1. WHAT AIRPORT MANAGERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TERPS Association of California Airports Lake Tahoe, California September 10, 2014 QED Airport & Aviation Consultants Ronald F. Price, P.E. 904.310.6220 QEDron@aol.com

2. AGENDA  FAR Part 77 vs. TERPS  Uses of TERPS for other than instrument procedure design  Synergy between airport planning, engineering design and TERPS  Aircraft accidents  Question and Answer session QED

3. FAR PART 77 VS. TERPS  FAR Part 77 is a regulatory trigger  Fixed geometry by classification of runway use and visibility  TERPS are design criteria  Flexible and variable  FAR Part 77 deals with objects  Obstructions and hazards  TERPS addresses obstacles by segment  Controlling obstacle QED

4. INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT TERPS  Under what circumstances is a TERPS obstacle clearance surface slope = 34:1?  When would a TERPS obstacle clearance surface slope = 50:1?  An instrument approach procedure is always feasible, it just a question of what will be the minimums  There is one exception – when the GQS is penetrated, an IAP with vertical guidance is not authorized  The GQS evaluation is the last in the sequence  TERPS is an iterative process QED

5. PART 77 VS. TERPS – SIZE  Size comparison visualization; drawn to scale  LNAV approach to each runway end, 5500’ in length, 250-1  Part 77 conical surface ends 14,200’ from each runway end  Runway begins and ends here  Horizontal limits of conical surface

6. OTHER USES OF TERPS  Improve existing IAPs, DPs  Aircraft noise abatement  Land use control QED

12. THE TAKEAWAY  Use TERPS to not only improve on existing IAPs and DPs in terms of operational utility, but also to mitigate aircraft noise impacts and control land use  The FAA’s IAP or DP design does not typically consider environmental factors outside the 65 Ldn  Get involved in the procedure design process; the earlier the better  Know which obstacle is controlling current or potential IAP minimums and its accuracy code  Take appropriate action QED

13. MCGHEE TYSON AIRPORT

15. TERPS AND THE ACIP  12 to 18 months to publish a new IAP  Use this time to meet applicable facility design standards  Update the ACIP and priorities accordingly  Include TERPS feasibility studies in next airport plan  Test IAP possibilities (lower minimums and/or environmental mitigation)  Address obstacle issues before FAA FPO is engaged  Assess the B/C ratio QED

16. PV, LCC B/C RATIO  Numerator – Benefits  Operational and safety benefits associated with a decrease in approach minimums  Quantifiable based on weather data and unconstrained demand for instrument approaches by aircraft class  Denominator – Costs  Cost to meet applicable facility design criteria  Life-cycle cost to install, operate and maintain the approach lighting system  B/C Ratio  > 1.00 = cost- beneficial  < 1.00 = consider requesting higher minimums, or do not pursue the IAP QED

17. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS  Liability can be assessed to:  Aircraft owner, operator, manufacturer, subcontractors  Airport owner, operator and consulting engineer  Airport construction companies  Obstruction owners  Airport’s liability concerns  Lack of zoning and/or enforcement  Negligence in lighting/marking obstructions (FAR Part 77)  Airport liability mitigation measures  Zone for ALP ultimate configuration  Consider both FAR Part 77 and TERPS  Screen FAA Form 7460 submittals  Monitor local planning and zoning applications QED

18. For further information, contact: Ronald F. Price, P.E. QED 904-310-6220 QEDron @aol.com