EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2
2007 Airport Master 

Plan Update 

Prepared for: 

The City of Chandler 

December 2006 

Prepared by: 

Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. 

“The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the State of Arizona 

as approved by the State Transportation Board. The contents of this report reflect the views of the 

Consultant, which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data depicted herein, and do not 

necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the State of Arizona. Acceptance of this report by the 

State of Arizona does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the State of Arizona to 

participate in any development depicted therein, nor does it indicate that the proposed development is 

environmentally acceptable in accordance with applicable public laws.” 
 

	












TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER ONE: INVENTORY 

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1-1 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................................1-2 

AIRPORT HISTORY ...............................................................................................1-3 

AIRPORT LOCATION AND ACCESS.....................................................................1-3 

AIRPORT ROLE .....................................................................................................1-8 

AIRPORT ACTIVITY ...............................................................................................1-9 

 Aircraft Operations................................................................................................1-9 

 Based Aircraft.....................................................................................................1-10 

EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES.........................................................................1-10 

 Airport Property ..................................................................................................1-11 

 Airfield Facilities..................................................................................................1-11 

 Landside Facilities ..............................................................................................1-16 

 Support Facilities and Equipment.......................................................................1-22 

 Utilities................................................................................................................1-22 

 Surface Access and Parking System..................................................................1-22 

 Airport Fencing and Security ..............................................................................1-23 

 Pavement Condition ...........................................................................................1-24 

AIRSPACE AND APPROACHES..........................................................................1-24 

 Airport Traffic Pattern and Procedures ...............................................................1-25 

 Air Traffic Control Facilities and Procedures.......................................................1-25 

 Aeronautical Radio Communications..................................................................1-26 

 Instrument Approaches and Equipment .............................................................1-27 

 Regional Airspace Considerations......................................................................1-28 

 Avoidance of Noise Sensitive Areas...................................................................1-32 

CLIMATIC AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS...........................................1-32 

AREA LAND USE PATTERNS AND ZONING ......................................................1-34 

AREA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA..........................................................................1-37 

OTHER AREA AIRPORTS....................................................................................1-39 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................1-40 

CHAPTER TWO: PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND 

INTRODUCATION ..................................................................................................2-1 

REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ...............................................................................2-2 

HISTORIC AVIATION ACTIVITY ............................................................................2-5 

NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS.............................................................................2-7 

 General Aviation Overview ...................................................................................2-8 

 General Aviation Industry .....................................................................................2-8 

 Business Use of General Aviation ........................................................................2-9 

FAA ACTIVITY FORECASTS ...............................................................................2-11 

 Active Pilots........................................................................................................2-12 
 

	












 Active Aircraft Fleet ............................................................................................2-12 

 Active Hours Flown.............................................................................................2-13 

 Summary of FAA Forecasts................................................................................2-14 

PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND.............................................................2-15 

 Based Aircraft Projections ..................................................................................2-15 

 FAA Projected Growth Rate Methodology..........................................................2-16 

 Regression Methodology....................................................................................2-16 

 Trendline Methodology .......................................................................................2-17 

 Comparison of Based Aircraft Projections ..........................................................2-18 

 Projected Fleet Mix.............................................................................................2-21 

 Aircraft Operations Projections...........................................................................2-22 

 Operations Per Based Aircraft Methodology.......................................................2-23 

 Market Share of FAA Hours Flown Methodology................................................2-24 

 Population Growth Methodology.........................................................................2-25 

 Comparison of Aircraft Operations Projections...................................................2-25 

 Projected Local/Itinerant Split.............................................................................2-28 

CRITICAL AIRCRAFT...........................................................................................2-29 

PEAKING ANALYSIS............................................................................................2-30 

INSTRUMENT APPROACH FORECASTS...........................................................2-31 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................2-33 

CHAPTER THREE: CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................3-1 

AIRFIELD CAPACITY .............................................................................................3-1 

 Factors Affecting Airfield Capacity........................................................................3-2 

 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ...............................................................................3-3 

 Annual Service Volume ........................................................................................3-5 

AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................3-6 

 Runway Orientation ..............................................................................................3-6 

 Runway Length.....................................................................................................3-7 

 Runway Width ....................................................................................................3-10 

 Runway Strength ................................................................................................3-10 

 Taxiways.............................................................................................................3-11 

 Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs) .............................................................................3-11 

 Airport Design Standards ...................................................................................3-14 

LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................................3-19 

 Hangars..............................................................................................................3-19 

 Aprons and Tie-down Areas ...............................................................................3-20 

 Total Storage Demand .......................................................................................3-20 

 Terminal Building................................................................................................3-22 

 Automobile Parking ............................................................................................3-22 

 Access Roadways ..............................................................................................3-23 

 Fuel Storage.......................................................................................................3-24 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................3-25 
 

	












CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................4-1 

SUMMARY OF AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS .........................................................4-1 

ABILITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE IMPROVEMENTS......4-2 

 Airfield ..................................................................................................................4-2 

 Landside...............................................................................................................4-3 

IDENTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES......................................4-5 

 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................4-5 

 Transfer of Aviation Services .............................................................................4-6 

 Airside Alternative..............................................................................................4-7 

 Taxiways............................................................................................................4-9 

 NAVAIDs..........................................................................................................4-12 

 Apron Expansion..............................................................................................4-14 

 Construct Additional Hangars ..........................................................................4-17 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES......................................................................4-17 

 Runways ..........................................................................................................4-17 

 Taxiways..........................................................................................................4-24 

 NAVAIDs..........................................................................................................4-25 

 Apron Expansion..............................................................................................4-25 

 Additional Hangars...........................................................................................4-26 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................4-27 

CHAPTER FIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW 

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................5-1 

NOISE.....................................................................................................................5-3 

 Noise Exposure Impacts.......................................................................................5-3 

COMPATABLE LAND USE.....................................................................................5-6 

SOCIAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................5-7 

INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS/CUMULATIVE IMPACTS......................5-8 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS.................................................................5-8 

AIR QUALITY..........................................................................................................5-9 

WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................5-10 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, SECTION 4(f) .............................5-11 

HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL 

RESOURCES .......................................................................................................5-12 

BIOTIC COMMUNITIES/THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...........5-12 

WETLANDS ..........................................................................................................5-13 

FLOODPLAINS .....................................................................................................5-13 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND COASTAL BARRIERS .......5-14 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS................................................................................5-14 

PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS ....................................................................5-14 

ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ..............................................5-14 

LIGHT EMISSIONS...............................................................................................5-15 
 

	










 

SOLID WASTE IMPACTS.....................................................................................5-15 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ................................................................................5-17 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................5-17 

CHAPTER SIX: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................6-1 

PHASING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.........................................................6-1 

 Phase I: Short-Term Development (0-5 Years) ....................................................6-2 

 Phase II: Mid-Term Development (5-10 Years) ....................................................6-4 

 Phase III: Long-Term Development (10-20 Years)...............................................6-5 

COST ESTIMATES.................................................................................................6-5 

CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES .............................................................................6-7 

 FAA Funding.........................................................................................................6-7 

 State Funding .......................................................................................................6-8 

 Sponsor Funding ................................................................................................6-10 

