8490 South Power Road, Suite 105

- 181  Gilbert, AZ 85297  Office (480) 987

- 7823  Fax (

6 02 ) 513

- 7388 Improving Access to the LaGuardia International Airport

Williams Avi ation Consultants was retained b y Ken Paskar to review and analyze the proposed

North Shore Marine Transfer Station (NSMTS) located 1,850 ft south east of the Runway 31

thresh old of LaGua rdia airport (LGA). The purpose of the analysis was to determine how the proposed NSMTS would impact the usability of LGA during periods of inclement weather by preventing the implementation of a precision instrument approach procedure with 1⁄2 mile visibility minimums. 1 During the process of conducting our review, it became clear that the NSMTS, presently under construction, will degrade airport access and efficiency while

increasi ng air traffic delays and associated costs to aircraft operators. 2

The following is a synopsis of our review, associated conclusions and recommendations.

BACKGROUND

Current Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) Configuration for LGA Runway 31: Non

Precision IAP

LGA is equipped with two crossing runways; Runway 13/31 and Runway 04/22. Presently, Runway 31 is equipped with non

- precision IAPs which are offset to the south. Landing minimums for these IAPs are 640 (632) and 1 3⁄4 mile visibility.

Non

- precision IAPs have relatively high landing minimums due to the fact th at they only provide lateral course guidance and do not provide a pilot with precision vertical guidance down to the runway pavement. As such, they do not provide the high level of access to the airport which might be provided by a precision IAP.

Precisio n IAP

Precision IAPs utilize both lateral course, and vertical glideslope guidance, whereas n on

precision IAPs such as the LGA LOC 31 and the RNAV (GPS) RWY 31 provide lateral course guidance only. A precision IAP provides the pilot with the lowest possi ble landing minimums

1 Aeronautical Impacts of the Nor th Shore Marine Transfer Station

– Williams Aviation Consultants, December 2009 and Aeronautical Impacts of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station on a localizer Precisions Vertical (LPV)
Instrument Approach Procedure

– Williams Aviation Consultants, Janu ary 2010.

2 There are, at present, two obstructions on the final approach course for Runway 3 1 which restrict the establishment of
a precision IAP to Runway 31. These obstructions are silos employed for the storage of asphalt and cement located
directly a cross Flushing Bay from the runway. It is our understanding that both of these obstructions could be removed

or lowered at minimal cost. If these two silos were reduced in height by up to 25 feet

, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) standards would allow the installation of a precision IAP to Runway 31 with visibility requirements as low as 1⁄2

mile

.W illiams A viation C

onsultants, Inc. and most commercial aircraft are equipped with the necessary instruments to fly this type of instrument approach. Runways equipped with a precision IAP benefit both the airport and the flying public by improving access to the airport during periods of low clouds and visibility.

LGA does not currently have a precision IAP because Runway 31 does not have a glide slope antenna, which provides vertical guidance, and the localizer antenna is not aligned with the extended Runway 31 centerl ine. In order to obtain the lowest minimum descent altitude and visibility requirements, an approach lighting system also needs to be installed on Runway 31. An initial feasibility review indicated that these limitations could be overcome and Runway 31 co uld support a precision IAP. Also, a GPS based LPV approach could be utilized which would not require the relocation of the localizer antenna and does not require a glide slope antenna.

Cu rrent Operational Limitations

When local LGA winds shift to the no rthwest, aircraft operations at LGA favor the use of Runway 31, both for takeoffs and landings. When such wind shifts are accompanied by low ceilings and visibilities, aircraft landing at LGA navigate to Runway 31 by means of the LOC RWY 31 or the RNAV (G PS) RWY 31 IAPs.

So long as flight visibility is at least 1 3⁄4 miles, aircraft may continue either of these IAPs to landing. However, if flight visibility falls below 1 3⁄4 miles, arriving aircraft are prohibited from landing on Runway 31. In such cases, aircraft must land on another runway having lower landing minimums (Runway 4 or Runway 22), enter a holding pattern and wait for visibility to improve, or divert to another airport.

Under these conditions, a pilot electing to land on either Runway 4 or 22 will be subject to landing under crosswind conditions rather than directly into the wind, which is the normal and preferred method of aircraft operation. All aircraft have specific crosswind limitations. If the crosswind component exceeds the aircraft’s limitations, it may not land and must either await improved weather conditions or divert to an alternate airport.

Installing a precision IAP on Runway 31 , would allow aircraft to land on Runway 31 with as low as 1⁄2 mile visibility. This also would reduc e the likelihood of aircraft having to either enter holding or divert to their alternate airport due to low visibility conditions.

