2014 TIA General Aviation Strategic Plan

Transcription

General Aviation Strategic Plan
for
TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Tucson, Arizona
Prepared for
THE TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY
by
Coffman Associates, Inc.
Approved by Tucson Airport Authority Board of Directors
on September 9, 2014
September 2014
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tucson, Arizona
Chapter One
INVENTORY
PLAN OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 1-2
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES ................................................................................................. 1-2
Area A ........................................................................................................................................ 1-2
Area B ........................................................................................................................................ 1-2
Area D ........................................................................................................................................ 1-3
General Aviation Service Providers ............................................................................... 1-5
BUSINESS CONDITIONS REVIEW ................................................................................................. 1-7
Review of Profit/(Loss) ...................................................................................................... 1-7
Investments in General Aviation .................................................................................... 1-9
General Aviation Ratios................................................................................................... 1-11
MANAGEMENT POLICIES REVIEW ........................................................................................... 1-11
Marketing and Communication Methods ................................................................. 1-14
Chapter Two
FORECASTS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
FORECAST GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY ............................................................................. 2-1
National Aviation Trends and Forecasts ..................................................................... 2-1
National Trends ..................................................................................................................... 2-2
General Aviation Trends .................................................................................................... 2-2
General Aviation Aircraft Shipments and Revenues ............................................... 2-3
Historic Activity Levels....................................................................................................... 2-5
General Aviation Fleet Mix ................................................................................................ 2-7
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix ..................................................................................................... 2-8
GENERAL AVIATION USER SURVEY............................................................................................ 2-9
Respondent Profile ........................................................................................................... 2-10
Basing Priorities ................................................................................................................. 2-11
Service Providers Preference........................................................................................ 2-11
Needed Improvements .................................................................................................... 2-11
Existing Facility and Expense Ratings ....................................................................... 2-11
Survey Summary ................................................................................................................ 2-12
GA FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................... 2-12
Hangars.................................................................................................................................. 2-12
Aircraft Parking Apron .................................................................................................... 2-14
General Aviation Terminal Services ........................................................................... 2-16
Chapter Three
GA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
General Aviation Considerations .................................................................................... 3-2
Area D ........................................................................................................................................ 3-2
Area A ........................................................................................................................................ 3-3
Area B ........................................................................................................................................ 3-4
Chapter Four
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND MONITORING PLAN
COMPARISON AIRPORT GA POLICIES ........................................................................................ 4-1
Land Lease Rates .................................................................................................................. 4-3
Fuel Flowage Fees ................................................................................................................ 4-4
TSA Badging Fees ................................................................................................................. 4-5
Federal Inspection Services (FIS) Fees ........................................................................ 4-5
GA Landing Fees .................................................................................................................... 4-6
GA Financial Data.................................................................................................................. 4-6
GA Hangar Rates ................................................................................................................... 4-9
On-Site GA Restaurant ..................................................................................................... 4-11
STRATEGIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................. 4-11
GA Management ................................................................................................................. 4-11
Governing Documents ..................................................................................................... 4-16
Marketing and Communication.................................................................................... 4-17
ONGOING MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................... 4-17
Chapter Five
GA DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND BEST PRACTICES
GA DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 5-1
Signage/Wayfinding System ............................................................................................ 5-2
Airport Restaurant/Community Attraction ............................................................... 5-2
Area B ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2
Area A ........................................................................................................................................ 5-4
GA DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 5-4
Life Cycle Costs ...................................................................................................................... 5-6
Proposed GA Capital Improvement Program ............................................................ 5-6
Value of the GA Development ....................................................................................... 5-11
Financial Analysis Summary ......................................................................................... 5-14
POLICY AND PROCESS BEST PRACTICES ............................................................................... 5-14
SUMMARY OF PLAN OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 5-16
EXHIBITS
1A
1B
1C
1D
2A
2B
2C
EXISTING GENERAL AVIATION AREAS ................................................. after page 1-2
AREA A EXISTING FACILITIES................................................................... after page 1-2
AREA B EXISTING FACILITIES................................................................... after page 1-2
AREA D EXISTING FACILITIES .................................................................. after page 1-4
2D
2E
U.S. GENERAL AVIATION CONDITIONS ................................................. after page 2-4
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ............ after page 2-4
TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT GENERAL AVIATION
OPERATIONAL HISTORY ............................................................................. after page 2-6
SURVEY RESPONSE LOCATIONS ............................................................ after page 2-10
SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILE ........................................................... after page 2-10
4A
4B
COMPARISON COMMUNITY ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................... after page 4-2
GA PERFORMANCE MEASURE RATIOS ............................................... after page 4-18
3A
3B
3C
3D
5A
AREA D MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAYOUT ............................................ after page 3-2
AREA A ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. after page 3-4
AREA B ALTERNATIVE 1 ............................................................................. after page 3-4
AREA B ALTERNATIVE 2 ............................................................................. after page 3-6
AREA A AND AREA B RECOMMENDED CONCEPTS .......................... after page 5-2
Appendix A
GA USER SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY
Appendix B
GOVERNING DOCUMENTS REVIEW
Appendix C
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Chapter One
INVENTORY
INVENTORY
Chapter One
In 1998, the Tucson Airport Authority (TAA) established a goal to proactively
focus on the future growth and management of general aviation (GA) at Tucson
International Airport (TIA). A result of this was the preparation of the 1998 GA
Strategic Plan, which provided TAA with guidance for managing and
implementing GA improvements and activities at TIA.
Based upon
recommendations
in
the
1998
GA
Strategic
Plan,
numerous
development/redevelopment and management policy enhancements were
made that resulted in approximately $23 million of overall investment in GA
facilities at TIA from 1998 to 2011.
To coincide with the recent update of the TIA Airport Master Plan, TAA has
commissioned an update to the GA Strategic Plan. This GA Strategic Plan
Update will be wholly compatible with the Master Plan completed and
approved in 2013. This includes refining development recommended in the
Master Plan and providing guidance for managing GA activities.
The GA Strategic Plan Update will provide recommendations from which the
TAA may take action to improve GA facilities and associated services important
to public needs, convenience, and economic growth. All design elements of this
planning document are prepared in accordance with FAA requirements,
including Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design.
1-1
Tucson International Airport – GA Strategic Plan
PLAN OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established to be addressed in this planning document:
•
•
•
•
Business stability, sustainability, and enhancement
Operational flexibility and efficiency
Safety culture and enhancement
Aesthetics
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES
TIA is located on 8,343 acres, approximately eight miles south of downtown Tucson and at
an elevation of 2,643 feet above mean sea level (MSL). GA facilities comprise approximately 124 acres of TIA property, and in 2012, GA activity accounted for 65,655 operations, or
roughly 45 percent of all operations at TIA.
GA is defined by the FAA as all non-scheduled flights other than military conducted by noncommercial aircraft. GA covers local recreational flying to business transport that is not
operating under FAA regulations for commercial air carriers. GA facilities are generally
considered to be the ground-based facilities that support aircraft and pilot/passenger handling functions. These facilities typically include fixed base operators (FBOs), aircraft storage/maintenance hangars, aircraft parking ramps, and support facilities such as fuel storage, automobile parking, and roadway access. The three main GA areas of TIA are identified on Exhibit 1A. Table 1A provides descriptions of all buildings in each of the three
main GA areas.
AREA A
Area A, depicted on Exhibit 1B, encompasses approximately 18 acres and is located at the
north end of the Airport along Valencia Road and to the east of the Arizona Air National
Guard (AANG) facilities. Area A is home to Million Air’s hangar and services facility as well
as two T-hangar facilities leased by Handy Hangars, three clear span conventional storage
hangars owned by Arizona Aviation Association, Real Air, and Terry Amalong.
Area A has direct taxilane access to the Runway 21 threshold. Aircraft are required to taxi
across the crosswind runway to parallel Taxiway D to access the primary or parallel runways. Vehicle access to Area A is restricted to east-bound traffic on Valencia Road.
AREA B
Area B, depicted on Exhibit 1C, encompasses approximately 94 acres and is located northwest of the airline passenger terminal building. A fence provides a physical barrier between Area B’s ramp and the air carrier ramp. The international terminal located north of
INVENTORY
1-2
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
General Aviation Area
Industrial Use
Million Air
cia
Tucson Jet Center
te
Sonoran Wings
.
Rd
Area A
n
le
a
V
E.
Premier
Aviation
Arizona
National Guard
Atlantic
Aviation
Southwest
Heliservices
ATCT
Area B
Runway 11L/29R
Runway 11R/29L
Velocity Air
(Double Eagle
ag
agle
gle Aviation
Avia
A
viat
atiio
on/A
o
n/A
//Arizona Aero-Tech)
Runway 3/21
Area D
S.
NORTH
0
1000
2000
No
ga
les
Hw
y.
3000
SCALE IN FEET
Photo Source: Google Earth, 10/9/2012
Exhibit 1A
EXISTING GENERAL AVIATION AREAS
LEGEND
General Aviaiton Area A
cia
Area A
.
Rd
en
l
Va
E.
Area B
A11
5
S.
No
ga
les
Hw
y.
A11
7
A10
4
ia
Runway 11R/29L
Area D
A10
3
A11
3
A11
4
Runway 3/21
Runway 11L/29R
EXISTING FACILITIES IDENTIFICATION KEY
.
Rd
Building #
A-103
A-104
A-113
A-114
A-115
A-117
c
en
Runway 3/21
al
V
E.
Building Type
Hangar
Hangar
Hangar
Hangar
Hangar
Hangar
Tenant
AZ Aviation Association
Handy Hangars
Real Air LLC
Million Air
Handy Hangars
Terry Amalong
NORTH
0
400
800
1600
SCALE IN FEET
Exhibit 1B
AREA A EXISTING FACILITIES
ST
uc
EM
ed
in
a
Rd
.
LEGEND
General Aviaiton Area B
n
Bl
cia
.
Rd
Area A
en
vd
.
l
Va
E.
Area B
Rd
.
lv
Runway 3/21
ira
B-282
EE
B-281
EA
ra
g
on
Rd
.
B-280
so
B-283
B-249
B-247
B
B B- -15251
B- 27 8
25 3
B2
25
4
B-250
B-277
B-276
E Airport Dr.
B-308
B-241-ABC
B-259
B-242
B-288
B-292
B-228
B-168
B-411
NORTH
0
400
800
1600
SCALE IN FEET
Runway 11L/29R
E Flightline Dr.
Runway 3/21
B-229
B-8
No
ga
les
Hw
Runway 11R/29L
Area D
y.
S Plumer Ave
B-248
S.
B28
B- 9
30
B- 5
30
B- 6
3
B- 07
29
3
B-285
B15
9
B16
2
B-246
B-243
B-418 B-155
B-274
0
24
B-
B-416 B-417
Runway 11L/29R
B-221
Building #
B-8
B-155
B-158
B-159
B-162
B-168
B-221
B-228
B-229
B-240
B-241-ABC
Building Type
Hangar
Ramada
Well House
Trailer
Trailer
Shade Hangar
Restaurant Building
T Hangar and Office
T Hangar and Office
Office
Hangar
B-242
T Hangar
B-243*
Building
B-246*
Building
B-247
Hangar
B-248
Hangar
B-249
Radio Shop Building
B-251*
Building
B-252*
Building
B-254
Helicopter Hangar
B-259*
Offices
B-273*
Building
B-274*
Building
B-276
Ramada
B-277
Ramada
B-280
Helicopter Hangar
B-281
Hangar
B-282
Hangar and Office
B-283
Hangar
B-285
Ramada
B-288
T Hangar and Offices
B-289
Hangar
B-292
Office
B-293
Hangar
B-305
Hangar
B-306
Hangar
B-307
Hangar
B-308
Hangar
B-411
Building
B-416
Hangar
B-417
Hangar
B-418
Ramada
*Old Maintenance Facility
Tenant
Atlantic Aviation
TAA
TAA
TAA
TAA
TAA
TAA
TAA
TAA
Pima County
Atlantic Aviation
/Apple Auto/Aerospace Hangars
TAA - Various Tenants
Vacant
Vacant
Hotton Enterprises
Hotton Enterprises
Hotton Enterprises
Vacant
Vacant
TAA - Southwest Heliservices
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Atlantic Aviation
Atlantic Aviation
Med Trans Corp
Tucson Police Department
Tucson Jet Center/Ratliff Aviation
Ratliff Aviation
Hotton Enterprises
TAA - Various Tenants
Lan-Dale
Vacant
Aerovation
Lan-Dale
Victor II
Aerovation
TAA
Atlantic Aviation
Universal Avionics
Pima County
Aircraft Wash Rack
Exhibit 1C
AREA B EXISTING FACILITIES
the passenger terminal is designed to be accessible to general aviation aircraft for use of
the customs facilities by international general aviation flights.
Area B is home to several FBO operators including: Atlantic Aviation, Hotton Enterprises
(Premier Aviation), and Tucson Jet Center (Ratliff Aviation) among several other tenants.
Various law enforcement tenants also lease hangar space in this area. A listing of all Area B
facilities is provided on Exhibit 1C.
Access from Area B to the airfield is provided by Taxiways A and D. Of the three GA areas,
Area B is the most centrally located and easily accessible from the airfield. Landside access
is available from South Plumer Avenue. Airport Drive provides access between the GA area
and the passenger terminal. TAA offices are located at the intersection of Plumer Avenue
and Airport Drive. Plumer Drive also supports several office buildings, including the Executive Terminal building. The airport traffic control tower is located above the Executive
Terminal.
AREA D
Area D, depicted on Exhibit 1D, encompasses approximately 136 acres and is located on
the west side of the Airport. The primary GA operators in Area D include Velocity Air and
Ascent Aviation Services. Velocity Air is a full service FBO and Ascent Aviation Services
provides narrowbody maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services. It should be noted that the realignment of Runway 11R-29L proposed in TIA’s Master Plan will require the
relocation of Velocity Air’s facilities and adjustments to Ascent Aviation Services’ facilities.
Three hangar facilities are located in Area D, which are now utilized as warehouses by various tenants. These facilities do not presently house aircraft nor are they used for GA purposes.
The Pima Community College operates its Aviation Technology Center in Area D. The college offers certificate and degree opportunities in airframe and powerplant, avionics, and
structural repair concentrations. The facility consists of a building with classrooms and
hangar space. Several aircraft are parked adjacent to the facility and are used for instructional purposes.
Airside access is provided by Taxiways A and B, and landside access is available from State
Route 89 (Tucson-Nogales Highway) as well as from Park Avenue and Valencia Road.
INVENTORY
1-3
TABLE 1A
General Aviation Building Inventory
Tucson International Airport
Building #
Building Type & Tenant
A-103
Hangar
Arizona Aviation
Association
A-104
Hangar
Handy Hangars
A-110
Hangar
SkyWest
A-111
Building
TAA
A-112
Building
TAA
A-113
Hangar
Real Air LLC
A-114
Building/Hangar
Million Air
A-115
Hangar
Handy Hangars
A-117
Hangar
Terry Amalong
B-008
Hangar
Atlantic Aviation
B-040
Executive Terminal/Tower
TAA
B-220
Office Building
TAA/Others
B-228
T-hangar
TAA
B-229
T-hangar
TAA
B-240
Office Building
Pima County
B-241A
Hangar
Atlantic Aviation
B-241B
Hangar
Apple Auto
B-241C
Hangar
Aerospace Hangars
B-242
T-hangar
TAA/Various
B-245
Fuel Truck Ramada
TAA
B-247
Hangar
Hotton Enterprises
B-248
Hangar
Hotton Enterprises
B-249
Radio Shop
Hotton Enterprises
B-254
Helicopter Hangar
Southwest Heliservices
B-276
Shade Ramada
Atlantic Aviation
B-277
Shade Ramada
Atlantic Aviation
B-280
Helicopter Hangar
Med Trans Corp
B-281
Conventional Hangar
Tucson Police
INVENTORY
Construction
Metal
Area (s.f.)
10,000
6
Metal
15,360
4
Good
Concrete/metal
24,342
56
Fair
Metal
Concrete
Metal
34,626
740
10,000
Metal
30,000
Metal
17,568
Metal
10,000
Metal
Steel & corrugated
cement siding
Concrete block
Metal
Metal
Adobe block
Metal
Metal
12,000
21,784
7,200
22,400
21,800
36,092
4,000
4,000
Metal
6,500
Metal
20,000
Metal
2,400
Metal
6,000
Metal
3,000
Metal
3,300
Metal
5,300
Metal
15,200
Metal
15,200
Metal
4,000
Metal
6,750
1-4
Age (yrs.)
45
56
6
5
4
5
6
55
54
49
49
42
22
15
15
42
24
40
40
40
21
Unknown
Unknown
35
35
Condition
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
LEGEND
General Aviaiton Area D
Industrial Use
Runway 11L/29R
cia
Area A
.
Rd
en
l
Va
E.
Area B
D15
8
D15
9
D26
D8
15
3
D25
2
D16
7
D26
7
DD- 6
31
9
26
D-
D26
0
D33
S.
No
ga
les
Hw
y.
D22
0
500
1000
Runway 11L/29R
Runway 11R/29L
Area D
D11
D1
10
19/
D10
26
1
D26
2
D11
S.
D
D71
-1
8
D27
3
D3
NORTH
Runway 3/21
Runway 3/21
Runway 11R/29L
D8
D7
B
D4
D5
DFF
C
A1
No
ga
les
Hw
y.
Building #
D-1-1
D-2-2
D-3-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-31
D-71-18
D-101-9/10
D-111
D-153
D-158
D-159
D-167
D-252
D-260
D-261
D-262
D-267
D-268
D-269
D-273
D-FFC
Building Type
Hangar/Warehouse
Hangar/Warehouse
Hangar/Warehouse
Hangar
Hangar
Offices
Hangar
Offices
Classrooms
Warehouse
Abandoned Fire Station
Original TAA Maintenance Shop
Warehouse
Block Building
Storage Building
Manufacturing Building
Trailer - Offices
Hangar
Offices
Storage Building
Hangar
Modular Building
Ramada
Hangar and Classrooms
Fuel Farm
Tenant
Various
Various
Various
Velocity Air
Velocity Air
Velocity Air
Velocity Air (2 Buildings)
Velocity Air
Civil Air Patrol (3 Units)
TAA
TAA
TAA
Ascent
TAA - TIC
TAA
Vacant
Ascent
Ascent
TAA
TAA
Ascent
Ascent
Ascent
Pima Community College
TAA
1500
SCALE IN FEET
Exhibit 1D
AREA D EXISTING FACILITIES
TABLE 1A (Continued)
General Aviation Building Inventory
Building #
Building Type & Tenant
B-282
Conventional Hangar & Office
Tucson Jet Center
B-283
Conventional Hangar
Tucson Jet Center
B-285
Aircraft Ramada
Hotton Enterprises
B-288
T-hangar/Offices
TAA
B-289
Conventional Hangar
Lan-Dale
B-293
Conventional Hangar
Aerovation
B-305
Conventional Hangar
Lan-Dale
B-306
Conventional Hangar
Victor II
B-307
Conventional Hangar
Aerovation
B-308
T-hangar
TAA
B-411
Conventional Hangar/Offices
Atlantic Aviation
B-416
Conventional Hangar
Universal Avionics
B-417
Conventional Hangar
Pima County
B-418
Aircraft Wash Rack
TAA
D-4
Hangar
Velocity Air
D-5
Hangar
Velocity Air
D-6
Office Building
Velocity Air
D-7
Hangar
Velocity Air
D-8
Office
Velocity Air
D-31
Classrooms (3 units)
Civil Air Patrol
D-273
Hangar & Classrooms
Pima Community College
Source: TAA – TIA Building Log
Construction
Metal
Area (s.f.)
17,800
Age (yrs.)
35
Condition
Good
Metal
4,500
40
Good
Metal
Metal
12,000
22,000
Metal
8,000
Metal
8,000
Metal
6,800
Metal
6,800
Metal
6,800
Metal
26,880
Metal
18,325
Metal
10,691
Metal
9,400
Metal
Wood/corrugated
siding
Wood/corrugated
siding
Wood/corrugated
siding
Wood
Modular
Wood and metal
Metal
5,041
18,225
7,050
3,290
25,000
1,400
4,000
32,981
8
35
35
Unknown
34
32
32
32
Unknown
13
12
11
62
62
62
62
Unknown
62
12
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
GENERAL AVIATION SERVICE PROVIDERS
Tucson International Airport has several operators offering GA services. TIA has four
FBOs, which are commercial businesses that provide a full range of aeronautical services
such as fueling, hangaring, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance,
flight instruction, and various other services. Specialized aviation service operators (SASOs) and maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) operators are other GA service busiINVENTORY
1-5
nesses that specialize in certain areas such as flight training, hangar storage, or aircraft
maintenance. Table 1B summarizes businesses at TIA that provide GA services.
TABLE 1B
General Aviation Service Providers
Providers
Atlantic Aviation
TAA (managed through
private entity)
Million Air
Premier Aviation
Sonoran Wings
Tucson Jet Center
Velocity Air
Double Eagle Aviation
Arizona Aero-Tech
Handy Hangars
Services
-
Pilot/passenger services
Avionics
Parking
-
Jet A
100LL
-
Hangar
Parking
-
100LL
-
None
-
Jet A
100LL
-
-
Aircraft
Storage
Closed
hangars
Ramadas
Tiedowns
Tiedowns
T-hangars
Shadeports
Hangar
Area A
-
Tiedowns
Hangars
Area B
Fuel
Aircraft storage
Parking
Avionics
Light aircraft maintenance
Authorized Cessna service center
Parking
Aircraft rental
Flight school/instruction
Charter service
Aerial photography
Survey and scouting
Various commercial helicopter
services
Charter service
Parking
Aircraft rental
Charter service
Avionics, charter service
Parking
Helicopter rental/maintenance
Aircraft storage
FBO – Fixed Base Operator
SASO – Specialized Aviation Services Operator
-
-
Location
Area B
Area B
1-6
FBO
SASO –
Hangar
Storage
SASO –
Private
Aviation
Services
FBO
SASO Flight
School
SASO Helicopter Services
None
None
Area B
None
None
Area B
-
Jet A
100LL
-
Tiedowns
Ramadas
Area B
-
Jet A
100LL
-
Tiedowns
Hangars
Area D
FBO
-
T-Hangars
Area A
SASO –
Hangar
Storage
None
Source: Tucson International Airport Master Plan Update Draft Report, May 2013; Tucson Airport Authority records.
INVENTORY
Category
FBO
BUSINESS CONDITIONS REVIEW
The purpose of this section is to present an analysis of TIA’s existing business conditions as
they relate to GA activities.
REVIEW OF PROFIT/(LOSS)
Table 1C presents TIA’s GA profit/(loss) for fiscal year ending September 30, (FY) 2007
through FY 2012. As illustrated in the table, GA operating revenues were just over $1.0
million in FY 2007, increasing at a compound annual growth rate of 3.3 percent to approximately $1.18 million in FY 2012. GA direct operating expenses were approximately
$296,000 in FY 2007, decreasing at a compound annual growth rate of 0.8 percent to approximately $285,000 in FY 2012. This results in an average net income for GA operations
of approximately $842,000 during the six-year period. However, once TIA indirect costs
are allocated to the GA area, GA’s net income reflects a $1.2 million average annual loss
during the same time period.
TABLE 1C
GA Profit/(Loss)
REVENUES
Land Rent
% to Total
Fuel Flowage Fees
% to Total
Facility Rent
% to Total
Other GA Revenue
% to Total
Total Revenues
% to Total
Percent Change
DIRECT EXPENSES
Depreciation
% to Total
Labor
% to Total
Other GA Expenses
% to Total
Total Direct Expenses
% to Total
Percent Change
Net Income Prior to Alloc
Percent Change
Less: Allocated Overhead
Less: Allocated Airfield Costs
Net Income/(Loss)
Percent Change
Source: MAC Consulting
INVENTORY
Actual
2012
Actual
2011
Actual
2010
Actual
2009
Actual
2008
Actual
2007
CAGR
07-12
$359,478
30.6%
341,088
29.0%
453,120
38.5%
22,362
1.9%
$1,176,048
100.0%
-2.7%
$344,647
28.5%
373,752
30.9%
440,337
36.4%
49,340
4.1%
$1,208,076
100.0%
-5.2%
$327,181
25.7%
457,595
35.9%
441,572
34.7%
47,391
3.7%
$1,273,739
100.0%
12.2%
$294,740
26.0%
384,652
33.9%
400,384
35.3%
55,207
4.9%
$1,134,983
100.0%
-0.03%
$257,023
22.6%
496,270
43.7%
372,457
32.8%
9,517
0.8%
$1,135,267
100.0%
13.5%
$188,140
18.8%
464,130
46.4%
344,401
34.4%
3,738
0.4%
$1,000,409
100.0%
13.8%
$177,214
62.3%
101,303
35.6%
6,112
2.1%
$284,629
100.0%
-7.1%
$891,419
-0.9%
$891,419
(447,968)
(1,314,933)
($871,482)
17.3%
$173,310
56.6%
121,758
39.8%
11,231
3.7%
$306,299
100.0%
-12.6%
$901,777
-2.9%
$901,777
(393,702)
(1,250,882)
($742,807)
-31.9%
$175,648
50.1%
168,332
48.1%
6,322
1.8%
$350,302
100.0%
8.0%
$923,437
18.1%
$923,437
(634,649)
(1,380,309)
($1,091,521)
-5.3%
$165,527
51.0%
143,767
44.3%
15,024
4.6%
$324,318
100.0%
3.2%
$810,665
-2.9%
$810,665
(384,830)
(1,578,963)
($1,153,128)
-9.8%
$121,581
38.7%
175,340
55.8%
17,238
5.5%
$314,159
100.0%
6.1%
$821,108
20.7%
$821,108
(380,074)
(1,719,156)
($1,278,122)
-36.8%
$116,181
39.3%
167,944
56.7%
11,836
4.0%
$295,961
100.0%
8.8%
1-7
$704,448
$704,448
(675,826)
(2,052,502)
($2,023,880)
-6.0%
5.6%
43.0%
3.3%
-9.6%
-12.4%
-0.8%
4.8%
The following is a brief description of the GA revenues and expenses:
Revenues
•
FBOs – In 2012, there were four FBOs at TIA. These FBOs and their lease terms are included in Table 1D.
•
Land Rent – Land rent
represents 30.6 percent of total
TABLE 1D
revenues in FY 2012 and is reFBO Lease Terms
ceived from several GA tenants
Expiration
Annual Rentals
at TIA.
FBO
Date
Atlantic
2030
Premier
2017
Tucson Jet Center1
2018
Velocity
monthly
1 This lease has three five-year options to extend.
•
•
Land
$127,274.90
$15,960.66
$4,785.99
N/A
•
Fuel Flowage Fees –
Fuel flowage fees account for
29.0 percent of total GA revenues. Three of the four existing
FBOs, as well as Bombardier,
pay a fuel flowage fee at the TIA
in lieu of a landing fee. Premier is operating under an older fixed agreement with TAA
and pays a fuel flowage fee of $0.04 per gallon. Atlantic, Tucson Jet Center, and Bombardier pay a fuel flowage fee of $0.1063 per gallon. Fuel flowage gallons have decreased from approximately 4.4 million gallons in 2007 to approximately 3.2 million
gallons in 2012. As a result of this decrease, fuel flowage fee revenues have also decreased at an annual rate of six percent from FY 2007 to FY 2012.
Facility Rent - Facility rent represents 38.5 percent of total revenues in FY 2012 and is
received from several GA tenants at TIA.
Other GA Revenues – The remaining GA revenues at TIA primarily consist of revenues
received from common area maintenance (CAM) payments. These payments are received from tenants who use common pavement areas located in Area A and Area B
maintained by TAA.
Expenses
•
•
Depreciation – Depreciation represents 62.3 percent of total GA expenses and is related to the allocation of the cost of GA assets to the years in which the assets are used.
Even though the GA area contains several buildings, they were constructed using private investment; and therefore, depreciation related to them would not be included on
TAA’s profit/(loss) statement. As a result, the depreciation included in GA’s profit/(loss) is primarily related to pavement projects.
Labor – Labor represents 35.6 percent of total expenses in FY 2012. This line item includes the allocated labor costs of TAA staff based on work orders assigned to GA in the
areas of administration, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF), information technology,
maintenance, operations, and police.
INVENTORY
1-8
•
•
Other GA Expenses – The remaining GA expenses at TIA are miscellaneous expenses
primarily related to professional or contracted services, maintenance and repair, and
landscaping.
Indirect Expenses – TIA allocates both overhead expenses and airfield costs to GA.
Overhead expenses represent expenses associated with the administration, custodial,
finance, maintenance, marketing and business development, operations, planning and
development, police, and ARFF departments of TIA. These expenses are allocated based
on a series of formulas ranging from labor hours to fixed percentages. Airfield costs
are allocated to GA based on its share of operations at TIA. For example, in FY 2012, total operations were 145,111 of which GA accounted for 65,655 or 45 percent. As a result, 45 percent of the airfield costs were allocated to the GA profit/(loss) statement.
INVESTMENTS IN GENERAL AVIATION
TAA established a goal in 1998 to proactively focus on the future growth and management
of GA at TIA and hired Coffman Associates, Inc. to provide a General Aviation Strategic Plan
(1998 GA Plan). The 1998 GA Plan was undertaken to provide recommendations on the
implementation of future GA development at TIA to satisfy GA demand while remaining
consistent with the 1996 Master Plan.
In November 2011, TAA’s property department prepared a report detailing the GA strategic initiatives and accomplishments from 1998 through 2011. The purpose of this report
was to document TIA’s progress with the implementation of the recommendations included in the 1998 GA Plan. According to TAA’s report, over $21 million in GA investments occurred at TIA from 1998 to 2011, of which private investment was approximately $11.5
million. The majority of the recommendations from the 1998 GA Plan have occurred, with
a few under review based on changed conditions. Some of the larger investments by area
of the airfield (Areas A, B and D) are summarized below:
•
•
Area A – From 1999 through 2008, major site improvements were completed including
utility and communication upgrades for a total investment in site development and infrastructure of $2,410,441. Since that time, 32 T-hangars, three box hangars, and one
combination office/hangar facility were constructed for a total private investment estimated at $9,163,877.
Area B – TAA made multiple improvements to Area B including:
- In 1999, FBO development resulting in a 30-year lease and additional facilities totaling 31,000 sq. ft. (B-8 and B-411).
- In 2000, two box hangar developments to allow for tenant expansion at an investment of $2,320,556. In addition, TAA invested $590,759 to reconstruct the pavement surrounding two T-hangar areas (B-20 and B-22).
INVENTORY
1-9
- In 2002, TAA invested $383,450 for the design and construction of an aircraft wash
rack available for tenants to utilize. In addition to the wash rack facility, TAA provided loans to several GA tenants for facility or ramp improvements totaling
$193,581 between 2001 and 2004.
- In 2003, TAA completed a new taxiway (Taxiway T), providing GA aircraft a more efficient exit from the runway and entry into Area B.
- In 2007, a new TAA airport maintenance complex was completed.
- In 2010, the vacated TAA warehouse building was redeveloped and is now being
used for helicopter activity.
•
- In 2012, TAA completed the installation of a new 20,000-gallon fuel farm with selfservice by an existing FBO.
Area D – In 2000, TAA entered into a 30-year lease for the construction of an aviation
technology training center, which includes hangar, classroom, office, and ramp space
along Park Avenue.
Table 1G illustrates the capital improvement projects TAA completed in FY 2012 and
budgeted for FY 2013. FY 2012 expenditures are significantly less than prior years as a result of the development completed from 1998 to 2011. However, project costs increased in
FY 2013 reaffirming TAA’s commitment to GA. As shown in the table, TAA budgeted approximately $3.1 million in GA improvements, including a planned investment by TAA of
approximately $1.5 million and federal and state grants of approximately $1.6 million.
TABLE 1G
GA Capital Improvement Program
Sealcoat Pavement at Valencia GA Common Area
Sealcoat GA Valencia Area Road and Parking Lot
Sealcoat Northern Taxiways
TIA Airside Pavement Management Update
Sealcoat Teton Road
General Aviation Strategic Plan
General Aviation Area Directional Signage
Lighting Upgrades - GA Lots 20 and 22
Sealcoat Taxiways
Electrical Upgrades for Airfield Lighting System Phase 4
Airfield Safety Enhancement (ASE) Implementation Study
- Phase II
GA Hangar Area B1-Pavement Replacement
Sealcoat Pavement GA Area B-1, Lot B-22
Sealcoat Pavement GA Area B-1, Lots B-24, B-26, B-28
Total
INVENTORY
Federal
$0
0
0
0
0
167,277
0
0
0
$167,277
State
2013
$0
0
0
0
1,427,660
8,211
0
0
0
$1,435,871
1-10
TAA
$100,000
22,000
51,160
408,033
158,629
8,211
715,186
18,171
37,782
$1,519,172
Total
$100,000
22,000
51,160
408,033
1,586,289
183,700
715,186
18,171
37,782
$3,122,321
Federal
$0
0
0
0
0
State
$0
0
0
0
0
2012
TAA
$67,087
33,699
84,680
60,000
12,413
Total
$67,087
33,699
84,680
60,000
12,413
$0
$0
$257,879
$257,879
GENERAL AVIATION RATIOS
As part of this study, certain financial ratios were calculated to analyze the financial
strength of the GA operations at TIA. In a later chapter of this report, these ratios will be
benchmarked against the same ratios at comparable airports to identify potential strengths
and weaknesses of TIA’s GA operations. Table 1H presents these ratios.
