SANAC ISSUE PAPER #12

ISSUE: Re-review the concept of opposing traffic on 9L – 27R and 9R – 27L after the construction of the new runway and taxiway is complete.

BACKGROUND: At the May 12, 1998 SANAC meeting many issues were brought forward as noise reduction ideas by members of the committee and the public. This issue was discussed to ensure that all possible avenues were examined to reduce or mitigate the aviation noise in the community

ANALYSIS / DISCUSSION: With the completion of the construction project on 9R – 27L and taxiway S during the month of June 2000 it is appropriate that this issue be re- examined.

Currently the airport has three parallel runways running east – west. They are referred to as 9L – 27R, 9C – 27C and 9R – 27L. Runway 9L – 27R is the main runway with a length of 9,600ft and certified for air carrier operations. It also has two instrument landing systems, one for each approach end. Runways 9C – 27C and 9R – 27L are each about 3,500 ft in length without any instrument capability and designated for general aviation use only.

Runway 9C – 27C is separated from 9L – 27R by 1,200 ft and from 9R – 27L by 3,100 ft. Runway 9L –27R is 4,300 ft from 9R – 27L. By so positioning 9R –27L 4,300 ft. from 9L – 27R it will be possible in the future to run two independent full instrument patterns with simultaneous final approaches to landing.

In addition in VMC conditions the visual patterns will use each of the three runways for training, itinerant and commercial operations. The mixture of these various types of aircraft is difficult for several reasons including aircraft speed, size, visibility and maneuverability. The runway placement or separation tends to work to our advantage to ensure full safety for the arriving aircraft and local residents on the ground.

The suggestion that among these three runways one be devoted to opposite direction traffic in an effort to reduce noise is not supportable based on safety considerations. Neither this airport nor the FAA control tower will endorse any unsafe practice on the behalf of a noise related project. Other avenues or procedures should be evaluated to achieve a similar purpose.

CONCLUSION: Opposite direction traffic at this airport is considered an unsafe practice for the reasons mentioned above.

RECOMMENDATION: Continue to explore and refine other issues that have a more realistic probability of success.

SUB-COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Sanford Airport Authority

DATE PREPARED / CODE: June 28, 2000 / code: sip12