23.12.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN<br />

METRO AIRPORT


MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>, Texas<br />

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE<br />

Prepared By<br />

C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

May 2006


TABLE OF CONTENTS


MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>, Texas<br />

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN<br />

Chapter One<br />

INVENTORY<br />

AIRPORT SETTING AND ACCESS .............................. 1-1<br />

AIRPORT HISTORY ........................................... 1-2<br />

Airport Management ..................................... 1-2<br />

Regional Climate ........................................ 1-3<br />

THE AIRPORT’S SYSTEM ROLE ................................ 1-4<br />

AIRPORT FACILITIES ........................................ 1-5<br />

Airside Facilities ......................................... 1-5<br />

Landside Facilities ....................................... 1-9<br />

Airspace Information .................................... 1-12<br />

REGIONAL AIRPORTS ....................................... 1-18<br />

AREA LAND USE AND ZONING ............................... 1-20<br />

Existing Land Uses ..................................... 1-20<br />

Future Land Uses and Zoning ............................. 1-21<br />

Height Zoning .......................................... 1-21<br />

SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ........................ 1-22<br />

Population ............................................. 1-23<br />

Employment ........................................... 1-24<br />

Per Capita Personal Income .............................. 1-26<br />

Tax Information ........................................ 1-27<br />

SUMMARY ................................................. 1-27<br />

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


Chapter Two<br />

AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS<br />

SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS .............................. 2-2<br />

Population .............................................. 2-2<br />

Employment ............................................ 2-3<br />

Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) ......................... 2-4<br />

FORECASTING APPROACH ................................... 2-4<br />

AIRPORT SERVICE AREA ..................................... 2-5<br />

Airport User Survey ...................................... 2-7<br />

AVIATION TRENDS .......................................... 2-9<br />

National Aviation Trends ................................. 2-9<br />

General Aviation ....................................... 2-10<br />

GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS ............................ 2-12<br />

Based Aircraft .......................................... 2-12<br />

Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Projection ........................ 2-21<br />

General Aviation Annual Operations ....................... 2-23<br />

PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 2-26<br />

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES (AIAs) .................. 2-27<br />

SUMMARY ................................................. 2-28<br />

Chapter Three<br />

AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS<br />

AIRFIELD PLANNING CRITERIA ............................... 3-1<br />

Critical Aircraft ......................................... 3-2<br />

AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3-9<br />

Safety Area Design Standards .............................. 3-9<br />

Airfield Capacity ........................................ 3-12<br />

Runways .............................................. 3-13<br />

Taxiways .............................................. 3-21<br />

Navigational Aids and Instrument Approaches ............... 3-22<br />

Airfield Lighting and Marking ............................ 3-25<br />

LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS ................................. 3-27<br />

Hangars ............................................... 3-27<br />

Aircraft Parking Apron .................................. 3-30<br />

General Aviation Terminal Facilities ....................... 3-30<br />

SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS .................................. 3-32<br />

Automobile Parking ..................................... 3-32<br />

Fuel Storage ........................................... 3-33<br />

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


Chapter Three (Continued)<br />

Surface Transportation Access ............................ 3-34<br />

SUMMARY ................................................. 3-34<br />

Chapter Four<br />

ALTERNATIVES<br />

NON-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ......................... 4-2<br />

“Do Nothing” Alternative .................................. 4-2<br />

Transfer Aviation Services ................................. 4-3<br />

Construction <strong>of</strong> a New Airport Site .......................... 4-4<br />

AIRFIELD ISSUES ............................................ 4-5<br />

Runway Length ......................................... 4-5<br />

Taxiways ............................................... 4-6<br />

Airfield Design Standards ................................. 4-7<br />

Instrument Approaches ................................... 4-9<br />

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES ................................... 4-10<br />

Airfield Alternative 1 .................................... 4-10<br />

Airfield Alternative 2 .................................... 4-13<br />

Parallel Runway Alternatives ............................. 4-14<br />

Airfield Alternatives Summary ............................ 4-15<br />

Obstruction Analysis .................................... 4-16<br />

LANDSIDE ISSUES .......................................... 4-19<br />

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES .................................. 4-20<br />

Landside Alternative A .................................. 4-21<br />

Landside Alternative B .................................. 4-22<br />

Landside Alternative C .................................. 4-23<br />

Landside Summary ..................................... 4-24<br />

AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER<br />

SITING ALTERNATIVES .................................... 4-24<br />

Line-Of-Sight .......................................... 4-25<br />

Minimum Cab Eye Elevation Analysis ...................... 4-26<br />

Siting Analysis ......................................... 4-26<br />

Site A ................................................. 4-27<br />

Site B ................................................. 4-28<br />

Site C ................................................. 4-28<br />

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


Chapter Five<br />

AIRPORT PLANS<br />

RECOMMENDED CONCEPT ................................... 5-1<br />

Airfield Design Standards ................................. 5-2<br />

Airside Recommendations ................................. 5-3<br />

Landside Development .................................... 5-8<br />

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET .................................. 5-9<br />

Inner Portion <strong>of</strong> the Approach Surface <strong>Plan</strong> .................. 5-10<br />

Property Map .......................................... 5-10<br />

Obstruction Survey Drawing .............................. 5-10<br />

SUMMARY ................................................. 5-10<br />

Chapter Six<br />

FINANCIAL PLAN<br />

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES<br />

AND COST SUMMARIES ..................................... 6-2<br />

Short Term Improvements ................................. 6-3<br />

Intermediate Term Improvements .......................... 6-6<br />

Long Term Improvements ................................. 6-6<br />

Improvements Summary .................................. 6-8<br />

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING .......................... 6-8<br />

Federal Grants .......................................... 6-8<br />

State Funding Program ................................... 6-9<br />

FAA Facilities and Equipment Program ..................... 6-11<br />

FINANCING OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .................... 6-11<br />

Operating Revenues ..................................... 6-12<br />

Operating Expenses ..................................... 6-13<br />

Future Cash Flow ....................................... 6-13<br />

SUMMARY ................................................. 6-15<br />

EXHIBITS<br />

1A LOCATION MAP ............................... after page 1-2<br />

1B EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES ................ after page 1-6<br />

1C EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES .............. after page 1-10<br />

1D AREA AIRSPACE .............................. after page 1-14<br />

1E AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION ................... after page 1-14<br />

1F GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE ........... after page 1-20<br />

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


EXHIBITS (Continued)<br />

2A SERVICE AREA ................................ after page 2-8<br />

2B U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION<br />

AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ...................... after page 2-12<br />

2C REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ........... after page 2-16<br />

2D BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ................. after page 2-20<br />

2E FORECAST SUMMARY ........................ after page 2-28<br />

3A AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES .................. after page 3-2<br />

3B RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS ...................... after page 3-10<br />

3C WINDROSE .................................. after page 3-14<br />

3D AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .......... after page 3-35<br />

3E LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ......... after page 3-35<br />

4A DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ............. after page 4-6<br />

4B RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS ....................... after page 4-8<br />

4C AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1 .................... after page 4-12<br />

4D AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2 .................... after page 4-14<br />

4E PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES ........... after page 4-14<br />

4F OBSTRUCTIONS TO 17 APPROACH ............. after page 4-18<br />

4G OBSTRUCTIONS TO 35 APPROACH ............. after page 4-18<br />

4H LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A ................... after page 4-22<br />

4J LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B ................... after page 4-22<br />

4K LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C ................... after page 4-24<br />

5A MASTER PLAN CONCEPT ....................... after page 5-2<br />

5B PARALLEL TAXIWAY RELOCATION ............. after page 5-8<br />

AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING ........................ after page 5-11<br />

OBSTRUCTION SURVEY DRAWING RW 17-35 .......... after page 5-11<br />

OBSTRUCTION SURVEY DRAWING RW 17 ............ after page 5-11<br />

IPASD RW 35 ...................................... after page 5-11<br />

IPASD RW 17 ...................................... after page 5-11<br />

AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP .......................... after page 5-11<br />

6A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............ after page 6-4<br />

6B DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAGING ............ after page 6-4<br />

A EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS ................... after page B-8<br />

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


Appendix A<br />

GLOSSARY OF TERMS<br />

Appendix B<br />

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION


Chapter One<br />

INVENTORY


CHAPTER ONE<br />

INVENTORY<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has maintained a commitment to growing<br />

and improving the <strong>airport</strong> as demand has dictated. <strong>The</strong> first<br />

master plan was completed in 1981. Since then, master plans<br />

have been undertaken in 1985, 1998, and now 2005.<br />

<strong>The</strong> initial step in the preparation <strong>of</strong> an updated master plan for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport (HQZ) is the collection <strong>of</strong> current<br />

information pertaining to the <strong>airport</strong> and the area it serves. <strong>The</strong><br />

information collected in this chapter will be used as a baseline<br />

for subsequent analysis in this study. <strong>The</strong> inventory <strong>of</strong> existing<br />

conditions at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport provides an overview <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong> facilities and services, area airspace, previous <strong>airport</strong><br />

studies, area population and other socioeconomic data, as well<br />

as surrounding land use and development.<br />

<strong>The</strong> information outlined in this chapter was obtained through<br />

on-site inspections <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, including interviews with<br />

<strong>airport</strong> management, <strong>airport</strong> tenants, and representatives <strong>of</strong><br />

various government agencies. Information was also obtained<br />

from previous <strong>airport</strong> studies. Additional <strong>documents</strong> were<br />

provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the<br />

Texas Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation - Aviation Division<br />

(TxDOT), and the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> - <strong>Plan</strong>ning and Zoning.<br />

AIRPORT SETTING AND ACCESS<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is located 15 miles east<br />

<strong>of</strong> downtown Dallas on approximately 350 acres <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>airport</strong>-owned property, within the corporate<br />

1-1 DRAFT


limits <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, Texas.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> lies approximately four<br />

miles southeast <strong>of</strong> the central business<br />

district <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

Exhibit 1A shows the location <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> and its relation to the Dallas/<br />

Fort Worth Metroplex. Neighboring<br />

communities include Garland to the<br />

north, Sunnyvale to the northeast,<br />

Balch Springs to the south, and Dallas<br />

to the west. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

located on the eastern edge <strong>of</strong> Dallas<br />

County. Kaufman County is<br />

approximately one-half mile to the east.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has excellent<br />

access to the surface transportation<br />

network. Interstates 20, 30 and 635,<br />

U.S. Highway 80, and State Highway<br />

352 all traverse the <strong>City</strong>. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is<br />

bounded on the north by Scyene Road<br />

and on the south by Lawson Road.<br />

Direct <strong>airport</strong> access is provided by<br />

Airport Boulevard, which connects from<br />

Scyene Road at the northwest corner <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />

AIRPORT HISTORY<br />

<strong>The</strong> original <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

was built by the Hudson family in 1975.<br />

Originally named the Phil L. Hudson<br />

Municipal Airport, it featured a 4,000foot<br />

by 50-foot asphalt runway and<br />

connecting taxiways. Other amenities<br />

included three 20-unit T-hangar<br />

facilities, underground storage for<br />

Avgas fuel and aircraft tie-down areas.<br />

In 1981, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> began the<br />

acquisition <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> from the<br />

1-2<br />

Hudson family by conducting an<br />

Environmental Assessment (EA) <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> grounds. In 1983, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> received federal grant-in-aid<br />

to acquire the <strong>airport</strong> from the Hudson<br />

family. In 1985, the <strong>City</strong> received<br />

additional federal grants which funded<br />

several projects, including:<br />

• Reconstruction <strong>of</strong> the runway,<br />

replacing the asphalt with concrete<br />

and extending the runway to 5,000<br />

feet.<br />

• Widening <strong>of</strong> the runway from 50<br />

feet to 100 feet.<br />

• Extending the parallel taxiway<br />

1,300 feet.<br />

• Conducting an <strong>airport</strong> master plan<br />

study.<br />

• Acquiring additional property.<br />

In 1992, both the runway and taxiway<br />

were extended an additional 1,000 feet,<br />

bringing the total paved runway length<br />

to nearly 6,000 feet. A new updated<br />

master plan was undertaken in 1997.<br />

Table 1A shows a partial list <strong>of</strong> the<br />

major recent improvements made to<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport since 1998.<br />

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is owned<br />

and operated by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> city employs a full-time Airport<br />

Director and a full-time Executive<br />

Secretary. In addition, there are eight<br />

part-time employees. <strong>The</strong> Airport<br />

Director reports to the Deputy <strong>City</strong><br />

Manager.


04MP22-1A-2/14/05<br />

Bowie<br />

Granbury y<br />

Gatesville le<br />

C O R Y E L L<br />

Copperas Cove<br />

Montague<br />

Killeen<br />

Bridgeport<br />

PARKER<br />

PPARKER A R K E R<br />

377<br />

HOOD HHOOD O O D<br />

Glen Rose<br />

Clifton<br />

Florence<br />

81<br />

Meridian<br />

82<br />

Muenster Gainesville<br />

WISE WWISE I S E<br />

Decatur<br />

67<br />

BBOSQUE BOSQUE O S Q U E<br />

B E L L<br />

E. E. Davis Davis St.<br />

St.<br />

8<br />

287<br />

820<br />

Belton<br />

COOKE CCOOKE O O K E<br />

380<br />

MC MMC C<br />

E. Main St. LENNAN<br />

LLENNAN E N N A N<br />

Pioneer Rd.<br />

WEST<br />

35<br />

Cleburne<br />

Cleburne<br />

W I L L I A M S O N<br />

Waco<br />

Temple<br />

35<br />

WEST<br />

35<br />

EAST<br />

35<br />

287<br />

35<br />

M I L A M<br />

377<br />

DENTON<br />

DDENTON E N T O N<br />

Denton<br />

380<br />

Marlin<br />

Whitesboro<br />

Midlothian<br />

EELLIS ELLIS L L I S<br />

HILL HHILL I L L<br />

EAST<br />

35<br />

Long Creek Larkin<br />

84<br />

F A L L S<br />

Cameron<br />

GGRAYSON GRAYSON<br />

R A Y S O N<br />

Frisco<br />

Ennis<br />

Hubbard<br />

69<br />

Sherman<br />

75<br />

Allen<br />

45<br />

Waxahachie<br />

Corsicana<br />

NAVARRO<br />

NNAVARRO A V A R R O<br />

Denison<br />

CCOLLIN COLLIN O L L I N<br />

McKinney<br />

377 Lewisville <strong>Plan</strong>o<br />

Carrollton<br />

Keller Grapevine<br />

Richardson<br />

Addison<br />

Rockwall<br />

North Richland<br />

Farmers<br />

Hills Bedford<br />

Garland<br />

Garland<br />

Branch 635<br />

ROCK<br />

Haltom <strong>City</strong><br />

Euless<br />

WALL<br />

Hurst<br />

River Oaks<br />

Irving Dallas Forney<br />

30<br />

Grand Prairie<br />

Fort Worth Arlington<br />

20<br />

TTARRANT TARRANT<br />

A R R A N T<br />

DDALLAS DALLAS A L L A S <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Crowley Duncanville Duncanville<br />

175<br />

Lancaster<br />

Mansfield<br />

352<br />

Hillsboro<br />

MESQUITE<br />

Faithon Faithon Faithon Lucas Sr Sr Sr Blvd.<br />

Scyene<br />

80<br />

East Glen Blvd.<br />

Newsom<br />

Cartwright<br />

Faithon Lucas Sr Blvd.<br />

Berry<br />

Hearne<br />

Franklin<br />

69<br />

380<br />

30<br />

Kemp<br />

FFANNIN FANNIN A N N I N<br />

Bonham<br />

82<br />

Leonard<br />

Terrell<br />

Greenville<br />

Fairfield<br />

Commerce<br />

80<br />

Edgewood<br />

Kaufman<br />

KAUFMAN<br />

KKAUFMAN A U F M A N<br />

45<br />

HUNT HHUNT U N T<br />

Canton<br />

Athens<br />

84<br />

Mexia<br />

FREESTONE<br />

FFREESTONE R E E S T O N E<br />

79<br />

Groesbeck<br />

MESQUITE<br />

LIMESTONE<br />

LLIMESTONE I M E S METRO T O N E<br />

Buffalo<br />

AIRPORT<br />

L E O N<br />

R O B E R T S O N<br />

Clay Mathis<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

DALLAS CO.<br />

KAUFMAN CO.<br />

69<br />

287<br />

Centerville<br />

L A M A R<br />

Emory<br />

M A D I S O N<br />

Madisonville<br />

Sulphur Springs<br />

20<br />

VAN VVAN A N ZANDT ZZANDT A N D T<br />

G R I M E S<br />

Mineola<br />

175<br />

NORTH<br />

Paris<br />

DELTA DDELTA E L T A<br />

Cooper<br />

RRAINS RAINS A I N S<br />

HOPKINS<br />

HHOPKINS O P K I N S<br />

HENDERSON<br />

HHENDERSON E N D E R S O N<br />

ANDERSON<br />

AANDERSON N D E R S O N<br />

Palestine<br />

Crockett<br />

W A L K E R<br />

NOT TO SCALE Huntsville<br />

Exhibit 1A<br />

LOCATION MAP<br />

Mount M Vernon<br />

Trinity<br />

W O O D<br />

Quitman<br />

S M I T H<br />

C H E R O K E E<br />

Jacksonville<br />

H O U S T O N


TABLE 1A<br />

Projects and Improvements Since 1998<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

• 1998 Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />

• Self-serve fuel system for Avgas<br />

• Wash rack meeting EPA standards<br />

• Renovation <strong>of</strong> 60 <strong>City</strong>-owned hangar units<br />

(concrete floors, door and track refabrication,<br />

new siding, ro<strong>of</strong> repairs, painting)<br />

• Painting <strong>of</strong> the 100 ft. x 100 ft. aircraft<br />

maintenance hangar<br />

• AWOS Installation<br />

• Ground Communications Outlet (GCO)<br />

installation<br />

• North ramp pavement improvements<br />

including marking and tie-downs<br />

• South ramp expansion<br />

• PAPI-4 installation on both runway ends<br />

• Lead in lights for both runway ends<br />

• New segmented circle and lighted windsock<br />

• New runway marking and striping<br />

• New taxiway hold-lines and signage<br />

• New terminal building<br />

• Terminal parking area<br />

Source: Airport records and TxDOT records<br />

REGIONAL CLIMATE<br />

Weather conditions must be considered<br />

in the planning and development <strong>of</strong> an<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, as daily operations are affected.<br />

Temperature is a significant factor in<br />

determining runway length needs,<br />

while local wind patterns (both<br />

direction and speed) can affect the<br />

operation and capabilities <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> climate is characterized<br />

as humid subtropical, with hot<br />

summers and mild winters. <strong>The</strong><br />

average daily high temperature ranges<br />

from 56 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in<br />

January to 96 degrees F in both July<br />

and August. TxDOT also lists the<br />

average high temperature in the hottest<br />

month as 96 degrees F.<br />

1-3<br />

• Electrical vault for navigational aids<br />

• Runway 17 safety area improvements<br />

• New drainage plan throughout<br />

• <strong>City</strong> purchase <strong>of</strong> private 25 hangar<br />

units on north end<br />

• New taxiways for future hangar<br />

construction on south end<br />

• Extension <strong>of</strong> Airport Blvd.<br />

• Extension <strong>of</strong> water and sewer utilities<br />

• Perimeter fencing and electric gate<br />

access<br />

• Engineering and design for corporate<br />

and private hangars on south end<br />

• New aircraft maintenance facility in<br />

100 ft. x 80 ft. hangar<br />

• Design underway for two new corporate<br />

hangars (private)<br />

• 2005 new Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Update<br />

• Terminal ramp lighting<br />

• Closed-circuit television system<br />

Average annual precipitation in the<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> area is 39 inches per year. A<br />

large portion <strong>of</strong> the annual precipitation<br />

results from thunderstorm activity,<br />

with occasional heavy rainfall over brief<br />

periods <strong>of</strong> time. Thunderstorms occur<br />

throughout the year, but are most<br />

frequent during the spring months. <strong>The</strong><br />

area receives little snowfall, but can<br />

experience freezing rain and icy<br />

conditions during winter months.<br />

Winds for the area are generally from<br />

the south, averaging between 9 and 13<br />

miles per hour ( 10 - 15 knots). Winds<br />

less than one knot occur approximately<br />

five percent <strong>of</strong> the year. East/west<br />

winds also occur less than five percent<br />

<strong>of</strong> the year. Complete climatic data is<br />

presented in Table 1B.


TABLE 1B<br />

Climate Summary<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>, Texas<br />

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec<br />

Days with Precip. 7 7 8 8 9 7 5 5 6 6 6 7<br />

Wind Speed (mph) 11 11.7 12.6 12.4 11.2 10.7 9.9 9 9.4 9.8 10.7 10.8<br />

Sunshine (%) 52 54 58 61 57 67 75 73 67 63 57 52<br />

Days clear <strong>of</strong> clouds 10 10 10 9 8 11 15 15 13 14 12 11<br />

Partly cloudy days 6 6 8 8 10 12 10 10 9 7 6 6<br />

Cloudy days 16 13 14 13 13 8 6 6 9 10 12 14<br />

Precipitation (in) 2.1 2.5 3.3 3.6 5.4 3.9 2.4 2.1 2.9 4.6 3.1 3<br />

Average High Temp 56 61 68 76 83 91 96 96 89 79 66 58<br />

Average Low Temp<br />

Source: <strong>City</strong>-Data.com<br />

33 38 45 53 62 69 72 71 66 55 44 36<br />

THE AIRPORT’S<br />

SYSTEM ROLE<br />

At the national level, the <strong>airport</strong> is<br />

included in the FAA’s National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).<br />

<strong>The</strong> NPIAS includes a total <strong>of</strong> 3,344<br />

existing <strong>airport</strong>s that are significant to<br />

national air transportation and are<br />

therefore eligible to receive grants<br />

under the FAA Airport Improvement<br />

Program (AIP). <strong>The</strong> NPIAS supports<br />

the FAA’s strategic goals for safety,<br />

system efficiency, and environmental<br />

compatibility by identifying specific<br />

<strong>airport</strong> improvements. An <strong>airport</strong> must<br />

be included in the NPIAS to be eligible<br />

for federal grant-in-aid assistance from<br />

the FAA. As Texas is one <strong>of</strong> eight<br />

“block-grant” states, the distribution <strong>of</strong><br />

these funds is administered by TxDOT -<br />

Aviation Division.<br />

<strong>The</strong> 2005-2009 NPIAS identifies $39.5<br />

billion for <strong>airport</strong> development across<br />

the country. Of that, approximately<br />

seven percent is designated for the 278<br />

reliever <strong>airport</strong>s. Reliever <strong>airport</strong>s are<br />

located in major metropolitan areas and<br />

1-4<br />

serve to provide pilots with an<br />

attractive alternative to using<br />

congested primary and commercial<br />

service <strong>airport</strong>s. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport is one <strong>of</strong> 21 designated reliever<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s in the State <strong>of</strong> Texas and one <strong>of</strong><br />

11 located in the Dallas/Fort Worth<br />

Metroplex region. According to the<br />

NPIAS, reliever <strong>airport</strong>s across the<br />

country have an average <strong>of</strong> 219 based<br />

aircraft and account for 29 percent <strong>of</strong><br />

the nation’s total active aircraft fleet.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Texas Airport System <strong>Plan</strong> (TASP)<br />

further classifies <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport in its system plan as a<br />

Transport Airport. Transport <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

are designed to provide access to<br />

turboprop and turbojet business<br />

aircraft, in addition to most single- and<br />

twin-engine piston powered-aircraft.<br />

<strong>The</strong> TASP provides for specific<br />

minimum design standards for runway<br />

length, a parallel taxiway, apron size,<br />

approaches, airfield lighting, visual<br />

approach aids and services such as<br />

restrooms, vending machines, aircraft<br />

fuel, and hours <strong>of</strong> operation.


AIRPORT FACILITIES<br />

Airport facilities can be categorized into<br />

two broad categories: airside and<br />

landside. <strong>The</strong> airside category includes<br />

those facilities which are needed for the<br />

safe and efficient movement <strong>of</strong> aircraft,<br />

such as runways, taxiways, lighting,<br />

and navigational aids. <strong>The</strong> landside<br />

category includes those facilities<br />

necessary to provide a safe transition<br />

from surface to air transportation and<br />

1-5<br />

support aircraft servicing, storage,<br />

maintenance, and operational safety.<br />

AIRSIDE FACILITIES<br />

Airside facilities include runways,<br />

taxiways, <strong>airport</strong> lighting, weather<br />

reporting aids, and navigational aids.<br />

Airside facilities at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport can be seen on the aerial<br />

photograph on Exhibit 1B. Table 1C<br />

summarizes airside facility data.<br />

TABLE 1C<br />

Airside Facility Data<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

Runway Length (feet) 5,999<br />

Runway Width (feet) 100<br />

Runway Surface Material Concrete<br />

Surface Treatment None<br />

Condition Good<br />

Pavement Markings Precision (17-35)<br />

Runway Load Bearing Strength (lbs.)<br />

Single Wheel Loading (SWL) 70,000<br />

Dual Wheel Loading (DWL) 100,000<br />

Runway Lighting Medium Intensity (MIRL)<br />

Taxiway Lighting Green Centerline Reflectors<br />

Approach Lighting REIL (17-35)<br />

4-Light PAPI<br />

LDIN<br />

Visual Aids Rotating Beacon<br />

Lighted Windcone<br />

Segmented Circle<br />

Weather Aids AWOS-3<br />

Instrument Approach Aids ILS Runway 17<br />

Localizer Back Course 35<br />

NDB or GPS Runway 17<br />

PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator<br />

AWOS - Automated Weather Observation System<br />

LDIN - Lead In Light System<br />

ILS - Instrument Landing System<br />

NDB - Non-Directional Beacon<br />

GPS - Global Positioning System<br />

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


04MP22-1B-2/8/06<br />

Lead-In-Lights (LDIN)<br />

(LDIN)<br />

NORTH<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

REILs<br />

Compass Compass Calibration<br />

Pad/Hold Pad/Hold Apron<br />

Apron<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

ILS Glideslope<br />

Antennae<br />

Segmented Segmented Circle/<br />

Wind Cone<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

PAPI-4<br />

AWOS<br />

B<br />

300' C<br />

Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />

100')<br />

D E F<br />

PAPI-4 G<br />

Taxiway A<br />

A<br />

40'<br />

Terminal Area Taxiway<br />

Rotating Beacon<br />

Airport Blvd. Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

Lead-In-Lights (LDIN)<br />

REILs<br />

Hold Hold Apron<br />

Localizer<br />

Exhibit 1B<br />

EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES


Runway<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is served by a<br />

single runway oriented in a north/south<br />

manner. Runway 17-35 is 5,999 feet<br />

long by 100 feet wide. It is in “good”<br />

condition, the highest condition rating<br />

applied by the FAA. Runway 17-35 has<br />

been strength rated at 70,000 pounds<br />

single wheel gear loading (SWL) and<br />

100,000 pounds dual wheel gear loading<br />

(DWL). SWL and DWL refer to the<br />

design <strong>of</strong> certain aircraft landing gear.<br />

SWL aircraft have a single wheel on<br />

each main landing gear strut. DWL<br />

aircraft have two wheels on each main<br />

landing gear strut. <strong>The</strong> more wheels an<br />

aircraft has on each landing gear strut,<br />

the more weight that is distributed on<br />

runway and taxiway surfaces.<br />

Taxiways<br />

<strong>The</strong> taxiway system at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport includes a full-length parallel<br />

taxiway, identified as Taxiway A, and<br />

six entrance/exit taxiways. Taxiway A<br />

is 40 feet wide and is located 300 feet<br />

west <strong>of</strong> the runway (centerline to<br />

centerline). <strong>The</strong> six taxiways providing<br />

entrance to or exit from the runway are<br />

identified as Taxiways B, C, D, E, F,<br />

and G as one moves from the north to<br />

the south. Each <strong>of</strong> these taxiways is<br />

also 40 feet wide.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is an additional taxiway which<br />

provides two-way circulation in the<br />

terminal area. This terminal area<br />

taxiway, approximately 130 feet west <strong>of</strong><br />

Taxiway A, runs from the runway<br />

threshold at the north end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

airfield to the south end, and is<br />

approximately 3,000 feet. It is 30 feet<br />

1-6<br />

wide with several connecting taxiways<br />

linking the terminal area taxiway to<br />

Taxiway A.<br />

Pavement Markings<br />

Pavement markings aid in the<br />

movement <strong>of</strong> aircraft along <strong>airport</strong><br />

surfaces and identify closed or<br />

hazardous areas on the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

precision markings on both ends <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway include the runway centerline,<br />

pavement edge, runway designation,<br />

aiming point, touchdown zone,<br />

threshold, and aircraft holding<br />

positions. <strong>The</strong> holding positions have<br />

been placed on the entrance/exit<br />

taxiways 250 feet from the runway<br />

centerline.<br />

Taxiway and taxilane centerline<br />

markings are provided to assist aircraft<br />

using these <strong>airport</strong> surfaces. Pavement<br />

markings also identify aircraft tiedown<br />

positions on the various apron<br />

areas. It should be noted that a<br />

compass calibration pad is located at<br />

the north end hold bay.<br />

Visual Aids<br />

<strong>The</strong> location <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> at night is<br />

universally indicated by a rotating<br />

beacon, displaying alternating flashes <strong>of</strong><br />

green and white lights 180 degrees<br />

apart. <strong>The</strong> rotating beacon at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport is located on a 50-foot<br />

tower approximately 500 feet to the<br />

northwest <strong>of</strong> the terminal building near<br />

Airport Boulevard.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is also supported by a<br />

segmented circle and a lighted


windcone. <strong>The</strong> segmented circle is<br />

located on the east side <strong>of</strong> the airfield<br />

approximately 360 feet from the runway<br />

centerline. It is approximately 2,100<br />

feet from the north runway threshold.<br />

<strong>The</strong> lighted windcone is located within<br />

the segmented circle.<br />

Runway and Taxiway Lighting<br />

Runway and taxiway edge lighting is<br />

placed near the pavement edge to define<br />

the lateral limits <strong>of</strong> the pavement<br />

surface. <strong>The</strong>se lighting systems are<br />

essential for night and low visibility<br />

conditions to ensure safe and efficient<br />

access to and from the runway.<br />

Runway 17-35 is equipped with medium<br />

intensity runway lighting (MIRL).<br />

<strong>The</strong>se edge lights are preset to low<br />

intensity but can be increased to<br />

medium intensity by the pilot. <strong>The</strong><br />

taxiways are not supported with<br />

lighting; however, the taxiways are<br />

identified with green centerline<br />

reflectors and blue edge reflectors.<br />

Airfield Signage<br />

Airfield identification signs assist pilots<br />

in identifying their location on the<br />

airfield and directing them to their<br />

desired location. Lighted signs are<br />

installed on all taxiway and runway<br />

intersections. <strong>The</strong> signs are located<br />

parallel to the hold lines, giving further<br />

indication to pilots where the hold<br />

positions are located.<br />

1-7<br />

Approach Slope Indicators<br />

Both runway ends are equipped with a<br />

four-box precision approach path<br />

indicator (PAPI) to the left side <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway end. A PAPI consists <strong>of</strong> a<br />

system <strong>of</strong> lights located approximately<br />

1,000 feet from the runway threshold.<br />

When interpreted by the pilot, these<br />

lights give an indication <strong>of</strong> being above,<br />

below, or on the designated descent<br />

path to the runway. <strong>The</strong> descent path<br />

to both runway ends is a three percent<br />

slope.<br />

Approach Lighting Systems<br />

Approach lighting systems (ALS) are<br />

used in the approaches to runways as<br />

adjuncts to electronic navigational aids<br />

for the final portion <strong>of</strong> instrument flight<br />

rule (IFR) approaches. <strong>The</strong>y also<br />

enhance guidance for nighttime<br />

approaches under visual flight rule<br />

(VFR) conditions. <strong>The</strong> approach<br />

lighting system provides the pilot with<br />

visual cues concerning aircraft<br />

alignment, roll, height, and position<br />

relative to the threshold.<br />

Both ends <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35 are<br />

equipped with a lead-in light system.<br />

This system provides visual guidance to<br />

landing aircraft by displaying a linear<br />

series <strong>of</strong> static lights leading to the<br />

runway end. With this system, pilots<br />

are able to align their approach to the<br />

extended runway indicated by the<br />

lights.


Runway End<br />

Identification Lighting<br />

Runway end identification lights<br />

(REILs) provide rapid and positive<br />

identification <strong>of</strong> the approach end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway. <strong>The</strong> REIL system consists <strong>of</strong><br />

two synchronized flashing lights located<br />

laterally on each side <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

threshold facing the approaching<br />

aircraft. REILs are installed on both<br />

ends <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35.<br />

Weather Reporting Aids<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is equipped<br />

with an Automated Weather<br />

Observation System - III (AWOS-III).<br />

An AWOS automatically records<br />

weather conditions such as wind speed,<br />

wind gusts, wind direction,<br />

temperature, dew point, altimeter<br />

setting, and density altitude. In<br />

addition, the AWOS-III records<br />

visibility, precipitation, and cloud<br />

height. This information is then<br />

transmitted at regular intervals.<br />

Aircraft in the vicinity can receive this<br />

information if they have their radio<br />

tuned to the correct frequency (118.175<br />

Mhz). In addition, pilots and<br />

individuals can call a published<br />

telephone number and receive the<br />

information via an automated voice<br />

recording.<br />

<strong>The</strong> AWOS-III at <strong>Mesquite</strong> is also<br />

outfitted with an optional system that<br />

provides a connection to the National<br />

Airspace Data Interchange Network<br />

(NADIN). With this connection, the<br />

FAA provides the AWOS data to the<br />

Weather Messaging Switching Service<br />

(WMSS), which in turn distributes the<br />

1-8<br />

data to Flight Service Stations, the<br />

National Weather Service, commercial<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s for pilot briefing, and other<br />

weather information outlets.<br />

Pilot-Controlled Lighting<br />

All airfield lighting systems at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport are controlled through a<br />

pilot-controlled lighting system (PCL).<br />

This allows the pilot to increase the<br />

intensity or turn on various airfield<br />

lighting systems from the aircraft with<br />

the use <strong>of</strong> the aircraft’s transmitter on<br />

the common traffic advisory frequency<br />

(CTAF) at 123.05 Mhz.<br />

Ground Communications<br />

Outlet (GCO)<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is equipped with a GCO<br />

which is a radio transmitter/receiver<br />

with a telephone interface. <strong>The</strong> GCO<br />

allows pilots to communicate directly<br />

with terminal radar approach control<br />

(TRACON) approach and departure<br />

controllers located at Dallas/Fort Worth<br />

International Airport. During poor<br />

weather conditions or when intending to<br />

fly under IFR, controllers are able to<br />

communicate directly with pilots<br />

utilizing <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Pilots<br />

must obtain a clearance to depart prior<br />

to entering clouds or areas <strong>of</strong> poor<br />

visibility. Pilots needing a clearance<br />

can tune their radios to frequency<br />

121.725 Mhz and key the microphone a<br />

specified number <strong>of</strong> times. <strong>The</strong> GCO<br />

recognizes the clicks and automatically<br />

dials a restricted number for air traffic<br />

control. <strong>The</strong> pilot then has the ability<br />

to communicate directly with the<br />

controller.


A GCO is typically a necessity at<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s where direct radio<br />

communications from the aircraft is<br />

impeded by some type <strong>of</strong> interference.<br />

Without a GCO, the pilot would have to<br />

obtain a departure clearance by<br />

telephone from outside the aircraft and<br />

receive a specific departure window. If<br />

that departure window is missed, then<br />

the pilot would have to call TRACON to<br />

receive another departure window.<br />

LANDSIDE FACILITIES<br />

Landside facilities are the ground-based<br />

facilities that support the aircraft and<br />

pilot/passenger handling functions.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se facilities typically include the<br />

terminal building, aircraft storage/<br />

maintenance hangars, aircraft parking<br />

aprons, and support facilities such as<br />

fuel storage, automobile parking,<br />

roadway access, and aircraft rescue and<br />

firefighting. Landside facilities are<br />

identified on Exhibit 1C.<br />

Terminal Building<br />

In 2004, the new terminal building was<br />

dedicated. TxDOT provided 50 percent<br />

<strong>of</strong> the funding for those portions <strong>of</strong> the<br />

5,000-square foot building that are<br />

designated as aviation-related. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> provided the<br />

remaining funds, including the<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> additional space for the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> a restaurant. <strong>The</strong><br />

building is located on the west side <strong>of</strong><br />

the south apron. <strong>The</strong> terminal building<br />

has a pilots’ lounge, a public lobby, line<br />

service counter, conference room, public<br />

meeting space/restaurant, rest rooms,<br />

and administrative <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />

1-9<br />

Aircraft Hangars<br />

Hangar facilities at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport are comprised <strong>of</strong> T-hangars,<br />

conventional hangars, and executive<br />

hangars. T-hangars provide for<br />

separate storage facilities within a<br />

larger contiguous facility. Conventional<br />

hangars provide a large open space, free<br />

from ro<strong>of</strong> support structures, and have<br />

the capability to store several aircraft<br />

simultaneously. Conventional hangars<br />

are typically 10,000 square feet or<br />

larger. Often conventional hangars are<br />

owned or leased by an <strong>airport</strong> business<br />

such as an FBO. Executive hangars<br />

have the same open space design as<br />

conventional hangars, but they are<br />

typically smaller than 10,000 square<br />

feet. Executive hangars are typically<br />

utilized by individual owners to store<br />

several aircraft or by smaller <strong>airport</strong><br />

businesses.<br />

Table 1D lists the hangar facilities at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. It also<br />

identifies the location by address,<br />

maximum number <strong>of</strong> aircraft that can<br />

use the facility, square footage, and<br />

type <strong>of</strong> occupants in the facility. In<br />

addition, the table also identifies the<br />

ownership <strong>of</strong> the facility. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> has been actively reacquiring<br />

these facilities, and the right column<br />

shows the year that the structures will<br />

revert from private ownership to <strong>City</strong><br />

ownership per the current lease<br />

arrangements.<br />

Airport Businesses<br />

FBOs are those businesses based at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> that provide services directly to<br />

the aviation community utilizing the


<strong>airport</strong>. In some cases, the FBO would<br />

provide line services, fuel, lounge areas,<br />

flight planning, and maintenance. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, however, provides line<br />

services and fueling, as well as terminal<br />

building services. Remaining services<br />

are <strong>of</strong>fered by private businesses based<br />

at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Aviation occupies the <strong>of</strong>fices<br />

facing the airfield in building 1130<br />

#100. <strong>The</strong>ir primary business is flight<br />

training, but they also provide aircraft<br />

rental services. <strong>The</strong>y have a fleet <strong>of</strong><br />

eight aircraft: three Cessna 150s and<br />

five Cessna 172s. In 2004, <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

1-10<br />

Aviation averaged 230 hours <strong>of</strong> flight<br />

training per month.<br />

Moorehead Aviation provides aircraft<br />

maintenance for piston aircraft. <strong>The</strong>y<br />

occupy the largest hangar at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, to the southeast <strong>of</strong> the terminal<br />

building. Moorehead Aviation has been<br />

on the airfield since 1992. Prior to that,<br />

they had been at a number <strong>of</strong> other<br />

regional general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

Although the owner is the only full-time<br />

employee, Moorehead Aviation employs<br />

several mechanics that work on a<br />

contract basis.<br />

TABLE 1D<br />

Hangar Facilities<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Max. #<br />

Ownership<br />

Hangar<br />

<strong>of</strong> Square<br />

Reverts to<br />

Type Address Aircraft Feet Occupant Ownership <strong>City</strong><br />

Executive 900 5 7,800 TX Dept. Public Safety<br />

Classic<br />

<strong>City</strong> -<br />

Executive 910 12 15,000 Industries/Individuals Private -<br />

T-Hangar 920 10 12,000 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />

T-Hangar 930 9 11,000 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />

T-Hangar 940 7 9,500 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />

1130<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

T-hangar #100<br />

1130<br />

19 32,900 Aviation/Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />

T-hangar #200<br />

1130<br />

20 21,000 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />

T-hangar #300 20 21,000 Individuals <strong>City</strong> -<br />

Conventional 1280 7 10,000 Faith Air Inc. Private 2034<br />

Conventional 1290 7 10,000 P&S Aerowest Private 2034<br />

Conventional 1350 7 13,200 Moorehead Aviation <strong>City</strong> -<br />

Executive 1440 3 6,000 Individuals Private 2017<br />

Barr Air<br />

1 <strong>City</strong>/ -/<br />

Executive 1442 10 11,500 Patrol/Individuals<br />

Custom Electronic<br />

2 Private 2017<br />

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

T-Hangar 1512 10 10,500 Individuals<br />

Reunion Ranch<br />

Private 2017<br />

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

Dallas<br />

Private 2025<br />

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

Total 185 240,700<br />

Source: Airport records


04MP22-1C-2/8/06<br />

Texas<br />

Department<br />

<strong>of</strong> Public Safety<br />

Safety<br />

Electrical<br />

Vault<br />

Vault<br />

900<br />

906<br />

NORTH<br />

0 300 600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

T-Hangars<br />

Executive<br />

Hangars<br />

Security Security Gate<br />

Gate<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

940<br />

930<br />

920<br />

910<br />

Fuel Farm<br />

North Apron<br />

Apron<br />

Self-Serve Self-Serve Fuel<br />

Fuel<br />

Wash Rack<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Aviation Aviation<br />

1130 #100<br />

T-Hangars<br />

1130 #200<br />

1130 #300<br />

Rotating<br />

Beacon<br />

P&S Aerowest<br />

1280<br />

South Apron<br />

1290<br />

Faith Air<br />

Runway 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />

Security Gate<br />

1340<br />

1350<br />

Terminal<br />

Building<br />

Conventional<br />

Hangar<br />

Hangar<br />

Moorehead<br />

Aviation<br />

Executive<br />

Hangars<br />

1432<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

1440 1442<br />

Security Gate<br />

1512<br />

1510<br />

T-Hangars<br />

1520<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

1530<br />

T-Hangars<br />

Exhibit 1C<br />

EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES


Faith Air, Inc. occupies the north<br />

conventional hangar on the newly<br />

constructed south apron. <strong>The</strong>y provide<br />

aircraft maintenance for piston aircraft.<br />

<strong>The</strong>y began operation in September <strong>of</strong><br />

2003. <strong>The</strong> general manager foresees<br />

expanding their business to include jet<br />

engine maintenance in the future.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are five full-time employees:<br />

three mechanics, a parts manager, and<br />

the general manager.<br />

P & S Aerowest occupies the<br />

conventional hangar directly north <strong>of</strong><br />

the terminal building. P & S is a<br />

subsidiary <strong>of</strong> the Steve Silver Company,<br />

which is a major furniture wholesaler.<br />

Housed in the hangar is a Cessna<br />

Citation (525) business jet.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Texas Department <strong>of</strong> Public<br />

Safety (DPS) operates out <strong>of</strong> the<br />

executive hangar at the north end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

airfield. <strong>The</strong>y house a helicopter and a<br />

single engine piston aircraft in the<br />

hangar. <strong>The</strong> DPS utilizes aircraft in<br />

support <strong>of</strong> its law and drug enforcement<br />

operations.<br />

Barr Air Patrol operates out <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>of</strong>fices and T-hangar complex at the<br />

south end <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>y provide<br />

aircraft parts and provide services for<br />

aerial patrol and inspection.<br />

Other businesses on <strong>airport</strong> property<br />

include Dallas Avionics, Custom<br />

Electronic Solutions, and Reunion<br />

Ranch, Inc.<br />

Aircraft Parking Apron<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are two primary aircraft aprons<br />

utilized for public aircraft parking and<br />

1-11<br />

tie-down at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

<strong>The</strong> north apron, identified on Exhibit<br />

1C, provides approximately 13,400<br />

square yards and 37 marked tie-down<br />

positions. <strong>The</strong> south apron consists <strong>of</strong><br />

approximately 20,000 square yards and<br />

has 14 marked tie-down positions, as<br />

well as transient ramp space. <strong>The</strong><br />

south apron is expected to be lighted to<br />

better facilitate evening operations in<br />

2005.<br />

Secondary apron space is available<br />

fronting Moorehead Aviation and the<br />

south hangar facilities.<br />

Automobile Parking<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are several parking lots available<br />

for vehicle parking at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> terminal building<br />

parking lot provides for 37 spaces, two<br />

<strong>of</strong> which are designated handicapped.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is a second parking lot to the<br />

north <strong>of</strong> hangar number 1130 #100.<br />

This lot can accommodate 44 vehicles.<br />

<strong>The</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> formal parking<br />

spaces is 81. However, most aircraft<br />

owners simply drive their vehicles to<br />

their hangar rather than park in<br />

identified parking and walk to their<br />

aircraft.<br />

Airport Road<br />

Public access to the <strong>airport</strong> is served by<br />

Airport Boulevard. Airport Boulevard<br />

extends from Scyene Road to the<br />

southernmost hangar complex. This<br />

road was recently extended approximately<br />

800 feet from the new terminal<br />

building area to the south hangar<br />

complex.


Fuel Facilities<br />

As the only fuel provider on the airfield,<br />

the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> owns the fuel farm<br />

and the fuel trucks. <strong>The</strong> fuel farm<br />

consists <strong>of</strong> two 12,000-gallon above<br />

ground storage tanks. <strong>The</strong> storage<br />

tanks, one for Avgas and the other for<br />

Jet A fuel, are located just west <strong>of</strong> the<br />

north apron. <strong>The</strong> farm is served by a<br />

service road extending from Airport<br />

Boulevard. Fuel is delivered to aircraft<br />

via a 1,000-gallon Avgas truck and a<br />

2,400-gallon Jet A fuel truck. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>airport</strong> recently installed a self-serve<br />

Avgas facility located on the north<br />

apron, near the west fence line,<br />

adjacent to the fuel farm.<br />

Aircraft Rescue and<br />

Firefighting (ARFF)<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are no ARFF facilities<br />

permanently based at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> provides<br />

ARFF services to the <strong>airport</strong> on an “oncall”<br />

basis. Fire Station No. 7 is located<br />

approximately two miles from the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> on Clay-Mathis Road.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has provided advanced<br />

training to firefighters at Fire Station<br />

No. 7 on working with aircraft fires.<br />

<strong>The</strong> station also maintains specialized<br />

foaming agents designed for use with<br />

aircraft fires.<br />

Security Fencing<br />

In 2003, perimeter security fencing was<br />

installed with three electronic gate<br />

access points. Approved individuals are<br />

provided a card with an identifying<br />

1-12<br />

magnetic strip calibrated by the <strong>airport</strong><br />

staff which allows access through the<br />

gates. <strong>The</strong>re are also key pads on the<br />

gates where an access code can be<br />

entered. <strong>The</strong> three gate access points to<br />

the airfield are identified on Exhibit<br />

1C.<br />

Utilities<br />

<strong>The</strong> availability and capacity <strong>of</strong> the<br />

utilities serving the <strong>airport</strong> are factors<br />

in determining the development<br />

potential <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> property, as well<br />

as the land immediately adjacent to the<br />

facility.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is supplied water (looped<br />

water main) and sanitary sewer<br />

services via the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>’s<br />

system. Electrical service is provided to<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> by Reliant Energy. SBC<br />

provides communications and data<br />

lines. Natural gas is not currently<br />

supplied to the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

AIRSPACE INFORMATION<br />

This section <strong>of</strong> the plan identifies<br />

factors influencing air navigation<br />

around and at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

Consideration <strong>of</strong> these additional<br />

elements, such as area navigational<br />

aids, area airspace classification, and<br />

approved instrument approach<br />

procedures, have a direct impact on<br />

aircraft using <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

Navigational Aids<br />

Navigational aids are electronic devices<br />

that transmit radio frequencies which<br />

pilots <strong>of</strong> properly equipped aircraft can


translate into point-to-point guidance<br />

and position information. <strong>The</strong> types <strong>of</strong><br />

electronic navigational aids available<br />

for aircraft flying to or from <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport include non-directional<br />

beacon (NDB), very high frequency<br />

omni-directional range (VOR) facilities,<br />

global positioning system (GPS), and an<br />

instrument landing system (ILS).<br />

<strong>The</strong> NDB transmits nondirectional<br />

radio signals whereby the pilot <strong>of</strong> an<br />

aircraft equipped with direction-finding<br />

equipment can determine the bearing to<br />

or from the NDB facility in order to<br />

track to the beacon station. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> NDB is 3.7 nautical miles<br />

(nm) to the north <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35. <strong>The</strong><br />

Jecca NDB is four nm south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway. Other NDBs in the vicinity <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong> include Lancaster (14 nm),<br />

Travis (14.2 nm), Redbird (17.7 nm),<br />

Caddo Mills (22.6 nm), Cedar Hill (24.4<br />

nm), and Cash (27.3 nm), as depicted on<br />

Exhibit 1D. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

owns and maintains both the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

and Jecca NDB facilities. <strong>The</strong> Redbird<br />

and Cedar Hill facilities are maintained<br />

by the FAA. <strong>The</strong> other regional NDB<br />

facilities are maintained by the local<br />

jurisdictions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> VOR, in general, provides azimuth<br />

readings to pilots <strong>of</strong> properly equipped<br />

aircraft by transmitting a radio signal<br />

at every degree to provide 360<br />

individual navigational courses.<br />

Frequently, distance measuring<br />

equipment (DME) is combined with a<br />

VOR facility (VOR-DME) to provide<br />

distance as well as directional<br />

information to the pilot. Military<br />

tactical air navigation aids (TACANs)<br />

and civil VORs are commonly combined<br />

to form a VORTAC. <strong>The</strong> VORTAC<br />

1-13<br />

provides distance and directional<br />

information to both civil and military<br />

pilots. <strong>The</strong> Cowboy VOR/DME is 20.7<br />

nm to the northwest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

Maverick VOR/DME is 26.7 nm to the<br />

west at Dallas/Fort Worth International<br />

Airport. <strong>The</strong> Ranger and Cedar Creek<br />

VORTACs are within 40 nm <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. Each <strong>of</strong> these facilities are<br />

owned and maintained by the FAA.<br />

GPS is an additional navigational aid<br />

for pilots. GPS was initially developed<br />

by the United States Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Defense for military navigation around<br />

the world. GPS differs from a NDB or<br />

VOR in that pilots are not required to<br />

navigate using a specific facility. GPS<br />

uses satellites placed in orbit around<br />

the earth to transmit electronic radio<br />

signals which pilots <strong>of</strong> properly<br />

equipped aircraft use to determine<br />

altitude, speed, and other navigational<br />

information. <strong>The</strong> network <strong>of</strong> 24 GPS<br />

satellites is maintained by the U.S.<br />

military.<br />

With GPS, pilots can directly navigate<br />

to any <strong>airport</strong> in the country and are<br />

not required to navigate using a specific<br />

navigation facility. <strong>The</strong> FAA is<br />

proceeding with a program to gradually<br />

replace all traditional enroute<br />

navigational aids with GPS over the<br />

next few years. <strong>The</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

FAA phase-out schedule for traditional<br />

navigational aids is planned to occur by<br />

2010. Most navigational aids<br />

supporting busier <strong>airport</strong>s will be<br />

retained.<br />

<strong>The</strong> ILS is a approach and landing aid<br />

designed to identify the exact alignment<br />

path <strong>of</strong> an aircraft. ILS systems are<br />

installed to allow approaches during


periods <strong>of</strong> poor visibility. <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport has one published ILS<br />

approach to Runway 17.<br />

ILS systems provide three functions: 1)<br />

guidance, provided vertically by a glide<br />

slope beacon and horizontally by a<br />

localizer beacon; 2) range, furnished by<br />

marker beacons; and 3) visual<br />

alignment, supplied by the approach<br />

lighting system and runway edge lights.<br />

<strong>The</strong> localizer antenna for Runway 17 is<br />

situated on the extended centerline,<br />

approximately 1,800 feet south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Runway 35 threshold. <strong>The</strong> antenna<br />

emits very high frequency (VHF)<br />

signals that provide the pilot with<br />

course deviation left or right <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway centerline and the degree <strong>of</strong><br />

deviation. <strong>The</strong> ultra high frequency<br />

(UHF) glide slope (GS) antenna is<br />

located on the northeast side <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway, approximately 1,100 feet<br />

southwest <strong>of</strong> the Runway 17 landing<br />

threshold. <strong>The</strong> glide slope antenna<br />

provides a signal indicating whether the<br />

aircraft is above or below the desired<br />

glide path. <strong>The</strong> ILS equipment is<br />

owned and maintained by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

To further assist the ILS approach, an<br />

initial approach fix is established by an<br />

outer marker (<strong>Mesquite</strong> NDB). <strong>The</strong><br />

Runway 17 ILS approach has a 3.0<br />

degree glide slope that intercepts initial<br />

approach fix at a distance <strong>of</strong> 3.2<br />

nautical miles and 1,600 feet above the<br />

threshold. It should be noted that the<br />

ILS Runway 17 approach requires<br />

aircraft not only to be equipped with<br />

ILS receivers, but also automatic<br />

direction finding (ADF) equipment.<br />

1-14<br />

Area Airspace<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA Act <strong>of</strong> 1958 established the<br />

FAA as the responsible agency for the<br />

control and use <strong>of</strong> navigable airspace<br />

within the United States. <strong>The</strong> FAA has<br />

established the National Airspace<br />

System (NAS) to protect persons and<br />

property on the ground and to establish<br />

a safe environment for civil,<br />

commercial, and military aviation. <strong>The</strong><br />

NAS is defined as the common network<br />

<strong>of</strong> U.S. airspace, including air<br />

navigational facilities; <strong>airport</strong>s and<br />

landing areas; aeronautical charts;<br />

associated rules, regulations and<br />

procedures; technical information; and<br />

personnel and material. System<br />

components shared jointly with the<br />

military are also included as part <strong>of</strong> this<br />

system.<br />

To ensure a safe and efficient airspace<br />

environment for all aspects <strong>of</strong> aviation,<br />

the FAA has established an airspace<br />

structure that regulates and establishes<br />

procedures for aircraft using the<br />

National Airspace System. <strong>The</strong> U.S.<br />

airspace structure provides for<br />

categories <strong>of</strong> airspace, controlled and<br />

uncontrolled, and identifies them as<br />

Classes A, B, C, D, E, and G, as<br />

described below. Exhibit 1E generally<br />

illustrates each airspace type in threedimensional<br />

form.<br />

• Class A airspace is controlled<br />

airspace and includes all airspace<br />

from 18,000 feet mean sea level<br />

(MSL) to Flight Level 600<br />

(approximately 60,000 feet MSL).<br />

• Class B airspace is controlled<br />

airspace surrounding high-activity<br />

commercial service <strong>airport</strong>s (i.e.,


04MP22-1D-3/17/05<br />

Lazy G Bar<br />

Decatur<br />

NAS Ft. Worth/<br />

Carswell<br />

Bourland<br />

VR1124 VR1124 VR1124<br />

Rhome<br />

Sycamore<br />

Sycamore<br />

Ft. Ft. Worth<br />

Worth<br />

Spinks<br />

Spinks<br />

Cleburne<br />

Flying C<br />

Palmer<br />

Ft. Worth-<br />

Alliance<br />

Alliance<br />

Hicks<br />

Ft. Worth<br />

Meacham<br />

Northwest<br />

Ranger<br />

VORT VORTAC AC<br />

Ironhead<br />

Denton<br />

Hillsboro<br />

Airport with other than hard-surfaced<br />

runways<br />

Airport with hard-surfaced runways<br />

1,500' to 8,069' in length<br />

Airports with hard-surfaced runways<br />

greater than 8,069' or some multiple<br />

runways less than 8,069'<br />

Non-Directional Radiobeacon (NDB)<br />

VORTAC<br />

VOR-DME<br />

Dallas-Ft. Worth<br />

International<br />

Grand<br />

Prairie<br />

Prairie<br />

Arlington<br />

Lakeview<br />

Mid-Way<br />

Regional<br />

Hayesport<br />

Air Air Park-Dallas<br />

Park-Dallas<br />

Redbird<br />

NDB<br />

Dallas<br />

Executive<br />

Carroll<br />

V V V 18-94 18-94 18-94<br />

V V V 369 369 369<br />

V V V 16-278 16-278 16-278<br />

Aero Country<br />

Addison<br />

Cowboy<br />

VOR-DME<br />

Maverick<br />

VOR-DME Dallas Love<br />

Bishops<br />

Landing<br />

Kittyhawk<br />

MESQUITE<br />

METRO AIRPORT<br />

LEGEND<br />

Jecca<br />

NDB<br />

NDB<br />

Lancaster<br />

NDB<br />

NDB<br />

Lancaster<br />

Compass Rose<br />

Mode C<br />

Ennis<br />

Class B Airspace<br />

Class D Airspace<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> NDB<br />

Class E Airspace with floor<br />

700 ft. above surface<br />

Victor Airways<br />

Military Training Routes<br />

Collin County<br />

Powell NDB<br />

NDB<br />

Rockwall<br />

Rives<br />

Caddo<br />

Mills<br />

Airpark<br />

East<br />

Travis ravis NDB<br />

NDB<br />

Terrell<br />

Hall<br />

V V V 15 15 15<br />

Cedar Creek<br />

VORT VORTAC AC<br />

V 477<br />

V V V 194 194 194<br />

Bonham<br />

VORTAC VORT VORTAC AC<br />

V V 477 477<br />

Caddo<br />

Mills<br />

NDB<br />

Cash NDB<br />

NDB<br />

Phillips<br />

V V V 114 114 114<br />

Majors<br />

Taylor<br />

V V V 16-124-278 16-124-278 16-124-278<br />

V V V 573 573 573<br />

Commerce<br />

Wills Point<br />

V V V 18-54 18-54 18-54<br />

VR188 VR188 VR188<br />

V V V 94 94 94<br />

V V V 569 569 569<br />

Source: Dallas - Ft. Worth Sectional Chart,<br />

US Department <strong>of</strong> Commerce, National<br />

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration<br />

March 17, 2005<br />

NORTH<br />

NOT TO SCALE<br />

Exhibit 1D<br />

AREA AIRSPACE


04MP22-1E-3/17/05<br />

AGL<br />

FL<br />

MSL<br />

LEGEND<br />

- Above Ground Level<br />

- Flight Level in Hundreds <strong>of</strong> Feet<br />

- Mean Sea Level<br />

NOT TO SCALE<br />

CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION<br />

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

CLASS B<br />

CLASS C<br />

CLASS D<br />

CLASS E<br />

CLASS G<br />

Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for<br />

VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric<br />

Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted<br />

by C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993.<br />

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

nation's busiest <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered <strong>airport</strong>s with<br />

service by radar approach control.<br />

Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D.<br />

Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E.<br />

Exhibit 1E<br />

AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION


Dallas/Fort Worth<br />

International Airport).<br />

• Class C airspace is controlled<br />

airspace surrounding loweractivity<br />

commercial service (i.e.,<br />

Tucson International Airport) and<br />

some military <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

• Class D airspace is controlled<br />

airspace surrounding low-activity<br />

commercial service and general<br />

aviation <strong>airport</strong>s with an <strong>airport</strong><br />

traffic control tower (ATCT).<br />

All aircraft operating within Class A, B,<br />

C, and D airspace must be in constant<br />

contact with the air traffic control<br />

facility responsible for that particular<br />

airspace sector.<br />

• Class E airspace is controlled<br />

airspace surrounding an <strong>airport</strong><br />

that encompasses all instrument<br />

approach procedures and lowaltitude<br />

federal airways. Only<br />

aircraft conducting instrument<br />

flights are required to be in contact<br />

with air traffic control when<br />

operating in Class E airspace.<br />

While aircraft conducting visual<br />

flights in Class E airspace are not<br />

required to be in radio contact with<br />

air traffic control facilities, visual<br />

flight can only be conducted if<br />

minimum visibility and cloud<br />

ceilings exist.<br />

• Class G airspace is uncontrolled<br />

airspace that does not require<br />

communication with an air traffic<br />

control facility.<br />

Airspace within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport is depicted on Exhibit<br />

1-15<br />

1D. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is located<br />

within transitional Class E airspace<br />

and lies inside the outer ring <strong>of</strong><br />

Dallas/Fort Worth International<br />

Airport’s (DFW) Class B airspace. <strong>The</strong><br />

outer ring <strong>of</strong> DFW Class B airspace<br />

immediately above <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport extends from 4,000 feet MSL to<br />

11,000 MSL. To the northwest, closer<br />

to Dallas Love Field and DFW, the floor<br />

<strong>of</strong> DFW’s Class B airspace staggers<br />

downward, similar to an upside-down<br />

wedding cake. Approximately six miles<br />

further west <strong>of</strong> this point, the DFW<br />

Class B airspace has a floor at ground<br />

level.<br />

<strong>The</strong> airspace for a seven nm radius<br />

around <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

transitional Class E airspace with a<br />

floor 700 feet above ground level (AGL),<br />

extending to 1,200 feet MSL. <strong>The</strong> Class<br />

E airspace surrounding the <strong>airport</strong> has<br />

been established to protect the<br />

instrument approaches to the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is also located<br />

approximately 13 nm west <strong>of</strong> the Class<br />

E airspace surrounding the Terrell<br />

Municipal Airport.<br />

For aircraft enroute or departing to the<br />

south <strong>of</strong> the Dallas/Fort Worth<br />

Metroplex using VOR navigational<br />

facilities, a system <strong>of</strong> federal airways,<br />

referred to as Victor Airways, has been<br />

established. Victor Airways are the<br />

“highways <strong>of</strong> the sky” and they extend<br />

between VOR facilities. <strong>The</strong>y are eight<br />

miles wide and extend from 1,200 feet<br />

AGL to 18,000 feet AGL. Victor<br />

Airways serve primarily smaller pistonengine,<br />

propeller-driven airplanes on<br />

shorter routes. <strong>The</strong>re are two Victor<br />

Airways within a short distance on<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport; approximately


eight miles to the east is V15 and 11<br />

miles to the west is V369.<br />

Instrument Approach Procedures<br />

When the visibility and cloud ceilings<br />

deteriorate to a point where visual<br />

flight can no longer be conducted safely,<br />

aircraft must follow published<br />

instrument approach procedures to<br />

locate and land at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

are currently three published<br />

instrument approach procedures to the<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport: ILS Runway<br />

17, NDB or GPS Runway 17, and<br />

Localizer Back Course Runway 35.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Runway 17 ILS approach provides<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> with the lowest approach<br />

visibility minimums. Utilizing this<br />

approach, a properly equipped aircraft<br />

and pilot can land at the <strong>airport</strong> with<br />

250-foot cloud ceilings and threequarters<br />

<strong>of</strong> a mile visibility. <strong>The</strong> ILS<br />

Runway 17 approach can also be<br />

utilized as a localizer only, or circling<br />

approach. A circling approach allows<br />

the approach to be flown to the opposite<br />

runway end (i.e., the ILS Runway 17<br />

circling approach would be utilized to<br />

land on Runway 35).<br />

Runway 17 is also served by a NDB or<br />

GPS approach. Using the previously<br />

mentioned <strong>Mesquite</strong> NDB or GPS<br />

navigational aids, instrument<br />

approaches for aircraft with approach<br />

speeds less than 121 knots landing on<br />

Runway 17 can be made when the<br />

visibility is at least one mile and the<br />

cloud ceilings are greater than 473 feet<br />

AGL. For aircraft with approach speeds<br />

<strong>of</strong> 121 knots but less than 141 knots,<br />

approaches to Runway 17 can be made<br />

1-16<br />

with 473 foot cloud ceilings and one and<br />

one-quarter mile visibility. This<br />

approach procedure also provides for<br />

circling approaches to Runway 35.<br />

Runway 35 is served by one published<br />

instrument approach. <strong>The</strong> Localizer<br />

Back Course Runway 35 approach<br />

utilizes the <strong>airport</strong>’s localizer for<br />

straight-in approaches from the south<br />

and circling approaches to Runway 17.<br />

<strong>The</strong> localizer emits signals in both<br />

directions. In conducting a back-course<br />

approach, the pilot must adjust to the<br />

opposite signals provided by the<br />

localizer. Details <strong>of</strong> the published<br />

instrument approaches are provided in<br />

Table 1E.<br />

Arrival and Departure Procedures<br />

Due to the congested airspace over the<br />

Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, the FAA<br />

has established a series <strong>of</strong> Standard<br />

Terminal Arrival (STAR) and Departure<br />

Procedures (DP). <strong>The</strong> STAR is a preplanned<br />

air traffic control arrival<br />

procedure designed to provide for the<br />

transition from the enroute phase <strong>of</strong> the<br />

flight to an outer fix or an instrument<br />

approach fix in the terminal area. <strong>The</strong><br />

four published STARs are: Dumpy Two,<br />

Fingr Three, Gregs Five, and Knead<br />

Five.<br />

<strong>The</strong> DP is a preplanned air traffic<br />

control departure procedure that<br />

provides for the transition from the<br />

terminal area to the enroute phase <strong>of</strong><br />

the flight. <strong>The</strong> seven published DPs<br />

are: Dallas Seven, Garland One,<br />

Hubbard Five, Joe Pool Nine, Kingdom<br />

Five, Texoma Seven, and Worth Three.