TABLE 1H
Financial Ratios
Operating ratio (expenses/revenues)
GA expenses
GA revenues
Ratio
Indirect expenses as a % of total expenses
Indirect expenses
GA expenses
Ratio
GA expenses as a % of TIA expenses
GA expenses
TIA expenses
Ratio
GA revenues as a % of TIA revenues
GA revenues
TIA revenues
Ratio
GA operations as a % to total operations
GA operations
TIA operations
Ratio
Net revenues prior to alloc as a % to revenues
GA net revenues prior to allocations
GA revenues
Ratio
Fuel flowage fees as a % to revenue
Fuel flowage fees
GA revenues
Ratio
Fuel flowage fees as a % to gallons
Fuel flowage fees
Gallons
Ratio
Actual
2012
Actual
2011
Actual
2010
$284,629
$1,176,048
24.2%
$306,299
$1,208,076
25.4%
$284,629
$49,480,328
0.6%
$306,299
$50,532,322
0.6%
$350,302
$55,100,558
0.6%
$324,318
$57,769,017
0.6%
65,655
145,111
45.2%
69,393
154,360
45.0%
77,497
164,859
47.0%
91,430
178,632
51.2%
$1,762,901
$2,047,530
86.1%
$1,176,048
$55,492,676
2.4%
$1,644,584
$1,950,883
84.3%
$1,208,076
$57,407,230
2.4%
$350,302
$1,273,739
27.5%
Actual
2009
$2,014,958
$2,365,260
85.2%
$1,273,739
$57,017,039
2.3%
$324,318
$1,134,983
28.6%
$1,963,793
$2,288,111
85.8%
$1,134,983
$57,270,115
2.0%
Actual
2008
$314,159
$1,135,267
27.7%
Actual
2007
$295,961
$1,000,409
29.6%
-0.8%
3.3%
$314,159
$51,533,129
0.6%
$295,961
$49,265,932
0.6%
-0.8%
0.1%
113,869
211,144
53.9%
152,545
257,703
59.2%
-15.5%
-10.9%
$464,130
$1,000,409
46.4%
-6.0%
3.3%
$2,099,230
$2,413,389
87.0%
$1,135,267
$67,254,926
2.2%
$2,728,328
$3,024,289
90.2%
-8.4%
-7.5%
$1,000,409
$64,414,534
2.0%
3.3%
-2.9%
$891,419
$1,176,048
75.8%
$901,777
$1,208,076
74.6%
$923,437
$1,273,739
72.5%
$810,665
$1,134,983
71.4%
$821,108
$1,135,267
72.3%
$704,448
$1,000,409
70.4%
$341,088
3,214,951
10.6%
$373,752
3,352,394
11.1%
$457,595
3,052,190
15.0%
$384,652
3,040,667
12.7%
$496,270
3,771,405
13.2%
$464,130
4,360,731
10.6%
$341,088
$1,176,048
29.0%
$373,752
$1,208,076
30.9%
$457,595
$1,273,739
35.9%
$384,652
$1,134,983
33.9%
$496,270
$1,135,267
43.7%
MANAGEMENT POLICIES REVIEW
Since the completion of the 1998 GA Strategic Plan, TAA has implemented several management and policy changes to encourage private development and ensure a level playing
field for tenants. The following is a summary review of these various management policies.
Recommended adjustments to these management policies and documents will be discussed
in detail later in this study.
Minimum Standards: Adopted February 17, 2005; revised June 2, 2009. As a part of
receiving funds through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), airport sponsors agree to
grant assurances, which ensure the airport will not participate in economic discrimination
INVENTORY
1-11
CAGR
07-12
4.8%
3.3%
-6.0%
-5.9%
and will not permit exclusive rights of the airport. A means of ensuring these grant assurances are met is the creation, implementation and enforcement of minimum standards and
rules and regulations.
As stated in Section 1.1 of Tucson International Airport’s Minimum Standards, the Purpose
and Scope of the minimum standards is to “encourage, promote, and ensure (1) the delivery of high quality general aviation products, services, and facilities to Airport users; (2)
the design and development of quality general aviation improvements and facilities at the
Tucson International Airport; (3) safety and security; (4) the economic health of general
aviation Airport businesses; and (5) the orderly development of Airport property.” TIA’s
minimum standards apply to any entity desiring to engage in one or more general aviation
aeronautical activities at the Airport.
According to the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) Airport Sponsors Guide to
Minimum Standards & Airport Rules and Regulations, 2009, (Guide) minimum standards
provide benefits to the airport sponsor including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Safe operating environment
Higher quality services to the public
Airport sponsors can avoid conflicts and political entanglements
Orderly and efficient development of the airport and its services
Helps maintain compliance with Federal Grant Assurances
Protects the Airport Sponsor by ensuring service providers maintain a minimum
level of insurance coverage.
Minimum standards also provide benefits to existing and potential service providers:
•
•
Current service provider’s investment is protected from devaluation from new
competing providers operating at a substantially lower initial investment
Potential aeronautical service providers can accurately predict initial investment, allowing a more thorough business plan to be developed.
NATA’s Guide recommends tailoring minimum standards to the specific operating environment and circumstances of an airport. Segments typically include:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Introduction
Definitions
Application Procedures
Minimum Standards
Through-The-Fence Operations Policy
Enforcement
Review & Update Policy
References
INVENTORY
1-12
Rules and Regulations: Adopted February 17, 2005; revised June 2, 2009. Rules and
regulations are similar to minimum standards in that they are passed to help ensure airport sponsors adhere to AIP grant assurances. According to NATA’s Guide, “rules and regulations govern the ongoing activities of service providers and others using the airport.”
The purpose of Tucson International Airport’s Rules and Regulations is “to protect the public health, safety, interest, and general welfare at the Tucson International Airport and to
restrict or prevent any activity or action which would interfere with the safe, orderly, and
efficient use of the Airport by its passengers, operators, tenants, and users.”
Standard rules and regulations should consider the following basic topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proper conduct within the AOA
Security procedures
Fire safety
Removal of disabled aircraft
Aircraft registration
The use and storage of paints, dopes, and thinners
Storage and transport of aviation fuels
Self-fueling regulations
Procedures for the clearing of non-airworthy aircraft, wreckage, or unsightly major
components
Environmental restrictions and protections
Motor vehicle operation requirements and parking
TIA’s Rules and Regulations addresses each of these topics and defines enforcement
measures for the rules and regulations as well as TIA’s minimum standards.
Common Area Maintenance (CAM), 2009. The TAA includes language in its Area A and B
leases to define a lessee’s role in CAM. The purpose of this program is to ensure that all
common areas receive necessary maintenance. Maintenance covered includes sweeping,
lighting, landscaping, fence/gate repairs, asphalt crack sealing, seal coating and pavement
overlays. Lessee fees are calculated based on a percentage of leased space and adjusted
annually based on actual maintenance expenses incurred.
Common areas are defined by the TAA as “all areas and facilities outside the Premises that
are provided and designated by TAA from time to time for the general non-exclusive use of
TAA, Tenant, and other occupants, tenants, and users and their respective employees, suppliers, shippers, customers, contractors, and invitees, including open space, roadways, taxiways, walkways, landscaped areas and associated lighting and utilities. 1
Airfield Safety Enhancement Study (ASE), 2011: The ASE was a comprehensive review
of TIA’s airfield geometry. The three goals of the ASE’s airfield geometry mitigation strategies were to:
1
Common area definition from Article XVIII of TAA select lease agreement contracts.
INVENTORY
1-13
•
Minimize or eliminate GA aircraft from accessing Runway 11R-29L by crossing
Runway 11L-29R
• Minimize the potential for pilots approaching from the south to misidentify the left
and right runways
• Enhance awareness of the interaction between Taxiway D and Runways 11R and
11L
Specific risk mitigation strategies identified in the ASE include:
•
•
Adding a center parallel taxiway with staggered taxiways between the runways that
would increase separation distances between the runways to create a safety buffer
and prevent straight runway crossings.
Shifting the Runway 11L and 11R takeoff and landing thresholds to optimize aircraft
flows and minimize congestion through geometry changes in the vicinity of Taxiway
D and Runways 11R and 11L.
The ASE also recommended upgrading Runway 11R-29L to become a new parallel air carrier runway. Having a parallel air carrier runway provides true redundancy, nearly doubles large aircraft capacity, provides Air Traffic Control with greater flexibility in sequencing departures and arrivals, and minimizes potential pilot confusion for wrong runway
landings by aligning its thresholds with Runway 11L-29R and widening it to clearly differentiate it from a parallel taxiway.
The 2012 Draft TIA Airport Master Plan Update considered the ASE recommendations and
implemented them into its Preferred Comprehensive Development Plan.
Tenant Improvement Standards, April 5, 2011: As stated in Section 1.2 of this document, “The primary purpose of the Tenant Improvement Standards is to encourage dynamic Tenant solutions to be consistent with the unified aesthetic and functional visions of Tucson International Airport.” The Tenant Improvement Standards streamlined the process
for tenant improvements into one easy to understand document that incorporates the
Ground Rules for Construction and Signage Guidelines.
MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION METHODS
TAA utilizes multiple methods to market to and communicate with the GA community and
potential tenants and developers. Methods include TIA’s website (www.flytucson.com), GA
user group meetings, project alert messages, and customer surveys.
Website: TIA’s website provides a wide range of information from flight and airline information, parking and transportation, maps of facilities and directions, contact information
and locations of traveler services, a history of the Airport, information regarding business
opportunities at TIA, and a dedicated GA page. The GA page details TIA’s customs and immigration services, provides a directory of all GA services including a site map of the service providers, provides contact information for TAA staff regarding hangar rental, forms
INVENTORY
1-14
for the reservation of the self-service maintenance hangar, and has TIA’s minimum standards and rules and regulations documents available for download. A separate page on the
website is dedicated to business opportunities with the TAA. This page provides information for businesses looking for facility or land leasing and includes specific site data for
available development parcels.
Between September 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013, TIA’s website had 1,106,388 page
views. Of those page views, 1.14 percent of visitors viewed GA related pages.
GA User Group Meetings: TAA has held quarterly GA user group meetings since December
2010 to allow for an open dialogue with the users. On average, between 10 and 20 individuals attend the user group meetings, which are held at the Executive Terminal. Discussion
topics range from ongoing and upcoming airport projects and events and attendees are allowed the opportunity to comment on any GA related issues.
Project Alert Messages: The TAA Planning and Development department utilizes an email list of all tenants on the airport to distribute notices regarding upcoming and ongoing
projects including runway, taxiway, and apron work.
Customer Surveys: TAA has conducted annual surveys of all customers including TAA
members, terminal customers, tenants, and the Tucson community. The year to year survey results are compared to measure TAA performance.
INVENTORY
1-15
Chapter Two
FORECASTS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
FORECASTS AND FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS
Chapter Two
FORECAST GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
An important factor in facility planning involves a definition of demand that
may reasonably be expected to occur during the useful life of the facility’s key
components. For the purposes of this General Aviation (GA) Strategic Plan, the
FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) will be utilized as a basis to project GA
activity at Tucson International Airport (TIA).
Because aviation activity can be affected by many influences at the local,
regional, and national levels, it is important to remember that forecasts are to
serve only as guidelines, and planning must remain flexible enough to respond
to unforeseen facility needs.
NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS AND FORECASTS
The forecasts developed for TIA must consider national, regional, and local
aviation trends. The following section describes the trends in aviation. This
information is utilized both in statistical analysis and to aid the forecast preparer
in making any manual adjustments to the forecasts as necessary. The national
aviation forecast information is primarily sourced from the FAA Aerospace
Forecast: Fiscal Years 2013-2033.
2-1
NATIONAL TRENDS
The aviation industry in the United States has experienced an event-filled decade. Since the
turn of the century, the industry has faced impacts from the events of September 11, 2001,
scares from pandemics such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the bankruptcy
of five network air carriers, all-time high fuel prices, and a serious economic downturn with
global ramifications. The Bureau of Economic Research has determined that the worst
economic recession in the post-World War II era began in December 2007 and lasted until
mid-2009. Eight of the world’s top 10 economies were in recession by January 2009.
As the recession began, unemployment in the United States was at 5.0 percent. It continued to rise through 2008 and intensified in 2009 until peaking at 10.1 percent in October,
although the recession officially ended in June of that year. At the end of 2011, unemployment stood at 8.7 percent, and by the end of 2012, the unemployment rate was still high at
7.7 percent.
This recession did not face the high inflationary environment of the recession in the early
1980s or the high-energy costs of the mid-1970s recession. While recessions during the
post-war era have averaged 10 months in duration, this one lasted 19 months. Continued
levels of high debt, a weak housing market, and tight credit are expected to keep the recovery modest by most standards. The resolution of those factors will determine the future
path of the recovery.
The nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) is the primary measure of overall economic
growth. GDP growth rate in fiscal year 2012 was 2.2 percent, reassuring concerns about
the possibility of a double-dip recession. GDP growth did, however, soften in the 4th quarter of 2012 as uncertainty over the “fiscal cliff” reduced demand. The FAA forecasts were
based upon a 2.5 percent annual average growth in GDP from federal fiscal year 2012
through 2033.
Economic growth on the global scale is expected to be higher, with emerging markets in
Asia/Pacific and Latin America leading the way. The global GDP was projected to grow at
an average of 3.2 percent over the 20-year forecast period.
GENERAL AVIATION TRENDS
Following more than a decade of decline, the general aviation industry was revitalized with
the passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act in 1994, which limits the liability on
general aviation aircraft to 18 years from the date of manufacture. This legislation sparked
an interest to renew the manufacture of general aviation aircraft due to the reduction in
product liability, as well as renewed optimism for the industry. The high cost of product
liability insurance had been a major factor in the decision by many American aircraft
manufacturers to slow or discontinue the production of general aviation aircraft. As a result, general aviation aircraft production experienced significant gains over the next 10plus years, hitting a high of nearly 4,300 shipments in 2007.
FORECASTS AND
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
2-2
General aviation activity trends tend to closely match national economic trends. Exhibit
2A depicts an eight-year history of U.S. GA conditions including total operations at towered
airports and total certificated pilots (excluding air transport pilots). From 2008 through
2012, total general aviation aircraft operations have declined annually. Despite a July 2010
FAA rule change that extended the duration of validity for student pilot certificates for pilots under the age of 40 from 36 to 60 months, the number of active pilots continues to
drop. However, the FAA forecasts a return to general aviation operations growth with an
average annual growth rate of 0.5 percent through 2033.
The FAA forecasts the fleet and hours flown for single-engine piston aircraft, multi-engine
piston aircraft, turboprops, business jets, piston and turbine helicopters, light sport, experimental, and others (gliders and balloons). The FAA forecasts “active aircraft,” not total aircraft. An active aircraft is one that is flown at least one hour during the year. Exhibit 2B
presents the historical and forecast U.S. active general aviation aircraft.
After growing rapidly for most of the decade, the demand for business jet aircraft has
slowed over the past few years as the industry has been hard hit by the economic recession. However, recent shipment activity indicates a cautiously optimistic outlook. The FAA
forecast calls for robust growth in the long-term, driven by higher corporate profits and
continued concerns about safety, security, and flight delays. Overall, business aviation is
projected to outpace personal/recreational use.
The active general aviation fleet is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.5
percent through 2033, growing from a 2012 estimate of 220,670 to 246,375 in 2033. The
turbine fleet, including helicopters, is forecast to grow annually at 2.8 percent, with the jet
portion increasing at 3.5 percent annually.
GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT SHIPMENTS AND REVENUE
The economic recession beginning in late 2007 has had a negative impact on general aviation aircraft production, and the industry has been slow to recover. Aircraft manufacturing
declined for three straight years from 2008 through 2010. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), there is optimism that aircraft manufacturing will
stabilize and return to growth, which has been evidenced in 2011 and 2012. Table 2A presents historical data related to general aviation aircraft shipments.
Worldwide shipments of general aviation airplanes increased slightly for the second year in
a row in 2012. A total of 2,133 units were delivered around the globe, as compared to
2,120 units in 2011. Worldwide general aviation billings were slightly lower than the previous year. Billings have remained fairly steady, around $19 billion, since experiencing a
steep decline in 2009.
FORECASTS AND
2-3
TABLE 2A
Annual General Aviation Airplane Shipments
Manufactured Worldwide and Factory Net Billings
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total
1,132
1,251
1,437
1,840
2,457
2,808
3,147
2,998
2,677
2,686
2,963
3,590
4,053
4,276
3,970
2,279
2,020
2,120
2,133
SEP
544
605
731
1043
1508
1689
1,877
1,645
1,591
1,825
1,999
2,326
2,513
2,417
1,943
893
781
761
790
MEP
77
61
70
80
98
112
103
147
130
71
52
139
242
258
176
70
108
137
91
TP
233
285
320
279
336
340
415
422
280
272
321
375
412
465
538
446
368
526
580
J
278
300
316
438
515
667
752
784
676
518
591
750
886
1,136
1,313
870
763
696
672
SEP - Single Engine Piston; MEP - Multi-Engine Piston; TP - Turboprop; J - Turbofan/Turbojet
Source: General Aviation Manufacturers Association 2012 Statbook
Net Billings
($millions)
3,749
4,294
4,936
7,170
8,604
11,560
13,496
13,868
11,778
9,998
11,918
15,156
18,815
21,837
24,772
19,474
19,715
19,097
18,873
Business Jets: General aviation manufacturers delivered 672 business jets in 2012, as
compared to 696 units in 2010, a 3.4 percent decline for equivalent reporting companies.
Demand was much stronger in 2012 for large-cabin business jets, driven more heavily by
emerging markets than it was for medium and light business jets. In addition, the relatively
high number of airplanes on the used market over the past couple of years continued to
have a dampening effect on business jet shipments this year.
Turboprops: In 2012, 580 turboprop airplanes were delivered to customers around the
world, an increase of approximately 10 percent from the previous year’s figure of 526 for
equivalent reporting companies.
Pistons: Piston deliveries fell slightly from 898 units shipped from equivalent reporting
companies in 2011 to 881 during 2012. The piston segment fared best for unit deliveries
among the three segments by which GAMA tracks the airplane manufacturing industry.
This is due in part by deliveries to flight schools in emerging markets.
Most industry observers believe that the general aviation market, particularly the business
aviation market, is in a position for sustained growth. Industry net orders are back to posiFORECASTS AND
2-4
490,000
30,000
480,000
25,000
470,000
20,000
460,000
15,000
450,000
10,000
440,000
5,000
430,000
0
Active Pilots
(Thousands)
Operations at Towered Airports
35,000
420,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010*
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
2013E
ITINERANT GENERAL AVIATION
LOCAL GENERAL AVIATION
TOTAL GENERAL AVIATION
TOTAL PILOTS EXCLUDING AIR TRANSPORT
*In July 2010, the FAA issued a rule that increased the duration of validity for
student pilot certificates for pilots under the age of 40 from 36 to 60 months.
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2014-2034
Exhibit 2A
US GENERAL AVIATION CONDITIONS
U.S. Active General Aviation Aircraft
FIXED WING
Piston
Single Engine
Multi-Engine
Turbine
Turboprop
Turbojet
2013
2018
2023
2028
2033
135,005
15,530
131,095
15,165
128,200
14,605
127,115
14,085
129,040
13,650
9,830
12,230
10,650
14,420
11,595
16,895
12,665
20,285
13,740
24,620
3,865
7,130
4,400
8,415
4,885
9,705
5,415
11,110
5,970
12,585
24,750
26,250
27,745
29,370
30,980
7,075
7,890
8,680
9,460
10,245
5,670
5,635
5,605
5,575
5,545
221,085
223,920
227,915
235,080
246,375
ROTORCRAFT
Piston
Turbine
EXPERIMENTAL
SPORT AIRCRAFT
OTHER
TOTAL
275
Historical
Forecast
Aircraft (in thousands)
250
225
200
175
150
‘12
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2013-2033.
Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown
at least one hour during the calendar year.
Exhibit 2B
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT FORECASTS
tive and most leading indicators continue to improve. The large jet category of the market
is expected to expand faster than the other categories.
HISTORIC ACTVITIY LEVELS
The FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and records kept by TAA accounts for based aircraft at TIA for the past 20 years. This data is included in Table 2B. For that time period,
the TAF was used for 1992 to 2004, and TAA records were used for the period between
2005 and 2013. These records show that the number of based aircraft at TIA have declined
significantly, dropping from over 400 in the early 2000s to 202 as of the most recent quarterly report completed in October 2013. It should be noted that the based aircraft figure
utilized for this study does not include military aircraft associated with the AANG.
TABLE 2B
GA Operational History
Itinerant
Local TIA
GA Ops as %
TIA GA
GA
Total TIA GA
Total TIA
of Total
TIA Based
Year
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
Aircraft
1992
96,643
52,637
149,280
229,835
65.0%
421
1993
93,191
49,764
142,955
230,790
61.9%
421
1994
95,058
51,791
146,849
251,574
58.4%
478
1995
96,874
47,828
144,702
243,308
59.5%
478
1996
93,864
44,014
137,878
241,058
57.2%
424
1997
93,404
47,620
141,024
240,940
58.5%
385
1998
99,904
63,949
163,853
266,641
61.5%
385
1999
100,052
73,106
173,158
279,406
62.0%
412
2000
84,242
60,737
144,979
250,943
57.8%
412
2001
84,792
73,511
158,303
261,800
60.5%
416
2002
85,634
80,262
165,896
272,568
60.9%
416
2003
76,791
72,842
149,633
247,813
60.4%
419
2004
71,152
75,926
147,078
253,295
58.1%
376
2005
64,912
101,941
166,853
284,555
58.6%
292
2006
66,998
92,664
159,662
270,473
59.0%
266
2007
71,861
80,684
152,545
257,703
59.2%
308
2008
64,092
49,777
113,869
211,144
53.9%
293
2009
53,815
37,615
91,430
178,632
51.2%
275
2010
48,453
29,044
77,497
164,859
47.0%
231
2011
43,591
25,802
69,393
154,360
45.0%
214
2012
41,583
24,072
65,655
145,111
45.2%
202a
Compound Annual Growth Rates
2007-10.36%
-21.49%
-15.52%
-10.85%
-7.82%
2012
2002-6.97%
-11.35%
-8.85%
-6.11%
-6.83%
2012
1992-4.13%
-3.84%
-4.02%
-2.27%
-3.53%
2012
a As of October 2013
Source: Operations - FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS)
Based Aircraft – (1992-2004) FAA Terminal Area Forecast; (2005-2012) TAA Records
FORECASTS AND
2-5
Operations
Per Based
Aircraft
355
340
307
303
325
366
426
420
352
381
399
357
391
571
600
495
389
332
335
324
325
A 20-year history of TIA GA operations is presented in Table 2B. This data from the FAA’s
air traffic activity data system (ATADS) shows that GA operations at TIA maintained a fairly
consistent activity level from 1992 to 2007, averaging over 150,000 operations annually
and averaging 399 operations per based aircraft. In the past five years, the operations per
based aircraft figure has declined, which is typical of difficult economic times. Since 2007,
GA operations dropped considerably, reaching a 20-year low in 2012 of only 65,655 operations. Compared to total TIA operations, GA operations have declined to a greater extent,
dropping over 15.5 percent annually since 2007, whereas total operations have dropped at
a rate of 10.9 percent annually during the same time period. In 2012, TIA had 145,111 total
operations, of which GA accounted for 65,655 operations, roughly 45 percent of all operations. From 1992 to 2007, GA operations averaged 60 percent of total TIA operations.
Exhibit 2C depicts the 20-year GA operational history as it relates to historical events. As
shown, GA operational levels started to decline significantly with the bursting of the housing bubble between 2006 and 2008, which led the country into economic recession from
2008 to 2009. Coupled with the economic troubles, in 2008, a major flight training center
at Ryan Airfield, which conducted training operations at TIA, closed and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) started requiring security threat assessments and airport
identification for GA operators at Part 139 certificated airports. The more restrictive environment created by the TSA requirements have led to aircraft owners relocating from TIA
to other GA airports in the area such as Ryan Airfield and Marana Regional Airport where
they do not have airport identification requirements. These events combined resulted in a
significant decline in GA operations at TIA.
FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF)
The FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) presents operational and based aircraft projections for all National Plan of Integrated Airports System (NPIAS) airports in the United
States. The TAF considers the forecasts and assumptions contained in FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2013-2033. Factors include: economic conditions (gross domestic product [GDP] and disposable income levels); the price of oil, refinement costs, and fuel price
volatility; shipments of GA aircraft, fleet attrition and aircraft utilization; student pilot certificates; FAA facilities workloads; input from the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
and other industry experts.
The TAF projections will be utilized for this GA Strategic Plan to project demand for certain
GA facilities at TIA. The most recent TIA TAF, published in January 2013, indicates a 2012
based aircraft level of 233 and 65,847 total GA operations (local and itinerant). As shown
in Table 2C, the TAF projects GA operations to grow to over 73,000 by 2033 at a compound
annual rate of 0.50 percent, and based aircraft to grow to 313 at a compound annual rate of
1.42 percent.
The TAF based aircraft projection was adjusted to account for the existing based aircraft
level. The resulting forecast utilizes the TAF compound annual growth rate of 1.42 percent,
with based aircraft growing to 268 by 2033. Operations per based aircraft for each forecast
FORECASTS AND
2-6
General Aviation Operational History
200000
September 11
150000
General Aviation
Revitalization Act
TSA Created
Major Flight Training
Center at RYN Closed
100000
50000
0
‘92
1995
2000
2005
Economic Recession - 2008-2009
8
Burst of the Housing Bubble - 2006-2008
TSA Requires Security
Threat Assessment and
Airport ID for GA Operators
2010
‘12
Local TIA General Aviation Operations
Itinerant TIA General Aviation Operations
a
As of October 2013
Source: Operations - FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS)
• Based Aircraft – (1992-2004) FAA Terminal Area Forecast; (2005-2012) TAA Records
Exhibit 2C
GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONAL HISTORY
period remains in a range that is typical at most airports averaging 287 across the planning
period.
TABLE 2C
TAF Derived Forecast
General Aviation Operations
Actual
Itinerant
Local
Total
FAA TAF (January 2013)
Itinerant
Local
Total
Based Aircraft
Actual (as of October 2013)
FAA TAF (January 2013)
TAF Growth Rate Forecast
Operations Per Based Aircraft
1 Interpolated and extrapolated by Coffman Associates
2012
41,583
24,072
65,655
40,906
24,941
65,847
202
233
202
325
2018
2023
2033
41,725
22,870
64,595
43,877
23,445
67,322
48,521
24,629
73,150
253
217
298
273
232
290
313
268
273
GENERAL AVIATION FLEET MIX
Knowing the GA aircraft fleet mix expected to utilize the Airport is necessary to properly
plan facilities that will best serve the level of activity and the type of activities occurring at
TIA.
The FAA has established a coding system to relate airport design criteria to the operational
and physical characteristics of aircraft expected to use the airport. This airport reference
code (ARC) has two components. The first component, depicted by a letter, is the aircraft
approach category (AAC) and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristic). The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design group
(ADG) and relates to aircraft wingspan and tail height (physical characteristic).
TIA presently serves a wide variety of GA aircraft ranging from the Cessna 172 (ARC A-I)
up to the largest and fastest business aircraft such as the Gulfstream IV/G400 (ARC D-II)
and the Bombardier Global Express (ARC C-III). Local GA operations are typically conducted by small aircraft within the ARC A-I and A-II categories conducting touch-and-go flight
training operations. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed all local GA operations
will continue to be conducted by small aircraft within these categories.
Table 2D summarizes the historic and forecasted itinerant GA fleet mix for TIA. From
2008 to 2012, TIA’s total itinerant GA operations dropped roughly 35 percent. While all
AAC families experienced declines, AAC “A” suffered the bulk of the lost activity. This is
because this family of aircraft consists of small, piston-powered aircraft that are typically
used for flight training and recreational uses, which tend to decline significantly during peFORECASTS AND
2-7
riods of economic hardship and high fuel prices. While decreasing in number of operations,
business jet and turboprop aircraft grew their share of TIA itinerant GA operations, with
AAC “B” and “C” families growing 3.6 percent and 1.4 percent respectively from 2008 to
2012. AAC “D” remained fairly static over the same time period, losing an approximately
0.4 percent share of TIA itinerant GA operations.
Applying FAA’s forecasts for the national general aviation fleet to historic trends, a projected fleet mix for TIA can be generated. The forecast GA fleet mix is presented on Table 2D.
As previously discussed, the FAA projects the fleet of small, piston-powered aircraft to continue to decline into the future, while business jets and turboprop aircraft are projected to
grow considerably. The TIA itinerant operational fleet mix reflects these trends with “A”
AAC family operations decreasing at an annual compound rate of 0.9 percent. The “B,” “C,”
and “D” AAC families are projected to grow operations at annual compound rates of 1.6
percent, 1.8 percent, and 1.6 percent respectively.
TABLE 2D
Itinerant General Aviation Operational Fleet Mix by ARC
Historic
Forecast
Representative
ARC
Aircraft
2008
2012
2018
2023
2033
• Cessna 172
A-I
25,837
14,402
12,988
12,342
11,710
• Cirrus SR-20
• Gulfstream Commander
A-II
3,958
2,998
2,800
2,637
2,673
• Dehavilland Twin Otter
• Citation Jet
B-I
10,151
5,761
5,822
6,167
6,916
• King Air 90
• Beechjet
• Super King Air 200
B-II
9,599
8,563
9,594
10,966
13,000
• Falcon 2000
• Citation Excel
C-I
3,176
1,794
1,842
1,981
2,288
• Learjet 40/45
• Challenger 600
C-II
6,024
4,772
5,164
5,869
7,218
• Hawker 800
• Citation X
• Boeing Business Jet
• Gulfstream V/G550
C-III
1,719
1,092
1,180
1,328
1,662
• Gulfstream G650
• Global Express
• Learjet 35
D-I
2,333
1,374
1,421
1,538
1,749
• Learjet 60
• Gulfstream II/G200
D-II
1,295
827
914
1,049
1,305
• Gulfstream IV/G400/G450
Total
64,092
41,583
41,725
43,877
48,521
Source: 2008 and 2012 data interpolated from the FAA’s Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC) to match
FAA’s ATADS operational data. Forecasts from Coffman Associates analysis.
BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX
Several factors must be considered when projecting a future based aircraft fleet mix. As
discussed previously, on the national level, the growth areas for the general aviation fleet
FORECASTS AND
2-8
are in turbine-powered aircraft (business jets and helicopters), while piston-powered aircraft are forecast to remain relatively flat. Current based aircraft consists of 125 singleengine pistons, 18 multi-engine pistons, 11 turboprops, 40 jets, 7 helicopters, and 1 glider.
Since a significant portion of the airport’s based jet aircraft are associated with MRO activities, the jet category has been split to account for MRO jets (29) and business jets (11).
Table 2E presents the forecast fleet mix of based aircraft for TIA. Growth trends for the
Airport are anticipated to closely mirror national trends. Multi-engine piston aircraft are
forecast to remain near current levels, while decreasing as a percentage of the total based
aircraft. Single-engine piston aircraft are projected to remain near current percentage levels of total based aircraft. Growth categories include business aircraft in the business jet
and multi-engine turboprop categories as well as helicopters. The total number of business
jet and turboprop aircraft and helicopters are projected to almost double over the planning
period. MRO-based jets anticipated to remain static; however, this could fluctuate over
time based upon business decisions of the MRO operators. The experimental category,
which includes home-build aircraft, is anticipated to experience only very slightly growth
over the planning period.
TABLE 2E
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix
Aircraft Type
2013 Percent 2018
Single-Engine Piston
112
55.4%
122
Multi-Engine Piston
19
9.4%
17
Single-Engine Turboprop
3
1.5%
4
Multi-Engine Turboprop
7
3.5%
8
MRO Jet
29
14.4%
29
Business Jet
11
5.4%
13
Helicopters
7
3.5%
8
Experimental
13
6.4%
15
Other
1
0.5%
1
Total
202
100%
217
MRO – Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Operator
Percent
56.2%
7.8%
1.8%
4.0%
13.4%
6.0%
3.7%
6.9%
0.5%
100%
2023
129
16
4
10
29
16
10
17
1
232
Percent
55.6%
6.9%
1.7%
5.0%
12.5%
6.9%
4.3%
7.3%
0.4%
100%
2033
151
15
6
13
29
22
12
19
1
268
Percent
56.3%
5.6%
2.2%
6.4%
10.8%
8.2%
4.5%
7.1%
0.4%
100%
Percentages may not equal 100.0% due to rounding.
Source: Coffman Associates analysis
GENERAL AVIATION USER SURVEY
A survey was undertaken to establish a profile of existing GA facilities and services at TIA.
The survey targeted TIA GA users. A copy of the survey and a summary of the responses
are included as Appendix A to this document.
A listing of GA users was compiled by TAA primarily accounting for owners having aircraft
based at TIA. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) also distributed the survey to its Airports Support Network (ASN) volunteer’s network throughout Arizona and
FORECASTS AND
2-9
AOPA members that registered TIA as their base airport. In total, the survey was sent to
444 users. A total of 110 responses were received for a 24.7 percent response rate.
RESPONDENT PROFILE
Exhibit 2D depicts the number of responses received by zip code. Eighty-three percent of
respondents consider TIA their base airport. Six percent consider Ryan Airfield their base
airport and four percent consider Marana Regional Airport their base airport. Remaining
respondents are based at Benson Municipal Airport, Davis-Monthan, or outside of the county.
Exhibit 2E provides a summary of the profile of GA users responding to the survey. Users
own a total of 180 aircraft, the majority of which are small single-engine piston aircraft.
Respondents were asked to estimate total operations conducted per aircraft each month.
The average responses for each aircraft category are: 32 operations per month by singleengine piston aircraft; 10 operations per month for multi-engine piston aircraft; 24 operations per month by turboprop aircraft; 14 operations per month for jet aircraft; and 43 operations per month for helicopters. When asked what type of operations users conduct, the
majority of operations (63.1 percent) are conducted for personal use. Business activities
represented 23.5 percent of respondent operations, flight instruction (student/instructor)
represented 9.8 percent of respondent operations, air taxi operations accounted for 0.9
percent of respondent operations, and other activities such as volunteer Civil Air Patrol
(CAP) operations and experimental flight tests accounted for 2.6 percent of respondent operations.
Of the respondents, 11.4 percent are considering purchasing additional aircraft in the next
12 months. A total of 12 aircraft were indicated, most of which were light single-engine
piston aircraft and one jet aircraft, one multi-engine piston aircraft, and one helicopter.
Eighteen respondents also indicated that they are planning to sell aircraft in the near future. Two respondents indicated plans to upgrade from single-engine piston aircraft to
multi-engine piston aircraft.
In the next five years, 35.5 percent of respondents anticipate increasing the number of operations they conduct. Nine percent of respondents anticipate decreasing operations, and
55.1 percent of respondents anticipate no change in their flight activity over the next five
years. The average anticipated percent increase in operations indicated by respondents
was 27 percent, while the average anticipated percent decrease in operations indicated by
respondents was 20 percent.