 Airport Operating Revenues and Expenses.....................................................6-10 

 Projected Operating Revenues and Expenses ................................................6-11 

 Other Funding.....................................................................................................6-13 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................6-14 

APPENDIX A: AIRSPACE CONFLICTS ANALYSIS 

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... A-1 

GENERAL AIRSPACE OVERVIEW....................................................................... A-1 

 Controlled Airspace ............................................................................................. A-2 

 Special Use Airspace ........................................................................................ A-10 

 Available VFR Airspace..................................................................................... A-10 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL..................................................................................... A-12 

 Air Traffic Control Facilities................................................................................ A-12 

 Published Instrument Approaches..................................................................... A-13 

CURRENT AIRSPACE ISSUES .......................................................................... A-17 

 Stellar Airpark.................................................................................................... A-17 

 Memorial Airfield................................................................................................ A-21 

 Stellar Airpark – Memorial Airfield ..................................................................... A-24 

 Williams Gateway Airport................................................................................... A-27 

FUTURE POTENTIAL AIRSPACE ISSUES......................................................... A-30 

 Memorial Airfield................................................................................................ A-30 

 Class B Airspace Redesign ............................................................................... A-32 

SUMMARY........................................................................................................... A-34 

 
 

	










 

APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 

DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... B-1 

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... B-1 

RELEVANT MASTER PLAN FINDINGS................................................................ B-2 

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS........................................................................... B-4 

 Economic Impact at Comparable Airports ........................................................... B-4 

 Economic Impact of Jet Aircraft Operations......................................................... B-5 

 Economic Impact of Corporate Flight Departments............................................. B-7 

 Benefits................................................................................................................ B-8 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................. B-9 

APPENDIX C: AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWINGS
 

	










 

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER ONE: INVENTORY 

Table 1.1 – HISTORIC AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY ........................................................1-9 

Table 1.2 – HISTORIC BASED AIRCRAFT ..........................................................1-10 

Table 1.3 – EXISTING RUNWAY FACILITIES......................................................1-13 

Table 1.4 – EXISTING AIRFIELD LIGHTING AND NAVAIDS ..............................1-15 

Table 1.5 – AIRCRAFT HANGAR STORAGE.......................................................1-18 

Table 1.6 – CURRENT INSTRUMENT APPROACHES........................................1-28 

Table 1.7 – HISTORIC REGIONAL POPULATION DATA ....................................1-37 

Table 1.8 – HISTORIC EMPLOYMENT DATA......................................................1-38 

Table 1.9 – EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (2000) CHANDLER 

 MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MARKET AREA ............................................1-38 

Table 1.10 – EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (1970-2000) MARICOPA 

 COUNTY...........................................................................................1-39 

Table 1.11 – OTHER AREA AIRPORTS...............................................................1-40 

CHAPTER TWO: PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND 

Table 2.1 – HISTORICAL POPULATION EMPLOYMENT AND 

 EARNINGS DATA ................................................................................2-3 

Table 2.2 – TOP EMPLOYERS IN THE CITY OF CHANDLER ..............................2-4 

Table 2.3 – PROJECTED POPULATION EMPLOYMENT AND 

 EARNINGS DATA ................................................................................2-5 

Table 2.4 – HISTORIC BASED AIRCRAFT ............................................................2-6 

Table 2.5 – HISTORIC AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.................................................2-7 

Table 2.6 – HISTORIC AND PROJECTED U.S. ACTIVE PILOTS BY 

 TYPE OF CERTIFICATE....................................................................2-12 

Table 2.7 – HISTORIC AND PROJECTED U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL 

 AVIATION FLEET MIX .......................................................................2-13 

Table 2.8 – ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI HOURS 

 FLOWN ..............................................................................................2-14 

Table 2.9 – BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION FAA PROJECTED 

 GROWTH IN ACTIVE GA AIRCRAFT METHODOLOGY ..................2-16 

Table 2.10 – BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION REGRESSION 

 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................2-17 

Table 2.11 – BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION TRENDLINE 

 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................2-18 

Table 2.12 – COMPARISON OF BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS.................2-19 

Table 2.13 – PROJECTED CHANGE IN U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL 

 AVIATION FLEET MIX .....................................................................2-21 

Table 2.14 – PREFERRED BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX PROJECTION........2-22 

Table 2.15 – AVERAGE OPBA.............................................................................2-23 
 

	










 

Table 2.16 – AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PROJECTION OPBA 

 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................2-23 

Table 2.17 – PROJECTED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS MARKET 

 SHARE OF FAA HOURS FLOWN METHODOLOGY ......................2-24 

Table 2.18 – AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PROJECTION PROPULATION 

 GROWTH METHODOLOGY............................................................2-25 

Table 2.19 – COMPAIRSON OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 

 PROJECTIONS................................................................................2-26 

Table 2.20 – HISTORIC LOCAL AND ITINERANT OPERATIONS.......................2-28 

Table 2.21 – LOCAL AND ITINERANT OPERATION PROJECTIONS.................2-29 

Table 2.22 – AIRCRAFT CATEGORIES AND DESIGN GROUPS .......................2-29 

Table 2.23 – PEAK ACTIVITY FORECAST ..........................................................2-31 

Table 2.24 – INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS FORECAST.....................................2-33 

Table 2.25 – SUMMARY OF PROJECTIONS.......................................................2-34 

CHAPTER THREE: CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 

Table 3.1 – AVIATION DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS.......................................3-5 

Table 3.2 – AIRFIELD DELAY ANALYSIS..............................................................3-6 

Table 3.3 – WIND COVERAGE ..............................................................................3-7 

Table 3.4 – RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT DESIGN ........3-9 

Table 3.5 – PAVEMENT STRENGTHS.................................................................3-11 

Table 3.6 – FAA DESIGN CRITERIA....................................................................3-15 

Table 3.7 – EXISTING RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES....................................3-17 

Table 3.8 – AIRCRAFT HANGAR STORAGE REQUIREMENTS.........................3-21 

Table 3.9 – GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS......3-22 

Table 3.10 – AUTOMOBILE PARKING REQUIREMENTS...................................3-23 

Table 3.11 – FUEL STORAGE REQUIREMENTS................................................3-25 

CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Table 4.1 – COMMON SOUND LEVELS ..............................................................4-20 

Table 4.2 – RUNWAY UTILZATIONS ...................................................................4-21 

CHAPTER SIX: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 

Table 6.1 – SUMMARY TABLE...............................................................................6-6 

Table 6.2 – PHASE I (0-5 Years) ............................................................................6-7 

Table 6.3 – PHASE II (6-10 Years) .........................................................................6-7 

Table 6.4 – PHASE III (11-20 Years) ......................................................................6-7 

Table 6.5 – ON-AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES .............6-12 

Table 6.6 – PROJECTED ON-AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES AND 

 EXPENSES ........................................................................................6-13 
 

	










 

APPENDIX A: AIRSPACE CONFLICTS ANALYSIS 

Table A.1 – INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES ................................... A-15 

APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 

DEVELOPMENT 

Table B.1 – CONSTRAINED JET OPERATIONS FORECAST.............................. B-3 

Table B.2 – AIRPLANES THAT MAKE UP 75% OF FLEET .................................. B-3 

Table B.3 – ECONOMIC IMPACT AND FACILITIES AT COMPARABLE 

 AIRPORTS .......................................................................................... B-5 

Table B.4 – ECONOMIC IMPACT OF JET AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ................. B-6 

Table B.5 – 5,700-FOOT RUNWAY EXTENSION CHD CORPORATE 

 FLIGHT DEPARTMENT ECONOMIC IMPACT................................... B-7 

Table B.6 – TOTAL ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A 5,700-FOOT 

 RUNWAY EXTENSION AND CHD CORPORATE FLIGHT 

 DEPARTMENT.................................................................................... B-8 
 

	










!