TABLE 1E<br />

Instrument Approach Data<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

WEATHER MINIMUMS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE<br />

Category A and B Category C<br />

Cloud Height Visibility Cloud Height Visibility<br />

(feet AGL) (miles) (feet AGL) (miles)<br />

ILS Runway 17<br />

Straight-In ILS 250 0.75 250 0.75<br />

Straight-In Localizer 293 1 293 1<br />

Circling 513 1 513 1<br />

Localizer Back Course Runway 35<br />

Straight-In 357 1 357 1<br />

Circling<br />

NDB or GPS Runway 17<br />

513 1 513 1.5<br />

Straight-In 473 1 473 1.25<br />

Circling 513 1 513 1.5<br />

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

Local Operating Procedures<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is situated at<br />

447 feet above mean sea level (MSL). A<br />

standard left-hand traffic pattern has<br />

been established for all aircraft.<br />

Aircraft departing to the south are<br />

requested to climb to 1,000 feet before<br />

turning left. <strong>The</strong>re is a 970-foot tower<br />

2.71 nm southeast <strong>of</strong> the Runway 35<br />

end. Forty-two feet from the north end<br />

threshold and 465 feet to the left <strong>of</strong> the<br />

centerline is a cluster <strong>of</strong> trees that are<br />

approximately 20 feet high.<br />

Air Route Traffic<br />

Control Center (ARTCC)<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA has established 21 Air Route<br />

Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) in the<br />

continental United States to control<br />

aircraft operating under instrument<br />

flight rules (IFR) within controlled<br />

airspace and while in the enroute phase<br />

<strong>of</strong> flight. An ARTCC assigns specific<br />

routes and altitudes along federal<br />

1-17<br />

airways to maintain separation and<br />

orderly air traffic flow. Centers use<br />

radio communication and long range<br />

radar with automatic tracking<br />

capability to provide enroute air traffic<br />

services. Typically, the ARTCC splits<br />

its airspace into sectors and assigns a<br />

controller or team <strong>of</strong> controllers to each<br />

sector. As an aircraft travels through<br />

the ARTCC, one “hands <strong>of</strong>f” control to<br />

another. Each sector guides the aircraft<br />

using discrete radio frequencies.<br />

Fort Worth ARTCC is responsible for<br />

enroute control <strong>of</strong> all aircraft operating<br />

under IFR and participating VFR<br />

aircraft arriving and departing the<br />

Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex area.<br />

Local Air Traffic Control<br />

Although <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is not<br />

served by an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control<br />

tower (ATCT), pilots can broadcast their<br />

intention and position on the common<br />

traffic advisory frequency (CTAF)


channel 123.05 Mhz. Aircraft operating<br />

within the Class B airspace<br />

surrounding the Dallas/Fort Worth<br />

Metroplex or aircraft operating an<br />

instrument flight to <strong>airport</strong>s in the<br />

DFW area are controlled by DFW<br />

regional approach/departure control<br />

available on frequency 125.2 Mhz.<br />

REGIONAL AIRPORTS<br />

A review <strong>of</strong> public-use <strong>airport</strong>s within a<br />

20 nm radius <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

was made to identify and distinguish<br />

the types <strong>of</strong> air services provided in the<br />

region. <strong>The</strong>se <strong>airport</strong>s were previously<br />

identified on Exhibit 1D. Information<br />

pertaining to each <strong>airport</strong> was obtained<br />

1-18<br />

from FAA Form 5010, Airport <strong>Master</strong><br />

Record.<br />

It is important to consider the<br />

capabilities and limitations <strong>of</strong> other<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s when planning for future<br />

changes or improvements at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> following are those<br />

public use <strong>airport</strong>s with asphalt or<br />

concrete runways that can serve general<br />

aviation aircraft. <strong>The</strong>se <strong>airport</strong>s are<br />

listed by their proximity to <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport. Dallas/Fort Worth<br />

International Airport is also discussed<br />

because <strong>of</strong> the significant impact it has<br />

on operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. Table 1F identifies the major<br />

characteristics <strong>of</strong> each <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

TABLE 1F<br />

Public Use Airports Near <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Distance<br />

Longest Based Annual<br />

Airport Name (nm) Type Runway Aircraft Operations Services<br />

Airpark East Airport<br />

Rockwall Municipal<br />

10 ENE GA 2630' 60 16,000 Fuel<br />

Airport<br />

Rives Air Park<br />

12 NE GA 3373' 86 38,000 Full GA<br />

Airport<br />

Terrell Municipal<br />

13 ENE GA 2800' 3 300 None<br />

Airport 13.5 E GA<br />

Reliever<br />

5000' 85 26,000 Full GA<br />

Lancaster Airport 14 SW (GA) 5000' 195 40,500 Full GA<br />

Full<br />

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

Dallas Executive<br />

Reliever<br />

Airport<br />

Dallas/Fort Worth<br />

18 W (GA) 6,451' 174 96,000 Full GA<br />

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

Source: FAA Form 5010, Airport <strong>Master</strong> Record<br />

Airpark East Airport is located 10<br />

nautical miles to the east/northeast <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is<br />

served by asphalt Runway 13-31, which<br />

is 2,630 feet long by 30 feet wide.<br />

Airpark East has an estimated 16,000<br />

annual operations and bases 60 single<br />

engine aircraft. <strong>The</strong>re are no published<br />

instrument approaches. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong>


fixed base operator (FBO) provides<br />

100LL fuel services.<br />

Rockwall Municipal Airport,<br />

situated 12 nautical miles north/<br />

northeast, is owned and operated by the<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Rockwall. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is served<br />

by Runway 17-35, providing an asphalt<br />

landing area <strong>of</strong> 3,373 feet long by 45<br />

feet wide. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has 86 based<br />

aircraft, including six multi-engine<br />

aircraft. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has an estimated<br />

38,000 operations annually. Four on<strong>airport</strong><br />

businesses provide aviation<br />

services, including flight training,<br />

100LL Avgas fuel sales, aircraft<br />

maintenance, aircraft rental,<br />

sightseeing, and <strong>airport</strong> terminal<br />

building spaces for pilot/passenger<br />

accommodation. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has three<br />

published instrument approach<br />

procedures.<br />

Rives Air Park Airport, is located 13<br />

nautical miles east/northeast <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport in Royse <strong>City</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is served by asphalt<br />

Runway 4-22, which is 2,800 feet long<br />

by 40 feet wide. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has three<br />

based single-engine aircraft and an<br />

estimated 300 annual operations. No<br />

aviation services are currently provided<br />

at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Terrell Municipal Airport is located<br />

13.5 nautical miles east <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is owned by<br />

the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Terrell and is served by two<br />

asphalt runways. Crosswind Runway<br />

14-32 extends 3,014 feet long by 75 feet<br />

wide, while primary Runway 17-35 is<br />

5,000 feet long by 75 feet wide. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

are 85 based aircraft, including ten<br />

multi-engine aircraft, and an estimated<br />

26,000 annual operations. Terrell<br />

1-19<br />

Aviation, the <strong>airport</strong>’s only FBO,<br />

provides a full range <strong>of</strong> services<br />

including fuel sales, flight school/flight<br />

training, minor aircraft maintenance<br />

and repair, aircraft rental, courtesy<br />

transportation, and a public telephone.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is one approved instrument<br />

approach, NDB or GPS, to Runway 17.<br />

Lancaster Airport is located 14<br />

nautical miles to the southwest and is<br />

owned and operated by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Lancaster. This <strong>airport</strong> is served by<br />

asphalt Runway 13-31, which extends<br />

5,000 feet long by 100 feet wide.<br />

Lancaster Airport has an estimated<br />

40,500 annual operations and bases 195<br />

aircraft, including 25 multi-engine and<br />

30 turbine powered aircraft. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>airport</strong> is served by two FBOs which<br />

provide an array <strong>of</strong> aviation services,<br />

including fueling, aircraft rental, flight<br />

instruction, and aircraft maintenance.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are two instrument approaches to<br />

the Runway 31 end.<br />

Dallas Love Field, located 17 nautical<br />

miles west/northwest <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport, is a medium hub commercial<br />

service <strong>airport</strong> which had approximately<br />

2.8 million enplane-ments in<br />

2003. Love Field serves as the primary<br />

hub and corporate headquarters for<br />

Southwest Airlines. Owned and<br />

operated by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dallas, the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is served by three runways, with<br />

Runway 13R-31L the longest at 8,800<br />

feet. Although it primarily serves as a<br />

commercial service <strong>airport</strong>, Love Field<br />

is also home to 595 aircraft, including<br />

522 jets. Tower counts reflect<br />

approximately 251,000 annual<br />

operations. <strong>The</strong>re are nine instrument<br />

approaches.


Dallas Executive Airport, formerly<br />

Dallas Redbird Airport, is located 18<br />

nautical miles west/southwest <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Owned and<br />

operated by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dallas, the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is served by two paved runways.<br />

Runway 13-31 provides the greatest<br />

length, measuring 6,451 feet long by<br />

150 feet wide. Runway 31 is served by<br />

an ILS precision approach. Crosswind<br />

Runway 17-35 is 3,801 feet long and<br />

150 feet wide. Both runways are<br />

constructed <strong>of</strong> concrete and are in good<br />

condition <strong>The</strong>re are 174 based aircraft,<br />

including 31 multi-engine and three jet<br />

aircraft. Served by an <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />

control tower, the <strong>airport</strong> has<br />

approximately 96,000 annual<br />

operations, with 65 percent being<br />

training operations. Services provided<br />

include fuel, avionics, courtesy<br />

transportation, aviation accessories,<br />

and restrooms. <strong>The</strong>re are four<br />

instrument approaches approved for use<br />

at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Dallas/Fort Worth International<br />

Airport (DFW) is located 25 nautical<br />

miles northwest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. One <strong>of</strong> the largest and busiest<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s in the world, DFW is classified<br />

as a large hub, commercial service<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. DFW is equipped with seven<br />

paved runways, with the longest<br />

runway being 13,400 feet long. DFW is<br />

served by an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control<br />

tower and provides approach/control<br />

services for the area. An array <strong>of</strong><br />

instrument approach aids, including<br />

precision ILS approaches, aid pilots on<br />

approach during inclement weather<br />

conditions. DFW serves as an<br />

international <strong>airport</strong> and an <strong>airport</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

entry, providing customs services. This<br />

<strong>airport</strong> typically ranks as one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

1-20<br />

busiest <strong>airport</strong>s in the world in terms <strong>of</strong><br />

enplanements (30 million) and<br />

operations (1,000,000). <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> also<br />

serves as a hub for UPS and other cargo<br />

carriers.<br />

AREA LAND USE<br />

AND ZONING<br />

<strong>The</strong> area land use surrounding<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is influenced by<br />

four entities: the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, the<br />

Town <strong>of</strong> Sunnyvale, and Dallas and<br />

Kaufman Counties. Review <strong>of</strong> existing<br />

and future land use and zoning plans is<br />

critical to understanding the potential<br />

<strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. By understanding the<br />

land use issues surrounding the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

more appropriate recommendations can<br />

be made for the future.<br />

EXISTING LAND USES<br />

Existing land uses surrounding<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport include a mix <strong>of</strong><br />

residential, industrial, and agricultural<br />

land uses. To the north <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

immediately north <strong>of</strong> Scyene Road, is a<br />

Union Pacific rail line. Further to the<br />

northeast is the APAC-Texas, Inc.<br />

industrial concrete mixing facility. To<br />

the immediate east and west <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is primarily agricultural land<br />

with some single-family housing along<br />

Lawson and Scyene Roads. To the<br />

southeast is Devil’s Bowl Speedway, a<br />

commercial dirt racetrack. South and<br />

southwest are new residential<br />

developments, including Falcon’s Lair<br />

and Pecan Creek. To the immediate<br />

west is primarily agricultural lands;<br />

further west is the Creek Crossing<br />

residential development. Exhibit 1F


04MP22-1F-2/8/06<br />

Truss Co.<br />

Oncor Utility<br />

APAC- Texas Texas Inc.<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Residential<br />

Commercial/Industrial<br />

Currently Zoned Zoned Industrial<br />

Industrial<br />

Currently Zoned Zoned Industrial<br />

Industrial<br />

Runway 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />

Catfish<br />

Corner<br />

Corner<br />

Devil's Bowl<br />

Speedway<br />

Speedway<br />

Creek Crossing<br />

NORTH<br />

Gibsons<br />

Shooting<br />

Range<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Pecan Creek<br />

Creek<br />

<strong>The</strong><br />

Village <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong><br />

Falcon's<br />

Lair<br />

Falcon's<br />

Lair<br />

Exhibit 1F<br />

GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE


depicts the existing land uses in the<br />

vicinity <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

FUTURE LAND USES<br />

AND ZONING<br />

Exhibit 1G shows the existing zoning<br />

in the <strong>airport</strong> vicinity. Much <strong>of</strong> the<br />

agricultural land which surrounds the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is zoned as Industrial/Business<br />

Park. According to <strong>The</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Development Guide - December 2003,<br />

large tracts <strong>of</strong> undeveloped land near<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>, primarily to the east and<br />

west, should be reserved for<br />

industrial/business park development.<br />

<strong>The</strong> plan recognizes that development<br />

may not occur in the short term but the<br />

plan supports resisting other<br />

development alternatives in order to<br />

maintain compatible land uses near the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> over the long term.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Development Guide identifies those<br />

areas on both sides <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> as the<br />

Airport Industrial District. This<br />

district has been established in order to<br />

“achieve compatible land use goals<br />

relative to <strong>airport</strong> development and to<br />

take advantage <strong>of</strong> the potential<br />

businesses which benefit from proximity<br />

to a general aviation <strong>airport</strong>.”<br />

<strong>The</strong> Town <strong>of</strong> Sunnyvale, directly to the<br />

north <strong>of</strong> Scyene Road, has published its<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficial zoning map. <strong>The</strong> map identifies<br />

all parcels along Scyene Road as being<br />

zoned for industrial development.<br />

Further to the northwest is singlefamily<br />

residential zoning, followed by<br />

commercial development along U.S.<br />

Highway 80. To the northeast the<br />

zoning is identified as a flood plain<br />

surrounding Long Creek.<br />

1-21<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> is directly<br />

responsible for planning and zoning on<strong>airport</strong><br />

property and within the city<br />

limits. By Texas law, the <strong>City</strong> can also<br />

plan the land use for those<br />

unincorporated areas that are within<br />

five miles <strong>of</strong> the city boundary. This<br />

extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ)<br />

accounts for approximately 24 square<br />

miles to the east and southeast <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. This area has not been<br />

formally zoned for compatible <strong>airport</strong><br />

land uses.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Development Guide also identifies<br />

improvements to the surface<br />

transportation network that would<br />

provide regional access to the Airport<br />

Industrial District and the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

plan proposes the construction <strong>of</strong><br />

Highway 190 to connect from U.S.<br />

Highway 80 to Interstate 20. <strong>The</strong> four<br />

possible alignments are also presented<br />

on the exhibit.<br />

HEIGHT ZONING<br />

Use <strong>of</strong> the existing properties and<br />

planned future uses <strong>of</strong> land near the<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport include height<br />

and obstruction considerations. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Zoning Ordinance 2943, Phil<br />

L. Hudson Municipal Airport<br />

Hazard Zoning Ordinance, was<br />

established to regulate and restrict the<br />

heights <strong>of</strong> structures and objects <strong>of</strong><br />

natural growth around the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />

enhance safety <strong>of</strong> aircraft in flight and<br />

objects on the ground. Also, the<br />

ordinance considered the potential<br />

conflicts an obstruction could pose on<br />

existing and future approach minimums<br />

at the <strong>airport</strong>.


Recognizing the importance <strong>of</strong><br />

maintaining and enforcing potential<br />

obstructions and hazards to flight, a<br />

zoning board was formed. <strong>The</strong> Airport<br />

Board <strong>of</strong> Adjustment is composed <strong>of</strong> five<br />

members, with three members<br />

appointed by the <strong>Mesquite</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council<br />

and two members appointed by the<br />

Town Council <strong>of</strong> the Town <strong>of</strong> Sunnyvale.<br />

<strong>The</strong> board’s duties include to hear and<br />

decide on appeals from the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

<strong>City</strong> Manager or <strong>Plan</strong>ner, hear and<br />

decide on special considerations or<br />

exceptions to the terms <strong>of</strong> the<br />

ordinance, and to hear and decide on<br />

specific variances. <strong>The</strong> board is<br />

mandated to hold a public meeting and<br />

make written findings <strong>of</strong> facts when<br />

making its legal decisions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> height zoning ordinance was<br />

established following Federal Aviation<br />

Regulation (F.A.R.) Part 77, Objects<br />

Effecting Navigable Airspace. F.A.R.<br />

Part 77 assigns three-dimensional<br />

imaginary areas to the runway in<br />

accordance to the type <strong>of</strong> aircraft and<br />

approach minimums being served.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se imaginary surfaces emanate from<br />

the runway centerline and are<br />

dimensioned to protect approaching and<br />

departing aircraft from the potential<br />

hazard <strong>of</strong> obstructions. Ordinance 2943<br />

considered the imaginary surfaces for a<br />

precision instrument runway with a<br />

1,000-foot primary surface. <strong>The</strong><br />

ordinance also considered Runway 17-<br />

35 at an ultimate length <strong>of</strong> 7,000 feet.<br />

<strong>The</strong> ordinance protected the horizontal,<br />

transitional, and conical surfaces<br />

defined by Part 77 for a precision<br />

runway.<br />

1-22<br />

SOCIOECONOMIC<br />

CHARACTERISTICS<br />

Socioeconomic characteristics are<br />

collected and examined to derive an<br />

understanding <strong>of</strong> the dynamics <strong>of</strong><br />

growth within the study area. This<br />

information is essential in determining<br />

aviation service level requirements, as<br />

well as forecasting aircraft activity at<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. Statistical analysis <strong>of</strong><br />

population, employment and income<br />

trends will give indications <strong>of</strong> the<br />

economic strength <strong>of</strong> the region and the<br />

ability <strong>of</strong> the region to sustain a strong<br />

economic base over an extended period<br />

<strong>of</strong> time.<br />

Where possible, local or regional data<br />

has been collected. Population data for<br />

those areas in and around the Dallas<br />

Metroplex was obtained from the North<br />

Central Texas Council <strong>of</strong> Governments<br />

(NCTCOG). As the designated<br />

Metropolitan <strong>Plan</strong>ning Organization<br />

(MPO) for the greater Dallas/Fort<br />

Worth Metroplex, NCTCOG publishes<br />

socioeconomic data for the region. <strong>The</strong><br />

Texas Water Development Board<br />

(TWDB) publishes population statistics<br />

on a county and statewide basis. <strong>The</strong><br />

Texas Office <strong>of</strong> the Comptroller also<br />

publishes population statistics that<br />

closely mirror those <strong>of</strong> the TWDB.<br />

Employment information is obtained<br />

from the Texas Workforce Commission.<br />

Income data is obtained from Woods &<br />

Poole Economics, Inc., a nationally<br />

recognized leader in demographic<br />

collection and analysis.


04MP22-1G-2/14/05<br />

LEGEND<br />

Agricultural<br />

Central Business District<br />

Commercial<br />

Duplex Residential<br />

General Retail<br />

Industrial<br />

Light Commercial<br />

Mixed Use<br />

Multi-Family Residential<br />

Office<br />

Service Station<br />

Single Family Residential<br />

Townhouse Residential<br />

SUNNYVALE<br />

A<br />

B<br />

Proposed<br />

Highway Highway 190<br />

190<br />

Alignments Alignment Alignments<br />

MESQUITE, TEXAS<br />

ZONING MAP<br />

C<br />

0 2,000<br />

Feet<br />

4,000<br />

Produced By <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning Division<br />

Last Update March, 2004<br />

D<br />

SEAGOVILLE<br />

MESQUITE ETJ<br />

LR<br />

Collins<br />

AH<br />

FP LR<br />

AH<br />

AH<br />

Seagoville<br />

US 175<br />

Larkin<br />

Clay<br />

Paschal<br />

US Hwy 80<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Dallas<br />

Stark<br />

Simonds<br />

Clay<br />

Lasater<br />

LR<br />

FP<br />

Mathis<br />

Berry<br />

Cartwright<br />

Lawson<br />

IH-20<br />

Shannon<br />

Farmers<br />

May<br />

GB<br />

LR<br />

FLOOD PLAIN<br />

Alto<br />

ast Fork<br />

SF-2<br />

SF-3<br />

SF-2<br />

SF-3<br />

Sunnyvale<br />

Larkin<br />

Berry<br />

SF-3<br />

Scyene<br />

SF-2<br />

Seagoville<br />

Rebecca<br />

SF-3<br />

Lawson<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> ETJ<br />

Malloy Bridge<br />

I<br />

SF-2<br />

FP<br />

SF-2<br />

HC<br />

HC<br />

FLOOD PLAIN<br />

County Rd 200<br />

FM 740<br />

SF-2<br />

SF-2<br />

GB<br />

FP<br />

SF-3<br />

County Rd 202<br />

County Rd 201<br />

SF-2<br />

FP<br />

SF-1<br />

I<br />

County<br />

GB<br />

AR<br />

Rd 209<br />

FM 740<br />

FM 2757<br />

Trinity<br />

SF-2<br />

FM 460<br />

Old Hwy 80<br />

Tradewind<br />

SF-2<br />

FLOOD PLAIN<br />

SF-2<br />

FM 740<br />

Old Nacogodches<br />

Sherwood<br />

Kelly<br />

SF-1<br />

Pecan<br />

Walnut<br />

Union Hill<br />

Overlook<br />

Lovers<br />

Melody<br />

FM 740<br />

Pecan Oak<br />

SF-2<br />

LC<br />

SF-2<br />

SF-2<br />

Tounsand<br />

Forney<br />

County Rd 257<br />

FM 741<br />

High Country<br />

FM 741<br />

Valleyvie<br />

FM 741<br />

FM 741<br />

FM 741<br />

K. C. Road 269<br />

Crandall<br />

SF-1<br />

SF-1<br />

GB<br />

HC<br />

SF-1<br />

HC<br />

HC<br />

HC<br />

HC<br />

SF-4<br />

SF-4<br />

FP<br />

HC<br />

GB SF-4<br />

SF-4<br />

FLOOD PLAIN<br />

I<br />

SF-4<br />

SF-1<br />

FP<br />

I<br />

Glenwood<br />

Ranch<br />

<strong>The</strong>lma<br />

FLOOD PLAIN<br />

I<br />

Griffin<br />

Reeder<br />

County Rd 218<br />

FM 1641<br />

FM 548<br />

Halms<br />

FM 2932<br />

County Rd. 260<br />

University<br />

Reeder<br />

Old Hwy 80<br />

County Rd South<br />

County Rd 211<br />

County Rd 214<br />

County Rd 261<br />

FM 148<br />

Tounsand<br />

TOWN OF SUNNYVALE<br />

ZONING MAP<br />

AR<br />

SF-1<br />

SF-2<br />

SF-3<br />

SF-4<br />

AH<br />

HC<br />

LR<br />

I<br />

LC<br />

GB<br />

FP<br />

LEGEND<br />

Agricultural Residential<br />

Single Family 1<br />

Single Family 2<br />

Single Family 3<br />

Single Family 4<br />

Attached Housing<br />

Highway Commercial<br />

Local Retail<br />

Industrial<br />

Lakeside Commercial<br />

General Business<br />

Flood Plain<br />

Town Center Overlay District<br />

1000<br />

0<br />

Feet<br />

2000<br />

SEPTEMBER 10, 2002<br />

THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR AND INTENDED TO BE A<br />

GENERAL GUIDE ONLY. DUE TO GRAPHIC REQUIREMENTS,<br />

SOME AREAS MAY NOT BE EXACT SCALE. FOR ACTUAL<br />

ZONING BOUNDARIES, SEE THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION.<br />

MESQUITE ETJ<br />

LEGEND<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> ETJ<br />

0 5,000<br />

Feet<br />

10,000<br />

Produced By <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning Division<br />

February 17, 2004<br />

Exhibit 1G<br />

ZONING/FUTURE LAND USE


POPULATION<br />

Population is one <strong>of</strong> the most important<br />

elements to consider when planning for<br />

future needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. Historical<br />

TABLE 1G<br />

Historical Population Statistics<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />

1-23<br />

population data for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>, Dallas and Kaufman<br />

Counties, and the State <strong>of</strong> Texas are<br />

presented in Table 1G.<br />

Populations 1970 1980 1990 2000<br />

Avg. Annual<br />

Growth Rate<br />

Kaufman County 32,392 39,015 52,220 71,313 2.67%<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>* 55,131 67,053 101,484 124,523 2.75%<br />

Dallas County 1,327,696 1,556,419 1,852,810 2,218,899 1.73%<br />

State <strong>of</strong> Texas** 11,196,730 14,229,191 16,986,510 20,851,820 2.09%<br />

Source: Texas Comptrollers Office; *NCTCOG - 2004 Current Population Estimates; **Texas<br />

Water Development Board<br />

<strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas shows a 2.09 percent<br />

annual growth rate from 1970 to 2000.<br />

This represents very strong growth<br />

when compared to other states. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has enjoyed even<br />

greater growth over the same period.<br />

Kaufman County, which is one-half<br />

mile to the east <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, has also<br />

enjoyed strong growth over the period.<br />

<strong>The</strong> growth rate for Dallas County as a<br />

whole has been 1.73 percent annually.<br />

For a county that also represents an<br />

urban core, this is excellent growth.<br />

This pattern is the opposite <strong>of</strong> the<br />

population trends for urban counties<br />

over the same period, where cities<br />

elsewhere typically lose population.<br />

It is forecast that the population growth<br />

over the next 20 years will slow<br />

somewhat as compared to the last 20<br />

years, but the growth is still significant.<br />

Kaufman County is forecast to continue<br />

to grow at more than two percent<br />

annually over the next 20 years. That<br />

will bring the population from 71,000 to<br />

nearly 126,000. Dallas County and the<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> are both expected to<br />

show continued growth. <strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong><br />

Texas is forecast to grow at 1.41 percent<br />

annually. Table 1H represents the<br />

forecast population over the next 20<br />

years.<br />

TABLE 1H<br />

Forecast Population<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />

Populations<br />

Kaufman<br />

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025<br />

Annual<br />

Growth Rate<br />

County<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

71,313 80,582 90,416 101,632 113,786 126,498 2.32%<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>* 124,523 132,988 136,175 143,014 149,262 151,838 0.80%<br />

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

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

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


EMPLOYMENT<br />

Analysis <strong>of</strong> a community’s employment<br />

base can be valuable in determining the<br />

overall well-being <strong>of</strong> that community.<br />

In most cases, the community’s makeup<br />

and health is significantly<br />

determined by the availability <strong>of</strong> jobs,<br />

variety <strong>of</strong> employment opportunities,<br />

and types <strong>of</strong> wages provided by local<br />

employers. Information for employment<br />

by industry for Dallas County was<br />

obtained from the Texas Workforce<br />

Commission.<br />

Table 1J summarizes labor force data<br />

for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, Dallas and<br />

Kaufman Counties, and the State <strong>of</strong><br />

Texas. Data for the United Stated is<br />

also provided for comparison purposes.<br />

As shown in the table, <strong>Mesquite</strong>’s labor<br />

force grew by more than 9,400 between<br />

1990 and 2004. This represents an<br />

overall annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> more than<br />

1.00 percent. <strong>The</strong> unemployment rate<br />

for <strong>Mesquite</strong> ranged from a low <strong>of</strong> 2.6<br />

percent to a high <strong>of</strong> 5.1 percent. This<br />

range is lower on average than that <strong>of</strong><br />

Dallas County as a whole. <strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong><br />

Texas’ unemployment rate tracks closer<br />

to Dallas County than the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> fares better than<br />

Dallas County, the State <strong>of</strong> Texas, and<br />

the United States in these employment<br />

categories. This is an indication <strong>of</strong> the<br />

positive employment environment that<br />

the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> can provide. Over<br />

the last 15 years, the <strong>City</strong> has had the<br />

lowest unemployment rate <strong>of</strong> the<br />

compared areas.<br />

<strong>The</strong> economic conditions during this 14year<br />

period should be noted. Between<br />

1-24<br />

1995 and 2001, the County and region<br />

experienced a period <strong>of</strong> sustained<br />

economic prosperity. A national<br />

economic slowdown occurred toward the<br />

end <strong>of</strong> 2000. <strong>The</strong> events <strong>of</strong> 9/11<br />

contributed to the continued economic<br />

slowdown. Recent economic trends<br />

show a steady economic upturn.<br />

Table 1K provides a view <strong>of</strong><br />

employment by industry for Dallas<br />

County for 2000 and 2025. Total<br />

employment is projected to increased by<br />

more than 625,000. This represents an<br />

average annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.15<br />

percent. <strong>The</strong> employment base <strong>of</strong><br />

Dallas County is projected to maintain<br />

a mix dominated by services, retail<br />

trade, and finance. Manufacturing<br />

currently represents over 10 percent <strong>of</strong><br />

the employment mix and is projected to<br />

show positive annual growth. <strong>The</strong><br />

largest sector <strong>of</strong> employment for Dallas<br />

County is the services sector. Over one<br />

million people are projected to be<br />

employed in the service sector by 2025,<br />

which represents approximately 40<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the total employment.<br />

<strong>The</strong> major employers in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> are presented in Table 1L.<br />

As is common in cities, the school<br />

district represents the employer with<br />

the greatest number <strong>of</strong> employees. <strong>The</strong><br />

second largest employer is United<br />

Parcel Service, with 2,340 employees.<br />

Eastfield Community College is also a<br />

large local employer, with nearly 1,200<br />

people. Understanding the types <strong>of</strong><br />

employment opportunities will aid in<br />

identifying demand for general aviation<br />

services.


TABLE 1J<br />

Employment Characteristics<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

1990 1995 2000 2004<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Labor Force 59,839 63,522 69,658 69,294<br />

Employment 57,476 61,096 67,853 65,790<br />

Unemployment 2,363 2,426 1,805 3,505<br />

Unemployment Rate 3.9 3.8 2.6 5.1<br />

Dallas County<br />

Labor Force 1,073,211 1,138,760 1,243,459 1,247,568<br />

Employment 1,016,748 1,080,800 1,200,318 1,163,823<br />

Unemployment 56,463 57,960 43,141 83,745<br />

Unemployment Rate 5.3 5.1 3.5 6.7<br />

Kaufman County<br />

Labor Force 25,341 28,775 33,946 36,075<br />

Employment 23,949 27,514 32,508 33,200<br />

Unemployment 1,392 1,261 1,438 2,875<br />

Unemployment Rate 5.5 4.4 4.2 8.0<br />

State <strong>of</strong> Texas<br />

Labor Force 8,618,780 9,592,929 10,401,557 10,978,591<br />

Employment 8,074,107 9,015,240 9,960,436 10,335,723<br />

Unemployment 544,673 577,689 441,121 642,868<br />

Unemployment Rate 6.3 6 4.2 5.9<br />

United States<br />

Labor Force 125,840,000 132,304,000 142,583,000 147,401,167<br />

Employment 118,793,000 124,900,000 136,891,000 139,251,917<br />

Unemployment 7,047,000 7,404,000 5,692,000 8,149,250<br />

Unemployment Rate 5.6 5.6 4 5.5<br />

Source: Texas Workforce Commission<br />

TABLE 1K<br />

Employment by Sector<br />

Dallas County<br />

Economic Sector 2000<br />

% <strong>of</strong> Total<br />

Employment<br />

(2000) 2025<br />

1-25<br />

% <strong>of</strong> Total<br />

Employment<br />

(2025)<br />

Avg. Annual<br />

Growth Rate<br />

(2000-2025)<br />

Mining 17,123 0.90% 16,307 0.65% -0.20%<br />

Construction 108,214 5.72% 137,071 5.44% 0.95%<br />

Manufacturing 193,593 10.23% 205,923 8.17% 0.25%<br />

Transport., Comm., & Utilities 145,586 7.69% 193,699 7.69% 1.15%<br />

Wholesale Trade 149,453 7.89% 180,203 7.15% 0.75%<br />

Retail Trade 278,416 14.71% 343,825 13.65% 0.85%<br />

Finance, Ins., & Real Estate 207,691 10.97% 252,566 10.02% 0.79%<br />

Services 638,035 33.70% 1,005,899 39.92% 1.84%<br />

Federal Civilian Government 28,661 1.51% 32,025 1.27% 0.44%<br />

Federal Military Government 7,413 0.39% 7,817 0.31% 0.21%<br />

State and Local Government 118,986 6.29% 144,412 5.73% 0.78%<br />

Total Employment 1,893,171 100.00% 2,519,747 100.00% 1.15%<br />

Source: Woods and Poole, CEDDS (2004).


TABLE 1L<br />

Major Employers<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Company Business Employees<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> School District Public 4,308<br />

United Parcel Service Transportation 2,340<br />

Eastfield Community College Public 1,191<br />

Baker Drywall Service 1,125<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Public 1,068<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Community Hospital Service 750<br />

Medical Center <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Service 700<br />

Wal-Mart Supercenter Retail 510<br />

TxDOT Transportation 500<br />

Pepsi Cola Bottling Manufacturing 450<br />

Schneider National Service 450<br />

Integra Color Group Manufacturing 410<br />

U.S. Foodservice Wholesale 350<br />

Christian Care Center Service 270<br />

Allmet Building Products Manufacturing 260<br />

Source: 2004 <strong>City</strong>wide Data Summary, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME<br />

Table 1M compares the per capita<br />

personal income (PCPI adjusted to 1996<br />

dollars) for Dallas and Kaufman<br />

Counties, the State <strong>of</strong> Texas, and the<br />

United States between 1990 and 2000.<br />

In addition, the forecast PCPI from<br />

2000 to 2025 is also presented. As<br />

TABLE 1M<br />

Personal Income Per Capita (1996$)<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

1-26<br />

illustrated by the table, Dallas County’s<br />

PCPI has historically been ahead <strong>of</strong> the<br />

United States’ PCPI. This trend is<br />

projected to continue to 2025. <strong>The</strong> table<br />

illustrates the substantial growth in<br />

personal income from 1990 to 2000. It<br />

also projects a return to a more<br />

moderate annual growth through the<br />

forecast period.<br />

HISTORICAL FORECAST<br />

Annual<br />

Annual<br />

Growth<br />

Growth<br />

Rate (1990-<br />

Rate (2000-<br />

Area 1990 2000 2000) 2010 2015 2025 2025)<br />

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

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

State <strong>of</strong> Texas $20,374 $26,066 2.49% $28,691 $30,361 $34,080 1.08%<br />

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

Source: Woods and Poole, CEDDS (2004)


TAX INFORMATION<br />

Texas is one <strong>of</strong> only four states that<br />

does not have a corporate income tax,<br />

and one <strong>of</strong> only seven states that does<br />

not have an individual income tax. A<br />

6.25 percent state sales tax, a 1.5<br />

percent city sales tax, and a 0.5 percent<br />

tax to the <strong>Mesquite</strong> Quality <strong>of</strong> Life<br />

Corporation (used for transportation,<br />

public safety, and parks and recreation<br />

improvements) comprise <strong>Mesquite</strong>’s<br />

8.25 percent sales tax rate.<br />

SUMMARY<br />

<strong>The</strong> information discussed in this<br />

chapter provides a foundation upon<br />

which the remaining elements <strong>of</strong> the<br />

planning process will be constructed.<br />

Information on current <strong>airport</strong> facilities<br />

and utilization will serve as a basis,<br />

with additional analysis and data<br />

collection, for the development <strong>of</strong><br />

forecasts <strong>of</strong> aviation activity and facility<br />

requirement determinations.<br />

<strong>The</strong> inventory <strong>of</strong> existing conditions is<br />

the first step in the complex process for<br />

determining those factors which will<br />

meet projected aviation demand in the<br />

community and region.<br />

DOCUMENT SOURCES<br />

A variety <strong>of</strong> different sources were<br />

utilized in the inventory process. <strong>The</strong><br />

following listing reflects a partial<br />

compilation <strong>of</strong> these sources. This does<br />

not include data provided by <strong>airport</strong><br />

management as part <strong>of</strong> their records,<br />

nor does it include <strong>airport</strong> drawings and<br />

1-27<br />

photographs which were referenced for<br />

information. On-site inventory and<br />

interviews with staff and tenants<br />

contributed to the inventory effort.<br />

Airport/Facility Directory, South<br />

Central U.S., U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Transportation, Federal Aviation<br />

Administration, National Aeronautical<br />

Charting Office, January 20, 2005.<br />

Dallas-Ft. Worth Sectional Aeronautical<br />

Chart, U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Transportation, Federal Aviation<br />

Administration, National Aeronautical<br />

Charting Office, 73 rd edition, September<br />

30, 2004.<br />

National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong> Integrated Airport<br />

Systems (NPIAS), U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Transportation, Federal Aviation<br />

Administration, 2005-2009.<br />

U.S. Terminal Procedures, South<br />

Central U.S., U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Transportation, Federal Aviation<br />

Administration, National Aeronautical<br />

Charting Office, January 20, 2005.<br />

2003 <strong>Mesquite</strong> Development Guide.<br />

Prepared by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

<strong>Plan</strong>ning and Zoning Division.<br />

2004 <strong>City</strong>wide Data Summary,<br />

Prepared by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

<strong>Plan</strong>ning and Zoning Division.<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Developer’s Handbook.<br />

Prepared by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

<strong>Plan</strong>ning and Zoning Division.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Complete Economic and<br />

Demographic Data Source 2004<br />

(CEDDS), Woods & Poole Economics,<br />

Inc., Washington D.C.


A number <strong>of</strong> internet Web sites were<br />

also used to collect information for the<br />

inventory chapter. <strong>The</strong>se include the<br />

following:<br />

North Central Texas Council <strong>of</strong><br />

Governments:<br />

http://www.nctcog.org<br />

FAA 5010 Data:<br />

http://www.airnav.com<br />

http://www.gcr1.com/5010WEB/defaul<br />

t.htm (Airport IQ)<br />

1-28<br />

Texas Water Development Board:<br />

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/home/inde<br />

x.asp<br />

Texas Workforce Commission:<br />

http://www.twc.state.tx.us<br />

U.S. Census Bureau:<br />

http://www.census.gov<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>:<br />

http://www.city<strong>of</strong>mesquite.com<br />

Dallas County:<br />

http://www.dallascounty.org


Chapter Two<br />

AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS


CHAPTER TWO<br />

Aviation demand<br />

forecasts<br />

Facility planning begins by defining the demand that may<br />

reasonably be expected to occur at the facility over a specific<br />

period <strong>of</strong> time. For <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, this involves<br />

forecasts <strong>of</strong> aviation activity indicators through the year 2025.<br />

In this master plan, forecasts <strong>of</strong> based aircraft, based aircraft<br />

fleet mix, annual aircraft operations, and operational peak<br />

periods will serve as the basis for facility development<br />

planning.<br />

It is virtually impossible to predict, with certainty, year-to-year<br />

fluctuations <strong>of</strong> activity when looking 20 years into the future.<br />

However, a trend can be established which delineates long term<br />

growth potential. While a single line is <strong>of</strong>ten used to express<br />

the anticipated growth, it is important to remember that actual<br />

growth may fluctuate above and below this line. Forecasts<br />

serve as guidelines and planning must remain flexible enough<br />

to respond to unforeseen facility needs. This is because<br />

aviation is affected by many external influences, as well as by<br />

the types <strong>of</strong> aircraft used and the nature <strong>of</strong> the available<br />

services and facilities at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Recognizing this, it is intended to develop a master plan for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport that will be demand-based rather than<br />

time-based. As a result, the reasonable levels <strong>of</strong> activity<br />

potential that are derived from this forecasting effort will be<br />

related to the planning horizon levels rather than dates in time.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se planning levels will be established as levels <strong>of</strong> activity<br />

from which specific actions for the <strong>airport</strong> to consider will be<br />

presented.<br />

2-1 DRAFT


In order to fully assess current and<br />

future aviation demand for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport, an examination <strong>of</strong><br />

several key factors is needed. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

include national and regional aviation<br />

trends, historical and forecast<br />

socioeconomic and demographic<br />

information for the area, competing<br />

transportation modes, and facilities.<br />

Consideration and analysis <strong>of</strong> these<br />

factors will ensure a comprehensive<br />

outlook for future aviation demand at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

<strong>The</strong> demand-based manner in which<br />

this master plan is being prepared is<br />

intended to accommodate variations in<br />

demand at the <strong>airport</strong>. Demand-based<br />

planning relates capital improvements<br />

to demand factors, such as based<br />

aircraft operations, instead <strong>of</strong> points in<br />

time. This allows the <strong>airport</strong> to address<br />

capital improvement needs according to<br />

actual demand occurring at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong>refore, should growth in aircraft<br />

operations, or based aircraft slow or<br />

decline, it may not be necessary to<br />

implement some improvement projects.<br />

However, should the <strong>airport</strong> experience<br />

accelerated growth, the plan will have<br />

accounted for that growth and will be<br />

flexible enough to respond accordingly.<br />

SOCIOECONOMIC<br />

PROJECTIONS<br />

<strong>The</strong> local socioeconomic conditions<br />

provide an important baseline for<br />

preparing aviation demand forecasts.<br />

Local socioeconomic variables such as<br />

population, employment, and income<br />

can be indicators for understanding the<br />

dynamics <strong>of</strong> the community and, in<br />

2-2<br />

particular, the trends in aviation<br />

growth. <strong>The</strong> following is a summary <strong>of</strong><br />

the research and projections presented<br />

in Chapter One.<br />

POPULATION<br />

Table 2A summarizes historical and<br />

forecast population estimates for Dallas<br />

and Kaufman Counties, as well as the<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>. <strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas’<br />

projections are provided as a point <strong>of</strong><br />

reference. Analysis <strong>of</strong> these areas<br />

which directly impact <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport will provide a more<br />

comprehensive understanding <strong>of</strong> the<br />

socioeconomic situations that affect the<br />

region which supports the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

analysis <strong>of</strong> historical population<br />

information for Dallas County indicates<br />

an annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.82 percent<br />

between 1990 and 2000. Kaufman<br />

County shows an annual growth rate <strong>of</strong><br />

3.17 percent over the same period. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> grew at the same<br />

percent, 2.07, as the State <strong>of</strong> Texas.<br />

Across the board, regional socioeconomic<br />

growth rates were significant<br />

for this time period. <strong>The</strong> greater Dallas<br />

area was one <strong>of</strong> the fastest growing<br />

metropolitan areas in the country. In<br />

fact, many metropolitan areas in the<br />

south, such as Atlanta and Phoenix also<br />

reflected similar annual growth rates.<br />

Many northern cities, however, showed<br />

much slower growth rates or even<br />

negative growth rates over the same<br />

period.<br />

Future population data for Dallas and<br />

Kaufman Counties and the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> are also presented. <strong>The</strong>


population for Dallas County is forecast<br />

to exceed three million by 2025. This<br />

projection equates to an annual growth<br />

rate <strong>of</strong> 1.37 percent between 2000 and<br />

2025. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> is also<br />

projected to continue to grow but at a<br />

TABLE 2A<br />

Socioeconomic Forecast Summary<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

HISTORICAL FORECAST<br />

1990 2000 2010 2015 2025<br />

2-3<br />

more moderate 0.8 percent. Kaufman<br />

County population, on the other hand,<br />

is projected to grow at an annual rate <strong>of</strong><br />

2.32 percent, increasing from 71,000 in<br />

2000 to 126,000 in 2025.<br />

ANNUAL<br />

GROWTH<br />

RATE<br />

1990 to<br />

2000<br />

2000 to<br />

2025<br />

Kaufman County<br />

Population 52,220 71,313 90,416 101,632 126,498 3.17% 2.32%<br />

Employment 23,949 27,514 35,887 38,584 57,741 1.40% 3.01%<br />

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

Dallas County<br />

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

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

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

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Population 101,484 124,523 136,175 143,014 151,838 2.07% 0.80%<br />

Employment 42,000 53,785 64,733 69,790 75,551 2.50% 1.37%<br />

State <strong>of</strong> Texas<br />

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

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

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

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

Historical Employment - Texas Workforce Commission; Population & Future<br />

Employment - NCTCOG.<br />

EMPLOYMENT<br />

Historical and forecast employment<br />

data for the region is also presented in<br />

Table 2A. <strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas is<br />

projected to show an annual<br />

employment growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.64 percent<br />

from 2000 to 2025. Although this<br />

growth is slightly slower than the 2.85<br />

percent from 1990 to 2000, it is still<br />

quite brisk.<br />

Dallas and Kaufman Counties are<br />

projected to experience very strong<br />

employment growth through 2025, at<br />

2.92 percent and 3.01 percent<br />

respectively. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> is<br />

projected to show continued positive<br />

employment growth at 0.8 percent<br />

annually through the planning period.<br />

<strong>The</strong> projected employment growth in<br />

and around <strong>Mesquite</strong> bodes well for the<br />

economic well being <strong>of</strong> the area.


PER CAPITA PERSONAL<br />

INCOME (PCPI)<br />

Table 2A compares per capita personal<br />

income (adjusted to 1996 dollars) for the<br />

selected areas <strong>of</strong> study. From 1990 to<br />

2000, PCPI for Dallas and Kaufman<br />

Counties as well as the State <strong>of</strong> Texas<br />

showed substantial growth. Through<br />

2025, Dallas and Kaufman Counties are<br />

projected to experience moderate gains<br />

in PCPI. In fact, Dallas County is<br />

expected to exceed the PCPI <strong>of</strong> the State<br />

<strong>of</strong> Texas by more than $8,000 per<br />

person annually, through the planning<br />

period.<br />

FORECASTING APPROACH<br />

<strong>The</strong> development <strong>of</strong> aviation forecasts<br />

proceeds through both analytical and<br />

judgmental processes. A series <strong>of</strong><br />

mathematical relationships is tested to<br />

establish statistical logic and rationale<br />

for projected growth. However, the<br />

judgement <strong>of</strong> the forecast analyst, based<br />

upon pr<strong>of</strong>essional experience,<br />

knowledge <strong>of</strong> the aviation industry, and<br />

assessment <strong>of</strong> the local situation, is<br />

important in the final determination <strong>of</strong><br />

the preferred forecast.<br />

<strong>The</strong> most reliable approach to<br />

estimating aviation demand is through<br />

the utilization <strong>of</strong> more than one<br />

analytical technique. Methodologies<br />

frequently considered include trend line<br />

projections, correlation/regression<br />

analysis, and market share analysis.<br />

Trend line projections are probably<br />

the simplest and most familiar <strong>of</strong> the<br />

forecasting techniques. By fitting<br />

2-4<br />

growth curves to historical demand<br />

data, then extending them into the<br />

future, a basic trend line projection is<br />

produced. A basic assumption <strong>of</strong> this<br />

technique is that outside factors will<br />

continue to affect aviation demand in<br />

much the same manner as in the past.<br />

As broad as this assumption may be,<br />

the trend line projection does serve as a<br />

reliable benchmark for comparing other<br />

projections.<br />

Correlation analysis provides a<br />

measure <strong>of</strong> direct relationship between<br />

two separate sets <strong>of</strong> historic data.<br />

Should there be a reasonable<br />

correlation between the data sets,<br />

further evaluation using regression<br />

analysis may be employed.<br />

Regression analysis measures the<br />

statistical relationship between<br />

dependent and independent variables<br />

yielding a “correlation coefficient.” <strong>The</strong><br />

correlation coefficient (Pearson’s “r”)<br />

measures association between the<br />

changes in a dependent variable and<br />

independent variable(s). If the rsquared<br />

(r 2 ) value (coefficient<br />

determination) is greater than 0.90, it<br />

indicates good predictive reliability. A<br />

value below 0.90 may be used with the<br />

understanding that the predictive<br />

reliability is lower.<br />

Market share analysis involves a<br />

historical review <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> activity as a<br />

percentage, or share, <strong>of</strong> a larger<br />

regional, state, or national aviation<br />

market. A historical market share<br />

trend is determined providing an<br />

expected market share for the future.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se shares are then multiplied by the<br />

forecasts <strong>of</strong> the larger geographical area


to produce a market share projection.<br />

This method has the same limitations<br />

as trend line projections, but can<br />

provide a useful check on the validity <strong>of</strong><br />

other forecasting techniques.<br />

It is important to note that one should<br />

not assume a high level <strong>of</strong> confidence in<br />

forecasts that extend beyond five years.<br />

Facility and financial planning usually<br />

require at least a 10-year view, since it<br />

<strong>of</strong>ten takes more than five years to<br />

complete a major facility development<br />

program. However, it is important to<br />

use forecasts which do not overestimate<br />

revenue-generating capabilities or<br />

understate demand for facilities needed<br />

to meet public (user) needs.<br />

A wide range <strong>of</strong> factors is known to<br />

influence the aviation industry and can<br />

have significant impacts on the extent<br />

and nature <strong>of</strong> air service provided in<br />

both the local and national markets.<br />

Technological advances in aviation have<br />

historically altered, and will continue to<br />

change, the growth rates in aviation<br />

demand over time. <strong>The</strong> most obvious<br />

example is the impact <strong>of</strong> jet aircraft on<br />

the aviation industry, which resulted in<br />

a growth rate that far exceeded<br />

expectations. Such changes are<br />

difficult, if not impossible, to predict,<br />

and there is simply no mathematical<br />

way to estimate their impacts. Using a<br />

broad spectrum <strong>of</strong> local, regional, and<br />

national socioeconomic and aviation<br />

information, and analyzing the most<br />

current aviation trends, forecasts are<br />

presented in the following sections.<br />

<strong>The</strong> following forecast analysis<br />

examines each <strong>of</strong> the aviation demand<br />

categories expected at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport through 2025. Each segment<br />

2-5<br />

will be examined individually, and then<br />

collectively, to provide an<br />

understanding <strong>of</strong> the overall aviation<br />

activity at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

through 2025.<br />

AIRPORT SERVICE AREA<br />

<strong>The</strong> initial step in determining the<br />

general aviation demand for an <strong>airport</strong><br />

is to define its generalized service area.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> service area is determined<br />

primarily by evaluating the location <strong>of</strong><br />

competing <strong>airport</strong>s, their capabilities<br />

and services, and their relative<br />

attraction and convenience. Also, to aid<br />

in identifying the generalized service<br />

area for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, an<br />

analysis <strong>of</strong> the billing addresses for<br />

most <strong>of</strong> the based aircraft owners was<br />

conducted. It should be noted that<br />

aviation demand <strong>of</strong>ten crosses<br />

geographical and political boundaries.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> service area is a generalized<br />

geographical area where there is a<br />

potential market for <strong>airport</strong> services.<br />

Access to general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s,<br />

commercial air service, and<br />

transportation networks enter into the<br />

equation to determine the size <strong>of</strong> a<br />

service area, as well as the quality <strong>of</strong><br />

aviation facilities, distance, and other<br />

subjective criteria. Typically, the<br />

service area for a rural general aviation<br />

<strong>airport</strong> can extend up to 30 miles.<br />

General aviation <strong>airport</strong>s, especially<br />

reliever <strong>airport</strong>s in urban settings, can<br />

expect a service area to extend outward<br />

up to 30 miles.<br />

<strong>The</strong> proximity and level <strong>of</strong> service<br />

<strong>of</strong>fered by other <strong>airport</strong>s are largely the<br />

defining factors when describing the


<strong>airport</strong> service area. A description <strong>of</strong><br />

nearby <strong>airport</strong>s was previously<br />

completed in Chapter One. <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

has five directly-competing general<br />

aviation <strong>airport</strong>s: Dallas Executive,<br />

Lancaster, Addison, Terrell and<br />

Rockwall, and one commercial service<br />

<strong>airport</strong> with a large contingent <strong>of</strong><br />

general aviation aircraft, Dallas Love<br />

Field.<br />

Rockwall, Terrell and Lancaster have<br />

shorter runways and fewer services<br />

available than does <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. Both Rockwall and Terrell are<br />

also somewhat restricted in future<br />

growth capabilities due to<br />

environmental considerations and<br />

natural barriers surrounding the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s. Due to these limitations,<br />

neither <strong>airport</strong> will be capable <strong>of</strong> fully<br />

meeting their aviation demand.<br />

Rockwall’s ability to accommodate any<br />

growth is significantly limited. Terrell<br />

can accommodate most future demand,<br />

however, aircraft desiring more than<br />

5,500 feet will likely base elsewhere. As<br />

a result, the service area for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport would extend to and<br />

include a portion <strong>of</strong> these <strong>airport</strong>s’<br />

service areas.<br />

Addison Airport does have a longer<br />

runway and significant fixed based<br />

operator (FBO) services, but it is near<br />

operational capacity. It is located just<br />

north <strong>of</strong> Dallas Love Field and<br />

northeast <strong>of</strong> DFW. As a result, airspace<br />

congestion can lead to lengthy delays<br />

due to the need for clearances.<br />

Moreover, Addison Airport has very<br />

little room for future development.<br />

Thus, <strong>Mesquite</strong>’s service area will<br />

extend into Addison’s service area,<br />

2-6<br />

attracting aircraft owners who elect to<br />

avoid the urban/busy nature <strong>of</strong> Addison<br />

and base at <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

Dallas Executive is probably the<br />

primary competition for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport, considering the availability <strong>of</strong><br />

a longer runway, an <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />

control tower (ATCT), two large FBOs,<br />

and a new terminal building that is<br />

currently under construction. It is<br />

likely that Dallas Executive will limit<br />

the western extent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

service area.<br />

Dallas Love Field is also attractive to<br />

general aviation users as the runways<br />

are adequate and there are large FBOs<br />

on the field providing the full array <strong>of</strong><br />

general aviation services. A drawback<br />

to Dallas Love Field may be the regular<br />

mixing <strong>of</strong> large commercial aviation and<br />

smaller general aviation aircraft. This<br />

situation is typically not desired by<br />

smaller aircraft owners who would<br />

likely consider an <strong>airport</strong> such as<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>. Love Field will compete with<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> primarily for corporate<br />

aircraft.<br />

As in any business enterprise, the more<br />

attractive the facility is in services and<br />

capabilities, the more competitive it will<br />

be in the market. As the level <strong>of</strong><br />

attractiveness expands, so will the<br />

service area. If an <strong>airport</strong>’s<br />

attractiveness increases in relation to<br />

nearby <strong>airport</strong>s, so will the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />

service area. If facilities are adequate<br />

and rates and fees are competitive at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, some level <strong>of</strong><br />

general aviation activity might be<br />

attracted to the <strong>airport</strong> from<br />

surrounding areas.


In determining the aviation demand for<br />

an <strong>airport</strong>, it is necessary to identify the<br />

role <strong>of</strong> that <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> primary role <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is to serve the<br />

needs <strong>of</strong> general aviation operators in<br />

the region. General aviation is a term<br />

used to describe a diverse range <strong>of</strong><br />

aviation activities which includes all<br />

segments <strong>of</strong> the aviation industry<br />

except commercial air carriers and the<br />

military. This includes recreational<br />

flying in single-engine aircraft, up to<br />

corporate business jets.<br />

In addition, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

a designated reliever <strong>airport</strong>. In this<br />

capacity, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

should be maintained to accommodate<br />

all general aviation aircraft, such as<br />

business jets, to minimize congestion at<br />

commercial service <strong>airport</strong>s. TxDOT<br />

also further identifies <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport as a Transport <strong>airport</strong>. This<br />

designation makes the <strong>airport</strong> eligible<br />

for improvements to accommodate<br />

larger general aviation business jets.<br />

Exhibit 2A depicts the primary service<br />

area for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport as<br />

derived from the analysis <strong>of</strong> the billing<br />

records <strong>of</strong> those aircraft owners that<br />

base at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> largest<br />

concentration <strong>of</strong> based aircraft owners<br />

reside (home or business) in the east<br />

side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dallas. A large<br />

number are also from the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>. Interestingly, the larger<br />

concentrations <strong>of</strong> aircraft owners lie<br />

near immediate highway access,<br />

particularly along I-635, I-30 and I-20.<br />

<strong>The</strong> service area also extends very near<br />

competing Lancaster, Dallas Executive<br />

and Addison <strong>airport</strong>s. Three <strong>of</strong> the<br />

based aircraft owners reside in the<br />

Rockwall area.<br />

2-7<br />

Often a general aviation <strong>airport</strong> may<br />

also have an identifiable secondary<br />

service area. Typically, this area would<br />

extend beyond the primary service area<br />

in order to fill in gaps <strong>of</strong> service<br />

between <strong>airport</strong>s. A secondary service<br />

area has been identified for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport. This area essentially<br />

creates a crescent around the east side<br />

<strong>of</strong> the primary service area. Aircraft<br />

owners in the secondary service area<br />

are typically closer to another <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

but due to a lack <strong>of</strong> facilities may<br />

instead choose to base at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport.<br />

AIRPORT USER SURVEY<br />

In order to obtain a pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> local<br />

general aviation users and their<br />

preferences, an <strong>airport</strong> user survey was<br />

conducted. <strong>The</strong> survey was sent to all<br />

registered aircraft owners living<br />

roughly within a 20-mile radius, as<br />

identified by FAA records. This area<br />

approximates the previously defined<br />

<strong>airport</strong> service area. A total <strong>of</strong> 626<br />

surveys were mailed, 113 responses<br />

were received (18.1 percent response<br />

rate), and 46 respondents indicated that<br />

they base at least one aircraft at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, as presented in<br />

Table 2B.<br />

Thirteen <strong>of</strong> the 46 respondents that<br />

base at <strong>Mesquite</strong> indicated that they<br />

were contemplating the acquisition <strong>of</strong> at<br />

least one additional aircraft within the<br />

next five years. Responses indicated<br />

that each user conducts an average <strong>of</strong><br />

12 operations per month, with local<br />

training operations averaging 10<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> those operations. <strong>The</strong>


espondents indicated that they use<br />

their aircraft for recreation 66 percent<br />

TABLE 2B<br />

Pilot Survey Results<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Total Surveys Sent: 626<br />

Total Survey Responses: 113<br />

Response Rate: 18.1%<br />

Respondents Based @ HQZ: 46<br />

Total Based Aircraft <strong>of</strong> Based Respondents: 54<br />

Based respondents considering another aircraft in next 5 years:<br />

Primary Use <strong>of</strong> Aircraft %<br />

Flight<br />

13<br />

Business Recreation Instruction Other<br />

33.52% 66.33% 0.15% 0.00%<br />

Monthly Operations at HQZ by based respondents: 654<br />

Average Operations for each based aircraft per month:<br />

Percent Touch and Go Operations per based aircraft per<br />

12<br />

month:<br />

Primary Reasons for Basing at <strong>Mesquite</strong> (1-7)<br />

9.81%<br />

Hangar FBO/Terminal Hangar Runway<br />

Convenience<br />

Facilities<br />

Services<br />

2-8<br />

<strong>of</strong> the time and business 33 percent <strong>of</strong><br />

the time.<br />

Costs<br />

Length<br />

Navigation<br />

Aids Other<br />

2.1 3.8 5.0 4.5 5.1 5.1 6.5<br />

Current Aircraft Storage<br />

Tie-down T-hangar Individual Multi<br />

3 16 26 1<br />

Preferred Aircraft Storage<br />

Tie-down T-hangar Individual Multi<br />

1 6 20 3<br />

Improvements Necessary at <strong>Mesquite</strong> (1-6)<br />

Runway/ Airport/ FBO Aircraft<br />

Terminal Navigation<br />

Taxiway Services Apron Hangars Building Aids<br />

5.1 4.2 5.6 3.4 5.4 4.9<br />

Source: Registered Pilot Survey. 1 = ‘Highest Priority’. C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis.<br />

<strong>The</strong> remaining questions on the survey<br />

were related to owner preferences.<br />

Table 2B presents the priority<br />

categories and respondent rankings.<br />

<strong>The</strong> priority scale utilized number “1”<br />

as the highest priority and the number<br />

“7” as the lowest priority. It should be<br />

noted that several respondents simply<br />

checked a category or did not prioritize<br />

at all. Checked categories were given<br />

the priority <strong>of</strong> “1”, while unchecked<br />

categories were weighted with a “7”.<br />

<strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> respondents indicated<br />

several preferences which led them to<br />

base at or has kept them at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

As indicated in the table, the highest<br />

priority for basing at the <strong>airport</strong> was for<br />

convenience (lived or worked closer to<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>). <strong>The</strong> next two highest


04MP22-2A-2/22/05<br />

Johnson<br />

Legend<br />

Water<br />

MESQUITE METRO AIRPORT SERVICE AREA<br />

I635<br />

Primary Service Area<br />

Secondary Service Area<br />

Zip Code Areas<br />

County Boundaries<br />

Major Roads<br />

I35E<br />

I35E<br />

Mid-Way<br />

Ellis<br />

(Based Aircraft Zip Code Location)<br />

76208<br />

75068<br />

75034<br />

75035<br />

75070<br />

75069<br />

76210<br />

76226<br />

75065<br />

75013<br />

75407<br />

75442<br />

75077<br />

75028<br />

75022<br />

Denton 75056<br />

75057<br />

75010<br />

75067<br />

75007<br />

75025<br />

75024<br />

75023<br />

75093<br />

75252 75075<br />

75287<br />

Addison<br />

75074<br />

75082<br />

3<br />

75002<br />

Collin<br />

75094<br />

75098<br />

1<br />

75048<br />

75173<br />

75166<br />

75248 1 1 75080<br />

1<br />

75087<br />

75019 75006<br />

3<br />

75001<br />

1<br />

3<br />

76051<br />

1 75254<br />

75044<br />

75040<br />

75244 1 75240<br />

75081<br />

75089<br />

75234<br />

75243<br />

2<br />

DFW<br />

75251<br />

75229<br />

75042<br />

4<br />

75088<br />

75063<br />

75230<br />

Rockwall<br />

75261<br />

1<br />

75238 75041<br />

4<br />

75039<br />

75231 8 3<br />

75038<br />

75043<br />

75062<br />

75220 Love<br />

75032<br />

76039<br />

75218<br />

4<br />

7520975205<br />

75225<br />

1<br />

2 2 75228<br />

75235 2 1<br />

75150<br />

75214<br />

76155 75061<br />

1<br />

10<br />

75247<br />

6 2<br />

75219 75206<br />

75182<br />

75060<br />

1 1<br />

1 75223<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

2 76006<br />

75227 75149<br />

75212<br />

7520775204<br />

75050<br />

75201<br />

Tarrant<br />

Dallas S352<br />

1 9 <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

75208<br />

76011<br />

75215<br />

75051 75211<br />

75203<br />

6 75126<br />

75181 7<br />

76010 Grand Prairie 75224 75216<br />

75217 75180<br />

75233<br />

76014<br />

Dallas Executive<br />

75236<br />

75253<br />

75052<br />

75237 75241<br />

76018<br />

75116 75232 5<br />

75249<br />

75141<br />

75159<br />

75137<br />

76002<br />

75114<br />

75134<br />

75172 2<br />

76063<br />

76084<br />

76009<br />

76064<br />

75104<br />

76065<br />

75167<br />

75115<br />

75154<br />

75165<br />

75146<br />

I45<br />

Lancaster<br />

75152<br />

Based per Zip<br />

1-3<br />

4-8<br />

9-48<br />

75125<br />

Source: Airport Records. GIS data<br />

compiled by C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates.<br />

75119<br />

I30<br />

I20<br />

Rockwall<br />

75158<br />

Dallas - 48<br />

241,227,226,223,206,219,<br />

205,235,228,218,238,229,<br />

243,244,254,248,372,374,<br />

240,225,214,204<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> - 20<br />

75181,75149,75150<br />

Garland - 14<br />

043,041,040,044,047<br />

75189<br />

75160<br />

Kaufman<br />

Richardson - 5<br />

081,080,082<br />

Rowlett - 4<br />

75088<br />

Forney - 4<br />

75126<br />

Rockwell - 3<br />

75087<br />

Seagoville - 2<br />

75159<br />

0 4 8<br />

Miles<br />

1 inch equals 8 miles<br />

75135<br />

Terrell<br />

75142<br />

U175<br />

Henderson<br />

Majors<br />

Caddo Mills<br />

Hunt<br />

75143<br />

75401<br />

75402<br />

75474<br />

75161<br />

Van Zandt<br />

75147<br />

Sunnyvale - 2<br />

75182<br />

Arlington - 2<br />

76006<br />

<strong>Plan</strong>o - 2<br />

75093,75094<br />

Other - 7<br />

062,048,070,055,<br />

128,181,701<br />

75169<br />

75103<br />

75124<br />

Exhibit 2A<br />

SERVICE AREA


priorities were the <strong>airport</strong>’s aircraft<br />

hangar facilities (3.8) and lower hangar<br />

storage fees (4.5). <strong>The</strong> lowest ranked<br />

category was both runway length and<br />

navigational aids, which had a response<br />

average <strong>of</strong> 5.1.<br />

<strong>The</strong> questionnaire also asked those<br />

surveyed what improvements they felt<br />

were necessary at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. This question asked for a<br />

priority ranking with “1” as the highest<br />

and “6" as the lowest. A clear majority<br />

felt that repairing existing hangars<br />

and/or constructing new hangars was<br />

the top priority. <strong>The</strong> need for improved<br />

FBO services, particularly quality<br />

maintenance facilities, was the second<br />

most common response. Terminal<br />

building or aircraft apron improvements<br />

were <strong>of</strong> the least concern to the based<br />

respondents.<br />

<strong>The</strong> respondents were also asked to<br />

provide general comments. <strong>The</strong> need<br />

for an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower<br />

(ATCT) was a common request. One<br />

respondent sited the lack <strong>of</strong> an ATCT as<br />

a safety concern that discouraged him<br />

from using the <strong>airport</strong>. Another<br />

suggested that because the instrument<br />

landing system (ILS) approach attracts<br />

a large number <strong>of</strong> training flights to the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, the <strong>airport</strong> should consider an<br />

ATCT for improved safety. Other<br />

common improvement suggestions<br />

included a restaurant, improved<br />

highway access and a maintenance FBO<br />

focused on business jets.<br />

2-9<br />

AVIATION TRENDS<br />

NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS<br />

Each year, the Federal Aviation<br />

Administration (FAA) publishes its<br />

national forecast. Included in this<br />

publication are forecasts for large air<br />

carriers, regional air carriers, general<br />

aviation, and FAA workload measures.<br />

<strong>The</strong> forecasts are prepared to meet<br />

budget and planning needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />

constituent units <strong>of</strong> the FAA and to<br />

provide information that can be used by<br />

state and local authorities, the aviation<br />

industry, and the general public. <strong>The</strong><br />

current edition when this chapter was<br />

prepared was FAA Aerospace Forecasts-<br />

Fiscal Years, 2005-2016. <strong>The</strong> forecast<br />

uses the economic performance <strong>of</strong> the<br />

United States as an indicator <strong>of</strong> future<br />

aviation industry growth. Similar<br />

economic analyses are applied to the<br />

outlook for aviation growth in<br />

international markets.<br />

In the seven years prior to the events <strong>of</strong><br />

9/11, the U.S. civil aviation industry<br />

experienced unprecedented growth in<br />

demand and pr<strong>of</strong>its. <strong>The</strong> impacts to the<br />

economy and the aviation industry from<br />

the events <strong>of</strong> 9/11 were immediate and<br />

significant. However, the economic<br />

climate and aviation industry are both<br />

experiencing significant upturns. <strong>The</strong><br />

FAA expects the U.S. economy to<br />

experience strong growth over the next<br />

few years, with moderate growth<br />

thereafter. This will positively


influence the aviation industry, leading<br />

to passenger, air cargo, and general<br />

aviation growth throughout the forecast<br />

period (assuming that there will not be<br />

any new successful terrorist incidents<br />

against either U.S. or world aviation).<br />

For the first time since 2000, the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> passenger enplanements on<br />

U.S. commercial carriers increased in<br />

2004. This is due in large part to the<br />

extremely strong growth <strong>of</strong> low-cost<br />

carriers such as Southwest and AirTran<br />

Airways, among others. A total <strong>of</strong> 502.2<br />

million passengers were enplaned in<br />

2004, up 4 percent from 2003, but still<br />

10.6 percent below the 2000 peak. Over<br />

the forecast period, enplanements are<br />

expected to grow 2.9 percent annually.<br />

Regional/commuter passenger enplanements<br />

are projected to increase by 15.4<br />

percent in 2005, 9.9 percent in 2006,<br />

and 6.3 percent in 2007. Between 2008<br />

and 2016, enplanements are projected<br />

to grow at an average rate <strong>of</strong> 3.9<br />

percent annually, reaching 245.5<br />

million by 2016. Over the entire 12year<br />

forecast period, passenger<br />

enplanements are forecast to grow 5.5<br />

percent annually.<br />

An additional measure <strong>of</strong> the health <strong>of</strong><br />

the aviation system is the trend in air<br />

cargo as measured in revenue-ton-miles<br />

(RTM). <strong>The</strong> FAA projects air cargo<br />

RTMs to grow at 5.1 percent annually.<br />

GENERAL AVIATION<br />

In the 10 years since the passage <strong>of</strong> the<br />

General Aviation Revitalization Act <strong>of</strong><br />

2-10<br />

1994 (federal legislation which limits<br />

the liability on general aviation aircraft<br />

to 18 years from the date <strong>of</strong><br />

manufacture) it is clear that the Act has<br />

successfully infused new life into the<br />

general aviation industry. This<br />

legislation sparked an interest to renew<br />

the manufacturing <strong>of</strong> general aviation<br />

aircraft due to the reduction in product<br />

liability, as well as renewed optimism<br />

for the industry. Annual shipments <strong>of</strong><br />

new aircraft rose every year between<br />

1994 and 2000.<br />

<strong>The</strong> growth in the general aviation<br />

industry slowed considerably from 2001<br />

to 2003, having been negatively<br />

impacted by the events <strong>of</strong> 9/11.<br />

Thousands <strong>of</strong> general aviation aircraft<br />

were grounded for weeks due to “no-fly<br />

zone” restrictions imposed on operations<br />

<strong>of</strong> aircraft in security-sensitive areas.<br />

Washington, D.C., continues to<br />

implement these restrictions to this<br />

day. This, in addition to the economic<br />

recession taking place from 2001to<br />

2003, had a negative impact on the<br />

general aviation industry.<br />

In 2004, the general aviation industry<br />

showed a significant increase in<br />

activity, returning to pre-9/11 levels for<br />

most indicators. <strong>The</strong> FAA forecast<br />

assumes that the regulatory<br />

environment affecting general aviation<br />

will not change dramatically. <strong>The</strong><br />

forecast also assumes that the<br />

fractional ownership market will<br />

continue to expand and bring new<br />

operators and shareholders into<br />

business aviation. It also assumes that<br />

another successful terrorist attack on<br />

aviation will not occur.


