This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Palomar Airport: Truth or Consequences 2, Blog #44

Last week, we looked at County website Palomar Airport runway extension FAQs and answers.   We asked how accurate the County answers are.  Today, more.    

County FAQ9:  “Will the airport traffic increase with a longer runway?County FAQ A9:  Ground and air traffic at Palomar is expected to continue to increase over time whether the project is constructed or not. The annual operations difference in 2021 for no project as compared to an extended runway is 3,000 total operations (159,100 as compared to 162,100).”

As pundits looking at issues say, the “devil is in the details.”  The County’s A9 answer suggests that a Palomar runway extension causes slight traffic and noise increases.

Find out what's happening in Carlsbadwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The Kimley-Horn [KH] Runway Study tells a different story.   Jet operations could go from 13,236 in 2011 to 24,000 in 2021, up 81%.  [KH Study Table 8A at page 8-2.]   How many jet operations (landings and takeoffs) per hour are 24,000 annual operations?  About 4 jets over head per hour (flights from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)

But there’s more.

Find out what's happening in Carlsbadwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The 4 operations per hour noted are for corporate jets.  Not regularly scheduled commercial aircraft.  Nor for the nearly 130,000 more small helicopters and aircraft. Nor for flights of California Pacific Airlines [CPA] that wants a new service at Palomar, perhaps up to 10,000 more flights per year.

As large planes increase, smaller planes will be squeezed out.   Palomar simply doesn’t have land to fully serve both.  Large planes bring more noise.  But you no longer need a large jet over your house to bother you; you can hear one several miles away.

County FAQ14: “How does a longer runway benefit aircraft operating from Palomar?  County A14: A longer runway enables a plane to take off with more weight, and fuel is the heaviest part of an airplane. With more fuel onboard, planes can travel farther. A longer runway makes for more efficient aircraft travel since stop-overs  for refueling are reduced or eliminated.”

The County’s answer has merit.  But only marginally.  What percent of corporate jets need to fly “heavy”?  Corporations often fly light.  Why?

Fuel Burn Rate Expense.   Heavy planes guzzle more fuel per minute.  Costly fuel.   Now, about $5.70 to $6.60 per gallon.   More in a tight fuel market.  If a corporate jet has a 3,000-mile range but most of its flights are short or medium range – say 200 to 2,000 miles – why fly full?   The cost is needlessly more.

Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases.  Flying heavier burns fuel excessively and  increases air pollution including green house gases, a current FAA target.  

Non-fuel Reasons for Stopovers.  Corporations have multiple office executives who attend long haul meetings.   Executives board at stopovers.  And, aircraft servicing may be cheaper outside California.

Advancing Technology.  Far away business meetings are decreasing.  Why spend a day in jet-lagged transit and incur lodging bills, airport fees, aircraft operating expenses, and lost office time when technology allows “face-to-face” video conferencing and instant document exchange?  Recall the Netflix (movie rental supplier) lesson.  Netflex went from one of the largest U.S. users of overland transport to one of the largest users of internet video-streaming.  

Palomar Safety Requirements.  Recall what happens at Palomar if a large jet overruns the newly proposed Engineered Materials Arresting System at the west end.  Overshooting the EMAS drops the plane about 80 feet into a gully.  Even if a jet stays on the EMAS – an engineered material that by design deforms when stressed – the corporate owner incurs a large EMAS repair.  Flying lighter minimizes liability.

Plane Range Limits.  Say you own a corporate jet.  Bejing, Rio, or London beckons.  Fill up with Palomar fuel?  Why?  If your destination is 6500 miles away and your jet has a range of 5,000 miles, you still need a refueling stopover.

FAA Destination “Regulatory” 60% Landing Requirement.  The FAA requires planes to land within 60% of available runway length.  For decades, planes across the U.S. have met this condition.  Pilots calculate the fuel burned in flight and leave the originating airport with enough fuel to meet the 60% destination condition.  The County says a longer Palomar runway allows arriving planes more leeway.  But the KH Study fails to refute the history of large planes now landing at Palomar.

Also, note the irony of the last County argument. If fuel-laden planes land at Palomar, they will need to buy less fuel at Palomar. This fact and others above severely undercut the County KH Study economic argument to justify a Palomar runway extension.

As famed radio commentator Paul Harvey used to say: “Now you know the rest of the story.”  At least until next week’s look at more County runway extension FAQs.

P.S. Plane crash fatalities this past week: 2 at Taunton Municipal Airport in Massachusetts; 2 at Merrill Field in Anchorage after an aborted landing.

 

 

 

 

 

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?