LIST OF EXHIBITS

CHAPTER ONE: INVENTORY 

EXHIBIT 1.1 – National & Regional Location ..........................................................1-6 

EXHIBIT 1.2 – Airport Area .....................................................................................1-7 

EXHIBIT 1.3 – Existing Airport Diagram................................................................1-12 

EXHIBIT 1.4 – Chandler Municipal Wind Coverage ..............................................1-14 

EXHIBIT 1.5 – Regional Airspace .........................................................................1-29 

EXHIBIT 1.6 – U.S. Airspace Classifications.........................................................1-33 

EXHIBIT 1.7 – Chandler Land Use Map................................................................1-35 

EXHIBIT 1.8 – Other Area Airports .......................................................................1-41 

CHAPTER TWO: PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND 

EXHIBIT 2.1 – Business Use of General Aviation Turbine 

 Aircraft ...........................................................................................2-10 

EXHIBIT 2.2 – Based Aircraft Projections .............................................................2-20 

EXHIBIT 2.3 – Aircraft Operations Projections......................................................2-27 

EXHIBIT 2.4 – Aircraft Categories & Design Groups ............................................2-32 

CHAPTER THREE: CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 

EXHIBIT 3.1 – Chandler Municipal Wind Coverage ................................................3-8 

EXHIBIT 3.2 – FAA Runway Protection Zones Design Standards ........................3-18 

CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 

EXHIBIT 4.1 – Runway Extension...........................................................................4-8 

EXHIBIT 4.2 – Taxiway Extension Full..................................................................4-10 

EXHIBIT 4.3 – Taxiway Extension Partial .............................................................4-11 

EXHIBIT 4.4 – MALSR System .............................................................................4-13 

EXHIBIT 4.5 – Apron Expansion ...........................................................................4-15 

EXHIBIT 4.6 – Apron Expansion ...........................................................................4-16 

EXHIBIT 4.7 – 2005 DNL Noise Contours.............................................................4-22 

EXHIBIT 4.8 – 2025 DNL Noise Contours.............................................................4-23 

EXHIBIT 4.9 – Recommended Landside Alternative.............................................4-28 

EXHIBIT 4.10 – Recommended Airside Alternative ..............................................4-29 

CHAPTER FIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW 

EXHIBIT 5.1 – 2025 DNL Noise Contours...............................................................5-5 
 

	










!

APPENDIX A: AIRSPACE CONFLICTS ANALYSIS 

EXHIBIT A.1 – Phoenix Area High IFR Routes ...................................................... A-3 

EXHIBIT A.2 – Regional Airspace.......................................................................... A-5 

EXHIBIT A.3 – Chandler Municipal Airport Class D Airspace ................................ A-7 

EXHIBIT A.4 – Phoenix Area Low Altitude Routes................................................. A-8 

EXHIBIT A.5 – Class D and Class E Airspace ....................................................... A-9 

EXHIBIT A.6 – Phoenix Area Military Training Routes......................................... A-11 

EXHIBIT A.7 – Non-Precision Instrument Approach Procedure Chandler 

 Municipal Airport .......................................................................... A-14 

EXHIBIT A.8 – Instrument Approach Procedures ................................................ A-16 

EXHIBIT A.9 – Traffic Pattern Airspace................................................................ A-18 

EXHIBIT A.10 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and P19) ................ A-19 

EXHIBIT A.11 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and P19) ................ A-20 

EXHIBIT A.12 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and 34AZ) .............. A-22 

EXHIBIT A.13 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and 34AZ) .............. A-23 

EXHIBIT A.14 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (34AZ and P19)................ A-25 

EXHIBIT A.15 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (34AZ and P19)................ A-26 

EXHIBIT A.16 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and IWA) ................ A-28 

EXHIBIT A.17 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and IWA) ................ A-29 

EXHIBIT A.18 – Future Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and 34AZ)................. A-31 

EXHIBIT A.19 – Proposed Phoenix Class B Airspace.......................................... A-33 

"##







$#


%&'

CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 

INTRODUCTION 

The objective of this chapter is to identify feasible development options that meet the 

projected levels of aviation demand as well as maintain a safe aviation environment in 

and around Chandler Municipal Airport over the 20-year planning period. In this chapter, 

a series of airport development scenarios are identified and considered. The ultimate 

goal is to develop the underlying rationale that supports the final Master Plan 

recommendations. Through this process, an evaluation of the highest and best uses of 

Airport property is made while considering local goals, physical constraints, and 

appropriate federal airport design standards, where appropriate. 

The number of potential alternatives that can be considered are endless. Therefore, 

some judgment must be applied to identify alternatives that have the potential to be 

implemented. In order to achieve this objective, the following five sections help 

determine a recommended approach to future development at Chandler Municipal 

Airport: 

• Summary of Airport Requirements 

• Ability of Existing Facilities to Accommodate Improvements 

• Identification of Development Alternatives 

• Evaluation of Alternatives 

• Conclusions 

SUMMARY OF AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS

Chandler Municipal Airport will continue in its role as a Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA)-designated general aviation reliever airport, supporting the region’s general and 

business aviation activities including flight training, and providing service to light and 

corporate class aircraft. The preceding capacity analysis and facility requirements 

chapter projected that overall airfield capacity at Chandler Municipal Airport will be 

sufficient to accommodate demand throughout the 20-year planning period. However, 

the Airport is projected to be increasingly utilized by larger corporate class aircraft. 

Based on a continuation of the Airport’s existing role and using industry and FAA 

planning standards, the facility requirements analysis identified the following needs for 

Chandler Municipal Airport within the 20-year planning period: 

• Runway extension and widening 

• Extension of parallel Taxiway B 

• Installation of Approach Lighting System 

• Construction of additional hangar facilities 

• Construction of additional apron 

• Reconfiguration and construction of additional auto parking 

• Reconfiguration and construction of north side airport access roadways 

"##







$#


%&

• Construction of south side airport access roadways 

ABILITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE IMPROVEMENTS

This section evaluates the ability of Chandler Municipal Airport to accommodate the 

necessary facility improvements identified to meet current and projected demand.

