 

cost sharing program, up to $1.66 

million. These funds are from of the 

FAA AIP program which TxDOT 

administers as a block-grant state. 

Under the FAA Contract Tower 

Program, an updated BCA is conducted 

on a yearly basis. Should the BCA fall 

below the 1.0 ratio, then the FAA would 

shift to a cost-sharing program and 

provide operational funding equal to the 

calculated ratio. For example, if a BCA 

ratio of 0.76 results, then the airport 

could be expected to receive funding to 

cover 76 percent of the operational 

costs. The City would then be 

responsible for the remaining 24 

percent of the annual operating costs. 

The Contract Tower Program was 

established in 1982 to provide funding 

for air traffic control services at lower 

activity level ATCTs. At contract 

towers, the FAA funds all or portions of 

the cost of a qualified contractor to 

operate the ATCT. Initially, low-level 

FAA-operated towers were converted to 

the contract tower program. However, 

this program has grown to include 

establishing new services at airports 

3-25 

which were previously without air 

traffic control services. As of 2005, 

there were 223 airports in the FAA 

Contract Tower Program. 

AIRFIELD LIGHTING 

AND MARKING 

There are a number of lighting and 

pavement marking aids serving pilots 

using the airport. These aids assist 

pilots in locating the airport and 

runway at night or in poor visibility 

conditions. They also assist in the 

ground movement of aircraft. 

Visual Approach Aids 

To provide pilots with visual glideslope 

and descent information, visual 

approach slope indicators (VASIs) or 

precision approach path indicators 

(PAPIs) are commonly found to the side 

of the runway. These systems can 

consist of either a two- or four-box unit. 

Four-box systems are recommended for 

use by business jet aircraft. Currently, 

both ends of Runway 17-35 are served 

by four-box PAPIs. These are the 

recommended visual descent aids and 

should be maintained through the 

planning period. 

In conjunction with lowering the 

approach minimums to Runway 17 from 

a three-quarter mile to one-half mile, a 

more sophisticated approach lighting 

system will be needed. The Medium 

Intensity Approach Lighting System 

with Runway Alignment Indicator 

Lights (MALSR) is commonly used. A 

MALSR is used by pilots to align the

aircraft with the centerline of the 

runway. Up to 63 steady-burning lights 

are used to create a reference plane, 

and up to eight lights create a 

sequential strobing flash pattern that 

rolls toward the runway threshold. The 

MALSR requires 2,400 feet prior to the 

threshold. The first 1,400 feet from the 

threshold is the reference grid and the 

last 1,000 feet is the flashing lights. 

Runway 35 would not need the MALSR 

system, as the planned approach 

visibility is three-quarters mile and the 

existing lead-in-light system is 

adequate. 

Runway End Identification Lighting 

(REIL) is provided on both ends of 

Runway 17-35. Because of the 

existence of the lead-in-light system, 

the REILs are not required on the 

Runway 35 end. When the full MALSR 

is installed on Runway 17, it is 

recommended that the REILs be 

removed to avoid pilot confusion. They 

can be relocated to the potential 

parallel runway or provided to another 

airport with the need. 

Other visual approach aids include the 

segmented circle, the lighted wind cone 

and the universal beacon. These are 

valuable tools to pilots and should be 

maintained throughout the planning 

period. The potential parallel runway 

should be outfitted with a two-box PAPI 

and REILs. 

Runway and Taxiway Lighting 

Runway identification lighting provides 

the pilot with a rapid and positive 

identification of the runway and its 

3-26 

alignment. Runway 17-35 is equipped 

with Medium Intensity Runway 

Lighting (MIRL). When the approach 

minimum is lowered to one-half mile, 

High Intensity Runway Lighting will 

need to be installed. 

TxDOT Policies and Standards indicate 

that airports having more than 100 

based aircraft should be served by 

taxiway lights, as well as taxiway 

guidance signs. Currently, Mesquite 

has lighted signs, but there is not 

taxiway lighting. Future planning will 

consider the addition of Medium 

Intensity Taxiway Lighting. 

The pilot-controlled lighting systems 

should be maintained through the 

planning period. This will allow the 

light to be set to a lower intensity at 

night, thus allowing the airport to 

conserve electricity and be a good 

neighbor. 

As a B-II runway, the parallel should be 

planned for MIRL. The taxiways and 

signs leading to the runway should be 

lighted. 

Pavement Markings 

Runway markings are designed 

according to the type of instrument 

approach available on the runway. 

FAA AC 150/5340-1F, Marking of Paved 

Areas on Airports, provides guidance 

necessary to design an airport’s 

markings. Both ends of the runway 

have precision instrument markings. 

These markings should be properly 

maintained through the planning 

period.

Markings for a parallel runway should 

be at least non-precision, to include 

runway centerline, runway designation, 

aiming point, and threshold, as well as 

aircraft holding positions. 

Compass Rose 

There is a compass rose painted on the 

concrete in the north-end holding apron. 

A compass rose is used to calibrate the 

aircraft magnetic compass. Unlike the 

compass rose found on most maps, this 

marking has the navigational ordinals, 

dividing the circle into 12 parts at 30 

degree intervals. The cardinal points 

(large marks) are at magnetic north, 

south, east and west, with ordinal 

indicators at the remaining points. The 

rose found on most maps usually have 

4, 8 or 16 markings, with the cardinal 

points at true (not magnetic) north, 

south, east and west, and ordinals at 

angles of bisection (e.g., northwest). 

LANDSIDE 

REQUIREMENTS 

Landside facilities are those necessary 

for the handling of aircraft and 

passengers while on the ground. These 

facilities provide the essential interface 

between the air and ground 

transportation modes. The capacity of 

the various components of each area 

was examined in relation to projected 

demand to identify future landside 

facility needs. This includes 

components for commercial service and 

general aviation needs such as: 

3-27 

C Aircraft Hangars 

C Aircraft Parking Aprons 

C General Aviation Terminal 

C Auto Parking and Access 

C Airport Support Facilities 

HANGARS 

Utilization of hangar space varies as a 

function of local climate, security, and 

owner preferences. The trend in 

general aviation aircraft, whether 

single- or multi-engine, is toward more 

sophisticated aircraft (and, consequently, 

more expensive aircraft); 

therefore, many aircraft owners prefer 

enclosed hangar space to outside tiedowns. 

The demand for aircraft storage 

hangars is dependent upon the number 

and type of aircraft expected to be based 

at the airport in the future. For 

planning purposes, it is necessary to 

estimate hangar requirements based 

upon forecast operational activity. 

However, hangar development should 

be based upon actual demand trends 

and financial investment conditions. 

While a majority of aircraft owners 

prefer enclosed aircraft storage, a 

number of based aircraft will still tiedown 

outside (due to the lack of hangar 

availability, hangar rental rates, and/or 

operational needs). Therefore, enclosed 

hangar facilities do not necessarily need 

to be planned for each based aircraft. 

At Mesquite Metro Airport, most based 

aircraft are currently stored in hangars. 

According to staff interviews and

airport billing records, there are 

approximately 10 based aircraft which 

utilize the tie-down spaces available on 

the north apron. 

General aviation airports similar to 

Mesquite Metro will typically have 95 

percent of the based aircraft stored in 

enclosed hangars, with the remaining 

five percent stored outside on the apron. 

This standard will be used when 

determining needed hangar development. 

As previously discussed, the 

airport staff maintains a wait list of 81 

aircraft owners. Conversion of the wait 

list to leases, as well as natural 

attrition of based aircraft, are reflected 

in the based aircraft forecast. The 

based aircraft forecast is the primary 

factor in determining hangar needs. 

At Mesquite Metro Airport, all multiengine 

and jet aircraft will be 

considered to be stored in a hangar, 

while 95 percent of the single-engine 

aircraft will be considered for indoor 

storage. Of the single-engine aircraft, 

90 percent are in T-hangars, while 5 

percent are in conventional and 

executive hangars. Of the multi-engine 

aircraft, 10 percent are considered to be 

stored in T-hangars, 35 percent in 

conventional hangars, and 55 percent in 

executive hangars. 

Mesquite Metro Airport offers a number 

of T-hangar spaces. T-hangars are 

popular with aircraft owners having one 

aircraft. T-hangars are individual 

spaces within a larger structure. 

Aircraft owners are allowed privacy and 

individual access to their space. There 

are 147 individual enclosed T-hangar 

units available on the airport. Upon 

3-28 

completion of the two new hangar 

facilities at the south end of the airport, 

there will be an additional 11 T-hangar 

units. For T-hangars, a planning 

standard of 1,200 square feet per based 

aircraft will be used to determine future 

space requirements. 

Conventional hangars are typically 

10,000 square feet or larger. They are 

open-space facilities with no supporting 

structure interference. Often, other 

airport services are offered from the 

conventional hangars. At Mesquite 

Metro Airport, there are three 

conventional hangars. These are leased 

by Moorehead Aviation, P & S Aerowest 

and Faith Air. The maximum number 

of aircraft that can be stored in each is 

approximately seven. These three 

hangars provide a total of 33,200 square 

feet of space. 

Executive hangars are typically utilized 

by owners of larger aircraft or multiple 

aircraft. Often a corporate aviation 

department will operate out of an 

executive hangar as well. Executive 

hangars are usually smaller than 

10,000 square feet and offer the same 

open-space storage area as conventional 

hangars. There are four executive 

hangar structures at the airport. The 

northernmost hangar, occupied by the 

Department of Public Safety, has a 

capacity of five aircraft. Building 910 

has four attached executive hangars. A 

maximum of four aircraft can be stored 

in each, for a total of 16 aircraft. 

Buildings 1440 and 1442 are also 

executive hangars, with a capacity of 

approximately eight aircraft, bringing 

the total executive hangar spaces 

available to 27. These facilities provide

a total of approximately 40,300 square 

feet. 

Five executive hangar units are 

included in the south end hangar 

facilities currently under construction. 

These will provide a total of 11,200 

square feet and space for up to seven 

additional aircraft. It should be noted 

that the T-hangars and the executive 

hangars currently under construction 

are not included in the calculations for 

future aircraft storage needs. 

As the trend toward more sophisticated 

aircraft continues throughout the 

planning period, it is important to 

determine the need for more 

conventional and executive hangar 

3-29 

space. A planning standard of 1,200 

square feet was used for single-engine 

aircraft, and 2,500 square feet for multiengine, 

jets, and helicopters. Since 

portions of conventional and executive 

hangars are also used for aircraft 

maintenance, servicing, and office 

space, a planning standard of 15 

percent of the total hangar space is 

allocated for these requirements. 

Table 3M indicates that the airport 

should plan, in the short term, for more 

executive and conventional hangar 

space. Additional T-hangar storage 

facilities are projected to be needed by 

the intermediate term of the planning 

period. 

TABLE 3M 

Aircraft Storage Hangar Requirements 


Future Requirements 

Currently Short Intermediate Long 

Available Term Term Term 


Aircraft to be Hangared 214 245 269 317 

T-Hangar Units 147 181 197 226 

Conventional Hangar Spaces 15 27 31 38 

Executive Hangars 

Hangar Area Requirements 

30 37 42 53 

T-hangar Area (sf.) 167,100 216,600 235,800 271,300 

Conventional Hangar Area (sf.) 33,200 68,100 76,400 95,100 

Executive Hangars (s.f.) 40,300 93,100 104,900 132,100 

Maintenance Area (sf.) 36,000 56,000 62,500 75,000 

Total Hangar Area (s.f.) 


276,600 433,800 479,600 573,500 

It should be noted that the exact 

existing storage mix is unknown. Thus, 

a typical storage mix was used as the 

baseline condition. As a result, the 

exact square footage needed between Thangars 

and conventional/executive 

hangars is an approximation. The 

critical figure to address is the total 

hangar area needed. In the short term 

planning period, nearly 157,000 square 

feet of hangar space may be needed. 

The new south-end hangars under 

construction will account for 14,000 

square feet for T-hangars and 11,200

square feet for executive hangars. 

Thus, planning should begin for an 

additional 132,000 square feet of 

aircraft storage space. 

AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON 

A parking apron should provide space 

for the number of locally-based aircraft 

that are not stored in hangars and 

transient aircraft. As discussed in the 

previous section, airports similar in 

characteristics to Mesquite Metro 

Airport hangar approximately 95 

percent of based aircraft. Using this 

standard, Mesquite would currently 

need aircraft tie-down space for nine 

based aircraft and space for 13 based 

aircraft by the long term forecast. For 

local tie-down needs, an additional five 

spaces are identified for maintenance 

activity. A planning criterion of 650 

square yards per aircraft was used to 

determine the apron requirements for 

local aircraft. 

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 

suggests a methodology by which 

transient apron requirements can be 

determined from knowledge of busy-day 

operations. At Mesquite Metro Airport, 

the number of itinerant spaces required 

was determined to be approximately 18 

percent of the busy-day itinerant 

operations. A planning criterion of 800 

square yards per aircraft was applied to 

determine future transient apron 

requirements for single- and multiengine 

aircraft. For business jets 

(which can be much larger), a planning 

criterion of 1,600 square yards per 

business jet position was used. For 

3-30 

planning purposes, 75 percent of these 

spaces are assumed to be utilized by 

non-jet aircraft, which is in line with 

national trends. 

Total apron parking requirements are 

presented in Table 3N. Currently, 

apron area at the airport totals 

approximately 33,400 square yards, 

with approximately 51 total tie-down 

positions. As shown in the table, there 

will likely be a need for more apron 

space throughout the planning period. 

As itinerant operations increase, 

especially by turbine aircraft, 

consideration should be given to 

constructing more apron space. 

Moreover, additional apron space will 

be needed as development moves to the 

south end of the airfield. 


TERMINAL FACILITIES 

General aviation terminal facilities 

have several functions. Space is 

required for the pilots’ lounge, flight 

planning, concessions, management, 

storage, and various other needs. This 

space is not necessarily limited to a 

single, separate terminal building, but 

can include space offered by fixed base 

operators for these functions and 

services. Currently, the airport offers a 

separate terminal building which 

provides approximately 5,000 square 

feet of space. The existing terminal 

facility was dedicated in 2004, and is 

located on the enlarged south apron, 

approximately midfield. Additional 

public space is available in the previous

terminal building area, currently 

occupied by Mesquite Aviation. This 

TABLE 3N 

Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements 


3-31 

area provides approximately 2,600 

square feet of space. 

Available 

Short 

Term 

Intermediate 

Term 

Long 

Term 

Single-, Multi-engine Transient Aircraft 

Positions 39 42 50 

Apron Area (s.y.) 30,800 33,900 39,900 

Transient Business Jet Positions 13 14 17 

Apron Area (s.y.) 20,600 22,600 26,600 

Locally-Based Aircraft Positions 15 16 18 

Apron Area (s.y.) 9,800 10,400 11,700 

Total Positions 51 67 72 85 

Total Apron Area (s.y.) 33,400 61,200 66,900 78,200 

The methodology used in estimating 

general aviation terminal facility needs 

is based on the number of airport users 

expected to utilize general aviation 

facilities during the design hour. 

General aviation space requirements 

were then based upon providing 90 

square feet per design hour itinerant 

passenger. Design hour itinerant 

passengers is determined by multiply- 

ing design hour itinerant operations by 

the number of passengers on the 

aircraft (multiplier). An increasing 

passenger count (from 2.0 to 2.3) is used 

to account for the likely increase in 

larger, more sophisticated aircraft using 

the airport. Table 3P outlines the 

general aviation terminal facility space 

requirements for Mesquite Metro 

Airport. 

TABLE 3P 

General Aviation Terminal Area Facilities 


Short Intermediate Long 

Available Term Term Term 

Design Hour Operations 70 89 98 115 

Design Hour Itinerant Operations 28 36 39 46 

Multiplier 

Total Design Hour 

1.9 2 2.1 2.3 

Itinerant Passengers 

General Aviation 

53 72 82 106 

Terminal Building/FBO Public Space (s.f.) 

Source: Coffman Analysis 

7,600 6,400 7,400 9,600 

As presented in the table, the existing 

public spaces appear adequate through 

the intermediate term of the plan. By 

the long term, there may be a need for

additional space. This space may be 

provided with an expansion of the 

terminal building, or other service 

providers at the airport may wish to 

provide public space. 

The airport should continue to identify 

and address the needs of the airport 

users in terms of necessary terminal 

space. The current terminal building 

provides some space for most items 

needed by pilots and passengers. 

Future functional needs may grow to 

exceed the space currently available. In 

these circumstances the airport should 

consider either an addition or a 

reconfiguration of the interior to meet 

these needs. If the terminal building is 

not expanded, additional FBO spaces 

will be required to meet demand. 

SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS 

Various facilities that do not logically 

fall within classifications of airside or 

landside facilities have also been 

identified. These other areas provide 

certain functions related to the overall 

operation of the airport and include: 

automobile parking, fuel storage, and 

aircraft rescue and firefighting 

facilities. 

AUTOMOBILE PARKING 

General aviation vehicular parking 

demands have been determined for 

Mesquite Metro Airport. Space 

determinations were based on an 

evaluation of existing airport use, as 

3-32 

well as industry standards. Terminal 

automobile parking spaces required to 

meet general aviation itinerant 

demands were calculated by 

multiplying design hour itinerant 

passengers by a multiplier of 2.0, 2.1, 

and 2.3 for each planning period. This 

multiplier represents the anticipated 

increase in corporate operations, and 

thus, passengers. 

The parking requirements of based 

aircraft owners should also be 

considered. Although some owners 

prefer to park their vehicles in their 

hangars, safety can be compromised 

when automobile and aircraft 

movements are intermixed. For this 

reason, separate parking requirements, 

which consider one-half of based 

aircraft at the airport, were applied to 

general aviation automobile parking 

space requirements. Parking 

requirements for the airport are 

summarized in Table 3Q. 

Throughout the planning period, 

additional dedicated parking spaces are 

forecast to be needed. Currently, most 

airport users travel across landside 

pavements in order to reach their place 

of business or hangar. Future planning 

will develop more dedicated parking 

areas, with the goal of limiting the 

potential interaction of aircraft and 

vehicles. Locating parking areas in 

useful areas is critical for a general 

aviation airport. If a parking area is 

not conveniently located, then airport 

users will continue to drive on aircraft 

surfaces.

TABLE 3Q 

Vehicle Parking Requirements 


Future Requirements 

Available Short Term Inter. Term Long Term 

Design Hour Passengers 51 68 78 102 

Terminal Vehicle Spaces 37 136 165 234 

Parking Area (s.f.) 14,800 54,300 65,900 93,500 

General Aviation Spaces 44 128 140 165 

Parking Area (s.f.) 17,600 51,000 56,000 66,000 

Total Parking Spaces 81 264 305 399 

Total Parking Area (s.f.) 32,400 105,300 121,900 159,500 

FUEL STORAGE 

Mesquite Metro Airport has a new fuel 

farm on the west side of the north 

apron. The fuel farm consists of two 

aboveground, 12,000-gallon storage 

tanks, one for Jet A fuel and the other 

for Avgas fuel. There is a self-serve 

pump for Avgas at this location as well. 

With a credit card, pilots can access 

Avgas 24 hours-a-day. After hours, Jet 

A fuel is also available by contacting 

airport staff, which utilizes two 

refueling trucks. The Jet A fuel truck 

has a 2,400-gallon capacity and the 

Avgas truck has a 1,000-gallon capacity. 

Fuel storage requirements are typically 

based upon maintaining a two-week 

supply of fuel during an average month. 

However, more frequent deliveries can 

reduce the fuel storage capacity 

requirement. Generally, fuel tanks 

should be of adequate capacity to accept 

a full refueling tanker, which is 

approximately 8,000 gallons, while 

maintaining a reasonable level of fuel in 

the storage tank. 

Fuel sales records are maintained by 

airport staff. As presented in Table 

3R, Jet A fuel sales have increased 

3-33 

significantly over the past four years, 

while Avgas sales experienced a 

declining trend from 2001 to 2003. In 

2004, Avgas sales rebounded to the 

2001 levels. Although both types of fuel 

are forecast to show growth through the 

planning period, Jet A fuel sales are 

expected to increase at a greater rate. 

When the forecast fuel sales are 

segmented into biweekly refills, the 

current storage capacity will be 

adequate for Avgas through the 

planning period, while Jet A fuel 

storage capacity will be exceeded by the 

long term planning period. One option 

to address this potential storage issue is 

to increase the frequency of fuel 

deliveries. By the long term planning 

period, it is suggested that additional 

fuel storage facilities be constructed. 

AIRCRAFT RESCUE 

AND FIREFIGHTING 

Mesquite Metro Airport is not currently 

served by a dedicated aircraft rescue 

and firefighting facility (ARFF). The 

airport is provided with rescue and fire 

assistance from Fire Station No. 7, 

approximately two miles from the 

airport.

TABLE 3R 

Forecast Fuel Sales 


HISTORIC FORECAST 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2010 2015 2025 

Avgas (gal.) 122,000 112,000 102,000 122,000 135,000 147,000 174,000 

Jet A (Gal.) 52,000 65,000 82,000 90,000 171,000 237,000 370,000 

Source: Airport records. All figures rounded to nearest 1,000. 

ARFF services do not necessarily have 

to be located on the airport. Only 

certified airports providing scheduled 

passenger service with greater than 

nine passenger seats are required to 

provide ARFF services. Many corporate 

flight departments, however, are 

requesting ARFF services at the 

airports they utilize. ARFF facilities 

and personnel costs are substantial, 

thus, many times not feasible for 

smaller communities. If services are 

requested, consideration should be 

given to meeting “Index A” standards, 

which includes aircraft less than 90 feet 

in length and requires on-vehicle 

carrying of at least one of the following: 

C 500 pounds of sodium-based dry 

chemical or halon 1211; or 

C 450 pounds or potassium-based 

dry chemical and water with a 

commensurate quantity of 

Aqueous Film Forming Form 

(AFFF), to total 100 gallons for 

simultaneous dry chemical and 

AFFF foam application. 

It is considered a good practice to have 

some individuals at an off-airfield fire 

station trained and certified in aircraft 

rescue and firefighting. An additional 

step could be taken to outfit the fire 

3-34 

station with the special firefighting 

chemicals such as halon or foam. 

SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION ACCESS 

The City of Mesquite has excellent 

access to the surface transportation 

network, as discussed in Chapter One. 

Scyene and Lawson Roads provide 

access from the highway and interstate 

network to the airport. Both of these 

roads carry all airport traffic, as well as 

significant industrial traffic such as 

concrete trucks. 

When the airport functions as a 

gateway to the City, it is important that 

surface access to the airport reflect the 

positive welcome that the airport itself 

provides. Numerous aircraft owners 

and FBO operators at the airport 

identified improvements to these roads 

as their number one concern. 

Consideration should be given to 

improving these local access roads as 

volume increases. 

SUMMARY 

The intent of this chapter has been to 

outline the facilities required to meet

potential aviation demands projected 

for Mesquite Metro Airport for the 

planning horizon. A summary of the 

airfield and general aviation facility 

requirements is presented on Exhibits 

3D and 3E. 

3-35 

Following the facility requirements 

determination, the next step is to 

determine a direction of development 

which best meets these projected needs. 

The remainder of the master plan will 

be devoted to outlining this direction, 

its schedule, and its cost.

04MP22-3D-4/7/05 

RUNWAY AVAILABLE 

AVAILABLE SHORT TERM LONG TERM 

TAXIWAYS 

NAVIGATIONAL 

NAVIGATIONAL 

AIDS 

LIGHTING & 

MARKING 

Runway 17-35 

5,999' x 100' 

70,000# SWL 

100,000# DWL 

ARC B-II Design 

Runway 17-35 

Full Parallel Taxiway 

Centerline Reflectors 

Runway 17-35 

PAPI-4 

AWOS-III 

Localizer 

Lead-in-lights 

ILS Rwy 17 (3/4 mile) 

LOC BC Rwy 35 (1 mile) 

NDB or GPS Rwy 17 (1mile) 

Rotating Beacon 

Medium Intensity 

Runway Lighting 

Precision Markings 

Segmented Circle/ 

Lighted Windcone 

Compass Rose 

Lighted Airfield Signs 

Runway 17-35 

RSA/OFA Improvements 

RPZ Acquisition/Easements 

ARC C-II Design 

Runway 17-35 

Relocate Parallel Taxiway 

(400' Separation) 


Taxiway Lighting 

Runway 17-35 

Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Upgrade to MALSR (17) 

Approaches for D Aircraft 

ILS Rwy 17 (1/2 mile) 

GPS Rwy 35 (3/4 mile) 

Same 

Runway 17-35 

7,000' x 100' 

Parallel Runway 

4,900' x 75' 

30,000# SWL 

Runway 17-35 

Taxiway Extension 


Full Parallel Taxiway 

(Up to 4,900') 

Centerline Reflectors 

Runway 17-35 

Same 


REILs 

GPS Approaches (1 mile) 

PAPI-2 

Same 


Non-precision Markings 


Runway Lighting 

Lighted Airfield Signage 

Exhibit 3D 

AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

04MP22-3E-4/7/05 

AIRCRAFT STORAGE HANGARS 

T-hangar Positions 

Executive Hangar Positions 

Conventional Hangar Positions 

T-Hangar Area (s.f.) 

Executive Hangar Area (s.f.) 

Conventional Hangar Area (s.f.) 

Maintenance Area (s.f.) 

Total Hangar Area (s.f.) 

APRON AREA 

Transient Positions 

Locally-Based Aircraft Positions 

Total Positions 

Total Apron Area (s.y.) 

TERMINAL SERVICES AND 

VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE PARKING 

Terminal Building Space/ 

FBO Public Space (s.f.) 

Total Parking Spaces 

Total Parking Area (s.f.) 

