HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021.01.07 AAC Agenda
Airport Advisory Committee
AGENDA
Thursday, January 7, 2021 - 12:00 PM
VIRTUAL MEETING – SEE INFORMATION BELOW
1. Public Comment
2. Approval of the minutes from the December 4 Regular Meeting (Action Item)
3. Recommendation for the expiring term of Charles Jones (Action Item)
4. AIP 30 - East-West Taxiway Update (Information Item)
5. AIP 28 – Airport Master Plan (Information Item)
6. Hangar Waiting List Update (Information Item)
7. Airport Advisory Annual Report (Information Item)
8. Three-month calendar review (Information Item)
9. Items for Future Committee Agendas
10. Motion to Adjourn
Next Regular Meeting Thursday, February 4, 2021 at noon
COVID-19 - ANNOUNCEMENT:
Due to McCall’s commitment to stay healthy in response to the COVID-19 Emergency and ensuring that
the City’s Business continues, this will be a teleconference meeting.
To attend via computer: link on email invitation
To attend via telephone: : +1 208-634-8900 Conference ID: 132 737 176#
City of McCall – Airport Advisory Committee (AAC)
Meeting Minutes
December 4, 2020
Virtual TEAMS Meeting
AAC Members Present: Mike Weiss (Chair), Charles Jones, Rick Fereday, Mark Thorien
Staff: Richard M. Stein, Airport Manager
Others: Karyn Janiak (Sawtooth), Russ Stromberg, and Karen Didisse (Hangar Owners), Kevin Bissell and
Wayne Reiter (T-O Engineers), Laura Scott (McCall Aviation),
Mike Weiss the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
Public comment: Ms. Janiak spoke about the following items:
1. Ms. Janiak stated that the number of tie-downs shown on the E-W taxiway drawing may be
insufficient for summertime transient parking.
Ms. Scott mentioned additional hangars, and agreed with Ms. Janiak’s statement, above.
Approval of Minutes from November 2020: The November 5, 2020 regular meeting amended minutes
were presented for review. Ms. Janiak requested that her item #3 from the minutes be corrected. Rick
Fereday proposed approval with corrections, and Charles Jones seconded accepting the minutes. All
approved.
Airport Rates and Charges (Action Item): Staff provided information on proposed Airport Rates and
Charges. Member Jones stated that the $50 fee for lease termination duplicated the new lease charge.
Member Jones requested that the fee be removed. Member Fereday agreed.
Member Fereday requested additional information concerning the $150 fee for Airport Plan Review on
new construction. Staff explained the reasoning.
Chair Weiss motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the Airport Rates and Charges, with the
nd
modification of removing the Lease Cancellation fee. Mark Thorien provided a 2. The vote was 4-1 to
recommend.
New East-West Taxiway Alternatives: Mr. Bissell provided an updated status report. A virtual attendee
questioned if the E-W Taxiway will be built as shown on the drawings. Yes, the taxiway location has been
set. Mr. Bissell also stated that the taxiway project will be able to be designed and built for under the
$1.5 million possible funding amount provide by the FAA’s AIP program.
AIP 28 – Airport Master Plan Wayne Reiter presented information on the Airport Master Plan. The FAA
has approved the findings of Chapter 4: Aviation Forecasts.
Three-month calendar review:
Date: Meeting:
Dec 25 Christmas (City offices closed)
Jan 1 New Year’s Day (City offices closed)
Jan 7 AAC meeting
Feb 4 AAC meeting
Mar 4 AAC meeting
July 4 Airport Open House
Items for Future Committee Agendas: Airport Staff provided information the Member Jones’ AAC
appointment will expire on Dec. 31, 2020. Also, Member Thorian’s appointment will expire on March 31,
2020.
Motion to Adjourn: A motion to adjourn was made by Rick Fereday, seconded by Charles Jones. All
voted in favor.
Date Signed: Attest:
____________________________ ____________________
Committee Chairperson, Airport Manager,
Mike Weiss Richard M. Stein, AAE
TO: Airport Advisory Committee
FROM: Richard M. Stein, AAE
Airport Manager
SUBJECT: Expiring term of Charles Jones
The term of Committee Member Charles Jones expired on 12/31/20.
The Airport Advisory Committee is established pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-210, to
advise and make recommendations to the McCall City Council on matters pertaining to the
safety, operation, and maintenance of the McCall Municipal Airport. The position of Mike Weiss
expired, and was position advertised in the Star-News for two weeks as required by City Code.
Three (3) individuals requested consideration for the appointment. Charles Jones (incumbent),
Mike Chapman, David Robey and Tony Moss. Jeff Edwards also expressed interest – however,
Mr. Edwards did not meet the requirement of being a City of McCall resident.
Staff requests a recommendation to City Council for a citizen to fulfill the seat on the
Committee.
The next term expiration is of Member Thorian, whose term expires on March 31, 2021.
Attachments:
Email from Mr. Jones
Email from Mr. Robley
Email from Mr. Chapman
CV from Mr. Edwards
December 23, 2020
BessieJo Wagner
City Clerk, McCall Idaho
Richard Stein
Airport Manager, McCall Airport
This email is to indicate my interest in pursuing a second term on the McCall Airport Advisory Council (AAC).
I continue to enjoy enthusiasm for the community of McCall and the McCall Airport. I am a local hanger owner and I own and
operate several aircraft that are based at the McCall Airport. I’m a full time resident of McCall. My passed experience
regarding this position encompasses 10 years on the Driggs Idaho Airport Advisory Board and my current 3 year term on the
McCall Airport AAC.
I’m a semi-retired businessman, my experience as a business owner with 6000 hours of business aviation have contributed
to a growing interest in airport management. Flying for business has afforded me the the opportunity to visit airports across
the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Living in McCall has opened the world of backcountry flying to me as well. McCall
Airport enjoys a mixture of corporate, charter, and private aviation. All three are of vital importance to the economic growth
of McCall.
I’m looking forward to my continued contribution to the community of McCall and the McCall Airport AAC.
Thank you for considering me as a continued member of the McCall AAC.
Sincerely,
Charles Jones
PO Box 1050
McCall ID 83638
Ph 916-717-1110
From: David Robey <dwrobey@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 1:28 PM
To: BessieJo Wagner <bwagner@mccall.id.us>
Cc: Mike Weiss <mikeweiss45@gmail.com>
Subject: McCall Airport Advisory Committee Application
--- This email is from an external sender. Be cautious and DO NOT open links or attachments if the
sender is unknown. ---
Ms Wagner,
Good afternoon. I am applying to fill a position on the McCall Airport Committee. Since 2009 I have
been a full time resident of McCall, having moved here after retiring with 30 years of service in the US
Navy. While in the Navy I was an aircraft Flight Navigator and accumulated over 4000 hours flight
experience culminating as a Squadron Commanding Officer. The Navy offered me numerous high level
staff positions requiring critical thinking and problem solving within staff positions that I view as a
positive skill set for this position. Post Navy employment has me serving as a program director for a
national non profit operating across 38 states. My local involvement in MCall has included me in the
past serving on the city Environmental Advisory Committee. I am currently in the local Rotary, American
Legion, McCall Aviation Club, and am the training officer for the AWeSOMe ( adaptive ski
program). Mike Weiss was my flight instructor this past year and was instrumental in my earning my
pilot license. Hopefully my experiences can be of value to the committee. I'd be glad to answer further
questions.
Respectfully, dave robey
dwrobey@gmail.com
703 717 1224
PO Box 4671, McCall, ID 83638
--
Dave Robey
From: Mike Chapman <mike@flyingbrokers.com>
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 9:14 PM
To: BessieJo Wagner <bwagner@mccall.id.us>
Subject: Letter of Interest McCall Airport Advisory Committee
--- This email is from an external sender. Be cautious and DO NOT open links or attachments if the
sender is unknown. ---
Bessie Jo,
I am interested in the position on the McCall Airport Advisory Committee.
As a member of the Committee I would like to bring a logical approach with
consistent focus on Safety, Economic Viability and Fiscal Responsibility.
I Personally know most of the Pilots and Businesses currently based at KMYL
(Commercial, General Aviation & Forest Service) as well as numerous regional
pilots and flight services that utilize our airport. I believe their Extensive
Experience and Input should be a high priority in consideration of how the
Airport should be managed and developed. I would like to help represent these
groups and continue giving back to our community.
Aviation is a significant part of McCall and the Airport is an important economic
asset.
Background
McCall Resident for 20 years
Licensed Real Estate Broker for 30 years (Idaho & Colorado)
Owner/Broker Crosswind Landing, Inc. DBA Flying Brokers
Sell Fly-In BackCountry Properties and Hangars as part of my Real Estate
Business
Current Managing Board Member of Mountain Central Board of Realtors
Past Volunteer Ski Instructor and Fund Raiser for The Little Ski Hill
Created the “Sponsor A Skier” program for the Payette Lakes Ski Club
Past President and Board Member for Payette River Subdivision No. 2 Home
Owners Association
Past Board Member/Fund Raiser of The Sheppard’s Home
Past Volunteer Pilot for Wilderness Within Reach Program
BS Engineering Degree Tulane University New Orleans Louisiana Major: Civil
Engineering w/Management, Accounting & Business Administration
Resident Steamboat Springs, Colorado for 28 years
Owned and operated Above The Crowd In Steamboat, LLC DBA Re/Max
Steamboat
Owned and operated STR Automotive Center Steamboat Springs, Colorado
Volunteer Ski Coach Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club. Focus Alpine Ski
Racing
Advanced EMT Steamboat Springs Ambulance and Professional Ski Patroller
Steamboat, CO & Alta, UT
Construction Background building Custom Homes in Steamboat Springs,
Colorado
Aviation Experience
Leaned to fly at KFFL Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport when I
was in High School.
Flew two different Aircraft based at Steamboat Springs Municipal Airport
(Cessna 182B & Cessna TU206G)
Past member of the CAP Civil Air Patrol, Steamboat Springs Squadron Primary
Focus Search And Rescue
Currently own and fly an American Champion 8GCBC Scout based at the McCall
Municipal Airport
Flown aircraft in the Lower 48, Alaska, and the Idaho BackCountry.
Current Private Pilot
Licensed Aircraft Mechanic
Member AOPA, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Built and currently utilize a hangar at the McCall Municipal Airport for last 20
years
Personal References/Letters of Recommendation on request
Thank you for the consideration,
Michael S. Chapman
W. Jeffrey Edwards, Ph.D.
W. Jeffrey Edwards, Ph.D.
PROFESSIONAL & EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
1976 B.A., Miami University
1984 M.A., Ohio State University
2017 Ph.D., Saint Louis University
1976-1993 United States Naval Officer
1993-1997 Senior Project Engineer, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
1997-Pres President, Aviation Safety Consulting Services, LLC.
Related Experience
Aircraft Accident Reconstruction
Aircraft Accident Investigator
Military Aircraft Mishap Investigator in Charge
Part 135 Corporate Pilot
FAA Designated Pilot Examiner
Flight Instructor
Adjunct Instructor
United States Naval Officer
A-6 Bombardier/Navigator
Aviation Safety Officer
Aviation Safety Program Manager
Squadron Maintenance Officer
Aircraft Accident and Mishap Investigation
U.S. Naval Safety Center aircraft accident investigator. While there directed
major Navy and Marine Corps aircraft mishap investigations. As investigator in
charge (IIC) of mishap investigations was intimately involved in the salvage,
recovery and investigation of military aircraft downed at sea, lost in remote
jungle locations, and crashed on Antarctic glaciers. Some investigations
included: CH-53D mishap in Somalia; HH-1N controlled flight into terrain in
Antartica; F/A-18 mishap total hydraulic failure of prompting a U. S. Navy
airframes bulletin and major reliability improvements to the F/A-18 fleet; F/A-
18 controlled flight into terrain while using night vision goggles (one of three
NVG accidents); F/A-18 General Electric GE-404 catastrophic engine failure; a
main rotor blade failure on AH-1W Cobra attack helicopter.