Airfield

Runways

As identified in the preceding chapter, the forecasted demand for future aviation activity 

is projected to reach the capacity of the existing runway and taxiway system toward the 

end of the forecast period. Additionally, the analysis completed in previous chapters 

indicates that Chandler Municipal Airport will be increasingly utilized by larger corporate 

class aircraft. The analysis indicated that the current runway size is sufficient for the 

smaller aircraft that use the Airport, but falls short of the requirements necessary for 

larger aircraft to use the Airport on a year-round basis. As identified in Table 3.4, a 

runway length of 7,000 feet would provide service to 100 percent of corporate general 

aviation aircraft at 60 percent useful load. The Airport is constrained by Germann Road 

to the northeast and Queen Creek Road to the southwest. The alternatives section 

below discusses the runway extension options available at Chandler Municipal Airport, 

assuming that the roads and surrounding development are fixed constraints and that 

this runway length cannot be accommodated. Additionally, because of the location of 

taxiways, hangars and apron in relation to Runway 4L-22R, it was determined that 

extension of this runway was not practical. Due to the increased usage of the Airport by 

corporate class aircraft, it is recommended that the Airport be upgraded to meet ARC CII design standards. If Runway 4L-22R were upgraded to meet these standards, the 

taxiway, apron, and the majority of hangars would require relocation. Thus, the runway 

extension alternatives evaluate the extension of Runway 4R-22L. 

Another option that was investigated to meet the identified runway length requirements 

was the use of declared distances. Runways are normally fully usable in both directions. 

Furthermore, they normally have clear approaches to each runway end. The use of 

declared distances can be effective on runways where providing a conventional 

configuration is impractical for cost or other reasons. Declared distances allow portions 

of the runway to be counted for certain aircraft operational requirements, typically takeoff but not included for others, typically landing. The use of declared distances is 

effective because the majority of aircraft, particularly larger corporate class aircraft, 

require more runway length for take-off operations than landing operations. It was 

determined that using declared distances could provide a longer runway for take-off, 

however, the FAA strongly discourages the use of declared distances when other 

options are available. Typically, declared distances are used to address operational 

limitations in cases where other options are not available. In the case of Chandler 

Municipal Airport, it was determined that relocation of the roadways limiting expansion is 

"##







$#


%&(

physically possible, but because of current City policy it is not feasible or desirable. 

Therefore, the use of declared distances was not utilized in determining runway length 

alternatives. 

Taxiways

Taxiways are primarily constructed to facilitate aircraft movements to and from the 

runway system. The availability of entrance and exit taxiways can affect the overall 

airfield efficiency. The current system of full and partial parallel taxiways provides 

adequate access to each of the Airport’s parallel runways. However, as activity at the 

Airport continues to grow, operation of the Airport in the most efficient manner possible 

will become critical in avoiding costly delays to users of the Airport. Construction of 

additional taxiways will assist in operating the airfield as efficiently as possible. The 

taxiway alternatives allow for two-way taxiing of aircraft on the airfield and in the 

terminal apron area. 

NAVAIDs

The current instrument approach procedures at Chandler Municipal Airport provide 

opportunities for instrument training operations and access during inclement weather 

conditions with cloud ceilings as low as 400 feet above ground level and visibility as low 

as one mile. In order for Chandler Municipal to implement a precision approach with 

lower weather minimums, an approach lighting system is required. This system would 

allow for the installation of a precision instrument approach which would likely be global 

positioning system (GPS)-based. This system would provide additional training 

opportunities for pilots practicing to fly using instruments, and would also provide 

access to the Airport in more inclement weather conditions than are possible today. A 

precision approach could also potentially help to eliminate approach and traffic pattern 

conflicts with Memorial Airfield and Stellar Airpark. 

A significant amount of flexibility exists in the design of new GPS-based precision 

approach procedures, which can be created to avoid areas of conflict in the air and on 

the ground. Because of the relative lack of inclement weather in the Phoenix area, 

access to the Airport would not be significantly improved by installation of a precision 

approach, however, improved airspace utilization and additional instrument training 

opportunities could provide a significant benefit to the Airport. 

Landside 

Similar to airfield facilities development, landside development opportunities also look to 

existing structures to accommodate improvements. 

"##







$#


%&%

Hangars

The Airport currently has conventional hangars, t-hangars and shade hangars on the 

north side of the airfield to protect aircraft from sun and weather exposure. As identified 

in Chapter One, the Airport currently has 238 hangar units. The required development 

of hangars would be in addition to the existing facilities currently provided. The use of 

the existing hangar units is accounted for in the calculation of required hangar units. 

The current number of hangar units does not meet current or projected demand for 

hangar storage. Limited developable land exists for additional hangar development on 

the north side of the airfield. The southeast side of the airfield has sufficient area 

available to accommodate the projected need for additional hangar units, but will require 

additional infrastructure to support this development, including apron, taxi lanes, and 

access roadways. 

Apron

Chandler Municipal Airport has a limited amount of apron pavement located along the 

northwest side of the airfield. The Airport’s existing aircraft apron has adequate 

pavement to accommodate some additional hangar development, but is insufficient to 

meet the current and projected need for transient apron, tie-downs and hangar facilities. 

Additional apron space is needed to support increases in transient and locally based 

aircraft operations, as well as the construction of additional tie-downs and additional 

hangar facilities. The amount of developable land on the north side of the airfield is 

insufficient to construct the amount of apron identified to meet projected demand. 

Sufficient developable land exists on the southeast side of the airfield to construct the 

necessary apron area to meet projected demand, but needs to be coordinated with 

other development in that vicinity. 

Auto Parking

Overall, the Airport has sufficient auto parking to meet the projected demand. However, 

some individual areas on the Airport have insufficient parking according to future 

demand projections. Additionally, some areas on the Airport currently used for auto 

parking are planned to be converted to other uses, thus additional auto parking will be 

considered along with other facility development alternatives. 

Alternatives for developing the airfield and landside facilities mentioned above are 

addressed in the next section, Identification of Development Alternatives. These 

alternatives make use of existing facilities where they provide benefit, cost savings or 

minimize the impacts to other areas. In some instances, however, the ability to use 

existing facilities does not present itself or constitute the most logical approach to 

development. In these circumstances, a given facility may require the replacement or 

removal of an existing facility to make way for new opportunities. 

"##







$#


%&)

IDENTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Each of the airport requirements listed above present several development alternatives. 

Because Chandler Municipal Airport, like so many general aviation airports, has 

experienced times of strong growth as well as times of decreased activity levels, this 

study aims to provide the flexibility to respond to aviation demand beyond the current 

expectations. Development alternatives were formulated for each facility requirement 

discussed above grouped according to airside and landside segments. Because the 

scope, demand and location of the required facilities differ from one another, they can 

be developed and evaluated independently. Some required facilities may have more 

alternatives than others due to the amount of developable land, realistic placement, and 

ability to meet FAA standards. Before specific airside and landside alternatives are 

reviewed, a discussion on the “No Action” Alternative and the possible transfer of 

aviation services are presented.

No Action Alternative

The no action or do nothing alternative maintains the Airport in its present condition and 

provides no improvement of any type to the existing facilities. With this alternative, 

Chandler Municipal Airport’s two parallel runways, which are currently 4,395 and 4,850 

feet long, and other airside and landside facilities would be retained as they are today. 

The Beech King Air turbo-prop aircraft would remain the design aircraft with the 

runways designed to meet ARC B-II criteria. This length is sufficient to accommodate 

100 percent of all small aircraft. Under almost all conditions this length is adequate for 

use by single-engine and twin-engine piston aircraft. While other facilities, such as 

aircraft storage, are able to accommodate today’s users, a no action alternative would 

not accommodate future users or expanded aircraft sizes or capabilities. The 

overlaying result of this alternative would be its inability to satisfy aircraft performance 

demands on a year-round basis in future years. 

