— from Clark Cundy —

I attended the Port meeting at the Firehouse on July 26 and came away needing to read more about the project. I also attended the meeting at the Odd Fellows Hall on Wednesday August 1.

I grew up on Orcas back in the 60s and most of the 70s and the airport back then is pretty much like it is now. It reflects our rural character. The rural character of Orcas Island with its great community involvement is one of the reasons we moved back here a few years ago. I own a Private Pilot’s license but am just not current with the FAA. I also worked for Galvin Flying Service on Boeing field for a few years back in the late 70s. I like small aircraft and all the fun and utility they can provide. We believe that the Eastsound Airport should reflect the rural community atmosphere for which it serves. We also think that the community should have the largest voice in the decision making of the new 20 year airport plan.

I’ve read the 2008 20-year plan, and all the 2018 alternatives offered by the FAA Consultants and have come to a few conclusions about keeping Eastsound Airport a short runway Rural B-II Airport.

  1. Mt. Baker Road in its current location is the single best insurance policy in keeping the Airport small. No matter the alternative offered it is a conflict. It’s been a conflict for a long time so what’s changed to cause more of a problem now?

The only major flying change in the 2008 plan was changing the airport capabilities and going from a Visual Flight Rule airport to an Instrument Landing System (ILS) airport. The rest was about hangers, tie downs, and terminals buildings. The ILS has not been completed, but approach procedures using GPS technology has. Maybe that puts the planes on approach closer to the numbers making the risk of an accident with a vehicle larger than under Visual Flight Rules at the South end of the runway. So, if that’s the case, this is where an ‘improvement’ caused a need to change the airport FAA designation and configuration requirements.

If Mt. Baker Road is moved, it will still be in the takeoff and approach lane and there would still be the risk of a low flying aircraft hitting a vehicle. When you really think about it, all the people who live down Lovers Lane on the East side of the road are in an Airport Approach or takeoff lane. Those folks have accepted some risk in their daily lives associated with the airport. The GPS landing system enables more flying days into the airport because of bad weather that would prevent a Visual Flight Rule pilot from landing there. But you could argue that a GPS system for bad weather approach ups the risk of something going wrong on approach or takeoff, too. Bigger planes approaching or taking off in bad weather. So with that in mind keeping the planes smaller into the airport I think has a net effect of lowering the risk in terms of crashes and risk with regard to how much damage a crash could cause. Bigger planes bigger crashes. Bigger planes will probably have a tendency to fly in poorer weather and are generally commercial flyers.

The daily flying providers like Kenmore and FedEx that service Orcas have upgraded their equipment to Cessna Caravan 208s, a great workhorse of an aircraft. This change in large part is probably what’s pushing the port to a new Airport designation and configuration. Their wingspan is two feet wider than a B-I airport allows according to the FAA. Two feet. Hardly a great reason to reconfigure the entire airport. B-II airports allow for larger aircraft at the expense of more area needed to use them. Runways are wider. Taxiways are wider. And the separation between the two is wider to allow for egress of two larger wider planes to go by one another, how close buildings and tie-downs, etc., can be. But there is no requirement on Runway Length. Eastsound Airport runway length is 2901 feet. Cessna 208s can take off in 2,055 ft and land in 1,625 ft according to the spec sheet from Textron. So our providers will be able to get in and out with either a B-I or B-II FAA designation. Runway length is the single limitation keeping many larger aircraft from using Eastsound Airport. The flying providers are currently using the place in a B-I designation and that designation hasn’t inhibited them from servicing the community despite the wingspan being two feet too wide, so it’s not about their insurance.

That brings up a question for me that if our providers are being allowed to come in and out by the port, are we, SJC taxpayers at risk of not being insured for that? My guess is no. If it’s yes there’s a real liability issue going on here. So, what’s this all about? I guess it boils down to the FAA and their specs for airports and users of them, and a Port vision for the airport. There also needs to be a community vision of Eastsound Airport as a whole. So what kind of airport does the community of Orcas need and want?