<strong>The</strong> active general aviation aircraft<br />

fleet is expected to increase at an<br />

average annual rate <strong>of</strong> 1.1 percent over<br />

the 12-year forecast period, increasing<br />

from 210,600 in 2003, to 240,070 in<br />

2016. This growth includes the addition<br />

<strong>of</strong> a new aircraft category, light sport<br />

aircraft, which is expected to enter the<br />

active fleet in 2005, and account for<br />

15,410 aircraft in 2016. Light sport<br />

aircraft include small fixed-wing<br />

airplanes, powered-parachutes, gyroplanes,<br />

ultra-lights, and others.<br />

FAA forecasts identify two general<br />

aviation economies that follow different<br />

market patterns. <strong>The</strong> turbojet fleet is<br />

expected to increase at an average<br />

annual rate <strong>of</strong> 5.4 percent, increasing<br />

from 8,153 in 2003, to 15,900 in 2016.<br />

Factors leading to this substantial<br />

growth include expected strong U.S.<br />

and global economic growth; the<br />

continued success <strong>of</strong> fractionalownership<br />

programs; a continuation <strong>of</strong><br />

the shift from commercial air travel to<br />

corporate/business air travel by<br />

business travelers and corporations. In<br />

addition, new micro jets will begin to<br />

enter the fleet in 2006, and grow to<br />

4,500 aircraft by 2016. <strong>The</strong>se aircraft<br />

are expected to stimulate the market for<br />

on-demand air taxis.<br />

Exhibit 2B depicts the FAA forecast for<br />

active general aviation aircraft in the<br />

United States. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> single<br />

engine piston aircraft is projected to<br />

reach 148,000 in 2015, which represents<br />

an average annual growth rate <strong>of</strong> 0.2<br />

percent. During this same time, the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> active multi-engine piston<br />

aircraft in the fleet is expected to<br />

decline by 0.2 percent, resulting in a<br />

2-11<br />

total <strong>of</strong> 17,235 aircraft in 2016. <strong>The</strong><br />

number <strong>of</strong> turboprop aircraft is expected<br />

to increase at an average annual rate <strong>of</strong><br />

3.7 percent over the 12-year forecast<br />

period, to 8,400 active aircraft. <strong>The</strong><br />

rotorcraft fleet is forecast to grow 1.2<br />

percent annually through 2016, while<br />

and the number <strong>of</strong> experimental aircraft<br />

is projected to increase from 20,603 in<br />

2003, to 21,380 in 2010. <strong>The</strong>reafter, the<br />

growth in experimental aircraft is<br />

expected to flatten, primarily due to the<br />

growth in sport aircraft.<br />

<strong>The</strong> declines in the aircraft utilization<br />

rates experienced in 2000 (down 3.2<br />

percent) and 2001 (down 7.2 percent)<br />

were due, in part, to higher fuel prices<br />

and the 2001 U.S. economic recession.<br />

However, the restrictions placed on<br />

general aviation in the aftermath <strong>of</strong> the<br />

9/11 events, contributed heavily to the<br />

decline in utilization in 2001. A strong<br />

recovery in the U.S. economy in 2004<br />

and 2005 has led to increased<br />

utilization rates for most categories <strong>of</strong><br />

general aviation aircraft.<br />

<strong>The</strong> total pilot population is projected to<br />

increase from an estimated 618,633 in<br />

2004, to 750,260 by 2016, which<br />

represents an average annual growth<br />

rate <strong>of</strong> 1.6 percent. <strong>The</strong> student pilot<br />

population increased 0.7 percent in<br />

2004, and is forecast to increase at an<br />

annual rate <strong>of</strong> 1.8 percent over the 12year<br />

forecast period, reaching a total <strong>of</strong><br />

108,800 in 2016. Growth rates for the<br />

other pilot categories over the forecast<br />

period are as follows: airline transport<br />

pilots, up 1.7 percent; recreational<br />

pilots, up 1.6 percent; rotorcraft only, up<br />

1.2 percent; and glider only, up 0.2<br />

percent.


<strong>The</strong> General Aviation Manufacturers<br />

Association (GAMA) publishes a yearly<br />

outlook on the general aviation<br />

industry. <strong>The</strong> most recent edition was<br />

published in early 2005. 2004<br />

represented a year <strong>of</strong> strong recovery for<br />

the general aviation industry. Total<br />

billings reached almost $12 billion,<br />

which is nearly a 20 percent growth<br />

over 2003. GAMA forecasts that the<br />

industry will continue a strong growth<br />

trend.<br />

Over the past several years, the general<br />

aviation industry has launched a series<br />

<strong>of</strong> programs and initiatives whose main<br />

goals are to promote and assure future<br />

growth within the industry. “No <strong>Plan</strong>e,<br />

No Gain” is an advocacy program<br />

created in 1992 by the General Aviation<br />

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and<br />

the National Business Aircraft<br />

Association (NBAA) to promote<br />

acceptance and increased use <strong>of</strong> general<br />

aviation as an essential, cost-effective<br />

tool for businesses. Other programs are<br />

intended to promote growth in new pilot<br />

starts and introduce people to general<br />

aviation. “Project Pilot”, sponsored by<br />

the Aircraft Owners and Pilots<br />

Association (AOPA), promotes the<br />

training <strong>of</strong> new pilots in order to<br />

increase and maintain the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />

pilot population. <strong>The</strong> “Be a Pilot”<br />

program is jointly sponsored and<br />

supported by more than 100 industry<br />

organizations. <strong>The</strong> NBAA sponsors<br />

“AvKids,” a program designed to<br />

educate elementary school students<br />

about the benefits <strong>of</strong> business aviation<br />

to the community, and career<br />

opportunities available to them in<br />

business aviation. Over the years,<br />

2-12<br />

programs such as these have played an<br />

important role in the success <strong>of</strong> general<br />

aviation and will continue to be vital to<br />

its growth in the future.<br />

GENERAL AVIATION<br />

FORECASTS<br />

To determine the types and sizes <strong>of</strong><br />

facilities that should be planned to<br />

accommodate general aviation activity,<br />

certain elements <strong>of</strong> this activity must be<br />

forecast. Indicators <strong>of</strong> general aviation<br />

demand include:<br />

• Based Aircraft<br />

• Based Aircraft Fleet Mix<br />

• General Aviation Operations<br />

• Peaking Operations<br />

• Annual Instrument Approaches<br />

<strong>The</strong> remainder <strong>of</strong> this chapter will<br />

examine historical trends with regard to<br />

these areas <strong>of</strong> general aviation, and<br />

project future demand for these<br />

segments <strong>of</strong> general aviation activity at<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

BASED AIRCRAFT<br />

<strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> based aircraft is the<br />

most basic indicator <strong>of</strong> general aviation<br />

demand. By first developing a forecast<br />

<strong>of</strong> based aircraft, the trend <strong>of</strong> other<br />

indicators can be projected based upon<br />

this trend, and other factors<br />

characteristic to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport and the area it serves can be<br />

assessed.


04MP22-2B-4/4/05<br />

AIRCRAFT (in thousands)<br />

250<br />

225<br />

200<br />

175<br />

150<br />

125<br />

120<br />

U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT (in thousands)<br />

Year<br />

2004<br />

(Est.)<br />

2008<br />

2012<br />

2016<br />

FIXED WING<br />

PISTON TURBINE<br />

ROTORCRAFT<br />

Single Multi-<br />

Sport<br />

Engine Engine Turboprop Turbojet Piston Turbine Experimental Aircraft Other Total<br />

144.0<br />

145.5<br />

147.0<br />

148.0<br />

U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT<br />

17.7<br />

17.5<br />

17.4<br />

17.2<br />

7.3<br />

7.7<br />

8.1<br />

8.4<br />

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2005-2016.<br />

ACTUAL FORECAST<br />

FORECAST<br />

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005<br />

YEAR<br />

Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown<br />

at least one hour during the calendar year.<br />

8.4<br />

10.5<br />

13.3<br />

15.9<br />

2.2<br />

2.4<br />

2.5<br />

2.6<br />

4.7<br />

4.9<br />

5.1.<br />

5.3<br />

20.8<br />

21.3<br />

21.4<br />

21.4<br />

N/A<br />

10.8<br />

13.2<br />

15.4<br />

2010<br />

6.2<br />

6.1<br />

5.9<br />

5..8<br />

2015<br />

211.3<br />

227.7<br />

233.9<br />

240.1<br />

Exhibit 2B<br />

U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION<br />

AIRCRAFT FORECASTS


Registered Aircraft Forecasts<br />

One method <strong>of</strong> forecasting based<br />

aircraft at an <strong>airport</strong> is to examine local<br />

aircraft ownership, or aircraft<br />

registrations in the region served by the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. By then comparing the historic<br />

aircraft registrations to historic-based<br />

aircraft, a based aircraft forecast can be<br />

developed.<br />

TABLE 2C<br />

Historical Aircraft Registrations for Airport Service Area<br />

Market Share <strong>of</strong> Competing Airports<br />

Aircraft Based At:<br />

Year<br />

Regional<br />

Aircraft<br />

Registrations* <strong>Mesquite</strong> %<br />

2-13<br />

<strong>The</strong> primary service area for aircraft<br />

basing at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

extends approximately to a 20-mile<br />

radius around the <strong>airport</strong>. This<br />

includes the eastern half <strong>of</strong> Dallas<br />

County and the bordering portions <strong>of</strong><br />

Collin, Rockwall and Kaufman<br />

Counties. Aircraft ownership records<br />

for this approximate area were obtained<br />

from the FAA aircraft registration<br />

database, and are presented in Table<br />

2C.<br />

Rockwall<br />

% Lancaster % Terrell %<br />

1993 671 197 29.36% 84 12.52% 110 16.39% 61 9.09%<br />

1994 691 201 29.09 74 10.71 110 15.92 61 8.83<br />

1995 696 201 28.88 74 10.63 110 15.80 61 8.76<br />

1996 710 210 29.58 80 11.27 126 17.75 76 10.70<br />

1997 726 209 28.79 86 11.85 126 17.36 85 11.71<br />

1998 728 209 28.71 86 11.81 126 17.31 85 11.68<br />

1999 721 210 29.13 86 11.93 126 17.48 85 11.79<br />

2000 753 210 27.89 86 11.42 126 16.73 85 11.29<br />

2001 748 215 28.74 86 11.50 126 16.84 85 11.36<br />

2002 758 215 28.36 86 11.35 126 16.62 85 11.21<br />

2003 742 220 29.65 86 11.59 128 17.25 85 11.46<br />

2004 763 226 29.62 86 11.27 130 17.04 85 11.14<br />

Source: Census <strong>of</strong> U.S. Civil Aircraft; *Advantext Aircraft and Airmen Database<br />

<strong>The</strong> table presents historical aircraft<br />

registrations for the approximated<br />

<strong>airport</strong> study area, between 1993 and<br />

2004. A steady growth trend has been<br />

experienced, with an annual average<br />

growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.08 percent. <strong>The</strong> study<br />

area added 92 aircraft registrations<br />

over the period.<br />

<strong>The</strong> table also shows the percentage <strong>of</strong><br />

the registered aircraft that are based at<br />

regional general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> has consistently accounted for<br />

approximately 29 percent. Rockwall,<br />

Lancaster and Terrell also accounted for<br />

a consistent portion <strong>of</strong> the registered<br />

aircraft. As the forecasts are developed,<br />

the distribution <strong>of</strong> registered aircraft<br />

should not vary greatly from this<br />

historical trend unless some unusual<br />

event can appropriately account for a<br />

change, such as an <strong>airport</strong> closing, or a<br />

constrained <strong>airport</strong> condition such as is<br />

the case at Rockwall.


Market Share <strong>of</strong> U.S. Fleet<br />

<strong>The</strong> first registered aircraft forecast was<br />

developed by comparing the aircraft<br />

registered in the study area with the<br />

2-14<br />

United States active fleet <strong>of</strong> general<br />

aviation aircraft. Table 2D provides<br />

historical and forecasted aircraft<br />

registrations since 1995.<br />

TABLE 2D<br />

Service Area Registered Aircraft Forecasts<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

U.S. Active Service Area Registered<br />

Year<br />

Aircraft<br />

Aircraft % <strong>of</strong> U.S. Aircraft<br />

1995 188,089 696 0.3700%<br />

1996 191,129 710 0.3715%<br />

1997 192,414 726 0.3773%<br />

1998 204,711 728 0.3556%<br />

1999 219,464 721 0.3285%<br />

2000 217,533 753 0.3462%<br />

2001 211,447 748 0.3538%<br />

2002 211,244 758 0.3588%<br />

2003 211,190 742 0.3513%<br />

2004 219,100 763 0.3482%<br />

Constant Share Forecast<br />

2010 236,900 825 0.3482%<br />

2015 246,400 859 0.3482%<br />

2025 266,600 929 0.3482%<br />

Increasing Share Forecast<br />

2010 236,900 849 0.3580%<br />

2015 246,400 912 0.3700%<br />

2025 266,600 1,040 0.3900%<br />

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast Data, U.S. Census <strong>of</strong> Civil Aircraft<br />

Two forecasts were developed<br />

considering the study area’s share <strong>of</strong><br />

U.S. active aircraft. First, a forecast<br />

maintaining a constant 0.3482 percent<br />

<strong>of</strong> U.S. active aircraft was developed.<br />

This forecast yields 929 registered<br />

aircraft by 2025. Next, an increasing<br />

share forecast was developed. As<br />

presented in the table, the increasing<br />

share forecast yields 1,040 aircraft by<br />

2025. By the intermediate term <strong>of</strong> the<br />

forecast (roughly 2015), aircraft<br />

registrations would equal the 1995<br />

percentage share <strong>of</strong> U.S. active aircraft<br />

and then grow moderately through the<br />

long term period.<br />

Market Share per 1,000 Population<br />

Another method <strong>of</strong> forecasting study<br />

area aircraft registrations considers the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> aircraft per 1,000 residents<br />

in the study area. Because historical<br />

and forecast population data is not<br />

readily available by zip code, Dallas<br />

County is used for the population<br />

comparison, as it is a serviceable<br />

approximation <strong>of</strong> the study area. Table<br />

2E presents historical and forecast<br />

registered aircraft per 1,000 residents <strong>of</strong><br />

Dallas County.


TABLE 2E<br />

County Aircraft Per 1,000 Resident Population<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Study Area Registered Dallas County<br />

Year<br />

Aircraft<br />

Population<br />

2-15<br />

Aircraft Per 1,000<br />

Residents<br />

1993 671 1,955,791 0.34<br />

1994 691 1,991,375 0.35<br />

1995 696 2,027,606 0.34<br />

1996 710 2,064,496 0.34<br />

1997 726 2,102,058 0.35<br />

1998 728 2,140,302 0.34<br />

1999 721 2,179,243 0.33<br />

2000 753 2,218,899 0.34<br />

2001 748 2,261,967 0.33<br />

2002 758 2,302,149 0.33<br />

2003 742 2,341,141 0.32<br />

2004 763 2,377,544 0.32<br />

Constant Ratio Projection<br />

2010 828 2,579,566 0.32<br />

2015 885 2,757,573 0.32<br />

2025 1,000 3,117,192 0.32<br />

Increasing Ratio Projection<br />

2010 877 2,579,566 0.34<br />

2015 993 2,757,573 0.36<br />

2025 1,247 3,117,192 0.40<br />

Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis<br />

Two forecasts were developed<br />

considering aircraft registrations per<br />

1,000 residents. First, a constant share<br />

<strong>of</strong> 0.32 aircraft per 1,000 residents<br />

yielded 1,000 registered aircraft by<br />

2025. Next, an increasing share<br />

projection reaching 0.40 aircraft per<br />

1,000 residents yielded 1,247 aircraft<br />

registrations in the study area by 2025.<br />

Statistical Trends and Regression<br />

A trend line projection was also<br />

considered for forecasting registered<br />

aircraft in the study area, yielding an<br />

“r 2 " value <strong>of</strong> 0.88. This projection yields<br />

813 registered aircraft by 2010, 851<br />

aircraft registrations by 2015, and 927<br />

registrations by 2025.<br />

Regression analysis was also conducted<br />

comparing Dallas County’s population<br />

to registered aircraft in the study area.<br />

An “r 2 " value <strong>of</strong> 0.88 resulted. For 2010,<br />

this regression forecast yields 807<br />

registrations, the 2015 projection is 841,<br />

and 911 by 2025.<br />

Registered Aircraft Summary<br />

Table 2F summarizes the six<br />

projections and presents the selected<br />

forecast for registered aircraft in the<br />

study area. It appears that no single<br />

projection stands out as the most<br />

reasonable. For this reason, the<br />

selected forecast represents a near<br />

average <strong>of</strong> all the projections. <strong>The</strong><br />

forecasts developed for the study area’s<br />

registered aircraft are also depicted on<br />

Exhibit 2C.


TABLE 2F<br />

Registered Aircraft Projections Summary<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

PROJECTIONS 2010 2015 2025<br />

Share <strong>of</strong> US Active Aircraft Fleet<br />

Constant 825 859 929<br />

Increasing 849 912 1,040<br />

Registered Aircraft per 1,000 Population<br />

Constant 828 885 1,000<br />

Increasing 877 993 1,247<br />

Regression<br />

Trend line: r 2 = 0.88 (Year v Registered) 813 851 927<br />

Pop. v Registered: r 2 =0.88 807 841 911<br />

Selected Forecast 820 870 960<br />

C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis; Population is for Dallas County<br />

Based Aircraft Forecasts<br />

Determining the number <strong>of</strong> based<br />

aircraft at an <strong>airport</strong> can be a<br />

challenging task. With the transient<br />

nature <strong>of</strong> aircraft storage, it can be hard<br />

to arrive at an exact number <strong>of</strong> based<br />

aircraft, as the total can change weekly.<br />

As a result, <strong>airport</strong>s <strong>of</strong>ten don’t keep<br />

records <strong>of</strong> based aircraft. Fortunately,<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> staff at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport has kept detailed records<br />

pertaining to tenants <strong>of</strong> city-owned<br />

hangars. This data, in conjunction with<br />

the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, has<br />

been used to arrive at the based aircraft<br />

data utilized in this analysis. From<br />

discussions with <strong>airport</strong> staff, it appears<br />

that the historical-based aircraft data<br />

provided by the FAA is reasonably<br />

accurate. As such, the FAA data will<br />

provide the foundation for the following<br />

based aircraft forecast.<br />

2-16<br />

Market Share <strong>of</strong> Registered Aircraft<br />

Now that registered aircraft for the<br />

service area has been forecast, based<br />

aircraft at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport can<br />

be examined in comparison to historical<br />

regional registered aircraft. Table 2G<br />

presents based aircraft at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport as a share <strong>of</strong> the study<br />

area’s registered aircraft projection. As<br />

presented in the table, aircraft based at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport as a share <strong>of</strong><br />

the region’s registered aircraft has<br />

remained relatively constant since<br />

1993.<br />

Future based aircraft at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport will depend on several<br />

factors, including the economy,<br />

available <strong>airport</strong> facilities, and<br />

competing <strong>airport</strong>s. Forecasts assume<br />

a reasonably stable economy and<br />

reasonable development <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong>


04MP22-2C-4/5/05<br />

REGISTERED AIRCRAFT<br />

1,400<br />

1,200<br />

1,000<br />

800<br />

600<br />

400<br />

200<br />

'93<br />

1995<br />

HISTORICAL<br />

FORECAST<br />

LEGEND<br />

Share <strong>of</strong> U.S. Active Aircraft Fleet<br />

Constant<br />

Increasing<br />

Registered Aircraft per 1,000 Population<br />

Constant<br />

Increasing<br />

Regression<br />

Trendline (Year vs. Registered)<br />

Population vs. Registered<br />

Selected Forecast<br />

2000<br />

2005<br />

Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis; Population is for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

2010 2015 2020<br />

2025<br />

Exhibit 2C<br />

REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS


facilities necessary to accommodate<br />

aviation demand, as well as a limited<br />

development potential at nearby<br />

Rockwall and Terrell Airports. <strong>The</strong><br />

table presents both a constant<br />

projection and an increasing market<br />

TABLE 2G<br />

Based Aircraft vs. Service Area Registered Aircraft<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

2-17<br />

share projection as a percentage <strong>of</strong> the<br />

region’s registered aircraft. It is<br />

assumed that <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

will continue to be capable <strong>of</strong><br />

accommodating increased demand over<br />

the planning period.<br />

Year<br />

Service Area Registered<br />

Aircraft Based Aircraft % <strong>of</strong> Registered Aircraft<br />

1993 671 197 29.36%<br />

1994 691 201 29.09%<br />

1995 696 201 28.88%<br />

1996 710 210 29.58%<br />

1997 726 209 28.79%<br />

1998 728 209 28.71%<br />

1999 721 210 29.13%<br />

2000 753 210 27.89%<br />

2001 748 215 28.74%<br />

2002 758 215 28.36%<br />

2003 742 220 29.65%<br />

2004 763 223 29.23%<br />

Constant Market Share Projection<br />

2010 820 240 29.23%<br />

2015 870 254 29.23%<br />

2025 960 281 29.23%<br />

Increasing Market Share Projection<br />

2010 820 254 31.00%<br />

2015 870 278 32.00%<br />

2025 960 326 34.00%<br />

Sources: FAA TAF; Airport Records<br />

As presented in the table, the first<br />

based aircraft forecast considers that<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> would maintain a constant<br />

market share (29.23 percent) <strong>of</strong> the<br />

study area’s registered aircraft. This<br />

projection would yield 240 aircraft<br />

based at the <strong>airport</strong> in 2010, 254<br />

aircraft in 2015, and 281 aircraft in<br />

2025. <strong>The</strong> second forecast considers an<br />

increasing market share. This<br />

projection would yield 254 aircraft<br />

based at the <strong>airport</strong> in 2010, 278<br />

aircraft in 2015, and 326 aircraft in<br />

2025.<br />

Market Share per 1,000 Population<br />

Often when working with an <strong>airport</strong><br />

located in a metropolitan area, there<br />

are a number <strong>of</strong> methods with which to<br />

compare to population. Trends<br />

comparing the number <strong>of</strong> based aircraft<br />

with both the population <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> and Dallas County were<br />

analyzed. Table 2H presents the<br />

market share forecasts developed using<br />

the population <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> constant share forecast results in


231, 243 and 258 based aircraft, while<br />

the increasing share forecast results in<br />

2-18<br />

246, 272, and 319 based aircraft for the<br />

planning periods.<br />

TABLE 2H<br />

Based Aircraft vs. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Population<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Year Based Aircraft <strong>Mesquite</strong> <strong>City</strong> Population Aircraft per 1,000 Residents<br />

1993 197 106,191 1.86<br />

1994 201 107,808 1.86<br />

1995 201 109,450 1.84<br />

1996 210 111,550 1.88<br />

1997 209 114,350 1.83<br />

1998 209 117,950 1.77<br />

1999 210 119,600 1.76<br />

2000 210 124,523 1.69<br />

2001 215 126,172 1.70<br />

2002 215 127,842 1.68<br />

2003 220 129,500 1.70<br />

2004 223 131,600 1.69<br />

Constant Market Share Projection<br />

2010 231 136,175 1.69<br />

2015 243 143,014 1.69<br />

2025 258 151,838 1.69<br />

Increasing Ratio Projection<br />

2010 246 136,175 1.80<br />

2015 272 143,014 1.90<br />

2025 319 151,838 2.10<br />

Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis<br />

<strong>The</strong> comparison to Dallas County<br />

population shows a similar trend. <strong>The</strong><br />

constant share forecast yields 242, 259,<br />

and 293 based aircraft, while the<br />

increasing share projection yields 251,<br />

278, and 337 based aircraft for each<br />

planning horizon.<br />

Statistical Trends and Regression<br />

Regression analysis was also conducted<br />

on the data sets. As discussed<br />

previously, it is optimal to have an “r 2 "<br />

value above 0.90, which would<br />

represent a very strong correlation.<br />

When comparing based aircraft as the<br />

dependant variable to time (trend line<br />

analyses), an “r 2 " value <strong>of</strong> 0.91 resulted.<br />

This represents 233, 244, and 264<br />

projected based aircraft for 2010, 2015<br />

and 2025, respectively.<br />

When comparing based aircraft to the<br />

population <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, an<br />

“r 2 " value <strong>of</strong> 0.87 resulted. <strong>The</strong> 2010<br />

projection resulted in 224 based<br />

aircraft, and the 2015 and 2025 periods<br />

result in 229 and 236 based aircraft,<br />

respectively.<br />

An additional analysis comparing the<br />

population <strong>of</strong> Dallas County as a whole<br />

to historic <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

based aircraft resulted in an “r 2 " value<br />

<strong>of</strong> 0.91. This comparison results in 232,<br />

241, and 260 based aircraft for each <strong>of</strong><br />

the planning periods.


Comparative Forecasts<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA TAF also contains projections<br />

<strong>of</strong> based aircraft. For 2010, the TAF<br />

projects 245 based aircraft, increasing<br />

to 263 by 2015. <strong>The</strong> 2020 TAF<br />

projection is for 282 based aircraft.<br />

Because the TAF does not project<br />

beyond 2020, an extrapolation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

data was performed resulting in 299<br />

based aircraft for 2025.<br />

Another method <strong>of</strong> projecting based<br />

aircraft is to simply analyze the<br />

historical growth rate <strong>of</strong> based aircraft<br />

at the <strong>airport</strong>. Utilizing the historic<br />

annual average growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1.08 from<br />

1993 to 2004, based aircraft would<br />

reach 237 by 2010, 250 by 2015 and 277<br />

by 2025.<br />

<strong>The</strong> 1998 <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> projected 240<br />

based aircraft by 2010 and 280 by 2020.<br />

Interpolating the 1998 <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>,<br />

based aircraft projections yield 259<br />

aircraft in 2015. Extrapolation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

trend results in a forecast <strong>of</strong> 302 based<br />

aircraft for 2025.<br />

Based Aircraft Summary<br />

Deciding which forecast or which<br />

combination <strong>of</strong> forecasts to use to arrive<br />

at a final based aircraft forecast<br />

involves more than just statistical<br />

analysis. Consideration must be given<br />

to the current and future aviation<br />

conditions at the <strong>airport</strong> in the short<br />

term. For example, it is known that<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> is currently constructing Thangar<br />

and executive hangar space that<br />

can accommodate up to 18 aircraft. It is<br />

also known that the <strong>airport</strong><br />

management maintains a ‘waiting list’<br />

2-19<br />

for hangar space. This list is updated<br />

on a yearly basis and currently includes<br />

81 aircraft owners.<br />

Experience indicates that when new<br />

hangars are constructed, those who rent<br />

the space are not always new based<br />

aircraft. Some <strong>of</strong> them will be aircraft<br />

owners who have used tie-downs or<br />

other facilities at the <strong>airport</strong>. Typically,<br />

a new hangar facility will attract up to<br />

75 percent new based aircraft. Also,<br />

approximately 50-75 percent <strong>of</strong> those on<br />

the waiting list will actually sign a<br />

lease when the opportunity becomes<br />

available. Because the <strong>airport</strong><br />

management actively contacts all those<br />

on the list, it is fair to assume that<br />

upwards <strong>of</strong> 75 percent <strong>of</strong> those on the<br />

waiting list would sign a lease and base<br />

at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

In addition, since the last master plan,<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has improved<br />

in a manner to be more attractive to<br />

aircraft owners, especially corporate<br />

owners. New hangars have been and<br />

are continuing to be built, an executive<br />

terminal building has been completed,<br />

more apron space has been added, and<br />

existing facilities have been and are<br />

continuing to be refurbished. Existing<br />

navigational aids such as the ground<br />

communications outlet (GCO) and the<br />

Automated Weather Observing System<br />

(AWOS) are very much desired by<br />

aircraft owners.<br />

<strong>The</strong> level <strong>of</strong> services, amenities and<br />

airfield capabilities <strong>of</strong> other regional<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s can also be a factor when<br />

projecting based aircraft. As previously<br />

mentioned, Rockwall, Terrell, and<br />

Lancaster all have shorter runways<br />

than <strong>Mesquite</strong>. Rockwall and Terrell


are additionally constrained from<br />

adding runway length due to physical<br />

constraints and environmental barriers.<br />

As a result, aircraft owners with larger<br />

aircraft would likely choose <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

since it can better accommodate them.<br />

Other <strong>airport</strong>s in or in close proximity<br />

to the service area for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport include Addison, Dallas<br />

Executive, and Dallas Love Field. Most<br />

smaller aircraft owners are likely to<br />

avoid the busy commercial service<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s such as Dallas Love Field. <strong>The</strong><br />

mixing <strong>of</strong> commercial jets and smaller<br />

general aviation aircraft is a condition<br />

that owners <strong>of</strong> smaller aircraft will<br />

typically avoid. Addison presents<br />

challenges to the general aviation user<br />

since the <strong>airport</strong> is congested and is in<br />

close proximity to the major commercial<br />

service <strong>airport</strong>s in the region. As<br />

previously mentioned, capacity<br />

constraints lead to extended hold times<br />

and clearances to land at Addison.<br />

Dallas Executive Airport will probably<br />

be the most competitive to <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport for a similar type <strong>of</strong><br />

aviation activity. Dallas Executive has<br />

a 6,400-foot runway, and is served by<br />

an ILS approach and a crosswind<br />

runway. It has an ATCT and a new<br />

terminal building is currently under<br />

construction. Since the <strong>airport</strong>s are<br />

nearly 20 miles apart, both should have<br />

the ability to provide general aviation<br />

services to their respective service<br />

areas, with some overlap.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has made a<br />

concerted and successful effort to<br />

position the <strong>airport</strong> to accept significant<br />

growth. As a result, future based<br />

2-20<br />

aircraft should trend toward the higher<br />

projections presented above. Were the<br />

<strong>City</strong> to abandon the aggressive and<br />

positive growth goals for the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

then the lower projections could be<br />

realized. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> has given every<br />

indication that it plans to continue<br />

strong support <strong>of</strong> its <strong>airport</strong>. Table 2J<br />

shows a summary <strong>of</strong> the 12 projections<br />

analyzed for future based aircraft at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> selected<br />

forecast closely resembles the<br />

increasing share <strong>of</strong> registered aircraft in<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> service area. Exhibit 2D<br />

visually depicts the based aircraft<br />

projections, including the selected<br />

forecast.<br />

<strong>Plan</strong>ning Horizons<br />

<strong>The</strong> cost-effective, efficient, and orderly<br />

development <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> should rely<br />

more upon actual demand at an <strong>airport</strong><br />

than on a time-based forecast figure. In<br />

order to develop a master plan that is<br />

demand-based rather than time-based,<br />

a series <strong>of</strong> planning horizon milestones<br />

has been established for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport that take into<br />

consideration the reasonable range <strong>of</strong><br />

aviation demand projections prepared<br />

in this chapter.<br />

It is important to consider that the<br />

actual activity at the <strong>airport</strong> may be<br />

higher or lower than projected activity<br />

levels. By planning according to<br />

activity milestones, the resulting plan<br />

can accommodate unexpected shifts, or<br />

changes, in the area’s aviation demand.<br />

It is important that the plan<br />

accommodate these changes so that the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> staff can respond to unexpected


04MP22-2D-4/5/05<br />

REGISTERED AIRCRAFT<br />

350<br />

300<br />

250<br />

200<br />

150<br />

100<br />

50<br />

'93<br />

1995<br />

HISTORICAL<br />

FORECAST<br />

LEGEND<br />

Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis<br />

Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (<strong>Mesquite</strong>)<br />

Constant<br />

Increasing<br />

Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (Dallas Co.)<br />

Constant<br />

Increasing<br />

Market Share <strong>of</strong> Registered Aircraft<br />

Constant<br />

Increasing<br />

Statistical Trends and Regression<br />

Trendline (Year vs. Based)<br />

Population (Dallas Co.) vs. Based<br />

Population (<strong>Mesquite</strong>) vs. Based<br />

Terminal Area Forecast<br />

Historical Growth Rate<br />

1998 <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />

(2015 & 2025 Interpolated from original)<br />

Selected Forecast<br />

2000 2005<br />

2010<br />

2015 2020<br />

2025<br />

Exhibit 2D<br />

BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS


changes in a timely fashion. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

milestones provide flexibility, while<br />

2-21<br />

potentially extending this plan’s useful<br />

life if aviation trends slow over time.<br />

TABLE 2J<br />

Based Aircraft Projections Summary<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

PROJECTIONS 2010 2015 2025<br />

Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (<strong>Mesquite</strong>)<br />

Constant 231 243 258<br />

Increasing 246 272 319<br />

Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population (Dallas Co.)<br />

Constant 242 259 293<br />

Increasing 251 278 337<br />

Market Share <strong>of</strong> Registered Aircraft<br />

Constant 240 254 281<br />

Increasing 254 278 326<br />

Statistical Trends and Regression<br />

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

Pop (Dal Co.) v Based: r2=0.91 232 241 260<br />

Pop (<strong>Mesquite</strong>) v Based: r2=0.87 224 229 236<br />

Other Forecasts<br />

FAA Terminal Area Forecast 245 263 299<br />

Historical Growth Rate 237 250 277<br />

1998 <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>* 240 259 302<br />

Selected Forecast 255 280 330<br />

Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis; *2015 & 2025 Interpolated/extrapolated from original data.<br />

<strong>The</strong> most important reason for utilizing<br />

milestones is that they allow the <strong>airport</strong><br />

to develop facilities according to need<br />

generated by actual demand levels. <strong>The</strong><br />

demand-based schedule provides<br />

flexibility in development, as<br />

development schedules can be slowed or<br />

expedited in response to actual demand<br />

at any given time over the planning<br />

period. <strong>The</strong> resulting plan provides<br />

<strong>airport</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials with a financiallyresponsible,<br />

need-based program. <strong>The</strong><br />

planning milestones <strong>of</strong> short,<br />

intermediate, and long-term generally<br />

correlate to the five, ten, and twentyyear<br />

periods used in the previous<br />

chapter. For based aircraft the<br />

following planning milestones apply:<br />

• Short Term - 255<br />

• Intermediate Term - 280<br />

• Long Term - 330<br />

BASED AIRCRAFT<br />

FLEET MIX PROJECTION<br />

Knowing the aircraft fleet mix expected<br />

to utilize the <strong>airport</strong> is necessary to<br />

properly plan facilities that will best<br />

serve the level <strong>of</strong> activity and the type<br />

<strong>of</strong> activities occurring at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> existing based aircraft fleet mix is<br />

comprised <strong>of</strong> 182 single-engine, 38<br />

multi-engine, piston-powered aircraft,<br />

one jet-powered aircraft, and two<br />

helicopters. At the present time, there<br />

are no based turboprop fixed wing<br />

aircraft.


As detailed previously, the national<br />

trend is toward a larger percentage <strong>of</strong><br />

sophisticated turboprop, jet aircraft,<br />

and helicopters in the national fleet.<br />

Active multi-engine piston aircraft are<br />

expected to be the only category <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft which shows a decrease in<br />

annual growth. Growth within each<br />

based aircraft category at the <strong>airport</strong><br />

has been determined by comparison<br />

with national projections (which reflect<br />

current aircraft production) and<br />

consideration <strong>of</strong> local economic<br />

conditions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> fleet mix <strong>of</strong> the registered aircraft<br />

in the service area from 1998 to 2004<br />

was also identified as a point <strong>of</strong><br />

comparison. Although the number <strong>of</strong><br />

registered aircraft has increased over<br />

the term, the mix <strong>of</strong> aircraft types has<br />

remained nearly constant. Singleengine<br />

piston aircraft represent 74<br />

percent and multi-engine aircraft 12<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the service area’s total.<br />

Turboprop, jet and helicopters each<br />

account for approximately three percent<br />

<strong>of</strong> aircraft registered in the service area.<br />

<strong>The</strong> remaining five percent account for<br />

gliders, ultra-lights and gyro-planes.<br />

TABLE 2K<br />

Based Aircraft Fleet Mix Projections<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

EXISTING FORECAST<br />

Aircraft<br />

Short<br />

Inter.<br />

Type 2004 % Term % Term %<br />

2-22<br />

<strong>The</strong> projected trend <strong>of</strong> based aircraft at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport includes a<br />

growing number <strong>of</strong> aircraft in each<br />

category, except multi-engine piston<br />

which are projected to decline in both<br />

percentage mix and total numbers as<br />

well. Growth in turbojet aircraft is<br />

expected to be strong, as is growth in<br />

turboprop aircraft, following national<br />

trends. <strong>The</strong> based aircraft fleet mix<br />

projection for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

summarized in Table 2K.<br />

Currently, single-engine aircraft<br />

compose the largest segment <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />

type at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, making<br />

up 82 percent <strong>of</strong> total based aircraft.<br />

Future based aircraft mix will continue<br />

to be dominated by single-engine<br />

aircraft, however, turboprop and<br />

turbojet are projected to increase<br />

rapidly. With the many recent<br />

improvements to the <strong>airport</strong>, as well as<br />

the projected growth in population and<br />

employment in the region, it is<br />

reasonable to expect jets and other<br />

turbo-powered aircraft to base at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

Long<br />

Term %<br />

Single Engine 182 81.61% 205 80.39% 223 79.64% 256 77.58%<br />

Multi-Engine 38 17.04% 38 14.90% 36 12.86% 35 10.61%<br />

Turboprop 0 0.00% 4 1.57% 8 2.86% 15 4.55%<br />

Jet 1 0.45% 5 1.96% 10 3.57% 20 6.06%<br />

Helicopters 2 0.90% 3 1.18% 3 1.07% 4 1.21%<br />

Totals 223 100.00% 255 100.00% 280 100.00% 330 100.00%<br />

Source: FAA Form 5010, C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis


GENERAL AVIATION<br />

ANNUAL OPERATIONS<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are two types <strong>of</strong> operations at an<br />

<strong>airport</strong>: local and itinerant. A local<br />

operation is a take<strong>of</strong>f or landing<br />

performed by an aircraft that operates<br />

within sight <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, or which<br />

executes simulated approaches or<br />

touch-and-go operations at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Itinerant operations are those<br />

performed by aircraft with a specific<br />

origin or destination away from the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. Generally, local operations are<br />

characterized by training operations.<br />

Itinerant operations are characterized<br />

by aircraft landing at the <strong>airport</strong> for<br />

short stays or departing for other<br />

regional/national <strong>airport</strong>s. Itinerant<br />

operations are typically those<br />

conducting business, or tourism, or<br />

simply refueling.<br />

Due to the absence <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />

control tower (ATCT), actual annualized<br />

operational counts are not available for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Operational<br />

estimates were obtained from FAA<br />

Form 5010, FAA Terminal Area<br />

Forecast (TAF), TxDOT’s Airport<br />

Development Worksheet, and from<br />

interviews conducted with <strong>airport</strong> staff.<br />

One method <strong>of</strong> projecting annual<br />

operations is to examine the number <strong>of</strong><br />

operations per based aircraft. In<br />

attempts to quantify more reliably,<br />

rather than simply estimating, the<br />

Texas Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation-<br />

Aviation Division (TxDOT) has<br />

established an operation monitoring<br />

system. <strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> this program was to<br />

ultimately establish a model that will<br />

provide more accurate counts for nontowered<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

2-23<br />

TxDOT’s methodology indicates that for<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s similar to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport (reliever), annual operations<br />

typically are on the order <strong>of</strong> 400-500 per<br />

based aircraft per year. Airports in<br />

major metropolitan areas with high<br />

numbers <strong>of</strong> based aircraft, flight<br />

schools, and with several fixed based<br />

operators, typically will experience the<br />

higher end <strong>of</strong> this range. As <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

continues its development, it can be<br />

expected that the operational numbers<br />

will approach the 500 per based<br />

aircraft, and this is reflected in the<br />

forecast.<br />

An <strong>airport</strong> such as <strong>Mesquite</strong> will<br />

typically experience a 60/40 percent<br />

split between local and itinerant<br />

operations. Although some <strong>of</strong> the<br />

sources sited identify a 75/25 split,<br />

there is ample evidence that the trend<br />

at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is toward<br />

more itinerant operations. That<br />

evidence includes the fact that there is<br />

only one active flight school and that<br />

more and more transient jets are using<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. Table 2L presents<br />

estimated historical and forecast<br />

operations for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

It should be noted that the FAA TAF,<br />

Airport <strong>Master</strong> Record, identifies over<br />

113,000 operations at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Each <strong>of</strong> the other resources, including<br />

the TxDOT development worksheet for<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>, identifies approximately<br />

82,000 operations. <strong>The</strong> starting point <strong>of</strong><br />

the forecast in this analysis considers<br />

100,000 annual operations. This<br />

compromise has been arrived at due to<br />

consideration <strong>of</strong> the actual observed<br />

activity at the <strong>airport</strong>, pilot responses


<strong>of</strong>fered in the pilot survey, and other<br />

subjective criteria such as the advan-<br />

TABLE 2L<br />

General Aviation Operations Projections<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Based Itinerant<br />

Period Aircraft Operations<br />

2-24<br />

tages <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has over<br />

many regional <strong>airport</strong>s (e.g., ILS).<br />

Local Annual<br />

Operations Operations<br />

2004<br />

FORECAST<br />

223 40,000 60,000 100,000 459<br />

2010 255 51,000 76,500 127,500 500<br />

2015 280 56,000 84,000 140,000 500<br />

2025 330 66,000 99,000 165,000 500<br />

Source: TxDOT Operations Model<br />

<strong>The</strong> high-end (TAF) forecast is not<br />

considered reasonable because there do<br />

not appear to be enough flight hours<br />

conducted by the based flight school to<br />

account for the local operations. In fact,<br />

the flight school would need to conduct<br />

approximately three to four times the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> currently estimated flight<br />

hours to make the TAF local operation<br />

estimate reasonable. Conversely, it is<br />

recognized that <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

attracts training activity from other<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s primarily because <strong>of</strong> the<br />

existence <strong>of</strong> the ILS. <strong>The</strong> low end<br />

(TxDOT/FAA Form 1050) is considered<br />

too low because <strong>of</strong> the obvious growth<br />

observed at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>Mesquite</strong> is<br />

clearly the most attractive general<br />

aviation <strong>airport</strong> in the eastern portion<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Metroplex, southeast Collin<br />

County, Rockwall and the southeast<br />

Metroplex. For this reason, it is<br />

reasonable to assume that operations<br />

will grow at a significant rate through<br />

the planning period.<br />

Air Taxi Operations<br />

Air Taxi refers to those operators that<br />

are that are certified in accordance with<br />

Operations per<br />

Based<br />

Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.)<br />

Part 135 and are authorized to provide,<br />

on demand, public transportation <strong>of</strong><br />

persons and property by aircraft.<br />

Typically, air taxi operators are<br />

operating as a charter service or under<br />

a fractional-ownership program.<br />

In the post 9/11 environment, many<br />

executives have opted to use private jets<br />

for their travel needs. Fractionalownership<br />

programs were well<br />

positioned to meet this growing<br />

demand. <strong>The</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong><br />

companies including Citation Shares,<br />

NetJets, Bombardier FlexJet, and<br />

Flight Options which provide this<br />

service. Companies or individuals are<br />

able to purchase partial ownership,<br />

typically one-sixteenth or one-eighth <strong>of</strong><br />

an aircraft. This gives them a certain<br />

allotment <strong>of</strong> time to use an aircraft in<br />

the fractional-ownership fleet. In this<br />

regard, fractional ownership is much<br />

like owning a timeshare.<br />

Analysis <strong>of</strong> air taxi operators can have<br />

a significant impact on the needs <strong>of</strong> an<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. Fractional-ownership<br />

companies utilize business jets almost<br />

exclusively. Many <strong>of</strong> these aircraft are


the larger business jets. As more <strong>of</strong> the<br />

larger business jets utilize the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

the necessary design standards for the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> may change. Charter operators<br />

use a variety <strong>of</strong> piston and turboprop,<br />

and on occasion, jet-powered aircraft.<br />

<strong>The</strong> type <strong>of</strong> aircraft using the <strong>airport</strong><br />

will be a critical element for the <strong>airport</strong><br />

to prepare for in the future.<br />

Without an ATCT, precise operations<br />

counts are not available. Fortunately,<br />

a subscription service (AirportIQ) is<br />

available that provides partial<br />

operational data at non-towered<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s. <strong>The</strong> data provided represents<br />

the absolute minimum number <strong>of</strong><br />

operations. If a flight plan is not<br />

opened prior to take<strong>of</strong>f and/or is not<br />

closed after landing, then the operation<br />

is not credited to the <strong>airport</strong>, thus, not<br />

included in our data set. It is common<br />

for pilots to not file a flight plan until<br />

after departure, or to close it prior to<br />

landing, if Visual Flight Rules (VFR)<br />

can apply.<br />

Because the operational count for air<br />

taxi is the absolute minimum, it is<br />

necessary to increase this number by a<br />

justifiable multiplier in order to have a<br />

realistic reflection <strong>of</strong> operations. It is<br />

reasonable to assume that the<br />

multiplier could be as much as 50<br />

percent, if not more. <strong>The</strong> recent<br />

installation <strong>of</strong> a ground communications<br />

outlet should encourage pilots to file<br />

their flight plans more consistently,<br />

unfortunately the GCO has been<br />

unreliable at times. Until such a time<br />

when the GCO is reliable, the use <strong>of</strong> the<br />

50 percent multiplier will be applied to<br />

air taxi operations counts.<br />

2-25<br />

<strong>The</strong> fractional-ownership industry<br />

experienced significant growth from<br />

1998 to 2002, when the aircraft fleet<br />

grew by 182 percent (Aviation Week).<br />

<strong>The</strong> economic slowdown <strong>of</strong> 2001-2002<br />

caught up to the industry in 2003, but<br />

2004 was another growth year.<br />

According to AvData, Inc., an<br />

independent, Wichita, Kansas-based<br />

aviation research and consulting firm,<br />

fractional-ownership programs are<br />

forecast to experience continued growth<br />

<strong>of</strong> approximately 15 percent per year<br />

over the next 20 years. Other industry<br />

analysts are not as optimistic. J.P.<br />

Morgan Analyst, Joseph Nadol, believes<br />

the immediate (next five years) growth<br />

potential is in the single digits (Aviation<br />

Week). For planning purposes, a<br />

moderately increasing trend <strong>of</strong> 10<br />

percent per year will be applied to<br />

operations forecast for air taxi<br />

operations.<br />

As presented in Table 2M, fractional<br />

operations accounted for a total <strong>of</strong> 141<br />

operations from February 2004, to<br />

February 2005. By the long term<br />

planning period, 941 operations by<br />

fractional-ownership operations are<br />

projected. In addition to fractionalownership<br />

programs, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport also attracts charter operations.<br />

During the same one-year time period,<br />

there were 84 charter operations. Of<br />

this total, 16 operations were conducted<br />

by jet-powered aircraft. Charter<br />

operations are projected to increase<br />

from the current 84, to a long term <strong>of</strong><br />

559.


TABLE 2M<br />

Air Taxi Operations Forecast<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Year Charter Fractional Ownership<br />

2-26<br />

Total Air Taxi<br />

Operations<br />

2005* 84 141 225<br />

FORECAST<br />

Short Term 149 251 400<br />

Intermediate Term 223 377 600<br />

Long Term 559 941 1500<br />

Source: AirportIQ database.<br />

* Has been inflated by a factor <strong>of</strong> 1.5, to factor unrecorded operational data.<br />

PEAKING<br />

CHARACTERISTICS<br />

Many <strong>airport</strong> facility needs are related<br />

to the levels <strong>of</strong> activity during peak<br />

periods (busy times). <strong>The</strong> periods used<br />

in developing facility requirements for<br />

this study are as follows:<br />

1. Peak Month - <strong>The</strong> calendar<br />

month when peak aircraft<br />

operations occur.<br />

2. Design Day - <strong>The</strong> average day<br />

in the peak month. This indicator<br />

is derived by dividing the peak<br />

month operations by the number<br />

<strong>of</strong> days in the month.<br />

3. Busy Day - <strong>The</strong> busy day <strong>of</strong> a<br />

typical week in the peak month.<br />

4. Design Hour - <strong>The</strong> peak hour<br />

within the design day.<br />

<strong>The</strong> peak month is an absolute peak<br />

within a given year. All other peak<br />

periods will be exceeded at various<br />

times during the year. However, they<br />

do represent reasonable planning<br />

standards that can be applied without<br />

overbuilding or being too restrictive.<br />

Without an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower,<br />

operational information is not available<br />

to directly determine peak operational<br />

activity at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>refore, peak<br />

period forecasts have been determined<br />

according to trends experienced at<br />

similar <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

Typically, the peak month for activity at<br />

general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s approximates<br />

10 to 15 percent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>’s annual<br />

operations. For planning purposes, peak<br />

month operations have been estimated<br />

as 12 percent <strong>of</strong> annual operations at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> design<br />

day operations were calculated by<br />

dividing the peak month by 30.<br />

<strong>The</strong> design day is primarily used in<br />

airfield capacity calculations.<br />

<strong>The</strong> busy day provides information for<br />

use in determining aircraft parking<br />

apron requirements. <strong>The</strong> busiest day <strong>of</strong><br />

each week accounts for approximately<br />

20 percent <strong>of</strong> weekly operations. Thus<br />

to determine the typical busy day, the<br />

design day is multiplied by 1.4, which<br />

represents 20 percent <strong>of</strong> the days in a<br />

week (7 * 0.2). Design hour operations<br />

were determined using an industry


standard <strong>of</strong> 17.5 percent <strong>of</strong> the design<br />

day operations. <strong>The</strong> general aviation<br />

2-27<br />

peaking characteristics are summarized<br />

in Table 2N.<br />

TABLE 2N<br />

Peak Operations Forecasts<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Current<br />

Annual Operations<br />

Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term<br />

(GA and Air Taxi) 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500<br />

Peak Month (12%) 12,027 15,348 16,872 19,980<br />

Busy Day 561 716 787 932<br />

Design Day 401 512 562 666<br />

Design Hour (17.5%)<br />

Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Analysis<br />

70 90 98 117<br />

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT<br />

APPROACHES (AIAs)<br />

An instrument approach, as defined by<br />

the FAA, is “an approach to an <strong>airport</strong><br />

with the intent to land by an aircraft in<br />

accordance with an Instrument Flight<br />

Rule (IFR) flight plan, when visibility is<br />

less than three miles and/or when the<br />

ceiling is at or below the minimum<br />

initial approach altitude.” To qualify as<br />

an instrument approach at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport, aircraft must land at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> after following one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

published instrument approach<br />

procedures and then properly close their<br />

flight plan on the ground. <strong>The</strong><br />

approach must be conducted in weather<br />

conditions which necessitate the use <strong>of</strong><br />

the instrument approach. If the flight<br />

plan is closed prior to landing, then the<br />

AIA is not counted in the statistics.<br />

Forecasts <strong>of</strong> annual instrument<br />

approaches (AIAs) provide guidance in<br />

determining an <strong>airport</strong>’s requirements<br />

for navigational aid facilities. It should<br />

be noted that practice or training<br />

approaches do not count as annual<br />

AIAs.<br />

Typically, AIAs for <strong>airport</strong>s with<br />

available instrument approaches<br />

utilized by advanced aircraft will<br />

average between one and two percent <strong>of</strong><br />

itinerant operations. Two percent has<br />

been an accepted industry standard for<br />

general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s that currently,<br />

or are expected to, support corporate jet<br />

aircraft, which is the case for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport. Also, the increased<br />

availability <strong>of</strong> low-cost navigational<br />

equipment could allow for smaller and<br />

less sophisticated aircraft to utilize<br />

instrument approaches. National<br />

trends indicate an increasing<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> annual approaches given<br />

the greater availability <strong>of</strong> approaches at<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s with GPS and the availability<br />

<strong>of</strong> more cost-effective equipment. Table<br />

2P summarizes both historical and<br />

forecast AIAs for the planning period.<br />

According to the FAA Air Traffic<br />

Activity statistics, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport had 101 AIAs in 2004. This is<br />

the absolute minimum number <strong>of</strong> AIAs<br />

conducted at the <strong>airport</strong>. As previously<br />

mentioned, to be counted as an AIA, a<br />

flight plan cannot be closed prior to


landing, but this practice is common if<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> comes within visual range.<br />

Tracking <strong>of</strong> AIAs should become more<br />

accurate with the recent installation <strong>of</strong><br />

the ground communications outlet,<br />

2-28<br />

allowing pilots to communicate with the<br />

Fort/Worth ATCT. <strong>The</strong> forecast<br />

presented in Table 2P utilized an<br />

industry standard <strong>of</strong> two percent <strong>of</strong><br />

itinerant operations to account for AIAs.<br />

TABLE 2P<br />

Annual Instrument Approach (AIAs) Projections<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Year AIA's Itinerant Operations Ratio<br />

1995 59 20,000 0.30%<br />

1996 17 20,000 0.09%<br />

1997 10 20,000 0.05%<br />

1998 68 20,000 0.34%<br />

1999 143 20,000 0.72%<br />

2000 81 20,000 0.41%<br />

2001 167 20,500 0.81%<br />

2002 228 27,500 0.83%<br />

2003 148 27,969 0.53%<br />

2004 101 28,439 0.36%<br />

FORECASTS<br />

Short Term 1,028 51,400 2.00%<br />

Intermediate Term 1,132 56,600 2.00%<br />

Long Term 1,350 67,500 2.00%<br />

Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast - Approach Operations<br />

SUMMARY<br />

This chapter has provided demandbased<br />

forecasts <strong>of</strong> aviation activity at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport over the next<br />

20 years. An attempt has been made to<br />

define the projections in terms <strong>of</strong> short,<br />

intermediate and long term<br />

expectations. Elements such as local<br />

socioeconomic indicators, anticipated<br />

regional development and historical<br />

aviation data as well as national<br />

aviation trends were all considered<br />

when determining future conditions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> next step in the master planning<br />

process will be to assess the capacity <strong>of</strong><br />

existing facilities, their ability to meet<br />

forecast demand, and to identify<br />

changes to the airfield and/or landside<br />

facilities which will create a more<br />

functional aviation facility. A summary<br />

<strong>of</strong> aviation forecasts is depicted on<br />

Exhibit 2E.


04MP22-2E-2/8/06<br />

BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT FORECASTS<br />

FORECASTS<br />

BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT<br />

350<br />

350<br />

300<br />

300<br />

250<br />

250<br />

200<br />

200<br />

150<br />

150<br />

100<br />

100<br />

50<br />

50<br />

2004 Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term<br />

Single-Engine 182 205 223 256<br />

Multi-Engine 38 38 36 35<br />

Turboprop 0 4 8 15<br />

Jet 1 5 10 20<br />

Helicopters 2 3 3 4<br />

Total Based Aircraft 223 255 280 330<br />

OPERATIONS FORECASTS<br />

FORECASTS<br />

Itinerant 40,000 51,000 56,000 66,000<br />

Local 60,000 76,500 84,000 99,000<br />

Total GA Operations 100,000 127,500 140,000 165,000<br />

Air Taxi 225 400 600 1,500<br />

Total Annual Operations 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500<br />

PEAK OPERATIONS<br />

OPERATIONS<br />

Peak Month 12,027 15,348 16,872 19,880<br />

Busy Day 561 716 787 932<br />

Design Day 401 512 562 666<br />

Design Hour 70 90 98 117<br />

AIA's<br />

101 1,028 1,132 1,350<br />

BASED AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT FORECASTS<br />

FORECASTS<br />

OPERATIONS FORECASTS<br />

FORECASTS<br />

ANNUAL ANNUAL OPERATIONS<br />

OPERATIONS<br />

200,000<br />

200,000<br />

180,000<br />

180,000<br />

160,000<br />

160,000<br />

140,000<br />

140,000<br />

120,000<br />

120,000<br />

100,000<br />

100,000<br />

80,000<br />

80,000<br />

60,000<br />

60,000<br />

40,000<br />

40,000<br />

20,000<br />

20,000<br />

2004 2004 Short Intermediate<br />

Long<br />

2004<br />

2004 Short<br />

Short Intermediate<br />

Intermediate<br />

Long Long Term<br />

Term Term<br />

Term<br />

Term<br />

Term Term<br />

Term<br />

Exhibit 2E<br />

FORECAST SUMMARY


Chapter Three<br />

AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS


CHAPTER THREE<br />

<strong>airport</strong> FACILITY<br />

REQUIREMENTS<br />

To properly plan for the future <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, it is<br />

necessary to translate forecast aviation demand into the specific<br />

types and quantities <strong>of</strong> facilities that can adequately serve this<br />

identified demand. This chapter uses the results <strong>of</strong> the<br />

forecasts conducted in Chapter Two, as well as established<br />

planning criteria, to determine the airside (i.e., runways,<br />

taxiways, navigational aids, marking and lighting) and<br />

landside (i.e., hangars, aircraft parking apron, and automobile<br />

parking) facility requirements.<br />

<strong>The</strong> objective <strong>of</strong> this effort is to identify, in general terms, the<br />

adequacy <strong>of</strong> the existing <strong>airport</strong> facilities, outline what new<br />

facilities may be needed, and when these may be needed, to<br />

accommodate forecast demand. Having established these<br />

facility requirements, alternatives for providing these facilities<br />

will be evaluated in Chapter Four.<br />

AIRFIELD PLANNING CRITERIA<br />

<strong>The</strong> selection <strong>of</strong> appropriate Federal Aviation Administration<br />

(FAA) and Texas Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation (TxDOT) -<br />

Aviation Division design standards for the development and<br />

location <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> facilities is based primarily upon the<br />

characteristics <strong>of</strong> the aircraft which are currently using, or are<br />

expected to use, the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA has established a coding system to relate <strong>airport</strong><br />

design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics<br />

<strong>of</strong> aircraft expected to use the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. This code, the <strong>airport</strong><br />

3-1 DRAFT


eference code (ARC), has two<br />

components: the first component,<br />

depicted by a letter, is the aircraft<br />

approach speed (operational<br />

characteristic); the second component,<br />

depicted by a Roman numeral, is the<br />

airplane design group and relates to<br />

aircraft wingspan (physical<br />

characteristic). Generally, aircraft<br />

approach speed applies to runways and<br />

runway-related facilities, while aircraft<br />

wingspan primarily relates to<br />

separation criteria involving taxiways,<br />

taxilanes, and landside facilities.<br />

Exhibit 3A depicts typical aircraft<br />

within each ARC.<br />

According to FAA Advisory Circular<br />

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

Design, an aircraft's approach<br />

category is based upon 1.3 times its<br />

stall speed in landing configuration at<br />

that aircraft's maximum certificated<br />

weight. <strong>The</strong> five approach categories<br />

used in <strong>airport</strong> planning are as follows:<br />

Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.<br />

Category B: Speed 91 knots or more,<br />

but less than 121 knots.<br />

Category C: Speed 121 knots or more,<br />

but less than 141 knots.<br />

Category D: Speed 141 knots or more,<br />

but less than 166 knots.<br />

Category E: Speed greater than 166<br />

knots.<br />

<strong>The</strong> airplane design group (ADG) is<br />

based upon the aircraft’s wingspan.<br />

<strong>The</strong> six ADGs used in <strong>airport</strong> planning<br />

are as follows:<br />

Group I: Up to but not including 49<br />

feet.<br />

3-2<br />

Group II: 49 feet up to but not<br />

including 79 feet.<br />

Group III: 79 feet up to but not<br />

including 118 feet.<br />

Group IV: 118 feet up to but not<br />

including 171 feet.<br />

Group V: 171 feet up to but not<br />

including 214 feet.<br />

Group VI: 214 feet or greater.<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA recommends designing <strong>airport</strong><br />

functional elements to meet the<br />

requirements <strong>of</strong> the most demanding<br />

ARC for that <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft currently operating at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> are small single-engine aircraft<br />

weighing less than 12,500 pounds. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>airport</strong> is also used by corporate aircraft<br />

ranging from the smaller Lear family <strong>of</strong><br />

business jets to the Gulfstreams, which<br />

can weigh more than 90,000 pounds.<br />

In order to determine facility<br />

requirements, an actual ARC should<br />

first be determined, then appropriate<br />

<strong>airport</strong> design criteria can be applied.<br />

According to the Policies and Standards<br />

document from TxDOT, the critical<br />

aircraft, or aircraft family, must have or<br />

be forecast to have at least 250 annual<br />

operations within one year and 500<br />

operations within five years. To<br />

determine if <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

meets this threshold, a review <strong>of</strong> the<br />

type <strong>of</strong> aircraft currently using and<br />

expected to use <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

follows.<br />

CRITICAL AIRCRAFT<br />

<strong>The</strong> critical aircraft is the aircraft or<br />

family <strong>of</strong> aircraft which account for 250


04MP22-3A-2/8/06<br />

A-I<br />

B-I<br />

B-II<br />

B-I, II<br />

less than 12,500 lbs.<br />

less than 12,500 lbs.<br />

over 12,500 lbs.<br />

A-III, B-III<br />

Beech Baron 55<br />

Beech Bonanza<br />

Cessna 150<br />

Cessna 172<br />

Piper Archer<br />

Piper Seneca<br />

Beech Baron 58<br />

Beech King Air 100<br />

Cessna 402<br />

Cessna 421<br />

Piper Navajo<br />

Piper Cheyenne<br />

Swearingen Metroliner<br />

Cessna Citation I<br />

Super King Air 200<br />

Cessna 441<br />

DHC Twin Otter<br />

Super King Air 300<br />

Beech 1900<br />

Jetstream 31<br />

Falcon 10, 20, 50<br />

Falcon 200, 900<br />

Citation II, CJ2, IV, V<br />

Saab 340<br />

Embraer 120<br />

DHC Dash 7<br />

DHC Dash 8<br />

DC-3<br />

Convair 580<br />

Fairchild F-27<br />

ATR 72<br />

ATP<br />

Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type.<br />

C-I, D-I<br />

C-II, D-II<br />

C-III, D-III<br />

C-IV, D-IV<br />

D-V<br />

Lear 25, 35, 55<br />

Israeli Westwind<br />

HS 125<br />

Gulfstream II, III, IV<br />

Canadair 600<br />

Canadair Regional Jet<br />

Lockheed JetStar<br />

Super King Air 350<br />

Boeing Business Jet<br />

B 727-200<br />

B 737-300 Series<br />

MD-80, DC-9<br />

Fokker 70, 100<br />

A319, A320<br />

Gulfstream V<br />

Global Express<br />

B-757<br />

B-767<br />

DC-8-70<br />

DC-10<br />

MD-11<br />

L1011<br />

B-747 Series<br />

B-777<br />

Exhibit 3A<br />

AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES


or more operations annually. Once the<br />

critical aircraft is identified, the<br />

appropriate <strong>airport</strong> design standards<br />

can be applied.<br />

<strong>The</strong> design standards have been<br />

developed in order to assure that<br />

existing and planned facilities will be<br />

adequate to meet specific aircraft<br />

demands. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

currently designated as a Transport<br />

Airport in the Texas Airport System<br />

<strong>Plan</strong> (TASP). In general, transport<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s should be designed to handle<br />

business jet and turboprop aircraft.<br />

This designation generally corresponds<br />

to a design standard <strong>of</strong> ARC C-II.<br />

Defining the actual critical aircraft can<br />

sometimes be a difficult task. Often,<br />

the design aircraft is based upon the<br />

most demanding aircraft actually based<br />

at the <strong>airport</strong>, where in other cases<br />

itinerant operations can define the<br />

critical aircraft. Typically, more than<br />

one aircraft will compose the critical<br />

aircraft. For example, one aircraft<br />

could be the most critical for approach<br />

speed (e.g., ARC C-I), while another for<br />

wingspan (e.g., ARC B-III). Moreover,<br />

for <strong>airport</strong>s similar to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport, the critical aircraft will<br />

typically be defined by a family <strong>of</strong><br />

similar aircraft which operate at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> on a regular basis. Considering<br />

all aircraft types at the <strong>airport</strong> is<br />

important to ensure all facilities at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> are properly planned.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are currently 38 multi-engine<br />

piston aircraft based at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se aircraft range from ARC A-I to<br />

ARC B-I. <strong>The</strong>re is one jet based at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, a Cessna Citation II (525),<br />

which is a B-I aircraft. Before making<br />

3-3<br />

a final determination <strong>of</strong> the critical<br />

aircraft family, an examination <strong>of</strong> the<br />

transient business jet aircraft using the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> should be considered.<br />

It should be noted that the <strong>airport</strong> is<br />

currently in negotiations with two<br />

aircraft owners looking to base at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. One <strong>of</strong> these owners has a<br />

Gulfstream IV and the other a<br />

Gulfstream II. <strong>The</strong>se aircraft fall in<br />

ARC D-II. Should either <strong>of</strong> these<br />

aircraft base at the <strong>airport</strong>, then the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> design ARC would transition to<br />

D-II.<br />

Jet Operations<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is used by the larger and<br />

faster business jets including the<br />

Citations (525A, 550, 650, 750),<br />

Learjets (24, 35, 45, 55, 60) and<br />

Gulfstreams (II, IV, V). <strong>The</strong>se jet<br />

aircraft range from ARC B-I to D-III.<br />

<strong>The</strong> following analysis <strong>of</strong> the transient<br />

jet usage at the <strong>airport</strong> will aid in<br />

determining the actual design standard<br />

<strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Table 3A presents private jet<br />

operations (excluding Air Taxi) at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport from February<br />

14, 2004, to February 15, 2005 (12month<br />

operational count).<br />

<strong>The</strong>se operations present the absolute<br />

minimum number <strong>of</strong> private business<br />

jet operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. Operations are only “logged” if<br />

the aircraft executes (either opens or<br />

closes) an instrument flight rule (IFR)<br />

flight plan on the ground at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport. Many aircraft operators,<br />

however, elect to file their flight plan in


the air after departure, or close their<br />

flight plan in the air prior to landing at<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. In either situation, the<br />

operations are not credited to the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> and would not be reflected in the<br />

table. Based on this information, it is<br />

reasonable to assume that the actual<br />

number <strong>of</strong> private business jet<br />

operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

somewhat higher than presented in the<br />

table.<br />

TABLE 3A<br />

Total Private Jet Operations (Minimum)<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005<br />

Annual<br />

ARC Aircraft Type Operations %<br />

3-4<br />

As presented in the table, <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport has experienced a total <strong>of</strong><br />

378 jet operations over the last year.<br />

<strong>The</strong> most demanding aircraft in terms<br />

<strong>of</strong> ARC design standard has been the<br />

Gulfstream V, which is in ARC D-III.<br />

Aircraft such as the Challenger 600 and<br />

IAI-Astra also utilize the <strong>airport</strong> and<br />

are in ARC C-II.<br />

Number <strong>of</strong><br />

Jets %<br />

B-I Cessna 501 8 2.1% 4 6.0%<br />

B-I Cessna 525<br />

Mitsubishi (MU-<br />

110 29.1% 3 4.5%<br />

B-I<br />

300) 4 1.1% 2 3.0%<br />

B-I Falcon 10 14 3.7% 2 3.0%<br />

Total B-I 136 36.0% 11 16.4%<br />

B-II Cessna 550 56 14.8% 15 22.4%<br />

B-II Cessna 560 40 10.6% 10 14.9%<br />

B-II Falcon 2000 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

B-II Falcon 50 10 2.6% 2 3.0%<br />

Total B-II 108 28.6% 28 41.8%<br />

C-I Beech 400 44 11.6% 3 4.5%<br />

C-I IAI Westwind 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

C-I Lear 24 14 3.7% 2 3.0%<br />

C-I Lear 25 4 1.1% 2 3.0%<br />

C-I Lear 31A 22 5.8% 5 7.5%<br />

C-I Lear 35 18 4.8% 4 6.0%<br />

C-I Lear 45 14 3.7% 4 6.0%<br />

Total C-I 118 31.2% 21 31.3%<br />

C-II Challenger 600 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

C-II Hawker 800XP 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

C-II IAI Aster 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

Total C-II 6 1.6% 3 4.5%<br />

D-I Lear 60 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

Total D-I 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

D-II Gulfstream II 4 1.1% 2 3.0%<br />

D-II Gulfstream IV 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

Total D-II 6 1.6% 2 3.0%<br />

D-III Gulfstream V 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

Total D-III 2 0.5% 1 1.5%<br />

Total Activity 378 100.0% 67 100.0%<br />

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


<strong>The</strong>re was a total <strong>of</strong> 242 operations by<br />

business jet aircraft in ARC B-II and<br />

larger. Of those 242, 134 were<br />

conducted by aircraft in ARC C-I or<br />

larger. <strong>The</strong> greatest number <strong>of</strong><br />

operations in any single ARC family<br />

was 136 in ARC B-I, while ARC C-I<br />

aircraft registered 118 operations.<br />

More than 35 percent <strong>of</strong> private<br />

itinerant business jet operations at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> were conducted by aircraft in<br />

ARC C-I or greater.<br />

<strong>The</strong> table also presents the number <strong>of</strong><br />

operations by aircraft type. <strong>The</strong> Cessna<br />

525 model, which includes the based jet,<br />

performed the most business jet<br />

operations (110) at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

were three different Cessna 525s that<br />

accounted for this total. <strong>The</strong>re was a<br />

total <strong>of</strong> 15 different Cessna 550 and ten<br />

different Cessna 560 jets that conducted<br />

operations at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> limitations <strong>of</strong> the aircraft<br />

operational data were detailed in the<br />

air taxi operational forecasts presented<br />

in Chapter Two. <strong>The</strong> reported<br />

operations only include those that open<br />

or close their instrument flight plans<br />

while on the ground at the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport. Many operators,<br />

however, elect to open their flight plans<br />

after departure or before landing, as the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> location does not allow for radio<br />

contact with DFW approach/departure<br />

control center from the ground (limited<br />

radio signal). Thus, the 378 private jet<br />

operations presented in Table 3B<br />

represent the absolute minimum<br />

number <strong>of</strong> operations, whereas, the<br />

actual number was much higher.<br />

<strong>The</strong> air taxi forecasts factor in an<br />

estimated 50 percent increase <strong>of</strong> the<br />

3-5<br />

actual reported operations. This<br />

multiplier should also be applied to the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> private business jet<br />

operations. Thus, adjusting the total<br />

actual reported business jet operations<br />

with the estimated multiplier yields 567<br />

private business jet operations for the<br />

period. If the assumption were made<br />

that the operational fleet mix would<br />

remain the same, there would have<br />

been 363 operations by jet aircraft that<br />

are ARC B-II or larger. Of this total,<br />

192 operations would be ARC C-I<br />

through D-III.<br />

As presented in Table 3B, the <strong>airport</strong><br />

was utilized by a wide variety <strong>of</strong><br />

corporate users with varying<br />

originations and destinations. <strong>The</strong><br />

originations/destinations listed are not<br />

the only ones for each aircraft, however,<br />

they represent the most demanding<br />

operations (e.g., longest haul lengths).<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the private operators over the<br />

last year originated from or were<br />

destined to an intrastate location. A<br />

large portion <strong>of</strong> the traffic, however,<br />

originated from, or departed to points<br />

beyond the State <strong>of</strong> Texas, including<br />

trips to both the east and west coasts.<br />

Another segment <strong>of</strong> corporate aircraft<br />

users operate under F.A.R. Part 135 (air<br />

taxi) rules for hire and through<br />

fractional-ownership programs. Air taxi<br />

operators are governed by FAA rules<br />

which are more stringent than those<br />

required for private aircraft owners.<br />

For example, aircraft operating under<br />

Part 135 rules must inflate their<br />

calculated runway length requirements<br />

by 20 percent for safety factors.


