Peter J. Kirsch GA Airport Use Limitations: Policy Update University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Aviation Noise Symposium 2004 Jet Set Go Environmental Aviation Takes Off

Todays Presentation Why Focus on GA Airports? New FAA Policy – Weight Limits Trends in FAA Policymaking Implications

Focus on GA Airports Success of ANCA at large commercial airports 25 Years of Part 150 successes (primarily commercial airports) Absence of land use buffers (commercial and industrial land uses) Post 2001 growth patterns

GA Airport Small Airport GA Airports Commercial Airports

Weight Limitations – Recent History Teterboro Decision February 2002 FAA response to Boeing complaint TEB has prior-permission rule for aircraft over 100,000 pounds MTOW Boeing: limit not based on pavement strength; could handle 171,000 #

Teterboro No federal obligation to allow aircraft over 100,000 pounds because of design standards at this airport. The FAA cannot require an airport owner to reconstruct airport pavements to accommodate a heavier aircraft. The proprietor reserves the right to make managerial and planning decisions relative to the long term use of the airport.

New FAA Weight Policy Controversial – comments Defines when weight limit is reasonable under grant assurances Realigns the balance: protect physical facility vs. allow access Bright line rules probably unreasonable Does not apply to airport geometry (?)

New Weight Policy 1.Proprietor has obligation to accommodate heaviest aircraft that desire to use airport. 2. In most cases it should not be necessary or appropriate to impose aircraft operating restrictions to protect pavement from occasional operations of aircraft which exceed the published pavement strength. 3.Weight may be limited only to the extent needed to prevent actual damage and excessive wear.

New Weight Policy 4.Use actual weight bearing capacity, not design criteria for limitations. 5.Proprietor has burden to demonstrate reasonableness. 6.Can avoid regulatory scrutiny by upgrading pavement to accommodate all who desire to operate. 7.Proprietor must have engineering evidence on the effect of operations at certain weights.

New Weight Policy 8.Limits motivated by interest in mitigating noise are unreasonable and impermissible. 9.Policy is draft in name only: the FAA will apply the policy as proposed until a final policy is adopted.

Implications of New Policy No bright lines; lots of PPRs Invitation to challenge historic limitations Unintended consequences –Maintenance –Runway improvements –Operational costs Education of public

Why the Concern About Weight? Explosion in corporate GA traffic New GA aircraft (BBJ, C320, Global Exp.) Blurred size distinction – GA vs. commercial aircraft FAA perception: weight is surrogate for noise/ growth limits Community perception: weight is surrogate for impacts/ commercial operations

Perception of Aircraft Impacts

Introduction of Larger GA Aircraft Commercial Aircraft GA Aircraft

Context Weight policy is latest in recent trend over last 24+ months: Increased FAA (and FAA HQ) control over airport operations, decision making

Context: Recent Trends Part 139 revisions (9 seat rule) Safety/operational limitations Reevaluation of old noise rules Renewed strict application of noise compatibility threshold (65 dB DNL) Aggressive attack noise rules (new verb: to be Napled)

FAAAirports The Historic Balance Airport Facilities

FAA Airports The New Balance

Reactions to FAA Initiatives Concern about facility maintenance Increased proprietor focus on GA traffic Alternate, creative approaches Pleas to Congress

Congressional Involvement Passenger Service: Centennial (Arapahoe County, CO) Stage 2 Ban: Jackson Hole (WY) Weight Limits: Teterboro (NJ) New Runway: Louis Armstrong (New Orleans, LA) Airspace Reallocation: UT, AZ, NJ

FAA The New New Balance ? Airports Congress Public

Conclusions and Observations Historic agency antagonism Increasingly aggressive approach Substantially greater federal control – –Weight –Noise –Safety purpose, intent or effectAgency focus on purpose, intent or effect Exceptions for industry-promoted efforts

Questions Source documents are posted on our web site or we can you copies

Contact Information Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell 1675 Broadway Suite 2300 Denver, CO Tel: Cell: Fax: Web: