HomeMy WebLinkAboutAirport Master Plan - Entire Plan1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ce
It()ME OF PELICAN LELAND
Chapter One Introduction
Overview 1 -1
Airport Master Plan Definition 1 -1
Sponsorship of the Master Plan Update 1 -1
Duration of the Study 1 -1
Provided Input for the Study 1 -2
Objectives of the Master Plan Update 1 -2
Key Issues 1 -2
Master Plan Process 1 -3
Summary 1 -4
Chapter Two Inventory of Existing Facilities
Table of Contents
Airport Setting 2 -1
Locale 2 -1
Climate 2 -4
Airport History 2 -6
Previous Studies 2 -6
Air Traffic Activities 2 -7
Aircraft Operations 2 -7
Based Aircraft 2 -7
Airport Facilities 2 -8
Airfield Facilities 2 -8
Runways 2 -10
Runway 4 -22 2 -10
Runway 13 -31 2 -10
Runway Safety Areas 2 -10
Runway Protection Zones 2 -11
Taxiways 2 -11
Airfield Lighting 2 -11
Identification Lighting 2 -12
Runway Lighting 2 -12
Taxiway and Apron Lighting 2 -12
Pavement Markings 2 -12
Navigational Aids 2 -13
Airfield Layout and Facilities 2 -13
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
e
f
f
1
1
1
North Quadrant 2 -14
South Quadrant 2 -14
East Quadrant 2 -14
West Quadrant 2 -14
North and South Infield Areas 2 -15
Support Facilities 2 -16
Automated Pilot System 2 -16
Maintenance Facilities 2 -16
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 2 -16
Airport Infrastructure 2 -17
Electrical Power 2 -17
Water 2 -17
Sanitary Sewer 2 -17
Telephone 2 -17
Stormwater 2 -17
Airspace and Air Traffic Control 2 -17
Surface Transportation Network 2 -18
Socioeconomic Data 2 -18
Population 2 -19
Per Capita Income 2 -20
Employment/Unemployment 2 -20
Construction Indicators 2 -22
Retail Sales 2 -23
Airport Environs 2 -24
Land Use and Zoning 2 -24
Environmental Factors 2 -25
Chapter Three Forecast of Aviation Activity
Aviation Activity Forecasts 3 -1
Previous Aviation Activity Forecasts 3 -1
Previous Airport Master Plan 3 -2
FAA Terminal Area Forecast 3 -2
Florida Aviation System Plan 3 -3
Forecasting Approach 3 -3
Forecasting Considerations 3 -4
Historical Factors 3 -4
Industry Trends 3 -4
ii
2002
Based Aircraft 3 -5
Historical Based Aircraft 3 -5
Forecast of Based Aircraft 3 -5
Projected Fleet Mix 3 -6
Aircraft Operations 3 -7
Current Aircraft Operations 3 -7
Forecast of Aircraft Operations 3 -8
Types of Aircraft Operations 3 -8
Local versus Itinerant Split 3 -8
Operational Fleet Mix 3 -9
Instrument Operations 3 -10
Military Operations 3 -11
Peak Activity 3 -11
Summary of Aviation Activity Forecasts 3 -12
Chapter Four Demand /Capacity Analysis
Introduction 4 -1
Airfield Characteristics 4 -1
Runway Configuration 4- 1
Aircraft Mix Index 4 -2
Taxiway Configuration 4 -2
Operational Characteristics 4 -2
Percentage of Aircraft Arrivals 4 -2
Sequencing of Aircraft Departures 4 -4
Percentage of Touch and Go Operations 4 -4
Meteorological Conditions 4 -4
Airfield Capacity Analysis 4 -5
Hourly Capacity of Runways 4 -5
Annual Service Volume 4 -5
Annual Aircraft Delay 4 -8
Airspace Capacity 4 -8
Chapter Five Facility Requirements
Introduction 5 -1
Airport Role and Service Level 5 -1
Airport Reference Code and Critical Aircraft 5 -1
2002
Airfield Requirements 5 -3
Runway Requirements 5 -3
Runway 4 -22 5 -3
Runway 13 -31 5 -6
Taxiway System Requirements 5 -6
North -South Taxiway 5 -7
East -West Taxiway 5 -7
Partial Parallel to Runway 4 -22 5 -7
Partial Parallel to Runway 13 -31 5 -8
Connector Taxiway 5 -8
New Taxiways and Taxilanes 5 -8
Run -Up Areas 5 -9
Pavement Markings 5 -9
Pavement Lighting 5 -10
Airfield Signage 5 -10
Precision and Non Precision Instrument Approaches 5 -10
Visual Landing Aids 5 -11
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 5 -12
Electrical Vault 5 -13
General Aviation Facilities 5 -13
Itinerant Aircraft Parking Apron Area Requirements 5 -14
Based Aircraft Parking Apron Area Requirements 5 -15
Summary of Itinerant and Based Aircraft Apron Area Requirements 5 -16
Hangar Demand 5 -17
Demand for General Aviation Pilot and Passenger Terminal Space 5 -18
Airport Access, Utilities, and Automobile Parking 5 -18
Airport Access 5 -19
North Quadrant 5 -19
South Quadrant 5 -19
East Quadrant 5 -19
West Quadrant 5 -19
North and South Infield Areas 5 -20
Automobile Parking 5 -20
Perimeter /Access Road 5 -20
Summary of Facility Requirements 5 -20
Chapter Six Airport Alternatives
Introduction 6 -1
iv
2002
1
1 General 6 -1
Airport Considerations 6 -2
1 Airfield Alternatives 6 -3
Runway Alternatives 6 -3
I Alternative A Re- opening of Runway 9 -27 6 -4
Alternative B Rehabilitate Existing Runway 13 -31 6 -8
1 Alternative C Modify and Rehabilitate Runway 13 -31 6 -11
Selection of Preferred Runway Alternative 6 -14
I Taxiway Alternatives 6 -15
Parallel Taxiway to Runway 4 -22 6 -15
I Parallel Taxiway to Runway 9 -27 6 -16
North South Taxiway 6 -16
General Aviation Alternatives 6 -17
I Relocation of Existing Tenants 6 -17
III South Portion of Velocity Leasehold 6 -17
JS Aviation Leasehold 6 -17
Skydive Sebastian Landing Zone 6 -19
I FBO Alternatives 6 -19
I Alternative A North of Runway 9 -27 6 -19
Alternative B South Infield Area 6 -20
Alternative C Southeast Side of Airport 6 -20
1 Evaluation of FBO Alternatives 6 -22
I Flexibility 6 -22
Phasing /Construction 6 -23
Environmental Effects 6 -23
Operational Effectiveness 6 -23
1 Safety Considerations 6 -24
Recommended FBO Development Alternative 6 -24
I Navigational Aids Alternatives 6 -25
Economic Development Alternatives 6 -26
North Quadrant 6 -27
South Quadrant 6 -27
East Quadrant 6 -27
West Quadrant 6 -27
South Infield 6 -27
i
e
v
2002
Summary of Airport Alternatives 6 -28
Chapter Seven Refined Alternatives
Introduction 7 -1
Airfield Facilities 7 -1
Crosswind Runway Alternative 7 -1
Crosswind Runway Enhancements 7 -2
Taxiway Enhancements 7 -3
General Aviation Facilities 7 -3
Relocation of Velocity 7 -3
JS Aviation Leasehold 7 -4
Skydive Sebastian Landing Zone 7 -4
Other General Aviation Facilities 7 -5
Environmental Considerations 7 -5
Environmental Assessment for Re- opening Runway 9 -27 7 -6
Generation of Noise Contours 7 -6
Scrub Jay Buffer 7 -7
Wetlands and Water Quality 7 -7
Future Land Use 7 -7
Summary 7 -7
Chapter Eight— Airport Layout Plans
Introduction 8 -1
Design Standards 8 -1
Airport Layout Plan 8 -2
Terminal Area Plan 8 -3
Protection Zone Plans and Profiles 8 -3
FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces 8 -4
Airport Land Use Plan 8 -5
Airport Property Map 8 -5
Summary 8 -5
Chapter Nine Financial Plan
Introduction 9 -1
Capital Improvement Plan 9 -2
Short Term Capital Improvement Program 9 -4
Intermediate Term Capital Improvement Program 9 -6
Long Term Capital Improvement Program 9 -6
Airport Cash Flow Analysis 9 -7
vi
2002
Historic Airport Operating Revenues 9 -8
Historic Airport Operating Expenses 9 -8
Revenues versus Expenses 9 -8
Projections of Revenues and Expenses 9 -9
Project Feasibility 9 -12
Financial Plan Summary 9 -14
vii
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
List of Tables
Table 2 -1 Public Airports In The Region 2 -4
Table 2 -2 All Weather Wind Coverage 2 -5
Table 2 -3 Summary Of Air Traffic Activity 2 -7
Table 2 -4 Historical Based Aircraft 2 -8
Table 2 -5 Historic Population 2 -19
Table 2 -6 Projected Population 2 -19
Table 2 -7 Historical Per Capita Income 2 -20
Table 2 -8 Projected Per Capita Income 2 -20
Table 2 -9 Historical Employed Persons 2 -21
Table 2 -10 Projected Employed Persons 2 -21
Table 2 -11 Historical Unemployment 2 -22
Table 2 -12 Projected Unemployment 2 -22
Table 2 -13 Historical Households 2 -23
Table 2 -14 Projected Households 2 -23
Table 2 -15 Historical Real Taxable Sales 2 -24
Table 2 -16 Projected Real Taxable Sales 2 -24
Table 3 -1 1993 Master Plan Forecasts 3 -2
Table 3 -2 FAA Terminal Area Forecast 3 -3
Table 3 -3 Additional Indian River County Socioeconomic Data 3 -6
Table 3 -4 Forecast Based Aircraft Fleet Mix 3 -7
Table 3 -5 Forecast of Annual Operations 3 -9
Table 3 -6 Projected Operational Fleet Mix 3 -10
Table 3 -7 Forecast Peak Activity 3 -11
Table 3 -8 Summary of Aviation Activity Forecast 3 -12
Table 4 -1 Runway End Utilization 4 -4
Table 4 -2 Airfield Capacity Levels 4 -6
Table 4 -3 Annual Aircraft Delay 4 -8
Table 5 -1 Aircraft Approach Categories 5 -2
Table 5 -2 Aircraft Design Groups 5 -2
Table 5 -3 FAA Runway Lengths Recommended for Airport Design 5 -5
Table 5 -4 Itinerant Aircraft Parking Space Demand 5 -14
Table 5 -5 Itinerant Aircraft Apron Area Requirements 5 -15
Table 5 -6 Based Aircraft Parking Demand 5 -15
Table 5 -7 Based Aircraft Apron Area Requirements 5 -16
Table 5 -8 Total Apron Area Requirements 5 -16
Table 5 -9 Total Existing Apron Space 5 -16
Table 5 -10 Total Hangar Requirements 5 -17
Table 5 -11 Requirement for Hangar Space by Type 5 -17
Table 5 -12 General Aviation Terminal Space 5 -18
Table 5 -13 Summary of Facility Requirements 5 -21
Table 6 -1 Comparison of Issues Runway Alternative A 6 -7
Table 6 -2 Cost Estimate Summary Runway Alternative A 6 -8
Table 6 -3 Comparison of Issues Runway Alternative B 6 -10
Table 6 -4 Cost Estimate Summary Runway Alternative B 6 -11
viii
2002
Table 6 -5 Comparison of Issues Runway Alternative C 6 -14
Table 6 -6 Cost Estimate Summary Runway Alternative C 6 -14
Table 6 -7 FBO Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 6 -25
Table 8 -1 Minimum Required Airport Design Standards 8 -2
Table 9 -1 Summary of Development Costs 9 -3
Table 9 -2 Short Term Capital Improvement Program 9 -5
Table 9 -3 Intermediate Term Capital Improvement Program 9 -6
Table 9 -4 Long Term Capital Improvement Program 9 -7
Table 9 -5 Historic Airport Operating Revenues 9 -8
Table 9 -6 Historic Airport Expenses 9 -8
Table 9 -7 Revenues Versus Expenses 9 -9
Table 9 -8 Expected Revenue Increases 9 -11
Table 9 -9 Total Projected Revenues 9 -11
Table 9 -10 Total Projected Expenses 9 -12
Table 9 -11 Projected Revenues Versus Projected Expenses 9 -12
ix
2002
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2 -1 Location Map 2 -2
Exhibit 2 -2 Vicinity Map 2 -3
Exhibit 2 -3 Current Airfield Facilities 2 -9
Exhibit 4 -1 Airfield Classifications 4 -3
Exhibit 4 -2 Airfield Demand vs. Capacity 4 -7
Exhibit 6 -1 Re- opening of Runway 9 -27 6 -5
Exhibit 6 -2 Rehabilitation of Runway 13 -31 6 -9
Exhibit 6 -3 Modify and Rehabilitation of Runway 13 -31 6 -12
Exhibit 6 -4 Relocation of Existing Tenants 6 -18
Exhibit 6 -5 Fixed Base Operator Alternatives 6 -21
Exhibit 8 -1 Airport Layout Plan Cover Sheet 8 -6
Exhibit 8 -2 Airport Layout Plan 8 -7
Exhibit 8 -3 Terminal Area Plan 8 -8
Exhibit 8 -4 Runway 4 -22 Protection Zone Plans and Profiles 8 -9
Exhibit 8 -5 Runway 13 -31 Protection Zone Plans and Profiles 8 -10
Exhibit 8 -6 Runway 9 -27 Protection Zone Plans and Profiles 8 -11
Exhibit 8 -7 Existing FAR Part 77 Surfaces 8 -12
Exhibit 8 -8 Future FAR Part 77 Surfaces 8 -13
Exhibit 8 -9 Airport Land Use Plan 8 -14
Exhibit 8 -10 Airport Property Map 8 -15
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1
1
1
1
1
1
arra
HOME Of PtUrAN
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
OVERVIEW
This Airport Master Plan Update for the Sebastian Municipal Airport (X26) is prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Aviation Office, and the needs of the City of Sebastian, Florida. All portions of this document are based on the
criteria set forth in the FAA Advisory Circulars (AC) 150/5070 -6A, "Airport Master Plans" and AC 150/5300 -13,
"Airport Design." The primary objective of this Master Plan is to create a twenty -year development program that
will maintain a safe, efficient, economical, and environmentally acceptable airport facility for the City.
This study will provide a comprehensive analysis of current facilities, trends, and activities affecting the Airport.
The identification and analysis of sectors within the aviation industry has the likelihood of continued operational
growth and new opportunities for expanded aviation activity at Sebastian. Additionally, the Master Plan will
result in the preparation of an analysis of airside and landside alternatives, preparation of a financial plan, and an
Airport Layout Plan (ALP) meeting the FAA and FDOT criteria to guide future development. All of the
recommendations made in this document are focused on maintaining an adequate, safe, and reliable facility to
meet the air transportation needs of the community.
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN DEFINITION
An Airport Master Plan is designed to provide the City of Sebastian with longterm guidance, relating to the viability,
use, on -going development needs, project phasing, and financial requirements of the Airport. The FAA has very
specific guidelines and criteria that are used in developing the Airport Master Plan. Based on the forecast of future
aviation activity, the Master Plan establishes a schedule of financial and construction priorities as well as identifies the
funding sources to be used to pay for improvements during the twenty -year planning period. As such, it is both a
physical and financial plan for use in guiding local decisions relating to airport facilities and their potential
improvement.
This plan serves as a guide to decision makers, users, and the general public relative to realistic and achievable
development in line with both Airport and community objectives. The Master Plan process provides the forum for
discussing Airport and community objectives and establishing the links between community goals and those of the
Airport.
SPONSORSHIP OF THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
The City of Sebastian, who owns and operates Sebastian Municipal Airport, is sponsoring the Airport Master
Plan. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is providing funding for this study. Preparation of this
plan is being carried out with the assistance of airport users and tenants, local officials, and the general public,
with technical assistance being provided by The LPA Group, Inc.
DURATION OF THE STUDY
Chapter One Introduction
1 1
SEDigTIAN
NOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The Master Plan Update began in May 2000 and is scheduled to be completed within an eighteen -month period
ending in October 2001. Implementation of the recommendations will occur following review and acceptance of the
activity forecasts and the Airport Layout Plan by the FAA and FDOT.
2002
art a
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 5£ ;SAST
Master Plan Update
PROVIDED INPUT FOR THE STUDY
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
Anyone who is interested can attend meetings and provide their viewpoints, opinions, and information relative to the
Airport and its future facilities, services, and role. A Technical Review Committee, which is comprised of
representatives from the FAA, FDOT, City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Airport tenants, and public /community
representatives, will serve as a sounding board and in a review capacity during the Master Plan Update. Additionally,
three public forums will be held during the development of the Master Plan Update to provide information to local
residents and to receive input from interested citizens.
OBJECTIVES OF THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
The primary goal of this study is to provide direction for the future operation and improvement of Sebastian
Municipal. In addition, this document will provide the guidance to satisfy the aviation demand in a financially
feasible and responsible manner, while at the same time addressing the community issues and formulating a
realistic development program that will satisfy the Airport's needs in a safe, efficient, economical, and
environmentally sound manner. This plan serves as a guide to decision makers, Airport users, and the general
public relative to realistic and achievable Airport development in concert with community concerns and
objectives. In support of this goal, the following objectives were specifically considered:
Identify airside, landside, and airspace improvements and recommend options that optimize the economic
benefits of the Airport to the community.
Enhance the safety, ease, and operational capability of the Airport on both the airside and landside.
Identify short-term airport improvements and optimize short-term funding opportunities.
Establish an implementation schedule for short, intermediate, and long -term improvements, and ensure
that they are financially feasible.
Ensure that short-term actions and recommendations are consistent with, and do not preclude long -range
planning options.
Incorporate the interests of, and work closely with the public and governmental entities during the
planning process.
Ensure sensitivity to the overall environmental characteristics and issues in the areas surrounding the
Airport.
Reflect current land use plans (on and off airport property), and recommend actions to enhance
compatible land uses to minimize noise impacts through proper planning and zoning.
Investigate operational procedures that may enhance noise compatibility in the vicinity of the Airport.
KEY ISSUES
It has been over seven years since the Airport Master Plan was updated. Therefore, the City decided to revisit and
revalidate its goals and objectives to develop a strong, viable Airport maintenance and improvement program.
Prior to the start of the Master Plan Update, there were a number of key issues identified by the City, as well as
the FAA and FDOT, requiring attention. These issues include:
1 -2
2002
1
1
1
1
e
r
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SEBA
HOME Of PELICAN IS1AND
Runway 13 -31 and all of the taxiways are experiencing delamination and reflective cracking. Further,
there is concern as to pavement condition, strength, capability, and preservation of the respective runway
and taxiways.
Identify and maximize the economic development potentials and use of Airport property.
Effects of industrial park development adjacent to Airport property.
Identify leaseholder and Airport utility needs based on potential changes to airfield configuration.
Identification of access needs (roads and parking) on Airport landside and airside.
Explore land use and zoning elements effecting Airport growth.
The preceding list is not an exhaustive delineation of the issues considered in the Master Plan Update. In
addition, this study will also review the land area needs of the Airport, the potential absorption of land for aviation
development, and the local environmental conditions that may impact property acquired by the Airport and its
development viability.
This Master Plan defines the current and future aviation demand at the Airport; the means and alternatives for
addressing this demand; and the role of the Airport in the local, regional, and national aviation system. The study
also provides a Capital Improvements Program for future development of the Airport, as well as an overview of
land use compatibility issues in the Airport environment and possible recommendations and options for
addressing land use compatibility.
MASTER PLAN PROCESS
This Airport Master Plan provides a step -by -step outline of the development actions required to maintain the
airfield facilities. This process provides the officials responsible for the scheduling, budgeting, and ultimate
funding of improvement projects with an advance notice of the future needs of the Airport. By phasing the
improvements, development can be conducted in an orderly and timely fashion. To accomplish the objectives
identified in this Master Plan, the study has included the following tasks:
Conduct an inventory of the existing documents related to the Airport, the physical facilities, the
demographics of the Airport service area, and the Airport environment.
Collect historical operational data, conduct tenant interviews, and forecast aviation activity through the
year 2022.
Evaluate and compare the airfield capacity to the expected aviation activity.
Determine the airport facilities required to meet the forecast demand.
Develop and evaluate alternative methods to meet the facility requirements of the airfield.
Create a concise Airport Layout Plan drawing set reflecting the proposed improvements through the year
2022.
1 -3
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Compile a schedule of the proposed improvements to include the cost estimates, phasing, and financial
feasibility of each.
Overall, the Master Plan will provide the sponsor with a comprehensive overview of the Airport's needs over the
next twenty years, including issues related to the timing of proposed development, costs for this development,
methods of financing, management options, and a clear plan of action.
SUMMARY
The outlook for aviation over the next twenty years and what impact it will have on Sebastian Municipal remains
to be seen. Although general aviation experienced a national decline in the past decade, more recent passage of
product liability reform legislation for the industry indicates that the major contributor to this past problem has
dissolved. As a matter of fact, all indications are that aviation will continue to grow as a major component of the
transportation industry nationally, in Florida, and in the Sebastian vicinity. Further, addressing these issues play a
key factor in determining the viability of the present airfield to meet demand well in the future. All of these
considerations will be reviewed relative to their cost and the community's ability to pay, as well as the impact that
addressing these issues may have on the environment, the City, and its residents.
1 -4
HOME Of PELICAN [RAND
2002
INVENTORY
arta
NOME ni Mir.. KUNO
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
AIRPORT SETTING
Chapter Two Inventory of Existing Conditions
SEB, mra TIAN
HOME OF PELICAN KWID
Located in Sebastian Florida, the Sebastian Municipal Airport is a small general aviation airport located in the
north coastal region of Indian River County. The Airport is a partner of the Treasure Coast Region in the
Continuing Florida Aviation System Planning Process (CFASPP), which consists of three counties: Indian River,
Martin, and St. Lucie. As such, the facilities that make up the Airport serve as one of the many contributors to
general aviation activity including a significant number of sky dive operations and elements of aircraft
manufacturing. Exhibit 2 -1, a general location map of the Airport, depicts the site of Sebastian Municipal in the
State of Florida.
The Airport is included within the National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS), which is published by the
U.S. Depai tnient of Transportation. In the NPIAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) establishes the role
of those public airports defined as essential to meet the needs of civil aviation and to support the Department of
Defense and Postal Service. In the NPIAS, the role for each airport identifies one of five basic service levels.
These levels describe the type of service that the airport is expected to provide the community at the end of the
NPIAS five -year planning period. It also represents the funding categories set up by Congress to assist in airport
development. Sebastian in represented as a General Aviation (GA) airport, based on data collected and
transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of Transportation for the 1998 -2002 planning period.
Locale
All of the property comprising the Sebastian Municipal Airport is located within the municipal district of the City
of Sebastian. The Airport itself is situated on 625 acres located to the west of downtown Sebastian and is
approximately six miles west of Interstate 95 via County Road 512 (Fellsmere Road). A portion of Indian River
County, which includes the City of Sebastian, is shown in Exhibit 2 -2. The Airport is owned and operated by the
City of Sebastian, which is located in the northeast central portion of Indian River County, on the east central
coast of the State of Florida. Indian River County is bordered by Brevard County to the north, Osceola County to
the West, St. Lucie County to the south, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east.
There are several public use airports offering commercial service within a convenient radius of Sebastian. The
most significant is Orlando International Airport, located approximately 65 miles northwest, Palm Beach
International, located 82 miles to the south, and Melbourne International Airport, located 21 miles to the north.
There are eight public airports in Florida within 50 -miles of Sebastian that offer general aviation services. These
include Melbourne International Airport, Merritt Island Airport, New Hibiscus Airpark, Okeechobee County
Airport, River Ranch Resort Airport, St. Lucie County International Airport, Vero Beach Municipal Airport, and
Witham Field. Table 2 -1 provides a comparison of some aspects of these public airports.
2 -1
2002
LOCATION OF AIRPORT
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
LATITUDE: N27 °48'51"
LONGITUDE: W80 °29
SEBJ TIAN
BONI IN PELICAN ELAND
LOCATION
MAP
Sebastian Municipal Airport
City of Sebastian
THE EP
LPA EPA
GROUP e
EXHIBIT 2 -1
SEBASTIAN
MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
15
SEDiTs IA
HOWL 0
VICINITY
MAP
TFA L nA
GROUP
Sebastian Municipal Airport
City of Sebastian
EXHIBIT 2-2
TABLE 2 -1
PUBLIC AIRPORTS IN THE REGION
Airport
Runways
Approaches
Services
Melbourne International
9L -27R (6,000' x 150')
ILS Runway 9R
Fuel 100LL Jet A
Airport
9R -27L (9,483' x 150')
LOC BC Runway 27L
Major Airframe Repair
4 -22 (3,001' x 75')
VOR/GPS Runway 27L
Major Powerplant Repair
VOR RWY 9R
ARFF Index C
NDB /GPS RWY 9R
GPS Runway 9L/27R
Merritt Island Airport
11 -29 (3,601' x 75')
NDB /GPS Runway 11
Fuel 100LL Jet A
Minor Airframe Repair
Minor Powerplant Repair
New Hibiscus Airpark
18 -36 (3,120' x 160')
Visual
Fuel 100LL
Turf
Major Airframe Repair
Minor Powerplant Repair
Okeechobee County
4 -22 (5,000' x 150')
Visual
Fuel 100LL Jet A
Airport
13 -31 (4,000' x 150')
Minor Airframe Repair
Minor Powerplant Repair
River Ranch Resort
16 -34 (4,950' x 75')
Visual
Fuel 100LL
Airport
Sebastian Municipal
4 -22 (4,024' x 100')
Visual
Fuel 100LL, Jet A
Airport
13 -31 (4,021' x 150')
Major Airframe Repair
Major Powerplant Repair
St. Lucie International
9 -27 (6,492' x 150')
ILS Runway 9
Fuel 100LL Jet A
Airport
14 -32 (4,756 x 100')
VOR/DME Runway 14
Major Airframe Repair
GPS Runway 9/14
Major Powerplant Repair
NDB /GPS Runway 27
NDB Runway 9
NDB A
Vero Beach Municipal
11R -29L (7,314' x 100')
VOR/DME Runway 29L
Fuel 100 Jet A
Airport
11L -29R (3,504' x 75')
GPS Runway 29L
Major Airframe Repair
4 -22 (4,974' x 100')
VOR/GPS Runway 11R
Major Powerplant Repair
NDB Runway 11R/29L
High Pressure Oxygen
Low Pressure Oxygen
ARFF Index A
Witham Field
12 -30 (5,826' x 100')
GPS Runway 12/30
Fuel 100 Jet A
16 -34 (5,000' x 100')
Major Airframe Repair
7 -25 (4,652' x 100')
Major Powerplant Repair
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
ource: Southeast U.S. Airport Facility Directory and Florida Airport Directory.
Climate
The Sebastian Municipal Airport has an elevation of 23 feet above mean sea level and is separated from the
Atlantic Ocean by the Intercoastal Waterway (Indian River) and a narrow island offshore. The immediate
surrounds for all runways consist of tree and brush. The maritime location and prevailing easterly sea breeze
significantly influence the climate of this region. Although the Airport is located in the warmer southeastern
portion of the nation, annual temperatures are considered natively moderate due to the influence of the sea breeze.
2 -4
SL BA5T
HOME Of P[1H11N ISLAND
2002
TABLE 2 -2
ALL WEATHER WIND COVERAGE
Runway
10.5 -knots
13 -knots
(12 mph)
(15 mph)
4 -22
91.1%
97.2%
13 -31
91.0%
97.1%
Combined
96.4%
99.6%
1
1
1
1
1
1
e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 5,PAST
Master Plan Update
Temperatures during the summer months rarely reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average maximum
temperature in the months of July and August of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. During the winter months, the average
minimum temperature is slightly above 50 degrees Fahrenheit with record lows near the 20s. On average, this
area only experiences freezing temperatures one day a year, which is usually during the month of January.
Rainfall in this area occurs during all seasons, however is more abundant during the summer when daily showers
are common. Monthly precipitation amounts in the off summer months are about half of the amounts recorded in
the summer. This is due in part to the cold frontal systems that frequently traverse this region. Thunderstorms
occur approximately 70 to 80 days a year. Throughout the year, the relative humidity around 7:00 a.m. tends to
range from 80 to 90 percent. Early afternoon humidity ranges from 60 to 70 percent with the lower values
occurring in mid afternoon when the temperatures reach their highest.
Because the Sebastian area lies in the northern boundary of a tropical rainy region, during the summer and fall,
there may be hurricane activity. Of those hurricanes that pass close to Sebastian, many move northward offshore,
some cross the peninsula of Florida moving generally eastward, weakening during their passage over land and
some enter the coastal area from the Atlantic Ocean. The frequency of those entering the coastal region has been
small; in fact, only five have made landfall in the Sebastian area in the past 114 years.
The characteristic of the area's wind direction is another factor to be evaluated. This element is important since
aircraft takeoff and land into the wind. The FAA recommends that sufficient runways be provided to achieve 95
percent wind coverage. This is calculated by using a 10.5 -knot (12 mph) crosswind component for the smaller
aircraft and light aircraft, while a 13 -knot (15 mph) crosswind component is utilized for larger aircraft. FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5300 -13, Change 6, "Airport Design" expresses that a period of at least ten consecutive
years be examined for determining the wind coverage when carrying out an evaluation of this type. The source of
data for wind conditions at Sebastian Municipal Airport, were taken from the 1993 Master Plan, which was
comprised of Vero Beach Municipal Airport Wind Data. This data was collected from the National Climate Data
Center, taken in 1983. The National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina officially records
meteorological information.
To determine the wind coverage at the Sebastian Municipal Airport, Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 were
evaluated. It was determined that any combination of these two runways would provide enough coverage to more
than satisfy FAA recommendations. Table 2 -2 summarizes the percent of wind coverage for an all weather
scenario, using a 10.5 and 13 -knot crosswind component.
Source: 1. 1993 Airport Master Plan.
2. The LPA Group Inc. 2000
As shown in the table above, it was determined that any combination of these two runways would provide enough
coverage to more than satisfy FAA recommendations. However, because the FAA recommends 95 percent
coverage, both runways are needed in order to provide the appropriate wind coverage for the smaller and light
aircraft (10.5 -knot coverage).
2 -5
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Airport History
SEranAN
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Similar to other facilities serving World War II, the approximate 625 acre airport was built by the United States
Navy in 1943 as a naval flight training station. The Sebastian Municipal Airport was transferred by the War
Assets Administration, as part of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, on January 29, 1959 to the City of Sebastian.
Upon taking responsibility, a provision was written in reference to the Federal Surplus Property Act, in that the
Airport be used solely for aviation purposes without unfair discrimination. This provision provided responsibility
of property be given back to the United States in the event of noncompliance with any terms and conditions of the
deed.
Since acquisition, the Airport has been maintained and operated by the City of Sebastian. Since the transfer of
ownership from the U.S. Government, Sebastian has undergone numerous facility changes and improvements.
The noted championship Sebastian Municipal Golf Course was built in 1981 on a 155 -acre plot of land occupying
a large portion of the Airport property. In the mid to late 1980's local area flight training facilities greatly
increased operations at the Airport. Currently Fixed Based Operators (FBO) occupy the east and west sides of the
airfield and frequent sky diving activity accounts for a large portion of operations at Sebastian Municipal Airport.
The addition of a number of commercial and private general aviation hangars and related aprons were developed
along the West Quadrant of the field. No identifiable existing structures stand from the Airport's military days.
Over the years, there have been other changes made to the Airport. Some of the more significant projects, going
backward in time, have included:
Center 75 feet of Runway 4 -22 reconstructed and 37.5 feet of both sides of runway resealed and
rejuvenated (completed during 1997).
Installation of Low Intensity Runway Lights onto Runway 4 -22.
Demolition of adjacent parallel taxiway to Runway 4 -22.
The closing of Runway 9 -27 as an active runway. This pavement was then converted into a taxiway,
which runs from the midpoint of the abandoned Runway 18 -36 pavement, through the intersection of
Runways 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31.
The closing of Runway 18 -36 as an active runway. This pavement was then converted into a taxiway and
apron which runs between the approach ends of Runway 4 and Runway 13.
Some of the most notable improvements, which have changed the look of the airfield, have occurred since the last
Master Plan Update. For example, general aviation facilities have been constructed on the west side of the
Airport, consisting of several new hangars, a 10,000 gallon Jet A fuel facility, and a miscellaneous inventory of
sky dive training facilities.
Previous Studies
In October of 1993, Williams, Hatfield Stoner, Inc. completed the last Master Plan Update for Sebastian
Municipal. As with this study, the 1993 Master Plan provided a comprehensive analysis ofthe Airport needs and
alternatives with the purpose of providing a 20 -year outlook for the Airport's future development. This Master
Plan was an update to the previous Master Plan conducted in 1988. Information included in the 1993 Master Plan
has been reviewed for inclusion of any applicable data /information in this Master Plan report.
2 -6
2002
TABLE 2 -3
SUMMARY OF AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY
Year
Annual Operations
1 990
94,732
1991
94,732
1992
94,732
1993
94,732
1994
94,732
1995
94,732
1996
94,732
1997
94,732
1998
94,812
1999
37,240
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
National aviation plans are administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation through the FAA. In addition
to the NPIAS, Sebastian has been incorporated into the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF). These plans have
been referenced to complete this section of the Master Plan report. However, the information contained in these
plans will primarily be used to develop the aviation forecasts in the following chapter.
AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITIES
The historical profile of aviation activity and the number of based aircraft at Sebastian Municipal is essential to
the development of forecasts for future aviation activity. This information will help evaluate the trends associated
with the various socioeconomic factors. The best historical information will come from the FAA Airport Master
Records (Form 5010), FAA TAF, the 1993 Master Plan Update, the Florida Aviation System Plan (FASP), and
the NPIAS.
Aircraft Operations
Presently, the Sebastian Municipal Airport normally incurs operations from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day of the
week. In addition to the use of historical base data, operations for this study have been derived from FBO and
airfield operators. An aircraft operation is counted as either one landing or one takeoff. Further, a touch and go
operation is counted as two operations, since the aircraft technically landed and took off. Generally, there are two
types of recorded aircraft operations: local and itinerant. Local operations are those arrivals or departures
performed by aircraft that remain in the pattern or are within sight of the Airport. This covers an area within a 20
nautical mile (nm) radius of the airfield. Itinerant operations are arrivals or departures other than local operations
performed by either based or transient aircraft that do not remain in the airport traffic pattern or within a 20 nm
radius.
Table 2 -3 provides the total number of aircraft operations recorded for Sebastian over the past ten years. These
totals represent the number of local and itinerant operations conducted at the Airport. A majority of the local
operations at an airport are typically conducted by aircraft that are based out of the airport.
Based Aircraft
ource: 1. FAA Airport Master Record (5010 form).
2. FAA Terminal Area Forecast.
Historical based aircraft information for Sebastian is contained in both the FAA 5010 form and the TAF.
Likewise, the type of aircraft performing operations at the airport is an important historical element in
2 7
AiS
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
2002
TABLE 2 -4
HISTORICAL BASED AIRCRAFT
Year
Single Engine
Multi- Engine
Jet
Rotor
Total
1990
42
8
0
0
50
1991
42
8
0
0
50
1992
42
8
0
0
50
1993
42
8
0
0
50
1994
42
8
0
0
50
1995
42
8
0
0
50
1996
42
8
0
0
50
1997
42
8
0
0
50
1998
42
8
0
0
50
1999
42
8
0
0
50
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
determining the future forecast of aviation activity. Typically, aircraft categories are broken down into single
engine, multi- engine, jet, and rotor. This information helps to determine the future airside requirements of the
Airport. The total number of historical based aircraft, along with the fleet mix for Sebastian Municipal has been
obtained from the FAA's 5010 form. This information has been supplemented with data from the FAA TAF as
required. Table 2 -4 represents the historical fleet mix of based aircraft since 1990.
ource:
It is obvious that the historical operations and based aircraft data recorded for Sebastian has remained at a fixed
level. These unchanging values will be addressed in the following chapter as they create significant limitations to
the forecasting approach that can be utilized.
AIRPORT FACILITIES
This section presents a description of the existing airside and landside facilities at the Sebastian Municipal
Airport. The description of the following facilities provides the basis for the airfield demand/capacity analysis
and determination of facility requirements to be presented in subsequent chapters of the Master Plan.
Airfield Facilities
FAA Airport Master Record (5010 form).
2. FAA Terminal Area Forecast.
The airfield or airside facilities generally include all facilities required to support the movement and operation of
aircraft. These facilities include the Airport's runways, taxiways, airfield lighting, pavement markings, and
airspace /traffic control. The current airfield facilities at Sebastian are depicted in Exhibit 2 -3.
2 -8
HOME OE PELICAN ISLAND
2002
N
fuaov t�
NORTH -SOUTH TAXIWAY
0
0
C A
m X v >m cn
m CD
IIII� y
y
y
(A C
CD
I m
1
c
GI D)
7
D
0
tri
ovl
0
0
tri
t
ROSELAND ROAD
5 4
WEST AIRP• RT DRIVE
—O Inl r
O
E
II
p:J
4„.
N
kt
ti
14; 111
1
z
o
p:1 ar
0
N
,41: .I
t
0
z'
y x
i
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
oval
SED T
HOME Of rv.1c N ISLAND
Runways
There are two active runways at Sebastian. The primary runway, Runway 4 -22, is 4,024 feet in length
and 100 feet in width. The secondary or crosswind runway, Runway 13 -31, is 4,021 feet long and 150
feet wide. Only Runway 4 -22 is lighted for nighttime operations, and both are of asphalt concrete
construction. A visual inspection of Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 was performed during the
inventory visit conducted as part of this study.
Runway 4 -22
During the inspection of Runway 4 -22, longitudinal and lateral cracking along the older and
resealed 37.5 foot portion of the pavement was observed. This form of longitudinal and lateral
cracking of the asphalt surface is typically caused by poorly constructed paving lane joints,
shrinkage of the asphalt surface due to hardening, or a reflective crack caused by cracks beneath
the surface course. Ordinarily, longitudinal and lateral cracks are not associated with traffic load;
as such, these observations suggest simply age and climate conditions are the primary cause. The
resealing of the pavement in 1998 will only slow the deteriorating process. This portion of the
runway was originally constructed when Sebastian was a military airfield and is suspected to have
been constructed in a short amount of time due to time constraints from national defense concerns
during WWII.
The center of Runway 4 -22 was completely reconstructed due to several depressions along the
middle portion of the pavement, which was reported as rough during takeoff and landing. After
the reconstruction of Runway 4 -22, the pavement surfaces and grade of Runway 4 -22 is
considered to be in excellent condition. A recent project upgraded and relocated the runway
lighting system in from the original 150 -foot width to a width of 100 feet.
Runway 13 -31
During the inspection of Runway 13 -31, more serious longitudinal and lateral cracking was
observed throughout the entire pavement structure. Extensive cracking and grass protrusion is
visible at runway thresholds, with less visible deterioration relative to the midfield portion. Many
of these cracks were up to 1 /2 inch wide, which allows water to seep into the base courses causing
further deterioration. Runway 13 -31 also has several significant low spots along portions of the
pavement. This area has been reported to collect water, which can cause hydroplaning and
further deterioration of the paved surface.
Runway Safety Areas
The runway safety area is a rectangular area, centered on the runway centerline, which is required
to have specific standards designed to enhance the operational safety of aircraft. FAA standards
require that the safety area of a runway be clear of any unnecessary objects, have a particular
grade, be properly drained, and be capable of supporting aircraft and certain safety equipment.
The dimensions of the runway safety area are set forth in FAA AC 150/5300 -13, "Airport
Design."
Since the last Master Plan, several projects have been conducted to enhance the runway safety
areas at Sebastian. After the reconstruction of Runway 4 -22, the safety area for Runway 4 was
2 -10
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Taxiways
filled and re- graded in order to comply with FAA requirements. All other portions of the runway
safety areas appear to be in compliance with FAA standards.
Runway Protection Zones
SLEIZTIAN
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
A runway protection zone (RPZ), or clear zone as it was formerly named, is a two- dimensional
trapezoidal shaped area beginning 200 feet from the usable pavement end of a runway. The
primary function of this area is to preserve and enhance the protection of people and property on
the ground. The size or dimension of the runway protection zone is dictated by guidelines set
forth in FAA AC 150/5300 -13, "Airport Design."
Airports are required to maintain control of each runway's RPZ. Such control includes keeping
the area clear of incompatible objects and activities. While not required, this control is much
easier to achieve and maintain through the acquisition of sufficient property interests in the RPZs.
The current RPZs at Sebastian appear to be in conformance with FAA standards.