Primarily, respondents currently house their single-engine piston aircraft on aircraft
tiedowns and in T-hangar facilities. Multi-engine piston aircraft owners primarily use Thangars and multi-aircraft hangars. Turboprop, jet aircraft and helicopters are primarily
kept in multi-aircraft hangars. When asked where respondents would prefer to have their
aircraft housed, single-engine piston aircraft owners prefer T-hangars or individual box
FORECASTS AND
2-10
Responses
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
12
Pinal County
Total Responses: 107
85658
85739
85755
85653
85742 85737
85743
85704
85741
85718
85750
85705
85745
85719
85716
85749
85712
85715
85711 85710
85748
85713
85706
o
85730
85747
85756
Pima County
85629
85641
85622
¯
0
5
10
20
Miles
Locations Not Shown on Map
Zip Code No. Of Responses
85282
1
85650
1
86322
1
Exhibit 2D
SURVEY RESPONSE LOCATIONS
AIRCRAFT MIX
5%
3%
4%
7%
Single Engine Piston
Multi-Engine Piston
Turboprop
Jet
81%
Helicopter
FLYING TYPE
1%
4%
3%
Business
24%
6%
Personal
Student
Instructor
Air Taxi
Other
63%
BASING PRIORITIES
Answer Options:
BASING LOCATION
Ranking Priority
Airport
Count
Convenience (closer to where I live or work)
1
Availability of Aircraft Hangar Facilities
2
94
Availability of FBO Services
3
Ryan Airfield
7
Cost of FBO Services
4
Marana Regional Airport
5
Lower Aircraft Storage Costs
5
Benson Municipal Airport
2
Available Runway Length
6
Sierra Vista Municipal Airport
0
Security/Safety Related Issues
7
La Cholla Airpark
0
Navigational Aids
8
Other
5
Exhibit 2E
SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILE
hangars; multi-engine piston and turboprop aircraft owners prefer individual box hangars;
and jet and helicopter owners prefer multi-aircraft hangars.
BASING PRIORITIES
When deciding where to base their aircraft, respondents consider convenience (closer to
home or work) the most important factor followed by availability of aircraft hangar facilities and availability of FBO services. The least important factors were available runway
length, security/safety related issues, and navigational aids. Owners who do not base their
aircraft at TIA were asked to rank the reasons to not base at TIA. The most important reasons were the unavailability of aircraft storage hangars, high cost of aircraft storage hangars, and lacking and high cost of FBO services.
SERVICE PROVIDERS PREFERENCE
GA Users were asked to indicate which GA service providers they use for fuel, maintenance,
parking/hangar, and washing/cleaning services. For fuel services, most respondents use
Atlantic Aviation, Premier Aviation, or Leading Edge (now TAA owned and privately managed). For aircraft maintenance, most respondents utilize Velocity Air or Leading Edge.
For parking/hangar services, most respondents utilize Leading Edge or Velocity Air. For
aircraft washing/cleaning, most respondents utilize TAA’s aircraft wash rack.
NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS
The priority of needed improvements at TIA was rated by survey takers. The improvements that received the highest priority ratings were airport/FBO services and aircraft
hangars. The lowest priority ratings were for security/safety and navigational aids. A
summary of other needs indicated by respondents is included in Appendix A.
EXISTING FACILITY AND EXPENSE RATINGS
A question was asked to rate TIA and its facilities and services based upon whether they
were considered excellent, good, fair, or poor. The facilities receiving the best ratings include TIA’s geographic location, with 93 percent of respondents indicating a rating of either
excellent or good. Runway pavement condition received 93 percent excellent/good ratings
from respondents. The facilities/services with the lowest ratings include vehicle access
roads with 32 percent fair/poor ratings; apron pavement condition with 37 percent
fair/poor ratings; FBO services with 44 percent fair/poor ratings; and hangar facilities with
41 percent fair/poor ratings.
Expenses for various GA services were also asked to be rated on a scale of high, average, or
low. Fifty percent of respondents indicated that fuel costs are higher at TIA compared to
FORECASTS AND
2-11
other airports. All other costs were generally considered to be average compared to other
airports.
Of the GA amenities offered at TIA, the most commonly utilized by respondents was common restrooms (59.0 percent). All other amenities, including the self-service maintenance
hangar, wash rack, pilots’ lounge, vending machines and ramp escorts, are utilized by less
than 50 percent of respondents.
SURVEY SUMMARY
The survey results provide a profile of how GA is used at TIA and what priorities and improvements the users feel are needed. Based on the data provided, most respondents own
single-engine piston aircraft and perform personal operations, although a significant number of respondents do utilize aircraft for business and flight instruction purposes. Most respondents choose where to base their aircraft based upon convenience; however, hangar
availability and costs are considerations as well. Most respondents store their aircraft on
tiedowns or T-hangars but would prefer to be in individual box hangars or in T-hangars.
Most respondents consider airport/FBO services and hangars as needing the highest priority for improvements.
The results of this survey will be considered in later sections as the GA Strategic Plan is further developed.
GA FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
The objective of this effort is to identify, in general terms, the adequacy of the existing GA
facilities and outline what physical facility enhancements may be needed to boost GA business at TIA. Once facility requirements are established, alternatives for providing these facilities will be evaluated to determine the most cost-effective and efficient means for implementation. Facilities considered in this analysis include:
•
•
•
•
Hangars
Apron Parking
General Aviation Terminal Facilities
Auto Parking
HANGARS
The demand for hangar facilities typically depends on the number and type of aircraft expected to be based at the airport. Hangar facilities at TIA consist of T-hangars, shade hangars, and open box/conventional hangars. These different types of hangars offer varying
levels of privacy, security, and protection from the elements. The results of the GA users
survey indicates that most single- and multi-engine piston aircraft owners prefer individual
FORECASTS AND
2-12
T-hangars or box hangars. Interviews with TIA’s FBOs also indicated that many small aircraft owners desire shade hangars because they are more economical than renting Thangars. Larger turbine powered aircraft and helicopter owners generally prefer
box/conventional style hangars.
TIA has eight T-hangar units providing 128 individual aircraft positions, of which 70 are
occupied for an occupancy rate of 54.7 percent. TIA has seven shade hangar units providing 73 individual aircraft positions, of which 20 are occupied for an occupancy rate of 27.4
percent. There are 23 box/conventional style hangars at TIA utilized for a variety of purposes from transient aircraft storage provided by FBOs, aircraft maintenance provided by
MROs, or for storage of based aircraft at SASOs and other private entities. The total storage
capacity of these box/conventional style hangars is approximately 293,116 square feet.
Currently, only three of these box/conventional hangars are unoccupied. The individual
box/conventional hangar operators utilize this hangar space in different ways. Similarly
sized hangars might have different numbers and sizes of aircraft being stored. An average
of the various aircraft sizes, ranging from small single engine piston aircraft up to the largest business jet aircraft, was utilized to generate an estimate of the total individual aircraft
storage capacity of these box/conventional hangars. This estimate resulted in 76 total individual box/conventional hangar aircraft positions. In total, between each different hangar classification, TIA has an estimated 277 individual aircraft positions. Of these 277 units,
an estimated 149 are utilized by based aircraft for an overall occupancy rate of 53.8 percent.
An analysis of future aircraft storage hangar requirements examined the number of hangar
units and number of individual aircraft positions required for the projected number of aircraft to be hangared. T-hangar and shade hangar positions were generated utilizing the
results of the GA user survey and industry trends. Forecasted box/conventional hangar
space was calculated factoring in the various sizes of aircraft anticipated to be stored ranging from 1,200 square feet for piston aircraft; 1,500 square feet for helicopters; 2,500
square feet for small business turbine aircraft; 5,000 square feet for medium business turbine aircraft; and 9,000 square feet for large business turbine aircraft. Again, it should be
emphasized that conventional hangars are utilized for a variety of purposes and the forecasted box/conventional square footage represents the area required to hangar aircraft.
Additional area may be required depending on the GA service provider and its specific
needs to service its customers.
The forecasted number of hangar units was generated utilizing existing position/area to
unit ratios (10 positions/unit per shade hangar; 16 positions/unit per T-hangar; 10,500
square feet per conventional hangar). The future aircraft storage requirements analysis is
summarized in Table 2F.
FORECASTS AND
2-13
TABLE 2F
General Aviation Hangar Requirements
Total Based Aircraft
Aircraft To Be Hangared
Hangar Area Requirements
Shade Hangar
Units
Individual Aircraft Positions
T-Hangar
Units
Individual Aircraft Positions
Box/Conventional Hangar
Units
Area (s.f.)
Estimated Individual Aircraft
Positions
Planning Horizons
2013
202
149
2018
7
73
8
128
23
243,467
76
2023
2033
217
161
232
177
268
211
2
25
2
27
3
31
5
76
14
140,900
60
5
81
17
176,300
69
6
94
23
239,100
86
2033 Difference
From 2013
+66
+62
-42
-34
-4,367
+10
The analysis shows that TIA has more shade and T-hangar units than is needed to meet
long term demands. The national GA fleet mix, as well as the based GA fleet mix at TIA, is
anticipated to see limited growth in piston powered aircraft. As a result, shade hangar and
T-hangar demand may not grow to the point that existing shade and T-hangar capacity will
be 100 percent utilized within the planning period of this study.
Existing box/conventional hangar space is not shown to exceed square footage requirements for based aircraft through the planning period. However, it needs to be considered
that a significant portion of the box/conventional hangar square footage is utilized for other purposes than based aircraft storage. Determining how much additional hangar space is
needed for business purposes, whether it is aircraft maintenance or transient aircraft storage will need to be a decision made by each individual GA service provider. Some FBOs at
TIA are already examining options to expand conventional storage space in the coming
years.
This hangar requirements analysis indicates that the Airport has a low occupancy rate for
T-hangars and shade hangars, and future demand for such hangars may not exceed current
capacity. Due to the projected changes to the GA fleet mix, not only at TIA but across the
country, it is anticipated that the primary need for the future will be to provide
box/conventional style hangar space for the increasing number of turbine powered aircraft.
AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, suggests a methodology by which
transient apron requirements can be determined from knowledge of busy-day operations.
At Tucson International Airport, the number of itinerant spaces required was determined
FORECASTS AND
2-14
to be approximately 15 percent of the busy-day itinerant general aviation operations. A
planning criterion of 600 square yards per single and multi-engine aircraft was applied to
determine future transient apron requirements. For business jets and turboprops (which
are typically larger), a planning criterion of 1,600 square yards per aircraft position was
used.
A parking apron should be provided for at least the number of locally based aircraft that
are not stored in hangars. Based aircraft stored on the ramp at TIA range from singleengine piston aircraft stored near the T-hangar facilities, FBOs and SASOs, to large jets
parked on apron space adjacent to TIA’s MRO operators. The same planning criterions of
600 square yards per single and multi-engine aircraft and 1,600 square yards per turbine
aircraft were used to project locally based aircraft apron needs.
TIA currently has approximately 355,200 square yards of GA apron space within Areas A,
B, and D. The total number of parking positions is estimated at 150; however, this figure
can vary greatly depending on the type and number of aircraft needing to utilize apron
space at any given time. For example, a 5,000 square yard apron could accommodate three
turbine aircraft or eight piston aircraft. It should also be considered that the future realignment of Runway 11R-29L will render portions of apron space in Area D unusable. TIA
also has approximately 13 dedicated helicopter parking positions at various locations in
the GA areas.
Total apron parking requirements are presented in Table 2G. As shown in the table, the
three GA areas at TIA provide more than adequate apron area and parking positions. The
overall number of positions needed is not anticipated to grow significantly over the course
of the planning period as projected growth in itinerant GA operations and non-hangared
based aircraft is limited. The resulting long term apron demand of 117,200 square yards
represents approximately 33 percent of the total existing apron space.
TABLE 2G
General Aviation Parking Apron Requirements
Planning Horizons
Available
Transient Piston Positions
Apron Area (s.y.)
Transient Turbine Positions
Apron Area (s.y.)
Locally-Based Piston Positions
Apron Area (s.y.)
Locally-Based Turbine Positions
Apron Area (s.y.)
Helicopter Positions
Apron Area (s.y.)
Total Parking Positions
Total Apron Area (s.y.)
FORECASTS AND
150
355,200
2-15
2018
14
8,400
21
33,600
14
8,400
29
46,400
14
8,400
92
105,200
2023
15
9,000
22
35,200
16
9,600
29
46,400
15
9,000
97
109,200
2033
16
9,600
24
38,400
20
12,000
29
46,400
18
10,800
107
117,200
GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL SERVICES
GA facilities at TIA are often the first impression of the community that corporate officials
and other visitors will encounter. GA terminal facilities at an airport provide space for passenger waiting, pilots’ lounge, pilot flight planning, concessions, management, storage, and
various other needs. This space is not necessarily limited to a single, separate terminal
building, but can include space offered by FBOs and other SASOs for these functions and
services. This is the case at TIA as GA terminal space is currently provided by several separate facilities on the airport. In general, TIA GA terminal space is made up of the FBO facilities and Million Air’s facility. Combined, these facilities provide approximately 23,790
square feet of GA terminal facilities.
The methodology used in estimating GA terminal facility needs was based upon the number
of TIA users expected to utilize GA facilities during the design hour. Space requirements
for terminal facilities were based on providing 150 square feet per design hour itinerant
passenger. Table 2H outlines the space requirements for GA terminal services at TIA. As
shown in the table, the existing GA terminal facilities provide a more than adequate amount
of space to meet the 2033 projected need.
TABLE 2H
General Aviation Terminal Services
GA Terminal Area
Design Hour Operations
Passengers/Operations
Design Hour Itinerant Passengers
GA Terminal Services Area (sf)
Automobile Parking
Design Hour Itinerant Spaces
Based Aircraft Spaces
Total Parking Spaces
Planning Horizons
Available
Current
Need
23,790
19
1.8
34
5,100
19
1.8
34
5,100
20
1.8
36
5,400
22
1.8
40
5,900
454
62
67
129
62
72
134
65
77
142
71
89
161
2018
2023
2033
Automobile parking is provided for GA users adjacent to each FBO and most of the SASOs/MROs. For the purposes of this study, the focus will be on parking spaces available to
GA users at the FBOs and Million Air since most itinerant GA passengers and based aircraft
owners utilize these facilities for their services. Combined, these providers have 454 automobile parking spaces adjacent to their facilities. The bulk of that figure (232) is provided adjacent to the Executive Terminal along the TAA flight line.
The analysis in Table 2H utilizes design hour itinerant passengers times a multiplier of 1.8
to calculate design hour itinerant spaces. The based aircraft spaces are calculated by dividing the number of based aircraft by three. The results of this analysis conclude that the exFORECASTS AND
2-16
isting number of spaces is more than adequate to satisfy the 2033 demand. However, it has
been indicated by some of the FBOs that during peak travel periods, automobile parking
can be limited and inefficient. The alternatives analysis of this study will examine ways to
make automobile parking in certain areas more efficient.
FORECASTS AND
2-17
Chapter Three
GA DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVES
Chapter Three
General aviation (GA) facilities required to satisfy demand through the planning
period have been identified. The next step in the planning process is to evaluate
reasonable alternatives for meeting these facility needs. There can be numerous
combinations of design alternatives, but the alternatives presented here are
those with the perceived greatest potential for implementation.
Planned development is supported from an analysis of projected needs for the
planning period. Though the needs were determined by utilizing industry
accepted statistical methodologies, unforeseen future events could impact the
timing of the needs identified. This planning process attempts to develop a
viable concept for meeting the needs caused by projected demands for the next 20
years. However, no plan of action should be developed which may be inconsistent
with the future goals and objectives of the Tucson Airport Authority (TAA).
Alternatives have been prepared for the previously identified GA areas at
Tucson International Airport (TIA). Each functional GA area interrelates and
affects the development potential of the others. Therefore, all areas are
examined individually and then coordinated as a whole to ensure the final plan
is functional, efficient, and cost-effective. The total impact of all these factors
must be evaluated to determine if the investment in TIA will meet the needs of
the TAA, both during and beyond the 20-year planning period.
3-1
The alternatives considered are compared to determine which of the alternatives will best
satisfy GA needs. With this information, as well as input from various TIA GA stakeholders
and the TAA, a final concept can evolve into a realistic development plan.
GENERAL AVIATION CONSIDERATIONS
Activity in GA areas can be divided into three categories (high-activity, medium-activity,
low-activity). The high-activity area should be planned and developed as the area providing aviation services in the GA areas at TIA. Examples of high-activity areas are the large
conventional hangars housing FBOs, other airport businesses, or those used for bulk aircraft storage. The best location for high-activity areas is along the flight line for ease of access to all areas of the airfield. FBOs may also place a premium on visibility from arterial
roadways.
The medium-activity category defines the next level of airport use and primarily includes
corporate aircraft operators or charter/cargo operators that may desire their own executive or conventional hangar storage or have a designated staging apron on the airport. The
best location for medium-activity use is off the immediate flight line, but still with ready
access to the runway/taxiway system. Typically, these areas will be adjacent to the highactivity areas. Parking and utilities, such as water and sewer, should also be provided in
this area.
Low-activity use defines the area for storage of smaller single- and twin-engine aircraft.
Low-activity users are personal or small business aircraft owners who prefer individual
space in T-hangars or executive hangars. Low-activity areas should be located in less conspicuous areas or to the ends of the flight line.
In addition to the functional compatibility of the GA area, the proposed development concept should provide a first-class appearance for TIA. Consideration to aesthetics should be
given high priority in all public areas, as many times the Airport can serve as the first impression a visitor may have of the community.
It should be noted that individual preference should be the final arbiter as to what types of
hangars are desired. For example, if TIA has a 10-person wait list for a T-hangar space,
then it is a good time to plan for more T-hangars. Likewise, if an individual desires to construct an executive hangar, then that becomes the priority. The overall hangar space estimates can and should be adjusted by TAA to reflect actual demand at the TIA.
AREA D
The Tucson Airport Authority is in the process of finalizing its most recent update to the
Tucson International Airport Master Plan (Master Plan). A proposed project in the Master
Plan involves the construction of bypass taxiways around the northwest ends of Runways
11L and 11R. The future layout of the bypass taxiways as well as the future location of the
runway protection zone (RPZ) associated with the realignment of Runway 11L-29R is depicted on Exhibit 3A. The construction of these bypass taxiways would result in the reGA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
3-2
LEGEND
Proposed Airfield Pavement
Pavement/Facility to be Removed
General Aviation Use
Industrial Use
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Extended Clear Zone Policy Area
Runway 11L/29R
Future R
unway 1
A1
1R RPZ
B
S.
No
ga
les
Runway 3/21
D
Hw
y.
D3
NORTH
0
500
1000
1500
SCALE IN FEET
Exhibit 3A
AREA D MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAYOUT
moval all existing facilities in the GA portion of Area D. The industrial land uses in Area D
will remain. It is anticipated that the existing GA facilities in Area D will either be relocated
to Area A or Area B or eliminated. As a result of this future project, no alternatives have
been prepared for Area D; however, alternatives for Areas A and B take into consideration
the potential for the relocation of Area D’s GA facilities.
AREA A
Area A, located along Valencia Road is sandwiched between the Arizona Air National Guard
(AANG) area to the west and the extended Runway 3-21 centerline to the east. Expansion
into the surrounding areas to improve access to the airfield or to expand development area
is not feasible; therefore the alternatives analysis will examine development potential for
the currently defined boundary of Area A. GA facilities west of the AANG area, which includes the self-service maintenance facility hangar, is anticipated to be redeveloped to other non-GA related uses and therefore will not be included within the alternatives analysis
for Area A. Three alternatives have been prepared for this area and are depicted on Exhibit 3B.
Alternative 1
Area A Alternative 1 reflects TAA’s current development plan for Area A, which includes
the development of six multi-aircraft executive hangar facilities. The leasable parcels are
equipped with utility hook-ups, however depending on the type and size of hangar facility
to be developed, some utility modifications may be necessary.
Pros: Area A has already been planned for low-activity uses such as executive hangars. Area A is fairly secluded from the airfield with only one access taxilane, so low-activity uses
would be the most ideal use for this area. Utilities existing for hangar development so site
preparation costs are minimal. Executive hangars are anticipated to be in higher demand
over the course of the planning period as opposed to other low-activity hangar developments such as T-hangars and shade hangars. As a result, development of these parcels may
occur sooner resulting in additional revenue sources for TAA.
Cons: Access to Area A from the airfield is limited and could make this area less desirable
to a potential developer. This alternative does not provide for FBO-related services such as
fueling facilities. As a result, aircraft based in this area would need to taxi to Area B for
these services.
Alternative 2
Area A Alternative 2 reserves approximately 1.1 acres for hangar/SASO development with
good visibility from Valencia Road and existing automobile parking. The remaining areas
of Area A would be developed into individual 3,600 square foot executive hangars.
3-3
Pros: Similar to the previous alternative, Area A has been planned primarily for lowactivity uses, due to its seclusion from the rest of the GA facilities in Area B. This alternative considers the potential for SASOs to provide GA-related services in this area, which
could make it a more desirable location for aircraft owners who would like to be nearer to
GA services. Developing single aircraft executive hangars is consistent with the original
plan for this area and site preparation costs would be minimal due to existing utilities.
Cons: Fuel services would not be available, resulting in the need for aircraft based in Area
A to taxi to Area B, which could be viewed as an inconvenience.
Alternative 3
Area A Alternative 3 examines the potential for FBO-related facilities in Area A by reserving
approximately 2.5 acres for such development. Since this site would not be accessible to
public vehicle access, control of these facilities would be managed by existing SASO operators with facilities along Valencia Road. Adjacent to the FBO site is a self-service fuel farm.
Additional development in Area A includes multi-aircraft and single-aircraft executive
hangar development.
Pros: This alternative provides FBO-related facilities and services to Area A, which will
make this site more attractive to aircraft owners considering hangaring locations. Providing self-service fuel will eliminate the need for aircraft to taxi to Area B for fueling services,
which would improve operational safety of the airport in general.
Cons: The FBO site in this alternative is secluded from the rest of the high-activity GA areas on the airport. This location on the airport would increase taxi times and can cause confusion for pilots unfamiliar with TIA due to the limited taxiway access.
AREA B
Area B is the focal point of GA activities at TIA including the location of three FBO operators
and the majority of the hangar units. Undeveloped land in Area B is scarce so consideration
needs to be given to the redevelopment of vacant or under-utilized facilities. As development/redevelopment occurs careful consideration needs to be given to the type of GA activity (high/medium/low) to ensure the space is used efficiently and productively. Two
development alternatives have been prepared for Area B and are detailed in the sections
below.
Alternative 1
Area B Alternative 1 is depicted on Exhibit 3C and features the following:
3-4
Alternative 2
LEGEND
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Road
Ultimate Parking
Ultimate Hangar
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Parcel
Hangar/SASO Development Parcel
ia
c
en
l
Va
.
E
.
Rd
.48
acres
.65
acres
NO
0
Executive
E
Hangars
H
RT
400
800
SCALE IN FEET
Alternative 3
Alternative 1
cia
n
le
Va
.
E
.
Rd
Executive
E
Hangars
H
cia
n
le
Va
.
E
.
Rd
Executive
E
H
Hangars
2.51
acres
Self Service
S
Fuel Island
F
Exhibit 3B
AREA A ALTERNATIVES
Rd
.
LEGEND
Building Restriction Line (BRL)
Ultimate Hangar
Ultimate Parking
Ultimate Road
Revenue Support Parcel
EA
ra
g
on
Self-Service
e
Maintenance
e
Facility
y
2.36
acres
.93
acres
1.64
acres
.23 .23 .23
acres acres acres
E Airport Dr.
S Plumer Ave
Runway 3/21
E Flightline Dr.
Executive
e
Hangarss
.97
acres
.44
acres
Self Service
S
Fuel Island
F
NO
0
H
RT
400
800
SCALE IN FEET
Runway 11L/29R
Exhibit 3C
AREA B ALTERNATIVE 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FBO development along the Runway 11L-29R flightline on the existing tiedown
apron.
Self-service fuel island development adjacent to proposed FBO parcel.
The redevelopment of two T-hangar facilities currently managed by the TAA into
executive style hangars.
Construction of a taxilane from Taxiway D to access a hangar/SASO development
parcel identified in the location of the old maintenance facility.
Construction of a self-service maintenance facility adjacent to the wash rack.
Reservation of the Executive Terminal facility for potential redevelopment.
Revenue support parcels identified along South Plumer Avenue.
Pros: This alternative considers consolidating FBO operators at TIA into Area B. The identified FBO location in this alternative would provide good visibility from the airfield and
take advantage of existing roadway systems for access. The existing apron space that
would be eliminated as a result of this development is used on an infrequent basis and is
not a significant revenue stream for the TAA, whereas a land lease with an FBO could generate significant revenues.
This alternative proposes constructing a self-service fuel island adjacent to the FBO parcel.
This location would be ideal as it is readily accessible to all GA users and has good visibility
from the airfield and gives pilots another option for fuel service.
This alternative proposes construction of a self-service maintenance facility adjacent to the
wash rack. The existing self-service maintenance facility (located in the west of the AANG)
is secluded from Area B where most GA users operate and relocating it to Area B, colocated with the wash rack, would increase its use.
With the vacancy of the Executive Terminal, consideration could be given to its redevelopment by aviation-related businesses. The location of the Executive Terminal is easily accessible to both the airfield and vehicle roadway system. A new airport traffic control tower (ATCT) is in the beginning stages of construction so the current ATCT facility could also
be considered for redevelopment possibilities.
Two revenue support parcels providing approximately 2.6 acres of leasable property are
identified along South Plumer Avenue. These locations are not easily accessible to the airfield, but have good vehicle roadway access. As a result, this alternative considers the potential for TAA to lease this land to a SASO or an aviation-related business that does not
need direct airfield access.
The GA facilities analysis concluded that demand for T-hangar facilities may not reach current capacity for the foreseeable future. This alternative considers redeveloping two existing TAA managed T-hangar facilities into executive-style hangars and the construction of
another executive hangar complex. There is currently a greater demand for this style of
hangar and therefore a greater potential for revenue development.
3-5
Cons: This alternative proposes the consolidation of four FBO operators into Area B. Having each FBO within such close quarters might not be viewed as an ideal condition for the
FBO operators and could limit growth capabilities for the individual FBOs.
Alternative 2
Area B Alternative 2 is depicted on Exhibit 3D and features the following:
•
•
•
•
Redeveloping the dual lane parking lot at the northeast edge of the flightline apron
and two existing T-hangar facilities into executive hangars.
Redeveloping the Executive Terminal into an FBO parcel.
Designation of the old maintenance facility as a helicopter operations area.
Revenue support parcels providing approximately 2.8 acres of leasable property
along South Plumer Avenue.
Pros: Since the Executive Terminal had previously been utilized by the TAA for FBOrelated services, this facility could serve as a good location for FBO redevelopment.
This alternative also proposes the redevelopment of the dual lane parking lot at the northeast end of the flightline apron and two existing T-hangar facilities into executive hangars.
The parking lots as well as the T-hangars are currently under-utilized and executive hangars are anticipated to be in greater demand. Vehicle access and parking would be provided
by extending Airport Drive to the southwest to connect to Atlantic’s parking lot, in effect
cutting off the existing taxilane access to the T-hangar area. Eliminating the parking lot and
constructing new executive hangar facilities will improve the aesthetic appeal of the GA area to arriving pilots and passengers.
This alternative proposes a new self-service fuel island on the flightline apron. Since access
to the hangar area is changed from the northwest to the southwest, this location will be
more accessible to pilots hangared in this area. This alternative also proposes consolidating the self-service maintenance facility with the self-service wash rack.
The old maintenance facility is proposed to be redeveloped into a helicopter operations area. The current TIA Airport Layout Plan identifies a helicopter operations area east of
Plumer Avenue; however this location might also serve helicopter operations well. The
previous alternative proposed extending taxilane access to this area, however this would
involve pavement construction very near to or over existing drainageways, which could
add considerable cost to site development. No such taxilane construction would be necessary for helicopter operations. In addition, the area is already utilized for helicopter operations by an existing helicopter SASO.
Cons: This alternative proposes significant alterations to the existing functionality of Area
B. Extending Airport Drive and cutting off the existing taxilane access to the T-hangars
would increase taxi times for aircraft utilizing Runway 3-21. It would also create a new vehicle access route for Atlantic Aviation customers, which could result in confusion and
temporarily impact Atlantic’s operation. Similar to Area B Alternative 1, this alternative
3-6
EA
ra
g
on
Rd
.
LEGEND
Building Restriction Line(BRL)
Ultimate Building
Ultimate Parking
Ultimate Road
Revenue Support Parcel
Helicopter Activity Area
Maintenance
e
Facility
y
2.36
acres
1.19
acres
1.64
acres
S Plumer Ave
.97
acres
E Airport Dr.
Executive
E
H
g
Hangars
Runway 3/21
E Flightline Dr.
1.24
acres
Self-Service
Fuel Island
d
NO
0
H
RT
400
800
SCALE IN FEET
Runway 11L/29R
Exhibit 3D
AREA B ALTERNATIVE 2
proposes locating four FBOs in one area at TIA, which could have limiting effects to each
operator.
3-7
Chapter Four
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND
MONITORING PLAN
MONITORING PLAN
Chapter Four
COMPARISON AIRPORT GA POLICIES
General Aviation (GA) management policies and practices at other airports were
reviewed for consideration in making recommendations for policy direction at
Tucson International Airport (TIA). Six comparison airports were identified based
upon GA, air carrier, and military activities; geographic location; management
structure; urban context; and growth projections. An initial comparison of the six
comparison airports and TIA is summarized in Table 4A.
Table 4B provides a five year summary of GA operations at each of the
comparison airports. As is evident from these figures, TIA has not been alone in
experiencing declining GA activities. Each comparison airport has had significant
declines in itinerant and total GA operations. Overall, the best performing airport
in this time period has been El Paso International Airport, which lost only 3.6
percent of its GA operations. Local GA operations have dropped off significantly
at several of the comparison airports including TIA.
Economic conditions are primarily to blame for the drop off in GA activities
throughout the country as the United States economy entered into a recession in
late 2007 continuing through June 2009. The recovery from the recession has
been very slow and has continued to dampen GA activities nationwide. Exhibit
4A provides a history of economic conditions including gross regional product
(GRP), total income, and unemployment rates at each of the communities
associated with the comparison airports. In general, these graphs show a
4-1
similar reaction to the economic recession with a period of decline in the 2008 and 2009
timeframe with signs of recovery beginning to emerge in more recent years.
TABLE 4A
Initial Airport Comparison Matrix
TUS
Location
AZ
Longest Runway Length (ft)
10,996
Based Aircraft
202
Single-Engine
125
Multi-Engine/Turboprop
29
Other
8
Jets
40
Enplanements (CY2012)
1,710,638
Total Operations (CY2012)
145,111
GA Operations (CY2012)
65,655
Military Operations (CY2012)
25,569
TAF % Operational CAGR
0.6%
TAF % Based Aircraft CAGR
1.4%
Management Type
AA
USA Population within 30 nm
(2010)
982,502
Registered Aircraft within 30
nm (2012)
1,365
Airport 3-letter Identifiers
TUS – Tucson International Airport
ABQ – Albuquerque International Airport
BOI – Boise Air Terminal
ELP – El Paso International Airport
FAT – Fresno Yosemite International Airport
RNO – Reno-Tahoe International Airport
TUL – Tulsa International Airport
ABQ
NM
13,793
132
51
30
21
30
2,630,570
147,724
31,123
24,363
0.4%
2.4%
MD
BOI
ID
10,000
222
140
29
17
36
1,307,505
112,769
57,350
9,867
1.7%
2.6%
MD
ELP
TX
12,020
270
184
41
9
36
1,442,100
95,381
29,359
5,590
1.0%
1.0%
MD
1,398
1,323
396
876,519
600,939
Acronyms:
AA – Airport Authority/Commission
CAGR – Compound Annual Growth Rate
MD – Municipal Department
NM – Nautical Miles
TAF – Terminal Area Forecast
Sources:
865,408
Based Aircraft – FAA 5010 Airport Master Records
Enplanements – FAA Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) data
Operations – FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS)
Based Aircraft/Operational Growth Rates – FAA TAF,2013
Management Type – Airport websites
USA Population – United States Census, 2010
Registered Aircraft – FAA Civilian Aircraft Registry
MONITORING PLAN
4-2
FAT
CA
9,539
148
81
37
22
8
640,350
120,915
78,002
9,237
0.2%
0.0%
MD
RNO
NV
11,002
114
68
36
3
7
1,685,333
80,458
27,596
2,713
0.7%
0.0%
AA
TUL
OK
9,999
131
48
35
1
47
1,324,175
99,880
29,082
16,367
0.3%
0.0%
AA
884
1,502
1,652
1,157,025
568,850
890,195
Millions
Gross Regional Product (2009 dollars)
Gross Regional Product
$50,000
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
ALBUQUERQUE MSA
$30,000
BOISE MSA
$25,000
EL PASO MSA
FRESNO MSA
$20,000
RENO MSA
$15,000
TULSA MSA
TUCSON MSA
$10,000
$5,000
$0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Millions
Total Income (2009 dollars)
Total Income
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
ALBUQUERQUE MSA
$25,000
BOISE MSA
EL PASO MSA
$20,000
FRESNO MSA
RENO MSA
$15,000
TULSA MSA
$10,000
TUCSON MSA
$5,000
$0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Unemployment Rates
18
Unemployment Rate
(Not Seasonally Adjusted)
16
14
12
ALBUQUERQUE MSA
10
BOISE MSA
EL PASO MSA
8
FRESNO MSA
6
RENO MSA
4
TUCSON MSA
TULSA MSA
2
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Exhibit 4A
COMPARISON COMMUNITY ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
TABLE 4B
5-Year GA Operations Comparison
TUS
ABQ
CY 2007
Itinerant
71,861
40,976
Local
80,684
3,740
Total
152,545
44,716
CY 2008
Itinerant
64,092
37,468
Local
49,777
3,261
Total
113,869
40,729
CY 2009
Itinerant
53,815
29,864
Local
37,615
3,665
Total
91,430
33,529
CY 2010
Itinerant
48,453
27,927
Local
29,044
4,398
Total
77,497
32,325
CY 2011
Itinerant
43,591
26,144
Local
25,802
5,420
Total
69,393
31,564
CY 2012
Itinerant
41,583
26,679
Local
24,072
4,444
Total
65,655
31,123
% Change 2007 2012
Itinerant
-42.1%
-34.9%
Local
-70.2%
18.8%
Total
-57.0%
-30.4%
Airport 3-letter Identifiers
TUS – Tucson International Airport
ABQ – Albuquerque International Airport
BOI – Boise Air Terminal
ELP – El Paso International Airport
FAT – Fresno Yosemite International Airport
RNO – Reno-Tahoe International Airport
TUL – Tulsa International Airport
BOI
ELP
FAT
RNO
TUL
63,845
31,419
95,264
26,622
3,830
30,452
76,318
25,596
101,914
48,269
12,366
60,635
34,533
14,349
48,882
40,381
19,855
60,236
26,804
4,818
31,622
48,341
28,584
76,925
29,970
11,229
41,199
24,650
12,485
37,135
47,574
18,735
66,309
37,095
20,368
57,463
37,156
20,532
57,688
38,307
19,043
57,350
-40.0%
-39.4%
-39.8%
26,349
6,223
35,572
25,482
4,672
30,154
23,704
4,380
28,084
23,844
5,515
29,359
-10.4%
44.0%
-3.6%
73,707
30,260
103,967
45,273
28,285
73,558
51,236
32,877
84,113
43,409
34,593
78,002
-43.1%
35.2%
-23.5%
37,425
10,961
48,386
25,609
7,356
32,965
23,569
6,311
29,880
22,595
5,001
27,596
-53.2%
-59.6%
-54.5%
28,090
10,494
38,584
24,012
8,427
32,439
23,505
7,141
30,646
23,678
5,404
29,082
-31.4%
-62.3%
-40.5%
Source: FAA Air Traffic Activity System Database (ATADS)
Each of the six comparison airports were contacted and asked to provide a range of documents, rates and fees, and financial data relating to GA activities. The following sections
review the findings from the comparison airport data collection.