McDonnell Douglas/ Boeing aircraft accident investigator responsible for
aircraft accident investigations of MDA aerospace products including all fighter,
attack and training aircraft (F-15, F/A-18, T-45 and AV-8B). Some investigations
included: F-15A engine fire; F-15E bleed air failure, pilot shut down wrong
engine. AV-8B bomb to bomb collision during weapon release. McDonnell
Douglas MDA representative to NTSB investigations of 1997 Miami Fine Air DC-8
Cargo crash; 1996 Miami, Florida Valujet accident; 1995 ATI DC-8 Kansas City
accident investigation and 1994 TWA MD-80 runway incursion accident
investigation in St. Louis.
Aircraft Mishap Reconstruction expert for defense of Captains Richard Ashby
and Joseph Schweitzer, USMC. Conducted reconstruction of mishap flight and
government investigation of Marine EA-6B that struck a ski gondola in Cavalese,
Italy in 1998. Testimony and evidence led to an acquittal of all principal charges
against Captain Ashby and dismissal of charges against Captain Schweitzer.
Aviation Safety Program Management
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA) Flight Safety Specialist and Aircraft
Accident Investigator. Assisted MDA in flight safety role by evaluating risk
associated with flight operations, air crew training, maintenance procedures
and ramp operations and recommending corrective action to
William J. Edwards Page 2 10/7/2020
management. Conducted semi annual risk management reviews of all areas
impacting flight and ramp safety. Responsible for multi-site operations relating
to aviation safety. Worked daily with MDA flight operations department and the
government flight representatives to ensure aircraft operations were
procedurally complaint with federal and state regulations.
As military squadron safety officer, was responsible for program management
of all aviation safety related aspects of 300 man, fourteen aircraft squadron.
Advised squadron commander on all issues related to operational risk
management and aviation safety. Performed semi annual standardization
training, tests and flight checks of all air crew. Performed annual instrument
training and instrument check rides for all air crew. Managed monthly air crew
lecture training series. Ensured all air crew were current, recent and proficient
for all missions assigned. As Squadron Aviation Safety Officer led FOD reduction
efforts and reduced squadron's annual FOD rate from six to zero, saving over
$330,000 in reportable repair costs in one year. Attained four-year and over
17,000 flight hours aviation mishap free status.
Participated in the drafting of FAA Advisory Circular 90-109 Airmen Transition to
Experimental or Unfamiliar Airplanes and AC 90-116 Additional Pilot Program
for Phase I Flight Test.
Professional Flight Experience
Over 9,000 total hours. Former FAA Designated Pilot Examiner, former
Corporate Pilot flying Part 135. Rated Airline Transport Pilot (Multi engine),
Commercial/Instrument Airplane Single Engine Land Sea, Commercial Glider,
Certified Flight Instructor, Certified Flight Instructor (Instruments), Multi Engine
Flight Instructor. FAA Aviation Safety Counselor. Qualified
Bombardier/Navigator, Airwing Strike Leader, Mission Commander, Instrument
Flight Instructor, NATOPS Evaluator, Functional Check Flight Crew (A6E/KA6D).
EAA Flight Advisor. Former skydive drop zone pilot.
Designated Master Flight Instructor by National Association of Flight Instructors.
Current primary through advanced flight instructor providing personalized flight
instruction to executive level professionals. President and founder of the
Lancair Owners and Builders Organization (LOBO). Cirrus CSIP instructor. Former
Bonanza & Baron/ Travelair Pilot Proficiency Program instructor with American
Bonanza Society. Former Greater St. Louis Flight Instructor Association director.
Founder and Vice President Midwest Aviation Conference and Trade Show. FAA
National Instructor Safety Council member. Member General Aviation Joint
Steering Committee SAT team, member General Aviation Joint Steering
Committee EXP-AB sub committee. Member SAFE Aviation Educators Panel.
Aviation Author and Lecturer
Author of aviation safety articles that have appeared in a variety of aviation
journals and magazines. Author of a safety column for American Bonanza
Society Magazine. Contributor to IFR, Approach, Aviation Consumer and
Aviation Safety magazines. Lecturer on aviation safety topics for American
Bonanza Society and FAA accident prevention counseling programs.
Former Adjunct Instructor at St. Louis University teaching the Accident
Investigation course at the graduate level.
Systems Safety Management
Naval Safety Center Systems Safety Program Manager for all Flight Incident
Recording Systems development deployed on U. S. Navy and Marine Corps
aircraft. Sponsored systems safety working group on Flight Incident Recording
Systems. Authored U. S. Military Tri-Service Agreement for development of
Flight Incident Recording Systems playback stations.
Worked a number of system safety mini tasks at MDA. Developed Subsystem
Hazard Analysis for F/A-18 Electro Optical Test Set. Hazard Analysis assisted
design team in producing safe operating standards for equipment. Performed
initial engine trade study for Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) team. Assisted in two
Foreign Military Sales training programs that conducted system safety training
of customer engineers. Performed hazard analysis of "through canopy" ejection
injuries. Analysis assisted design team in developing a safe back up ejection
system for the F-15.
Aviation Maintenance
A-6 Intruder squadron maintenance officer responsible for maintenance of
fourteen combat ready aircraft. 300 man maintenance department performed
organizational level repairs to premier Navy attack aircraft aboard USS Forrestal
deployed to Sixth Fleet in support of NATO operations. Over ten years
experience in a variety of Naval aviation maintenance management positions.
William J. Edwards Page 3 10/7/2020
Certified FAA aircraft repairman. Built and test flew experimental Lancair IVP – a
complex high performance pressurized aircraft. Over five thousand man-hours
spent completing project. Built and flew Lancair Evolution.
Aviation Education
Graduate, U.S. Navy Naval Flight Officer Training School. Graduate of Aviation
Safety Officer Course, Naval Post Graduate School. Graduate of Armed Forces
Staff College. Completed University of Southern California/ U.S. Air Force
Accident Investigation Course, U.S. Air Force Jet Engine Mishap Investigation
Course, FAA/ Bell Helicopter Accident Investigation Course, Naval Aviation
Quality Assurance Administration Course, U.S. Navy Catapult and Arresting Gear
Officer Course, U.S. Navy Shipboard Fire fighting Course, McDonnell Douglas
FAA Airframes and Powerplant (A&P) Course, and U.S. Navy Strike Leader
Attack Training School, Miami University Psychology and Meteorology
Coursework, and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Human Factors Course.
HFACS and HFIX Course.
Awards
2003 National Certificated Flight Instructor of the Year, 2014 FAA Central Region
FAA Safety Team Rep of the Year, 2003 FAA Central Region Flight Instructor of
the Year. 2003 FAA St. Louis Flight Standards District Office Aviation Safety
Counselor of the Year. 2005 Sun N Fun Best Composite Homebuilt, 2016 Society
of Experimental Test Pilots Spirit of Flight Award.
Publications
Jeff Edwards, Time to Say Farewell LOBO eNews, July 2019
Jeff Edwards, Be a Good Neighbor LOBO eNews, July 2019
Jeff Edwards, Are You on Automatic Pilot LOBO eNews, May 2019
Jeff Edwards, Who’s the PIC? LOBO eNews, May 2019
Jeff Edwards, Safety Review LOBO eNews, January 2019
Jeff Edwards, Simulators for Lancair Training LOBO eNews, January 2019
Jeff Edwards, Installing AmSafe Airbag Seatbelts, LOBO eNews, January 2019
Jeff Edwards, Is it Airworthy?, LOBO eNews, August 2018
Jeff Edwards, 2018 Safety Review What’s Your Plan for 2019?, LOBO eNews,
August 2018
Jeff Edwards, Moving Up or Down in the Aircraft Market, LOBO eNews, August
2018
Jeff Edwards, Is it Airworthy?, LOBO eNews, August 2018
Jeff Edwards, Low and Fast: Is It Safe and Is It Legal?, LOBO eNews, August 2018
Jeff Edwards, Is a "Safety Culture" Possible in the Lancair Community?, LOBO
eNews, May 2018
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, December 2017
Jeff Edwards, Summer Flying Challenges, LOBO eNews, July 2017
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, April 2017
William J. Edwards Page 4 10/7/2020
Jeff Edwards, In Support of the NTSB, in Letters to the Editor, EAA Sport
Aviation, March 2017
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, December 2016
Jeff Edwards, Procedures and Safety, LOBO eNews, December 2016
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, July 2016
Jeff Edwards, Props to your Prop, LOBO eNews, April 2016
Jeff Edwards, PT6 Pump Problems, LOBO eNews, April 2016
Jeff Edwards, LOBO Update Apr 2016, LOBO eNews, April 2016
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, January 2016
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, September 2015
Jeff Edwards, Airplanes and Whales and Bears, Oh My!, LOBO eNews,
September 2015
Edwards, William Jeffrey "Jeff" (2015) "The Efficacy of Aircraft Type Club
Safety," Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering: Vol. 5: Iss. 1, Article 2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1115
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, May 2015
Jeff Edwards, This and That Around the Patch, LOBO eNews, May 2015
Jeff Edwards, Are You Baffled? LOBO eNews February 2015
Jeff Edwards, 2014 Not a Good Year for Lancairs, LOBO eNews, February 2015
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, February 2015
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, November 2014
Jeff Edwards, Changing Evolution Batteries, LOBO eNews, May 2014
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, July 2014
Edwards, William Jeffrey "Jeff" (2014) "Loss of Control and Instrument
Proficiency: A Case Study of a GA Pilot’s Loss of Control While Operating in
Instrument Meteorological Conditions," Journal of Aviation Technology and
Engineering: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1095
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, May 2014
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, March 2014 Jeff Edwards, IPC
Dilemma: Is the System Broken? SAFE Aviation Safety Magazine,Winter 2014
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO eNews, January 2014
Jeff Edwards, From the President, The Year in Safety and Logging Instrument
Time , LOBO eNews, December 2013
William J. Edwards Page 5 10/7/2020
Jeff Edwards, From the President, and Evolution Windows, LOBO News,
September 2013, Vol. 5, Issue 4
Jeff Edwards, From the President, and Training Issues, LOBO News, July 2013,
Vol. 5, Issue 3
Jeff Edwards, From the President, Safety Brief, and Setting Records, LOBO News,
April 2013, Vol. 5, Issue 2
Jeff Edwards, From the President and To Stall or Not, LOBO News, February
2013, Vol. 5, Issue 1
Jeff Edwards, Speaking Up, Flying Magazine, October 2012, 34.
R. Brooks, J. Edwards, J. Kochan, P. Ransbury, R. Stowell, Maintaining Aircraft
Control, SAFE Society of Aviation and Flight Educators, June 2012
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO News, May 2012, Vol. 4, Issue 2
Jeff Edwards, Finding the Right Instructor, Flying Magazine, March 2012, 26.
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO News, January 2012, Vol. 4, Issue 1
Jeff Edwards, Weather Restrictions, Flying Magazine, October 2011, 32.
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO News, May 2011, Vol. 3, Issue 2
Jeff Edwards, From the President and Ramp Check…by the Border Patrol?, LOBO
News, January 2011, Vol. 3, Issue 1
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO News, October 2010, Vol. 2, Issue 3
Jeff Edwards, From the President, LOBO News, June 2010, Vol. 2, Issue 2
Jeff Edwards, From the President and Builder’s Corner, LOBO News, January
2010, Vol. 2, Issue 1
Jeff Edwards, From the President and Lancair Training, LOBO News, September
2009, Vol. 1, Issue 3
Jeff Edwards, From the President and LOBO Training, LOBO News, May 2009,
Vol. 1, Issue 2
Jeff Edwards, From the President, Enjoying Your Lancair, and LOBO Training,
LOBO News, January 2009, Vol. 1, Issue 1
A Comparison Study of GPS Data and CDR Radar Data Using a Fully
Instrumented Flight Test. Presented paper at 40th annual International Society
of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI) Seminar in September 2009.
