— 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.
- 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:
- Current level of service capabilities remain intact.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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….
Wow – so well researched. You bring up an important issue that everyone else missed – insurance. You ask valid questions and we need that information to understand the whole big picture of what’s happening, what could happen, and the risks and benefits.
I can’t say that I understand all of what you say, but it’s clear you have some knowledge of aviation and requirements. I think it important that we keep our small rural footprint and that there be no more land taking or buying of more lands by the Port. Thank you, Clark, for your reasoned and well-thought letter offering your take on some solutions.
I believe that citizens have good ideas for some solutions that the Port may be missing or not investigating. Someone mentioned making the fence higher along Mount Baker Road and decorating it with bright shiny things that pilots can see, day or night. There are also devices to put in a potential “crash zone” that slow speeds and break up so that there is no “hard” crash – their name escapes me but it’s on the FAA website.
Why not consider the simplest solutions and not put a tourniquet on what may only need a band-aid?
Much of what Clark posits is a resounding second to my earlier post. Nice to see at least two people have some similar ideas.
Many many thanks for all the time you put into this insightful evaluation by an islander who believes in what we have!
Clark—
While I’m not qualified to judge the specifics of your suggestions, they certainly need to be vetted and taken seriously.
I particularly like your solution for the Mt Baker Road issue and the RPZ. Do we know if the port considered shortening the runway to remove Mt Baker Road from the RPZ?
I tried to follow your prescription for widening the main runway and parallel taxiway to accommodate the additional need of 2 feet —for the Caravan’s wingspan; I also liked the suggestion of a possible MOS as a back up solution to the issue of parallel taxiway and runway “width.”
But, overall, what I really liked about your message is that your suggestions are permeated by a desire to keep the airport rural, like the island; this places the airport’s importance in its appropriate role—as a “supportive” addition to the larger whole that is Orcas Island and its residents— this is most obvious in your “preventative” warning about jet A fuel tanks among other warnings that would lay the foundation for larger craft. This is just the sort of “intelligence” we need as an advocate for the community.
Insight like yours combined with your strong desire to retain Orcas’ rural character through and through are very much needed.
Thank you and please stay involved.
p.s. as for the insurance issue, my concern as a resident is somewhat abated by the assumption that I must assume the port would ensure that operations conducted at the airport are “legal;” and so if the operations conducted at the airport are “legal,” as a resident I’m not sure how we can collectively (i.e., indirectly as taxpayers) become liable for any incident flowing from the use of the airport.
Continued great comments. I’m wondering why “all” pilots aren’t required to use… why they don’t use the approach and take-off patterns that I see are designated on the airport website information? Many (actually most) of the take-offs to the north turn immediately inland and head south back over the island (over the dog park / OPALCO area). When on landing approach (when landing north to south) many aircraft will do a flyover of this same area twice– once at a higher altitude (1000 ft. perhaps), and then on what I assume is their final making another round (a second pass) at what looks to be around 500 ft. or so. Many times there are two small aircraft flying together. I suspect that this is local pilots keeping their hours up and/or taking lessons. Can’t you take it over the water somewhere? The noise is constant– from both near and far. It’s as if we are in a flight corridor (a zone) of some sort. Local pilots could do a lot to gain the support of the community if they were to take their flights over the water, and please, please — stop 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. take-offs.
Thank you for your extensive review of some of the technical issues regarding the current operation and proposed alternatives for the Eastsound airport. I think the most important consideration you raised was in the last 2 sentences prior to your proposed revisions, to wit: “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?”
The airport serves as a flagpole, or bellwether, of a much larger issue, one that has been, and continues to be, ignored. The concerns expressed by a large number of residents recommending Alternative 1 (no build) are placeholders for a yet-to-occur conversation that has been simmering quietly in the psyches of residents for years, and boiling over in the psyche of a very small number (perhaps a handful, among them I may be the reluctant frontrunner) for almost 3 decades. The elephant in the living room is “growth”. I’ve been on Orcas long enough to have observed the population quadruple.
If we all knew that we had maxed out, and there was “no more room” either for residents, part time property owners or visitors (imagine “orcas island national park”) where all the camping sites were taken, then there wouldn’t be a need for a conversation about the future of the airport. It has been, and would continue to be, good enough as is. Thinking outside the airport box regarding ground and water transportation issues, were we “full” today we would not be talking about additional ferry terminals, or expanding Orcas Road to be 4 lanes, or upgrading Eastsound traffic control to include stoplights. I realize we are not, yet, talking about these possibilities; I include them to emphasize the point that as we continue to grow, there will come a time when ideas like these, which likely seem preposterous now, will move within the Overton Window (worth looking up).