Air Traffic Management Constraints

Airport operational efficiency has a direct effect on air traffic delays. Factors aff ecting operational efficiency include aircraft fleet mix (large, heavy jets require greater in

- trail spacing than do smaller and lighter aircraft), runway configuration (number of runways, alignment of runways and runway separation) and runway availability (wind, visibility).

As stated earlier, LGA is equipped with two crossing runways which are Runway 13/31 and Runway 04/22. When wind conditions favor Runway 31 and aircraft are unable to land on thatW illiams A viation C

onsultants, Inc. runway due to low visibility conditions, they will, i f wind direction and velocity permit, execute an IAP to either Runway 4 or Runway 22. Departures, however, will continue to utilize Runway 31 due to the prevailing wind direction.

The following is an FAA discussion of the operational efficiency of landing on either of the crossing runways while aircraft continue to depart on Runway 31.

Land Runway 22/Takeoff Runway 31

Greater in

- trail spacing for wake turbulence is required to accommodate heavy and Boeing 757 jets. A large number of heavy and B757 jets departures may back up the arrivals due to arrival spacing requirements. 3

Land Runway 4/Takeoff Runway 31

This is one of the least efficient airport operations due to the distance from the approach/departure ends of the runways to the intersection of the two runways. This configuration therefore requires additional spacing on final approach. 4

Benefits

Reducing the height of the existing silos will result in the following benefits: Increased access to the airport during certain adverse weather conditio ns Improved airport operational efficiency Reduced air traffic delays Reduced costs to aircraft operators Improved service to the flying public



### Air Traffic Management

If Runway 31 were to be equipped with a precision IAP, landing operations to Runway 31 would be allowed to continue down to a flight visibility of 1⁄2 mile, which is 1 1⁄4 miles lower than currently exists for Runway 31. This would serve to:

Allow both landings and takeoffs on Runway 31 during wind conditions (direction/velocity) that favors use of that runway, even under visibility conditions as

low as 1⁄2 mile. Preclude the use of crossing runways for simultaneous arrival and departure operations

Reduce the possibility of aircraft arrival delays due to wind direction/velocity and low

visibili ty conditions Reduce the possibility of aircraft being required to divert to alternate airports due to wind direction/velocity and low visibility conditions

3 Federal Aviation Administration, LaGuardia Traffic Management Playbook, ILS/LDA 22/DEP 31

4 Federal Aviation Administration, LaGuardia Traffic Management Pl aybook, ILS 4/DEP 31W illiams A viation C

onsultants, Inc. From an FAA Traffic Management perspective, t his would have a positive effect on LGA airport

operat ional efficiency, as follows:

Land Runway 31/Takeoff Runway 31 This is the best single runway configuration although the tower must maintain a one

- for

- one arrival/departure operation. 5

Other Considerations

According to the United States Standard for Te rminal Instrument Procedures, FAA Order 8260.3B and 8260.54A, the proposed transfer station should not be approved because it will penetrate the obstacle clearance surfaces (OCS) for the ILS and LPV procedures. According to these guidelines, proposed obstr uctions shall not penetrate the OCS.

If, once the a precision IAP were implemented at LGA, with 1⁄2 mile visibility requirements, the NSMTS would be located in the runway protection zone (RPZ) for Runway 31 which would extend 2,500 feet from the end of the runway

. According to FAA guidelines (Advisory Circular

AC 150

- 520

- 33) bird attractant s, such as waste management facilities should not be constructed

within the RPZ.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Current obstructions located on the LGA Runway 31 final approach course preclude the establishment of a precision IAP with visibility requirements as low as 1⁄2 mile

. Reducing the height of these obstructions will result in the ability of the LGA airport operator, in conjunction with the FAA, to establish a pr ecision IAP to Runway 31 with improved visibility landing minimums down to 1⁄2 mile from the current 1 3⁄4 mile

limitation.

If s atellite navigation based IAP such as an RNAV or LPV were selected for implementation

, the installation would come at littl e or no c ost to the airport operator

.

It is therefore recommended that, if feasible, the two existing silos constituting obstructions on the final approach course to Runway 31 be reduced in height to facilitate the establishment of a precision IAP to Runway 31.

Ramifications of the Construction of the NSMTS

Implementing a precision IAP to Runway 31 at LGA will result in increased access to the airport and decrease weather related delays. However, t he construction of the NSMTS will eliminate the possibility of im plementing a precision IAP to Runway 31 with the associated visibility reduction to 1⁄2 mile. The NSMTS will instead require that the visibility requirement be set a 1 mile, thereby negating the benefit of a precision IAP.

5 Federal Aviation Administration, LaGuardia Traffic Management Playbook, LOC 31/DEP 4