There are currently five primary active taxiways serving the two runways at Sebastian. The main
taxiway, which was previously Runway 9 -27, provides an east -west taxiway located between the active
runways. This taxiway alignment includes some very deteriorated pavement sections.
Located on the west side of the Airport is the second main taxiway which was previously Runway 18 -36,
and in addition to providing taxiway access, serves as apron and tiedown space. This taxiway serves the
departure ends of Runway 13 and Runway 4, with no designated run -up areas. However, excessive
pavement located at each end of this taxiway currently provides aircraft with space to perform run -up
operations. This area for Runway 13 is in a low spot and visual inspection indicates the pavement to be in
poor condition. Prop wash from aircraft serves as a problem to tenants located along the west side of this
taxiway. Visual inspection indicates the pavement that makes up the south end of this taxiway at Runway
4 to be in fair condition.
The third and fourth taxiways at Sebastian provide partial parallel access for Runway 13 -31 and Runway
4 -22. One provides access between Runway 22 and Runway 13 -31 and is located on the north side of the
runway intersection. The other is located to the south of the runway intersection and provides access
between Runway 31 and Runway 4 -22. Both taxiways provide access to the primary east -west taxiway
via the intersection of Runway 13 -31 and Runway 4 -22.
The fifth taxiway is located on the easternmost portion of the airfield and serves as an access taxiway
between the primary east -west taxiway and the approach end of Runway 31. All of the pavements of the
third, fourth, and fifth taxiways are considered to be in a deteriorated condition.
Airfield Lighting
Proper airfield lighting is required at all airports that are utilized for nighttime operations. The Sebastian
Municipal Airport is capable of accommodating aircraft operations at night because of the existing
lighting fixtures found on the airfield.
2 -11
2002
UT I
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SL A
Master Plan Update
Identification Lighting
An airport- rotating beacon universally indicates the location and presence of an airport at night or
in adverse conditions. The airport rotating beacon tower for Sebastian stands approximately
midfield along the eastern boundary of the north -south taxiway. This beacon, approximately 25
feet above ground level, is equipped with an optical rotating beacon system that projects two
beams of light, one green and one white, 180 degrees apart. The beacon is in operation during the
entire duration of nighttime hours.
Runway Lighting
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Only one of the two active runways at Sebastian has a pavement edge lighting system for night
operations. Runway 4 -22 is equipped with nonstandard Low Intensity Runway Lights (LIRL).
Because there is no Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at the Airport, pilots can operate the
runway lighting by use of the pilot controlled lighting system. This lighting system is operated
through the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), which is the same as the Unicom
frequency of 123.05 MHz. Having the pilot controlled lighting on the CTAF eliminates theneed
for pilots to change frequencies in order to turn the airfield lights on, thus allowing a continuous
listen/watch form of communication on a single frequency. The pilot simply keys the aircraft's
microphone to control the runway lighting system.
As part of the runway lighting system, the identification of the runway end, or threshold, is of
major importance to a pilot during landing and takeoff. Therefore, runway ends and thresholds
are equipped with special lighting to aid in the approach to or identification of the runway end
during takeoff. At Sebastian, the approach to Runway 4 and Runway 22 is identified with three
standard inboard threshold lights on each side of the runway centerline, that have a two color
(red/green) lens, placed across the end of the runway pavement. When landing, the green half of
the lens faces the approaching aircraft, indicating the beginning of the usable runway. The red
half of the lens faces the aircraft on takeoff, indicating the end of the usable runway. Both ends
of Runway 4 -22 have a six light runway end/threshold configuration.
There is one internally illuminated windsock located in the midfield portion of the Airport,
adjacent to the approximate midpoint of Runway 4 -22.
Taxiway and Apron Lighting
As mentioned, the taxiways at Sebastian do not have taxiway edge lighting. However, it is not a
requirement for any airport that has runway facilities lighted with LIRL to have lighting on any
portion of the taxiway system. It should be noted that there is flood lighting provided for aircraft
parking aprons on both the eastern and western aprons.
Pavement Markings
Pavement markings provide the standards for delineating operations on paved areas (runways, taxiways,
and aprons) on the airfield. The runways at Sebastian Municipal Airport have limited runway markings.
Both runways at Sebastian have centerline striping; however, no side striping, aiming point markers, or
touchdown zone markings exist on the airfield. Although aiming point markers and touchdown zone
markings are less common, all runways should have runway side striping to provide visual contrast
2 -12
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SEBAIITIAN
Master Plan Update
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
between the runway and the surrounding terrain in order to delineate the width of the paved area intended
for use.
Located at the approach ends of both runways are designation markings, which identify the runways by
their magnetic azimuth. As a result of recent rehabilitation, the Runway 4 -22 markings are clear and
identifiable. At the time of the Runway 4 -22 rehabilitation, Runway 13 -31 was remarked. However,
these markings are difficult to identify as a result of deterioration to pavement and grass protrusion.
Threshold markings, which are in the same condition, are located at the beginning of all runways and
serve the purpose of identifying the beginning of the runway available for landing.
All of the taxiways at Sebastian have visible taxiway centerline stripes with hold short lines located at all
of the required locations. At non controlled airports, holding position markings identify the location on a
taxiway or apron where aircraft are supposed to stop until it is safe to proceed onto the runway. No
taxiway edge markings are in use to delineate the width of the taxiways. These markings provide visual
indication to permit taxiing along designated passageways. Taxiway edge markings should be used when
the taxiway edge does not correspond with the edge of the pavement.
Navigational Aids
With the exception of several Victor airways passing just to the west of the airfield as they approach to or
extend from the Vero Beach Very High Frequency Omni directional Range (VOR), there are currently no
navigational aids available at Sebastian Municipal Airport.
Airfield Layout and Facilities
Due to the geometric layout of the active runways, the Sebastian airfield is divided into four quadrants and the
two infield areas (depicted on Exhibit 2 -3). Throughout the remainder of this Master Plan, these areas will be
referred to as either the:
North Quadrant the area located on the north side of Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 intersection,
spanning the area between the approach ends of Runway 31 and Runway 22, expanding into the
uncleared industrial zoned area to the north, and land occupied by Sebastian Municipal Golf Course.
South Quadrant the area located on the south side of Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 intersection,
spanning the area between the approach ends of Runway 4 and Runway 31, expanding into the area to the
south occupied by Sebastian Municipal Golf Course.
East Quadrant the area of the Airport located on the east side of Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31
intersection, spanning the area between the approach ends of Runway 31 and Runway 22, expanding east
into the residential property and Sebastian Municipal Golf Course.
West Quadrant the area located on the west side of Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 intersection,
spanning the area between the approach ends of Runway 4 and Runway 13, expanding west into
uncleared industrial zoned property and towards the Sebastian River.
North Infield the triangular- shaped zone located inside the area created by the centerlines of Runway
13 -31, north -south taxiway (prior Runway 18 -36), and east -west taxiway (prior Runway 9 -27).
2 -13
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
South Infield the triangular- shaped zone located inside the area created by the centerlines of Runway 4-
22, north -south taxiway (prior Runway 18 -36), and east -west taxiway (prior Runway 9 -27).
Currently there are only two primary areas of general aviation development at Sebastian, the West and East
Quadrant development areas. The West Quadrant is the most developed portion of the Airport while the East
Quadrant represents a small portion of the Airport development.
North Quadrant
With the exception of the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course, there are no aviation or non aviation related
facilities currently constructed in this portion of the Airport.
South Quadrant
DTI CV
SEBASTIAN
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
With the exception of the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course, there are no aviation or non aviation related
facilities currently constructed in this portion of the Airport.
East Quadrant
There are various areas of undeveloped property remaining in the East Quadrant. The following
description of the general aviation facilities on this side of the airfield begins on the north and moves
towards the south. The northern most area of the East Quadrant of the Airport is primarily undeveloped
industrial property and a portion of the golf course.
Currently there is a full service FBO in the middle of the East Quadrant. This FBO, JS Aviation, offers
100LL fuel, maintenance, daytime and overnight parking, and other aviation related services. JS Aviation
currently uses one hangar and one portable hangar, which include all pilot and passenger facilities. The
hangar housing the pilot and passenger facilities is a one -story structure that provides space for FBO
operations, flight training, maintenance, and administrative offices. Apron space is available for both
based and itinerant aircraft around the facilities of JS Aviation. This area ties into the apron space in front
of the east -west taxiway. There is one connector taxiway tying this apron to Runway 31. This portion of
the ramp ties into the main portion of JS Aviation's ramp, which is in front of the FBO hangar building.
The main ramp ties directly into the east -west taxiway by a large opening between the taxiway and apron.
This northernmost portion of JS Aviation's ramp space is unmarked and primarily used by single- engine
and small multi- engine aircraft. The condition of the paved ramp space at JS Aviation is considered to be
either fair or poor condition after a visual inspection.
Immediately to the south of JS Aviation is more of the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course. The golf course
acts as a barrier to Runway 4 -22 in the South Quadrant and the approach to Runway 31 in the East
Quadrant.
West Quadrant
The West Quadrant is the most developed area on the airfield. Starting from the north at the intersection
of north -south taxiway and Runway 13, there is one privately owned hangar. All facilities have
immediate access to the airfield via north -south taxiway. To the south are four facilities; these facilities
are occupied by Sky Dive Sebastian, Sebastian Aero Services, Velocity Inc., and Golden Horn Aviation,
respectively.
2 -14
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
HOME Of PELICAN IRMO
Sky Dive Sebastian has various structures accommodating business administration, rigging, repair,
property maintenance, training, coaching, videography /photography, supply sales, team debriefing rooms,
showers, and a 10,000 gallon Jet A fuel tank (with double containment). The Jet A, which is primarily
used for sky dive aircraft, is also available to the public. Parking, camping, and restaurant facilities are
located toward the back of the property. The camping area is comprised of 18 tent sites and 10 RV style
sites. There are currently two small employee automobile parking lots providing 40 regular and two
handicapped spots. Overflow parking is available on approximately 2.5 acres leased by Sky Dive
Sebastian, which is located just across Airport Drive West. Sky dive landing locations are currently
flagged in the grassy North and South Infield triangles. Ramp considerations total approximately eight
spaces, which include the airfield's largest aircraft, a Casa 212 and Super Twin Otter. Special events
require ramp area for similar classification of aircraft. Based on the visual inspection, the taxiway
pavements and aprons in these areas are considered to be in fair to poor condition.
An emergency access road provides access from the landside to the airside and acts as a barrier between
Sky Dive Sebastian and the adjacent facility where more apron space, a clearspan hangar, and the
administration structure of Sebastian Aero Services is located. Sebastian Aero Services operates as a full
service FBO offering maintenance, painting, aircraft sales, ferry services, flight training, charter, salvage,
insurance recovery, daytime and overnight parking, and a 10,000 gallon 100LL double walled fuel tank
(with no containment). Sebastian Aero Services serves as a base for eight to ten aircraft. There are
currently six paved automobile spaces and room for additional spaces on the grass. Based on visual
inspection, the taxiway pavement and apron to the east of the hangar are considered to be in fair to poor
condition, while the smaller ramp on the west side of the hangar is in excellent condition.
Directly to the south of Sebastian Aero Services is Velocity, Inc., which is a non -FBO composite aircraft
manufacturer that caters to the market of 4 -seat canard kit -built aircraft. This facility is comprised of two
large clearspan hangars, one of which also provides space for administration offices. Additionally, two
smaller portable hangars exist on the south side of the main facilities, located between the two main
hangars. This entire facility encompasses 27,000 square feet of hangar space, 2,000 of which is
designated administrative office space. Velocity provides a limited amount of flight instruction and
airframe /engine overhaul and repair. Currently there are 18 regular and one handicapped automobile
spaces that are paved. Due to a lack of space, additional Velocity manufacturing is carried out in part of
Golden Horn Aviation's available hangar space.
Located south of Velocity and directly at the end of the east -west taxiway is the airfield's final general
aviation related business located in the West Quadrant. Golden Horn Aviation operates a non -FBO
antique and classic aircraft maintenance and inspection operation. Service is provided out of roughly a
10,000 square foot clearspan hangar and administration building.
North and South Infield Areas
The only general aviation related facility currently located in the infield areas of the Airport is the Airport
Manager's office. This office is a portable structure located on the east side of north -south taxiway,
directly adjacent to the rotating beacon.
2 -15
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Support Facilities
Support facilities at Sebastian Municipal Airport are limited. Maintenance for the Airport is undertaken by the
City maintenance department. General maintenance to individual property is the responsibility of the resident
leaseholder. The few support facilities at the airfield are described in the following sections.
Automated Pilot System
MT Q
S s AS T
HOME Of PELICAN LSIAND
An Automated Pilot System (APS) provides continuous real -time airport reports, 24 hours aday, without
human involvement. Using a computer synthesized voice, the APS generates new weather reports every
minute in a standard format familiar to pilots. The APS serves three basic functions: greetings to pilots,
adaptive advisories, and radio checks.
This APS adapts to how pilots are using the Unicom frequency and disappears when its use is
unnecessary. Even pilots unfamiliar with the Airport are greeted by the APS. When the system detects an
aircraft's call on the Unicom frequency, it automatically replies with whatever greeting deemed relevant
by the Airport Manager. The responsiveness can also be adjusted relative to traffic activity and familiarity
with the Airport.
The second function of the APS is the ability for pilots to request activity reports. The APS replies with
airport advisories appropriate to the current weather and level of air traffic congestion, such as sky diving
activity. The system can provide aircraft, when appropriate, with alerts regarding density altitude,
crosswinds, and other conditions relative to runway operations. By simply monitoring the APS, aircraft
enroute to other airports can also stay abreast to local traffic.
Finally, the APS provides aircraft with the ability to perform radio checks with confirmation of
transmission and reception. This allows aircraft enroute or on the ground to test transmission without
relying on human intervention.
Maintenance Facilities
Currently the Airport does not have a maintenance facility. The City of Sebastian owns and operates
different pieces of maintenance equipment to upkeep the airfield. These include, but are not limited to,
trucks, mowers, tractors, pavement sealer, weed killer, etc.
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
Currently the Airport does not have an Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility. Fire services
fall under the Indian River County Emergency Service Special District. The purpose of the district is to
provide fire, rescue, emergency medical services, and other emergency services to property and persons
within the district boundaries.
The County operates a 1,200 and a 5,000 gallon water tanker trucks, which are used for fire fighting
throughout the City of Sebastian. Based on operations and aircraft size, the fire department feels
comfortable with these requirements. The Fire Service is responsible for all fire suppression, airport
crash response, arson investigation, fire inspection, and fire prevention operations.
2 -16
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Electrical Power
Florida Power and Light is the electric utility provider on the Airport. Service lines extending along Airport
Drive East serve all facilities in the Airport's East Quadrant. These lines provide the e1 ctrical power for the
Airport runway lighting system via the regulator located in JS Aviation's clearspan hangar. A buried two -phase
power line extends across to Runway 4 -22 from the west side of JS Aviation. Two -phase power on the West
Quadrant of the Airport extends from Airport Drive West. Due to operational necessity, Sebastian Aero Services
runs generators as a solution to the lack of three -phase electric utility.
Water
The domestic water supply on the Airport comes from onsite wells. This is due to the fact that there are no City
or County water lines on Airport property.
Sanitary Sewer
Due to a lack of City or County sewer service, septic tank systems are located on each individual Airport
leasehold. A six -inch County force main does extend along Main Street from a pump station located at the south
end of the golf course. Indian River County was responsible for the installation of the six -inch force main. If
extended onto Airport property, the main is adequate in size to serve the existing and future facilities. Further,
this main is connected to the County's regional wastewater treatment plant at Hobart Park, which also has
sufficient capacity for future Airport expansion.
Telephone
Telephone service is provided by Bell South. Lines extending along Airport Drive East and Airport Drive West
serve all necessary buildings on Airport property.
Stormwater
AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
NOME Of PELICAN ISIAND
The current stormwater system for the airfield is very limited. Water from the North and South Infield Areas is
piped west under the north -south taxiway via two large pipes. This water then continues west via open drainage
ditches and canals until it outfalls into the Sebastian River. The north, east, and south sides of the airfield have
various open ditches, which route water from the airfield to the retention ponds located on the golf course.
As mentioned previously, Sebastian does not have an ATCT. Nonetheless, a portion of the airspace above the
Airport is controlled. This airspace, which is designated as Class E, begins at 700 feet Above Ground Level
(AGL) and extends upward to 17,999 feet above mean sea level, where it meets with the overlying controlled
airspace (Class A). Because Sebastian Municipal Airport does not have any published approaches, the Class E
airspace above the Airport serves to facilitate the transition of aircraft to /from the Vero Beach Municipal Airport
terminal environment.
As an uncontrolled airport, even the Class `E' controlled airspace designation does not have any specific
operating rules, pilot requirements, or equipment requirements. However, a CTAF, which is on the Unicom
frequency 123.05 MHz, is available for communications between the aircraft operating at Sebastian. The airspace
2 -17
2002
an Q
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 5,BAST.
Master Plan Update_
HOME Of PELICAN KINID
environment of Sebastian is influenced by Victor airways. The airways are designated corridors of airspace used
for en route navigation by linking VOR facilities. Several of these Victor airways pass just to the west of the
airfield as they approach to or extend from the Vero Beach VOR.
There are no formal noise abatement procedures in effect at Sebastian. Pilots are encouraged to "fly neighborly
however, the routings used are consistent with traffic pattern procedures at uncontrolled airports. The nearest
public -use airports to Sebastian include Valkaria Airport to the north and Vero Beach Municipal Airport to the
south, both of which are approximately 10 nautical miles away. With the exception of the overlying Class E
airspace for transitioning aircraft, these airports are sufficiently distant from Sebastian so as not to affect aircraft
operations. Sky Dive Sebastian does conduct operations in the airspace over the Airport. However, when
skydivers are present, their activity is properly announced before and during the operation. Likewise, a
permanent Notice to Airman (NOTAM) regarding these operations is in place. A privately owned, private -use
airport, Parrish Brothers Field, located about three nautical miles north of Sebastian, poses no operational conflict
due to the relatively low level of aircraft activity at this facility.
An airport's approach profiles extend upward and outward starting 200 feet from the usable pavement end of a
runway. The size and slope of the approach angle is determined by the type of approach available or planned for
a particular runway end. There are to be no objects, either natural (trees) or manmade (buildings), that should
penetrate this sloping surface. The criteria for these approach profiles are dictated by guidelines set forth in the
FAR Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." At Sebastian, the approach surfaces for all four runway
ends have a slope of 20 to 1 and appear to be free of obstructions.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
The Sebastian Municipal Airport area has good access to the regional highway system of east central Florida.
Interstate 95 is located approximately four to five miles to the west of the Airport. The driving distance to access
this interstate is approximately six miles from the Airport. This four -lane interstate provides access to County
Road 512 (Fellsmere Road) and the downtown Sebastian area. However, due to the many commercial businesses
and collector roads located off of Fellsmere Road, there are a number of traffic lights between the interstate and
downtown area. Access to Fellsmere Road from the Airport is provided through a number of two lane collector
streets, including Roseland Road to the west and Main Street to the east.
Airport Drive East and Airport Drive West provide direct access routes to the Airport. Airport Drive East extends
from Main Street directly to the east of the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course and ends at the JS Aviation
automobile parking lot. Two direct routes provide access to the Airport via Airport Drive West from Roseland
Road. The south access road is gravel running straight into to the east -west taxiway and turns into pavement as
Airport Drive West turns north and parallels the north -south taxiway. By means of this route, Airport Drive West
exits back to Roseland Road after turning east.
Each leasehold at the Airport has various automobile parking requirements and needs. All of the current
leaseholds have to varying extents, space for the sole purpose of parking automobiles. The existing spaces for
automobiles at the Airport meet the current level of demand.
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
Several socioeconomic factors influence a community's need for airport services. Area population, per capita
income, employment/unemployment, construction indicators and taxable sales all affect the level of activity at an
airport. The following sections provide an inventory of the historical and projected data for these socioeconomic
factors. Overall growth rates and average annual growth rates for the County and State are based on ten years of
2 -18
2002
TABLE 2 -5
HISTORICAL POPULATION
Indian River County
State of Florida
1988
83,885
12,306,400
1989
87,542
12,637,718
1990
90,872
13,018,036
1991
92,305
13,285,769
1992
93,603
13,500,517
1993
94,084
13,711,576
1994
95,250
13,955,687
1995
96,616
14,181,147
1996
97,723
14,418,917
1997
99,215
14,653,945
Overall Growth (10 years)
18.3%
19.1%
Average Annual Growth Rate
1.9%
2.0%
TABLE 2 -6
PROJECTED POPULATION
Indian River County
State of Florida
1997
99,215
14,653,945
2000
105,898
15,423,567
2005
115,912
16,665,085
2010
126,570
17,893,938
Projected Annual Growth
1.9%
1.6%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
historical data provided by the 1999 Florida Long -term Economic Forecast, Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, University of Florida. Likewise, the projected information in the following outlook provides an
indication of future trends based on historical figures.
Population
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
The Sebastian Municipal Airport is a publicly owned and operated facility, which provides aviation services to the
surrounding community. Therefore, significant increases in the surrounding population would indicate the need
for an expansion of the number and type of aviation services provided. According to the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, over the past 10 years, the population in Indian River County has increased on a yearly base.
During these 10 years, the population in Indian River County has experienced a slightly smaller average annual
growth rate when compared to the State level. These numbers are reflected in Table 2 -5.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
In comparison to historical levels of population, as demonstrated in Table 2 -6, projections through 2010 indicate
that a 1.9 percent average annual growth in the County population is expected to continue, while a decrease in
State levels from 2.0 percent average annual growth to 1.6 percent is expected. These numbers substantiate
consistent growth in Indian River County, indicating the potential need for expansion of the number and type of
aviation services provided at Sebastian Municipal Airport.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
2 -19
2002
TABLE 2 -7
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA INCOME
TABLE 2 -8
PROJECTED PER CAPITA INCOME
Indian River County
Indian River County
State of Florida
1988
26,259
20,271
1989
27,447
23,729
20,812
1990
35,177
27,326
25,324
2010
20,587
1991
38,816
26,939
Projected Annual Growth
1.8%
20,096
1992
1.7%
26,856
19,912
1993
27,184
20,533
1994
27,777
20,693
1995
28,922
20,080
1996
30,339
21,726
1997
30,861
22,215
Overall Growth (10 years)
17.5%
9.6%
Average Annual Growth
1.8%
1.0%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Per Capita Income
SEBA
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Personal income provides a valuable indication of the economic condition for a particular area. The figures in the
following table represent the ratio of total personal income, from all sources and before income taxes, to total
resident population. Formerly, the national per capita income levels have consistently exceeded those for the
State of Florida.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Per capita income for both the County and the State are projected to increase through the year 2010. Although
these rates remain the same for the County and slightly decrease for the State, the expected growth still reflects a
positive trend for the region. Through 2010, Indian River County was among the top three counties in Florida
having the highest income level within their classification. The expected figures and average annual growth rate
through the year 2010 are included in following table.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Employment/Unemployment
The rate of employment for a geographic area provides a lot of insight to the economic condition of that area. As
with the previous factors, employment rates provide an indication of the economic trends that can be expected to
2 -20
2002
TABLE 2 -8
PROJECTED PER CAPITA INCOME
Indian River County
State of Florida
1997
30,861
22,215
2000
33,082
23,729
2005
35,177
25,324
2010
38,816
27,644
Projected Annual Growth
1.8%
1.7%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Per Capita Income
SEBA
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Personal income provides a valuable indication of the economic condition for a particular area. The figures in the
following table represent the ratio of total personal income, from all sources and before income taxes, to total
resident population. Formerly, the national per capita income levels have consistently exceeded those for the
State of Florida.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Per capita income for both the County and the State are projected to increase through the year 2010. Although
these rates remain the same for the County and slightly decrease for the State, the expected growth still reflects a
positive trend for the region. Through 2010, Indian River County was among the top three counties in Florida
having the highest income level within their classification. The expected figures and average annual growth rate
through the year 2010 are included in following table.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Employment/Unemployment
The rate of employment for a geographic area provides a lot of insight to the economic condition of that area. As
with the previous factors, employment rates provide an indication of the economic trends that can be expected to
2 -20
2002
TABLE 2 -9
HISTORICAL EMPLOYED PERSONS
Indian River County
State of Florida
1988
35,110
5,776,559
1989
37,274
5,844,659
1990
36,364
6,077,714
1991
35,018
6,008,539
1992
34,134
6,015,794
1993
34,751
6,191,794
1994
35,864
6,363,390
1995
37,523
6,474,776
1996
38,944
6,601,071
1997
40,534
6,768,211
Overall Growth (10 years)
15.5%
17.2%
Average Annual Growth
1.6%
1.8%
TABLE 2 -10
PROJECTED EMPLOYED PERSONS
Indian River County
State of Florida
1997
40,534
6,768,211
2000
45,726
7,319,984
2005
51,314
7,976,394
2010
56,278
8,636,403
Projected Annual Growth
2.6%
1.9%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
2 _21
sEB T
HOME Of PWUN ISLAND
affect the level of activity at an airport. The total number of people employed, as well as the unemployment rate,
is provided in the following table. These figures are used to determine the historical growth or decline in
employment. The related rates can then be compared to that of the total population to determine if the area is
experiencing a higher or lower employment rate. The figures provided by Bureau of Economic and Business
Research reflects only the employment levels related to nonagricultural industries.
As seen in the above table, for the most part the employment levels for both Indian River County and the State
have steadily increased over the past 10 years. The data in the following table shows that this positive trend is
expected to continue at a slightly higher rate, with Indian River County exceeding the growth rate for the State.
While employment levels have basically increased overall, unemployment rates have fluctuated during the same
period. The overall increase in the unemployment rate for the County was expected, given the fact that the
historical growth in total population exceeds the historical growth of employed persons. However, the same is not
true for the State figures as can be seen in Table 2 -11.
2002
TABLE 2 -11
HISTORICAL UNEMPLOYMENT
Indian River County
State of Florida
1988
6.8%
5.0%
1989
6.4%
5.6%
1990
11.1%
6.0%
1991
12.2%
7.4%
1992
13.2%
8.3%
1993
11.3%
7.0%
1994
11.1%
6.6%
1995
9.7%
5.5%
1996
9.0%
5.1%
1997
8.1%
4.8%
Overall Change (10 years)
Up 1.3%
Down 0.2%
Average Annual Change
Up 0.14%
Down 0.02%
TABLE 2 -12
PROJECTED UNEMPLOYMENT
Indian River County
State of Florida
1997
8.1%
4.8%
2000
8.3%
4.6%
2005
9.2%
5.5%
2010
9.0%
5.3%
Projected Annual Growth
Up 0.07%
Up 0.04%
1
1
it
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Construction Indicators
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
SLAT
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
For both the County and the State, the unemployment rate has been projected by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research to increase. These numbers are reflected in the following table.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Various construction indicators provide a good gauge as to the growth activity and economic development in an
area. Typically, the number of residential building permits that have been issued can be utilized to evaluate the
trend in an area. There were no concise lists for the issuance of historical building permits nor were there any
projections of the expected future forecasts available. However, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research
does have a thorough listing of the historical number of households through 1997. These figures, for both Indian
River County and the State are included in the following table.
2 -22
2002
TABLE 2 -13
HISTORICAL HOUSEHOLDS
Indian River County
Indian River County
State of Florida
1988
130,804
1,938
969
169,099
1989
1,013
1,885
2010
149,625
1990
Projected Annual Growth
1,402
0.1%
130,140
1991
899
89,192
1992
928
100,921
1993
929
106,537
1994
1,147
124,669
1995
1,098
119,748
1996
1,079
124,211
1997
1,077
130,804
Overall Growth (10 years)
-55.6%
-77.4%
Average Annual Growth
-6.3%
-2.8%
TABLE 2 -14
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLDS
Indian River County
State of Florida
1997
1,077
130,804
2000
969
124,770
2005
1,013
128,779
2010
1,065
132,591
Projected Annual Growth
0.0%
0.1%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Housing projects are derived from a forecast of the housing stock, taking into account not only the increasing
number of households in Florida, but also the changing vacancy rates in the stock of various classifications of
homes and the replacement of obsolescent housing. Figures for the number of households back to 1988 were
incorporated so that an average annual growth rate for a 13 -year period could be calculated. As reflected in the
table above, the historical number of households for both the County and the State has fluctuated during the 10-
year period. According to the figures provided by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, the County's
rate of growth will move from a negative average annual growth rate to a slight growth position (see Table 2 -14
below). Although not as substantial as the County, the State also follows with a steady position.
Retail Sales
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Source: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
SLES.ZTIAN
NOME Of Ptuc N ISLAND
Real taxable sales provide a way to analyze the number of dollars spent in an area. This value provides insight
not only to local dollars spent, but also includes visitor /tourist sales. Table 2 -15 provides the historical real
taxable sales for Indian River County and the State. Historical data depicts a higher growth in the County than in
the State as a whole; however, these same figures illustrate a slight reduction in growth. Due to several factors,
caution should be used when using any single measure as a sole indicator of economic condition in a County still
classified as non metropolitan.
2 -23
2002
TABLE 2 -15
HISTORICAL REAL TAXABLE SALES (in millions)
Indian River County
State of Florida
State of Florida
1988
792,167
133,786,740
1989
1,592,594
806,521
2010
134,342,091
1990
Projected Annual Growth
779,318
3.5%
135,056,074
1991
742,510
129,743,504
1992
747,994
137,973,493
1993
780,068
146,763,950
1994
845,507
158,523,310
1995
924,722
166,969,110
1996
1,051,735
184,711,818
1997
1,255,734
200,511,142
Overall Growth (10 years)
58.5%
49.9%
Average Annual Growth
5.3%
4.6%
TABLE 2 -16
PROJECTED REAL TAXABLE SALES (in millions)
Indian River County
State of Florida
1997
1,255,734
200,511,142
2000
1,452,478
228,229,476
2005
1,592,594
262,549,868
2010
1,935,560
313,541,829
Projected Annual Growth
3.4%
3.5%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
ource: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
S EBACiTLAN
MOMS Of PELIUIJ LSIAND
The following table demonstrates the projected real taxable sales for the County and the State. As mentioned
above, care should be used when interpreting these numbers. Taxable sales are derived from Florida Department
of Revenue records and sometimes the department uses practices such as refunds, escrow accounts, and vouchers
to drive a wedge between economic activity necessary to monitor the accounting of sales. The economical aspect
is effective similarly, in that residents tend to spend a substantial proportion of their incomes in metropolitan areas
due to better selections and prices. These aspects reduce the effectiveness of a correlation between various series
of statistical information.
AIRPORT ENVIRONS
Land Use and Zoning
ource: State and County Economic Forecasts, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
The City of Sebastian and Indian River County have assigned land use and zoning designations to the property
within their respective jurisdiction. Existing and future land uses on and off airport property are important
considerations with respect to the current and future development of the Airport and community. Compatible
land use issues and considerations will be utilized in the development of later chapters in this Master Plan. These
chapters include the determination of facilities requirements, alternatives analysis, and the land use plan. Zoning
is another land use control which more clearly defines permitted uses of property within a given land use
2 -24
2002
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
designation. As with the land use codes, this information will be utilized in the determination of facilities
requirements, alternatives analysis, and the land use plan.
Environmental Factors
Some of the proposed improvement projects at the Airport will require environmental permitting through a
number of different agencies, each with its own criteria and focus. Future development of the Airport and the
integration of environmental permitting will be critical to the success of each project as well as to the success of
the Airport. Coordination with the appropriate agencies for permitting requirements will be made on an
individual basis as each project is funded. Additional details to the possible environmental impacts are included
as part of this Master Plan report.
2 -25
QRQ
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 FORECAST OF AVIATION ACTIVITY
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOME nl P•LfAN MANO
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SEBASTIAN
Master Plan Update
AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS
This chapter establishes the forecast levels of aviation activity that will be used as a basis of analysis in successive
chapters of this study. Aviation activity forecasts provide the benchmark against which the adequacy of existing
airport facilities are evaluated. These forecasts will replace the projections presented in the 1993 Master Plan. To
adequately identify the future needs of the airport, a number of projections are necessary. In this chapter, the
following elements are analyzed and subsequent projections prepared.
Based Aircraft
Single- Engine
Multi Engine (piston and turboprop)
Jet
Rotor
Aircraft Operations
General Aviation
Local /Itinerant
Instrument
Military
Peak Activity
Peak Month
Average Day Peak Month
Peak Hour
Previous Aviation Activity Forecasts
Chapter Three Forecast of Aviation Activity
3 -1
ana
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The standard planning period for an airport master plan is 20 years. Thus, these forecasts, for the Sebastian
Municipal Airport, are presented for the years 2007, 2012, and 2022. The development of forecasts in this
chapter also includes analyses of historical data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
socioeconomic data from the State of Florida. This data has been supplemented with interviews of airport
management and airport tenants.
The forecast for Sebastian Municipal Airport will optimize two methods of forecasting: trend analysis and
judgmental forecasting. Trend analysis is the most widely used method of forecasting and optimizes the use of
dependent and independent variables. Judgmental forecasting is typically used to support trend analysis and
consists of establishing estimated characteristics of what lies in the future. This form is commonly used in place
of trend analysis when historical data is limited. In extreme cases, judgmental forecasting may be the only way to
create realistic projections of an airport's future activity.
In the recent past, three separate aviation activity forecasts have been prepared for the Airport. These studies
include the 1993 Airport Master Plan, FAA's Terminal Area Forecast, and the Florida Aviation System Plan.
2002
TABLE 3 -1
1993 MASTER PLAN FORECASTS
Year
Local
Itinerant
Annual Operations
Base Year
1991
48,820
19,940
68,760
Forecast
1995
59,846
21,222
81,068
2000
73,015
23,305
96,320
2005
87,921
25,649
113,570
2010
105,047
28,250
133,297
Extrapolated (by LPA)
2022
159,571
42,912
202,483
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Although new forecasts are generated as part of this Master Plan Update, data contained in previous studies
typically proves valuable for comparison purposes.
Previous Airport Master Plan
The last master plan developed for Sebastian was completed in 1993. This study included forecasts,
which were also projected for a twenty -year planning period. The number of based aircraft and total
annual operations projected in the 1993 Master Plan are shown in Table 3 -1. Although the forecast of
this study will replace the figures from the previous Master Plan, they have been included to compare the
outlook for the Airport in 1993 with that of today. As such, these forecasts have been extrapolated out to
the year 2022 to provide a basis of comparison with the forecasts generated later in this study.
Source: 1993 Sebastian Municipal Airport, Community Capability Study and Master Plan
The 1993 Airport Master Plan projected an average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent for combined
annual operations. While this may have been an accepted growth rate at the time of the 1993 study, the
Airport has never attained this level of operations. In fact, the levels recorded in 1999 are significantly
less than the activity in 1991. In the previous Master Plan there was no mention of based aircraft in the
forecast section; however, the facilities requirement section stated that the 1991 level of 40 based aircraft
would grow to 60 by the end of the planning period. This represented an average annual growth rate of
2.2 percent, which unlike the operations forecast, appears to have been more accurate with respect to the
current number of based aircraft.
FAA Terminal Area Forecasts
Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) are prepared by the FAA to meet the planning needs of their offices
concerned with future traffic levels at the nation's airport facilities. Except for specificregional or state
requests, the airports included in the FAA's TAF report must meet at least one of the following criteria:
Have an existing FAA tower.
Have an existing FAA Contract tower.
Candidate for a FAA tower.
Currently receiving or expected to receive scheduled air carrier or
regional /commuter service.
Currently exceed 60,000 itinerant or 100,000 total aircraft operations.
3 2
SEBXS
HOME Of PELICAN [RAND
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Forecasts in the FAA TAF are calculated using a number of methods. Typically projections are
calculated using regression analysis with various national economic indicators as the independent
variables; however, the data provided in the TAF for Sebastian does not show the projected level of
operations changing. Table 3 -2 depicts the figures contained in the 1999 TAF for Sebastian Municipal
Airport.
Source: 1999 FAA Terminal Area Forecast
As with the annual operations, the number of based aircraft is not projected to increase during the
planning period. While the TAF is updated annually, the values obtained from this source unfortunately
do not reflect current trends on the airfield.
Florida Aviation System Plan
SEAA
HOME Of PELICAN KEAND
Reported 10 or more based aircraft on the latest available Airport Master Record
(FAA 5010 Form).
The statewide system of airports is vitally important to the quality of life and economic well being of
Florida's citizens. As such, the Florida Aviation System Plan (FASP) is a broad blueprint that guides the
development of Florida's public airports. This plan is necessary to ensure that airports work together
effectively as a statewide transportation system, provide a link to the global air transportation network,
and effectively interface with regional surface transportation.
The latest version of the FASP (1992 -2010) was based on data collected up to and including 1990.
Because the base data is now ten years old, it is considered out of date and no longer valuable as a
planning tool. Currently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is in the process of updating
these forecasts. Because this update is occurring at the same time as this study, the final projections for
Sebastian Municipal Airport were not available. Therefore, no figures from the FASP have been included
in this study.
FORECASTING APPROACH
A key element in the forecast process is the identification of the potential for new or expanded service by existing
airport users, as well as the potential for the Airport to secure new service and users. This section addresses
potential changes in the region's demographics, including characteristics of the community and business patterns.
This is done to identify potentially significant factors that explain and impact the level of aviation activity at
Sebastian Municipal Airport.
3 -3
2002
TABLE 3 -2
FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST
Year
Annual Operations
Based Aircraft
Base Year
1991
94,732
50
Forecast
1995
94,732
50
2000
94,732
50
2005
94,732
50
2010
94,732
50
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Forecasts in the FAA TAF are calculated using a number of methods. Typically projections are
calculated using regression analysis with various national economic indicators as the independent
variables; however, the data provided in the TAF for Sebastian does not show the projected level of
operations changing. Table 3 -2 depicts the figures contained in the 1999 TAF for Sebastian Municipal
Airport.
Source: 1999 FAA Terminal Area Forecast
As with the annual operations, the number of based aircraft is not projected to increase during the
planning period. While the TAF is updated annually, the values obtained from this source unfortunately
do not reflect current trends on the airfield.
Florida Aviation System Plan
SEAA
HOME Of PELICAN KEAND
Reported 10 or more based aircraft on the latest available Airport Master Record
(FAA 5010 Form).
The statewide system of airports is vitally important to the quality of life and economic well being of
Florida's citizens. As such, the Florida Aviation System Plan (FASP) is a broad blueprint that guides the
development of Florida's public airports. This plan is necessary to ensure that airports work together
effectively as a statewide transportation system, provide a link to the global air transportation network,
and effectively interface with regional surface transportation.
The latest version of the FASP (1992 -2010) was based on data collected up to and including 1990.
Because the base data is now ten years old, it is considered out of date and no longer valuable as a
planning tool. Currently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is in the process of updating
these forecasts. Because this update is occurring at the same time as this study, the final projections for
Sebastian Municipal Airport were not available. Therefore, no figures from the FASP have been included
in this study.
FORECASTING APPROACH
A key element in the forecast process is the identification of the potential for new or expanded service by existing
airport users, as well as the potential for the Airport to secure new service and users. This section addresses
potential changes in the region's demographics, including characteristics of the community and business patterns.
This is done to identify potentially significant factors that explain and impact the level of aviation activity at
Sebastian Municipal Airport.
3 -3
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SEB aPv Q T
Master Plan Update
HOME Of P[LKAN ISLAND
To represent the Airport market area, various economic indices for Indian River County were considered in the
forecast analysis. This data was derived from the 1999 Florida Long -Term Economic Forecast, which is prepared
by the University of Florida. A section related to the socioeconomic trends of Indian River County was included
as part of the inventory chapter. This section contains specific data related to population, per capita income, and
employment /unemployment. In addition, construction indicators and the level of retail sales were also analyzed.
Initially, this data would have been used to develop both linear and multiple regression models for the future
aircraft and activity levels at the Airport. However, due to the lack of reliable historical data for the airport, such
models could not be generated. As a result, the judgmental forecasting approach was implemented.
FORECASTING CONSIDERATIONS
Two of the primary considerations that can influence the forecasts for an airfield include historical factors and
industry trends. By analyzing these elements, it is possible to make a determination of the types and level of
operations that can be expected to occur.
Historical Factors
Although no reliable historical data is available for based aircraft or operations, an investigation of the Airport's
past activity was conducted. This was achieved primarily through airport management interviews, tenant
interviews, City records, and background research on the airfield.
Traditionally, Sebastian Municipal has served only general aviation since 1959 when the federal government
dedicated the prior naval training facility to the City of Sebastian. According to interviews, the types of aircraft
based at the Airport have been primarily single- engine and multi- engine (piston and turboprop). While there have
been occasional small jet operations conducted at Sebastian, there is no evidence of jet aircraft or rotorcraft being
based on the field. As with the type of based aircraft, activity at Sebastian has primarily been limited to single
and multi- engine aircraft operations. While on occasion there have been other types of operations, such as
military aircraft or jets, these are very limited. There has never been any air carrier or regularly scheduled service.
Industry Trends
Trends related to the general aviation industry can help in the evaluation of future aviation growth at the Airport.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the general aviation industry experienced a severe downturn due to the
recession in the early 1990s coupled with product liability considerations in the light aircraft manufacturing
industry. The overall decrease in the nation's general aviation activity during this time was due to significant
increases in the cost to own a general aviation aircraft, which was due primarily to the increasing product liability,
as well as increased operating costs. Unfortunately, this period ultimately forced the closure of nearly every
manufacturer of general aviation piston aircraft. Legislators responded to the severe downturn with the passage of
the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. The signing of this act has provided a renewed era of optimism
for the general aviation market, which has led to a turnaround in the industry.
After passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act, two of the largest manufacturers of small aircraft
resumed production in the general aviation market. The Cessna Aircraft Corporation reentered the single- engine
piston aircraft market for the first time since 1986. Also, the New Piper Aircraft Corporation emerged from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to restart and increase its production schedule. In time, other aircraft
manufacturers and aviation suppliers also began hiring and expanding their production.
Overall, revitalization of the industry has had a positive effect on the number of active general aviation aircraft
and the operations these aircraft conduct in the United States. This has been significantly facilitated by the strong
3 -4
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
BASED AIRCRAFT
Historical Based Aircraft
AS
SEBTlIAN
HOME OF PELICAN m wo
national economy since the mid 1990s. In addition to the TAF, the FAA also publishes an annual report of
forecasts for aviation activity as a whole for the nation. The most recent edition of this report, FAA Aviation
Forecasts, includes the fiscal years 2000 through 2011. In this edition the FAA states, "With five years worth of
data compiled, the success of the Act (General Aviation Revitalization Act) can be measured. Resurgence is
evidenced by increasing general aviation activity at FAA air traffic facilities, an increasing active fleet size, and
record shipments and billings of fixed -wing general aviation aircraft."
The forecast of based aircraft at a general aviation airport is necessary to properly plan the appropriate aircraft
parking and hangar facilities required. Projections of based aircraft also provide a significant indication as to
anticipated growth in activity that is expected to occur at the Airport.
In order to forecast the number of based aircraft, a reliable source for historic levels must be obtained. While the
TAF typically provides a history of aircraft based at an airport, the initial source of this information comes from
the FAA Airport Master Records (5010 Form). At Sebastian, this form is typically updated by FDOT during their
annual field inspection for state licensing. As such, it is important to note that the based aircraft counts for these
inspections can vary significantly and often provides the only source for historical based aircraft data.
Unfortunately, this source has never changed from levels recorded in the mid 1980s (refer to Table 2 -4). As
such, only the based aircraft counts conducted as part of this study's inventory are considered reliable. These
counts resulted in 32 single- engine and 10 multi- engine aircraft for a total of 42 based aircraft in 2000.
Forecast of Based Aircraft
As noted previously, the TAF projected the number of based aircraft to remain constant. While there may be
times that the level of based aircraft at an airport could remain static or even decrease slightly, this would only be
probable on a temporary basis, due to recent general aviation industry trends. Nonetheless, even if the TAF had a
realistic forecast for based aircraft, the methodology does not take into consideration issues on the local level. For
example, no consideration is given to the City of Sebastian's plan for the construction of T- hangars, larger
clearspan hangars, or other factors that may increase the number of based aircraft.
It is assumed that the number of based aircraft has a direct relationship to both population and income. The logic
behind this correlation is that as population increases, the number of aircraft owners or those planning to purchase
an aircraft also increases. Likewise, as the level of income for an area increases, the opportunity for more
individuals to own aircraft will also grow. Therefore, it stands to reason that the growth rates for these
socioeconomic variables will explain the level of aircraft that could be based at the Airport during the planning
period.
As mentioned in the inventory chapter, all socioeconomic data was obtained from the 1999 Florida Long -term
Economic Forecast. This data has a number of data sets depicting Indian River County population. However,
only the information pertaining to the number of 20 to 64 year olds was utilized. Based on the age breakout in the
available data, this range provided the most likely group of residents that would own an aircraft. As seen in
Table 3 -3, the growth rate for this group through the year 2011 is projected at an average annual growth rate of
2.1 percent.
Personal income's effect on the number of based aircraft at an airport is best measured by the amount of
disposable income the surrounding population has. Unfortunately, there are only data sets for per capita and real
3 -5
2002
TABLE 3 -3
ADDITIONAL INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
Population
Ages 20 -64
Real Personal
Income
1997
49,699
3,061,901,000
2000
53,115
3,503,281,000
2005
59,203
4,077,409,000
2010
65,080
4,912,990,000
Average Annual Growth Rate
2.1%
3.7%
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
personal income available. Data from the per capita set was not used due to the fact that it incorporates the
information already considered in the population data. Conversely, the real person income provides a measure of
the overall growth of income for the County, which provides a more similar measure to disposable income.
Table 3 -3 projects the 3.7 percent average annual growth rate for the County's real personal income.
Projected Fleet Mix
SEBA
HOME OE PELICAN ISLAND
Source: State and County Economics Forecast, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Because both of these provide a good indication of the level of aircraft that can be expected at an airport, the
average of the two was taken. This results in an average annual growth rate of 2.9 percent. When applied to the
current number of based aircraft, this rate projects a total of 79 aircraft based at Sebastian by the end of the
planning period. The total number of based aircraft for each forecast year is presented as part ofTable 3 -4 in the
following section.
Besides projecting the total number of based aircraft, it is important to project the fleet mix of those aircraft. A
breakdown of the based aircraft fleet mix is necessary because different types of aircraft require different
facilities. For example, jet aircraft typically need larger hangars, greater wing -tip clearances, and have different
fuel requirements than single- engine piston aircraft. Typically, the based aircraft fleet mix is determined by
studying the historic fleet mix. Since this data is not available, national trends were examinedand airport tenants
were interviewed.
Every year, the nation's active general aviation fleet is published as part of the FAA's forecasts. According to
this data, nearly all of the aircraft types in the nation have continued to experience annual growth. The
breakdown of the nation's active fleet includes: single- engine at 81 percent, multi- engine (piston and turboprop)
at 12 percent, jet aircraft at 3 percent, and rotorcraft at 4 percent.
The based aircraft and operations at Sebastian have primarily been single and multi engine aircraft. While jet
aircraft occasionally fly into the Airport, there is no record of any jets based at Sebastian; however, this is not to
say that a jet will not be based at the Airport in the future. In fact, the operations forecast address the fact that
small jet aircraft currently fly into the airfield on occasion. As such, it is expected that even without significant
facility improvements, the Airport will see a few based jets by the end of the planning period. This is supported
when the nation's active general aviation fleet mix is applied to the based aircraft forecast. The same assumption
holds true for rotorcraft at Sebastian. Therefore, it is projected that while the current and future mix of based
aircraft at Sebastian will remain primarily single and multi- engine aircraft, the Airport should expect to be more
similar to the national mix by 2022. These numbers are presented in Table 3 -4.
3 -6
2002
TABLE 3 -4
FORECAST BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX
Year
Single- Engine
Multi- Engine
Jet
Rotor
Total
Aircraft
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Base Year
2000
32
76%
10
24%
0
0%
0
0%
42
Forecast
2007
39
76%
12
24%
0
0%
0
0%
51
2012
45
75%
14
23%
0
1%
0
1%
59
2022
57
72%
17
21%
2
3%
3
4%
79
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Current Aircraft Operations
3 -7
SEBA
NOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The FAA defines an operation as either a single aircraft landing or takeoff. Under this definition, an aircraft
"touch and go" is considered two operations, since during the maneuver the aircraft conducts a landing and a
takeoff. This section includes a breakdown of the current operations, the forecast of these operations, and
analyses of the specific type of operations conducted, including the overall local /itinerant split, instrument
operations, and military operations.
Because there is no reliable account of past aircraft operations for Sebastian Municipal, the development of the
operations forecast is based primarily on interviews with airport management and airport tenants. Through these
discussions, the current level of aircraft operations was established. As stated by a number of tenants and users,
nearly all of the operations are conducted during daylight hours (typically 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). While night
operations do occur at the Airport, the number for such was considered insignificant. Also, operations have
decreased from past levels as a result of a decrease in "touch and go" operations for training versus the more
common stop and taxi back operations conducted today.
Sky Dive Sebastian and Velocity were the only tenants to provide reliable estimates of the operations they
conducted at the Airport. The combined operations of these two tenants accounted for the largest number of local
operations. Unfortunately, these operations did not account for a majority of the Airport's based aircraft fleet. It
is assumed the remaining 36 based aircraft primarily conduct local operations. However, since there is no
historical data, national totals were utilized to create an average level of annual operations that could be expected
from each of these 36 based aircraft. According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast, there were just over 40 million
operations conducted by the 206,392 active general aviation aircraft in 1999. This results in each active aircraft
conducting an average of 194 annual operations. Assuming the unaccounted 36 based aircraft at Sebastian are
active, it is realistic that each would support 200 annual operations. All together the operations by Skydive
Sebastian, Velocity, and the remaining 36 based aircraft calculate to 18,628 local operations.
It is very difficult for anyone to estimate the level of itinerant operations at Sebastian. At first is was thought that
fuel sales or overnight parking records would provide information to the level of itinerant aircraft; however, this
information was not available. Therefore, the local /itinerant split from the 1993 Master Plan was utilized. This
split of 71 percent local and 29 percent itinerant originates from the 1995 -2010 Florida Aviation System Plan
(FASP). Accordingly, if 18,628 represent the 71 percent local operations, then the 29 percent of itinerant would
equal 7,609 operations. This brings the current total annual operations for Sebastian Municipal to 26,237
operations.
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SLBAST
Master Plan Update
Forecast of Aircraft Operations
In the previous Master Plan, the average annual growth rate for operations was 3.5 percent. This was based on
data from the 1995 -2010 FASP. This forecast resulted in substantial growth during the planning period, which
the Airport never achieved. While this was an obvious overestimation for the time, this may not be the case
today. When these forecasts were made, all aspects of the general aviation industry were in the midst of a severe
decline as a result of product liability. Since, the industry has enjoyed its sixth consecutive year of recovery.
However, because the source of the 3.5 percent growth rate is not known, it will not be used in this study.
As with the based aircraft forecast, it is assumed that aircraft operations have a direct relationship to both
population and income. Again the logic behind this correlation is that as population increases, so too will the
number of pilots and aircraft owners in the area. Also, as the overall level of income increases, the ability for
individuals in the area to fly general aviation aircraft will increase. The average annual growth rate of these two
indicators (2.9 percent) was utilized to project the current estimate of annual operations through the planning
period. This results in a forecast of 49,210 annual operations at Sebastian Municipal in 2022.
Although the potential for significant growth exists at Sebastian, it was felt that a slightly conservative forecast
would be more realistic. This is due to the fact that general aviation growth, according to the FAA, is expected to
include more operations of the larger twins and jet aircraft operated by businesses and corporations. However, the
reality remains that the airfield at Sebastian may be limited with respect to the size of aircraft that can be
accommodated, simply due to the available runway length. Although a longer runway, navigational aids, and a
control tower were built, it is still believed that Sebastian would not serve a significant number of the larger twin
and jet aircraft. The reasons behind this assumption include:
The limitations associated with larger twin and jet activity are expanded upon in the section discussing
operational fleet mix. The annual operations for each forecast year are presented as part of Table 3 -5 in the
section addressing the local and itinerant operational split.
Types of Aircraft Operations
This section will take the forecasts of total annual operations and look at the different classifications of activity.
These shall include a break out of the local versus itinerant split, operational fleet mix, instrument operations, and
military operations.
HOME OP PELICAN ISLAND
Currently there is not enough of a business /corporate base in Sebastian to require an airport that
can support large twin and jet aircraft. Likewise, the businesses demanding these aircraft are not
expected to increase very much over the twenty -year planning period.
The coastline of the Sebastian area (south Brevard County and North Indian River County) has
very little development in the way of resorts, condominiums, or attractions. The absence of these
types of facilities along the coast or river, lessen the demand for larger general aviation aircraft.
Sebastian Municipal Airport lies 25 minutes driving time south of Melbourne International
Airport and just 15 minutes north of Vero Beach Municipal. Both of these airports have runways
over 7,000 feet, instrument approaches, full service FBOs, and FAA Air Traffic Control Towers
(ATCT).
Local versus Itinerant Split
The FAA typically divides all aircraft operations into local and itinerant subcategories. Local operations
are those arrivals or departures performed by aircraft that remain in the airport traffic pattern, or are
3 -8
2002
TABLE 3 -5
FORECAST OF ANNUAL OPERATIONS
Year
Local
Operations
Itinerant
Operations
Total Annual
Aircraft Operations
Base Year
2000
18,628
7,609
26,237
Forecast
2007
22,756
9,294
32,050
2012
26,252
10,722
36,974
2022
34,939
14,271
49,210
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SEBA
HOME Of PRKNJ ISLAND
within sight of the airport. This covers an area within a 20 nautical mile radius of the airfield. Local
operations are most often associated with training activity and flight instruction, or for an airport like
Sebastian, all skydiving flights would be classified into the local operations category. Itinerant operations
are arrivals or departures other than local operations, performed by either based or transient aircraft, that
do not remain in the airport traffic pattern or within a 20 nautical mile radius.
Unfortunately, there is no way to estimate the current local /itinerant split for Sebastian. The base data
from the 1993 Master Plan had a local versus itinerant split of 71 percent and 29 percent, respectively.
Conversely, for the years 1990 to 1998, the FAA TAF had a split of 37 percent local and 63 percent
itinerant for the past. The 1999 split was 32 percent local and 68 percent itinerant.
Skydive Sebastian and Velocity both conduct primarily local operations. Based on the fact that these two
operators conduct a majority of the operations, it is difficult to believe that the itinerant level of operations
would be nearly double that of the local. In fact, the split in the 1993 Master Plan seems more realistic
given the type of operations that typically occur at Sebastian. Therefore, the 71 percent local and 29
percent itinerant split will be used throughout the planning period. The effect of this split on the total
annual operations is illustrated in Table 3 -5.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
Operational Fleet Mix
Operational fleet mix is an important factor in determining the need for both airside and landside
improvements at an airport, as well as quantifying noise impacts to the local community. Because none
of the previous forecast data provide a breakdown of the operational fleet mix, airport management and
airport tenants were interviewed to estimate the current and future mix.
Sebastian primarily serves single- engine and multi engine aircraft with very little jet activity. For local
operations, it was determined that approximately 54 percent were conducted by multi- engine aircraft
(primarily Skydive Sebastian), while the rest were single- engine operations. There are currently no local
operations conducted by jet or rotorcraft. As for the itinerant operations, it is assumed that three- fourths
of the annual operations are conducted by single- engine aircraft and the remaining as multi engine.
While the Airport does accommodate the occasional small jet and rotorcraft operations, it is estimated that
the percent for these two categories is less than one. Therefore, both were left at zero for the current
operational mix.
The future operational mix was primarily based on keeping the same balance between single and multi
engine aircraft while at the same time adding in some small jet and rotorcraft operations. All jet
operations are limited to the much smaller business jets (i.e. Falcon 10/20/50, Citation 2/5, and Learjet
3 -9
2002
TABLE 3 -6
PROJECTED OPERATIONAL FLEET MIX
Year
Single- Engine
Number I Percent
Multi- Engine
Number I Percent
Jet
Number I Percent
Rotor
Number I Percent
Total
Aircraft
Base Year
2000
14,168
54%
12,069
46%
0
0%
0
0%
26,237
Forecast
2007
16,986
53%
14,102
44%
321
1%
641
2%
32,050
2012
19,227
52%
15,899
43%
739
2%
1,109
3%
36,974
2022
24,113
49%
20,668
42%
2,461
5%
1,968
4%
49,210
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
23/24/25/28/29/31 /55) and conditional to various takeoff weights and configuration. The reason for such
an infrequent and limited number of jet operation at Sebastian is due to their limited facilities and the
proximity of other airports.
Extending a runway at the Airport would increase the number of jet aircraft that could operate from
Sebastian. However, if an extension capable of accommodating larger transport general aviation aircraft
could be justified and constructed, it might still be unreasonable to anticipate jet aircraft at the Airport.
This projection is based on the Airport's proximity to other airports and the increasing potential for a
larger national fleet of general aviation aircraft. Therefore, Sebastian should expect limited jet aircraft
activity during the planning period.
While the level of single and multi- engine operations are expected to remain constant, an increase is
expected for both small jet and rotorcraft operations. These increases are anticipated to approach levels
similar to that of the national active aircraft forecasts. The FAA projects the active fleet to have five
percent jet and four percent rotorcraft in 2011. For Sebastian, it is anticipated that it may take until the
end of the planning period to reach these levels. The growth in rotorcraft is anticipated to occur at a faster
rate than jets due to the limited facilities required by these aircraft. Therefore, the forecasted operational
fleet mix presented in Table 3 -6, shows a gradual movement towards these percentages for jet and
rotorcraft operations.
ource: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
Instrument Operations
3 10
mr a
HOW Of rIACAN !RAND
Currently there are no precision or non precision instrument approaches at Sebastian. However, aircraft
can still depart the airport environment under instrument meteorological conditions. This is accomplished
by filing a flight plan with the St. Petersburg Flight Service Station (FSS) and then activating that flight
plan once airborne. For airports like Sebastian, the FSS will issue a "Void if not off Time" which
provides departing instrument traffic a window to contact and enter controlled airspace.
Typically the forecast of instrument operations helps determine the type of improvements, such as
approach lighting, additional approaches, or arrival /departure corridors, which may be required at an
airport. At Sebastian, the type or number of such facility requirements will not be needed until some form
of an instrument approach is established. It is assumed that the Airport will have at least one Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) instrument approach before the end of the planning period. Subsequent
chapters of this study will address how such an approach can be implemented for the airfield. Until such
an approach is installed, it is difficult to determine with any accuracy the level of instrument operations
the runways may support.
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Military Operations
PEAK ACTIVITY
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
3 -11
SLB
HOME Of PELICAN LAAND
Based on interviews, there have been virtually no military operations at Sebastian. There is no reason to
believe that military operations will increase during the course of this planning period. As such, no
forecasts have been made.
Peak operational activity such as peak month, average day of the peak month, and peak hour forecasts are used in
facility sizing and to determine the Airport's ability to accommodate projected demand. Unfortunately, as a result
of having no ATCT facilities, monthly tabulations for Sebastian were not available to determine thepeak month
for aircraft operations.
Based on interviews with airport management and airport tenants, the airfield typically experiences the highest
traffic levels during the months beginning in October and proceeding through April. This peak is essentially the
result of increased skydiving activity. It was estimated that the average percentage of annual operations
conducted in these peak months equals 9.7 percent. Because there is limited data to substantiate peak activity, 9.7
percent was applied to the forecasted annual operations through the year 2022 to estimate the peak month
operations for each year. It is realistic to approximate that peak operations could occur in any of these seven
months.
The values for average day peak month and for the peak hour were calculated using the FAA's methodology
found in Advisory Circular 150/5360 -7, "Planning and Design Considerations for Airport Terminal Building
Development." Under this methodology, the average day peak month is derived by taking the number of
operations calculated for the peak month and dividing that figure by the number of days in the peak month. For
Sebastian, the average of 30 days per month was used. No historical data was available to determine the peak
hour operations at the Airport; however, the interviews conducted asked for an estimation of the peak hour.
Unfortunately, very different responses were received. Therefore it was estimated that 15 percent of the average
day peak month would best represent the number of peak hour operations. The projections for future peak
operations at the Airport are shown in Table 3 -7.
Table 3 -7
FORECAST PEAK ACTIVITY
Year
2000
2007
2012
2022
Total Annual
26,237
32,050
36,974
49,210
Peak Month
2,545
3,109
3,586
4,773
Average Day
Peak Month
Base Year
85
Forecast
104
120
159
Peak Hour
Average Day
Peak Month
13
16
18
24
2002
TABLE 3-8
S UMMARY OF AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS
Forecast
2000
2007
2012
2022
Based Aircraft
Total
42
51
59
79
Single-
32
39
45
57
Engine
Multi-
10
12
14
17
Engine
Jet
0
0
0
2
Rotor
0
0
0
3
Annual
Operations
Total
26,237
32,050
36,974
49,210
Local
18,628
22,756
26,252
34,939
Itinerant
7,609
9,294
10,722
14,271
Peak Activity
Peak
2,545
3,109
3,586
4,773
Month
Average
Day Peak
85
104
120
159
Month
Peak
13
16
18
24
Hour
0_______ mi 1T! i n
�r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SUMMARY OF AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS
3 -12
s taarl AN
HOME OF PU.IGN LELNlD
Table 3 -8 presents a summary of the forecasts developed for this Master Plan Update. Overall, the current
activity at Sebastian Municipal Airport is expected to show growth throughout the forecast period. In summary,
the data and methods used to forecast aviation demand for the Airport are consistent with those used by the FAA
and other airports located in the State of Florida and therefore, accurately reflect current activity trends of the
surrounding region and nation.
2002
DEMAND /CAPACITY ANALYSIS
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
INTRODUCTION
AIRFIELD CHARACTERISTIC
Runway Configuration
Aircraft Mix Index
Taxiway Configuration
Airfield Operational Characteristics
Meteorological Conditions
Runway Configuration
Chapter 4 Demand /Capacity Analysis
4 -1
(R( Q
sus C TIA
Mater Plan Update
NOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The purpose of this Demand/Capacity Analysis is to examine the capability of Sebastian Municipal Airport to
meet the needs of its users. In doing so, this task provides an analysis of the ability for the existing airfield to
satisfy the forecasted operational demands. This assessment will be expressed in terms of the hourly capacity and
annual service volume of the airfield, along with the total estimated annual delay. Also, an analysis of the
airspace surrounding Sebastian Municipal is included to determine its capacity. The following chapter, "Facility
Requirements," provides specific recommendations intended to address any deficiencies identified in the Airport
facilities.
Methods for determining airport capacity can be found in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5060 -5 Change 2, entitled
"Airport Capacity and Delay" published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). For this Master Plan,
airfield capacity was calculated in terms of the hourly capacity of the runways, annual service volume, and annual
aircraft delay using the FAA's methodology. The elements that affect airfield capacity are listed below.
When analyzed collectively, the above elements provide the basis for establishing the operational capacity of an
airport. The following sections will evaluate each of these capacity related characteristics with respect to
Sebastian Municipal.
The airfield configuration for Sebastian Municipal Airport includes two paved runways. The primary runway,
Runway 4 -22, has a northeast to southwest orientation. Runway 13 -31, the crosswind runway, has a northwest to
southeast alignment. The two runways at Sebastian are laid out in an X configuration.
All active runways have a standard left hand traffic pattern. Even though only one traffic pattern can be used at a
time, both runways are still required at Sebastian Municipal. This is due to the characteristics of the area's
prevailing winds. Since aircraft takeoff and land into the wind, the FAA recommends that sufficient runways be
provided to achieve 95 percent wind coverage. This is calculated by using a 10.5 -knot crosswind component for
the smaller and lighter aircraft, while a 13 -knot crosswind component is utilized for the larger, heavier, aircraft.
FAA AC 150/5300 -13, Change 6, "Airport Design" suggests that weather for a period of at least ten years be used
to determine the wind coverage of an airport. The inventory chapter of this study evaluated the wind coverage for
the Airport based data collected in the 1993 Airport Master Plan. This analysis showed that neither Runway 4 -22
nor Runway 13 -31 could provide 95 percent wind coverage in the 10.5 -knot category. Therefore, both runways
are required to provide the appropriate wind coverage for the smaller and lighter aircraft that predominately use
the airfield.
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Mater Plan Update
Aircraft Mix Index
Taxiway Configuration
mra
NOW Of P[MICAN ISLAND
Knowing the operational fleet mix, it is possible to establish the mix index required to compute the airfield's
capacity. The aircraft mix index is calculated based on the type or class of aircraft expected to serve an airfield.
Exhibit 4 -1 provides examples of typical aircraft for each of the FAA's four capacity classifications. The
formula for finding the mix index is %(C 3D) where C is the percentage of aircraft over 12,500 pounds, but less
than 300,000 pounds, and D is the percentage of aircraft over 300,000 pounds. At Sebastian Municipal Airport,
the current aircraft mix includes only Class A and B aircraft. While some Class C aircraft may operate at the
Airport during the planning period, no Class D aircraft are expected to operate at Sebastian Municipal.
The Class C aircraft expected to operate at the Airport will only consist of the smaller business and corporate jet
aircraft within this classification. Currently, not enough Class C aircraft operate at the Airport to be considered
significant; however, for planning purposes, it is assumed that all of the future jet aircraft in the operational fleet
mix will be conducted by Class C aircraft. Using the FAA formula, the aircraft mix index will simply increase to
five percent by the year 2022 from the Airport's current index of zero. As the mix index rises, the overall airfield
capacity is diminished. However, due to the low level of Class C aircraft, the decrease in the overall capacity at
Sebastian Municipal will be insignificant.
As mentioned in the inventory, neither runway at Sebastian Municipal has a parallel taxiway running the entire
length of the runway. Not counting the runway intersection, there are three exits off of both Runway 4 -22 and
Runway 13 -31 onto the limited taxiway system. Based on the FAA's criteria, the exit factor is maximized when a
runway has four exit taxiways within a range determined by the operations using that runway. At Sebastian
Municipal, this range is 2,000 feet to 4,000 feet from the landing threshold and each exit must be separated by at
least 750 feet. Using these criteria, both runways are considered to have two exits each for airfield capacity
calculations. However, because both of these runways are just over 4,000 feet in length, the taxiways are
considered to be maximized with respect to their ability to facilitate aircraft exiting.
Operational Characteristics
Significant operational characteristics that can affect an airfield's overall capacity include the percentage of
aircraft arrivals, the sequencing of aircraft departures, and the percentage of "touch and go" operations.
Percentage of Aircraft Arrivals
The percentage of aircraft arrivals is the ratio of landing operations to the total operations of the airport.
This percentage is considered due to the fact that aircraft approaching an airport for landing require more
runway occupancy time than an aircraft departing the airfield. The FAA methodology used herein
provides for computing airfield capacity with a 40, 50, or 60 percent of arrivals figure.
The 40 and 60 percent figures result in an average ASV variance of ±11 percent when compared to the 50
percent level, with the lower percentage (40) having the highest capacity. For general planning purposes,
the 50 percent of arrivals value was utilized as an average or neutral effect to determine the overall
capacity at Sebastian Municipal.
4
2002
Class A Small single- engine, gross
MOONEY OVATION
Class B Small twin engine, g
KING AF 960
Class C Large aircraft, gross
OULF8TREAM IV
Class D Large aircraft, gross
CESSNA 152/172
BEECHCRAFT BONANZA
CESSNA 182/210
MOONEY 201
PIPER CHEROKEE
BEECHCRAFT BARON
MITSUBISHI MU -2
CESSNA CITATION I
CESSNA 310/402
PIPER NAVAJO
BEECH KING AIR 90/100/200/350
GULFSTREAM III /IV
FALCON 20/50/90
CESSNA CITATION II
BOEING 727/737/767
DOUGLAS DC- 9 /MD -80
SWEARINGER METRO
AIRBUS A300/310
BOEING 747
AIRBUS A -340
DOUGLAS DC -8
LOCKHEED L -1011
DOUGLAS MD -11
TYPICAL AIRCRAFT BY CAPACITY CLASSIFICATION
S BASTIA
HOW Or P NQwND
AIRCRAFT
CLASSIFICATIONS
LEAR 35/55
SAAB 340
DORNIER 228/328
Sebastian Municipal Airport
City of Sebastian
THE cm
LPA
GROUP
EXHIBIT 4 -1
TABLE 4 -1
R UNWAY END UTILIZATION
Runway
End
Runway
Use
Runway End
Utilization
4
46.8
of total
26.2 of total
22
20.6 of total
13
53.2%
of total
33.8 of total
31
19.4 of total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Mater Plan Update
Sequencing of Aircraft Departures
SLBT
HOME OF PELICP,N ISLAND
All four runway ends at Sebastian have only end connector taxiways. This configuration does not
allow aircraft to pass if there is a delay for the lead aircraft. Unfortunately, this constraint cannot be
modeled using the FAA's methodology for airfield capacity. Therefore, the airfield is considered to
have no constraints with respect to aircraft departures.
Percentage of Touch and Go Operations
The percentage of "touch and go" operations plays a critical role in the determination of airport capacity.
"Touch and go" operations are counted as one landing and one takeoff (i.e., two operations) and are
normally associated with flight training activities. Based on interviews with airport management and
airport tenants, in the past, the level of "touch and go" operations at Sebastian varied. Currently no
"touch and go" operations are allowed, therefore, the Airport falls in the lowest "touch and go" index
under the FAA's methodology.
Meteorological Conditions
Meteorological conditions can adversely affect the decision as to which runway end is used by a pilot. Thus,
these conditions have an affect on the overall capacity for the airfield. Runway utilization is normally determined
by wind conditions while the cloud ceiling and visibility dictates spacing requirements. Using the breakdown of
the area's wind characteristics from the inventory chapter, the percent of use for each runway end was calculated.
Based on these wind observations, Runway 4 -22 is favored 46.8 percent of the time while Runway 13 -31 is
favored 53.2 percent of the time. Table 4 -1 provides the breakdown for each runway end.
Source: 1993 Master Plan Wind Observations
There are three measures of cloud ceiling and visibility conditions recognized by the FAA in calculating the
capacity of an airport. These include:
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Cloud ceiling is greater than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL)
and the visibility is at least three statute miles.
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Cloud ceiling is at least 500 feet AGL but less than 1,000 feet
AGL and/or the visibility is at least one statute mile but less than three statute miles.
Poor Visibility and Ceiling (PVC) Cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet AGL and/or the visibility
is less than one statute mile.
4 -4
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SL3ASOTI Q T
Mater Plan Update
AIRFIELD CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Hourly Capacity of Runways
Hourly Capacity C* x T x E
where:
C* hourly capacity base
T "touch and go" factor
E exit factor
VFR Conditions 102 Operations/Hour
IFR Conditions 62 Operations/Hour
Weighted Hourly Capacity 100 Operations/Hour
Annual Service Volume
4 -5
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Sebastian Municipal experiences VFR conditions 97 percent of the time, IFR conditions 2.5 percent of the time,
and poor visibility and ceiling conditions 0.5 percent of the time. These percentages are based on data collected
by the National Climatic Data Center from the Vero Beach Municipal Airport weather station.
The preceding characteristics of the airfield's capacity were used in conjunction with the methodology developed
by the FAA to determine airfield capacity. As mentioned previously, this FAA methodology generates three
different values for measuring airfield capacity. These include the hourly capacity of runways, annual service
volume, and annual aircraft delay.
Hourly capacity of the runways measures the maximum number of aircraft operations that can be accommodated
by the airport's runway configuration in one hour. Based on the FAA methodology, hourly capacity for runways
is calculated by analyzing the appropriate VFR and IFR figures for the airport's runway configuration. From
these figures, the aircraft mix index and percent of aircraft arrivals are utilized to calculate the hourly capacity
base. A "touch and go" factor is also determined based on the percentage of "touch and go" operations combined
with the aircraft mix index. These figures also consider a taxiway exit factor, which is determined by the aircraft
mix index, percent of aircraft arrivals, and number of exit taxiways within the specified exit range.
For both VFR and IFR conditions, the hourly capacity for runways is calculated by multiplying the hourly
capacity base, "touch and go" factor, and exit factor. This equation is:
An airport's mix index can substantially change the value of the hourly capacity base in the FAA capacity tables.
However, since all of the planning years fall into the mix index range of 0 to 20 percent, there will be no change
in the hourly capacities for the Airport. A weighted hourly capacity for the Airport is calculated by taking the
VFR and IFR calculations and prorating them based on the percent these conditions have been observed at the
airport. These following hourly capacity values were calculated for Sebastian Municipal.
The most important value that must be computed in order to understand the capacity at an airport is the annual
service volume (ASV). ASV represents a measure of the approximate number of total operations that the airport
can support annually. In other words, the ASV represents the theoretical limit of operations that the airport can
safely accommodate. Using the FAA's methodology to estimate ASV, first the ratio of annual demand to average
daily demand, during the peak month, is calculated along with the ratio of average daily demand to average peak
hour demand, during the peak month. These values are then multiplied together and the resulting product is
multiplied by the weighted hourly capacity. This equation is:
2002
TABLE 4 -2
AIRFIELD CAPACITY LEVELS
Year
Annual
Operations
Annual
Service Volume
Capacity
Level
Base Year
2000 I 26,237
200,313
13%
Forecast
2007
32,050
200,313
16%
2012
36,974
200,313
18%
2022
49,210
200,313
25%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Mater Plan Update
Annual Service Volume Cw x D x H
where: Cw weighted hourly capacity
D ratio of annual demand to average daily
demand during the peak month
H ratio of daily demand to average peak
hour demand during the peak month
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED 2000.
4 -6
SEBaiS
HOME Of rwuw ISLAND
The calculated ASV accounts for differences in forecasted activity levels, runway use, aircraft mix, weather
conditions, and other factors that occur over a single year. For Sebastian Municipal, the current and projected
ASV will remain relatively the same. This is due to the fact that all three elements in the equation are similar. It
was stated that the weighted hourly capacity remains the same for each forecast year due to the mix index. In
addition, the two other factors (ratios D and H) are also very much alike since the same methodology for
calculating the percent of average day peak month and peak hour operations was used for each year in the forecast
chapter. Therefore, the anticipated ASV of the Airport for the entire planning period was based on the most
conservative calculation, which is 200,313 annual operations.
ASV is the approximate measure of an airport's capability in terms of annual throughput capacity. A demand that
exceeds the ASV will typically result in significant delays on the airfield. However, no matter how substantial an
airport's capacity may appear, it should be realized that delays can occur even before an airport reaches its stated
capacity. In fact, a number of projects that would increase the capacity at an airport are eligible for funding from
the FAA. According to FAA Order 5090.3B, "Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS)," this eligibility is achieved once the airfield has reached 60 percent of its current capacity.
This allows improvements to be made before demand levels exceed the capacity of the facility in order to avoid
lengthy delays. Future capacity levels for the airport have been calculated based on the forecasted annual
operations and the ASV for the Airport. These levels are depicted in Table 4 -2 and are shown graphically in
Exhibit 4 -2.
Table 4 -2 and Exhibit 4 -2 both show that even if no improvements are made to the airfield, Sebastian Municipal
should not experience any capacity related problems during the planning period. Overall, the current airfield
capacity is considered to be sufficient to accommodate the aircraft operations forecasted. However, as conditions
change over the years, the capacity of the airfield may decrease enough to reach the 60 percent threshold. If this
occurs, then improvement projects will need to be planned to enhance the overall capacity of the airfield.
2002
200,000
150,000
z
w 100,000
50,000
2000
YEARS
BISSTIA
Hata OF PZLICAN =AND
DEMAND
VS. CAPACITY
2022
Sebastian Municipal Airport
City of Sebastian
THE L��
LPA
GROUP
EXHIBIT 4 -2
TABLE 4 -3
ANNUAL AIRCRAFT DELAY
Year
Average Delay per Aircraft
(minutes)
Total Annual Delay
(hours)
Low
High
Low
High
Base Year
2000
0.0
0.1
0
3
Forecast
2007
0.0
0.1
0
3
2012
0.0
0.1
0
3
2022
0.0
0.1
0
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Mater Plan Update
Annual Aircraft Delay
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
AIRSPACE CAPACITY
4 -8
S
NOME Of P[UCAN ISLAND
As an airport's level of annual operations increase, so do the times when the airfield experiences periods of delay.
Annual aircraft delay allows a total to be estimated for all of the delay incurred by aircraft on the airfield in one
year's time. The estimate of annual delay includes arriving and departing aircraft operations under both VFR and
IFR conditions. FAA AC 5060 -5 Change 2, provides a method by which the annual delay can be quantified.
Essentially the ratio of annual demand to ASV is utilized in FAA charts to determine the average delay per
aircraft. This value is then applied back to the annual demand to estimate the total amount of annual aircraft
delay. The results of these calculations are included in Table 4 -3.
Based on these values, there is no real delay associated with the aircraft operations conducted at Sebastian.
However, the FAA methodology does not allow the calculations to consider skydiving activities at Sebastian. It is
assumed that there are times when pilots face some sort of delay, either arrival or departure, when skydivers are
descending upon the airfield. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure this type of delay nor is there any way to
mitigate it.
Airspace capacity is an essential element of any airport, especially with respect to maintaining the existing and
proposed operational characteristics. The airspace above Sebastian is designated as Class E. The only reason the
Airport has this controlled airspace, which begins at 700 feet above ground level (AGL) and extends upward to
17,999 feet, is to facilitate the transition of aircraft to /from the Vero Beach Municipal Airport terminal
environment. In addition, there are several Victor airways that pass just to the west of the airfield as they
approach to or extend from the Vero Beach Very High Frequency Omni directional Range (VOR). Since the last
master plan, the capacity of the airspace around Sebastian Municipal has neither increased nor decreased
significantly. Overall, the airspace for the Airport is not currently impacted or constrained by any of the other
airports in the region. This does not remove the airspace from the potential of some occasional conflicts with
other airports or obstructions in the region. While none of these facilities have a direct airspace conflict, the
future application of additional instrument approaches, precision or non precision, will require careful planning to
avoid conflicts. For example, if an instrument approach procedure was desired for Runway 4, aircraft on
instrument approaches to either Runway 11R or Runway 11L at Vero Beach Municipal might create a conflict.
Nonetheless, it is felt that while there are some facilities in close proximity to Sebastian Municipal, they do not
present a hazard to the capacity of the Airport's airspace.
2002
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
aT
H(]ME or OFLCdN Is1dN0
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT su sanA N
Master Plan Update
INTRODUCTION
Chapter Five Facility Requirements
HOME Of PILICNJ ISLAND
To ensure that Sebastian Municipal will adequately accommodate demand expected during the twenty -year
planning period, this chapter is intended to establish facility requirements for the future development of the
Airport. The principle challenge facing any growing airport is that of meeting future development requirements.
Airport development is often costly and since each project is typically planned to last many years, care must be
taken to ensure that each development project will help satisfy the projected level of airport needs. Increasingly,
the nation's airports are facing serious deficiencies in their ability to provide the requisite facilities necessary to
meet the public's demand for aviation services, both commercial and general aviation.
It is important that airport owners and managers make sure they do not overlook valuable opportunities to develop
facilities and resources. When these opportunities are missed, the airport loses potential revenues, tenants do not
receive maximum benefit from their leases, and the users experience a lower level of service than might otherwise
be obtainable. Conversely, it is equally important that owners continue to consider the quality of life of local
residents around the airport when planning development. Meeting the growth demands of an airport in today's
world routinely is balanced with the community's desire for aesthetics and environmental conservation. The
planning process for Sebastian Municipal is no exception.
This facility requirements analysis evaluates existing airport facilities (airfield and landside) against the projected
level of demand to determine the ability of the airport to meet the forecast of future activity. The output of this
analysis is the identification of excess or deficient capacity for the array of individual facilities comprising the
Airport. Before facilities for Sebastian are evaluated, it is important to review criteria that are employed by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the planning and design of airports. These criteria establish certain
benchmarks that are used in the definition of adequacy or inadequacy for specified airport areas and facilities.
Airport Role and Service Level
The FAA, through publishing the National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS), establishes the role and
service level of each airport included within this national planning document. The role for each airport identifies
one of five basic service levels, which describe the type of public aviation service the airport is expected to
provide to the community or area it serves. The role and service level also define the funding category set up by
Congress to assist in airport development and to compete for federal funds. In past and the most recent NPIAS,
the Sebastian Municipal Airport has been designated as a General Aviation airport.
Airport Reference Code and Critical Aircraft
A key element in defining airport development needs is establishing development guidelines that are directly
associated with the size and type of aircraft activity the airport will be expected to serve. By determining the
aircraft types expected to use the Airport, it is possible to establish a critical design aircraft that is then used for
facility planning and design purposes. This critical aircraft is usually the most demanding aircraft using the
Airport. There may be different critical aircraft(s) for different airport components, identified, if necessary, by
approach category, by wingspan, and/or by weight. To be considered a critical aircraft, there must be a minimum
of 500 annual itinerant operations conducted at the Airport by the aircraft. Itinerant operations are defined as
flights originating at Sebastian and flying to a facility a minimum of 20 miles away or those operations
terminating at Sebastian from an airport more than 20 miles away.
