Aviation Advisory Committee
November 17, 2008
The Aviation Advisory Committee met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Carlos Diaz and members Theodore Elbert, Wayne Nelms, Clay McCutchan, Randy Compton, Mike Harris, and Randy Roy (NAS Whiting Field representative). Also present were the County Engineer (Roger Blaylock) and Administrative Services Manager (Tammy Simmons).
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.
Harris moved approval of the minutes from the October 15, 2008 meeting; McCutchan seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Diaz stated that the committee had previously discussed scheduling the town hall meeting at the airport. We discussed it would be held tentatively outside and in the case of increment weather it would come inside the FBO Building. Diaz feels that the month of December is not a good month for a variety of reasons: one it is going to be cold outside, another it is the end of the year, and vacations are coming, and another is the Navy training is getting pretty intense and busy at this time as we are trying to push those students through so they are busy even on weekends which will make it difficult to work around while people are there. Diaz feels it would be better to make this sometime in the Spring when the weather is a little warmer and the pace of activities are a little slower.
McCutchan suggested we hold the town hall meeting at the December 17, 2008, regular scheduled meeting, we get the word out to all of our hangar tenants that we will discuss any issues they may have. We could ask them to come in at 6:00 p.m. and we will discuss their issues. McCutchan stated we will have our business meeting and then we will address any concerns the tenants have. McCutchan stated we needed to work very hard to attend this meeting.
Diaz stated we would have this meeting on December 17, 2008, and asked Ms. Simmons to send out notification to all tenants that the meeting is at 5:00 p.m. and they are welcome to come earlier if they would like to see the function of the business of the meeting being conducted, but they are invited to come at 6:00 p.m. for interaction with committee members with any questions or concerns they may have.
Diaz stated that there will be refreshments inthe lobby.
Compton requested they reply RSVP if they plan to attend and with the issues they plan to discuss.
Diaz expressed concern with the new hangars; a side effect that was not considered was access to the new hangars. You have to come in the main gate and drive through the ramp, cars and airplanes on a ramp counter-intuitively have not been much of a problem according to AOPA. We called AOPA when the new hangars first started leasing at the airport because we were concerned about the traffic. They said it doesn’t seem to be a big problem, although in certain situations it can get more dangerous. This situation is different fromthe way it is at the old hangars where they come in and go up the taxiway. Is there any plan or any feeling that the county might make an access gate where the new hangars are?
Blaylock stated it is not currently in the plan and not currently budgeted at this time.
Diaz stated that this is something that we need to think about because he can foresee something happening once those hangars are completely full and on any nice flying day there are constant cars going back and forththere.
McCutchan questioned if you get a traffic pattern on the ramp where they go straight in that gate and go right up tothe taxiway and then hook a right?
Diaz stated they were going through the ramp but also through the taxiway and that taxiway is the busiest taxiway because it is actually part of the ramp so when people are using 18 they go around and then go up that.It’s possible that they may just be able to lay a road somewhere behind the buildings. A gate would be the easiest thing down by where the hangars are.
Blaylock stated there is a gate on the south end of the field, the old CAP gate.
Diaz stated that if you could put in an electric gate at the south end by the old CAP area and a clay road.
Blaylock stated there already is a clay road; you have to drive through the ditch to get to it.
Diaz stated you may have to fix up the road with a little fill dirt and make it a little more useable.
McCutchan agreed that you do not want to mix road traffic and airplane traffic.
Diaz stated he would look at the physical plan and work with Blaylock for the cheapest way to do this.
Diaz suggested the committee implement the previous discussion concerning the agenda from the previous meeting, to create a more specific agenda where any items to be discussed would be forwarded to stafffor the agenda, so that when the agenda is sent out all the items that are going to be discussed are on the agenda. Currently the committee willdiscuss some issues at length and use up most of the meeting time and then someone says they have 2-3 items and they get short tripped. Sometimes these items should get more attention. Also at times items are brought up that require some thought or research and we always end up discussing them and then saying we’ll take them up again at the next meeting. If we have the items on the agenda, then when we get the agenda through the e-mail it tells us exactly what we are going to discuss, we can prepare for it, we can adjust the meeting discussion times for it, and we can be more up-to-date on what we are going to discuss.