The real issue simmering in the psyches, then, relates to a growing disconnect between our various vision statements (Eastsound has a great one, San Juan County has a very good one) and “reality”, i.e., some hiding-in-plain-sight force that inexorably marches forward, irrespective of and entirely indifferent to what we say (in our visions) that we want. That force? The Market.
The airport skirmish is just another spot fire that triggers defensive actions while the larger, quieter forces that cause more spot fires to occur remain seemingly invisible. We are dinking with symptoms and not dealing with the disease. We aren’t discussing the disease. We may not even imagine the disease.
Toto pulled back the curtain to reveal some old geezer pushing levers. As I recall he said something like “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, vainly hoping to maintain the illusion of power he had created to singlehandedly run the Emerald City and the Kingdom of Oz.
It’s time to pull back the curtain.
To me, it is the failure, on all of our parts, to pay serious attention to the update to the Comprehensive Plan, the only legal document that purports to guide (dare I say control?) growth. This plan, like the giant Wizard Image, is basically an illusion, especially in the disconnect between the plan’s Vision Statement, which speaks to an image of who we imagine ourselves to be, what our community is to be like, how rural and quiet and slow we imagine ourselves to be, and the plan’s basically buried and obscure, but very real, density map, which speaks, legally, to how big we can become.
Given that “the plan” has zero means of controlling the rate of growth or the location of growth, and that the total growth “on the books” is now several times larger than we are now, and that none of the “growth” has any limitation or consideration of the impact of visitors, we are living in LaLa Land to imagine that we can keep our small quiet rural concept of community, harmony, “isolated nature” (a direct quote from the county’s revised vision statement) if we don’t actually discuss the one topic that has never been discussed since 1979. More people are going to want to move or visit or get stuff here, and the airport will simply be another pressure point in the collective desire to consume, rather than preserve, the 3 major ferry served islands. (Shaw and Waldron have taken steps to significantly reduce their growth potential.)
Rather than get your blood pressure up about possible changes to the Eastsound Airport, take the time to learn about what is, and more importantly what is not, happening at the county level. If the county were already “full”, or fairly close to it, a whole set of issues would fall off the radar screen. But we are no where near full, legally, and have no levers in place to regulate either the number or location of either residential structures or vacation rental structures.
Don’t ask me. Ask your county council members. Ask them what the buildout population is. You can figure it out yourself. The data is right there on the county’s web site, but it is data. You have to be somewhat of a geek to even find it, and much more of one to interpret it. Right now there are about 17,000 legal parcels in the county, many of which are neither developed nor developed to their maximum capacity. It’s not just the number of new residents either. It’s also the number of visitors, an impact ignored entirely by the Growth Management Act and thus not part of the plan.
Yes I have run the numbers, and they don’t look at all like what the Vision Statement says we want. And “running the numbers” is child’s play compared to doing the real work of what the impact of what those numbers mean, and the impact analysis is itself child’s play compared to what conversations will need to happen if you actually believe in the vision that you and your fellow islanders have written.
It is not encouraging to note that there is no place in America that has solved the problem of limiting its growth to what residents want. However, given that “we do it different here than on the mainland”, we have the right, the power, the smarts, and the capability to Star Trek ourselves (“go where no one has gone before”) into the future we say we want.
That’s theoretical. Yes we have all that but the issue is whether we’ll do it.
When I say “we” I don’t mean “me”. If those who are so concerned about airport expansion alternatives will look deeper as to what an airport expansion symbolizes, and choose to inform themselves, as Clark has, and ask questions, and demand a real conversation about the really big elephant in the living room (it won’t be easy but what of real importance is these days?) with their Council representatives, we can get through the fire of change and re-emerge, like the Phoenix, to a whole new paradigm.
You can start by going to, and in to, and then deeper in to, KeepSanJuansWild.org
What is on the table here is home. Not your house and garden. Your island home.
Not just your island home today. Your island home forever, whether you are a parent or not, whether you own property or not. Your island home is a placeholder for your home on planet earth. You may not be able to do much for Seattle or Chicago but you can do a lot here.
At home.
Attended the regular port meeting today, there was only 16 members of the public there along with 3 Commisioners and the Airport Manager. They allowed a lot of public comments, they will have a meeting next month to talk more about what plans will be better for the community ?
Clark Cundy, I hope you consider running for Port Commissioner. We need you.