TO: Airport Advisory Committee
FROM: Richard M. Stein, AAE
Airport Manager
SUBJECT: FY21 Airport Improvement Project
FY21 Airport Improvement Project (AIP)
Kevin Bissell of T-O Engineers will provide an update of the East-West taxiway.
TO: Airport Advisory Committee
FROM: Richard M. Stein, AAE
Airport Manager
SUBJECT: AIP 28 – Airport Master Plan
Airport Master Plan
Wayne Reiter of T-O Engineers will provide an update of the Airport Master Plan.
Chapter 5 “Facility Requirements”
Chapter 5 of the Airport Master Plan examines the infrastructure necessary to safely
accommodate the forecasted air traffic. A list of infrastructure improvements is summarized on
Page 39-40 of the Chapter.
5 Facility Requirements
Section Overview
The Facility Requirements chapter describes the facilities required to safely accommodate the
aircraft traffic forecasted for McCall Municipal Airport (MYL). FAA design standards for the
airport’s critical aircraft are detailed relative to the existing runway, taxiways, and other
facilities.
5.1 GENERAL
The Facility Requirements chapter compares the current airport services and facilities at MYL to
the needs of the users and requirements of existing and forecasted critical aircraft to identify
any deficiencies that require remediation through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Most dimensional standards and recommendations listed are described in FAA Advisory
Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design. Additional FAA Advisory Circulars and regulations
are referenced where appropriate.
5.2 AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE, RUNWAY DESIGN CODE, AND TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUP
5.2.1 General Discussion
The FAA has several coding systems including Aircraft
Approach Category (AAC) and Airplane Design Group
(ADG). The AAC is designated by a letter (A through E)
and represents different levels of approach speed.
The ADG is designated by a Roman numeral (I through
VI), which represents aircraft wingspan and tail height.
Each airport has a critical aircraft, typically defined as
the most demanding aircraft (or combination of
aircraft) that performs at least 500 operations
annually. The combination of that aircraft’s AAC and
ADG (for example, A-I or B-II) signifies the Airport
Reference Code (ARC).
Each runway also receives a combined AAC and
ADG designation for approach and departure
operations, called the Runway Design Code
(RDC). Each RDC also contains a third
component based on visibility minimums (for
example, B-II-4000). These categorizations are
applied to individual runways, such that
multiple runways at a single airport may have
different RDCs. The ARC and RDC provide insights into the performance, design characteristics,
and physical facility requirements of aircraft using components of an airport.
The design standard used for taxiway design is the Taxiway Design Group (TDG), a classification
for airplanes based on outer to outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG)
distance. These measures are used because taxiways are designed for “cockpit over centerline”
taxiing and such undercarriage dimensions must be considered for design of pavement fillets.
The chart below outlines the measurements for all Taxiway Design Groups.
Figure 5.1 Taxiway Design Groups (TDGs)
Source: FAA AC 150/5300/13A Figure 1-1
Figure 5.2 below shows a small selection of common aircraft and their respective ARC.
Figure 5.2 Representative ARC Aircraft
Source: T-O Engineers
This change might be to a larger, more demanding aircraft or to a smaller aircraft. If the
forecast foresees a downward trend or a notable change, such as a major user leaving the
facility, the future design aircraft might actually be in a lower category or group. Design
standards for the current airport designation are shown as either compliant or as deficient.
5.2.2 Design Aircraft Specification
The Forecast of Aviation Demand chapter established the current and future critical aircraft as
the Cessna Citation XLS+, a B-II Large Aircraft. Table 5.4 displays the specifications and
applicable design standards for the design aircraft.
TABLE 5.4 DESIGN AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS
Cessna Citation XLS+
Specification
Wingspan 56 ft. 4 in.
Tail height 17 ft. 2 in.
Approach speed (flaps down) 117 knots
Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) 21 ft. 11 in.
Main Gear Width (MGW) 14 ft. 11 in.
Maximum takeoff weight 20,200 pounds
Applicable FAA Design Standards
Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) B
Airplane Design Group (ADG) II
Taxiway Design Group (TDG) 1B
Weight classification Large
Source: FAA Aircraft Characteristic Database, 2018
5.2.3 Airport Reference Code (ARC)
The wingspan and approach speed of the current and future critical aircraft result in McCall
Municipal Airport being designated as ARC B-II. The ARC is not forecasted to change throughout
the planning period.
5.2.4 Taxiway Design Group (TDG)
TDG relates to the undercarriage dimensions of the aircraft and it is a classification of airplanes
base on outer to outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance.
MGW and CMG of the critical aircraft at McCall Municipal Airport result in a TDG-1B
classification for the critical aircraft.
5.2.5 Runway Design Code (RDC)
Generally, runway standards are related to aircraft approach speed, aircraft wingspan, and
designated or planned approach visibility minimums. For an airport with a single runway, the
Airport Reference Code (ARC) is the same as Runway Design Code (RDC). Runway 16/34 is
paved asphalt and the only runway at McCall Municipal Airport. There are two published
instrument approach procedures for the airport, both RNAV (GPS) approaches. The lowest
visibility minimum for the RNAV (GPS) approach for Runway 16 is 1 mile. The lowest visibility
minimum for the RNAV (GPS) approach for Runway 34 is 7/8 mile. This results in a RDC for
Runway 16/34 of B-II-4000.
5.2.6 Weight Class
There are two aircraft weight classes used by the FAA for planning: Small Aircraft and Large
Aircraft. Small Aircraft have a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 12,500 pounds or less, while
Large Aircraft have a MTOW of greater than 12,500 pounds. Some FAA documentation uses the
terms Utility and Other than Utility in place of Small Aircraft and Large Aircraft, respectively.
The current and future weight class of McCall Municipal Airport is Large Aircraft. The runway
pavement strength at McCall Municipal Airport is published at 86,500 pounds for single wheel,
141,000 pounds for double wheel, and 261,500 pounds for double tandem wheel configuration.
The Cessna Citation XLS+ has a maximum takeoff weight of 20,200 pounds with a single wheel
configuration.
5.3 AIRFIELD CAPACITY
Demand and capacity represent the relationship between forecasted aviation demand,
especially during peak operational periods, and an airport’s physical ability to safely
accommodate that demand. The purpose of a demand and capacity analysis is to assess
the ability of the airport’s existing facilities to efficiently accommodate its day-to-day and
long-term demand without undue delays or compromises to safety. The analysis also
assists in determining when improvements are needed to meet specific operational
demands.
At low activity airports, airfield capacity often far exceeds the anticipated level of demand.
The most widely recognized and accepted capacity analysis methodology can be found in
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, and yields hourly capacities
and Annual Service Volumes (ASV). ASV is a reasonable estimate of an airport’s annual
capacity, accounting for differences in runway use, aircraft mix, and weather conditions that
would be encountered over a year’s time. For long range planning, AC 150/5060-5 provides
hourly capacity and ASV charts for airports by using common runway configurations with
certain operational assumptions, along with an aircraft fleet mix calculation. The
calculations derived from this method may be used if the conditions at the airport do not
significantly differ with the assumptions listed in AC 150/5060-5. Capacity assumptions are
listed below:
�� R u n w a y U s e C o n f i g u r a t i o n : A n y r u n w a y l a y o u t c a n b e a p p r o x i m a t e d b y o n e o f t h e
1 9 d e p i c t e d r u n w a y - u s e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s s h o w n i n t h e A d v i s o r y C i r c u l a r ( M Y L u s e s
c o n f i g u r a t i o n 1 , w h i c h i s a s i n g l e r u n w a y ) .
�� P e r c e n t A r r i v a l s : A r r i v a l s e q u a l d e p a r t u r e s . M Y L a s s u m e s t h i s i s t h e c a s e .
�� P e r c e n t T o u c h a n d G o e s : T h e p e r c e n t o f t o u c h a n d g o e s i s w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s s h o w n
i n T a b l e 2 - 1 o f A C 1 5 0 / 5 0 6 0 - 5 . F o r M Y L , t o u c h a n d g o e s a r e a s s u m e d t o b e l o c a l
o p e r a t i o n s , w h i c h a c c o u n t f o r 2 6 % o f t h e t o t a l o p e r a t i o n s . T h i s i s w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s
s h o w n i n T a b l e 2 - 1 o f A C 1 5 0 / 5 0 6 0 - 5 .
�� T a x i w a y s : A f u l l - l e n g t h t a x i w a y w i t h a m p l e r u n w a y e n t r a n c e / e x i t t a x i w a y s a n d n o
t a x i w a y c r o s s i n g p r o b l e m s . M Y L m e e t s t h i s a s s u m p t i o n .
�� A i r s p a c e L i m i t a t i o n s : T h e r e a r e n o a i r s p a c e l i m i t a t i o n s w h i c h w o u l d a d v e r s e l y
i m p a c t f l i g h t o p e r a t i o n s o r o t h e r w i s e r e s t r i c t a i r c r a f t w h i c h c o u l d o p e r a t e a t t h e
a i r p o r t . A t M Y L , t h e r e a r e a s s u m e d t o b e n o a i r s p a c e l i m i t a t i o n s .
�� R u n w a y I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n : T h e a i r p o r t h a s a t l e a s t o n e r u n w a y e q u i p p e d w i t h a n
I n s t r u m e n t L a n d i n g S y s t e m ( I L S ) a n d h a s t h e n e c e s s a r y a i r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l f a c i l i t i e s
a n d s e r v i c e s t o c a r r y o u t o p e r a t i o n s i n a r a d a r e n v i r o n m e n t . M Y L d o e s n o t
c o m p l e t e l y m e e t t h i s a s s u m p t i o n a s i t d o e s n o t h a v e a c o n t r o l t o w e r o r I L S , b u t i t
d o e s h a v e p u b l i s h e d s a t e l l i t e - b a s e d i n s t r u m e n t a p p r o a c h p r o c e d u r e s .
A S V a s s u m p t i o n s a r e l i s t e d b e l o w :
�� I F R w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s o c c u r r o u g h l y 1 0 % o f t h e t i m e .
�� R o u g h l y 8 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e t i m e t h e a i r p o r t o p e r a t e s w i t h t h e r u n w a y - u s e
c o n f i g u r a t i o n w h i c h p r o d u c e s t h e g r e a t e s t h o u r l y c a p a c i t y .
A i r c r a f t m i x i s t h e r e l a t i v e p e r c e n t a g e o f o p e r a t i o n s c o n d u c t e d b y e a c h o f f o u r c l a s s e s o f
a i r c r a f t ( A , B , C , a n d D ) , e x c l u d i n g h e l i c o p t e r o p e r a t i o n s . T h e s e c l a s s e s o f a i r c r a f t a r e
r e l a t e d t o w a k e t u r b u l e n c e a n d n o t A R C . C l a s s e s A a n d B a r e t h o s e t h a t w e i g h l e s s t h a n
1 2 , 5 0 0 p o u n d s . C l a s s C i s c o m p o s e d o f a i r p l a n e s t h a t w e i g h b e t w e e n 1 2 , 5 0 0 3 0 0 , 0 0 0
p o u n d s . C l a s s D a r e t h o s e a i r c r a f t t h a t w e i g h o v e r 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 p o u n d s . T h e r e a r e n o C l a s s D
a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i n g a t M Y L . M i x i n d e x i s a m a t h e m a t i c a l e x p r e s s i o n r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e
e q u a t i o n % ( C + 3 D ) . S i n c e t h e r e a r e n o C l a s s D a i r c r a f t , t h e e q u a t i o n b e c o m e s % ( C ) f o r M Y L .