TABLE 3B<br />

Representative Private Jet Operations<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Most Demanding Representative Users<br />

Aircraft<br />

Type ARC Name Origin/Destination<br />

Gulfstream II D-II ACG3 LLC Lakefront, LA; Addison, TX<br />

Gulfstream II D-II Boxing Cat Productions Burbank, CA<br />

Gulfstream IV D-II Coanda, Inc. Palm Beach, FL<br />

Hawker 800XP C-II 800XP Holdings LLC South Padre Island, TX<br />

IAI Astra C-II Printpack, Inc. Fulton County, GA<br />

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

Beech 400 C-I LGI Services LLC Montgomery County, TX<br />

Beech 400 C-I Nektor Industries Scottsdale, AZ; Enid, OK<br />

Lear 31A C-I Russell Stover Candies Kansas <strong>City</strong> Downtown, MO<br />

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

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

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

Falcon 2000 B-II Entergy Services DFW, TX<br />

Cessna 560 B-II Florida Power & Light Palm Beach, FL<br />

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

Cessna 560 B-II Moran Foods, Inc. Spirit, MO<br />

Cessna 550 B-II Plastics Engineering Sheboygan, WI<br />

Cessna 550 B-II Texarkana Holdings Cincinnati, OH; Kissimmee, FL<br />

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

IAI: Israel Aircraft Industries<br />

Source: AirportIQ.com, utilizing FAA data. February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005<br />

Fractional-ownership operators are<br />

actual aircraft owners who acquire a<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> an aircraft with the ability to<br />

use any aircraft in the program’s fleet.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se programs have become quite<br />

popular over the last several years,<br />

especially since 9-11. Some <strong>of</strong> the most<br />

notable fractional-ownership programs<br />

include NetJets, Bombardier FlexJet,<br />

Citation Shares, and Flight Options.<br />

From February 14, 2004, to February<br />

15, 2005, these operators accounted for<br />

an additional 141 operations as<br />

previously presented in Table 2M.<br />

Table 3C provides additional<br />

information regarding the ARC <strong>of</strong> many<br />

3-6<br />

<strong>of</strong> the aircraft utilized by the fractional<br />

and charter companies which operate at<br />

the <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

Critical Design<br />

Aircraft Conclusion<br />

<strong>The</strong> largest based aircraft in terms <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft reference code (ARC) will <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

account for the design standard to be<br />

applied to the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> largest<br />

aircraft currently based at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport is a Cessna Citation 525.<br />

This is a B-I aircraft. To determine if


the actual <strong>airport</strong> ARC is something<br />

other than B-I, an examination <strong>of</strong><br />

3-7<br />

known itinerant operations at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> was conducted.<br />

TABLE 3C<br />

Representative Air Taxi Jet Usage<br />

February 14, 2004 - February 15, 2005<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Operator Aircraft ARC<br />

FRACTIONALS<br />

Destination Operations<br />

NetJets IAI Galaxy C-II DFW, TX 2<br />

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

BAE 125/1000 C-II Austin, TX 4<br />

Cessna 560 B-II Adams Field, AR; Joslin Field, ID 4<br />

Cessna 560 B-II Memphis, TN; Centennial, CO 20<br />

Bombardier Lear 31 C-I Waco, TX 2<br />

Flight Options Cessna 650 C-II Kyle-Oakley, KY 2<br />

Embrier Legacy D-III Big Springs, TX 2<br />

Falcon 50 B-II Spirit, MO 2<br />

Beech 400 C-I Victoria, TX; Kyle-Oakley, KY;<br />

Sarasota, FL; Peoria, IL<br />

14<br />

CHARTERS<br />

Ameristar Jet Lear 25 C-I Branson, MO; Allen-Parish, LA 4<br />

East Coast Jets Lear 35 C-I Westchester, NY 2<br />

Executive Jet Cessna 560 B-II Dallas, TX 2<br />

United Exec. Jet<br />

Source: AirportIQ.<br />

Lear 55 C-I San Antonio, TX 2<br />

At non-towered <strong>airport</strong>s, determining a<br />

reasonable operational count by aircraft<br />

type can be difficult. Fortunately, a<br />

subscription database called AirportIQ,<br />

collects the number <strong>of</strong> instrument<br />

operations by aircraft type. This figure<br />

represents the absolute minimum<br />

possible number <strong>of</strong> operations. As<br />

discussed previously, a multiplier <strong>of</strong> 50<br />

percent (1.5) is applied to the total jet<br />

operation counts in an effort to arrive at<br />

a realistic picture <strong>of</strong> the current activity<br />

level at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

<strong>The</strong> combination <strong>of</strong> private itinerant jet<br />

(378), charter jet (16) and fractional jet<br />

operations (94) indicates that, at a<br />

minimum, there were 488 itinerant jet<br />

operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

over a one-year period, as presented in<br />

Table 3D. Of those, 352 were by<br />

aircraft in ARC B-II and larger, and <strong>of</strong><br />

those, 194 were C-I or larger. When<br />

adjusted with the 1.5 multiplier, the<br />

total number <strong>of</strong> itinerant jet operations<br />

over the one-year analysis period is 732.<br />

Of those, 291 were C-I or larger.<br />

Because the C-I and B-II operations<br />

exceed the 250 annual operations<br />

threshold as established by TxDOT, the<br />

current critical aircraft is ARC C-II.


TABLE 3D<br />

Minimum Itinerant Jet Operations by ARC<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Aircraft Reference<br />

Code (ARC) Private Jet Ops Fractional Jet Ops Charter Jet Ops Total<br />

B-I 136 0 0 136<br />

B-II 108 42 8 158<br />

C-I 118 28 8 154<br />

C-II 6 18 0 24<br />

D-I 2 2 0 4<br />

D-II 6 2 0 8<br />

D-III 2 2 0 4<br />

Total 378 94 16 488<br />

Source: AirportIQ database<br />

In the short term (within 5 years), the<br />

critical aircraft can be expected to<br />

remain C-II. Future aircraft mix can<br />

expect to include a larger percentage <strong>of</strong><br />

corporate aircraft. Increased corporate<br />

aircraft utilization is typical at general<br />

aviation <strong>airport</strong>s surrounded by<br />

growing or established population and<br />

employment centers. Once utilized only<br />

by large conglomerate-type<br />

corporations, corporate aircraft<br />

(especially jets) have been increasingly<br />

utilized by a wider variety <strong>of</strong><br />

companies. FAA trends indicate that<br />

businesses are increasingly utilizing<br />

corporate aircraft. This is also evident<br />

by the substantial growth <strong>of</strong> fractionalownership<br />

programs. <strong>The</strong> fractionalownership<br />

programs have recently<br />

announced increased numbers <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft owners to meet this growing<br />

demand.<br />

As the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex<br />

continues to expand, Dallas County can<br />

expect positive population and<br />

employment growth. This trend will<br />

position the <strong>airport</strong> well for serving the<br />

growing business community. In<br />

addition, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has<br />

already developed a reputation in the<br />

3-8<br />

general aviation community for a clean,<br />

attractive <strong>airport</strong>, with highly<br />

competitive fuel prices. Other<br />

amenities, such as the new terminal<br />

building, also attract air traffic.<br />

As previously discussed, one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />

visible trends in general aviation today<br />

is the growth <strong>of</strong> the fractionalownership<br />

programs, and corporate<br />

aircraft use in general. <strong>Plan</strong>ning for<br />

fractional-ownership aircraft is difficult<br />

as it is an on-demand service, however,<br />

since these aircraft currently operate at<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>, planning should consider<br />

meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong><br />

highly-utilized fractional-ownership<br />

aircraft. Although these aircraft can<br />

range up to ARC D-III, most fractionalownership<br />

aircraft are in ARC B-I to C-<br />

II. Thus, future facility planning<br />

should include the potential for the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> to be utilized by the majority <strong>of</strong><br />

business jets on the market.<br />

<strong>The</strong> previous chapter indicated that by<br />

the long term planning period, 20 jets<br />

are forecast to be based at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Thus, the combination <strong>of</strong> operations by<br />

based business jet aircraft, along with<br />

transient corporate jet operations, will


determine the critical aircraft for the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Interviews conducted with <strong>airport</strong> staff<br />

indicate that there is a possibility that<br />

up to two large business jets may be<br />

prepared to base at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport in the near future. Discussions<br />

are ongoing with the owner <strong>of</strong> a<br />

Gulfstream IV (D-II) and the owner <strong>of</strong> a<br />

Gulfstream II (D-II). If either one bases<br />

at <strong>Mesquite</strong>, then the critical aircraft<br />

will immediately become ARC D-II.<br />

In conclusion, the current ARC for the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is C-II. In the very short term,<br />

the ARC could transition to ARC D-II,<br />

and possibly D-III, should a Gulfstream<br />

V base at the <strong>airport</strong>. Ultimate<br />

planning, however, should conform to at<br />

least ARC C/D-II to meet the needs <strong>of</strong><br />

business aircraft up to and including<br />

the G-II/IV. <strong>The</strong>re are some design<br />

standard differences between the C/D-II<br />

and D-III aircraft. <strong>The</strong>se differences<br />

will be identified as the facility<br />

requirements are studied throughout<br />

this chapter.<br />

AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS<br />

Airfield requirements include the need<br />

for those facilities related to the arrival<br />

and departure <strong>of</strong> aircraft. <strong>The</strong><br />

adequacy <strong>of</strong> existing airfield facilities at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has been<br />

analyzed from a number <strong>of</strong> perspectives,<br />

including:<br />

C Safety Area Design Standards<br />

C Airfield Capacity<br />

C Runways<br />

C Taxiways<br />

C Navigational Approach Aids<br />

3-9<br />

C Airfield Lighting, Marking, and<br />

Signage<br />

SAFETY AREA<br />

DESIGN STANDARDS<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA has established several safety<br />

surfaces to protect aircraft operational<br />

areas and keep them free from<br />

obstructions that could affect the safe<br />

operation <strong>of</strong> aircraft. <strong>The</strong>se include the<br />

runway safety area (RSA), obstacle free<br />

area (OFA) and runway protection zone<br />

(RPZ). <strong>The</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> these safety<br />

areas are dependant upon the critical<br />

aircraft, and thus, the ARC <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway.<br />

<strong>The</strong> entire RSA is required to be on<br />

<strong>airport</strong> property. If necessary design<br />

standards push the RSA beyond the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> property line, then fee simple<br />

acquisition will need to be undertaken.<br />

<strong>The</strong> OFA and RPZ can extend beyond<br />

<strong>airport</strong> bounds as long as obstructions<br />

do not exist in these areas. It is not<br />

required that the RPZ be under <strong>airport</strong><br />

ownership, but it is strongly<br />

recommended. An alternative to<br />

outright ownership <strong>of</strong> the RPZ is the<br />

purchase <strong>of</strong> avigation easements<br />

(acquiring control <strong>of</strong> designated<br />

airspace within the RPZ). All facility<br />

planning will consider fee simple<br />

acquisition <strong>of</strong> any safety areas.<br />

Exhibit 3B visually depicts the runway<br />

safety areas for ARC C-II at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport.<br />

Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

<strong>The</strong> RSA is defined in FAA Advisory<br />

Circular 150/5300-13, Change 8, Airport


Design, as a “surface surrounding the<br />

runway prepared or suitable for<br />

reducing the risk <strong>of</strong> damage to airplanes<br />

in the event <strong>of</strong> an undershoot,<br />

overshoot, or excursion from the<br />

runway.” <strong>The</strong> RSA is centered on the<br />

runway, dimensioned in accordance to<br />

the approach speed <strong>of</strong> the critical<br />

aircraft using the runway. <strong>The</strong> FAA<br />

requires the RSA to be cleared and<br />

graded, drained by grading or storm<br />

sewers, capable <strong>of</strong> accommodating the<br />

design aircraft and fire and rescue<br />

vehicles, and free <strong>of</strong> obstacles not fixed<br />

by navigational purpose.<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA has placed a higher<br />

significance on maintaining adequate<br />

RSAs at all <strong>airport</strong>s due to recent<br />

aircraft accidents. Under Order 5200.8,<br />

effective October 1, 1999, the FAA<br />

established a Runway Safety Area<br />

Program. <strong>The</strong> Order states, “<strong>The</strong><br />

objective <strong>of</strong> the Runway Safety Area<br />

Program is that all RSAs at federallyobligated<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s . . . shall conform to<br />

the standards contained in Advisory<br />

Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design, to<br />

the extent practicable.” Each Regional<br />

Airports Division <strong>of</strong> the FAA is<br />

obligated to collect and maintain data<br />

on the RSA for each runway at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, and perform <strong>airport</strong><br />

inspections. Texas, as a block-grant<br />

state, has given the inspection and data<br />

collection responsibility to TxDOT-<br />

Aviation Division for general aviation<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

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

for the RSA to be 150 feet wide and<br />

extend 300 feet beyond the runway<br />

ends. Analysis in the previous section<br />

indicated that Runway 17-35 should be<br />

planned to accommodate aircraft up to<br />

3-10<br />

and including ARC C/D-II. <strong>The</strong> RSA for<br />

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

extends 1,000 feet beyond each runway<br />

end. This is also the standard for ARC<br />

D-III aircraft.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> currently provides ample<br />

room to meet B-II standards.<br />

Upgrading to ARC C/D-II could be<br />

challenging, especially at the north end.<br />

<strong>The</strong> location <strong>of</strong> Scyene Road allows only<br />

700 feet <strong>of</strong> RSA. Moreover, drainage<br />

improvements will be necessary as<br />

several ruts have formed along the<br />

southwestern portion <strong>of</strong> the RSA.<br />

Alternative analysis to be conducted in<br />

the next chapter will provide solutions<br />

to meeting RSA standards for ARC C/D-<br />

II aircraft.<br />

Object Free Area(OFA)<br />

<strong>The</strong> runway OFA is “a two-dimensional<br />

ground area, surrounding runways,<br />

taxiways, and taxilanes, which is clear<br />

<strong>of</strong> objects except for objects whose<br />

location is fixed by function (i.e., airfield<br />

lighting).” <strong>The</strong> OFA is centered on the<br />

runway, extending out in accordance to<br />

the critical aircraft design category<br />

utilizing the runway.<br />

For ARC B-II aircraft, the FAA calls for<br />

the OFA to be 500 feet wide, extending<br />

300 feet beyond each runway end. In<br />

order to meet design criteria for ARC<br />

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

area 800 feet wide, extending 1,000 feet<br />

beyond each runway end. <strong>The</strong> standard<br />

for D-III aircraft is also 800 feet by<br />

1,000 feet.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> currently meets OFA<br />

standards for ARC B-II aircraft.


04MP22-3B-4/7/05<br />

LEGEND<br />

OFA<br />

Deficiency<br />

Deficiency<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

RSA<br />

Deficiency<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

NORTH<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Exhibit 3B<br />

RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS


Upgrading to ARC C/D-II presents<br />

deficiencies on both the north and<br />

southeast ends <strong>of</strong> the runways. On the<br />

southeast end, the OFA extends beyond<br />

the existing property line into a portion<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Devil’s Bowl Speedway. On the<br />

north end, only 650 feet <strong>of</strong> OFA is on<br />

<strong>airport</strong> property.<br />

Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ)<br />

Runways served by an instrument<br />

approach, as are both ends <strong>of</strong> Runway<br />

17-35, must consider the FAA’s criteria<br />

for the OFZ. <strong>The</strong> OFZ is an imaginary<br />

surface which precludes object<br />

penetrations, including taxiing and<br />

parked aircraft. <strong>The</strong> only allowance for<br />

OFZ obstructions is visual navigational<br />

aids mounted on frangible bases which<br />

are fixed in their location by function.<br />

3-11<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA’s criterion for runways utilized<br />

by large aircraft and served by an<br />

instrument approach requires a clear<br />

OFZ to extend 200 feet beyond the<br />

runway ends, by 400 feet wide (200 feet<br />

on either side <strong>of</strong> the runway centerline).<br />

<strong>The</strong> OFZ is established to ensure the<br />

safety <strong>of</strong> aircraft operations. If the OFZ<br />

is obstructed, the <strong>airport</strong>’s approaches<br />

could be removed or approach<br />

minimums could be increased.<br />

Currently, there are no OFZ<br />

obstructions at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

Future planning should maintain the<br />

OFZ. Table 3E presents the existing<br />

C/D-II safety area design standards, as<br />

well as the deficiencies to those<br />

standards.<br />

TABLE 3E<br />

Safety Area Design Standards<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

Existing Standards Deficiencies<br />

Airport Reference Code<br />

(ARC)<br />

Runway Safety Area<br />

C-II thru D-III<br />

Width (ft.) 500 Ruts, drainage<br />

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.)<br />

Object Free Area<br />

1,000 North only 700' available<br />

South parking apron and Devil’s<br />

Width (ft.) 800<br />

Bowl Speedway<br />

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.)<br />

Obstacle Free Zone<br />

1,000 North only 650' available<br />

Width (ft.) 400 OK<br />

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.) 200 OK<br />

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

Runway Protection Zones (RPZ)<br />

Another consideration is the FAA<br />

recommendation for compatible land<br />

uses. <strong>The</strong> runway protection zone<br />

(RPZ) is a trapezoidal area centered on<br />

the runway and typically beginning 200<br />

feet beyond the runway end. <strong>The</strong> RPZ


has been established by the FAA to<br />

provide an area clear <strong>of</strong> obstructions<br />

and incompatible land uses, in order to<br />

enhance the protection <strong>of</strong> approaching<br />

aircraft, as well as people and property<br />

on the ground. <strong>The</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> the<br />

RPZ vary according to the visibility<br />

minimums serving the runway and the<br />

type <strong>of</strong> aircraft operating on the<br />

runway.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) is<br />

an area closely mirroring the RPZ, but<br />

extending out and up from the primary<br />

runway surface. <strong>The</strong> TSS is primarily<br />

designed to identify obstructions.<br />

Obstructions to the TSS surface need to<br />

be addressed as soon as possible to<br />

ensure the safety <strong>of</strong> pilots, aircraft and<br />

people and objects on the ground. <strong>The</strong><br />

current TSS slope for Runway 17-35 is<br />

20:1. Should the visibility minimum for<br />

Runway 17 be lowered to one-half mile,<br />

then the TSS slope will be 34:1, while<br />

Runway 35 will remain at 20:1.<br />

3-12<br />

<strong>The</strong> lowest existing visibility minimum<br />

for approach to Runway 17 is threequarters<br />

mile using the ILS. <strong>The</strong><br />

lowest existing visibility minimum for<br />

Runway 35 is one mile. Ultimate<br />

planning will consider lowering the<br />

minimums to one-half mile for Runway<br />

17 and three-quarters mile for Runway<br />

35. A detailed explanation <strong>of</strong> these<br />

visibility minimums is presented later<br />

in this chapter.<br />

It should be noted that the RPZ for ARC<br />

C/D-II aircraft is significantly larger<br />

than the current RPZ for ARC B-II, and<br />

would extend into areas outside the<br />

existing <strong>airport</strong> property line. Future<br />

plans should consider acquiring any<br />

property not contained inside the<br />

existing or planned RPZs. <strong>The</strong><br />

dimensions for the current and planned<br />

runway protection zones are presented<br />

in Table 3F.<br />

TABLE 3F<br />

Runway Protection<br />

Zones<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Existing Ultimate<br />

Runway<br />

Approach Visibility<br />

17 35 17 35<br />

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

Inner Width (ft.) 1,000 500 1,000 1,000<br />

Outer Width (ft.) 1,510 1,010 1,750 1,510<br />

Length (ft.) 1,700 1,700 2,500 1,700<br />

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

AIRFIELD CAPACITY<br />

A demand/capacity analysis measures<br />

the capacity <strong>of</strong> the airfield facilities (i.e.,<br />

runways and taxiways) in order to<br />

identify and plan for additional<br />

development needs. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport’s single-runway system can<br />

provide up to 230,000 annual operations<br />

under ideal conditions. Since it is<br />

known that there are times when<br />

weather can close the runway (usually<br />

due to precipitation or wind), a more


easonable capacity should start at<br />

approximately 210,000 operations.<br />

FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong> Integrated<br />

Airport Systems (NPIAS), indicates that<br />

improvements to capacity should be<br />

considered when operations approach<br />

60 to 75 percent <strong>of</strong> the airfield’s annual<br />

service volume (ASV). If the projected<br />

long range planning horizon level <strong>of</strong><br />

operations comes to fruition (166,500),<br />

the airfield’s ASV will exceed the 60<br />

percent level shortly after the<br />

intermediate planning horizon. Thus,<br />

additional airfield capacity enhancements<br />

should be considered part <strong>of</strong> this<br />

master plan.<br />

<strong>The</strong> most typical and effective<br />

enhancement to airfield capacity is the<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway.<br />

Construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway would<br />

increase the airfield’s ASV to as much<br />

as 300,000 operations. Other capacity<br />

enhancements include construction <strong>of</strong><br />

additional taxiways and improved<br />

navigational instrumentation. For<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, construction <strong>of</strong><br />

additional exit taxiways will not<br />

significantly alleviate congestion due to<br />

the adequacy <strong>of</strong> existing taxiways.<br />

Navigational aid improvements,<br />

including GPS improvements and lower<br />

minimums for the southerly approach,<br />

would provide some relief during poor<br />

weather conditions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway<br />

provides the best capacity increase to an<br />

airfield system. This process, however,<br />

is very costly and TxDOT will require<br />

that the project be justified in order to<br />

receive funding assistance. Quantifying<br />

existing demand without the aid <strong>of</strong> an<br />

3-13<br />

<strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT) is a<br />

difficult task. Another consideration for<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is the lack <strong>of</strong><br />

available <strong>airport</strong> property suitable for<br />

construction. This would require the<br />

acquisition <strong>of</strong> adjacent property which<br />

is currently planned for other industrial<br />

uses.<br />

For planning purposes, however,<br />

consideration will be given to the<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway in the<br />

long range planning period. Establishing<br />

the potential for a parallel<br />

runway will provide the <strong>City</strong> with an<br />

option for development <strong>of</strong> adjacent<br />

property. This option will be explored<br />

further in the next chapter.<br />

RUNWAYS<br />

<strong>The</strong> adequacy <strong>of</strong> the existing runway<br />

system at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has<br />

been analyzed from a number <strong>of</strong><br />

perspectives, including runway<br />

orientation, runway length, pavement<br />

strength, width, and safety standards.<br />

From this information, requirements for<br />

runway improvements were determined<br />

for the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Runway Orientation<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is served by single runway<br />

system. Runway 17-35 is orientated in<br />

a north-south manner. For the<br />

operational safety and efficiency <strong>of</strong> an<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, it is desirable for the runway to<br />

be oriented as close as possible to the<br />

direction <strong>of</strong> the prevailing wind. This<br />

reduces the impact <strong>of</strong> wind components<br />

perpendicular to the direction <strong>of</strong> travel


<strong>of</strong> an aircraft that is landing or taking<br />

<strong>of</strong>f.<br />

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,<br />

Change 8, Airport Design, recommends<br />

that a crosswind runway should be<br />

made available when the primary<br />

runway orientation provides for less<br />

than 95 percent wind coverage for<br />

specific crosswind components. <strong>The</strong> 95<br />

percent wind coverage is computed on<br />

the basis <strong>of</strong> the crosswind component<br />

not exceeding 10.5 knots (12 mph) for<br />

ARC A-I and B-I; 13 knots (15 mph) for<br />

ARC A-II and B-II; 16 knots (18 mph)<br />

for ARC C-I through D-II; and 20 knots<br />

for ARC A-IV through D-VI.<br />

Wind data specific to the <strong>airport</strong> was<br />

not available, however, data for<br />

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport<br />

(1988-1997) provides adequate<br />

information for use in this study. This<br />

data is graphically depicted on the<br />

windrose in Exhibit 3C.<br />

As depicted on the exhibit, primary<br />

Runway 17-35 provides 96.04 percent<br />

wind coverage for 10.5 knot crosswinds,<br />

98.15 percent at 13 knots, and 99.48<br />

percent at 16 knots. Runway 17-35<br />

exceeds the 95 percent wind coverage<br />

component.<br />

<strong>The</strong> analysis indicates that the existing<br />

runway system provides adequate<br />

crosswind coverage for all aircraft. It<br />

should be noted, however, due to<br />

geographical differences, this data could<br />

be somewhat different from what is<br />

actually experienced in <strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

Without more applicable information,<br />

however, a site-specific determination<br />

cannot be made. Thus, based on the<br />

analysis using the best available<br />

3-14<br />

information, future plans for a<br />

crosswind runway do not need to be<br />

considered.<br />

Runway Length<br />

<strong>The</strong> determination <strong>of</strong> runway length<br />

requirements for the <strong>airport</strong> is based on<br />

five primary factors:<br />

C Critical aircraft type expected to<br />

use the <strong>airport</strong><br />

C Stage length <strong>of</strong> the longest<br />

nonstop trip destination<br />

C Mean maximum daily<br />

temperature <strong>of</strong> the hottest month<br />

C Runway gradient<br />

C Airport elevation<br />

Primary Factors<br />

An analysis <strong>of</strong> the existing and future<br />

fleet mix indicates that business jets<br />

will be the most demanding aircraft for<br />

runway length at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. Currently, there is one<br />

business jet based at the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

however, transient operations by the<br />

full range <strong>of</strong> business jets define the<br />

current critical aircraft. <strong>The</strong> typical<br />

itinerant business aircraft utilizing the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> range from the Cessna Citation<br />

family, to Learjets, all the way up to the<br />

Gulfstreams, as presented previously in<br />

Tables 3A and 3B.<br />

Aircraft operating characteristics are<br />

affected by three primary factors: the<br />

temperature, the <strong>airport</strong>’s elevation,<br />

and the gradient <strong>of</strong> the runway. As<br />

each <strong>of</strong> these increase, more runway<br />

length is required to support the<br />

aircraft. Additional factors, which are


aircraft-specific, such as haul length, or<br />

fuel capacity or passenger capacity can<br />

all affect runway length requirements.<br />

<strong>The</strong> mean maximum daily temperature<br />

<strong>of</strong> the hottest month for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport is 96 degrees Fahrenheit (F).<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> elevation is 447 feet above<br />

mean sea level (MSL). <strong>The</strong> maximum<br />

elevation difference for Runway 17-35 is<br />

four feet. Runway 17-35 has a<br />

longitudinal gradient <strong>of</strong> 0.06 percent.<br />

For aircraft in approach categories A<br />

3-15<br />

and B, the runway longitudinal<br />

gradient cannot exceed two percent. For<br />

aircraft in approach categories C and D,<br />

the maximum allowable longitudinal<br />

runway grade is 1.5 percent.<br />

Table 3G outlines the runway length<br />

requirements for various classifications<br />

<strong>of</strong> aircraft that utilize <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. <strong>The</strong>se standards were derived<br />

from the FAA Airport Design Computer<br />

Program for recommended runway<br />

lengths.<br />

TABLE 3G<br />

Runway Length Requirements<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA<br />

Airport elevation 447 feet<br />

Mean daily maximum temperature <strong>of</strong> the hottest month 96.00 F.<br />

Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation 4 feet<br />

Length <strong>of</strong> haul for airplanes <strong>of</strong> more than 60,000 pounds 1,400 miles<br />

Dry runways<br />

RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN<br />

Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats<br />

75 percent <strong>of</strong> these small airplanes 2,700 feet<br />

95 percent <strong>of</strong> these small airplanes 3,300 feet<br />

100 percent <strong>of</strong> these small airplanes 3,900 feet<br />

Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats 4,500 feet<br />

Large airplanes <strong>of</strong> 60,000 pounds or less<br />

75 percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 60 percent useful load 4,900 feet<br />

75 percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 90 percent useful load 7,300 feet<br />

100 percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 60 percent useful load 5,900 feet<br />

100 percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 90 percent useful load 9,400 feet<br />

Airplanes <strong>of</strong> more than 60,000 pounds 6,900 feet<br />

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

Length Requirements for Airport Design.<br />

According to the FAA design program,<br />

to accommodate 75 percent <strong>of</strong> business<br />

jet aircraft at 60 percent useful load,<br />

the runway length should be at least<br />

4,900 feet. To accommodate 100<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> business jets at 60 percent<br />

useful load, the runway should be 5,900<br />

feet long.<br />

In late 2004, the FAA released a draft<br />

update to Advisory Circular (AC)<br />

150/5325-4B, Runway Length<br />

Requirements for Airport Design. <strong>The</strong><br />

updated AC identifies those aircraft<br />

that were used in calculating the<br />

lengths required in Table 3G. For<br />

example, the “75 percent fleet at 60<br />

percent useful load” provides a runway<br />

length sufficient to satisfy the<br />

operational requirements <strong>of</strong><br />

approximately 75 percent <strong>of</strong> the fleet at<br />

60 percent useful load. <strong>The</strong> AC also


provides direction on runway length for<br />

aircraft operating at 90 percent useful<br />

load.<br />

Paragraph 306 <strong>of</strong> the AC recognizes<br />

that general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s are being<br />

used more frequently by business jets.<br />

General aviation (GA) <strong>airport</strong>s “that<br />

receive regular use by large airplanes<br />

over 12,500 pounds, in addition to<br />

business jets, should provide a runway<br />

length comparable to non-GA <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

That is, the extension <strong>of</strong> an existing<br />

runway can be justified at an existing<br />

GA <strong>airport</strong> that has a need to<br />

accommodate heavier airplanes on a<br />

frequent basis.” This is the exact<br />

3-16<br />

scenario that is currently taking place<br />

at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, and thus,<br />

needs to be planned for.<br />

<strong>The</strong> top half <strong>of</strong> Table 3H presents the<br />

list <strong>of</strong> those aircraft which make up the<br />

75 percent <strong>of</strong> the active business jet<br />

fleet category. <strong>The</strong> bottom half,<br />

presented in Table 3H, represents the<br />

aircraft used for the 100 percent<br />

category in Table 3G. Those aircraft<br />

that fall in the remaining 25 percent,<br />

make up 100 percent <strong>of</strong> the active<br />

business jet category, utilize the <strong>airport</strong><br />

on an infrequent basis, but are likely to<br />

use the <strong>airport</strong> more frequently in the<br />

short term.<br />

TABLE 3H<br />

Aircraft Type as a Percent <strong>of</strong> the Business Jet Fleet<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Manufacturer Models<br />

Airplanes that make up 75 percent <strong>of</strong> the fleet per Table 3G<br />

Beech Jet 400<br />

Cessna 500, 525A, 550, 560, 650 (Citation VII)<br />

Dessault Falcon 10, 20, 50, 200<br />

Hawker 400, 600<br />

IAI Jet Commander 1121, Westwind 1123/1124<br />

Learjet 20, 31, 35, 36, 45<br />

Mitsubishi 300<br />

Sabreliner 40, 60, 75a/80, T-39<br />

Bae 125-700<br />

Raytheon 390 Premier<br />

Aerospatiale Sn-601 Corvette<br />

Airplanes that make up 100 percent <strong>of</strong> the fleet per Table 3G<br />

Bombardier Challenger 600, 601, 604<br />

Cessna 650 (Citation III/VI), 750<br />

Dessault Falcon 900, 900EX, 2000<br />

IAI Astra 1125, Galaxy 1126<br />

Learjet 55, 60<br />

Hawker 800, 800EX, 1000<br />

Sabreliner 65, 75<br />

Source: FAA AC 150/5325-4B<br />

Since it is known that most <strong>of</strong> the<br />

aircraft listed in the 100 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />

business jet category utilize the<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, consideration<br />

should be given to providing adequate<br />

runway length for their safe and<br />

efficient operation.


Haul Length<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA Computer Program also<br />

provides an estimation <strong>of</strong> runway<br />

lengths for general aviation aircraft<br />

weighing more than 60,000 pounds.<br />

This group includes the Gulfstream<br />

family <strong>of</strong> aircraft and some new longrange<br />

corporate jets. <strong>The</strong> estimate <strong>of</strong><br />

runway length requirements for the<br />

large corporate aircraft over 60,000<br />

pounds considers all airfield data, but<br />

also considers the typical haul distance.<br />

<strong>The</strong> origin/destination <strong>of</strong> many aircraft<br />

utilizing the <strong>airport</strong> was previously<br />

identified in Table 3C. <strong>The</strong> larger<br />

Gulfstream jets had haul lengths <strong>of</strong><br />

nearly 1,400 miles, to destinations such<br />

as Palm Springs, California, and Palm<br />

Beach, Florida. Other destinations<br />

included St. Paul, MN (1,000 mi.),<br />

Jackson Hole, WY (1,400 mi.),<br />

Kissimmee, FL (1,100 mi.), and Black<br />

Hills, SD (1,100 mi.). Since it is known<br />

that, when conditions allow, business<br />

jet operators are opting for longer haul<br />

lengths, consideration will be given to<br />

accommodate aircraft weighing more<br />

than 60,000 pounds with haul lengths<br />

<strong>of</strong> 1,400 miles. As indicated in Table<br />

3G, aircraft weighing more than 60,000<br />

pounds, with haul lengths <strong>of</strong> 1,400<br />

miles, require a runway length <strong>of</strong> 6,900<br />

feet.<br />

Specific Aircraft Requirements<br />

An additional consideration for runway<br />

length is to analyze the runway length<br />

requirements <strong>of</strong> specific aircraft<br />

currently utilizing or planned to utilize<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport in the future.<br />

Table 3J presents the runway length<br />

3-17<br />

needs for a wide variety <strong>of</strong> business jets,<br />

as obtained from the operations<br />

manuals for each aircraft. Figures in<br />

the table consider maximum take-<strong>of</strong>f<br />

and landing weights. It should be noted<br />

that landing length requirements<br />

during contaminated runway conditions<br />

(rainy, with 1/10-inch <strong>of</strong> water on the<br />

runway) increase significantly for<br />

aircraft with single landing gear<br />

configurations due to hydroplaning<br />

potential.<br />

In general, the data specific to each<br />

airplane presented in Table 3J is<br />

similar to the generalized output by the<br />

FAA computer program (presented in<br />

Table 3G). Obviously, <strong>airport</strong> planning<br />

cannot always conform to the worst case<br />

(maximum load) scenario. <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />

should at least conform to providing a<br />

runway length capable <strong>of</strong> accommodating<br />

the majority <strong>of</strong> aircraft, the<br />

majority <strong>of</strong> the year. In other words,<br />

the runway should be capable <strong>of</strong><br />

handling business jets with typical<br />

weight loading during moderate heat<br />

conditions.<br />

Several aircraft which currently utilize<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> on an infrequent basis can<br />

require runway lengths longer than<br />

6,000 feet. <strong>The</strong> Lear 55, Gulfstream IV<br />

and V, Hawker 800, and Challenger<br />

require up to 7,000 feet. <strong>The</strong>se aircraft<br />

are capable <strong>of</strong> operating at the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

but are weight-restricted during hot<br />

weather days. Weight restrictions can<br />

include taking less fuel and making an<br />

additional stop along the intended<br />

route, boarding fewer passengers, or<br />

taking less cargo. During cooler days,<br />

the weight restrictions could be minor<br />

or may be unnecessary.


TABLE 3J<br />

Runway Length Requirements (Max Take-<strong>of</strong>f/Landing Weights)<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Runway Length Required (in feet) for:<br />

Landings on Dry<br />

Landing on<br />

Aircraft Type Take-<strong>of</strong>f @ 95 F<br />

Runway<br />

Contaminated Runway<br />

Beechjet 400 5,900 4,500 6,000<br />

Challenger CL600 6,900 5,500 7,000<br />

Cessna 550 5,500 2,900 6,000<br />

Cessna 650 6,000 5,300 6,100<br />

Gulfstream IV 7,000 5,400 6,200<br />

Gulfstream V 7,000 4,500 5,500<br />

Hawker 800 8,000 4,000 6,000<br />

Hawker 1000 7,500 5,000 5,600<br />

IAI Westwind 7,300 3,500 7,000<br />

IAI Astra 7,000 5,000 5,000<br />

Lear 35 6,000 3,400 7,000<br />

Lear 55 7,300 3,200 6,400<br />

Source: Aircraft Operating Manuals<br />

Parallel Runway Length<br />

As indicated previously, the forecast<br />

operations at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

could exceed 60 percent <strong>of</strong> the airfield’s<br />

capacity by the intermediate term <strong>of</strong><br />

this master plan. One option for<br />

increasing airfield capacity is to<br />

construct a parallel runway. A parallel<br />

runway has the added benefit <strong>of</strong><br />

allowing the <strong>airport</strong> to remain open<br />

when the primary runway is closed for<br />

maintenance.<br />

Consideration must be given to the<br />

length <strong>of</strong> a potential parallel runway.<br />

<strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong> a parallel runway can at<br />

times be critical to the operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. Times when the primary<br />

runway is down for maintenance could,<br />

in essence, close the <strong>airport</strong> to large<br />

aircraft due to inadequate runway<br />

lengths. Thus, ultimate plans for the<br />

parallel runway should include the<br />

length necessary to accommodate, at a<br />

minimum, ARC B-II aircraft. <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />

should also consider use for ARC C-II<br />

3-18<br />

aircraft. Table 3G indicates that a<br />

4,900-foot runway would be necessary<br />

to accommodate most <strong>of</strong> these aircraft.<br />

Another option for planing the parallel<br />

runway would be providing only for<br />

training operations and for small<br />

aircraft exclusively up to ARC B-II. In<br />

order to accommodate aircraft up to B-<br />

II, the potential parallel runway should<br />

be a minimum <strong>of</strong> 4,000 feet long. This<br />

would meet the runway length<br />

requirements for all small aircraft.<br />

Analysis conducted in the next chapter<br />

will consider the potential for providing<br />

a parallel runway up to 4,900 feet long.<br />

Runway Length Summary<br />

Many factors are considered when<br />

determining appropriate runway length<br />

for the safe and efficient operation <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong><br />

starting point for analysis begins with<br />

running the FAA Airport Design<br />

Computer Program. This program is


ased on the criteria for runway length<br />

set forth in AC 150/5300, Airport<br />

Design. <strong>The</strong> output from the computer<br />

program shows a number <strong>of</strong> different<br />

runway lengths based on aircraft<br />

characteristics such as useful load, haul<br />

length, and percent <strong>of</strong> active business<br />

jets. <strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong> the computer<br />

program show that, at a minimum, the<br />

runway should be at least 5,900 feet<br />

long in order to accommodate 100<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the business jet fleet at 60<br />

percent useful load. This would be<br />

adequate for almost all C-II business<br />

jets.<br />

An additional consideration is the haul<br />

length for aircraft weighing over 60,000<br />

pounds. For business jets, this would<br />

include the Gulfstream family <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft. Flight plan data that was<br />

collected and analyzed showed that<br />

when conditions allow (i.e., cooler, dry<br />

days), those heavier business jets will<br />

take on longer haul lengths, up to and<br />

beyond 1,400 miles. <strong>The</strong> FAA Computer<br />

Program calls for a runway length <strong>of</strong><br />

6,900 feet for these aircraft.<br />

An additional source for necessary<br />

runway length is the actual operations<br />

manuals from those business jets<br />

utilizing the <strong>airport</strong>. Analysis indicated<br />

that a number <strong>of</strong> these aircraft have<br />

runway length needs that exceed the<br />

current 6,000 feet. Some had<br />

requirements for over 7,000 feet under<br />

extreme conditions (full load, above 95<br />

degrees).<br />

Corporate aviation departments and<br />

fractional-ownership programs <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

restrict what <strong>airport</strong>s they can use<br />

based on runway length. Often, these<br />

3-19<br />

groups will restrict operations to those<br />

runways that have adequate runway<br />

length plus a buffer. Obviously, the<br />

longer the runway, the more<br />

opportunity these aircraft operators will<br />

have to use the <strong>airport</strong>. Moreover,<br />

fractional aircraft and charter operators<br />

must increase the runway length<br />

requirement by 20 percent under F.A.R.<br />

Part 135 rules.<br />

All <strong>of</strong> these runway length<br />

recommendations are based on the fact<br />

that C-II transient aircraft operations<br />

exceed 250 annual operations, the<br />

threshold as established by TxDOT. If<br />

one <strong>of</strong> the larger business jets were to<br />

base at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> would immediately transition to<br />

the design standard <strong>of</strong> that critical<br />

aircraft. For example, if the Gulfstream<br />

IV operator, who is currently<br />

negotiating for hangar space at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, signs a lease, then the <strong>airport</strong><br />

should conform with D-II design<br />

standards.<br />

Forecast future demand at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport indicates that the <strong>airport</strong><br />

should strive to accommodate all<br />

business jet operations up to and<br />

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

alternative analysis will consider the<br />

possibility <strong>of</strong> lengthening Runway 17-35<br />

to provide 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong> operational<br />

length. While this length may not be<br />

fully capable <strong>of</strong> accommodating all<br />

aircraft needs throughout the year, it<br />

will be adequate for most business jet<br />

operations.<br />

Analysis in the next chapter will<br />

examine potential runway extensions<br />

that could be achieved. <strong>The</strong> analysis


will factor constraints which could<br />

hinder runway extension including<br />

roads, environmental considerations,<br />

and costs. It is important to note that<br />

TxDOT and the FAA will require<br />

specific justification for the runway to<br />

be extended. <strong>The</strong> type <strong>of</strong> aircraft, its<br />

specific runway requirements and<br />

frequency <strong>of</strong> operation, will need to be<br />

provided for funding assistance.<br />

<strong>The</strong>refore, current record-keeping <strong>of</strong><br />

business jet operators should be<br />

maintained and include company<br />

names, aircraft types, and frequency <strong>of</strong><br />

operation at the <strong>airport</strong>, where possible.<br />

Also, <strong>airport</strong> administration should<br />

request that corporate aircraft<br />

operating at the <strong>airport</strong> provide, in<br />

writing, their established runway<br />

length requirements.<br />

Runway Width<br />

Runway 17-35 is currently 100 feet<br />

wide. FAA design standards call for a<br />

runway width <strong>of</strong> 75 feet to serve aircraft<br />

up to ARC B-II, as long as the<br />

instrument approach minimums are<br />

three-quarters mile or greater. For<br />

lower approach minimums and for<br />

aircraft in approach categories C and D,<br />

the runway should be 100 feet wide.<br />

Also, TxDOT standards call for a 100foot-wide<br />

runway for transport category<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s. Runway 17-35 currently<br />

meets FAA and TxDOT criteria for<br />

runway width and should be<br />

maintained as such.<br />

<strong>The</strong> runway shoulder for Group II<br />

aircraft is 10 feet and for Group III it is<br />

20 feet. <strong>The</strong> shoulder areas should be<br />

designed to provide resistance to blast<br />

3-20<br />

erosion and to accommodate the<br />

passage <strong>of</strong> vehicles.<br />

Runway Strength<br />

<strong>The</strong> pavement rating for Runway 17-35<br />

is 70,000 pounds single wheel loading<br />

(SWL).<br />

As previously mentioned, SWL refers to<br />

the aircraft weight based upon the<br />

landing gear configuration with a single<br />

wheel on the landing strut. For dual<br />

wheel configurations (DWL), the<br />

runway is strength rated at 100,000<br />

pounds.<br />

<strong>The</strong> runway strength is adequate<br />

through the long term planning period.<br />

Care should be given to repair the<br />

concrete as needed in order to preserve<br />

both the condition and strength <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway.<br />

Runway Separation<br />

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,<br />

Airport Design, Change 8 also discusses<br />

separation distances between aircraft<br />

and various areas on the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

separation distances are a function <strong>of</strong><br />

the approaches approved for the <strong>airport</strong><br />

and the critical aircraft. <strong>The</strong> airfield<br />

was designed for and currently<br />

conforms to ARC B-II, with approaches<br />

not less than three-quarters-<strong>of</strong>-a-mile.<br />

Under this criterion, the parallel<br />

taxiway needs to be at least 300 feet<br />

from the runway centerline. <strong>The</strong> edge<br />

<strong>of</strong> aircraft parking areas should be 400<br />

feet from the runway centerline.


<strong>The</strong> existing critical aircraft, however,<br />

falls in ARC C/D-II and could possibly<br />

transition ultimately to ARC D-III. <strong>The</strong><br />

lowest approach minimums suggested<br />

are one-half mile (Runway 17). Under<br />

these circumstances, the taxiway<br />

centerline should be at least 400 feet<br />

from the runway centerline. <strong>The</strong><br />

parking areas should be at least 500<br />

feet from the runway centerline.<br />

Should a parallel runway be<br />

constructed, the minimum FAA<br />

recommended separation is 700 feet<br />

from centerline to centerline. This<br />

separation assumes that the proposed<br />

parallel runway would be visual or with<br />

approach minimums not lower than<br />

one-mile visibility.<br />

TAXIWAYS<br />

Taxiways are constructed primarily to<br />

facilitate aircraft movements to and<br />

from the runway system. Some<br />

taxiways are necessary simply to<br />

provide access between the aprons and<br />

runways, whereas other taxiways<br />

become necessary as activity increases<br />

at an <strong>airport</strong>, to provide safe and<br />

efficient use <strong>of</strong> the airfield.<br />

As detailed in Chapter One, the taxiway<br />

system at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

consists <strong>of</strong> a parallel taxiway and six<br />

entrance/exit taxiways serving Runway<br />

17-35. <strong>The</strong> parallel taxiway is 40 feet<br />

wide, as are the entrance/exit taxiways.<br />

<strong>The</strong> terminal area taxiway is 30 feet<br />

wide.<br />

Consideration should be given to the<br />

addition <strong>of</strong> taxiways, as needed, to<br />

3-21<br />

improve airfield circulation and<br />

capacity. <strong>The</strong> current taxiway layout<br />

appears efficient for Runway 17-35,<br />

however, if Runway17-35 were to be<br />

extended, the parallel taxiway would<br />

need to be extended and another exit<br />

taxiway added.<br />

Taxiway width is determined by the<br />

Airplane Design Group (ADG) <strong>of</strong> the<br />

most demanding aircraft to use the<br />

taxiway. As mentioned previously, the<br />

current critical aircraft for the <strong>airport</strong><br />

falls within ADG II. FAA criteria call<br />

for a width <strong>of</strong> 35 feet for taxiways<br />

serving aircraft within Design Group II.<br />

All taxiways at the <strong>airport</strong> currently<br />

meet this requirement. If ADG III is to<br />

be considered, the taxiways serving<br />

these aircraft should be 50 feet wide.<br />

As shown in Table 3K, a taxiway object<br />

free area (TOFA) applies to taxiways<br />

and taxilanes. <strong>The</strong> width <strong>of</strong> the TOFA<br />

is dependant on the wingspan <strong>of</strong> critical<br />

aircraft. For Group II aircraft, the<br />

TOFA is 131 feet wide. For Group III<br />

aircraft, the TOFA is 186 feet wide.<br />

Taxilane separation standards are<br />

slightly lower.<br />

<strong>The</strong> separation distance between the<br />

taxiway/taxilane and any fixed or<br />

movable object is half <strong>of</strong> the TOFA. <strong>The</strong><br />

taxiway shoulder width requirements<br />

are 10 feet for Group II aircraft and 20<br />

feet for Group III aircraft. <strong>The</strong><br />

shoulders need to be traversable by<br />

vehicles and aircraft, should they veer<br />

<strong>of</strong>f the taxiway. Often, a smooth grass<br />

surface is provided.


TABLE 3K<br />

Taxiway Design Standards<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Airplane Design Group<br />

Group II (49' to 79' wingspan) Group III (79' to 118' wingspan)<br />

Taxiway Width (ft.) 35 50<br />

Shoulder Width (ft.)<br />

Object Free Area (ft.)<br />

10 20<br />

Taxiway OFA 131 186<br />

Taxilane OFA<br />

Separation Distances (ft.)<br />

115 162<br />

Taxiway Centerline to Object 65.5 93<br />

Taxilane Centerline to Object 57.5 81<br />

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

NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND<br />

INSTRUMENT APPROACHES<br />

Airport and runway navigational aids<br />

are based on FAA recommendations, as<br />

defined in DOT/FAA Handbook<br />

7031.2B, Airway <strong>Plan</strong>ning Standard<br />

Number One, FAA Advisory Circular<br />

150/5300-2D, Airport Design<br />

Standards, Site Requirements for<br />

Terminal Navigation Facilities, and<br />

TxDOT’s Policies and Standards.<br />

Navigational aids provide two primary<br />

services to <strong>airport</strong> operations: precision<br />

guidance to specific runway and/or nonprecision<br />

guidance to a runway or the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> itself. <strong>The</strong> basic difference<br />

between a precision and non-precision<br />

navigational aid is that the former<br />

provides electronic descent, alignment<br />

(course), and position guidance, while<br />

the non-precision navigational aid<br />

provides only alignment and position<br />

location information; no elevation<br />

information is given. <strong>The</strong> necessity <strong>of</strong><br />

such equipment is usually determined<br />

by design standards predicated on<br />

safety considerations and operational<br />

needs. <strong>The</strong> type, purpose, and volume<br />

<strong>of</strong> aviation activity expected at the<br />

3-22<br />

<strong>airport</strong> are factors in the determination<br />

<strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>’s eligibility for<br />

navigational aids.<br />

Global Positioning System<br />

<strong>The</strong> advancement <strong>of</strong> technology has<br />

been one <strong>of</strong> the most important factors<br />

in the growth <strong>of</strong> the aviation industry in<br />

the second half <strong>of</strong> the twentieth<br />

century. Much <strong>of</strong> the civil aviation and<br />

aerospace technology has been derived<br />

and enhanced from the initial<br />

development <strong>of</strong> technological<br />

improvements for military purposes.<br />

<strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> orbiting satellites to confirm<br />

an aircraft’s location is the latest<br />

military development to be made<br />

available to the civil aviation<br />

community.<br />

Global positioning systems (GPS) use<br />

three or more satellites to derive an<br />

aircraft’s location by a triangulation<br />

method. <strong>The</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> these systems<br />

has been remarkable, with initial<br />

degrees <strong>of</strong> error <strong>of</strong> only a few meters.<br />

As the technology improves, it is<br />

anticipated that GPS may be able to<br />

provide accurate-enough position


information to allow category II and III<br />

precision approaches, independent <strong>of</strong><br />

any existing ground-based navigational<br />

facilities. In addition to the<br />

navigational benefits, it has been<br />

estimated that GPS equipment will be<br />

much less costly than existing precision<br />

approach landing systems.<br />

Instrument Approaches<br />

Instrument approach procedures (IAP)<br />

are a series <strong>of</strong> predetermined<br />

maneuvers established by the FAA,<br />

using electronic navigational aids that<br />

assist pilots in locating and landing at<br />

an <strong>airport</strong> during low visibility and<br />

cloud ceiling conditions. At <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport, there are two published<br />

instrument approaches for Runway 17<br />

and one for Runway 35. <strong>The</strong><br />

approaches are approved for use by<br />

aircraft with approach speeds in<br />

Approach Category A, B and C. None <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong>’s approaches are approved<br />

for D aircraft.<br />

<strong>The</strong> capability <strong>of</strong> an instrument<br />

approach is defined by the visibility and<br />

cloud ceiling minimums associated with<br />

the approach. Visibility minimums<br />

define the horizontal distance that the<br />

pilot must be able to see to complete the<br />

approach. Cloud ceilings define the<br />

lowest level a cloud layer (defined as<br />

feet above the ground) can be situated<br />

for a pilot to complete the approach. If<br />

the observed visibility or cloud ceiling is<br />

below the minimums prescribed for the<br />

approach, the pilot cannot complete the<br />

instrument approach.<br />

Future planning considers the increased<br />

use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> by corporate aircraft.<br />

3-23<br />

<strong>The</strong>se aircraft users are <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

dependent upon instrument approaches.<br />

In fact, some corporate flight<br />

departments are excluded from using<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s without instrument<br />

approaches. Considering these aircraft,<br />

future planning must also consider<br />

improved instrument approach<br />

procedures.<br />

<strong>The</strong> IAPs for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

were discussed in detail in the previous<br />

chapter. <strong>The</strong> ILS Runway 17 approach<br />

affords the lowest cloud ceiling (250'<br />

AGL) and visibility minimums (threequarter<br />

mile). Ultimate planning will<br />

consider the implementation <strong>of</strong><br />

approach minimums down to one-half<br />

mile, utilizing the ILS technology such<br />

as the localizer and glideslope antenna.<br />

<strong>The</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> implementing these<br />

approaches will be studied in the next<br />

chapter. Should there be a parallel<br />

runway, GPS approaches with not lower<br />

than one-mile visibility should be<br />

considered.<br />

Weather Reporting Aids<br />

<strong>The</strong> Automated Weather Observing<br />

System III (AWOS) at the <strong>airport</strong><br />

provides critical weather information to<br />

pilots. One <strong>of</strong> the prime advantages <strong>of</strong><br />

an AWOS is that the information is<br />

very specific to the <strong>airport</strong> environs.<br />

This system should be maintained.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has a lighted wind cone and<br />

segmented circle which provide pilots<br />

with information about wind conditions<br />

and local traffic patterns. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

facilities are required when an <strong>airport</strong><br />

is not served by a 24-hour <strong>airport</strong> traffic


control tower (ATCT). <strong>The</strong>se facilities<br />

should be maintained in the future.<br />

Airport Traffic<br />

Control Tower (ATCT)<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport does not have<br />

an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT);<br />

therefore, no formal terminal air traffic<br />

control services are available at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Aircraft operating within the Class E<br />

airspace immediately surrounding the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> are not required to file any type<br />

<strong>of</strong> flight plan or to contact any air traffic<br />

control facility unless they are operat-<br />

3-24<br />

ing under IFR conditions. Those<br />

aircraft that enter the Class B airspace<br />

in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> would then<br />

be required to be in contact with<br />

controllers at the Fort Worth Air Route<br />

Traffic Control Facility (ARTCC).<br />

<strong>The</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> a fully-funded<br />

ATCT follows guidance provided in FAA<br />

Handbook 7031.2C, Airway <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />

Standard Number One - Terminal Air<br />

Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic<br />

Control Services. To be identified as a<br />

possible candidate for inclusion in the<br />

FAA Contract Tower Program and thus<br />

eligible to receive an ATCT, the formula<br />

in Table 3L is applied.<br />

TABLE 3L<br />

Airport Traffic Control Tower Calculations<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Formula Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term Forecast<br />

Forecast<br />

Forecast<br />

AC/38,000 + 0.000 0.000 0.000<br />

AT/90,000 + 0.003 0.004 0.011<br />

GAI/160,000 + 0.319 0.350 0.413<br />

GAL/280,000 + 0.273 0.300 0.354<br />

MI/48,000 + 0.000 0.000 0.000<br />

ML/90,000 0.000 0.000 0.000<br />

Total<br />

Where:<br />

0.595 0.654 0.777<br />

AC = Air Carrier Operations<br />

AT = Air Taxi Operations<br />

GAI = General Aviation Itinerant Operations<br />

GAL = General Aviation Local Operations<br />

MI = Military Itinerant Operations<br />

ML = Military Local Operations<br />

Source: FAA Handbook 7031.2C, Airway <strong>Plan</strong>ning Standard Number One - Terminal Air<br />

Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services.<br />

This formula is the starting point for<br />

analysis to determine the need for an<br />

ATCT. If the benefit/cost analysis ratio<br />

(BCA) that results from the formula is<br />

above 1.0, then the <strong>airport</strong> would be<br />

eligible for consideration under the FAA<br />

Contract Tower Program.<br />

Experience at <strong>airport</strong>s with similar<br />

annual operations to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro


Airport has shown that when the initial<br />

results <strong>of</strong> the formula in Table 3L are<br />

above 0.5, there is a strong possibility<br />

that the actual BCA ratio may be above<br />

1.0, as the BCA considers additional<br />

factors, not just operations, with<br />

varying degrees <strong>of</strong> weight applied. It is<br />

recommended that the <strong>City</strong> notify the<br />

FAA <strong>of</strong> its desire to be included in the<br />

ATCT program, so that an operational<br />

count and a full BCA analysis can be<br />

conducted.<br />

Initial construction <strong>of</strong> a tower is eligible<br />

for the TxDOT-Aviation Division 90/10<br />

cost sharing program, up to $1.66<br />

million. <strong>The</strong>se funds are from <strong>of</strong> the<br />

FAA AIP program which TxDOT<br />

administers as a block-grant state.<br />

Under the FAA Contract Tower<br />

Program, an updated BCA is conducted<br />

on a yearly basis. Should the BCA fall<br />

below the 1.0 ratio, then the FAA would<br />

shift to a cost-sharing program and<br />

provide operational funding equal to the<br />

calculated ratio. For example, if a BCA<br />

ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.76 results, then the <strong>airport</strong><br />

could be expected to receive funding to<br />

cover 76 percent <strong>of</strong> the operational<br />

costs. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> would then be<br />

responsible for the remaining 24<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the annual operating costs.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Contract Tower Program was<br />

established in 1982 to provide funding<br />

for air traffic control services at lower<br />

activity level ATCTs. At contract<br />

towers, the FAA funds all or portions <strong>of</strong><br />

the cost <strong>of</strong> a qualified contractor to<br />

operate the ATCT. Initially, low-level<br />

FAA-operated towers were converted to<br />

the contract tower program. However,<br />

this program has grown to include<br />

establishing new services at <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

3-25<br />

which were previously without air<br />

traffic control services. As <strong>of</strong> 2005,<br />

there were 223 <strong>airport</strong>s in the FAA<br />

Contract Tower Program.<br />

AIRFIELD LIGHTING<br />

AND MARKING<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are a number <strong>of</strong> lighting and<br />

pavement marking aids serving pilots<br />

using the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong>se aids assist<br />

pilots in locating the <strong>airport</strong> and<br />

runway at night or in poor visibility<br />

conditions. <strong>The</strong>y also assist in the<br />

ground movement <strong>of</strong> aircraft.<br />

Visual Approach Aids<br />

To provide pilots with visual glideslope<br />

and descent information, visual<br />

approach slope indicators (VASIs) or<br />

precision approach path indicators<br />

(PAPIs) are commonly found to the side<br />

<strong>of</strong> the runway. <strong>The</strong>se systems can<br />

consist <strong>of</strong> either a two- or four-box unit.<br />

Four-box systems are recommended for<br />

use by business jet aircraft. Currently,<br />

both ends <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35 are served<br />

by four-box PAPIs. <strong>The</strong>se are the<br />

recommended visual descent aids and<br />

should be maintained through the<br />

planning period.<br />

In conjunction with lowering the<br />

approach minimums to Runway 17 from<br />

a three-quarter mile to one-half mile, a<br />

more sophisticated approach lighting<br />

system will be needed. <strong>The</strong> Medium<br />

Intensity Approach Lighting System<br />

with Runway Alignment Indicator<br />

Lights (MALSR) is commonly used. A<br />

MALSR is used by pilots to align the


aircraft with the centerline <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway. Up to 63 steady-burning lights<br />

are used to create a reference plane,<br />

and up to eight lights create a<br />

sequential strobing flash pattern that<br />

rolls toward the runway threshold. <strong>The</strong><br />

MALSR requires 2,400 feet prior to the<br />

threshold. <strong>The</strong> first 1,400 feet from the<br />

threshold is the reference grid and the<br />

last 1,000 feet is the flashing lights.<br />

Runway 35 would not need the MALSR<br />

system, as the planned approach<br />

visibility is three-quarters mile and the<br />

existing lead-in-light system is<br />

adequate.<br />

Runway End Identification Lighting<br />

(REIL) is provided on both ends <strong>of</strong><br />

Runway 17-35. Because <strong>of</strong> the<br />

existence <strong>of</strong> the lead-in-light system,<br />

the REILs are not required on the<br />

Runway 35 end. When the full MALSR<br />

is installed on Runway 17, it is<br />

recommended that the REILs be<br />

removed to avoid pilot confusion. <strong>The</strong>y<br />

can be relocated to the potential<br />

parallel runway or provided to another<br />

<strong>airport</strong> with the need.<br />

Other visual approach aids include the<br />

segmented circle, the lighted wind cone<br />

and the universal beacon. <strong>The</strong>se are<br />

valuable tools to pilots and should be<br />

maintained throughout the planning<br />

period. <strong>The</strong> potential parallel runway<br />

should be outfitted with a two-box PAPI<br />

and REILs.<br />

Runway and Taxiway Lighting<br />

Runway identification lighting provides<br />

the pilot with a rapid and positive<br />

identification <strong>of</strong> the runway and its<br />

3-26<br />

alignment. Runway 17-35 is equipped<br />

with Medium Intensity Runway<br />

Lighting (MIRL). When the approach<br />

minimum is lowered to one-half mile,<br />

High Intensity Runway Lighting will<br />

need to be installed.<br />

TxDOT Policies and Standards indicate<br />

that <strong>airport</strong>s having more than 100<br />

based aircraft should be served by<br />

taxiway lights, as well as taxiway<br />

guidance signs. Currently, <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

has lighted signs, but there is not<br />

taxiway lighting. Future planning will<br />

consider the addition <strong>of</strong> Medium<br />

Intensity Taxiway Lighting.<br />

<strong>The</strong> pilot-controlled lighting systems<br />

should be maintained through the<br />

planning period. This will allow the<br />

light to be set to a lower intensity at<br />

night, thus allowing the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />

conserve electricity and be a good<br />

neighbor.<br />

As a B-II runway, the parallel should be<br />

planned for MIRL. <strong>The</strong> taxiways and<br />

signs leading to the runway should be<br />

lighted.<br />

Pavement Markings<br />

Runway markings are designed<br />

according to the type <strong>of</strong> instrument<br />

approach available on the runway.<br />

FAA AC 150/5340-1F, Marking <strong>of</strong> Paved<br />

Areas on Airports, provides guidance<br />

necessary to design an <strong>airport</strong>’s<br />

markings. Both ends <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

have precision instrument markings.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se markings should be properly<br />

maintained through the planning<br />

period.