AVAILABLE 

AVAILABLE 

147 

30 

15 

167,100 

40,300 

33,200 

36,000 

276,600 

AVAILABLE AVAILABLE 

N/A 

N/A 

51 

33,400 

AVAILABLE 

AVAILABLE 

7,600 

81 

32,400 

SHORT TERM 

NEED 

NEED 

181 

37 

27 

216,600 

93,100 

68,100 

56,000 

433,800 

SHORT TERM 

NEED 

NEED 

52 

15 

67 

61, 200 

SHORT TERM 

NEED 

NEED 

6,400 

264 

105,300 

INTERMEDIATE 

INTERMEDIATE 

NEED 

NEED 

197 

42 

31 

235,800 

104,900 

76,400 

62,500 

479,600 

INTERMEDIATE 

INTERMEDIATE 

NEED 

NEED 

56 

16 

72 

66,900 

INTERMEDIATE 

INTERMEDIATE 

NEED 

NEED 

7,400 

305 

121,900 

LONG LONG TERM 

TERM 

NEED 

NEED 

226 

53 

38 

271,300 

132,100 

95,100 

75,000 

573,500 


TERM 

NEED 

NEED 

67 

18 

85 

78,200 


TERM 

NEED 

NEED 

9,600 

399 

159,500 

Exhibit 3E 

LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

Chapter Four 

ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER FOUR 

ALTERNATIVES 

In the previous chapter, airside and landside facilities required 

to satisfy the demand for the long range planning period were 

identified. The next step in the planning process is to evaluate 

reasonable ways these facilities can be provided. There can be 

countless combinations of design alternatives, but the 

alternatives presented are those with the greatest potential for 

implementation. 

Any development proposed for a master plan is evolved from 

an analysis of projected needs for a set period of time. Though 

the needs were determined by the best methodology available, 

it cannot be assumed that future events will not change these 

needs. The master planning process attempts to develop a 

viable concept for meeting the needs caused by projected 

demands for the next twenty years. However, no plan of action 

should be developed which may be inconsistent with the future 

goals and objectives of the City of Mesquite and its citizens, 

who have a vested interest in the development and operation of 


The development alternatives for Mesquite Metro Airport can 

be categorized into two functional areas: airside (runways, 

navigational aids, taxiways, etc.) and landside (general aviation 

hangars, apron, and terminal area). Within each of these areas, 

specific facilities are required or desired. In addition, the 

utilization of the remaining airport property to provide revenue 

support for the airport and to benefit the economic 

development and well-being of the regional area must be 

considered. 

Each functional area interrelates and affects the development 

potential of the others. Therefore, all areas must be examined 

individually, then coordinated as a whole to ensure the 

4-1 DRAFT

final plan is functional, efficient, and 

cost-effective. The total impact of all 

these factors on the existing airport 

must be evaluated to determine if the 

investment in Mesquite Metro Airport 

will meet the needs of the community, 

both during and beyond the planning 

period. 

When analyzing alternatives for 

development, consideration must be 

given to a “do nothing” or “no-build” 

alternative. Additional consideration 

will be given to the possibility of 

removing aviation services altogether 

and transferring aviation activity to 

surrounding airports. 

The alternatives considered are 

compared using environmental, 

economic, and aviation factors to 

determine which of the alternatives will 

best fulfill the local aviation needs. 

With this information, as well as the 

input and direction from local 

government agencies and airport users, 

a final airport concept can evolve into a 

realistic development plan. 

NON-DEVELOPMENT 

ALTERNATIVES 

Non-development alternatives include 

the “no-build” or “do nothing” 

alternative, transferring service to an 

existing airport, or developing an 

airport at a new location. These 

alternatives need to be examined first 

to determine whether future 

development of Mesquite Metro Airport 

is in the best interest of the City of 

Mesquite and the region as a whole. 

4-2 

“DO NOTHING” ALTERNATIVE 

The "do nothing" alternative essentially 

considers keeping the airport in its 

present condition and not providing for 

any type of improvement to the existing 

facilities. The primary result of this 

alternative would be the inability of the 

airport to satisfy the projected aviation 

demands of the airport service area. 

The Dallas region has experienced 

strong growth in all socioeconomic 

categories over the past several 

decades. Forecasts indicate this trend 

will likely continue throughout and 

beyond the long range planning horizon. 

Moreover, the City of Mesquite is an 

economic center in the eastern portion 

of the Metroplex, which requires the 

support of a highly functional airport. 

These reasons, combined with favorable 

regional and national aviation forecasts, 

indicate a future need for improved 

facilities at Mesquite Metro Airport. 

Improvements recommended in the 

previous chapter include a longer 

runway, improvements to the taxiway 

system, improvement of navigational 

aids, and the construction of additional 

hangar facilities. Without these 

facilities, regular users and potential 

future users of the airport will be 

constrained from taking maximum 

advantage of the airport's air 

transportation capabilities. 

The “do nothing” alternative would lead 

to the airport’s inability to attract 

potential airport users. Corporate 

aviation plays a major role in the 

transportation of business leaders and 

key employees. Thus, an airport’s 

facilities are often the first impression

many corporate officials will have of the 

community. If the airport does not have 

the capability to meet the hangar, 

apron, or airfield needs of potential 

users, the City’s capability to attract the 

major sector businesses that rely on air 

transportation could be diminished. 

The long term consequences of the “do 

nothing” alternative extend beyond the 

City of Mesquite. Mesquite Metro 

Airport is part of a system of public 

airports that serve the aviation needs of 

the region. Mesquite Metro Airport is a 

reliever to Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport and Dallas Love 

Field. As such, the airport has a 

responsibility to provide adequate 

facilities to support the full range of 

general aviation activity so as to reduce 

congestion and relieve capacity 

constraints at these commercial service 

airports. Thus, the effects of the “do 

nothing” alternative would not only 

impact the City of Mesquite or eastern 

Dallas County and western Kaufman 

County, but the entire region. 

To propose no further development at 

Mesquite Metro Airport could adversely 

affect the long term viability of the 

airport, resulting in negative economic 

effects on the City of Mesquite and the 

region as a whole. Therefore, the “do 

nothing” alternative is not considered to 

be prudent or feasible. 

TRANSFER AVIATION SERVICES 

The alternative of shifting aviation 

services to another existing airport was 

found to be an undesirable alternative 

due to the lack of available airports 

4-3 

having the facilities or the potential 

that Mesquite Metro Airport provides. 

In 2004, Mesquite Metro Airport based 

223 aircraft and experienced an 

estimated 100,000 total operations. 

There are no airports on the east side of 

Dallas with the facilities to absorb this 

level of aviation activity. 

Rockwall Municipal Airport is located 

12 nautical miles to the northeast. This 

airport has a single runway that is 

3,373 feet long, clearly inadequate for 

business jet activity. The City of 

Rockwall studied the idea of building a 

replacement airport, but the idea was 

rejected by area residents and the issue 

is not likely to resurface in the near 

future. Terrell Municipal Airport, 13 

nautical miles to the east of the City of 

Mesquite, provides a 5,000-foot runway 

which can support some business jet 

activity. Terrell could accommodate a 

shift of some of the aviation activity 

from Mesquite, if additional landside 

improvements were made but its 

capacity is limited as the airport is 

constrained from adding length to the 

runway due to the location of major 

roadways. Lancaster Airport is 14 

nautical miles to the southeast. This 

airport is a reliever airport but also has 

limitations. Lancaster has limited 

space available for landside 

development and cannot implement 

improved approaches similar to 

Mesquite due to environmental and 

airspace constraints. 

Dallas Executive Airport and Dallas 

Love Field would be the only two 

airports with the potential to serve the 

aviation users at Mesquite Metro 

Airport, but both have limitations.

Dallas Love Field, 17 nautical miles to 

the west, is a busy commercial service 

airport with more than 600 based 

aircraft, 522 of which are business jet 

aircraft. Dallas Executive is 18 

nautical miles to the west with 175 

based aircraft. This airport could 

support much of the Mesquite aviation 

traffic if significant landside 

improvements were made. 

If a shift of aviation services to either 

Dallas Love Field or Dallas Executive 

Airport were pursued, current users of 

Mesquite Metro Airport would be forced 

to travel to a more distant and less 

convenient airport. Furthermore, the 

continuing growth expected in the 

eastern portion of the Metroplex 

demonstrates the need for a highlyfunctional 

and convenient airport. 

General aviation airports play a major 

role in the way companies conduct their 

business. These airports are becoming 

increasingly important in the post-9/11 

aviation environment. Corporate 

aircraft use is becoming more affordable 

not only for businesses, but also for 

individuals. Mesquite Metro Airport is 

expected to accommodate business 

aircraft traffic for companies located or 

conducting business in central and 

eastern portions of the Metroplex. This 

role is not easily replaced by another 

existing airport in the system without 

tremendous expense and inconvenience. 

CONSTRUCTION OF 

A NEW AIRPORT SITE 

The alternative of developing an 

entirely new airport facility in the area 

4-4 

to meet projected aviation demands was 

also considered. This alternative was 

similarly found to be unacceptable, 

primarily due to economic and 

environmental considerations. Land 

acquisition, site preparation, and the 

construction of a new airport near an 

urbanized area can be a very difficult 

and costly action. Closing Mesquite 

Metro Airport would mean the loss of a 

substantial investment in a sizable 

transportation facility. In a situation 

where public funds are limited, the 

replacement of a functional and 

expandable airport facility would 

represent an unjustifiable loss of a 

significant public investment. 

From social, political, and 

environmental standpoints, the 

commitment of a large land area must 

also be considered. The public 

sentiment toward new airports is 

generally negative, as a new airport 

typically requires the acquisition of 

several large parcels of privately-owned 

property. Furthermore, the 

development of a new airport similar to 

Mesquite Metro Airport would likely 

take a minimum of seven years to 

become a reality. The potential exists 

for significant environmental impacts 

associated with disturbing a large land 

area when developing a new airport 

site. 

The only condition at which evaluating 

a new airport site would be considered 

feasible is if the current site becomes 

constrained or incapable of 

accommodating aviation demand. 

Mesquite Metro Airport is bounded on 

the north by the Union Pacific Railroad 

line and Scyene Road which would

estrict northerly expansion 

capabilities. There are approximately 

2,500 linear feet from the Runway 35 

threshold to the southern airport 

property boundary. It appears that 

there is space for potential airfield 

expansion if needed. It is anticipated 

that the airport will not become so 

constrained as to prevent future growth 

through the long term planning period. 

Overall, the non-development 

alternatives are considered 

unreasonable and should not be 

pursued at this time. Mesquite Metro 

Airport is fully capable of 

accommodating the long term aviation 

demands of the area and should be 

developed in response to those 

demands. The airport has the potential 

to continue to develop as a quality 

general aviation airport that could 

greatly enhance the economic 

development of the community. 

The previous chapter identified 

facilities necessary to meet the forecast 

demand throughout the planning 

period. The purpose of the remainder of 

this chapter is to evaluate alternatives 

that meet the needs of the airport. 

Necessary facility and airport design 

issues are examined in the discussion to 

follow. 

AIRFIELD ISSUES 

A commitment to remain at the existing 

site and develop facilities sufficient to 

meet the long term aviation demands 

entails the following requirements: 

4-5 

! Provide sufficient airside and 

landside capacity to meet the 

long range planning horizon 

demand levels of the area. 

! Develop the airport in accordance 

with the currently established 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT) criteria. 

Chapter Three - Facility Requirements 

outlined specific types and quantities of 

facilities necessary to meet projected 

aviation demands throughout the 

planning period. Expansion will be 

required to meet the long range 

planning horizon level of demand. The 

remainder of this chapter will describe 

various alternatives for the airside and 

landside facilities. Before actual airside 

and landside alternatives are presented, 

however, it is necessary to discuss items 

which are factored into the development 

of the various alternatives. Exhibit 4A 

outlines alternative issues to be 

considered in this analysis. 

RUNWAY LENGTH 

Analysis in the previous chapter 

indicated that Runway 17-35 provides 

adequate length for most general 

aviation airplanes. The current runway 

length, however, falls short of the 

requirements for many of the larger and 

faster business aircraft which currently 

operate at the airport, especially on hot 

days. The analysis considered the trend 

of increased corporate aircraft 

operations at the airport over the 

planning period.

Forecast future demand at Mesquite 

Metro Airport indicated that the airport 

should strive to accommodate the 

majority of business jet operations up to 

and including those in airport reference 

code (ARC) D-II. As presented in 

Chapter Three - Facility Requirements, 

many business jets such as the 

Challengers, Hawkers, Westwinds, 

Astras, and some Learjets have 

occasions when up to 7,000 feet are 

needed. Thus, alternative analysis will 

consider the possibility of extending 

Runway 17-35 to provide at least 7,000 

feet of operational length. While this 

length may not be fully capable of 

accommodating all aircraft needs 

throughout the year, it will be more 

than adequate for most aircraft 

operations. 

Alternative analysis will be developed 

with specific attention paid to the 

reasonableness of implementation, both 

from a cost perspective as well as a 

feasibility perspective. 

TAXIWAYS 

The taxiway system at an airport 

consists of all aircraft transport 

surfaces, excluding the runway. It is 

typically designated with a yellow 

centerline for the movement of aircraft 

to and from the runways. Taxiways are 

the primary transport surfaces linked 

with the runway and its operation. 

Such surfaces would include a parallel 

taxiway, entrance/exit taxiways, and 

connecting taxiways. 

Taxilanes are those surfaces that would 

typically realize a lower level of aircraft 

4-6 

activity because the taxilanes provide 

direct ingress/egress to a specific 

location or airport facility. An example 

of a taxilane would be the surface which 

links to a T-hangar complex. Not all 

aircraft will use that surface, only those 

going to and from the T-hangars. 

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300- 

13, Airport Design, Change 8, provides 

standards for taxiway object free areas 

(OFAs) surrounding the taxiway 

system. The taxiway OFA is based on 

the critical aircraft design group which 

will frequent that particular taxiway. 

Design standards for Airplane Design 

Group (ADG) II, aircraft with 

wingspans from 49 feet to 79 feet, 

require the taxiway OFA to be 131 feet 

wide. Aircraft within ADG III, with 

wingspans from 79 feet to 118 feet, 

require a 186-foot-wide taxiway OFA. 

The taxilane OFA required for ADG II 

aircraft is 115 feet wide, whereas it 

increases to 162 feet wide for ADG III 

aircraft. Analysis of the existing and 

future taxiway OFA will be provided in 

the airside alternatives to follow. 

The current layout of the taxiway 

system at Mesquite Metro Airport is 

adequate from a functional perspective. 

There are six entrance/exit taxiways to 

the runway and there is a terminal area 

taxiway that improves circulation 

among landside facilities. All of the 

taxiways are 40 feet wide except for the 

terminal area taxiway, which is 30 feet 

wide. FAA design criteria call for 

taxiways serving a critical aircraft in 

ADG II to be at least 35 feet wide. For 

aircraft in ADG III, the taxiway width 

minimum is 50 feet.

04MP22-4A-7/8/05 

AIRFIELD CONSIDERATIONS 

Consider FAA Design Criteria Upgrade to ARC C/D-II 

Consider Extending Runway 17-35 

Land Acquisition 

Analysis of Improved Instrument Approach Procedures 

Evaluate Impacts of Safety Area Considerations 

Capacity Enhancing Parallel Runway Options 

LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS 

Maximize Available Property for Facility Development 

Develop Conventional, Executive, and T-Hangars 

Analyze Current and Future Terminal Building Needs 

Locate Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Consider Potential for On Airport Non-Aviation Business Development 

Exhibit 4A 

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Runway and parallel taxiway 

separation standards consider both the 

critical aircraft and the instrument 

approach minimums. The current 

critical aircraft falls in ARC C/D-II. 

The current lowest approved visibility 

minimum is three-quarters of a mile. 

This combination necessitates a 

separation, centerline to centerline, of 

300 feet. The current runway/taxiway 

configuration meets this standard. 

The runway to taxiway separation 

design standard for aircraft in ADG III 

is 400 feet with three-quarter-mile 

visibility minimums. With visibility 

minimums lower than three-quartersmile 

for all aircraft, the separation 

standard is also 400 feet. Airfield 

alternatives will consider increasing the 

runway/taxiway separation to 400 feet. 

AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS 


indicated that the critical aircraft at 

Mesquite Metro Airport has 

transitioned from ARC B-II to ARC C/D- 

II. With this transition comes 

significant changes in FAA and TxDOT 

airport design standards. Of primary 

concern are the runway safety area 

(RSA), the object free area (OFA), and 

the runway protection zone (RPZ). The 

existing and future safety areas are 

presented on Exhibit 4B. 


The FAA defines the RSA as "a defined 

surface surrounding the runway 

prepared or suitable for reducing the 

4-7 

risk of damage to airplanes in the event 

of an undershoot, overshoot or excursion 

from the runway." The RSA is an 

integral part of the runway 

environment. RSA dimensions are 

established in AC 150/5300-13, Change 

8, Airport Design, and are based on the 

ARC of the critical aircraft for the 

airport. The RSA is intended to provide 

a measure of safety in the event of an 

aircraft’s excursion from the runway, by 

significantly reducing the extent of 

personal injury and aircraft damage 

during overruns, undershoots, and 

veer-offs. According to the AC, the RSA 

must be: 

1) cleared and graded and have no 

potentially hazardous ruts, 

bumps, depressions, or other 

surface variations; 

2) drained by grading or storm 

sewers to prevent water 

accumulation; 

3) capable, under dry conditions, of 

supporting aircraft rescue and 

firefighting equipment, and the 

occasional passage of aircraft 

without causing structural 

damage to the aircraft; and 

4) free of objects, except for objects 

that need to be located in the 

safety area because of their 

function. 

Furthermore, the FAA has placed a 

higher significance on maintaining 

adequate RSAs at all airports due to 

recent aircraft accidents. Under Order 

5200.8, the FAA established the 

Runway Safety Area Program. The

Order states, “The goal of the Runway 

Safety Area Program is that all RSAs at 

federally-obligated airports and all 

RSAs at airports certificated under 14 

CFR Part 139 shall conform to the 

standards contained in Advisory 

Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, to 

the extent practicable.” Under the 

Order, each Regional Airports Division 

of the FAA is obligated to collect and 

maintain data on the RSA for each 

runway at federally-obligated airports. 

Within the last year, the FAA made a 

notable change in 150/5300-13 AC, 

Airport Design, pertaining to RSAs. 

The new AC identifies different RSA 

measurements for take-off and landing. 

For ARC C/D-II aircraft, 600 feet of 

RSA is now required prior to the 

approach end of the runway, whereas 

1,000 feet is still required beyond the 

far end of the runway. Alternative 

analysis must consider providing 

adequate RSA, while also providing for 

additional runway length. 

The existing RSA at the airport was 

designed to conform to B-II design 

standards. With the transition to C/D- 

II, the RSA expands from 150 feet wide 

to 500 feet wide. Portions of the RSA, 

especially those to the sides and at the 

north end of the runway, do not meet 

RSA standards for ARC C/D-II. Much 

of the area between the runway and the 

parallel taxiway is currently utilized for 

drainage. A new drainage plan will 

need to be developed and implemented 

in order to assure that the full RSA is 

cleared and graded and able to support 

emergency vehicles as well as 

occasional aircraft diversions from the 

4-8 

runway. Under the current conditions, 

the RSA at the south end of the runway 

is completely on airport property. On 

the north end, the RSA extends beyond 

airport property by approximately 320 

feet and is obstructed by perimeter 

fencing and Scyene Road. 


The runway OFA is defined in FAA 

Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 

8, Airport Design, as an area centered 

on the runway extending laterally and 

beyond each runway end, in accordance 

to the critical aircraft design category 

utilizing the runway. The OFA must 

provide clearance of all ground-based 

objects protruding above the RSA edge 

elevation, unless the object is fixed by 

function serving air or ground 

navigation. For ARC C/D-II design, the 

OFA is 800 feet wide, extending 1,000 

feet beyond each runway end. 

The OFA at the south end of the 

runway is completely contained on 

airport property, while it extends 

beyond airport property at the north 

end. The northeast portion of the OFA 

extends approximately 370 feet beyond 

the airport property line. The 

alternatives section will address how to 

regain adequate OFA. It should be 

noted that, in some cases, the terrain 

encompassing the OFA may fall 

significantly below the RSA elevation. 

In those cases, objects can be in the 

OFA as long as they do not rise above 

the elevation of the RSA at any given 

lateral position.

04MP22-4B-2/8/06 

1/2 Mile Visibility Minimum 

LEGEND 


C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA) 

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA) 




Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 


Lawson Rd. 



NORTH 


Minimum 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


1 Mile Visibility Minimum 

Exhibit 4B 

RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS

Runway Protection Zone 

The RPZ is a trapezoidal surface which 

begins 200 feet from the runway 

threshold. The RPZ is a designated 

area beyond the runway end that the 

FAA encourages airports to own or, in 

some fashion, maintain positive control 

over. The goal of the RPZ standard is to 

increase safety for both pilots and those 

on the ground. Unlike the RSA, the 

RPZ can have objects located within, 

provided the objects are not 

obstructions under Federal Air 

Regulations (F.A.R.) Part 77, Objects 

Affecting Navigable Airspace or FAA 

Order 8260.3B, Terminal Instrument 

Procedures (TERPS). It should be 

noted, however, that the FAA places 

high priority on maintaining the RPZ 

free of items that attract groupings of 

people or permanent residences. 

The FAA does not necessarily require 

the fee simple acquisition of the RPZ 

area, but highly recommends that the 

airport have positive control over 

development within the RPZ. It is 

preferred that the airport own the 

property; however, avigation easements 

(ownership of airspace within the RPZ) 

can be pursued if fee simple purchase is 

not possible. It should be noted, 

however, avigation easements can often 

cost as much as 80 percent of the full 

property value and may not adequately 

prohibit incompatible land uses from 

locating in the RPZ. An avigation 

easement would include the space below 

the approach surface and within the 

RPZ. For planning purposes, where 

feasible, alternatives will assume fee 

simple acquisition of the RPZ and land 

on either end of the runway not 

4-9 

currently encompassed by the existing 

property line. 

The existing Runway 17 RPZ extends 

beyond airport property, across Scyene 

Road. Portions of this property have 

already been acquired by the airport. If 

this land becomes available for sale, the 

airport should continue its practice of 

protecting the approaches through feesimple 

acquisition of the RPZs. Under 

the current condition, approximately 10 

acres is left to be acquired. When the 

approach minimums are improved to 

one-half mile, the RPZ is extended by 

an additional 19.5 acres, which should 

also be considered for fee simple 

acquisition. 

INSTRUMENT APPROACHES 

Many reliever airports have approved 

instrument approaches with visibility 

minimums as low as one-half mile and 

a 200-foot cloud height ceiling. This is 

referred to as a Category (CAT) I 

approach. At this time, CAT I 

approaches require a sophisticated 

approach lighting system, a glide-slope 

antenna, and a localizer (known as an 

instrument landing system or ILS). 

Since Runway 17 already has an ILS 

approach, the goal of this plan is to 

provide the necessary recommendations 

to obtain a CAT I approach. An 

obstruction-free threshold siting surface 

(TSS) and the upgrade of the existing 

approach lighting system to a medium 

intensity approach lighting system with 

runway alignment indicator lights 

(MALSR) is required to meet FAA 

requirements for a CAT I approach.

Analysis of the existing and future TSS 

is presented later in the airfield 

alternatives section. 

Additional adjustments will need to be 

considered when pursuing a one-halfmile 

visibility minimum. As previously 

mentioned, the runway/taxiway 

separation needs to be at least 400 feet. 

This would necessitate the construction 

of a new parallel taxiway, 100 feet 

further west than Taxiway A. The 

previous master plan discussed some of 

the existing buildings as potential 

obstructions to flight safety. An 

updated analysis will be presented in 

the section pertaining to obstruction 

analysis. 

Runway 35 is also considered for 

improved approaches, although not to 

the CAT I level. A three-quarter-mile 

approach is the ultimate recommendation. 

Approaches to Runway 35 are 

less common than to Runway 17, as 

southerly winds prevail. This 

recommendation was also made in the 

previous master plan. The 

circumstances have not changed and 

are not forecast to change to such a 

degree that a CAT I approach is 

warranted on the Runway 35 end. The 

three-quarter-mile approach would 

require an approach lighting system, 

such as a MALS or MALSR, and cleared 

obstruction surfaces. 

The process of acquiring an instrument 

approach procedure with three-quartermile 

visibility minimums for Runway 

35 can begin in the near term. For 

Runway 35, the existing RPZ is 

4-10 

dimensioned for aircraft in approach 

categories C and D with visibility 

minimums not lower than one mile. 

This entire RPZ falls on airport 

property. Considering improved 

minimums at three-quarters of a mile, 

the RPZ becomes wider on both sides. 

The eastern portion of the RPZ would 

fall on property owned by the Devil’s 

Bowl Speedway, as depicted on Exhibit 

4B. 

As previously discussed, positive control 

of the RPZ is typically recommended. 

To accomplish this, an avigation 

easement would need to be acquired 

over a small portion of the speedway. 

Alternatives to be discussed will 

analyze extending the runway to the 

south. This would shift the RPZ beyond 

the speedway property. As a result, it is 

not recommended that an easement 

over the speedway be pursued while 

acquiring improved instrument 

approach procedures for the current 

Runway 35 end. 

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES 

The following section describes two 

airfield development alternatives and 

two options for a capacity-enhancing 

parallel runway. These alternatives 

consider upgrading Runway 17-35 to 

ARC C/D-II design criteria, extending 

the runway to at least 7,000 feet, and 

providing taxiway improvements. 

Various improvements to the 

instrument approaches are considered 

with each alternative, as they will affect 

the runway and taxiway design.

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1 

Alternative 1, depicted on Exhibit 4C, 

considers the recommended 

development concept of the previous 

master plan. As depicted, this 

alternative proposed the extension of 

Runway 17-35 1,370 feet to the south, 

achieving a pavement length of 7,370 

feet. This extension, in conjunction 

with a three-quarter-mile visibility 

minimum for Runway 35, is the 

maximum length available when 

considering meeting all safety area 

standards, as the RSA and OFA would 

remain on existing airport property and 

the southern RPZ is capable of being 

free of incompatible land uses. 

As discussed, the previous RSA 

standard required 1,000 feet prior to the 

runway and beyond the far end of the 

runway for critical aircraft in ARC C/D- 

II. In order to accommodate this 

standard, the north end of the runway 

was recommended to be displaced by 

370 feet. Displacing a threshold for 

limited RSA requires the application of 

declared distances. Declared distances 

are the effective runway distances that 

the airport operator declares available 

for take-off run, take-off distance, 

accelerate-stop distance, and landing 

distance requirements. These are 

defined by the FAA as: 

Take-off run available (TORA) - The 

length of the runway declared available 

and suitable to accelerate from brake 

release to lift-off, plus safety factors. 

Take-off distance available (TODA) 

- The TORA plus the length of any 

4-11 

remaining runway or clearway beyond 

the far end of the TORA available to 

accelerate from brake release past liftoff 

to start of take-off climb, plus safety 

factors. 