LAND LEASE RATES
Land leases can be applied to aviation and non-aviation development on an airport and can
be structured to meet the particular needs of an airport operator in terms of location, terrain features, amount of land needed, and type of facility infrastructure included.
MONITORING PLAN
4-3
One of the single most valuable assets available to an airport is its leasable land with access
to the runway/taxiway system. For aviation-related businesses, it is critical that they be
located on an airport. Airport property is available for long term lease, but in most cases, it
cannot be sold. At the expiration of the lease and any extensions, the improvements on the
leased land revert back to the airport sponsor. In order for this arrangement to make financial sense, most land leases are at least 20 years in length and include extension opportunities. Land leases should also include the opportunity to periodically review the lease
and adjust the rate according to the consumer price index (CPI). Typical lease agreements
range from 20 to 30 years with options for extensions.
Annual lease rates at the comparison airports for FBO, SASO, and other GA-related developments are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABQ – $0.26 per square foot of leased land
BOI – NA
ELP – 8 percent of fair market value (FMV)
FAT – NA
RNO – $0.30 - $0.35 per square foot of leased land
TUL – 11 percent of FMV; 8 percent of FMV (for large tract developments)
TUS - $0.42 per square foot of leased land
The result of this comparison indicates that TIA’s GA land lease rates are slightly higher
than the comparison airports that also determine rates on a price per square foot basis.
Consideration should be given by TAA to changing its leasing structure based upon a fixed
percentage of FMV. Property can be more valuable depending on its use and how it is developed. Changing leasing policy to this FMV approach will allow TAA to generate leasing
revenues that reflect actual property values.
FUEL FLOWAGE FEES
Fuel sales are typically managed at an airport in one of two ways: the airport sponsor acts
as the fuel distributor or fueling operations are sub-contracted to an FBO. The comparison
airports each sub-contract FBOs to handle fuel sales. In this case, the airport sponsor receives a fuel flowage fee per gallon of fuel sold. Comparison airport fuel flowage fees per
gallon are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABQ – $0.09
BOI – NA
ELP – $0.08
FAT – $0.10
RNO – $0.07
TUL – $0.10
TUS - $0.10
MONITORING PLAN
4-4
This review of fuel flowage fees indicates that TIA’s fees are in line with the comparison
airports’ fees.
TSA BADGING FEES
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented a badging program
(Security Directive 1542-04-08G) which requires background checks and identification for
all persons with unescorted access to the security identification display area (SIDA) or the
air operations area (AOA) at commercial service airports. For home-based pilots, the badging requirements apply if the pilot leases space or is part of a tenant program, unless the
airport has alternative measures such as an escort program. Transient pilots are not required to have airport badges or background checks from any of the non-home-based airports they visit, but are advised to remain in their aircraft and to utilize FBOs or SASOs for
airport exit.
The following are the fees associated with TSA badging at the comparison airports over a
four year period including initial application and fingerprinting fees and common renewal
fees.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABQ - $115
BOI - $260
ELP - $150
FAT - $80
RNO – $175
TUL - $90
TUS - $115
This analysis shows that TIA’s four-year badging costs are below average.
FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES (FIS) FEES
FIS are available at certain airports for the clearing of international travelers and goods by
the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency. The only comparison airport
providing these services for a fee is Fresno Yosemite International Airport, which charges
$150.00 for GA international arrival clearance.
Data on the number of international GA flights TIA handles is not available. However,
providing FIS services to GA operators at TIA for no fee attracts international GA flights.
Instituting FIS fees would likely result in driving international GA operations to other no
fee airports and for this reason it is recommended that TAA continue to provide FIS services for no fee to GA aircraft.
MONITORING PLAN
4-5
GA LANDING FEES
Landing fees are not common on GA and are generally discouraged because they can result
in GA operators utilizing nearby airports that do not charge landing fees. The only comparison airport with a GA landing fee is El Paso International Airport, which charges $1.99 for
aircraft weighing over 60,000 pounds. TIA currently has a landing fee of $1.41 for aircraft
weighing over 12,500 pounds.
GA FINANCIAL DATA
Table 4C presents financial data that was gathered from the comparison airports. The following financial data was requested from each of the comparable airports:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GA expenses
GA revenues
Indirect expenses allocated to GA
Total airport expenses
Total airport revenues
GA operations
Total operations
Fuel flowage fees
Gallons
Not all of the requested information was available from each airport but enough was provided for general comparison purposes. Some airports were able to provide overall revenues and expenses but do not separate GA data as a separate line item. It is important for
TIA to continue to separate GA financial data from other lines of business so that a clearer
picture of how GA is performing from year to year can be established.
The results of the data collection indicate TIA’s GA expenses and revenues are similar to
Fresno Yosemite International and Reno-Tahoe International Airport. TIA has the highest
total airport expenses of the comparison airports and the second highest total airport revenues. The only other airport that reported allocating indirect expenses to GA was Fresno
Yosemite International, which reported far lower levels than TIA.
MONITORING PLAN
4-6
TABLE 4C
Comparison Airport Financial and Operational Data
Fiscal Years 2007 - 2012
Actual
Actual
FY 2012
FY 2011
GA Expenses
$284,629
$306,299
GA Revenues
$1,176,048
$1,208,076
Indirect expenses allo$1,762,901
$1,644,584
cated to GA
Total airport
$49,480,328 $50,532,322
expenses
Total airport
$55,492,676 $57,407,230
revenues
GA operations
65,847
72,923
Total
145,694
158,370
operations
GA Revenue
per GA opera$17.86
$16.57
tion
Fuel flowage
$341,088
$373,752
fees
Gallons
3,214,951
3,352,394
Albuquerque International Sunport
GA expenses
N/A
N/A
GA revenues
N/A
N/A
Indirect expenses alloN/A
N/A
cated to GA
Total airport
$30,649,000 $29,827,000
expenses
Total airport
$67,686,000 $65,776,000
revenues
GA operations
30,980
31,845
Total
150,635
154,959
operations
GA Revenue
per GA operaN/A
N/A
tion
Fuel flowage
$238,664
$246,257
fees
Gallons
N/A
N/A
MONITORING PLAN
Actual
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2008
Actual
FY 2007
CAGR
07-12
$350,302
$1,273,739
$324,318
$1,134,983
$314,159
$1,135,267
$295,961
$1,000,409
-0.8%
3.3%
$55,100,558
$57,769,017
$51,533,129
$49,265,932
0.1%
79,363
94,471
129,526
154,408
-15.7%
$6.48
22.5%
$2,014,958
$57,017,039
$1,963,793
$57,270,115
168,593
181,389
$457,595
$384,652
$16.05
$12.01
$2,099,230
$67,254,926
231,394
$8.76
$496,270
$2,728,328
$64,414,534
257,527
$464,130
3,052,190
3,040,667
3,771,405
4,360,731
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$29,541,000
$30,195,000
$29,846,000
$27,618,000
32,633
34,058
42,618
45,213
$67,824,000
$65,997,000
$75,256,000
190,099
$227,235
$219,096
$298,139
$345,367
N/A
4-7
N/A
N/A
-6.0%
-5.9%
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.1%
-4.5%
185,508
N/A
-10.8%
-0.1%
161,063
N/A
-2.9%
$67,969,000
157,016
N/A
-8.4%
N/A
N/A
-7.3%
N/A
-7.1%
N/A
TABLE 4C Continued
Actual
Actual
FY 2012
FY 2011
El Paso International Airport
GA expenses
$2,103,672
$2,457,472
GA revenues
$2,928,562
$3,088,983
N/A
cated to GA
Total airport
$27,406,751 $27,167,291
expenses
Total airport
$36,035,489 $34,694,940
revenues
GA operations
29,723
27,629
Total
95,716
94,790
operations
GA Revenue
per GA opera$98.53
$111.80
tion
Fuel flowage
$447,076
$519,857
fees
Gallons
5,820,819
6,212,420
Fresno Yosemite International Airport
GA expenses
$260,207
$276,922
GA revenues
$1,127,336
$1,035,746
Indirect expenses allo$253,835
$240,776
cated to GA
Total airport
$13,763,119 $12,876,638
expenses
Total airport
$17,179,839 $16,109,355
revenues
GA operations
77,893
82,554
Total
120,539
126,443
operations
GA Revenue
per GA opera$14.47
$12.55
tion
Fuel flowage
$269,853
$183,815
fees
Gallons
2,698,526
1,838,154
MONITORING PLAN
Actual
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2008
Actual
FY 2007
CAGR
07-12
$2,233,274
$3,261,712
$2,466,594
$3,464,958
$2,584,312
$3,241,606
$2,518,820
$3,376,224
-3.5%
-2.8%
$26,189,300
$26,328,768
$26,893,108
$23,408,336
3.2%
31,444
31,672
31,615
30,660
-0.6%
$110.12
-2.2%
N/A
$34,907,575
101,982
$103.73
$413,596
N/A
$33,851,349
97,312
$109.40
$420,538
N/A
$35,271,687
N/A
$33,771,359
99,997
102,522
$846,514
$487,062
$102.53
5,442,675
5,256,730
6,884,148
6,335,161
$240,113
$247,389
$261,171
$91,292
$278,505
$958,107
$253,845
$979,651
$335,236
$883,623
N/A
1.3%
-1.4%
-1.7%
-1.7%
$112,641
$712,322
18.2%
9.6%
3.3%
22.7%
$13,016,077
$13,361,655
$12,223,425
$11,711,957
73,049
83,145
105,967
100,305
-4.9%
$7.10
15.3%
2,228,197
3.9%
$16,099,187
$15,222,034
118,778
129,947
$184,103
$205,297
$13.12
1,841,031
4-8
$11.78
2,052,965
$15,424,207
160,578
$8.34
$156,941
2,242,009
$14,423,355
156,648
$155,974
3.6%
-5.1%
11.6%
TABLE 4C Continued
Actual
Actual
FY 2012
FY 2011
Reno-Tahoe International Airport
GA expenses
$211,483
$406,841
GA revenues
$1,721,052
$1,838,643
N/A
cated to GA
Total airport
$33,845,018 $33,415,074
expenses
Total airport
$42,160,534 $41,436,800
revenues
GA operations
28,705
29,623
Total
82,002
88,626
operations
GA Revenue
per GA opera$59.96
$62.07
tion
Fuel flowage
$185,882
$188,946
fees
Gallons
2,745,956
2,793,134
Tulsa International Airport
GA expenses
N/A
N/A
GA revenues
N/A
N/A
N/A
cated to GA
Total airport
$21,245,000 $20,455,000
expenses
Total airport
$30,697,000 $31,505,000
revenues
GA operations
29,688
31,157
Total
145,694
158,370
operations
GA Revenue
per GA operaN/A
N/A
tion
Fuel flowage
$892,000
$790,000
fees
Gallons
N/A
N/A
CAGR – Compound Annual Growth Rate
N/A – Not Available
Actual
FY 2010
Actual
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2008
Actual
FY 2007
CAGR
07-12
N/A
$1,233,330
N/A
$1,509,658
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$31,135,280
$31,220,696
$31,935,541
$30,453,872
2.1%
35,220
42,309
49,995
64,469
-14.9%
N/A
N/A
N/A
$44,531,358
N/A
$44,602,748
N/A
$47,143,034
N/A
$45,596,697
92,845
102,835
138,765
162,256
$212,449
$210,085
N/A
N/A
$35.02
$35.68
3,134,246
3,065,294
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$17,638,710
$19,857,243
$19,830,474
$19,529,766
32,149
37,493
42,742
47,757
$31,267,000
$30,107,034
$12,746,466
N/A
-1.6%
-12.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.7%
$11,343,621
22.0%
-9.1%
168,593
181,389
231,394
257,527
-10.8%
$726,571
$647,141
$753,708
$794,502
2.3%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sources: Financial and fuel data provided by individual airport operators; Operations data from FAA Air Traffic Activity
System (ATADS).
GA HANGAR RATES
As has been previously discussed, there are numerous types of aircraft storage hangars.
The most common include shade hangars, T-hangars, and conventional/executive hangars.
Rates vary for the different types depending on the leased square footage and hangar conPOLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND
MONITORING PLAN
4-9
dition. Location can also play a role in determining hangar rates. Hangars with direct access to improved taxiways/taxilanes and adjacent to aviation services being offered at an
airport can oftentimes be more expensive to rent. In addition, the type of utility infrastructure being offered to the hangar can also help determine storage fees. Smaller aircraft
storage hangars, such as a T-hangar or small executive hangar, can either be granted access
through a manual sliding door or electric door. It is common for hangars that provide electric doors to have higher rental fees as the cost associated with constructing these hangars
would exceed the cost associated with simpler structures.
At some airports, hangar facilities are constructed by the airport sponsor, while at other
airports, hangars are built by private entities. In some cases, airports have both public and
private hangar facilities available. Hangars can be expensive to construct and offer minimal
return on investment in the short term. In order to amortize the cost of constructing hangars, lease rates should be developed at minimum to recover development and finance costs.
To gauge the level of GA storage hangar demand at the comparison airports, each was
asked if a hangar waiting list was currently being maintained. None of the comparison airports reported having a hangar waiting list as of December 2013.
Below are the monthly rates for the various hangar types at the comparison airports. Fresno Yosemite International Airport and Tulsa International Airport do not directly lease
hangar facilities, but rely on FBOs and SASOs to provide hangar facilities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABQ
o T-Hangar - $285.00
o Charges FBOs 15 percent gross revenue fee for total revenues derived from
aircraft parking for transient or itinerant users and aircraft tiedowns.
BOI
o Shade Hangar - $127.00
o T-Hangar - $213.00 - $267.00
ELP
o T-Hangar - $110.00 (single)/$220 (double)
o Tiedown - $20.00
FAT
o Tiedown fees are determined by an aircraft’s maximum certificated gross
landing weight (MCGLW) and ranges from $60.00 to $516.00 per month.
RNO
o T-hangar - $376.00 (1,134 sf) - $911.00 (2,742 sf)
o Tiedown - $100.00
o Box hangar - $0.33 - $0.42 per square foot
TUL – NA
TUS
o Tiedown - $50.00 - $140.00 (single/twin)/$125.00 - $230.00 (multiengine turbine)
o Shade hangar - $135.00 - $750.00
o T-Hangar - $200.00 - $515.00
MONITORING PLAN
4-10
ON-SITE GA RESTAURANT
Discussions throughout this planning process to date have included questions about
whether attracting an on-site restaurant operator is feasible and how the comparison airports handle restaurants not associated with the commercial passenger terminal facilities.
Based upon the responses received, none of the comparison airports have on-site restaurants available that are not associated with commercial passenger terminal facilities.
Successful airport restaurants are driven by demand and not typically airport policy. Most
commercial service airports, including the comparison airports, are located within relatively developed areas of the city, where off-site restaurants are very common within close
proximity to the airport. In many cases, the off-site restaurants are more easily accessible
to the local community than driving into the active airport environment to visit an airport
restaurant. Furthermore, lagging recreational GA flying activity nationwide has hurt airport restaurants because, in general, during difficult economic times people have less disposable income and are less willing to pay higher aviation fuel prices to fly to another airport’s restaurant, especially at commercial service airports where security restrictions are
greater than at GA airports.
STRATEGIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The general policy of the TAA is reflected in the 1996 Airport Master Plan is, “A secondary,
but important role of the Airport is to serve corporate and general aviation operators.” Because of the facilities available, it is obvious that the Airport’s primary role will continue to
be to serve the commercial service needs of the region. Locally, the Airport can continue to
maintain a strong presence in GA as well.
Other airports in the region can offer advantages to some GA users in terms of convenience,
lesser restrictions and controls, and pricing structure. These airports serve a useful role in
distributing GA service throughout the metropolitan area and adding to the overall capacity
of the metropolitan airport system. Therefore, a policy that continues to promote GA at all
airports, TIA included, is recommended. It should be understood, however, that TIA will
continue to serve other roles that cannot readily be provided at other airports. As a result,
GA users at TIA should expect higher levels of security, traffic control, and related constraints than might be experienced at other airports in the region.
With this understood, the TAA can still promote the growth and well-being of GA at TIA.
The following subsections examine other GA policies that should be considered at TIA.
GA MANAGEMENT
The previous 1998 GA Strategic Plan recommended the TAA establish a policy to construct,
own, and operate new hangar facilities and acquire existing storage hangars as well. In addition, it recommended the TAA remove itself from offering FBO-related services, including
MONITORING PLAN
4-11
aviation fuel. Since the completion of that study, TAA has removed itself as an FBO competitor, new privately owned hangars have been constructed, and the TAA has taken ownership of existing storage hangars due to expiring lease agreements.
As detailed in the FAA’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 77, Guidebook for Developing General Aviation Airport Business Plans, TAA has three options for
providing GA products, services, and facilities: (1) by a private entity using the private entity’s assets and resources and operating under a lease agreement or operating permit with
the airport sponsor; (2) by a private entity using the airport sponsor’s assets and the private entity’s resources operating under a management agreement with the airport sponsor;
and (3) by the airport sponsor using its own assets and resources. The potential advantages and disadvantages from the airport sponsor and customer perspective are presented below:
(1) Private Entity Lease Agreement or Operating Permit
Advantages
Airport:
•
•
•
•
The airport sponsor would not have the capital costs or operating expenses associated with providing products, services, and facilities unless the airport sponsor
made the associated improvements from which the products, services, and facilities
are provided.
The airport sponsor’s airport-related revenue (land and/or improvement rents)
would increase.
The airport sponsor’s airport-related revenue (fees) may or may not increase, depending on the airport’s fee schedule.
The airport sponsor would have limited exposure or risk associated with the provision of products, services, and facilities because it would be transferred to the private entity.
Customers:
•
•
The range, level, and quality of products, services, and facilities available at the airport would likely be higher, depending on the amount of private capital available.
Customers may be less concerned about “free market” competition since the airport
sponsor cannot grant an exclusive right to a private entity under the Airport Sponsor Assurances.
MONITORING PLAN
4-12
•
•
Customers may become more aware of the range, level, and quality of products, services, and facilities available at the airport, depending on the private entity’s marketing program.
Customers may be less concerned about the qualifications, experience, and abilities
of the private entity’s staff.
Disadvantages
Airport:
•
•
The airport sponsor has only minimal, indirect control over the range, level, and
quality of products, services, and facilities provided and associated pricing.
The airport sponsor’s net proceeds relating to the provision of products, services,
and facilities would decrease.
Customers:
•
•
The range, level, and quality of products, services, and facilities provided would be
dependent on the ability of the airport sponsor to attract and retain a private entity
and on the qualifications, experience, and abilities of that entity.
Customers may or may not pay higher prices, depending on the pricing orientation
of the private entity.
(2) Airport Sponsor – Private Entity Management Agreement
Advantages
Airport:
•
•
•
The airport sponsor would retain ownership of the assets associated with providing
products, services, and facilities.
The airport sponsor’s capital costs and operating expenses associated with the provision of products, services, and facilities would decrease, depending on the structure of the management agreement.
The airport sponsor would have less liability exposure and less risk, depending on
the qualifications, experience, and abilities of the private entity and the terms and
conditions of the agreement.
MONITORING PLAN
4-13
Customers:
•
•
•
Customers may be more aware of the range, level, and quality of products, services,
and facilities available at the airport, depending on the private entity’s marketing
programs.
Customers may be less concerned about the qualifications, experience, and abilities
of the private entity’s staff.
Some range, level, and quality of products, services, and facilities will be available at
the airport. This is especially important if the airport sponsor could not attract and
retain a private entity under the lease agreement approach.
Disadvantages
Airport:
•
•
•
•
The airport sponsor’s net proceeds from the provision of products, services, and facilities may decrease, depending on the structure of the management agreement and
the performance of the contractor.
The airport sponsor may be required to provide capital for purchasing vehicles and
equipment, making improvements, or developing facilities.
The airport sponsor has to rely on a third party to operate and manage all aspects
associated with the range, level, and quality of products, services, and facilities provided and establish pricing.
The airport sponsor would be required to entertain interest from third parties who
may want to operate a competitive FBO or SASO since the sponsor cannot exercise
its proprietary exclusive right.
Customers
•
•
•
Customers may still be concerned about a lack of “free market” competition, even
though the airport sponsor would not be able to exercise its proprietary exclusive
right under this type of arrangement.
The range, level, and quality of infrastructure, improvements, assets, or amenities
associated with providing products, services, and facilities may not meet the needs
of customers, depending on the amount of public capital available.
Customers may or may not pay higher prices, depending on the pricing orientation
of the airport sponsor and the private entity, the structure of the management
agreement, or the performance of the private entity.
MONITORING PLAN
4-14
(3) Airport Sponsor Management Arrangement
Advantages
Airport:
•
•
•
•
The airport sponsor has full control over all aspects of the type, range, level, and
The airport sponsor has direct influence on activity levels at the airport as well as on
products, services, and facility revenues.
The net proceeds generated through the provision of products, services, and facilities are realized directly by the airport sponsor.
There are inherent synergies of operating and managing the airport and providing
products, services, and facilities which result in lower overall costs or expenses.
Customers:
•
•
•
Customers can be assured that some range, level, and quality of products, services,
and facilities will be available at the airport. This is especially important if the airport sponsor could not attract and retain a private entity to provide products, services, and facilities.
Customers may or may not pay lower prices, depending on the customer service and
pricing orientation of the airport sponsor.
Customers have a public forum to raise concerns about the type, range, level, and
Disadvantages
Airport:
•
•
•
The airport sponsor is responsible for resolving any issues, challenges, or problems
relating to the range, level, and quality of products, services, and facilities provided
and associated pricing.
The airport sponsor has greater liability exposure and more risk.
The airport sponsor’s capital costs and operating expenses are higher.
MONITORING PLAN
4-15
•
To be successful, the airport sponsor has to attract and retain management and staff
with the qualifications, experience, and abilities required to properly provide the
range, level, and quality of products, services, and facilities desired by customers.
Customers:
•
•
•
•
Customers may be concerned about “free market” competition based on the airport
sponsor’s ability to exercise its proprietary exclusive right to be the sole provider of
products, services, and facilities at the airport.
Customers may be concerned that the airport sponsor has not given the private sector the opportunity to engage in the provision of products, services, and facilities at
the airport.
Customers may be concerned about the ability of the airport sponsor to provide the
range, level, and quality of products, services, and facilities expected.
Customers may be concerned about the qualifications, experience, and abilities of
the airport sponsor’s staff.
The ACRP report indicates that at most large GA airports, GA services and facilities are provided by private entities. Comparison airports that operate in this manner have indicated
that it is a preferential GA management policy because it reduces operating expenses, allows airport staff to focus on other lines of business, and still retains strong revenue
streams from lease agreements.
GOVERNING DOCUMENTS
The governing documents (Minimum Standards and Rules and Regulations) provided by
the comparison airports were analyzed and compared to the existing TIA governing documents to identify best practices for specific areas of concern identified by TAA staff. The
resulting analysis is included in Appendix B of this document. In general, TIA’s governing
documents identify more strict requirements for GA related businesses when compared to
other airports. Consideration should be given to revising TIA’s governing documents to be
more flexible in approach to create a more hospitable GA business environment.
TIA’s Minimum Standards document should be revised to include a Review & Update Policy
segment. A Minimum Standards document should clearly define a procedure for review
and update so that revisions are not viewed as changes made to benefit a particular service
provider. Typically, when an airport updates its master plan, this is a good time to revisit
Minimum Standards as airport and aviation community issues and goals are fresh in the
minds of decision-makers.
MONITORING PLAN
4-16
MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION
TAA has in place several methods of communicating and marketing to the GA community,
including the airport website, GA user group meetings, project alert messages, and customer surveys. These methods should be continued with efforts to frequently update its distribution lists (e-mail addresses) to be as inclusive as possible. One possible method to gather new contact information is to develop an “opt-in” e-mail sign-up opportunity on the TIA
website.
Additional measures, identified during the airport comparison analysis, can be taken to improve communication with the GA community. In its General Aviation Communications
Plan, the Boise Air Terminal established plans to coordinate the development of a TIA pilots group to represent pilots through AOPA, EAA, CAP and any other organizations commonly recognized as representing GA pilots. It was also recommended that Boise Air Terminal develop a GA subcommittee of their Airport Commission to address GA issues. TAA
should consider implementing these measures as well.
ONGOING MONITORING PLAN
The purpose of this section is to prepare performance measures, which will allow the TAA
to understand how GA is performing at TIA. Airport performance measures are typically
either financial, operational, or a combination of both. These GA performance measures
should be tracked on at least an annual basis by TAA to aid in identifying trends or conditions that are not easily identifiable through regular performance review methods.
Performance measures should be analyzed and shared with stakeholders on a regular basis. FAA’s ACRP Report 77, Guidebook for Developing General Aviation Airport Business
Plans, identifies several key financial, operational, and combined performance measures
that can be used. These performance measures are included in Table 4C.
TABLE 4C
Performance Measures
Financial
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Operating Revenue
Cost of goods sold
Operating expenses
Non-operating sources of funds
Capital assets
•
-
•
-
•
-
Operational
Land
Total, leasable, leased, available
Improvements
Total, leasable, leased, available
Aircraft operations
Total, itinerant, local
•
-
•
Combined
Revenue per
Square foot
Operation
Based aircraft
Gallon
Employee
Operating expenses per
Square foot
Operation
Based aircraft
Internal rate of return
Gallon
•
Operating profit margin
Employee
Quick ratio
• Operating profit margin per
A/R or A/P turnover
Square foot
•
Operation
Based aircraft
Gallon
Employee
Source: FAA ACRP Report 77, Guidebook for Developing General Aviation Airport Business Plans
Current ratio
Gross profit margin
MONITORING PLAN
•
Based aircraft
Total, piston, turboprop, jet, helicopter, other
Fuel volumes
Jet, avgas, mogas
Based and transient
Employees (full time equivalent
of FTE)
Management
Staff
4-17
-
With this information tabulated, a performance measure matrix can be created to identify
relationships among the key performance measures. Any number of performance
measures can be utilized based upon what TAA considers to be most relevant.
A baseline matrix utilizing GA revenues, GA expenses, GA income, GA operations, based aircraft, fuel flowage, and TAA employees for fiscal years (FY) 2007 through 2012 was prepared. Table 4D provides the raw data utilized to generate the ratios, which are summarized in Tables 4E, 4F, and 4G. Each ratio comparison represents a dollar amount. For example, in FY 2012, TIA earned $6.88 dollars for each individual GA operation, $11.08 dollars for each individual GA itinerant operation, and $18.17 dollars for each individual GA
local operation. These ratios were plotted into line charts shown on Exhibit 4B for comparison.
TABLE 4D
GA Performance Measures Raw Data
GA Revenues ($)
GA Expenses ($)
GA Income1 ($)
FY2007
1,000,409
FY2008
1,135,266
FY2009
1,134,982
FY2010
1,273,738
FY2011
1,208,076
FY2012
1,176,048
154,408
129,526
94,471
79,363
72,923
65,847
295,963
704,447
Total GA Ops
GA Itinerant Ops
GA Local Ops
Based Aircraft
Fuel Flowage (gallons)
Budgeted TAA Employees
1
72,247
82,161
308
4,360,731
310.25
GA Income before allocated expenses.
314,158
324,319
821,108
810,664
68,398
350,303
923,435
54,750
61,128
39,721
293
275
3,771,405
3,040,667
309.25
308.25
50,137
29,226
231
3,052,190
303.50
306,299
901,777
45,568
27,355
214
3,352,395
289.00
284,628
891,420
40,906
24,941
202
3,214,951
264.00
TABLE 4E
GA Revenue Ratios
GA Revenue per:
Total GA Operation
FY2007
6.48
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
8.76
12.01
16.05
16.57
17.86
3.87
4.13
5.51
5.65
5.82
GA Itinerant Operation
13.85
16.60
Fuel Flowage (gallon)
0.23
0.30
GA Local Operation
Based Aircraft (1,000s)
TAA Employees (1,000s)
Source: Coffman Associates analysis.
MONITORING PLAN
12.18
3.25
3.22
18.57
3.67
4-18
20.73
28.57
0.37
3.68
25.41
43.58
0.42
4.20
26.51
44.16
0.36
4.18
28.75
47.15
0.37
4.45
GA Revenue Ratios
Dollars per Performance Measure
50.00
45.00
Performance Measure
40.00
35.00
Total GA Operation
30.00
25.00
GA Local Operation
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
2011
2012
GA Expenses Ratios
14.00
Performance Measure
12.00
Total GA Operation
10.00
8.00
GA Local Operation
6.00
4.00
2.00
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
2011
2012
GA Income Ratios
40.00
Performance Measure
35.00
30.00
Total GA Operation
25.00
20.00
GA Local Operation
15.00
10.00
5.00
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
2011
2012
Exhibit 4B
GA PERFORMANCE MEASURE RATIOS
TABLE 4F
GA Expense Ratios
GA Expense per:
Total GA Op
GA Itinerant Op
GA Local Op
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
1.92
2.43
3.43
4.41
4.20
4.32
0.96
1.07
1.18
4.10
3.60
0.07
0.95
4.59
5.14
0.08
1.02
5.92
6.99
6.72
6.96
8.16
11.99
11.20
11.41
1.05
1.15
1.06
1.08
0.11
1.52
0.11
1.43
0.09
1.41
0.09
TABLE 4G
GA Income Ratios
GA Income per:
Total GA Op
GA Itinerant Op
GA Local Op
MONITORING PLAN
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
4.56
6.34
8.58
11.64
12.37
13.54
2.95
4.00
4.21
4.41
9.75
12.00
14.81
0.16
0.22
0.27
8.57
2.29
2.27
13.43
2.80
2.66
4-19
20.41
2.63
18.42
31.60
0.30
3.04
19.79
32.97
0.27
3.12
21.79
35.74
0.28
3.38
Chapter Five
GA DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
AND BEST PRACTICES
AND BEST PRACTICES
Chapter Five
The planning process thus far has included several analytical efforts in the previous
chapters intended to project potential aviation demand, establish general aviation
(GA) facility needs, and evaluate options to meet the identified needs. The purpose
of this section is to describe, in narrative and graphic form, the GA Development
Program.
At present, GA facilities at Tucson International Airport (TIA) are spread between
three separate areas (Areas A, B, and D). This has resulted in a somewhat scattered
GA presence and can cause difficulties in the overall management of GA facilities
and activities. Area A is the smallest and newest GA area, with Million Air the
dominant presence along with smaller conventional hangars and T-hangars. This
area has limited development potential and is somewhat secluded from the
airfield. Area B is the primary GA activity area with three fixed base operators
(FBOs), various specialized aviation service operators (SASOs), and the bulk of the
aircraft storage hangar capacity and GA apron space. Area D, while larger than
Area A, has very limited GA facilities and is ultimately planned to be located within
the future Runway 11R-29L runway protection zone (RPZ) and a future extended
clear zone policy area. As a result, GA activities in Area D are planned to be
eliminated, with the remainder of Area D to continue to be used for industrial uses.
5-1
The GA environment has changed significantly in recent years with diminishing numbers of
student pilots and reduced operations by small GA aircraft. The FAA is moving steadily towards banning 100LL Avgas, which powers most piston GA aircraft. An unleaded alternative is intended to be available by 2018, but there is still an uncertainty, making the future
of small GA activities precarious. The most significant growth area within GA is in business
aircraft. TIA needs to position itself to accommodate the changing GA fleet by encouraging
the development of GA facilities and services to cater to business aircraft. While not anticipated to be a growing market segment, piston-powered GA aircraft will continue to be a
presence at TIA for the foreseeable future. As such, services and facilities for these operators will need to be maintained at appropriate levels and at high-class standards.
SIGNAGE/WAYFINDING SYSTEM
With the elimination of GA activities from Area D, GA facilities will be consolidated into Areas A and B. This consolidation will give GA a more focused footprint on the airport and
create a more efficient and safe operating environment. In an effort to rebrand the GA areas, a roadway lighting and signage/wayfinding system is recommended. A GA-dedicated
signage/wayfinding system will provide a modern feel and improve the overall organization and aesthetics of the areas.