Markings for a parallel runway should<br />

be at least non-precision, to include<br />

runway centerline, runway designation,<br />

aiming point, and threshold, as well as<br />

aircraft holding positions.<br />

Compass Rose<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is a compass rose painted on the<br />

concrete in the north-end holding apron.<br />

A compass rose is used to calibrate the<br />

aircraft magnetic compass. Unlike the<br />

compass rose found on most maps, this<br />

marking has the navigational ordinals,<br />

dividing the circle into 12 parts at 30<br />

degree intervals. <strong>The</strong> cardinal points<br />

(large marks) are at magnetic north,<br />

south, east and west, with ordinal<br />

indicators at the remaining points. <strong>The</strong><br />

rose found on most maps usually have<br />

4, 8 or 16 markings, with the cardinal<br />

points at true (not magnetic) north,<br />

south, east and west, and ordinals at<br />

angles <strong>of</strong> bisection (e.g., northwest).<br />

LANDSIDE<br />

REQUIREMENTS<br />

Landside facilities are those necessary<br />

for the handling <strong>of</strong> aircraft and<br />

passengers while on the ground. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

facilities provide the essential interface<br />

between the air and ground<br />

transportation modes. <strong>The</strong> capacity <strong>of</strong><br />

the various components <strong>of</strong> each area<br />

was examined in relation to projected<br />

demand to identify future landside<br />

facility needs. This includes<br />

components for commercial service and<br />

general aviation needs such as:<br />

3-27<br />

C Aircraft Hangars<br />

C Aircraft Parking Aprons<br />

C General Aviation Terminal<br />

C Auto Parking and Access<br />

C Airport Support Facilities<br />

HANGARS<br />

Utilization <strong>of</strong> hangar space varies as a<br />

function <strong>of</strong> local climate, security, and<br />

owner preferences. <strong>The</strong> trend in<br />

general aviation aircraft, whether<br />

single- or multi-engine, is toward more<br />

sophisticated aircraft (and, consequently,<br />

more expensive aircraft);<br />

therefore, many aircraft owners prefer<br />

enclosed hangar space to outside tiedowns.<br />

<strong>The</strong> demand for aircraft storage<br />

hangars is dependent upon the number<br />

and type <strong>of</strong> aircraft expected to be based<br />

at the <strong>airport</strong> in the future. For<br />

planning purposes, it is necessary to<br />

estimate hangar requirements based<br />

upon forecast operational activity.<br />

However, hangar development should<br />

be based upon actual demand trends<br />

and financial investment conditions.<br />

While a majority <strong>of</strong> aircraft owners<br />

prefer enclosed aircraft storage, a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> based aircraft will still tiedown<br />

outside (due to the lack <strong>of</strong> hangar<br />

availability, hangar rental rates, and/or<br />

operational needs). <strong>The</strong>refore, enclosed<br />

hangar facilities do not necessarily need<br />

to be planned for each based aircraft.<br />

At <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, most based<br />

aircraft are currently stored in hangars.<br />

According to staff interviews and


<strong>airport</strong> billing records, there are<br />

approximately 10 based aircraft which<br />

utilize the tie-down spaces available on<br />

the north apron.<br />

General aviation <strong>airport</strong>s similar to<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro will typically have 95<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the based aircraft stored in<br />

enclosed hangars, with the remaining<br />

five percent stored outside on the apron.<br />

This standard will be used when<br />

determining needed hangar development.<br />

As previously discussed, the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> staff maintains a wait list <strong>of</strong> 81<br />

aircraft owners. Conversion <strong>of</strong> the wait<br />

list to leases, as well as natural<br />

attrition <strong>of</strong> based aircraft, are reflected<br />

in the based aircraft forecast. <strong>The</strong><br />

based aircraft forecast is the primary<br />

factor in determining hangar needs.<br />

At <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, all multiengine<br />

and jet aircraft will be<br />

considered to be stored in a hangar,<br />

while 95 percent <strong>of</strong> the single-engine<br />

aircraft will be considered for indoor<br />

storage. Of the single-engine aircraft,<br />

90 percent are in T-hangars, while 5<br />

percent are in conventional and<br />

executive hangars. Of the multi-engine<br />

aircraft, 10 percent are considered to be<br />

stored in T-hangars, 35 percent in<br />

conventional hangars, and 55 percent in<br />

executive hangars.<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport <strong>of</strong>fers a number<br />

<strong>of</strong> T-hangar spaces. T-hangars are<br />

popular with aircraft owners having one<br />

aircraft. T-hangars are individual<br />

spaces within a larger structure.<br />

Aircraft owners are allowed privacy and<br />

individual access to their space. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

are 147 individual enclosed T-hangar<br />

units available on the <strong>airport</strong>. Upon<br />

3-28<br />

completion <strong>of</strong> the two new hangar<br />

facilities at the south end <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

there will be an additional 11 T-hangar<br />

units. For T-hangars, a planning<br />

standard <strong>of</strong> 1,200 square feet per based<br />

aircraft will be used to determine future<br />

space requirements.<br />

Conventional hangars are typically<br />

10,000 square feet or larger. <strong>The</strong>y are<br />

open-space facilities with no supporting<br />

structure interference. Often, other<br />

<strong>airport</strong> services are <strong>of</strong>fered from the<br />

conventional hangars. At <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport, there are three<br />

conventional hangars. <strong>The</strong>se are leased<br />

by Moorehead Aviation, P & S Aerowest<br />

and Faith Air. <strong>The</strong> maximum number<br />

<strong>of</strong> aircraft that can be stored in each is<br />

approximately seven. <strong>The</strong>se three<br />

hangars provide a total <strong>of</strong> 33,200 square<br />

feet <strong>of</strong> space.<br />

Executive hangars are typically utilized<br />

by owners <strong>of</strong> larger aircraft or multiple<br />

aircraft. Often a corporate aviation<br />

department will operate out <strong>of</strong> an<br />

executive hangar as well. Executive<br />

hangars are usually smaller than<br />

10,000 square feet and <strong>of</strong>fer the same<br />

open-space storage area as conventional<br />

hangars. <strong>The</strong>re are four executive<br />

hangar structures at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

northernmost hangar, occupied by the<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> Public Safety, has a<br />

capacity <strong>of</strong> five aircraft. Building 910<br />

has four attached executive hangars. A<br />

maximum <strong>of</strong> four aircraft can be stored<br />

in each, for a total <strong>of</strong> 16 aircraft.<br />

Buildings 1440 and 1442 are also<br />

executive hangars, with a capacity <strong>of</strong><br />

approximately eight aircraft, bringing<br />

the total executive hangar spaces<br />

available to 27. <strong>The</strong>se facilities provide


a total <strong>of</strong> approximately 40,300 square<br />

feet.<br />

Five executive hangar units are<br />

included in the south end hangar<br />

facilities currently under construction.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se will provide a total <strong>of</strong> 11,200<br />

square feet and space for up to seven<br />

additional aircraft. It should be noted<br />

that the T-hangars and the executive<br />

hangars currently under construction<br />

are not included in the calculations for<br />

future aircraft storage needs.<br />

As the trend toward more sophisticated<br />

aircraft continues throughout the<br />

planning period, it is important to<br />

determine the need for more<br />

conventional and executive hangar<br />

3-29<br />

space. A planning standard <strong>of</strong> 1,200<br />

square feet was used for single-engine<br />

aircraft, and 2,500 square feet for multiengine,<br />

jets, and helicopters. Since<br />

portions <strong>of</strong> conventional and executive<br />

hangars are also used for aircraft<br />

maintenance, servicing, and <strong>of</strong>fice<br />

space, a planning standard <strong>of</strong> 15<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the total hangar space is<br />

allocated for these requirements.<br />

Table 3M indicates that the <strong>airport</strong><br />

should plan, in the short term, for more<br />

executive and conventional hangar<br />

space. Additional T-hangar storage<br />

facilities are projected to be needed by<br />

the intermediate term <strong>of</strong> the planning<br />

period.<br />

TABLE 3M<br />

Aircraft Storage Hangar Requirements<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Future Requirements<br />

Currently Short Intermediate Long<br />

Available Term Term Term<br />

Total Based Aircraft 223 255 280 330<br />

Aircraft to be Hangared 214 245 269 317<br />

T-Hangar Units 147 181 197 226<br />

Conventional Hangar Spaces 15 27 31 38<br />

Executive Hangars<br />

Hangar Area Requirements<br />

30 37 42 53<br />

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

Conventional Hangar Area (sf.) 33,200 68,100 76,400 95,100<br />

Executive Hangars (s.f.) 40,300 93,100 104,900 132,100<br />

Maintenance Area (sf.) 36,000 56,000 62,500 75,000<br />

Total Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />

Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates Analysis<br />

276,600 433,800 479,600 573,500<br />

It should be noted that the exact<br />

existing storage mix is unknown. Thus,<br />

a typical storage mix was used as the<br />

baseline condition. As a result, the<br />

exact square footage needed between Thangars<br />

and conventional/executive<br />

hangars is an approximation. <strong>The</strong><br />

critical figure to address is the total<br />

hangar area needed. In the short term<br />

planning period, nearly 157,000 square<br />

feet <strong>of</strong> hangar space may be needed.<br />

<strong>The</strong> new south-end hangars under<br />

construction will account for 14,000<br />

square feet for T-hangars and 11,200


square feet for executive hangars.<br />

Thus, planning should begin for an<br />

additional 132,000 square feet <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft storage space.<br />

AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON<br />

A parking apron should provide space<br />

for the number <strong>of</strong> locally-based aircraft<br />

that are not stored in hangars and<br />

transient aircraft. As discussed in the<br />

previous section, <strong>airport</strong>s similar in<br />

characteristics to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport hangar approximately 95<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> based aircraft. Using this<br />

standard, <strong>Mesquite</strong> would currently<br />

need aircraft tie-down space for nine<br />

based aircraft and space for 13 based<br />

aircraft by the long term forecast. For<br />

local tie-down needs, an additional five<br />

spaces are identified for maintenance<br />

activity. A planning criterion <strong>of</strong> 650<br />

square yards per aircraft was used to<br />

determine the apron requirements for<br />

local aircraft.<br />

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13<br />

suggests a methodology by which<br />

transient apron requirements can be<br />

determined from knowledge <strong>of</strong> busy-day<br />

operations. At <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport,<br />

the number <strong>of</strong> itinerant spaces required<br />

was determined to be approximately 18<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> the busy-day itinerant<br />

operations. A planning criterion <strong>of</strong> 800<br />

square yards per aircraft was applied to<br />

determine future transient apron<br />

requirements for single- and multiengine<br />

aircraft. For business jets<br />

(which can be much larger), a planning<br />

criterion <strong>of</strong> 1,600 square yards per<br />

business jet position was used. For<br />

3-30<br />

planning purposes, 75 percent <strong>of</strong> these<br />

spaces are assumed to be utilized by<br />

non-jet aircraft, which is in line with<br />

national trends.<br />

Total apron parking requirements are<br />

presented in Table 3N. Currently,<br />

apron area at the <strong>airport</strong> totals<br />

approximately 33,400 square yards,<br />

with approximately 51 total tie-down<br />

positions. As shown in the table, there<br />

will likely be a need for more apron<br />

space throughout the planning period.<br />

As itinerant operations increase,<br />

especially by turbine aircraft,<br />

consideration should be given to<br />

constructing more apron space.<br />

Moreover, additional apron space will<br />

be needed as development moves to the<br />

south end <strong>of</strong> the airfield.<br />

GENERAL AVIATION<br />

TERMINAL FACILITIES<br />

General aviation terminal facilities<br />

have several functions. Space is<br />

required for the pilots’ lounge, flight<br />

planning, concessions, management,<br />

storage, and various other needs. This<br />

space is not necessarily limited to a<br />

single, separate terminal building, but<br />

can include space <strong>of</strong>fered by fixed base<br />

operators for these functions and<br />

services. Currently, the <strong>airport</strong> <strong>of</strong>fers a<br />

separate terminal building which<br />

provides approximately 5,000 square<br />

feet <strong>of</strong> space. <strong>The</strong> existing terminal<br />

facility was dedicated in 2004, and is<br />

located on the enlarged south apron,<br />

approximately midfield. Additional<br />

public space is available in the previous


terminal building area, currently<br />

occupied by <strong>Mesquite</strong> Aviation. This<br />

TABLE 3N<br />

Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

3-31<br />

area provides approximately 2,600<br />

square feet <strong>of</strong> space.<br />

Available<br />

Short<br />

Term<br />

Intermediate<br />

Term<br />

Long<br />

Term<br />

Single-, Multi-engine Transient Aircraft<br />

Positions 39 42 50<br />

Apron Area (s.y.) 30,800 33,900 39,900<br />

Transient Business Jet Positions 13 14 17<br />

Apron Area (s.y.) 20,600 22,600 26,600<br />

Locally-Based Aircraft Positions 15 16 18<br />

Apron Area (s.y.) 9,800 10,400 11,700<br />

Total Positions 51 67 72 85<br />

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

<strong>The</strong> methodology used in estimating<br />

general aviation terminal facility needs<br />

is based on the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> users<br />

expected to utilize general aviation<br />

facilities during the design hour.<br />

General aviation space requirements<br />

were then based upon providing 90<br />

square feet per design hour itinerant<br />

passenger. Design hour itinerant<br />

passengers is determined by multiply-<br />

ing design hour itinerant operations by<br />

the number <strong>of</strong> passengers on the<br />

aircraft (multiplier). An increasing<br />

passenger count (from 2.0 to 2.3) is used<br />

to account for the likely increase in<br />

larger, more sophisticated aircraft using<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. Table 3P outlines the<br />

general aviation terminal facility space<br />

requirements for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport.<br />

TABLE 3P<br />

General Aviation Terminal Area Facilities<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Short Intermediate Long<br />

Available Term Term Term<br />

Design Hour Operations 70 89 98 115<br />

Design Hour Itinerant Operations 28 36 39 46<br />

Multiplier<br />

Total Design Hour<br />

1.9 2 2.1 2.3<br />

Itinerant Passengers<br />

General Aviation<br />

53 72 82 106<br />

Terminal Building/FBO Public Space (s.f.)<br />

Source: C<strong>of</strong>fman Analysis<br />

7,600 6,400 7,400 9,600<br />

As presented in the table, the existing<br />

public spaces appear adequate through<br />

the intermediate term <strong>of</strong> the plan. By<br />

the long term, there may be a need for


additional space. This space may be<br />

provided with an expansion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

terminal building, or other service<br />

providers at the <strong>airport</strong> may wish to<br />

provide public space.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> should continue to identify<br />

and address the needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />

users in terms <strong>of</strong> necessary terminal<br />

space. <strong>The</strong> current terminal building<br />

provides some space for most items<br />

needed by pilots and passengers.<br />

Future functional needs may grow to<br />

exceed the space currently available. In<br />

these circumstances the <strong>airport</strong> should<br />

consider either an addition or a<br />

reconfiguration <strong>of</strong> the interior to meet<br />

these needs. If the terminal building is<br />

not expanded, additional FBO spaces<br />

will be required to meet demand.<br />

SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS<br />

Various facilities that do not logically<br />

fall within classifications <strong>of</strong> airside or<br />

landside facilities have also been<br />

identified. <strong>The</strong>se other areas provide<br />

certain functions related to the overall<br />

operation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> and include:<br />

automobile parking, fuel storage, and<br />

aircraft rescue and firefighting<br />

facilities.<br />

AUTOMOBILE PARKING<br />

General aviation vehicular parking<br />

demands have been determined for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Space<br />

determinations were based on an<br />

evaluation <strong>of</strong> existing <strong>airport</strong> use, as<br />

3-32<br />

well as industry standards. Terminal<br />

automobile parking spaces required to<br />

meet general aviation itinerant<br />

demands were calculated by<br />

multiplying design hour itinerant<br />

passengers by a multiplier <strong>of</strong> 2.0, 2.1,<br />

and 2.3 for each planning period. This<br />

multiplier represents the anticipated<br />

increase in corporate operations, and<br />

thus, passengers.<br />

<strong>The</strong> parking requirements <strong>of</strong> based<br />

aircraft owners should also be<br />

considered. Although some owners<br />

prefer to park their vehicles in their<br />

hangars, safety can be compromised<br />

when automobile and aircraft<br />

movements are intermixed. For this<br />

reason, separate parking requirements,<br />

which consider one-half <strong>of</strong> based<br />

aircraft at the <strong>airport</strong>, were applied to<br />

general aviation automobile parking<br />

space requirements. Parking<br />

requirements for the <strong>airport</strong> are<br />

summarized in Table 3Q.<br />

Throughout the planning period,<br />

additional dedicated parking spaces are<br />

forecast to be needed. Currently, most<br />

<strong>airport</strong> users travel across landside<br />

pavements in order to reach their place<br />

<strong>of</strong> business or hangar. Future planning<br />

will develop more dedicated parking<br />

areas, with the goal <strong>of</strong> limiting the<br />

potential interaction <strong>of</strong> aircraft and<br />

vehicles. Locating parking areas in<br />

useful areas is critical for a general<br />

aviation <strong>airport</strong>. If a parking area is<br />

not conveniently located, then <strong>airport</strong><br />

users will continue to drive on aircraft<br />

surfaces.


TABLE 3Q<br />

Vehicle Parking Requirements<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Future Requirements<br />

Available Short Term Inter. Term Long Term<br />

Design Hour Passengers 51 68 78 102<br />

Terminal Vehicle Spaces 37 136 165 234<br />

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

General Aviation Spaces 44 128 140 165<br />

Parking Area (s.f.) 17,600 51,000 56,000 66,000<br />

Total Parking Spaces 81 264 305 399<br />

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

FUEL STORAGE<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has a new fuel<br />

farm on the west side <strong>of</strong> the north<br />

apron. <strong>The</strong> fuel farm consists <strong>of</strong> two<br />

aboveground, 12,000-gallon storage<br />

tanks, one for Jet A fuel and the other<br />

for Avgas fuel. <strong>The</strong>re is a self-serve<br />

pump for Avgas at this location as well.<br />

With a credit card, pilots can access<br />

Avgas 24 hours-a-day. After hours, Jet<br />

A fuel is also available by contacting<br />

<strong>airport</strong> staff, which utilizes two<br />

refueling trucks. <strong>The</strong> Jet A fuel truck<br />

has a 2,400-gallon capacity and the<br />

Avgas truck has a 1,000-gallon capacity.<br />

Fuel storage requirements are typically<br />

based upon maintaining a two-week<br />

supply <strong>of</strong> fuel during an average month.<br />

However, more frequent deliveries can<br />

reduce the fuel storage capacity<br />

requirement. Generally, fuel tanks<br />

should be <strong>of</strong> adequate capacity to accept<br />

a full refueling tanker, which is<br />

approximately 8,000 gallons, while<br />

maintaining a reasonable level <strong>of</strong> fuel in<br />

the storage tank.<br />

Fuel sales records are maintained by<br />

<strong>airport</strong> staff. As presented in Table<br />

3R, Jet A fuel sales have increased<br />

3-33<br />

significantly over the past four years,<br />

while Avgas sales experienced a<br />

declining trend from 2001 to 2003. In<br />

2004, Avgas sales rebounded to the<br />

2001 levels. Although both types <strong>of</strong> fuel<br />

are forecast to show growth through the<br />

planning period, Jet A fuel sales are<br />

expected to increase at a greater rate.<br />

When the forecast fuel sales are<br />

segmented into biweekly refills, the<br />

current storage capacity will be<br />

adequate for Avgas through the<br />

planning period, while Jet A fuel<br />

storage capacity will be exceeded by the<br />

long term planning period. One option<br />

to address this potential storage issue is<br />

to increase the frequency <strong>of</strong> fuel<br />

deliveries. By the long term planning<br />

period, it is suggested that additional<br />

fuel storage facilities be constructed.<br />

AIRCRAFT RESCUE<br />

AND FIREFIGHTING<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is not currently<br />

served by a dedicated aircraft rescue<br />

and firefighting facility (ARFF). <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>airport</strong> is provided with rescue and fire<br />

assistance from Fire Station No. 7,<br />

approximately two miles from the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>.


TABLE 3R<br />

Forecast Fuel Sales<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

HISTORIC FORECAST<br />

2001 2002 2003 2004 2010 2015 2025<br />

Avgas (gal.) 122,000 112,000 102,000 122,000 135,000 147,000 174,000<br />

Jet A (Gal.) 52,000 65,000 82,000 90,000 171,000 237,000 370,000<br />

Source: Airport records. All figures rounded to nearest 1,000.<br />

ARFF services do not necessarily have<br />

to be located on the <strong>airport</strong>. Only<br />

certified <strong>airport</strong>s providing scheduled<br />

passenger service with greater than<br />

nine passenger seats are required to<br />

provide ARFF services. Many corporate<br />

flight departments, however, are<br />

requesting ARFF services at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s they utilize. ARFF facilities<br />

and personnel costs are substantial,<br />

thus, many times not feasible for<br />

smaller communities. If services are<br />

requested, consideration should be<br />

given to meeting “Index A” standards,<br />

which includes aircraft less than 90 feet<br />

in length and requires on-vehicle<br />

carrying <strong>of</strong> at least one <strong>of</strong> the following:<br />

C 500 pounds <strong>of</strong> sodium-based dry<br />

chemical or halon 1211; or<br />

C 450 pounds or potassium-based<br />

dry chemical and water with a<br />

commensurate quantity <strong>of</strong><br />

Aqueous Film Forming Form<br />

(AFFF), to total 100 gallons for<br />

simultaneous dry chemical and<br />

AFFF foam application.<br />

It is considered a good practice to have<br />

some individuals at an <strong>of</strong>f-airfield fire<br />

station trained and certified in aircraft<br />

rescue and firefighting. An additional<br />

step could be taken to outfit the fire<br />

3-34<br />

station with the special firefighting<br />

chemicals such as halon or foam.<br />

SURFACE<br />

TRANSPORTATION ACCESS<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> has excellent<br />

access to the surface transportation<br />

network, as discussed in Chapter One.<br />

Scyene and Lawson Roads provide<br />

access from the highway and interstate<br />

network to the <strong>airport</strong>. Both <strong>of</strong> these<br />

roads carry all <strong>airport</strong> traffic, as well as<br />

significant industrial traffic such as<br />

concrete trucks.<br />

When the <strong>airport</strong> functions as a<br />

gateway to the <strong>City</strong>, it is important that<br />

surface access to the <strong>airport</strong> reflect the<br />

positive welcome that the <strong>airport</strong> itself<br />

provides. Numerous aircraft owners<br />

and FBO operators at the <strong>airport</strong><br />

identified improvements to these roads<br />

as their number one concern.<br />

Consideration should be given to<br />

improving these local access roads as<br />

volume increases.<br />

SUMMARY<br />

<strong>The</strong> intent <strong>of</strong> this chapter has been to<br />

outline the facilities required to meet


potential aviation demands projected<br />

for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport for the<br />

planning horizon. A summary <strong>of</strong> the<br />

airfield and general aviation facility<br />

requirements is presented on Exhibits<br />

3D and 3E.<br />

3-35<br />

Following the facility requirements<br />

determination, the next step is to<br />

determine a direction <strong>of</strong> development<br />

which best meets these projected needs.<br />

<strong>The</strong> remainder <strong>of</strong> the master plan will<br />

be devoted to outlining this direction,<br />

its schedule, and its cost.


04MP22-3D-4/7/05<br />

RUNWAY AVAILABLE<br />

AVAILABLE SHORT TERM LONG TERM<br />

TAXIWAYS<br />

NAVIGATIONAL<br />

NAVIGATIONAL<br />

AIDS<br />

LIGHTING &<br />

MARKING<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

5,999' x 100'<br />

70,000# SWL<br />

100,000# DWL<br />

ARC B-II Design<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

Full Parallel Taxiway<br />

Centerline Reflectors<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

PAPI-4<br />

AWOS-III<br />

Localizer<br />

Lead-in-lights<br />

ILS Rwy 17 (3/4 mile)<br />

LOC BC Rwy 35 (1 mile)<br />

NDB or GPS Rwy 17 (1mile)<br />

Rotating Beacon<br />

Medium Intensity<br />

Runway Lighting<br />

Precision Markings<br />

Segmented Circle/<br />

Lighted Windcone<br />

Compass Rose<br />

Lighted Airfield Signs<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

RSA/OFA Improvements<br />

RPZ Acquisition/Easements<br />

ARC C-II Design<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

Relocate Parallel Taxiway<br />

(400' Separation)<br />

Medium Intensity<br />

Taxiway Lighting<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

Airport Traffic Control Tower<br />

Upgrade to MALSR (17)<br />

Approaches for D Aircraft<br />

ILS Rwy 17 (1/2 mile)<br />

GPS Rwy 35 (3/4 mile)<br />

Same<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

7,000' x 100'<br />

Parallel Runway<br />

4,900' x 75'<br />

30,000# SWL<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

Taxiway Extension<br />

Parallel Runway<br />

Full Parallel Taxiway<br />

(Up to 4,900')<br />

Centerline Reflectors<br />

Runway 17-35<br />

Same<br />

Parallel Runway<br />

REILs<br />

GPS Approaches (1 mile)<br />

PAPI-2<br />

Same<br />

Parallel Runway<br />

Non-precision Markings<br />

Medium Intensity<br />

Runway Lighting<br />

Lighted Airfield Signage<br />

Exhibit 3D<br />

AIRFIELD FACILITY REQUIREMENTS


04MP22-3E-4/7/05<br />

AIRCRAFT STORAGE HANGARS<br />

T-hangar Positions<br />

Executive Hangar Positions<br />

Conventional Hangar Positions<br />

T-Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />

Executive Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />

Conventional Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />

Maintenance Area (s.f.)<br />

Total Hangar Area (s.f.)<br />

APRON AREA<br />

Transient Positions<br />

Locally-Based Aircraft Positions<br />

Total Positions<br />

Total Apron Area (s.y.)<br />

TERMINAL SERVICES AND<br />

VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE PARKING<br />

Terminal Building Space/<br />

FBO Public Space (s.f.)<br />

Total Parking Spaces<br />

Total Parking Area (s.f.)<br />

AVAILABLE<br />

AVAILABLE<br />

147<br />

30<br />

15<br />

167,100<br />

40,300<br />

33,200<br />

36,000<br />

276,600<br />

AVAILABLE AVAILABLE<br />

N/A<br />

N/A<br />

51<br />

33,400<br />

AVAILABLE<br />

AVAILABLE<br />

7,600<br />

81<br />

32,400<br />

SHORT TERM<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

181<br />

37<br />

27<br />

216,600<br />

93,100<br />

68,100<br />

56,000<br />

433,800<br />

SHORT TERM<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

52<br />

15<br />

67<br />

61, 200<br />

SHORT TERM<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

6,400<br />

264<br />

105,300<br />

INTERMEDIATE<br />

INTERMEDIATE<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

197<br />

42<br />

31<br />

235,800<br />

104,900<br />

76,400<br />

62,500<br />

479,600<br />

INTERMEDIATE<br />

INTERMEDIATE<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

56<br />

16<br />

72<br />

66,900<br />

INTERMEDIATE<br />

INTERMEDIATE<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

7,400<br />

305<br />

121,900<br />

LONG LONG TERM<br />

TERM<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

226<br />

53<br />

38<br />

271,300<br />

132,100<br />

95,100<br />

75,000<br />

573,500<br />

LONG LONG TERM<br />

TERM<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

67<br />

18<br />

85<br />

78,200<br />

LONG LONG TERM<br />

TERM<br />

NEED<br />

NEED<br />

9,600<br />

399<br />

159,500<br />

Exhibit 3E<br />

LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS


Chapter Four<br />

ALTERNATIVES


CHAPTER FOUR<br />

ALTERNATIVES<br />

In the previous chapter, airside and landside facilities required<br />

to satisfy the demand for the long range planning period were<br />

identified. <strong>The</strong> next step in the planning process is to evaluate<br />

reasonable ways these facilities can be provided. <strong>The</strong>re can be<br />

countless combinations <strong>of</strong> design alternatives, but the<br />

alternatives presented are those with the greatest potential for<br />

implementation.<br />

Any development proposed for a master plan is evolved from<br />

an analysis <strong>of</strong> projected needs for a set period <strong>of</strong> time. Though<br />

the needs were determined by the best methodology available,<br />

it cannot be assumed that future events will not change these<br />

needs. <strong>The</strong> master planning process attempts to develop a<br />

viable concept for meeting the needs caused by projected<br />

demands for the next twenty years. However, no plan <strong>of</strong> action<br />

should be developed which may be inconsistent with the future<br />

goals and objectives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> and its citizens,<br />

who have a vested interest in the development and operation <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> development alternatives for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport can<br />

be categorized into two functional areas: airside (runways,<br />

navigational aids, taxiways, etc.) and landside (general aviation<br />

hangars, apron, and terminal area). Within each <strong>of</strong> these areas,<br />

specific facilities are required or desired. In addition, the<br />

utilization <strong>of</strong> the remaining <strong>airport</strong> property to provide revenue<br />

support for the <strong>airport</strong> and to benefit the economic<br />

development and well-being <strong>of</strong> the regional area must be<br />

considered.<br />

Each functional area interrelates and affects the development<br />

potential <strong>of</strong> the others. <strong>The</strong>refore, all areas must be examined<br />

individually, then coordinated as a whole to ensure the<br />

4-1 DRAFT


final plan is functional, efficient, and<br />

cost-effective. <strong>The</strong> total impact <strong>of</strong> all<br />

these factors on the existing <strong>airport</strong><br />

must be evaluated to determine if the<br />

investment in <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

will meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the community,<br />

both during and beyond the planning<br />

period.<br />

When analyzing alternatives for<br />

development, consideration must be<br />

given to a “do nothing” or “no-build”<br />

alternative. Additional consideration<br />

will be given to the possibility <strong>of</strong><br />

removing aviation services altogether<br />

and transferring aviation activity to<br />

surrounding <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

<strong>The</strong> alternatives considered are<br />

compared using environmental,<br />

economic, and aviation factors to<br />

determine which <strong>of</strong> the alternatives will<br />

best fulfill the local aviation needs.<br />

With this information, as well as the<br />

input and direction from local<br />

government agencies and <strong>airport</strong> users,<br />

a final <strong>airport</strong> concept can evolve into a<br />

realistic development plan.<br />

NON-DEVELOPMENT<br />

ALTERNATIVES<br />

Non-development alternatives include<br />

the “no-build” or “do nothing”<br />

alternative, transferring service to an<br />

existing <strong>airport</strong>, or developing an<br />

<strong>airport</strong> at a new location. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

alternatives need to be examined first<br />

to determine whether future<br />

development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

is in the best interest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> and the region as a whole.<br />

4-2<br />

“DO NOTHING” ALTERNATIVE<br />

<strong>The</strong> "do nothing" alternative essentially<br />

considers keeping the <strong>airport</strong> in its<br />

present condition and not providing for<br />

any type <strong>of</strong> improvement to the existing<br />

facilities. <strong>The</strong> primary result <strong>of</strong> this<br />

alternative would be the inability <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> to satisfy the projected aviation<br />

demands <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> service area.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Dallas region has experienced<br />

strong growth in all socioeconomic<br />

categories over the past several<br />

decades. Forecasts indicate this trend<br />

will likely continue throughout and<br />

beyond the long range planning horizon.<br />

Moreover, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> is an<br />

economic center in the eastern portion<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Metroplex, which requires the<br />

support <strong>of</strong> a highly functional <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se reasons, combined with favorable<br />

regional and national aviation forecasts,<br />

indicate a future need for improved<br />

facilities at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

Improvements recommended in the<br />

previous chapter include a longer<br />

runway, improvements to the taxiway<br />

system, improvement <strong>of</strong> navigational<br />

aids, and the construction <strong>of</strong> additional<br />

hangar facilities. Without these<br />

facilities, regular users and potential<br />

future users <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> will be<br />

constrained from taking maximum<br />

advantage <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>'s air<br />

transportation capabilities.<br />

<strong>The</strong> “do nothing” alternative would lead<br />

to the <strong>airport</strong>’s inability to attract<br />

potential <strong>airport</strong> users. Corporate<br />

aviation plays a major role in the<br />

transportation <strong>of</strong> business leaders and<br />

key employees. Thus, an <strong>airport</strong>’s<br />

facilities are <strong>of</strong>ten the first impression


many corporate <strong>of</strong>ficials will have <strong>of</strong> the<br />

community. If the <strong>airport</strong> does not have<br />

the capability to meet the hangar,<br />

apron, or airfield needs <strong>of</strong> potential<br />

users, the <strong>City</strong>’s capability to attract the<br />

major sector businesses that rely on air<br />

transportation could be diminished.<br />

<strong>The</strong> long term consequences <strong>of</strong> the “do<br />

nothing” alternative extend beyond the<br />

<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport is part <strong>of</strong> a system <strong>of</strong> public<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s that serve the aviation needs <strong>of</strong><br />

the region. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is a<br />

reliever to Dallas/Fort Worth<br />

International Airport and Dallas Love<br />

Field. As such, the <strong>airport</strong> has a<br />

responsibility to provide adequate<br />

facilities to support the full range <strong>of</strong><br />

general aviation activity so as to reduce<br />

congestion and relieve capacity<br />

constraints at these commercial service<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s. Thus, the effects <strong>of</strong> the “do<br />

nothing” alternative would not only<br />

impact the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> or eastern<br />

Dallas County and western Kaufman<br />

County, but the entire region.<br />

To propose no further development at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport could adversely<br />

affect the long term viability <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, resulting in negative economic<br />

effects on the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> and the<br />

region as a whole. <strong>The</strong>refore, the “do<br />

nothing” alternative is not considered to<br />

be prudent or feasible.<br />

TRANSFER AVIATION SERVICES<br />

<strong>The</strong> alternative <strong>of</strong> shifting aviation<br />

services to another existing <strong>airport</strong> was<br />

found to be an undesirable alternative<br />

due to the lack <strong>of</strong> available <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

4-3<br />

having the facilities or the potential<br />

that <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport provides.<br />

In 2004, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport based<br />

223 aircraft and experienced an<br />

estimated 100,000 total operations.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are no <strong>airport</strong>s on the east side <strong>of</strong><br />

Dallas with the facilities to absorb this<br />

level <strong>of</strong> aviation activity.<br />

Rockwall Municipal Airport is located<br />

12 nautical miles to the northeast. This<br />

<strong>airport</strong> has a single runway that is<br />

3,373 feet long, clearly inadequate for<br />

business jet activity. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Rockwall studied the idea <strong>of</strong> building a<br />

replacement <strong>airport</strong>, but the idea was<br />

rejected by area residents and the issue<br />

is not likely to resurface in the near<br />

future. Terrell Municipal Airport, 13<br />

nautical miles to the east <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>, provides a 5,000-foot runway<br />

which can support some business jet<br />

activity. Terrell could accommodate a<br />

shift <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the aviation activity<br />

from <strong>Mesquite</strong>, if additional landside<br />

improvements were made but its<br />

capacity is limited as the <strong>airport</strong> is<br />

constrained from adding length to the<br />

runway due to the location <strong>of</strong> major<br />

roadways. Lancaster Airport is 14<br />

nautical miles to the southeast. This<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is a reliever <strong>airport</strong> but also has<br />

limitations. Lancaster has limited<br />

space available for landside<br />

development and cannot implement<br />

improved approaches similar to<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> due to environmental and<br />

airspace constraints.<br />

Dallas Executive Airport and Dallas<br />

Love Field would be the only two<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s with the potential to serve the<br />

aviation users at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport, but both have limitations.


Dallas Love Field, 17 nautical miles to<br />

the west, is a busy commercial service<br />

<strong>airport</strong> with more than 600 based<br />

aircraft, 522 <strong>of</strong> which are business jet<br />

aircraft. Dallas Executive is 18<br />

nautical miles to the west with 175<br />

based aircraft. This <strong>airport</strong> could<br />

support much <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Mesquite</strong> aviation<br />

traffic if significant landside<br />

improvements were made.<br />

If a shift <strong>of</strong> aviation services to either<br />

Dallas Love Field or Dallas Executive<br />

Airport were pursued, current users <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport would be forced<br />

to travel to a more distant and less<br />

convenient <strong>airport</strong>. Furthermore, the<br />

continuing growth expected in the<br />

eastern portion <strong>of</strong> the Metroplex<br />

demonstrates the need for a highlyfunctional<br />

and convenient <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

General aviation <strong>airport</strong>s play a major<br />

role in the way companies conduct their<br />

business. <strong>The</strong>se <strong>airport</strong>s are becoming<br />

increasingly important in the post-9/11<br />

aviation environment. Corporate<br />

aircraft use is becoming more affordable<br />

not only for businesses, but also for<br />

individuals. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

expected to accommodate business<br />

aircraft traffic for companies located or<br />

conducting business in central and<br />

eastern portions <strong>of</strong> the Metroplex. This<br />

role is not easily replaced by another<br />

existing <strong>airport</strong> in the system without<br />

tremendous expense and inconvenience.<br />

CONSTRUCTION OF<br />

A NEW AIRPORT SITE<br />

<strong>The</strong> alternative <strong>of</strong> developing an<br />

entirely new <strong>airport</strong> facility in the area<br />

4-4<br />

to meet projected aviation demands was<br />

also considered. This alternative was<br />

similarly found to be unacceptable,<br />

primarily due to economic and<br />

environmental considerations. Land<br />

acquisition, site preparation, and the<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>airport</strong> near an<br />

urbanized area can be a very difficult<br />

and costly action. Closing <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport would mean the loss <strong>of</strong> a<br />

substantial investment in a sizable<br />

transportation facility. In a situation<br />

where public funds are limited, the<br />

replacement <strong>of</strong> a functional and<br />

expandable <strong>airport</strong> facility would<br />

represent an unjustifiable loss <strong>of</strong> a<br />

significant public investment.<br />

From social, political, and<br />

environmental standpoints, the<br />

commitment <strong>of</strong> a large land area must<br />

also be considered. <strong>The</strong> public<br />

sentiment toward new <strong>airport</strong>s is<br />

generally negative, as a new <strong>airport</strong><br />

typically requires the acquisition <strong>of</strong><br />

several large parcels <strong>of</strong> privately-owned<br />

property. Furthermore, the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>airport</strong> similar to<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport would likely<br />

take a minimum <strong>of</strong> seven years to<br />

become a reality. <strong>The</strong> potential exists<br />

for significant environmental impacts<br />

associated with disturbing a large land<br />

area when developing a new <strong>airport</strong><br />

site.<br />

<strong>The</strong> only condition at which evaluating<br />

a new <strong>airport</strong> site would be considered<br />

feasible is if the current site becomes<br />

constrained or incapable <strong>of</strong><br />

accommodating aviation demand.<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is bounded on<br />

the north by the Union Pacific Railroad<br />

line and Scyene Road which would


estrict northerly expansion<br />

capabilities. <strong>The</strong>re are approximately<br />

2,500 linear feet from the Runway 35<br />

threshold to the southern <strong>airport</strong><br />

property boundary. It appears that<br />

there is space for potential airfield<br />

expansion if needed. It is anticipated<br />

that the <strong>airport</strong> will not become so<br />

constrained as to prevent future growth<br />

through the long term planning period.<br />

Overall, the non-development<br />

alternatives are considered<br />

unreasonable and should not be<br />

pursued at this time. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport is fully capable <strong>of</strong><br />

accommodating the long term aviation<br />

demands <strong>of</strong> the area and should be<br />

developed in response to those<br />

demands. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has the potential<br />

to continue to develop as a quality<br />

general aviation <strong>airport</strong> that could<br />

greatly enhance the economic<br />

development <strong>of</strong> the community.<br />

<strong>The</strong> previous chapter identified<br />

facilities necessary to meet the forecast<br />

demand throughout the planning<br />

period. <strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> the remainder <strong>of</strong><br />

this chapter is to evaluate alternatives<br />

that meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Necessary facility and <strong>airport</strong> design<br />

issues are examined in the discussion to<br />

follow.<br />

AIRFIELD ISSUES<br />

A commitment to remain at the existing<br />

site and develop facilities sufficient to<br />

meet the long term aviation demands<br />

entails the following requirements:<br />

4-5<br />

! Provide sufficient airside and<br />

landside capacity to meet the<br />

long range planning horizon<br />

demand levels <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />

! Develop the <strong>airport</strong> in accordance<br />

with the currently established<br />

Federal Aviation Administration<br />

(FAA) and Texas Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Transportation (TxDOT) criteria.<br />

Chapter Three - Facility Requirements<br />

outlined specific types and quantities <strong>of</strong><br />

facilities necessary to meet projected<br />

aviation demands throughout the<br />

planning period. Expansion will be<br />

required to meet the long range<br />

planning horizon level <strong>of</strong> demand. <strong>The</strong><br />

remainder <strong>of</strong> this chapter will describe<br />

various alternatives for the airside and<br />

landside facilities. Before actual airside<br />

and landside alternatives are presented,<br />

however, it is necessary to discuss items<br />

which are factored into the development<br />

<strong>of</strong> the various alternatives. Exhibit 4A<br />

outlines alternative issues to be<br />

considered in this analysis.<br />

RUNWAY LENGTH<br />

Analysis in the previous chapter<br />

indicated that Runway 17-35 provides<br />

adequate length for most general<br />

aviation airplanes. <strong>The</strong> current runway<br />

length, however, falls short <strong>of</strong> the<br />

requirements for many <strong>of</strong> the larger and<br />

faster business aircraft which currently<br />

operate at the <strong>airport</strong>, especially on hot<br />

days. <strong>The</strong> analysis considered the trend<br />

<strong>of</strong> increased corporate aircraft<br />

operations at the <strong>airport</strong> over the<br />

planning period.


Forecast future demand at <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport indicated that the <strong>airport</strong><br />

should strive to accommodate the<br />

majority <strong>of</strong> business jet operations up to<br />

and including those in <strong>airport</strong> reference<br />

code (ARC) D-II. As presented in<br />

Chapter Three - Facility Requirements,<br />

many business jets such as the<br />

Challengers, Hawkers, Westwinds,<br />

Astras, and some Learjets have<br />

occasions when up to 7,000 feet are<br />

needed. Thus, alternative analysis will<br />

consider the possibility <strong>of</strong> extending<br />

Runway 17-35 to provide at least 7,000<br />

feet <strong>of</strong> operational length. While this<br />

length may not be fully capable <strong>of</strong><br />

accommodating all aircraft needs<br />

throughout the year, it will be more<br />

than adequate for most aircraft<br />

operations.<br />

Alternative analysis will be developed<br />

with specific attention paid to the<br />

reasonableness <strong>of</strong> implementation, both<br />

from a cost perspective as well as a<br />

feasibility perspective.<br />

TAXIWAYS<br />

<strong>The</strong> taxiway system at an <strong>airport</strong><br />

consists <strong>of</strong> all aircraft transport<br />

surfaces, excluding the runway. It is<br />

typically designated with a yellow<br />

centerline for the movement <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />

to and from the runways. Taxiways are<br />

the primary transport surfaces linked<br />

with the runway and its operation.<br />

Such surfaces would include a parallel<br />

taxiway, entrance/exit taxiways, and<br />

connecting taxiways.<br />

Taxilanes are those surfaces that would<br />

typically realize a lower level <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />

4-6<br />

activity because the taxilanes provide<br />

direct ingress/egress to a specific<br />

location or <strong>airport</strong> facility. An example<br />

<strong>of</strong> a taxilane would be the surface which<br />

links to a T-hangar complex. Not all<br />

aircraft will use that surface, only those<br />

going to and from the T-hangars.<br />

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-<br />

13, Airport Design, Change 8, provides<br />

standards for taxiway object free areas<br />

(OFAs) surrounding the taxiway<br />

system. <strong>The</strong> taxiway OFA is based on<br />

the critical aircraft design group which<br />

will frequent that particular taxiway.<br />

Design standards for Airplane Design<br />

Group (ADG) II, aircraft with<br />

wingspans from 49 feet to 79 feet,<br />

require the taxiway OFA to be 131 feet<br />

wide. Aircraft within ADG III, with<br />

wingspans from 79 feet to 118 feet,<br />

require a 186-foot-wide taxiway OFA.<br />

<strong>The</strong> taxilane OFA required for ADG II<br />

aircraft is 115 feet wide, whereas it<br />

increases to 162 feet wide for ADG III<br />

aircraft. Analysis <strong>of</strong> the existing and<br />

future taxiway OFA will be provided in<br />

the airside alternatives to follow.<br />

<strong>The</strong> current layout <strong>of</strong> the taxiway<br />

system at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

adequate from a functional perspective.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are six entrance/exit taxiways to<br />

the runway and there is a terminal area<br />

taxiway that improves circulation<br />

among landside facilities. All <strong>of</strong> the<br />

taxiways are 40 feet wide except for the<br />

terminal area taxiway, which is 30 feet<br />

wide. FAA design criteria call for<br />

taxiways serving a critical aircraft in<br />

ADG II to be at least 35 feet wide. For<br />

aircraft in ADG III, the taxiway width<br />

minimum is 50 feet.


04MP22-4A-7/8/05<br />

AIRFIELD CONSIDERATIONS<br />

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

Consider Extending Runway 17-35<br />

Land Acquisition<br />

Analysis <strong>of</strong> Improved Instrument Approach Procedures<br />

Evaluate Impacts <strong>of</strong> Safety Area Considerations<br />

Capacity Enhancing Parallel Runway Options<br />

LANDSIDE CONSIDERATIONS<br />

Maximize Available Property for Facility Development<br />

Develop Conventional, Executive, and T-Hangars<br />

Analyze Current and Future Terminal Building Needs<br />

Locate Airport Traffic Control Tower<br />

Consider Potential for On Airport Non-Aviation Business Development<br />

Exhibit 4A<br />

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS


Runway and parallel taxiway<br />

separation standards consider both the<br />

critical aircraft and the instrument<br />

approach minimums. <strong>The</strong> current<br />

critical aircraft falls in ARC C/D-II.<br />

<strong>The</strong> current lowest approved visibility<br />

minimum is three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile.<br />

This combination necessitates a<br />

separation, centerline to centerline, <strong>of</strong><br />

300 feet. <strong>The</strong> current runway/taxiway<br />

configuration meets this standard.<br />

<strong>The</strong> runway to taxiway separation<br />

design standard for aircraft in ADG III<br />

is 400 feet with three-quarter-mile<br />

visibility minimums. With visibility<br />

minimums lower than three-quartersmile<br />

for all aircraft, the separation<br />

standard is also 400 feet. Airfield<br />

alternatives will consider increasing the<br />

runway/taxiway separation to 400 feet.<br />

AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS<br />

Analysis in the previous chapter<br />

indicated that the critical aircraft at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport has<br />

transitioned from ARC B-II to ARC C/D-<br />

II. With this transition comes<br />

significant changes in FAA and TxDOT<br />

<strong>airport</strong> design standards. Of primary<br />

concern are the runway safety area<br />

(RSA), the object free area (OFA), and<br />

the runway protection zone (RPZ). <strong>The</strong><br />

existing and future safety areas are<br />

presented on Exhibit 4B.<br />

Runway Safety Area<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA defines the RSA as "a defined<br />

surface surrounding the runway<br />

prepared or suitable for reducing the<br />

4-7<br />

risk <strong>of</strong> damage to airplanes in the event<br />

<strong>of</strong> an undershoot, overshoot or excursion<br />

from the runway." <strong>The</strong> RSA is an<br />

integral part <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

environment. RSA dimensions are<br />

established in AC 150/5300-13, Change<br />

8, Airport Design, and are based on the<br />

ARC <strong>of</strong> the critical aircraft for the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> RSA is intended to provide<br />

a measure <strong>of</strong> safety in the event <strong>of</strong> an<br />

aircraft’s excursion from the runway, by<br />

significantly reducing the extent <strong>of</strong><br />

personal injury and aircraft damage<br />

during overruns, undershoots, and<br />

veer-<strong>of</strong>fs. According to the AC, the RSA<br />

must be:<br />

1) cleared and graded and have no<br />

potentially hazardous ruts,<br />

bumps, depressions, or other<br />

surface variations;<br />

2) drained by grading or storm<br />

sewers to prevent water<br />

accumulation;<br />

3) capable, under dry conditions, <strong>of</strong><br />

supporting aircraft rescue and<br />

firefighting equipment, and the<br />

occasional passage <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />

without causing structural<br />

damage to the aircraft; and<br />

4) free <strong>of</strong> objects, except for objects<br />

that need to be located in the<br />

safety area because <strong>of</strong> their<br />

function.<br />

Furthermore, the FAA has placed a<br />

higher significance on maintaining<br />

adequate RSAs at all <strong>airport</strong>s due to<br />

recent aircraft accidents. Under Order<br />

5200.8, the FAA established the<br />

Runway Safety Area Program. <strong>The</strong>


Order states, “<strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> the Runway<br />

Safety Area Program is that all RSAs at<br />

federally-obligated <strong>airport</strong>s and all<br />

RSAs at <strong>airport</strong>s certificated under 14<br />

CFR Part 139 shall conform to the<br />

standards contained in Advisory<br />

Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, to<br />

the extent practicable.” Under the<br />

Order, each Regional Airports Division<br />

<strong>of</strong> the FAA is obligated to collect and<br />

maintain data on the RSA for each<br />

runway at federally-obligated <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

Within the last year, the FAA made a<br />

notable change in 150/5300-13 AC,<br />

Airport Design, pertaining to RSAs.<br />

<strong>The</strong> new AC identifies different RSA<br />

measurements for take-<strong>of</strong>f and landing.<br />

For ARC C/D-II aircraft, 600 feet <strong>of</strong><br />

RSA is now required prior to the<br />

approach end <strong>of</strong> the runway, whereas<br />

1,000 feet is still required beyond the<br />

far end <strong>of</strong> the runway. Alternative<br />

analysis must consider providing<br />

adequate RSA, while also providing for<br />

additional runway length.<br />

<strong>The</strong> existing RSA at the <strong>airport</strong> was<br />

designed to conform to B-II design<br />

standards. With the transition to C/D-<br />

II, the RSA expands from 150 feet wide<br />

to 500 feet wide. Portions <strong>of</strong> the RSA,<br />

especially those to the sides and at the<br />

north end <strong>of</strong> the runway, do not meet<br />

RSA standards for ARC C/D-II. Much<br />

<strong>of</strong> the area between the runway and the<br />

parallel taxiway is currently utilized for<br />

drainage. A new drainage plan will<br />

need to be developed and implemented<br />

in order to assure that the full RSA is<br />

cleared and graded and able to support<br />

emergency vehicles as well as<br />

occasional aircraft diversions from the<br />

4-8<br />

runway. Under the current conditions,<br />

the RSA at the south end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

is completely on <strong>airport</strong> property. On<br />

the north end, the RSA extends beyond<br />

<strong>airport</strong> property by approximately 320<br />

feet and is obstructed by perimeter<br />

fencing and Scyene Road.<br />

Object Free Area<br />

<strong>The</strong> runway OFA is defined in FAA<br />

Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change<br />

8, Airport Design, as an area centered<br />

on the runway extending laterally and<br />

beyond each runway end, in accordance<br />

to the critical aircraft design category<br />

utilizing the runway. <strong>The</strong> OFA must<br />

provide clearance <strong>of</strong> all ground-based<br />

objects protruding above the RSA edge<br />

elevation, unless the object is fixed by<br />

function serving air or ground<br />

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

OFA is 800 feet wide, extending 1,000<br />

feet beyond each runway end.<br />

<strong>The</strong> OFA at the south end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway is completely contained on<br />

<strong>airport</strong> property, while it extends<br />

beyond <strong>airport</strong> property at the north<br />

end. <strong>The</strong> northeast portion <strong>of</strong> the OFA<br />

extends approximately 370 feet beyond<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> property line. <strong>The</strong><br />

alternatives section will address how to<br />

regain adequate OFA. It should be<br />

noted that, in some cases, the terrain<br />

encompassing the OFA may fall<br />

significantly below the RSA elevation.<br />

In those cases, objects can be in the<br />

OFA as long as they do not rise above<br />

the elevation <strong>of</strong> the RSA at any given<br />

lateral position.


04MP22-4B-2/8/06<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Existing Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Airport Blvd. Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

NORTH<br />

3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Minimum<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

1 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Exhibit 4B<br />

RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS


Runway Protection Zone<br />

<strong>The</strong> RPZ is a trapezoidal surface which<br />

begins 200 feet from the runway<br />

threshold. <strong>The</strong> RPZ is a designated<br />

area beyond the runway end that the<br />

FAA encourages <strong>airport</strong>s to own or, in<br />

some fashion, maintain positive control<br />

over. <strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> the RPZ standard is to<br />

increase safety for both pilots and those<br />

on the ground. Unlike the RSA, the<br />

RPZ can have objects located within,<br />

provided the objects are not<br />

obstructions under Federal Air<br />

Regulations (F.A.R.) Part 77, Objects<br />

Affecting Navigable Airspace or FAA<br />

Order 8260.3B, Terminal Instrument<br />

Procedures (TERPS). It should be<br />

noted, however, that the FAA places<br />

high priority on maintaining the RPZ<br />

free <strong>of</strong> items that attract groupings <strong>of</strong><br />

people or permanent residences.<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA does not necessarily require<br />

the fee simple acquisition <strong>of</strong> the RPZ<br />

area, but highly recommends that the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> have positive control over<br />

development within the RPZ. It is<br />

preferred that the <strong>airport</strong> own the<br />

property; however, avigation easements<br />

(ownership <strong>of</strong> airspace within the RPZ)<br />

can be pursued if fee simple purchase is<br />

not possible. It should be noted,<br />

however, avigation easements can <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

cost as much as 80 percent <strong>of</strong> the full<br />

property value and may not adequately<br />

prohibit incompatible land uses from<br />

locating in the RPZ. An avigation<br />

easement would include the space below<br />

the approach surface and within the<br />

RPZ. For planning purposes, where<br />

feasible, alternatives will assume fee<br />

simple acquisition <strong>of</strong> the RPZ and land<br />

on either end <strong>of</strong> the runway not<br />

4-9<br />

currently encompassed by the existing<br />

property line.<br />

<strong>The</strong> existing Runway 17 RPZ extends<br />

beyond <strong>airport</strong> property, across Scyene<br />

Road. Portions <strong>of</strong> this property have<br />

already been acquired by the <strong>airport</strong>. If<br />

this land becomes available for sale, the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> should continue its practice <strong>of</strong><br />

protecting the approaches through feesimple<br />

acquisition <strong>of</strong> the RPZs. Under<br />

the current condition, approximately 10<br />

acres is left to be acquired. When the<br />

approach minimums are improved to<br />

one-half mile, the RPZ is extended by<br />

an additional 19.5 acres, which should<br />

also be considered for fee simple<br />

acquisition.<br />

INSTRUMENT APPROACHES<br />

Many reliever <strong>airport</strong>s have approved<br />

instrument approaches with visibility<br />

minimums as low as one-half mile and<br />

a 200-foot cloud height ceiling. This is<br />

referred to as a Category (CAT) I<br />

approach. At this time, CAT I<br />

approaches require a sophisticated<br />

approach lighting system, a glide-slope<br />

antenna, and a localizer (known as an<br />

instrument landing system or ILS).<br />

Since Runway 17 already has an ILS<br />

approach, the goal <strong>of</strong> this plan is to<br />

provide the necessary recommendations<br />

to obtain a CAT I approach. An<br />

obstruction-free threshold siting surface<br />

(TSS) and the upgrade <strong>of</strong> the existing<br />

approach lighting system to a medium<br />

intensity approach lighting system with<br />

runway alignment indicator lights<br />

(MALSR) is required to meet FAA<br />

requirements for a CAT I approach.


Analysis <strong>of</strong> the existing and future TSS<br />

is presented later in the airfield<br />

alternatives section.<br />

Additional adjustments will need to be<br />

considered when pursuing a one-halfmile<br />

visibility minimum. As previously<br />

mentioned, the runway/taxiway<br />

separation needs to be at least 400 feet.<br />

This would necessitate the construction<br />

<strong>of</strong> a new parallel taxiway, 100 feet<br />

further west than Taxiway A. <strong>The</strong><br />

previous master plan discussed some <strong>of</strong><br />

the existing buildings as potential<br />

obstructions to flight safety. An<br />

updated analysis will be presented in<br />

the section pertaining to obstruction<br />

analysis.<br />

Runway 35 is also considered for<br />

improved approaches, although not to<br />

the CAT I level. A three-quarter-mile<br />

approach is the ultimate recommendation.<br />

Approaches to Runway 35 are<br />

less common than to Runway 17, as<br />

southerly winds prevail. This<br />

recommendation was also made in the<br />

previous master plan. <strong>The</strong><br />

circumstances have not changed and<br />

are not forecast to change to such a<br />

degree that a CAT I approach is<br />

warranted on the Runway 35 end. <strong>The</strong><br />

three-quarter-mile approach would<br />

require an approach lighting system,<br />

such as a MALS or MALSR, and cleared<br />

obstruction surfaces.<br />

<strong>The</strong> process <strong>of</strong> acquiring an instrument<br />

approach procedure with three-quartermile<br />

visibility minimums for Runway<br />

35 can begin in the near term. For<br />

Runway 35, the existing RPZ is<br />

4-10<br />

dimensioned for aircraft in approach<br />

categories C and D with visibility<br />

minimums not lower than one mile.<br />

This entire RPZ falls on <strong>airport</strong><br />

property. Considering improved<br />

minimums at three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile,<br />

the RPZ becomes wider on both sides.<br />

<strong>The</strong> eastern portion <strong>of</strong> the RPZ would<br />

fall on property owned by the Devil’s<br />

Bowl Speedway, as depicted on Exhibit<br />

4B.<br />

As previously discussed, positive control<br />

<strong>of</strong> the RPZ is typically recommended.<br />

To accomplish this, an avigation<br />

easement would need to be acquired<br />

over a small portion <strong>of</strong> the speedway.<br />

Alternatives to be discussed will<br />

analyze extending the runway to the<br />

south. This would shift the RPZ beyond<br />

the speedway property. As a result, it is<br />

not recommended that an easement<br />

over the speedway be pursued while<br />

acquiring improved instrument<br />

approach procedures for the current<br />

Runway 35 end.<br />

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES<br />

<strong>The</strong> following section describes two<br />

airfield development alternatives and<br />

two options for a capacity-enhancing<br />

parallel runway. <strong>The</strong>se alternatives<br />

consider upgrading Runway 17-35 to<br />

ARC C/D-II design criteria, extending<br />

the runway to at least 7,000 feet, and<br />

providing taxiway improvements.<br />

Various improvements to the<br />

instrument approaches are considered<br />

with each alternative, as they will affect<br />

the runway and taxiway design.


AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1<br />

Alternative 1, depicted on Exhibit 4C,<br />

considers the recommended<br />

development concept <strong>of</strong> the previous<br />

master plan. As depicted, this<br />

alternative proposed the extension <strong>of</strong><br />

Runway 17-35 1,370 feet to the south,<br />

achieving a pavement length <strong>of</strong> 7,370<br />

feet. This extension, in conjunction<br />

with a three-quarter-mile visibility<br />

minimum for Runway 35, is the<br />

maximum length available when<br />

considering meeting all safety area<br />

standards, as the RSA and OFA would<br />

remain on existing <strong>airport</strong> property and<br />

the southern RPZ is capable <strong>of</strong> being<br />

free <strong>of</strong> incompatible land uses.<br />

As discussed, the previous RSA<br />

standard required 1,000 feet prior to the<br />

runway and beyond the far end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway for critical aircraft in ARC C/D-<br />

II. In order to accommodate this<br />

standard, the north end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

was recommended to be displaced by<br />

370 feet. Displacing a threshold for<br />

limited RSA requires the application <strong>of</strong><br />

declared distances. Declared distances<br />

are the effective runway distances that<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> operator declares available<br />

for take-<strong>of</strong>f run, take-<strong>of</strong>f distance,<br />

accelerate-stop distance, and landing<br />

distance requirements. <strong>The</strong>se are<br />

defined by the FAA as:<br />

Take-<strong>of</strong>f run available (TORA) - <strong>The</strong><br />

length <strong>of</strong> the runway declared available<br />

and suitable to accelerate from brake<br />

release to lift-<strong>of</strong>f, plus safety factors.<br />

Take-<strong>of</strong>f distance available (TODA)<br />

- <strong>The</strong> TORA plus the length <strong>of</strong> any<br />

4-11<br />

remaining runway or clearway beyond<br />

the far end <strong>of</strong> the TORA available to<br />

accelerate from brake release past lift<strong>of</strong>f<br />

to start <strong>of</strong> take-<strong>of</strong>f climb, plus safety<br />

factors.<br />

Accelerate-stop distance available<br />

(ASDA) - <strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong> the runway plus<br />

stopway declared available and suitable<br />

to accelerate from brake release to take<strong>of</strong>f<br />

decision speed, and then decelerate<br />

to a stop, plus safety factors.<br />

Landing distance available (LDA) -<br />

<strong>The</strong> distance from threshold to complete<br />

the approach, touchdown, and<br />

decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors.<br />

<strong>The</strong> ASDA and LDA are the overriding<br />

considerations in determining the<br />

runway length available for use by<br />

aircraft because safety areas must be<br />

considered. <strong>The</strong> ASDA and LDA can be<br />

figured as the useable portions <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway minus the area required to<br />

maintain adequate RSA and OFA<br />

beyond the end <strong>of</strong> the runway.<br />

With the predominant wind direction<br />

being from the south, a 1,370-foot<br />

extension was necessary, as<br />

recommended in the previous plan, to<br />

provide at least 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong> operational<br />

length for landings and take-<strong>of</strong>fs in both<br />

directions. <strong>The</strong> new FAA standard calls<br />

for only 600 feet for RSA prior to<br />

landing. As a result, there is no longer<br />

a need to displace the north end<br />

threshold for landing operations to<br />

Runway 17. In this alternative, the<br />

operational length available for<br />

ASDA/LDA calculations utilizing<br />

Runway 17 would be 7,370 feet.