F o r c a l c u l a t i n g c a p a c i t y a t M Y L , f l e e t m i x p e r c e n t a g e s f r o m t h e m o t i o n a c t i v a t e d c a m e r a
d a t a o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e f o r e c a s t a n a l y s i s w e r e u s e d t o c a l c u l a t e t h e m i x i n d e x . R e f e r r i n g
t o T a b l e 4 . 1 8 i n C h a p t e r 3 , a s w e l l a s a d d i n g o p e r a t i o n s b y U S F S a i r c r a f t , a l l A R C A - I , A - I I ,
-MYL Operations60% ASV80% ASVASVAnnual Operations 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000
and B-I are considered to be less than 12,500 pounds (2,136+126+87+10+102=2,461
operations). B-II operations were split in half since the King Air 200 weighs 12,500 pounds,
and B-II jets weigh more than 12,500 pounds (104+56+2=162/2=81). The rest of the aircraft
ARC B-III and above weigh more than 12,500 pounds (3+15+21+15+6=60). The total
operations used for this calculation is 2,683. Of this number, 141 are over 12,500 pounds
(81+60=141). The mix index for MYL is approximately 5.25% ((141/2,683)*100).
Using runway configuration 1 (single runway) from Figure 2-1 of AC 150/5060-5, and the
mix index of 5.25%, the hourly capacity (operations/hour) for MYL is 98 for VFR conditions
and 59 for IFR conditions. The ASV for MYL is 230,000 operations.
From Chapter 3, Aviation Forecast, the 2020 baseline total operations for MYL is 32,130,
which is approximately 14% of ASV. Forecasted operations in 2040 are 39,029, which is
approximately 17% of ASV. For planning purposes, 60% of ASV is the threshold at which
planning for capacity improvements should begin. At 80% of ASV, planning for capacity
improvements should be complete and construction should begin. At 100% of ASV, the
airport has reached capacity and capacity improvement should be made to avoid delays.
Over the 20-year planning horizon, demand at MYL will remain well below 60% of ASV.
Capacity improvements are not anticipated.
Figure 5.3 MYL Operations versus ASV
Source: T-O Engineers
5.4 FAA DESIGN STANDARDS
The FAA has established design standards for almost every aspect of airports, including relevant
navigable airspace, airside facilities, and landside facilities. Once the existing and future
designations are determined, the FAA uses these design standards to provide an acceptable
level of safety on airports. These standards (standard dimensions) include runway width, other
surface dimensions such as safety areas and various separations from fixed or movable objects,
and many more facets of the airport layout. By applying design standards to classes of aircraft,
the Airport Sponsor can match the level of safety appropriately to the level of risk. This is an
important core concept for every Airport Master Plan and is especially pertinent for potential
future expansion. A key reason for Airport Sponsors to plan, develop, and maintain their
airports to the FAA’s design standards is to improve safety and ensure compliance with
industry standards. Further, Airport Sponsors that receive federal funds, such as the City of
McCall, are obligated by federal grant assurances to comply with all FAA safety regulations and
standards.
The standards that apply to an airport and/or runway are determined by the relevant reference
code. Subsequently, a comparison of B-II standards to airport conditions is critically important
and is discussed in detail throughout this chapter. Based on previous planning efforts, McCall
Municipal Airport is generally constructed to ARC B-II standards.
Through the investigation of this Airport Master Plan, it was clearly identified that the airport
should plan to meet ARC B-II, Large Aircraft standards presently and throughout the planning
period.
5.4.1 Runway Design Standards
Table 5.5 lists the FAA design standards for runways.
TABLE 5.5 RUNWAY DESIGN STANDARDS
Actual Existing ARC B-II
Design Criteria Compliance
Runway 16/34 Standards
Runway length 6,108 feet Discussed in Not a Design
Section 5.4.4 Standard
Compliant with
Runway width 75 feet 75 feet
B-II Standards
Runway Safety Area (RSA) length beyond 300 feet 300 feet Compliant with
runway end B-II Standards
Compliant with
Runway Safety Area (RSA) width 150 feet 150 feet
B-II Standards
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) length Compliant with
300 feet 300 feet
beyond runway end B-II Standards
Compliant with
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) width 500 feet 500 feet
B-II Standards
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) length Compliant with
200 feet 200 feet
beyond runway end B-II Standards
Compliant with
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) width 400 feet 400 feet
B-II Standards
Runway 16 Approach & Departure Runway
Compliant with
Protection Zone (RPZ) length (Not lower than 1,000 feet 1,000 feet
B-II Standards
1-mile visibility)
Runway 16 Approach & Departure RPZ Inner Compliant with
500 feet 500 feet
width (Not lower than 1-mile visibility) B-II Standards
Runway 16 Approach & Departure RPZ Outer Compliant with
700 feet 700 feet
width (Not lower than 1-mile visibility) B-II Standards
Runway 34 Approach RPZ Length (Not lower Compliant with
1,700 feet 1,700 feet
than 3/4-mile visibility) B-II Standards
Runway 34 Approach RPZ Inner Width (Not Compliant with
1,000 feet 1,000 feet
lower than 3/4-mile visibility) B-II Standards
Runway 34 Approach RPZ Outer Width (Not Compliant with
1,510 feet 1,510 feet
lower than 3/4-mile visibility) B-II Standards
Runway 34 Departure RPZ Length (Not lower Compliant with
1,000 feet 1,000 feet
than 3/4-mile visibility) B-II Standards
Runway 34 Departure RPZ Inner Width (Not Compliant with
500 feet 500 feet
lower than 3/4-mile visibility) B-II Standards
Runway 34 Departure RPZ Outer Width (Not Compliant with
700 feet 700 feet
lower than 3/4-mile visibility) B-II Standards
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A
5.4.2 Crosswind Runway and Runway Orientation
Wind analysis from Chapter 3 showed the existing runway at MYL provides greater than 95%
wind coverage under all weather scenarios. As such, a crosswind runway is neither required nor
recommended through the planning horizon.
Change in magnetic declination may dictate runway renumbering. A review of the geodetic and
magnetic headings for Runway 16/34 indicates a new runway designation of Runway 17/35 is
required. Table 5.6 summarizes the runway orientation information.
TABLE 5.6 RUNWAY 16/34 ORIENTATION
Runway 16 34
Latitude 44° 53’ 49.58149” 44° 52’ 49.37477”
Longitude 116° 06’ 07.33730” 116° 06’ 05.27789”
Elevation 5,024.31 5,006.691
Geodetic Heading 178° 36’ 26.2133” 358° 36’ 27.6663”
Magnetic Heading 165° 13’ 26.2133” 345° 03’ 27.6663”
Magnetic Declination 13° 23’ E
Updated Runway Designation 17 35
Source: T-O Engineers
5.4.3 Runway Width
The FAA runway width design standard (FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Table A7-4) for an ARC B-II
facility with not lower that 3/4-mile visibility minimum is 75 feet. Runway 16/34 is currently 75
feet wide, which meets ARC B-II standards for runway width.
5.4.4 Runway Length
Many factors determine the suitability of runway length for airplane operations. These factors
include airport elevation above mean sea level, temperature, wind velocity, airplane operating
weights, takeoff and landing flap settings, runway surface condition (dry or wet), effective
runway gradient, presence of obstructions in the vicinity of the airport, and any locally imposed
noise abatement restrictions. A given runway length may not be suitable for all aircraft
operations. FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provides
recommendations and guidelines for use in the design of civil airports. The use of the Advisory
Circular is mandatory for airport projects receiving federal funding.
Runway length is an FAA recommendation, not a design standard. It is up to the pilot operating
under the unique meteorological conditions and demands of a particular flight to determine the
safety of the available runway length for the operation. However, it does remain a goal of the
Sponsor to provide a safe environment suited for the aircraft regularly operating at the facility.
The calculations for recommended runway length are driven by the airport’s critical aircraft.
The current and future critical aircraft for MYL is the Cessna Citation XLS+, a B-II Large Aircraft.
The existing runway length is 6,108 feet.
The Cessna Citation XLS+ Flight Planning Guide was published to provide specific information
for evaluating the performance of the Cessna Citation XLS+ (Model 560XL). Although the
information contained in the guide was developed from data contained in the flight and
operating manuals, the guide is not to be used in place of the flight and operating manuals.
Nonetheless, the guide provides takeoff runway length requirements that can be useful for
planning purposes. The takeoff field length for the Citation XLS+ is 5,970 feet (15° of flaps, dry
runway, zero wind, anti-ice off, cabin bleed air on, over a 35-foot screen, 5,000-foot field
elevation, 86 °F, and a maximum takeoff weight of 20,200 pounds). The existing runway meets
the runway length requirements for the critical aircraft.
AC 150/5325-4B recommends runway length be determined according to the airport’s ultimate
development plan, thus ensuring a runway appropriate for the forecasted critical aircraft. By
protecting for the future, the airport will avoid costly design and infrastructure upgrades.
Using the FAA’s computer software program, runway lengths based on families of aircraft with
performance characteristics similar to the critical aircraft were calculated. The results were
divided into small aircraft (12,500 pounds or less) and large aircraft (between 12,500 pounds
and 60,000 pounds). The weight classifications are further broken down into subdivisions
indicating the percent of the fleet that could be accommodated by the recommended minimum
runway length. For example, the recommended minimum runway length for 100% of the small
aircraft fleet is 6,110 feet. The runway at MYL essentially meets this requirement, as it is only 2
feet short of the recommendation.
For large aircraft, the weight classification is subdivided into a percentage of useful load. The
FAA defines useful load as the weight of the pilot, copilot, passengers, baggage, usable fuel, and
drainable oil. The Citation XLS+ falls into the large aircraft classification with a maximum gross
weight greater than 12,500 pounds. According to Table 3-1 of AC 150/5325-4B, the Cessna
Citation 560XL (Excel) is listed among the aircraft comprising 75% of the fleet. The
recommended minimum runway length for 75% of large airplanes at 60% useful load is 6,510
feet. This threshold is important because it is the minimum recommended runway length for a
grouping of large aircraft at MYL. In this case, the existing runway is short by 402 feet.
Additional runway length beyond that would provide more useful load for 75% of the large
aircraft fleet, or accommodate the remaining 25% of the large aircraft fleet, which includes the
Challenger 600, Falcon 900, and Hawker Horizon (aircraft which were observed at MYL by the
motion activated cameras). A summary of the runway length recommendations is shown in
Table 5.7.
TABLE 5.7 RUNWAY LENGTH RECOMMENDATIONS
Airport Elevation: 5,024 feet
Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of the Hottest Month: 80° F
Maximum Difference in Runway Centerline Elevation: 18 feet
12,500 pounds or less with less than 10 passenger seats (ex: King Air 200)
75% of fleet 4,450 feet
95% of fleet 5,930 feet
100% of fleet 6,110 feet
12,500 pounds or less with 10 or more 6,110 feet
passenger seats
Over 12,500 pounds but less than 60,000 pounds
75% of fleet at 60% useful load 6,510 feet
75% of fleet at 90% useful load 8,730 feet
100% of fleet at 60% useful load 8,980 feet
100% of fleet at 90% useful load 10,860 feet
More than 60,000 pounds 6,780 feet approximately
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B and FAA AD4.2 Program
The existing runway at MYL is adequate for small aircraft operating at the airport, as well as the
critical aircraft. However, it is insufficient to meet the minimum requirement for 75% of the
large aircraft fleet at 60% useful load. The recommended minimum runway length for future
planning is 6,510 feet. This would require a 402-foot runway extension.
5.4.5 Runway Pavement Design Strength
To meet the design life goals of the airport, runway pavements must be designed to physically
withstand the weight of arriving, taxiing, and departing aircraft. This is calculated using a mix of
aircraft. The maximum takeoff weight of the existing design aircraft and those aircraft
forecasted to use the airport must be considered to determine pavement strength. The
pavement must possess sufficient stability to withstand the abrasive action of traffic, adverse
weather conditions, and other deteriorating influences.
Airport pavements degrade faster when over-stressed with loads beyond their design
capability. Pavements are most stressed when aircraft loads are slowly applied, as in when an
aircraft is taxiing or parked. Pavement loading is also a function of the number of pressure
points, such that the more tires an aircraft has to distribute its load the less stress is exerted on
the pavement. The current published weight bearing capacity of Runway 16/34 is 86,500
pounds for single wheel, 141,000 pounds for a double wheel, and 261,500 pounds for a double
tandem wheel configuration. The maximum takeoff weight of the critical aircraft is 20,200
pounds with a single wheel configuration. The current pavement strength meets the
requirements for the planning period.
