Airport Highlights 2004 1007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

runways and taxi ways. Ms. Wedl explained that the study was initiated in response to San Francisco Airport's efforts to build a runway in the bay. Oakland felt it prudent to begin a parallel study to see what would be involved should the need arise to create a new runway for Oakland. However, neither study was ever finished. Oakland never did final review or adoption of the drafted study for two reasons — San Francisco stopped pursuing a runway in the bay, and the events of September 11 shifted all priorities to security and other concerns. The consultant's suggestions in the Airfield Planning Study have never been finalized by the Port one way or the other. Ms. Wedl agreed to create a chronology of the airport's plans and projects, along with the status of each element and an indication of whether or not the documents will be used for future planning or development. The Committee and airport representatives discussed touch - and -go flights at the North Field. There were approximately 2,600 touch - and -go operations at the North Field in May of this year. The Committee asked if that was a lot. The reply was that there can be many more. In the past several years, September 11 aside, all traffic at the North Field has declined. Airport staff described what would happen if the LLS on runway 27R was moved to 27L, as is called for in the Settlement Agreement. They explained that presently, touch - and -go traffic can operate primarily over airport and industrial property on runway 27L, while other operations, including instrument arrivals, continue on 27R. If the ILS is moved, touch -and- go flights would shift over to 27R and likely would encroach significantly on residential areas to avoid conflicts with arriving traffic coming into 27L. Committee members asked why this was not brought out in the Settlement Agreement. The reply was that the airport was not consulted on the matter, and the attorneys working on the agreement had not thoroughly examined the impacts of the change in ILS operations before it was added to the agreement. Airport representatives advised that if the second ILS is installed by the FAA, adding one to runway 27L and leaving the existing ILS in place on 27R, there would be a redundancy of systems to allow for more flexibility in addressing noise abatement. It will provide additional safety for airport operations should one of the systems go down, and it will allow gradual instrument decent approaches for both runways, which are quieter than step -down approaches. Also, with two 1LS in place, touch - and -go flights could continue on 27L during the daytime, but at night instrument arrivals could be moved over to 27L to avoid more neighborhoods. The FAA has completed its technical study of adding an ILS to 27L. Technically it is possible to do, however the environmental study is still underway. Committee members then had questions of the FAA representatives from the Air Traffic Control Tower. Jim Matthews and Les Scott advised that having two instrument landing systems would not increase traffic at the airport. There are specific FAA regulations that determine separations required for instrument arrivals to runways that are closer than 3,000 2