Palomar Airport: The Runway: Truth or Consequences, Blog #43

On August 1 – when the County posted its Kimley-Horn [KH] Palomar Runway Extension Study – you already had 7 pages of “Frequently Asked Questions.”  See www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/airports/palomar.html.

Let’s test County answers to its own questions for accuracy and completeness.

County “Q:19:  Is this runway unsafe without the ‘West End’ improvements?  A:19  Safety improvements at the departure end, or ‘West End’ of the runway are … a safety precaution or enhancement and not intended to remediate any current safety deficiency.”

On the west runway end, the County now has a “blast pad.”  A blast pad is “a surface adjacent to the ends of runways provided to reduce the erosive effect of jet blast and propeller wash.” [FAA AC 150/5300-13A.]

The Kimley-Horn Study recommends the County replace the blast pad with an EMAS.  An EMAS is an Engineered Materials Arresting System. Think big catcher’s mitt.  In essence the EMAS is a light-weight concrete slab engineered to collapse if a jet overrunning the runway slides onto the EMAS.

Does the current Palomar west runway have safety deficiencies? FAQ 19 says no.  The August 1, 2013 KH Study says:

•      “The west end of the runway as it currently exists does not meet the criteria for RSA [Runways Safety Area] grades at the end of the runway.” [KH Study page 4-19.]

•  “The existing blast pad has areas of slopes greater than 7%, well over the required minimum of 5%.  In order to increases safety on the west end of the runway, the existing blast pad will be replaced with an Engineered Material Arrest System (EMAS).  [KH Study page 4-21.]

County “Q:18  Why are west side safety improvements sized so large?  A: West end improvements would be sized to provide the required EMAS bed required to stop the largest aircraft currently using the airport while allowing rescue equipment full access around the stopped aircraft.”

The FAA classifies Palomar as a B-II airport.  The County wants a C-III airport that handles bigger, faster planes.  

FAA C-III airports have longer runways.  More separation between runways and taxiways.   Longer Runway Safety Areas, usually sandy areas, at the runway end.

The KH Study presents but rejects, for today, a C-III long runway alternative. [KH Study pages 4-29 to 4-30.]  Why the current rejection?   Because Palomar cannot now meet C-III runway & taxiway separation requirements.

How could Palomar meet C-III requirements?   Build huge retaining walls so that the airfield can be widened and buildings be relocated away from the runway.   But large Palomar buildings were placed near the B-II runway in the last 10 years.

Is there a solution?  Yes, when building the EMAS and also extending the runway 900 feet to the east, build huge retaining walls to allow future widening of the airfield to meet C-III separation requirements.  The KH Study recommends massive retaining walls even for the alleged Palomar B-II runway extensions.

Why are west side safety improvements sized so large?  According to the County, so that rescue equipment can aid a crashed aircraft.  But the EMAS replaces an existing blast pad of nearly the same size that must also be served by rescue equipment.

Is it a fluke that the County says it wants to enhance a B-II runway when the recommended massive retaining walls that the Study recommends allow widening of the runway and taxiways to C-III standards?  No building relocation now.   Just in a few years, when the recently placed buildings have been amortized.

County “Q:10 With a longer runway will the airport be a louder airport than it is today?  A: Based on a shift in the runway to the east, the overall footprint for the 65 DNL (Contour line of noise sensitivity) shifts to the east …farther away from residential properties to the southwest … .”

If you live within 10 miles of Palomar or have shopped Costco, have you heard large corporate jet rumblings?  Expect more.   As your ears tell you, large aircraft sound different than small planes.

The County says the noise contour merely shifts but ignores one crucial fact: aircraft flight frequency.  As noted in my Blog 11, the FAA and County calculate noise by averaging noise 24 hours a day.  Palomar could double or triple the planes over your head and still comply with the FAA 65 decibel noise standard.

Is the FAA noise standard your standard?  Think of your neighbor’s barking dog.  A few times a day, ok.  Four times an hour, not so much.

Next week: more County FAQ inaccuracies.