Simmons re-emphasized what Diaz said by stating it will require cooperation from the committee to let us know what specific items you want to discuss because the staff does not determine the items to be discussed.
Diaz further stated if any committee member wanted to discuss an items, then they would need to e-mail staff and say they want to put the item on the agenda for discussion, when
the committee meets, no items will be discussed that are not on the agenda.
Elbert moved for a more specific agenda amending to include new business and old business items, Compton seconded, motion approved without objection.
Compton questioned how much time do we need to prepare a more specific agenda?
Blaylock stated the appropriate time would be to respond to the tentative agenda that Mr. Walker puts out in the e-mail or get with Ms. Simmons.
Simmons stated the week prior to the meeting would be enough time or staff could send out an e-mail soliciting for items.
Compton stated it would be nice if staff reminded the committee members to submit their items.
Pensacola Flight Watch, Inc Issues
Dale Holbert requested Blaylock update the committee on projects outstanding at Peter Prince Field at the present time. Holbert stated according to the information he has, there is only one still outstanding, and that is the hold bays on runway 18/36: the two items had been declined because of funding issues.
Blaylock stated that he will get the e-mail group list and e-mail this information to the list members. What we go through at Peter Prince Airport to obtain State and Federal funding is we participate with them through what we call a JCIP (Joint Capital Improvement Project), we call that our wish list and each year we submit a set of projects through an electronic correspondence through the internet on what projects we would like to be included in the program and then FAA will look at them and fund safety issues if they have any money, we have gotten very little FAA money in recent years other than our regular allocation and then DOT will take and look at it, and they will try to put it in their five year work program and out of that comes our JCIP in which we enter into agreements with FDOT through the JPA (Joint Participation Agreement) process. We have completed a number of those projects over the years and I have the status of the ones including the runway safety area evaluation. We have designed the hold bays for 18/36 but the estimated cost was $937,000 of which we were able to identify only $46,000 through DOT and so in the balance of the fund at Peter Prince there is no money to do that project and that is why it is currently on hold. We did the non-precision
markings, we installed a new wind sock and segmented circle. A realignment of taxiway A is a recent JPA that has been completed, we installed runway end identifier lights on 18 and 36 and we constructed the new hangar taxiways through a JPA with DOT. The two projects Holbert mentioned that we were declining due to funding issues was the east access road, which was a $300,000 project of which only $7,500 had been identified and the airport signage. We have recently completed the new hangars and those were completed through JPA’s with DOT, now we will be getting $150,000 if they release the federal funds this October that will be available towards projects. One of the things to bring up to this committee, and at some point as you go through the master plan we have worked to the end of most of the projects that were recommended in the early phases and we have had our consultant on board for a number of years and it may be at some point we want to talk about doing an update to it, but I’ll let you review the master plan, look through it over the next couple of months, and let’s talk about it after the first of the year whether it’s time for Peter Prince to have another update.
Elbert questioned if there is a statutory requirement for updating?
Blaylock stated there is not; however, the funding agencies always like to see a current master plan. FAA funding requires that you periodically go out for a RFQ for a new design consultant.
Holbert stated it might be useful to the new members to mention how the funding is allocated from FAA and the State for different projects because it’s my understanding with FAA, runway lights and safety items will allow you to get 90% participation by FAA, 5% State, and 5% county or airport owner and in hangars you would have a different percentage, if money is available.
Blaylock stated we have had a number of projects at Peter Prince over the years that FAA would not participate in even though it was eligible for the 90/5/5, you compete nationwide, region wide, and statewide for those federal dollars. Often times DOT has come back, when they were initially on the hook for only 5%, and agreed to go 50/50. Our new hangars and the new hangars that are coming are 80/20 with the State so that’s the breakout and then there are projects that ultimately if we wanted to do them we would have to do them with local funds only.