Considering that the region has experienced strong growth in all socioeconomic 

categories over the past several years and the aviation forecast presented earlier in this 

document predicts continued growth at Chandler Municipal Airport, enhancements are 

essential to keep pace with demand. Without the facilities identified in the previous 

section, regular users of the Airport will be constrained from taking advantage of the 

Airport’s air transportation capabilities and the Airport may be unable to attract potential 

new users. 

The consequences of the no action alternative extend beyond Chandler Municipal 

Airport and the Chandler/Gilbert area. Other airports within Maricopa County rely on 

Chandler Municipal Airport to help accommodate the demand for general aviation 

services in the region, one of the reasons the Airport is designated by the FAA as a 

reliever airport. Without facilities designed to meet the needs of aviation in the region, 

airports such as Williams Gateway, Falcon Field, and large commercial service airports 

like Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport would be at or exceeding capacity due to 

"##







$#


%&

the increased level of general aviation activity that would utilize those airports. General 

aviation facilities like Chandler Municipal Airport not only provide convenience to 

general aviation users in their immediate environs, they also assist in avoiding major 

congestion at other general aviation and commercial service airports. 

The no action alternative will also adversely affect the economic climate in the Chandler 

community. Businesses and industries seeking locations with adequate and convenient 

aviation facilities are attracted to airports that maintain and expand their services and 

facilities to keep up with the ever-changing and growing demands of general aviation. 

Chandler Municipal Airport has much to offer businesses in terms of airside and 

landside facilities. Without adequate maintenance and additional and on-going 

improvements, existing users and potential businesses for Chandler Municipal Airport 

and the City of Chandler could be lost. Because of the impact the no action alternative 

may have on the viability of the Airport as well as the opportunities that lay ahead, the 

no action alternative is not considered prudent. 

Transfer of Aviation Services

The relocation of services to another airport is always a potential alternative. It would be 

difficult to duplicate the services and convenience that Chandler Municipal Airport 

provides, whether at an existing facility or a new site. There are only two public-use 

general aviation airports within 20 miles that could potentially service the needs of 

Chandler Municipal Airport users: Falcon Field and Williams Gateway Airport. Falcon 

Field in Mesa has nearly 1,000 based aircraft and a lengthy waiting list for other aircraft 

owners searching for places to base their aircraft. Its longest runway is 5,100 feet long 

and would require an extension and/or new runway to meet future demand identified for 

Chandler Municipal if aircraft and services were transferred from Chandler Municipal 

Airport. Due to the number of based aircraft and operations at Chandler Municipal 

Airport, and the lack of existing facilities at Falcon Field to meet the existing or longrange demand for based aircraft and operations projected for Chandler Municipal, 

shifting services would not be possible without major development costs to Falcon Field. 

Williams Gateway Airport is being developed to serve the needs of large commercial jet 

aircraft as a reliever to Phoenix Sky Harbor and is not intended to serve as a primary 

general aviation facility. Williams Gateway is working closely with the City of Phoenix to 

attract additional airlines to serve the growing East Valley’s commercial service needs. 

As part of the Maricopa Association of Government’s previous Regional Aviation 

System Plan (RASP), development of new airport sites has been recommended to 

accommodate the projected increases in demand for general aviation activity 

throughout the Phoenix metropolitan region. While new sites have been recommended, 

no additional analysis has been undertaken in the region as there are no identified 

sponsors for new airports due to the economic and environmental costs of new site 

development. The economic and environmental costs of developing a new airport site 

are far greater than the cost of developing an existing site. 

"##







$#


%&*

An option exists to encourage the relocation of some services or activity to another 

facility, should it become necessary. For example, training activity can be encouraged to 

go elsewhere. It is also possible to encourage the basing of aircraft at other regional 

airports. There are limited means available to encourage relocation due to regulations 

imposed by the FAA regarding providing the Airport being open to provide service to 

any and all users. Providing access to the nation’s air transportation system provides 

many economic benefits to the City of Chandler and the surrounding region. Failure to 

provide the necessary airport facilities and services diminishes the many social and 

economic benefits the Airport provides. Therefore, the master planning process 

attempts to provide the Airport with the needed facilities which have been identified in 

the previous chapter, at the levels forecasted throughout the 20-year planning period. 

Airside Alternative 

Runway Alternative – Runway 4R-22L extension to 5,700 feet 

Under this scenario, Runway 4R-22L would be extended to 5,700 feet. This would be 

accomplished by extending the runway 600 feet to the northeast, and 250 feet to the 

southwest and is depicted in Exhibit 4.1. This alternative provides enhanced 

accommodation of small to medium-sized corporate class aircraft by providing the 

maximum runway length possible within the confines of existing Airport property. Public 

roads located beyond each end of the runway limit the amount of runway extension 

possible and this alternative assumes that the roads are fixed constraints. In this 

alternative, the runway is designed to accommodate ARC C-II aircraft. In order to 

accommodate this class of aircraft, the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object 

Free Area (ROFA) requirements and required Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) become 

larger than what currently exists. ARC C-II standards require the RSA to be expanded 

to 500 feet wide and 1,000 feet beyond the end of each runway end. The ROFA is 

required to be 800 feet wide and extends 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. The RPZ 

for ARC C-II runways with instrument approach visibility of not less than one mile is 500 

feet (inner width) by 1,700 feet (length) by 1,010 (outer width). This alternative 

maintains the RSA and the ROFA on existing Airport property, and requires the 

purchase or acquisition of easements of approximately 22.3 acres to achieve control of 

the expanded RPZ. 

The intent of this alternative is to accommodate corporate class aircraft to the greatest 

extent possible without realignment of roadways at either runway end, while also 

maintaining the future RSA and ROFA on existing Airport property. A shorter runway 

extension alternative would accommodate fewer aircraft and the cost differential 

associated with this alternative versus other, shorter extensions, is marginal. While this 

length would better accommodate small to medium-sized corporate class aircraft, it 

would preclude most of these aircraft from operating at their full capacity in terms of 

carrying maximum loads of fuel, cargo or passengers during warmer weather. A 

pavement strength of 75,000 pounds for dual wheel aircraft would be appropriate for 

this length.

"##







$#


%&+

"##







$#


%&,

Taxiways

Runway 4R-22L has a full parallel taxiway on the southeast side of the runway (Taxiway 

C), and a partial parallel taxiway on the northwest side of the runway (Taxiway B). The 

first taxiway alternative calls for an extension of Taxiway B to the southwest to the 

approach end of Runway 4L. This would be accomplished by extending Taxiway B to 

the southwest approximately 4,359 feet and to the northeast 600 feet to the proposed 

future end of Runway 4R-22L. If Runway 4R-22L is extended, Taxiway C would also be 

extended to the new runway ends. The proposed taxiway extensions are depicted on 

Exhibit 4.2. This alternative would provide full-length parallel taxiways on each side of 

both runways, providing two-way taxi circulation for both runways. Taxiway B could be 

used for operations on both runways and could reduce the need for aircraft to make 

mid-field runway crossings while transitioning to and from Runway 4R-22L and the north 

apron area. 

