Unit - State of California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Issue March Hemet-Ryan Airport upgrade free of links to other state and local road infrastructure projects and possible habitat mitigation issues Estimated time to complete ESA/RCIP/MSCHCP EIS necessary for new construction in MSHCP Conservation Area Have any required funding necessary for realigning any local roads (Warren and Stetson are slated for upgrade, realignment and improvement in Hemet City General Plan circulation element) Provide full coverage of existing SRA lands not also covered by the Ramona Air Base 15 minute flight circle Best case estimate of when construction could start after required environmental documents (ex. FAA and FWS compliant EIS/EIRs) Other potential conflicts in use of air space or adjacent lands Absence of sailplanes and other small aircraft Lack of expansion potential of recreation oriented aircraft use due to proximity to recreational areas Lack of current residential areas immediately adjacent to runway Lack of potential for new residential subdivisions within ½ mile of runways Land use policies ensure existing air space and open space Yes No None SR 79 relocation EIS scheduled to be complete by 2009 (RCTC) Yes No Yes Yes January 2006 2011 at the earliest Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 3
Hemet/March Relocation Review Aviation Safety and Technical Analysis The primary concern of any comparative analysis of the aviation issues surrounding the decision to move the CDF air base operations from Hemet-Ryan Airport to the March Airfield must consider the safety and security of the pilots, airbase personnel, aircraft and the public. With safety as the primary consideration, the CDF Aviation Management Unit (AMU) has reviewed the quantitative data available regarding airspace, weather, airfield infrastructure, and security at both locations and has concluded that March has numerous advantages as a CDF air attack base. This decision is based upon current conditions as they exist today, not on anticipated approvals, funding or construction by government entities. An assessment cannot be made based upon anticipated improvements. Problems with either base could be mitigated given more time and a secure, committed funding source. At this point, the existing infrastructure favors March. Airspace One determinant factor favoring March is that it is a Class-C controlled airspace and has a control tower with Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) that surrounds the March airfield. In contrast Hemet-Ryan is an uncontrolled airport which is overlaid by Class-E controlled airspace that begins at 700 feet above the airport. Operations in a controlled airspace, especially at an airport with a tower are considered much safer (attachment). The majority of mid-air accidents occur within five miles of an airport and generally during take-off and landing. Ramona airport, an uncontrolled airport, experienced a fatal midair collision several years ago which involved two federal fire fighting aircraft operating on the same radio frequencies. Ramona added a tower to the field which has been in operation since December 2003. Although CDF has received anecdotal information that aerial fire fighting operations at controlled airfields have the potential to slow the pace of response and thus contribute to escapes, AMU staff could not quantify this information. The staff asserts that the added protection of controlled airspace area is essential to safe operations, especially considering the increased level of general and commercial air traffic in the Southern California planned for the future. Currently there are over 80,000 flight operations (takeoffs, landings, low approaches) at Hemet-Ryan compared to 33,500 at March in 2004. Because March is in a controlled airspace with ASR it has the ability to allow landings and departures under Special Visual Flight Rules (VFR). This allows fire fighting aircraft to safely depart and land when visibility is less than the three miles required for VFR but greater than one mile. Maintaining visibility in and around high traffic areas such as an airport is a significant safety factor and ASR -- even on VFR days -- reduces the risks of airspace incursions and mid-air accidents. The Aviation Management Unit staff also is concerned about the glider port operations that continue on the parallel runway at Hemet-Ryan. Glider operations often are conducted without radio communication with other traffic at the airport. Frequently glider takeoffs and landings go unannounced on the radio by aircraft flying on this runway. Glider traffic also uses the hills just northwest of the airport for convection lift and conflicts with the aircraft traffic arriving and departing to the north. Officials with the
Page 1 and 2: Airbase Relocation Evaluation Calif
Page 3 and 4: Airbase Relocation Evaluation - Sec
Page 5 and 6: Hemet-Ryan Air Base from 30,000 fee
Page 7: Issue March Hemet-Ryan Can co-host
Page 11 and 12: IFR weather days versus the number
Page 13 and 14: March/Hemet-Ryan Comparison Below i
Page 15 and 16: Attachment A 91.157 Special VFR wea
Page 17 and 18: Attachment B Hemet Weather 2004 (Su
Page 19 and 20: 27 VFR 2+22 27 VFR 27 VFR 27 IFR 2+
Page 21 and 22: Accessibility of retardant and bulk
Page 23 and 24: Assessing current fire protection c
Page 25 and 26: # # # # Riverside # # # # # # # # #
Page 27 and 28: xy„iX g2—2SP22 —2—— IS222
Page 30 and 31: Fire Assets, Ignitions, Initial Att
Page 32 and 33: 2005 Riverside Unit Pre-Fire Manage
Page 34 and 35: Southern California Subdivisions ad
Page 36 and 37: March Air base would provide roughl
Page 38 and 39: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/tools/CFES/c
Page 40 and 41: This graphic depicts the overall ge
Page 42 and 43: Relocate to March Air Base
Page 44 and 45: PROJECT: HEMET RYAN AAB WD ESTIMATE
Page 47 and 48: Rebuild at Hemet
Page 49 and 50: PROJECT: HEMET RYAN AAB ESTIMATE: 1
Page 52 and 53: Potential Multi-Species Habitat Con
Page 54 and 55: The Master Plan only looks at direc
Page 58 and 59:
SR 79 Realignment Project Descripti
Page 60 and 61:
2005 Riverside Unit Pre-Fire Manage
Page 62 and 63:
2005 Riverside Unit Fire Management
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Collaboration 2005 Riverside Unit F
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Assets at Risk 2005 Riverside Unit
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Playing with Fire 8% 2005 Riverside
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Ignitions Workload Analysis Matrix
Page 88 and 89:
Ignitions Workload Analysis Matrix
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Past Projects Lake Mathews VMP 2005
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Red Hill Fuelbreak 2005 Riverside U
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110:
show all

Unit - State of California

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?