In my humble opinion here’s what I’d like to see:

  1. Current level of service capabilities remain intact.
  2. Mt. Baker Road stays where it is.
    A. Runway pavement shortened to get Mt. Baker Road out of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). This doesn’t shorten the runway from its current length of 2901. Pavement removal will take off of the Blast zone or a part of it. Leave what you can. Just get Mt. Baker Road out of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). No runway additions could happen south past Mt. Baker Road, just north and that has its own set of land issues.
  3. Relocate main Taxiway to West of the Runway from Parallel taxiway/taxilane centerline 150’ to 240’ to meet FAA spec.
    A. Keep existing taxiway to existing Terminal, Hangers, and Tiedowns.
    1. Allow for MOS exception to FAA Standard.
  4. Widen main Runway west and maintain ancillary FAA zones to meet FAA Spec…
    A. Runway Width from 60’ to 75’ west.
    B. Runway Shoulder Width stays the same 10′.
    C. Runway Safety Area Width from 120’ to 150’.
    D. Runway Safety Area Length Beyond RW End from 240’ to 300’.
    E. If any of the zones don’t fit, mod to existing + whatever there’s room for and ask for Modification to Standard (MOS) spec.
  5. Terminal location stays the same..
    A. Commercial and General Aviation unload and loading area.
    B. Parking lot Stays the same for Passenger Access.
    C. Money to upgrade appearance etc but keep the flavor of the building intact and retro.
    D. Biplane hanger stay intact, upgrade appearance et, but keep the flavor of the building intact
    and retro.
  6. New Cargo Hanger Well West of the Main runway, proximal to taxiway exits for FedEx, UPS, et. al.
    A. This is to allow for upgrade to new cargo facility to allow for better working conditions for people staging incoming and outgoing cargo.
    B. Relocation of the Cargo Hanger also separates those aircraft from passenger aircraft on the opposite side of the field. Less chance of wingtip collision. New hanger area meets FAA separation spec, and the Existing Terminal, BiPlane area is under the MOS exception.
    C. New Roadway to egress to cargo hanger.
  7. Old Dog Park, Pea Patch SE corner of Airport stays open space and should be designated to the Community into perpetuity.
    A. No new Hangers in this area. Hangers no matter how they are built are ugly metal buildings.
    B. New hangers could be constructed on the West side of runway in the Cargo Hanger area. All
    that would meet FAA separation spec.
    C. This would help maintain property values along North Beach Road, Mt. Baker Road.
    D. Current Hangers, businesses, etc., can remain in the existing eastern area. They would be listed under the Eastside of Airport MOS.
  8. Aircraft noise abatement.
    A. Any and all methods of noise abatement technology to quiet the place down for the surrounding neighborhoods.
    B. Commercial Carriers would use new controlled Air Routes or Vector Hwys and fly the channels versus flying over terrestrial island areas. This would keep the noise out over the water, hopefully in the middle of the channels, then separated by altitude for coming and going flights. Again, this would be controlled airspace. Probably by Whidbey. No control tower at Eastsound would be necessary as the pilot would activate their instrument flight plan and contact Whidbey control and they can take them from there once airborne.
    C. General Aviation flyers would have no change or restriction that isn’t already in place.
  9. Fuel Depot
    A. Keep existing 100 octane available to local general aviation flyers using the airport.
    B. No new JetA fuel tanks. Providing JetA would only enhance the airports availability to expanding into the bigger aircraft. The commercial carriers currently using the airport would probably not use the utility since it would cost more per gallon. Local JetA users wouldn’t use enough for a cost versus benefit advantage to install the service and there wouldn’t be much if any return on investment.

These are a few ideas of mine. I’m sure there are any number of reasons why they won’t work, but at least the ideas are from an Islander concerned about keeping the flavor or Eastsound Airport small and rural….

**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**