Figure 5.4 Single Wheel Configuration
Source: Cessna
Figure 5.5 Double Wheel Configuration
Source: Cessna
Figure 5.6 Double Tandem Wheel Configuration
Source: Boeing
While the pavement strength of the runway meets the requirements of the critical aircraft,
heavier aircraft are known to use the airport. The largest aircraft observed during the data
collection for the forecast was a Gulfstream 550, a D-III aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight
of 91,000 pounds with double wheel configuration. The existing pavement strength at MYL
accommodates this aircraft.
Potentially, the U.S. Forest Service could bring C-130’s equipped for firefighting to MYL on a
regular basis in the future, without any official commitments. The C-130 is an ARC C-IV aircraft
with a single tandem wheel configuration and a maximum takeoff weight of 155,000 pounds.
There is no published weight bearing capacity at MYL for a single tandem wheel configuration,
but the C-130 would likely be considered overweight at MYL if operated at maximum takeoff
weight.
Figure 5.7 Single Tandem Wheel Configuration
Source: Lockheed Martin
5.4.6 Runway Gradient
The elevation of the Runway 16 end is 5,024.31 feet, and the elevation of the Runway 34 end is
5,006.69 feet, which is a difference of 17.62 feet. This results in a runway gradient of 0.29%,
which is well below the FAA 2% maximum gradient allowed for AAC-B aircraft.
5.4.7 Runway Separation Standards
There are several standards for runway separation distance between other facilities on the
airport, dictated by the design aircraft. The runway separation standards for a B-II facility, as
well as the existing condition are shown in Table 5.8. The FAA generally supports and
recommends that separation distances between runways and parallel taxiways be increased to
standards for larger and heavier aircraft than the current design aircraft to protect for future
expansion.
TABLE 5.8 RUNWAY SEPARATION STANDARDS
Existing ARC B-II
Design Criteria Compliance
Runway 16/34 Standards
Runway centerline to parallel taxiway/taxilane Compliant with B-
300 feet 240 feet
centerline (General Aviation) II Standards
Runway centerline to parallel taxiway/taxilane Compliant with B-
310 feet 240 feet
centerline (USFS) II Standards
Runway centerline to general aviation aircraft Compliant with B-
387 feet 250 feet
parking area II Standards
Runway centerline to USFS aircraft parking Compliant with B-
310 feet 250 feet
area II Standards
Runway centerline to holding position Compliant with B-
200 feet 200 feet
markings (all) II Standards
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A
5.4.8 Line of Sight
According to FAA AC 150/5300-13A, for individual runways with a full parallel taxiway, any
point five feet above the runway centerline must be mutually visible with any other point five
feet above the runway centerline that is located at a distance that is less than one half the
length of the runway. Runway 16/34 meets this requirement.
5.4.9 Blast Pad
Paved runway blast pads provide blast erosion protection beyond runway ends during jet
aircraft operations. The Airport Master Record remarks section for MYL indicates there is a
marked 50-foot blast pad for Runway 16. Aerial imagery shows the blast pad is the same width
of the runway (75 feet) and 50 feet beyond the end of the runway threshold. The FAA
standards, per AC 150/5300-13A, for a blast pad for a B-II runway with not lower than ¾ mile
visibility is 95 feet wide and 150 feet long. Any future runway rehabilitation projects should
bring the blast pad up to current design standards.
Figure 5.8 Runway 16 Blast Pad
Source: Google Earth
5.4.10 Runway Markings, Signs, and Lights
At the time of this study, the runway markings were observed to be faded and difficult to see.
The remarks section of the Airport Master Record also states this, which means it is a long-
standing issue. This condition should be corrected during the next runway rehabilitation or
maintenance project.
Runway lights have also been a long-standing concern as stated by airport management.
Consideration should be given to a replacement of the existing lighting system, with the
introduction of LED lighting. LED lighting would increase reliability, as well as sustainability.
5.4.11 Taxiway Analysis
As stated in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Section 405, a parallel taxiway eliminates using the runway
for taxiing, thus increasing capacity, and protecting the runway under low visibility conditions.
Additionally, a full-length parallel taxiway is required for instrument approach procedures with
visibility minimums below one mile, which is the case at MYL. Taxiway A was relocated during
the summer of 2020 to meet the runway centerline-to-taxiway centerline separation standards
of a C-II aircraft, should the airport need to increase the ARC from a B-II to C-II in the future.
Taxiway A is 50 feet wide, which is wider than the required 35 feet for a TDG-2 aircraft (the
critical aircraft is a TDG-1B aircraft that requires a 25-foot-wide taxiway). The wider taxiway was
justified previously due to the use of the airport by firefighting aircraft. There are five connector
taxiways that provide access to Runway 16/34, designated A-1 through A-5, starting at the
Runway 16 end. Taxiway A and the connectors are appropriately identified with signage. The
taxiway does not have any lights, only reflectors at the Sponsor’s prerogative. As Taxiway A and
the connectors were relocated/reconstructed in 2020, there are no further improvements
needed through the planning horizon other than periodic maintenance and surface treatments.
On the U.S. Forest Service side of the airport, there is a partial parallel taxiway locally known as
Taxiway B, although it is officially undesignated. It is 1,700 feet long and 50 feet wide and
connected to the Runway 16 end by a connector taxiway, B-1. Another taxiway connector, B-2,
is located approximately 1,800 feet from the Runway 16 landing threshold. These taxiways do
not meet the current design standard for taxiway fillets and should be corrected. It is
recommended that this taxiway be given the official designation of Taxiway B on the ALP and
appropriately identified by signage. The current standards for taxiways are shown in
comparison to dimensions at MYL in Table 5.9.
TABLE 5.9 TAXIWAY STANDARDS
Design Criteria Existing Taxiways A ADG II Compliance
and B, plus connectors Standards
Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) Width 79 feet wide 79 feet Compliant
Taxiway Width 50 feet 25 feet (TDG Compliant
1B Standards)
Taxiway Object Free Area 131 feet 131 feet Compliant
(TOFA) Width
Separation of Taxiway Greater than 65.5 feet 65.5 feet Compliant
Centerline to Fixed or Moveable
Object
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A
The 2019 ALP identifies four additional taxiways located within the west side hangar area,
Taxiways A, B, C, and E. These should be re-purposed as taxilanes, which are, by definition,
designed for low speed and precise taxiing between taxiways and aircraft parking positions and
other terminal areas. These taxilanes should meet the design standards for B-II aircraft and be
re-designated with different names to avoid confusion with Taxiways A and B, which run
parallel to the runway. Presently, Taxiway A, which runs east-west and connects with Taxiway
A-2, does not meet the B-II taxiway centerline to fixed or movable object standards of 65.5 feet.
Re-purposing this taxiway as a taxilane would remedy this deficiency. Additionally, replacement
of the diagonal taxiway will assist in enhancing circulation through the terminal area.
Figure 5.9 Hangar Area Taxilanes
Source: T-O Engineers
An important aspect of taxiway design standards compliance is the clear zones provided
through the Taxiway and Taxilane Object Free Area (TOFA). In general, when a runway or
taxiway has a painted centerline, pilots should be able to assume that they have wingtip
clearance and buffers based on the ADG of the airport. The taxilane running east-west between
Hangars 211 and 212 does not meet the TOFA clearance for an ADG-I aircraft, as shown in
Figure 5.10. It is less than 79 feet wide.
Figure 5.10 Nonstandard TOFA
Source: T-O Engineers
TABLE 5.10 TAXILANE STANDARDS
Design Criteria ADG I Standards ADG II Standards Compliance
Taxilane Object Free Area Width 79 feet 115 feet Deficient
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A
The FAA promotes taxiway design to adhere to the “three-node concept.” This concept is
meant to prevent any taxiway and taxilane intersections from becoming overly complex and
potentially confusing for pilots. The three-node concept states that a pilot should have no
more than three choices of direction at each intersection, ideally left, right, or straight. All
intersections associated with Runway 16/34 and the taxiway connectors to Taxiways A and B
meet the three-node concept.
Other measures that help reduce pilot confusion and reduce runway incursions are to avoid
wide expanses of pavement at runway-taxiway intersections, limit runway crossings, avoid
h i g h e n e r g y r u n w a y c r o s s i n g i n t e r s e c t i o n s , i n c r e a s e p i l o t v i s i b i l i t y b y u s i n g 9 0 - d e g r e e t u r n s a t
r u n w a y e n t r a n c e o r c r o s s i n g p o i n t s , a n d e l i m i n a t e d i r e c t a c c e s s f r o m a p a r k i n g a p r o n t o a
r u n w a y w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g a t u r n . T a x i w a y B - 1 p r e s e n t l y e x p a n d s f r o m 5 0 - f e e t w i d e t o o v e r 1 5 0
f e e t w i d e s t a r t i n g j u s t p r i o r t o t h e h o l d s h o r t l i n e u p t o t h e e n t r a n c e t o R u n w a y 1 6 . T h i s s h o u l d
b e r e m e d i e d b y a f u t u r e p r o j e c t . T h e r u n w a y c r o s s i n g a t T a x i w a y s A - 2 a n d B - 2 i s o u t s i d e t h e
m i d d l e t h i r d o f R u n w a y 1 6 / 3 4 a n d n o t c o n s i d e r e d a h i g h e n e r g y c r o s s i n g . T h e o t h e r r u n w a y
c r o s s i n g i s a t t h e R u n w a y 1 6 t h r e s h o l d . A l l r u n w a y e n t r a n c e s a n d c r o s s i n g p o i n t s a r e a t 9 0 -
d e g r e e a n g l e s . T a x i w a y B - 2 p r o v i d e s d i r e c t a c c e s s t o R u n w a y 1 6 / 3 4 f r o m t h e U . S . F o r e s t S e r v i c e
a p r o n , w h i l e T a x i w a y A - 2 p r o v i d e s d i r e c t a c c e s s t o t h e r u n w a y f r o m t h e w e s t s i d e h a n g a r a r e a
a s s h o w n i n F i g u r e 5 . 1 1 . F u t u r e r u n w a y a n d t a x i w a y p r o j e c t s s h o u l d c o n s i d e r w a y s t o c o r r e c t
t h i s c o n d i t i o n .
F i g u r e 5 . 1 1 D i r e c t A c c e s s t o R u n w a y f r o m P a r k i n g A r e a
S o u r c e : T - O E n g i n e e r s
5 . 4 . 1 2 N a v i g a t i o n a l A i d s
A i d s t o n a v i g a t i o n p r o v i d e p i l o t s w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n t o a s s i s t t h e m i n l o c a t i n g t h e a i r p o r t a n d t o
p r o v i d e h o r i z o n t a l a n d / o r v e r t i c a l g u i d a n c e d u r i n g l a n d i n g . N a v i g a t i o n a l A i d s ( N A V A I D S ) a l s o
p e r m i t a c c e s s t o t h e a i r p o r t d u r i n g p o o r w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s .
There are multiple NAVAIDS installed at McCall Municipal Airport to increase pilot safety.
Runway 16/34 is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRLs) and Runway End
Identifier Lights (REILs). Both are pilot controlled, so a pilot can activate the system and vary the
lighting intensity by keying their microphone while on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency
(CTAF).
Runway 16 is equipped with a 2-light Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI), while Runway
34 is equipped with a 2-light Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI). Both systems enhance
safety by providing beneficial visual approach slope guidance to assist pilots in flying stabilized
approaches. VASI systems are now considered obsolete. The 2-light PAPI system is normally
installed on runways without electronic guidance and at non-commercial airports. 4-light PAPI
1
systems should be installed on runways with jet operations, as is the case with MYL.
Consequently, the existing VASI and PAPI systems should be upgraded to a 4-light PAPI for each
runway end. Past obstruction surveys have shown obstructions by numerous trees off the
Runway 16 end, rendering the Runway 16 PAPI out of service for several years. If it is
determined through a new obstruction analysis that the trees are still obstructions, it will be
necessary to have the obstructions removed during a future airport project.
