Combining Mixed-Use Flight Operations Safely at Airports (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

The objective of this study is to document literature, experiences, and practices in safely accommodating mixed-use aeronautical activity at airports. Mixed-use aeronautical activity refers to the different categories of aircraft a public-use airport is intended to accommodate in compliance with FAA sponsor assurances. These categories include gliders, helicopters, ultralight vehicles, balloons, airships, blimps, skydiving, aerial applications for agriculture and firefighting, banner towing, aerobatic practice, and similar flight operations. Also dis- cussed are unmanned aircraft systems and radio-controlled model aircraft activity that take place on an airport and can become part of the mix of an airport’s operation. Not discussed are seaplane operations; a separate report is referenced. This report is intended to serve as an informative document for those airport operators and policymakers who seek information about how other airports have safely accommodated mixed-use flight activity on their airport. The basic premise behind an airport being open to the public is that the airport will make reasonable accommodations for all types of aero- nautical activities. Safety, of course, is paramount. Case examples are presented to illustrate the experiences of airport operators in accommodating users safely and efficiently. The information in this report helps an airport operator to understand better the operational characteristics and needs of the various mixed aeronautical uses, especially for airports without air traffic control tower operation (i.e., uncontrolled airports). In accommodating mixed-use operations, an airport is challenged in two ways—with operational accommodation in the local airspace and runway environment, and with ground operational and logistical accommodation on the airfield. This report provides insight into both aspects for the various mixed-use aeronautical oper- ations discussed. It centers on the normal integration of various aeronautical activities into an airport’s daily operations, rather than the conduct of a special event. The report is divided into chapters that contain specific information about a particular aeronautical activity. However, general background information is contained in the first four chapters, laying a foundation for understanding any one particular aeronautical chapter. Readers are encouraged to read the background information in chapters one through four before reading a chapter of particular aeronautical interest. Thirty-six airports and six state aviation offices either self-selected to participate in the study or responded to interview requests, resulting in 100% participation. The different types of aeronautical activities can have operating characteristics that place unique demands on airport users and operators. An airport operator’s unfamiliarity with the operating characteristics of a proposed aeronautical activity can result in less than optimum actions by the airport to accommodate that activity. The results can have legal, economic, social, and operational consequences. This synthesis seeks to inform airport operators, officials, and users about the different operating characteristics and airport needs of various aeronautical activities. The need for operational integration is recognized because the various aeronautical activities have the same standing in the eyes of the FAA. A basic premise the FAA and courts have asserted about aeronautical activities is: If a pilot is conducting the activity in accordance with FAA regulations, then the operator and the operation are presumed to be operating in a safe manner. Summary Combining mixed-uSe Flight operationS SaFely at airportS

2 An aeronautical user is entitled to the same rights, privileges, and protections as any other type of aeronautical user. The FAA has stated in a number of circumstances that arguments to preclude a particular aeronautical activity could easily be ascribed to any other aeronautical activity. A pre- clusion would be viewed as granting exclusive rights to the other aeronautical activities. Aeronautical users have equal rights to access the airspace under federal law. Too often, airport operators do not fully understand the sponsor assurance requirements to which they agree when they accept federal assistance. In particular, in exchange for the assistance and as part of their public use purpose, airport sponsors agree to make the airport available to all aeronautical users on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. The consequences of failing to allow an aeronautical activity on an airport have resulted in the FAA suspending the award of Airport Improvement Program funds to airports that have not properly explored alternatives for accommodating the activity. The airport operator can limit certain aeronautical activity, but only with the approval of the FAA. This report describes FAA policy decisions and directives resulting from informal and formal complaints that various aeronautical users have lodged against airports resulting from access restrictions. Differences of opinion can exist between aeronautical users and airport management as to whether certain practices are safe, as evidenced by numerous contentions disclosed in the literature review. For this reason, airports with effective mixed-use flight operations typically publish minimum stan- dards, operations rules, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) to enhance safety and as a means to mitigate contentions. Additionally, requesting or conducting informed safety assessments or analyses can further mitigate disagreements. This study found that many airports do not have minimum standards or rules and regulations in place that address the possibility of a future aeronautical user request. SOPs, rules and regulations, and minimum standards are all means to enhance safety at an airport. Implicit in the development of standards is the open communication and participation of stakeholders in the development process. As the study found, the development of SOPs and rules and regulations have little value if they are not well communicated and consistently upheld. Another finding from the study is that the FAA expects airport operators to be proactive in their efforts to accommodate various aeronautical users. Two airports were found to have conducted inde- pendent safety risk assessments to help them explore ways to safely accommodate various users, or to justify their reason for precluding a particular operation. The FAA administrative determinations provide ample history and delineation of what arguments can and cannot be used when responding to an aeronautical user’s request for access to the airport (see chapter two). Information for this report was derived largely from a review of literature; the administration of a generalized survey to selected airports; and interviews with various airport operators, state aviation organizations, and regional or national associations. Resource references are provided for those seeking more in-depth information.