AIRPORT RESTAURANT/COMMUNITY ATTRACTION
A key consideration and concern throughout the preparation of this study has been on
seeking methods to attract and engage the local community and creating a stronger GA
community at TIA either by having an on-site restaurant or potential for an attraction such
as an airport museum. Previously, TIA had a restaurant that provided a gathering point for
GA pilots and members of the community; however, due to declining business the restaurant was forced to close. While this study has found that a stand-alone GA restaurant
would not be feasible, there is potential for restaurant services to be offered by FBOs as has
been the case at several comparison airports. The Tucson Airport Authority (TAA) should
encourage FBOs and its third-party entities to incorporate amenities that would contribute
towards the airport’s public outreach programs and foster interest in the airport from the
local community. Other community attractions such as museums can also be pursued, but
these generally do not generate strong revenues and ultimately struggle to create returns
on the initial investment. However, the TAA could consider partnering with established
facilities, such as the Pima Air and Space Museum, which is located five miles east of Tucson
International Airport. A marketing partnership could help promote both the museum and
Tucson International Airport without duplicating facility costs and splitting the customer
base.
AREA B
The recommended Area B concept is depicted on Exhibit 5A. Area B will continue to serve
as the hub of GA activities at TIA. The recommended concept focuses on providing expan-
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-2
Rd
.
ST
uc
so
n
Bl
vd
.
on
Rd
.
EM
ed
in
a
LEGEND
Ultimate Building
Ultimate Roadway
Mixed Aviation Use Redevelopment
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Expansion Parcel
Helicopter Activity Area
Non Aviation Use
EE
lv
ira
Rd
.
EA
ra
g
3.58
acres
Executive
E
Hangars
H
3,600 sf
3
.48
acres
al
V
E.
11
5’
ia
c
en
D1
1.26
acres
115’
.65
acres
.
Rd
Group
G
roup I TOFA
TO
T
79
79’
7
4.33
acres
Upgrade to
o
Group II TOFA
G
1.87
acres
and Self-Service
Maintenance Facility
3.76
acres
1.00
acres
Group
G
roup I TOFA
Runway 3/21
Grou
Group
up III TOFA
TOFA
4.27
acres
Self-Serve
e
Fuel Island
d
NORTH
0
115
115’
1
15’
5
79
79’
9’
3.87
acres
2.0
acres
E Airport Dr.
S Plumer Ave
Runway 3/21
D2
6.61
acres
3,600 ft2
3
Executive Hangars
E
400
SCALE IN FEET
Taxiway A
Exhibit 5A
AREA A AND AREA B RECOMMENDED CONCEPTS
sion areas for the existing FBOs in this area. As corporate GA traffic increases over time,
larger hangar facilities and ramp space will be needed along the flightlines. A total of 11.72
acres of FBO expansion parcels are identified in areas that will repurpose and redevelop
under-utilized facilities or relocate SASO operators to alternate locations on the airport.
Facility layout and funding for development of these parcels would be provided by private
FBO entities so that they are able to provide the facilities and services that meet the needs
of their customers. A self-service fuel island is identified in the recommended concept adjacent to the southern-most FBO expansion parcel along Taxiway A. Again, this type of facility should be encouraged by TAA; however, the decision to construct such a facility
should be left to the FBO operators so they are able to implement facilities that best meet
the needs of their customers.
Area B has a large divided automobile parking lot adjacent to the flightline ramp that is
planned to be reconfigured to serve as a parking lot for an FBO expansion parcel. South
Plumer Avenue, which currently provides access to this parking lot as well as Atlantic Aviation’s facilities, would need to be widened to allow for a normal two-lane in/out traffic flow
to this parking lot and FBO facilities.
Facility redevelopment is a key component of the GA development program. As was previously mentioned, numerous facilities in Area B are currently vacant or underutilized. The
approximately 6.61-acre site that includes the Executive Terminal and airport traffic control tower (ATCT) has been identified for mixed aviation use redevelopment. With the
commencement of construction of a new ATCT at the airport, the FAA controllers will ultimately be relocated to the new facility leaving the existing tower available for commercial
redevelopment. A specific tenant has not yet been identified; however, the facility would
lend itself to aviation-related businesses that would not need direct airfield access from
hangar facilities such as aircraft insurance companies or other aircraft amenity or service
providers. Office space in this facility could also be leased by non-GA businesses associated
with other commercial or air cargo activities already on the airport. Due to its prime location on the flightline, interest has been shown from the FBOs and SASOs to lease the Executive Terminal to expand GA-related services.
Proposed hangar construction is limited to the redevelopment of underutilized T-hangar
facilities and three parcels totaling approximately 4.26 acres. TIA has a high capacity of Thangar units that have a low occupancy rate and cater to small GA aircraft that are not anticipated to grow into the future. Therefore, some T-hangar facilities should be demolished
and redeveloped with larger executive-style hangars for more sophisticated aircraft. The
Area B recommended concept includes two rows of nine executive hangars totaling 3,600
square feet of storage space each. The taxilane pavement to this area is planned for reconstruction to a pavement width to accommodate up to an Airplane Design Group (ADG) II
aircraft (up to medium-sized aircraft such as a Beechcraft King Air). An additional taxilane
is planned to the middle hangar area immediately southwest of the existing shade hangar
facilities. This additional access/egress point will improve taxiing efficiency to this area.
A designated activity area totaling approximately 4.33 acres is identified in Area B to consolidate helicopter operators. A taxilane leading to this area would provide additional access for helicopters to hover taxi to and from the airfield. This site is the location of the old
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-3
airport maintenance facilities. Most of the existing buildings are vacant and would not be
readily leasable; therefore, the plan calls for the demolition of the existing vacant facilities
to allow for the development of the consolidated helicopter activity area. Some existing
above-ground electrical lines would also need to be removed or relocated underground to
clear the area for helicopter operations.
A 1.87-acre parcel along Plumer Road is planned for revenue support development. This
parcel is secluded from the airfield; therefore, it should be reserved for a developer who
can utilize this space without needing direct airfield access.
The alternatives analysis considered the development of a dedicated self-service minor aircraft maintenance facility for GA aircraft owners near the existing aircraft wash rack. After
consideration and discussion it was decided the best course of action would be to upgrade
the existing wash rack to include both capabilities in an all-in-one facility. This would involve the addition of receptacles to dispose of aircraft fluids and materials discarded during
minor routine aircraft maintenance and the installation of a cash payment system.
AREA A
The recommended Area A concept is depicted on Exhibit 5A. Area A had previously been
planned and designed for low-activity GA uses. This plan is essentially carried forward
with minor tweaks to accommodate four executive style hangars and the potential for SASO
activities in some or all of the area’s 4.89 acres of developable land. Since this area does
not provide multiple access and egress points to the airfield, low-activity uses are considered the most feasible. ADG II taxilanes should be maintained to allow access to the Million
Air facility by medium-sized business aircraft such as the Gulfstream G450 and the Cessna
Citation X. When considering the development of Area A parcels, infrastructure improvements including upgraded electrical service may be necessary depending on the size and
type of facility planned by the developers.
GA DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Now that specific needs and improvements have been established, the overall initial cost of
development and life cycle costs need to be considered. This section will examine the
overall cost of each project in the development plan and a summary analysis of revenue
streams/return on investments and induced benefits from proposed GA developments.
The cost estimates presented in Table 5A have been increased to allow for a 20 percent
contingency that may arise on each project. Capital costs presented here should be viewed
only as estimates subject to further refinement during design. Nevertheless, these estimates are considered sufficiently accurate for planning purposes. Cost estimates for each
of the development projects are listed in current (2014) dollars. Adjustments will need to
be applied over time as construction costs or capital equipment costs change.
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-4
TABLE 5A
GA Project Cost Estimates1
Project
#
Project
Quantity
Total Cost
Responsibility
LS
LS
$21,600
$21,000
TAA
TAA
LS
LS
$10,000
$33,000
TAA
TAA
Anticipated Near-Term (1 to 6 Years) Projects
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Signage/Wayfinding Program
Lighting Upgrades – Area B
Upgrade Wash Rack to Dual-Use Self-Service
Maintenance Facility - Area B
Establish Common Pilot Lounge With Restroom
– Area B
Paint TAA-Owned Hangars
Demolition and Site Preparation (Including
Utility Upgrades) of Two T-hangar and One
Shade Hangar Units - Area B
Taxilane Reconstruction/Widening Near Executive Hangar Site - Area B
FBO Expansion Area Site Preparation/Utility
Upgrades - Area B3
Construction of Self-Service Fuel Island - Area B
FBO Site3
Widen Plumer Avenue and Reconfigure Parking
Lot Adjacent to 4.27 Acre Parcel - Area B
Construct Executive Hangars - Area B
Site Preparation (Building Demolition, Utility
12
Upgrades) of Helicopter Activity Area - Area B
Anticipated Long-Term (7 to 12 Years) Projects
Taxilane Extension to 1.0 Acre Hangar Devel13
opment Parcel - Area B
Hangar Development Parcel Site Preparation 14
Area B
Taxilane Construction to Helicopter Activity
15
Area and 1.26 Acre Parcel - Area B
FBO Expansion Area Site Preparation/Utility
16
Upgrades - Area B3
Utilities Upgrade - Electrical and IT Cabling for
17
Executive Hangar and SASO Sites - Area A
10
11
LS
$10,000
TAA
LS
$390,480
TAA/Private2
4.27 Acres
$438,456
TAA/Private2
LS
18 Units @ 3,600 SF
$641,869
$5,311,080
TAA/Private2
Private
1,600 SY
$195,030
TAA/Private2
3,000 SY
$193,536
TAA
31,970 SY
LS
LS
2.0 Acres
3.87 Acres
LS
4 Units @ 3,600 SF
and 2,500 SY of
Pavement
700 LF Fence Line
& 2 Electronic Gates
$715,000
$288,000
$279,907
$166,853
$152,722
$388,560
TAA
Private
TAA/Private2
TAA/Private2
TAA/Private2
TAA/Private2
Construct Executive Hangars and Apron Pavement (12,500 lbs. or less) - Area A
$1,291,746
TAA/Private2
Relocate Perimeter Fence to Remove GA Area B
19
T-hangar Area from Secure Area
$56,400
TAA
Reconstruct Plumer Avenue From Medina Road
20
to Elvira Road - Area B
LS
$426,450
City of Tucson
Projects Total
$11,031,689
1Project cost estimates assume a 20 percent contingency and are presented in 2014 dollars.
2Private or TAA funded depending on agreement reached with developer.
3Development of FBO-related facilities such as hangars and office spaces are excluded from this list and are assumed to be
determined by individual FBO entities and funded privately.
LS – Lump Sum
SF – Square Foot
SY – Square Yard
Source: Dowl HKM
18
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-5
LIFE CYCLE COSTS
Since it is anticipated that TAA will continue to move towards third-party management of
GA facilities and services, in most cases, regular maintenance and upkeep of facilities
should be passed to third-party entities. However, airfield pavement will continue to be
managed and maintained by the TAA. Several proposed projects involve the expansion or
reconstruction of airfield pavements. Life cycle costs associated with maintaining these
new pavements have been estimated so that TAA can incorporate those costs into its regular pavement maintenance program. A 40-year life cycle program was anticipated including three pavement overlays at years 15, 27, and 39. Pavement seal coats, crack repair and
striping were assumed to occur every five years. Over the 40-year life cycle, the cost to
maintain the new pavements in Area A comes to approximately $292,300, or $7,300 on average each year. The cost to maintain the new pavements in Area B comes to approximately $6.3 million over 40 years, or $157,500 on average each year.
PROPOSED GA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The recommended GA near-term capital improvement program (CIP) and its corresponding cost estimates are based on a planning level of detail and are presented in Table 5B.
While accurate for planning purposes, actual project costs will likely vary from these planning estimates once project design and engineering estimates are developed. For the purposes of this study, site preparation and new facility (hangar, office space, etc.) development costs associated with the FBO expansion sites are assumed to be funded by private
developers. Where minimal to no site-preparation is required, such as for the 3.58-acre
FBO expansion parcel and the Executive Terminal, no site preparation projects are planned.
As shown in the table, the near-term GA developments are estimated to cost approximately
$8.2 million.
TABLE 5B
GA Near-Term Capital Improvement Program1
CIP
Year
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
Description
Signage/Wayfinding Program
Lighting Upgrades - Area B
Upgrade Wash Rack to Dual-Use Self-Service Maint Facility - Area B
Construct Common Pilot Lounge With Restroom - Area B
Paint Existing TAA-Owned Hangars
Demolition and Site Preparation - Area B
Taxilane Reconstruction/Widening Near Executive Hangar Site - Area B
FBO Expansion Area Site Preparation/Utility Upgrades - Area B
Construction of Self-Service Fuel Island - Area B
Widen Plumer Ave. & Reconfigure Parking Lot - Area B
Construct Executive Hangars - Area B
Quantity
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
31,970 sy
4.27 Acres
LS
LS
18 Units @
3600 sf
LS
Site Preparation of Helicopter Activity Area - Area B
Totals
1In 2014 dollars
LS – Lump Sum
SF – Square Foot
SY – Square Yard
Source: Cost estimates prepared by Dowl HKM; CIP prepared by Coffman Associates
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-6
Project
Costs
$22,000
21,000
10,000
10,000
33,000
390,000
715,000
438,000
288,000
642,000
5,311,000
280,000
$8,160,000
Funding Sources
Federal
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
State
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
Private
$0
0
0
0
0
390,000
0
438,000
288,000
642,000
5,311,000
280,000
$7,350,000
TAA
$22,000
21,000
10,000
10,000
33,000
0
715,000
0
0
0
0
0
$811,000
Total
$22,000
21,000
10,000
10,000
33,000
390,000
715,000
438,000
288,000
642,000
5,311,000
280,000
$8,160,000
Table 5C presents the GA CIP’s estimated funding sources for the projection period. Potential funding sources for any proposed improvements at TIA come in the form of grants,
should the project meet eligibility requirements. None of the near-term CIP projects are
anticipated to utilize grant funding, however several projects listed in the long term program, such as the pavement construction projects, may be eligible. Additional financing
options are available such as private investing and TIA funds. The funding sources are described below:
•
•
•
•
Federal Grants – Grants administered by the FAA through the AIP represent a critical
capital funding source to implement the projects recommended in the GA CIP. Although
the future status of the AIP is currently uncertain, for the purpose of this analysis, it is
assumed that the AIP will continue to be authorized and appropriated at levels consistent with H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The U.S. DOT
classifies TIA as a small hub primary airport and TIA is also located in a public land
state; therefore, the AIP formula stipulates that TAA is entitled to receive 91.06 percent
in federal funding for AIP-eligible projects. As shown in the table, none of the near-term
CIP projects are anticipated to utilize federal grants.
State Grants – Arizona’s Department of Transportation (ADOT) provides up to one-half
of the local share of commercial service airport project costs when federal funding is
available. It is assumed in this analysis that the FAA is funding 91.06 percent of eligible
project costs; therefore, ADOT is assumed to fund 4.47 percent of those costs or half of
the local share. As was the case with federal grants, no state grants are anticipated to
be utilized for near-term CIP projects.
Private Investment – Many airports use private investment when the planned improvements will be primarily used by a private business or other organization. Such
projects are not ordinarily eligible for federal funding. Projects of this kind typically include hangars, fixed based operator facilities, fuel storage, exclusive aircraft parking
aprons, industrial aviation use facilities, non-aviation office/commercial/industrial developments, and other similar projects. Private development proposals are considered
on a case-by-case basis. As shown in the table, approximately $7.35 million in private
investment is assumed through CIP Year 6.
TAA Funding – GA revenues generated at TIA typically fund operations and maintenance expenses along with depreciation. However, any surplus revenues can be applied
directly to the GA CIP. As shown in the table, approximately $811,000 in TAA funds is
required for the CIP.
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-7
TABLE 5C
GA CIP and Funding Sources by Year1
Description
Project Costs
Total
$8,160,000
$0
Federal
0
State
7,350,000
Private
811,000
TAA
$8,160,000
Total
1In 2014 dollars
Source: Coffman Associates
Year 1
$63,000
$0
0
0
63,000
$63,000
Year 2
$1,138,000
Year 3
$726,000
Funding Sources
$0
0
390,000
748,000
$1,138,000
$0
0
726,000
0
$726,000
Year 4
$642,000
$0
0
642,000
0
$642,000
Year 5
$5,311,000
$0
0
5,311,000
0
$5,311,000
Year 6
$280,000
$0
0
280,000
0
$280,000
Revenues
Major sources of GA revenue at TIA are derived primarily from land rents, facility leases,
and fuel flowage fees. Table 5D presents GA revenues for 2012 through CIP Year 6. As
illustrated in the table, GA operating revenues were approximately $1.2 million in FY 2012,
increasing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.5 percent to approximately $1.7
million in CIP Year 6. If the additional revenues resulting from the completion of the CIP
were excluded from total revenues, the CAGR would be 1.9 percent.
TABLE 5D
GA Revenues1
Actual
Estimated
Projected CIP
2012
2013
2014
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Land Rent
$359,000 $368,000 $377,000 $386,000 $395,000 $405,000 $414,000 $424,000 $435,000
Additional Land Rent:
Control Tower Apron
0
0
0
0
0
24,000
25,000
26,000
26,000
Area B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27,000
FBO Expansion Area
0
0
0
0
0
0
78,000
80,000
82,000
Fuel Flowage Fees:
Existing Gallons
341,000 343,000 345,000 346,000 348,000 350,000 351,000 353,000 355,000
Increase Due to CIP
0
0
0
0
0
9,000
9,000
9,000
10,000
Facility Rent:
Existing Facilities
453,000 464,000 475,000 487,000 498,000 510,000 522,000 535,000 548,000
Vacated Tower
0
0
0
0
0
79,000
99,000
125,000 158,000
Other GA Revenue
22,000
23,000
24,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
26,000
27,000
28,000
Total Revenues
$1,176,000 $1,198,000 $1,220,000 $1,243,000 $1,266,000 $1,402,000 $1,526,000 $1,579,000 $1,667,000
Percent Change
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
10.7%
8.8%
3.5%
5.6%
CAGR 2012 – CIP
4.5%
Year 6
1In 2014 dollars
Source: TAA (2012), MAC Consulting, LLC (2013-CIP Year 6)
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-8
The 2012 amounts represent actual GA revenues compiled by TAA. Estimates for Years
2013 and 2014 and CIP Year 1 through Year 6 are projected using the following assumptions:
•
•
•
•
Anticipated effects of inflation assumed at 2.4 percent annually, reflecting a 10-year average of the CPI.
Land rents are projected to increase during the projection period as follows:
- An increase in rentable square feet in CIP Year 3 once the FAA vacates the old control tower and moves to the new control tower, which is currently under construction. It is assumed that 58,000 square feet in apron area will become available for
lease. This additional space is assumed to be leased to multiple tenants, including
an FBO and SASO, at $0.42 per square foot, reflecting the current land rental rate at
TIA.
- An increase in rentable square feet upon the completion of the construction of the
executive hangars included in the GA CIP for area B. As shown in Table 5B, 18 3,600
square foot units are planned in Area B in CIP Year 5. The per square foot lease rate
for these new facilities is assumed to be $0.42, reflecting the current land rental rate
at TIA.
- An increase in rentable square feet upon the completion of the FBO expansion area
site in Area B. As shown in Table 5B, 4.27 acres are being prepared for FBO development in Area B in CIP Year 3. The per square foot lease rate for this new space is
assumed to be $0.42, reflecting the current land rental rate at TIA.
Fuel flowage revenues are projected to increase in CIP Year 3 as a result of the completion of the self-service fuel island included in the CIP. It is assumed that once these facilities are complete, additional GA operations will be attracted to TIA. Currently, the
Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) published by the FAA in January 2013 forecasts TIA’s GA
operations to increase on average 0.50 percent through 2033. The FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2013-2033 projects the national GA fleet’s fuel consumption to grow at a rate of
three percent annually. Upon completion of the construction of new executive hangars
and with expanded business aircraft services to be provided by an FBO or SASO from
the Executive Terminal in CIP Year 3, TIA’s total annual GA fuel flowage growth rate is
estimated to mirror the FAA projected GA fuel consumption CAGR of three percent. As
a result, fuel flowage fees at TIA are projected to increase three percent in CIP Year 3.
As with land rents, facility rents are also projected to increase once the new control
tower is complete. It is assumed in this analysis that half (5,617 square feet) of the executive terminal and vacated tower facility will be leased in CIP Year 3 growing to full
occupancy (11,234 square feet) by CIP Year 6 at the rate of $14.04 per square foot a
year.
Expenses
GA expenses at TIA include items such depreciation, labor, materials and supplies, maintenance and repair, and contractual services. The 2012 GA expenses reflect the actual expenses provided by TAA. The estimated 2013, 2014 and CIP Years 1 through 6 expenses
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-9
are projected primarily with the effects of inflation assumed at 2.4 percent annually, reflecting a 10-year average of the CPI. It is anticipated that the completion of the GA CIP
may increase expenses; however, this analysis assumes those additional costs would be
covered by the tenants and, therefore, will not impact TIA’s income.
Table 5E presents GA expenses for 2012 through CIP Year 6. As illustrated in the table, GA
operating expenses were approximately $285,000 in FY 2012, increasing at a CAGR of 2.4
percent to approximately $344,000 by CIP Year 6.
TABLE 5E
GA Expenses1
Estimated
Projected CIP
Actual
2012
2013
2014
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Depreciation
$177,000 $182,000 $186,000 $190,000 $195,000 $200,000 $205,000 $209,000 $214,000
Labor
101,000
104,000 106,000 109,000 111,000 114,000 117,000 120,000 122,000
Other GA Expenses
6,000
6,000
6,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
8,000
Total Direct
$285,000 $291,000 $299,000 $306,000 $313,000 $321,000 $328,000 $336,000 $344,000
Expenses
Percent Change
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
CAGR 2012 – CIP
2.4%
Year 6
1In 2014 dollars
Source: TAA (2012), MAC Consulting, LLC (2013-CIP Year 6)
Profit/(Loss)
Table 5F presents the profit/(loss) of TIA’s GA operations for the projection period based
on the projection of revenues and direct expenses discussed above. As a result of the analysis discussed herein, average net income for GA operations is approximately $969,000
during the eight-year projection period. According to Table 5B, TAA is responsible for
funding approximately $811,000 in project costs. The positive net cash flow shown in Table 5F reflects that TAA has the cash to fund its portion of the GA CIP through Year 6.
However, once TIA’s indirect costs are allocated to the GA area, GA’s net income reflects a
$995,000 average annual loss during the same time period.
TABLE 5F
GA Profit/(Loss)1
Total Revenues
Total Direct Expenses
Profit/(Loss)
Less: CIP Funded by TIA
Percent Change
Less: Allocated Overhead
Less: Allocated Airfield Costs
Total Expenses
Net Income/(Loss)
Percent Change
1In 2014 dollars
Source
Table 5D
Table 5E
Table 5C
AND BEST PRACTICES
Estimated
Actual
2012
2013
2014
Year 1
Year 2
$1,176,000 $1,198,000 $1,220,000 $1,243,000 $1,266,000
(285,000) (291,000) (299,000) (306,000) (313,000)
$891,000
$906,000
$922,000 $937,000
$953,000
(63,000)
(748,000)
$891,000
$906,000
$922,000 $874,000
$205,000
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
$891,000
$906,000
$922,000 $874,000
$205,000
(448,000) (459,000) (470,000) (481,000) (493,000)
(1,315,000) (1,347,000) (1,379,000) (1,412,000) (1,446,000)
(2,048,000) (2,097,000) (2,147,000) (2,261,000) (2,999,000)
($871,000) ($899,000) ($927,000) ($1,019,000) ($1,733,000)
3.1%
3.1%
9.9%
70.2%
5-10
Projected CIP
Year 3
Year 4
$1,402,000 $1,526,000
(321,000)
(328,000)
$1,081,000 $1,197,000
0
0
$1,081,000 $1,197,000
13.5%
10.7%
$1,081,000 $1,197,000
(504,000)
(516,000)
(1,481,000) (1,516,000)
(2,306,000) (2,361,000)
($904,000) ($835,000)
-47.9%
-7.6%
Year 5
$1,579,000
(336,000)
$1,243,000
0
$1,243,000
3.8%
$1,243,000
(529,000)
(1,552,000)
(2,418,000)
($838,000)
0.4%
Year 6
$1,667,000
(344,000)
$1,323,000
0
$1,323,000
6.4%
$1,323,000
(542,000)
(1,590,000)
(2,476,000)
($808,000)
-3.6%
VALUE OF THE GA DEVELOPMENT
Return on Investment
The analysis described thus far presents the financial projections for the entire GA operation at TIA through CIP Year 6. Table 5G presents the return on investment to TAA if the
GA CIP is undertaken. As shown in the table, TAA’s investment of approximately $811,000
is greater than the additional revenue generated of approximately $304,000 during the
projection period. It is common, however, for a GA capital project to not reflect its full benefits until several years after completion. While this table reflects the recovery of the investment resulting from the GA CIP, there are several other benefits that occur in the economy when undertaking a construction program and improving facilities. Those benefits
are discussed in greater detail in the next section.
TABLE 5G
Return on Investment of GA CIP1
Description
Source
Total
TAA Funded CIP
Table 5C
$811,000
Increases in Revenues due to CIP:
Land Rentals:
Area B
Table 5D
27,000
FBO Expansion Area
Table 5D
240,000
Fuel Flowage Fees
Table 5D
37,000
Subtotal
$304,000
Return on Investment
($507,000)
1In 2014 dollars
Source: Coffman Associates and MAC Consulting, LLC
Year 1
$63,000
Year 2
$748,000
0
0
0
$0
($63,000)
0
0
0
$0
($748,000)
Projected CIP
Year 3
Year 4
$0
$0
Year 5
$0
Year 6
$0
0
0
9,000
$9,000
$9,000
0
80,000
9,000
$89,000
$89,000
27,000
82,000
10,000
$119,000
$119,000
0
78,000
9,000
$87,000
$87,000
Direct Impacts
In addition to the financial impacts of the GA CIP to TAA, this analysis also measures some
of the economic impacts of GA activity on Tucson and Pima County. The direct impacts
used in this analysis relate to spending and employment. The direct spending impact is
equal to the GA tenant payroll and the GA CIP. The direct employment impact is the number of people employed by TIA’s GA tenants.
To calculate the GA tenant payroll, TIA’s GA tenants were contacted to gather the number
of employees by function. This information is presented in Table 5H. As shown in the table, TIA’s GA tenants employ approximately 77 people across various disciplines, ranging
from administrative to flight instructor. The number of employees was then multiplied by
the average salary for the respective job titles, which was taken from Avjobs Aviation Salary, Wages & Pay Report (available at www.avjobs.com), to calculate an estimated payroll of
approximately $4.2 million.
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-11
TABLE 5H
GA Employee Jobs Direct Impact
Atlantic Aviation
Million Air
Premier Aviation
Sonoran Wings
Tucson Jet Center
Universal Avionics
Velocity Air *
Position
Manager
Customer Service
Line Personnel
General Manager
Customer Service
Line Personnel
General Manager
Parts Personnel
Mechanic
Production Assembler
Administrative
Office Manager
Flight Instructor
Administrative
Mechanic
Director
Administrative
Director of Maintenance
Office Manager
Line Personnel
Mechanic
Maintenance & Avionics
Executive Director
General Manager
Line Personnel
Mechanic
Flight Instructor
Number of
Employees
3
3
10
1
4
6
1
2
2
2
2
1
5
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
2
4
1
2
2
4
7
77
Estimated Salary
per Employee
$92,500
$41,500
$40,000
$92,500
$41,500
$40,000
$92,500
$45,000
$41,500
$45,000
$41,500
$92,500
$67,500
$41,500
$41,500
$92,500
$41,500
$62,464
$92,500
$40,000
$41,500
$56,750
$129,675
$92,500
$40,000
$41,500
$67,500
Total Estimated
Salary
$277,500
$124,500
$400,000
$92,500
$166,000
$240,000
$92,500
$90,000
$83,000
$90,000
$83,000
$92,500
$337,500
$83,000
$83,000
$92,500
$41,500
$62,464
$185,000
$160,000
$83,000
$227,000
$129,675
$185,000
$80,000
$166,000
$472,500
$4,219,639
Total
* Includes Arizona Aerotech and Double Eagle Aviation
Source: Position and number of employees per survey conducted by Coffman Associates; Estimated salary per employee per "Avjobs Aviation Salary, Wages & Pay Report"
In addition to the GA tenant employees, construction of the GA CIP is projected to infuse
additional money into the local economy. As shown in Table 5B, the cost of the GA CIP is
approximately $8.2 million. Additional jobs, such as architects, construction workers, engineers, and consultants, will be necessary to complete the construction. SRRI’s Stimulus
Calculation Tool for Infrastructure and Public Works (SRRI) was used to estimate the number of jobs a construction project generates in a local economy. According to SRRI, for every $1 million of construction spending, 7.1 direct jobs are required. This multiplier was
then applied to the $8.2 million in GA CIP spending, determining that approximately 58 additional jobs are required to complete the construction. Since the breakdown of jobs by
discipline is not known at this time, it is assumed that all 58 jobs are construction workers
at an annual salary of $32,000. This average salary was taken from www.Indeed.com for
the City of Tucson, and when multiplied by the 58 jobs, yields a payroll of approximately
$1.9 million. In addition to these impacts, additional GA capacity resulting from the GA CIP
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-12
will have an ongoing impact to the economy, the induced impacts of which were not measured in the scope of this analysis.
TABLE 5J
Multipliers
Spending
$1,731,972,266
Direct Impact
$971,000,000
Induced Impact
0.56
Spending Multipliers
Employment
13,000
Direct Impact
14,230
Induced Impact
1.09
Employment Multiplier
Source: Tucson International Airport Economic
Impact Study 2012
Induced Impacts
Induced economic impacts are the multiplier
effects of the direct impacts discussed previously. These represent the increases in employment and expenditures created by successive rounds of local spending and hiring. Table 5J presents the calculation of the multipliers, which were estimated based on data included in the executive summary of the Tucson
International Airport Economic Impact Study
2012 prepared by the Eller MBA Team. As
shown in the table, for every $1.00 spent,
$0.56 is generated, and for every employee
hired, 1.09 additional employees are needed in the local economy.
Table 5K presents the direct
and induced impacts of GA at
TIA. As shown in the table, the
induced impact of the $4.2 million tenant payroll is an additional $2.4 million infused into
the local economy, and the 77
GA tenant jobs results in an additional 84 jobs created.
The induced impact of the $8.2
million in GA CIP spending is an
additional $4.6 million into the
local economy. The multiplier
used to determine additional
jobs (both induced and indirect) was taken from SRRI’s
Stimulus Calculation Tool. As a
result, an additional 43 jobs are
created with a payroll of approximately $1.4 million.
AND BEST PRACTICES
TABLE 5K
Impact of General Aviation
Source
Tenant
Payroll
Direct Impact
Table 5H
Induced Impact
Table 5J
Total
Employment
Direct Impact
Table 5H
Induced Impact
Table 5J
Total
CIP Year 1 - Year 6
Spending
Direct Impact
Table 5B
Induced Impact
Table 5J
Total
Payroll
Direct Impact
Induced Impact
Total
Employment
Direct Impact
Multiplier
Impact
0.56
$4,219,639
$2,365,667
$6,585,307
1.09
77
84
161
0.56
$8,160,392
$4,574,981
$12,735,373
$1,868,929
$1,395,116
$3,264,045
7.1
58
Induced Impact
5.3
43
Total
101
Source: SRRI's Stimulus Calculation Tool for Infrastructure and
Public Works (CIP Employment)
Indeed.com (CIP Payroll)
5-13
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Based on the assumptions described in the previous sections, the GA CIP as it is presented
can be funded through CIP Year 6 by TAA with the assistance of federal and state grants
and private investment. As TAA has done in the past, it should continue to monitor its financial situation and market trends and demands to determine which projects should be
undertaken and when. In addition, TAA should review and evaluate current leases and
service incentives to enhance revenues and provide financial solvency while improving the
facilities.
While TAA’s initial investment of approximately $811,000 is greater than the additional
revenue generated in the near-term of approximately $304,000, the investment should be
recovered over time. Induced impacts of GA activities are an additional 84 jobs with a payroll of $2.4 million into the local economy and an additional 43 jobs with a payroll of $1.4
million due to construction. Due to the scope of this analysis, revenues generated by TIA’s
GA tenants, as well as the indirect impacts of visitors are not reflected, therefore understating the total economic impact of GA at TIA.
The financial projections were prepared on the basis of available information and assumptions set forth in the previous sections. It is believed that such information and assumptions provide a reasonable basis for the projections to the level of detail appropriate for a
strategic plan. Some of the assumptions used to develop the projections may not be realized, and unanticipated events or circumstances may occur. Therefore, the actual results
will vary from those projected, and such variations could be material.
POLICY AND PROCESS BEST PRACTICES
Throughout this study, the various components that make up GA have been analyzed at TIA
as well as several comparison airports. The goal was to identify best policies and processes
that could be incorporated into TAA’s business practices. The findings of this analysis have
shown that GA activities at comparison airports as well as across the country have been in
decline and that none of the comparison airports have specific policies or processes that
have produced positive GA growth in recent years. Aviation activity always has and always
will parallel economic conditions, and as the economy improves, so too will aviation activity.
The FAA maintains a favorable outlook for GA activity with long term growth driven by
business aviation. However, GA activities are not anticipated to surge back; in fact, the FAA
projects total GA operations at TIA to continue to decline slightly over the next five years.
In an economic environment where the unemployment rate remains high, disposable income levels have dipped and corporations are increasingly scrutinized for their use of private jets, opportunities for immediate GA growth are limited. TIA is further restricted by
TSA regulations that are required as a Part 139 certificated commercial service airport. In
recent years, many GA operators that based at TIA have relocated simply because there are
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-14
other airport options in the Tucson area that have a less restrictive GA environment (no
badging requirements and less restrictive airspace).
The following recommendations have been identified to enhance TIA’s GA business practices and environment and to make operating at TIA more attractive to GA pilots.
•
•
•
•
GA Management – The trend in GA management at larger airports is toward private
entity lease agreements or management agreements. Comparison airports that have
implemented these management policies have indicated positive results as airport/authority staff are free to focus on other lines of business with primary GA
revenues coming from land and property leases. TAA has already begun moving
toward this management policy in recent years, having removed it from providing
GA services and by contracting out the management of TAA-owned hangar facilities.