Diaz questioned if our runway numbers need to be changed, he is sure the variation has changed over the past 20-30 years, has anybody looked at a way the FAA would be involved in this?
Blaylock questioned if Diaz was speaking of the current configuration of the numbering scheme as painted on the asphalt?
Diaz stated the numbers on the runway are magnetic heading and if that changes then the number of the runway changes like that runway might be 17 now instead of 18.
Blaylock stated he did not know if FAA does this.
Diaz stated this could be a problem because when you get on the runway and take off a lot of people would set their compasses on the runway heading but if the runway heading is wrong they are setting it wrong.
Compton stated Pensacola recently was changed from 16/34 to 17/35.
Blaylock stated he is not sure of the procedure but certainly we are notopposed to it.
Diaz stated he is sure it has changed and he will look into this and find out what needs to be done for the runway markings.
Blaylock questioned the compass rose?
Diaz stated the compass rose was put their inappropriately because in order to put a compass rose in you have to follow a FAA approved survey, and that was not surveyed; therefore, it is not correct.
Blaylock stated he would get with our consultants on the runway markings to see what we need to do, if a correction needs to be made.
Holbert stated that most airports use a portable unit to calibrate compasses and Pensacola did away with their compass rose a long time ago.
Holbert stated one thing he would like to mention is over the years, Blaylock has been very diligent about getting JPA’s to fund these projects. In some cases it was recommended to rearrange the projects; like the runway identification lights we moved them up a year and they were able to accomplish that, Blaylock has done a lot in this area and I think if you identify anything you would like to have in the future, keep in mind what the funding ratios are, and the availability of money in these coming years, and I’m sure Blaylock will be well aware of what is available and what’s practical. There are some things that we have only a 5% cost on, so those items, if they are good safety items might be worthwhile. We thank the county for doing the things that FAA or the State did not fund.
Holbert stated the Super Unicom is better now than last week; it’s a little clearer but is still not up to full strength and full quality.
Diaz stated it is a weak system; we are going to have to get an avionics person to look at it to see if there is anything he can do.
Holbert feels county experienced personnel or the avionics on the airport should be able to identify the problem because right now it is a very important safety item when you get within a few miles of the airport to know which runway you are going to be looking at, rather than fly right over the airport and look for the wind sock and at the segmented circle.
Holbert briefed the committee of Flight Watch activities. Holbert said the Aviation Discovery Park is in the design stage for the wall of honor which is going to recognize all of our donors plus a modest observation structure under the sky shade structure and that will finish the initial phase of the park and of course we are looking for funds for those things.
Elbert questioned if the county has some type of shop that handles their radio communications maintenance.
Blaylock responded we have a contract with a communication vendor for two-way radios.
Elbert stated this type of problem seems simple for someone to take a watt meter out there and see what kind of output you are getting. It could be in the transmitter or the antenna; someone just has to be able to measure the power output of a transmitter. At least you could identify whether you really have a problem with the radio, you could also identify if you have a problem with the antenna.
Diaz recommended Dan French to look at this.
Blaylock stated he would have Dan French take a look at it.
Holbert stated he felt this is an important safety item that should be addressed. At least determine why it is not putting out like it did for three straight years and get it done. FBO Issues
Dave Glass stated the electric gate is working very well. Glass commented on access to the new hangars by stating in the near future if the vehicle traffic situation becomes a problem and it justifies electrifying the gate at the old CAP building, that would provide a clear access to the east ramp.
Glass stated that a fawn was seen early last week at about 7:15 a.m. in the end field. The deer problems still exist.
Harris stated he had heard that they may start tail wheeltraining, is that true?
Glass responded, yes we have access to an aircraft.
Harris stated the congestionon the ramp and runway is really going to be a problem, with thetail wheelaircraft you can not see over the nose.
Diaz stated especially in a 195, it’s like driving a car with the hood up.
McCutchan stated he will be prepared to discuss his ideas on the H hangars at the next meeting.
The next meeting will be December 17, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. with tenant input starting at 6:00 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 5:35p.m.