5 -1
2002
TABLE 5 -2
AIRCRAFT DESIGN GROUPS
Design Group
Wingspan (feet)
I
49
II
49 78
III
79— 117
IV
118 170
V
171 213
VI
214 262
TABLE 5 -1
AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORIES
Category
Approach Speed (knots)
A
<91
B
91
121
C
121
141
D
141
166
E
166
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Once the critical aircraft has been determined, an Airport Reference Code (ARC) is established based on specific
characteristics of aircraft operating at the Airport. The two characteristics defining the ARC are critical aircraft's
wingspan and approach speed. Because some aircraft may have large wingspans and relatively slow approach
speeds, while others have high approach speeds and short wingspans, it is sometimes necessary to establish
critical aircraft for specific airport design parameters. Likewise, the aircraft defining the critical wingspan for
design purposes may not be the critical aircraft defining the runway pavement strength requirement.
The ARC is identified using an alphanumeric designation, a letter designation followed by a Roman numeral.
The letter designator is used to identify the Approach Category and the Roman numeral designates the Design
Group in terms of wingspan. Table 5 -1 and Table 5 -2 delineate the criteria used in defining Aircraft Approach
Categories and Aircraft Design Groups according to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300 -13 Change 6,
"Airport Design."
Source: FAA AC 150/5300 -13 Change 6.
Source: FAA AC 150/5300 -13 Change 6.
At Sebastian there are two active runways having similar physical dimensions. These two runway alignments
have historically been designed utilizing the same critical aircraft. The 1993 Airport Master Plan shows Runway
4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 as having both an existing and future ARC of B -II. This ARC was tied to the use of
these runways by an operator having a Beech King Air C -90 (the King Air F90 has an ARC of B -I). As reflected
in the aviation activity forecasts, the possibility of this aircraft and other larger aircraft still exists at Sebastian.
However, as reflected in the inventory, the crosswind runway at Sebastian Municipal is only required in order to
provide the appropriate wind coverage for the smaller and light aircraft (10.5 -knot coverage). This includes the
aircraft with an ARC of A -I and B -I.
Currently, the critical aircraft operating on these runways on a regular basis is a DHC -6 -300 Twin Otter with an
ARC of A -II. Discussions are ongoing and significant potential exists for the basing of similar aircraft in the
future. Based on visual observations it is known that the runways do experience operational activity by various
aircraft, some of which are outside of the A -II and B -II classification, but are allowed to operate on the runway at
the pilot's discretion. Given the physical characteristics of the runways and the preponderance of activity by the
5 -2
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Twin Otter, it is recommended that the current ARC be A -II. However, in the future, only Design Group II
standards are required for the primary runway. Thus, since aircraft with an ARC of B -II are projected later in the
planning period, the criteria associated with this ARC will be used for Runway 4 -22 design purposes. For
Runway 13 -31, the current ARC A -II standards can be maintained, but only the standards for A -I and B -I are
required.
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS
The demand capacity analysis in Chapter 4 indicates that Sebastian should not experience significant capacity
related problems associated with the existing airfield facilities during the planning period. However, the
demand/capacity assessment did note that enhancements to the airfield taxiway system should be given
consideration to address operational activity and enhance the safety of ground movements by aircraft operating to
and from the runways. These taxiway enhancements also act to enhance the capacity of the existing runway
system by allowing aircraft to move on and off of the active runway system in a more efficient and safer fashion.
The following sections discuss this airfield improvement as well as others at Sebastian that are deemed necessary
facility requirements to optimize the airfield configuration.
Runway Requirements
Runway 4 -22
Recently the center 75 feet of Runway 4 -22 was reconstructed while the remaining 37.5 feet on either side
(originally 150 feet wide) was rejuvenated and resealed. A more recent lighting project changed this
primary runway to 100 feet wide. Criteria contained in FAA AC 150/5300 -13, Change 6, "Airport
Design" states that for ARC B -II, a runway width of 75 feet is required. The width of Runway 4 -22
obviously complies with this requirement, but it can also accommodate aircraft with an ARC of B -III.
Although Runway 4 -22 will remain 100 feet wide, the Airport will remain a B -II designated facility.
However, this 100 -foot width allows the Airport to explore the future possibility of a precision approach
to this runway as well as enable it to accommodate aircraft in the Design Group III category.
As the primary airfield facility at any airport, a runway must have the proper width, length, and strength to safely
accommodate the critical aircraft expected to use the airfield. Runway width requirements for airport design are
delineated in FAA AC 150/5300 Change 6, "Airport Design." The design standards are based on the critical
aircraft's Approach Category, Design Group, and the airport's approach visibility minimums. FAA AC
150/5325 -4A, "Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design" and the FAA Airport Design software, Version
4.2D, provide guidelines to determine the ultimate runway length required at an airport facility. These guidelines
consider airfield conditions including airfield elevation, mean daily maximum temperature, and effective runway
gradient at the airport. Length determinations also consider critical aircraft data such as takeoff weight, length of
haul, payload, and aircraft landing weight.
Airport pavements are evaluated for several reasons. Evaluations are needed to establish load bearing capacity for
expected operations, to assess the ability of pavements to support significant changes from expected volumes or
types of traffic, and to determine the condition of existing pavements for use in the planning or design of
improvements. Projects to rehabilitate runway pavements are routinely conducted every 15 to 20 years after the
previous major rehabilitation, strengthening, or new construction. These projects, which repair damage to the
runway pavements resulting from normal wear, need to be conducted even at airports with regular pavement
maintenance programs.
5 -3
mr a
Si c
HOME Of euac N ISLAND
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
In addition to issues associated with the width of the runway are other design related criteria tied to the
requirement for a Runway Safety Area (RSA) and a Runway Object Free Area (ROFA). Both of these
are defined surfaces that run laterally along the runway edge and off each runway end. These two
surfaces are defined by the FAA as:
Runway Safety Area A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for
reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershot, overshoot, or excursion
from the runway. The RSA needs to be: (1) cleared and graded with no potentially hazardous
ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations; (2) drained by grading or storm sewers to
prevent water accumulation; and (3) capable, under dry conditions of supporting snow removal
equipment, aircraft rescue and fire fighting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft
without causing structural damage to the aircraft. Finally, the RSA must be free of objects,
except for those that need to be located in the safety area because of their function.
Runway Object Free Area The ROFA is centered on the runway centerline. Standards for the
ROFA require clearing the area of all ground objects protruding above the RSA edge elevation.
Except where precluded by other clearing standards, it is acceptable to place objects that need to
be located in the ROFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes and to taxi
and hold aircraft in the ROFA. Objects non essential for air navigation or aircraft ground
maneuvering purposes are not to be placed in the ROFA. This includes parked airplanes and
agricultural operations.
The size of the RSA and ROFA are a function of the Approach Category and Design Group as well as the
minimums associated with the most critical approach to the runway. Both ARC A -II and B -II require a
150 foot wide RSA (75 feet either side of the runway centerline) that extends 300 feet beyond each
runway end, when the approach minimums are visual or not less than 3 /4 mile visibility. The ROFA for
Runway 4 -22 is 500 feet wide (250 feet either side of the runway centerline) and also extends 300 feet
beyond the runway end. Runway 4 -22 meets the FAA width and length requirements for both the RSA
and ROFA criteria.
Using FAA AC 150/5325 -4A, "Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design" and the FAA's Airport
Design software, runway length requirements were initially calculated for the critical class of aircraft
using Runway 4 -22. The runway length analysis was conducted utilizing the following Airport and
runway data:
Airport Elevation: 23 feet
Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of the Hottest Month: 91°F
Maximum Difference in Runway Centerline Elevation: 1 feet
Average Length of Haul 500 miles
Runway Conditions Wet and Slippery
The results of the FAA software program are presented in Table 5 -3.
5 -4
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source: Chapter 2 of AC 150/5325 -4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design.
sEBanAN
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
D
TABLE 5 -3
FAA RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots
Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots
Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats
75 percent of these small airplanes
95 percent of these small airplanes
100 percent of these small airplanes
Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats
Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less
75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load
75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load
100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load
100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load
300 feet
800 feet
2,510 feet
3,080 feet
3,640 feet
4,260 feet
5,350 feet
7,000 feet
5,500 feet
8,320 feet
Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds Approximately 5,020 feet
The current length of Runway 4 -22 (4,024 feet) satisfies the recommended runway lengths for all small
airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats. Runway 4 -22 is just 236 feet short of the recommended 4,260
feet for small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats. However, as was previously mentioned,
although some of the larger business aircraft utilize this runway, it is only on an occasional basis. Due to
the pavement strength of the runway, currently rated at 22,000 pounds for single wheel type landing gear,
the larger heavy aircraft would conduct no operations on this runway. Calculations for the larger aircraft
were included solely for comparison purposes. The runway length analysis was conducted under a worse
case scenario assuming wet conditions during a hot summer day. Therefore, the current length of
Runway 4 -22 is considered adequate for the traffic expected to utilize the runway during the planning
period.
In addition to the runway length calculations, the chief pilot of the Twin Otter provided runway lengths
and takeoff weights for this critical aircraft. Based on the information provided, the Twin Otter only
requires 2,000 feet of runway with a takeoff weight of 11,595 pounds. The maximum allowable takeoff
weight for this aircraft is 12,500 pounds. Because the Twin Otter is a Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL)
aircraft, it is very suitable for sky diving operations at airfields with short runway lengths. Based on this
information, the current length of Runway 4 -22 is able to accommodate all takeoff configurations of the
Twin Otter critical aircraft.
Perhaps the most limiting feature of Runway 4 -22 is the pavement strength. Based on data in the current
Southeast U.S. Airport Facility Directory, Runway 4 -22 is published as having a maximum strength of
22,000 pounds for single wheel aircraft. However, the runway can accommodate the largest ARC B -II
aircraft analyzed with an average weight restriction of approximately 20 percent of the maximum
allowable takeoff weight. However, for commercial charter and jet operations, the strength of Runway 4-
22 is not sufficient even at reduced operating weights.
Due to the recent reconstruction of this runway, the pavement is rated in excellent condition. Therefore,
no improvements are required for the Runway 4 -22 pavement surface during the short or intermediate
5 -5
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
planning periods, although this does not preclude the need to undertake routine maintenance on a
continuing basis. Pavement rehabilitation is anticipated to be necessary towards the end of the long -term
planning period (15 to 20 years) to address normal wear.
Runway 13 -31
su
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Currently Runway 13 -31 has the standards required for the same class of aircraft (ARC A -II and B -II)
that operate on Runway 4 -22. As such, Runway 13 -31 currently meets the width and length requirements
for both the RSA and ROFA. Because the runway is only required to accommodate the crosswind
requirements for smaller aircraft, these standards could be reduced those required for ARC B -I, if the City
of Sebastian desired. Design Group I requires the RSA to have a width of 120 feet, a ROFA with a width
of 400 feet, and for both the RSA and ROFA to extend 240 feet beyond the runway ends. As long as the
airport can maintain the higher standards, it should do so.
The criteria in FAA AC 150/5300 -13, Change 6, "Airport Design" requires that runways serving aircraft
of Design Group I or II have a width of 75 feet. The current 150 -foot width of Runway 13 -31 meets this
criteria; however, during the next pavement project, it is recommended that this runway be reduced to a
width of 75 feet.
The same runway length analysis was conducted for Runway 13 -31 as that conducted for Runway 4 -22.
Because both runways have a length just over of 4,000 feet, the outcome of this analysis was the same.
Therefore, the current length of Runway 13 -31 is adequate for the planning period.
As with the length of the pavement, the strength is the same as that for Runway 4 -22 (22,000 pounds
single wheel configuration). However, Runway 13 -31 has not been recently reconstructed. Cracks
observed along Runway 13 -31 allow for easy infiltration of water into the pavement structure. Extensive
protrusion of grass through these cracks provides a visual depiction of the deteriorating condition of the
pavement. Many of these cracks are as much as '/2 inch in width in addition to multiple low spots where
water accumulates causing hazardous conditions for aircraft. Therefore, while the existing weight bearing
capacity for Runway 13 -31 is sufficient for the critical aircraft, it still requires either a major
rehabilitation or reconstruction of the pavement during the short-term planning period.
Taxiway System Requirements
A good taxiway system is designed to provide freedom of movement to and from the runways and between
aviation facilities at an airport. This taxiway system includes entrance and exit taxiways, taxiway run -up areas,
apron taxiways, and taxi lanes. Some of the basic design principles for a taxiway system as delineated in FAA
guidance include the following:
Provide each active runway with a full parallel taxiway.
Construct as many by -pass, multiple access, or connector taxiways as possible to each runway
and runway end.
Provide taxiway run -up areas for each runway end.
Build all taxiway routes as direct as possible.
Provide adequate curve and fillet radii.
Avoid developing areas, which might create ground traffic congestion.
5 -6
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
North -South Taxiway
East -West Taxiway
Partial Parallel to Runway 4 -22
5 -7
COY Q
sEB CO
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Currently the taxiways at Sebastian have no formal identification; therefore, it is recommended that such a formal
designation of existing taxiways be accomplished as part of this study. Recommendations for these designations
are included in the alternatives chapter.
Because Runway 13 -31 and Runway 4 -22 have the same ARC, the width of taxiways serving the two runways
will be the same. As such, the current and future ARC requires all taxiways to have a 35 -foot wide pavement.
Each taxiway is also required to have a Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) and Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA). For
aircraft in Design Group II the TSA, which is centered on the taxiway centerline, is required to be 79 feet in width
while the TOFA has a width of 131 feet. These dimensional requirements need to be kept in mind when
reviewing the existing and proposed taxiway system that is delineated in the following sections.
As with runway pavements, the rehabilitation of taxiway pavements is anticipated to be necessary over the course
of the planning period. Given the fact that all of the taxiways at Sebastian are original and have never been
rehabilitated, it is anticipated that most will require such rehabilitation during the short-term planning period.
Routine maintenance will continue to be necessary on an annual basis to ensure the protection of the pavement
and to enhance the life expectancy of the taxiways. The configuration of the existing airfield, including the
location of the existing taxiways, was delineated in Exhibit 2 -3.
The north -south taxiway at Sebastian is located between Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 serving the
departure ends of Runway 4 and Runway 13. As a result of the airfield's original military configuration,
the current north -south taxiway is aligned along a 150 -foot wide pavement. This pavement used to be one
of four 4,000 -feet runways on the airfield. What was then Runway 18 -36 is now utilized as an assortment
of various functions to include apron parking, taxiway, and airport access. Even though the taxiway has a
visible taxiway centerline stripe with hold short lines located at the required locations, there are no
distinguished markings designating the taxiway portion from the other functions. The alternatives chapter
of this study will identify alignments of a 35 -foot taxiway along this 150 -foot pavement. In addition,
designated apron and tiedown locations will be addressed. Due to the increasing age of this taxiway, the
reconstruction/rehabilitation of this pavement in the near future will be required, along with the
appropriate taxiway and apron markings.
Similar to that of the north -south taxiway, pavement from the former Runway 9 -27 is also being used as a
taxiway. As such, this taxiway is 150 feet wide. Located between both active runways, the taxiway
provides east -west airfield access through the intersection of Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31. Due to
the deterioration of the existing pavement, rehabilitation will be required in the near future. Markings
along the east -west taxiway also need to be maintained on a regular basis.
Before rehabilitation begins, there are various development issues that may limit or reconfigure this
taxiway in the future. Likewise, the proposed full length parallel taxiways to Runway 4 -22 and Runway
13 -31 (described in a later section) will affect the configuration of this taxiway. Therefore, the status of
this taxiway in relation to a new taxiway system will be addressed in the alternatives chapter.
The third taxiway is a partial parallel taxiway to Runway 4 -22, located on the northwest side of the
runway. This taxiway connects Runway 22 with Runway 13 -31. The taxiway is 50 feet wide and
2002
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
si zaTI AN
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
assumed to be original airfield pavement, as the condition of this pavement is consistent with thatalready
mentioned. Taxiway centerline stripes, with hold short lines located at all of the required locations, are
visible; however, no side striping is depicted.
Typically, airports with the level and type of operations similar to those at Sebastian are sufficiently
served by one parallel taxiway for each active runway. Currently, neither of the runways have a full
length parallel taxiway. Development of a parallel taxiway system for these runways would increase the
level of safety related to aircraft operations at an uncontrolled facility and provide the airfield access
necessary for future development. Due to the vicinity of the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course, a taxiway
for Runway 4 -22 would need to be constructed on the northwest side of the runway.
Currently the runway centerline to taxiway centerline spacing is 400 feet. According to FAA AC
150/5300 -13, Change 6, "Airport Design," the separation standard for Design Group II aircraft on a
runway with approach visibility minimums not less than 3 /4 of a statute mile require 240 feet of separation.
Therefore, 240 feet should be the minimum separation; however, because this runway is 100 feet wide, a
300 -foot separation may be desired. At 300 feet, Runway 4 -22 would have the ability to serve ARC B -II
aircraft with approach visibility minimums lower than 3 /4 of a mile. This may benefit the airfield beyond
the planning period of this study if it is felt that a precision approach will eventually be established.
Partial Parallel to Runway 13 -31
The fourth taxiway is also constructed to a width of 50 feet and provides partial parallel access between
Runway 4 -22 and Runway 31 on the south side of Runway 13 -31. The condition of this pavement is
consistent with that mentioned above and there are visible centerline stripes with hold short lines, but no
side striping.
A full length parallel taxiway will also be required for Runway 13 -31 for the same reasons as for Runway
4 -22, but this taxiway will not be immediately required. In addition to replacing the existing partial
parallel to the south, the future demand for a parallel taxiway on the north side of Runway 13 -31 will be
necessary. This taxiway will be required to provide access to future airside parcels located north of the
runway. Both parallel taxiways to Runway 13 -31 need to have a runway centerline to taxiway centerline
spacing of 240 feet.
Connector Taxiway
The fifth taxiway at Sebastian is a connector taxiway and is located in the easternmost portion of the
airfield. This taxiway provides access between the primary east -west taxiway and the departure end of
Runway 31. This originally paved, 50 -foot wide taxiway is consistent with regard to condition and
markings of those already mentioned. Therefore a reconstruction/rehabilitation should occur as soon as
possible for this pavement. When the reconstruction or rehabilitation occurs, it should be to a width of 35
feet.
New Taxiways and Taxilanes
Additional taxiways and taxilanes will be required to access future airfield facilities as they are
developed. This will include apron taxilanes to provide access to areas of the airfield developed during
the planning period. The primary location for these will be in the West Quadrant, North Quadrant, North
Infield Area, and South Infield Area. The final configuration will be dependent upon the ultimate hangar
and ramp development in these areas. While the taxiways are required to be 35 feet wide, all future
5 -8
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
arta
5LBTi
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
taxilanes should be constructed to a width of 25 feet. The layouts of these additional taxiways and
taxilanes are depicted in the alternatives chapter of this study.
Run -Up Areas
Although limited, both runways at Sebastian have areas available for aircraft run -up operations.
Nonetheless, designated run -up areas will be required once full length parallel taxiways are constructed
and the north -south taxiway is reconfigured. All future run -up areas will need to be constructed to a size
capable of accommodating Aircraft Design Group II aircraft.
Pavement Markings
Airport pavements are marked with painted lines and numbers in order to aid in the identification of the runways
from the air and to provide information to the pilot during the approach to a runway phase of flight. There are
three standard sets of markings used depending on the type of runway:
1. Basic -For runways with only visual or circle to land procedures. These markings consist of runway
designation markers and a centerline stripe.
2. Non precision For runways to which a straight -in, non precision instrument approach has been
approved. These markings consist of runway designation markers, a centerline stripe, threshold bars,
threshold markings, and aiming point markers.
3. Precision For runways with a precision instrument approach. These markings consist of the non
precision markings plus touchdown zone stripes and side stripes indicating the extent of the full strength
pavement.
Runway pavement and displaced threshold markings are painted white, while taxiway pavement markings are
painted yellow. Taxiways generally have a centerline and pavement edge stripes, plus holding line markings at
the entrance to a runway. FAA AC 150/5340 -1G, "Standards for Airport Markings," contains the precise details
of these markings. All runway and taxiway markings periodically need to be remarked so that they remain visible
to the users of the airport.
Runway 4 is currently marked with designation and centerline markings. Although not required for visual
approach runways, the runway does have a threshold bar. The only limiting factor for Runway 4 is the lack of
runway side stripe markings. Runway side stripe markings provide a visual contrast between the runway and the
surrounding terrain and delineate the width of paved area intended for use. Threshold bars are not required on
visual runways or on runways where there is no pavement before the useable runway surface. The opposite end,
Runway 22, is marked the same as Runway 4 with the exception that there is no threshold bar. It is anticipated
that through the use of Global Positioning Satellites, Runway 4 -22 will have at least one non precision instrument
approach, as well as the potential for a precision instrument approach. Therefore, consideration should be made
to upgrade the pavement markings, to that required for non precision instrument runways. The FAA allows
runways to be marked one level higher than the existing approach for that runway; therefore, the Airport can
upgrade Runway 4 -22 to non precision instrument markings at any time.
Both ends of Runway 13 -31 are marked as a visual runway. Depending upon the final runway configuration after
Runway 13 -31 has been reconstructed/rehabilitated, the addition of threshold bars would assist pilots in
delineating the useable runway surface. Otherwise, Runway 13 -31 will only require the addition of side striping
and the periodic remarking for visibility.
5 9
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 5/Da TIAN
Master Plan Update
Pavement Lighting
Airfield Signage
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
Only Runway 4 -22 has a pavement lighting system installed that consists of Medium Intensity Runway Lights
(MIRL). These lights are operated through the use of a pilot controlled system. According to FAA AC 150/5340-
24, "Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting Systems," Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL) should be
installed on all parallel taxiways that serve runways having High or Medium Intensity Runway Lights. Therefore,
it will be necessary to install MITLs on the proposed full length parallel taxiway for Runway 4 -22.
It is recommended that later in the planning period, MIRLs be installed on Runway 13 -31. This improvement
will enhance the safety of operations at the Airport by providing pilots with the option to land on either runway at
night and during times of lowered visibility. Once MIRLs are installed on Runway 13 -31, MITLs will also need
to be installed as the proposed parallel taxiways are constructed. In the long -term, all of the remaining taxiways
serving the airfield should be lighted. The addition of lights should be considered during the time that these
taxiway pavements are being reconstructed, rehabilitated, or realigned.
Currently there is no airfield signage at Sebastian Municipal. As additional facilities are constructed or relocated
on the Airport, airfield signage will be imperative to ensure the efficient and safe movement of aircraft to and
from the runway environment. The signage will also be required as the overall level of operations increase. An
increase in operations at the Airport will include an increase in itinerant traffic, which in turn indicates that the
number of pilots not familiar with Sebastian will also increase. Airfield signage should be added with each
runway and taxiway lighting project and at a minimum, should reflect the formal designations assigned to each
runway, taxiway, and hold short location.
Precision and Non Precision Instrument Approaches
The ability of the Airport to accommodate aircraft traffic, especially corporate and business aircraft, would be
greatly enhanced if the airfield had one or more instrument approaches. Currently there are only visual
approaches to all four runway ends at Sebastian. Instrument approaches can be either precision or non precision.
There are two types of precision instrument approach systems that are viable for installation at airports: an
Instrument Landing System (ILS), which is the conventional system used at airports around the world today, and
the operational capabilities that can be achieved through the use of the Global Positioning Satellites (GPS). The
installation of a precision approach helps alleviate delays experienced at an airport during instrument
meteorological conditions, thus increasing the airfield's overall annual service volume or throughput capacity. In
addition, many aircraft operators prefer a precision approach when operating into and out of an airport facility.
Current FAA standards require a 50:1 approach slope surface to any runway that has a precision instrument
approach. Although it is not required, a precision instrument approach to Runway 4 -22 would greatly enhance the
ability of the airfield to accommodate operations during poor weather conditions. The addition of a precision
instrument approach is not required due to the level of operations conducted at Sebastian. In order to obtain the
proper clearance and safety criteria associated with such an approach, the Airport will have to incur significant
costs. These costs could include an Environmental Assessment, land acquisition, and obstruction clearing, to
name a few.
Additionally, due to space constraints, the Airport will never be able to accommodate the equipment required for
a conventional ILS installation. However, the newer GPS technologies might make it possible for a precision
approach to be established into Runway 4 -22. GPS is a satellite based navigation system that consists of a
5 -10
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SIBA
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
network of satellites known as a constellation. This constellation provides a celestial reference for deteiinining
the position of any point on or above the Earth's surface. By analyzing the time delays of signals received from
some of these satellites, a ground or air based receiver is able to determine latitude, longitude, and altitude.
The basic GPS service provides users with 100 -meter accuracy 95 percent of the time. This level of service is
appropriate for en route navigation and non precision instrument approaches. However, in order to meet
international standards with regard to such factors as accuracy, availability, and integrity of the GPS signals,
augmentations to the basic GPS service are necessary. Two augmentations have been defined: wide area
augmentation system (WAAS) and local area augmentation system (LAAS).
WAAS provides the required accuracy, availability, and integrity to support GPS use as a primary means of
navigation during all phases of flight through Category I precision approaches. Minimums for Category I
approaches enable the properly equipped aircraft and trained pilots with the ability to descend as low as 200 feet
before having the runway environment in sight. The WAAS will improve the basic GPS service to approximately
seven meters vertically and horizontally. On- airport systems are not required to achieve a WAAS supported
Category I precision approach. LAAS is intended to support approaches to Category I minimums in those
instances where WAAS cannot provide the necessary satellite coverage to achieve Category II and Category III
precision capabilities. LAAS accomplishes this by using ground stations at the airport to transmit corrected
signals to the aircraft in less time. LAAS is expected to have aircraft positioning capability to within one meter or
less.
Full operational capability of WAAS is expected by 2003. LAAS capability will follow; however, the FAA in
concert with two selected contractors is testing LAAS standards. Certain airports in the U.S. have or are in the
process of establishing Special Category I (SCAT -I) approaches based on the LAAS architecture. These are
private use approaches designed for a specific runway end, aircraft type, and crew and are established without
Federal funding assistance. The results of these SCAT -I procedures will serve as input to the final determination
of the LAAS standards.
In addition to the precision approach capabilities of the GPS system, non precision instrument approaches are also
possible. The implementation of at least one non precision approach is recommended for Sebastian. An
approach slope surface of 34:1 is required for all non precision approaches. While it is possible to establish such
an approach to each runway end, a detailed analysis should be made to determine which runway end would
provide the most advantageous approach minimums as well as which would be the most feasible with respect to
implementation costs, frequency of use, and its compatibility to surrounding land uses.
Development of a non precision instrument approach procedure will require the close coordination between the
City of Sebastian and the personnel of the regional FAA Flight Procedures Office, in this case Atlanta (ATL
FPO). The process to apply for such an approach requires that the Airport Sponsor establish its eligibility, request
the approval for a new approach, and then actually formulate the instrument approach procedure. A questionnaire
identifying the specific facilities and services available at the Airport will also need to be completed. Data
requested in the questionnaire is based on the requirements of FAR Part 77, FAR Part 157 "Notice of
Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports," and FAA AC 150/5300 -13, Change 6,
"Airport Design." It is recommended that the City of Sebastian begin the application process for such a non
precision approach to Runway 4 -22 as soon as possible.
Visual Landing Aids
There are very few visual landing aids available to the pilots that operate aircraft into and out of the Sebastian
Municipal Airport. As part of the runway lighting system, the identification of the runway end, or threshold, is of
5 -11
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
I'!Q
5 O
B 'ST
NOME Of P[IMAN ISLAND
major importance to a pilot during landing and takeoff. Therefore, runway ends and thresholds are equipped with
special lighting. The identifying lights make use of two -color (red/green) lens, located at the runway end. When
landing, the green half of the lens faces the approaching aircraft, indicating the beginning of the useable runway.
The red half of the lens faces the aircraft on takeoff, indicating the end of the useable runway. Only the ends of
Runway 4 -22 have runway end /threshold lights as part of the current lighting system. Runway end/threshold
lights should be included as part of the lighting system recommended for Runway 13 -31.
Runway End Identification Lights (REIL) provide pilots with a rapid and positive visual identification of the
approach end of the runway during night, instrument, and marginal weather conditions. REILs also aid in
identification of the runway end in areas having featureless terrain. The systems consist of a pair of synchronized
white flashing lights facing the approaching aircraft, which are situated on each side, and a beam of the runway
landing threshold. The beam axis is orientated 15 degrees outward from the line parallel to the runway edge and
inclined at an angle of 10 degrees upward. The REILs emit a white strobe light simultaneously at a rate of one
per second. A REIL system should be installed at both ends of Runway 4 -22 during the short-term planning
period, while REILs for Runway 13 -31 can wait until much later in the planning period. The systems for Runway
4 -22 should be installed before a non precision instrument approach is established for this runway.
Visual glide slope indicators provide the pilot of an aircraft with visual descent guidance information during the
approach to a runway. These lights are typically visible from three to five miles during the day and up to 20 miles
or more during the night. A Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) system consists of two or four identical
light units which project beams of red and white light. Depending on the aircraft's angle in relation to these
lights, the pilot will receive a combination that indicates his position relative to the desired glide slope. The row
of lights units is normally installed on the left side of the runway. As with the REIL systems, it is recommended
that Runway 4 -22 have a PAPI system installed on each runway end intended to receive a non precision
instrument approach. Runway 13 -31 should also have a PAPI system for each end; however, these units are not
needed until later in the planning period.
There is only one lighted windsock at Sebastian located to the southwest of the runway intersection,
approximately midway down the length of Runway 4 -22. Lighted windsocks at each runway end would provide
aircraft taking off or landing with visual wind information and should be programmed during the intermediate
term of the planning period.
If a precision approach becomes available at Sebastian, the need for an approach lighting system may exist. A
Medium intensity Approach Lighting System (MALS) is recommended for Category I precision approaches when
there are at least 300 actual instrument approaches made to the runway. It is assumed that if a precision approach
existed at Sebastian, not enough approaches under actual instrument meteorological conditions would be made to
justify an approach lighting system during the planning period.
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) services are dictated by the type and level of operations conducted. An
index is based on the longest commercial service aircraft conducting five or more daily departures. Because
Sebastian has no airline, regional /commuter, or charter aircraft that conduct five or more daily departures, the
Airport is not required to have on -site ARFF facilities. Currently all Airport fire and rescue services fall under the
Indian River County Emergency Service Special District as described in the inventory.
5 -12
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Electrical Vault
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES
Apron Area
Hangars
5 13
SIBX.S
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
There is a need for the Airport to construct a facility dedicated to housing the airfield electrical equipment.
Currently, the single voltage regulator for the Runway 4 -22 lighting system is located on the east side of the
Airport in the JS Aviation hangar. An electrical vault constructed and owned by the Airport is needed during the
short-term planning period. The following chapter will identify potential locations for this facility.
General aviation facilities addresses the aircraft parking and storage requirements for the Airport as well as the
pilot /passenger space required. For planning purposes, based and itinerant aircraft requirements are usually
considered separately since they serve different functions. At Sebastian, some aircraft parking areas
accommodate both itinerant and based aircraft. However, for this study, the two will be analyzed separately, and
then the total requirements of each will be combined together as a summary of the total aircraft apron required.
In general, the aircraft parking and storage requirements at an airport are typically provided through the
combination of some or all of the following facilities:
Small aircraft an outdoor parking space with tie -down capability, sized to accommodate single engine
and light multi- engine aircraft.
Large aircraft spaces on a paved apron suitable for parking the larger business type aircraft, such as the
Gulfstream, Learjet, and Falcon aircraft fleets.
T- hangars a fully enclosed building housing individual stalls, each capable of storing one aircraft,
typically a single- engine or a light multi- engine aircraft.
Clearspan hangars a fully enclosed building typically capable of holding multiple aircraft each; these are
often referred to as storage hangars.
Corporate hangars similar to clearspan hangars, but typically have an attached office. These hangars are
assumed to hold one large jet or turboprop aircraft each.
Shade hangars a structure with a protective roof but no walls, typically capable of holding numerous
aircraft each; these are often referred to as aircraft shelters or shade ports.
With the exception of T- hangars, the Sebastian Municipal Airport currently utilizes all of the types of facilities
described above to accommodate aircraft parking and storage.
2002
TABLE 5 -4
ITINERANT AIRCRAFT PARKING SPACE DEMAND
Year
Single
Engine
Multi
Engine
Jet
Rotor
Total Itinerant
Parking Spaces
Base Year
2000
4
3
0
0
7
Forecast
2007
5
4
0
0
9
2012
6
5
0
0
11
2022
7
6
1
0
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Itinerant Aircraft Parking Apron Area Requirements
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
5 -14
DIY CE IAN
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The requirement for itinerant aircraft parking can be derived by using the guidelines provided in FAA AC
150/5300 -13 Change 6, "Airport Design." Based on these FAA guidelines, the itinerant parking demands for
Sebastian were computed using the following steps:
1. Find the peak month average day itinerant operations. This figure is obtained by multiplying the figures
in Table 3 -7 with the corresponding local /itinerant split.
2. Add 10 percent to the above value to find peak day itinerant operations.
3. Find the total number of peak day itinerant aircraft. This is half of the peak day itinerant operations since
it is assumed that each aircraft will make two operations.
4. Assume that 50 percent of the total number of peak day itinerant aircraft will need to be accommodated at
one time.
5. Increase the final calculated amount by 10 percent. The FAA suggests that the value should be increased
by 10 percent to accommodate expansion for at least the next two -year period.
The final value is the total calculated demand for itinerant aircraft parking spaces. In order to determine the
requirement for large aircraft parking (business jets) as opposed to small aircraft parking (single- engine, multi
engine, and rotor), the national growth rates for aircraft mix from Chapter 3 (Table 3 -6) were applied. Table 5 -4
reflects the results of these calculations.
Itinerant aprons are intended for relatively short-term parking periods, usually less than 24 hours (could be
overnight), and are primarily for transient aircraft. Such aprons should be located as to provide easy access to the
terminal, fueling, and ground transportation facilities. AC 150/5300 -13 Change 6, "Airport Design" suggests that
for planning purposes, the size of an itinerant apron should be based upon a minimum area of 360 square yards
(SY) per itinerant aircraft. This includes a reasonable amount of room for the maneuvering and taxiing of aircraft.
This area is appropriate for the type of general aviation aircraft that utilize Sebastian Municipal.
Using the required number of itinerant aircraft parking spaces, the value of 360 square yards was applied for each
single- engine aircraft, multi engine aircraft, and rotor aircraft, while 1,000 square yards was applied per each
itinerant jet expected. Table 5 -5 reflects the itinerant aircraft apron area demand expected at Sebastian.
2002
TABLE 5 -5
ITINERANT AIRCRAFT APRON AREA REQUIREMENTS
Year
Single Multi Rotor
(SY)
Jet
(SY)
Total Itinerant Aircraft
Apron Area (SY)
Base Year
2000
2,520
0
2,520
Forecast
2007
3,240
0
3,240
2012
3,960
0
3,960
2022
4,680
1,000
5,680
TABLE 5 -6
BASED AIRCRAFT PARKING DEMAND
Year
Single
Engine
Multi
Engine
Jet
Rotor
Total
Parking Demand
Base Year
2000
32
10
0
0
42
Forecast
2007
39
12
0
0
51
2012
45
14
0
0
59
2022
57
17
2
3
79
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
Based Aircraft Parking Apron Area Requirements
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
5 -15
sE BanA N
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
For based aircraft, AC 150/5300 -13 Change 6, "Airport Design" suggests that a minimum area of 300 square
yards be used for planning purposes. This figure is lower than that used for the itinerant aircraft because it is
assumed that a tighter spacing between based aircraft can be achieved. The actual area per aircraft on the apron
will most likely vary, depending on the configuration and layout of the parking positions. It is also assumed that
all of the existing and future based business jet aircraft will be stored in the hangar facilities. As with the itinerant
aircraft calculations, the 300 square yards per based aircraft allows for sufficient clearance of wing tips and
maneuvering. Table 5 -6 provides the forecasted based aircraft parking demands and their related mix.
To determine the amount of apron area required for based aircraft parking, a few considerations must be made.
First, it has been estimated that clearspan hangar facilities at Sebastian accommodate approximately 38 percent of
the current based aircraft. Of the 42 based aircraft counted at Sebastian, 26 (62 percent) were observed to be
stored outside. Discussions with the City and Airport Management indicated that new tenants will arrive and that
plans for hangar facilities were included as part of the lease negotiations. These plans, along with the discussion
about constructing T- hangars in the near future, indicated that the Airport would experience a shift towards more
aircraft stored in hangar facilities than stored outside. Second, the weather in Florida is hot and wet year round.
These facts, when taken into consideration with the cost to own and operate private aircraft, supports Florida's
trend of a high demand for private aircraft hangars. In the past ten years, the demand for hangars has increased
dramatically in Florida. Aircraft owners prefer facilities such as T- hangars if they are provided at a reasonable
rate. In fact, there are airports in Florida that have 90 percent of the based aircraft stored in hangars. Therefore,
approximately 60 percent of the based aircraft parking demand will be met through the use of hangar facilities by
2002
TABLE 5 -7
BASED AIRCRAFT APRON AREA REQUIREMENTS
Year
Percent of Based Aircraft
Stored Outdoors
Total Based Aircraft Apron
Parking Spaces
Total Based Aircraft
Apron Area (SY)
Base Year
2000
62%
26
7,800
Forecast
2007
55%
28
8,400
2012
50%
30
9,000
2022
40%
32
9,600
TABLE 5 -8
TOTAL APRON AREA REQUIREMENTS
Year
Total Itinerant Aircraft
Apron Area (SY)
Total Based Aircraft Apron
Area (SY)
Total Aircraft Apron
Area Required (SY)
Base Year
2000
2,520
7,800
10,320
Forecast
2007
3,240
8,400
11,640
2012
3,960
9,000
12,960
2022
5,680
9,600
15,280
TABLE 5 -9
TOTAL EXISTING APRON SPACE
Airport Area
Apron Area (SY)
West Quadrant
1,200
East Quadrant
600
Total
1,800
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SiBA
HOME Of PELICAN 61AND
the end of the planning period. Table 5 -7 shows the amount of apron area that will be needed to accommodate
the remaining based aircraft.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
Summary of Itinerant and Based Aircraft Apron Area Requirements
Table 5 -8 provides a summary of the total apron area requirements for itinerant and based aircraft at Sebastian.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
An estimate of the total amount of existing apron space at Sebastian is reflected inTable 5 -9. These areas do not
include the individual aprons located in front of private hangars.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
The sum of the existing apron areas is 13,480 square yards less than what has been calculated to be required by
the end of the planning period. While at the Airport it appears that the current demand for apron space is being
met, the existing configuration does not allow for the proper FAA taxiway and taxilane object free areas.
Therefore, additional apron space for the parking of aircraft will be required in the short-term and throughout the
planning period. It should be noted however, that even more apron area may be required as new tenants begin
5 -16
2002
TABLE 5 -11
REQUIREMENT FOR HANGAR SPACE BY TYPE
Year
T- Hangars
Corporate /Private Clearspan
Hangars
FBO/Large Clearspan
Hangars (5 aircraft per)
Based Aircraft
to Use (40
Units
Required*
Based Aircraft
To Use (30
Number
Required*
Based Aircraft
to Use (30
Number
Required*
Forecast
2007
9
9
7
1
7
1
2012
11
2
9
2
9
0
2022
19
8
14
5
14
1
TABLE 5 -10
TOTAL HANGAR REQUIREMENTS
Year
Percent of Based Aircraft
Stored in Hangars
Total Number of
Based Aircraft
Total Number of
Hangar Spaces
Base Year
2000
38%
42
16
Forecast
2007
45%
51
23
2012
50%
59
29
2022
60%
79
47
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Hangar Demand
SEBICiTIAN
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
operating at the airfield in different locations than those possessing the available aprons. Floodlighting is
recommended for any future aprons. The strategic location of apron area floodlighting will add safety and
security to night operations and overnight parking conditions. The following chapter, which deals with
alternatives for the development of the airport, will provide additional detail regarding the location of additional
aircraft parking facilities.
As previously mentioned, the demand for based aircraft hangar space at Sebastian is expected to increase from the
current level of 38 percent to 60 percent by the end of the planning period. Since only a very small percentage of
itinerant traffic (maintenance and occasional overnights) utilizes an airport's hangar facilities, only based aircraft
demand has been used to plan hangar space requirements. Table 5 -10 reflects the number of based aircraft that
will require hangar space in the future.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
During a field visit to the airport, there were 16 of the 42 based aircraft stored in hangars. Of these 16 aircraft,
none were stored in T- hangars, six in private clearspan hangars, and the remaining ten aircraft were distributed
among the three larger clearspan hangars.