It is recommended that TAA continue to move towards private entity management
of GA facilities and services.
Governing Documents – TIA’s existing Minimum Standards and Rules and Regulations are generally more restrictive compared to the governing documents examined from the comparison airports, especially for FBO and SASO operators. Revising
the governing documents to keep FBO and SASO standards more flexible and less
restrictive will make TIA more attractive to GA business developers.
Land Lease Rates – TAA currently leases land to GA operators at a fixed rate per
square foot of leased land. The rate currently charged ($0.42 per square foot) is
slightly above average. Furthermore, this method may not factor the value of the
land based upon how it is developed and how it will be used, which can result in lost
revenue for the TAA. It is recommended that TAA consider a leasing policy that utilizes fair market value (FMV). Several comparison airports have adopted a policy
that charges between 8 and 11 percent of FMV of the leased property. This method
results in leasing revenues that reflect actual property values. If such a method is
pursued, TAA will need to regularly evaluate land values to ensure its rates are current.
Facility Reuse and Redevelopment – The study has identified that TIA has several
GA facilities that are either vacant or underutilized. For these facilities, TAA should
determine whether each facility is functionally obsolete or vacant due to an industry
change. Reuse strategies to be considered include: finding replacement tenants;
adaptive reuse; demolition; and no action. Vacant facilities along Plumer Avenue (B259, B-292, and the Executive Terminal) are considered to be in good condition and
replacement tenants should be sought. In the case of the Executive Terminal, its location on the airfield would lend itself as a prime location for an FBO or SASO. Other
areas, such as the old maintenance facility, have buildings that might be considered
functionally obsolete. While this site has accessibility issues, it is a large parcel that
could generate significant land lease revenue for the TAA. In this case, TAA can issue a request for proposal (RFP) for a redevelopment plan for this site, which may
involve the demolition of existing facilities to allow for new development. Another
area of redevelopment to consider is with the T-hangar facilities in Area B, which
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-15
•
are currently underutilized. The development program recommended the demolition of some T-hangar facilities and constructing new 3,600 square foot executive
hangars in their place. Again, it is recommended that the TAA pursue a private developer for new hangars via an RFP process.
•
The previously mentioned signage/wayfinding system planned for the GA areas
would also serve as a marketing tool to improve the overall aesthetics of the areas
and attract attention from potential developers or businesses.
Marketing and Communication – TAA has already established a robust marketing
and communication campaign for the GA community. Methods including GA user
group meetings, project alert messages, and customer surveys provide GA users the
opportunity to interact with airport administration and voice their opinions about
the state of GA at TIA. In addition, TIA’s website (www.flytucson.com) has a dedicated GA section that provides a range of information to inform and attract GA users
and business. TAA is also active in social media, including Facebook and Twitter.
These and other social media outlets should be utilized not only for marketing to
commercial service customers, but to the GA community as well. TAA should continue to build a close working relationship with the GA community and TIA pilot
groups so that the perception that TAA is anti-GA can be quelled.
Fees – In general, TAA’s rates and fees (hangar rates and fuel flowage) appear to be
in line with industry standards and with the comparison airports. TAA staff should
continue to regularly monitor GA service rates and fees at other regional airports
and make adjustments when able to remain competitive.
SUMMARY OF PLAN OBJECTIVES
The following is a recommendations summary of this GA Strategic Plan as they relate to the
key areas of consideration that were identified at the onset of the project.
Safety Culture and Enhancement
• Consolidate all helicopter operations into a designated area per the development
plan
• Encourage expansion of space-constrained FBOs
• Develop alternative access points into congested GA Area B
• Revise the pavement management plan to incorporate study recommendations
• Upgrade lighting in Area B to improve visibility
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-16
Business Stability, Sustainability and Enhancement
• Seek grant funding, private investment and allocate necessary resources to implement the recommended development plan to improve and expand GA development
at TIA
• Revise governing documents to be more consistent with comparable airports and
encourage growth of GA
• Review current property values and hangar lease rates
• Move toward third party management of TAA-owned GA facilities and services
• Continue to encourage and assist FBOs with fly-ins and special events with community organizations
• Provide common space for a pilot lounge with restroom in GA Area B
• Continue efforts to bring a new flight school operator to the vacated facility at Ryan
Airfield
• Encourage existing flight school expansions at TIA
• Expand marketing and communication methods to reach GA users (community information boards, GA website, use of social media)
Operational Flexibility and Efficiency
• Encourage private development of an FBO and associated self-serve fuel facility at
the Executive Terminal
• Encourage new or existing FBOs to offer food/beverages concessions
• Upgrade the wash rack facility to allow self-serve maintenance and install automated payment system
• Research the possibility of relocating the existing perimeter fence to remove GA Area B from the secure area
Aesthetics
• Implement reuse/redevelopment plans for vacant or underutilized facilities to allow
for future GA development following development plan recommendations
• Encourage development of new, high-class facilities through private development at
the Executive Terminal and adjacent ramp
• Paint existing TAA-owned hangars through major maintenance program
• Implement a modern signage/wayfinding program throughout the GA area
AND BEST PRACTICES
5-17
Appendix A
GA USER SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY
APPENDIXA
GAUSERSURVEYRESPONSESUMMARY
A-1
RESPONSE SUMMARY
Total responses received: 110
1 In what ZIP code is your home or business located that is primarily associated with the aircraft utilized at Tucson International Airport? (enter 5‐digit ZIP code; for example, 00544 or 94305)
ZIP Code
85282
85622
85629
85641
85650
85653
85658
85704
85705
85706
85710
85711
85712
85713
85715
Count
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
6
5
2
3
2
2
ZIP Code
85716
85718
85719
85730
85731
85737
85739
85741
85742
85743
85745
85747
85748
85749
85750
Count
2
10
2
1
1
4
3
2
1
2
4
4
5
9
12
2 Which is most important when choosing where to base your aircraft?
Convenience to Home
Convenience to Business
Count
75
22
%
77.3%
22.7%
3 Please indicate the number of each type of aircraft you or your company operate for each of the following:
Multi‐Engine Piston
Turboprop
Jet
Helicopter
Total
%
81.1%
7.2%
3.9%
5.0%
2.8%
Count
146
13
7
9
5
180
A-2
ZIP Code
85751
85755
85756
86322
Count
1
1
10
1
RESPONSE SUMMARY
4 Please indicate what percentage of your flight activity involves each of the following:
Business
Personal
Student
Instructor
Air Taxi
Air Taxi (Cargo)
Other
%
23.5%
63.1%
5.5%
4.3%
0.9%
0.0%
2.6%
5 Are you or your company contemplating purchasing any additional or larger aircraft within the next 12 months?
Yes
No
Count
12
93
%
11.4%
88.6%
6 Have you or your company sold aircraft within the last 12 months or are you contemplating selling aircraft in the future?
Yes
No
Count
18
89
%
16.8%
83.2%
7 Approximately how many operations per aircraft per month do you average? (A landing is one operation and a takeoff is one operation.)
Multi‐Engine Piston
Turboprop
Jet
Helicopter
Response Average
32
10
24
14
43
A-3
RESPONSE SUMMARY
8 There are two types of operations: itinerant and local. Itinerant operations are flights that begin or end at an airport other than where your aircraft is based. All other operations are considered local (e.g., touch‐and‐go operations are local operations). Please indicate the estimated number of operations per month that you performed at TIA during the previous 12‐month period (a landing is one operation and a takeoff is one operation).
Number of Local Operations at TIA per Month
Number of Itinerant Operations at TIA per Month
Response Average
97
24
9 Compared to your current flight activity, what is your anticipated change in activity for the next five years?
Increase in Operations
Decrease in Operations
No Change
%
35.5%
9.4%
55.1%
10 Where is (are) your aircraft normally based?
Ryan Airfield
Marana Regional Airport
Benson Municipal Airport
Sierra Vista Municipal Airport
La Cholla Airpark
Other
Count
94
7
5
2
0
0
5
%
83.2%
6.2%
4.4%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
A-4
RESPONSE SUMMARY
11 Please rank the following reasons for deciding where to base your aircraft from the most important (1) to the least important (8).
Convenience (closer to where I live or work)
Availability of Aircraft Hangar Facilities
Availability of FBO Services
Cost of FBO Services
Lower Aircraft Storage Costs
Available Runway Length
Security/Safety Related Issues
Navigational Aids
Rating Average
2.4
2.9
3.9
4.5
4.7
5.8
5.8
6.1
12 Are there any other reasons that are considered in deciding where to base your aircraft? Please explain.
See comments section at the end of this appendix.
13 If your aircraft is not based at TIA, please rank the following reasons for deciding not to base your aircraft at TIA from the most important (1) to the least important (8). (Skip this question if your aircraft is based at TIA.)
Unavailability of Aircraft Storage Hangars
Aircraft Storage Hangar Costs are Too High
Availability of FBO Services are Lacking
Cost of FBO Services are Too High
Convenience (TIA Is not close to where you live or work)
Costs or Issues Associated with Safety and Security
Available Runway Length is Insufficient
Navigational Aids are Insufficient
Rating Average
2.7
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.6
6.0
6.4
6.7
14 Please elaborate on any of the above service deficiencies that you feel are present at TIA.
A-5
RESPONSE SUMMARY
Maintenance
Parking/Hangar
Washing/Cleaning
Airport Authority
Atlantic Aviation
Bombardier Aerospace
Premier Aviation
Million Air
Tucson Jet Center
Tucson Aero Hangars
Velocity Air
Other
Fuel
15 If you operate at TIA, which provider do you currently use for the following services? Check all that apply.
Count
7
20
0
18
7
1
11
6
17
19
2
4
2
9
2
1
7
1
20
15
10
14
0
4
2
2
7
10
20
21
15
2
0
3
1
1
5
1
7
11
16 Please indicate the type of parking or hangar space that you currently use for each aircraft. Check all that apply.
Tie‐down
Shade Hangar
T‐Hangar
Individual Box Hangar
Multi‐Aircraft Hangar
Other
SEP
34
19
33
23
9
1
MEP
0
2
6
1
4
0
Count
Turboprop
1
0
1
0
4
1
A-6
Jet
0
0
0
0
8
2
Helicopter
0
0
0
2
4
0
RESPONSE SUMMARY
17 Please indicate the type of parking or hangar space that you would prefer to use for each aircraft, if available. Check all that apply.
Tie‐down
Shade Hangar
T‐Hangar
Individual Box Hangar
Multi‐Aircraft Hangar
Other
SEP
12
18
42
33
13
1
MEP
1
2
3
7
3
0
Count
Turboprop
1
0
0
2
0
1
Jet
0
0
0
1
5
1
Helicopter
0
0
0
1
3
0
18 Please rate the priority of improvements you consider most necessary at TIA.
Runway/Taxiway
Airport/FBO Services
Aircraft Apron Area
Aircraft Hangars
Navigational Aids
Security/Safety
High
Priority
22
42
24
31
13
15
Count
Moderate
Low
Priority
Priority
27
17
26
10
24
27
34
11
26
19
22
23
Not
Necessary
26
17
16
19
29
33
19 Are there any other improvements that you consider necessary at TIA? Please explain.
A-7
RESPONSE SUMMARY
20 If you use TIA, please rate the following facilities:
Count
Geographic Location
Vehicle Access Roads
Navaids
Hangar Facilities
Runway Pavement Condition
Taxiway Pavement Condition
Apron Pavement Condition
FBO Services
Excellent
46
19
48
10
47
36
18
8
Good
50
51
50
50
49
52
46
48
Fair
6
23
3
29
7
13
26
32
Poor
1
10
0
13
0
1
12
11
21 If you use TIA, how do you rate the following expenses compared to other airports you may have utilized?
Answer Options
Fuel Costs
Flight School Rates
Maintenance Rates
Aircraft Storage/Parking Fees
Charter Rates
Count
Average
47
42
46
49
26
High
49
22
27
36
9
Low
3
3
1
5
4
22 Which of the following amenities at TIA do you currently utilize? Check all that apply.
Self Service Maintenance Hangar
Wash Rack
Common Restrooms
Pilots Lounge
Vending Machines
Ramp Escorts
Count
17
31
46
34
19
5
%
21.8%
39.7%
59.0%
43.6%
24.4%
6.4%
A-8
RESPONSE SUMMARY
23 What additional amenities would you like to see added? Please describe.
24 What is TIA doing well in regards to general aviation?
25 Do you have any comments regarding the future improvement of TIA general aviation facilities and services?
A-9
RESPONSE SUMMARY
COMMENTS SECTION
12 Are there any other reasons that are considered in deciding where to base your aircraft? Please explain.
Maintenance Facilities
Visibility at an International Airport is good for business clients
On airport facilities, such as restrooms, Restaurant etc.
Professional Air Traffic Control Environment
AZ Flyers Base of Operations
Easy access for Itinerant access WITHOUT having to go to an FBO.
No, but Question #11 above does not appear to allow me to change my ranking numbers (1‐8).
TSA security requirements make it harder than it should be for general aviation.
customs
Flying club
Aviation interest group association ‐ warbirds, experimental aviation, restoration and manufacturing.
Proximity to US Customs due to number of flights to Mexico.
Fuel cost. Like self serve facility. Wish TIA would offer fuel again. Since closing fuel operations the FBOs have increased fuel prices
The flying club I long to has been at KTUS for 65 years
Most of my flying is for training. The availability of a control tower and the Charlie airspace allows for training opportunities. Approach procedures are also a factor.
Access to facilities
Condusive to GA operations
Need to feel GA is not only tolerated, but welcomed and respected. Less bureaucracy; more love. After all, what would KTUS be without GA Ops??
I prefer towered airports, believing they are safer to operate in as contrasted to uncontrolled fields. I personally enjoy the mix of aircraft at KTUS, and blending‐in with all of them.
Pilot services
Air traffic density
ease of access to airport and airplane
Business convenience
Facilities such as cheaper fuel, restaurant, restrooms in the hangar area, etc. I own my own hangar and therefore do not have any options but to continue at TIA. These are non existent at TIA and some that existed earlier have been taken away.
restrooms, pilot planning facilities, restaurant, meeting room, fuel 100LL
Costs, availability of fuel and food,
Company based at TUS
none
no
Flight School
no
Safety of Class C airspace, controlled operations aircraft separation.
A-10
RESPONSE SUMMARY
12 Continued
No
no
availability for other fliers
Bombardier maintenance facility
The SIDA badge haze and TSA inconsistancy.
POE US Custom
Considering leaving due to Tower services being closed. FBO services are too expensive.
Climate of the airport, personnel & facilities
Fuel Cost
Local community and support. Hopefully airport creates a supporting environment which helps motivate me to fly.
Question #11 ‐‐ unable to change ranking numbers. Disregard the above ranking.
no
Own hangars.
I have small plane do not want to get behind big one while on ground or in take off and landing
History & convenience of working with trusted FBO and its personnel
Customs
14 Please elaborate on any of the above service deficiencies that you feel are present at TIA.
TIA security is dramatically more difficult than AVQ. Fuel cost also an issue at TIA
The overwheling presence of USAF F‐16 aircraft. They are a HAZARD to ALL operations at TIA.
Access avaliability limited/ non existent for transient aircraft
Cost of everything is as if TIA would like to se GA go away
Dealing with security issues and biannual badging is very inconvenient. FBO costs are high.
None actually, I parked my plane at TIA for over a year and left only because of distance from home
Why would the TIAA get rid of the fuel farm? After it was taken down, the local price of AvGas shot way up. Also, why are you making it so frigging hard to be a tennant at the airport? Its clear the TIAA does not want GA at the airport, which is incredibly sad.
FBO won't allow any training by licensed instructors not in their staff
Tia is unsafe for small planes like mine because you just cannot mix large airliners and military with small planes safely
Low cost a/c shelters would bring me there in an instant.
None
For off hours transit aircraft, the general aviation terminal is now closed and no way to drop off/pick up passengers, no restrooms and no restaurant available for G/A
Need easy access for Itinerant access WITHOUT having to go to an FBO. FBOs are charging way to much to simply pick up a PAX. Can you reopen the Exec Terminal for this?
No, but Question #13 above does not appear to allow me to change my ranking numbers (1‐8).
A-11
RESPONSE SUMMARY
14 Continued
Executive terminal services. It was a mistake to close it down. Highly inconvenient for GA pilots without it. ATC tower controllers frequently get surly on the radio. This is unprofessional and influences GA users to avoid contact with the airport.
None. Aircraft described is a military aircraft and must be kept at DM.
Lack of FBO's
Tower fbo closed
Field maintenance (apron), many areas where asphalt is crumbling and in need of repair.
Cost of FBO services are too high! Very seldom buy fuel at KTUS due to higher prices. If the hanger cost goes up 1 cent I a moving to KAVQ. KTUS FBOs set up for biz jet not GA.
lack of an executive tower facility. Little regard for general aviation.
Excessive noise levels from Airguard operations. Excessive hold times from Airguard operations which has been further exacerbated by higher workload due to decreased tower and ground controller staffing.
High cost of fuel., no restaurant.
A vacant Executive Terminal is embarrassing. Bring fuel sales back to the Executive Terminal. Offer reasons for itinerant GA traffic to come to KTUS. Like fuel discounts on Sat and/or Sun mornings coupled with a restaurant within walking distance of the Exec Terminal. By the way, even the restaurant upstairs in the main terminal might work if it were promoted. Do everything you can to knock off TSA nonsense. GA is not a risk. Re‐focus them down on the bus and train stations. Restore reasonable access by re‐opening some gates that have been welded shut.
I feel I cannot afford hangars at KTUS ... wish there were more available, at an affordable price. I'd like to see an avionics shop once again at KTUS. I'd like to see a coffee shop on field, devoted to general aviation and the public at large.
No Flight Planning Facilities, No Restroom Facilities, no Passenger waiting facilities, no pilot supplies for sale
No pilot services, lack of community feel and social activitys
No Restrooms other than FBO or Terminal
Restrooms, restaurant, reasonable fuel prices, attitude of staff and security, maintenance of ramps and parking areas. Tie down area near Leading Edge is a case in point.
No Exec Terminal, restaurant, flight planning area and large meeting spaces. For an A/P of KTUS's size, the lack of the above amenities is glaring.
100LL is no longer available at Exec Terminal. No restaurant available to GA pilots. Some taxiway markings are confusing/inadequate.
Forced to buy 15 gals per service by FBOs otherwise there is a sur charge
no bathroom facili es no restaurant
Overall GA aircraft are treated very well by ATC at TIA, however the TAA has made GA aircraft operators feel much less welcome... Closing the GA terminal, the restaurant, etc...
A-12
RESPONSE SUMMARY
19 Are there any other improvements that you consider necessary at TIA? Please explain.
establish a separate area for GA, ie isolate commercial just as Raytheon and other ramps are restricted.
Re‐open the Executive Terminal
24/7 airport access for transient aircraft
Wash rack needs to reopen.
TIA has served us very well.
Lower cost fuel
Reopen tower services such as fuel and wash rack.
Make it a better environment for GA. Stop making GA out as the bad guy. Get the securities procedures undercontrol...at the moment its all about punishing those who have a reason to be a the airport instead of figuring out a way to let those that have business being at the airport be allowed to operate without constant fear of breaking some security rule.
Roads to the airport are terrible.
West ramp surface is bad
Affordable shaded parking
Old tower ‐ historic preservation & TIA GA FBO
Tucson Airport Authority is incompetent. Clean house, replace with experienced aviation professionals vice politicians. TAA drives general aviation away from TIA.
resurface Premier ramp. Loose gravel is very hard on props.
Customs clearance for flights returning from Mexico
Approach end Wind Detectors, too often the approach end winds differ significantly from the tower indications.
Simultaneous WAAS approaches to parallel runways would be nice, or better yet, a LAAS approach
1. Self Serve fuel op on.2. Easy access for PAX, e.g. Exec Terminal.
Loosen TSA escort requirements on GA ramps.
be er tower staffing on weekends.I have much sympathy for one saturated guy
I dont agree with grouping security and safety together. I believe safety should be given a high priority while security a low priority. I believe we already spend enough time and money on security, but we could always spend more on airport improvements that increase aviation safety from an operations standpoint, not a security standpoint.
The demise of the executive terminal to include the airport authority FBO are a huge killer to general aviation operations. The airport authority has made a statement that GA is not the priority at TUS. This is unfortunate because it is a great airport and had wonderful facilities until this last spring. Look at all of the negative feedback on airnav.com! You need to find a new tenant for the airport grill also ‐ it can attract big business on the GA front.
Needs a new tower
Ramp at Hotten/Premier is disintegrating. Loose gravel is constantly damaging my prop.
Bring back TIA fuel at the execu ve terminal. Self service would be great.
Bathroom facilities next to the t hangers
restaurant/coffee shop; facilities to include restroom, pilot lounge, etc
A-13
RESPONSE SUMMARY
19 Continued
The apron at Premier is HORRID ... covered w/ small pebbles, sand patches, drainage issues, cracked pavement. Even w/ extraordinary measures I occasionally get a pebble ding on my prop when I start up my plane outside of the shade ports! This, by the way, doesn't go unnoticed by transient pilots.
Resurface Aprons around Leading Edge T‐Hangars
bathrooms in parking areas
A restaurant or coffee shop would be nice
TIA seems unfriendly atmosphere
new tower
The provision of restrooms in the hangar areas cannot be overemphasized. A restaurant is equally important as are competitive Avgas prices.
Re‐opening of the executive terminal and pilot flight planning facility. No availability of 100LL from TIA. Common restrooms for hanger renters, especially on west ramp. No convenient restaurant (going to terminal restaurants is inconvenient for GA) and no meeting room that seats at least 100 people. All these add up to the perception that TIA is not friendly to GA and therefore there are little or no incentives for GA pilots to fly to TUS!
See # 14
Restaurant for GA. 100LL at Exec Terminal.
No common restrooms for shade or T Hanger renters; pilot planning facility
bathroom & refueling facili es &pilots lounge required
RestaurantExecu ve terminal reopened
Hanger access surface for ga
Premier taxi ramp to self fueling is very poor, full of dips and bumps. Many side ramps need paving.
One only needs to look at the parking at the base of the tower to understand the situation at the airport. there are no planes there. the Chandler airport is more active than TIA. It all comes down to attitude. The current administration has been there so long they have become mold. I would bet any suggestions you give them they will not do. Or if they do something it will be very little. If there were changes which would bring more business to the airport this would mean they, current administration, would have to work more. Things will not change at the airport until the current administration is gone.
23 What additional amenities would you like to see added? Please describe.
self service fuel or lower fuel costs
Ramp escorts What is this?
Reopen services at the executive terminal.
tower fuel and wash rack
Executive terminal closed, a great place to operate a restaurant, pilot shop, trng ctr, or Relocate Wright Flight into that space
A-14
RESPONSE SUMMARY
23 Continued
Bring back the Fuel Farm!!! Make the local FBO's be competetive with the fuel. They have a total monopoly on fuel prices and it is too high!!
self serve fuel farm for GA would be nice.
Reopen the Exec Terminal
additional fuel services
functional executive terminal
Pilot supplies
Covered transient parking and more affordable hangar options for smaller business
A restaurant within reasonable walking distance from general aviation parking. A general aviation terminal with restroom facilities.
Airport Authority Fuel
None
Where is the Self Service Maintenance Hangar?
Re‐establish the executive terminal and associated services.
Please try to revive the airport grill. It will draw GA traffic to the airport. I also recommend that you consider both the financial impact and draw that the airport authority FBO brought in. There is no way that it was losing money ‐ there were always many corporate jets there! Additionally, the wash rack is always broken or out of service. When it is in service, I have to call someone from TAA to come and turn it on. Why isn't it just self‐serve coin operated? I've had to fly to Ryan several times to wash an airplane.
Wider availability of showers.
FBO ‐ Once we're beyond the gate, we could easily relax the TSA/Airport Authority Police to make it actually feel like a good time to go out and fly. Nothing but scare tactics when you register for your badge now ‐ it's pushing people out. I'd base my plane at Ryan instead of TUS if a hanger was available there.
Flying club
Reopen the executive terminal. Using the FBO is making a poor impression on passengers.
Restrooms inside The fence next to the T hangersBring back the Tower Grill
A restraunt.
Self service pump with competitive 100LL fuel price
Reactivation of Executive terminal and/or Pilots lounge, for T‐hangar, shadeport and tiedown patrons.
Restrooms and restaurant
Low cost fuel at the Executive Terminal ‐ even if it were self‐serve. The Premier self serve ramp is horrible. Be small business friendly and supportive. Knock off the bureaucracy for the little guy.
Full‐Service FBO for non‐Millionaires
A-15
RESPONSE SUMMARY
23 Continued
Pilot services, restrooms, pilots lounge outside the FBO environment. Social events and more community recognition
An on‐field restaurant would be really nice.
bathrooms
Pilots lounge
restaurant
Providing used oil disposal facility would be a great help for pilots who do their own maintenance. Placing a tank in a convenient place would work fine and this will need to be emptied perhaps once every few months.
Re‐opening of the executive terminal and pilot flight planning facility. Availability of 100LL from TIA. Common restrooms for hanger renters, especially on west ramp. Convenient restaurant (going to terminal restaurants is inconvenient for GA).Meeting room that seats at least 100 people.
Conference rooms,place to purchase pilot supplies, ( sectionals, airport directories, etc), 27/7 fuel,
all of #23 returned
Executive Terminal open to the public, accessible public restrooms on the field, a restaurant, pilot planning facility, fuel sales and meeting area.
Pilots lounge, Restrooms, Food, "Follow Me" KTUS HAD these not too long ago .
Restrooms. Lounge. Restaurant.
Avionics shop; resturant; common restrooms in the shade/t hangers both west ramp and northeast ramp
pilots lounge, bathroom facility & restaurant
A restaurant not in main terminal
Competition on self fueling.
more airplanes flying.
Bring back self‐service fuel, and the executive terminal for easier passenger pickup.
24 What is TIA doing well in regards to general aviation?
nothing
Killing it! or at least severly restriciting activity.
Nothing
There is a nice choice of FBO services available. I think TIA works well with GA.
Tower controlles do a good job with GA, Wright Flight, Military and Airline traffic
Nothing, they are trying to get rid of GA
Security
All good
A-16
RESPONSE SUMMARY
24 Continued
Nothing. Between shutting down the exec terminal, killing of Tower Grill, and otherwise making it a miserable place to keep my airplane, you've done nothing well in regards to GA. I've been actively looking to move my plane because of the lack of support and interest the TIAA has given the GA population.
Great air traffic contollers
The best they can under the prevailing economic situation
Nothing
Tower is very helpful. There are good choices regarding FBO's
Tower personal great
ATC
They seem willing to work with GA and realize the mistakes that were made by some Phoenix area airports when they tried to alienate GA from their airport plans.
Nothing
Trying to improve general aviation customer service
Most everything
The air traffic controllers do a great job at directing and assisting GA aircraft
Generally very good in all areas.
Not much that I can think of. Pretty much all of the frustrations of operating here are TIA/TSA mandated issues.
The tower and controllers are great at helping students learn while using the general aviation runway.
security, GA liason. badging staff
TIA is killing GA. I can't say that they are doing anything well.
Allowing us to operate at TIA without excessive fees.
Tower is very accommodating to GA traffic
Nothing
Remains open and inviting to GA traffic
Tower is helpful for training and currency operations.
The pavement seal coating was nice.
Very accommodating for flight training. Available tower tours benefit pilots and controllers. Good professional people at all aspects of the GA airport.
ATC treats GA very well.
nothing at all. no regard for.
Making operations in and out of TIA less desirable.
Runways and taxiways are great. ATC is great. Location is good.
Accommodating air traffic controllers!
Killing it? The hangars are half empty, there are no services outside the FBO's and the FBO's are antiquated and look abandoned.
driving them away
A-17
RESPONSE SUMMARY
24 Continued
Nothing. We have been even through this several times over the years and there has been a total lack of communication between TIA and the GA community.
Contact me if yo would like to discuss further:
Lt Col Daniel Pence, CAP 850‐291‐3180
[email protected]
Nothing
not much
All efforts toward safety are greatly appreciated.
Sadly, I sense that the General Aviation community has long been disregarded by TAA.
Good controllers, lousy to non‐existing services. Seems that the focus is on the Jet set, not the numerous Prop folks.
No comparison.
No. There are no incentives for pilots to fly to TUS by General Aviation.
That's a good question
Yes
Tower and Tracon controllers are very helpful and friendly. I practice approaches and find approach control to be always willing to assist if able.
Again, look at the parking at the base of the tower. There are very few planes there. It used to be full most of them time. We had to fight for the best parking spots.
not much
25 Do you have any comments regarding the future improvement of TIA general aviation facilities and services?
make it easier and less costly for GA. Actively attract GA transients. Make security less intrusive and threatening.
TIA needs to do away with the USAF(R) F‐16 actitvies. F‐16's are a major NOISE & SAFETY hazard to a civilian airport. They DO NOT belong at a general aviation airport. Also, TIA should open the Executive Terminal again.
Pay attention to the needs of little airplanes not just the biz jets!
No
Better fuel price
Finish repaving the apron in front of the T hangars. Stop closing TIA services for GA and reopen fuel and wash rack.
Utilize the now closed Executive terminal for something that enhance the General Aviation experience at Tucson International
A-18
RESPONSE SUMMARY
25 Continued
See #23: Bring back the self serve Fuel Farm!!! Again, why would you kill that off??? Seriously? I mean, no transit traffic wants to stop. I try to get gas off the field because its cheaper. Also, bring back the Executive Terminal and actually support an operator for Tower Grill!! Give people a reason to land at TIA.
"Executive Terminal' sign at the tower: Either take down all references or open it back up.
Move the tower to the West and improve the airline gates
Lower rates/better facilities will attract GA business.
Question 11 will not allow me to put in my own ratings, each time I tried it ranked the items 1‐8 stating with the first item. This is a problem with your survey, all else was fine
keep it open for general aviation and the necessary services
Is the landing fee for GA aircraft really a money source for you ? ENCOURAGE GA !!! Stop the fee.
Please repair and repave aprons
The new tower facility is long overdue
See item 23 above.
Expansion of services are welcome
No
There needs to be a dedicated aircraft refurbishment center at the airport
Where is the Self Service Maintenance Hangar?reply to [email protected]
It appears from the users viewpoint that TIA is trying to influence local GA users away from the airport. Ryan is a much more friendly and relaxing atmosphere.
more people in the tower
Be more GA friendly.
‐ Re‐open the execu ve terminal and FBO
‐ Get a tenant for the airport grill space
‐ Fix the wash rack and make it self‐serve
hope TIA will continue to welcome small general aviation
City of Tucson would show community spirit with a flying museum, restoration facility or warbird facility.
Apron conditions are fair at best
Old buildings by the west ramp and northwest corner make the airport look like a junk yard.
Need to lower hanger rental prices and bring back TIA fuel
The possibility of a PAR approach.
Self service fuel prices are too high.
having dealt with the administration I have no respect for their management skills. They need to GO!
Many hangars, shadeports and tiedown areas are either poorly maintained or have outlived their service life.
A-19
RESPONSE SUMMARY
25 Continued
Capital improvements: Spend some money to improve the ramp areas (or does TIA have an equity interest in a prop shop ‐ that was supposed to be funny). Spend some money to improve the older hangars. Be supportive of GA‐related small business. KTUS is not an airline hub, it NEEDS GA to thrive. Stop making it hard for GA.
Yes; find ways to provide adequate AND affordable hangars to general aviation users.
Give more attention to GA Flying, aside from corporate A/C
Recruit new airport tenents. Flight schools, FBO's, aircraft service and maintenance.
Establish communication. Get everyone involved. Arrange events that would attract pilots from other airports. For starters, have an uptodate mailing list of all users. This is something that has been in the works for at least two years and TIA for some reason still doesn't have it.
Please see above. Outreach from TIA management to GA needs to be better. The quarterly user's group meeting is a good start, but there are many other ways to communicate on a more consistant basis, such as social media; ie facebook and twitter!
More hangars
Yes, reopen and staff the executive terminal. Lack, visiting pilot,and passenger facilities, pilot and crew briefing areas, conference room facilities, aviation merchandise, sectionals, airport directories,etc. make TIA the GA friendly airport it once was.
Better support
Be more welcoming to General Aviation, both local and transient, by encouraging and supporting General Aviation businesses, restoring public use of the Executive Terminal, improving facilities such as available public restrooms on the field, support a restaurant, pilot planning facility, fuel sales, meeting area, and improvements to the West ramp. Encourage and promote General Aviation at TIA and in the community. Recognize General Avia on as an asset to the community.
This survey was received by me from a third party, not a direct mailing list.
Bring back the Cafe and Exec Terminal!
West ramp is scheduled for demolition and I understand that maintenance of it is not a priority, but those of us who use it now find it substandard and potentially dangerous.
No meeting room that seats at least 100 people; no restrooms for the pilots of hangered aircraft;discrimination of selling Jet fuel and not 100LL at the Executive terminal
most important improvement is bathroom, pilot's lounge and restaurant
No more development of hangers and land for hangers. Reduce the cost of security badges.
Reduce the cost of fuel
A-20
RESPONSE SUMMARY
25 Continued
I believe more GA pilots would use the airport if they were not afraid of Class C airports. Education is the key, once I got comfortable with the radio work I prefer TUS over any of the surrounding airports.
retire the current administration, get new blood in power. the current blood has not oxygen. Just review the meeting we had when we first met the consultants..........the woman who rents out hangers honestly thought she has 50% of the hangers rented and on top of that thought that was a good %. Its not.
I feel that TIA is becoming more anti‐GA, and needs to stop shutting down GA facilities.
A-21
Appendix B
GOVERNING DOCUMENTS REVIEW
APPENDIXB
GOVERNINGDOCUMENTSREVIEW
B-1
ReviewofMinimumStandards
TheTucsonAirportAuthority(TAA)preparedalistofquestionsandconcernsregardingits
MinimumStandardsdocument,whichwasadoptedFebruary17,2005andrevisedJune2,
2009.CoffmanAssociateshaspreparedresponses(inbold)totheseissuesbaseduponits
ownanalysisandareviewofthecomparisonairport’sminimumstandarddocuments.The
comparisonairportsthatprovidedminimumstandarddocumentsinclude:
ABQ–AlbuquerqueInternationalAirport
BOI–BoiseAirTerminal
FAT–FresnoYosemiteInternationalAirport
RNO–Reno‐TahoeInternationalAirport
2.
