WHAT AIRPORT MANAGERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TERPS Association of California Airports

1. WHAT AIRPORT MANAGERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TERPS Association of California Airports Lake Tahoe, California September 10, 2014 QEDAirport & Aviation Consultants Ronald F. Price, P.E. 904.310.6220QEDron@aol.com

2. AGENDA • FAR Part 77 vs. TERPS • Uses of TERPS for other than instrument procedure design • Synergy between airport planning, engineering design and TERPS • Aircraft accidents • Question and Answer session QED

3. FAR PART 77 VS. TERPS • FAR Part 77 is a regulatory trigger • Fixed geometry by classification of runway use and visibility • TERPS are design criteria • Flexible and variable • FAR Part 77 deals with objects • Obstructions and hazards • TERPS addresses obstacles by segment • Controlling obstacle QED

4. INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT TERPS • Under what circumstances is a TERPS obstacle clearance surface slope = 34:1? • When would a TERPS obstacle clearance surface slope = 50:1? • An instrument approach procedure is always feasible, it just a question of what will be the minimums • There is one exception – when the GQS is penetrated, an IAP with vertical guidance is not authorized • The GQS evaluation is the last in the sequence • TERPS is an iterative process QED

5. PART 77 VS. TERPS – SIZE • Size comparison visualization; drawn to scale • LNAV approach to each runway end, 5500’ in length, 250-1 • Part 77 conical surface ends 14,200’ from each runway end • Runway begins and ends here • Horizontal limits of conical surface

6. OTHER USES OF TERPS • Improve existing IAPs, DPs • Aircraft noise abatement • Land use control QED

12. THE TAKEAWAY • Use TERPS to not only improve on existing IAPs and DPs in terms of operational utility, but also to mitigate aircraft noise impacts and control land use • The FAA’s IAP or DP design does not typically consider environmental factors outside the 65 Ldn • Get involved in the procedure design process; the earlier the better • Know which obstacle is controlling current or potential IAP minimums and its accuracy code • Take appropriate action QED

13. MCGHEE TYSON AIRPORT

14. MCGHEE TYSON AIRPORT

15. TERPS AND THE ACIP • 12 to 18 months to publish a new IAP • Use this time to meet applicable facility design standards • Update the ACIP and priorities accordingly • Include TERPS feasibility studies in next airport plan • Test IAP possibilities (lower minimums and/or environmental mitigation) • Address obstacle issues before FAA FPO is engaged • Assess the B/C ratio QED

16. PV, LCC B/C RATIO • Numerator – Benefits • Operational and safety benefits associated with a decrease in approach minimums • Quantifiable based on weather data and unconstrained demand for instrument approaches by aircraft class • Denominator – Costs • Cost to meet applicable facility design criteria • Life-cycle cost to install, operate and maintain the approach lighting system • B/C Ratio • > 1.00 = cost- beneficial • < 1.00 = consider requesting higher minimums, or do not pursue the IAP QED

17. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS • Liability can be assessed to: • Aircraft owner, operator, manufacturer, subcontractors • Airport owner, operator and consulting engineer • Airport construction companies • Obstruction owners • Airport’s liability concerns • Lack of zoning and/or enforcement • Negligence in lighting/marking obstructions (FAR Part 77) • Airport liability mitigation measures • Zone for ALP ultimate configuration • Consider both FAR Part 77 and TERPS • Screen FAA Form 7460 submittals • Monitor local planning and zoning applications QED

18. For further information, contact: Ronald F. Price, P.E. QED 904-310-6220 QEDron@aol.com