This distribution of hangared aircraft has been applied to represent what the future breakdown of hangar type will
be. The resulting figures include the assumption that 40 percent will be stored in T- hangars (beginning in 2007),
30 percent in corporate /private clearspan hangars, and 30 percent in FBO /large clearspan hangars. Table 5 -11
reflects the number of hangars required during the planning period in addition to the existing hangars.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
*Note: Column represents the total number of additional facilities required during that planning period.
5 -17
2002
TABLE 5 -12
GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL SPACE
Year
Peak Hour
(ADPM)
Peak Hour
Itinerant Ops
Number of
Pilots/Pax
Total Terminal
Space (SF)
Base Year
2000
13
4
8 I 1,600
Forecast
2007
16
5
10
2,000
2012
18
5
10
2,000
2022
24
7
14
2,800
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Demand for General Aviation Pilot and Passenger Terminal Space
Only itinerant operations would require terminal space at the Airport.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
AIRPORT ACCESS, UTILITIES, AND AUTOMOBILE PARKING
5 18
CM
SL T
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Currently there are two FBOs on the airfield that provide an undetermined amount of pilot and passenger space.
However, eventually the Airport will need a terminal building that can become the primary focal point for the
itinerant traffic coming into Sebastian. Whether such a new terminal facility is operated by one of the existing
FBO tenants is not a topic for discussion in this study. Instead, this study addresses the size and location for such
a building. The following analysis was conducted to estimate what size of a terminal facility would be required to
accommodate the pilots /passengers expected during the planning period. The actual location of such a facility
will be addressed in the alternatives chapter.
Peak hour pilots /passengers for general aviation operations project the highest average number of pilots and
passengers that use an airport during a one -hour period. To estimate the peak hour pilots /passengers for the
Airport, the following assumptions were made:
Since arriving and departing general aviation pilots /passengers could use the terminal at the same time,
the number of peak hour itinerant operations was not adjusted (i.e. was not split in half).
Each general aviation operation (arriving or departing) was estimated to have an average of two people on
board (passengers and pilots).
An area of 200 SF was used for each pilot/passenger to determine the terminal space requirements. This
value per pilot/passenger incorporates all functions of a full service general aviation terminal building
such as FBO counter, waiting area, snack room, pilot's lounge, restrooms, etc.
The results in Table 5 -12 show that 2,800 square feet (SF) of terminal space will be required by the end of the
planning period. These estimations are based on the projections of the forecast chapter.
An integral yet often overlooked aspect of an airport's operation is that which is not related to aircraft or air
travel. The landside facilities such as local street access, automobile parking, airport circulation roads, etc., are of
major importance to the airport user. Since the landside components are the first and last impressions a user of
the airfield receives, they are important to the overall perception of the airport facility.
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Airport Access
The City of Sebastian should continue to maintain the existing access roads to accommodate the activity
anticipated during the planning period. In addition, future access improvements will be required in the following
areas:
North Quadrant
With the exception of a significantly small portion of the golf course, there is currently no development
on the north side of the airport. Any facilities that may be located within the north area will require
access that either stems off of Airport Drive West or directly off Roseland Road. Currently the northern
half of Airport Drive West is paved, but any significant development in the North Quadrant will require
an extension to this road. The other option is to run the new access straight out to Roseland Road. This
will have to be evaluated in the alternatives chapter since it would create an additional curb cut.
Nonetheless, whichever access route is chosen to open the North Quadrant for development, it must
include bringing the proper infrastructure into the area. Water, sewer, power, and telephone will be
required if the property is to be developed for aviation related and non aviation related
commercial /industrial tenants.
South Quadrant
No future development is expected to occur in this area. This is due to the fact that the Sebastian
Municipal Golf Course occupies all of the space directly adjacent to the airfield. Currently the proximity
of the golf course to the airfield precludes any facilities (aviation related or not) to be constructed on this
portion of the Airport.
East Quadrant
Airport Drive East is a dead end road, which comes off of Main Street to provide access to the East
Quadrant. Main Street ties into Roseland Road to the west and U.S. Highway 1 to the east. Roseland
Road feeds to County Road 512 (Fellsmere Road) providing immediate access to Interstate 95. However,
this route runs traffic through a significant portion of the high density neighborhoods that bound the
airfield on the southeast side. The present Airport related traffic along these roadways is not considered
significant. As mentioned in the inventory chapter, JS Aviation is the only tenant on this side of the
airfield. Immediately to the south and east of JS Aviation is the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course, which
occupies a large portion of the Airport property. While improvements to the existing access into this area
will depend on the development alternative chosen, it is not expected to change significantly due to the
potential for incompatible uses. Depending on the final layout for the East Quadrant, utility upgrades into
this area (primarily water and sewer) may or may not be feasible.
West Quadrant
The West Quadrant is the most developed area and is accessible via Airport Drive West. Airport Drive
West has two entry points off of Roseland Road. Although most of this access is paved, the southern
portion, which ties into Roseland Road at the end of the east -west taxiway, is unpaved. As additional
facilities are developed in the West Quadrant, Airport Drive West will need to be extended south and
ultimately provide a third tie into Roseland Road. An option may be to abandon the existing unpaved
portion of Airport Drive West to limit the number of access points off of Roseland Road. This and other
5 -19
area
SLB T
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
S an
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
options will be evaluated in the alternatives chapter. Likewise, any access alternatives /improvements in
the area need to include bringing water and sewer services to the existing and future tenants.
North and South Infield Areas
At some point in time, the Airport infield will need to be developed. This area affords some of the largest
and best aviation related space available for development at Sebastian. The ultimate development of this
area will dictate how landside access and airfield access can co -exist without impacting one another. All
alternatives for this area are depicted in the following chapter and will require basic utility extensions for
future tenants.
Automobile Parking
It is assumed that each of the individual FBOs, as well as any private clearspan hangars, will provide their own
parking spaces based on their own anticipated demand. In laying out the future facilities, an adequate amount of
space shall be allotted for automobile parking in these areas. This includes separate parking lots for any small
clearspan or t- hangar facilities, despite the fact that owners or users of these facilities typically park their
automobiles in the hangars. Adequate parking is currently available to both the East and West Quadrants of the
airfield and provide sufficient space to serve the present needs of the Airport.
Perimeter /Access Road
Currently the Airport has a limited interior perimeter access road. As airfield facilities are developed, the ability
to use these existing service roads will diminish. A new layout for an unpaved airfield perimeter access road is
needed. The layout of this road must remain out of all of the runway and taxiway object free areas. This road is
depicted in the alternatives chapter of this study.
SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Table 5 -13 provides a summary of the facility requirements that were determined necessary to satisfy the
forecasts of aviation demand presented in Chapter 3 of this study. This table also includes some additional
facilities, which have been planned to enhance the Airport. The order in which these improvements are listed
does not have any relation to the priority or phasing of such projects.
5 -20
2002
TABLE 5 -13
SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Runways
1. Clearing of obstructions to obtain RPZ requirements for non
precision approach (or approaches) to Runway 4 -22.
2. Major rehabilitation or reconstruction of entire Runway 13 -31
pavement. Runway width should be reduced to 75 feet.
3. Install Medium Intensity Runway Light (MIRL) system to Runway
13 -31.
Taxiways
1. Reconstruct north -south taxiway to a width of 35 feet and add
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITLs).
2. Reconstruct east -west taxiway to a width of 35 feet with MITLs.
3. Construct full length parallel to Runway 4 -22 to include MITLs
and run -up areas.
4. Construct full length parallel to Runway 13 -31 on the south side to
include MITLs and run -up areas.
5. Construct full length parallel to Runway 13 -31 on the north side to
include MITLs and run -up areas.
Pavement Markings
and Airfield Signage
1. Remark Runway 4 -22 to include upgrade to non precision runway
markings.
2. Remark Runway 13 -31 after rehabilitation/reconstruction to
include upgrade to non precision runway markings.
3. Remark all taxiways as they are rehabilitated/reconstructed.
4. Install lighted airfield signage.
5. Periodic remarking of all airfield pavements.
Navigational
and Visual Landing Aids
1. Establish non precision GPS approach (or approaches) to Runway
4 -22.
2. Install Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) to both ends of
Runway 4 -22.
3. Install Runway End Identifier Light (REIL) system to both ends of
Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31.
4. Install Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) to both ends of
Runway 13 -31.
Apron Space
1. Construct a total of 13,500 square yards of aircraft parking space.
Buildings
1. Construct an airport administration building.
2. Construct an airfield electrical vault.
3. Construct 20 t- hangars.
4. Construct 8 corporate /private clearspan hangars.
5. Construct 2 FBO /large clearspan hangars.
6. Construct a 2,800 square foot general aviation terminal building.
Access
and Infrastructure
1. Provide access into the North Quadrant off of Airport Drive West
with water, sewer, power, and telephone utilities.
2. Extend water and sewer into the East Quadrant.
3. Extend Airport Drive West to the south.
4. Provide water and sewer utilities into the West Quadrant.
5. Provide access into the North and South Infield Areas with water,
sewer, power, and telephone utilities.
6. Enhance interior perimeter road.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2000.
5 _21
SIBICS
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
2002
AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES
HAMS Of P.C.. iUNo
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
INTRODUCTION
Chapter Six Airport Alternatives
QTY Q
SEBASTIAN
I10ME Of PELICAN IRAN°
Once the facilities required for the planning period have been identified, the next step in the master planning
process is to evaluate the various ways those facilities can be provided. The possible combinations of alternatives
are countless, so some intuitive judgment must be used to identify those alternatives, which have the greatest
potential for implementation. Three major elements must be considered in the development alternatives at
Sebastian Municipal Airport. These include alternatives for the airfield, general aviation facilities, and
navigational aids. In addition, the utilization of the remaining airport property to provide revenue support for the
airport and benefit the economic development and well -being of the Sebastian area must be considered after the
development alternatives are defined.
Each element inter relates and affects the development potential of the others. Therefore, all areas must be
examined both individually and then coordinated as a whole to ensure the final plan is functional and efficient, as
well as cost effective. When analyzing alternatives for development, consideration must first be given to a "do
nothing" or "no build" alternative. These alternatives are not without major impacts and costs to the public; they
are addressed in the following sections of this chapter. The alternatives considered are compared using
environmental, economic, and aviation factors to determine which of the alternatives will best fulfill the local
aviation needs. With this information, as well as the input and direction of the Technical Review Committee, a
final airport concept can evolve for refinement into a realistic development plan.
General
In analyzing and comparing the benefits of various development alternatives, it is important to consider the
consequences of no future development at Sebastian Municipal. The "do- nothing" alternative essentially
considers keeping the airport in its present condition and not doing any improvements to the existing facilities.
The primary result of this alternative would be the inability of the airport to safely accommodate the existing
demand, much less the projected.
It should be pointed out here that any development proposed in the master plan evolves from an analysis of
projected needs over a set period of time. Even though the needs were determined by reliable methods, it cannot
be assumed that future events will not change these needs. The master plan attempts to develop a viable scheme
for meeting the needs brought about by projected demands for the next 20 years. No scheme should be adopted
that would assume expansion beyond the 20 -year period or that would require expensive commitments prior to
the certainty of need. However, the plan should allow for flexibility to expand beyond the plan, should the need
arise. In addition, no plan of action should be developed that is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the
City, which has a vested interest in the results of any development or lack thereof. Sebastian Municipal should be
developed so that the facilities accommodate the demand and minimize any operational constraints. While these
objectives may not be all inclusive, they should provide a point of reference in the alternatives evaluation process.
In the preceding chapter, both airside and landside facility requirements were identified for the 20 -year planning
period. While the previous sections have identified and quantified facility needs, they have not addressed the
options for providing these requirements, nor have they explored issues of operational efficiency and community
acceptance of meeting the identified needs of the airport over the planning period. This chapter reviews each of
the identified needs and discusses the pros and cons of various options designed to address the facility
requirements previously discussed.
6 -1
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SEBAIS
HOME OF P[LIUN ISLAND
The facility requirements indicated the need for various airfield improvements, including pavement
rehabilitations. Without improvements and rehabilitation of existing pavements, areas will fall into disrepair.
This would seriously affect the capability of the airfield to continue serving users and the community. Expanding
facilities at the airport is also necessary over the next 20- years. To ignore this would restrict the growth of
aviation in the local area and region. This would, in turn, reflect on commerce and economic growth in the
region.
Thus, the "do- nothing" alternative is inconsistent with the long -term goals of the City of Sebastian. In addition,
the airport has made assurances to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accepting past federal grants for
airport improvement projects that the facility will be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition. It
would represent an irresponsible action affecting the long -term viability of the airport and the airport's service
area. Therefore, the "do- nothing" alternative is not considered prudent or feasible.
The ultimate goal of the master planning process is to provide the City of Sebastian with an assessment of the
adequacy and capabilities of the airport as well as the identification of the best options available for addressing
future development needs at the facility. To accomplish this goal it is necessary to identify and evaluate
alternatives for meeting the needs identified in the previous chapters and ultimately provide the City with a
planning framework on which to base future airport development decisions.
Airport Considerations
The ultimate objective is to develop balanced airside and landside facilities to serve all segments of the forecast
aviation demand. Prior to defining and evaluating specific airport alternatives, development objectives to guide
the evaluation should be identified. The City of Sebastian wants to market, develop, and operate the airport so as
to better the economic base of the surrounding area. The successful realization of this role can be facilitated if the
City focuses on the following objectives:
Obtain the maximum service level of the airfield to the community.
Operate the airport as an attractive, easy -to -use, safe, and environmentally compatible facility.
Market and develop the airport facilities and available land as unique business opportunities.
In addressing these objectives, development of facilities should be undertaken in such a manner as to minimize
existing and potential operational constraints. Flexibility in airport development is essential to assure adequate
capacity should market conditions change unexpectedly.
In approaching the analysis of alternatives to meet identified airport facility needs, it is necessary to keep in mind
a number of factors, or considerations that impact and influence future development at Sebastian Municipal.
These considerations form a basis for the initial identification of options as well as providing a set of issues that
need to be kept in mind throughout the review and selection of alternatives. It should be noted that the goal of the
Master Plan is to mitigate to the maximum extent possible all of the factors that adversely impact the airport's
ability to meet demand or to comply with airport standards. While this goal is attainable, it must often be
weighed against the financial, social, and political costs of doing so. As a result, it is possible that the result of the
alternatives analysis may be to find that not all of the identified facility requirements at the airport can be fully
addressed and some must be left unfulfilled or only partially mitigated. A number of factors must be considered
in the alternatives analysis, and some of the more significant of these that impact or influence the alternatives are
listed below.
Only a few parcels, some impacted by environmental conditions remain for future aviation related
development at the airport.
6 -2
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
The Sebastian Municipal Golf Course takes up a significant portion of the developable land to the south
and east of the airfield.
No property acquisitions can be made to the existing airport property boundary that would enhance the
aviation or non aviation related development.
Any development in the infield portions of the existing airfield configuration will generate significant
difficulties with respect to airside and landside access for all tenants.
The City of Sebastian is on the verge of exhausting all available commercial and industrial land within the
City limits (outside of the airport property line).
The preceding considerations have been factored into the identification of potential alternatives to address the
facility needs identified. These issues should also be kept in mind when reviewing the following sections due to
the impact they may have on the options that have been identified. These concerns are very real, and if money
were not a concern, they could certainly be mitigated; however, funding is a considerable factor in any analysis of
options and, as such, many of the alternatives are designed to mitigate issues without having to undertake the
extensive relocation or reconfiguration of the entire airport property. The following sections outline options that
were identified, and discuss the positive and negative features of each.
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES
Airfield facilities are, by their nature, the focal point of the airport complex. Because of their primary role and the
fact that physically, they dominate airport land use, airfield facility needs can be the most critical factor in the
identification of viable airport development alternatives. In particular, the runway system requires the greatest
commitment of land area and has the greatest effect on the alternatives evaluation.
Previously, the demand/capacity analysis showed that the airport, even without improvements, would not
experience any problems related to either airfield capacity or delay during the planning period. However, two
factors of the airfield system were identified in the facility requirements chapter as being deficient for the
planning period. These include the existing pavement conditions and the ultimate configuration of taxiways for
airfield access. The following sections will analyze alternatives, which provide options to improve these
conditions.
Runway Alternatives
6 -3
SEBA
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The alternative to re -open Runway 9 -27 and close Runway 13 -31 was selected in the 1993 Master Plan as a result
of numerous public sessions focused on achieving compatibility between the airport and community. Selection of
this option incorporated a dual runway system with Runway 9 -27 as the primary and Runway 4 -22 as the
crosswind. It was determined that Runway 4 -22 provided better wind coverage than Runway 13 -31, and offered
less impact on the residents from overflights. In addition to its inclusion in the 1993 Master Plan, an
Environmental Assessment for the re- opening of Runway 9 -27 was also approved as part of the study.
Unfortunately, eight years later, this alternative has never been realized. The primary reason Runway 9 -27 has
not re- opened was due to the costs required under the previous analysis. Nonetheless, the option of re- opening 9-
27 is still appealing, not only for the reasons included in the previous master plan, but also due to many other
advantages that can be realized for the airport and community as a whole. The interest now is to re- evaluate the
option of opening Runway 9 -27, with respect to the existing configuration. The most important element of this
re- evaluation is to determine if the re- opening is still possible, primarily with respect to the available funding.
During this re- evaluation, a significant cost saving measure was realized with respect to the airport configuration.
A crosswind runway is recommended at an airport when a runway orientation cannot provide 95 percent wind
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
coverage for any aircraft forecasted to use the airport on a regular basis. This 95 percent coverage is based on a
crosswind that does not exceed 10.5 -knots for aircraft with Airport Reference Codes (ARC) of A -I and B -I. A 13-
knot crosswind component is used for the ARCs A -II and B -II. The current (Twin Otter) and future (King Air
200) critical aircraft for Sebastian Municipal share an ARC of B -II. Based on the wind rose data, Runway 4 -22
currently provides 97.2 percent coverage for a 13 -knot wind. Likewise, Runway 13 -31 or the alignment for
Runway 9 -27 could also provide coverage over 95 percent for the 13 -knot wind. However, as documented in the
facility requirements, the need for a crosswind runway is required for aircraft with ARCs of A -I or B -I, since none
of the three alignments can provide this individually. As such, any runway used to provide the 95 percent
crosswind coverage would only be required to meet the design standards of ARC B -I.
Under the previous master plan, once re- opened, Runway 9 -27 would serve as the primary and Runway 4 -22 as
the crosswind. However, due to the reconstruction of Runway 4 -22 in 1997 to a length of 4,024 feet, as well as
the more recent improvements to lighting, and the fact that it provides the necessary crosswind coverage for the
airport's critical aircraft, this runway is now considered the primary. Under the 10.5 -knot wind analysis, the two
runways provide nearly identical coverage with Runway 4 -22 and Runway 9 -27 providing 91.1 percent and 92.0
percent respectively. Therefore, the following alternatives analysis will re- evaluate the re- opening of Runway 9-
27 or the preservation of Runway 13 -31 as the crosswind runway. In doing so, this evaluation will incorporate the
design standards for ARC B -I versus B -II, on the crosswind runway.
Nearly all of the aircraft with an ARC of A -I or B -I are categorized as small airplanes (less than 12,500 pounds)
with less than 10 passenger seats. A runway length of 3,080 feet will accommodate 95 percent of the small
airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats. This calculation, which is based on the FAA's Airport Design
software, is reflected in Table 5 -3 of the preceding chapter. However, the FAA Airports District Office (ADO) in
Orlando recommended using a length of 3,200 feet. The ADO made this recommendation to provide a crosswind
runway with 80 percent of the length of the primary runway (which is 4,024 feet). Therefore, 3,200 feet will be
used in alternatives analyses. A width of 60 feet is required for visual and not lower than 3 /4 of a mile visibility
runways, serving aircraft with an ARC of B -I. However, because the airport serves B -II aircraft and both Runway
13 -31 and the pavement for Runway 9 -27 are 150 feet wide, a runway width of 75 will be analyzed in all of the
crosswind runway alternatives. In addition to enhancing the safety of the facility, this will preserve the option to
utilize this runway for Design Group II aircraft in the future (under visual and not lower than 3 /4 mile visibility
conditions). The following sections address three crosswind alternatives for Sebastian Municipal.
Alternative A Re- opening of Runway 9 -27
This alternative is nearly identical to the selected alternative of the 1993 Master Plan. The primary
difference being that under this version, Runway 9 -27 would serve as the crosswind runway for the
airfield, thus would only need to provide an overall length of 3,200 feet. As described in the previous
section, the width of this runway would be 75 feet wide. The runway has been aligned along the
centerline of the existing 150 -foot wide pavement, to balance the clearance between existing airport
structures and the transitional surfaces associated with the runway. It is recommended that the removal of
any runway pavement coincide with the construction of a parallel taxiway so that credit can be received
against this addition of pavement. This alternative is depicted on Exhibit 6 -1.
6 -4
5 QR Q
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
2002
11•111 NMI ION NMI IMP ION MI IIIIII MI NM MN RN MR MI all MN MI MI
DO
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
27.
Q
sta ir s
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Because of the small aircraft designation (less than 12,500 pounds), Runway 9 -27 will only require a 20:1
approach slope surface for either visual or non precision instrument approaches. Thus, the Runway 9
threshold has been configured so that the approach slope surface will provide more than the required 15
feet of vertical clearance over public roads specified in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. This
ensures that the alignment of Airport Drive West is not affected by this alternative. On the opposite end,
the runway length of 3,200 feet places the approach surface for Runway 27 in a position that allows for
more than 15 feet of clearance within the existing airport property line. This preserves the ability to allow
future access into the currently vacant area located between the approach ends of Runway 22 and Runway
The following sections address both positive and negative considerations for this alternative. These pros
and cons are summarized in Table 6 -1.
Positive Considerations
As detailed in the previous master plan, one of the more significant advantages associated with
the re- opening of Runway 9 -27 will be the ability to serve aviation operations while creating less
of an impact to the adjacent residential communities. In addition, the re- opening of Runway 9 -27
will create an airfield configuration that will open up nearly three times the developable area to
the north (143 acres versus 48 acres).
Currently the City of Sebastian is approaching a point where no more land within the City limits
(outside of the airport property) is available for industrial development. Under this alternative,
the airfield will provide approximately an additional 100 acres of land that would be developable
as aviation and non aviation industrial /commercial land. It is felt that this significant increase
will ultimately outweigh the additional costs associated with re- opening Runway 9 -27 through the
community benefits it will provide. These benefits are primarily expected to result from the form
of additional jobs and tax base.
With respect to pavement conditions, the condition of the Runway 9 -27 alignment is nearly the
exact same as that of Runway 13 -31. The U.S. Navy constructed all four of the original runways
at Sebastian in 1943 to a length of 4,000 feet and a width of 150 feet. It has been estimated that
the pavement structure for each contains a one and a half inch asphalt surface with eight inches of
base. Since that time, there have been no significant improvements to the pavement of Runway
13 -31 or the Runway 9 -27 alignment. Therefore, the pavement of the old Runway 9 -27
alignment will not require any more or less reconstruction than that of Runway 13 -31. In fact, the
reconstruction of Runway 9 -27 can occur without the need to shut down Runway 13 -31.
An additional benefit to the Runway 9 -27 and Runway 4 -22 configuration is that this layout will
significantly simplify the taxiway system for the airfield. Currently a majority of the airfield
development is between the approach end of Runway 13 and the alignment of Runway 9 -27. A
full length parallel taxiway on the north side of Runway 9 -27 would allow unimpeded aircraft
movements to the ends of Runway 9, 22, and 27. Access to Runway 4 would still require taxiing
aircraft to cross the Runway 9 threshold. If Runway 13 -31 remains open, only half of the runway
ends can be accessed without crossing a runway. Similarly, two parallel taxiways to Runway 13-
31 would have to be constructed in order to serve aviation related development on both sides of
the runway, and yet crossing runways would still be required half of the time.
6 -6
2002
TABLE 6 -1
COMPARISON OF ISSUES RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE A
Pros
Cons
Less impact to residential communities.
Requires relocation of two tenants.
Triples land available for development.
Requires changes to City golf course.
Same pavement condition as Runway 13 -31.
Requires tree removal.
Does not require dual parallel taxiways.
Requires changes to two power poles.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Negative Considerations
Obviously, the re- opening of Runway 9 -27 will require the relocation of the facilities located at
each end. On the Runway 9 end, there is a building (approximately 10,000 square feet) occupied
by Velocity Inc. and Golden Horn Aviation. This building is located on the south portion of the
leasehold held by Velocity. A relocation of this facility, which would also include four acres of
Velocity's leasehold, is depicted on Exhibit 6 -1. The relocation of this building incorporated
input from Velocity so that it would not interfere with their future plans. On the Runway 27 end,
the entire JS Aviation leasehold (approximately two acres) will also need to be relocated. This
would include the relocation of approximately 40,000 square feet of aircraft parking ramp, the
3,700 square foot building, the fuel farm, parking lot, and a shade hangar.
Because of the location of the approach surface to Runway 27, it will also be required for the
entire 1 1th hole and at least the tee -box of the 17 hole at the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course to
be relocated. Similarly, there will be a requirement to remove trees at both ends of the runway
that would penetrate the approach slope. Additionally, for the approach to Runway 9, two of the
power poles located along the right -of -way for Roseland Road will have to either be lowered or
removed and the utility placed underground.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Estimated Costs
The cost estimate for this alternative is based on data reviewed for current or recent similar
projects. The details of the alternative development were consolidated into several general cost
categories. Unit costs were determined for each category and then applied to the unit
requirements for the alternative. Table 6 -2 summarizes the development categories and cost
estimates for the alternative.
6 -7
SLa T
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
2002
TABLE 6 -2
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE A
Item
Amount
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Asphalt Pavement Removal
22,000 SY
$5.00
$110,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Reclamation
26,000 SY
$3.00
$78,000.00
Unclassified Excavation
5,000 SY
$8.00
$40,000.00
Proofrolling
26,000 SY
$1.00
$26,000.00
Limerock Base Course (3
2,300 CY
$30.00
$69,000.00
Bituminous Surface Course (3
4,500 tons
$45.00
$202,500.00
Bituminous Prime Coat
6,800 gallons
$2.00
$13,600.00
Reflectorized Pavement Marking
5,000 SF
$1.00
$5,000.00
Drainage
Lump Sum
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
Grassing
8 acres
$2,000.00
$16,000.00
Sodding
7,000 SY
$3.00
$21,000.00
Topsoil Placement
3,800 CY
$5.00
$19,000.00
Mobilization
$43,057.00
Contingencies (14% of Construction Costs)
$86,114.00
Engineering (Design, Bidding, Construction, Inspection)
$148,854.00
Relocation of Velocity Leasehold and Building
$225,000.00
Relocation of JS Aviation Leasehold and Facilities
$300,000.00
Golf Course Renovations (11` 17` hole)
$250,000.00
Lower or remove two utility poles (approach to Runway 9)
$75,000.00
Tree clearing for both approaches (approximately 17 acres)
$25,000.00
TOTAL
$1,768,125.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Alternative B Rehabilitate Existing Runway 13 -31
Currently Runway 13 -31 is 4,021 feet long at a width of 150 feet. While it has been shown that this full
length is not required, this alternative looks to preserve the existing pavement available at the airport.
This alternative does however recommend the removal of half of the runway pavement, thereby providing
an overall width of 75 feet. Exhibit 6 -2 provides a depiction of this runway alternative. Essentially, this
alternative makes no changes to the airfield configuration, with the exception of the eventual pavement
removal. Again it is recommended that the removal of any runway pavement coincide with the
construction of a parallel taxiway so that credit can be received against this addition of pavement.
The following sections address both positive and negative considerations for this alternative. These pros
and cons are summarized in Table 6 -3.
6 -8
SL BAST
NOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
2002
MI MI NS N s MI MI Oa all a— MI r OM an
TABLE 6 -3
COMPARISON OF ISSUES RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE B
Pros
Cons
Maintains existing airfield configuration.
Still impacts residential communities.
Provides more than adequate wind coverage.
Limits the amount of developable land.
Does not impact existing tenants.
Eventually requires additional taxiways.
Does not disrupt airfield development.
Ultimately increases taxi distances.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Positive Considerations
Negative Considerations
SEBA
MOM OF PCUCAN ISLAND
This alternative can be considered a no -build option for the runway system. It obviously benefits
from the fact that the airport is currently operating under this configuration, which more than
adequately provides the necessary wind coverage. The costs associated with reconstructing the
existing pavement structure are similar to the unit costs that would be born for any other
pavement at the airport (with the exception of Runway 4 -22). An additional advantage to this
alternative exists with the fact that no tenants will have to be relocated.
Foremost, a significant negative aspect to this alternative is that preserving the existing Runway
13 -31 configuration does not address any of the issues or concerns that were discussed in the
previous master plan. By maintaining the current airport configuration, aircraft will continue to
over fly some of the more densely populated neighborhoods surrounding the airport. Not only
would this ignore the community concerns, it would negate the validity of the previous master
plan, including the environmental assessment element of that study.
A serious impact associated with this alternative is that it severely limits the amount of
developable land available at the airport. Eventually this would restrict the amount of aviation
and non aviation revenue that could be generated on the airfield. On the operational side, parallel
taxiways on the north and south side of Runway 13 -31 would eventually be required to provide
airfield access to the developable areas. These parallel taxiways are the only way to minimize the
number of runway crossings. In addition, the development of the infield areas would require
landside access to disrupt the north -south taxiway (at a minimum), the east -west taxiway, or both,
resulting in significant taxi distances for most airport users.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Estimated Costs
The cost estimate for this alternative is based on data reviewed for current or recent similar
projects. The details of the alternative development were consolidated into several general cost
categories. Unit costs were determined for each category and then applied to the unit
requirements for the alternative. Table 6 -4 summarizes the development categories and the cost
estimates for the alternative.
6 -10
2002
TABLE 6 -4
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE B
Item
Amount
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Asphalt Pavement Removal
34,000 SY
$5.00
$170,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Reclamation
34,000 SY
$3.00
$102,000.00
Unclassified Excavation
5,000 SY
$8.00
$40,000.00
Proofrolling
34,000 SY
$1.00
$34,000.00
Limerock Base Course (3
2,800 CY
$30.00
$84,000.00
Bituminous Surface Course (3
5,500 tons
$45.00
$247,500.00
Bituminous Prime Coat
10,000 gallons
$2.00
$20,000.00
Reflectorized Pavement Marking
5,000 SF
$1.00
$5,000.00
Drainage
Lump Sum
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
Grassing
8 acres
$2,000.00
$16,000.00
Sodding
7,000 SY
$3.00
$21,000.00
Topsoil Placement
3,800 CY
$5.00
$19,000.00
Mobilization
$54,145.00
Contingencies (14% of Construction Costs)
$108,290.00
Engineering (Design, Bidding, Construction, Inspection)
$187,187.00
TOTAL
$1,123,122.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Alternative C Modify and Rehabilitate Runway 13 -31
6 11
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
Under this alternative, the length of Runway 13 -31 would be reduced from the current 4,021 feet to 3,200
feet, while the width would remain the same as the other alternatives, at 75 feet. This reduced length
would begin at the same threshold as the current Runway 13 end and would extend to a point just beyond
the intersection with Runway 4 -22. This layout is depicted in Exhibit 6 -3.
As with Alternative B, this option preserves the existing airfield configuration and pavement. In addition
to removing half of the runway pavement, for an overall width of 75 feet, it is recommended that the
remaining runway length (921 feet) ultimately be removed. With the exception of runway length, this
alternative does not change the airfield. To obtain credit for the pavement removal, it is recommended
that any pavement removal occur with the construction of either one or both parallel taxiways.
The following sections address both positive and negative considerations for this alternative. These pros
and cons are summarized in Table 6 -5.
2002
_MEL O I R MI MI N MN MP I M I MB MN IMNI I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Ufa TIAN
Master Plan Update
Positive Considerations
Negative Considerations
6 -13
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
All of the benefits associated with Alternative B are retained with this option. However, due to
the decreased runway length, this altemative has additional advantages. The most obvious of
which is the reduced costs to reconstruct the runway pavement, which is reflected in the
construction estimate. Also, the ability to remove more pavement for potential credit is a positive
aspect to this alternative. The description for this alternative recommended the removal of the
unused portion of the runway, when needed to obtain credit for the construction of any new
impervious surface, such as the parallel taxiways. When this occurs, the taxiway connecting the
leasehold of JS Aviation to the end of Runway 31 will no longer be required. Similarly, the
partial parallel taxiway between Runway 4 -22 and Runway 31 will not be needed.
It should be noted that while a parallel taxiway is shown on both sides of the Runway 13 -31, the
current partial parallel is to a width of 50 feet and with a centerline separation of 400 feet. The
future parallel taxiways will only need to have a centerline separation of 240 feet and a width of
35 feet. This smaller separation becomes particularly important for this option since it provides
an additional 160 feet of developable land in the infield areas.
A more significant benefit related to the reduced runway length of this option relates to the
impacts it has on the surrounding community. By moving the threshold of Runway 31
approximately 921 feet toward Runway 4 -22, the traffic using this runway will also move. This
lessens the impact that overflights to Runway 13 -31 have on the communities located to the east
and southeast of the airport. This occurs because most aircraft would make their base leg turn
(perpendicular to the final approach) earlier. While this will not eliminate community
overflights, it should reduce the number and lessen the impact due to the higher altitude these
aircraft will be on final approach.
While the overflight impact to surrounding communities would be reduced under this option, it
still does not completely satisfy the issues or concerns that were discussed in the previous master
plan. Thus, as with Alternative B, this configuration tends to disregard the community concerns,
which as stated previously, ultimately contradicts the validity and effort of the previous master
plan.
Other negative characteristics associated with the shortened Runway 13 -31 are the same as with
Alternative B. This layout poses a severe limitation on the amount of land that is available on
airport property for development, both aviation and non aviation related. Although the overall
lengths are decreased, this option will also ultimately require parallel taxiways on both sides of
the runway to provide the safest access to and from future aviation related areas. Finally, this
option still creates the problem associated with developing the infield areas with respect to
landside access and taxi distances.
2002
TABLE 6 -6
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE C
Item
Amount
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Asphalt Pavement Removal
22,000 SY
$5.00
$110,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Reclamation
26,000 SY
$3.00
$78,000.00
Unclassified Excavation
5,000 SY
$8.00
$40,000.00
Proofrolling
26,000 SY
$1.00
$26,000.00
Limerock Base Course (3
2,300 CY
$30.00
$69,000.00
Bituminous Surface Course (3
4,500 tons
$45.00
$202,500.00
Bituminous Prime Coat
6,800 gallons
$2.00
$13,600.00
Reflectorized Pavement Marking
5,000 SF
$1.00
$5,000.00
Drainage
Lump Sum
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
Grassing
8 acres
$2,000.00
$16,000.00
Sodding
7,000 SY
$3.00
$21,000.00
Topsoil Placement
3,800 CY
$5.00
$19,000.00
Mobilization
$43,057.00
Contingencies (14% of Construction Costs)
$86,114.00
Engineering (Design, Bidding, Construction, Inspection)
$148,854.00
TOTAL
$893,125.00
TABLE 6 -5
COMPARISON OF ISSUES RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE C
Pros
Cons
Slightly reduces impact to community.
Still negates benefits of previous study.
Maintains existing airfield configuration.
Limits the amount of developable land.
Provides the required wind coverage.
Eventually requires additional taxiways.
Does not impact existing tenants.
Ultimately increases taxi distances.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
ource: TIIE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Estimated Costs
ource: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Selection of the Preferred Runway Alternative
6 -14
MOMS Of PELMAN IS ,j D
The cost estimate for this alternative is based on data reviewed for current or recent similar
projects. The details of the alternative development were consolidated into several general cost
categories. Unit costs were determined for each category and then applied to the unit
requirements for the alternative. Table 6 -6 summarizes the development categories and the cost
estimates for the alternative.
Typically at an airport like Sebastian Municipal, the most advantageous alternative would be the one that satisfies
all of the requirements for the least cost. However, this does not necessarily translate into the most desirable or
preferred alternative for the airport or community as a whole. Both of the alternatives, which utilize the existing
Runway 13 -31 alignment, would certainly be more cost effective and pose less of an overall impact. However,
by selecting either of the Runway 13 -31 alternatives, it seems that nearly all of the effort that wasput into the
previous master plan, including the public participation, would be ignored. The re- opening of Runway 9 -27 is a
very good option for the airport and community. Unfortunately, it is also the most expensive option.
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Nonetheless, since the previous study, many things have changed affecting the development of the airport,
possibly the most significant being the passage of the AIR -21 legislation (reference financial feasibility text).
A detailed Environmental Assessment (EA), which was conducted as part of the previous master plan, supported
the re- opening of Runway 9 -27 and closing of Runway 13 -31. This EA was approved in a letter from the FAA
dated March 9, 1994. Because a significant amount of time has passed since this assessment was conducted, and
since this preferred alternative has a different runway length, the EA will need to be re- evaluated. Conversations
with the FAA Airports District Office (ADO) in Orlando confirmed the fact that this process will simply require a
detailed letter addressing each and every section of the previous EA. This letter will need to document whether or
not there have been any changes that would impact the findings of the previous study. Based on the work
conducted to date for this study, it is not anticipated that there have been any significant changes that would
prevent the FAA from revalidating the EA to re -open Runway 9 -27.
With respect to the additional cost of the recommended alternative, it is the opinion of this consultant that the
long -term benefits associated with this option far outweighs the additional expense. One cannot quantify in
dollars the benefit associated when the community overflights are reduced and the related quality of life is
enhanced. Conversely, it is easy to understand that three times the developable area on an airport will eventually
produce more revenue for the airport and the City in the long run. As such, Alternative A has been selected as the
preferred runway alternative for this study. Therefore, this runway configuration will be utilized throughout the
rest of this alternatives analysis.
Taxiway Alternatives
Upon first examining a layout of Sebastian Municipal, one of the most notable deficiencies is the lack of taxiways
to efficiently serve users of the airfield. Therefore, an important consideration when examining airfield
alternatives is to properly plan for taxiways to serve not only existing activity, but also that which may develop in
the future. Likewise, while airfield access is possible through use of the existing pavement, the ultimate goal
should be to provide a parallel taxiway for each runway and the necessary connectors to efficiently link aircraft
facilities to the runway system.
Many of the taxiway characteristics are predetermined by FAA standards relative to the Airport Reference Code.
The FAA requires a taxiway width of 25 feet for Design Group I aircraft and 35 feet for Design Group II.
However, all of the taxiways at Sebastian Municipal will need to be 35 feet wide and constructed to pavement
standards, which are capable of handling the future critical aircraft (King Air 200). Likewise, any future parallel
taxiways need to have a runway centerline to taxiway centerline separation of at least 240 feet. This will preserve
the option of providing non precision approaches (with not lower than 3 /4 of a mile approach visibility minimums)
to each runway end. The following sections discuss the opportunities that are available for taxiway development.
Parallel Taxiway to Runway 4 -22
6 -15
OR R
S
HOME Of PELICAN ISIAH°
Currently, access to both ends of Runway 4 -22 is sufficiently served by the existing taxiways. However,
once Runway 9 -27 is re- opened, the access from the west side of the airport to Runway 22 will become
difficult. This access will require a portion of the abandoned Runway 13 -31 alignment to be used if back
taxiing is to be avoided. But, depending on how fast the airport develops, this route may not be available;
as it would ultimately be broken up by the landside access necessary to access facilities on the north side
of Runway 9 -27. This problem would be solved if a full length parallel taxiway were developed on the
north side of Runway 9 -27, as discussed in the following section.
2002
mra
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT S $AST
Master Plan Update
For Runway 4 -22, a full- length parallel taxiway will not be crucial until the South Infield area is
developed. At that time, the existing north -south taxiway will be severed in order to provide landside
access into the South Infield area. Until then, access to Runway 4 can be achieved through the use of the
north -south taxiway. For access to Runway 22, either the abandoned Runway 13 -31 alignment can be
utilized or a future parallel on the north side of Runway 9 -27 can be used for access to the existing partial
parallel to Runway 22.
Parallel Taxiway to Runway 9 -27
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
Once Runway 9 -27 is re- opened, the most important taxiway development will be the construction of a
full length parallel to this runway. As stated previously, although Runway 9 -27 is a Design Group I
runway, the full length parallel taxiway will need to be constructed to accommodate Design Group II
aircraft. Therefore, it should be constructed to a width of 35 feet and at a centerline separation of 240
feet.
As described in the discussion related to the parallel taxiway to Runway 4 -22, the need for a full length
parallel to Runway 9 -27 will greatly depend on how fast the airfield is developed. In the meantime,
although not the most direct route, aircraft will be able to utilize the Runway 13 -31 pavement to gain
access to the Runway 22 and 27 ends. Nonetheless, a full length parallel taxiway to Runway 9 -27 should
be constructed as soon as it is feasibly possible.