Another alternative calls for an extension of Taxiway B and C to the proposed ends of 

Runway 4R-22L. The extension of Taxiway B and C would provide dual parallel 

taxiways on Runway 4R-22L and a partial parallel taxiway on Runway 4L-22R which 

would supplement the full parallel taxiway on the north side of Runway 4L-22R. This 

would allow two-way taxi circulation to Runway 4R-22L and partial two-way access to 

the northeast portion of Runway 4L-22R. This alternative is depicted in Exhibit 4.3. 

"##







$#


%&'

"##







$#


%&''

"##







$#


%&'

NAVAIDs

An approach light system is required on Runway 4R in order implement a precision 

approach procedure (ILS or GPS) and achieve lower instrument approach minima. 

Discussed below are options for an approach light system which include a Medium 

Intensity Approach Lighting System Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) as 

well as an option that implements a precision approach with no approach lighting 

system. 

A MALSR allows for precision approach minima as low as 200 feet and 1⁄2 mile visibility. 

The MALS portion of the system extends 1,400 feet from the runway threshold on the 

extended runway centerline, while the Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (RAILS) 

portion of the system extends an additional 1,000 feet. Based on the location of the 

current runway threshold, installation of a MALSR on Runway 4R would require 

approximately 1,000 feet of the system to extend beyond the current Airport property 

boundaries and across Queen Creek Road. The location of this approach light system is 

depicted in Exhibit 4.4. 

A second option is to install a precision approach system with the existing 1-mile 

visibility minima in place. While this alternative would not reduce approach visibility 

minima, it would not require the installation of an approach lighting system, thus 

avoiding any possible encroachment on nearby properties. This system would provide 

adequate precision approach instrumentation necessary for pilot training. 

"##







$#


%&'(

"##







$#


%&'%

Apron Expansion

Developable land for apron expansion at Chandler Municipal Airport exists north of the 

FBO and terminal area and along the entire southeast side of the airfield. 

The first alternative depicted in Exhibit 4.5 calls for apron development on the north 

side of the airfield surrounded by the existing and possible future FBO as well as 

corporate hangars. Along the southeast side of the airfield, this alternative also shows 

apron area located between a future FBO and hangar facilities which would maintain 

access to off-airport parcels adjacent to the Airport, allowing a possible “through-thefence” operation. A “through-the-fence” operation allows for aviation development 

located off airport property while providing access to the taxiway and runway system as 

well as other airport facilities. Business and industrial parks are common “through-thefence” facilities because they provide additional land development opportunities while 

maintaining access to the airport. Aeronautical related companies and businesses 

having expedited travel and shipping needs find these types of facilities convenient and 

more economical than facilities located directly on airport property. Airports also benefit 

from this type of arrangement by extending the reach of the airport and improving 

revenue streams. 

The FAA discourages the development and operation of “through-the-fence” activities. 

Chandler Municipal has worked to address the FAA’s concerns related to these 

activities including being able to preclude access, charging for access to the facilities, 

and limiting the activities in the areas to non-aviation. 

The second alternative to apron development depicted in Exhibit 4.6 illustrates the 

same development in the north side of the Airport as in the first alternative. On the 

southeast side of the Airport, however, the apron area providing access for a “throughthe-fence” operation discussed above in the first alternative would be substituted for 

additional t-hangar development. 

Since the north and southeast area represented in these alternatives are separate and 

exclusive from one another they can be evaluated and implemented independently. 

Proposed development on the north side of the Airport can be accompanied by either 

development alternative in the southeast side. The evaluation of alternatives discussed 

in the next section reviews these areas independently. 

"##







$#


%&')

"##







$#


%&'

"##







$#


%&'*

Construct Additional Hangars

Construction of future hangars at Chandler Municipal Airport will be comprised of 

primarily individual conventional and t-hangar structures. Additional shade hangar 

structures could also be developed, however demand for this type of facility is projected 

to be minimal. The number and types of hangars developed at the Airport will primarily 

be determined by market demand for hangar facilities at the Airport. Hangar developers, 

who lease Airport land from the City, will develop facilities that are the most marketable 

at the Chandler Municipal Airport. As the Airport gains additional corporate class aircraft 

tenants, the demand for larger conventional hangars will be greater. Alternatively, if the 

Airport remains in the present configuration, demand for smaller t-hangars will be 

greater. Hangar development layouts to accommodate both of these needs are 

illustrated in Exhibits 4.5 and 4.6 discussed in the previous section. 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Because each facility requirement discussed above can be developed independently, 

without impacting other future facility requirements, they can also be evaluated 

independently. Each development alternative identified in the preceding section has 

been reviewed based on the following criteria: 

• Safety and efficiency of aviation operations 

• Ability to accommodate expected general aviation demand 

• Acceptability to users, ADOT, FAA, and the community at large 

• Land availability and ownership 

• Environmental factors 

• Airspace/obstruction requirements 

• Consistency with area wide plans 

• Political, jurisdictional and implementation factors 

• Economic feasibility 

• Accessibility 

Each alternative impacts the criteria listed above differently and to varying degrees. 

The evaluation summarized below demonstrates the critical impacts and issues of each 

alternative as they relate to the above criteria. 

Runways 

As stated earlier, the selection of an appropriate runway length (and hence the Airport’s 

classification) depends on the family of aircraft forecast to use the runway on a regular 

basis. Since the existing runway is adequate for 100 percent of all small aircraft, the 

need for a runway extension is based upon whether future demand by larger aircraft is 

likely. It is important to note, however, that corporate class aircraft are already using the 

Airport today, but with limited capacity in terms of fuel, cargo and passengers, 

especially during the summer months. An estimate of future demand by the corporate 

"##







$#


%&'+

segment of general aviation was completed based on existing usage of the Airport by 

larger aircraft as well as an analysis of economic activities and national aviation trends. 

The City of Chandler has experienced strong economic growth in the past and is 

projected to see that growth continue in the future. Nationally, activity from the business 

segment of general aviation has recently also experienced strong growth, which is 

projected to continue in the future. Given the nature and extent of development 

expected in the Chandler area, and the projected growth in corporate general aviation 

activity nationally, it is reasonable to assume that a significant increase in demand by 

the corporate segment of general aviation will accompany the anticipated arrival of 

corporate headquarters, increased employment and population to the City of Chandler 

and surrounding areas. Based on these factors, and the activity that is occurring at 

other similar airports in the Phoenix region, it very likely that demand for services at 

Chandler Municipal Airport by larger general aviation aircraft will remain strong. 

With this expected growth comes the need for additional runway length. As discussed 

in the preceding chapter, 7,000 feet of runway length is necessary to fully accommodate 

aircraft expected to use Chandler Municipal Airport. The runway alternative presented 

above proposes an 850-foot extension to Runway 4R-22L resulting in a length 5,700 

feet. Although this length is dramatically shorter than the 7,000 feet identified in the 

facility requirements, it is the maximum allowable length within the confines of the 

Airport property. 

As part of the evaluation process, it should be noted that an existing City ordinance No. 