GeneralRequirements
2.3FinancialStandards–thissectionisrepeatedverbatimintheLeasingand
DevelopmentGuidelines–thatseemslikeamoreappropriateplacefor
thisinformation–possiblyincludeanabbreviatedversionofthissection
simplystatingthatfinancialconditionwillbeaconsiderationforanynew
tenancy?
TAAPreference
2.6.2.Insurance–CheckwithKRanddetermineifweshouldchangelanguage
tostatethatTAAandCOTneedtobebothadditionalinsuredsand
certificateholders?
TAAPreference
3.
FixedBaseOperator
3.2.1.(D)ScopeofActivity–AircraftMaintenance–norequirementforFBOto
provide100‐hourorannualinspections–shouldthisberequired?
ThelevelofFBOmaintenancerequirementscanbeaddressedinmanydifferent
ways.ItreallydependsonwhethertheTAAwouldliketobemoreorlessspecific
withitsminimumstandards.Inreviewingthecomparisonairportminimum
standards,theyareingeneral,lessspecificthanTIA’sexistingminimumstandards.
ABQrequiresFBOstohaveFAAcertifiedA&Pmechanicswithinspectorratings.
BOIdoesnotspecifyarequirementforFBOstoprovideaircraftmaintenance.
FATrequiresonly“minor”aircraftmaintenancebeofferedbyFBOs.
RNOrequiresCommercialAeronauticalServiceProviders(CASPs/FBOs)toprovide
FAAcertifiedmechanicstoprovide100‐hourandannualinspections.
3.3.1FuelStorageandSales–statesthatfuelstorageshallbeaboveground–
Iftenantpreviouslyhadanundergroundstoragetankthatis“grand
fatheredin”,shouldtherebearequirementtoreplacetheunderground
storagetankwithinacertainperiodoftimetobecompliant?
B-2
DoesTAAhaveaSpillPrevention,ControlandCountermeasure(SPCC)planorlocal
codesthatmightprovidedirectiononundergroundstoragetanksandwhetherthey
maybegrandfatheredin?
ABQrequiresallFBOfuelstoragetobeabovegroundwithnolanguageaddressing
undergroundstoragetanks.
BOIstatesthatFBOsshallprovide“twofixedaboveorbelowgroundfuelstorage
tanks…”Norequirementtoreplacebelowgroundfuelstoragetanks.
FATrequiresabovegroundfuelstoragetankswithnorequirementsforthe
replacementofexistingundergroundtanks.
RNOdoesnotspecifyrequirementsforabovegroundorbelowgroundfuelstorage
tanks.
3.3.2and3.3.5–Thesetwosectionsconflictwitheachother.3.3.2statesthat
fueltrucksmaynotbeusedforstorageinlieuoftherequiredstorage
facility,but3.3.5statesthatanFBOmaymakearrangementswithother
authorizedFBOsontheairportforthepurchaseoffuel,therebystoring
theirfuelintheirfueltrucks
Section3.3isprimarilyconcernedwithbulkstorage.Fueltruckstandardsfallunder
Section3.4,thereforeFBOsthatmakearrangementswithotherFBOsforstorage
wouldneedtocomplywiththerequirementsinthissection.
ABQdoesnothavelanguagerestrictingtheuseoffueltrucksforfuelstorage.
BOIrequiresthatFBOsprovidetwo(2)fixedfuelstoragetankswithaminimum
capacityof10,000gallons.
FATdoesnothavelanguagerestrictingtheuseoffueltrucksforfuelstorage.
RNOdoesnothavelanguagerestrictingtheuseoffueltrucksforfuelstorage;
however,RNOdoesstatethatbulkstorageoffuelisnotpermittedon‐airportother
thaninexistingstoragefacilities.
3.6–LicensesandCertification–statesthatoperatorshallmaintainaPart145
operatingcertificateforitsmaintenancework–theonlyFBOonthe
airfieldwithaPart145operatingcertificateisHottonEnterprises.
RequiringFBOsandSASOstomeetPart145requirementscanberestrictiveforthe
operatorsandpotentiallyhurttheirabilitytoprovidemaintenanceatallduetocosts
associatedwithmaintainingPart145certification.Oftentimesairportswillallow
theoperatortodeterminewhatlevelofcertificationisneededdependingonthe
servicestheyintendtoprovide.
ABQhasthesamePart145requirement.
BOIdoesnothaveaPart145requirement.Avionics,instrumentand/orpropeller
repairandairframe&powerplantmaintenanceormanufacturingoperatorsare
requiredtoacquire“alllicensesorcertificatesrequiredtooperateselected
services.”
FATrequiresonlythatFBOsprovide“minoraircraftmaintenance.”However,under
theAirframeandPowerPlantMaintenanceSASOsection,“SASOsprovidingmajoror
B-3
minorairframeand/orpowerplantservicing,maintenance,overhaul,repairs,or
modificationsshallhaveon‐dutyatleastoneFAA‐certifiedtechnicianwhopossesses
anairframeand/orpowerplantcertificate,withinspectionauthorization,or
operatepursuanttoanFARPart145repairstationcertificate.
RNOrequiresCASPsbeFAAapprovedrepairstationsandhaveonstaffFAAcertified
mechanicstoprovide100‐hourandannualinspectionswithratingsappropriateto
theworktobeperformed.NospecificPart145requirement.
3.7.4–Personnel–statesthatFBOmusthaveoneFAAlicensedA&Pqualified
toperformmaintenanceonaircraft“normallyfrequentingtheairport”–
wouldthisrequireFBOstobequalifiedoncommercialairlineaircraft?No
referencetorequireanyFBOtohaveanaircraftinspector.Shouldthis
berequired?
ConsiderrevisinglanguagetorequireFBOstoprovideaircraftmaintenanceservices
onGAaircraftnormallyfrequentingtheAirportoraircraftnormallyutilizingthe
operator’sfacilities.
ABQhaslanguagestating,“EachFBOshallprovideaircraftairframe,engineand
accessorymaintenanceandrepairservicesonthetypesofaircraftnormallyutilizing
theOperator’sPremises,andmayincludebusinessjetaircraftandhelicopters.”ABQ
FBOsarerequiredto,“haveondutyduringthedesignatedbusinesshours,a
sufficientnumberofFAAcertifiedmechanicswithairframe,powerplantand
inspectorratings…”Nolanguagespecifictothetypesofaircrafttobeserviced.
BOIrequiresairframeandpowerplantmaintenanceormanufacturingoperatorsto
holdapplicablecertificatesandratingsfromtheFAA.Nolanguagespecifictothe
typesaircrafttobeserviced.
FATdoesnotspecifyrequirementsforFBOsregardingA&Pcertificationbutdoes
specifyFBOsofferitsservices“totheoperatorsofbasedandtransient/itinerant
personalorbusinessaircraft.”
RNOrequiresCASPsidentifytotheAuthoritythetypesofaircrafttobeserviced.
RequiressufficientFAAcertifiedmechanicstoperforminspections.
3.8–HoursofActivity–requiresFBOstobeavailableforfuelingandaircraft
Supportstaff“sevendaysaweek(includingholidays),24hoursaday.”
Thisisacommonrequirement.
ABQhassimilarlanguage.
BOIrequiresFBOstomakefuelingandlubricatingsalesavailableseven(7)daysa
weekduringpublishedbusinesshours.
FAThassimilarlanguage.
RNOrequiresfullserviceCASPstobeopenaminimumof16hoursperday,7daysa
week.
3.9–Aircraftremoval–requiresFBOstofilea“aircraftremovalplan”withthe
Airport–nosuchplanhasbeensubmittedbyanyFBOs
Thisisnotacommonrequirement.
B-4
ABQdoesnotrequireanaircraftremovalplanbesubmittedbyFBOs.
BOIdoesnotincludespecificlanguageregardingaircraftremoval.
FATdoesnotrequireanaircraftremovalplanbesubmittedbyFBOs.
RNOdoesnotrequirefullserviceCASPstoremovedisabledaircraftnordoesit
requireanaircraftremovalplan.
4.
AircraftMaintenanceOperator(SASO)
4.1.2–requiresoperatortoprovideminormaintenanceonly–shouldmorebe
required?
SimilartotheFBOrequirementsonmaintenanceservices,thecomparisonairports
hadlessspecificrequirementsidentifiedintheirminimumstandards.
ABQspecifiesthatSASOs“mayprovideaircraftairframe,engineandaccessory
maintenanceandrepairservicesonthetypesofaircraftnormallyutilizingthe
Operator’sfacilities.”
BOIdoesnotspecifyarequirementforminimumlevelsofaircraftmaintenance.
FATdoesnotspecifyarequirementforminimumlevelsofaircraftmaintenancebut
doesrequireatleastoneFAA‐certifiedA&PoroperatewithaFARPart145
certificate.
RNOrequiresaircraftmaintenanceandrepairCASPstobeanFAAapprovedrepair
stationproviding100‐hourandannualinspections.
4.3–LicensesandCertification–requiresPart145operatingcertificate–
necessary?
SimilartotheFBOrequirements,requiringPart145certificationforSASOscanbe
restrictiveandmakeitdifficulttosustainabusinessduetoaddedcosts.Allowing
theoperatortoselectitslevelofservicemaybemorebusinessfriendly.
ABQrequireseitheraFARPart145RepairStationCertificationoranFAAFARPart
65InspectionAuthorizationdesignee.Mustbeabletoprovecertificationwithinsix
(6)monthsofapplication.
BOIdoesnotspecificallyrequireFARPart145certificationofitsFBOsorairframe
andpowerplantmaintenanceoperators.
FATrequiresatleastoneFAA‐certifiedA&PwithinspectionauthorizationoraFAR
Part145certificate.
RNOrequirestheprovidertobeFAAapproved(assumedtobePart145)andforFAA
certifiedmechanics.
4.3.2–Requiresallpersonnelto“holdtheappropriateratingsandmedical
Certification”forworkbeingperformed–Idonotthinkthereareany
ratingsormedicalcertificationsrequiredformaintenancestaff?
Notawareofanymedicalcertificatesrequiredformaintenancepersonnel.Consider
revisesection4.4toread,“Alloperators’personnelshallbeappropriatelyratedand
currentlyFAAcertifiedfortheworkbeingperformedbasedonjobfunction.”
B-5
ABQdoesnotspecifyarequirementformedicalcertificationformaintenance
personnel.
BOIdoesnotspecificallyidentifyminimumstandardsforpersonnel.
FATrequiresonlythatanA&PSASOhaveatleastoneFAA‐certifiedA&Pwith
inspectionauthorizationoroperatepursuanttoFARPart145.
RNOrequiresmechanicsbeFAAcertifiedbutdoesnotspecifyarequirementfor
medicalcertification.
4.4.2Personnel–samecommentasFBOregardingaircraftnormally
frequentingtheairport
ConsiderrevisingSection4.4.2languagetorequireSASOstoprovideaircraft
maintenanceservicesonGAaircraftnormallyfrequentingtheAirportoraircraft
normallyutilizingtheoperator’sfacilities.
ABQspecifiesthattheoperatormayprovideservicesonthetypesofaircraft
normallyutilizingtheOperator’sfacilities.
BOIdoesnotspecifythetypesofaircrafttobeservicedbySASOs.
FATdoesnotspecifythetypesofaircrafttobeservicedbySASOs.
RNOrequirestheseoperatorstoidentifytotheAuthoritythetypesofaircrafttobe
serviced.
5.AvionicsorInstrumentMaintenanceOperator(SASO)
5.3–RequiresPart145certification–necessary?
Thisisnotacommonrequirement.
ABQrequiresaviationshoprepairserviceoperatorsto“maintain,asnecessary,the
repairstationcertificatesrequiredbytheFAAwhichareapplicabletotheoperation
oroperationscontemplated.Theavionicsportionoftheservicesofferedmust
maintaincurrentClassIandClassIIFAAqualificationsfordesignatedrepair
stations.”NorequirementsforPart145certificationarespecified.
BOIdoesnotspecificallyrequireFARPart145certificationofitsFBOsoravionicsor
instrumentmaintenanceoperators.
FATdoesnotrequirePart145certificationbutrequirestheseSASOstohaveatleast
onetrainedandFAAcertifiedtechnicianandtoholdtheappropriateFAAcertificates
requiredforthetypesofservicesoffered.
RNOrequiresaircraftelectronicsalesandserviceCASPstoholdtheappropriate
repairstationcertificatesissuedbytheFAAforthetypesofequipmentplannedtobe
servicedand/orinstalled.
5.3.2–“appropriateratingsandmedicalcertification”?
Again,notawareofanymedicalcertificationformaintenancepersonnel.
ABQrequiresthesetypesofoperatorstohave“currentlycertifiedasFAAradio,
instrumentorpropellerrepairmen…”Norequirementsformedicalcertificationare
specified.
BOIdoesnotspecificallyidentifyminimumstandardsforpersonnel.
B-6
FATrequirestheseoperatorstohaveatleastonetrainedandFAAcertified
technicianandfortheoperatortoholdtheappropriateFAAcertificatesrequiredfor
thetypesofservicesoffered.
RNOrequirestheseproviderstohaveanFAAratedradio,instrumentoraccessory
repairman.
6.
AircraftRentalorFlightTrainingOperator(SASO)
6.1–allowsacertifiedflightinstructortogive“occasional”flightinstructiontoan
aircraftownerinowner’saircraftwithoutbeingconsideredacommercial
activity–isthisthenorm?WhatifinstructionisgiveninCFI’saircraft?
Ifaninstructorisutilizingthestudent’sownaircraftforflightinstructionbutisstill
beingcompensated,thenthisshouldbeconsideredcommercialactivity.Couldmake
adistinctionbetween“flighttraining”,whichisassumedtobeaflighttraining
company,or“IndependentFlightTraining”,whichisaflightinstructorusinga
student’sprivateaircraft.Basedonareviewofthecomparisonminimumstandard
documents,thisdistinctionisnotcommon.
ABQrequiresthatflighttrainingSASOsoperate“aminimumofeight(8)hoursper
day,five(5)daysaweek.”Norequirementsfor“occasional”flightinstructionare
specified.Requirementsalsostatethatgroundinstructionmaynotbeprovidedin
publicareasoftheairport.
BOIrequiresflightinstructionoperatorstobeavailableoroncallfive(5)daysper
weekduringpublishedbusinesshours.Furthermore,flightinstructionoperators
arerequiredtoleaselandfromtheCityofBoiseaminimumofonehundredfifty
(150)squarefeetofofficespace.Norequirementsfor“occasional”flightinstruction
arespecified.
FATrequiresSASOstooperateeightdaylighthoursperdayonthesamefive
continuousdayseachweek.Norequirementsfor“occasional”flightinstructionare
specified.FlighttrainingSASOsarealsorequiredtoprovideclassroomspaceand
provideatleastfourlicensedandmaintainedfixedwingaircraftandtwoFAACFIs.
RNOdoesnothavespecificrequirementsfor“occasional”flightinstruction.RNO
requirestheseoperatorstobeopenandavailable40hoursperweekandthe
operatormustoccupyofficespacewithintheaviationareaoftheairport.
7.
AircraftCharterorAircraftManagementOperator(SASO)
7.1.1.–Isthereacertificationprocessorverificationprocessfordeclaring
yourselfcompliantwitheitherPart135orPart125?Howdoweverifyif
someoneiscomplaintunderthesetwocategories?
Theseoperatorsshouldmaintainacertificationreport,whichincludesacopyofthe
issuedairoperator’scertificate(FAAForm8430‐18,AirCarrierCertificate;FAA
Form8430‐21,OperatingCertificateforIntrastateCommonCarriage;FAAForm
8430‐21,OperatingCertificateforPrivateCarriage).Part125operatorsmust
displayatruecopyofthecertificateineachofitsaircraft.
B-7
ABQrequiresaircraftcharterandairtaxiserviceSASOsto“holdavalidcurrentFAA
AirCharterandTaxiCertificateunderFARPart135…”NorequirementsforPart125
certificationarespecified.
BOIdoesnotspecificallyrequirePart135orPart125certificationbutdoesrequire
thataircraftcharterandairtaxiserviceoperators“shallhaveoncall,trained
personnelwithcurrentFAAcertificatedpilotstopermittheflightactivityofferedby
theoperator.”
FATrequireson‐demandSASOstohaveacurrentFARPart135Certificate.
RNOrequiresaircraftcharterandairtaxiCASPsholdanairtaxicommercialpermit
(Part135).
9.
Aircraftstorageoperator
9.2(c)–Hangarshallbenotlessthan40’indepth–noneofourt‐hangarsmeet
thisrequirement.
Rarelyarehangardimensionscalledout.Usuallyjustanoverallsquarefootage
requirementisidentified.
ABQdoesnotincludespecificminimumstandardsforaircraftstorageoperators.It
doesspecifythatSASOs“arestrictlyprohibitedfromprovidingaircrafthangarspace
forrentalorlease,aircrafttiedownforrentalorlease,andfromsellingorstoring
aircraftfuels…”
BOIdoesnotincludespecificminimumstandardsforaircraftstorageoperatorsbut
doesincludeminimumhangarsizesinsquarefeetforFBOsandotherSASOs.
FATrequireshangarrentalSASOsleaseorconstructhangarssufficienttostorenot
lessthanfiveGAaircraft,eachof40,000poundsgrosstakeoffweightormore.
RNOdoesnotspecifyaspecifichangardepthrequirement.
9.2(d)–Eachhangarshallhaveatleastonecommonunisex,handicap
Accessiblerestroom–whataboutt‐hangars?
ThisisnotacommonrequirementforT‐hangars.
ABQrequireseachFBOandSASOtoprovidepublicrestroomfacilitiesbutdoesnot
specifythateachhangarfacilitymusthaverestroomfacilities.Restroomsprovided
byFBOs,“shallbeconvenientlylocated,freeofcharge,accessibletopassengersand
crews,andmaintainedinacleanandsanitarymanner.”
BOIdoesnotrequirearestroomforeachhangarfacilitybutdoesrequirerestroom
facilitiesprovidedbyFBOsandSASOs.
FATrequireseachhangartobeequippedwithamensandaladiesroom.
RNOrequiresallCASPstoproviderestroomfacilitieshowevernospecific
requirementforrestroomsineachhangarwasidentified.
10. PrivateFlyingClubs
10.2–requiresclubstosubmitinformationtoTAA–notcompliant
RenoistheonlyothercomparisonairportwithacomprehensivesectiononFlying
ClubssimilartoTIA’s.
B-8
ABQdoesnotspecifyminimumstandardsforprivateflyingclubs.
BOIdoesnotspecifyminimumstandardsforprivateflyingclubs.
FATdoesnotspecifyminimumstandardsforprivateflyingclubs.
RNOrequiresnon‐commercialflyingclubstoprovidetheAuthorityacompletelistof
itsmembershipandthatrecordsoftheclubsfinancesmustbemadeavailabletothe
Authorityuponrequest.TheclubisalsorequiredtofurnishtheAuthorityitsinitial
application,acopyofitscharterandby‐laws,articlesofassociation,partnership
agreementandotherdocumentationsupportingitsexistence(acurrentroster,
includingnamesofofficersanddirectors;numberandtypeofaircraft;evidencethat
ownershipisvestedintheclub;andoperatingrulesoftheclub).
12. FuelingPermits
12.2FuelStorage–requiresnoncommercialoperatorstoringfuelfortheirown
personalusetohavecapacityofnotlessthan12,000gallons?
Thisseemslikeaveryhighcapacityforanoncommercialoperator.Bulkstorageof
fuelbynoncommercialoperatorsistypicallyprohibited.
ABQprohibitsSASOsfromsellingorstoringaircraftfuelswiththeexceptionof
maintenanceproviderswhouseitforthepurposeofrepairsandmaintenanceonly.
ABQdoesnotspecifyminimumstandardsfornon‐commercialfuelstorage.
BOIdoesnotspecifyminimumstandardsfornon‐commercialfuelstorage.
FATdoesnotspecifyminimumstandardsfornon‐commercialfuelstorage.
RNOallowsfornon‐commercialstoragehangarmemberstodispensefuelintotheir
ownaircraftusingavehiclethatisrequiredtohaveatleast1,000gallonsofstorage.
Bulkstorageisnotpermittedon‐airportotherthaninexistingstoragefacilities.
B-9
ReviewofRulesandRegulations
TheTucsonAirportAuthority(TAA)preparedalistofquestionsandconcernsregardingits
RulesandRegulationsdocument,whichwasadoptedFebruary17,2005andrevisedJune2,
2009.CoffmanAssociateshaspreparedresponses(inbold)totheseissuesbaseduponits
own analysis and a review of the comparison airport’s rules and regulations documents.
Thecomparisonairportsthatprovidedrulesandregulationsdocumentsinclude:
BOI–BoiseAirTerminal
ELP–ElPasoInternationalAirport
RNO–Reno‐TahoeInternationalAirport
3.10.2 – Operators are required to post all necessary licenses, permits, and
certifications or ratings – is this reasonable? Medical certifications?
Requiring operators to post licenses, permits, certifications, and ratings seems
reasonable. It should be given that medical certifications have been obtained for
those licenses, permits, certifications, etc. that require them so the reference to
medical certifications should not be required (especially since medical
certifications may contain personal information that people would not want to be
made public).
BOI – no similar requirement could be found.
ELP – no similar requirement could be found.
RNO – no similar requirement could be found.
6.1.5 – Disabled aircraft shall be removed from runway within 30 minutes –
by whom?
Typically the aircraft owner, pilot, or agent should first be responsible for
removal. If not within an allotted time period, then airport manager has the
authority to remove the aircraft and bill the owners for all charges incurred.
ABQ requires FBOs to be capable of removing disabled aircraft at the request of
the owner/operator of the aircraft or the Airport Director (per minimum
standards).
BOI – responsibility for the prompt removal of disabled aircraft is on any owner,
lessee, operator or other person having the control, or the right of control of the
disabled aircraft.
ELP – no requirement for removal of disabled aircraft.
RNO – aircraft owners, pilots, or their agents are responsible for removal of an
aircraft wrecked, disabled or otherwise abandoned.
6.2 – Aircraft assembly is only permitted in areas designated as approved
for maintenance? Is this reasonable? No assembly in t-hangars?
B-10
Aircraft assembly and aircraft maintenance can sometimes be viewed separately.
Regulations can be relaxed to allow assembly of aircraft in T-hangars since it is
more common for owners of smaller RV/sport aircraft to assemble their own.
BOI requires major repairs that would require a sign off by an A&P be done only
on leased sites where specifically permitted. Major aircraft repairs cannot be
conducted in storage only hangars. Does not specifically mention aircraft
assembly.
ELP does not specifically address this issue.
RNO does not specifically address this issue.
6.3.3 – No cleaning of aircraft using solvents or degreasers – what about
engine cleaning? By FBOs?
Consider revising this language to require the use of pans or absorber to ensure
these cleaning materials do not reach hangar floors or ramp pavements.
BOI prefers that motor parts be cleaned with non-flammable liquids unless the
part is located a safe distance from other aircraft or buildings. BOI prohibits the
use of solvents for cleaning hangar floors. No specific restrictions on cleaning
aircraft using solvents of degreasers.
ELP does not specifically address aircraft cleaning.
RNO specifies that chemical cleaning solvents must be removed as soon and as
completely as possible but does not restrict their use.
6.4.1 – Maintenance and repair of GA aircraft limited to “designated areas
within an FBOs or SASOs leased premises. What is aircraft owner
is a licensed A&P? Can it still be restricted?
This is pretty standard language and the section does allow preventative
maintenance to be conducted on tiedowns or in T-hangars.
BOI requires major repairs that would require a sign off by an A&P be done only
on leased sites where specifically permitted. Repair work may be performed on
ramps or aprons only with prior written permission from the Airport Director.
6.5.4 – Precertification flights shall not be conducted without prior written
Permission of TAA. Do FBOs know this? Is this practice followed?
BOI does not specifically address this issue.
6.5.12 – Aircraft operator is responsible for cost of repair if they park in an
area with restrictions on weight – we’ve been notifying the FBO that
B-11
they are responsible for cost of repair.
Typically, it is the aircraft operator’s responsibility to check publications
regarding pavement strength so ultimately it should be their responsibility to
cover pavement repair costs.
6.7.1 – No aircraft shall remain on the Airport in excess of 90 days unless such aircraft
Is registered, certificated, and in airworthy condition. This is not
enforced. What about MRO at Bombardier and Ascent?
Consider revising language to exempt aircraft under active maintenance/repair by
MROs.
BOI gives six weeks’ notice before impounding and removing abandoned/derelict
aircraft.
RNO does not have such a requirement.
6.9.2 – Part 121 commercial flight training activities require prior approval by TAA –
what about third seat licensing (forget what the certification is called,
but it is offered by Sonoran Wings….navigator?)
Certification of flight crewmembers other than pilots (i.e. flight navigator
certificate) is covered by Part 63, so it would not require prior approval by TAA
according to the current rules and regs.
6.13 – Helicopter operations – any reason to continue to restrict at Valencia GA?
The conventional/executive hangar facilities along Valencia are located less than
120 feet from the opposite T-hangar facilities, which would result in the restriction
of helicopter operations in this area. The apron area southeast of Million Air
could be utilized for helicopter operations if it is designated for such operations.
BOI – helicopters may not operate within 100 feet of where light aircraft are
parked or operating unless such an area is specifically established for rotor craft
operations.
RNO allows helicopter operations in specific locations including specific FBO
ramps, all active runways, taxiways with widths of 75 feet or greater.
B-12
7.7.3 – Vehicles operating or parking inside the security fence shall be registered with
TAA and display a current vehicle permit/sticker – this isn’t current policy
Consider revising language to reflect current policy.
BOI – only authorized and properly identified vehicles with security permits are
allowed access into the Air Operations Area or SIDA.
RNO requires all ground vehicles operating within the AOA to be appropriately
marked with the company/agency designation. Private vehicles are not normally
authorized within the AOA except for operating exclusively within an FBO’s
leasehold.
7.9.4 – On street vehicle parking is not allowed – HIDTA parks on the street
BOI does not have such a restriction.
ELP prohibits parking on the streets.
RNO does not have such a restriction.
8.5.9 – Specific maintenance requirements – how is compliance monitored ? TAA
does not paint operated hangars every 20 years
This section states that structures should receive annual inspections. Consider
revising language to state that facilities and structures will be painted as
necessary.
BOI does not address specific facility/structure maintenance requirements.
RNO – The airport authority has the responsibility and authority to monitor
compliance with all rules and regulations.
9.2.3 – Fuel operators are required to provide their own Spill Prevention Contingency
And Control Plan – to whom do they submit their plan?
These plans should be submitted to the TAA at the minimum and consider
delivering a copy to a City department that oversees environmental issues.
9.3.3 – Operators may not install self-service fueling islands – Premier has SS.
If an FBO has one you cannot restrict the others. Consider removing this clause.
BOI does not specifically restrict self-service fuel islands.
RNO allow for self-fueling activities but does not specifically address self-service
fueling islands.
B-13
9.4.2 – Remove reference to “excluding fuel delivered by TAA.”
Since TAA no longer delivers fuel, removing this reference makes sense.
9.5.1 – Fueling trucks or other vehicles shall not be used in lieu of fuel storage
tanks – see reference in Minimum Standards
This is consistent with the idea that fuel trucks are used for distribution and not
bulk storage. As long as the operator is distributing fuel from the fuel trucks and
satisfying all minimum standards regarding fuel distribution this would be
consistent with current rules and regulations and minimum standards.
9.8 – Off-Premises fueling is prohibited on TAA Flightline ramp – remove reference
Depending on TAA’s thoughts of the alternatives prepared for this study, the TAA
flightline could potentially be developed by FBOs, in which case this reference
would need to be removed.
B-14
Appendix C
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A PPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
A
ABOVE GROUND LEVEL: The elevation of a
point or surface above the ground.
ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE
(ASDA): See declared distances.
ADVISORY CIRCULAR: External publications
issued by the FAA consisting of nonregulatory
material providing for the recommendations relative
to a policy, guidance and information relative to a
specific aviation subject.
AIR CARRIER: An operator which: (1) performs at
least five round trips per week between two or more
points and publishes flight schedules which specify
the times, days of the week, and places between which
such flights are performed; or (2) transports mail by
air pursuant to a current contract with the U.S. Postal
Service. Certified in accordance with Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) Parts 121 and 127.
AIRCRAFT: A transportation vehicle that is used or
intended for use for flight.
AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: A
grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times the stall speed
in their landing configuration at their maximum
certificated landing weight. The categories are as
follows:
• Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.
• Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than
121 knots.
• Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than
141 knots.
• Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than
166 knots.
• Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots.
the interests and needs of general aviation pilots and
aircraft owners.
AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING: A
facility located at an airport that provides emergency
vehicles, extinguishing agents, and personnel
responsible for minimizing the impacts of an aircraft
accident or incident.
AIRFIELD: The portion of an airport which contains
the facilities necessary for the operation of aircraft.
AIRLINE HUB: An airport at which an airline
concentrates a significant portion of its activity
and which often has a significant amount of
connecting traffic.
AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): A grouping
of aircraft based upon wingspan. The groups are as
follows:
• Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet.
• Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet.
• Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet.
• Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet.
• Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet.
• Group VI: 214 feet or greater.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY: A quasi-governmental
public organization responsible for setting the
policies governing the management and operation of
an airport or system of airports under its jurisdiction.
AIRPORT BEACON: A navigational aid located
at an airport which displays a rotating light beam to
identify whether an airport is lighted.
AIRCRAFT OPERATION: The landing, takeoff,
or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a
runway at an airport.
AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN:
The planning program used by the Federal Aviation
Administration to identify, prioritize, and distribute
funds for airport development and the needs of the
National Airspace System to meet specified national
goals and objectives.
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA (AOA): A
restricted and secure area on the airport property designed
to protect all aspects related to aircraft operations.
AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point on the
runway system at an airport expressed in feet above
mean sea level (MSL).
AIRCRAFT
OWNERS
AND
PILOTS
ASSOCIATION: A private organization serving
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: A
program authorized by the Airport and Airway
C-1
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
Improvement Act of 1982 that provides funding for
airport planning and development.
AIRPORT
SURFACE
DETECTION
EQUIPMENT: A radar system that provides air
traffic controllers with a visual representation of the
movement of aircraft and other vehicles on the ground
on the airfield at an airport.
AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): The
drawing of the airport showing the layout of existing
and proposed airport facilities.
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP): A scaled drawing
of the existing and planned land and facilities necessary
for the operation and development of the airport.
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING SET: A
set of technical drawings depicting the current and
future airport conditions. The individual sheets
comprising the set can vary with the complexities of
the airport, but the FAA-required drawings include
the Airport Layout Plan (sometimes referred to as the
Airport Layout Drawing (ALD), the Airport Airspace
Drawing, and the Inner Portion of the Approach
Surface Drawing, On-Airport Land Use Drawing,
and Property Map.
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN: The plannerʼs concept
of the long-term development of an airport.
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY
SYSTEM: A system that provides automated alerts
and warnings of potential runway incursions or other
hazardous aircraft movement events.
AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART: A scaled
drawing depicting the Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 77 surfaces, a representation of objects
that penetrate these surfaces, runway, taxiway, and
ramp areas, navigational aids, buildings, roads and
other detail in the vicinity of an airport.
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR: The
primary radar located at an airport or in an air traffic
control terminal area that receives a signal at an
antenna and transmits the signal to air traffic control
display equipment defining the location of aircraft in
the air. The signal provides only the azimuth and range
of aircraft from the location of the antenna.
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
(ATCT): A central operations facility in the terminal air
traffic control system, consisting of a tower, including
an associated instrument flight rule (IFR) room if
radar equipped, using air/ground communications
and/or radar, visual signaling and other devices to
provide safe and expeditious movement of terminal
air traffic.
AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER:
A facility which provides en route air traffic control
service to aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan within
controlled airspace over a large, multi-state region.
AIRSIDE: The portion of an airport that contains the
facilities necessary for the operation of aircraft.
AIRSPACE: The volume of space above the surface of
the ground that is provided for the operation of aircraft.
AIR TAXI: An air carrier certificated in accordance
with FAR Part 121 and FAR Part 135 and authorized
to provide, on demand, public transportation of
persons and property by aircraft. Generally operates
small aircraft “for hire” for specific trips.
AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): A coding
system used to relate airport design criteria to the
operational (Aircraft Approach Category) to the
physical characteristics (Airplane Design Group) of
the airplanes intended to operate at the airport.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: A service operated
by an appropriate organization for the purpose of
providing for the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow
of air traffic.
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): The
latitude and longitude of the approximate center of
the airport.
AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER
(ARTCC): A facility established to provide air traffic
control service to aircraft operating on an IFR flight
plan within controlled airspace and principally during
the en route phase of flight.
AIRPORT SPONSOR: The entity that is legally
responsible for the management and operation of an
airport, including the fulfillment of the requirements of
laws and regulations related thereto.
C-2
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM COMMAND
CENTER: A facility operated by the FAA which is
responsible for the central flow control, the central
altitude reservation system, the airport reservation
position system, and the air traffic service contingency
command for the air traffic control system.
centerline and extends outward and upward from
the primary surface at each end of a runway at a
designated slope and distance based upon the type of
available or planned approach by aircraft to a runway.
APRON: A specified portion of the airfield used for
passenger, cargo or freight loading and unloading,
aircraft parking, and the refueling, maintenance and
servicing of aircraft.
AIR TRAFFIC HUB: A categorization of
commercial service airports or group of commercial
service airports in a metropolitan or urban area based
upon the proportion of annual national enplanements
existing at the airport or airports. The categories are
large hub, medium hub, small hub, or non-hub. It forms
the basis for the apportionment of entitlement funds.
AREA NAVIGATION: The air navigation procedure
that provides the capability to establish and maintain
a flight path on an arbitrary course that remains within
the coverage area of navigational sources being used.
AIR
TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION
OF
AMERICA: An organization consisting of the
principal U.S. airlines that represents the interests
of the airline industry on major aviation issues
before federal, state, and local government bodies.