Accelerate-stop distance available 

(ASDA) - The length of the runway plus 

stopway declared available and suitable 

to accelerate from brake release to takeoff 

decision speed, and then decelerate 

to a stop, plus safety factors. 

Landing distance available (LDA) - 

The distance from threshold to complete 

the approach, touchdown, and 

decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors. 

The ASDA and LDA are the overriding 

considerations in determining the 

runway length available for use by 

aircraft because safety areas must be 

considered. The ASDA and LDA can be 

figured as the useable portions of the 

runway minus the area required to 

maintain adequate RSA and OFA 

beyond the end of the runway. 

With the predominant wind direction 

being from the south, a 1,370-foot 

extension was necessary, as 

recommended in the previous plan, to 

provide at least 7,000 feet of operational 

length for landings and take-offs in both 

directions. The new FAA standard calls 

for only 600 feet for RSA prior to 

landing. As a result, there is no longer 

a need to displace the north end 

threshold for landing operations to 

Runway 17. In this alternative, the 

operational length available for 

ASDA/LDA calculations utilizing 

Runway 17 would be 7,370 feet.

In this alternative, the ASDA and LDA 

for Runway 35 operations, take-offs and 

landings to the north, would be 7,000 

feet. Because the RSA on the far end of 

the runway needs to be 1,000 feet long, 

both the ASDA and LDA would be 

reduced according to the limited RSA. 

Implementing declared distances would 

require some minor changes to the 

airfield. The last 370 feet of runway 

lights on the Runway 17 end would 

have to be masked-out in order to 

properly identify the declared threshold. 

For airports with distance-to-go 

markers, these would have to be 

relocated to reflect the shortened 

runway length. The runway would not 

have to be re-marked and none of the 

existing light stands would have to be 

moved. 

The difference between this alternative 

and the recommended plan in the 

previous master plan is not having to 

displace the runway threshold. With 

the reduced RSA standards for landing 

operations, threshold displacement is no 

longer necessary at Mesquite Metro 

Airport. Previous RSA standards 

required the need for a 1,370-foot 

extension, in order to provide at least 

7,000 feet of runway length in the 

predominant operational direction to 

the south. The new standard, however, 

allows for the airport to meet RSA 

requirements for Runway 17 without 

displacement. 

Implementing a threshold displacement, 

as recommended in the previous 

master plan, would require a number of 

potentially costly runway changes. 

First, the glideslope antenna would 

4-12 

need to be relocated. Second, the light 

stands from the approach lighting 

system would need to be relocated, with 

at least one of these being placed in the 

displaced pavement. Third, the runway 

marking would need to be reapplied in 

order to reflect the new runway 

threshold. None of these expenses are 

now necessary. 

As indicated on Exhibit 4C, the RPZ 

for Runway 17 considers providing CAT 

I weather minimums. The approach 

lighting system would require an 

upgrade from the existing LDIN system 

to a MALSR. The MALSR lights begin 


threshold and are spaced to a maximum 

distance of 2,400 feet, as indicated on 

the exhibit. 

Runway 35 is planned for approach 

visibility minimums not lower than 

three-quarters of a mile. The existing 

LDIN system will meet the requirement 

for approach lights. In order to 

implement the extension, these light 

stands would need to be relocated. The 

lights begin 200 feet from the threshold 

and are spaced to a length of 1,400 feet. 

The relocated lights will be able to 

remain completely on airport property. 

In addition, the localizer would need to 

be relocated outside the RSA. 

Consideration should also be given to 

the runway/taxiway separation when 

planning for improved approach 

minimums. For an ARC C/D-II runway 

with visibility minimums lower than 

three-quarters of a mile, the parallel 

taxiway centerline must be at least 400 

feet from the runway centerline. Thus, 

in order to achieve CAT I minimums on

04MP22-4C-6/17/05 

MALSR 

DECLARED DISTANCES 


Takeoff Run Available (TORA) 

Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 

Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 

Landing Distance Available (LDA) 

LEGEND 






Runway 17 Runway 35 

7,370' 

7,370' 

7,370' 

7,370' 

7,370' 

7,370' 

7,000' 

7,000' 


Ultimate Pavement 


Lawson Rd. 

ASDA / LDA 7,370' 

7,370' 

ASDA / LDA LDA 7,000' 

7,000' 

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x x 100') Ultimate (7,370' x 100') 


Line 


NORTH 

1,370' Runway 

Extension 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 

35 


Minimum 


Lead In In Lights 

Lights 

Localizer 

Exhibit 4C 

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1

Runway 17, the parallel taxiway would 

need to be relocated 100 feet to the 

west, as depicted on the exhibit. It 

should be noted that the terminal area 

taxiway would need to be removed to 

accommodate the relocated parallel 

taxiway. 

Airfield Alternative 1 is estimated to 

have a total associated cost of $6.15 

million. This includes $600,000 for 

purchase and calibration of the Runway 

17 MALSR, $750,000 for relocation of 

the Runway 35 LDIN and localizer, $1.6 

million for the runway extension, and 

$3.2 million for the construction of the 

relocated parallel taxiway. 

Advantages: The extension would 

provide a minimum of 7,000 feet 

operational length for landings and 

take-offs in both directions. OFA and 

RSA requirements are met on both ends 

of the runway. The expenses associated 

with displacing the threshold are 

avoided. The total runway extension 

would be 1,370 feet. 

Disadvantages: This alternative would 

be more costly than a 1,000-foot 

extension. 

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2 

This alternative was also presented in 

the previous master plan, but was 

rejected because the previous FAA RSA 

standard necessitated displacing the 

Runway 17 threshold. In doing so, 

6,630 feet of LDA would be available for 

operations to the south. The new FAA 

RSA design standard makes this 

alternative much more attractive. 

4-13 

The proposed 1,000-foot extension 

would allow the runway to provide an 

ASDA and LDA of 7,000 feet, as 

presented on Exhibit 4D. As 

discussed, the far end of the runway 

still needs to provide the full 1,000 feet 

of safety area. Thus, operations to the 

north would have available 370 feet less 

operational length to use. In effect, the 

northernmost 370 feet of runway 

combined with the 630 feet currently 

available beyond the north runway end 

would provide the full 1,000-foot RSA 

needed. 

The improved instrument approach for 

both runway ends, presented in the 

previous alternative, are also 

considered here. Runway 17 should be 

considered for a CAT I approach, while 

Runway 35 is considered for a threequarters-mile 

approach. Runway 17 

would need a MALSR, while Runway 35 

could continue to utilize the LDIN. In 

order to achieve CAT I approach 

minimums for ARC C/D-II aircraft, the 

parallel taxiway would need to be 

relocated 100 feet to the west. 

Airfield Alternative 2 is estimated to 

have a total associated cost of $5.55 

million. This includes $600,000 for 

purchase and calibration of the Runway 

17 MALSR, $750,000 for relocation of 

the Runway 35 LDIN and localizer, $1.2 

million for the runway extension, and 

$3 million for the construction of the 

relocated parallel taxiway. 

Advantages: Not as expensive as 

Alternative 1. Provides 7,000 feet of 

runway length for southerly departures. 

Meets safety area requirements.

Disadvantages: The runway would not 

provide 7,000 feet for northerly take-offs 

and landings; instead, 6,630 feet would 

be declared. 

PARALLEL RUNWAY 

ALTERNATIVES 

Annual operation projections, conducted 

in Chapter Two - Aviation Forecasts, 

indicated that the airport could 

experience 166,500 annual aircraft 

operations by the long term planning 

horizon. Once annual operations reach 

60 percent of the airfield’s annual 

service volume (ASV), consideration 

should be given to capacity 

enhancement solutions. The current 

ASV of Mesquite Metro Airport is 

estimated at 210,000 annual operations; 

thus, the projected long term operations 

would reach approximately 80 percent 

of the airfield’s ASV. By the 

intermediate planning horizon, annual 

operations are projected to be 67 

percent of ASV. 

Analysis in Chapter Three - Facility 

Requirements presented an option of 

constructing a parallel runway designed 

to accommodate smaller aircraft the 

majority of the time, which would 

increase the total ASV to approximately 

340,000. It would also be prudent for 

this runway to be designed to 

accommodate most of the airport 

activity for periods when the existing 

runway is closed. When single-runway 

airports close for lengthy periods of time 

(up to one year for a runway 

reconstruct), the negative economic 

impacts can be severe. As a result, the 

parallel runway is recommended to be 

4-14 

considered at 5,000 feet in length so 

that all smaller aircraft and many 

business jet aircraft can still operate at 

the airport. Exhibit 4E depicts two 

parallel runway alternatives, one to the 

east and the other to the west of the 

existing runway. 

Parallel Runway Alternative A 

This alternative considers locating the 

parallel runway to the west of Airport 

Blvd. The proposed runway is designed 

to be 5,000 feet long and 75 feet wide. 

The safety areas are planned to meet 

ARC B-II standards and the approaches 

are considered to have visibility 

minimums of one mile. The runway is 

situated so that RPZs will not 

encompass any populated areas. Only 

a small portion of the south RPZ would 

cross Berry Road, over a wooded area. 

This portion of land would be 

recommended to be purchased in fee 

simple to prevent land uses 

incompatible with the RPZ. 

Approximately 153 acres, primarily 

farmland (currently zoned industrial), 

would need to be acquired in order to 

implement this option. Also included in 

this tract is one homestead to the north 

of the proposed runway. It is estimated 

that land to be acquired would cost 

approximately $4.6 million. This option 

would also require significant 

earthwork and fill, in order to provide a 

relatively flat area for the southern 

portion of the runway. Site preparation 

alone is estimated at $900,000, and the 

runway/taxiway would cost 

approximately $6.2 million, for a total 

cost of $11.7 million.

04MP22-4D-2/8/06 

MALSR 

DECLARED DISTANCES 


Takeoff Run Available (TORA) 

Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 

Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 

Landing Distance Available (LDA) 

LEGEND 






Runway 17 Runway 35 

7,000' 

7,000' 

7,000' 

7,000' 

7,000' 

7,000' 

6,630' 

6,630' 




Lawson Rd. 

ASDA / LDA 7,000' 

7,000' 

ASDA / LDA 6,630' 

6,630' 

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x x 100') Ultimate (7,000' x 100') 


Line 


NORTH 

1,000' Runway 

Extension 

35 


Minimum 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


Lead Lead In In Lights 

Lights 

Localizer 

Exhibit 4D 

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2

04MP22-4E-2/8/06 

1 Mile Visibility 

Minimum 

Minimum 

MALSR 

1/2 Mile Visibility 

Minimum 

LEGEND 


Ultimate Airport Property Line 


Object Free Area (OFA) 



17 

L 

17 

R 



Airport Blvd. 

PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE A 

Lawson Rd. 

PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE B 

Ultimate Runway 17L-35R (5,000' x 75') 

75') 

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100') 

100') 

75' 

Ultimate Runway 17R-35L (5,000' x x 75') 

75') 35 

35 

R 

L 


1 Mile Visibility 

Minimum 

35' 

NORTH 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 

Lead In Lights 


3/4 Mile Visibility Visibility Minimum 

Minimum 

Exhibit 4E 

PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES

Advantages: Preserves the east side of 

the airport for potential commercial/ 

industrial development. Reduces RPZ 

exposure over populated areas. 

Disadvantages: Effectively cuts the 

airport in two, due to the need for an 

access taxiway. Longer taxiways and 

extensive site preparation make this 

the more expensive option. A new south 

entrance would be necessary should any 

future landside development take place 

to the south. 

Parallel Runway Alternative B 

This alternative provides a 5,000-foot 

by 75-foot runway and full-length 

parallel taxiway east of Runway 17-35. 

The proposed runway centerline is 

situated at the FAA design minimum of 

700 feet from the Runway 17-35 

centerline. This runway would be 

planned for visual or not lower than 

one-mile visibility minimums. 

The position of the parallel runway, as 

depicted on Exhibit 4E, is based upon 

maintaining at least a 20:1 approach 

clearance to both runway ends. An 

eastside parallel runway would require 

the acquisition of approximately 95 

acres of farmland (currently zoned 

industrial) and at least one homestead, 

at an estimated cost of $2.8 million. 

The estimated cost of constructing the 

proposed runway/taxiway is $5.7 

million, for a total project cost of $8.5 

million. 

Advantage: Maintains maximum 

available space on westside terminal 

4-15 

area for development. Less expensive 

than parallel runway Alternative A. 

Disadvantages: South RPZ goes over 

the Devil’s Bowl Speedway. The north 

end RPZ goes over the cement-mixing 

business. A portion of existing 

industrial-zoned land would be lost. 

Parallel Taxiway Only Option 

Parallel Runway Alternative B assumes 

a standard 35-foot-wide parallel 

taxiway. An additional sub-option for 

the airport is to consider only the 

construction of an eastside parallel 

taxiway at a width of 75 feet, in order to 

provide an alternate runway for those 

times when the primary runway is 

closed. Safety areas meeting ARC B-II 

standards would also be considered. 

To accomplish this alternative, a 

portion of the farmland, 100 feet wide 

and 6,400 feet long (approximately 15 

acres) running parallel to the existing 

eastern property line, would need to be 

acquired in order for the OFA to be on 

airport property. This option should 

only be considered preceding a planned 

closure of the primary runway for 

reconstruction. 

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES 

SUMMARY 

The analysis performed above 

considered several methods which 

attempt to provide additional runway 

length to meet increased demand by 

corporate aircraft, while also attempt-

ing to meet FAA and TxDOT airport 

design criteria. Airfield Alternative 1, 

the southerly 1,370-foot extension of 

Runway 17-35, should be strongly 

considered. This extension would 

provide, at a minimum, 7,000 feet of 

operational runway length in both 

directions. For a reliever airport such 

as Mesquite Metro Airport, it would be 

optimal for the operational length 

requirements of the runway be met in 

both directions. 

This alternative also provides for the 

longest runway length which could be 

achieved at the airport. Due to the 

location of the railroad tracks to the 

north and the residential communities 

to the south, 1,370 feet is the most that 

the airport can add in terms of runway 

length, while maintaining RSA and 

OFA on airport property. 

Airfield Alternative 1 also considers 

improvements to the instrument 

approaches to the airport. The 

precision ILS approach to Runway 17 

currently has visibility minimums not 

lower than three-quarters of a mile for 

approach categories A, B, and C 

aircraft. This approach is considered 

for improved visibility minimums not 

lower than one-half mile for approach 

categories A, B, C, and D aircraft. 

To meet FAA and TxDOT standards for 

the improved approaches, Runway 17 

would require an upgrade of the 

approach lighting system from the 

LDIN to a MALSR. In addition, the 

existing parallel taxiway would need to 

be relocated to 400 feet (centerline to 

centerline) from the runway. 

4-16 

The second airfield alternative 

considers a 1,000-foot southerly 

extension to the runway. Based on the 

predominant southerly wind direction, 

this will provide 7,000 feet of 

operational length for the majority of 

airport operations. This is especially 

true during hot days when runway 

length available is most critical. This 

alternative also considers the necessary 

upgrade of the approach lights and 

relocation of the taxiway, in order to 

improve the instrument approaches. 

This option is considered to be viable 

since it will serve the majority of 

aircraft most of the year. It is also 

likely to be moderately less expensive 

than Alternative 1, since it proposes 370 

feet less pavement length. The primary 

disadvantage is only 6,630 feet of 

operational length for northerly 

operations would be available. Finally, 

a reliever airport would be better served 

with the recommended operational 

length provided by both runway ends. 

As discussed, the capacity of the airport 

may become an issue by the 

intermediate term of the plan. Two 

options for a 5,000-foot parallel runway 

were considered. The eastside option is 

considered to be more desirable from a 

planning perspective, primarily because 

it does not bisect the airport. The 

eastside parallel runway also requires 

less property acquisition and site 

preparation. 

OBSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 

This section will present information 

regarding the potential for improved

approach procedures. Where possible, 

especially at reliever airports, approach 

minimums should be as low as possible, 

considering safety and financial 

constraints. The best approach 

minimums possible will prevent aircraft 

from having to divert to another airport, 

which can cause financial hardship for 

the operator, on-airport businesses, and 

the City (lost fuel revenue). 

A key priority which needs to be 

considered is protecting the airport from 

the potential for flight obstructions. 

The FAA has established criteria aimed 

at protecting the airport from these 

flight obstructions. First, FAA criterion 

stipulates that obstructions not be 

placed too near the runway ends or 

parallel to the runway. The obstruction 

clearance requirements are based on 

the ARC and/or the weight of the 

critical aircraft, as well as the type of 

approaches established or planned for 

the airport. Minimum obstruction 

clearance is required for all runways, 

and it becomes more restrictive as the 

approaches progress from visual to nonprecision, 

to precision. 

The three resources for determining 

airspace obstructions are the FAA’s 

F.A.R. Part 77, Objects Affecting 

Navigable Airspace, Terminal 

Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and AC 

150/5300-13, Change 8, Airport Design. 

Part 77 is more of a filter which 

identifies potential obstructions. The 

Threshold Siting Surface (TSS), defined 

in Airport Design and TERPS, is the 

critical surface considered by TxDOT 

and the FAA. If there is a penetration 

to the TSS slope, then action must be 

taken by the airport to eliminate the 

4-17 

obstruction, otherwise the approved 

approaches to the airport can be 

removed. TERPS analysis is used to 

evaluate and develop instrument 

approach procedures including visibility 

minimums and cloud heights associated 

with approved approaches. 


indicated that the plan should consider 

improved instrument approach 

capabilities for Runway 17-35. At 

Mesquite Metro Airport, the lowest 

visibility minimums for aircraft in 

approach categories A, B, and C is 

three-quarters of a mile utilizing the 

ILS approach on Runway 17. Runway 

35 has visibility minimums not lower 

than one mile for aircraft in approach 

categories A, B, and C. Currently, there 

are no approved instrument approaches 

to either runway end for aircraft in 

approach category D. 

The dimensions of the existing TSS 

surface are described in AC 150/5300- 

13, Change 8, Airport Design. Appendix 

2, paragraph 5h, applies to runways 

with precision approaches, such as 

Runway 17. This TSS begins 200 feet 

from the runway threshold, is centered 

on the extended runway centerline and 

is 800 feet wide, which increases out to 

a width of 1,900 feet at a distance of 

10,000 feet. This TSS must provide an 

obstacle clearance for a 34:1 approach 

slope. Future approach visibility 

minimums consider one-half mile for 

Runway 17. The dimensions for this 

approach will remain the same. 

The current TSS slope for Runway 35 is 

defined by Appendix 2, paragraph 5f. 

This TSS has the same dimensions as

the TSS for Runway 17, except the 

obstruction-free slope is 20:1. Future 

approach visibility minimums consider 

three-quarters-mile for Runway 35. 

The dimensions of the TSS slope for 

these approaches remain the same. 

Exhibits 4F and 4G present an 

analysis of the TSS associated with 

existing and alternative approach 

procedures for Runways 17 and 35, 

respectively. The top portions of the 

exhibits display the plan, or “overhead” 

view of each TSS. The bottom half of 

each exhibit depicts the profile view of 

the TSS conditions. 

Exhibit 4F presents the airspace 

obstruction evaluation for Runway 17 

considering existing and alternative 

conditions. There are no identified 

obstructions to the 34:1 TSS slope 

under both the existing and planned 

approaches for Runway 17. It should be 

noted that F.A.R. Part 77 requires that 

additional elevation be added to roads 

and railroads in order to provide 

clearance over vehicles and trains. 

Railroads require an additional 23 feet 

and roads such as Scyene Road require 

an additional 15 feet. The TSS clears 

these potential obstructions. 

Exhibit 4G presents airspace 

obstruction analysis for the Runway 35 

end. The existing TSS slope, as well as 

the TSS slope associated with a 1,000foot 

and 1,370-foot extension, are 

presented. There are no existing TSS 

penetrations to the existing TSS slope. 

The only TSS penetration identified for 

the future condition is a single tree that 

penetrates by one foot associated with 

4-18 

the 1,370-foot runway extension 

scenario. 

Building Obstructions 

F.A.R. Part 77, Objects Affecting 

Navigable Airspace, was developed to 

protect the airspace and approaches to 

runways from hazards which would 

affect the safe and efficient operation of 


The previous master plan recommended 

that a number of T-hangars be removed. 

These hangars penetrate the 500-foot 

primary surface, as defined in F.A.R. 

Part 77. These hangars were also in 

poor condition, with dirt floors, leaky 

roofs, and deteriorating paint. Since 

then, the hangars have been 

rehabilitated. As a result, this plan will 

not consider the removal of the Thangars. 

Instead, these hangars should 

remain a revenue-generating source for 


Ultimately, it is the FAA and their 

evaluation of the airspace surrounding 

Mesquite Metro Airport that will 

determine if any buildings will be 

obstructions to the ultimate airport 

design. This plan will proceed under 

the assumption that none of the 

buildings will need to be removed or 

relocated in order to achieve 

improvements to the approaches. 

The north end Department of Public 

Safety (DPS) hangar may be an 

obstruction to the departure surface as 

described in TERPS. This surface is 

1,000 feet wide, centered on the

unway, beginning at the end of usable 

runway. It angles up at a 40:1 slope to 

a width of 6,466 feet at a distance of 

10,200 feet. This surface would be 

penetrated by the DPS hangar. The 

FAA has not yet provided guidance on 

mitigation of such penetrations, other 

than to indicate that special operating 

departure procedures may need to be 

implemented. 

LANDSIDE ISSUES 

The orderly development of the airport 

terminal area, those areas along the 

flight line parallel to the runway, can be 

the most critical, and probably the most 

difficult to control on the airport. A 

development approach of taking the 

path of least resistance can have a 

significant effect on the long-term 

viability of an airport. Allowing 

development without regard to a 

functional plan could result in a 

haphazard array of buildings and small 

ramp areas, which will eventually 

preclude the most efficient use of 

valuable space along the flight line. 

Activity in the terminal area should be 

divided into high, medium, and low 

intensity levels at the airport. The 

high-activity area should be planned 

and developed to provide aviation 

services on the airport. An example of 

the high-activity area is the airport 

terminal building and adjoining aircraft 

parking apron, which provides outside 

storage and circulation of aircraft. In 

addition, large conventional hangars 

housing fixed base operators (FBOs), 

corporate aviation departments, or 

storing a large number of aircraft would 

4-19 

be considered a high-activity use. A 

conventional hangar structure in the 

high-activity area should be a minimum 

of 6,400 square feet (80 feet by 80 feet). 

The best location for high-activity areas 

is along the flight line near midfield, for 

ease of access to all areas of the airfield. 

The medium-activity use category 

defines the next level of airport use and 

primarily includes smaller corporate 

aircraft that may desire their own 

executive hangar storage on the airport. 

A hangar in the medium-activity use 

area should be at least 50 feet by 50 

feet, or a minimum of 2,500 square feet. 

The best location for medium-activity 

use is off the immediate flight line, but 

still readily accessible. Parking and 

utilities such as water and sewer should 

also be provided in this area. 

The low-activity use category defines 

the area for storage of smaller single 

and twin-engine aircraft. Low-activity 

users are personal or small business 

aircraft owners who prefer individual 

space in shade or T-hangars. Lowactivity 

areas should be located in lessconspicuous 

areas. This use category 

will require electricity, but generally 

does not require water or sewer 

utilities. 

In addition to the functional 

compatibility of the terminal area, the 

proposed development concept should 

provide a first-class appearance for 

Mesquite Metro Airport. Consideration 

to aesthetics should be given high 

priority in all public areas, as the 

airport can serve as the first impression 

a visitor may have of the community.

Since the completion of the previous 

master plan in 1998, the terminal 

building and the primary transient 

apron have shifted to the south. There 

have been three new large hangars 

constructed as well, each of which has 

access to the apron area. This 

development of the south apron 

provides greater separation of activity 

levels and lends to greater efficiency of 

aircraft movement. 

Ideally, terminal area facilities at 

general aviation airports should follow 

a linear configuration parallel to the 

primary runway. The linear 

configuration allows for maximizing 

available space, while providing ease of 

access to terminal facilities from the 

airfield. Each landside alternative will 

address development issues. 

Separation of activity levels and 

efficiency of layout will be provided as 

well. 

Mesquite Metro Airport is located on 

approximately 350 acres. Typically, 

general aviation airports will reserve 

the first 1,000 feet parallel to the 

runway for aviation-related activity 

exclusively. This distance would allow 

for the location of taxiways, apron, and 

hangars. The eastside property line is 


centerline and the west side provides 

approximately 1,000 feet of separation. 

In those circumstances where ultimate 

demand levels fall short of the ultimate 

build-out need, some airports will 

encourage non-aviation commercial or 

industrial development. Encouragement 

of non-aviation development on 

airport property can provide an 

4-20 

additional revenue source in the form of 

long-term land leases for the airport. 

Consideration will be given to this 

possibility in the landside development 

alternatives to follow. 

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES 

The following section describes three 

landside development alternatives. 

These alternatives consider general 

aviation facility development providing 

for separation of activity levels. The 

goal of this analysis is to indicate 

development potentials which would 

provide the City with a specific goal for 

future development. The resultant plan 

will aid the City in strategic marketing 

of available properties. The following 

development alternatives analysis 

utilizes accepted airport planning 

methodologies in conjunction with FAA 

AC 5300/13, Change 8, Airport Design. 

The three alternatives described below 

are not the only options for 

development. In some cases, a portion 

of one alternative could be intermixed 

with another. Also, some development 

concepts could be replaced with others. 

The final recommended plan only serves 

as a guide for the City. Many times, 

airport operators change their plan to 

meet the needs of specific users. The 

goal in analyzing landside development 

alternatives is to focus future 

development so that airport property 

can be maximized. 

Each of the landside alternatives 

presented reflects the ultimate buildout 

potential for the airport. What is 

presented exceeds the aviation needs

forecast over the next 20 years. This 

analysis is designed to provide a 

planned ultimate direction for airport 

development. Staging of the 

development to meet demand-based 

indicators as well as comprehensive 

financial plans will be presented in 

Chapter Six, once the final master plan 

concept is determined. 

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A 

Landside Alternative A, depicted on 

Exhibit 4H, is considered to be a 

constrained development pattern which 

assumes that the airport will not 

acquire additional property for future 

landside development. Under this 

condition, all levels of activity would 

need to be accommodated inside the 

existing fence line. The principal 

philosophy followed is to group facilities 

supporting similar activity levels 

together. 

The northern terminal area between 

the Department of Public Safety (DPS) 

hangar and Airport Blvd. is considered 

for the development of two 10-unit Thangars 

and a connected executive 

hangar facility. The executive hangar 

facility would be similar in design and 

function to the executive hangars in 

building 910, immediately to the south. 

These hangars could be utilized by 

owners of one or more aircraft, typically 

single or multi-engine. 

The first of three potential airport 

traffic control tower (ATCT) sites is 

proposed immediately to the south of 

the new south terminal T-hangars. 

This site will be further discussed later 

4-21 

in this chapter. Two more T-hangar 

facilities with adjoining executive 

hangars are considered south of Site A 

for the ATCT. Immediately to the south 

of these T-hangars, a large apron is 

proposed, with space available for 

construction of large conventional 

hangars. This development pattern is 

designed to maximize airport property 

by setting the hangar development to 

the west as far as feasible, and will also 

allow for a large apron to be 

constructed. 

A portion of the area proposed for apron 

and conventional hangar development 

to the south is currently an important 

drainage route, as it slopes toward a 

ravine which flows southeast away from 

the airport. This area also has some 

elevation changes as great as ten feet. 

It is likely that the drainage channels 

would need to be maintained by placing 

drainage piping under a portion of the 

apron. In addition, there may be 

significant site preparation necessary to 

bring the area up to grade. Since this 

area is considered for public apron 

space, the improvements are eligible for 

TxDOT funding. The revenuegenerating 

hangar pads would be 

eligible for limited TxDOT funding (if 

any). 

The proposed layout of hangars for this 

area provides for three large 200-foot x 

200-foot conventional hangars, two of 

which face the main apron and one of 

which faces a short stub taxilane. Two 

smaller hangars (150 feet x 150 feet) 

also face the stub taxilane. A third 150foot 

x 150-foot hangar is positioned to 

face the main apron. Due to concern 

about the alignment of Airport

Boulevard, Alternative 1A shows a 

second potential layout for hangars in 

this area. 

The portion of airport property 

immediately south of this proposed 

apron area is left undeveloped in order 

to facilitate drainage from the airport. 

The plan proposes using an 

underground piping system to drain 

water from the runway areas, under the 

apron and out to the ravine. It is 

unlikely that hangars could be 

constructed on top of this drainage 

route; thus, the area is left undeveloped. 

The south end of the terminal flight line 

is considered for T-hangar development. 

This area would front a potential 

runway extension. Due to the existing 

property limitations, this area would 

require a separate entrance from Berry 

Road. Although dividing facilities with 

separate entrance/exit points is not 

desirable, it is not uncommon. When it 

is necessary to do so, it is recommended 

that the facilities support the same 

activity level, such as low-activity Thangars 

in this case. 

Advantages: No additional property 

acquisition is necessary. Development 

potential can meet forecast aviation 

demand through the long term of this 

plan. Likely the least expensive 

potential development pattern. 

Disadvantages: A portion of the flight 

line remains privately-owned. Airport 

is effectively split in two, due to private 

ownership of this land. The airport 

would become constrained for any other 

development in the future. 

4-22 

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B 

Landside Alternative B considers 

limited property acquisition to the 

southwest of the runway in order to 

provide the airport control of all 

potential development along the flight 

line. Currently there are approximately 

17 acres, not under airport control, that 

are within 1,000 feet of the runway. 

Exhibit 4J depicts development of the 

terminal flight line with this area under 

airport ownership. 

With the added space for development 

along the flight line, the north end area 

to the west of the DPS hangar is 

considered for executive hangar 

development. This area would be 

highly desirable as the area is readily 

developable with utilities near by, the 

airport exit is close, and taxiways are 

available. Space has been allocated for 

two 150-foot x 150-foot hangars. 

South of the new T-hangars, three more 

T-hangar facilities are considered. 

Further south, the concept of a large 

apron designed to support FBO and 

transient aircraft operations is 

continued. Four large conventional 

hangars face the apron and are recessed 

to allow greater apron usage. To the 

south of the conventional hangars is a 

series of executive hangar complexes. A 

number of different development 

patterns are presented, each of which 

optimizes space available. Finally, a 

series of T-hangars is considered for the 

south end of the terminal flight line, 

again positioning those low-activity 

levels away from the central portion of 

the airport.

04MP22-4H-2/8/06 


Minimum 

LEGEND 

ALTERNATIVE A1 







Fuel Farm 


Ultimate Parking/Roads 

Ultimate Building 

Airport Blvd. 

Lawson Rd. 

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,000' (7,000' x x 100') 

100') 

ATCT 

Site A 

Drainage Area 


NORTH 

1,000' Runway 

Extension 

35 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 



Minimum 

Minimum 

Exhibit 4H 

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A

04MP22-4J-2/8/06 


Minimum 

LEGEND 







ATCT 

Site B 

Fuel Farm 




Airport Blvd. 

Lawson Rd. 

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,000' (7,000' x x 100') 

100') 


Drainage Area 


NORTH 

1,000' Runway 

Extension 

35 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


3/4 Mile Mile Visibility 

Visibility 

Minimum 

Minimum 

Exhibit 4J 

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B

Airport drainage is again an important 

consideration. This alternative 

considers the potential to pave over 

drainage piping with apron space or 

roads as necessary. As there may be 

times when access to the drainage 

piping is necessary, construction of 

hangars on top of the piping is not 

considered. 

Landside Alternative B considers 

locating the ATCT on the north end of 

the airport. The site considered is 

currently occupied by a public parking 

lot. As necessary, this parking lot can 

be expanded to meet the needs of tower 

employees. This location is further 

discussed later in this chapter. 

Advantages: The airport would have 

ownership of the entire westside flight 

line. More land is available for 

development. Separation of activity 

levels is improved. 

Disadvantages: The airport may run 

out of land available for development in 

the distant future. This likely would 

not happen within the next 20 years, 

but it could sometime thereafter. This 

circumstance should be avoided as 

experience at other busy reliever 

airports has shown. 

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C 

Landside Alternative C considers a 

more unrestricted development plan. It 

provides for property acquisition to the 

west of Airport Boulevard. This area 

encompasses approximately 88 acres. 

The previously discussed 11 acres to the 

southwest of the runway along the 

4-23 

flight line is also considered. As 

depicted on Exhibit 4K, this allows for 

optimal separation of activity levels and 

it allows for the development of 

commercial/industrial parcels which 

would generate revenue in the form of 

land leases for the airport. 

A main feature of this alternative is the 

relocation of Airport Boulevard and the 

creation of a grand entrance to the 

airport that links directly with the 

terminal building area. The relocation 

of Airport Boulevard also creates space 

for additional aviation-related parcels 

with taxiway access, as well as nonaviation 

related business development 

parcels. 

Utilization of the land will easily allow 

for the separation of activity levels. The 

existing executive hangar apron 

immediately to the south of the 

terminal building is continued to the 

west, allowing for the development of 

more hangars. To the west of the new 

south end T-hangars, a T-hangar 

complex is developed. Continued 

development along the flight line 

includes a large apron area fronted by 

large FBO/conventional hangars. The 

remaining flight line is considered for 

aviation-related hangar development. 

This alternative considers locating the 

ATCT immediately to the south of the 

terminal building. This location is 

further discussed later in this chapter. 

Advantages: This alternative provides 

the airport with a development plan 

that will meet aviation needs well 

beyond the 20-year scope of this plan. 

As revenue-generating commercial/

industrial parcels become available, 

additional aviation-related parcels 

nearer the terminal area are made 

available, and maintaining a separation 

of activity levels is more uniform. This 

alternative also better situates the 

airport if the FAA determines that any 

existing hangar development obstructs 

approaches to the airport. 

Disadvantages: The property to the 

west of Airport Boulevard is currently 

zoned for industrial/commercial 

development. A portion of that acreage 

would change to airport use, thus 

reducing the total area for 

industrial/commercial development. 

This alternative would likely be more 

expensive in the short term, considering 

significant property acquisition costs. 

LANDSIDE SUMMARY 

All three alternatives propose 

development which would exceed the 

demand levels proposed in this plan. 

Each does, however, give the City a 

future vision of what the airport could 

become. This vision is important, as it 

shifts the focus from haphazard, buildas-you-go 

development, to a long-term, 

focused development process. As a 

result, the City will be capable of 

providing a first-class airport which 

maximizes airport property. 

It appears that all three development 

alternatives would sufficiently 

accommodate the long term aviation 

demand. Actual demand levels will 

likely dictate facility development. For 

example, if the airport were required to 

house a large number of small aircraft, 

4-24 

the decision to build (or allow private 

developers to build) T-hangars would be 

prudent. However, if corporate aircraft 

are more demanding, executive or 

conventional hangar development 

would be necessary. The ultimate plan 

will provide the City with the means to 

meet the future needs of these demands 

in an efficient manner. 

AIRPORT TRAFFIC 

CONTROL TOWER 

SITING ALTERNATIVES 

The airport traffic control tower (ATCT) 

is the focal point for controlling flight 

operations within the airport's 

designated airspace and all aircraft and 

vehicle movement on the airport's 

runways and taxiways. Site selection 

involves certain mandatory 

requirements concerning the ultimate 

planned development of the airport. 

The following operational and spatial 

requirements are identified in FAA 

Order 6480.4, Airport Traffic Control 

Tower Siting Criteria. 

Mandatory Siting Requirements 

• There must be maximum 

visibility of airport traffic 

patterns. 

• There must be a clear, 

unobstructed, and direct view of 

the approaches to all runways or 

landing areas and to all runway 

and taxiway surfaces.

04MP22-4K-2/8/06 


Minimum 

LEGEND 






Industrial/ 

Commercial 


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Corporate 

Parcels 

Airport Blvd. 

Fuel Farm 

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Lawson Rd. 

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,000 (7,000 x x 100') 

100') 

ATCT 

Site C 

Aviation Related 

Parcels 





Corporate 

Parcels 

Corporate Parcels 

Drainage Area 


NORTH 

1,000' Runway 

Extension 

35 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


3/4 Mile Mile Visibility 

Visibility 

Minimum 

Minimum 

Exhibit 4K 

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C

• The proposed site must be large 

enough to accommodate current 

and future building needs 

including employee parking 

spaces. 

• The proposed tower must not 

violate F.A.R. Part 77 surfaces 

unless it is absolutely necessary. 

• The proposed tower must not 

derogate the signal generated by 

any existing or planned 

electronic navigational aid. 

Nonmandatory Siting 

Requirements 

• To assure adequate depth 

perception, the line-of-sight to 

aircraft movement areas should 

be perpendicular to the direction 

of aircraft travel. 

• The tower cab should be oriented 

to face north or alternatively to 

the east, south, or west. Every 

effort should be made to prevent 

an aircraft approach from being 

aligned with the rising or setting 

sun. 

• The controller's visibility should 

not be impaired by direct or 

indirect external lighting 

sources. 

• All aircraft movement areas 

including parking aprons, tiedown 

spaces, run-up pads, etc., 

should be visible from the ATCT. 

4-25 

• Consideration must be given to 

local weather phenomena to 

preclude restriction to visibility 

due to fog or ground haze. 

• Exterior noise should be at a 

minimum and sites should be 

evaluated for expected noise 

levels. 

• Access to the site should not 

require controllers to cross a 

runway or taxiway. 

• Consideration should be given to 

planned airport expansion, 

especially for the construction of 

buildings, hangars, runway/ 

taxiway extensions, etc. to 

preclude the relocation of the 

ATCT at a later date. 

Requirements for a new ATCT site 

include several important 

considerations. The area required for a 

tower site will range from one or more 

acres depending on the types of 

facilities to be combined at the site. For 

Mesquite Metro Airport, an area of up 

to one acre should be provided for the 

future site of the ATCT. 

LINE-OF-SIGHT 

In order to determine actual tower 

elevations for each site, analysis of cab 

eye elevation must be conducted. Cab 

eye elevation is the projected height at 

which a controller will view aircraft 

activity from the ATCT.

The analysis of cab eye elevation must 

factor two considerations: determine the 

minimum eye level elevation utilizing 

the criteria provided in FAA Order 

6480.4 and evaluate any structures 

located between the ATCT site and 

surface movement areas to determine if 

they may obstruct the line-of-sight. An 

obstructed view is commonly referred to 

as a shadow. A tall structure which 

casts a shadow or loss of view of a 

particular surface area would require 

the cab eye elevation to be increased in 

order to view the surface area in 

question. 

Consideration should also be given to 

alterations or additions to surface 

movement areas. This chapter is 

considering runway extension 

alternatives that could extend Runway 

17-35 from between 1,000 feet and 

1,370 feet south. 

MINIMUM CAB EYE 

ELEVATION ANALYSIS 

FAA Order 6480.4 provides a method 

for determining the minimum cab eye 

elevations for proposed ATCT sites. 

This calculation was established to 

meet the minimum requirements for 

visual depth perception. According to 

the Order, the line-of-sight from the 

tower cab eye level must intersect the 

grade of the airport traffic surface in 

question (parking apron, taxiway, 

runway, etc.) at an angle of 35 minutes 

or greater. The formula provided in the 

Order and utilized in this analysis is as 

follows: 

4-26 

E e = E as + [ D x Tangent (35 minutes + G s) ] 

whereas: 

E e = Eye level elevation (MSL) 

E as = Average elevation for 

section of airport traffic 

surface in question 

D = Distance from proposed tower 

site to section of airport traffic 

surface in question 

G s = Angular slope of airport 

traffic surface measured 

from horizontal and in 

direction of proposed 

tower site 

It should be noted that the cab eye 

elevation provides the mean sea level 

(MSL) or above ground level (AGL) 

height at which a controller will be 

viewing from. Actual tower heights will 

be higher to accommodate the cab roof 

and necessary antenna equipment. It 

can be expected that the actual tower 

height will be at least seven feet higher 

than the cab eye elevation calculation 

indicates. 

SITING ANALYSIS 

Three sites have been analyzed and are 

presented on landside alternatives A, B, 

and C. When considering ATCT 

locations, it is important to consider all 

factors including the cost of construction 

to both the City of Mesquite and 

TxDOT. TxDOT funds the construction 

of up to two ATCTs per year, and the

program was recently increased to offer 

90 percent matching funds, instead of 

50 percent, for construction costs up to 

$1.6 million. 

Initial consideration was given to 

locating the tower on the east side of 

the airfield because of the obstructionfree 

environment. Locating on the east 

side of the airport would require a new 

access road to be constructed, a parking 

lot, extension of all utilities including 

electricity, water, sewer, and 

communications lines, as well as land 

acquisition. It is likely that the cost of 

all these elements would be 

substantially more than a westside site. 

In addition, having the tower facing 

west is considered the least desirable. 

For these reasons, an eastside ATCT is 

removed from further consideration. 

Site A is located immediately south of 

the newly constructed T-hangars, while 

site B is located in the public parking 

lot immediately south of the north end 

aircraft tie-down apron. Site C is 

situated immediately south of the 

terminal building. 

The three alternative sites have been 

analyzed and calculations have been 

made for line-of-sight and cab eye 

elevation minimums. Each site was 

evaluated for line-of-sight to each 

runway end, including to the proposed 

runway extension ends. During 

engineering of the ATCT, further 

analysis will include compensating 

shadows (those surfaces potentially 

blocked by hangars). The following 

paragraphs provide specific analysis for 

each site according to siting criteria 

established by the FAA. 

4-27 

SITE A 

As previously mentioned, Site A is 

located immediately south of the newest 

and southernmost T-hangars. 

According to spot elevation information 

for the airport, Site A is at 

approximately 442.5 feet MSL and is 

700 feet from the runway centerline. 

Site A is depicted on Exhibit 4H. 

Cab Eye Elevation 

The minimum cab eye elevation for the 

most demanding pavement surface is 

491 feet MSL or approximately 48.2 feet 

AGL. 


Visibility is clear and unobstructed to 

both runway ends under all 

alternatives. The site is nearly at 

midfield, which aids visibility. As the 

site is currently undeveloped and, thus, 

unconstrained for development, there 

will be enough room for employee 

parking as well as future expansion. 

This site will not derogate the signal 

generated by any of the existing or 

planned navigational aids. 

As is the case with many ATCTs, a 48foot-tall 

tower, 700 feet from the 

runway would obstruct the 7:1 

transitional surface for precision 

approaches. Consultation with the FAA 

would be necessary to get approval to 

this site.


Requirements 

Depth perception of all surface areas to 

be controlled should be adequate. The 

controller’s line-of-sight will be 

perpendicular or oblique, not parallel, to 

the line established by aircraft and/or 

ground vehicle movement. The cab eye 

elevation will intersect all airport 

surfaces. 

The tower cab will be oriented to face 

east which is ideal when considering 

east/west facing towers. Visibility is not 

expected to be impaired by direct or 

indirect external lighting sources. 

Visibility to all areas requiring control 

is good. 

There are no known local weather 

phenomena that would restrict visibility 

for any tower location. Noise levels at 

this site may be an issue if it is located 

too close to the existing T-hangars. An 

appropriate buffer should be considered. 

Access to the site will not cross areas of 

aircraft operations. No future 

construction is planned that would 

derogate visibility from this site. 

SITE B 

As illustrated on Exhibit 4J, Site B is 

to the south of the north tie-down 

apron, where the public parking lot is 

currently located. According to spot 

elevation information for the airport, 

Site B is at approximately 445.4 feet 

MSL and is situated 600 feet from the 

runway centerline. 

4-28 


The minimum cab eye elevation for 

existing conditions is 493 MSL or 48 

feet AGL. 


With the site being at the northern 

third of the airfield, care should be 

given to any future southerly 

development so as to avoid development 

that obstructs tower line-of-sight. All 

approaches are clearly visible and there 

is no navigational aid interference. 

The tower again will obstruct the F.A.R. 

Part 77 transitional surface. This does 

not preclude construction at this site; it 

means additional review and analysis 

will need to be conducted. The site is 

large enough to accommodate future 

building needs and employee parking. 


Requirements 

All nonmandatory requirements are 

essentially the same as with Site A. 

SITE C 

Exhibit 4K shows Site C, which is 

located immediately to the south of the 

terminal building. Spot elevation 

information for the airport indicates 

that Site C is at approximately 444.7 

feet MSL.


The minimum cab eye elevation for 

existing conditions is 493 feet MSL or 

48 feet AGL. 


Visibility of airborne traffic patterns is 

good. Visibility is adequate for all 

primary airport surfaces except for a 

small portion of Taxiway A immediately 

to the east of the Moorehead hangar on 

the main terminal area hangar. 

Consideration will be given to removing 

or relocating this hangar. 

This site plot provides sufficient area to 

accommodate the initial building and 

the addition of a base building in the 

future if required. Also, this area would 

readily supply parking areas. 

Minimum cab eye elevations for this 

site indicate that the tower will likely 

penetrate the F.A.R. Part 77 

transitional surface, however, should 

not be an obstruction to flight. The 

tower should not derogate the 

performance of any existing or planned 

electronic facilities. 


Requirements 

Depth perception of all surface areas to 

be controlled will be adequate. The 

controller’s line-of-sight will be 

perpendicular or oblique, not parallel, to 

the line established by aircraft and/or 

ground vehicle movement. 

4-29 

The tower cab will be oriented to face 

east. This orientation will likely pose 

visibility problems for viewing aircraft 

approaches around sunrise. Visibility 

to all areas requiring control is 

excellent and would not be impaired or 

shadowed. Access to the site, once 

constructed, would not require crossing 

aircraft operation areas. 

SUMMARY 

The process utilized in assessing the 

airside and landside development 

alternatives involved a detailed 

analysis of short and long term 

requirements, as well as future growth 

potential. Current airport design 

standards were considered at every 

stage in the analysis. Safety, both air 

and ground, were given a high priority 

in the analysis of alternatives. 

After review and input from the 

Planning Advisory Committee, City 

officials, and the public, a recommended 

concept will be developed by the 

consultant. The resultant plan will 

represent an airside facility that fulfills 

safety design standards, and a landside 

complex that can be developed as 

demand dictates. The development plan 

for Mesquite Metro Airport must 

represent a means by which the airport 

can evolve in a balanced manner, both 

on the airside and landside, to 

accommodate the forecast demand. In 

addition, the plan must provide 

flexibility to meet activity growth 

beyond the long range planning horizon.

The following chapters will be dedicated 

to refining the basic concept into a final 

plan with recommendations to ensure 

4-30 

proper implementation and timing for a 

demand-based program.

Chapter Five 

AIRPORT PLANS

CHAPTER FIVE 

AIRPORT PLANS 

The airport master planning process has evolved through 

several analytical efforts in the previous chapters. These efforts, 

intended to analyze future aviation demand, establish airside 

and landside needs and evaluate options for the future 

development of Mesquite Metro Airport and its facilities. 

In the previous chapter, several development alternatives were 

analyzed to explore different options for the future growth and 

development of Mesquite Metro Airport. The development 

alternatives have been refined into a single recommended 

concept for the master plan after meeting with the Planning 

Advisory Committee (PAC), which provided feedback to the 

consultant. This chapter describes, in narrative and graphic 

form, the recommended direction for the future use and 

development of Mesquite Metro Airport. 

RECOMMENDED CONCEPT 

The recommended master plan concept incorporates airside 

development elements suggested in Airfield Alternative 1, 

presented in Chapter Four - Alternatives. Landside develop- 

ment closely follows the improvements suggested in Landside 

Alternative C. As a result, the recommended concept provides 

the airport with the ability to meet the increasing demands on 

the airport by corporate aircraft, while also providing adequate 

space for small, general-aviation aircraft operators. 

It is important to note that the finalized concept provides for 

anticipated facility needs over the next twenty years, as well as 

establishing a vision and direction for meeting facility needs beyond 

the planning period. The airport has experienced significant 

5-1 DRAFT

growth over the last several years and 

the City has responded to this growth 

with the construction of a new airport 

terminal building, apron area, and 

other ancillary facilities. Continued 

growth is expected as the DFW 

Metroplex expands eastward. 

Moreover, the planned extension of 

State Highway 190 will be routed 

roughly along Lawson Road to the east. 

The highway improvement will be a 

significant spur for additional 

development in the area, including the 

airport. The following sections 

summarize the airside and landside 

development recommendations as 

illustrated on Exhibit 5A. 

AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and the Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT) - Aviation 

Division have established design 

criteria to define the physical 

dimensions of runways and taxiways 

and the imaginary surfaces surrounding 

them which provide for the safe 

operation of aircraft at the airport. 

These design standards also define the 

separation criteria for the placement of 

landside facilities. 

As discussed previously, FAA and 

TxDOT design criteria primarily center 

around the airport’s critical design 

aircraft. The critical aircraft is the 

most demanding aircraft or family of 

aircraft which will conduct 250 or more 

operations (take-offs or landings) per 

year at the airport. Factors included in 

airport design are an aircraft’s 

wingspan, approach speed, and in some 

cases, the runway approach visibility 

5-2 

minimums. The FAA has established 

the Airport Reference Code (ARC) to 

relate these factors to airfield design 

standards. 

Mesquite Metro Airport is presently 

used by a wide range of general aviation 

aircraft. The majority of these aircraft 

include single and multi-engine aircraft 

which fall into ARC A-I and B-I 

categories. In addition, larger business 

turboprop and turbojet aircraft that fall 

within approach categories B, C, and D 

are using the airport more frequently. 

The largest based aircraft at the airport 

is the Cessna Citation 525, an ARC B-I 

aircraft. Analysis conducted in Chapter 

Three - Facility Requirements, 

concluded that the current critical 

aircraft is defined by a wide variety of 

transient aircraft operators at the 

airport. The analysis indicated that the 

airport had a minimum of 194 

operations by aircraft ranging from 

ARC C-I to D-III. As noted in the 

analysis, this figure is likely much 

lower than actual due to reporting 

difficulties (e.g., activity must initiate 

or complete an instrument flight plan at 

Mesquite Metro Airport). It is very 

likely that the actual number of 

operations by ARC C-I through D-II is 

at least 50 percent higher, or 291 

operations. Thus, the current critical 

aircraft for the airport is ARC C/D-II. 

The Master Plan anticipates that 

turbojet aircraft use, particularly 

business jet aircraft use, would increase 

in the future, consistent with national 

trends and FAA forecasts. It is 

anticipated that the airport will be 

increasingly utilized by businesses and 

fractional-ownership groups who are

04MP22-5A-2/8/06 

MALSR 


Minimum 

LEGEND 






Industrial/ 

Commercial 



Corporate 

Parcels 

ATCT 

Site B 

Airport Blvd. 

Fuel Farm 

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Lawson Rd. 


100') 

ATCT 

Site C 


Parcels 





ATCT 

Site A 

Corporate 

Parcels 

ASDA / LDA 7,370' 

7,370' 

ASDA / LDA 7,000' 

7,000' 


Drainage Area 

Highway 190 Easement 


Alignment Alignment 

190 190 Highway Highway 

Proposed Proposed 

NORTH 

1,370' Runway 

Extension 

35 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


Lead In In Lights 

Lights 

Localizer Localizer 


Exhibit 5A 

MASTER PLAN CONCEPT

conducting business in the Mesquite 

area or surrounding communities. It is 

anticipated that much of this growth 

will be spurred by the eastward 

expansion of the Dallas-Fort Worth 

Metroplex. 

In the future, operations by aircraft in 

ARC C/D-II will likely increase. For 

this reason, the airport should, at a 

minimum, conform to FAA and TxDOT 

standards for this level of activity. 

Moreover, consideration should be given 

to potentially providing for business jets 

which fall in airplane design group III. 

The G-V, Global Express, and Boeing 

Business Jet are group III aircraft and 

are increasing in the fleet. The plan 

should allow for this change in the 

future. The recommended plan has 

been formulated to accommodate ARC 

C/D-II aircraft; however, it will be 

flexible enough to meet ARC C/D-III 

aircraft design in the future if required. 

Upgrading the airport to ARC C/D-II 

design standards will allow the airport 

to accommodate the majority of 

business jets on the market today. 

Moreover, meeting these design 

requirements will ensure that the 

airport is positioned to remain 

competitive for aviation businesses and 

those businesses which have aviation 

needs. As a result, the airport will 

serve as a valuable resource for the City 

as it competes for economic 

development in the regional 

marketplace. 

Table 5A summarizes the airport 

design standards to be applied at 

Mesquite Metro Airport. The table 

presents two airfield planning 

5-3 

standards for the airport. The first 

column summarizes FAA and TxDOT 

airfield design standards for ARC C/D- 

II aircraft under current conditions. 

The airport currently meets the 

threshold to be required to provide this 

level of service. The middle column 

considers the improvements necessary 

to accommodate larger business jets 

such as a longer runway and improved 

approaches to both ends of the runway. 

Finally, the possibility exists that larger 

aircraft such as the Global Express or 

G-V could base at the airport or use the 

airport frequently in the future. The 

last column presents the airfield design 

criteria for these ARC C/D-III aircraft. 

Those standards which differ from the 

existing requirements presented in the 

first column are highlighted for 

comparative purposes. 

AIRSIDE RECOMMENDATIONS 

The recommended airside concept is 

presented on Exhibit 5A. Of primary 

consideration is providing the runway 

system with the means to accommodate 

the larger and faster business aircraft 

which currently operate at the airport 

and are projected to account for the 

critical aircraft in the near future. To 

meet these needs, the plan includes a 

1,370-foot southerly extension of 

Runway 17-35. This extension will 

allow the runway to provide adequate 

operational length for nearly all of the 

business aircraft in the fleet. The 

added length is needed for these aircraft 

to accommodate heavy useful loads due 

to long trip lengths, especially on hot 

days. In addition, the increased length 

will better accommodate aircraft during 

conditions where the runway is 

contaminated (1/10 inch of rain water).

As discussed in the previous chapter, 

Runway 17-35 is recommended to be 

upgraded to meet ARC C/D-II 

standards. The airport was initially 

developed and maintained as an ARC 

B-II airport. Business jet activity 

increases now exceed the critical 

TABLE 5A 

Airfield Planning Design Standards (Ultimate) 


5-4 

aircraft threshold. Thus, the airport 

must now conform to ARC C/D-II design 

standards. The most significant change 

will be improving the runway safety 

area to meet the increased design 

standards. 

Existing 

ARC C/D-II 

Improved 

ARC C/D-II 

Ultimate 

Potential 

ARC C/D-III 

DESIGN STANDARDS 

Airport Reference Code (ARC) C/D-II C/D-II C/D-III 

Lowest Visibility Minimum 

Runways 

3/4 mile ½ mile ½ mile 

Length (ft.) 6,000 7,370 7,370 

Width (ft.) 

Pavement Strength (lbs.) 

100 100 100 

Single Wheel (SWL) 

70,000 70,000 

70,000 

Dual Wheel (DWL) 

100,000 100,000 

100,000 

Shoulder Width (ft.) 


10 10 20 

Width (ft.) 500 500 500 

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.) 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Length Prior to Landing (ft.) 


600 600 600 

Width (ft.) 800 800 800 


Obstacle Free Zone 

1,000 1,000 1,000 

Width (ft.) 400 400 400 


Taxiways 

200 200 200 

Width (ft.) 35 35 50 

OFA (ft.) 131 131 186 

To Fixed or Movable Object (ft.) 

Runway Centerline to: 

66 66 93 

Parallel Taxiway Centerline (ft.) 300 400 400 

Aircraft Parking Area (ft.) 

Building Restriction Line (ft.) 

400 500 500 

20 ft. Height Clearance 640 640 640 

35 ft. Height Clearance 745 745 745 

Runway Protection Zones 17 35 17 35 17 35 

Inner Width (ft.) 1,000 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Outer Width (ft.) 1,510 1,700 1,750 1,510 1,750 1,510 

Length (ft.) 1,700 1,010 2,500 1,700 2,500 1,700 

F.A.R. Part 77 Approach Surface Slope 34:1 34:1 50:1 34:1 50:1 34:1 

Threshold Siting Surface Slope 20:1 20:1 34:1 20:1 34:1 20:1 

Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 9

The runway safety area (RSA) for ARC 

C/D-II is required to be cleared, graded, 

stablilized, and suitable to support 

aircraft and emergency vehicles. This 

area must also be free of objects and 

ruts. For ARC C/D-II, the RSA is 500 

feet wide (centered on the runway) and 

extends 1,000 feet beyond each runway 

end. Runway 17-35 does not readily 

conform with ARC C/D-II RSA 

standards as the area between the 

runway and parallel taxiway contain an 

open drainage channel. 

Scyene Road, north of the runway, 

traverses the ARC C/D-II RSA as 

depicted on Exhibit 5A. The location of 

Scyene Road allows only 630 feet of 

usable RSA north of the runway which 

falls short of the 1,000-foot standard. It 

should be noted, however, that the FAA 

has changed the RSA standards to allow 

for RSA on the approach end of the 

runway to be only 600 feet. Thus, the 

northern end of the runway is within 

standard for ARC C/D-II for southerly 

landing operations. It is still a 

requirement for the RSA to be 

unobstructed 1,000 feet beyond the 

take-off end of the runway. 

The goal of all the airfield alternatives 

presented in the previous chapter was 

to provide at least 7,000 feet of 

operational length. Although the 

recommended plan provides for 7,370 

feet of pavement, the operational 

lengths available for aircraft use are 

370 feet less when landing on or takingoff 

from the Runway 35 end. This is 

due to the location of Scyene Road. As 

a result, the airport would have to 

implement declared distances for takeoffs 

and landings in a northerly 

direction. 

5-5 

The implementation of declared 

distances was discussed in detail in 

Airside Alternative 1 in Chapter Four. 

Declared distances are the effective 

runway distances that the airport 

operator declares available for take-off 

run, take-off distance, accelerate-stop 

distance, and landing distance 

requirements. These are defined by the 

FAA as: 

C Take-off run available (TORA) - 

The length of the runway declared 

available and suitable to accelerate 

from brake release to lift-off, plus 

safety factors. 

C Take-off distance available 

(TODA) - The TORA plus the length 

of any remaining runway or 

clearway beyond the far end of the 

TORA available to accelerate from 

brake release past lift-off to start of 

take-off climb, plus safety factors. 

C Accelerate-stop distance 

available (ASDA) - The length of 

the runway plus stopway declared 

available and suitable to accelerate 

from brake release to take-off 

decision speed, and then decelerate 

to a stop, plus safety factors. 

C Landing distance available 

(LDA) - The distance from threshold 

to complete the approach, 

touchdown, and decelerate to a stop, 

plus safety factors. 

The ASDA and LDA are, in most 

situations, the overriding considerations 

in determining the runway length 

available for use by aircraft because the 

RSA must be considered. The ASDA 

and LDA can be figured as the useable

portions of the runway minus the area 

required to maintain adequate RSA. 

Adequate RSA is required beyond the 

take-off end only for ASDA calculations. 

For LDA calculations, however, 

adequate RSA must be provided beyond 

both runway ends. As discussed, the 

RSA for the approach end of the runway 

need be only 600 feet before the runway 

threshold, while the full 1,000 feet is 

necessary on the far end of the runway 

for C and D aircraft. 

With the recommended concept 

presented on Exhibit 5A, take-off and 

landing operations on Runway 17 will 

have the full 7,370 feet available, while 

take-off and landing operations for 

Runway 35 will have 7,000 feet 

available. The calculations consider the 

loss of 370 feet of runway for northerly 

take-offs and landings due to the 

inadequate RSA beyond the Runway 17 

end. 

Declared distances require some minor 

changes to the airfield. The runway 

caution lights leading to the Runway 17 

threshold would need to have their 

colors changed to indicate the end of 

useful pavement 370 feet prior to the 

actual threshold. In addition, published 

runway length would need to indicate 

the declared distances. Using declared 

distances does not require modification 

to the current runway marking scheme. 

It should be noted that while the FAA 

standards allow for a shortened 600-foot 

RSA, the same allowance is not made 

for the object free area (OFA). FAA 

standards still require a cleared area 

800 feet wide extending 1,000 feet 

beyond the runway ends. While this 

standard remains, its purpose is to 

ensure that aircraft which need to 

traverse the RSA do not encounter 

5-6 

obstacles or hazards to its wings. Since 

only 600 feet of RSA is proposed, the 

remaining OFA may not be necessary. 

For this reason, a modification to FAA 

design standards will be sought from 

the FAA. If approved, no further 

changes to the proposed development 

concept will be necessary. 

If a modification of standard to the OFA 

is not granted by the FAA, the runway 

would need to be shortened by 370 feet 

for landing operations to Runway 17. 

This action would defeat the purpose of 

allowing a 600-foot RSA prior to 

landing. Operations using Runway 35 

would not be affected as declared 

distances would already be in effect. 

TxDOT will require specific justification 

for the extension, such as an existing 

operator at the airport whose aircraft 

requires the longer runway, before 

funding is provided. The planned length 

will ensure that the airport will be 

capable of accommodating all projected 

aircraft activity. During hot weather 

conditions, some aircraft may need to be 

capable of taking off with a full payload; 

however, the proposed runway length 

should not be a limiting factor in any 

business aircraft (up to ARC D-II) 

owner’s decision to base or operate at 


The design of taxiway and apron areas 

must also consider the critical aircraft 

identified for Mesquite Metro Airport. 

The primary consideration is given to 

the wingspan of the most demanding 

aircraft to operate at the airport. The 

parallel and connecting taxiways, 

transient apron areas, and aircraft 

maintenance areas have all been 

designed to accommodate aircraft 

within ADG II, wherever appropriate. 

This standard requires taxiways to be

at least 35 feet wide for aircraft in ARC 

C/D-II. Current and future planned 

taxiways meet this standard. 

The existing parallel taxiway is located 

300 feet west of the runway (centerline 

to centerline). This separation is 

adequate under current conditions. 

Runway 17 provides the airport’s lowest 

instrument approach visibility 

minimums at three-quarters of a mile. 

The recommended plan considers 

upgrading the approach capability of 

Runway 17 to provide a one-half mile 

visibility minimum approach. To do 

this, the FAA requires the parallel 

taxiway to be located at a separation of 

400 feet from the runway. Moreover, as 

previously discussed, aircraft in 

airplane design group III aircraft may 

begin to frequent or base at the airport 

in the future. The runway/taxiway 

separation standard for ARC C/D-III 

aircraft is also 400 feet. For these 

reasons, the plan considers ultimately 

relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet 

to the west. 

Relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet 

west could pose development issues in 

the future. Similar to runway design, 

taxiway design must include a cleared 

OFA. The taxiway OFA is designed 

such that the wings of an aircraft 

traversing the taxiway will not 

encounter obstructions along the route. 

If the airport is to remain at an ARC 

C/D-II design standard, the taxiway 

OFA is 131 feet. If the airport 

transitions to ARC C/D-III, however, 

the taxiway OFA expands to be 186 feet 

wide. Exhibit 5B depicts the taxiway 

OFA for both scenarios. As illustrated, 

the ARC C/D-II taxiway OFA does not 

impact any existing structures or 

parking areas. For ARC C/D-III, 

5-7 

however, the taxiway OFA penetrates 

several hangars and aircraft parking on 

the main terminal ramp. In order to 

accommodate these aircraft and this 

level of design, the obstructions would 

need to be removed/relocated and the 

aircraft parking areas abandoned. 

Analysis in previous chapters indicated 

that plans should be made to upgrade 

the instrument approach capabilities of 

the airport. Currently, Mesquite Metro 

Airport is served by three instrument 

approach procedures. The lowest 

approved visibility minimum is 

provided by the Instrument Landing 

System (ILS) Runway 17 approach. 

This approach procedure allows 

properly trained pilots and equipped 

aircraft up to approach category C to 

land on Runway 17 with visibility not 

lower than three-quarters of a mile and 

250-foot cloud ceilings. It is 

recommended that this approach be 

improved to visibility down to one-half 

mile. In order to achieve this minimum, 

two improvements are needed. First, 

the current lead-in-light system would 

need to be replaced by a medium 

intensity approach light system with 

runway alignment lights (MALSR). 

Second, the parallel taxiway would need 

to be relocated 100 feet to the west as 

discussed above. 

Future plans also call for improving the 

visibility minimum to Runway 35. The 

plan considers a not lower than threequarters 

of a mile visibility approach 

similar to the existing approach to 

Runway 17. Runway 35 is already 

served by a lead-in-light system; thus, 

no new equipment would need to be 

installed. The approach can be 

provided by global positioning system 

(GPS) technology.

The recommended concept includes the 

development of a temporary east side 

parallel taxiway measuring 5,000 feet 

by 75 feet. This temporary taxiway is 

considered for construction at a time 

when the primary runway is closed for 

a significant period of time for 

reconstruction. The only purpose of the 

taxiway is to serve as a temporary 

runway to insure the airport remains 

open and can support a large 

percentage of the forecast operations. 

Once the runway reconstruction project 

is completed, this taxiway can either be 

closed or further developed to support 

eastside facility development. Any 

future plans for the temporary parallel 

taxiway should be considered at the 

time of design. 

LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT 

All existing landside facilities at 

Mesquite Metro Airport are located on 

the west side of the runway. Taxiway A 

connects the main terminal apron, 

adjacent the terminal building, to either 

end of the runway. Hangar 

development is located along the west 

side of the runway with the terminal 

building located approximately 

midfield. Conventional, executive, and 

T-hangar storage is provided at the 

airport, although the airport maintains 

a waiting list for additional space. 

The primary goal of landside facility 

planning is to provide adequate aircraft 

storage space while also maximizing 

operational efficiencies and land uses. 

Achieving this goal yields a 

development scheme which segregates 

aircraft users (large vs. small aircraft) 

while maximizing the airport’s revenue 

potential. 

5-8 

Exhibit 5A depicts the recommended 

landside development plan for the 

airport. The plan closely resembles 

Landside Alternative C, presented in 

Chapter Four - Facility Requirements. 

It represents the opportunity for 

significant landside growth which will 

require further land acquisition to 

implement. In total, approximately 148 

acres of land would need to be acquired 

by the airport to implement this 

alternative. 

While the plan is somewhat aggressive, 

it will ensure that the airport will have 

ample room to expand as aviation 

demand dictates. Moreover, as opposed 

to the two other alternatives, the plan 

should be capable of meeting the long 

term aviation demand. Landside 

Alternatives A and B could constrict 

future growth, forcing the need to 

acquire and develop the area east of the 

airport at some point in the future. The 

recommended concept will more than 

adequately accommodate all projected 

aviation demands on the west side of 


The proposed development in the 

northern portion of the terminal area 

mirrors that proposed and accepted in 

the previous master plan. The only 

significant difference is the proposed 

conventional hangar development. As 

proposed, the concept includes the 

allowance of two large conventional 

hangars directly behind and west of the 

Department of Public Safety (DPS) 

hangar. 

In order to provide greater depth of 

development in the terminal area, the 

plan includes the acquisition of 88 acres 

of land immediately west of the airport 

and development of an improved on-

04MP22-5B-12/7/05 


Corporate 

Parcels Parcels 

LEGEND 

ATCT 

Site B 




Ultimate Parking/Roads) 

Group III Taxiway OFA Group II Taxiway OFA 

Fuel Farm 

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Commercial 

Airport Blvd. 

ATCT 

Site C 


Parcels 

Parcels 




Drainage Area 

Existing Runway Runway 17-35 (5,999' (5,999' x x 100') 100') Ultimate Ultimate (7,370 (7,370 x x 100') 

100') 

ATCT 

Site A 

Corporate 

Parcels 

NORTH 

0 400 800 

SCALE IN FEET 


Exhibit 5B 

PARALLEL TAXIWAY RELOCATION

airport roadway system. The northern 

portion of this area could be utilized for 

corporate flight departments or aviation 

businesses. As depicted, the plan 

includes the extension of a taxiway west 

from the DPS hangar to serve this area. 

Moving south, the plan considers the 

potential for additional corporate parcel 

development and the allowance for 

commercial or industrial development. 

This could include retail centers such as 

a restaurant or museum. Finally, the 

plan considers allowing the 

southernmost existing T-hangar area to 

be expanded to the west. A total of 12 

T-hangar facilities could be 

accommodated in this area. 

The southern terminal area has been 

significantly modified from the previous 

master plan. This concept proposes the 

development of large conventional 

hangars immediately south of the 

southernmost existing T-hangars. The 

plan would allow for the development of 

five large conventional hangars and an 

adjoining aircraft parking apron. These 

facilities could house fixed base 

operators or large bulk aircraft storage 

hangars. Further south, the proposed 

development concept includes corporate 

hangar development in a “pod” type 

layout. In order to develop in this area, 

however, significant drainage 

improvements would be necessary as 

the area is traversed by a creek. No 

buildings could be located on the rerouted 

drainage channel, but pavement 

could be placed over the drainage route. 

Finally, the southernmost portion of the 

airport is planned for five T-hangars. 

The terminal building was also 

examined to determine if it would meet 

the needs of general aviation passenger 

traffic over the 20-year planning period. 

The current building should be 

5-9 

sufficient through the long term 

planning period to meet the needs of 

general aviation users. 

Analysis in Chapters Three and Four 

indicated the need to construct an 

airport traffic control tower (ATCT) at 

the airport. After careful consideration, 

three sites were proposed. At this time, 

it appears that the site located in the 

parking lot of the previous terminal 

building would be the best choice. At 

this time, the plan will allow for further 

study and includes all three sites with 

the selected site to be determined later. 

The ultimate landside plan exceeds the 

needs and goal of this planning effort. 

Consideration of facility development 

beyond the scope of this planning effort 

will, however, provide the City with a 

vision which will yield a first-class 

aviation facility capable of maintaining 

revenues which exceed operational 

costs. It should be noted that the 

development of all facilities should 

consider aesthetics as a high priority. 

The airport is often the first and last 

impression a corporate decision-maker 

has of the community. Consideration 

should always be given to the 

development of facilities which meet 

aviation demand while presenting a 

positive image to all users. 

AIRPORT LAYOUT 

PLAN SET 

Per FAA and TxDOT requirements, an 

official Airport Layout Plan (ALP) has 

been developed for Mesquite Metro 

Airport and can be found at the end of 

this chapter. The ALP drawing 

graphically presents the existing and 

ultimate airport layout plan. The ALP

is used by the FAA and TxDOT to 

determine funding eligibility for future 

development projects. 

The ALP was prepared on a computeraided 

drafting (CAD) system for future 

ease of use. The computerized plan 

provides detailed information of 

existing and future facility layout on 

multiple layers that permit the user to 

focus in on any section of the airport at 

a desirable scale. The plan can be used 

as base information for design and can 

be easily updated in the future to reflect 

new development and more detail 

concerning existing conditions as made 

available through design surveys. 

A number of related drawings, which 

depict the ultimate airspace and 

landside development, will be included 

with the ALP once the draft master 

plan concept detailed in this chapter is 

finalized. The following provides a brief 

discussion of the additional drawings to 

be included with the ALP. 

INNER PORTION OF THE 

APPROACH SURFACE PLAN 

The Inner Portion of the Approach 

Surface Plan is a scaled drawing of the 

runway protection zone (RPZ), RSA, 

object free zone (OFZ), and OFA for 

each runway end. A plan and profile 

view of each RPZ is provided to 

facilitate identification of obstructions 

that lie within these safety areas. 

Detailed obstruction and facility data is 

provided to identify planned 

improvements and the disposition of 

obstructions. 

5-10 

PROPERTY MAP 

The Property Map provides information 

on the acquisition and identification of 

all land tracts under control of the 


OBSTRUCTION SURVEY 

DRAWING 

The Obstruction Survey Drawing (OSD) 

is a new requirement as a part of the 

ALP drawing set. It is a visual 

representation of the topography and 

obstructions within the runway end 

environment. The OSD is developed for 

any runway currently served or planned 

to be served by an instrument approach 

procedure. 

The OSD includes the evaluation of 

three critical surfaces: the obstruction 

identification surface (OIS), the primary 

surface, and threshold siting surface 

(TSS). Any penetrations to the ultimate 

planned surfaces are presented on this 

drawing. 

Runway 17 is planned for a precision 

approach with not lower than one-half 

mile visibility minimums. There are no 

reported obstructions for this approach. 

Runway 35 is planned for non-precision 

type approaches with not lower than 

three-quarters-mile visibility minimums. 

There are no future obstructions 

for the Runway 17 end. 

SUMMARY 

The recommended master plan concept 

has been developed in conjunction with

the PAC, the City of Mesquite, and the 

local citizens, and is designed to assist 

the City in making decisions on future 

development and growth of Mesquite 

Metro Airport. This plan provides the 

necessary development to accommodate 

and satisfy the anticipated growth over 

the next twenty years and beyond. 

Flexibility will be very important to 

future development at the airport. 

Activity projected over the next twenty 

years may not occur as predicted. The 

5-11 

plan has attempted to consider 

demands that may be placed on the 

airport even beyond the twenty-year 

planning horizon to ensure that the 

facility will be capable of handling a 

wide range of circumstances. The 

recommended plan provides the City 

with a general guide that if followed can 

maintain the airport’s long term 

viability and allow the airport to 

continue to provide air transportation 

service to the region.

Chapter Six 

FINANCIAL PLAN

CHAPTER SIX 

Financial plan 

Information in the previous chapters outlined the airport's 

facility needs to meet projected aviation demand for the next 20 

years. Alternatives were evaluated which considered long term 

layouts to meet the projected facility needs. It is important to 

note that these needs were tied to planning milestones which 

could occur as projected, however, it is likely that the demand 

will fluctuate. Based on the growing nature of the Dallas/Fort 

Worth Metroplex, aviation demand will likely follow similar 

growth. Next, an important element of the master planning 

process is the application of basic economic, financial, and 

management rationale to each development item so that the 

feasibility of each item contained in the plan can be assured. 

The purpose of this chapter is to provide financial management 

information and tools which will help make the master plan 

achievable and successful. This analysis will provide 

decision-makers with the tools to effectively utilize an 

invaluable City asset. 

The presentation of the financial plan and its feasibility has 

been organized into three sections. First, the airport develop- 

ment schedule, based on the projected capital improvement 

program (CIP), is presented in narrative and graphic form. 

Secondly, capital improvement funding sources on the federal, 

state, and local levels are identified and discussed. Finally, the 

chapter presents a cash flow analysis which analyzes the 

financial feasibility of the recommended CIP. 

6-1 DRAFT

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 

SCHEDULES AND 

COST SUMMARIES 

The next step is to determine a realistic 

capital improvement schedule and 

associated costs for implementing the 

plan. This section will identify these 

TABLE 6A 

Planning Horizon Milestone Summary 


Current Short Term 

6-2 

projects and the overall cost of each 

item in the development plan. The 

recommended improvements are 

grouped by the planning horizons: 

short term, intermediate term, and long 

term. Table 6A summarizes the key 

milestones for each of the three 

planning horizons. 

Intermediate 

Term Long Term 

ANNUAL OPERATIONS 

Total Itinerant 40,225 51,400 56,600 67,500 

Total Local 60,000 76,500 84,000 99,000 

Total Operations 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500 


Single Engine 182 205 223 256 

Multi-Engine 38 38 36 35 

Turboprop 0 4 8 15 

Jet 1 5 10 20 

Helicopters 2 3 3 4 


Total AIAs 101 1,028 1,132 1,350 

A key aspect of this planning document 

is the use of demand-based planning 

milestones. The short term planning 

horizon contains items of highest 

priority. These items should be 

considered for development based on 

actual demand levels within the next 

five years. As short term horizon 

activity levels are reached, it will then 

be time to program for the intermediate 

term based upon the next activity 

milestones. Similarly, when the 

intermediate term milestones are 

reached, it will be time to program for 

the long term activity milestones. 

Most development items included in the 

recommended concept will need to 

follow demand indicators. For example, 

the plan includes construction of new 

hangar aprons, taxilanes, and Thangars. 

Based aircraft will be the 

indicator for additional hangar needs. 

If based aircraft growth occurs as 

projected, additional hangars will need 

to be constructed to meet the demand. 

If growth slows or does not occur as 

projected, hangar pavement projects can 

be delayed. As a result, capital 

expenditures will be undertaken as 

needed, which leads to a responsible use 

of capital assets. Some development 

items do not correspond specifically to 

actual demand levels, such as 

maintenance. Maintenance projects are 

typically associated with day-to-day

operations or aging factors and should 

be monitored and identified by airport 

management. 

As a master plan is a conceptual 

document, implementation of these 

capital projects should only be 

undertaken after further refinement of 

their design and costs through 

architectural and engineering analyses. 

Moreover, projects could require 

wastewater and drainage improvements. 

The financial plan addresses 

this concern, but any future 

development should include analysis of 

the capacity of the infrastructure to 

support the growth. 

The cost estimates presented in this 

chapter have been increased to allow for 

contingencies that may arise on the 

project. Capital costs presented here 

should be viewed only as estimates 

subject to further refinement during 

design. Nevertheless, these estimates 

are considered sufficiently accurate for 

planning purposes. Cost estimates for 

each of the development projects listed 

in the capital improvement plan are 

listed in current (2005) dollars. 

Exhibit 6A presents the proposed 

capital improvement program for 


SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS 

In general, Texas participates in the 

State Block Grant Program (SBGP) 

and, as such, is the responsible entity 

for the distribution of federal and state 

grant funding for the Mesquite Metro 

Airport. Due to the large number of 

requests from airports across the state 

6-3 

and the limited funding available, 

TxDOT will generally provide an 

airport with intermittent funding 

assistance. More to the point, TxDOT 

may provide funding for a project in the 

current fiscal year, but may not provide 

additional assistance for several years 

thereafter. This is especially true for 

large capital improvement projects. 

Smaller projects or maintenance needs 

can be met annually, depending upon 

the need and funding availability. For 

these reasons, development projects in 

each planning horizon of the CIP have 

been scheduled as a group. Thus, the 

CIP is not annualized, but the projects 

are listed in order of projected priority 

needs. 

The CIP presented in this document 

will be assimilated into TxDOT’s CIP. 

If funding assistance is not available 

from TxDOT, the City will need to 

request discretionary funding 

assistance from the FAA. Discretionary 

funding is more difficult to receive, as 

Mesquite Metro Airport must not only 

compete with other state airports, but 

also with other airports across the 

country. 

The short term planning horizon CIP 

considers 15 projects for the roughly 

five-year period and is presented on 

Exhibit 6A and illustrated on Exhibit 

6B. The first four projects listed on the 

exhibit have already been budgeted for 

fiscal year 2005/06. These projects 

include the City’s acquisition of an 18unit 

T-hangar and associated office 

space, construction of two, nine-unit Thangars, 

construction of a new airport 

entrance sign, and development of a 

fuel containment system for mobile

fueling. The fuel containment system 

for fuel trucks is a recent environmental 

requirement. 