While it is possible to provide airfield access no matter which side of Runway 9 -27 the parallel taxiway is
on, the recommendation is to construct it on the north side. By building this taxiway to the north, most
aircraft only have to cross a runway when taxiing to the Runway 4 end. In addition, nearly all of the
existing airfield development is located on the north side of Runway 9 -27, and a majority of the future
aviation related development would also occur to the north. Therefore, it would not make sense to
construct the parallel taxiway on the south side of the runway. Ultimately a partial parallel may be
required on the south side, but this would depend solely on the location and configuration of any facilities
constructed to the southeast or in the South Infield area.
North -South Taxiway
Of the active taxiways serving the airport, the north -south taxiway is the most utilized. Currently this
taxiway runs along the old Runway 18 -36 alignment, which like all of the other runways, was constructed
to a width of 150 feet. Because most of the airport facilities have been constructed along the west side of
this pavement, and subsequently park aircraft along both sides, this pavement acts more as a taxilane and
ramp than that of a taxiway. There are times when the parking of aircraft along this taxiway are such that
the required object free area is encroached, and other times when taxiing aircraft have to actually weave
through parked aircraft.
The only true alternative for this taxiway is to provide a 35 -foot wide alignment that can maintain an
adequate object free area. Because all of the existing hangars are located along the west side of the 150
foot pavement, the most parking and maneuvering space (into and out of hangars) would be realized if the
easternmost 35 feet were utilized. While this would create the most space in front of the existing
facilities, it would eliminate the single row of aircraft tiedowns. As such, the designation of this taxiway
alignment would need to coincide with the construction of additional ramp space to replace the dislocated
tiedowns.
6 -16
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Once Runway 9 -27 is open, the north side of this taxiway will no longer run between active runway ends.
Therefore, when designing the additional tiedown space, the north half of the north -south taxiway is truly
better described as a taxilane. Therefore, the Design Group II standards of 115 feet for a taxilane object
free area were employed. The taxilane designation however will end at the intersection of the north -south
taxiway and the future north parallel to Runway 9 -27. Conversely, the south half of the north —south
taxiway will need to maintain the full 131 -foot taxiway object free area, as it will still connect the
approach ends of Runway 4 and 9. As with the north half, the south half should also be constructed on
the east side of the 150 -foot wide pavement. In addition to providing more space for future aviation
related development off of Airport Drive West, it also maintains a uniform intersection with the approach
end of Runway 9.
GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES
The analysis of general aviation alternatives focuses on future Fixed Base Operator (FBO) development. It is
envisioned that this complex will serve many functions, which shall include a general aviation terminal,
administration building, and hangar development. However, before options for future FBO development can be
explored, the needs of the existing tenants must be considered first.
Relocation of Existing Tenants
As mentioned previously, the re- opening of Runway 9 -27 will require two existing airport tenants to relocate.
Likewise, the future development of the airfield will also have an effect on the operations that are conducted by
Skydive Sebastian. The subsequent sections address some of the issues related to these tenants and the relocation
of their operations.
South Portion of Velocity Leasehold
On the west side of the airport, a 10,000 square foot building occupied by Golden Horn Aviation and
Velocity will need to be relocated, as well as the south portion (four acres) of the land leased by Velocity.
Discussions between the City and this tenant have resulted in a mutually agreed upon site, located across
the north -south taxiway. This site, depicted on Exhibit 6 -4, reserves an equal area to that displaced, just
east of the north portion of Velocity's leasehold.
While an initial estimate has been made for the cost to relocate the 10,000 square foot building, details of
the exact transaction will change as future conversations and negotiations between the airport and
Velocity evolve. Although it is easy enough to reserve an equal amount of land and construct a similar
facility, at some point a compromise will have to be made with respect to short and long -term access to
the new site.
JS Aviation Leasehold
6 -17
SEBA
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
At the time of this writing, only preliminary discussions have been held between the City and the tenant
(JS Aviation) regarding need to be relocated. JS Aviation has a leasehold of approximately two acres and
their facilities include an aircraft parking ramp, an enclosed hangar building, a fuel farm, an automobile
parking lot, and a shade hangar. Until input can be obtained from JS Aviation, no sites have been
analyzed for this relocation. The facilities that will need to be relocated are depicted on Exhibit 6 -4.
2002
1•11=111MMIN•=111111111MINIMINIIMIIIIIIIMINIONNIIMINI=IMNIMI
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Skydive Sebastian Landing Zone
Currently, Skydive Sebastian utilizes the North Infield area as a landing zone for its sky diving
operations. At present, there is no lease between the City and Skydive Sebastian for the exclusive use of
this area. As such, when the north side of the airport eventually develops, these operations will have to
occur elsewhere on the airfield. Two alternative sites are depicted on Exhibit 6 -4.
According to information provided by Skydive Sebastian, the minimum of a 300 -foot radius is required
for landing skydivers. One 300 -foot radius landing zone is depicted in the northwest corner of the airport
property. This site, while close to the existing Skydive Sebastian leasehold, should only be considered for
a single -term lease. Ultimately, this area will become part of the industrial /commercial parcels developed
by the City. A second landing area is depicted for Skydive Sebastian in the South Infield area. This area
is similar to the space currently used. As such, a problem with this site is that, much like the existing
landing area, jumpers must cross an active taxiway to return to Skydive Sebastian's facilities. Even
worse, in the future, if these jumpers are not properly escorted, they may also cross an active runway
(once Runway 9 -27 is re- opened).
While the South Infield area is immediately available, the site in the northeast corner will obviously rely
on the closing of Runway 13 -31. However, the existing landing zone in the North Infield area should not
be developed (other than the relocation of Velocity) until after the closure of Runway 13 -31. In the
meantime, the City and Skydive Sebastian need to continue conversations to determine which option will
be pursued.
FBO Alternatives
The following sections present an overview of three FBO development alternatives. Cost estimates for the
various FBO alternatives have not been developed, as it is assumed that most of the FBO and/or conventional
hangar development costs will be born by the developer of the facility and not by the City. Likewise, all three of
the alternatives have the same number, type, and size of facilities in each layout, which are based on the findings
of the facility requirements. Also, it was assumed that the costs associated with the administration building
portion of the development would be the same for the City, no matter which location is selected. Therefore, the
sites were evaluated using a matrix with a variety of selection criteria.
Alternative A North of Runway 9 -27
HOME Of PELKAN ISLAND
To the east of the FBO building is the operational
and tiedown space for private aircraft storage.
segregate the different needs of itinerant and local
none of the required standards, including object
visibility zone, are violated.
6 -19
SLDAST
Alternative A attempts to achieve the most centralized airfield location, with respect to the ultimate
runway configuration. A site such as this will provide the most visibility and shortest taxi times to each
runway end. This concept places the main FBO terminal in the middle of the development, serving to
separate the two different functions of the layout. Alternative A is depicted on Exhibit 6 -5.
side of the complex, while the west provides t- hangars
Essentially, this design enables the FBO facility to
operations. Arrangement of the buildings are such that
free areas, building restriction lines, and the runway
Layout of the apron provides adequate spacing so that a 25 -foot apron edge taxilane will maintain the
proper Design Group II centerline separation from the full- length parallel taxiways to both Runway 4 -22
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SE AST
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
and Runway 9 -27. While this configuration could temporarily tie into the existing partial parallel taxiway
to Runway 4 -22, it would require the reconfiguration of the fuel farm installation.
Alternative B South Infield Area
Applying the concept of providing a centralized airfield location on the southwest side of the runway
intersection results in the FBO complex shown as Alternative B. However, because the runways form an
acute angle, the facility cannot be placed as close to the runway intersection. In fact, the layout for
Alternative B (shown on Exhibit 6 -5) is primarily driven by the limitations of the building restriction
lines off both runways.
Because the proposed FBO clearspan hangar is assumed to be taller than the terminal building, it needs to
be further away from the runway centerlines. This limits the ability of the layout to segregate local from
itinerant needs. As with Alternative A, this option could place the FBO terminal in- between the clearspan
hangar and t- hangar facilities, but this would place the t- hangars closest to the runway intersection and in
effect, coffin corner the other FBO facilities towards the approach to Runway 4.
Layout of the aircraft parking apron provides the capability to support aircraft operations. The set back
from the parallel taxiway to Runway 4 -22 is such that an apron edge taxilane could be used to provide
flexibility in the ramp layout. However, because of the proximity of the taxilanes to and from the t-
hangars, aircraft movements in, out, and around the area just in front of the clearspan hangar could be
constrained.
Alternative C Southeast Side of Airport
The FBO complex depicted on Exhibit 6 -5 for Alternative C is exactly the same as Alternative A, only
on the other side of the runway intersection. Although the thought behind these two layouts are similar,
there are still some significant differences that should be noted.
Of the three alternatives, this is the only one located on the east side of the airport. Because of the airport
configuration, this option relies on landside access off of Airport Drive East. This means that all of the
vehicular traffic using these facilities will use Main Street to get to U.S. 1 or County Road 512 (Fellsmere
Road). However, such a facility is not expected to generate a lot of traffic, especially when compared to
the daily traffic that is generated by the City's Municipal Golf Course.
With respect to airfield access, Alternative C is significantly different since it is not located on the sides
of the runway that have the full- length parallel taxiways. Thus, connector taxiways must run from the
FBO apron area, to and across both runways to provide complete airfield access. Beyond the additional
costs, this requires all aircraft going into and out of this area to cross an active runway.
6 -20
2002
MMEMMIMIMIMINIIIMMEN=INNUMMEMENI=111111M•
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Evaluation of FBO Alternatives
QRQ
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
While only a single FBO alternative will be recommended to serve as the framework for future development, all
or part of each layout could eventually be developed. Therefore, the concepts are evaluated within this section to
reveal the positive and negative aspects of each in comparison against the others. Thus the alternatives were
evaluated within the following categories: flexibility, phasing /construction, environmental effects, operational
effectiveness, and safety considerations.
Flexibility pertains to the total growth potential of each alternative site and the process inherent to
achieving that growth. The evaluation criteria associated with this category include the ability to respond
to uncertain demand levels, the balance of support functions, and the ability to satisfy changing tenant
demands.
Phasing /Construction pertains to designated land uses and associated impacts to on- airport operations
and the level of difficulty involved in implementing the proposed land uses. The evaluation criteria
associated with this category include the ability to phase construction, the impact on existing facilities,
and the ability to incrementally expand site development.
Environmental Effects performs a general assessment to determine the degree proposed land uses would
potentially impact various components of the surrounding environment.
Operational Effectiveness compares the overall efficiency levels and usage of existing or proposed
infrastructure associated with the general aviation area. The evaluation criteria associated with this
category includes the compatibility with the long -range airfield, roadway access to development area, the
competitive environment, and assures the highest and best use.
Safety Considerations measures each component for compliance with FAA standards that have a direct
effect on the daily operations and safety at the airport facility. Evaluation factors include the overall
compatibility with the areas of aircraft operation, FAR Part 77 surfaces, airfield design standards, and
airport security.
Table 6 -7 presents an evaluation matrix that addresses the aforementioned criteria. This matrix summarizes the
analyses of the development concepts, also presented in the following paragraphs.
Flexibility
Ability to Respond to Uncertain Growth The ability to respond to uncertain demand levels determines
each concept's ability to accommodate demand in excess or lower than anticipated. Alternative A
provides the best alternative to accommodate future demand due to the available space on this side of the
runway intersection. Alternative B and C both suffer from being limited in the ability to expand. Of the
two, Alternative C is constrained by the imaginary surfaces of the airfield and the proximity of the City
golf course. Alternative B is also constrained by the airfield's imaginary surfaces, but could expand to
the west. However, such an expansion would confine the FBO complex to one corner of the airport.
Balance of Support Functions This factor evaluates the siting of support functions such as fueling,
airport maintenance, and like facilities. The ideal is to locate these facilities with access and to centrally
orientate them to serve proposed aviation related development. Of the three concepts, Alternatives A and
C were deemed to provide adequate locations for the siting of support facilities. Conversely, Alternative
B was not as desirable, as maintenance, fueling, and other operations will appear to conflict.
6 -22
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Phasing /Construction
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
Ability to Satisfy Changing Tenant Demands This factor evaluates the ability to accommodate changing
needs of FBO operations and other private and corporate tenants. While not required during the 20 -year
planning period, Alternative A offers the most opportunity to develop additional land abutting the site.
Thus, Alternative A possess greater ability to satisfy changing tenant demands when compared to
Alternative B which can only expand into an isolated area and Alternative C which is simply limited for
space.
Ability to Phase Construction This factor examines the impact of construction on airport operations,
potential relocations, and other airport related activity. Phasing of any development must be considered
in light of operations taking place at the time of construction. Only Alternatives A and B will impact the
airfield operations during construction. Both do so by interrupting taxiway access to a runway end.
Alternative C poses no phasing or construction related impacts. This analysis assumes that Runway 13-
31 is closed, and Runway 9 -27 is re- opened, before any of the alternatives are implemented.
Impact to Existing Facilities This factor evaluates the impact to existing airport facilities the new
development may affect, including its operation or function, or require its relocation. To fully implement
the layout associated with Alternative A, the partial parallel taxiway to Runway 4 -22 will have to be
considered. As stated previously, either Alternative A's layout will need to be modified, or the portion of
the new parallel taxiway between the approach end of Runway 22 and Runway 9 -27 will need to be
constructed. In order to provide landside access to Alternative B, the existing north -south taxiway will be
split between the approach ends of Runway 4 and 9. Again, assuming that Runway 13 -31 is closed, and
Runway 9 -27 re- opened, Alternative C does not pose any impact to the existing airfield facilities.
Ability to Incrementally Expand This factor evaluates the ability for the site build -out to be conducted in
phases and its impact on operations. There would be no additional impact if each of the three alternatives
were to develop to their full potential.
Environmental Effects
Analyzing each of the three FBO alternatives, no differences regarding environmental effects were
evident. Based on the information available, none of the three options will impact wetlands, endangered
species, historic sites, compatible land uses, or any other environmental elements.
Operational Effectiveness
Compatibility with Long Range Airfield This factor evaluates potential operational problems that may
exist over the long -term development of the airfield. By assuring airfield components meet the needs of
activity generators, the efficiency of the airport is maintained. Ultimately, only Alternative A would not
have an impact on the long range airfield operation. As previously mentioned, Alternative B will
discontinue the ability of aircraft from the northwest side of the airport to directly access the approach end
of Runway 4. To a much lesser extent, aircraft taxiing to and from the site of Alternative C will always
have to cross active runways.
Roadway Access to Potential Development Areas This factor addresses the ability of the existing
roadway network to accommodate the proposed alternative. While all of the concepts require the
6 -23
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Safety Considerations
myR
MOMS OF PELICAN ISLAND
construction of new roadways for access, they do so to different extents. Alternative A will require the
longest access road, Alternative C the second longest, and Alternative B the shortest of all three.
Competitive Environment This factor addresses the siting of the FBO terminal and operations, and the
ability of the site to maintain equal competition between the operations. There is an inherent belief that
transient traffic uses the first FBO facility that they identify when taxiing. As such, Alternative A
provides the most competitive site, with Alternative C following next, and Alternative B as the least
competitive.
Compatibility with areas of aircraft operation and Part FAR 77 Surfaces This factor examines the
ultimate impact to airfield compatibility, with a keen interest in preserving and enhancing safety and
impacting navigable airspace. All three of the alternatives have been designed such that they are
compatible with the standards of these criteria.
Airport Security This factor evaluates each concept's potential to preserve or enhance safety and
security on the airfield. With their proposed layouts, all three concepts will maintain a high level of
safety and security on the airfield.
Recommended FBO Development Alternative
The recommended FBO alternative for Sebastian Municipal is based on the qualitative assessment summarized in
Table 6 -7. The evaluation scores afford a measurable assessment of the three options with respect to the criteria
described previously.
Alternatives A and C were considered comparable in many of the categories; however, the differences between
the flexibility and operational effectiveness made Alternative A more advantageous. Overall, Alternative B had
too many deficiencies, especially those related to the interruption of the north -south taxiway, for it to be
considered. Therefore, the recommended FBO development site is Alternative A.
6 -24
2002
TABLE 6 -7
FBO ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
Evaluation Factors
Alternative
A
Alternative
B
Alternative
C
Flexibility
Ability to Respond to Uncertain Demand Levels
4
2
1
Balance of Support Functions
4
2
4
Ability to Satisfy Changing Tenant Demands
4
3
2
Subtotal
12
7
7
Phasing /Construction
Ability to Phase Construction
2
2
4
Impact to Existing Facilities
2
2
4
Ability to Incrementally Expand
3
3
3
Subtotal
7
7
11
Environmental Effects
Environmental
3
3
3
Subtotal
3
3
3
Operational Effectiveness
Compatibility with Long Range Airfield
5
1
2
Roadway Access to Potential Development Areas
3
5
4
Competitive Environment
5
3
4
Subtotal
13
9
10
Safety Considerations
Compatibility w/ Operations and Part 77 Surfaces
3
3
3
Airport Security
4
4
4
Subtotal
7
7
7
Evaluation Score
42
33
38
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source:
Legend:
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
1 Poor
2 Fair
3 Satisfactory
4 Very Good
5 Excellent
NAVIGATIONAL AIDS ALTERNATIVES
6 25
SST
HOME Of PLLIGN ISLAND
Analyses were conducted to determine the viability of establishing non precision approaches to the ends of
Runway 4 -22 and Runway 9 -27. Any non precision approach for Sebastian Municipal would use Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology. The FAA guidelines and criteria for approaches using this equipment are
contained in Order 8260.38A, "Civil Utilization of Global Positioning System." For this analysis, it was assumed
that the actual cost (or better, time and effort) associated with establishing a non precision GPS approach at
Sebastian, was the same, no matter which runway end. Therefore, potential approaches were primarily evaluated
based on their impact to the community and their potential with respect to obstructions.
For Runway 4 -22, a non precision instrument approach would require a 34:1 approach slope surface. Both ends
of this runway would require tree trimming and/or removal to accommodate an unobstructed non precision
approach surface. In addition, the approach to Runway 4 would also require four of the power poles located along
the right -of -way for Roseland Road to either be lowered or removed and the utility to be placed underground.
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SEBA7TLAN
HOME Of PELICAN LRAND
While this is not impossible, it does make the establishment of an approach to Runway 4 a bit more difficult and
expensive. The obstructions to both ends of Runway 4 -22 are addressed in the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) chapter
and depicted on sheet four of the ALP set.
Because Runway 9 -27 has been designed for small airplanes (less than 12,500 pounds) with less than 10
passenger seats, it is considered a utility runway, as defined in FAR Part 77. This designation allows Runway 9-
27 to have a non precision instrument approach with only a 20:1 approach slope surface. Nonetheless, as with the
primary runway, both ends of Runway 9 -27 would require a number of trees to either be lowered or removed
altogether. Additionally, for the approach to Runway 9, two of the power poles located along the right -of -way for
Roseland Road will have to either be lowered or removed and the utility placed underground to provide an
unobstructed 20:1 approach slope surface. However, these poles will be mitigated as part of the re- opening of
Runway 9 -27. Obstructions to the ends of Runway 9 -27 are addressed in the ALP chapter and depicted on sheet
five of the ALP set.
Sebastian Municipal's proximity to the Atlantic Ocean provides the most significant impact as to which runway
end would provide the most desirable non precision approach. The prevailing winds tend to come from an
easterly orientation, favoring the approaches to Runway 4 and 9. Similarly, due to the location of the airfield,
with respect to the Atlantic coastline, it is assumed that most aircraft would arrive from the north, west, or south.
Thus, any approaches on this side of the airport would be more desirable (such as Runway 4 and Runway 9) as
pilots prefer a more direct route into an airport. Approaches made in from the east side of the airport (to Runway
22 or 27) would most likely necessitate arrival procedures that would take any traffic from the north, west, or
south out over the Indian River or possibly the ocean, before turning in -bound for the final approach.
With respect to overflights, approaches to both Runway 4 and Runway 9 would provide the least amount of
impact to the surrounding community. Similarly, an approach to Runway 22 would have little impact, but suffers
from the drawbacks associated with routing traffic over communities when serving aircraft that approach the
airport from the north, west, or south. Nonetheless, the first non precision instrument approach should be
established for Runway 4 -22 since it is the primary runway, capable of handling the most demanding aircraft
(ARC B -II) expected to use the airport. An approach to the crosswind runway should only be considered after at
least one approach has been established to the primary runway. Thus it is recommended that the first non
precision instrument approach be established to Runway 4. Next, either an approach to Runway 22 or Runway 9
could be established, and finally, an approach to Runway 27 should be considered last.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
The land at an airport that is not needed for the ultimate airfield facilities should be used for economic
development opportunities. Those areas that are adjacent and/or have the ability to access the runway and
taxiway system should be reserved for aviation related expansion, while the rest can be used for compatible non
aviation related facilities. Primarily, this section identifies and evaluates the opportunities that are possible given
the previous alternative analyses. The development of realistic economic opportunities will require close
coordination with the staff from the City of Sebastian to ensure that efforts by the City, as well as those suggested
in this study, are coordinated.
For discussion purposes, the airport was previously divided into four quadrants and the two infield areas. These
areas were based on the Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 configuration. Despite the fact that Runway 13 -31 will
be closing, these six areas remain relatively the same, with the exception that the North Infield area would be part
of the North Quadrant, once Runway 9 -27 is re- opened. Other variations are addressed in the following sections
concerning the viability of supporting future economic development options within these areas.
6 -26
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
North Quadrant
South Quadrant
East Quadrant
West Quadrant
South Infield
6 -27
susartAN
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Currently there is no landside access to the north side of the airport. Any future access should come off of Airport
Drive West, to prevent any additional curb cuts on Roseland Road. Therefore, while this area provides the most
land available for future development, both aviation and non aviation related, it will require improvements for
access and utilities. Nonetheless, given the other areas on the airport, the North Quadrant will be the area for
most of the airport's future economic development.
Previously this portion of the airport was unavailable for development, however, this will change when the South
Quadrant's boundaries are defined as the area between the approach ends of Runway 4 and Runway 27. As
depicted on Exhibit 6 -1, ultimately this area will create an additional 17 acres of developable land. Due to the
proximity of this land to the airfield, only aviation related facilities should be considered in the future for the
South Quadrant.
When this area is developed, landside access could utilize the taxiway pavement that currently connects the
approach end of Runway 31 with the pavement of the Runway 9 -27 alignment, as it will no longer be needed
when Runway 13 -31 closes. This taxiway pavement would tie into Airport Drive East, which is also how utilities
would be routed to serve this quadrant.
Under the new runway configuration, this quadrant will decrease in size as it will now only cover the area
between the approach ends of Runway 22 and 27. A future aviation or even non aviation tenant could develop in
this area, however due to its remote location and the costs for access and utilities, the area would better serve as a
location for airfield related facilities, such as a maintenance building and/or electrical vault.
Parcels on the west side of the airport provide the most immediate capability to accommodate future development
opportunities. The ability to quickly provide access and utilities to the undeveloped parcels in this area make it
the most desirable with respect to short-term development. While there are only a limited number of parcels
remaining that would have access to the airside, a good amount of space exists for non aviation related uses.
Future development must ensure that the approach, transitional, and other surfaces related to Runway 9 -27 must
not be encroached. Any development that penetrates the required surfaces and/or design standards could have
severe implications on the viability of this runway.
Because it lies within the confines of the two runways and an important taxiway, the South Infield area should be
reserved only for development when the other areas of the airport approach saturation. As mentioned in the FBO
alternatives, land access into this area would sever the north -south taxiway and drastically increase taxi times for
nearly all of the airfield users. Therefore, this area should remain undeveloped for as long as possible.
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SUMMARY OF AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES
6 -28
HOME Of P[UUN MIND
The preceding sections have identified and analyzed a number of planning alternatives for future development at
the Sebastian Municipal Airport. The alternatives presented focused on meeting future facility needs at the airport
while maintaining operational efficiency and safety standards. The positive and negative aspects of each
alternative were presented and discussed to provide an indication of differentials between various options.
In summary, despite the additional costs, the option to re -open Runway 9 -27 and subsequently close Runway 13-
31 was selected as the most advantageous. As a result, all of the preceding sections of this analysis were based on
the new configuration of the airfield. With the new configuration of the airfield, the analysis related to the
taxiway system was simplified. The resulting layout preserved the existing north -south taxiway and
recommended a full length parallel on the north side of Runway 9 -27 and a full length parallel on the west side of
Runway 4 -22.
The analysis of the FBO alternatives indicates that Alternative A is the most effective at meeting the future needs
of the airport while also providing the best operational environment. Both of the other FBO alternatives involved
some type of compromise in effectively serving the airport's needs, and were not considered optimal for the
overall airfield development. Future non precision approaches could be accommodated on each of the four
runway ends; however, it was determined that approaches to serve aircraft arriving from the west side (Runway 4
and Runway 9) should be the first approaches established. Finally, it was determined that future economic
development, both aviation and non aviation related, should occur on the west side of the airport and then to the
north. Developable land on the south and east side of the airport should be reserved for more specialized uses,
while the land in the South Infield area should not be developed until it is absolutely needed.
After discussions with the Technical Review Committee, FDOT, FAA, Airport Management, and City staff, as
well as any feedback from the public presentation, these selected alternatives will be consolidated. This task,
which is addressed in the following chapter, may result in the revision of options or the combination of individual
alternatives into a single alternative for implementation. Once combined, the consolidated alternatives will be
utilized in the layout plans for the airport.
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REFINED ALTERNATIVES
art or
HOME OF PFllCAN 'NUM)
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
INTRODUCTION
AIRFIELD FACILITIES
Crosswind Runway Alternative
Chapter Seven Refined Alternatives
S EBAI TIIAN
IfOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
This chapter revises and/or combines several of the individual alternatives presented in the previous chapter. The
refined alternatives are based on input from Airport Management, the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as
comments received during meetings with the Technical Review Committee and the general public. Refinements
to the alternatives analysis essentially follow the same general order of presentation utilized in the previous
chapter. However, revisions are predominantly limited to the selected airfield and general aviation facility
alternatives, with a discussion of the environmental factors considered. No changes were made to the
navigational aids or economic development alternatives.
The facility requirements analysis identified airfield improvements required for the Sebastian Municipal Airport
over the course of the planning period. The viability of several key improvements was subsequently analyzed in
the analysis of airfield alternatives. These consisted of three options for the required crosswind runway, as well
as an analysis of the taxiway alternatives available. The crosswind runway and taxiway enhancements are
addressed further in this chapter. All other airfield improvements have been considered necessary for the
continued maintenance and development of the airfield system at Sebastian Municipal, and did not possess
alternative approaches.
Improvement to the crosswind runway is by far the most significant airfield development action facing Sebastian
Municipal over the course of the planning period. As such, even the selected alternative to close Runway 13 -31
and re -open Runway 9 -27 provided a variety of approaches to meet the needs of the airfield. Based on the
assessment contained in the airfield alternatives, considerable discussion was generated regarding the potential
options to re -open Runway 9 -27, their attributes and constraints, and the potential construction and funding
considerations that affected their implementation. It was determined in the facility requirements and alternatives
analysis that a length of 3,200 feet was required for Runway 9 -27 to accommodate A -I and B -I aircraft. The
pavement of the original Runway 9 -27 alignment measures 4,000 feet long by 150 feet wide. This provided a
number of opportunities for the overlay of the required 3,200 -foot long by 75 -foot wide runway for small aircraft
crosswind operations.
The proximity of facilities to the north and south of Runway 9 -27 dictated that the lateral alignment would have to
follow the original runway centerline. This ensures that the proper offset and vertical clearances are achieved on
both sides of the new 75 -foot wide runway. Re- opening the runway on either the northern or southern half of the
150 -foot wide pavement would create violations to the required transitional slopes. Therefore, the reconstruction
of the new 75 -foot wide Runway 9 -27 will be centered on the existing 150 -foot wide pavement surface.
With an existing 4,000 -foot length, various options existed to displace the new 3,200 -foot length east or west
along the pavement available. Because the new runway will be a prepared surface, an offset of 200 feet is
required off each threshold. It is at this point that the associated 20:1 approach surfaces begin. As a utility
runway (serving aircraft of 12,500 pounds or less), criteria in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,
"Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace" necessitate the 20:1 surface for both visual and non precision instrument
approaches. FAR Part 77 also requires that any public road that traverses beneath a runway's approach, maintain
7 -1
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
SEBANTIAN
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
a minimum clearance of 15 feet between the road and required approach surfaces. To the immediate west of
Runway 9 -27 is Airport Drive West, which runs north/south under the proposed approach to Runway 9. This
existing road is the controlling factor for the location of the Runway 9 approach. A distance of 300 feet at 20:1
provides the 15 -foot clearance. This is then added to the required 200 -foot offset for the beginning of the
approach surface to arrive at the overall 500 -foot displacement from the end of the original Runway 9 -27
pavement surface. This required displacement places the threshold along the eastern half of the old Runway 18-
36 alignment, which is also 150 feet wide. Because it was determined that the eastern half of the old Runway 18-
36 alignment would be utilized for a 35 -foot wide north -south taxiway, this provided the final displacement for
the Runway 9 threshold. As such, the Runway 9 threshold has been located so that it is perpendicular or flush
with the edge of the 35 -foot wide north -south taxiway. This provides an overall distance of approximately 590
feet from the centerline of Airport Drive West and the proposed Runway 9 threshold.
On the far end of the proposed runway, approximately 400 feet will exist between the proposed Runway 27
threshold and the eastern edge of the original Runway 9 -27 pavement. Since more than 300 feet is available
beyond the end of the original pavement edge, there is adequate space to provide public road access into the area
located just northeast of the future Runway 4 -22 and Runway 9 -27 intersection. This spacing was made possible
by the relocation of the 11 hole of the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course. The final configuration of Runway 9-
27 is reflected on the various sheets of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set contained in the following chapter.
Crosswind Runway Enhancements
It should be noted that since Runway 9 -27 will become the new crosswind runway for the airport, all of the
runway enhancements identified in the facility requirements for Runway 13 -31 apply to Runway 9 -27. These
include, but are not limited to the following:
Install Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRLs).
Construct a full length parallel taxiway to Runway 9 -27 with Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights
(MITLs).
Re -mark Runway 9 -27 after reconstruction to include non precision runway markings.
Install Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) to both ends of Runway 9 -27.
Install Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) to both ends of Runway 9 -27.
It is not intended for all of the improvements listed above to be complete when Runway 9 -27 is re- opened. The
phasing of these projects is included in the 20 year CIP for Sebastian Municipal and are reflected on the ALP.
Discussions during the Technical Review Committee and public meetings revealed a desire to provide additional
runway length for the crosswind runway. Given the required clearances for the approach surfaces, the only
options available would be to utilize displaced thresholds on each end or to extend the runway to the east. The
application of displaced thresholds could potentially provide an additional 500 feet of takeoff length for
operations on Runway 9 and 400 feet on Runway 27, given the existing 4,000 feet of pavement. However, the
application of declared distances at a non controlled general aviation airport, along with some line of sight issues
on the Runway 9 end, limit the viability of this option at this time. In addition, the costs associated with the
proper taxiway access, to prevent back -taxi operations, further undermine the feasibility of this option.
Nonetheless, it is recommended that the 500 and 400 feet of existing pavement before the proposed Runway 9 and
Runway 27 thresholds, respectively, be preserved for potential use in the future. The other option to extend the
runway to the east is simply not justified at this time.
7 -2
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Taxiway Enhancements
SIBiigTIAN
NOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The taxiway options discussed in the alternatives analysis were somewhat limited due to the airfield
configuration. Based on the recommended airfield and facility development options, there are no refinements
necessary. The recommendation to ultimately provide a full- length parallel taxiway to both Runway 4 -22 and
Runway 9 -27 remains. Likewise, the recommendation of placing the Runway 4 -22 parallel taxiway to the
northwest and the Runway 9 -27 parallel taxiway to the north are necessary to support the existing facilities of the
airfield and those proposed. Due to existing conditions and operational considerations, the phasing of airfield
improvements will require the construction of the full length parallel taxiway to Runway 9 -27 to occur
simultaneously with or immediately after the runway re- opening. While the option to provide a parallel taxiway
to the south of Runway 9 -27 has some merit, the north parallel better supports the proposed development of
general aviation facilities. While not shown on the ALP plans, a taxiway to the south of Runway 9 -27 may prove
essential for the development of the airport beyond the needs identified in the 20 year planning period.
Run -up areas are proposed for each end of the two full- length parallel taxiways. The run -up area for Runway 4
has been situated to take full advantage of the existing pavement in this location. Similarly the run -up area on the
west end of the parallel taxiway to Runway 9 -27 has been positioned on a portion of the old Runway 18 -36
pavement. All of the run -up areas have been configured to allow use by multiple aircraft and to minimize the
affects of prop wash on tenant leaseholds. A fifth run -up area was included on the south side of Runway 9 along
the north -south taxiway. Because of the aviation related development between the approach ends of Runway 4
and Runway 9, this space provides pilots an area to conduct run -ups when departing on Runway 9, without having
to cross the runway. This area, which has also been situated on existing pavement from the old Runway 18 -36
alignment, should be marked to minimize any prop wash for the tenants located south of the Runway 9 approach.
The five run -up areas are depicted on the ALP in the following chapter.
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES
Essentially, three alternatives were proposed for the development of additional Fixed Base Operator (FBO)
facilities. The recommendations for pursuing development of an FBO and general aviation facilities relied upon
the re- opening of Runway 9 -27. Before this airfield alteration can occur, the facilities of three existing tenants
would have to be accommodated in different places. The following sections provide the proposed locations to
mitigate the displacement of these tenants. All of the following recommendations are based on the logical
sequence of events that must transpire in order for the closure of Runway 13 -31 and re- opening of Runway 9 -27
to occur with the minimal amount of interruption to airport operations. The following sections address the issues
related to those tenants that will be impacted by the proposed airfield development plan.
Relocation of Velocity
The four acres of Velocity's southern leasehold will be relocated to a site across the north -south taxiway, from
their northern leasehold. The configuration of this property is essentially the same as in the alternatives analysis,
but has been slightly adjusted to accommodate all of the setbacks required for the airfield. It is expected that the
site plan will have slight adjustments made before the relocation is conducted. Taking this into consideration, the
final site plan needs to consider all of the required airport design criteria, so as not to prevent the development of
airport facilities reflected in this study. The site reserved for Velocity is depicted on the ALP.
7 -3
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
JS Aviation Leasehold
Skydive Sebastian Landing Zone
7 -4
SSEB
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Although there have not been a lot of discussions held between the City and JS Aviation to date, a space has been
reserved on the west side of the airport for the relocation of JS Aviation's facilities. Primary considerations for
this location were based on terms contained in the existing leasehold between the City of Sebastian and JS
Aviation. With respect to the relocation of leased premises, the existing leasehold states:
"Following the Landlord's receipt of adequate funding for the re- activation plan for runway 9 -27,
as depicted by the Master Plan for Sebastian Municipal Airport and contained in the Capital
Budget of the City of Sebastian, the Landlord shall construct a comparable building on an
alternative site at the Airport, comparable in size with the Existing Premises and with appropriate
access with comparable frontage on an existing taxiway of the Airport and to relocate the tenants
existing fuel farm or in the alternative install another of comparable size and capacity. "New
Premises Landlord shall give Tenant written notice of completion of the New Premises. Tenant
shall, within sixty (60) days from receipt of notice, relocate its business to the New Premises."
The site reserved on the west side of the airport is the only site that can truly meet the provisions required of the
leasehold. The problem with most other sites is that there are no existing taxiways available. Only the north
south taxiway and the partial parallel taxiway to Runway 4 -22 will be available when the re- activation of Runway
9 -27 begins. The partial parallel to Runway 4 -22 has no landside access, especially while Runway 13 -31 is still
active. The partial parallel to Runway 13 -31 does not provide adequate airfield access and is inaccessible while
Runway 13 -31 is active. With respect to airfield location, the site reserved for JS Aviation on the west side of the
airfield is the only site that provides "comparable frontage on an existing taxiway of the Airport." This location
will place JS Aviation right between the approach to Runway 9 and Runway 4, very much like their current
location which is between the approaches to Runway 22 and Runway 31. Distinct advantages of the proposed site
include:
Better, safer, and more efficient access to the primary and crosswind runways.
Offers the opportunity for JS Aviation to operate in a location that has a lot of visibility and
access with respect to the operations of the airfield.
Provides a site that is compatible with the focus of activity and future development of the airport.
Removes the existing facility from the side of the airport with the highest density of non
compatible residential development.
All of the facilities depicted are comparable with those currently in use by JS Aviation. The most significant
impact noted is the additional drive time it may take for some of the users to access the west, versus the eastside
of town. This impact, which was timed between five and seven minutes depending on origination and route of
travel, is considered minor. The area reserved for the relocated facilities of JS Aviation are depicted on the ALP.
As mentioned previously, there is no lease between the City and Skydive Sebastian for the exclusive use of a
landing zone. Therefore, as reflected in the previous Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan, the area that currently
serves as the Runway Protection Zone for Runway 13 has been reserved for the future landing zone. During the
course of this study, an alternative landing zone was considered in the South Infield area. However, after meeting
with the FAA, it was agreed that the site in the South Infield area was considered unsafe. The FAA stated that the
South Infield area suffers from the same safety problems that exist for the current landing zone in the North
Infield area. This problem is that either location requires the skydivers to cross an active taxiway and in some
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
H. DROP ZONE REQUIRMENTS
Other General Aviation Facilities
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
7 -5
SEBA
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
cases an active runway after landing. This practice is considered unacceptable by the FAA as it increases the risk
for an incursion to occur on the airfield.
In addition, during the course of the study, the ownership of Skydive Sebastian changed. Placing the future sky
diving landing zone to the northwest of Runway 13 keeps the airfield configuration the same as it was in the
previous Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan. Therefore, under this update, nothing directly related to Skydive
Sebastian will be changed, except for increasing the size of the landing zone as described below. This allows the
current owners of Skydive Sebastian to continue operating under the same terms and conditions that were in place
when they purchased the business.
Previously the two proposed skydiving landing zones depicted in the alternatives analysis (Exhibit 6 -4) were
shown as having a radius of 300 feet. While staff of Skydive Sebastian provided this dimension during the
inventory phase of the study, the current owners and users of the facility expressed a concern about the drop zone
size. As a result the 2001 Skydiver's Information Manual, which is published by the United States Parachute
Association, was consulted. The following excerpt is from Section 2 Basic Safety Requirements (page 9) of this
document:
1. Areas used for skydiving should be unobstructed, with the following minimum radial
distances to the nearest hazard:
a. solo students and A- license holders 100 meters
b. B- and C- license holders 50 meters
c. D- license holders unlimited
2. Hazards are defined as telephone and power lines, towers, buildings, open bodies of
water, highways, automobiles, and clusters of trees covering more than 3,000 square
meters.
3. Manned ground -to -air communication (e.g., radios, panels, smoke, lights) are to be
present on the drop zone during skydiving operations.
Using these industry guidelines, the landing /drop zone reserved for Skydive Sebastian was increased from the
original radius of 300 feet to 328 feet (100 meters). This zone, reflected on the ALP set, is unobstructed and clear
of any hazards, especially those called out in the 2001 Skydiver's Information Manual.
Adjustments were made to the selected FBO alternative from what was presented in the original alternatives
analysis. Changes were made to ensure Design Group II aircraft could utilize the facilities proposed. Key
improvements were made to allow this size of aircraft to access the fuel farm and parking area in front of the
clearspan hangar and general aviation terminal building. Similarly, the layout of various sized private hangar
facilities incorporate the required setbacks to accommodate Design Group II aircraft. The only exception was the
design criteria (Design Group I) used for the layout of the T- hangar facilities.
The purpose of this section is to provide a review of the environmental factors that were taken into consideration
during the analysis of airfield development alternatives. This section also addresses the existing and future noise
contours that were developed as part of the study.
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Environmental Assessment for Re- Opening Runway 9 -27
SEBA
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
As stated in the alternatives analysis, a detailed Environmental Assessment (EA) for the re- opening of Runway 9-
27 was conducted as part of the previous master plan. The FAA approved this EA in a letter dated March 9, 1994.
This letter details the FAA's "Finding of No Significant Impact" after evaluating the various categories required
for analysis. Since a significant amount of time has passed since the assessment was conducted, the EA will need
to be re- evaluated. This re- evaluation will necessitate the documentation, in letter form, of any changes that have
occurred since the original EA submittal. The only significant changes since 1994 relate to the proposed runway
length and level of operations.
