 |
  |
|
(from an email to Evergreen Soaring members from Brian Hood)
ES members:
As many have heard, we have a situation at Arlington. Following is my understanding of that situation; please understand there may be (will be) errors and omissions in this document, but I felt it was important to get the information out quickly as time is critical.
The Basics:
The FAA does not like the location of our operation there. They are putting pressure on KAWO to resolve the separation issues that exist between the glider and the power traffic, and have suggested that a new glider strip be built to the west of 16/34. In addition, the KAWO management very much wants to install upgraded landing systems that would not allow us to operate from the current grass strip, and the FAA has made it clear that will not be allowed with the gliders as they are. So there is pressure both internal and external on the KAWO management to move us to another location. Both the FAA and KAWO appear to want us to stay, but do not seem to understand what we do or what we need.
The Details:
A couple of months ago we were notified that the FAA (the ADO to be exact) had brought up objections to our glider operation in their review of the proposed KAWO master plan. Specifically they had three objections:
2) They have determined that we are doing simultaneous operations with power traffic, specifically when landing.
3) That our ground operation put people in the object free area contrary to regulations.
Neal Karman put together a very articulate response to each of the FAA’s concerns and had an offline conversation with a contact at the FAA that was well received. We thought we had dodged a bullet and would make it through the master plan process without changes to our operation. Two weeks ago the airport received a letter from the ADO that blew away that brief moment of optimism. Basically the FAA Safety Office has raised concerns with the Arlington airport management about the glider operation being in potential conflict with 16/34 traffic and more specifically instrument approaches on 34. If you consider our location we intrude into the minimum separation zone of two parallel runways. We’ve always considered ourselves to be part of a single runway comprised of the paved section, the grass power strip, and our glider strip. The FAA begs to differ. In the last FAA letter a suggestion was made to build a new glider runway west of the paved strip as one way to provide lateral separation. Clearly this doesn’t make much sense for traffic separation as it would require us to cross the 16/34 centerline on both departure and landing if we maintain our “gliders east and power west” traffic patterns. Anyway, it was just a suggestion, not an order at this point.
The airport plans to put in a precision approach infrastructure with lower minimums for IFR operations. The approach brings with it a 24/7 700’ object free area that will put our operation in violation of FAA regulations. At some point we’re going to have to move. The question is where. The silver lining is that the airport wants to keep us and is willing to incorporate a glider operation into their master plan. Also, the FAA has stated that they are willing to put serious money behind building a new glider strip at the airport. The airport had their consultants draw up some potential alternative locations and pattern options for a glider strip. (You’ll notice the first sheet of each option shows the proposed runway and the second sheet shows associated traffic patterns)
The first option is simply what we’re doing now. It’s not an option, just a starting point.
The second option puts the gliders on 16/34 (nobody is seriously proposing this).
The third and fourth options put a glider strip in the center of the airport running parallel to 16/34.
The fifth option puts combined the glider strip with the current ultralight strip.
There was also talk about the possibility of building a glider strip off-airport. The airport is open to this idea but there are big questions about its feasibility and no one has approached the FAA about funding it.
The airport is looking for input and ideas from the glider community. They want to hold a public meeting with all the airport users in January and submit their latest draft of the master plan to the FAA in February. The impression is that the airport is sympathetic up to a point. If we negotiate intelligently, we may come away with a serviceable landing strip at KAWO that will institutionalize our presence there and get the FAA off our backs. Currently ES is responding to this by exploring the various options: Keith Turner, Stan Kasprzyk, Ron Bellamy, and others are evaluating the five options suggested by the KAWO consultants. The original group is pursuing other options as they see them; this group consists of Fred representing the club along with Bruce Bulloch our SSA governor, plus Steve Northcraft, Jim Simmons, and Neil Karman who collectively have much experience dealing with the FAA. The SSA is aware and may be called upon if things start getting political.
OK, that is how I understand things at this point, and I’m sure there will be some corrections. Please be ready to attend the January meeting and in the meantime I will try to keep everyone posted with information as things develop.
Brian Hood
Here are two other documents referred to in the letter from the ADO:
AC No: 150/5300-13 Subject: AIRPORT DESIGN
(Update from Brian Hood on the situation at AWO, email 2/4/2010)
The current situation is as follows: A very capable working group studied the proposed alternative locations for a glider operation at AWO, and from that a comprehensive report was put together and submitted to the Arlington Airport Commissioners along with a verbal presentation at their monthly meeting. The public comments made at that meeting were 100% in favor of keeping the glider operation in it's current location.
About 10 days later another meeting was held at the airport offices with representatives from various airport users; there were 18 people at the meeting. The helicopter, ultralight, Out Of the Blue, Aviation Repair, and other organizations all had people there. Once again the support for maintaining the current operation as-is was 100%.
The next step was to be a meeting with representatives from the FAA to hear their response and the get more information from them. All of the information gathered and the overall response from the airport groups was conveyed to them, along with a proposal: that gliders would continue to operate as they do now but not be permitted to operate at all during IFR conditions or where the ceiling was 1,600' or lower. The meeting was scheduled for the middle of February; however yesterday the FAA postponed the meeting. The stated reason was "that they have been having some internal meetings with Flight Safety and are working on a proposal to keep the gliders on the east side of 16/34, and they are hoping to have something soon for us to review".
Stay tuned,
Brian