There is a lighted windcone and segmented circle located in the terminal area of the airport
near the touchdown zone of Runway 16. Both were newly constructed as part of a taxiway
project in the summer of 2020. Secondary windcones are located adjacent to the touchdown
zone for Runway 34 and off the end of Runway 16. The segmented circle and windcones meet
current design standards.
An Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) is located in the terminal area near the
segmented circle. According to the Federal Standard for Siting Meteorological Sensors at
Airports (FCM-S4-1994), for airports with only visual and/or nonprecision runways, the
preferred siting of the cloud height, visibility, and wind sensors and associated data collection
platform is adjacent to the primary runway, 1,000 to 3,000 feet down the runway from the
threshold, and between 500 to 1,000 feet from the runway centerline. The current location of
the ASOS at MYL meets the preferred siting criteria; however, it is also in a location that inhibits
development of future hangars, taxilanes, and tiedowns in the terminal area. Future siting
options will be explored during the alternatives development process.
1
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
5.5 AIRSPACE AND APPROACHES
This section provides guidance on issues pertaining to airspace clearing and obstacle standards.
5.5.1 14 CFR Part 77 Surfaces (Part 77)
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation
of the Navigable Airspace, establishes standards for determining obstructions in navigable
airspace. Part 77 describes imaginary surfaces that surround each airport and are defined
relative to the specific airport and each runway. The imaginary surfaces vary in size and
configuration based on the category of each runway. The runway category is determined by the
types of approaches that exist or are proposed for that runway.
The most precise existing or proposed approach for the specific runway end determines the
slope and dimensions of each approach surface. Any object, natural or man-made, that
penetrates these imaginary surfaces is an obstruction. Figure 5.12 is a graphical illustration of
these surfaces.
Figure 5.12 Part 77 Surfaces
Source: T-O Engineers
Primary surface: A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. When the runway has a
specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that
runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the
nearest point on the runway centerline.
Horizontal Surface: A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the
perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of a specified radii from the center of each
end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by
lines tangent to those arcs.
Conical Surface: A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal
surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
Transitional Surface: These surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway
centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary
surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces.
Approach Surface: A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and
extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface is
applied to each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for
that runway end.
TABLE 5.11 PART 77 DIMENSIONS AT MYL
Conical Surface
Length 4,000 feet
Slope 20:1
Transitional Surface
Slope 7:1
Primary Surface
Width 500 feet
Length Beyond Runway End 200 feet
Horizontal Surface
Height Above Airport Elevation 150 feet
Radius Arc 10,000 feet
Approach Surface (Runway 16 and 34)
Inner Width 500 feet
Outer Width 3,500 feet
Length 10,000 feet
Slope 34:1
Source: 14 CFR Part 77
5.5.2 Instrument Approaches
McCall Municipal Airport has two instrument approach procedures, one to each runway end.
Both are RNAV(GPS) approaches and are considered nonprecision approaches. The lowest
minimums for the RNAV (GPS) Runway 16 approach, aircraft categories A and B, are a Minimum
Descent Altitude (MDA) of 5,520 feet MSL and 1 statute mile visibility (the field elevation is
5,024 feet MSL). For category C aircraft, the MDA is 5,520 feet MSL and 1 3/8 statute miles
visibility. Category D aircraft are not authorized for this approach. Due to the tree obstructions
north of Runway 16, this instrument approach procedure is currently not available at night. The
lowest minimums for the RNAV (GPS) Runway 34 approach, aircraft categories A – D, are an
MDA of 5,318 feet MSL and 7/8 statute mile visibility. There are no expected changes in the
instrument approaches for the airport, unless there are changes to the runway length or new
obstructions are identified. Removal of existing obstructions should be made a priority to allow
for full use of the instrument approach procedures.
5.5.3 Obstructions
The FAA recommends that all obstructions to the imaginary surfaces be mitigated if possible.
The approach zones and RPZs define the most heavily used airspace around an airport and
every effort should be made to minimize obstruction within these areas. However, sometimes
it is impossible to achieve a completely obstruction-free airspace because of excessive costs or
other considerations. The obstructions that cannot be removed, or those obstructions that
cause the FAA to reduce the approach minimums, should be marked or lighted in accordance
with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1L, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. As mentioned
previously, there are tree obstructions north of Runway 16 that need to be removed.
The 2007 Airport Master Plan identified terrain penetrations of the Part 77 surfaces and
instrument departure surface south of Runway 34 and east of the airport (Timber Ridge). Any
proposed runway extensions or improvements to instrument approach minimums would
require removal of these terrain penetrations.
Figure 5.13 Runway 34 Approach Surface/Transitional Surface Terrain Penetrations (Existing)
Source: T-O Engineers
Figure 5.14 Runway 16 Departure Surface Terrain Penetrations (Existing)
Source: T-O Engineers
5.6 RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE
The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is a portion of the inner approach zone projected onto the
ground surface. While the RPZ provides additional value to the pilot, its main function is to
enhance the protection of people on the ground. It is a ground-surface-level zone and begins
200 feet beyond the end of the area usable for takeoff or landing. The RPZ is trapezoidal in
shape and centered around the extended runway centerline.
The RPZ dimensions are determined by the design aircraft ARC, aircraft weight, type of
operation (approach or departure), and approach visibility minimums. Land uses prohibited
within the RPZ include residences and places of public assembly, including schools, hospitals,
office buildings, churches, shopping centers, and other uses with similar concentrations of
people. Fuel storage facilities, as well as the storage or use of significant amounts of materials
which are explosive, flammable, toxic, corrosive, or otherwise exhibit hazardous characteristics
are prohibited within the RPZ.
Allowable uses include those that do not attract wildlife, do not interfere with navigational aids,
and are located outside of the Runway Object Free Area. Automobile parking lots are allowable
only if they are located outside of the central portion of the RPZ (which is equal to the width of
the Object Free Area).
Whenever possible, the FAA strongly encourages fee simple Sponsor ownership of the RPZ for
complete control of the land uses in these areas. An avigation easement is strongly
recommended where fee simple Sponsor ownership is not possible.
TABLE 5.12 RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DIMENSION: B-II LARGE
Approach Visibility Minimums Inner Width Outer Width Length
Runway 16 Not Lower than 1 mile 500 feet 700 feet 1,000 feet
Runway 34 Not Lower than ¾ mile 1,000 feet 1,510 feet 1,700 feet
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A
Deinhard Lane passes through the RPZ for Runway 16. FAA Interim Guidance on Land Uses
Within a Runway Protection Zone, dated September 27, 2012, states that certain new or
modified land uses in the RPZ, such as a public road, require the FAA Regional and Airports
District Office (ADO) to consult with the National Airport Planning and Environmental Division
(APP-400) of the FAA prior to approving an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) containing the proposed
land use addition or modification. Should the City of McCall modify the section of Deinhard
Lane that passes through the RPZ in the future, it would trigger the requirement for FAA
coordination prior to any future ALP approval.
5.7 LAND USE ZONING
Effective compatible land use planning around airports addresses airspace, safety, and noise
considerations. In many instances, the community’s willingness to take a proactive approach in
establishing compatible land use policies around the airport prevents the need to be reactive
and mitigate more severe conflicts in the future. Effective comprehensive land use
compatibility plans take such considerations into account and incorporate both height
restrictive and basic land use restrictions via zoning. Coupled with other proactive measures,
such as voluntary noise abatement programs and selective fee-simple land acquisition,
proactive planning around the airport protects both the airport and the surrounding
community.
It is important to point out there is a difference between
height restrictive zoning and basic land use zoning. As its
name implies, height restrictive zoning to protect airport
airspace generally conforms to Part 77, with the intent of
protecting the airspace around an airport from objects or
structures which may pose hazards to aircraft operations. On
the other hand, the intent of land use zoning is to prevent
incompatible land uses near an airport where the impacts of
airport operations, such as noise, dust, fumes, or aircraft
accidents, can have a potentially negative impact on that
land use, or the impact of the incompatible land use can
have a potentially negative impact on the airport. In 2016,
ITD Aeronautics published the Idaho Airport Land Use Guidelines to inform and assist airport
sponsors with their planning efforts and meeting State of Idaho regulatory requirements for
local planning. Regulatory requirements include, but are not limited to, protecting public
airports, including a Public Airport Facilities Section (q) in comprehensive plans, notifying an
airport operator of a pending land use action, and preventing the creation or establishment of
aviation hazards. Additionally, when an Airport Sponsor enters into an agreement that accepts
grant funding from ITD Aeronautics, it agrees to comply with grant assurances. ITD Aeronautics
Grant Assurance 23 states: SPONSOR will have compatible land use and height zoning for the
airport to prevent incompatible land uses and the creation or establishment of structures or
objects of natural growth which would constitute hazards or obstructions to aircraft operating
to, from, on, or in the vicinity of the subject airport. Idaho Statute 67-6508q.
The 2018 McCall Area Comprehensive Plan, McCall In
Motion, contains a Public Airport Facilities section within the
Dive Deep chapter. While not labeled specifically as a section
“q” with respect to the Idaho Airport Land Use Guidelines, it
meets the State of Idaho requirements for addressing
compatible land use planning around McCall Municipal
Airport.
City of McCall Ordinance Title III, Planning and Zoning,
Chapter 6, Civic, Airport and Agricultural/Forest Zones,
establishes an Airport Zone (AP), an Airport Perimeter Zone
(APP), which is located on the internal 150 feet of the AP
zone edge, and an Airport Internal Zone (API), which is the remainder of the interior of the AP
Zone. Section 3.6.02 of this chapter identifies uses within the zones that are permitted or
conditionally permitted. Periodic review of this chapter should be done to ensure it remains
current. Chapter 7, Special Districts, Section 3.7.05, McCall Municipal Airport Influence Overlay
Zones, is intended to protect airport users and property inhabitants in the vicinity of the airport
by setting forth height limitations and compatible land uses. Airport Operation Protection
Zones are described in Section 3.7.051, which were established based on a utility runway.
Utility runways are intended for use by aircraft that weigh less than 12,500 pounds. Since the
runway at MYL accommodates large aircraft (those heavier than 12,500 pounds) and jets, the
current overlay zones do not fully protect for the existing traffic at MYL. The overlay zones
should be updated based on the preferred alternative selected as part of this Airport Master
Plan.
5.8 GENERAL AVIATION REQUIREMENTS
5.8.1 Hangars
General aviation hangar preferences and requirements are a function of the number and type
of based aircraft and the local climate. As mentioned in Chapter 3, McCall experiences cold
snowy winters and warm dry summers. As such, all based aircraft are enclosed in a hangar
during the winter. During the summer, seasonal based aircraft park outside on the transient
apron, then relocate to warmer climates during the winter. Data collected during the summer
for this study revealed 100 based aircraft at MYL, which includes three USFS aircraft not
considered for this hangar requirements analysis.
Figure 5.15 Private Hangar Area
Source: T-O Engineers
Valley County Assessor maps were reviewed for this study and revealed a total of 83 general
aviation hangars, 79 of which were private hangars and four which belonged to McCall Aviation,
Sawtooth Flying Service, and the Pioneer Hangar. The total square footage of hangar space is
currently 247,733 square feet, with the average hangar size being 2,985 square feet. The
average size of the private hangars is 2,821 square feet. To calculate the hangar requirements
for MYL, the based aircraft numbers were used from the forecast for 2020 and 2040, along with
the following assumptions for hangar size requirements (not the actual existing sizes):
Single-engine piston (SR-22) @ 1,250 square feet
Multi-engine piston (C-310) @ 1,400 square feet
Small turbine (Meridian) @ 1,500 square feet
Large turbine (PC-12/King Air 200) @ 3,000 square feet
Medium Jet (Citation XLS+) @ 3,600 square feet
Large Jet (Gulfstream 450) @ 10,000 square feet
Helicopter (R-44) @ 800 square feet
Glider (Trailer) @ 200 square feet
Using these assumptions result in an excess of hangar square footage at MYL of 121,083 square
feet in 2020, and an excess of 132,983 square feet in 2040. This condition does not mean there
is a surplus of hangars at MYL, only a surplus of hangar square footage – the result of the
existing hangars being larger than what is required for the based aircraft types. Indeed, there
was a hangar wait list of 37 people at the time of this analysis, and for those on the wait list
who listed a hangar size, the average size was approximately 3,300 square feet/hangar, with
most of the aircraft types being single engine pistons.