2978, § 3, 5-27-99 states that, 

To guarantee to the citizens of the City of Chandler the continued quiet 

enjoyment in and to the homes, schools, churches and work places, the 

Chandler Municipal Airport shall not be permitted to accommodate, in any 

fashion, aircraft which requires for landing a runway longer than six thousand 

eight hundred (6,800) feet. Extension of the runway shall require voter approved 

bonds, which specify that the bond monies are for the purpose of extending the 

runway. 

While a 5,700-foot long runway is significantly shorter than the 6,800-foot long runway 

previously examined and included in the City ordinance, the City of Chandler has 

committed to conducting a bond election should a runway extension project be 

approved by the City Council. In order to achieve an adequate runway length to 

accommodate corporate class activity and have a measurable impact on the ability of 

the Airport to serve these types of aircraft, a runway extension is necessary. 

The action alternative (extending Runway 4R-22L to 5,700 feet) accommodates a wide 

range of aircraft while enhancing the level of operational safety at the Airport. It is 

believed that this alternative will garner greater acceptance from Airport users, ADOT 

and the FAA because the runway will be able to accommodate the greatest number of 

"##







$#


%&',

Airport users possible with an enhanced level of safety. The extension and associated 

RSA and ROFA dimensions fall within the Airport property, limiting the impact of the 

proposed extension to the immediate Airport environs. 

The FAA does not necessarily require the fee simple acquisition of the RPZ area, but 

highly recommends that the airport have positive control over development within the 

RPZ. It is preferred that the Airport own the property through fee simple acquisition, 

however, avigational easements (providing positive control with the RPZ) can be 

pursued if fee simple purchase is not possible. It should be noted that avigation 

easements can often cost as much as 80 percent of the land value and may not fully 

prohibit incompatible land uses from the RPZ. Because the City has defined that the 

runway length extension perimeters remain within the Airport boundary, there will be no 

impacts to surrounding roadways or property acquisitions as a result of actual runway 

pavement additions. The only properties that may be required are those that fall within 

the RPZ, in which case fee simple or avigation easements may be necessary. 

Aircraft sound emissions are often the most noticeable environmental effect an airport 

will produce on the surrounding community. If the sound is sufficiently loud or frequent 

in occurrence it may interfere with various activities or otherwise be considered 

objectionable. To determine the noise related impacts the runway extension could have 

on the environment surrounding Chandler Municipal Airport, noise exposure patterns 

were analyzed for projected operational levels over the long range period. Noise 

contours developed by the Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.2 and accepted by 

the FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were developed for the 

runway extension alternative and compared with current noise contours. Discussions 

with the Airport and Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) staff were conducted in developing 

aircraft fleet mix using the flight tracking information, runway utilization and hours of 

aircraft operation. Also, the forecasts of future aviation activity developed earlier in this 

report were used as an input in the noise model. 

Noise contours for Chandler Municipal Airport were developed based on operational 

activity in the existing year (2005) and the forecast year (2025) with the assumption that 

Runway 4R-22L is extended to 5,700 feet. 

The INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level around the site. It 

then selects the shortest distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes 

the noise exposure generated by each aircraft operation by aircraft type and engine 

thrust level, and by time of day/night along each flight track. Corrections are applied for 

atmospheric acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the aircraft engines by the 

aircraft itself, and aircraft speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each aircraft 

are then summed at each grid location to provide a day-night level (DNL), which is the 

24-hour average sound level expressed in decibels, including an additional 10-decibel 

penalty for night-time operations (those occurring between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 

a.m.). The cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to plot noise 

exposure contours for selected values (e.g., 65, 70, and 75 DNL). 

"##







$#


%&

The decibel scale from zero to 120 includes most of the range of typical daily sound 

levels, and is shown in Table 4.1. 

DNL noise levels are indicated by a series of modeled contour lines superimposed on a 

diagram of the Airport and surrounding area. These levels are calculated for designated 

points on the ground based on the noise impacts of all aircraft operations. Some 

operations are far enough away from a location that their effect is minimal, while other 

operations may dominate noise exposure levels at that location. For example, a location 

just east of the airport may be affected by an aircraft departure to the east but 

unaffected by an arrival from the west. 

Table 4.1 

COMMON SOUND LEVELS 

Decibels Common Aircraft 

Sound Level 

Common Daily 

Sound Level 

110 B-747 takeoff at 2 miles Rock Band 

100 DC-10 takeoff at 2 miles Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet 

90 B-727 takeoff at 2 miles Garbage Disposal at 3 feet 

80 Learjet 25 takeoff at 2 miles Shouting at 3 feet 

70 Normal Speech at 3 feet 

60 Large business office 

50 Piper Twin Comanche takeoff at 2 

miles Dishwasher in next room 

SOURCE: Federal Aviation Administration 

PREPARED: October 2006 

The following is a summary of the 2005 and 2025 operational data used in the noise 

modeling analysis. 

Aircraft Operations – The annual operations for 2005 were 235,111, approximately 

644 operations per day, and the annual operations for the forecast year are estimated to 

be 400,600, approximately 1,098 operations per day. 

Runway Utilization – The runway utilization at Chandler Municipal Airport is influenced 

primarily by prevailing wind conditions and secondarily by aircraft departure or arrival 

into the terminal airspace. Airport management and air traffic controllers provided 

estimates of runway utilization, as shown in Table 4.2. These utilizations rates are not 

expected to change throughout the forecast period. Chandler Municipal Airport also 

operates a single helipad located to the east of the runways. The location of this facility 

is also considered in this analysis. 

"##







$#


%&'

Table 4.2 

RUNWAY UTILIZATIONS 

Runway End Day Night 

Runway 4L 24.6% 0.4% 

Runway 4R 24.6% 0.4% 

Runway 22L 24.6% 0.4% 

Runway 22R 24.6% 0.4% 

 SOURCE: Chandler Municipal Airport officials 

PREPARED: October 2006 

Approach and Departure Profiles – Approach and departure profiles illustrate an 

aircraft’s altitude along its flight path. INM’s vast database includes information 

regarding standard approach and departure profiles for the aircraft in this analysis. 

Flight Tracks – Flight tracks project an aircraft’s flight path as if shown on the surface. 

Due to meteorological conditions, aircraft type, stage length, air traffic control 

instructions, and pilot judgment, flight tracks are unique to each operation. Generalized 

flight tracks were developed for Chandler Municipal Airport based on operations and 

fleet mix data, as well as discussions with airport management and air traffic controllers. 

These flight tracks took into account local traffic patterns, instrument approach 

procedures, and noise abatement procedures used by both fixed-wing and helicopter 

aircraft. 

Noise Exposure Impacts – FAA Order 5050.4B requires that the 65, 70, and 75 DNL 

noise contours be developed for existing and future airport conditions. According to FAA 

criteria noise levels greater than 65 DNL are generally considered unacceptable for 

noise-sensitive land uses, such as residences, hospitals, and schools. However the City 

of Chandler has opted to use the 55 DNL noise contour as the limiting point were noise 

sensitive land uses are considered to be unacceptable. The existing and forecast year 

55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 DNL noise contours modeled for this analysis are displayed on 

Exhibit 4.7 and 4.8, respectively, on the following pages. 

