Res96 12819 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3.10.10 P_o..tral/~alY.~f~: Aircraft departing in the direction of Project buildings could be exposed to a collision hazard if the aircraft were not able to maintain a normal rate of climb. This may be particularly so for student pilots not accustomed to strong crosswind conditions, which could blow them over the Project site. f_ia0.illg~: The City hereby makes finding (1). Facts in Support of Findings: t'~'~ A C~ia~ 1_ 50 i_ $ ~ ~y~ pig, al 1 ¢'w-,r~enrrn ~ nt'~ a~.a.O ~d tn npe~:~-te ~th a maximum crosswind of 13 knots. Even with a 24-knot crosswind (the Wind speed required to blow the aircraft offtrack and over the 10-story building), the aircraft would be at an altitude of about 474 feet MSL as it passed over the building, at a normal rate of climb. (b) Under an extremely unlikely combination of unusual circumstances, the building could theoretically represent an obstacle to flight. The plane would have to maintain a significantly less than normal rate of climb (about 1/3 of normai)~ a ver~ strong crosswind would be required (about 24 knots); and the pilot would have to be distracted or inattentive. Crosswinds that strongwould only exist outside the normal operating parameters for the least powerful aircraft, and have the potential for occurring, on average, less than 8 hours per year. Even if these conditions existed, the pilot should be able to see the building and avoid it. Pilot inattention and distraction is not a normal situation, particularly on landing or takeoff. Therefore, this remote possibility is not a significant impact. (c) The pilot of a twin engine aircraft attempting to return to the airport with one engine out would probably use the escape opportunities provided by the extended clear zone and 50-foot height limitation corridors already in existence and designed for just such a purpose. The use of the escape corridor would not require a pilot to make a tight turn between buildings and the airport. -27- EAFNDGCC.DOC 7/11/969:56 AM