In this alternative, the ASDA and LDA<br />

for Runway 35 operations, take-<strong>of</strong>fs and<br />

landings to the north, would be 7,000<br />

feet. Because the RSA on the far end <strong>of</strong><br />

the runway needs to be 1,000 feet long,<br />

both the ASDA and LDA would be<br />

reduced according to the limited RSA.<br />

Implementing declared distances would<br />

require some minor changes to the<br />

airfield. <strong>The</strong> last 370 feet <strong>of</strong> runway<br />

lights on the Runway 17 end would<br />

have to be masked-out in order to<br />

properly identify the declared threshold.<br />

For <strong>airport</strong>s with distance-to-go<br />

markers, these would have to be<br />

relocated to reflect the shortened<br />

runway length. <strong>The</strong> runway would not<br />

have to be re-marked and none <strong>of</strong> the<br />

existing light stands would have to be<br />

moved.<br />

<strong>The</strong> difference between this alternative<br />

and the recommended plan in the<br />

previous master plan is not having to<br />

displace the runway threshold. With<br />

the reduced RSA standards for landing<br />

operations, threshold displacement is no<br />

longer necessary at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. Previous RSA standards<br />

required the need for a 1,370-foot<br />

extension, in order to provide at least<br />

7,000 feet <strong>of</strong> runway length in the<br />

predominant operational direction to<br />

the south. <strong>The</strong> new standard, however,<br />

allows for the <strong>airport</strong> to meet RSA<br />

requirements for Runway 17 without<br />

displacement.<br />

Implementing a threshold displacement,<br />

as recommended in the previous<br />

master plan, would require a number <strong>of</strong><br />

potentially costly runway changes.<br />

First, the glideslope antenna would<br />

4-12<br />

need to be relocated. Second, the light<br />

stands from the approach lighting<br />

system would need to be relocated, with<br />

at least one <strong>of</strong> these being placed in the<br />

displaced pavement. Third, the runway<br />

marking would need to be reapplied in<br />

order to reflect the new runway<br />

threshold. None <strong>of</strong> these expenses are<br />

now necessary.<br />

As indicated on Exhibit 4C, the RPZ<br />

for Runway 17 considers providing CAT<br />

I weather minimums. <strong>The</strong> approach<br />

lighting system would require an<br />

upgrade from the existing LDIN system<br />

to a MALSR. <strong>The</strong> MALSR lights begin<br />

approximately 200 feet from the runway<br />

threshold and are spaced to a maximum<br />

distance <strong>of</strong> 2,400 feet, as indicated on<br />

the exhibit.<br />

Runway 35 is planned for approach<br />

visibility minimums not lower than<br />

three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile. <strong>The</strong> existing<br />

LDIN system will meet the requirement<br />

for approach lights. In order to<br />

implement the extension, these light<br />

stands would need to be relocated. <strong>The</strong><br />

lights begin 200 feet from the threshold<br />

and are spaced to a length <strong>of</strong> 1,400 feet.<br />

<strong>The</strong> relocated lights will be able to<br />

remain completely on <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />

In addition, the localizer would need to<br />

be relocated outside the RSA.<br />

Consideration should also be given to<br />

the runway/taxiway separation when<br />

planning for improved approach<br />

minimums. For an ARC C/D-II runway<br />

with visibility minimums lower than<br />

three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile, the parallel<br />

taxiway centerline must be at least 400<br />

feet from the runway centerline. Thus,<br />

in order to achieve CAT I minimums on


04MP22-4C-6/17/05<br />

MALSR<br />

DECLARED DISTANCES<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Take<strong>of</strong>f Run Available (TORA)<br />

Take<strong>of</strong>f Distance Available (TODA)<br />

Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA)<br />

Landing Distance Available (LDA)<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

Runway 17 Runway 35<br />

7,370'<br />

7,370'<br />

7,370'<br />

7,370'<br />

7,370'<br />

7,370'<br />

7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Airport Blvd. Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

ASDA / LDA 7,370'<br />

7,370'<br />

ASDA / LDA LDA 7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

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

Airport Property Line<br />

Line<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

NORTH<br />

1,370' Runway<br />

Extension<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

35<br />

3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Minimum<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Lead In In Lights<br />

Lights<br />

Localizer<br />

Exhibit 4C<br />

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1


Runway 17, the parallel taxiway would<br />

need to be relocated 100 feet to the<br />

west, as depicted on the exhibit. It<br />

should be noted that the terminal area<br />

taxiway would need to be removed to<br />

accommodate the relocated parallel<br />

taxiway.<br />

Airfield Alternative 1 is estimated to<br />

have a total associated cost <strong>of</strong> $6.15<br />

million. This includes $600,000 for<br />

purchase and calibration <strong>of</strong> the Runway<br />

17 MALSR, $750,000 for relocation <strong>of</strong><br />

the Runway 35 LDIN and localizer, $1.6<br />

million for the runway extension, and<br />

$3.2 million for the construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />

relocated parallel taxiway.<br />

Advantages: <strong>The</strong> extension would<br />

provide a minimum <strong>of</strong> 7,000 feet<br />

operational length for landings and<br />

take-<strong>of</strong>fs in both directions. OFA and<br />

RSA requirements are met on both ends<br />

<strong>of</strong> the runway. <strong>The</strong> expenses associated<br />

with displacing the threshold are<br />

avoided. <strong>The</strong> total runway extension<br />

would be 1,370 feet.<br />

Disadvantages: This alternative would<br />

be more costly than a 1,000-foot<br />

extension.<br />

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2<br />

This alternative was also presented in<br />

the previous master plan, but was<br />

rejected because the previous FAA RSA<br />

standard necessitated displacing the<br />

Runway 17 threshold. In doing so,<br />

6,630 feet <strong>of</strong> LDA would be available for<br />

operations to the south. <strong>The</strong> new FAA<br />

RSA design standard makes this<br />

alternative much more attractive.<br />

4-13<br />

<strong>The</strong> proposed 1,000-foot extension<br />

would allow the runway to provide an<br />

ASDA and LDA <strong>of</strong> 7,000 feet, as<br />

presented on Exhibit 4D. As<br />

discussed, the far end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

still needs to provide the full 1,000 feet<br />

<strong>of</strong> safety area. Thus, operations to the<br />

north would have available 370 feet less<br />

operational length to use. In effect, the<br />

northernmost 370 feet <strong>of</strong> runway<br />

combined with the 630 feet currently<br />

available beyond the north runway end<br />

would provide the full 1,000-foot RSA<br />

needed.<br />

<strong>The</strong> improved instrument approach for<br />

both runway ends, presented in the<br />

previous alternative, are also<br />

considered here. Runway 17 should be<br />

considered for a CAT I approach, while<br />

Runway 35 is considered for a threequarters-mile<br />

approach. Runway 17<br />

would need a MALSR, while Runway 35<br />

could continue to utilize the LDIN. In<br />

order to achieve CAT I approach<br />

minimums for ARC C/D-II aircraft, the<br />

parallel taxiway would need to be<br />

relocated 100 feet to the west.<br />

Airfield Alternative 2 is estimated to<br />

have a total associated cost <strong>of</strong> $5.55<br />

million. This includes $600,000 for<br />

purchase and calibration <strong>of</strong> the Runway<br />

17 MALSR, $750,000 for relocation <strong>of</strong><br />

the Runway 35 LDIN and localizer, $1.2<br />

million for the runway extension, and<br />

$3 million for the construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />

relocated parallel taxiway.<br />

Advantages: Not as expensive as<br />

Alternative 1. Provides 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong><br />

runway length for southerly departures.<br />

Meets safety area requirements.


Disadvantages: <strong>The</strong> runway would not<br />

provide 7,000 feet for northerly take-<strong>of</strong>fs<br />

and landings; instead, 6,630 feet would<br />

be declared.<br />

PARALLEL RUNWAY<br />

ALTERNATIVES<br />

Annual operation projections, conducted<br />

in Chapter Two - Aviation Forecasts,<br />

indicated that the <strong>airport</strong> could<br />

experience 166,500 annual aircraft<br />

operations by the long term planning<br />

horizon. Once annual operations reach<br />

60 percent <strong>of</strong> the airfield’s annual<br />

service volume (ASV), consideration<br />

should be given to capacity<br />

enhancement solutions. <strong>The</strong> current<br />

ASV <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is<br />

estimated at 210,000 annual operations;<br />

thus, the projected long term operations<br />

would reach approximately 80 percent<br />

<strong>of</strong> the airfield’s ASV. By the<br />

intermediate planning horizon, annual<br />

operations are projected to be 67<br />

percent <strong>of</strong> ASV.<br />

Analysis in Chapter Three - Facility<br />

Requirements presented an option <strong>of</strong><br />

constructing a parallel runway designed<br />

to accommodate smaller aircraft the<br />

majority <strong>of</strong> the time, which would<br />

increase the total ASV to approximately<br />

340,000. It would also be prudent for<br />

this runway to be designed to<br />

accommodate most <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />

activity for periods when the existing<br />

runway is closed. When single-runway<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s close for lengthy periods <strong>of</strong> time<br />

(up to one year for a runway<br />

reconstruct), the negative economic<br />

impacts can be severe. As a result, the<br />

parallel runway is recommended to be<br />

4-14<br />

considered at 5,000 feet in length so<br />

that all smaller aircraft and many<br />

business jet aircraft can still operate at<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. Exhibit 4E depicts two<br />

parallel runway alternatives, one to the<br />

east and the other to the west <strong>of</strong> the<br />

existing runway.<br />

Parallel Runway Alternative A<br />

This alternative considers locating the<br />

parallel runway to the west <strong>of</strong> Airport<br />

Blvd. <strong>The</strong> proposed runway is designed<br />

to be 5,000 feet long and 75 feet wide.<br />

<strong>The</strong> safety areas are planned to meet<br />

ARC B-II standards and the approaches<br />

are considered to have visibility<br />

minimums <strong>of</strong> one mile. <strong>The</strong> runway is<br />

situated so that RPZs will not<br />

encompass any populated areas. Only<br />

a small portion <strong>of</strong> the south RPZ would<br />

cross Berry Road, over a wooded area.<br />

This portion <strong>of</strong> land would be<br />

recommended to be purchased in fee<br />

simple to prevent land uses<br />

incompatible with the RPZ.<br />

Approximately 153 acres, primarily<br />

farmland (currently zoned industrial),<br />

would need to be acquired in order to<br />

implement this option. Also included in<br />

this tract is one homestead to the north<br />

<strong>of</strong> the proposed runway. It is estimated<br />

that land to be acquired would cost<br />

approximately $4.6 million. This option<br />

would also require significant<br />

earthwork and fill, in order to provide a<br />

relatively flat area for the southern<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> the runway. Site preparation<br />

alone is estimated at $900,000, and the<br />

runway/taxiway would cost<br />

approximately $6.2 million, for a total<br />

cost <strong>of</strong> $11.7 million.


04MP22-4D-2/8/06<br />

MALSR<br />

DECLARED DISTANCES<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Take<strong>of</strong>f Run Available (TORA)<br />

Take<strong>of</strong>f Distance Available (TODA)<br />

Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA)<br />

Landing Distance Available (LDA)<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

Runway 17 Runway 35<br />

7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

6,630'<br />

6,630'<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Airport Blvd. Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

ASDA / LDA 7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

ASDA / LDA 6,630'<br />

6,630'<br />

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

Airport Property Line<br />

Line<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

NORTH<br />

1,000' Runway<br />

Extension<br />

35<br />

3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Minimum<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Lead Lead In In Lights<br />

Lights<br />

Localizer<br />

Exhibit 4D<br />

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2


04MP22-4E-2/8/06<br />

1 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

Minimum<br />

MALSR<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />

Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

17<br />

L<br />

17<br />

R<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE A<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE B<br />

Ultimate Runway 17L-35R (5,000' x 75')<br />

75')<br />

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />

100')<br />

75'<br />

Ultimate Runway 17R-35L (5,000' x x 75')<br />

75') 35<br />

35<br />

R<br />

L<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

1 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

35'<br />

NORTH<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

Lead In Lights<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

3/4 Mile Visibility Visibility Minimum<br />

Minimum<br />

Exhibit 4E<br />

PARALLEL RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES


Advantages: Preserves the east side <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong> for potential commercial/<br />

industrial development. Reduces RPZ<br />

exposure over populated areas.<br />

Disadvantages: Effectively cuts the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> in two, due to the need for an<br />

access taxiway. Longer taxiways and<br />

extensive site preparation make this<br />

the more expensive option. A new south<br />

entrance would be necessary should any<br />

future landside development take place<br />

to the south.<br />

Parallel Runway Alternative B<br />

This alternative provides a 5,000-foot<br />

by 75-foot runway and full-length<br />

parallel taxiway east <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35.<br />

<strong>The</strong> proposed runway centerline is<br />

situated at the FAA design minimum <strong>of</strong><br />

700 feet from the Runway 17-35<br />

centerline. This runway would be<br />

planned for visual or not lower than<br />

one-mile visibility minimums.<br />

<strong>The</strong> position <strong>of</strong> the parallel runway, as<br />

depicted on Exhibit 4E, is based upon<br />

maintaining at least a 20:1 approach<br />

clearance to both runway ends. An<br />

eastside parallel runway would require<br />

the acquisition <strong>of</strong> approximately 95<br />

acres <strong>of</strong> farmland (currently zoned<br />

industrial) and at least one homestead,<br />

at an estimated cost <strong>of</strong> $2.8 million.<br />

<strong>The</strong> estimated cost <strong>of</strong> constructing the<br />

proposed runway/taxiway is $5.7<br />

million, for a total project cost <strong>of</strong> $8.5<br />

million.<br />

Advantage: Maintains maximum<br />

available space on westside terminal<br />

4-15<br />

area for development. Less expensive<br />

than parallel runway Alternative A.<br />

Disadvantages: South RPZ goes over<br />

the Devil’s Bowl Speedway. <strong>The</strong> north<br />

end RPZ goes over the cement-mixing<br />

business. A portion <strong>of</strong> existing<br />

industrial-zoned land would be lost.<br />

Parallel Taxiway Only Option<br />

Parallel Runway Alternative B assumes<br />

a standard 35-foot-wide parallel<br />

taxiway. An additional sub-option for<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> is to consider only the<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> an eastside parallel<br />

taxiway at a width <strong>of</strong> 75 feet, in order to<br />

provide an alternate runway for those<br />

times when the primary runway is<br />

closed. Safety areas meeting ARC B-II<br />

standards would also be considered.<br />

To accomplish this alternative, a<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> the farmland, 100 feet wide<br />

and 6,400 feet long (approximately 15<br />

acres) running parallel to the existing<br />

eastern property line, would need to be<br />

acquired in order for the OFA to be on<br />

<strong>airport</strong> property. This option should<br />

only be considered preceding a planned<br />

closure <strong>of</strong> the primary runway for<br />

reconstruction.<br />

AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES<br />

SUMMARY<br />

<strong>The</strong> analysis performed above<br />

considered several methods which<br />

attempt to provide additional runway<br />

length to meet increased demand by<br />

corporate aircraft, while also attempt-


ing to meet FAA and TxDOT <strong>airport</strong><br />

design criteria. Airfield Alternative 1,<br />

the southerly 1,370-foot extension <strong>of</strong><br />

Runway 17-35, should be strongly<br />

considered. This extension would<br />

provide, at a minimum, 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong><br />

operational runway length in both<br />

directions. For a reliever <strong>airport</strong> such<br />

as <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, it would be<br />

optimal for the operational length<br />

requirements <strong>of</strong> the runway be met in<br />

both directions.<br />

This alternative also provides for the<br />

longest runway length which could be<br />

achieved at the <strong>airport</strong>. Due to the<br />

location <strong>of</strong> the railroad tracks to the<br />

north and the residential communities<br />

to the south, 1,370 feet is the most that<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> can add in terms <strong>of</strong> runway<br />

length, while maintaining RSA and<br />

OFA on <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />

Airfield Alternative 1 also considers<br />

improvements to the instrument<br />

approaches to the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

precision ILS approach to Runway 17<br />

currently has visibility minimums not<br />

lower than three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile for<br />

approach categories A, B, and C<br />

aircraft. This approach is considered<br />

for improved visibility minimums not<br />

lower than one-half mile for approach<br />

categories A, B, C, and D aircraft.<br />

To meet FAA and TxDOT standards for<br />

the improved approaches, Runway 17<br />

would require an upgrade <strong>of</strong> the<br />

approach lighting system from the<br />

LDIN to a MALSR. In addition, the<br />

existing parallel taxiway would need to<br />

be relocated to 400 feet (centerline to<br />

centerline) from the runway.<br />

4-16<br />

<strong>The</strong> second airfield alternative<br />

considers a 1,000-foot southerly<br />

extension to the runway. Based on the<br />

predominant southerly wind direction,<br />

this will provide 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong><br />

operational length for the majority <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>airport</strong> operations. This is especially<br />

true during hot days when runway<br />

length available is most critical. This<br />

alternative also considers the necessary<br />

upgrade <strong>of</strong> the approach lights and<br />

relocation <strong>of</strong> the taxiway, in order to<br />

improve the instrument approaches.<br />

This option is considered to be viable<br />

since it will serve the majority <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft most <strong>of</strong> the year. It is also<br />

likely to be moderately less expensive<br />

than Alternative 1, since it proposes 370<br />

feet less pavement length. <strong>The</strong> primary<br />

disadvantage is only 6,630 feet <strong>of</strong><br />

operational length for northerly<br />

operations would be available. <strong>Final</strong>ly,<br />

a reliever <strong>airport</strong> would be better served<br />

with the recommended operational<br />

length provided by both runway ends.<br />

As discussed, the capacity <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />

may become an issue by the<br />

intermediate term <strong>of</strong> the plan. Two<br />

options for a 5,000-foot parallel runway<br />

were considered. <strong>The</strong> eastside option is<br />

considered to be more desirable from a<br />

planning perspective, primarily because<br />

it does not bisect the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

eastside parallel runway also requires<br />

less property acquisition and site<br />

preparation.<br />

OBSTRUCTION ANALYSIS<br />

This section will present information<br />

regarding the potential for improved


approach procedures. Where possible,<br />

especially at reliever <strong>airport</strong>s, approach<br />

minimums should be as low as possible,<br />

considering safety and financial<br />

constraints. <strong>The</strong> best approach<br />

minimums possible will prevent aircraft<br />

from having to divert to another <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

which can cause financial hardship for<br />

the operator, on-<strong>airport</strong> businesses, and<br />

the <strong>City</strong> (lost fuel revenue).<br />

A key priority which needs to be<br />

considered is protecting the <strong>airport</strong> from<br />

the potential for flight obstructions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> FAA has established criteria aimed<br />

at protecting the <strong>airport</strong> from these<br />

flight obstructions. First, FAA criterion<br />

stipulates that obstructions not be<br />

placed too near the runway ends or<br />

parallel to the runway. <strong>The</strong> obstruction<br />

clearance requirements are based on<br />

the ARC and/or the weight <strong>of</strong> the<br />

critical aircraft, as well as the type <strong>of</strong><br />

approaches established or planned for<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. Minimum obstruction<br />

clearance is required for all runways,<br />

and it becomes more restrictive as the<br />

approaches progress from visual to nonprecision,<br />

to precision.<br />

<strong>The</strong> three resources for determining<br />

airspace obstructions are the FAA’s<br />

F.A.R. Part 77, Objects Affecting<br />

Navigable Airspace, Terminal<br />

Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and AC<br />

150/5300-13, Change 8, Airport Design.<br />

Part 77 is more <strong>of</strong> a filter which<br />

identifies potential obstructions. <strong>The</strong><br />

Threshold Siting Surface (TSS), defined<br />

in Airport Design and TERPS, is the<br />

critical surface considered by TxDOT<br />

and the FAA. If there is a penetration<br />

to the TSS slope, then action must be<br />

taken by the <strong>airport</strong> to eliminate the<br />

4-17<br />

obstruction, otherwise the approved<br />

approaches to the <strong>airport</strong> can be<br />

removed. TERPS analysis is used to<br />

evaluate and develop instrument<br />

approach procedures including visibility<br />

minimums and cloud heights associated<br />

with approved approaches.<br />

Analysis in the previous chapter<br />

indicated that the plan should consider<br />

improved instrument approach<br />

capabilities for Runway 17-35. At<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, the lowest<br />

visibility minimums for aircraft in<br />

approach categories A, B, and C is<br />

three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile utilizing the<br />

ILS approach on Runway 17. Runway<br />

35 has visibility minimums not lower<br />

than one mile for aircraft in approach<br />

categories A, B, and C. Currently, there<br />

are no approved instrument approaches<br />

to either runway end for aircraft in<br />

approach category D.<br />

<strong>The</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> the existing TSS<br />

surface are described in AC 150/5300-<br />

13, Change 8, Airport Design. Appendix<br />

2, paragraph 5h, applies to runways<br />

with precision approaches, such as<br />

Runway 17. This TSS begins 200 feet<br />

from the runway threshold, is centered<br />

on the extended runway centerline and<br />

is 800 feet wide, which increases out to<br />

a width <strong>of</strong> 1,900 feet at a distance <strong>of</strong><br />

10,000 feet. This TSS must provide an<br />

obstacle clearance for a 34:1 approach<br />

slope. Future approach visibility<br />

minimums consider one-half mile for<br />

Runway 17. <strong>The</strong> dimensions for this<br />

approach will remain the same.<br />

<strong>The</strong> current TSS slope for Runway 35 is<br />

defined by Appendix 2, paragraph 5f.<br />

This TSS has the same dimensions as


the TSS for Runway 17, except the<br />

obstruction-free slope is 20:1. Future<br />

approach visibility minimums consider<br />

three-quarters-mile for Runway 35.<br />

<strong>The</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> the TSS slope for<br />

these approaches remain the same.<br />

Exhibits 4F and 4G present an<br />

analysis <strong>of</strong> the TSS associated with<br />

existing and alternative approach<br />

procedures for Runways 17 and 35,<br />

respectively. <strong>The</strong> top portions <strong>of</strong> the<br />

exhibits display the plan, or “overhead”<br />

view <strong>of</strong> each TSS. <strong>The</strong> bottom half <strong>of</strong><br />

each exhibit depicts the pr<strong>of</strong>ile view <strong>of</strong><br />

the TSS conditions.<br />

Exhibit 4F presents the airspace<br />

obstruction evaluation for Runway 17<br />

considering existing and alternative<br />

conditions. <strong>The</strong>re are no identified<br />

obstructions to the 34:1 TSS slope<br />

under both the existing and planned<br />

approaches for Runway 17. It should be<br />

noted that F.A.R. Part 77 requires that<br />

additional elevation be added to roads<br />

and railroads in order to provide<br />

clearance over vehicles and trains.<br />

Railroads require an additional 23 feet<br />

and roads such as Scyene Road require<br />

an additional 15 feet. <strong>The</strong> TSS clears<br />

these potential obstructions.<br />

Exhibit 4G presents airspace<br />

obstruction analysis for the Runway 35<br />

end. <strong>The</strong> existing TSS slope, as well as<br />

the TSS slope associated with a 1,000foot<br />

and 1,370-foot extension, are<br />

presented. <strong>The</strong>re are no existing TSS<br />

penetrations to the existing TSS slope.<br />

<strong>The</strong> only TSS penetration identified for<br />

the future condition is a single tree that<br />

penetrates by one foot associated with<br />

4-18<br />

the 1,370-foot runway extension<br />

scenario.<br />

Building Obstructions<br />

F.A.R. Part 77, Objects Affecting<br />

Navigable Airspace, was developed to<br />

protect the airspace and approaches to<br />

runways from hazards which would<br />

affect the safe and efficient operation <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> previous master plan recommended<br />

that a number <strong>of</strong> T-hangars be removed.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se hangars penetrate the 500-foot<br />

primary surface, as defined in F.A.R.<br />

Part 77. <strong>The</strong>se hangars were also in<br />

poor condition, with dirt floors, leaky<br />

ro<strong>of</strong>s, and deteriorating paint. Since<br />

then, the hangars have been<br />

rehabilitated. As a result, this plan will<br />

not consider the removal <strong>of</strong> the Thangars.<br />

Instead, these hangars should<br />

remain a revenue-generating source for<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Ultimately, it is the FAA and their<br />

evaluation <strong>of</strong> the airspace surrounding<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport that will<br />

determine if any buildings will be<br />

obstructions to the ultimate <strong>airport</strong><br />

design. This plan will proceed under<br />

the assumption that none <strong>of</strong> the<br />

buildings will need to be removed or<br />

relocated in order to achieve<br />

improvements to the approaches.<br />

<strong>The</strong> north end Department <strong>of</strong> Public<br />

Safety (DPS) hangar may be an<br />

obstruction to the departure surface as<br />

described in TERPS. This surface is<br />

1,000 feet wide, centered on the


unway, beginning at the end <strong>of</strong> usable<br />

runway. It angles up at a 40:1 slope to<br />

a width <strong>of</strong> 6,466 feet at a distance <strong>of</strong><br />

10,200 feet. This surface would be<br />

penetrated by the DPS hangar. <strong>The</strong><br />

FAA has not yet provided guidance on<br />

mitigation <strong>of</strong> such penetrations, other<br />

than to indicate that special operating<br />

departure procedures may need to be<br />

implemented.<br />

LANDSIDE ISSUES<br />

<strong>The</strong> orderly development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />

terminal area, those areas along the<br />

flight line parallel to the runway, can be<br />

the most critical, and probably the most<br />

difficult to control on the <strong>airport</strong>. A<br />

development approach <strong>of</strong> taking the<br />

path <strong>of</strong> least resistance can have a<br />

significant effect on the long-term<br />

viability <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong>. Allowing<br />

development without regard to a<br />

functional plan could result in a<br />

haphazard array <strong>of</strong> buildings and small<br />

ramp areas, which will eventually<br />

preclude the most efficient use <strong>of</strong><br />

valuable space along the flight line.<br />

Activity in the terminal area should be<br />

divided into high, medium, and low<br />

intensity levels at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

high-activity area should be planned<br />

and developed to provide aviation<br />

services on the <strong>airport</strong>. An example <strong>of</strong><br />

the high-activity area is the <strong>airport</strong><br />

terminal building and adjoining aircraft<br />

parking apron, which provides outside<br />

storage and circulation <strong>of</strong> aircraft. In<br />

addition, large conventional hangars<br />

housing fixed base operators (FBOs),<br />

corporate aviation departments, or<br />

storing a large number <strong>of</strong> aircraft would<br />

4-19<br />

be considered a high-activity use. A<br />

conventional hangar structure in the<br />

high-activity area should be a minimum<br />

<strong>of</strong> 6,400 square feet (80 feet by 80 feet).<br />

<strong>The</strong> best location for high-activity areas<br />

is along the flight line near midfield, for<br />

ease <strong>of</strong> access to all areas <strong>of</strong> the airfield.<br />

<strong>The</strong> medium-activity use category<br />

defines the next level <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> use and<br />

primarily includes smaller corporate<br />

aircraft that may desire their own<br />

executive hangar storage on the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

A hangar in the medium-activity use<br />

area should be at least 50 feet by 50<br />

feet, or a minimum <strong>of</strong> 2,500 square feet.<br />

<strong>The</strong> best location for medium-activity<br />

use is <strong>of</strong>f the immediate flight line, but<br />

still readily accessible. Parking and<br />

utilities such as water and sewer should<br />

also be provided in this area.<br />

<strong>The</strong> low-activity use category defines<br />

the area for storage <strong>of</strong> smaller single<br />

and twin-engine aircraft. Low-activity<br />

users are personal or small business<br />

aircraft owners who prefer individual<br />

space in shade or T-hangars. Lowactivity<br />

areas should be located in lessconspicuous<br />

areas. This use category<br />

will require electricity, but generally<br />

does not require water or sewer<br />

utilities.<br />

In addition to the functional<br />

compatibility <strong>of</strong> the terminal area, the<br />

proposed development concept should<br />

provide a first-class appearance for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. Consideration<br />

to aesthetics should be given high<br />

priority in all public areas, as the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> can serve as the first impression<br />

a visitor may have <strong>of</strong> the community.


Since the completion <strong>of</strong> the previous<br />

master plan in 1998, the terminal<br />

building and the primary transient<br />

apron have shifted to the south. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

have been three new large hangars<br />

constructed as well, each <strong>of</strong> which has<br />

access to the apron area. This<br />

development <strong>of</strong> the south apron<br />

provides greater separation <strong>of</strong> activity<br />

levels and lends to greater efficiency <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft movement.<br />

Ideally, terminal area facilities at<br />

general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s should follow<br />

a linear configuration parallel to the<br />

primary runway. <strong>The</strong> linear<br />

configuration allows for maximizing<br />

available space, while providing ease <strong>of</strong><br />

access to terminal facilities from the<br />

airfield. Each landside alternative will<br />

address development issues.<br />

Separation <strong>of</strong> activity levels and<br />

efficiency <strong>of</strong> layout will be provided as<br />

well.<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is located on<br />

approximately 350 acres. Typically,<br />

general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s will reserve<br />

the first 1,000 feet parallel to the<br />

runway for aviation-related activity<br />

exclusively. This distance would allow<br />

for the location <strong>of</strong> taxiways, apron, and<br />

hangars. <strong>The</strong> eastside property line is<br />

approximately 520 feet from the runway<br />

centerline and the west side provides<br />

approximately 1,000 feet <strong>of</strong> separation.<br />

In those circumstances where ultimate<br />

demand levels fall short <strong>of</strong> the ultimate<br />

build-out need, some <strong>airport</strong>s will<br />

encourage non-aviation commercial or<br />

industrial development. Encouragement<br />

<strong>of</strong> non-aviation development on<br />

<strong>airport</strong> property can provide an<br />

4-20<br />

additional revenue source in the form <strong>of</strong><br />

long-term land leases for the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Consideration will be given to this<br />

possibility in the landside development<br />

alternatives to follow.<br />

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES<br />

<strong>The</strong> following section describes three<br />

landside development alternatives.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se alternatives consider general<br />

aviation facility development providing<br />

for separation <strong>of</strong> activity levels. <strong>The</strong><br />

goal <strong>of</strong> this analysis is to indicate<br />

development potentials which would<br />

provide the <strong>City</strong> with a specific goal for<br />

future development. <strong>The</strong> resultant plan<br />

will aid the <strong>City</strong> in strategic marketing<br />

<strong>of</strong> available properties. <strong>The</strong> following<br />

development alternatives analysis<br />

utilizes accepted <strong>airport</strong> planning<br />

methodologies in conjunction with FAA<br />

AC 5300/13, Change 8, Airport Design.<br />

<strong>The</strong> three alternatives described below<br />

are not the only options for<br />

development. In some cases, a portion<br />

<strong>of</strong> one alternative could be intermixed<br />

with another. Also, some development<br />

concepts could be replaced with others.<br />

<strong>The</strong> final recommended plan only serves<br />

as a guide for the <strong>City</strong>. Many times,<br />

<strong>airport</strong> operators change their plan to<br />

meet the needs <strong>of</strong> specific users. <strong>The</strong><br />

goal in analyzing landside development<br />

alternatives is to focus future<br />

development so that <strong>airport</strong> property<br />

can be maximized.<br />

Each <strong>of</strong> the landside alternatives<br />

presented reflects the ultimate buildout<br />

potential for the <strong>airport</strong>. What is<br />

presented exceeds the aviation needs


forecast over the next 20 years. This<br />

analysis is designed to provide a<br />

planned ultimate direction for <strong>airport</strong><br />

development. Staging <strong>of</strong> the<br />

development to meet demand-based<br />

indicators as well as comprehensive<br />

financial plans will be presented in<br />

Chapter Six, once the final master plan<br />

concept is determined.<br />

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A<br />

Landside Alternative A, depicted on<br />

Exhibit 4H, is considered to be a<br />

constrained development pattern which<br />

assumes that the <strong>airport</strong> will not<br />

acquire additional property for future<br />

landside development. Under this<br />

condition, all levels <strong>of</strong> activity would<br />

need to be accommodated inside the<br />

existing fence line. <strong>The</strong> principal<br />

philosophy followed is to group facilities<br />

supporting similar activity levels<br />

together.<br />

<strong>The</strong> northern terminal area between<br />

the Department <strong>of</strong> Public Safety (DPS)<br />

hangar and Airport Blvd. is considered<br />

for the development <strong>of</strong> two 10-unit Thangars<br />

and a connected executive<br />

hangar facility. <strong>The</strong> executive hangar<br />

facility would be similar in design and<br />

function to the executive hangars in<br />

building 910, immediately to the south.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se hangars could be utilized by<br />

owners <strong>of</strong> one or more aircraft, typically<br />

single or multi-engine.<br />

<strong>The</strong> first <strong>of</strong> three potential <strong>airport</strong><br />

traffic control tower (ATCT) sites is<br />

proposed immediately to the south <strong>of</strong><br />

the new south terminal T-hangars.<br />

This site will be further discussed later<br />

4-21<br />

in this chapter. Two more T-hangar<br />

facilities with adjoining executive<br />

hangars are considered south <strong>of</strong> Site A<br />

for the ATCT. Immediately to the south<br />

<strong>of</strong> these T-hangars, a large apron is<br />

proposed, with space available for<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> large conventional<br />

hangars. This development pattern is<br />

designed to maximize <strong>airport</strong> property<br />

by setting the hangar development to<br />

the west as far as feasible, and will also<br />

allow for a large apron to be<br />

constructed.<br />

A portion <strong>of</strong> the area proposed for apron<br />

and conventional hangar development<br />

to the south is currently an important<br />

drainage route, as it slopes toward a<br />

ravine which flows southeast away from<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. This area also has some<br />

elevation changes as great as ten feet.<br />

It is likely that the drainage channels<br />

would need to be maintained by placing<br />

drainage piping under a portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

apron. In addition, there may be<br />

significant site preparation necessary to<br />

bring the area up to grade. Since this<br />

area is considered for public apron<br />

space, the improvements are eligible for<br />

TxDOT funding. <strong>The</strong> revenuegenerating<br />

hangar pads would be<br />

eligible for limited TxDOT funding (if<br />

any).<br />

<strong>The</strong> proposed layout <strong>of</strong> hangars for this<br />

area provides for three large 200-foot x<br />

200-foot conventional hangars, two <strong>of</strong><br />

which face the main apron and one <strong>of</strong><br />

which faces a short stub taxilane. Two<br />

smaller hangars (150 feet x 150 feet)<br />

also face the stub taxilane. A third 150foot<br />

x 150-foot hangar is positioned to<br />

face the main apron. Due to concern<br />

about the alignment <strong>of</strong> Airport


Boulevard, Alternative 1A shows a<br />

second potential layout for hangars in<br />

this area.<br />

<strong>The</strong> portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> property<br />

immediately south <strong>of</strong> this proposed<br />

apron area is left undeveloped in order<br />

to facilitate drainage from the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> plan proposes using an<br />

underground piping system to drain<br />

water from the runway areas, under the<br />

apron and out to the ravine. It is<br />

unlikely that hangars could be<br />

constructed on top <strong>of</strong> this drainage<br />

route; thus, the area is left undeveloped.<br />

<strong>The</strong> south end <strong>of</strong> the terminal flight line<br />

is considered for T-hangar development.<br />

This area would front a potential<br />

runway extension. Due to the existing<br />

property limitations, this area would<br />

require a separate entrance from Berry<br />

Road. Although dividing facilities with<br />

separate entrance/exit points is not<br />

desirable, it is not uncommon. When it<br />

is necessary to do so, it is recommended<br />

that the facilities support the same<br />

activity level, such as low-activity Thangars<br />

in this case.<br />

Advantages: No additional property<br />

acquisition is necessary. Development<br />

potential can meet forecast aviation<br />

demand through the long term <strong>of</strong> this<br />

plan. Likely the least expensive<br />

potential development pattern.<br />

Disadvantages: A portion <strong>of</strong> the flight<br />

line remains privately-owned. Airport<br />

is effectively split in two, due to private<br />

ownership <strong>of</strong> this land. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />

would become constrained for any other<br />

development in the future.<br />

4-22<br />

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B<br />

Landside Alternative B considers<br />

limited property acquisition to the<br />

southwest <strong>of</strong> the runway in order to<br />

provide the <strong>airport</strong> control <strong>of</strong> all<br />

potential development along the flight<br />

line. Currently there are approximately<br />

17 acres, not under <strong>airport</strong> control, that<br />

are within 1,000 feet <strong>of</strong> the runway.<br />

Exhibit 4J depicts development <strong>of</strong> the<br />

terminal flight line with this area under<br />

<strong>airport</strong> ownership.<br />

With the added space for development<br />

along the flight line, the north end area<br />

to the west <strong>of</strong> the DPS hangar is<br />

considered for executive hangar<br />

development. This area would be<br />

highly desirable as the area is readily<br />

developable with utilities near by, the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> exit is close, and taxiways are<br />

available. Space has been allocated for<br />

two 150-foot x 150-foot hangars.<br />

South <strong>of</strong> the new T-hangars, three more<br />

T-hangar facilities are considered.<br />

Further south, the concept <strong>of</strong> a large<br />

apron designed to support FBO and<br />

transient aircraft operations is<br />

continued. Four large conventional<br />

hangars face the apron and are recessed<br />

to allow greater apron usage. To the<br />

south <strong>of</strong> the conventional hangars is a<br />

series <strong>of</strong> executive hangar complexes. A<br />

number <strong>of</strong> different development<br />

patterns are presented, each <strong>of</strong> which<br />

optimizes space available. <strong>Final</strong>ly, a<br />

series <strong>of</strong> T-hangars is considered for the<br />

south end <strong>of</strong> the terminal flight line,<br />

again positioning those low-activity<br />

levels away from the central portion <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong>.


04MP22-4H-2/8/06<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

LEGEND<br />

ALTERNATIVE A1<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

Fuel Farm<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Ultimate Parking/Roads<br />

Ultimate Building<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

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

100')<br />

ATCT<br />

Site A<br />

Drainage Area<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

NORTH<br />

1,000' Runway<br />

Extension<br />

35<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

3/4 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

Minimum<br />

Exhibit 4H<br />

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE A


04MP22-4J-2/8/06<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />

C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

ATCT<br />

Site B<br />

Fuel Farm<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Ultimate Parking/Roads<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

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

100')<br />

Ultimate Building<br />

Drainage Area<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

NORTH<br />

1,000' Runway<br />

Extension<br />

35<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

3/4 Mile Mile Visibility<br />

Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

Minimum<br />

Exhibit 4J<br />

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE B


Airport drainage is again an important<br />

consideration. This alternative<br />

considers the potential to pave over<br />

drainage piping with apron space or<br />

roads as necessary. As there may be<br />

times when access to the drainage<br />

piping is necessary, construction <strong>of</strong><br />

hangars on top <strong>of</strong> the piping is not<br />

considered.<br />

Landside Alternative B considers<br />

locating the ATCT on the north end <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> site considered is<br />

currently occupied by a public parking<br />

lot. As necessary, this parking lot can<br />

be expanded to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> tower<br />

employees. This location is further<br />

discussed later in this chapter.<br />

Advantages: <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> would have<br />

ownership <strong>of</strong> the entire westside flight<br />

line. More land is available for<br />

development. Separation <strong>of</strong> activity<br />

levels is improved.<br />

Disadvantages: <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> may run<br />

out <strong>of</strong> land available for development in<br />

the distant future. This likely would<br />

not happen within the next 20 years,<br />

but it could sometime thereafter. This<br />

circumstance should be avoided as<br />

experience at other busy reliever<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s has shown.<br />

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C<br />

Landside Alternative C considers a<br />

more unrestricted development plan. It<br />

provides for property acquisition to the<br />

west <strong>of</strong> Airport Boulevard. This area<br />

encompasses approximately 88 acres.<br />

<strong>The</strong> previously discussed 11 acres to the<br />

southwest <strong>of</strong> the runway along the<br />

4-23<br />

flight line is also considered. As<br />

depicted on Exhibit 4K, this allows for<br />

optimal separation <strong>of</strong> activity levels and<br />

it allows for the development <strong>of</strong><br />

commercial/industrial parcels which<br />

would generate revenue in the form <strong>of</strong><br />

land leases for the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

A main feature <strong>of</strong> this alternative is the<br />

relocation <strong>of</strong> Airport Boulevard and the<br />

creation <strong>of</strong> a grand entrance to the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> that links directly with the<br />

terminal building area. <strong>The</strong> relocation<br />

<strong>of</strong> Airport Boulevard also creates space<br />

for additional aviation-related parcels<br />

with taxiway access, as well as nonaviation<br />

related business development<br />

parcels.<br />

Utilization <strong>of</strong> the land will easily allow<br />

for the separation <strong>of</strong> activity levels. <strong>The</strong><br />

existing executive hangar apron<br />

immediately to the south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

terminal building is continued to the<br />

west, allowing for the development <strong>of</strong><br />

more hangars. To the west <strong>of</strong> the new<br />

south end T-hangars, a T-hangar<br />

complex is developed. Continued<br />

development along the flight line<br />

includes a large apron area fronted by<br />

large FBO/conventional hangars. <strong>The</strong><br />

remaining flight line is considered for<br />

aviation-related hangar development.<br />

This alternative considers locating the<br />

ATCT immediately to the south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

terminal building. This location is<br />

further discussed later in this chapter.<br />

Advantages: This alternative provides<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> with a development plan<br />

that will meet aviation needs well<br />

beyond the 20-year scope <strong>of</strong> this plan.<br />

As revenue-generating commercial/


industrial parcels become available,<br />

additional aviation-related parcels<br />

nearer the terminal area are made<br />

available, and maintaining a separation<br />

<strong>of</strong> activity levels is more uniform. This<br />

alternative also better situates the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> if the FAA determines that any<br />

existing hangar development obstructs<br />

approaches to the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Disadvantages: <strong>The</strong> property to the<br />

west <strong>of</strong> Airport Boulevard is currently<br />

zoned for industrial/commercial<br />

development. A portion <strong>of</strong> that acreage<br />

would change to <strong>airport</strong> use, thus<br />

reducing the total area for<br />

industrial/commercial development.<br />

This alternative would likely be more<br />

expensive in the short term, considering<br />

significant property acquisition costs.<br />

LANDSIDE SUMMARY<br />

All three alternatives propose<br />

development which would exceed the<br />

demand levels proposed in this plan.<br />

Each does, however, give the <strong>City</strong> a<br />

future vision <strong>of</strong> what the <strong>airport</strong> could<br />

become. This vision is important, as it<br />

shifts the focus from haphazard, buildas-you-go<br />

development, to a long-term,<br />

focused development process. As a<br />

result, the <strong>City</strong> will be capable <strong>of</strong><br />

providing a first-class <strong>airport</strong> which<br />

maximizes <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />

It appears that all three development<br />

alternatives would sufficiently<br />

accommodate the long term aviation<br />

demand. Actual demand levels will<br />

likely dictate facility development. For<br />

example, if the <strong>airport</strong> were required to<br />

house a large number <strong>of</strong> small aircraft,<br />

4-24<br />

the decision to build (or allow private<br />

developers to build) T-hangars would be<br />

prudent. However, if corporate aircraft<br />

are more demanding, executive or<br />

conventional hangar development<br />

would be necessary. <strong>The</strong> ultimate plan<br />

will provide the <strong>City</strong> with the means to<br />

meet the future needs <strong>of</strong> these demands<br />

in an efficient manner.<br />

AIRPORT TRAFFIC<br />

CONTROL TOWER<br />

SITING ALTERNATIVES<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT)<br />

is the focal point for controlling flight<br />

operations within the <strong>airport</strong>'s<br />

designated airspace and all aircraft and<br />

vehicle movement on the <strong>airport</strong>'s<br />

runways and taxiways. Site selection<br />

involves certain mandatory<br />

requirements concerning the ultimate<br />

planned development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> following operational and spatial<br />

requirements are identified in FAA<br />

Order 6480.4, Airport Traffic Control<br />

Tower Siting Criteria.<br />

Mandatory Siting Requirements<br />

• <strong>The</strong>re must be maximum<br />

visibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />

patterns.<br />

• <strong>The</strong>re must be a clear,<br />

unobstructed, and direct view <strong>of</strong><br />

the approaches to all runways or<br />

landing areas and to all runway<br />

and taxiway surfaces.


04MP22-4K-2/8/06<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />

C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Industrial/<br />

Commercial<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />

Corporate<br />

Parcels<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

Fuel Farm<br />

Industrial/<br />

Commercial<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

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

100')<br />

ATCT<br />

Site C<br />

Aviation Related<br />

Parcels<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Ultimate Parking/Roads<br />

Ultimate Building<br />

Corporate<br />

Parcels<br />

Corporate Parcels<br />

Drainage Area<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

NORTH<br />

1,000' Runway<br />

Extension<br />

35<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

3/4 Mile Mile Visibility<br />

Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

Minimum<br />

Exhibit 4K<br />

LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE C


• <strong>The</strong> proposed site must be large<br />

enough to accommodate current<br />

and future building needs<br />

including employee parking<br />

spaces.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> proposed tower must not<br />

violate F.A.R. Part 77 surfaces<br />

unless it is absolutely necessary.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> proposed tower must not<br />

derogate the signal generated by<br />

any existing or planned<br />

electronic navigational aid.<br />

Nonmandatory Siting<br />

Requirements<br />

• To assure adequate depth<br />

perception, the line-<strong>of</strong>-sight to<br />

aircraft movement areas should<br />

be perpendicular to the direction<br />

<strong>of</strong> aircraft travel.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> tower cab should be oriented<br />

to face north or alternatively to<br />

the east, south, or west. Every<br />

effort should be made to prevent<br />

an aircraft approach from being<br />

aligned with the rising or setting<br />

sun.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> controller's visibility should<br />

not be impaired by direct or<br />

indirect external lighting<br />

sources.<br />

• All aircraft movement areas<br />

including parking aprons, tiedown<br />

spaces, run-up pads, etc.,<br />

should be visible from the ATCT.<br />

4-25<br />

• Consideration must be given to<br />

local weather phenomena to<br />

preclude restriction to visibility<br />

due to fog or ground haze.<br />

• Exterior noise should be at a<br />

minimum and sites should be<br />

evaluated for expected noise<br />

levels.<br />

• Access to the site should not<br />

require controllers to cross a<br />

runway or taxiway.<br />

• Consideration should be given to<br />

planned <strong>airport</strong> expansion,<br />

especially for the construction <strong>of</strong><br />

buildings, hangars, runway/<br />

taxiway extensions, etc. to<br />

preclude the relocation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

ATCT at a later date.<br />

Requirements for a new ATCT site<br />

include several important<br />

considerations. <strong>The</strong> area required for a<br />

tower site will range from one or more<br />

acres depending on the types <strong>of</strong><br />

facilities to be combined at the site. For<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport, an area <strong>of</strong> up<br />

to one acre should be provided for the<br />

future site <strong>of</strong> the ATCT.<br />

LINE-OF-SIGHT<br />

In order to determine actual tower<br />

elevations for each site, analysis <strong>of</strong> cab<br />

eye elevation must be conducted. Cab<br />

eye elevation is the projected height at<br />

which a controller will view aircraft<br />

activity from the ATCT.


<strong>The</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> cab eye elevation must<br />

factor two considerations: determine the<br />

minimum eye level elevation utilizing<br />

the criteria provided in FAA Order<br />

6480.4 and evaluate any structures<br />

located between the ATCT site and<br />

surface movement areas to determine if<br />

they may obstruct the line-<strong>of</strong>-sight. An<br />

obstructed view is commonly referred to<br />

as a shadow. A tall structure which<br />

casts a shadow or loss <strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong> a<br />

particular surface area would require<br />

the cab eye elevation to be increased in<br />

order to view the surface area in<br />

question.<br />

Consideration should also be given to<br />

alterations or additions to surface<br />

movement areas. This chapter is<br />

considering runway extension<br />

alternatives that could extend Runway<br />

17-35 from between 1,000 feet and<br />

1,370 feet south.<br />

MINIMUM CAB EYE<br />

ELEVATION ANALYSIS<br />

FAA Order 6480.4 provides a method<br />

for determining the minimum cab eye<br />

elevations for proposed ATCT sites.<br />

This calculation was established to<br />

meet the minimum requirements for<br />

visual depth perception. According to<br />

the Order, the line-<strong>of</strong>-sight from the<br />

tower cab eye level must intersect the<br />

grade <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> traffic surface in<br />

question (parking apron, taxiway,<br />

runway, etc.) at an angle <strong>of</strong> 35 minutes<br />

or greater. <strong>The</strong> formula provided in the<br />

Order and utilized in this analysis is as<br />

follows:<br />

4-26<br />

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

whereas:<br />

E e = Eye level elevation (MSL)<br />

E as = Average elevation for<br />

section <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />

surface in question<br />

D = Distance from proposed tower<br />

site to section <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> traffic<br />

surface in question<br />

G s = Angular slope <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />

traffic surface measured<br />

from horizontal and in<br />

direction <strong>of</strong> proposed<br />

tower site<br />

It should be noted that the cab eye<br />

elevation provides the mean sea level<br />

(MSL) or above ground level (AGL)<br />

height at which a controller will be<br />

viewing from. Actual tower heights will<br />

be higher to accommodate the cab ro<strong>of</strong><br />

and necessary antenna equipment. It<br />

can be expected that the actual tower<br />

height will be at least seven feet higher<br />

than the cab eye elevation calculation<br />

indicates.<br />

SITING ANALYSIS<br />

Three sites have been analyzed and are<br />

presented on landside alternatives A, B,<br />

and C. When considering ATCT<br />

locations, it is important to consider all<br />

factors including the cost <strong>of</strong> construction<br />

to both the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> and<br />

TxDOT. TxDOT funds the construction<br />

<strong>of</strong> up to two ATCTs per year, and the


program was recently increased to <strong>of</strong>fer<br />

90 percent matching funds, instead <strong>of</strong><br />

50 percent, for construction costs up to<br />

$1.6 million.<br />

Initial consideration was given to<br />

locating the tower on the east side <strong>of</strong><br />

the airfield because <strong>of</strong> the obstructionfree<br />

environment. Locating on the east<br />

side <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> would require a new<br />

access road to be constructed, a parking<br />

lot, extension <strong>of</strong> all utilities including<br />

electricity, water, sewer, and<br />

communications lines, as well as land<br />

acquisition. It is likely that the cost <strong>of</strong><br />

all these elements would be<br />

substantially more than a westside site.<br />

In addition, having the tower facing<br />

west is considered the least desirable.<br />

For these reasons, an eastside ATCT is<br />

removed from further consideration.<br />

Site A is located immediately south <strong>of</strong><br />

the newly constructed T-hangars, while<br />

site B is located in the public parking<br />

lot immediately south <strong>of</strong> the north end<br />

aircraft tie-down apron. Site C is<br />

situated immediately south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

terminal building.<br />

<strong>The</strong> three alternative sites have been<br />

analyzed and calculations have been<br />

made for line-<strong>of</strong>-sight and cab eye<br />

elevation minimums. Each site was<br />

evaluated for line-<strong>of</strong>-sight to each<br />

runway end, including to the proposed<br />

runway extension ends. During<br />

engineering <strong>of</strong> the ATCT, further<br />

analysis will include compensating<br />

shadows (those surfaces potentially<br />

blocked by hangars). <strong>The</strong> following<br />

paragraphs provide specific analysis for<br />

each site according to siting criteria<br />

established by the FAA.<br />

4-27<br />

SITE A<br />

As previously mentioned, Site A is<br />

located immediately south <strong>of</strong> the newest<br />

and southernmost T-hangars.<br />

According to spot elevation information<br />

for the <strong>airport</strong>, Site A is at<br />

approximately 442.5 feet MSL and is<br />

700 feet from the runway centerline.<br />

Site A is depicted on Exhibit 4H.<br />

Cab Eye Elevation<br />

<strong>The</strong> minimum cab eye elevation for the<br />

most demanding pavement surface is<br />

491 feet MSL or approximately 48.2 feet<br />

AGL.<br />

Mandatory Siting Requirements<br />

Visibility is clear and unobstructed to<br />

both runway ends under all<br />

alternatives. <strong>The</strong> site is nearly at<br />

midfield, which aids visibility. As the<br />

site is currently undeveloped and, thus,<br />

unconstrained for development, there<br />

will be enough room for employee<br />

parking as well as future expansion.<br />

This site will not derogate the signal<br />

generated by any <strong>of</strong> the existing or<br />

planned navigational aids.<br />

As is the case with many ATCTs, a 48foot-tall<br />

tower, 700 feet from the<br />

runway would obstruct the 7:1<br />

transitional surface for precision<br />

approaches. Consultation with the FAA<br />

would be necessary to get approval to<br />

this site.


Nonmandatory Siting<br />

Requirements<br />

Depth perception <strong>of</strong> all surface areas to<br />

be controlled should be adequate. <strong>The</strong><br />

controller’s line-<strong>of</strong>-sight will be<br />

perpendicular or oblique, not parallel, to<br />

the line established by aircraft and/or<br />

ground vehicle movement. <strong>The</strong> cab eye<br />

elevation will intersect all <strong>airport</strong><br />

surfaces.<br />

<strong>The</strong> tower cab will be oriented to face<br />

east which is ideal when considering<br />

east/west facing towers. Visibility is not<br />

expected to be impaired by direct or<br />

indirect external lighting sources.<br />

Visibility to all areas requiring control<br />

is good.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are no known local weather<br />

phenomena that would restrict visibility<br />

for any tower location. Noise levels at<br />

this site may be an issue if it is located<br />

too close to the existing T-hangars. An<br />

appropriate buffer should be considered.<br />

Access to the site will not cross areas <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft operations. No future<br />

construction is planned that would<br />

derogate visibility from this site.<br />

SITE B<br />

As illustrated on Exhibit 4J, Site B is<br />

to the south <strong>of</strong> the north tie-down<br />

apron, where the public parking lot is<br />

currently located. According to spot<br />

elevation information for the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

Site B is at approximately 445.4 feet<br />

MSL and is situated 600 feet from the<br />

runway centerline.<br />

4-28<br />

Cab Eye Elevation<br />

<strong>The</strong> minimum cab eye elevation for<br />

existing conditions is 493 MSL or 48<br />

feet AGL.<br />

Mandatory Siting Requirements<br />

With the site being at the northern<br />

third <strong>of</strong> the airfield, care should be<br />

given to any future southerly<br />

development so as to avoid development<br />

that obstructs tower line-<strong>of</strong>-sight. All<br />

approaches are clearly visible and there<br />

is no navigational aid interference.<br />

<strong>The</strong> tower again will obstruct the F.A.R.<br />

Part 77 transitional surface. This does<br />

not preclude construction at this site; it<br />

means additional review and analysis<br />

will need to be conducted. <strong>The</strong> site is<br />

large enough to accommodate future<br />

building needs and employee parking.<br />

Nonmandatory Siting<br />

Requirements<br />

All nonmandatory requirements are<br />

essentially the same as with Site A.<br />

SITE C<br />

Exhibit 4K shows Site C, which is<br />

located immediately to the south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

terminal building. Spot elevation<br />

information for the <strong>airport</strong> indicates<br />

that Site C is at approximately 444.7<br />

feet MSL.


Cab Eye Elevation<br />

<strong>The</strong> minimum cab eye elevation for<br />

existing conditions is 493 feet MSL or<br />

48 feet AGL.<br />

Mandatory Siting Requirements<br />

Visibility <strong>of</strong> airborne traffic patterns is<br />

good. Visibility is adequate for all<br />

primary <strong>airport</strong> surfaces except for a<br />

small portion <strong>of</strong> Taxiway A immediately<br />

to the east <strong>of</strong> the Moorehead hangar on<br />

the main terminal area hangar.<br />

Consideration will be given to removing<br />

or relocating this hangar.<br />

This site plot provides sufficient area to<br />

accommodate the initial building and<br />

the addition <strong>of</strong> a base building in the<br />

future if required. Also, this area would<br />

readily supply parking areas.<br />

Minimum cab eye elevations for this<br />

site indicate that the tower will likely<br />

penetrate the F.A.R. Part 77<br />

transitional surface, however, should<br />

not be an obstruction to flight. <strong>The</strong><br />

tower should not derogate the<br />

performance <strong>of</strong> any existing or planned<br />

electronic facilities.<br />

Nonmandatory Siting<br />

Requirements<br />

Depth perception <strong>of</strong> all surface areas to<br />

be controlled will be adequate. <strong>The</strong><br />

controller’s line-<strong>of</strong>-sight will be<br />

perpendicular or oblique, not parallel, to<br />

the line established by aircraft and/or<br />

ground vehicle movement.<br />

4-29<br />

<strong>The</strong> tower cab will be oriented to face<br />

east. This orientation will likely pose<br />

visibility problems for viewing aircraft<br />

approaches around sunrise. Visibility<br />

to all areas requiring control is<br />

excellent and would not be impaired or<br />

shadowed. Access to the site, once<br />

constructed, would not require crossing<br />

aircraft operation areas.<br />

SUMMARY<br />

<strong>The</strong> process utilized in assessing the<br />

airside and landside development<br />

alternatives involved a detailed<br />

analysis <strong>of</strong> short and long term<br />

requirements, as well as future growth<br />

potential. Current <strong>airport</strong> design<br />

standards were considered at every<br />

stage in the analysis. Safety, both air<br />

and ground, were given a high priority<br />

in the analysis <strong>of</strong> alternatives.<br />

After review and input from the<br />

<strong>Plan</strong>ning Advisory Committee, <strong>City</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong>ficials, and the public, a recommended<br />

concept will be developed by the<br />

consultant. <strong>The</strong> resultant plan will<br />

represent an airside facility that fulfills<br />

safety design standards, and a landside<br />

complex that can be developed as<br />

demand dictates. <strong>The</strong> development plan<br />

for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport must<br />

represent a means by which the <strong>airport</strong><br />

can evolve in a balanced manner, both<br />

on the airside and landside, to<br />

accommodate the forecast demand. In<br />

addition, the plan must provide<br />

flexibility to meet activity growth<br />

beyond the long range planning horizon.


<strong>The</strong> following chapters will be dedicated<br />

to refining the basic concept into a final<br />

plan with recommendations to ensure<br />

4-30<br />

proper implementation and timing for a<br />

demand-based program.


Chapter Five<br />

AIRPORT PLANS


CHAPTER FIVE<br />

AIRPORT PLANS<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> master planning process has evolved through<br />

several analytical efforts in the previous chapters. <strong>The</strong>se efforts,<br />

intended to analyze future aviation demand, establish airside<br />

and landside needs and evaluate options for the future<br />

development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport and its facilities.<br />

In the previous chapter, several development alternatives were<br />

analyzed to explore different options for the future growth and<br />

development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> development<br />

alternatives have been refined into a single recommended<br />

concept for the master plan after meeting with the <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />

Advisory Committee (PAC), which provided feedback to the<br />

consultant. This chapter describes, in narrative and graphic<br />

form, the recommended direction for the future use and<br />

development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

RECOMMENDED CONCEPT<br />

<strong>The</strong> recommended master plan concept incorporates airside<br />

development elements suggested in Airfield Alternative 1,<br />

presented in Chapter Four - Alternatives. Landside develop-<br />

ment closely follows the improvements suggested in Landside<br />

Alternative C. As a result, the recommended concept provides<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> with the ability to meet the increasing demands on<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> by corporate aircraft, while also providing adequate<br />

space for small, general-aviation aircraft operators.<br />

It is important to note that the finalized concept provides for<br />

anticipated facility needs over the next twenty years, as well as<br />

establishing a vision and direction for meeting facility needs beyond<br />

the planning period. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has experienced significant<br />

5-1 DRAFT


growth over the last several years and<br />

the <strong>City</strong> has responded to this growth<br />

with the construction <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>airport</strong><br />

terminal building, apron area, and<br />

other ancillary facilities. Continued<br />

growth is expected as the DFW<br />

Metroplex expands eastward.<br />

Moreover, the planned extension <strong>of</strong><br />

State Highway 190 will be routed<br />

roughly along Lawson Road to the east.<br />

<strong>The</strong> highway improvement will be a<br />

significant spur for additional<br />

development in the area, including the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> following sections<br />

summarize the airside and landside<br />

development recommendations as<br />

illustrated on Exhibit 5A.<br />

AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS<br />

<strong>The</strong> Federal Aviation Administration<br />

(FAA) and the Texas Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Transportation (TxDOT) - Aviation<br />

Division have established design<br />

criteria to define the physical<br />

dimensions <strong>of</strong> runways and taxiways<br />

and the imaginary surfaces surrounding<br />

them which provide for the safe<br />

operation <strong>of</strong> aircraft at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se design standards also define the<br />

separation criteria for the placement <strong>of</strong><br />

landside facilities.<br />

As discussed previously, FAA and<br />

TxDOT design criteria primarily center<br />

around the <strong>airport</strong>’s critical design<br />

aircraft. <strong>The</strong> critical aircraft is the<br />

most demanding aircraft or family <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft which will conduct 250 or more<br />

operations (take-<strong>of</strong>fs or landings) per<br />

year at the <strong>airport</strong>. Factors included in<br />

<strong>airport</strong> design are an aircraft’s<br />

wingspan, approach speed, and in some<br />

cases, the runway approach visibility<br />

5-2<br />

minimums. <strong>The</strong> FAA has established<br />

the Airport Reference Code (ARC) to<br />

relate these factors to airfield design<br />

standards.<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is presently<br />

used by a wide range <strong>of</strong> general aviation<br />

aircraft. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> these aircraft<br />

include single and multi-engine aircraft<br />

which fall into ARC A-I and B-I<br />

categories. In addition, larger business<br />

turboprop and turbojet aircraft that fall<br />

within approach categories B, C, and D<br />

are using the <strong>airport</strong> more frequently.<br />

<strong>The</strong> largest based aircraft at the <strong>airport</strong><br />

is the Cessna Citation 525, an ARC B-I<br />

aircraft. Analysis conducted in Chapter<br />

Three - Facility Requirements,<br />

concluded that the current critical<br />

aircraft is defined by a wide variety <strong>of</strong><br />

transient aircraft operators at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> analysis indicated that the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> had a minimum <strong>of</strong> 194<br />

operations by aircraft ranging from<br />

ARC C-I to D-III. As noted in the<br />

analysis, this figure is likely much<br />

lower than actual due to reporting<br />

difficulties (e.g., activity must initiate<br />

or complete an instrument flight plan at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport). It is very<br />

likely that the actual number <strong>of</strong><br />

operations by ARC C-I through D-II is<br />

at least 50 percent higher, or 291<br />

operations. Thus, the current critical<br />

aircraft for the <strong>airport</strong> is ARC C/D-II.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> anticipates that<br />

turbojet aircraft use, particularly<br />

business jet aircraft use, would increase<br />

in the future, consistent with national<br />

trends and FAA forecasts. It is<br />

anticipated that the <strong>airport</strong> will be<br />

increasingly utilized by businesses and<br />

fractional-ownership groups who are


04MP22-5A-2/8/06<br />

MALSR<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />

C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Industrial/<br />

Commercial<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />

Corporate<br />

Parcels<br />

ATCT<br />

Site B<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

Fuel Farm<br />

Industrial/<br />

Commercial<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

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

100')<br />

ATCT<br />

Site C<br />

Aviation Related<br />

Parcels<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Ultimate Parking/Roads<br />

Ultimate Building<br />

ATCT<br />

Site A<br />

Corporate<br />

Parcels<br />

ASDA / LDA 7,370'<br />

7,370'<br />

ASDA / LDA 7,000'<br />

7,000'<br />

Corporate Parcels<br />

Drainage Area<br />

Highway 190 Easement<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

Alignment Alignment<br />

190 190 Highway Highway<br />

Proposed Proposed<br />

NORTH<br />

1,370' Runway<br />

Extension<br />

35<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Lead In In Lights<br />

Lights<br />

Localizer Localizer<br />

3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Exhibit 5A<br />

MASTER PLAN CONCEPT


conducting business in the <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

area or surrounding communities. It is<br />

anticipated that much <strong>of</strong> this growth<br />

will be spurred by the eastward<br />

expansion <strong>of</strong> the Dallas-Fort Worth<br />

Metroplex.<br />

In the future, operations by aircraft in<br />

ARC C/D-II will likely increase. For<br />

this reason, the <strong>airport</strong> should, at a<br />

minimum, conform to FAA and TxDOT<br />

standards for this level <strong>of</strong> activity.<br />

Moreover, consideration should be given<br />

to potentially providing for business jets<br />

which fall in airplane design group III.<br />

<strong>The</strong> G-V, Global Express, and Boeing<br />

Business Jet are group III aircraft and<br />

are increasing in the fleet. <strong>The</strong> plan<br />

should allow for this change in the<br />

future. <strong>The</strong> recommended plan has<br />

been formulated to accommodate ARC<br />

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

flexible enough to meet ARC C/D-III<br />

aircraft design in the future if required.<br />

Upgrading the <strong>airport</strong> to ARC C/D-II<br />

design standards will allow the <strong>airport</strong><br />

to accommodate the majority <strong>of</strong><br />

business jets on the market today.<br />

Moreover, meeting these design<br />

requirements will ensure that the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is positioned to remain<br />

competitive for aviation businesses and<br />

those businesses which have aviation<br />

needs. As a result, the <strong>airport</strong> will<br />

serve as a valuable resource for the <strong>City</strong><br />

as it competes for economic<br />

development in the regional<br />

marketplace.<br />

Table 5A summarizes the <strong>airport</strong><br />

design standards to be applied at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport. <strong>The</strong> table<br />

presents two airfield planning<br />

5-3<br />

standards for the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> first<br />

column summarizes FAA and TxDOT<br />

airfield design standards for ARC C/D-<br />

II aircraft under current conditions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> currently meets the<br />

threshold to be required to provide this<br />

level <strong>of</strong> service. <strong>The</strong> middle column<br />

considers the improvements necessary<br />

to accommodate larger business jets<br />

such as a longer runway and improved<br />

approaches to both ends <strong>of</strong> the runway.<br />

<strong>Final</strong>ly, the possibility exists that larger<br />

aircraft such as the Global Express or<br />

G-V could base at the <strong>airport</strong> or use the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> frequently in the future. <strong>The</strong><br />

last column presents the airfield design<br />

criteria for these ARC C/D-III aircraft.<br />

Those standards which differ from the<br />

existing requirements presented in the<br />

first column are highlighted for<br />

comparative purposes.<br />

AIRSIDE RECOMMENDATIONS<br />

<strong>The</strong> recommended airside concept is<br />

presented on Exhibit 5A. Of primary<br />

consideration is providing the runway<br />

system with the means to accommodate<br />

the larger and faster business aircraft<br />

which currently operate at the <strong>airport</strong><br />

and are projected to account for the<br />

critical aircraft in the near future. To<br />

meet these needs, the plan includes a<br />

1,370-foot southerly extension <strong>of</strong><br />

Runway 17-35. This extension will<br />

allow the runway to provide adequate<br />

operational length for nearly all <strong>of</strong> the<br />

business aircraft in the fleet. <strong>The</strong><br />

added length is needed for these aircraft<br />

to accommodate heavy useful loads due<br />

to long trip lengths, especially on hot<br />

days. In addition, the increased length<br />

will better accommodate aircraft during<br />

conditions where the runway is<br />

contaminated (1/10 inch <strong>of</strong> rain water).