"##







$#


%&

"##







$#


%&(

"##







$#


%&%

Throughout the forecast period, the 75 DNL area encompasses approximately 57 acres; 

the 70 DNL area covers approximately 165 acres; and, the 65 DNL covers 

approximately 349 acres. Relocating the helipad from the western edge of the airport 

helps to keep more of the noise contours within the airport property line, but a small 

amount of noise does fall outside the boundary. Based on this analysis the proposed 

extension of Runway 4R-22L will not result in significant noise impacts to the 

surrounding community. 

Considering the review of evaluation criteria highlighted above, it is recommended that 

the Airport proceed with extending Runway 4R-22L to 5,700 feet. While this ultimate 

runway length is short of the FAA-identified runway length requirement in the facility 

requirements section, this alternative provides the greatest runway length within the 

Airport property boundary and the physical limitations of development around the 

Airport. This alternative maintains safe aircraft operational areas, accommodates the 

greatest number of corporate class aircraft expected to use the Airport and has minimal 

impact to the surrounding community. 

Taxiways 

There were two alternatives presented earlier that address taxiway circulation around 

the Airport. The first alternative called for an extension of Taxiway B to the southwest to 

the approach end of Runway 4L, extension of Taxiway B to the northeast to the ultimate 

end of Runway 22L and the extension of Taxiway C to the new extended ends of 

Runway 4R-22L. The second alternative called for an extension of Taxiway B only to 

the proposed ends of Runway 4R-22L and an extension to Taxiway C to the new 

extended ends of Runway 4R-22L. 

The only evaluation criteria where these two alternatives differ is in the efficiency of 

aircraft movement and cost associated with each alternative. Both alternatives 

recognize the value and importance of extending Taxiway B to the ends of runways 4R 

and 22L. With hangar development proposed on the southeast side of the Airport, a 

growing number of aircraft will utilize Taxiway C within the forecast period. The 

southeast side of the Airport will accommodate over 300 various hangar types, an FBO 

and potential “through-the-fence” operation such as an aviation industrial park. With 

this type of potential development, aircraft on the southeast side of the Airport will 

benefit from direct access to the ends of Runway 4R-22L through the extension of 

Taxiway C. The cost associated with extending Taxiway C is worth the benefit a 

significant number of aircraft will receive from the efficient, safe and standardized 

taxiway configuration this alternative provides. Additionally, the full extension of taxiway 

B will provide two-way taxiway circulation to both runways. Therefore, the first 

alternative of extending both Taxiway B and C to the ends of each runway is 

recommended. 

"##







$#


%&)

NAVAIDs

In the previous section two alternatives for implementation of a precision approach were 

discussed. One included the installation of a MALSR which would allow for a precision 

approach with minima as low as 1⁄2 mile and 200 feet. The other alternative discussed 

was the installation of a precision approach without an approach lighting system. 

The advantages of installing a MALSR include the ability to provide an instrument 

approach with lower minima while providing an additional level of safety by making the 

Airport and runway threshold easier for pilots to identify during night time operations in 

all weather conditions. Disadvantages include the need to acquire additional property to 

accommodate the last 1,000 feet of the approach light system and potential issues with 

light emissions disturbing the surrounding community. 

The alternative of not installing an approach light system would maintain the Airport’s 

approach minima at 1 mile and 400 feet. The advantages of this option include 

elimination of the need to acquire additional property for the approach light system and 

reduced light emissions on the surrounding community. Disadvantages include higher 

approach minima and potentially a lower margin of safety due to the runway 

environment being more difficult to identify during night operations. 

Because of the relative lack of instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) in the 

Phoenix area, the primary benefits of a precision approach at Chandler Municipal 

Airport would be the enhancement of instrument training opportunities at Chandler 

Municipal Airport and the ability to help to eliminate approach and traffic pattern conflicts 

with Memorial Airfield and Stellar Airpark. Currently, the majority of precision approach 

training occurs at Williams Gateway Airport or at Casa Grande Airport. Providing a 

precision approach would offer additional instrument training opportunities at Chandler 

Municipal Airport. Because the precision approach would primarily be used for training 

purposes, the cost of installing an approach lighting system is greater than the benefit of 

slightly lower approach minima the system would provide. 

Based on the most recent draft of new Part 77 guidance, the precision approach with 

the expected aircraft types at Chandler Municipal Airport would call for a 34:1 approach 

slope, not a 50:1 as previously required. Using existing survey and obstruction data as 

a guide, the 34:1 approach slope would not be obstructed. Additional development 

planned to take place off the end of Runway 4R should undergo an obstruction 

evaluation prior to design or construction to avoid the approach surface. 

Apron Expansion

There is one apron expansion alternative for the north side of the Airport and two for the 

southeast side of the Airport. The northern expansion alternative can be implemented 

with either southeastern alternative which can be compared to each other in order to 

provide an overall apron expansion recommendation. 

"##







$#


%&

On the north side of the Airport, the proposed apron expansion alternative avoids the 

relocation of existing facilities. The resulting apron configuration encircles the FBO, 

terminal building and other facilities located on the north side of the airfield. The apron 

would be developed to accommodate additional corporate hangars and a second FBO 

in the area. This alternative provides an area of apron space with room for additional 

tie-downs and improves the layout and efficiency of the northern Airport area. Based on 

the factors stated above, it is recommended that the Airport develop the expanded 

apron area in the north side of the Airport to accommodate growth of based aircraft and 

expanded Airport services. 

The southeast side of the Airport has two development alternatives that can be 

evaluated. The only difference between these two alternatives is that the first provides 

enough undeveloped area to allow construction of a taxilane to access off-airport 

properties in the event the Airport wishes to pursue and allow “through-the-fence” 

opportunities. The second alternative proposes to develop t-hangars along the entire 

south side of the airport boundary, which could limit access to private land adjacent to 

the Airport. Considering that the Airport has ample opportunities for hangar 

development throughout the southeast side of the property and the possible benefits 

that the “through-the-fence” may bring, it is recommended that the first alternative for 

apron expansion on the southeast side of the Airport be pursued. Additionally, a large 

apron stretching along the southeast side of the Airport between Taxiway C and the 

proposed hangars (see next section – Additional Hangars) is recommended to provide 

adequate access to all landside facilities proposed on the southeast side of the Airport. 

Additional Hangars

Although there are a considerable number of additional hangar facilities recommended 

as part of this Master Plan, there are no alternatives related to proposed hangar 

development at Chandler Municipal Airport. Instead, hangar developers who lease land 

from the Airport will develop hangars based on market conditions and the needs of 

Airport users. This Master Plan illustrates recommended hangar development to make 

the most use out of existing facilities and take advantage of available Airport land while 

considering the increase of based aircraft types identified in the forecast chapter of this 

report. Similar hangar facility types are developed in clusters in order to maximize land 

development opportunities and co-locate categories of airport users with one another. 

As shown on the apron expansion alternative Exhibits 4.5 and 4.6, t-hangars and shade 

hangars are proposed along the southeast side of the Airport along with smaller 

conventional hangars. Since there is such a strong demand for these types of facilities, 

this section of the Airport, with its large amount of available land with convenient access 

to the airfield, is ideal for a large-scale small hangar complex. Consistent with the 

existing Airport layout, larger conventional hangars and corporate facilities are proposed 

for the north side of the Airport.