The original 1994 plan to re- activate Runway 9 -27 and close Runway 13 -31 required a length of 4,000 feet for
Runway 9 -27. All elements of this study reflect only a length of 3,200 feet for Runway 9 -27. It is assumed that
the reduced length would not create any additional impact to the environment. If any, it is anticipated that the
reduction to the length of Runway 9 -27 would lessen the impact to the surrounding community. As for the
changes in activity levels, the EA was based on the forecasts contained in the 1993 Master Plan. The update to
these figures (Chapter 3) documented how the projections contained in the 1993 Master Plan were never realized.
Therefore, any community impacts that were attributed to aircraft overflights and /or noise will be less. The noise
contours generated as part of this study, and which would be used to update the EA, are described in the following
section.
Generation of Noise Contours
Noise contours for the 65, 70, and 75 Day Night Sound Level (DNL) were generated using the latest version of
the FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM) software. DNL was developed as a single number measure of
community noise exposure. Introduced as a simple method for predicting the effects on a population of the
average long -term exposure to noise, DNL is an enhancement of the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) metric
through the addition of a 10 dB penalty for nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise intrusions. The incorporation of
the 10 dB penalty is in recognition of the increased annoyance that is generally associated with noise during the
later night hours. DNL employs the same energy equivalent concept as Leq and uses a 24 -hour time integration
period. For assessing long -term noise exposure, the yearly average DNL is the specified metric by the FAA in
their FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning process. The DNL metric was also accepted by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Council
on Environmental Quality for use in assessing aviation related cumulative noise impacts. The DNL noise metric
has emerged as a highly workable tool for land use planning and in relating noise, particularly aircraft noise, to
community reaction. DNL has also been employed to establish specific criteria relative to the compatibility
between various forms of land use and increasing levels of DNL noise exposure.
The contours for Sebastian Municipal were based on the activity levels and aircraft types for the base year (2000)
and 2012. Existing noise contours were generated using the Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31 configuration,
while the 2012 model utilized the Runway 4 -22 and Runway 9 -27 layout. As depicted on the Airport Land Use
Plan, only the 65 and 70 DNL contours for 2012 are depicted, neither of which extend beyond the current airport
property line. While it was modeled, the 75 DNL did not appear in the INM results. Close scrutiny of the
contours will show that more operations were modeled on Runway 9 -27 versus Runway 4 -22. This is based on
the information provided by the tenants and users interviewed as to which runway they would use most should
Runway 9 -27 re -open. The shorter taxi times for most tenants to the east -west runway supports this utilization.
This plan also depicts the aircraft traffic patterns for both runways. Standard traffic patterns at an airport have
aircraft making all turns to the left. The left -hand turn facilitates the pilot's ability to keep the runway
environment in sight since he sits on the left -hand side of the aircraft. However, right -hand traffic patterns are
also utilized for various reasons, not the least of which is for noise abatement and the prevention of aircraft
7 -6
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
s E,32 OH CE Ttekrii
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
overflights. Currently, all four runway ends at Sebastian Municipal have standard left -hand traffic patterns. It is
the intention of Airport Management and the City of Sebastian to publish right -hand traffic patterns for Runway
22 and Runway 27. This means that all of the traffic and turns associated with Runway 4 -22 will be on the
northeast side of the runway and all of the traffic and turns associated with Runway 9 -27 will all be on the north
side of the runway. The intent is to reduce as much as possible the number of aircraft flights over residential
areas.
It should be noted that proper procedures at an uncontrolled field like Sebastian Municipal require that aircraft
enter the traffic pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway, and at pattern altitude. These
procedures are documented in the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Basic Flight Information and
Air Traffic Control Procedures. While these changes in traffic patterns will not eliminate those aircraft that
deviate from the proper traffic patterns or those that use straight -out departures, it should help reduce the number
of flights over the communities surrounding the airfield. However, it is difficult to control those aircraft that
operate beyond the boundaries of the standard sized traffic pattern.
Scrub Jay Buffer
The Florida scrub jay has been well documented in the vicinity of the airfield by the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission. In 1999, a Florida scrub jay management plan was written, which incorporated portions
of the Sebastian Municipal Airport. To facilitate recommendations in this plan, the City of Sebastian, the FAA,
and FDOT agreed to provide a 100 -foot wide flight corridor for the Florida scrub jay. This buffer zone is
depicted on the ALP set. During the layout of the proposed facilities, no impacts were made to this 100 -foot wide
path that primarily follows the property line on the north side of the airport.
Wetlands and Water Quality
At the onset of the master plan, a field investigation was conducted to determine the extent of wetlands on the
airport property. This study did not include any wetland flagging, nor was it coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers or St. John's River Water Management District. However, it did provide useful information that was
utilized in the location of future facilities. As for water quality, a complete master drainage study is also being
conducted simultaneous with this master plan. The master drainage study incorporates all of the existing and
proposed facilities depicted on the ALP set in the following chapter.
Future Land Use
Sebastian Municipal Airport has committed much of its available land area for development of either airfield or
general aviation facilities. Additional land to the east and west of these facilities is available for commercial and
industrial development. Remaining areas of land not presently committed to development in most instances are
situated in areas either difficult to develop, such as off the ends of runways, or surrounded by active airfield
pavements. Throughout the study, the goal has been to satisfy the needs of the airport and facilitate revenue
generation, all while ensuring the safety and compatibility of the areas surrounding the airport. The airport
developments proposed in this study and on the ALP set do not require any of the current City of Sebastian or
Indian River County land use designations to change. Likewise, no property acquisitions for the airport are
required for the planned development.
SUMMARY
The preceding sections have reviewed a series of issues and questions that arose from discussions of the
alternatives as well as the review of the previous chapters. With these refinements in mind, the next step of the
7 _7
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
process is to develop the ALP set to depict the existing and future airport facilities. The drawings that make up
this set are discussed in the following chapter.
7 _8
S
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
2002
1
1
1
1
1
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS
1
1
1
1
1
1
mra
E oEUCaN s allo
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
INTRODUCTION
DESIGN STANDARDS
Chapter Eight Airport Layout Plans
NOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
This chapter describes in narrative and graphic form the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set developed for the 20 -year
planning period of this master plan. These plans identify areas needed for aviation related development during
and beyond the planning period, as well as the available land on the airport, which can be used for revenue
support. The plans will also serve as a reference for airport management to evaluate existing and /or future
obstruction disposition in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) criteria. The ALP set
presented becomes the official development plans for the airport, which will be amended or revised over time to
reflect changes in aviation demand in the City of Sebastian, as well as the surrounding areas served by Sebastian
Municipal Airport.
The ALP set consists of nine separate drawings, which have been prepared on a computer- assisted drafting system
to graphically depict the recommended airfield layout, critical approach and safety surfaces, and the layout of the
general aviation terminal facilities. These drawings also depict the recommended closure of Runway 13 -31 and
re- opening of Runway 9 -27. The drawing set includes:
Airport Layout Plan
Terminal Area Plan
Runway 4 -22 Protection Zone Plans and Profiles
Runway 13 -31 Protection Zone Plans and Profiles
Runway 9 -27 Protection Zone Plans and Profiles
Existing FAR Part 77 Surfaces
Future FAR Part 77 Surfaces
Airport Land Use Plan
Airport Property Map
The recommended development scheme addresses, to the maximum extent feasible, the needs first identified in
the assessment of the facility requirements, which were then analyzed further to arrive at a flexible development
scheme meeting long -term airport goals.
Sebastian Municipal Airport is identified by the FAA as a general aviation airport in the national airport system.
General aviation airports are planned and designed to accommodate aircraft in certain design groups with
maximum weight categories. Federal criteria for planning are, in many instances, advisory in nature and are
designed to provide flexibility in their application to ensure the safety, economy, and efficiency of the airport.
The design standards outlined in this master plan should be followed to ensure compliance with Federal criteria.
Failure to comply with these design standards, or to seek and be granted modifications to them, could result in
loss of eligibility for Federal and/or State grants for future airport development.
The determination of appropriate design criteria for the development of the airport was based on the physical
characteristics of the aircraft which currently use, and are forecast to utilize the airport. As mentioned in the
facility requirements section of this study, the airport's primary runway requires dimensional standards to meet
the requirements of Design Group II (wingspans of 49 -78 feet), while the crosswind runway is only required to
meet Design Group I (wingspans less than 49 feet) criteria. The existing airfield facilities were analyzed and
related to the standards described above. In addition, other facilities were analyzed against the forecast demand to
8 -1
2002
TABLE 8 -1
MINIMUM REQUIRED AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS
Runway 4 -22
Runway 13 -31
Runway 9 -27
Airport Reference Code
B -II
B -I
B -I
Runway Width (ft.)
75
75
75
Taxiway Width (ft.)
35
25
25
Runway- Taxiway Separation (ft.)
240
225
225
Runway Object Free Area Width (ft.)
500
400
400
Taxiway Object Free Area Width (ft.)
131
89
89
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
S E A S T A I
HOME OF PWCAN CRAM
determine adequacy of service. Deficiencies in existing airport facilities, both airside and landside, were
identified, and where feasible, improvements have been recommended. The minimum design standards used for
Sebastian and applicable to all future development are summarized in Table 8 -1.
ource: -1S l;hange b.
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) graphically presents existing and ultimate airport layout, airport data, runway
data, buildings, ground contour elevations, and the orientation of roads, easements, and structures in the
immediate vicinity of the airport. This information is presented on Sheet 1. The ALP becomes the official
guidance for the City of Sebastian, when approved by the FAA and the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT), in making future decisions on funding of airfield improvements or other requests for development on the
airport property.
With this in mind, at the initiation of this study, a computer -aided drafting system was utilized to prepare this
drawing, as well as each of the other drawings explained in the following pages. By having the final drawing in
both a hard -line form and on computer software, the City of Sebastian will be able to continually update this
drawing as needed, and ensure that the FAA and FDOT always have an official ALP reflective of current
conditions. Most of the information presented on the ALP has been analyzed in proceeding chapters, justifying
the need for recommended development. While the ALP is the comprehensive drawing outlining all of the
existing and future development of the airport, additional drawings are provided to provide more detail of items
such as terminal /general aviation development, runway protection zone areas, runway approach zones, land use,
and airport property.
The most prominent airfield change is the eventual closing of Runway 13 -31 and the re- opening of Runway 9 -27.
An advantage of the new runway configuration is the ability to develop the north side of the airport for both
aviation and non aviation related uses. A number of airfield improvements have been depicted on the ALP to
improve the efficiency of the taxiway system, to provide additional parking for aircraft, and to maintain efficient
flow of aircraft to and from facilities on the airfield. Other improvements shown include the development of full
length parallel taxiways for both Runway 4 -22 and Runway 9 -27. Several hangar improvements are required over
the course of the planning period, including the construction of new T- hangars to accommodate based aircraft. A
significant improvement depicted on the ALP sheet is the future development of a centrally located general
aviation terminal area. This will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.
8 -2
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
TERMINAL AREA PLAN
PROTECTION ZONE PLANS AND PROFILES
8 -3
SEM4S
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The Terminal Area Plan (TAP) depicts the same configuration and dimensional information shown on the ALP
drawing, but provides a larger scale version so that certain additional features and greater detail of the general
aviation facilities can be discerned. The plan includes the recommended access roads, parking areas, buildings,
hangars, fueling facilities, and areas that have been reserved for non aviation development. The TAP is Sheet 2
of the ALP plan set.
As depicted on the TAP, future access into the general aviation terminal area is provided by using the north
portion of what is currently the Runway 13 -31 pavement. The access road was maintained on the north side of
the pavement alignment to provide the maximum amount of developable land for airport facilities. This road
terminates at the proposed Fixed Based Operator (FBO) facility on the northwest side of the future runway
intersection. The main FBO general aviation terminal is depicted as a 4,300 square foot building. This structure
has been laid out to allow an initial structure of approximately 2,100 square feet with two additions of
approximately 1,100 square feet each. Additional FBO facilities include a 10,000 square foot clearspan hangar,
an aircraft fuel farm, roughly 11,000 square yards of ramp space, and twenty T- hangars. The remaining facilities
consist of various private clearspan hangars, ranging in size from 3,600 to 10,000 square feet. Two of the largest
hangars have been located between the sites reserved for Velocity's relocation and the future FBO. This location
will allow a large tenant (such as aircraft maintenance or flight training) enough space to efficiently operate to
and from the airfield. With the exception of the two rows of T- hangars, all of the taxiways and taxilanes in the
terminal area have been designed to accommodate Design Group II aircraft.
The west side of the TAP shows a continuation of the current uses. The greatest changes include the official
designation of a taxiway running down the east side of the old Runway 18 -36 alignment. Using Design Group II
criteria, this taxiway will delineate the area that should be used for the parking of aircraft and that area which is
required to maintain the safe and efficient movement of aircraft. An enhancement in this area includes a 21,000
square yard aircraft parking apron. This ramp would provide tiedown space for approximately 23 small aircraft.
The taxilane on the east side of the proposed ramp has also been planned to Design Group II standards so as not to
limit the type of tenants that could build hangars in this location. It should be noted that the ramp has been
designed so that it may be constructed before or after the closure of Runway 13 -31. Thirty additional T- hangars
are shown on the lot north of the current Aerotrace leasehold. These have been depicted to reflect how this parcel
can be developed for aviation related use once Runway 13 -31 is closed. Land north of the access road into the
general aviation area has been reserved for various sized industrial and commercial parcels. As depicted on
Sheet 8 of the ALP set, this area is currently zoned for industrial use.
The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Plans illustrate in detail the approach area immediately beyond the ends of
the runways at Sebastian. The primary purpose of the RPZ is for the protection of people and property on the
ground. Therefore, the areas within the RPZs should be kept free of obstacles that could constitute a hazard to
aircraft approaching or departing the airport. The sheets also depict the existing and ultimate approach surfaces
for each runway end. These drawings depict the location of roadways, structures, natural ground elevations, and
other man -made or natural features within the limits of the RPZs and approach surfaces.
Details on each drawing are provided for objects that penetrate the approach surfaces or violate the Object Free
Area criteria. These obstructions are listed numerically in an obstruction table with data describing the
obstruction, obstruction elevation, and impact to the various approach surfaces. Additionally, the drawings depict
the configuration of the required Runway Safety Areas for each runway end. A field survey was conducted in
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SEBAS
Master Plan Update
September of 2000. At that time, the recommendation to re -open Runway 9 -27 and close Runway 13 -31 had not
been made; therefore, the survey only included the approaches to Runway 4 -22 and Runway 13 -31.
The RPZs and approach surfaces for Runway 4 -22 are shown on Sheet 3. The existing 20:1 and future 34:1
approach slopes for both ends are depicted. As indicated -on the drawing, the existing visual approach surfaces
(20:1) have minimal obstruction issues. These consist of a few trees located off the ends and to the sides of both
runways. Likewise, trees will also penetrate the future non precision instrument approach slopes (34:1). There is
one overhead power pole (called out as Object 4H) that penetrates the 34:1 approach surface to Runway 4.
Florida Power and Light (FPL) needs to be contacted to determine what it will require to get this overhead service
placed underground before a non precision instrument approach is established.
Sheet 4 displays the RPZs and approach surfaces for Runway 13 -31, which has visual (20:1) approaches to both
ends. This drawing only depicts the existing approaches since the runway has been recommended for closure.
Nonetheless, the existing obstructions, which are all trees and other vegetation, should be removed to ensure the
safety of operations while the runway is still active.
The future RPZs and approach surfaces for Runway 9 -27 are depicted on Sheet 5. Because this runway is only
required for small aircraft, the utility designation (aircraft less than 12,500 pounds) simply requires a 20:1
approach surface for both visual and non precision approaches. It should be noted that there are known
obstructions off both ends of Runway 9 -27; however, as noted previously, no survey has been conducted. Once
the existing structures have been relocated and the pavement is reconstructed, a survey should be conducted. As
depicted, it is anticipated that a number of the trees will penetrate the approaches to both runway ends. Also, at
least one overhead power pole will also be an obstruction. Prior to the re- opening of this runway, FPL should be
contacted to either relocate, lower, or place the utility underground. Likewise, the vegetative obstructions will
also need to be identified and removed.
FAR PART 77 IMAGINARY SURFACES
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
The two plans (Sheets 6 and 7) for the FAR Part 77 Surfaces were developed utilizing the criteria found in
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." In order to protect the
airspace and approaches to each runway from hazards that could affect the safe and efficient operation of the
airport, federal criteria has been established for use by local planning and land use jurisdictions to control the
height of objects in the vicinity of the airport. The specific imaginary surfaces, which shall be protected from
obstructions, include:
Primary Surface A rectangular area symmetrically located about each runway centerline and extending
a distance of 200 feet beyond each runway threshold. Width of the Primary Surface is based on the type
of approach a particular runway has, while the elevation follows, and is the same as that of the runway
centerline, along all points.
Horizontal Surface A level oval- shaped area situated 150 feet above the established airport elevation,
extending 5,000 or 10,000 feet outward, depending on the runway category and approach procedure
available.
Conical Surface Extends outward for a distance of 4,000 feet beginning at the outer edge of the
Horizontal Surface, and sloping upward at a ratio of 20:1.
Approach Surfaces These surfaces begin at the end of the Primary Surface (200' beyond the runway
threshold) and slope upward at a ratio determined by the runway category and type of approach available
8 -4
2002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SIBigTIAN
Master Plan Update
SUMMARY
HOME Of PLLICAN ISLAND
to the runway. The width and elevation of the inner end conforms to that of the Primary Surface while
approach surface width and length to the outer end are also governed by the runway category and
approach procedure available.
Transitional Surface A sloping area beginning at the edges of the Primary and Approach Surfaces and
sloping upward and outward at a 7:1 slope.
The Part 77 Surface plans are a graphic depiction of these criteria. These drawings, used in conjunction with local
ordinances, will permit the City of Sebastian as well as Indian River County, to readily determine if construction
of a proposed structure in the airport vicinity will penetrate any of the airspace surfaces. The Part 77 Surfaces in
this ALP set should be incorporated into any height and hazard zoning ordinance, which the City of Sebastian and
Indian River County has in place, or implements in the future.
Design criteria for surface heights, angles, and radii on these plans are determined by airport category and runway
approach instrumentation, for both existing and ultimate conditions. While currently all runway ends utilize only
visual approaches, future non precision approaches are expected at the airfield. The Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces
plan depicts all known obstructions that project into one or more of the airports existing and ultimate imaginary
surfaces. In addition to the vegetation and power poles described previously, there is only record of one other
obstruction. This obstruction is a 173 -foot tower just north of Main Street and to the east of the airport. With the
ground elevation, the overall height of the tower is 198 feet above mean sea level. This penetrates the horizontal
surface by 24.9 feet. This penetration will place slight limitations on the future non precision approaches planned
for the airport. Currently the tower does not have an obstruction light. Due to the proximity of the airport, it is
recommended that the City of Sebastian pursue requiring the owner of this tower to have an approved obstruction
light installed.
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
The Airport Land Use Plan, Sheet 8, shows the existing City of Sebastian and Indian River County land use
designations for the airport and the property immediately surrounding the airfield. There are no changes required
or proposed to the designations established. The plan also depicts the 2012 noise contours that were generated as
part of this study. As can be seen, these contours do not affect any land that is not currently owned by the airport.
AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP
The Airport Property Map, Sheet 9, is intended to accurately show all of the details associated with the current
airport property line. Existing leaseholds are included on both the ALP and TAP sheets. To develop this property
map, a survey was conducted with the last day of field work occurring on October 18, 2000. Details contained on
the sheet describe all of the features of the property, as well as the documentation of source data and any
limitations. Due to the amount of undeveloped land at the airport, no and acquisition is required or
recommended in this master plan study.
The preceding chapters have identified the anticipated level of activity at Sebastian Municipal Airport, converted
that demand into facility needs, and investigated the alternatives available to address the demand. From the
alternatives analysis a set of development actions were selected for use in preparing the ALP set. The next step in
the process is to identify the development schedule for implementing the proposed improvements and the cost
associated with those actions. Additionally, the funding sources available for implementing the program will be
identified and evaluated.
8 -5
2002
r NM MI N MI MI NM MO I r MI r MI MI MI
mm Om TX 0 7 1 -03:1
-IX xjX z z z
mD mD 0 C
O H z, z� z,
C pj Crr 0 8 O
*W z cn w o
v 3 o
c C O- 0- 0
-<X Do „o 71 X CD
o D mi mo m-I
9m Om �n �m �n
C G� Z Z Z
C N N N
I 0
J m Z m
o
Z O m
z
C.0 00 1 CD 01 .p w IQ
St
0 4.
CD ea ---1
-D ,ri: 0 u4 C3" D
X O 23
1••
--Fi T p
w 73 cp —1 E Q ,p m
1 s�
w cn cn m 5 0
CD 5
-C -C 1 Z L)C R
.6
kid r
2_
ci)
I
Oo J
OIU
A W
N-
Dt
1 •51
4F
I
I0
I
f'1
u
I
1
i
I
I
Oo J
OIU
A W
N-
Dt
1 •51
4F
153M 3NN0•0I0dtlN
z
0
—h
CO
13 m
x -Al 00=0
`Z 3�
M n 0 H Z -4
m 0 z
0 5 DD
v o�r
D V)xi0�(1)
y '3 Om
N ;o
0 C N
5 �m 0
M PJ —1-v Z
0 t
M
m
/CLAP
(D
Cr
N
n N
�e 7
N
N C)
d -0
z
D
0
XI
0 iM
X
n j
o lz
0
0118
m
I zC
mDm
5>
00
ma
L
O
z
D z
p D>
A D
T r
7J
C
m
D
N
Io Z
O
co 0
co 0
S'
m
0
X co
D
0
D
G �Gti�
S
I, o•
Op /j NA/
n °4c
v
10.6 DIMS
GLOM 9Vi
27
g r.;
I:
i
N
1
I
I
Q \V
Dt
1 •51
4F
153M 3NN0•0I0dtlN
z
0
—h
CO
13 m
x -Al 00=0
`Z 3�
M n 0 H Z -4
m 0 z
0 5 DD
v o�r
D V)xi0�(1)
y '3 Om
N ;o
0 C N
5 �m 0
M PJ —1-v Z
0 t
M
m
/CLAP
(D
Cr
N
n N
�e 7
N
N C)
d -0
z
D
0
XI
0 iM
X
n j
o lz
0
0118
m
I zC
mDm
5>
00
ma
L
O
z
D z
p D>
A D
T r
7J
C
m
D
N
Io Z
O
co 0
co 0
S'
m
0
X co
D
0
D
G �Gti�
S
I, o•
Op /j NA/
n °4c
v
10.6 DIMS
GLOM 9Vi
27
g r.;
I:
i
N
1
I
I
Q \V
TAXIWAY A'
co
0
z
m
u)
1
n
0
z
z
m
r m
c
cnc
m
O m
om
0
X 50 1 ,G L4
C. =J
1-- --1
F =a
I
1
I
1
r L�
F- -7
C J
���J_ om' `J_1_
I
rrrrnnnn
JIIIIIIIIIIL_/ 2
t r 7 A
I
/X
2/
Y
I
I
(D
z
1D l_
�ml 1
Cr�J
F =a
I
I
I
4
0/
1 I rJ I o
D/
m
0
1
H-
o
D
Nr
N[!pN
m
m
z
Q
4U
4V
til;i
lOLO
22H
221
22F
22G
rJC
226
22C
4G
688
D
OBJECT
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
OAK TREE
OAK TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
UTIUTY POLE
UTILITY POLE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
UT1U1Y POLE
PINE TREE
UTILITY POLE
DESCRIPTION
O+A
Oola..
H- H
49'*
60'*
66't
43't
WN
H- I+
59't
40'±
A-.
OOOo
k+W
42't
67't
31'#
:'t
4
51't
42't
45'*
51't
37't
47'±
ELEVATION
(TOP)
W W
BELOW
1 2'±
22't
5't
WNNO
N N
11't
10't
9't
BELOW
BELOW
19'±
6'±
17'±
3't
W.J
Wf}ffWWW
uO1W
l'!
HEIGHT ABOVE 34:1
APPROACH SURFACE
NONE
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
NONE
CUT
CUT
CUT
REMOVE
REMOVE
CUT
CUT
REMOVE
CUT
REMOVE
MITIGATION
221
22
NN
iI-
22
221
22H
221
22F
22G
22D
22E
226
22C
OBJECT''
22A
TTMTTMvvvvvv
PI
CAB
INE TREE
NE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
INE TREE
BAGE PALM
SCRIPTION
INE TREE
NNN00410*pNJAW
W0
l W
'.J03
/f Vh
N
O!
W F+
J0N
N N-
H- W
53't
53't
ELEVATION
(TOP)
37'±
9't
BELOW
m mmN
N WWWWWWW
.5077N
10't
BELOW
23'±
3't
HEIGHT ABOVE 34:1
APPROACH SURFACE
.'t
CUT
NONE
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
NONE
CUT
CUT
PROPOSED
MIT1GA11ON
CUT
1 MI MI NM MN MI NM NM IIIIIII
0
0
3
0
m
T
0
0
n
mom.
wv1iiw
MAW
!!EIS
MOM
/ION
ZEN
MEM
JW wwj
AMEN
Z
4`
N O
4V
40
40
4A
8
e
J'
tittals
mom
11.111
pia
22G
22J
22K
22L
22N
221
224
220
0
0
z
Fl
2]
r-
2
m
0
0
c
d.
0
F
A A A N- O Z Z p Z D
O �()P V10 D NIn
D II 1111
ll� r zZ I ZOZCD
cc 00,m0>05,,
2 0 I
W IW66- 544A
0 A 1. 0 D< m
om I K ,I. �f O2m
mm-<„, c I
N D
m m A a z m
m N
2 o� zzr-
m m m
2 2
0
c
A
z
N
i
x m
1 1 1
8
8
8
8
8
i
8
8
8 411
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
40
4C
4A
4K
4G
4
22D
22A
22B
22E
22C
22F
Mal
VLF- AMMO
M v v v v
Z Z Z Z Z
0 0 0 0 0
OJ
D
p1
m
0
P1
m
D A A A
r rr rr r
m m m f m m
o A o
8
8
O
D
m
c
Z
D
A l.' N 7.
r m C Z m N D
W O r O N O
o mcmr
z 4! Z N;ra A<
�o
r:Aot .:02 Om D O f
2]OD D m M M
l, m o
MOT O
Omf• OOI 0 0
nDlrl Am
O m S O r r p
=C N m OZ
MO DpMp�O., N m
r0.Iy/ Y z z
N 0 m D m
<0 MY
D mmN 0 0
m o
mI
P1> -1 N 0 m
D D -1 X,
Wi
om
mm
MI in
OAM
o y Z
P1 ,0 In
O mz m
1!1 G7 O N
0 m D
m D N
Cm 0 0
R D S
m
u1 A
m
O'' z
60
F
0
0
RUNWAY 4 RIGHT OF CENTERLINE (PROJECTED OUT)
RUNWAY 22 LEFT OF CENTERUNE (PROJECTED OUT)
RUNWAY 4 LEFT OF CENTERLJNE (PROJECTED OUT)
310d Amin mom en, NVld
rflVd N33110
13Y
13Z
13W
13X
13U
13V
13S
13T
13P
13Q
13R
MBE
31L
13K
13L
13M
131
13J
13F
13G
13H
I 13D
13E
31A
31B
OBJECT
13A
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE WEE
PINE TREE
I UTIU TY POLE
UTILITY POLE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
UTILITY POLE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
vvvv
vv
vvv
v
DESCRIPTION
NE TREE
4Y TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NE TREE
NN
?m
14
61't
50't
N(0
00
H-
61't
56'±
Na
WW
49'
1't
(0
A NNA
N U!
WW
t
1'
6't
(O O
WW
47't
7't
NA
NA
NA
BELOW
ELEVATION
(TOP)
55't
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
W(NO()-
H-WWW
23't
31't
NA
m4ZZZz
µtf
BELOW
3't
1't
29't
BELOW
c NQ p ('-1Z
µ4f•µ
WW>
NON
NON
HEIGHT ABOVE 20: 1
APPROACH SURFACE
BELOW
NONE I
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
CUT
CUT
NONE
CU'
CU'
NONE
CUT
CUT
CUT
NONE
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
PROPOSED
MITIGATION
DONE
DONE
DONE
CUT
31U
31V
31T
310
31R
31P
31M
31N
MBE
31L
31J
31G
31H
31E
31F
31D
31A
31B
OBJECT
-ov
vv
PINE TREE
OAK TREE
PINE TREE
QUEEN PALM
CABBAGE PALM
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
CABBAGE PALM
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
OAK TREE
PINE TREE
QUEEN PALM
PINE TREE
PINE TREE_..
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
DESCRIPTION
JE TREE
JE TREE
JE TREE
JE TREE
64't
55't
48't
55't
4.k*
fF 4F
-P.-
1F H
MTIFIM
(.400-o
44-14-4+14-
WD
47'±
40'±
52't
44't
(O O
WW
ELEVATION
(TOP)
NA
NA
NA
BELOW
ZZ
BELOW
BELOW
(1 'Z
4}D
3't
10't
BELOW
19't
0't
BELOW
m4ZZZz
µtf
»DD
HEIGHT ABOVE 20: 1
APPROACH SURFACE
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
CU'
CU'
CU"
NON
CU'
ZZ
00
CU'
CU'
ZZ
ZZZ
mmmm
NOLLVOLLINI
03SOdONd
m mmmmmmmm
mmm
3
3
k
8
0 0
4 E
2
Z
3 0
m
T
8
8
8
8
3R
3S
3T
13J
13N
13
130
13Y
13P
8 13Z
130
8
q 4 4 4. 4 0
8
31E
31A
31C
310
4. 4
31F
0
a
0
4
m
3
0
K
o
0
0
0 0
C
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
13A
13K
8
8
4
0
I
13D
130
138
13F
130
13H
13C
131
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
p 8
8
8
88
8
8
8
8
8
31J
31K
31L
gw
8 S
310
31P
31R
31T
8 8 o
Z z Z z
0 0 0 0 0
o
D c
01
m
D
n la
m 11 0 l)
m m x x0
m
D
D m m M
m
AN, A. m
o V 13 m o 11
0 0 m
m m m m m m
01
m
pZO_ -ir
11 r0(Ap
O C D S D
x CM A mo
DM C1 05,
0zZll
D
D -DF
A 00.OD2
0 A (A l
,.m(5D
m
o f 1� A .c-
D
o (0 xm 0
0
mr
1 m
o 8 1 AD m
-1
o
yOm
3
O ZZPm 0_m
0
mmmm
my
p D(OZ m
Z N 0m
Z
m
O
41
C
z
D
_xi
OD S X_�' InO
mmy pN
zr c m-Z
l
mmm m y FA m
OOm CDiO_ C
=001 Z m,
M N A O D m
>O -0m D m r m 03I
m
am2,m o
mO N
0
�NmZmm 0 0
mx yVlom
y D m y m O
m Z m D m D
NC m oI c p
mmf O m Z
O m D n y n
o( Z
34 mzl4i 0
0p_4a 0
C 0m
0i ,z In i
�x V
1Z y 00 _,(A
x> O D m 2
m N
D D
Z m m
D C
O) D -1 0
om 3 p
r5 z 2 F
p
o
x M A
MC M MM 3) O 0 0
O� z O d
0-4 N Z
RUNWAY 13 RIGHT OF CENTERLINE (PROJECTED OUT)
RUNWAY 31 RIGHT OF CENTERLINE (PROJECTED OUT)
RUNWAY 13 LEFT OF CENTERUNE (PROJECTED OUT)
RUNWAY 31 LEFT OF CENTERUNE (PROJECTED OUT)
£1 ,ImANna /MIA NYld
1£ Patina AGA NYld
IS MANS 311JOHd
WThicl N33(10
91
0
9H
WO
9C
90
9A
9B
OBJECT
PINE TREE
BUILDING
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
c C
UTILITY POLE
UTILITY POLE
C c
UTILITY POLE
UTILITY POLE
DESCRIPTION
WU
W V
1f H-
47'±
57t
MM
0 0
11- 1+
50'±
47'±
ON
1 1F
ELEVATION
(TOP)
�N10
FFµ
.N
H
F}It
m m
CUT
CUT
REMOVE
HEIGHT ABOVE 20:1
APPROACH SURFACE
ELOW
ELOW
Ot0
WW
CUT
RELOCATE
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
PROPOSED
MITIGATION
NONE
NONE
EMOVE
EMOVE
27H
MEMO
27F
27C
27D
27E
OBJECT
BUILDING
SHADE HANGAR
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
PINE TREE
WOODEN POLE
DESCRIPTION
N P
1-1:1;
61'±
N O
14:1-1:
ELEVATION
(TOP)
IN PRIMARY SURFACE
IN PRIMARY SURFACE
IH H-111f
V
26'±
17'±
27'±
HEIGHT ABOVE 20:1
APPROACH SURFACE
RELOCATE
RELOCATE
CUT
CUT
CUT
CUT
REMOVE
PROPOSED
MITIGATION
SR M M OM r MN me ow E N
R a
a
3
0K
A
0
0
0
m
z
3 O
n
T
9C
90
9F
9A
9J
9E
O
Z
D
O
C
Z
m
0
0
0
c
0
4,
80
91
90
r
y Q
I
H
8
8
27H
27A
27B
27C
27D
z z z z z z
0 0 0 0 0
0 T
0 0 C 2 53 0 0
CD c
z s m
VI
z1mm OZZVZ
O a"> n P N D N N
D III N II M r
ii ill IZZ00>OC
!HH r 0 E -1° Z O Z m
c1 Z
�p� :0 •J
m n r
ON 1 -4 nn OAm DO=O_ i��!
cc >c LSO D m p<r'3n�0<
PA N 0 r Z m O m 0=7-2->
.51 .5 Z m> >m_ Df O z
DD w m 0; Z�' D
m m m O
D Z N 2330
D mnD
m
D O C ZO
T A m O Z
2 m D= x -i
mm m
60_06
C O
o
z
0 0 m
Z
0
DNZp
O
Ow
0
0
.l7
z
D
V
42
D
t0
r r
Z o A
I::
O e m O N D j mC Tmr'1 0'X'
_mmOotmn N
O D° 0>M71155 O
O 0 r O_In Z
m to� 0 Dm
y O >0 t='1 (0 W .5
0m9 m3
'7 0
omApu 1
m� N
0v ymZ mtzil o
0u
�(DN zz� 0
T Z D m D
C n p o C Z
f 71 41 n
°Drn m 0
o mxr �z m
!!eli C C r 00
rM °m t (0
m z
D O m z m Z
mDmO tn<
z m
D C
m� 41 N' z
D =l j
41
m
A C o
0
m71 m p O
N D 0 D
O z
0 v z
RUNWAY 9 RIGHT OF CENTERUNE (PROJECTED OUT)
RUNWAY 27 RIGHT OF CENTERLINE (PROJECTED OUT)
RUNWAY 9 LEFT OF CENTERUNE (PROJECTED OUT)
N
AP
SI
SLOE
200'
D
OBJECT
I
9
I I i
TOWER
DESCRIPTION
D
O
ECT A
ot
ELEVATION
(TOP)
APPRC
SURF,
SLOPE i
HORIZONTAL
EFFECTED
PART 77 SURFACE
NG
ACH
\CE
;20:1)
O N
N
HEIGHT
CONTROLUNI
4 1
NONE
PROPOSED
MITIGATION
N
AP
SI
SLOE
200'
OBJ
Ira I[
'ROACH
IRFACE
'E (20:1,
I
9
I I i
vcri
mM
g
D
O
ECT A
IP
APPRC
SURF,
SLOPE i
C
D
0
MI
NG
ACH
\CE
;20:1)
O N
1
N
AP
SI
SLOE
200'
OBJ
Ira I[
'ROACH
IRFACE
'E (20:1,
000'
9
I I i
D
I 1
I m
I m
N
IP
APPRC
SURF,
SLOPE i
C
D
0
NG
ACH
\CE
;20:1)
O N
1
N
AP
SI
SLOE
200'
OBJ
Ira I[
'ROACH
IRFACE
'E (20:1,
000'
9
D
I I I
r
APPRC
SURF,
SLOPE i
R
NG
ACH
\CE
;20:1)
O N
1
a
a
3
c
m
z
c
z
D
n
O
z
c
O
z
0 O
Ft'
A A
o
0
m
0
z
O
m
cn
0
CO
C
n
O
z
v
a
0
8
N
O
8
0
0
0
O
8
JJ
C 0
0
0
O
G4
I r
(nl rn 0
VI
P
8
0
8
8
co
8
0
8
N
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
co
O
O
8
N
O
8
0
0
O
8
8
Z
N
N m 0
Op
O
XI
O
m
8
m
0
0
8
N
8
8
O
0
0
0
O
O
co
O
co
O
NI-3S010 BOA S311JOUd
SNOLLVA313 11V
0004 0000 000Z
I I I
r
APPRC
SURF,
SLOPE i
R
NG
ACH
\CE
;20:1)
O N
1
a
a
3
c
m
z
c
z
D
n
O
z
c
O
z
0 O
Ft'
A A
o
0
m
0
z
O
m
cn
0
CO
C
n
O
z
v
a
0
8
N
O
8
0
0
0
O
8
JJ
C 0
0
0
O
G4
I r
(nl rn 0
VI
P
8
0
8
8
co
8
0
8
N
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
co
O
O
8
N
O
8
0
0
O
8
8
Z
N
N m 0
Op
O
XI
O
m
8
m
0
0
8
N
8
8
O
0
0
0
O
O
co
O
co
O
NI-3S010 BOA S311JOUd
SNOLLVA313 11V
0004 0000 000Z
11 I I= MO E i MI i I= E
A A m
e
D
0 0
FR
m T
Z
0
o Z C
D
C n
m
O
Z m
La
tn 1 1 -.Av
A 1 1 4o�FO p
L_- H...„.1 \�O �y'o
i
mm m
0
m
cA
0
f7
T
z
In Z
O
z
0
m
co
O
8
0
0 0
0
8
0
z
D. O
C
N p
pp 0
T
0 0
J
77
O
?7 8
P1 of
0
0
8
0
0
0
O
8
0
8
8
O
O
cn
8
co
O
8
5
0
z
2
6
.11
0
X
8
N
8
0
0
0
8
rn
8
0
z
8
A O
T O
P
N a 0
F
O
M
8
P.
8
0
8
O
0
O
8
0
0
O
0
O
co
0
0
1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL).
NI-3S010 STRAOLId
1
Scut
1
D
OBJECT
,000'
1
TOWER
NOIldRl3S30
ECT A
2
m
(d0l)
NOLLYA313
m
r
HORIZONTAL
EFFECTED
PART 77 SURFACE
200'
p15
v L
r$
41
HEIGHT ABOVE
CONTROLLING SURFACE
NONE
PROPOSED
MITIGATION
11 I I= MO E i MI i I= E
A A m
e
D
0 0
FR
m T
Z
0
o Z C
D
C n
m
O
Z m
La
tn 1 1 -.Av
A 1 1 4o�FO p
L_- H...„.1 \�O �y'o
i
mm m
0
m
cA
0
f7
T
z
In Z
O
z
0
m
co
O
8
0
0 0
0
8
0
z
D. O
C
N p
pp 0
T
0 0
J
77
O
?7 8
P1 of
0
0
8
0
0
0
O
8
0
8
8
O
O
cn
8
co
O
8
5
0
z
2
6
.11
0
X
8
N
8
0
0
0
8
rn
8
0
z
8
A O
T O
P
N a 0
F
O
M
8
P.
8
0
8
O
0
O
8
0
0
O
0
O
co
0
0
1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL).
NI-3S010 STRAOLId
1
Scut
1
m
N n
Qm
,000'
1
I
cm
m
ECT A
2
I
m
r
II'
200'
p15
v L
r$
11 I I= MO E i MI i I= E
A A m
e
D
0 0
FR
m T
Z
0
o Z C
D
C n
m
O
Z m
La
tn 1 1 -.Av
A 1 1 4o�FO p
L_- H...„.1 \�O �y'o
i
mm m
0
m
cA
0
f7
T
z
In Z
O
z
0
m
co
O
8
0
0 0
0
8
0
z
D. O
C
N p
pp 0
T
0 0
J
77
O
?7 8
P1 of
0
0
8
0
0
0
O
8
0
8
8
O
O
cn
8
co
O
8
5
0
z
2
6
.11
0
X
8
N
8
0
0
0
8
rn
8
0
z
8
A O
T O
P
N a 0
F
O
M
8
P.
8
0
8
O
0
O
8
0
0
O
0
O
co
0
0
1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL).
NI-3S010 STRAOLId
1
Scut
1
m
N n
Qm
,000'
1
m
Ica
I
m
r
a
D
200'
p15
v L
r$
11 I I= MO E i MI i I= E
A A m
e
D
0 0
FR
m T
Z
0
o Z C
D
C n
m
O
Z m
La
tn 1 1 -.Av
A 1 1 4o�FO p
L_- H...„.1 \�O �y'o
i
mm m
0
m
cA
0
f7
T
z
In Z
O
z
0
m
co
O
8
0
0 0
0
8
0
z
D. O
C
N p
pp 0
T
0 0
J
77
O
?7 8
P1 of
0
0
8
0
0
0
O
8
0
8
8
O
O
cn
8
co
O
8
5
0
z
2
6
.11
0
X
8
N
8
0
0
0
8
rn
8
0
z
8
A O
T O
P
N a 0
F
O
M
8
P.