Despite the surplus of hangar square footage, there is a current demand of at least 37 medium
to large hangars. There is also an opportunity to expand the hangar options at MYL to include
small hangars specifically targeted for single engine piston aircraft, and to capture the seasonal
based aircraft to perhaps make them permanent based aircraft. Further, removing the seasonal
based aircraft from the transient apron would free up space for what the transient apron is
intended for – transient aircraft parking. Additional hangars at the airport would also promote
financial self-sustainability. Hangar options and configurations will be explored during the
development alternatives analysis.
5.8.2 Transient Aircraft Parking Apron
A taxiway relocation project occurred during the summer of 2020, which resulted in a loss of
transient parking space, as well as the loss of the diagonal taxiway. Consequently, the transient
parking apron was configured with four large spaces nearest the taxiway, and 89 small aircraft
parking spaces for a total of 93 marked parking spaces. The average size of each large parking
space is 7,250 square feet, while the average size of each small parking space is 1,208 square
feet. All of the previous medium sized parking spaces were eliminated due to the taxiway
relocation project, leaving none presently.
Aerial imagery was used to measure and calculate the square footage of transient parking
apron space, resulting in 29,000 square feet dedicated to large aircraft, and 107,500 square feet
dedicated to small aircraft for a total of 136,500 square feet of dedicated parking space.
Figure 5.16 Transient Parking Apron
Source: T-O Engineers
In order to determine parking requirements at MYL, forecasted operations were used to
generate peak hour demand of itinerant operations, since itinerant operations were assumed
to be using the transient apron, while local operations were assumed to use hangars. Itinerant
operations were broken down between air taxi and general aviation. All general aviation
itinerant operations were assumed to require 1,500 square feet, while air taxi itinerant
operations were assumed to require 3,600 square feet. Itinerant air taxi operations at MYL can
range from a single engine Cessna 206 to large business jets. The air taxi space assumed the
square footage required by the critical aircraft, a Citation XLS+.
From the forecast data, the peak month for operations is August, the peak day of the week is
Sunday, and the peak hour is 10:00 a.m. In 2020, there were 6 air taxi and 15 general aviation
itinerant operations during the peak hour. In 2040, there are forecast to be 7 air taxi and 18
general aviation itinerant operations during the peak hour. Consequently, there is sufficient
transient apron space to accommodate the existing and forecast peak hour itinerant traffic,
absent overnight and seasonal based aircraft. In 2020, the equivalent space remaining to
accommodate overnight and seasonal based aircraft is 7 spaces for medium jets (Citation XLS+),
and 45 single engine piston spaces. In 2040, the equivalent space remaining is equal to 7
medium jets and 41 single engine piston spaces.
5.8.3 Airport Access and Vehicle Parking
Access to McCall Municipal Airport’s east terminal area, the general aviation side, is by way of
rd
State Highway 55 (SH-55), also known as S. 3 Street, and Deinhard Lane. Southbound SH-55
has a right turn lane into the airport that begins at the intersection of SH-55 and Deinhard Lane
and ends at the airport entrance next to the Sawtooth Flying Service hangar, approximately 800
feet south of the intersection. Travelers are met with an automated vehicle gate leading to the
aircraft apron or a hairpin turn that heads north on an unpaved road toward McCall Aviation
and the main parking lot, past the Pioneer Hangar and fuel farm. Northbound travelers on SH-
55 may access the same airport entrance via a center turn lane.
There are three access points from Deinhard Lane. The first entrance from the Deinhard
Lane/SH-55 intersection is into the main parking lot, which is approximately 330 feet west of
the intersection. There is no dedicated turn lane for the airport entrance. As a result,
westbound travelers wishing to turn into the airport may cause traffic to back up into the busy
intersection. The second access is to the airport administration office, which contains a small
parking lot with five spaces and an automated vehicle gate leading to the aircraft apron. The
third access point is to an automated emergency access gate, directly across from the McCall
Fire Department. There are no dedicated turn lanes afforded to drivers in either direction on
Deinhard Lane. Any future widening of Deinhard Lane should take this into consideration.
For the U.S. Forest Service complex on the west side of the airport, access is by way of Mission
Street. There is a viewing area and Smokejumper Base interpretive site located near the reload
area. This analysis does not consider vehicle parking requirements for the U.S. Forest Service
side of the airport.
The primary parking area for vehicles in the east terminal area is an unpaved parking lot at the
intersection of Deinhard Lane and SH-55. It has an irregular shape, and the spaces are not
marked. The parking lot is approximately 14,300 square feet and can accommodate
approximately 50-65 vehicles in its current configuration. The McCall Aviation FBO has
approximately 12 paved parking spaces adjacent to the main parking lot. The Sawtooth Flying
Service hangar area has space inside and outside the airport operating area fence for
approximately 14 vehicles, although there are no marked spaces. In total, there are
approximately 91 vehicle parking spaces available.
Figure 5.17 Vehicle Parking (Red)
Source: T-O Engineers
Vehicle parking demand is based on peak hour itinerant operations, which is discussed in
section 5.8.2. It is assumed that based aircraft operators will park their vehicle(s) in their
assigned aircraft parking space or hangar, not in the dedicated parking lots. For itinerant traffic,
four people per operation are assumed for each air taxi operation, while two people are
assumed for each general aviation operation. One vehicle parking space is assumed for every
three people. In 2020, 54 people needed to be accommodated during the peak hour, resulting
in 18 parking spaces needed. For 2040, the projected demand is to accommodate 64 people
and 21 parking spaces during the peak hour. Consequently, there is enough vehicle parking
space though the planning horizon to accommodate peak hour itinerant traffic and leave space
for other airport users.
Despite the adequate space, there are efficiencies that can be gained by configuring and
marking designated parking areas at the airport in accordance with the City of McCall Design
Guidelines, City Code, and McCall Airport Minimum Standards. Doing so would not only
improve efficiency, but would incorporate other City of McCall initiatives, such as the Pathways
Master Plan, scenic routes, and public transportation.
5.8.4 General Aviation Terminal
There is no general aviation terminal provided by the City of McCall at MYL. That service is
provided by the FBO. McCall Aviation has a passenger facility at their FBO building that is
approximately 1,940 square feet. Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 113,
Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning, provides guidance on general aviation
terminal size requirements. For planning purposes, terminal square footage requirements can
be calculated using the peak hour transient operations, the number of passengers during the
peak hour, and an assumption of 150 square feet of terminal space required per person. Using
the passenger numbers calculated in section 5.8.3, there were 54 passengers during the peak
hour in 2020, and 64 passengers forecast during the peak hour in 2040. This translates into a
general aviation terminal square footage requirement of 8,100 square feet in 2020, and 9,600
square feet in 2040. Consequently, there is a general aviation terminal square footage deficit of
6,160 square feet in 2020, and a deficit of 7,660 square feet in 2040.
5.9 SUPPORT FACILITIES
5.9.1 Deicing
There are no deicing facilities at MYL. McCall Aviation offers deicing services by way of a deicing
truck.
5.9.2 Aviation Fuel Facilities
McCall Aviation is the current fuel provider at MYL. Their fuel capacity is stated below:
Two 12,500-gallon above ground Jet A tanks
One 10,000-gallon underground Jet A tank
One 10,500-gallon above ground 100LL tank
One 2,500-gallon above ground 100LL tank
One 5,000-gallon Jet A truck
One 3,000-gallon Jet A truck
One 1,200-gallon 100LL truck
One 2,400-gallon 100LL truck
This results in a total capacity of 43,000 gallons of Jet A and 16,600 gallons of 100LL.
Fuel capacity requirements were calculated using 2019 totals and peak month operations
(August). In 2019, McCall Aviation reported a total of 247,803 gallons sold. Assuming Jet A
made up 67% of the total fuel volume sold, 100LL made up 33% of the total fuel volume sold,
and August was 19.3% of the total annual operations in 2019 (37,800 from the forecast), the
result is approximately 32,000 gallons of Jet A and approximately 15,800 gallons of 100LL were
consumed in August of 2019. This means that prior to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, McCall
Aviation had enough capacity to accommodate the busiest month of 2019.
Applying the fuel consumption percentages to August operations in 2019 yields a fuel
consumption per operation value of 2.16 gallons/operation for 100LL and 4.40
gallons/operation for Jet A. If it is assumed over the planning horizon the consumption rate per
operation decreases for 100LL and increases for Jet A, 2040 rates will be calculated at 2
gallons/operation for 100LL and 5 gallons/operation for Jet A. Using projected operations for
August 2040 (7,533) with the assumed fuel consumption per operation rates results in
approximately 15,000 gallons of 100LL and approximately 37,660 gallons of Jet A needed for
the busiest month expected in 2040. McCall Aviation still has the capacity to accommodate this
demand.
At the time of this study, Sawtooth Flying Service gained approval to sell 100LL at MYL from a
10,000-gallon tank. In addition to adding capacity to the fuel demands of the airport, it will
provide another fuel option for airport users.
5.9.3 Aircraft Maintenance
DEW Aircraft, Inc. provides aircraft maintenance services at MYL. They are currently operating
out of the McCall Aviation hangar but have an agreement with the City of McCall to develop a
new maintenance facility west of the SRE building and airport administration offices, known
locally as the Deinhard 1/Hangar 98 Project.
5.9.4 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
McCall Municipal Airport does not have its own ARFF capabilities, as it is not required.
However, the McCall Fire Department is located across the street from the airport on Deinhard
Lane, with an airport emergency access gate directly across from the station. According to the
2
McCall Fire & EMS website, the vehicles at the station include:
Engine #11: Type 1 with 1,500 gallons/minute of foam and 750 gallons of water.
Engine #12: Type 1 with 1,750 gallons/minute of foam and 500 gallons of water.
Truck #11: Ladder truck with 1,500 gallons/minute of foam and 500 gallons of water.
Pumper Tender #1: Type 2 with 1,500 gallons/minute of foam and 3,000 gallons of
water.
ARFF #1: Type 2 airport crash truck with 1,250 gallons/minute of foam and 1,500 gallons
of water.
The station also has three command vehicles, four ambulances, and one snowmobile.
5.9.5 Snow Removal Equipment (SRE)
According to FAA AC 150/5220-20A, Airport Snow and Ice Control Equipment, non-commercial
service airports with more than 10,000 annual operations and at least 15 inches of annual
snowfall should have a minimum of one high-speed rotary snow plow, supported by two snow
plows of equal snow removal capacity. Current SRE at MYL consists of:
2006 John Deere 644J loader with snow bucket, snow blade, and general-purpose
bucket.
2009 New Holland TV6070 bidirectional tractor with towed 12-foot rotary broom.
1992 Rolba rotary snow plow.
2016 Henderson dump truck with 20-foot plow.
The equipment is stored in an SRE building that was constructed in 2011 using FAA grant
funding. The building is approximately 4,300 square feet and has four bays. The airport
manager office is also located in the SRE building.
With the high volume of snowfall in McCall, the storage of snow during the winter is a
challenge. As the snow is removed from the aircraft operating surfaces, it must be placed in a
manner to not cause damage to aircraft as they taxi, takeoff, or land. Any future development
must consider snow storage options.
5.9.6 Air Cargo
There are no dedicated air cargo operations or facilities at the airport, and none anticipated
2
McCall Fire & EMS Website: https://www.mccallfire.com/apparatus.html
through the planning horizon.
5.9.7 Courtesy Bicycles
The Idaho Aviation Association has a “Borrow-A-Bike” program, which provides bicycles for
visiting pilots at certain airports in Idaho, McCall being one of them. The bicycle shelter is
located next to the vehicle access gate at the McCall Aviation FBO.
