Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1.0 General Information <br /> <br />1.1 Introduction <br /> <br />Tom Krause Aviation Consulting was retained by the Geneva Commons proponent to <br />assess any impacts the proposed buildings may have on Aviation Safety. The <br />assessment was conducted primarily for two purposes. The first objective was to verify <br />Air Safety in connection with the FAA Part 77 Obstruction Evaluation study and the <br />second was to put the FAA Part 77 study in perspective regarding the Geneva <br />Commons building. Although the FAA issued a determination of no aeronautical hazard <br />for the Geneva Commons area, last March the ALUC found the building to be <br />inconsistent with AELUP. <br /> <br />The instrument analysis is based, in part, on application of current United States <br />standards for instrument procedures developed under Part 97 of the Federal Aviation <br />Regulations (14 CFR Part 97)(FAR). These standards are applied by the Federal <br />Aviation Administration (FAA) in developing approach or departure procedures, or in <br />conducting Part 77 obstruction evaluations. These standards are specified in FAA <br />Order 8260.38, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) <br />and in FAR Part 77, Obiects AffectinQ Navioable Airspace. Information on man-made <br />obstructions was obtained from National Ocean Service's national database for man- <br />made obstructions. The terrain information was obtained from 1 :24000 topographic <br />quadrangle charts and the 2002 Santa Ana International Airport Obstruction Chart (OC) <br />along with digital data from the 2001 OC survey. <br /> <br />It should be noted that every effort was made to use available obstacle data and current <br />FAA criteria and regulations for the Instrument Approach Procedure analysis. However, <br />the consultant cannot be responsible for obstacles that may be discovered later as a <br />result of new surveys or unreported man-made objects that are unknown, or other <br />constraints that may increase heights or otherwise adversely impact the results present <br />in this study. <br /> <br />1.2 Background and Terminology <br /> <br />The ability to conduct takeoffs and landings during periods of reduced visibility or <br />inclement weather is an important factor at commercial airports. Instrument flight rules <br />(I FR) weather conditions are defined as periods when the cloud ceiling is less than <br />1,000 feet above ground or the prevailing visibility is less than 3 statute miles. <br /> <br />Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) states that if a landing is to be made <br />at an airport during IFR conditions, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is <br />necessary, aircraft shall follow a FAA standard instrument approach procedure (SlAP) <br />that is prescribed for the airport. An aircraft cannot land when the in-flight visibility is <br />lower than the minimum specified in the SlAP. <br /> <br />As part of its mandate to promote the safe and efficient use of airspace, the FAA is <br />responsible for establishing and approving terminal instrument procedures at civil <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />75C-92 <br />