/(^^o9-o^ 

e ,, o p,^ „ . ^ Flight Standards 

U^S. Department Q «g, ^^^tiern Tech Park II. 

of Transportation 25249 Country Club Blvd. 

Federal Aviation North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 

Administration 

October 14, 2009 

Thomas T. Schauer 

FAAAGL-622.1 

2301 University Drive, Bldg. 23B r-7 

Bismarck, ND 58504 Z£^ 

P h: 701-323-7383 Cell 701-471-0979 o 

Thomas: , ; 

" J 

On October 5^^ the Cleveland FSDO Coordinated a Banner Tov/ing Demonstration at The ^ 

Cleveland Burke Lakefront Airport (KBKX). g 

City of Cleveland Airport Officials in attendance for this Event were as follows; Khalid Bahhur 

Cleveland Burke Airport Commissioner, Daniel Psimer Cleveland Burke Operations 

Superintendent, Cleveland Burke Assistant Director of Law Jack M Arnold. 

Cleveland FSDO Officials in attendance were Kris A. Palcho Operations Supervisor, Thomas J. 

Leahy Aviation Safety and Principal Operations Inspector, and the Cleveland FSDO's Subject 

Matter Expert (SME), banner tow Pilot Konrad Balunek, and ground crew Ingrid Balunek. 

After a short Briefing, all in attendance observed the set up of two banners, one at the approach end 

of Runway 24L, and one south of taxiway 'G' and adjacent to taxiway 'B'. Both of these areas are 

outside of the airport ATC ground control movement area and visible from the ATC tower. In order 

to determine suitability, an inspection of the proposed sites was accomplished by me, Dan Psimre, 

Konrad and Ingrid Balunek during the week preceding this event. 

The banner pick up and drop demonstration was observed from different locations on the Burke 

airport. Kris Palcho, and Raymond J. Baca Jr. the Burke Air Traffic Manager observed from the 

Air Traffic Control Tower. Khalid Bahhur, Dan Psimer, Jack Arnold, and Thomas Leahy observed 

near the respective pick up and drop areas. Konrad had not towed from these areas recently. 

Therefore each circuit was accomplished first by an over flight, to determine if each tow could be 

accomplished safely prior to the actual pick up. 

Weather conditions for the Demo were high broken to overcast clouds with brisk west winds from 

270 degrees at 14 mph gusting to 20 mph. 

In addition to the banner tow demo a total of 9 additional aircraft operations were accommodated 

during the flight portion of the demo one aircraft doing touch and go landings was asked to extend 

it's down wind leg once. No other airborne aircraft were impacted. Two taxing aircraft were 

affected and experienced short delays of about 2 minutes. One had to delay the start of its taxi and 

another needed to be routed a bit differently than expected. These taxi delays were for the second 
pickup, in the area south of taxiway 'G' adjacent to taxiway 'B'. No delays were encountered for 

any aircraft during the set up or teardown of the ground based equipment. All ground operations 

were conducted well clear of ATC movement areas. Each banner ground set up was less than 20 

minutes in duration. Traffic Operations and flow during the period was about normal for this 

Airport. 

Each tow was conducted using the normal track to be expected for this type and direction of 

operation, and included a circuit of the Downtown area of Cleveland prior to the drop. 

The banner tow aircraft departed BKL just after 13:00 EDT, the fly by was complete at 13:09 and 

returned at 13:15 for a successful hook of 27 letters on the first attempt. After the circuit this banner 

was dropped and recovered on target. A flyby of the second banner was accomplished and after two 

attempts a successftjl hook of this banner containing 17 letters was accomplished, followed again 

by an uneventfial drop and recovery. The second baimer was dropped and the demo over at 13:48 

EDT. 

(Note set up and recovery of this event was accomplished using one ground based person by this 

operator). 

The aircraft used for this banner tow was a standard category F21 Taylorcraft modified with a 

larger engine and installation of a tow hook. This aircraft is typical of the type expected for an 

operation of this sort. 

Following the Demonstration an informational discussion and short debrief was accomplished. 

All involved were invited to submit their observations of this event. Only Kris Palcho and 

Raymond Baca chose to comment. 

Kris Palcho comments; "/ observed the set up from the field and the in-flight operations from the 

tower -

Set up - appeared to have no impact on airport operations. The crew remained well outside the 

movement areas of the airfield. 

Pick up - site 1 (north of the approach end of24L) 

-27 letter banner, because there were missed attempts, there was a small impact on other 

operations at the field. 

-the tower controllers had no difficulty making changes to the traffic flow on this day 

-there was some question as to the communications with the aircraft - use of the phrase 

"proceed as requested" was chosen over the words "cleared" or "operations approved". ATC 

prompted for a request when needed. 

-the operation in line with the runway proved to be simple and in no way a threat from the 

view that I had. 

-the drop/recovery appeared to be a non-event from the tower view 

Pick up - site 2 (south ofRW24L) 

-17 letter banner 

-again some delay in pick up. The location caused more delay/reroute of traffic because the 

pick up aircraft was crossing centerlines of runways AND taxiways. 
-one re-route was on taxi for departure (back taxi of the active) and one on turn to final for 

landing 

-Again, ATC did a great job at making changes on the fly. " 

-Pick up appeared risky from the tower view - turn to final, dive for pick up outside normal 

movement area, crossing the taxiway again on climb 

-phraseology has same concerns as first pick up. 

-the drop was uneventful from the tower view. 

-the tower controller was not expecting the cool down time but again handled it easily 

-This spot may be more conducive to east bound departures but you still have to cross a 

taxiway. 

My preferred location was site 1. less maneuvering for pick up and drop off, less impact on airport 

operations, fewer changes to the normal traffic flow " 

Raymond Baca comments; '^ I really don't have too much to add from the brief conversation that we 

had following the demonstration, but I will give you a quick recap of my thoughts. From a 

controller standpoint, we would prefer the first demo area be used if and when this operation 

comes to fruition. While both areas impact air traffic movement, I believe that the area east of 

taxiway "F" at the approach end of Runway 24L impedes progress the least. The area south of 

taxiway "G" (2nd demo area) would essentially shutdown our Runup Pad, Taxiway "G", and 

Runway 6R/24L, while the 1st demo area would minimally impact taxiway "F" arid runway 6R/24L. 

Unfortunately, I believe Conrad preferred the second area but, as I said, I am looking at it from an 

air traffic standpoint where it will have the least impact on airport operations. 

As for the controllers here, the only comments that I heard were in regards to the number of banner 

towers that would be permitted to operate at any given time. With that being said, I don't want to 

put the "cart before the horse" in terms of that concern, phraseology, etc... It is my understanding 

that there will be many more meetings prior to this operation which is where these concerns will be 

voiced." 

There are three possible sites to conduct Banner towing at KBKL. The two that were used for this 

demonstration were suitable without any improvements. The third site which is north and east the 

approach end of Runway 24L would have requhed some mowing prior to use and additionally is 

not visible in its entirety from the ATC control tower, but again outside of the ATC movement 

area. 

The Cleveland Flight Standards Office is of the opinion that it is reasonable to expect that banner 

towing could be conducted safely fi-om the Cleveland Burke Lakefront Airport (KBKL). 

Sincerely, 

Leahy 

Aviation Safety and Principal Operations Inspector