As discussed in the previous chapter,<br />

Runway 17-35 is recommended to be<br />

upgraded to meet ARC C/D-II<br />

standards. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> was initially<br />

developed and maintained as an ARC<br />

B-II <strong>airport</strong>. Business jet activity<br />

increases now exceed the critical<br />

TABLE 5A<br />

Airfield <strong>Plan</strong>ning Design Standards (Ultimate)<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

5-4<br />

aircraft threshold. Thus, the <strong>airport</strong><br />

must now conform to ARC C/D-II design<br />

standards. <strong>The</strong> most significant change<br />

will be improving the runway safety<br />

area to meet the increased design<br />

standards.<br />

Existing<br />

ARC C/D-II<br />

Improved<br />

ARC C/D-II<br />

Ultimate<br />

Potential<br />

ARC C/D-III<br />

DESIGN STANDARDS<br />

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

Lowest Visibility Minimum<br />

Runways<br />

3/4 mile ½ mile ½ mile<br />

Length (ft.) 6,000 7,370 7,370<br />

Width (ft.)<br />

Pavement Strength (lbs.)<br />

100 100 100<br />

Single Wheel (SWL)<br />

70,000 70,000<br />

70,000<br />

Dual Wheel (DWL)<br />

100,000 100,000<br />

100,000<br />

Shoulder Width (ft.)<br />

Runway Safety Area<br />

10 10 20<br />

Width (ft.) 500 500 500<br />

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.) 1,000 1,000 1,000<br />

Length Prior to Landing (ft.)<br />

Object Free Area<br />

600 600 600<br />

Width (ft.) 800 800 800<br />

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.)<br />

Obstacle Free Zone<br />

1,000 1,000 1,000<br />

Width (ft.) 400 400 400<br />

Length Beyond Runway End (ft.)<br />

Taxiways<br />

200 200 200<br />

Width (ft.) 35 35 50<br />

OFA (ft.) 131 131 186<br />

To Fixed or Movable Object (ft.)<br />

Runway Centerline to:<br />

66 66 93<br />

Parallel Taxiway Centerline (ft.) 300 400 400<br />

Aircraft Parking Area (ft.)<br />

Building Restriction Line (ft.)<br />

400 500 500<br />

20 ft. Height Clearance 640 640 640<br />

35 ft. Height Clearance 745 745 745<br />

Runway Protection Zones 17 35 17 35 17 35<br />

Inner Width (ft.) 1,000 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000<br />

Outer Width (ft.) 1,510 1,700 1,750 1,510 1,750 1,510<br />

Length (ft.) 1,700 1,010 2,500 1,700 2,500 1,700<br />

F.A.R. Part 77 Approach Surface Slope 34:1 34:1 50:1 34:1 50:1 34:1<br />

Threshold Siting Surface Slope 20:1 20:1 34:1 20:1 34:1 20:1<br />

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


<strong>The</strong> runway safety area (RSA) for ARC<br />

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

stablilized, and suitable to support<br />

aircraft and emergency vehicles. This<br />

area must also be free <strong>of</strong> objects and<br />

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

feet wide (centered on the runway) and<br />

extends 1,000 feet beyond each runway<br />

end. Runway 17-35 does not readily<br />

conform with ARC C/D-II RSA<br />

standards as the area between the<br />

runway and parallel taxiway contain an<br />

open drainage channel.<br />

Scyene Road, north <strong>of</strong> the runway,<br />

traverses the ARC C/D-II RSA as<br />

depicted on Exhibit 5A. <strong>The</strong> location <strong>of</strong><br />

Scyene Road allows only 630 feet <strong>of</strong><br />

usable RSA north <strong>of</strong> the runway which<br />

falls short <strong>of</strong> the 1,000-foot standard. It<br />

should be noted, however, that the FAA<br />

has changed the RSA standards to allow<br />

for RSA on the approach end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway to be only 600 feet. Thus, the<br />

northern end <strong>of</strong> the runway is within<br />

standard for ARC C/D-II for southerly<br />

landing operations. It is still a<br />

requirement for the RSA to be<br />

unobstructed 1,000 feet beyond the<br />

take-<strong>of</strong>f end <strong>of</strong> the runway.<br />

<strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> all the airfield alternatives<br />

presented in the previous chapter was<br />

to provide at least 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong><br />

operational length. Although the<br />

recommended plan provides for 7,370<br />

feet <strong>of</strong> pavement, the operational<br />

lengths available for aircraft use are<br />

370 feet less when landing on or taking<strong>of</strong>f<br />

from the Runway 35 end. This is<br />

due to the location <strong>of</strong> Scyene Road. As<br />

a result, the <strong>airport</strong> would have to<br />

implement declared distances for take<strong>of</strong>fs<br />

and landings in a northerly<br />

direction.<br />

5-5<br />

<strong>The</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> declared<br />

distances was discussed in detail in<br />

Airside Alternative 1 in Chapter Four.<br />

Declared distances are the effective<br />

runway distances that the <strong>airport</strong><br />

operator declares available for take-<strong>of</strong>f<br />

run, take-<strong>of</strong>f distance, accelerate-stop<br />

distance, and landing distance<br />

requirements. <strong>The</strong>se are defined by the<br />

FAA as:<br />

C Take-<strong>of</strong>f run available (TORA) -<br />

<strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong> the runway declared<br />

available and suitable to accelerate<br />

from brake release to lift-<strong>of</strong>f, plus<br />

safety factors.<br />

C Take-<strong>of</strong>f distance available<br />

(TODA) - <strong>The</strong> TORA plus the length<br />

<strong>of</strong> any remaining runway or<br />

clearway beyond the far end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

TORA available to accelerate from<br />

brake release past lift-<strong>of</strong>f to start <strong>of</strong><br />

take-<strong>of</strong>f climb, plus safety factors.<br />

C Accelerate-stop distance<br />

available (ASDA) - <strong>The</strong> length <strong>of</strong><br />

the runway plus stopway declared<br />

available and suitable to accelerate<br />

from brake release to take-<strong>of</strong>f<br />

decision speed, and then decelerate<br />

to a stop, plus safety factors.<br />

C Landing distance available<br />

(LDA) - <strong>The</strong> distance from threshold<br />

to complete the approach,<br />

touchdown, and decelerate to a stop,<br />

plus safety factors.<br />

<strong>The</strong> ASDA and LDA are, in most<br />

situations, the overriding considerations<br />

in determining the runway length<br />

available for use by aircraft because the<br />

RSA must be considered. <strong>The</strong> ASDA<br />

and LDA can be figured as the useable


portions <strong>of</strong> the runway minus the area<br />

required to maintain adequate RSA.<br />

Adequate RSA is required beyond the<br />

take-<strong>of</strong>f end only for ASDA calculations.<br />

For LDA calculations, however,<br />

adequate RSA must be provided beyond<br />

both runway ends. As discussed, the<br />

RSA for the approach end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

need be only 600 feet before the runway<br />

threshold, while the full 1,000 feet is<br />

necessary on the far end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

for C and D aircraft.<br />

With the recommended concept<br />

presented on Exhibit 5A, take-<strong>of</strong>f and<br />

landing operations on Runway 17 will<br />

have the full 7,370 feet available, while<br />

take-<strong>of</strong>f and landing operations for<br />

Runway 35 will have 7,000 feet<br />

available. <strong>The</strong> calculations consider the<br />

loss <strong>of</strong> 370 feet <strong>of</strong> runway for northerly<br />

take-<strong>of</strong>fs and landings due to the<br />

inadequate RSA beyond the Runway 17<br />

end.<br />

Declared distances require some minor<br />

changes to the airfield. <strong>The</strong> runway<br />

caution lights leading to the Runway 17<br />

threshold would need to have their<br />

colors changed to indicate the end <strong>of</strong><br />

useful pavement 370 feet prior to the<br />

actual threshold. In addition, published<br />

runway length would need to indicate<br />

the declared distances. Using declared<br />

distances does not require modification<br />

to the current runway marking scheme.<br />

It should be noted that while the FAA<br />

standards allow for a shortened 600-foot<br />

RSA, the same allowance is not made<br />

for the object free area (OFA). FAA<br />

standards still require a cleared area<br />

800 feet wide extending 1,000 feet<br />

beyond the runway ends. While this<br />

standard remains, its purpose is to<br />

ensure that aircraft which need to<br />

traverse the RSA do not encounter<br />

5-6<br />

obstacles or hazards to its wings. Since<br />

only 600 feet <strong>of</strong> RSA is proposed, the<br />

remaining OFA may not be necessary.<br />

For this reason, a modification to FAA<br />

design standards will be sought from<br />

the FAA. If approved, no further<br />

changes to the proposed development<br />

concept will be necessary.<br />

If a modification <strong>of</strong> standard to the OFA<br />

is not granted by the FAA, the runway<br />

would need to be shortened by 370 feet<br />

for landing operations to Runway 17.<br />

This action would defeat the purpose <strong>of</strong><br />

allowing a 600-foot RSA prior to<br />

landing. Operations using Runway 35<br />

would not be affected as declared<br />

distances would already be in effect.<br />

TxDOT will require specific justification<br />

for the extension, such as an existing<br />

operator at the <strong>airport</strong> whose aircraft<br />

requires the longer runway, before<br />

funding is provided. <strong>The</strong> planned length<br />

will ensure that the <strong>airport</strong> will be<br />

capable <strong>of</strong> accommodating all projected<br />

aircraft activity. During hot weather<br />

conditions, some aircraft may need to be<br />

capable <strong>of</strong> taking <strong>of</strong>f with a full payload;<br />

however, the proposed runway length<br />

should not be a limiting factor in any<br />

business aircraft (up to ARC D-II)<br />

owner’s decision to base or operate at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

<strong>The</strong> design <strong>of</strong> taxiway and apron areas<br />

must also consider the critical aircraft<br />

identified for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

<strong>The</strong> primary consideration is given to<br />

the wingspan <strong>of</strong> the most demanding<br />

aircraft to operate at the <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong><br />

parallel and connecting taxiways,<br />

transient apron areas, and aircraft<br />

maintenance areas have all been<br />

designed to accommodate aircraft<br />

within ADG II, wherever appropriate.<br />

This standard requires taxiways to be


at least 35 feet wide for aircraft in ARC<br />

C/D-II. Current and future planned<br />

taxiways meet this standard.<br />

<strong>The</strong> existing parallel taxiway is located<br />

300 feet west <strong>of</strong> the runway (centerline<br />

to centerline). This separation is<br />

adequate under current conditions.<br />

Runway 17 provides the <strong>airport</strong>’s lowest<br />

instrument approach visibility<br />

minimums at three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile.<br />

<strong>The</strong> recommended plan considers<br />

upgrading the approach capability <strong>of</strong><br />

Runway 17 to provide a one-half mile<br />

visibility minimum approach. To do<br />

this, the FAA requires the parallel<br />

taxiway to be located at a separation <strong>of</strong><br />

400 feet from the runway. Moreover, as<br />

previously discussed, aircraft in<br />

airplane design group III aircraft may<br />

begin to frequent or base at the <strong>airport</strong><br />

in the future. <strong>The</strong> runway/taxiway<br />

separation standard for ARC C/D-III<br />

aircraft is also 400 feet. For these<br />

reasons, the plan considers ultimately<br />

relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet<br />

to the west.<br />

Relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet<br />

west could pose development issues in<br />

the future. Similar to runway design,<br />

taxiway design must include a cleared<br />

OFA. <strong>The</strong> taxiway OFA is designed<br />

such that the wings <strong>of</strong> an aircraft<br />

traversing the taxiway will not<br />

encounter obstructions along the route.<br />

If the <strong>airport</strong> is to remain at an ARC<br />

C/D-II design standard, the taxiway<br />

OFA is 131 feet. If the <strong>airport</strong><br />

transitions to ARC C/D-III, however,<br />

the taxiway OFA expands to be 186 feet<br />

wide. Exhibit 5B depicts the taxiway<br />

OFA for both scenarios. As illustrated,<br />

the ARC C/D-II taxiway OFA does not<br />

impact any existing structures or<br />

parking areas. For ARC C/D-III,<br />

5-7<br />

however, the taxiway OFA penetrates<br />

several hangars and aircraft parking on<br />

the main terminal ramp. In order to<br />

accommodate these aircraft and this<br />

level <strong>of</strong> design, the obstructions would<br />

need to be removed/relocated and the<br />

aircraft parking areas abandoned.<br />

Analysis in previous chapters indicated<br />

that plans should be made to upgrade<br />

the instrument approach capabilities <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. Currently, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport is served by three instrument<br />

approach procedures. <strong>The</strong> lowest<br />

approved visibility minimum is<br />

provided by the Instrument Landing<br />

System (ILS) Runway 17 approach.<br />

This approach procedure allows<br />

properly trained pilots and equipped<br />

aircraft up to approach category C to<br />

land on Runway 17 with visibility not<br />

lower than three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a mile and<br />

250-foot cloud ceilings. It is<br />

recommended that this approach be<br />

improved to visibility down to one-half<br />

mile. In order to achieve this minimum,<br />

two improvements are needed. First,<br />

the current lead-in-light system would<br />

need to be replaced by a medium<br />

intensity approach light system with<br />

runway alignment lights (MALSR).<br />

Second, the parallel taxiway would need<br />

to be relocated 100 feet to the west as<br />

discussed above.<br />

Future plans also call for improving the<br />

visibility minimum to Runway 35. <strong>The</strong><br />

plan considers a not lower than threequarters<br />

<strong>of</strong> a mile visibility approach<br />

similar to the existing approach to<br />

Runway 17. Runway 35 is already<br />

served by a lead-in-light system; thus,<br />

no new equipment would need to be<br />

installed. <strong>The</strong> approach can be<br />

provided by global positioning system<br />

(GPS) technology.


<strong>The</strong> recommended concept includes the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> a temporary east side<br />

parallel taxiway measuring 5,000 feet<br />

by 75 feet. This temporary taxiway is<br />

considered for construction at a time<br />

when the primary runway is closed for<br />

a significant period <strong>of</strong> time for<br />

reconstruction. <strong>The</strong> only purpose <strong>of</strong> the<br />

taxiway is to serve as a temporary<br />

runway to insure the <strong>airport</strong> remains<br />

open and can support a large<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> the forecast operations.<br />

Once the runway reconstruction project<br />

is completed, this taxiway can either be<br />

closed or further developed to support<br />

eastside facility development. Any<br />

future plans for the temporary parallel<br />

taxiway should be considered at the<br />

time <strong>of</strong> design.<br />

LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT<br />

All existing landside facilities at<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport are located on<br />

the west side <strong>of</strong> the runway. Taxiway A<br />

connects the main terminal apron,<br />

adjacent the terminal building, to either<br />

end <strong>of</strong> the runway. Hangar<br />

development is located along the west<br />

side <strong>of</strong> the runway with the terminal<br />

building located approximately<br />

midfield. Conventional, executive, and<br />

T-hangar storage is provided at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>, although the <strong>airport</strong> maintains<br />

a waiting list for additional space.<br />

<strong>The</strong> primary goal <strong>of</strong> landside facility<br />

planning is to provide adequate aircraft<br />

storage space while also maximizing<br />

operational efficiencies and land uses.<br />

Achieving this goal yields a<br />

development scheme which segregates<br />

aircraft users (large vs. small aircraft)<br />

while maximizing the <strong>airport</strong>’s revenue<br />

potential.<br />

5-8<br />

Exhibit 5A depicts the recommended<br />

landside development plan for the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> plan closely resembles<br />

Landside Alternative C, presented in<br />

Chapter Four - Facility Requirements.<br />

It represents the opportunity for<br />

significant landside growth which will<br />

require further land acquisition to<br />

implement. In total, approximately 148<br />

acres <strong>of</strong> land would need to be acquired<br />

by the <strong>airport</strong> to implement this<br />

alternative.<br />

While the plan is somewhat aggressive,<br />

it will ensure that the <strong>airport</strong> will have<br />

ample room to expand as aviation<br />

demand dictates. Moreover, as opposed<br />

to the two other alternatives, the plan<br />

should be capable <strong>of</strong> meeting the long<br />

term aviation demand. Landside<br />

Alternatives A and B could constrict<br />

future growth, forcing the need to<br />

acquire and develop the area east <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> at some point in the future. <strong>The</strong><br />

recommended concept will more than<br />

adequately accommodate all projected<br />

aviation demands on the west side <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> proposed development in the<br />

northern portion <strong>of</strong> the terminal area<br />

mirrors that proposed and accepted in<br />

the previous master plan. <strong>The</strong> only<br />

significant difference is the proposed<br />

conventional hangar development. As<br />

proposed, the concept includes the<br />

allowance <strong>of</strong> two large conventional<br />

hangars directly behind and west <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> Public Safety (DPS)<br />

hangar.<br />

In order to provide greater depth <strong>of</strong><br />

development in the terminal area, the<br />

plan includes the acquisition <strong>of</strong> 88 acres<br />

<strong>of</strong> land immediately west <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong><br />

and development <strong>of</strong> an improved on-


04MP22-5B-12/7/05<br />

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />

Corporate<br />

Parcels Parcels<br />

LEGEND<br />

ATCT<br />

Site B<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Ultimate Parking/Roads)<br />

Group III Taxiway OFA Group II Taxiway OFA<br />

Fuel Farm<br />

Industrial/<br />

Commercial<br />

Commercial<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

ATCT<br />

Site C<br />

Aviation Related<br />

Parcels<br />

Parcels<br />

Ultimate Building<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Corporate Parcels<br />

Drainage Area<br />

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

100')<br />

ATCT<br />

Site A<br />

Corporate<br />

Parcels<br />

NORTH<br />

0 400 800<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Exhibit 5B<br />

PARALLEL TAXIWAY RELOCATION


<strong>airport</strong> roadway system. <strong>The</strong> northern<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> this area could be utilized for<br />

corporate flight departments or aviation<br />

businesses. As depicted, the plan<br />

includes the extension <strong>of</strong> a taxiway west<br />

from the DPS hangar to serve this area.<br />

Moving south, the plan considers the<br />

potential for additional corporate parcel<br />

development and the allowance for<br />

commercial or industrial development.<br />

This could include retail centers such as<br />

a restaurant or museum. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the<br />

plan considers allowing the<br />

southernmost existing T-hangar area to<br />

be expanded to the west. A total <strong>of</strong> 12<br />

T-hangar facilities could be<br />

accommodated in this area.<br />

<strong>The</strong> southern terminal area has been<br />

significantly modified from the previous<br />

master plan. This concept proposes the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> large conventional<br />

hangars immediately south <strong>of</strong> the<br />

southernmost existing T-hangars. <strong>The</strong><br />

plan would allow for the development <strong>of</strong><br />

five large conventional hangars and an<br />

adjoining aircraft parking apron. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

facilities could house fixed base<br />

operators or large bulk aircraft storage<br />

hangars. Further south, the proposed<br />

development concept includes corporate<br />

hangar development in a “pod” type<br />

layout. In order to develop in this area,<br />

however, significant drainage<br />

improvements would be necessary as<br />

the area is traversed by a creek. No<br />

buildings could be located on the rerouted<br />

drainage channel, but pavement<br />

could be placed over the drainage route.<br />

<strong>Final</strong>ly, the southernmost portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is planned for five T-hangars.<br />

<strong>The</strong> terminal building was also<br />

examined to determine if it would meet<br />

the needs <strong>of</strong> general aviation passenger<br />

traffic over the 20-year planning period.<br />

<strong>The</strong> current building should be<br />

5-9<br />

sufficient through the long term<br />

planning period to meet the needs <strong>of</strong><br />

general aviation users.<br />

Analysis in Chapters Three and Four<br />

indicated the need to construct an<br />

<strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT) at<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. After careful consideration,<br />

three sites were proposed. At this time,<br />

it appears that the site located in the<br />

parking lot <strong>of</strong> the previous terminal<br />

building would be the best choice. At<br />

this time, the plan will allow for further<br />

study and includes all three sites with<br />

the selected site to be determined later.<br />

<strong>The</strong> ultimate landside plan exceeds the<br />

needs and goal <strong>of</strong> this planning effort.<br />

Consideration <strong>of</strong> facility development<br />

beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> this planning effort<br />

will, however, provide the <strong>City</strong> with a<br />

vision which will yield a first-class<br />

aviation facility capable <strong>of</strong> maintaining<br />

revenues which exceed operational<br />

costs. It should be noted that the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> all facilities should<br />

consider aesthetics as a high priority.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is <strong>of</strong>ten the first and last<br />

impression a corporate decision-maker<br />

has <strong>of</strong> the community. Consideration<br />

should always be given to the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> facilities which meet<br />

aviation demand while presenting a<br />

positive image to all users.<br />

AIRPORT LAYOUT<br />

PLAN SET<br />

Per FAA and TxDOT requirements, an<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficial Airport Layout <strong>Plan</strong> (ALP) has<br />

been developed for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport and can be found at the end <strong>of</strong><br />

this chapter. <strong>The</strong> ALP drawing<br />

graphically presents the existing and<br />

ultimate <strong>airport</strong> layout plan. <strong>The</strong> ALP


is used by the FAA and TxDOT to<br />

determine funding eligibility for future<br />

development projects.<br />

<strong>The</strong> ALP was prepared on a computeraided<br />

drafting (CAD) system for future<br />

ease <strong>of</strong> use. <strong>The</strong> computerized plan<br />

provides detailed information <strong>of</strong><br />

existing and future facility layout on<br />

multiple layers that permit the user to<br />

focus in on any section <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> at<br />

a desirable scale. <strong>The</strong> plan can be used<br />

as base information for design and can<br />

be easily updated in the future to reflect<br />

new development and more detail<br />

concerning existing conditions as made<br />

available through design surveys.<br />

A number <strong>of</strong> related drawings, which<br />

depict the ultimate airspace and<br />

landside development, will be included<br />

with the ALP once the draft master<br />

plan concept detailed in this chapter is<br />

finalized. <strong>The</strong> following provides a brief<br />

discussion <strong>of</strong> the additional drawings to<br />

be included with the ALP.<br />

INNER PORTION OF THE<br />

APPROACH SURFACE PLAN<br />

<strong>The</strong> Inner Portion <strong>of</strong> the Approach<br />

Surface <strong>Plan</strong> is a scaled drawing <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway protection zone (RPZ), RSA,<br />

object free zone (OFZ), and OFA for<br />

each runway end. A plan and pr<strong>of</strong>ile<br />

view <strong>of</strong> each RPZ is provided to<br />

facilitate identification <strong>of</strong> obstructions<br />

that lie within these safety areas.<br />

Detailed obstruction and facility data is<br />

provided to identify planned<br />

improvements and the disposition <strong>of</strong><br />

obstructions.<br />

5-10<br />

PROPERTY MAP<br />

<strong>The</strong> Property Map provides information<br />

on the acquisition and identification <strong>of</strong><br />

all land tracts under control <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>.<br />

OBSTRUCTION SURVEY<br />

DRAWING<br />

<strong>The</strong> Obstruction Survey Drawing (OSD)<br />

is a new requirement as a part <strong>of</strong> the<br />

ALP drawing set. It is a visual<br />

representation <strong>of</strong> the topography and<br />

obstructions within the runway end<br />

environment. <strong>The</strong> OSD is developed for<br />

any runway currently served or planned<br />

to be served by an instrument approach<br />

procedure.<br />

<strong>The</strong> OSD includes the evaluation <strong>of</strong><br />

three critical surfaces: the obstruction<br />

identification surface (OIS), the primary<br />

surface, and threshold siting surface<br />

(TSS). Any penetrations to the ultimate<br />

planned surfaces are presented on this<br />

drawing.<br />

Runway 17 is planned for a precision<br />

approach with not lower than one-half<br />

mile visibility minimums. <strong>The</strong>re are no<br />

reported obstructions for this approach.<br />

Runway 35 is planned for non-precision<br />

type approaches with not lower than<br />

three-quarters-mile visibility minimums.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are no future obstructions<br />

for the Runway 17 end.<br />

SUMMARY<br />

<strong>The</strong> recommended master plan concept<br />

has been developed in conjunction with


the PAC, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong>, and the<br />

local citizens, and is designed to assist<br />

the <strong>City</strong> in making decisions on future<br />

development and growth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport. This plan provides the<br />

necessary development to accommodate<br />

and satisfy the anticipated growth over<br />

the next twenty years and beyond.<br />

Flexibility will be very important to<br />

future development at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Activity projected over the next twenty<br />

years may not occur as predicted. <strong>The</strong><br />

5-11<br />

plan has attempted to consider<br />

demands that may be placed on the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> even beyond the twenty-year<br />

planning horizon to ensure that the<br />

facility will be capable <strong>of</strong> handling a<br />

wide range <strong>of</strong> circumstances. <strong>The</strong><br />

recommended plan provides the <strong>City</strong><br />

with a general guide that if followed can<br />

maintain the <strong>airport</strong>’s long term<br />

viability and allow the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />

continue to provide air transportation<br />

service to the region.


Chapter Six<br />

FINANCIAL PLAN


CHAPTER SIX<br />

Financial plan<br />

Information in the previous chapters outlined the <strong>airport</strong>'s<br />

facility needs to meet projected aviation demand for the next 20<br />

years. Alternatives were evaluated which considered long term<br />

layouts to meet the projected facility needs. It is important to<br />

note that these needs were tied to planning milestones which<br />

could occur as projected, however, it is likely that the demand<br />

will fluctuate. Based on the growing nature <strong>of</strong> the Dallas/Fort<br />

Worth Metroplex, aviation demand will likely follow similar<br />

growth. Next, an important element <strong>of</strong> the master planning<br />

process is the application <strong>of</strong> basic economic, financial, and<br />

management rationale to each development item so that the<br />

feasibility <strong>of</strong> each item contained in the plan can be assured.<br />

<strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this chapter is to provide financial management<br />

information and tools which will help make the master plan<br />

achievable and successful. This analysis will provide<br />

decision-makers with the tools to effectively utilize an<br />

invaluable <strong>City</strong> asset.<br />

<strong>The</strong> presentation <strong>of</strong> the financial plan and its feasibility has<br />

been organized into three sections. First, the <strong>airport</strong> develop-<br />

ment schedule, based on the projected capital improvement<br />

program (CIP), is presented in narrative and graphic form.<br />

Secondly, capital improvement funding sources on the federal,<br />

state, and local levels are identified and discussed. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the<br />

chapter presents a cash flow analysis which analyzes the<br />

financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> the recommended CIP.<br />

6-1 DRAFT


AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT<br />

SCHEDULES AND<br />

COST SUMMARIES<br />

<strong>The</strong> next step is to determine a realistic<br />

capital improvement schedule and<br />

associated costs for implementing the<br />

plan. This section will identify these<br />

TABLE 6A<br />

<strong>Plan</strong>ning Horizon Milestone Summary<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Current Short Term<br />

6-2<br />

projects and the overall cost <strong>of</strong> each<br />

item in the development plan. <strong>The</strong><br />

recommended improvements are<br />

grouped by the planning horizons:<br />

short term, intermediate term, and long<br />

term. Table 6A summarizes the key<br />

milestones for each <strong>of</strong> the three<br />

planning horizons.<br />

Intermediate<br />

Term Long Term<br />

ANNUAL OPERATIONS<br />

Total Itinerant 40,225 51,400 56,600 67,500<br />

Total Local 60,000 76,500 84,000 99,000<br />

Total Operations 100,225 127,900 140,600 166,500<br />

BASED AIRCRAFT<br />

Single Engine 182 205 223 256<br />

Multi-Engine 38 38 36 35<br />

Turboprop 0 4 8 15<br />

Jet 1 5 10 20<br />

Helicopters 2 3 3 4<br />

Total Based Aircraft 223 255 280 330<br />

Total AIAs 101 1,028 1,132 1,350<br />

A key aspect <strong>of</strong> this planning document<br />

is the use <strong>of</strong> demand-based planning<br />

milestones. <strong>The</strong> short term planning<br />

horizon contains items <strong>of</strong> highest<br />

priority. <strong>The</strong>se items should be<br />

considered for development based on<br />

actual demand levels within the next<br />

five years. As short term horizon<br />

activity levels are reached, it will then<br />

be time to program for the intermediate<br />

term based upon the next activity<br />

milestones. Similarly, when the<br />

intermediate term milestones are<br />

reached, it will be time to program for<br />

the long term activity milestones.<br />

Most development items included in the<br />

recommended concept will need to<br />

follow demand indicators. For example,<br />

the plan includes construction <strong>of</strong> new<br />

hangar aprons, taxilanes, and Thangars.<br />

Based aircraft will be the<br />

indicator for additional hangar needs.<br />

If based aircraft growth occurs as<br />

projected, additional hangars will need<br />

to be constructed to meet the demand.<br />

If growth slows or does not occur as<br />

projected, hangar pavement projects can<br />

be delayed. As a result, capital<br />

expenditures will be undertaken as<br />

needed, which leads to a responsible use<br />

<strong>of</strong> capital assets. Some development<br />

items do not correspond specifically to<br />

actual demand levels, such as<br />

maintenance. Maintenance projects are<br />

typically associated with day-to-day


operations or aging factors and should<br />

be monitored and identified by <strong>airport</strong><br />

management.<br />

As a master plan is a conceptual<br />

document, implementation <strong>of</strong> these<br />

capital projects should only be<br />

undertaken after further refinement <strong>of</strong><br />

their design and costs through<br />

architectural and engineering analyses.<br />

Moreover, projects could require<br />

wastewater and drainage improvements.<br />

<strong>The</strong> financial plan addresses<br />

this concern, but any future<br />

development should include analysis <strong>of</strong><br />

the capacity <strong>of</strong> the infrastructure to<br />

support the growth.<br />

<strong>The</strong> cost estimates presented in this<br />

chapter have been increased to allow for<br />

contingencies that may arise on the<br />

project. Capital costs presented here<br />

should be viewed only as estimates<br />

subject to further refinement during<br />

design. Nevertheless, these estimates<br />

are considered sufficiently accurate for<br />

planning purposes. Cost estimates for<br />

each <strong>of</strong> the development projects listed<br />

in the capital improvement plan are<br />

listed in current (2005) dollars.<br />

Exhibit 6A presents the proposed<br />

capital improvement program for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport.<br />

SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS<br />

In general, Texas participates in the<br />

State Block Grant Program (SBGP)<br />

and, as such, is the responsible entity<br />

for the distribution <strong>of</strong> federal and state<br />

grant funding for the <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport. Due to the large number <strong>of</strong><br />

requests from <strong>airport</strong>s across the state<br />

6-3<br />

and the limited funding available,<br />

TxDOT will generally provide an<br />

<strong>airport</strong> with intermittent funding<br />

assistance. More to the point, TxDOT<br />

may provide funding for a project in the<br />

current fiscal year, but may not provide<br />

additional assistance for several years<br />

thereafter. This is especially true for<br />

large capital improvement projects.<br />

Smaller projects or maintenance needs<br />

can be met annually, depending upon<br />

the need and funding availability. For<br />

these reasons, development projects in<br />

each planning horizon <strong>of</strong> the CIP have<br />

been scheduled as a group. Thus, the<br />

CIP is not annualized, but the projects<br />

are listed in order <strong>of</strong> projected priority<br />

needs.<br />

<strong>The</strong> CIP presented in this document<br />

will be assimilated into TxDOT’s CIP.<br />

If funding assistance is not available<br />

from TxDOT, the <strong>City</strong> will need to<br />

request discretionary funding<br />

assistance from the FAA. Discretionary<br />

funding is more difficult to receive, as<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport must not only<br />

compete with other state <strong>airport</strong>s, but<br />

also with other <strong>airport</strong>s across the<br />

country.<br />

<strong>The</strong> short term planning horizon CIP<br />

considers 15 projects for the roughly<br />

five-year period and is presented on<br />

Exhibit 6A and illustrated on Exhibit<br />

6B. <strong>The</strong> first four projects listed on the<br />

exhibit have already been budgeted for<br />

fiscal year 2005/06. <strong>The</strong>se projects<br />

include the <strong>City</strong>’s acquisition <strong>of</strong> an 18unit<br />

T-hangar and associated <strong>of</strong>fice<br />

space, construction <strong>of</strong> two, nine-unit Thangars,<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> a new <strong>airport</strong><br />

entrance sign, and development <strong>of</strong> a<br />

fuel containment system for mobile


fueling. <strong>The</strong> fuel containment system<br />

for fuel trucks is a recent environmental<br />

requirement.<br />

<strong>The</strong> first project considered beyond next<br />

year’s budgeted items is the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> traffic control<br />

tower (ATCT). TxDOT has an ATCT<br />

program which provides 90 percent<br />

grant funding assistance up to $1.67<br />

million which includes the structure<br />

and equipment. Prior to the<br />

development, an ATCT siting study<br />

should be completed. <strong>The</strong> study will<br />

further define the ATCT location and<br />

costs.<br />

In addition, prior to design <strong>of</strong> an ATCT,<br />

the FAA will conduct a Benefit Cost<br />

Analysis (BCA) in order to justify a<br />

tower. A tower will only be approved if<br />

the result <strong>of</strong> the BCA is greater than<br />

one (1). If the BCA is above one, then<br />

the FAA will also pay the salaries <strong>of</strong> the<br />

controllers under the contract tower<br />

program. <strong>The</strong> FAA will continue to pay<br />

for salaries, provided the BCA remains<br />

greater than one when averaged over a<br />

15-year period. Should the BCA fall<br />

below one, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> would<br />

need to share a portion <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong><br />

maintaining the tower, if the tower is to<br />

remain open.<br />

Next, the plan includes improving the<br />

existing runway safety area (RSA) to<br />

meet FAA standards. Previous analysis<br />

identified the <strong>airport</strong>’s critical aircraft<br />

as an <strong>airport</strong> reference code (ARC) C-II.<br />

<strong>The</strong> current RSA meets ARC B-II<br />

standards. Currently, surface water<br />

run-<strong>of</strong>f is channeled along an open<br />

drainage route in the ARC C-II RSA,<br />

6-4<br />

primarily between the runway and<br />

parallel taxiway. This project considers<br />

modifying/improving the drainage and<br />

stabilizing the RSA to meet the<br />

standard.<br />

Two landside improvements are<br />

considered in the short term. First, the<br />

plan considers the construction <strong>of</strong> a<br />

large apron in the northeastern portion<br />

<strong>of</strong> the terminal area. <strong>The</strong> apron could<br />

serve two large conventional hangars<br />

which would house an <strong>airport</strong> business,<br />

large aircraft storage, or bulk aircraft<br />

storage. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> has been<br />

approached on numerous occasions<br />

recently for this type <strong>of</strong> development.<br />

This project would also require the<br />

strengthening and widening <strong>of</strong> an<br />

access taxiway to the new apron.<br />

<strong>The</strong> second landside project considers<br />

acquiring land to the south for<br />

additional landside development. <strong>The</strong><br />

50-acre parcel would <strong>of</strong>fer significant<br />

development opportunities for the<br />

future while also protecting the <strong>airport</strong><br />

from additional incompatible land uses.<br />

It is always beneficial and suggested<br />

that the <strong>airport</strong> own land along the<br />

extended flightline.<br />

<strong>The</strong> last projects to be considered in the<br />

short term planning period are<br />

associated with the potential extension<br />

<strong>of</strong> the runway. Prior to any significant<br />

construction on an <strong>airport</strong>, an<br />

environmental assessment (EA) is<br />

required. If there are no significant<br />

environmental discoveries, then the<br />

process can proceed to design and<br />

engineering <strong>of</strong> the runway extension.


04MP22-6A-3/22/06<br />

SHORT TERM PROGRAM (0-5 YEARS)<br />

1 Purchase 18 Unit T-Hangar with <strong>of</strong>fice space<br />

2 Contsruct (2) T-Hangar Buildings (18 units)<br />

3 Fuel Containment for Mobile Refuellers<br />

4 Airport Entrance Sign<br />

5 Construct Airport Traffic Control Tower<br />

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

7 Contstruct Apron for Hangar Development (9,450 sq yds)<br />

8 Acquire 50 Acres <strong>of</strong> Land for Landside Development<br />

9 Install Medium IntensityTaxiway Lights<br />

10 Upgrade Runway Lights<br />

11 Environmental assessment for runway extension<br />

12 Acquire Land For Runway Extension<br />

13 Relocate Localizer and Lead-In Lights<br />

14 Extend Runway and Parallel Taxiway 1,370' South<br />

15 Miscellaneous RAMP Projects<br />

SHORT TERM PROGRAM (0-5 YEARS)<br />

INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM (6-10 YEARS)<br />

1 Expand Terminal Apron South - Phase I<br />

2 Construct Taxiway/Taxilanes for T-Hangar Construction<br />

3 Construct 20 T-Hangar Units<br />

4 Rehabilitate Landside Pavements<br />

5 Miscellaneous RAMP Projects<br />

INTERMEDIATE TERM PROGRAM (6-10 YEARS)<br />

LONG TERM PROGRAM (11-20 YEARS)<br />

1 Relocate Parallel Taxiway to 400 ' from Runway<br />

2 Upgrade Runway 17 Approach (MALSR, Land Purchase)<br />

3 Expand Terminal Apron South - Phase II<br />

4 Extend Airport Road South & Construct Parking Lots<br />

5 Improved Drainage for South Landside Development<br />

6 Extend Utilities for South Landside Development<br />

7 Construct Apron for Corporate Hangar Development<br />

8 Construct Taxiwlanes for T-Hangar Development<br />

9 Construct 20 T-hangar Units<br />

10 Construct Temporary Eastside Parallel Taxiway*<br />

11 Reconstruct Runway 17-35 (Existing 6,000')<br />

12 Acquire 98 Acres <strong>of</strong> Land West <strong>of</strong> Airport Road<br />

13 Miscellaneous RAMP Projects<br />

LONG TERM PROGRAM (10-20 YEARS)<br />

TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS<br />

* FAA discressionary funds<br />

Project Cost<br />

$430,000<br />

800,000<br />

100,000<br />

30,000<br />

1,666,667<br />

600,000<br />

921,400<br />

1,437,500<br />

150,000<br />

150,000<br />

200,000<br />

414,000<br />

750,000<br />

3,388,000<br />

300,000<br />

$11,337,567<br />

$2,166,700<br />

1,083,300<br />

600,000<br />

780,000<br />

300,000<br />

$4,930,000<br />

$3,855,000<br />

1,190,000<br />

3,791,700<br />

780,000<br />

1,140,000<br />

500,000<br />

1,516,700<br />

1,200,000<br />

900,000<br />

4,062,500<br />

7,000,000<br />

1,656,000<br />

600,000<br />

$28,191,900<br />

$44,459,467<br />

TxDOT Share<br />

$0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

0<br />

1,500,000<br />

540,000<br />

829,260<br />

1,293,750<br />

135,000<br />

135,000<br />

180,000<br />

372,600<br />

675,000<br />

3,049,200<br />

150,000<br />

$8,859,810<br />

$1,950,030<br />

974,970<br />

0<br />

702,000<br />

150,000<br />

$3,777,000<br />

$3,469,500$<br />

1,071,000<br />

3,412,530<br />

390,000<br />

0<br />

0<br />

1,365,030<br />

1,080,000<br />

0<br />

3,656,250<br />

6,300,000<br />

1,490,400<br />

300,000<br />

$22,534,710<br />

$35,171,520<br />

Local Share<br />

$430,000<br />

800,000<br />

100,000<br />

30,000<br />

166,667<br />

60,000<br />

92,140<br />

143,750<br />

15,000<br />

15,000<br />

20,000<br />

41,400<br />

75,000<br />

338,000<br />

150,000<br />

$2,476,957<br />

216,670<br />

108,330<br />

600,000<br />

78,000<br />

150,000<br />

$1,153,000<br />

385,500<br />

119,000<br />

379,170<br />

390,000<br />

1,140,000<br />

500,000<br />

151,670<br />

120,000<br />

900,000<br />

406,250<br />

700,000<br />

165,600<br />

300,000<br />

$5,657,190<br />

$9,287,147<br />

Exhibit 6A<br />

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM


04MP22-5A-3/21/06<br />

2<br />

1/2 Mile Visibility<br />

Minimum<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />

C/D-II Runway Safety Area (RSA)<br />

4<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

7<br />

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />

4<br />

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

100')<br />

6<br />

4<br />

1<br />

1<br />

5 4 3<br />

5<br />

1<br />

2 1 3<br />

12<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

C/D-II Object Free Area (OFA)<br />

Ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)<br />

Highway 190 Easement<br />

5<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

10<br />

Short Term Improvements<br />

Intermediate Term Improvements<br />

Long Term Improvements<br />

6<br />

4<br />

7<br />

5<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

11<br />

Alignment Alignment<br />

190 190 Highway Highway<br />

Proposed Proposed<br />

8<br />

9<br />

NORTH<br />

10<br />

1,370' Runway<br />

Extension<br />

2<br />

14<br />

3<br />

35<br />

0 800 1600<br />

9<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

8<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

13<br />

12<br />

3/4 Mile Visibility Minimum<br />

Exhibit 6B<br />

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAGING


<strong>The</strong> runway extension project is<br />

strategically placed at the end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

short term planning period due to<br />

current interest from operators to base<br />

larger aircraft at the <strong>airport</strong> that would<br />

need the longer runway. Demand-based<br />

planning allows for the runway<br />

extension project to shift to the<br />

intermediate term if the need for the<br />

additional length is not justifiable in<br />

the short term.<br />

As proposed, the runway would be<br />

extended 1,370 feet south to ensure a<br />

full 7,000 feet <strong>of</strong> operational length in<br />

both directions. As noted in previous<br />

analysis, the northern RSA is limited by<br />

Scyene Road, thus limiting landings<br />

and take-<strong>of</strong>fs to the north by 370 feet.<br />

<strong>The</strong> proposed extension project also<br />

includes the extension <strong>of</strong> the parallel<br />

taxiway. It should be noted that the<br />

ultimate plan is to relocate the parallel<br />

taxiway to 400 feet from the runway<br />

(centerline to centerline). This project<br />

considers “jogging” the extended<br />

taxiway out to provide 400 feet <strong>of</strong><br />

separation from the runway. Thus, the<br />

later project will only need to relocate<br />

the original 6,000 feet <strong>of</strong> parallel<br />

taxiway.<br />

<strong>The</strong> runway extension will also require<br />

ancillary projects. Currently, the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> has positive ownership <strong>of</strong> the<br />

entire runway protection zone (RPZ).<br />

Once the runway is extended, the RPZ<br />

will extend beyond current <strong>airport</strong><br />

property limits, across the intersection<br />

<strong>of</strong> Lawson and Berry Roads. At this<br />

time, the plan considers the acquisition<br />

<strong>of</strong> this land to meet FAA and TxDOT<br />

standards. While the cost estimate<br />

6-5<br />

considers fee simple acquisition,<br />

airspace easements could also be<br />

utilized to meet standards. Also, the<br />

extension will require relocation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

localizer antenna and lead-in light<br />

system.<br />

Ongoing maintenance <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />

surfaces is considered throughout the<br />

plan. <strong>The</strong> plan includes utilizing<br />

Routine Airport Maintenance Program<br />

(RAMP) funds available from TxDOT.<br />

Each year, TxDOT <strong>of</strong>fers RAMP funds<br />

totaling $30,000 provided the <strong>airport</strong><br />

sponsor matches that amount. <strong>The</strong> CIP<br />

considers a total <strong>of</strong> $300,000 for each<br />

five-year planning horizon in RAMP<br />

funds.<br />

Two lighting projects are considered for<br />

the short term. <strong>The</strong> installation <strong>of</strong><br />

medium intensity taxiway lighting<br />

(MITL) serving Taxiway A is<br />

recommended by TxDOT for <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

with greater than 100 based aircraft.<br />

In addition to meeting the based<br />

aircraft standard, a number <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />

have inadvertently strayed <strong>of</strong>f the<br />

taxiway due to inadequate lighting.<br />

Improving the safety for aircraft on<br />

Taxiway A at nighttime is critical. <strong>The</strong><br />

second project involves repairing the<br />

runway lights, many <strong>of</strong> which are in a<br />

state <strong>of</strong> disrepair.<br />

Short term projects presented on<br />

Exhibit 6A and graphically<br />

depicted on Exhibit 6B have been<br />

estimated to cost approximately<br />

$11.3 million. Of that total, the<br />

local share is projected to be $2.5<br />

million.


INTERMEDIATE TERM<br />

IMPROVEMENTS<br />

<strong>The</strong> intermediate term CIP considers<br />

expansion <strong>of</strong> landside facility<br />

development as well as ongoing<br />

pavement maintenance. Both intermediate<br />

and long term improvements<br />

are depicted on Exhibit 6B.<br />

<strong>The</strong> first project in the intermediate<br />

term considers expanding the apron to<br />

the south in an undeveloped area. This<br />

apron could serve additional<br />

conventional or corporate hangar<br />

growth. It is located in an area that is<br />

relatively flat and ready to develop.<br />

<strong>The</strong> plan also considers additional Thangar<br />

development in the southernmost<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> the terminal area,<br />

adjacent to Berry Road. In order to<br />

construct the T-hangars, a new taxiway<br />

and hangar taxilanes would need to be<br />

constructed.<br />

Remaining projects in the intermediate<br />

term CIP include ongoing surface<br />

maintenance and rehabilitation<br />

landside pavements. Various RAMP<br />

projects are also included.<br />

Projects included in the intermediate<br />

term have been estimated<br />

to cost $4.9 million, as presented on<br />

Exhibit 6A and graphically<br />

depicted on Exhibit 6B. <strong>The</strong> total<br />

local share is $1.2 million.<br />

LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS<br />

Long term projects consider<br />

improvements aimed at increased<br />

aviation demand while improving<br />

6-6<br />

airfield facilities to meet growing<br />

business aircraft use. Forecasts suggest<br />

that the number <strong>of</strong> based aircraft may<br />

reach 330 by the long term <strong>of</strong> the<br />

master plan. Of that total, 35 are<br />

turbine-powered, cabin class type<br />

aircraft. <strong>The</strong>se aircraft operators<br />

typically base at <strong>airport</strong>s with high<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> amenities both on the airfield<br />

and landside.<br />

<strong>The</strong> long term CIP considers improving<br />

instrument approach procedures to<br />

provide lower approach visibility<br />

minimums. As previously discussed,<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>’s parallel taxiway is located<br />

too near the runway to allow for<br />

improved approaches. Moreover, the<br />

current 300-foot runway/taxiway<br />

separation is the minimum for ARC<br />

C/D-II aircraft and falls short <strong>of</strong><br />

airplane design group III aircraft<br />

requirements. If the <strong>airport</strong> is utilized<br />

on a frequent basis by group III aircraft,<br />

the separation standard is 400 feet. For<br />

these reasons, the first project in the<br />

long term is the relocation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

existing 6,000 feet <strong>of</strong> the parallel<br />

taxiway 100 feet to the west. <strong>The</strong><br />

second project listed in the long term<br />

includes the cost <strong>of</strong> installing and<br />

calibrating a medium intensity<br />

approach light system with runway<br />

alignment lights (MALSR) and<br />

acquiring property for the expanded<br />

north RPZ. <strong>The</strong> MALSR will be<br />

required to improve the minimums on<br />

Runway 17.<br />

<strong>The</strong> long term CIP includes continued<br />

hangar development in the southern<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> the terminal area. Projects<br />

include apron expansion, corporate<br />

hangar apron construction, and T-


hangar and taxilane construction. All<br />

these projects will require additional<br />

utility and infrastructure improvements.<br />

Currently, western airfield<br />

drainage is routed <strong>of</strong>f-<strong>airport</strong> by a<br />

drainage ditch in the 50 acres proposed<br />

for acquisition in the short term. <strong>The</strong><br />

plan considers improving drainage by<br />

routing it underground with drainage<br />

pipes. While pavement can be placed<br />

atop the drainage structure, hangars/<br />

buildings can not, due to access needs.<br />

<strong>The</strong> concept includes extending Airport<br />

Boulevard south to provide access to the<br />

area. Three additional T-hangar<br />

facilities are also planned.<br />

At this time in the planning horizon,<br />

Runway 17-35 will likely need to be<br />

rehabilitated. <strong>The</strong> runway is<br />

constructed <strong>of</strong> concrete and full<br />

rehabilitation will require complete<br />

reconstruction. If reconstruction is<br />

necessary, the <strong>airport</strong> could face an<br />

extended period <strong>of</strong> complete closure.<br />

This is not desirable as <strong>airport</strong><br />

businesses, including the <strong>City</strong> which<br />

sells fuel, will be crippled by lack <strong>of</strong><br />

revenues. Moreover, all tenants would<br />

likely have to relocate to another local<br />

<strong>airport</strong> during reconstruction.<br />

Reconstruction <strong>of</strong> a concrete runway<br />

could take as long as 10 months to<br />

complete, with a minimum <strong>of</strong> six<br />

months if all factors are favorable. For<br />

this reason, the plan considers the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> an east side parallel<br />

taxiway to serve at first as a “relief”<br />

runway.<br />

As currently proposed, the taxiway<br />

would be 75 feet wide and located 400<br />

feet east <strong>of</strong> the existing runway. This<br />

location provides enough RSA for ARC<br />

6-7<br />

B-II aircraft but if the taxiway would<br />

need to serve all <strong>airport</strong> activity,<br />

additional land to the east would need<br />

to be acquired. Ultimately, this<br />

taxiway could also serve to spur<br />

aviation development on the land east<br />

<strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> final project item listed in the long<br />

term CIP is the acquisition <strong>of</strong> 98 acres<br />

<strong>of</strong> land west <strong>of</strong> the current <strong>airport</strong><br />

property line. Approximately 50 acres<br />

<strong>of</strong> this land, roughly the middle <strong>of</strong> the<br />

tract, is already owned by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>. <strong>The</strong> cost included in the CIP<br />

considers the cost only <strong>of</strong> the 48 acres<br />

not owned by the <strong>City</strong>. <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong>-owned<br />

parcel is considered as a transfer <strong>of</strong><br />

property to the <strong>airport</strong>. Once justified<br />

as needed for development, this land’s<br />

value can be used by the <strong>City</strong> as their<br />

cost-sharing portion <strong>of</strong> grants for<br />

<strong>airport</strong> improvements. This situation is<br />

similar to that in the recent past.<br />

Basically, the land’s value is “credited”<br />

to the <strong>City</strong> and is used as the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />

local share grant match until it is<br />

completely drawn down. For example,<br />

if the land is valued at $500,000, the<br />

<strong>City</strong> could leverage that land into $5<br />

million worth <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> improvements<br />

with no additional local fund<br />

expenditures.<br />

Total long term projects listed on<br />

Exhibit 6A and graphically<br />

depicted on Exhibit 6B have been<br />

estimated to cost approximately<br />

$28.2 million in today’s (2005)<br />

dollars. <strong>The</strong> local share is $5.7<br />

million. <strong>The</strong> total CIP program<br />

costs are estimated at 44.5 million<br />

with $9.3 million being the<br />

projected local share.


IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY<br />

<strong>The</strong> CIP covers potential demand-based<br />

development at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

over the next 20 years. Many <strong>of</strong> the<br />

planned facilities at the <strong>airport</strong> are not<br />

included in the CIP, as they are<br />

projected to be necessary beyond the<br />

scope <strong>of</strong> this plan. Some <strong>of</strong> those<br />

projects may include completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

centerfield and southern terminal<br />

development areas.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> improvements<br />

presented in the recommended concept<br />

are demand-based. <strong>The</strong>se facilities<br />

should be constructed to serve an<br />

existing demand at the <strong>airport</strong> at that<br />

time. This plan does not support<br />

building facilities in order to attract<br />

activity (the “if you build it, they will<br />

come” scenario). Because the plan is<br />

demand-based rather than time-based,<br />

it provides the <strong>airport</strong> management and<br />

the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> with the flexibility<br />

to develop facilities as needed. Should<br />

demand increase at a greater rate than<br />

is forecast, implementation <strong>of</strong> these<br />

improvements can be advanced. Should<br />

demand slow, the life <strong>of</strong> the master plan<br />

is effectively increased.<br />

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS<br />

FUNDING<br />

Financing capital improvements at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> will not rely solely on the<br />

financial resources <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Capital improvement funding is<br />

available through various grant-in-aid<br />

programs on both the state and federal<br />

levels. <strong>The</strong> following discussion<br />

outlines key sources <strong>of</strong> funding<br />

6-8<br />

potentially available for capital<br />

improvements at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport.<br />

FEDERAL GRANTS<br />

Through federal legislation over the<br />

years, various grant-in-aid programs<br />

have been established to develop and<br />

maintain a system <strong>of</strong> public <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

across the United States. <strong>The</strong> purpose<br />

<strong>of</strong> this system and its federally-based<br />

funding is to maintain national defense<br />

and to promote interstate commerce.<br />

<strong>The</strong> most recent legislation affecting<br />

federal funding was enacted in late<br />

2003 and is entitled, Century <strong>of</strong><br />

Aviation Reauthorization Act, or Vision<br />

100.<br />

<strong>The</strong> four-year bill covers FAA fiscal<br />

years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. This<br />

bill presented similar funding levels to<br />

the previous bill - Air 21. Airport<br />

Improvement Program (AIP) funding<br />

was authorized at $3.4 billion in 2004,<br />

$3.5 billion in 2005, $3.6 billion in 2006,<br />

and $3.7 billion in 2007. This new bill<br />

provides the FAA and, ultimately,<br />

TxDOT the opportunity to plan for<br />

longer term projects versus simple oneyear<br />

reauthorizations.<br />

<strong>The</strong> source for Vision 100 funds is the<br />

Aviation Trust Fund. <strong>The</strong> Aviation<br />

Trust Fund was established in 1970 to<br />

provide funding for aviation capital<br />

investment programs (aviation<br />

development, facilities and equipment,<br />

and research and development). <strong>The</strong><br />

Aviation Trust Fund also finances the<br />

operation <strong>of</strong> the FAA. It is funded by


user fees, taxes on airline tickets,<br />

aviation fuel, and various aircraft parts.<br />

Funds are distributed each year by the<br />

FAA from appropriations by Congress.<br />

A portion <strong>of</strong> the annual distribution is<br />

to primary commercial service <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

based upon enplanement (passenger)<br />

levels. If Congress appropriates the full<br />

amount authorized by Vision 100,<br />

eligible general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s could<br />

receive up to $150,000 <strong>of</strong> funding each<br />

year in Non-Primary Entitlement<br />

(NPE) funds (National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Integrated Airport Systems [NPIAS]<br />

inclusion is required for general<br />

aviation entitlement funding). In the<br />

first three years <strong>of</strong> the program under<br />

AIR-21, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport was<br />

eligible for and received the full<br />

$150,000 in NPE funds. When the<br />

NPIAS was updated in 2005, it only<br />

included $333,333 in improvements for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport for the next five<br />

years. This means that for FY 05 and<br />

until the NPIAS is updated again in<br />

2009, <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is only<br />

eligible for $66,667 annually.<br />

<strong>The</strong> remaining AIP funds are<br />

distributed by the FAA based upon the<br />

priority <strong>of</strong> the project for which they<br />

have requested federal assistance<br />

through discretionary apportionments.<br />

A National Priority Ranking System is<br />

used to evaluate and rank each <strong>airport</strong><br />

project. Those projects with the highest<br />

priority are given preference in funding.<br />

<strong>The</strong> state’s federal funding allotment<br />

must be distributed to many <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

each year. As a result, TxDOT will<br />

typically limit the size <strong>of</strong> grants given to<br />

a single <strong>airport</strong> sponsor to ensure<br />

adequate funding for the state <strong>airport</strong><br />

6-9<br />

system as a whole. Thus, the costs <strong>of</strong><br />

implementing the runway extension<br />

may require the <strong>City</strong> to attract<br />

discretionary funding assistance.<br />

STATE FUNDING PROGRAM<br />

<strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas participates in the<br />

federal State Block Grant Program.<br />

Under the State Block Grant Program,<br />

the FAA annually distributes general<br />

aviation state apportionment and<br />

discretionary funds to TxDOT. <strong>The</strong><br />

state then distributes grants to state<br />

<strong>airport</strong>s. In compliance with TxDOT’s<br />

legislative mandate that it “apply for,<br />

receive, and disburse” federal funds for<br />

general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s, TxDOT acts<br />

as the agent <strong>of</strong> the local <strong>airport</strong> sponsor.<br />

Although these grants are distributed<br />

by TxDOT, they contain all federal<br />

obligations.<br />

<strong>The</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Texas also distributes<br />

funding to general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

from the Highway Trust Fund as the<br />

Texas Aviation Facilities Development<br />

Program. <strong>The</strong>se funds are appropriated<br />

each year by the state legislature. Once<br />

distributed, these grants contain state<br />

obligations only.<br />

<strong>The</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> a CIP for the state<br />

entails first identifying the need, then<br />

establishing a ranking or priority<br />

system. Identifying all state <strong>airport</strong><br />

project needs allows TxDOT to establish<br />

a biennial program and budget for<br />

development costs. <strong>The</strong> most recent<br />

TxDOT CIP, Aviation Improvement<br />

Program 2006-2008, assumed that<br />

approximately $22 million in annual<br />

federal AIP grants, which includes $17


million earmarked for Non-Primary<br />

Entitlements and $15 million in state<br />

funds, would be available.<br />

<strong>The</strong> TxDOT biennial program<br />

establishes a project priority system<br />

based upon the following objectives (in<br />

order <strong>of</strong> importance):<br />

! enhance safety<br />

! preserve existing facilities<br />

! bring <strong>airport</strong> up to standards<br />

! upgrade facilities to aid <strong>airport</strong> in<br />

providing for larger aircraft with<br />

longer stage lengths<br />

! improve <strong>airport</strong> capacity<br />

! new <strong>airport</strong> construction to provide<br />

new access to a previously unserved<br />

area<br />

! new <strong>airport</strong>s to provide capacity<br />

relief to existing <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

Each <strong>airport</strong> project for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport must be identified and<br />

programmed into the state CIP and<br />

compete with other <strong>airport</strong> projects in<br />

the state for federal and state funds. In<br />

Texas, <strong>airport</strong> development projects<br />

that meet TxDOT’s discretionary funds<br />

eligibility requirements receive 90<br />

percent funding from the AIP State<br />

Block Grant Program. Eligible projects<br />

include airfield and apron facilities.<br />

Historically, revenue-generating<br />

improvements such as fuel facilities,<br />

utilities, and hangars have not been<br />

eligible for AIP funding. Vision 100,<br />

however, provides the allowance for<br />

NPE funds to be utilized for hangar or<br />

fuel farm construction if all other<br />

airfield needs have been addressed.<br />

6-10<br />

TxDOT has also established the RAMP<br />

to help general aviation <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

maintain and, in some circumstances,<br />

construct new facilities. <strong>The</strong> program<br />

was initially designed to help <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

maintain airside and landside<br />

pavements, but has recently been<br />

expanded to include construction <strong>of</strong> new<br />

facilities. RAMP is an annual funding<br />

source in which TxDOT will provide a<br />

50 percent funding match for projects<br />

up to $60,000. Examples <strong>of</strong> new facility<br />

construction projects eligible under<br />

RAMP include constructing <strong>airport</strong><br />

access roads, paving the <strong>airport</strong> public<br />

parking lot, and hangar maintenance.<br />

Newer programs in the TxDOT funding<br />

mechanism include terminal building<br />

and <strong>airport</strong> traffic control tower (ATCT)<br />

funding. TxDOT has funded terminal<br />

building construction on a 50-50 basis,<br />

up to a $600,000 total project cost. It<br />

should be noted that TxDOT has<br />

recently considered upgrading the total<br />

cost allowance on a case-by-case basis.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is already served by a<br />

terminal building; however, this<br />

program could be used to expand the<br />

existing facility when additional space<br />

is needed.<br />

TxDOT also funds the construction <strong>of</strong><br />

up to two ATCTs statewide per year.<br />

TxDOT has recently improved the<br />

program so that ATCT funding could be<br />

provided on a 90-10 basis, up to a total<br />

construction cost <strong>of</strong> $1.67 million. <strong>The</strong><br />

construction <strong>of</strong> an ATCT planned for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is in the short<br />

term CIP.


FAA FACILITIES AND<br />

EQUIPMENT PROGRAM<br />

<strong>The</strong> Airway Facilities Division <strong>of</strong> the<br />

FAA administers the national Facilities<br />

and Equipment (F&E) Program. This<br />

annual program provides funding for<br />

the installation and maintenance <strong>of</strong><br />

various navigational aids and<br />

equipment for the national airspace<br />

system and <strong>airport</strong>s. Under the F&E<br />

program, funding is provided for FAA<br />

<strong>airport</strong> traffic control towers, enroute<br />

navigational aids (such as a VOR), and<br />

on-<strong>airport</strong> navigational aids (such as<br />

REILs and approach lighting systems).<br />

As activity levels and other<br />

developments warrant, the <strong>airport</strong> may<br />

be considered by the FAA Airways<br />

Facilities Division for the installation<br />

and maintenance <strong>of</strong> navigational aids<br />

through the F&E program.<br />

FINANCING OF<br />

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM<br />

Earlier in this chapter, programmed<br />

expenditures were presented in current<br />

(2005) dollars. Future expenditures<br />

were categorized according to assigned<br />

financing responsibilities, with the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>’s responsible expenditures the<br />

primary focus <strong>of</strong> these feasibility<br />

analyses. In this section, the base costs,<br />

assumed to be the financing<br />

responsibility <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, are<br />

adjusted to reflect availability to<br />

determine the projected local share <strong>of</strong><br />

these proposed capital expenditures in<br />

current dollars. Financing assumptions<br />

are then made, and the projected<br />

annual <strong>airport</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> these planned<br />

expenditures is estimated for<br />

6-11<br />

incorporation into the cash flow<br />

analysis.<br />

At the outset, it must be emphasized<br />

that long term feasibility analyses such<br />

as these must be based on many<br />

assumptions. In practice, projects will<br />

be undertaken when demand actually<br />

warrants, thus changing underlying<br />

assumptions. Further, the actual<br />

financing <strong>of</strong> capital expenditures will be<br />

a function <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> circumstances at<br />

the time <strong>of</strong> project implementation (i.e.,<br />

revenue bond financing would likely not<br />

be used unless the actual level <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>airport</strong> earnings and reserves, along<br />

with entitlement and discretionary<br />

grants available at a particular time,<br />

were insufficient to meet project costs).<br />

As a result, the assumptions and<br />

analyses prepared for the master plan<br />

must be viewed in the context <strong>of</strong> their<br />

primary purpose: to examine whether<br />

there is a reasonable expectation that<br />

recommended improvements will be<br />

financially feasible and implementable.<br />

<strong>The</strong> balance <strong>of</strong> project costs, after<br />

consideration has been given to the<br />

various grants available, must be<br />

funded through <strong>airport</strong> resources.<br />

Usually, this is accomplished through<br />

the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> earnings and reserves,<br />

to the extent possible, with the<br />

remaining costs financed through<br />

obligation bonding mechanisms.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is owned and operated by<br />

the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> through the<br />

collection <strong>of</strong> various rates and charges<br />

from general aviation sources. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

are, however, restrictions on the use <strong>of</strong><br />

revenues collected by the <strong>airport</strong>. All<br />

receipts, excluding bond proceeds or


elated grants and interest, are<br />

irrevocably pledged to the punctual<br />

payment <strong>of</strong> operating and maintenance<br />

expenses, payment <strong>of</strong> debt service for as<br />

long as bonds remain outstanding, or to<br />

additions or improvements to <strong>airport</strong><br />

facilities. Table 6B presents historical<br />

expenses and revenues for <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

Metro Airport.<br />

OPERATING REVENUES<br />

Operating revenues at <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport include land leases, hangar<br />

6-12<br />

rentals, fuel sales, and other income.<br />

As shown on Table 6B, revenues for the<br />

previous five years have been exceeded<br />

by operational expenditures. It should<br />

be noted that operating revenues do not<br />

include grants received or transfers-in<br />

from other <strong>City</strong> departments. <strong>The</strong>re is<br />

an annual subsidy to the <strong>airport</strong> from<br />

the <strong>City</strong> to <strong>of</strong>fset annual deficits. <strong>The</strong><br />

subsidy has been on average $125,000,<br />

but only $78,100 last year.<br />

TABLE 6B<br />

Historical Operating Revenues and Expenditures<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

ITEM<br />

OPERATING REVENUES<br />

FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05<br />

Hangar Rental $132,934 $118,167 $76,048 $148,043 $194,890<br />

Tie-Downs 9,152 8,509 8,216 9,389 9,700<br />

Fuel Sales 355,270 351,356 330,072 404,577 479,719<br />

Lease Receipts 21,759 23,706 34,952 34,494 27,542<br />

Other Revenue 9,575 12,645 12,018 13,982 16,664<br />

Equipment Auction 371 0 0 0 0<br />

Total Operating Revenues<br />

OPERATING EXPENSES<br />

$529,061 $514,383 $461,306 $610,485 $728,515<br />

Personnel Services $270,784 $264,202 $248,651 $239,267 $252,368<br />

Contractual Services 119,012 128,093 134,926 143,990 189,304<br />

Fuel 245,014 224,986 232,235 282,214 361,981<br />

Supplies 17,415 17,684 12,931 21,237 23,283<br />

Transfer Debt Service 12,175 12,175 12,175 6,088 45,100<br />

Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment 0 0 0 3,415 2,265<br />

Total Operating Expenses $664,400 $647,140 $640,918 $696,211 $874,301<br />

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

Subsidy from <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> $125,000 $125,000 $160,000 $125,000 $78,100<br />

<strong>The</strong> largest revenue center by far for<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> is fuel sales. In fact, fuel<br />

sales total nearly 66 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>’s total annual revenues. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>City</strong> is the only fuel retailer on the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. Hangar and building rentals<br />

represent the next largest revenue<br />

source for the <strong>airport</strong>, accounting for<br />

approximately 27 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>’s total annual revenues. Hangar<br />

rentals vary in price depending on the<br />

type <strong>of</strong> facility. For example, single-


engine T-hangars with 40-foot to 42-foot<br />

door openings rent from $195 per month<br />

to $301 per month. Hangars with<br />

larger doors rent between $235 per<br />

month to $385 per month.<br />

Lease receipts are obtained from those<br />

who lease <strong>City</strong>-owned buildings/hangars<br />

or have built private hangars with land<br />

leases. <strong>The</strong> typical lease rate is $0.08<br />

per square-foot per year. Tie-down<br />

charges are $55 per month. <strong>The</strong><br />

remaining revenue sources are from<br />

miscellaneous fees/charges.<br />

OPERATING EXPENSES<br />

Generalized operating expenses for<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport include<br />

personnel services, contractual services,<br />

wholesale fuel, supplies, debt<br />

service/amortization, and furniture,<br />

fixtures, and equipment. Fuel is the<br />

largest cost center for the <strong>airport</strong>, with<br />

personnel services being second, at<br />

nearly half as much. Personnel services<br />

include payments for pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />

<strong>airport</strong> administration and fuel line<br />

support.<br />

Contractual services include payments<br />

made to contractors to maintain <strong>airport</strong><br />

navigational aids and storm water run<strong>of</strong>f<br />

and <strong>airport</strong> utility costs. Supplies<br />

generally include miscellaneous items<br />

including pr<strong>of</strong>essional memberships,<br />

subscriptions, etc.<br />

As is evident from the table, the <strong>airport</strong><br />

has not generally maintained a positive<br />

operational income over the last five<br />

years. <strong>The</strong> existing revenues do not<br />

generally meet operational costs.<br />

6-13<br />

Airports similar to <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro<br />

Airport typically do not maintain a<br />

positive operating income. It should<br />

always be a goal <strong>of</strong> a general aviation<br />

<strong>airport</strong> to be self-sufficient and<br />

hopefully generate a positive cash flow.<br />

<strong>The</strong> following section will discuss<br />

opportunities available for the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />

increase its revenues, over time, to<br />

achieve these goals.<br />

FUTURE CASH FLOW<br />

Revenues<br />

Revenues are anticipated to continue to<br />

grow with aviation activity. As more<br />

aircraft base at the <strong>airport</strong>, revenues<br />

from hangar rentals and fuel sales will<br />

increase proportionately. Revenues will<br />

also be bolstered by transient aircraft<br />

activity that increases fuel sales, and<br />

aviation business that can result in<br />

additional lease revenues for the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. Commission fees are a service<br />

charge that the <strong>airport</strong> collects from<br />

FBOs based on the sale <strong>of</strong> certain<br />

products and services. Currently, there<br />

are no FBO commission fees collected;<br />

however, this is a possible revenue<br />

source as more businesses locate at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>.<br />

As previously mentioned, existing<br />

<strong>airport</strong> revenues are derived from<br />

leases, hangar and building rentals, and<br />

fuel sales. Future revenue projections<br />

considered slightly increasing current<br />

fee rates for existing hangar and land<br />

leases. It is planned that future<br />

conventional and executive hangar<br />

construction will be by private entities.<br />

<strong>The</strong> plan considers T-hangar


development by the <strong>City</strong>. New hangar<br />

and ground leases will need to be<br />

established in such a manner that the<br />

<strong>City</strong> will be able to amortize its<br />

development costs over a reasonable<br />

time period. At the current time, land<br />

lease rates are $0.08 per square-foot per<br />

year. This rate could be increased to<br />

$0.20 per square-foot per year and be in<br />

line with other <strong>airport</strong>s due to utility<br />

availability.<br />

Should the <strong>City</strong> decide to construct Thangar<br />

facilities, costs can generally<br />

equal $30,000 per unit. Thus, a 20-unit<br />

T-hangar could cost as much as<br />

$600,000 to construct. To retire the<br />

bond debt service for the construction <strong>of</strong><br />

a 20-unit facility over a 15-year period<br />

at a six percent interest rate, individual<br />

hangar rates would need to be at least<br />

$200 per month. This does not include<br />

the construction <strong>of</strong> additional taxilane<br />

access to the hangars. T-hangar<br />

taxilanes, however, may be funded at 90<br />

percent by TxDOT (state or federal<br />

grants-in-aid).<br />

If the <strong>City</strong> does not construct the<br />

proposed hangar facilities, the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />

only capital cost would be 10 percent <strong>of</strong><br />

the taxilane construction (the<br />

remaining 90 percent would come from<br />

federal or state grants). <strong>The</strong> <strong>City</strong> has<br />

been open to the development <strong>of</strong><br />

privately-owned hangars in the past.<br />

Privately-owned facilities <strong>of</strong>fer the <strong>City</strong><br />

significant savings.<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport also has a<br />

unique opportunity to generate greater<br />

revenue through the development <strong>of</strong><br />

commercial uses on <strong>airport</strong> property.<br />

<strong>The</strong> proposed acquisition <strong>of</strong> the 80-acre<br />

6-14<br />

parcel west <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> could support<br />

commercial business operations. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

uses can generate lease rates <strong>of</strong> up to<br />

$0.30 per square-foot per year.<br />

Cash flow projections indicate future<br />

revenues should rise at a greater rate<br />

than expenses. <strong>The</strong> analysis presents<br />

average annual projections for each<br />

planning horizon. As presented in<br />

Table 6C, the <strong>City</strong> should be capable <strong>of</strong><br />

obtaining sufficient operating revenues<br />

to <strong>of</strong>fset expenses. Revenue and<br />

expense projections have been made for<br />

the end <strong>of</strong> each planning horizon. Thus,<br />

each planning horizon considers the<br />

facilities and services required to meet<br />

demand requirements.<br />

Expenses<br />

Future expenses could vary depending<br />

upon the <strong>City</strong>’s desire to develop,<br />

operate, and maintain additional<br />

hangars. Similarly, future expenses<br />

could be higher if the <strong>City</strong> develops on<strong>airport</strong><br />

commercial properties. It is<br />

likely that revenue bonds would be<br />

necessary to fund this construction.<br />

Also, the <strong>City</strong> could expect maintenance<br />

costs and administrative costs<br />

associated with operating the facilities.<br />

As the <strong>airport</strong> continues to grow,<br />

additional employees may ultimately be<br />

needed. Most successful general<br />

aviation <strong>airport</strong>s have at least one fulltime<br />

<strong>airport</strong> manager. Often, the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> staff can include up to ten<br />

employees. <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport’s<br />

future staffing requirements could<br />

reach seven employees over the long<br />

term. Potential <strong>airport</strong> employees could


include a full-time <strong>airport</strong> manager, an<br />

operations manager, a full-time<br />

administrative assistant, and up to four<br />

maintenance/line operator personnel.<br />

It should be noted that proposed capital<br />

improvements may at times exceed the<br />

<strong>City</strong>’s ability to fund them from general<br />

funds. Thus, debt service (contractual)<br />

obligations will likely continue through<br />

6-15<br />

the long term planning horizon.<br />

Projects which may require bonding and<br />

subsequent debt service expense include<br />

projects associated with the extension <strong>of</strong><br />

Runway 17-35, hangar construction (if<br />

the <strong>City</strong> chooses to construct Thangars),<br />

and infra-structure<br />

improvements to the south terminal<br />

area. Future cash flow analysis is<br />

presented in Table 6C.<br />

TABLE 6C<br />

Projected Operating Revenues and Expenditures (Annual Averages)<br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport<br />

Item<br />

Operating Revenues<br />

Short Term Intermediate Term Long Term<br />

Hangar Rental $376,790 $472,070 $634,560<br />

Tie-Downs 9,230 9,650 10,200<br />

Fuel Sales 693,490 864,530 1,149,890<br />

Lease Receipts 29,190 36,330 44,860<br />

Other Revenue 23,120 25,280 28,270<br />

Total Operating Revenues<br />

Operating Expenses<br />

$1,131,820 $1,407,860 $1,867,780<br />

Personnel Services $333,750 $381,350 $451,470<br />

Contractual Services 155,710 170,240 190,360<br />

Fuel 515,610 615,490 772,060<br />

Supplies 24,730 26,440 28,740<br />

Transfer Debt Service 126,020 171,020 236,380<br />

Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment 2,030 2,120 2,240<br />

Total Operating Expenses<br />

Net Average Annual Operating<br />

$1,157,850 $1,366,660 $1,681,250<br />

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

SUMMARY<br />

<strong>The</strong> best means to begin the<br />

implementation <strong>of</strong> the recommendations<br />

in this master plan is to first<br />

recognize that planning is a continuous<br />

process that does not end with<br />

completion and approval <strong>of</strong> this<br />

document. Rather, the ability to<br />

continuously monitor the existing and<br />

forecast status <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> activity must<br />

be provided and maintained. <strong>The</strong> issues<br />

upon which this master plan is based<br />

will remain valid for a number <strong>of</strong> years.<br />

<strong>The</strong> primary goal is for the <strong>airport</strong> to<br />

evolve into a facility that will best serve<br />

the air transportation needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />

region and become a self-supporting<br />

economic generator for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Mesquite</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> actual need for facilities is most<br />

appropriately established by <strong>airport</strong><br />

activity levels rather than a specified<br />

date. For example, projections have<br />

been made as to when additional


hangars may be needed at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

In reality, however, the timeframe in<br />

which the development is needed may<br />

be substantially different. Actual<br />

demand may be slower to develop than<br />

expected. On the other hand, high<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> demand may establish the need<br />

to accelerate the development.<br />

Although every effort has been made in<br />

this master planning process to conservatively<br />

estimate when facility<br />

development may be needed, aviation<br />

demand will dictate when facility<br />

improvements need to be delayed or<br />

accelerated.<br />

<strong>The</strong> real value <strong>of</strong> a usable master plan<br />

is in keeping the issues and objectives<br />

in the minds <strong>of</strong> the managers and<br />

decision-makers so that they are better<br />

able to recognize change and its effect.<br />

In addition to adjustments in aviation<br />

demand, decisions made as to when to<br />

6-16<br />

undertake the improvements<br />

recommended in this master plan will<br />

impact the period that the plan remains<br />

valid. <strong>The</strong> format used in this plan is<br />

intended to reduce the need for formal<br />

and costly updates by simply adjusting<br />

the timing. Updating can be done by<br />

the manager, thereby improving the<br />

plan’s effectiveness.<br />

In summary, the planning process<br />

requires the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> to<br />

consistently monitor the progress <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> aircraft operations<br />

and based aircraft. Analysis <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />

demand is critical to the timing and<br />

need for new <strong>airport</strong> facilities. <strong>The</strong><br />

information obtained from continually<br />

monitoring <strong>airport</strong> activity will provide<br />

the data necessary to determine if the<br />

development schedule should be<br />

accelerated or decelerated.