It promotes air transportation safety by coordinating
industry and governmental safety programs and
it serves as a focal point for industry efforts to
standardize practices and enhance the efficiency of
the air transportation system.
AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMATION
SERVICE (ATIS): The continuous broadcast of
recorded non-control information at towered airports.
Information typically includes wind speed, direction,
and runway in use.
ALERT AREA: See special-use airspace.
AUTOMATIC WEATHER OBSERVATION
STATION (AWOS): Equipment used to automatically
record weather conditions (i.e. cloud height, visibility,
wind speed and direction, temperature, dew point, etc.)
ALTITUDE: The vertical distance measured in feet
above mean sea level.
ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH (AIA):
An approach to an airport with the intent to land
by an aircraft in accordance with an IFR flight plan
when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the
ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude.
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVATION
SYSTEM (ASOS): A reporting system that provides
frequent airport ground surface weather observation data
through digitized voice broadcasts and printed reports.
AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF):
An aircraft radio navigation system which senses
and indicates the direction to a non-directional radio
beacon (NDB) ground transmitter.
AVIGATION EASEMENT: A contractual right
or a property interest in land over which a right of
unobstructed flight in the airspace is established.
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS):
An airport lighting facility which provides visual
guidance to landing aircraft by radiating light
beams by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with
the extended centerline of the runway on his final
approach and landing.
AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction expressed as the
angular distance between true north and the direction
of a fixed point (as the observerʼs heading).
APPROACH MINIMUMS: The altitude below
which an aircraft may not descend while on an IFR
approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight.
B
BASE LEG: A flight path at right angles to the landing
runway off its approach end. The base leg normally
extends from the downwind leg to the intersection of
the extended runway centerline. See “traffic pattern.”
APPROACH SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction
limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 which is
longitudinally centered on an extended runway
C-3
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
BASED AIRCRAFT: The general aviation aircraft
that use a specific airport as a home base.
limits of the ILS with no decision height specified
above the horizontal plane containing the runway
threshold.
BEARING: The horizontal direction to or from any
point, usually measured clockwise from true north or
magnetic north.
CEILING: The height above the ground surface to
the location of the lowest layer of clouds which is
reported as either broken or overcast.
BLAST FENCE: A barrier used to divert or dissipate
jet blast or propeller wash.
CIRCLING APPROACH: A maneuver initiated
by the pilot to align the aircraft with the runway
for landing when flying a predetermined circling
instrument approach under IFR.
BLAST PAD: A prepared surface adjacent to the
end of a runway for the purpose of eliminating
the erosion of the ground surface by the wind
forces produced by airplanes at the initiation of
takeoff operations.
BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line
which identifies suitable building area locations on
the airport.
C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning
program used by the Federal Aviation Administration
to identify, prioritize, and distribute Airport
Improvement Program funds for airport development
and the needs of the National Airspace System to
meet specified national goals and objectives.
CARGO SERVICE AIRPORT: An airport
served by aircraft providing air transportation
of property only, including mail, with an
annual aggregate landed weight of at least
100,000,000 pounds.
CLASS A AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLASS B AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CATEGORY I: An Instrument Landing System
(ILS) that provides acceptable guidance information
to an aircraft from the coverage limits of the ILS to
the point at which the localizer course line intersects
the glide path at a decision height of 200 feet above
the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold.
CLASS C AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLASS D AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLASS E AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CATEGORY II: An ILS that provides acceptable
guidance information to an aircraft from the coverage
limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer
course line intersects the glide path at a decision height
of 100 feet above the horizontal plane containing the
runway threshold.
CLASS G AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLEAR ZONE: See Runway Protection Zone.
COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT: A public
airport providing scheduled passenger service that
enplanes at least 2,500 annual passengers.
CATEGORY III: An ILS that provides acceptable
guidance information to a pilot from the coverage
C-4
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY:
A radio frequency identified in the appropriate
aeronautical chart which is designated for the purpose of
transmitting airport advisory information and procedures
while operating to or from an uncontrolled airport.
control and are served by a qualifying number
of IFR operations or passenger enplanements.
Although individually tailored for each airport,
Class C airspace typically consists of a surface
area with a five nautical mile (nm) radius and
an outer area with a 10 nautical mile radius that
extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the
airport elevation. Two-way radio communication
is required for all aircraft.
COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): A low power,
low/medium frequency radio-beacon installed in
conjunction with the instrument landing system at
one or two of the marker sites.
• CLASS D: Generally, that airspace from
the surface to 2,500 feet above the air port
elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding those
airports that have an operational control tower.
Class D airspace is individually tailored and
configured to encompass published instrument
approach procedure . Unless otherwise
authorized, all persons must establish two-way
radio communication.
CONICAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstructionlimiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that extends
from the edge of the horizontal surface outward and
upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance
of 4,000 feet.
CONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport that has an
operating airport traffic control tower.
CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined
dimensions within which air traffic control services
are provided to instrument flight rules (IFR) and
visual flight rules (VFR) flights in accordance with
the airspace classification. Controlled airspace in the
United States is designated as follows:
• CLASS E: Generally, controlled airspace
that is not classified as Class A, B, C, or D.
Class E airspace extends upward from either
the surface or a designated altitude to the
overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When
designated as a surface area, the airspace will be
configured to contain all instrument procedures.
Class E airspace encompasses all Victor
Airways.
Only
aircraft
following
instrument
flight
rules
are
required to establish two-way radio communication
with air traffic control.
• CLASS A: Generally, the airspace from 18,000
feet mean sea level (MSL) up to but not including
flight level FL600. All persons must operate their
aircraft under IFR.
• CLASS B:
Generally, the airspace
from the surface to
10,000 feet MSL sur20 NM
rounding the nationʼs
busiest airports. The
configuration of Class
B airspace is unique
to each airport, but
typically consists of two or more layers of air
space and is designed to contain all published instrument approach procedures to the airport. An
air traffic control clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area.
10
N
M
• CLASS G: Generally, that airspace not classified
as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is
uncontrolled for all aircraft. Class G airspace
extends from the surface to the overlying Class
E airspace.
30
M
N
CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: See special-use
airspace.
CROSSWIND: A wind that is not parallel to a runway
centerline or to the intended flight path of an aircraft.
CROSSWIND COMPONENT: The component of
wind that is at a right angle to the runway centerline
or the intended flight path of an aircraft.
• CLASS C: Generally, the airspace from the surface
to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted
as MSL) surrounding those airports that have
an operational control tower and radar approach
CROSSWIND LEG: A flight path at right angles to the
landing runway off its upwind end. See “traffic pattern.”
C-5
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
D
DECIBEL: A unit of noise representing a level
relative to a reference of a sound pressure 20 micro
newtons per square meter.
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME):
Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in
nautical miles, the slant range distance of an aircraft
from the DME navigational aid.
DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in Aweighted
decibels, obtained after the addition of ten decibels
to sound levels for the periods between 10 p.m. and
7 a.m. as averaged over a span of one year. It is the
FAA standard metric for determining the cumulative
exposure of individuals to noise.
DECISION HEIGHT/DECISION ALTITUDE:
The height above the end of the runway surface at
which a decision must be made by a pilot during the
ILS or Precision Approach Radar approach to either
continue the approach or to execute a missed approach.
DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances declared
available for the airplaneʼs takeoff runway, takeoff
distance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing
distance requirements. The distances are:
DOWNWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the
landing runway in the direction opposite to landing. The
downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind
leg and the base leg. Also see “traffic pattern.”
• TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA):
The runway length declared available and suitable
for the ground run of an airplane taking off.
E
EASEMENT: The legal right of one party to use a
portion of the total rights in real estate owned by another
party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or
below the property; certain air rights above the property,
including view rights; and the rights to any specified
form of development or activity, as well as any other
legal rights in the property that may be specified in the
easement document.
• TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA):
The TORA plus the length of any remaining
runway and/or clear way beyond the far end of
the TORA.
• ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE
AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus stopway
length declared available for the acceleration and
deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff.
ELEVATION: The vertical distance measured in feet
above mean sea level.
ENPLANED PASSENGERS: The total number
of revenue passengers boarding aircraft, including
originating, stop-over, and transfer passengers, in
scheduled and nonscheduled services.
• LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA):
The runway length declared available and suitable
for landing.
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION:
The cabinet level federal government organization
consisting of modal operating agencies, such as
the Federal Aviation Administration, which was
established to promote the coordination of federal
transportation programs and to act as a focal point for
research and development efforts in transportation.
ENPLANEMENT: The boarding of a passenger,
cargo, freight, or mail on an aircraft at an airport.
ENTITLEMENT: Federal funds for which a commercial
service airport may be eligible based upon its annual
passenger enplanements.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): An
environmental analysis performed pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act to determine
whether an action would significantly affect the
environment and thus require a more detailed
environmental impact statement.
DISCRETIONARY FUNDS: Federal grant funds that
may be appropriated to an airport based upon designation
by the Secretary of Transportation or Congress to meet
a specified national priority such as enhancing capacity,
safety, and security, or mitigating noise.
DISPLACED THRESHOLD: A threshold that is
located at a point on the runway other than the designated
beginning of the runway.
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: An assessment of the
current status of a partyʼs compliance with applicable
C-6
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
environmental requirements of a partyʼs environmental
compliance policies, practices, and controls.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(EIS): A document required of federal agencies by the
National Environmental Policy Act for major projects
are legislative proposals affecting the environment. It
is a tool for decision-making describing the positive
and negative effects of a proposed action and citing
alternative actions.
FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A provider of
services to users of an airport. Such services include,
but are not limited to, hangaring, fueling, flight
training, repair, and maintenance.
FLIGHT LEVEL: A measure of altitude used by aircraft
flying above 18,000 feet. Flight levels are indicated by three
digits representing the pressure altitude in hundreds of feet.
An airplane flying at flight level 360 is flying at a pressure
altitude of 36,000 feet. This is expressed as FL 360.
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION: An operations
facility in the national flight advisory system which
utilizes data interchange facilities for the collection
and dissemination of Notices to Airmen, weather, and
administrative data and which provides pre-flight and
in-flight advisory services to pilots through air and
ground based communication facilities.
ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE: A federal program
which guarantees air carrier service to selected small
cities by providing subsidies as needed to prevent
these cities from such service.
F
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: The
general and permanent rules established by the
executive departments and agencies of the Federal
Government for aviation, which are published in the
Federal Register. These are the aviation subset of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
FRANGIBLE NAVAID: A navigational aid which
retains its structural integrity and stiffness up to
a designated maximum load, but on impact from a
greater load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a
manner as to present the minimum hazard to aircraft.
FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES: The
provision of customs and immigration services
including passport inspection, inspection of baggage,
the collection of duties on certain imported items,
and the inspections for agricultural products, illegal
drugs, or other restricted items.
G
GENERAL AVIATION: That portion of civil
aviation which encompasses all facets of aviation
except air carriers holding a certificate of convenience
and necessity, and large aircraft commercial operators.
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT: An airport that
provides air service to only general aviation.
FINAL APPROACH: A flight path in the direction
of landing along the extended runway centerline. The
final approach normally extends from the base leg to
the runway. See “traffic pattern.”
FINAL APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AREA
(FATO). A defined area over which the final phase
of the helicopter approach to a hover, or a landing is
completed and from which the takeoff is initiated.
FINAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at
which the final approach segment for an aircraft landing
on a runway begins for a non-precision approach.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
(FONSI): A public document prepared by a Federal
agency that presents the rationale why a proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the
environment and for which an environmental impact
statement will not be prepared.
C-7
GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical guidance
for aircraft during approach and landing. The glideslope
consists of the following:
1.Electronic components emitting signals which
provide vertical guidance by reference to airborne
instruments during instrument approaches such
as ILS; or
2.Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide
vertical guidance for VFR approach or for the
visual portion of an instrument approach and
landing.
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS): A
system of 48 satellites used as reference points to
enable navigators equipped with GPS receivers to
determine their latitude, longitude, and altitude.
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
consists of the following electronic components and
visual aids:
1. Localizer.
2. Glide Slope.
3. Outer Marker.
4. Middle Marker.
5. Approach Lights.
GROUND ACCESS: The transportation system on
and around the airport that provides access to and
from the airport by ground transportation vehicles
for passengers, employees, cargo, freight, and
airport services.
H
HELIPAD: A designated area for the takeoff, landing,
and parking of helicopters.
INSTRUMENT
METEOROLOGICAL
CONDITIONS:
Meteorological
conditions
expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling
conditions that are less than the minimums specified
for visual meteorological conditions.
HIGH INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The
highest classification in terms of intensity or
brightness for lights designated for use in delineating
the sides of a runway.
ITINERANT OPERATIONS: Operations
aircraft that are not based at a specified airport.
HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: A long radius
taxiway designed to expedite aircraft turning off the
runway after landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus
reducing runway occupancy time.
by
K
KNOTS: A unit of speed length used in navigation
that is equivalent to the number of nautical miles
traveled in one hour.
HORIZONTAL SURFACE: An imaginary
obstructionlimiting surface defined in FAR Part
77 that is specified as a portion of a horizontal plane
surrounding a runway located 150 feet above the
established airport elevation. The specific horizontal
dimensions of this surface are a function of the types
of approaches existing or planned for the runway.
L
LANDSIDE: The portion of an airport that provides
the facilities necessary for the processing of passengers,
cargo, freight, and ground transportation vehicles.
LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): See
declared distances.
I
INITIAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point
at which the initial approach segment begins for an
instrument approach to a runway.
LARGE AIRPLANE: An airplane that has a maximum
certified takeoff weight in excess of 12,500 pounds.
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE: A
series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly
transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight
conditions from the beginning of the initial approach
to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may
be made visually.
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM:
A differential GPS system that provides localized
measurement correction signals to the basic GPS
signals to improve navigational accuracy integrity,
continuity, and availability.
INSTRUMENT
FLIGHT
RULES
(IFR):
Procedures for the conduct of flight in weather
conditions below Visual Flight Rules weather
minimums. The term IFR is often also used to define
weather conditions and the type of flight plan under
which an aircraft is operating.
LOCAL OPERATIONS: Aircraft operations
performed by aircraft that are based at the airport and
that operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight
of the airport, that are known to be departing for or
arriving from flights in local practice areas within a
prescribed distance from the airport, or that execute
simulated instrument approaches at the airport.
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A
precision instrument approach system which normally
LOCAL TRAFFIC: Aircraft operating in the traffic
pattern or within sight of the tower, or aircraft known
C-8
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
to be departing or arriving from the local practice
areas, or aircraft executing practice instrument
approach procedures. Typically, this includes touch
and-go training operations.
1. When the aircraft has descended to the decision
height and has not established visual contact; or
2. When directed by air traffic control to pull up or to go
around again.
LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS which
provides course guidance to the runway.
MOVEMENT AREA: The runways, taxiways,
and other areas of an airport which are utilized for
taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing
of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and parking
areas. At those airports with a tower, air traffic control
clearance is required for entry onto the movement area.
LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID
(LDA): A facility of comparable utility and accuracy
to a localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is
not aligned with the runway.
LONG RANGE NAVIGATION SYSTEM
(LORAN): Long range navigation is an electronic
navigational aid which determines aircraft position
and speed by measuring the difference in the time
of reception of synchronized pulse signals from
two fixed transmitters. Loran is used for en route
navigation.
N
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: The network
of air traffic control facilities, air traffic control areas,
and navigational facilities through the U.S.
NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT
SYSTEMS: The national airport system plan
developed by the Secretary of Transportation on
a biannual basis for the development of public use
airports to meet national air transportation needs.
LOW INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The lowest
classification in terms of intensity or brightness for lights
designated for use in delineating the sides of a runway.
M
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
BOARD: A federal government organization
established to investigate and determine the probable
cause of transportation accidents, to recommend
equipment and procedures to enhance transportation
safety, and to review on appeal the suspension or
revocation of any certificates or licenses issued by the
Secretary of Transportation.
MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS:
The middle classification in terms of intensity or
brightness for lights designated for use in delineating
the sides of a runway.
MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS):
An instrument approach and landing system that
provides precision guidance in azimuth, elevation,
and distance measurement.
NAUTICAL MILE: A unit of length used in
navigation which is equivalent to the distance spanned
by one minute of arc in latitude, that is, 1,852 meters
or 6,076 feet. It is equivalent to approximately 1.15
statute mile.
MILITARY OPERATIONS: Aircraft operations
that are performed in military aircraft.
MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): See
special-use airspace
NAVAID: A term used to describe any electrical or
visual air navigational aids, lights, signs, and associated
supporting equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc.)
MILITARY TRAINING ROUTE: An air route
depicted on aeronautical charts for the conduct of
military flight training at speeds above 250 knots.
NAVIGATIONAL AID: A facility used as, available
for use as, or designed for use as an aid to air
navigation.
MISSED APPROACH COURSE (MAC): The
flight route to be followed if, after an instrument
approach, a landing is not affected, and occurring
normally:
NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line on a map of
the airport vicinity connecting all points of the same
noise exposure level.
C-9
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
NON-DIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A beacon
transmitting nondirectional signals whereby the
pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction finding
equipment can determine his or her bearing to and
from the radio beacon and home on, or track to,
the station. When the radio beacon is installed in
conjunction with the Instrument Landing System
marker, it is normally called a Compass Locator.
NON-PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE:
A standard instrument approach procedure in which
no electronic glide slope is provided, such as VOR,
TACAN, NDB, or LOC.
centerline, indicating to the pilot that he/she is passing
over the facility and can begin final approach.
P
PILOT CONTROLLED LIGHTING: Runway
lighting systems at an airport that are controlled by
activating the microphone of a pilot on a specified
radio frequency.
PRECISION APPROACH: A standard instrument
approach procedure which provides runway
alignment and glide slope (descent) information. It is
categorized as follows:
NOTICE TO AIRMEN: A notice containing
information concerning the establishment, condition,
or change in any component of or hazard in the
National Airspace System, the
timely knowledge of which is considered essential to
personnel concerned with flight operations.
• CATEGORY I (CAT I): A precision approach
which provides for approaches with a decision
height of not less than 200 feet and visibility not
less than 1/2 mile or Runway Visual Range (RVR)
2400 (RVR 1800) with operative touchdown zone
and runway centerline lights.
O
• CATEGORY II (CAT II): A precision
approach which provides for approaches with
a decision height of not less than 100 feet and
visibility not less than 1200 feet RVR.
OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): An area on the
ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane
centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft
operations by having the area free of objects, except
for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air
navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes.
OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): The airspace
below 150 feet above the established airport elevation
and along the runway and extended runway centerline
that is required to be kept clear of all objects, except
for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located
in the OFZ because of their function, in order to
provide clearance for aircraft landing or taking off
from the runway, and for missed approaches.
ONE-ENGINE INOPERABLE SURFACE: A
surface emanating from the runway end at a slope
ratio of 62.5:1. Air carrier airports are required to
maintain a technical drawing of this surface depicting
any object penetrations by January 1, 2010.
OPERATION: The take-off, landing, or touch-andgo procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport.
OUTER MARKER (OM): An ILS navigation facility
in the terminal area navigation system located four to
seven miles from the runway edge on the extended
• CATEGORY III (CAT III): A precision approach
which provides for approaches with minima less
than Category II.
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR
(PAPI): A lighting system providing visual
approach slope guidance to aircraft during a
landing approach. It is similar to a VASI but
provides a sharper transition between the colored
indicator lights.
PRECISION APPROACH RADAR: A radar
facility in the terminal air traffic control system used
to detect and display with a high degree of accuracy
the direction, range, and elevation of an aircraft on the
final approach to a runway.
PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA (POFA): An
area centered on the extended runway centerline,
beginning at the runway threshold and extending
behind the runway threshold that is 200 feet long
by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a clearing standard
which requires the POFA to be kept clear of above
ground objects protruding above the runway safety
C-10
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
area edge elevation (except for frangible NAVAIDS).
The POFA applies to all new authorized instrument
approach procedures with less than 3/4 mile visibility.
PRIMARY AIRPORT: A commercial service airport
that enplanes at least 10,000 annual passengers.
PRIMARY SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction
limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is
specified as a rectangular surface longitudinally
centered about a runway. The specific dimensions of
this surface are a function of the types of approaches
existing or planned for the runway.
PROHIBITED AREA: See special-use airspace.
PVC: Poor visibility and ceiling. Used in determining
Annual Service Volume. PVC conditions exist when
the cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet and visibility is
less than one mile.
R
RADIAL: A navigational signal generated by a
Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range or
VORTAC station that is measured as an azimuth
from the station.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS: A statistical technique
that seeks to identify and quantify the relationships
between factors associated with a forecast.
REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET
(RCO): An unstaffed transmitter receiver/facility
remotely controlled by air traffic personnel.
RCOs serve flight service stations (FSSs). RCOs
were established to provide ground-to-ground
communications between air traffic control specialists
and pilots at satellite airports for delivering en route
clearances, issuing departure authorizations, and
acknowledging instrument flight rules cancellations
or departure/landing times.
REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR):
See remote communications outlet. RTRs serve
ARTCCs.
RELIEVER AIRPORT: An airport to serve general
aviation aircraft which might otherwise use a congested
air-carrier served airport.
RESTRICTED AREA: See special-use airspace.
RNAV: Area navigation - airborne equipment
which permits flights over determined tracks within
prescribed accuracy tolerances without the need to
overfly ground-based navigation facilities. Used en
route and for approaches to an airport.
RUNWAY: A defined rectangular area on an airport
prepared for aircraft landing and takeoff. Runways
are normally numbered in relation to their magnetic
direction, rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees. For
example, a runway with a magnetic heading of 180
would be designated Runway 18. The runway heading
on the opposite end of the runway is 180 degrees
from that runway end. For example, the opposite
runway heading for Runway 18 would be Runway 36
(magnetic heading of 360). Aircraft can takeoff or land
from either end of a runway, depending upon wind
direction.
RUNWAY ALIGNMENT INDICATOR LIGHT:
A series of high intensity sequentially flashing
lights installed on the extended centerline of the
runway usually in conjunction with an approach
lighting system.
RUNWAY DESIGN CODE: A code signifiying the
design standards to which the runway is to be built.
RUNWAY END IDENTIFICATION LIGHTING
(REIL): Two synchronized flashing lights, one on
each side of the runway threshold, which provide
rapid and positive identification of the approach end
of a particular runway.
RUNWAY GRADIENT: The average slope, measured
in percent, between the two ends of a runway.
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): An
area off the runway end to enhance the protection
of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is
trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are determined
by the aircraft approach speed and runway approach
type and minima.
RUNWAY REFERENCE CODE: A code signifying
the current operational capabilities of a runway and
associated taxiway.
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): A defined
surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable
for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the
C-11
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
conditions so controlled as to eliminate hazards to
nonparticipating aircraft and to ensure the safety of
persons or property on the ground.
event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from
the runway.
RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): An area on
the airport to be kept clear of permanent objects so that
there is an unobstructed line of- site from any point
five feet above the runway centerline to any point five
feet above an intersecting runway centerline.
• MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA):
Designated airspace with defined vertical and
lateral dimensions established outside Class A
airspace to separate/segregate certain military
activities from instrument flight rule (IFR) traffic
and to identify for visual flight rule (VFR) traffic
where these activities are conducted.
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): An
instrumentally derived value, in feet, representing the
horizontal distance a pilot can see down the runway
from the runway end.
• PROHIBITED AREA: Designated airspace
within which the flight of aircraft is prohibited.
S
• RESTRICTED AREA: Airspace designated
under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 73,
within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly
prohibited, is subject to restriction. Most restricted
areas are designated joint use. When not in use
by the using agency, IFR/VFR operations can be
authorized by the controlling air traffic control
facility.
SCOPE: The document that identifies and defines the
tasks, emphasis, and level of effort associated with a
project or study.
SEGMENTED CIRCLE: A system of visual indicators
designed to provide traffic pattern information at
airports without operating control towers.
SHOULDER: An area adjacent to the edge of paved
runways, taxiways, or aprons providing a transition
between the pavement and the adjacent surface;
support for aircraft running off the pavement;
enhanced drainage; and blast protection. The shoulder
does not necessarily need to be paved.
SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: The straight line
distance between an aircraft and a point on the ground.
SMALL AIRCRAFT: An aircraft that has a maximum
certified takeoff weight of up to 12,500 pounds.
SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: Airspace of defined
dimensions identified by a surface area wherein
activities must be confined because of their nature
and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon
aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities.
Special-use airspace classifications include:
• WARNING AREA: Airspace which may contain
hazards to nonparticipating aircraft.
STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE
(SID): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR
departure routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic
and textual form only.
STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE
PROCEDURES: A published standard flight
procedure to be utilized following takeoff to provide
a transition between the airport and the terminal area
or en route airspace.
STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL ROUTE
(STAR): A preplanned coded air traffic control IFR
arrival routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and
textual or textual form only.
• ALERT AREA: Airspace which may contain
a high volume of pilot training activities or an
unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is
hazardous to aircraft.
STOP-AND-GO: A procedure wherein an aircraft
will land, make a complete stop on the runway, and
then commence a takeoff from that point. A stop-andgo is recorded as two operations: one operation for
the landing and one operation for the takeoff.
• CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: Airspace
wherein activities are conducted under
STOPWAY: An area beyond the end of a takeoff
runway that is designed to support an aircraft during
C-12
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
an aborted takeoff without causing structural damage
to the aircraft. It is not to be used for takeoff, landing,
or taxiing by aircraft.
TETRAHEDRON: A device used as a landing
direction indicator. The small end of the tetrahedron
points in the direction of landing.
STRAIGHT-IN
LANDING/APPROACH: A
landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees
of the final approach course following completion of
an instrument approach.
THRESHOLD: The beginning of that portion of the
runway available for landing. In some instances the
landing threshold may be displaced.
T
TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (TACAN):
An ultrahigh frequency electronic air navigation
system which provides suitably-equipped aircraft a
continuous indication of bearing and distance to the
TACAN station.
TOUCH-AND-GO: An operation by an aircraft that
lands and departs on a runway without stopping or
exiting the runway. A touch-and go is recorded as
two operations: one operation for the landing and one
operation for the takeoff.
TOUCHDOWN: The point at which a landing
aircraft makes contact with the runway surface.
TOUCHDOWN AND LIFT-OFF AREA (TLOF):
A load bearing, generally paved area, normally
centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter lands
or takes off.
TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA):
See declared distances.
TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA):
See declared distances.
TAXILANE: The portion of the aircraft parking
area used for access between taxiways and aircraft
parking positions.
TAXIWAY: A defined path established for the taxiing
of aircraft from one part of an airport to another.
TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUP: A classification of
airplanes based on outer to outer Main Gear Width
(MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance.
TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): A defined
surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable
for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane
unintentionally departing the taxiway.
TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES:
Published flight procedures for conducting
instrument approaches to runways under instrument
meteorological conditions.
TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The first 3,000 feet
of the runway beginning at the threshold.
TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (TDZE):
The highest elevation in the touchdown zone.
TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHTING: Two
rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically
about the runway centerline normally at 100- foot
intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet along
the runway.
TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffic flow that is
prescribed for aircraft landing at or taking off from an
airport. The components of a typical traffic pattern are
the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base
leg, and final approach.
TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL:
An element of the air traffic control system responsible
for monitoring the en-route and terminal segment of
air traffic in the airspace surrounding airports with
moderate to high levels of air traffic.
C-13
Airport Consultants
Glossary of Terms
U
may proceed to the airport of destination in VFR
conditions.
UNCONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport without
an air traffic control tower at which the control of
Visual Flight Rules traffic is not exercised.
UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace within
which aircraft are not subject to air traffic control.
UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION (UNICOM):
A nongovernment communication facility which
may provide airport information at certain airports.
Locations and frequencies of UNICOMʼs are shown
on aeronautical charts and publications.
UPWIND LEG: A flight path parallel to the landing
runway in the direction of landing. See “traffic
pattern.”
V
VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircraft to provide
navigational guidance by radar.
VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/
OMNIDIRECTIONAL
RANGE (VOR): A groundbased electronic navigation
aid transmitting very high
frequency navigation signals,
360 degrees in azimuth,
oriented from magnetic north.
Used as the basis for navigation in the national
airspace system. The VOR periodically identifies
itself by Morse Code and may have an additional
voice identification feature.
VERY
HIGH
FREQUENCY
OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE/ TACTICAL AIR
NAVIGATION (VORTAC): A navigation aid
providing VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and
TACAN distance-measuring equipment (DME) at
one site.
VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or portion thereof
established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of
which is defined by radio navigational aids.
VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR
(VASI): An airport lighting facility providing vertical
visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during
approach to landing by radiating a directional pattern
of high intensity red and white focused light beams
which indicate to the pilot that he is on path if he sees
red/white, above path if white/white, and below path
if red/red. Some airports serving large aircraft have
three-bar VASIʼs which provide two visual guide
paths to the same runway.
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that
govern the procedures for conducting flight under
visual conditions. The term VFR is also used in the
United States to indicate weather conditions that are
equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements.
In addition, it is used by pilots and controllers to
indicate type of flight plan.
VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS:
Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of
specific visibility and ceiling conditions which are
equal to or greater than the threshold values for
instrument meteorological conditions.
VOR: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range Station.”
VORTAC: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range Station/Tactical Air Navigation.”
W
WARNING AREA: See special-use airspace.
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: An
enhancement of the Global Positioning System that
includes integrity broadcasts, differential corrections,
and additional ranging signals for the purpose of
providing the accuracy, integrity, availability, and
continuity required to support all phases of flight.
VISUAL APPROACH: An approach wherein an
aircraft on an IFR flight plan, operating in VFR
conditions under the control of an air traffic control
facility and having an air traffic control authorization,
C-14
Airport Consultants
Abbreviations
AC: advisory circular
AWOS: automatic weather observation station
ADF: automatic direction finder
BRL: building restriction line
ADG: airplane design group
CFR: Code of Federal Regulation
AFSS: automated flight service station
CIP: capital improvement program
AGL: above ground level
DME: distance measuring equipment
AIA: annual instrument approach
DNL: day-night noise level
AIP: Airport Improvement Program
DWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircraft
with dual-wheel type landing gear
AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century
DTWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircraft
with dual-tandem type landing gear
ALS: approach lighting system
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach
lighting system with sequenced flashers
(CAT I configuration)
FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation
FBO: fixed base operator
ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach
lighting system with sequenced flashers
(CAT II configuration)
FY: fiscal year
GPS: global positioning system
AOA: Aircraft Operation Area
GS: glide slope
APV: instrument approach procedure with vertical
guidance
HIRL: high intensity runway edge lighting
ARC: airport reference code
IFR: instrument flight rules (FAR Part 91)
ARFF: aircraft rescue and fire fighting
ILS: instrument landing system
ARP: airport reference point
IM: inner marker
ARTCC: air route traffic control center
LDA: localizer type directional aid
ASDA: accelerate-stop distance available
LDA: landing distance available
ASR: airport surveillance radar
LIRL: low intensity runway edge lighting
ASOS: automated surface observation station
LMM: compass locator at middle marker
ATCT: airport traffic control tower
LOM: compass locator at outer marker
ATIS: automated terminal information service
LORAN: long range navigation
AVGAS: aviation gasoline - typically 100 low lead (100LL)
C-15
Airport Consultants
Abbreviations
MALS: medium intensity approach lighting system
with indicator lights
PVASI: pulsating/steady visual approach slope indicator
PVC: poor visibility and ceiling
MIRL: medium intensity runway edge lighting
RCO: remote communications outlet
MITL: medium intensity taxiway edge lighting
RRC: Runway Reference Code
MLS: microwave landing system
RDC: Runway Design Code
MM: middle marker
REIL: runway end identification lighting
MOA: military operations area
RNAV: area navigation
MSL: mean sea level
RPZ: runway protection zone
NAVAID: navigational aid
RSA: runway safety area
NDB: nondirectional radio beacon
RTR: remote transmitter/receiver
NM: nautical mile (6,076.1 feet)
RVR: runway visibility range
NPES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
RVZ: runway visibility zone
NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
SALS: short approach lighting system
NPRM: notice of proposed rule making
SASP: state aviation system plan
ODALS: omnidirectional approach lighting system
SEL: sound exposure level
OFA: object free area
SID: standard instrument departure
OFZ: obstacle free zone
SM: statute mile (5,280 feet)
OM: outer marker
SRE: snow removal equipment
PAC: planning advisory committee
SSALF: simplified short approach lighting system
with runway alignment indicator lights
PAPI: precision approach path indicator
STAR: standard terminal arrival route
PFC: porous friction course
PFC: passenger facility charge
SWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft
with single-wheel tandem type landing gear
PCL: pilot-controlled lighting
TACAN: tactical air navigational aid
PIW public information workshop
TAF:
Federal Aviation Administration
Terminal Area Forecast
(FAA)
PLASI: pulsating visual approach slope indicator
TDG: Taxiway Design Group
POFA: precision object free area
C-16
Airport Consultants
Abbreviations
TLOF: Touchdown and lift-off
TDZ: touchdown zone
TDZE: touchdown zone elevation
TODA: takeoff distance available
TORA: takeoff runway available
TRACON: terminal radar approach control
VASI: visual approach slope indicator
VFR: visual flight rules (FAR Part 91)
VHF: very high frequency
VOR: very high frequency omni-directional range
VORTAC: VOR and TACAN collocated
C-17
Airport Consultants
Airport Consultants
www.coffmanassociates.com
KANSAS CITY
(816) 524-3500
PHOENIX
(602) 993-6999
237 N.W. Blue Parkway
Suite 100
Lee's Summit, MO 64063
4835 E. Cactus Road
Suite 235
Scottsdale, AZ 85254

2014 TIA General Aviation Strategic Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

brochure - Aliserio – Bizjet Maintenance

IFR Mastery #2: Circling Approach vs Tailwind?

HOTEL ETOILE PEREIRE

Lodging copy_revised dates

Aeroportos do Brasil_eng

Free Aviation Employment Workshop for Veterans

Nassau, Bahamas

AIRMAN`S INFORMATiON MANUAL

Fields FIDAE

x 32′ Hangars for Sale