5.9.8 Firefighting Activities
Aerial firefighting operations routinely uses the general aviation terminal area as overflow for
both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, along with their associated service equipment. While
these services are essential to the community, they use space that is otherwise intended for
general aviation aircraft. Further, large firefighting helicopters create additional issues with
rotor wash and blowing debris. Consideration should be given to space for large helicopter
parking and service equipment that is separated from light general aviation parking areas. This
will be looked at during the development alternatives analysis.
Figure 5.18 Fire Helicopter on Transient Aircraft Parking Apron
Source: T-O Engineers
5.10 UTILITIES
City of McCall GIS mapping was reviewed to identify utilities on the airport. It should be noted
that the maps may be incomplete, although efforts were in progress at the time of this study to
fill in any missing data. A summary of the utility services is listed in Table 5.13.
TABLE 5.13 MCCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT UTILITIES
Utility Provider Location
Electrical Idaho Power Terminal Area/Hangars
Fiber City of McCall – Information Systems Deinhard Lane
High-Speed Data Frontier Communications Terminal Area/Hangars
Water City of McCall – Public Works Terminal Area/Hangars
Sewer City of McCall – Public Works Hangars/West Infield
Storm Water City of McCall – Public Works Terminal Area/Hangars/Runway
Irrigation City of McCall – Parks & Recreation Frontage at Deinhard Lane/SH-55
Source: City of McCall
Underground utilities (water, power, sewer) pass east-west just north of the Runway 16
threshold. Any future development will likely require an extension of desired utilities.
5.11 SPONSOR’S STRATEGIC VISION
The City of McCall’s vision is articulated in the 2018 McCall Area Comprehensive Plan. The
vision is, “McCall is a diverse, small town united to maintain a safe, clean, healthy, and
attractive environment. It is a friendly, progressive community that is affordable and
sustainable.”
There are three vision themes contained in the Dive Deep section of the comprehensive plan,
labeled Our Character, Our Economy, and Our Connections. Under the Our Character theme,
Land Use element, the comprehensive plan states, “The future land uses of McCall
should…capitalize on the airport as an economic catalyst.” Under the Our Economy theme,
Economic Development element, Goal 2, Balance and diversify the local economy while
maintaining environmental compatibility, Policy 2.3 states, “Promote and utilize the airport,
public parks, pathways, waterfronts, the McCall Public Library, and the golf course as economic
assets and incentives for business/property development and redevelopment.”
The Airport Facilities element is located within the Our Connections vision theme and describes
the goals and policies of the City of McCall as they relate to the McCall Municipal Airport. The
goals and policies are as follows:
Goal 1: Continue to proactively protect the health, safety, and general welfare of both airport
users and surrounding neighbors.
Policy 1.1: Operate, maintain, and develop the McCall Municipal Airport to ensure safe
and efficient aeronautical facilities for all aviation users per City and FAA standards and
requirements.
Policy 1.2: Operate and develop the airport in such a manner that it remains a safe and
good neighbor by establishing compatible land uses around the airport.
Goal 2: Maintain and improve air service at the airport.
Policy 2.1: Continue proactive efforts with commercial operators and the community to
maintain and improve air service options.
Policy 2.2: Continue planning and development of the airport to provide facilities that
support services such as aerial firefighting, life flight, and business activity that are
valued by the community.
Goal 3: Continually monitor and plan for future aeronautical and land use needs of the airport.
Policy 3.1: Adhere to the Airport Master Plan and associated approved Airport Layout
Plan.
Policy 3.2: Develop available airport space based on aeronautical needs to support
airport self-sufficiency.
Goal 4: Continue to integrate the airport into City transportation infrastructure and planning.
Policy 4.1: Plan transportation facilities to ensure adequate access to the airport and
support the airport as an inter-modal hub, consistent with the Transportation Master
Plan.
Goal 5: Plan land uses near the airport so that they are compatible with airport functions,
compliant with FAA regulations, and do not negatively impact the safety of operations of the
airport. Require aviation easements where needed.
Policy 5.1: Purchase (in fee simple) lands as recommended in Chapter 6 of the Airport
Master Plan, Alternative Airport Concepts, and as shown on the Airport Layout Plan.
Policy 5.2: Maintain existing agricultural ground and open space in the vicinity of the
airport, especially in key areas off the runway approach and departure corridors to
reduce the safety risks for people and property on the ground and in the air.
Policy 5.3: Discourage high-density residential development and encourage commercial
and industrial uses in the proximity of the airport that benefit from and do not conflict
with aircraft operations.
Policy 5.4: Require Fair Disclosure Notification for new or substantial redevelopment of
lots, buildings, structures, and certain activities near the airport notifying developers of
the potential of low overhead flights, noise, dust, fumes, and other potential aviation
impacts.
Goal 6: Account for the current and future economic benefit to the community when planning
and developing on and around the airport.
Policy 6.1: Recognize the airport as an essential service and major contributing factor to
economic development in McCall.
Policy 6.2: Encourage aviation related economic development opportunities in
appropriate locations on or surrounding the airport.
Policy 6.3: In general, allow uses on and around the airport that promote the efficient
mobility of goods and services consistent with regional economic development and
transportation goals.
Policy 6.4: Connect the airport to downtown and commercial areas with safe,
multimodal transportation options.
Goal 7: Continue to integrate the airport into the local McCall community.
Policy 7.1: Utilize the airport by hosting tours and events for the community.
Policy 7.2: Partner with the McCall-Donnelly School District to provide opportunities for
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education and instruction.
Policy 7.3: Promote a public education campaign to publicize what services the airport
offers.
5.12 ACCESS CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
Access to the terminal area of the airport is controlled by a combination of six-foot fencing
topped with barbed wire, vehicle gates, and pedestrian gates. On the west side of the airport,
access is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service. The south part of the airport is surrounded by
wildlife fencing in various states of condition. Motion activated cameras used during the
forecast data collection captured multiple crossings of the taxiway by large game animals just
south of the hangar area. The taxiway relocation project installed new 10-foot wildlife fencing
along the east side of the new taxiway. This fence should be extended around the south and
west side of the runway as part of a future project.
Figure 5.19 Wildlife Intrusion
Source: T-O Engineers
5.13 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
McCall Municipal Airport, classified as an ARC B-II, Large aviation facility, meets the majority of
FAA design standards and recommendations. Identified deficiencies and other considerations
are listed below.
Deficiencies:
• Runway Extension to 6,510 feet, to the south.
• Update runway designation to Runway 17/35
• Increase size of Runway 16 Blast Pad to meet standard dimensions.
• Repaint faded runway markings.
• Replace and upgrade runway lighting to LED.
• Designate Taxiway B as such.
• Upgrade Taxiways B-1 and B-2 to meet current taxiway fillet standards.
• Repurpose general aviation hangar area taxiways as taxilanes, and designate them
appropriately to avoid confusion with Taxiways A and B.
• Remedy the nonstandard TOFA between Hangars 211 and 212.
• Eliminate wide expanse of pavement at Taxiway B-1 and Runway 16.
• Remedy direct runway access at Taxiways A-2 and B-2.
• Replace existing PAPI and VASI with 4-light PAPI system.
• Complete wildlife fencing/fill in wildlife fence gaps.
• Remove tree obstructions north of Runway 16 and terrain obstructions in the Part 77
surfaces and instrument departure surface south of Runway 34 and east of the airport.
Considerations:
• Explore ASOS relocation options.
• Update the Airport Influence Overlay Zones to reflect the updated ALP.
• Explore additional hangar options, including T-hangars.
• Upgrade and reconfigure vehicle parking options.
• Explore general aviation terminal options.
• Explore snow storage areas.
• Identify additional helicopter parking areas.
TO: Airport Advisory Committee
FROM: Richard M. Stein, AAE
Airport Manager
SUBJECT: Hangar Waiting List Update
Airport Staff has been confirming names listed on the Hangar Waiting List and inquiring about
continued interest in building a hangar. The list is still a work in progress. Attached is the
current status of the first 60 names on the previous hangar waiting list. Individuals who have
requested removal are not listed.
Hangar Waiting List
Valid 12/23/20
Position 31 Moroney, Patrick
1 Machnicol, Lori 32 White, Stephen
2 Wright, Steve 33 Woodworth, Dexter
3 Jim & Robin Gerblade 33 Reilly, Patrick
4 Terry, Robert 34 Reilly, Michael
5 Glass, Ray 35 Hart, Dennis
6 Starkman, Tim 36 Scott, Peter
7 Gadler, Tim 37 McClellen and MacDonald
8 Schaetzel, Paul 38 DePew, Douglas
9 Seevers, John 39 Peterson, Mark
10 Lewis, Peter 40 Hoffman, Brian
11 Miller, Juli 41 Smith, Joy
12 Abbott, Ted
13 Dedge, Dick 43 Meili, Charles
14 Jensen, Mark
15 Oddo, Robert 45 Vanderhoef, Jon
16 Pederson, Eric 46 Corbeil, Shawn
17 Moroney, Patrick 47 Haggerty, Brian
18 White, Stephen 48 Bush, Richard
19 Woodworth, Dexter
20 Reilly, Patrick 50 Berge, Chris
21 Reilly, Michael 51 Russell, Mark
22 Hart, Dennis 52 Miller, Johnny
23 Scott, Peter 53 Priddy, Edward
24 McClellen and MacDonald 54 Bruneel, Frank
25 DePew, Douglas 55 Carey, D. Joan
26 Peterson, Mark 56 Stoddard, Jeffry
27 Hoffman, Brian 57 Ritland, Stephen
28 Jensen, Mark 58 Parkinson, Ward
29 Oddo, Robert 59 Diehl, Gary
30 Pederson, Eric
Note: Information in RED is confirmed and will remain on the list. Information in black are
interested parties that have not responded by publication time.
TO: Airport Advisory Committee
FROM: Richard M. Stein, AAE
Airport Manager
SUBJECT: Airport Advisory Annual Report
The annual Airport Advisory Committee Report is due to be presented at the Thursday, January
th
28 City Council meeting starting at 5:30 pm. Airport Staff will need a member from the
Committee to present the information to Council.
Some items that may be discussed include:
Projects
1. Parallel Taxiway Relocation — Construction of the new Parallel Taxiway was completed
September 2020.
2. Airport Master Plan—The first 5 chapters are complete. Two public hearings have been held
for Citizen input. Tentative completion is the end of July 2020.
3. CARES Act Funding—the Airport received an additional $30,000 for projects. The funds are
being held in reserve until the impact of COVID-19 becomes clearer.
4. Taxiway Marking—Taxiway markings have been repainted and glass beads installed.
Improvements will assist pilots, increasing airport safety. Almost 3 miles of markings were
refreshed.
5. Additional Hangars—Early concept work on additional hangars is underway.
The Future
1. The Future of the Airport will be guided by the Airport Master Plan. The project is 50%
completed, and tentative completion is the end of July 2020.
2. The East-West Taxiway is the largest construction project planned for CY2021. The new
Taxiway will replace the recently removed “Diagonal Taxiway”, and the new design will
improve circulation to and from the Aviation Businesses on the northeast side of the airport.
3. Runway Marking—This construction year, the runway markings will be repainted to provide
increased visibility for pilots.
4. Airport Development projects are also planned for the next year. These projects include
installing and upgrading utilities, providing business and private ground leases, and creating
additional infrastructure
TO: Airport Advisory Committee
FROM: Richard M. Stein, AAE
Airport Manager
SUBJECT: 3 months look ahead
Jan 7 AAC meeting
Jan 18 Human Rights/MLK Day (City Offices closed)
Jan 28 City Council meeting
Committee vacancy appointment
Committee Annual Report (Committee member required)
Jan 29 Annual Department Report (Airport Staff)
Feb 4 AAC meeting
Feb 15 President’s Day (City Offices closed)
Mar 4 AAC meeting
April 1 AAC meeting
July 4 Airport Open House (tentative)