The first project considered beyond next 

year’s budgeted items is the 

development of an airport traffic control 

tower (ATCT). TxDOT has an ATCT 

program which provides 90 percent 

grant funding assistance up to $1.67 

million which includes the structure 

and equipment. Prior to the 

development, an ATCT siting study 

should be completed. The study will 

further define the ATCT location and 

costs. 

In addition, prior to design of an ATCT, 

the FAA will conduct a Benefit Cost 

Analysis (BCA) in order to justify a 

tower. A tower will only be approved if 

the result of the BCA is greater than 

one (1). If the BCA is above one, then 

the FAA will also pay the salaries of the 

controllers under the contract tower 

program. The FAA will continue to pay 

for salaries, provided the BCA remains 

greater than one when averaged over a 

15-year period. Should the BCA fall 

below one, the City of Mesquite would 

need to share a portion of the cost of 

maintaining the tower, if the tower is to 

remain open. 

Next, the plan includes improving the 

existing runway safety area (RSA) to 

meet FAA standards. Previous analysis 

identified the airport’s critical aircraft 

as an airport reference code (ARC) C-II. 

The current RSA meets ARC B-II 

standards. Currently, surface water 

run-off is channeled along an open 

drainage route in the ARC C-II RSA, 

6-4 

primarily between the runway and 

parallel taxiway. This project considers 

modifying/improving the drainage and 

stabilizing the RSA to meet the 

standard. 

Two landside improvements are 

considered in the short term. First, the 

plan considers the construction of a 

large apron in the northeastern portion 

of the terminal area. The apron could 

serve two large conventional hangars 

which would house an airport business, 

large aircraft storage, or bulk aircraft 

storage. The airport has been 

approached on numerous occasions 

recently for this type of development. 

This project would also require the 

strengthening and widening of an 

access taxiway to the new apron. 

The second landside project considers 

acquiring land to the south for 

additional landside development. The 

50-acre parcel would offer significant 

development opportunities for the 

future while also protecting the airport 

from additional incompatible land uses. 

It is always beneficial and suggested 

that the airport own land along the 

extended flightline. 

The last projects to be considered in the 

short term planning period are 

associated with the potential extension 

of the runway. Prior to any significant 

construction on an airport, an 

environmental assessment (EA) is 

required. If there are no significant 

environmental discoveries, then the 

process can proceed to design and 

engineering of the runway extension.

04MP22-6A-3/22/06 

SHORT TERM PROGRAM (0-5 YEARS) 

1 Purchase 18 Unit T-Hangar with office space 

2 Contsruct (2) T-Hangar Buildings (18 units) 

3 Fuel Containment for Mobile Refuellers 

4 Airport Entrance Sign 

5 Construct Airport Traffic Control Tower 

6 Improve Runway Safety Area for ARC C/D-II 

7 Contstruct Apron for Hangar Development (9,450 sq yds) 

8 Acquire 50 Acres of Land for Landside Development 

9 Install Medium IntensityTaxiway Lights 

10 Upgrade Runway Lights 

11 Environmental assessment for runway extension 

12 Acquire Land For Runway Extension 

13 Relocate Localizer and Lead-In Lights 

14 Extend Runway and Parallel Taxiway 1,370' South 

15 Miscellaneous RAMP Projects 

SHORT TERM PROGRAM (0-5 YEARS) 

INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM (6-10 YEARS) 

1 Expand Terminal Apron South - Phase I 

2 Construct Taxiway/Taxilanes for T-Hangar Construction 

3 Construct 20 T-Hangar Units 

4 Rehabilitate Landside Pavements 


INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM (6-10 YEARS) 

LONG TERM PROGRAM (11-20 YEARS) 

1 Relocate Parallel Taxiway to 400 ' from Runway 

2 Upgrade Runway 17 Approach (MALSR, Land Purchase) 

3 Expand Terminal Apron South - Phase II 

4 Extend Airport Road South & Construct Parking Lots 

5 Improved Drainage for South Landside Development 

6 Extend Utilities for South Landside Development 

7 Construct Apron for Corporate Hangar Development 

8 Construct Taxiwlanes for T-Hangar Development 

9 Construct 20 T-hangar Units 

10 Construct Temporary Eastside Parallel Taxiway* 

11 Reconstruct Runway 17-35 (Existing 6,000') 

12 Acquire 98 Acres of Land West of Airport Road 


LONG TERM PROGRAM (10-20 YEARS) 

TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS 

* FAA discressionary funds 

Project Cost 

$430,000 

800,000 

100,000 

30,000 

1,666,667 

600,000 

921,400 

1,437,500 

150,000 

150,000 

200,000 

414,000 

750,000 

3,388,000 

300,000 

$11,337,567 

$2,166,700 

1,083,300 

600,000 

780,000 

300,000 

$4,930,000 

$3,855,000 

1,190,000 

3,791,700 

780,000 

1,140,000 

500,000 

1,516,700 

1,200,000 

900,000 

4,062,500 

7,000,000 

1,656,000 

600,000 

$28,191,900 

$44,459,467 

TxDOT Share 

$0 

0 

0 

0 

1,500,000 

540,000 

829,260 

1,293,750 

135,000 

135,000 

180,000 

372,600 

675,000 

3,049,200 

150,000 

$8,859,810 

$1,950,030 

974,970 

0 

702,000 

150,000 

$3,777,000 

$3,469,500$ 

1,071,000 

3,412,530 

390,000 

0 

0 

1,365,030 

1,080,000 

0 

3,656,250 

6,300,000 

1,490,400 

300,000 

$22,534,710 

$35,171,520 

Local Share 

$430,000 

800,000 

100,000 

30,000 

166,667 

60,000 

92,140 

143,750 

15,000 

15,000 

20,000 

41,400 

75,000 

338,000 

150,000 

$2,476,957 

216,670 

108,330 

600,000 

78,000 

150,000 

$1,153,000 

385,500 

119,000 

379,170 

390,000 

1,140,000 

500,000 

151,670 

120,000 

900,000 

406,250 

700,000 

165,600 

300,000 

$5,657,190 

$9,287,147 

Exhibit 6A 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

04MP22-5A-3/21/06 

2 


Minimum 

LEGEND 




4 



7 


4 


100') 

6 

4 

1 

1 

5 4 3 

5 

1 

2 1 3 

12 

Airport Blvd. 



Highway 190 Easement 

5 

Lawson Rd. 

10 

Short Term Improvements 

Intermediate Term Improvements 

Long Term Improvements 

6 

4 

7 

5 


11 




8 

9 

NORTH 

10 

1,370' Runway 

Extension 

2 

14 

3 

35 

0 800 1600 

9 

SCALE IN FEET 

8 


13 

12 


Exhibit 6B 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAGING

The runway extension project is 

strategically placed at the end of the 

short term planning period due to 

current interest from operators to base 

larger aircraft at the airport that would 

need the longer runway. Demand-based 

planning allows for the runway 

extension project to shift to the 

intermediate term if the need for the 

additional length is not justifiable in 

the short term. 

As proposed, the runway would be 

extended 1,370 feet south to ensure a 

full 7,000 feet of operational length in 

both directions. As noted in previous 

analysis, the northern RSA is limited by 

Scyene Road, thus limiting landings 

and take-offs to the north by 370 feet. 

The proposed extension project also 

includes the extension of the parallel 

taxiway. It should be noted that the 

ultimate plan is to relocate the parallel 

taxiway to 400 feet from the runway 

(centerline to centerline). This project 

considers “jogging” the extended 

taxiway out to provide 400 feet of 

separation from the runway. Thus, the 

later project will only need to relocate 

the original 6,000 feet of parallel 

taxiway. 

The runway extension will also require 

ancillary projects. Currently, the 

airport has positive ownership of the 

entire runway protection zone (RPZ). 

Once the runway is extended, the RPZ 

will extend beyond current airport 

property limits, across the intersection 

of Lawson and Berry Roads. At this 

time, the plan considers the acquisition 

of this land to meet FAA and TxDOT 

standards. While the cost estimate 

6-5 

considers fee simple acquisition, 

airspace easements could also be 

utilized to meet standards. Also, the 

extension will require relocation of the 

localizer antenna and lead-in light 

system. 

Ongoing maintenance of airport 

surfaces is considered throughout the 

plan. The plan includes utilizing 

Routine Airport Maintenance Program 

(RAMP) funds available from TxDOT. 

Each year, TxDOT offers RAMP funds 

totaling $30,000 provided the airport 

sponsor matches that amount. The CIP 

considers a total of $300,000 for each 

five-year planning horizon in RAMP 

funds. 

Two lighting projects are considered for 

the short term. The installation of 

medium intensity taxiway lighting 

(MITL) serving Taxiway A is 

recommended by TxDOT for airports 

with greater than 100 based aircraft. 

In addition to meeting the based 

aircraft standard, a number of aircraft 

have inadvertently strayed off the 

taxiway due to inadequate lighting. 

Improving the safety for aircraft on 

Taxiway A at nighttime is critical. The 

second project involves repairing the 

runway lights, many of which are in a 

state of disrepair. 

Short term projects presented on 

Exhibit 6A and graphically 

depicted on Exhibit 6B have been 

estimated to cost approximately 

$11.3 million. Of that total, the 

local share is projected to be $2.5 

million.

INTERMEDIATE TERM 

IMPROVEMENTS 

The intermediate term CIP considers 

expansion of landside facility 

development as well as ongoing 

pavement maintenance. Both intermediate 

and long term improvements 

are depicted on Exhibit 6B. 

The first project in the intermediate 

term considers expanding the apron to 

the south in an undeveloped area. This 

apron could serve additional 

conventional or corporate hangar 

growth. It is located in an area that is 

relatively flat and ready to develop. 

The plan also considers additional Thangar 

development in the southernmost 

portion of the terminal area, 

adjacent to Berry Road. In order to 

construct the T-hangars, a new taxiway 

and hangar taxilanes would need to be 

constructed. 

Remaining projects in the intermediate 

term CIP include ongoing surface 

maintenance and rehabilitation 

landside pavements. Various RAMP 

projects are also included. 

Projects included in the intermediate 

term have been estimated 

to cost $4.9 million, as presented on 


depicted on Exhibit 6B. The total 

local share is $1.2 million. 

LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS 

Long term projects consider 

improvements aimed at increased 

aviation demand while improving 

6-6 

airfield facilities to meet growing 

business aircraft use. Forecasts suggest 

that the number of based aircraft may 

reach 330 by the long term of the 

master plan. Of that total, 35 are 

turbine-powered, cabin class type 

aircraft. These aircraft operators 

typically base at airports with high 

levels of amenities both on the airfield 

and landside. 

The long term CIP considers improving 

instrument approach procedures to 

provide lower approach visibility 

minimums. As previously discussed, 

the airport’s parallel taxiway is located 

too near the runway to allow for 

improved approaches. Moreover, the 

current 300-foot runway/taxiway 

separation is the minimum for ARC 

C/D-II aircraft and falls short of 

airplane design group III aircraft 

requirements. If the airport is utilized 

on a frequent basis by group III aircraft, 

the separation standard is 400 feet. For 

these reasons, the first project in the 

long term is the relocation of the 

existing 6,000 feet of the parallel 

taxiway 100 feet to the west. The 

second project listed in the long term 

includes the cost of installing and 

calibrating a medium intensity 

approach light system with runway 

alignment lights (MALSR) and 

acquiring property for the expanded 

north RPZ. The MALSR will be 

required to improve the minimums on 

Runway 17. 

The long term CIP includes continued 

hangar development in the southern 

portion of the terminal area. Projects 

include apron expansion, corporate 

hangar apron construction, and T-

hangar and taxilane construction. All 

these projects will require additional 

utility and infrastructure improvements. 

Currently, western airfield 

drainage is routed off-airport by a 

drainage ditch in the 50 acres proposed 

for acquisition in the short term. The 

plan considers improving drainage by 

routing it underground with drainage 

pipes. While pavement can be placed 

atop the drainage structure, hangars/ 

buildings can not, due to access needs. 

The concept includes extending Airport 

Boulevard south to provide access to the 

area. Three additional T-hangar 

facilities are also planned. 

At this time in the planning horizon, 

Runway 17-35 will likely need to be 

rehabilitated. The runway is 

constructed of concrete and full 

rehabilitation will require complete 

reconstruction. If reconstruction is 

necessary, the airport could face an 

extended period of complete closure. 

This is not desirable as airport 

businesses, including the City which 

sells fuel, will be crippled by lack of 

revenues. Moreover, all tenants would 

likely have to relocate to another local 

airport during reconstruction. 

Reconstruction of a concrete runway 

could take as long as 10 months to 

complete, with a minimum of six 

months if all factors are favorable. For 

this reason, the plan considers the 

development of an east side parallel 

taxiway to serve at first as a “relief” 

runway. 

As currently proposed, the taxiway 

would be 75 feet wide and located 400 

feet east of the existing runway. This 

location provides enough RSA for ARC 

6-7 

B-II aircraft but if the taxiway would 

need to serve all airport activity, 

additional land to the east would need 

to be acquired. Ultimately, this 

taxiway could also serve to spur 

aviation development on the land east 

of the airport. 

The final project item listed in the long 

term CIP is the acquisition of 98 acres 

of land west of the current airport 

property line. Approximately 50 acres 

of this land, roughly the middle of the 

tract, is already owned by the City of 

Mesquite. The cost included in the CIP 

considers the cost only of the 48 acres 

not owned by the City. The City-owned 

parcel is considered as a transfer of 

property to the airport. Once justified 

as needed for development, this land’s 

value can be used by the City as their 

cost-sharing portion of grants for 

airport improvements. This situation is 

similar to that in the recent past. 

Basically, the land’s value is “credited” 

to the City and is used as the City’s 

local share grant match until it is 

completely drawn down. For example, 

if the land is valued at $500,000, the 

City could leverage that land into $5 

million worth of airport improvements 

with no additional local fund 

expenditures. 

Total long term projects listed on 


depicted on Exhibit 6B have been 

estimated to cost approximately 

$28.2 million in today’s (2005) 

dollars. The local share is $5.7 

million. The total CIP program 

costs are estimated at 44.5 million 

with $9.3 million being the 

projected local share.

IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY 

The CIP covers potential demand-based 

development at Mesquite Metro Airport 

over the next 20 years. Many of the 

planned facilities at the airport are not 

included in the CIP, as they are 

projected to be necessary beyond the 

scope of this plan. Some of those 

projects may include completion of the 

centerfield and southern terminal 

development areas. 

Most of the airport improvements 

presented in the recommended concept 

are demand-based. These facilities 

should be constructed to serve an 

existing demand at the airport at that 

time. This plan does not support 

building facilities in order to attract 

activity (the “if you build it, they will 

come” scenario). Because the plan is 

demand-based rather than time-based, 

it provides the airport management and 

the City of Mesquite with the flexibility 

to develop facilities as needed. Should 

demand increase at a greater rate than 

is forecast, implementation of these 

improvements can be advanced. Should 

demand slow, the life of the master plan 

is effectively increased. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 

FUNDING 

Financing capital improvements at the 

airport will not rely solely on the 

financial resources of the airport. 

Capital improvement funding is 

available through various grant-in-aid 

programs on both the state and federal 

levels. The following discussion 

outlines key sources of funding 

6-8 

potentially available for capital 

improvements at Mesquite Metro 

Airport. 

FEDERAL GRANTS 

Through federal legislation over the 

years, various grant-in-aid programs 

have been established to develop and 

maintain a system of public airports 

across the United States. The purpose 

of this system and its federally-based 

funding is to maintain national defense 

and to promote interstate commerce. 

The most recent legislation affecting 

federal funding was enacted in late 

2003 and is entitled, Century of 

Aviation Reauthorization Act, or Vision 

100. 

The four-year bill covers FAA fiscal 

years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. This 

bill presented similar funding levels to 

the previous bill - Air 21. Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) funding 

was authorized at $3.4 billion in 2004, 

$3.5 billion in 2005, $3.6 billion in 2006, 

and $3.7 billion in 2007. This new bill 

provides the FAA and, ultimately, 

TxDOT the opportunity to plan for 

longer term projects versus simple oneyear 

reauthorizations. 

The source for Vision 100 funds is the 

Aviation Trust Fund. The Aviation 

Trust Fund was established in 1970 to 

provide funding for aviation capital 

investment programs (aviation 

development, facilities and equipment, 

and research and development). The 

Aviation Trust Fund also finances the 

operation of the FAA. It is funded by

user fees, taxes on airline tickets, 

aviation fuel, and various aircraft parts. 

Funds are distributed each year by the 

FAA from appropriations by Congress. 

A portion of the annual distribution is 

to primary commercial service airports 

based upon enplanement (passenger) 

levels. If Congress appropriates the full 

amount authorized by Vision 100, 

eligible general aviation airports could 

receive up to $150,000 of funding each 

year in Non-Primary Entitlement 

(NPE) funds (National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems [NPIAS] 

inclusion is required for general 

aviation entitlement funding). In the 

first three years of the program under 

AIR-21, Mesquite Metro Airport was 

eligible for and received the full 

$150,000 in NPE funds. When the 

NPIAS was updated in 2005, it only 

included $333,333 in improvements for 

Mesquite Metro Airport for the next five 

years. This means that for FY 05 and 

until the NPIAS is updated again in 

2009, Mesquite Metro Airport is only 

eligible for $66,667 annually. 

The remaining AIP funds are 

distributed by the FAA based upon the 

priority of the project for which they 

have requested federal assistance 

through discretionary apportionments. 

A National Priority Ranking System is 

used to evaluate and rank each airport 

project. Those projects with the highest 

priority are given preference in funding. 

The state’s federal funding allotment 

must be distributed to many airports 

each year. As a result, TxDOT will 

typically limit the size of grants given to 

a single airport sponsor to ensure 

adequate funding for the state airport 

6-9 

system as a whole. Thus, the costs of 

implementing the runway extension 

may require the City to attract 

discretionary funding assistance. 

STATE FUNDING PROGRAM 

The State of Texas participates in the 

federal State Block Grant Program. 

Under the State Block Grant Program, 

the FAA annually distributes general 

aviation state apportionment and 

discretionary funds to TxDOT. The 

state then distributes grants to state 

airports. In compliance with TxDOT’s 

legislative mandate that it “apply for, 

receive, and disburse” federal funds for 

general aviation airports, TxDOT acts 

as the agent of the local airport sponsor. 

Although these grants are distributed 

by TxDOT, they contain all federal 

obligations. 

The State of Texas also distributes 

funding to general aviation airports 

from the Highway Trust Fund as the 

Texas Aviation Facilities Development 

Program. These funds are appropriated 

each year by the state legislature. Once 

distributed, these grants contain state 

obligations only. 

The establishment of a CIP for the state 

entails first identifying the need, then 

establishing a ranking or priority 

system. Identifying all state airport 

project needs allows TxDOT to establish 

a biennial program and budget for 

development costs. The most recent 

TxDOT CIP, Aviation Improvement 

Program 2006-2008, assumed that 

approximately $22 million in annual 

federal AIP grants, which includes $17

million earmarked for Non-Primary 

Entitlements and $15 million in state 

funds, would be available. 

The TxDOT biennial program 

establishes a project priority system 

based upon the following objectives (in 

order of importance): 

! enhance safety 

! preserve existing facilities 

! bring airport up to standards 

! upgrade facilities to aid airport in 

providing for larger aircraft with 

longer stage lengths 

! improve airport capacity 

! new airport construction to provide 

new access to a previously unserved 

area 

! new airports to provide capacity 

relief to existing airports 

Each airport project for Mesquite Metro 

Airport must be identified and 

programmed into the state CIP and 

compete with other airport projects in 

the state for federal and state funds. In 

Texas, airport development projects 

that meet TxDOT’s discretionary funds 

eligibility requirements receive 90 

percent funding from the AIP State 

Block Grant Program. Eligible projects 

include airfield and apron facilities. 

Historically, revenue-generating 

improvements such as fuel facilities, 

utilities, and hangars have not been 

eligible for AIP funding. Vision 100, 

however, provides the allowance for 

NPE funds to be utilized for hangar or 

fuel farm construction if all other 

airfield needs have been addressed. 

6-10 

TxDOT has also established the RAMP 

to help general aviation airports 

maintain and, in some circumstances, 

construct new facilities. The program 

was initially designed to help airports 

maintain airside and landside 

pavements, but has recently been 

expanded to include construction of new 

facilities. RAMP is an annual funding 

source in which TxDOT will provide a 

50 percent funding match for projects 

up to $60,000. Examples of new facility 

construction projects eligible under 

RAMP include constructing airport 

access roads, paving the airport public 

parking lot, and hangar maintenance. 

Newer programs in the TxDOT funding 

mechanism include terminal building 

and airport traffic control tower (ATCT) 

funding. TxDOT has funded terminal 

building construction on a 50-50 basis, 

up to a $600,000 total project cost. It 

should be noted that TxDOT has 

recently considered upgrading the total 

cost allowance on a case-by-case basis. 

The airport is already served by a 

terminal building; however, this 

program could be used to expand the 

existing facility when additional space 

is needed. 

TxDOT also funds the construction of 

up to two ATCTs statewide per year. 

TxDOT has recently improved the 

program so that ATCT funding could be 

provided on a 90-10 basis, up to a total 

construction cost of $1.67 million. The 

construction of an ATCT planned for 

Mesquite Metro Airport is in the short 

term CIP.

FAA FACILITIES AND 

EQUIPMENT PROGRAM 

The Airway Facilities Division of the 

FAA administers the national Facilities 

and Equipment (F&E) Program. This 

annual program provides funding for 

the installation and maintenance of 

various navigational aids and 

equipment for the national airspace 

system and airports. Under the F&E 

program, funding is provided for FAA 

airport traffic control towers, enroute 

navigational aids (such as a VOR), and 

on-airport navigational aids (such as 

REILs and approach lighting systems). 

As activity levels and other 

developments warrant, the airport may 

be considered by the FAA Airways 

Facilities Division for the installation 

and maintenance of navigational aids 

through the F&E program. 

FINANCING OF 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

Earlier in this chapter, programmed 

expenditures were presented in current 

(2005) dollars. Future expenditures 

were categorized according to assigned 

financing responsibilities, with the 

airport’s responsible expenditures the 

primary focus of these feasibility 

analyses. In this section, the base costs, 

assumed to be the financing 

responsibility of the airport, are 

adjusted to reflect availability to 

determine the projected local share of 

these proposed capital expenditures in 

current dollars. Financing assumptions 

are then made, and the projected 

annual airport cost of these planned 

expenditures is estimated for 

6-11 

incorporation into the cash flow 

analysis. 

At the outset, it must be emphasized 

that long term feasibility analyses such 

as these must be based on many 

assumptions. In practice, projects will 

be undertaken when demand actually 

warrants, thus changing underlying 

assumptions. Further, the actual 

financing of capital expenditures will be 

a function of airport circumstances at 

the time of project implementation (i.e., 

revenue bond financing would likely not 

be used unless the actual level of 

airport earnings and reserves, along 

with entitlement and discretionary 

grants available at a particular time, 

were insufficient to meet project costs). 

As a result, the assumptions and 

analyses prepared for the master plan 

must be viewed in the context of their 

primary purpose: to examine whether 

there is a reasonable expectation that 

recommended improvements will be 

financially feasible and implementable. 

The balance of project costs, after 

consideration has been given to the 

various grants available, must be 

funded through airport resources. 

Usually, this is accomplished through 

the use of airport earnings and reserves, 

to the extent possible, with the 

remaining costs financed through 

obligation bonding mechanisms. 

The airport is owned and operated by 

the City of Mesquite through the 

collection of various rates and charges 

from general aviation sources. There 

are, however, restrictions on the use of 

revenues collected by the airport. All 

receipts, excluding bond proceeds or

elated grants and interest, are 

irrevocably pledged to the punctual 

payment of operating and maintenance 

expenses, payment of debt service for as 

long as bonds remain outstanding, or to 

additions or improvements to airport 

facilities. Table 6B presents historical 

expenses and revenues for Mesquite 


OPERATING REVENUES 

Operating revenues at Mesquite Metro 

Airport include land leases, hangar 

6-12 

rentals, fuel sales, and other income. 

As shown on Table 6B, revenues for the 

previous five years have been exceeded 

by operational expenditures. It should 

be noted that operating revenues do not 

include grants received or transfers-in 

from other City departments. There is 

an annual subsidy to the airport from 

the City to offset annual deficits. The 

subsidy has been on average $125,000, 

but only $78,100 last year. 

TABLE 6B 

Historical Operating Revenues and Expenditures 


ITEM 

OPERATING REVENUES 

FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 

Hangar Rental $132,934 $118,167 $76,048 $148,043 $194,890 

Tie-Downs 9,152 8,509 8,216 9,389 9,700 

Fuel Sales 355,270 351,356 330,072 404,577 479,719 

Lease Receipts 21,759 23,706 34,952 34,494 27,542 

Other Revenue 9,575 12,645 12,018 13,982 16,664 

Equipment Auction 371 0 0 0 0 

Total Operating Revenues 

OPERATING EXPENSES 

$529,061 $514,383 $461,306 $610,485 $728,515 

Personnel Services $270,784 $264,202 $248,651 $239,267 $252,368 

Contractual Services 119,012 128,093 134,926 143,990 189,304 

Fuel 245,014 224,986 232,235 282,214 361,981 

Supplies 17,415 17,684 12,931 21,237 23,283 

Transfer Debt Service 12,175 12,175 12,175 6,088 45,100 

Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment 0 0 0 3,415 2,265 

Total Operating Expenses $664,400 $647,140 $640,918 $696,211 $874,301 

Net Operating Income/(Loss) ($135,339) ($132,757) ($179,612) ($85,726) ($145,786) 

Subsidy from City of Mesquite $125,000 $125,000 $160,000 $125,000 $78,100 

The largest revenue center by far for 

the airport is fuel sales. In fact, fuel 

sales total nearly 66 percent of the 

airport’s total annual revenues. The 

City is the only fuel retailer on the 

airport. Hangar and building rentals 

represent the next largest revenue 

source for the airport, accounting for 

approximately 27 percent of the 

airport’s total annual revenues. Hangar 

rentals vary in price depending on the 

type of facility. For example, single-

engine T-hangars with 40-foot to 42-foot 

door openings rent from $195 per month 

to $301 per month. Hangars with 

larger doors rent between $235 per 

month to $385 per month. 