Appendix A<br />

GLOSSARY OF TERMS


A<br />

Appendix<br />

GLOSSARY OF TERMS<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE<br />

AVAILABLE (ASDA): see declared distances.<br />

AIR CARRIER: an operator which: (1)<br />

performs at least five round trips per<br />

week between two or more points and<br />

publishes flight schedules which specify<br />

the times, days <strong>of</strong> the week, and places<br />

between which such flights are performed;<br />

or (2) transport mail by air<br />

pursuant to a current contract with the<br />

U.S. Postal Service. Certified in accordance<br />

with Federal Aviation Regulation<br />

(FAR) Parts 121 and 127.<br />

AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): a<br />

coding system used to relate <strong>airport</strong><br />

design criteria to the operational (Aircraft<br />

Approach Category) to the physical characteristics<br />

(Airplane Design Group) <strong>of</strong> the<br />

airplanes intended to operate at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP):<br />

<strong>The</strong> latitude and longitude <strong>of</strong> the approximate<br />

center <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

AIRPORT ELEVATION: <strong>The</strong> highest<br />

point on an <strong>airport</strong>’s usable runway<br />

expressed in feet above mean sea level<br />

(MSL).<br />

AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD):<br />

<strong>The</strong> drawing <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> showing the<br />

layout <strong>of</strong> existing and proposed <strong>airport</strong><br />

facilities.<br />

A-1<br />

AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: a<br />

grouping <strong>of</strong> aircraft based on 1.3 times the<br />

stall speed in their landing configuration<br />

at their maximum certificated landing<br />

weight. <strong>The</strong> categories are as follows:<br />

• Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.<br />

• Category B: Speed 91 knots or more,<br />

but less than 121 knots.<br />

• Category C: Speed 121 knots or more,<br />

but less than 141 knots.<br />

• Category D: Speed 141 knots or more,<br />

but less than 166 knots.<br />

• Category E: Speed greater than 166<br />

knots.<br />

AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): a<br />

grouping <strong>of</strong> aircraft based upon<br />

wingspan. <strong>The</strong> groups are as follows:<br />

• Group I: Up to but not including 49<br />

feet.<br />

• Group II: 49 feet up to but not<br />

including 79 feet.<br />

• Group III: 79 feet up to but not<br />

including 118 feet.<br />

• Group IV: 118 feet up to but not<br />

including 171 feet.<br />

• Group V: 171 feet up to but not<br />

including 214 feet.<br />

• Group VI: 214 feet or greater.<br />

AIR TAXI: An air carrier certificated in<br />

accordance with FAR Part 135 and authorized<br />

to provide, on demand, public<br />

transportation <strong>of</strong> persons and property by<br />

aircraft. Generally operates small aircraft<br />

“for hire” for specific trips.<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL<br />

TOWER (ATCT): a central operations<br />

facility in the terminal air traffic control<br />

system, consisting <strong>of</strong> a tower, including<br />

an associated instrument flight rule (IFR)<br />

room if radar equipped, using air/ground<br />

communications and/or radar, visual signaling,<br />

and other devices to provide safe<br />

and expeditious movement <strong>of</strong> terminal air<br />

traffic.<br />

AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CEN-<br />

TER (ARTCC): a facility established to<br />

provide air traffic control service to aircraft<br />

operating on an IFR flight plan<br />

within controlled airspace and principally<br />

during the enroute phase <strong>of</strong> flight.<br />

ALERT AREA: see special-use airspace.<br />

ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH<br />

(AIA): an approach to an <strong>airport</strong> with the<br />

intent to land by an aircraft in accordance<br />

with an IFR flight plan when visibility is<br />

less than three miles and/or when the<br />

ceiling is at or below the minimum initial<br />

approach altitude.<br />

APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM<br />

(ALS): an <strong>airport</strong> lighting facility which<br />

provides visual guidance to landing aircraft<br />

by radiating light beams by which<br />

the pilot aligns the aircraft with the<br />

extended centerline <strong>of</strong> the runway on his<br />

final approach and landing.<br />

APPROACH MINIMUMS: the altitude<br />

below which an aircraft may not descend<br />

while on an IFR approach unless the pilot<br />

has the runway in sight.<br />

AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER<br />

(ADF): an aircraft radio navigation system<br />

which senses and indicates the<br />

A-2<br />

direction to a non-directional radio beacon<br />

(NDB) ground transmitter.<br />

AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVA-<br />

TION STATION (AWOS): equipment<br />

used to automatically record weather conditions<br />

(i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind<br />

speed and direction, temperature, dewpoint,<br />

etc...)<br />

AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMA-<br />

TION SERVICE (ATIS): the continuous<br />

broadcast <strong>of</strong> recorded non-control information<br />

at towered <strong>airport</strong>s. Information<br />

typically includes wind speed, direction,<br />

and runway in use.<br />

AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction<br />

expressed as the angular distance<br />

between true north and the direction <strong>of</strong> a<br />

fixed point (as the observer’s heading).<br />

BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles<br />

to the landing runway <strong>of</strong>f its approach<br />

end. <strong>The</strong> base leg normally extends from<br />

the downwind leg to the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />

the extended runway centerline. See “traffic<br />

pattern.”<br />

BEARING: the horizontal direction to or<br />

from any point, usually measured clockwise<br />

from true north or magnetic north.<br />

BLAST FENCE: a barrier used to divert<br />

or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash.<br />

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL):<br />

A line which identifies suitable building<br />

area locations on the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

CIRCLING APPROACH: a maneuver<br />

initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft<br />

with the runway for landing when flying<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


a predetermined circling instrument<br />

approach under IFR.<br />

CLASS A AIRSPACE: see Controlled<br />

Airspace.<br />

CLASS B AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace.<br />

CLASS C AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace.<br />

CLASS D AIRSPACE: see Controlled<br />

Airspace.<br />

CLASS E AIRSPACE: see Controlled Airspace.<br />

CLASS G AIRSPACE: see Controlled<br />

Airspace.<br />

CLEAR ZONE: see Runway Protection<br />

Zone.<br />

CROSSWIND: wind flow that is not parallel<br />

to the runway <strong>of</strong> the flight path <strong>of</strong> an<br />

aircraft.<br />

COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): a low<br />

power, low/medium frequency radiobeacon<br />

installed in conjunction with the<br />

instrument landing system at one or two<br />

<strong>of</strong> the marker sites.<br />

CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: airspace <strong>of</strong><br />

defined dimensions within which air traffic<br />

control services are provided to<br />

instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual<br />

flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance<br />

with the airspace classification. Controlled<br />

airspace in the United States is<br />

designated as follows:<br />

A-3<br />

• CLASS A: generally, the airspace from<br />

18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to<br />

but not including flight level FL600.<br />

All persons must operate their aircraft<br />

under IFR.<br />

• CLASS B: generally, the airspace from<br />

the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding<br />

the nation’s busiest <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

<strong>The</strong> configuration <strong>of</strong> Class B airspace is<br />

unique to each <strong>airport</strong>, but typically<br />

consists <strong>of</strong> two or more layers <strong>of</strong> air<br />

space and is designed to contain all<br />

published instrument approach procedures<br />

to the <strong>airport</strong>. An air traffic<br />

control clearance is required for all aircraft<br />

to operate in the area.<br />

• CLASS C: generally, the airspace from<br />

the surface to 4,000 feet above the air<br />

port elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding<br />

those <strong>airport</strong>s that have an<br />

operational control tower and radar<br />

approach control and are served by a<br />

qualifying number <strong>of</strong> IFR operations<br />

or passenger enplanements. Although<br />

individually tailored for each <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

Class C airspace typically consists <strong>of</strong> a<br />

surface area with a five nautical mile<br />

(nm) radius and an outer area with a 10<br />

nautical mile radius that extends from<br />

1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the <strong>airport</strong><br />

elevation. Two-way radio communication<br />

is required for all aircraft.<br />

• CLASS D: generally, that airspace from<br />

the surface to 2,500 feet above the air<br />

port elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding<br />

those <strong>airport</strong> that have an<br />

operational control tower. Class D air<br />

space is individually tailored and configured<br />

to encompass published instrument<br />

approach procedures.<br />

Unless otherwise authorized, all<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


persons must establish two-way radio<br />

communication.<br />

• CLASS E: generally, controlled airspace<br />

that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or<br />

D. Class E airspace extends upward<br />

from either the surface or a designated<br />

altitude to the overlying or adjacent<br />

controlled airspace. When designated<br />

as a surface area, the airspace will be<br />

configured to contain all instrument<br />

procedures. Class E airspace encompasses<br />

all Victor Airways. Only aircraft<br />

following instrument flight rules are<br />

required to establish two-way radio<br />

communication with air traffic control.<br />

• CLASS G: generally, that airspace not<br />

classified as Class A, B, C, D, or E.<br />

Class G airspace is uncontrolled for all<br />

aircraft. Class G airspace extends from<br />

the surface to the overlying Class E<br />

airspace.<br />

FL 600<br />

18,000 MSL<br />

14,500<br />

MSL<br />

CLASS CLASS G<br />

G<br />

Nontowered<br />

Airport<br />

700<br />

AGL<br />

CLASS G<br />

CLASS B<br />

40 n.m.<br />

30 n.m.<br />

20 n.m.<br />

12 n.m.<br />

CLASS A<br />

CLASS E<br />

LEGEND<br />

AGL - Above Ground Level<br />

FL - Flight Level in Hundreds <strong>of</strong> Feet<br />

MSL - Mean Sea Level<br />

CLASS G<br />

NOT TO SCALE<br />

Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting<br />

Changes for VFR Products," National<br />

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,<br />

National Ocean Service. Chart adapted<br />

by C<strong>of</strong>fman Associates from AOPA Pilot,<br />

January 1993.<br />

CLASS C<br />

20 n.m.<br />

10 n.m.<br />

CLASS G<br />

Nontowered<br />

1,200 Airport<br />

AGL<br />

CLASS D<br />

10 mi.<br />

CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: see special-use<br />

airspace.<br />

A-4<br />

CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right<br />

angles to the landing runway <strong>of</strong>f its<br />

upwind end. See “traffic pattern.”<br />

DECLARED DISTANCES: <strong>The</strong> distances<br />

declared available for the airplane’s take<strong>of</strong>f<br />

runway, take<strong>of</strong>f distance, acceleratestop<br />

distance, and landing distance<br />

requirements. <strong>The</strong> distances are:<br />

• TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE<br />

(TORA): <strong>The</strong> runway length declared<br />

available and suitable for the ground<br />

run <strong>of</strong> an airplane taking <strong>of</strong>f;<br />

• TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE<br />

(TODA): <strong>The</strong> TORA plus the length <strong>of</strong><br />

any remaining runway and/or clear<br />

way beyond the far end <strong>of</strong> the TORA;<br />

• ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE<br />

AVAILABLE (ASDA): <strong>The</strong> runway plus<br />

stopway length declared available for<br />

the acceleration and deceleration <strong>of</strong> an<br />

aircraft aborting a take<strong>of</strong>f; and<br />

• LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE<br />

(LDA): <strong>The</strong> runway length declared<br />

available and suitable for landing.<br />

DISPLACED THRESHOLD: a threshold<br />

that is located at a point on the runway<br />

other than the designated beginning <strong>of</strong><br />

the runway.<br />

D I S T A N C E<br />

MEASURING<br />

EQUIPMENT<br />

(DME): Equipment<br />

(airborne and<br />

ground) used to<br />

measure, in nautical<br />

miles, the slant range<br />

1NM<br />

2 NM<br />

3 NM<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


distance <strong>of</strong> an aircraft from the DME navigational<br />

aid.<br />

DNL: <strong>The</strong> 24-hour average sound level, in<br />

A-weighted decibels, obtained after the<br />

addition <strong>of</strong> ten decibels to sound levels<br />

for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7<br />

a.m. as averaged over a span <strong>of</strong> one year.<br />

It is the FAA standard metric for determining<br />

the cumulative exposure <strong>of</strong><br />

individuals to noise.<br />

DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel<br />

to the landing runway in the direction<br />

opposite to landing. <strong>The</strong> downwind leg<br />

normally extends between the crosswind<br />

leg and the base leg. Also see “traffic pattern.”<br />

EASEMENT: <strong>The</strong> legal right <strong>of</strong> one party<br />

to use a portion <strong>of</strong> the total rights in real<br />

estate owned by another party. This may<br />

include the right <strong>of</strong> passage over, on, or<br />

below the property; certain air rights<br />

above the property, including view rights;<br />

and the rights to any specified form <strong>of</strong><br />

development or activity, as well as any<br />

other legal rights in the property that may<br />

be specified in the easement document.<br />

ENPLANED PASSENGERS: the total<br />

number <strong>of</strong> revenue passengers boarding<br />

aircraft, including originating, stop-over,<br />

and transfer passengers, in scheduled and<br />

non-scheduled services.<br />

FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the<br />

direction <strong>of</strong> landing along the extended<br />

runway centerline. <strong>The</strong> final approach<br />

normally extends from the base leg to the<br />

runway. See “traffic pattern.”<br />

A-5<br />

FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A<br />

provider <strong>of</strong> services to users <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

Such services include, but are not limited<br />

to, hangaring, fueling, flight training,<br />

repair, and maintenance.<br />

FRANGIBLE NAVAID: a navigational<br />

aid which retains its structural integrity<br />

and stiffness up to a designated maximum<br />

load, but on impact from a greater<br />

load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a<br />

manner as to present the minimum hazard<br />

to aircraft.<br />

GENERAL AVIATION: that portion <strong>of</strong><br />

civil aviation which encompasses all<br />

facets <strong>of</strong> aviation except air carriers holding<br />

a certificate <strong>of</strong> convenience and<br />

necessity, and large aircraft commercial<br />

operators.<br />

GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical<br />

guidance for aircraft during approach and<br />

landing. <strong>The</strong> glideslope consists <strong>of</strong> the following:<br />

1. Electronic components emitting signals<br />

which provide vertical guidance by<br />

reference to airborne instruments<br />

during instrument approaches such as<br />

ILS; or<br />

2. Visual ground aids, such as VASI,<br />

which provide vertical guidance for<br />

VFR approach or for the visual portion<br />

<strong>of</strong> an instrument approach and<br />

landing.<br />

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM:<br />

See “GPS.”<br />

GPS - GLOBAL POSITIONING SYS-<br />

TEM: A system <strong>of</strong> 24 satellites<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


used as reference points to enable navigators<br />

equipped with GPS receivers to<br />

determine their latitude, longitude, and<br />

altitude.<br />

HELIPAD: a designated area for the<br />

take<strong>of</strong>f, landing, and parking <strong>of</strong> helicopters.<br />

HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: a long<br />

radius taxiway designed to expedite aircraft<br />

turning <strong>of</strong>f the runway after<br />

landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus<br />

reducing runway occupancy time.<br />

INSTRUMENT APPROACH: A series<br />

<strong>of</strong> predetermined maneuvers for the<br />

orderly transfer <strong>of</strong> an aircraft under<br />

instrument flight conditions from the<br />

beginning <strong>of</strong> the initial approach to a<br />

landing, or to a point from which a<br />

landing may be made visually.<br />

INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR):<br />

Rules governing the procedures for conducting<br />

instrument flight. Also a term<br />

used by pilots and controllers to indicate<br />

type <strong>of</strong> flight plan.<br />

INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM<br />

(ILS): A precision instrument approach<br />

system which normally consists <strong>of</strong> the<br />

following electronic components and<br />

visual aids:<br />

1. Localizer. 4. Middle Marker.<br />

2. Glide Slope. 5. Approach Lights.<br />

3. Outer Marker.<br />

LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE<br />

(LDA): see declared distances.<br />

LOCAL TRAFFIC: aircraft operating in<br />

the traffic pattern or within sight <strong>of</strong> the<br />

A-6<br />

tower, or aircraft known to be departing<br />

or arriving from the local practice areas,<br />

or aircraft executing practice instrument<br />

approach procedures. Typically, this<br />

includes touch-and-go training operations.<br />

LOCALIZER: <strong>The</strong> component <strong>of</strong> an ILS<br />

which provides course guidance to the<br />

runway.<br />

LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL<br />

AID (LDA): a facility <strong>of</strong> comparable<br />

utility and accuracy to a localizer, but is<br />

not part <strong>of</strong> a complete ILS and is not<br />

aligned with the runway.<br />

LORAN: long range navigation, an electronic<br />

navigational aid which<br />

determines aircraft position and speed<br />

by measuring the difference in the time<br />

<strong>of</strong> reception <strong>of</strong> synchronized pulse signals<br />

from two fixed transmitters. Loran<br />

is used for enroute navigation.<br />

MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM<br />

(MLS): an instrument approach and<br />

landing system that provides precision<br />

guidance in azimuth, elevation, and distance<br />

measurement.<br />

MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA<br />

(MOA): see special-use airspace.<br />

MISSED APPROACH COURSE<br />

(MAC): <strong>The</strong> flight route to be followed<br />

if, after an instrument approach, a landing<br />

is not affected, and occurring<br />

normally:<br />

1. When the aircraft has descended to<br />

the decision height and has not<br />

established visual contact; or<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


2. When directed by air traffic control to<br />

pull up or to go around again.<br />

MOVEMENT AREA: the runways,<br />

taxiways, and other areas <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong><br />

which are utilized for taxiing/hover<br />

taxiing, air taxiing, take<strong>of</strong>f, and landing<br />

<strong>of</strong> aircraft, exclusive <strong>of</strong> loading ramps<br />

and parking areas. At those <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

with a tower, air traffic control clearance<br />

is required for entry onto the movement<br />

area.<br />

NAVAID: a term used to describe any<br />

electrical or visual air navigational aids,<br />

lights, signs, and associated supporting<br />

equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc..)<br />

NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line<br />

on a map <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> vicinity connecting<br />

all points <strong>of</strong> the same noise<br />

exposure level.<br />

NONDIRECTIONAL BEACON<br />

(NDB): A beacon transmitting nondirectional<br />

signals whereby the pilot <strong>of</strong> an<br />

aircraft equipped with direction finding<br />

equipment can determine his or her<br />

bearing to and from the radio beacon<br />

and home on, or track to, the station.<br />

When the radio beacon is installed in<br />

conjunction with the Instrument Landing<br />

System marker, it is normally called<br />

a Compass Locator.<br />

NONPRECISION APPROACH PRO-<br />

CEDURE: a standard instrument<br />

approach procedure in which no electronic<br />

glide slope is provided, such as<br />

VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC.<br />

OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): an area on<br />

the ground centered on a runway, taxiway,<br />

or taxilane centerline provided to<br />

A-7<br />

enhance the safety <strong>of</strong> aircraft operations<br />

by having the area free <strong>of</strong> objects, except<br />

for objects that need to be located in the<br />

OFA for air navigation or aircraft<br />

ground maneuvering purposes.<br />

OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): the<br />

airspace below 150 feet above the established<br />

<strong>airport</strong> elevation and along the<br />

runway and extended runway centerline<br />

that is required to be kept clear <strong>of</strong><br />

all objects, except for frangible visual<br />

NAVAIDs that need to be located in the<br />

OFZ because <strong>of</strong> their function, in order<br />

to provide clearance for aircraft landing<br />

or taking <strong>of</strong>f from the runway, and for<br />

missed approaches.<br />

OPERATION: a take-<strong>of</strong>f or a landing.<br />

OUTER MARKER (OM): an ILS navigation<br />

facility in the terminal area<br />

navigation system located four to seven<br />

miles from the runway edge on the<br />

extended centerline indicating to the<br />

pilot, that he/she is passing over the<br />

facility and can begin final approach.<br />

PRECISION APPROACH: a standard<br />

instrument approach procedure which<br />

provides runway alignment and glide<br />

slope (descent) information. It is categorized<br />

as follows:<br />

• CATEGORY I (CAT I): a precision<br />

approach which provides for<br />

approaches with a decision height <strong>of</strong><br />

not less than 200 feet and visibility<br />

not less than 1/2 mile or Runway<br />

Visual Range (RVR) 2400 (RVR 1800)<br />

with operative touchdown zone and<br />

runway centerline lights.<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


• CATEGORY II (CAT II): a precision<br />

approach which provides for<br />

approaches with a decision height <strong>of</strong><br />

not less than 100 feet and visibility<br />

not less than 1200 feet RVR.<br />

• CATEGORY III (CAT III): a precision<br />

approach which provides for<br />

approaches with minima less than<br />

Category II.<br />

PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDI-<br />

CATOR (PAPI): A lighting system<br />

providing visual approach slope guidance<br />

to aircraft during a landing<br />

approach. It is similar to a VASI but provides<br />

a sharper transition between the<br />

colored indicator lights.<br />

PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA<br />

(POFA): an area centered on the extended<br />

runway centerline, beginning at the<br />

runway threshold and extending behind<br />

the runway threshold that is 200 feet<br />

long by 800 feet wide. <strong>The</strong> POFA is a<br />

clearing standard which requires the<br />

POFA to be kept clear <strong>of</strong> above ground<br />

objects protruding above the runway<br />

safety area edge elevation (except for<br />

frangible NAVAIDS). <strong>The</strong> POFA applies<br />

to all new authorized instrument<br />

approach procedures with less than 3/4<br />

mile visibility.<br />

PROHIBITED AREA: see special-use<br />

airspace.<br />

REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUT-<br />

LET (RCO): an unstaffed transmitter<br />

receiver/facility remotely controlled by<br />

air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight<br />

service stations (FSSs). RCOs were<br />

established to provide ground-toground<br />

communications between air<br />

A-8<br />

traffic control specialists and pilots at<br />

satellite <strong>airport</strong>s for delivering enroute<br />

clearances, issuing departure authorizations,<br />

and acknowledging instrument<br />

flight rules cancellations or<br />

departure/landing times.<br />

REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER<br />

(RTR): see remote communications outlet.<br />

RTRs serve ARTCCs.<br />

RELIEVER AIRPORT: an <strong>airport</strong> to<br />

serve general aviation aircraft which<br />

might otherwise use a congested air-carrier<br />

served <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

RESTRICTED AREA: see special-use<br />

airspace.<br />

RNAV: area navigation - airborne<br />

equipment which permits flights over<br />

determined tracks within prescribed<br />

accuracy tolerances without the need to<br />

overfly ground-based navigation facilities.<br />

Used enroute and for approaches<br />

to an <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

RUNWAY: a defined rectangular area<br />

on an <strong>airport</strong> prepared for aircraft landing<br />

and take<strong>of</strong>f. Runways are normally<br />

numbered in relation to their magnetic<br />

direction, rounded <strong>of</strong>f to the nearest 10<br />

degrees. For example, a runway with a<br />

magnetic heading <strong>of</strong> 180 would be designated<br />

Runway 18. <strong>The</strong> runway<br />

heading on the opposite end <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

is 180 degrees from that runway<br />

end. For example, the opposite runway<br />

heading for Runway 18 would be Runway<br />

36 (magnetic heading <strong>of</strong> 360).<br />

Aircraft can take<strong>of</strong>f or land from either<br />

end <strong>of</strong> a runway, depending upon wind<br />

direction.<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


RUNWAY BLAST PAD: a surface adjacent<br />

to the ends <strong>of</strong> runways provided to<br />

reduce the erosive effect <strong>of</strong> jet blast and<br />

propeller wash.<br />

RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS<br />

(REIL): Two synchronized flashing<br />

lights, one on each side <strong>of</strong> the runway<br />

threshold, which provide rapid and positive<br />

identification <strong>of</strong> the approach end<br />

<strong>of</strong> a particular runway.<br />

RUNWAY GRADIENT: the average<br />

slope, measured in percent, between the<br />

two ends <strong>of</strong> a runway.<br />

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE<br />

(RPZ): An area <strong>of</strong>f the runway end to<br />

enhance the protection <strong>of</strong> people and<br />

property on the ground. <strong>The</strong> RPZ is<br />

trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are<br />

determined by the aircraft approach<br />

speed and runway approach type and<br />

minima.<br />

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): a<br />

defined surface surrounding the runway<br />

prepared or suitable for reducing<br />

the risk <strong>of</strong> damage to airplanes in the<br />

event <strong>of</strong> an undershoot, overshoot, or<br />

excursion from the runway.<br />

RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): an<br />

instrumentally derived value, in feet,<br />

representing the horizontal distance a<br />

pilot can see down the runway from the<br />

runway end.<br />

RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ):<br />

an area on the <strong>airport</strong> to be kept clear <strong>of</strong><br />

permanent objects so that there is an<br />

unobstructed line-<strong>of</strong>-site from any point<br />

five feet above the runway centerline to<br />

A-9<br />

any point five feet above an intersecting<br />

runway centerline.<br />

SEGMENTED CIRCLE: a system <strong>of</strong><br />

visual indicators designed to provide<br />

traffic pattern information at <strong>airport</strong>s<br />

without operating control towers.<br />

SHOULDER: an area adjacent to the<br />

edge <strong>of</strong> paved runways, taxiways or<br />

aprons providing a transition between<br />

the pavement and the adjacent surface;<br />

support for aircraft running <strong>of</strong>f the<br />

pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast<br />

protection. <strong>The</strong> shoulder does not necessarily<br />

need to be paved.<br />

SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: <strong>The</strong><br />

straight line distance between an aircraft<br />

and a point on the ground.<br />

SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: airspace <strong>of</strong><br />

defined dimensions identified by a surface<br />

area wherein activities must be<br />

confined because <strong>of</strong> their nature and/or<br />

wherein limitations may be imposed<br />

upon aircraft operations that are not a<br />

part <strong>of</strong> those activities. Special-use airspace<br />

classifications include:<br />

• ALERT AREA: airspace which may<br />

contain a high volume <strong>of</strong> pilot<br />

training activities or an unusual type<br />

<strong>of</strong> aerial activity, neither <strong>of</strong> which is<br />

hazardous to aircraft.<br />

• CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: airspace<br />

wherein activities are<br />

conducted under conditions so<br />

controlled as to eliminate hazards to<br />

nonparticipating aircraft and to<br />

ensure the safety <strong>of</strong> persons or<br />

property on the ground.<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


• MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA<br />

(MOA): designated airspace with<br />

defined vertical and lateral dimensions<br />

established outside Class A<br />

airspace to separate/segregate certain<br />

military activities from instrument<br />

flight rule (IFR) traffic and to identify<br />

for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic<br />

where these activities are conducted.<br />

• PROHIBITED AREA: designated airspace<br />

within which the flight <strong>of</strong><br />

aircraft is prohibited.<br />

• RESTRICTED AREA: airspace designated<br />

under Federal Aviation<br />

Regulation (FAR) 73, within which<br />

the flight <strong>of</strong> aircraft, while not wholly<br />

prohibited, is subject to restriction.<br />

Most restricted areas are designated<br />

joint use. When not in use by the<br />

using agency, IFR/VFR operations<br />

can be authorized by the controlling<br />

air traffic control facility.<br />

• WARNING AREA: airspace which<br />

may contain hazards to nonparticipating<br />

aircraft.<br />

STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPAR-<br />

TURE (SID): a preplanned coded air<br />

traffic control IFR departure routing,<br />

preprinted for pilot use in graphic and<br />

textual form only.<br />

STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL<br />

(STAR): a preplanned coded air traffic<br />

control IFR arrival routing, preprinted<br />

for pilot use in graphic and textual or<br />

textual form only.<br />

STOP-AND-GO: a procedure wherein<br />

an aircraft will land, make a complete<br />

stop on the runway, and then commence<br />

a take<strong>of</strong>f from that point. A stop-and-go<br />

is recorded as two operations: one<br />

A-10<br />

operation for the landing and one operation<br />

for the take<strong>of</strong>f.<br />

STRAIGHT-IN LANDING/APPROACH:<br />

a landing made on a runway aligned<br />

within 30 degrees <strong>of</strong> the final approach<br />

course following completion <strong>of</strong> an<br />

instrument approach.<br />

TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION<br />

(TACAN): An ultra-high frequency electronic<br />

air navigation system which<br />

provides suitably-equipped aircraft a<br />

continuous indication <strong>of</strong> bearing and<br />

distance to the TACAN station.<br />

TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE<br />

(TORA): see declared distances.<br />

TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE<br />

(TODA): see declared distances.<br />

TAXILANE: the portion <strong>of</strong> the aircraft<br />

parking area used for access between<br />

taxiways and aircraft parking positions.<br />

TAXIWAY: a defined path established<br />

for the taxiing <strong>of</strong> aircraft from one part<br />

<strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> to another.<br />

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): a<br />

defined surface alongside the taxiway<br />

prepared or suitable for reducing the<br />

risk <strong>of</strong> damage to an airplane unintentionally<br />

departing the taxiway.<br />

TETRAHEDRON: a device used as a<br />

landing direction indicator. <strong>The</strong> small<br />

end <strong>of</strong> the tetrahedron points in the<br />

direction <strong>of</strong> landing.<br />

THRESHOLD: the beginning <strong>of</strong> that<br />

portion <strong>of</strong> the runway available for<br />

landing. In some instances the landing<br />

threshold may be displaced.<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


TOUCH-AND-GO: an operation by an<br />

aircraft that lands and departs on a runway<br />

without stopping or exiting the<br />

runway. A touch-and-go is recorded as<br />

two operations: one operation for the<br />

landing and one operation for the<br />

take<strong>of</strong>f.<br />

TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): <strong>The</strong> first<br />

3,000 feet <strong>of</strong> the runway beginning at<br />

the threshold.<br />

TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION<br />

(TDZE): <strong>The</strong> highest elevation in the<br />

touchdown zone.<br />

TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHT-<br />

ING: Two rows <strong>of</strong> transverse light bars<br />

located symmetrically about the runway<br />

centerline normally at 100-foot intervals.<br />

<strong>The</strong> basic system extends 3,000 feet<br />

along the runway.<br />

TRAFFIC PATTERN: <strong>The</strong> traffic flow<br />

that is prescribed for aircraft landing at<br />

or taking <strong>of</strong>f from an <strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> components<br />

<strong>of</strong> a typical traffic pattern are<br />

the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind<br />

leg, base leg, and final approach.<br />

BASE<br />

LEG<br />

FINAL APPROACH<br />

RUNWAY<br />

ENTRY<br />

DOWNWIND LEG<br />

UPWIND LEG<br />

CROSS-<br />

WIND<br />

LEG<br />

DEPARTURE LEG<br />

UNICOM: A nongovernment communication<br />

facility which may provide<br />

<strong>airport</strong> information at certain <strong>airport</strong>s.<br />

Locations and frequencies <strong>of</strong> UNI-<br />

COM’s are shown on aeronautical<br />

charts and publications.<br />

A-11<br />

UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to<br />

the landing runway in the direction <strong>of</strong><br />

landing. See “traffic pattern.”<br />

VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircraft<br />

to provide navigational guidance<br />

by radar.<br />

VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/ OMNIDI-<br />

RECTIONAL RANGE STATION<br />

(VOR): A ground-based electronic navigation<br />

aid transmitting very high<br />

frequency navigation signals, 360<br />

degrees in azimuth, oriented from<br />

magnetic north. Used as the<br />

basis for navigation in the<br />

national airspace<br />

system. <strong>The</strong> VOR<br />

periodically identifies<br />

itself by Morse Code<br />

and may have an<br />

additional voice<br />

identification feature.<br />

300°<br />

240°<br />

VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI-<br />

DIRECTIONAL RANGE STATION/<br />

TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION<br />

(VORTAC): A navigation aid providing<br />

VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and<br />

TACAN distance-measuring equipment<br />

(DME) at one site.<br />

VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or<br />

portion there<strong>of</strong> established in the form<br />

<strong>of</strong> a corridor, the centerline <strong>of</strong> which is<br />

defined by radio navigational aids.<br />

VISUAL APPROACH: An approach<br />

wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan,<br />

operating in VFR conditions under the<br />

control <strong>of</strong> an air traffic control facility<br />

and having an air traffic control authorization,<br />

may proceed to the <strong>airport</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

destination in VFR conditions.<br />

360°<br />

180°<br />

60°<br />

120°<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDI-<br />

CATOR (VASI): An <strong>airport</strong> lighting<br />

facility providing vertical visual<br />

approach slope guidance to aircraft during<br />

approach to landing by radiating a<br />

directional pattern <strong>of</strong> high intensity red<br />

and white focused light beams which<br />

indicate to the pilot that he is on path if<br />

he sees red/white, above path if<br />

white/white, and below path if<br />

red/red. Some <strong>airport</strong>s serving large<br />

aircraft have three-bar VASI’s which<br />

provide two visual guide paths to the<br />

same runway.<br />

VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules<br />

that govern the procedures for conducting<br />

flight under visual conditions. <strong>The</strong><br />

term VFR is also used in the United<br />

States to indicate weather conditions<br />

that are equal to or greater than minimum<br />

VFR requirements. In addition, it<br />

is used by pilots and controllers to indicate<br />

type <strong>of</strong> flight plan.<br />

VOR: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirectional<br />

Range Station.”<br />

VORTAC: See “Very High Frequency<br />

Omnidirectional Range Station/Tactical<br />

Air Navigation.”<br />

WARNING AREA: see special-use<br />

airspace.<br />

A-12<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


ABBREVIATIONS<br />

AC: advisory circular<br />

ADF: automatic direction finder<br />

ADG: airplane design group<br />

AFSS: automated flight service<br />

station<br />

AGL: above ground level<br />

AIA: annual instrument<br />

approach<br />

AIP: Airport Improvement<br />

Program<br />

AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford<br />

Aviation Investment and<br />

Reform Act for the 21st<br />

Century<br />

ALS: approach lighting system<br />

ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high<br />

intensity approach lighting<br />

system with<br />

sequenced flashers (CAT I<br />

configuration)<br />

ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high<br />

intensity approach light<br />

ing system with<br />

sequenced flashers (CAT II<br />

configuration)<br />

APV: instrument approach<br />

procedure with vertical<br />

guidance<br />

ARC: <strong>airport</strong> reference code<br />

A-13<br />

ARFF: aircraft rescue and<br />

firefighting<br />

ARP: <strong>airport</strong> reference point<br />

ARTCC: air route traffic control<br />

center<br />

ASDA: accelerate-stop distance<br />

available<br />

ASR: <strong>airport</strong> surveillance radar<br />

ASOS: automated surface<br />

observation station<br />

ATCT: <strong>airport</strong> traffic control<br />

tower<br />

ATIS: automated terminal information<br />

service<br />

AVGAS: aviation gasoline -<br />

typically 100 low lead<br />

(100LL)<br />

AWOS: automated weather observation<br />

station<br />

BRL: building restriction line<br />

CFR: Code <strong>of</strong> Federal Regulations<br />

CIP: capital improvement<br />

program<br />

DME: distance measuring equipment<br />

DNL: day-night noise level<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


DWL: runway weight bearing<br />

capacity for aircraft with<br />

dual-wheel type landing<br />

gear<br />

DTWL: runway weight bearing<br />

capacity for aircraft with<br />

dual-tandem type landing<br />

gear<br />

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration<br />

FAR: Federal Aviation<br />

Regulation<br />

FBO: fixed base operator<br />

FY: fiscal year<br />

GPS: global positioning system<br />

GS: glide slope<br />

HIRL: high intensity runway<br />

edge lighting<br />

IFR: instrument flight rules<br />

(FAR Part 91)<br />

ILS: instrument landing system<br />

IM: inner marker<br />

LDA: localizer type directional<br />

aid<br />

LDA: landing distance available<br />

LIRL: low intensity runway edge<br />

lighting<br />

LMM: compass locator at middle<br />

marker<br />

A-14<br />

LOC: ILS localizer<br />

LOM: compass locator at ILS<br />

outer marker<br />

LORAN: long range navigation<br />

MALS: medium intensity<br />

approach lighting system<br />

MALSR: medium intensity<br />

approach lighting system<br />

with runway alignment<br />

indicator lights<br />

MIRL: medium intensity runway<br />

edge lighting<br />

MITL: medium intensity taxiway<br />

edge lighting<br />

MLS: microwave landing<br />

system<br />

MM: middle marker<br />

MOA: military operations area<br />

MSL: mean sea level<br />

NAVAID: navigational aid<br />

NDB: nondirectional radio<br />

beacon<br />

NM: nautical mile (6,076 .1 feet)<br />

NPES: National Pollutant Discharge<br />

Elimination System<br />

NPIAS: National <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>of</strong> Integrated<br />

Airport Systems<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


NPRM: notice <strong>of</strong> proposed rulemaking<br />

ODALS: omnidirectional approach<br />

lighting system<br />

OFA: object free area<br />

OFZ: obstacle free zone<br />

OM: outer marker<br />

PAC: planning advisory<br />

committee<br />

PAPI: precision approach path<br />

indicator<br />

PFC: porous friction course<br />

PFC: passenger facility charge<br />

PCL: pilot-controlled lighting<br />

PIW: public information<br />

workshop<br />

PLASI: pulsating visual approach<br />

slope indicator<br />

POFA: precision object free area<br />

PVASI: pulsating/steady visual<br />

approach slope indicator<br />

RCO: remote communications<br />

outlet<br />

REIL: runway end identifier<br />

lighting<br />

RNAV: area navigation<br />

RPZ: runway protection zone<br />

A-15<br />

RSA: Runway Safety Area<br />

RTR: remote transmitter/<br />

receiver<br />

RVR: runway visibility range<br />

RVZ: runway visibility zone<br />

SALS: short approach lighting<br />

system<br />

SASP: state aviation system plan<br />

SEL: sound exposure level<br />

SID: standard instrument<br />

departure<br />

SM: statute mile (5,280 feet)<br />

SRE: snow removal equipment<br />

SSALF: simplified short approach<br />

lighting system with<br />

sequenced flashers<br />

SSALR: simplified short approach<br />

lighting system with runway<br />

alignment indicator<br />

lights<br />

STAR: standard terminal arrival<br />

route<br />

SWL: runway weight bearing<br />

capacity for aircraft with<br />

single-wheel type landing<br />

gear<br />

STWL: runway weight bearing<br />

capacity for aircraft with<br />

single-wheel tandem type<br />

landing gear<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


TACAN: tactical air navigational<br />

aid<br />

TDZ: touchdown zone<br />

TDZE: touchdown zone elevation<br />

TAF: Federal Aviation Administration<br />

(FAA) Terminal<br />

Area Forecast<br />

TODA: take<strong>of</strong>f distance available<br />

TORA: take<strong>of</strong>f runway available<br />

TRACON: terminal radar approach<br />

control<br />

VASI: visual approach slope<br />

indicator<br />

VFR: visual flight rules (FAR<br />

Part 91)<br />

VHF: very high frequency<br />

VOR: very high frequency omnidirectional<br />

range<br />

VORTAC: VOR and TACAN<br />

collocated<br />

A-16<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

www.c<strong>of</strong>fmanassociates.com


Appendix B<br />

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION


Appendix B<br />

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION<br />

A review <strong>of</strong> the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed <strong>airport</strong><br />

projects is an essential consideration in the Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> process. <strong>The</strong><br />

primary purpose <strong>of</strong> this Appendix is to review the proposed improvement program<br />

for <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport to determine whether the proposed actions could,<br />

individually or collectively, have the potential to significantly affect the quality <strong>of</strong><br />

the environment. <strong>The</strong> information contained in this Appendix was obtained from<br />

various Internet websites and analysis by the consultant. This evaluation considers<br />

all environmental categories outlined in FAA Order1050.1E and Order 5050.4A,<br />

Airport Environmental Handbook.<br />

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT<br />

As a result <strong>of</strong> the Airport <strong>Master</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> analysis, a number <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong> improvements<br />

have been recommended for implementation over the long-range planning horizon.<br />

Following is a discussion <strong>of</strong> planned major projects.<br />

AIRSIDE DEVELOPMENT<br />

<strong>The</strong> recommended airside concept is presented on Exhibit 5A. Of primary<br />

consideration is providing the runway system with the means to accommodate the<br />

larger and faster business aircraft which currently operate at the <strong>airport</strong> and are<br />

B-1


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

the plan includes a 1,370-foot southerly extension <strong>of</strong> Runway 17-35. This extension<br />

will allow the runway to provide adequate operational length for nearly all the<br />

business aircraft in the fleet.<br />

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

standards. <strong>The</strong> primary result <strong>of</strong> this approach is a change in the Runway Safety<br />

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

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

required to be cleared, graded, stabilized, and suitable to support aircraft and<br />

emergency vehicles. This area must also be free <strong>of</strong> objects and ruts. <strong>The</strong> plan also<br />

considers ultimately relocating the parallel taxiway 100 feet to the west.<br />

LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT<br />

Exhibit 5A depicts the recommended landside development plan for the <strong>airport</strong><br />

which will require the acquisition <strong>of</strong> approximately 148 acres to implement.<br />

Proposed development in the northern portion <strong>of</strong> the terminal area includes the<br />

development <strong>of</strong> two large conventional hangars. In order to provide for greater<br />

depth <strong>of</strong> development in the terminal area, the plan includes the acquisition <strong>of</strong> 98<br />

acres <strong>of</strong> land immediately west <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> and development <strong>of</strong> an improved on<strong>airport</strong><br />

roadway system. As depicted, the plan includes the extension <strong>of</strong> a taxiway<br />

west from the DPS hangar to serve this area. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the plan considers allowing<br />

the southernmost existing T-hangar area to be expanded to the west.<br />

<strong>The</strong> southern terminal area has been significantly modified from the previous<br />

master plan. This concept proposes the development <strong>of</strong> large conventional hangars<br />

immediately south <strong>of</strong> the southernmost existing T-hangars. <strong>The</strong> plan would allow<br />

for the development <strong>of</strong> five large conventional hangars and adjoining aircraft<br />

parking apron. <strong>The</strong>se facilities could house fixed base operators or large bulk<br />

aircraft storage hangars. Further south, the proposed development concept<br />

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

in this area, however, significant drainage improvements would be necessary as the<br />

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

drainage channel but pavement could be placed atop the route. <strong>Final</strong>ly, the<br />

southernmost portion <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong> is planned for five T-hangars.<br />

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS<br />

<strong>The</strong> following sections provide a description <strong>of</strong> the environmental resources which<br />

could be impacted by the proposed <strong>airport</strong> development.<br />

B-2


TABLE A<br />

Environmental Evaluation<br />

Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />

Air Quality. <strong>The</strong> U.S. Environmental<br />

Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted air<br />

quality standards that specify the maximum<br />

permissible short-term and long-term<br />

concentrations <strong>of</strong> various air contaminants.<br />

<strong>The</strong> National Ambient Air Quality<br />

Standards (NAAQS) consist <strong>of</strong> primary and<br />

secondary standards for six criteria<br />

pollutants which include: Ozone (O3),<br />

Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide<br />

(SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ), Particulate<br />

matter (PM10 and PM 2.5), and Lead (Pb).<br />

Potentially significant air quality impacts,<br />

associated with an FAA project or action,<br />

would be demonstrated by the project or<br />

action exceeding one or more <strong>of</strong> the NAAQS<br />

for any <strong>of</strong> the time periods analyzed. Various<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> review apply within both NEPA and<br />

permit requirements.<br />

Coastal Resources. Federal activities<br />

involving or affecting coastal resources are<br />

governed by the Coastal Barriers Resource<br />

Act (CBRA), the Coastal Zone Management<br />

Act (CZMA), and E.O. 13089, Coral Reef<br />

Protection.<br />

Compatible Land Use. <strong>The</strong> compatibility<br />

<strong>of</strong> existing and planned land uses in the<br />

vicinity <strong>of</strong> an <strong>airport</strong> is usually associated<br />

with the extent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>’s noise<br />

impacts. Typically, significant impacts will<br />

occur over noise-sensitive areas within the<br />

65 DNL noise contour.<br />

Construction Impacts. Construction<br />

impacts typically relate to effects on specific<br />

impact categories, such as air quality or<br />

noise, during construction.<br />

B-3<br />

• <strong>Mesquite</strong> Metro Airport is located in<br />

Dallas County, Texas. Dallas County is<br />

listed by the EPA as being in<br />

•<br />

nonattainment for 8-hour ozone. A<br />

conformity evaluation will be required<br />

to determine conformity with the State<br />

Implementation <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />

Detailed air quality analysis is needed<br />

to determine potential impacts to air<br />

quality that may result from<br />

implementation <strong>of</strong> the various<br />

•<br />

development projects.<br />

A number <strong>of</strong> projects planned at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> could have temporary air quality<br />

impacts during construction. Emissions<br />

from the operation <strong>of</strong> construction<br />

vehicles and fugitive dust from<br />

pavement removal are common air<br />

pollutants during construction.<br />

However, with the use <strong>of</strong> best<br />

•<br />

management practices (BMPs) during<br />

construction, these air quality impacts<br />

can be significantly lessened.<br />

No impacts. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is not located<br />

within a Coastal Management Zone or<br />

Coastal Barrier Area.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> proposed <strong>airport</strong> improvements will<br />

not result in noise impacts to noisesensitive<br />

development, as no noisesensitive<br />

development is contained<br />

within the existing or future 65 DNL<br />

noise contours.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> BMPs during construction is<br />

typically a requirement <strong>of</strong> constructionrelated<br />

permits such as an NPDES<br />

permit. Use <strong>of</strong> these measures typically<br />

has temporary air or water quality<br />

impacts.


TABLE A (Continued)<br />

Environmental Evaluation<br />

Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation Act,<br />

Section 4(f). A significant impact would<br />

occur when a proposed action involves more<br />

than a minimal physical use <strong>of</strong> a Section 4(f)<br />

property, (publicly owned land from a public<br />

park, recreation area, or wildlife and<br />

waterfowl refuge <strong>of</strong> national, state, or local<br />

significance, or any land from a historic site<br />

<strong>of</strong> national, state, or local significance) or is<br />

deemed a “constructive use” substantially<br />

impairing the Section 4(f) property where<br />

mitigation measures do not reduce or<br />

eliminate the impacts. Substantial<br />

impairment would occur when impacts to<br />

Section 4(f) lands are sufficiently serious so<br />

that the value <strong>of</strong> the site in terms <strong>of</strong> its prior<br />

significance and enjoyment are substantially<br />

reduced or lost.<br />

Farmlands. Under the Farmland<br />

Protection Policy Act (FPPA), federal<br />

agencies are directed to identify and take<br />

into account the adverse effects <strong>of</strong> federal<br />

programs on the preservation <strong>of</strong> farmland,<br />

to consider appropriate alternative actions<br />

which could lessen adverse effects, and to<br />

assure that such federal programs are, to<br />

the extent practicable, compatible with state<br />

or local government programs and policies to<br />

protect farmland. <strong>The</strong> FPPA guidelines<br />

apply to farmland classified as prime or<br />

unique, or <strong>of</strong> state or local importance as<br />

determined by the appropriate government<br />

agency, with concurrence by the Secretary <strong>of</strong><br />

Agriculture.<br />

B-4<br />

• According to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong><br />

interactive mapping, the Creek Crossing<br />

Activity Park Area is located<br />

approximately .5 mile from the south<br />

end <strong>of</strong> existing Runway 35. It is not<br />

anticipated that the proposed<br />

development would ‘substantially<br />

impair’ the uses <strong>of</strong> this park. <strong>The</strong><br />

improvements will not require the<br />

physical use <strong>of</strong> any Section 4(f) lands.<br />

• According to <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mesquite</strong> zoning,<br />

which was updated in 2004, the<br />

agricultural land surrounding the<br />

<strong>airport</strong> is zoned as Industrial/Business<br />

Park. As the <strong>airport</strong> is surrounded by<br />

land dedicated to urban development,<br />

the FPPA does not likely apply. Further<br />

coordination within the Natural<br />

Resource Conservation Service is<br />

required to confirm this finding.


TABLE A (Continued)<br />

Environmental Evaluation<br />

Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />

Fish, Wildlife, and <strong>Plan</strong>ts. <strong>The</strong> Fish and<br />

Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National<br />

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)<br />

determines that a significant impact will<br />

result when the proposed action would likely<br />

jeopardize the continued existence <strong>of</strong> a<br />

species in question, or would result in the<br />

destruction or adverse modification <strong>of</strong><br />

federally-designated critical habitat in the<br />

area. Lesser impacts, as outlined by<br />

agencies and organizations having<br />

jurisdiction, may result in a significant<br />

impact.<br />

B-5<br />

• According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife<br />

Service, Endangered Species List for<br />

Dallas County, Texas, five species are<br />

listed, all <strong>of</strong> which are birds.<br />

<strong>The</strong> bald eagle and piping Plover are<br />

both listed as threatened species and<br />

the black-capped Vireo, golden-checked<br />

warbler, and least tern are listed as<br />

endangered species. <strong>The</strong>se species all<br />

require an aquatic habitat as they nest<br />

near coastal areas, rivers, lakes, and<br />

reservoirs.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> East Fork <strong>of</strong> the Trinity River is<br />

located approximately one mile east <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>airport</strong>. In addition, numerous<br />

tributaries to the river are located<br />

within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

• Consultation with the U.S. Fish and<br />

Wildlife Service is needed to determine<br />

if these species would be impacted by<br />

the various development projects at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. A Biological Assessment will<br />

likely be needed to assist with impact<br />

determination.


TABLE A (Continued)<br />

Environmental Evaluation<br />

Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />

Floodplains. Significant impacts to<br />

floodplains occur when a proposed action<br />

results in notable adverse impacts on<br />

natural and beneficial 100-year floodplain<br />

values.<br />

Hazardous Materials, Pollution<br />

Prevention, and Solid Waste. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />

must comply with applicable pollution<br />

control statutes and requirements. Impacts<br />

may occur when changes to the quantity or<br />

type <strong>of</strong> solid waste generated, or type <strong>of</strong><br />

disposal, differ greatly from existing<br />

conditions.<br />

B-6<br />

• According to the Federal Emergency<br />

Management Agency (FEMA) Federal<br />

Insurance Rate Maps dated August 28,<br />

2001, the <strong>airport</strong> is located in a Zone X.<br />

This zone represents an area <strong>of</strong> 500-year<br />

flood; areas <strong>of</strong> 100-year flood with<br />

average depths <strong>of</strong> less than one foot or<br />

with drainage less than one mile; and<br />

areas protected by levees from a 100year<br />

flood.<br />

• As mentioned previously, the East Fork<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Trinity River is located<br />

approximately one-mile east <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>. <strong>The</strong> 100-year floodplain<br />

associated with the river remains just<br />

east <strong>of</strong> the Dallas-Kauffman County<br />

line, east <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>. Additionally, a<br />

100-year floodplain associated with the<br />

North <strong>Mesquite</strong> Creek, a tributary to<br />

the East Fork Trinity River, is located<br />

approximately one mile west and<br />

southwest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

• No impacts to floodplains are<br />

anticipated as no proposed<br />

improvements are planned to be<br />

constructed within the previously<br />

•<br />

outlined floodplain areas.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> will need to continue to<br />

comply with a National Pollution<br />

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)<br />

permit, which will ensure that pollution<br />

control measures are in place at the<br />

<strong>airport</strong>.<br />

As development occurs at the <strong>airport</strong>,<br />

the permit will need to be modified to<br />

reflect the additional impervious<br />

surfaces and stormwater retention<br />

facilities. <strong>The</strong> addition and removal <strong>of</strong><br />

impervious surfaces may require<br />

•<br />

modifications to this permit should<br />

drainage patterns be modified.<br />

As a result <strong>of</strong> increased operations at<br />

the <strong>airport</strong>, solid waste will slightly<br />

increase; however, these increases are<br />

not anticipated to be significant.


TABLE A (Continued)<br />

Environmental Evaluation<br />

Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />

Historical, Architectural,<br />

Archaeological, and Cultural<br />

Resources. Impacts may occur when the<br />

proposed project causes an adverse effect on<br />

a property which has been identified (or is<br />

unearthed during construction) as having<br />

historical, architectural, archaeological, or<br />

cultural significance.<br />

Light Emissions and Visual Impacts.<br />

Impacts occur when lighting associated with<br />

an action will create an annoyance among<br />

people in the vicinity or interfere with their<br />

normal activities. Aesthetic impacts relate<br />

to the extent that the development contrasts<br />

with the existing environment and whether<br />

the jurisdictional agency considers this<br />

contrast objectionable.<br />

Natural Resources and Energy Supply.<br />

In instances <strong>of</strong> major proposed actions,<br />

power companies or other suppliers <strong>of</strong><br />

energy will need to be contacted to<br />

determine if the proposed project demands<br />

can be met by existing or planned facilities.<br />

B-7<br />

• According to the Texas Historical<br />

Commission, no known historic or<br />

•<br />

cultural resource areas are located in<br />

the project area.<br />

A cultural resources survey may be<br />

required by the SHPO for those areas<br />

which have not been previously<br />

•<br />

disturbed. This will most likely be<br />

needed during coordination for the<br />

runway extension and other projects.<br />

Lighting impacts potentially resulting<br />

from the proposed <strong>airport</strong> improvements<br />

will be associated with the proposed<br />

MALSR on Runway 17 as well as the<br />

relocation <strong>of</strong> lead-in lights to Runway<br />

35. Medium intensity runway lights<br />

and runway end identifier lighting are<br />

also found at the <strong>airport</strong>.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> MALSR proposed for Runway 17<br />

will be adjusted to accommodate Scyene<br />

Road. Traffic on Scyene Road will not<br />

be affected by the relocated lights.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> relocated lead-in lights on the south<br />

end <strong>of</strong> the runway extension will be in<br />

closer proximity to the planned<br />

•<br />

residential development in that area.<br />

All lighting at the airfield is controlled<br />

by the pilot. Airfield lighting is not on<br />

continuously.<br />

• Increased use <strong>of</strong> energy and natural<br />

resources are anticipated as operations<br />

at the <strong>airport</strong> grow. None <strong>of</strong> the<br />

planned development projects are<br />

anticipated to result in significant<br />

increases in energy consumption.


TABLE A (Continued)<br />

Environmental Evaluation<br />

Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />

Noise. <strong>The</strong> Yearly Day-Night Average<br />

Sound Level (DNL) is used in this study to<br />

assess aircraft noise. DNL is the metric<br />

currently accepted by the Federal Aviation<br />

Administration (FAA), Environmental<br />

Protection Agency (EPA), and Department <strong>of</strong><br />

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as<br />

an appropriate measure <strong>of</strong> cumulative noise<br />

exposure. <strong>The</strong>se three agencies have each<br />

identified the 65 DNL noise contour as the<br />

threshold <strong>of</strong> incompatibility.<br />

Secondary (Induced) Impacts. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

impacts address those secondary impacts to<br />

surrounding communities resulting from the<br />

proposed development, including shifts in<br />

patterns <strong>of</strong> population growth, public service<br />

demands, and changes in business and<br />

economic activity to the extent influenced by<br />

<strong>airport</strong> development.<br />

B-8<br />

• As depicted on Exhibit A, the existing<br />

DNL noise contour extends <strong>of</strong>f <strong>airport</strong><br />

property approximately 250 feet to the<br />

east and 175 feet to the southwest. <strong>The</strong><br />

65 DNL noise contour also extends<br />

beyond Scyene Road to the north. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

are no noise-sensitive land uses within<br />

the contour as these areas are currently<br />

agricultural and open space land uses.<br />

• <strong>The</strong> ultimate 65 DNL noise contour,<br />

depicted on Exhibit B, extends <strong>of</strong>f<br />

existing <strong>airport</strong> property approximately<br />

600 feet to the east and 150 feet to the<br />

west. Southeast <strong>of</strong> the <strong>airport</strong>, the<br />

Devil’s Bowl Racetrack is partially<br />

included within the 65 DNL noise<br />

contour; this is not considered a noisesensitive<br />

land use. <strong>The</strong>re are no noisesensitive<br />

land uses within the ultimate<br />

65 DNL noise contour.<br />

• Significant shifts in patterns <strong>of</strong><br />

population movement or growth or<br />

public service demands are not<br />

anticipated as a result <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />

development. It could be expected,<br />

however, that the proposed development<br />

would potentially induce positive<br />

socioeconomic impacts for the<br />

community over a period <strong>of</strong> years. <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>airport</strong>, with expanded facilities and<br />

services, would be expected to attract<br />

additional users. It is also expected to<br />

encourage tourism, industry, and trade<br />

and to enhance the future growth and<br />

expansion <strong>of</strong> the community’s economic<br />

base. Future socioeconomic impacts<br />

resulting from the proposed<br />

development are anticipated to be<br />

primarily positive in nature.


04MP22-5A-12/7/05<br />

65<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

DNL Noise Contours<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

65<br />

70<br />

70<br />

75<br />

75<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

Existing Runway 17-35 17-35 (5,999' x 100')<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

NORTH<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Exhibit A<br />

EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS


04MP22-5A-2/8/06<br />

65<br />

LEGEND<br />

Airport Property Line<br />

Ultimate Airport Property Line<br />

DNL Noise Contours<br />

Ultimate Pavement<br />

Scyene Scyene Scyene Rd. Rd. Rd.<br />

Union Union Union Pacific Pacific Pacific Railroad Railroad Railroad<br />

65<br />

70<br />

75<br />

Airport Blvd.<br />

Lawson Rd.<br />

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

100')<br />

Berry Berry Berry Rd. Rd.<br />

Alignment Alignment<br />

190 190 Highway Highway<br />

Proposed Proposed<br />

NORTH<br />

35<br />

0 800 1600<br />

SCALE IN FEET<br />

DATE OF PHOTO: 2-3-05<br />

Exhibit B<br />

ULTIMATE NOISE CONTOURS


TABLE A (Continued)<br />

Environmental Evaluation<br />

Environmental Resource Potential Resource Impacts<br />

Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental<br />

Justice, and Children’s Environmental<br />

Health and Safety Risks. Impacts occur<br />

when disproportionately high and adverse<br />

human health or environmental effects occur<br />

to minority and low-income populations;<br />

disproportionate health and safety risks<br />

occur to children; and extensive relocation <strong>of</strong><br />

residents, businesses, and disruptive traffic<br />

patterns are experienced.<br />

Water Quality. Water quality concerns<br />

associated with <strong>airport</strong> expansion most <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

relate to domestic sewage disposal,<br />

increased surface run<strong>of</strong>f and soil erosion,<br />

and the storage and handling <strong>of</strong> fuel,<br />

petroleum, solvents, etc.<br />

Wetlands. Wetlands are defined by<br />

Executive Order 11990, Protection <strong>of</strong><br />

Wetlands, as those areas that are inundated<br />

by surface or groundwater with a frequency<br />

sufficient to support, and under normal<br />

circumstances, does or would support a<br />

prevalence <strong>of</strong> vegetation or aquatic life that<br />

requires saturated or seasonally-saturated<br />

soil conditions for growth and reproduction.<br />

Wild and Scenic Rivers. Wild and scenic<br />

rivers (WSR) are designated by the Wild and<br />

Scenic River Act. A National Rivers<br />

Inventory (NRI) is maintained to identify<br />

those river segments which are protected<br />

under this Act.<br />

B-9<br />

• <strong>The</strong> proposed project includes the<br />

•<br />

acquisition <strong>of</strong> approximately 143 acres<br />

<strong>of</strong> land on the west side <strong>of</strong> <strong>airport</strong><br />

property. This land is currently used for<br />

agricultural purposes. One home will be<br />

impacted by the acquisition.<br />

<strong>The</strong> property acquisition process must<br />

comply with the Uniform Relocation<br />

Assistance and Real Property<br />

•<br />

Acquisition Policies Act <strong>of</strong> 1970.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> will need to continue to<br />

comply with an NPDES operations<br />

permit.<br />

• With regard to construction activities,<br />

the <strong>airport</strong> and all applicable<br />

contractors will need to obtain and<br />

comply with the requirements and<br />

procedures <strong>of</strong> the construction-related<br />

NPDES General Permit, including the<br />

preparation <strong>of</strong> a Notice <strong>of</strong> Intent and a<br />

Stormwater Pollution Prevention <strong>Plan</strong>,<br />

prior to the initiation <strong>of</strong> project<br />

•<br />

construction activities.<br />

According to a United States Geological<br />

Survey Topographic Map, an unnamed<br />

tributary to North <strong>Mesquite</strong> Creek is<br />

located west <strong>of</strong> the south end <strong>of</strong> the<br />

runway. This area is planned for<br />

multiple hangar facilities.<br />

Further coordination with the U.S.<br />

Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers and local<br />

permitting agencies will be required<br />

prior to construction <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />

projects.<br />

• No impacts. <strong>The</strong> <strong>airport</strong> is not located<br />

near any designated wild and scenic<br />

rivers.


KANSAS CITY<br />

(816) 524-3500<br />

237 N.W. Blue Parkway<br />

Suite 100<br />

Lee's Summit, MO 64063<br />

Airport Consultants<br />

PHOENIX<br />

(602) 993-6999<br />

4835 E. Cactus Road<br />

Suite 235<br />

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!