8
0
8
O
0
O
8
0
0
O
0
O
co
0
0
1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL).
NI-3S010 STRAOLId
1
Scut
1
m
N n
Qm
,000'
OBJECT
I
mcoi
5,0
c 0
irri
200'
p15
v L
Ft lI
11 I I= MO E i MI i I= E
A A m
e
D
0 0
FR
m T
Z
0
o Z C
D
C n
m
O
Z m
La
tn 1 1 -.Av
A 1 1 4o�FO p
L_- H...„.1 \�O �y'o
i
mm m
0
m
cA
0
f7
T
z
In Z
O
z
0
m
co
O
8
0
0 0
0
8
0
z
D. O
C
N p
pp 0
T
0 0
J
77
O
?7 8
P1 of
0
0
8
0
0
0
O
8
0
8
8
O
O
cn
8
co
O
8
5
0
z
2
6
.11
0
X
8
N
8
0
0
0
8
rn
8
0
z
8
A O
T O
P
N a 0
F
O
M
8
P.
8
0
8
O
0
O
8
0
0
O
0
O
co
0
0
1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL).
NI-3S010 STRAOLId
1
Scut
1
m
N n
Qm
,000'
OBJECT
11 I I= MO E i MI i I= E
A A m
e
D
0 0
FR
m T
Z
0
o Z C
D
C n
m
O
Z m
La
tn 1 1 -.Av
A 1 1 4o�FO p
L_- H...„.1 \�O �y'o
i
mm m
0
m
cA
0
f7
T
z
In Z
O
z
0
m
co
O
8
0
0 0
0
8
0
z
D. O
C
N p
pp 0
T
0 0
J
77
O
?7 8
P1 of
0
0
8
0
0
0
O
8
0
8
8
O
O
cn
8
co
O
8
5
0
z
2
6
.11
0
X
8
N
8
0
0
0
8
rn
8
0
z
8
A O
T O
P
N a 0
F
O
M
8
P.
8
0
8
O
0
O
8
0
0
O
0
O
co
0
0
1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL).
NI-3S010 STRAOLId
N MO I N E I MI I
SEBAS TIAN RIVER
i
AO o
Ao
o Q
N o o�►,.ii!
►t ►�li ►fit ►4►.a.- ,nr w 1 1 I; i i i i i i
,1 1 iiiiiil��ii 11,
,IIl i
111,11
11
I l
NDUSTR IAL
1 1111111 11111111
11
1 11 11111
;1111
IS 1.10001,1111
BLNSCNOP Si
I1tMING Si
POINCWU Si
oSE 0 BOAC
1c
Oo
9
H12ION
V 0)
0 0)
z z
z
o
FT)
m
0
o
z
-1
o 0 0
c x z
C x
U) r
71 I c
X z
O w w
IIS
c
N z c
II
N N
0
0
0
m m
m m
cn cn
0 01
Z
cn
rn
D
m
rn A
m
mm
_-I
D
1
1
0
ASV
ASV
am
C
z
m
m r
N
Z
m
D
0
0
m
z
0
Z
0
N
MN UM NM NM MN I M
8
8
0
0
9
8
3
s y
g
9
3
6
z
r
cn
m
0
SU
n g
7
CD
m c 7
ct -D
S D
O
omamvi
,owv
Nlqi;HI!
8 02__60A E
g T
gF ag° E!
0 4m X 5 9
2E nggiesalgR
1 g °2
A 5 X$ 4
<3 ou 8°off
go g lg
m8
a�=
9
NN
NQ
0.
gi
IP
L
A
m
g
1 u
RBY 1 �IN4Nm gib 2.0 A 4
N d >n� ib la �til•o��:
8 a N O�8 8 (a4Qv°pO T N 8
71 g;9 4 __4 00 14 N��
:8;1°W °O ,C� 6833amma 9 g4-
8
8 4$ bls`' 8tm mop pI y m a
r� Lj m sm z,TO�N
�gF n ml oO�$,
goa �S mea JO> a, �I 0 "11
0
9
m 8
9
8
9
8
8
@g
gFNg,
•ym ;~1
,r
ge`ni
OPao
me
m cm
0E.
;41
ETA
0
hz
9 M
44p
p 0
Z
8
9
9
P 8
O
S 441 F�
6 r 3 1 �e.< si
9
3
0
21
9
8
8
FINANCIAL PLAN
M(NAE Of OWICAN IMAM
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
INTRODUCTION
Chapter Nine Financial Plan
9 -1
arc a
HOME Of PttKaN ISLAND
This chapter deals with the schedule of proposed capital improvements resulting from the recommendations of
this master plan, the cost estimates for their development, and a financial plan for the Sebastian Municipal
Airport. This chapter is designed to assist the Airport Management in achieving their primary goals to maximize
revenues and minimize operating expenses, while at the same time providing excellent facilities to the flying
public. Consequently, these goals are the focus of this plan.
The analyses conducted in the previous chapters has evaluated airport development needs based upon current and
forecast activity, environmental factors, and operational efficiency. However, a key component of the master
planning process is the application of basic economic, financial, and management rationale to each development
item so that a responsible and efficient implementation process can be assured. In short, this chapter will
concentrate on those factors, which will help make the plan successful. Therefore, this section of the Master Plan
is often the primary reference for decision makers. Proper understanding of the effects of a decision either for or
against a recommendation will be essential in maintaining a realistic and cost effective program that provides the
maximum benefit to the community.
The following development program has been evaluated from a variety of perspectives. It is not dependent
exclusively upon the City of Sebastian for funding. In fact, with proper and timely decision making on the part of
responsible officials, it is quite possible for the City to undertake approximately $22.9 million in improvements at
Sebastian Municipal over the next 20 years. Several factors apply to the above statement, which must be fully
understood by all parties involved. First, decision makers should understand that several sources for development
funds exist. For the most part, the development program is dependent upon sources other than those from the
City. However, this does not mean that the City will not have to provide its share of the costs.
The process of collecting and distributing aviation user funds is quite variable but follows essentially the same
guidelines. Services are provided for a fee, and part of that fee is used to fund additional development. The
primary source of aviation user funds that have been identified in this plan will come from the state level. Each
year the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Aviation Office manages an aviation work program of
state grants to airports for capital construction and planning studies. FDOT will provide up to 80 percent of the
funding for most airport development projects; however, only 50 percent is provided if the project is directly
related to economic development. These funds are also used to leverage funds from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). On the federal level, the FAA manages the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Funds
from this program are derived from the collection of various aviation related fees. These funds are distributed
under appropriations set by Congress to all airports in the U.S., which have certified eligibility. They are
distributed through grants administered by the FAA, however, the primary feature of AIP funding, which must be
recognized and properly considered, is that these funds are distributed on a priority basis. These priorities are
established by each FAA Regional Office based upon the number and dollar amount of applications received.
Since this program provides up to 90 percent of the funding for eligible projects, it can be very beneficial to
airport development programs such as the one in this chapter. However, the City of Sebastian will be competing
with other communities in Florida and the FAA Southern Region (Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) as well as the entire
country, for these development grants.
2002
OPf Q
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SL,DASTIAN
Master Plan Update
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
Consequently, close coordination of the airport's priorities with the FAA and FDOT will help enhance both
agencies participation. It is extremely important to maintain this coordination and to act expeditiously in securing
the local share for either federal or state grants. Local shares of airport development projects can vary from
approximately five percent to 50 percent. Likewise, there exist some economic development grants from the state
that may also be utilized for the funding of eligible projects. The development program outlined on the following
pages discusses some of the options available for providing the local share of the various project costs.
The final source for development funding is the private sector. This source is frequently ignored and often does
not receive adequate credit for its investment. There are several areas where private development sources can
contribute needed improvements to the airport. Since some non public facilities are not eligible for significant
state or federal funding, the burden of financing their development would fall upon the City of Sebastian.
Because of the potential costs associated, the result might be a tendency to reduce or eliminate basic facilities
such as fixed based operator (FBO) buildings, hangars, automobile parking, and utilities from the plans.
Therefore, the aviation users and commercial operators serving the City of Sebastian and Indian River County
area must expect to pay at the local level to support this funding, through items such as fuel flowage fees or
aircraft tiedown fees. However, the community's interest in a public airport is to serve the economic well being
of the community, and the principal benefactors of a public airport are local business and industry. Because of the
importance of many of the improvements to the employers and subsequently, the community as a whole, the
private and public sector must work together to ensure that adequate funds are available.
The initial step in establishing an airport development program is to determine the cost of each proposed
improvement. Cost data used in this study was collected from a variety of sources, including actual project
estimates, published engineering indices, government agencies, and similar airport construction projects in the
area. In addition to the actual construction costs, financial consideration must be given to the engineering and
design work, plus minor construction items and contingencies, which have not been specifically enumerated. For
planning purposes, the base construction cost has been increased to reflect the anticipated engineering, testing,
survey, and inspection costs, as well as for unknown contingencies.
Estimates for each planning period are based on 2001 dollars. In future years, as the plan is implemented, these
cost presentations can continue to serve as management aids by adjusting the 2001 based figures for subsequent
inflation. This may be accomplished by converting the interim change in the National Consumer Price Index
(CPI) into a multiplier ratio through the following formula:
CPI Multiplier Ratio X CPI
where: X CPI in any given future year
CPI National CPI in 2001
Multiplying the change ratio times any 2001 based cost or income figure presented in this study will yield the
adjusted dollar amounts appropriate in any future year re- evaluation. However, only National CPI data should be
used, as local or regional measures may vary. This information is available from the economic research
departments of most banks.
The recommended developments of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are divided into three planning
periods, which include a short term (2002 2007), intermediate term (2008 2012), and long term (2013 2022).
The short term incorporates projects that are crucial to the overall safe operation of the airport, as well as its
9 -2
2002
TABLE 9 -1
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Planning Period
Estimate (2001 dollars)
Short Term (2002 2007)
$10,551,785
Intermediate Term (2008 2012)
$3,974,830
Long Term (2013 2022)
$8,367,119
Total
$22,893,734
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
benefit to the community as a whole. Each of the first seven years in the short term are presented individually to
provide a detailed estimate of the financial and operational requirements. Projects in the inteimediate and long
terms are necessary for maintaining the capacity and safety of the airport, while at the same time enhancing the
revenue potential of the airport. Although the intermediate and long terms are not separated into individual years,
they do indicate the individual project costs. Of course each planning period also includes basic maintenance
components. As shown in Table 9 -1, the total cost for the planned development of Sebastian Municipal will be
approximately $22.9 million through the year 2022.
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Of the $22.9 million dollar program, it is expected that a large portion will come from the FDOT aviation work
program and private investment sources. A brief description and listing of the individual project costs are
included in the following three sections. The tables represent the culmination of comparative analysis of basic
budget factors, need or demand, and priority assignments. Costs for the development items have typically been
broken down based on the previous funding experiences at the airport. The allocation of funds from any agency
does not imply that the funds are guaranteed from that particular source. They are simply potential sources used
as part of the financial feasibility and phasing of the various projects. Also, while all of the projects to construct
hangar facilities at the airport denote local share, this is expected in part to be built by private developers.
Nonetheless, the hangar projects also denote a state share, since these projects are eligible for FDOT funds.
Neither the development of conventional or t- hangar facilities are eligible for federal funding assistance.
The information contained in the following tables is meant to help guide airport management as they work with
the various agencies to obtain project grants. This data will be used directly to update the Joint Automated
Capital Improvement Program (JACIP) used by the FAA and FDOT to coordinate funding efforts. The JACIP is
a secure, internet based program, which allows the agencies and airport management to interact on a real time
basis as the airport needs and funding issues change. It should be noted that because a significant portion of the
20 year program is expected from FDOT, the years denoted in the following tables are intended to reflect FDOT's
fiscal year, which runs from July 1s to June 30`
9 -3
SEBA TIAN
HOME Of PELMNi ISLAND
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Short Term Capital Improvement Program
Ya
5 D
HOME Of PELICAN ISIAND
The short term planning period has been subdivided into the individual years covering 2002 through 2007. It
should be obvious that the short term capital improvement program for Sebastian Municipal is very aggressive.
There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is the need to reconstruct significant portions of the
World War II era pavement at the airport. This includes rehabilitating the crosswind runway, which the best
alternative ended up being to re -open Runway 9 -27. At the same time, the City has run out of developable space
at the airport for aviation users. As such, the first seven years of the capital improvement program attempt to
rectify these airfield and economic development needs as quickly as possible.
Completion of this seven year phase will result in the re- opening of Runway 9 -27 and the de- activation of
Runway 13 -31. The rehabilitation of the crosswind runway will also include the development of a full length
parallel taxiway to the north. The costs identified for re- opening Runway 9 -27 also includes an update to the
Environmental Assessment previously conducted for this project, the relocation of two existing tenants, and the
clearing of obstructions in the two runway approaches. Once Runway 9 -27 has been activated and Runway 13 -31
closed, the following projects will open up the North Infield Area (which will now be referred to as the North
Quadrant) for development. Planned projects will provide the initial phase of an access road, water lines, sewer
lines, airfield access (taxilanes), an aircraft parking apron, hangar space, and other support facilities. Facilities
will also be constructed to provide on -site airport administration and maintenance space, as well as an aircraft
fueling facility. During the second half of the short term period, projects to light Runway 9 -27, its parallel
taxiway, the North/South taxiway, as well as provide additional navigational aids will be conducted in the final
years of the short term planning period. Other improvements proposed during the short term include more aircraft
hangars, the acquisition of airport maintenance equipment, and additional infrastructure improvements. At the
end of the short term period, an update to the Airport Master Plan has also been programmed. The cost estimates
and timeframe for each of these improvements are included in Table 9 -2.
9 -4
2002
TABLE 9 -2
SHORT TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Development Item
Federal
Share
State
Share
Local
Share
Total
Cost
2002
Remove /Relocate Obstructions Phase IA of Re -open Runway 9 -27
$621,000
$34,500
$34,500
$690,000
Remove /Relocate Obstructions Phase IB of Re -open Runway 9 -27
$0
$150,000
$37,500
$187,500
Security Fencing
$300,000
$16,667
$16,667
$333,333
2002 Subtotal
$921,000
$201,167
$88,667
$1,210,833
2003
Reconstruct Runway 9 -27 and Construct Parallel Taxiway Phase II
$1,107,000
$61,500
$61,500
$1,230,000
Access Road into North Quadrant Phase I (including water and sewer)
$0
$500,000
$125,000
$625,000
Airport Administration Building and Maintenance Building
$0
$320,000
$80,000
$400,000
Fuel Farm
$0
$200,000
$50,000
$250,000
2003 Subtotal
$1,107,000
$1,081,500
$316,500
$2,505,000
2004
Aircraft Parking Apron along North /South Taxiway
$360,000
$20,000
$20,000
$400,000
Taxiway into North Quadrant
$990,000
$55,000
$55,000
$1,100,000
Infrastructure Improvements
$0
$500,000
$125,000
$625,000
20 T- hangars (site already prepared)
$0
$400,000
$100,000
$500,000
Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRLs) for Runway 9 -27
$0
$197,120
$49,280
$246,400
2004 Subtotal
$1,350,000
$1,172,120
$349,280
$2,871,400
2005
Rehabilitation ofNorth/South Taxiway to 35' wide (includes 2 run -up areas)
$361,352
$20,075
$20,075
$401,502
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITLs) for North /South Taxiway
$0
$308,000
$77,000
$385,000
MITLs for Parallel Taxiway to Runway 9 -27 West of Runway 4 -22
$0
$215,600
$53,900
$269,500
MITLs for Parallel Taxiway to Runway 9 -27 East of Runway 4 -22
$0
$147,840
$36,960
$184,800
2005 Subtotal
$361,352
$691,515
$187,935
$1,240,802
2006
Non precision Marking Upgrade for Runway 4 -22
$0
$9,240
$2,310
$11,550
Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) Both Ends of Runway 4 -22
$0
$147,840
$36,960
$184,800
Obstruction Clearing for Runway 4 -22 RPZs and Approach Surfaces
$0
$20,000
$5,000
$25,000
Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) Both Ends of Runway 4 -22
$0
$147,840
$36,960
$184,800
Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) Both Ends of Runway 9 -27
$0
$123,200
$30,800
$154,000
Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) Both Ends of Runway 9 -27
$0
$110,880
$27,720
$138,600
Airport Maintenance Equipment
$0
$200,000
$50,000
$250,000
Land for Environmental Mitigation
$0
$200,000
$50,000
$250,000
2006 Subtotal
$0
$959,000
$239,750
$1,198,750
2007
2 Multi Aircraft Clearspan Hangars
$0
$312,500
$312,500
$625,000
20 T- hangars
$0
$480,000
8120,000
$600,000
Master Plan Update
$0
$240,000
$60,000
$300,000
2007 Subtotal
$0
$1,032,500
$492,500
$1,525,000
Total for Short Term
$3,739,352
$5,137,802
$1,674,632
$10,551,785
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
ource: 1 n> LYA 11KV UY 1Nl Ut(1 U1tA 1 hll, 2UU 1.
Note: indicates private funding source.
9 -5
SEBaTIAN
HOML Of PUACAN ISLAND
2002
TABLE 9 -3
INTERMEDIATE TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Development Item
Federal
Share
State
Share
Local
Share
Total
Cost
Side Access Road in North Quadrant (including water and sewer)
$0
$112,000
$28,000
$140,000
6 Multi Aircraft Clearspan Hangars
$0
$825,000
S825,000
$1,650,000*
Interior Perimeter Road
$0
$127,075
$31,769
$158,844
Access Road into North Quadrant Phase II (including water and sewer)
$0
$202,325
$50,581
$252,906
2 FBO /Large Clearspan Hangars
$0
$583,990
$583,990
$1,167,980*
Lighted Airfield Signage (16 signs)
$152,460
$8,470
$8,470
$169,400
Airfield Equipment (such as mowers, vehicles, etc.)
$0
$40,000
$10,000
$50,000
Airfield Pavement Maintenance Program- -Crack Sealing
$0
$10,000
$2,500
$12,500
Remarking of all Runway and Taxiway Pavements (3 times)
$0
$58,560
$14,640
$73,200
Master Plan Update
$270,000
$15,000
$15,000
$300,000
Total for Intermediate Term
$422,460
$1,982,420
$1,569,950
$3,974,830
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Intermediate Term Capital Improvement Program
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Note: indicates private funding source.
Long Term Capital Improvement Program
9 6
SEBASTIAN
HOME Of PELICAN 151AND
Developments proposed for the intermediate texisi cover a five year period from 2008 to 2012. Proposed projects
in this phase will continue to enhance and open up the North Infield Area for both aviation and non aviation
related development. There are no real significant airfield improvements planned for this period, as the main
focus is for continued economic development of the airport. It is envisioned that the intermediate term will also
include any projects that could not be completed in the first seven years of the development program, as well as
any additional requirements to support revenue generating operations. Airfield enhancements do include the
improvement of the interior perimeter road for airport staff and a project to provide lighted airfield signage. This
term also includes the purchase of airfield equipment (such as mowers, vehicles, etc.), an airfield pavement
maintenance program, the periodic remarking of runway pavement, and the provision for another update of the
Airport Master Plan, at the end of the period. The individual projects and cost estimates for the intermediate
planning period are shown in Table 9 -3.
Improvements proposed as part of the long term planning period will allow Sebastian Municipal to make more
land available for both aviation and non aviation tenants. As such, additional access and utility extensions have
been programmed to facilitate the development of the north side of the airport. However, a number of airfield
improvement projects are also planned for this term to accommodate the aviation activity that is anticipated to
occur during this timeframe. Facilities for a full service fixed base operator (FBO) are included among these
projects. In addition, the term reflects two phases to complete a full length parallel taxiway on the northwest side
of Runway 4 -22. Additional projects would ultimately light the new parallel taxiway to Runway 4 -22. Other
projects will support the continued operation of the airport such as the eventual rehabilitation of Runway 4 -22,
purchase of airfield equipment, an airfield pavement maintenance program, the periodic remarking of runway
pavement, and the provision for future master plan studies. Table 9 -4 provides a listing and cost estimate for
each of the projects in the 2013 to 2022 timeframe.
2002
TABLE 9 -4
LONG TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Development Item
Federal
Share
State
Share
Local
Share
Total
Cost
Two Side Access Roads in North Quadrant (including water and sewer)
$0
$224,000
$56,000
$280,000
General Aviation Terminal (2,800 SF)
$0
$198,841
$49,710
$248,551
FBO Apron Adjacent to General Aviation Terminal
$0
$274,266
$68,566
$342,832
Parallel Taxiway to Runway 4 -22 North of Runway 9 -27
$260,555
$14,475
$14,475
$289,505
Parallel Taxiway to Runway 4 -22 South of Runway 9 -27
$329,729
$18,318
$18,318
$366,365
FBO Clearspan Hangar.
$0
$467,192
$116,798
$583,990
FBO Fuel Facility
$0
$240,000
$60,000
$300,000
Construct Second Taxiway into North Quadrant
$652,500
$36,250
$36,250
$725,000
10 Multi Aircraft Clearspan Hangars
$0
$1,420,538
$1,420,538
$2,841,076*
20 T- Hangars (includes parking lot)
$0
$560,000
$140,000
$700,000
MITLs for Parallel Taxiway to Runway 4 -22 North of Runway 9 -27
$0
$178,640
$44,660
$223,300
MITLs for Parallel Taxiway to Runway 4 -22 South of Runway 9 -27
$0
$215,600
$53,900
$269,500
Rehabilitate Runway 4 -22
$360,000
$20,000
$20,000
$400,000
Airfield Equipment (such as mowers, vehicles, etc.).
$0
$40,000
$10,000
$50,000
Airfield Pavement Maintenance Program -Crack Sealing (10 times)
$0
$20,000
$5,000
$25,000
Periodic Remarking of all Runway and Taxiway Pavements (5 times)
$0
$97,600
$24,400
$122,000
Master Plan Update (2 times)
$540,000
$30,000
$30,000
$600,000
Total for Long Term
$2,142,784
$4,055,720
$2,168,615
$8,367,119
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
ource: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Note: indicates private funding source.
AIRPORT CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
In addition to future capital improvements, consideration must be given to the airport's continued operation.
Besides the fact that the City of Sebastian desires to maintain a safe and efficient airfield to serve the community,
there are also laws that require the City to keep the airport open. As noted, the FAA's AIP provides major
assistance in the development of an airport. However, the major stipulation in accepting AIP grants is that the
City of Sebastian must agree to the assurances required by the FAA. Basically these assurances require the
airport sponsor to keep the airport facilities in operation for at least 20 years from the date of the last federal grant.
Thus, there are airport maintenance and operating costs to be considered in addition to funding the local share of
the development program. Ideally, the airport's revenues should be structured to reduce the burden of operating
expenses on the airport sponsor. The following sections take a brief look at the historic cash flow for the Airport
Enterprise Fund and then project that cash flow out to the end of the 20 year planning period.
9 7
SEDAST
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
2002
TABLE 9 -6
HISTORIC AIRPORT EXPENSES
Expenses
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Personal Services
$5,000
$14,179
$16,809
$21,613
$7,395
$36,441'
Materials Supplies
$26,257
$22,948
$12,694
$18,413
$77,150
$62,028'
Depreciation
$6,148
$28,596
$39,800
$40,364
$55,217
$68,662'
Total
$37,405
$65,723
$69,303
$80,390
$139,762
$167,131'
TABLE 9 -5
HISTORIC AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES
Revenue
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Rent (leaseholds)
$66,984
$77,547
$79,632
$118,226
$81,355
$190,198'
Other
$0
$0
$0
$4,039
$4,637
$3,451'
Total
$66,984
$77,547
$79,632
$122,265
$85,992
$193,649'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Historic Airport Operating Revenues
Currently the airport's revenue stream is divided either into a "rent" or "other" category. The single most
important revenue source for the airport comes from the airport's leaseholds. At Sebastian Municipal there are
both aviation and non aviation related leaseholds. In addition to the financial support provided to Sebastian
Municipal, these aviation and non aviation leaseholds also create economic benefits to the surrounding
communities of the City and Indian River County. The "other" category is used to record the aircraft fuel flowage
and tiedown fees owed to the City under some of the lease provisions. Table 9 -5 provides a summary of the
revenues collected at Sebastian Municipal for the past six years.
Source: Sebastian Municipal Airport Records.
Note: Obtained from an Unaudited Financial Statement.
It should be noted that the airport also generates a certain amount of property taxes each year for the City;
however, those dollars are not included in the airport's revenue stream.
Historic Airport Operating Expenses
Expenses at Sebastian Municipal are either categorized as personal services or for other operating expenses such
as materials and supplies. There is also a line item for the depreciation of airport facilities included in the
airport's operating expenses. Traditionally, the expenses related to materials and supplies have exceeded those of
the salaries and benefits for airport employees. A summary of the historic airport expenses over the past six years
has been included in Table 9 -6.
Source: Sebastian Municipal Airport Records.
Note: Obtained from an Unaudited Financial Statement.
Revenues versus Expenses
Because of restrictions imposed by FAA regulations, income generated by the airport must be used for airport
operations and improvement expenses. At issue is whether the airport will be able to generate adequate revenue
to cover the local share of costs for the proposed improvements, in addition to the expected airport operating
costs. Obviously a financial goal of the City of Sebastian is to keep the airport self sufficient. As can be seen
from the revenues and expenses over the past six years, the airport has typically been able to cover the operating
costs. A comparison of these figures is shown in Table 9 -7.
9 8
SEBAS•
HOME Of P[LHAN ISLAND
2002
TABLE 9 -7
REVENUES VERSUS EXPENSES
Fiscal Year
Revenues
Expenses
Surplus (Deficit)
1996
$66,984
$37,405
$29,579
1997
$77,547
$65,723
$11,824
1998
$79,632
$69,303
$10,329
1999
$122,265
$80,390
$41,875
2000
$85,992
$139,762
($53,770)
2001
$193,649'
$167,131'
$26,518
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Source: Sebastian Municipal Airport Records.
Note: Obtained from an Unaudited Financial Statement.
Projections of Revenues and Expenses
9 -9
SE°
HOME Of P[EKAN ISLAND
In 2001, there was a one time transfer of $335,000 from the General Fund that was made for capital additions
only. This brought the 2001 balance to a surplus of $361,518.
The historic revenues and expenses must be projected out to determine what ability the Sebastian Municipal
Airport will have to fund the local share of the proposed development projects. This section describes how these
values were projected to provide an idea of future airport cash flows. It is important to also keep in mind that the
revenue and expense projections are based on the City of Sebastian's fiscal year, which do not match that of
FDOT's. Thus it becomes a bit difficult to directly compare annual airport cash flows with those monies required
in the airport's JACIP.
Once constructed and fully utilized, the planned capital improvements for Sebastian Municipal will also create an
increase in the airport's operating revenues. These anticipated increases in airport revenue will initially come
from new t- hangar leases, but will also include other general aviation facility leases, commercial leases, fuel sales,
and tiedown fees. Due to the amount of developable space that will be made available once Runway 9 -27 is re-
opened, the potential exists for non aviation related leaseholds to provide the most significant impact on the
revenue stream. In fact, the FAA requires that all leases, especially non aviation related, obtain at least fair
market value. At the time of this writing there are a number of older, existing leaseholds that are well below fair
market value, thus preventing the City from realizing the true revenue potential. The current City staff is well
aware of this disadvantage and are taking the proper steps to ensure all future leaseholds are at fair market value.
Additionally, the City needs to continue the current practice or writing airport leases which provide revenue
generation from several different, separately recognized sources. A lease which only calls for a lump sum
payment from the lessee does not clearly identify what the lessee is paying for and makes it more difficult to alter
the lease if the lessee's conditions change in such a way as warrants an adjustment in the lease terms. Each of the
following four revenue components must be considered in all future leases with the airport. While the current
City staff utilizes these elements in the drafting of all new leases, they are documented here for future reference.
Land Rent Land is an airport's major resource and airport management should be compensated for its
use. Airport land should be leased, not sold, at fair market value comparable to commercial and industrial
rates.
Facility Rent The airport should be adequately compensated by users who rent or lease space in airport
owned facilities, e.g. terminal buildings, hangars, fuel farms, etc.
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
Qf[ Q
SE
HOME Of PELKAN ISIAND
Percentage of Gross or Gross Receipts Fee This fee is based on the fact that the airport's existence
creates the market on which a commercial operator depends. Airport management should be
compensated for the expense of maintaining the airport and creating that market opportunity.
Other Fees These are charges to direct users of the airport. A typical example would include the
collection of fuel flowage or tiedown fees.
All future leases (and lease renewals) at the Sebastian Municipal should incorporate these four revenue sources,
when applicable. Each should clearly identify the services to be provided and the noinial operating contingencies.
To provide flexibility, leases should stipulate dates in the future when terms can be renegotiated. The increase in
revenues generated from the existing and future airport leaseholds during the planning period are reflected in
Table 9 -8. These future leasehold projections have been divided into three subcategories. The first includes the
projection of all existing leaseholds through the planning period. This data was provided by the City and reflects
the staff's goal to get all of the airport leaseholds to a point, albeit gradually, where they better reflect current
industry standards for rates and charges. The next category provides a projection of additional leases that should
occur over the course of the planning period. This forecast essentially includes one additional leasehold each
year, throughout the entire planning period. The average annual revenue from the current leaseholds was applied
to each of the new leaseholds projected. This approach is considered conservative because it uses an average
derived from the existing leaseholds (some of which are below industry standards) and it does not recognize
future business park leases. The timing and amount of potential revenue that can be realized if the City is able to
attract a number of non aviation corporations into the industrial park on the north side of the airport is difficult to
project. The final lease category includes the revenue that is expected to be generated from the new 20 t- hangars.
For the short term planning period, $300 per month was utilized, and it was anticipated that the 20 t- hangars
would be fully occupied by 2006. While the facility requirements only identified a need for 19 t- hangars by the
end of the planning period, additional units are shown rented out during the 20 year term. These additional units
will result from the statewide demand for such facilities as well as the potential for existing tenants on the airport
to desire a t- hangar. A rate of $450 and $550 a month was applied to the intermediate and long term planning
periods, respectively.
Airport fuel sales at Sebastian Municipal are also expected to increase over the next 20 years. Both the amount of
gas and the fee owed to the City per gallon were projected in order to calculate the fuel flowage fees over the
planning period. First the number of gallons sold in 2001 was increased at the rate that aircraft operations were
projected to grow (average annual growth of 2.9 percent). Next, the current fuel flowage fee of $0.02 per gallon
was increased a penny each year, for three years to $0.05 per gallon, which is more in line with the industry
standard. This rate was gradually increased to reflect a $0.07 per gallon fee towards the end of the planning
period. Tiedown fees were based on the projected number of aircraft expected to be on the airport's ramps during
the planning period. The current rate owed to the City for tiedowns was also incrementally increased throughout
the planning period to calculate the amount that could be collected over the planning period. By combining the
projections for fuel flowage and tiedown fees, the estimate for the "other" revenue category was made. Table 9 -8
provides the projection of these individual revenue sources while Table 9 -9 provides a total for the overall
revenues expected at Sebastian Municipal during the planning period.
9 -10
2002
TABLE 9 -8
EXPECTED REVENUE INCREASES
Year
Existing
Leaseholds
Additional
Leaseholds
T- hangar
Leaseholds
Fuel Flowage
Fees
Tiedown
Fees
2002
$157,609
$5,200
$10,800
$3,370
$810
2003
$157,609
$10,400
$18,000
$5,202
$1,620
2004
$157,609
$15,600
$28,800
$7,137
$2,430
2005
$157,609
$20,800
$43,200
$9,179
$3,360
2006
$157,609
$26,000
$72,000
$9,446
$3,360
2007
$227,609
$31,200
$79,200
$9,719
$3,360
Intermediate Term
(2008- 2012)*
$229,465
$46,800
$127,680
$11,483
$3,858
Long Term
(2013 2022)*
$242,584
$85,800
$198,000
$17,469
$5,540
TABLE 9 -9
TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUES
Year
Revenues
2002
$177,789
2003
$192,831
2004
$211,576
2005
$234,148
2006
$268,415
2007
$351,088
Intermediate Term
(2008 2012)*
$419,286
Long Term
(2013 2022)*
$549,393
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
ource: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Note: Average Annual Amount
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Note: Average Annual Amount
9 -11
SE AST iAN
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
The revenue projections in Table 9 -8 reflect what is believed to be the minimum amount of income that the City
should expect over the course of the planning period. Even so, it should be remembered that these estimates are
only a tool to determine if the airport can reasonably be expected to cover operating costs, while at the same time
maintaining and improving the facility.
Operating expenses at Sebastian Municipal have generally increased for various reasons over the past six years.
During this timeframe the City went from only a part-time airport manager, to a full time airport manager and
part-time maintenance position. The attention this staff provides to the facility is long overdue and benefits the
City by ensuring that the airfield operates and develops in a safe and efficient manner, while at the same time
becoming an economic engine for the community. As a result of this needed attention being placed on the airport
facilities, the amount spent on supplies and materials has increased. As the airfield continues to develop, these
costs are projected to increase, not only to support new facilities, but also for those that may not be enhanced until
a later date. Similarly, as the airport develops, depreciation expenses will also increase. All of these operating
2002
TABLE 9 -11
PROJECTED REVENUES VERSUS PROJECTED EXPENSES
Year
Total Revenues
Total Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
2002
$177,789
$214,730
($36,941)
2003
$192,831
$219,454
($26,623)
2004
$211,576
$224,282
($12,706)
2005
$234,148
$229,216
$4,932
2006
$268,415
$234,259
$34,156
2007
$351,088
$239,413
$111,675
Intermediate Term
(2008 2012)*
$419,286
$255,685
$163,601
Long Term
(2013 2022)*
$549,393
$301,460
$247,933
TABLE 9 -10
TOTAL PROJECTED EXPENSES
Year
Expenses
2002
$214,730
2003
$219,454
2004
$224,282
2005
$229,216
2006
$234,259
2007
$239,413
Intermediate Term
(2008 2012)*
$255,685
Long Term
(2013 2022)*
$301,460
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
expenses have been projected to increase throughout the planning period. The average annual growth rate of the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the southeast United States, between 1997 and 2001, was utilized for this
projection. These expenses have been combined and are reflected, without inflation, in Table 9 -10 for Sebastian
Municipal through the end of the planning period.
To calculate the airport's expected operating income (or loss), the totals for projected revenues and expenses were
compared in Table 9 -11.
ource: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Note: Average Annual Amount
Project Feasibility
Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001.
Note: Average Annual Amount
9 -12
SEPAT
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
Under this analysis, the airport will not have enough income to cover operating expenses during the first few
years of the short term planning period. Of more consequence to the purpose of this study, Table 9 -11 does not
include the local share of the CIP costs required for future development. For this section, project feasibility is
defined by the ability of City of Sebastian to pay the local share of project costs. As such, a problem exists when
it comes to the source of local funds for future capital improvements. However, this situation can quickly change,
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
9 -13
an
HOME Of PELICAN ISL ND
especially considering the conservative approach undertaken in this analysis with respect to the expected
leasehold revenue. To explain, it is believed that the City has two distinct advantages that will eventually enhance
the airport's revenue stream. The first is that the undeveloped land at the airport represents the only City property
available for industrial and /or commercial development. Once Runway 9 -27 can be re- opened, thus allowing
Runway 13 -31 to be de- activated, the City will have approximately 143 acres of additional land for development
at the airport. A majority of this land cannot be used by aviation related businesses and therefore would be
available for a non aviation related business park. The revenue potential of this park was not included in the
projections of this study. However, if the area is properly marketed, just the commitments of a few corporations
would support the financing needed to open up this land. The second distinct advantage is that the City of
Sebastian has positioned itself to make all of this possible. At the time of this writing, the engineering and design
for the re- opening of Runway 9 -27 is underway. As well, over the past two years there have been remarkable
improvements in the management of the airport, not the least of which has included building the necessary
relationships with the FAA and FDOT. To this end, the City has also worked with the community to create a
development plan which provides compatibility on all ends.
Another significant element of the future revenue stream and project feasibility is that the current City staff has
made it a priority to ensure that the terms of existing leaseholds be enforced. As shown in Table 9 -5, prior to
1999 none of the required fuel flowage or tiedown fees were ever collected from the tenants owing them.
Similarly, the spike in rent experienced between 2000 and 2001 reflects the City's work that year to collect back
rent owed to the airport. This also explains why the "existing leasehold" projection shown in Table 9 -8 is lower
between 2002 and 2006, than in 2001. Nonetheless, the City will still need to provide additional revenue for
future capital improvements to occur at the airport over the short term planning period. As such, it needs to be
recognized that this investment will benefit the City in many ways. As the airport develops, not only will it
continue to be self sufficient, but it will also generate additional dollars for the City's tax rolls. These dollars are
in the form of additional property taxes generated by airport tenants, which go towards various infrastructure
improvements throughout the City of Sebastian. Also, by maintaining a general aviation airport, the City enjoys
many other significant benefits. On an economic development side, general aviation airports provide a way for
corporations to recognize the community, thus considering it for future business. This gives the City a
considerable advantage when trying to attract additional job and revenue producing companies. Supporting the
airport also enhances public safety in the community. For example, general aviation airports like Sebastian play a
major role in providing law enforcement and aero medical services, as well as the necessary facilities in times of
disaster (forest fires, hurricanes, flooding, etc.) or national security (military operations). These benefits need to
be considered if and when questions surrounding the airport's financial status arise.
One thing is certain, due to the way various grants are administered, the City will have to have some mechanism
to keep the different development projects going. Essentially, even with a positive cash flow in the Airport
Enterprise Fund, it is difficult at times for an airport sponsor to "front" the monies necessary to conduct
significant airport improvement projects. Recently the FAA has made this easier by providing the full amount of
their smaller grants up front, but other agencies, such as FDOT still require reviews of the individual invoices
before payment is made. The best tool for the City in this regard is to incorporate either grant or revenue
anticipation notes into the funding process. Grant or revenue anticipation notes will allow the City to issue short
term obligations (notes) for the purpose of providing interim funds until the project is financed. This is extremely
helpful in instances where engineering or planning costs are significant in the preparation period or where grant
dollars have been committed but not distributed. Typically such anticipation notes can be used for up to 50
percent of the total project cost. A concluding consideration on the feasibility of the projects proposed in this 20
year program is that to the extent possible, the City should seek out funding from the private sector. Frequently at
general aviation airports this source is not utilized as often as it could be nor does it receive the proper credit when
2002
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Master Plan Update
area
SEP T I
HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND
it is a source for development funds. There are several areas where private development sources can contribute,
thus all options should be considered.
FINANCIAL PLAN SUMMARY
The past two years have put the Sebastian Municipal Airport into a position that enables it to become a significant
economic engine for the City, while at the same time, preserving its ability to adequately provide access to the
nation's airspace system. For all of this to continue, the City needs to market the airport while developing the
facility. Of most importance is the development that directly impacts the income potential for the airport.
However, such capital improvements to the airfield will require additional support from the City as well as the
other identified funding sources. FAA discretionary funding is especially important in the short term, because the
financial independence of the airport relies heavily on the re- opening of Runway 9 -27 and closing of Runway 13-
31. This project is eligible to take advantage of existing federal funding levels, which are essential for the
project's success.
Similarly, airport management agreed that an aggressive short term CIP would take advantage of the funding
levels currently available to Sebastian Municipal. All possible sources of federal, state, and local funding will be
sought for the projects. As mentioned previously, federal discretionary money is required in the early part of the
planning period in order for the airport to develop as envisioned. Because this type of funding is highly
competitive and often difficult to get, these funds are not guaranteed to any particular sponsor, so it is important
for the City to continue to keep the airport's needs in front of the FAA and be ready to commence projects
immediately upon securing funds. The present AIP reauthorization will expire on September 30, 2004. While it
is highly probably that a similar program will replace it, there are no guarantees on how the funds will be
distributed to the various categories of airports. Therefore, the effort to re -open Runway 9 -27 needs to occur right
away, thus allowing the ability to pursue other economic development options.
Overall, Sebastian Municipal is a significant economic catalyst for not only the City of Sebastian, but also for the
surrounding communities of Indian River County. The City's future financial support of Sebastian Municipal is
actually an investment in the area's continued economic growth. With the proper investment, the Sebastian
Municipal Airport will be one of the largest economic engines for the area as well as one of the largest creators of
jobs for the surrounding community.
9 14
2002