Lease receipts are obtained from those 

who lease City-owned buildings/hangars 

or have built private hangars with land 

leases. The typical lease rate is $0.08 

per square-foot per year. Tie-down 

charges are $55 per month. The 

remaining revenue sources are from 

miscellaneous fees/charges. 

OPERATING EXPENSES 

Generalized operating expenses for 

Mesquite Metro Airport include 

personnel services, contractual services, 

wholesale fuel, supplies, debt 

service/amortization, and furniture, 

fixtures, and equipment. Fuel is the 

largest cost center for the airport, with 

personnel services being second, at 

nearly half as much. Personnel services 

include payments for professional 

airport administration and fuel line 

support. 

Contractual services include payments 

made to contractors to maintain airport 

navigational aids and storm water runoff 

and airport utility costs. Supplies 

generally include miscellaneous items 

including professional memberships, 

subscriptions, etc. 

As is evident from the table, the airport 

has not generally maintained a positive 

operational income over the last five 

years. The existing revenues do not 

generally meet operational costs. 

6-13 

Airports similar to Mesquite Metro 

Airport typically do not maintain a 

positive operating income. It should 

always be a goal of a general aviation 

airport to be self-sufficient and 

hopefully generate a positive cash flow. 

The following section will discuss 

opportunities available for the airport to 

increase its revenues, over time, to 

achieve these goals. 

FUTURE CASH FLOW 

Revenues 

Revenues are anticipated to continue to 

grow with aviation activity. As more 

aircraft base at the airport, revenues 

from hangar rentals and fuel sales will 

increase proportionately. Revenues will 

also be bolstered by transient aircraft 

activity that increases fuel sales, and 

aviation business that can result in 

additional lease revenues for the 

airport. Commission fees are a service 

charge that the airport collects from 

FBOs based on the sale of certain 

products and services. Currently, there 

are no FBO commission fees collected; 

however, this is a possible revenue 

source as more businesses locate at the 


As previously mentioned, existing 

airport revenues are derived from 

leases, hangar and building rentals, and 

fuel sales. Future revenue projections 

considered slightly increasing current 

fee rates for existing hangar and land 

leases. It is planned that future 

conventional and executive hangar 

construction will be by private entities. 

The plan considers T-hangar

development by the City. New hangar 

and ground leases will need to be 

established in such a manner that the 

City will be able to amortize its 

development costs over a reasonable 

time period. At the current time, land 

lease rates are $0.08 per square-foot per 

year. This rate could be increased to 

$0.20 per square-foot per year and be in 

line with other airports due to utility 

availability. 

Should the City decide to construct Thangar 

facilities, costs can generally 

equal $30,000 per unit. Thus, a 20-unit 

T-hangar could cost as much as 

$600,000 to construct. To retire the 

bond debt service for the construction of 

a 20-unit facility over a 15-year period 

at a six percent interest rate, individual 

hangar rates would need to be at least 

$200 per month. This does not include 

the construction of additional taxilane 

access to the hangars. T-hangar 

taxilanes, however, may be funded at 90 

percent by TxDOT (state or federal 

grants-in-aid). 

If the City does not construct the 

proposed hangar facilities, the City’s 

only capital cost would be 10 percent of 

the taxilane construction (the 

remaining 90 percent would come from 

federal or state grants). The City has 

been open to the development of 

privately-owned hangars in the past. 

Privately-owned facilities offer the City 

significant savings. 

Mesquite Metro Airport also has a 

unique opportunity to generate greater 

revenue through the development of 

commercial uses on airport property. 

The proposed acquisition of the 80-acre 

6-14 

parcel west of the airport could support 

commercial business operations. These 

uses can generate lease rates of up to 

$0.30 per square-foot per year. 

Cash flow projections indicate future 

revenues should rise at a greater rate 

than expenses. The analysis presents 

average annual projections for each 

planning horizon. As presented in 

Table 6C, the City should be capable of 

obtaining sufficient operating revenues 

to offset expenses. Revenue and 

expense projections have been made for 

the end of each planning horizon. Thus, 

each planning horizon considers the 

facilities and services required to meet 

demand requirements. 

Expenses 

Future expenses could vary depending 

upon the City’s desire to develop, 

operate, and maintain additional 

hangars. Similarly, future expenses 

could be higher if the City develops onairport 

commercial properties. It is 

likely that revenue bonds would be 

necessary to fund this construction. 

Also, the City could expect maintenance 

costs and administrative costs 

associated with operating the facilities. 

As the airport continues to grow, 

additional employees may ultimately be 

needed. Most successful general 

aviation airports have at least one fulltime 

airport manager. Often, the 

airport staff can include up to ten 

employees. Mesquite Metro Airport’s 

future staffing requirements could 

reach seven employees over the long 

term. Potential airport employees could

include a full-time airport manager, an 

operations manager, a full-time 

administrative assistant, and up to four 

maintenance/line operator personnel. 

It should be noted that proposed capital 

improvements may at times exceed the 

City’s ability to fund them from general 

funds. Thus, debt service (contractual) 

obligations will likely continue through 

6-15 

the long term planning horizon. 

Projects which may require bonding and 

subsequent debt service expense include 

projects associated with the extension of 

Runway 17-35, hangar construction (if 

the City chooses to construct Thangars), 

and infra-structure 

improvements to the south terminal 

area. Future cash flow analysis is 

presented in Table 6C. 

TABLE 6C 

Projected Operating Revenues and Expenditures (Annual Averages) 


Item 

Operating Revenues 

Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term 

Hangar Rental $376,790 $472,070 $634,560 

Tie-Downs 9,230 9,650 10,200 

Fuel Sales 693,490 864,530 1,149,890 

Lease Receipts 29,190 36,330 44,860 

Other Revenue 23,120 25,280 28,270 

Total Operating Revenues 

Operating Expenses 

$1,131,820 $1,407,860 $1,867,780 

Personnel Services $333,750 $381,350 $451,470 

Contractual Services 155,710 170,240 190,360 

Fuel 515,610 615,490 772,060 

Supplies 24,730 26,440 28,740 

Transfer Debt Service 126,020 171,020 236,380 

Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment 2,030 2,120 2,240 

Total Operating Expenses 

Net Average Annual Operating 

$1,157,850 $1,366,660 $1,681,250 

Income/(Loss) ($26,030) $41,200 $186,530 

SUMMARY 

The best means to begin the 

implementation of the recommendations 

in this master plan is to first 

recognize that planning is a continuous 

process that does not end with 

completion and approval of this 

document. Rather, the ability to 

continuously monitor the existing and 

forecast status of airport activity must 

be provided and maintained. The issues 

upon which this master plan is based 

will remain valid for a number of years. 

The primary goal is for the airport to 

evolve into a facility that will best serve 

the air transportation needs of the 

region and become a self-supporting 

economic generator for the City of 


The actual need for facilities is most 

appropriately established by airport 

activity levels rather than a specified 

date. For example, projections have 

been made as to when additional

hangars may be needed at the airport. 

In reality, however, the timeframe in 

which the development is needed may 

be substantially different. Actual 

demand may be slower to develop than 

expected. On the other hand, high 

levels of demand may establish the need 

to accelerate the development. 

Although every effort has been made in 

this master planning process to conservatively 

estimate when facility 

development may be needed, aviation 

demand will dictate when facility 

improvements need to be delayed or 

accelerated. 

The real value of a usable master plan 

is in keeping the issues and objectives 

in the minds of the managers and 

decision-makers so that they are better 

able to recognize change and its effect. 

In addition to adjustments in aviation 

demand, decisions made as to when to 

6-16 

undertake the improvements 

recommended in this master plan will 

impact the period that the plan remains 

valid. The format used in this plan is 

intended to reduce the need for formal 

and costly updates by simply adjusting 

the timing. Updating can be done by 

the manager, thereby improving the 

plan’s effectiveness. 

In summary, the planning process 

requires the City of Mesquite to 

consistently monitor the progress of the 

airport in terms of aircraft operations 

and based aircraft. Analysis of aircraft 

demand is critical to the timing and 

need for new airport facilities. The 

information obtained from continually 

monitoring airport activity will provide 

the data necessary to determine if the 

development schedule should be 

accelerated or decelerated.

Appendix A 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

A 

Appendix 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 


ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE 

AVAILABLE (ASDA): see declared distances. 

AIR CARRIER: an operator which: (1) 

performs at least five round trips per 

week between two or more points and 

publishes flight schedules which specify 

the times, days of the week, and places 

between which such flights are performed; 

or (2) transport mail by air 

pursuant to a current contract with the 

U.S. Postal Service. Certified in accordance 

with Federal Aviation Regulation 

(FAR) Parts 121 and 127. 

AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): a 

coding system used to relate airport 

design criteria to the operational (Aircraft 

Approach Category) to the physical characteristics 

(Airplane Design Group) of the 

airplanes intended to operate at the airport. 

AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): 

The latitude and longitude of the approximate 

center of the airport. 

AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest 

point on an airport’s usable runway 

expressed in feet above mean sea level 

(MSL). 

AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): 

The drawing of the airport showing the 

layout of existing and proposed airport 

facilities. 

A-1 

AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: a 

grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times the 

stall speed in their landing configuration 

at their maximum certificated landing 

weight. The categories are as follows: 

• Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. 

• Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, 


• Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, 


• Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, 


• Category E: Speed greater than 166 

knots. 

AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): a 

grouping of aircraft based upon 

wingspan. The groups are as follows: 

• Group I: Up to but not including 49 

feet. 

• Group II: 49 feet up to but not 


• Group III: 79 feet up to but not 


• Group IV: 118 feet up to but not 


• Group V: 171 feet up to but not 


• Group VI: 214 feet or greater. 

AIR TAXI: An air carrier certificated in 

accordance with FAR Part 135 and authorized 

to provide, on demand, public 

transportation of persons and property by 

aircraft. Generally operates small aircraft 

“for hire” for specific trips. 


www.coffmanassociates.com

AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL 

TOWER (ATCT): a central operations 

facility in the terminal air traffic control 

system, consisting of a tower, including 

an associated instrument flight rule (IFR) 

room if radar equipped, using air/ground 

communications and/or radar, visual signaling, 

and other devices to provide safe 

and expeditious movement of terminal air 

traffic. 

AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CEN- 

TER (ARTCC): a facility established to 

provide air traffic control service to aircraft 

operating on an IFR flight plan 

within controlled airspace and principally 

during the enroute phase of flight. 

ALERT AREA: see special-use airspace. 

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH 

(AIA): an approach to an airport with the 

intent to land by an aircraft in accordance 

with an IFR flight plan when visibility is 

less than three miles and/or when the 

ceiling is at or below the minimum initial 

approach altitude. 

APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM 

(ALS): an airport lighting facility which 

provides visual guidance to landing aircraft 

by radiating light beams by which 

the pilot aligns the aircraft with the 

extended centerline of the runway on his 

final approach and landing. 

APPROACH MINIMUMS: the altitude 

below which an aircraft may not descend 

while on an IFR approach unless the pilot 

has the runway in sight. 

AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER 

(ADF): an aircraft radio navigation system 

which senses and indicates the 

A-2 

direction to a non-directional radio beacon 

(NDB) ground transmitter. 

AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVA- 

TION STATION (AWOS): equipment 

used to automatically record weather conditions 

(i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind 

speed and direction, temperature, dewpoint, 

etc...) 

AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMA- 

TION SERVICE (ATIS): the continuous 

broadcast of recorded non-control information 

at towered airports. Information 

typically includes wind speed, direction, 

and runway in use. 

AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction 

expressed as the angular distance 

between true north and the direction of a 

fixed point (as the observer’s heading). 

BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles 

to the landing runway off its approach 

end. The base leg normally extends from 

the downwind leg to the intersection of 

the extended runway centerline. See “traffic 

pattern.” 

BEARING: the horizontal direction to or 

from any point, usually measured clockwise 

from true north or magnetic north. 

BLAST FENCE: a barrier used to divert 

or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash. 

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): 

A line which identifies suitable building 

area locations on the airport. 

CIRCLING APPROACH: a maneuver 

initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft 

with the runway for landing when flying 



a predetermined circling instrument 

approach under IFR. 

CLASS A AIRSPACE: see Controlled 

Airspace. 

CLASS B AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. 

CLASS C AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. 

CLASS D AIRSPACE: see Controlled 

Airspace. 

CLASS E AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace. 

CLASS G AIRSPACE: see Controlled 

Airspace. 

CLEAR ZONE: see Runway Protection 

Zone. 

CROSSWIND: wind flow that is not parallel 

to the runway of the flight path of an 

aircraft. 

COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): a low 

power, low/medium frequency radiobeacon 

installed in conjunction with the 

instrument landing system at one or two 

of the marker sites. 

CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: airspace of 

defined dimensions within which air traffic 

control services are provided to 

instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual 

flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance 

with the airspace classification. Controlled 

airspace in the United States is 

designated as follows: 

A-3 

• CLASS A: generally, the airspace from 

18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to 

but not including flight level FL600. 

All persons must operate their aircraft 

under IFR. 

• CLASS B: generally, the airspace from 

the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding 

the nation’s busiest airports. 

The configuration of Class B airspace is 

unique to each airport, but typically 

consists of two or more layers of air 

space and is designed to contain all 

published instrument approach procedures 

to the airport. An air traffic 

control clearance is required for all aircraft 

to operate in the area. 

• CLASS C: generally, the airspace from 

the surface to 4,000 feet above the air 

port elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding 

those airports that have an 

operational control tower and radar 

approach control and are served by a 

qualifying number of IFR operations 

or passenger enplanements. Although 

individually tailored for each airport, 

Class C airspace typically consists of a 

surface area with a five nautical mile 

(nm) radius and an outer area with a 10 

nautical mile radius that extends from 

1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport 

elevation. Two-way radio communication 

is required for all aircraft. 

• CLASS D: generally, that airspace from 

the surface to 2,500 feet above the air 

port elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding 

those airport that have an 

operational control tower. Class D air 

space is individually tailored and configured 

to encompass published instrument 

approach procedures. 

Unless otherwise authorized, all 



persons must establish two-way radio 

communication. 

• CLASS E: generally, controlled airspace 

that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or 

D. Class E airspace extends upward 

from either the surface or a designated 

altitude to the overlying or adjacent 

controlled airspace. When designated 

as a surface area, the airspace will be 

configured to contain all instrument 

procedures. Class E airspace encompasses 

all Victor Airways. Only aircraft 

following instrument flight rules are 

required to establish two-way radio 

communication with air traffic control. 

• CLASS G: generally, that airspace not 

classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E. 

Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all 

aircraft. Class G airspace extends from 

the surface to the overlying Class E 

airspace. 

FL 600 

18,000 MSL 

14,500 

MSL 

CLASS CLASS G 

G 

Nontowered 

Airport 

700 

AGL 

CLASS G 

CLASS B 

40 n.m. 

30 n.m. 

20 n.m. 

12 n.m. 

CLASS A 

CLASS E 

LEGEND 

AGL - Above Ground Level 

FL - Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet 

MSL - Mean Sea Level 

CLASS G 

NOT TO SCALE 

Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting 

Changes for VFR Products," National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Ocean Service. Chart adapted 

by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, 

January 1993. 

CLASS C 

20 n.m. 

10 n.m. 

CLASS G 

Nontowered 

1,200 Airport 

AGL 

CLASS D 

10 mi. 

CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: see special-use 

airspace. 

A-4 

CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right 

angles to the landing runway off its 

upwind end. See “traffic pattern.” 

DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances 

declared available for the airplane’s takeoff 

runway, takeoff distance, acceleratestop 

distance, and landing distance 

requirements. The distances are: 

• TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE 

(TORA): The runway length declared 

available and suitable for the ground 

run of an airplane taking off; 

• TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE 

(TODA): The TORA plus the length of 

any remaining runway and/or clear 

way beyond the far end of the TORA; 

• ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE 

AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus 

stopway length declared available for 

the acceleration and deceleration of an 

aircraft aborting a takeoff; and 

• LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE 

(LDA): The runway length declared 

available and suitable for landing. 

DISPLACED THRESHOLD: a threshold 

that is located at a point on the runway 

other than the designated beginning of 

the runway. 

D I S T A N C E 

MEASURING 

EQUIPMENT 

(DME): Equipment 

(airborne and 

ground) used to 

measure, in nautical 

miles, the slant range 

1NM 

2 NM 

3 NM 



distance of an aircraft from the DME navigational 

aid. 

DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in 

A-weighted decibels, obtained after the 

addition of ten decibels to sound levels 

for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7 

a.m. as averaged over a span of one year. 

It is the FAA standard metric for determining 

the cumulative exposure of 

individuals to noise. 

DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel 

to the landing runway in the direction 

opposite to landing. The downwind leg 

normally extends between the crosswind 

leg and the base leg. Also see “traffic pattern.” 

EASEMENT: The legal right of one party 

to use a portion of the total rights in real 

estate owned by another party. This may 

include the right of passage over, on, or 

below the property; certain air rights 

above the property, including view rights; 

and the rights to any specified form of 

development or activity, as well as any 

other legal rights in the property that may 

be specified in the easement document. 

ENPLANED PASSENGERS: the total 

number of revenue passengers boarding 

aircraft, including originating, stop-over, 

and transfer passengers, in scheduled and 

non-scheduled services. 

FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the 

direction of landing along the extended 

runway centerline. The final approach 

normally extends from the base leg to the 

runway. See “traffic pattern.” 

A-5 

FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A 

provider of services to users of an airport. 

Such services include, but are not limited 

to, hangaring, fueling, flight training, 

repair, and maintenance. 

FRANGIBLE NAVAID: a navigational 

aid which retains its structural integrity 

and stiffness up to a designated maximum 

load, but on impact from a greater 

load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a 

manner as to present the minimum hazard 

to aircraft. 

GENERAL AVIATION: that portion of 

civil aviation which encompasses all 

facets of aviation except air carriers holding 

a certificate of convenience and 

necessity, and large aircraft commercial 

operators. 

GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical 

guidance for aircraft during approach and 

landing. The glideslope consists of the following: 

1. Electronic components emitting signals 

which provide vertical guidance by 

reference to airborne instruments 

during instrument approaches such as 

ILS; or 

2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI, 

which provide vertical guidance for 

VFR approach or for the visual portion 

of an instrument approach and 

landing. 

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM: 

See “GPS.” 

GPS - GLOBAL POSITIONING SYS- 

TEM: A system of 24 satellites 



used as reference points to enable navigators 

equipped with GPS receivers to 

determine their latitude, longitude, and 

altitude. 

HELIPAD: a designated area for the 

takeoff, landing, and parking of helicopters. 

HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: a long 

radius taxiway designed to expedite aircraft 

turning off the runway after 

landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus 

reducing runway occupancy time. 

INSTRUMENT APPROACH: A series 

of predetermined maneuvers for the 

orderly transfer of an aircraft under 

instrument flight conditions from the 

beginning of the initial approach to a 

landing, or to a point from which a 

landing may be made visually. 

INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR): 

Rules governing the procedures for conducting 

instrument flight. Also a term 

used by pilots and controllers to indicate 

type of flight plan. 

INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM 

(ILS): A precision instrument approach 

system which normally consists of the 

following electronic components and 

visual aids: 

1. Localizer. 4. Middle Marker. 

2. Glide Slope. 5. Approach Lights. 

3. Outer Marker. 

LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE 

(LDA): see declared distances. 

LOCAL TRAFFIC: aircraft operating in 

the traffic pattern or within sight of the 

A-6 

tower, or aircraft known to be departing 

or arriving from the local practice areas, 

or aircraft executing practice instrument 

approach procedures. Typically, this 

includes touch-and-go training operations. 

LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS 

which provides course guidance to the 

runway. 

LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL 

AID (LDA): a facility of comparable 

utility and accuracy to a localizer, but is 

not part of a complete ILS and is not 

aligned with the runway. 

LORAN: long range navigation, an electronic 

navigational aid which 

determines aircraft position and speed 

by measuring the difference in the time 

of reception of synchronized pulse signals 

from two fixed transmitters. Loran 

is used for enroute navigation. 

MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM 

(MLS): an instrument approach and 

landing system that provides precision 

guidance in azimuth, elevation, and distance 

measurement. 

MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA 

(MOA): see special-use airspace. 

MISSED APPROACH COURSE 

(MAC): The flight route to be followed 

if, after an instrument approach, a landing 

is not affected, and occurring 

normally: 

1. When the aircraft has descended to 

the decision height and has not 

established visual contact; or 



2. When directed by air traffic control to 

pull up or to go around again. 

MOVEMENT AREA: the runways, 

taxiways, and other areas of an airport 

which are utilized for taxiing/hover 

taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing 

of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps 

and parking areas. At those airports 

with a tower, air traffic control clearance 

is required for entry onto the movement 

area. 

NAVAID: a term used to describe any 

electrical or visual air navigational aids, 

lights, signs, and associated supporting 

equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc..) 

NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line 

on a map of the airport vicinity connecting 

all points of the same noise 

exposure level. 

NONDIRECTIONAL BEACON 

(NDB): A beacon transmitting nondirectional 

signals whereby the pilot of an 

aircraft equipped with direction finding 

equipment can determine his or her 

bearing to and from the radio beacon 

and home on, or track to, the station. 

When the radio beacon is installed in 

conjunction with the Instrument Landing 

System marker, it is normally called 

a Compass Locator. 

NONPRECISION APPROACH PRO- 

CEDURE: a standard instrument 

approach procedure in which no electronic 

glide slope is provided, such as 

VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC. 

OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): an area on 

the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, 

or taxilane centerline provided to 

A-7 

enhance the safety of aircraft operations 

by having the area free of objects, except 

for objects that need to be located in the 

OFA for air navigation or aircraft 

ground maneuvering purposes. 

OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): the 

airspace below 150 feet above the established 

airport elevation and along the 

runway and extended runway centerline 

that is required to be kept clear of 

all objects, except for frangible visual 

NAVAIDs that need to be located in the 

OFZ because of their function, in order 

to provide clearance for aircraft landing 

or taking off from the runway, and for 

missed approaches. 

OPERATION: a take-off or a landing. 

OUTER MARKER (OM): an ILS navigation 

facility in the terminal area 

navigation system located four to seven 

miles from the runway edge on the 

extended centerline indicating to the 

pilot, that he/she is passing over the 

facility and can begin final approach. 

PRECISION APPROACH: a standard 

instrument approach procedure which 

provides runway alignment and glide 

slope (descent) information. It is categorized 

as follows: 

• CATEGORY I (CAT I): a precision 

approach which provides for 

approaches with a decision height of 

not less than 200 feet and visibility 

not less than 1/2 mile or Runway 

Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800) 

with operative touchdown zone and 

runway centerline lights. 



• CATEGORY II (CAT II): a precision 


approaches with a decision height of 

not less than 100 feet and visibility 

not less than 1200 feet RVR. 

• CATEGORY III (CAT III): a precision 


approaches with minima less than 

Category II. 

PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDI- 

CATOR (PAPI): A lighting system 

providing visual approach slope guidance 

to aircraft during a landing 

approach. It is similar to a VASI but provides 

a sharper transition between the 

colored indicator lights. 

PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA 

(POFA): an area centered on the extended 

runway centerline, beginning at the 

runway threshold and extending behind 

the runway threshold that is 200 feet 

long by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a 

clearing standard which requires the 

POFA to be kept clear of above ground 

objects protruding above the runway 

safety area edge elevation (except for 

frangible NAVAIDS). The POFA applies 

to all new authorized instrument 

approach procedures with less than 3/4 

mile visibility. 

PROHIBITED AREA: see special-use 

airspace. 

REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUT- 

LET (RCO): an unstaffed transmitter 

receiver/facility remotely controlled by 

air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight 

service stations (FSSs). RCOs were 

established to provide ground-toground 

communications between air 

A-8 

traffic control specialists and pilots at 

satellite airports for delivering enroute 

clearances, issuing departure authorizations, 

and acknowledging instrument 

flight rules cancellations or 

departure/landing times. 

REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER 

(RTR): see remote communications outlet. 

RTRs serve ARTCCs. 

RELIEVER AIRPORT: an airport to 

serve general aviation aircraft which 

might otherwise use a congested air-carrier 

served airport. 

RESTRICTED AREA: see special-use 

airspace. 

RNAV: area navigation - airborne 

equipment which permits flights over 

determined tracks within prescribed 

accuracy tolerances without the need to 

overfly ground-based navigation facilities. 

Used enroute and for approaches 

to an airport. 

RUNWAY: a defined rectangular area 

on an airport prepared for aircraft landing 

and takeoff. Runways are normally 

numbered in relation to their magnetic 

direction, rounded off to the nearest 10 

degrees. For example, a runway with a 

magnetic heading of 180 would be designated 

Runway 18. The runway 

heading on the opposite end of the runway 

is 180 degrees from that runway 

end. For example, the opposite runway 

heading for Runway 18 would be Runway 

36 (magnetic heading of 360). 

Aircraft can takeoff or land from either 

end of a runway, depending upon wind 

direction. 



RUNWAY BLAST PAD: a surface adjacent 

to the ends of runways provided to 

reduce the erosive effect of jet blast and 

propeller wash. 

RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS 

(REIL): Two synchronized flashing 

lights, one on each side of the runway 

threshold, which provide rapid and positive 

identification of the approach end 

of a particular runway. 

RUNWAY GRADIENT: the average 

slope, measured in percent, between the 

two ends of a runway. 

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 

(RPZ): An area off the runway end to 

enhance the protection of people and 

property on the ground. The RPZ is 

trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are 

determined by the aircraft approach 

speed and runway approach type and 

minima. 

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): a 

defined surface surrounding the runway 

prepared or suitable for reducing 

the risk of damage to airplanes in the 

event of an undershoot, overshoot, or 

excursion from the runway. 

RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): an 

instrumentally derived value, in feet, 

representing the horizontal distance a 

pilot can see down the runway from the 

runway end. 

RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): 

an area on the airport to be kept clear of 

permanent objects so that there is an 

unobstructed line-of-site from any point 

five feet above the runway centerline to 

A-9 

any point five feet above an intersecting 

runway centerline. 

SEGMENTED CIRCLE: a system of 

visual indicators designed to provide 

traffic pattern information at airports 

without operating control towers. 

SHOULDER: an area adjacent to the 

edge of paved runways, taxiways or 

aprons providing a transition between 

the pavement and the adjacent surface; 

support for aircraft running off the 

pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast 

protection. The shoulder does not necessarily 

need to be paved. 

SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: The 

straight line distance between an aircraft 

and a point on the ground. 

SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: airspace of 

defined dimensions identified by a surface 

area wherein activities must be 

confined because of their nature and/or 

wherein limitations may be imposed 

upon aircraft operations that are not a 

part of those activities. Special-use airspace 

classifications include: 

• ALERT AREA: airspace which may 

contain a high volume of pilot 

training activities or an unusual type 

of aerial activity, neither of which is 

hazardous to aircraft. 

• CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: airspace 

wherein activities are 

conducted under conditions so 

controlled as to eliminate hazards to 

nonparticipating aircraft and to 

ensure the safety of persons or 

property on the ground. 



• MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA 

(MOA): designated airspace with 

defined vertical and lateral dimensions 

established outside Class A 

airspace to separate/segregate certain 

military activities from instrument 

flight rule (IFR) traffic and to identify 

for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic 

where these activities are conducted. 

• PROHIBITED AREA: designated airspace 

within which the flight of 

aircraft is prohibited. 

• RESTRICTED AREA: airspace designated 

under Federal Aviation 

Regulation (FAR) 73, within which 

the flight of aircraft, while not wholly 

prohibited, is subject to restriction. 

Most restricted areas are designated 

joint use. When not in use by the 

using agency, IFR/VFR operations 

can be authorized by the controlling 

air traffic control facility. 

• WARNING AREA: airspace which 

may contain hazards to nonparticipating 

aircraft. 

STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPAR- 

TURE (SID): a preplanned coded air 

traffic control IFR departure routing, 

preprinted for pilot use in graphic and 

textual form only. 

STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL 

(STAR): a preplanned coded air traffic 

control IFR arrival routing, preprinted 

for pilot use in graphic and textual or 

textual form only. 

STOP-AND-GO: a procedure wherein 

an aircraft will land, make a complete 

stop on the runway, and then commence 

a takeoff from that point. A stop-and-go 

is recorded as two operations: one 

A-10 

operation for the landing and one operation 

for the takeoff. 

STRAIGHT-IN LANDING/APPROACH: 

a landing made on a runway aligned 

within 30 degrees of the final approach 

course following completion of an 

instrument approach. 

TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION 

(TACAN): An ultra-high frequency electronic 

air navigation system which 

provides suitably-equipped aircraft a 

continuous indication of bearing and 

distance to the TACAN station. 

TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE 

(TORA): see declared distances. 

TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE 

(TODA): see declared distances. 

TAXILANE: the portion of the aircraft 

parking area used for access between 

taxiways and aircraft parking positions. 

TAXIWAY: a defined path established 

for the taxiing of aircraft from one part 

of an airport to another. 

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): a 

defined surface alongside the taxiway 

prepared or suitable for reducing the 

risk of damage to an airplane unintentionally 

departing the taxiway. 

TETRAHEDRON: a device used as a 

landing direction indicator. The small 

end of the tetrahedron points in the 

direction of landing. 

THRESHOLD: the beginning of that 

portion of the runway available for 

landing. In some instances the landing 

threshold may be displaced. 



TOUCH-AND-GO: an operation by an 

aircraft that lands and departs on a runway 

without stopping or exiting the 

runway. A touch-and-go is recorded as 

two operations: one operation for the 

landing and one operation for the 

takeoff. 

TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The first 

3,000 feet of the runway beginning at 

the threshold. 

TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION 

(TDZE): The highest elevation in the 

touchdown zone. 

TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHT- 

ING: Two rows of transverse light bars 

located symmetrically about the runway 

centerline normally at 100-foot intervals. 

The basic system extends 3,000 feet 

along the runway. 

TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffic flow 

that is prescribed for aircraft landing at 

or taking off from an airport. The components 

of a typical traffic pattern are 

the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind 

leg, base leg, and final approach. 

BASE 

LEG 

FINAL APPROACH 

RUNWAY 

ENTRY 

DOWNWIND LEG 

UPWIND LEG 

CROSS- 

WIND 

LEG 

DEPARTURE LEG 

UNICOM: A nongovernment communication 

facility which may provide 

airport information at certain airports. 

Locations and frequencies of UNI- 

COM’s are shown on aeronautical 

charts and publications. 

A-11 

UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to 

the landing runway in the direction of 

landing. See “traffic pattern.” 

VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircraft 

to provide navigational guidance 

by radar. 

VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/ OMNIDI- 

RECTIONAL RANGE STATION 

(VOR): A ground-based electronic navigation 

aid transmitting very high 

frequency navigation signals, 360 

degrees in azimuth, oriented from 

magnetic north. Used as the 

basis for navigation in the 

national airspace 

system. The VOR 

periodically identifies 

itself by Morse Code 

and may have an 

additional voice 

identification feature. 

300° 

240° 

VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI- 

DIRECTIONAL RANGE STATION/ 

TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION 

(VORTAC): A navigation aid providing 

VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and 

TACAN distance-measuring equipment 

(DME) at one site. 

VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or 

portion thereof established in the form 

of a corridor, the centerline of which is 

defined by radio navigational aids. 

VISUAL APPROACH: An approach 

wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan, 

operating in VFR conditions under the 

control of an air traffic control facility 

and having an air traffic control authorization, 

may proceed to the airport of 

destination in VFR conditions. 

360° 

180° 

60° 

120° 



VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDI- 

CATOR (VASI): An airport lighting 

facility providing vertical visual 

approach slope guidance to aircraft during 

approach to landing by radiating a 

directional pattern of high intensity red 

and white focused light beams which 

indicate to the pilot that he is on path if 

he sees red/white, above path if 

white/white, and below path if 

red/red. Some airports serving large 

aircraft have three-bar VASI’s which 

provide two visual guide paths to the 

same runway. 

VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules 

that govern the procedures for conducting 

flight under visual conditions. The 

term VFR is also used in the United 

States to indicate weather conditions 

that are equal to or greater than minimum 

VFR requirements. In addition, it 

is used by pilots and controllers to indicate 

type of flight plan. 

VOR: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirectional 

Range Station.” 

VORTAC: See “Very High Frequency 

Omnidirectional Range Station/Tactical 

Air Navigation.” 

WARNING AREA: see special-use 

airspace. 

A-12 



ABBREVIATIONS 

AC: advisory circular 

ADF: automatic direction finder 

ADG: airplane design group 

AFSS: automated flight service 

station 

AGL: above ground level 

AIA: annual instrument 

approach 

AIP: Airport Improvement 

Program 

AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford 

Aviation Investment and 

Reform Act for the 21st 

Century 

ALS: approach lighting system 

ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high 

intensity approach lighting 

system with 

sequenced flashers (CAT I 

configuration) 

ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high 

intensity approach light 

ing system with 

sequenced flashers (CAT II 

configuration) 

APV: instrument approach 

procedure with vertical 

guidance 

ARC: airport reference code 

A-13 

ARFF: aircraft rescue and 

firefighting 

ARP: airport reference point 

ARTCC: air route traffic control 

center 

ASDA: accelerate-stop distance 

available 

ASR: airport surveillance radar 

ASOS: automated surface 

observation station 

ATCT: airport traffic control 

tower 

ATIS: automated terminal information 

service 

AVGAS: aviation gasoline - 

typically 100 low lead 

(100LL) 

AWOS: automated weather observation 

station 

BRL: building restriction line 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations 

CIP: capital improvement 

program 

DME: distance measuring equipment 

DNL: day-night noise level 



DWL: runway weight bearing 

capacity for aircraft with 

dual-wheel type landing 

gear 

DTWL: runway weight bearing 


dual-tandem type landing 

gear 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration 

FAR: Federal Aviation 

Regulation 

FBO: fixed base operator 

FY: fiscal year 

GPS: global positioning system 

GS: glide slope 

HIRL: high intensity runway 

edge lighting 

IFR: instrument flight rules 

(FAR Part 91) 

ILS: instrument landing system 

IM: inner marker 

LDA: localizer type directional 

aid 

LDA: landing distance available 

LIRL: low intensity runway edge 

lighting 

LMM: compass locator at middle 

marker 

A-14 

LOC: ILS localizer 

LOM: compass locator at ILS 

outer marker 

LORAN: long range navigation 

MALS: medium intensity 

approach lighting system 

MALSR: medium intensity 

approach lighting system 

with runway alignment 

indicator lights 

MIRL: medium intensity runway 

edge lighting 

MITL: medium intensity taxiway 

edge lighting 

MLS: microwave landing 

system 

MM: middle marker 

MOA: military operations area 

MSL: mean sea level 

NAVAID: navigational aid 

NDB: nondirectional radio 

beacon 

NM: nautical mile (6,076 .1 feet) 

NPES: National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated 

Airport Systems 



NPRM: notice of proposed rulemaking 

ODALS: omnidirectional approach 

lighting system 

OFA: object free area 

OFZ: obstacle free zone 

OM: outer marker 

PAC: planning advisory 

committee 

PAPI: precision approach path 

indicator 

PFC: porous friction course 

PFC: passenger facility charge 

PCL: pilot-controlled lighting 

PIW: public information 

workshop 

PLASI: pulsating visual approach 

slope indicator 

POFA: precision object free area 

PVASI: pulsating/steady visual 

approach slope indicator 

RCO: remote communications 

outlet 

REIL: runway end identifier 

lighting 

RNAV: area navigation 

RPZ: runway protection zone 

A-15 

RSA: Runway Safety Area 

RTR: remote transmitter/ 

receiver 

RVR: runway visibility range 

RVZ: runway visibility zone 

SALS: short approach lighting 

system 

SASP: state aviation system plan 

SEL: sound exposure level 

SID: standard instrument 

departure 

SM: statute mile (5,280 feet) 

SRE: snow removal equipment 

SSALF: simplified short approach 

lighting system with 

sequenced flashers 

SSALR: simplified short approach 

lighting system with runway 

alignment indicator 

lights 

STAR: standard terminal arrival 

route 

SWL: runway weight bearing 


single-wheel type landing 

gear 

STWL: runway weight bearing 


single-wheel tandem type 

landing gear 



TACAN: tactical air navigational 

aid 

TDZ: touchdown zone 

TDZE: touchdown zone elevation 

TAF: Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Terminal 

Area Forecast 

TODA: takeoff distance available 

TORA: takeoff runway available 

TRACON: terminal radar approach 

control 

VASI: visual approach slope 

indicator 

VFR: visual flight rules (FAR 

Part 91) 

VHF: very high frequency 

VOR: very high frequency omnidirectional 

range 

VORTAC: VOR and TACAN 

collocated 

A-16 



Appendix B 

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

Appendix B 

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 

A review of the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed airport 

projects is an essential consideration in the Airport Master Plan process. The 

primary purpose of this Appendix is to review the proposed improvement program 

for Mesquite Metro Airport to determine whether the proposed actions could, 

individually or collectively, have the potential to significantly affect the quality of 

the environment. The information contained in this Appendix was obtained from 

various Internet websites and analysis by the consultant. This evaluation considers 

all environmental categories outlined in FAA Order1050.1E and Order 5050.4A, 

Airport Environmental Handbook. 

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 

As a result of the Airport Master Plan analysis, a number of airport improvements 

have been recommended for implementation over the long-range planning horizon. 

Following is a discussion of planned major projects. 

AIRSIDE DEVELOPMENT 

The recommended airside concept is presented on Exhibit 5A. Of primary 

consideration is providing the runway system with the means to accommodate the 

larger and faster business aircraft which currently operate at the airport and are 

B-1

projected to account for the critical aircraft in the near future. To meet these needs, 

the plan includes a 1,370-foot southerly extension of Runway 17-35. This extension 

will allow the runway to provide adequate operational length for nearly all the 

business aircraft in the fleet. 

Additionally, Runway 17-35 is recommended to be upgraded to meet ARC C/D-II 

standards. The primary result of this approach is a change in the Runway Safety 

Area (RSA) dimension. For ARC C/D-II, the RSA is 500 feet wide (centered on the 

runway) and 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. The RSA for ARC C/D-II is 

required to be cleared, graded, stabilized, and suitable to support aircraft and 

emergency vehicles. This area must also be free of objects and ruts. The plan also 

considers ultimately relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet to the west. 

LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT 

Exhibit 5A depicts the recommended landside development plan for the airport 

which will require the acquisition of approximately 148 acres to implement. 

Proposed development in the northern portion of the terminal area includes the 

development of two large conventional hangars. In order to provide for greater 

depth of development in the terminal area, the plan includes the acquisition of 98 

acres of land immediately west of the airport and development of an improved onairport 

roadway system. As depicted, the plan includes the extension of a taxiway 

west from the DPS hangar to serve this area. Finally, the plan considers allowing 

the southernmost existing T-hangar area to be expanded to the west. 

The southern terminal area has been significantly modified from the previous 

master plan. This concept proposes the development of large conventional hangars 

immediately south of the southernmost existing T-hangars. The plan would allow 

for the development of five large conventional hangars and adjoining aircraft 

parking apron. These facilities could house fixed base operators or large bulk 

aircraft storage hangars. Further south, the proposed development concept 

includes corporate hangar development in a “pod” type layout. In order to develop 

in this area, however, significant drainage improvements would be necessary as the 

area is traversed by a creek. No buildings could be located on the re-routed 

drainage channel but pavement could be placed atop the route. Finally, the 

southernmost portion of the airport is planned for five T-hangars. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The following sections provide a description of the environmental resources which 

could be impacted by the proposed airport development. 

B-2

TABLE A 

Environmental Evaluation 

Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts 

Air Quality. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted air 

quality standards that specify the maximum 

permissible short-term and long-term 

concentrations of various air contaminants. 

The National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) consist of primary and 

secondary standards for six criteria 

pollutants which include: Ozone (O3), 

Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ), Particulate 

matter (PM10 and PM 2.5), and Lead (Pb). 

Potentially significant air quality impacts, 

associated with an FAA project or action, 

would be demonstrated by the project or 

action exceeding one or more of the NAAQS 

for any of the time periods analyzed. Various 

levels of review apply within both NEPA and 

permit requirements. 

Coastal Resources. Federal activities 

involving or affecting coastal resources are 

governed by the Coastal Barriers Resource 

Act (CBRA), the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA), and E.O. 13089, Coral Reef 

Protection. 

Compatible Land Use. The compatibility 

of existing and planned land uses in the 

vicinity of an airport is usually associated 

with the extent of the airport’s noise 

impacts. Typically, significant impacts will 

occur over noise-sensitive areas within the 

65 DNL noise contour. 

Construction Impacts. Construction 

impacts typically relate to effects on specific 

impact categories, such as air quality or 

noise, during construction. 

B-3 

• Mesquite Metro Airport is located in 

Dallas County, Texas. Dallas County is 

listed by the EPA as being in 

• 

nonattainment for 8-hour ozone. A 

conformity evaluation will be required 

to determine conformity with the State 

Implementation Plan. 

Detailed air quality analysis is needed 

to determine potential impacts to air 

quality that may result from 

implementation of the various 

• 

development projects. 

A number of projects planned at the 

airport could have temporary air quality 

impacts during construction. Emissions 

from the operation of construction 

vehicles and fugitive dust from 

pavement removal are common air 

pollutants during construction. 

However, with the use of best 

• 

management practices (BMPs) during 

construction, these air quality impacts 

can be significantly lessened. 

No impacts. The airport is not located 

within a Coastal Management Zone or 

Coastal Barrier Area. 

• The proposed airport improvements will 

not result in noise impacts to noisesensitive 

development, as no noisesensitive 

development is contained 

within the existing or future 65 DNL 

noise contours. 

• The use of BMPs during construction is 

typically a requirement of constructionrelated 

permits such as an NPDES 

permit. Use of these measures typically 

has temporary air or water quality 

impacts.

TABLE A (Continued) 



Department of Transportation Act, 

Section 4(f). A significant impact would 

occur when a proposed action involves more 

than a minimal physical use of a Section 4(f) 

property, (publicly owned land from a public 

park, recreation area, or wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local 

significance, or any land from a historic site 

of national, state, or local significance) or is 

deemed a “constructive use” substantially 

impairing the Section 4(f) property where 

mitigation measures do not reduce or 

eliminate the impacts. Substantial 

impairment would occur when impacts to 

Section 4(f) lands are sufficiently serious so 

that the value of the site in terms of its prior 

significance and enjoyment are substantially 

reduced or lost. 

Farmlands. Under the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act (FPPA), federal 

agencies are directed to identify and take 

into account the adverse effects of federal 

programs on the preservation of farmland, 

to consider appropriate alternative actions 

which could lessen adverse effects, and to 

assure that such federal programs are, to 

the extent practicable, compatible with state 

or local government programs and policies to 

protect farmland. The FPPA guidelines 

apply to farmland classified as prime or 

unique, or of state or local importance as 

determined by the appropriate government 

agency, with concurrence by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. 

B-4 

• According to the City of Mesquite 

interactive mapping, the Creek Crossing 

Activity Park Area is located 

approximately .5 mile from the south 

end of existing Runway 35. It is not 

anticipated that the proposed 

development would ‘substantially 

impair’ the uses of this park. The 

improvements will not require the 

physical use of any Section 4(f) lands. 

• According to City of Mesquite zoning, 

which was updated in 2004, the 

agricultural land surrounding the 

airport is zoned as Industrial/Business 

Park. As the airport is surrounded by 

land dedicated to urban development, 

the FPPA does not likely apply. Further 

coordination within the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service is 

required to confirm this finding.




Fish, Wildlife, and Plants. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

determines that a significant impact will 

result when the proposed action would likely 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species in question, or would result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

federally-designated critical habitat in the 

area. Lesser impacts, as outlined by 

agencies and organizations having 

jurisdiction, may result in a significant 

impact. 

B-5 

• According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Endangered Species List for 

Dallas County, Texas, five species are 

listed, all of which are birds. 

The bald eagle and piping Plover are 

both listed as threatened species and 

the black-capped Vireo, golden-checked 

warbler, and least tern are listed as 

endangered species. These species all 

require an aquatic habitat as they nest 

near coastal areas, rivers, lakes, and 

reservoirs. 

• The East Fork of the Trinity River is 

located approximately one mile east of 

the airport. In addition, numerous 

tributaries to the river are located 

within the vicinity of the airport. 

• Consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is needed to determine 

if these species would be impacted by 

the various development projects at the 

airport. A Biological Assessment will 

likely be needed to assist with impact 

determination.




Floodplains. Significant impacts to 

floodplains occur when a proposed action 

results in notable adverse impacts on 

natural and beneficial 100-year floodplain 

values. 

Hazardous Materials, Pollution 

Prevention, and Solid Waste. The airport 

must comply with applicable pollution 

control statutes and requirements. Impacts 

may occur when changes to the quantity or 

type of solid waste generated, or type of 

disposal, differ greatly from existing 

conditions. 

B-6 

• According to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) Federal 

Insurance Rate Maps dated August 28, 

2001, the airport is located in a Zone X. 

This zone represents an area of 500-year 

flood; areas of 100-year flood with 

average depths of less than one foot or 

with drainage less than one mile; and 

areas protected by levees from a 100year 

flood. 

• As mentioned previously, the East Fork 

of the Trinity River is located 

approximately one-mile east of the 

airport. The 100-year floodplain 

associated with the river remains just 

east of the Dallas-Kauffman County 

line, east of the airport. Additionally, a 

100-year floodplain associated with the 

North Mesquite Creek, a tributary to 

the East Fork Trinity River, is located 

approximately one mile west and 

southwest of the airport. 

• No impacts to floodplains are 

anticipated as no proposed 

improvements are planned to be 

constructed within the previously 

• 

outlined floodplain areas. 

The airport will need to continue to 

comply with a National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit, which will ensure that pollution 

control measures are in place at the 


As development occurs at the airport, 

the permit will need to be modified to 

reflect the additional impervious 

surfaces and stormwater retention 

facilities. The addition and removal of 

impervious surfaces may require 

• 

modifications to this permit should 

drainage patterns be modified. 

As a result of increased operations at 

the airport, solid waste will slightly 

increase; however, these increases are 

not anticipated to be significant.




Historical, Architectural, 

Archaeological, and Cultural 

Resources. Impacts may occur when the 

proposed project causes an adverse effect on 

a property which has been identified (or is 

unearthed during construction) as having 

historical, architectural, archaeological, or 

cultural significance. 

Light Emissions and Visual Impacts. 

Impacts occur when lighting associated with 

an action will create an annoyance among 

people in the vicinity or interfere with their 

normal activities. Aesthetic impacts relate 

to the extent that the development contrasts 

with the existing environment and whether 

the jurisdictional agency considers this 

contrast objectionable. 

Natural Resources and Energy Supply. 

In instances of major proposed actions, 

power companies or other suppliers of 

energy will need to be contacted to 

determine if the proposed project demands 

can be met by existing or planned facilities. 

B-7 

• According to the Texas Historical 

Commission, no known historic or 

• 

cultural resource areas are located in 

the project area. 

A cultural resources survey may be 

required by the SHPO for those areas 

which have not been previously 

• 

disturbed. This will most likely be 

needed during coordination for the 

runway extension and other projects. 

Lighting impacts potentially resulting 

from the proposed airport improvements 

will be associated with the proposed 

MALSR on Runway 17 as well as the 

relocation of lead-in lights to Runway 

35. Medium intensity runway lights 

and runway end identifier lighting are 

also found at the airport. 

• The MALSR proposed for Runway 17 

will be adjusted to accommodate Scyene 

Road. Traffic on Scyene Road will not 

be affected by the relocated lights. 

• The relocated lead-in lights on the south 

end of the runway extension will be in 

closer proximity to the planned 

• 

residential development in that area. 

All lighting at the airfield is controlled 

by the pilot. Airfield lighting is not on 

continuously. 

• Increased use of energy and natural 

resources are anticipated as operations 

at the airport grow. None of the 

planned development projects are 

anticipated to result in significant 

increases in energy consumption.




Noise. The Yearly Day-Night Average 

Sound Level (DNL) is used in this study to 

assess aircraft noise. DNL is the metric 

currently accepted by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as 

an appropriate measure of cumulative noise 

exposure. These three agencies have each 

identified the 65 DNL noise contour as the 

threshold of incompatibility. 

Secondary (Induced) Impacts. These 

impacts address those secondary impacts to 

surrounding communities resulting from the 

proposed development, including shifts in 

patterns of population growth, public service 

demands, and changes in business and 

economic activity to the extent influenced by 

airport development. 

B-8 

• As depicted on Exhibit A, the existing 

DNL noise contour extends off airport 

property approximately 250 feet to the 

east and 175 feet to the southwest. The 

65 DNL noise contour also extends 

beyond Scyene Road to the north. There 

are no noise-sensitive land uses within 

the contour as these areas are currently 

agricultural and open space land uses. 

• The ultimate 65 DNL noise contour, 

depicted on Exhibit B, extends off 

existing airport property approximately 

600 feet to the east and 150 feet to the 

west. Southeast of the airport, the 

Devil’s Bowl Racetrack is partially 

included within the 65 DNL noise 

contour; this is not considered a noisesensitive 

land use. There are no noisesensitive 

land uses within the ultimate 

65 DNL noise contour. 

• Significant shifts in patterns of 

population movement or growth or 

public service demands are not 

anticipated as a result of the proposed 

development. It could be expected, 

however, that the proposed development 

would potentially induce positive 

socioeconomic impacts for the 

community over a period of years. The 

airport, with expanded facilities and 

services, would be expected to attract 

additional users. It is also expected to 

encourage tourism, industry, and trade 

and to enhance the future growth and 

expansion of the community’s economic 

base. Future socioeconomic impacts 

resulting from the proposed 

development are anticipated to be 

primarily positive in nature.

04MP22-5A-12/7/05 

65 

LEGEND 


DNL Noise Contours 



65 

70 

70 

75 

75 

Airport Blvd. 

Lawson Rd. 

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100') 


NORTH 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


Exhibit A 

EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS

04MP22-5A-2/8/06 

65 

LEGEND 



DNL Noise Contours 




65 

70 

75 

Airport Blvd. 

Lawson Rd. 


100') 





NORTH 

35 

0 800 1600 

SCALE IN FEET 


Exhibit B 

ULTIMATE NOISE CONTOURS




Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental 

Justice, and Children’s Environmental 

Health and Safety Risks. Impacts occur 

when disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects occur 

to minority and low-income populations; 

disproportionate health and safety risks 

occur to children; and extensive relocation of 

residents, businesses, and disruptive traffic 

patterns are experienced. 

Water Quality. Water quality concerns 

associated with airport expansion most often 

relate to domestic sewage disposal, 

increased surface runoff and soil erosion, 

and the storage and handling of fuel, 

petroleum, solvents, etc. 

Wetlands. Wetlands are defined by 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands, as those areas that are inundated 

by surface or groundwater with a frequency 

sufficient to support, and under normal 

circumstances, does or would support a 

prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that 

requires saturated or seasonally-saturated 

soil conditions for growth and reproduction. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. Wild and scenic 

rivers (WSR) are designated by the Wild and 

Scenic River Act. A National Rivers 

Inventory (NRI) is maintained to identify 

those river segments which are protected 

under this Act. 

B-9 

• The proposed project includes the 

• 

acquisition of approximately 143 acres 

of land on the west side of airport 

property. This land is currently used for 

agricultural purposes. One home will be 

impacted by the acquisition. 

The property acquisition process must 

comply with the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property 

• 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 

The airport will need to continue to 

comply with an NPDES operations 

permit. 

• With regard to construction activities, 

the airport and all applicable 

contractors will need to obtain and 

comply with the requirements and 

procedures of the construction-related 

NPDES General Permit, including the 

preparation of a Notice of Intent and a 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, 

prior to the initiation of project 

• 

construction activities. 

According to a United States Geological 

Survey Topographic Map, an unnamed 

tributary to North Mesquite Creek is 

located west of the south end of the 

runway. This area is planned for 

multiple hangar facilities. 

Further coordination with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and local 

permitting agencies will be required 

prior to construction of the proposed 

projects. 

• No impacts. The airport is not located 

near any designated wild and scenic 

rivers.

KANSAS CITY 

(816) 524-3500 

237 N.W. Blue Parkway 

Suite 100 

Lee's Summit, MO 64063 


PHOENIX 

(602) 993-6999 

4835 E. Cactus Road 

Suite 235 

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

airport/documents/Mesquite Master Plan Final.pdf - The City of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?